Announcement

**Kc7mxo** · March 8, 2003, 17:55

use
more
paragraphs.

i'd try and respond but your post is making my eyes heart.

**Vince278** · March 8, 2003, 18:19

Re: HI, im new here

Originally posted by SINISTER1974
Anyways what im trying to say is i hope i can contribute positive aspects of this game, and get a few questions answered, and hope to answer a few.
S1974

Keep to that and you'll do great. Feel free to give your opinions.

Kc7mxo - My eyes heart too...

**SINISTER1974** · March 8, 2003, 19:51

Better??

**vee4473** · March 8, 2003, 20:07

Re: HI, im new here

Originally posted by SINISTER1974
But what i dont get is how people can insult the game and makers after only having it for 10-15 hours. Thats not enough time to get to know a new game. I think people like this make it tough for the game to lift off because they dont give it enough time to evolve.

S1974

It seems to boil down to those who think a game should be accessible and easy to learn within the first hour and those who have all the time in the world to give to a game so that it can "evolve".

Neither preference is wrong.

However I still think that any game should have mechanics that are fairly easily understood. And then you spend much time to master the various ways of applying those mechanics.

I am of the opinion that a game should be fairly easily learned.

I only write this post because you said that you didn't understand how anyone could be critical of MOO3 after "ONLY having it for 10-15 hours".

after 10 hours, i expect to have understood the game mechanics 9 hours ago.

On a side note, I was in CompUSA today and saw MOO3 for $40. I was tempted, but I kept thinking about the descriptions of the gameplay here.

I passed it up, my head filled with thoughts of GalCiv.

**Don K Hotay** · March 8, 2003, 20:23

If you don't have a good understanding of MOO3's mechanics by the first, second or third hours of playing, all it means is that you've been spoonfed easy-to-learn idiot-proof games for the past few years; it doesn't mean that you lack smarts or any ability to learn...unless you give up.

Once you form an armada and go for a romp across the known galaxy, system by system, or after you quelch a brutal civil war and emerge as an immensley prosperous civilization, et cetera etc..., you won't have any doubts that spending the first few hours learning and wasting the next 48 hours playing and completing a game was well worth it.

Quixote

**Proteus_MST** · March 8, 2003, 20:32

Re: Re: HI, im new here

Originally posted by vee4473

It seems to boil down to those who think a game should be accessible and easy to learn within the first hour and those who have all the time in the world to give to a game so that it can "evolve".

Neither preference is wrong.

However I still think that any game should have mechanics that are fairly easily understood. And then you spend much time to master the various ways of applying those mechanics.

I am of the opinion that a game should be fairly easily learned.

I only write this post because you said that you didn't understand how anyone could be critical of MOO3 after "ONLY having it for 10-15 hours".

after 10 hours, i expect to have understood the game mechanics 9 hours ago.

On a side note, I was in CompUSA today and saw MOO3 for $40. I was tempted, but I kept thinking about the descriptions of the gameplay here.

I passed it up, my head filled with thoughts of GalCiv.

Yes I think you´re right with this.
At the Moment MOO3 is better suited for people who have the patience to find out many of the Rules for themselfes and who like very complex games.
But contrary to your Opinion I don´t think, that any game should be easy to learn and understood (maybe because I am one of those Gamers who like complex and hard to learn Games

).
I think there should be both, Games for those People who rather like easy games and Games for those of us, who like it more complex and who have the patience and sit 10+ hours at the game, trying to understand its basics.

But of course a lot of those difficulties of getting into MOO3 can be solved with a better Manual and an better encyclopedia, and as Quicksilver works on those things, there is still hope that other Players who buy the game at a later time may have less difficulties/work to understand the basics of the game.

**vee4473** · March 8, 2003, 20:34

I hate the theory that easy to learn games are meant for idiots.

It doesn't take long to learn many great strategy games.

Chess being the cliche example.

but it does take a while to master strategies.

Not wanting to spend 30+ hours to learn a game doesn't mean you're an idiot.

I still think a game should be easy to learn, hook you in, yet have longlasting strategy and replay potential.

And I can't argue that MOO3 may well be an entertaining space TBS game after the riddles are solved, because I haven't played, I have just read what people on this forum have said (people whose opinions I respect).

ehh, this has been debated ad nauseam.

**Don K Hotay** · March 8, 2003, 20:39

Chess is a great example, because I first started playing in the second grade. I didn't know anything about it at first, but over the course of a week, watching my buddies play during class breaks, I finally learned. We played differently back then....there was no check or checkmate. You just had to kill the king.

Quixote

**Proteus_MST** · March 8, 2003, 20:48

I for myself like to play Go.
It is also easy to learn (even easier than chess) but it takes a lifetime to master. And it´s one of the few games which are also difficult for Computers to solve.
At the Moment even the best Computer Programs have just a Playing-Strenght of 12. Kyu, which is "just" the Strength of an advanced Pupil and some distance away from the Dan-Grades (the Master-Grades).

But on the Computer I also like complex games (like MOO3) where you even have to look into the mob-Files to understand the underlying Principles (I was also one of those gamers who liked to mod CTP2 and Civ 3 to better fit their tastes

).

**vee4473** · March 8, 2003, 20:50

Proteus:

YOU ARE RIGHT ON!!

I have no problem with those who like to unravel the mysteries of any game. That goes back to my point that there are 2 thoughts on this.

You may be correct.

If the manual explained many of the mysteries, then the game probably would strike my fancy.

I just can't stand the notion that people think it is normal to spend days to discover the explanation of this or that...when it should have been explained in the manual.

If you go into a game store to buy a game, and you see a game CD that is just hanging from the ceiling, no documents attached to it, just a bare CD with a label that says "Here's a new game, figure it out", would you buy it?

And I know some will say, yes they would buy it, out of pure curiosity, but be real.

I am thinking back to a quote from a certain movie that rings true to me...

something along the lines of " the more comlicated a system is, the more help they have to give you"...

any guesses where that's from?

heh heh

**Kc7mxo** · March 8, 2003, 22:09

Better??

yep.

But what i dont get is how people can insult the game and makers after only having it for 10-15 hours. Thats not enough time to get to know a new game. I think people like this make it tough for the game to lift off because they dont give it enough time to evolve. I can understand some of their view points, but posting same things over and over and getting more aggressive isnt the best way to go. Granted if i went out and bought a 20,000 dollar car and had to wait for part to arive before i could drive it would upset me. ( game waiting for patches =car waiting for parts)

well, it may indeed be a good game (i suspect so), but most people don't have the patience to "play" something for 20 hours if they're not having fun. the first time I played civ 1, I was having fun. Even if I didn't really know what I was doing.

Moo3 wasn't an awful experience, but it didn't grab me either.

**aiin** · March 8, 2003, 22:43

People have a right to complain if the most important part of the game(enemy AI) is broken. Hell QS even said the game wasn't finished and they had to cut the features. Most people are pissed at the way QS and their beta testers were hyping up the game before the release. I remember them saying how the enemy AI was brutal and diplomacy was something no one has seen before.

Not to mention the annoying fleet disappearing, PD not working and other assorted bugs.

**Proteus_MST** · March 9, 2003, 05:38

Disappearing of Fleets, aiin?

Could you explain further?
Have you lost those Fleets enroute, at specific Stars, or in Combat (without taking enemy hits)?
Just curious, because I have never encountered this bug and this is the first time I hear from it (maybe even worth a thread to see if there are other people around who encounter the same Problem)

**statusperfect** · March 9, 2003, 12:04

Originally posted by Don K Hotay
If you don't have a good understanding of MOO3's mechanics by the first, second or third hours of playing, all it means is that you've been spoonfed easy-to-learn idiot-proof games for the past few years; it doesn't mean that you lack smarts or any ability to learn...unless you give up.

Once you form an armada and go for a romp across the known galaxy, system by system, or after you quelch a brutal civil war and emerge as an immensley prosperous civilization, et cetera etc..., you won't have any doubts that spending the first few hours learning and wasting the next 48 hours playing and completing a game was well worth it.

Quixote

Well spoken.

Announcement

HI, im new here

HI, im new here

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment