Galactic Civilizations is the only Windows game I've ever worked on that isn't multiplayer.
The first Windows game I developed, Entrepreneur, had multiplayer. It included a built-in chat area and match-making. Stellar Frontier also had multiplayer -- up to 64 players on a persistent world. The Corporate Machine had multiplayer. The Political Machine had multiplayer.
In short, I've worked on a lot of multiplayer games. Moreover, I play multiplayer games. As was pointed out on-line, I played Total Annihilation, Starcraft, Warcraft 3, and several other strategy games a great deal on-line in a "Ranked" capacity. I've tried out nearly every major strategy game from Master of Orion 2 to HOMM 3 to Civ 3:PTW/Civ 4 multiplayer.
From this, I've concluded two things:
1) Some strategy games really benefit from a multiplayer component. Multiplayer extends their "fun" lifespan.
2) Some strategy games don't benefit from multiplayer and the sacrifices made for multiplayer lessened the overall experience.
To people who don't develop games, multiplayer may seem like a simple checkbox feature. Indeed, many developers I've spoken to feel pressured to put multiplayer in because some reviewers will give the game a lower score if it lacks it despite the fact that for most strategy games, the percentage of players playing on-line is very low.
But multiplayer brings sacrifices that many people may not be aware of. Galactic Civilizations II was developed so that multiplayer could be added later (i.e. it passes messages back and forth). But the gameplay was not. We were not willing to sacrifice the single-player experience for multiplayer.
I'm going to give three reasons why multiplayer does not make sense in Galactic Civilizations as part of the base game.
#1 It sacrifices single player features. Ask any game developer whether they be at Ensemble, Paradox, Firaxis, or Big Huge Games, most people play strategy games by themselves on a single computer. What % that is depends on the game. But on a TBS game, I would wager that greater than 95% of players never play a single game on-line even if the option is available -- that includes Civilization IV.
But developing multiplayer is incredibly time-consuming and expensive. In our last game, The Political Machine, a full third of the budget was for multiplayer. The game was ideally suited for multiplayer, published by Ubi Soft it would sell a ton of copies. The game came out and sure enough, only a tiny percent of people played the game multiplayer. That tiny percent didn't justify the 33% budget dedicated to them.
My favorite game of 2005 was Civilization IV. It has multiplayer in it that is as good if not better than any implementation in the history of turn-based games. But what was sacrificed in exchange? There's no campaign. There's no in-depth scenarios. No in-depth random events. You can only trade certain items and techs back and forth no matter what. Do you think this is a coincidence? No random civil wars based on certain criteria? No war-causing assasinations? No crusades? Not even once in a long while? I suspect that there were a lot of concepts and features that Civ IV would have had if it didn't have multiplayer.
When we were making Galactic Civilizations II, we took a poll on multiplayer. Only a small percentage of GalCiv I players cared about it. We took additional polls since multiplayer advocates were so vocal. Same thing.
So instead, Galactic Civilizations II got ship design and a campaign. I think most people would agree that we could have taken GalCiv I, slapped a 3D engine on it, given it multiplayer and been in good shape. But can anyone who's played the beta imagine the game without ship design? And when you play the campaign, I think you'll find that was worth it too.
Moreover, players get a lot more single player experience. There are rare events that players may only see once in a great while but they're worth it -- a religions war that breaks empires in pieces. New republics formed from remnants of shattered civilizations. Civil wars. Precursor ships found on worlds. Powerful artifacts that slowly increase the power of a given civilization so that everyone has to team up on them. Terrorists. On and on. In multiplayer, this would all have to be turned off, but then again, if there had been multiplayer, whey develop any of this at all if it wasn't always going to be used?
Similarly, there's diplomacy. Last night, I played as the galactic arms dealer. The Drengin and Torians were at war and I was supplying both sides with ships for money. I then took that money and slowly bought up the worlds of dying civilizations. That kind of flexibility in diplomacy would be a nightmare in multiplayer, you'd have to put all kinds of restrictions in the name of balance.
