Anyone still really Enthused about MOO3?

[TCO]

How many hours have you spent playing Civ2? Do the math on $/ pre hour. It's a lot less than movie costs, etc. 80 bucks is no big deal for a good game.

[moomin]

Yeah, I agree. Gaming is a hobby with a spectacularly low cost/h. I'd happily pay a hundered dollars for a great game.

But most software houses would have to get thier act together in that case - nobody's gonna take paying that kind of money for haöf-finished betas.

[wmtrexler]

How many hours have you spent playing Civ2? Do the math on $/ pre hour. It's a lot less than movie costs, etc. 80 bucks is no big deal for a good game.

That is very true. I personnally would rather spend $80 one time the pay an annual subsciption fee for games such as Shattered Galaxy. If you compare the $ per hour I am getting off cheap.

[moomin]

dp

[Rantz]

Originally posted by strategy
But frankly, what do QS care? After all, how much the game sells will not depend on the fans or how good it is (no judgements on that), but rather how many people they can get to buy the game based on the strength of its name and the reviews/adverts.

Well advertising certainly helps sales, as do good reviews, but how good a game is... more importantly (and why MOO3 has been going through design revisions/tuning) how FUN a game is makes the difference between ok sales and GREAT sales.

In this day and age, information and word of mouth spread like wildfire and a lousy game won't make its ROI through ads alone.

do we care? absolutely. Do we want this to be 'just another game?' no. But rule one in game creation, in actually putting the thing together, is how FUN is it?

Ideas are a great thing, but if it's not FUN, if it doesn't add to the game, and simply detracts from it, well then it's a product suffering featuritis. Features for the sake of having features, not because they are any good.

Hopefully, come Q3, you'll feel that we've taken the right path.

[TCO]

game score match

[strategy]

Yes - Civ2 I'd have happily paid $100 for (at least until they destroyed the AI with their patching). But for every Civ 2 game that is released, there are thousands of crappy products being released. Why should one pay $50 for 12 hrs of frustration, and then have to pay another $30 just to get it to work in a semi-sensible manner?

[TCO]

How many hours of fun will you have after the 30 addition?

Do the total math: 80 bucks for 100 hours is not that bad. 80 cents an hour. For example.

If you are really worried about games being buggy, etc. and about wasting your money, wait for reiviews.

[DanS]

To be a nit, Civ 3 only cost $40, IIRC. Even with one expansion pack costing $25 or whatever, that's $65 total, not $80 total. $65 is more in the "customary price" range.

In another thread, it was brought up that the Civ3 package could be viewed as an introduction to the expansion packs. This would seem to support IG's pricing scheme, although not the product in the box. If you're taking this view, then it makes sense to have a very stable, fun game at square one, even if a little light on features.

From a management perspective, I would use the expansion packs to build out some of the artwork, sound and story. I count 13 artists/animators on the Firaxis team (out of 32 total). That's a lot of people to be on the clock at the early stage of any project.

QS seems to have had a lot of the artwork done, with gameplay and programming trailing behind (I would be happy to be corrected on this point). Perhaps I would have led with developing these features rather than the artwork.

[madmario]

Re: Amusing...

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Why is everyone so down and expecting the worst? None of you (or I) have even PLAYED a demo, much less the full game, so how can you say the game "sucks" (to paraphrase almost EVERYONE) without having every even SEEN it???

Um. I don't think the game sucks -- I don't know what it will be, but I am cynical and suspicious.

Part of this certainly has nothing to do with QS per se. I was very dissapointed by CTP2 and CIV3. This certainly affects my perceptions. QS is of course its own company, but is this a trend in the hobby? There have been a number of dissapointments lately for me. Is this a trend from certain publishers?

I am also cynical because of the kind of language used around the game. There are a lot of spaces in between the lines of what has been said officially about the game. Certainly, the game is being reworked and isn't ready for play, so of course there can't be too many specifics. Still, I am wondering how the game will be significantly new or different. The games I return to are getting older and older -- I haven't discovered a "classic" in a while.

I am also suspicious because of some of the things that have happened around the company lately. Not just some necessary personell decisions, but of course those factor in too. Who can talk, who can't, some of the forum moderator treatment, all this looks, well, suspicious.

And for the record, while you toss around ad hominems, yes I do have a regular freaking life. I post here occasionally since I enjoy the way this forum is separate from say, a "house organ" (as someone else put it). What the heck is up with posting for people to stop posting anyways?

