Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

QS screwed up the MOO3 project by being too ambitious

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • QS screwed up the MOO3 project by being too ambitious

    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.

  • #2
    Could a mod fix my title spelling?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: QS screwed up the MOO3 project bybeing too ambitious

      Originally posted by GP
      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.
      Probably significantly cut costs, too. No need to hire any designers if you're just using the old design. No need to program new AI when the old AI is more-or-less sufficient. Etc.

      I'm disappointed that MOO3 is probably just going to be MOO2.5, but if QS had planned on releasing MOO2.5 from the start (and only charging fifteen bucks for it instead of fifty) then I'd probably be inclined to buy it. MOO3 would have been worth my fifty bucks, and MOO2.5 would have been worth my fifteen bucks, but there's no way in hell that MOO2.5 is worth as much as MOO3. Now I'm gonna have to wait for the game to hit the bargain bin before it becomes a wise purchase.
      <p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>

      Comment


      • #4
        well it's about time we had some negativism in this forum....
        Co-Founder, Apolyton Civilization Site
        Co-Owner/Webmaster, Top40-Charts.com | CTO, Apogee Information Systems
        giannopoulos.info: my non-mobile non-photo news & articles blog

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MarkG
          well it's about time we had some negativism in this forum....
          Hey, I thought my post was pretty positive. I said that I'd probably be willing to shell out fifteen bucks for the game, didn't I?
          <p style="font-size:1024px">HTML is disabled in signatures </p>

          Comment


          • #6
            Is it a sequel or a remake?

            People get them mixed up.

            Civ3 is a remake, while SMAC was the sequel to Civ2.

            When doing a remake, change little, tweak, repaint...improve gameplay.

            People say, you can't do that, it has to be new, have new concepts nobody will buy it if its just a the same thing made better.

            These people are wrong. You don't reinvent the wheel, just make a better one.

            Moo3 was to ambitious. Trying to be a sequel and a remake at the same time. It was going to suck and they are taking steps in the right direction. Good move.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jimmytrick
              Is it a sequel or a remake?
              According to the storie on the official website, it would be a sequel.
              Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!

              Comment


              • #8
                There's nothing wrong with ambition. If it doesn't pan out every time, oh well, it was a gamble, but I am CERTAINLY glad that there are still people out there who want to take gambles like this. And who knows, Moo3 isn't dead yet.

                I mean, even when you have something really darn close to a perfect game design like in Heroes II or III, I'm glad they didn't just rehash it again in Heroes IV and expanded outwards- because I already own Heroes II & III and don't need to buy it again.
                All syllogisms have three parts.
                Therefore this is not a syllogism.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It may've been too ambitious from the start but the release date being pushed back is a good thing. More time to fix bugs & tweak gameplay (hopefully not more time for cutting though ).

                  As it stands the planetary development, economic, ground combat and construction aspects represent a significant step forward. As are the galaxy size and (hopefully) the space combat model.
                  I think I'd give it at least a Moo2.7 at present although a $50 price tag will turn into $110 here ...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I agree... I remember hearing about it for the first time... My first thought was they are going to ax half of this, and it'll be hard as hell even to take half of it and make a game that will be completed in less than 5 years .

                    That being said, they cut out what I most liked what I read about... ethos. After that, I adopted a wait and see attitude.
                    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think it is normal that some stuff get axed. Should it have been axed before? Probably not, because you have to play in order to know what the game will be like.
                      But adding new concepts is a must. I don't give a **** about graphics, and I still play MOO from time to time. If QS want to sell MOO3 to a large public, they need these new features.
                      Clash of Civilization team member
                      (a civ-like game whose goal is low micromanagement and good AI)
                      web site http://clash.apolyton.net/frame/index.shtml and forum here on apolyton)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Its also probably at least somewhat normal with ANY game development, not just sequels and remakes, that uptil you've had a chance to work on things for a while, you really don't know what you can and can't do.

                        Not to say that some things just can't be done with a game, but sometimes the current state of computers won't allow it, or a really good idea is just taking too long to fine tune into something workable.

                        I'm sure its a really fine balancing act between starting out overly ambitious (and being forced to cut things out) and not being ambitious enough (and either ending up with a so-so game, scrambling at the last minute to add more, or both).

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by MarkG
                          well it's about time we had some negativism in this forum....
                          Just driving the traffic into non-OT forums...in my innovative way.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I have no problem with trying things and with having some cuts/changes druing playtest.

                            But the problem here was that way too much new stuff was put in...and it was left in way to long. A more disciplined/less ambitious apporach would produce a better game. There is only so much money to dedicate to the project. If you waste it, than it hurts normal needed parts of the game (AI development and graphics/goodies).

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Good point, but I still don't want to see Moo2.5. I played 3 games of Civ 3 because it was too much like Civ1.5.

                              Moo and Moo2 are quite different and that's why I have played both games far more times than I can count. That is what I am looking for in Moo3 as well.
                              Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Obi Wan's apprentice.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X