Smack about galCiv

ya i've read some of the fanboy stuff. i want to get both games but some of these guys take 'blind faith' to a whole new level.

i wanna know how any moo 3 person can say galciv's graphics are 'dated'?

I have confident in QS's ability to create a great game.

Masters of Orion III is a game I've been looking forward to for a long time. As some know, my love of MOO goes way back. I know, for instance, that MOO 2 came out in October 1996 because I played MOO 2 in the delivery room while waiting for my first child to be born.

It is, unfortunate, that some fans feel the need to create some sort of artificial rivalry. I can't imagine any serious strategy fan not taking a serious look at both games.

They are distinctly different games. Any features that they have in common are no doubt coincidence given GalCiv on OS/2 came out in 1994 and was in development in 1993.

Obviously it would be ideal to know which date MOO 3 was coming out so that we could ensure that both games don't come out at the same time.

There are almost riots going on in the MOO 3 forums these days. The rumor mill has it that the devs won't even tell the forum when the game has gone gold until it is about one day from being on the store shelves. Lots of bad tempered feelings and stuff.

I wouldn't worry about its release date as my bet is that most gamers who really want one will probably end up getting both.

I know I will.

Elrikk

PS My guess is that MOO 3 will beat the EB shipping date. But that is strictly a hunch.

From the way they talk you'd think that there was some Quantum Flag somewhere where if you bought one game you were forever unable to buy the other.

Funny, from looking at my game collection I seem to own more than one game, and many of them were released at about the same time.


What can I say, I'm a heretic

Were I in the mood I'd compare the behavior displayed there to certain UFO cults and such, for whom lack of proof of their beliefs or proof to the contrary actually REINFORCES their beliefs and makes them more evangelical, loud, and occassionally beligerant.

One has the urge to buy them a book on Buddhism that explains the nature of expectations and the harmfulness of attachment and grasping...and then beat them unconcious with it.

I think the most appropriate words of wisdom are: "Dude - chill. And go read a book."

I can only hope none of them are attending business school :notsure:

Plutarck;

Yep, a nice copy of "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" would do wonders.

Most of those guys are the reason I prefer to play single player games rather then multi.

Elrikk

One stricking thing about that forum caught my eye. They all seem to be single dimensioned players, that is, all they seem to care about is conquest. If I had seen even ONE post there that gave any indication that any of them were interested in any of the other aspects of game play in GalCiv (economy, tech, influence, trade, etc. etc..), then maybe I could see reasons to worry, but I don't see any of them as being buyers of GC over MOO3 REGARDLESS of release dates. I don't think those people represent any part of GC's audience.

Lucky Jack: "I don't think those people represent any part of GC's audience."

You've got to be kidding. LOL MOO fans run the gauntlet of 4x strategy players, and GC would appeal to a good share of them. There are over 2000 posts in MOO's Technolgy & Research forum alone! I would love it if a quarter of the people who buy MOO3 buy GC as well, since MOO3 will sell in the hundreds of thousands. AS far as I'm concerned, the more 4x games there are the better, and MOO3 is bound to be a winner.

I haven't gotten to play the new beta as much as I have hoped lately, but so far it is looking alot better to me. I like the very huge galaxy.. I think you could get lost in it.

Anyway, I hope this isn't too far off the subject, but this talk over MOO3 vs GC has me thinking of some questions about copyrights and game making ideas. So if you make a game that is simmilar but better to a game that a other company has sold can you violate there copywrite? My understaning would be as long as you didn't somehow copy their written code to do it then they couldn't touch you or is that not true? Any thoughts from anyone who might be familiar with such legal stuff.

The reason I ask is I have been suffering through the last couple of months at the possibliliy of being layed off. Now with the Job market the way it is suddently writing video games for a while is sounding like a neat idea. I have an idea of writing a game based on a consept that was done about 10-12 years ago by a small company that was eventually bought by a now prominent company. They never did anything to make a more modern version of it, and I always wished they would have. So could I get in legal trouble for using their game consept or idea and making a modern version of the game. Of course, I would think that I would have to give the game a unique name since their's might already be a trademark. Anyone have some advice on this?

I don't know if I could accomplish such a software feat by myself, but it might be fun messing with it while I am looking for work. (I Hope not :notsure:) Also, does anyone think those "pre-made" game engines they are selling in the stores are worth anything?

Well sorry for the rambling and the probable mis-spellings, but I would appricate any useful comments or advice.

'Lucky Jack: "I don't think those people represent any part of GC's audience."

You've got to be kidding.'

I doubt he was speaking of MoO fans in general, but rather of the residents of the forum in question. I know it's been mentioned often that many of the people here, including most of Stardock, are MoO fans.

I, for one, would like some sort of consensus on whether MoM2 is really dead. Every time Microprose changed hands, the project got restarted or rekilled... >.>

As far as I have seen, also a previous player of MOO and lookingforward to the new iteration, GC seems to be better!

Are the graphics as good? Probably not, but the graphics are not exactly what interests me most.

It's the game...how playable is it? How many times? Does it keep me interested?

The answer is yes to GC! I have many nights where I didn;t go to bed until 6 or 7 the next morning.

MOO3...I was looking forward to it, but now I'm not sure. Why did they goto RTS? The reason I like turnbased & GC? I can think through my moves and not worring about the computer thinking after every move it makes, having done several while I am still thinking on the first.

Anyways...love your game and am looking forward to the gold version. VERY GOOD WORK

MOO isn't RTS. The combat part of it might be, but not the meat of the game. If it was RTS, the howls of the fanbase would deafen us all!

The only thing I actually like better about MOO than GalCiv is the individuality of the races. I just like it when there are actually some advantages/disadvantages that each race has. Although customization in MOO ruins this...

Arturus Magi is correct. When I said "I don't think those people represent any part of GC's audience." I was talking about the specific people that posted on that forum. I, too, have enjoyed MOO2, and am going to be curious about MOO3 until we start seeing some comments about the "real McCoy" (the one that finally gets shipped). But with all I have heard about MOO3, and the bad experience I had with CIV3 (I love CIV2), I think I am going to wait before buying MOO3.