Could Civilization become a online-blockbuster?

[Oligarf]

Some time ago, I posted a poll on this matter. But that thread appeared a bit to controversial, only a few seemed to listen to me. Every multiplayer game I know that succeed online are real-time. Checkers and Chess are an exceptions of course, but we all see the difference between civ and these two. Recently me and two friends played a multiplayer game with Civ II on a LAN. The only thing you conclude is that the TURNS TAKE TO LONG!!! My idea was to make the Multiplayer version of Civ III real-time. I truly think, looking at games as Europa Universalis, that this is possible and far more playable online. If the people at Firaxis can make this true, they have instant gold in their hands I think. Now am I wondering if you here agree.

[Oligarf]

You may reply of course when you vote.

[ixnay]

I doubt Firaxis would make civ3 into a real-time game to boost sales. Though they do keep saying that "they're working on some cool new multiplayer ideas".

[Salvor]

I don't think you could make Civ3 real-time. The mechanics just won't work.

You could, however, keep it TBS and make it less boring for those waiting for their turns. You could, for example, allow trading or diplomacy when it's not your turn (which peeved some folks when the AI did it in 1.16). You could also allow players to inspect their own cities and change production orders, or giving goto commands to units and other assignments to workers, cutting down on the time spent doing these things during their turns and keeping them active while waiting. They could also be allowed to conduct espionage missions, but only if they changed the espionage system so people would find it worthwhile to use it.

[Bolleck]

No, it is just impossible. If you change it to Real-Time you have to use the gouveners and concentrate at moving Units. It would be like all the other games there but worse.

Do you know for Example Age of Empire? Its a great real-time exploring / building up / fighting game. If i want to play that type of games I play them. And dont try to bend and twist the concept of a great game.

[MarkosSuckanos]

no it cant. because there is no multiplayer. there will be no multiplayer. sid laughs at you.

[nato]

The problem I see with Civ MP is similar to Axis & Allies MP, and even to some RTS games ...

At some point it becomes obvious who lost, but the game still has a while to go. Then the only reason for the losing guy to stick around is because he is being polite. All of the sudden the game becomes fun only for one person, and no fun or even a waste of time for the other. So either the loser suffers, or he quits and robs the winner of some of his satisfaction. Its a no-win situation.

Going RTS with Civ would alleviate this somewhat by making it quicker (although even in RTS some losers quit rather than finish!). However, at least on this forum, many / most civ people feel RTS is somehow morally wrong. They won't go for it.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by MarkosSuckanos
no it cant. because there is no multiplayer. there will be no multiplayer. sid laughs at you.

Hmmmm... Your posts remind me strongly of someone who was banned some time ago...


DL DL DL!!!


MP when it is finally released should prove to be somewhat fun.

[Capt Dizle]

no no no

Sid isn't laughing, Sid is counting his money and looking forward to depositing royalty checks for Civ3:Multiplayer Gold Edition.

[Pius Popprasch]

Civilization is a trademark for tbs games. Sid will be smart enough to not spoil his brand.

There are really enough rts out there. AoE is designed by Bruce Shelley who was also designer of the original Civ and it's easy to see where he got his ideas from. So it would be an obvious choice for you.

[aneeshm]

I'ts already being developed

If anyone is interested in the RTS version of civ 3, i recommned you click here .

This is being develpoed by Brian Reynold (Big Huge Games) , is going to be similar to AOE , but will continue till the modern age , including Nukes .
The release date is said to be February 2003
For the news at Gamespot , click here .

[Oligarf]

The concept Civilization could become a hit on the net, I think, but only if it becomes RT. What is wrong with that. If you don't like RT, don't play it that way than. What I want is to play the game against some friends of my, than it is much more fun if the game would offer a RT experience.

[Sun Zi 36]

Since this poll is actually not asking what I personally feel about civ3 multiplayer, but what I think others would react to it, I cannot answer the question in definite yes/no.

but wat i want to comment is, many here seems to stereotype RTS in terms of AOE or Starcraft. Certainly i dont think civ3 could work under the system that those 2 games work under. but let's not forget there are other kinds of RTS, of which Europa Universalis is a good example that probably fits the civ3 gameplay much better.

But seeing civ3 now takes even much longer than civ2 to complete a game, i still doubt a lot of people would bother taking so much time to play it online, as EU was not really so successful as a multiplyer game too.

even if RT civ3 wont really be so popular, i think there are still benefits such as immediacy and realism in gameplay.

[ACooper]

Civ 3 in real time is my nightmare!

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by ACooper
Civ 3 in real time is my nightmare!

You don't have to play online.