(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Master of Orion III Critic Reviews for PC at Metacritic.com
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20110719234000/http://www.metacritic.com:80/game/pc/master-of-orion-iii/critic-reviews
  • Publisher: Atari
  • Release Date: Feb 25, 2003
Metascore
64 out of 100

Mixed or average reviews - based on 24 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 8 out of 24
  2. Negative: 4 out of 24
  1. A perfect pick for those who prefer strategy over action.
  2. 92
    Galaxies are much bigger, available researches are more extensive, and there's far more information to track than in any previous 4x space game.
  3. This game can get hard really quick. If players do not pay attention to all of the in game menus, tips, and book they will be left without a clue on what to do.
  4. 81
    A game just waiting to be discovered. It does have its problems even beyond those involved in learning to play it, but they are minor in the grand scheme of things and, for lovers of the genre, it is the grand scheme that Master of Orion 3 captures best.
  5. Sure, the gameplay is incredibly deep, but I wanted more emphasis on the military aspects of the game. [Apr 2003, p.95]
  6. The new methodology required to deal with this large scale makes MOO3 the first progressive strategy game and avoids previous mistakes of the genre, such as overwhelming floods of micromanagement near the end of the game. It is precisely this refreshingly dynamic experience that makes MOO3 so appealing.
  7. One glaring problem is the 165 page manual. While holding an interesting background storyline for the game, material inside is poorly organized and not extremely helpful.
  8. 76
    There are things to like about this new version, especially as a multiplayer game, but in the end there are too many issues, big and small, for it to reach the nearly unreachable standard set by its predecessors.
  9. It's hard to know which is worse; the interface or the AI. Both combine to spoil the latest Master of Orion title.
  10. 70
    The de-emphasis on micromanagement is welcome, but the feeling that the game is doing too much for you might kill it for intergalactic armchair generals.
  11. The unbalanced AI, weak diplomacy, poor combat, steep learning curve, are all pieces that draw the players attention away from the game and ultimately decreases any replay value.
  12. The core gameplay is enjoyable enough if you actually spend enough time getting used to the complex interface, but the timid opponent AI keeps the game from being really interesting.
  13. The computer AI is just a mess, and for a game that is mostly about interaction with alien races, to have all those races behave like mental patients, isn't as much fun as it's cracked up to be.
  14. You can easily spend a lot of time playing even one game to completion, but by the end you'll probably wonder if you would have been better off getting your noodle baked by watching some anime or slowly roasting ants under a magnifying glass on a cloudy day.
  15. The elements for a great game are present, but the focus and execution of those elements is not.
  16. The overwhelming masses of numbers and options make MOO3 harder to comprehend than its more intuitive predecessors. [May 2003, p.88]
  17. The developers and testers got so used to this game's ponderous interface and extreme complexity that they lost sight of the average gamer, whose primary goal is to have fun.
  18. Few games have had me scratching my head over design decisions like this one, and yet I'm still avidly playing it nearly three weeks later. [May 2003, p.64]
  19. Features have been piled upon features in an attempt to enhance gameplay, but this has only succeeded in bulking things up to the point where you risk an aneurysm if you try to figure everything out.
  20. In spite of Master of Orion 3's countless detail-oriented improvements, connoisseurs of the series may also find themselves pining for the personality of the earlier games, wishing to trade some of the new intricacy and erudition for a better sense of interaction and consequence.
  21. As you spend more time with the game, you realize that much of it is out of your control, thanks to the most annoying and unpredictable AI since HAL 9000. [May 2003, p.76]
  22. If only your enemies displayed the same kind of intelligence, the game might be a lot more interesting - but in fact, the enemy AI in MOO3 is terrible, far worse than in the previous game in the series.
  23. 20
    MOO3 collapses under the weight of its own ambitious design. We doubt this can be fixed in a patch. Gamers need not apply. Masochists, you're on your own.
  24. Then there's the weak, arbitrary enemy A.I., the impenetrable interface, and the absurdly incomplete documentation. [June 2003, p.70]
advertisement

Recommended Products

    • Release Date: 1996
    • Platform: PC
    Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares Image
  1. Distant Worlds Image
    • Release Date: Aug 17, 2006
    • Platform: PC
    Sword of the Stars Image
User Score

Generally unfavorable- based on 45 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 11 out of 34
  2. Negative: 20 out of 34
  1. The most disappointing game ever. MOO and MOOII were amazing (best strategy games ever!) but this thing was just... annoying. It's overly complicated, full of bugs and just NOT FUN. Full Review »
  2. 9
    When i bought this game so many years ago, i was suprised that i could barely find anything about the game over the internet, it was like a ghost game, which must have had some credibility since it was no/3 of the series. Nevertheless, i learned how to play the game myself and grew to love the dynamics, the expanse of the galaxy and the general feel of being a dictator in a galaxy. It was the first TBS Space 4x game i ever played, and for me personally - nothing can ever come close. I realised the hatred, frustration and pure denial of this games existence by MoO fans (1 & 2), and after playing those two myself i can see why it was so terrible compared to the originals. But for me, MoO3 has always been a constant. Im just glad i never played the first two before i played the 3rd, otherwise i would have probably sided with the general consensus of this game. Full Review »
  3. ChristopherP.
    5
    What a complete waste of potential. What is good in this game--fun amount of complexity, detailed research tree, 16 races--is nearly completely ruined by problems that can't be ignored. Firstly, the 16 races are a joke, because the stats are not balanced at all. If you add up the stat points for each race, they're not balanced, sometimes to the point of extreme; for example, the Humans and Evons. The Evons are a humanoid race with stats that are vastly better than Humans, so the right way to go would be to customize the Evons, since customizing the Humans would be pointless. It gets worse: The enemy AI in this game is bad, really bad. Even after the newest patch, the AIs will completely randomly declare war on you without any provocation, even if you've boosted your diplomacy stat. The AI also very rarely makes an attack on you even if they do declare war, even on the higher difficulties. I also don't like at all that you have to redesign ships from scrap all manually with every military research you make. Ground combat is sort of cool, with more complexity and vast array of options such as allowing nuclear and chemical warfare, different tactics to make, etc (all of which is actually completely meaningless, because the manual nor the master's notes explains anything about the options you can take). The options "land troops" and "land all troops" when invading a planet make no sense. Even if you click "land troops," a few will invade, but the others just go into your reserves, so you have to make new transports. The emphasis on macromanaging could have been a good idea, and development plans are your friend, so the planetary AI isn't completely braindead. The game shows hints of genius with the vast complexity and emphasis on macromanaging that could work if not for the crippling problems it has. Full Review »