Like I said aboved, I agree with Stardock's priority of making a great single-player game first. But, I don't understand why people seem to equate multi-player with live play over the internet or a LAN. Sure, GC is not ideal for this type of play. But PBEM is perfect for turn-based games. Within limits, you take your turn at your convenience, spend as much or as little time thinking about it as you desire, then send it off. Okay, it may take a while to finish a game, but who says a game has to be finished in an evening--or a week--for it to be enjoyable? I started gaming during the days of board wargames and play-by-[snail]-mail. It could take a good long time to finish a game like D-Day or Anzio via the mail, and the wait between turns probably averaged nearly a week--longer if you were playing someone from another country. PBEM cuts the time between turns drastically.

I can see why many people have no enthusiasm for live multiplayer over the net--neither do I---and I already purchased GC2 despite the intent to release it without any multiplayer capability--because I love Space 4X games and am confident, based on GC1, that this will be an excellent one. But, nothing could make me happier, in terms of a subsequent exansion, than the ability to PBEM/hotseat GC2 with a human opponent. And, as I said before, from a non-programmer's veiwpoint [which I realize could be completely wrong], it seems like implementing PBEM/hotseat would take MUCH less work than accomodating live multiplayer via the net or LAN.

don't care what anybody says. GalCiv2 would sell a heck lot more if multiplayer was included. That is simply a fact! Welcome to the future...get with the program. Why play the computer when you can play your friend across the world?!

Saying something is a fact doesn't make it so.  Feel free to start your own game company and make a TBS game with multiplayer. Of course, since budgets and times are limited, you'll likely have to sacrifice some other feature to get multiplayer in.

Yes, there are other types of multiplayer, and as I said, hotseat is the only type of multiplayer I've enjoyed with turn-based games. PBEM is too slow paced for me to enjoy.

Now, I'm also not saying that noone would enjoy net-based multiplayer games, for that matter. I'm just trying to get the point across that as much as someone might love them, that doesn't mean that everyone, or even a majority of people would enjoy it.

I WILL buy a multiplayer expansion pack to GC2 if it ever comes out, even if 99% of my games are single player, but I'm not willing to sacrifice noticable parts of the single player experience for it, either.

To answer your question "Why play the computer when you can play your friend across the world?!" 1) Because this is a turn based game, and I don't want to wait for another human to make decisions. The GC AI makes most of its decisions while I'm making my turn, so the majority of my time playing the game against the computer is spent actually playing the game. 2) (Corallary to #1) Because I don't want to feel guilty if I'm in the middle of my turn and something comes up (wife calls me into another room, pizza shows up at the door, have to go to the bathroom, or one of the cats is puking on the carpet and I have to clean it up) forcing me to not finish my turn until later, sometimes much later. 3) Because the GC1 AI is good enough to give me a challenging game, and I don't expect any less from the GC2 AI. This is probably true for 95% of the people that bought GC1. Also, it sounds like the GC2 AI is going to be better than the CG1 AI is. 4) Because I don't have that many friends that play space based 4x TBS games, so I'd rather fire up a game when I want to rather than when I can coordinate a time with someone else. Playing against people I don't know has other potential downsides. 5) Because it's about fun, not trying to prove I'm better than someone else or other forms of one-upmanship. 6) Because most human players don't have the patience for huge/gigantic maps, which are my preferred maps. 7) Because having an unfinished game while I wait for someone else to find free time in their life can be extremely annoying. GC isn't a game that can be knocked out in an hour, usually not even in an evening unless you're playing a fairly small map. Most multiplayer online games can be played in an hour or two at most.

Well said, Popup; I couldn't have put it better myself. TBS games (and space 4x games in particular) are usually about the singleplayer experience. I have quite a few friends that play these games, and not *one* of us engages in multiplayer on a regular basis. About the only people we ever play with is against each other; and even then we still prefer to play by ourselves. The few times we've had multiplayer games, we usually wind up sitting at our respective computers, bored to tears waiting for everyeone else to finish their turns (even if it's just 3-4 of us). I can live without that, thank you.

Ok, let me start off by saying that I agree with stardock's decision to drop the multiplayer in order to improve other aspects of the game, and even if i didn't it's not like it's going to be added in now for the final release anyway, no matter how much we all beg or debate. I do, however, really want to see multiplayer in this game at some point, so instead of bashing them for a decision they have already made, those who want multiplayer need to convince them that making an expansion with multiplayer capabilities would benefit them, instead of just saying I like multipeyer so put it in.

