No multiplayer support in Civ III. Do you really care?

[Nostromo]

For some posters, the fact that there is no multiplayer support in Civ III is a major issue. But it could be the opinion of a vocal minority. Maybe most civers don't care. What do you thing?

[PatLasch]

No it doesn't matter to me. Either the games would last too long, or it would come down to who could build the biggest warrior army. With the games already taking as long as they are, I would not play online multiplayer. Play by email, however might be ok, that would be easier to put in than a full online game.

[ixnay]

I'm not big on multiplayer games. When civ3 multi does come out, I might play it once or twice, but will probably go back to single player. Hopefully, though, Firaxis will do a good enough job to convince me to play more multiplayer.

[ColdWizard]

what's civ3?




oh, that boring game that i spent $60 on that i don't bother to play anymore because it doesn't have scenarios or MP

[Inverse Icarus]

dp... my bad.

[Inverse Icarus]

if you count scenario makers, multiplayers, etc, it's a vocal majority.

or a vocal whole-damn-forum.

[Harovan]

If MP ever comes out and has a PBEM feature, I might play it. But probably not online MP. Hence, minor issue for me.

[Swissy]

I remember the phrase "Fully integrated multiplayer system" being a major bullet in initial ads for the game. Then the phrase disappeared. I want what was promised, until I get it Infogrammes and Firaxis are nothing but a bunch of hucksters making a buck on the Civ name.

[Sarxis]

Do I care?

Not anymore.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by ColdWizard
what's civ3?




oh, that boring game that i spent $60 on that i don't bother to play anymore because it doesn't have scenarios or MP

Yea, THAT one.

I would not have bought Civ III if I knew it had no scenario-building or Cheat Mode. But just wait, they will soon try to stick it to us with some lame-ass Scenario disk for $29.95.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Coracle
building or Cheat Mode. But just wait, they will soon try to stick it to us with some lame-ass Scenario disk for $29.95.

$49.95 once it comes out. $29.95 only after it's been out for 6-9 months. Then after another 6-9 months you can get the "MP Gold Edition" for $49.95. Then after another 6-9months you can get the MP + Scenario version for $49.95. Then 1-2years later you can get any version for $5 in the bargin bin.

[The Rook]

I don't care about multiplayer. I can just imagine hoe long a game would take with all human players. Besides that, as I read these forums, I get the feeling my laid-back style wouldn't be able to compete with some of the hardcore players here.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by UberKruX
if you count scenario makers, multiplayers, etc, it's a vocal majority.

or a vocal whole-damn-forum.

A vocal majority? Not sure about that. There are 18768 registered members. About 3% of those members post 99% of the messages found on the Civ 3 forums. Would you agree with my estimate comrade? Even if all of the members who post agreed that the lack of multiplayer is a major issue, I wouldn't call it a "vocal majority". No, the majority is quite silent...

[asleepathewheel]

nothing to add, just wanted to record my "NO" vote. don't care about mp. no time. Too much time spent on school and work and g/f. hmm. whats amusing to me is that at this point, the no's are actually in the lead. what's up with that? i thought that everyone wanted multiplayer. hmmm.

[PerpetualNewbie]

I love multiplayer games. I just think this one's design does not lend itself to multi, unless you are talking about PBEM or something, which would pretty much take a couple years to play through...

Turn based games are just not well suited to live gaming, unless they are very shallow, the average game is over in a small number of turns, or is very limited in terms of number of players. Civ is just too good a game in all three respects.