What's wrong with MOO3 (Review)

[Kahn]

I thought "Castles" pre dated 2k, though I'm getting old and the years seem to pass quicker now. Though your source lists Castles (1) as being developed by Interplay (though I would take your word over the site's as Interplay has always been a publisher rather than a developer).

The one bad thing about the internet is that it's pretty hard to find info such as this before ~1996. Heck, I even went back to one of my publishers (The Wargammer) and they had no record for "Castles".

So the correct answer is 2!

[Vince278]

Originally posted by muxec
Is something wrong with review? Any replies?

1. Its too long.
2. All of it appears to have been said before (many times).
Or to put it all together: I got tired of skimming it looking for something new and original.

Other than all that it was a good review.

[Tassadar500]

Good review. I am definatly waiting for MOO4.

[Daz]

That could be quite a wait...

[Vince278]

I'm still waiting for MOO3.

[krait23]

Originally posted by Vince278
I'm still waiting for MOO3.

Ahh so sad but so true...

[Grumbold]

I don't think its a review so much as a list of things you don't like. Some of them I agree with, others I don't, but I've made all the points before. Since GalCiv has bad graphics, a clicky interface and lots of depth not explained in the manual either I can't see why you recommend GalCiv as a 'better' TBS if you disliked MoO3 unless there's more to it than the points you raise.

[muxec]

Originally posted by krait23


Ahh so sad but so true...

If you quicksilver you will never get Moo3/4

[muxec]

Originally posted by Grumbold
I don't think its a review so much as a list of things you don't like. Some of them I agree with, others I don't, but I've made all the points before. Since GalCiv has bad graphics, a clicky interface and lots of depth not explained in the manual either I can't see why you recommend GalCiv as a 'better' TBS if you disliked MoO3 unless there's more to it than the points you raise.

The apperance of GalCiv is worse a little, but the interface is intuitive, and the strategy is deeper. (Based on GalCIv demo, still downloading full GalCiv). And GalCiv is more civic

[krait23]

Originally posted by muxec

If you quicksilver you will never get Moo3/4

I just hope that some other, better, team will do MoO4. Just like MoM2 (still hoping for that, but NOT from QS please).

Someone who does not feel oblieged to reinvent the wheel.... (I might not be the greatest fan of GalCiv but I think their dev team did a hell of a job. That game really has a soul and is very intuitive, even if lacking in certain parts. It also has a certain 'old' feel to it like a game designed in the mid 90ies or even before, but I don't really think thats bad. Most games made back then are far better than what is made today ).

Lata
Krait

[Tassadar500]

Sad but true. That is the same with many things now.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by muxec

The apperance of GalCiv is worse a little, but the interface is intuitive, and the strategy is deeper. (Based on GalCIv demo, still downloading full GalCiv). And GalCiv is more civic

All things considered, I believe Space Empires IV Gold may still be the best 4x space game currently out even though it has been out for quite a while. Still, it may be a while before I set aside MOO3. I think the oldest game on my PC that I still play is X-Com (1993).

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by krait23
Someone who does not feel oblieged to reinvent the wheel....

I believe it is vital that games always seek to stretch beyond existing parameters and try something new. Even in an established series. Of course we would all prefer that the majority of good ideas make it into the finished product and that the majority of bad ideas fall by the wayside, but inevitably that does not always happen. If they don't at least try then all we would get are more C&C, Doom, flight sim and football management clones.

All the games I have played a lot in the last five years have been revolutionary or very evolutionary. SMAC, EU, Combat Mission, EverQuest, Asherons Call and others come to mind. Anything that has been too similar to what has gone before has failed to live up to expectation, so its been played a bit then chucked on the shelf to gather dust.

There are a thousand developers out there who play safe, design with the tried and tested patterns in mind and abide by the 'keep it simple' motto. I'm very glad that IG/QS strove to be different and really give us a game where running a thousand planet empire was possible and manageable despite the vast number of details because each planet was itself complex and unique. They aimed high and fell tragically short. I'm going to be hoping that someone has the courage to attempt another big leap soon, because if someone comes out with yet another Moo2/Imperium Galactica/Pax Imperia clone I shall no doubt buy it but be bored rigid after completing my second game.

[krait23]

I (obviously) believe that games, especially those in a series of games, should always retain what worked well in previous versions and only improve that which did not work so well. Not change everything at all costs so you got something new all over.

One of the games I spent a lot of time with this year was Icewind Dale II. It was great (just like the previous BG titles were, but I think its even a bit better). The BG Saga is a good example of a series that gets better and better with each part, but still stays very close to the original game. My roomate is playing BG1 again atm, and I am now playing BG2 again, and recently finished IWD2. Comparing them directly there are so many, sometimes little but important changes (You can really make out the evolution that took place when you play those three titles more or less at the sme time), yet when playing IWD2 you still completely feel like playing a BG game. I think this is the way things should work.

They also made Neverwinter Nights, which is a completely different game. And they did NOT hide it behind the 'Baldurs Gate' label. I believe it was reasonably successful anyway (I don't like it too much so I don't really know much about it).

Guess it comes down to whether you are a 'conservative' player (like me, who likes IWD2 a lot and doesn't like NN too much) and a 'progressive' player like Grumbold (who would probably like NN and not like IWD2 so much if he liked the BG games at all).

And MoO3 is a feast for progressive players and a slap in the face for conservative ones...

Lata
Krait

[Hydro]

The developers of Moo3 took a risk and tried to give the otherwise moribund TB game genre something new. Most people are conservative and don’t like some or all of what was new since they expected Moo2.5.

I applaud the Moo3 team for their attempt since the TB game genre seems to be stale or dying. I am also disheartened that there were aspects to what could have been a great game that antagonized so many – very poor documentation, slow responsiveness (with the patch), features with dubious value.

After spending much (perhaps too much) time with Moo3 I’ve decided I like the game, and I hope the non-beta patch makes it better. I’ve tried GalCiv and it seems a bit thin; yes it is intuitive, but Moo3 is much richer. I am alone in this since all of my friends who have tried Moo3 have run away screaming, and that’s too bad. Moo3 has so much potential, and I think it is a shame that this effort might drag down the Moo title.

Hydro