Steam and Multiplayer

First off, let me say this is not a Steam Hate/Steam Love thread. I'm actually rather indifferent to the whole issue of Steam requirements.
But one thing that popped into my head recently.

When it was announced that Steam was mandatory for ciV, some posters who appeared to be defending the position stated that a major benefit was the existing multiplayer platrform that Firaxis would not have to develop.
Based on numerous observations in this forum, the multiplayer experience appears to be one of the most disappointing aspects of the game.
(Please note I have NOT player multiplayer yet, this is just based on others comments)

Can anyone clarify how much involvement Steam had in the multiplayer component of ciV?
Please note these are based on my impressions and observations only
I'm curious to hear other peoples thoughts on the matter

 

The multiplayer uses Steam for networking or something, I'm not entirely sure, however the game itself was developed by Firaxis and the problems in multiplayer are, afaik, entirely due to design choices by Firaxis Steam has nothing to do with. Steam's multiplayer works great in other Steamworks games and mods I've played without anymore hiccupts then any more multiplayer (Glaring at you, Punkbuster anti cheat, which has kicked me from more games for no damn reason in Bad Company 2 then I've had bugs from the game itself). Again though, not entirely sure how Firaxis implemented it and for what, I haven't played or looked into it either but I think the games are hosted by one person and everyone else joins that one (P2P).

 

nobody really uses steamworks for serious multiplayer

even valve thinks it's crap and uses alternatives for its games

 

That is a completely false and a rather ridiculous statement. Every Valve game uses Steamworks.

 

I know right? That's why it's not used in Counter-Strike: Source, TF2, or L4D, or L4D2, or Supreme Commander 2, or Dawn of War: Retribution, or Call of Duty: Black Ops.

To answer the OP's question, Steamworks is used to coordinate getting player A and player B in a game together and maintaining communication between them in-game. It doesn't handle the functionality available to the player once in multiplayer though, that's done at the discretion of the developer.

 

Thanks Maktaka much appreciated.

 

I've found the multiplayer in Supreme Commander 2 to be quite poor actually. That's another Steamworks game. The game itself is built quite well, but I get massive pings (I play enough other mp games to know what sort of pings are typical to various countries), the mp lobby is mostly deserted and the matchmaking for ranked games takes forever.

I played a lot of mp with SupCom1 so something must have gone wrong in the sequel.

 

People play SupCom 2? Wait, people LIKE it? All I've heard is that they removed everything that made SupCom 1 good and apparently isn't worth a penny.

 

You obviously have only read/heard the rants about it then. As I said it's a good game, but the mp functionality seems lacking, which is a huge problem for an RTS with as much focus on mp as supcom does.

 

*shrugs* One of the sources I heard it from is someone who's opinion I generally highly value, if he says ignore a game it probably is really bad.

 

Well, as I said, one of the reasons it would be considered really bad is its mp system. I don't know this person you speak of, but I suspect he/she was a big fan of supcom1 and was a victim of the disappointing-sequels effect. Supcom2 takes the game in a different direction in a number of different aspects (some improvements, some streamlining etc.) that would more likely appeal to fans of the original who were at the same time critical of its flaws. An interesting way to review that person's criticisms of supcom2 would be to ask their criticisms of supcom1.

 

Thanks for reiterating for us how others feel. I really think you've shed some light here on how multi-player in ciV can be improved. Keep up the good work.