Moo!

[yossar]

Peacedog believes that more people prefer Master of Orion to Master of Orion 2. I was always under the impression that Master of Orion 2 was the popular one around here and vaguely remember it doing better in the tournament of champions a while ago (maybe back on Gone Gold). We both prefer the original, but I thought that was the minority opinion.

So let's settle this once and for all. Which game do you prefer?

[EddieA]

Other than the graphics, I liked just about everything in MOO better. I prefer simplicity and streamlining (is that a word?) in strategy games, and I felt that nothing they added to MOO2 made it any better.

[The Meal]

MoO was a great game. MoO2 introduced some nice elements but it broke tactical battles (large fleet battles required you to go do something else for a half-hour at a time as the enemy was positioning ships). MoO was streamlined and fun with great AI. MoO2 was cumbersome and had the Civ-in-Space feel when you were picking out your build lists for your colonies. MoO had sliders to automate that sort of drudgery for you. MoO2's shining grace was the race designer, as it allowed for flexibility and customization of your peoples which was a pretty fun feature, if not broken on the scale of game balance.

MoO for the win by a large margin, but both games had fun elements. The mid-to-late game tactical battles in MoO2 broke that game for me.

~Neal

[Peacedog]

There's no meaningful objective standard that Moo2 can be called a better game than Moo with (individual enjoyment is always a YMMV thing, however).

Civ in space was a bad idea (one hopes stardock realizes this). Civ is an empire manageer that really moonlights as a city manager. It's a game where terrain and infrastructure are critically important. Neither of these things work the same way in space (and I think 18 flavors of nebula/asteroid fields to substitute for terrain variety would be a poor design decision, but who knows).

Moo2 would have benefitted from either 1) using tokens for tacitcal combat or 2) designing things in such a way that 1 ship was a *really* *big* *deal*, and fleet engagements stayed small because the cost of fielding a navy was severe and eventually prohibitive. Small engagements in that game were pretty fun, though. On the machine I initially played it one (P120), big ones were a nightmare.

On that note, I would love to see a game try something like that. Where fielding 10 "ships of the line" is a massive undertaking (though each of those ships kick serious ass), and scoring total, unsalvagable, kills is not easy (lots of "limping off" the battlefield, and ships being inactive for a time due ot repairs). That's a topic for another time though.

The moo2 race creation was interesting (its no Stars!, though, despite that games own issues), but the economic model was not, and I think that dragged the race creation down.

The tech model had promise, when you stopped playing creative races. it was fun to make hard choices. I think a game should take that concept, hone it, and try to make use of it. But I think the approach could benefit from some serious abstraction.

[Jeff V]

I probably spent more time playing MOO (it was the last game I was "addicted" to), but MOO2 was a superior game by far. Like all 4X games, it bogged down with late-game micromanagement, particularly the massive fleet battles that would take 30 minutes or more to resolve. The solution was to conquer the galaxy faster so it never got to that point (or get elected Grand Poo-bah of the Universe).

[ChrisGwinn]

Did MoO have the hero units that MoM/MoO2 had?

[Peacedog]

No, no ship captains/governors.

[Kraken]

What the Meal said. I found MOO2 so unplayable once fleets attained any size that I gave my copy away years ago, and have never wanted it back. Thanks to the recency effect, though, MOO2 will win the poll. Most readers never played original MOO, and people attach a lot more importance to appearance than they admit.

The same result would obtain for the Railroad Tycoon series, I'll betcha.

[dfs]

Interesting that the comments are 100% for moo, but the poll goes the other way to the sequel.

I finally made peace with moo2. It's a fine game and sucked up more of my time than I care to admit. I wish they had called it something else. It was no where near the game that the original was.

[Daehawk]

MOO was great..its tied for my all time favorite game ever...MOO2 is just barely ok.

[Lassr]

i loved all the extras in MOO2 and thought it was a little better than MOO, but I agree the late game large fleets are almost unbearable to me.

