Tyler Do'Urden
Soap Maker
I don't like to give bad reviews. I'm generally not a very critical guy. But I'm in a really bad mood right now.
A few days ago, I picked up Master of Orion 3, a game that I had been anticipating since Master of Orion 2 came out seven years ago. I had been following the development of this game, on and off, for months. I'd stop by Quicksilver's web site and read their development dumps and message boards, devouring everything. It sounded like this was the game I'd been waiting years for- a strategy game that could top not only the original Master of Orion games, but Civilization II, Alpha Centauri, Master of Magic, Age of Wonders, and every other turn-based strategy game that I had burned countless hours playing.
The day finally came, and I ran off eagerly to Software Etc. to reserve the copy I had preordered two months earlier.
I came home, I installed the game.
I played for about an hour.
And I quit.
I don't know where to begin my litany of complaints about this game.
The ugly interfaces? Except for some of the 3d (which looks like it was rendered four years ago), the game looks like it could have been made around the same time as the original. The interface has all the visual appeal of accounting software.
The horrendous combat system? The space combat engine looks like a pathetic rip off of Star Wars: Rebellion (which wasn't a particularly good game either). It's nothing but dots firing lines at each other. The strong tactical combat system of two has been replaced with this... crap. The ground combat system is boring as well. I have no way of knowing how any of my units performed in a battle, if my strategies worked or not.
The automated AI? The game plays itself. I don't want to sit around and punch the "End Turn" button repeatedly, I want to make decisions- beyond setting policies that only result in subtle changes. If you want to see a good policy engine, look at the Social Engineering system from Alpha Centauri.
The planetary economic model? Rather than the Civilization-inspired system of Master of Orion II, we have sliders once again- which wouldn't be a bad thing, if it was possible to understand how the damn things balance out to begin with! Not only that, the infrastructure system is uninteresting, and all planets, despite their little details, don't seem distinctive at all. Moo2's planets were, in their little details, more interesting.
Shipbuilding? The shipbuilding screen is unintuitive and ugly. Why are the hulls for orbiting platforms given the same names as the hulls for starships? And why in the heck do they need engines- and what power setting should one give them? 1500? 1800? 1? 49? 63? 666? All of the weapons are essentially just guns with different numbers attached to them- in fact, there doesn't seem to be much technological distinctiveness in the game at all, which leads us to-
Research? One of the most exciting parts of the first two games (as well as many other strategy games) was developing new technologies- recieving research reports and picking new techs to pursue. That's gone now. Instead, you're innundated with reports of technologies being "made visible", "researched", "entering prototype phase", "being protested", etc. There is no decision making except for, you guessed it, adjusting the sliders. After seeing about 10 turns worth of tech reports, you learn to tune them out. Great job, guys.
Diplomacy? This was a strong suit in the previous games- and a weakness in the new game. Computer players declare war for no apparent reason- on any level! Early in the game, too, before anyone has a fleet- leading to wars that are little more than throwing spies at each other...
Spies? Another botched opportunity. You can hire a number of different types of spies (terrorists, more accurately) and insert them into enemy territory, where they sew fear and dissent, destroy buildings and ships- or do they? I'd get sitrep reports regarding the good work of my spies and my opponent's spies, and I'd still never be sure what they were accomplishing, unless they managed to kill one of my leaders...
Ahh, leaders. This was supposed to be one of the most interesting parts of the game (along with the ideology system, which was axed early on, long before the game went into beta testing). Instead, the council you get is little different from the planetary governors in Moo2, only the affect the whole empire. What I thought was going to be a panel of leaders with distinct personalities from an empire filled with distinct personalities, where I could hire, fire, and promote governors, admirals, generals, senators, company heads- no, all I got were a few % modifier "cards". Great.
The Orion Senate. Although I can see where this mechanic would be significant later in the game, having the Senate in at the beginning is a pain... and it actually costs race picks NOT to be counted as a member! (Most races have a random chance of being or not being a member at the begining of the game, but from what I can see, on easy level, everyone starts out a member). The fun of encountering all the other races in the galaxy as you expand across the darkness was spoiled- replaced with this annoying galactic UN, where the races submit bills and vote in ways that, typically, make no sense at all. And there isn't even an option in the startup menu "No Orion Senate"...
In other words, this game is a serious disappointment- and what's worse, they were promising that this game would be all about the "Experience", or the "Fifth X" as they were calling it. Unfortunately, rather than having an experience, one just drowns in boring details. The original two were more of an experience than this lousy excuse for a game.
Once again, one goes in the dustbin of disappointments, joining the shameful ranks of Rebellion, X-Com Apocalypse, Daikatana, Civilization: Call to Power, and all their unworthy ilk...
