What to chose GalCiv or MoO3?

[krait23]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST


And then,
after playing GalCiv put it away,
as many other people seem to have done,
according to what I read.

Not nearly as many as those who did that after MoO3 from what I read

And at least they played the game rather than the game playing them

(I put GalCiv away too, but it was still a hundred times better than MoO3)

Lata
Krait

[Proteus_MST]

Yo, but many play MOO3 again after the patch,
as it fixes a lot of the issues which pissed people off

[krait23]

I wonder how true that is...
Noone I know plays MoO3 anymore, even after the patch...

And reviews haven't improved either...

Lata
Krait

[Proteus_MST]

Were there any Reviews post Patch?

[krait23]

Well customer reviews at amazon for example...

I don't believe a single word of any 'official' reviews anymore anyway...

Lata
Krait

[Grumbold]

I can't think of anything less trustworthy than the sort of biased customer rants you tend to get on Amazon. I find the sort of serious reviews you get after a game has been out a few weeks are the most reliable. The initial love/hate frenzy that even affects impartial journalitsts has worn off by then. Black & White taught me that lesson.

[krait23]

I find the amazon customer reviews to be pretty accurate for MoO3 though. A few people love the game and give it 4-5 stars. Most are extremely dissappointed that it bears no resemblance to MoO2 and is otherwise not exactly user-friendly and give it 1-2 stars. That is a good breakdown of the reaction I have seen to it all over the net. And it is actually even a more positive reaction than that from people I know personally, only one of my friends actually liked MoO3, be it pre or post patch...

Lata
Krait

[Grumbold]

Its only got 19 comments and half of those have just slammed it in a couple of lines because it wasn't MoO2 with better graphics. Thanks but I'll stick to more reliable sources.

[krait23]

Well it had quite a few more reviews back before Amazon decided to delete all of them when IG became Atari....
And what can I say... it deserves being slammed for not being MoO2,5 because that isn't what it is but that is what most people wanted and expected (When you got 'Near Prefection' why the heck remove the 'Perfection' instead of the 'Near'?).
I know that you didn't want it... But I think most did. That is why I think Amazon is a pretty representative review source. A few 'Grumbolds', and a load of disappointed MoO2 fans... And every MoO2 fan who reads through there will know that the game is not for him, while any 'Grumbold' will most likely ignore the bad reviews and use the neutral or positive reviews to decide whether he wants it or not (Its not like the game would be perfect even if it wasn't labeled MoO3, just too many interface issues).

When there is only one or two reviews there I tend to not neccessarily trust them. But when there are more than a dozen or so and I can see a consistent trend with them, I tend to believe at least some of them, either good or bad. And don't tell me people only review things they think are bad. Look at MoO2 reviews for a good example against that. I think it all depends on the scope. If its just not so good, or if its just ok, it wont get reviews. But if its exceptionally good or exceptionally bad, it will get reviews, and these reviews will prompt the opposing side to write some too.

Lata
Krait

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by krait23
I know that you didn't want it... But I think most did

I don´t think that it is that I and most other people who like MOO 3 wouldn´t have liked a MOO 2.5.
After all I can say for myself, that I liked playing MOO2 and, with larger Galaxies and maybe some other Improvements I would still play it.
So that´s not really the point. If it had been MOO 2.5 we very probably would have liked the game, too.

But I think for many people who don´t like MOO3 it is of great importance to get a MOO 2.5 and so they have problems to see, that MOO3 has its own qualities, because they are too disappointed that it isn´t MOO 2.5
(whereas I and other people who like it just have accepted that it isn´t 2.5. but a somehow different game )

[Grumbold]

The problem, even if you are a MoO2 fan, is that Amazon reviews have no objectivity or relativity. I looked up a few of the most pointless, bug ridden and poor value games I could think of. All but one of them had significantly better ratings than MoO3 according to the minority of Amazon customers that bothered to review them. That is just laughable. At least professional reviewers are expected to rate the whole game and compare it to the industry at large, not just score it at 20% because it failed to live up to their own ingrained prejudice.

Proteus has already covered that well. Sure I'd have loved a MOO 1.5 or a MOO 2.5 but I reject the notion that MOO 3 should be marked down because it isn't either of those two games.

[Turk Man]

if this was moo2 or galciv,it be moo2

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Grumbold
The problem, even if you are a MoO2 fan, is that Amazon reviews have no objectivity or relativity. I looked up a few of the most pointless, bug ridden and poor value games I could think of. All but one of them had significantly better ratings than MoO3 according to the minority of Amazon customers that bothered to review them. That is just laughable. At least professional reviewers are expected to rate the whole game and compare it to the industry at large, not just score it at 20% because it failed to live up to their own ingrained prejudice.

MoO3's rating is pretty dead on. It was a game sloppily put together and sold incomplete. Even the creators admitted it. They tried to put too many concepts into a project they didn't have time to complete.

If your willing to ignore the glitches and make a game work then you could enjoy MoO3, GalCiv's more playable and easier to grasp but its not quite as cutting edge in some details as MoO3.

MoO3 had a lot of concepts that were great, and if Quicksilver had another year or two to work on it it probably would have been an awesome game. As it turned out it is as pathetic attempt and not much more. And Amazon's rating shows the reality of the game's worth.

[Grumbold]

Now look up games that were so bug ridden or useless that you returned them after 12 hours, even if you had to claim they crashed your computer to do it. Of all the ones I thought of, Amazon scored them higher.

I agree that Moo3 had great concepts. The result was not the most playable game ever but it certainly wasn't pathetic and now with the patch its actually pretty solid.

[TimeTraveler]

Buy whichever game is less expensive, so that if that game turns out to not be your style, you hopefully wouldn't have wasted too much money on it.