Would you rather have a modern Master of Orion 2 or a game that takes a more unique direction?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by CrazyElf, Aug 10, 2017.

  1. CrazyElf

    CrazyElf Lieutenant

    Posts:
    199
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Just wondering what the community's thoughts are on this - should it try to be a perfect recreation of Master of Orion 2, or should it try to be more unique than it currently is?

    Master of Orion 2 was of course not a perfect game - hey, there is even a thread on this forum about it not being a perfect game!

    I guess my question is, would you rather have:
    1. A modern version of Master of Orion 2?
    2. A more unique game that takes a few influences for MOO2, but is very far from the original game?
    I personally lean towards 2 because there have been many games that have tried to clone MOO2, with varying degrees of success.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. aReclusiveMind

    aReclusiveMind Developer Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    3,040
    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2016
    It's very important to frame this question in regards to how the game is right now in pre-alpha versus what it will become by release. It is also important to remember what the game's mission is.

    ---TODAY---

    ISG certainly contains a lot of the elements of Master of Orion II. This is to be expected though. It is after all the mission of the game to first and foremost "develop a spiritual successor to Master of Orion 2". That said, we can't forget the second part of this mission to accomplish not only that, but also to create a game "that manages to offer something new (and this is important)".

    In my mind, it is already a distinctly different game. Even in this early stage it is more than a MOO2 clone. We must also not forget that many of the features which are planned, but not yet implemented, will serve to deepen the distinction between the two even further.

    To name a few differences already in the game (although all still a work in progress): a unique remote exploration system, discoverable "hidden" planets, a combat overheat risk/reward mechanism, leaders with primary and secondary skills and desires, unique research decisions regarding strategic resources, and a space culture system.

    EDIT: Almost forgot terraforming, which is another completely new system.

    ---IN THE FUTURE---

    If we look toward the future, leaders will be able to gain/lose traits as a result of their actions and interactions. Their opinions of you and your empire may change over time. They may even defect. This is certainly not in MoO II.

    We will see more events and have more adventures to uncover. This is not a feature present in MoO II.

    Existing game elements will be continuously expanded and improved upon. The game's launch is still tentatively Q4 of 2018. That's a long time from now. The game today won't be the game we have this time next year. The spirit of MoO II will live on in its heart, but the organism that is Interstellar Space: Genesis will be quite a different beast.
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  3. CrazyElf

    CrazyElf Lieutenant

    Posts:
    199
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    I guess the question is, how close to cloning do we want compared to right now then? Would that be a better way to phrase the question?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Subjective my CrazyElf friend.
    You have played it, do you feel it's a clone? I don't. I think Microprose would have been drooling at the chance to implement some of the innovative aspects of ISG. I can see the inspiration and "style" of MoO2 but clone? Only someone that hasn't actually played it could make that assumption.
    Just my opinion of course.
     
  5. Ashbery76

    Ashbery76 Ensign

    Posts:
    48
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    A more unique game.Moo would've evolved like Civ did compared to Civ2 era.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. IvanK

    IvanK Lieutenant

    Posts:
    138
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    "Would you rather have a modern Master of Orion 2 or a game that takes a more unique direction?"

    Nothing in the title and opening post (except maybe topic location in forum hierarchy) suggests you are asking about ISG yet the following discussion only covers that angle. In that light I'd say "2", I like ISG's unique approach but in that case this question doesn't make sense. In my mind ISG belongs to different bucket then MoO 2, just like poker and Hearthstone would, despite both being card games.

    If we are talking generally then yes, modern MoO 2 with no self serving deviations would be really refreshing. I want to see military baised 4X with strong interaction between race traits, technology system and combat system. MoO 2 was only place where it worked so well and all "spiritual" successors oversimplified one or more parts of the equation. Most notably almost none of them bothered with special equipment.
     
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  7. Ashbery76

    Ashbery76 Ensign

    Posts:
    48
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    The best military4x in my view was SOTS.The A.I was pretty good at countering your ship designs too actually making you change your plans.Moo2 never did that.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  8. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Can I ask you a question Ashbery76?
    Oh I just did, make that two questions.
    I have SOTS sitting on my PC but every time I turned it on I never bothered to actually play. I've read the reviews and all that but I want to here from a player.
    Is the AI there capable of facing off against a veteran player? That alone would be enough for me to play it. Does it have similarities to MoO2 or ISG?
    I like a military challenge... when I can find it
     
  9. Ashbery76

    Ashbery76 Ensign

    Posts:
    48
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    Yeah I think so,more so any 4x tactical games imo but it's still A.I.

    SOTS is a funny beast.Seems simple at first with a MOO1 style strategic game but the tech, ship design and weapon variation,tactics is amazing.
     
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  10. IvanK

    IvanK Lieutenant

    Posts:
    138
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    SotS was good in general, not just for AI :). But now that you mention it, modern MoO 2 with good AI (and balancing knowledge accumulated in mods over the years) would be a refreshment.
     
  11. Possibility

    Possibility Ensign

    Posts:
    52
    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2016
    I've already played Moo2, played it to death, so why would i want to play Moo2 again? Once the brain is over with a game, its hard to come back and play it again, so I would not purchase a Moo2 clone. What I want is Moo3 (i'll pretend there was no actual Moo3 or MooCTS) or I want Moo1.5. Any new game in this genre should be a 'new' game, borrowing many elements from the previous entries while also being innovative in its in own right, so that it feels new and refreshing.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. CrazyElf

    CrazyElf Lieutenant

    Posts:
    199
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    I don't think it is a clone as much as it is ... a bit too reminiscent.


