2
Ensign
I was wondering, since a lot of old MOO2 players are frustrated with the changes in the New MOO, why Wargaming didn't just remake the old MOO2 exactly in a new updated format? I mean it worked didn't it? The new MOO, which I love, btw, is reminiscent of Endless Space, and Galactic Civilizations at times, which were influenced by the original MOO and MOO2. It's kinda funny really.
Also the new MOO doesn't have the ground battle simulations; is that coming in sometime?
Curiously yours,
Thad
Ensign
According to their developer's diary the new MOO has been updated for the 21st century. The old combat took too long. So now we are going to get a streamlined fast paced combat. This will be perfect for all of the young fast-paced gamers who have to do their turns between twitter posts, instagram updates, texts, hookups, and other general ADHD issues that distract from an in depth, thought provoking strategy game play experience.
----------------------
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.
~Dr. Who
Lieutenant
Vice Admiral
Lieutenant
This game is a homage... IMHO and I feel (it is all subjective after all) they have gotten the feeling right.
Edited by Sungod1, 03 March 2016 - 04:34 PM.
Commander
newreality, on 03 March 2016 - 04:23 AM, said:
According to their developer's diary the new MOO has been updated for the 21st century. The old combat took too long. So now we are going to get a streamlined fast paced combat. This will be perfect for all of the young fast-paced gamers who have to do their turns between twitter posts, instagram updates, texts, hookups, and other general ADHD issues that distract from an in depth, thought provoking strategy game play experience.
I love the satirical manner in which this post is made. Totally agree.
Commander
Vahouth, on 03 March 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:
also all moo1 mechanics are missing, so i fail to see your point here.
i think its better to not think of this game as a reboot / re-whatever, as its a very misleading marketing term, but just as 'moo4' and judge it on its own merites.
admittedly, i keep comparing it with moo2, but maybe it will pass and at some point i will have to change my name again 
Vice Admiral
M002mod, on 03 March 2016 - 07:12 PM, said:
also all moo1 mechanics are missing, so i fail to see your point here.
i think its better to not think of this game as a reboot / re-whatever, as its a very misleading marketing term, but just as 'moo4' and judge it on its own merites.
admittedly, i keep comparing it with moo2, but maybe it will pass and at some point i will have to change my name again
That's why I said reboot and not remake/update.
As in to discard all continuity established in the series in order to recreate its characters, timeline and backstory from the beginning.
If you call it MoO4 is like it continues from where MoO3 left of in terms of story and timeline which of course it is not.
Edited by Vahouth, 03 March 2016 - 05:20 PM.
Captain
Sungod1, on 03 March 2016 - 10:04 AM, said:
This game is a homage... IMHO and I feel (it is all subjective after all) they have gotten the feeling right.
So far I agree.
But it does also seem to be the MoO2.5 that Lots of ppl wanted III to be. And got very upset it wasn't. At least that's my and my grown son's opinions so far. I brought them up on MoO and MoO2.
I also think Vahouth has a solid point as well.
JosEPh
Rear Admiral
Block Quote
But it does also seem to be the MoO2.5 that Lots of ppl wanted III to be
Stop saying that. It's obviously not what we wanted 3 to be.
They changed things they shouldn't have. Obviously.
If they hadn't changed those things, you'd be right. But they did. So it isn't and you're not.
Commander
Your title is a bit misleading.
I have visited some of the sites out there that tried to live up to the awesomeness of MOO2. Some got parts right. Most failed in the Tactical Combat area.
I ecstatically bought MOO3 on preorder years ago and was deeply disappointed.
The possibility of the actual Master of Orion Series returning to it's roots, making the game MOO3 should have been was an enticing fantasy.
Of course MOO4 isn't.
If it was, if would have only drawn from MOO and MOO2 for it's inspiration and details.
Bringing in Star Lanes from MOO3 proved they didn't learn from the MOO3 debacle. We don't want to be controlled in space!
Especially by some artificial means that has no basis in reality.
As I like turn based games. I purchase them for my PC.
Hopefully, someone will make a more truer MOO2 remake in the future with some elements of MOO1. Taking the best elements of both.
