Holy S***! NO Multiplayer Until Spring! - Page 3

SITS · September 7, 2001, 20:21

What I like about MP is the sense of community it can give - also it forces you to think about your game carefully otherwise you get your ass whooped.

TCO · September 7, 2001, 20:33

Quote:

Originally posted by tniem

But if he needs to install it on all of his student's computers than he needs permission. That or make it required to purchase the game to enter his class. I would love a professor to require us to buy a video game instead of a text book. It would be cheaper and as long as it was educational it would be a lot more fun.

But of course.

TCO · September 7, 2001, 20:35

Quote:

Originally posted by CapTVK

Or why not try out FreeCiv ( www.freeciv.org ). The open source version of civ offers full multiplayer support and has decent AI (well, it's certainly agressive

) . That the source code is included will also be a big bonus. You can show bits of the code in your report.

I do suggest playing it on Linux or with an X-windows manager. The windows version is a bit sluggish in isometric view (flat view is faster).

Are you seriously suggesting tryibg to get a large group of students to use Linux? That's a non-starter. The experiment will have enough complexity without bringing in OSes that people don't normally use.

korn469 · September 7, 2001, 20:44

Bleyn

i have an unstable and slow internet connection from my home so tc/icp isn't an option for me and i do not have the patience to play PBEM in civ3, so civ3 not having MP won't effect me too much, but there is a large group of players who do participate in MP

if firaxis doesn't include MP (this isn't confirmed and could be untrue) then it will effect them, possibly they won't even buy civ3, but the real question to me is why wouldn't firaxis include MP?

MP has been a standard feature of computer games for many years and while there have been many recent single player only games released (the sims, tropico, max payne for example) i can only think of a single recent game that released a MP add on pack and that game was S.W.A.T. 3 here is a pc.ign review of it and of it's expansion pack

Quote:

Albeit some slight AI problems and a lacking manual, there's not much that SWAT 3 is missing -- except for multiplay support. This game screams for multiplay, especially co-operative play. This would have added almost infinite replayability to the game, but the single player game stands up really well on its own. Although the maps stay the same, almost every mission is different because the enemies and hostages are randomly placed throughout the environment. This does give SWAT 3 a lot of replay value, but not as much as if you could hook-up with your buddies and team up.

It's by far the best of the up until now lacking SWAT series, and it would rank right up there with Rogue Spear if it had multiplay out of the box.
__________________________________________

Perhaps the best thing about the Elite Edition is that all of these upgrades are completely free to SWAT 3: Close Quarters Battle owners. All you have to do is spend some time online downloading the patch.

what i am worried about is that civ3 is being pushed out the door...hopefully besides missing MP hopefully the single player in civ3 will be solid yet when you are rushing a game then mistakes are bound to pop-up...will a buggy civ3 that doesn't have MP really go over with the fans in a highly competitive game market?

SMAC and CtP together only sold about a half a million copies from what i read (about 250k each) and then CtP2 sold only about 40k copies...will civ3 without MP just completely outdo them?

will this pressure to get the game out by christmas harm the game? if civ3 doesn't have MP then the answer is yes

will this pressure to get the game out by christmas harm the game besides not having MP? we do not know this yet

but if anyone tells me they are not rushing the game out the door to make a christmas deadline then explain to me why civ3 wouldn't have built in MP?

i want the best civ experiance ever that Sid promised, and not a rushed unfinished civ3 is that too much to ask for?

Steve Clark · September 7, 2001, 20:45

Uber: If it wasn't for the "cooperate" world, there wouldn't even be a Civ3 with its thousands of person-hours of programming and artistic resources. You can always play FreeCiv.

Steve Clark · September 7, 2001, 20:54

korn: Wasn't an October release planned for quite awhile ago, even though it wasn't public? I manage software projects and there's always a time-table that you are working at. If you say that an October release of Civ3 with bugs mean it was rushed. How about a Feb 2002 release that has bugs, would that have been rushed too? Or how about a July 2002 release? While I don't really care when Civ3 is released, to say that it was rushed because it won't be perfect, seems a little myopic to me. I mean, it's going through at least a 5 weeks beta testing cycle , that's more than what alot of other products go through, isn't it? MP (and their plans for it) will probably require a 5 months development and testing cycle. There's no reason not to put out a SP version and then dedicate the resources to make and test the best MP version possible.

Gatekeeper · September 7, 2001, 21:12

Everyone:

If the delay in implementing MP on Civ III becomes reality, I will not shed a tear. I buy games primarily for their SP aspects — at best, MP capabilities are a secondary concern, perhaps even tertiary. If the SP is stable, enjoyable and replayable, I'm more than happy. Everything else is icing on the cake. But that's just me.

