Anyone Else Who Doesn't Care About Multiplayer?

[Antonin]

I know the lack of a multiplayer option in CivIII is a major concern among a lot of people here, but I'm curious to know if there's anyone else like me who really doesn't care about multiplayer.

I like to enjoy strategy games like this at my own pace, with the freedom to sit down and play (or not) as I choose. Sometimes I might play for hours, and sometimes I might just load my current game, study my position for a while, and then leave it for a day or two.

I find the AI to be strong and aggressive enough to provide me with quite a challenge, but I don't necessarily play just to win. I play more for the experience of building and running an empire.

I'm not interested in scenarios either; random map creation is quite adequate. If I want to play a scenario of something like WWII, I turn to a game like "Operational Art of War."

I'm just curious to know if there are others out there who approach CivIII the same way.

[sgsmitty]

I agree with you completely. FPS, dogfighting games, etc are great for MP but when it comes to strategy it does not work for me.

Granted, playing against human opponents can be more challenging and rewarding but that depends upon the other players skill level. I never understood how a experienced player beating a newbie can be exciting. A good AI will provide you the equivelant of a good human player while a so-so AI would provide you with one similiar to a newbie.
Actually, I just thought of a enhancement, the ability to select different skill levels for each AI civ. Hmmm.....

Anyway, the real problem for me is time. Maybe it is the fact I have a career and family but there is no way I could sit at the computer for hours on end playing a MP game of Civ. It is hard enough carving out hours to watch a good movie.

I enjoy TBS the most as it involves much more thought and IMHO provides more replayability. I as well will start or continue a game, play for awhile, save and come back later.

The only MP that I have ever tried with TBS (SMAC) was the PBEM which was okay. I would try PBEM with CIV3 if it ever supports it.

Anyway, my two cents worth.

Sgsmitty

[Barnacle Bill]

Agree on multiplayer - don't play that way, never have, probably never will because I don't have that much time in a predictable block (career, wife that thinks computer games are childish, two kids clamoring for attention). So, if they do it good for them (I don't begrudge the folks that want it anything), but if it never happens I don't really care. I do care greatly when game designers (generically, not Civ3 in particular) muck up any part of the single-player game in the name of multiplayer, either by doing something to enable MP which makes the SP game less fun or by neglecting AI due to excessive focus on MP.

Disagree on scenarios, from two standpoints:
1) Civ2 had them. I always object when a sequel loses significant features from the previous game. Feels like a step backwards.
2) Actually I don't play scenarios all that much myself. However, the same tools let me customize the game to suit myself. I've very picky and almost never find a game just right. The more stuff they let me tweek for the "Barnacle Bill's private mod", the better I like the game and the more often/longer I play it. That even includes the scripting language - for Civ2 the way I played was create a random game, then save as a scenario on turn 1, then restart the game as a scenario so my events file would work. I was looking forward to even more customizability for Civ3, but so far it is considerably less.

[sgsmitty]

I agree with Barnacle Bill as well. If the support for MP significantly affects the SP that would be bad. Take for instance how the agression of the AI became more severe between Civ2 standard and Civ2 MGE. I understand it was to make up for the fact that the AI would be weaker than all the human players but it changed the SP in the process.

I applaud the fact that Firaxis developed Civ3 to be first a SP game and then (in the future) a MP game.

As far as mods. I usually do not play a lot of scenarios but to not have some good ones to try would be bad. However, as Barnacle Bill said, the ability to tweak the game to my liking is more important and having good editors and such allow that.

Thanks

[chequita guevara]

Not caring. Turn based games suck for MP anyways, cuz you're always limited by the lowest player. Anyways, these AIS are tough enough. They're pretty good at simulating human tactics and being jerks.

[Meddik]

I wouldn't have a problem if MP was present... However, I feel that at its heart, any Turn based game has got to be a good SP game.

Many of us like the turn based strategy games so we can take our tim, overanalyze and micromanage this kind of game.

If I want to play games with other players, There are a lot out there. This type of game isn't that way for me.

