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.
Diplomacy victory wouldn't be possible due to it being so abusable. Get a bunch of guys together, everybody allies, and everybody has a win on their record! Yay!
Differing tech trees and super abilities would be out due to obvious, major balance issues. Customizable races would be the same, but to a lesser degree. They'd have to be neutered so thoroughly that they might as well not be in at all.
For the ship designer and good AI, look at the OP: a whole bunch of effort for something that would be worthless - or even counterproductive - in multiplayer.
So even if that stuff wound up in the game, they wouldn't wind up in multiplayer. Thus multiplayer would not just be "GalCiv2 with friends", it'd be a sorry excuse for the game with your friends.
That's just bs. Every play EU3? There are major balance issues in that game depending on which country you start. If you play with others, no one starts equal and no one will wind up equal in the end either. Varying tech trees, entirely possible if a company actual took the time to actual think it through. If you play with the right people, designing ships wouldn't be a problem at all. The problem with this no multiplayer or die syndrome around here is everything is convinced that a GalCiv with multiplayer would be the most awful product ever imagined. There is no proof that woudl be even close to the case, and who says it would even have to be a clone of GalCiv 2 with multiplayer. Take in in a different direction for god's sake. Since when did the gaming industry suddenly become so stagnant in everyone's eyes.
*EU3 sounds like it wouldn't be any fun to play online with all the unbalanced crap you mention. Personally, I prefer to have fun when playing online, not to get stomped by some broken combo as I'm being told, "omg j00 is teh suxzorz n00b!!!!111"
*Read the OP regarding the ship designer.
*"Actually took the time to think it through"? Have you seen GC2's tech tree(s)? It's hard enough to balance tech trees as small as what you find in games like StarCraft or DoW. Trying to balance twelve wildly differing versions of the ungodly monstrosity of a tech tree that you find in a 4X, much less doing so to the point where they're usable in multiplayer is a horror I would not wish on anybody.
*I never said that putting multiplayer in GC2 would make it terrible, I said that it comes with a big cost. And yes, in order for a game to be GC2 with multiplayer, it has to be GC2 with multiplayer. The game that would result from adding multiplayer - the game that you say you want - would not be GC2. It wouldn't necessarily be a bad game, but it wouldn't be GC2
*"Take in a different direction". Leaving out multiplayer is about as different a direction as it gets in today's game market
Way to talk about a game you know nothing about. Well that pretty much sums up the rest of your post too. Nothing left to read here. moving on.
You say yourself there are major balance issues in EU3. Balance is the cornerstone of multiplayer because otherwise, MP devolves into whoever can pull out their broken combo first. This means that by your own admission, EU3's multiplayer is drastically flawed. If GC2 were going to have multiplayer, I would sure as hell hope that it was better than what even you describe as a fundamentally broken system.
Of course, it doesn't really pertain to the discussion because you yourself say that you do not actually want multiplayer GC2, you want a multiplayer game with GC2 written on the box.
Here are some conditions that might make it easier to imagine multiplayer GalCiv being possible:
Most, if not all, of those are listed in the OP as changes that would have to be made. As such, they have already been responded to.
Since SEIV and even ol' MOO2 have multiplayer capability, it would seem that DA could be made to have it, as well.
Playing with/against humans would just provide another option. If I have read the post right on those other boards, many of the MP games are LAN with only humans. In fact, one could make the MP option preclude AIs, if one wanted. In any case, in an all-human game, the playing field is leveled. Sure, the diplomacy stuff would be ignored, but it'd be another game, that's all. Legs.
I still recall some of the old MOO2 LAN games I played. We'd stick an AI or two in there with us, but we'd make them the equivalent of Suicidal or genius. In another, most of the guys wanted to play Starcraft, but a couple of us did not want RTS. So, we fired up MOO2, and had the two of us agree that we would ally and take on all the others, as if we were, well Terrans and Alterians in GC2.
In SEIV, one option is to make all the AIs be instantly and always hostile towards human players to the point of declaring war at first contact. It prevented most AI abuse.
I like GC2 as-is, it's just that most of the reasons I see given for no multiplayer do not seem to make sense, at least for LAN or even e-mail games (though the latter would likely outlast the heat death of the universe on largest settings). yes, it would play like a different game as multiplayer, but it would be a playable game, and another option for customers. I would probably rarely (if ever) play it as MP, but I've already bought the game - they have my money. With MP as an option, maybe some more would buy it.
First I would like to say I never buy single player games EVER! Me and my girlfriend play CIV 4 on the lan and countless other RTS games and I was dissapointed to find this game is single player only... Why is there no mods online that implement a Lan based or Hotseat based multiplayer!!!!!?!??! IF ANYONE knows of any mods to make this game playable between 2 people then Email me at razoroflight@comcast.net
It can't be modded in because it would require changes to the protected files (.exe and such) and base code.
