Anyone else worried about this one? I started to have a strange feeling in my stomach when it kept being delayed, and then it was announced that it would be re-engineered to reduce the complexity. Don't get me wrong, I'm a support of less complexity after I saw some of the miles of spreadsheet data that is supposed to make the game tick. But am I the only one who's worried that this is less of a streamlining process and more of a "redesign the gameplay because the game wasn't fun" move? Anyone with hinkfo?
I'm just hoping that when the game is released, I won't end up deciding they should have thrown out the 5th X and just given me MOO II with pretty 3d planets.
I'm a big fan of the MOO series, and I too had concerns when this title began its delay cycle. In fact, I was concerned when I started reading how complex they were planning on making it. It sounded like pie-in-the-sky drivel, actually -- a little too complex to be fun.
Don't get me wrong, goals are good. But as Dirty Harry said, "A man's got to know his limitations."
I should mention that the website frightened me a little, too. :-) It's a chaotic mess. I hope that's not indicative of MOO3.
Yeah, I ran into those guys a few E3's ago when they were first talking up Moo3 and from everything they told me early on, I had the gut feeling that this was a total Pie-In-The-Sky project. Massively, overly complex.
Kinda reminds me of what happened to Stars Supernova. Whatever the hell happened to that game? It was really massively complex as well, the point, I fear, of taking out all the fun.
I've had doubts about MOO3 ever since I first heard of the ambitious design also. The design sounded like a Usenet wishlist with about 50 players all chiming in with cool features they'd like to see.
They're cutting back on it now, but you have to wonder if they have time to playtest it properly.
It was billed as a "5X" game. Let's hope the fifth X doesn't stand for excrement.
There are some sharp folks on the dev team, and I had hopes when I previewed it. Still do. But when Alan Emrich left, it made it hard to keep a rosy outlook. Well, all we can do is wait. They have more time and they've adjusted the scope.
I had my doubts about MoO3 as soon as I found out that they were drastically limiting the ability to customize races. Then there was the whole "imperial focus point" thing that they touted then dropped, showing at first over-engineering and then later resulting a radical design shift. I suppose I'm still cautiously optimistic. I'm just hoping they don't end up pulling a 'Myth III' on us...
- Alan
". But am I the only one who's worried that this is less of a streamlining process and more of a "redesign the gameplay because the game wasn't fun" move?"
If the games not turning out to be fun then something needs to be done. I don't see that as a bad thing. I do wonder how they ever thought that so much could have been included in the first place, but at least they see that changes need to be made instead of trying to hammer the square peg into the hole until it fits method many devs seem to use and then release a subsequent mess of a game.
Oh, I'm not saying that they shouldn't redesign if it isn't fun, that should be the goal of any game. I'm saying, I worry about a game whose release was delayed several times and then they announce it's got problems. Doesn't instill much confidence, nor the fact that just about everybody in the thread appears to have the same misgivings I do.
I was looking forward to Moo3. I loved MoO and never was micromanagerial enough for MoOII. I think GalCiv is one for Moo3 fans to watch. The beta was just released at www.galciv.com
I'm beyond worried; I basically expect it to be bad.
Hope I'm wrong... I count MOO 1 as the best 4x strategy game ever, and MOO 2 as a decent game in its own right.
I've been following Galciv from afar, but don't you have to pay (to be part of the "Drengen" (sp?) network or something) to join the beta? I can't quite see that...Originally Posted by Jonathan
Still, I'm anticipating buying Galciv when it comes out.
I'm a little concerned about it too. The design is still too overly ambitous --but hopefully it will pan out into a decent game. I think MOO purist aren't going to like it because the design seems to stress a more hands-off approach to micro-managing your empire.
One of the things that made the original game so special was that everything was right there at your finger tips and the gameplay mechanics weren't all that complicated...
GalCiv could be a good alternative if MOO3 tanks. We'll see. The game could rock...
You can "buy" Galactic Civilizations now and you'll be part of the beta team and get all releases up to the final gold master. IOW, you can play it for whatever time it takes them to finish it and then play the full version too.
Alternately you can pay for a Drengin.net subscription and get the same thing plus the rest of the Stardock lineup of games for about $25.00 more.
--Dave
Thanks for the info, Dave; I don't usually buy games before they are released, but I'll give it some thought.
As much as it pains me to say it, MOO3 is looking horrible. I just picked up the new CGW (James Bond cover), and they've got some screens of MOO3, as well as a very wary description.
The screens look like total crap, and 3D cards are optional. Now, I'm not one of those folks who places graphics over gameplay, but this is supposed to be an A-title from a major publisher that's been in development for more than 3 years. WTF were they doing over there? As for 3D cards being "optional", hasn't it been years since we've actually had to worry about this? I mean, anyone who's bought a PC in the past 3-4 years has pretty much had 3D automatically built-in.
I was talking to one of the guys at my EB, and he said that he cancelled his own personal pre-order because the game was starting to look really iffy to him. And he was a huge MOO, MOO2 fan.
Yeah, I've lost interest. I think MOO is my favorite PC strategy game, and I liked MOO2 somewhat, but... MOO3 seems ill-fated.
It's too bad, but it happens.
I really enjoyed MOO as well. I was not terribly fond of MOO2, too many things to worry about. MOO was about perfect in terms of things you had to manage. It is too bad that MOO3 looks so bad. It would have been better if they had gone back to a more simple formula like MOO had. Sometimes adding tons and tons of features and making things complex is not the best thing you can do.Yeah, I've lost interest. I think MOO is my favorite PC strategy game, and I liked MOO2 somewhat, but... MOO3 seems ill-fated.
It's too bad, but it happens.
-- Xaroc
MOO3 was at Gen Con 2001. MOO3 wasn't at Gen Con 2002. Not even in looping B-roll preview format. Infogrames was showing everything else on their plate yet felt they'd be better off leaving MOO3 at home. I asked an Infogrames producer why it was missing. He did one of those head shaking snort/chuckle things and I dropped the question.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote