Master of Orion: Conquer the Stars

 PC
User Score
7.1

Mixed or average reviews- based on 170 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 102 out of 170
  2. Mixed: 35 out of 170
  3. Negative: 33 out of 170
Buy Now
Buy on

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
view
per page
  1. Prosmooth
    Aug 27, 2016
    10
    I usually don't play these games because I'm dumb and never even understand the tutorials--but I can play and understand this one for some reason. I'm having a blast with it. Maybe I'm having a blast with it because I'm dumb. Either way--I think it's really cool. Thank you to whoever made it--even my Simple Jack mind can play around in space now and feel like I'm a conquering hero.
  2. jjhalberd
    Aug 25, 2016
    4
    Good points: No major bugs, good voice acting.
    Bad points: Not very exciting, poor combat mechanics. No desire to play more after finishing one game.
    War-gaming definitely tossed some money at this game with all of the name brand voice actors. Unfortunately, they didn't have the foresight to hire experienced game designers as the game is just very lackluster outside of the voice    Good points: No major bugs, good voice acting.
    Bad points: Not very exciting, poor combat mechanics. No desire to play more after finishing one game.

    War-gaming definitely tossed some money at this game with all of the name brand voice actors.
    Unfortunately, they didn't have the foresight to hire experienced game designers as the game is
    just very lackluster outside of the voice acting.

    I was surprised that the priced at the game at $29.99 nstead of $39.99. but in retrospect,
    this just shows that the producers don't have faith in the game themselves. I recommend
    picking this up at $5-$10. At $30, it's still not worth it. Put your money towards Galciv3, Endless space
    and Stellaris instead.    … Expand
  3. ExpertPL
    Nov 11, 2016
    5
    I expected this game to be better. For me it seems like Civilization clone in space (not to be confused with Beyond Earth). For hardcore fans of 4X and strategies I would advice not playing this game, but for players that always thought that 4X and other strategies are way to hard for them, this game could be just for them. It's pretty easy to learn and has very transparent mechanics.
  4. richard_kindel
    Nov 8, 2017
    6
    The game is better than master of orion 3 but not as good as moo2. The new designers took away turn based combat and substituted real-time, strike#1, and they implemented star-lanes instead of go-where-you-want limited only by fuel, strike#2. The reason that Civilization (sid meier's civ) has been so successful all these years is that they just improve on the basic system .. not change it.The game is better than master of orion 3 but not as good as moo2. The new designers took away turn based combat and substituted real-time, strike#1, and they implemented star-lanes instead of go-where-you-want limited only by fuel, strike#2. The reason that Civilization (sid meier's civ) has been so successful all these years is that they just improve on the basic system .. not change it. With the Moo series, every single version after moo2 is a completely different game. What I really, really want is just an upgrade of the prior version (similar to what civ does) do not create a different game & don't change the fundamental basic system. I want to play a turn based game (as moo2) with a semi-simultaneous turn based tactical combat system (as moo2) and with warp movement (go anywhere ... as moo2) ... why do they have to keep changing the things that made the original so darn great?? This is why every version after moo2 has been failing. Stars in shadow is the only space game that I've played since moo2 that retains the 3 core elements that made moo2 so great, and in fact, stars in shadow is a very good game (though it needs some more work & DLC before becoming truly great).… Expand
  5. Alexey_Polyansk
    Jan 10, 2020
    7
    As of 1Q’20 “MOO: Conquer the stars” (2016) has a Metacritic score of 74 and if one sorts our Metacritic scores in brackets like this
    90+ - highly recommended for all audience/ genre standard setting masterpiece
    80-89 – must buy for genre fans; others may like the game as well 70-79 – genre fans may enjoy this; not recommended for others Below 70 – pre-release builds 74 is a    As of 1Q’20 “MOO: Conquer the stars” (2016) has a Metacritic score of 74 and if one sorts our Metacritic scores in brackets like this
    90+ - highly recommended for all audience/ genre standard setting masterpiece
    80-89 – must buy for genre fans; others may like the game as well
    70-79 – genre fans may enjoy this; not recommended for others
    Below 70 – pre-release builds
    74 is a reasonable estimate of MOO (2016) playability. 74, provided you play it with community designed 5X -The Ultimate balance mod (UBM), unofficial code patch (UCP) and the mod making 5X UBM and UCP compatible (all are listed as “top rated all the time” in Steam workshop. Otherwise, the game hardly deserves above 70 mark and should be skipped entirely in favor of Endless Space 2 or Stellaris.
    Pros:
    1. Brand equity. Whilst MOO (2016) per se neither adds to it (like MOO2 did in 1996), nor destroys one (like MOO3 in 2003) seeing the same races and familiar interface adds value to the game
    2. Lore. Nothing in comparison with Warhammer, but Sergei Lukyanenko’s trilogy “Dream Lane” and Mass Effect game series races clearly inspired by MOO help to enjoy playing
    3. Gorgeous concept art for races and ships. Just look at the pdf enclosed; the game retained some of it
    Cons:
    1. Developers dumped support for the game in 2017. Community fixed major bugs and issues in above listed mods, so they’re must have
    2. User interface, in particular planet management and research tree screens resembles MOO2 one, but developers made it uglier and less convenient. E.g. the [original?] art team skipped work on some assets, so combination of poor and high quality images on the same screen makes the overall picture look even worse; MOO2 800x600 planet management screen was able to fit 10 planet lines whilst MOO (2016) can barely fit 8 on 2560x1440
    3. Tactical space battles lost their allure after transition to real time, both in terms of battle strategies and graphics quality
    4. Events design, diplomacy/espionage and heroes systems stayed on 1996 level
    Overall the game would be much better received were publisher and developers (WG Labs/NGD Studios) just took MOO2 patched to 1.50 version and made it run natively in Win10 with 2K/4K screen resolutions.    … Expand
  6. theirrelephants
    Sep 5, 2016
    7
    Better graphics are never a substitute for core game play or features.

