23-02-2003 10:26									#61
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It's his opinion, that's all. He didn't like the game. Lots of people don't like Civ3 either, and there are lots of people who love it. I think that I'll personally like MoO3, judging from what I've read about it so far...

And guess what? I actually like Dungeon Siege.

	23-02-2003 10:37									#62
	Inflate your Upload Space

Fanboy: Someone that is so involved with the success of the game in question that they will resort to any means in order to defend the game in question. That usually includes ad hominem attacks, radical reinterpretation of facts given, asserting moral/ethical superiority, clique forming, actual outright lying, and making specious arguments based on lack of personal experience and information.

I'm on the IG boards as well, so it's not like I can talk much. But there's a big difference between critiquing a review based on contradictory information and saying that the reviewer was a liar because of inaccurate assuming and jumping to conclusions.

Better, Bernie?

	23-02-2003 11:22									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think it just goes to show why they have ESRB ratings...if it says "T" wait till 13. While reading the article and his moaning about confusing planetary calculations and uninvited technologies, I thought (and from his own description), that this guy would have needed a tutor for Cyber Empires. I've liked all the stuff I've read, from people involved with and without the project...even this moron let slip aspects of the game that I find just tantalizing. The technology names that he didn’t like or understand gave me much to cheer about. Advances in technology can be subtle and provide great benefit. Yeah yeah there are going to be little things and maybe even big things that are not going to live up to our dreams of outstanding strategy, but at least we get to play while their patching and expanding it up, and maybe even help them make it better…

	23-02-2003 11:26									#64
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The guy's been reviewing games for a living of sorts for the last ten years.

He _might_ have some ability to play them. Maybe. But thanks, Bort - I didn't have an immediate example of a fanboy handy.

	23-02-2003 11:44									#65
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by kalbear Fanboy: Someone that is so involved with the success of the game in question that they will resort to any means in order to defend the game in question. That usually includes ad hominem attacks, radical reinterpretation of facts given, asserting moral/ethical superiority, clique forming, actual outright lying, and making specious arguments based on lack of personal experience and information. I'm on the IG boards as well, so it's not like I can talk much. But there's a big difference between critiquing a review based on contradictory information and saying that the reviewer was a liar because of inaccurate assuming and jumping to conclusions. Better, Bernie?

Much. I much perfer discussions where terms can be laid out like that... It allows people to challenge assumptions with facts and evidence. It also gives me a paper trail for future use against you ;-)

	23-02-2003 12:51									#66
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I'm having trouble fathoming the animosity between the polarized sides of the bad bad reviewer and the good bad reviewer camps.

There have been very few games that I've played over the years that I could not pick out a single thing that I didn't hate. His review ragged on every single aspect of the game. That suggests to me that he had some motive rather than professionalism at heart. I will concede that it is possible that he played with an open mind and found nothing redeeming. It is also possible that there are green men on Mars controling our every thought.

If anyone is going to refrain from buying the game based on this review that is their problem. As far as I know Johanfalcon is the only one here who has played the game enough to comment on how it plays. The rest of us can process bits of info gathered from all the various sources and make a decision on whether or not to buy it.

Kalbear, if you don't want to play it anymore based on the first bad review fine; but don't tell me that the review was done by an unbiased professional. The positive reviews were largely biased as well but finding no redeeming qualities in a game that is fawned over by everyone else sets off warning bells.

If you wish to label me as a "fanboy" feel free. I have nothing personal riding on this game. I will purchase and play it. If it sucks I will post as much in March. If it doesn't I'll post that to.

	23-02-2003 12:58									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

When reviews go bad, by Jeff Lackey

	23-02-2003 13:02									#68
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Nah. I think I've been quite clear at various places that I would be buying this game, and what I'd do after I bought it. And rhofman - you're the antithesis of a fanboy in that respect - you analyzed the review, decided it wasn't for you, and moved on without bashing the reviewer or dismissing it as garbage and lies.

This review isn't swaying me to buy or not buy. It's doing a couple other things, though.

And I fully recognize that Tom Chick has a bias. he has a style of writing reviews that bashes or praises a game without much in between, and that's fine. He also very much likes the Sid Meier camp, and that's important to know as well. He does have some background and some agenda.

As did Jonah Falcon and Barry B. at IGN. Point being, I try and take the facts from the reviews that I can glean and interpret them based on what I know of the reviewers and what i know of my playstyle.

It's leading me to believe that this will not be a game accepted in mass appeal. In other words, most of the MoO2 fanbase will be turned off by it.

