Moo3: An ugly end to the MOO series? (long review)

[Lensar]

OTHERWORDLY EXPECTATIONS

I loved the original MOO, and had a lot of fun with MOO2 despite wanting something more along the lines of the original.

I purchased M003, expecting some changes, (assuming some I'd like, some I wouldn't like) and was excited to try the next iteration in the genre-defining series of Master of Orion.

Unfortunately, the game has turned out to be an utter bust (as anyone who doesn't live under a rock can attest to the high level of dissatisfaction voiced by the player base) for a lot of reasons that should have never been left unchecked.

MOO3 tries to be a richly deep and complex game that does sooooo much, while letting the player use AI assistants, or "Viceroys", to help in the management of the myriad of details associated with the player's empire.

But the net affect of this design leaves players wondering if they are playing the game, or if the game is playing them.


PLANETARY MANAGEMENT (Or lack thereof)

At the start of the game, the player will send out scout ships to nearby stars to explore in the hopes of finding nice juicy planets to colonize. Unlike the rest of MOO3, this beginning task is clear and understandable. I want to find nice planets, I have scout ships to move, therefor, I move the ships out to planets and then check on what what planets look like.

Unfortunately, MOO3 moves entirely downhill from there, as everything becomes more and more muddled.

The the screen from your home planet is filled with countless variables to tweak or adjust. But there is no real explaination on what affects what or when you would want to do one thing over another. The beginning player is left utterly confused here, scratching their head over the sheer (and needless) complexity of the planetary management screen.

Even when you do get an idea of what each thing is supposed to do and attempt to make some changes to get your colony moving in the right direction, the game offers you zero feedback to indicate what affect (if any) your changes had on your planet.

And thus becomes the main theme of MOO3. Lots of things to do, none of which matter.

In addition to this, the bottom of the screen is filled with empire tabs that allow you to go to various settings for your empire. Things like research, finance, ship building, etc.

RESEARCH WOES

Research is another example of how the designers, with likely the best intentions in the world, somehow ended up breaking all the rules from Design 101.

You have 6 areas of research, just like in the previous versions of MOO. You can even slide the scales around a little to emphasis one area of research over the other. But again, we are bombarded with a barrage of needless information that serves only to muddy and obfuscate what is really going on and what is important.

As a player looking at research, I want to know a few simple things. What am I researching, when will I get it, what can I do to get it faster?

In the original MOO, players would establish their own "build order" of research depending on their starting position. Usually, players would set a certain threshhold of environmental research level, to allow their colonies the tech to flourish at a reasonable rate, then would focus on other things, like getting a specific ship hull upgrade or weapon.

But in the original, the goals were clear. They were tangible and attainable. In M003, it is the opposite. Each turn, the player is assaulted with 10 to 20 research updates. "Such and Such is running a bit behind." "Such and Such is not ready for prototyping." "Such and such is now visible in the tech tree!" And on and on with tons of needless information.

And again, if the player makes changes in an attempt to try and boost over all research at the expensive of something else, or tries to foster one school of science over another, there is no meaningful feedback to allow the player to gauge what effect their actions had on research. This prevents the player from learning what works and doesn't work, important knowledge they'll need for the next game they start, and the next.

Unsurprisingly, most players just shake their heads and ignore research, letting the AI handle the management of it. This essentially removes research, one of the cornerstones of a space strategy game, from existence in the game. It becomes a case of "I have reseach and my enemies have research. Each turn, we each are given more technical goodies." It entirely removes the strategic element and becomes just something that happens in the background.

HOLLOW SPACE COMBAT

So here we are playing MOO3, but we are ignoring planet development in favor of the Viceroys, and we're ignoring research as well. So what does that leave?

We can still build and move around starships to protect our planets and colonies, which will inevitably lead to some conflict.

After much wrestling around trying to understand how to get ships into task forces, players can send the ships they build out to defend their planets and frontiers.

When an enemy force is located and the decision made to attack, combat is done in real time on space grid, where you can elect to control your task forces or simply watch the battle unfold. The battle scenes have a little bit of a "2D Homeworld" feel to them, giving a nice feel of combat despite the limited time and effort put onto the graphics front.

However, even space combat suffers from the overall feeling of irrelivance on the part of the player. When you encounter and battle enemy ships, you are only told what type of task force they have and what their weapon damage, range, and speed are.

Once of the best parts of the original game was designing and building ships with weapons and tools that would provide a distinct advantage in tactical combat. Anyone familiar with MOO will remember a battle where they had a combination of a ranged weapon and a repulsor beam that they used to beat their opponent bloody without letting them land a glove.

