.com.unity Forums - OT, galactic civ II

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Dominions 2: The Ascension Wars (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=55)

- - OT, galactic civ II (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=27987)

Re: OT, galactic civ II

Quote:

Endoperez said:
Word of mouth can also be negative. A good SP game might be awful in MP, unless it was changed enough to become a totally different game.

Doesn't have to be totally different... take a look at CIV_4. Some changes yes, but definitely a much better game because of the multiplayer option. ( IMHO )

Quote:

Endoperez said:
The original players will say it has changed too much and isn't fun any more, and new players will find it either bland (it does nothing new, because it copied other working MP games) or too wierd and strange (it is too different from other MP games and doesn't work, because it was originally meant for SP).

Any game which has a poorly designed multiplayer can ruin the multiplayer experience. The multiplayer game could be unbalanced, bugged, loss of features, etc., . Basically it comes down to if the developers are good enough to make the game good for multiplayer as well... I have faith Brad and his team can make it work.

Quote:

Endoperez said:
Some examples: Morrowind/Oblivion. They are SP games. The closest things in MP games are MMORPGs - very different. Then, there are the games like Solitaire, and e.g. roguelikes, where the player competes against himself, honing his skills in the game. Games in which one mistake can kill you COULD be made into MP games, in theory, but usually people prefer to die their own mistakes instead of higher-level players.

Games such as Morrowind would be better if they had the 'option' for multiplayer. Much more interesting to work with a team of friends in completing a quest or test the builds of each character in a battle. No reason for the multiplayer to mean only PvP. Once the 'compete against myself' gets boring in singleplayer the multiplayer option opens the door for many new challenges such as:
Team doing a quest
Player vs. Player
Strong Player hunts weaker players
Team attacking a large group of enemies
Team hunting a computer monster
Team vs Team
Players able to trade items, money, services
the list goes on and on

Quote:

Endoperez said:
In some games, the ability to compare high scores is enough. What GalCiv might be able to do is to allow players to create race-templates. It won't be Spore-like dynamic and automatic, constant up/downloading, but it could give AI very weird and complicated ship designs.

Ways of improving the AI are always great! Hopefully something will be introduced which will allow different AI personalities or designs which would also increase replay value.

Re: OT, galactic civ II

Quote:

NTJedi said:
Any game which has a poorly designed multiplayer can ruin the multiplayer experience. The multiplayer game could be unbalanced, bugged, loss of features, etc., . Basically it comes down to if the developers are good enough to make the game good for multiplayer as well... I have faith Brad and his team can make it work.

Thye could have done it, probably. But doing a good game takes more than just developers. It takes time. They don't have infinite time. I'm happy with their decision to make a great SP game. I'll probably buy it, and have a great time.

Quote:

Endoperez said:
Some examples: Morrowind/Oblivion. They are SP games. The closest things in MP games are MMORPGs - very different.

But also all the bad things that are seen in MMORPGs. Spamming, farming (not agriculture, but doing boring stuff to become a little more powerful), cheating, unfair trades, simpler quests, no really unique items, inability to solo the game, difficulties in finding people doing the same quest, quests becoming jokes because more experienced players of the team just run through the quest areas, do bare minimum needed, and come back with the reward (to become more powerful little faster), etc. This list also goes on and on. At beast, it could be like Diablo in hotseat. At worst, it would be like a MMORPG released 5 years ago, one that is barely played nowadays, and with servers only staying up for few years before the company puts them to better use.

I still say that it would have to be totally different game if it was developed for multiplayer. And being great might not be good enough. Take Allegiance as an example. 3d space flight battles, with fleets, with commanders, with AI miners players have to defend from opposing players, with big ships whose turrets have to be manned, etc. It flopped, servers went down, and only after lots of fan pleadnig Microsoft released the source for the game, or maybe just for the server program.

Quote:

Ways of improving the AI are always great! Hopefully something will be introduced which will allow different AI personalities or designs which would also increase replay value.

I thought of the graphical designs in here. They make the game more interesting visually. Have you seen the Transformer-like robot ships? The various birds, dragons, scorpions, etc?

Re: OT, galactic civ II

Sorry. Im still not convinced of any of this. You kindof strike me as coming across like a lover of MP who looks at every SP game as though it would be better with MP attached to it. But you acknowledge that there are also some great only-MP games.

I on the other hand tend to look at only-MP games as being improved if they added SP. And I acknowledge some great SP games. But at least Im not so hooked that I would push adding SP too hard on some MP developer.

I think that the best in either grouping is written that way from the ground up and could only half-@$$ the other.

Re: OT, galactic civ II

Quote:

Endoperez said:
They could have done it, probably. But doing a good game takes more than just developers. It takes time. They don't have infinite time. I'm happy with their decision to make a great SP game. I'll probably buy it, and have a great time.

Only the developers know how much time is needed. Moving to a more balanced and stable multiplayer setup could be minor or major issue. Since a funky hotseat already works they mainly need to focus on balance and stability. Hopefully multiplayer is added so I can toss my money towards these developers.

Quote:

Endoperez said:
But also all the bad things that are seen in MMORPGs. Spamming, farming (not agriculture, but doing boring stuff to become a little more powerful), cheating, unfair trades, simpler quests, no really unique items, inability to solo the game, difficulties in finding people doing the same quest, quests becoming jokes because more experienced players of the team just run through the quest areas, do bare minimum needed, and come back with the reward (to become more powerful little faster), etc. This list also goes on and on.

Seems like all the issues you listed are only problems for internet gamers.... so make the game LAN only and virtually all those problems vanish or become unimportant.

Quote:

Endoperez said:
I still say that it would have to be totally different game if it was developed for multiplayer. And being great might not be good enough.

