• Paradox Games has announced today their new game “Millennia”, a semi-historical turn-based 4X game. Find out more here .

Massively Multiplayer Civilization?

Thunderfall

Administrator
Administrator
Joined
Oct 25, 2000
Messages
12,473
Gamespot's Instant Poll is asking which games would make a good massively multiplayer online game, in light of The Sims Online. The candidates include Baldur´s Gate, Civilization, Max Payne, Medal of Honor, Serious Sam, SimGolf, and Starcraft. At the time of writing, Civilization is in 5th place with 10 Percent of the votes. Go cast your vote if you think Civilization can be made as a pure multiplayer game in which hundreds (even thousands) of players play on the same map for world domination!

http://gamespot.com/gamespot/filters/0,10850,6013054,00.html
 
I'll never vote for Civilization. :p Way too unappropriate. You'd have to make Civ an entirely different game in order to make it possible to have hundreds of people playing the same game.

I can't wait for MP for Civ3 though. But who doesn't? ;)
 
could you imagine the sheer length of time it would take to have 1 turn? Im thinking a day and a half.
 
MMORPG's are hopelessly plagued with security problems: if it's not outright hacks, then it's ruthless mindless exploitation of every flaw, glitch, and loophole in the game design. You might say, "Well just carve out your own little corner and avoid all the lamers" but that's pretty tough to do. Impact and fallout from the exploit-minded simply rules the day in every MMORPG and even in standard multiplayer games that run client-server MMORPG style, like Diablo 2 or some of the combat games.

Like it or not, gamers in large enough numbers are not only willing, but eager to cheat the system any way they can, and venturing down that path with the game design is the road to a very hot, brimstone-filled environment. I'd hate to see that happen to Civ.

Standard multiplayer goes that road, too, just not to quite such a hopeless degree that it impinges on those who play for the joy of the game, not the glory of game destructionism. Yet the more complex the game, the more vulnerable it is to security problems and design flaws. That's one reason classic games like chess, go, and backgammon will never go out of style. They allow better for the rigors of competition than do modern, complex video games. The rules are clear, simple, well tested and honed, and have stood the test of time. I've yet to see a modern game that would rate even as Little League, in the competitive environment that sees chess and bridge and go as the major leaguers.

I think Firaxis has shown uncommon dedication to the rules of their game, to prevent it from descending into exploitation to the point of irrelevancy. I imagine they are holding some pretty high standards for what they would release as multiplayer, and are fully cognizant of just how tough it would be to tighten their game up to the point where it can survive in that environment. I would hope they have the sense not to go anywhere near the MMORPG environment. That's the kiss of death for game integrity.


- Sirian
 
I agree (quick off topic point) I gave up and traded diablo 2 + expansion for Civ 3 because of how terrible that game is on multiplayer. I hope that wouldn't happen to Civ, I cherish the game for its fun-factor, I couldn't imagine not having that any more.
 
I hate waiting 5 minutes for the computer, I sure as heck wouldnt wait for 1000 or more other players to take there turn. I question any form of multiplayer except play by email. It just doesnt seem right in a turn based strategy game, well maybe go black so you can leave the room and your friend can take his turn. Network play on a game that can take as long as civ seems absurd to me.

Dont get me wrong, I love civ3, but I couldnt do it.

On the flip side I cant play RTS games worth a damn so im kinda out of that basis.

I suppose net play on a take your turn, upload to the server, when everyones done or the end of the day hits you get another turn might work. Worked with Tradewars 2K. Games would take months but you wouldnt be commited like you would be in true network play.
 
Massive multiplayer? I¡¦d settle for just simple old multiplayer. i still can't believe a larger stink wasn¡¦t raised when Civ3 was released without multiplayer capability! there is a special hell for money grabbing suits who release games without mp built in just so they can charge fans of the game twice.

Any ideas how long we have to wait till we get to buy Civ3 for the second time (the multiplayer game)?
 
Massively Multplayer Civ? No Thanks. It would abandon even the semblance of historical accuracy that civ currently has, which is a large part of the fun.
 
yea!! a civ game would be awesome!! the game would have to be different .... probally some kind of real time, perhaps like planetarium a little, but i can see the potential!! ..... or perhaps ... people start the game ... build up there little empires ... and new players come along and take control of a small faction in your empire and try to make there own empire out of part of yours, then a powerful person will be getting lots of "revolutionaries" and organised crime sydicates or something like that, well i can see the potential of civilization multiplayer ... even if firaxis cant

funny we are talking about this at all ..... the big nobs at firaxis think we dont even want multiplayer with a few people .... why would we want to play civ with thousands!! :lol:
 
I've played a lot of backgammon and go online and I run into the same problem over and over again. Once you start to win, the opponent just quits. In a game like backgammon, it isn't that bad since each game only takes a few minutes. It was more frustrating with go, where a game could take 30 minutes to an hour. How frustrating would it be to invest a few days (or weeks) in a multi-player civ game, only to have one or more people quit because they start losing.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to play civ3 multi-player but there would have to be something in there that stopped this. I've also played hearts online and when someone quits, the AI just takes over.

Andy
 
Originally posted by AndyS
I've played a lot of backgammon and go online and I run into the same problem over and over again. Once you start to win, the opponent just quits

Andy


This would be a huge problem, I think. Early, late or in between all the people who reload after bad turns or a couple things don't go their way would just quit MPs. The AI would have to take over and maybe then allow another player to come on board at any time.

That would be sort of fun in a way, taking over a civ in trouble in MP and seeing if you could dig them out and be competitive.
 
I think that would work. (massively-multiplayer or just ordinary 8-16 player) One could join an on-going game and have the choice of starting with a band of settlers or taking over an AI nation. If a player quit mid-game, the AI would take over.

"Revolution in Germany! Jason Fox now assumes leadership of the German nation"

Of course, most people would want to start at the beginning of a game, when everyone is on an equal footing. It's not likely a player who became a world superpower would abandon the game.

Massively-multiplayer diplomacy scares me. It's hard enough keeping track of 16 nations. (Even if the "turn times" were transparent.)




Originally posted by Jason Fox



This would be a huge problem, I think. Early, late or in between all the people who reload after bad turns or a couple things don't go their way would just quit MPs. The AI would have to take over and maybe then allow another player to come on board at any time.

That would be sort of fun in a way, taking over a civ in trouble in MP and seeing if you could dig them out and be competitive.
 
It flat out wouldn't work for Civ3, or any turn based game. Playing this type of game with 2 people is too slow, I couldn't imagine it with thousands. I do think a real-time game that was Civ3ish in nature would have a better chance, but there are still many problems. If many, many people are playing then not everyone will be on all the time (some of us have lives and need to sleep). In the mmrpgs out there each person controls a single character, and that character is not missed much when the person is not playing. On the other hand, with a civ-type game an entire empire can't simply dissapear and reapear every time someone logs on, and something tells me that most people wouldn't be too happy with the computer controlling their empire while they are away. I would like a "battlenet" like free forum for meeting other people to play games, and I think 57%'s idea about the AI being replaced by a player and vice-versa is a good one for those who can't or won't play a full game. Honestly with all these other flaws, hacks and cheats are the least of my worries.
 
You are all thinking of it the wrong way. It wouldnt even resemble the civ interface we have now. It would be more like a huge play by email game that could be logged into at anytime. There are games like this already, just not based on maps. Its very possible to have a game like this, it just wouldnt have the complexity of civ right off the bat.
 
Top Bottom