#2 The majority ends up subsidizing the minority. Outside some game reviewers and people who have friends who are really into this stuff, most people don't know other people on-line to play these games with. And let's face it, playing a turn-based strategy game with strangers is an excercise in frustration (I am not sure I've ever actually managed to complete a TBS on-line without the other player either dropping or quitting prematurely).
Galactic Civilizations II is $40. Not $50. That $10 may not seem like a lot to some people but to many gamers it makes a difference. Check out the prices on the latest multiplayer strategy games -- they're $49.99. Part of that price is to subsidize the multiplayer component that only a tiny percentage of users will play.
If there's sufficient demand for multiplayer, we'll do it -- but as an expansion. Those who want multiplayer can then buy it and those who don't aren't forced to pay for it. And everyone wins because they saved $10 in the first place.
Because of the Metaverse, GalCiv II already has multiplayer plumbing. We even have a multiplayer design. But it'll cost money and time to implement it. So if there's demand, we'll do it. But it has to be demand in raw numbers, not just vocalness of the people who want it.
#3 It would have changed the design priorities.
When you design from the start to be a good multiplayer experience you have to make sure the game is streamlined -- particular the interface. So things that might slow the multplayer pacing tend to come out.
Galactic Civilizations has lots of mini-cut scenes in it. Things to help the player enjoy and savor the civilization they've created. The technology tree is huge and designed to linger through and pick just the right one. The ship design is full of extras that are there so that players can make cool looking ships. The battle screen was implemented to be not just functional but fun to watch. The planetary details screens include quotes from random citizens and there's flavor text all over. Each civilization has its own vocabulary based on who it is talking to (i.e. how a Torian talks to a Terran is different than how they would talk to a Drengin).
But a good multiplayer game has to be far more streamlined. You don't want to have core features that encourage users to do anything but move their units and make their decisions efficiently. Take a look carefully at any decent multiplayer games recently and notice how efficient they are. Efficient is great in a multiplayer game. But in a single player game, there is something to be said I think for inefficiency -- for fluff.
And because we designed the game from the ground up to be a single player experience, Galactic Civilizations II has a LOT of fluff:
The screenshot below, I designed all the ships in this particular game. Every new game I make new ships. Why? Because it's fun. It's not efficient though from a sheer "get to the next turn quickly" point of view:
And what's the point of sitting there watching your ships battle it out?
In fact, there's a ton of things that involve reading quite a bit of text. There's a lot of customization within the game that has no "point" other than to let players indulge in the civilization they've created.
It's not that a game with multiplayer can't have these things. Civilization IV has the Civpedia for instance. But the tendancy in a good multiplayer game is to move the text and other stuff out of the way during gameplay and out to a place where it's looked at at ones leisure. And that's a good idea in a multiplayer designed game.
But these days, nearly all games are designed with multiplayer in mind. And for people who have no shortage of choices on multiplayer, it's nice to have a good old fashioned single player experience where you can sit down and indulge yourself to the full experience.
I remember a game called Master of Magic back in the early 90s. It was a great game. But it was only a great game because it was single-player. The things that made it really neat would have been a disaster in multiplayer.
And that's really the point -- multiplayer is a feature. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. In some RPGs sometimes they're better being single player (Knights of the Old Republic) and sometimes they're better being multiplayer (Neverwinter Nights).
For those who think multiplayer is a must in strategy games I hope this post has at least made the case that maybe sometimes multiplayer doesn't belong in the base game.
We know how to make multiplayer games. We had the budget to make GalCiv II a multiplayer game if we wanted. We like multiplayer games. But we felt that GalCiv II would be a better game if multiplayer was not part of the base game.
There are good multiplayer games out there, and invariably when they're designed around that they don't fail to deliver in that arena. Thing is, multiplayer is something that really has to be incorportaed early on in the design process, to be done well. A game company shouldn't simply cater to the multiplayer crowd to be trendy.
