Hey guys,

The question is simple but it will be very helpful. I am indie developer with some successes and I think about rearranging classic SF experience to my new game. Master of Orion series is still one of the greatest game series of this genre. Can you help me with research to understand why is it? Can you help me to find out what are the expectations of you - SF strategy players? Thanks to you we can create fantastic game together :)

So: What is the best feature in Master of Orion (write if it's MoO 1, 2 or 3) in your opinion?

What they was (mostly) created in the time, when there actually was good developers in game industry.

:)))
Ok, so what are the features which good developers made in this game that prove they are good ones? :)

You're serious now? You even hadnt played the games you're planning to "remake" now? This remind me some other guy from past who came to forums with great idea "Im a great indie developer, i have a 80% finished game core already, but i need something small from you to help me too - as you're a players who know it, please tell me all the game mechanics, balance stuff and everything else behing the game, and we're done!" Id say your case looks quite similar to that guy (surely he had left after his post, as all other such "remakers" did (they usually had no banter about "80% ready" tho)).

In short - those guys knew how to do a good games, even if they are sometimes lacked actual coding skills compared to modern times.

I have played MoO 2 in past, bought it on GOG for refreshing my memories, for research and for the small salute to developers. (and I need to check MoO1 :) )

And I am not making remake, you misunderstood me. It will be pretty different experience: just wondering what is making SF "global strategy" experience that good. No need for being angry, especially because of the internet guy :P And the question isn't that hard: what elements do you like the most in MoO? Wondering if there is a pattern. I have some ideas:
- could be technologies changing gameplay in logical way
- more system rather than predefined events
- society customization (in MoO it was about races, about politics and economy but it can be done in some different ways too)

Im not angry at all, why? And i got what you didnt plan to do remake (while its actually exellent idea on its own), you're just planning to put the hardest work on somebody elses shoulders. Basically its about trying to guess whats the others want. Best way is to do what you want, otherwise youll draw in opinions, and hopeless tries to fulfill them. Let the game be your game.

I think you are very suspicious :) Planning to put work on somebody elses shoulders? What do you mean? Asking about what people like in SF games? Making research is the hardest work for you? Funny because it's the easiest part of making games, believe me. :) Execution is much harder. I don't ask you to draw graphics, write code or design interface. I ask you only: what do you like most in MoO? If you don't want to answer, because of any reasons: ok, man, no problem - maybe somebody else will help.

The game will be mine, because I will decide what features are necessary and how they will be done. But I can't forget about my players, including you too (maybe): at the end they will play this game. And I have to plan production, buisness and plan priorities to live somehow in my basement, you know :P That's the reason of research, not to "steal your ideas".

OK, back to the topic:
What are the features you like the most in MoO guys?

Well, man, actually execution is quite easy compared to creating the game. Exectuion here is code, interface and graphics, yes. Surely depends on game engine, but we're talking about TBS now, and they are surely the easiest parts there. Its quite easy to make some program what let you play some "chess", its much harder to invent those "chess".

Ok, you need replayability, real AI, easy multiplayer. You meant that? Im sure you know it already. Or you want to hear something like "i like this game, because it have a cute cat race!", or "dudes, you can build a DeathStar there!", or "it have superb multiplayer balance!", or i played it when i was kid!", or "i like it because it have a real challenge and its hard!", or "it have cool ships, almost as in StarTrack!". You meant those? Those are useless too. Being able to guess what people would eventually like, and implement that its indeed most hard part. Thats why succesful people in marketing earn good profit, despite they didnt had to do "hard" "coding". Wish you all the best anyway.

Can't disagree more with this hypothesis :) For me Idea is around 10%, execution (code, good design - very hard when you are talking about TBS, music, graphics) about 40, rest is polishing it to diamond (yeah, really that much!). Pretty sure you never created a game - or you have very different experiences than me and lots of other devs. Execution is the hardest part.

I want to hear that! From one opinion I won't probably know much, but if more people will answer - it will be great help. I will have my chance to see something that can be a pattern. Trust me or not, but I learn a LOT from the similar topic about Alpha Centauri.

Thx man!

I've only played MoO2. But I have also played a lot of other 4x games on both Mac and Windows platforms.

One thing needs to be said I think: MoO2 is still a very playable "good old game", but imo gaming in general has moved on. Without continued support from a hard-core multi-player fanbase, this game would have died long ago.

