Jump to content


I love/hate Moo3 and why


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

Poll: love or hate moo 3 (27 members have cast votes)

do you love or hate Moo 3

  1. loved it (8 votes [29.63%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 29.63%

  2. hated it (19 votes [70.37%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 70.37%

Vote Guests cannot vote Hide poll

mikeva1 #1 Posted 19 April 2016 - 03:58 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 76
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015

As a joke I said in another topic the the people were debating/arguing about Moo 3 instead of the topic that they should  have been focused on, I said that they should take the arguments to a topic like this one. So feel free to argue all you want.... in the end it makers very little difference to how MOO-CTS will come out.

 

I would like to see REASONS why people love or hate Moo3 3.

 

My vote? I did not like it. They should have named it something besides Master of Orion. Plus it needed more time in development. Too much micromanagement as well.



JosEPh_II #2 Posted 19 April 2016 - 04:30 PM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 330
  • Member since:
    01-22-2016

My stance is known. And It belongs to the Master of Orion series as much as any of the others (which I also still play and love to play).

 

But I'm not sure I want to go thru  the "whys" because of the inevitable arguments that turn into backlash and insulting posts. I still play it because it's deep strategy game that takes time to unfold and it challenges me to think and plan. That's as far as I will currently go.

 

JosEPh


Edited by JosEPh_II, 19 April 2016 - 04:32 PM.

Old and Slow.....Watch Out! It's Not Y'uns Turn!

Omega_Weapon #3 Posted 19 April 2016 - 04:49 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 588
  • Member since:
    11-15-2011
I immediately disliked the starlanes when I started my first game. I soon learned to hate them. May have been able to live with them if the rest of the game was good, but nothing about it was even remotely good. The new race lore was bizarre, weird colony management was frustrating, and ship design mediocre. Next to starlanes the biggest disappointment was the absence of fine tactical combat. Battles were just an auto decided formality that didn't even look nice, and even though I had little understanding of the combat system the AI was so bad that I won every battle anyways. After 2 days I gave up and have never played that wretched game again.

Endsor #4 Posted 19 April 2016 - 05:09 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 118
  • Member since:
    11-01-2015

Probably worst strategy game ever made by anyone. Unplayable and busted on release. Boring, buggy and uber frustrating after "essential" patches which do nothing at all to add to any fun. I would not recommend this giant steaming space-turd to my worst enemy. As for why, just read this review and weep for MOO franchise which this dire travesty pretending to be a game destroyed for 13 years!! And now same terrible ideas rear their ugly heads again in MooNew. Is there to be no hope for a good MOO?

 

http://www.quarterto...o3/moo3-1.shtml



MasterOfOrionConquerTheS #5 Posted 20 April 2016 - 12:24 AM

    Captain

  • Players
  • 251
  • Member since:
    03-01-2016

Well... I've already spoke about the graphics, AI, viceroys, fleet combat, ships, animations, spreadsheet feel, bugs, taskforce creation, colony management. 

 

I'll give you something new... what about the backstory ? 

 

Quicksilver set itself on a crusade against "Cheesy" races and lore. There were entire developer posts stating that they would eliminate all of the Cheesy races, such as the Mrrshans for being cat people. Then they created all of this dark-sci-fi vibe for their alien races... It did not look good. Just google psilons and take a look at Meklars in Moo1, Moo2, and then Moo3. Ugh. 

 

And as a backstory... Here.. This is what Moo1's backstory reads like: 

 

"By the beginning of the 23rd century, ten races had emerged with the technology necessary to colonize deep space. For nearly a century, population growth on all planets had outstripped planetary resources, and soon all the races were forced to expand and discover new worlds to colonize. As history has proven time and time again, unrestrained expansion inevitably leads to war.

 

Even though each race is very different from the others, all have legends of a master race that once controlled the galaxy. It is said that the Masters left behind a world that contained marvelous secrets and wondrous technology, and protected it with a powerful Guardian. The loremasters call it Orion and it is written in legend that he who masters Orion masters the universe.

