I liked this game a lot but it failed to gain traction in a crowded market. What went right and what went wrong?
Dunno, never played it. Lack of marketing probably.
I bought it but got bored quickly. Or filtered. Whatever.From what I've read since, MicroProse got spooked by Civ 1-2's success so overhauled the user experience to be more like Civ 2. But the gameplay of MOO 1 was already top notch.So I dunno. Maybe a 3D version of MOO 1 would have been a better tack?
>>12082714>failed to gain traction in a crowded marketI thought it went extremely well they made a third game.I personally think MOO3 isn't that bad
>>12083446I think MoO2 is better than MoO1. More people favorite it in GameFAQs. The remake version also use MoO2 style.
>>12082714What the fuck are you talking about? It was a commercial success.
>>12083991MOO2 is better. MOO is also great, but I always enjoyed everything about moo2 much more: the design, the artwork, the gameplay features, even the soundtrack. Also a very well balanced game where you can succeed as any race despite the existence of metas that favor certain races/attributes, etc. Yeah, creative races help a ton with research, but don’t tell me you can count out an uncreative race that excels at building and pop growth.
>>12083991MOO2 has a lot more stuff/options than MOO1 (a good thing imo), but suffers from excessive colony micromanagement due to trying to copy Civilization.I want to like MOO2, but I hate the micro too much. I prefer MOO1.
>>12083719What's good about MOO3? Every once in a while a contrarian shows up and says that. When I ask why they disappear without replaying
>>12085625*replying
>>12085625it's coolI mean it's obviously not as good as 2, or maybe even 1, but as a game it's just what it is. while 2 expands on micromanaging stuff you had from 1, 3 did the opposite and automates a lot of stuff to maybe even more than 1. we still have ship design, diplomacy, research, all that stuff. I personally found the real-time combat quite interesting in theory (formations and all the tactical options), which is a shame because of the horrid AI and balance issues.
>>12085612I love Civ 1 & 2 before I played MoO series. I played MoO1 but I didn't like it that much. When I saw MoO2, I felt it's Civ in space.
>>12082714 wut moo2 was the benchmark for the genre for the longest time. Some even say the tactical battle gameplay is still unmatched.
>>12086528it's a bot thread, just mixing thumbnails and randomized text
>>12086220IIRC there was a ship build which always won, if you produced a shitton of them and swarmed the enemy. Can't remember whether it was a missile or torpedo boat design.
>>12086220>moo3Automating things is fine, but the game is a horrible pos not from any one feature but because its design and user interface is complete trash. Hard to even tell what you’re doing or if it has any effect when playing. The game feels like an afterthought nobody ever bothered to put real thought into, unlike 2, which is with few exceptions a masterpiece of turn-based 4X.
>>12087461>its design and user interface is complete trash. Hard to even tell what you’re doing or if it has any effect when playing.really? didn't feel that way when I played it back then. which specific part you think was most confusing?
>>12086642Everyone you don't care about is a bot, understood.
>>12086528what other games do you like perchance
