|
Re: MOO3 finished!
I just visited Moo3 forums. They are debating why Moo3 will be released in England one month later. The consensus is the time needed for translation. For example, they have to change Evon, Psilon, and Klackon to Evoun, Psiloun, and Klackoun... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
Well, if they want to spell a lot of words wrong, they can go right ahead. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
Aluminium, anyone?
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
Who says the U.S. is the one who's spelling is all wrong?
Heh heh... Now the Brits gotta throw u's into everything to make themselves special! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
I'd think that the americanisms such as color and lite are introduced for two reasons. With the dropping of the "u" in many words (including but not limited to honour, colour, neighbour...) the americans were distinguishing/distancing themselves from their british "overlords" who spoke the same language. I'd imagine that had the lower colonies not had the rebellion/revolution, they'd be using the "u" just as much as their less independent neighbours to their north. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif
As to lite, defense (instead of defence) etc. I'd imagine that these are more the result of simplification for the sake of commercialism. The brits, having a major economic downturn combined with a weakened but significant aristocracy (which favours the status quo) have not embraced this whole-sale linguistic simplification scheme. We canadians have likely (through osmosis) taken the british lead without even realizing it! |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
As a person having learned english in school, speaking a totally different language usually.
I think the British spelling looks nicer, aswell as their prononcuation (difficult word) sounds better than the American Version. |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Their spelling has more useless letters in it. The (marginally) shorter Americanized spellings look much nicer.
Accents are completely subjective, so I won't comment on that one. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: MOO3 finished!
The American spelling is more efficient. You save a character by not having the extra 'u' in those words. Think of the time you save by not having to type or write the u's. Over your lifetime, it adds up. The American Version also saves 1 byte of memory each time it is used.
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
It's commercialization. As a business-owner I know the value of shorter words. You place an ad just about anywhere and they charge by the letter, not the word. Cutting out unneccessary letters saves the company money, savings which can then be passed on to the customer.
But, I was referring to the "British-ized" proper nouns. It doesn't seem to make much sense to change the spellings of the proper names of the races of MOO3, does it? After all, MOO3 was created in America and thus the "proper" names for the races should remain the same no matter where it goes. After all, you don't see Mexicans or Spaniards tossing o's and a's onto the ends of American proper names do you? Just imagine: Presidente Georgeo Busho... Let's see, in British that would be: President Geourge Boush? Hey this is actually kinda fun... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
Based on the fact that you're claiming Sweden as your location and have stated that you learned English in school, I'm inclined to presume that you learned British English in school. Thus, 'tis only natural for you to find that we 'Merkins tawk funny. I'm saying this as a Yank teaching English in France; i.e., a speaker of the Standard (mid-Western) American dialect of English (or as some of my students emphatically insist on asserting, American, as in a different language than English) trying to teach young-ish Francophone whippersnappers who cut their teeth on (theoreticaly standard BBC) British-dialect English. Ugh. They're not the same, and the difference runs deeper than extra u's and "funny pronunciations"; they're bloody well distinct dialects, and not just "regional accents", as some of my compatriots have asserted (though not here, mind you). Mais c'est tout, cela: elles ne sont pas des langues differentes non plus... Uh, [/RANT]... E. Albright ps: To keep this "on topic", I'm worried by MOO3's real-time combat, and justifications be damned; OTOH, as a low-end user who's seen simple, compact and well-written AI perform very well in the past, I'm not at all troubled by the low requirements. Tho' being stuck at 800x600 is strictly non-ideal... [ January 30, 2003, 14:24: Message edited by: E. Albright ] |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Since it appears that americans are actually proud of their "simplification" and "clarification" of English, it may be a good time to repost an old joke about "better english":
________________________________________________ Better English Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC, the European Parliament has commissioned a feasibility study in ways of improving efficiency in communications between Government departments. European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is unnecessarily difficult; for example: cough, plough, rough, through and thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of course, be administered by a committee staff at top level by participating nations. In the first year, for example, the committee would suggest using 's' instead of the soft 'c'. Sertainly, sivil servants in all sities would resieve this news with joy. Then the hard 'c' could be replaced by 'k' sinse both letters are pronounsed alike. Not only would this klear up konfusion in the minds of klerikal workers, but typewriters kould be made with one less letter. There would be growing enthusiasm when in the sekond year, it was announsed that the troublesome 'ph' would henseforth be written 'f'. This would make words like 'fotograf' twenty persent shorter in print. In the third year, publik akseptanse of the new spelling kan be expekted to reash the stage where more komplikated shanges are possible. Governments would enkourage the removal of double leters whish have always been a deterent to akurate speling. We would al agre that the horible mes of silent 'e's in the languag is disgrasful. Therefor we kould drop them and kontinu to read and writ as though nothing had hapend. By this tim it would be four years sins the skem began and peopl would be reseptive to steps sutsh as replasing 'th' by 'z'. Perhaps zen ze funktion of 'w' kould be taken on by 'v', vitsh is, after al, half a 'w'. Shortly after zis, ze unesesary 'o kould be dropd from vords kontaining 'ou'. Similar arguments vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters. Kontinuing zis proses yer after yer, ve vud eventuli hav a reli sensibl riten styl. After tventi yers zer vud be no mor trubls, difikultis and evrivun vud find it ezi tu understand ech ozer. Ze drems of the Guvermnt vud finali hav kum tru. |
Re: MOO3 finished!
