It Feels Like Christmas Already!

[justin_sayn]

Guess who's publishing Masters Of Orion 3!
That's right...

http://us.infogrames.com/games/index.php?platform=pc_cdrom

[War4ever]

i think this is the wrong forum

[justin_sayn]

Actually...

Quite a few of the posters here have been saying how they would never buy another Infogrames game, and they have also been saying how they were eagerly awaiting Moo3, so I figured they would like to be informed of this little tidbit.

[BigNick]

Re: Actually...

Originally posted by justin_sayn
Quite a few of the posters here have been saying how they would never buy another Infogrames game, and they have also been saying how they were eagerly awaiting Moo3, so I figured they would like to be informed of this little tidbit.

Yeah, I'm one of them. This is a pity. I really wanted MoO3, but I was a little scared it'd have problems relating from overcomplexity.

If Infogrames is publishing, though, I'm a whole lot less likely to suck it and see. I think I might pass the game up on that basis.

[player1]

If somebody doesn't know, Civ3 is rushed because of MOO3.
So these two games won't compete with themselfs.

But, there is no third TBS game after MOO3, so I don't think that is will be rushed so much as Civ3.

Anyway, all big cuts where already done (Ethos, monsters, etc...)

Still, I am a little worried.

But not to much.

[Sencho]

Actually, there Civ3 and Moo3 were assigned different release dates so they wouldn't compete. Civ3 wasn't really 'rushed.'

Its sad to see that some would not buy a product because another product by a different developer didn't meet their expectations. Infogrames only published Civ3, they didn't develop it. Quicksilver is developing Moo3, Firaxis did Civ3.

And no, delaying Civ3 wouldn't have solved anything as publishers don't write blank checks on their investments. So Firaxis would have had to work during the 'delay' with no additional funding. If you're disappointed with Civ3 you should take it out on Firaxis for their decisions, not Infogrames for giving them the money to develop it.

At least IMO.

[Sencho]

Originally posted by player1
there is no third TBS game after MOO3,

Who said? Inforgrames hasn't announced any other games, but they also haven't announced they're stopping TBS games.

Anyway, all big cuts where already done (Ethos, monsters, etc...)

Still, I am a little worried.

The cuts to date have been big only in the coding and testing requirements. Very little has been cut from the players experience in the game. Ethos, for example, would have been nifty, but as a player it'd be on the edge of your radar. However, it touched everything, so it was a huge can of worms in terms of potential bugs. Thus, it got axed.

[player1]

Yes, Civ3 had a deadline.

But, at the end, it was Infogrames choice (not Firaxis) to:
-spend more funds and make better game
-release unfinished game (as it looks now)

There was similar thing happend to CTP2 (the game was actually killed by Activision).

I also think that moves like that could KILL TBS games at the end.

For so long time I haven't played good & finished Civ&Orion type of game.


P.S.
By rushing, I ment releasing unfinished project.
Infogrames is relesing Civ3, not Firaxis.

[player1]

Originally posted by Sencho
Who said? Inforgrames hasn't announced any other games, but they also haven't announced they're stopping TBS games.

There is one danger here.
For example, if Infrogames wants from Quicksliver to develop MOM2.
It is possibile that they decide that they should not fund after-relase MOO3 "fine-tuning" (pacths, XP etc..), and decice to give all money on MOM2.
That way, if MOO3 still has any crucial bug, decign or AI flaws, they won't be fixed.

That has happend to CTP1, Activision swiched immdiately developing of
CTP2 just after two unsufficient patches.

Of course, this is all speculation.

Anyway publishers are MUCH more reposable for ANY game then designers.

[Sencho]

Publishers are more responsible for funding to develop the game. The developers are more responsible for the ideas and quality of the product.

Deadlines don't just jump up and surprise the developers. I'm not privy to the individual details, but trying to convince a publisher that they need more money and will deliver the product late has got to be hard.

Personally I think Infogrames should be applauded for having the stomach to force a developer to get the product out on time. Otherwise you'd might end up in a Battlecruiser scenario where the game just lingers forever.