Lieutenant
newreality, on 03 March 2016 - 04:23 AM, said:
According to their developer's diary the new MOO has been updated for the 21st century. The old combat took too long. So now we are going to get a streamlined fast paced combat. This will be perfect for all of the young fast-paced gamers who have to do their turns between twitter posts, instagram updates, texts, hookups, and other general ADHD issues that distract from an in depth, thought provoking strategy game play experience.
Amen kids now a days would have no idea how to play the original or let alone the complexities of Masters of Magic. While I understand why they went RTS, TBC should also be an option, there is no reason why both can not be implemented.
Commander
If you want to play MOO2, play MOO2. It comes with the CE.
Sorry but nobody would buy a reskinned MOO2, even people who say they would. Why buy a game that you already own?
Rear Admiral
tad10, on 05 March 2016 - 08:26 PM, said:
Sorry but nobody would buy a reskinned MOO2, even people who say they would. Why buy a game that you already own?
I would buy a re-skinned MoO2.
Why? Because as much as I find myself disliking this game, it sure is pretty. I'd love to play a MoO2 that looked like this one.
Besides, nobody is literally asking for a reskinned MoO2--even though I would buy one--but rather something that took MoO2 as its base, and then added to it, rather than changing it as much as this game did.
No starlanes. Leaders. All the MoO2 races and a few more besides. Turn-based combat. Antareans. START with all of that...and then build on it.
That's what MoO2 was: Master of Orion 1 on steroids. Master of Orion 3 should have done the same thing with 2 the way 2 did with 1. Instead, they changed it almost completely...and it sucked. And this game is doing the same thing.
So would I buy a re-skinned MoO2? Yes. Would I buy MoO2-plus or MoO2 on steroids? You betcha. Does either of those describe this game? Not even close.
Lieutenant
BionicDance, on 06 March 2016 - 04:51 AM, said:
I would buy a re-skinned MoO2.
I agree, and am somewhat surprised we don't see this in games more often. There are quite a few ancient games that could use a simple face-lift and a few minor added effects and be prominent again. They did change a little more than needed, but it mostly worked out for XCOM. I do miss the option to have more then one skyranger, and action points would be nice, but other than that the changes that were made added some nice substance to what were some fairly flavorless mechanics originally. Enough of the complex mechanics were left in and the more basic ones were beefed up to make a very solid game.
In the case of MoO it almost seems a little backward, where some of the elements that made the originals so great are being changed in odd ways, while areas that were fairly simple and forgettable are being more or less left alone. I realize that not everyone wants an overly complex game, however I feel like some more common and redundant areas could use a little more spice, where other core areas should have mostly stayed the same as previous games, with maybe a few small additions.
Edited by cruton321, 06 March 2016 - 12:14 PM.
Lieutenant
There was a Free Orion project but I'm not sure whatever happened to development and if it is still going. I've also not tried it and not sure how similar it was...
http://www.freeorion...x.php/Main_Page
Edited by HoundDogZA, 06 March 2016 - 05:10 PM.
Commander
HoundDogZA, on 06 March 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:
There was a Free Orion project but I'm not sure whatever happened to development and if it is still going. I've also not tried it and not sure how similar it was...
FreeOrion is terrible and should never be played. I tried to enjoy it, but I just couldn't. This new MoO looks like a much better experience than that or MoO3.
Bolt Falcon, Thunderhawk, Storm Eagle, Kaminari, Mjolnir - Fleet of the Human Alliance, led by Aleksander Storm.
Commander
cruton321, on 06 March 2016 - 12:12 PM, said:
I agree, and am somewhat surprised we don't see this in games more often. There are quite a few ancient games that could use a simple face-lift and a few minor added effects and be prominent again. They did change a little more than needed, but it mostly worked out for XCOM. I do miss the option to have more then one skyranger, and action points would be nice, but other than that the changes that were made added some nice substance to what were some fairly flavorless mechanics originally. Enough of the complex mechanics were left in and the more basic ones were beefed up to make a very solid game.
