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

Atrocities · #1 March 6th, 2003, 12:01 PM

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.

raynor · #2 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 · #3 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 · #4 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 · #5 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 · #6 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 · #7 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 ]