26-02-2003 01:44									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Even the most positive reviews go out of their way to warn everyone of the learning curve and complexity. It will be interesting to see if the market accepts a game that has a 50 hour basic learning curve. I think that this is the essence of the love it/hate it review differences. Which is why reading the details of each review is more valuable to a potential buyer than any summary letter or number grade. We've all got our hot buttons, and the impatient or time-strapped have learned they ought to pass on MOO3, or at least wait for a good strat guide online. As for me, I'll invest the time and hope I'm as happy with it as the pleased reviewers are.

	26-02-2003 03:34									#32
	Support Apolyton

I used to really like gamesdomain, but then they got blocked by the firewall where I work and I don't visit them much anymore.

Anyway, I read the review (now that I'm home...) and it didn't seem to say much of any substance. I feel like he didn't really know what he was doing, so he bashed on the Viceroys. Thing is, most reviewers aren't going to spend enough time on a game with this steep a learning curve, so in frustration they'll pick on whatever concept they do pick up and don't like, blaming that for "ruining the experience".

Whatever. I've decided to buy the game ( regardless of EB's new no-return policy - bastards! ) and see for myself. From what I've read (including the "bad" reviews) there's a lot that I am going to enjoy.

	26-02-2003 04:01									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I see a few problems:
1. I think QS didnt put enough effort to make an excellent tutorial and guide for this game AND the reviewers didnt put enough effort to digging into the core of the game. The former is a huge problem for the rewievers, because they have limited time to figure out themselves, how this complicated stuff work. (I am sure MOO3 IS complicated.) I think for us, this will be easier, because we can just help each other to digging out relevant information, after we got the game.
2. In a way I have to agree with the reviewers marks, because they wrote their stuff for average gamers, and I am sure an average person just give up, before he/she can start to enjoy this game. I.e. the Gamesdomain rewiever mention spreadsheat in his rewiev. And we like spreadsheats dont we?

	26-02-2003 04:13									#34
	Put an end to popups!

As much as I'm going to like (love?) MOO3 I'm starting to see a trend where every reviewer who gave the game a bad review "didn't know what they were doing", "didn't spend enough time with the game" or something like that...

I guess shooting the messenger is in vogue!

	26-02-2003 04:54									#35
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Ray K This is what I am most concerned about. Why create such a complicated economic model when you are forced to have the AI run it through viceroys? All that does is add an unnecessary layer between the player's actions and what happens in the game. A simpler model with no viceroys/governors/etc is a proven concept.

Because that's what Hasbro asked for?

See in particular Alan Emrich's comments at the Orion Sector message board...

-infidel

	26-02-2003 04:54									#36
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by booje As much as I'm going to like (love?) MOO3 I'm starting to see a trend where every reviewer who gave the game a bad review "didn't know what they were doing", "didn't spend enough time with the game" or something like that... I guess shooting the messenger is in vogue!

Oh boy! Not at all. The reviewers gave their point of view on the game. Period.

Blade Runner said in the post before yours that reviewers "wrote their stuff for average gamers". That is totally true.

The debate was not on the "didn't know what they were doing", "didn't spend enough time with the game" issue. If I came out that way, then I apologize that is not what I meant.

The reviewers do their job to try to encompass as many gamers as they can to give direction to the general gaming audience.

Now I question: people that are waiting for this game, are they average gamers? If the answer is no (as I assume) then the game has a chance of being successful and the negative reviews don't matter at all.

*SIGH* again, please, PLEASE do not take my definition of "average gamer" as a "cheap gamer" NOT AT ALL. Every gamer has the undeniable right to like what he/she wants. Some gamers like "specialized" games some others like more mainstream games. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that. That is NOT what I am saying. I am not passing judgement on the type of game you like or you should like. This is just an obvservation.

If a learning curve of 30 hours is too steep for you, then the game is not for you. Maybe you don't have the time to waste on a game that takes more than 30 hours to master and enjoy after a hard day at work. Maybe you are too busy or you just want to fire up a Space Civilization game that is a little less challenging and that gets fun faster than 30 hours. That is totally understandable and no one can criticize anyone for that.

There may be frustration in that this game appears to be more complicated than a "plug and play" type of game and that will require an investment in time. That is understandable.

That being said, if you are up to the challenge then the negative reviewes are just opinions of people that didn't like this type of game and you shouldn't care about them. That's all I'm saying about the reviewers.

I am looking for a complex game, where you have to deal with subordinates that obey only when they feel like it, where you have to look at endless spreasheets of economical data, statistics, reports, where the graphic interface is an afterthough and every turn is not a battle to win but a frustrating business problem to solve.

Am I crazy? sure I am! But this game sounds like it's been taylored for me The negative reviews if anything made me want it even more. I can't wait.