    Yes I like looking at pretty space ships and planets. No I don't want to have them if you have to take out things like the complicated combat system the original game had in order to give them to me. This game is average, because while it might be a better LOOKING sequel, it is not a better PLAYING sequel, which    Better graphics are never a substitute for core game play or features.

    Yes I like looking at pretty space ships and planets. No I don't want to have them if you have to take out things like the complicated combat system the original game had in order to give them to me.

    This game is average, because while it might be a better LOOKING sequel, it is not a better PLAYING sequel, which is what all video game sequels should aspire to.    … Expand
  7. rygar666
    Aug 26, 2016
    7
    Any attempt to work with an existing franchise means there are set expectations. Voice acting and polish are nice to haves, but not more important that core features. Don't let marketing dictate game development. When talking about a core franchise like MOO don't try to turn into accessible space Civilization. Leave in the complexity and keep the multiplayer as a core feature. SayingAny attempt to work with an existing franchise means there are set expectations. Voice acting and polish are nice to haves, but not more important that core features. Don't let marketing dictate game development. When talking about a core franchise like MOO don't try to turn into accessible space Civilization. Leave in the complexity and keep the multiplayer as a core feature. Saying something like that is coming later seems like a major cop out.… Expand
  8. Braggi
    Sep 30, 2016
    6
    Summary: They tried to clone the extinct MoO species from Civilisation-DNA, sadly loosing some essential traits in the process. A good deal only for casual players, or to rekindle old MoO-memories without much available play time. The game looks good and starts very accessible.
    If you're looking for a deep 4X experience, look elsewhere.
    Explore (yawn) - scouts without range limits plod    Summary: They tried to clone the extinct MoO species from Civilisation-DNA, sadly loosing some essential traits in the process. A good deal only for casual players, or to rekindle old MoO-memories without much available play time. The game looks good and starts very accessible.
    If you're looking for a deep 4X experience, look elsewhere.

    Explore (yawn) - scouts without range limits plod through a circular galaxy to map the stars. Rarely a reward beyond some credits or a vessel. Meeting races early to reap in trading boost.
    Two other setup options separate sections of the galaxy until midgame. Prevents early diplomacy and stresses expansion and research.

    Expand - planets operate separately. Their properties matter most in the beginning. Some good, close fertile planets boost growth excessively, while hostile environments cripple colonies.
    Much later in midgame, solar systems may pool their production and planets specialise more.

    Exploit - planet food and production slots are limited, with small spread and decreasing yield. Works only well at start, in the long run technology levels out differences. Planet size matters most.
    This is far from the old system where the galaxy might look completely different according to your race.

    Exterminate - Stationary defences add initiall resillience, invasion tech is delayed. Using star lanes feels more like combat along mountain passes than in space.
    There's tactical decisions and challenges. Still battles failed to excite me. Went to just calculate combat in the end. Invasion looks unfinished. Conquered planets don't revolt.
    In mid-game, portals may connect a side's systems, specialised shipyards churn out fleet. Travel in enemy territory stays slow; mopping up a war becomes a drag.

    Science - Instead of independent fields of research, we get a Civi tech tree with crowded nodes. The frowned upon old choice system is consciously reduced to a few select applications.
    This means that more than 85% of technology can never be traded, stolen or conquered but must be researched instead.

    Money - main source is population tax, with trade second. This is probably the biggest design change, as the forerunner used industry for taxation. Money and production were interchangeable then. No more.
    All ship upgrades can no longer be produced but must be bought, and there's no alternative to a large population base to fund your buildings or excess fleet.

    My brand's canary chokes on several features, mechanisms and concepts that often match the forerunner just in name.

    UI problems pop up in midgame and with huge positions. The game increasingly reacts sluggish and information is missing. MoO2's UI could handle 100-planet empires, MoO can't.
    Zooming into a planet looses the strategic view. Event list can't be scrolled, when overflowing you must klick through the least important items first. Some events pop up first, ignoring your selection.
    Planet list can't be sorted by production type, to e.g. check fleet in construction. Planet uniformity makes sorting by resource (food, science, production) way less usefull. And the list goes on...

    Diplomacy is listless. Incoming offers can't be put on hold and checked, no counter offers possible. Swap charts without knowing what you trade for is the most frequent offer.
    Get an embassy. Trade and research deals have to be continually refreshed, with the AI later often too broke to accept. Cultivating AIs is possible to get access or alliances. Otherwise the AI is simplistic with no real grasp of reality, demanding when ready to strike, or crawling when currently involved in another war.

    Espionage mostly consists of offensive spy micromanagent. Some Intelligence; stealing of the 'choice' techs is best done at lowly, undefended outposts, the rest is sabotage.
    Sabotage works like a separate game, after succes the victim can't react, e.g. can't attack a revolting planet but must wait it out.
    Defense is static by race traits or expensive buildings, or dispatched spies, without a good view to coordinate.

    Races - Most predefined ones work, but use way more perk points though than a player gets for a custom race. Race differences are noticeable, but very timid.

    Ship customisation has some wellcome improvements (like scout autoupgrades or the UI layout). On the other side a convoluted system obscures this.
    Payload is consumed at rates differing by class by essentials. A 25% payload extension consumes part of this for itself. And so on. You can't just compare the numbers displayed.
    This also hurls another wave of micromanagement at the player, e.g. each new drive is slightly bigger, often forcing a ship redesign.

    The final result is a wasted opportunity - a good looking time waster, not without appeal - but too shallow and boring for me.    … Expand
  9. Koblihozrout
    Aug 29, 2016
    5
    IGN review said it's arguably better than MOO2. I played both games and i can say it's arguably worse.

