I guess that explains why I don't own bioshock, or oblivion.



Let me rephrase. It is required if I am going to buy it. The box for GalCivII was misleading. It suggested it had multiplayer. I don't have it handy but there was something to the effect of "compete with others around the world". Hence the reason I purchased the origional game.

So sure, you may be right. Not EVERY game has multiplayer. Even some that don't do okay. But the vast majority of games do have multiplayer. GalCiv is the only TBS game I've ever owned (besides very old games like moo1, master of magic, or early civ) that doesn't have multiplayer.

Also a search of this forum indicates that has been pretty big interest in multiplayer.

The bottom line is, the competitors to GavCiv are release games with multiplayer (Civ, Moo & SE). Most games provide multiplayer. What are you going to try to justify next? That 256 colors and 640x480 resulotion is plenty good as long as you spend development time on some other feature deemed important?



Ever played Civ? Or moo? timed turns are a good solution to this. Also, the ability to continue after you've 'ended your turn' in civ helps.

A friend and I often play TBS games together. We get together weekly and continue our game. A single game can last months. Or, better yet, try using the pitboss option, which allows for long term games. SEV also has a fan site that allows play by web capability. So when it's your turn you get an email.



Have you considered that having multiplayer would attract a larger customer base? Possibly raising this game from bargin bin status to something more successful?

I guess, you better put one more notch in the column of customers who haven't bought any expansions solely because of the lack of multiplayer. As a matter of fact GalCiv has never been installed on my current computer. I bought this one last December. SE V, Moo3, and Civ4 (+2 expansions) are all currently on this hard drive.

Maybe a post like this and the several other people in this thread that agree with me will eventually add up to enough people for the developers to consider multiplayer important. Too bad people like me have already written off the franchise.

If galciv2 had mp it basically wouldnt have a sp(worth comparing to wut it is now), and i doubt it would have a larger fan base for that reason.

my my maybe someone should learn to read reviews of a game .there is no where in the advertizing that says multiplayer .i myself always check reviews if im uncertain what type of game it is.I try to avoid multiplayer twitch type games.

Check out this recent comparison of Halo 3 and BioShock:

http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox360/games/features/139569.shtml

BioShock lost only because of its lack of multiplayer -- how stupid is that? If a game is not designed to incorporate multiplayer, why is it being judged on it? It's like comparing a car to an airplane, and the car loses because it can't fly. See? It's not just ridiculous consumers expecting multiplayer, it's ridiculous industry magazines as well.

I just don't understand why so many people think multiplayer is a requirement for a game to be worth playing. Most of the games I can point to as my favourites of all time were single player games -- System Shock 2, Planescape: Torment, Fallout, X-Com UFO Defense and many more. None of these would have been improved by adding multiplayer, IMO, and some would have lost quite a bit in the process.

No disrespect to those of you who think multiplayer is a huge subject but there is already a thread for that in the stuck section.

Kyro did the entire forum not request that the next MP thread be locked as soon as it started and a pointer to the stuck conversation put in the last thread?

so because you personally do not find multiplay entertaining, it must be stupid??
I do not think it is stupid at all. Games are judged on their entertainment value, so obviously the judges at the magazine realised the multiplay increased its entertainment value, and rightly so.



Entire forum? Entire forum must mean everyone in the forum rite? I knew it, Aliens have altered my memory so i do not remember making that request!

See the Metaverse link in the left sidebar. It's an online system whereby players compete based on score and activity.

Nowhere on the box will you find the word "multiplayer".

As noted by Brad, Bioshock and Oblivion have shown that single-player-by-design games are alive and well and more than capable of garnering high marks (and sales).

Protests aside, all research and experience has pointed to multiplayer in GC2 not being worth the cost, especially since as a small company, doing multiplayer would mean NOT doing lots of other features. And that's not a compromise that'd be worthwhile to us or to most players.



Bargin bin games don't get multiple expansion packs.

Thanks for the support frogboy. It's nice to know that it would be there if it was justified. Maybe someday it will be if not in this game maybe the next if it happens. Oh a question you know civ4 has sold 2 million copies, how many gc2 have sold by itself or with expansions??? Just curious I also own Civ 4 haven't played the multiplayer option myself but, I mostly play via local lan against friends not online.

You clearly said they were stupid to say one game was better because it had multiplayer. well i say, if they went to all the trouble of putting in the multiplayer, then they should get credit for that. If you want to use cars as an example, then i would say that a car with airconditioning should get credit for that when compared to another car that does not. The fact that the airconditioning uses more recources, some people may not want it in preference for other things etc etc blah blah blah still does not change the fact that it should get credit for the feature.

I have not used the multiplay for civ4 but only because my wife won't play it. Also when i think about it, i would not use an online multiplayer for Galciv either.

However when my wife sees me playing galciv, she starts asking me questions about it and wants to join my game but i sadly have to dissapoint her. This being the reason i would love a multiplayer but it would not help Stardock's sales since i would object to buying the game twice just to play at home on 2 computers.

a strawman argument? i never herd that one before?

anyhow i am not trying to be specific enough to go onto the detail of methodology verses people or putting words in mouths, sorry about that.

I think i see the missunderstanding.... my point is simple, that the multiplayer is an option that adds value to the game just as airconditioning ads value to a car.

Now when road testing two cars there are many things that are considered by the tester. Car A may have airconditioning while car B does not. However car B may have some other feature to make up for it, i dunno. But despite everything, the airconditioning still helps car A be a little more impressive than if it did not have it. That does not mean it is necissarily better than car B however, car B would also be even more impressive if it also had airconditioning. Now in the case of the two games you mention, the testers decided that the multiplayer was enough to make one game better than the other.

Civ 4 is garbage. It's missing a very core feature - you cannot build multiple offensive and defensive military units in any way. You can upgrade pre-built units, but never build your own custom units. Therefore it is not as good a game for anybody as gal civ 2.

Is this a valid argument? Lord, no. I don't like Civ 4's unit experience system, not one little bit, but that doesn't make it a sensible thing to use a an "unbiased" review element! For me personally, I can judge things however I like, but a professional review should look at the game as objectively as possible.

Also anybody who really digs Civ 4, keep in mind it's a much simpler game. They built multiplayer onto a game that's both simpler than Gal Civ 2 and still doesn't have as good AI. The units are prebuilt, so no need for AI on those. The cities don't need to be balanced in terms of space limitations, so the AI doesn't need to figure out what to build where in nearly as serious a way. The combat system is significantly simpler than gal civ's, so the AI doesn't have as much organization to deal with. The economy isn't hard to balance at all, and has a lot fewer choices to worry about for the AI. The tech tree is much simpler, and gives the AI more obvious paths, unlike GC2's which tends to require careful consideration of what tech you choose next.

Overall what you got from civ 4 was a quality MP game, but not a very deep SP game by any means, and not a terribly impressive AI. GC2 chose to put its resources into a SP game instead, and look at what we have for it - a much deeper game even though the company is far smaller than Firaxis. I think there's a lesson to be learned here....

Outstanding!!!