23-02-2003 04:46									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Just an FYI, Tom for some reason has had a bone to pick with MOO3 from the day it was announced. He's certainly welcome to his opinions, but after his last round of 'articles' prior to this, we (QS and IG) told him that if they wanted to do another article or review/preview on MOO3 that they would need to get someone who could be at least semi-objective in his reporting.

Tom loves Sid's work and anything that is not Sid, hence is bad. Or at least that would be the impression from the last three articles he wrote.

again, he's entitled to his opinion, but I REALLY would have been shocked if he had said even the *slightest* positive thing about the game.

	23-02-2003 05:03									#32
	Tired of ads?

I concede that his concerns are potentially valid. Some of those things (especially the lack of precise tech descriptions) may be trouble, but they are also probably some of the easiest things to fix. I don't mind it being complex out the yin-yang but someday I would like to understand how it all works so if I try real hard I can make the best descions.

However, I looked over his reviews/previews of other games I have played and he didn't seem to like a single one. He didn't even really like Warcraft 3 in his preview, which for me, was the game to dethrone MOO2 after so long. I couldn't find a Warcraft 3 review, and it seems like the preview in July was about the last update before this MOO review. Do people who like these MOO type games actually like Diablo better then Warcraft. IMO, Diablo is fun, but Warcraft is sublime.

I'm still going to buy it and see it for myself. The big mystery to me is why I haven't been able to buy it yet? Anyone catch a score in there - or is just text descptions.

	23-02-2003 05:08									#33
	Increase Your PM Length

Not to worry Rantz - everyone will probably still get the game, myself included! You`d just better come through with those patches!!!!

	23-02-2003 05:27									#34
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Rantz
Just an FYI, Tom for some reason has had a bone to pick with MOO3 from the day it was announced. He's certainly welcome to his opinions, but after his last round of 'articles' prior to this, we (QS and IG) told him that if they wanted to do another article or review/preview on MOO3 that they would need to get someone who could be at least semi-objective in his reporting.


wow,
is this a little bit of evidence that game companies actually DO pressure reviewers or mags into writing good reviews?

or hint in that direction.


interesting comments i would say...

	23-02-2003 05:39									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by rhofman Forgive my ignorance but what is a "grognard"?

The word, as I understand it, has its origins in Napoleonic times and means, "grumbler." It referred to grizzled veterans of many campaigns, who still were there day after day, grumbling and griping, and still game to go when the bayonets were unscabbarded.

Nowadays, it means one who is a...grizzled old timer type of game player, often possessing (in their own minds at least) special expertise and experience.

Grognard to other people, means "insufferable, pedantic, grumpy and opinionated know-it-all." Depending upon your viewpoint, of course.

Now, where's my saber and curraisse?

	23-02-2003 05:54									#36
	Put an end to popups!

We'll all find out the 25th. Well, at least around the 25th and like Rhofman said, if after a week people playing it have doubts...then everyone will know.

	23-02-2003 06:09									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Most of the comments here - including Rantz' - seem to revolve around the man and his history as a reviewer rather than his comments on the game. That's not a good sign....
Never mind the mind-noumbing depth of the game, that can be overcome and any possible erratic behaviour on the part of the vireroys can be fixed in future patches ( even though the "Is this game too much like going to work?"-test remains)
What really bothers me is his comments about the parts of the game that I loved most in MOO2: Research, ship design and tactical battle (I've never heard of anyone playing with the Tactical option turned off). Not very likely to change (too extensive work for patching) and not very appealing by the sound of it. I fear that QS have focused on enhancing exactly the parts of the game I did not care too much about.

Please, can we have some more input from those who have experience with the game?

I'm increasingly getting the feeling that QS embarked on an admirable task of making the space-TBS to end all space-TBS'es, got bogged down by their ambitions and ended up short of time and/or ressources and had to sort of tie the loose ends up in a big knot.....

I've preordered and I'm sticking with it, but can't help fearing I'll end up disappointed and cursing (again) at the misfortune of Stars! Supernova Genesis

	23-02-2003 06:09									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I really don't know what the fuss is all about. It really is quite stupid.