 

Master of Orion is a competitive game of interstellar conquest that combines exploration with conflict. You are cast as the immortal emperor who shapes the future of your race, as contact is made with the neighboring races. Your objective is simple: control a majority of the known galaxy and eliminate all who stand in the way.

 

As ruler you must ultimately decide the destiny of your race as you make decisions on how planetary resources are allocated, where star fleets will be deployed, which races to fight, and which races to ally with. You begin with control of your home planet, from which you can explore and colonize nearby star systems. Your first decisions will center around the rapid development of colonies into productive worlds, what types of technology to focus on, and which star systems to colonize. However, the true challenge begins when contact is made with other races, and complex strategies must be formulated to manage diplomacy, sabotage, espionage, trade, and interstellar combat"

 

Now this is something that could be read aloud by Morgan Freeman and give you the chills. 

 

Moo2's introduction was somewhat less "Illuminated" but what it lacked in prose, it made up with the inclusion of the Antarans. All the fanboys such as me where all "Ohhh new stuff" over it. 

 

Now Moo3's backstory is this... 

 

http://moo3.quicksil...background.html

 

I tried to convince myself that the story was good as i read it over and over at the quicksilver forums. And I say convince because I couldn't help thinking it read like a unadulterated fanfiction...

 

Posted Image

 

So this is a game that took this from me : 

 

Posted Image

 

And gave me THIS in return

 

http://s31.postimg.org/52ahsano7/Meklar_moo2.jpg

 

(What is this ? A Hair dryer ? )

 

They turned this: 

 

Posted Image

 

Into THIS:

 

Posted Image

 

(Click image to enlarge images ;) 

 

Basically, they killed the "Magic" of Moo for me.... I am glad that the MOO CTS game has chosen to own it instead of being ashamed of it. 

 


Edited by MasterOfOrionConquerTheS, 20 April 2016 - 12:29 AM.


Lucian667 #6 Posted 20 April 2016 - 06:54 AM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 579
  • Member since:
    10-08-2015
Ha ha ha, you actually went ahead and made the thread, cheeky! I wont say I'm not tempted to go into detail, but there's probably already enough smoke coming out of the ears of one lone forum member who firmly believes that MOO 3 was a flawless masterpiece second to none. No need to add any more fuel to that particular bonfire.  Besides the poll pretty much speaks for itself.  :)

mikeva1 #7 Posted 20 April 2016 - 02:11 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 76
  • Member since:
    08-08-2015
I kept the poll simple. I just got tired of the arguing on an off-topic matter. Cheeky? Sure! Cheesy even? I can live with that. Its just that I am not so sure about a game that seems to be a direct re-make of a failed game instead of it being a remake of the best sci-fi 4x games to have ever been created.

Lucian667 #8 Posted 20 April 2016 - 03:59 PM

    Rear Admiral

  • Players
  • 579
  • Member since:
    10-08-2015
Oh trust me, I share your concern about MOO 4 and its disturbing similarity to MOO 3. Hopefully that similarity becomes less and less as EA progresses.

neilkaz #9 Posted 25 April 2016 - 07:47 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14
  • Member since:
    09-22-2015

View PostEndsor, on 19 April 2016 - 05:09 PM, said:

Probably worst strategy game ever made by anyone. Unplayable and busted on release. Boring, buggy and uber frustrating after "essential" patches which do nothing at all to add to any fun. I would not recommend this giant steaming space-turd to my worst enemy. As for why, just read this review and weep for MOO franchise which this dire travesty pretending to be a game destroyed for 13 years!! And now same terrible ideas rear their ugly heads again in MooNew. Is there to be no hope for a good MOO?

 

http://www.quarterto...o3/moo3-1.shtml

 

Wow such harsh words and every one of them spot on!! Combining MOO1 and MOO2 I've played at least 1000 games. I started two games of MOO3 and never finished them, the game was so bad and I simply couldn't figure out how to move past bugs to finish them had I wanted to, which I quickly learned I did not. Yeah the Star Lanes sucked. They also suck in MOO-CTS.

 

If we forced our prisoners in jails to play MOO3 I think we'd likely have less crime in this country as there'd be more incentive to stay out of jail!


Edited by neilkaz, 30 April 2016 - 01:16 AM.


