Erk, hit submit too soon.

http://gamespy.com/asp/image.asp?platform=GC&genre=strategy&image=/previews/november02/moo3pc/6.jpg

http://gamespy.com/asp/image.asp?platform=GC&genre=strategy&image=/previews/november02/moo3pc/2.jpg

http://mediaviewer.ign.com/ignMediaPage.jsp?media_id=1626181&object_id=14808&channel_id=59&page_title=Master+of+Orion+3&adtag=network%3Dign%26size%3D468x60%26channel%3Dpc%26site%3Dpc_hub%26channel%3Dpreviews%26type%3Dpartner

But again, graphics do not a good game make. It's funny, on the MoO3 forums I'm always defending and promoting GalCiv (I can take credit for a few of the sales), and now I'm defending and promoting MoO3 here.

I don't think there's any need to defend MOO3. They've got a massive army of supporters.

If anything, I'd just like to see both games stand on their own merits.

I'm impressed with several aspects of MOO3, for example:

- the very high-level view of the game (an de-emphasis on micromanagement)
- the combat graphics. For those of you who don't know, they're using an advanced version of the venerable voxel system. It has several interesting advantages, like an independence on the number of ships, a detail level that can go as high as they're willing to devote HD space for, and a total independence on the graphics card. It _does_ eat memory like you wouldn't believe, though.
- the plotline and various story-based elements. Quicksilver has worked long and hard to give MOO3 plot, a story, and a character to all their races.

That's _not_ to say I'm looking more towards it than GC. I see both MOO3 and GC as being games that take up nigh-permanent residence on my HD. Hopefully, they both fulfill my expectations.

Now, back to my war of genocide on the Bradians.... LOL

Have you actually played MOO3?

I still want to know how this game is going to kick are ass??? Basically Master Lame the only problems you have with Gal Civ are those 2 things.
1. ship battles 2. more details
How does that make it THAT much better where it kicks our ass. Is there nothing in Gal Civ that draws you?

Some people are just stuck on titles. Look at Civ 3. If it didn't have the Civilizaiton 3 name behind it the original civ 3 release called say 'conquerors' or something would have been seen as an also-ran.

GalCiv is introducing some pretty fantastic stuff. Good & Evil with their side effects, a really organic computer AI, A sim-city like build your territory feel. You really feel like you're building a civilization.

Sorry but MOO3 looks like a spreadsheet. It looks like work. I'll probably buy the game if player feedback is positive but voxel technology? Come on. They should have had a 3D engine for dispaying really cool looking space battles. I wanna design ships and watch them battle it out. That's what MOO is all about. Ask Simtel they made the original.

i'm looking forward to moo3 but i think it'll be galciv i'm playing still 6 months from now.

*sigh* Man, why do I bother with forums?

I'd like to respond to a couple things said here following my post:

No, I haven't played MOO3. I have been following its development since it was announced, however.

Civ3: Civ3 wasn't all bad. Given, it's a damn sight less playable than SMAC, but it had a few moments.

Master of Microsoft Excel 3: Why do people say it looks like a spreadsheet? I *wish* my office products looked like that.

Voxel Technology: I'm disinclined to pick on them for this choice. They were aiming for a game that's playable on mainstream computers without a big 3D card, somewhat like...say...GalCiv. They had some interesting technical reasons for their choices, some of which I disagee with, but I'll reserve judgement until I play a game. But then, I'm an old Novalogic addict. (Comanche ruled!) LOL

Ship design: You still can, wouldn't be MOO if you couldn't.

MOO: I believe Quicksilver has plans for it - I'm hoping a Windows-based free re-release. I hope they'll also do MOM2.

I encourage people to check out the following sites:

Quicksilver's MOO3 site:
http://moo3.quicksilver.com

The best fansite:
http://www.moo3.at



Now, an except from my last game:

"DIE, BRADIANS!"

Actually, if you have Object Desktop your spreadsheet CAN look like that.

Here's my desktop for instance:
http://www.joeuser.com/Articles/shot.jpg

Incidentally, GalCiv didn't use 3D because it wasn't apparent whether it would buy us anything. Hardware requirements were a secondary concern.

We definitely would have used a 3D engine for MOO3. But I don't consider the issue a biggie either way. I'm into MOO because I like the game concept and Quicksilver has a good track record.

I really don't understand the discussion here. There shouldn't be any concurrence among those 2 products. These are different games with different goals (tech conquest and so on)

1. Graphics for a game are not that important (i still play Reach For the Stars, MOO and CIV2). In strategy games, the most important is the gameplay. And i am pretty sure that MOO3 and GalCiv do have a very good one.
2. If MOO3 was called Galaxy Conquest or else, i'd be looking for it with the same interest.
3. I don't mind the absence of 3D graphics as i would like to play both games on my laptop
4. Right now i prefer the interface from Galactic Civilization. But i am confident that MOO3's interface is very slick and useful. It doesn't look THAT bad...comon guys, we're interested in the same kind of games.
5. Master Lame wouldn't be around if he wasn't interested at all...convince him. You have to be interested to come over here and discuss, no?
6. What's this story with spreadsheets? it doesn't make any sense. Anyway, only a Beta Tester or the Reviewer from Gamespy can make a comment on it as they do/did see it in action. No point of discussing this as long as we haven't played it.

