Master of Orion Remake ? :O

[RK47]

Master of Orion, the classic turn-based strategy game series dormant since for more then a decade, is back with better graphics and refocused gameplay thanks to an injection of developers and money by World of Tanks publisher Wargaming.

Wargaming purchased the rights to the Master of Orion property in 2013 during an Atari bankruptcy auction. Today, the company announced its plans to reboot Master of Orion, developing the first game in the series since 2003's Master of Orion 3.

While Wargaming originally made a name for itself with the science fiction strategy game Massive Assault, the company decided to bring on Argentinian-based NGD Studios to create the reboot with the help of key members from the original game's team.

Players can expect a revamped user interface, an orchestral score from the original game's composer, voiceovers by well-known actors, new user tutorials, according to the announcement.

"Master of Orion is a game that brings Wargaming truly back to its roots, not only as a company but also in how it influenced my personal interest in both games and making them," said Victor Kislyi, CEO of Wargaming. "The series' iconic gameplay has stood the test of time and working with NGD Studios to bring the series back to life is a truly exciting moment for the team."

...

http://www.polygon.com/2015/6/9/8746...world-of-tanks

 

[Destroid]

Well, that was an incredibly stupid trailer. I wonder who these "key members" are, considering how small the original MoO team was.

 

[Stompa]

Linking directly to Polygon. Shame on you, RK.

Still, cautiously hyped. Wargaming has done some pretty good TBS games in the past, but none of MoO scale. Here's hoping they didn't forget how to make them after tanks.

 

[lemon-lime]

"refocused gameplay" - My dumbed-down sense is tingling.

Graphics seem to be nice enough. But the thing, I'm most intereted in, is the user interface. Outdated UIs are often bothering me much more than outdted graphics, when I am playing old games.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

"refocused gameplay" - My dumbed-down sense is tingling.

A company that makes its money from online shit is going to make a single player game?

That's the big clue as to what they mean by "refocused gameplay".

 

[Curious_Tongue]

Also, 2D or fuck off.

 

[SCO]

This new info makes it sound not just like the usual run of the mill desecration, but like a full-fledged abomination.
Unlock psilons with pay2win

 

[ArchAngel]

Now I hope they do the battle better and not who attacks gets to eliminate half the enemy army before enemy gets their turn..

 

[Space Satan]

Cautiously optimistic

 

[DramaticPopcorn]

 

[evdk]

Cautiously optimistic

_

• Space Satan

Sure thing.

 

[Space Satan]

I stand corrected:
NGD Studios so far made 3 shitty shovelware games with average metacritic score of 3-4.
There is no hope unless they'll be threatened with GULAG and Siberia labor camps.

 

[Robert Jarzebina]

It will be f2p World of Spaceships

 

[Jimmious]

I would hope more for a remake of MoO2, which was the best one in my opinion. Still though, good news

 

[hoverdog]

oh god, yet another franchise down the drain.

 

[Space Satan]

Ok, browsed their forum - only Single+multiplayer as devs say

 

[Perkel]

In other world they will make Ogame.

 

[Stainless Veteran]

Going by their russian press-release and other info it'll gonna be F2P-multiplayer (at least in part), multiplatform (probably meaning mobile market) and also is outsourced to these guys.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

Inb4 Realms of Arkania HD all over again.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

For many years I thought MoO couldn't get worse after MoO 3.

Humanity never fails to disappoint, it seems.

 

[mastroego]

Stardock tried to acquire the rights on that same auction, and failed.
Maybe we can take it as a good omen?

EDIT: read rest of the posts, spoke too early. Well Stardock wouldn't have been better, if for different reasons.

 

[Space Satan]

Stardock tried to acquire the rights on that same auction, and failed.
Maybe we can take it as a good omen?

EDIT: read rest of the posts, spoke too early. Well Stardock wouldn't have been better, if for different reasons.

Stardock have no idea how to balance, even make simple working mechanics. Not to say management. The only good omen is that they are aiming for remake, no reimagining. So there is still a tiny chance

 

[MRY]

In my opinion, there's nothing particularly valuable about the MOO franchise other than nostalgia. The races are goofy and generic and easily duplicated; the Orions/Antareans backstory similarly so. It's not like Stardock would've done better or worse with the MOO license than it did without the license.

(I say this as someone who spent innumerable hours of his childhood on MOO and MOO2, who has also found Stardock's games and MOO3 to be unplayably boring.)

The genius of MOO and MOO2 lies in their simplicity. If anything, MOO2 got a bit too complicated and fiddly. Efforts to add more "depth" via ever-more-fiddly planetary management, reserach trees that look like Celtic knots, hyper-complex ship building, etc. move away from what made MOO so delightful, which is that it has a great deal of strategic depth and epic scope, while still moving at a fast clip.

