 |
|
Zanteogo
|
|
No refitting? Are you sure?
Last thing I heard was that ships in reserve get upgraded automaticly over time...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Xentropy
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ozymandous
Ah, you are a BT then so you know what you're talking about or are you just spouting off your opinion, like every one else?
Just checking... |
Personally, I'm more likely to listen to a "random person spouting off their opinion" than a beta tester after reading the official MOO3 boards.
People who were very much anti-cuts and seriously disenfranchised with the game before they got their beta copies are suddenly all glowy and happy in their reviews of MOO3 now that they're a tester. It smacks quite strongly of "post a bad review and you don't get the next build" strongarming from the same people who rolled Alan Emrich's head for "creative differences" (you know, Alan wanted to make a good game, and IG wants to release another cookie-cutter clickfest, so they just couldn't work together well) and hamfistedly mod out every slightly anti-QS/IG sentiment from the official boards. (Heh, it's funny, even I have some bad things to say about Infogrames, and I'm a stockholder. :P)
You take a group of 50 or so beta testers ("randomly selected" my ass, too, almost every "winner" is some fairly popular board poster going all the way back to the 2001 community), and I don't care if your game was written by God Almighty, ONE person out of those fifty is going to dislike the game in some way. Even Blizzard games are disliked by at least 2% of gamers, and they're considered the "holy grails" of PC gaming by most people (for some reason; personally I'm not a big fan of most of their stuff, so put me in the 2% :P). So for NONE of those beta testers to have a bad thing to say about the game just means they're being told what to say and not say, on a level far beyond your usual NDA, and ergo their opinions can't be trusted.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Craig P.
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Xentropy
You take a group of 50 or so beta testers ("randomly selected" my ass, too, almost every "winner" is some fairly popular board poster going all the way back to the 2001 community), | Bulls***. All of the BTs outside the contest are fairly popular board posters. However, only one of the contest winners was a fairly popular poster. Note that at least a couple of the BT impressions and AARs were not from Xentax, Sencho, or CK. Also note that some of that "fairly popular" group had been critical of the direction QS/IG was taking after the, um, events of the spring.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
nato
|
 |
West Unite
Aug 2001 time: 00:24
|
|
I was never sure whether I liked IFPs or not. However, I'm sure of one thing. The removal of IFPs is a very bad sign for MOO3.
From the start, IFPs were constantly mentioned as a major feature of the game. They weren't just a small feature, they were an integral part. Also, they were supposed to be MOO3's big new innovation.
Taking such a major component out of a game this late just CAN'T be a good sign, whether I liked the idea or not. I think its a major warning sign that MOO3 is not in good shape, and is mostly being hashed together.
Now, I find from this thread that they removed ship refitting & upgrading, and I'm not happy at all. I liked that a lot in MOO2.
Cutting capture ships is a big loss too. That was a whole class of ships, and almost even a style of race if you went for ground combat bonuses.
But what really gets me are these cuts:
Ability to rename systems
Ability to choose empire color
No choosing ship apperance
These bother me for two reasons. First, I just don't understand how hard they can be to include. Things really must be desperate. At least match MOO1!
Second, it pretty much says that customization is a low priority. I can understand this not being a big deal for some people, but it is for me.
I'm getting pesimistic about MOO3 now. I think I may wait a year for the patches; I sure wish I had done that for Civ3.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Craig P.
|
|
quote: Originally posted by nato
But what really gets me are these cuts:
Ability to rename systems
Ability to choose empire color
No choosing ship apperance
These bother me for two reasons. First, I just don't understand how hard they can be to include. Things really must be desperate. At least match MOO1!
| MoO1 didn't have to worry about multiplayer, which is the stated justification for not allowing users to pick empire color (and which generalizes even moreso to not allowing users to rename systems).
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kalbear
|
|
Huh. I can see how it might be somewhat less cool, though I don't have access to the site directly right now (and what's up with that), but they sound much better than the almost pointless outpost ships in Moo2. The idea that you can capitalize on, say, higher pop growth of your race over someone else and go for cheap, quick expansion at the cost of early development is a nice alternate strategy idea, especially given the idea of the senate and starting out in a crowded section of the galaxy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Craig P.
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TheMaestro
My god they cut outposts? | Did you actually read the linked thread?
"Gutted" != "Cut" in this case. In fact, I think "gutted" might be going overboard, though I wouldn't argue with "scaled back significantly."
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kalbear
|
|
There are some things that are simply baffling to me, like lack of color/ship design choices and lack of renaming systems.
The rest makes pretty fair sense. Refitting doesn't fit in the model they have, and making it fit requires too much retooling for too little gain and very little fun.
Outposts are similar to MoM's style - they are limited colonies that stake a claim. Considering that you have unlimited range and speed/ability to protect chokepoints is the real key factor, I'm not surprised they were changed. They did get modified from the data dump, most notably because of game balance issues.
