So, MOO3 = MOO2.5?

[Eurhetemec]

I remember, many moons ago, when the Delphi MOO3 was just starting up, when there were to be 32 races, IFPS, Ethos was in it's first incarnation, and so on, that Alan Emrich said, repeatedly, that what he wanted to avoid was MOO3 simply being MOO2.5, particularly in the face of all the people who thought they wanted that.

There were so many great ideas, so many ways in which MOO3 was to be more than a mish-mash of the first two games with better graphics.

The focus of the game seemed to be on the eXperience, that being the experience of managing a galactic empire, where not everything would always go your way, you didn't have total control, and you had to make hard decisions. This was to be beneficial to multiplayer, too, as no-one could take that long, and turns would pass swiftly.

The ideas of the game seemed to be revolutionary, not evolutionary, especially in combination, and all contributed to that 5th X, the thing that would differentiate MOO3 from what had come before, and raise the bar for turn-based strategy forever.

I'd list the features we've lost, but that's been done elsewhere. Suffice to say, virtually all the 5th X elements, or so it seems to me, have either been cut from the game, or made into

So what are we ending up with? I think that, quite accidentaly, that Australian gaming mag which leaked the alpha, summed it up very well on it's cover "Master of Orion 3 - Civilization 3 in space". Civ III, was. for my money, a totally evolutionary product, which really was just Civ II with prettier graphics, tweaked gameplay, and an even more cheaty AI. Only tiny elements like the new way of doing aircraft changed anything, and in many ways it was inferior to Alpha Centauri.

Civ II and SMAC remain on my HDD. Civ III is long since deleted...

Sad, really, I've watched this project from the near the beginning, on and off, and it's had more potential than any other game I've seen in recent years, but steadily, every interesting and original feature seems to have been cut, and revolution turned into evolution, and what we truly have is exactly what Alan wanted to avoid (which certainly explains his leaving), that being MOO2.5, or perhaps MOO2+MOO1...

Of course, I could be nuts, and MOO3 could still contain significant revolutionary features, but I sure as heck can't think of what they are...

So to add another thread like this, but it seemed to me no-one had really mentioned how completely MOO3 has turned in on it's goals...

I should add that, for those crowing about how it should always have been MOO2.5, they may want to "go eat a bag of hell". The project was ambitious, and I may be a lowly computer science student, but more ambitious projects have succeeded.

More time and, not being sold on halfway through development were what MOO3 needed, not cutting to ribbons, which is what has happened...

[moomin]

True, much of the things we heard about and hoped would revolutionize the genre where cut. I'm as sad about that as anyone.

But let's face it; if they come up with a solid mix of the best parts of moo1 and moo2 with an occasional clever idea of their own, we should be grateful too.

It's not like there's an infinite choise of good TB space strategy so that we can afford to spurn a possibly solid contestant just because it a lesser breed than once expected.

[Eurhetemec]

I appreciate your sentiment, but why should we be grateful, and to whom? To Infogrames, who cut the project's funding and have been generally foolish? To Corey Nelson, who fired Emrich, whined about their own mod choices, and so on?

To Emrich, all of whose features were cut, more or less?

To Hasbro, long since gone, but who started the ball rolling in the first place on MOO3?

Really, apart from Rantz, whose excellent artwork and so on will still be in the game, and, no doubt, some less prominent but hard-working programmers, artists, and so on at QSI, there seem to be few people left with the project to be grateful to!

I am grateful to the brave people who attempted to make MOO3, only to have the rug pulled out from under them after new management assumed control (no doubt saving it's own ass in the process), and heck, I'll probably still get MOO3, purely because of Rantz' teams great artwork, and Rantz great creature design and so on.

I mean, as you say, there's not a lot of choice in the space TBS sector, but I do wonder if my gratitude wouldn't be better expressed by sending money directly to the programmers and artists rather than to Infogrames, Corey Nelson, et al, who killed MOO3...

So who did you mean to be grateful to?

[moomin]

I really meant grateful in the generic sense of the word: Moo3, even if it turns out to be nothing but Moo2.5 is still a good thing to have.

The gamer might stink, or it might not. It might be very good, even. Should it turn out good, or even very good, although evolutionary rather than revolutionary, I'll be grateful to everyone involved in the process of designing, programming, distributing and financing the game. TB 4x space is my gaming of choise, and there is pretty little being offered in the genre these days.

Would I prefer if Emrich's original design had survived? You bet. Would I like it if totally new gaming concepts had revigorated the genre? Definately. But as the fates would have it it won't - which I may add is certainly something which Emrich/QS must bear the brunt of responsibility for, missplaning the development effort as they did - so the only thing we can hope for is a solid, playable and stable contestant. If delivered, it will have to be enough.

And if the game does stink, you can still be grateful to the compulsive early adopters who'll jump on the game on the day of its release and tell you to save your hard-earned cash when they find out the sad truth.

[Lemmy]

The gamer might stink

gamers don't stink

[moomin]

Originally posted by Lemmy


gamers don't stink

You, Sir, have obviously never been to a copyparty.

