View Full Version : MOO on Gamespy

31-10-2002, 14:16:01

It's a link to a MOO3 diary on Gamespy. Got some good stuff in there. Such as some of the "thinking" process that went in to their decision to strip down the game and make it simpler.

And that's all I'm typing now because I promised myself I wouldn't make any cow jokes when I posted this and my resistance is weakening.

31-10-2002, 14:51:59
And the only person to post in here is going to be Darkstar, isn't it?

And maybe my personal fanboy maroule.

31-10-2002, 15:36:44
Actually I might get that game when it comes out.

After your review of course :D

31-10-2002, 15:38:12
I plan on getting it. I still break out MOO2 every now and then.

31-10-2002, 15:54:07

I'll wait a bit before getting it, they lost their nerve and carved out a lot of the stuff I thought would be interesting. If it turns out to be Moo2.5 I'll just pick it up in the bargain bin.

31-10-2002, 15:57:55
They have done quite the surgery on it.

31-10-2002, 16:17:10
I'm still interested in this and will likely get it regardless, though I'm in no rush.

That was a good article, though.

31-10-2002, 18:16:40

31-10-2002, 20:24:07
I'll be getting it as soon as it hits these shores. I'm disappointed about the gutting of features such as IFP as well, but still, it's Moo!

Wait, I bought the abortion that's Civ3 with that resoning as well. Perhaps I'll wait a while.

Sir Penguin
31-10-2002, 23:12:04
Do you have a link to the MOO3 dairy as well, Venom?


31-10-2002, 23:45:31
I told you I'm not making any cow jokes!

01-11-2002, 05:17:25
I am very interested in MoO3, in a quite secretive furtive stealthy way, of course. All the games I come out in the open about being interested in turn out crap.

01-11-2002, 06:43:17
I'm buying it. Might even review it. I like to get a few weeks in on games, if they are good, at a minimum, before I fire off anything lengthy about it though.

I am now going into total cones of silence whenever MoO details are handed out.

Although I'm still ticked off they put it out to beta, and noone bothered to alert me they pulled all 25 testers from Poly. Damn. Surf their 'Check here for Beta news or signs ups' for 2 years, and still miss them going out to Poly to get testers. What rotten luck.

01-11-2002, 12:51:50
If you really want to review it then I won't.

01-11-2002, 13:30:12
DS: That sucks!

01-11-2002, 19:53:51
Do a joint/comparative review like Shiny and Funko.

01-11-2002, 20:27:36
Like many of our discussions (all 1 of them) it would probably degenerate into DS and I telling eachother to fuck off.

02-11-2002, 06:53:04
We've talked plenty without exchanging such direct statements of our forbidden love, Venom. ;)

And I think there's plenty of room for multiple reviews. Venom can let you know how great the explosions are, if it's worth the money for blowing up worlds, how many amazon gals are smuggling raisins, and just how much fun he had playing the game despite "Brian Reynolds must have been subcontracted to make the Artificial Idiot, cause it sucks dead donkey ass".

I'll make a few basic statements about how the new finish movies look nice, how the eye candy looks great/ok/piss poor but easily forgetten by the die hard galactic conquerors, how the game needs a bit better balancing and better win options, how it is still ok to great fun despite "Brian Reynolds must have been subcontracted to make the Artificial Idiot, cause it sucks dead donkey ass".

Or something along those lines. ;)

02-11-2002, 14:38:57
Doesn't sound like proper fanboy zeal to me, DS.

03-11-2002, 07:24:27
That's the point to playing the game for a couple of weeks. To get over that 'Oh my goodness! I just got the new MoO! It came in a box and everything!'.

That sound like the proper level of fanboy enthusiasm?

The truth is, I'm a big fan of MoO #1. MoO #2 was only... ok. Something I found fun to goof off with for a few hours, but it is easy to escape to play other games.