Secondly, I happen to be an Apple Macintosh owner. So if Civ III does ship with bugs for Windows users, odds are Macsoft will have time to correct those before releasing the Mac version. It pays (sometimes) to have a port come months to the Mac platform after being released for Windows.

CYBERAmazon

- Groucho - · September 7, 2001, 21:22

Civ MP is such a huge investment of time that I've never been able to make it enjoyable.

They already have my money over at Chips 'n Bits so it is pretty obvious that my purchasing decision won't be affected by MP.

TechWins · September 7, 2001, 21:22

I for one might not buy civ3 if civ3 doesn't include MP. To me it will be a matter of principle but even the power of civ3 SP might entice me enough to buy civ3.

Even though, I don't think the post is legitimate until I find some "real proof". I sure wouldn't mind seeing that e-mail of yours Mr. Pleasant. Regarldess of what the e-mail says, though, I won't believe it until Firaxis declares to the public that civ3 will not include MP. Not to say that Mister Pleasant is lying, it's just that I'm very skeptical on this as well.

fluxcapacitor · September 7, 2001, 23:15

This thread is humorous. You're all getting all kinds odpissed off over something your read in a forum for chrissake?! I dunno, I guess I'm another for the "let's-wait-and-see-what-Firaxis-has-to-say" camp...

September 7, 2001, 23:27

Quote:

Even though, I don't think the post is legitimate until I find some "real proof". I sure wouldn't mind seeing that e-mail of yours Mr. Pleasant. Regarldess of what the e-mail says, though, I won't believe it until Firaxis declares to the public that civ3 will not include MP. Not to say that Mister Pleasant is lying, it's just that I'm very skeptical on this as well.

Not that I'm obscessive about privacy . . .

I forwarded the email to Markos. He can check to see if I'm legit. Everybody who is curious should spam him about it. I'm suprised he hasn't posted in this forum yet. BTW, Markos, I forgot to mention that I go by Mister Pleasant around here in my email.

Inverse Icarus · September 7, 2001, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

Are you seriously suggesting tryibg to get a large group of students to use Linux? That's a non-starter. The experiment will have enough complexity without bringing in OSes that people don't normally use.

#1 Linux 0wns.
#2 they have win32 binaries.

korn469 · September 8, 2001, 00:19

i still am waiting to see if this proves legit, and while i don't think you are dishonest Mr. Pleasant i want confirmation from firaxis...for all i know somebody could of hijacked your account

Quote:

If you say that an October release of Civ3 with bugs mean it was rushed. How about a Feb 2002 release that has bugs, would that have been rushed too? Or how about a July 2002 release? While I don't really care when Civ3 is released, to say that it was rushed because it won't be perfect, seems a little myopic to me. I mean, it's going through at least a 5 weeks beta testing cycle , that's more than what alot of other products go through, isn't it?

Steve Clark

you might have a point there, except for there is a real reason they are rushing it, and that is christmas...i never said i wanted civ3 to be perfect, but MP is a standard feature on today's games and to not include MP in civ3 when it hits retail means they left out a significant feature, when you buy a computer from Dell they include a keyboard and a mouse because they are standard features, and MP for civ should be a standard feature...all of the recent great strategy games came with MP as a standard feature

they built civ3 on the SMAC code, and SMAC included MP...so why take it out? what special new MP features are they going to add? using the SMAC code as a foundation they could have easily put in at least lan and PBEM...this is a step down, and there must be a reason for it, and the most obvious reason seems that the christmas deadline hurt civ3

Quote:

Apolyton: Are there any plans for a public beta test? What determined your decision?
Jeff Morris: There were a lot of plans, but time and resources constricted the options. Public betas serve as valuable sounding boards for a game, but their true value is in compatibility testing. It basically allows us to skip a patch. The trick with public betas is that you release something late enough that allows the player to get a good idea of what the final game will play like, but early enough to incorporate the fixes. An open public beta was originally planned, but that window I was describing never really opened.

i have a feeling they were rushed to get civ3 out by christmas to the detriment of the game and so far they have sacrificed MP to do that, or at least i hope that is the reason, if they think that civ3 is so valuable that players are going to play an extra 20 or 30 dollars to have the privledge of having standard features then i think that this is a bad omen...so hopefully nothing else has suffered just for a few more holiday sales

in all likelyhood i will buy civ3 but i am a fan who likes to play games (not including M.A.D. at all coupled with 100% effective SDI is enough to make my stomach turn, and if i don't buy civ3 that would be the reason why)...plus i also go into this knowing what i'm getting into, i guess other developers like blizzard (i own every blizzard game since warcraft2) have spoiled me but i truly believe that:

Striving for quality is never short sighted!

i would really like to hear what some of the civ2 and SMAC MP players think about this development (or lack there of) if it does turn out to be true

hexagonian · September 8, 2001, 01:02

It could very well be a patch, instead of an expansion pack...

