I'll be blunt. I can understand the reasons for not including MP, based on time, budget, or a combination of the two. What is really, and I mean really rubbing me the wrong way is how the information regarding the complete removal of MP was just kind of dribbled out two days before beta. I would not have purchased Elemental without MP, and while that game was a bust I've been patiently waiting for a year as Stardock has stated they would like to make things right. It's not an issue of money for me, it's the fact that I feel that I've been strung along for years now.
If Fallen Enchantress was an attempt to "make things right" with the customer base, it has certainly had the opposite effect for me. I fully acknowledge that, as a TBS gamer who gets the most enjoyment from coop with friends, I'm in the minority. I get that. But I feel I've been lied to and strung along and it's left me more than a little pissed off.
I honestly and sincerely wish the people working on FE the utmost success, but I think I'm done with Stardock. I'm not going to do anything silly like a boycott, it's not that, it's just that I don't feel like I can trust a damn thing they say, so why bother following their game development?
Anyway, this isn't some righteous crusade or anything, I just wanted to make my voice heard. Don't worry, I'll let myself out and make sure the door doesn't collide with my backside. For the majority of people who were only interested in single player, I hope FE turns out to be everything you hoped!
I have to say, its really hard to ignore assholes like that. I have no problem with different opinions, different merits, different worldviews or ideologys, but i have a real problem with impolite and rude people no matter if it is in reallife and virtuallife...
*bites one´s tounge*
You make a good point here. I read posts by the Anti-MP contengent on these forms and it seems as if at one point in thier lives they were tramatized by some MP expereance in the past. I think many may have played random strangers online and got beaten bad and given the "thin skin" of many people these days they were cussed out and that hurt thier feelings. It may come as a suprise to a few of you that many of us MP players play with friends only escpecially in TBS games (I will play against/with strangers in FPS and MMO games however.)
Hell I love CIV4 and CIV5 MP but I don't play random strangers (I like the option that I could if I wanted to but I don't) And many of us like to play LAN and hotseat with our friends as well as over the net. We like both coop and killing each other. We like to have AI and Humkan opponets in the same game. And unlike the RTS community there are many of us that don't suffer from ADD and want the full SP expereance in the MP game.
There are two ways to make a MP game. correctly, 1) it has to be built up along with the SP from the start. or 2) build a solid SP game then take the time and effort to make that SP game in it's entirety into a MP game without cutting anything. If you want to cut somthing stop and make it an option instead. For example for the ADD folks put a Turn timer in the game and allow you to set the turn time while keeping the option to not set a time. Allow us to still manage the empire while waiting for everyone to finish the turn. Set options for verious features to turn off or on as well as adjusting how we want to use it, such as Tactical Combat (Do we want to see others tactical combat, Do we want to see TC between only players or not, Do we even want TC etc.)
Never should MP only be half assed done like in WOM and several others games over the years.
Why are there certain people here STILL arguing about MP should have been included when there have been official word as to WHY it isnt!
Stop beating a dead horse! Accept what Brad et al has stated. Or better yet, do it yourselfs! Thats right, YOU who complains about MP not in the game, do something about it, if you think it is so easy to do (I dont think it is easy to do), or make your own game based on your ideas on how a game should be. But dont continue to bash and nag and generaly being brats about no mp!
Although I like MP in games, as a feature to be used or not, in this kind of games, with turns that may last long, and where a match can last hours, or even days, I really prefer the budget to be invested in improving the SP experience (AI and content) rather than on an under-used MP.
For a good MP experience, maybe SD should make a game in the Elemental World tunned into RTS (like SOASE, Age Of Empires, Warcraft...), rather than trying to adapt the hard-to-adapt. RTS is more oriented to the MP, and more fun to play it online...but having to wait for turns? No, I don't find too much fun in games that take too long to play a turn online. That's an opinion...
Oh god no. RTS sucks plan and simple. There are those of us who perfer TBS MP and we don't mind waiting for turns to end. Besides there are things such as Timers options that can be used (however I never had to use them in MP games with friends.)
And how would a TBS game be harder to adapt to MP than a RTS game? If anything it should be easier.
Huh, I just noticed this game had actually popped up on Steam and was planning to buy some copies for me, my brother and a few friends, with the hopes that it might actually be an improved version of War of Magic.
Then I stumbled on this little fact.
I guess I might pick it up from a digital bargain bin if it ever gets a multiplayer mod/expansion...