This led to almost a rock-paper-scissors strategy with ship design, where you would move around a fleet until it met an enemy fleet that out matched it, which would send you back to the design board to come up with the right combination of weapons, engines, shields, utilities to allow you to match the strengths, and take advantage of the weaknesses, of the enemy fleet.

But not in MOO3. Here, you enter combat, watch the explosions go off, then skim the results. Winning or losing cannot be attributed to anything but "I had much better tech I guess" or "I just had him really outnumbered." Once again, leaving the player feeling as if the outcome, for good or bad, was totally uninfluenced by anything he/she did.

GROUND COMBAT CONFUSION

MOO3 tries to take ground combat to the next step. No more of just sending troops down to fight and getting back a numerical result like in the original. Now you actually build your troops into various unit sizes and control them as they actually battle.

When in battle, your forces have countless tactical manuevers they can attempt. Ruse, Flank, Massed assault, and 10-15 more to choose from. But, again, there is no explaination what these different manuevers do, or in what situation you would choose one over the other.

Perhaps it's some bizarre twist on rock-paper-scissors, but if so, you are still not given any feedback as to what manuevers the enemy chose. So once again, the player is left clicking on various commands, without any idea what works and what doesn't. The end result is that most players simply ensure they have more then overwhelming odds in their favor when entering ground combat to secure victory despite the effectively random effects of various combat "tactics."

PUTTING THE DIP IN DIPLOMACY

Strategy games over the years have seen many great leaps forward in AI diplomacy. Anyone who has played Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri will remember finally getting the feeling that the player's actions and decisions really had an affect on relationships with AI opponents.

In MOO3, diplomacy seems as random and pointless as almost everything else. in the early game, when you first start meeting the enemy civilizations, you will get mind-bogglingly cryptic messages from your opponents. "Lensar, you are pushing your luck. Please cease your actions immediately or face our wrath." Huh? I am sending out scout ships exploring? What specific action are you unhappy with? Or do you mean you are unhappy that I started a new game and would prefer I quit?

In other games, even games from many many years ago, you could at least build and lose faction with AI empires. But in MOO3, the AI behaves like Sybil on a bad day. Declaring war out of the blue, demanding trade or research treaties, offering congrats or condemnations.

Instead of being a rich addition that contributes to the depth of the game, diplomacy ends up feeling like an annoying interruption. Players are left thinking, "Grr! I am busy trying to find something I can do that will actually make me feel like I am leading my empire here, and you clowns keep sending me pointless messages?!" Often, the player is better off just ignoring any diplomatic messages from other civilizations since, at the end of the day, nothing the player does diplomatically seems to have an affect on anything.


UNTIMELY END FOR THE MOO SERIES

All of this boils down to the fact that the game's overall design, despite whatever noble intentions may have driven the design decisions, is a tragic failure.

It would be easy to blame the developer entirely for how MOO3 turned out, but most of the blame needs to be levied on Infogrames.

Developers working so closely on a game for so long often lose themselves in it and cannot see the forest for the trees. But how anyone at Infogrames who wasn't intimately familiar with the design could load up MOO3 and think the game was critically or commercially viable is beyond comprehension.

Even if, after weeks of study, experimentation, and forehead slapping, some players are able to find some fun and playability in MOO3, this doesn't change the fact that 95% of the people who pick up the game will be turned off in the first few hours of play and simply place MOO3 on "that shelf", or worse, return it to the place of purchase.

In the retail world of computer games, the first two or three weeks of sales are driven by hype and expectation. Beyond that, and especially in the strategy genre, sales become determined by word-of-mouth as friends, reviewers, and posters on internet boards like this one, inform the would-be buying public of how the game stacks up.

I am not sure what the price of the game is at the time this review is being written, but it's not difficult to predict how it will go. MOO3 sales, although perhaps brisk at first, will quickly slow down. This will scare retailers who have a poor selling game hogging lots of shelf space. The publisher, in turn, will become afraid of returns and the possibility of having to take back a pile of inventory they cannot sell, and will there for "price protect" the game by lowering the wholesale cost to retailers.

This is often the first sign of the death spiral for the game. Lowering the price is an attempt to flush the existing inventory out of the retail channel in reaction to poor sales.

In the end, it's hard to imagine that MOO3 can even come close to breaking even financially with a design so inaccessable to 95% or more of the target audience.

This will make publishers and retailers gunshy and will almost certainly rule out the chance of there every being a MOO4 or 5 or 6.

