MOO3 should have been canceled. - Page 2

MariOne · March 19, 2003, 05:36

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!

Did you read my post?

In case you didn't, I humbly suggest that you scroll back above, and read it.
That's not MY "opinion", it's a well and long established Project Planning and Management concept, principle and technique, that I overheard (wait... I should have indeed "studied" it at the Uni 15 yrs ago...) and was just *reporting*.

It may defeat "common sense", but that's why it's called *common*.
Dismissing what one doesn't understand (and mind, I'm using "one", not "you"...), only proves that one is an ignoramus.
Which frankly I don't care at all personally, "one" can make of himself what he wants.

Ianpolaris · March 19, 2003, 05:58

H Tower,

To put it more simply, Mari has a good point that IMHO he made rather well (I suggest you reread it).

In short, if a project is badly overdue and overbudget (which are usually one and the same), then it might be best from a purely economic perspective to cancel the project. This reasoning applies to any project (not just Moo III).

The old expression "throwing good money after bad" is precisely (as I understand it anyway) what MariOne was trying to get at. If it is going to cost you more money to finish a project than you expect to make, then the project needs to be cancelled. That was how I understood ZBB anyway.

The fact is Moo III is generating enough negative press and has generated enough ire (especially because of the hype that preceded the release) that IMHO this title probably should have been cancelled under this standard. Of course not everyone agrees, but it is an opinion with a solid factual foundation.

-Polaris

Grumbold · March 19, 2003, 10:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
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.

I haven't seen any reasonable people saying this game is so bad it should not have been released. Its just not what some people wanted. Personally I think its better than all the other non-MoO space TBS games I've played, and none of those got cancelled either.

Jamski · March 19, 2003, 10:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold
Personally I think its better than all the other non-MoO space TBS games I've played, and none of those got cancelled either.

Grumbold - I think you've got it! I've never noticed this, but dammit you're right! Yes its not perfect, but what (apart from MoO2 perhaps) would most people say was a better space 4X TBS game? Hmm?

-Jam

H Tower · March 19, 2003, 11:00

Does anyone actually figures of how much money Moo3 has made? And how much was spent to make the game? I still believe that Moo3 will make a profit. So no, don't cancel the game.

Ianpolaris · March 19, 2003, 11:39

Guys,

At the risk of further fueling emotions, I would have to say that with all of it's myriad faults and problems, both CTP and even the much maligned B.O.T.F. (commonly known as "barf") were better than Moo III out of the box.

At least both of those games had explicit user feedback, an understandable interface (more or less), and were generally fun to play (at least until you noticed all the problems). None of that is true for Moo III.

When Moo III compares unfavorably with B.O.T.F., you know you have a disaster on your hands. Don't expect IG to spring for more than one patch (if that) regardless of what QS wants to do.

-Polaris

The Templar · March 19, 2003, 14:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
At the risk of further fueling emotions, I would have to say that with all of it's myriad faults and problems, both CTP and even the much maligned B.O.T.F. (commonly known as "barf") were better than Moo III out of the box.

I don't know, MoO3 out of the box is better than CTP2. I do get attacked in MoO3 (occasionally, after turn 250), and the PD bug is the only show stopper (CTP2 was riddled with bugs). Patch a few of these problems and I think you have a decent game.

On the other hand, given the overruns and lackluster result, nobody in their right mind would contract QS after this. Even in Rantz's confession, you get the picture that they were writing code w/o a solid development plan (after firing the lead developer early on).

That is not encouraging.

And before everyone gets started about 'lackluster' - face it, in your gut you know its true. The UI is overly complicated and often non-cooperative, you can't name things/pick colors/colonize Orion after exterminating the New Orions/see system names on any but the lowest zoom/take your pick of tedious little things that seem to be missing. The AI isn't particularly aggressive and certainly doesn't manage ground invasions well. Oh wait, I forgot, they tweaked the AI before release. Then again, has anyone seen those original ass-kicking AI files?

Don't get me wrong, the game is fun, but it isn't great in the way Civ, Civ2, Civ3, MoO, and MoO2 are great. Frankly, sales wouldn't be anywhere near what they are if it didn't have the name 'MoO' attached to it.

But should it have been cancelled? I don't know. But I do know that when the original development team was shaken up, they should have written a plan before they wrote any code.

