Worst fears coming true: Quarter to Three Review - Page 4

Spectrex · February 23, 2003, 15:09

Other reviews stated it was possible to turn off the AI but silly because it's far more capable of managing certain tasks than the player...

Comrade Tribune · February 23, 2003, 15:15

Quote:

Originally posted by JonahFalcon
How can a game require little input and have bad AI and let you win? (shaking head)

Because opponent ai is even worse?

Bort · February 23, 2003, 15:17

theres a sucker born every minute...

Quote:

Tom Chick is one of the very, very few writers whose articles I read just for the pleasure of reading his prose

I can't believe someone called it prose. If indeed it is prose...its like a harlequin classic smutty romance novel.

hey Tribune read that stuff at your own risk...I hear not only does it give you a headache, but also (and this is that part that doesn’t make any sense) induces volcanic diarrhea. I don't know somebody told me that. Still my going policy with regards to literature that gives you bowel trouble is steer clear...

Comrade Tribune · February 23, 2003, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Spectrex
Other reviews stated it was possible to turn off the AI but silly because it's far more capable of managing certain tasks than the player...

But what´s the point of it?

SP is about me against the Ai. If I just want to watch, I go to the cinema.

vee4473 · February 23, 2003, 15:24

wow, take that Tom Chick, right upside the head.

but i somehow doubt that Bort would have said these things about Tom if Tom had written a positive review...hmm

he writes no better or worse than the other reviewers i don't think. He seems to use the same type of style, but he just applies it in criticism, not praise.

Bort · February 23, 2003, 15:27

no no no...There are some out there who apply a distinct legal brief style to their criticism. Even while they've got it on its back they give a game some dignity. This guy Tom was out to throw feces in someone’s face

Comrade Tribune · February 23, 2003, 15:29

And don´t anybody be ridiculous, and compare this to EU/HoI. In EU/HoI, you *do everything*. You couldn´t delegate your job to the ai, if you wanted to.

In Moo3, you obviously don´t get a choice.

And all those comments about the manual, ship design and combat? Do you believe the guy made that all up?

Bort · February 23, 2003, 15:32

well I don't believe that the other reviewers made their stuff up. I think they just played the game instead of spending their time on www.dictionary.com looking for more descriptive verble abuse

vee4473 · February 23, 2003, 15:33

I've seen good reviews where they say it's a great game and the grand strategy of all time and blah blah, and then they give mils criticism about something they don't like in the game, but then go on to say that it's ok because after a while you don't notice the problem or whatever.

Tom did the same type of thing, he just overly criticized the game and gave it one very mild praise in the ground combat area and the overall complexity.

The same style but reversed.

One guy gives overwhelming praise with mild criticism and one guy gives overwhelming criticism with mild praise.

It's all what you wanna see i guess.

booje · February 23, 2003, 15:33

Well, there's an easy way to test the merit of the "auto-AI" overload. When you get the game, simply play several games where all you do is hit the turn button and see what happens. Obviously, you should NEVER win ONE game with this "strategy". I'm going to try it and see what happens.

Arnelos · February 23, 2003, 15:34

CT.... if you're that worried about it, here's a suggestion:

Let all of us suckers go buy the game and try it out. Give us about 1-2 weeks to figure out whether we love it and are posting all over the place how much we love the game or are pissed off at it and are posting all over the place about how QS/IG f*cked up a perfectly good game concept.

Then you can decide whether to buy the game.

Trust me... in about 2 weeks, it should be relatively clear whether we're the idiots for buying it or you're the bored guy who was left out for waiting 2 weeks.

So if you're really worried, just wait a little longer. I'm sure there are enough people around here to be your guinea pigs

vee4473 · February 23, 2003, 15:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Bort
well I don't believe that the other reviewers made their stuff up. I think they just played the game instead of spending their time on www.dictionary.com looking for more descriptive verble abuse

the positive reviews gave longwinded praise too.

Infidel · February 23, 2003, 15:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
And don´t anybody be ridiculous, and compare this to EU/HoI. In EU/HoI, you *do everything*. You couldn´t delegate your job to the ai, if you wanted to.

In Moo3, you obviously don´t get a choice.

And all those comments about the manual, ship design and combat? Do you believe the guy made that all up?

DON'T raise up HOI as representing anything good for the strategy genre - out of box it is a P.O.S. - broken.

Hell, EU2 is up to patch 1.07 and STILL not finished...

At the very least, the extra time spent on MOO3 allowed QS to apparently FINISH the game. Of course, whether you like said game is a different matter...

