11-04-2002 21:54									#1
	QS screwed up the MOO3 project bybeing too ambitious Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Better program management would have cut a lotof the new concepts a long time ago. It is both a waste of time and unbalancing to the game. Far better to make MOO 2.5. That is something we will like. Just fix the bugs/cheats. Add some better graphics and new options.

	11-04-2002 21:58									#2
	Increase Your PM Length

Could a mod fix my title spelling?

	11-04-2002 23:19									#3
	Re: QS screwed up the MOO3 project bybeing too ambitious Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by GP Far better to make MOO 2.5. That is something we will like. Just fix the bugs/cheats. Add some better graphics and new options.

Probably significantly cut costs, too. No need to hire any designers if you're just using the old design. No need to program new AI when the old AI is more-or-less sufficient. Etc.

I'm disappointed that MOO3 is probably just going to be MOO2.5, but if QS had planned on releasing MOO2.5 from the start (and only charging fifteen bucks for it instead of fifty) then I'd probably be inclined to buy it. MOO3 would have been worth my fifty bucks, and MOO2.5 would have been worth my fifteen bucks, but there's no way in hell that MOO2.5 is worth as much as MOO3. Now I'm gonna have to wait for the game to hit the bargain bin before it becomes a wise purchase.

	12-04-2002 02:00									#4
	Put an end to popups!

well it's about time we had some negativism in this forum....

	12-04-2002 02:03									#5
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by MarkG well it's about time we had some negativism in this forum....

Hey, I thought my post was pretty positive. I said that I'd probably be willing to shell out fifteen bucks for the game, didn't I?

	12-04-2002 08:34									#6
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Is it a sequel or a remake?

People get them mixed up.

Civ3 is a remake, while SMAC was the sequel to Civ2.

When doing a remake, change little, tweak, repaint...improve gameplay.

People say, you can't do that, it has to be new, have new concepts nobody will buy it if its just a the same thing made better.

These people are wrong. You don't reinvent the wheel, just make a better one.

Moo3 was to ambitious. Trying to be a sequel and a remake at the same time. It was going to suck and they are taking steps in the right direction. Good move.

	12-04-2002 08:38									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick Is it a sequel or a remake?

According to the storie on the official website, it would be a sequel.

	12-04-2002 10:20									#8
	Remove this text

There's nothing wrong with ambition. If it doesn't pan out every time, oh well, it was a gamble, but I am CERTAINLY glad that there are still people out there who want to take gambles like this. And who knows, Moo3 isn't dead yet.

I mean, even when you have something really darn close to a perfect game design like in Heroes II or III, I'm glad they didn't just rehash it again in Heroes IV and expanded outwards- because I already own Heroes II & III and don't need to buy it again.

	12-04-2002 10:27									#9
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

It may've been too ambitious from the start but the release date being pushed back is a good thing. More time to fix bugs & tweak gameplay (hopefully not more time for cutting though ).

As it stands the planetary development, economic, ground combat and construction aspects represent a significant step forward. As are the galaxy size and (hopefully) the space combat model.
I think I'd give it at least a Moo2.7 at present although a $50 price tag will turn into $110 here ...

	12-04-2002 12:57									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I agree... I remember hearing about it for the first time... My first thought was they are going to ax half of this, and it'll be hard as hell even to take half of it and make a game that will be completed in less than 5 years .

That being said, they cut out what I most liked what I read about... ethos. After that, I adopted a wait and see attitude.

	12-04-2002 15:07									#11
	Remove this text

I think it is normal that some stuff get axed. Should it have been axed before? Probably not, because you have to play in order to know what the game will be like.
But adding new concepts is a must. I don't give a **** about graphics, and I still play MOO from time to time. If QS want to sell MOO3 to a large public, they need these new features.

	12-04-2002 19:03									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Its also probably at least somewhat normal with ANY game development, not just sequels and remakes, that uptil you've had a chance to work on things for a while, you really don't know what you can and can't do.

Not to say that some things just can't be done with a game, but sometimes the current state of computers won't allow it, or a really good idea is just taking too long to fine tune into something workable.

I'm sure its a really fine balancing act between starting out overly ambitious (and being forced to cut things out) and not being ambitious enough (and either ending up with a so-so game, scrambling at the last minute to add more, or both).

	12-04-2002 22:12									#13
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MarkG well it's about time we had some negativism in this forum....

Just driving the traffic into non-OT forums...in my innovative way.

	12-04-2002 22:14									#14
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

I have no problem with trying things and with having some cuts/changes druing playtest.

But the problem here was that way too much new stuff was put in...and it was left in way to long. A more disciplined/less ambitious apporach would produce a better game. There is only so much money to dedicate to the project. If you waste it, than it hurts normal needed parts of the game (AI development and graphics/goodies).