[TCO]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
I really meant grateful in the generic sense of the word: Moo3, even if it turns out to be nothing but Moo2.5 is still a good thing to have.

The gamer might stink, or it might not. It might be very good, even. Should it turn out good, or even very good, although evolutionary rather than revolutionary, I'll be grateful to everyone involved in the process of designing, programming, distributing and financing the game. TB 4x space is my gaming of choise, and there is pretty little being offered in the genre these days.

Would I prefer if Emrich's original design had survived? You bet. Would I like it if totally new gaming concepts had revigorated the genre? Definately. But as the fates would have it it won't - which I may add is certainly something which Emrich/QS must bear the brunt of responsibility for, missplaning the development effort as they did - so the only thing we can hope for is a solid, playable and stable contestant. If delivered, it will have to be enough.

And if the game does stink, you can still be grateful to the compulsive early adopters who'll jump on the game on the day of its release and tell you to save your hard-earned cash when they find out the sad truth.

Very well put. Especially pertaining to your point about the compulsive early adopters.

Unfortunately many of the gamers on these boards seem to act like children grabbing at toys...

[DanS]

Will MOO 3 be fun? Why don't we focus on that? Has IG played many builds of the game and seen for themselves whether it's fun or not?

Really, we're getting too abstract for my tastes. If the stuff was fun, IG should have given QS more leash. If it wasn't fun, then IG should have shut down the operation much earlier.

They're making games, not widgets!

[DanS]

Was Grand Theft Auto III a GTA 2.5?

[tishco]

gta 3 was good because it was gta 1.3D

[Eurhetemec]

DanS - No, it really wasn't. GTA 3 was actually a revolution, because the change from vaguely 3D vertical perspective to true 3D third-person, with first person shooting, a proper sense of up and down, heavy physics, and so on, completely changed the gameplay, in practice.

The ideas behind the game where the same, drive around and kill people for money, basically, but the execution was so utterly different, and whilst some ancient ST and Amiga games may have had similar elements, nothing recent has, really.

Add in boats, airplanes, firing from the car, sniping, the changes in the lives/arrest system, and you end with a completely different game. It's a poster-boy for a revolutionary change to an extant series, much like Ultima Underworld to Ultima 6/7, and further, it shows how revolution beats evolution, because it's sold zillions of copies, and paves the way for evolutionary GTA 4, and perhaps 5s, or other spin-offs...

As for fun, it's important, but it's not everything...

Lots of games are "fun" at first, especially .5 sequels, because they take something you already like and improve it. It's just that this time, you get bored in half the time you did last time...

Some people are content to play the same game over and over forever (many people on this board, I daresay, given how TBSes are probably the best "forever" games), and heck, I'm still playing Civ II occasionally, Diablo II, and SMACX, frequently, so I know the feeling. Unless we get proper change and advancement, not just revised versions, however, there will never be another Civ I, another Master of Orion, to shock us and give us a new generation of games...

So unless MOO3 is fun in the *long term*, I say to hell with it. It's almost certain to be fun in the short term...

Of course, if we want revolutionary, we should probably be looking at Republic...

[tishco]

what i meant was that gta 3 was nothing like gta 2, dark and futuristic, it was the original feel and city, fun

[DanS]

"and further, it shows how revolution beats evolution, because it's sold zillions of copies"

Precisely. Good innovation is rewarded.

As for fun, it's important, but it's not everything...

Don't think I could disagree more with you. There is no reason to be in the game business if you're no good at making fun games, and especially if your primary goal isn't to make fun games.

[Eurhetemec]

DanS - But you probably think every movie should be an enjoyable romp, too?

Or am I being unfair...

Either way, what, exactly, makes a game "fun"?

I don't think it can be pinned down easily.

Many people enjoy EverQuest, for example, say it's fun, when it seems to be the antithesis of fun, frustrating, time-consuming, dull, ugly, and boring. Yet they enjoy it, the freaks.

The game was never designed to be fun, it was designed to be addictive.

Tomb Raider, again, fun was not at the forefront of the design, but making the gameplay addictive and playing up the main character, and so on. Indeed, I know from insiders that they went out of their way to make it a pain in the ass at some points.

Hmmm, am I proving your point?

Also, "fun" is the leading excuse for cutting out complicated and/or clever features from games, and it's utter BS. Just because it will reduce the "fun" for some 50-year-old new-to-computers loser, doesn't mean it will reduce *my* fun, quite the contrary, but...

This is what it comes down to, one man's fun is another man's boring, and thus saying all games should be fun, is meaningless, because trust me, someone, somewhere, enjoys every game made.

I know this from personal experience. I greatly enjoyed Jurassic Park: Trespasser. I was probably the only person in the universe who did, but I did...

I also think that if you're saying "fun" should be the main goal of every game designer, games are never going to get very far. Entertainment is good, and important, but games can be as valid as any other media, so it seems to me kinda like saying every song should be happy, or something...

Hmmmm, either way, fun is an elusive goal, and often confused with addiction...