Hey there...
I think the game is shaping up magnificently. Not only has it improved tenfold in terms of mechanics/gameplay - but it also has a rare charm, which is quite elusive and hard to attain for any developer. There's something about the visual style and music which gives it a delightful old-school feel.
That said, I haven't been really able to enjoy singleplayer strategy games for a number of years. It's hard to describe, but I grew up with games like Warlords (Amiga version) and several boardgames - and I always played them with my friends. I also used to play a lot of PnP RPGs - and multiplayer is just that much more meaningful to me.
These days, I can't enjoy a grand strategy game except as "practice" for multiplayer. It feels hollow to compete against an AI, even a good one. Not because it can't be a challenge - but because it's inevitably predictable - and no matter what, you will ALWAYS be able to defeat it after learning the requisite patterns. I fully understand that a lot of people love this process of discovering the AI - and the quirks that go with it - but to me, it's just not the same as playing with/against human opponents. The psychological factors are really entertaining and powerful.
So, while I've already bought WoM (upon release, so I already "own" Fallen Enchantress) - I won't be able to enjoy it unless multiplayer is in the cards.
My question is this:
Do we have any idea of what the chances of it being implemented are? I know they did a poll a while back - and I was hoping the result was motivating in terms of implementing MP.
But, I haven't been following it closely - and I just want to know if anything has been said about it since then?
That is why his mod is looking good.
Add me to the will-buy-for-multiplayer list.
I've played elemental, and I'm curious to see if Fallen Enchantress is as great as I'm told. On the other hand I'm already playing Warlock online and my friends have no plans of buying Fallen Enchantress unless we get multiplayer support.
LAN works fine though. We can always use Hamachi. As long as there is something.
Oh, and an option for asynchronous/simultaneous turns would be fantastic. Sure simultaneous turns can be exploited like hell, but waiting for everyone's turn to finish is quite a pain, and since we're all friends we'll just create some house rules to sort it out anyway.
Just a bump - I want MP too, and relating to a previous post of Brad, I'll be willing to pay for MP DLC
I want MP too. Just depends on time, resources and what direction people want to take the game.
I would much rather that developmental resources were allocated to tweaking and fixing single player and producing more content so that it was perfect (or as perfect as can be) before even considering MP. In fact, if MP weren't considered at all it certainly wouldn't hurt my feelings any.
On the other hand, adding multiplayer is a perfect way to test game balance because players will use every trick in the book to claw their way to the top.
Since typically MP in these types of games doesn't have the number of players the SP has, your assumption that MP is the best way to test isn't necessarily accurate. There have been countless threads and even polls here, and the people who want MP are in the minority. So to rely on the minority to do the testing isn't really a sound plan.
My concern and fear is that if resources are allocated to creating MP functionality that either the SP will undergo unwanted changes to allow for it, or the SP development will stall and it will be a mediocre game. Not every game has to have MP, a solid and enchanting SP game can be every bit as successful, if not moreso.
Stardock rarely makes multiplayer games and represented on the forums are mostly their core fanbase who sticks around here because they are fine with, or even prefer, not having multiplayer in their games. It is far more difficult to count the number of people who read reviews, logged into steam and saw that the game lacked multiplayer and decided to wait, simply because most people will not register on forums simply to request it, and those who do post certainly won't hang around the forums to vote in occasional polls for games they haven't even bought.
I won't be sticking around the forums here either, I haven't bought the game, and so I have little else to do here than ask a few questions and nag about the lack of multiplayer. When and if I do buy the game you'll see more of me.
A single player (any single player) game can be very successful, but moreso than any multiplayer game? The biggest games in this age are always multiplayer games and the trend goes to more multiplayer-oriented games.
That said, single player games are sometimes altered quite a lot when adapted for multiplayer, most obviously for things connected to multiplayer balance. For good or bad since this can both improve and sabotage the single player mode depending on the change.
How about MP kickstarter?
Implement CO-OP, so we at least can play with other people. It would be SUPER easy to do and wouldnt impact the SP experience. Thoughts on this Frogboy???
It would be interesting to see how many SP game went downhill completely because of the addition of MP, as well as number of games that have faded into the mists because of the clamor of alleged fans who wanted MP, then got MP, then never played MP. I would imagine there's been quite a few. This expectation that a game has to have MP in order to be successful or considered modern is a myth.
By who? And what game exactly do you think faded into the mists due to added multiplayer that wouldn't otherwise?
I can easily come up with a list of games that work best for single player alone (Binding of Isaac, Plants vs. Zombies...) but this is a genre where multiplayer typically is a big enhancement to the game and the scope of possible buyers.
Hopefully FE will be a success, and reviews will all mention the "negative" missing of MP.
Then we can hope the next game will have MP implemented.
.
coop in one realm,
coop same faction,
coop multi teams,
add me for all and any.
also,
Game needs 64 bit and huge-er maps!
Wow! They must have seen this and gone back in time to add it.
I want MP too.
Did I miss something? The game is still 32 bit, last I heard.
Sincerely~ Kongdej
It will be interesting to see if the reviewers mention missing multi-player or not. Personally, I don't care, but it would be cool to do.
It's 64 bit aware. So it gets access to 4G of RAM on a 64-bit OS (except on Windows 8 where it sees it all).
I agree completely. In order to be fun, singleplayer has to be unbalanced to a degree or you really cannot have those crazy epic spells or that insanely epic weapon for balance reasons. MP means that all factions, abilities and spells will be balanced down to a bland, boring sameness. And if any one faction's ability or trait is ever percieved as even slightly stronger than any of the others, then all 12 of the people in the world who will actually sit down and play a turnbased MP game lasting hundreds of turns will gnash their teeth and scream loudly for nerfs. After the nerfing, the many thousands of players who actually enjoyed the SP game until adding MP ruined it for them will put the game down and never play it again.
If you want a good example of how constant catering to MP "balance" can ruin the fun in a game, look no further than WoW.
I pray Stardock never adds MP. Not only is it a huge waste of resources to cater to a very, very small, vocal minority, it will kill the epic nature of the game deader than dead. Look at MoM. If MP was added can you imagine the screaming and gnashing of teeth over the "imbalance" of halfling slingers? They'd nerf them right out of the game and that would be just too bad. Adding MP is not always the better option, for TBS games especially, and I really hope they avoid it with FE. If they want to add MP to something, then they can add it to E:WoM. Heck, just make E:WoM MP only and promote it as a reinvented MP game. That would solve two problems.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
