Draginol Draginol

What priority should multiplayer have?

▼

What priority should multiplayer have?

How multiplayer impacts design

from JoeUser Forums

Last week I wrote about whether strategy games need multiplayer.  There are definitely strong feelings on the matter.

In the article, I referred to blogs written by top reviewers Bruce Geryk and Troy Goodfellow.  I want people to understand something specifically -- I referred to them because they are top reviewers in their field. They did not take any points off of GalCiv II because it lacked multiplayer. They were putting forth the reason why many people are passionate about multiplayer in strategy games.

For the people who have a group of friends that they play multiplayer with, then a multiplayer feature in GalCiv II would be ideal.  And for those people, having multiplayer allows the game to have a much longer lifespan on their hard drives.  My favorite PC game of all time is Total Annihilation. But if it didn't have multiplayer, it wouldn't have survived very long on my hard drive. It was its multiplayer that made it so popular.

In many respects, what I'm writing about and what multiplayer advocates are writing about go right past each other.  My argument is that multiplayer advocates have plenty of options to choose from.  Not only have most strategy games of the past 5 years put a lot of energy into multiplayer (Age of Empire 3, Civilization 4, Rise of Nations, etc.) but even this year there will be turn based games with significant multiplayer components such as Space Empires V, Sword of the Stars, HOMM 5.  The developers of Sword of the Stars argue that putting in multiplayer has no negative impact on the single player experience.  I'll have to disagree.  In having either designed, developed or been heavily involved in Entrepreneur, Trials of Battle, Stellar Frontier (a multiplayer space game with the Drengin, Arceans and Terran Alliance btw), The Corporate Machine, and The Political Machine, (GalCiv being the only game I've done that isn't multiplayer btw), I think I have some experience in being able to say that yes, having multiplayer changes the way the game is designed.  When I designed The Political Machine, I imagined how it would be played multiplayer first and then wrote the AI as a simulated on-line opponent.  I think The Political Machine turned out pretty well as a single player game still, but it's a very different game than it would have been had it only been a single player game. I would have made it so that top players would have a lot more data and information to put together far more sophisticated strategies.

Making GalCiv II have multiplayer as a checkbox is pretty easy. You could just send the saved game back and forth between players. But would people be satisfied with that?  Some would.  But even doing that adds time to the development schedule. It still adds budget, and you still have a bunch of other things that could make the experience non-ideal.  I'd rather a game decide what it wants to be. If you're going to have multiplayer, do it right.  And in my experience, doing it right means having multiplayer be part of the design.  In GalCiv II, we put in the piping so that we could do multiplayer later on.  But in terms of time and energy, we wanted to focus everything on making the single player experience satisfying.

The point on multiplayer isn't whether a strategy game should have it or not as much as what priority it should have in the development of a game.  Heck, if I had more development resources, I'd take the GalCiv II engine and make an RTS version of it. I'd love to see my designed ships up against someone else's in battle. ;)

66,331 views 56 replies
Reply #26 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
IMO, the whole reason this topic is so popular is because people love GC2, and they want more of it (afterall, the real multiplayer fanatic would have never bought the game or come here to complain in the first place). It's only natural to want more features from a game you like, and these people just wants to play the game with their friends. I have no problems with that, and if Stardock releases an addon with PBEM, LAN, TCP-IP, and Hot-seat game mode, I think it will be more than enough (although I'll probably never use it).

Having said that, the multiplayer group needs to realize that features that you loved in the game will have to be disabled to make a multiplayer game worth playing. Things like random events, and the ship designer that would so drastically mess up a game has to be disabled or people will start screaming when a turn takes 2 hours, or when their massive empire turns into dust. This is why multiplayer was not part of the released game, because that would conflict with these non-streamlined features.


To be honest, Stardock should have just come out from the start and said, we're making a single player game, and completely dismiss the multiplayer aspect of it (instead of saying things like, our game is cheaper because we didn't include multiplayer - which we can add anytime). Doing so makes it seems like a multiplayer aspect was "missing" from the game and gave people grounds to argue. If you made it clear that the game was designed from the ground up to be a single player game, there would never have been a problem. Afterall, you don't see people complaining about a first person adventure game without multiplayer (or Oblivion even). All you really have to say is that you want to create a game that is able to tell a story. Everyone with any multiplayer experience knows that multiplayer has no story (and any that tries suck at it badly). Galciv2 has that capacity, if only a little more features were implemented... which is why I think more modding support should be much higher in the priority list.
Reply #27 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
the multiplayer group needs to realize that features that you loved in the game will have to be disabled to make a multiplayer game worth playing. Things like random events, and the ship designer that would so drastically mess up a game has to be disabled or people will start screaming when a turn takes 2 hours, or when their massive empire turns into dust.


