Gamespot's review for those interested

[vee4473]

Just a heads up those who might have been waiting.

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/stories/reviews/0,10867,2912098,00.html

[Kc7mxo]

They gave it a 6.7 (fair) and that seems pretty accurate for the version that was released. Hopefully, QS will spruce up the AI and a few other aspects to improve the game to the point of an 8 or so.

[Ghostbear]

6.7?

With Gamespot, anything below an 8 is usually a disaster.

If you read through the review without looking at the score, you'd NEVER buy the game.

It pretty clearly deliniates the problems everyone has with this game (assuming it is in fact a game):

Dull graphics
Game plays itself
Combat is uninteresting
AI is passive beyond belief
Economy is super complicated, but you can't actually affect it.
Research is uncontrollable streams of incomprehensible babble, some of which helps you build better ships.

Anyway, anyone who claims the 6.7 is a positive review should read it very carefully.

[Killazer]

lol avg. reader score 4.3. About what I expected from the mainstream players.

[darcy]

MoO used to be mainstream, you know. MoO also used to be great, and fun for everyone. Now it's a niche game for hardcore fans.

[Polymath42]

What's mainstream has also moved since MOO was released. Computer gaming itself was a niche market back in the early 90's, centered on a fairly cereble (sp?) lot. With broader penetration of PC's the mainstream has moved to more action oriented titles (FPS, RTS) and Sim type games.

I feel this is the most balenced review I've seen to date, which is what I expect from Gamespot. This is a review I would feel comfortable pointing a prospective buyer of the game to. Thanks guys.

[Ghostbear]

???

How many mainstream players do you think are actually playing MOO 3?

I'd say zero.

Which means I believe the reviews were from hardcore fans.

[statusperfect]

"Learning curve: 2 hours"