 |
|  |
 |
|
Master Marcus
|
 |
Quebec, Canada
Jan 2000 time: 00:15
|
|
I voted both of course. I'm like the cameleon, I can be a macromanager ,OR a micromanager over all the details in the case of great games in the civ tradition. Why not to adapt if the game is worth it, like the upcoming MoO3 I hope. As for MoO2, it's still a landmark game worth playing and not beaten in the genre. A masterpiece. Period. You may not like it, and be glad to hear the macro side of MoO3 - perhaps the returning of an "elegant simplicity". But don't let that fool you: MoO3 will be ...elegant, we hope, but for the simplicity thing....it will be the most complex game to date, 10 times more detailed with a learning curve x10 next to the prequels - even without micromanaging the "boring details".
Hope your computer is not too slow for handling these upcoming huge battles ( forget the minimal requirements ), otherwise you may want to stick with the original MoO ( perhaps unbeatable ) like some addicts still playing the original Civ ( the originator ).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Rhuffin
|
|
France
Aug 2001 time: 06:15
|
|
MOO1, definitely.
It was simple, effective and fun. I love the design ship module (with which you could more customize your ships than with MOO2). But it was the slider bar system which made the game so effective (you could manage your empire as you wanted but it was not too tedious).
MOO2 had too much micro-management. Too many thing to build on your colonies. It was difficult to have a fast paced game as in MOO1.
I remember a usenet discussion way back in 95 when MOO2 was announced. The subjet was "we want MOO gold not MOO2". MOO gold being MOO with better AI, better graphics and a few more races, techs ... After playing MOO2 I definitevely agreed with that statement. I still play MOO from time to time, but not MOO2.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
vmxa1
|
 |
Oviedo, Fl
Nov 2001 time: 21:15
|
|
I have always said that people will tend to prefer the version that they used or heard first. If you are old enough to know more than one version of a hit song, you tend to like the one you heard first. You may like both or how ever many version you have encountered (hits, not covers). Games are the same only more so. I say that because songs are not impacted by technology. So for Moo2 if you played it first and then tried Moo, the sound and graphics are very dated. If Moo3 is good, people who get it and have never played MOO or MOO2 will probably feel they are inferior. Moo2 did introduce some very good functions as you say shielding and arcs, ground combat with more variants (tanks/battle droids), leaders. Moo has played on every box I ever had from 386 to PIV and all operating systems from DOS, OS2 to NT. As for Civ3, once I stop for awhile it will probably a long time before I come back. MOO/2 are very easy to come back to as you can have a fast game and it is easy to remember the strategy. Civ3 you had better use the better strategy or you can not win. You can not start a game and then realize you should have done this or that and forgot, you will lose.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
k.k.fly
|
|
I really like moo1's planet bombing and ground attack animation.
so i voted moo1
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Yolky
|
|
Ontario Canada
Oct 2001 time: 00:15
|
|
I love both games. The only problem with MOO2 is that it went the Civ way and you can only research one tech at a time.
MOO whas great that you could research 6 techs at the same time. That is a must for me to research mutiple techs at a time and alocate how much goes where.
Both are great games.
Davor
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15. Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|