12-07-2003 23:51									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Proteus_MST And then, after playing GalCiv put it away, as many other people seem to have done, according to what I read.

Not nearly as many as those who did that after MoO3 from what I read

And at least they played the game rather than the game playing them

(I put GalCiv away too, but it was still a hundred times better than MoO3)

Lata
Krait

	13-07-2003 01:47									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Yo, but many play MOO3 again after the patch,
as it fixes a lot of the issues which pissed people off

	13-07-2003 19:15									#33
	Tired of ads?

I wonder how true that is...
Noone I know plays MoO3 anymore, even after the patch...

And reviews haven't improved either...

Lata
Krait

	13-07-2003 20:01									#34
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Were there any Reviews post Patch?

	14-07-2003 13:21									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Well customer reviews at amazon for example...

I don't believe a single word of any 'official' reviews anymore anyway...

Lata
Krait

	14-07-2003 16:08									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I can't think of anything less trustworthy than the sort of biased customer rants you tend to get on Amazon. I find the sort of serious reviews you get after a game has been out a few weeks are the most reliable. The initial love/hate frenzy that even affects impartial journalitsts has worn off by then. Black & White taught me that lesson.

	15-07-2003 02:40									#37
	Suffering from ads?

I find the amazon customer reviews to be pretty accurate for MoO3 though. A few people love the game and give it 4-5 stars. Most are extremely dissappointed that it bears no resemblance to MoO2 and is otherwise not exactly user-friendly and give it 1-2 stars. That is a good breakdown of the reaction I have seen to it all over the net. And it is actually even a more positive reaction than that from people I know personally, only one of my friends actually liked MoO3, be it pre or post patch...

Lata
Krait

	15-07-2003 15:07									#38
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Its only got 19 comments and half of those have just slammed it in a couple of lines because it wasn't MoO2 with better graphics. Thanks but I'll stick to more reliable sources.

	16-07-2003 12:24									#39
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Well it had quite a few more reviews back before Amazon decided to delete all of them when IG became Atari....
And what can I say... it deserves being slammed for not being MoO2,5 because that isn't what it is but that is what most people wanted and expected (When you got 'Near Prefection' why the heck remove the 'Perfection' instead of the 'Near'?).
I know that you didn't want it... But I think most did. That is why I think Amazon is a pretty representative review source. A few 'Grumbolds', and a load of disappointed MoO2 fans... And every MoO2 fan who reads through there will know that the game is not for him, while any 'Grumbold' will most likely ignore the bad reviews and use the neutral or positive reviews to decide whether he wants it or not (Its not like the game would be perfect even if it wasn't labeled MoO3, just too many interface issues).

When there is only one or two reviews there I tend to not neccessarily trust them. But when there are more than a dozen or so and I can see a consistent trend with them, I tend to believe at least some of them, either good or bad. And don't tell me people only review things they think are bad. Look at MoO2 reviews for a good example against that. I think it all depends on the scope. If its just not so good, or if its just ok, it wont get reviews. But if its exceptionally good or exceptionally bad, it will get reviews, and these reviews will prompt the opposing side to write some too.

Lata
Krait

Last edited by krait23 on 16-07-2003 at 12:30

	16-07-2003 14:27									#40
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by krait23 I know that you didn't want it... But I think most did

I donīt think that it is that I and most other people who like MOO 3 wouldnīt have liked a MOO 2.5.
After all I can say for myself, that I liked playing MOO2 and, with larger Galaxies and maybe some other Improvements I would still play it.
So thatīs not really the point. If it had been MOO 2.5 we very probably would have liked the game, too.

But I think for many people who donīt like MOO3 it is of great importance to get a MOO 2.5 and so they have problems to see, that MOO3 has its own qualities, because they are too disappointed that it isnīt MOO 2.5
(whereas I and other people who like it just have accepted that it isnīt 2.5. but a somehow different game )

	16-07-2003 17:21									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

The problem, even if you are a MoO2 fan, is that Amazon reviews have no objectivity or relativity. I looked up a few of the most pointless, bug ridden and poor value games I could think of. All but one of them had significantly better ratings than MoO3 according to the minority of Amazon customers that bothered to review them. That is just laughable. At least professional reviewers are expected to rate the whole game and compare it to the industry at large, not just score it at 20% because it failed to live up to their own ingrained prejudice.

Proteus has already covered that well. Sure I'd have loved a MOO 1.5 or a MOO 2.5 but I reject the notion that MOO 3 should be marked down because it isn't either of those two games.

	17-07-2003 09:18									#42
	Increase Your PM Length

if this was moo2 or galciv,it be moo2

	25-07-2003 06:28									#43
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold The problem, even if you are a MoO2 fan, is that Amazon reviews have no objectivity or relativity. I looked up a few of the most pointless, bug ridden and poor value games I could think of. All but one of them had significantly better ratings than MoO3 according to the minority of Amazon customers that bothered to review them. That is just laughable. At least professional reviewers are expected to rate the whole game and compare it to the industry at large, not just score it at 20% because it failed to live up to their own ingrained prejudice.

MoO3's rating is pretty dead on. It was a game sloppily put together and sold incomplete. Even the creators admitted it. They tried to put too many concepts into a project they didn't have time to complete.

If your willing to ignore the glitches and make a game work then you could enjoy MoO3, GalCiv's more playable and easier to grasp but its not quite as cutting edge in some details as MoO3.

MoO3 had a lot of concepts that were great, and if Quicksilver had another year or two to work on it it probably would have been an awesome game. As it turned out it is as pathetic attempt and not much more. And Amazon's rating shows the reality of the game's worth.

