 |
| |
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:15
|
|
on a personal note, the lack of MP won't be devistating to me, because i don't have the time to devote myself to PBEM, and my internet connection requires alot of patience to play an ip game
however, i really do wish most of you would at least admit that multiplayer is a fairly important part of a strategy game
people can name a million and one games that are highly successful and don't include MP at all, but the vast majority of those games aren't strategy games...can anyone really make a list of ten single player only strategy games that have done phenominally in the past four years?
here is what we know
*May 1999, firaxis announces Civ3 at E3 with BR as the lead designer
*December 1999, BR quits and takes the core of the Civ3 team with him
so after seven months of working on Civ3, firaxis has to start all over again basically from scratch
so firaxis has been working on civ3 for only about 21 months, instead of 28
we also know that Jeff Morris wanted to conduct an open beta, but said their wasn't time for one
we also know that there wasn't time for a demo
and MP got cut out
we do not know if these changes allowed firaxis enough time to develop and ship a high quality program
i am going to give Civ3 the benefit of the doubt, because none of us here know if it will be as good or as bad as what some people are saying
all i'm saying i am prepared for the worst, but i am hoping for the best, and i am tired of of the following argument
civ3 sux!
no it doesn't!
yes it does!
no way man!
civ3 is the worst game i have ever played (in my mind)!
no way civ3 is the best game ever!
time to die
no you die!
we don't know yet!
so lets call a truce till the game comes out
then we can really spill blood 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GamesMun
|
|
 First, I'm very disappointed in most the SP comments on here. If the game had only come out with MP, I would have been so upset on the SP's behalf; I would even wanted to wait for the game to come out so the "other half" of our gaming family could enjoy the game as it was meant to be. But NO, not only could most SP's care less, they are making rude jives towards MP's.
quote:
If you're really a hardcore MP, then you can wait. You probably don't want to get a half-written implementation anyway. |
No, If YOU were a hardcore CIV fan, you could wait till the fully written implementation of the game (including MP) comes out.
Multiplayer is standard in this day and age, and it's just plain inexcusable that it will not be included. No patch or upgrade can possibly do any type of descent job of adding MP. No AI can match the thrill, unpredictability, and fun of play against or with other humans. I, and my group of 8 friends/family that plays games together have promised never to buy CIV III until (if ever) a stable MP is available (FREE).
So to the rude SP's out there; forgive us if we have actual friends, and families, and Lans, and LIVES that include really living human beings to play with and against! Maybe that's why there's less MP's on this board now; they are spending time with HUMANS!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mjs0
|
|
Florida, USA
Jun 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
Wow, after lurking for who knows how many years (predates the Apolyton merger for sure) something finally piqued my interest enough to post...I started playing Civ1 on a Commodore Amiga (5+ minutes to create and populate a map!) almost 10 years ago and have passed through all the subsequent iterations/imitations including the CTPs and SMAC. I have already pre-ordered the CivIII LE.
Let me start by saying that I do bemoan the lack of multiplayer. My wife (  ), children and I play many many MP games on our home LAN from SMAC to Baldur's Gate and we are disappointed (not devastated/annoyed/suicidal or even mildly irritated  , just disappointed ) that we will not get this functionality in the initial release.
I have worked in the software industry for over 20 years (although not PC games unfortunately) for several companies both small and large in positions varying from QA to programmer to architect all the way up to V.P. of development (a thankless job) and I have observed the following behaviour many times...
Even without the unprecedented level of future customer input represented by the CivIII list, the designers/developers of a product always have far more features and neat ideas (  ) than can possibly be implemented in a single release cycle. They (the good guys) will argue that the development time or available resources should be expanded to allow as much as possible to be done. On the other side sit the beancounters (the bad guys) who remind the designer/developer types that their salaries are not being pulled from thin air and that at some point the product they are developing needs to show an ROI (return on investment).
The solution is inevitably a compromise that sees the product shipped with less functionality than the development team would ideally want to see. The idea is typically to continue with some level of development effort working towards the next version/release/patch, and whether these efforts continue to completion is inevitably influenced by the success or failure of the initial release from a financial perspective.