[Casmyre]

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

MP has a place in the world, certainly, in most categories. But I don't think that place should override -- or even influence -- the single-player aspect of any game. Especially, as you mention, in turn-based strategy games.

Hot-seat and/or PBEM support fits this genre, but that's about it. And Firaxis may eventually add those items. Whether that happens or not, it won't affect my Civ3 experience -- except in how much time/money is invested in those efforts that could otherwise be used to improve the existing engine. (But, with MP support, they may earn even greater revenue, which allows for further expansion, yawdee yawdee...)

- James

[eMarkM]

I, too, have never done MP for Civ. I'm completely ignorant of how it works. Seems kinda cumbersome for TBG? If there's more than a couple of people, do you do your turn and then wait a half hour for everyone else to complete? Seems kinda boring. The game takes long enough as it is with SP. Seems like MP would takes days.

Not that it shouldn't support it, it should for those so inclined. But given the choice of releasing SP game or waiting until they completed MP, I'm glad they went ahead and released it. I have to think the great majority of players are SP anyway and it's something that should be easy to add on in the future.

e

[Kyle]

I neither use, nor care about mutiplayer. Hell, I'm only on the second difficulty level, I'm second to last, and I'm about to get my ass handed to me by the Aztecs. I don't need it.

[mattcj]

I don't need multiplayer, either. I'm perfectly content to play against the AI. Although, I did play multiplayer when Civ II MGE came out and I must say it was VERY interesting to compare strategies against human opponents instead of the AI all the time. I can say that I definitely became a better player after seeing how some of my friends played. But the biggest detriment is of course the time factor. You need A LOT of time (and a fast connection) to get anwhere in the game. My friends and I use to play it on the LAN at work. Turn based games can be good for that since you can get some work done in between moves. The biggest pain was when you heard somebody attacking you or performing some type of sabotage against you but your ALT-Tab wasn't fast enough to see what happened!! We were some of the only people I knew that used to get the multiplayer game into the modern era because we would play every day!!

[RickBlaine]

I view Civ solely as a single player game and could not care less about MP. Moreover, as a personal note, after two 1/2 years of compulsively playing EverQuest and DAoC (I cancelled my accounts with both games just before Civ3 was released), it is sort of a treat to play at my own pace without dealing with other people.

[Meddik]

Rick, same here, except for me it was over 3 years of UO/EQ/AO.

I just hate waiting on other people now, and having others wait on me. =)

[The Unknown]

You guys may not use it, but multiplayer is absolutely necessary in this day and age. To release it without multiplayer is fine, I understand they have time and financial problems, but they MUST give it out in patch form, not as an add-on when it does finally come out. It should have been part of the game from the start.

[WhiteElephants]

Ugh... I'm abhorred. Strategy gamers who don't play against humans are like murderers who go on non-violent killing sprees.

People, a game with a diplomatic model as intricate as CivIII's begs for multiplayer, whether it be play by e-mail or not.

I fail to understand how people can claim lack of time as the issue when they pour over their computer for untold hours playing SP. Depending on how many play be e-mail games (PBEM) you are involved in it can take anywhere from 10 minutes to hours at a time playing your turn and sending it on.

Actually, I just thought of a enhancement, the ability to select different skill levels for each AI civ. Hmmm.....

I've got a great name for that enhancement, we'll call it multiplayer, eh? I can't seem to reconcile with the complaints about varying skill levels of MP players. That "feature" adds a whole new element to the game. Who's the weakest player and who's the strongest? How do you take advantage of that information? How do you get that information? Which border can I let my guard down a bit on and which border should I raise my vigilance? Who can I rip off in a trade for tech or cash? The possibilities are endless except when you play the AI who is essentially a clone of the same player who will respond in the same fashion over and over, a series of slightly varying algorithms. Boring.

A single player strategy game is a contradiction in itself in this day and age. I can understand that before the internet was available MP games were reserved to the realm of board and table top games, but anymore it's like playing a game of chess against yourself. If you're really looking for a challenge then you have no excuse not to try MP, otherwise you're convincing yourself of something that's not true.

