 |
|  |
 |
|
darcy
|
|
Reviewer's summary:
quote: In many ways, this is the anti-Sid Meier school of design, a throwback to the complex wargames where much of the calculations are running under the hood and it's your job to just shut up and move the pieces around, leaving all those numbers alone to do their own thing. There's no clear correlation between your actions and whatever outcome the game eventually spits out, so you're left with the feeling that you might as well just click the 'turn' button a few times and see what happens. Three hundred turns later, the game's over.
There's no denying Master of Orion 3 is a complex game. Complexity itself isn't a bad thing, but poorly organized complexity can be the kiss of death. What's worse is poorly organized complexity that serves as a substitute for gameplay. This is exactly what you get with Master of Orion 3, an indecipherable pile of dense self-absorbed data that completely fails to understand why we loved our first MOOs. |
http://www.quartertothree.com/reviews/moo3/moo3-1.shtml
Call me Kassandra, but this is what I suspected all along. Apparently the original Moo3 design, the Empire Simulator, was a huge, unplayable numbercruncher. And it's still there, but in order to make it playable, there are now lots of helper AIs that play the game for you.
The original MOOs, like Civilization, worked because the basic rules were simple, the output was in little intuitive icons and, most important, it was clearly defined and easy to understand how each player decision affected the empire. Good games are all about choices, and choices only matter when you see the impact they have on the game.
If Tom is right, Moo3 will be a failure, because QS failed to understand what made Moo1+2 great. The chance for Tom being right is unfortunately high. Look at his other reviews; you will notice that, among other things, he exposed both Dungeon Siege and Morrowind as what they are.
Last edited by MarkG on 22-02-2003 at 15:49
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Oniz
|
|
Who died and made Tom the guru of all games? All the other reviewers seem to be happy with the game, althought it has the "long learning curve", they have come to enjoy it. Maybe "Tom" hasn't just played the game enough, or didn't bother to actually learn to play it. He only talked about pressing the turn-button, maybe he should've actually done something.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Sirian
|
|
Pennsylvania, USA
Dec 2001 time: 00:26
|
|
His planets kept going into unrest? And yet he had masses of overabundance of some resources? Sounds like he didn't even bother to fiddle with the macromanagement, just tried to micromanage his way through everything and gave up when the viceroys overruled some of his choices. (Now whether or not them doing that is a good thing or not, the jury's out for me until I play it, but that's another story).
I did find the review informative, though. It shows how boring and uninteresting the game can be if you don't spend the time to figure out WHAT the impacts of your actions are. The uninformative tech descriptions are probably a very bad idea on QS's part. Even those of us with the dedication to look under the hood will be met with deliberate obscurity. I'm afraid the "we don't even WANT you to fiddle with these numbers" impression may be a bit accurate. Too much of the going for the "eXperience" factor and not enough letting us know what the various options DO for us to form strategy. If we don't know what the options DO, how are we supposed to choose among them?
QS might be advised to listen to this reviewer's complaints and criticisms with some care. If they've surrounded themselves with diehards and yes-men, they may not have put the product through as many rigors as it needs.
I sure hope they will be there, AND LISTENING, for the long haul, like Firaxis has done for Civ3. The MOO3 team may have some disdain for Civ3, but the Civ patching process on clearing up bugs, closing loopholes, and rebalancing weak elements of the game, has been very good. If QS will be there for the long haul, dedicated to polishing things up, that will go a long way toward me buying more titles from them. Even though it sounds like their bug-squashing process has been supreme, the game balancing process can't possibly reach its peak until the game has been in tens of thousands of hands and under so many pairs of eyes, to be put through the ringer. Serious issues are bound to emerge. And how they are dealt with will be remembered, for good or ill.
- Sirian
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002 time: 05:26
|
|
I think MOO3 will be than good game if you take the time to learn how to play it. If all his planet went into unrest by him not useing the macro mangement tool which unlike Civil 1 and civil 2 actural do than every good job. You canot micro-mangment MOO3 at all except in the very beginning of the game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Strollen
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Oniz
Who died and made Tom the guru of all games? All the other reviewers seem to be happy with the game, althought it has the "long learning curve", they have come to enjoy it. Maybe "Tom" hasn't just played the game enough, or didn't bother to actually learn to play it. |
Tom Chick has been reviewing and writing (at Computer Gaming World among other places) about strategy games for at least 10 and maybe 20 years.
As much as I hope what he says isn't true, I have a sneaking suspicious it maybe.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ashbery
|
|
Some guys like simple games so this is just 1 man's opinion take for instance E.U, it got 50% score in PCGAMER but i loved it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pallidyne
|
|
Actually what disturbs ME is that he WON two games....