	12-04-2002 22:34									#15
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Good point, but I still don't want to see Moo2.5. I played 3 games of Civ 3 because it was too much like Civ1.5.

Moo and Moo2 are quite different and that's why I have played both games far more times than I can count. That is what I am looking for in Moo3 as well.

	13-04-2002 21:53									#16
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Maybe some of these things were cut jprecisely because they only alotted a certain amount of effort and said, "Don't concentrate on this, but if you find a good way to do it without drastic expense we'll devote more of the budget to make it happen." I got the feeling that's what killed Ethos.

	14-04-2002 00:11									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

better planning ahead of time would have saved a lot fo work.

	14-04-2002 02:22									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by GP better planning ahead of time would have saved a lot fo work.

Yes. Do you know a single project for which this is false?
I believe that putting lots of innovative ideas in and then taking out what doesn't work is the best way to make an innovative game. Anyhow, until the game is out, we can't say whether it is a success or not, and you can't say a delay in the delivery is a failure because, once again, most projects are late.

	14-04-2002 03:36									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Adios Revolucion?

	14-04-2002 05:56									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare Yes. Do you know a single project for which this is false? I believe that putting lots of innovative ideas in and then taking out what doesn't work is the best way to make an innovative game. Anyhow, until the game is out, we can't say whether it is a success or not, and you can't say a delay in the delivery is a failure because, once again, most projects are late.

It is not a digital situation but one of degree. How many new ideas should you put in and how long should you let them stay in the pipeline? This project was poorly managed in terms of initial weeding. I bet some QS guys would agree with me.

	28-04-2002 21:29									#21
	Re: QS screwed up the MOO3 project bybeing too ambitious Get a bigger avatar today!

Hey, that's what I have been saying since Day 1 of this forum.

Stop stealing my line

	28-04-2002 21:34									#22
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by LDiCesare I believe that putting lots of innovative ideas in and then taking out what doesn't work is the best way to make an innovative game.

That's absolutely correct.

The only problem is this should be done during the design stage, when everything is still on paper.

	28-04-2002 22:05									#23
	AI Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think a lot of the cut issues point towards the very, very complex AI in the design document. I think there is a reason why every automated build que manager I've seen has sucked monkeys, and I don't think the answer is, "because they wanted it to."

This is a very hard thing to handle. They might have underestimated only this in the design stage, or not even underestimated it -- just they had a lot of trouble getting it to go, and because of budget, they had to let it go and everything related to it.

Now this doesn't explain why everything was changed, but it does explain most of the changes people care about -- others may be related to this, because they couldn't get the AI to handle the origional idea or what have you. It is easy to imagine this disjunction between "what is wanted" and "how hard is it?" at the design stage, and I don't blame them for being overambitious at that stage either. Molyneux had a very very ambitious vision with Black and White - probably too ambitious as well; however, I believe he financed that project himself.

-mario

	28-04-2002 22:05									#24
	Support Apolyton

I hope Alan has learned something from this. If he learns, than maybe he will do better on the next project. If not, I doubt he will be gettting many more projects.

	29-04-2002 08:49									#25
	Inflate your Upload Space

Alan has no experience programming. His best bet will be to team up with a veteran programmer next time.

Maybe he can join Firaxis and learn a few things from Sid

	29-04-2002 09:46									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I hope Vel takes note from this. Just being a grognard and a smart guy and a critic of the game iindustry is not enough to "do it better". I worry that he also will not understand the issues of cost benefit and of program management.

	01-05-2002 14:20									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by GP I hope Vel takes note from this. Just being a grognard and a smart guy and a critic of the game iindustry is not enough to "do it better".

That's the truth.

	01-05-2002 17:39									#28
	Re: QS screwed up the MOO3 project bybeing too ambitious Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GP Better program management would have cut a lotof the new concepts a long time ago. It is both a waste of time and unbalancing to the game. Far better to make MOO 2.5. That is something we will like. Just fix the bugs/cheats. Add some better graphics and new options.

Phew, who want's Moo2.5? The same people who wanted Civ 2.5 instead of Civ3? If you make a sequal then make it BETTER then it's predecessor, which Moo2 was NOT better than MOO1 (IMHO).

Why make another crappy version of the game (MOO2.5) based on a title that was worse than the original?

(SInce you're trolling, there's your response; )

	01-05-2002 19:27									#29
	Put an end to popups!

I wonder whether they had playable models of these new concepts? Were the models fun?

GP will get his MOO 2.5, so it isn't quite a "screw up", at least if you weren't the one funding the project.

One thing to keep in mind is that even the all-dancing, all-singing Sid has a Dinosaurs now and again...

	01-05-2002 22:35									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

It would have been a better 2.5 if more realistic design had been made from the beginning. They have had to rip huge parts of the design out. looks like that was all wasted effort. Maybe it will impact parts of the project like graphics and AI.

Bad work...