LMAO soooooo true and I LOVEEEEE how you turned that sentence around on them about the few empty vessels in the community. lol Of course everyone wants what THEY want and could care less about anyone else. Instead of that being "selfish" I say it's "human nature" you're born with want want want and mine mine mine and gemme gemme gemme. lol Hurray for your answer back to the MP minority.
Strategy gamers and multi-player game players are two different demographics, even if just one individual or one game can be classified as both. The incentives for playing each type of game are completely different. Asking strategy gamers if they are interesting in multi-player produces very little data of value. The percent of gamers in general that only play multi-player games is huge. This is the demographic that needs to be surveyed as to their interest in a turn-based role playing strategy game. I personally know quite a few people who won't even think about a game unless they can play it with another human; and they are truly missing out on this one at the moment. However I must add that with this game, focusing on the single player experience first and foremost was definitely the right thing to do.
Games that I love that I have spent maybe 1% of the time playing MP as opposed to SP? Civ is great, but I only played MP with friends or roomates just a couple times. The other 99% of the time I was playing by myself. Same with GalCiv. Same with HoMM, although I'd say maybe 5% of my HoMM playing was MP because my sister liked it so much. I like playing campaigns and not having to wait for other people. You can't really do that in TBS MP (although HoMM5 simultaneous/ghost mode was a little fun). I love SotS as well but 95% of my time playing that game was in SP. I don't need other people to make the game fun.
Actually, Fallen Enchantress is a Turn-based 4X. Just like those previous games you mentioned, Civilizations, GalCiv and the HoMM series. It certainly isn't an RTS, true. And generally RTS games are more multiplayer oriented than TBS 4X games. Most of us that participated in the beta don't care about MP. That much was evident when the poll for multiplayer was taken.
Similarily, I can't imagine a HoMM without SP. No campaigns? Having to wait on friends anytime you wanted to play? Same thing with Titan Quest. I loved that game! I have over 1500 hours played and I'd say only 20-30 of those hours are playing in MP. I can't imagine a TQ without SP. No fun.
I also really like HoMM4. I thought it was a great addition to the series that added a lot of new, interesting mechanics that made for a fun, enjoyable game. I find it hilarious that the same people bashing HoMM4 for not being an upgraded HoMM3 are the same ones that complained out HoMM5 gameplay being "too stale". Anyone that says HoMM4 sucked should just go back to playing HoMM3.
I'm not sure where you got your empiric data from but I can assure you that in no way do 9/10 HoMM players only play multiplayer, and in no way 100% of Civ players play MP. I play HoMM, Civ, Titan Quest, Torchlight, GalCiv, Minecraft... all SP. I leave the multiplayer for console games and FPS. You'll probably find that gamers like me aren't alone. We would prefer that FE have the best SP experience possible and only then if resources allow, put in multiplayer.
yeah why argue about ancient romans they are all dead!!!
I'm not really interested in arguing over the Roman Republic or Roman Empire, but if someone wants to discuss Herodotus' contributions to social history, I'm game.
Oh yeah! My best multiplayer experiences is not from RTS games, but from long, long turn based games or very slow paced RTS like Europa Universalis (Which have a huge MP community by the way, even if a game takes ca 100 hours to complete).
I am a moderator in the No Quitter group at Steam. I try to recommend Fallen Enchantress as much I can there. This is first and foremost a community for Civilization players that like multiplayergames with no quitters. FE would be perfect for this crowd, but the one thing they always ask me first is: Does it got MP?
I too am very disappointed to learn there is no multiplayer. As far as numbers go though, we should not take a single number, such as the % of players who attempt multiplayer, to necessarily evaluate the value of that feature.
For example, I, as an avid multiplayer gamer, will test out a game in singleplayer to determine if I want to play the game in multiplayer. If I find the game fun, and if I do well against computers, I often try my hand at human players. As for the first elemental, the reason so many people did not try multiplayer may be becuase they did not have enough fun in singleplayer. As for other games, although only 10% to 30% of a player base may actually play the game multiplayer, I think we might consider whether those 30% may be more invested (financially) in the game than the remaining 70%.