[Jolard]

I agree, I have never played multiplayer civII, SMAC or CTP. While I understand that playing against a human can be better in some ways, there are also a lot of drawbacks, mostly around trying to get the timing right. Finding a group of people willing to sit down for a reasonable amount of time can be difficult, and PB email can take forever. In between work and my wife and kids, I want to be able to sit down in any available hour and play.

This is especially important when developing Multiplayer takes away from the single player. To me (and I realize others are different) multiplayer is not as important. Go ahead and release it, I have no problem with that, just as long as it doesn't detract from single player.

Nothing against multiplayer as a whole, I play lots of online Unreal Tournement, and other quick in and out games, but I just don't have the reliably scheduled time to play others.

[sgsmitty]

WhiteElephants -

I agree that playing with human players would be very exciting and I am not knocking it. You mentioned repeatly MP as being PBEM which would work well for me and did for SMAC. I was mostly refering to network/internet marathon sessions.

However, for me, playing SP will be the most used regardless.

Maybe when they get PBEM we can play sometime?

Thanks,
Sgsmitty

[WhiteElephants]

I found that when I began playing PBEM SMAC my amount of SP play drop in proportion to the amount of time I played PBEM, so much so that I didn't play SP at all.

Granted it's unrealistic to have 6+ hour blocks of time to sit down and finish a full game of CIVIII with four or more players, though it would be nice to be able to play LAN or hotseat style with friends if you could find enough players on a weekend.

[Zyzzarzaz]

I don't care a about MP... I remember trying to enjoy MOO2 in multiplayer... Have to accept crappy starting locations and continue a game that I would abandoned long ago because my friend enjoys the game, or vice versa. Thats my memories of MOO2 MP.

Anyway, I don't have the time for MP. Regardless if I like MP or not.

[kmj]

While I think that multiplayer civ is very cool (and human players would be much more fun to play against) the logistics of a MP game of civ (as opposed to, say, a FPS) are such that I likely will never play it, maybe once or twice when my friends have a lan party... which is unfortunate. Civ fits in on those nights when i don't have classes or don't have plans... MP wouldn't. Still, given game releases for the past few years, I was suprised that they didn't have MP support, and I understand why people would choose not to buy the game based on that.

[Basilisk]

i feel that multiplayer is really expected, and should be included. There is no better satisfaction than beating your friend, who has been constantly telling you how great they are at it...
FOr Civ3 it's not really the play a random person multiplayer but rather play a friend.

[mrbilll]

I'll admit I've never been much for MP, so I'm biased. But get real! It just isn't very practical to set a game like this up for MP. I can see why fans will want it, but I can't believe how shocked and offended some people were that it wasn't included in the first shot.

Honestly, I wish they had put more effort into playtesting and balancing as it is. Any effort towards MP or scenarios would have made this even more of a rush job. I have high hopes for future expansions, scenarios, and patches. IMHO Civ III is a diamond in the rough that will not reach its full potential until it's been worked on some more.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by mrbilll
I'll admit I've never been much for MP, so I'm biased. But get real! It just isn't very practical to set a game like this up for MP. I can see why fans will want it, but I can't believe how shocked and offended some people were that it wasn't included in the first shot.

Get real!? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard thus far. I suggest you wander over to the various multiplayer sections of SMAC, CivII, CivNet, CTP1, and CTP2 for a taste of reality.

[Altuar]

Where do I sign?

After a few bothced attempts at mp CivNet, civ II and SMAC with my friends, I couldnt have cared less. We tried it all, the idea is amazing to toy around with but it takes too long.

Abotu scenarios: I never liked them. The reason? They destroy the atmosphere. Civ is just about that - civilizations over millenia. When such scope is reduced to say, WWII, or worse, a fantasy scenario, all you get is some numbers to play around with. +50% to production, +50% to light bulbs which make those silly "advances" come faster, etc.

But, along the same line, I never played on anywhere except the Earth map in Civ I and II. So I was quite angry to see that Civ III did not provide any means for civs to start in their (abstract) historical positions.

