Moo3 better than civ3?

[ASHBERY76]

I have to agree with harel on this, although im sure civ3 will be a good game it just does'nt get me as exited as moo3 does because it seems to have very few new ideas, they didnt take any notice of the fans it seems.
There's no 5x

[Urban Ranger]

Irman,

I don't think you need to defend the Civ 3 series here, especially after seeing this quote from Harel:

Onward with MOO3, the truely original game

Man I almost choked on that one

[Mahdimael]

Moo3 better than Civ3? I think not

I don't post very often on the boards, but I am a gamer from way back. I played both the original MOO and Civ games, and they were both excellent. They offered gameplay that was streamlined and intuitive and fun.

Later, I played MOO2 and Civ2. Where Civ2 stayed close to it's roots, MOO2 deviated slightly. MOO2 became Master of Magic...in Space. Gone were many of my favorite features, but they did add an improved tactical combat system and a few other goodies, so I played it nonetheless, despite the fact that by the endgame I was attacking people with fleets the equivalent of 40 Death Stars.

Now we are on the cusp of MOO3 and Civ3. Once again, the Civ series appears to be expanding on what made the other games great. MOO3, however, seems to be deviating even more from the original than the second game. While I agree that the idea of being the leader of a galactic empire with individual subcommanders running things is intruiging, it doesn't sound like the MOO I remember. After reviewing the site, I'm still not sure what still remains the same between this game and the original.

I'm not trying to judge the game before it's released, but it's hard not to form an impression in one's mind given the information that has been released. I would love for MOO3 to both recapture the feel of the original and be a great game in it's own right. But given the complexity of the game and the deviation from the other games in the series, I don't believe it will happen, be that due to bad design or bugs or any other ailment that affects computer games. Will it be a great MOO game, or will it be a great space strategy game or will it be neither? We'll see. Hopefully it's good.

[Harel]

First off, I don't think deciding the KEY factors in your kingdom is anything like "minuate" data. Did you not set your economic policies in SMAC? Deciding the goals and economy of your own kingdom needs to be in CIV, but alas...

To Imran: Ah... no, the amount of tech in the game was published. 82 techs, just like most other civs. I was never enough to truely capture all the details of an entire human civilization, and it still doesn't. About the govenment list: it's exactly the same! They just removed fundementalism. Also stated quite clearly.

To Asesinto: No, I'm NOT going to see that in CIV3. There are no allowences for growing religions. Show me where you draw this upon.

To Urban ranger: hey, I DO know what goes on behind MOO3 scene. I can tell you it's far better, more complex, unique and intresting then CIV3. Is it a better game? I don't know, we shall have to wait and see... but at least it TRIES to innovate.

Finally, to Quote Imran: sequels not only NEED to stray from the path, they HAVE to stray from the path. If you are going to just add a few new features, then I don't really get a new game, do I? I get the old game with a really big patch. CIV3 has added just two new concepts: cultures and special goods. Everything else is just modifications to existing items (like borders that were already there, in a fashion, in SMAC).
A good game tries to break the mold, people. Not do the same thing. I had extreamly high expections from CIV3 at the beginnig, and I know most people here wanted a far more original game too. I, for one, don't desire to compromise. CIV3 needed a LOT more work then it's getting. This is just CIV 2.5.

[Provost Harrison]

Civ2 never strayed from the path of Civ. It expanded in an impressive way. When I first played Civ2 it was easy to appreciate it was the same underlying game, but greatly improved and built upon; an overhaul of many of the game concepts such as combat or diplomacy, and added to tech. Now we are seeing Civ3 is making the same progress from Civ2; better combat model, vastly enhanced trade model, etc, etc. If you start messing with it in a drastic way, you get CtP! And look what happened to that I think Firaxis have taken note of that little charade.

[Deathwalker]

Though I personally like the MOO series, I think the games are not that much alike that they can be compared. Though some features from each game should used in the other, like scenarios But I don't think there is really any comparison and until they both come out it's pure conjecture anyway.

[Urban Ranger]

Harel,

"I can tell you it's far better, more complex, unique and intresting then CIV3."

A very important question is, "Does being more complex make a game better, unique, or interesting?"

The answer is no. The more complex a game is, the less playable it is. So if MoO 3 is as complex as you assert, it's almost not playable, and thus rather uninteresting as a game. [It could be interesting to serve as a case study of "How you shouldn't design games."]

