Can it get any more simplistic?

[TCO]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune




***

***

Second thoughts: This WAS meant to be sarcasm, right?

It was a double-edged troll.

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Wanting to feel in control versus wanting to understand. My entire complaint with Americans in a nutshell.

Well, if you're not in control, what's the point of making it a game? Just kick off the Emrich Galaxy Simulator and watch it go.

I'm pretty sure Alan harbored no illusions about getting the entire design into the finished game. I'm pretty sure he expected that it would have to be cut down, and part of the design was to lay groundwork for future work in the series. And by laying all of the ideas out there, you get a nice base from which to pare down to something that actually works.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Craig P.
Well, if you're not in control, what's the point of making it a game?

A good game is not about being in control as a matter of course. If you want to be in control, you should have to work for it, like in Chess.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Craig P.
Well, if you're not in control, what's the point of making it a game? Just kick off the Emrich Galaxy Simulator and watch it go.

I'm pretty sure Alan harbored no illusions about getting the entire design into the finished game. I'm pretty sure he expected that it would have to be cut down, and part of the design was to lay groundwork for future work in the series. And by laying all of the ideas out there, you get a nice base from which to pare down to something that actually works.

That's not really true. They moved way down the path to implimenting alot of this stuff. QS (post-Emrich) has even said that they lost a lot of time and resources from spending too much time on stuff that got cut.

[Xentax]

Originally posted by GP
The design was too ambitious. They should have just concentrated on updating the graphics and adding a few new units.

I'm guessing that *wasn't* sarcasm.

I can respect your opinion, but I have to point out that I and many others disagree; a lot of us WANT something that's new and different, not just polished.

There are a lot of games I *do* want a "gold edition" of -- X-Com 1, Master of Magic, heck, "I wouldn't say no to Master of Orion 2 Gold".

But, MOO *3* is what's in the works, and I like it that way.

I suspect the marketing decision was that MOO3 would sell better than MOO2 Gold, and for higher prices. A polish edition tends to be a much lower budget and much lower revenue sort of project, from what I've seen.

[Craig P.]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune A good game is not about being in control as a matter of course. If you want to be in control, you should have to work for it, like in Chess.

But that was never the complaint about the Emrich design. In chess, you may not be in complete control of the outcome of the game, but you can always see the influence of your moves. The complaint about "not enough control" in the Emrich design was that it wasn't always clear what the effect of your decisions was. That's a different kind of lack of control.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Craig P.
But that was never the complaint about the Emrich design. In chess, you may not be in complete control of the outcome of the game, but you can always see the influence of your moves.

In Emrich´s design you would have seen the influence of your moves, too. Just watch what happens.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


But this is what I am saying. Normal people play Combat Mission, Europa Universalis, Matrix Games, ...

Why do you think average people must be lazy? I don´t have much respect for companies that prefer to cater to the lazy and superficial...

As I see it, Mr. Emrich had a higher opinion of normal people than the QS management...

You keep on bashing 90% of the gamebuying people out there. I'm not saying that they're lazy. I'm not saying that they're superficial.

What I am saying is that, they are people who have kids, jobs, midterms, exams, gardens to tend to, parties to go to, and all the other stuff that might keep you away from being able to play MoO3 for most of the time. That is why games need to be accessible. They need to be deep, yet easy to learn. And they need to be this, because otherwise people will not find them funny. And what they do not find funny, they do not buy, or they do not recommend to friends and relatives. But I'm sure you know these things, CT, so why keep trolling?

Asmodean

[EDIT] Just before there was a box around quotes. Now there is none. Me thinks that MarkG is playing around with the quote script [/EDIT]

[kalbear]

According to whom? Unless you're Emrich, or better yet, one of the folks that playtested the game back in April, how the hell would you know?

That's your guess. It's an uninformed, specious guess at best. Considering the fact that we've had feedback from people who, oh, I don't know, PLAY THE GAME, and they told us that this was a common complaint about the game at the time, you can choose to believe a couple different things:

1) The people responsible for this design decided that it was not, as a rule, a good game mechanic and decided to nix it in favor of something they believed better, based on feedback.

2) The people responsible for the design could not implement it. Which from all accounts is patently false - nonetheless, you can believe these people are all lying to you.

3) The people responsible for this design found it fun, good, and cried bitterly when having to cut it. Again, this is not what's been stated, but you are welcome to believe they are all liars.

What I find really perplexing is the amount of time that CT spends bashing this game, considering that he isn't going to buy the thing. Heck, he's not even _played_ it. I'd understand if it was Civ 3 after release. *****ing about how the game works, how you don't like it, that sort of thing, when you have spent the money and time into the game...but you've spent nothing on Moo3. Not one dime, unless you're an IG shareholder or investor. If you have no interest in the game, and you have only derision for a product that you've never seen or used and only have out-of-date information to base your opinions on, why spend the time?

