MOO3 should have been canceled.

Aule1 · March 17, 2003, 00:32

MOO3 should have been cancelled and never released to the public.

Time is no excuse. They have had *years* to work on the game. But more importantly you build a decent game in the timeframe that you have. You do not do a half job, charge 50$, and then say "sorry if we had a billion dollars and 10 years we could have finished our vision".

For example, if you do not have the time and resources for 3D battles don't do them! Right now the 3D battles are just sad. And I don't want flashy graphics, I want functional graphics. MOO2 graphics were much better. You could see what each ship was, what their weapons were, and how they performed. MOO3 is just a bunch of random dots on the screen.

Same with the 3D map. Why waste the resources on a 3D map if it is basically useless to the player? Maybe they could have taken that time and made Human and Psilon ships look different on the map!! It is completely stupid that I cannot easily tell the difference between my fleets and the fleets of other races.

Look, there are a ton of companies that realize that their game is going nowhere and simply cancel the game rather than release it to the public unfinished. Warcraft Adventures and Babylon 5 come to mind. The makers of MOO3 should have had the guts to do the same.

Booya2020 · March 17, 2003, 01:19

This thread should be canceled.

asleepathewheel · March 17, 2003, 01:49

This post was just as good as when I read it the first time.

Because you don't like the game it should have been canceled? FYI, the world doesn't revolve around you.

SINISTER1974 · March 17, 2003, 02:05

another stupid post

Zanman · March 17, 2003, 02:16

Aule1 its not the game a lot of people expected. Its not C&C or Warcraft. Its probably not even a game the devs thought it would be, since it started out with such great ambitions. It is not a great game yet, but it is good, and it has the potential to be great with some tweaks. Give it a chance man and you might be pleasantly surprised because its deeper than 3D battles.

BlueO · March 17, 2003, 02:29

I'm starting to have fun after extensive modding. Still haven't fought any major wars yet, but using the multiplayer mode to look at ai empires, they are scary! At turn 200, rank 1 ai had 1600 ships! I only had like 30 or 40. And I was rank 4.

But the key is, I *have* to mod the game. I'm using colin's ai mod so it won't build mostly transport ships as their arsenal. I also slowed down the tech research rate so techs don't become obslete fast. I also doubled all armor and shield strength so ships don't get destroyed instantly. Also, do not play at impossible difficulty level, its broken. And lastly, I reduced the HFOG for the harvesters and upped their bioharvesting, mining, and manufacturaing efficiencies so they always naturall become super nemesis. After all, they did destroy the Anatarans, they shouldn't be as weak as the other Orion races.

Anyways, I'm glad they made it easy to mod. Otherwise, this game would definately belong in the trash can.

Ianpolaris · March 17, 2003, 04:07

Guys,

I have to say that Moo 3 should have been cancelled. Just read that GameSpy interview Rantz gave recently. His description of how the project failed to find direction and unity in vision (along with the myriad of other problems) is almost a poster-child description of a project that got out of control early.

Sometimes when faced with continous overruns in time and money (which are usually related), it is best just to give the project a merciful death and try again with another team. I am sorry to say that Moo 3 is such an example.

-Polaris

darcy · March 17, 2003, 04:15

Yes, in an ideal "l'art pour l'art" world it should have been cancelled when it became obvious that the original Emrich visions didn't work at all. The MoO franchise could have kept its good image then.

But since this is the real world something sellable had to be kludged together and shoved out of the door in order to generate minimal returns for the wasted work of many years. Shrug, that's business.

ravagon · March 17, 2003, 04:28

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueO
Also, do not play at impossible difficulty level, its broken.

Can you elaborate any?

I've taken a careful note of your other changes.

Grumbold · March 17, 2003, 06:26

Even with its failings its still a significantly better space game than most of the pretenders to the MoO throne imo.

spartak · March 17, 2003, 06:32

Why are some people never happy with their games?

Sarxis · March 17, 2003, 07:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Taz
Why are some people never happy with their games?

I'm happy with my good games.

MariOne · March 17, 2003, 08:13

Quote:

Originally posted by darcy
....
But since this is the real world something sellable had to be kludged together and shoved out of the door in order to generate minimal returns for the wasted work of many years. Shrug, that's business.

I know that I'm "challenged" when it comes down to grab and discuss economic concepts, but since this is the reald world, I'd offer you a different perspective to what you say.

One of the few things about economy I overheard and also makes sense to me (!), is ZBB.
That is, Zero-Based Budgeting.

Ever heard of it?
It's a very simple concept.
You've spent already X resources.
You realise the projecty is ominously behind schedule, and its completion is at risk.
You must take all the efforts so that at least you get something back for what you *already* spent, right? WRONG!
What is spent, is spent.
You have to decide NOW whether, starting from NOW (i.e. Zero-Based), any *additional* effort you'll pour in the project will be profitable *in itself*. If that's not the case, not only you'll not recuperate the X you already lost, but you'll add *new* losses.

