Sounding the death knell for TBS?

Blitzer · March 7, 2003, 18:41

Some of you might know me from the Civ3 forums, and those that do will know I am an absolute TBS fanatic. My first obsession was Civilization, and I loved both sequels (but not SMAC) and the previous two MOO games. I've loved Warlords, played the HOMM series. Jagged Alliance was maybe one of the greatest games I've ever played. I'm a strategy gamer at heart and I like taking the time to plan my moves.

Clearly many MOO fans are dissapointed with the game. The first hints of trouble came when the betatesters reacted in horror to the initial public betas. The reaction from the TBS community has been at best mixed. Here at Apolyton, Quicksilver has undoubtably one of their most receptive audiences. I, like many others on these forums was convinced that MOO3 was going to be the game we've all been waiting for. A revolutionary game to be remembered for years to come. That was the legacy of Master of Orion, and that is what was expected.

Perhaps we were all asking too much. Is it fair to hold MOO3 to such a high standard? The answer is... absolutely. If you are going to remake one of the greatest games of all time, then you should know going into the project that you are going to be judged on the games that came before. Clearly this game is nothing remotely resembling the classic we all demanded.

I have no real new complaints to bring up about the game. Most of what I would say has been said already in multiple threads. But I do have a pretty good answer to the question "What went wrong". MOO3 is a paradox. Overly-complex, yet dumbed down. It's almost as if this game has the illusion of complexity masquerading behind a newbie friendly interface.

It seems to me that MOO3 was designed to be the 4X game for the masses. Unfortunately, I don't see this game appealing to a broad range of gamers. Many pas MOO fans will buy this game, and I'm sure many will enjoy it. Thus far I am not one of them. I have discovered the outstanding Freelancer, which despite some flaws in game balance and replayability did not forget one thing that MOO3 has completely missed the mark on... fun.

I only hope that the inevitable commercial failure of this title does not frighten developers away from the TBS genre. I enjoy a game of Warcraft or Counterstrike as much as anyone... but these games never manage to capture the imagination like the original Civilization or Master of Orion.

Still waiting for the next great 4X TBS

Pete - Vancouver, Canada

Arnelos · March 7, 2003, 21:23

I feel your pain... I've been a TBS fan since long before even MoO and Civ...

That said, I don't entirely share your view of doom and gloom. I think it's entirely possible, but for some odd reason I have some faith that this can be pulled through...

But we'll see. It wouldn't be the first time that publishing houses took COMPLETELY the wrong lesson from why a game did poorly or did well in sales.

Harry Seldon · March 7, 2003, 21:39

I'll just continue to plunk my $50 down when TBSs come out. I don't think they'll go away but I don't think the volume of titles will increase either.

vmxa1 · March 7, 2003, 21:40

Well then you know that TBS has had its ups and downs. We had quite a long period were little of value came out. Then it was hot again and I suspect that will continue to cycle.
In the end, you can not have a deep stratefy game without TBS. Contemplation requires time, that is not part of shooters or RTS. Some of the best games are RTS, but they are not deep strat games (Starcraft/Warcraft/C&C). They are more rush games.

Chronus · March 7, 2003, 21:42

Well, I fear that the posts on this board have thwarted me from buying MOO3.

However, I don't think TBS is dead . . . at least, not yet. We can still hope for good tidings in Galatic Civilizations.

ashbery · March 7, 2003, 21:54

Most polls on the infogrames forums have it even about there feeling's for MOO3 so its far from "everybody hates it", i personally think it will be very good after a few patches.

vee4473 · March 7, 2003, 21:55

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Well then you know that TBS has had its ups and downs. We had quite a long period were little of value came out. Then it was hot again and I suspect that will continue to cycle.
In the end, you can not have a deep stratefy game without TBS. Contemplation requires time, that is not part of shooters or RTS. Some of the best games are RTS, but they are not deep strat games (Starcraft/Warcraft/C&C). They are more rush games.

I think that RTS games require a different type of strategy.

A need to be able to assess immediate situations and make decisions accordingly.

In a way, I believe RTS games to be even more of a strategic challenge and test than TBS games.

Mainly because when an attack comes in from enemy forces, you have no choice but to assess the situation in a few seconds, make decisions on the best way to use your forces and act on them.

In TBS games, you can take your merry time to run all possible options through your head before hitting the turn button.

Neither is better or worse, just different.

Well, maybe TBS games do promote a deeper type of strategy simply because of the type of gameplay. If you can take hours to think about a move, then , yes you can have depth.

