Gamespot says: "Just about the only disappointing thing about Civilization III is..."

[yin26]

Old-Timer: I share your concerns, obviously. I don't think people will knock Firaxis for failing to make an AI that can't be beaten in short order by the great players out there. At minimum, we should expect the AI to be a step above SMAC. Here's a SMAC example:

Simply place a powerful counter-unit in the right spot and watch wave after wave of expensive AI units just die again and again.

As you noted, the complexity of the game has increased substantially from an AI point of view: How can an AI be expected to handle the resource war and cultur-creep when even 'simple things' like DON'T KEEP RUNNING TO SPOT X and dying weren't handled in SMAC?

Answer: We have to have some really sharp players dig into the game for us. I am NOT buying the game until MP is ready and until I am convinced the AI is top-notch.

Techwins:

This misinterpretation comes from the fact that Yin posted this. As many feel that Yin is 'Lord Pessimist'.

Thank you. I love the categories people use around here without actually reading posts.

Markos:

so, in order to appear as "fair", what's left for the previewer? lack of multiplayer

This implies that the reviewer would NOT mention the issue if other things were also wrong. He highlights being "very" disappointed at the loss of MP, and I don't think he'd have to go that far just to be fair. If he wanted just to be fair, he'd say:

"While not an optimal situation with the lack of MP, Firaxis promises good things. Looking from what they delivered so far, I don't doubt it, though it will certainly cause waves if MP is another pay for the pleasure x-pack."

Face it people: MP is important to heck of a lot of people.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by yin26
This implies that the reviewer would NOT mention the issue if other things were also wrong.

hmmm no, i didnt imply such a thing

my comment was mainly on the use of the word "only"

"While not an optimal situation with the lack of MP, Firaxis promises good things. Looking from what they delivered so far, I don't doubt it, though it will certainly cause waves if MP is another pay for the pleasure x-pack."

if you consider this statement fair, how do you characterize your call to people(and it's tone) to not buy the game if mp is not free?

Face it people: MP is important to heck of a lot of people.

who said the opposite?

[yin26]

so, in order to appear as "fair", what's left for the previewer? lack of multiplayer

Indeed the 'what's left' portion here implies that if there had been something else to be negative about, the MP comment would have been softened. Perhaps that's not what you mean to say, but that's what it says.

if you consider this statement fair, how do you characterize your call to people(and it's tone) to not buy the game if mp is not free?

When I'm the writer for Gamespot saying such things, your comment will have relevance to this thread.

"Face it people: MP is important to heck of a lot of people."

who said the opposite?

Ummm, geee. Here at Poly?

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Anunikoba


Also, a lot of casual strategy gamers are into online play, due mostly to the RTS multiplayer trends these days. So something like "No MP in CivIII" might just turn some prospective CIV noobs away.

I for one would like to see less noobs. So what if some casual gamers don't buy it, fine by me. There's always still pletny enough money to be made out the franchise sit's not like Civ will never do another or it will never be upgraded ( nb. I'm not sure exactly the comparison to other games but I know the preorders so have been "overwhelming" and the demand was "much greater than first anticipated" so.......

[Firaxis is working on MP, right? ]

Actually there probably having a rest now. A little holiday for a job well done. From what I hear they deserve it.

[Jack_www]

Really AI in computer games has many limitations, as many here have already pointed out. The AI in computer games always does stupid things. In Civ 2 there was an option where one could change the civ you are playing and let the comp controol the one you had. I remember doing this, I had lots of bombers abput 30 of them at that time, and what does the AI do with these? It makes them run out of fuel! Too once you have learned how to beat the computer it gets borring really fast. The only way I have seen programmers make the AI harder is have the AI cheat, which I think sucks. The higher the difficluty the more the A.I. cheats.

This is why I want mp in Civ III!
I would like to ask again a question to sp players. Do you ever get tried of playing the computer?
And how would you feel if Civ III had only MP?

[Provost Harrison]

Well the one aspect of the MP that I am most surprised by is the lack of even PBEM?! I am sure this wouldn't require any fancy multiplayer code or anything, it should be implemented. This is why, to me, it is beginning to smell of a quite deliberate witholding of MP, so they can sell an MP version at a later date. I must admit, I find this dubious despite being an optimist about the game in all other respects...

[MarkG]

Originally posted by yin26
Indeed the 'what's left' portion here implies that if there had been something else to be negative about, the MP comment would have been softened.

again, that's what you understand from what i said. not what i said.

