I guess MoO3 has been a traumatic experience for many people who tried to play it. That's why it gets referred to so often. If there is an embodiment of fan angst that their favorite game might be totally botched up by incompetence on all levels of design and production, then it's probably MoO3. If Sierra On-Line still existed, then they'd probably thank MoO3 thrice a day because without it we'd still talk about Outpost. However, I don't think the angst is warranted. MoO3 suffered from an undoable initial design (incredibly complex with elements that punished the player for taking actions), several publisher changes, firing the lead designer in the middle of development, developers failing to meet every single deadline that was set for them and generally showing an astonishing level of incompetence, a development cycle that was so long that the game's engine (which was actually already old when development started) looked like they dug it out in an archeological excavation, and a publisher that in the end just hoped to get get enough bucks out of the very obvious lemon to cover their losses (no matter what the customers might think afterwards). Now, you can probably criticize Firaxis and especially 2K on many levels, but one can't deny that they have a solid reputation of being professionals who get their jobs done. Comparing Firaxis/2K to Quicksilver/Infogrames could be regarded as an insult to the former. I highly doubt the Firaxis could be so incompetent even if they tried really hard.