It will require a large amount of work by the fanbase in question - namely, folks like me - to make sure that the game can be played by people in the future and the learning wall isn't too foreboding.

Again, I view this review as a way to focus on the problems that the game has, so that we can combat those problems immediately. We know there are graphics issues, and that's not anything we can change. But we can change the textual descriptions of techs. We can provide a manual-like entity that tells you why certain techs are better than others, and how the whole formulae work. We can repeatedly tell people TO OBSOLETE THEIR TROOP SHIPS, and make sure to focus heavily on making and using development plans to make the AI do their bidding.

Ultimately, I want people to go into this game with a level head, able to recognize the problems and the successes with the game. Specifically, I want to see the problems so I can fix them for others down the road, because damnit, I want Moo to continue.

Last edited by kalbear on 23-02-2003 at 13:14

	23-02-2003 13:18									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I think that's great.

That is not the message that was coming across in the last 10 posts on this thread.

I think giving such negative reviews a blanket defence does not help people adjust there expectations to what the game actually delivers.

The message that needs to be sent out is that it is a hardcore strategy game. This is no superficial RTS like starcraft (used it for outerspace reference) with light weight "techtree" and a few stock races. Be prepared to spend as many hours as it takes to finish some games just to learn this one. The likely conclusion of spending the time will be 100s or even 1000s (cross your fingers) of rewarding SP and MP game play. It may not be an over night success because as you said it is not an easy game to learn. For those who do they will be the best salespeople for the game. (assuming it is, say 75%, as good as the postive reviews)

Off topic a little. I think the public is ready for this. B5 was summarily dismissed for it's 5 year arc. "People will not wait for 5 years for a payoff" they were told. Not long after DS9 switched to a long term war that dominated most of the remaining shows. Many people really want the engaging back story, the variation of races, the multiple strategies and a more complex victory condition than kill everything all the time.

That's it for me today. I've got ultimate in the morning.

	23-02-2003 13:23									#70
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: [SIZE=1] There have been very few games that I've played over the years that I could not pick out a single thing that I didn't hate. His review ragged on every single aspect of the game. That suggests to me that he had some motive rather than professionalism at heart. but don't tell me that the review was done by an unbiased professional. The positive reviews were largely biased as well but finding no redeeming qualities in a game that is fawned over by everyone else sets off warning bells.

From Rantz, via IGMoo:

"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."

I think it's rather interesting that Mr. bigtime 10-years experience game reviewer happens to publish this review on his _personal_ site, rather than with a professional publication...

Also intriguing is the lack of reviews on said site, until this particular one. (and the odd lack of a Civ3 review)

Given Rantz's comments, makes one wonder...

-infidel

	23-02-2003 13:28									#71
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Strollen 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.

...UMMM...hmm they had decent strategy games in 1983???????????? lol.

	23-02-2003 13:35									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Sure they did. Tons of 'em. That's actually what they made back then, because there was no 'real time' or anything like it. I remember fondly playing Midway and fortress europa sims.

Anyhoo - this review was one he was asked to do as a freelance for a game mag. They rejected the review, and he decided to print it. Didn't I say this already? I'm getting the various forums mixed up here.

Again, this guy has been reviewing games for a very long time. His site is his hobby, not his job. The review came about his being a freelancer, not because IG sent Qt3 a copy.

Considering that he gave EU good marks, I'd say that I'm half/half in leaning towards his giving this game good marks. The lack of info and feedback in the game did him in, and that's a shame, but it's a valid argument. Lack of a good manual is pretty sad - lack of in-game help is worse. Fortunately, these are things that can be fixed by the fanbase. Unfortunately, these are things that likely will have to be.

	23-02-2003 13:41									#73
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Demosthenes1234 ...UMMM...hmm they had decent strategy games in 1983???????????? lol.

Well, you needed some friends, and a board, some hundreds of pieces of plastic, some dices, and a sound mind that can kick the crud out of a unfortunate player out of the game. If you were refering to computer games, well, there were some good ones back then.

P.S. The only diplomacy back then was who was gonna pay for the pizza.

	23-02-2003 14:26									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I actually liked the review. It was funny, and informative, and definitely independant .

