Moo3 better than civ3?

[demokrat]

I've been following the development of both MOO3 and Civ3. The only thing I can say is:

MOO3 will be better than Civ3.

There are about a hundred reasons for that, but I am way too lazy to write them down. Guess you'll have to wait for 2002Q1 to find out why.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by 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

i must admit the idea sounds great on paper.
still, if firaxis introduced something as bold, apolytoners would tear them apart without a single day of playing the game. i mean, people here are stirring up riots for a lousy worker unit and/or the layout of the city screen.

the fact is, moo3 does not generate even remotely comparable interest and you people are prepared to swallow a complete game rehaul. you would've burned firaxis down if it tried the same...(serapis, in no way was this meant as a reply to you, i just quoted you to continue where you started

[Harel]

To Imran, about game ratings: No, actually I'm not dogmatic. You have me on ICQ: shall we start counting pages toghter? I will prove my point in a short order.


Cultures and goods: those do NOT change the way CIV works! So goods are required to build a few special units that weren't there before. Cool feature, but does it fundementaly change the game? Hardly. Same with culture: it's a different way to measure borders. A nice twist, but really, nothing more.

To KrazyHorse: Sorry, I should'nt have even mentioned it. No, I can't say anything.

To Imran, about CTP: beg pardon, what DID CTP change? The combat system, a bit... the trade system, a bit... the way tile improvements are added. What else? Where did it go "too far"? The game is a striking clone of CIV2. Down to the same cities management screen, the same tech tree...
Let me say this: with the expection of the trade/combat/tile system, everything else could have been a CIV2 scenario, down to the probe in the future and expanded government/tech list. This is hardly a massive change. In fact, I would say even CTP isn't a true "sequel", if it was a sequel. It was, again, the same of the old thing.

About that saying "when something isn't broken": I would say go and fix it before it becomes broken. The game industry is maturing, people and growing up and gaining exprience. Designers become more exprienced in their work, and know what they are doing.
Why then, do we get a clone of a game that was produced at the begining of "time", or at least computer gaming time? Sure, it was a fun game. An excellent game. Does this mean we are not going to dare expand upon it now?
All I've seen on the CIV3 proposal list and CTP2 just don't cut it. Those are small tweaks to an existing paradigm. This paradigm, in my eyes and many others, is already too old. It needs a massive re-write. But Sid seems content about adding a few features and expansations. I would say again: EVERYTHING is CIV3 is features. Nothing is a massive change. If you percieve them as a massive change, they you buy the CIV3 hype a little too much.

To Urban ranger: I'm very aware that MOO3 could bomb. I never said it was a better game. Maybe it will have zero game play. But, at least it tries to innovate which put it for now on a higher and better position. If both games will succeed in delivering what they want, MOO3 will be a better game by far. Sure, it could fail, but I doubt that. We are doing a good job so far, most of the ideas have been turned into easy-to-program algorithem, we got two amazing people designing the AI (with a long time and education in AI programming). I feel confident.

To Mahdimael: Let's take the Starcon example. See what happened instead? The series did, and we were left with a crappy Star control III for the last candidate.
I'm not saying it's a good idea to jump from arcade to space simulation, but at least it's an intresting twist.
I do percieve MOO3 to be a sequel. By your logic, MOO2 isn't a sequel too because it practicially change every economic model it has.

About sequels in general: I believe a true sequel innovates. Changes. Radically changes. It is a sequel because it draws upon the old game for ideas, concepts and plot. It's a sequel because the older game is a jumping stone, and nothing more.
What we are getting with CIV3 (and, truthfully, with most games) is nothing but an add-on. Think about it: a better game engine and a few extra features. Sounds exactly like an add-on. This is not a new game. When I buy a new game and pay 40$, I expect it to be DIFFERENT. I don't care if it is called CTP3 or CIV3 or the 'conquest of the pig hoggers'. I want it to be a good game, never something I've seen before.
If it's a sequel, I expect to be reminded of the old game. I expect to smile, occasionaly, when I recognize something new. But I expect the majority of things to change, or why do I buy a new game? For purely marketing reason.
Tell me, everyone: do you honsetly think Firaxis can take the old CIV2 game, patch it to oblivion, and produce a huge patch/add-on? If the answer is yes, I shouldn't buy a new game. If all I am getting is a better version of something new, then give me an add-on.
If a buy a new game, it's a new game in my eyes. That it is a sequel doesn't matter. I don't attribute "holyness" values to series names. I judge a game by it's content, and today I have far better expections of a game then I had 10 years ago.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by LaRusso
the fact is, moo3 does not generate even remotely comparable interest and you people are prepared to swallow a complete game rehaul. you would've burned firaxis down if it tried the same...(serapis, in no way was this meant as a reply to you, i just quoted you to continue where you started

Damn and I thought people cared about me

[Mahdimael]

Remember, Harel, that Star Control III was not designed by the team that had done the first 2 (Fred Ford and Paul Reiche III, I believe). The new team ripped out most of the old races that we knew and loved and replaced them with what they believed were adequate replacements. Sound familiar? Obviously, we're comparing apples to oranges here, but it is an interesting parallel.

