OT But Get this: Dissed on Moo Board

Well, at least it works better for people whose "Internet computer" is separate from their "Gaming computer", or is running linux or something...

~SDC~

I hope they don't kidnap your pets! Everybody's gotta have a puppy or kitty!

Yeah, I noticed that on the MOO boards. Got the fanaticals and the nay-sayers. Don't post about anything either way or you get attacked by the other side.

Here ya post something in disagreement to someone else's post, ya get a intelligent counter or reply. It's decent, it's polite! Who would've guessed?

Some of the responses seemed sane, some not.
I've not even downloaded the patch, but if it's a zip file, the question is valid. Not everyone is a genius at computers. When you look at the way a company like Blizzard does their patches, the difference is remarkable. For Diablo II you just login to battle.net and it patches automagically, or you download the patch and run it and then you're done.

Also read a thread there about whether Quicksilver should be allowed to do a Master of Magic sequel now that MoO3 is out the door. Boggling at the absolute blind fanaticism of a couple of people saying that MoM is even better suited to the MoO3 style of gameplay than MoO is.
Crazy, crazy, crazy. The original creators of MoM should sue their pants off if QS even tries to create a sequel. Defamation of character or something. :notsure:

~SDC~

How about being arrested for impersonating a game developer? LOL
Mythor- some of the responses were straight-forward and explained the reasons, I agree. Its the frothers that dismissed the question out of hand that I took issue with. But whats the point? May as well be carrying stones to Hadrian's Wall. For me, my best solution is to stay off the board.
Cheers.

Play some more GalCiv; all your fear and loathing shall be washed away in the tide of gaming goodness.

- Ash

~SDC~

the 'old guard' sure does come down hard on the newcomers over there. it has some of the most draconian board rules on the internet. maybe it's a backlash, or denial, or both. it used to be a fairly interesting board. now, it just seems to be a few bitter dudes sifting through the ashes, and lashing out at folk.

btw, they have a patch out? I havn't touched that game in a month, was hoping for a patch. at the very least the AI. gonna check it out. in the end, I just want lots of great TBS games, damnit GalCiv was a godsend, I've been craving for a new TBS for a long time

The TBS fare has been rather low the past few years

Civ 3 (and PTW) - good, but not stellar, some crippling
game design choices (oil screw, AI trade-a
-thon, late game tedium still there) but still
fun
AoW - very good, but AOW II seemed worse for some reason
Moo3 - (heh heh)
HOMM IV - Brain dead and expansions = son of brain
dead . HOMM III was far better
SEIV - very interesting - i have only tried the demos
but the micromgmt is scary
RFtS - again only tried demo - seemed bland, very
bland, little or no AI

MOTW - yes the combats are RT but the campaign is TB
(quite fun battles but the campaign AI is a
pushover, and campaign set ups arent that
historical, ie Eng did NOT have Aquataine in
the 11th century etc)), broken trade rules.

Ones I havent tried (comments?)
Starships unlimited
Disciples
Warlords IV - Warlords III didnt really recapture that fun factor of I and II for some reason. AI seemed quiet

Looking forward to:
Rome: Total war
Gal Civ Updates
Empires in Arms
MoM II (if it ever happens.. and not by QS)

"The new "patch" for Moo3 is out which addresses a few of the issues.".

I visited the forum and it seems this patch is a data patch, and mostly based upon input from the modders. The patch for changes to the hardcoded part of the game will be released: "in the next coming weeks but don't asked when, it's there when it's there".

Apperantly it took them 6 weeks to release a patch that only includes changes in the moddable files. Not impressive, I think. I wait for the hardcoded patch to give MOO3 on more try. I think. If I find the time. If I decide to not play Galciv everyday. If. But if I look into my heart, I'm already shure: it is unlikely I will stop playing Galciv. Why should I? It's simply the best 4 (5) X game ever developed. And an amazing support, unbelievable is a far better word.

Wrath- Deciples 2 is a great game.If you played D1 its the same only better graphics and a few tweaks here and there. I just got Starships Unlimited at CompUSA yesterday so I havent figured it out yet. Its real time by the way. Warlords 4? I didnt know it was out yet. I'm hoping that will be great as I loved the other Warlords turnbased games...the Battlecry series didnt do anything for me...I am totally turned off/burned out on/ sick of/bored with etc RTS. I am also looking forward to TW Rome. Whats Empire in Arms?? And MoM2?? I'd kiss my Grandma on the lips (rogue hair sprouting from the mole and all)for that game. Well, maybe not.....better to just buy it. LOL

Wampyre, Brad mentioned in one of his interviews he is thinking about/working at a game that would be a mix of MoM and Magic The Gathering. Now wouldn't that be great as an alternative to play Galciv? IF Galciv will ever need an alternative?