The_StormWraith #10 Posted 05 May 2016 - 05:13 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 81
  • Member since:
    03-10-2016

I love MoO3, because of the community that gathered around it and the delightful discussions around its preparation. As a note, I just moved house and despite desperately needing to cut down on 'stuff' to move, I could not bear to throw out either the CD's or the terribly mis-named "Game Guide". But while I love the game, I cannot really defend it. For me, the Star lane are not a problem - space travel is always going to need to be abstracted (unless you go the root of EVE online), so I tend to give developers a loose hand on how they do so. I think the greatest fault was not purely in design, but in implementation. In MoO3 the greatest problem was that you never -really- seemed to know what you were actually *doing* with your choices. You research something because you know its there, but the game never actually let you know what the impact or benefit of your buildings/devices was. Sure, yes, if you digged deep enough you could work this out, but in other games (Civ, MoO2, Sots, even Star Control) let you know what the numbers or advantages were of new technologies and devices. MoO3 failed to do this.

 

Now, for context, anyone who was active at the time may recall that the gaming industry at the time was in flux; Computer games were just moving out of the 'Book-Shelf' packaging model, which effected the size f the Manuals that got sent out with games. MoO2 had an utterly delightful Game Manual. I actually read it multiple times purely for entertainment and 'theory-crafting'. When MoO3 came out there was a company-that-shall-not-be-named that had built a niche for itself by coming out with "Strategy Guides" that sold as an adjunct to many games that had minimal Game Manuals and gave you all the numbers, advantages, penalties, and so on for various games. It was an open secret that MoO3 expected to do the same, and as a result fell down on not providing enough information in the original documentation to make the game accessible to players. The "Galactopedia" was fun, but insufficient. I sonder myself if this was an issue that may have been fixed had the game had more development time, but as we know, business and economic turmoil cut that short. What the game needed was short, simple explanations that allowed us the feeling that we understood how our choices in play effected the game.

 

In short, yes, I love MoO3. But could I in good conscience recommend it to anyone else? Bitterly, no. But If I could buy the entire text of the discussions forums surrounding its preparation and anticipation, I would do so in a heartbeat - transhumanist wittering and all. They were a joyous crowd and I miss them deeply.

 

StormWraith, Feudal Sakkran Researcher

and curator of the "Feudal Sakkran Archives"... which is why we don't have them anymore.



The_StormWraith #11 Posted 05 May 2016 - 05:18 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 81
  • Member since:
    03-10-2016

P.S. "Trolls" are not a Master of Orion race. Not even on "Custom" - So if your forum persona has taken "Repulsive", you are free to do so, but remember - you are not capable of interacting with other sapient species, so enjoy your -10 points in (comparative) silence.

 

StormWraith, Feudal Sakkran Rearcher,

and author of "How to Win Wars and Influence People - Telepaths in Diplomacy"



RuNeZz #12 Posted 03 July 2016 - 04:52 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 140
  • Member since:
    06-21-2016

All i can say is that Moo3 had major potential, and that it could have been a classic if not for marketing the game so quickly. Moo3 implemented many good and new ideas to Moo franchise. They had implemented many new concepts like, Colonizing with outposts, creating many different uses for several weapons like for example the lightening field tech, they had a galactic government system where some races were already in contact, they would already know basic information of other races in the senate and could negotiate from the beginning, you could have two races of the same type in one galaxy, there could be rebellions on your planets...rebellions that had the potential to make you lose your planet and have a faction of your race be at war with you, they even integrated war intensity ( normal, Total and Holy war), an oppressor meter that was meant to help with counter-espionage, gaseous races, and way way more and new concepts. No! Moo3 had so many great new ideas. 

 

It just was to much for the Devs to handle. The colony management system ended up being way to complicated to understand, the Combat system changed to a new but ridiculous and stupid and UN-Tactical concept pressured by popular trend such as, 3D Graphics and real time fighting (and they think Starcraft is tactical LMFAO), Spying was incomplete and hardly had any damaging affect at any level and everything was to big to handle properly. 