	23-02-2003 16:29									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by kalbear [...] Point being, I try and take the facts from the reviews that I can glean and interpret them based on what I know of the reviewers and what i know of my playstyle. It's leading me to believe that this will not be a game accepted in mass appeal. In other words, most of the MoO2 fanbase will be turned off by it. It will require a large amount of work by the fanbase in question - namely, folks like me - to make sure that the game can be played by people in the future and the learning wall isn't too foreboding. Again, I view this review as a way to focus on the problems that the game has, so that we can combat those problems immediately. We know there are graphics issues, and that's not anything we can change. But we can change the textual descriptions of techs. We can provide a manual-like entity that tells you why certain techs are better than others, and how the whole formulae work. We can repeatedly tell people TO OBSOLETE THEIR TROOP SHIPS, and make sure to focus heavily on making and using development plans to make the AI do their bidding. Ultimately, I want people to go into this game with a level head, able to recognize the problems and the successes with the game. Specifically, I want to see the problems so I can fix them for others down the road, because damnit, I want Moo to continue.

kalbear, that is easily the most thoughtful, levelheaded and to-the-point view that has been put in this entire thread. Thank you VERY much for that post. ( bordering on :unworthy

I've always relied on fan FAQ's regarding my favourite games. It's amazing what people like kalbear with enough dedication and time on their hands have accomplished when it comes to creative reverse engineering and collecting good tips from gamers all around.
To me - a casual gamer, who have WAY to little time - it seems the coming months will show what replay value the game has. If FAQ's emerge and gets updated (along with the game), I'll want to get to grips with this game, no matter the time frame, whether it's due to intellectual stubbornness or just longtime love of MOO/MOO2.

Otherwise I'll do a burial ceremony, be depressed for a month and then proceed to kidnap the CEO of IG and Jeff McBride and lock them up in a dungeon until they produce a contract ensuring the finishing and publication of Stars!: Supernova Genesis...

	23-02-2003 19:34									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I have been mostly lurking on these forums but now I have one question:

Jonah, or someone else who knows, two things trouble me on the review.

1. How easy it is to know how efficient your ships (task forces) are in a battle?

2. Is it really as Tom says that in ground combat "there's no information available on where you're fighting" (concerning terrain)?

	23-02-2003 20:28									#77
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Contrast this with SimTex's first two Master of Orion titles, affectionately dubbed MOO1 and MOO2. They relied on Sid Meier's Civilization model, in which icons were used to represent discrete and easy-to-understand units [..] ...of which 585 are used by the planet's 4,643 industry points to somehow create 3,778 production points.

I don't know if anyone else noticed it. But some parts of his review are not very accurate.

MoO1 also used numbers, and not icons like in MoO2, the Civ series and Master of Magic. Also Moo1 is not based on the Civ model, only MoO2 is.

These inaccuracies decrease his credibility for me.
However, only seeing the screenshots of MoO3, I already had the expectation that the gameplay would be very bloated.

The software publisher had the same opinion remember? They ordered the developers to make it simpler. How they solved it? Put some more AI in to take over the micro management.

My personal opinion is, I like games where I have full control and where it's also fun to be in full control. For instance, in CIV3 the player-AI is much more on the surface than the previous CIV's, this doesn't make the game more fun for me.

In MoO3 there is AI all over the place, in the spirit of "decreasing micro management". IMHO, this is not a solution to the complexity problem MoO3 has; more a poor subsitute.

I think many people who are now enthousiastic about MoO3 will be sadly disappointed. The only thing I can hope for is that I'm wrong and MoO3 will be a fun game to play.

Complexity does not equals fun.
A game like chess is very simple in structure, but you can have great strategies with it.

My two cents.

	23-02-2003 20:39									#78
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Actually Moo1 did use icons, when you click a planet you see pop units, industries and missile bases in icon form. That was possible because the numbers were low and could be represented that way. Looks like someone multiplied them by 1000 for Moo3 because "more is better".

quote: The software publisher had the same opinion remember? They ordered the developers to make it simpler. How they solved it? Put some more AI in to take over the micro management.

Which is quite strange when you consider this recent post by Moo3's former lead designer:

quote: Ironically, it sounds like the game this reviewer wanted is the MOO3 design I initially tried to 'pitch' way back when. I envisioned a new MOO-series game as more MOO1.5: keeping MOO1's elegance, toning down the micro-management excesses of MOO2, and generally making a strategy game simple enough that you could "keep all the rules in your head." (I personally like those kinds of games very much.) But, of course, the publisher mandate was to go 'all out' making 'the ultimate' strategy game, and the MOO3 you'll soon be seeing is the result (which I believe turned out much better than this reviewer indicates). I still would like to design that MOO1.5 game some day... -- Alan Emrich on OSmoo

Could it be IG got more than it asked for?

