oooo aaron! - looks like moo3 is flopping... ;) do se5 faster? - Page 11

raynor · #**101** March 6th, 2003, 05:22 PM

Gamespot.Com took their time and posted their review of MOO3.

Gamespot Review of MOO3

(They rated it 6.7 out of 10)

[ March 06, 2003, 15:23: Message edited by: raynor ]

Talenn · #**102** March 6th, 2003, 08:33 PM

The thing that is telling is the Player Review average score...4.4. And thats with 7 reviews so its not just one person. 6 of the 7 totally panned the game.

raynor · #**103** March 9th, 2003, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Atrocities:
GalCiv has no multiplayer. So after you learn to beat the AI, well, you have learned to beat the AI, and you'll have to play worse.

Yes, this is true. But imagine, if you will, how much better the AI of SEIV might have been if it had no tactical combat, no multiplayer support, no support for modding, no realistic strategic combat, no ship designs, etc. The developers of Gal Civ said they left out multiplayer so that they could focus all their time on a truly outstanding AI. As such, the game will succeed or fail based upon the strength of their AI.

The goal of Gal Civ was to create a multiplayer experience while playing the single player game. The developers coded six AI's largely from scratch.

Here is an interview with the developers that talks more about that:

http://firingsquad.gamers.com/games/...ons_interview/

[ March 09, 2003, 08:44: Message edited by: raynor ]

Fyron · #**104** March 9th, 2003, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raynor:

quote:
Originally posted by Atrocities:
GalCiv has no multiplayer. So after you learn to beat the AI, well, you have learned to beat the AI, and you'll have to play worse.

Yes, this is true. But imagine, if you will, how much better the AI of SEIV might have been if it had no tactical combat, no multiplayer support, no support for modding, no realistic strategic combat, no ship designs, etc. The developers of Gal Civ said they left out multiplayer so that they could focus all their time on a truly outstanding AI. As such, the game will succeed or fail based upon the strength of their AI.

I am *hoping* that the AI will be truly awesome and that it will take geometrically longer to master than, for example, the AI of SEIV.

But if you take all of those things out, it is no longer a very good game. A 4X game without those things has no replay value (and quite possibly no first play value

).

raynor · #**105** March 9th, 2003, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
But if you take all of those things out, it is no longer a very good game. A 4X game without those things has no replay value (and quite possibly no first play value ).

You may be right. If I had my preference, I would ask for challenging AI plus all of those things. It may very well be that the lack of all those things will detract so much from the game that I won't like it.

On the other hand, it may turn out that the AI is absolutely fantastic. It may turn out that it is 100x better than any other game that claims to be part of the space 4x genre. In that case, I may be willing to put up with a game that doesn't have those features.

Fyron · #**106** March 9th, 2003, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by raynor:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
But if you take all of those things out, it is no longer a very good game. A 4X game without those things has no replay value (and quite possibly no first play value ).

You may be right. If I had my preference, I would ask for challenging AI plus all of those things. It may very well be that the lack of all those things will detract so much from the game that I won't like it.

On the other hand, it may turn out that the AI is absolutely fantastic. It may turn out that it is 100x better than any other game that claims to be part of the space 4x genre. In that case, I may be willing to put up with a game that doesn't have those features.

The only reason why most games have poor AIs is because they have features. GalCiv is looking to have no features, so of course good AI can be written for it. Look at Chess. It has no customization possible (the pieces are always the same, the board is always the same, all of the rules are always the same, there is no advancement required to get better pieces...). You get so many of each piece, and you can't build more (well, you can convert pawns into other things, but that is not at all the same). There are many challenging Chess programs out there because there is a lack of features in Chess. The lack of possibilities (as compared to most 4X games- not saying that Chess has no possibilities in it, just speaking in relative terms) is what allows good AIs to be written, as they do not have to be anywhere near as flexible. But, does computerized Chess eat up all of your free time like SE4, MOO 2, Civ 2 (and other good games) do? Probably not. In order for these types of games to be good ones, there needs to be more features, not fewer features. I am not saying that GalCiv will not be a good as an advanced Version of Chess; it very well might be. But, it does not look like it has much to offer in comparison to more "complete" 4X games.

[ March 09, 2003, 09:50: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

Atrocities · #**107** March 9th, 2003, 12:33 PM

I am just sick, physicaly sick over the Last few games I have boughten. They claim to be the best thing to ever happen to PC Gaming, but they have all flopped horribly.

Moo3, a nice try, but falls way way short.
SC4, A major let down for me personally.
UR2, A major let down.

I am looking forward to GalCiv, and even though it is only SP, I still hope that it will offer me a lot of hours of game play. I really need something new to play. I have been relagated back to playing older games just to have something new to play.

No offense, but SEIV has lost a lot of its appeal for me recently, I still love the game, but I seldom play it any more. (SEIV Blues

)

It will pass I am sure.

But in the Last two months I have forked out nearly $150 bucks for games that are worth less than their $10 predacessors sale price. That is very sad to me.

I really have no games that I am looking forward to playing at all any more. I hope that something comes along and snages my interest.

Fyron · #**108** March 9th, 2003, 01:10 PM

Starfury? SEV? Why don't you look forward to them? I am sure they will be great games.

klausD · #**109** March 9th, 2003, 04:13 PM

Quote:

I really have no games that I am looking forward to playing at all any more. I hope that something comes along and snages my interest.

A tip: Try The war engine from Shrapnel. A wonderful game with a lot of modules. And it has nice modifications.
One of my long term Favorites. It has even a tactical spaceship combat mod.

If you like excessive micromanagment and if it does not matter when the game is WWII then try Uncommon Valor from Matrix games. The best pacific wargame in operational scale ever. Water ships instead of space ships. But you have carriers, logistics and even ground troops up to battallion level.

tsch�ss
Klaus

Gryphin · #**110** March 9th, 2003, 06:17 PM

Who knows, maybe the various companys will read this forum and get "heads up". Maybe they will change their style.

There is plenty of room for other tactical and stratigic *X games on various themes.

hmm, maybe Arron can make a bundle and sell them the code to SEIV, (with certain limits). Na, too many potential problems.