MOO3 finished! - Page 8

couslee · #71 January 27th, 2003, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
MOO3 is not out yet. You can't buy and play it.

Your right. So I jumped the gun a little with the question. Wouldn't those that pre-ordered it have it yet? No issue. at least the question is there when it does hit the shelves. lol
my bad

Fyron · #72 January 27th, 2003, 11:43 AM

Pre-ordering just means that they will be able to pick it up from the store they pre-ordered from on the release date. Or, if they pre-ordered from a web store, copies will be shipped to them first, but still not before the release date.

Graeme Dice · #73 January 27th, 2003, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Because THEY ARE MUSKETMEN, not modern units with mines. Saying they have mines is highly irrational, and an attempt to explain the absurdity of the combat system.

You're the one who has the problem understanding how high-tech units can be defeated by low-tech units over the course of a battle that Lasts an entire year or longer, not I.

DavidG · #74 January 27th, 2003, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Because THEY ARE MUSKETMEN, not modern units with mines. Saying they have mines is highly irrational, and an attempt to explain the absurdity of the combat system.

You're the one who has the problem understanding how high-tech units can be defeated by low-tech units over the course of a battle that Lasts an entire year or longer, not I.

Actually I think he understands it perfectly. It's a flaw in the game. A phalanx attacking a battleship should lose 100% of the time. Why can't you just admit the game has a few flaws that just don't happen to bother you?

Perrin · #75 January 27th, 2003, 05:30 PM

I have been waiting for this for quite some time.

Ragnarok · #76 January 27th, 2003, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Perrin:

I have been waiting for this for quite some time.

Look! A cow!... Oh wait, wrong thread... Sorry...

Puke · #77 January 27th, 2003, 09:17 PM

perhaps this thread should be renamed to

ARGH! Musketmen sank my battleship!

Lemmy · #78 January 27th, 2003, 10:50 PM

Quote:

If you play a game for it's playability and not eye candy, then you don't need all the newest hardware.

[rant - not directed at couslee specifically...you just triggered it

]
Having higher requirements DOESN'T mean the game is all graphics!

Higher requirements can make the game a lot better by having a complexer and more advanced AI.
I'm so tired of TBSers accusing anyone who even comments about low requirements of being a teenage kid playing Doom3 on their 2.4 Ghz computer bought by their parents, e.g. a graphics hippie.
These low requirements are either unplayable, or are seriously holding the game back a lot. Traditional AIs (which Moo3 has) NEED procesor power if it wants to be any good, how can a game be playable if the AI sucks, because the are keeping the requirements down
[/rant]

Background info on rant:
The other day on i was on IRC with a computer game reviewer, and we started talking about Moo3.
Well...here's the log.
It starts with me commenting on the fixed resolution:
[21:35] Lemmy> ugh...800x600

[21:35] JonahFalcon> Tough noogies, Lemmy
[21:35] JonahFalcon> This is a strategy game, not DOOM III
[21:35] JonahFalcon> I still have fun with MOO2.
[21:35] Lemmy> smac is strategy, which is 1024x768
[21:35] JonahFalcon> And features lower res, too
[21:36] Lemmy> yes, but moo3 is 800x600 max
[21:36] JonahFalcon> I hope you don't think strategy games need hot graphics to be good. LOL
(this is when i sort of annoyed...assuming i only care about graphics because i think 800x600 is a low resolution)
[21:36] Lemmy> resolution isn't about graphics
[21:37] Lemmy> il ike SMAC, smac has arguably the worst graphics of ant strategy game
[21:37] Lemmy> bigger resolution = more info = less windows
[21:38] Lemmy> less windows to click through
...
[21:46] JonahFalcon> If MOO3 is DESIGNED for 800x600, your argument about interface are invalid
[21:46] JonahFalcon> Plus, much more visibility with 800x600
[21:50] Lemmy> ehm, i'd say much more visibility at 1024, 1280
[21:50] Lemmy> or*
[21:50] JonahFalcon> Says who?
[21:50] Lemmy> you could see a lot more of the map with a higher res
[21:50] JonahFalcon> This isn't HOMM4
[21:50] JonahFalcon> Says who?
[21:51] JonahFalcon> You do understand the concept of resolution, RIHGT?
(had absolutely no idea where he was trying to go with this...)
[21:51] JonahFalcon> 800x600 does not mean "less info".
[21:51] JonahFalcon> It only means "less detailed"
[21:51] Lemmy> yes, as a computer science student, and programmer, i understand the concept
[21:51] JonahFalcon> As in, the # of pixels used to create an object
[21:51] JonahFalcon> Obviously, you're getting an "F" in classes LOL
(so now he's trying to be funny..without even reading my arguments)
[21:51] Lemmy> with more pixels, you can show more objects
( ^ see, my argument)
[21:52] JonahFalcon> I've been reviewing games for 15 years, and playing them for 25.
[21:52] JonahFalcon> How old are you?
(and that is his defense!?

)
[21:52] Lemmy> lol..
[21:52] Lemmy> i'm 20
[21:53] JonahFalcon> So, I've been reviewing games since you were in preschool?
(by now i just wanted to end the conversation, since this obviously wasn't going anywhere, but i didn't want to give him the satisfcation of feeling like he was right, so...)
[21:53] Lemmy> and...?
[21:53] Lemmy> you can't deny that a higher resolution can show more objects, at the same detail level
[21:53] JonahFalcon> No
[21:53] JonahFalcon> Wrong

well, after this the conversation just went downhill...but it did annoy me, since i was disconnected, and he left after some great monologue...and now he thinks he's right about the resolution thingie, and that i'm just a 20 year old scriptkiddie who plays Doom3.

(sorry for the long post)

[ January 27, 2003, 20:52: Message edited by: Lemmy ]

Fyron · #79 January 27th, 2003, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DavidG:

quote:
Originally posted by Graeme Dice:

quote:
Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Because THEY ARE MUSKETMEN, not modern units with mines. Saying they have mines is highly irrational, and an attempt to explain the absurdity of the combat system.

You're the one who has the problem understanding how high-tech units can be defeated by low-tech units over the course of a battle that Lasts an entire year or longer, not I.
Actually I think he understands it perfectly. It's a flaw in the game. A phalanx attacking a battleship should lose 100% of the time. Why can't you just admit the game has a few flaws that just don't happen to bother you?

Yeah... that part is even worse than musketmen defeating tanks. So what if the battleship is in harbor? What are pointy sticks going to do to it? Nothing. Those phalanx have pointy sticks and some primitive armor, nothing else. Otherwise, they would have been upgraded to different units.

Krsqk · #80 January 28th, 2003, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
Yeah... that part is even worse than musketmen defeating tanks. So what if the battleship is in harbor? What are pointy sticks going to do to it? Nothing. Those phalanx have pointy sticks and some primitive armor, nothing else. Otherwise, they would have been upgraded to different units.

Umm...They're swimming in the harbor, and their pointy sticks are, umm, armor-piercing, and they happen to get a couple thousand lucky hits below the waterline?