	23-02-2003 20:41									#79
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I think Tom made the same point about complexity.

If it turns out to be true that moo3 is mostly a mass of stats and numbers that have very vague relationships to game play, then i'm out.

I'll of course wait to see if this is true from those of you guys who buy the game and post your own impressions.

But, number crunching and overly complicated shifting of various abstract stats never made a game fun for me.

Just not my idea of fun, but that's me. I'm sure i'll be considered a "simpleton" or some such thing as a result.

	23-02-2003 20:55									#80
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by darcy Actually Moo1 did use icons, when you click a planet you see pop units, industries and missile bases in icon form. That was possible because the numbers were low and could be represented that way. Looks like someone multiplied them by 1000 for Moo3 because "more is better". Which is quite strange when you consider this recent post by Moo3's former lead designer: [..] Could it be IG got more than it asked for?

I think IG will get what they asked for. An "ultimate" complex strategy game.

I can't help it, but I'm getting Civ:CTP associations with MoO3, in terms of not living up to expectations and hopes. If this really turns out to be the case, I can't say of course.

	23-02-2003 21:13									#81
	Put an end to popups!

Regardless of whether you personally like the game or not, this is a poor review. The last time I saw a review this negative was for Battlecruiser 3000 AD, and I really don't think QS/IG screwed up that badly. Tom makes a fuss over tiny graphical issues with no impact on gameplay (does it really matter THAT much whether we have 5 sacks of grain or 50 food points? ).

Furthermore, the purpose of a review is to approach a game from all angles, describing the good AND bad points, not just act as a vehicle for the reviewer to vent about how much he hates numbers. It's for this reason most good reviews have a separate area or section for the reviewer to present his/her personal opinions after playing the game ("reviewers tilt"). At the very least, the review should delineate between facts and his/her opinions.

Just look at The Orion Sector's article for comparison. If there was ever a review I'd expect to be fanboy-ish it would be that one, but TOS presented both the good AND bad points.

Finally, it's glaringly obvious that Chick didn't even TRY to get into and understand that game. The issue of the planetary AI comes up in the Orion Sector review as well, but notice how they spent a little extra time and found out how to use the system effectively. This isn't just a difference of opinions - one set of reviewers played the game 'correctly', the other didn't. It would have been OK if Chick had written "After I figured out how to play the game and use this information, I concluded that it was probably too complex from the start", but this is just sloppy.

Anyhow, there you go. I'd take this particular review with a grain of salt. It wasn't good enough for a professional publication, and it shouldn't be good enough for anyone else.

	23-02-2003 21:15									#82
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

You mean he should have some ability to play them…the jury is certainly still out on that one as far as I’m concerned…and I’m not saying that I didn’t enjoy the article as much as anyone…I just think the gentleman who wrote it has an outstanding knack for fiction. Seriously he writes like soviet propagandist… “these capitalist pigs will try and confuse you with big words like ‘Holistic,’ and numbers that sometimes exceed 4,000.”

You hear the exact same kind of stuff from kids in high school who get a D- on a test and blame the teacher despite the fact that they didn’t study…

quote: “But because MOO3 is choked in a fog of its own inscrutable mechanics… an indecipherable pile of dense self-absorbed data…a bewildering swarm of data against black and blue backgrounds…colored stars strewn like confetti on a ballroom floor crawling down several screens…”

…which serves as the final malicious tassel on a magic carpet that just won’t fly. I think either Rantz is right and

quote: “Tom for some reason has had a bone to pick with MOO3…”

or someone over at QS stole his better half. Either way I don’t see his review as a very good way of focusing on weak points in the game…cause he doesn’t point out any weak points…he’s like a French chef examining English cuisine “crap, crap, crap, and more crap…”

I won’t deny that I would love to see Moo3 succeed…I bought infogrames at 1.30 but I have to look a precedent…and like rohfman said

quote: “don't tell me that the review was done by an unbiased professional.”

Ok that was mean, and I shouldn’t have said that part about his better half…but I was no more unbiased that he was…I would like to say infinitely less so but it doesn’t matter. At any rate, I don’t think his currency isn’t worth exchanging.

Now I really gotta go to church

	23-02-2003 21:58									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

BY the way. Tom complains that the viceroys do what he doesn't want them to do... HELLO! THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT!

Plus, maybe he didn't notice the button labelled "Planet Econ AI" - you can turn that off.

