What Moo3 looks like from a SMACer's perspective..

[AIL]

Originally posted by jscott991
Betatesters very rarely can criticize a game they are testing. Don't you think in a large group of people, someone would dislike it, no matter how great it is? Isn't it interesting that there hasn't been any substantive criticism of the game from the testers?

Remember, that all of the testers are fans of this genre and especially of prior Moo-Games. Of course you would find people who don't like it, if you ask someone on the street to test it. But by letting only fans test it, the likelyness of someone not liking it decreases a lot.

[darcy]

There's another likeliness that is decreased: The chance to find exploits, especially in MP. Fans want to play the game like it's supposed to be played, and usually lack the frame of mind to actively try and break game mechanisms.

Then again, I don't know if this experience, coming generally from real-time games, is applicable to turn-based games.

[kalbear]

Errr - the beta testers for blizzard did a great job of testing exploits and issues about things being overpowered. They were competitive, balls-out players who were also fans, and made sure people know how cheezy certain tactics were.

They got fixed.

If anything, the amount of MP testing these guys do would indicate to me that they were specifically looking for exploits. The fact that they changed outposts to be different indicates that they found some.

[Hendrik]

Yeah the beta reviews have been very sweet... this game seems to have a strategic complexity. I hope that the AI will make multiplayer strategy games in 6 hour sessions possible. Not having to micro all of your cities sounds pretty good, if it works. I am sure an experienced human who is anal retentive about micro like I am will find ways to better manage planets than AIs will, but it would be a good substitute for fast games.

[Harry Seldon]

Let's not forget that this contest to choose the beta testers magically pulled twenty-five of the stoutest supporters and vocal proponents for the games as exhibited by their posting on the IG forums. Hopefully, they were chosen for their objectivity but I'm a little nervous on that score. Or maybe I'm just a paranoid sore loser who's bitter in defeat.

[darcy]

Errr - the beta testers for blizzard did a great job of testing exploits and issues about things being overpowered.

Important difference here: Blizzard used 5000 beta testers, drawn (randomly, IIRC) from the real public, not from message board loyalists. How many testers are there for MoO3? More than 50 would surprise me. Such low numbers encourage socializing and discourage attempts to break the game.

And even after this large and extensive and long beta test, Blizzard has now released the 4th balance patch with a huge list of fixes. Given these lessons from the past, the chances for MoO3's MP to be balanced and unexploitable right out of the box are infinitesimal.

[Arnelos]

I've playtested a Blizzard game

but no such luck with MoO3. But that's just how it works... the difference is noticable in that there were hacked versions of the Warcraft III beta running around the internet months before that game came out while you'll see no such thing with MoO3.

It's a tradeoff.

[Baselope]

key question...

hi guys, I am actually an ex-Smacer that was once seen here long ago in another life.

I haven't been reviewing the online literature in careful detail, but I was wondering if those that were could remember is many of the beta testers lavished praise upon the AI?

If all they say must be nice and yet they are saying nothing at all...

[Sirian]

Important difference here: Blizzard used 5000 beta testers, drawn (randomly, IIRC) from the real public, not from message board loyalists.

Blizzard did the random drawing thing, yes, but they also issue invitations to select groups of "message board loyalists". They have a set formula that includes both elements.

I know. I was one of those given a special invitation to test Diablo 2 expansion. As a fan I went into the experience with high hopes and high expectations, and Blizzard was very responsive (initially) to the feedback and reports from the "message board loyalists".

Well, the game turned out to have a lot of issues with it, many more found by us "loyalist" testers than Blizz was leading the public to expect. And... rather than pause and address these issues, they stuck to their firm release date and shipped the game broken. Only some of the issues were addressed, over a month later, in a patch.

In my view, they promised much then delivered little. I had a bad experience with this process. I invested a good bit of my heart into effort to suggest things to make the game better, and every last thing I suggested that they listened to, they only did PART of what I had suggested, and every single one of these changes actually made the game WORSE, not better. I was one of the loudest voices in the test, and had a lot of impact on the community and results, even the game, but came out feeling as if it was all wasted. Wasted! By only acting on part of what I observed -- partially due to their own deadlines -- none of the core problems I was complaining about got fixed, and instead the issues were actually made worse. That was too painful.

When the invitation to be part of the Warcraft III beta arrived, I politely told them no thanks. My faith in their hype and promises, and in their judgement of what makes for a fun game for me, is gone for good. It's more than the expansion beta and rushing an unfinished product out the door, then not supporting it. Blizzard's patch efforts for Diablo II have only gone sideways, never forward. For everything they did fix, they broke something else.


By contrast, I see that Firaxis has stayed with the patching process for Civ3, and actually moved that game forward. Civ3 1.29f is a major improvement over the release version, with a number of loopholes closed, exploits fixed, refinements of interface and control, AI upgrades, smoothing out of the corruption model, improved pacing at high difficulty, and more. Those are the kind of results I expect from patches: for the game to get better, for the bumps to be smoothed out, not just painted over. Firaxis has shown passion and love for their own product. The care is evident. I don't feel as if I'm just a number to them: I'm a customer and a fellow fan of their game.

