Does anyone know anything about this new Master of Orion game?
- Thread starter Reed Spacer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
All I know at this point is that it's made searching for Let's Plays of the original MUCH more tedious. I was curious to check out its roots first, but it seems like everyone and their mother have flooded the search results with LP's of the current one.
I liked the third more than the second but at least we agree on liking 4X games. ,)
You can find an early access impression here:
http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2016/03/master-of-orion-early-access-first-impressions/
There is also http://explorminate.net/ but I don't like that site because they mostly do videos and their forum is steam only.
If you also like other space games I can recommend http://spacesimcentral.com/ssc/
You can find an early access impression here:
http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2016/03/master-of-orion-early-access-first-impressions/
There is also http://explorminate.net/ but I don't like that site because they mostly do videos and their forum is steam only.
If you also like other space games I can recommend http://spacesimcentral.com/ssc/
Yeah, a bit hard for me to give it a fair assessment it if it's still in beta; the whole point of beta is to iron out anything wrong.cathou said:
As much as I love the genre, I've long ago decided never to get hyped about 4X games before the games are actually completed.
A good 4X is all about game mechanics, AI and a lot of fine-tuning and you can never take any of that for stuff for granted even with a motivated dev.
In some genres like platformers and shooters, you can sometimes tell from just a piece of the product that the dev has what it takes and is sitting on a great idea, so adding more levels to the sequence should work, but for a 4X game a missing part can make all the difference from start to finish of a game session.
A good 4X is all about game mechanics, AI and a lot of fine-tuning and you can never take any of that for stuff for granted even with a motivated dev.
In some genres like platformers and shooters, you can sometimes tell from just a piece of the product that the dev has what it takes and is sitting on a great idea, so adding more levels to the sequence should work, but for a 4X game a missing part can make all the difference from start to finish of a game session.
The Mighty Jingles has a quality preview and early-beta LP of it that might be worth watching, especially since he cuts the BS and starts discussing its merit as a game in direct comparison to its forebears.
I'm kind of interested in seeing what comes of it, but knowing it's being made by Wargaming has me a bit "ehh...". A lot of their design choices are quite whacko, but on the other hand they're one of the remaining game companies who straight-up say "yes, we know the game is hard. Fuck you, get better at it.".
I'm kind of interested in seeing what comes of it, but knowing it's being made by Wargaming has me a bit "ehh...". A lot of their design choices are quite whacko, but on the other hand they're one of the remaining game companies who straight-up say "yes, we know the game is hard. Fuck you, get better at it.".
I have been a fan of Master of Orion 2 since I bought an original boxed copy, ahem. Some years ago.
I also bought the new one on Steam, just because.
It's not finished yet so it's difficult to say what it's going to be like when completely finished, however I wouldn't say that it's better. It's different. Both familiar, and unfamiliar. Battles being real time for instance is... different. Very different. It's certainly more fluid, but also less tightly controlled than the TBS system MOO2 used in tactical.
The hyperspace lanes instead of free travel is also different and has incredibly major impacts on how the game handles, as well as certain diplomacy options such as "don't colonise near me", which basically allows a race to demand that somebody else leave a one system buffer zone between your empires. It also means that you rarely end up fighting a massive war against every other race in the galaxy similtaniously as you do in MOO2 when everybody gets long enough ranged fuel cells, simply because empires can't meet you without having to fight through other empires for that to happen.
It's an "ok" game, but I'm not sure that it will mean I never fire up the original MOO2 for a game.
I also bought the new one on Steam, just because.
It's not finished yet so it's difficult to say what it's going to be like when completely finished, however I wouldn't say that it's better. It's different. Both familiar, and unfamiliar. Battles being real time for instance is... different. Very different. It's certainly more fluid, but also less tightly controlled than the TBS system MOO2 used in tactical.
The hyperspace lanes instead of free travel is also different and has incredibly major impacts on how the game handles, as well as certain diplomacy options such as "don't colonise near me", which basically allows a race to demand that somebody else leave a one system buffer zone between your empires. It also means that you rarely end up fighting a massive war against every other race in the galaxy similtaniously as you do in MOO2 when everybody gets long enough ranged fuel cells, simply because empires can't meet you without having to fight through other empires for that to happen.
