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. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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.

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 »