	26-02-2003 05:42									#37
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Yodasplat - edited by Starlord (the first part was deleted) If a learning curve of 30 hours is too steep for you, then the game is not for you. Maybe you don't have the time to waste on a game that takes more than 30 hours to master and enjoy after a hard day at work. Maybe you are too busy or you just want to fire up a Space Civilization game that is a little less challenging and that gets fun faster than 30 hours. That is totally understandable and no one can criticize anyone for that. There may be frustration in that this game appears to be more complicated than a "plug and play" type of game and that will require an investment in time. That is understandable. That being said, if you are up to the challenge then the negative reviewes are just opinions of people that didn't like this type of game and you shouldn't care about them. That's all I'm saying about the reviewers. I am looking for a complex game, where you have to deal with subordinates that obey only when they feel like it, where you have to look at endless spreasheets of economical data, statistics, reports, where the graphic interface is an afterthough and every turn is not a battle to win but a frustrating business problem to solve. Am I crazy? sure I am! But this game sounds like it's been taylored for me The negative reviews if anything made me want it even more. I can't wait.

I second that. Probably I am crazy, too.

Starlord

	26-02-2003 06:02									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

^ Ditto ^

I think I'm going to thoroughly enjoy MOO3 - IMO, the more complex and elaborate, the better. I only wish Civ3 was half as complex as MOO3...

But the casual gaming public will likely hate it, because it is so damn convoluted. QS and Co. will have to hope that there are enough die-hard MOOers and strategy gamers/grognards out there to actually make the game worth the cost of development. Sadly, I don't think there will be. We'll love it, but the game will likely suffer from several less-than-stellar reviews and, ultimately, poor sales.

Which stinks, because then the trend will be to make games more 'approachable' by the common gamer, and we won't have anything like this to look forward to for quite a while.

I agree that they (QS & Co.) could have taken the edge off the complexity issue by including a dynamite and extensive tutorial. Hindsight is 20/20.

So, to recap: I'll love MOO3, but the general public won't, and as a result we won't see something this ambitious again for a long, long time.

PS: I hope I'm dead wrong about the public disliking it, but that's how I would bet.

	26-02-2003 06:12									#39
	Tired of ads?

Er...but even if the learning curve is steep, shouldn't a game be FUN after 30 hours? It should be fun from the first minute to the last or what's the point?

	26-02-2003 06:43									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Infidel Because that's what Hasbro asked for? See in particular Alan Emrich's comments at the Orion Sector message board... -infidel

Is that a cheap comment?

There is a point to be made that if any part of any game is so complex that turning the ai on is neccessary to enjoy the game, or else suffer some sort of micro hell, than why include the complex part at all...


but , seriously, I hope those gamers who love stats and abstract numbers and such, enjoy the game.

I almost envy you. almost.

I want to love it.

...Of course, this is all based on reviews. I haven't played the game.

nor do i intend to until i hear some comments from the posters here.

	26-02-2003 07:03									#41
	Increase the size of your Attachments

What strikes me the most about this review is Mr. Todd's conclusion:

quote: The only way to go here is to sit back, look after the big picture, and relax in the knowledge that the little things will take care of themselves. Which is fine, but is that really the best way to approach a space empire title?

The essence of his complaint seems to be "the game is too big. To effectively manage it yourself, it should be smaller." A reasonable statement, and a definite warning to would-be micromangers: stay away from MoO3.

Some, myself included, like the lack of total control. President Bush makes many of the most important decisions regarding America as a whole, but he doesn't go to each individual city and tell them where to spend their money. This is the role I want as well; not immortal god-emperor, but of leader of a galactic civilization.

I personally thought the review well-written and informative, like the other reviews currently floating around (with the notable exception of Mr. Chick's) and I hope that people keep it in mind as well as the more positive reviews given by UGO and IGN.

edit: spelling

	26-02-2003 08:16									#42
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Sabaron: hear, hear!

I'm looking forward to clicking "turn" and enjoying the show. That is, of course, as long as I win. When I've picked a loser strategy or if I forgot to activate the planetary viceroys and/or my colonies revolt and I've 1000 troop transports in reserve but my viceroys insist on food to avoid starvation... well, then I guess I'll have to make some changes.

This can not be unthought of.

I'm buying tomorrow. Woohoo

	26-02-2003 08:44									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Sabaron wants to be George W. Bush?

....

I fully agree with your actual point, t hough. As someone else said earlier, the very things that some of these reviewers are griping about are what make this game sound attractive to me.

	26-02-2003 08:49									#44
	Suffering from ads?

I'm one of the crazy ones as well. I look forward to the "overlord" aspect (as well as the "overload ). Everything I've heard makes me want this game badly. The only thing that rings sour is the "lack of soul" comment. I do hope that I get to be more than just a mere spectator.

me want . . .

game hard, long, deep . . .

mmmmmm, deep

	26-02-2003 09:15									#45
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I think some of you are missing a rather important point. Back when development on MOO3 started, Quicksilver was very proud to say that one goal for this game is to increase its appeal for the masses (ring a bell?). Anyway, because of that we have "governor AIs" etc. so it could ease in new gamers to it. I do not wish to be the one to spoil the party here, but if anything is true about MOO3 - it would appear it has a monster learning curve and a rather unaproachable personality.