And that's the real tragedy here for all of us who love this genre. Even if countless patches, tutorials, and documentation are issued as damage control to try and salvage some of MOO3's playability, the death shroud has already been lowered.

The one shining light in all this is the hopes that developers and publishers can learn from this failure and put their finger on what went wrong to prevent it from happening again.

We need more fun and playable space strategy games on the market. Unfortunately, MOO3 is a horrible freefall in the absolute wrong direction.

[vmxa1]

Man you put a lot of effort into to this and I am taking no position on any of the opinons expressed except the part about the future of MOO.
I have no way of knowing the future or how the sales will turn out, but I am sure that any "franchise" game with lots of rapid followers will be too tempting to be ignored. Someone will want to do another sequel at some point. If for no other reason than the difficulty of coming up with new ideas and when you do how easy it is for them to fail.

[Nightmyre]

read one anti-moo3 review, read em all.

[CharlesBHoff]

MOO3 is than fun and enjoyable space empire game for me.

[Mannamagnus]

Good review. It unfortunatly sums up the problem with MoO3 nicely and objectively.

[krait23]

Pretty much to the point except for the last part which is pure speculation as for the future of the MoO franchise. But he offers good reasons why the game failed, which it most certainly did gathering from the customer reviews its receiving in most places.

Lata
Krait

[PDifolco]

Originally posted by Nightmyre
read one anti-moo3 review, read em all.

Maybe, but this one is particularly documented, well-written and convincing.
Unfortunately it's NOT the case of the pro-MOO3 reviews or comments I've read (and I did read many) : so I'm rather cooled about trying it
The drop in sales is already noticeable,too, and wait for this week when GalCiv will be released

[Grumbold]

What characterises many pro-Moo3 from anti-Moo3 players is whether or not you work past the stage the author has reached and start understanding what is going on and enjoying your new role.

In MoO3 you are not a God ruling over worlds full of drooling idiots, expected to plot the path of your empire from the smallest minutae to the largest strategy every turn because they are incapable of independant action. You're mortal and reliant on some underlings to carry out the tasks you outline for them. As ruler its within your remit to specify that a type 26 destroyer has a certain class of missile and PD weapon but you are not expected to manually order each one and you don't get to play 100 ship captains simultaneously to fire all the weapons when you engage in combat. Like it or hate it, that is the style of the game.

Admittedly a lot more people would probably like it if the manual, in game help and other resources were much better at explaining some of the details. For example you can find out what strategy the enemy chose in ground combat if you want to. You can get a feel for what pleases and upsets other races. You can influence your research when you need to. Unfortunately these things arent as easy or as accessible as most players are used to.

[CharlesBHoff]

It they took the time to write than real manual in the sytle of the old SSI AD&D Computer Role-Playing Game or the Micropose manual for they computer game. I know alot of old gamer player donot like to be told something they know already. When writeing than game manual it is best to assume the game player know nothing about how to play the game at all, in the case of MOO3 this mean verybody.
I than glad their are getting rid of the old immotral god like figure who run everything.

[ACEofHeart]

Very well said and while some people can still say they may "like" MOO3,,, no one can defend it ..
It simply is all "glitter" but no substance..
I think what keeps people 's hopes alive is the "potential" that the game might still have a chance if MOD makers can improve the Interface, AI, Combat and Diplomacy.. uh,, isn't that the whole game ?? LOL
Gal Civ is out this week and it will be a lot more playable and understandable.. but in the long run it might seem too simplistic after seeing what MOO3 could have been.. just my nickle

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Grumbold
In MoO3 you are not a God ruling over worlds full of drooling idiots, expected to plot the path of your empire from the smallest minutae to the largest strategy every turn because they are incapable of independant action.

Yes, but feedback on the results of actions would be nice. So would a UI that wasn't a click-fest. So would functional diplomacy (again, that whole feedback concept ...). So would an AI that threw its weight around. Get the idea? I understand that the role of the played is different - its just that the game even within the confines of the new role you describe Grumbold does not deliver.

MoO3 was fun for awhile, but I think the reviewer here hit the nail on the head. And I don't think the alleged patch will adress these feedback and UI issues, and probably not the broken, CTP2-esque diplomacy system.