What would be nice is a TB based fantasy world strateic game based on a defined fantasy setting such as the Grayhawk Wars (battle of Chendl anyone), Videssos, Middle Earth or even Arthurian England. I know many fantasy games have strategic theme but its often contrived or generic; what is needed is one with real back story. thats why wargamers like to replay historical board games.. a real sense of time and place and lot of these fantasy settings are soo rich its not funny)

dawg

addendum; Empires in Arms its a computer version of what is considered to be among the best strategic board games ever made.. It is a grand strategic game of the napoleonic wars (with variants set in the revolutionary wars, american revolution, Wars of Austrian and Spanish Succesion, and even the 30 years war.. and i have ven heard that somone had tried to make a crusades variant too!)

Either way its a game many old board gamers are drooling for. Ahh yes nothing like a +2 Guard first round commitment when the chips are down.

dawg

Disciples II was lots of fun, great artwork, kinda spooky. 4 different playstyles (races). highly addictive. recommended. 2 add-ons are in the pipeline.

MoM2 (how 'bout it Stardock ?) = drool (esp. with a challenging AI)

the upcoming Warlords VI (not the RTS Battlecry one) looks promising

a worthy X-Com sequel would be sweet too (not really TB strategy, but still...)

meant Warlords IV, of course

Why does everyone call Heroes 4 braindead? What exactly is the problem? Granted I've only played the campaign a little but I just can not get the hang of this game, the AI seems pretty damn good at building up his forces.

The game never really grabbed me though, so I can't say I mastered or even got any good at it. Just curious.

Joeaverage, I think most people just don't find it appealing to their expectations, something like the hopes for MOO3 being the ultimate MOO2. Most people prefer HOM3. But it is like it is, nobody ever said HOMIV would be the ultimate HOM3, nobody ever said MOO3 would be the ultimate MOO2. It is just another approach of the games, and you either like it or dislike it. MOO3 came with a flyer for Galciv. The front page says: "The fate of the Galaxy is in your hands". The back page says: "Never the same Galaxy Twice". Both are very true, when you play this game. Nevertheless, the strongest point of Galciv is the incredible AI, the amazing replayability and perhaps foremost the unparalled support. It is just how you look at the way you try to market a game.

It's a data patch only. And the MoO3 boards are taking heat over it. It's a stop gag measure, something to help out the fans, until the real patch comes out.

QS has an option in their MoO3 contract to be allowed to do MoM2 *if* MoO3 was a success. I don't know the exact terms... but MoO3 was a success in pre-orders alone, from what I heard. (Good thing too, as word got around it wasn't all that its fans had dreamed of pretty fast.) And it would be hard to be the ultimate MoO, since there are 2 different MoO *styles*. #1 and #2. 3 did fairly well at mixing them, actually. It's the UI that really put me off MoO. Horrid. Much worse then things like the AI doesn't know how to attack a world, PD won't work if you tell that group to target another, etc etc etc.

HoM4 just never grabbed me. Don't know why. Maybe I was just too bored with the line? Played it from the original (King's Bounty).

No need to mix MoM with MtG. MoM is the ultimate master-piece in TBS. Only SMAC and MoO approaches it for in-game customization to game play. Which is really what makes MoM such a kick butt TBS game.

Was Brad envisioning MtG as in the original MtG computer game, the second, or the third (current) MtG computer game? Or something else?

a few comments
1) "stop gag" i think the term is stop gap but in the context of MOO3 and the MOO3 forums that is bad pun in more ways than one..kudos

2) HOMM IV. I found the AI was no challenge to beat; indeed while it may have but its forces ok; it wa skilled constantly even by the neutral critters (dead gravestones everywhere). I never felt any of my cities were under threat ever.. even at the highest levels. Now i'm no 4X games pro (still cant beat Gciv in Normal or Civ 3 in King), but HOMM IV was a cakewalk; HOMM 3 at easy was more challenging.

3) MoM by QS. i sur ehope not. I won't slam their handling of MOO3 but if their design philosphy remains the same then I doubt their MOM 2 would be to my taste. Thus no sale here.

What i really hate about Moo3 though is that something that is getting more and more common; rather than making fun playable games; a lot of studios appear to either get a really cool feature idea some avant-garde notion and try to make a game around it. Kind of liek a lot of hollywood films.. a nice core idea but a crud film which cant sustain or develop that idea into a coherent whole. Case in point MOO3 a. There is lot of commenable ideas .. in the rough.. that may one day be the staple in TBS/4/5X games, but the core is hollow. In contrast games like civ (original) and Gal Civ (to name a few) take good solid core idea or premise and make a very playable game; while improving the design in an evolutionary rather than revolutionary fashion.