-infidel

Craig P. · February 23, 2003, 15:40

The manual (and in-game help, and tech descriptions) is a consistent bad point among the reviews. The AI is not, nor is ship design, nor is combat. Just looking at screenies of the ship design screen, I don't really understand the criticism, as it's little different from MoO2.

As far as TFs go, well, if he doesn't like the idea, I suppose that's fair. I do. We disagree. 'nuff said.

About that TF's in battle thing... I suspect the icons indicate what kind of TF it is; if so, it's helpful enough for me.

kalbear · February 23, 2003, 15:41

CT, I still don't understand why you're here. You've stated time and time again that you'll not buy the game, that you don't like it for any number of reasons, and you want to voice this opinion so that IG will possibly care.

Why not do it on the IG boards? At least it's the corporate boards, and you'll be heard by more people. Doing it on a public board somewhere other than that? All that is doing is trolling. Eloquent trolling, but trolling nonetheless.

Read Bernie Rubber's viewpoint on the game, found in the 'don't buy MoO3' thread. And don't buy the game. That's fine.

Still seems like a huge waste of time pouring energy into convincing people on a fanboard - and not even the biggest fanboard, mind you - that their game will suck.

Bort · February 23, 2003, 15:42

vee4473 your right. I just didn't want this guy to get to monkey around all by himself...if we're going to be throwing bannanas I want some too...and I think I would be more willing to accept criticism from people who are clearly on the MoO1+2 side. Tom says he is but betrays his hand when he praises diplomacy in the latter two. Woof! Lets remember that there have been several pretty big site's that have had very positive things to say.

I have to go to the transitional justice forum now...you guys should check it out if you like diplomacy

Craig P. · February 23, 2003, 15:43

From Qt3's "When Reviews Go Bad":

Quote:

And even the good guys screw up once in a while. Every good writer in this business can tell you about more than one review in which he or she simply got it wrong – a game that was a stinker that for some reason struck the writer’s fancy in some way, a really good game that just wasn’t any fun to the reviewer.

Comrade Tribune · February 23, 2003, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Arnelos
CT.... if you're that worried about it, here's a suggestion:

Let all of us suckers go buy the game and try it out. Give us about 1-2 weeks to figure out whether we love it and are posting all over the place how much we love the game or are pissed off at it and are posting all over the place about how QS/IG f*cked up a perfectly good game concept.

Then you can decide whether to buy the game.

Trust me... in about 2 weeks, it should be relatively clear whether we're the idiots for buying it or you're the bored guy who was left out for waiting 2 weeks.

So if you're really worried, just wait a little longer. I'm sure there are enough people around here to be your guinea pigs

Good advice.

But if this thing about me not being able to turn off the Ai altogether is true, then I won´t buy it, no matter what.

I simply disagree too much with this entire line of thinking. Imperial Command Points, or whatever they called it, made sense. But you could override any particular decision of the Ai. Now it seems this is not any more possible, rather, the Ai will override *your* decisions.

As far as I am concerned, this is it.

lockstep · February 23, 2003, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
SP is about me against the Ai. If I just want to watch, I go to the cinema.

Civ3 may be a bad example, but IMO there could have been some middle ground between 'just watch what the governors do' and 'tell each and every of dozens of cities to add a research lab/mass transit/whatever to their build queue'. Civ3 endgames on large/huge maps are micromanaging nightmares.

I'm really hoping that the Moo3 viceroys and develepment plans will make for a different TBS endgame.

ACEofHeart · February 23, 2003, 15:45

What you get out of the game depends on if you are an adventure or an accountant.
Seems to me ,,a lot of people who play 4x games are just number crunchers who never seem to really get into the atmosphere of any game.
From the beginning, I hated the "look and feel" of MOO3's interface. It just look like a Windows spreadsheet. A game can be complex,, but I rather it was complex "under the surface". The great, "long-lasting" strategy games are those that are "simple" to play intially, regardless if you won or lost .
Galactic Civ seems to keep the "fun" and "adventure" of being in Space foremost and the complexities second ,, I already know from what I've seen and read on BB and from playtesters comments that GC will be the game to stay on my harddrive a lot longer.
The bottom line to me is " was it fun to play" !!!

vee4473 · February 23, 2003, 15:45

I guess CT is just voicing reaction to Tom's review.