What I like about MoO2:
+ customizable races. The whole point-buy system implemented in MoO2 with the various racial traits is still top notch. Probably one of the reasons why the game is still so replayable.
+ Simultaneous movement on the strategic map. Absolutely necessary for multi-player imo.
+ micromanagement of your starting planets really makes a difference. There is an art to shifting workers around between research/production and between established worlds and newer colonies that deeply impacts the game.
+ AI is "competent" on the strategic level, meaning I think the "star-to-star" movement system is easier to program a decent AI than, say a "hex-based" movement system (this is my general observation from playing lots of different types of 4x games).
+ simple UI. The entire game is played on 5 or 6 screens, The empire overview screen is especially clever for various ways to get/see information.
+ tech tree that forces you to make painful mutually exclusive choices on how to develop your empire
+ spying/trading that allow you to get tech otherwise not available to you, and create other mischief
+ customization of spaceships with lots of different techs (yes, you can build a Deathstar if you want, probably most of other sci-fi alien spaceships seen in movies/books as well). Many early-techs remain useful even later in the game.
+ diplomacy system is ok (I have seen better, but I think MoO2 offers simplicity while offering more than just "at war/ at peace")
+ just enough eye candy to keep it interesting
+ the Easter-Egg techs for successfully capturing Orion. The game could have done a lot more with this theme.

What I don't like about MoO2:
- Igo-Ugo turn mechanics in battles. The player that moves first has a HUGE advantage. Simultaneous or real-time mechanics are much better imo, especially for multi-player.
- grid-based movement in battle screen. This combined with Igo-Ugo is one of the worst things about MoO2 imo.
- Fall behind in the tech race and U die (a big problem against the hyper-buffed AI at hard difficulty. But that is why spying/trading is so important to equalize this).
- Lose one battle, and you lose the game. No chance to rebuild your losses fast enough (ie. build-times vs travel times is unbalanced: it takes 20 turns to build a battleship, it takes 2 turns for the enemy to reach your now-undefended base).
- micromanagement of large empires becomes quite tedious (very few 4x games don't have this same problem). Too much clicking. Somehow I think the "fun vs work" limit is about 15-20 planets in this game. The main reason for this imo is the "city-building" part of the game (ala Civilization). The bigger your empire, the more the necessity of city-building becomes tedious.
- some techs never see the light of day in ANY game, because there is (sort of) an optimized tech path that usually offers the best all-round choices (ie. some techs should be nerfed while others should be boosted a bit).
- randomness hard-coded into the game that you can't plan against (ie. your ally suddenly declares war on you because you were framed for someone else's spying. This can be a game-ending event). Randomness is ok to add game flavor, but tone down the consequences.
- once you are at war against the AI (on hardest difficulty), they never make peace with you EVER. One of the reasons why the previous point is so relevant.
- Antareans randomly attacking YOUR best core planets and gimping your fledgling empire, while the AI factions get a cakewalk (more randomness bashing. I hate the Antareans, thankfully you can turn them off in the options menu)

There might be more I could say, but hopefully this will help.

"What they was (mostly) created in the time, when there actually was good developers in game industry." - now you should see what it was pretty obvious from mere start.

Thanks Dreamteam! Your post is VERY useful. I am impressed you made list of what you don't like because its more difficult to write that one.

DarzaR - off course its not the list of my priorities but amount of work you need to create game. If you don't agree and you think developers of MoO were creating their ideas 30% or 50% of development time - nope, it's an illusion. Ideas are cheap, man. The first rule of being good designer is to be creative enough to generate infinite number of them.

Somebody else want to tell a thing or two about MoO best features? : )

Thats exactly im talked about. If you ending with asking advices on some dead forum about some obscure game from random users - thats exactly a sign you're had get into troubles in process of it. Its not about time, its about importance. Suppose you\me\anyone have a good game idea developed and worked out. Aforementioned ones then go hire some coders\designers (in this case salaries could be up to 0 in case of own\friends work, or some calculated amount you get a bank loan for) and if you do keep an eye right - you get the game. Problem start when you go reverse way - you have the production capabilities (team)... and you plan to hire ones WHO will make a game for you (say taking loan for it). And here you get a problems, as even famous people who did a successful games in past could fail (after getting huge $ from your loan share). So it would be extremal risky to producing such way, not about time, simply about outcome. And if you really get any news in previous post despite you "played MOO2 in past" - you're at uphill task then. Wish you luck (at least in getting some replies here) and profit and washing my hands. If you really believe in what you're talking about, and its also the way of "lots of other devs" (thankfully ones who i know thinks different), thats really explain why game industry having an sad bad days in terms of quality now.

I would have to think about your question for a while, but have you checked out the thread on Eador by chance? Eador: Genesis is a very popular indie game.

Thx KHHill91, I will check it. And waiting for your answer! :)

DarzaR - You just jumped to conclusion. I have an idea, off course but I want to know my audience thoughts to compare idea with their expectations. It is exactly research to know how to improve it, how to set priorities, and to know if it can be profitable enough to finish development. Not in the way "I want to get billions of $!!!" but to create the best quality game and have enough money to eat something. Sadly, lots of great games never show up because of the money, and lots of finished games weren't worth their development time - because devs have no feedback and no resarch at all. That's why it's not about importance or time only: it's about balance between them.