 

The first time i played Moo3 i was impressed with all the differences it had compared to Moo2, i wasn't unsatisfied up until i noticed the game was incomplete... Most people said it was crap but i also think most people missed the part where Moo3 had to come out incomplete. I think crowed pressure hardly helped when the game arrived at the 4th ( not Sure) year of production and i also think the people in charge of marketing the game were the worst... always pushing to finish the game just for a quick buck and it left me disgruntled at the fact that money making A holes were just thinking of there pockets at that time, now today its all about having a franchise, but that's an other story. First thing i heard was things about the spying that was incomplete and tactical combat and it was true. Saddly many many things weren't finished. I think the biggest failure of Moo3 was the fact that devs for this game had implemented to many things and couldn't complete the game properly, in time and also because of all that pressure.

 

Devs had done to much and couldn't handle completing the game it was extremely complicated and  all of this Killed Moo3. None the less Moo3 had many good and new ideas.



SilentNSly #13 Posted 11 July 2016 - 02:05 AM

    Ensign

  • Players
  • 5
  • Member since:
    07-14-2015

View PostRuNeZz, on 03 July 2016 - 12:52 PM, said:

All i can say is that Moo3 had major potential, and that it could have been a classic if not for marketing the game so quickly. Moo3 implemented many good and new ideas to Moo franchise. They had implemented many new concepts like, Colonizing with outposts, creating many different uses for several weapons like for example the lightening field tech, they had a galactic government system where some races were already in contact, they would already know basic information of other races in the senate and could negotiate from the beginning, you could have two races of the same type in one galaxy, there could be rebellions on your planets...rebellions that had the potential to make you lose your planet and have a faction of your race be at war with you, they even integrated war intensity ( normal, Total and Holy war), an oppressor meter that was meant to help with counter-espionage, gaseous races, and way way more and new concepts. No! Moo3 had so many great new ideas. 

 

It just was to much for the Devs to handle. The colony management system ended up being way to complicated to understand, the Combat system changed to a new but ridiculous and stupid and UN-Tactical concept pressured by popular trend such as, 3D Graphics and real time fighting (and they think Starcraft is tactical LMFAO), Spying was incomplete and hardly had any damaging affect at any level and everything was to big to handle properly. 

 

The first time i played Moo3 i was impressed with all the differences it had compared to Moo2, i wasn't unsatisfied up until i noticed the game was incomplete... Most people said it was crap but i also think most people missed the part where Moo3 had to come out incomplete. I think crowed pressure hardly helped when the game arrived at the 4th ( not Sure) year of production and i also think the people in charge of marketing the game were the worst... always pushing to finish the game just for a quick buck and it left me disgruntled at the fact that money making A holes were just thinking of there pockets at that time, now today its all about having a franchise, but that's an other story. First thing i heard was things about the spying that was incomplete and tactical combat and it was true. Saddly many many things weren't finished. I think the biggest failure of Moo3 was the fact that devs for this game had implemented to many things and couldn't complete the game properly, in time and also because of all that pressure.

 

Devs had done to much and couldn't handle completing the game it was extremely complicated and  all of this Killed Moo3. None the less Moo3 had many good and new ideas.

 

I strongly agree with this.

MoO3 had great potential and awesome ideas; but was buggy, incomplete and unpolished.



Njourour #14 Posted 04 August 2016 - 06:19 PM

    Moderator

  • Administrator
  • 1
  • Member since:
    12-01-2015
I loved it because of the GUARDIAN :rolleyes:

 


                                                   

                                                                                      Know thy self, know thy enemy. A thousand battles, a thousand victories .

                                                            Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired,

                              signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed .


plasmacannontime #15 Posted 05 August 2016 - 07:13 PM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 101
  • Member since:
    01-13-2016

Hated it.

 

Star Lanes. They took away my freedom to move about the galaxy as I wanted limited only by the fuel cell range that I had teched. Biggest game killer there.

Too Complex in many ways. 

---The game's Hull types progressed from 4 (in MOO1), to 6 (in MOO2), to 17 (in MOO3). 8 or 10 would have been nice at the time. 17 was overkill. It felt like we were always upgrading to a new hull type.

