Civ III, Don't Buy If SP only

[SlowwHand]

Don't throw your money at them, just because they want a quick buck.

Civ II has been a hassle deluxe, with the bugs and patches and B.S.
Cast a vote. Don't buy it if it isn't right, and SP isn't right.

[squid]

You can do that if you like, but I don't think I would have ever used multiplayer. Starting with Civ2 (the classic), there was no multiplayer. It was just you and the game. Civ is not well adaptable for multiplayer. If anything, multiplayer would be added just to get on the multiplayer wave....not neccesary.

It's going to be a great game! Improved boarders, passage agreements (no trepassing!), improved AI, sweet graphics...I'm going to love it!

[The diplomat]

The game is completely done, so I want the game! When MP is available, I will download it. But I want my SP NOW!

[SlowwHand]

SP is for pansies.

Buying stuff is the same as casting a vote.
You buy something, you're saying all is well.
Maybe SP is ok for pansies, but not for real Civ players.

And yessssss, I've been playing since Civ I.
I also used to play regular Nintendo.
It's a thing called gaming evolution.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Maybe SP is ok for pansies, but not for real Civ players.

That remark is really foolish! How do you know who the "real civ player" is? The fact that you play MP, does not make you any better than an SP player. You just like to play civ differently. I happen love SP. I am just as much a "real civ player" as you!

[squid]

Re: Civ III, Don't Buy If SP only

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Don't throw your money at them, just because they want a quick buck.

Civ II has been a hassle deluxe, with the bugs and patches and B.S.
Cast a vote. Don't buy it if it isn't right, and SP isn't right.

Eric,

I will only be playing Single Player anyway. MP is too slow in a turn based planning game that spans the course of a 1000 years. I don't want "StarCraft" or "Warcraft II". I want a carefully engineered empire ... no rushing and frantic mouse clicking. To me, Civ3 is a great way to spend a night -- you forget about everything, jump into the game, and don't ever really have to think about anything else (like waiting for people to finish turns). Hey, I loved Civ2 more than anything....I had no desire to try it multiplayer.

[Rasputin]

Civ Net for the original civ showed that even back then Sid relaised their was money to be made from separate release of MP capability ,,, then comes Civ 2 no MP .. so independants start working on a patch( i actually used this patch made by some French guy for ages before Civ2 MPGE) but Sid steals the idea and releases Civ2MPGE and charges full price for it, no discount sfor those with the original...

Now this insult re civ3 MP ... No , the MP community should boycott the game ... Money talks as far as Firaxis is concerned !!!!

[markusf]

civilization has always been bugy as hell. And now they are going to release with MP ? People on here may buy the game but new players will be hard pressed to buy it. I mean who wants a game created in 2001, using the standards from 1995. I happen to be a programmer and know how these things work. it will probably be the same as civ2, they released the game with disabled MP support then a while later re released the game with the functionality turned on.

[Pembleton]

MP puts me into a bad mood. I want to play games for fun, not to get agitated. I've played Age of Empires, Age of Kings, and Diablo2 multiplayer and I always get pissed off because kids or *******s are either disconnecting after losing or things such as constanly pausing the game. When they're winning, they start trash talking with you. In Diablo2 you have to deal with selfish kids who try to steal what you have or try to PK you (which means kill your character) in a game that's meant to be a team game vs. the computer.

On top of that do what am I going to do while I'm waiting for the other player's turn in Civ3? Read a book? I don't like doing several things at the same time. I'm also too impatient and want to get to the next turn right away.

Most gamers don't have the time or motivation to analyze the exact details of the game and master the AI using exploits and weaknesses. Players who do that are the most vocal on forums and are not representative of the "average" player.

And the "pansies" who play SP, who are the vast majority of gamers, even with games such as Starcraft, Half-Life, Diablo, etc., don't care that they aren't "real" players and will continue to happily give their money to game companies.

[splangy]

go ahead and b!tch, Im buying civ3 the day it comes out, I only play SP anyway.

Cool smilleys_

[markusf]

Originally posted by Pembleton
And the "pansies" who play SP, who are the vast majority of gamers, even with games such as Starcraft, Half-Life, Diablo, etc., don't care that they aren't "real" players and will continue to happily give their money to game companies.

your living in the past. Besides the majority of people playing those games play MP. But your probably way to old to realize that. Who do you think buys the majority of the games? Some of the new games like Tribes can only be played multiplayer there is no longer support for single player. Other games are moving in that direction as well. The people in this forum aren't going to make much of a different to firixas bottom line. But the people shopping in the store and looking at the packaging will. When your comparing 2 games and one has 2 times the features of the other which one will you buy?

[Urban Ranger]

Frankly, I don't care for multiplayer capacities in computer games. If I want to play a multiplayer game, I call up some friends and have an evening of bridge. Most people play MP games for the social action primarily, so doing it over the Net is just a poor substitute.

When I play a computer game by myself, I can play it in sessions. I can also go away in the middle, say, catching some sunshine or having dinner with my SO. I can't do that in MP games.

[Pembleton]

What does age have to do with it? It's called looking at statisitics. There are far more people who have *bought* the game than there are registered on-line to play the games multiplayer. The *hardcore* multiplayers don't have enough buying power to put Starcraft and Diablo2 on the bestseller *over* games such as the Sims, Barbie whatever, or whatever Golf game.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by markusf
your living in the past. Besides the majority of people playing those games play MP. But your probably way to old to realize that. Who do you think buys the majority of the games? Some of the new games like Tribes can only be played multiplayer there is no longer support for single player. Other games are moving in that direction as well. The people in this forum aren't going to make much of a different to firixas bottom line. But the people shopping in the store and looking at the packaging will. When your comparing 2 games and one has 2 times the features of the other which one will you buy?

I don't think your brain is operational when making such comments. Please try again when it has finished rebooting.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by The diplomat


That remark is really foolish! How do you know who the "real civ player" is? The fact that you play MP, does not make you any better than an SP player. You just like to play civ differently. I happen love SP. I am just as much a "real civ player" as you!

By comparison, playing a person with thought processes and reasoning ability is much more difficult than playing a stupid AI.