DaShi · March 19, 2003, 14:42

:sniff: Reminds me of the old Civ3 days. Those were good times.

Ianpolaris · March 19, 2003, 16:28

Guys,

Templar said:

Quote:

But should it have been cancelled? I don't know. But I do know that when the original development team was shaken up, they should have written a plan before they wrote any code.

Um....people....? Isn't this freaking common sense when making something as complicated as a game? [And yes, games are one of the most complicated things you can code.] Shouldn't that have been a warning sign in big red letters that IG should have pulled the plug 2-3 years ago?

-Polaris

Boris Godunov · March 19, 2003, 16:39

Ok, I don't own the game, and all of the kvetching and reviews have ensured that I probably will never buy it, at least not until it is in the bargain bin.

Still, I've seen enough people who can put aside the negatives and enjoy the game and who seem to REALLY love it that I don't see any rationale behind "they should never have released it!" It's not a very buggy game at all, from what I have read, which already beats out most new game releases. Its problems also seem to boil more down to a matter of taste rather than any sort of tangible things. People who expected a tweak on the MOO2 model are upset because it's a lot more different than they wanted, while those expecting an entirely new gaming experience are disappointed. Gee, sounds like Civ3...

Ianpolaris · March 19, 2003, 16:52

Boris,

Civ 3 even at it's worst and most rancorous never approached the level of the Moo 3 disaster....and folks disaster is precisely what it is.

I was around (as a lurker) on these boards when Civ 3 came out. I felt the game was flawed, but it was a game and people did have some fun with it. Even Yin 26, the most noted Civ 3 critic, admitted that the game (Civ 3) was interesting during the early ancient period.

I also point out that the Civ 3 magazine reviews and user reviews while mixed were mixed on the positive side.

None of this is true for Moo 3. While many games are roundly criticized when they are first published, the Moo 3 outcry both on the net and in the user reviews is nothing less than astonishing. Unfortuately (yes IMHO) having played the "game" (I put that in quotes because AFAICT it is not a true game), I find those critics to be completely deserved.

-Polaris

Boris Godunov · March 19, 2003, 17:13

Ian, I've read many positive reports on the game, and several folks who originally expressed anger have come to appreciate it. So that comes down to a matter of taste and opinion, not an objective fact.

You don't like the game, but that's you. A lot of people don't like it, but that's them. It sounds to me like I wouldn't like it, but that's just me. I can't help but think that a good deal of the anger is a result of overhyped expectations rather than objectivity.

In the end, I can't say, from what I've read, that they released a bad or shoddy product, merely one that was radically different from what people expected. So for those who are disappointed, that's too bad. For those that are enjoying it, good for them.

But I don't see how any of that means that they shouldn't have released the game. For all QS knew, they had a game people would enjoy. That's all the reason they need to release it.

Ianpolaris · March 19, 2003, 17:26

Boris,

Speaking for the moment strictly for myself, I did play the "game" extensively and I found it to have very few redeeming features whatsoever. My anger comes from having climbed the 'learning cliff' to find a lackluster experience awaited me on the other side. In short I wasted 50 USD and by so doing encouraged QS to make a shoddy project again.

Furthermore when I gave the game away to my friends, every single one rejected the game with even harsher criticism than I had....and many of them have very different tastes in computer games.

Furthermore, I suggest you read the user reviews coming in on GameSpot and Amazon. I have never seen a single title so villified.....not even BOTF which was a pretty awful game.

However, let's get back to the issue at hand:

Fact: The project was years overdue (in fact almost two years overdue).

Fact: The devs had no clue as to how to design this game (not having a Dev Plan speaks volumes in this regard)

Fact: The project during this past year was in total shambles

Fact: The final product was unfinished, undone, and generally shoddy as Rantz has admitted on GameSpy contrary to what we were led to believe during the X-Mas delay.

Given all of these facts, if I were an IG suit, I would have at least considered cancelling the project and giving it to a more worthy team. If I had played the beta, I would have.

-Polaris

MariOne · March 20, 2003, 06:28

Quote:

Originally posted by H Tower
Does anyone actually figures of how much money Moo3 has made? And how much was spent to make the game? I still believe that Moo3 will make a profit. So no, don't cancel the game.

