NOTE: If I add a new item to the list it will only
be added to senate.html page.
MOO Game History
By Alan Emrich
moo3.com
Oh, goodness. How long ago was it that
I first laid eyes on Star Lords?
You see, Star Lords was
the title of the game submitted to MicroProse
in early 1993 that was soon to be published
as Master of Orion.
From an unknown group in simulation game
designers in Texas (whose company name was,
appropriately, "SimTex"),
this obscure compilation of code and karma was
about to write its name in the pantheon of
Great Computer Strategy Games.
First Impressions
Honestly, my first impressions were not that great.
I mean,
Star Lords looked okay for the late 1980s at first
blush. It was not until I got to
spend some "quality time"
with it that I discovered its addictive qualities.
I was working
for Computer Gaming World
magazine at the time and smelled
a good article,
but I thought I'd share it with
my friend and gaming buddy
since 1973, Tom Hughes,
and get a second opinion.
After all, Tom and I like most of the
same games; games
that are clean and deep.
Tom seized upon the Star Lords
immediately and instantly
starting to dissect the game's design
and implementation.
The stage was set.
After intense, repeated playing of the game,
Tom and I were
soon making numerous suggestions
to the game's MicroProse
Producer who, in turn,
got tired of passing them on to the
designer and lead programmer, Steve Barcia.
Soon, we were talking
to Steve directly. The telephone lines were
burning regularly
and a lot of ideas went back and forth. All the while,
Steve was cooking up a better and better game.
It was during this time that the title changed to
Master of Orion and the
game's theme and focus crystallized.
I wrote a sneak preview for Computer Gaming
World magazine where
I indicated that Master of Orion
was shaping up to be a good game.
It had a lot of promise,
but I didn't think it was up there with
Sid Meier's Civilization,
the hobby's hallmark of strategy gaming
at that time.
But by the time that story hit the newsstands,
I had
changed my mind. I found myself still playing the
game constantly and was reflecting on that
fact when
Tom called me. We talked about
Master of Orion,
of course,
and Tom said, "You know, I think this game might
become more addicting even than Civilization."
I replied, "You know, I think it already is."
Making Book
That's when I knew that there had to be a
killer strategy guide
written for this game.
Within minutes of setting the phone down with Tom,
the preliminary arrangements
were made to have Prima
publish our Master of Orion:
The Official Strategy Guide
were made.
Having done a few strategy guides previously,
I really want to go deep with the Master of Orion
guide and set a new standard in
strategy guide writing. (And to this day, I still get
email saying
that's exactly what I did;
God bless you all!)
Approximately 4,400 man-hours of writing later
(pulling 40 hour weeks scribing this tome
on top of the
40 hours a week working at
Computer Gaming World), the book emerged.
The fact that it's ugly, white-on-purple
cover featuring the
equally ugly Master of Orion cover art,
did not discourage sales. In those days,
strategy guides were
published after a game was
released so that they could be accurate,
even to the point
of including information changes
from late game
"patch" releases. The Master of Orion
official strategy guide that Tom Hughes
and I wrote is just
that kind of book. Chock full of analysis,
tables and formulae that would later tie
our fate back to the
Master of Orion series after a long hiatus.
Master of Orion II:
The Battle at Antares
It wasn't long before a sequel was planned
for Master of Orion
(with Master of Magic appearing in between).
In 1996,
Master or Orion II: Battle at Antares
came out.
Those where the days when
the minimum platform
was a 486/66 and 16MB of RAM.
Originally, the working title for the game
was Master of Antares.
Steve Barcia, the central figure behind
the original MOO game,
served in more of a hands-off capacity on
this title
(having been promoted
to VP of Product Development at Spectrum).
Steve oversaw the project and design but left the
coding in the hands of Ken Burd
and his team at SimTex.
Philosophically, MOO2's design was a response to
numerous requests from MOO players
for more automation
and more detail. Steve envisioned a
"layered" design approach so that
people could focus
on what they wanted to play.
(Unfortunately, that goal wasn't reached in MOO2,
but MOO3 continues to strive in this direction.)
As I recall, the art was a real problem
in the creation of MOO2. Steve Barcia rejected
more artwork
on this project than I care to remember.
It was also while this game was simmering
at SimTex that
publishers were putting feelers out to
acquire it and add the
SimTex team to their stable.
(Eventually, Spectrum
Holobyte/MicroProse won out but,
unfortunately for the gang from SimTex,
they were paid primarily in
Spectrum Holobyte stock that
quickly plummeted in value.)
In addition to the above problems,
the Post Mortum on MOO2 indicated a regret
in the lack of proper game pacing;
MOO2 didn't always deliver
excitement during the early
and late stages of the game.
SimTex was hoping to better architect the
player experience
so that even within the nature of random
campaign games,
the players always had
fun and faced an interesting situation.
Little was done on the diplomacy engine
(except that a few bugs were inadvertently added).
Steve Barcia also remarked, "If
you're going to do multiplayer, it has to be
built in at the start
and not added at the end."
This multiplayer problem turned out to be very
costly and hurt the
production quality of MOO2.
I also remember that,
during the design, SimTex
didn't envision that huge (MOO-size) ship battles
would be a part
of the game anymore
(due to the high maintenance costs
associated with fleet
in MOO2).
After they saw that players were still amassing
vast armadas, they hoped to achieve
better automation and
faster tactical combat resolution in the patches,
but that never came off.
If he had it to do over again, what
Steve Barcia recommend for
MOO3? "Racial 'personality' that would be
reflected in all of the systems
of the game; races that react 'properly'
to your actions.
That, and better pacing."
Master of Orion III:
The Fifth 'X'
Fate rekindled the flames on this long
dormant franchise when Michael Mancuso,
then a Producer for Hasbro's
west coast offices at the
old Spectrum Holobyte
digs in the Bay Area, ran into
Quicksilver Software's El Presidente,
Bill Fisher at E3 in 1999. The two of them
had a long discussion
about all things gaming and really hit it off.
They agreed, philosophically, on what makes
a game great, how to make them, and so forth.
Bill Fisher explained how Starfleet Command
was created as a real-time game using the
StarFleet Battles
turn-based boardgame as its foundation.
Michael Mancuso saw the magic in the way that
Starfleet Command
came together and coupled that with the list
he had of game titles that they were shopping
for developers for. On that list was
Master of Orion III, and both groups
perceived a good match in MOO3 and Quicksilver.
The deal was made and
design work began in August 1999.
The rest, you can read about elsewhere on
this website as
that bit of history is written.
© Drew Wilson Web Design 2000 ®
Use of TOS's content and/or graphics is strictly prohibited.
TOS is no way affiliated with Microprose.
Concept art, screen shots, game graphics
and other assets are provided
courtesy of Quicksilver Software, Inc.
and are used by permission.
Copyright (c) 2000 Quicksilver Software, Inc. All rights reserved.
Master of Orion is a registered trademark of Hasbro, Inc.