A few days ago, I picked up Master of Orion 3, a game that I had been anticipating since Master of Orion 2 came out seven years ago. I had been following the development of this game, on and off, for months. I'd stop by Quicksilver's web site and read their development dumps and message boards, devouring everything. It sounded like this was the game I'd been waiting years for- a strategy game that could top not only the original Master of Orion games, but Civilization II, Alpha Centauri, Master of Magic, Age of Wonders, and every other turn-based strategy game that I had burned countless hours playing.
The day finally came, and I ran off eagerly to Software Etc. to reserve the copy I had preordered two months earlier.
I came home, I installed the game.
I played for about an hour.
And I quit.
I don't know where to begin my litany of complaints about this game.
The ugly interfaces? Except for some of the 3d (which looks like it was rendered four years ago), the game looks like it could have been made around the same time as the original. The interface has all the visual appeal of accounting software.
The horrendous combat system? The space combat engine looks like a pathetic rip off of Star Wars: Rebellion (which wasn't a particularly good game either). It's nothing but dots firing lines at each other. The strong tactical combat system of two has been replaced with this... crap. The ground combat system is boring as well. I have no way of knowing how any of my units performed in a battle, if my strategies worked or not.
The automated AI? The game plays itself. I don't want to sit around and punch the "End Turn" button repeatedly, I want to make decisions- beyond setting policies that only result in subtle changes. If you want to see a good policy engine, look at the Social Engineering system from Alpha Centauri.
The planetary economic model? Rather than the Civilization-inspired system of Master of Orion II, we have sliders once again- which wouldn't be a bad thing, if it was possible to understand how the damn things balance out to begin with! Not only that, the infrastructure system is uninteresting, and all planets, despite their little details, don't seem distinctive at all. Moo2's planets were, in their little details, more interesting.
Shipbuilding? The shipbuilding screen is unintuitive and ugly. Why are the hulls for orbiting platforms given the same names as the hulls for starships? And why in the heck do they need engines- and what power setting should one give them? 1500? 1800? 1? 49? 63? 666? All of the weapons are essentially just guns with different numbers attached to them- in fact, there doesn't seem to be much technological distinctiveness in the game at all, which leads us to-
Research? One of the most exciting parts of the first two games (as well as many other strategy games) was developing new technologies- recieving research reports and picking new techs to pursue. That's gone now. Instead, you're innundated with reports of technologies being "made visible", "researched", "entering prototype phase", "being protested", etc. There is no decision making except for, you guessed it, adjusting the sliders. After seeing about 10 turns worth of tech reports, you learn to tune them out. Great job, guys.
Diplomacy? This was a strong suit in the previous games- and a weakness in the new game. Computer players declare war for no apparent reason- on any level! Early in the game, too, before anyone has a fleet- leading to wars that are little more than throwing spies at each other...
Spies? Another botched opportunity. You can hire a number of different types of spies (terrorists, more accurately) and insert them into enemy territory, where they sew fear and dissent, destroy buildings and ships- or do they? I'd get sitrep reports regarding the good work of my spies and my opponent's spies, and I'd still never be sure what they were accomplishing, unless they managed to kill one of my leaders...
Ahh, leaders. This was supposed to be one of the most interesting parts of the game (along with the ideology system, which was axed early on, long before the game went into beta testing). Instead, the council you get is little different from the planetary governors in Moo2, only the affect the whole empire. What I thought was going to be a panel of leaders with distinct personalities from an empire filled with distinct personalities, where I could hire, fire, and promote governors, admirals, generals, senators, company heads- no, all I got were a few % modifier "cards". Great.
The Orion Senate. Although I can see where this mechanic would be significant later in the game, having the Senate in at the beginning is a pain... and it actually costs race picks NOT to be counted as a member! (Most races have a random chance of being or not being a member at the begining of the game, but from what I can see, on easy level, everyone starts out a member). The fun of encountering all the other races in the galaxy as you expand across the darkness was spoiled- replaced with this annoying galactic UN, where the races submit bills and vote in ways that, typically, make no sense at all. And there isn't even an option in the startup menu "No Orion Senate"...
In other words, this game is a serious disappointment- and what's worse, they were promising that this game would be all about the "Experience", or the "Fifth X" as they were calling it. Unfortunately, rather than having an experience, one just drowns in boring details. The original two were more of an experience than this lousy excuse for a game.
Once again, one goes in the dustbin of disappointments, joining the shameful ranks of Rebellion, X-Com Apocalypse, Daikatana, Civilization: Call to Power, and all their unworthy ilk...
.
