Whats the Story on Mulitplayer?

[moloTov]

Ok..silly me..since i, along with every computer game analyst, knows that the future of all new computer games is entwined with with a strong human vs human element, i just assumed that civ 3 would have a built in multiplayer system. Anyone know why they decided not to include a multiplayer option?

 

[aatu]

What I have read from different interviews, they didn't have the time to make it work the way they liked it to work. But they are working to bring it out later.

From Civ3-faq (www.civ3.com):
"Will there be multiplayer support for Civ III?
Civ III will not be shipping with multiplayer included. The single-player
experience has always been our main focus throughout the development of
Civilization III. However, we're working on some cool multiplayer concepts that
will take a fresh approach to the challenge of making multiplayer for a
turn-based game fun. Once we have more details to report, they'll be posted on this FAQ."

 

[lc3man]

AAAAArrrrggghh!! Don't get me started!! hehehee

MoloTov - I am in the same boat as you. I can't believe they didn't ship the game without MP support. Why even ship it? I am glad there are a ton of posts about how bad this game is, just in general. But I do keep forgetting that this is a NEW game and like all other NEW games it lacks some serious play balance, etc., etc., etc. Thanks for the post!

 

[Lefty Scaevola]

Judging from past experience with multi player games, they take an enourmous amount of beta testing, because of all the possible conflicts.

 

[VoodooAce]

Overall, i guess it's probably just as well they released it without MP. Get the .01 released allow us to shell out $50 for the priveledge of play-testing it for them.

We buy, play and complain. Then they can get the kinks ironed out and release the true, initial version of the finished product with MP. Then once we get the patches isnstalled, we'll be good to go. Say, around April of '02?

Guess that sounds a little sarcastic...just habit. But it's true. I want everything to work as well as possible when we get down to some serious civ, with some serious competition.

And the above from Civ3-FAQ sounds promising. A cool....fresh approach, eh? Wonder what that means.....

 

[VoodooAce]

Hopefully, though, they have learned that it is no longer 1993.

Designing games primarily with SP in mind was fine a decade ago. It's the 21st century now, ba-by! Time to begin taking MP into account from the beginning when designing a game. That or be left in the dust....

 

[Dragma]

Sorry, but I don't buy into the statement that in 2001 every single game NEEDS MP. :frog:

In a turn based game such as this could you imagine the amount of time waiting for the other players (and here I thought playing on a huge map w/ max civs was time consumeing.)

Bah....

 

[Rosicrucian]

In a turn based game such as this could you imagine the amount of time waiting for the other players

I've played Civ II multiplayer a ton. Just read a book or surf the web while waiting. It's not hard. It's great fun.

 

[VoodooAce]

exactly.

besides, there is plenty to keep you busy while other players are moving.

all players should only move their units while it is their turn. You do all the maintaining of you cities while others go.

Even then, though, it gets to where each human takes 15+ minutes to move late in the game. Which is fine as far as i'm concerned.

i'd rather have the challenge of human oponents in a game that lasts for a couple of months, anyway.

once the MP version is released, i will likely never play another SP game again, unless it is to test out a new strategy, or something.