Get over it. GalCiv2 will never be multiplayer.
Your first statement was fine. The last two... People have been asking for multiplayer for GalCiv2 since it was released. Should I tell you to get it over it? People will always ask for GalCiv to be multiplayer?
I haven't read all 22 pages of this thread, but I'd just like to toss in a vote for multiplayer. I can see why you wouldn't want to have a PvP multiplayer due to all of the issues mentioned in the original post, but I would really like to be able to do a comp-stomp with a few of my friends. All of the features and random events would work great in this setting, because you would be playing with friends, and can form your own agreements. Notice ship design taking too long? Then just agree that you only do it every X turns, or do it while you are waiting for the turn to end. Don't want to watch too many ship battles? Agree than you only watch fleet vs fleet, or none at all. Find a game-breaking combo? Agree not to use it anymore, or crank up the difficulty. Whatever. The point is you're playing with people you know (at least somewhat) and are playing together, so most of the issues raised are moot.
GalCiv2 is a tonne of fun, and I would much rather be playing it than Civ4, but we keep going back to it because there is no multiplayer offering in GalCiv. The AI in Civ4 is retarded, and lets face it, space ships are cool. Just make an expansion giving us co-op multiplayer, we'd gladly pay for it.
I understand that adding internet and network multiplayer to a game like GalCiv could be complicated. But whats so hard about hotseat mode?
If engine limitations are the main problem, then when could we start to look forward to GalCiv 3, with new engine and mutiplayer? Sins was a major success, so what about to revolutionize turn-based multiplayer space strategy genre too? Turn based games without multiplayer never unleash they full fun potential. Even not so good game could be fun when played with friends. Imagine great game like GalCiv over multi! Like GalCiv squared!
The problem with turn-based strategy is that unless the decisions you make are trivially easy, there's a serious time factor once you start playing big maps.
Granted, you could break the bigger galaxy maps up into interesting small maps that don't require so much average time per turn, meaning that you still have the big strategy element but you aren't bogged down with reports and numbers for the whole galaxy at once. Multiplayer galactic campaigns which twist and turn depending on the outcome of the small maps would be cool. It would give the victory conditions a whole new dimension anyway.
But with multplayer you still lose the ability to play with the shipyard to create a ship which is both functional and aesthetically pleasing. Unless you have predesigned all your variants in advance, anyway. You could go the direction SPORE did and let other player designs be available to you when you need one, but then you'd need filtering controls.
One of the main slowdowns in the shipyard is the lack of cosmetic component grouping/cloning. If you need three or four components to make something which attaches to one hardpoint and looks cool, wouldn't it be great if you could glue them together and copy them around your ship as if they're one component?
Another good thing to add to the shipyard, rather than joining components together using hardpoints, you could make them socketable i.e. they change shape depending on what they're attaching to. For example, so that struts mold onto the hull of a ship and onto the nacelles they support. This reduces the number of components that you need to get other components into the right position so they actually look like they're joined.
The other angle to consider is that maybe the arrangement of components could become a more important factor in ship design, meaning that it would be more acceptable to spend time getting a design right. I'm not saying that this is necessarily a great new level to the game, but I know that I would be inclined to put point-defence near my ship's engines if missiles tended to home in on them, and having to spend a turn repairing engines was something I could ill afford.
Win on their record? What would be the point of creating a multiplayer game only to ally all players and win? I dont understand. The same could be done in Age of Empires, and its not a problem. What record? MP would not be Metaverse, its not recorded.
Tech trees and superabilities are already balanced. Why do you think they get unbalanced in multiplayer? Why there have to be difference between AI tech tree and human tech tree? There isnt now, and it works perfect. The only little problem I can see are diplomacy techs for human-human interaction.
Whats the problem with customisable races?
Ship designer would not be a problem in LAN or hotseat mode with friends. Thats all majority of people here is asking for.
All these game design "problems" claimed to prevent MP are easily fixable..
I too would like to toss my vote into the adding of Multiplayer to the game, particularly a PBeM / Hot Seat mode. I have a group of friends all over the world (London, North Carolina, California, etc) and we play PBeM Civ IV constantly since it's impossible for us to meet up at the same time to play a regular multiplayer mode.
I haven't played GalCiv II in a while myself, but if PBeM was added in, I'd jump back in and easily drag a bunch of folks with me.
Maybe im part of the, what is sounding rather small at the moment, multiplayer fan group. But, I like single and Multi. I think it as an expansion would be an awesome idea. Me and a budy of mine have done TBS's co-op since we were 16/17 whether it was hotseat or LAN or however it had to work. It added a different type of game play, building as a cooperative, and our builds were specifically to build with each other, and we had alot of fun doing that over the years, infact, we still would play MOO2 together. I agree that at some point, some morons you see online can make things a drag, but, perhaps I am WAY off, I figured that the 12YO's would be stuck on simpler fast paced games as well.
