Yet despite its 3D graphics and higher resolution, it's hardly more entertaining than that of the earlier game. Master of Orion 3's most rousing presentation is in its diplomacy interface, through which the player communicates with the leaders of other races. The maps are now three-dimensional and the combat screen offers more believable-looking ships, but these displays are iconic anyway, designed to provide easy-to-read assessment of a situation instead of a realistic representation of detail or scale. The graphics quality in Master of Orion 3 is not much better than that of Master of Orion II, which was released over six years earlier. Master of Orion 3 is a disappointment, because this sophistication is the only manner in which it improves upon its predecessor. Players now have greater control over more aspects of their Orion empires than ever before, but taking advantage of that control is a more burdensome enterprise that feels even further removed from the actual ebb and flow of the game. This makes for a clean, unified presentation, but it dampens any emotional attachment to the given task at hand. They all convey the same aloof perspective on the empire, whether the player is gearing for combat in a ship design screen or queuing farm and industry development on a new colony. Unlike those of its predecessor, all of the menu screens in Master of Orion 3 have the same sterile, generic GUI appearance. Structured in outline form, only its most basic, chapter-title keywords come up in a search, so seeking relevant information on a particular planetary characteristic or made-up science-fiction term can be frustrating, and often fruitless. Amazingly, there is no index, and even worse, the in-game "Galactic Encyclopedia" suffers a similar problem.
#MASTERS OF ORION 3 MANUAL#
Unfortunately, the manual is hard to use, as instructions on the different aspects of play are interspersed with lengthy (though well written) back-story fiction. Perhaps Master of Orion 3 would be more accessible - and certainly much more fun - if it did a better job explaining itself to the player. Reaching the sub-menu screen for nearly any hands-on management task requires the player to click though multiple layers of interface.
#MASTERS OF ORION 3 WINDOWS#
While each menu and information screen in the game is logically placed, there are dozens, if not hundreds of nested windows and pop-up panels. It is extremely cumbersome and complicated, even compared to other games in a genre known for depth. Master of Orion 3 caters to players who valued the sophistication of the earlier game, to the complete exclusion of those who would appreciate more accessibility.
Ultimately, empire-building fans formed opinions of Master of Orion II according to their tastes: those who liked the game's complexity found the interface relatively efficient considering the degree of control it offered, while those who prefered accessibility over sophistication were less enthusiastic. While hardcore players learned to appreciate the opportunity to control so many aspects of their galactic empires, more casual strategy gamers resented the need to dig two or three screens down to find the information display or settings screens they needed. The biggest complaint about Master of Orion II was that its interface seemed complex and unwieldy. These were eventually rectified by a patch, however, which rendered the game one of the most complete and engaging empire-building titles of its time. When the first sequel, Master of Orion II: Battle at Antares, was released at end of 1996, it had minor bugs and some significant balance issues.
#MASTERS OF ORION 3 PC#
It sits alongside Sid Meier's Civilization and the all-but-forgotten Master of Magic in MicroProse's triumvirate of early-1990s PC empire-building, which defined the genre and will continue to influence it for generations to come. The original Master of Orion is truly a classic game. The name "Master of Orion" carries a demanding pedigree.