Also, MoO 3 isn't original. MoO maybe, as a game.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
If you start messing with it in a drastic way, you get CtP! And look what happened to that I think Firaxis have taken note of that little charade.

I don't want to jump on this thread, because I never played MOO series. I voted for the "let's see when they are out" option.

I'm only surprised with this opinion that you can't have a better Civilization like game if not making a pure sequel.
Mentioning CTP II failure in comparison is, well, a nonsense!

AFAIK CTPII has been a failure mostly because the AI failed to be a challenger AND the developer refused to patch the game to properly balance it. No Civ like game can have success for MP alone, because it's too long to play it to have enough on-line support.

CTP II contained interesting features, and get a warm initial welcome here at Apolyton too, if I'm not wrong on remembering this.
The developers did a couple of main mistakes, and the game was not a success as it should.
If Civ III will miss an AI great enough it will survive only on the memory of ancestors Civ and Civ2, but it won't gain enough awards. Look at how cold it has been judged by previewers at E3!
These are business facts, not my opinion.
Do you really note so much excitement with Civ III all around?
Can you see plenty of magazine covers for the next big game after sliced bread (or something like )?
IMHO a sad "NO!" is the very big hint here. Don't care of what I think, but please look around outside the pink painted Apolyton Civ nest

Is Firaxis aware of this? Sure. They aren't mentioning of a game in middle development. They aren't work for a early 2002 quality release. They aren't mentioning anymore of public beta.
They are ready to speak about a FALL release!
Are they rushing out a game before someone realize you can't have a better one, without rewriting a main part of it?
Is an early release the surest way to milk any best part of players saving before someone start speaking of a game not on par with current standard?
Surely I'm a pessimist today, so don't take my post for real. But using the best part of your brain can't be bad, so decide for yourself. Or let Firaxis refuse my doubt and "insult" me releasing a great game . No problem, then.

[Fidel]

well i really do not see why E3 people would give it a raving review. to do so it should've either
1) have ground breaking graphics (dull eye-candy)
2) be really really different
well, civ 3 is a re-hashed game with relatively simple graphics. since no one could play it (and that, i reckon, is a really important thing), no previewer can really say that it's great or lame.
i personally really do not care about eyecandy stuff. give me borders, beefed up ai and better diplomacy and i am fine with it. i stopped playing civ2 for the following reasons:
- ai was predictably stupid at some point
- no borders and lotsa problems with it
- crippled diplomacy options
if they address those probs correctly, i will play it gladly. they do not have to reinvent chess every time two people sit to play it....

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
CTP II contained interesting features, and get a warm initial welcome here at Apolyton too, if I'm not wrong on remembering this.

Not me I had enough with CtP, and when CtP 2 came out shortly after I felt that there's no way they could do a sequel properly in that time frame. I was right. Having a horrible sequel to a bad game could only be certain failure.

I have never played CtP II. They did have some interesting ideas in CtP but they never congealed together for something greater, and Activision's own stupidity in being different just for the sake of being different could only make the situation worse. There were far more flaws and design mistakes than there were good ideas, but I'm not about to start harping about how bad CtP is again.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Harel
hey, I DO know what goes on behind MOO3 scene. I can tell you it's far better, more complex, unique and intresting then CIV3. Is it a better game? I don't know, we shall have to wait and see... but at least it TRIES to innovate.

I believe this is the most important thing, and why I credit Moo3 with a better chance than Civ3 of becoming a classic in its own right. They are being ambitious enough to try and create something new and exciting that carries on the general concept of the previous games. I get the feeling that Civ 3 is focussing so much on not losing the original Civ 1 play style that it will not have the same impact because the gameplay will be almost exactly the same as before. It guarantees you can't make a huge mistake but neither can you truly exceed what came before.

Merchant Prince II came out recently and while its graphics do not live up to modern standards it just shows what remaking a bestseller without changing much can do: attract almost zero media interest and consequently sell poorly. If E3 is anything to go by, Civ 3 is in danger of doing the same.

[Harel]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
The answer is no. The more complex a game is, the less playable it is. So if MoO 3 is as complex as you assert, it's almost not playable, and thus rather uninteresting as a game. [It could be interesting to serve as a case study of "How you shouldn't design games."]

