MoO IV by FIRAXIS
- Thread starter Darcia
- Start date
Meffy
humanoid skunk
Don't you think "All Other Games" would be the appropriate forum in which to post this thread?
No.
All of my friends that love civ II, also love MoO II, and to decide which of those was the best Strategic game ever, wasnt and easy task.
So if you havent play MoOII, you may not understand. But the only thing you have to do is give it a try (please dont ever play MoO3, 50 lost)
All of my friends that love civ II, also love MoO II, and to decide which of those was the best Strategic game ever, wasnt and easy task.
So if you havent play MoOII, you may not understand. But the only thing you have to do is give it a try (please dont ever play MoO3, 50 lost)
rupertlittlebea
Prince
Now -> bring back Red Storm Rising!!
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
Yes, I would...
Firaxis makes good stategy games...
Firaxis makes good stategy games...
mjs0
The 4th X
Yes I would, without hesitation, on the day it was released.
I have yet to be disappointed by any game from Firaxis.
I have yet to be disappointed by any game from Firaxis.
Not sure.
I think that what quicksilver were aiming for was brilliant, beyond every game i have ever seen. Unfortunately people who designed the game underestimated the time and effort needed to make their ideas work.
So i think quicksilver would be the best, should they have enough time and resources to finish it.
I think that what quicksilver were aiming for was brilliant, beyond every game i have ever seen. Unfortunately people who designed the game underestimated the time and effort needed to make their ideas work.
So i think quicksilver would be the best, should they have enough time and resources to finish it.
diablodelmar
no comment
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 945
Master of orion 3 isn't Firaxis. It is Atari published, but not made by Firaxis.
blargh said:
MoO3 is not a game, just a way to steal money from people.
But please do not say that you have tasted Master of Orion if you have only play that one, because it is not fair, and could hurt some people sensibilities.
And by the way English is not my first language
I beg your pardon
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
blargh said:
Actually that's good reason to say YES.
Quicksliver, that developed Moo3 screwed things up, compared to great old Moo1/2.
Competent developers should develop sequels...
The problem wasn't the time needed to make their ideas work, the problem was working on the game for two or three years, firing the lead designer, redesigning the game and then trying to get it out in the time remaining for release. The release date was pushed back by a year to give QS more time, but it just wasn't enough. Atari then pushed an unfinished game out the door and the diehard fans off the MOO series assumed the game would be as good as the first two.Mallipeep said:
The problem could have been fixed had Atari allowed more than one patch. I haven't played for a while but someone hacked the code and was working on fixing the game up pretty well.
As far as MOO4 goes, if it was published by Atari (doesn't matter who the developer was), I would take a look at as many reviews as I could get my hands on, then wait for at least a month and get on fan sites and see what those who had bought it immediately had to say about the quality.
Rainlife
Chieftain
i played moo3 and liked the idea, it was however too "complex" and i didn't manage to manage my empire correctly (planets where building at own will, even with AI control) result: didn't play it that much, because the gameplay was not good
i would buy moo4 though, just to see if they fixed everything and because as working in a game-shop i'm supposed to know something about the games
i would buy moo4 though, just to see if they fixed everything and because as working in a game-shop i'm supposed to know something about the games
romelus
NUCULAR!
if made by firaxis yes
if again made by that joke of a "studio" quicksilver, who made the joke of a game called MOO3, no! i don't care if the publisher pushed for a release, that mess wasn't going to improve with more time, and they had lots and lots of time already
if again made by that joke of a "studio" quicksilver, who made the joke of a game called MOO3, no! i don't care if the publisher pushed for a release, that mess wasn't going to improve with more time, and they had lots and lots of time already
Dark Helmet
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2005
- Messages
- 63
After that twisted abomination they called MoO3 was released...no I will never go near that title again. It's very nature is a crime against God. Can you not see that there is no redemption from such evil? Do not tamper with dark forces.
player1 fanatic
Fanatic
I guess some people really missed point of the thread.
What if Moo4 was made by Firaxis?
Could it return to old Moo1/2 glory?
What if Moo4 was made by Firaxis?
Could it return to old Moo1/2 glory?
Lord Foortwenti
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2005
- Messages
- 22
Ranos said:
Atari has a really bad habit of doing this with games they sign on to publish. They will allow one or two minor delays, but if the game isn't done when that time is up, the game WILL go out regardless. Then, when the games community gets all up in arms they'll wonder why and only allow one or two patches to go out to fix the problems. If they don't, tough tittie.
Seriously, I saw almost the exact same thing with an MMO called Horizons that Atari published. Now, Horizons had plenty of problems with the Dev team and other things, but I still feel that the base they had for the game was really great, they just needed more time to polish everything up. I was in the first wave of closed beta and was really impressed by what I saw, I just thought they needed more time. But, unfortunately it wasn't to be. Atari forced thier hand and pushed an unfinished game out the door. SURPRISE!!!!! It sold horribly b/c word of mouth had gotten out about how it wasn't finished, only something like 25k copies were ever sold retail. Then, to make things worse, instead of sticking by the game and letting the Devs fix what was wrong, they pretty much abandoned them and the Developer went bankrupt after a few months of trying to keep an MMO running themselves. (As a side note about Horizons, it has a really interesting story behind it. The history of the games development reads kind of like a meladrama, I don't have the time, nor the will to write it out here, but check it out, makes a good read)
Sound familiar? It should, it isn't only these two games Atari has done this with. I am now very cautious when I reach for a game and I see it was published by Atari. They have a bad habit of pushing unfinished games out the door, then not supporting them for long after they do. Ever since ET (
) for the Atari 2600 Atari just hasn't really been reliable at all.Oops, back to the topic at hand: If Firaxis developed another MoO, I'd probably give it a try. The first two were good enough that I know it CAN work if done right.
Similar threads
