The poll.

I assume you go with what you heard of it, since I'd be surprised if anyone here has played MOO3.

Since I have yet to see MOO3 (but played MOO 2) and have never seen SEIV, does that mean I should go with MOO3? I think not. I don't even know what SEIV is like. It just might be right down my alley. So, my vote is "I don't know".

BTW, does anyone have a link to SEIV that they could post here? Or if you know who is publishing it, that should be good enough to get me there.

http://www.malfador.com/se4.html

Dont forget the Forum on Shrapnel Games http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=23
And the Play By Wab Server (In my option the best feture beside the modability)
http://seiv.pbw.cc/

OK. I got the SEIV Demo and have played around with it for a while. So now the poll is very confusing. Other than some pictorial differences and differences in detail, where is the difference between MOO 2 and SE IV? Conceptually, abstratually, they look the same.

Also, after going through the tutorial, how do we set up things so that prospective buyers of GC/Win see the differences in concept from other games (like MOO and SE) "right out of the box". And I think this is VERY IMPORTANT. The start of all three games is about expansion and protecting one's boarders until you build up enough of a military and tech base to be able to go to the other methods of winning. The SE IV demo only allows you 100 turns, but you spend that 100 turns in expansion and self protection. There is no chance to see what else the game may hold.

MOO3 != MOO2.

My bigest problem with SEIV is the micromanagment. It's great that you can do so much stuff, but it gets annoying once you realise that you have to do all of it to win. MOO3 is supposed to allow a lot of flexibility with what you can do, as does SEIV, and automate everything you don't want to do. AI is pretty poor in SEIV (although there are user-made fixes to that), but it was one of the things that they focused on in MOO3.

Not having seen MOO 3 yet in any form (and the released version has yet to be released) I don't know if I will believe the MOO3 := MOO3 comment just yet (I am, after all, an incurable sceptic). Also, if MOO3 := MOO2 why would I want to buy it? Another example is CIV2 and CIV3. CIV3 definitely does not := CIV2, and the playing arround with some of the concepts in CIV really ruined it for me when I bought CIV 3 ( I really think I wasted my money).

I will check out the forum on Shrapnel Games for more about SE IV. I hope my point about being able to see the differences of GC, from all other games, "out of the box" is well taken.

One other question. My impression of SE IV from the demo is that it is so much like MOO 2 except that the basic system support is much more up to date. Since I can't play MOO 2 on my current system I can see buying SE IV as a substitute for MOO 2, but what other reason would I have to buy it?

And, more in line with the origination of this thread, what difference is there between MOO and SE that could help me in the current poll choices? As far as I can see, they are conceptually the same. But in the creation of the current cyber poll on this forum the poll originator had to have some difference between these two games in mind as meaningful enough to serve as a request for guidance from us. So, who created this particular poll question, and what can you tell us about what your concerns/intents are in creating this particular poll?

The best thing of SEIV is the Play by Web where you can play against other players! I.E. I have a game where I make a turn ever 24h and a game where I makle a turn every 48h and then you beginn to love the micromanagment you can do . Also dont forget how old SEIV is already is and that SEIV is writen by one person if I am right informed.
MOO3 ism something I will buy perhaps in 6 - 9 months from now when they get out the bugs they put after they rush out the game with very litle testing. I also dont trust the sayings they make on thyre homepage as every one who whant to sell something only praise the product to the highest and dont say a word about the fallings of this product.
The only thing I know about mthis 2 games and also GalCiv is that they are diverent games and are hard to compare (perhaps SEIV and MOO3 are easyer to compare to each other then this 2 can compaer to to GALCIV)

MOO3 probably won't be too buggy. They've been pretty much content complete for over a month now, and they've only been doing game balancing and bug hunting since then. With still a few more weeks till gold, I'd be surprised if it had too many bugs. There'll probably be a few things with unusual system configurations, but that happens with every program.

MOO3 is not the same as MOO2 anymore than MOO2 was to MOO1. I've played a pre-alpha version (if you can call it playing, it was pretty incomplete at the time), and it seems to support this.

I'd like to know what use they had for this current poll (unless they were just curious). They probably had a specific difference or set of differences in mind when they made the poll, but it's hard to tell what they want. It'd help us provide more accurate feedback if we knew what the intention was with this poll.

I hope I do not offend the Stardock people but I plan on getting MOO3. I think comparing GC with something like MOO3 is wrong. They different games.

Guess what Technician, Brad has often talked liking to play MOO (mostly MOO 2).

Jack,
I've played both MOO2 and SEIV for a long time and find them very different. SEIV is much more heavily into micromanagement than MOO2 and contains much more detail. It is this huge amount of extra detail that usually sets it apart. Everything in MOO2 is in SEIV with so much more option wise. It also has a huge number of automation options and capabilities.
I like both games but prefer MOO2. I like playing as the ruler of a civilisation and find SEIV just has too detail. In my opinion its an example of too much not being good. There are many things I do prefer about SEIV though, such as its research approach. Admittedly though I prefer MOO1 to MOO2! Simple, beautifully crafted, no micromnagement and easy to play a quick game.

Paul.

Thanks, Paul for confirming my suspicions about the similarities.

Back to my question to the originator of this poll question. What is it you are looking for? And why do you think we have any basis for forming an opinion between SE IV (which is too much like MOO 2) and MOO 3 (which isn't even out)?

I guess the question is focussed on level of micromanagement.

It is clear that SEIV contains much more detail and far more content than MOO2 (can't comment on MOO3 obviously). MOO2 however has the right balance between detail and playability which has made it very popular.

Assuming MOO3 will be balanced like MOO2 (playability and fun versus detail and micromanagement) which type game would you prefer?

Could be very improtant for Stardock. Do they implement ll these great ideas or do they only focus on a few to keep the game less detailed / complicated but possibly more fun.

This comparison reminds me of the comparison between the CIV series and Destiny. Destiny was a game which took CIV as a basis and then greatly increased the level of options and detail. It was very detailed and great fun to play ... for 1 hour after which time you realised that it was just too muchj detail and the game never progressed quickly enough because of the detail.

Paul.