(Background Notes:
1. There are only so many degrees of freedom in software development, typically these are time, resources, quality and functionality. Time and resources are typically controlled by the beancounters and are thus almost invariably non-negotiable (unless you have in your possession a suitably compromising picture of the appropriate beancounter taken at the last office party), quality and functionality are then in the hands of the development team)
2. The nature of beancounters (often referred to as suits in some industries such as TV): These are often perfectly nice friendly human beings when observed in a non-work situation, but when exercising power in the workplace they are ruthless dictators  . Their sole goal is to use all the knowledge at their disposal to enable the company to turn a profit and provide investors with a decent return on their investment. This often results in tactical rather than strategic thinking
/Background Notes)
In the case of CivIII I would suggest that there would have been a decision point early on in the development cycle (although I seriously doubt it was formally considered as such or that much thought would have been required if it were) that said:
"Look this game has to be released in plenty of time for Xmas 2001, given that the continuation of this project will depend on the sales of the initial version should we release it as
(a) A great SP game only with a goal of releasing MP support later
(b) A great MP game only with a goal of releasing SP support later
(c) A game with both SP and MP but neither to the level of quality that development or customers would ideally want to see"
Of course I have grossly simplified the options but the important point here is which of these options will maximize short term (tactical) sales in order to allow long term (strategic) delivery of all the functionality the customers want.
Unfortunately for those of us that are waiting for multiplayer the only logical decision is (a) {Hey you...yes you, the one who is about to argue that this last point is not true, if you don't believe me I can't help you, but I think there are support groups for people suffering from denial of this kind, so don't give up hope. (ducks) } . Of course this decision is going to disappoint (or anger in some cases) many people so nobody really wants to tell anyone, especially the development team who get forced into making these tough decisions and even less the beancounters who having imposed their will on the powerless developers have already forgotten why they made the decision.
One unfortunate side effect of this is that boycotting the product just 'proves' the beancounter right (in their own perverse world of financial logic) and reduces the chance of ever seeing the product completed as the designers truly intended.
Phew that post was longer than I originally intended and I am not really sure it added that much to the debate. Those that are mad at Firaxis will continue to be mad and those that are happy or ambivalent will probably be reading the next post by this point.
Ah well, the point of these forums is to allow everyone to have a say so this was mine.
...Slinks back into the distant oort cloud of lurkers having spent his brief moment in the sunlight, perhaps never to return... 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:15
|
|
I know some people here say MP doesn't matter etc. etc. but I really think Infogames/Firaxis has made a big PR/marketing boo boo by not including MP - at least in some form.
The multiplayer community, in its many forms, is large, articulate and vocal. Sure, you can exagerate their influence but at the same time you can't discount their influence on perceptions of the game either.
If I buy this game as SP, I'm sure I'm going to die of frustration because I'll want to MP. Since I started MP I never played another SP game of civ II.
I really would have preferred an unadventurous MP set up to no MP at all. If they came out with an enhanced Mp setup later I'd probably be quite happy to buy the game again. But not an SP version and then an MP version (if it ever comes out).
Hopefully MP code will be a present somewhere in the SP and it will just be a matter of finding it, like the way someone, Markusf I think, found the simult mode, which we now all play in civ II 
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mjs0
|
|
Florida, USA
Jun 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
d4rkl0rd,
I cannot disagree with your assertion that MP is far more important than many of the more cosmetic or esoteric features that apparently have made it into the gold cut. However as you point out it is this very importance that makes it an obvious candidate for postponement to the beancounters (i.e. it is sufficiently desirable to be worth paying for separately).
My guess is that the product has been architected with the goal of MP as a clear and immutable goal. All the low level hooks to enable MP at the object-interface level in the game engine are probably there, the careful design required to expose the MP functionality correctly (i.e. the way it should play) and the amount of time it would take to test it adequately are the things that probably got traded for the tactically more lucrative SP-only first release.
SITS,
Cricket, Cricket?!? how did you know?. (You got me...I'm a British import)
Dr mjs0 says - Take two doses of reality a day and we'll soon cure you of that optimism thing.
You're right the way Firaxis handled the PR was abysmal, but I would encourage people to understand that there is a world of difference between incompetence or indifference and malice. In practical terms other than the bad blood it creates on this site and other of its ilk it will probably have very little impact on sales. Unless you are part of a tight knit community such as Apolyton or lucky enough to have immediate friends and family who share your interest in Civ you are unlikely to discover the joys of multiplayer. Unless Firaxis has something truly unexpected up their sleeves SP will be the primary source of revenue, just don't tell the beancounters until the MP support is finished.