This is what reviewers are for. They are here to tell you whether or not they like the game and why. Tom Chick, like everyone else who had a review copy did that.

So it wasn't to his taste. Big deal.

Now you ask yourself, based on his comments, will I find the things he doesn't like annoying as well?

If not then its pure gold for you.

If so then don't buy the game.

You will never please everyone with your creation nor will everyone be happy and please with what YOU find appealing.

So if your going to cancel your pre-order, go ahead, if your going still buy the game like me, go ahead and do that too.

But bottom line is, that Tom Chick wrote a review. He didn't like it. If you think his complaints are garbage then fine, but don't stoop so low as to claim that MOO3 was "too complex for him" or some other nonsense.

He did everyone a service. He said that if you wanted MOO2, you won't like it. If you want Civ in space, you won't like it. But if that is not what you are looking for, he basically told you that it is everything that you could hope for.

He's just doing his job, so layoff about his relative intelligence level compared to the game or whether or not he had any bias writing the review. Everyone has a bias, your job is to find a reviewer who has a similar bias to you and then see what he has to say.

	23-02-2003 06:12									#39
	Got spare money?

quote: 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.

Whenever I hear anyone saying that all (most of) the reviews are positive, I'm reminded of the worst game I've ever played, and I played Outpost to the end, Black and White . That is the only game I've ever uninstalled before finishing it.

I'll buy MOO3, in fact I've had it on preorder for over a year. But, the absolute refusal to do a wide release preview and all the secrecy and defensiveness on the boards makes me think this game might not be one of those I go back to over and over forever.

	23-02-2003 07:03									#40
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

he's a reviewer like any other, all right. He didn't like it and has the right to inform the community that "civ in space" à la MoO3 is a mess, all right. But when a reviewer has a mediocre feeling about Warcraft III and Halo, two of the 4-5 most important landmarks games since 2001, where every other rev has at least a good opinion of, well then his credibility is questionable - especially with the numbered vacations taken between many "review sessions". I sense that one of his problematic involves around the difficulty he has about the actual innovations brought by the "clones"; too stucked to the glorious past of Civ I/MoO1/Diablo 1,II/ Alpha Centauri/ etc... It's obvious he didn't liked the MoO3 project from the start .

The best credibility comes when the player play the game and judge by himself. If a bad review like this makes me like MoO3 even more than anticipated when ( and if ) I don't find many ( not all )of his grudges ( well, a few like the lack of data and mediocre graphics are now mostly recognized ), well it's OK: this kind of review is welcome

	23-02-2003 07:35									#41
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Master Marcus But when a reviewer has a mediocre feeling about Warcraft III and Halo, two of the 4-5 most important landmarks games since 2001, where every other rev has at least a good opinion of, well then his credibility is questionable[/B]

Why the hell is his credibility questionble? Is there just one "correct" way of thinking which leads to tells you which games to like and not to like?

The most you can say from that review or any other negative review is "I don't dislike the things he dislikes". And just because a lot of people like the game and he doesn't does not mean that he is any less credible than anyone else.

You people need to get a life.

	23-02-2003 07:45									#42
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I think you don't know the meaning of 'credible'.

The guy that posted a review of MoO3 that contained Japanese dating and mexican wrestling - that person is not particularly credible.

A person who has reviewed for 10 years in various print magazines is quite credible, assuming he has not done something factually incorrect in those reviews. While I disagree with his conclusions on many of the games - Deux Ex despite flaws was a brilliantly absorbing piece of work, for instance - his credibility is not harmed by his not liking them.

Further, Penny Arcade have said how much SP Halo sucked ass. Are they less credible now? I think it blows chunks too, and I don't understand the fuss. Am I less credible?

No. You may now disagree with my opinions based on things you haven't experienced, because our shared experience leads you to believe you'll disagree with me, but this doesn't make me less credible.

Still, very interesting comment by Rantz. Layers upon layers of wackiness going on.

	23-02-2003 07:52									#43
	Got spare money?

Tom Chick hated and thoroughly bashed DEUS EX. I don't pay attention to his reviews.