Both games are, from what i have heard and read, awesome. Right now i'd rather have GalCiv in my hands (and i am a MOO player from the beginning...see point 2), but MOO3 will be also be great and will last on my laptop.

PS: being on both boards, i also tend to defend and explain GalCiv to anyone who has questions

You can find the newest screenshots from MOO3 at Apolyton.

http://apolyton.net/moo3/

or

http://apolyton.net/dir/index.php?cat=208&t=sub_pages

Cheers

I tend to have the same views as Pascal. I just don't see the scenario where someone is going to get one but not the other as long as both are good games.

It would be like getting DOOM 3 but not the next gen Unreal game.

MOO3: Hospitals in space

That is how anistetic the interfaces look. Maybe they used xml and you can customize it That would be cool...maybe for galciv 2 we could have that

All kidding aside, I am sure I will buy it. I love just about all the games in this genre.

Kvim

First off, let me say, we can't have too many 4X space empire games - I've bought GalCiv and plan to buy MOO3. Secondly, I think it's cool that the GalCiv guys are fans of MOO and excited about it and publicly talk about it. Too many developers and fans feel the need to trash the competition

That said the beta testers have been given permission to talk publicly about the game, and the posts they have made have been overwhelmingly positive. Note also that among the beta testers posting are some of the most vocal critics of some of the decisions that were made with respect to feature cuts. I too was worried about the retooling the game underwent, but it looks like that things have worked out in the end. I'm getting excited about MOO3 again.

Grifman

I am not sure about the quality of MOO3. I mean at least a good third of an 4X SF game is about fighting ship combats. And they have a real time tacical combat engine which I refuse to play. (I know its my problem that I am not playing real time games, but why the heck did they change the good old turn based tactical engine of MOO2?) I cannot believe it...and I think this will be the end of the MOO series cult status. Certainly alot of new players will be drawn to this new incarnation of MOO, but the most of them are not the traditional MOO 4x player. I followed the MOO3 forum a little bit and I had the impression that many of the posters are rather teenage C&C clicking freaks and not some serious wargamers. (which may also be a teeny of course)
As soon as the next shooter is coming out they will abandon MOO3. There are even forum discussions about a MOO3 "capture the flag" and "2 vs. 2 team modus" What the hell is this? I am really concerned about this game and I will not buy it until some good reviews enlighten my mind.

KlausD :notsure:

I do not like real-time combat either. But from all the reports from the beta-testers, the combat works well and is not a clickfest or twitch fest. I think it is all because you just control taskforces, and you have 3-4 taskforces in combat. So you always have plenty of time to order your TF's to a different target.

One aspect of combat that I am looking forward to is that you do not automatically see the enemy. You only see them if they get within sensor range. So you can use actual tactics and hide your long-range TF's and use scouts to locate the enemy then unload on them from outside their sensor range or you can set ambushes. It sounds really neat and it encourages you to gather intelligence on your enemy before attacking them.

I also like their Cassus Belli meter which makes it hard for you (and the AI) to backstab your allies on a whim.

The reason for the shift from the turn-based move-every-ship-3-spaces-fire-beam-move-2-fire-missile to the real time system is in the interest of game pacing, and multiplayer games. I remember in late-game MoO2 battles where both sides would have ENORMOUS fleets, and even if you set it to auto-battle, it could take up to an hour to resolve. This kills game pacing and makes a reasonable multiplayer game completely impossible.

Also, with MoO3 combat, it's not an RTS like Hegemonia where you command specific ships, you issue general orders to tasks forces of ships, and they act on those orders how they see fit, you can also change orders whenever you want, but it's not a twitch game. So, think of it as a hybrid RTS/Turn-based system. This also introduces a level of tactcs not possible in the MoO2 battles.

I think it will work well, and I *hate* twitch combat games.

-Z

[One preliminary note: MOO3 is probably not going to released until after Christmas now.]

[Disclaimer: I myself am not a beta-tester for either MOO3 or GalCiv.]

Hmmm, where to start.....

Okay, to start with, I have to say a few words about MOO3--mostly positive, although not entirely. Some of what I write here is based on stuff from the general forum, as well as impressions gleaned from some semi-private conversations with a few of the beta-testers. So feel free to take my words with as many grains of salt as you're comfortable with.....

First off, Zoomba is right about real-time combat. MOO3 can have up to ***1536*** ships per battle (each side can have a maximum of 12 Task Forces of 64 vessels each) at any given time. If Quicksilver had stuck with the traditional turn-based combat, it would take a ridiculously enourmous amount of time to resolve all but the smallest battles.