All I'd want is such an old-fashioned MP-mode as you are happily looking backwards at - I don't want any "balancing" for sure, as I too think it usually would kill off the SP experience.
(Actually, I'd agree with you on W3 vs. WoW; I even think the reducing of the creeps and items on several maps that happened with the later patches of W3 because of the ladder did reduce the gaming experience - actually the creeps were a main reason why I got interested in W3 to begin with.)
And from what I've read now and then (granted, it's been a long time I last looked into this topic), at least some of the other people clamouring for "multiplayer" seem to view this in the same light - so to all people discussing here: Please don't just split everything up in "pro" and "contra" MP, there are some shades in between that should be given some thought. Thank you.
You seem to think about a MP-mode with competition through ladders and whatnot... I'd simply like the principial ability to play with/against a friend now and then to have our empires and ship designs occassionally "meet" each other ;o) .
Actually, from what I recall, there already IS a sort of limited MP capability already in the game, explained somewhere at the start of the "did you know you could do this"-thread :
https://forums.galciv2.com/102205
qoute: "#5 You can play a quasi-Hot seat game with someone by loading up the game as GalCiv2 cheat (use the cheat parameter). Then when you set up the game, you let the AI play out a few turns and then have your friend pick one of the races they want to control. Have them select that unit and hit CTRL-SHIFT-Z."
Granted, I didn't yet test this "cheat-MP" out, nor do I know if it still works with the expansion packs (hopefully it does) ... But still:
What I'd like is just a somewhat more polished form of this "cheat", with some menus and such, and eventually without the neccessity to cheat. Just an option in the game creation menu to set a number of players, assign them to specific races, and then switch automatically (instead of by manually selecting ships) through only these species in the game (so nobody gets tempted to cause confusion in AI empires that threaten them, which would, as far as I understood it, be possible when using the cheat-MP).
[edit: Ok, I forgot - you'd also need a way to give your "ambassador" (the AI that answers' to other players diplomatic negotiations for you) some orders.
I'd gues this one could get pretty complex... a starting point might be if you could somewhere set a "relations"-slider for how well (or bad ;o) ) your mood towards another species is. That wouldn't keep other players from dealing stuff that you didn't want to deal with them, though, and so there would yet another menu - with settings towards each other human player - be needed.
Seems this gets complex pretty quickly ... Anyway, for the moment I'd be happy with just the non-edited stuff above, this edited part here would be a bonus, so to say . ]
Networking would be a bonus, but without it one would still have (and, as stated, already nearly has) hotseat and play-by-email.
It's no ladder, server or whatever, but it should be enough - all I want is some menus and to make it a legal game mode, thank you .
[edited because I first forgot the link and then tried out url-tags, which didn't work]
[another edit:]
Conversely to Antar2004, I'm mostly waiting for GC3 because I hope for a more detailed battle system, like the one in MO2. Which would propably need tactical battle, and several people from Stardock pretty firmly said that won't be in before GC3 (which sadly still doesn't guarantee it being in in GC3, but at least I can hope); the reason I remember for this is that they said it would be hard to make the AI properly use such a complicated system.
Thus, I hope for GC3; but in the meantime a better MP-mode then this cheat (read above) would be a nice thing.
@Marvin Kosh:
A simple battle-viewer-MP is just what I don't want. I want to really have built up the empires that send these fleets into battle; playing around with the simulator in SE V was a lot less atmospheric then a real game of MO2 versus the AI (not to say anything bad about SE V - I couldn't yet get me to a real game of it, I'm just talking about simulator vs. full game).
And about "full" MP - as I and several others stated, we don't WANT "full" MP in the sense of balancing/ladder/whatever, just the game as it is now with some more "options" so to say, and maybe also networking code.
And about having the right features: GC2 does have the right features by now, wouldn't you think? So by now it might be a good idea to add at least a limited MP (as I described above). Of course I'm not saying I wouldn't want even better features - but the game already IS good, and adding a simple form of MP shouldn't remove that, controversially to what some people like you seem to suggest. Of course I'd also like more and improved stuff, but (again, simple) MP would be a part of that stuff I'd like.