MoO 2 just didn't have the full balance of MoO 1. That was due to 3 changes between #1 and #2. Biggest change was ship balance: In #1, all ship sizes were worthwhile. In #2, only the biggest hull counted. This makes a big difference in the combat of the game. Second biggest change: In #2, you can settle anywhere to start with versus #1 in which you had to have the tech to settle that kind of world. Makes a difference to the pacing of the game, as instead of a steady progression of new frontiers opening up, its just a fill all the worlds. Third biggest change is the actual world infrastucture building... in #1, it's a simple set of sliders. Industry, Research, Defense. In #2, it's all Civ. Build a garrison, a market, etc. Seriously upped the pointless micromanagement.

So, we will have to see what they do with their final product. And the real results of it. ;)

That MoO1 fanboy enough? :D

04-11-2002, 20:56:20
Indeed:). Screw you, I still liked the nice evolving cityscapes of MoO2. Just wish I didn't have to do it 50 times over...

The Mad Monk
04-11-2002, 21:44:28
MoO2 got me into TBS gaming, and I still play it. I probably always will. :)

04-11-2002, 21:51:36
Moo2 crashes often under XP on my system, but I keep playing it, just find myself loading the autosave a lot more. I have the compatability set, but it still runs funny sometimes.

04-11-2002, 23:28:01
All you said about MoO2 is right, and still I prefer it. Don't know why, really, but it has so much feeling.

I've legally won MoO2 (Huge universe, 8 species, Late start, Impossible level) before turn 10. Beat that.

04-11-2002, 23:46:57
MOO2 was good. Especially splitting planets in half. But there was some serious micromanagement. It got to the point where I was afraid to create new colonies late in the game as I'd have too many damn buildings to build.

05-11-2002, 07:59:40

It has queues, Venom. Of course, you have to build them out of game, and I've forgotten the details... :D

If MoO2 is the Master of the 2, that's cool for you. I just find that MoO1 is strategically more interesting for me.

There seems to be some promise towards moving MoO3 back to MoO1, only with prettier graphics, but I haven't followed any of the latest rumors. As I've said, I'm going into MoO3 Isolation, so when I spin up that MoO3 game CD, it will all be that fun 'Eww. Aww! Wow, check that out!' I'm aiming for no expectations, and considering how often they've changed this project, I think that isn't too difficult to achieve.

05-11-2002, 08:22:21
Originally posted by Venom
And the only person to post in here is going to be Darkstar, isn't it?

And maybe my personal fanboy maroule.

no, I'm not here
I'm trying to cut down on Britney too, actually

05-11-2002, 13:06:08
Originally posted by Darkstar
I'm aiming for no expectations, and considering how often they've changed this project, I think that isn't too difficult to achieve.

I agree with Darkstar. (I have gotta stop doin' that!)

05-11-2002, 13:13:53
Originally posted by Darkstar

It has queues, Venom. Of course, you have to build them out of game, and I've forgotten the details... :D

IIRC you could only queue up so many things. I feared the building. I rushed to planet busters and just went round eliminating planets so I wouldn't have to worry about colonizing them.

05-11-2002, 13:33:48
What's the obsession with cow games?

05-11-2002, 15:50:34

just for you, Mike. :)

05-11-2002, 16:05:40
:lol: Cool.

I don't know anything about MOO, should I bother looking it up or is it something I'd hate?

05-11-2002, 18:22:32
I don't think you'd like it. Especially now. You wouldn't be able to devote enough time to it to have fun with it.

05-11-2002, 18:41:53
OK that's what I thought. I've been ignoring MOO talk for years so I'll just continue. :beer:

05-11-2002, 18:54:10
Think Civ II in space.

05-11-2002, 19:01:53
Alpha Centauri! :nervous:

05-11-2002, 19:11:57
It's a lot better than AC. Much better battles too.

06-11-2002, 00:29:10
No Mike, in space. Not just on the same planet with a lot of recognisable future techs.

As in, flying around with massive fleets of battle cruisers blowing up planets kind of in space. It was cool. But it's heavily outdated now.

06-11-2002, 02:21:47
Yeah, clear that up for him Shiny. You know how much trouble he has reading.

06-11-2002, 08:50:07
Mike, MoO2 is exactly like Civ2, except for a couple of minor things:

* Racial bonuses : Alien races had different bennies.
* You had preset, and limited, places to build cities.
* You could group units into a 'fleet'
* Battles between unit groupings were done in a TBS tactical mode.
* No wonders
* There is a Defender of the Universe win.
* You can design your own units, like SMAC.
* The graphics are 'Science Fiction' themed.

