oooo aaron! - looks like moo3 is flopping... ;) do se5 faster?

Mondu999 · #1 March 4th, 2003, 01:28 PM

geoschmo:

I'm a noob here, so I'm not entirely sure I can answer the question as to why SE4 isn't compared to other 4x games, but here goes:

It ain't commercial. The graphics don't compare. Most players 'talk' about how graphics don't matter in strategy games, but that's a lie. Its nice to have bells and whistles.

Gameplay in SE4 is great (having only played the demo), but most are unwilling to give it a try because its made by an independent (meaning thats its not carried by a huge publisher). They just don't consider SE4 in the same 'league' as those other games (even tho I as play SE4, I think !!! This could be a Moo game if it had prettier graphics!). No offense, but u see what I mean?

Mondu999 · #2 March 4th, 2003, 01:30 PM

Oops...I'm reading this thing backwards, aren't I...ignore me as I run into hiding.

Ruatha · #3 March 5th, 2003, 02:22 AM

As most other things, with SE4 the forum is made another way aswell

I'd love a 3d map as that which seems to be in Moo3.
It will propably not add much to the game but I could propably sit a long time and zoom around in a 3d map.
In Elite II Frontiers there was a 3D map and I loved it.
It makes me feel like it's actually stars we're dealing with. Not a 2D gameboard.

tesco samoa · #4 March 5th, 2003, 02:58 AM

Mondu999.

I understand what your saying and agree with you.

The only reason I touched it was because it involved space and the 4x.

But that simplicity has an added bonus. It is easier to mod for people who are not graphically inclined

.

THis is the reason I have not touched the Dungon game. I would rather play Bioware games.

klausD · #5 March 4th, 2003, 03:48 PM

I am glad that there are different opinions about the qualities of games.

With MOO3 it seem that players which like to play realtime games or at least do have basic tolerance (although no specific love) are not so harsh with MOO3 than the turnbased purist (like myself) which find this game not worth playing.

But it has some interesting points. (no I dont mean such unnecessary "cool" features like some 3D map or realtime combat or other eye candy)

I mean Spies. The basic idea of MOO3 spies is a very good one. Of course there are intelligence and counterintelligence spies missing but thats only typical for the bad and halfhearted approach of QS. No, this failure should not detract from the good basic idea of handling spionage and assassination.

The same with Moving ships and fleets. No ship can be moved or is in existence without a fleet. Thats it. No fuzzying around with single ships or multiple ships with or without taskforce. Thats I mean is a clean design. there are other good ideas like mouse support if the pointer goes over a fleet. (the icon grows and gets bigger)
The same mouse idea is with system icons. A excellent ergonomic idea.

These 2 above things are the best in MOO3 IMO. (other goodies are ground combat options etc.)

I would appreciate if the ergonomic and interface of a 4x game like SEV would be streamlined and improved. Some of the MOO3 ideas could be at least taken in a closer selection.

Unknown_Enemy · #6 March 4th, 2003, 07:39 PM

just went late here, so I want to comment about the MOO3 map. Looking at it, you really feel in the galaxy, as the 2d maps of SE4 is sort of artificial.

Aloofi · #7 March 4th, 2003, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mondu999:

It ain't commercial. The graphics don't compare. Most players 'talk' about how graphics don't matter in strategy games, but that's a lie. Its nice to have bells and whistles.

Its not a lie!
When a player say that graphics don't matter is not saying that SE3 looks better than SE4, but that graphics are SECONDARY!
I can live perfectly well without good graphics, but I CAN'T live with bad gameplay!
For some odd reason, games that focus in graphics ALWAYS lack in gameplay and are anything but deep, especially in the 4x genre, and in Strategy in general.
So yes, graphics DON'T matter.