And like you can possibly see from my pointing out of "simple" MP, I don't want an MP community that the development of the game thereafter would be sort of addicted to (see my comment to W3 above). But new people might encounter GC2 in LAN parties or whatever and get a first taste of it, eventually later wanting to play it in SP; I'd guess that might be a bit of what kevinlrt and others suggested.
About the length of this thread - people who don't buy the game because of lack of MP propably never will register here. The point is that even from those who did buy it, there seem to be quite some who'd like to have some sort of MP; how many would like it and don't post here because they never registered I can't say, but chances are it'll be more than those who are arguing positive for MP here...
And for boredom during turns - well, if you play with friends you could chat a bit with them while setting up your turn. And after all, they should have something to setup, too. Actually I lately played a bit of MO2 that way, guess which other game wasn't available for doing so... ;o)
@Coplann:
Good comparison, that example about politicians (though I'd hope there are at least a few of them that aren't like that...) .
Well, think about the sort of tactics that you employ to wipe out AI players. You're not going to be able to do 'that' or worse, you will get yelled at if you do 'this' when playing against a fellow meatbag. Quite annoyingly, different meatbags will disagree about whether 'this' or 'that' should be allowed.
That's what I mean by having multiplayer designed in from day one. Adding a few menus and buttons doesn't make a game a good or even passable multiplayer experience because it doesn't necessarily make the rules of that game fair to accomodate the meatbags. Yes, you may say that it would be fun to play against your friend, but just wait until he spores all your planets in one turn. Oh yeah, that's fun, you'll say.
Well, why not? After all it belongs to the game... In such a case it'd be time to for gratulations and the next session - of course a bit anger sometimes included, but that goes for all MP games, I'd say.
Of course missing possibilities to control your diplomatic ambassador might make for some not-so-nice situations ("WHY did you let yourself be talked into declaring war on <insert mighty empire>, you FOOL? Wardens, get away with him!!" ;o) ) .
I have not, and will not purchase any of the expansions for this game because there is no multiplayer. I have voted with my dollars.
Also... as I recall, stardock made it clear that no further meaningful patches will get released now for gc2
so don't get your hopes up !
ho I don't think I ever said the only valid reason of why I only play singleplayer 90% of the time except with very few selected friends in LAN only
Lately I borrowed COD4 Modern Warfare from a friend, great game ! (yeah I know, I'll probably buy it once I get the budget sometime). I just loved the single player experience. A few frustrating moments with a very scripted campaign. So I was considering going to play online but first I searched for "online cheats Call of Duty 4" and here enough, there actually IS online cheating, no doubt to be had about that. So yeah sure some would say : "you just have to pick friends & trusted players". You know what ? I once got a cheat for myself in LAN play just to see if my friends would be able to tell if I was cheating or not. None was able to see it, why ? cause I was discrete and not abusing the cheat as some do, just enough to give me an edge. (I told them after and we had a good laugh)
anyway ... depending on the type of games there is other gripes like :
- lag when there's trouble at some point on the network/server or whatever ...
- freezes when my girlfriend suddenly download a file or loads 100000000 webpages at the same time
- people not trying to fight to the bitter end and disconnecting from strategic games when they see that it ain't turning in their favor
The point is : you have to be good enough to search and spot the "good games" the "good players" which should also be around your skill level and really I find this "shit" boring.