Exactly! Playing over the internet would take some time, that's why I think that hotseat would rock simply because there are two (or more) people sitting in front of the computer with a couple of drinks, something to eat, and taking turns in kicking the AI's butt! There is no nead to disable the random events and stuff like that, simply because we are both looking at them, and we are both having fun (that's the 90% of my HOMM games, and those 90% are the most fun! )!

Even if we play one against each other, we can play long turns, becouse the other is somewhere near (not looking at the screen, but he is HERE), eating some snacks, perhaps drinking a carbonated soda, if you know what i mean!

I would like to see what I have never seen before in multiplayer! 2vs2 game on 2 computers, one team on one coumputer, other team on second coumputer, that would make my summer "basement LAN" expirience PERFECT!
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #28 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
The thing is, Galactic Civilisations 2 has two seperate modes of single-player: sandbox and campaign. When people talk about SP what are they talking about? I suspect they're talking about sandbox.

And here's the thing. How many of the "extras" added between the first and second game do people feel added to the experience? Yes there's a campaign, but it's little more than scenarios tied together by a wafer thin plot. There's nothing to really hold it together. No characters to share empathy with, no personal "ground level" stories to really make you want to win the war. It's just some scenarios put in order of difficulty (ignoring Siege), and how many people found that this added to their enjoyment of sandbox and how many felt that they'd have enjoyed the game more spending their campaign gaming time in the sandbox?

Likewise, the animated movies... why? Beyond the first time, how many watch them? Even the first time, what do they add? They simply seem to exist, but without purpose. They served little to no emotional purpose as nothing really happens in them.

I don't mean to sound harsh, but a lot is made of what went into SP, but it strikes me that much of the stuff added to SP should have been skipped. I'm not one for multiplayer myself, so I'd rather that the money had been spent on more sandbox stuff (like entirely random races) to extend the life of the game.
Reply #29 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I wouldn't have bought this game if its emphasis was on MP. If you added a simple multiplayer mode and didn't tweak any of the game's other features, I wouldn't care if you added it or not. However, if it will take tons of work, and involve the game changing too much, then I would be against it. It's better to concentrate on SP IMO.
Reply #30 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Nope,..doesn't need muliplayer.I like multiplayer,...but it is done too much these days and so not having it is welcome.Glad it looks like the idea is losing big time in the poll too.
Rather see more for the single player game,....tactical battles is probably the only huge significant change I'd like to see off hand that i can think of.
If Galactic Civs ever does it,..perhaps in Gal Civs 3 maybe,.do it from the ground up and it will probably work better anyways,..but never do it at a loss of what made the game in the first place.
Best thing you can do is completely ignore the,.everyone else is doing so you should do mainstream way of thinking.After all one the biggest problem with gaming today recognized by real Hardcore Gamers is to much of the same,too often.And that's all we don't need is more "Me Too" games.
Reply #31 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Bought this game never expecting multi-player, not advertised with MP, etc. Would notpayfor MP. Will be unhappy if single player suffers for MP.

MP would take away people from the game development that kept GC1 on my play list for ages and I expect the same for GC2. GalCIv is a game that stays on my play list long after other games get installed, defeated and deleted while still visiting my old stand buy for a change of pace.

If you want MP go buy a game that advertises it, not whine about a game that specifically says NO MP.
Reply #32 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I know of at least a couple friends that would buy the game if it had multiplayer. They just don't play single player games. I don't have strong feelings either way. I'd recommend saving it for the second expansion pack. I'd personally like to see additional SP content before you guys tackle MP.
Reply #33 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
My biggest gripe on PBEM MP games is it takes so darn long for anything interesting to happen. You spend the first couple of weeks (real time) building a little empire, then things start getting interesting. I ran into this in Age of Wonders. The way we dealt with it was by making campaigns where you did not start at zero. You already had several cities and some forces.

I've had a novel idea on how to make multiplayer in hotseat or PBEM work. INCLUDE ZERO-PLAYER MODE. Basically, make all players hot swappable between AI and human player. If you want your galaxy to get started, let the AIs battle for a year or two, then you and some of your friends take over some of those seats. Even better, when you are locked in struggle with an evenly matched AI player, why not hot swap in one of your buddies for a few turns.

--Brad
Reply #34 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I am wondering when 1.1 will be out.
Reply #35 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Draginol, is this your game, your design and vision rought into a binary? Or is it the reviewer's game? The critic's game?

