Don't buy MOO3

[MitchDev]

No. I refuse to believe that a garbage store like Wal Mart has any kind of true influence on ANY software company and release dates...

[Bernie Rubber]

Mitch, you're starting to make my head hurt..

can you answer these questions?

1. What proof do you have that it's out and has been delayed? It doesn't seem to be getting in any local stores before when it's to be sold.
2. Why do you think that the game hasn't been in development for so long so the game could be made better?
3. If the game is good, why should we punish the developers for making a good game?
4. If you want to punish InfoGrames, the producers, how would a boycott hurt them less then it would hurt Quicksilver?

If you can give me a satisfactory answer to these questions, I might consider not buying the game. Oh, and can you please refrain from using the phrase "I refuse to believe".

I don't think Wal-Mart is responsible, as I haven't seen any evidence that they are responsible in any way.

See? Its easy to make an argument.

[Bernie Rubber]

How did Wal-Mart get in this anyway?

[viciouscycle]

Originally posted by Bernie Rubber
How did Wal-Mart get in this anyway?

Wal-Mart gets into everything.

[gunnergoz]

I don't shop at Walmart any more. The one time I went in to one, I kept tripping over boxes left around by the sales staff. Stupid boxes said something about "IG/QS MOO3 12-pack." Can you imagine the nerve of these people? Some one could trip and hurt themselves...I should sue the #@$%&*.

[delmar]

You want arguments for not buying Moo3? Here you go:

http://www.quartertothree.com/reviews/moo3/moo3-1.shtml

[kalbear]

Um, whoa.

I have to say, it's a well written review. He does characterize his points one by one, and makes some strong arguments.

Also sad considering that he apparently loved MoO2 so much. Interesting take on the lack of joy regarding ship building.

Also interesting senate president vote. "Vote for the GREATER of two evils". Heh, heh, heh.

I'm not sure how I feel about this one. I know I'm going to buy the game, but I'm not sure how much enjoyment I'll be getting out of it anymore.

I guess, thanks. My hype has been deflated.

[gunnergoz]

This is one man's opinion. Why is it any more valid than another's? It has the weight we give to it. Look for shortcomings and you'll doubtless find them. Look for strong points, same thing. Bring a balanced mindset, open to a new experience. Forget the reviews and hype. Forget even your own hopes. Play it as it lays.

Come back next week and tell us about what it was like.

[kalbear]

Well, gunnergoz, you've got a point. I'm just looking at the same data we continue to get presented and seeing if it could be good or bad.

We've heard several times that the game has a feel of "i'm not playing this". We've heard from every single reviewer about the horrible manual and lack of in-game information. About the learning wall. About the poor graphics. ABout the lack of intuition regarding why AI races do whatever they do. About viceroys doing things that you didn't tell them.

Some reviewers love the game in spite of those things. Some don't. I will most assuredly buy the game; most of these things won't hurt me one bit, as I have the strat guide and countless hours of info from the forums.

Most others won't be as lucky.

[vishniac]

An amazing link, Delmar...I wonder if it has already been posted at IGMOO (or already deleted!).

For myself, after having spent November and early December waiting eagerly for the game to come, I don't care anymore. It's a cyclic thing, one day I'll wake up thinking "I need MOOIII" but it will probably be in some months.
So, I could say I'm actually boycotting it until it hits the bargain bin.

Also, I don't trust the fanboys and beta-testers about it. Too many cuts for my liking. I wonder if it's really that good. So I'm waiting for all of you posting reviews here beginning next week!

If I need a space game and get the time to play it, I'll take Galactic Civilizations! (Indeed, I'll take it anyway!!)

[Vince278]

To the original poster (vee4473): I pretty much understand how you feel.

[tjno2]

Delmar, that review was very good indeed.
It just burst the bubble of perfection i had created around MOO3 and left me thinking "I've been eagerly waiting 2 years for THIS!?"

I know it's just a review, but it really did touch aspects of the game that i care about and never tought about them...

At this point, I don't care anymore if the game's released tomorrow or next year.

[Bernie Rubber]

All right, large opposition here. And you'll probably call this slamming the review, but I'll prefer to stick to facts and evidence.

Numerous times, I'll quote the orionsector review, to provide a counterargument. Why? I trust these people more, as from my experiences with them, they seem to like many of the same kinds of games as I do.


Well.. about the first part of it, about the wall of numbers: I am not now, nor have I ever been intimidated by numbers. Maybe it will test my resolve that way, but I highly doubt it.

That complaint about the planetary viceroy AI? Well guess what, the Orionsector review deals with that, and Dreaddirewolf in particular. To give some quotes about Dreaddirewolf dealing with DEA's, and viceroys,

"Your population, industry, ships, research, everything - and I couldn't figure it out. I was so confused as to why every turn my Military DEA in the plains was being replaced by the AI with Mining DEA which are at their least efficient in the plains and especially on a mineral poor planet! I was having to micromanage every DEA on my two measly planets for the first 100 turns because this AI was building all kinds of the wrong stuff in the wrong places. What's a potential Master of Orion to do?"

