Galactic Civilizations v Master of Orion

[Grosshaus]

F.e. if you take MOO2 or Galciv II (what i've seen from it), the whole galaxy consists of a crowded room filled with planets all waiting to be colonised. Those games are more like "racing" - they don't have anyting to do with exploring the galaxy and trying to find contact with other civilisations, found federations, trade empires etc.

Surely not realistic but perhaps easier to make fun to play. A tried basic Civilization concept in another setting.

Also the lack of "spacial/special" events (see MOO3) that simulates the unpredictable nature of the "void" is striking me. Series like Star Trek evocate the mysterie of space and the unexpected things one can find there - and have their effect on a greater scale (large plague, anomalies, black hole, pirates, star nova, star collission, space distortion etc. etc.). Some games have these events, but not enough imho ...

Special events from time to time are ok, but I personally wouldn´t like them to have too much an effect. I don´t like to have random events completely overhaul my careful planning and remove the gains of the last four hours of gaming. Again it might be realistic but it´s not really rewarding.

But if these were to be made then the way they were made in MoO2 was awesome. You´d get pirates, a plague or an amoeba which would give you a negative effect after around 10 turns unless you do your best to get rid of it. It could mean lots of ships on a system, massive research or an epic battle. The player should have a choice.

Honestly, I think that larger maps with slower growth of empires and making colonies fairly rare - the most important foundation for such a game. Another thing is that aliens are indeed not the same as human - they might like the planet you adore ... or they might love that planet that you can't live on ... will you tolerate eachother in one star system - or not ? And what about subterfuge - oh yes - here come the Darloks ! boring !

Too slow growth and too little interaction have the risk of making the whole game boring for majority of people. I´m a builder-type, for me it´s ok. But I bet there are much more arcade-stylish warlords out there.

On the planet thing: that was well done in Space Empires (or whatever that game was named) with different atmospheres on planets and preferred ones on races.

People growth should be more randomised - research should be totally overhauled - in fact the MOO3 system for research was nearly perfect, getting all tech's was only possible when you interacted heavely with other civilisations...

I don´t think requiring interaction is the most important research overhaul. Instead research should be decoupled from production and made depend on some more underlying component, a component you could influence but not change overnight. Perfect example of this is Victoria with literacy rates and the proportion of middle- and highstrata pops in your empire, another one would be the average provincial wealth of EU2. Come to think of it Paradox should make a space 4X game

Why on earth should a race try to colonize a volcanic fireball, if a nicer planet is waiting a star system ahead - in close reach. And why on earth is the enemy colonizing that volcanic fireball to build it's prime planet - if you want to block it without escalating tensions.

Minerals in the lava? A good position of a space port in a strategic location?

[Raginhood]

So in other words...

"Live with it"

Can I just say due to that article im certainly NOT going to buy GC2 now.

I dont mind things not being to scale in the game - but I like to think that it would have its roots in realism.

Mr Wardell is more or less saying he doesnt care about realism at all.

Well whats the point in being realistic about anything in the game then?
Why make the AI intelligent?
Why have ships that have different styles for different races?
Why have nebulae, and other spatial bodies on the map?
Whats the point in even making individual planets natively part of the sector then?
Whats the point in having all the races different?
Why give the player the choice of races to play?
Whats the point in even making the game?

If we arent bothering about realism as Mr Wardell states in his article then whats the point in Galactic Civilizations 2 at all? Apart from lining Stardocks pockets that is?

Humans exploring and warring in space is realistic cos it will likely one day happen. So why bother?

Im not saying that thinks should be exactly right - im simply lobbying for what MAKES SENSE; ie using a "System" screen like what moo2 and moo3 used would have been a much more intelligent way of dealing with the natively part of a sector request.
It also would have satisfied common sense.

No, I have to say that article has just put me off Stardock completely now as that article was several hundred words of a dismissal - a response that says "its only a game. its made for us to make money. live with it.".

EDIT:
To the people who say "its only a game live with it" and to Mr Wardell; if a game doesnt need to be based on reality then think on this.

