That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
http://www.octopusoverlords.com/forum/
And it's still available, as is GalCiv III, so why bother with this?Lassr wrote:Don't screw it up! MOO II is still one of my favorites.
http://www.pcgamer.com/master-of-orion- ... wargaming/
Neither, it's reboot of the series, not just reskin or upgrade off one of the first two in the series. It is it's own game.GreenGoo wrote:Because Moo II with a better interface and super slick graphics would be cool.
Also, is this MooII or Moo? I can't access the link at the moment.
Wargaming claim that this new version is being built from the ground up.
Why make Civ 5 when Civ 1/2/3/4 are out there?tgb wrote:And it's still available, as is GalCiv III, so why bother with this?Lassr wrote:Don't screw it up! MOO II is still one of my favorites.
http://www.pcgamer.com/master-of-orion- ... wargaming/
Ah ok, then it's just a name tied to a game, although presumably set in the same universe so we can expect to see familiar races.Grifman wrote:Neither, it's reboot of the series, not just reskin or upgrade off one of the first two in the series. It is it's own game.GreenGoo wrote:Because Moo II with a better interface and super slick graphics would be cool.
Also, is this MooII or Moo? I can't access the link at the moment.
Wargaming claim that this new version is being built from the ground up.
There are people who would agree with you on 4Grifman wrote:Why make Civ 5 when Civ 1/2/3/4 are out there?tgb wrote:And it's still available, as is GalCiv III, so why bother with this?Lassr wrote:Don't screw it up! MOO II is still one of my favorites.
http://www.pcgamer.com/master-of-orion- ... wargaming/
Civ was a "type" for my example, you took it too literally. So let me try again.tgb wrote:There are people who would agree with you on 4Grifman wrote:Why make Civ 5 when Civ 1/2/3/4 are out there?tgb wrote:And it's still available, as is GalCiv III, so why bother with this?Lassr wrote:Don't screw it up! MOO II is still one of my favorites.
http://www.pcgamer.com/master-of-orion- ... wargaming/
But to answer your question, space-based 4X games are a dime a dozen, and a couple have already done MOO 2 better.
CIv is still the only turn-based 4X game that uses world history as a foundation, and while the basic template has been copied for other kinds of 4X, no one else has attempted a historical competitor (unless you count EU, which is a different breed of cat).
I thought so also, so I concluded that they haven't programmed much of the game yet since that is all they showed. They could have a hit if they take MOO 2, update the graphics, fix some of the the late turn bog down, add the different kinds of victories plus something else to make it stand apart. I am enjoying Gal Civ 3 right now but it still needs some tweaks.El Guapo wrote:Good god that announcement trailer was terrible. Lowered my odds that this will be any good to about 5%.
I get that it's early. But the one job of this trailer is to evoke MOO 2, to make people nostalgic and think that they're working on an updated version of that. At that the trailer failed miserably, because that could have been almost any game. Also the bullet time thing where the missiles are all about to hit simultaneously and then the ship zooms up and away and goes to all of its friends was super dumb.Lassr wrote:I thought so also, so I concluded that they haven't programmed much of the game yet since that is all they showed. They could have a hit if they take MOO 2, update the graphics, fix some of the the late turn bog down, add the different kinds of victories plus something else to make it stand apart. I am enjoying Gal Civ 3 right now but it still needs some tweaks.El Guapo wrote:Good god that announcement trailer was terrible. Lowered my odds that this will be any good to about 5%.
Wargaming has put the project in the hands of NGD Studios, "with key members from the original title’s team."
That part is good, though you wonder which "key members".Lassr wrote:Wargaming has put the project in the hands of NGD Studios, "with key members from the original title’s team."
Which ones do you think have already done MOO 2 better?tgb wrote:....space-based 4X games are a dime a dozen, and a couple have already done MOO 2 better.....