    1) The AI is worse, yes they made it worse than in 1996 game, but hey AI can speak now, so much for investing in right aspects of game development. 2) The game-play is less complex, more tedious and boring, especially the espionage system will make you throw a little in your mouth.    IGN review said it's arguably better than MOO2. I played both games and i can say it's arguably worse.

    1) The AI is worse, yes they made it worse than in 1996 game, but hey AI can speak now, so much for investing in right aspects of game development.
    2) The game-play is less complex, more tedious and boring, especially the espionage system will make you throw a little in your mouth.
    3) Space combat and graphics are worse, yes i found combat graphics in 1996 game better and more flashed out, even more atmospheric. The real time combat offers zero chance for players to outperform opponent with less techs and ships as MOO2 allowed, because you can't really as player do any meaningful actions, it basically looks like a placeholder in some alpha-version. But on other side auto-simulate option is there and it's good.

    They changed a lot of core mechanics, like sharing food through your empire with freighters and so on, made game blend, dumbed down and uninspiring. Maybe now after so many years wargaming management will understand that it's financial success with world of tanks was lucky, and that good game developers are essential for games to succeeded. Just joking of course they won't    … Expand
  10. oleogamah555
    Aug 27, 2016
    3
    The game looks good, but everything else about it I did not like. They did not consider all the little features of the first two MOO games that made the game fun. Like, if you conquer a planet you don't have any chance to steal technology. Also the new spying system is cumbersome and specific to planets which turns it into a big micromanagement chore later in the game.

    Also the Tactical    The game looks good, but everything else about it I did not like. They did not consider all the little features of the first two MOO games that made the game fun. Like, if you conquer a planet you don't have any chance to steal technology. Also the new spying system is cumbersome and specific to planets which turns it into a big micromanagement chore later in the game.

    Also the Tactical RTS is not really tactical. You can tell your ships where to move but you do not have complete control on how they attack or use their special abilities. This was NGD Studio's first time make a 4X game so they tried to copy features found in Civ 5 and other modern 4X games and implement them in their own special way. They have starlanes, which I did not mind, but the navigation between waypoints is cumbersome and clunky.

    As a comparison, if you played the new Doom game, the designers at id software did a good job capturing the original gameplay and then building new, modern features on top it. But in this MOO reboot they threw out a lot of the old features that worked in the first two MOOs and replaced them with their own interpretation of how the modern 4X gameplay should work, much of it borrowed from Civ 5. And the results are inconsistent and do not work well together in this case.

    Basically this is a 4X game to play if you do not care about balance or consistency in good gameplay mechanics. I found the game very annoying to play and could not bear more than 12 hours on it.    … Expand
  11. Jaramide
    Sep 1, 2016
    8
    As a person who has always been very interested in 4X gaming but never really played that much because it's often a real chore to learn the system and understand what you are doing this game is really great for me. It's very friendly and really easy to get a sort of grasp of what is going on as the game UI is very well designed and easy to use and the game is very good at showing you whatAs a person who has always been very interested in 4X gaming but never really played that much because it's often a real chore to learn the system and understand what you are doing this game is really great for me. It's very friendly and really easy to get a sort of grasp of what is going on as the game UI is very well designed and easy to use and the game is very good at showing you what you should be doing (Sometimes a little too well, I'm looking at you espionage center)
    I enjoyed it a lot and I really got into the "Just one more turn, omg it's mornining already?" mindset.    … Expand
  12. PrinceValium
    Aug 31, 2016
    10
    I find it incredible that so many player reviews are highly critical of this game! While there are definitely features I would like to see improved (for example, espionage), and brought back (like the minor races), and added (like heroes), I can definitely say that this game is a true follower in the footsteps of the original MOO. It seems strange to me that so many reviewers complain bothI find it incredible that so many player reviews are highly critical of this game! While there are definitely features I would like to see improved (for example, espionage), and brought back (like the minor races), and added (like heroes), I can definitely say that this game is a true follower in the footsteps of the original MOO. It seems strange to me that so many reviewers complain both that this game is too little like MOO2 (when it only aspires to be MOO1 anyway) and that it didn't make enough changes to the original gameplay. Wut? How can you have it both ways? This MOO is a fun, fast, playable game that I thikn would be very appealing to many players. Maybe not the most hardcore and critical players, but definitely the mass of average players. If only they would read past the horrible numbers on here and see the game for what it gives you - that feeling of having to play just one more turn! And it's beautiful with great music!… Expand
  13. Yco
    Aug 29, 2016
    9
    Very high production values unite with efficient and pleasant UI design in this new MOO for the 21st century. It's simple, intuitive, fun and more-ish to play. Recommended.
  14. Turnip
    Aug 25, 2016
    5
    For those who played the original masterpiece, or its underrated sequel, this is a fun jaunt filled with nostalgia and fond memories.

    Still, in a genre filled with games that claim to be the spiritual successors to MOO, this game does little to set itself apart. The combat is oversimplified and obtuse. Research is unimaginative and uninteresting. Beyond the initial nostalgia, this game    For those who played the original masterpiece, or its underrated sequel, this is a fun jaunt filled with nostalgia and fond memories.

