Lol that has a definte fuck off feel too it and while i do have replies to each of your points, im just not in the mood to deal with angst generated by people that take offence to anything they disagree with. So because of that ll i have to say to you is okie dokey hommie
Interesting. . .
You dismissed my opinion as "he doesn't like anything that is popular, ergo that's why he is saying what he is saying". And that's all you did. By rights, I could have taken more offense to that line of reasoning than I did (and I really didn't take much at all, though it is an *absurd* line of reasoning, and I don't mind saying so; and I do say that you pulled that suggestion out of thin air).
There's no real angst in my post, though. If I mistakenly conveyed any, my apologies. It's worth noting that communication is a two-way street - it takes a sender and a receiver.
I don't take offense to anyone disagreeing with me. I generally don't care one way or the other if people agree/disagree with me. Neither one nor the other validates nor invalidates my opinion (generally speaking; if I say "relativity is a sham", and someone pops in to offer evidence to the contrary, then that could change my perspective).
Lol that has a definte fuck off feel too it and while i do have replies to each of your points, im just not in the mood to deal with angst generated by people that take offence to anything they disagree with. So because of that ll i have to say to you is okie dokey hommie
Interesting. . .
You dismissed my opinion as "he doesn't like anything that is popular, ergo that's why he is saying what he is saying". And that's all you did. By rights, I could have taken more offense to that line of reasoning than I did (and I really didn't take much at all, though it is an *absurd* line of reasoning, and I don't mind saying so; and I do say that you pulled that suggestion out of thin air).
There's no real angst in my post, though. If I mistakenly conveyed any, my apologies. It's worth noting that communication is a two-way street - it takes a sender and a receiver.
I don't take offense to anyone disagreeing with me. I generally don't care one way or the other if people agree/disagree with me. Neither one nor the other validates nor invalidates my opinion (generally speaking; if I say "relativity is a sham", and someone pops in to offer evidence to the contrary, then that could change my perspective).
Its all good bro, sorry you misunderstood me i suppose i should have written my point better and sorry to have bothered you. I guess im just not in the mood for conflict these days.
AttAdude
When confronted with offensive TV, the fundamental differences between the Conservative and liberal factions becomes blatantly obvious. Conservatives will piss and moan, then file a complaint with the FCC in an attempt to make sure the offending show is never seen by anyone. Liberals... well we just change the damn channel.
Peacedog wrote:
fourth: this poll most likely proves more people like Moo2 than Moo.
Any statistician will tell you that's a dubious conclusion Since it is not a scientifically developed representative poll, all this poll tells you is that of those who responded, more like MOO2.
Any statistician will tell you that's a dubious conclusion Since it is not a scientifically developed representative poll, all this poll tells you is that of those who responded, more like MOO2.
I own and have played both. I like MOO2 a lot more (I didn't even like the first one that much).
I think PD's long post basically says just because the poll favors MOO2 doesn't mean it's necessarily the better game. Of course you can't prove MOO1 is the better game either since this is simply an opinion poll on which game you prefer, or think is "better" as dictated by whatever criteria you want to use.
Oh, and yes, Oasis rocks. Of course, I have no clue why dfs thinks it's related to Civ and MoO.
In it's way it's an empire builder. You choose where to explore and grow.
Several of the 4 X's are in there.
Most of the game is turn based and requires a bit of strategic feel. You get the an same sense of choice that you get from a good 4x. Do you go fo research, resources, shear size, exploration bonuses...how do you position your troops for survival.
Best of all, like Moo and the original Civ, you can spend a couple hours playing it one evening and feel like...I'm done at the end. Where most 4x's are multi-day affairs.
Not that all games have to belong in a genre, but Just out of curiousity, what other genre would you put it near? It certainly isn't anything like an rts. I guess their positioning it with the word "adventure" but it certainly isn't a pixel hunt. It's not a city builder, or a fps or an rpg...It isn't really a puzzle game or an arcade game....what's a better fit?
Oh, and yes, Oasis rocks. Of course, I have no clue why dfs thinks it's related to Civ and MoO.
In it's way it's an empire builder. You choose where to explore and grow.
Several of the 4 X's are in there.
Most of the game is turn based and requires a bit of strategic feel. You get the an same sense of choice that you get from a good 4x. Do you go fo research, resources, shear size, exploration bonuses...how do you position your troops for survival.
Best of all, like Moo and the original Civ, you can spend a couple hours playing it one evening and feel like...I'm done at the end. Where most 4x's are multi-day affairs.
Not that all games have to belong in a genre, but Just out of curiousity, what other genre would you put it near? It certainly isn't anything like an rts. I guess their positioning it with the word "adventure" but it certainly isn't a pixel hunt. It's not a city builder, or a fps or an rpg...It isn't really a puzzle game or an arcade game....what's a better fit?
It's not nearly epic enough to be compared to civ. You can beat one map in five minutes or so. I'd say it's closeset to a puzzle game, but can't think of a similar one at the moment.
I do like both games, but I liked the original MOO more. I think it has a MUCH better game design. Reasons:
- spying in MOO is useful for all races. For Darkloks, it is their main means of winning - Darkloks are awesome!! I would have spies in all the races and the techs would come rolling in and I'd be framing them left, right and centre. In MOO2 spying was not worth the investment.
- diplomacy as a ways of winning in MOO1 was more viable because races were more tech-trade happy. As humans, its their main strategy to be peaceful with all races and keep in the tech race by trading techs around like mad. Though you were out of luck if you were up against leaders who's personalities were "erratic" because there was a random chance each turn that the race would declare war on you for no reason whatsoever.
- the slider bars are an excellent concept. Take over a planet mid-to-late game and you dont have to worry about setting build cues and all that rubbish - just change the slide bars to what you want and presto, you can forget about it.
- ship stacks. Limit of 6 stacks with 32000 ships in each stack. Made ship battles fun from beginning to end. As others have said, the large battles in MOO2 suck because the computer takes so long to move its ships.
- research - I preferred MOO's slidebar implementation over MOO2. In every new game there would be a random selection of techs that no race could ever research, which kept things slightly different.
The things that sucked about MOO1 is the poor AI (in V1.3 it NEVER tried to invade Orion) and the various bugs (such as negative fleet stacks and the odd random crash).
Don't forget that for a long time, Gaia technology didn't work right. You could never fully terraform. I cannot recall offhand if this was fixed in the Conquer The Universe version of Moo (and was that the greatest game compilation ever or what???).
Moo2's technology had something, though. I like both models, but I think some tweaking could have been in order. Moo2 became a more interesting game, for me, when not taking creative races. Too often the individual tech choices were kind of sucky or too easy. But sometimes you had to make tough choices, and that was pretty fun.
OTOH, the randomness in Moo could be interesting (if occasionally frustrating). It kept you from pushing for the *same* techs every time. Rather, you crossed your fingers and hoped the RNG didn't spite you. But you couldn't get totally shafted - you weren't going to keep getting weapons research advancesd without some decent beamers showing up, for example.
Since it is not a scientifically developed representative poll, all this poll tells you is that of those who responded, more like MOO2.