[The Preacher]

I want to know who these 19 people who make Baby Jesus cry are.

[Sepiche]

I agree that large fleets in late game can be irritating, but overall Moo2 expands on Moo 1 and makes it a much better game.

I have my issues with some elements of the design, but I think it's clearly a better game than Moo1.

s

[SuperHiro]

MOO all the way.

I have three games in MOO that I remember so fondly. One was as the Meklar Empire, where I won diplomatically. God, my home planet was a production machine (literally I suppose). It was ridiculous.

Another was a game with the Bulrathi. All I did was raid the Psilons for technology. My space fleet was all about setting up the waves of ground troops. I won that "diplomatically" but I was very much an aggressive tyrant. I hated how the Psilons made peace with me but kept raiding one planet (it was their home planet, but come on!).

The last was my game with the Darloks. Pretty much played it evil. I had no chance to win. So when the entire universe declared war on me, I had the privelege of designing the Bomber from Hell. Tons upon tons of nuclear and bio-weapons. I turned the Alkari homeworld into a wasteland (because my espionage destroyed all their missle bases. muahahahaha). My territory was uninvadable, because of all the missile bases I had installed on each planet. God that game was so fun.

MOO2? I colonized a planet, tried to pull my race out of famine, then quit. Too much micromanagement.

[Fretmute]

I'm overwhelmingly in favor of MOO2. I'm a huge fan of the design elements that you folks are disparaging . . . I love micromanaging every planet in my empire to get maximum use out of them. I love epic fleet battles, although my late game philosophy tends to be "Build one incredibly powerful colossus of a ship and wipe their entire fleet with it." The race builder is the bit that really pushes it over the top; to not have one is unconscionable to me. You've already coded the attributes, so it's trivial to assign them values and let me select which ones I want. I really thought M002 was better on all fronts.

I also enjoy seeing Baby Jesus cry.

[Butterknife]

What, no place to vote for MoO3? Guess I'll go with 2 then.

[Dramatist]

I loved MOO, it's one of my all time favorites and one of the only games I ever had a patch mailed to me on a floppy disk.

MOO2 never grabbed me, I can't even remember why now, but it was really disappointing at the time.

MoM is my all time favorite computer game.

[EddieA]

"Interesting that the comments are 100% for moo, but the poll goes the other way to the sequel."
That's because the silly MOO2-likers are too lazy to post comments

[The Preacher]

"Interesting that the comments are 100% for moo, but the poll goes the other way to the sequel."
That's because the silly MOO2-likers are too lazy to post comments

I figured it was because they were still trying to finish a turn they started in '97.

[Butterknife]

"Interesting that the comments are 100% for moo, but the poll goes the other way to the sequel."
That's because the silly MOO2-likers are too lazy to post comments

I figured it was because they were still trying to finish a turn they started in '97.

What, is Fretmute's text invisible on your computer? Maybe you two have reading comprehension issues?

[The Preacher]

What, is Fretmute's text invisible on your computer? Maybe you two have reading comprehension issues?

Who? Oh, I /plonk'ed him years ago.

[Impervious]

I voted for moo2, but I'm too busy micromanaging my empire to post anything in its defense.

[CSL]

What if I didn't like either?

[dfs]

Oh... hope the mods don't mind me pimping a post from another board about a new game, but.....well tough

Oasis has finally come out of beta and been released. There's a post about it at q23 with links to the downloadable version. If you enjoyed Moo and the original civ, you will probably like Oasis.

I'll describe it as a touch of RTS with a dash of Civilization, but all played with the mouse. Like all good casual games, the first hour of play is free, then you can buy it online for $19.95. Check it out and tell me what you think.

I'm hoping that this game will appeal (and sell) to the old school PC gamers looking for something new, because otherwise the casual game space is going to be puzzle games and card games for a very long time. So if you like it, tell everyone you know.

[Dirt]

MoM.