---When I bombed a planet, I could choose options like nuclear or biological. It never seemed to make a difference what I did, so I always bombed.

They removed most of the established iconic races of the series. Bad move. It didn't feel like I was playing MOO anymore with them gone and with star lanes added. I'm for adding 33% more new races, but don't remove the standard ones that make that game unique.

The game lasted FOREVER. I remember a game that took months to play and I quit around turn 380ish. I saw barely any progress in those final turns.

 

I don't want a long rant. So I'm done with MOO3.

 

I went back to MOO2 and didn't return.

As I upgraded my computer over the years, I gradually couldn't use the CD anymore. I did find it again on GOG a couple of months before it was announced that MOO4 was being made.

So, back to MOO2. :)

I play in in between Civ4 games. I'll probably get Civ6 when it comes out. I'm still looking for a worthy successor to MOO2.

It's hard to find any with no star lanes, good 2-D turn-based tactical combat with lots of options like MOO2 had (teleporter, transporters, being able to target weapons then capture the ship, my auto repair fixes it, then scrap the ship to use it's technology, capturing a Battlestation and the planet targets it now. So much more.

 


MOO1 Fan, MOO2 Fan, MOO3 needed too many changes = hopeless, MOO4 trending downward, getting older waiting for a MOO5 (a modern version of mostly MOO2).

M002mod #16 Posted 21 October 2016 - 08:36 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 241
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

Here is some fresh MOO3 read that has got some interesting points made:

"Friendless Space: Why Master Of Orion 3 Is Important"

 

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/09/26/master-of-orion-3-retrospective/



jasonwclark #17 Posted 24 October 2016 - 03:31 AM

    Commander

  • Players
  • 119
  • Member since:
    09-11-2016

MOO1 and 2 were fun because they were a total  cheeseball perfect pastiche of everything I enjoy in Sci Fi. Like a grab bag that stole elements from Star Wars, Trek, Dune, Asimov, Arthur C and the rest of the gang, aggregated all that in a package that was accessible to pretty much anyone. And, most importantly, they never lost sight of the core principle of being a game, as opposed to some kind of space sandbox simulator. All the aesthetic cohesion and myriad options in the universe aren't going to do much for you, if the basic mechanics and conditions for achieving victory are so confusing or buggy that you're charging ahead without a sense of what your goals and general purpose for playing are. That's what makes a game different from just some sort of freeform play, where you have to make up your own objectives and invent motivations to keep you engaged. Basically MOO3 took itself way too seriously, and ran away from all the cliches that gave it's predecessors such broad appeal. They rushed out a game that was ambitious (although I think off the mark) but essentially still incomplete, and then failed to follow up in anything approaching a timely manner. I truly hated it. It was a terrible tease. 

 

What disappointments I have regarding CtS, are of a different kind altogether than my disappoints with MOO3.

 

 



neilkaz #18 Posted 24 October 2016 - 07:25 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 14
  • Member since:
    09-22-2015

View PostM002mod, on 21 October 2016 - 08:36 AM, said:

Here is some fresh MOO3 read that has got some interesting points made:

"Friendless Space: Why Master Of Orion 3 Is Important"

 

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/09/26/master-of-orion-3-retrospective/

 

Yes, worst game ever. I never got close to finishing a game it was so bad. Back soon to some MOO2 for me as I am not as in love with Civ 6 as I expected to be.

 

... neilkaz ...



Balanced_Integer #19 Posted 26 October 2016 - 08:08 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Players
  • 35
  • Member since:
    04-23-2016

MoO3 was a disaster upon release. A dedicated community of modders made the game not only playable, but enjoyable. If you haven't played MoO3 with a mod patch like "Strawberry" or "Tropical", you haven't really played MoO3. Even just applying Bhuric's patches is really all you need to do to make MoO3 shine.

 

Of course, if starlanes are your big hang-up... 


"​I'll chase him 'round the moons of Nebiir, 'round the Antares Maelstrom, and 'round Perdition's flames before I give him up!"  --Khan Noonien Singh

"We tried it once your way, Khan. Are you game for a rematch?"  --Admiral James T. Kirk





4 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users