I HATE MULTIPLAYER! I WANTED AN *ONLY SP* GAME FOR YEARS! I AM OF YOUR OPPINION!!!!

But I also like discussion.... *HYPOTHETICAL* discussion.... Get it?

~SDC~

Oops, didn't mean to hit submit. The board should be smart enough to not post any message that doesn't contain anything.

The board and smart? Come on... LOL

~SDC~

Gotcha though!

~SDC~

Okay. No multiplayer. Deal. Don't like it? Write your own damn 4x game. Put what you want in it. Add MP. It's not easy, and I say that as a compsci person. As a gamer, I am going to be honest, 4X mutliplayer games blow. It might as well just be 1X, exterminate. And if I want a game where I kill my opponents, I'll just fire up an FPS or an RTS.

Jarrod


~SDC~

Posted by mysticleopard:
> As a gamer, I am going to be honest, 4X mutliplayer
> games blow. It might as well just be 1X, exterminate.
> And if I want a game where I kill my opponents, I'll
> just fire up an FPS or an RTS.

Well, I do think you've got to give competitve 4X games the 2nd X because there is also an eXploration phase. Other than that, I agree completely about that assessment of the genre for competitive play. Cooperative play against the AIs is more fun, but pretty much pointless since it's a given that 2 or more humans can beat almost any number of AIs.

Trivia note:
GalCiv is the first non-multiplayer Windows game I've been involved with.

~SDC~

You cannot discuss adding multiplayer to Gal Civ because it will never happen. Instead, you can create a new topic that should be marked as "Off Topic". The title of that thread might be something like:

OT: Writing from scratch a Gal Civ-like multiplayer game.

Since you are talking about a completely different game than Gal Civ and are talking about writing it yourself, I'm not 100% sure that the forum moderators will let you keep the topic.

Haven't any of you ever played Alpha Centauri in multiplayer hot-seat mode ?

It simply adds another dimension to the game, when you play against another person with real intelligence. And when there is a save function, then it's no problem that a game can take several nervewrecking nights to complete.

So I simply don't understand why there is this great resistence against implementing a multiplayer mode in this otherwise great game. I won't pay for galciv until it has a multiplayer mode.

*sigh* I don't care if galciv has multiplayer or not, but that ain't the point here.

Code Monkey explained it more then once: To add multiplayer would require to re-write most of the code. It is not "just add something", it is more like "start all over again". And they can't afford to put so much work into it. That's it.

So why keep bothering them over and over again?

Enjoy it for what it is. One of the best single player strategy games to date. It is an important (and judging by Stardocks sales) a lucrative niche.

Actually moo isn't bad in multiplayer. The part that stinks most (the ai) doesn't come into play. That having been said, the idea of multiplayer on the net is a joke. Way too long a game. The only possiblity where I'd enjoy multiplayer is on a lan with fellow game devotees. rts with its shorter battles, is more suited to it.

that having been said this debate is to be honest, rather pointless. the dev, for better or worse, has said not gonna happen. I for one see his point. Just isn't worth it financially for the developer. He's in business to make money. Sometimes that means satisfying some of the gamers out there and deliberately saying no to the others. Gotta find a niche and put your product in it.

I always love these I'm not going to buy it untill threats. Anyone who's been in sales knows that is a sign of a sure sale.

Theoretically you could play MOO2 multiplayer (gamespy i think). It was/is a popular game, but i've never done it, even though i played it to death. For one I really didn't have access (fast inet access). For two I didn't have the desire. 4X should be singleplayer i think. Still you can dream, like the Civers do. Heck they even made a Civ1 multiplayer hack (i mean *hack*). Maybe in 10 years we can hack multiplayer into GalCiv, but by that time i probably won't be playing games. (unless frogboy keeps producing games)

Well, it's not a threat, just a fact. I usually only play games with my friends, so the singleplayer doesn't matter much to me.

I think developers have ruined single play experiences by trying to include multiplay. I wish more strategy games were single play only.

I hate what the Civ series did, EVERY GAME. Here's Civ 1, single player only. Here's Civ 2, single player only. But wait, here's Civ 1 multiplayer. What, now we have Civ 2 multiplayer. Here's Civ 3, single player. Oh, now we have Civ 3 multiplayer. 3 games for the price of 6, what a deal.

Perhaps other people liked that arranged, but I stopped buying the Civ series for just that reason.

~SDC~

I have sympathy with Code Monkey, being another programmer. The number of times we get asked the equivalent of "Yes, it's a nice car but couldn't you just strap on a jet and some wings so it can fly?". At work we have to say stuff like "Well it's an interesting concept but maybe we can revisit it later" when what we really want to do is rip their stinking
~@*&(*^*(^)+_)
NO CARRIER

wudang,
I understand you very very well.
I don't want to blame anyone in this forum because the most players are just players and are not in programing, and that's not their fault.
But when you're boss at work - who should know better, but doesn't - is one of the "could you give it wings?"-kind, it can drive you MAD.
Once worked for a guy like that. Never again. Argh.

So.. when are you guys going to add multiplayer to GalCiv?


On a more serious note, I've so rarely played any multiplayer TBS, it isn't funny. Hotseat is the ONLY way I've enjoyed playing any TBS game, and even that sucked. "Ok dude, your turn".. go and mess around on the playstation for 15 minutes on a late game turn.. "Ok dude.. your turn".. ad naseum.

And online multiplayer for almost ANY game that isn't a FPS shooter, imo, is junky. Including MMORPGs. And I am a beta tester for Star Wars Galaxy, and still say this. LOL

Cheaters, people taking advantage of loopholes, people disconnecting right before a loss (Madden Playstation football, example), people cutting out in the middle of a long game, screwing it up for everyone, immature morons talking smack.. list goes on and on.

I bought Warcraft III with the intent of really getting into some online play. Well, I am really trying to find a dedicated group to play with, because I got really sick of that, to. Right off everyone starts doing cheese tactics (to me, 'tower rushing' is a cheese tactic, feh..). Then everyone starts playing night elves ('cause of glaive).. and in fact, everytime there is something someone finds to be 'overpowered'.. it seems like 90% of people rush to use this tactic. Gets very boring, very fast.

MMORPGs I could go on for hours about all the issues (especially with non-roleplaying). Hoping someday a decent game will come out that can actually be *fun* to play online.

Guess I'll stick with UT2K3, blowing people to smithereens. That's always fun.

fleabitfox

I agree with you about WarcraftIII... in my opinion, it's the same with all RTS - the fastest one wins, there's not much space for strategy. That's why I prefer TBS.

No offense, but I think you need to get some smarter friends, then .

I agree with your other reasons for not making Galciv multiplayer, but as for Moo3, people aren't playing that because it sucks, not because its multiplayer .

"I won't pay for galciv until it has a multiplayer mode."

*dies laughing* Oh, man, oh, man, oh, man. Guess *wheeze* you will be saving *pauses while rolling around on the floor* yourself some money, then. *promptly bursts out laughing again, uncontrollably, until he dies, again (he had an amulet of lifesaving on the first time)*