	28-07-2003 04:00									#44
	Remove this text

Now look up games that were so bug ridden or useless that you returned them after 12 hours, even if you had to claim they crashed your computer to do it. Of all the ones I thought of, Amazon scored them higher.

I agree that Moo3 had great concepts. The result was not the most playable game ever but it certainly wasn't pathetic and now with the patch its actually pretty solid.

	28-07-2003 08:22									#45
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Buy whichever game is less expensive, so that if that game turns out to not be your style, you hopefully wouldn't have wasted too much money on it.

	28-07-2003 14:03									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Well I gotta say I have never bought a game that has disappointed me more than MoO3. Probably because I am normally a very selective buyer and usually test things out before I get them. Failed to do so for MoO3 because I just couldn't believe it possible to create such a ... mess... after a near perfect predecessor and that long a development time.
And I think I am far from the only one who suffered that same fate. The really crappy titles are probably not expected to be something they aren't, thus don't get this amount of bad reviews. What sparked my review was not the games lack of quality, but mostly the disappointment and the knowledge that many people would have the same expectations I had. Just have to keep those from making the same mistake I did. If this game had been released under a different title I would not have reviewed it at all because it is playable and apparently fun for some people, even if not for me (Well actually more likely I wouldn't have reviewed it because I wouldn't have gotten it in the first place). But intentionally deceiving tons of MoO2 fans with the MoO3 title would get zero starts from me if that was possible.

Lata
Krait

	28-07-2003 16:05									#47
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Sure, some awful titles are just quick attempts to cash in with no effort made to create quality. An awful lot of them are linked to blockbuster movie francises though, so the same level of expectation and disappointment will be experienced by fans. If only the same quantity of time, effort and money were spent on both there would not be a problem but that is rarely the case.

	30-07-2003 22:39									#48
	Tired of ads?

Here's the breakdown of MoO3. It's for intelligant people. People that can analyze and comprehand the gameplay. 1st person shooters are fun but MoO3 is for those who make plans and implament them. The AI is awsome although most says it sucks. In truth the AI algorithums act upon the info and instructions given by the player (the AI doesn't suck, the players do). None of the diplomacy is random. I've heard people who say their "ally" suddenly declares war on them for no reason. False. One such ranter said "I sent a TF with 15 ships to check up on my ally". Imagine how that would look if the "ally" did that to the player. Mainly the AI follows the Golden Rule. Also, different situations require different policies, some don't grasp this simple concept. Those that simply click will get screwed. AT LEAST CHECK THE ECONOMY. The only gripe I have is the incredibly complex user interface and lack of instructions. But a player can puzzle this out and once the mind goes *click* players are able to do just about anything.

	30-07-2003 23:00									#49
	Suffering from ads?

All games have their flaws. MoO3's are the interface and some would say the divergance of game style. But It has 4 great +'s.
1) The senate were you can end up getting squashed.
2) Complex diplomacy.
3) Macromanagment makes people (me at least) feel like a ruler. I say "do this" and it is done on a large scale.
4) Huge space battles.

Some things that can get you screwed if not careful in diplomacy.
1) A speices has better relations with a speices you're at war with and they side w/them.
2) If you get real big and powerful your relations worsen with everybody (jealosy).
3) You are framed so well thet you have no knowledge of this.
4) You sanction an embargo against a friend of your ally.
5) Your two races' beliefs are too different for a lasting relationship.
6) You claim a system they had their eye on but did not claim.
7) You send too large of a patrol or fleet through their space.
8) You disregard a senate policy or law.
9) Members of the senate that don't vote.

	31-07-2003 16:19									#50
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Maverick88 Here's the breakdown of MoO3. It's for intelligant people.

You ain't getting yourself any friends and don't increase your credibility much with this statement (especially with that typo in there :P). I consider myself fairly intelligent, and the people I mostly hang out with are pretty damn smart. I loathe FPS or any other twitch games (even RTS, where clicking fast is usually more important than thought) for the most part (CS in a LAN with other people of mediorce skill can be fun, or maybe in single player if the game has an exceptionally intiguing story, but thats about it). I analyze any game I play in depth. If there is such a thing, I am a scientific game player. By far my favorite game style is turn based strategy. Because thinking things through matters more than being fast with the mouse. Yet I hate MoO3, and I don't know anyone in person that doesn't hate MoO3 (Well, maybe one. Though he played it once and now its collecting dust, that ain't love either).

I could just as well say it is for stupid people. For those people stupid enough to waste time and energy to find some fun in a game with an utterly unintuitive interface, crappy feedback, serious lack of control, complete lack of any valuable documentation and on top of it ugly graphics which by themselves wouldn't be bad but really don't help to make a bad game better.
Or maybe for those that are too stupid to manage anything themselves and are glad that the AI does it for them?

I think it would be much more appropriate to say it is a game for people that always want something new, do not mind ceding a lot of control to AI, and can ignore detail and only worry about the big picture. Which has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence. Rather with a personal style preference.

Lata
Krait

	12-08-2003 00:00									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I would get Moo3 because of the nice box, but I have not played any of the games. I'll probably buy Moo3 some time or another.

	12-08-2003 06:40									#52
	Increase Your PM Length

Of MOO2 and MOO3, which is more similar to civ, and which to, say, Space Empires IV? I am trying to decide which to get.

	12-08-2003 13:26									#53
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

MoO2 is definitely much closer to SEIV than MoO3. Also closer to Civ, but if you want a game thats close to Civ, Galactic Civilizations is your best bet.

Lata
Krait

	12-08-2003 15:13									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

MoO2 is effectively MoO1 squeezed into a more Civ-like mould and there are very strong similarities.

MoO2 has its need to micromanage everything like SE IV. MoO3 outdoes even SE IV for sheer scale while MoO2 is smaller.