When I'm the writer for Gamespot saying such things, your comment will have relevance to this thread.

i fail to see the point. i assume that you characterize your own comments about mp not being given free as fair. you do the same for the proposed "gamespot quote". how come?

Ummm, geee. Here at Poly?

using "people", you addressed everyone, including me. well, at leasti shouldnt be included

[MarkG]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
MarkG, I really appreciate your well "balanced" post. It should (but probably without any chance of success) moderate some posters.

I like you stepped in to explain (from some first hand experience) to many of us of things works in preview world.

well, if things go the way they seem to go, we will too end up having an "apolyton preview" and not a review(we should note that gamespot calls it a preview as well, it's not a final judgment) ready by the release date.... with an actual review coming out a couple of weeks after the release.

as a comparison, we had a copy of ctp1 in our hands a whole month before the release....

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by d_dudy
i don't think mp is that important.

i think civ was always meant as a solitary game

Uhum... but MP is a lot more fun if you're able to set up a decent game. A more human AI in civ III could make the (temporary?) loss of MP less important... I'm confident Firaxis wil pull this off, but if the AI turns out like ctp.... no, I don't even wanna think the thought.


Fred

[yin26]

again, that's what you understand from what i said. not what i said.

Just going off common uses of the language. My apologies.

i fail to see the point. i assume that you characterize your own comments about mp not being given free as fair. you do the same for the proposed "gamespot quote". how come?

I guess I fail to see your point.

using "people", you addressed everyone, including me. well, at leasti shouldnt be included

You seem to be part of the 'Vocal Minority' then. Welcome.

[Father Beast]

This is actually a bad sign for upcoming reviews, since in my experience, Previews tend to just heap praise and build hype. they save their honesty and hard hitting for the actual review, which they only get to do one of.

For example, I read a preview of Braveheart in PCGamer which did almost nothing but drool. 3 months later came the review, which labeled it as a big piece of craaaaaaap.
Game magazine editors also seem to jump on the bandwagon clamoring for multiplayer. A number of games (such as Oni came out without the multiplayer functions that were hoped for and got slammed in the reviews, and in the editorials. "is this a trend, leaving off the formerly promised multiplayer?"

The reviews will suffer. Count on it. the days have passed when a strategy game can be published without multiplayer and people not miss it.

[campmajor!]

Originally posted by MarkG
if i was undecided on whether to buy civ3, i would rather wait for the comments from players on the first month(and not just the first two weeks) and then decide

That is my opinion as well! The previews and the reviews of ctp2 were all overall positive, but the game was no good at all!

So, as you said, the actual reviews of hardcore civvers are the only indicators whether civ3 is good or not.

[Grumbold]

Every game that is expected to sell well gets upbeat previews. Even glaring faults get dismissed as unimportant or "bound to be fixed by release". Only when the game has been played for some time does the true review emerge. Look at CtP2, or more recently Black and White. Most reviewers still think B&W is excellent but do actually admit that the 1 player game is not the essence of perfection they originally claimed it to be.

I can live with the temporary absence of MP provided the AI is at least competent (not just given outrageous advantages). Fortunately for Firaxis (or quite deliberately) the AI has a chance of being more solid because in many ways it has less to do.

- Where you build units is no longer so important because support is now national.
- Combat stats are now simpler with hitpoints and firepower standardised.
- Blitzkrieg invasions are now impossible so defences do not have to be perfect in advance.
- For the same reason, and for ensuring trade routes cannot be cut, building road/rail on every square instead of having defensible choke points is now a better strategy.
- Planes don't have to refuel since they stay at their bases.
- Spies and diplomats don't have to move round the board
- Giant stacks won't die from a single combat loss
- It no longer has to worry about players hoarding caravans for rush-buy strategies, allowing its gold production advantage to really count at higher difficulty levels.
- The simplified growth model means the player cannot use ICS against it.

Offset against that we have better diplomacy and culture. The complexities of the first one it can dodge by just saying no to any complicated deal. The second in its basic form is just a matter of building certain buildings to resist cultural domination. I know I'm oversimplifying but it still looks like an easier job to appear competent in Civ III than Civ II.

