MOO 3 blood bath continues

I actually bought MOO 3 based partially because Brad said nice things about the developers and because they put a GalCiv flyer in the box.

Look-at this post though:
http://www.ina-community.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=268780&perpage=30&pagenumber=2

One guy put it like this:

Here is how your attempt to have fun goes.

You note that the research has turned up a new beam weapon, the disinto-master. You can't control the research, so you weren't trying for this, but there it is. You decide that this would make a good long range weapon. Your idea is to design a specialized ship that will stand off in the battle and snipe at the enemy.

So you go and design the ship. You use a spinal mount for the disinto-master. You mount extra detection gear on the ship even though you aren't sure of what ranges are involved and if this will help, seems like a good idea.


You force a planet into building a couple of these manually. You get them to the front and into a battle.

The battle starts. Where is your disinto ship? You click franticlly. You find a ship that might be it... you can't really tell from the summary screen. Your ship isn't in the back where you want it. You try to move it towards the back, but the AI just seems to do whatever it wants. There is a flash! A beam weapon fired, a green beam. Was that your ship firing, or someone firing on it? You couldn't tell. Now another flash, your are pretty sure that your ship fired, but you can't see the target. Was it firing the disinto-master? All you know is that something fired. Maybe someday the color of the beam will tell you what it was. There are some dots appearing near the ship. Are those fighters or missles or little ships? Your beams travel between the dots and what might be the disinto ship. Either your ship is firing at missles, or fighters, or maybe they are firing at you? Your ship fires again at something off the screen. You zoom out to try to see the target, but everything is moving. Was it that ship? Maybe. You click on it. It does not show you what the ship mounts, what kind of armor and shielding. Is your disinto weapon working? Was it even firing at that ship? Did it hit? The ship shows no damage. Did it hit and do no damage (shields?) or did it miss? or does the weapon not work? At this zoom level everything really DOES look like a dot. Something is going on around your ship, but you can't tell what. It is either being fired at a lot and missed, or firing a lot at something. Suddenly your disinto ship explodes. What caused it?

So in the end, you designed a new ship type , forced the computer to use it, and it was destroyed, but it was pointless. You can't learn anything. You don't know if the new weapon even worked, and if it did against what? Your ship was destroyed but you don't know why or by what. Should you make more disinto ships? Improve their shields? More detection gear? Research some other area? Mount more small weapons for use against fighters, if that is what those were? Maybe they needed escorts?

In the end, you might as well just click "auto build". Your only job with ships seems to be to go in every few turns and obsolete old ships (although that does not prevent the AI from building them if they are in the queue already, and this is a problem with large ships). If you obsolete a large ship that takes 20 turns to build, you really need to go to EVERY planet and make sure that there are none in the queue or there might be some built 60 turns from now. Your other duty is to design new ships. This just involves clicking "auto build" apparently, there is no way to see what anything does or how effective it is, or what the enemy ships mount, so no point in getting fancy.

Bryan


I haven't gotten that far yet that doesn't sound like much of a pay off to me. The whole game feels like it was designed by people who don't even play games. It feels like a bunch of accountants made it.

But I have more fun with Quicken than I'm having with MOO. I hate to say that because I really want to like it.
2,340 views 30 replies
Reply #1 Top
In fairness, Frank, Rantz from Quicksilver has responded to some of this:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=78919
Reply #2 Top
Quicken rocks. I love playing around with Quicken. Of course, I'm studying to be an accountant, with a goal to later in life get into programming, and maybe someday game programming...er... maybe accountants DID make it. ^^
Reply #3 Top
Brad,

Unfortunately, Rantz response sounds too much like "take it or leave it". Since that is essentially what Sid said about the problems with CIV3 that were pointed out to him, I guess I am going to pass on MOO3.
Reply #4 Top
Sad but true, I'm passing too. Ah well, more money for food. ;p
Reply #5 Top
(reading link). They had 5 guys dedicated just to art? GalCiv had 2 people working on art and only a third the time to work on it.
Reply #6 Top
Kind of sad that it turned out the way it did, like someone else has said - this failure hurts the genre as a whole.
Reply #7 Top
I totally understand why people are not liking this game. It's not very pretty. There are no "hooks" to immerse you in the universe besides the opening video. And a ton of information is presented to you in many unintuitive sub-menus.

