Shades of Master of Orion III?

GKling

Chieftain
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
54
Please, let me be wrong. I've read the great reviews, and my system ain't shabby (though not top of the line), but lord is this game letting me down so far...:cry:
 
GKling said:
Please, let me be wrong. I've read the great reviews, and my system ain't shabby (though not top of the line), but lord is this game letting me down so far...
You're wrong. :p

"This game (is) letting me down" --- you don't even have it.

Re: Your Emoticon ---- Cry M0r3 N00b!!
 
I haven't played enough to confirm or deny that, but I do know that some people just expect a remake of Civ III in 3D with no improvements nor changes whatsoever. Too many conservatives around. :p
 
I've been avoiding MOO3 because of all the bad reviews, but if people end up comparing Civ 4 to MOO3, I may just try MOO3, since this is the best game I've played since SMAC.
 
No way. I waited for MOO3 for 2 long years...in fact the original ad was on the back of the CIV 3 manual. I read all of the designer diaries and watched the forums. When it came out, I bought it and I played it for 2 days then uninstalled it. 2 years later I reinstalled it and tried it again and uninstalled it after a day. It REALLY sucked. bad. I've played text-based games for longer.

Civ 4 is deep, well put together, and allows the user to put his/her unique strategy up against the computer's without interfering with it. Your choices matter and the end result of the game will be a product of your manipulation. The comparison to MOO3 - the biggest disappointment of my gaming lifetime - is unwarranted and is a profanity against this fine game.

Not a fanboy, casual gamer.
 
MOO3 didn't even let you play the Elerians!!!! :mad:
 
Fobok said:
I may just try MOO3, since this is the best game I've played since SMAC.
I wouldn't recommend it. It has been said that there is mods to make it good, or at least decent. However, the last I checked it wasn't very clear which are the mods to install. There is a lot of them.

While I must respect MOO3 for at least attempting to make something truly new instead of just recycling the old, I must say that the game was a disaster. Great pland, bad implementation. I can only hope that someone will try it again and not just remake MOO2, or even MOO1, with few improvements.
 
I don´t understand why everyone is hacking onto MOO3?
It was a great game in it´s own sense, for the first time I felt like I was some real emperor of a nation developing into space. I don´t know any other games giving you such feeling.
 
CivIV WOULD be grat when Firaxis will wipe all little annoying crap out of that game.
 
now that ya mention it, it does seem somewhat like MOO3 in a few ways, but CivIV is better by far.
 
I tried to like MOO3, I really did. I must have started a dozen different games . . .

Meanwhile since I'm the patient type, as well as obscenely busy for the next several weeks, I have not gotten my copy of CivIV nor do I particularly mind that it's back-ordered at Amazon.

::thumb twiddling::
 
moo3 wasnt bad.

I made a few AI modes for it when it just came out and it became fairly playable.

They tried to mimic moo1 with alot of micro management and that idea backfired.
 
Has anyone ever finished a MOO3 campaign, and did their input affect the outcome while they played? I had given that game more than enough chance to discover something, anything of value to justify that purchase to myself. Even if you ignore the fact that there ever were MOO and MOO2, MOO3 fails at everything it tried to accomplish, a failure of epic proportions.

MOO3 is one of the greatest disapointments in the history of strategy gaming.
 
This is no MOO3, but rather the best of the series IMHO.
 
MOO3 was so bad. It was micromanagment hell. If you like micromanagment to the extreme and crappy battles that is the game for you. The ai was pretty bad too. I never even finished a game of MOO3 because it was so bad. Civ 4 is the best how can anyone say otherwise?
 
Back
Top Bottom