FreeOrion

agreed.

moo1 was the best of all...

it was easy to play

it had a ton of depth

great replayability

it just worked...

MOO1 is probably the best, its the only game that i will still spend an afternoon playing from time to time, despite having played it for about 10 years, ive played it since i was age 7 and i continue to play it from time to time. I enjoyed MOO2, though the micromanagement was a pain and i still play it occasionally, though much less frequently than MOO1.

Being a devout MOO player I eagerly anticipated MOO3, i read all the development diaries, previews, and such. I got it on the first day and I played it and I was disappointed. Despite my spending plenty of time learning the game before i could play it, it still took hours to get a feel for it. Me and my friends played the game on multiplayer and it just was more frustration than fun, finally i abandoned the game and I haven't touched it since.

I've played MoO1 and like it, but the old-fasioned interface is annoying, and some aspect of gameplay seem a little thin.

I just ordered MoO2, which i actually have never played. I may disappear from FO development for a while, though i expect the all the micro will annoy me. Let's call it research.

Good decision. There is not so much micro. Ok, at the end it will be, but at this stage you already won....

noelte wrote:Good decision.

It wasn't really a decision. I could get Moo2 for $5, but Moo3 has always been at least $45 for the mac— even used.

Moo2 is far better than Moo3 anyway. And yeah, I wouldn't touch Moo1 because of its graphics.

On a similar topic... I picked up SE5 today!

utilae wrote:I wouldn't touch Moo1 because of its graphics.

the graphics are amazing!

and classic.... for 1993, they were right on par.... I remember getting this game. I only had 1 MB of ram in my PC, the game wouldn't run. I kept it around for some reason.... one day I finally upgraded and popped a second 1 MB simm in the ole' 386.. then with countless edits to my autoexec.bat and config.sys... walla! Me and all my roommates would play this game endlessly... someone would always be at the computer playing it - all hours of the day... and I'm still playing it... 14 years LATER!!! I can't say that about one other game, except maybe some board games like Monopoly... oh and Risk (except no one will play that with me for some reason).

StratCaster wrote:

utilae wrote:I wouldn't touch Moo1 because of its graphics.

the graphics are amazing!

Well, the MoO1 aliens at least are better than the screenshots i've seen of MoO2

Ditto StratCaster, graphics on par for 1993. I, too, bought it new; and I'm still playing it.

so this game somehow had better looking graphics than MoO2?

Post some side by side screens and we can see.

Though I can't say I have ever seen what Moo1 space combat looks like.

I've never seen it at all.

From the mac version, since these aren't easy to find online...



I've commented elsewhere that it could be good to implement combat first in a roughly moo1 looking form. That would allow balancing off weapon-types, armor etc, without waiting for support of all the fancy rendering stuff. It should also attract people to the project, once some sort of combat is playable.

marhawkman

so this game somehow had better looking graphics than MoO2?

The graphics are not the issue with replayabilty; Moo1 has an excellent AI for the computer adversaries, and excellent balance in most weapons and shields. The game made use of sliders for resource allocation, which made gameplay easy to control (the current administration of FreeOrion abhors sliders). Combat is not visually inspiring, by today's standards, but still effective and satisfiying. As you see, combat used ship stacks, and could go as high as 32,000 ships, as I recall.