I'm not sure that most people realize exactly how much is different in MOO3, especially compared to the first two. The sheer scale, the task force system, ground combat, diplomacy and the Senate, space lanes (and that does change quite a bit), race mechanics, spying, government choices, queue choices, race balancing, population emigration and growth, research, economics, taxes...
They did indeed take a lot from other games. It sounds to me like they took some of the better elements from MOO (like no buildings and slider bars), MOO2 (leaders, interface, economics), SMAC( better diplomacy and council politics, better queues and templated queues) Ascendancy (notably spacelanes, notably absent AI), CIV series, and a few others. They introduced real-time combat to the set in a fleet-based system.
I do believe that the list of cuts is painful to some, but really, how bad is that going to make the game? Are any of the cut things going to be more than merely annoying to people?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Xentax
|
 |
North Carolina
Apr 2002 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TheMaestro
My god they cut outposts?
It's confirmed, they officially don't care about what the actual consumer wants. Outposts were so helpful in MOOII, when you're surrounded by systems with nothing but Gas Giants and Asteroid belts...without them you'd be stuck for so damn long.
No outposts, artemis nets, can't even choose a color, rename a system...no refits? And didn't they get rid of most of the MOOII hold-overs in the company?
Remember, George Lucas had a whole bunch of new people for Episode I, and we all saw how "classic" that turned out to be... |
You're exaggerating, to put it mildly.
"What the consumer wants"? What the consumer wants is a fun game, last I checked, and that's what they're trying to deliver.
FYI, the MOO2 outpost is almost completely useless in the MOO3 context -- you're no longer have limited range (though ships far from home cost progressively more to maintain).
What WAS going to be new and different was different kinds of outposts with different bonuses when created. As it stands, they're basically a mini-colony -- they don't create fully-functional colonies as quickly, but they're cheaper, too.
It sounds like you want MOO 2.1, IMHO. No Artemis System nets, true. There were plans for non-trivial, non-abstract minefields in MOO3 at one point, but they didn't make it, either. Be upset about that, not the missing Artemis, if you want to be upset about something.
Refits will come, eventually. Everyone wishes they could get them in for the initial release, but you'd have to choose either a buggier release or another delay to get it. Sorry.
I'm not sure what you mean about holdovers in "the company" -- QSI is a completely different company from SimTex, which made MOO and MOO2.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kalbear
|
|
Not that doom stars were all that much better, but yeah - being able to do a negligible amount of damage to ships and then not being able to attack them first anyway was effectively stupid.
Now, if they did them right, well hey, cool beans and all that. But I won't be crying over that.
Now, not being able to change my empire color and continually having RED...that might get on my nerves after a while.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
TheMaestro
|
 |
of the Potomac
Nov 2002 time: 00:24
|
|
Obviously you never played MOO2, Artemis nets were useful.
But think about it, if QSI is a whole new company, then they can never live up to the ratings of MOO2, which was truly a great game. Check out any sequel made to any game, if it was made by someone secondary than the originals. Star Control III, different people than Star Control II. Had QSI kept all the MOO2 people, they would have had veterans of this kind of code-database, but since they've been working from scratch, they've had to cut all these little things that while not important individually, make the game more interesting and fun in the long run. Sometimes creating a massive expanding empire doesn't feel the same when you're empire color has to be purple.
But it's just a game, no need to get defensive and sensitive about it, and defend a company that has yet to give people anything.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Xentax
|
 |
North Carolina
Apr 2002 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by TheMaestro
Obviously you never played MOO2, Artemis nets were useful.
But think about it, if QSI is a whole new company, then they can never live up to the ratings of MOO2, which was truly a great game. Check out any sequel made to any game, if it was made by someone secondary than the originals. Star Control III, different people than Star Control II. Had QSI kept all the MOO2 people, they would have had veterans of this kind of code-database, but since they've been working from scratch, they've had to cut all these little things that while not important individually, make the game more interesting and fun in the long run. Sometimes creating a massive expanding empire doesn't feel the same when you're empire color has to be purple.
But it's just a game, no need to get defensive and sensitive about it, and defend a company that has yet to give people anything. |
Um, "you don't know what you're talking about" would come across as offensive, so I won't say that. But I think you're making some bad assumptions, at least.
-- QSI never *had* any of the MOO2 people -- though Steve Barcia did talk to Alan about the project at least once.
-- There is NO code re-use from MOO2. That's not always a good thing or a bad thing; in this case, I'm pretty sure it's a good thing (I'm a software engineer by day, so I have some insight into this sort of issue).
-- I know there are a lot of examples out there of "don't let somebody else to the sequel!", but considering SimTex isn't around anymore to even potentially have done MOO3, that's really a non-issue here. It was somebody other than SimTex, or nobody at all.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|