That joke is still funny. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Too bad it doesn't contribute anything to this discussion. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: MOO3 finished!
ok, so here a the new alphabet
a b d e f g h i j k l m n o p r s t u v w z i have removed the c as it can be represented by the k or s, q replaced by kw if necessary, y replaced by i or e, x by z or ks. and here is how some of the current words can be respelled quick - kwik xylophone - zilofone recess - resess hungry - hungree hex - hecks ok so not every word gets simplified. [ January 30, 2003, 18:42: Message edited by: desdinova ] |
Re: MOO3 finished!
I saw a similar joke where the modifications to the English alphabet eventually ended up with the article being written in German...
To really get to the bottom of this whole language thing, consider that English came from Latin, just the same as American English came from British English. Nobody speaks Latin anymore (except for arrogant college kids)... |
Re: MOO3 finished!
So, Has anyone bought it? played it?
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
It goes on sale tomorrow... if you have heard of anyone who already has it they are either reviewers or beta testers or pirates.
The reviews are out, though. Of the good ones, all admit that the game is difficult to learn. The negatives think the game is more about 'AI management' than playing the game, and the AI is not manageable. There are also apparently some serious bugs in the UI department, like major graphical glitches. Not surprising given the sheer variety of motherBoards, graphics cards, and drivers out there. How could they possibly test every combination before release? |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
[ February 25, 2003, 00:04: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: MOO3 finished!
MOO3 is supposed to go on sale tomorrow... or at least the pre-sales are supposed to ship tomorrow. I do not know yet if any local outlets (Best Buy, EBgames, etc.) will have it in.
A few Online vendors have still not definately commited to ship times, so I do not even know if copies have arrived at the distribution warehouses yet. Anybody got anything definate and dependable? CombatSquirrel |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Adrenaline Vault gives the game three out of five stars--mainly because the AI is so incredibly poor.
http://www.avault.com/reviews/review_temp.asp?game=moo3 |
Re: MOO3 finished!
You know what I find impressive is that there are no copies floating around on the P2P networks yet. I browse both the Kazaa/Gnutella network and the WinMX network on a semi-regular basis. Normally you can find a game Online well before you can find it in the stores because someone at the CD plant will leak it. There's usually a lead time of two weeks or more. They must have resorted to some extra-ordinary security to prevent it from leaking.
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
from the avault review:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
Maybe it will be better after many patches a year from now. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
(And I was looking forward to MOO3 too... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif ) |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Nobody mentions that the combat system of MOO3 is only real time. Is this real time crap so much accepted in this forum, that no one is complaining about this important issue?
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
KlausD, MOO3 combat is designed so that you do not control the units directly. You give orders to task Groups and such before the battle, and watch them fight in real time. The pace of the battles is supposed to be such that the real time does not matter, and you have enough time to give whatever sparse orders you will need to give during combat. SE4 strategic combat is very similar, in that it is designed such that you give orders before combat, and then watch the results as the combat unfolds. This is not really a bad thing. In fact, real time combat for 4X games is far better than turn based, because it eliminates all of the unrealistic problems that come with turn based combat. In fact, I hope SE5 has well-implemented real time combat (and I am fairly certain that it is going to anyways http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).
[ February 25, 2003, 19:36: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Even if Moo3 was unplayable, typically there would be enough people looking for it that at least someone would pirate it. I'm brand new to P2P networks such as Kazaa. But I think they use some sort of ranking so that people who have UP-loaded lots of stuff can get faster downloads somehow. I think...