The absence of MP does give the reviewers a way of downtoning a review if they want to justify a lower score. Where an early review goes, others often tread. Since its a lot easier to say "no MP and we're not sure if the AI lives up to the boasts" than "I've played the game for 100 hours and the following tactics fool the AI every time" I'll be expecting to see more of these. Then I'll wait for the reviews I really want: Apolytoners one or more weeks after purchase

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I would like to ask all the sp players out there a question. Do you guys ever get tried of playing the computer? I know I do. Once I figure out how to beat the AI I move on to mp. Something that really gets me mad is how it seems that all you sp only players are hostile to mp players. You think when we complain about no mp in Civ III that we have really nothing to complain about. How would you feel if there was no sp and only mp? Really the only complaint I have with Civ III is the lack of mp, everything else I am happy with. I also think that there is more than half of all who play Civ play mp sometime.

OK, I figured somebody had to answer that before this becomes a "mp players only" thread.

Actually, no, I don't get tired of playing the computer. I get a little weary of the ridiculous tactics and absurdities they pull, but mostly I'm enjoying building my little world. Truly, I don't play to win, but to have fun. That's why I play an expansionist on deity +2 every once in a while. to enjoy getting myself pasted to the wall.

Categorizing "all of us sp only players" is unfair. I am an sp only player and I have never suggested you mpers have nothing to complain about. danged few have, except maybe orange. but I know you have something to complain about. However, I won't let your difficulties keep me from buying and enjoying the game
If I wanted to, I could take umbrage at the first part of your post basically saying that I'm a MORON for playing any sp after my first win, but I'll bypass that. That would probably be being too sensitive .

How would I feel if there was only mp and no sp? beeen there, done that. Diablo II. I complained (to deaf ears) and never bought the game. never will unless they fix that abominable save system.

So I agree that there is something to complain about. even though I don't play mp, I am appallled they would do this to you. this is a worse debacle than the no demo debacle (and please don't start in that I have nothing to complain about with there being no demo). I just won't lend any monetary support since I AM buying the game.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by tniem
I have read that Pizza Tycoon will be a great game in one preview.

Oi! Pizza Tycoon is an absolutely brilliant game, almost as addictive as Civ.

[Provost Harrison]

Take what all reviewers say with a large Dead Sea full of salt. I remember one British gaming magazine that reviewed CtP more highly than SMAC and Civ2. Pah! Posterity didn't agree with them, did it?

I just hope that the issue of the MP isn't going to cloud the judgement of the reviewers as people should still be informed how the game works as an SP experience and let it stand on it's own merits...although I could understand their belligerance...

[Lee Johnson]

So, as you said, the actual reviews of hardcore civvers are the only indicators whether civ3 is good or not.

No, that might only be true if you're a hardcore Civ player. The rest of us might have lower standards.

[Deathwalker]

So long as that is the only problem with the game, we should be alright

[Howling Chip]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I would like to ask all the sp players out there a question. Do you guys ever get tried of playing the computer?

Was thinking about this last night in a way. One facet of why I enjoy CIV is that even with an AI that was not awesomely impressive, there were enough play angles (strategies, role play, empire simulation) to keep my replay interest high. I've never played CIV MP. Not because I did not want to.

The MP discussion, especially the ones on how to implement MP perked my interest. I've done several other games MP, bit not CIV.

The "block" I always have to get through is the "I will probably get my butt kicked" syndrome. And what is going to help me through this? How easily the MP system keeps frustration low. You know, getting online, getting into a game that has player attributes that match whatever my skill level is at the time, the management of dropped players (either from the "I quit" angle or network connection lost angle) etc. etc. No one wants to spend a ton of effort getting into a game only to get their butt kicked. I want to play, have fun, improve my skill, and play some more. Going through an arduous in between game process to get through this, or having games end prematurely for whatever reason, will turn me off to doing CIV multi player.

So yes, I get tired of playing the computer. No, I do not get tired of playing CIV solo. And yes, I hope that there's a point in the future where I am in a game with YIN, Jack_www and the other MP'ers.

[The diplomat]

Ok, ok, Yin, I think we get your point by now.

let us pretend that civ3 were the opposite of what it actually is, Yin's review might look something like this:

I got civ3 today, and started playing. The game is really dissapointing. Graphics are average. Music is repetitive. The new concepts don't integrate with the rest of gameplay. The game is way too easy on even the highest levels. But most importantly, the AI is still lame. It just doesn't understand basic concepts like attacking en masse. It still attacks one unit at a time.
But the game absolutely rocks because it has MP out of the box. This game is totally worth it with MP. Now, if the developper had done something like not include MP, I would have been mad, but the developpers are geniuses as they give the player the ability to hook up with other players in several different modes right from the first screen. You don't even have to bother with Single Player. Besides, nowadays who does anymore?

