Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kiss

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Vince278
    MOO3 had good marketing before release. Guess they had to choose between making a good game and making money.
    Are you kidding? MoO3 was the SF Conquest equivalence of Civ3. Extreme expectations... and the developers just kept adding in wish list items, etc. Fantastic ambitions and lack of patient publishers combined for a very bad result...
    -Darkstar
    (Knight Errant Of Spam)

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Enigma_Nova

      You have got to be kidding me.
      That easily memorable, linear game was complex?
      ...
      no comment

      Well, if they're not interested in complexity, what are they going to cram into this TBS? filler?
      SMAC had a LOT to it. A lot more options then Civ2. But the AI was never really updated to handle the complexity added. That's why its so easy for human players to win at it. Taking advantage of the game, when the AI isn't.

      Of course, to win SMAC, you just went for Rovers (Chariot Rush equivalent in Civ1) or if they were safe over the oceans, get Air Doctrine (Flight) and then take them out.
      -Darkstar
      (Knight Errant Of Spam)

      Comment


      • #33
        No, you ICSed like mad and went for Choppers.

        Comment

        Working...
        X