And from everything that's been said by the testers, space combat is NOT a click-fest, but rather more like Shogun and/or Medieval: Total War (for those of you who have played either of those games)--battles have a more stately, epic feel to them, rather than the frantic twitchings of Command & Conquer. Combat isn't about who can hit their mouse-button the fastest; it's about tactics, reconnaisance, maneuvering, and adapting you battle plan to deal with the unexpected.

As for the comments about the game looking like a spreadsheet, that's probably even more subject to raw opinion than the combat is, but just about all the beta-testers have said that this game is an absolute blast to play, and I can't imagine any of them saying that if the screens looked as "Excel-ish" as some people think they do. And *every single* person who's managed to tear themselves away from playing the beta for a few minutes to post their impressions has said that whether you're talking about combat, planetary building queues, or what-have-you, the screenshots that have been posted simply do not do justice to how the game looks when it's actually in motion.

That last sentence sort of leads into my next point, which is graphics. Yes, they're using voxels; yes, resolution is locked in at 800x600; no, there's not a true 3D engine; and no, they did not include 3D acceleration support. And *YES*, the majority of people seem to think (including, I suspect, quite a few people over at QS, though probably none of them would admit it openly) that this was a rather gigantic mistake. It was not, however, Quicksilver's decision to make; it was Infogrammes'. So at the very least, don't hold the quality of the graphics (or lack thereof) against QS, because I strongly suspect they would have done them differently, had they had any say in the matter. Having said all that, most of the beta-testers, while admitting the graphics would certainly be obselete were this a first-person shooter, have said they're very satisfactory for a turn-based strategy game--which, after all, is *supposed* to focus more on gameplay than on looks.

[metaphorically catching my breath bbefore continuing on]

Having said all that, however, I do have to say this: I do NOT think that MOO3 is going to "kick GalCiv's ass". Will its sales be somewhat higher than GalCiv's will be? Probably, if only beacuse the MOO franchise has better name recognition. Will it completely destroy GalCiv and all other space empire games out there? Of course not. Whoever quoted the oft-overused "apples and oranges" cliche' is right (sorry whoever you are; I couldn't find the quote offhand). Both games are in the same family, but they're not the same species. They offer different things for different gamer-types; some people will like just the one game or the other, many will like both.

Now yes I will admit, I'm getting MOO3 first, but only because it's (probably) coming out first, and because I know my computer has the system specs to run it. Yet, for all the changes QS has made to MOO3 (most of which I do like), it's still just the newest version of the standard 4x game, offering the usual exploration, resource management, diplomacy, combat, multiplayer capability, etc.

GalCiv is all that, and more. Granted, I'll admit I find the combat model somewhat lacking (sorry Brad, I just don't like things abstracted that much). But when you consider that Stardock has added advanced diplomacy, internal politics, a unique trade system, multi-threaded organic AI, the whole Good/Evil empire bit, the variable events and storylines (which will make for great replayability, by the way!), AND the fact that they'll be updating this game for at least a year after it's released, Galactic Civilizations is going to be **loads** of fun to play. I'm not even a beta-tester, and I can see all that! Of course all beta-testers here are free to dispute me if I'm wrong about that, but I somehow doubt very many will take me up on the offer.


Anyway, that's my (very long-winded) two cents on the subject.

Well said. I think I can speak for everyone on the GalCiv team that we're all looking forward to MOO 3.

I've said it elsewhere but the reason why I know that MOO 2 came out 6 years and 2 months ago is because I played MOO 2 in the delivery room on my first born child.

Even if the games were very similar, I can't envision a scenario where fans of the genre wouldn't get both. For instance, even if I was the lead designer of Unreal 2 I would still want to play DOOM 3.

If I have any concerns, it's that the two games will come out at roughly the same time. This would be bad for strategy gamers because lots of people can only afford to buy one game in a given month and hence the sales of both would be affected and in turn you'd see people saying how "turn based strategy games don't sell that great.."

Hopefully MOO 3 will make its new January release date.

Yes, I've also been growing more concerned as MOO3's release date slips closer and closer to GalCiv's. I do, however, think it will be out before too long. Constantine, the Infogrammes producer for MOO3, has said that the main issue left to deal with is a pretty wicked late-game multiplayer save-game bug. Virtually all of the beta testers have said the the singleplayer campaign is solid and could have shipped out already, were it not for this lastest snag. Had it not been for that, many of us would have MOO3 in our hands by now.

And yes, I think that most people who are fans of the genre will get *both* games--I know I certainly am. MOO3's initial sales will probably be stronger than GalCiv's, but as other people here have already said, I think GalCiv will steadily regain lost ground as word begins to spread.

I do have a question, though, Brad. Is Strategy First doing anything in the way of an ad/PR campaign? I've noticed that GalCiv's visibility *is* gradually increasing in the gaming community, but personally it seems like your publisher could be doing more to increase people's awareness of the game. And I'd hate to see GalCiv have poor initial sales just because no one knew about it. I what I can by word of mouth (so to speak--one can't "talk" online, after all), but I don't have the "information-dispersal" resources of a large game-publishing company; would that I did.