17-06-2003 20:13									#1
	Sorry, but I think MoO 2 is BETTER than MoO 3. Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Hi,

I introduce myself shortly:

I Play: Civ, Civ 2, Civ 3, CTP 1, CTP 2, Master of Magic and Master of Orion 2...

I like all this games a lot! In particular Master of Magic and Master of Orion 2 !!
(Of course Civ 3 is very nice too).

Finnaly I see MoO 3.... ehm, SIGH.

Sorry, but I think MoO 2 is BETTER than MoO 3.

In particular for 3 reasons:

1. MoO 2 have a better grafic. (Incredible but true).
2. MoO 2 have better fights. (Incredible but true).
3. MoO 2 is a deep strategy game and is very intuitive at the same time. I can't say the same thing for MoO 3.

What I expected from MoO 3 were all this things and to feel myself in a more plausible universe.

But this didn't happen.

Agin, siiigh.

	17-06-2003 20:35									#2
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Anyone who wanted MoO 2.5 has been disappointed. The game owes more to MoO 1 but is truly its own entity.

	17-06-2003 20:37									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

1. moo3 has better graphics in some areas--just not in the interface, the strategic map, or the tactical map.
2. moo3's ground fights are slightly better.
3. moo3 is a deeper strategy game severly crippled by opaque cause-effect reactions, abysmal documentation, non-intuitive interface, piss-poor decisions on what was and wasn't abstracted.

i'm not playing moo3 because i flat out didn't enjoy it much, not because i thought it was strategically shallow; i just didn't enjoy having to fight the interface and not being able to clearly see what my decisions were doing.

	17-06-2003 22:38									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Darth Balrog: No need to be sorry you didn't like the game. As Grumbold said, most of the people who wanted MOO 2.5 were disappointed. I hope you bought MOO3 at a place that accepts returns, since it's not what you wanted.

Q Cubed: Have you tried the patch? If your main "micro-hell" part of the game was regulating the MBQ like mine was, the patch helps that immensely with the "queue lock" feature. I rountinely add the three defense bases for any new planet then lock the queue. Nothing is ever added to any planet unless I tell it to add there.

Just thought I'd ask. Oh, and I agree that MOO3 has much deeper choices strategically, but suffers from feedback as already mentioned.

	18-06-2003 06:06									#5
	Suffering from ads?

ozy: i haven't. that's mainly because after finding i didn't enjoy it, i uninstalled it from my hd.

i don't have galciv, because my next purchase is/was rise of nations, and i'm enjoying that far more than i did moo3. maybe after i get bored with ron, i might be persuaded to give moo3 a shot again~ but i doubt it.

	18-06-2003 12:03									#6
	Re: Sorry, but I think MoO 2 is BETTER than MoO 3. Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Darth Balrog 1. MoO 2 have a better grafic. (Incredible but true). 2. MoO 2 have better fights. (Incredible but true). 3. MoO 2 is a deep strategy game and is very intuitive at the same time. I can't say the same thing for MoO 3.

I agree that MOO3 isn't very intuitive but I think it is much deeper than MOO2.

	19-06-2003 13:14									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Most people think moo3 sucks. Seriously, lol, at least most normal people.

	19-06-2003 14:48									#8
	Put an end to popups!

Most normal people don't play PC TBS games so they wouldn't even have an opinion on it

QS were saying for months that MoO3 was not going to be MoO2 with bells on, but somehow thousands of MoO2 fans seemed to manage to buy the game expecting it to be just that. Unsurprisingly they think the game sucks. I think their ability to read and comprehend is lacking in something too

MoO3 is a long way from perfect but its the only game that makes me feel like a ruler. In all other TBS games I'm a set of clones who has to do everything from command the armies to clean the toilets because if I don't do it it doesn't get done. Ruler of the invincible Grumbold Empire, population 1.

	19-06-2003 15:23									#9
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I doubt that the usual MoO2 fan browses forums for games that are not yet released. They just assume (and imo that should be a sound assumption, regrettably it apparently isn't) that if its called MoO3 it should bear some resemblance to MoO2. They foolishly believed that noone would dare to go to such extremes to make a game that has absolutely nothing to do with its predecessor. And thus preordered the game when it was first made available for order...
That at least is the story of me and the fools among my friends who also preordered it...