    Still, in a genre filled with games that claim to be the spiritual successors to MOO, this game does little to set itself apart. The combat is oversimplified and obtuse. Research is unimaginative and uninteresting. Beyond the initial nostalgia, this game becomes dull fast.    … Expand
  15. darkbladebfg
    Aug 25, 2016
    8
    It's not perfect,but it's better than most 4x space games out there.
    The combat is the weakest point of this game,only involving pressing the attack button.Ground combat is not animated like in moo2 or cinematic,for some reason that part has been overlooked :/.
    On the other side-great voice acting,unique races,chill music,good graphics,epic space battle cinematics,easy to get into.
  16. Va1arMorgul1s
    Sep 2, 2016
    10
    Loved the game! i don´t know why some people feel like this game is not up to expectations. Gameplay? Good. Animations? Good. Graphics? Good. Voice acting? Good (well, amazing actually). I love this kind of genre and sometimes feel like there are too many variables to understand exactly what is happening in all the layers; and I didn´t have this problem at all wit MoO, felt in control ofLoved the game! i don´t know why some people feel like this game is not up to expectations. Gameplay? Good. Animations? Good. Graphics? Good. Voice acting? Good (well, amazing actually). I love this kind of genre and sometimes feel like there are too many variables to understand exactly what is happening in all the layers; and I didn´t have this problem at all wit MoO, felt in control of my civilization all along.… Expand
  17. garhent
    Sep 9, 2016
    6
    The game is about 2/3rds of the way there. There is simply no turn based combat, and that is the biggest problem with the game. I tried using their horrible controls to work a battle, but it was painfully obvious they are bad. So, you are left with an ok game for expansion, however the combat is horrible. The AI also does not attack, it simply lets you turtle out your expansion. ItsThe game is about 2/3rds of the way there. There is simply no turn based combat, and that is the biggest problem with the game. I tried using their horrible controls to work a battle, but it was painfully obvious they are bad. So, you are left with an ok game for expansion, however the combat is horrible. The AI also does not attack, it simply lets you turtle out your expansion. Its sorta an OK version of MOO, but sorta not. Its roughly on par with MOO I, but lagging significantly behind MOO II. Spy missions are bad, they give you to many spies and they almost always fail no matter what tech you have, they simply become trully annoying to use.

    I hope the devs take the user critiicisms to heart and fix their game. It isn't that much to take the game to an 8 or 9 with what they got now. It feels like they ran out of money and had to release a barely viable product. Its a 6 or 7 at best unfortunately. It could easily had been a 9 or 10 if they'd improve the AI and put in actual combat. The ship combat is almost as bad as MOOIII, its real close to being that bad, real close.    … Expand
  18. wallytsx
    Aug 25, 2016
    10
    Very nice polished game... totally recommendable!
    It has awesome graphics, sound and gameplay that reminds me the original MoO 2.
    Nice job by NGD and Wargaming!
  19. ShadowDM
    Aug 31, 2016
    10
    Very polished and very enjoyable to play. Of course there are many things to be improved as in every 4X game I know, but this game already started right from day 1. My score is in part to compensate all the unnecessary hate. : )
  20. CrazyCot
    Aug 25, 2016
    4
    I want to love this game, I really do, but it has some problems that need to be corrected or I see this going into my pile of 4x games that were only touched once or twice and never seen again. I am going to start off with that I do like and why followed by the big issues and what they need to do to correct this.

    1. Sound! Omg, I was smiling from ear to ear when I realized the music for    I want to love this game, I really do, but it has some problems that need to be corrected or I see this going into my pile of 4x games that were only touched once or twice and never seen again. I am going to start off with that I do like and why followed by the big issues and what they need to do to correct this.

    1. Sound! Omg, I was smiling from ear to ear when I realized the music for the colony ship landing was the same from the original.

    2. Graphics are great and their attention to detail just amazes me, like having the ship’s path curve AROUND the star. The races are detailed and beautifully rendered.

    3. The UI is clean and unobtrusive. This is great because you get the whole galaxy as your backdrop.

    4. I love the colony manager and how they display your information, it is a great take on the MoO 2 mananger with a modern UI.

    I have enjoyed playing, but I can say the same for the countless MoO clones. Sadly like them I see this getting played for a bit until the combat becomes so bland I don't pick it up ever again, usually two to three games.

    1. Combat - The combat is real time and I have no direct fire control of my ships. Sure I can get into tactical mode where I tell them where to go and who to shoot but that does no good if I cannot control the weapons. I don’t want a real time combat, I wanted MoO turn based ship combat. Sure you could get bogged down in MoO 2 space combat if your fleets got really big at the end game but that is why you had AUTO. In MoO 2 you could make some really nuanced ships, and special variants, in this because of the ship combat AI you are forced to make brute force ships.

    2. Research - I love MoO 1’s research, you could play multiple games and get different techs each time. I only ever saw Hand Phasers once out of countless games. This made research unique and you were always checking in on the other races to find out what they got that you didn’t. Here I find myself making strange and unintelligible choices. Why must I choose between fusion bombs and fusion beams? This doesn’t make any sense, all it does is make an optimal research path that min maxers will figure out and share, it does not add variety.

    3. Range - There is no range mechanic. In the first MoO games you were limited by how far your fuel cells would let you go. A scout now however can go all over the galaxy and find everything and everyone. So instead of a gradual expansion moving forward and meeting aliens, you are thrust straight away into contact and have to start shoring up your solar systems at the Starlane warp points so you can at least hold on to some of your colonizable planets.

    4. It has been brought to my attention the 500 turn limit can be turned off. It is the Excellence victory condition in the Advanced Options menu. These options need to be labeled better. I am testing a game with the turn limit turned off. (update) I got far too bored and just stopped playing.

    5. Star lanes - These don't belong in a MoO game at all! Part of the tactics were worrying if commiting your fleet was going to leave you open at home. You could pick where and when to attack, now you just walk right into bottleneck after bottleneck after bottleneck. These need to go NOW. I had an anomoly pop up near my homeworld in my first game and I thought, ok without a star lane it must take a while to get to it right? Nope, one turn, one turn for a distance the same distance as the star lane going to the next star system. That star lane took FOUR turns. This makes no sense. These need to go.