Just to wipe any misunderstanding and personal grudge, I was not saying that MoO3 was going to be a fiasco for sure.

I was pointing out that the decision of *not canceling* a project ONLY because of the "already spent" money (as you were sustaining), might turn out to be a Bad Business Practice.

That made clear, it's quite "possible" that THIS case will turn out to be actually profitable. I don't know if that's also "desirable"...

I am besides happy for those who managed to enjoy this product in the end.
I'm not talking about an eventual cancelation in spite of them.
BTW, when you say "don't cancel the game", you missed the train. In cas you didn't realise it yet, the game HAS NOT been canceled

and that's done and can't be backtracked.
We were just "hypothesizing" about a Project Mgmt decision IG "could" have taken in the PAST (and didn't) and its consequences on us as gamers and customers of the product that ensued....

Don K Hotay · March 20, 2003, 19:05

The game is great for multiplay, much better than most other turnbased games before it, especially CIV3. I think a LAN game of MOO3 would be a great gaming experience, so I hope I can make it happen soon.

On the other hand, the AI is a random variable from game to game in terms of competitiveness. In the single player game I'm on right now, the AI's I've encountered are quite fierce. Of course, no matter how much damage they do, they never ever invade. And thats why this patch needs to come out right away.

Quixote

Grumbold · March 21, 2003, 04:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
However, let's get back to the issue at hand:

Fact: The project was years overdue (in fact almost two years overdue).

Fact: The devs had no clue as to how to design this game (not having a Dev Plan speaks volumes in this regard)

Fact: The project during this past year was in total shambles

Fact: The final product was unfinished, undone, and generally shoddy as Rantz has admitted on GameSpy contrary to what we were led to believe during the X-Mas delay.

Given all of these facts, if I were an IG suit, I would have at least considered cancelling the project and giving it to a more worthy team. If I had played the beta, I would have.

-Polaris

The only fact here is that you don't like the game and are determined to make sure that you bludgeon the rest of the community with your personal opinion as frequently as possible.

Personally I'm waiting for the patches and if they are on the money will be hotly appealing for an expansion pack. Its a pretty good game hiding behind a cluttered interface.

MariOne · March 21, 2003, 05:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold

The only fact here is that you don't like the game and are determined to make sure that you bludgeon the rest of the community with your personal opinion as frequently as possible.

I would personally label the above bolded statement rather as
"Grumbold's personal PoV, eventually correct, but a PoV"
better than with
"FACT"

Apart the personal attack on him, I see you don't care to(or.... cannot????) rebut in their *merit* the 4 statements Ianpolaris labels as "Fatcs".
I for one wouldn't know how to object to them.
Could maybe one of you more inside the game do something useful and *factually* object to those remarks, for those who still are at a window waiting to decide what to do?
Thx.
Although, as I said, all this issue is only about judging a PAST IG decision and would have a little windfall for the game's present...

Oh, and BTW.
Those who object to someone's opinion with "you just want to impose your opinion without respecting others", are committing the SAME injustice they claim to reprimand...

Grumbold · March 21, 2003, 06:29

I'm just reciprocating with similar tactics to underline what is being done, but I admit my invective was not an example of perfect neutrality ...

Do I really need to rebut in detail something so clearlu fallacious? A direct quote from Rantz about the game not being perfect would be factual. If I came here and said "Rantz says the game is almost perfect" it would be distorted positive spin. Saying "unfinished, undone, and generally shoddy" is distorted negative spin. We can all play these games. I stand by my assertion that the post is full of negative spin that reflect his personal bias, not facts.

Ianpolaris · March 21, 2003, 08:37

Grumbold,

Namecalling aside (which IIRC is a violation of the CoC here), I simply call them as I see them.

There is no "opinion" about what I wrote. They are indisputed facts.

If you don't like them, then complain to QS or IG, not me.

-Polaris

P.S. How you interpret those facts is a matter of opinion, but not the facts themselves.....as you just proved with your ad hominem attack.

Edit: Saying you needed two more years (that is in the interview) to "get the game done right" is an ipso facto admission that the game was marketed in an unfinished state. How can this even be in dispute? No spin about that.

Stuie · March 21, 2003, 08:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
Grumbold,

Namecalling aside (which IIRC is a violation of the CoC here), I simply call them as I see them...

