I grew up on Masters of Orion II and was bitterly disappointed with Masters of Orion III. It totally missed the point that the game was meant to be fun and filled with big strategic decisions. Instead it was mired down in tiresome micro-management and replaced fun with realism.
I remember reading somewhere that Stardock wanted the rights for the MOO series but did not get them. Shame, they could have done a great sequel. Anyway this got be thinking about what I would have done for a sequel and also wondering that if Stardock wanted to produce a similar game how many next generation ideas would they need for the game to be more than just a clone, but a new game in its own right? Naturally the game would expand on existing elements such as more planet types, more player races, more technologies, more monsters etc. But the game would have to introduce some new elements to justify it as more than just an expansion. Here are some of my ideas.
INITIATIVE- Tactical combat was great fun in MOOII but the most annoying thing was that two relatively evenly matched fleets met the outcome would be decided by who went first. What if we introduced something called initiative and let ships with the highest initiative scores go first? In the event of ships having the same initiative the ship to move first could then be decided at random. Base initiative could vary for ship size, be affected by race picks, leaders and research-able technologies that could either effect crews instantly or be added to the ship design (eg computers that will increase initiative by 1 for each computer added).
CHANGABLE TECH TREES- Having played MOOII a lot it did not take long before you worked out exactly what technologies you wanted and which order to research them. Once these decisions were made and you had success with them you tended to repeat them every game. Introducing too much change into the tech trees would cause too much chaos, but what if every technology had a 5% chance of altering? They could alter in that they moved one up the tech tree or one down so that they were up against different technologies to select or they could disappear altogether, or perhaps be more powerful/beneficial than normal (where possible). This would not alter players overall strategy but would force them to make some different and important decision every game when it came to selecting technology.
GALACTIC AUCTIONS- In MOOII colony leaders and ship leaders offered there services to Empires for a price. What if this was taken much further? Imagine a galactic auction where leaders appeared for a certain period of time and players bid on them if they wanted them. At the end they went to the highest bidder. This could be done for technologies (both research-able ones and unique alien ones), alien artifacts that will confer a specific bonus upon a colony and even mercenary ships that will join your fleet if you are the highest bidder. This will have a big bearing on strategy. Do you spend your money on building or save for the auctions. How much are your rivals going to bid? Should you spend all your money on the good leader that came up, or save it in case a better one comes along? Should you even turn some colonies over to trade goods instead of research to ensure you are not short of money when you need it? This would add a whole new fun dimension to the game (or any space/fantasy strategy game).
What? MoO3 was the ultimate Macro-Management game, I thought that was why people hated it. Besides the slew of broken mechanics...
Indeed the goal of MoO3 was to pretty much just have the player make the larger strategic decisions (and design a few ships along the way). With the user made patch and various mods it actually plays pretty nicely if that's your cup of tea.
On the other hand a new MoO would be unlikely to be better than the slew of good space 4x seen since MoO3 died out. SotS, Sins, GalCiv2 even...
A new space 4x using the MoO universe would be fine, but sort of unnecessary. Making MoO4 would be such a double edged sword that I imagine it's just not worth the hassle for anyone to try.
Heretic. MOO2 still is still the best space 4x.
It wouldn't be any better than GalCiv2. With old classics, you either make the same game over with a bit of sparkle, and it feels dated or you remake it with modern gameplay ideas and the old time gamers feel cheated (not me, but many gamers seem to feel that way). Best to just make a new franchise and say goodbye to those old ones forever.
It's "Master of Orion". Anyway...
MOO3 was completely broken at release. The AI just didnt work at all - even if you set the game to the highest difficulty level and did nothing other than pressing the turn key all game long, you still wouldn't lose. When you have a single player game where the AI cannot win, its a big problem.
Plus, the game was just poorly made. Graphics in a game like that obviously don't matter too much, but the fact that they used voxel based graphics in a game that was released in 2003 just shows that they had no idea what they were doing.
Oh please, if Stardock made GalCiv3 right now, it would almost certainly be better than GalCiv2, so I don't see why you don't think that the genre can't be pushed forward a bit. I mean, I like GalCiv2, but if you can't think of about 10 ways to improve that game, you just aren't trying. I'll start - interactive space combat, the ability to use customized devices in ships (think cloaking devices, repulsor beams in MOO), a 3D galaxy map.... None of those ideas are new - they all existed in the MOO series at some point, and all of them could be improvements on GalCiv2.
Plus, I thought that the MOO races were a lot more enjoyable than the GalCiv2 races. I really have fond memories of most of the MOO races, but hardly remember most of the GalCiv2 ones. I just thought that the MOO series had way better flavor.
MoO3 was the first of the series I played, and I came in with no preconceptions or nostalgic expectations. I actually enjoyed it, and it lead me to look for other similar games. That got me onto GalCiv and Sins.