    If you haven't purchased it already I suggest waiting. I would rather play MoO 1 or 2 before touching this one again.    … Expand
  21. jfrankie
    Aug 25, 2016
    3
    If the first two Master of orion were food, they would like the perfect hamburgers, big, fat, and full of juicy flavor.
    They were a bit buggy at first, but hey, I like my burgers medium rare!
    Thus, I was really looking forward to this new one. But instead of giving me a juicy burger, the new developers decided to go all veggie on me and gave me a tofu patty that has absolutely no    If the first two Master of orion were food, they would like the perfect hamburgers, big, fat, and full of juicy flavor.
    They were a bit buggy at first, but hey, I like my burgers medium rare!

    Thus, I was really looking forward to this new one. But instead of giving me a juicy burger,
    the new developers decided to go all veggie on me and gave me a tofu patty that has absolutely no flavor.
    Everything about the new game is bland. Graphics is ok, but unexciting. Gameplay, meh.
    What happened to all in the interesting decisions from the first two games? And the combat, omg!!!
    The combat which is the core, which is the big juicy patty of the old games has becoming a
    frigging tofu. Bleh!    … Expand
  22. yosa1
    Sep 7, 2016
    1
    I gave this game a try only because I kind of liked sorcerer king rivals so why not grab something that seems so popular, generally I find these 4x(coined) games to be a hit the turn button more than any semblance of game.

    Well despite my biased opinion, I did like the voice acting, cut scenes, graphics and general ambiance,the setting and sound tracks were immersive. My first huge    I gave this game a try only because I kind of liked sorcerer king rivals so why not grab something that seems so popular, generally I find these 4x(coined) games to be a hit the turn button more than any semblance of game.

    Well despite my biased opinion, I did like the voice acting, cut scenes, graphics and general ambiance,the setting and sound tracks were immersive.

    My first huge gripe is the tech tree, its a disorienting mess of upgrades, structures,ship hulls and weapons jammed into some drug induced order that kicks logic in the balls; its not the first game that I have tried that did this badly so I rolled with it.Then after two hundred or so turns and not really having done anything but watch the tech bar grow and my planet get more people, I saw that I was actually playing(to steal a term that keeps popping up in browser games) a slower and much prettier cow clicker.

    This highlights a general design flaw in these sorts of games, the whole game play takes place between your last turn and some distant turn far down the line, then do it again. In a game like Stardrive the developer employed time system were by a turn would be 5 seconds, so the game would progress rts style albeit the tech tree in that game was simpler and made more sense.

    This game is a bore fest, its not very interactive, build something, research a tech, send a ship to explore then wait 20 turns to do it again. There are numerous over sites in the ui and presentation of menus as well as aspects that should have been included such as a tabbed list of structure on the selected planet,
    control scheme needs some work and the tech tree/buildings available are chaotic and full of bloat.    … Expand
  23. Gaarq
    Sep 6, 2016
    8
    i expected not that much from a remake of brilliant master of orion II, but it turned to be pleasant, a bit simpler, but still home-feeling game. i do agree with all the critics about the bad warfare, annoying advisors, not much bright AI, unnecessary game concept simplifications, but at the end, i play it as a relaxing game, with moderate challenge satisfying my need for empire building.i expected not that much from a remake of brilliant master of orion II, but it turned to be pleasant, a bit simpler, but still home-feeling game. i do agree with all the critics about the bad warfare, annoying advisors, not much bright AI, unnecessary game concept simplifications, but at the end, i play it as a relaxing game, with moderate challenge satisfying my need for empire building. there are some some good things anew - more and different victory conditions (economic, scientific...), nice graphics, inside star system travelling. not much of them, but it is ok for me. i tend to rate it rather positively, although i know its weaknesses.… Expand
  24. mrahikai
    Sep 15, 2016
    9
    Nice casual 4X game with high production values. Also a plus that it is available for Linux (currently playing on Fedora 23). Having played the original MOO in the 90 's I find this a worthy successor.
  25. Wainaa
    Aug 31, 2016
    5
    I had great hopes about this game when it was originally announced. Since I didn't want to play a work in progress, I pre-ordered MOO and then waited for it to be released.

    Now, the good things. It really is a Master of Orion remake. It feels like Master of Orion and it looks and sounds like Master of Orion and that's about it. The bad news is that it doesn't add anything to the    I had great hopes about this game when it was originally announced. Since I didn't want to play a work in progress, I pre-ordered MOO and then waited for it to be released.

    Now, the good things. It really is a Master of Orion remake. It feels like Master of Orion and it looks and sounds like Master of Orion and that's about it. The bad news is that it doesn't add anything to the original or rather, it takes away features. Wargaming's Master of Orion isn't a bad game, it's just... redundant.

    So, just get the original Master of Orion 2 somewhere instead.    … Expand
  26. sherbz
    Dec 11, 2016
    8
    Writing as an old time MOO fan, I have to say that this is actually rather a good interpretation of the originals. I consider it better than civ 6. And what I really like is that the developer seems to care about their community and releases unpaid for patches (although not DLC on new races). All told, if you want a decent space strategy game, then look no further. My only observationsWriting as an old time MOO fan, I have to say that this is actually rather a good interpretation of the originals. I consider it better than civ 6. And what I really like is that the developer seems to care about their community and releases unpaid for patches (although not DLC on new races). All told, if you want a decent space strategy game, then look no further. My only observations are:

    1 - Space combat is a bit lacklustre. I like the cinematic thing but when I take control, or half take control, I'm not really sure what I'm adding. And my actions don't seem to be properly represented either.

    2 - The balance is a bit off IMO. Techs should take longer to research, although this is adjustable. However I like the fact that they kept he race imbalance thing.

    3 - I LOVE the voice acting. Seriously, great job! Not often you say that about a turn based game, but it is practically perfect.

    4 - the diplomacy is actually decent, so hats off for that.