I would argue that the new XCOM series is a much more drastic change from the original, more of a reboot than a remake. The smaller squad size is big change... you can't split up and flank. Action points have a very different feel from two moves/one action per soldier. The strategic side of the game was minimized and highly scripted in XCOM EU, compared to the Geoscape of the original. The sequel XCOM2 now has time limits on many missions, which never existed in the original and completely changes the feel of those missions.
If one says "they're both basically the same because they're both turn-based," that skips over some fundamental differences. All you have to do is compare XCOM EU/EW and XCOM 2 with the Xenonauts game, which actually is pretty close to a modern remake with just updated graphics, and not a reboot.
As for the developer motivations with NewMOO, I think all you have to do is compare the interest and sales of XCOM EU and XCOM2 to that of Xenonauts to find the answer. They're clearly going for an XCOM-style reboot here. I'm glad players have that choice, but I'm far more interested in the reboot because I already played the original.
The only way to enjoy a reboot -- assuming it ends up being a fun and polished game in the end -- is to roll with the changes. Wishing it was a remake instead of a reboot just leads to disappointment, no matter how good the new game is (or isn't).
Commander
Zenicetus, on 06 March 2016 - 01:51 PM, said:
I would argue that the new XCOM series is a much more drastic change from the original, more of a reboot than a remake. The smaller squad size is big change... you can't split up and flank. Action points have a very different feel from two moves/one action per soldier. The strategic side of the game was minimized and highly scripted in XCOM EU, compared to the Geoscape of the original. The sequel XCOM2 now has time limits on many missions, which never existed in the original and completely changes the feel of those missions.
If one says "they're both basically the same because they're both turn-based," that skips over some fundamental differences. All you have to do is compare XCOM EU/EW and XCOM 2 with the Xenonauts game, which actually is pretty close to a modern remake with just updated graphics, and not a reboot.
As for the developer motivations with NewMOO, I think all you have to do is compare the interest and sales of XCOM EU and XCOM2 to that of Xenonauts to find the answer. They're clearly going for an XCOM-style reboot here. I'm glad players have that choice, but I'm far more interested in the reboot because I already played the original.
The only way to enjoy a reboot -- assuming it ends up being a fun and polished game in the end -- is to roll with the changes. Wishing it was a remake instead of a reboot just leads to disappointment, no matter how good the new game is (or isn't).
And this is why I like the idea of doing something different. I enjoy XCOM EU because it's not exactly the same as X-COM and I actually have grown to like the changes they've made; smaller squads means I can focus on that one squad working as a whole unit and one engagement at a time instead of splitting up attention on multiple battlefields on the same mission. And the game is better built around that idea as a whole, anyway. It avoids the problem of having two-dozen soldiers and virtually tossing them at the aliens because you're getting bored giving detailed orders for each of them and just want the mission over with, as might happen in the original. As much as I love the level of detail in X-COM: UFO Defense, late-game missions dragged out due to the large number of soldiers and large maps to accommodate them... Just. Like. MOO2. Late-game. Battles.
As a side-note, I was able to execute flanking maneuvers in EU just fine. Heavies and snipers with support hold the front, Assaults move along the edges and potentially charge in from where the enemy doesn't have cover bonus. I tended to prefer having more Assaults than others due to their mobile firepower. Snipers often got next priority due to the long-range punch from even rear flanks. At least one Heavy and Support means I still have their abilities on-call to support the Assaults and Snipers in their efforts.
In any case, I'm curious to see where this Master of Orion goes, and how true the statement that they want to make combat like Baldur's Gate really is- BioWare pseudo-TB/RT hybrid combat would be a fantastic fit, if they can get the details right.
Bolt Falcon, Thunderhawk, Storm Eagle, Kaminari, Mjolnir - Fleet of the Human Alliance, led by Aleksander Storm.
Rear Admiral
Block Quote
As much as I love the level of detail in X-COM: UFO Defense, late-game missions dragged out due to the large number of soldiers and large maps to accommodate them... Just. Like. MOO2. Late-game. Battles.
So the solution is to do something about late-game battles, not completely overhaul the whole game.
0 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users
