What to chose GalCiv or MoO3?

[krait23]

Well I gotta say I have never bought a game that has disappointed me more than MoO3. Probably because I am normally a very selective buyer and usually test things out before I get them. Failed to do so for MoO3 because I just couldn't believe it possible to create such a ... mess... after a near perfect predecessor and that long a development time.
And I think I am far from the only one who suffered that same fate. The really crappy titles are probably not expected to be something they aren't, thus don't get this amount of bad reviews. What sparked my review was not the games lack of quality, but mostly the disappointment and the knowledge that many people would have the same expectations I had. Just have to keep those from making the same mistake I did. If this game had been released under a different title I would not have reviewed it at all because it is playable and apparently fun for some people, even if not for me (Well actually more likely I wouldn't have reviewed it because I wouldn't have gotten it in the first place). But intentionally deceiving tons of MoO2 fans with the MoO3 title would get zero starts from me if that was possible.

Lata
Krait

[Grumbold]

Sure, some awful titles are just quick attempts to cash in with no effort made to create quality. An awful lot of them are linked to blockbuster movie francises though, so the same level of expectation and disappointment will be experienced by fans. If only the same quantity of time, effort and money were spent on both there would not be a problem but that is rarely the case.

[Maverick88]

Here's the breakdown of MoO3. It's for intelligant people. People that can analyze and comprehand the gameplay. 1st person shooters are fun but MoO3 is for those who make plans and implament them. The AI is awsome although most says it sucks. In truth the AI algorithums act upon the info and instructions given by the player (the AI doesn't suck, the players do). None of the diplomacy is random. I've heard people who say their "ally" suddenly declares war on them for no reason. False. One such ranter said "I sent a TF with 15 ships to check up on my ally". Imagine how that would look if the "ally" did that to the player. Mainly the AI follows the Golden Rule. Also, different situations require different policies, some don't grasp this simple concept. Those that simply click will get screwed. AT LEAST CHECK THE ECONOMY. The only gripe I have is the incredibly complex user interface and lack of instructions. But a player can puzzle this out and once the mind goes *click* players are able to do just about anything.

[Maverick88]

All games have their flaws. MoO3's are the interface and some would say the divergance of game style. But It has 4 great +'s.
1) The senate were you can end up getting squashed.
2) Complex diplomacy.
3) Macromanagment makes people (me at least) feel like a ruler. I say "do this" and it is done on a large scale.
4) Huge space battles.

Some things that can get you screwed if not careful in diplomacy.
1) A speices has better relations with a speices you're at war with and they side w/them.
2) If you get real big and powerful your relations worsen with everybody (jealosy).
3) You are framed so well thet you have no knowledge of this.
4) You sanction an embargo against a friend of your ally.
5) Your two races' beliefs are too different for a lasting relationship.
6) You claim a system they had their eye on but did not claim.
7) You send too large of a patrol or fleet through their space.
8) You disregard a senate policy or law.
9) Members of the senate that don't vote.

[krait23]

Originally posted by Maverick88
Here's the breakdown of MoO3. It's for intelligant people.

You ain't getting yourself any friends and don't increase your credibility much with this statement (especially with that typo in there :P). I consider myself fairly intelligent, and the people I mostly hang out with are pretty damn smart. I loathe FPS or any other twitch games (even RTS, where clicking fast is usually more important than thought) for the most part (CS in a LAN with other people of mediorce skill can be fun, or maybe in single player if the game has an exceptionally intiguing story, but thats about it). I analyze any game I play in depth. If there is such a thing, I am a scientific game player. By far my favorite game style is turn based strategy. Because thinking things through matters more than being fast with the mouse. Yet I hate MoO3, and I don't know anyone in person that doesn't hate MoO3 (Well, maybe one. Though he played it once and now its collecting dust, that ain't love either).

I could just as well say it is for stupid people. For those people stupid enough to waste time and energy to find some fun in a game with an utterly unintuitive interface, crappy feedback, serious lack of control, complete lack of any valuable documentation and on top of it ugly graphics which by themselves wouldn't be bad but really don't help to make a bad game better.
Or maybe for those that are too stupid to manage anything themselves and are glad that the AI does it for them?

I think it would be much more appropriate to say it is a game for people that always want something new, do not mind ceding a lot of control to AI, and can ignore detail and only worry about the big picture. Which has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Rather with a personal style preference.

Lata
Krait

[Hagbart]

I would get Moo3 because of the nice box, but I have not played any of the games. I'll probably buy Moo3 some time or another.

[gb705]

Of MOO2 and MOO3, which is more similar to civ, and which to, say, Space Empires IV? I am trying to decide which to get.

[krait23]

MoO2 is definitely much closer to SEIV than MoO3. Also closer to Civ, but if you want a game thats close to Civ, Galactic Civilizations is your best bet.

Lata
Krait

[Grumbold]

MoO2 is effectively MoO1 squeezed into a more Civ-like mould and there are very strong similarities.

MoO2 has its need to micromanage everything like SE IV. MoO3 outdoes even SE IV for sheer scale while MoO2 is smaller.