MOO3/MOO2-My 2 cents

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by ashbery
Its not really good enough for developers to ship games that are not finished.

That sounds good, but does it mean?
Do you mean the features you want are missing?
Do you mean that the features that are in the game are broken?
The games is stable and can be played to conclusion, that qualifies as finished.
So if you mean it does not do what you think it should that is another issue.
You are suggesting that they tossed it out knowing it would not please very many people, does that make sense?
Could it be that they thought they had a good game and some people disagree or were they just callus?
Understand I am not defending the game as I have posted many things that I feel should be corrected, only that the term unfinished does not apply nor does broken.
Unappealing or not fun are valid complaints as they are subjective terms and people can have different opinions on them. Unfinished or broken are difinitive terms and mean a specific thing.

[bhaight]

And I think I've just proven the point I made in my original post starting this thread. The great wailing and gnashing of teeth. Chill folks, it will get better with the patches. You should have seen the forums at Microprose when MOO2 was released.

[kalbear]

Or heck, actually played the game. I remember exclaiming loudly "where are my sliders!".

I love me my sliders in MoO3. So much easier.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by bhaight
And I think I've just proven the point I made in my original post starting this thread. The great wailing and gnashing of teeth. Chill folks, it will get better with the patches. You should have seen the forums at Microprose when MOO2 was released.

I remember those forums... most of these youngin's weren't around for that

If I recall correctly... the MoO2 debacle was even worse than this MoO3 debacle... but perhaps that's just my faulty memory

[Vince278]

Ianpolaris, Arnelos - Thank-you! It is good to see people who understand what I've been trying to say.

vmxa1 - I never meant to put down any reviewers and I never realized you were one. I have seen some reviewers who have done a good job. Also, I've heard elsewhere the beta testers were mainly focused on getting multi-player to work.

bhaight - Chill? People don't come to the forums to chill. I much prefer the exchange of ideas, opinions, and assistance. Occasionally, from all the wailing and gnashing, there are opportunites for some to actually learn something or be better informed. Some may just need to vent among those with a common interest and perhaps find a solution to whatever is bugging them.

[vmxa1]

Vince278 you can put down reviewers if you want, no problem. I just wanted toss out another perspective for what ever it is worth. Reviewers being wrong or mistaken is not the same as being disingenuious. They may even be disingenuious. I took no offense, it is just a dialog. Maybe one see the others points, maybe we agree to disagree either way is legitimate as long as there is no rancor or animosity.

[Vince278]

Agreed.

[nbarclay]

Originally posted by vmxa1


Understand I am not defending the game as I have posted many things that I feel should be corrected, only that the term unfinished does not apply nor does broken.

If you ship a game knowing in advance of specific deficiencies that will need to be addressed in patches, that has to qualify as unfinished. As in, "We'll go ahead and ship it now and finish taking care of these issues later." The question, then, is whether all of the flaws being pointed out now are things the companies overlooked or whether they knew of specific work that still needed to be done but shipped the game anyhow.

I'm not inherently opposed to releasing a game before all its quirks are ironed out completely. I got a lot of fun out of Civ 3 in the time following its release, fun I wouldn't have had if Firaxis and Infogrames had waited until it reached the 1.21 or 1.29 patch level of maturity before releasing it. And I'm sure people who enjoy MoO3 in its current form will have much the same sentiment.

But I think companies are being dishonest if they knowingly release what is, in effect, a very-large-scale beta without letting people know that there are still kinks that need to be ironed out. Customers should be given a chance to choose whether to be guinea pigs testing out a version that may still have quite a few kinks left in it or whether to wait until it's polished up a bit. (Of course people who followed the launches of Civ 3, PtW, and MoO3 will probably be to a point by now where they take for granted that any Infogrames title isn't really done until at least three patches after the initial release.)

[Vince278]

Good point. A company is hurting its bottom line if the gaming community is used to waiting a while before purchasing anything from them. By the time those 3 patches come along the game may be headed for the bargain shelf. With costs such as they are they can't stay in business for long.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by nbarclay


If you ship a game knowing in advance of specific deficiencies that will need to be addressed in patches, that has to qualify as unfinished. As in, "We'll go ahead and ship it now and finish taking care of these issues later." The question, then, is whether all of the flaws being pointed out now are things the companies overlooked or whether they knew of specific work that still needed to be done but shipped the game anyhow.

That was my whole point. People are seeing deficency and leaping to the conclusion that it was done on purpose for some nefarious reason.
I am saying they can not know that. We seem (USA) to attribute the worst motives to people that we do not even know. Hey they disagree we me, they ar enot just wrong or mistaken, they are evil? What is that?
They may just be doing things the best way they know.
All I am saying is stop presuming they are bums, until we have proof of that.
Being wrong is not the same as being evil.
So to answer your question from my perspective, I do not see anything in the game that can be demonstrably shown to be broken. I mean that it could be said that the things I find missing or lacking is something one may have thought were ok. I don't think they were ok, but I can not say that they saw it that way.
Now I recall a few games that you could not load up as it was sent out. That is a big problem, but you know what no one said that they did it on purpose. they did not as what would be the point. In those days you did not get patchesoff the internet and the products had to be returned and tehy had to run a new batch. One was from Sierria and I had to go through 3 sets before I got one to run.
My own company has sent out apps that would not work on some platforms. We did not do it deliberately, believe me. QA and testing failed, thats all. It cost us money and prestige to correct it.

[Vince278]

Don't think they are trying to defraud anyone. Missing the obvious does call their QA processes into question. Most of the problems are not platform issues, they are "played more than X turns" issues. Add that to issues with other products (Civ3 PTW for example) then company's reputation could (and should) suffer.
The definition of "broken" may vary accordance with people's opinions and feelings. For me, if it doesn't work as advertised then it is broken. Or, in other words, if it needs fixing then its broke.

[Vince278]

Looks like Rantz and Cory are saying its broken in their interview (see Apolyton news 9 March). I like their honesty.