Master of Orion 3 - What Went Wrong?

[MetalKing]

I would have to say i agree with you starfox about master of magic II.

Either way if you liked master of magic you should try Age of Wonders 2.The game is almost the same as master of magic. The only difference is in the interface. I doesn't look like civ anymore but more like HOMM.Try it out if you haven't already you won't be dissapointed.

[krait23]

Corentor

Since MetalKings opinion on the game is obviously seconded by a large number, if not even the majority of players (at least the insignificant number of players posting here and in the ina-forums), he has every right to assume that what he thinks MoO3 should have been actually IS what many/most people think MoO3 should have been.

And actually the developers could easily have been aware of that since a major part of target group is the crowd that played master of Orion 2, and at least to me it is pretty obvious that most people who liked MoO2 will NOT like this so called MoO3. If I can see that, I am pretty sure the devs could have seen that too (if they had bothered to do some research).

I am getting the impression that you cannot take it that most people don't seem to like a game you seem to like.

He's not trying to brainwash people, QS and/or Infogrames did a very thorough job of that themselves.

Certainly I will never again buy a game again unless I have tried it out first. Not even GalCiv, even though so far that looks a lot more like a true Master of Orion 3.

Which brings me to another point. Whoever said that people are not trashing it because it is labeled Master of Orion... I am trashing it BECAUSE it is labeled Master of Orion. Granted, if it wasnt labeled such, I would probably not have bought it before trying it out, and after trying it out I would not have bought this game.
Yet I would not feel as cheated as I feel now. This game might be a fun experience in its own right for some people, though not for me.
But the one thing it certainly is NOT is Master of Orion. They strayed so far from the original games that any resemblance is pure coincidence. They took up the few aspects of both games I didn't like, tossed out the many aspects I did like, added lotsa stuff that I don't like for the most part, et voila, theres a 5X game that has nothing to do with Master of Orion anymore but carries its name to sell well.

Reminds me of what happened with Battletech and Mechwarrior... The latter has nothing to do with the former anymore.. Sad...

Anyway, I hope Infogrames drowns in returned copies...

Lata
Krait

P.S. If you don't like my english don't mention it, I am just a poor german who can't return his copy...

[darcy]

A few thoughts on the original question: What went wrong?

The game lacks focus. They built this huge empire simulator once, expecting that to be the real game. Then, apparently, someone told them that it is unplayable, so they built in lots of helper AIs and hid many of the calculations from the player.

That was, at best, a half-hearted effort to "dumb down" the game.

Take "Heavy Foot of Government" for example, because that's one of the few things I have a vague understanding of.

Apparently the "HFOG" is supposed to simulate corruption. It eats a little bit of your money every time the AUs are transferred between the various budgets. Obviously that was a normal, visible game concept once, documented and visible on the ledgers.

Then someone decided it was too complicated, and the half-hearted efforts to hide it started. The term got deleted from the ledgers, from the documentation and from all the techs which reduce "HFOG". Those are the techs that now read "Your administration is slightly improved".

And what's the result of all this? Now some of your money just disappears. You get not the slightest idea where it went, all you see is that all the pretty AU figures don't add up correctly anymore, thereby losing any credibility they might have possessed before half of them were deleted for simplicity reasons.

What should have been done? Either remove "HFOG" completely, or let it stay in completely, fully documented. But QS lacked the courage to make either clear decision.

That is showing in every part of the game: No clear decision on what should or shouldn't be "under the hood". All things are a little bit exposed, not enough to fully involve the player, but enough to make him wonder about their function.

[wilebill]

Sillelak's post earlier in this thread frightened me so badly that I intended to leave MOO3 in the Amazon shipping box and return it unopened. But Sillelak recanted and returned to the faith. So Sunday I installed the game.

I am just a newbie, not an experienced gamer, just an ordinary purchaser most of whose experience is with SimCity, StarCraft, Empire Earth, Age of Empires Conquerors, and other RTS games. The only strategy game experience I have was Civilization I when it first came out long ago, whenever that was, no real strategy gaming experience since, and especially no prior MOO experience so I am unbiased on that question. I'm just a complete newbie to modern strategy games who happened to buy the box.

The intro movie blew me away (I love H.P. Lovecraft) and then I spent about six hours playing with the interface, reading the Master's Notes, and reading at the manual. The music is quite good on high-end Sony audiophile grade headphones. During this time I made it to Move 2 in my first game. After six hours I shut down and retired for the night, my dreams filled with hideous and eldritch visions of alien worlds. Cool! Some of those dreams were worth the price alone!

I am completely fascinated, maybe hooked, certainly determined to learn to play MOO3 whatever it takes. And I think whatever it takes is going to be quite a lot. It is clear that I will have to start at the beginning of the manual and read carefully through to the end, maybe the strategy guide also. Then I must download tutorials and guides from websites. Maybe a week from now I will be able to play a game of MOO3.

Oh. Yes, the fonts are blurry, they hurt my poor old eyes. Why are there not different skins for the user interface or some way to modify some of the color selections? Graphics I have seen so far are sort of retro style but nostalgic and remind me of days long gone by when I was much younger, so I like the graphics! I wish they had included a printed example game walkthrough, maybe a tutorial guide, even some helpful tips for new players would have been welcome.

I think this is a wonderful game. I am glad I opened the box. The user interface was obviously designed by "The Mad Arab Abdul Alhazrad" to blind those who sought to probe too deeply into its mysteries, but there is also something enormously, almost hypnotically attractive about this game. It is a shame they do not include the information a newbie needs to play it in the box.

So, most annoyingly and strangely it seems I am going to have to search the web for various poorly translated fragments of the unreadable Pnakotic Manuscripts to even begin to understand what the quest behind the door of this user interface is, let alone set out on it.

