13-01-2003 23:35									#31
	Suffering from ads?

i fell less tender now

	14-01-2003 02:15									#32
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I don't have the education to back this up with fancy words, but I should think it is pretty obvious that two games like these, releasing at roughly the same time, will generate some added interest for the genre. Especially if they're any good.

But!! I will also add, that the competition may very well hurt one or both of them, and my gut feeling tells me that Galciv will lose the most by releasing after MoO3.

Asmodean

	14-01-2003 02:48									#33
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It certainly WILL benefit the genre. But it boggles the mind to think that the genre will expand to the extent that growth in the genre is sufficient that the game's individual sales will increase. Instead they will "eat each other's lunch". Brad has already said that this is what he thinks will happen. And it is common sense.

	16-01-2003 19:57									#34
	Trickle down Tired of ads?

I remember that I never bought either of the Dark Reign games because direct competitors came out first.

I think it extremely unlikely that the market for 4X games will "widen" because you release 2 similar games at the same time.

Its pretty clear from the M00 3 "official" forums that almost everyone over there knows about GalCiv.

Given IGs record with the MOO 3 release date, if GalCiv were on the shelves I think alot of people would get it thinking that Moo 3 MIGHT NOT be out within the forseeable future.

If MOO 3 gets out first, GalCiv will have a terribly hard time catching up.

My Thoughts...

I'm 39, and I buy all the games I play...

GB

	17-01-2003 01:03									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I'll probably wind up getting both, mostly because I'm new to the genre, and hoping that one or the other will fill me with wonder

On the other hand, I feel sorry for which ever I like the most, because that will be the one that is too in-depth and complicated for the mass market, and hence the more likely of the two to fail.

	17-01-2003 07:36									#36
	Re: Trickle down Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Ghostbear I think it extremely unlikely that the market for 4X games will "widen" because you release 2 similar games at the same time.

I don't know ...
Look at Civ3. I'm not sure exactly how many copies they've sold but its a fair few. At a guess there are quite a few who made it their first foray into the tbs market. I've also noticed a few posts on the Paradox board about people who got into the genre through Civ3 and then diversified.
Probably not quite a representative sample, but still ...

	17-01-2003 18:42									#37
	Re: Re: Trickle down Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by ravagon I don't know ... Look at Civ3. I'm not sure exactly how many copies they've sold but its a fair few. At a guess there are quite a few who made it their first foray into the tbs market. I've also noticed a few posts on the Paradox board about people who got into the genre through Civ3 and then diversified. Probably not quite a representative sample, but still ...

I think the things we (I) like best about a 4X game:

Complex gameplay
Deep strategy
LONG games
Satisfying single player

Are (unfortunately) exactly what limits their mass appeal.

Take multiplayer for instance, a good MP game takes at the most a few hours to play. In a good game of MOO2, you had just barely gotten started after 2 hours.

Given the Civ3 example, you could make the case that MOO3 (with name recognition) might not be impacted (much) by GalCiv releasing first, but the reverse isn't going to be true.

For my part, I would be happy to buy both, hopefully before I grow old and die.

GB

	17-01-2003 21:58									#38
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Now that MOO3's official release date is February 25, the same day we had planned to release GalCiv (a date picked over a year ago) the decision is going to have to be made soon whether to push it back or not.

I don't really think moving it forward is a good idea. I think it increases the chance that some bug would get through or something that another week or two of testing would have found. And you'd really need to move it forward by 3 or 4 weeks to have any real difference.

	17-01-2003 23:15									#39
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Now that MOO3's official release date is February 25

if you're refering to our news item about the infogrames.de notice, it's not the final one.

the official release (as displayed by quicksilver's site) is currently "very soon"

	17-01-2003 23:22									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Very soon meaning "some time this spring" probably...

I doubt that Quicksilver will make the deadline, so you and the rest of the crew donīt have to hurry, Draginol

	18-01-2003 00:55									#41
	Increase Your PM Length

And now that I have the Beta, Draginol: You guys take all the time you want.

Asmodean

	18-01-2003 01:10									#42
	Very soon Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I believe the "Very Soon" has been sitting there since well before Christmas.

Either:

They experience time in dog years or,

They are just too afraid of more flames on their website if they change it.

	21-01-2003 06:10									#43
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Funny, in the MOO3 forum its all "go MOO3, MOO3 rocks and GalCiv sucks" and here its the opposite.

I guess I'm a MOO3 guy, primarily based on the following:

I have played games like Civ, MOO, SMAC, etc for many years of my life. (Started on Civ1 when I was 8) (No I dont mean I played them continuously for years....dont go there)

For many many years, I constantly wished I could play these games multiplayer, but alas, it was never to be. Civ 1, MOO, MOM, Civ2, all single player. Finally came MOO2, and it was multiplayer, and I played it with my brother, friends, college roommate, etc.....many many MP games of MOO2.