ho and lastly if you're not convinced then here it is : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28lFl5Jgpbg (found with "cod 4 aimbot")
I would happily pay for an expansion that offered MP capability. I play CivIV online with a friend of mine. We're in the military and stationed in different continents and it's great to be able to sit down and still spend time with eachother. I love GalCiv and I have the expansions as well. I'm not looking for balancing. Personally I prefer games that arent entirely balanced. I mean, if you have 2-4 people that consistently play with eachother, this person is better or this person sucks etc etc... But with random events the mighty can be brought low and vice versa. Plus, everyone has the same chance to get the same random events so it's basically balanced anyways. I would be fine with a hotseat only multiplayer only, because I have several friends here at this base that I play Heros of M&M with hotseat and CivIV hotseat. Some of my friends are extremely creative also and make cool looking stuff. But it doesn't need to be 'balanced for multiplayer'. I think if MP gets implemented you might want to add an extra options screen for different variables you can turn on and off, so that if people want the more balanced experience they can have it. Or in my case it would be more likely if they wanted to start out on the same team/solar system/etc because I play cooperatevely with my friends usually. So we always try to start out near eachother so we can help eachother out.
I think most people would be happy if there was no balancing done, leave everything as is.
As far as I can see all you need is the ways to play, most people would be hapy with hotseat and IP - IP/Lan.
The only aterations to gameplay would be diplomacy/negotiations between Humans.
I would say have a chat box to discuss what it to be proposed, when the details have been thrashed out, then 1 player can request a meeting, the oher accepts, and the make the offer of what what agreed in the chat, the other player then acepts (or declines it).
If this was implemented, then I would be happy and willing to pay for it (expansion pack) for around £10 - £20. I would also be introducing other playeys to the game series.
I would also consider buying the other expansion packs if the additional content was playable in the multiplayer.
I don't think it would take much time to implement these changes. And even if it was charged at £5 I am sure you would have enough purchases within 1 week to cover the expense of the design/release process.
The reason that people want the IP - IP way is to play against friends only, I can agree with the single player advocates the MP servers and match making are crap on strategy games, you get a bunch of imatture kids quiting and whinging, or you get people with build orders etc. to get the win as eficiently as possible. then it is not so much a game, more a list of instructions, with no fun factor.
The fact is this game is really good, and people want to share their enjoyment with their friends and familly.
I have only felt this way once before with Civilisation on the Amiga, I wanted hot Seat multi play so bad. So please take that as a compliment on the game itself.
Sadly, I just can't justify the purchase of any more Galactic civ products without the inclusion of multiplayer. My time is limited, and I want to play games with my friends and with my wife. I just don't see the argument here as being valid. This game is addictive and fun, but I just really do not see how multiplayer would ruin the single player experience. It sounds like a total cop out. Why can't there be good content while still having a solid single player?
I have spend well over 100 hours playing Civ IV multiplayer and I still play it single player from time to time. The inclusion of multiplayer in civ certainly did not ruin the single player, and I don't see how it would do it here. I think some of the depth that would be lost by such a transition is grossly over estimated.
I am really just dumbfounded by the refusal to implement multiplayer, as well as people who so strongly advocate not having it. The exclusion of multiplayer in this game is glaring - almost every game I have bought in the past 10 years has had multiplayer, and 90% of the time the single player experience is still deep and satisfying.
I love this game, and am really disappointed in it not having multiplayer. Basically I have been neglecting this game since I bought it over Civ because I can play civ with other people. No other reason than that. So I hope the franchise continues, but I will not buy Gal Civ III unless it has a multiplayer component. I would play this over civ if it had a multiplayer, but since it doesn't, it is collecting dust.
IF THEY WERE TO RELEASE A MULTIPLAYER EXPANSION I WOULD BUT 2 COPIES THE SAME DAY
I WOULD TALK MY SISTER AND ALL MY FRIENDS INTO BUYING IT AS WELL ... $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ WE ARE TALKING AT LEAST 6-7 SALES JUST FROM PEOPLE WHO NEVER BOUGHT THE ORIGINAL GAME BECAUSE THEY PLAY MOSTLY MULTIPLAYER GAMES....