Quicksilver seems to be on the right track. I'm NOT pleased that they kept offering release dates and estimates that have not panned, but I do prefer they keep the game "until it's done" rather than push a broken or unfinished product out the door. Blizzard built its reputation with a motto of "not until it's done", then made a complete mockery of this concept with Lord of Destruction.

I may never again trust a game company as much as I once trusted Blizzard. I'm more cautious now about getting emotionally attached to a game. I really WANT to get attached to MOO3. I really really do. MOO1 was my fave strat game of all time, so far above the rest it was in a league of its own, but I didn't like MOO2. I'm in limbo, hoping MOO3 delivers more of that MOO1 goodness, but also wary of hype and broken promises.

I look at the folks at IGMoo, all worked up, and think back to being in the same place with Diablo II. And I shudder. They're so excited, they just babble, on and on with speculations about not very much, and frenzied chatter amongst themselves to pass the time.

Knowing what I know about Blizzard's beta testing from a somewhat inside perspective, I think QS is on the right track. They SEEM to care about, and be paying attention to, the kinds of things that really matter, that make or break the gameplay. That gives me more hope. Maybe too much hope. Despite myself, I am having a hard time containing my excitement and expectations now. Although trust with individual companies may be shattered, there is always the possibility that someone will come along and do it right. Hope springs eternal.


- Sirian

[Arnelos]

Sirian,

on all points.

Moo1 was indeed such a phenomenal strat game that it belongs to a league of its own.... I really really hope that Moo3 can join that league to give Moo1 some competition, but we'll only know that after we play it.

I, too, have playtested a Blizzard game. My experience was far more positive. I think Blizzard has done a particularly fantastic job of responding to tester and fan criticism of early betas of Warcraft III and especially in designing the patches to that game (there are those that disagree with me on that, but that's beside the point ).

As for CivIII, I agree that Firaxis did a good job on patches, but (in almost all of our opinions), absolutely RUINED their solid reputation on Play the World... I own a copy of Play the World and have used it, but will tell you it came out of the box worth less than the cd that came with it - and the patch only makes it worth perhaps $5-$10. I remember CivNET being worse (I've been around that long...), but when you use CivNET as a benchmark for anything, you know you're in troubled waters....

My impression of MoO3 so far is that they are promising that it will join the league of MoO1, but there are disturbing signs from the changes that it will not be. The only way to know will be to play it. Thus the comments of the beta testers that they HAVE are extremely encouraging, but their pool is so small that I honestly don't know what to think yet.

If MoO3 is at least an improvement over MoO2, it will still be one of the best games out there and well worth the price. I'm pretty confident that it will be AT LEAST that good. Whether it will be a true successor to MoO1 like MoO2 SHOULD have been is an open question...

[Hendrik]

I have decided to preorder the game. I don't know whether it will be the game to end all games... but I think that it will, at the very least, be a good game.

The large degree of customizability should make MP fun.

They did cut a lot of stuff... but the slimmed down model should retain a lot of complexity.

[kalbear]

Baselope -

The AI has been reported as being pretty damn smart at times. Using flanking stealthed ships to outmanoever some long-range fighter craft, using spies and technology effectively, concentrating on strengths over weakness.

The best example I found was an AI taking advantage of a pseudo-ally's weakness while fighting two fronts far away from the home, and striking hard. The AI lost, but the idea to attack at that moment was a great sign for me at least.

[CharlesBHoff]

I love MOO too. I was at one time into use than hex editor to change my planet or planets I was to discover or turn a planetless star system into one that have a planet. I do have written down how to do this it anybody is interested.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by kalbear
Errr - the beta testers for blizzard did a great job of testing exploits and issues about things being overpowered. They were competitive, balls-out players who were also fans, and made sure people know how cheezy certain tactics were.

They got fixed.

Umm, what game? When people were beta testing the Diablo 2 expansion pack there were many complaints and proven problems with broken skills and ways the game generated treasure, yet only about 20% of these potentially game breaking FLAWS were fixed.

Maybe Blizzard did a better job with WC3, but since I gave up on Blizzard after the D2 debacle I wouldn't know.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Harry Seldon
Let's not forget that this contest to choose the beta testers magically pulled twenty-five of the stoutest supporters and vocal proponents for the games as exhibited by their posting on the IG forums. Hopefully, they were chosen for their objectivity but I'm a little nervous on that score. Or maybe I'm just a paranoid sore loser who's bitter in defeat.

Bzzzzttt!! Wrong!

Not all of the people chosen were vocal fan's of the series. Some, like CK I believe, actually had voiced loud and persistent doubts about the game before becoming a tester.

Just because you weren't picked doesn't mean you can fling mud at those who were and claim they were all "fan-bois".