I think you get my point: if the game itself were bad but it had MP out of the box, would you be happy? The most important thing is the game itself. You can have the best MP, but if the game itself is crappy, then it does not matter. And this review seemed to indicate that civ3 will be an excellent game. That is what matters. You will get MP later. So don't worry!

[CapTVK]

Originally posted by The diplomat
Ok, ok, Yin, I think we get your point by now.

let us pretend that civ3 were the opposite of what it actually is, Yin's review might look something like this:

Actually, Yin26 beat you to it 3 months earlier.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...ghlight=review

[The diplomat]

I just find it unbelievable that Yin is able to completely ignore 99% of a review that praises every part of the game, and zooms in on the 1% of the review that happens to mention something negative.

[HalfLotus]

Seems that Yin really wants others to agree with him. In this case he spooges all over himself when he sees that a "reviewer" (ooh-ahh) shares his point of view. If he wants MP, great, but why the excitement when someone from Gamespot agrees with him? Does he feel vindicated, justified? Neither Yin's or Gamespot's views on MP should affect other Apolytoner's views. For those who want MP, its a disappointment, for others it doesn't matter. Yin seems to want EVERYONE to care about MP like he does. That will simply never be the case.

[GoofyBoy]

There are many games out there that do have mp, but have failed and are worse off for it.

One of the was Vampire: The Masquerade and its Storyteller feature. Basiclly it was a FPS with multiplayer added where the server admin could "create storylines and manipulate the environment". But apparently it was an unworkable system and nobody or very very few people play it. They would have been better off not including it because people bought the game for this purpose, the single player was secondary to them.

The other problem with multiplayer is that its alot of work which only a small percentage of people will use. Its a whole other testing cycle to test it and could most likely delay the game.

There was a time where MP was a good selling point in a game. But unless its done correctly with a large people willing to play, its just added bloat.

[korn469]

posted by goofy boy
The other problem with multiplayer is that its alot of work which only a small percentage of people will use. Its a whole other testing cycle to test it and could most likely delay the game.

There was a time where MP was a good selling point in a game. But unless its done correctly with a large people willing to play, its just added bloat.

well maybe (who knows for sure) a small percentage of civ players, but some games like many FPS huge percentages of players play the game in MP mode only

and your second comment borders on surreal...why don't you declare that grafic cards will soon be a thing of the past as players move towards text based adventures...muliplayer is here to stay and it will get more important as time goes on

posted by Father Beast
How would I feel if there was only mp and no sp? beeen there, done that. Diablo II. I complained (to deaf ears) and never bought the game. never will unless they fix that abominable save system.

i only played one game of diablo2 single player, and that was because battle.net was down for the weekend and because my brother was out of town

i loved playing diablo2 hardcore
that was so fun
worrying if the player i was playing with was a murdering dog, trying to fight, to survive! it was great
the only reason i stopped (besides repetitive stress injuries) was a lack of time...what i am trying to say is that a well done multiplayer experiance can certainly add more enjoyment to the game

_________________________________________

i understand that civ3 is more geared towards single players, but firaxis did plan on civ3 having a multiplayer component, and a demo, and an open beta...but they had to shelf all of those to get civ3 out in time...so what we don't know yet is if by cutting out those things is did firaxis have enough time to make a legendary civ3, or is it just a pretty good game...that is my main fear about civ3 not having multiplayer

this isn't a fear, instead it is a pet peeve...firaxis has a perfectly good justification for not including MP: time and money constraits

the gaming industry is brutal and it is certainly dominated by economic factors...civ3 is a prime example

so Firaxis doesn't need any other reason than to say that time and money factors caused MP to get cut, and that is a legitimate reason

but then here on apolyton you have a bunch of people who seem to think that they need to make excuses for civ3 and firaxis...who then go and belittle the Multiplayer Community and the Multiplayer Experiance in general

this should not happen...there are just as many people who participate in MP as who create scenarios (probably more) and i would hate to see if firaxis had of cut the scenario editor instead of MP, people insulting the Mod community

there are many facets to the Civ community, and despite their size, all of those parts are equally deserving of respect...i more than understand the members of the MP community being upset since they are on the short end of the stick this time, i just hope that some elements of the single player only community will stop acting like the multiplayer community doesn't matter

lets hope that civ3 MP comes out soon either as a free patch or part of the civ3 expansion, and lets hope that the lack of MP doesn't cripple Civ3 in the highly competitive world of computer games

one last hope, i hope we can all come together

[GoofyBoy]

Originally posted by korn469

well maybe (who knows for sure) a small percentage of civ players, but some games like many FPS huge percentages of players play the game in MP mode only

Some rare games its a huge percentage of people.

http://www.gamespy.com/stats/

After the first handful of the games, the number of players/servers drop dramaticly. Same sort of thing on the weekend/evenings.