I don't think there should be any kind of MP "balancing" done. I think the arguments against more time than is necessary to simply set up a MP provision are spot on. This isn't a real time shooter, and I don't want it treated like one. MP, if desired and included, should be hotseat/LAN/Direct Connect ONLY. And I'd never buy a turn-based game that tried to cater to multi-player...or any strategy game that tried to do so in any way. I've never played Civ MP. And I've never wanted to. I never wanted to play MOO that way either. I've played Europa Universalis II in a pseudo-hotseat campaign. And that was fun. But that's an entirely different game.
I love that this thread is still going 3 years after posting.
lol. When I saw a quick reply I thought I had accidently done some "grave-digging." But 10 days isn't "too" long on most forums. hehe So I may be a necromancer...but not a forum necro.
so bad... swapping over here from sins of a solarempire to look if there now is a multiplayeraddon aviable for galciv. But still nothing there. My last look at this forum was 1 year ago i think. As a legal owner of Galciv I i will never give up the hope that there will be a Multiplayermode for Galciv 2 or maybe 3. I have a Cover with a String: "Money for Galciv 2" on my table for over a year now.
At the moment Sins of a solar empire saved my life with his multiplayermode. I realy like coop modes. I Dont need multiplayer servers or lobby. I just need an option for a direct connection over ip. I would pay extra for this mod
i know, your thought are 3 years old frogboy , but i hope you will take the time to read my answer. You have written, why muplitplay isnt for Galciv 2. Just let my talk about."To people who don't develop games, multiplayer may seem like a simple checkbox feature. Indeed, many developers I've spoken to feel pressured to put multiplayer in because some reviewers will give the game a lower score if it lacks it despite the fact that for most strategy games, the percentage of players playing on-line is very low."I think its much more esier to make MP for Galvic as for games like Sins of a solar empire f.e., because u dont have problems with Latency and syncing.I am not sure if its true that there are only a few players playing online. I just can speak for me and my freinds. We often play multiplayer on LAN or over a direct connection. We dont need a lobby or sometning like that. We play for fun, mostly together. We often play games on Singleplayer too, but mostly to gain expierience for our MPgames. Why should a play a singleplayer game over and over again, if i cant use my expierence against or with friend. ?f.e. Sins of a solarempire: we play 3 times a week at the moment."I'm going to give three reasons why multiplayer does not make sense in Galactic Civilizations as part of the base game.#1 It sacrifices single player features. Ask any game developer whether they be at Ensemble, Paradox, Firaxis, or Big Huge Games, most people play strategy games by themselves on a single computer. What % that is depends on the game. But on a TBS game, I would wager that greater than 95% of players never play a single game on-line even if the option is available -- that includes Civilization IV."We still playing Hearts of iron from paradox online. But never against strangers, just against friends by direct connection. I would never play Hearts of iron for over a year, if dont can use my gained expierence with/against friends. If i have a Singleplayegame only, i mosty play it for a month or two. But i play games with MPpossibillity for a much longer time, because i learn on singleplayer for multiplayer."But developing multiplayer is incredibly time-consuming and expensive. In our last game, The Political Machine, a full third of the budget was for multiplayer. The game was ideally suited for multiplayer, published by Ubi Soft it would sell a ton of copies. The game came out and sure enough, only a tiny percent of people played the game multiplayer. That tiny percent didn't justify the 33% budget dedicated to them."
iam not sure how do u can see how many players play games with direct connection if your software isnt sending informations to you""My favorite game of 2005 was Civilization IV. It has multiplayer in it that is as good if not better than any implementation in the history of turn-based games. But what was sacrificed in exchange? There's no campaign. There's no in-depth scenarios. No in-depth random events. You can only trade certain items and techs back and forth no matter what. Do you think this is a coincidence? No random civil wars based on certain criteria? No war-causing assasinations? No crusades? Not even once in a long while? I suspect that there were a lot of concepts and features that Civ IV would have had if it didn't have multiplayer."yes, but we (me, and my friend) hadnt played it for a so long timeLook at Sins of a solar empire. This game has no capaign, but we still playing it frequently. Look at the forums. Yes there are people who want a campaign, (me too). But you cant read so much posts about the needing of a campaing, as on galciv forums about MP. I havent seen people who said i only buy it if it gets a campain Okay, i dont know which one has sold more copies, so maybe i cant compare this two games.I played galciv 1 just for 2-3 month. But i play sins since the release."When we were making Galactic Civilizations II, we took a poll on multiplayer. Only a small percentage of GalCiv I players cared about it. We took additional polls since multiplayer advocates were so vocal. Same thing."
