Worst fears coming true: Quarter to Three Review

darcy · February 22, 2003, 05:14

Reviewer's summary:

Quote:

In many ways, this is the anti-Sid Meier school of design, a throwback to the complex wargames where much of the calculations are running under the hood and it's your job to just shut up and move the pieces around, leaving all those numbers alone to do their own thing. There's no clear correlation between your actions and whatever outcome the game eventually spits out, so you're left with the feeling that you might as well just click the 'turn' button a few times and see what happens. Three hundred turns later, the game's over.

There's no denying Master of Orion 3 is a complex game. Complexity itself isn't a bad thing, but poorly organized complexity can be the kiss of death. What's worse is poorly organized complexity that serves as a substitute for gameplay. This is exactly what you get with Master of Orion 3, an indecipherable pile of dense self-absorbed data that completely fails to understand why we loved our first MOOs.

http://www.quartertothree.com/reviews/moo3/moo3-1.shtml

Call me Kassandra, but this is what I suspected all along. Apparently the original Moo3 design, the Empire Simulator, was a huge, unplayable numbercruncher. And it's still there, but in order to make it playable, there are now lots of helper AIs that play the game for you.

The original MOOs, like Civilization, worked because the basic rules were simple, the output was in little intuitive icons and, most important, it was clearly defined and easy to understand how each player decision affected the empire. Good games are all about choices, and choices only matter when you see the impact they have on the game.

If Tom is right, Moo3 will be a failure, because QS failed to understand what made Moo1+2 great. The chance for Tom being right is unfortunately high. Look at his other reviews; you will notice that, among other things, he exposed both Dungeon Siege and Morrowind as what they are.

vmxa1 · February 22, 2003, 05:41

Well that is one review and I have no clue if they know A from B. My son sent me their review and it was very positive.
As I recall lots of people did not like Moo2, so what does it mean? Nothing to me. I will judge for myself and if I like, that is all I care about.

Oniz · February 22, 2003, 05:49

Who died and made Tom the guru of all games? All the other reviewers seem to be happy with the game, althought it has the "long learning curve", they have come to enjoy it. Maybe "Tom" hasn't just played the game enough, or didn't bother to actually learn to play it. He only talked about pressing the turn-button, maybe he should've actually done something.

MarkG · February 22, 2003, 06:01

Quote:

What's New

February 21, 2003

60: review: Master of Orion 3

July 8, 2002

Early Hours: Warcraft III
:60 review: Gore
:60 review: Ico (PS2)
:60 review: Eternal Darkness (GC)

somehow i fail to give much credit to someone
a) with such "often" updates
b) apparently likes a big ugly eye as part of his logo

Sirian · February 22, 2003, 06:21

His planets kept going into unrest? And yet he had masses of overabundance of some resources? Sounds like he didn't even bother to fiddle with the macromanagement, just tried to micromanage his way through everything and gave up when the viceroys overruled some of his choices. (Now whether or not them doing that is a good thing or not, the jury's out for me until I play it, but that's another story).

I did find the review informative, though. It shows how boring and uninteresting the game can be if you don't spend the time to figure out WHAT the impacts of your actions are. The uninformative tech descriptions are probably a very bad idea on QS's part. Even those of us with the dedication to look under the hood will be met with deliberate obscurity. I'm afraid the "we don't even WANT you to fiddle with these numbers" impression may be a bit accurate. Too much of the going for the "eXperience" factor and not enough letting us know what the various options DO for us to form strategy. If we don't know what the options DO, how are we supposed to choose among them?

QS might be advised to listen to this reviewer's complaints and criticisms with some care. If they've surrounded themselves with diehards and yes-men, they may not have put the product through as many rigors as it needs.

I sure hope they will be there, AND LISTENING, for the long haul, like Firaxis has done for Civ3. The MOO3 team may have some disdain for Civ3, but the Civ patching process on clearing up bugs, closing loopholes, and rebalancing weak elements of the game, has been very good. If QS will be there for the long haul, dedicated to polishing things up, that will go a long way toward me buying more titles from them. Even though it sounds like their bug-squashing process has been supreme, the game balancing process can't possibly reach its peak until the game has been in tens of thousands of hands and under so many pairs of eyes, to be put through the ringer. Serious issues are bound to emerge. And how they are dealt with will be remembered, for good or ill.

- Sirian

CharlesBHoff · February 22, 2003, 06:46

I think MOO3 will be than good game if you take the time to learn how to play it. If all his planet went into unrest by him not useing the macro mangement tool which unlike Civil 1 and civil 2 actural do than every good job. You canot micro-mangment MOO3 at all except in the very beginning of the game.

darcy · February 22, 2003, 07:10

Quote:

He only talked about pressing the turn-button, maybe he should've actually done something.

And why? He won more games than he lost with his, erm, strategy.

Strollen · February 22, 2003, 07:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Oniz
Who died and made Tom the guru of all games? All the other reviewers seem to be happy with the game, althought it has the "long learning curve", they have come to enjoy it. Maybe "Tom" hasn't just played the game enough, or didn't bother to actually learn to play it.

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.

As much as I hope what he says isn't true, I have a sneaking suspicious it maybe.

