Rate MoO3 (1-10)

[MitchDev]

That and fix the "I built the ship at distant colony So-and-so, but because there's no mobilaization center there, that system has no access to the ships it just built and I have to go 50 lightyears away to put those ships in a tak force and then route back to where they were built" stupidity....

[Mr.Thing]

I voted an 8 on the assumption that at least a medoicre job will be done in patching the AI and documentation. It is possible that exceptional patching will make this game a 9 but only with abouve average support. Remember that a lot of fan modding is taking place and, afte some trial an error, will likely make some significant improvements to an already great game (aside from the non-agressive AI that can be easily patched).

[Proteus_MST]

I also gave it an 8.

The game is addictive.
There are some flaws, the UI could be somehow more User Friendly and there could be more Statistics for example about enemy Ships. But nevertheless it is a great game and I assume that at least some of the flaws (for example the absolutely not aggressive AI) will be fixed by an patch.
Also some things can be ovrcome by looking at the .mob-Files and changing one thing or the other (the mob-Files are also agreat source for Informations which are missing in the Game-Documentation).

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
I'm giving it a four. It reinforces a trend in the computer gaming industry that I do not like at all. In the past you could buy a sequel to a game that you loved knowing full well that you would love that sequel because it would simply be a refinement of the previous version.

When would this be? People said the same thing about MOO2 - it was a completely different game from the original.

[darcy]

I keep hearing that, but I don't understand it. What was so radically different in Moo2? I see both Moo1 and Moo2 as based on the Civilization school of design, with some refinements like tactical battles.

Moo3 is a huge departure from that approach.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by darcy
I keep hearing that, but I don't understand it. What was so radically different in Moo2?

Have you played both of them? The differences are quite obvious.

[Ellestar]

Rating 1. Why this game is unplayable?

Well, you can't play against comp because you can easily win and can't lose (except comp' senate victory).

You can't play MultiPlayer because Micromanagement is much more efficient then any governor, devplans, autocolonize etc. But, say, it's 1% more efficient. Then, on turn 200, you got (1,01)^200=7.316 economic advantage. Tell me who can't win with 7.316 advantage??

To get this advantage, you must micromanage. Interface, AI (governors etc.), some game balnce things hinder you on this way. But you'll never win MP game if you don't do it. So, it's almost impossible to play MP game.

And, yes, comp senate victory contradicts with 'player bill of rigths'.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


The reason that you can see this is that you can go in and change stuff, micromanage it, if you want to. If you don't want to mess with it, you don't have to. This is a bit for the micros, a bit for the non-micros

No you can't. The viceroy eithe builds a robo-miners or he doesn't. Granted, you can adjust the development slider, but you can't prioritize between say space ports and robominers. Moreover, the line that says 'robo-miners' under a mining DEA doesn't even say the modifier the robo-miner applies. Its all just so much useless information. I'd rather have separate sliders for industrial versus commercial development.

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
This really depends on your race and your opponents race. If you are the ithkul, then of course you are going to be at war throughout the game. I get ceasefires and unconditional surrenders all the time aganst some enemies. some enemies i have to fight to the death.

The Ithkul are fine. But I have yet to see a ceasefire or any other peace proposal made/accepted by ANY race in any species. If the diplomacy worked it would be fine. It would be good if it allowed bribes for senate bills, etc. It would be great if you could trade contact with other races. As it is, this diplomacy is a giant step back from MOO 1 or Moo 2.

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
You can get it, but it takes a bit of work. You have to have a strong ally in the senate and someone who would second your entry. I've gotten it before. Though more often than not, i don't want to be in it. Takes some work, but is entirely possible.

OK, I did manage to get in last night. Still don't see anyone ever seconding any bills.

Again, the game is a solid 5. Not the classic 10 of MOO 1 or the 8.5 I'd give MOO 2.

[Malleus]

I gave it a four. I took MOO3 back last night and picked up Tropico: Mucho Macho edition, which was fun from minute one, EVEN THOUGH I didn't understand what I was doing.

A cautionary tale, perhaps.

K

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by The Templar
No you can't. The viceroy eithe builds a robo-miners or he doesn't. Granted, you can adjust the development slider, but you can't prioritize between say space ports and robominers. Moreover, the line that says 'robo-miners' under a mining DEA doesn't even say the modifier the robo-miner applies. Its all just so much useless information. I'd rather have separate sliders for industrial versus commercial development.

True, but you can set the dea regions up, say mining instead of farms.

Also there is a mod now that would let you build everything like it was built in MoO2, FYI, but I haven't tried it out, it supposedly works pretty well.

Originally posted by The Templar
The Ithkul are fine. But I have yet to see a ceasefire or any other peace proposal made/accepted by ANY race in any species. If the diplomacy worked it would be fine. It would be good if it allowed bribes for senate bills, etc. It would be great if you could trade contact with other races. As it is, this diplomacy is a giant step back from MOO 1 or Moo 2.

Do you want me to send you a save? I have the fishies conditionally surrendering to my Klackons. I have armistices asked for and cease fires plead for.

Other races sometimes hate each other, see the back story-Nommo and grendarl for example. Why you don't see anything, I don't know, some races, like silicoids just seem to be flaky no matter who I am.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by notyoueither

Notice he hasn't even responded. Simple troll.

ACK!

[notyoueither]

Part of what I was laughing at was the 'not nearly as broken as Civ3' comment. I found that funny.

