MP or no MP?

[Hex]

So will the game include multiplayer?
Should a well educated civer already know this or are we just waiting for Firaxis response?

[VetLegion]

Well if anyone knows, tell us. Since it is gold, it cant be changed anyway, so why cant we know?

[ixnay]

Although I don't play multiplayer much, I hope that Firaxis was trying to lower our expectations so they could surprise us by releasing civ3 with multiplayer..

[Steve Clark]

Yes, they will release Civ3 with multiplayer. I don't know when but they will.

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Yes, they will release Civ3 with multiplayer. I don't know when but they will.

What do you mean? Are you saying that the initial release of CivIII will include MP? And if so, where did you hear this?

Or are you just saying that eventually there will be a 'Gold' version that will include both?

[orange]

Although I will buy the XP anyway (if/when it comes out) they should really make MP a patch if it doesn't come with the game. Bundling it with an XP is a sneaky way to make money...and I think it would really damage some people's view (including mine) of Firaxis.

Do the right thing Sid!

[Sarxis]

Originally posted by orange
Although I will buy the XP anyway (if/when it comes out) they should really make MP a patch if it doesn't come with the game. Bundling it with an XP is a sneaky way to make money...and I think it would really damage some people's view (including mine) of Firaxis.

Do the right thing Sid!

The only thing is: the marketing of the game isn't really in the hands of Sid or Firaxis. Infogrames is the publisher, and basically they say what is what. So though Sid may or may not agree with the marketing of an MP XP, it is really in Infogrames court to make the choice.

[Simpleton]

Don't worry . MP is in the game Firaxis just wants to surprise us. I'm sure of it...

[orange]

I hope so simpleton

[STING]

It would be very odd if they would not add MP to the initial release. Almost every game which now get released has MP capability.

[Rasbelin]

I think we won't see any MP in Civ III 1.0,
but we can always hope for that. Thumbs up and
fingers crossed!

[drake]

Every game these days that has anything going for it has mp capabilities. They can either show us how backwards they are by not including it, or showing us that they are actually in the 21st century with the rest of us and include it.

[SITS]

I can't see why they can't have at least basic MP options like Hotseat and PBeM. All they have to do is nick the code from SMAX. It would be very poor of Firaxis not to include MP at the start.

[drake]

Well pbem and hotseat are nice for some SITS, but when most say MP with civ, thats not what comes to mind.........

[Steve Clark]

No, all I am saying (again) is that they will release a Civ3 version with MP. Probably not this year but they will. As far as all games being released with MP, that is not true at all. There have been several games in the past 2 years that were initially designed to be MP or to have MP included but didn't. It is an entirely new beast to tame, esp. for a SP-centric game. It does sound like Firaxis will want to do this right instead of half-a$$ed. But the way many of you are impatiently whining, you would think that you don't want it done right.

[OzzyKP]

You all are like ostriches with your head in the sand. I can't imagine how you people can refuse to accept the fact when Civ3 is release there will no NO MULTIPLAYER SUPPORT. They aren't going to "surprize us" they aren't going to ignore a key selling part of a game and let the rumour mill tear their game to shreads and then keep it in without telling us.

Anyone who believes all that is living in their own fantasy world and is too naive or stubborn to believe that Firaxis/Infrogames/whoever is screwing us big time. Just accept it, they are living in the stoneage and will sacrifice whatever common game making sense to make some extra money.

[SITS]

Originally posted by drake
Well pbem and hotseat are nice for some SITS, but when most say MP with civ, thats not what comes to mind.........

True, but I was talking about basic MP functions. They could also steal the code for IP/Direct Connection etc from SMAX as well. What I'm saying is the game needs to be set up for MP. I seem to remember that Civ2 had MP built into it but it wasn't an option and a couple of modders wrote one so that it could be played. I imagine that Civ3 will have been primed for MP as part of its code but they might not have activated it.

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
It does sound like Firaxis will want to do this right instead of half-a$$ed. But the way many of you are impatiently whining, you would think that you don't want it done right.

The problem is it WON'T be done right. Ask any MPer about Civ2. It was added as an afterthought not incorporated into the game fully. This is what is going to happen with Civ3. Its not that they are taking extra time to make MP perfect they are putting off till later something that isn't a central concern for them. They don't care so neither should we.

Long Live the Boycott!!

[Be Quicker]

My 2 cents: I've played Civ I (on EGA, yeah those were the days, middelbare school = all the time in the world etc.) and Civ II for many many many hourse/days/years (how many hours is that?). I have never ever played MP, and I do not intend to. So I Don't Care.

On the other hand, no MP sounds unprofessional and, frankly, stupid from a commercial/take-your-costumer-serious point of view.

[drake]

There have been several games in the past 2 years that were initially designed to be MP or to have MP included but didn't. It is an entirely new beast to tame, esp. for a SP-centric game.

I don't think theres a more MP-centric game than civ. Interaction is what the game is all about. Not the mindless whooping of a pathetic AI to boost the egos of un-challenged players.

Playing against the AI is an idea of the past. Interaction between people across the globe is the future. One can only be truly challenged by playing someone with a brain. And a challenge is what we ALL should be looking for. If we didn't want to be challenged, we should have asked firaxis to put a button in that says "Let me win every time, by an overwhelming margin".......

That would definetly make the SP-centric group happy

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
......Anyone who believes all that is living in their own fantasy world and is too naive or stubborn to believe that Firaxis/Infrogames/whoever is screwing us big time.

Really, do you think so

Oh, I didn't realise that it was a statutory Right to have CIV3, or that Fraxis were a charity

..Just accept it, they are living in the stoneage and will sacrifice whatever common game making sense to make some extra money.

