MOO3/MOO2-My 2 cents

[bhaight]

Ahh-here we are again. The release of another version of MOO and the great wailing and gnashing of teeth on the forums. I remember when MOO2 was released and the great flame wars on the forums. The issue back then was busted diplomacy. Remember the trail of patches, 1.1-1.2-1.21-1.3-1.31. Relax people, the issues with MOO3 will be fixed in patches. Until then, I will continue to enjoy the depth and complexity of MOO3. Chill.

[Arnelos]

Agreed.

I remember when MoO2 was released... I also remember that we waited on that release perhaps EVEN LONGER than we've been waiting on MoO3

[Vince278]

I could accept that if it weren't for those many, many months of delays to supposedly squeeze out every last bug. I've lost faith in IG/QS's beta testing processes and any person/publication that gave MOO3 a great preview/review. They must have been playing a different game ( or had their own reasons to ignore the obvious )

[vmxa1]

Vince278 it is possible that they could have a different opinion. I am not saying yours is incorrect, but if some others is different, it does not mean either is wrong.

[Vince278]

Don't believe I was disagreeing with anyone or discounting their opinions but I found it rather odd that the testers and reviewers didn't say anything about the problems we all have been discussing in the forums. It would have been difficult for them not to notice don't you think? Very curious indeed.
All of this, of course, is just an opinion (based on public forums and published reviews).

[Arnelos]

I have to agree that many of the bugs we've noticed were NOT talked about by any of the reviews...

The previews I can understand, as they were playing betas of the game and if it was buggy, that's only to be expected. MOST previews don't talk much about bugs that they find because they assume such bugs will get worked out.

What I find odd is that the reviewers, who possessed (as far as we know) final copies of the game, didn't complain about the same bugs we've been talking about.

I honestly think this is an awesome game, but it's an awesome game with a large number of loose ends that I'd think a responsible reviewer would have pointed out.

[vmxa1]

I suspect that many reviewers do not put in enough time playing the game to really understand it or note all the annoyances. Many have stated in the mags that they did not finish the game. I mean some of the ship design could be missed if oyu used auto or the TF issues and the combat is insignificant in the early game.
Still they should have have some complaints.

[Ianpolaris]

Guys,

I also think the incestous relationship between game-publishers and game magazines had a lot to do with that too. I note that the negative reviews (like Gamespot's to name but one) are coming out after the game was released. I don't know this for sure, but I have a sneaking suspicion that IG either directly or indirectly put pressure on some of the reviews /not/ to review it totally honestly (as in if they did, they would never get a review copy from IG ever again).

-Polaris

[Arnelos]

Polaris,

Not really.... Gamespy, as a matter of habit, always posts its reviews (if possible) within a day of release. They do it primarily because more people read their reviews that way, not because they don't get review copies of the game.

Gamespy is one of MoO3's methods of multiplayer connections... if you want to talk about an incenstous relationship, there it is... and because of that relationship and the bad review Gamespy gave, I have more trust in Gamespy's reviews despite their relationship with many of the same products they're reviewing.

I still find CGW to mainly be my review location of choice, though. I think the strategy section there was best run under Alan Emrich back in the 90's, but boy ain't THAT an irony

[Ianpolaris]

Arnelos,

Alright then, how do you explain why most of the good review (indeed near as I can tell virtually all of them) were written well in advance of the release date while the negative ones were written post release date.

I ask because the 'incestuous' relationship complaint is (AFAIK anyway) not restricted to any one game, but a general complaint about the state of the hobby.

-Polaris

[Arnelos]

I think hype has a lot to do with it. It's not so much that the reviewer feels an obligation to treat a game with kid gloves because he got the review copy of the game as much as there seems to be an almost natural reaction by a number of reviewers to talk nice about a game they got a review copy for.

I won't mention names, but I recall certain reviewers crowing about how THEY had a review copy of the game and we didn't when they posted here on Apolyton a few weeks ago... I was also present on Apolyton chat when the same reviewer complained about not being able to even figure out how to build ground units.

I remember when he got his question answered.

There were some other things like that which happened.

What I noticed is that he made no comment about such difficulties in his review. I honestly think he just assumed he's missed something that was covered in the manual because he didn't read the whole thing (since the reviewers had the manual in pdf format and many of them didn't read it). The consequence is that several of the reviewers who were at first numbingly confused by the game and got beta testers or devs to answer some questions for them must have throught the reason was because they just hand't read all of the documentation...

Well, we found out how much THAT helps

As for why a reviewer would not include such an experience in their actual review, the desire to like a game can do powerful things...

I witnessed a number of people give glowing reviews to Star Wars: Attack of the Clones... they had gripes with it, they didn't like parts of it, they had been downright frustrated by its complete lack of lustre, but they still gave unqualified glowing reviews... regular guy on the street doesn't have an incestuous relationship with George Lucas (or at least I hope they don't... shudder), but he'll still willingly blind himself to the faults of a product he really WANTS to like and in the end finds he likes. If he's telling another about the experience and he wants them to like it to, too, he might overlook his frustrations and nitpicks in his account. And the publisher/studio didn't have to spend a dime to get him to do it, either.

I'm dead sure that had a good deal to do with some of the glowing reviews for this game.

Is is possible that some people were pressured by IG not to give BAD reviews? Sure, it's possible, but it's also unecessary to explain the problem. Sheer hype and enough good game (I believe, at least) behind all of the annoying bugs and problems means a number of people would be inclined not to mention them... not because IG paid them to, but because they WANT the game to do well in retail and they're letting that cloud their review.

Both are equally bad in a review, I agree.

I've learned not to trust certain reviewers or sites after this experience. But I'm not of the opinion that they're entirely in bed with the publisher. It's not necessary to explain why they did it.

[vmxa1]

I can not speak for the mags, but I was sent a review to look at for a web site (they asked me to write it as they knew I was Moo nut) and it was positive. My son runs the web, but did not do the review. There was no quid pro quo involved. It was an honest perspective. I felt I was in no position at the time to comment. I am not sure I am now either. Maybe in another week. A quick look is not enough to be fair. If I liked it, will I like next month? How many games did I play and at what levels and on and on.

[ashbery]

Its not really good enough for developers to ship games that are not finished.

[Ianpolaris]

Ashbery,

That's quite true....especially after the game was delayed three months (missing the X-Mas season) so (to quote Rantz) 'it would be done when it was done'. Now please tell me.....who was he kidding?!

-Polaris

[Cookie Monster]

Keep in mind folks that that was then and this is now. Today more than ever profits and minimizing losses are the only things companies care about these days. That being said I do sincerely hope that QS/Infogreed do continue to polish Moo3 with the release of patches.

Moo3 has great potential but it is quite clear that it is an unfinished product. Let's pray that the consumer is not abandoned.