 |
|
Dreadnougat
|
|
YES! IT WAS!
Even if the game didn't ship, it would've been better than this bland game we have now... because nobody would've been sucked into paying money for something this boring.
The interface stinks.
The combat sucks.
There is no sense of accomplishment for anything.
I feel like I'm playing a text adventure, but with no depth. Everything is abstracted into oblivion.
So yea... the original concept was better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
I fail to understand how the 'original concept' was substantially different than the game as it stands. IFPs would have been an irritating distraction, especially when superimposed on the anal-retentive but unexplained detail pre-patch. Ethos would been interesting, but it would not have changed the flavor of the game. They were cut, but so what? I don't think their absence fundamentally impacted how the game plays.
Am I missing something? Was there some other major 'feature' that was cut that I am not aware of? If so, would these now missing features have changed the game’s feel, combat system, or feeling of accomplishment? Somehow I don't think so. And, if not, then they deserved to be cut.
If anything the game should have been pruned even more. But, then it would be Gal Civ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dreadnougat
|
|
edit: double post, won't let me delete
Last edited by Dreadnougat on 22-07-2003 at 03:35
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dreadnougat
|
|
It's the abstraction.
"Oh yes, they have a different system of beliefs. You can clearly see that in the food bonus and manufacturing penalty."
What's the point in having anything more than text if all you want to do is abstract, abstract, abstract?
What this game lacks is flavour. Nothing you do, no technology you get, no attribute you choose, will make the game feel more interesting. Yes, you will change the gameplay a bit by taking x bonus and y penalty, but each game ends up feeling the same.
The game had potential to have some flavour, it doesn't now, ergo the original concept was better.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AminMaalouf
|
|
Germany
Sep 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
Hydro, it might be that now from a certain distance the changes do not look that far reaching at first hand but those had been so at that time.
The changes did not come over night and indeed they came step by step. The entire process took nearly a year of time and did only end shortly before the release of the game.
One of the first bigger features which were cut, had been Ethos as you correctely said, shortly after them came the IFP but there were others as the Factions, the Strategic Resources, the Research model and one thing you entirely forgot the role of the Senate which was thought as a tool for the player to impinge on the game on a high level.
Further features were to mention which had contributed additional aspects of a sim to the game (as another migration model). For me personally it's the sim like arrangement which belonged to the unrealized moo and which the given game had not been focused on.
Moo3 still fascinates me when I find time to sit down and play for a while (what has unfortunately become rare). The not yet realized game was what is really intriguing me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Writing Wraith
|
|
Don't forget about the old leader system that would have allowed the player to promote, fire, and otherwise interfer with hundreds of distinct leaders including admirals, govenors, and sector seat govenors. Now that would have definitly added more interest to the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
13Matt13
|
|
Confusion, USA
Apr 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
I agree and think that in the best projects the managers will have the brains/background to learn about technical detail, particularly where it has large impact on project success. |
Exactly. So how does canning your designer and having an ART DIRECTOR try to make a cohesive vision fall into this theory? Or could it be that youre wrong, and it wasnt Alan that "screwed" the project and the rest that "saved" it? By your own admission of a best-case scenario, MOO3 NEVER falls into place.
Oh, name-calling. The best way to respond when youve been soundly defeated. Looks evrything just fell apart in the face of the well-reasoned response from a high school graduate. And who says the youth of today arent learning anyhthing?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
13Matt13
|
|
Confusion, USA
Apr 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
1. Nothing fell apart. I'm just deciding how much time to spend on someone who can't think through implications. |
Is that manager-speak for "trying to figure out a comeback"?
quote:
2. Your point cuts both ways. The problem with Alan was that he didn't think enough about the integrated project. That he made a design that was too ambitious. The other guys managed to get the thing completed. That was an accomplishment. I assume that it was close to getting cancelled. Would you rather have half a loaf or none? |
Once again, he was hired to do a design. When they tell him they can do something, God forbid he might actually EXPECT them to *do* it, not come back 6 months and $60,000 later and say "Whoops, we cant EXACTLY do that". If they told him to cut stuff, how do you know he wouldnt have?
And Alan's whole vision was the integrated project. It was when they started cutting things and made it a bastard child that it screwed up. If you want a game to be macromanagement, cut out the micro stuff and give the masses macro tools. Dont abstract some stuff all to Hell (IE research, governors), and make you focus on individuals in another area (IE epsionage).
And didnt your mother ever tell you what happens when you assume? Especially assume about a situation whose details you were NOT privy to?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AminMaalouf
|
|
Germany
Sep 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Game design is a business.
|
Is this really the case? To sell a game or to found the production of a game is without doubt a commerical activity, a business at the end, should all go round.
Sometimes not everything goes round and commercial decisions give an idea another shape than the intended one. However, I ask myself, wheather the design of a game might be something else (e.g. as well said by the poster before, an integrated project).
Last edited by AminMaalouf on 24-07-2003 at 01:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Raion
|
|
Actually, Microsoft is the one that screws up this game.