1. What name did he call you? I read and re-read both of Grumbold's posts and I don't see any "name" directed at you.

2. "Call them as I see them" is a pretty blatant admission that your "facts" are not presented in an objective fashion.

VJ · March 21, 2003, 08:52

Right, I'll try to keep this as short as possible.

Quote:

But more importantly you build a decent game in the timeframe that you have.

Yes, they did so.

OmniDude · March 21, 2003, 12:30

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
[snip]
And before everyone gets started about 'lackluster' - face it, in your gut you know its true. The UI is overly complicated and often non-cooperative, you can't name things/pick colors/colonize Orion after exterminating the New Orions/see system names on any but the lowest zoom/take your pick of tedious little things that seem to be missing. The AI isn't particularly aggressive and certainly doesn't manage ground invasions well. Oh wait, I forgot, they tweaked the AI before release. Then again, has anyone seen those original ass-kicking AI files?

Don't get me wrong, the game is fun, but it isn't great in the way Civ, Civ2, Civ3, MoO, and MoO2 are great. Frankly, sales wouldn't be anywhere near what they are if it didn't have the name 'MoO' attached to it.

But should it have been cancelled? I don't know. But I do know that when the original development team was shaken up, they should have written a plan before they wrote any code.

So far, this is the posting that most accurately reflects my own sentiment about MOO3.

Here's hoping that the game at least set a new standard scope-wise. I really like the way the game aims to take space-TBS to the next level i.e. macromanagement.
Had MOO3 been thoroughly tested and tweaked UI and AI-wise and ground and space combat been given just a bit more time and thought design-wise, this game would kick MAJOR ass!

MOO2 to 3 was a MAJOR project, perhaps MOO3 to 4 don't have to be if you can start out with the source code from QS. After all, the coders are probably not to blame, but rather the designers and producers.

BTW, I'm still playing.....

Grumbold · March 21, 2003, 13:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
There is no "opinion" about what I wrote. They are indisputed facts.

A direct quote from Rantz about the game would be factual. If I came here and said "Rantz says the game is almost perfect" it would be distorted positive spin. Saying "unfinished, undone, and generally shoddy" is distorted negative spin. We can all play these games. I stand by my assertion that your posts are full of negative spin that reflect your personal bias, not facts. So I guess that means they're disputed, huh?

Boris Godunov · March 21, 2003, 13:28

OKay, sans any invective, will address the points below:

Quote:

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Ianpolaris

Fact: The project was years overdue (in fact almost two years overdue).

Fact: The devs had no clue as to how to design this game (not having a Dev Plan speaks volumes in this regard)

Fact: The project during this past year was in total shambles

Fact: The final product was unfinished, undone, and generally shoddy as Rantz has admitted on GameSpy contrary to what we were led to believe during the X-Mas delay.

1. Yes, this is a fact. But it isn't necessarily indicative of anything. Plenty of projects have been overdue and been good, such as WarCraft III. Of course, plenty have gone over and been terrible, such as Ultima IX. Conversely, many projects that are released on time are terrible, so that doesn't mean all that much, especially to a game company exec who wants a return on an investment.

2. This is not fact, it's a subjective opinion. While I admit it is more likely to be the case that this was true, we don't really know that for sure.

3. This is again somewhat subjective, but mostly true. Plenty of games go through turmoil during development, yet upon release end up fine. Again, the exec at the company wouldn't have any reason to cancel an expensive investment over this.

4. This is total opinion on your part. Many people are enjoying the game. There is a lot about the game that certainly isn't shoddy, from what I have read. Don't confuse design choices you don't like with careless game-making. There are very few bugs from what I hear, unlike most games out nowadays.

Now I'm sure we can all keep things here friendly-like, Grumbold, etc. We can argue without being meanies.

Ianpolaris · March 21, 2003, 16:27

Boris,

1. That is a fact. We agree on that. 'nuff said.

2. I suggest you reread what Rantz said in GameSpy. He said that the designers lacked direction and no one "took charge" and yet they were coding. That tells me (and anyone else who has done a project) that they didn't have a clue. The lack of a clear Dev plan was proverbial icing on the cake. Was my language slanted? Perhaps, but the truth of the matter is quite clear.

3. Alright the term 'shambles' is an interpretation based on what Rantz said. Having said that, we agree that the project went through a major reorganization late and not in a good way. That is an indisputed fact.