    5 - Ground combat could be a bit more exciting.

    But over all, I think this is a good game, and worth a purchase. Don't be put off by the purists and the fools.

    3 -    … Expand
  27. FreddyRama
    Nov 20, 2016
    8
    I was an avid player of all the original MOO titles and this seems to me to be a good update. It certainly has a lot of the elements that make 4X games fun and the graphics and development are all good. The interaction with aliens seems to be pretty good as well.
  28. allliefreemore
    Aug 26, 2016
    2
    Unlike a lot of buyers I've never played Master of Orion 1 or 2 before so I came in
    with very little expectations. I am a Civ player and I have really enjoyed Civ 4 and Civ 5.
    (Civ 5 I liked even before the expansions!) I bought this game to pass the time away before Civ6 comes out. I like how the mechanics between this game and Civ5 are very similar so it's very easy for me to pick    Unlike a lot of buyers I've never played Master of Orion 1 or 2 before so I came in
    with very little expectations. I am a Civ player and I have really enjoyed Civ 4 and Civ 5.
    (Civ 5 I liked even before the expansions!) I bought this game to pass the time away
    before Civ6 comes out.

    I like how the mechanics between this game and Civ5 are very similar so it's
    very easy for me to pick up UI-wise. Graphics is pretty like Civ5, but the alien
    character art is even cheezier than Civ's and some of the advisors are VERY annoying!
    Luckily, you can turn them off, so I would still give the overall presentation of the
    game a 8/10.

    But good graphics by itself does not make a good game, especially a good strategy
    game. After 6 hours of gameplay, I feel more frustrated than satisfied.

    Empire management:
    My new colonies keep starving and its very tedious to keep them fed. There's a lot of unnecessary micromanagement and trying to have even a moderately sized empire is very painful mid-late game with
    lots of pointless clicking around.

    Combat:
    I cannot get my ships to attack a specific ship. Instead, they just sort of glob-attack randomly the enemy which turns the entire fighting experience into a mindless click-attack. So I mostly just
    auto-resolve combat. I think the developer should have just used an abstract combat like Civ
    rather than this pseudo-rts which is time-consuming to play, but not every satisfying.

    Diplomacy:
    The game COMPLETELY FAILS for me here. Perhaps, I haven't play enough to master
    the optimal build paths for new colonies, and maybe other people who like RTS's will like
    the combat, but this game has the absolute worst, and most mind boggling AI interactions
    ever. For example; my fleet often gets randomly attacked by AI who I have friendly or neutral
    relationships with. This is almost excusable as just bad AI, but this is the first game I ever
    played where getting attacked is not an act of war! This is just not bad programming, but
    REALLY POOR GAME DESIGN and really incomphrensible. This completely breaks the immersion
    factor for me.

    Hopefully, in the future the devs will release more add-ons which makes the game enjoyable,
    like how Civ 5 has really grown with expansions, but as of right now, I cannot recommend
    this game.    … Expand
  29. psycros
    Aug 30, 2016
    3
    This game exemplifies EVERYTHING that's wrong with game design today.

    Game-crippling bugs that have been reported for nearly six months have gone totally unaddressed. The most telling example? The in-game bug reporting tool limits you to 18 characters for the title of the bug report. How's that for irony? This MOO has all the depth of a typical phone game. I guess they were too    This game exemplifies EVERYTHING that's wrong with game design today.

    Game-crippling bugs that have been reported for nearly six months have gone totally unaddressed. The most telling example? The in-game bug reporting tool limits you to 18 characters for the title of the bug report. How's that for irony?

    This MOO has all the depth of a typical phone game. I guess they were too busying preparing not one but TWO launch day DLCs, one of which puts an entire playable race behind a paywall. Doubly hilarious, that race is really just a reskinned version of the humans.

    Just play MOO2, possibly with some good mods.    … Expand
  30. VitaminK
    Nov 13, 2016
    8
    This game was a little rough when it was released but it has continuosly gotten a stream of updates and patches that will continue to make this game what it deserves to be. Most of the hate comes from old MoO players saying the game got 'dumbed' down but for me a lot of tediousness got taken out and replaced by steamline gameplay. This could easily be a 9 in 6-12 months when things reallyThis game was a little rough when it was released but it has continuosly gotten a stream of updates and patches that will continue to make this game what it deserves to be. Most of the hate comes from old MoO players saying the game got 'dumbed' down but for me a lot of tediousness got taken out and replaced by steamline gameplay. This could easily be a 9 in 6-12 months when things really get a good balance and some more depth but you can count on it with these devs. Hopefully I'll remember and come change my rating to a 9 when that happens.… Expand
  31. iseeall
    Feb 11, 2017
    8
    A remake of the Master of Orion 2 (1996) with a modern interface. Thankfully the game stays very close to the original in most things, however the real-time combat is more cinematic than tactical.

    The good: - the game plays well overall, very close to MoO 2. - great graphics (the background is gorgeous), great music. - the GUI is excellent, a lot fewer clicks are needed to do things    A remake of the Master of Orion 2 (1996) with a modern interface. Thankfully the game stays very close to the original in most things, however the real-time combat is more cinematic than tactical.