This can occur becuase these people are the players who are most likely to solicit their friends and get them to buy a copy, or buy second copy themselves so that they can obtain the experience they want. For a person that plays singleplayer, they have little or no incentive to do this unless they have lost their old copy. In addition, simply having an active multiplayer base gives the game a greater online precense, through game replays, after-action reports, blogs, and other informal news. This again, helps to market the game. Finally, there is also an aspect to multiplayer that often helps the singleplayer game become better. When two players compete against each other, one will often win. To some degree, this will always have some degree of luck. But more than anything else, and especially in a game like this, it is the person with the better strategy that will win. This means that when human players compete against eachother they will find optimal strategies and balancing flaws that people who play solely singleplayer will never find, which in turn allows the developers to make adjustments and make the game better.
So, is it true that the majority of players will never even attempt multiplayer? Absolutely. But does that mean that not having it will be beneficial for the game? Certainly not.
Multiplayer would be a plus, but I wouldn't be able to use it often (long term TBS tends to be problematic to keep players involved). I would definetly use it, but not a fraction of what I would get to spend in single player so to me it's fully understandable that this feature was cut. If its added, great, if not, oh well- I still love the single player.
If I did not have one good buddy to play coop or multiplayer games with I would only be playing single player.
I understand people are disapointed by the experience if they just join a random game hosted in the Civ5 multiplayer lobby for instance. What you have to do to play serious people that don't quit is to arrange games through the multiplayer communities own forums on Steam or other web-places. That's the way to get good MP experiences from grand strategy games (or just play LAN with friends of course).
You know what I would like, is games where you can join as a spectator and maybe give some feedback. I could sit for ages just surfing games and watching tactical battles. Especially the replays. When a champion with barely any health scores a lucky critical and takes out one of the champs from the other side I want to see that again.
The IDEAL way to make a multiplayer game for this TBS game is to make it for NO MORE THAN 2 players and allow each player to play the AI side of a battle when you have a human player vs an AI player. This way nobody is sitting on their hands each turn and everybody has constant tactical battle action when it arises each turn. This ^ is the only way it will really work and not become boring and time wasting. TODAYs player wants to PLAY a game not wait for someone else to play it or watch paint dry or grass grow. So this is the way it should be made when you finally have time to make it. So it has been written so let it be done.
Go buy you a copy of GUILD WARS 1 then as it has an observer mode and you can watch to your hearts content and then berate the players who are BAD and tell them where they can go an all during the battles. Although the battles you see are about 5 minutes after the fact but many of the players that were playing in it are still online though now because they got so much horrible feedback put themselves offline or do not disturb. lol
When I play MP on a game like this it is generally windowed. On my opponent's turn I study or watch TV. That gives me a good 10 minutes of dong something else as I strategize as a background task and keep an eye on his next 10 possible turns. Turn time is irrelevant that way and the number of players simply increases the time I have to do other things.
I don't mean to ignite any argument (or further any) but I just wanted to toss in my word. I've been a fan of Stardock's games for a while (Sins being one of my top favorite games ever) but I hadn't picked up FE until recently due to the poor reception of WoM. My boyfriend recently got hooked on Fall from Heaven, which got me interested in FE. After playing it a while (and griping because I can never seem to win a diplomatic victory, or even avoid war at all) I'll say I like the game and really like the art style. I was very sad that it does not support multiplayer though.
I don't typically play games online, I play them on LAN or online with some friends. I never use any sort of matchmaking. I've put hundreds of hours into Sins and never played that online once. I've played lots of those hours on LAN though and really enjoyed it. CIV5 was a major disappointment for me, especially its multiplayer. I know it costs a lot of resources to develop MP systems and I can understand why they decided not to pursue it in FE. I will say that I hope Stardock considers adding a MP component at some point, maybe even in an expansion if they want. I personally prefer simultaneous turns but I'm not picky. My reasons for hoping are strictly self serving. I won't say adding MP will massively boost sales (It may help a bit but I have no idea about that sort of thing) and I won't say it will fix everything. I just think it would be wonderful to be able to play this game with my boyfriend. I have really fond memories of playing FFH and RiFE, something my boyfriend never got into. Regardless, I do really enjoy the game as it stands.
multiplayer in most 4x games is just a grunt rush with a different theme park hiding in the sandbox. for this reason i would not play multiplayer because it would not be very fun.
multiplayer games are a whole different monster on every level. Some games are appropriate for multiplayer others arent. Some games are naturally not the best mix for multiplayer - i think FE is one of those games. When i think of a game geared to multiplayer, it takes into account a whole different range of needs and factors than single player.