Actually.... I think that the initial footage was from the original game. When the ship takes off, you see it change. I think that they were trying to make a transition from the original to the new game they are planning. They wanted to show that the graphics will be improved, but still similar. And I think the end was to show that they still want to do turn-based with fleets of ships facing each other.El Guapo wrote:I get that it's early. But the one job of this trailer is to evoke MOO 2, to make people nostalgic and think that they're working on an updated version of that. At that the trailer failed miserably, because that could have been almost any game. Also the bullet time thing where the missiles are all about to hit simultaneously and then the ship zooms up and away and goes to all of its friends was super dumb.
I guess I was unclear. "Why bother" was directed to us, the gamers. I know why the developer is doing it.Grifman wrote:Civ was a "type" for my example, you took it too literally. So let me try again.tgb wrote:There are people who would agree with you on 4Grifman wrote:Why make Civ 5 when Civ 1/2/3/4 are out there?tgb wrote:And it's still available, as is GalCiv III, so why bother with this?Lassr wrote:Don't screw it up! MOO II is still one of my favorites.
http://www.pcgamer.com/master-of-orion- ... wargaming/
But to answer your question, space-based 4X games are a dime a dozen, and a couple have already done MOO 2 better.
CIv is still the only turn-based 4X game that uses world history as a foundation, and while the basic template has been copied for other kinds of 4X, no one else has attempted a historical competitor (unless you count EU, which is a different breed of cat).
Why make EU1/2/3/4?
Why make Fallout 1/2/3/4?
Why make Elder Scrolls 1/2/3/4?
Why make XCom 1/2 and 1/2 again?
Why make Deus Ex 1/2/3/4?
Why make GalCiv 1/2/3?
The point is, they're remaking because they bought the IP and I guess they figure they can make some money off of it. Just because there are other games of that type out there isn't a reason not to try to do your own thing
Subjective, of course, but Distant Worlds, even if it isn't turn-based, and GalCiv IIIGreybriar wrote:Which ones do you think have already done MOO 2 better?tgb wrote:....space-based 4X games are a dime a dozen, and a couple have already done MOO 2 better.....
Just as an aside, I would consider there a difference between Fallout/Elder Scrolls/Deus Ex (and probably X-Com) and the others.Grifman wrote: Why make EU1/2/3/4?
Why make Fallout 1/2/3/4?
Why make Elder Scrolls 1/2/3/4?
Why make XCom 1/2 and 1/2 again?
Why make Deus Ex 1/2/3/4?
Why make GalCiv 1/2/3?
It still looked super dumb.TheMix wrote:
i.e. the bullet time is not something that will be in the game.
El Guapo wrote:It still looked super dumb.TheMix wrote:
i.e. the bullet time is not something that will be in the game.
Yeah, that sounds like marketing fluff. So 20+ years later, they've pulled together key members of the original team? Somehow that seems unlikely.El Guapo wrote:That part is good, though you wonder which "key members".Lassr wrote:Wargaming has put the project in the hands of NGD Studios, "with key members from the original title’s team."
No problem. I'd "bother" with it if it is a good gametgb wrote:I guess I was unclear. "Why bother" was directed to us, the gamers. I know why the developer is doing it.
That's why.I mean, I was a key member of every project I've ever listed on my resume.Grifman wrote:Yeah, that sounds like marketing fluff. So 20+ years later, they've pulled together key members of the original team? Somehow that seems unlikely.El Guapo wrote:That part is good, though you wonder which "key members".Lassr wrote:Wargaming has put the project in the hands of NGD Studios, "with key members from the original title’s team."
Thanks for the reply, tgb. I've already picked up Distant Worlds but I haven't got GalCiv III.tgb wrote:Subjective, of course, but Distant Worlds, even if it isn't turn-based, and GalCiv IIIGreybriar wrote:Which ones do you think have already done MOO 2 better?tgb wrote:....space-based 4X games are a dime a dozen, and a couple have already done MOO 2 better.....