When CTP1 was released, it did not have PBEM, but was patched in 6 months later. This same discussion happened in the CTP2 forums when Activision said that they would not be including PBEM because they could not get it to work with the new diplomacy system. Most of the platform for CTP2 was similar to the CTP1 one - which made a lot of people mad because they could not understand what the problem was. Yeah, Activision said they would patch it in, but poor sales prevented that from happening. (as was stated earlier in this thread)

If Firaxis is basing the platform on the SMAC system, then the expected good sales should get them to continue work on getting multiplay up quickly - and I think that sales will be very good. But, if Firaxis is going to use this as a ploy to boost later sales with an expansion pack, then a lot of people have every right to be ticked off at them. But face it, we here are the hard-core gamers who will not make up a huge percentage of the people who buy the game.

What it does boil down to is getting the game out before the Christmas season - and from a corporate standpoint, I cannot fault them. Firaxis has had several years to get this all together, and I suspect that the game will have a lot more good than bad in it, but it is sad that it will not be included in the initial package - as some kind of multiplay is standard for these types of games.

tniem · September 8, 2001, 01:42

Korn said it best. It is not the fact that MP is not going to be included, I probably won't play that much at the start anyways, but is the fact that it means Firaxis and Infogrames has basically shoved an unfinished game down our throats. I find that insulting and will lead me to think about purchases of Civ III and Sim Golf. And if Infogrames does the same crap with their other titles, I will think about MOO3.

For me I can handle no MP but the thing is that they promised me the best civ ever with some new MP features. Neither of which they will be doing if these rumors turn out to be true and so all I can do is let them know how mad I am with my pocketbook. And being a college student I can use the extra $50.

Melios · September 8, 2001, 02:14

The Civ3 website does not mention anything like this (you'd think it WOULD if this were true), nor do I am I even convinced it is even the truth. I mean, I did not see anyone confrming it as legitimate & official in this topic.

So I really don't understand why you're all assuming it is true when Firaxis has not confirmed that MP isn't in the retail release. You may be getting worked up over nothing.....

Personally, I don't buy it at all. It would take Firaxs' official word (not from someone else's claim) and/or a press release to convince me.

tniem · September 8, 2001, 02:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Melios
The Civ3 website does not mention anything like this (you'd think it WOULD if this were true), nor do I am I even convinced it is even the truth. I mean, I did not see anyone confrming it as legitimate & official in this topic.

So I really don't understand why you're all assuming it is true when Firaxis has not confirmed that MP isn't in the retail release. You may be getting worked up over nothing.....

Personally, I don't buy it at all. It would take Firaxs' official word (not from someone else's claim) and/or a press release to convince me.

O.K. here is why this seems highly logical to actually be the truth.

A. Mr. Pleasant has no reason to lie to us and he isn't the only person to have started this rumor today before everyone went nuts. There was another one this morninig that basically said the same thing.

B. Mr. Pleasant has forwared the email to Markos (site owner) and he has not came to tell us that the email is not legit. Making me believe that Markos actually believes it.

C. Firaxis has to have been bombarded by emails today asking what is going on. They have to know this forum is being hammered on this subject. And they have not said a word. A simple "this is just not true." or "MP will be in" by Dan would have shut this up in a second.

D. Firaxis has a history of changing things and making switches without good fan interaction.

Did I miss anything?

Wittlich · September 8, 2001, 03:19

Nope, I believe you touched all the bases tniem.

Imran Siddiqui · September 8, 2001, 04:07

News item submitted.

See if this makes Firaxis makes an offical announcement.

Sirotnikov · September 8, 2001, 04:21

I don't think it proper for a game of such scale. If MP can't be out in October, Civ III should have been delayed until December or something. That means more MP work, and more SP work. Less patches needed.

I would be perfectly happy to see it in December. Infact I was very worried when I heard the release is planned for october. In my opinion that's way too early, especially when MP isn't done, and some features (ie unqiue civs) may need polishing.

But hey, Let's hope we see a good Civ no matter what.

star mouse · September 8, 2001, 04:54

My advice for those buying CIV3 is to keep your receipt. This may be needed to get a discount on the multiplayer expansion if it is a separate expansion for which you must pay. Personally, I'm hoping that it ships with multiplayer, but if it doesn't, let's hope multiplayer is a free patch that can be downloaded later free of charge.

Or maybe they took UberKrux' sig seriously and decided "better to ship it in October without multiplayer than to wait until multiplayer is ready and have our building burned"

Rasputin · September 8, 2001, 05:37

If this is true, even when Civ 3 MP comes out I wont buy it, I think that firaixs obviously beleives we will all fall for yet another Scam when it comes to computer software, paying for EXTRAS that should have been in the game to start with, if the MP patch is free then I will purchase Civ3 otherwise it is off to the nearest Warez site for me...

Depp · September 8, 2001, 06:35

I want this game mostly for multiplayer (Internet and Hotseat), since I will play it about four times single player, and then I want multiplayer, that's how it was with SMAC.

On the other hand, I never missed not playing multiplayer in Europa Universalis, and since Eu2 seems alot more promising than Civ 3 at this point...

dexter4dxm · September 8, 2001, 06:44

this is just shocking.

you can bet that MoO3 will have full multiplayer support, in fact I expect it to be a better stage of multiplayer support, with significant improvements. the idea of Civ3 shipping without multplayer annoys me really bad.

no multiplayer? no ca$h from me, any many many others.

Rasputin · September 8, 2001, 07:15

looks like i will have to go get a copy of MOO and MOO2 to see what that genre is about , down to the MOO3 forum if this continues !!!!

Father Beast · September 8, 2001, 07:59

Quote:

Originally posted by fluxcapacitor
This thread is humorous. You're all getting all kinds odpissed off over something your read in a forum for chrissake?! I dunno, I guess I'm another for the "let's-wait-and-see-what-Firaxis-has-to-say" camp...

I would be skeptical, but the debacle with the demo (which was announced as a rumor in this forum first) makes me realize that it's probably true.

Like Korn, I don't care about multiplayer, I don't possess MGE, I use the hack to play hotseat. BUT, this makes me nervous about what else we'll be disappointed in about Civ3.

No demo
no multiplayer (straight from Yin's review)
no M.A.D.
No improved road and rails rules

yin26 · September 8, 2001, 08:54

Quote:

Yin, all this "the game will suck if we dont give it 6 more months" shi-t is bull. they've worked on it for long enough, just trust them.

As it turns out, my mock blasting of Firaxis might sadly have been proving true...from my 'review' thread July 20:

P.S. MULTIPLAYER Anyone?

As you may have noticed, discussion of multiplayer was strangely missing from the review. This is because I was awaiting an official answer from Firaxis, which finally came from Kelly, their PR person:

"Dear Firaxis Fan:

We have recently been made aware of a mis-printing on the box that read 'Multiplayer out of the box.' What that SHOULD have read is 'Multi-layer out of the box,' referring to the layers of advertisements, legal documents promising not to sue for missing features, and mail-in offers for the manual (oh, and the CD, of course). All told, you'll find over 5 layers **thus, 'Multi-layer'** in the box. We never have claimed 'Multiplayer' anything. Well, somebody once claimed something about 'innovative and exciting multiplayer' blah blah blah, but that phrase never came from THIS office.

I understand, however, that the next patch might provide, free of charge, a Call-to-Power like system that will allow the player to hack files for weeks with little or no results. We hope this will prolong the life of the game as casual gamers teach themselves programming tricks in order to build this stuff themselves.

Again, we are sorry for your confusion. Anyway, who would want to play a TBS game through MP at any rate? That would take, like, hours and hours...

Sincerely,

The PR Wizard"

yin26 · September 8, 2001, 08:56

If the no MP thing turns out to be true, I think I will print, bronze and mail that review of mine to Firaxis...

Rasputin · September 8, 2001, 09:23

any thing else you need to tell us about civ 3 before it comes out Yin, you appear closer to the FACTS than even Firaxis

OzzyKP · September 8, 2001, 10:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Melios
The Civ3 website does not mention anything like this (you'd think it WOULD if this were true), nor do I am I even convinced it is even the truth. I mean, I did not see anyone confrming it as legitimate & official in this topic.

What worries me is that they have been dreadfully silent about multiplayer. We hear new updates on game functions all the time, but it is all single player crap. Not a whisper about multiplayer. They are freaking hiding the fact that they are delaying it. Trying to get us so rabid for its release that by the time we realize it isn't complete we won't be able to resist and will buy the damn thing anyways. And then by the half-dozen expansion packs they sell later. My fellow gamers- DON"T DO IT!!! Tell Firaxis loud, clear and often that this very much upsets you and you are prepared to do something about it with your money.

This is BAD news. VERY BAD NEWS. Interest in Single Player games last a month or two then its time to move on to something better. Multiplayer is permanent and as varried as the amount of people there are who play it. You'll never have the same game, everything is incredibly better than the AI.

Firaxis! Change this! Don't give us a half-done, stone-age, money making scheme. We deserve better. Don't **** us over!