Will Civ 5 be focused on multiplayer games?

[Heathcliff]

It seems to me that the changes all points toward making a game that will be an interresting multiplayer game.

1. Limited number of units. I read in a preview that one tile of Iron will support only one Swordsman. That will mean very few units per civilization = faster turns = better for multiplayer.

2. Removed several features that enhanced the singleplayer mode in civ 4, but played a very minor role in multiplayer. Like religion. As human does not care for which religion they have when they choose who to like and not.

3. One unit per tile. Will provide more tactical battlefield instead the civ with the largest production and best technology always wins. That will be interresting in multiplayer.

4. Expanded diplomacy options. This will make more player interaction. I always thought one of the flaws in civ 4 multiplayer was too little player interaction. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more elections like UN or AP to boost player interaction in civ 5.

5. The scientific agreement (like they have in the space game - galactic civilizations) will make nations that fall behind in the technological race a better chance to catch up to the leader. This chance of comeback, will be good for multiplayer. So that players who gets a bad start just won't quit.

6. Better "battle.net" where players can find games easier, see other players skill level to make interresting games etc.

I have played Civ 4 both multiplayer and singleplayer. I prefer singleplayer Civ 4, If I want to play a multiplayer game I play Dota.

But maybe if Civ 5 is made to play multiplayer it will have a longer lifetime then. Because all singleplayer games gets repetitive when you have played them many times.

And multiplayer games are the future.

 

[Abremms]

they may indeed make for a more interesting multiplayer game, but Firaxis has said that thier main focus is still the single player vs. AI game. (can't find source, might be wrong)

also, games don't get a much longer lifetime than a Civ game. multiplayer or not. about the only 5 year old game that i can think of that is still being played by lots of people is World of Warcraft.

 

[Rexflex]

The developers have talked about the improvement of the AI in various aspects, including each AI leader having their own unique goals to win the game. While multiplayer games may be improved, it doesn't seem to be at the expense of single player games.

 

[Ahriman]

Will Civ 5 be focused on multiplayer games?

No. 'Nuff said.

 

[Cashew]

I doubt MP will actually be any faster unless they add a faster turn timer.

Fewer overall units doesn't mean fewer overall moves. Generally, you keep all your military units in 1 or 2 stacks and move them as a group. I don't think it's much different from the new "more expensive, fewer unit" system in that sense.

 

[quintus5]

I hope not, I hate multiplayer

 

[Pyrodraulis]

they may indeed make for a more interesting multiplayer game, but Firaxis has said that thier main focus is still the single player vs. AI game. (can't find source, might be wrong)

also, games don't get a much longer lifetime than a Civ game. multiplayer or not. about the only 5 year old game that i can think of that is still being played by lots of people is World of Warcraft.

Don't forget about StarCraft and WarCraft 3. Those are still extremely popular, especially with StarCraft being a sport in South Korea and all. Blizzard seems to have a talent for making games with incredible longevity.

But back on topic, from some of the interviews I've read it seems that their core goal for the balance between multiplayer and singleplayer is to simply to make multiplayer a much better gaming experience through some of the big changes to gameplay that they've mentioned. I never bothered with multiplayer in Civ4 because I assumed it was just going to consist of one or two players staying out of conflicts while amassing some ridiculous army to give everyone else a nice little surprise later.

I drifted there for a moment so let me get back on track and simplify my point. While it seems that they are putting more effort and thought into multiplayer than they ever have in previous Civ games, I still believe that their main focus revolves around ensuring that the single player experience is the highlight of the game. After all, singleplayer is what has made Civilization so great since 1991.

Also, I just joined the community and this is my first post so hello to all.

 

[Cashew]

I never bothered with multiplayer in Civ4 because I assumed it was just going to consist of one or two players staying out of conflicts while amassing some ridiculous army to give everyone else a nice little surprise later.

That's not what Civ IV multiplayer is like at all. People that try to do this either get out-built by people that conquer weaker players or out teched by people that didn't bother building units at all. Of course, that only applies to free for alls (which are for noobs anyways). Team games are all about building armies and killing people. Trying to stay out of conflict usually leads to your teammates getting eliminated while you do nothing.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

HC, while you might get some thoughtful responses here, you are more than not just going to get the "I hate MP" responses here, or at least the "I don't care" people.

You would be much better to post this on the league forums, at least there you will get the opinion of other dedicated MP players.

http://forum.civplayers.com/

CS

 

[ddd123]

It seems to me that the changes all points toward making a game that will be an interresting multiplayer game.

1. Limited number of units. I read in a preview that one tile of Iron will support only one Swordsman. That will mean very few units per civilization = faster turns = better for multiplayer.

2. Removed several features that enhanced the singleplayer mode in civ 4, but played a very minor role in multiplayer. Like religion. As human does not care for which religion they have when they choose who to like and not.

3. One unit per tile. Will provide more tactical battlefield instead the civ with the largest production and best technology always wins. That will be interresting in multiplayer.

4. Expanded diplomacy options. This will make more player interaction. I always thought one of the flaws in civ 4 multiplayer was too little player interaction. I wouldn't be surprised if there are more elections like UN or AP to boost player interaction in civ 5.

5. The scientific agreement (like they have in the space game - galactic civilizations) will make nations that fall behind in the technological race a better chance to catch up to the leader. This chance of comeback, will be good for multiplayer. So that players who gets a bad start just won't quit.

6. Better "battle.net" where players can find games easier, see other players skill level to make interresting games etc.

I have played Civ 4 both multiplayer and singleplayer. I prefer singleplayer Civ 4, If I want to play a multiplayer game I play Dota.

But maybe if Civ 5 is made to play multiplayer it will have a longer lifetime then. Because all singleplayer games gets repetitive when you have played them many times.

And multiplayer games are the future.

i completely agree

i was very happy to notice a lot of change in civ 5 are vert MP friendly
i love civ and i play civ since the first chapter but... a game is a game only when played against human beings

dunno how ppl can have fun just playing a stupid ai and over all lets face it, civ ai was just cheating, if they think a NON cheating competitive ai i could enjoy it (just for some time)

i dont want civ to be FOCUSED on mp but i hope its MP is really the top experience not like civ4 with crap servers for months no ladder, no support, no community etc etc

 

[quintus5]

Also, I just joined the community and this is my first post so hello to all.

Same here, actually

 

[Craxymaxy]

welcome lol