Honestly. I'm quite curious what drives people to do this sort of thing.

My rationale is that the more bashing I can defuse and the more hype I can generate about this game, the more intelligent players will play Moo3, which in turn generates a bigger fanbase to play MP with, create mods for, talk strategies with. In other words, I am betting that it's a good game and am encouraging the environment that a good game can have.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

(Simcity married to Gary Grigsby´s Pacific War) in Space. Would be the perfect game, imo.

Pac War was a great game no doubt. I think part of what we are seeing here is the passing of the generation raised on complex wargames. Alan Emerich was one of us, but apparently there aren't enough of us for some of these larger companies to bother with. Of course they would like to trick us into buying their crap (see Civ 3) by mouthing the right catch phrases, but in the end they want a beer and pretzels game to sell to an increasingly beer and pretzels market. In one sense I don't mind people catering to their market, it is after all their job. What I resent is their attempt to sell me on a game that has no soul, no intellectual depth etc. while claiming the exact opposite.

Fortunately there are smaller companies that are still willing to cater to those of us who like to take some time to think while we play. I have been particularly impressed with Europa Universalis. From its board game roots, Paradox has taken this game and turned it into an amazing real time strategy game with both simplicity and depth. It is very moddable, has multiplayer that works, and has been very well supported after completion. I only hope that they "keep on keepin' on", and more companies seek to emulate their dedication to quality.

[mactbone]

Sikander, you should check out Hearts of Iron when it's available. It's really interesting. Personally I think it's more complicated than EU, but I haven't gone through an entire game like I have with EU.

Look, CT can complain all he wants. As a consumer he is taking a very active approach in telling suppliers what he wants. Instead of just refusing to pay for a product he is actively explaining what he doesn't like and what he would want instead. Basically he's giving them a mini-market research and they can read it and choose to do what they want with that information. Even if QS never makes a game that lives up to the standard CT has set, some other company may decide to make a game similar to MoO3 and they make take some of the suggestions that were offered on this board. It also generates discussion, something which keeps this board alive - if we all kept agreeing with each other there wouldn't be much point of visiting the forum.

[ashbery]

Originally posted by kalbear

1) The people responsible for this design decided that it was not, as a rule, a good game mechanic and decided to nix it in favor of something they believed better, based on feedback.

Bullcrap, this was decided after infogrames told them to change it and make it for MR/MRS SIMPLETON and this change was brought on by CIV3 retail succes, dont be fooled by people who lie and tell you otherwise, i have good sources BTW.

[Harry Seldon]

Originally posted by ashbery
i have good sources BTW.

Care to reveal them? I have suspicions but I'm willing to give QS/IG the benefit of the doubt, as long as the game is solid and challenging.

[Rantz]

Originally posted by ashbery



Bullcrap, this was decided after infogrames told them to change it and make it for MR/MRS SIMPLETON and this change was brought on by CIV3 retail succes, dont be fooled by people who lie and tell you otherwise, i have good sources BTW.

having been in the meetings, I can promise that it wasn't an IG marketing driven desicion and that the 'mass market' was never the driving factor in the refocus of the game.

CIV3 played NO part in ANY design choice that mas made on the game, and the entire refocus of the game was to make it a cohesive gameplay experience rather than a bunch of disparate elements that sounded really good on paper, but had no feeling of importance or being part of a greater whole or gameplay experience.

But, again, the facts tend to ruin conspiracy and the overwhelming desire to believe that greater evil forces are out to muck with anything you care about, so feel free to ignore the facts ash.

let me know if you still feel like it's a 'simpleton' game after playing it.

oh, and for the record "opressometer"? that actual label and name is ALL the doing of Mr. Emrich. Was from the start. So, again, pesky facts getting in the way...

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Rantz
...and the entire refocus of the game was to make it a cohesive gameplay experience rather than a bunch of disparate elements...

Mr. Emrich´s highly acclaimed boardgame doesn´t at all look to me like 'a bunch of disparate elements'. Perhaps you should have given him some more time to finish his draft?

"Krieg!'s greatest merit is that it really does simulate World War II on the military, diplomatic, and economic levels but is, at the same time, highly accessible and playable on your kitchen table in a weekend. Buy Krieg! if you've never played a World War II strategic game. Buy it if you've played any of the others and want to see an entirely novel and elegant treatment of the war in all aspects. Buy Krieg! if you want a World War II game that will replay differently every time you set it up and challenge you to see war as more than just combat factor bean counting." --Berg’s Review of Games

Tastes differ, I know; but I have a hunch I would greatly prefer a PC conversion of Alan Emrich´s boardgame to what Moo3 is turning out to be.