And then there are tons of idiots who give an unreleased game rave reviews at many sites (amazon among them, I think it had an avg of 5 stars prior to release, now it has 2 stars, go figure...). Of course these reviews all just said that a successor to MoO2 HAS to be good, and it can't be bad after all this time of waiting. Had no input on the actual game whatsoever... That probably fooled many people too into buying it. (Not me though, I just didnt think anyone could screw up so badly after such an excellent predecessor. Shoulda known better after Star Control 3, but I guess I tended to be too optimistic... Never again.)

And when people finally got it they saw the truth, and of course were disappointed...

One thing MoO3 for certain did is discourage people from ever again buying games they haven't tested through other means first.

And is it really so wrong to expect MoO3 to be a successor to MoO2 rather than a suckessor to MoO1?

Games with titles like MoO2.5 are not made usually. And a game that so radically departs from the previous number in the series should get a new name. But of course all the now disappointed MoO2 fans wouldn't have wasted their money on a game with a different name...

I think the game wouldn't receive nearly the bashing it does if it had been released as something other than the heir to MoO2... I just wonder if sales figures would have been higher in that case, since MoO3 might be a good game for people not knowing (or not liking) MoO2 but the bad reviews probably discouraged a lot of those too... Guess that depends on how many of the people that preordered and were disappointed could return the game...

Lata
Krait

	20-06-2003 00:44									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Whatever you want to say to make moo3 seem like a good game, go ahead. The facts however speak for themselves with the numerous terrible reviews and now Amazon practically paying people to get the game.

Personally, I kindof like moo3 lol. I do however feel that it could have been made much more 'fun' and stimulating to play like its predecessors. It's too dry and cumbersome with horrible archaic graphics to be really a fun a game to play. Accountants probably love it tho....

	20-06-2003 01:23									#11
	Suffering from ads?

Last I knew, "Amazon practically paying people to get the game" ended last weekend.

As for the point that MoO2 had better fights... YMWV, I definitely don't see it that way. A late-game fleet engagement in MoO2 was a 45-minute snoozefest, a late-game engagement in MoO3 can be awe-inspiring over its three-minute length.

	20-06-2003 06:57									#12
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

When I brough MOO3 I knew it wasnot going to be MOO2.5 at all. I like all the MOO's games.

	20-06-2003 08:12									#13
	Inflate your Upload Space

And just why shouldn't we think it was going to be MOO2 with bells on ??

uh,,Isn't CIV3 all about that ??

If MOO3 was not going to be "MOO2 improved" then why bother calling it Master of Orion !!!!
They took advantage of the MOO series fans , hoping to get their monies and came up with a glorified mess.. it deserved every crushing review it got ,, and deserves to be in the bargain bin ,,,where its at right now !!!

If we don't let them know how angry we are,, lord knows what MOO4 might be.. (gulp)

	20-06-2003 14:10									#14
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by ACEofHeart And just why shouldn't we think it was going to be MOO2 with bells on ?? uh,,Isn't CIV3 all about that ?? If MOO3 was not going to be "MOO2 improved" then why bother calling it Master of Orion !!!! They took advantage of the MOO series fans , hoping to get their monies and came up with a glorified mess.. it deserved every crushing review it got ,, and deserves to be in the bargain bin ,,,where its at right now !!! If we don't let them know how angry we are,, lord knows what MOO4 might be.. (gulp)

MOO3 deserves to be than MOO game in that outstanding series of games. Ten year from now it will be than classist game. MOO2 was not than MOO1.5 it was than total different game from MOO1. In MOO1 you where allow to do research in all six field at the same times, while in MOO2 you where allow to do research only in one field at a time. Many MOO1 player didnot like MOO2 when it first came out either. Because I didnot like MOO2 when I got it.

	20-06-2003 15:18									#15
	Tired of ads?