Sounds like the Quarter to three review huh? Well, now the next paragraph:

"Tweak more categories for AI planetary development, that's what. The manual, master's notes and encyclopedia had me convinced I should be able to put whatever DEA I wanted where ever I wanted it. Or so in theory. I couldn't get it to work. I finally gave up and started a new game. Tweaked the one optioned I had misunderstood earlier and let the AI handle the entire Planetary Infrastructure. Pretty soon I had an abundance of minerals and food where I had shortages before. My planets and DEAs were automagically upgrading and improving themselves and I had a deep powerful economy running across several systems that were now ready to support an offensive against the Ikthul. Cool. That AI is impressive."

Huh.. looks like that could be a problem for gamers, but it seems to be workable. I think someone should inform the reviewer about that.. he may not have taken those into consideration, seeing as he never mentions AI planetary catagories even ONCE. Sounds a bit suspect, huh?

What's up next? Why some complaints about the spreadsheet feel of the games UI, as well as it not being intuitive.

Having not played the game, I can't give a counter-argument against that. Some good points there. Just one thing to say though, He's supposedly played several 300+ turn games. If he's been willing to put up with an UI as bad as he says, for that long, for a game as bad as he says, then he's an extremely dedicated reviewer. Or insane. Personally, I think its more likely that he's putting extremely strong empasis on what he doesn't like.. hurts his credibility a bit IMO.

Now an inadequate manual and in game documentation. No suprise for me here.. and a bit of a disappointment. I'm willing to overlook that though, because, like I said, I try not to get intimidated by such things.. it may even be a good point, because most subliterate AOL ers won't play the game in MP. Of course, I would like better documentation, but the game still seems to have so many addictive features, that I'm willing to put some work into it.

Next? Hmm... looks like he utterly loaths the TF system. on grounds that it doesn't make sense, and loses all sense of connection with individual ships when building them.

First let me say, that I do agree that some numbers would be nice to see.. this next paragraph is partially against that, partially my opinions, and partially in favor of the combat.

Hello? What's going on here. The battles aren't supposed to be individuals on individuals. They are supposed to be EPIC. EPIC means BIG. It's not supposed to be Moo1 or 2. It's supposed to accomplish the feel that you're really commanding FLEETS, not ships. No suprise here... seems like it does everything I expected. I should show the opposing viewpoint though, as Dread puts the complaints more eloquently.

Dreaddirewolf says pretty much the same thing better, IMO.

"First, let me gripe a bit. Did we mention poor tech description and documentation? We did? Let me say it another way. Better understanding of internal game mechanics or checks and balances make for better enjoyment of computer games, in my experience. Especially with one of this complexity. Let's take weapons for example. If you understand how a weapon works and can predict how it will perform in a controlled environment then you know when and where you should employ that weapon. In MOO3 I believe that each weapon is supposed to have positive and negative traits that would affect your choice in using it on certain platforms. There is absolutely nothing describing pros, cons, effects, whatever on the ship design screen. Is there any reason why a Mass Driver is sooo much larger than a Rail Gun that I should ever use it? A Mass Driver being a level 1 weapon and Rail Gun in the neighborhood of level 12. So much, no, everything is left unsaid in what I believe is one of the most fun parts of the game - designing ships. I thought one design goal was that no weapon would ever completely lose it's usefulness as technology advances but I never found Mass Drivers useful. Plus were back dealing with that crappy font and the pull down menus look like something I designed back in my college days with Fortran 77."

Well.. see? Much more clear.. and remember, Dread likes the game. If he can work through that, as well as everyone I've heard from, including the quarter to three revierwer, I can too.

Ahh.. wretched tactical combat. First, lets hear from other reviers, and the orionsector review in particular.

" So while the graphics are nothing to get hyped up over, the overall fireworks show is impressive and fun. Space battles are what MOOers play for afterall, and MOO3 delivers. Nothings gets you going like Zeon Missiles shredding an enemy task force, only to be ambushed by a short range stealth wave you had no idea existed until they unloaded all Hellfire Cannons on you and your fighters didn't have a chance to get out of the bays and you perish in your short scanning-range foolishness..."

