How improtant is Multiplayer in Civ4 to you?

[Smidlee]

Despite what many game developers and game media types like to believe, the majority of game players do not play MP online. Most people still like to sit at home and kick the butt of the AI.

Brad makes an interesting point in defending his decision not to design GalCiv2 around multiplayer like civ4 for this reason.

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.

....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.

http://www.galciv2.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=162&AID=98074

To me it does seem Civ4 is geared more toward multiplayer (maybe a little too much) more than any other civ. (P.S it nice to know Soran is given Brad programming hints in making GalCiv2.)
While I like civ4 multiplayer I have to wonder what the cost in SP games.

 

[aaronflavor]

I've played PBEM and hotseat. PBEM is fun because it does not require large blocks of time or any specific schedule, so you don't feel so bad about wasting time playing games against players who are probably better than you. Hotseat is tons of fun if you have another person who really likes Civ... particularly if she is female and hot. Hotseat tip: get two chairs, and two mice.

 

[BCLG100]

It doesnt bother me so much, its a nice touch but not something which i demand in a game.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Brad makes an interesting point in defending his decision not to design GalCiv2 around multiplayer like civ4 for this reason. http://www.galciv2.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=162&AID=98074

To me it does seem Civ4 is geared more toward multiplayer (maybe a little too much) more than any other civ. (P.S it nice to know Soran is given Brad programming hints in making GalCiv2.)
While I like civ4 multiplayer I have to wonder what the cost in SP games.

Well I guess that's a choice. Civ can be an amazing game in MP. Who ever dreamed of an intelligible AI with who trade efficiently, with who speak of the same interests?

The fact is that implemented in Civ4, the multiplayer will have a lot of more success than implemented in an extension, and the community will be far bigger and the ability to really find player a lot better. It could be quite hard to find net players with Civ3 Play the World. Now with the apparent success of Civ4 (observating the amount of people here in this forum since the release of Civ4), it will be a real joy to play Civ4 MP.

Now that's true, there may be a problem in Civ MP. The problem may be that playing the game against other human is just another conflict, not a civ game. It is who will win, and the players fight constantly. There's not anymore the roleplaying, it's just game mechanics (and those game mechanics are boring, repeated and repeated again), where there is no doubt that one would attack and destroy the others if he have the chance to do it. There should be a whole peacekeeping scenario victory in MP.

Now again, it is not sure that such things as civil war would have been implemented in Civ4 without MP. As it would be a complete REVOLUTION of Civ's gameplay to see such things the article mentions, there should already be implemented in the game if it were possible IMO. This may be just too complicated to program.

 

[Phoenix_56721]

I do think its hard to play any strategy game online with people you don't know, because the game's tend to be the same (rush attack's) and there is some smack talk. I'm lucky in that respect because I have a small group of Friends who like strategy games and we have played many of them online over the years (AoE2, Civ3, RoN, DoMW, Steel panthers and more) and now that Civ4 has come out we finely have a great turn based strategy game to play online. And we don't alway fight against each other either, in the game I'm in right now one Friend and myself are teamed up (permanent alliance) against the AI.

This type of game was very hard in Civ3 they really didn't give you team options at all, but Civ4 really brought this type of game to life. As I stated in my opening post we play about 2 hour sessions 2-3 times a week, we currently have about 12 hours (normal game speed) into our team game and we just researched gunpowder, so it is a slow game but it's a lot of fun. I think many more people in this forum would enjoy MP if they could find a group of people who had similar playing styles and time constraints.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Well yes - it's all the problem of finding players. The rules should be set that with any player you could run a decent game of "roleplay". (i mean, not only "I want to win-I want to win-I want to win) Then and only then with Civ4 you would have plenty of players. Additionnally, I believe that it is possible to run a very interesting game even in Civ3 with any player, but that it is quite difficult to figure what is one's best interest. There is not enough time in the game for negociations, explanations and ... reflexion!

 

[Frostyboy]

I think multiplayer is the only way you can experience a really good game since all sorts of algorithms can't beat the human brain

 

[clintonio]

Multiplayer is boring if you play publics. You need to join a Civ 4 clan.
www.clanbbf.com is playing Civ 4 competitivly agains't other clans and peacefully with eachother.

