 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Howling Chip
|
 |
Roseville, California
Sep 2001 time: 21:15
|
|
I hope some day we'll all find out enough information to piece together what actually happened from the point Firaxis first mentioned CIV III w/ multiplayer to the point stated in their FAQ that it would ship without it.
I know I have considered several explanations, many of them based on reading opinions posted here at Apolyton. Were they were trying to get it in and failed to make the deadline? Was it for marketing? Did they want to toy with the emotions and attitudes of fansite members? Were they totally clueless and that sloppy with customer relation communications?
The constant in all the explanations I've given the most credence to is the fact it took so long for an official "No MP" statement to be made. Add the way information came out, like clues to be found in an E-mail to a teacher, and interviews in magazines, that there'd be no MP. Then recently Dan responds that he cannot give an official explanation nor and unofficial explanation on why CIV III will be shipping without MP.
Here's why I'm posting. Even before the MP issue, IMO Firaxis has been great in fan appreciation, but sub par in execution. So this morning a brand new angle popped into my head after my first espresso.
What if Infogrames has been the one demanding MP from the get go, and it has been Firaxis, or Sid, saying not ready, not ready, not ready, right through to the point it went Gold. Your publisher refuses to let you give up on MP till you prove in Beta its not ready. This would contractually keep you from saying "No MP" until you contractually proved to the "suits" it was not ready.
If Firaxis committed to MP as part of the Infogrames contract, those references to MP in the early interviews and pre-order features right after the publishing deal would be natural. If in this same contract they did not contractually commit to a guaranteed first release version (get the lawyers), and Firaxis does hold fan appreciation dear, and they won't release an MP that doesn't work any better than previous Civ MPs, then you would have what we've seen. Infogrames refusing to let go of the hope for MP by the time CIV III is gold, and refusing to allow any official statements on "no MP".
It would be Infogrames who'd be worried about CIV III losing money because it has no MP, not Firaxis. IMO the folks at Firaxis are more confident that CIV III will sell without MP on initial release, and the publisher would be sweating bullets.
The way communication on the status of MP was handled by Firaxis/Infogrames (by individual employees as well as corporate communications) does not look like some well executed or thought out strategy to achieve some type of goal. It looks to this poster like the result some internal problems, not a plan.
PS: Welcome to my first Apolyton post. YAY! 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by WarningU2
Can't argue with you Kevin -- you're absolutely right that a non MP player game will force you to explore the game in it's entirety. I'm sure Civ 3 will be a great game and I will probably relent and buy it come Xmas.
What annoys me is that I was under the impression that since Civ 2 was a MP game at the last release, so would Civ 3. Fixaris did nothing to correct that impression. |
Well, I must admit I've never played Civ2 multiplayer apart from the hotseat hack.
Oh, and we're not gonna have to wait years for multiplayer for Civ III.
With Civ2 they didn't really have major plans for multiplayer it seems.
However, multiplayer in Civ III is one of their plans for the game.
BTW, look how pleasantly surprised we've been to even get Civ III this early. Some expected it to come out next year.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
LoD
|
 |
Warsaw, Poland
Jan 2000 time: 06:15
|
|
Kevin Ar18: Although you have a point, you're only partially right. It's true, first one plays the single player mode, and, when he has fully explored the game mechanics, one goes to multiplayer (at least that worked for me). But you see, in Civ3, you won't have the option of going to multiplayer.
From what I judge you haven't really had a real MP civ experience. Believe me, it's entirely a different world. A whole range of possibilities of action become viable. Secret plans, schemes, real diplomacy. It actually adds a "role playing" to a civ game (and this makes you more "attached" to a single game). And we'll be missing all this out because there will be no multiplayer in Civ3.
The freedom to chose what suits you the most is better than being forced to having one option.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
VetLegion
|
|
quote: Good for them. Make sure the game is good, then worry about multiplayer. |
this is impossible. you have to design for MP to make it good.
I have already mentioned eiffel tower wonder. In SP it impoves oppinion of others toward you, in MP it makes everyone think you must be crazy
whole bunch of diplomatic options has to be designed with MP in mind.
Units have to be designed with human in mind... how will human use it, are there loopholes, is this unit too cost-effective if human uses it, how about misuse? will some units be useless altogether in MP?
for example diplomats in civ2, humans could use them to avoid zones of control, which AI could not. This made them a problem, and some scenarios explicitly said that using diplos for ZoC is wrong. I conquered russia in a WWII scenario, in what, 3 turns, with diplomats 
these are all design flaws that show their face only when game is stressed in MP enviroment. playtesting against AI can never polish the game as playing MP can. And it is not for benefit of MPlayers only, it is for the benefit of the whole game.
there are numerous other examples. Units, structures, diplomacy, everything has to be designed keeping in mind what will humans do with them in MP game against other humans.
fine civ MP game makes possible a fine civ SP game. not the other way around.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BoomStick
|
|
Madison Heights, MI USA
Dec 2000 time: 05:15
|
|
quote: Originally posted by WarningU2
you're absolutely right that a non MP player game will force you to explore the game in it's entirety. |
Um. Explore what? The fact that the enemy will never launch a good sea invasion.
The fact you'll never see a good air campaign prior to a good sea invasion.
Or, on the other hand, the fact it'll never defend against a good sea invasion?
I've always been bummed that the best way to have a challenging game against the AIs is to play on one huge land mass.
Anyhow, unless this AI is leagues ahead of the other civ style games, it won't be worth the money for me to figure out the shortcomings of yet another AI.
Ah well..
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kevin Ar18
|
|
quote: Originally posted by LoD
From what I judge you haven't really had a real MP civ experience. Believe me, it's entirely a different world. A whole range of possibilities of action become viable. Secret plans, schemes, real diplomacy. It actually adds a "role playing" to a civ game (and this makes you more "attached" to a single game). And we'll be missing all this out because there will be no multiplayer in Civ3. |
I know what you mean from other games I play multiplayer in. But, you WILL be getting multiplayer later on - that was my point. At least you can look forward to that.
Last edited by Kevin Ar18 on 14-10-2001 at 21:32
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BLackraven42
|
|
My bet is that a patch will come out within 2 weeks of the game with multiplayer support.
Civ II didn't originally have multiplayer support either.
|
|
|  |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|