poll: multiplayer a need? or not?

Frogboy has said it isn't going to happen, not before a sequal anyways.

~SDC~

Yes, I know... but I think a poll does not disturb anybody... maybe it's good to give guidelines to developers...
Bye!!

I think at least for the sequals that some multiplayer action isn't too much to ask.

I'd love multiplayer so I vote yes.. after all we can all stop playing with ourselves LOL and play with each other. It doesn't worry me if the players replace or play as the major AI's. Theres a lot of life multiplayer and multiplayer game modes can bring to a game...

Anyway I would love to see some sort, any sort of multiplayer.... even if for now that just an improved metaverse for this current version and save the multiplayer goodness for galciv 2.

~SDC~

To me multiplayer is definitely No.

To be honest, multi-player is not all that important to me. Of course, I'm a hermit and I live in the hollow of a tree.
It might be fun to be able to play by e-mail, maybe in some scheduled games co-ordinated somewhere on this site.
I remember hearing about being able to download particular players styles sometime in the future, that would be great.

great SLW

As long as it would be possible to improve the Metaverse - i could easily do without Multiplayer.

Given the time it takes to finish a game - i don't think multiplayer would be all that playable

Most of the time I either:
1. Play offline on my laptop offline
2. Play on my family room couch while my wife does her scrapbooks and we mix in talking and/other watching TV.

Neither style of play is friendly to a multiplayer game... particularly, since getting an hour or two to play at a time is the most I can typically hope for.

Cheers,

Cypher


~SDC~
[Message Edited]

I'd be in favour of a multiplayer option for GalCiv2. It would give players who complain about the AI something to do. As long as it didn't spoil the single-player version. Star Trek: Birth of the Federation was designed around simultaneous movement, and it didn't work too well. For example, in order to attack someone, you'd have to move to the same place they did, which comes down to sheer guesswork.

~SDC~

I personally don't equate bad players to multiplayer games, for me that has too much the airs of superiority.

Instead I view these games in a similar light to chess, where the human element and unpredictability mixed with strategy and tactics can be deadly and challenging. However I would like to see it implemented as I find them fun, I loved playing Space Empires 3 and 4 and MOO 2 hotseat and no doubt I'd enjoy playing GalCiv the same way. This would still allow me to enjoy playing the AI. Oh and multiplayer would be useful in learning new strats first hand.

I know this is my second post but Matt provoked me into it

[Message Edited]

NO

I would say yes to Multi for it will add new dimension to the game and posibly bring in more people, hence more sales and more money.

I personaly flip between multi and better AIs with personalities. Think StarTrek and SciFi stuff.

~SDC~

Hi again!
I think that MP it is an ADD-ON, and that is more important to have a smart AI than a multiplayer option (see civilization 3, the AI is pretty bad, at hard levels it just cheat a lot!!).
If I had to choose, I'll prefer to invest on better AI than MP, but I think that maintaining a turn-based game and implementing a multiplayer would not be so huge work for developers, and maybe well-repaid on store shelves.

Anyway, I really appreciate the way AI is implemented, and how it uses the best players' game to improve itself.
Maybe, this is for Brad Wardell, it could be really nice to get some deeper information on how AI works... and maybe to be able to configure it a little bit (out of metaverse, of course).

Well, it seems that MP is not SO requested... but maybe it could be appreciated in GalCiv 2.
To you, developers... what do you say about it??

Byezz!!

I've never played a turn-based 4X game that I've liked in multiplayer mode. So no.