Perhaps, it would have been easier to write it in ms-dos with a very large dos extender, so it was actually using all of the hardware of the computer, and with a interface related to Direct X, but using a system that allows it to be built in the first place.
In other words, a designer can design a spaceship, and the design change over the time allowed, but if one can not build it ever, than it will never launch into space.
The spaceship can not be built, if it is not designed well enough, but also can not be built if it can not be built well. It takes both.
And no one has a government grant to build a computer game, or a spaceship, that I know of.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by 13Matt13
Is that manager-speak for "trying to figure out a comeback"? |
Like I said, you can't figure implications.
quote:
Once again, he was hired to do a design. When they tell him they can do something, God forbid he might actually EXPECT them to *do* it, not come back 6 months and $60,000 later and say "Whoops, we cant EXACTLY do that". If they told him to cut stuff, how do you know he wouldnt have?
And Alan's whole vision was the integrated project. It was when they started cutting things and made it a bastard child that it screwed up. If you want a game to be macromanagement, cut out the micro stuff and give the masses macro tools. Dont abstract some stuff all to Hell (IE research, governors), and make you focus on individuals in another area (IE epsionage).
And didnt your mother ever tell you what happens when you assume? Especially assume about a situation whose details you were NOT privy to? |
If the design is too ambitious, that is a fault of the design. If it can't be coded that is a fault. You can't just do the design for a year and than throw it over the fence and take a 50-50 shot that it will be feasible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AminMaalouf
|
|
Germany
Sep 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TCO
It is a business. People investing expect a return. There is no game charity or government subsidy. |
There is always something between the lines.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DIH49
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TCO
Weasel. |
Wonderful! I never thought, nay, dreamed that you would respond with yet another fallacy. I don't often get the chance to lecture over the summer, and i must say your side is providing some exquisite opportunities to do so.
Now, the fallacy in question here is a more well known one: the Ad Hominem. This fallacy works like this:
1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.
this sort of fallacy is most commonly seen in small children, usually with some variation on the word head, as in, stupidhead, or dumbhead, or perhaps dummyhead on occasion. now as to why this is a fallcy. The character of a person making a claim has no bearing on its' veracity.
***
Oh, and matt, I haven't graduated hs yet. I'm a senior this year. 
quote:
Originally posted by TCO
I fully agree that I am shooting in the dark. I made the comment about assume to make sure that I differentiated an assertion from an assumption. This is the internet. We don't have all the details. ETc. It is still interesting to chat about. I will throw my "takes" based on limited information ouot there. I might be wrong, but I have a decent smell for this kind of thing. I also commented and cautioned about some of this stuff over a year ago. Read back and it will give you a little persepective. You fiery 13-yearold you.
|
a. matt isn't thirteen, no more than i am 49. that he has numbers in his handle doesn't necessarily mean those represent his age.
b. i think the problem here is that you don't really understand the way game design works. or rather, the way the game designer works. it was said several times on igmoo, and its' beautiful predecessor that there were going to be cuts made, that all games made cuts along the line. This would be ALAN'S job. Except they dropped him and let an art designer take the project. I gave an example to someone a while back about how i expect a painter to paint my house, not build it. I suggest you consider it.
quote:
In other words, a designer can design a spaceship, and the design change over the time allowed, but if one can not build it ever, than it will never launch into space.
The spaceship can not be built, if it is not designed well enough, but also can not be built if it can not be built well. It takes both.
And no one has a government grant to build a computer game, or a spaceship, that I know of.
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3084677.stm
well, there's the grant for computer games.
Working off of your analogy, if the designer designs a spaceship, and then is fired before he can perfect the design and make it fly, is it the designers' fault the spaceship is broken, or those who fired him? likewise, if they put the man in charge of painting numbers on the side of the rocket in charge of designing it, whose fault would it be when it crashed and burned?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
13Matt13
|
|
Confusion, USA
Apr 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
If the design is too ambitious, that is a fault of the design. If it can't be coded that is a fault. You can't just do the design for a year and than throw it over the fence and take a 50-50 shot that it will be feasible. |
If Im hired to design a sandbox, and I take my design to you, and you tell me, "Sure I can build that, give me 3 weeks." Then 6 weeks later you find out you CANT build it, whose fault is it? Common sense dictates that it is YOURS, since you committed to something you COULDNT do.
quote:
Read back and it will give you a little persepective. You fiery 13-yearold you. |
Man, I sure wouldnt trust a 13 y/o engineer. Or someone who believes that anything in a screen name must be a physical descriptor of the person who uses it. Watch out for that Cereal Killer fellow who used to float around the net back in the olden days, he must be a murderer!
Just b/c I have an affinity for a number, does NOT make me that age. Sigh.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dreadnougat
|
|
"Weasel."
Thanks for conceding the point so easily.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hydro
|
|
Winfield, IL, USA
Jun 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Gentlemen, please. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
"Golden Rule" anyone?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DIH49
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hydro
Gentlemen, please. We can disagree without being disagreeable.
"Golden Rule" anyone? |
WE certainly can. I submit we have won this argument ahnds down. Confirmation will be in the form of another insult.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-07-2003 23:18
|