	23-02-2003 07:58									#44
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Grognard to other people, means "insufferable, pedantic, grumpy and opinionated know-it-all."

Thanks gunner.

	23-02-2003 08:00									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Every game will invariably have good, bad, and neutral reviews. This is the first review I've seen that said MOO3 wasn't any good. Does one bad review cancel out ten good reviews? Would one good review cancel out ten bad ones?

It was interesting to me to note that the last time QTT reviewed a game was clear back in June 2002. And they never even reviewed Civ3, one of the biggerst TBS titles to ever be published. What, they just didn't feel like reviewing Civ3?

	23-02-2003 08:03									#46
	Put an end to popups!

As stated several times, QTT is this guy's pet project. He reviews regularly for print and online mags as a job; this is just a hobby.

QTT's review was one he submitted for another mag. It was rejected, he got the rights to it, and decided to publish it on his own site.

	23-02-2003 08:04									#47
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

By the way, according to the review itself, it's based on sixty minutes of play. LOL

Read my review again - I already mention when you first start playing, it feels like the game is moving without you. When you understand what is going on...

That's definitely NOT the case. Play for a few hours as if the computer is playing itself and you'll find your empire knee deep in crap, with everyone revolting due to spy infiltration, your ships woefully inadequate, etc.

	23-02-2003 08:09									#48
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Jonah: that's a parody of his site. Normally it's 60 second reviews, but because this was so long...

The reviewer played the game to completion three times - twice he won - and played several other games but did not finish them. Most of which went past turn 200. He spent about two weeks playing.

I figure that's an acceptable amount of time to get a handle on the game. If it's not...hoo boy.

	23-02-2003 08:13									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

If Bret finished the game three times and won twice, two words:

HE'S LYING.

Period. Sorry, but if he says he played the game to completion in a huge galaxy with 16 players in 200 turns, he's lying, lying, lying.

Trust me - building an armada to defeat the enemy in EASY mode in a MEDIUM SIZED CLUSTER WITH FOUR OTHER RACES takes WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYY more than 200 turns.

	23-02-2003 08:19									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Maybe he won by senate victory? He did remark that he won 'by accident' - and sole survivor/antaran x victories don't sound like accidents.

He also never stated what size galaxy, how many players, etc. Only said he played on easy/medium.

He also stated that his games went PAST turn 200. Not that they ended there. Apparently my statement 'most of his games went past turn 200' was somehow vague...

Considering Lore said that, on easy with the Klackons it was possible to win via senate victory in your first game, it doesn't seem implausible.

	23-02-2003 08:24									#51
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I wrote Brett an email, challenging him on his review. I asked him exactly under what conditions he won.

Like I said, anyone who thinks that the computer does all the work for you is psychotic. The fact is, you really have to focus on the main production planet in each system, and let the computer run the other lesser planets.

When you play in a 16 player game, and you start out with the Orion Senate, it's tough just following all the deals that are going around you. A is at war with B who is trade embargoing C who is allied with D who hates you and is spamming your empire with spies while you beg F to trade a needed tech...

Plus, you have to deal with the ships buzzing around, near and sometimes IN your empire.

The fact that Brett thinks the game plays without him is just a testament to the extremely good AI. Fact is, if the AI wasn't so good, MOO3 would be an abject micromanagement failure.

	23-02-2003 08:30									#52
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

By the way, Brett says the AI is miserable in his review. He must have gotten an alpha copy, because the AI is EXTREMELY good.

How can a game require little input and have bad AI and let you win? (shaking head) Contradictory statement.

	23-02-2003 08:37									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by JonahFalcon By the way, Brett says the AI is miserable in his review. He must have gotten an alpha copy, because the AI is EXTREMELY good. How can a game require little input and have bad AI and let you win? (shaking head) Contradictory statement.

Mad because he has more credibility than you?

	23-02-2003 08:40									#54
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by MitchDev Mad because he has more credibility than you?

Good one.

	23-02-2003 08:41									#55
	Tired of ads?

Stuff it, Mitch. I played MOO3 - you didn't.

Cred? Read Brett's review of Deus Ex.

I posted this in the strategy newsgroup:

Let me get this straight...