I can understand your feelings about sequels, but the fact is, most games (or movies or whatever) are not like that. Speed and Speed 2, The Star Wars Trilogy, Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia, Battle Chess, Super Mario Brothers, and so on. In most cases, sequels result because the first iteration of whatever the thing is successful enough to warrant more of the same. Is this a result of our society's obsession with fads? Probably. It explains Pokemon

Now imagine if the next Star Wars came out and there were no Jedi, Sith, or Wookies for whatever reason. Would it be Star Wars? It would be hard to say yes. Those things are fundamental to Star Wars. In fact, the reason so many adults disliked the new Star Wars is that it didn't have the characters they remembered. Kids, conversely, enjoyed it, having never seen the other movies.

Even when the sequel does change somewhat radically, as from Star Control 1 (resource strategy game) to Star Control 2 (action/adventure), they still retained what made the original so addictive and fun: that is, the combat. In reality, they expanded on it by giving the player a ship that they could customize and take into battle.

(Jeez my rants are long)

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Game plan doesn't mean anything. Ever heard of Outpost, by Sierra? It's a game that looked awesome on paper, yet bombed utterly when shipped. As a matter of fact, the more hype a game generates the more skeptical I become. My general sentiment is "A good game needs no hype."

By any chance were you thinking about Daikatana? or on the other hand, it could be more like Black And White. hmmmnnn.....

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I'm not having any hopes for the so called "automated management." If they have done a poor job for Civ, I don't see any reason why I should have hopes for something 20 times as complex. Which means I have to deal with all the micromanagement myself.

To which I say, pah!

Actually, urban, you won't have to deal with the micromanagement yourself because the game won't let you. imperial focus points, you know.

[Father Beast]

Mahdiamael-

I want to say just what it was that turned me off about MOO2, and let the idea of what a sequel is go by the wayside for the moment.

When I played the Original Master Of Orion, I was entranced by the whole game and the control I had over my colonies. The sliding bars were awesome. the massing of huge fleets of perhaps thousands of little ships, able to take on monsters several times their size until they got streaming weapons. the endlessly beautiful diplomacy model, where I could get on somebody's good side by attacking their enemies. I couldn't get enough. I still play sometimes, when I'm sure I won't be disturbed for several hours.

It was my rival with civ for just those reasons. I loved the original civ for the vast city building and looking to plant that next perfect city location. but I was irritated when a single unit of any size took a huge chunk of production from me, when I could only research one tech at a time, and war being declared for little or no reason, by little tin tyrants I could crush under my feet.

I finally got MOO2, and was vastly disappointed. all of a sudden I can't have monstrous fleets, because the game artificially limits you with those silly command points, and doesn't take into account whether it's a dinky little scout, or a massive warship. instead of those wonderful sliding bars to deal with millions of people, I discover single people to move around, and pop limits of 4 sometimes. 4!?!?! Instead of that wonderful multiple tech trees, I'm limited to reseaching a SINGLE tech at a time?
it looked like they saw the success of civ, and turned the sequel into a civ clone. by LIMITING the unlimited things in MOO that were so great.

and now MOO3 is coming. and with that ridiculous "imperial focus" nonsense, it looks as if they will be limiting the game even further. I'm not falling for it again.
If only I could play like the original MOO, with multiple tech trees, unlimited ships, and sliding bar colony control, then all those thousands of worlds they parade in front of us would look really really good. if only.....


so, mahdimael, what makes a sequel? bigger and better and deeper, but don't change the basic gameplay. if it works, don't fix it...
civ2 was a fine sequel to civ. same basic gameplay. new stuff, rules tweaking on quite a few levels, diplomacy improvement. but I could still play it out of the box without cracking the manual, being a civ vet.
check with heroes of might and magic (though admittedly they are quicky sequels), Diablo, or others (I have other problems with D2, but the basic gameplay is the same). it's the same, but more and better. that's why we buy them.

if a sequel wants to be a different game, say if you want Diablo 2 to be a first person shooter, then you're making something new with the names and likenesses of old stuff for name value.

about CTP-
I'm afraid I have a differing opinion there. it is in the spirit of true sequels, improving and expanding many things, while keeping the same basic gameplay. it's problem isn't with being to innovative. its problem seems to be that it's just not as fun, according to many people.
I'm not sure myself. I just bought it and am trying my first game

[Father Beast]

Oh and in case anyone didn't get my opinion-

MOO vs. CIV
a tie

MOO2 vs. CIV2
civ2 the clear winner

MOO3 vs. CIV3
no contest, civ3 has my attention, moo3 looks like its being broken even more

[Mahdimael]

I agree with you, Father Beast on all of those points. I didn't hate everything in MOO2, but a lot of it was disappointing. I thought the combat was improved, with firing arcs and fighters and so on. The technology tree irritated me, as did the multiple planets at a star. It wasn't even so much their inclusion as their implementation. The same applies to the custom civ creation. It was a good idea, but poorly implemented. Certain skills or combinations were overpowering. The command points thing was a pain in the butt.

You're absolutely correct when you say Microprose saw the success of Civ and, more importantly, Master of Magic. If you look at the colony screen in MOO2 and the city screen in MOM, you'll find they're nearly identical.

I would say a sequel improves on those things that make a game great, and adds to the overall experience. Identifying the greatness of a game is not always easy, though. Even so, taking a vast departure from the original game almost ensures that you will get away from the fun aspects.

MOO3 does this. There's little shown to make me believe that it will resemble the original game at all. Does this mean it will be a bad game? No. It may well be fun in it's own right. But does it mean that it will be a bad sequel to MOO? I would have to say yes. It does depart dramatically from the original game (the one considered a classic).