I wouldn't mind an MoO4, even if it went in a completely new direction.
First of all thanks to the OP for creating this thread.
I also grew up with Master of Orion. Can't really tell if I prefer the original one or the second installment, certainly not the third.
If you look at Brad's Stardock Customer Report 2011 I think you have part of the answer of why he's afraid to buy MoO from Atari and make a sequel, or a re-imagined version (it didn't need to be MoO4, could be Master of Orion Universe or another name). Brad states (or at least he's afraid of) that he believes that "we" are finished.
"The counter-argument to making complex strategy games with high production values is that the demographic for these games, males 25 to 55, does not have a long-term market future" ~Brad Wardell in Stardock Customer Report 2011
Brad states that he thinks 15-25 year old gamers are only about FPS and "playing on rails". Well, I thought it was Stardock's mission to keep complex and excellent strategy games alive and well. Brad then softens by saying:
"Stardock’s position is that as the new 15 to 25 year old demographic transitions to the “older” demographic that their gaming requirements will transition as well" ~Brad Wardell in Stardock Customer Report 2011
So, there are at least some mixed feelings on Stardock's (Brad's) mind about the future of strategy, PC gaming and complex gameplay overall. They are more or less in the same boat as Firaxis Games in my perspective (these are probably two of the game software companies I like the most).
So, behind all the excuses and long-shot statistics arguments I think Brad wants to make MoO4 (badly) but I think he's afraid to (he or his mates at Stardock). "It can't be done Brad, there is a legion of MoO starving fans out there that will kill you for breakfast just for the pleasure of it. They will always says MoO2 was the best no matter what". Wrong. It's hard to do a competent sequel, yes, but I think it can be done with incredible return potential.
Arguments to make MoO4 and be successful:
1. Established mature fan-base. We are PC gaming veterans. We love strategy, we love you (for GalCiv and Sins), we are a lot and we'll help you make the best game possible (as we helped you with GalCiv). We will not let you down. There are (and ever will be) jerks and morons everywhere but in this case the community is just too strong to be permeable to absurdities and nonsense.
2. Almost no marketing will be required (and this fits Stardock culture well as I read from the customer report). Just release a MoO4 teaser video on youtube and all the necessary marketing is done.
3. Motivation on your dev team (and everyone else I guess) can't get higher. "We're making the next Master of Orion!!" It can't get much better than that.
4. The last series installment was a complete let down, the only way is up.
5. MoO2 was released in 1996! Imagine what you can do with today's technology.
6. You're Stardock! You say that you're "focus[ed] on making cool stuff" and that you see an opportunity to cash-in through the "dumbification of games [makes room to] developers who are willing to create games that cater to individuals who are interested in a complex game experience but also want high production standards." and that you're "interested in developing games that appeal to men and women that involve considerable game play sophistication."
You're meant to make MoO4. You know it, we know it. So, what are you waiting for?
I don't see how a sequel to MOO2 could be a good thing. The lore itself was not so original (I liked it, but that's beside the point), so I don't see what else than the name you'd got out of it.
MOO, MOO2 and MOM were great games, and they were designed by the same team. You cannot just copy some mechanisms add some other, and hope it will be the same. A game is a vision, and with the guys behind the vision scattered around the world of PC gaming, I don't see how a MOO2 sequel would be better than a GalCiv2 sequel (for which SD would be free to follow their own vision of the game). Just getting the name, the rights, and a few ideas from MOO2 won't automagically make a game plays like MOO2, so please, let the game die. I still consider it the best 4X game, but I don't see what good a MOO2 zombie would do. I really hated most sequels done by another team so far (Fallout 3, HOMM 4,5,6, XCOM, MOO3,...). Just let MOO2 rest in pease. You can still play the game anyway, and even find other players with whom to play it (but it is a bit micro management heavy for a MP game, that's why I'd rather play the first one in MP).
@DarkGaldred
Are you excited about the new X-COM being made by Firaxis for example? If so why aren't you as excited with a MoO sequel/re-make possibility? If not I can understand better your point.
My top list of games:
1. CIV IV
2. Master of Orion II and Total Annihilation
3. Kings Bounty
4. Skyrim
A new Master of Orion II would have me in full fear of failure, but with a grain of hope.
I played Master of Orion II a lot back in the day. While I wouldn't say no to a remake, I think it would be difficult to bring it up to the expectations of today's games.
An expectant gamer is (no offence intended) as much a danger as an entitled gamer, in the sense that a new game barely has a chance to catch a breath before it's being poked, prodded and compared to The One Game. I mean, if you have the The One Game already, why are you looking for one that is shinier? Why aren't you playing The One Game instead?