Although I must admit that the interface in RTS games really can inhibit your decisions. You may know that you have to do this this and this, but if you can't click fast enough, you're gone.

vee4473 · March 7, 2003, 21:55

by the way VMX..thanks for all the help you gave me on MOO2, I really appreciate it!

Blitzer · March 8, 2003, 01:16

Well I'm frankly sad at all the half-finished games and half-assed efforts that are coming out. Maybe MOO3 is one of them, maybe not. But more often than not, game developers are being pressured to either tailor their game to mass-market appeal, or rush their games out the door before they are ready. Now MOO was probably not rushed, but other games certianly were.

Back to freelancer, what an absolutely amazing game. Unfortunately the multiplayer component was not balanced tested, and the game lacks depth. An example of a game rushed out before it was ready. It seems to me that only the huge franchise games are being given the amount of time needed to create a truly exceptional product. Warcraft 3 wasn't rushed, and it's an outstanding example of the genre. With the amount of man-hours going into games these days, it's almost impossible to not feel pressure to "just get it done". Game development is expensive, and piracy is rampant and destructive.

I would have been happy with MOO 2 1/2. Give me 2003 graphics, 3d combat, and updated diplomacy. I didn't want a whole new game with a 16-hour learning curve. I STILL PLAY MOO2! IT'S NOT BROKEN. JUST GIVE ME MORE OF WHAT I LOVE.

I don't know what this game is, but it's not Master of Orion. Sim-Empire maybe. God I was so optimistic. I really wanted to enjoy this game. I wanted another Master of Orion so badly. I don't think I've ever been as disapointed by a game in my life.

vmxa1 · March 8, 2003, 03:22

Quote:

Originally posted by vee4473
by the way VMX..thanks for all the help you gave me on MOO2, I really appreciate it!

Happy to do it.

CharlesBHoff · March 8, 2003, 03:42

All of this doom and gloom about the ended of TBS game is pure bull. This reminder of the vedio gamer saying the PC is dead as than gameing platform.

MOO3 is than breakthought game that is trying out new idear 's in computer gameing. As than other person said somewhere QS have no mind reading abilities on how to make than game which most people will love.

MarkG · March 8, 2003, 05:20

the target for moo3 (set by IG and QS) is 500,000 sales. not to be "the tbs for the masses" (e.g. millions of sales)

btw, some people were screaming "disaster" when civ3 came out. then it passed the 1 million copies sold mark

Ianpolaris · March 8, 2003, 07:34

MarkG,

That's a bit of a slanted view of what really happened doncha think? I frequented the Civ 3 boards as well as played the game when it came out (admittedly as a lurker). I got bored with Civ 3 long before the 1.21 patch came out....and Yin was quite right in his assessment of it's flaws.

The reason I am wondering if your memory is selective is because:

1. How long did it take Civ 3 to hit the 1 mil sales mark (hint: it took a long time)?

2. By the time it did hit that mark, Civ 3 was so discounted in retail that IG was actually taking a loss on each unit. We both know that Firaxis was rather displeased with Civ 3 as a whole.

3. Finally, I think even you would have to agree that PTW was an unmitigated (and thorougly deserved) disaster. What I find interesting is that many of the horrid reviews that PTW got actually revolve around the 1.29 version of Civ 3....not the PTW part itself.

The point I am making is that you should be careful when pulling out your Civ 3 comparisons...largely because IMHO the Moo crowd is a more rancorous and more finnicky lot. I also add that Moo three had a lot more Dev problems than Civ 3 and is grossly overdue and (probably) overbudget. That makes me less than optimistic that IG will patch this release in a serious way (i.e. I think IG will cut its losses). I might be wrong, but I doubt I am.

-Polaris

Edit: I also note in passing that Civ 3 had one major thing going for it that Moo 3 does not. FEEDBACK. Even that terrible first version of Civ 3 gave the user immediate feedback as to the status of his civilization and the manuals and in-game help, actually gave good information that allowed the user to adjust his game. In short Civ 3 was actually interesting to play (esp during the ancient period). I can not say the same for Moo III.

vmxa1 · March 8, 2003, 15:16

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
btw, some people were screaming "disaster" when civ3 came out. then it passed the 1 million copies sold mark

This is what Mark said, where is the slant?
Many were screaming, no fiction there.
It sold over a miilion, no slant there.
I am not sure what the amount of time has to do with it.
My guess is the parties involved will be happy if they have sold a million copies in the next 12-14 months.
I am not trying to correct your position, but you are misrepresenting what Mark said.
He did not even imply the Moo3 was any good in that post, nor that Civ3 was.
If you want to say Moo3 is not for you, no sweat.
Many of the Mo fans are also Civ fans, I see lots of names here that I see on that board.