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
Another not so positive test:
http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/...f_orion_3.html Seems tester feel overwhelmed with details that have no real or only minimal effect. |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Imp Fyron
Sorry, but I dont share your view of RT not at all. (think, you guessed it already... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif ) You tell me that RT combat is much better for 4X games than turnbased. I am playing 4X games (board and computer) for nearly 20 years since I was a teenager and for me RT combat is something more ...what can I say...fashioned. I mean it appeared just several years ago. All the great classics of 4X (formers like CIV, MOM, MOO and some of todays like the SE series) are turnbased. Thats why your argument above (RT is better than turnbased for 4X) is not really valid for me. The problem is that most of the younger gamers today dont even know about something like "turnbased". (and they did not accept turnbased games because they grew up with RT games) I did spend some time to inform myself about the MOO3 tactical combat system the Last few months, and I am not convinced at all. Let me explain why: 1. Personally I dont like any type of RT games. I dont even play medievial, harpoon or star fleet battles (the computer game) because they have RT system or a tactical combat system in RT.(although I tested each of them at least several days) 2. You mention that MOO3 is a "soft" form of RT combat. Maybe. But nonetheless even such a "soft" form of RT combat as in MOO3 has one important unacceptable feature. The guy which has a better hand-eye coordination wins more battles than others. Why? Well, simple. In MOO3 you can give orders at any time. (mainly moving taskforce orders) If 2 guys with exactly the same fleets and the same tactical abilities battle another, the guy which is used to play RT games and has a good hand-eye coordination will click at more optimized time moments at this "move taskforce" button and will have an advantage to the guy who just clicks later on it. It plays no role if this advantage is high or not. Its enough that there is an edge to the coordination guy. A good 4X game should be a contest of the minds not a contest of coordination. It should be FULLY FREE of honoring a players clicking abilities. 3. Maybe you claim that Quicksilver introduced a RT system because they have so many ships in their combat that a normal turn based system would not possible. But to stay with the truth: -In effekt now in MOO3 there are in about 200 Ships max per side per battle. I had some epic (and very amusing) SE4 Battles with more ships. -if this 200max are so many ships that the average MOO player cannot handle them with ease in a traditional turnbased manner, they could reduce the amount with some economical or military restraints (making the single ship much more expensive or introducing some fleet point rules like in MOO2) Just a matter of game design. NO they did not want to make the engine turnbased because they want to make more money if they design a mainstream product like shogun or medievial with a mixed system.(see above my rant about the likings of gamers of today) 4. A further problem is that many people do make the assumption that a 4X game is a simulation of beeing a leader in a pre-specified environment like sim-city in space or so. This is not my opinion. In my opinion a good 4X game is a a computer aided board game and not a simulation. And board games have a long tradition beeing turnbased. Several thousands of years. I am not totally against sims or RT games. They should have their followers and their share of the big video gaming market. But I dont like if they do occupy every aspect of computer gaming. (especially the 4x games which I really like to play myselfes) So I am riding against windmills once more.... KlausD PS. sorry for my bad english |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
But I've got a pretty hefty 'erotic images' collection, so I can get plenty of credit by just leaving my system Online. I've hit 1000 (the max) credit/rank more than once in the past couple of months. Even with my current rating of 800+ I don't see anything but the MOO 3 'demo' that that stoopid Australian IG exec gave to a magazine Last year. I have been searching every day for the past week. That says to me that it isn't out there yet. I expect it will show up in a few days though. But it'll be a 600+ MB CD image, a bit large for 56k connections. I'll probably wait for the patches and then actually buy it -- if the word-of-mouth is not too ugly and the patches improve on the commonly reported faults. |
Re: MOO3 finished!
mephisto:
IMO this is rather a bad review. I know Brett Todd from other reviews in GD but I never liked his approach to games very much. He often scratches only on the surface of a reviewed game. Significant for this is that he dont even mention the RT tactical combat system, spies etc. but many thanks for the link. KlausD PS. Kriegt Ihr Deutschen jetzt eigentlich kubanische Zigarren billiger? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
Since it's only combat it's not such a problem, really. You expect combat to be hairy, and many people have also complained about how unbalanced 'I go U go' combat has been. Many people here want to see SE V move towards 'impulse' combat with lots of tiny 'sub-turns' anyway. Add some way to execute blocks of 'impulses' automatically, as some people will want to speed things up, and you're almost running real-time mode. It's just interruptible. Of course, it looks like MM has already decided to go real-time for SE V combat anyway... |
Re: MOO3 finished!
