MOO3 for 46.95 at Chips & Bit

[Spaced Cowboy]

Holy Spank Batman, I just saw it again, twice. I just followed the link and it's a pre-order. Weak! Like Chips & bits will get it to me before best buy will. Not that I'm dissin chips and bits, any on-line retailer won't beat the brick and mortar folks on this one, unless there is something that I do not know about.

Also on the prorder page on C&B shows win95/98 hmmm no XP??

R:PM

[Sarxis]

I saw the ad. Usually Best Buy puts new releases on sale a week or two after release.

I am hoping I can hold out for that..

[DarthVeda]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
You're honestly comparing Civ3 to CTP:2? lol!!

CTP:2 may have hit the bargin bins quickly but that happens when *any* piece of crap game is rushed out the door. Since Civ3 still isn't in the bargin bin I guess that says something, eh?

Anywho, I hope a demo is released for MOO3, but if not I'll buy it where I always do: EB, where I can uninstall it and take it right back if it sucks horribly, no questions asked...

Civ 3 is 10 times the load that CtP2 ever was.

[madmario]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
But GP, if everybody follows your advice how will you ever find out if the game is any good?

Trust the game rag reviews?

In this case, Stormhound has promised a review of the game. Read his review and some others and you will be making a relatively informed decision I think.

mario

[madmario]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
You're honestly comparing Civ3 to CTP:2? lol!!

CTP:2 may have hit the bargin bins quickly but that happens when *any* piece of crap game is rushed out the door. Since Civ3 still isn't in the bargin bin I guess that says something, eh?

It says something, but I think that something is up for grabs.

-mario

[Xentax]

Originally posted by madmario


In this case, Stormhound has promised a review of the game. Read his review and some others and you will be making a relatively informed decision I think.

mario

Reviews only do so much, IMHO, though that's partly because many are rather poorly written in terms of helping players decide whether to buy it or not.

To me, a good review should spend at least a little time explicitly focusing on what features of the game are there, and what kinds of players that might appeal to (or not). Also, while it's easy to list things that are "wrong" or less than perfect in a game, the overall impact of those shortcomings can be overemphasized in the process.

I'm definitely one of the ones looking forward to Stormhound's review. But, recognize also that your idea of a great game is not necessarily exactly the same as his, or mine, or Joe Gamer's; therefore, what's only say a "7" game to reviewer X might be a 10 for you, or (equally importantly) vice versa. A shoddy UI, for example, counts more for me than the average user (just one more reason of a zillion that BOTF irks the daylights out of me.

Yet another reason I wish a REAL demo of MOO3 (even a post-release demo) was feasible...

[madmario]

Originally posted by Xentax
Reviews only do so much, IMHO, though that's partly because many are rather poorly written in terms of helping players decide whether to buy it or not.

I couldn't agree more. There is very little accountability on the internet. Anyone can be published to the world for free. And I haven't found a gaming mag I would want to pay for -- my tastes are too selective.

I also agree with a lot of the other things in your post. That's why I suggest a variety of reviews. I like to read reviews by people who didn't like a game -- I want to know what they didn't like and why. If I can identify their perspective, their derision may be a plus for the game in my opinion. Or, as you suggest, vice versa. Even badly written reviews can be useful if I can identify how that person's perspective is similar to or different from my own.

I think you are identifying an interesting problem in the industry though. The industry relies on a lot of blind buying. The whole EULA requires the buyer to be blind. A) the publishers know no one reads the thing and B) buyers can't read the contract before they buy the product, which is often a pain to refund. I think something similar goes on in the marketing in general. You have to fight an uphill battle to be informed, totally. Maybe this is because games have a terrible shelf life.

-mario

[kziti kat]

Originally posted by GP
If anybody pre-orders, they are crazy.

-game may not be up to snuff...should wait for reviews.
-end up getting the game later than if you go directly to a store on opening day.

bingo.

[Xentax]

I tend to agree. I preordered a copy of Diablo II and ended up buying 2 more copies in the store a day sooner than it arrived (my gf wanted a copy too).

Sometimes, though, stores will completely pre-sell their stock, especially if they get less that first day than they were told they would. But around here, there are so many stores that sell games at the published dates, its unlikely to be a problem at all or even most of them.

[sleeperservice]

I think that moo3 will be cool

[moomin]

We all hope so, SS.

Nice nick BTW. Iain M. Banks reference?

[GodKing]

Saw the ad. Followed the link. Sale date was listed as September 1, 2002. Any word on if this is accurate, or just an estimate?

[Xentax]

All "preorder" dates for MOO3 are estimates, according to the QSI staff.

When there's an official date, I'm sure someone here will provide a link to the announcement, if the announcement isn't made here directly.

[- Groucho -]

But if you don't buy online, how will 'Poly make any money off the transaction? I try to buy things through 'Poly links when I can. I just pre-ordered WCIII, for instance. I know I could get it quicker if I went to a store, but it's being released early next week and I won't be able to play it till the weekend anyway, so why not give Dan and Mark some revenue and have it shipped to show up at the end of next week?

[TCO]

I just try to slip them checks...