-P
|
|
|  |
 |
|
peacenik
|
|
There are actually a lot of similarities in the detail of the reviews, including this one. The bottom line is we won't figure out even the basics of this game by playing it a few times, which some strategy fans will really dislike. Others will love the complexity. My bet is people that take the time to learn the basics will be rewarded by nuances and options that we've always wanted in TBS, but it could be a little ugly getting there.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
booje
|
|
Los Angeles (Los Feliz)
Dec 2002 time: 05:26
|
|
It's a pretty scathing review. Honestly, he couldn't find a single thing he liked about it? I'd like to see his review of Galactic Civilizations when that comes out.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
leiavoia
|
|
Or-E-gun
Nov 2001 time: 22:26
|
|
Well some things that Tom said are true. however, it all pretty much boils down to a lack of feedback. it's true there isn't much of that in MOO3. everything from the tech descriptions to space combat. you don't know what techs do, you don't know what weapons are effective, and it's hard to tell what impact your government is having.
However, i think Tom was having a really bad day. he couldn't find a single thing good to say about the game! but look at all the other reviews out there. most are very positive.
So, it can be a decent game, but i hope for a patch/xpack that the game gets a total information overhaul and the player gets more specific feedback.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gunnergoz
|
 |
Sunny Sandy Ego, Calif.
Dec 2002 time: 21:26
|
|
quote: Originally posted by darcy
Reviewer's summary:
http://www.quartertothree.com/reviews/moo3/moo3-1.shtml
Call me Kassandra, but this is what I suspected all along. Apparently the original Moo3 design, the Empire Simulator, was a huge, unplayable numbercruncher. And it's still there, but in order to make it playable, there are now lots of helper AIs that play the game for you.
The original MOOs, like Civilization, worked because the basic rules were simple, the output was in little intuitive icons and, most important, it was clearly defined and easy to understand how each player decision affected the empire. Good games are all about choices, and choices only matter when you see the impact they have on the game.
If Tom is right, Moo3 will be a failure, because QS failed to understand what made Moo1+2 great. The chance for Tom being right is unfortunately high. Look at his other reviews; you will notice that, among other things, he exposed both Dungeon Siege and Morrowind as what they are. |
OK. You're Cassandra. Happy now?
Sheesh. Argue for your fears, and sure enough they're yours. The answer is simple...don't waste your money buying a game that you've feared all along that you won't like. Your opionion has been formed for a long time...this "review" just crystallized your thoughts, that's all.
As to the issue of choices and seeing their impact upon the game...did it occur to you that you might need some patience and discrimination to perceive the impact upon this particular game? It looks to me like MOO3 is not a simple, straightforward game, unlike it's predecessors. I welcome the change...if I want to play a simpler game, I still have the earlier versions to fall back upon. I don't know about you, I'm only speaking for myself here, but I'm ready for a new, deeper and more challenging game.
Thanks for sharing and have a good time playing MOO2.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Araanor
|
|
Complex but with helpers, sounds great frankly. EU2 is just about the other complex PC game I've had the pleasure of experiencing these past years.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Hierophant
|
|
He gave Deus Ex a bad rating, though, too. So he isn't always right...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
rhofman
|
|
Richmond, BC
Feb 2003 time: 21:26
|
|
Confront your fears. FACE the unknown.
Enough cliches. Gunner got it right, if you expect this game to be too complex too be fun it will be.
Personally I'm buying it Tuesday and I plan to eat, sleep and s*** MOO3 for at least a week. If I can't get into it after a week then I'll know I made a mistake getting it. Until then I don't really care what one reviewer out of ten says. (I would reconsider if 9/10 said it)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Corentor
|
|
I personally think this review is a good thing.
A big red warning flag telling everyone that if you are looking for MOO 2 in a new package, go home.
A shame that so many people on the IG boards are bashing TChick's review like crazy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002 time: 05:26
|
|
I remember how some board games where very complex with complex rules all the player have to inpert what the rules meant and do all the additson and substact from the dice roll to figure out the outcome. I than glad we have computer to do most that work now. It was the complex of many board games and all the complex figureing out the outcome of each dice roll that kill most board games today. First there will be no board game verson of MOO3 or MOO2 there might be than board game verson of MOO1.
In the real world we have peroid of great wealth and peroid of great depression where wealth disappear. As in the real world there is no easy answer to these events they
just happen.
Right now some state and local government are raiseing tax to balance their books. Their cannot cut back on public service anymore. Cal govonor is raiseing taxes, he could balance the book by closeing all state pirson, laid off all state law enforcement people and laiding off all state worker and cutting back on all social programming. But he donnot for than very good reason. Do all the above will not work as what are you going to do next year when the ecomoncy take than real nose drive.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
rhofman
|
|
Richmond, BC
Feb 2003 time: 21:26
|
|
Forgive my ignorance but what is a "grognard"?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
peacenik
|
|
My understanding is that reviewers usually play games on fairly easy settings so that they can experience game features in a minimal amount of time. It would simply take to long to master a game like this on a tough setting that challenges the AI. Note that most of his comments on the AI are either tactical or deal with its control of his empire. His review (and two wins) is consistent with a quick, unhappy experience with MOO3 on 'easy' or 'normal'. Its safe to say he won't be back for more!!!!
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26. Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|