Master of Orion-Reboot

[Lassr]

Don't screw it up! MOO II is still one of my favorites.

http://www.pcgamer.com/master-of-orion- ... wargaming/

[tgb]

Don't screw it up! MOO II is still one of my favorites.

http://www.pcgamer.com/master-of-orion- ... wargaming/

And it's still available, as is GalCiv III, so why bother with this?

[GreenGoo]

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.

[Grifman]

More info here:

http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/9/8746959 ... d-of-tanks

I'm always interested in space 4X's and glad that another one is in the pipeline, but MOO is just a name now. This is no more likely to succeed or fail than any other 4X game out there. It will have to stand on it's own merits - it's not like it's another Elder Scrolls or Fallout game from Bethesda - a proven game series from a proven developer.

[Grifman]

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.

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.

Wargaming claim that this new version is being built from the ground up.

[Grifman]

Don't screw it up! MOO II is still one of my favorites.

http://www.pcgamer.com/master-of-orion- ... wargaming/

And it's still available, as is GalCiv III, so why bother with this?

Why make Civ 5 when Civ 1/2/3/4 are out there?

[GreenGoo]

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.

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.

Wargaming claim that this new version is being built from the ground up.

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.

Well, like pretty much all games ever, I'll wait and see how it turns out. You can never have too many 4x games, so I look forward to what they turn out.

[tgb]

Don't screw it up! MOO II is still one of my favorites.

http://www.pcgamer.com/master-of-orion- ... wargaming/

And it's still available, as is GalCiv III, so why bother with this?

Why make Civ 5 when Civ 1/2/3/4 are out there?

There are people who would agree with you on 4

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).

[El Guapo]

Good god that announcement trailer was terrible. Lowered my odds that this will be any good to about 5%.

[NickAragua]

I still haven't played a grand galactic strategy game that grabbed me as well as MOO2 did. So, good luck.

Of course, given the developer, I'm now picturing a "grand galactic strategy" game which consists of multiplayer-only spaceship battles. In order to unlock other ships, you will probably need to either grind for weeks or pay money.

[Grifman]

Don't screw it up! MOO II is still one of my favorites.

http://www.pcgamer.com/master-of-orion- ... wargaming/

And it's still available, as is GalCiv III, so why bother with this?

Why make Civ 5 when Civ 1/2/3/4 are out there?

There are people who would agree with you on 4

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).

Civ was a "type" for my example, you took it too literally. So let me try again.

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

[Lassr]

Good god that announcement trailer was terrible. Lowered my odds that this will be any good to about 5%.

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]

Good god that announcement trailer was terrible. Lowered my odds that this will be any good to about 5%.

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.

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.

Basically the trailer gives a strong red flag that the wrong people are in charge.

[Lassr]

I read that some of the people that worked on the original are on the team making the new so that is encouraging.

[Lassr]

Wargaming has put the project in the hands of NGD Studios, "with key members from the original title’s team."

[El Guapo]

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".

[Greybriar]

....space-based 4X games are a dime a dozen, and a couple have already done MOO 2 better.....

Which ones do you think have already done MOO 2 better?

[TheMix]

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.

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.

i.e. the bullet time is not something that will be in the game.

[tgb]

Don't screw it up! MOO II is still one of my favorites.

http://www.pcgamer.com/master-of-orion- ... wargaming/

And it's still available, as is GalCiv III, so why bother with this?

Why make Civ 5 when Civ 1/2/3/4 are out there?

There are people who would agree with you on 4

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).

Civ was a "type" for my example, you took it too literally. So let me try again.

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

I guess I was unclear. "Why bother" was directed to us, the gamers. I know why the developer is doing it.

[tgb]

....space-based 4X games are a dime a dozen, and a couple have already done MOO 2 better.....

Which ones do you think have already done MOO 2 better?

Subjective, of course, but Distant Worlds, even if it isn't turn-based, and GalCiv III

[Defiant]

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?

Just as an aside, I would consider there a difference between Fallout/Elder Scrolls/Deus Ex (and probably X-Com) and the others.

In those games, you're following a story, so with each new game, you're getting new story and content.

With the others, each is not only building on the success of the last one, but trying to supersede it. Ideally, if it's of high enough quality, you'd have no reason to go play the previous games in the series (except for nostalgia). Obviously it doesn't always work out that way (sequels might be worse, or they might improve some stuff while making others worse or they introduce or take away new features...etc).

[El Guapo]

i.e. the bullet time is not something that will be in the game.

It still looked super dumb.

[TheMix]

i.e. the bullet time is not something that will be in the game.

It still looked super dumb.

Not gonna argue that.

[Grifman]

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".

Yeah, that sounds like marketing fluff. So 20+ years later, they've pulled together key members of the original team? Somehow that seems unlikely.

[Grifman]

I guess I was unclear. "Why bother" was directed to us, the gamers. I know why the developer is doing it.

No problem. I'd "bother" with it if it is a good game That's why.

[El Guapo]

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".

Yeah, that sounds like marketing fluff. So 20+ years later, they've pulled together key members of the original team? Somehow that seems unlikely.

I mean, I was a key member of every project I've ever listed on my resume.

[Greybriar]

....space-based 4X games are a dime a dozen, and a couple have already done MOO 2 better.....

Which ones do you think have already done MOO 2 better?

Subjective, of course, but Distant Worlds, even if it isn't turn-based, and GalCiv III

Thanks for the reply, tgb. I've already picked up Distant Worlds but I haven't got GalCiv III.

I still prefer the simplicity of MOO2 and hope this new addition to the Master of Orion series embodies it.

[Daehawk]

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.

[El Guapo]

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.

How do you have five different copies of MOO?

[tgb]

So 20+ years later, they've pulled together key members of the original team? Somehow that seems unlikely.

"Hey, Murray. Take a look at this resume, will ya?"
"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".

[NickAragua]

Step 1: Hire some designers from MOO3
Step 2: Combine with publisher for "World of Tanks/Airplanes/Etc".
Step 2.5 (Optional): Save on coding costs by re-skinning World of Tanks/Airplanes/Etc with sci-fi textures and maybe add a few more models.
Step 3: Game fails, "THERE'S NO MARKET FOR SCI-FI TURN BASED GALACTIC STRATEGY"
Step 4: (Non)-profit?

[Freyland]

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?

[NickAragua]

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?

Ha! Maybe you can have your ships fire regular lasers like losers OR you can pay 1 cent per shot to fire "supercharged" lasers!

[Daehawk]

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.

How do you have five different copies of MOO?

Off hand I recall having a big box US, small vhs box, large EU box and a couple others

[Freyland]

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?

Ha! Maybe you can have your ships fire regular lasers like losers OR you can pay 1 cent per shot to fire "supercharged" lasers!

No Gaia planets without a premium account.

[Kraken]

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.

[Max Peck]

So 20+ years later, they've pulled together key members of the original team? Somehow that seems unlikely.

"Hey, Murray. Take a look at this resume, will ya?"
"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".

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.

[ColdSteel]

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.

[Jeff V]

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.

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.

[Jeff V]

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.

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.