Master of Orion 3 taught us one thing: Master of Orion fanboys have no idea why the game is fun. Master of Orion 3 was made by Quicksilver, who were the ones who also made the ‘strategy books’ for such games, and they thought they knew it all. But they showed us they knew nothing about fun.
Just reading this confirms the same.
The game will still allow players to win through conquest, diplomacy, technology or economy, according to Wargaming, and players will still have to worry over their civilization’s morale, pollution, taxes and defenses. Random events and anomalies will add variety to gameplay as well.
The bold shows that these guys don’t get it. What’s next? Space lanes.
Through the course of many years this blog has been around, there have been many ‘successors’ to Master of Orion appear. And they *all* fail. People tell me, “Hey Malstrom, this is it! This is Orion successor!” And I can immediately tell that it is not.
There are two common problems all the successors do.
1) Space Lanes
It’s goddamn space. There are no ‘lanes’ in space. All the ‘lanes’ do is tell us you have no idea how to program an AI. The challenge of an Orion game is not the gameplay, not the graphics, not the sound, but the AI. Master of Orion had an extremely sophisticated AI that could handle ‘no lanes’. I know it is sophisticated because no one seems to be able to replicate it!
2) Master of Orion 2 is not the game to be beat. It is Master of Orion 1.
So many kiddies think Master of Orion 2 is the bee’s knees. All Master of Orion 2 was incorporate some Master of Magic elements in it (such as the heroes and city building for colonies). Master of Orion 2 has not aged well at all. No one wants to raise space corn. The first game, however, still retains its simplistic charm. There are no real micromanagement issues in MOO 1. It was the success of MOO 1 that allowed Master of Magic and Master of Orion 2 to be made in the first place. Master of Orion 1 was the updated version of Star Lords.
The actual spiritual successor to Master of Orion 2 was Alpha Centauri which came out three years later. Alpha Centauri is Civilization-In-Space and does unit design just like Master of Orion 1 and 2 do.
I own Galactic Civilizations and find the game completely unfun. I think those who think it is ‘great’ are those who think Master of Orion 2 is the ‘bee’s knees’… i.e. civilization building elements in space. Instead of ‘cities’, you have ‘colonies’.
I have zero faith in this ‘Master of Orion reboot’. The intro showing the ships becoming ‘3d’ is already worrisome. These developers need to bring more to the table than ‘I’m a fan of Master of Orion games’. So what? That doesn’t mean you understand it. I’m a fan of Super Mario Brothers, but I doubt that qualifies me on how to make a good Super Mario game. These guys simply don’t get it.
With the graveyard of MOO successors, you’d think there would be more caution out there, more ‘gee, maybe what most people think that makes Master of Orion click isn’t it or else there wouldn’t be all these corpses lying around’. But NOOO! Instead, they say, “I am a fan of the old games,” and charge ahead with their idiocy. Space lanes! City building for ‘colonies’. They just don’t get it.
To those that think I’m being dramatic here, consider this: Shigeru Miyamoto, arguably the best game developer ever, did not know why people liked Super Mario Brothers so much. In Miyamoto’s mind, Mario 64 and all were the ‘sequels’. He didn’t get it. Until others got it and made NSMB despite him, then the game blew up. The point is that if Miyamoto can miss something so obvious, I imagine lesser developers will miss something that is not obvious.
I have no faith in this new Master of Orion. I expect Space Corn, Space Lanes, heroes, and other weird shit.