While MoO2 does indeed differ from MoO1 in many features (and granted, not all of them were improved), the core game remained very much the same (at least I felt that way, I pretty much immediately knew what I was doing in MoO2 from my experience with MoO1).
Maybe kinda like Civ2 to Civ3 (I keep on hearing people saying Civ3 is so far removed from Civ2, in my opinion it isnt far at all, still more or less the same game, just lots of features added/tweaked. I still play Civ3 very much the same way I played Civ2).

Now in MoO3, being a MoO2 guru didnt help me any... I am still looking for resamblances other than names and descriptive terms like "Ultra rich".... Its a completely different game. Which I still think would have done a lot better not being named after the MoO series (prolly not sales wise, but review and customer-satisfaction wise....)

MoO3 kinda feels like the next Might & Magic game being released as a Wizardry title... While I play both series and would like to see either game, I would be really pissed if Wizardry 9 (not like we will ever get that) played like a Might & Magic game...

Lata
Krait

	20-06-2003 18:12									#16
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

While I know there are far more examples of linear series than adaptive ones, this would hardly be the first example of games choosing to take a different tack. Dune 1 was an adventure game while Dune 2 launched the explosion of the RTS genre. Battle Isle has been different in every incarnation. The buyer always takes a risk if they make assumptions. Sure, misinformative reviews really don't help, like the raving about that fleabitten mutt Black & White.

I don't see what QS could have done differently to publicise that their vision of the MoO universe was going to be much much bigger and therefore quite different because it was too much for most players to want to micromanage. I forget who, but someone here pointed out that if you were a fan of MoO1 over MoO2 then MoO3 seems to be a lot easier to relate to. I would agree with that. MoO2 took MoO1 and turned it into space Civ. MoO3 rightly chucked that back out of the window. Sadly they didn't manage to fully realise their ambition of where to progress from there, but with the patch plugged in, you can really see the potential. I just dont see us getting another big patch come expansion to complete the job.

	20-06-2003 21:17									#17
	Full PM-box? Change here!

In Ten years from now MOO3 will be a classic alright.
It will be the classical example of poor designing to a sequel to a great series .
Why is it those who defend MOO3, always do it with abstract terms and pipe-dream references .
What "precisely" is even remotely above average about the game ????
At best just average graphics to a game with a bone-head diplomacy model, still a inconsistent AI after patching, a turn-base game with a combat model where you have no real control, and still no real new or viable victory conditions . the 5 X's is an abstract joke, the senate victory is still an under-achievement, that leaves only conquest. how about a REAL scientific victory, or a REAL economic victory, or a REAL diplomatic victory..!!
I refuse to look at MOO3 thru rose-colored glases.
It is what it is..,, if you can enjoy it with its flaws , thats great.
It's that attitude that somehow most of us long time strategy gamers and almost every major computing reviewer are wrong that gets me going.

	21-06-2003 02:19									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by ACEofHeart In Ten years from now MOO3 will be a classic alright. It will be the classical example of poor designing to a sequel to a great series . Why is it those who defend MOO3, always do it with abstract terms and pipe-dream references . What "precisely" is even remotely above average about the game ???? At best just average graphics to a game with a bone-head diplomacy model, still a inconsistent AI after patching, a turn-base game with a combat model where you have no real control, and still no real new or viable victory conditions . the 5 X's is an abstract joke, the senate victory is still an under-achievement, that leaves only conquest. how about a REAL scientific victory, or a REAL economic victory, or a REAL diplomatic victory..!! I refuse to look at MOO3 thru rose-colored glases. It is what it is..,, if you can enjoy it with its flaws , thats great. It's that attitude that somehow most of us long time strategy gamers and almost every major computing reviewer are wrong that gets me going.

I than also than long time computer game player. First to be consider a classic game than certain length of time must past . This is than breakthough game which will lead to more game like this. I hear that Galciv isnot all that good either.

	21-06-2003 04:44									#19
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

In my opinion, GalCiv is actually quite fun, and a pretty good game. MoO3 is neither.

Just my opinion.

-Yook

	21-06-2003 08:03									#20
	Support Apolyton

Well you know what Yook. Opinions are like A**holes, everybody has one, and everybody thinks that everybodie's else stinks.

