Now with moo3 it look like Quicksilver Software had Kill it for us!

You can always play MOO2. I like that game very much. :) If MOO3 is so bad, it doesn't mean it takes MOO2 along in the fall.

I bought the game when it first came out and tried so hard t olike it but was unable.....haven't any of the patches help?

For me there's the trusted MoO1.

I've got this money saving strategy going where I rotate the classic proven favourites: Civ2, SMAC, Colonization, MoO1, Freeciv, Europa Universalis II. With greats such as these who needs new wannabes? ;)

I like Galactic Civilizations. That's the game MOO3 should have been.

I quite liked MOO3 - the only major gripe i have is its very time consuming and lengthy; u have to be willing to be sitting for hours to get anywhere in the game really.
But if you can handle the tedium of loads of turns doing absolutely NOTHING, then u have a not bad game; saying that its just not bad; nothing more nothing less.

YNCS - I thought Gal Civ was a good game, but no where near as good as it was hyped up to be.
The hype it got i thought it would be like a Civilization calibre game set in space - which it isnt.
The reviews n hypes was it was great it was amazing it was all sorts of things but when i bought it and played it i fot "Oh this is ok, pretty good" I didnt think "Oh this is great" like i did with Civ and Starcraft.

I think they could have done with delaying the release of it for another few months for tweaking it.

GalCiv is too limited in its scope of play. It very quickly because the same thing over and over....but I guess most strategy games do that. The nice thing about the MOO games is that they let you break up the monoteny(sp?) with the space battles that are more complex then send this ship against that one.

Master of Orion is dead...at least...i try to forget, that there is an moo3 out there, i hate what they did to orion series...

Read what I had to say in my thread about Patch 1.25. They changed the game but I think in the right direction. It is just such a huge leap that it is difficult for people to make.

I think moo3 has a good game burried way way way way down there and that if you dig far enough you can find it, the problem is i don't really have the time or energy to dig through hundreds of pages of guides just to figure out i like the game, and then go on to spend many many more hours hitting the turn button over and over. Its easier just to play Galactic civilizations, or moo2, or Stars! or even spaceword ho 4. so much less time, to learn even the most complex parts of those games, and in the end you can have just as much fun.

MoO still rules for me. When I get nostalgic or want a classic planet strategy game, I reload moo.

I think MoO has been dying since MoO2. MoO is IMHO the greatest video game ever made.

The makers of MoO3 should have been locked in a room with MoO for a week to remind them what made the game so good.

I though GalCiv was mediocre. What really ruined GalCiv for me was that spaceships only fought one at a time. It's almost as though people in the future will be too dumb to send all 20 Corvettes at once against that frigate. I just couldn't take that seriously.

I loved MOO, and learned to love MOO2 just as much after some time.

I have tried, but there is no way I will ever get that enjoyment out of my copy of MOO3. sniff.... sniff....

Now don't get me wrong. I loved MoO2 the minute I played. If all games were as good as MoO2 I'd end up doing nothing but play video games.

It just wasn't as good. As opposed to Civ and GTA which consistently and reliably get better each time. MoO has only gotten worse.

Oh well, there is always MoO (the graphics even have a sort of retro charm ...)

I just picked up MoO3 for my Mac. (I finally upgraded to OS X, which was the condition I had to fulfill before I'd let myself buy the game.) And so far ... well ... I think I like it.

It's hard to be sure right away, because there is so much to learn. It's far more complex than any TBS I've played, and the emphasis on macromanagement doesn't come easily to me (I'm an inveterate micromanager). But I get the feeling that once I get the hang of it I'm going to like it quite a bit.

Master of Orion dead? I think so, in a way. The game mechanics of MoO3 are so unlike those of dear old MoO2 that I can declare without hesitation that MoO3 is an entirely different kind of game.

It seems to me Quicksilver would have done much better by the Master of Orion title if they had just left the game mechanics more or less intact, spruced up the AI, added a few new races and some pretty 3D graphics. Everybody who loved MoO2 would have bought it and loved it. End of story.

I'm not saying that MoO3 is a bad game; it's just not a MoO game. Even the developers knew that they wanted to create something different. They would have been much wiser to give it a new title and backstory, and let it sink or swim on its own merits.

By trying to exploit the name of a tried-and-true classic to sell an entirely different product they have alienated many fans of classic MoO, and perhaps have failed to reach those gamers who would be most interested.

So if you're thinking of playing MoO3, do yourself a favor: Forget it's a Master of Orion game (except when you're reading the backstory in the manual, which I agree is very nicely done). If you come at the game without preconceptions of what the gameplay is s'posed to be like, you might find it a fresh addition to the RTS field.

