How this game compares to MOO III? Is it better or worse or same?

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Sirian

I can't be the only person in the world who despises the "4x" analogy.

I think if you take it literally, it's too confining, as you suggest. But most people don't use it to mean anything in particular now; it's just a nickname for a class of games, like RTS or FPS.

[Shadowlord]

When I saw "How this game compares to MOO III?" my first thought was "Wow, what an insult!" MoO III was TERRIBLE. The only people I know who thought MoO III was decent, had never played MoO 1 or MoO 2, and refused to try either one. Quicksilver even screwed up the ideas they borrowed from the older MoO games.

I'm far more interested in how GalCiv II compares to MoO II.

Aquiantus: Flaming Sirian probably isn't a very bright move.

[Aquiantus]

Why would flaming Sirian not be a bright move?

Didn't the "Outside the box" thinkers convince the Developers of Moo3 to make that Abomination? Yes, I think they did.

Did they also suggest that "Inside the box" Developers wont make a profit and threaten them subtly? Yes, I think they did.

But, proof is in the facts, GalCiv2 is well "inside the box" of 4x game Genre and it is the number one selling game this week and the Editor's Choice Award from Gamespot.

Whats inside the box thinking? All it means is to use what worked before an improve on it. That doesn't mean they can't add stuff to it, just dont take away the good elements. Outside the box thinking is all about radical and extreme changes that manifest themselves into a Moo3.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Aquiantus
Why would flaming Sirian not be a bright move?

Just that it makes you look silly.

Whats inside the box thinking? All it means is to use what worked before an improve on it.

No, it refers to being confined by the decision in advance to conform to certain criteria, rather than making an independent decision as to what you want to do without being constrained by the decisions others made in the past.

[Aquiantus]

No Inside the Box basically means Conservatism, Outside the box means Radicalism. Something completely different then the standard.

Stardock built standard, and is reaping the rewards, your theories on "Outside the box" thinking is non-sense. Your defending someone else who criticized my review is very weak. But, since you and Sirian are so close, I hope you both enjoy your lovely life together. Just remember to wipe the brown off your nose because its starting to smell foul.

You want to built a car with no wheels, be my guest, but you wont be able to call it a car anymore. < Thats an Analogy.

You both battled me, and you both lost miserably. Its weak to have someone else come to their aid without even a reply, and its even weaker for you to flame me for flaming someone who flamed me.

Whats even weaker then that is you defending the "outside the boxers" who ruined Moo3, that I wont understand. Now if you dont mind GETTING BACK TO THE TOPIC and not flaming me, 4x or Inside the box Developers that would be great. M-k? Think you can handle that?

[Gufnork]

You want to built a car with no wheels, be my guest, but you wont be able to call it a car anymore.

No, think of the horror if we were to get planes, hovercraft and other things. It wasn't the outside the boxers that ruined MoO3, quite the opposite. It was thought to be too much Outside the box, so they fired the head developer and screwed it up. I think MoO 3 had immense potential, but it was never finished. It's an early beta that was released, because the publishers chickened out and tried to stay in the box.

Inside the box means limiting yourself. Working inside the box can only get you so far.

You're right about the analogy part though.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Aquiantus

You both battled me, and you both lost miserably.

Your profile claims that you're 28 years old. Maybe you should stop acting like you're 12.

[Aquiantus]

David- I guess your just a simpleton, using the whole age thing is not original, and may I remind you that it was YOU who first insulted me. So weak! And to not expect an Insult back, and to display such poor mannerism after recieving that insult, is very wimpy, childish and such a spoiled brat. Can you honestly flame someone who was defending their post and not expect a flame back? So I hope that Sirian takes you back to school with him. Now that you two have been schooled and have nothing but mockery, insults and ridicule as your arguements, its time to move on to a more mature audience...

Gufnork- lol I dont mind getting a hovercraft that would be cool. So your saying that they should have kept the head developer or should not have tried to repair the game? I don't know the whole story behind Moo3 development. But, I do know that Macro-managing everything was way outside the box of TBS games. The whole point of Turn-based is to take as much time as needed for your economy (or Exploitation). All I know is the Forums where screaming with "Outside the box" thinkers about no Micro this and lets do that or something else. Conservative voices where drowned out on their forums.

End result = Moo3 an Abomination. Who is to blame? Definitly not just the Head Developer, it was all the "outside the box" thinkers that influenced the game to become an Abomination. And if the Developing team was more resistant to extreme changes, they would have had a much better product.