However, after playing a few "test" games, reading *alot* of unnoficial faqs, player written strats, and the readme file (don't laught..it's important!), I am starting to get a grasp on this monster called MOO3. More importantly, I am starting to have fun with it. I think the hardest part to "accept" was the hands off approach to colony development. But once I had some large empires, the whole "Development Plan" approach made sense to me.

If you have this game, or are thinking of buying it, you have to approach it with an open mind. I think a lot of the people complaining right now are those that expected the game to be like a regular civ/moo empire development game. They then try to force the game into those parameters, and it just doesn't work that way.

I am actually very happy the game is the way it is. I was kind of worried when I decided to get GalCiv that I'd be playing two very similar games. But they both have very different play styles. When going from one to the other there won't be that feeling of "been there - done that."

Scott
Reply #8 Top
MOO3 has gotten some good reviews. A lot of its detractors should bear that in mind.

PC Gamer, Gamespot, GGM, and Computer Gaming World are still on tap. While there are some people who don't like it, there are certainly no shortage of people who really like MOO 3.

Bear in mind, when GalCiv comes out, there will be plenty of people who don't like it. They'll be on here saying how terrible the game is in some way. Maybe they'll think the lack of multiplayer in GalCiv is bad. Or they'll think that minor races are too powerful (even though they don't invade but I won't touch that here), or they'll say the graphics are bad or that the interface is bad or that the game is too hard or too easy.

The important thing is for those people who are on the fence should look carefully at both sides and see whose arguments you find more persuasive. Only you know what kinds of games you enjoy. One man's "crap" is another man's "classic".
Reply #9 Top
In general Rantz's response has to be largely take it or leave. It's certainly too late to make any major changes to the game, which seem to be the major source of problems.

Grifman
Reply #10 Top
I like MOO3. :D The universe seems alive, with those funky aliens making silly, computer generated comments (like when they try to get you to sign an agreement and try five different negotiating approachs, from begging to demanding, during the same turn). While it is difficult to figure out which ship designs work, I like designing the ships in MOO3 more than in any other game I've played. It's also alot more important to design ships for a purpose in mind (picket duty, long range attack, point defense, etc,) then it every has been before. I still don't fully understand it (I can't control those enemy spys worth beans), but I know that in time it will fit me like a glove. I'm analytical by nature, training and job function, so maybe that's just me. If MOO3 is cleaned up here and there it would be a great game. Even as is, though, its my favorite 4x game. :CONGRAT:

However, after seeing the way GalCiv has improved over time, I think that if Quicksilver had beta tested the game in a similar manner to GC, then MOO3 would have received a better response. If they had a dedicated bunch of beta testers play the game for months, and took their suggestions to heart, the reviews would have been overwhelmingly positive rather than being so mixed. :notsure:
Reply #11 Top
Quite simply - MoO3 is a User Interface nightmare. I do not claim to be a UI expert, but I have some experience in it. It is completely non-intuitive and detracts from gameplay.

A clumsy UI is one thing. But, a UI that detracts from gameplay is a NO NO.
Reply #12 Top
Sometimes I wonder if the people that make games even play them before releasing them.
Reply #13 Top
The post quoted at the top of this thread isn't the whole story, by a long shot. I read that thread, then went and explored a few more recent threads (including the one posted by Apoc - look for that one and read it over), and what I came away with was this impression: MOO3 needs _time_ to be grokked. You can't just go into it expecting it to be a continuation, or a clone, of MOO1 or MOO2. In many ways, it's _sui generis_, and needs to be approached in that way. It seems to me as if what people are saying is that if you don't "get" MOO3 at first, take a break, do something else, then come back, play the game a bit at a time, study the notes, pay attention to the rules, noodle around and see how things work. If you dive in expecting it to be just like the two previous games, you're going to be disappointed.

(Truth in advertising: I don't have the game yet. After reading those threads I mentioned above, though, I think I _will_ give it a try.)

