Surprisingly frank interview with Rantz/Cory

[Ray K]

Re: Re: Re: Surprisingly frank interview with Rantz/Cory

Originally posted by Harry Seldon


Where did you see this? The only patch they mentioned was the AI patch and they said they're testing to make sure it fixes the problems in that module and that it's a worthwhile download. They never said once they're going to abandon it. You don't even own the game, do you, so why do you care even if what you said was true?

I was speaking about the tone of the article. The tone. They sounded pretty beaten to me.

I care because, like many others, I wanted MOO3 to be a good game and had my hopes up like everyone else and I cannot turn that interest off like a light switch. If ownership is a requirement for having an opinion on this series, then perhaps Apolyton should require a CD-Key before posting.

[Harry Seldon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprisingly frank interview with Rantz/Cory

Originally posted by duodecimal

Well, I own it, and a few people are waiting to hear from me, one in one group saying she would "appreciate knowing if the patches help, or if they're just going to dance around the issue and not fix the really annoying stuff".

I'm not making any predictions on what gets patched. It doesn't matter whether someone owns the game (I do) or not. What gets patched and what doesn't is equally important to both groups.

I understand. I was mostly speaking to Ray K. See below.

[Harry Seldon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprisingly frank interview with Rantz/Cory

Originally posted by Ray K


I was speaking about the tone of the article. The tone. They sounded pretty beaten to me.

I care because, like many others, I wanted MOO3 to be a good game and had my hopes up like everyone else and I cannot turn that interest off like a light switch. If ownership is a requirement for having an opinion on this series, then perhaps Apolyton should require a CD-Key before posting.

The reason I say this is because I've seen you posting a plethora of negative things about the game, but you don't seem to have even given it a spin yet. The tone of your post, the tone of most of your posts for that matter, make it sound like you have an intimate knowledge of the game. I point this out because for all the reasons I had to not buy the game, I did, and I'm happy with it. I won't say there aren't things to be fixed, but maybe you should go to EB and at least try the game instead of repeating what you've seen in others' posts. EB will let you take it back for up to a week no questions asked and then you could tell us what you truly dislike about the game instead of what you think you'll hate.

[Ray K]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Surprisingly frank interview with Rantz/Cory

Originally posted by Harry Seldon The reason I say this is because I've seen you posting a plethora of negative things about the game, but you don't seem to have even given it a spin yet. The tone of your post, the tone of most of your posts for that matter, make it sound like you have an intimate knowledge of the game. I point this out because for all the reasons I had to not buy the game, I did, and I'm happy with it. I won't say there aren't things to be fixed, but maybe you should go to EB and at least try the game instead of repeating what you've seen in others' posts. EB will let you take it back for up to a week no questions asked and then you could tell us what you truly dislike about the game instead of what you think you'll hate.

Read my original post. I was speaking about the attitude of the programmers. I was not speaking about the game.

In fact, most of my ire is directed at QS, not MOO3.

[The Templar]

Hey Seldon, I own the game, I've played the game, I've mastered the game, guess what?

It sucks!

I'm kidding (the p***ing matches around here are getting old though . . .)

Hey RayK, where's that java MOO you were doing? Can't wait to see your AI. Guess you'll show ol' Rantz a thing or two about writing code (now tuck your tail between your legs and hide under the bed like a good little kitten).

As for QS, that was refreshingly honest. Too bad it was several days too late. Two more years ?!?!? Guys, its a motherf***ing game, not the cure for cancer. If you can't get a video game right in the three years you had, you won't get it right ever. Next time, plan first then write code. Next time? What publisher in their right mind would hire your incompetent asses to write a screen saver.

Fix the diplomacy to be more rational (yeah, I know their aliens and all but jesus, its a game not a xenobiology simulator) and make the AI agressive. Then you'll have an ok game. If you want a great game, go play MOO1 several times - that was the "Mona Lisa", the "Kind of Blue" of computer strategy games. MOO3 is a half-assed Pollock by comparison. A fun game don't get me wrong, but not one I'll likely be playing years from now.

[Killazer]

No revelation to me I knew the game sucked quite a while ago. Well it doesnt totally suck, but it should have been about 10x better. 110 UI screens originally???!!!! ROFL hahahahah that would have been INSANE. We would have had to spend a month just to learn the game. Nobody wants to do that -it is a GAME after all. QS did a very piss poor job of designing and implementing Moo3 and let down a very large amount of MOO enthusiasts.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Asmodean
So guys. They're not admitting that they made a poor game (because they didn't). They admitting that the game could be better, and that they're comitted to making it better. So Comrade Tribune, slitherin et al. Get down from your hign horses. You do not look too good on them.

Perhaps not a poor game but they did say it was broken which is worse. Committed to making it better? Chantz was saying that how long ago? If that horse was any higher it would be at Woodstock.

[ChaotikVisions]

Where did they say it was broken?

[TheMaestro]

The game could be better, no doubts there...but it is still a good game. A lot to fix, but a lot went right also.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
Where did they say it was broken?

From the Gamespy interview:

"As for the AI, testers were having a problem beating the game on the difficult game settings. They just couldn't win, so the AI was dumbed down about two weeks before shipping by adjusting certain modifiers that determined how aggressive the AI would be. However, this in turn affected other things because the game is so intricately intertwined. "We didn't have a chance to do due diligence to see if other things were broken because we didn't have time to test it fully," Hoseley said.

There is an AI patch in the works, but no release date has been announced. "AI patches have to be tested efficiently or your solution breaks other things ,"
(Italics are mine for illustration)

[ChaotikVisions]

Thats your smoking gun? Thats just about the AI getting toned down affected some other things, not the whole game being broken. And they're patching the AI to fix that part, with mods being out already to make it play decent in the meanwhile.

[Vince278]

What is being implied is clear enough. They're not worried about breaking something, they're worried about breaking other things.

I think someone else in the forums said it best: The engine is broken but don't worry, the rest of the car works fine.

[ChaotikVisions]

Uh no, have you ever worked with code before? Changing one thing can end up breaking something else. Its hard to know how everything will respond. So its just about making sure changing one part won't adversely affect other parts, just like you'd find in any other game...

[Vince278]

We two must be the only people up at this time of night.

I see what you're trying to say...

[vmxa1]

Nice try, but I am up as well and playing Moo3.