What is going on???

[Mikel]

Could someone who has been following the recent progress of MOO3 step forward and share a quck rundown with the rest of us.

What has been cut?
What has been changed?


A lot of posts have claimed that the heart of the design has been ripped out. That doesn't sound good. So what is really going on?

[moomin]

QS messed up. They came back to their publisher saying they couldn't deliver on schedule. Publisher got mad and ordered sacking half the team, amongst others lead designer Alan Emrich. The rest ripped out every piece of the game not yet done and are working their tail off to ship what's left in Q3.

That's what it looks like from the outside anyway. Fasten your seatbelts, gentlemen.

[TCO]

Great. Sounds like the publisher is getting screwed by the devleoper. Because of all the time wasted, they will get a worse game than expected. Probably QS and IG will both lose money on the deal. Just great Emrich...the "lose-lose" solution!

[MarkG]

danger: ugly translations of greek phrases ahead



1) three little birds sitting

2) when you're outside of the dance, you know many songs

[moomin]

I kinda get the gist of the second one, but what's the first supposed to mean?

[timorange]

Originally posted by moominparatrooper
QS messed up. They came back to their publisher saying they couldn't deliver on schedule. Publisher got mad and ordered sacking half the team, amongst others lead designer Alan Emrich. The rest ripped out every piece of the game not yet done and are working their tail off to ship what's left in Q3.

That's what it looks like from the outside anyway. Fasten your seatbelts, gentlemen.

That is SO far from the truth, it's hilarious.

1) Both Infogrames and Quicksilver reviewed the game in Q1/Q2 and BOTH deemed it unplayable. Hard-core strat gamers could not figure it out. So they jointly decided that changes needed to be made. They also wanted the game to be FUN. Go figure.

2) Half the team did not get sacked. The design phase of the project was over in Q1, hence the lack of need for two of the designers.

3) Every piece of the game "not yet done" did not get ripped out.

I think there were a couple of announcements stating all this stuff on QS's official web site.

[moomin]

Well, you may be an insider, but I don't think so. Unless I'm wide off the mark you've just given a brief precis of the official statements. And you know, we've actually read them as well already. But kicking the main designer in normally Just Not Done, so we feel free to do some creative interpretations over here.

[roalan]

Jerks

Don't listen to the whinners. The game will be better then ever with out all the extra crap they were going to include to make it unplayable except for those nuts that need to manage every creature that exists on a planet,including growing their own crops, by hand.

[Clear Skies]

Oi, I resent being called a nut

Call me a hardcore SF idiot, but I would've preferred to see more storyline in MOO & MOO2. The interludes in SMAC give it a nice atmosphere...

[Rantz]

Just an FYI. Officially there was never a lead or head designer on MOO.

There were people that were more visible and less visible, and folks who were more vocal and less vocal, but the design of MOO was very much a team effort.

To state otherwise is doing a disservice to the men and women who have worked their butts off on it.

[roalan]

nut

I should rephrase what I said. MOst 99% of gamers want to play a fairly uncomplicated game that will not takt the rest of there lives to play. The game companies for the most part realize this and tend to make the games easier and with less micro management that is to say if the companies have the brains to realize this. Because sale is the bottom line and to sell to a few grognards will put them out of business real quick. Unless you are in it for the hobby and only need small sales then manageing each soldier in a division is fine. But if you are in business to make a PROFIT and produce more then one game then you must carter to the majority. Most people want the computer to feed the troops,mow the lawn and plant the seeds and I am one of the many who want the computer to run the errends. If I play a game like Pacific War I shure as hell do not want to manage every plane and ship in the world plus each company of troops. I may take one small area and do this and let the computer ,under my supervision, take care of the rest. AND even with that it takes 150 hours to play the game.But we wargamers are a group unto our selves anyway. MOO3 is a Strategy game and not a war game.

[TCO]

Rantz,

1. Having a "team" is not mutually exclusive with having a "head designer".

2. What was Alan's role on the team?

3. If you feel we are getting it wrong, tell us a little more about what is going on. Shoot. Of course, we don't have all the details and have to speculate. But the reticence to talk about some of these issues (layoffs, game design changes, etc.) tells a story in itself. Anyway, we may be taking it TOO EASY on you, because of lack of knowledge also...

[Rantz]

Originally posted by GP
Rantz,

1. Having a "team" is not mutually exclusive with having a "head designer".

Never said it was. Simply stating that Alan was not ever Lead Designer for MOO3. MOO was designed as a team design effort.

[SIZE=1] 2. What was Alan's role on the team?

Alan was one of the designers, and he's great at ideas, communication and words, so it became obvious very early that he would be the likely choice to 'get the word out' in terms of communicating with the fans and such.

I couldn't even break in down blow by blow as to who wrote what, or who designed what because so many people contributed to it.

[SIZE=1] 3. If you feel we are getting it wrong, tell us a little more about what is going on. Shoot. Of course, we don't have all the details and have to speculate. But the reticence to talk about some of these issues (layoffs, game design changes, etc.) tells a story in itself. Anyway, we may be taking it TOO EASY on you, because of lack of knowledge also...

it's not a reticence to talk about issues. especially in term of the design revisions. The design got completed, and we started the tuning/editing phase. Until we had actual details pinned down in terms of our assessment of what 'felt right' in terms of gameplay, we thought it premature to say 'oh we're doing this...' when it might turn out, no we're not.

layoffs are company business. It is a tight time in the games industry. I get about 10-20 resumes from artists a week that have recently been laid off.

It obviously is not a preferred option, and obviously you would rather keep folks on staff, but the fact is, when you are a small company with a need to keep a minimal overhead, the amount of time you can keep someone on staff who is not directly billable at 100% to a project is minimal. I'm not using Alan as an example here, I'm saying that is an axiom of the realities of the workplace.

We've recently gotten to a point where we can talk about the game some due to solidification of elements, and time becoming more available. Hopefully, you'll find more information and discussion in the near future... (note the Apol interview as an example)

thanks for your interest.

[TCO]

Interesting reply. Didn't think I'd get one. Got to give you credit for some balls.

1. I don't know how we got confused regarding Alan's title. Seems a little funny that we are just getting straightened out now. Or maybe I'm the only dunce who didn't understand that and it's just a GP thingie. If I was screwed up I'll be happy to admit it.

2. I'm interested in learning more about the "team approach". I would think that having a (good) head designer specifically designated would add sanity/clarity to the project. Doesn't mean that you can't have a "design team". But means that there will be some leadership. A leader can focus the team's efforts and can help interact with non-design functions. My experience (lots of "team projects" in the business world) has been that formless teams are very inefficient.

3. Could you make some comments on the project management aspects? Specifically, did you all try to do too much? Did you leave too many features in too long? From the outside, one might wonder if a strategy of "pruning more earlier" (being realisistically limited in approach) would have been more effecient--delivering both better bottom line results and a tighter game. My worry (from the outside) is that lots of time and money were wasted. This could damage both QS and IG financially. And could also result in a worse game for the fans. You may want to reply to my earlier thread (admittedly provacatively titled) on this subject.

[LDiCesare]

roalan, some of the whiners actually whine because they are afraid there will be more micromanagement than initially expected (IFP cut). Note also, that I am not advocating IFPs. I am just afraid a system that used them to avoid micromanagement may be hard to macromanage without.

Rantz, GP has a point about leaders and team work. I can't think there was no leader. If there wasn't any, then it is little surprise that you had to delay the game and tune it longer. You can still do team work with a lead.