-Joe-
Reply #14 Top
How many of the people who have made negative comments about MOO3 in this thread, let alone in the official MOO3 forum, even played the game bofore writing the post? :notsure:
Reply #15 Top
One thing I forgot - don't Alt-Tab out of MOO3 or you get directx problems! :sniff!: Again, their beta-testing left a lot to be desired.
Reply #16 Top
I got MOO3 the day it came out. I worked my way through the god-awful user interface, the crappy graphics, and the brain dead viceroys. I sat through many forced 10 minute borathons of seeing little dots zapping at each other. My reward? To find that the AI doesn't do anything. All games will end with a senate vote. Find me someone who has won or lost the game via a different method. Since the AI is incapable of actually invading a planet, that leaves it up to me to invade them. But going to war just means i'll lose the senate vote. It's not a game. It's a case study on poor software design.
Reply #17 Top
Brad,

Have you actually had time to try MOO3 yet? (With GC in its final month of dev., where could you possibly find the time?)
Reply #18 Top
I like the macromanagement concept. The viceroy AI is actually pretty good once you get the hang of the dev plans. Unfortunately, like most of the more complex aspects of the game, setting up good dev plans isn't documented at all.

Plus, there are some pretty bad bugs related to dev plans. You can only create about a dozen dev plans and there are about three times as many planetary classifications. After you create so many dev plans, you can't create any more, even if you delete existing ones. There are graphical glitches in the senate voting screen. The opponent AI needs to be more aggressive. Obsoletion of a ship design needs to be purge it from build queues.

With some proper documentation and a patch or two, it could be a pretty good game. As it stands currently, it's probably not worth the aggravation.
Reply #19 Top
I've played MOO 3 quite a bit. But it wouldn't be appropriate for me to comment on the game either way.
Reply #21 Top
But he shares the same publisher/distributor... think on that. :notsure:
Reply #22 Top
I wasn't asking for any comments, I was just shocked that it was beginning to appear that Brad was even finding time to try it, what with having to get GC locked up and out the door.
Reply #23 Top
Let me state right off that I really _wanted_ to like this game.

My impression of M003, and this is after devoting most of my free time since the 26th to playing the single-player game, is an overwhelming feeling of disappointment.

The minor annoyances in the game are without number and the major ones take away a good bit of the potential fun.

That said I think that many of the annoyances in the single-player game would vanish in a multi-player game with human beings on the other side of the table. I have no interest in the multi-player game so I guess I'll never know for sure.

Here's hoping subsequent patches will at least improve the single-player game to the point that I can enjoy playing it.
Reply #24 Top
With the statements by Constantine in September last year about the justification for delaying the shipping of MOO3 being the problems with the multiplayer functions, wasn't that just another clue that MOO3 was going to be ***primarily*** a multiplayer game? Perhaps, subliminally, that is what made me so leary of what MOO3 was going to be like when I read his announcement.
Reply #25 Top
I've been following MOO3 for about a year, and Galciv since the first time I'd really heard about it (six to nine months maybe?). And after having played MOO3 and from what I've seen of Galciv, I know the games are two totally different animals.

The first thing I think happens when people don't get what they expect is they hit the message boards. I think a lot of people are turned off by MOO3 simply because other people are turned off by MOO3. Half of the complaints would not even be considered if somebody else hadn't brought an issue up first. It's sort of a join the MOB mentality.

Disappointed fan #1: I DON'T LIKE THE WAY RESEARCH IS HANDLED!!

Neutral observer #1: ::Hmmm...I didn't think about that...he's right...reserach kinda sucks...

Disappointed fan #2: 800x600 resolution?? What were they smoking???

Neutral observer #1: ::This resolution DOES kinda suck....:::

Diasppointed fan #3: And what about these graphics?? Come on!!

Netural observer #1 turned Disappointed fan #4: Yeah!! This game sucks!!

Does MOO3 have problems? Absolutely! Computer AI needs work (Frank Leon above is right, AI doesn't seem to invade very well), documentation is atrocious (which I think would solve a good 50% of the complaints if people knew what was going on under the hood), resolution, research methods, etc., etc. Can these be fixed in a patch? Some of them will. Will they be patched? I hope so.

But all in all, I really think the majority just didn't get what they expected and are just disappointed. Me? I'm thoroughly enjoying myself. Yes, the product is a bit unpolished in places, but taken for what it is, it's a great game. Forget about MOO1, forget about MOO2, don't visit IGMOO, and take the game for what it is because I can tell you it is very different from anything that has come before. Some will like it, some don't. But for those that don't, there is GalCiv. I think GalCiv has a golden opportunity here and from what I've read, there's a great chance of capitalizing on a "disappointing" MOO3.

Yes, I plan on buying Galciv as well. ;)