[Fretmute]

That's because the silly MOO2-likers are too lazy to post comments

I figured it was because they were still trying to finish a turn they started in '97.

What, is Fretmute's text invisible on your computer? Maybe you two have reading comprehension issues?

Who? Oh, I /plonk'ed him years ago.

Yikes, the dreaded double burn. My thin porcelain ego is shattered on the ground.

[Grifman]

Yeah, got to go with MOO. The game is a poster child - in a good way - for the fact that elegance and simplicity in game design can better than something overloaded with all the bells and whistles. The game just about hit everything right for me - the perfect mix of macro/micro management, grand strategy/tactical battles, etc. Played the game for hours and have too many great moments to even begin recounting them here. What I wouldn't give for just a graphically updated version of that game.

[yossar]

MoO2 is dominating the polls and losing in the comments. I guess we can conclude that fans of the original are just more vocal.

[Caine]

moo 1 for me. played so much of that one and so little of the sequel. never grabbed my attention the way moo did.

[Daehawk]

May reinstall MOO and play some more as races I never got into. I usually played the Bulrathi cause i could just invade a planet and keep it intact and get free tech. The meklars sound interesting with the production. I like to build ships

[SpaceLord]

MoO 1 for me too. But I no longer have a copy, it's long gone. I have a MoO2 CD staring at me right now, however...

[Veloxi]

I loved both MOO games, but for some reason (probably several, actually) I kept going back to MOO2, still do to this day.

[Peacedog]

Yeah, got to go with MOO. The game is a poster child - in a good way - for the fact that elegance and simplicity in game design can better than something overloaded with all the bells and whistles. The game just about hit everything right for me - the perfect mix of macro/micro management, grand strategy/tactical battles, etc. Played the game for hours and have too many great moments to even begin recounting them here. What I wouldn't give for just a graphically updated version of that game

What's interesting to me is that we really haven't seen much in the way of "Empire management" since Moo. That one game that was a spinoff of the EU series might qualify. ANd the EU games touch on it too I suppose (I never layed the sequel, though).

Basically, most games since Moo have focused more on doing alot with individual planets/cities. That in and of itself isn't the end of the world. But what I wouldn't give for someone who focuses more on the "high end" aspect of things (which Moo3 was supposed to do originally, but then it failed for a number of reasons). Moo3 and Galciv tried to get a bet funkier with the Galactic Council but it was mostly a wasted effort. That's the kind of thing I'd lik to see become more elaborate, though.

I don't think a change in economic model in some settings would hurt either. Stars! has a wonderful economic model. You have one unlimited resource (resources - cranked out by people just being alive, and by working factorties). However, the main source of that resource (factories) costs a finite one: minerals (mineral 3: germanium, in this case). Everything else you build costs resources & minerals. Minerals are a major limiting factor. It's possible for wars to develop towardw the end game that get dragged out, and force the parties to have to "scale back" on the shops they are making (usually not just in numbers, but in all the bling they are placing on those ships), because they are having trouble for paying for things.

It's rare to get to that point in end game (good stars players usually have a game wrapped up by midgame'; I am not one of those people). But minerals force all kinds of decisions on you through out the game's eras (the game neatly devides into 3 areas: early warfair, with beam cruisers showing up late; the missle boat era, dominated by missile wielding Battleships; and the late game era, which pretty quickly goes back to beamers because misisle boats are incredibly expensive). Taking tis model and tweaking it would be a nice start.

Keeping things more simplistic on the building side (in stars!, you build mines & factories mostly. That's it) can be a good thing. I loved Moos model.

[The Meal]

MoO2 is dominating the polls and losing in the comments. I guess we can conclude that fans of the original are just more vocal.

I conclude a lot of votes from people who only played the more recent version who can't intelligently comment on the differences between the two games.

~Neal

[Rowdy]

MoO2 is dominating the polls and losing in the comments. I guess we can conclude that fans of the original are just more vocal.

Silly vocal minorities...