[Adrian Hon]

WhiteElephants: In my experience, the problem with multiplayer isn't time, it's scheduling, as you say. While I've been known to play Civ3 for long stretches, 5 hours is not too uncommon, my playing of Civ3 is sporadic and random. Clearly this wouldn't work at all well in a multiplayer game where I'd be obliged to make my moves by a certain time.

Yes, there's PBEM but frankly I would find that too slow; the idea with SP for me is that I can go at whatever pace I want. In addition, one of the quoted reasons for the lack of PBEM support is exactly how diplomacy would be implemented, e.g. I can't see how else you trade for resources other that doing it in real time. I suppose you could do it email by email, but that's pretty cumbersome.

Anyway, I admit that multiplayer is fun, and I briefly played FreeCiv online. It's just that so far, I've had enormous fun playing Civ3 and some of the wars and experiences I've had with the AI have kept me perfectly entertained, even to the extent of writing a short story which is in the Stories forum.

Incidentally, an alternative to playing chess on your own would be playing it against a computer

[WhiteElephants]

Oh, the mediocrity here...

[sgsmitty]

mediocrity?

Now, now. If someone has a opinion that differs from yours that is no reason to attempt to trivialize the whole discussion.

Remember, boys and girls, we are talking about a game here.

[Antonin]

Hmmm. I'm pleasantly surprised that there are at least some people who approach the game the way I do.

For me, it's also at least partly matter of time and scheduling. Wife and job and stuff like that...I might not have the time or energy to play for a couple of days, and then I might just play for a couple of minutes. This makes MP Civ3 something I wouldn't want to do. I just don't like having the obligation to come home and fire up the game to complete a PBEM turn or go online and play via the net. I deal with enough deadlines at work.

Some nights I might play for several hours at a time, but it depends on the degree to which other things are demanding my attention.

I do have some experience with online gaming: Asheron's Call and also Homeworld. And I have to say the attitudes of many people I meet in the online gaming world are part of the reason multiplayer gaming is really not my cup of tea.

To each his own, I think. I hope Civ3 will eventually have MP for those who like to play that way, because I think it's a great game and I want Firaxis to sell a lot of copies (unlike some people on this forum, I don't think Civ3 is "broken").

One thing l've noticed about many people who've responded to this thread is that they have been very polite about why they prefer SP over MP, and they have not belittled the preferences of those to whom MP is a very important issue.

So, to all you MP partisans, let's not have any name-calling, OK? We SP fans are not "mediocre"--we just prefer to play the game SP.

[sgsmitty]

Well put Mrbill.

[Barnacle Bill]

Originally posted by WhiteElephants
I fail to understand how people can claim lack of time as the issue when they pour over their computer for untold hours playing SP.

Well, the time thing goes like this...

I get up early on the weekend so I can go play. After about 2 turns, my 3 year old daughter comes running in "Daddy, let's play Spot" - so out comes the Civ3 CD and in goes Spot.

A half hour later, she gets bored and wanders off to color. So, I get a few more turns in. Then my wife calls me to breakfast and gives me the daily "honey do" list. A couple hours later, I see my break - she's distracted by the 3 year old, so I slip off to the basement a play a while.

Soon, the wife comes in with the baby, dumps him in my lap, and takes off shopping with the 3 year old. I get a turn or so in rocking him with my foot while I play, but then he's not taking that any more - demands that I walk around carrying him. Eventually, he falls asleep, I carefully slip him into the bascinet (ever see one of those movies where they are defusing a bomb?) and get back to the game.

Half a turn later, wife & daughter come home. "Honey, distract your daughter while I bath the baby".

OK, so after a turn on the swingset in back yard, the baby is clean & back asleep, daughter's pestering Mommy who's watching the boob tube. Daddy slips back to the basesment.

A couple of turns later... "Honey, you've been hiding in your cave all day...come interact with your family...aren't you too old to be playing games, anyway?"

And so it goes... a turn snatched here and there, it adds up... in a week I can get from 4000BC to the Industrial Ags, but just a few turns at a time. Multiplayer is utterly out of the question.

[August Borms]

I don't care about multiplayer either; the only thing I play online are FPS games (and the occasional open-beta MMORPG) and with Civ2 I only played scenarios anyway...