    Agree SOTS1 was a very good game.

    I think that the ultimate game would be:

    1. SOTS1 for ship development
    2. Each race has its own different FTL like SOTS
    3. Each race is as different as Starcraft (Ex: how they make units, build buildings, etc)
    4. Very unique tech tree for each - I wasn't a fan of the SOTS probability tech trees
    5. Diplomacy would likely resemble Star Ruler 2 with the card system
    6. Tactical combat would resemble SOTS2 and perhaps many of the Total War mods
    7. There would be complex empire building, although with a governor
    8. A few hero units; this may resemble Total War
    9. Governor to help with the micro that actually makes intelligent decisions
    10. Very intelligent AI
    I'm not sure which game is best at "empire" building, but I do think that is needed.
     
  13. Konstantine

    Konstantine Grand Admiral

    Posts:
    2,200
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    I'm sorry CE, you've lost me.

    "Our mission, with Interstellar Space: Genesis, is to develop a spiritual successor to Master of Orion 2, the turn-based space 4X strategy game from the 90's that we love so much.

    This will be a faithful successor, that is true in spirit to the series. We believe that by sticking to its fundamentals we will please the fans who want to feel the atmosphere and that “feeling” of Master of Orion 2, but also want to experience something new and fresh, with all the complexity and depth of a big 4X game"

    So what exactly are you saying by stating that you do not see it as a clone but find it too reminiscent? It would seem to me that the Devs have succeeded then based on their mission statement above.

    I'm not trying to put you down or denigrate your opinion but I would like a clearer explanation if you have one. What is too reminiscent? what aspect?
    In what way is this aspect,( being too reminiscent) a negative?

    A generic statement like the one you posted does not impart enough information to clarify the issue and jut sounds like it is a vague opinion. Any further information or opinion you can provide may be beneficial
     
  14. CrazyElf

    CrazyElf Lieutenant

    Posts:
    199
    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Reminiscent means strongly resembling and influenced by a previous game to the point where it reminds players of the past.

    I think that one of the issues these days is that there are too many clones of Master of Orion. What I am concerned about is if this game shares a similar fate to Star Ruler 2, which despite being a game with some very unique and interesting concepts did not do so well in terms of sales.
     
  15. Mark

    Mark Ensign

    Posts:
    73
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    Sorry CE, that makes very little sense to me, Star Ruler 2 was nothing at all like a MOO 2 clone, not even remotely so. Why it failed is open to debate but IMO SR2 failed because it was almost entirely composed of disconnected, totally abstract game mechanics which - while quite clever in isolation- had little to no connection with the genre it was trying to sell (A card game substituting for diplomacy? Really? What were they thinking?). SR2 was so different from all other 4x space games, including MOO 2, that people had a very hard time thinking of it as a space 4x game, that was certainly the case for me anyway. It was more of a giant, fragile, dry as dust, boring as hell, abstract puzzle.

    The situation with MOO 2 and ISG is totally different, I think this is the first time that somebody has made a MOO 2 clone which is actually good as opposed to all the others who tried and failed miserably (Looking at you MOO-Cts). When they make the very first modern game which is accurately reminiscent of the most popular space 4x of all time and they cross the apparently difficult hurdle of also making it good, then I think they're on to a huge winner.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. Vivisector 9999

    Vivisector 9999 Moderator Ensign

    Posts:
    79
    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    While my opinion of Star Ruler 2 is kinder than yours, I have to agree. Both games are about building an interstellar empire and competing against alien empires, but beyond that incredibly vague statement, the two games have almost nothing in common. Colonization, planet exploitation, traveling between stars, how the economy works, designing ships, diplomacy, combat, turn-based or real-time - I defy someone to name even a single game mechanic both games did the same way.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  17. Ashbery76

    Ashbery76 Ensign

    Posts:
    48
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2017
    SR2 was a very interesting game.A few things I just did not like ala Ship design with no limits and lack of empire on empire diplomacy.The senate system and planet development was pretty unique.
     
  18. Mark

    Mark Ensign

    Posts:
    73
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    It was interesting and unique all right. If only "unique" automatically equated to "good" then SR2 would have easily been the best space 4x ever made. But sadly unique can also be weirdly abstract or head-scratchingly obtuse or just plain bad.

    Its almost like the devs were so proud of their clever and unique game mechanics that they never bothered to ask themselves if it also made for a good 4x space game.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Helpful Helpful x 1
  19. IvanK

    IvanK Lieutenant

    Posts:
    138
    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2016
    ? Name one, please. Conceptually yes there are but I'm playing for game mechanics and I've seen none similar to MoO 2. Everybody are avoiding mutually exclusive techs like it was plague and that's exactly what make race traits, tech choice and ship designs so well interconnected.

    ISG is not MoO 2 clone, it's mix of multiple games where MoO 2 is only a small ingredient (colony morale and turn based tactical combat).
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Mark

    Mark Ensign

    Posts:
    73
    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2016
    A game-clone is not an exact 1:1 identical copy of a previous game, that would be utterly pointless. Basically if ISG is not a MOO 2 clone then there have never been any MOO 2 clones ever made. Even the ISG web site says...

    "Interstellar Space: Genesis is a spiritual successor to Master of Orion 2, the turn-based space 4X strategy game from the 90’s that we love so much."

    So ISG is indeed a MOO 2 clone and honestly that's a very good thing because this genre has been begging for a decent MOO 2 clone - one that is actually good - literally for decades, with absolutely nobody being able to deliver. Until now.
     

Share This Page