I think that sums up MoO2 (in comparison to Civ2).

06-11-2002, 09:13:53
The research was handled differently, too. Except for cheeze-meister Creative races, you could only research ONE application (out of three) of a new technology's effects. This meant you had to trade for or steal the others.

Designing your own ships was great:). It wasn't like Alpha Centauri at all where you just assembled the most up to date pieces and picked a special ability, it was completely open slather. Small lasers (good missile defense), huge lasers, torpedos, missiles, fighters, extra fuel - you could load anything into the set space you had. Designing a balanced fleet was actually fun - though again, the size and number of ships tended to get out of hand towards the end.

06-11-2002, 09:58:49
OK thanks guys. :beer: Sounds like it was a good concept. TBS isn't my thing these days because I don't have time for it, as Venom said, but I'll read the review (whoever ends up doing it).

Haven't really played much TBS since I discovered RTS really other than the odd bout of CivII in moments of nostalgia.

06-11-2002, 10:02:02
The research is close enough to Civ2, I didn't think it needed a mention.

Hum... Mike has played SMAC, so it is good to point out that you shoved in as much that fitted, and were only minorly limited by slots in MoO2. Well, at least until mid/late game.

MoO2 is a fun TBS conquest game. With the added fun of being able to make your own units. I just don't agree with Shining about making a balanced fleet. It's more efficent (meaning it takes less ships to win) going with certain basic death projecting styles. Balanced fleets work against you in MoO2. It is more challenging to make a working (winning) balanced fleet.

06-11-2002, 10:08:22
The SMAC unit design thing was, in my opinion, a complete waste of time. I just used the default units 90% of the time. It was fun to design a unit once or twice but it rarely gave you anything particularly interesting.

06-11-2002, 10:15:35
It's more useful, and easier to use, in MoO2.

I find games the let me make my own designs to be of greater FUN value then otherwise. That's because I can make units that fit my play style and current needs. And I have fun experimenting. So I tend to speak better of those games then others. Just my bias for fun.

06-11-2002, 10:26:46
DS: I didn't say it was balanced, now:). MoO2 wasn't exactly Starcraft or Age of Kings when it comes to well thought out and executed strategic alternatives. But unless you went strategy guide crazy before playing it, it would take you a long time to find out which designs were uber and which were uber-noob. And that's where the fun lay.

SMAC was just a situtation of 'best armour, best weapon', since the combat system used was the most basic in existance. Unless your city couldn't summon up the minerals to do that, in which case you went down a few steps. Then it was only a question of whether you used nerve gas or jump jets. The system was just too simple and yet too involved to be worth anything.

06-11-2002, 13:09:27
The MOO2 design system was very cool. Stellar Converters for all ships. I liked MOO2 a lot despite it's flaws. I almost installed it last night.

06-11-2002, 15:39:06
Well, it's not like the Moo2 designs where the end-all-and-be-all of interesting outfit choice either: oh, cool, now I can fit ten more beams!

07-11-2002, 15:34:41
you could choose to stuff in a few more missiles or fighters, too

or just go for the auto fire, armor piercing, heavy gauss cannon.

07-11-2002, 15:47:47
I liked Fragile Allegiance.

12-11-2002, 13:53:23


They got an almost gold copy to test out.

12-11-2002, 16:26:19
It's sounding better and better, isn't it?

I thought you meant there was a demo to test! :(

It's not your fault I can't read, right?

12-11-2002, 16:28:23
Actually it is my fault. I promote illiteracy.

12-11-2002, 16:32:10
The gamespy piece sounds like so much spinning to me. "Beta testing for a year", my ass.

Resource Consumer
12-11-2002, 16:43:29
Some people here have been beta testing SMAC for over 3...

12-11-2002, 18:00:07
Yeah, I don't know what to believe. It sounds like he enjoyed it and all but is it possible to gut a game like they did and still have it come out as one coherent, enjoyable experience?

