Do you play Single player, multiplayer or both?

Do you play Single Player, Multiplayer or both?

  • Single player only.

    Votes: 82 62.6%

  • Multi player only.

    Votes: 7 5.3%

  • Both!

    Votes: 42 32.1%
  • Total voters
    131
jorey

jorey

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 12, 2005
Messages
58
Pretty basic question. When I first got civ 4 I played single player, then I tried multiplayer. I got stomped but the more I played I learned a whole new game and ended up enjoying the game much more. I'm above average to multiplayer now and I never play single player anymore. The computer is too predictable.

If you haven't played multiplayer, have you considered it? It's a completely different game. Or if you don't want to play multiplayer, why? Why do you enjoy single player more than multiplayer?

I think everyone should give multiplayer a good chance. It's so much more of an exciting game!
 
The whole allure of computer games for me is being able to play whenever I want without having to worry about other people and their schedules (and their personalities for that matter).

If I want to game with others, I'll break out an old Avalon Hill boardgame or something and play face-to-face.
 
played one time multli player with civ 3...after like 3h a.m. we had barely enough units to wage a war. only single player. I want to finish all my games
 
SG, for time management. Although I would like to try out MG. But hey, I am not a student anymore :(
 
Wouldn't mind Multiplayer but I don't get enough time for singleplayer as it is :( AND I haven't played Multiplayer since CivII :blush: I was ok at it back then but now...?
 
I've only played MP when my friends want to play it. I prefer single player over playing against strangers online.
 
This poll is a good example of why they should not even implement multiplayer in a game like this. They have talked about putting multiplayer in galciv2, I hope they never waste time doing that. Want multiplayer, play a RTS game such as RoN or the many others. CIV is to chill out, relax, have fun and get addicted for hours. BF1942 is another example of excellent multiplayer.
 
Oh, I beg to differ. I am really glad Firaxis implemented MP from the get-go, making it the first civ with actually playable mp. Even if you don't play it much, I believe it works wonders for balancing the game. MP is the true test of balanced mechanics.

Of course I share the same concerns over mp as anyone - games take too long, stability issues, finding agreeable people to play with is difficult. But on the rare occasion that you have the time and the right team together, mp games just rock. MUCH more enjoyable playing a human than AI.
 
Warspite2 said:
This poll is a good example of why they should not even implement multiplayer in a game like this. They have talked about putting multiplayer in galciv2, I hope they never waste time doing that. Want multiplayer, play a RTS game such as RoN or the many others. CIV is to chill out, relax, have fun and get addicted for hours. BF1942 is another example of excellent multiplayer.
Click to expand...

To me a game that I can't play with other human beings is a waste of my money. Black and White 2 is a great example, I would have bought except that the didn't put MP in and I don't want to play against the computer forever. Being able to play these kinds of games against other people is a MAJOR part of them to a lot of people. My only main concern with MP is that it's mostly no-TT conquest matches when I'd prefer more diplomacy, allying and backstabing, (with plenty of global conflict of course) but hey people are always the problem.
 
I do play by E-mail games. I really play single games. That counts as both...
 
I like single,but nowadays I usually play multi.
I have a great ally called Uwu and my name is in the GS is Marginaldefeat.
We played about 30-40 games in continents and 70-80 tb,pangea,hub or oasis map.
We won about 7 games from every 10 in battlegronds or kinds of map,but we still undefeated at continents.
SO I would be great if soomene can challange ours 2 vs 2 continents/custom continens/islands game::)
 
I've played both, but I prefer SG. Without the movies and a few other extras to break up the monotony of a slower paced game, MGs are just too tedious and dull.
 
I play both. The reason I dont like multiplayer a huge amount is all the games are pretty much the same stuff. 130 turn limit blazing quick or renaissance 3v3 games. I understand that this really cant be fixed easily due to time constraints and people cant find 6-8 hours to put into a whole game, and obviously it would be pretty hard getting sessions going unless you know the people you play with. I also find that sometimes attitude of multiplayer players isnt as good as the SP players on this forum. Dont take this as a generalization, Im only saying some MP players, but definately a higher percentage than SP players.

The latter reason is why I enjoy playing MP games with the realms beyond folk :).
 
I play both. I usually play an SP game during the week, and have a running PBEM that I play with a fellow in England. Because of the time difference (8 hours) we can't play at the same time except weekends. So to make the game faster we do all PBEM games and play one turn a night during the week, then do a few longer sessions on the weekends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PDX Firefly
Developer Diary | Achievements, Modding & Multiplayer
Replies
2
Views
697
Prester John 2
Prester John 2
PDX Firefly
Millennia | Release!
Replies
4
Views
994
V. Soma
V
D
Civ 7: Multiplayer ideas (Teams and Alternates)
Replies
2
Views
806
DeckerdJames
D
Agiwan
  • Sticky
VoxPopuli Modpacks (last update: 4.6.2)
8 9 10
Replies
198
Views
46K
Agiwan
Agiwan
C
Is there any interest in a stable Vox Populi LAN/Internet experience?
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
11K
Hosannah
Hosannah
Top Bottom