Except for MMORPGs, like you said, people buy games for singleplayer.

and your second comment borders on surreal...why don't you declare that grafic cards will soon be a thing of the past as players move towards text based adventures...muliplayer is here to stay and it will get more important as time goes on

Let me back up my statement;
Recent top 10 PC games
http://www.voodooextreme.com/comments.taf?postID=21723

Except for D2 and Op:Flashpoint these are all single player games. No multiplayer. (Unless Sims have MP).

I hope that Civ3 eventually comes out with multiplayer (I have a feeling its going to be something like Battle.net) but considering the gametype its silly not to buy it because of the lack of it.

[CDN_Harbinger]

I cancelled my pre-order of the LE tin because there is no MP in the game.

There are some principles at stake here: I am not going to pay up to $140(Cdn) for what I consider the complete game - $80(Cdn) for the LE tin and possibly another $60(Cdn) for the MP expansion (should one come available, as I'm sure it will; and yes this includes taxes).

I'll wait as I did for Alpha Centauri and Alien Crossfire and buy them together as a cheaper boxed set or separately at a song. Plus, it gives me lots of time to read the reviews and determine if it's worth buying at all. I still have a bad taste in my mouth after Test of Time (realizing that Firaxis and Infogrames had nothing to do with it's release).

Regards.

[korn469]

GoofyBoy

you are drawing the wrong conclusion from your stats

right now on the gamespy there are about 57,000 people playing half life

right now on battle.net there are about 239,000 people in about 112,000

in the current top ten games, three of them are diablo2 related, and three of them are the sims related, as far as i know the sims is the best selling game since it came out with diablo2 right behind it...so the top ten isn't quite as skewed towards single player as it seems...amd they are going to release the sims online (the multiplayer version of the sims) in the not too distant future...also don't forget that diablo2 has a very strong multiplayer following

here is another thing to consider...the civ franchise has sold four million copies...do 57,000 people still play civ2 on a day to day basis?

so that might just be civ and civ2 or it could be civ, civ2, SMAC, civ:tot they didn't specify

so the conclusions i draw from your facts are that there are jundreds of thoursands if not millions of enthusiastic multiplayers, and that it could really hurt civ for it to reject all of those players

however like i said, firaxis didn't have the time or money to include multiplayer, most likely because of the chaos of brian reynolds et al leaving and costing about 7 months of civ3 development time

so hopefully by cutting mp that gave firaxis enough resources to make the single player game excellent, because if it then it has nothing to fall back on

plus i also see scenario development as an abstract form of multiplayer, as is interacting on these communities

also you misquoted me, because i never intended to mean

like you said, people buy games for singleplayer.

multiplayer is just as important as single player, and if you ignore it then your single player must be even stronger, or you can expect to sell less games...its like in football, you can be strong or fast, but it is better to be both. Civ3 if the development process hadn't of been messed up at some point should have been able to produce a civ3 with both single player and multiplayer and have those items ready at the same time...if you schedule the process right then both segments get completed simultaneously, its not like they finish single player first and then move on to multiplayer...if the rumors are true that firaxis didn't start on multiplayer till august right before the game went gold then they knew quite a while ago that civ3 wouldn't have multiplayer, and it would have probably been best to let the fns down early

however i hope civ3 is great, and that we get multiplayer soon

[Wittlich]

Trust me, when Multiplayer Civ3 is complete - it will NOT be free. It will be sold as another game just like Civ2MGE and CIVNET before that.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by Wittlich
Trust me, when Multiplayer Civ3 is complete - it will NOT be free. It will be sold as another game just like Civ2MGE and CIVNET before that.

Doesn't it depend on how much work is put in the MP? If MP is just civ3 slightly modified to include various MP modes then it should probably be a free dowload. But if MP turns out to be almost a different game in itself, with a different interface, different options etc then it would be unrealistic to expect anything less than a "civ3MPE".