MOO3 is multiplayer....GalCiv is not. I will therefore buy MOO3, because if I played GalCiv a lot, I would eventually come to the point where: "I rule at this game, and kill the AI, but oh I wish I could play multiplayer".

I will get good at MOO3 with some SP to start, but after that I will mostly play MP.

I am not a fan of incredibly long games....I prefer my games to take an evening at most.
I used to like long games back when I was in school and had tons of time. (well, sometimes in school i had loads of time) If it was like that now, i would probably buy both games. As it is, I just dont have the time....i dont have the time to learn GalCiv and master it and then wish I could play it MP, when MOO3 exists.....I'll choose the one with MP and play it.


I hope GalCiv is successful and helps more of this type of game to be produced in the future. I hope MOO3 is a blockbuster and inspires more of these tyes of games to be produced in the future. (I dont really see GalCiv as doing that...but MOO3 may have the power to do so).

So thats my take, from a MOO3 guy.


Regarding the MOO3 releasedate....yeah its slipped a lot, but when the game coms out it will be quite solid. Such is the price to pay for a bugfree game. (by bugfree I mean free of large, crash-type bugs)...nothing will be entirely bug free of course

	21-01-2003 06:39									#44
	Remove this text

Of course, MOO3 doesn't have an open beta program so I'm not sure how users of the forum there can compare the two.

But I agree with you on one thing, if multiplayer is the crucial feature, then obviously MOO3 may have an advantage depending on how well it's pulled off.

But as someone who has spent the last decade developing multiplayer games and having played many games multiplayer (if you were in PGL, you may have heard of me as "Frogboy" in there) I can say that what sounds good on paper may not turn out.

Freedom force has multiplayer too. So did HOMM3. Heck, Neverwinter Nights has multiplayer. Now some people swear by the multiplayer in these games. But for others it was a mixed bag.

It is my view that multiplayer games have gotten PLENTY of attention over the past decade. You say a successful MOO3 will bring more attention to its type of game. What type would that be? Multiplayer strategy games? There's been no shortage of those.

On the other hand, it seems to me that the number of strategy games where intelligent computer AI has been the goal has been very small.

Certainly MOO3 will sell more units. On the other hand, GalCiv won't be an obscure game by any stretch either. Hopefully both will help show that there is still a market for in depth strategy games.

	21-01-2003 06:58									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Hey frogboy, I'M the Frog! (see my nick lol

I played Homm 2 and 3 multiplayer a lot and loved it.

There have been incredibly few multiplayer 4x type games, and that the kind I am most interested in....


The big reason MOO3 is taking so long is they refuse to release a bad game....they had something near the beginning of 2002, and decided it sucked, so they totally redid everything....thus it is now "vaporware" lol. It'll be out in a month or two (Maybe even a couple weeks, if Gonegold.com is right!!!)

They had crash bugs and problems in multiplayer, so they have delayed the release for months until they get them right. I think the quality of MOO3 will be wonderful.

AI and less micromanagement were design features from the start...so we hope they will work. Basically all our opinions of the game are based on what the Betatesters tell us....so you can be sure, but I tend to believe them when they say stuff like "the builds we got at first a few months back really really sucked and I was scared and thought MOO3 would be horrible, but it has steadily improved and now its awesome"

But of course, I loved MOO1 and MOO2 and I WANT to belive MOO3 will rule...

we'll see

	21-01-2003 22:24									#46
	Hmmm Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Alexfrog There have been incredibly few multiplayer 4x type games, and that the kind I am most interested in.... That could be because 4X games are not well suited to MP. They are complex, and usually take a long time to play. Hopefully, no one wants them to dumb down MOO3 to suit the "one evening" model of MP games. The big reason MOO3 is taking so long is they refuse to release a bad game....they had something near the beginning of 2002, and decided it sucked, so they totally redid everything....thus it is now "vaporware" lol. It'll be out in a month or two (Maybe even a couple weeks, if Gonegold.com is right!!!) They had crash bugs and problems in multiplayer, so they have delayed the release for months until they get them right. I think the quality of MOO3 will be wonderful. Of course, this is what they said, but I really have trouble believing that. If the only problem was MP, then why not release SP before Christmas then patch in MP in a few months. You simply can't convince me that the loss of XMas sales is going to have a MAJOR impact on the end sales numbers. I don't think anyone would have NOT bought it if the MP was promised as a free patch. But of course, I loved MOO1 and MOO2 and I WANT to belive MOO3 will rule... we'll see

I too hope MOO 3 is great. I no longer believe anything they (IG) says though. Too many half-truths. Also, they run their boards like a bunch of Nazis.

