Blame MOO3's problems on the Internet?

[BobD]

IMHO the internet is both a blessing and a curse when it comes to games that are published these days. It's a blessing because you can access forums (like this one) to get help when you have a problem. On the other hand, it's also a curse because publishers and developers can ship a game full of bugs, and then use these same forums to confirm the problems with the game. They further exploit the net to then easily distribute the patches to get the game fixed.

Give me the old days when you could buy a game with a good feeling that you would be able to play it out-of-the-box without any problems.

[Boris Godunov]

I don't think that is the problem with MOO3, from what I am reading. It's not that it is buggy and incomplete, it's that it was badly designed (or that the good design was altered into an exceedingly bad one). Reading the interview with the designers, I think that's the way it happened.

[BobD]

To a certain extent I suppose that is also true. However, there are also many issues mentioned that have been classified as bugs. Whether it is poor design or a bug, the comments I've read from many users tend to indicate that a patch (and soon) is the only solution.

In the Help&Bug Reports section of this forum there are two prominent threads that only deal with this topic, and the lists are long. The general consensus seems to be that these are not "rocket-science" type issues. In other words, they should have been in the original game. But that would have meant further delays for shipping, and therefore a longer wait (by the publisher) for revenue. Hence their decision to ship an unfinished game, and use the net to fix it later.

[Boris Godunov]

From what I've read and heard, I don't think the patch is going to address the fundamental problems of the game, which are due to bad design. For instance, the removal of the points system, the inability to micromanage the governors at least a little and cumbersome screen interface. If those don't get changed, it won't make all that much difference, IMO.

The thing they talk about changing most is the AI, but they also admit that the AI problems were not really a bug, but by design. Rantz seemed to believe the major problem was the player not getting enought information, not that the AI acted irrationally. I don't by that one bit, based on the stories I've heard.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
From what I've read and heard, I don't think the patch is going to address the fundamental problems of the game, which are due to bad design.

I totally and thoroughly agree with you.

That's what Bruce Geryk said in an article commenting Tom Chick's review of MOO3. Here's the link, for those who didn't read it yet:

http://www.quartertothree.com/columns/geryk_analysis/MOO3_1.shtml

[Grumbold]

For what its worth I completely disagree with them. The parts of the AI you can't override are pretty trivial. People who obsess about needing to micro all the empire's decisions will be driven mad by MoO3 but anyone else will relax and get used to it. You make the big decisions about the oppressometer, building policy, empire tax rates and even place all the DEA's if you want to etc but leave them to do the turn to turn juggling of local demands.

Restoring IP's would just have been an additional burden. Instead of jumping through 20 turns concentrating only on your battle fleets before taking time out to see how your planets are getting on, you'd have to be considering which planets to tweak each turn to use up IP's because you wouldn't be allowed to do all of them in a single turn. Does this make the game more fun or better designed? I don't think so.