[Hydro]

I’ve seen lots of complaints on the diplomacy system in Moo3 with claims that it is erratic, and that it has frequent yo-yos. I have to say I just haven’t seen this in the dozen or so games I’ve played. In each of these games I’ve developed long lasting alliances (non-aggression or better), and acquired long lasting feuds. Each case is directly tied to the race’s sympathy rating and what I do to nourish it with enhanced trade and research, then various pacts as the game develops. If I support an ally, they like me more. If I exterminate the hated Ithkul, they love me. If I stand and do nothing, down slips the sympathy rating. My only gripe is that it seems impossible to turn an enemy into a neutral or a friend – the road to war seems to be one way trip (and, perhaps, that is as it should be, so this is a minor gripe).

That said, there are some annoyances. For instance, is it really necessary to have so many eco and trade enhancements? This seems to be clutter. Some of the AI messages are a bit odd, too. Occasionally there are some yo-yos for peace/war, but in my experience these are directly tied to a neutral or slightly negative sympathy rating – so this makes some sense even if it does grate.

There do seem to be some bugs, like an AI ‘asking politely for XXX to agree to a war’. An AI with a positive rating will rarely declare war for no discernable reason (this has happened to me once, and once only).

When I compare Moo3 to other AI diplomacy models for games such as SMAC or SE4 it comes out either even (SMAC) or roundly superior (SE4). There are consequences for your actions (as SMAC), and it is more intricate in some ways. SMAC’s is more elegant, but then it was strongly tied to its story line.

Hydro

[Grumbold]

I know games are 'just games' but anyone who's had the least bit of exposure to business modelling, economics, sociology or subjects of that kind will know that life isn't as simple as flipping a series of switches and seeing which lights come on. Finally we have a space empire game that acknowledges that and puts a bit of a filter between action and reaction.

Is diplomacy broken? No. (thanks Hydro) It just takes time experience and a little guesswork to figure out. I've only once had a race play the "unstable madman" whose happy/angry mood swings had me stumped. Will they make it more transparent to appease the people who don't like it the way it is? Probably. It is already significantly more sophisticated than most, who simply declare war when you reach a certain power level and stay at war until their last planet falls, but theres plenty of room for improvement and clarification.

Many of the points brought up by the original poster was that certain things were not possible, and from that he draws conclusions. Just pointing out that while much of the information is not staring you in the face, it is in there. Those who drill down and find it may discover that they like the game better than those who throw up their hands and pronounce that certain things are just not possible.

[Hawkmoon]

I have to say. Out of all the bad reviews I've read, yours is the whiniest. What I find ironic is all these people spending tons of time whining about all the tons of time they've wasted. Since you people have so much time to waste, why even complain?

Be that as it may, the effort you put into composing the email might have been better spent double-checking yourself. Many of the things you wrote about are wrong or could've been found if you didn't give up at the what you consider the slightest obstacle.

That review felt like something from Microsoft. All sizzle, no meat.

The manual sucks, but all manuals suck these days. Out of all the games I've bought in the last few years, only SMAC had a manual that was worth anything. Wake up guys, if you write a good manual who's going to buy the strat guides they publish with every game?

Diplomacy could use some work, as in every single game I've ever played, read about, or heard of. It's certainly better than the old MOO and CIV games.

Space Combat sucks. But I suck worse at playing space combat so it's all good. I've learned by watching battles what types of tasks forces work and what don't. And in the end, you can make ANY ship you want, then just use the same design for your primary functions (i.e. same design for LR, SR, Recon, IF, etc.). Make your "killer ship" and copy the design 20 times.

In one sense, this game is like leading in the real world. The "drilling down" for information is exactly what you do in any good bureacracy, and you've always got many disparate personalities under you all working their own agendas (i.e. setting research sliders and finding them moved on their own).

Speaking of research sliders, welcome back to the original MOO. It works well and you can choose to concentrate on things the way you want just like in the original. It could use some more graphics though.

Ground Combat does seem to go over-kill with your options. On the other hand, by the time I get to combat I just build a ton of Battleoids and don't need to care. Just drop em on the planet and let them kill

This is not a game for the beginning player. For the experienced player this game truly gives a FEEL for running an empire on an epic scale. The information seems overwhelming at first, but now I can skim through and just pick out the relevant info without trying, just like in real life. No problem.

Yet I can sympathize with so many. We've all waited over 5 years for a sequal to MOO2, and in that time created the MOO3 we want in our heads, and had that time to get comfortable with our concepts of MOO3. I've noticed those who kept an open mind enjoy the game (and are too busy playing to reply immediately as in my case) and those with closed minds post here

[Aule1]

Originally posted by Hawkmoon
That review felt like something from Microsoft. All sizzle, no meat.

