All the ducks are in a row:
http://www.gamespy.com/reviews/february03/moo3pc/
It’ll be interesting to see what GameSpot says about the game.
I’m waiting for GalCiv and passing on this game – and that’s saying a lot because I am a major MOO fanboy (i’m wearing Steve Barcia underwear as I write this) but what QSI has done to this game is just crazy. They obviously didn’t understand why the first two were so popular (the first more so than the second).
Now that the gold disk has been released, the shit has begun to hit the fan. The preview lovefest is over. And we can say our own Tom led the way…
I can’t wait to read the official boards in a few weeks to see what the ever-thoughtful fanboys think of the MOO3 mess.
As fanboys, many of them will simply say it’s “too deep” for mainstream game reviewers.
They’ll just ignore the fact that most of these folks reviewing this game come from board/wargame/strategy game backgrounds.
–Dave
I was looking at the official forums the other day, just to see exactly how crazy some people can get about things besides politics, PCP and pussy, and the common thought process now that the mediocre-to-negative-reviews are pouring in seems to be, “I’ll love it because I’ll learn to!”
Apparently, the experience of playing MOO3 is something like having one’s teeth drilled while simultaneously learning to appreciate fine wines. I wonder if these sadomasochistic misfits have spent nearly as much time paying for the privilege of learning to love other things that suck. “Learning to Love Dropping Heavy Metal Objects on my Big Toe for Dummies! Esso eldee… sold! <crash> AIEEEEE! Ha ha ha… I love it! <crash> AIEEEE!”
Honest to God, there’s a thread on the MOO boards stating “Gamespy Review 76% – Sounds Very Good.” (http://www.ina-community.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=e609152088927382a578adc997fd4b43&forumid=225)
“Hey, Ma! I didn’t just get a C on my report card, it’s a C+! Better than average!”
This is just sad.
I just have to wait for my review copy :twisted:
Heh…funny, I think some people at the IGMOO forums are reading this thread…note the bolded portion of the first post. That ain’t me, well, I didn’t post it over there anyway.
–Dave
Indeed, but take heart: the gaming community hasn’t delivered this much pure entertainment for months! Turns out MOO3 is actually a lot of fun when you just sit back and watch what it does to people…
Yay! Another MOO3 thread!
Still, getting your fanboy-trolling inspiration from external sources… it just ain’t right…
random retard quote plucked from dave long’s thread link:
I know that I’ve discounted some of the steeply negative reviews mainly because the authors have reviewed the game on what they wanted/expected and not on the merits of the game. One of the big negatives that is mentioned in the reviews is that there IS NOT enough micromanagement, which is the exact thing the dev team was trying to change. I fully understand that in the beginning you can and should micromanage your colonies, but as you grow you have to delegate responsibility, and as long as that person (or AI) is trustworthy (as it appears to be in MOO3) then you shouldn’t have any problems. I agree with the Gamespy review of 76%. It’s a fair review and while the author did find some flaws, he still was addicted and enjoyed the game. If the mainstream is giving it decent, but not great reviews that’s fine. I know that as a strategy gamer that I’ll really like it.
this guy has moved past attacking negative reviews, and is now agreeing with middling reviews of a game he hasn’t played.
Gosh. I actually like this game. I feel so estranged. :)
"“I’ll love it because I’ll learn to!” "
That sounds like it came out of Orwell’s 1984.
Good for you, Phydeaux. If you’re having fun with it, more power to ya.
Incidentally, 76 is a higher score than they gave The Corporate Machine.
Bastards…
Wow, that’s like, totally shitty.
–Dave
I find it very difficult to understand this fanboism over MOO3. I loved Civ 1 and 2 and played them to death. I could be considered a Civ fanboi. but I have no problems calling a spade a spade, and Civ 3 is not as fun a game as its predecessors. Heck, I’m a total HOMM series whore, but the fact is, HOMMIV is also on the downslope.
I’ve enjoyed MOO1/2 immensely, and sure hope MOO3 is great. But if it’s a stinker, then it’s a stinker. That’s it. End of story. I’m a fan of a series because the games that comprise the series are good.
So what exactly is the grading curve at Gamespy? I love the site and the reviews are generally well-written (which is the important thing), but the per cent score system confuse me everywhere I go. At Gamespy a 76 is “Good”, and they have four grades above that, but a 79 is good and a 70 is good. I know that a 76 at IGN is the kiss of death, but a 7.6 at Gamespot is still pretty solid.
I’d love to see a bell curve of some site’s reviews just to have an idea of where things stack.
Troy
IIRC, Gamespy is leaning towards Gamespot’s scoring ideals in an effort to make the entire 100 point range mean something. 70’s are still good games with fun to be had in them, but with many problems. That said, MoO3 does not sound like a 76 from what I have read.