Thats sad, maybe MPlayers dont visit a forum from a singleplayergame so often. On most forums u have to register before you can post.
"So instead, Galactic Civilizations II got ship design and a campaign. I think most people would agree that we could have taken GalCiv I, slapped a 3D engine on it, given it multiplayer and been in good shape. But can anyone who's played the beta imagine the game without ship design? And when you play the campaign, I think you'll find that was worth it too."
I agree. Maybe u try it with a MPAddon for some Money for Galciv 3. But i think u have to release it nearly to the release of the SP version. How much copies of a Multiplayeraddon has to be sold if u will take 9 $ for it ? Maybe you start a preorder test "Moreover, players get a lot more single player experience. There are rare events that players may only see once in a great while but they're worth it -- a religions war that breaks empires in pieces. New republics formed from remnants of shattered civilizations. Civil wars. Precursor ships found on worlds. Powerful artifacts that slowly increase the power of a given civilization so that everyone has to team up on them. Terrorists. On and on. In multiplayer, this would all have to be turned off, but then again, if there had been multiplayer, whey develop any of this at all if it wasn't always going to be used?"Why u would turn off thins great things. Many Multiplayers just want to play together or just for fun, not for laddergames or so. What a great new MP experience when ure empire suddenly devided by religion and u have to fight with your friends against it. Artifact are great too. sins of a solarempire have some too. there is realy no reason to switch it of. Let the gamers decide what the like to turn of. Just make an option for that."Similarly, there's diplomacy. Last night, I played as the galactic arms dealer. The Drengin and Torians were at war and I was supplying both sides with ships for money. I then took that money and slowly bought up the worlds of dying civilizations. That kind of flexibility in diplomacy would be a nightmare in multiplayer, you'd have to put all kinds of restrictions in the name of balance."Maybe u cant use that diplomacy like in singleplayer, But u still can use it. In coopmodes u can use it full."#2 The majority ends up subsidizing the minority. Outside some game reviewers and people who have friends who are really into this stuff, most people don't know other people on-line to play these games with. And let's face it, playing a turn-based strategy game with strangers is an excercise in frustration (I am not sure I've ever actually managed to complete a TBS on-line without the other player either dropping or quitting prematurely)."Just true, i wouldnt play it with strangers. But i think there a many people like us who have a greater community for this kind of games. "Galactic Civilizations II is $40. Not $50. That $10 may not seem like a lot to some people but to many gamers it makes a difference. Check out the prices on the latest multiplayer strategy games -- they're $49.99. Part of that price is to subsidize the multiplayer component that only a tiny percentage of users will play."If there's sufficient demand for multiplayer, we'll do it -- but as an expansion. Those who want multiplayer can then buy it and those who don't aren't forced to pay for it. And everyone wins because they saved $10 in the first place.Because of the Metaverse, GalCiv II already has multiplayer plumbing. We even have a multiplayer design. But it'll cost money and time to implement it. So if there's demand, we'll do it. But it has to be demand in raw numbers, not just vocalness of the people who want it."sounds great. Maybe u try it with a preorder. just look if people would preorder it. Just say a number: "If we get xxxx preorders we make a addon" #3 It would have changed the design priorities.Many points in #3 are good points. Shipdesign is very time expensive. so maybe its better u have prebuild designs ready from youre singleplayergames. I think u just have to try the preorder. Maybe its a good choice to wait for the next Galciv, because most Multiplayergamers arent reading the forum anymore.
Hope will die at last....