MarkG · March 8, 2003, 15:31

Quote:

Civ 3 was so discounted in retail

amazingly, amazon and EB sell it for $40
the 20$ classic civ3 offer that appeared the last 4-5 months is now gone(stock is out, only game of the year edition now)

Quote:

I think even you would have to agree that PTW was an unmitigated (and thorougly deserved) disaster

still selling at $26-30

one wonders how horrible games stay at their original prices over 18 months after release....

CharlesBHoff · March 8, 2003, 16:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
MarkG,

That's a bit of a slanted view of what really happened doncha think? I frequented the Civ 3 boards as well as played the game when it came out (admittedly as a lurker). I got bored with Civ 3 long before the 1.21 patch came out....and Yin was quite right in his assessment of it's flaws.

The reason I am wondering if your memory is selective is because:

1. How long did it take Civ 3 to hit the 1 mil sales mark (hint: it took a long time)?

2. By the time it did hit that mark, Civ 3 was so discounted in retail that IG was actually taking a loss on each unit. We both know that Firaxis was rather displeased with Civ 3 as a whole.

3. Finally, I think even you would have to agree that PTW was an unmitigated (and thorougly deserved) disaster. What I find interesting is that many of the horrid reviews that PTW got actually revolve around the 1.29 version of Civ 3....not the PTW part itself.

The point I am making is that you should be careful when pulling out your Civ 3 comparisons...largely because IMHO the Moo crowd is a more rancorous and more finnicky lot. I also add that Moo three had a lot more Dev problems than Civ 3 and is grossly overdue and (probably) overbudget. That makes me less than optimistic that IG will patch this release in a serious way (i.e. I think IG will cut its losses). I might be wrong, but I doubt I am.

-Polaris

Edit: I also note in passing that Civ 3 had one major thing going for it that Moo 3 does not. FEEDBACK. Even that terrible first version of Civ 3 gave the user immediate feedback as to the status of his civilization and the manuals and in-game help, actually gave good information that allowed the user to adjust his game. In short Civ 3 was actually interesting to play (esp during the ancient period). I can not say the same for Moo III.

What your slant. Civ 3 did have some problen that where
fix. I have Daggerfall on my computer that have more bugs than MOO3 and Civ 3 ever will have. There is hardly any computer game release today that doesnot have bugs in it.

Asmodean · March 8, 2003, 17:00

Just looking at my game shelf. It includes Civ3, Civ2, Civ2 ToT, CTP, HOMM2, HOMM3+Expansions, HOMM4+Expansion, SMAC, SMACX, Galactic Civilizations (which is only on my HD, since it's not released yet) Ascendancy, Imperium Galactica (which allthough not turn-based can be played in a semi turn-based mode), Merchant Prince II, Master of Magic, MoO3 and a few others.

If the TBS genre dies out, it will not!! be my fault. That said, I really don't think the genre will die. The fan-base is too big for that to happen. And with new initiatives (like Stardocks "Drengin.net" maybe the genre will even have a revival...who knows?? A few mishapped titles will not bring down the genre as a whole.

Asmodean

asleepathewheel · March 8, 2003, 17:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
I got bored with Civ 3 long before the 1.21 patch came out....and Yin was quite right in his assessment of it's flaws.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
1. How long did it take Civ 3 to hit the 1 mil sales mark (hint: it took a long time)?

How long? Is that world wide sales?

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
2. By the time it did hit that mark, Civ 3 was so discounted in retail that IG was actually taking a loss on each unit. We both know that Firaxis was rather displeased with Civ 3 as a whole.

link please

If they were so disapointed in the sales, then why would they continue to patch it, wouldn't a rational company cut their losses? And if they were disappointed in the initial sales, why would they put out an expansion, would seem to me if that were the case they would only be losing more money.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
3. Finally, I think even you would have to agree that PTW was an unmitigated (and thorougly deserved) disaster. What I find interesting is that many of the horrid reviews that PTW got actually revolve around the 1.29 version of Civ 3....not the PTW part itself.

I don't understand this, the bad reviews I saw all bashed them for the MP. Few mentioned the SP changes, and then only in passing. I'm not sure you know what you're talking about.