Have faith, there's a lot left in the air at this stage.

[ravagon]

Re: Re: Actually...

Originally posted by BigNick

If Infogrames is publishing, though, I'm a whole lot less likely to suck it and see. I think I might pass the game up on that basis.

I'm a little more optimistic. I'll be almost certainly getting it on pre-order unless our US beta-tes ... er, friends who get it first give it absolutely shocking reviews before it gets here.
This is however, in spite of IG doing the publishing. Certainly not because of it.

[player1]

Originally posted by Sencho
Publishers are more responsible for funding to develop the game. The developers are more responsible for the ideas and quality of the product.

Deadlines don't just jump up and surprise the developers. I'm not privy to the individual details, but trying to convince a publisher that they need more money and will deliver the product late has got to be hard.

Personally I think Infogrames should be applauded for having the stomach to force a developer to get the product out on time. Otherwise you'd might end up in a Battlecruiser scenario where the game just lingers forever.

Or if you relese game to early, it dies out like Call to Power games.

Thats my sad negative expirience.
Those games (CTP1 & CTP2) had a lot of potential.
But Activison just wanted to release it to early & without proper patching.

Is Infogames decision right?
I don't know.
If Civ3 is propely patched & palyers still play it then its OK.
But if it ends like CTP, then it isn't.


I just hope that something similar doesn't happend to MOO3.

[Sencho]

One major difference you and I have seems to be the perceived quality of Civ3. While I disagree with some of the decisions Firaxis made (combat, no naval leaders, scarcity of commodities, the diplomacy window only displaying 8 max, modern era feels rushed, and the "rampant corruption threshold" being too low) I think Civ3 is a solid game all the way around. I have seen no crash bugs of any sort, and the AI is well above average, if a little stubborn.

Civ3 won't knock Moo3 or even EU2 off my list of favorites, but it's a great soda & pretzel game. IMO.

[player1]

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that Civ3 is bad, only that it is a little unfinished (non-finished editor, no starting locations on Earth Map, which is also poor done, some units don't become obsolte, some other are poorly balanced, Air-supperiority bug, etc).

IF it gets a proper patching it would be OK.

Still there are many disapointed Civ2 & CTP veterans which will not buy it becouse of these flaws.

So the only question is:
-Will there be more patches to correct some errors or not?

P.S.
I ugre designers of MOO3 not to make game rused or unfinshed.
If there is not enough time to implement something don't cut it in last minute (that must be done much before). Last minute chages can only make things worse.

For now I can enjoy Civ3 and hope for patches.
But next year, I expect MOO3 to be better (more original, finished on release, and more fun).

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by player1
Yes, Civ3 had a deadline.

But, at the end, it was Infogrames choice (not Firaxis) to:
-spend more funds and make better game
-release unfinished game (as it looks now)

There was similar thing happend to CTP2 (the game was actually killed by Activision).

I also think that moves like that could KILL TBS games at the end.

For so long time I haven't played good & finished Civ&Orion type of game.


P.S.
By rushing, I ment releasing unfinished project.
Infogrames is relesing Civ3, not Firaxis.

Sorry, you're wrong.

Infogrames gave Firaxis a deadline they wanted the game done by. Was it Infogrames fault that Brian and most of the development teams left Firaxis? NO. Was it Infogrames fault that Civ3 was not designed as YOU wanted (as opposed to the folks who seem to like it fine)? NO.

Civ3 was a game that Infogrames paid Firaxis to make and produce. If you want to complain about the game not being done or being "rushed" maybe you need to look at Firaxis and question their internal problems and a possible poor game design. Neither or these issues was caused by Infogrames, but by FIRAXIS.

Quit blaming Infogrames because of mistakes Firaxis made. Sure Infogrames could have postponed the release of the game, but then they would have lost money because FIRAXIS failed to produce what they should have to begin with.

Sorry to be the bearer of reality for you but companies are paid to produce products on time, not when they feel like it. If Firaxis could not do so then the sole blame for the problems of an "unfinished game" are theirs alone, NOT Infogrames.