You gotta admit that the review at least temporarily deflates enthusiasm for the game, you said so yourself Kal, I think...in a previous post...

kalbear · February 23, 2003, 15:46

Because occasionally fanboys do listen to reason, here's Chantz' response to the review bashing:

Quote:

Tom IS a respected reviewer and is completely entitled to his opinions. *He* just simply did not like the game; that doesn't mean it sucks. Please do not email him with angry barrages, or call him names or any of that. That is *not* cool.

Please keep this (and any other) thread civil, especially if reviewers continue to poke their head in to answer questions or explain/clarify themselves. I know *I* appreciate the fact that they have taken enough interest to at least make themselves available here on IGMOO.

Cool?

Best,
C

And veee, yes I agree - it did deflate my enthusiasm because it pointed out deficiencies that had otherwise been glossed over for the most part.

But CT has said for MONTHS that he's not going to get the game. This is more of a 'ha ha, I was right and you guys suck' type of response. It's puerile.

CT, it doesn't matter what reviewers say at this point. Or even friends. You won't like this game. Even if it did rule and did everything you wanted it to by now, you'd hate it. You've simply got too much invested in hating it at this point to let yourself like it a little bit. You won't be able to see past any deficiencies, you'll magnify whatever problems there are to a huge scale, and you'll use it to justify your hatred.

Once again - fine, don't buy the game. Even better, stop wasting your time posting about a game you don't want to buy on a fan borad. If it is that important that your message is heard by a large public and the corporation, write a review, or I suppose a non-review given you've not played the game, and write it on the bigger boards. Or host your own website.

Comrade Tribune · February 23, 2003, 15:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Infidel
DON'T raise up HOI as representing anything good for the strategy genre - out of box it is a P.O.S. - broken.

Hell, EU2 is up to patch 1.07 and STILL not finished...

Maybe, but it *does* have great depth, and you *do* get to make your own decisions; being played by the Ai is ridiculous.

Comrade Tribune · February 23, 2003, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Craig P.
Just looking at screenies of the ship design screen, I don't really understand the criticism, as it's little different from MoO2.

I looked at the same screenies, and it seems to have been simplified. Like the reviewer says.

lockstep · February 23, 2003, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Infidel
At the very least, the extra time spent on MOO3 allowed QS to apparently FINISH the game. Of course, whether you like said game is a different matter...

-infidel

BTW, I'd really be interested if YOU like said game, infidel ... or should I say Mr. Alan E. ...

Comrade Tribune · February 23, 2003, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by kalbear
Why not do it on the IG boards?

I tried to subscribe a *looong* time ago, and found them totally inaccessible. After subscription, I vainly tried to open a thread for a few times, then I gave up.

I don´t waste time on forums that don´t run smoothly.

Infidel · February 23, 2003, 15:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Good advice.

But if this thing about me not being able to turn off the Ai altogether is true, then I won´t buy it, no matter what.

I simply disagree too much with this entire line of thinking. Imperial Command Points, or whatever they called it, made sense. But you could override any particular decision of the Ai. Now it seems this is not any more possible, rather, the Ai will override *your* decisions.

As far as I am concerned, this is it.

Except for the fact that the IFP version of the game was even MORE unplayable than the current version (according to Chick) is...

-infidel

XentWraith · February 23, 2003, 15:56

It was my impression that QS wanted to make MOO accessible to more people. For that reason, apparently, certain elements were added to the game... let's recall for a second what a few of those items are:

- Real time combat (yuppee in 3D)
- AIs that handle everything
- 3D star map (why?)

Yes, I personally had a problem with those 3 little items from day one, but unfortunately, there's only one MOO3, and the developers promissed to make it work... somehow.

Now, let's see, I - and I think I'm not alone on this - would be VERY happy with MOO2 style combat (2D turn based) because it's first of all turn based and that means a lot of detail options can exist - remember boarding ships? Yes, well this is much more difficult in real time, not impossible, but I do not have that much faith in QS.

And why 2D might you ask? Well, why 3D? Okay, everybody knows the 3D battles look like crap, so it cannot be for looks.. correct? On the other hand, detailed sprites can look quite good, and you can do all the special lighting effects for weapons etc. quite easily. Diablo 2 is 2D, and frankly if you apply those principles in MOO3 it would have been just fine... more than sufficient. A resolution boost and some nicer ship designs would have been a good enough of an upgrade from MOO2. Instead, we have subpar 3D graphics which have very little presonality - as the screenshots clearely show.

Some may say, it's MOO, you don't need good graphics, and they would be absolutely right. Most strategy games do not need to try that hard to be eye candy, but they do need to convey themselves appropriately to the player. What made MOO1+2 fun was that in battles - which didn't look ALL that good - you saw your ships fire missiles do this and that, and it was kinda fun. You could use your imagination for the rest. It wasn't realistic, but it was fun, and we got to see how well our toys did in battle... isn't that what we all wanted?