Imagine you "guesstimate" or "wildly hope" to rake in Y, if you finally manage to "shove something out of the door". But if, starting from NOW, in order to get to that +Y, you STILL have to spend -2Y (that is, yet even more than you can hope to still raise in the end) to make it possible, because the project is so messed up and so much more complex than you'd planned, then instead of losing just -X you'll lose -X -2Y +Y = -X -Y.

That's why what you say *can* be BAD business in the real world, while what Ianpolaris said "Sometimes when faced with continous overruns in time and money (which are usually related), it is best just to give the project a merciful death..." *can* be just plain good business.

krait23 · March 17, 2003, 08:19

Well... If they had canceled it I would not have wasted 45 Euro on it, so I gotta say yes

(Poor student here, 45 Euro are a lot of money to me)

Lata
Krait

Stuie · March 17, 2003, 10:01

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueO
And lastly, I reduced the HFOG for the harvesters and upped their bioharvesting, mining, and manufacturaing efficiencies so they always naturall become super nemesis. After all, they did destroy the Anatarans, they shouldn't be as weak as the other Orion races....

Cool! That's a great idea. I know the Ithkul are creepily described and such, but giving them the boost you suggest will make them truly scary. Off to mod some more files....

DarthVeda · March 17, 2003, 11:13

You know I agree, Moo3 does have good strong gameplay design but it's the damned ugliest game I've ever bought. Moo2 DOES have better graphics...

BlueO · March 17, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Stuie

Cool! That's a great idea. I know the Ithkul are creepily described and such, but giving them the boost you suggest will make them truly scary. Off to mod some more files....

Oh if you do mod the Harvesters, you gonna need to reduce their research efficiency too. I played a game to turn 200 with the above mod. Harvester was rank 1 with 95k research points! I only had like maybe 5k research ponts. I was around tech 18ish at the time, and the rank 1 harvester was at level 22.

And they had 1600 ships and was eating away at the lesser races at the bottom half of the galaxy at a very rapid rate. I have strong alliances and npa with my neighbors but with their 1600 ships to my 50ish, I restarted that game and reduced the harvester research efficiency to about 0.25.

Oh, their hfog throughout the game was at around 1.0 which helped them a lot. I left the orion races unchanged because it makes diplomacy fun, needing their alliances to help defeat the harvesters. There was an urgency in the game, us Orion races versus the horrifying harvesters.

Q Classic · March 18, 2003, 14:44

there's a 3-d map? i haven't noticed any 3-d map...

Harry Seldon · March 18, 2003, 15:08

Check your keyboard shortcuts. You can rotate/flip your galaxy and combat maps.

Lazarous · March 18, 2003, 16:21

...and they spent time on this wonderful feature that half the people don't even realize exists (and the other half never uses) while tearing the heart out of space combat.

Thanks qs.

H Tower · March 18, 2003, 19:54

this thread proves once again that not all people should be allowed to express an opinion. Yeah, let's cancel a game that thousands of dollars have been spent on, good idea!

Eric S · March 18, 2003, 20:35

Quote:

Originally posted by BlueO
And lastly, I reduced the HFOG for the harvesters and upped their bioharvesting, mining, and manufacturaing efficiencies so they always naturall become super nemesis. After all, they did destroy the Anatarans, they shouldn't be as weak as the other Orion races.

Wrong harvesters. There were many species of harvesters, only two of which we got any details on. One was a small parasite, this one went on to wipe out the Antarans. The large parasite went on to become the Ithkul that we all know and exterminate on sight (or play).

Not that I disagree with your mods, however

asleepathewheel · March 18, 2003, 21:21

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
this thread proves once again that not all people should be allowed to express an opinion. Yeah, let's cancel a game that thousands of dollars have been spent on, good idea!

let's cancel a game just because some people don't like it. damn the people that do enjoy playing the game.

Some are just selfish, I suppose.

Aule1 · March 18, 2003, 21:28

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel

let's cancel a game just because some people don't like it. damn the people that do enjoy playing the game.

Some are just selfish, I suppose.

Come on, the poll has been showing that around 50% of people on a MOO3 fansite believe the game should have been cancelled.

We would be selfish if the game was free. However, it cost us $50 non-refundable dollars. If Quicksilver would give me my money back, I would be quite happy to leave you to your "fun". But I know that there is not a chance in heck that is going to happen...

asleepathewheel · March 18, 2003, 21:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Aule1

Come on, the poll has been showing that around 50% of people on a MOO3 fansite believe the game should have been cancelled.

We would be selfish if the game was free. However, it cost us $50 non-refundable dollars. If Quicksilver would give me my money back, I would be quite happy to leave you to your "fun". But I know that there is not a chance in heck that is going to happen...

