MOO3/MOO2-My 2 cents

bhaight · March 7, 2003, 00:17

Ahh-here we are again. The release of another version of MOO and the great wailing and gnashing of teeth on the forums. I remember when MOO2 was released and the great flame wars on the forums. The issue back then was busted diplomacy. Remember the trail of patches, 1.1-1.2-1.21-1.3-1.31. Relax people, the issues with MOO3 will be fixed in patches. Until then, I will continue to enjoy the depth and complexity of MOO3. Chill.

Arnelos · March 7, 2003, 01:30

Agreed.

I remember when MoO2 was released... I also remember that we waited on that release perhaps EVEN LONGER than we've been waiting on MoO3

Vince278 · March 7, 2003, 01:33

I could accept that if it weren't for those many, many months of delays to supposedly squeeze out every last bug. I've lost faith in IG/QS's beta testing processes and any person/publication that gave MOO3 a great preview/review. They must have been playing a different game ( or had their own reasons to ignore the obvious

)

vmxa1 · March 7, 2003, 01:41

Vince278 it is possible that they could have a different opinion. I am not saying yours is incorrect, but if some others is different, it does not mean either is wrong.

Vince278 · March 7, 2003, 02:34

Don't believe I was disagreeing with anyone or discounting their opinions but I found it rather odd that the testers and reviewers didn't say anything about the problems we all have been discussing in the forums. It would have been difficult for them not to notice don't you think? Very curious indeed.
All of this, of course, is just an opinion (based on public forums and published reviews).

Arnelos · March 7, 2003, 02:55

I have to agree that many of the bugs we've noticed were NOT talked about by any of the reviews...

The previews I can understand, as they were playing betas of the game and if it was buggy, that's only to be expected. MOST previews don't talk much about bugs that they find because they assume such bugs will get worked out.

What I find odd is that the reviewers, who possessed (as far as we know) final copies of the game, didn't complain about the same bugs we've been talking about.

I honestly think this is an awesome game, but it's an awesome game with a large number of loose ends that I'd think a responsible reviewer would have pointed out.

vmxa1 · March 7, 2003, 04:58

I suspect that many reviewers do not put in enough time playing the game to really understand it or note all the annoyances. Many have stated in the mags that they did not finish the game. I mean some of the ship design could be missed if oyu used auto or the TF issues and the combat is insignificant in the early game.
Still they should have have some complaints.

Ianpolaris · March 7, 2003, 05:37

Guys,

I also think the incestous relationship between game-publishers and game magazines had a lot to do with that too. I note that the negative reviews (like Gamespot's to name but one) are coming out after the game was released. I don't know this for sure, but I have a sneaking suspicion that IG either directly or indirectly put pressure on some of the reviews /not/ to review it totally honestly (as in if they did, they would never get a review copy from IG ever again).

-Polaris

Arnelos · March 7, 2003, 05:50

Polaris,

Not really.... Gamespy, as a matter of habit, always posts its reviews (if possible) within a day of release. They do it primarily because more people read their reviews that way, not because they don't get review copies of the game.

Gamespy is one of MoO3's methods of multiplayer connections... if you want to talk about an incenstous relationship, there it is... and because of that relationship and the bad review Gamespy gave, I have more trust in Gamespy's reviews despite their relationship with many of the same products they're reviewing.

I still find CGW to mainly be my review location of choice, though. I think the strategy section there was best run under Alan Emrich back in the 90's, but boy ain't THAT an irony

Ianpolaris · March 7, 2003, 05:54

Arnelos,

Alright then, how do you explain why most of the good review (indeed near as I can tell virtually all of them) were written well in advance of the release date while the negative ones were written post release date.

I ask because the 'incestuous' relationship complaint is (AFAIK anyway) not restricted to any one game, but a general complaint about the state of the hobby.

-Polaris

Arnelos · March 7, 2003, 06:07

I think hype has a lot to do with it. It's not so much that the reviewer feels an obligation to treat a game with kid gloves because he got the review copy of the game as much as there seems to be an almost natural reaction by a number of reviewers to talk nice about a game they got a review copy for.

I won't mention names, but I recall certain reviewers crowing about how THEY had a review copy of the game and we didn't when they posted here on Apolyton a few weeks ago... I was also present on Apolyton chat when the same reviewer complained about not being able to even figure out how to build ground units.

I remember when he got his question answered.

There were some other things like that which happened.