I think multiplayer as an expansion would be beyond AWESOME, and hope it happens, but from I am reading here, sounds like it won't
Im really not going to sound like part of the masses here, but I didn't complete the Dread Lords campaign, I tried a couple rounds, and found I enjoyed making the game more challenging with custom games was far more fun, for me.... I love a good story, but I want a challenge in anything that takes a while.
Thats my 2 cents worth. At least in a TBS forum, I can voice a different opinion without being flamed
I would love to see a multiplayer version not changed in any real way. I wouldn’t be playing the game as a hardcore nail-chewing competition. As a turn based, nice and easy, "slow" game I would enjoy seeing that a friend or I playing (whom I would know as I doubt I would play online) having a huge advantage in game. Someone’s going to win anyway and with static tech trees and race components the painful sight of you only have a few decent planets in your area can really liven up a game with new imaginative strats.
I have many a fond memory of MOO2 or any of the CIV games finding yourself really sucking it up because you got the shaft with game start and having to resort to screen looking as a desperate attempt to find an edge. That or allying and then the quick back-stab after declaring war the one much larger mongol-ai next door.
Well everybody in my room right now just read this, we have played the game and know what its like, and like it, we all laughed, multiplayer is something for friends and family to enjoy, and for new people to meet, not the devil, jeez. And seriously little jokes on tech reports and annoying preset situations called a "campiagn", does not make the gaming SOO GOOD!?! ship designing is awesome but that prevents you from ending turn then the other person starts theirs? all most people want is to say, "I ended my turn now your up!" no need to make it complex, no changes to the system needed, I have created multiplayer games, simple ones true but all that is needed is the option to have more people play hotseat or IP, as for the multiplayer haters, I guess we could all go back to dos games or even throwing rocks at trees, but multiplayer is the future of the multimillion dollar gaming out there. (Note X-box Wii PS3 and PC games all alike improving their multiplayer.) I'm sure for stating my honest opinion on this matter the admins will ban me for disagreeing with them, oh well I guess I'll lose metaverse but thats the price of free speech.
Oh well go back to multiplayer hating, omg it might have hurt you or something.
I agree, as for Diplomacy, simple add it to influence or get rid of it, or leave it in case there are PC players involved.
I thought I had read somewhere that GalCiv3 will use the E:WoM engine and thus have some form of multiplayer(assuming MP makes it into E:WoM), so it may very well happen down the line.
Wow after cruising the forums and listening to the stardock people, I figured out just how much of stuck up brats you all are, you can't add a simple IP/hotseat feature for even money for the people begging for one and your multiplayer haters because you have to hold up your petty aguement agaist the peoples facts, your rude to new members and old alike unless they agree, you hate multiplayer because your designers, and therefor out of lazyness could care less about your fans and players and more about a petty pride battle about multiplayer, well I will stop refering this game to my friends, and any stardock product for that matter, I was hyped about Twilight but will not buy it now, not because of the stupid lack of multiplayer (with a arguement that should say we hate you and we are lazy so deal with it) but because your rude and dumb goodbye, at least untill StarDock gets some brains.
EDIT: If you have anything agaist what I have said, keep in mind I have had a hell of a bad time since I joined this place. an example is my welcome to the site, people telling me I am stupid and should DIE for asking questions. (including admins) how responsible
Scorpion, you really should learn something about spelling and grammar. My 13 year old daughter does better.
Your arguments are weak enough, tending towards stupid (as you have indicated), much less your other ineptitudes.
You speak of laziness, yet you are too lazy to even spell or punctuate correctly.
This game (other than in a simple one-on-one LAN situation) would not work in a full internet MP mode. Even a little thought, on your part, would clarify this to you.
OMG lol I kan speel intirlay rong tooo. But its the point that matters, that the admins and so called important people on this site are less responsible and polite than people on fan game forums. The people welcomed me with rudeness and made me hate it from day one, I hate to tell you this despite my not perfect grammer on a net forum there are people with less education and skill than me, it does not make their points any less valid, the grammer garbage is a cheap excuse for, I have no valid point against you. As for the multi player its funny you should say that since thats all people want is a nice peaceful LAN or hotseat mode haha.
Hmm... I was upset. I withdraw my out of place comment about the people of stardock being "LAZY" and "NOT CARING", I understand your out to make a profit like any other company (I believe a pack would do well for hotseat or lan MP, or adding it to GCIII). as for the comment about people being rude in the forums that still stands, since I joined people have been nothing but flat out nasty, from asking about MP to needing some help figuring out the metaverse. Anyway thanks stardock for the good game, I hope MP is implemented as a addon or part of GCIII, even if not great game : )
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
