Civ III, Don't Buy If SP only

[SlowwHand]

Don't throw your money at them, just because they want a quick buck.

Civ II has been a hassle deluxe, with the bugs and patches and B.S.
Cast a vote. Don't buy it if it isn't right, and SP isn't right.

[squid]

You can do that if you like, but I don't think I would have ever used multiplayer. Starting with Civ2 (the classic), there was no multiplayer. It was just you and the game. Civ is not well adaptable for multiplayer. If anything, multiplayer would be added just to get on the multiplayer wave....not neccesary.

It's going to be a great game! Improved boarders, passage agreements (no trepassing!), improved AI, sweet graphics...I'm going to love it!

[The diplomat]

The game is completely done, so I want the game! When MP is available, I will download it. But I want my SP NOW!

[SlowwHand]

SP is for pansies.

Buying stuff is the same as casting a vote.
You buy something, you're saying all is well.
Maybe SP is ok for pansies, but not for real Civ players.

And yessssss, I've been playing since Civ I.
I also used to play regular Nintendo.
It's a thing called gaming evolution.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Maybe SP is ok for pansies, but not for real Civ players.

That remark is really foolish! How do you know who the "real civ player" is? The fact that you play MP, does not make you any better than an SP player. You just like to play civ differently. I happen love SP. I am just as much a "real civ player" as you!

[squid]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Don't throw your money at them, just because they want a quick buck.

Civ II has been a hassle deluxe, with the bugs and patches and B.S.
Cast a vote. Don't buy it if it isn't right, and SP isn't right.

Eric,

I will only be playing Single Player anyway. MP is too slow in a turn based planning game that spans the course of a 1000 years. I don't want "StarCraft" or "Warcraft II". I want a carefully engineered empire ... no rushing and frantic mouse clicking. To me, Civ3 is a great way to spend a night -- you forget about everything, jump into the game, and don't ever really have to think about anything else (like waiting for people to finish turns). Hey, I loved Civ2 more than anything....I had no desire to try it multiplayer.

[Rasputin]

Civ Net for the original civ showed that even back then Sid relaised their was money to be made from separate release of MP capability ,,, then comes Civ 2 no MP .. so independants start working on a patch( i actually used this patch made by some French guy for ages before Civ2 MPGE) but Sid steals the idea and releases Civ2MPGE and charges full price for it, no discount sfor those with the original...

Now this insult re civ3 MP ... No , the MP community should boycott the game ... Money talks as far as Firaxis is concerned !!!!

[markusf]

civilization has always been bugy as hell. And now they are going to release with MP ? People on here may buy the game but new players will be hard pressed to buy it. I mean who wants a game created in 2001, using the standards from 1995. I happen to be a programmer and know how these things work. it will probably be the same as civ2, they released the game with disabled MP support then a while later re released the game with the functionality turned on.

[Pembleton]

MP puts me into a bad mood. I want to play games for fun, not to get agitated. I've played Age of Empires, Age of Kings, and Diablo2 multiplayer and I always get pissed off because kids or *******s are either disconnecting after losing or things such as constanly pausing the game. When they're winning, they start trash talking with you. In Diablo2 you have to deal with selfish kids who try to steal what you have or try to PK you (which means kill your character) in a game that's meant to be a team game vs. the computer.

On top of that do what am I going to do while I'm waiting for the other player's turn in Civ3? Read a book? I don't like doing several things at the same time. I'm also too impatient and want to get to the next turn right away.

Most gamers don't have the time or motivation to analyze the exact details of the game and master the AI using exploits and weaknesses. Players who do that are the most vocal on forums and are not representative of the "average" player.

And the "pansies" who play SP, who are the vast majority of gamers, even with games such as Starcraft, Half-Life, Diablo, etc., don't care that they aren't "real" players and will continue to happily give their money to game companies.

[splangy]

go ahead and b!tch, Im buying civ3 the day it comes out, I only play SP anyway.

Cool smilleys_

[markusf]

Originally posted by Pembleton
And the "pansies" who play SP, who are the vast majority of gamers, even with games such as Starcraft, Half-Life, Diablo, etc., don't care that they aren't "real" players and will continue to happily give their money to game companies.

your living in the past. Besides the majority of people playing those games play MP. But your probably way to old to realize that. Who do you think buys the majority of the games? Some of the new games like Tribes can only be played multiplayer there is no longer support for single player. Other games are moving in that direction as well. The people in this forum aren't going to make much of a different to firixas bottom line. But the people shopping in the store and looking at the packaging will. When your comparing 2 games and one has 2 times the features of the other which one will you buy?

[Urban Ranger]

Frankly, I don't care for multiplayer capacities in computer games. If I want to play a multiplayer game, I call up some friends and have an evening of bridge. Most people play MP games for the social action primarily, so doing it over the Net is just a poor substitute.

When I play a computer game by myself, I can play it in sessions. I can also go away in the middle, say, catching some sunshine or having dinner with my SO. I can't do that in MP games.

[Pembleton]

What does age have to do with it? It's called looking at statisitics. There are far more people who have *bought* the game than there are registered on-line to play the games multiplayer. The *hardcore* multiplayers don't have enough buying power to put Starcraft and Diablo2 on the bestseller *over* games such as the Sims, Barbie whatever, or whatever Golf game.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by markusf
your living in the past. Besides the majority of people playing those games play MP. But your probably way to old to realize that. Who do you think buys the majority of the games? Some of the new games like Tribes can only be played multiplayer there is no longer support for single player. Other games are moving in that direction as well. The people in this forum aren't going to make much of a different to firixas bottom line. But the people shopping in the store and looking at the packaging will. When your comparing 2 games and one has 2 times the features of the other which one will you buy?

I don't think your brain is operational when making such comments. Please try again when it has finished rebooting.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by The diplomat


That remark is really foolish! How do you know who the "real civ player" is? The fact that you play MP, does not make you any better than an SP player. You just like to play civ differently. I happen love SP. I am just as much a "real civ player" as you!

By comparison, playing a person with thought processes and reasoning ability is much more difficult than playing a stupid AI.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I don't think your brain is operational when making such comments. Please try again when it has finished rebooting.

My previous post can be directed to you, too.

Wannabes.
Just dust off Civ I and be happy.

[Rasputin]

the big problem we haqve with this "Protest" is that the MP community is divided amongst itslef . many prefer to play Civ as a PBEM game, others, like myslef, feel that the only way to get real Negotiations going is online, and so LAN or Internet are the best bets... Those liking PBEM beleive that an SP game needs little to make it MP but those who play LAN or Internet KNOW that it takes much more, so we are concerned over this oversight...

[Pembleton]

By comparison, playing a person with thought processes and reasoning ability is much more difficult than playing a stupid AI.

You're assuming that they're good. The game I've played the most multiplayer was Age of Kings and I've played plenty of people who were worse than the AI.

BTW, my zone rating was around 1850, the best players are around 2000, and your rating starts at 1600. My strategy is just as good as the experts but I don't have the fast click/mouse talent they have. There are plenty of times when I will spend too many precious fractions of seconds "re-moving" my mouse into position or I click the wrong thing, etc.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by Rasputin
the big problem we haqve with this "Protest" is that the MP community is divided amongst itslef . many prefer to play Civ as a PBEM game, others, like myslef, feel that the only way to get real Negotiations going is online, and so LAN or Internet are the best bets... Those liking PBEM beleive that an SP game needs little to make it MP but those who play LAN or Internet KNOW that it takes much more, so we are concerned over this oversight...

You are absolutely right Rasputin, I couldn't have said it better!

I still want my multiplay Civ3!

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
By comparison, playing a person with thought processes and reasoning ability is much more difficult than playing a stupid AI.

That is true in the vast majority of situations. However, there is nothing shameful about not playing MP!

I personally have lots of fun in SP.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry about your pain, Slowhand, but I play Civ series almost exclusively Singleplayer (a few online SMAC games, but that is it). So, I'll be probably pre-ordering Civ3, Limited Edition, of course .

[monkspider]

I find MP to be a bore, I belive Civ in it's natural state has always been (and always will be) a single player game. IMHO at least.
I would issue a word of caution to you though Slowhand, I'm sure most people would consider the majority of posts of late to be blatant trolling.

"Wannabes.
Just dust off Civ I and be happy."

I'm sure it could be fairly asked of you as well to just dust off your Warcraft II or Age of Empires and be happy.

[Rasputin]

The other majorm issue SP peopel seem to hav ewith MP is that they hate the way "losers" quit and if the immature oppsoition actually win then they "flame" their opponents...


T oovercome this Do what the core MPers do, play with the same group of players (not always in the same game together but like a revolving group of people to choose oponent sfrom) you get to know them all, form friendships with them and even learn from one another. We have the Aussie group who have a few games on the go. Rah's group of players/friends whixh include his Evil Twin Brother!! The Diplo crowd of players etc etc.. this seems to develop better games as the group sets the rules they play by and still maintain the enjoyment of the group.

Of course most newbies still seem to be going to the Zone, which is notorius for Bad Losers unfortunalty... Lots of Cheats used there etc.. ( Not all are like that of course).. To organise a good game of MP dont goto the Zone, your rating there is menaingless to us here, we dont keep ratings nor do most of us actually recored who wins or loses in each game. If you want a game jsut pop over to Civ 2 MP and give your details Timezone, settings you prefer etc, and soon you will get a response, jsut dont post about how good you are, or your zone rating!!

[JimMac]

No MP? - Damn!
Well they just lost 3 sales in the UK (Yea, I'm sure Firaxis are worried Still, it makes me feel better to complain here.)

Why 3? Well my brothers and I play Civ2 on many occasions in our weekly LAN sessions and I would merely suggest to those Civ SP-only players that they try playing on a LAN set-up. For me it is THE way to play Civ 2.

So I shall wait until May, and check the forum for views on how successful the MP patch is, ( I do wonder, since it appears that it is too difficult to implement at present.)

JimMac

[TechWins]

For all of you who are saying that you will buy the game regardless if it includes MP because you don't care about MP. I sure hope you see the point of MP needing to be included with Civ3. It's now a neccisity to have MP included with games now a days. It would be like not including SP. Think if SP wasn't included and MP was only included, then what would you do? Now the chances of that ever happening are very slim but just what if? The two ways of playing (SP & MP) need to be included together as one.

I for one might not buy Civ3 ever if it doesn't originally come with MP. Why, for pure principal reasons. If I do wind up buying it will be because of the lure that SP provides to me. I most likely wouldn't have played MP for about a month or so after I got the game.

[I play SP mostly but whenever I get a chance to play MP against my brother via LAN I find it to be the best way to play. If I were to play MP all the time I would probably get bored of it but I only play about one MP game a month.]

[Wiglaf]

I think firaxis really hurt themselves here...getting out of this nice hole they created would take a miracle.

Even if it's a free upgrade, civ3 would be a rushed product - completed in time for the holiday season. Take the six months to program the multiplayer aspect into the game, and fix some AI holes if need be. We all know the game won't be perfect and never will be, so effort is always possible.

Come on, don't make us shell out $60 for 1/2 a game. I love single player and it's pretty much the main thing I play (only five or six MP games for me, ever) - but to do this not only ignores a large portion of consumers, it reveals what Firaxis is all about - money money money. It started with the LE and it finishes with this.

They must be kidding..

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
but to do this not only ignores a large portion of consumers, it reveals what Firaxis is all about - money money money.

God forbid that game programmers try to make a living! What do you think they are, philanthropists?

Also, Sid Meier does care about the reception the game gets. This isn't the last game he's going to make and wants to keep his reputation intact. And Firaxis has not really hurt themselves. They probably lost .0X% of the sales. That's how they compare to a random person on the street who has only played a few computer games in his life, which will include Civ3.

I already posted how Civ:CTP, a horrendous game, was still a bestseller for a long time even though people were returning it but CTP2 wasn't because it didn't have the Civ name attached to it. Civ's recognition by the masses which includes press by Time magazine and NY Times alone, will ensure great sales. You think Black and White sold so much because it was a great game? (In case you missed the sarcasm, B&W was horrible.) Firaxis knows this and that's why they will most likely ignore the MP protests.

But the ironic thing is that they *do* care about money, money, money and that is why they *will* eventually make MP.

[Bereta_Eder]

Slowwhand, I know you'll get pissed and I'm sorry, but I really do not care much about MP. The better the AI, the better the game

The character of Civ is a bit non - MP IMHO (long waits, rarely going to modern age etc).

[SlowwHand]

Games continue all the time, big P.
I'm in a game right now, every Sunday evening.
A "1 Wonder Per Civ" dity game.
Something not possible in SP.

I don't care if some of you can't/won't play MP, it's crap though if the option for MP isn't there; and I don't mean with damed patches at a later date.
That's building and selling crap, and if you build and sell crap, you haven't built and sold anythig worth anything.

Civ II has enough patches, bugs, and B.S. to last a lifetime.
No, not in SP.
SP is too damned simple minded to mess up much.

[LaRusso]

Slow, your arguments are fine, but why the activist approach? If someone wants to buy SP only game....it's his money....