MOO3 works because it layers depth. It has a very nifty way to allow for hidden information, layers of data and interaction, and automated management of many levels. So you got corruptions and plots, religions and cultures, a relasitic trade and tourism system, relocation of population points, and so much more... all of this while still allowing you an easier gameplay then CIV3. Why? It removes all the micro-management. It simplies and streamlines gameplay. It make it easier and more intuative to play, yet offers far more depth.
You should really read the gameplan of MOO3.

[Imran Siddiqui]

First off, I don't think deciding the KEY factors in your kingdom is anything like "minuate" data.

Education policy is minuate, and I don't want to be bothered with it, really, in a Civ game.

CIV3 has added just two new concepts: cultures and special goods. Everything else is just modifications to existing items (like borders that were already there, in a fashion, in SMAC).

Ah, so can you show me where resources (along with new resources popping up after a discovery) and colonies were in the SMAC?

And what about making each Civ unique?

You are seriously shortchanging the importance of the new additions to Civ.

CIV3 needed a LOT more work then it's getting. This is just CIV 2.5.

Does that mean Civ2 was actually Civ1.5? Because there are much more changes to the underlying game between Civ3 and Civ2 than there were from Civ2 to Civ1.

This is a very adequate sequal. One only needs to look at other sequals of games out there (AoK, HOMM, etc) to see this.

Look at how cold it has been judged by previewers at E3!

Civ2 wasn't judged to well before it came out. However, with little hype (compared to today) it garnered all sorts of awards, even though it sold much less than Quake or Duke Nukem 3d or Tomb Raider.

They are being ambitious enough to try and create something new and exciting that carries on the general concept of the previous games.

BECAUSE IT CAN! Moo2 sucked, so they won't go back to keeping the best elements of the previous game. Basically there is a new group that took the bare essentials from Moo (the races, the space element) and made a new game with it. This really isn't a sequal persay. It like what Dune II was to Dune 1, a total change in the game because the first one sold poorly. Of course, for the Moo genre, the 1st one is a classic and the 2nd was the dud.

They are just taking the basics of the name and design and forging a totally new game, which is a luxury that Civ doesn't have. Look at all the skepticism that came out when CtP arrived. Most scoffed at a Civ game not being done by Sid and not being done like Civ. Many remarked that it didn't FEEL like Civ! That is what Civ3 is up against. It has to feel like Civ and doesn't have the luxury of deviating as much as Moo3 has from Moo2.

It removes all the micro-management.

ALL? Well, it better not! I like the micro-management of games like Civ and Europa Universalis. Like I said, people want a Civ game for Civ3, and that means the ability to micro-manage to your heart's content.

[SerapisIV]

I'm intrigued by this imperial focus idea that moo3 has. I'll hold off judgement till I see at least a beta/demo of the games

[Harel]

Now Imran, you are just adding your own opinions! MOO2 didn't suck. In fact, it's considered the best game of this genre. Also, if you look closely at any game magazine list of the top 100th games of the 20th centuary, MOO2 got higher results on average then CIV2. If anything, MOO2 is considered a far better game in most critics eye.
It even sold well, for this genre.

And yes, I don't see CIV2 as a true sequel as well. It simply fleshed out the graphics. It was very disappointing.
I agree with you that most sequels today have a tendency to stay very closely to the paradigm defined by the prequel. I find it awful. The game industry today just doesn't renovate. It becomes statis and reharshed.
CIV3 has added far too few additions. Goods, borders, cultures and a better diplomacy system. That's it, after so many years! The game industry has matured and evolved, not just graphics wise. I have far higher expections of game published today.

In my eyes CIV3 took the most basic advancements and improvement and stuck them on. It made no fundemental change, not even one. That would be good if the old paradigm was perfect, but it wasn't! CIV has many flaws in it's innate design, and CIV3 takes no action to try to avoid this.
Did it streamline the game? Did it take any actions to minimze micro-manage and ease the game? Did it re-write any fundemental model? Production, population, technology... what happened to innovation? What happened to change for the sake of change? What happened to the evolution of the game?

Really, all the changes in CIV3 are cosemtic. There is not even a single fundemental change to the concept of the game, and I find it deracting and pointless.

People have quoted CTP2.... even CTP2 is still the same thing! What is the real difference between them? Same terrain, cities, units, technologies and statistics.
I call for a drastic change! Change the entire concept of cities, for example. Scrap it and build something new. Maybe it won't be good, but at least you will TRY to create something new!