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
The point I am making is that you should be careful when pulling out your Civ 3 comparisons...largely because IMHO the Moo crowd is a more rancorous and more finnicky lot.

Are you sure you lurked here during Civ3s release?

Quote:

Originally posted by Ianpolaris
I also add that Moo three had a lot more Dev problems than Civ 3 and is grossly overdue and (probably) overbudget. That makes me less than optimistic that IG will patch this release in a serious way (i.e. I think IG will cut its losses). I might be wrong, but I doubt I am.

What is "patch this release in a serious way"? Somehow, I doubt that any number of patches would satisfy you. If they released an Ai and Pd fix, would that be enough( and some other minor details and bugs)? It probably would be for me, as I like the game fine right now, for the most part. The rest of your arguments are against the game's design, which is purely opinion based. To cloak it otherwise is to be disingenuous.

Ian, I've found that buying games is like rolling dice. You win some here and there, but when you don't you just have to cut your losses and move on, even if you feel that the dice were loaded. Sometimes life just isn't fair, but spending a significant amount of time *****ing about it is just a waste, IMHO.

ChaotikVisions · March 8, 2003, 17:59

If everytime a strategy game came out that I didn't like they'd have died a long time ago. Its a matter of opinion, not fact. So you don't like the game, fine. Some like it, some don't. I'll never understand people who want sequels to just be the same game remade, I hate that crap. New concepts are needed, if they alienate some fans. I played MoO2 and enjoyed it, and now i'm enjoying MoO3. Its different then MoO2 and thats a good thing, not a bad thing.

PDifolco · March 8, 2003, 18:09

TBS dead ? Huh, don't think so !
When people will play "Real Time Chess" we'll rediscuss it !

Sarxis · March 8, 2003, 18:12

Quote:

Originally posted by PDifolco
When people will play "Real Time Chess" we'll rediscuss it !

Real Time Chess

Don K Hotay · March 8, 2003, 19:49

Civ3 and MOO3 are both great TBS games, and it seems clear that AI ineptitude is what's holding each back from being superb. I put down Civ3/ptw months ago, and I suspect in another few months, if the AI isn't somehow dramatically improved through a patch, I'll tire of MOO3 as well.

I thought multiplayer would bring these games to the next level of replayability, but unless you can manage to synchronize playing times with others and schedule a good LAN game, multiplayer is just a giant headache.

AI improvement is crucial for games, especially future TBS games, to succeed. As someone mentioned, computers are posing as fierce competitors to chess grandmasters. Hell, Deep Blue beat one! Why can't some of that good stuff be incorporated into TBS games like MOO3 and CIV3?

Quixote

vmxa1 · March 8, 2003, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Asmodean
Just looking at my game shelf. It includes Civ3, Civ2, Civ2 ToT, CTP, HOMM2, HOMM3+Expansions, HOMM4+Expansion, SMAC, SMACX, Galactic Civilizations (which is only on my HD, since it's not released yet) Ascendancy, Imperium Galactica (which allthough not turn-based can be played in a semi turn-based mode), Merchant Prince II, Master of Magic, MoO3 and a few others.

You sure you did not steal my HD? Well ok, I never had Merchant Prince. Oh yeah, no Moo1 or Moo2, so it must not be mine, sorry.

CharlesBHoff · March 8, 2003, 21:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Don K Hotay
Civ3 and MOO3 are both great TBS games, and it seems clear that AI ineptitude is what's holding each back from being superb. I put down Civ3/ptw months ago, and I suspect in another few months, if the AI isn't somehow dramatically improved through a patch, I'll tire of MOO3 as well.

I thought multiplayer would bring these games to the next level of replayability, but unless you can manage to synchronize playing times with others and schedule a good LAN game, multiplayer is just a giant headache.

AI improvement is crucial for games, especially future TBS games, to succeed. As someone mentioned, computers are posing as fierce competitors to chess grandmasters. Hell, Deep Blue beat one! Why can't some of that good stuff be incorporated into TBS games like MOO3 and CIV3?

Quixote

Well that AI program is running on than mainframe supercomputer only. Remember Star Reach from Interplay went in one month time from 45 dollar to 1.99 $ in the bargin bin. First no human player would win against the computer as the game was make so you have no change of winning. That is the lesson very game company know. That one game almost make Interplay go belly up.
I donot mind loseing than game it I have than change to win. In Star Reach you have no change to win.