Go to Johan and tell him not to bother with making anymore games because games arent supposed to be realistic.
Go to the AGCEEP crew and tell them not to bother continuing with thier Mod because EU2 is an outdated game and theres really no point in making it any more realistic because realism doesnt matter.
Go to the VIP crew, and the guys on TRP and HSR and CORE and tell them not to bother with their projects because they are only games and their efforts to make them more realistic are pointless and not needed.

Go to Mithis and tell them that they shouldnt have made Nexus - The Jupiter Incident because its realistic; the planets and solar movements obey the laws of physics.

Go tell Egosoft that theres no point in them making anymore X-Universe games because they have roots in reality and well games dont need that at all.

Im sorry but if every company took that line of thinking - that games dont need to be realistic at all - then every game would be carbon copies of pong!

EDIT2:
When i first brought up my concerns it was way back when GC2 was in its earliest ALPHA stages when it COULD have been addressed.
And I brought it up repeatedly since.

Needless to say i was ignored right up until GC2 entered Beta 2/3; which is when I was finally deemed worthy of a response - a poor one at that - and by then it was far too late to be changing it because it would have required an overhaul of the engine and at that late stage it is out of the question.

There was no point in responding at all by then because even if they had decided I was correct and wanted to change it - it wouldnt have been financially feasible for them to do so. It would cost then months more work.

I should point out I was not the only one to raise this concern at early alpha stage. We were all ignored until it was far too late to be doing anything about it at all anyway.

Well BOO HOO HOO, don't buy the game, nobody here cares. You act like you are some god that has control over the sales of this game just because you aren't going to buy it or don't like the way it is being made. Well bucko I got news for you, this is a game designed by "someone else" and until you can put up the bucks to build your own game, then I suggest you just keep your mouth shut cause nobody cares..waaaaaaahhh baby.

Before there were forums people bought games and got what they got, you either liked it or didn't, but, since now there is an ability to "whine online" that's what they do, instead of just walking out the door and never coming back. So, just leave, go, don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm sure the rest of us will enjoy GCII just fine realistic or not. A game is a game, it's not a history lesson or a science class. When you are that nitpicky about some details in a game you need to quit playing them. For you will obviously have no fun without it being 100% realistic and a game will "never" be that, so it just doesn't matter what's realistic in them and what is not. Gameplay, fun and entertainment is all that matters. E=MC(squared) does not. Now go play with your Barbie Doll, I'm sure she's realistic enough for you to get your kicks out of her. lol rofl haha

[bombshellboi]

Well BOO HOO HOO, don't buy the game, nobody here cares. You act like you are some god that has control over the sales of this game just because you aren't going to buy it or don't like the way it is being made. Well bucko I got news for you, this is a game designed by "someone else" and until you can put up the bucks to build your own game, then I suggest you just keep your mouth shut cause nobody cares..waaaaaaahhh baby.

Before there were forums people bought games and got what they got, you either liked it or didn't, but, since now there is an ability to "whine online" that's what they do, instead of just walking out the door and never coming back. So, just leave, go, don't let the door hit you on the way out. I'm sure the rest of us will enjoy GCII just fine realistic or not. A game is a game, it's not a history lesson or a science class. When you are that nitpicky about some details in a game you need to quit playing them. For you will obviously have no fun without it being 100% realistic and a game will "never" be that, so it just doesn't matter what's realistic in them and what is not. Gameplay, fun and entertainment is all that matters. E=MC(squared) does not. Now go play with your Barbie Doll, I'm sure she's realistic enough for you to get your kicks out of her. lol rofl haha

At least I have the intelligence to put forwards my arguements and position in a well thought out manner.

I dont feel the need to attack people for their views in the manner you have you apologist. I have already addressed people like you in my previous post.

I dont feel the need to respond to this childish post other than to say you need to learn how to speak to people.

[Room 101]

Well BOO HOO HOO, don't buy the game, nobody here cares.

Well, I care even less about your dullness.

This thread is for discussing about the game, you know. Why do you take scotboi's as a personal attack? Anybody of your family among the developers?

[Stolen Rutters]

It's amazing how real life can remind me of a game I played so long ago.