Isn't it selfish to wish the game didn't exist because you didn't like it? Because YOU don't like it, no one else should be able to play it or possibly enjoy it. That seems to me to be the definition of selfishness-wishing something didn't exist just because you don't like it while others ARE enjoying it.

And people have returned the game. Can't you call infogrames and return it to them or something? There is a process for that, isn't there? Or are you talking about that infogrames credit? well, info has a lot of titles, including galactic civ and civ3, I'm sure you could find something worthwhile to take.

Ianpolaris · March 18, 2003, 21:54

Asleepathewheel,

Reread that Rantz interview on Gamespy. He paints almost a classic picture of a project that got WAAAAY out of control early. As another poster quite elegantly explained, sometimes it is good business to cancel such a project and minimize your losses.

The fact is that Moo 3 is lacking in many key respects and it (overall) has not been well received by the gaming community. Even those that support the title admit to this. Given this and what went on in developement (it was about two years overdue and looks like a rush job), I would say that those that say that Moo 3 should have been cancelled are on pretty firm ground.

-Polaris

asleepathewheel · March 18, 2003, 22:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
Asleepathewheel,

Reread that Rantz interview on Gamespy. He paints almost a classic picture of a project that got WAAAAY out of control early. As another poster quite elegantly explained, sometimes it is good business to cancel such a project and minimize your losses.

true, sometimes that is a good idea.

Exactly why is it that you wish to deny me the pleasure of playing the game?

edit: you have a right to your opinion, that of not liking the game. My point is only that if some like it and you don't then why should you deprive those that enjoy it? Seems like the ones who dislike are just bitter to me and want no one to have fun.

Ianpolaris · March 18, 2003, 23:35

Asleepathewheel,

Actually the reason I wish it were cancelled is so that another (more worthy) developement team could have had a crack at Moo 3. The Moo series is popular enough (or at least it was) that IG would have had no shortage of takers.

This way we all could have had a game worthy of the title and we all could have had fun...not just the self-appointed "Moo 3 elite" (which is exactly the impression you leave me with asleep.....not that you are alone in that...)

-Polaris

asleepathewheel · March 19, 2003, 00:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
Asleepathewheel,

Actually the reason I wish it were cancelled is so that another (more worthy) developement team could have had a crack at Moo 3. The Moo series is popular enough (or at least it was) that IG would have had no shortage of takers.

This way we all could have had a game worthy of the title and we all could have had fun...not just the self-appointed "Moo 3 elite" (which is exactly the impression you leave me with asleep.....not that you are alone in that...)

-Polaris

Ian-

Had another team taken up the game, it likely would have been criticized as well. Tampering with a franchise is always dangerous business, ex. Moo2, Civ2, Civ3, CtP etc. There would be a good chance that we would see similar posts regardless. While there are things about this game that you and others (including me) dislike, i would bet my life that you or I would find flaws with any iteration in the series. I have certainly never played a perfect game and never expect to, especially from a game such as MoO with the wide breadth and designer creativity involved.

And could you imagine the rancor had the project been dropped in September? Jesus. If that happened no one would be happy. Conspiracy theories would abound, we would never understand (or believe) what really went on. After all, look at what happened to the game midstream...

At least this way, with the game released, some are getting enjoyment out of it. Others are not, but that is common in the industry. I've certainly bought a lot of "good" games that I thought sucked.

-Asleepathewheel
MoO3 Elite, as appointed by Ianpolaris

Ianpolaris · March 19, 2003, 02:07

Asleepathewheel,

There are some important differences. Let's be honest: Moo 3 as it came out of the box is a sadly substandard game. I won't rehash the reasons I regard it so....that has already been talked about to death.

Now reasonable people can (and do) disagree about how fixable the game is or even how substandard it is. However, I have yet to see anyone reasonable (even those that support Moo 3) say that it is fine as written....because it isn't.

The thing is QS has alienated at least half of the market that supported Moo (those of us that liked Moo 2). That was a stupid, stupid thing to do. Even worse, the project was clearly a balls-up (to use the british phase) almost from the start (see Rantz's interview if you doubt).

You are correct in one respect: Had the project been cancelled in September, there would have been proverbial blood in the streets. However, the project should IMHO been cancelled last year when Moo 3 failed to make the Q1 '02 IQ deadline. In fact given what I now know from Rantz, the project really should have been canned in 2000.

2-3 years is enough time for a good professional Dev team to write a good solid game.....and face it, in order to alienate the Hard-Core Moo crowd, you almost have to try to put out a bad product....whch ironically is exactly what QS did. Thus had the project been cancelled when it should have been, we would all be playing (and liking) Moo 3 right now.

Would there still be discussions and disagreements about the design decisions? Certainly. However, it would be more of the order of, "What were they thinking when they gave RACE X 'Y' ability?" rather than "OMG, what an aweful, unplayable game!"

I am exaggerating of course, but I think I make my point nonetheless.

-Polaris