I don't think the game is the second freaking coming. But I do like games and like talking about things I like.


-mario

[moomin]

Re: Re: Amusing...

Originally posted by madmario
The games I return to are getting older and older -- I haven't discovered a "classic" in a while.

Yup. I've noticed this worrying trend as well. It's not nostalgia either - when I boot up an occasional game of MoM, MoO or X-COM they still rock.

[strategy]

Originally posted by GP
How many hours of fun will you have after the 30 addition?

Probably zip. By the time the addition comes out, I've usually long since shelved the game and gone on to other things. I already know the best strategies to defeat the game. And I've never yet seen an update change a game so much that one couldn't use the "old" strategies (or a slightly modified version) to defeat the game+addon. So essentially, all one ends up playing for is a few new units, new graphics, and possibly a multi-player add-on which is useless because all one's friends have also long since shelved the game (playing a bit of devil's advocate here ).

Just to be clear on one thing; I don't think MOO3 will suck (at least I hope it won't). I will most likely buy the game within a short while of it coming out (assuming the reviews are not too worrying), simply because I like many of the concepts in the game.

Another thing that you may have mistaken: I actually think the Civ3 addon might be worth the money they'll be charging for it. It certainly sounds like it will include some interesting changes/additions. But then again, I've not bought Civ3 yet, and probably won't buy it until they release a combined game pack at regular price.

Do the total math: 80 bucks for 100 hours is not that bad. 80 cents an hour. For example.

Sorry - can't recall when I've last had 100 hrs of enjoyment out of a game. EU was actually not bad, but most of the time ended up being spent arguing with the developers on ways for them to fix the AI and some of the game algorithms (which did succeed in making the game better, IMO, but why the heck should it be required?)

Civ 2 maybe? MoO and Civ, certainly. X-Com - also, though I only ever finished one game. Gold Juno Sword in the V4V series. I'm not sure I can count many more strategy games that have been anywhere close to a 100hrs worth to me personally. YMMV.

If you are really worried about games being buggy, etc. and about wasting your money, wait for reiviews.

Nah - I prefer to make my own. That way I know what I get.

[Ozymandous]

Re: Re: Amusing...

Originally posted by madmario



Um. I don't think the game sucks -- I don't know what it will be, but I am cynical and suspicious.

You may want to look into that, since not believing everything you hear isn't usually bad, being overly wary might mean you have issues with something other than games.

Part of this certainly has nothing to do with QS per se. I was very dissapointed by CTP2 and CIV3. This certainly affects my perceptions. QS is of course its own company, but is this a trend in the hobby? There have been a number of dissapointments lately for me. Is this a trend from certain publishers?

Well I agree, I was also disappointed with CTP2, and initially with Civ3, until I played it more and grew to see some of the smaller features they put in the game that radically alter how it works from Civ2 (which is a GOOD thing to me since IMHO, Civ2 was Civ1 with better graphics and I had played Civ1 to death years before).

Hrm, you're disappointed by two games and wonder if this is a trend? Do you buy very many games a year? Do you usually take the stance of "these two products didn't live up to my expectations so I think the whole billion dollar industry is going to hell" very often? lol!

You might want to either i) not place all of your hopes/dreams/fantasies in a game unless you develop it yourself, to be sure it has EVERYTHING you want, or ii) take the game as it truly *is* and then judge if it's worth the price or not and stop holding what was actually published up to some arbitrary standard you have that the publishers may not have even considered in how they wanted to make a game, any game.

I am also cynical because of the kind of language used around the game. There are a lot of spaces in between the lines of what has been said officially about the game. Certainly, the game is being reworked and isn't ready for play, so of course there can't be too many specifics. Still, I am wondering how the game will be significantly new or different. The games I return to are getting older and older -- I haven't discovered a "classic" in a while.

Be sure you aren't placing your own perceptions about the game in the place of facts about the game. As has been said in the past NO OTHER developer has ever allowed the public to be this involved or to know this much about how designing a game works, and QS has said they won't do this again, mainly (in my view) because of how the public blasts them without having any real facts in what is going on other than vague second and third person acounts.

Hmm, you complain that the game won't be new or different, yet that's exactly what happened with Civ3 compared to Civ2 and you said you were disappointed? What are you wanting to be new and different? Obviously want new and different only if it doesn't compromise the "core issues" of the game, yet if they keep the core the same you'd not get anything new except graphics and fluff. If you only get graphics and fluff as new, then of course you'd complain the game hasn't changed. Catch-22 situation IMHO.

