MOO3 should have been canceled.

[MariOne]

Originally posted by H Tower
this thread proves once again that not all people should be allowed to express an opinion. Yeah, let's cancel a game that thousands of dollars have been spent on, good idea!

Did you read my post?

In case you didn't, I humbly suggest that you scroll back above, and read it.
That's not MY "opinion", it's a well and long established Project Planning and Management concept, principle and technique, that I overheard (wait... I should have indeed "studied" it at the Uni 15 yrs ago...) and was just *reporting*.

It may defeat "common sense", but that's why it's called *common*.
Dismissing what one doesn't understand (and mind, I'm using "one", not "you"...), only proves that one is an ignoramus.
Which frankly I don't care at all personally, "one" can make of himself what he wants.

[Ianpolaris]

H Tower,

To put it more simply, Mari has a good point that IMHO he made rather well (I suggest you reread it).

In short, if a project is badly overdue and overbudget (which are usually one and the same), then it might be best from a purely economic perspective to cancel the project. This reasoning applies to any project (not just Moo III).

The old expression "throwing good money after bad" is precisely (as I understand it anyway) what MariOne was trying to get at. If it is going to cost you more money to finish a project than you expect to make, then the project needs to be cancelled. That was how I understood ZBB anyway.

The fact is Moo III is generating enough negative press and has generated enough ire (especially because of the hype that preceded the release) that IMHO this title probably should have been cancelled under this standard. Of course not everyone agrees, but it is an opinion with a solid factual foundation.

-Polaris

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
Now reasonable people can (and do) disagree about how fixable the game is or even how substandard it is. However, I have yet to see anyone reasonable (even those that support Moo 3) say that it is fine as written....because it isn't.

I haven't seen any reasonable people saying this game is so bad it should not have been released. Its just not what some people wanted. Personally I think its better than all the other non-MoO space TBS games I've played, and none of those got cancelled either.

[Jamski]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Personally I think its better than all the other non-MoO space TBS games I've played, and none of those got cancelled either.

Grumbold - I think you've got it! I've never noticed this, but dammit you're right! Yes its not perfect, but what (apart from MoO2 perhaps) would most people say was a better space 4X TBS game? Hmm?

-Jam

[H Tower]

Does anyone actually figures of how much money Moo3 has made? And how much was spent to make the game? I still believe that Moo3 will make a profit. So no, don't cancel the game.

[Ianpolaris]

Guys,

At the risk of further fueling emotions, I would have to say that with all of it's myriad faults and problems, both CTP and even the much maligned B.O.T.F. (commonly known as "barf") were better than Moo III out of the box.

At least both of those games had explicit user feedback, an understandable interface (more or less), and were generally fun to play (at least until you noticed all the problems). None of that is true for Moo III.

When Moo III compares unfavorably with B.O.T.F., you know you have a disaster on your hands. Don't expect IG to spring for more than one patch (if that) regardless of what QS wants to do.

-Polaris

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
At the risk of further fueling emotions, I would have to say that with all of it's myriad faults and problems, both CTP and even the much maligned B.O.T.F. (commonly known as "barf") were better than Moo III out of the box.

I don't know, MoO3 out of the box is better than CTP2. I do get attacked in MoO3 (occasionally, after turn 250), and the PD bug is the only show stopper (CTP2 was riddled with bugs). Patch a few of these problems and I think you have a decent game.

On the other hand, given the overruns and lackluster result, nobody in their right mind would contract QS after this. Even in Rantz's confession, you get the picture that they were writing code w/o a solid development plan (after firing the lead developer early on). That is not encouraging.

And before everyone gets started about 'lackluster' - face it, in your gut you know its true. The UI is overly complicated and often non-cooperative, you can't name things/pick colors/colonize Orion after exterminating the New Orions/see system names on any but the lowest zoom/take your pick of tedious little things that seem to be missing. The AI isn't particularly aggressive and certainly doesn't manage ground invasions well. Oh wait, I forgot, they tweaked the AI before release. Then again, has anyone seen those original ass-kicking AI files?

Don't get me wrong, the game is fun, but it isn't great in the way Civ, Civ2, Civ3, MoO, and MoO2 are great. Frankly, sales wouldn't be anywhere near what they are if it didn't have the name 'MoO' attached to it.

But should it have been cancelled? I don't know. But I do know that when the original development team was shaken up, they should have written a plan before they wrote any code.

[DaShi]

:sniff: Reminds me of the old Civ3 days. Those were good times.

[Ianpolaris]

Guys,

Templar said:

But should it have been cancelled? I don't know. But I do know that when the original development team was shaken up, they should have written a plan before they wrote any code.

Um....people....? Isn't this freaking common sense when making something as complicated as a game? [And yes, games are one of the most complicated things you can code.] Shouldn't that have been a warning sign in big red letters that IG should have pulled the plug 2-3 years ago?