The AI is awful -- and very little input is needed -- and he wins in 200
turns?

That statement is so ludicrous, I can't even count the ways. For one thing,
the AI is extremely good - in fact, Quicksilver focused on AI most of all.

Hey, Brett, this is from my interview with Bill Fisher:

UGO: How much effort went into the artificial intelligence (the gameplay and
diplomacy AI)?
WCF: Wow. Huge amounts. We had four different people at various times
working on aspects of the AI. When we began the game, I think we identified
about 20 different AI modules that would need to be written. We built every
one of them, and a couple more. Even now, we're still fiddling with some of
them.

Diplomacy AI gets into all aspects of the gameplay model. It looks at
relations between races in order to make decisions. But that also means
paying attention to alliances; my enemy's friend is also my enemy, but his
enemy might just be my friend. It looks at laws passed in the Senate, and
who's voting for or against every bill. And it looks at the technology tree
to make sure it's not negotiating to get something it already has, or
offering too much for something it wants. The list goes on and on, and we
spent many months making it all work right. It was one of the last pieces to
get completely working.

Gameplay AI breaks down into a large number of separate AIs. There's the
planetary AI, the strategic military AI, the exploration AI, the ship design
AI, and on and on. One that we're really pleased with is the planetary AI,
because it does a great job of making sure that it's building reasonable
things at appropriate times at the same time it's listening to the player's
desires. Another cool one is the strategic military code, which is pretty
clever about looking for empire boundaries, seeking out weak points, and
trying to exploit weaknesses in enemy lines of control.

I can't even begin to estimate the total time spent on the AI, but it has to
be at least 4 or 5 man-years.

* * *

Plus, Brett... how the hell did you win in 200 turns? In a MEDIUM SIZED
CLUSTER, with FOUR opponents on EASY, I couldn't win in 200 turns. Hell, by
turn 200 I'd only have a decent sized fleet to actually perhaps mount an
attack.

If you think the computer does all the work, you've suffered a brain
hemorrhage. Try that, and your empire will be in revolt from spies ravaging
it, you'll be heavily in debt, and your tech will be so far behind, you'll
have sticks for defense.

Lack of information? You must be joking. Just where is that lack of info?
What did you need to know? Hell, the game even tells you the size of the
star of the system you're looking at. What did you need to know? Production
points? Income? Did you see the budgetary screen listing ITEM BY ITEM how
the money is being spent and taken in? Where was the lack of info? Are you
whining because the tech tree varies from game to game - and there is a tech
tree "fog of war" that doesn't allow you to see any distant future techs?

(shaking head)

Sorry, Brett, but on this one, you're way off base.

	23-02-2003 08:48									#56
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Jonah, that's the last time you quote me on anything. Or in this instance, misquote me.

I NEVER stated he won in 200 turns. Nor did he.

I NEVER stated that he won via sole survivor. Nor did he.

I NEVER stated that he won any specific-sized galaxy. Nor did he.

The only thing he stated was that he played many games past 200 turns. Actually, that's not completely accurate; the quote was

quote: For the record, I've had the game for over two weeks. I don't know how many hours I've logged, but I've finished three games (two victories, one loss), each lasting at least 300 turns. I've started perhaps a dozen more games that weren't played to completion.

Gods, you're as bad as the fanboys on IGMOO.

	23-02-2003 08:53									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Do you know how tough it is to win via Orion Senate? Not only do you need to be the biggest empire to garner votes via military and economic and empire strength -- but you need to have friends, too.

By the way, YOU CAN TURN PLANETARY AI ***OFF***.

	23-02-2003 08:55									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Edit: Never mind, Kalbear said it already.

Last edited by delmar on 23-02-2003 at 09:01

	23-02-2003 09:25									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Corentor You people need to get a life.

My life is going pretty well, thanks for your concern, even without having the game yet. But JonahFalcon is playing it for some time now, and hopefully you have read the replies - less polite than mine towards the said "credible" reviewer.

have a nice life.

	23-02-2003 09:58									#60
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

kalbear, can you define "fanboy"? Just so I can have something concrete to argue?