So, as I said I would really like to see a multiplayer expansion to Gal Civ 2 and there are quite a few reasons to do so. First let me say that I know of very few, well actually no TBS pace based 4X games with a good engaging story. This is mostly do to the time it takes inbetween forwarding the story (you have to finish the mission in order to continue the story along), so if you get caught in a hard mission you might loose interest in the game and perhalps never come back to it. However, if a game has multiplayer it is in essence, immortal, it could last for decades, especially a well built TBS game where the gameplay is paramamount instead of graphics. I still play BOTF (Birth of the Federation) even though it's pretty flawed, and has no single player story but it does have multiplayer, and after a mod of my making it became really enjoyable, especially with friends. I'm not trying to say you should of done multiplayer instead of making the single player experience better, i'm just saying that multiplayer could add years and years onto a games life. However you never know, maybe Stardocks going to blow us away with a good story, and implement it in an all new way, i'm just saying that TBS games in general don't have as engaging stories as RTS and FPS where your right in the action, at least that I know of.

Well, i'm probably going to think of more reasons latter, so i'll add them in later. So like I said people, if you want multiplayer, stop complaining and start thinking, we have to convince them thats it's worth it, I meen i know there nice guys, but there not going to spend there money and time just making something if they think there not going to get anything out of it. Well thats my peice for now, so put on your thinking caps and lets get a nice jucy list of reasons going here!

This is continuing to spiral out of control.

Don't worry, after release, we'll put up a pre-order form to see if there's interest -- as in dollar interest -- in a multiplayer add-on.

Thank you Frogboy, this actually seems like a good idea. If infact this game is pushed into mainstream there may be a bigger intrest in Multiplayer, not becasue more of 4x players want Multiplayer, but because there are mroe palyers period.

And at the end of the day, I don't want to play GalCiv II multiplayer. So I'm not inclined to support it. I've yet to play a turn based game that was enjoyable (for me) multiplayer. I would be a lot more inclined to take the Galciv II engine and make an RTS version that has multiplayer.

Thats actually an even better idea, because GalCiv2 will indeed have a powerful game engine. I forsee more than one game can be made using this engine. And for multiplay RTS is probably better unless u come up with some sort of speed turns or something. However you will need good balance to make RTS work. I found Imperium Galaktica awsome but totally unbalanced

It's been a few months since I visited the site and here we are again. I for one will not buy this game because no single player game has the replay value of a solid working multiplayer title PERIOD. I don't care what genre were talking about if done right multiplayer is far more interesting. Your survey data is flawed because what people really want is all of the above AND multiplayer. Fine you don't have the time money or resources to make multiplayer a priority but don't go saying stupid things nobody wants multiplayer or it doesn't work in turn based strategy games because you are dead wrong. Personally I don't want some tack on multiplayer expansion either. If it's not built from the ground up with multiplayer in mind it will probably suck anyways. Here's looking forward to Civ4.

Cya Zargrim..

I'll be watching for that 2006 announcement

Actually, I don't think the claim has been made that noone likes multiplayer, but rather that multiplayer isn't a big selling point in the 4x TBS genre. You can speak for yourself, and some of your friends and rabid game player associates, but you can't speak for the majority of TBS game players. There really aren't many (any?) 4x TBS games that hit it big because they had multiplayer. Yes, for realtime games, especially FPS games, multiplayer is essential, and yes, there are 4x TBS games that still have a trickle of sales and popularity because they can be played multiplayer.

BTW, don't take this the wrong way, but I hope you enjoy Civ 4. It's not that I'm glad to see you go, I just hope you find what you're looking for. I agree that for multiplayer in a 4x TBS game to be good, it has to be factored in at the start, but those changes would make the single player game less enjoyable to me, at least.

FWIW, which probably isn't much, I don't have the slightest interest in multiplayer. I hesitated to post in this thread, but it seemed to be so one sided ...

It all boils down to business. Stardock is in the business of making excellent games that sell. The more they sell, the more they can build.

If you want multiplayer -- then take Frogboy up on his offer! Send a truckload of cash over to Stardock and demand multiplayer. I am sure he will listen and provide his largest customer with results.

Otherwise, suck it up and realize that he will build only what the majority are willing to buy. Period.

AI's cannot compeat with humans, humans are smart, sneaky, tricky, cleaver and on and on. Not olny that how much enjoyment can you get playing the computer vs playing with friends. Who would you rather play chess with the computer or a friend.
As for games that take a long time to play, save it and playreal it with ytour friends next opertunity when you can get together.
I just cannot understand why someone would go through all the trouble to make this type of game with not haveing in formost thought in their mind of makeing it playable with friends amazing!
Well I'm glab there are smart humans like Lord Brazen that keep good old Moo II rocking n rolling on xp.
Thats my 2 cents worth.

