This game needs multiplayer love

They're not opposed to it at all. They just get don't get much demand to include it as a feature so they use the resources to expand on single player instead. Personally, I'm not that big on internet gaming so it's fine for me and according to the polls, it's fine for 90% of the players. Though, I do like the whole Metaverse thing, but that's something entirely different.

Another problem with multi-player is that even a short game takes a certain amount of attention and dedication. People usually don't have the time and energy to expend on playing a game in one sitting. It would be a drag to have oppenents dropping in and out all the time. And then there are the guys that win all the time because they have lots of time on their hands. Been there, don't want to go back. Though, I can see where LAN gaming with a few buddies would work out well.

I think citing the polls the way you did is a quick way out. The poll you're referring to said "which would you like the most," or maybe first. Personally, I didn't ask for multiplayer because there were other things on the list that I found more interesting. But if you asked for my top two, multiplayer would've been there.

I think multiplayer would be amazing, particularly hot seat and lan.

Just an IP connection and hotseat would really rock. Have the same type of save game and reload features as Civ4.

I hardly play the game anymore due to the lack of multiplayer. The AI is great, but it's still AI. Had a group of friends that we played Civ4 MP to death looking forward to picking up the new Civ4 expanison cause of the MP and new features.

I honestly think Galciv2 is a far superior game to Civ4, it's just lacking one important thing.

This game is dying for some multiplayer, and personally i'd love to see it.

Itd be just like back in the day when i'd stay up all night playing Master of Orion 2 with a coupla buddies.

I think the point of the poll was that there are other things people would prefer over multiplayer. Yes, that doesn't mean they are all against multiplayer, but it does mean that Stardock would be better off spending their time and affort elsewhere.

Take the forthcoming expansion pack for example, how many of those new features would be missing if they included multiplayer in the pack instead?

I'd have no problem if they added multiplayer later, but right now, there is alot more I would like to see. Keep your fingers crossed, once the first expansion pack is out they might be prepared to work on it.

To get an accurate sample on who really wants multiplayer, Stardock would have to have a poll at GameSpot or some other big gaming website. Fact is, most of the people that come here are more for the single player game (just looking at the posts it's obvious).

Besides, only HARDCORE gamers do multiplayer. I would be surprised if a large number of casual gamers were into multiplayer. I could be wrong, but I just don't see most casuals going that route.

It might be a different genre but look at how many casual gamers play World of Warcraft, sometimes a mutliplayer community will lure a large fanbase of casual players who never would have played if they couldnt play with their buddies.

Granted this game isnt for the feint of heart, so the casual gamer probably won't commit to GalCiv2 anyhow.

Fair points, all of them, but Stardock does have options if they don't want to neglect development of existing and new features. Hiring a temporary programmer to do the network code (basically outsourcing) would take it off their hands entirely, as would allowing open-source development of the network code -- another great way to involve the community, albeit a smaller segment of it.

Stardock did a good job explaining the case against multiplayer...

[link="https://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=114051"]https://www.galciv2.com/Journals.aspx?AID=114051">Link

If the rumors are true that Stardock just MIGHT be considering remaking Master of Magic, (I'm going to pause here while I close my eyes and say "I wish, I wish, I wish..."), I DEFINITELY would like THAT game to be multiplayer from the start.

I like Galciv II just fine as it is... right now it's too hard for me to get a reliable player who would be able to play the game the same hours that I can. Too much hassle. I'd make the effort for MoM...

I think citing the polls the way you did is a quick way out. The poll you're referring to said "which would you like the most," or maybe first. Personally, I didn't ask for multiplayer because there were other things on the list that I found more interesting. But if you asked for my top two, multiplayer would've been there.

Wrong. They also asked "would you buy a multiplayer expansion", with yes or no answers. The overall vote was no.

Diplomacy would be MUCH better than MP imo. Even tactical combat (which I'm against) would be better, given the zerg rush/quit nature of so many annoying gamers. I just don't see the point of wasting an expansion on something which I won't use every time I play the game, as opposed to diplomacy or politics, which add to the depth in every game.

I'd absolutely love multiplayer. I play Laser Squad Nemesis alot and while the game's much different the multiplayer option could be alot like it, with an interface that emails turns to the server so that people don't have to play in one sitting but play the game over a few weeks. That would be awesome!

To get an accurate sample on who really wants multiplayer, Stardock would have to have a poll at GameSpot or some other big gaming website.

To get the fairest poll, it would need to be conducted offline.

PS(OT): Pasteurized, I play LSN too (on and off). Currently on a free trial to get back into it. Have you been playing long?

[OT]

Well I guess I've been playing for a year now? I play pretty frequently but I'm really quite awful at the game, still fun though ; )

My LSN name is Slay btw.

Hotseat and Ip are wonderful ideas, of course a battle.net is not needed and a good point that it will take a hell of a long time to do one game, many problems with that. But if your just playing with your buddies and such who cares if you end the game, your gonna play again later, although a save feature would fix the problem of not being able to finish a really good game. I have also seen some games where you can e-mail the file to your buddy after you finish one turn. and then he does his turn and sends it back. I don't know if its possible for this game, but its a really popular feature for turn based games such as this.

OT] Well I guess I've been playing for a year now? I play pretty frequently but I'm really quite awful at the game, still fun though ; ) My LSN name is Slay btw.

I think I've seen you around a bit. I'm currently going under "Corpse".

What would they do with the diplomacy skill though? It would be a completely worthless skill against human opponents. 50% more diplomacy skill will not stop a human player from declaring war on you... I'd like to see multiplayer, but the game wouldn't work the same on a human... and if they add in more realistic diplomacy as everyone wants (me included!)... all that would be useless with humans, too.

So here's the question... how would they have to change the diplomacy skill to make it viable in a vs human game?

The Combat Mission series from Battlefront (www.battlefront.com) is another great turn-based game. They have an email game option, where players would view the progress for a turn, give their orders, and send it off as an email to their opponent.

If anything, I'd love to see this implemented for GalCiv. Diplomacy offers could be tricky between players (there might have to be a separate order phase just for diplomatic efforts during the game turn). But given some player's schedules, I think being able to shoot off an email move, 2-3 times a week, up to speed for most people if they can't slug it out online for several hours in one sitting.

Multiplayer fanboys all miss the key issue:

Making a game multiplayer is not a simply a small technical problem, i.e. adding some network code. It is a fundamental design decision that impacts how the game plays at every level.

Just one example is the concept of 'balance'. A multiplayer games is worthless without it while a single player game can almost ignore it completely. In it's place all sorts of unbalancing story/flavor or unique gameplay can be added.

Adding multiplayer--And making it work--would change the game. It wouldn't be the game you enjoy now. It might also be fun but it would be similar to a million other multiplayer games. GalCiv2 as it is now is a one of a very few fun single player games and it should stay that way.

Mr. Lucky

A buddy of mine each bought this game with the intention to play each other. Honestly it's suprising that a modern game doesn't have multi-player.

It's the only thumbs down I can come up with about this game.

I'd love to see multiplayer. That was the best part about (can I say it?) haha) Master of Orion 2. Damn, that hotseat forged the most valuable and lasting friendship of my life. It's insane, really.