Anyone Else Who Doesn't Care About Multiplayer?

[Antonin]

I know the lack of a multiplayer option in CivIII is a major concern among a lot of people here, but I'm curious to know if there's anyone else like me who really doesn't care about multiplayer.

I like to enjoy strategy games like this at my own pace, with the freedom to sit down and play (or not) as I choose. Sometimes I might play for hours, and sometimes I might just load my current game, study my position for a while, and then leave it for a day or two.

I find the AI to be strong and aggressive enough to provide me with quite a challenge, but I don't necessarily play just to win. I play more for the experience of building and running an empire.

I'm not interested in scenarios either; random map creation is quite adequate. If I want to play a scenario of something like WWII, I turn to a game like "Operational Art of War."

I'm just curious to know if there are others out there who approach CivIII the same way.

[sgsmitty]

I agree with you completely. FPS, dogfighting games, etc are great for MP but when it comes to strategy it does not work for me.

Granted, playing against human opponents can be more challenging and rewarding but that depends upon the other players skill level. I never understood how a experienced player beating a newbie can be exciting. A good AI will provide you the equivelant of a good human player while a so-so AI would provide you with one similiar to a newbie.
Actually, I just thought of a enhancement, the ability to select different skill levels for each AI civ. Hmmm.....

Anyway, the real problem for me is time. Maybe it is the fact I have a career and family but there is no way I could sit at the computer for hours on end playing a MP game of Civ. It is hard enough carving out hours to watch a good movie.

I enjoy TBS the most as it involves much more thought and IMHO provides more replayability. I as well will start or continue a game, play for awhile, save and come back later.

The only MP that I have ever tried with TBS (SMAC) was the PBEM which was okay. I would try PBEM with CIV3 if it ever supports it.

Anyway, my two cents worth.

Sgsmitty

[Barnacle Bill]

Agree on multiplayer - don't play that way, never have, probably never will because I don't have that much time in a predictable block (career, wife that thinks computer games are childish, two kids clamoring for attention). So, if they do it good for them (I don't begrudge the folks that want it anything), but if it never happens I don't really care. I do care greatly when game designers (generically, not Civ3 in particular) muck up any part of the single-player game in the name of multiplayer, either by doing something to enable MP which makes the SP game less fun or by neglecting AI due to excessive focus on MP.

Disagree on scenarios, from two standpoints:
1) Civ2 had them. I always object when a sequel loses significant features from the previous game. Feels like a step backwards.
2) Actually I don't play scenarios all that much myself. However, the same tools let me customize the game to suit myself. I've very picky and almost never find a game just right. The more stuff they let me tweek for the "Barnacle Bill's private mod", the better I like the game and the more often/longer I play it. That even includes the scripting language - for Civ2 the way I played was create a random game, then save as a scenario on turn 1, then restart the game as a scenario so my events file would work. I was looking forward to even more customizability for Civ3, but so far it is considerably less.

[sgsmitty]

I agree with Barnacle Bill as well. If the support for MP significantly affects the SP that would be bad. Take for instance how the agression of the AI became more severe between Civ2 standard and Civ2 MGE. I understand it was to make up for the fact that the AI would be weaker than all the human players but it changed the SP in the process.

I applaud the fact that Firaxis developed Civ3 to be first a SP game and then (in the future) a MP game.

As far as mods. I usually do not play a lot of scenarios but to not have some good ones to try would be bad. However, as Barnacle Bill said, the ability to tweak the game to my liking is more important and having good editors and such allow that.

Thanks

[chequita guevara]

Not caring. Turn based games suck for MP anyways, cuz you're always limited by the lowest player. Anyways, these AIS are tough enough. They're pretty good at simulating human tactics and being jerks.

[Meddik]

I wouldn't have a problem if MP was present... However, I feel that at its heart, any Turn based game has got to be a good SP game.

Many of us like the turn based strategy games so we can take our tim, overanalyze and micromanage this kind of game.

If I want to play games with other players, There are a lot out there. This type of game isn't that way for me.

[Casmyre]

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

MP has a place in the world, certainly, in most categories. But I don't think that place should override -- or even influence -- the single-player aspect of any game. Especially, as you mention, in turn-based strategy games.

Hot-seat and/or PBEM support fits this genre, but that's about it. And Firaxis may eventually add those items. Whether that happens or not, it won't affect my Civ3 experience -- except in how much time/money is invested in those efforts that could otherwise be used to improve the existing engine. (But, with MP support, they may earn even greater revenue, which allows for further expansion, yawdee yawdee...)