Besides a Publisher has nothing to do with how a game is Developed, they just box and ship the game. So I dont see how they influenced the Developers to stay "inside the box."

I can't imagine a Lone Head Developer out on his own without any support from a group of fanatical "outside the box" thinkers cheering him on in the forums or many supporters inside the company. I just dont see it. I'm sorry but their kind ruined a great genre for 10+ years. You are defending their position to talk more Developers into Lunacy which is really out there. I think its a crazy position to hold, and I destroyed them with my arguements.

You need support behind whatever your developing, and if it turns out to be crap, its never the "support" who are to blame. Thats a ridiculous and childish behavior because they are as much responsible as those who supported Hitler. If you support Abominations, you need to be held accountable. But, in our society, people really lack responsibility, and it will be too difficult to explain to the likes of spoiled brats like David.

I'm just letting you know now, that "outside the box" thinking is OUT. Way out there in space, and it was the Economy who decided that, not me. I'm just bringing it to light to those who still think we must "think outside the box"

The concept of building "outside the box" is to destroy what worked previously, NOT to build upon OR improve it in any way shape or form.

Well can't spend all my time on this forum, got a game to play that was totally built by Inside the Box Innovative Developers.

[Gufnork]

Inside the box thinkers has made about a gazillion copies of Wolfenstein 3d, another gazillion copies of Warcraft. Every other game made today is just a copy of a previous game with better graphics. I got bored with Doom 2, then I got bored with Dune 2. I've tried playing some of the newer games, but nothing has happen since. Sure, MoO 3 might have been a mediocre game instead of crap had they listened to you, but I don't like mediocre games. I'd rather have a chance of it being a good game that know it's going to be mediocre. Every game I've played the last year that I've enjoyed has been, with a single exception (Civ IV), made by people who dared to go outside the box.

The argument that going outside the box means you might fail isn't a winning argument, no matter how many times you repeat it. Besides, outside the box thinkers haven't kept the genre back 10+ years, the only game that could claim going outside the box is MoO 3. Galactic Civilizations I-II, Civ II-IV, Space Empires IV, they're all inside the box. And like all the other genres like it, none of the games have made much progress. The only reason MoO 3 hasn't brought the genre forward is because noone dares to try what they did.

[EternalSpark]

Inside the box thinkers has made about a gazillion copies of Wolfenstein 3d, another gazillion copies of Warcraft.

Exactly - Tons of games, tons of profits, tons of fans. And like it or not, those fans are the market now.

The same cannot be said for so-called "Outside the Box" games and developers:

- Why did Looking Glass fail? System Shock II. They were both Outside The Box games in a wide variety of ways, and yet both bombed dismally. The first one fought and failed against a Wolf3D copy you might be familiar with, and the second one fought and failed against another Wolf3D copy you might have heard about.

- Do you know what Vault 13 is? You may, but the Outside-Of-The-Box known as Fallout is hardly remembered by most current gamers. There's a copy of Warcraft that is much more well known, and much more liked. The first thing most gamers will know about Fallout is the upcoming Fallout 3, developed by designers who know Out-Of-The-Box aspects must be minimized.

- Hey, I'm going to tell you a secret: Don't Trust The Skull. See, the Skull will try and tell you that Planescape: Torment was a good, Out-Of-The-Box game. Problem is, nobody knew about it when it came out. A slightly-dark blue-mana producing Magic card was Removed From Game after making Out-Of-The-Box games.

The Box exists for a reason: because it's what most gamers want. I may disagree with this troll, but to promote Out-Of-The-Box ideals so proudly dooms a game to failure.

if you want another reason: Compare Civ4 to GalCiv. Who knows about which one more? Which one does thing new, and which does them partially similar to the ones that came before?

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by EternalSpark

if you want another reason: Compare Civ4 to GalCiv. Who knows about which one more? Which one does thing new, and which does them partially similar to the ones that came before?

Civ4 has considerably more innovation than GC2.

[Sirian]

Originally posted by Aquiantus
Outside the box thinking is all about radical and extreme changes that manifest themselves into a Moo3.

No, it isn't.


Thinking outside the box can take you to a place where you focus on content and story, and on gameplay that is fresh and intriguing, rather than making yet another copy of Doom. ... Thus, Half-Life, which was made on the Quake engine but with, like, an actual story, a well developed plotline, extraordinarily detailed and credible playfields, and a strong dose of imagination and creativity, along with being heavily tested and polished.

vALVE was rewarded with 8 million sales for Half-Life.