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Everyone who had issues with 'real time' has already vented on the MOO 3 forums. Everyone. Believe me, there can't be a person left on earth who resents real-time and has not posted a rant to the MOO 3 forums.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I know - I have posted there myself http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif I was wondering just about this forum. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Of course, it looks like MM has already decided to go real-time for SE V combat anyway... <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Sorry to hear this. Are you sure? (it would be a significant reason for me not to buy the game) I am glad that there is SE2-SE4 for people like myself. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Since it's only combat it's not such a problem, really. <font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">For me tactical combat is VERY important in SE4. At least so important as the tech or economical system. klausD |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Real Time Combat
What does that mean? I infer from the conversation that it means: I give instructions while combat is taking place. Currently I give various Strategies to my ships and fleets and they do more or less what I want. If RT Combat is going to require I need to react as fast or faster than my opponent I will not buy it. |
Re: MOO3 finished!
The point is that tactical combat is only part of the game. The clock is only ticking when you're watching ships shoot at each other, not while you're choosing facilities to build on your system garrison world, composing diplomatic Messages, designing ships, etc. It's only the one part of the game where real time can have a positive effect that it is being applied. Sure, there are problems with it. Many people would prefer an elaborate initiative/impulse system like many table-top miniatures games have. But that would require learning more complicated rules and interfaces, which would limit the market for the game. Not everyone is a micro-management fanatic like us nerds on these forums. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif So I can see why they went with real time.
[ February 25, 2003, 23:39: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ] |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
KlausD: The main game should be turn based. That was not my point at all. But, real time for combat (with slow rates) is better because it eliminates a huge number of problems that are inherent in turn-based combat. Some examples are the complete lack of realism of one side always being able to fire all of their weapons at once, then the other side fires all of their weapons. Some games (not SE4) make some attempt to fix this by using initiative systems (like MOO3) so that some of a players ships go, then some of the other side's go, depending on whatever is used to determine initiative. But, that is still a flawed system. You can not fix the inherent flaws with turn based movement unless you have an absurd number of initiative increments to get very fine gradations, and it is just like real time combat at that point. MOO3 combat is not going to be like Starcraft or anything like that. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
[ February 26, 2003, 00:09: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Real time combat? I wish MM would reconsider.
However much I have complained about "Strategies", I would prefer our present way of determining a battle than real time combat. Much better IMO would be for MM to give us a better method of programming our fleets/ships and then let the game decide the outcome. |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Its kind of funny to see people scoff at the first mention of real time combat. It solves so many problems of turn based combat, and can very easily be set at such a pace that you don't even notice it is real time instead of turn based, while still being fast enough to not keep you waiting for ever.
|
Re: MOO3 finished!
"Much better IMO would be for MM to give us a better method of programming our fleets/ships and then let the game decide the outcome."
They aren't mutually exclusive. Phoenix-D |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
For those players who do not "live" on-line, we can expect the game to take longer to play. |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Quote:
Quite right. |
Re: MOO3 finished!
I think the point has been made many times, but not quite understood.
In any PBW game, you have ZERO influence on combat once it has started. Your effect during the battle is the same whether combat is computed using a turn based system, a real time system, or simply flipping a coin and killing ships randomly. Obviously, flipping the coin gives you a very unrealistic outcome. Turn based more accurately simulates the "real thing" Real time simulates it even more accurately than turn based would. The only hand-eye coordination involved here is the simulated coordination of your AI ship's gunners. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif |
Re: MOO3 finished!
If I understand this,
Real Time Combat can not be done in PBW or PBEM so it seems as though there will still be a Stratigic combat. Am I right? |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Strategic combat = humans give all orders BEFORE combat, and none DURING combat.
Whether that fully automatic cambat is "real time" or turn based has no effect on the skill or coordination required. |
Re: MOO3 finished!
Yeah... I thought I was clear on that. MP games would have to be done with strategic combat (no player input-mid combat) either way, except for hotseat games. Otherwise, the game would get bogged down very easily. There is a good reason why there is no tactical combat (human controlled) in all non-hotseat MP games of SE4.
Hotseat games probably aren't how most MP games of MOO3 will be played. They certainly aren't for SE4 for most people (at least from what I have heard). Single player games benefit equally from properly implemented real time combat, as I have explained already. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:49 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.