MOO3 wants to be an empire simulator, with a clear emphasis on the simulator part. MOO1 and 2 really were not, as neither is CIV1-3. They are all abstractions of the concept of a "simulator." Basicly, a the complexities of the actual thing are replaced with a rough approximation... which is meant to make it accessible (hey look at that) and entertaining. But wait, now MOO3 (which wants to be accessible) decides that it should be a complete and absolute empire simulator. I fear MOO3 was developed by very big fans of MOO1+2, and that's not a bad thing, but it has been my lingering fear that they'll be digging too deep into the concept of the previous games and really bring unecessary complexity to the game.

A lot of people complained MOO2 was too complex and difficult to master. I didn't have a problem with it personally, but it can be daunting at times. But MOO3 comes on with a great deal more detail which was abstracted in MOO2, and to balance that out we have AIs that are supposed to really hadle it. So it appears that there are parts of the game that we're never meant to "mess with." I ask you then, why are they there? So in the unlikely event that you might want to tweak with it you can? I'm sorry, but it sounds like the developers put too many "neat" ideas in the game but never thought through their relevance in the game. What I really wanted was MOO2 with more options (technologies, races, etc.) with a decent interface to manage it, a nice combat interface with - again - more options for how to command your ships in combat and really that's all. I like neat things, I like options in games, but if they're really not useful to have, I don't want them there period.

The 3D starmap was also quite funny. Again, realism vs. fun debate has to start. Apparently, it's 3D but that makes no difference (or so I heard). So why is it 3D? So when we're bored we can spin it around? It sounds like an idea that didn't quite go through but we got stuck with the unfinished product. A nice 2D map with some additional info on it (such as borders etc.) would have been sufficient... All those starlanes would probably also look better. And behold, a 2D starmap would be more "accessible" something QS was so looking forward to. How does a 3D map make it easier to use? Same thing applies for 3D battles. Look, people deal much easier with 2 dimensions rather than 3. And for good reason, even with the best interfaces it tends to be more work. To top it all off, using 3D for the sake of using 3D is just plain wrong (for a lack of better wording).

Much of the review from Tom I didn't take to heart much. I was pretty good with micromanagement in MOO2, I hope that means I may be a better candidate for MOO3 - funny that woudln't matter much to non MOO fans. But from what I've heard around, MOO3 is sorely lacking from feedback especially the kind we'd like to call informative feedback. It's 2003 already, I expect that pretty much everything I move my mouse over will pop up a little tool tip help and say "Hi there stupid, press me and you exit the game... that's why my name is 'Exit Game'." Most games have that, and it's pretty basic stuff. Since MOO3 is obviously very involved, I'd expect the developers remembered that and made sure a player knows what the hell everything means. A good game does not require you to read the manual if you're an avid gamer. I do not read manuals before I play games, I read them a few weeks maybe months later. I expect that much of what I should know - especially with regards to on screen items, I should be able to pick up with the help of the interface. The manual should only be helpful with very obscure internal game mechanics which perhaps I haven't picked up. MOO3 apparently lacks basic clarity in items such as technology... oversight? yeah a rather big one. Unfortunately, fixing this sounds like a rather tall order for a patch, and frankly QS is not getting any points if they just think patching is the way to go. This game has been in the works for a LONG time, it simply sounds like poor planning - maybe somebody overestimated their design and execution abilities.

Look, what is there to say? I want to play the game, I really do, and I hope it's fun... because if it's not somebody at QS should feel really sorry for screwing up one of the most respected names in gamging.

We'll see.

Sincerely,
XentWraith

kalbear · February 23, 2003, 15:59

It's your and the gaming public's loss then, CT. I don't know when you did it, but it's been smooth for the few months I've been there. I'd encourage you to give it a try, as long as you have a non-hotmail e-mail account. There's plenty of folks there you haven't trolled recently.

Infidel · February 23, 2003, 16:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune

Maybe, but it *does* have great depth, and you *do* get to make your own decisions; being played by the Ai is ridiculous.

HOI is a broken mess of a game, out of the box...Perhaps Paradox can pick up the pieces - they did a fair job with EU2...

Saying you don't make your own decisions in MOO3 is a pretty lame strawman. Have you read any after-action reports?

Didn't think so.

You're all about telling people you think you won't like the game - fine.

Just don't lie to do so.

-infidel