    The good:
    - the game plays well overall, very close to MoO 2.
    - great graphics (the background is gorgeous), great music.
    - the GUI is excellent, a lot fewer clicks are needed to do things than used to in MoO 2, and info is presented in much clearer ways. Much of the GUI is based on the one from Civ 5 which is a standard for 4X games today
    - the game is easy to start, the tutorial is very helpful
    - a good idea to have warp points and military outposts defending them, and to restrict movement between star systems to warp lines - this introduces more tactics into the game, as it's much easier to create choke points
    - trading techs is encouraged: when researching a tech, you often can pick just 1 of its bonuses, and have to trade with other factions for the rest of the bonuses

    The so-so:
    - animations seem to get on your nerves after a while and the "Skip" button appears too late. Diplomacy and council animations are the most annoying ones. GNN news should have had an option to show the news as a text line but skip the video.
    - (this is also applicable to the original) Space-themed sci fi is kids- or at best teenager-oriented. Just suspend your disbelief and don't take it all seriously

    The bad:
    - combat is real-time, lacks control, and there is very little tactics involved. You can control movement of the ships and pick targets, but the ships fire on their own. The game doesn't really let you win in smart ways if your army is smaller
    - empty space doesn't offer as much tactical variety as 2D terrain in other 4x games (e.g. Civ). Though you can still get some variety of combat by experimenting with different ship designs
    - there is no gamepedia. Often I had questions about a specific rule, or how much something costs, or how something works - and there was no answer anywhere. E.g. how many HP do military outposts have? Where can I see their current HP? Do they repair over time, can they be repaired? How much food needs to be accumulated for the next citizen to grow?
    - minor GUI things, e.g. can't see the tech tree while picking a bonus from a just researched tech; they should have tested the game more for usability

    Overall, it's a decent, playable remake, but with too many animations and some questionable real-time combat. 8/10 for now, but it could be a 9/10 if they just fixed the minor things (e.g. the military outposts) and added a gamepedia.    … Expand
  32. Paulystan
    Sep 25, 2016
    2
    So I have been trying to get along with this game for the last few days and I have given up. It is really quite a lot of trash made to look pretty. Space lanes are terrible. Each race is basically given a little cluster of planets that no other player can get to until half way through the game. Once exploration ability gets that far, every player has developed their little section. It'sSo I have been trying to get along with this game for the last few days and I have given up. It is really quite a lot of trash made to look pretty. Space lanes are terrible. Each race is basically given a little cluster of planets that no other player can get to until half way through the game. Once exploration ability gets that far, every player has developed their little section. It's only possible to expand your empire by then attacking the player directly next to you. It's alike a game of galactic dominoes but with less strategy. Orion is located in one of the initial clusters so really the only empire that can grab it is the one who has it in their little cluster. Technology is pretty thin and not exciting at all. Development of planets is slow and boring. There don't appear to be leaders or those awesome little extras that appeared in MOO2. Another remake of an older game which looks and sounds pretty good but ends up being extremely poor. I will be getting my money back on this one.… Expand
  33. Psiraphim
    Mar 21, 2019
    10
    Если у меня спросят: "Есть ли такой римейк, который воссоздал старую игру так, что в нее можно играть и старым фанатам и новчикам, при этом ничего не сломав и не испортив?" - я отвечу: "Это Мастер Ориона 2016 года".
    Игра полностью воссоздает второго Мастера Ориона на современном движке. Да, она может ничего принципиально нового не добавила - это и не нужно было. Это признание в любви к    Если у меня спросят: "Есть ли такой римейк, который воссоздал старую игру так, что в нее можно играть и старым фанатам и новчикам, при этом ничего не сломав и не испортив?" - я отвечу: "Это Мастер Ориона 2016 года".
    Игра полностью воссоздает второго Мастера Ориона на современном движке. Да, она может ничего принципиально нового не добавила - это и не нужно было. Это признание в любви к второй части, перенесено только то, что было в нем. Разработчики не стали "из рпг делать шутер", или добавлять лутбоксы. Римейк мог быть намного хуже, а продолжение могло быть хуже трешки, хотя куда уж хуже.
    Я очень признателен разработчикам. Вы молодцы!    … Expand
  34. MerodeTalks
    Dec 29, 2016
    7
    I have only played MoO 3 before and never tried MoO 2 and 1. Master of Orion (the new one) is much better than MoO 3 in my opinion. I've watched MoO 2 gameplay on YT and it seems like the new MoO takes the most out of MoO 2.

    I've played just one campaign (500+ turns) which took me 17 hours. The game really sucked me in and I've not slept for one night. In the morning it was regular 4X    I have only played MoO 3 before and never tried MoO 2 and 1. Master of Orion (the new one) is much better than MoO 3 in my opinion. I've watched MoO 2 gameplay on YT and it seems like the new MoO takes the most out of MoO 2.

    I've played just one campaign (500+ turns) which took me 17 hours. The game really sucked me in and I've not slept for one night. In the morning it was regular 4X hangover due to overdose. I've come back after breakfast though. Yeah, it's addictive.

    The AI is much better than in MoO 3 in which AI's actions didn't make sense 95% of time. During my 500 turns playthrough I've encountered only one nonsensical AI action. The AI was my ally with high standing and was oppressed by other empire. I've come to aid them and I've destroyed several systems of their enemies. After that I've established colony on oppressor's capital planet (my kind of thing). My ally was angry at me because I've built my colony close to his empire. This is just plain stupid:
    1. They did the same thing building colonies right beside me and it was fine.
    2. I've come to help them and they should be thankful for me getting rid of their troubles.
    3. It was never their system.
    What the hell?

    Diplomacy is just as horrible as in MoO 3. Most of interactions are locked behind research. When you are approached by other empire with a request/offer you cannot send counter-proposition (really, wtf?). You cannot break 20 turns cease-fire or declare war in that time which makes absolutely no sense. There's much room for improvement when it comes to diplomacy.

    I'm also a little sceptical about Antarans. I don't like them. They regularly attack the strongest empire which usually is me. It makes me keep my forces close to my systems instead of going to wars and exploring galaxy. You often think about helping allies or conquering systems but then you realize it's been 50 turns since last Antaran's strike, they will be back soon. They are completely unnecessary. Defeating them is the only win condition without achievement on Steam. Oh, and by the way - once you go to destroy Antarans in their pocket universe, you cannot compare your strength to theirs until it's to late and you cannot cancel this action. Copy your saves before doing that.

