To provide a counter-point to the gushing Moo 3 reviews we have a couple less than perfect looks at the hotly anticipated title. Both Tom Chick (at QT3) and Avault have chimed in with their thoughts and it looks like this may not be the game many were hoping for.Read on for details.
Avault gave Moo 3 at total score of 3/5 and had this to say:
Master of Orion 3 has proven to be one of the most difficult reviews I've ever had to write. The elements for a great game are present, but the focus and execution of those elements is not. Combined with an underwhelming and questionable AI, this puts MOO3 at a disadvantage right out of the gate. In the end, it's difficult to recommend this title to anyone but diehard MOO fans.
Tom Chick's review contains no actual score but judging by the tone we can assume it would be low.
In many ways, this is the anti-Sid Meier school of design, a throwback to the complex wargames where much of the calculations are running under the hood and it's your job to just shut up and move the pieces around, leaving all those numbers alone to do their own thing. There's no clear correlation between your actions and whatever outcome the game eventually spits out, so you're left with the feeling that you might as well just click the 'turn' button a few times and see what happens. Three hundred turns later, the game's over.
There's no denying Master of Orion 3 is a complex game. Complexity itself isn't a bad thing, but poorly organized complexity can be the kiss of death. What's worse is poorly organized complexity that serves as a substitute for gameplay. This is exactly what you get with Master of Orion 3, an indecipherable pile of dense self-absorbed data that completely fails to understand why we loved our first MOOs.
You may want to wait and see before charging out to scoop this one up, I know that's what I'll be doing.- Certis