I spent a long while hoping that GalCiv would live up to that sort of expectation. But it isn't exactly the same game. It doesn't fall into some of the same traps as the gameplay in MOO2 did, and it does some things better. So I decided it was worth playing on its own merits, especially when GalCiv 2 came out and the interface was all uncramped.
The same reason why we like to play new Fallouts, Elder Scrolls, Diablos, Company of Heroes, Mass Effects, X-COMs, Sins, etc? Why don't you go play Diablo 1 instead of playing the new Diablo3?
By that line of thought you could have said 15 years ago "Hey, go play MoO! Why do you need MoO2"?
It's a bit off topic but I would also like to have a GalCiv3 and Sins2. Some sequels succeed others do not. There are plenty of examples for both cases. One thing's certain, everybody loves a good sequel because it's the opportunity to get back to the same world/universe we find so dear.
So, although I agree with most of what you've said I disagree on the un-neediness to make sequels/remakes.
Well like I say, if you go around with a two-metre stick measuring all the games you come across, you're not really enjoying them for what they are. You're measuring. With a two-metre stick.
You're going to know if a game is not worth playing again (or playing at all) because of the word of mouth reaction. These days who doesn't check the forums (official or otherwise) to see what other people have to say about it?
If a game has some kind of positive reaction from the peanut gallery, that puts it somewhere between worth playing a few times and worth playing if you're ever stuck in a time loop. It's your money, you decide.
Concerning the Firaxis reboot, I'll see how it turns out afterwards. All the previous attempts have failed miserably. At least, the game seems different enough that it could be interesting on its own. Naming the game XCom won't make the game bad by itself, but I fail to see how it is supposed to replace the original that played very differently (in the original, you were supposed to lose grunts, and you could play in ironman mode. Here, with 6 squadies it seems much harder to achieve).
I'd take the older fallouts over the new Bethesda ones anyday. I couldn't stomach Fallout 3 for more than a few hours. New Vegas was much better but it would have been a great improvement not to have the stupid VATS system, just to claim the Fallout lineage. MOO2 and MOO were pretty different. I prefer the one, because it was a macromanagement game, except for the lack of mulitplayer. But for Diablo, Elder Scrolls, MAss Effect, Sins, civ... the new games were done by members of the previous ones who shared the vision behind the game. A game is not just a few ideas thrown together (otherwise, there would be many more open source games that do not suck).
I personnaly have no problems playing older games (I have just replayed MoM and Lords of the Realm 2 recently), so I'd rather have good games, that games that try too hard to copy/replace older games.
Atari are obviously *expletive* when it comes to rights to old games. I don't see this happening. Not saying I don't want it to of course. Maybe they will watch and learn from the Baldur's Gate spruce up.
Concerning MOO, MOO2, MoM and XCOm, I think what made the MOO series great was Steve Barcia designing it. Same for XCom who owned most of its greatness to Jullian Gollop.
These games were great, but a slight change to anything can quickly make them horibly broken, hence why all XCom remakes have been horrible. What would make me excited is someone taking XCom rights from Firaxis, and giving them back to Jullian Gollop, and someone forcing Steve Barcia to go back to designing games. But I doubt any of these will happen, so I don't hold my breat for an eventual sequel. For the same reason, I expect very little from Baldur's Gate new edition.
Anyway, to the OP, there already is an option to turn initiative on (I don't recall how it is called), and everyone does that in multiplayer if I recall.
You can now replay the game without waiting for another sequel
Concerning the changeable tech tree, just try playing an uncreative race, or a creative one, and that will make thes games pretty different from the standard ones (and much harder as these traits are somewhat bad, unless you know exactly what you are doing).
With Kickstarter being such a huge hit (or fad) I think it'd be a perfect time for a remake of Master of Orion II. MOOII was one of the greatest games (especially strategy games) ever.
It's funny that so few games are made to the level that they were back then. I know it has something to do with the way they're developed but I really can't help but think that the talent has gone elsewhere. Brian Reynolds, the creator of Alpha Centauri and Rise of Nations , also a huge influence on the early Civilization series, has left strategy gaming to join Zynga where he's helped create the ever popular Farmville and Frontiersville. While doing this we obviously won't see another game like Alpha Centauri or RoN.
Regarding remaking MOOII, there is never a reason not to remake a classic game. Sure, we can always go back and enjoy the original but there is always a market for remakes. If the first game is good it usually sells good and over time technology changes and advances. Furthermore, remakes can address shortcoming of the origional game while also adding new content. Usually this isn't what happens and some overambitious developers take a remake in a completely wrong direction and ruin the series. However, many remakes have been historic classics and the optimum experience of that series. For example, Civilization II was better then I and I think most people would agree the Civ IV (w/ expansions) was the best in the series. Not to mention that many offshoots of games create even better standalone products.