The latter is the basic conflict here. Moo3 is revolutionary ina lot of ways (that doesn't = good always); by its very nature revolutionary action is violent (not blood and guts but metaphysically so) in that in it, by it very nature must largely destroy any previous order and replace it with something new/or at a minimun radically different. This has the effect of ripping the observers sense of reference and order. Hence why MOO3 gets violent reaction. Its totally contrary in alot of ways to what you would expect. So it jolts; and shocks; which both provoke strong reactions.. positive and negative.

How does this explain the virulent behaviour on the MOO3 boards where any anti-revoltionary behaviour is met with brital retaliation? Simple; revolutionaries tend to view themselves as more forward looking and in some ways as being on "higher" ground; therefore any criticism is merely pederstrian. (think snobby artists). In essence they are defending their revolution by simply claiming moral and intellectual higher reasoning and muting oppostion by equating it with lower order vulgarism (think anti-moo3 = troll).

I can see both sides of the coin here but for me. I dont like MOO3 in its current for simply because its not fun for me. Thats' it. Just because you dont like or "get" Picasso doesnt mean its not good. Just not your cup of tea. Conversely just because someone may not like Picasso doesnt mean that they are in any way intellectually. morally or aestethically challenged. (now I draw the line at the WWF Wreslling..lol) Either way its no excuse for the really juvenile behavior on teh MOO3 boards. Used to lurk there a bit now I ignore it. To each their own.

dawg

MoO3 is its own unique brew. We will never know what the game was meant to be, because that design crew got tossed, along with lots of their work, so MoO3 got released this year.

What I know that the original team were out to do... bring more MoO to MoO. Not just update its graphics, but build the ultimate mix of 1 & 2, while adding in some new things. That took too long, and hence...

Other then that... it's a 4x Galaxy Conquest game. You can always find someone willing to play that sort of game, no matter how sucky the interface or game is. I've certainly put up with some bad things, to enjoy some 4xing on a Galatic scale.

No telling what will happen to MoO4. But I don't think it will be an purely updated MoO3.

To those that love it, they are welcome to have fun. More people would like it if the interface wasn't so click intensive.

I'm puzzled by the OP. I checked the IGMOO board and found a thread entitled "Patch? how to install??" with a polite question and several polite answers. I also note that there is a stickied thread about the patch where someone noted that there is a self-installer posted at the Apolyton site.

I know that some people find it impossible to enjoy GalCiv without trashing MOO3, but there are actually some of us who appreciate both games. The various sneers about whether the patch is some mods is silly; it's a patch only directed at the data files, which are of course moddable. QS gratefully acknowledged that a lot of their data patch was based on what the modding community had done -- which I for one find a healthy sign. What's most important is that most of those who have actually TRIED the patch report a more challenging AI and generally more FUN. I will check it tonight.


~SDC~

I have found Moo3 playable and moderately enjoyable....hopefully more so after the REAL patch. However, I find GalCiv extremely fun and I like it much more than Moo3. yes, there is room in the world for both. That said, if QS makes MOM2 and it comes out anywhere near as DIFFERENT from MOM as MOO3 was from MOO2 I think it will be a near disaster. Might it be a fun game? maybe...after many patches unless they get their act together (or unless publishers leave them alone to get the job done if that was the case.)But I hardly think it will be MOM in anything but name only. They will problably try to change it so much as to be unrecognizable save for the names of the races and wizards. I would hope that they look at both initial sales and FINAL sales after all the returns before deciding if MOO3 was a success. Then let somebody else remake the game. And speaking of MOM wizards, FREYA- yeah, I think Brads idea of a MoM/Magic game would be great.
Cheers

MOO3 made a killing in pre-orders.

MOM is so old now that there is less of a following for it. It would have to rely on the hardcore 4Xers to promote it by word of mouth, and most of them are probably aware of MOO3 and how QS botched it.

MOM2 would rock.

olaf

Just a note about the Master of Magic: the magic system was based off of Magic the Gathering (although I bet some of you didn't know it was around back then). The colors, the nodes, and many of the Fantastic Beasts were taken from MtG first edition.

Nicolas, wrongo. MoM came out years before MtG. It's MtG that is based on MoM.

I got in on the alpha edition of MtG. It was some years (~5) after MoM's first publishing that MtG was published.