Gal_Civ_2 was at least moving towards multiplayer at one time since the game works a funky hotseat now. The multiplayer option is just another feature to add as part of an expansion. I'm completely confident Brad and his team can add a stable and balanced multiplayer for Gal_Civ_2. If your view is different that's fine.

Quote:

Endoperez said:
Take Allegiance as an example. 3d space flight battles, with fleets, with commanders, with AI miners players have to defend from opposing players, with big ships whose turrets have to be manned, etc. It flopped, servers went down, and only after lots of fan pleadnig Microsoft released the source for the game, or maybe just for the server program.

Never played this game so I can't comment.

Quote:

Endoperez said:
I thought of the graphical designs in here. They make the game more interesting visually. Have you seen the Transformer-like robot ships? The various birds, dragons, scorpions, etc?

I've seen a few... would be great to do a surprise attack with some of those designs against my relatives.

Re: OT, galactic civ II

Quote:

Gandalf Parker said:
Sorry. Im still not convinced of any of this. You kindof strike me as coming across like a lover of MP who looks at every SP game as though it would be better with MP attached to it. But you acknowledge that there are also some great only-MP games.

I on the other hand tend to look at only-MP games as being improved if they added SP. And I acknowledge some great SP games. But at least Im not so hooked that I would push adding SP too hard on some MP developer.

I think that the best in either grouping is written that way from the ground up and could only half-@$$ the other.

I do both MP and SP games... where did I acknowledge great only-MP_games???? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/confused.gif

And you are wrong in my view.... if a game is MP only... I truly believe adding SP to a MP_only game would increase replay value. Looks like you are too quick on assumptions. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

I believe any game should always expand on the content and its replay value. Increasing replay value for me means adding the following features:

Multiplayer (& Singleplayer if it doesn't exist)
Random Game Generator
Map Editor
MODs
Ability for gamers to adjust/improve the AI
Very Large maps/worlds
Campaign((Multiplayer Campaign is even better))

Re: OT, galactic civ II

I have serious doubt about anybody creating game which has great SP and MP in any foreseeable future. You can probably share graphics and story, but the gameplay would have to be written pretty much separately. The core differences are probably in turn structure and game depth. MP games can (and should) have strategic depth (like Dominions), in SP games strategic depth causes a serious problem, because writing AI that can deal with it is not within resources of game developers. Different turn structure means a lot of differences (scripted combat vs turn-based combat, order-based commands vs moves) etc... Of course, that means different balancing, and as result players will need different strategies in SP and MP which brings to the point of pretty much 2 different games under one title. And that I suppose doesn't make business sense, because if developers have expertise to build 2 great games they can just release them as a separate games.

Re: OT, galactic civ II

Quote:

NTJedi said:
I didn't say Stardock... I said BRAD who was one of the developers of Gal_Civ_2.

I don't think Brad has worked on any games outside of Stardock. He has founded Stardock when he has just started programming and was writing original Galactic Civilizations and I believe he was in Stardock since then. Have you seen any sources saying otherwise?

Re: OT, galactic civ II

Quote:

alexti said:
I have serious doubt about anybody creating game which has great SP and MP in any foreseeable future.

I could be wrong but I'm sure by visiting the CIV, AOW or NWN forums I could easily find lots of gamers which disagree. Heck I'm sure many gamers do only singleplayer for dominions and really enjoy the game.

Quote:

alexti said:
... in SP games strategic depth causes a serious problem, because writing AI that can deal with it is not within resources of game developers.

Gamers will always use strategies to find weaknesses of computer opponents... that's one of the main reasons singleplayer games have a more limited replay value. Once you discover weaknesses in the AI... the challenge fades.
Also from what I've seen of GAL_CIV_2 this game appears to have lots of strategic depth. Not sure why you see this lacking/missing.

Quote:

alexti said:Of course, that means different balancing, and as result players will need different strategies in SP and MP which brings to the point of pretty much 2 different games under one title.

Different strategies in SP and MP exist in almost every single game available which has SP and MP... and all under one title.

Quote:

alexti said:
And that I suppose doesn't make business sense, because if developers have expertise to build 2 great games they can just release them as a separate games.

It's not two great games... as mentioned earlier GAL_CIV_2 already has an unusual hotseat mode available and working. Behold the miracle already exists, just needs to be made more user friendly and providing MP with optional balanced starts.

Re: OT, galactic civ II

Quote:

alexti said:
I don't think Brad has worked on any games outside of Stardock. He has founded Stardock when he has just started programming and was writing original Galactic Civilizations and I believe he was in Stardock since then. Have you seen any sources saying otherwise?

You missed one of my responses... and yes he has worked on "a lot of multiplayer games".
Within his topic "Galactic Civilizations: The case for no multiplayer" he explains he has worked on "a lot of multiplayer games" and even lists some of them.

Re: OT, galactic civ II

Quote:

NTJedi said:

Quote:

alexti said:
I have serious doubt about anybody creating game which has great SP and MP in any foreseeable future.

Let me point out : Civ series : fraking simplistic combat and IMO a pretty boring SP game, plus basically mediocre MP game, in the ones that support MP. NWN : Um??? RPG! Totally different genre - a lot easier making an rpg SP or MP by simply increasing difficulty. AoW : If that's the RTS by microsoft, isn't it pretty darn simplistic, lending to SP or MP? I'm not saying GalCiv2 has the depth of Dom2 - but it has a lot more than most RTS games.

And let's not forget the example of Dom2 : Sure, a number of people think it has a perfectly decent SP game. There's at least an equal number of people who think SP rots, that SP isn't worth playing by the time you play well enough to make it 30-40 turns. (Both the non-existent AI, and the cheezy cheats make it unplayable, or at least non-enjoyable, as a SPS game, imo.)