Stuie · February 22, 2003, 08:49

Funny that he loved EU, which to my mind did the same thing: much of the calculations are running under the hood and it's your job to just shut up and move the pieces around, leaving all those numbers alone to do their own thing. There's no clear correlation between your actions and whatever outcome the game eventually spits out, so you're left with the feeling that you might as well just click the 'turn' button a few times and see what happens. Three hundred turns later, the game's over.

But then, I never took the time to learn how to play EU. A lot of people did, and really enjoy. Looks like MOO3 may be the same type of game.

ashbery · February 22, 2003, 10:20

Some guys like simple games so this is just 1 man's opinion take for instance E.U, it got 50% score in PCGAMER but i loved it.

Pallidyne · February 22, 2003, 10:55

Actually what disturbs ME is that he WON two games....

-P

peacenik · February 22, 2003, 11:54

There are actually a lot of similarities in the detail of the reviews, including this one. The bottom line is we won't figure out even the basics of this game by playing it a few times, which some strategy fans will really dislike. Others will love the complexity. My bet is people that take the time to learn the basics will be rewarded by nuances and options that we've always wanted in TBS, but it could be a little ugly getting there.

booje · February 22, 2003, 11:55

It's a pretty scathing review. Honestly, he couldn't find a single thing he liked about it? I'd like to see his review of Galactic Civilizations when that comes out.

moomin · February 22, 2003, 11:56

Tom has a lot of cred with me. I'm now gonna wait for feedback on this board, from players I know did well in Moo/Moo2. And I was all set to splash on first sight.

A well-written, funny and informative review. Let's hope it's either not accurate or represents that elusive quality called taste that there's no accounting for.

Magus Flynn · February 22, 2003, 13:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Sirian
QS might be advised to listen to this reviewer's complaints and criticisms with some care. If they've surrounded themselves with diehards and yes-men, they may not have put the product through as many rigors as it needs.
I sure hope they will be there, AND LISTENING, for the long haul, like Firaxis has done for Civ3. - Sirian

I agree with some of the other posts that this is just one review - and we honestly haven't seen that many reviews yet. But like other serious strategy gamers, I sometimes think of myself as a "rare" breed these days. Most people don't like to slug through a learning curve at all (hence the 1st person shooter games which require coordination but a minimum of strategizing) which is why we won't see Mo03 come out on XBox or GameCube - the market isn't big enough.

From what I've seen and heard, I'm glad QS didn't give in to the popular trend of stunning graphics and heart-pounding adventure while sacrificing the heck out of strategy.

I concur with Sirian, though. And here is the scary thing about some of the gossip regarding QS ability to produce patches and expansion once the game is out (this week). Hopefully QS and IG realize the long-term benefits of supporting this game - it sounds like it is great as is...with some further tweaking in patches/upgrades, Mo03 will likely be EPIC and be played until the real world ends

leiavoia · February 22, 2003, 14:24

Well some things that Tom said are true. however, it all pretty much boils down to a lack of feedback. it's true there isn't much of that in MOO3. everything from the tech descriptions to space combat. you don't know what techs do, you don't know what weapons are effective, and it's hard to tell what impact your government is having.

However, i think Tom was having a really bad day. he couldn't find a single thing good to say about the game! but look at all the other reviews out there. most are very positive.

So, it can be a decent game, but i hope for a patch/xpack that the game gets a total information overhaul and the player gets more specific feedback.

gunnergoz · February 22, 2003, 14:39

Quote:

Originally posted by darcy
Reviewer's summary:

http://www.quartertothree.com/reviews/moo3/moo3-1.shtml

Call me Kassandra, but this is what I suspected all along. Apparently the original Moo3 design, the Empire Simulator, was a huge, unplayable numbercruncher. And it's still there, but in order to make it playable, there are now lots of helper AIs that play the game for you.

The original MOOs, like Civilization, worked because the basic rules were simple, the output was in little intuitive icons and, most important, it was clearly defined and easy to understand how each player decision affected the empire. Good games are all about choices, and choices only matter when you see the impact they have on the game.

If Tom is right, Moo3 will be a failure, because QS failed to understand what made Moo1+2 great. The chance for Tom being right is unfortunately high. Look at his other reviews; you will notice that, among other things, he exposed both Dungeon Siege and Morrowind as what they are.

OK. You're Cassandra. Happy now?

Sheesh. Argue for your fears, and sure enough they're yours. The answer is simple...don't waste your money buying a game that you've feared all along that you won't like. Your opionion has been formed for a long time...this "review" just crystallized your thoughts, that's all.

As to the issue of choices and seeing their impact upon the game...did it occur to you that you might need some patience and discrimination to perceive the impact upon this particular game? It looks to me like MOO3 is not a simple, straightforward game, unlike it's predecessors. I welcome the change...if I want to play a simpler game, I still have the earlier versions to fall back upon. I don't know about you, I'm only speaking for myself here, but I'm ready for a new, deeper and more challenging game.

Thanks for sharing and have a good time playing MOO2.

Araanor · February 22, 2003, 14:42

Complex but with helpers, sounds great frankly. EU2 is just about the other complex PC game I've had the pleasure of experiencing these past years.