"Okay, so for all my griping is space combat any good you ask? Besides the graphics? Yes. It's very good. It's still cool watching a planet unleash an enormous volley of missiles towards your TF containing your heavy hitting Battleships and watching as your point defense ships frantically try to engage those missiles streaking in for the kill. Fighters are very cool. Although they look like tiny specks, when you see swarms of them speeding in to deliver what ever nasty packages they have in store, it's enough to get you worried in a hurry. Finally when you assemble a large force and take on an equally large force in what turns out to be only the first of many epic electrifying battles, don't forget to wipe the drool from your chin before your lady comes downstairs. Space combat is everything it should be. It's furious, it's fast, it's colorful, it's spectacular, it exciting and it's fun. "

Doesn't sound very wretched, does it?

Hell.. and most of those are almost perfectly opposite the opinions of the quarter to three reviewer who is extremely concerned with the graphics. And doesn't mention the minimum requirements. And who doesn't even seem to care about them. Who here expected a homeworld type experience? Most certanly not me.. in fact, it wouldn't work on my computer. Or even come close.

Ground combat.. well, all I can say, is that it's much better than it was in Moo1 or 2.

Now technologies.. Well, about all you do is adjust the sliders? What else would he want? And about the AI adjusting the sliders, I'm pretty sure that can be turned off... If not, oh well.. guess you actually have to check how your technologies are coming along every few turns, and think about what would help your empire. I once again refer to the orionsector review, as it deals very well with these complaints. and three opinions too.

And about his complaints about the races not being different.. Forgive me for not believing that. He says, and I quote:

"So what. It's not like you're ever building farms or even paying much attention to whether your planets, which are automatically colonized and developed, have much arable land."

Sounds like that would make them different, that is, if he actually learned how to play the game..

"Sure, the harvesters are supposed to be evil, but it's not like you're in this for the backstory about mysterious origins."

I guess we can check off diplomacy as another thing he paid little or no attention to. And that's a big part of the game, judging by AAR's and other reviews.

"Each race plays almost identically to any other race, with the exception that the main splash screen shows a picture of the last race you played. This is the extent of Master of Orion 3's personality."

Forgive me, I'm going to bash this guy's opinion. Firstly, he says they aren't really different. Earlier, he told us that he didn't pay much attention to the planets.. or the tech tree.. or diplomacy.. or spying.. or combat.. shoot, that doesn't leave much for them to be different about.

After that, he mentions diplomacy, where he mentions such things as:

the senate. They do stuff.. I don't know how to play the game, so I don't care what happens. I think you can see the flaw in that argument, even if it isn't a direct quote.

There is very little here even worth arguing.. I think you get the idea of what the flaws are.

Ooh.. and the AI's failings..

"Check the ship reserves, and you'll see a stockpile of 2000 troop trannys that you'll never use"

Hmm.. no mention of the good economic development, and why on earth isn't this guy building his own military? If anything, that's what I want to control. And you can, just only if you learn how.

" The AI seems incapable of balancing your raw materials with your production capacity, as you'll note by the egregious surplus of food, minerals, and reserach that build up later in the game."

Well, considering how he gives no indication of having even the slightest idea of how those things even work, who is he to talk? Learn how to play the game before telling other people about it.

I think you get the idea.. one more.

"The AI doesn't respond to unrest effectively, letting planets spiral out of control rather than reining in dissent by building government and recreational facilities"

Well, why is the unrest going up in the first place? Why doesn't he put recreation facilities on the classification lists at a higher priority? Why doesn't he start doing that, AFTER noticing shortcomings?

Also, the viceroy AI seems almost infinitely better then similar AI's found in Moo2, Civ2, Civ3, AC, and every other strategy game I've ever played. It may not be perfect, but can you show me a perfect AI?

As experimental conclusions based on bad data are inaccurate, conclusions based on false information is also inaccurate. I have reason to believe that this review is a perfect example of what happens when someone fails to hold the learning curve. I plan to learn.

Two more things, It was a tragedy that he did not learn the game.. he might have had the same experience as virtually every other person who has played this game.

Also, I did not mean any disrespect for him. His conclusions make sense, on the experiences he talks about. I disagree that those experiences are what I'm going to get from the game. And thank you for reading this massive post.

[kalbear]

Wow. That was what I've been trying to say all along, but never took the time in one lump sum to say. That's quite amazing, bernie. Mind if I link to it at igmoo when I'm arguing?



Seriously, I think that Tom's review and most of the others are factually congruent; where they differ is their experience of those facts and how they dealt with them. Bashing Tom is missing the point and missing whatever value the review contains, which turns out to be a lot.

I don't think I'll fall into the same kind of traps; for instance, it sounds like had he done proper development plans on planets and monitored them with a bit more dilligence, and MAKE SURE TO OBSOLETE YOUR TROOP TRANSPORTS (that's why the AI builds them - and no, not a clue why either), the game would have flown by so much better.

[Bernie Rubber]

Feel free to link it to IGmoo.. and when you do, can you post a link? I want to see what they think of it. Oh, and FYI, on IGmoo I go by "Devastator03"

Reading that again.. I could have done more, but I've done enough.