MOO3 Revisited

[sourboy]

Well, months later I check back to see results I expected. That said, anyone know someone who wants a free copy of Moo3?

I've been playing Moo2 a lot lately. Definately the best version of Moo. I just hope that don't drop the series after the #3 bomb.
Anyone know if there's still an active MP Moo2 anywhere? I would like to play again, even by email.

GalCiv is good, but it was hard for me to get into it since I was still bummed out about Moo3 when I got it. My thoughts were that it was a board-game type feel of a cross between Moo2 & Civ2. I really should play it again now that I have more time....if I could only quit playing Moo2

 

[plasmacannon]

Come on. There is only one real answer up there.

My Moo3 CD's are used as coasters.
Then trashed and burned to spare the garbage man from accidentially seeing them.

MOO3 was the worst game I have bought. I had high hopes at the time.
I tried patching it, and they still haven't removed those stupid lines all over the map.
MOO1 didn't have them and was great. MOO2 didn't have them and was great. MOO3 had them and is usually cited as one of the worst games ever.

nuf said.

 

[vmxa]

I think you are 6 years too late for this one.

 

[plasmacannon]

I think you are 6 years too late for this one.

rofl, but, the answer is still the same.

 

[damunzy]

wow, I can't believe my answer. I am going to change it to coaster...well, if I could find the CDs that is.

 

[GoodGame]

I own MoO3. Never played the others. It's a very so-so game. Pretty poor in comparison to GalCiv2.

 

[vmxa]

Moo3 came out in 2003, Dread Lord in what 2008. Galciv1 came out in 2003.

 

[Zed-F]

SotS came out in 2006 and is IMO the best 4X out there today, especially with the expansions as they have added a lot of depth. SotS2 will come out in early 2011 and further improve on that.

 

[plasmacannon]

Master of Orion 1 came out in 1993, and
Master of Orion 2 came out at the end of 1996.

MOO1 was simple, but, the genesis of practically all 4x turn based space games since.
MOO2 added custom races, multiplayer support, a few more races, 2 more ship classes, and some minor changes to the existing races.
Usually, it is one of these 2 that people think was the greatest in the series.
and there are advantages to both.

As MOO2 is Multiplayer and started the race designing part, it is hard not to lean towards it being the best.

More on it here.
http://lordbrazen.blogspot.com/2005/01/download.html

 

[Zed-F]

Frankly I preferred MOO1 to MOO2. MOO2 was not well balanced and added far too much micro. Custom races have been more of a detriment to the series than a benefit, overall.

 

[GoodGame]

Moo3 came out in 2003, Dread Lord in what 2008. Galciv1 came out in 2003.

Chess came out a hundreds of years ago.

MoO3 is still not a very good game.

 

[vmxa]

So did tiddle winks, but I am not interested in them either. So what is your point? Chess is not part of the conversation. Comparing a game made years early than another game was the topic. I don't think anyone said Moo3 was a good game.

 

[Ashbery76]

MOO3 even with mods if an unfinished game.MOO2 is still the best 4X space game around,GC2 is not fit to hold its jockstrap.

 

[scratchthepitch]

I voted "It's ok, but I wouldn't recommend it to others." simply because of the mods others made to the game. Had I voted when this poll was posted, before those mods, my answer would have been the coaster one.

 

[Psyringe]

I thankfully never bought MoO3 - the chaotic development process made me suspicious enough to play it at a friend's first. Well, "playing" is probably a euphemism when talking about MoO3.

If I had the CDs, I'd probably nail them onto my front door, to ward off all kinds of evil. Burglars would probably think "MoO3? Oy, the poor guy is punished enough already", and Death & Devil would simply acknowledge the superior abomination and vanish.

 

[vmxa]

SotS came out in 2006 and is IMO the best 4X out there today, especially with the expansions as they have added a lot of depth. SotS2 will come out in early 2011 and further improve on that.

I have looked at the demo for SoTs, but I could not bring myself to spend the time to give it a real shot. It looked a lot like Space Empires, which I thought was an ok game.

It is just that it took a long time to play and a long learning curve. I did not want to do that again with a new game, unless there was a lot of return (in fun).

I doubt I would have played SE4 or V, if I had not already knew how to play III. The reason I was able to give III a good shot was that someone put together a massive roadmap.

Reading it made the game sound interesting and provided the stick and carrot to get started. As it is, I only played one game of V and only a few of IV as they are slow to get going.

 

[Boozie]

I own MoO3. Never played the others.

They're incredibly worth playing if you like 4x in space (add in tactical combat) and don't mind outdated graphics.

Frankly I preferred MOO1 to MOO2. MOO2 was not well balanced and added far too much micro. Custom races have been more of a detriment to the series than a benefit, overall.

Yea I'm in agreement with liking MOO1 more pretty much for the same reasons as yourself, but I think MOO 2 is typically accepted as the better game.

 

[Psyringe]

Yea I'm in agreement with liking MOO1 more pretty much for the same reasons as yourself, but I think MOO 2 is typically accepted as the better game.

I actually don't think so. Wherever I met MoO fans, their preference was almost equally split between MoO1 and MoO2. MoO2 may have had a slightly larger fellowship due to having more features, prettier looks, and especially multiplayer ability. But AFAICT MoO1 is still valued very highly.

Personally, I can't even decide. MoO2 has more features, but (perhaps consequentially) a much weaker AI, and I liked the MoO1 research model better. Not knowing which high-end technologies would be in the game added immensely to my enjoyment. In MoO2, the mutually exclusive research choices always felt like a tacked-on game mechanic without much believability.

 

[Boozie]

and I liked the MoO1 research model better. Not knowing which high-end technologies would be in the game added immensely to my enjoyment. In MoO2, the mutually exclusive research choices always felt like a tacked-on game mechanic without much believability.

Yea I was not a fan of the mutual exclusive research. Moreso because I hated having to decide between techs than knowing it's all available. Who can say their game would be more fun without a mega-crutch like black hole generator

 

[Zed-F]

I have looked at the demo for SoTs, but I could not bring myself to spend the time to give it a real shot. It looked a lot like Space Empires, which I thought was an ok game.

It is just that it took a long time to play and a long learning curve. I did not want to do that again with a new game, unless there was a lot of return (in fun).

It's actually very unlike SE4 or SE5. The amount of micro in SotS (and will be in SotS2) is deliberately minimized; they have gone for an easy-to-learn-hard-to-master dynamic. The basics of the game are relatively simple by 4X standards, but there is a lot of depth to the game if you choose to look for it.

There are also plenty of resources available to help new players learn the game, from tutorial videos to a comprehensive wiki to a substantial number of game walkthroughs on the forums. Plus the forum members as a rule tend to be friendly and very willing to answer questions, and most multiplayer opponents are willing to help a newcomer learn the ropes.

As far as fun factor goes, I found it a lot more fun than any other 4X I've played since MOO1. That includes Civ and GalCiv. Best if you can get your hands on a bundle of the complete set, though, as the expansions really do add a lot to the ease of play and depth of the game. Fortunately, it's fairly inexpensive to get the complete set these days.