Danapoppa

Edit: When I said "very nicely done," I was referring to the backstory. The rest of the manual leaves a lot to be desired, and is sure to be a great source of frustration. Forewarned is forearmed. ;)

Bring out the defibrillator paddles, RB is sponsoring a MOO1 SG right here at CivFanatics! :)

http://www.lurkerlounge.com/realmsbeyond/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=44&

MOO II
The grate game it is...
Just sad I cant play it on me PC enny more ( at least not multi whid friends) sob...

I guess I have a to good PC now, Its the net realy I cant use IPX for some wierd way.... :(

No, MoO is not dying! :D

At least MoO3 is not...

Well, I think the publisher interest is a little bit different from our interest, especially when they want to release the third sequel of a game. Creativity is very hard especially when you want to improve or change a well established game like MoO I. In another hand I think that adding more elements to a strategic game does not esentially improve the quality. What is really matter in a strategic game is the complexity which comes out of relation between limited number of elemnets and for that you need a very good AI to challenge you. The problem is the most kids like me and you like a gun which is called "super palsma blabla" and has very stragne effect, so somehow we enforce the publisher to add to much elements to a game, but somethimes they go so far.

It can be done, but it takes talent, commitment and cash. That is three things seldom found in one place. I am not sure how Moo3 did as an investment, but eventually someone will want to get something out of the rights to Master Of Orion.

So a remake or a sequel will show up one day. I just hope it is well done.

Has anyone of you played any of the mods out there?

MOO has been dead for a long time. MOO 3 killed it.

Um, not really true. Take a look at this forum if you want some evidence that MOO is still being played. In fact I know of at least one or two MOO remakes in development... though they are labours of love by (mostly) single developers and thus may never be completed.

I hate to say it, but many of the gaming experts have said that GalCiv2 pwns MOO... sorry. I've never played either of them, though, so don't mind me :lol:

Well GalCiv I did nto, so I would be shocked if II did. I have not gotten around to trying it, so I can't say.

GalCiv II is modelled in many ways after MOO II. From what I've read it's not really the same kind of game as MOO I, which is my favourite.

I did play GalCiv I, and it was ok... but the gameplay got old for me pretty quick. Since the gameplay in GalCiv II wasn't substantially changed from the original, I don't imagine it would hold my interest for long either. Military-wise it sounds like more of the old 'offense is king' and 'gobble up the weaklings before your neighbors do' stuff that made GalCiv I so formulaic.

GalCiv II is modelled in many ways after MOO II.

First of all, GalCiv II has no tactical combat. Further, I can't see any other tactical elements in that game. A game for pure strategy lovers. Surely not my taste. And I think any comparison with the moo series is therefore flawed. Stardock agrees here.

Moo1 and moo2 have a fantastic balance between tactical and strategical elements. And therefore they will live forever. Like Chess. I doubt a pure strategy game like GalCiv will live that long. Especially without MP...it will die before Moo.

Yes I disliked the lack of tactical combat.

Strangely enough, I think Master of Orion 3 is closer in spirit to the original (and IMHO the best) Master of Orion in spirit.

Master of Orion 2 is perhaps a little too Civ-influenced; I definately enjoyed it a lot more than any Civilisation game, but it felt like it had lost some of it's individuality.

Master of Orion 3 was, at least, unique. It wasn't anywhere near as playable as MOO1 or MOO2, but as a fan of the original Master of Orion, I wouldn't have been much happier if it just built on the more Civ-like MOO2.

Moo2 is still playable. There are people playing on Kali.net and there is even a guy making patches to eliminate all the bugs.

MOO2 Online:
masteroforion2.blogspot.com (http://masteroforion2.blogspot.com)

There is also FreeOrion, an opensource game that is inspired by MOO2 but with more depth.

FreeOrion:
http://www.freeorion.org/index.php/Main_Page

Have never played MOO3 and have no desire to based on what read about it.

Master of Orion 2 is perhaps a little too Civ-influenced;

Not at all - it was, however, highly influenced by MoM. Which you could argue, of course, was influenced by Civ itself, but that's a side issue. Most of the major features of MoM ended up in MoO2, sadly, other than the game-specific things like magic.

Bh

Steve wrote MoM and Moo.

I've played the Master of Magic series and Moo2 and found them to be a lot different from the Civ games. Moo2 is a 4x game but the way the tech tree works and tactical combat plays sets it apart from civ. In Civ, you get to research all the techs. Tactics involve using terrain to your advantage and stacking units together. In Moo2, you normally have to choose between techs (unless playing creative) and the tactical-combat is mostly about moving and choosing what unit to target first. There is no stacking of units in Moo2 like in Civ.

Maybe it's just me, but MoO2 never reminded me of Civ.

I still have my original MOO floppies. Haven't even thought of trying to get it to run on XP till now. I definately preferred it to MOO2 but I liked 2.

I wish I stil had mine. I gave them to my cousin a few years back, when he was in the Navy. I have several of the CD versions.

I have not had any problems getting it to run on XP. If you do, get DOSBOX and it will run.