12-11-2002, 19:03:02
the gutting and management change are my biggest problems, the things I've seen so far don't worry me, but all you can really comment on from screenshots is how good the graphics are.

I read it's confined to 800x600 resolution somewhere(Poly?), true?

12-11-2002, 19:52:04
I haven't heard anything about that. I wonder if it's in the FAQ at the company site.

12-11-2002, 19:59:16
It's 800x600 only, yeah. Rantz confirmed it on Poly a couple of days ago.

13-11-2002, 21:41:44
Oh, God, I must have been at Poly!! :lol:

That explains the urge to start emotionally charged argument threads.

800x600 isn't too hot, but gameplay trumps pretty in a strategy game. Relatively minor compared to the total gameplay redesign.

13-11-2002, 21:44:15
If you can see more by increasing the resolution it could effect (?)the gameplay.

14-11-2002, 02:05:34
WarcraftIII was totally gutted and redesigned, it came out very playable.

Personally I think focusing on how they made the game and the changes they made it's a good way of trying to determine how a game will turn out.

As they said, they were ending up with 9348563747 menus where 1 would do. From my experience with the CivIII LIST, I found that people will suggest any useless detail that comes to mind, often on a 'realism' basis instead of a 'fun' one.

Like with Warcraft, I think a designer having the courage to look at their carefully planned piece of work, say 'it's just not any fun this way', and to throw away a whole years worth of work to redo it is something that should be greatly commended. That's how you get good games, or at the very least, dull boring crap up to an acceptably playable level.

14-11-2002, 13:35:00
That is true. They could have released a complex pile of shit and sold it under a famous name.

14-11-2002, 14:36:02
I have high hopes and low expectations.

Although, Darkstar thinks it will be crap, so it does have that going for it at least. ;)

14-11-2002, 16:23:50
Originally posted by Venom
That is true. They could have released a complex pile of shit and sold it under a famous name.

deja vu

14-11-2002, 17:16:36
It's a good thing no one does that.

14-11-2002, 18:47:25
speaks french?

14-11-2002, 22:38:11
Originally posted by Guy
I have high hopes and low expectations.

Although, Darkstar thinks it will be crap, so it does have that going for it at least. ;)


Pardon? I have high hopes and low expectations. That usually works out to the game is crap, but not always. And I am too big of a MoO fan to *not* want a fun MoO game.

I've been trying to figure out if I need to Pre-Order it again... I think I pre-ordered it more then a year ago, before the great 'Oh shit! We are not going to make it and there is too much to do to get it out in a year and a half even!' purge...

15-11-2002, 00:01:01

15-11-2002, 05:22:52
I preordered a CivIII tin. I don't think I need to say more :)

15-11-2002, 06:29:32
I've still got my Civ3 cookie tin. Nice, big tin...

15-11-2002, 06:49:05
Holds a lot of cookies?:)

Bad games are usually released in a tin. QuakeIII never held any appeal for me, and it too was a tin. I avoided Jedi Knight2 after seeing that one in a tin as welll (not so sure that was a good choice, but ah well...)

15-11-2002, 08:49:36
Yeah, it holds tons of cookies!

Icewind Dale 2 had a tin. Humm... I'll have to think about that. If its in a tin, it sucks... gamewise.

15-11-2002, 10:16:39
really enjoyed Jedi Knght2, never saw it in a tin though. Come to think of it I havent seen any games in the UK in tins.

15-11-2002, 12:42:43
My Icewind Dale 2 didn't come in a tin:). It's not bad, but it's not really managing to hold my attention with all these other games about I have to say.

15-11-2002, 12:56:04
Jedi Knight 2 was great fun. But I don't buy special editions of games anymore. The two times I've done it they've been shit games.

15-11-2002, 21:06:29
I never keep the packaging any more. :)

16-11-2002, 02:28:42
WarcraftIII CE was the only time I've gone for the special edition. I kinda wish I'd also gotten the BG2 one, but yeah, it's a very difficult thing to get a special edition of a game that you don't know if it's any good.

Oh, and damn all you MoO people for this thread, now *I* really want to play MoO again...

16-11-2002, 04:04:51
MoO good.

16-11-2002, 13:54:52
MoO good. Play MoO2 now I will.