While it may be true that some people will enjoy the game - that will be the case - it does not negate the apparent fact that Quicksilver failed in its task to bring life to the 3rd MOO game in the line and make it popular with everyone. I am convinced that it is possible to make a game complex and at the same time accessible, and while Quicksilver may have had that intetion, it seems clear they did not have the expertise to pull it through. Very unfortunate, and belive it or not, in the end it is not only the casual gamer who will miss out, but we could have all used a solid experience out of this game.

Well, here's hoping there is something to be salvaged.

Sincerely,
Xentronium

	26-02-2003 09:53									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by XentWraith I think some of you are missing a rather important point. Back when development on MOO3 started, Quicksilver was very proud to say that one goal for this game is to increase its appeal for the masses (ring a bell?). Anyway, because of that we have "governor AIs" etc. so it could ease in new gamers to it. I do not wish to be the one to spoil the party here, but if anything is true about MOO3 - it would appear it has a monster learning curve and a rather unaproachable personality.

Maybe they have managed to make it accessible. Tom Chick said all he had to do was click the turn button . Seriously though, from the review, Tom seems to have indicated that the AI is good enough to give you a strong enough economy to win. All you have to do is take care of diplomacy and fleet management.

The problem Tom found was that he actually wanted to do the nitty gritty and the AI confounded him and there is so much information to absorb to do the nitty gritty micro that he found the experience unsatisfying.

	26-02-2003 11:11									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I like spreadsheets--they're a good way of looking at a lot of information at once. I like hard numbers, not fuzzy icons. I like the realism of giving orders to subordinates, who may or may not implement those orders in the way I intended. I like the realism of hidden complexity. I am aware that understanding the full ramifications of technology isn't easy.

Finally I'll have a realistic empire game that doesn't expect me to make all the decisions for a year of an entire civilization in only one minute. RTS games give me the thought: If I had only one minute per year to be president of the USA, I couldn't do a very good job. Now with MOO3 I can hope that George Bush doesn't just "click the turn button" and let everything happen by itself...

	26-02-2003 12:08									#48
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Why create such a complicated economic model when you are forced to have the AI run it through viceroys?

quote: Because that's what Hasbro asked for?

It's easy to blame the publisher for everything, but the truth is, QS could just have refused. At least if their contract was solid.

quote: I like spreadsheets[...] I like the realism of giving orders to subordinates[...]

Fair enough. There are many gamers who do.

Unfortunately, this school of thought has nothing to do with Master of Orion, which is indeed based on the Sid Meier design philosophy. Why did QS use this franchise name if their game has so little in common with the previous titles? One thing is for sure, their completely unique genre-defining 5X game would have got less media attention without this name.

It seems that people who expect MoO 2.5, which is a very reasonable expectation for a sequel, will be disappointed.

	26-02-2003 12:19									#49
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I don't think Moo 2.5 is reasonable. That is a seven year old game. Don't get me wrong, I've played Moo2 for at least double the game hours compared to any other game. It was great. "Was" being the operative word. I don't know if Moo3 will be as addictive but it needed to be "bigger" than Moo2.

	26-02-2003 21:30									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by dadacp I like spreadsheets--they're a good way of looking at a lot of information at once. I like hard numbers, not fuzzy icons. I like the realism of giving orders to subordinates, who may or may not implement those orders in the way I intended. I like the realism of hidden complexity. I am aware that understanding the full ramifications of technology isn't easy.

I agree with all the above. Small problem is, there are a lot of things in RL that you are not likely to get in a game anytime soon. In RL, you can fire (execute? ) subordinates if they consistently don't obey you. You can pay a group of scientist to find out the "full ramifications" of a technology. The usual solution you find in games, like that the player knows exactly what a technology is good for or that governors do exactly what the player tells them to do is not realistic on a micro level but they are a good abstraction (workaround if you will), in my opinion.

So I would be careful to classify flaws in the design and/or implementation of a game as realism improving elements...

	26-02-2003 21:40									#51
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by delmar I agree with all the above. Small problem is, there are a lot of things in RL that you are not likely to get in a game anytime soon. In RL, you can fire (execute? ) subordinates if they consistently don't obey you. You can pay a group of scientist to find out the "full ramifications" of a technology. The usual solution you find in games, like that the player knows exactly what a technology is good for or that governors do exactly what the player tells them to do is not realistic on a micro level but they are a good abstraction (workaround if you will), in my opinion. So I would be careful to classify flaws in the design and/or implementation of a game as realism improving elements...

It's not a bug! it's a feature!

Good point there. In real life though... firing people is often a lot harder than you would think. I have plenty of examples of people (in my company and others) that are incompetent and insubordinate but that (in spite of been constantly being written up to HR) don't get fired. For political reason. So we have to cope with them and their sloppy performance.

If I remember correctly in MOO3 you have the option to deactivate at least the Viceroys and take over their function ... not realistic but if the AI gets annoying too much, you can always take it out of the picture.