I was once a long time gamer (back in the days when I had time). I remember a game in MOO2 where I had a planet attacked quite severely but fortunately my ship sensors had advanced to a point where I saw the fleet coming. Although I had limited transport capability and was severely strapped financially (I never mastered the game to the level claimed by the hundred-hours-a-month club) I chose to resource my colonists to transfer from that planet to any other colony nearby to save them since I felt that they were more important than the planet itself or its buildings. I did defeat the invasion at a signiifcant loss of (binary) life in that game but it made me realize that I had bought into the vision, "Play like you live, live like you play". (That was definitely one of those incongruous learning moments.)

It wasn't until recently, volunteering at a local hurricane relief collection site, that I started to realize why the colonization/resource/management games, like MOO2, had much more appeal to me than truly destructive games, like GTA, even with a superior gameplay. I love the grand vision, the big idea, moving to the stars. I love excellent gameplay (sometimes customizing the ship, sometimes ordering the prebuilt ship, depending on what makes the game special). I like to have a game that is fun and rewarding. But I feel best when I can play as me. Games that reward ME when I play AS me are the games I like to play most.

Having a million people displaced in a twenty hour game is nothing to having it happen in real life and to your friends and family to boot, but the goals you set in a game CAN reflect your priorities when your desicions really matter. Oftentimes, we carry ourselves into our play, even when we are trying to get away from ourselves.

I can't wait to try GC2. I think I'll play as myself. If I do good, I will like it.

S. Rutters, Proud to be a gamer from Detroit

[cocoa]

So in other words...

"Live with it"

Yeah, more or less. If it doesn't float your boat of course you shouldn't buy it.

[Sera]

From a Sep 28 developer journal on GC/MOO comparison:

I sure hope people like the fleet battles. I think they're cool. But I think some people are going to think "Why can't I control my ships?". It's a playback of the battle, not a tactical battle element. I hate tactical battles in strategy games. Hate them. The reason is that they're so time consuming. I am the guy who always pressed "Auto" in Master of Orion. But I also knew that I wasn't playing the game optimally by doing that because the AI is never going to be as good as a skilled player at tactical combat. Our combat system is essentially like a forced "auto" of the MOO 2 thing except with 2005 3D graphics. If you watch a battle in cinematic view, it's a lot like watching a battle from Star Trek TNG.

Speaking of MOO, people who only played MOO need to remember -- GalCiv isn't Master of Orion. GalCiv for OS/2 was a contemporary of MOO 1 for DOS back years ago. GalCiv I was in public beta back in 1993. It's a different game. As much as I like the MOO series, I don't want GalCiv to be MOO.

There were 3 points from MOO1/2 that I particularly don't want to emulate (and bear in mind, I'm a huge MOO2 fan, I played MOO2 in the delivery room waiting for my first born -- true story):

1. MOO 1/2 always ended in a genocide race. Each side collected huge fleets and then just wiped out each other's planets so it was a race to see who killed off the other.
2. MOO 1/2 had tactical combat which I really don't like in a strategy game. If I want tactical combat (And sometimes I do) then I'll play Homeworld which does it very well.
3. MOO 1/2 had starlanes. I like free-form maps. It worked for MOO since you're parking fleets around. But in a free form map like GalCiv, you have to limit fleet sizes and distribute up military power.

So while I sympathize that many MOO 1/2 fans are looking for a MOO 4, GalCiv isn't designed to be it. It has its own set of strengths and weaknesses that make it a unique gaming experience.

I'm intrigued almost in spite of my self.

[InnocentIII]

MOO3 is very clunky..... it is way too much info, way too much time wasted on micromanagement. The game interface is horrid. Very typical of the "later" Sid Meir games. Also, as we all know, the MOO and Civiliation games were often very buggy on release, and Firaxis (or whomever the developer was) does little effort to patch them.

MOO was also typical of the late Aztec bead jewelry, the bead jewelry was literally buggy, and the Aztec support of MOO3 and their jewelry was poor.

Of course, the Aztecs and Sid Meier had about the same input into MOO3, so that's to be expected.


["After being asked whether or not Meier thought CivIV`s overhauled interface would turn-off some hardcore fans, Master of Orion III was brought up as an unfavourable subject of comparison. The PCGP crew asks the Firaxis representative if his company learned anything from seeing MoO3 just kind of flop... because [its] interface was just really cluttered. When Meier responds that he has not played MoO3 at all, one of the show`s co-host retorts that [y]ou didn`t miss anything."]
http://apolyton.net/moo3/