    Research tree is really cool and much better than in MoO 3. Most of the stuff you research is really useful and often fun and interesting.

    Ship templates work fine as long as you maintain them yourself. Auto configuration often fails on stuff like parts that increase ship space and allow for installation of more weapons and/or additional systems. Why? It simply never uses them - you have to add them yourself. I'd also appreciate some way to test my designs. Maybe simulation battles? It's sci-fi, figure it out. The only way to test expansive weaponry is building expansive ships and declaring wars. It's not how it works in real life.

    Music is much better than in MoO 3 which made me feel sick after a couple of minutes. The game itself is lighter and doesn't take itself so seriously. Graphics are a little candy-like but that's good. MoO 3 tried to take itself very seriously and it was growing tiring after time.

    Turns take short time to compute in the beginning but after 300-350 turns when there's a lot happening (8 empires, largest galaxy) turns take longer to compute. I'd say they take about 5-10 seconds on i5-2400. I wonder if i7 (8 threads, 4 cores) would help - I'm not sure how well turn computing is paralleled.

    It's also worth mentioning that Mac client simply sucks. I've played game on both Windows PC and Mac and there's no way to make this game work full-screen on Mac. It just displays black screen which I've googled and turns out it is regular business with WG games.

    I see I've mentioned only the bad stuff. Don't mind it - I've had a blast with the game and will come back to it. Assume that what I haven't mentioned is really great. I just wish for some dev to read it and fix what can be fixed.    … Expand
  35. Wolfeye
    Jan 4, 2017
    2
    Well. I put this on my wishlist for Christmas, so I'd have time to play over the long break. I liked the originals, and thought maybe this game would let me play Mrrshans and actually win. Never happened at normal difficulty settings in the originals. Well, you can win with them now, but you won't beat the Antarans. Even on "Very Easy" level I wasn't able to design a fleet, at turn 500+Well. I put this on my wishlist for Christmas, so I'd have time to play over the long break. I liked the originals, and thought maybe this game would let me play Mrrshans and actually win. Never happened at normal difficulty settings in the originals. Well, you can win with them now, but you won't beat the Antarans. Even on "Very Easy" level I wasn't able to design a fleet, at turn 500+ that could best the Antarans. I had all the advanced tech you could want. For some reason though, you're limited to one Doom Star size ship in this game.

    Graphics are nice, but my machine isn't killer-fast. This game is SLOW. VERY slow. You sit around waiting for the AI players to finish. For ever.

    Sadly, they decided to do away with a turn based tactical system. That often made the diff in the originals. Now it's complete crap.

    I'm glad I didn't pay for this piece of junk.    … Expand
  36. Hurrikhan
    Jun 14, 2021
    7
    Master of Orion is a typical "another turn then I stop" game.
    It is relatively simple, arguably pretty and has a dash of humour.
    In its bare form, it is very flawed and it seems the developers aren't working on it anymore : the last patch was in October 2019. There is however an "Unofficial Code Patch" (UCP) that improves the game quite a lot. It's worth it if you get it in a sale,    Master of Orion is a typical "another turn then I stop" game.
    It is relatively simple, arguably pretty and has a dash of humour.

    In its bare form, it is very flawed and it seems the developers aren't working on it anymore : the last patch was in October 2019.
    There is however an "Unofficial Code Patch" (UCP) that improves the game quite a lot.

    It's worth it if you get it in a sale, especially if you want some variation on your 4X games.    … Expand
  37. Babutto
    Dec 27, 2021
    5
    Boring. Very cheap version of Civilization. I have no idea what were the games before (I intentionally skipped them in the '90s). But I'm more than sure back in a day it was much more creative that this thing now.
  38. YigidOx2
    Mar 19, 2021
    9
    Graphics and atmosphere are beautiful. It's necessary to set up strategy and it's fun to play.
  39. g014n
    Aug 19, 2020
    4
    It's a genuinely bad game and that in itself is worth writing about.

    The only thing it has going for it is the looks, but other than that the gameplay feature set is shallow & poorly thought through, the AI is bad, for a strategy game it lacks any depth (it's a clciker more than about thinking, pondering decisions). I rarely regret purchases as I usually am more selective with what I    It's a genuinely bad game and that in itself is worth writing about.

    The only thing it has going for it is the looks, but other than that the gameplay feature set is shallow & poorly thought through, the AI is bad, for a strategy game it lacks any depth (it's a clciker more than about thinking, pondering decisions). I rarely regret purchases as I usually am more selective with what I buy, but there was a sci-fi dryspell at the time it was released, so I got it anyway. The problem is that it's not worth the time even if you get it at discount, frankly.    … Expand

Awards & Rankings

81
#81 Most Discussed PC Game of 2016
93
#93 Most Shared PC Game of 2016

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
74

Mixed or average reviews - based on 39 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 21 out of 39
  2. Mixed: 18 out of 39
  3. Negative: 0 out of 39
  1. Everyeye.it
    Nov 23, 2016
    78
    If you are among the (still?) large group of fans who have devoured the first two episodes of MicroProse series, you will be happy to discover familiar feelings, and you'll almost feel like you never stopped playing.
    Read full review
  2. CD-Action
    Nov 18, 2016
    75
    Maybe I was spoiled by Civilization, but Master of Orion struck me as scant in terms of bells and whistles. It also doesn’t look and doesn’t sound particularly good, but transparent rules, well-designed interface and variety of paths to victory make it a very reasonable proposal for the fans of classic 4X games. [11/2016, p.68]
  3. LEVEL (Czech Republic)
    Nov 5, 2016
    80
    Strategy for the masses, which does not come with anything new, but also does not fail in anything. Just a Civilization from space. [Issue #268]
See all critic reviews »