No multiplayer support in Civ III. Do you really care?

Nostromo · April 8, 2002, 17:53

For some posters, the fact that there is no multiplayer support in Civ III is a major issue. But it could be the opinion of a vocal minority. Maybe most civers don't care. What do you thing?

PatLasch · April 8, 2002, 18:23

No it doesn't matter to me. Either the games would last too long, or it would come down to who could build the biggest warrior army. With the games already taking as long as they are, I would not play online multiplayer. Play by email, however might be ok, that would be easier to put in than a full online game.

ixnay · April 8, 2002, 19:21

I'm not big on multiplayer games. When civ3 multi does come out, I might play it once or twice, but will probably go back to single player. Hopefully, though, Firaxis will do a good enough job to convince me to play more multiplayer.

ColdWizard · April 8, 2002, 19:31

what's civ3?

oh, that boring game that i spent $60 on that i don't bother to play anymore because it doesn't have scenarios or MP

Inverse Icarus · April 8, 2002, 19:40

dp... my bad.

Inverse Icarus · April 8, 2002, 19:40

if you count scenario makers, multiplayers, etc, it's a vocal majority.

or a vocal whole-damn-forum.

Harovan · April 8, 2002, 19:44

If MP ever comes out and has a PBEM feature, I might play it. But probably not online MP. Hence, minor issue for me.

Swissy · April 8, 2002, 20:08

I remember the phrase "Fully integrated multiplayer system" being a major bullet in initial ads for the game. Then the phrase disappeared. I want what was promised, until I get it Infogrammes and Firaxis are nothing but a bunch of hucksters making a buck on the Civ name.

Sarxis · April 8, 2002, 20:33

Do I care?

Not anymore.

Coracle · April 8, 2002, 20:45

Quote:

Originally posted by ColdWizard

what's civ3?

oh, that boring game that i spent $60 on that i don't bother to play anymore because it doesn't have scenarios or MP

Yea, THAT one.

I would not have bought Civ III if I knew it had no scenario-building or Cheat Mode. But just wait, they will soon try to stick it to us with some lame-ass Scenario disk for $29.95.

Pyrodrew · April 8, 2002, 21:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle
building or Cheat Mode. But just wait, they will soon try to stick it to us with some lame-ass Scenario disk for $29.95.

$49.95 once it comes out. $29.95 only after it's been out for 6-9 months. Then after another 6-9 months you can get the "MP Gold Edition" for $49.95. Then after another 6-9months you can get the MP + Scenario version for $49.95. Then 1-2years later you can get any version for $5 in the bargin bin.

The Rook · April 8, 2002, 23:00

I don't care about multiplayer. I can just imagine hoe long a game would take with all human players. Besides that, as I read these forums, I get the feeling my laid-back style wouldn't be able to compete with some of the hardcore players here.

Nostromo · April 9, 2002, 01:23

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
if you count scenario makers, multiplayers, etc, it's a vocal majority.

or a vocal whole-damn-forum.

A vocal majority? Not sure about that. There are 18768 registered members. About 3% of those members post 99% of the messages found on the Civ 3 forums. Would you agree with my estimate comrade? Even if all of the members who post agreed that the lack of multiplayer is a major issue, I wouldn't call it a "vocal majority". No, the majority is quite silent...

asleepathewheel · April 9, 2002, 01:37

nothing to add, just wanted to record my "NO" vote. don't care about mp. no time. Too much time spent on school and work and g/f. hmm. whats amusing to me is that at this point, the no's are actually in the lead. what's up with that? i thought that everyone wanted multiplayer. hmmm.

PerpetualNewbie · April 9, 2002, 01:49

I love multiplayer games. I just think this one's design does not lend itself to multi, unless you are talking about PBEM or something, which would pretty much take a couple years to play through...

Turn based games are just not well suited to live gaming, unless they are very shallow, the average game is over in a small number of turns, or is very limited in terms of number of players. Civ is just too good a game in all three respects.

Jahi · April 9, 2002, 12:44

i'll do pbem, otherwise who has time to wait for the trade network to recalculate more often?