4. Rantz said that the game was unfinished. Don't take my word for it; read what he had to say yourself. That makes it a fact AFAICT.

-Polaris

Ashoka III · March 22, 2003, 09:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
People who expected a tweak on the MOO2 model are upset because it's a lot more different than they wanted, while those expecting an entirely new gaming experience are disappointed. Gee, sounds like Civ3...

I own Civ III. Civ III is a friend of mine.

MoO3 is no Civ III.

Seriously, Civ III was quite playable out-of-the-box. Many Civer's just didn't like the *way* the game played. This was a minor thing, that was fixed after a couple patcher (only to start all over again with PTW).

MoO3 is *not* playable out of the box - as any but the worst fanbois will admit. Even worse, most of the 'broken' elements are not fixable with a patch.

I returned mine after 3 days.

Ashoka

Raion · March 23, 2003, 14:53

Just my own view, and you can have yours.

MOO III works, but with some people, they are the ones making the mistakes.

Case in point:

A person wanted to know where his Fleets were in the game.

He ended up looking all over the map to find them, and was frustrated.

I pointed out that going to the ShipDesign tab, and clicking on the Fleet tab, that any Fleet in the game, can be found, and by double clicking, instantly transported to that place and Star System on the main map.

At least, when I see that some commands for the game are by double clicking, I try that out, on text areas, if I am not sure what they are there for, but some people are not.

Probably somewhere in the manual, it is also stated.

Simply some people could not get how to play the game,
but it is all there, and easily found.

So, therefore, should MOO III been cancelled, because, before they actually play the game, they can not or will not read some of it.

Now to the points brought out, yes, you can not change colors, or name star systems, but some of that is irrelevant to me, I do not see the need to do that.

As for anything else, QS is including some items in the patch, for zooming in on the main map, and seeing the star names.

Although you can click on a star System, and get its name.

But minor things that were annoying to some, are not really that annoying, given the scope of the game, and the hugeness of the Galaxy.

So, yes some of it could have been on the same Windows, and one could have many Windows open, but who would want to close them all.

At least, to me, in this game, the player should remember the information of the species after awhile of the game.

Maybe, I got use to it playing Civilization.

But, it is not far different, than that game,
and it sure is a very large game.

And unlike Imperium Galactic II, which stacked ships together, after a point, QS tried to show individual ships in a battle by having more lenthy battles taking place, that can be timed from 1 minute to 10 minutes per battle.

If anyone compares MOO III, to Barf (BoTF), I think I will barf!

That game, was a waste of money, but MOO III is not.

Well, that's my opinion, and anyone else can have theirs!

VJ · March 23, 2003, 16:02

Quote:

(1, 2, 3, 4)[..]Now I'm sure we can all keep things here friendly-like, Grumbold, etc. We can argue without being meanies.

Boris sums this up pretty well, you know...

Aule1 · March 24, 2003, 22:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Raion
Case in point:

A person wanted to know where his Fleets were in the game.

He ended up looking all over the map to find them, and was frustrated.

I pointed out that going to the ShipDesign tab, and clicking on the Fleet tab, that any Fleet in the game, can be found, and by double clicking, instantly transported to that place and Star System on the main map.

This is an argument of why the game SHOULD have been cancelled! Going to two tabs to find a fleet is ridiculous. In a strategy game I should be able to scan my empire and easily identify my fleets and their positions. Otherwise how can I clearly identify weak spots in my empire?

I do not want flashy 3D graphics. I want functional graphics that convey information needed to play a game. I do not know of any other major strategy game that forces you to jump through such hoops to get the necessary information. Games like Europa Universalis and Civilization do not have 3D graphics, but what graphics they do have convey the necessary information needed to play extremely fun and challenging games.

MOO2 is better in so many aspects since I can actually tell what is going on alot more easily.

Grumbold · March 25, 2003, 10:45

The galactic map is there in front of you if you want to use it. With 20x the number of star systems its just not so easy to remember the location of all your TFs. One solution would be to make the galaxy 20x smaller again. I prefer clicking 2 tabs. I occasionally lost track of an army or navy in EU1/2/HoI when my empire stretched round the world but I wouldnt use it as a reason for making any of the games smaller.....