 

[McP]

Multiplayer ist most important.
I only play MP games. Internet, direkt LAN at home....

Singlpayer against only AI is to boring .... ;-)

 

[Raider62]

Any of you who say you havent played any multiplayer all I can say is find a friend or roomate and play hotseat. That is some fun stuff. My bro and I each take 2 leaders a piece, turn off tech trading and wow you get some good action....

A wireless mouse and a place you can both sit and just turn the monitor and share the mouse will help speed along the hotseat games tremendously!!!

 

[mjs0]

Multiplayer is important to me in its LAN form because of family and friends.

I have never played an online multiplayer game and don't expect to in the future because of two main issues...

1. The time commitment required...I find that even one solid hour of free time is tough to imagine with all the interruptions of a young family and the rest of everyday life!
2. My perception of the types of players I would find in a random public online game is a close second. To be clear, my point here is not negative towards the majority of online players it simply reflects a perceived mismatch of preferred gameplay style on my side.

I prefer to savour my Civ games not rush, rush rush...

 

[mother superior]

In order of preferred game style:

Love multiplayer LAN, have 5 friends who all play Civ4 and we LAN regularly.
SP v AI
Never played and probably wont play multiplayer online

Although like mjs0 time is definitley an enemy

 

[Reg Pither]

Multiplayer is important to me in its LAN form because of family and friends.

I have never played an online multiplayer game and don't expect to in the future because of two main issues...

My perception of the types of players I would find in a random public online game is a close second. To be clear, my point here is not negative towards the majority of online players it simply reflects a perceived mismatch of preferred gameplay style on my side.
I prefer to savour my Civ games not rush, rush rush...

That sums up my feelings, too.

Although I still play far more SP than MP in Civ IV.

 

[Doomed_UK]

I have a group of like minded friends, and although we are all approaching 40 we like to get together and play games like Civ4 multiplayer once a week.

We tend to have quite passive games that go on for months, but thats the way we like it.

And the wifes / girlfriends seem to prefer us playing civ then us going down the pub.......

 

[DookieDuke]

Civ 4 is an excellent single player game but multiplayer mode (me and my Bro on a LAN) has prevented me from playing my other games that I had for Christmas!
Long live Civ.

 

[He-Who-Hunts]

I love civ 4 MP... I find the games progress much like history... that is, back in the ancient era if your tribe wasn't stronger then your neighbors you were ****ed... Lets face it, if the computer had any sense at all and found an undefended city while they had 2 warriors or an archer in the era they WOULD attack....

yet as time goes on it gets increasingly harder to wage war..

I always make it a point to wage war earlier on in MP, but not for to long... mainly because you will stag production to the point where catch up is impossible.

Granted you do run into the occasion hot headed player who will angrily fight you till the end.... which in a way, is another good rep of history!

all in all I have found that Civ mp has increased my playing abilities 10 fold. the game is much more intense (fighting a real "general" makes battles better and more rewarding) and much more competitive.

 

[jayeffaar]

I have no interest in playing multiplayer games with random strangers. I would probably enjoy a nice long game with close friends (kind of like a nice long overnight game of Risk, but online), but I don't personally know anybody else who owns the game and/or would be willing to comit the time to an MP game...

 

[BrutalusMaximus]

I play slow, I take my time, sometimes taking hours on a single turn.

I have just one thing to say to almost all of you posting here.

PITBOSS.
The best of MP and SP all in one. No rush on your turns yet still fast enough to actually finish games. If you have not looked over this option yet then you should RIGHT NOW!

I cannot really get myself to play against the AI much now. It feels very dead and meaningless.

If you have not given the pitboss option a good try then you have not played CiV 4 yet.

The game I am in has a slot open btw. See the threads in the MP forum.

 

[balthamael]

i often play multiplayer- mainly with a friend and strangers. I prefer with friends because you can chat. All i seem to get from others is "OMFG what are you doing chopping trees?" or allegations of cheating.hmmm....

 

[Sturggen]

My favorite cousin and I have been playing war/strategy games aginst each other since college. Playing each other (now that we are retired) on a LAN with extra AI civs thrown in in a very enjoyable experience.