Actually that would describe MOO3.

The manual sucks, but all manuals suck these days.

Diplomacy could use some work,

Space Combat sucks.

all working their own agendas (i.e. setting research sliders and finding them moved on their own).

Ground Combat does seem to go over-kill with your options. On the other hand, by the time I get to combat I just build a ton of Battleoids and don't need to care. Just drop em on the planet and let them kill

This is not a game for the beginning player. For the experienced player this game truly gives a FEEL for running an empire on an epic scale. The information seems overwhelming at first, but now I can skim through and just pick out the relevant info without trying, just like in real life. No problem.

So, what you are saying is space combat sucks, ground combat is pointless, diplomacy sucks, you might as well not mess with the research sliders (or any other sliders or build queues). And yet, this is somehow supposed to give you a feel for running an empire?

Tell me, what DOES work well? And don't give me some "you feel like you run an empire". Where is the gameplay? Where do your choices matter in the slightest? What parts of the game are actually fun and interesting to manage and control? What is the point of the player besides clicking the turn button?

[krait23]

"Very well said and while some people can still say they may "like" MOO3,,, no one can defend it .."

I think this hits the nail on the head. Most positive reviews of MoO3 I read were like something I myself would write over Freelancer if I bothered. It has many shortcomings and I am sure many people will hate it especially since its so far from being a successor to Elite. But after working through some initial frustration I got a lot of hours with good fun out of it, which regrettably didn't happen with MoO3.

I can't really say why it was fun though. It has so many faults. I could list a ton of faults here, but nearly nothing that was great. But it was fun. Honestly though I would not recommend buying it anymore than MoO3.

Lata
Krait

[Hawkmoon]

Aule1

If you want an actual response try using complete quotes instead of just pieces of what I say.

In the end, your choices decide what direction your empire goes. If want a big, powerful fleet fast............ *I* make the changes to produce them. The computer will not.

Hmmm, actually, that comment applies to EVERYTHING in game. Your decisions affect how things go.

There are two types of people in this world.......... the administrator of tasks.........and the doer of deeds. Since the Viceroys and AI are the administrator of tasks(doing the same thing day in and day out), people like that in the real world have to complain about it because it gives them nothing to do.

For the doers of deeds, like a King, President, or Emporer this game rocks. Because they can leave the tedium to the small people where it belongs just like in the real world.

[krait23]

One persons tedium is another persons excitement and vice versa.

I don't find good tactical combat tedious, neither do I find it tedious to micromanage my planets to get the optimal result out of them. I do get excitement out of finally reaching an important new technology after waiting for some time.

I do find a tactical combat where my decisions are rather limited and the ships are indiscernable tiny dots tedious. I do find it tedious to set some vague general direction and let the details be managed by AI which more often then not ignores those directions. I do find it tedious to get bombarded with dozens of insignificant tech breakthroughs every turn.

Besides the game is called Master of Orion, not Emperor of Orion (as it obviously should be). And I think you got something wrong there. The doers of deeds are the Starship Captains, Ground Troop Generals, Factory Managers, Research Leaders etc. The Emperor is the Administrator. (At least thats my conception). And I find it much more exciting to control all the aspects of the doers of deeds rathern than only be the gently nudging Administrator.

The Administrator is who is later remembered by History. But the doers accumulate a lot more excitement in all their tasks than the admin ever will in his.

Lata
Krait

[Hawkmoon]

You're right. I was just talking crap to the kid cause it was all he deserved

You could play the game as much as you want, or let the computer play it for you. I kind of like the concept, especially when playing in a distracting area

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by krait23
One persons tedium is another persons excitement and vice versa.

I don't find good tactical combat tedious, neither do I find it tedious to micromanage my planets to get the optimal result out of them. I do get excitement out of finally reaching an important new technology after waiting for some time.

I do find a tactical combat where my decisions are rather limited and the ships are indiscernable tiny dots tedious. I do find it tedious to set some vague general direction and let the details be managed by AI which more often then not ignores those directions. I do find it tedious to get bombarded with dozens of insignificant tech breakthroughs every turn.

Besides the game is called Master of Orion, not Emperor of Orion (as it obviously should be). And I think you got something wrong there. The doers of deeds are the Starship Captains, Ground Troop Generals, Factory Managers, Research Leaders etc. The Emperor is the Administrator. (At least thats my conception). And I find it much more exciting to control all the aspects of the doers of deeds rathern than only be the gently nudging Administrator.

The Administrator is who is later remembered by History. But the doers accumulate a lot more excitement in all their tasks than the admin ever will in his.