[Seppe]

I remember when MOO came out. Really liked it, I played it constantly. I had a simple, elegant system. The sliders really worked, no need for anything more.

When MOO2 came out, i remember i was a little disappointed but not like some people were. But i made peace with the Civ style planet management and have grown to like it. It seems to me 'the masses' like that style more than the somewhat distancing slider system. I do not remember the late game battle taking really long, but that is probably selective memory. I do remember when i found out about the 'z' key in battles (kinda like the 'auto' button but much faster as it doesnt update the graphics as much).

What it comes done to, is i still play MOO2 much more often than i do MOO. You can argue that moo is a better designed game, but it also lacks personality. Nowadays i just dont get that interested in the 'story' of what is happening. My planets are just dots representing production/research points and occassionally defense number. I guess having the graphic representation like in Moo2 does help me get into it. I hope that doesnt make me too shallow

As peacedog kinda mentions, if the designers of Moo3 were supposedly trying to represent managing a large galactic empire, they probably would have been better off following the Moo1 style (instead whatever it is they created). If you are managing 10-20 planets it is not a big deal, they each can still have a personality, but 50+ and just give me sliders.

[Peacedog]

As peacedog kinda mentions, if the designers of Moo3 were supposedly trying to represent managing a large galactic empire, they probably would have been better off following the Moo1 style (instead whatever it is they created). If you are managing 10-20 planets it is not a big deal, they each can still have a personality, but 50+ and just give me sliders.

FWIW, the original design entailed you being unable to micromanage. Period. You could make "Emperatorial edicts" (boy, that's a mouth full). These, generally speaking, dictated how things worked (population growth/migration, or how individual governors would manage planets - like focus on research over production).

But concessions to micromanagement kept being made. It was a mistake. If you're worried that gamers are going to freak out, allow planets to be designated individually ("production world" or somesuch), and have it mean that the planet will favor that area over all others (but not ignore the others, and there is still governatorial leeway). Or change the economy so that you don't need to sweat wether your "production planets" have enough factories to make enough ships.

Make empire-wide council meetings important (where you have to face a number of domestic issues). Make the galactic council meetings just as important. Throw some death rays into the mix.

There's room for potential.

[AttAdude]

There's no meaningful objective standard that Moo2 can be called a better game than Moo with (individual enjoyment is always a YMMV thing, however).

I have a friend who is one of those elitist music snob types he generaly hates anything popular including bands he used to like but have recently become popular. He is always saying this exact thing about popular music vs his "good" but 100% unknown music. Ill tell you the same thing i tell him. Games like music serve a very specific purpose when you relate it to anyone other than its creator (gotta take into account artistic expression and all that jazz). its entertainment. Since games, and music are used to entertain the masses its relative goodness or badness can/has to be judged on how well it fulfills this purpose. In my opinion and judging by the poll here its pretty clear that MOO2 is the better game, at least according to the people taking part in this thread. While you are right and YMMV as far as your personal enjoyment goes, if you like a game everone else hates that does not make it a good game and vise versa.

[Peacedog]

I have a friend who is one of those elitist music snob types he generaly hates anything popular including bands he used to like but have recently become popular. He is always saying this exact thing about popular music vs his "good" but 100% unknown music. Ill tell you the same thing i tell him. Games like music serve a very specific purpose when you relate it to anyone other than its creator (gotta take into account artistic expression and all that jazz). its entertainment. Since games, and music are used to entertain the masses its relative goodness or badness can/has to be judged on how well it fulfills this purpose. In my opinion and judging by the poll here its pretty clear that MOO2 is the better game, at least according to the people taking part in this thread. While you are right and YMMV as far as your personal enjoyment goes, if you like a game everone else hates that does not make it a good game and vise versa.

Well. . .

Firstly, I liked Moo2. I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on each game, to boot.

Secondly, I don't see the relevance to what your friend says or does. Nor is there any real comparison between he and I, unless you're just going to pull that comparison out of thin air and be satisfied (err. . .).