Anyways, the danger would be if someone remade the game and started radically changing the core values; that'd be dangerous. Development of a MOOII remake (or any for that matter) needs to maintain the core values of the original game and be weary of change. Not saying that change is inherently bad but it needs to be very careful. For example, Civilization V change the tiles and the combat which, most people say, are for the better. However, it also changes the units, civs, scale, speed, cities, multiplayer, and many other things which make the game inferior to previous games.
Also, it's kinda interesting to note that today's "expansion packs" are DLC which is pretty much a bad word while yesterdays true expansion packs were usually regarded as wonderful additions.
People only wants MoO II remake that is exactly like it plus newer graphics. So just gather some talented people (to create a clone free of lawsuits), create indie studio and hit Kickstarter. Or just offer cheap preorders like Xenonauts.
Umm...
Even though I disagree with you, I'm pretty sure I didn't say that MoO2 was worse than the newer games, just that a remake is unlikely to be better.
But I've nothing against a MoO4, I just don't really see the point of anyone acquiring the IP to actually make a game in the MoO universe and with the MoO title. Of course a lot of that is on Atari, if it were easy or cheap to get it then sure, why not, it wouldn't hurt sales... until after the shitstorm on their forums immediately after release
Would be great to have a newer MOOII, the very same game with just modern graphics!
IMO I agree GalCiv3 made by Stardock would be better, but there is certainly no guarantee, MoO3 just goes to prove that. How many of us on these boards pre-ordered MoO3 expecting just that, only to have MoO3 not only be not an improvement, but IMO (and by my guess most peoples opinion) much worse of a game than MoO2.
I find that unless the same team is doing the remake, I'd agree with the others just start with some new IP. And even with the same team, I'd agree that if you are changing the gameplay dramatically, a new title is in order, rather than just slapping the next numerical number on there. Numerically ordering sequels implies more of the same to me. I'm definitely not saying change nothing. I'm saying it should at least be the same ballpark.
Pushing the genre is great, but you shouldn't do it by hoodwinking (maybe a bit strong of a connotation) your former customers into buying a "name" with expectations already in place, and then giving them something completely different.
They did that with HoMM V and got all sorts of nerd-rage about the gameplay being too stale (among other really nitpicky things like camera angles and stuff). If someone made a MoO4 I'm sure there would be the same type of response just because some people can never be satisfied.
I don't think fear is an issue. Brad stated that they would have made a faithful MOM sequel if they had been able to acquire the license. They couldn't, hence they produced EWOM instead. I don't think MOO would be different.
True enough. I'm overly quick to defend things that are close to my heart.
I can't disagree with you here either. The license doesn't add much, given the weakness of the fiction. I'd be interested in a modernized MOO2 without the name, though.
I thought James009D made several very good points, in his Reply #17 above. But, to zero in on the core part of the discussion, I would also like to see someone (especially Stardock) take a shot at creating a MoO4. I don't think anything is so sacred that it can't be re-examined; and then maybe updated, expanded upon, or used as a starting point for a new franchise. I really think that it is worth a shot ! I love MoO2, but the title is not sacred !
( I understand that Atari's stupidity regarding licensing may make it impossible -- although that reminds me of that Price-Line ad on TV, where William Shatner (and his heavy: " Big Deal ") make the point that it is better to get SOME value out of a perishable asset or commodity, rather than to price it out of the market, and therefore get NO value for it.)
A couple of other observations: (1) I really think that MoO2 had the second best Technology tree that I have ever seen in a 4X game. Only Alpha Centauri's was (possibly) better. It surprised me, that Gal Civ II's Technology tree was not quite as good, even though that game was 10 year's newer. (And I do enjoy Gal Civ II, very much, by the way.)
(2) Okay, this is Jame009D's point, again: MoO2 was better than MoO1. Civ II was better than Civ I, and Civ IV was better still. Just because (most) people consider MoO3 to have been inferior to MoO2, doesn't mean that ALL future versions are doomed to be bad.
(3) Somehow, the races/empires in MoO2 were also more memorable (IMHO) than the ones we have seen in Gal Civ II, and Elemental War of Magic. (The verdict is still out, on FE, just yet.) They may have been slightly more "cartoonish" than the races/empires in newer 4X games; but they were better differentiated, and they were more FUN ! I don't see why that advantage couldn't be built upon. Sometimes simpler is better ...
(4) All this is just my opinion. But then, I'm really only a visitor here on Earth ... (I'm actually a native of a star system, that resides in the nebulae, that Earthlings call M42 ... )
MOO3 was not made by the people who made MOO2 (which were the same that made MOO1, and Master of Magic). This is a very different situation.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