It's an "ok" game, but I'm not sure that it will mean I never fire up the original MOO2 for a game.
One thing I never got was judging a game based on its previous iteration that happened 10+ years ago. It's basically just a title at this point. The team making it is different, the company making it is different, the industry in which it is being made is different... Seriously, the quality of MOO3 (or MOO2 for that matter) has little to no bearing on the new MOO game.
That being said, I've heard good things about it from people I trust. Sure, the game is still in Early Access and not all the features are in, but the stuff that is in seems to be solid and fun to play with. Considering what a letdown GalCiv3 has been, MOO is on my radar to scratch the Space 4X itch. That, and Stellaris.
That being said, I've heard good things about it from people I trust. Sure, the game is still in Early Access and not all the features are in, but the stuff that is in seems to be solid and fun to play with. Considering what a letdown GalCiv3 has been, MOO is on my radar to scratch the Space 4X itch. That, and Stellaris.
Comparison is one thing, I'm talking more about things like "MOO3 was wank, so this will probably be wank as well" or "MOO2 devoured my childhood and I love it for it so this is going to be THE BEST SHIT EVER!". I find that to be just silly. On the other hand, expecting themes, visual design or gameplay mechanics from earlier franchise entries isn't unreasonable if the devs are using the franchise.Corey Schaff said:It comes with the territory of naming your game after the previous titles; if you don't want to invite the direct comparison, you need to name it something else. Even then that doesn't work most of the time, but with the former option you have no defense
GalCiv3 is out of early access and it's basically a stripped down version of GalCiv2. Perhaps it'll catch up to the previous game after 2-3 expansions, but at this point there's little point in playing it. They added very little, the game looks almost exactly the same, only there are fewer features and mechanics in it. It might be better than GalCiv2 at vanilla release, but it doesn't come close to GalCiv2 with all the expansions.Corey Schaff said:
Stellaris just looks delicious in every way and I can't wait to get my grimy little paws on it...
Master of Orion II has for a long time been THE point of comparison for it's genre because it got pretty much everything perfectly right, and even after all these years (she's actually 20, not just ten) it's still more fun to play than many if not most games that have came since.Jandau said:
To quote this restrospective review:-
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2000/10/02/pc-retroview-master-of-orion-ii
Exchange eight-year-long with twenty-year-long and that's just as true today.
That little has been found that can be changed to improve MOO2 in it's remake (like hyperspace routes, a relatively recent innovation) is very notable given that it came out like 2 years after Doom 2. How does Doom2 compare to this years FPS's, and how many people go back to play Doom 2 because of the gameplay?
I just finished Master of Orion 2 for the first time, I wouldn't say it's perfect. Every other time I've tried to win the game I got bogged down in battles with dozens if not hundreds of mediocre alien ships that seem to take at least half an hour a turn, until I eventually gave up.
When it comes right down to it, X-Com: UFO Defense and Master of Orion II are basically the gold standards in both their franchises and genres. Master of Orion 2 is really the only 4X game that I've truly enjoyed as much as it, it's also always had a place on my hard drive, on every computer capable of running it that I've owned since the game came out. MOO2 is nearly flawless in 4X execution, it's extremely well balanced, the AI is fairly smart, and you can turn off parts of the game you hate.
All said it looks like the new Master of Orion changed the formula too much to be as good as 2 was... Which is a shame.
All said it looks like the new Master of Orion changed the formula too much to be as good as 2 was... Which is a shame.
You can always turn off tactical combat... You're aware of that right? Just like how you can turn off random events to avoid those nasty hyperspace fluxes, or you can make your race repulsive to not deal with diplomacy.Breakdown said:
I am not disputing MOO2's excellence. I'm just saying it has little bearing on this game. Yes, MOO2 is still in many ways a benchmark. Yes, new 4X games will be measured by it. And yes, the fact that the new MOO bears that name means there's definitely an even greater expectation placed upon that game to live up to the name it's taken upon itself. But that doesn't mean it will (or will not) do so successfuly, simply based on the name.Freyr said: