Don't release Civ3 with MP!

[Pembleton]

Um...I know this is going to be flamed to hell...but here goes...

If they haven't planned on releasing Civ3 with MP, then why should all the SP players, who are in the majority, suffer a delay because a minority wants MP that *they will eventually* implement.

I've read that some think it will delay it a month or so. I don't think that would be the case. If multiplayer is implemented for real-time and not just hot seat and PBEM, there will be a lot of development time. Look at all the early patches for most strategy games. Almost all of the first ones just address multi-player. MP needs to be tested a lot and even after that, there will be a lot of bugs for quite a while.

In order to release a satisfactory MP that will *still* need patches, it will take few-several months. It was already stated in the "letter" (which may or may not be real) that MP won't be released until next spring.

I'm not against MP. If I wanted to play MP I would be very angry too. But don't delay the game for the rest of us. I want them to concentrate on the SP before they start on MP. If they started on MP now, then they will spend less time perfecting the SP aspect. We would end up with a rushed SP as well as a rushed MP, and both types would be unhappy.

The game hit beta a while ago. I really don't think that they are going to change their plans at this point for such a drastic change.

If you want MP, don't buy it and wait until they put out the MP version.

Ok, now for the flames to begin...

[d_dudy]

stands beside Pembleton, gets out his loud speaker and states

"I agree"

now run!!!!!

[tniem]

I hope you don't consider this a flame. I consider it a rational reason why Single Player only players should be very concerned with this announcement.

Multiplayer has become a major part of any game. SMAC and CtP have had huge longetivity because of those still playing Multiplayer. Everyone knows that AI is only so good for so long and so a human is the only opponent worth playing.

Firaxis knows this. They worked to put MP in the game. They went as far as to promise a radical approach that we would all love for MP. They of course have promised a lot of things, MP not the only one. And the question is whether they will deliver.

So what we know is that MP is a huge part of the industry today and the promises made to us and it is not going to be included. They just don't have enough time for this imporant part of the game. So what else has Firaxis had to cut?

Think about it if MP is on the chopping blocks, then nothing was sacred and tons of things could be in the balance.

[ixnay]

Regardless of whether or not it has multiplayer, I will get it when it comes out. I rarely ever play MP on any games, so its not a big deal at all for me. I'm sure the AI will challenge me for a while (I never got around to winning on deity on civ2).

[saracen31]

If MP is released as a free download soon after Civ 3 hits stores, no problem. If it's released as an expansion with a price tag later on, then I have a big problem with it - even though I rarely play MP.

I really hope this isn't an indication Infogrames is pressuring to get this puppy out too soon & more features will be cut out.

[Gramphos]

I agree with saracen31.
If they delay MP they must not sell it later.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Kyller
I'm sure the AI will challenge me for a while (I never got around to winning on deity on civ2).

And I thought I was the only amateur hanging around here.

Originally posted by tniem
So what we know is that MP is a huge part of the industry today and the promises made to us and it is not going to be included. They just don't have enough time for this imporant part of the game. So what else has Firaxis had to cut?

My (perhaps too optimistic) approach is that Firaxis postponed multiplayer design to make Civ3´s single-player mode as good as possible.

[Ted Striker]

Who is going to be skilled enough to want to play MP when it first comes out anyway?

By the time MP is released, people will have gotten their skill levels up to the point where MP will actually be a fun game.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by derek
Who is going to be skilled enough to want to play MP when it first comes out anyway?

By the time MP is released, people will have gotten their skill levels up to the point where MP will actually be a fun game.

I'm scared that they will not make MP for free then. Therefor I think it is important to have it from the beginning, or a written promise that MP will be free in all boxes signed by Sid and Briggs.

[splangy]

I agree, MP is nowere near as important as SP. I dont MP so I dont really want them to spend ANY time on it, but I understand they must put it in to make it sell better...

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by derek
Who is going to be skilled enough to want to play MP when it first comes out anyway?

By the time MP is released, people will have gotten their skill levels up to the point where MP will actually be a fun game.

me and my friends actually plan to play a MP game as our first, cooperatively, as European races.

we'd be close to eachother and learn the trading system, and enemies could be far away (americans, aztecs, Iroquois, Zulu). (world map)

[isaac brock]

I don't agree with tneim that "if MP is on the chopping blocks, then nothing was sacred and tons of things could be in the balance." Just because there current multiplayer might be too buggy to include or whatever doesn't mean that they were going around chopping out everything else. In fact, them cutting out MP means that they are trying to refine the single player. Remember, infogrames probably has them on a strict deadline. It's better to have a single player game that works out of the box to keep MPers busy until they can patch MP into the game. I'm not worried, and i'm certain firaxis has everything under control.

[tniem]

Originally posted by isaac brock
I don't agree with tneim that "if MP is on the chopping blocks, then nothing was sacred and tons of things could be in the balance."

Would you agree that many people play MP? Would you agree that MP is vital to most games success now on the market? Would you agree that MP was promised since the start by Firaxis?

I think you would have to agree with all of those. So MP is obviously an integral part of the Civ experience. I think one of the polls of what is most important had new ways to MP very high up on it. So it clearly should have been a priority.

Just because there current multiplayer might be too buggy to include or whatever doesn't mean that they were going around chopping out everything else. In fact, them cutting out MP means that they are trying to refine the single player.

Well if something as important as MP is still very buggy or if CivFanatics is correct, just begun in August, then what else is buggy? What else has not been fully completed? What else has not been tested?

I think you will agree that this does leave the possibility to mean that there could be a lot of things not yet finished.

Remember, infogrames probably has them on a strict deadline.

Yes of course. That is why I am worried. The deadline is forcing Firaxis to cut MP, the demo, and the public beta that they said they would have liked to do. You can't make me believe that if the deadline is effecting those things that other elements of the game aren't suffering as well.

It's better to have a single player game that works out of the box to keep MPers busy until they can patch MP into the game.

Well if the reviews are bad and players find the AI terrible then it won't be good to not have MP. In fact it will downright kill the series and possibly the TBS genre. Infogrames as well will take a hit not only by sales on this one but also on MOO3. That would mean to me that they would want a hit but I guess not.

I'm not worried, and i'm certain firaxis has everything under control.

But listen to what they are saying. We are not ready. It seems evident in everything they are doing that they are still in developement. They want more time. But Infogrames won't give it to them. So even if I trust Sid and the gang, I think what they are saying is that its not going to be ready but money is going to rule the decision.

[Skanky Burns]

Im still waiting for confirmation from Firaxis, and treating this "rumour" for what it is: a rumour.

That said, i agree with everyone I personally dont play MP much (only 1 game so far), and hope that the SP game isnt delayed so that *both* can be released together. However i realise that MP is important to a great many people, and should be provided. Unfortunately it seems Firaxis is working 'with a gun to their heads' from Infogames, and have chosen to release a tested MP later rather than an unworkable buggy version upon release.

If the MP part is included upon release, all will be well.
If MP is released as a free patch later, all will be well (later )
If MP is released as part of an expansion pack, the Firaxis building is being burnt to the ground (and while we're at it, Infogames as well)

Thats my view on things.

[Laszlo]

Though this letter from Firaxis seems very suspect, I wouldn't blame them for delaying the release of the MP component until April. From October to April is five months; a lot of time in the gaming world. Computers' capabilities are increasing by 1% per week and new games are sapping 'em up. Delaying SP release for the MP minority doesn't make a lot of sense in such a rapidly evolving market.

[Master Marcus]

Originally posted by tniem


Well if the reviews are bad and players find the AI terrible then it won't be good to not have MP. In fact it will downright kill the series and possibly the TBS genre. Infogrames as well will take a hit not only by sales on this one but also on MOO3. That would mean to me that they would want a hit but I guess not.

I partly disagree. I place great hopes for MoO3, in fact it could be theunexpected - I admit, the unexpected - SAVIOR of the TBS genre. Innovative gameplay AND sequel ( non-linear, non-conservative unlike the Civ series ) developed by a different team , but of course they may have the same deadline cuts since its the same publisher. Please, wait for the release next year before a final judgement. In the meantime this is pure speculation...( though I find pleasant to speculate from time to time!).

As for the AI, it cannot be worst than the SMACx one. It could be a lot better of course, but SMACx is a great game: Civ3 can still be an even greater game with just a more versative AI and the same difficulty levels from Civ2. This is within an existing engine the programmers need only to remodel. They may be actually rushed to finish the game without the options we know, but I'm confident that a full-year development for the AI was sufficient. But not optimal.

All in all, they want a $$$$$$$$$hit for a good game ( face it, Civ3 may not become a perfect masterpiece - but it will at least be good ) instead of losing another (un)profitable year in development for all the extras.

[korn469]

As for the AI, it cannot be worst than the SMACx one. It could be a lot better of course, but SMACx is a great game: Civ3 can still be an even greater game with just a more versative AI and the same difficulty levels from Civ2. This is within an existing engine the programmers need only to remodel. They may be actually rushed to finish the game without the options we know, but I'm confident that a full-year development for the AI was sufficient. But not optimal.

Master Marcus

Brian Reynolds was the lead AI programmer on Civ2 and SMAC, and Tim Train was the primary guy telling Brian how to make the AI better...they both left firaxis

so if you are an optimist you think "ok now that they got rid of those two, time for some good AI!"

or if you are a pesimist you think "oh now! just how bad is the ai going to be?!"

but civ3 introduces a number of new ideas, and AI is usally one of the hardest and most time consuming things to get right...so if you are one to fear that civ3 is being rushed out the door, then you have to wonder how much time is the AI going to get and will it be enough?

[isaac brock]

I'm sorry if it's hard to accept, but Civ 3 WILL be released by its deadline, and since there's no changing that, I would much rather have them refine the AI for their remaining days and patching multiplayer later. Yes, I DO acknowledge that many people play civ multiplayer. But most people, even if they play multiplayer, aren't above playing SP. So, if (and it is still if, even though it's likely) Firaxis can't release it with MP for any reason, they must release SP for the deadline. If they were to delay until multiplayer, that could mean a six month wait. Since die-hard MPers would be waiting whether they waited to release the game or not, why can't they release SP so that MPers have a diversion, modders can get to work, and SPers can play the game they wanted to play for so long? It is extremely disappointing that it can't be all ready right away, but you cannot change it. So get over it.

[Master Marcus]

korn469,

of course it will NOT be enough to meet the expectations we all had for Civ3 ( not optimal, I have already admitted it in my former post). I did not forget the "departures" of our friends from Firaxis, though I'm glad this is reminded again. But since the puppet master is still there, I hardly imagine how he will let the game hit the shelves with a lower AI engine. We'll see in November only.

Otherwise, I'll try your RTS Empire Earth...promising isn't it?

And don't forget MoO3 next year ( too soon to be condemned!).

[korn469]

Master Marcus

i truly hope that civ3 is a great game, and i think it will be a good game...I just wish that firaxis could get a few more months to work on perfecting civ3

i just don't see how the suits at infogrames could say "no Multiplayer? No problem! What other strategy games have multiplayer anyways? Go right ahead and ship it!" unless they think they can end up selling civ3 at 80 dollars

i really think this [lack of MP] is probably a misunderstanding