Beyond Beyaan Q&A: Lofty Goals, Passion and Ambition

You may also like...

20 Responses

  1. Therlun says:

    I, too, think MoO1 is superior to MoO2 in almost every way. So that gives him a few points in my book.

    That said he seems overly confident and ambitious…

    You can compare your game to Dwarf Fortress after you had a (somewhat) working and continually expanding game for five years, but certainly not before you release the first public version. It's not that he shouldn't mention Dwarf Fortress as an inspiration, but for me the way he puts it sounds way too boastful.

    Same with removing MoO2 from the throne of 4X games. Even if you have a game that is better than it in every way it is virtually impossible to overcome the nostalgia alone that makes MoO2 great in most people's minds. Hoping to do it with an indie title just feels …delusional to me.

    Thirdly, the differences between MoO1 and MoO2 cannot be reduced to some options like ship stacking on/off. Certain design elements of both games have a completely different quality to them, and with most of these systems no working game can have it both ways IMO.

    He also says he isn't good at creating content… yet that is exactly what makes all the games he mentions so great. The content and how it interacts.

    Sorry if that all sounds very negative ( I considered just posting a thank you again, like with the Stardrive Q&A) but for me it sounds too much like one of those fan projects with too many, too big ambitions and a lack of sight for the things that actually make games playable.

    • Zeraan says:

      Thanks for your comment, I understand where you're coming from. I'm sorry if I sound "boastful", that wasn't my intention.

      About Dwarf Fortress, I was referring to their development methodology, where they focus on one game and keep on maintaining and adding features. That's very inspiring for me, and gives me hope that I can accomplish all of my goals. Instead of having all features at release, I can release a basic game, then expand on it in the future. Otherwise it'd be impossible!

      About removing the MoO 2 from its throne, I concur that it's impossible, similar as removing Goldeneye from N64, due to the nostalgic factor. However, it don't mean that a better 4X game can't be created, which is my goal.

      As for different options, it's not just "turning on/off". If an option is turned on, then the game will use certain windows/screens for that option. If off, it will use different windows/screens. For example, if stacked ships are on, it will use an window with sliders, if off, a window without sliders. I will design the UI around those options. My goal is to have the support for many different options. At my work, we have a lot of this for our products, so I'm very experienced in this kind of stuff.

      As for the content, I think a good analogy would be: I can create a paint program where people can create masterpieces, but I'm terrible at creating artwork. I don't mean to imply that my content will be terrible, just that it may not be as good as those that some people can create.

      I realize that it do sound like one of those fan projects, however I do have one thing that most of them don't. This game is still under development after two years, and have a target release date. Most of the fan projects that I've seen become abandoned after several months unfortunately.

      I have a clear plan on what I plan on adding to the game, and even how to add them. My only constraint is the available time I have to implement them.

      I was hoping that I'd sound off as confident, so people can have faith in this game. Maybe I'm too confident? :)

  2. Therlun says:

    Aww man, now I feel bad for writing with so much negativity. Shame on you! :p

    It's just that I actively followed many an attempt at creating an indie 4X game, crushing my hope again and again by either being abandoned or being just not a very good game.

    So even with you having a good schedule I'm not yet convinced of the quality as a game.

    Take the ship stacking.

    I just don't see how a game can have the somewhat elaborate MoO2 battle system and stacks of ships at the same time. Directional fire/shields, component damage, boarding, and fighters are just the first few things that would need serious adaption to work with stacks.

    Another example: In the Q&A you mention the black hole generator, which has an almost unique interaction with the stack system (the two special systems that directly reduce total health are somewhat similar).

    Mind you, the stack system is actually one of the things I don't love unquestionably in MoO1. In theory the elaborate smalle-scale MoO2 combat is better, just the poor implementation and negative interaction with other MoO2 systems (industrial capacity, impact of technology, micromanagement, command points) make MoO1-stacks the lesser evil for me.

    So sorry again if I reacted a bit too negatively towards your confidence. I'm just a bit too jaded.

    • Therlun says:

      Yuck, that was meant as a reply.

    • Zeraan says:

      I understand completely. I'm a bit jaded myself, hence the whole reason for this project :)

      As for ship stacking, I said it's not just a "on/off" thing :) It'd allow for particular technology attributes (streaming that carries over damage, etc) and restrict some others. So if you were to enable it, you'd have to create a completely new technology tree to match the options that you select. It'd be an entirely different game. Which is why I'm not including it at release :)

      My game as it is now is very similar to MoO 1, but with two major differences: single-ships and multi-racial population on planets, both of which exists in MoO 2 :)

      Hope that clears it up! And again, thanks for your feedback, it helps to know what people expect to see in a game that claim to be like MoO 1/2!

  3. Brian Rubin says:

    Heh, if anyone deserves to be jaded, it's us space game fans. ;)

  4. Janster says:

    Not to throw a spanner into the mix, but I have played MOO 2 quite a lot and never really looked back. The tactical combat of Moo 2 is just pure awesome ,while MOO 1 had more of a Might and Magic approach which is cool, but gave each ship less meaning.

    Also the tech system of Moo 2 was pure awesome…..

    I would say MOO 1 only has nostalgia on its side, that and sliders.

    • Therlun says:

      MoO2 tech system, awesome?

      Compared to the MoO1 one?

      Argh… must resist writing a 10000 word rant…

      • Brian Rubin says:

        Do it, dude! I love this sort of thing!

      • Zeraan says:

        I also have plans on different tech system for my game. Most of it is already implemented. You can have it to be similar to MoO 1 (randomized technologies, and you pick what to research for each field), or be similar to MoO 2 (one technology per "level"). However, at release, the system will be similar to MoO 1. Later I will add support for the other systems.

    • Brian Rubin says:

      Heh, no one is denying the awesome of MoO2, but it sounds like here, this game is trying to make fans of both games happy. *shrug*

    • Brian Rubin says:

      With that said, it's perfectly valid for folks to like one over the other. ;)

  5. Janster says:

    I'd love to listen to what actually makes Moo 1 tech tree so special?

  6. Janster says:

    Since I'm waiting on my opponent to finish taking forever with his Civ 5 turn. I'd like to say that the slider based research system of Moo 1 was as exciting as well..anything else come after it. Compare it to the wonderful decision making process MOO 2's tree, along with the powerful choices it gave, not everything in that tree was 'just' a +1 damage.. Planetary missiles gave you almost immunity against attack early on, but automated factories was well…useful…

    I could go on.

    • Zeraan says:

      So your problem isn't with how technology are researched, but rather the technologies themselves? Such as "Improved Robotic Controls I,II,III, etc"? And missing one isn't as bad as missing one in MoO 2?

      • Janster says:

        Its both, making you unable to get all tech just by researching opens up a world of diplomacy , espionage etc.

        Moo 1 had sliders that gave you all, okay so you could research 10% here and 10% there, but honestly, there was zero point to doing so, as getting a tech fast and using it was way more beneficial than getting 10 techs at the same time but 50 rounds later.

  7. Janster says:

    Moo 2 presents you with a choice, you cannot have it all. This is decision based, instead of just waiting until you got it all researched. I know some people like to have it all, but that's what Psilons are for. 2nd is how tech is used, sometimes they can add bonuses, sometimes they add functionality and strategy, just adding another +1 to damage like Galciv is very unimaginary.

Chime In!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.