Master of Orion 3 has multiplayer.  Go onto Gamespy right now and see how many people are playing it.

Master of Orion 3 should not even be compared with bad games, and of course, never with GalCiv. MOO3 was the biggest disappointment in a long time. A brought it back the same day.
Nevertheless MOO2 is the classic game of the genre, at least in my opinion. Ship Design's popularity might be a consequence, Multiplayer as well. If it is about budget it is obvious that the mayority will prefer a sound game WITHOUT multiplayer and not a bad game like MOO3.
However, the questions are: Can you afford to publish a modern game without multiplayer mode? Will Civ4 or Heroes5 really compete with GalCiv2?
Personally I have to agree with other people: Even a great AI cannot replace human players (real opponents) and I cannot understand the "antisocial" threads at all. It is not about to be social but to be really challenged for a long time.
That´s way I have to prefer other turn based games, unfortunately... but I hope GalCiv2 will be a succes anyway and I´m hoping for the expansion "GalCiv2 - the return to Orion", that would be awesome!

MOO2 multiplayer wasn't all that great. Games taook an enourmous amount of time. The only multiplayer I would ever want is pbem (play by email), can play without needing large amounts of time.

Moo2 multiplayer was slow because the game needs lot of micro. It was good thou, I only had the problems with the lack of game balance, which was annoying. Things like MIRV and Unified Tolerant races made the game suck :/ Still I like playing it here and there.

Point argued and decision made.

Frogboy: I've been making games for over a decade and on top of that, let me just say that game developers talk to each other quite a bit.  And the consensus is, multiplayer in a 4X game is a luxury. It doesn't really make a big addition in sales.

This sounds interesting. Yet, does it still hold true?

Especially considering the number of Internet-based games that have sprung about lately. For instance, there are mostly text-based (generally very much simplified) 4x games that attract thousands and thousands of players. If a mostly text-based game manages to attract so many players, ...... .

Frogboy: Master of Orion 3 has multiplayer.  Go onto Gamespy right now and see how many people are playing it.

As a number of people already mentioned, this isn't a very useful comparison. It'd be alot more interesting to hear your opinion of Civ IV having multiplayer (even though it obviously isn't a space game).

Other than that it's good to see a Stardock representative actually participating in the discussion .

ForesterGC: Point argued and decision made

For this version yes. For future versions / a possible addon, no. The more people that argue / post here, the more likely the possibility will be taken seriously next time it is decided upon. (at least that's the idea )

I think Civ IV will be a very good indicator.  It'll be out soon and we'll then be able to see how a game with massive distribution under the base-case conditions does with multiplayer.

 

Personally I'd like to see a multiplayer component.

I've heard comments that suggest multiplayer and replayability are mutually exlclusive, or at the very least conflict with one another, I would suggest that the opposite is true--particularily for 4X games. Let's face it, no matter how hard developers try to make a clever AI the computer's flaws and idiosyncrasies eventually become exploited and most gamers lose interest soon afterwards. OS/2 Galciv1&2, PC GalCiv 1, Civilization 1,2,&3, and Alpha Centauri are all 4X games it took me less than a couple weeks to master at the highest skill levels and I hardly played them afterwards. The only thing left to play for once the computer is rendered predictable is trying to get higher and higher scores, or in other words, trying to find ways of exploiting the computer as efficiently as possible.

Until some drastic change occurs in the realm of Artificial Intelligence I don't see this changing; it doesn't matter how much time and money one throws at it.

"Master of Orion 3 has multiplayer. Go onto Gamespy right now and see how many people are playing it."
Sure noone play moo3 cos it´s just a poor game.

I´m daily on kali, in moo2 chat/room. There r always some mooers which were playing MoO2.
I ll wait wishfully for a real MoO2 successor.
MoO3 is a bad game and has MP.
GalCiv will maybe a good game but without MP ?!?!

I guess we need to play/mod MoO2 for the eternities, cos noone will be able to make a bloody similar game with better graphics or so, or maybe *dreaming* will even do a better game.
I have soo much improvment ideas ... !

I ll wait for the galciv2 demo, after that I can really say if there´s a need of MP !

Hey AlexD What troll feed brings you to this neck of the woods?

I've come to conclusion that if there was multiplayer for this game I wouldnt play it anyway. This game would not be good enough to use multiplayer for. I'll check civ4 multiplayer, because it got some good reviews instead.

Astax... do you have anything valuble to add to these discussions, or are you just out to troll?

"I won't buy it without multiplayer!"
"I wouldn't buy it even if it had multiplayer because the game stinks!"

How do you even know if the game stinks yet? Gameplay isn't in beta yet.