ACooper · April 9, 2002, 13:53

Interesting that all the "whiners" are in the minority again.

asleepathewheel · April 9, 2002, 14:02

yes, very amusing that certain people claim that "everyone wants whatever" yet that "everyone" is actually less than even half.

hmm. not really a suprise that the whiners are losing again, it fits the type.

fezick31 · April 9, 2002, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Then 1-2years later you can get any version for $5 in the bargin bin.

Unless it's in the back of a magazine

I voted Yes, but it's not that big of an issue. I'd like to have it to have the option, but I never have the time to play MP. However, not including it, and then saying, "We want to focus on the single player, it's been our focus all along" is developer speak for "We didn't have time to write the code".

I still like the game though, and play it often.

ColdWizard · April 9, 2002, 14:54

yep, all them whiners that want MP sure are losing. but who cares about an opinion of a minority? after all, minorities are just bunches of whiners

ACooper · April 9, 2002, 15:19

Quote:

Originally posted by ColdWizard
yep, all them whiners that want MP sure are losing. but who cares about an opinion of a minority? after all, minorities are just bunches of whiners

That makes a lot of sense.

ColdWizard · April 9, 2002, 15:26

indeed

Wittlich · April 9, 2002, 15:26

MP is VERY important to me!

Jon Shafer · April 9, 2002, 15:37

Civ III is a great game, but I think multiplayer ability would be a great improvement.

There's only so many times you can pound on the computer and get enjoyment out of it.

Besides, I'm anxious to play some real people who have real strategy for diplomacy and fighting, other than "the rush" of units until the enemy falls. :x

ACooper · April 9, 2002, 15:40

My only point is this:

For all the ranting about multi player and statement the "everyone wants it" and that the Firaxis programmers are a bunch of @#$%@$% #^# @^#$%&#%, it seems odd that the most people don't really care. Maybe it is that the few vocal whiners are in the minority which is not bad in of itself, but not wise to base business desisions on.

If (When) there is multiplayer, I will play it once in a while, but I don't really care if it ever comes out.

awesomedude · April 9, 2002, 15:51

Quote:

Originally posted by ACooper

That makes a lot of sense.

I believe it's called sarcasm

.

Inverse Icarus · April 9, 2002, 15:54

Quote:

Originally posted by nostromo

A vocal majority? Not sure about that. There are 18768 registered members. About 3% of those members post 99% of the messages found on the Civ 3 forums. Would you agree with my estimate comrade? Even if all of the members who post agreed that the lack of multiplayer is a major issue, I wouldn't call it a "vocal majority". No, the majority is quite silent...

that number includes people who no longer come to the forums and many, many, many DLs... i myself have 8 or so

ACooper · April 9, 2002, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

that number includes people who no longer come to the forums and many, many, many DLs... i myself have 8 or so

interesting.....speak here into my lapel.....

ACooper · April 9, 2002, 16:23

Quote:

Originally posted by awesomedude

I believe it's called sarcasm

.

duh

Nostromo · April 9, 2002, 17:49

UberKruX: Good point. But I think my point still stands. I still think that 99% of the messages found on the Civ 3 forums have been posted by a small minority of people. Maybe 3% of all active members who do not have multiple logins (sorry, I don't know the exact number) post 99% of the messages. I think it's a fairly accurate estimate. Moreover, on that 3% there's a certain percentage of members who think that the absence of any multiplayer support is a major issue. Again, I don't know the figures. But when I read the posts on the Civ 3 forums I'm under the impression that everyone agrees that the multiplayer issue is a major one. But, like I said, it's may well be an illusion, it may only be the opinion of a vocal minority. Of course, I may be wrong, and the purpose of my little pseudo-scientific poll is to find this out.

ACooper: I don't think that 52 votes is a very representative result. In fact, it doesn't mean much. Maybe 200 or 300 votes would start to mean something... More than 200 members viewed this thread, but only 52 of them voted.

So we're not going to have 200 votes any time soon.