Hierophant · February 22, 2003, 15:11

He gave Deus Ex a bad rating, though, too. So he isn't always right...

vee4473 · February 22, 2003, 15:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Oniz
Who died and made Tom the guru of all games? All the other reviewers seem to be happy with the game, althought it has the "long learning curve", they have come to enjoy it. Maybe "Tom" hasn't just played the game enough, or didn't bother to actually learn to play it. He only talked about pressing the turn-button, maybe he should've actually done something.

I thought his whole point was that the AI didn't LET you do much of anything, and if it did, it would over ride some decisions...

And why berate the guy because he is going against the flow...What makes anyone think that he DIDN'T take the time to learn the game, and that after a while he still considered it a mass of confusing numbers?

It's just his opinion.

I like his genre discription though.."bloated strategy" heh

rhofman · February 22, 2003, 15:16

Confront your fears. FACE the unknown.

Enough cliches. Gunner got it right, if you expect this game to be too complex too be fun it will be.

Personally I'm buying it Tuesday and I plan to eat, sleep and s*** MOO3 for at least a week. If I can't get into it after a week then I'll know I made a mistake getting it. Until then I don't really care what one reviewer out of ten says. (I would reconsider if 9/10 said it)

Corentor · February 22, 2003, 15:20

I personally think this review is a good thing.

A big red warning flag telling everyone that if you are looking for MOO 2 in a new package, go home.

A shame that so many people on the IG boards are bashing TChick's review like crazy.

CharlesBHoff · February 22, 2003, 15:23

I remember how some board games where very complex with complex rules all the player have to inpert what the rules meant and do all the additson and substact from the dice roll to figure out the outcome. I than glad we have computer to do most that work now. It was the complex of many board games and all the complex figureing out the outcome of each dice roll that kill most board games today. First there will be no board game verson of MOO3 or MOO2 there might be than board game verson of MOO1.
In the real world we have peroid of great wealth and peroid of great depression where wealth disappear. As in the real world there is no easy answer to these events they
just happen.
Right now some state and local government are raiseing tax to balance their books. Their cannot cut back on public service anymore. Cal govonor is raiseing taxes, he could balance the book by closeing all state pirson, laid off all state law enforcement people and laiding off all state worker and cutting back on all social programming. But he donnot for than very good reason. Do all the above will not work as what are you going to do next year when the ecomoncy take than real nose drive.

Sarxis · February 22, 2003, 16:18

Well, he's just one review, and a very opinionated one at that. Maybe the game was just too complex for him.

RolandtheMad · February 22, 2003, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by darcy
among other things, he exposed both Dungeon Siege and Morrowind as what they are.

I liked Morrowind! It was one of the better RPGs I`ve played lately. There was no point to Dungeon Siege once you beat it once though.

A pretty damning review.. hrmm..

darcy · February 22, 2003, 17:58

Tom on Morrowind:

Quote:

The game doesn't really hold up over the long run -- there are too many holes in the system and the difficulty level sort of plateaus and then rolls over -- but the ride is great while it lasts.

See, he liked it too... kinda.

And Dungeon Siege was a horrible no-brainer. What is there to do except clicking 'end turn', erm I mean, the potions from time to time?

Arnelos · February 22, 2003, 18:29

Dungeon Siege was a waste of time and money. My poor roomie bought it last year and spent only a few days playing it before he realized it was crap

As for Morrowind, I was completely addicted to that game for about a month and a half before it finally started waning in value.

Then I started a new character from stratch who went for a very different playstyle than my first character and joined different factions and it was almost like playing a completely new game.

After 2-3 months of play at Morrowind, I STILL hadn't explored even a 1/3 of the map.

I still go play Morrowind now and then when I'm not busy with stuff here on 'poly... it's giving me something to do while waiting on MoO3

As for this review... I agree with some posts above. It sounds like the review hit on a very good point, but one that offers an illustration about the reviewer: It's a d--- complex game and many people won't like it for its level of complexity - that's a fair comment. Apparently the reviewer was one of those people

As for me... I'm a grognard. I'll buy it

rhofman · February 22, 2003, 18:33

Forgive my ignorance but what is a "grognard"?

RolandtheMad · February 22, 2003, 18:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Anun Ik Oba
Maybe the game was just too complex for him.

Everyone is saying this over on IGMOO.. it is like the hypothetical **** hit the fan over there.

I`ve been cautiously watching the development of Moo3 over a long time and generally fence sitting. I`ll spare you the usually dramatic 'I`m cancling my preorder!' and just say that this does not bode well at all for the game.

Also, one thing that everyone seems to forget about when they say 'it was too complex for him' is that this guy won at least twice...

peacenik · February 22, 2003, 19:27

My understanding is that reviewers usually play games on fairly easy settings so that they can experience game features in a minimal amount of time. It would simply take to long to master a game like this on a tough setting that challenges the AI. Note that most of his comments on the AI are either tactical or deal with its control of his empire. His review (and two wins) is consistent with a quick, unhappy experience with MOO3 on 'easy' or 'normal'. Its safe to say he won't be back for more!!!!