There are certainly places you could add depth to MOO2 without hurting the game. For example, while I don't think you need more *complicated* diplomacy -- a flaw with Stardock -- having the AI behave less mercurially would be a big improvement. But the main place would be simply adding more of the little kinds of content: more story arcs like the Orions/Antareans, more space creatures, more random planetary encounters, and so forth. Here, too, I think Stardock did pretty well.

There are also places you could streamline MOO2 without hurting the game. For example, I don't think ship design needs to be so complicated, late-game battles so cumbersome, or large empire management so fiddly. Some of that is simply a matter of UI, but some of it is a matter of stripping down some of the content, like having dozens of different buildings that do the same thing, only better, rather than having secotrs that you improve a la MOO.

The problem is, it's almost certain that any developer will go the wrong way: complex in the wrong ways, simple in the wrong ways. It'll end up inelegant but simplistic, rather than elegant but complex. But whatever goes right or wrong, I'm skeptical that slapping the MOO name and races will affect things.

 

[whatevername]

In my opinion, there's nothing particularly valuable about the MOO franchise other than nostalgia. The races are goofy and generic and easily duplicated; the Orions/Antareans backstory similarly so. It's not like Stardock would've done better or worse with the MOO license than it did without the license.

(I say this as someone who spent innumerable hours of his childhood on MOO and MOO2, who has also found Stardock's games and MOO3 to be unplayably boring.)

The genius of MOO and MOO2 lies in their simplicity. If anything, MOO2 got a bit too complicated and fiddly. Efforts to add more "depth" via ever-more-fiddly planetary management, reserach trees that look like Celtic knots, hyper-complex ship building, etc. move away from what made MOO so delightful, which is that it has a great deal of strategic depth and epic scope, while still moving at a fast clip.

There are certainly places you could add depth to MOO2 without hurting the game. For example, while I don't think you need more *complicated* diplomacy -- a flaw with Stardock -- having the AI behave less mercurially would be a big improvement. But the main place would be simply adding more of the little kinds of content: more story arcs like the Orions/Antareans, more space creatures, more random planetary encounters, and so forth. Here, too, I think Stardock did pretty well.

There are also places you could streamline MOO2 without hurting the game. For example, I don't think ship design needs to be so complicated, late-game battles so cumbersome, or large empire management so fiddly. Some of that is simply a matter of UI, but some of it is a matter of stripping down some of the content, like having dozens of different buildings that do the same thing, only better, rather than having secotrs that you improve a la MOO.

The problem is, it's almost certain that any developer will go the wrong way: complex in the wrong ways, simple in the wrong ways. It'll end up inelegant but simplistic, rather than elegant but complex. But whatever goes right or wrong, I'm skeptical that slapping the MOO name and races will affect things.

MoO2 is one of a few TBSes that has decent AI and can kick your ass if you don't make an OP race. The franchise is irrelevant.

 

[ArchAngel]

In my opinion, there's nothing particularly valuable about the MOO franchise other than nostalgia. The races are goofy and generic and easily duplicated; the Orions/Antareans backstory similarly so. It's not like Stardock would've done better or worse with the MOO license than it did without the license.

(I say this as someone who spent innumerable hours of his childhood on MOO and MOO2, who has also found Stardock's games and MOO3 to be unplayably boring.)

The genius of MOO and MOO2 lies in their simplicity. If anything, MOO2 got a bit too complicated and fiddly. Efforts to add more "depth" via ever-more-fiddly planetary management, reserach trees that look like Celtic knots, hyper-complex ship building, etc. move away from what made MOO so delightful, which is that it has a great deal of strategic depth and epic scope, while still moving at a fast clip.

There are certainly places you could add depth to MOO2 without hurting the game. For example, while I don't think you need more *complicated* diplomacy -- a flaw with Stardock -- having the AI behave less mercurially would be a big improvement. But the main place would be simply adding more of the little kinds of content: more story arcs like the Orions/Antareans, more space creatures, more random planetary encounters, and so forth. Here, too, I think Stardock did pretty well.

There are also places you could streamline MOO2 without hurting the game. For example, I don't think ship design needs to be so complicated, late-game battles so cumbersome, or large empire management so fiddly. Some of that is simply a matter of UI, but some of it is a matter of stripping down some of the content, like having dozens of different buildings that do the same thing, only better, rather than having secotrs that you improve a la MOO.

The problem is, it's almost certain that any developer will go the wrong way: complex in the wrong ways, simple in the wrong ways. It'll end up inelegant but simplistic, rather than elegant but complex. But whatever goes right or wrong, I'm skeptical that slapping the MOO name and races will affect things.

MoO2 is one of a few TBSes that has decent AI and can kick your ass if you don't make an OP race. The franchise is irrelevant.

I always took Psilons or their ability and just out researched and out teched AI :D