QS screwed up the MOO3 project by being too ambitious

[Straybow]

Maybe some of these things were cut jprecisely because they only alotted a certain amount of effort and said, "Don't concentrate on this, but if you find a good way to do it without drastic expense we'll devote more of the budget to make it happen." I got the feeling that's what killed Ethos.

[TCO]

better planning ahead of time would have saved a lot fo work.

[LDiCesare]

Originally posted by GP
better planning ahead of time would have saved a lot fo work.

Yes. Do you know a single project for which this is false?
I believe that putting lots of innovative ideas in and then taking out what doesn't work is the best way to make an innovative game. Anyhow, until the game is out, we can't say whether it is a success or not, and you can't say a delay in the delivery is a failure because, once again, most projects are late.

[Master Marcus]

Adios Revolucion?

[TCO]

Originally posted by LDiCesare

Yes. Do you know a single project for which this is false?
I believe that putting lots of innovative ideas in and then taking out what doesn't work is the best way to make an innovative game. Anyhow, until the game is out, we can't say whether it is a success or not, and you can't say a delay in the delivery is a failure because, once again, most projects are late.

It is not a digital situation but one of degree. How many new ideas should you put in and how long should you let them stay in the pipeline? This project was poorly managed in terms of initial weeding. I bet some QS guys would agree with me.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: QS screwed up the MOO3 project bybeing too ambitious

Hey, that's what I have been saying since Day 1 of this forum.

Stop stealing my line

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
I believe that putting lots of innovative ideas in and then taking out what doesn't work is the best way to make an innovative game.

That's absolutely correct.

The only problem is this should be done during the design stage, when everything is still on paper.

[madmario]

AI

I think a lot of the cut issues point towards the very, very complex AI in the design document. I think there is a reason why every automated build que manager I've seen has sucked monkeys, and I don't think the answer is, "because they wanted it to."

This is a very hard thing to handle. They might have underestimated only this in the design stage, or not even underestimated it -- just they had a lot of trouble getting it to go, and because of budget, they had to let it go and everything related to it.

Now this doesn't explain why everything was changed, but it does explain most of the changes people care about -- others may be related to this, because they couldn't get the AI to handle the origional idea or what have you. It is easy to imagine this disjunction between "what is wanted" and "how hard is it?" at the design stage, and I don't blame them for being overambitious at that stage either. Molyneux had a very very ambitious vision with Black and White - probably too ambitious as well; however, I believe he financed that project himself.

-mario

[TCO]

I hope Alan has learned something from this. If he learns, than maybe he will do better on the next project. If not, I doubt he will be gettting many more projects.

[Urban Ranger]

Alan has no experience programming. His best bet will be to team up with a veteran programmer next time.

Maybe he can join Firaxis and learn a few things from Sid

[TCO]

I hope Vel takes note from this. Just being a grognard and a smart guy and a critic of the game iindustry is not enough to "do it better". I worry that he also will not understand the issues of cost benefit and of program management.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GP
I hope Vel takes note from this. Just being a grognard and a smart guy and a critic of the game iindustry is not enough to "do it better".

That's the truth.

[Ozymandous]

Re: QS screwed up the MOO3 project bybeing too ambitious

Originally posted by GP
Better program management would have cut a lotof the new concepts a long time ago. It is both a waste of time and unbalancing to the game. Far better to make MOO 2.5. That is something we will like. Just fix the bugs/cheats. Add some better graphics and new options.

Phew, who want's Moo2.5? The same people who wanted Civ 2.5 instead of Civ3? If you make a sequal then make it BETTER then it's predecessor, which Moo2 was NOT better than MOO1 (IMHO).

Why make another crappy version of the game (MOO2.5) based on a title that was worse than the original?

(SInce you're trolling, there's your response; )

[DanS]

I wonder whether they had playable models of these new concepts? Were the models fun?

GP will get his MOO 2.5, so it isn't quite a "screw up", at least if you weren't the one funding the project.

One thing to keep in mind is that even the all-dancing, all-singing Sid has a Dinosaurs now and again...

[TCO]

It would have been a better 2.5 if more realistic design had been made from the beginning. They have had to rip huge parts of the design out. looks like that was all wasted effort. Maybe it will impact parts of the project like graphics and AI.

Bad work...