Lata
Krait

All Great Empire have the Great Administator of task and Great Do or deeds, it need both type to run smootly. Where would your battle fleet be without the industrys and mines to built the nessarry parts and the spacedock's to built ther ship from the parts make by your indrusty's.

The Great Pyramid that where built where not built of cut stone but than form of ancient concete pour into big mold on the sites of the builting.

[PDifolco]

Originally posted by Hawkmoon
You're right. I was just talking crap to the kid cause it was all he deserved

You could play the game as much as you want, or let the computer play it for you. I kind of like the concept, especially when playing in a distracting area

Yeah, do you enjoy screensavers ? Thos with bubbling fishes are very relaxing ..

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
The Great Pyramid that where built where not built of cut stone but than form of ancient concete pour into big mold on the sites of the builting.

A bit OT, but I'll bite.

Source? A Discovery Channel program I saw not long ago said exactly the opposite; that it was cut stone, cut to exacting precision by the masonists, both offsite and onsite.

[Jack_www]

Personally when I play MOO3 I feel as if the game is running itself, and does not really need me for any input. I thought this game would be funner, but I dont know. The reviewer is right, it feels as if anything you do is pointless and has no effect on the game. I wished I had not wasted $50 on this game, but I have learned something that I should never ever forget, NEVER BUY A GAME PUT OUT BY INFOCRAP.

[Jack_www]

also anther sign MOO3 really stinks is when the price starts to fall like a rock only after one month in the stores.

[Vince278]

Not that I want to defend the Diplomacy AI but it occurred to me that the alien races have an alien mindset that, to us, would appear to be erratic and incomprehensible. So the AI isn't broken, its just being "alien".

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by optimus2861

A bit OT, but I'll bite.

Source? A Discovery Channel program I saw not long ago said exactly the opposite; that it was cut stone, cut to exacting precision by the masonists, both offsite and onsite.

The ancient Egyyt have only copper tool to cut one of the harder granite rock around which need iron tool to cut. Plus
the core of the great pydrin is make up of granite rock that weight 250 tons and goes up to 1/3 of the height of builting.
They have no crane to lift just weight. Plus the mark on the stone of the builting donot match any of the marks of the Granite site know to Egpyt.

Some of our historian donot want to say the Egpytian knew how to make than form of concete as it would mess up they
western timeline for discover's where the ancient roman where the first one to discover concrete.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by CharlesBHoff


The ancient Egyyt have only copper tool to cut one of the harder granite rock around which need iron tool to cut. Plus
the core of the great pydrin is make up of granite rock that weight 250 tons and goes up to 1/3 of the height of builting.
They have no crane to lift just weight. Plus the mark on the stone of the builting donot match any of the marks of the Granite site know to Egpyt.

Some of our historian donot want to say the Egpytian knew how to make than form of concete as it would mess up they
western timeline for discover's where the ancient roman where the first one to discover concrete.

That's a load of bunk, sorry. Davidovits' claims are wildly unfounded and demonstrate a sore lack of understanding of ancient contruction methods:

http://www.manchesteregypt.freeserve...e_pyramids.htm

[Hydro]

(offtopic) CharlesBHoff - Boris's article seems to disprove your point.

One other point. The interior blocks in the pyramids are granite, not concrete. Even today once can not make granite (quartz, plagioclase, orthoclase, biotite) from calcium carbonate (primary ingredient of concrete). Granite forms under high pressure and temperature, so your statement simply does not make sense and does not pass the 'Red Face Test'.

I'd recommend rechecking your facts. A lot of what is on 'science' TV is utter hogwash - view it with a skeptical eye and keep your BS detector on.

Hydro

[Jack_www]

If you guys want to talk about Egypt and their contruction methods why not take it to OT forum.

[CharlesBHoff]

Originally posted by Hydro
(offtopic) CharlesBHoff - Boris's article seems to disprove your point.

One other point. The interior blocks in the pyramids are granite, not concrete. Even today once can not make granite (quartz, plagioclase, orthoclase, biotite) from calcium carbonate (primary ingredient of concrete). Granite forms under high pressure and temperature, so your statement simply does not make sense and does not pass the 'Red Face Test'.

I'd recommend rechecking your facts. A lot of what is on 'science' TV is utter hogwash - view it with a skeptical eye and keep your BS detector on.

Hydro

Why not crush the granite rock and the make than form of concrete from then which the french chemist said can be done today which make than better form of concrete than the limestone base concrete we used today.