-Polaris

[Boris Godunov]

Ok, I don't own the game, and all of the kvetching and reviews have ensured that I probably will never buy it, at least not until it is in the bargain bin.

Still, I've seen enough people who can put aside the negatives and enjoy the game and who seem to REALLY love it that I don't see any rationale behind "they should never have released it!" It's not a very buggy game at all, from what I have read, which already beats out most new game releases. Its problems also seem to boil more down to a matter of taste rather than any sort of tangible things. People who expected a tweak on the MOO2 model are upset because it's a lot more different than they wanted, while those expecting an entirely new gaming experience are disappointed. Gee, sounds like Civ3...

[Ianpolaris]

Boris,

Civ 3 even at it's worst and most rancorous never approached the level of the Moo 3 disaster....and folks disaster is precisely what it is.

I was around (as a lurker) on these boards when Civ 3 came out. I felt the game was flawed, but it was a game and people did have some fun with it. Even Yin 26, the most noted Civ 3 critic, admitted that the game (Civ 3) was interesting during the early ancient period.

I also point out that the Civ 3 magazine reviews and user reviews while mixed were mixed on the positive side.

None of this is true for Moo 3. While many games are roundly criticized when they are first published, the Moo 3 outcry both on the net and in the user reviews is nothing less than astonishing. Unfortuately (yes IMHO) having played the "game" (I put that in quotes because AFAICT it is not a true game), I find those critics to be completely deserved.

-Polaris

[Boris Godunov]

Ian, I've read many positive reports on the game, and several folks who originally expressed anger have come to appreciate it. So that comes down to a matter of taste and opinion, not an objective fact.

You don't like the game, but that's you. A lot of people don't like it, but that's them. It sounds to me like I wouldn't like it, but that's just me. I can't help but think that a good deal of the anger is a result of overhyped expectations rather than objectivity.

In the end, I can't say, from what I've read, that they released a bad or shoddy product, merely one that was radically different from what people expected. So for those who are disappointed, that's too bad. For those that are enjoying it, good for them.

But I don't see how any of that means that they shouldn't have released the game. For all QS knew, they had a game people would enjoy. That's all the reason they need to release it.

[Ianpolaris]

Boris,

Speaking for the moment strictly for myself, I did play the "game" extensively and I found it to have very few redeeming features whatsoever. My anger comes from having climbed the 'learning cliff' to find a lackluster experience awaited me on the other side. In short I wasted 50 USD and by so doing encouraged QS to make a shoddy project again.

Furthermore when I gave the game away to my friends, every single one rejected the game with even harsher criticism than I had....and many of them have very different tastes in computer games.

Furthermore, I suggest you read the user reviews coming in on GameSpot and Amazon. I have never seen a single title so villified.....not even BOTF which was a pretty awful game.

However, let's get back to the issue at hand:

Fact: The project was years overdue (in fact almost two years overdue).

Fact: The devs had no clue as to how to design this game (not having a Dev Plan speaks volumes in this regard)

Fact: The project during this past year was in total shambles

Fact: The final product was unfinished, undone, and generally shoddy as Rantz has admitted on GameSpy contrary to what we were led to believe during the X-Mas delay.

Given all of these facts, if I were an IG suit, I would have at least considered cancelling the project and giving it to a more worthy team. If I had played the beta, I would have.

-Polaris

[MariOne]

Originally posted by H Tower
Does anyone actually figures of how much money Moo3 has made? And how much was spent to make the game? I still believe that Moo3 will make a profit. So no, don't cancel the game.

Just to wipe any misunderstanding and personal grudge, I was not saying that MoO3 was going to be a fiasco for sure.

I was pointing out that the decision of *not canceling* a project ONLY because of the "already spent" money (as you were sustaining), might turn out to be a Bad Business Practice.

That made clear, it's quite "possible" that THIS case will turn out to be actually profitable. I don't know if that's also "desirable"...

I am besides happy for those who managed to enjoy this product in the end.
I'm not talking about an eventual cancelation in spite of them.
BTW, when you say "don't cancel the game", you missed the train. In cas you didn't realise it yet, the game HAS NOT been canceled and that's done and can't be backtracked.
We were just "hypothesizing" about a Project Mgmt decision IG "could" have taken in the PAST (and didn't) and its consequences on us as gamers and customers of the product that ensued....

[Don K Hotay]

The game is great for multiplay, much better than most other turnbased games before it, especially CIV3. I think a LAN game of MOO3 would be a great gaming experience, so I hope I can make it happen soon.

On the other hand, the AI is a random variable from game to game in terms of competitiveness. In the single player game I'm on right now, the AI's I've encountered are quite fierce. Of course, no matter how much damage they do, they never ever invade. And thats why this patch needs to come out right away.


Quixote