Is MOO3 going down the drain?

[Werwurm]

Squaresoft publishing a PC strategy game.. oh yeah, that would be great, lol. (Dear God, please help me.. )

[Sarxis]

Infogrames also did/does the Independence War series.

BUt before I got I-War, I had never heard of them either. They are a big company though, and I think they are more well known in Europe.

[LordEd]

As much as we bash Civ3, the AI really is worlds better than any I have seen before in a turn based strategy game. Firaxis at least kept its commitment to a great AI. Hopefully, MOO3 will feature some of the same good points (and none of the bad). Optimistically...

[SnowFire]

Heathen! First of all, publish is a different thing from develop, and SquareEA I'm sure has a very compotent publishing network. Second of all, if you meant develop and have creative control and interest, you need to play Final Fantasy Tactics. Not a PC Strat game in the grand sense, but still very good (it's RPG-Strat- same as Front Mission 3, actually). One of the finest games ever produced, I might add.

[Spaced Cowboy]

I voted for the banana box version. I have a coffee table in my living room that I can't put stuff on cuz I only have one banana box to hold up one side of it.

Actually, I'll be real happy if the AI is good; it seems like that is were most designs now-a-days skimp.

R:PM

[Comrade Tribune]

Definitely looks like the answer is yes.

There is an old English proverb: 'Men, not measures.' My optimism concerning Orion III was closely related to the people doing it. With Alan Emrich and Stormhound axed, my confidence is null.

[Garth Vader]

If we assume that the governors will suck then it sounds like the HFOG will actually be better than IFP.

To use the CIV 3 example if I have a choice of having all my cities build privateers and swordsmen because I am out of IFP's to change them each turn, or be able to build what I want with 80% corruption loss. Then I will pick the 80% corruption because at least I will eventually build what I want!

Although I would have still preferred an IFP system with good governors, it would have made MP more interesting.

[loinburger]

To think that I was one of the people who was lobbying for an MOO3 forum.

Never again, I say. Get excited about the game when it's released, and not a moment sooner. Anything else inevitably leads to disappointment, a la the "Civ 3 list of ideas that loinburger put a fair amount of time into and which Firaxis promptly ignored upon receipt of package." Bah.

[Skanky Burns]

Never again, I say.

[Master Marcus]

No doubt they can make a solid AI, as good as Civ III's if not better, but what really interest me about it is how adaptive it can be by today's technology ( and of course the time devoted to develop it before the deadline ) and next to Civ III where the AI toughness on higher levels against the player relies almost only upon productivity cheats ( science, production, military support, growth bonuses ). I sincerely hope for less bonuses in MoO3, but where the AI can make aggressive actions or not against the human player based on diplo integrity, how "noble" you are in peace time and how "clean" you are in war-time, and how strong is your expansion -- not only how fast or how many units you have ( of course there's a minimum needed ).

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Master Marcus
...AI... as good as Civ III's if not better,

It better be, um, better than Civ3's!

[Skanky Burns]

I agree that it is necessary for the AI to be better than Civ 3's, as your empire is also controlled by the AI to a certain extent.

[Urban Ranger]

When Emrich, one of the founders of QS, got the axe, you can tell the company is up the proverbial shits creek without a paddle.

I was one of the few people who found the grand scheme of QS for MoO 3 questionable, for they seemed to have bitten off more than they can chew.

Say what you want about Firaxis, but both Sid and Braggs are vets of the industry. They decided financial reality is more important for a company than any game design written on paper. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about QS.

Of course, Infogrames seem to be run by a bunch of bean counters who don't know what makes a good game if it hits them in the head. But they have been around for a long time, ever since Alone in the Dark became a hit in the early 90's. IMO, the game sucked.

[markusf]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
When Emrich, one of the founders of QS, got the axe, you can tell the company is up the proverbial shits creek without a paddle.

I was one of the few people who found the grand scheme of QS for MoO 3 questionable, for they seemed to have bitten off more than they can chew.

Say what you want about Firaxis, but both Sid and Braggs are vets of the industry. They decided financial reality is more important for a company than any game design written on paper. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about QS.

Of course, Infogrames seem to be run by a bunch of bean counters who don't know what makes a good game if it hits them in the head. But they have been around for a long time, ever since Alone in the Dark became a hit in the early 90's. IMO, the game sucked.

ya but there is a differnce, firixas is totally incompetent.. Normally the testing phase is supposed to take as long as or longer then the development phase. Firixas released civ 3 with some of the most basic functions not working! Air superiority etc.. Firaxis has released the most buggy software i have ever seen!. QS just needs to get something out the door that is bug free...

[Skanky Burns]

Normally the testing phase is supposed to take as long as or longer then the development phase.

Thats probably the only statement you made that isn't entirely false.