Tweet
it seems that Rantz suffered from the "one vs lots of unmoderated people" chat effect so he went for the forums....
ok, look...
I tried to answer as many questions as I could, in a timely fashion, but I was getting hammered by multiple people asking multiple question very quickly. I type slow and with two fingers. The chat room mads and I actually talked about moderating chat discussions so that people *could* get their questions answered, and not piled up.
Art: Whether you like how MOO3 looks or not is a personal opinion. and it's subjective. Some people like it, some don't. We did our job with the budget and schedule allowed, often doing work 'off hours' because we wanted to put something extra in that wasn't in the scope of the project. I believe we did a good job at it. Would I do more if I had time and money, of course.
Yes, Pixar can do a feature in that time. They have a staff of HUNDREDS and millions of dollars behind them. We had 5 people working on Master of Orion III. 1 tech artist, 1 UI artist, 1 3D modeler, 1 animator and 1 concept person. There's a bit of a difference there.
Working at Disney an average project cost 5-12 million and had an art staff of 20+ artists. Very different world.
RE: Micro vs. Macro. This should not be a shock to anyone who has followed the game. We've exposed the dev process (to much grief and pain-in the butt inducing moments due to fans reacting to MOO3 development) throughout the entire game and we have ALWAYS said that it is a 'higher level' game, and that micromanagement was no the type of game it is. That's not me saying 'tough', that's me just stating the facts of micromanagment was never the goal of the game, or part of the design. If you HAVE to have micromanagement to be happy, you probably won't like MOO3.
RE: AI. One of the biggest problems with the game is lack of documentation and clarity on what is happening and why. That applies across the board, the documentation needs work, hence why we are putting together a 'revised manual' on the website, which wil hopefully make the game easier to get into and also explain how things work in a clearer fashion.
We've had people tell us that it's the best AI they've seen, and we've had people complain about it. Do we listen to the complaints and objectively evaluate them? Yes. Why? Because we believe in the game and making sure that it's everything that it can be. Hence a running bug/suggestion list.
Will all your suggestions get addressed. No. Micromanagement won't be a part of it, it would require completely remaking the game to do that, and it was never our intention. But things like right-click feedback, suggestions on improving the cause effect relationship on why things are happening in diplomacy. We're absolutely interested in looking into those kinds of things.
MOO3 is a different type of game, and the response has been pretty much what we expected. Very polar, love or hate. It isn't everyone's type of game, and not everyone will enjoy it. Other will and are. If you don't, sorry. We can't change people's minds or their outlooks. You recognize going in that no matter what, people are going to like your game and people are going to hate it. If we had done MOO2 with 'updated graphics' we would have been lambasted by folks saying that it was a rip off, and that you expect more from a sequl than just a paint job. If you do the next generation of something, pushing it you get lambasted because you've taken away something that someone held dear.
You have to, as a developer and as a publisher, make your choice and head down that path with that in mind.
I don't respond to every post (same with other members of the team) because it becomes idiotic to defend against every detractor, or to say thanks to everyone who likes it, and responding to feedback gets lost in the noise of the hundreds of posts going up daily, hence the rework of the forums that the mods have initiated to make it easier for people to actually get important information they need.
So, if I haven't addressed your particular issue, sorry. It's not me ignoring it, it's not me turning a blind eye. There's only so much time I can spend typing on the boards when I do have work to get done.
I now return you to your previously scheduled banter
__________________
Rantz Hoseley
Art Director
Quicksilver Software, Inc.
I tried to answer as many questions as I could, in a timely fashion, but I was getting hammered by multiple people asking multiple question very quickly. I type slow and with two fingers. The chat room mads and I actually talked about moderating chat discussions so that people *could* get their questions answered, and not piled up.
Art: Whether you like how MOO3 looks or not is a personal opinion. and it's subjective. Some people like it, some don't. We did our job with the budget and schedule allowed, often doing work 'off hours' because we wanted to put something extra in that wasn't in the scope of the project. I believe we did a good job at it. Would I do more if I had time and money, of course.
Yes, Pixar can do a feature in that time. They have a staff of HUNDREDS and millions of dollars behind them. We had 5 people working on Master of Orion III. 1 tech artist, 1 UI artist, 1 3D modeler, 1 animator and 1 concept person. There's a bit of a difference there.
Working at Disney an average project cost 5-12 million and had an art staff of 20+ artists. Very different world.
RE: Micro vs. Macro. This should not be a shock to anyone who has followed the game. We've exposed the dev process (to much grief and pain-in the butt inducing moments due to fans reacting to MOO3 development) throughout the entire game and we have ALWAYS said that it is a 'higher level' game, and that micromanagement was no the type of game it is. That's not me saying 'tough', that's me just stating the facts of micromanagment was never the goal of the game, or part of the design. If you HAVE to have micromanagement to be happy, you probably won't like MOO3.
RE: AI. One of the biggest problems with the game is lack of documentation and clarity on what is happening and why. That applies across the board, the documentation needs work, hence why we are putting together a 'revised manual' on the website, which wil hopefully make the game easier to get into and also explain how things work in a clearer fashion.
We've had people tell us that it's the best AI they've seen, and we've had people complain about it. Do we listen to the complaints and objectively evaluate them? Yes. Why? Because we believe in the game and making sure that it's everything that it can be. Hence a running bug/suggestion list.
Will all your suggestions get addressed. No. Micromanagement won't be a part of it, it would require completely remaking the game to do that, and it was never our intention. But things like right-click feedback, suggestions on improving the cause effect relationship on why things are happening in diplomacy. We're absolutely interested in looking into those kinds of things.
MOO3 is a different type of game, and the response has been pretty much what we expected. Very polar, love or hate. It isn't everyone's type of game, and not everyone will enjoy it. Other will and are. If you don't, sorry. We can't change people's minds or their outlooks. You recognize going in that no matter what, people are going to like your game and people are going to hate it. If we had done MOO2 with 'updated graphics' we would have been lambasted by folks saying that it was a rip off, and that you expect more from a sequl than just a paint job. If you do the next generation of something, pushing it you get lambasted because you've taken away something that someone held dear.
You have to, as a developer and as a publisher, make your choice and head down that path with that in mind.
I don't respond to every post (same with other members of the team) because it becomes idiotic to defend against every detractor, or to say thanks to everyone who likes it, and responding to feedback gets lost in the noise of the hundreds of posts going up daily, hence the rework of the forums that the mods have initiated to make it easier for people to actually get important information they need.
So, if I haven't addressed your particular issue, sorry. It's not me ignoring it, it's not me turning a blind eye. There's only so much time I can spend typing on the boards when I do have work to get done.
I now return you to your previously scheduled banter
__________________
Rantz Hoseley
Art Director
Quicksilver Software, Inc.
, just *much, much, much* more tedious, and this tactic will always beat the Ai. My bet!
Comment