Gamers.com "lackluster" report

[Zealot]

RPM in today's market I expect the best in every aspect. That was what Moo2 was. The best in graphics, the best in sound, the best in gameplay, the best in replayability (IMO, as of today) and one of the first games (if not the first) to include hotseat! Now this was all in 1996! Do you think I'll tolerate or expect less than the previous game? You betcha I won't! I'll stick with Moo2 MP if things aren't improved!

Anyway, I'm still having high hopes... well maybe except for the combat part.

[Urban Ranger]

Looks like the naysayers will have a field day.

Okay, I'll start.

[Straybow]

MOO2 combat graphics were great? Cheesy Sean Connery look-alike was great graphics? News to me. Cheesy Civ2 animated heralds were better than that. Maybe you just can't get the blue-skinned babe out of your head…

[Urban Ranger]

They weren't bad, considering how old they were.

[moomin]

Moo2 graphics were adequate, given their time period. Moo2 sound was excellent, though. If we ever get shield tech, that what it's gonne sound like.

And the problem isn't the graphics. The problem is that the grapics seem really lousy on top of all the problems that we already know of with the development of this game.

Once bitten, after all...

[vmxa1]

I appreciate grahpics, but they are not high on my list, after all I still play Moo and other games with what is now horrible grahpics.

[CyberGnu]

Yeah, played MoO just the other day. The graphics lets you see what things are, and that is all that matters.

Grumbold, you are right that good graphics does not a bad game make, but only if there are unlimited resources. I'd rather they spend the money they have on gameplay than flashier graphics...

[moomin]

Gnu, prod values do matter. Even for nutty hard-core gamers like us. Why? Beacuse the game sells better. Which means there's a much bigger chance seeing patches and expansions. A game like Moo with very limited public brand recognition had better look good or only the nutters hanging in this group and a couple of other deluded cases like us are gonna buy it.

, I think.

[Straybow]

Someone mentioned that MoO2 sales totaled about 250k copies when the decision to make MoO3 was made, and that for a major title it takes up to 100k copies to break even (depending on patches and support level). All the rest is gravy for the producers and developers.

There have been many games that "flopped" in the market, yet still sold enough to break even because the US/Euro/Japan market is so big. 5-10k copies/mo over many months won't make a blip in the sales charts. A game like SE IV or Stars! SG (once they find a publisher) could break even at 20,000 copies and make the developers rich at 100k.

All the time and money going into reworking the game is coming out of QS' share of the gravy, and should they sell 150k copies they won't complain a bit. We'll see plenty of support and all the bean-counters will be happy.

The real question is making the sales charts and length of time it takes to break even. The nutters alone will make the latter, but not the former.

[wervdon]

Wait longer than a day. More like a month for the accurate reports to arrive

Ack a month would kill me :P Ill do good to wait 2 days honestly :P

Trading graphical quality for fun and playability is fine but if it looks like a spreadsheet, plays like a spreadsheet and has dire graphics throughout then everyone loses

I agree with that, but from what ive seen so far, MOO3's graphics aren't going to be bad enough to pull the game down. They just aren't going to impress people like gamers.com

Having good battle graphics won't turn a junk game into a great game

Most definately, but what you said next about it translating into better sales is almost definately true. But personally, I can say without a doubt it will not effect if I will buy moo3 or not. Honestly, I considered that review more of a reflection on gamers.com than moo3, enough of one to realize their vision of a good game and mine are totally incompatible.

[loinburger]

I never minded MoO2's graphics, and don't particularly care of MoO3 has stellar graphics or not. All I want is a fun game, which mostly translates into "good AI and good design," with "good graphics" as gravy and nothing more. Heck, look at the games Betrayal at Krondor and Return to Krondor--Betrayal's graphics were much worse than Return's, but Betrayal was far better.

[Skeeve]

I'll admit that the preview at gamers has me worried enough to wait for the opinions to come out on this forum before buying.

Before that preview, I was almost ready to pre-order my copy, having been a die-hard fan since MOO.1.

At any rate, I'm hoping Civ3's Play the World will be enough to keep me going, and from that preview, it looks like it will. (I'd probably buy it if the only addition were the Radar towers and Outposts!)

-Skeeve

[Spaced Cowboy]

Originally posted by loinburger
I never minded MoO2's graphics, and don't particularly care of MoO3 has stellar graphics or not. All I want is a fun game, which mostly translates into "good AI and good design," with "good graphics" as gravy and nothing more. Heck, look at the games Betrayal at Krondor and Return to Krondor--Betrayal's graphics were much worse than Return's, but Betrayal was far better.

Good job, that is what I was trying to say.

Graphics and sound are nice add-ons, but I'd not trade them for fun, good ai, and a good interface.

[moomin]

Unless, of course, you want patches and expansions.