One of the problems with human nature is we tend to glamourize the old familiar things we like, even if they are worse than something new, because of perceptions we have, not necessarily because something way back when was better.

I am also suspicious because of some of the things that have happened around the company lately. Not just some necessary personell decisions, but of course those factor in too. Who can talk, who can't, some of the forum moderator treatment, all this looks, well, suspicious.

This is the case of internal policies that aren't internal anymore. In my job peple used to come up and ask me questions about some issue or another. I'd give a response and the next thing I knew I was "speaking" for my department, something which my manager didn't like much, so I was told to watch what I said to people. The same thing is happening here in my view. SOme people, who don't speak publically for the company, have taken liberty to say things they shouldn't, or when told to watch what they said, obviously didn't.

Just because people were told not to say anything doesn't mean anything bad is happening per se, just that a company or department has to have only ONE official speaker, to say what the company wants said, and this was not happening here, so steps were taken to rectify the situation. We may not like the situation, but it happens all the time, trust me, nothing suspicious about it.

And for the record, while you toss around ad hominems, yes I do have a regular freaking life. I post here occasionally since I enjoy the way this forum is separate from say, a "house organ" (as someone else put it). What the heck is up with posting for people to stop posting anyways?

Heh.. My post wasn't to get people to stop posting, but to stop acting as if they had all the facts and making blanket statements as if they were based in stone, when no one, outside QS knows what's really going on. Some people are way to fixated on how they think a *game* will make their life so much better and these are the folks who need to get a better hobby or stop obscessing quite so much.

I hope that explaination was better.

I don't think the game is the second freaking coming. But I do like games and like talking about things I like.

I like games as well, but I like to wait and see how games are once they've come out and been published because until that time anything can change in the design, and even after the game is out the design can change (Blizzard loves to do that to make up for their crappy play-testing ), but speculation on how some change will "ruin the game" without having it to playtest ourselves is too much "Chicken Little" syndrome IMHO. That's the point I was trying to make.

[TCO]

Originally posted by strategy


Probably zip. By the time the addition comes out, I've usually long since shelved the game and gone on to other things. I already know the best strategies to defeat the game. And I've never yet seen an update change a game so much that one couldn't use the "old" strategies (or a slightly modified version) to defeat the game+addon. So essentially, all one ends up playing for is a few new units, new graphics, and possibly a multi-player add-on which is useless because all one's friends have also long since shelved the game (playing a bit of devil's advocate here ).

Change your strategy than. Wait for the XP to come out, so you get a complete game. Wait for reviews, etc.

[madmario]

Re: Re: Re: Amusing...

Originally posted by Ozymandous
...not believing everything you hear isn't usually bad, being overly wary might mean you have issues with something other than games.

Clearly you think I am being "overly wary." I do not.

Hrm, you're disappointed by two games and wonder if this is a trend? Do you buy very many games a year? Do you usually take the stance of "these two products didn't live up to my expectations so I think the whole billion dollar industry is going to hell" very often? lol!

No. I mentioned two games appropriate to this forum and that required little explanation. Of course there are other dissapointments! For instance, while I liked Black and White, I was very dissapoined by the support for the game -- months for a patch. It was produced by EA (you could ask Richard Garriot about EA dissapointments). SFC command II was a terrible dissapointment - hello dynaverse II? I also thought the later patches to simgolf screwed the gameplay -- although I never went back so maybe it was fixed. There are others. Furthermore, I am dissapointed by the number of poor games on the market that I don't buy. I only indicated two because I didn't want to list a bunch of off topic games.

You might want to either i) not place all of your hopes/dreams/fantasies in a game unless you develop it yourself, to be sure it has EVERYTHING you want, or ii) take the game as it truly *is* and then judge if it's worth the price or not and stop holding what was actually published up to some arbitrary standard you have that the publishers may not have even considered in how they wanted to make a game, any game.

Well, why don't we just close apolyton. Why bother talking about what we like and don't like? Why bother having a forum before a game comes out?

I have found at least one other person here who thinks the "classic" games are getting older and older. I am here to talk with people like him, not argue with you. I think that is a potentially interesting tidbit of conversation.

If I buy the game, I will play it and see if I like it. I like a variety of games, not just computer games either. I do take games on their own merit. I am a gamer! Tabletop gaming is basiacally game design for a closed audience.