Not to my liking.

	21-01-2003 23:32									#47
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I also want MOO3 to be a good game. While I'm skeptical of it being everything they claim to want it to be, given QuickSilvers track record, I think it will probably be an enjoyable game. (fingers crossed, anyway)

	22-01-2003 00:43									#48
	Got spare money?

But Alexfrog...you are missing the point: Galciv will have an AI that is so good, that you feel like you are playing a human oponent. So if you choose multiplayer only because AI's normally suck, then you should give Galciv a try.

Then of course there is the social aspect of multiplayer, but that is an entirely different matter.

Asmodean

	22-01-2003 00:51									#49
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Asmodean Galciv will have an AI that is so good, that you feel like you are playing a human oponent.

Much as I'm looking forward to GalCiv, I'll believe that when I see it.

	23-01-2003 03:57									#50
	Got spare money?

regarding the multiplayer....

I have played civ II and 3 mP now.

RTS are cool for MP
and FPS are cool for MP

but TBS is just too long. I think your resources are much better spent making an AI that will hand you a couple of toe tags and say "you'll need these", than on making a MP game few people will play ( GalCiv will not be able to compete with MoO3 in number of players online).

AI is probably the most important thing in this game.

However, I thnk a hotseat option couldn't hurt.

In fact, IMO, very TBS should have a hotseat, so it can be played like a board game.

	23-01-2003 04:15									#51
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Asmodean But Alexfrog...you are missing the point: Galciv will have an AI that is so good, that you feel like you are playing a human oponent....

ROFL!!! OMFG!!! mwahahaha............oh thats the funnies thing I have heard in a long, long time.

wait a minute, let me reread that and make sure what it said....

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!! Yeah, you said what I think you said!!!!!!!!!!! AI so good you think its a human, ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

I suppose it would pass the Turing test then? LOL! omg thats funny! And it would be a match for me without any cheats even after I had mastered the game.....

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!

oh that was a good one. I laughing so hard I'm almost in tears.

quote: Originally posted by Asmodean Then of course there is the social aspect of multiplayer, but that is an entirely different matter.

Thats 50% of it, of course......the other 50% is playing a hard challenging game in which is hard due to great play by both sides and not because of cheating or advantages given to an AI due to difficuty level.

AI that plays a 4x game liek a human........ROFL!!!!!!!!!! omg thats rich! youre a natural commedian!!

	23-01-2003 04:24									#52
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I have played the following 4x TBS type games multiplayer:

MOO2 (a whole bunch...and then some more)
HOMM2 (a fair amount)
HOMM3 (even more)
Lords of the realm 2,
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri,
The old space exploration/conquest game Spaceward Ho (heck, thats all we did for a year back in junior high....)

and more. Had their been multiplayer capability, I would have player MOO1, Civ1 and Master of Magic a bunch in multiplayer too.

These games usually take some time, though many of the homm games and MOO2 games took merely a few hours...playable in an evening.

MOO3 will be simultaneous turns, with timed turn limits, and a time limit on battles, so it wont take forever. Furthermore it gives small rewards for finishing your turn early, to encourage players to not waste time once they know what they want to do.

It should work well for MP. I plan to play MOO3 MP games in an evening, and it will provide both good competition once the AI gets boring and you want to test your cool strategy against another humans cool straegy, and will be social as well.

I spent about 8 years of my life playing Single Player TBS 4x games and wishing I could play multiplayer. THen they finally started coming out with multiplayer capacity in those games....
Thank GOD for MOO3!

If Galciv had MP, I would probably buy it too....but it dont, and they have no plans to do it, so I'm a MOO guy, and thats what I will remain.

	23-01-2003 04:28									#53
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by NeOmega regarding the multiplayer.... I have played civ II and 3 mP now. RTS are cool for MP and FPS are cool for MP but TBS is just too long.

No.... CIV games dont work well in multiplayer....

there are 4x games that are not the micromanagement nightmares that Civ is. These games work fine in MP. They are longer, yes, but not unbearably long....
I tried multiplayer Civ and multiplayer SMAC and they were lame.
But MOO2 MP with its simultaneous turns and less micromanagement was good.

And MOO2 had a lot more micromanaging than MOO1 did! Moo1 MP wouldve been even shorter.

MOO3 should have less microing than MOO2, so it should be great for MP.

	23-01-2003 06:45									#54
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

yah but I suppose the whole reason I really enjoy TBS is I like the enourmous empires, long drawn out wars... etc.

	23-01-2003 06:52									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I hate huge empires and long drawn out wars...