Were they there in your design meetings, hashing out the issues of what the game was going to play like? Were they there when you considered and rejected any number of other possibilities? Were they there when you were locked in Mortal Combat with the C++ code, forcing it to submit to your will?

Who are they to have any more of a say into your design than you choose to allow them?

Should Da Vinci have given Mona Lisa green hair just because some people would have appreciated it?
Reply #36 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
MP is fine, but not at the expense of the SP experience. Your priorities were right from the outset, don't change them now.





Brad the game rocks as it is. Save MP for GCIII
Reply #37 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I'm glad you made single player the priority; as you said there are many choices for multi-player these days but few great single player games.

When I clicked the link for Stellar Frontier I realized that I had played it years ago. Like a trip down memory lane.
Reply #38 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Whoa. I loved the comparison to other vessels using data from that Starship Dimensions website. That site had vessels I forgot about--like the gunstar.
Reply #39 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I bought the game for single player. If I want multiplayer I boot up City of Heroes. So I don't think it can be stated enough: Please for the love of all that is good in this universe do NOT sacrifice any single player content for multiplayer functionality. Now if you can get a few of those C++ gnomes to code it for you for free or something small like a first born then by all means go for it. Otherwise stick with the original design.

Nothing more to be said
Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
A lot of people prefer to play with themselves.


Errr, I mean play by themselves.
Reply #41 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Two words: NO MULTIPLAYER.

If people want a great mp tb experience, civIV is just calling out for you to play. No space battles? Just wait a few monthes. People are modding it like crazy to make it into a million other games. That will be just as long as it takes stardock to finish a sub-par(as all after-the-fact ones are) mp addon.

Anyways I just don't want this great game I bought to become a swiss army knife. I want it to be a bowie knife.
Great at one thing only and with none of the little dinky useless extras cluttering it up just to make it seem cool but end up lose their novelty value real quick.
Reply #42 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I agree with the focus on single player - that's what makes the game great.

I for one would like to see hot-seat implemented. As Brad has already said it can be sort of done with CTRL-SHIFT-Z in cheat mode, I don't see it would take all that long to implement. I guess the only major stumbling block would be diplomacy. Either it would have to be split over the two players or add an agree button to BOTH sides of the trade and trust people to ask their opponent to agree. I guess with hotseat you have to trust the other person not to take your go anyway!

It'd just be good to have hotseat that didn't put AI in charge of your civ while the other person plays (as I guess CTRL-SHIFT-Z must do).
Reply #43 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
An RTS version of Gal Civ 2 would be SWEET!
Reply #44 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I voted no on the poll to the left originally because I prefer content over MP and still do.

But after some thought, I would change my vote. My son is taking an interest in this game and it would be well worth $20-30 to be able to play MP over my LAN with him. I don't care about internet MP, I tried that with Civ and it's not much fun. But I love the idea of a 4-8 player lan capability where you know who you're playing with and know they can stick through a game. I'm not sure if LAN vs. Internet MP would make any difference in how MP was implemented or not, I would think bandwidth and lag would be of less concern. If I had to play through gamespy or something similar, I'd probably pass on it.

If you choose to not pursue it, I won't be crying in my coffee...It's a great game.
Reply #45 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Why I like HoMM 2/3/4 + 5 (soon) , Civ 3PTW , Civ4 , AoW and other games same type ? It's hotseat. Without hotseat - game-RIP. Single - fun for a hour. MP - for years.

Sorry for bad known of language

Greetings from Rus.

Кириллица решает
Reply #46 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
that's what I'm saying, Hotseat is just like singleplayer, only with your friends, esspecialy if humans play togeather, so everyone can wach what others are doing, and everybody have fun all of the time, they are watching combats, strategies, random events and everything, FUN!
Reply #47 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
Multiplayer hotseat would require two options:

1) independent ship design to settle design issues before the game
2) option to share player designed ships dated _prior_ to the first turn.