Glory to the Unity
Unic
by the way. Spambars post is grat and hits the nerfes.
LOSE ship design? egads. That's one of the favorite parts of the game for the player base as is. That's close to making a fantasy game with no magic. Sorry, bad idea. If I have to trade ship design to get a coop MP mode, heck no. Not even a fair trade.
My games usually last for days. I like to play whenever I have a bit of time. Witha family of 5 that bit offree time is hard to get at. Multiplayer games are not for me. I prefer everything be for a single player game. There are so many multi player games out there we can certainly have one that is single player.
I stopped playing mmo because I just did not have time to get online everyday to play it. If I want to play with a friend I'll get my board game out and we'll play a game. Sacrificing anything single game option to put in multiplayer is a bad move in my opinion.
I think that Galactic Civilizations is one of the finest Space 4X games around. I got my friend Gabe into the game but I forgot the game only had Metaverse. He and I are willing to spend days, weeks, months on a Massive game against AI ect ect. I just wanted to say that I would like to see something like this implemented into GC3. (and keep a scoring system up for a metaverse)
I really like playing games with my close friends and I really enjoy games like GC2 but so far I cannot enjoy having both. Sins is a great alternative but its just not the same without the massive depth.
Aaron
I registered just to post on this topic. I bought this game because it does not have MP. Period. I have been looking for a good SP experience and am glad I found this. I like knowing I don't have the option to go online. I have several games that the MP is so different from the SP that I get really frusterated with both.
So you bought the game because it doesn't have multiplayer and that is the ONLY reason. I find that hard to believe. I guess gameplay, AI, length of play, graphics... none of that have anything to do with it.
I guess I could have worded it differently. But obviously I bought the game for multitiude of reasons. I'm burned out on online play.
So do I. Let us never forget the OP.
Just picked this game up and I love it.
Please add a mutiplayer option!
Still no multiplayer add-on (that was already planned for and able to be done), meanwhile Sins of a Solar Empire and Sword of the Stars are great and have mp.
Let's say (just for example purposes) that someone has a body part that they budget 33% (or even much greater) time and resources into exercising....But there ends up being little or no payoff stemming from that major time/money-sink thusly making it seem like dead weight and not worth any further development.
Should they then cut their losses so to speak, or go ahead and keep it just in case? I'm betting on keeping it, surely there will be demand for it sooner or later, after all, a body kept whole is better prepared to move forward than one torn asunder for the sake of perceived practicality.
There will always be a need for multiplayer in games of this nature, just about any game this side of Myst actually. Does that mean that everyone is forced to play it mp? No. But choice is always better. Is it a drag trying to play a turn based game online with strangers? Yes, it can be. But I imagine there are alot of people whom have a network of gaming friends that are into playing this game amongst themselves, free from any online randomness like that.
The chip on their shoulder that some of the industry and even some of the gamers have about removing the mp experience from games of this type is frightening. I hoped that it would end here, but unfortunately games such as 1404AD have come out that cry and bleed for mp to no avail. Stop this disease before it spreads any further. At the current rate, by the time Half-Life 5 comes out, games will be nothing more than watching a movie with the occassional multiple choice dialogue option to choose.
There are GAMES and there are BOOKS and MOVIES. Guess which ones are for gameplay value and which ones are for story.
I am by no means anti-SP, nor am I anti-story, but for heaven's sake, get the word BOTH back in the vocabulary.
This is not an attack on anyone, I'm just about to go postal if any more great games can't be played with friends.
The ship designer
Customizable races
Good AI
Diplomacy victory
Super abilities
Differing tech trees
None of these would be possible in multiplayer. Do you honestly believe that Stardock should budget a huge amount of money in order to remove what made the game great in the first place? You wouldn't be playing GalCiv 2 with your friends, you'd be playing a hollow shell of a 4X with the GalCiv name slapped on the box.
Any chance you can actually prove that none of things are possible in a multiplayer game, or are you saying this because it hasn't been done which doesn't actually mean it can't be done?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
