[MoO] Master or Orion 4

He is saying, correctly, that neither were viewed as an all time game. Moo1 was listed as a top game for many years on all the pcgamer top 100 list. Moo2 never made the list.
 
The Master of Orion series is kind of unique. There were 3 games in the series, yet none of the games were straight sequels of each other. Basically, all they shared was the name, the genre, and some backstory.

It's because the games are so different yet share the same name that there is lively discussion about which was better. You don't hear many people suggest that Civ1 was better than Civ2 or Civ3, nor that GalCiv1 was better than GalCiv2. That's because the later titles were very straightforward sequels with graphical updates and incremental changes. There are not multiple camps of fans, each with strong opinions about which version was best.

If MOO2 had been mostly a graphically-updated version of MOO1, then no one would really care or still lobby for the return of MOO1. But at the same time, if MOO2 had not been named "Master of Orion", it arguably would not nearly have been as popular since would not have inherited the legacy of the extremely popular original game.

So, yeah, it matters to MOO fans which version of MOO is serving as the inspiration for the MOO4 because it will definitely make a difference in how we view the game. No matter how good it is, there will be disappointed fans because the game cannot possibly a legitimate successor to both MOO1 and MOO2.
 
So starlanes it is.

Probably, but this is as well-known a concept it's surprising that the word 'starlanes' wasn't used. There is at least enough ambiguity in the wording to leave room for hope.

More disappointing is the description of the tech tree, which suggests a typical tech tree/web system, with none of the 'chosen tech locks out other options' of MOO.
 
Probably, but this is as well-known a concept it's surprising that the word 'starlanes' wasn't used.
The phrasing is indeed a bit unique, but everyone their style I guess. On the Master of Orion forum they also say we should refer to MOO2 as 'MOO 96'. So choice of words can be very personal / not following convention. Combined with the pictures, it really looks like starlanes to me. The detailed pictures of planets look really nice but I can't say I am fond of the two shots of galaxy map. Cannot get used to the reddish and blue-ish starlanes and there is a lot of nebula going on, that could look good in game but not as screenshot. What really got me worried is the screens of the races that we have been given so far. The Sakkra are a very believable and well done character, the Humans are a tad boring but ok. What is going on with these Bulrathi eyes?? They are really not ok and both pictures have different ugly eyes. You can have an opinion about the fur, but ok. Then it gets worse:
When did a warrior race become My Little Princess?
A warrior race with human breasts to top it off. Why not a good set of tiger-tits? Or even better: A lion that actually looks proud and fearsome? Then the Alkari... I am just not sure what to think. Is this a joke? Is it real? Do people of an advanced civilization of birds need old school aviator glasses? Is it a supporting actor from the Road Runner? The seriousness of the Sakkra is in stark contrast with the cartoony Alkari. So is this game coherent or a mixed bag of styles? The reviews have been positive so far, but we will have to wait and see a bit more. At this point I really hope we are seeing a really early pre-alpha that still is flex enough to be changed. Also hoping I don't have to play MOO2 for another 10 years :)

Here is another detailed article, with some positive words on the Alkari:
http://mmohuts.com/news/e3-2015-day-1-recap-crossout-king-of-wushu-master-of-orion-and-more/6
 
Here is another detailed article, with some positive words on the Alkari:
http://mmohuts.com/news/e3-2015-day-1-recap-crossout-king-of-wushu-master-of-orion-and-more/6

That's a very detailed review with a lot of useful information.

Most importantly, it's a remake of MOO2, not MOO1:
All the nice nuances of city management seem to be here, such as reassigning population to food, production, or science.

Then star lanes:
There’s set connector lines in the galaxy one must follow to get from point A to B to C.

No mention of tactical combat but instead auto-resolve of combat
We were granted a brief preview of how warfare plays out, which seems to have two key components. The first is air skirmishes, played out based on the strengths of each side’s squadron with some leeway for RNG seemingly involved

This line was scary. It sounds like Civ where units are unlocked by technology. Hopefully he was talking about ship components, not ship types.
The tech tree of course will offer plenty of new units over time, that will no doubt require the strategic resources provided by planet colonization to build.

Bottom line for me is it's MOO2, not MOO1. Therefore I'm not really interested in the game beyond perhaps seeing the artwork and examining the lore. However, the vastly greater number of MOO2 fans should be happy!
 
Well I may be happy, not sure. I would have been happier with a Moo reboot. A true reboot, in that the game is basically unchanged, just made to run in current systems. I guess it is already too late to try to cash in on the old folks that bought the original.

If no tactical combat, I doubt I will be happy.
 
I am really happy of the pictures you see when you google:

Chris Keeling

Give it a go!
 
Bottom line for me is it's MOO2, not MOO1.
To me it looks like the MOO brand once more does not get a true successor. It will be a new game with the same name. MOO1-2-3 are all very different games and in good tradition MOOr will not be the same as any of the previous versions.
 