Thinking outside the box can lead you to limit the number of races in a game to just three, but make them so different from one another that it would be a nightmare to try to balance them -- then work and work and work until they are well balanced. ... Thus, StarCraft.

StarCraft sold eight million.


If you think you push sales by copying somebody else's formula, think again. You do need to draw lessons from their results, good and bad, but you must also push the boundaries to create or innovate something that has not been seen or done before, anywhere.


- Sirian

[Sirian]

Originally posted by Aquiantus
If you dont like the Description of these types of TBS games, I suggest you take your arguements up with an expert. Try the Gamespot reviewers...

Only commercial reviewers can be experts?

Originally posted by Aquiantus
I suggest you go back to school and learn what an Analogy is.

From the American Heritage dictionary:

analogy: n. 1) Correspondence in some respects, especially in function or position, between things otherwise dissimilar.

Fact: Civilization, Master of Orion, and Galactic Civilizations are all dissimilar. Civ is played out on Earth or simulated planets, from the perspective of the human race advancing from stone age to space age. Master of Orion is played on a nodal map, where ships travel from star to star but never meet in space. GalCiv is played on a tile map with collectable resources and goodies located in deep space. These are just the start of dissimilarities. I could go on for hours listing more.

Yet these games correspond in some respects. A single reviewer (I forget his name) coined the term "4X" to describe what he felt games from this genre have in common: the four "Ex-something" words you listed, as a description of gameplay.

Like all analogies, though, this one has its flaws. The list of similarities is incomplete, and the summary of gameplay elements is inaccurate. None of these games require you to exterminate anybody, nor to exploit others or any "resources". They only require you to expand. More importantly, these games have other things in common that get overlooked, because people act as if they have said something meaningful by referring to the 4X analogy. There are also similarities that bridge some games but not others. For example, both Civ and GalCiv play out on a tile-based gameboard, but MOO does not.

4X as a term has made its way in to the culture, but it's a bad deal for the genre. The analogy is a blight on these games, stuffing them in to a package in which they do not fit.

The hordes of people using the term are copying others. They don't even know why, at this point. The poetry of the alliteration is aesthetically appealing, even if the analogy itself is incorrect.

"4X" represents sloppy thinking. It's slick packaging, fluff, arising from a need to oversimplify things and appear clever in place of actually being clever.

For anybody who hasn't figured it out yet, I really dislike this term.


- Sirian

[EternalSpark]

Thus, Half-Life, which was made on the Quake engine but with, like, an actual story, a well developed plotline, extraordinarily detailed and credible playfields, and a strong dose of imagination and creativity, along with being heavily tested and polished.

Half-Life is a good example of minimizing Out-Of-The-Box thinking. It has good AI, but the bulk of the actual gameplay is good ol' fashioned FPS - find a gun, find a baddie, shoot it the baddie with the gun. Story, maps... not far removed from Doom. Talking models instead of pre-typed screens. Didn't matter, your job was to kill everything that hit you.

Most of what HL did was done before. In games that were too out-of-the-box to gain the attention of the gamer. Minimize these excursions, and the game becomes palatable to the gamer.

Thus, StarCraft.

You're aware that Starcraft originally had all three races completely equal? It was a leaked copy that forced Blizzard to change to the current incarnation, not any desire to mess with the formula.

You do need to draw lessons from their results,

The core lesson is that Out-of-the-box ideas tend to fail, unless they are done seldomly and in a way palatable to the average gamer.

4X as a term has made its way in to the culture

These things don't make their way into the culture for no good reason. 4X made it into the culture because that's what good games in this genre let the player do - explore (a pre-req to expanding), expand, exploit (do you build mines on Iron spots in Civ4? You're exploiting it. Or your workers when you rushbuild. Or build a base, since you're exploiting the land) and exterminate (If you win, you've exterminated your enemies, even if a shot was not fired).

[Shadowlord]

Originally posted by Sirian They only require you to expand.

- Sirian

In some, you don't even have to do that. Lately I've played two one-system-challenge games of MoO II, and won both (on the standard difficulty). Probably the custom race I made specifically for it is far far far stronger than the stock races. (It was something like this: Low gravity, large home planet, rich homeworld, artifact homeworld, -50% growth, creative, and one or two others, I think.) In the first game on a normal size map, my population and number of buildings were higher than the next closest player (with 8 systems) through most of the game. My tech was also MUCH higher, and my fleet strength too. In the second game, which was on the largest map size, the leader got ahead of me in everything but tech, but I still crushed him and destroyed all his colonies once I had all the techs.