What I noticed is that he made no comment about such difficulties in his review. I honestly think he just assumed he's missed something that was covered in the manual because he didn't read the whole thing (since the reviewers had the manual in pdf format and many of them didn't read it). The consequence is that several of the reviewers who were at first numbingly confused by the game and got beta testers or devs to answer some questions for them must have throught the reason was because they just hand't read all of the documentation...

Well, we found out how much THAT helps

As for why a reviewer would not include such an experience in their actual review, the desire to like a game can do powerful things...

I witnessed a number of people give glowing reviews to Star Wars: Attack of the Clones... they had gripes with it, they didn't like parts of it, they had been downright frustrated by its complete lack of lustre, but they still gave unqualified glowing reviews... regular guy on the street doesn't have an incestuous relationship with George Lucas (or at least I hope they don't... shudder), but he'll still willingly blind himself to the faults of a product he really WANTS to like and in the end finds he likes. If he's telling another about the experience and he wants them to like it to, too, he might overlook his frustrations and nitpicks in his account. And the publisher/studio didn't have to spend a dime to get him to do it, either.

I'm dead sure that had a good deal to do with some of the glowing reviews for this game.

Is is possible that some people were pressured by IG not to give BAD reviews? Sure, it's possible, but it's also unecessary to explain the problem. Sheer hype and enough good game (I believe, at least) behind all of the annoying bugs and problems means a number of people would be inclined not to mention them... not because IG paid them to, but because they WANT the game to do well in retail and they're letting that cloud their review.

Both are equally bad in a review, I agree.

I've learned not to trust certain reviewers or sites after this experience. But I'm not of the opinion that they're entirely in bed with the publisher. It's not necessary to explain why they did it.

vmxa1 · March 7, 2003, 14:27

I can not speak for the mags, but I was sent a review to look at for a web site (they asked me to write it as they knew I was Moo nut) and it was positive. My son runs the web, but did not do the review. There was no quid pro quo involved. It was an honest perspective. I felt I was in no position at the time to comment. I am not sure I am now either. Maybe in another week. A quick look is not enough to be fair. If I liked it, will I like next month? How many games did I play and at what levels and on and on.

ashbery · March 7, 2003, 14:33

Its not really good enough for developers to ship games that are not finished.

Ianpolaris · March 7, 2003, 15:01

Ashbery,

That's quite true....especially after the game was delayed three months (missing the X-Mas season) so (to quote Rantz) 'it would be done when it was done'. Now please tell me.....who was he kidding?!

-Polaris

Cookie Monster · March 7, 2003, 16:56

Keep in mind folks that that was then and this is now. Today more than ever profits and minimizing losses are the only things companies care about these days. That being said I do sincerely hope that QS/Infogreed do continue to polish Moo3 with the release of patches.

Moo3 has great potential but it is quite clear that it is an unfinished product. Let's pray that the consumer is not abandoned.

vmxa1 · March 7, 2003, 18:43

Quote:

Originally posted by ashbery
Its not really good enough for developers to ship games that are not finished.

That sounds good, but does it mean?
Do you mean the features you want are missing?
Do you mean that the features that are in the game are broken?
The games is stable and can be played to conclusion, that qualifies as finished.
So if you mean it does not do what you think it should that is another issue.
You are suggesting that they tossed it out knowing it would not please very many people, does that make sense?
Could it be that they thought they had a good game and some people disagree or were they just callus?
Understand I am not defending the game as I have posted many things that I feel should be corrected, only that the term unfinished does not apply nor does broken.
Unappealing or not fun are valid complaints as they are subjective terms and people can have different opinions on them. Unfinished or broken are difinitive terms and mean a specific thing.

bhaight · March 7, 2003, 18:49

And I think I've just proven the point I made in my original post starting this thread. The great wailing and gnashing of teeth. Chill folks, it will get better with the patches. You should have seen the forums at Microprose when MOO2 was released.

kalbear · March 7, 2003, 19:02

Or heck, actually played the game. I remember exclaiming loudly "where are my sliders!".

I love me my sliders in MoO3. So much easier.

Arnelos · March 7, 2003, 21:18

Quote:

Originally posted by bhaight
And I think I've just proven the point I made in my original post starting this thread. The great wailing and gnashing of teeth. Chill folks, it will get better with the patches. You should have seen the forums at Microprose when MOO2 was released.