How do you have five different copies of MOO?Daehawk wrote:Now Im worried. Moo is tied as my all time favorite game ever. I own 5 different copies of it and all different. MOO II I wasn't as impressed with. Brought too much micro to the table. Ive never been able to enjoy a 4X space game because of MOO...nothing ever compared.
"Hey, Murray. Take a look at this resume, will ya?"Grifman wrote: So 20+ years later, they've pulled together key members of the original team? Somehow that seems unlikely.
Ha! Maybe you can have your ships fire regular lasers like losers OR you can pay 1 cent per shot to fire "supercharged" lasers!Freyland wrote:Perhaps you have to "grind" your way up the research tree, and pay for extra colony ships or there is a cap to the number of worlds you can claim?
Off hand I recall having a big box US, small vhs box, large EU box and a couple othersEl Guapo wrote:How do you have five different copies of MOO?Daehawk wrote:Now Im worried. Moo is tied as my all time favorite game ever. I own 5 different copies of it and all different. MOO II I wasn't as impressed with. Brought too much micro to the table. Ive never been able to enjoy a 4X space game because of MOO...nothing ever compared.
No Gaia planets without a premium account.NickAragua wrote:Ha! Maybe you can have your ships fire regular lasers like losers OR you can pay 1 cent per shot to fire "supercharged" lasers!Freyland wrote:Perhaps you have to "grind" your way up the research tree, and pay for extra colony ships or there is a cap to the number of worlds you can claim?
Dammit, I wanted to do the MOO3 joke! But then, all I had was "Well, the last time someone rebooted MOO it turned out OK, didn't it?" I like yours better, so let's go with that.tgb wrote:"Hey, Murray. Take a look at this resume, will ya?"Grifman wrote: So 20+ years later, they've pulled together key members of the original team? Somehow that seems unlikely.
"What?"
"Is that a 3 or a 2?"
"Uuuuhhhh.......I think it's a 3."
"I already released that we have people from the MOO 2 team. Should I correct it?"
"Nah. 3, 2 what's the difference? It's still MOO".
It's an Argentinian studio whose previous credits include a free-to-play MMO, a cutesy action platformer thing made for the Cartoon Network, and a top-down action shooter. Why would Wargamer.net hand them the rights to a space 4X? And what's this vague comment about working with key members of the original team? Who? In what capacity? Sounds like a meaningless throwaway reference for the press release.
I predict something along the lines of Master of Orion 3. Namely, a strategy game made by a bunch of people who have no idea what they're doing.
Combat in MOO was hands on, Gal Civ is automated. I rather prefer Gal Civ in this regard because MOO would bog down with massive fleet battles near the end. IIRC, you could auto-resolve, but it was at your own risk as the game was inclined to randomly determine your much superior fleet suffered an unexpected loss -- which would never happen playing out the battle.Kraken wrote:GalCiv does strategy better. MOO did combat better. I'd love a game that combines the best of both. Add tactical combat to GC or flesh out MOO's strategy -- I don't care which. Just give me Master of Galactic Civilizations.
The cleaning lady. She was a key member because the rest of the team were slobs and undoubtedly would have caught something fatal from wallowing in their own filth had she not kept the office tidy.ColdSteel wrote:This looks absolutely horrible based on the developer they picked. I give it about a 1% chance of actually being any good. Vague comments about "key personnel" without any names does nothing at all to reassure me. If they had Steve Barcia, they would have said so. I think Tom Chick said it best:
It's an Argentinian studio whose previous credits include a free-to-play MMO, a cutesy action platformer thing made for the Cartoon Network, and a top-down action shooter. Why would Wargamer.net hand them the rights to a space 4X? And what's this vague comment about working with key members of the original team? Who? In what capacity? Sounds like a meaningless throwaway reference for the press release.
I predict something along the lines of Master of Orion 3. Namely, a strategy game made by a bunch of people who have no idea what they're doing.