I do not think Moo is a better game than Moo2 because more people like Moo2 than Moo. I have never stated as such. What other people think of Moo2 verus Moo is somewhat irrelevant to me, depending on how you look at it. I like reading other people's opinions, however they don't dictate my own.

Thirdly, things can be judged for entertainment (ultimately an entirely subjective judgement), and judged by other, less subjective qualities as well. Night at the Roxbury is a bad movie. To my knowledge, there is no criteria like cinematography or writing it would score above "average" in (categories that do have a subjective components, but are not entirely so). And it would probably be lucky to score "forgettable" in most. I would never categorize it as "good" movie in any objective sense. I found it wildly entertaining, and would say such.

Relative goodness/badness should not be judged soley on how well something is received. The suggestion would mean popularity is the sole determinant of quality, which it most certainly is not.

The writing of Stephen King is not horrible. It isn't great. Different people will place it at differen points of that sub-spectrum (and doubtless, some people would put him far to one end or the other, but I suspect that's foolish. I'm talking to you Mr Atkinson). He's sold millions of novels (and I am happy for him in this). They're separate things. King's sales indicate he is popular, not that he is a good writer. They don't really speak much to his writing quality. I think it would be safe to objectively categorize him as being "not horrible" at minimum. Sales alone don't prove that this is true (and Steven, if you happen to read this, I'd put you significantly closer to great than to horrible; thanks for the memories and do another short story collection for us, please).

fourth: this poll most likely proves more people like Moo2 than Moo.

[AttAdude]

I have a friend who is one of those elitist music snob types he generaly hates anything popular including bands he used to like but have recently become popular. He is always saying this exact thing about popular music vs his "good" but 100% unknown music. Ill tell you the same thing i tell him. Games like music serve a very specific purpose when you relate it to anyone other than its creator (gotta take into account artistic expression and all that jazz). its entertainment. Since games, and music are used to entertain the masses its relative goodness or badness can/has to be judged on how well it fulfills this purpose. In my opinion and judging by the poll here its pretty clear that MOO2 is the better game, at least according to the people taking part in this thread. While you are right and YMMV as far as your personal enjoyment goes, if you like a game everone else hates that does not make it a good game and vise versa.

Well. . .

Firstly, I liked Moo2. I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on each game, to boot.

Secondly, I don't see the relevance to what your friend says or does. Nor is there any real comparison between he and I, unless you're just going to pull that comparison out of thin air and be satisfied (err. . .).

I do not think Moo is a better game than Moo2 because more people like Moo2 than Moo. I have never stated as such. What other people think of Moo2 verus Moo is somewhat irrelevant to me, depending on how you look at it. I like reading other people's opinions, however they don't dictate my own.

Thirdly, things can be judged for entertainment (ultimately an entirely subjective judgement), and judged by other, less subjective qualities as well. Night at the Roxbury is a bad movie. To my knowledge, there is no criteria like cinematography or writing it would score above "average" in (categories that do have a subjective components, but are not entirely so). And it would probably be lucky to score "forgettable" in most. I would never categorize it as "good" movie in any objective sense. I found it wildly entertaining, and would say such.

Relative goodness/badness should not be judged soley on how well something is received. The suggestion would mean popularity is the sole determinant of quality, which it most certainly is not.

The writing of Stephen King is not horrible. It isn't great. Different people will place it at differen points of that sub-spectrum (and doubtless, some people would put him far to one end or the other, but I suspect that's foolish. I'm talking to you Mr Atkinson). He's sold millions of novels (and I am happy for him in this). They're separate things. King's sales indicate he is popular, not that he is a good writer. They don't really speak much to his writing quality. I think it would be safe to objectively categorize him as being "not horrible" at minimum. Sales alone don't prove that this is true (and Steven, if you happen to read this, I'd put you significantly closer to great than to horrible; thanks for the memories and do another short story collection for us, please).

fourth: this poll most likely proves more people like Moo2 than Moo.

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.