- James

[eMarkM]

I, too, have never done MP for Civ. I'm completely ignorant of how it works. Seems kinda cumbersome for TBG? If there's more than a couple of people, do you do your turn and then wait a half hour for everyone else to complete? Seems kinda boring. The game takes long enough as it is with SP. Seems like MP would takes days.

Not that it shouldn't support it, it should for those so inclined. But given the choice of releasing SP game or waiting until they completed MP, I'm glad they went ahead and released it. I have to think the great majority of players are SP anyway and it's something that should be easy to add on in the future.

e

[Kyle]

I neither use, nor care about mutiplayer. Hell, I'm only on the second difficulty level, I'm second to last, and I'm about to get my ass handed to me by the Aztecs. I don't need it.

[mattcj]

I don't need multiplayer, either. I'm perfectly content to play against the AI. Although, I did play multiplayer when Civ II MGE came out and I must say it was VERY interesting to compare strategies against human opponents instead of the AI all the time. I can say that I definitely became a better player after seeing how some of my friends played. But the biggest detriment is of course the time factor. You need A LOT of time (and a fast connection) to get anwhere in the game. My friends and I use to play it on the LAN at work. Turn based games can be good for that since you can get some work done in between moves. The biggest pain was when you heard somebody attacking you or performing some type of sabotage against you but your ALT-Tab wasn't fast enough to see what happened!! We were some of the only people I knew that used to get the multiplayer game into the modern era because we would play every day!!

[RickBlaine]

I view Civ solely as a single player game and could not care less about MP. Moreover, as a personal note, after two 1/2 years of compulsively playing EverQuest and DAoC (I cancelled my accounts with both games just before Civ3 was released), it is sort of a treat to play at my own pace without dealing with other people.

[Meddik]

Rick, same here, except for me it was over 3 years of UO/EQ/AO.

I just hate waiting on other people now, and having others wait on me. =)

[The Unknown]

You guys may not use it, but multiplayer is absolutely necessary in this day and age. To release it without multiplayer is fine, I understand they have time and financial problems, but they MUST give it out in patch form, not as an add-on when it does finally come out. It should have been part of the game from the start.

[WhiteElephants]

Ugh... I'm abhorred. Strategy gamers who don't play against humans are like murderers who go on non-violent killing sprees.

People, a game with a diplomatic model as intricate as CivIII's begs for multiplayer, whether it be play by e-mail or not.

I fail to understand how people can claim lack of time as the issue when they pour over their computer for untold hours playing SP. Depending on how many play be e-mail games (PBEM) you are involved in it can take anywhere from 10 minutes to hours at a time playing your turn and sending it on.

Actually, I just thought of a enhancement, the ability to select different skill levels for each AI civ. Hmmm.....

I've got a great name for that enhancement, we'll call it multiplayer, eh? I can't seem to reconcile with the complaints about varying skill levels of MP players. That "feature" adds a whole new element to the game. Who's the weakest player and who's the strongest? How do you take advantage of that information? How do you get that information? Which border can I let my guard down a bit on and which border should I raise my vigilance? Who can I rip off in a trade for tech or cash? The possibilities are endless except when you play the AI who is essentially a clone of the same player who will respond in the same fashion over and over, a series of slightly varying algorithms. Boring.

A single player strategy game is a contradiction in itself in this day and age. I can understand that before the internet was available MP games were reserved to the realm of board and table top games, but anymore it's like playing a game of chess against yourself. If you're really looking for a challenge then you have no excuse not to try MP, otherwise you're convincing yourself of something that's not true.

[Jolard]

I agree, I have never played multiplayer civII, SMAC or CTP. While I understand that playing against a human can be better in some ways, there are also a lot of drawbacks, mostly around trying to get the timing right. Finding a group of people willing to sit down for a reasonable amount of time can be difficult, and PB email can take forever. In between work and my wife and kids, I want to be able to sit down in any available hour and play.

This is especially important when developing Multiplayer takes away from the single player. To me (and I realize others are different) multiplayer is not as important. Go ahead and release it, I have no problem with that, just as long as it doesn't detract from single player.

Nothing against multiplayer as a whole, I play lots of online Unreal Tournement, and other quick in and out games, but I just don't have the reliably scheduled time to play others.