So...is it good, yet?

[The Mad Monk]

MoO2 got me into the TBS scene, and I still play it to this day; needless to say, I was looking forward to the sequal.

Reading these forums the first couple weeks after release was quite a shock, to say the least. After a while, it just got too depressing and I quit looking.

I don't feel like looking through all the threads and getting all depressed again, so would someone be kind enough to answer the question here? Thanks.

[Sir Alkis]

Many people criticized this game because they didn't understand it. This wasn't entirely their fault, the game is complex and the documentation poor to say the least.

My humble opinion, after I have played it for many hours (hundreds) still is .... it isn't good enough. I don't like it enough to play it anymore.

I will just enumerate certain parts of the game that need a change. They are many, pirates, unrest, social spies, spies in general, diplomacy, counter offer, AI behaviour, DEA building, appending fleets, micromanagement etc etc. Of course if someone is determined to play it he can choose a mod or make one of his one. I never play modified games.

My humble suggestion is, wait for the patch and then look again here.

-

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Sir Alkis

My humble suggestion is, wait for the patch and then look again here.

Mad Monk, you'll be really mad if you buy MoO3 in its current state (I couldn't resist). Wait for the code patch and see if the game improves. Of course, that patch seems as though it's always on the horizon ...

[The Mad Monk]

Ah, well...I'm patient. As a Diablo2 fan, I know all about waiting for patches.


Thanks.

[krait23]

And even if properly patched, it will never be an improvement of MoO2. (This is not saying whether its better or worse than MoO2, just stating that it has very little in common with MoO2. The apple and pear thing. Though in my opinion MoO2 is an excellent apple while MoO3 is a foul pear).
Too many key features have been warped beyond repair or were completely left out. And even the code patch does not seem to address those things (the awful wannabe-tactical combat and ship design for example. I still can't understand why they didnt simply put in a 1:1 conversion of MoO2s ship design...).

It might be a better game if its patched, and maybe a few more people will like it, but I am afraid that even the final patch will not make it likeable to most MoO2 fans...

Lata
Krait

[Doomed]

Don't try to compare it to Moo2, it is a completely different form of TBS that just happens to share some of the race names, technology names etc as Moo2.
To the detractors of Moo3 I will conceed that it is awkward to use and the current enemy AI is feeble. However, there are lots of 'new' TBS features that make this game intrigueing and (for me) enjoyable to play, especially multiplayer.
I would suggest that if you can pick up a budget copy of Moo3 and accept that it is a new game and not an expansion of Moo2 it would be worth trying this game.
Oh, and wait for the patch to be released as well, as it should solve many of the gripes that people have of this game.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Doomed
I would suggest that if you can pick up a budget copy of Moo3 and accept that it is a new game and not an expansion of Moo2 it would be worth trying this game.
Oh, and wait for the patch to be released as well, as it should solve many of the gripes that people have of this game.

The patch is the key. My real problem with MoO3 is its bugginess. There are some new and good ideas implemented here. MoO3 is more like MoO1 in that the emphasis is on macromanagement. If the patch fixes the bugs and smartens up the AI this should be a solid game.

Having said that though, the time delays on MoO3 followed by the time delay on the patch leave me questioning the competency of QS.

[Grumbold]

Yep, and I'd be surprised if they clear everything up in one patch. I'm hoping the first will clear up the true howlers. If we see them commit to a second code patch then I have hopes that the game will truly fulfil its potential. Will the beancounters think it worthwhile?

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Yep, and I'd be surprised if they clear everything up in one patch. I'm hoping the first will clear up the true howlers. If we see them commit to a second code patch then I have hopes that the game will truly fulfil its potential. Will the beancounters think it worthwhile?

Thats the $1M question, isn't it? The beancounters at Activision decided to cut CtP2 loose after one sad little patch. Here's hoping the beancounters don't drwon this one.

[boolybooly]

So in answer to your question, no.

[Ghostbear]

Sales

Does anyone know what the sales look like for MOO3?

Does anyone believe the patch is going to attract a bunch of new sales?

Given how long this patch is taking, I have to think that either 1) they are going to use up whatever patch budget exists, or 2) they've only got one person working on the patch.

In any case, I'd say confidence was low for a second patch.

[Doomed]

I read a quote from QSI that they had several people working part time on the patch, and I have read quotes from three (I think) programmers who are working on the patch about the work they are doing on it.

As for how it is selling I know that it was not in one of the top ten charts for last month.

[Ghostbear]

Hmmm

So, it would seem that either there is a small patch budget (hence the part time), or they have people laying around with nothing to do.

I'd guess the small budget.

Anyway, given the extremely long time its taken them to get out the first patch, it doesn't look good for a second.

We can hope though.

[Kahn]

Not to disappoint...

Remembering all the hype and missed release dates sustained for so long before MoO3 came out, it would seem that Quicksilver is on track with "the patch".

Who knows? Maybe this is some new experimental Kafkaesk marketing strategy... hype the game for years, release it with bugs; hype the patch for years, release it with... Well, you get the picture.

[The Templar]

Ha ha!

This thread is still going on?