Or design while you wait. The ship designer alone usually takes as long as a turn without the ship designer. With all the improvements to it since 1.0, it's as fun as the game itself.
Reply #48 from Stardock Forums Top
I think that one of the best parts of GalCiv 2 is that it doesn't have Multi-player. Not all games need or should have multi-player. In my opinion Multi-player detracts from the single player game and there is a huge market for the single-player game. Civ 3 was a wonderful single player game, Civ 4 is not as nearly as good a single player game - why? because they devoted their energy towards multi-player and left out some things that were good only on a single player game. I am an older player and do not have many friends who play. Now I could go on-line into the lobbies and "make" friends
I suppose - but I don't like the style of play of many who inhabit the lobbies. IP games is out because I don't know people who play that way. In some ways the MP community is a closed community, and unless you like the style - which is quit if I am not going to win, log on to a game knowing I have 15 minutes and then I have to leave then you are not going to fit in. I tried in the Civ 4 forums to create a group of players that would play a more mature style. Then when the game came out the I could not get into the lobby for more than a minute before it crashed. The first fix came out and I could play but the mature players were all doing either IP or PBEM. PBEM is just too slow for my schedule. I need to make a move more than once a week to stay in the game's mood. I am sure that the MP community is not big enough to support a MP version of every single game - there is more than enough market for single player only games.
Reply #49 from GalCiv2 Forums Top

I just voted FOR the added cost MP expansion, but I imagine that I'd play almost all my games Single Player.

I like the game so much that having a way to play against others seems really appealing... but I suspect that I'd only get the chance to actually play against someone else very rarely. Same thing happened with MMORPGs... I couldn't group with a regular team because my hours were so erattic.

Nevertheless, I'd buy the expansion, at additional cost.

Galciv II is a GREAT game! Getting an expansion pack (preferably on the shelves) would get another round of reviews on all the game sites. I believe that would be a good thing. It would get more attention for the franchise.

The main reason I think the multiplayer would be a good thing is because of the reviews.

Most of them seemed to be:

Reviewer A:

I really liked Galciv II... I really liked... I really liked... It doesn't have multiplayer... I really liked... I really liked...

Reviewer B:

Despite having no multiplayer... I really liked... I really liked... I really liked...

Reviewer C:

I really liked... I really liked... Though every other game this good has multiplayer, Galciv II does not... I really liked...

It just got old for me.

You'd read a review, the reviewer loved it, but felt compelled to mention the lack of multiplayer.

Doing a multiplayer expansion would give the reviewers a good reason to put the title on the front page of all the game review websites again. It would also give them a way to communicate to people how fast the game is being updated with all the fixes and tweaks.

More publicity is a good thing. A new box on the shelf that gets you a new round of reviews, and that adresses the ONLY universal complaint about the game in the reviewer's universe?

It seems like a no-brainer.

Don't get me wrong. I love the game just as it is. Judging by the posts in this thread, so does everyone else.

But we are the converted. The faithful.

If you guys can get this game on more people's hard drives, I'm all for that. And I believe that a Multiplayer expansion pack could help do that.

Reply #50 from GalCiv2 Forums Top
I personaly enjoy the game but would love a hotseat multiplayer option at least.

As it is I and a friend take turns managing various civilizations or one person will handle implementation on the shot term while the other person watches out for long term... stuff like that. It would be nice to simply have multiple players...

Games that have multiplayer, even basic multiplayer, stay on my system for a LOT longer simply from the dynamic of playing a game with friends.

BTW: I am from a pretty rare camp that thinks that coop play is the only thing worth playing. Most games (that I have come across) in the last few years have competitive multiplayer but no or very crummy cooperative play and those stay on my system for the shortest time (if at all).

There are only a few games that stick out in my mind as having had great coop play capabilities (usualy due to a challenging AI): UT (original UT not UT2k3 or 2k4), in team mode, humans vs AI, there went a few months; Starcraft (and this is still in our systems) though not as challenging anymore; Descent and Descent2 (Descent3 just sucked), various console games (toe jam and earl, halo, life force); Ground Control II (not a great game but noteworthy for having cooperative campaigns). Games that were good AND had multiplayer stayed on our systems for as much as a year or 3 (starcraft being the exception of having never left) while games that were good only stuck around for a month or 2 till the next potentialy good multiplayer game squeezed it out of my playlist. GalCivII is pretty darned good IMO but sans multiplayer it's a 2-3 month game tops. At least I will get my money worth out of it unlike most other games out in the last few years that weren't even good.

I suppose though that I can expect not to see even a checkbox multiplayer option for this given the poll. That's fine too since as I stated, I feel like I will get my moneys worth out of this game. Very few games fit that category multiplayer or no. Also worth nothing is I would have no problem slaping down cash for an expantion that featured multiplayer where as I probably wouldn't be slaping any cash down for an expantion lacking multiplayer as by the time such an expantion was completed I probably wouldn't be playing anymore. I might be wrong on that given how dedicated you guys seem to be.

another btw: My concept has long been that the most fun multiplayer games generaly had single player come first and then cooperative multiplayer was added (ie console games almost exclusively).

That's my take, thanks for reading, tried to keep it under a rant...