We are just talking about what we have. My biggest issue with your post is that you make personal attacks instead of just adding to the discussion. This problem of course isn't isolated to you, but that is another topic.

Be sure you aren't placing your own perceptions about the game in the place of facts about the game.

At this point I know very few facts about the game. I know a few facts around the development of the game, and having read accounts around other games, I am skeptical.

Hmm, you complain that the game won't be new or different, yet that's exactly what happened with Civ3 compared to Civ2 and you said you were disappointed?

I didn't find the gameplay in CIV3 to be terribly different. There was culture, but culture is basically another weapon of expansion. Diplomacy was refined -- nice. But it was also primarily a tool of expansion. The game-play was very similar. ICS still was the way to go. Expand and do not invest in a handful -- invest as broadly as possible. Numbers. The various forms of winning boiled down to a similar formula with a little twist at the end. I felt that there were only a handful of effective ways to play the game -- maybe there were many subtle differences, but I didn't feel like it. Everything was about get bigger. There wasn't a way to come back from behind, certainly not for the computer. There was little incentive to not expand effectively and quickly.

There were other dissapointing elements to CIV 3 for me but that's a whole other thread.


A game that did not dissapoint me was EUII (I did not buy its predacessor, though). I fee there are a number of valid ways to play that game. It was also different from other games to be interesting and intriguing. Goals are different for a minor state, like Ragusa, than say England -- but I can have fun playing either of them. Now, that isn't to say I don't have any issues with the game -- I do!! I bring it up to point out I am not a misanthropist, err misgame-ist, err.. umm, impossible to please.

What are you wanting to be new and different?

If I knew the perfect answer to that question, then I wouldn't be buying games. I would be making them. But different might be different valid strategies vis-a-vis pervious games. Like, if you could play a perfectionist culture, and have it be as effective a an expansionist one. Or if you played a mercantile state. Or if you could comeback somehow. If the game was less, well, linear. Choices. Give and take. Hard choices. Nuance in those chioces. Micormanagement is a big deal too. It's a very hard balance to strike in terms of design, I am sure.

Obviously want new and different only if it doesn't compromise the "core issues" of the game, yet if they keep the core the same you'd not get anything new except graphics and fluff. If you only get graphics and fluff as new, then of course you'd complain the game hasn't changed. Catch-22 situation IMHO.

Maybe it is! There's a cool discussion thread! I don't know what "core" stuff is. I don't think about that -- I think in terms of "is it fun?" Something too similar won't be fun because it will be old. I've already been there, done that. I am not exploring something.

One of the problems with human nature is we tend to glamourize the old familiar things we like, even if they are worse than something new, because of perceptions we have, not necessarily because something way back when was better.

I don't know what is intrinsically human nature, but I know about the nostalgia you are talking about. Yeah sure.

Sure. That these "classic" games are getting older could simply be me suffering from nostalgia. Certainly. The industrty is changing though. It has changed a lot, and it is changing all the time. Are these linked? I think so. Look at how many bad games come out that I don't buy -- that I hope no one buys. How do they sell? Why do they sell? How do they make money?! However it is, it is different from how and why games sold in the past.

On a related note, how was it that CIV 3 was released missing a major gameplay element -- air superiority? Am I supposed to imagine that was simply a mistake? What would have happened if it was a new game from an unknown developer?

Something is going on there. Is this something affecting MOO3? Can it not? To what degree then? I am not sure. But I am skeptical and cynical as a result.

Just because people were told not to say anything doesn't mean anything bad is happening per se,

I agree that nothing is clearly wrong. But I would take issue with the idea that things are clearly not wrong either, especially with the fact that there have been a number of these incidents. Thus, skepticism, cynicism.

Some people are way to fixated on how they think a *game* will make their life so much better and these are the folks who need to get a better hobby or stop obscessing quite so much.

Yeah but we're here talking about games. That's the point of these forums. I don't care why people are here! I only care about their ideas. You also spoke in very broad terms about people on the thread. I find personal attacks to be weak in terms of ideas.

...speculation on how some change will "ruin the game" without having it to playtest ourselves is too much "Chicken Little" syndrome IMHO. That's the point I was trying to make.

Hey, I agree. I didn't say anything was ruined with certainty. I am skeptical and suspicious. I wish I was more suspicious about some games I bought, like the CIV3 special edition! And here we have the same publisher! Was that not a fast one they pulled on us? Am I supposed to forget that? IG might like me to.

I agree with some of yours sentiment, but personal attacks are just lame.

-m