Yin26,
Not much to say except I understand where you are coming from and agree with much of what you say. We all have the choice in a free world of voting with our wallets on the behaviour of corporations. I would have preferred Firaxis/Infogrames had been more honest wrt the MP situation but I am not strong willed enough to deny myself my CivIII fix in order to make a point. I applaud your stance as I would anyone who takes a stand on a point of personal conviction. Given that we have to wait several months for MP then if, as I suspect, it is an expansion pack (i.e. not free) I will probably wait a little longer until it hits the bargain bins.
(I am dreaming {hint hint} that Firaxis/Infogrames will allow me to play MP on a LAN with an original CD in one of the machines and the ExpPack CD in the other) {Uh oh here comes reality  }
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandous
|
 |
Atlanta, GA
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Simpleton
I say no MP is a good sign from Firaxis. They held off on including an unfinished half-a$$ed MP version and decided to do it right! This shows a lot of class. They could have shot it out the door with a buggy uninspired MP like some companies (ie Craptivision -- CTP2) but they said no we want to make a good game!! RIGHT ON!! .
Sure it's disappointing for some not to have MP but wouldn't you rather have a good finished MP released in a couple months rather than something that doesn't work? I would.
And imagine the uproar if they had delayed Civ3 till the new year because MP wasn't done!!! Yikes! Then you would really have a MP vs SP player war.
I say thank you Firaxis for having the integrity to do it right!!! |
The point is not necessarily that they aren't releasing MP with the game (at least for me) it's the fact that for months they had the chance to openly admit it and give fans time to blow off steam, etc.
Instead they sat on their hands not doing anything and pissing people off more because if the delay in nformation, etc. People feel disappointed and disillusioned by a company they had trust in to at least tlel them what was going on.
As for me, I am tired of buying a game, then having to buy an "expansion pack" 3-6 months later that finishes the game and a gold pack coming out 3-6 months after that for less than the cost of either game that has both.
As for them sending something out the door half finished, they could have sent it out the door finished and polished like Age of Kings or even Baldurs gate 2.
If they had to wait more months for the game, so what? It's only been 5 years I think a few more months for them to deliver the game the initially promised is not to long a wait.
By the way, showing class would be to admit features were cut, not to stay silent and hope that the issue would die off.
Classy = Quicksilver working on MOO3, they admit what they had to cut and why.
Not Classy = Firaxis, who accidentally leaked info on what was cut and then kept silent on the issue.
Guess who I respect more as a company (even though it is probably painful for them)? You guessed it, Quicksilver. At least they are open with the fans and don't think they know beeter than us what we like or don't like.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandous
|
|
Atlanta, GA
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
Adding MP may or may not be a complex issue, but the real question, IMHO, is why didn't Firaxis admit they had cut MP months ago when first asked about it?
Were they hoping to slide it in at the last minute? Release a quick patch when the game ships to add it in? What?
As many other have said, if they had admitted to cutting MP way back when people would have been upset, sure, but not as upset now as suddenly, in the 11th hour, they are told they have been lied to or if not lied to (although the advertising did say MP at one point) then deliberately given and kept under false assumptions.
Sure, it makes perfect financial and business sense to release the MP component if they felt it below quality to such a degree as to impact the quality of the rest of the game, but jeeze, they should have been more forthcoming.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
BigLupu
|
|
Check out the Civ3 page on bestbuy.com
http://www.bestbuy.com/software/Det...1023&e=11072164
Civilization III
Minimum PC System Requirements:
...
Multiplayer Internet: No
Multiplayer Network: No
for comparison:
Civilization: Call to Power
Minimum PC System Requirements:
...
Multiplayer Internet: Yes
Modem: 28.8 Kbps, Internet (TCP/IP) and LAN (IPX and TCP/IP) play supported
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-10-2001 10:22
) cash but the market economy gives us all a wonderful option of spending those USD 75 total on something else. if civ 3 is pants and the follow-up patches (there have to be some) are dodgy, i will not waste my time on buying MP. however, suits are not THAT stupid. i reckon they will understand that additional profit may be squeezed only if the after-release support is really good. we'll see....
You know I agree with you, esp in light that such things are and should be changeable or customizable. I had posted a long time ago that they should have just given us the basic units and terrain graphics and let the mod community take over from there. That way, they could have spent more of their limited time on the AI and on MP.
|