I remember those forums... most of these youngin's weren't around for that

If I recall correctly... the MoO2 debacle was even worse than this MoO3 debacle... but perhaps that's just my faulty memory

Vince278 · March 8, 2003, 01:19

Ianpolaris, Arnelos - Thank-you! It is good to see people who understand what I've been trying to say.

vmxa1 - I never meant to put down any reviewers and I never realized you were one. I have seen some reviewers who have done a good job. Also, I've heard elsewhere the beta testers were mainly focused on getting multi-player to work.

bhaight - Chill? People don't come to the forums to chill. I much prefer the exchange of ideas, opinions, and assistance. Occasionally, from all the wailing and gnashing, there are opportunites for some to actually learn something or be better informed. Some may just need to vent among those with a common interest and perhaps find a solution to whatever is bugging them.

vmxa1 · March 8, 2003, 03:19

Vince278 you can put down reviewers if you want, no problem. I just wanted toss out another perspective for what ever it is worth. Reviewers being wrong or mistaken is not the same as being disingenuious. They may even be disingenuious. I took no offense, it is just a dialog. Maybe one see the others points, maybe we agree to disagree either way is legitimate as long as there is no rancor or animosity.

Vince278 · March 8, 2003, 03:39

Agreed.

nbarclay · March 8, 2003, 06:03

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1

Understand I am not defending the game as I have posted many things that I feel should be corrected, only that the term unfinished does not apply nor does broken.

If you ship a game knowing in advance of specific deficiencies that will need to be addressed in patches, that has to qualify as unfinished. As in, "We'll go ahead and ship it now and finish taking care of these issues later." The question, then, is whether all of the flaws being pointed out now are things the companies overlooked or whether they knew of specific work that still needed to be done but shipped the game anyhow.

I'm not inherently opposed to releasing a game before all its quirks are ironed out completely. I got a lot of fun out of Civ 3 in the time following its release, fun I wouldn't have had if Firaxis and Infogrames had waited until it reached the 1.21 or 1.29 patch level of maturity before releasing it. And I'm sure people who enjoy MoO3 in its current form will have much the same sentiment.

But I think companies are being dishonest if they knowingly release what is, in effect, a very-large-scale beta without letting people know that there are still kinks that need to be ironed out. Customers should be given a chance to choose whether to be guinea pigs testing out a version that may still have quite a few kinks left in it or whether to wait until it's polished up a bit. (Of course people who followed the launches of Civ 3, PtW, and MoO3 will probably be to a point by now where they take for granted that any Infogrames title isn't really done until at least three patches after the initial release.)

Vince278 · March 8, 2003, 06:46

Good point. A company is hurting its bottom line if the gaming community is used to waiting a while before purchasing anything from them. By the time those 3 patches come along the game may be headed for the bargain shelf. With costs such as they are they can't stay in business for long.

vmxa1 · March 8, 2003, 15:30

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay

If you ship a game knowing in advance of specific deficiencies that will need to be addressed in patches, that has to qualify as unfinished. As in, "We'll go ahead and ship it now and finish taking care of these issues later." The question, then, is whether all of the flaws being pointed out now are things the companies overlooked or whether they knew of specific work that still needed to be done but shipped the game anyhow.

That was my whole point. People are seeing deficency and leaping to the conclusion that it was done on purpose for some nefarious reason.
I am saying they can not know that. We seem (USA) to attribute the worst motives to people that we do not even know. Hey they disagree we me, they ar enot just wrong or mistaken, they are evil? What is that?
They may just be doing things the best way they know.
All I am saying is stop presuming they are bums, until we have proof of that.
Being wrong is not the same as being evil.
So to answer your question from my perspective, I do not see anything in the game that can be demonstrably shown to be broken. I mean that it could be said that the things I find missing or lacking is something one may have thought were ok. I don't think they were ok, but I can not say that they saw it that way.
Now I recall a few games that you could not load up as it was sent out. That is a big problem, but you know what no one said that they did it on purpose. they did not as what would be the point. In those days you did not get patchesoff the internet and the products had to be returned and tehy had to run a new batch. One was from Sierria and I had to go through 3 sets before I got one to run.
My own company has sent out apps that would not work on some platforms. We did not do it deliberately, believe me. QA and testing failed, thats all. It cost us money and prestige to correct it.

Vince278 · March 8, 2003, 18:11

Don't think they are trying to defraud anyone. Missing the obvious does call their QA processes into question. Most of the problems are not platform issues, they are "played more than X turns" issues. Add that to issues with other products (Civ3 PTW for example) then company's reputation could (and should) suffer.
The definition of "broken" may vary accordance with people's opinions and feelings. For me, if it doesn't work as advertised then it is broken. Or, in other words, if it needs fixing then its broke.

Vince278 · March 9, 2003, 04:16

Looks like Rantz and Cory are saying its broken in their interview (see Apolyton news 9 March). I like their honesty.