Multiplayer isn't always the answer

[tetley]

> I guess I'm waiting for Moo4 (I'm not holding my breath though).

Yah, I'm waiting for HOMM5.

[RickyDMMontoya]

Re: Re: Re: um... What about LAN?

Originally posted by 99ranch
All I need is the ability to play the game with my friends.

I agree. That's what I've said all along.

[bonscott]

There is a way to play right now in a quasi hot-seat mode. The specifics are posted on the GalCiv2 forum.

[MasterDave]

Multiplayer can make a great game into a timeless classic

In many cases, I will continue playing a great game for a much longer period of time before shelving it if that game lets me compete against real human beings. Probably the best example of this is Moo2. Moo2 is probably my all-time favorite space opera-type game, but I had the AI completely mastered after playing for a few months. This was the first TBS I ever played on line, and I have been playing it off an on right up until Civ 4 came out in October. There is absolutely no way I would be playing an eleven year-old game without that element of human competition. (I tried Moo3 and played it quite a bit on Gamespy for about six months, but that game had some bugs that broke it for me that never got fixed. Also the community was TINY- so it was very hard to find a decent-sized game).

Even the very best AI's out there get predictable and beatable once I have deep knowledge of how to play a particular game. Simply handicapping the human and giving ridiculous bonuses to the AI gets old after time too. However, matching wits with a human in a game with true depth and good balance stays fresh and fun for much longer, and most of my most memorable gaming experiences involve competition.

I will probably buy Gal Civ 2 and enjoy it for a few months, as I have played and enjoyed so many TBS and RTS strategy games before it. When a new and compelling strategy game comes along, Gal Civ 2 will probably get shelved like so many other single player games have before it. I doubt that it will achieve the "legendary" status in my own mind as games such as Moo2 that offered a deep and fun game that also included the option to play other humans.

[EternalSpark]

It's not the S in RTS/TBS that makes the difference on multiplayer. Its the RT/TB way.

Turn based games, regardless of genre, don't work well in Multiplayer. Take a turn, send it along, they take a turn, they send it along... it's complex.

Real-time games, however, thrive on multiplayer. Immediate response to actions, just like the game itself.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by EternalSpark
It's not the S in RTS/TBS that makes the difference on multiplayer. Its the RT/TB way.

Turn based games, regardless of genre, don't work well in Multiplayer. Take a turn, send it along, they take a turn, they send it along... it's complex.

Real-time games, however, thrive on multiplayer. Immediate response to actions, just like the game itself.

Many turn-based games do not translate as smoothly to multiplayer as their real-time counterparts, but those that do have provided me with some of my favorite gaming experiences. Moo2 is a great example of a TBS that kicks butt multiplayer after eleven years (there is still a decent-sized Moo2 group playing on Kali). More recently, Civ4 multiplayer, while somewhat hampered by the usual Gamespy connection issues, has provided some very fun moments as well. There are literally hundreds of Civ4 games being played at any given time on Gamespy presently.

Assuming Gal Civ 2 is as good or better as Gal Civ1 was (I bought it today but have not escaped from work yet to play it), then I believe that a multiplayer version could greatly extend the "fun factor" for those of us who get more of a thrill from live competition.

[RickyDMMontoya]

Turn based games, regardless of genre, don't work well in Multiplayer. Take a turn, send it along, they take a turn, they send it along... it's complex.

I've never heard such an incorrect statement. Turn based games can work very well in multiplayer. Hotseat games where you wait for the other player can be very intense and exciting, and if you're doing multiplayre over a network or the internet, there is even no need for the waiting between turns, you can have both players do their orders simultaneously.

Even BoTF, roundly derided as being somewhat awful is still very good multiplayer with the right mods.

Guess Gal Civ won't replace MOO2... Funny how no one can...

[ACEofHeart]

The problem with this kind of thread is that it is being done "Online" by people who like being Online and having interaction with other people Online.. So having Online Multiplayer seems only natural to many of them..
I played Computer strategy games for over a decade when there was NO internet gaming sites,,no online multiplaying whatsoever.
To me the only games that Online play has actually enhanced is Role-playing games and some "Real-Time games.
Playing a epic Turn-based strategy game like Civilizaion online is about as much fun as watching paint dry..the game itself is already time consuming enough, having to wait longer ,,dealing with bad connections etc. and just the long wait for an online player to survey everything again and then decide on a move ,to me, is a useless waste of my time ..
Having different paths to Victory , Modding ability and a good AI is what gives long life to TBS games,,not Multiplayer..

[RickyDMMontoya]

You are confusing multiplayer with online play. Look over at what people have and are requesting.

[PrinceBimz]

In TBS games, multiplayer should always take a back seat. I mean, who in the world has time to play a multiplayer CIV4 or GalCiv2?? The focus on these games should continue to be great AI, a ton of options, and superb replayability, not multiplayer. That is why the original GalCiv was known for the best AI in a TBS game. Simply because I think that point was really focused on. If you have a good AI, you don't need multiplayer. I also think CIV3, CIV4, and Rise of Nations are also an example of excellent AI. Save the multiplayer for the RTS games where it really shines, not TBS games. So I hope to see the GalCiv series remain single player, that is what made it what it is today.

[Draginol]

As we said from the start IF there's demand for multiplayer, we'll do it.

But we didn't want to put effort into multiplayer in the stand alone game.

We'd end up spending most of our post-release time fixing exploits and other such nonsense rather than helping the 99% of pepole who play it single player.

PBEM and the like can be added pretty trivially. Hotseat is pretty easy too.

[RickyDMMontoya]

Well please do. That would be greatly appreciated. If it's easy, I know I would love it.

[yin26]

Brad:

Brought a tear to my eyes. Your core is SP, and SP'ers like me can tell immediately you designed the game for us, the majority. The minority MP cult at Civ4 are lording a lesser game over the SP crowd as the mantra seems to be "if it won't work for MP, we can't do it for SP."

--Yin

[ACEofHeart]

A few buddies get together on a Sunday afternoon to play a game of Civ over a Lan ???
LOL ,,,Spare me,, it would take a almost a whole freakin week for a "group" to play one game of Civ...
Why some people feel the need to bold-face lie to try and make a point is beyond me..
I know dozens and dozens of friends who play epic TBS games like CIV and to a person they all hysterically laugh when the idea of playing another human player comes up..
Who are you MP TBS people ??? Personally I don't think you even exist.. I do however believe people who just want it, like a baby wants his pacifier ,do exist tho..

[RickyDMMontoya]

Bold faced lies? Wow. What a bunch of inflammatory and insulting garbage.

Eric D. M. Miller, Saskatoon Saskatchewan, Canada.

Played many, many games of MOO2, Gazillionaire (different type of strategy, but still epic TBS) and even ****ty BoTF and others, often taking weeks with my brother and a small group of about 3 friends.

"Someone disagrees with me, and my mind is too small to comprehend, so they must be lying!"

Go spare yourself.

They've already said that addition of hotseat and limited Lan play would be "easy", so why the hell are people opposed to them adding functionality to the game?

It's like people really just don't want to see multiplayer in the game, maybe it's because they don't have any friends to play with?

"I live in the basement and play with myself."

Hmmm, that could be it.