another disappointing multiplayer game?

[ddd123]

Well after the that was civ 4 and the pathetic steam servers and regional division that destroyed the online service in civ 5, what they announce?

They announce NEW MODES, lol!

Nobody really cares of playing civ in some dumbed down mode that lasts 10 min, this isnt a FPS we want the REAL civ experience, just ported in multiplayer.

They dont say the fixed all the problems in the past titles, they dont say they have finally 2 3 global servers , nothing about the minimum for any online game, like good lobby, like punishing quitters, like a good online saving, like a good friend list, like a fast rejoin etc etc...

I dont really know how to "read" the news, but I feel really pessimistic about it right now.

 

[Ryika]

Nobody really cares of playing civ in some dumbed down mode that lasts 10 min

I wouldn't actually say that. 10 Mins is obviously an exaggeration, but some modes that last 1-3 hours total would be really nice for some matches with friends.

I think many people would enjoy it, of course it would not work well as a replacement for the normal mode.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

You're basing your opinion off a sentence.

They're not going to reveal everything at once.

Wait until there's more information until you finalise your opinion.

Here's the fact

They're paying attention to Multiplayer on Day 1. That is more than Civ 5 had.

Game modes are also not something brand new as Civ 3 Play The World introduced MP modes to the game as well.

 

[ddd123]

You're basing your opinion off a sentence.

And 15 years of playing civ online.

They're not going to reveal everything at once.

But there is nothing to reveal, we dont want something new, we want a WORKING online civ, we never had it in 10 years basically apart the end of civ4 or so when they changed servers.

They're paying attention to Multiplayer on Day 1. That is more than Civ 5 had.

Thats good! Can you link your source for this, and how exactly they are paying attention on day 1?

 

[Frank Sobotka]

Well after the that was civ 4 and the pathetic steam servers and regional division that destroyed the online service in civ 5, what they announce?

They announce NEW MODES, lol!

Nobody really cares of playing civ in some dumbed down mode that lasts 10 min, this isnt a FPS we want the REAL civ experience, just ported in multiplayer.

They dont say the fixed all the problems in the past titles, they dont say they have finally 2 3 global servers , nothing about the minimum for any online game, like good lobby, like punishing quitters, like a good online saving, like a good friend list, like a fast rejoin etc etc...

I dont really know how to "read" the news, but I feel really pessimistic about it right now.

I would like a chat room where people can talk among themselves about what game they are searching for. For the quitting part, there isn't in any way to end quitting or "rage quitting." So that is something we are all going to have to deal with. Been like that forever on online gaming.

I don't mind more options of what kind of a game mode we can play. To me, I prefer playing 3 hours or more games. That is why I must make no plans for that day!

 

[AriochIV]

I have a hard time seeing that a game like Civilization will ever be a really good multiplayer game, unless you dumb it down to Civ Revolution type levels. A 10-15 hours playthrough time is awesome for a single-player game, but not so much for multiplayer.

 

[ddd123]

Did you ever play multiplayer?
Games dont last that much...

 

[Frank Sobotka]

Did you ever play multiplayer?
Games dont last that much...

Kinda analogous to FPS like Call of Duty. If you got almost everyone camping, then you are pretty much going to have the game end to the timer instead of the score...

 

[Lynnes]

I really like the idea of cooperative and competitive scenarios.
And if they (at least some of them) can be played in one or only a few sessions, that's a good thing!

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I really like the idea of cooperative and competitive scenarios.
And if they (at least some of them) can be played in one or only a few sessions, that's a good thing!

It's encouraging. MP, I've always avoided it because a. it was bad in Civ 5 and b. you were up against monster of players and c. most of the time you never had the time. Unless you had dedicated friends it was a hit and miss.

So these shrots are nice, could give you a well-needed break (decreasing the time before you burn out on the game) and give you new ways to play.

 

[Genesis_26317]

I have a hard time seeing that a game like Civilization will ever be a really good multiplayer game, unless you dumb it down to Civ Revolution type levels. A 10-15 hours playthrough time is awesome for a single-player game, but not so much for multiplayer.

I used to play online with my now ex-wife.

The games would last something like 20 hours. I couldn't imagine doing that with a stranger.

My favorite game is the one where I have one turn last over an hour while she was away. I had secretly been building a nuke/invasion plan to take her over in 1 turn while we were "allied." I was able to take over 50 heavily developed cities and nuked every single tile in her control.

It was pretty epic.

 

[ddd123]

I used to play online with my now ex-wife.

The games would last something like 20 hours. I couldn't imagine doing that with a stranger.

My favorite game is the one where I have one turn last over an hour while she was away. I had secretly been building a nuke/invasion plan to take her over in 1 turn while we were "allied." I was able to take over 50 heavily developed cities and nuked every single tile in her control.

It was pretty epic.

So this is the reason why she left you?

 

[Big J Money]

Lol @dd123.

Did they say there were new MP modes? I thought they simply said they expect MP to be playable in 1-2 hours. Maybe the SP game has been reduced quite a bit to help with that.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Until we see more on MP, I'm confident that Firaxis learned a lot from the mistakes of Civ5, Ed Beach is a very good game designer/producer and isn't just SP centric. It's a bit too soon to be pessimistic.

CS

 

[Camikaze]

An article from Inquisitr seems to provide the most detail on multiplayer I've seen thus far.

Turn-based strategy games do not always make the best multiplayer titles just based on their design. Civilization in particular can take hours upon hours of waiting, for example. Firaxis Games is attempting to solve this issue by increasing the multiplayer game speed along with specific scenarios and unique victory conditions to bring multiplayer sessions down to an hour or two.

An example given is a game that starts in the Middle Ages and through the Renaissance. The player that ends with the strongest religion wins the match.

“We have a system where we can roll conditions like that, and each of those can be a multiplayer scenario that we can present to players,” Beach explained. “We can quickly develop a whole bunch of those and offer them.”

 

[MadDjinn]

yes, getting cranky about MP in Civvi without actually seeing anything gameplay wise, nor reading anything other than a line or so that didn't explicitly say :"hey. this this the announcement for the game and we just want to let you know we fixed all of those MP bugs!!" is a bit premature.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

yes, getting cranky about MP in Civvi without actually seeing anything gameplay wise, nor reading anything other than a line or so that didn't explicitly say :"hey. this this the announcement for the game and we just want to let you know we fixed all of those MP bugs!!" is a bit premature.

2K is never going to publicly admit that Civ5 MP sucked as they could be held legally liable, and at least it's horrible PR/advertising.

The most we can look forward too over the initial announcements is that MP offers X and Y, and wait for some game demo's later on that show how good MP is. If you look at the way Civ5 was rolled out we can expect a lot more reviews from sites and Firaxis talk threws etc.

CS

 

[Genesis_26317]

So this is the reason why she left you?

I know right?

 

[ddd123]

2K is never going to publicly admit that Civ5 MP sucked as they could be held legally liable, and at least it's horrible PR/advertising.

The most we can look forward too over the initial announcements is that MP offers X and Y, and wait for some game demo's later on that show how good MP is. If you look at the way Civ5 was rolled out we can expect a lot more reviews from sites and Firaxis talk threws etc.

CS

The problem is that reviewers wont care about MP at all, probably wont even try or understand it.

I doubt for the civilization title mp performance is that important, cause it is something not many players want and try, and in general it take some time to notice all the problems.

 

[brianshapiro]

For turn-based, I actually like the play by email style game. I play Risk like that with friends.