I wish they would eliminate almost all microanagement, shrink the tech tree by over 50%, use smaller maps, and take only 2-3 hours for a game, so I could play good multiplayer

And I am NOT being sarcastic!

I am bored to death of games that take 20 hours to finish. I want to try a strategy, play it, and then play again! I have other stuff to do besides spend 20 hours on one game. It also the reason I dont like console RPGs as much anymore. They used to take 20 hours, back in the old NES days....now its 50 or 100. And most of the increase isnt in extra plot.....they just make it take FREAKING forever to load each battle with the stupid battle animations, and just generally waste a lot of your time.

This is especially important in games like MOO where race customization is possible....since then a large part of the strategy is in your custom race, and you need to play a lot to see which customizations were well and what doesnt!

sigh....

	23-01-2003 07:05									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Wow, Alexfrog it sounds like you just want an RTS rather than a TBS game. I'm with NeOmega on this one. I love the long drawn out strategies that take hours to pull off.

	23-01-2003 07:15									#57
	Got spare money?

no, I actually dislike RTS games.

I like TBS, I want to be able to think, and play a game not based on clicking-speed....

RTS games dont deserve the title "strategy", they are all about telling your people to do stuff as fast as you can, building new buildings and pumping out units as fast as you can, and sending them out to attack and controlling the battles, all at the same time.....they are "tactical" games, I think, ther is often battle tactics, but I wouldnt call them 'strategy' games.

I want to be able to think about my turn for a reasonable amount of time, but not excessive, decide on a course of action and implement it....fight battles while not having to worry about developing too (like in RTS), etc....

I just think they could shorten up the game a bit.

I like MOO and MOO2 because my SP games now take only 2-3 hours or so to play, and thats on large galaxy, impossible, max# computer players. That because they dont have as much micromanagement, and I know what I am doing so I can go fast, and I know how to win without having to go through the entire tech tree

	23-01-2003 07:17									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

This discussion really highlights why it would be a good idea to wait for MOO3 to ship before releasing GalCiv.

MOO 3 gets an immense benefit of the doubt.

I've yet to play a turn based strategy game multiplayer that I enjoyed. HOMM3, Civ multiplayer, Civ 3 multiplayer, etc.

Even games that I thought would be fun multiplayer (Neverwinter Nights, that super hero game, etc.) turned out not to be terribly fun when played on-line.

In an RTS game where I can expect to be finished in 30 minutes, an hour tops, I can deal with quitters, dropped connections, abusive players, etc.

But in an in depth strategy game, especially a turn based one, it might take 20 minutes just to figure out that the other guy has no idea what he's doing.

I will be curious to see how they handle that in MOO3. Many MP people take for granted that most good multiplayer games allow you to crush a totally clueless online opponent in minutes. I'm not just talking "rushing" but being able to mount a light attack 10 minutes into the game. I don't see this really possible in a Civ-style game (or MOO style). So how do you prevent people from wasting time in imbalanced games?

That's what's nice about single player games. IF the AI has been done right, you can set up your challenge level and get an enjoyable experience out of it.

The GalCiv AI won't play like a human. It doesn't disconnect because "my dad needs to use the computer". It doesn't use some wacky cheese tactic to ruin the game. It doesn't spew "N000B!!!" onto your screen because you're taking your time to set up your strategy. It doesn't swear at you.

But what it does try to do is play intelligently. It doesn't get a bunch of "magic money" thrown at it so that it can overwhelm you with crude brute force. It plays by the same rules as the human. You whack its best star base and it's going to hurt it. You destabilize its planets and it's people will rebel if it doesn't react. It will try to escort its troops. Protect its bases. Stalk your transports. Create trade centers along an intelligent path. In short, it plays the game like a reasonably good human player would do.

And it can do that because instead of spending months of time working out multiplayer code, fighting cheese tactic holes in gameplay, simplifying the messaging to keep network traffic down, that time instead has been put into writing the AI.

I've spent the past decade making multiplayer games. I like multiplayer games. But I think the time is ripe for a strategy game to succeed because of its focus on the single player experience. I could be wrong of course.

	23-01-2003 07:27									#59
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

well, in MOO3 you can set a max time per turn so that the other player cant waste TOO much time, if you are playing more than 2 players, and someone drops, the AI will take over for them, so the rest of you can go on.

I plan to play a lot with people from the MOO forums that I know (not all the complainers and trollers on there, but the regulars), and we will know the game before we do MP...


according to the MOO3 betatesters, the AI is very good.

	23-01-2003 07:49									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Hopefully MOO3 will be great but I don't think most people have the luxury of playing against people on the forum. And I'd tend to hold judgement until it's been released.