[Q Classic]

when i first tried it, i'd've given it a 6 or 7, now with more hours, it's fallen to a 4.

i miss a lot of that micromanaging that moo2 had, honestly. sure, if i were a real emperor, that kinda strain would make my reign one of the shortest ever, but this is a game...

also, i miss the simplicity of moo2's interface, where everything was really obvious in what you had to do. i honestly don't like having to browse through menus to find what i'm looking for, not really having much use for a right mouse button...

that said, i appreciate the complexity of the game; makes it harder to manipulate than moo2 or civ2. unfortunately, i'm not enjoying it as much as i thought i would have.

same problem i had with civ3: some of the ideas are great, i just don't like how they were executed.

at least i didn't waste extra money on any "special" or "limited" edition.

[BucksRock]

I gave it a 1, though it probably deserves a little better, not much.

Is it just me, or does it seem like with these Microprose sequels that IG put much more weight on what people didn't like about these games as opposed to what people did like? Meaning that instead of expanding upon what made these games great has IG tried to instead get rid of what players didn't like about them, i.e. micromanagement in Moo2 and an easy AI in Civ2?

[Arnelos]

BucksRock,

Different people liked or didn't like different things about those games

I always thought Civ2's AI was idiotic and would like something better. Civ3's AI is still idiotic, but it's not AS idiotic.

I loved the original MoO and while I really like MoO2, it just doesn't match up with the original MoO for me. Personally, I didn't like having to do all of that micromanagement...

As I've now said elsewhere too many times:

Different people, different tastes...

What "people" liked about one game or another differs from person to person I'm not entirely alone among the "people" who say we like MoO2, but would prefer if MoO3 would do something to help us with micromanagement

[Daz]

Right now, after 3 days of trying to figure things out, i´d give it a 2 (its too flashy to be shareware).

However, I am trying to learn how to play it (without any useful manual I might add), and therefore have abstained from voting.

I am giving it one week. If I cannot figure out a game in one week, something is terribly wrong.


_______________________________________-
micromanagement hell = macromanagement hell

[notyoueither]

The moo3 forum is very helpful to any who find the manual lacking. Most of my major questions have been answered there. If I had not checked in there, I would have chucked it long before now.

[Daz]

Yes, I agree the forums are extremly helpful. But still, there is too much speculation. Some things you just cannot learn from trying.

A week should be enough for IG to clarify the most important issues posted on the forums.

[statusperfect]

9 - It rocks!!!

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Eric S
The game is good except for the AI. Fix the AI, the PD bug, and a few other tweaks, and this could hit an 8. Get some SMAC-like behind-the-scenes diplomacy, and it could hit 9. Give us all that and military policies like the planetary policies (to emphasize/deempasize building certain military units), and it could hit 9.5.

Speaking of SMAC: Give us a SMAC-like manual and in-game encyclopedia!

[Comrade Tribune]

Voted 'Abstain', because I don´t have the game, and don´t plan to buy it.

From all I have read in this forum, I would probably give it a '2' after playing. Glad I missed this one.

Btw, do you remember it was promised you would never be more than two mouse-clicks away from anything?

Another promise I, for one, did *not* forget: You would be able to 'go under the hood' and micro-manage whatever you choose (not everything at once, because of IFP limits, but anything you focus on).

As they clearly broke these promises, *AND* everybody agrees the ai is a dog, I really wonder how anybody can like this game?! I suppose some people will be fanboys, no matter how bad a game is. There must be something like a 'fanboy gene'.

[Vince278]

I abstained since I believe it's too early to objectively tell. I worry about those who would rate it a 10 right from the start.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Vince278
I abstained since I believe it's too early to objectively tell. I worry about those who would rate it a 10 right from the start.

do you worry about those that would rate it a one right from the start?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
do you worry about those that would rate it a one right from the start?

Good point. I should have said I worry about those who would rate it at all from the start.

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by Vince278


Good point. I should have said I worry about those who would rate it at all from the start.

Why? I feel there is a good deal to learn about this game. To me the learning IS the fun. When is stop improving i often stop playing. I feel this game will take some time to master. A solid 9

[Vince278]

After it stops improving (or falling apart) then it is time to give it a rating. If it continues to improve then your 9 could become a 10 and in so doing would invalidate your own 9. It may be too early to judge objectively but we could give provisional ratings subject to change. I'd probably say a 5 myself, subject to change of course. With patches and improvements to come I expect my rating to climb rather than drop in the future.

[seruko]

I voted 8.
But on an interesting side note the
median vote is exactly 5 (at the time I voted).
I'm not even going to waste my time figuring out what the mean is, err maybe, uh...
counting...
4.7372881...
the mode is bit trickier because both 8 and 4 have the same high number of votes (16).
So what does this all mean, haha stop me before I pun again, statistically? Wide variance in opinions and just by looking at the raw data we can tell that it isn't polarized around the extrmems (which may seem to be counterdictery but isnt) soooooooooooooooooo, from a developer standpoint probably a success but not the kind of success they were looking for.

Thus the data indicates that:
This cow goes moo,
but does not vary loudly. HA! there is not stoping me!

[Vince278]

Originally posted by seruko
But on an interesting side note the
median vote is exactly 5 (at the time I voted).

Good to see the median not getting carried away. I can't say I'm a fan of statistics but you did make it entertaining...