	21-06-2003 10:01									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

what it boils down to is this:

MOO3 is not for everyone.
MOO2 was almost for damn near everyone.

	21-06-2003 10:44									#22
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed what it boils down to is this: MOO3 is not for everyone. MOO2 was almost for damn near everyone.

Everyone say that Diplomacy is broken. It isnot broken like
Bush Diplomacy which have America illegality invade Iraq, my
question to A**hole Bush is where are all those WMD you lying president said Iraq have, cannot find any at all.

I than play MOO3 postcode patch diplomacy work fine.

	21-06-2003 19:06									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Broken diplomacy is the least of MoO3s problems. MoO2s diplomacy is not much (if at all) better, but the game is MUCH better (yes yes, its just my A**... err, Opinion...)

Lata
Krait

	22-06-2003 04:52									#24
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold Anyone who wanted MoO 2.5 has been disappointed. The game owes more to MoO 1 but is truly its own entity.

My only real conceptional problem with MoO3 is the amount of needless detail in each star system. Something more like MoO1 (only dealing with things at the system level) or GalCiv (only one empire per system even if only one planet out of 9 is claimed) whould be the one big change I would make at this point. (well, maybe diplomacy as well )

Any modders out there know how to either keep interlopers from taking planets in you system or reducing the number of planets per system?

	22-06-2003 07:13									#25
	Got spare money?

quote: Everyone say that Diplomacy is broken.

it's not quite broken, but i had a hard time figuring out what it meant when the klackons "forcefully begged" me to do something.

	22-06-2003 08:25									#26
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by CharlesBHoff Everyone say that Diplomacy is broken. It isnot broken like Bush Diplomacy which have America illegality invade Iraq, my question to A**hole Bush is where are all those WMD you lying president said Iraq have, cannot find any at all.

A little repressed anger there?
You do make a good point in saying that we really can't complain too much about how silly MOO3 diplomacy is when there are real world examples that are just as bizarre if not worse (such as how the Palestinians are demanding "peace").

	22-06-2003 14:46									#27
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by The Templar My only real conceptional problem with MoO3 is the amount of needless detail in each star system. Something more like MoO1 (only dealing with things at the system level) or GalCiv (only one empire per system even if only one planet out of 9 is claimed) whould be the one big change I would make at this point. (well, maybe diplomacy as well ) Any modders out there know how to either keep interlopers from taking planets in you system or reducing the number of planets per system?

I make than Mod which will allow most star system have eight planets. It isnot easy to change this speadsheet as it is very interrelate with the many table that make up this speadsheet. I once make too many change and when I went to test it I got the direct X surface error on the second setup screem.

I will see it I can make one which will only allow 1 planets
per starsystem. See the place where they post MOD to download.

	23-06-2003 17:18									#28
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Q Cubed quote: Everyone say that Diplomacy is broken. it's not quite broken, but i had a hard time figuring out what it meant when the klackons "forcefully begged" me to do something.

I've never thought diplomacy was as difficult as "everyone" claimed it to be. It just needs time and effort to get to grips with. Sure there were problems with the AI flip/flopping between liking you and declaring war when you were allied to their enemies but that is the sort of problem every game has.

The dodgy english was supposed to be indicative of the problems of misinterpretation that arise when translating foreign speech, but considering how much bashing it has got I bet QS wish they didn't bother.

That concludes my obsequious assertion

	23-06-2003 21:09									#29
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: The dodgy english was supposed to be indicative of the problems of misinterpretation that arise when translating foreign speech, but considering how much bashing it has got I bet QS wish they didn't bother.

is that what it was? makes a bit more sense now. in the end, when i did play the game, i eschewed diplomacy and became isolationist. if i wanted to take systems, i did, without bothering to actually do anything diplomatically.

	25-06-2003 04:10									#30
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Vince278 A little repressed anger there? You do make a good point in saying that we really can't complain too much about how silly MOO3 diplomacy is when there are real world examples that are just as bizarre if not worse (such as how the Palestinians are demanding "peace").

It alot harder than I thought to make than mod to have one planet at most star system. I than still trying.