This line worries me:
From what we were shown, cleaning the planet of all alien life seems to be the only viable means of conquest, since there wasn’t any signs of capitulation or puppet government functions present. Could always change though.

So the only way to capture planets is to bomb it until it is toxic? Let's hope the reviewer was just shown the bombard option and the invasion option is not implemented yet. It would seem really odd that you can't invade a planet, but must always just bombard everything to extinction.

So far what I am seeing is a very pretty game with lots of art (unique faction intro videos, cut scenes for colonization, background art for diplomacy) to give the game atmosphere. That is very good. The actual gameplay seems to be standard civ (for example a linear tech tree that unlocks premade ships and combat that is resolved with a dice roll) with just the MOO2 aliens tacked on.

It is still really early so let's wait and see. But if the game does not have a ship customization screen and tactical combat, I have a feeling that many MOO fans will be disappointed because the game will be another remake rather than a faithful successor.
 
ok, one more article;

http://gamingshogun.com/2015/06/20/master-of-orion-e3-behind-closed-door-preview/

* Star Lanes confirmed again
* All victory conditions are always on, no choice to turn on/off

Now, star systems are all connected by wormholes.
and the ability to move your population around between industrial, agricultural, and mining castes.
Master of Orion even has a governor system ready to give planets a general direction of what your goals are, so that population can be micromanaged effectively without wasting your time
Starlanes, Mining castes, Governors? Maybe this is, in fact, a Master of Orion 3 Reboot with MOO1 races :)
 
Hadn't seen those shots before - sadly they're rather causing me to lose interest (and not because of the awful portrayal of my favourite race - at least it's somewhat novel, unlike the World of Mrrshancraft shot.

I don't like the starlanes or the way the planets are portrayed on the galaxy map GalCiv style - but the dealbreaker is the numbers of those planets. The systems are if anything smaller than in MOO2. One advance games like this could make (but never do, beholden as they are to the way MOO 2 did things) is add more realistic solar systems based on what's been learned since 1994 - and make the exploration a lot more varied to boot.
 
I don't like the starlanes or the way the planets are portrayed on the galaxy map GalCiv style - but the dealbreaker is the numbers of those planets. The systems are if anything smaller than in MOO2. One advance games like this could make (but never do, beholden as they are to the way MOO 2 did things) is add more realistic solar systems based on what's been learned since 1994 - and make the exploration a lot more varied to boot.

The issue with multi-planet systems generally relies around what gain do you get in gameplay for the additional complexity of running N times as many colonies (planets) in the same number of star systems?

Absolutely, it's more realistic. But how does the game improve beyond that? That's always my concern because the feature set in MOO1 is so synergistic you have to be careful not to unravel the game with something that seems good but doesn't scale well.
 
The issue with multi-planet systems generally relies around what gain do you get in gameplay for the additional complexity of running N times as many colonies (planets) in the same number of star systems?

Absolutely, it's more realistic. But how does the game improve beyond that? That's always my concern because the feature set in MOO1 is so synergistic you have to be careful not to unravel the game with something that seems good but doesn't scale well.

Resources linked to 'terrain' (such as fuel resources from gas giants - perhaps later in the game you can tech to hydrogen scoops which give you effectively unlimited range by letting you refuel from stars, but earlier on you're reliant on giant planets for fuel, metals from volcanic worlds etc.) are a possibility.

Endless Space adopts an overly simplified approach to, well, everything, but specifically system settlement but its basic idea that an entire system represents a colony has merit - it increases the overall population cap, and in MOO could be reflected by increased pooled industrial capacity, tax revenue etc.
 
Resources linked to 'terrain' (such as fuel resources from gas giants - perhaps later in the game you can tech to hydrogen scoops which give you effectively unlimited range by letting you refuel from stars, but earlier on you're reliant on giant planets for fuel, metals from volcanic worlds etc.) are a possibility.

I agree! I've always thought that one way to add strategy to the game is to make resources tied to systems. This to me is much more preferable than simply saying "more planets = more colonies".

For example:

Ships with neutronium armor hulls can only be constructed in systems orbiting neutron stars. This gives these uncommon systems more strategic value late in the game. Something similar could be done with other armor and star types. White stars have degenerate stellar cores (varies based on the type of white stars) and brown dwarfs also have degenerate planetary cores.

Gas Giants will have considerable metallic hydrogen which can also be used as a sci-fi source for fuel or weapons.
 

From the article, snipped:
As the game begins, you select a line of research to follow, begin producing supplies on your homeworld, and assign populations to the tasks you most need them for... You reap diminishing returns by assigning more and more population to a particular activity, such as farming, however... There wasn't time to talk about elements such as taxation, pollution, and morale, but you will have to consider them in Master of Orion.

This is really just a space-themed version of Civilization, isn't it?
 
Back
Top Bottom