..and I'm sure Sid (famous for not producing anything of value) Meiers will be very happy to recieve you recommendations regarding Best Practice game design.

Long Live the Boycott!!

[Steve Clark]

When I said Civ3 as being SP-centric, I was more refering to many of the great scenarios. I have said before that I expect that 90% of the Civ3 games I play will be custom scenarios, not the main game against the AI. I have found that many of the Civ2 scenarios designed by those here are quite challenging and I look to more of the same eventually with Civ3.

[drake]

Scenarios can be played with multiple players as well

[Steve Clark]

I know that, esp using the example of Shay's Sacrificial Blood scenarios. But most do not however. Can you imagine playing Red Front or Second Front where it can take the AI up to 10 minutes to make 1 turn? Imagine how long you would have to wait for a human player to make 1 turn.

[Inverse Icarus]

theyre not going to confirm because it's not there.

if it was there they would have said something, theres more than enough pissed off people here to cause a scene.

if the game is gold and the FAQ still says theyre working on it, its not done.

[TubalCain]

Originally posted by drake


I don't think theres a more MP-centric game than civ. Interaction is what the game is all about. Not the mindless whooping of a pathetic AI to boost the egos of un-challenged players.

Playing against the AI is an idea of the past. Interaction between people across the globe is the future. One can only be truly challenged by playing someone with a brain. And a challenge is what we ALL should be looking for. If we didn't want to be challenged, we should have asked firaxis to put a button in that says "Let me win every time, by an overwhelming margin".......

That would definetly make the SP-centric group happy

Your wisdom in matters of game design is perfectly illustrated by the utter failure of such SP games as the Sims... uh, wait... well, the Sims can hardly be said to have anything to do with interaction... no, that's not what I meant... hmm...

On my planet, most computer gamers play SP. That reality is not changed by the fact that a vocal minority of gamers love to play MP. A game with solid SP gameplay but no MP can succeed brilliantly. If you wish, I can cite more examples - I mentioned the Sims only because it is an extreme example of success. I agree that Civ3 would be better with MP functionality than without, simply for the sake of those who do like multiplayer, but for the vast majority of potential buyers of Civ3, MP is optional, not necessary.

[drake]

I agree that Civ3 would be better with MP functionality than without, simply for the sake of those who do like multiplayer, but for the vast majority of potential buyers of Civ3, MP is optional, not necessary

All bias aside, between the sp gamers and mp gamers......This is a very good statement that should be accepted by both camps.

There is no reason Firaxis can't (or if its too late, could have) make us ALL happy. The right thing to do is make sure all important bases are covered. And that includes mp capabilities and Mac compatibility.

By failing to implement these very important features, they are thumbing their noses at our very dedicated, however small, mp community. And it isn't taken kindly at all. Suggestions for Firaxis seems to be more an ass kissing PR thing than an actual brainstorming center for the developers. For they surely didn't listen to anything.

[PN]

I've never played any Civ games multiplayer. As they are turn-based, doesn't this mean sitting around not doing anything while each player has their turn? Or am I missing something?

I do play Civ games as PBEM. The PBEM model seems to fit a turn-based strategy game better than everybody simultaneously being on-line multi-player doesn't it? Plus I get to play against people from many different continents (i.e. time zones) which is also more difficult on-line. And as I'm playing a Civ game, playing against real people from different cultures adds to the authenticity somehow. (Brits, Americans, Canadians, Germans, Danes, French, Finns, Croatians, Greeks, Australians, New Zealanders, Koreans, Spaniards, Mexicans, West Indians, you just cannot get that sort of mix easily on-line).

But a Firaxis previous 'Civ' game (SMAC) supported multiplayer and PBEM so I'm hopeful it'll be in Civ III from the start as they have experience of doing it before. But I'm prepared to wait as long as I don't have to pay for it as an extra. I'd expect most of the good Civ III players will spend hours on SP learning the game and devising strategies before they unleash their powers on multi-player/PBEM.

My biggest hope is that the AI will be good enough to 'make up the numbers' when real players have to permanently or temporarily drop-out or there aren't enough multi-players (of whatever type) available for a game.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
... It does sound like Firaxis will want to do this right instead of half-a$$ed. But the way many of you are impatiently whining, you would think that you don't want it done right.

It's not that people don't want MP "done right" it's the fear that they'll have to buy additional software to get what should have been in the game to begin with!

(Assuming the game doesn't have MP) If Firaxis had never said the game was going to have MP (instead of saying it would then sending an email to the contrary, all mention of MP slowly vanishing) then I doubt people would be as upset.

I don't play MP but I know I was upset at the idea of them saying it would ship with MP and it now appearing that the consumers will have to pay extra for some expansion pack to get what was initially promised WITH the game.

Now then, if the game ships with MP or MP is offered as a SMALL (some people still have modems), FREE download then all is fine and good; however if people have to PAY additional money for what was initially promised to be in the game then they (we) have a right to complain.

If Civ3 does ship without MP I will seriously wonder if Firaxis has their priorities in the right order since they didn't postpone their work on SimGolf until Civ3 was already past the point of having to yank MP. Simgolf could WAIT, finishing a classic game and adding all initially promised features should have been TOP priority.

All this is assuming it ships without MP support of course, otherwise this is just fun venting to keep everyone sane(r).

[drake]

I've never played any Civ games multiplayer. As they are turn-based, doesn't this mean sitting around not doing anything while each player has their turn? Or am I missing something?

yeah, turn based.
Between rounds is the time to do city maintenance and plan for the next round of moves.....
It is a much slower paced game and requires lots of patience......which is the main reason most sp payers won't venture to the mp side.