I have the definite impression that they presume that all purchasers will have an extensive background in strategy games. Such is not the case. Indeed, from reading all the posts here and elsewhere, it would appear that even experienced strategy gamers find MOO3 a bit of a challenge.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by wilebill
Sillelak's post earlier in this thread frightened me so badly that I intended to leave MOO3 in the Amazon shipping box and return it unopened. But Sillelak recanted and returned to the faith. So Sunday I installed the game.

Wow... you are going to boost Sillelak's ego way too much

He was planning to attack the Antarans in the Orion system when I last talked to him about 2-3 hours ago... I don't think it's too hard to figure out what he could have been up to since then...

[kalbear]

That's the defining moment, right there. Far better than attacking those pesky antarans, which was something of a letdown. Heck, the whole raiding thing was.

The Orions - well, they piss you off something royal. At least they did me. Especially after the way they go after players directly. It's much more...personal with them. And it's much more personally satisfying to see 'em die.

Those huge battles are worth it as well. Whoa, those are damn cool. If not for the PD thing, it'd be well worth the crappy graphics of smaller battles - when you see 160 ships against 160 ships, you know exactly why the graphics are the way they are, and you'll feel like they're more than detailed enough.

In my mind, that'd be that 5th X right there.

[vee4473]

Originally posted by wilebill


I am completely fascinated, maybe hooked, certainly determined to learn to play MOO3 whatever it takes. And I think whatever it takes is going to be quite a lot.

Whatever happened to the "A minute to learn, a lifetime to master" approach? ...made famous by Othello of course...I believe.

Even the mechanics of Chess can be learned quickly, but the strategies are endless.

you can say what you want about the Civ games (Civ3 particularly), but the game was easy to learn.

I am wondering how some of you would feel in a MP game, if you won, not because of your more experienced and insightful strategy, but because the other guy just didn't know where to get the info that he needed to play better...so you beat him.

[kalbear]

Some people really like the simple rules, hard gameplay approach.

Others really like simple rules, simple gameplay. And then there's the moo3 - hard rules, hard gameplay.

Civ had a LOT of complexity. It was kinda easy to pick up, but there was a ton of info there that was pretty well hidden in terms of calculations and planning. As deep as Moo in that case? Nah. But it was definitely still there. And I think you take it for granted how 'easy' it is to learn civ games. I have a few very bright friends who never got into it early, and they're just lost now. They don't get it nor do they understand why it's considered fun or addictive. Just seems like a lot of flailing around.

[vee4473]

In other words,

In a game of Chess, you can assume that both players understand the moves that each piece can make, (the mechanics) , but the player that has the more experience or strategic insight into the game will win.

So if a Chess player beats another Chess player, he can rest easy in his accomplishment knowing that the other understood the mechanics of the game, but the winning players' strategy was superior in that instance.

From what I have read, a win in MP MOO3 would be kinda hollow (unless you knew the opponent and his grasp of the game).

Because, if you are in a random net game, how do you know that the only reason that you beat the other guy wasn't because he just didn't grasp the obtuse interface?

You could be congratulating yourself when the only reason you won was because the other guy didn't know about this tab on that sub-screen...so he didn't get the info he needed to adjust his strategy accordingly.

Maybe I am getting a bit too wacky...

[vee4473]

Originally posted by kalbear
And I think you take it for granted how 'easy' it is to learn civ games.

Point taken, maybe my long time experience with Civ makes me think it is easy to grasp.

[kalbear]

And games won over the net anonymously - no one should take pride in this, ever. I can't imagine that there'll be a whole lot of 'random' games of MoO3 - the game takes too long and is too in-depth. Play it with your friends, so you can rub their nose in it when you kick their butts.

Honestly, this is true for all sorts of games. It's also true for any games of luck, which MoO3 falls into, basically. Yet it still takes some skill to play, methinks. I hope. I would really hate to see that a player could beat another one just by hitting the 'turn' button.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by kalbear
Some people really like the simple rules, hard gameplay approach.

Others really like simple rules, simple gameplay. And then there's the moo3 - hard rules, hard gameplay.

Sounds more like 'Hard Rules, Easy Gameplay'. According to many, the only thing hard to beat is the interface.

[Ianpolaris]

Agreed!

That is what ticked me off the most about Moo III. Once I mastered the interface (which I was able to do in 5-6 hours....way too long btw), the game was absurdly simple.

You set your economic and research sliders on turn one, set your Dev Plans (I never bothered.....I developed each planet by hand....it was actually much less hassle), and set the system on 'auto-colonize'. Outside of moving your scout-ships, cleaning out your military queues from time to time, building task forces (later in the game), and building spies, the game plays itself.

What is worse, is you can even 'autobuild' the ships and win even on impossible which means there is actually very little strategic thought involved.

This is a wretched game because it is an Empire Simulation where your AI plays the enemy AI (and always wins), not a game. You, the stupid human, are almost completely superfluous.

-Polaris

[starfox]

I'm sorry but you dont get it! Moo3 is not a game for humans, but for your computer to have fun! Yeah, the computer tries to beat fellow computer players through tons of hidden calculations. For him, it's tons of puter pleasure.

We, humans, are just here to click that darn "turn" button over and over

(of course this was just a humorous posting)

[Ianpolaris]

Starfox,

*Gasp* You are correct! How could I have missed the obvious for so long. I apologize for criticising this ultimate new and revolutionary step in strategy gaming.

From now on the computer will play all our games for us; how could I want anything else

For the sarcasm impaired, the above was sarcasm. Any game that 'plays itself' without the human element is wretched....and frankly doesn't even deserve to be called a game.

-Polaris