Moreover, I wonder how much time Tom spent in multiplayer... I took the time to examine multiplayer by having Floyd at Quicksilver play a short game with me.

	23-02-2003 22:02									#84
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Also intriguing is the lack of reviews on said site, until this particular one. (and the odd lack of a Civ3 review)

a search in our news will reveal that Tom has reviewed Civ3, but this time his review was accepted by a site...
http://apolyton.net/news/search.php...AndOr=or&Find2=


btw, looking at the results of the said search in our news archive i've found this
Civ3PTW preview for Gamespy

quote: As for the multiplayer aspect, he gives it high praise by declaring that its make-up "may be turn-based strategy`s best chance at establishing an online presence".

Civ3PTW review for Gamespot

quote: "Unfortunately, the multiplayer is... an unmitigated disaster". Chick goes onto describe this prime feature as "almost unplayable" with lag times amounting to nothing short of being intolerable. The next gripe is over stability concerns. As he puts it, "it`s not a matter of whether the game will crash, but when".

	23-02-2003 22:18									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Tom's turning into Bruce Geryk.

	23-02-2003 23:42									#86
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Pallidyne Actually what disturbs ME is that he WON two games.... -P

Quite.

And this:

"From the manual: "Your planetary viceroy handles some construction tasks without informing you of the details." And by 'some construction tasks', it means 'all construction tasks'. You see that little 'Planet econ AI' checkbox? Don't think your viceroy will be deterred if you disable it with some silly notion of running the planet's economy yourself. He'll continue to build stuff on the planet however he sees fit, sometimes even overriding your choices. He will let you wade four screens deep into the production queue, which he'll kindly leave empty. Otherwise, your participation is the viceroy's way of humoring you. Your viceroy doesn't really need you bugging him. As far as he's concerned, your job is to hit the 'turn' button so the computer can get down to crunching all these numbers."



And this, which looks like an 'IQ Test for Idiots' or something. I wonder if this is the tactical simulation orders menu :

	23-02-2003 23:47									#87
	Oh, God! Remove this text

"The outdated manual, which is obviously based on an earlier build of the game, manages to be simultaneously dense and uninformative. Extraneous information is liberally scattered through the 127 pages, of which 39 pages are exhaustive backstory shuffled between the chapters like commercial breaks. There's no index. "Really," the documentation seems to say, "this stuff is too complicated for you. Here's just enough information to discourage you from wanting to look any farther. Now why don't you sit back and let us take care of the details while you hit the 'turn' button?" "

This sounds worse than I expected, and I hate to be wrong.

I thought Moo3 would be 5/10, but this is starting to look like a 1.

	23-02-2003 23:52									#88
	Uh, Huh Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"The ship building in Master of Orion 1 and 2 was a large part of their personality. You designed space ships by stuffing their hulls with nifty little devices, maybe tweaking them to make them fit better or hit harder or skew further to the side to draw a bead on more nimble enemy ships. At its best, it was like building model spaceships. It was one of the signature elements of Master of Orion.

And MOO3 fails completely to recreate it. Ship building here has all the excitement of letting the AI draw up a laundry list of the most advanced components. Sure, you can get in there and do it yourself, futzing with the inconsistent interface and trying to decipher unexplained numbers and statistics. But don't expect any payoff, because you use your ships as fleets built according to esoteric rules that seem to have been inspired by Harpoon. This downplays your individual ship designs by forcing you to use them in clusters that are utterly devoid of personality. And then you get to the wretched tactical combat."

Speechless on Orion.

	23-02-2003 23:54									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by JonahFalcon BY the way. Tom complains that the viceroys do what he doesn't want them to do... HELLO! THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT! Plus, maybe he didn't notice the button labelled "Planet Econ AI" - you can turn that off. Moreover, I wonder how much time Tom spent in multiplayer... I took the time to examine multiplayer by having Floyd at Quicksilver play a short game with me.

tom mentioned the planet econ ai checkbox.

he said it didnt change anything.

	24-02-2003 00:05									#90
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

"But you don't have to watch the computer players to see the failings of the AI. Check your ship reserves a few hundred turns into the game and you'll see a thousand troop transports that you didn't order and that you'll never use. Hey, thanks viceroys. These will come in handy if I ever invade Normady."

I *HATE* games where the ai does even *ONE* thing with my resources without me explicitly telling it to.

It is obviously not possible to turn off all governors altogether. I will never buy Moo3, for this reason alone.