Fallen Enchantress is fine without multiplayer - if dev's intend to build a whole new multiplayer build that is client to server (like many mmo's) than maybe a multiplayer version that is designed for multiplayer would be a good thing. As is, whoever recruits the best fighting champ and gets flame dart (especially starting with bandit lord) would really make the game unfun for other players.
So if a multiplayer were added the whole game would need to be reconfigured to a war game with other details (civ5) instead of being a theme park built into a sandbox. Hopefully after perfecting the single player aspect, the questions can be asked about how to port this game over to multiplayer and what new needs should be considered to make it different than just another 4x turn based grunt rush with a couple monsters and spells.
Many games boil down to rushing out your basic units and clashing instantly when it turns multiplayer. Way too much to gain with this playstyle compared to a passive one.
Not blowing further time and money on MP is fine with me. Not only do we get the game on time, we got it with additional content that may have been rubbed out in favor of multilayer. Which would suck because you'd have MP but less game content to play with.
And without MP balance isn't as much of an issue as it would have been. People picking purely the meta and steamrolling others who are looking to play for fun is a problem. But with SP if you don't want to play the meta because you prefer a different play-style you can do that without needing to worry too much about certain things being useless. The AI offsets some things being worse, because you can compensate with mushy non-silicon based human brains.
Long time lurker, since Elemental days. Been holding onto my cash until this past weekend. Now I wish I'd done some more research.
I'm not convinced that "multiplayers" are in a vast minority when you factor in how long players who play it to share with friends will continue playing the game. Is multiplayer a less important factor in the initial desire to own the game? Is that it? Because otherwise, I don't know of anyone who prefers playing primarily in a vacuum. In my experience, the number of players preferring multiplayer over single player -- and they'll avoid buying the game if it doesn't have MP -- is larger.
There's always Solitaire et al for those of us that play games for "alone time". In the end, TBS games *beg* for multiplayer. How disappointed I was when I bought it this weekend... and saw that it doesn't have MP. Jeez, guys! Good thing this title was on sale, or I'd have twice the buyer's remorse.
Stardock, we've already waited years; what's months to that? Put it in, please.
I completely disagree, in fact I believe the opposite is true. The long time players of TB strategy games aren't the MP players. They'll get bored and be onto the next hot MP game in short order. The people who will be playing FE for years (as I have played GC2 and the civ games for years) are the people that appreciate an infinitely re-playable, randomized every time, single player experience. Part of this is that the things that make TBS games great (building a civilization from the ground up over a long period of time, focusing on economy, tech research, and diplomacy, and sometimes war) don't translate well when many people are playing a game together.
Just-dead wrong. And I'll link here to a poll about this very topic in the Endless Space forum. NOT the same game, I know. But another great TBS with essentially the same type of players. I think it speaks for itself.
http://forums.amplitude-studios.com/showthread.php?10833-Do-you-prefer-playing-SINGLEPLAYER-or-MULTIPLAYER
I'm going to also link to this pot in the GC2 forums, I couldn't have said it better myself.
https://forums.galciv2.com/98074/page/25/#3214100
After reading Froboys post as a fan of Gal Civ I and II and their DA/TA expansions, I say if people want a multiplayer put your money where your mouth is and buy it as a expansion and not demand it to screw up GC 3.And considering how few people supposedly come on the forums why for the love thats all holy should stardock/Kalypso/whoever monkey about with the game we love because "some" people want to play online for 3-6 months till they get bored and throw it back on their shelf. Whereas those of us that not only play it all the time but come back to it time and time again get shafted with a multiplayer feature we either never wanted or cant use and the developer see's that all their game budget,time and effort go for nought!. Personally I'd rather have a good/great single player game I can keep going back to than a ok/good game that has a major function I cant use or wont use and after I've completed the campaign sits on my shelves gathering dust or thrown away. DONT RUIN GALACTIC CIVILISATIONS,DONT COMPROMISE WHAT MADE US LOVE THIS GAME IN THE 1ST PLACE! ok,rant over - welcomes ban with open arms! sorry for the WoT!
Personally I'd rather have a good/great single player game I can keep going back to than a ok/good game that has a major function I cant use or wont use and after I've completed the campaign sits on my shelves gathering dust or thrown away.
DONT RUIN GALACTIC CIVILISATIONS,DONT COMPROMISE WHAT MADE US LOVE THIS GAME IN THE 1ST PLACE!
ok,rant over - welcomes ban with open arms!
sorry for the WoT!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
