the case against multiplayer

[Gertjan]

I have read on this forum that some players are interested in multiplayer, but I suppose this is only a minority. Most players would never consider playing this kind of game on the internet. Imagine how long it would take to play a normal game. Have you ever finished a game within 4 hours? Perhaps you could manage if you put the game speed on 4x, play a small map and let the AI take care of everything. But I believe it is no fun this way. I think it is quite similar to Sins in this respect (but Sins has a smaller scale and has less depth). The average game takes too long for normal people (who have jobs, families, etc.) to finish a game in a evening, weekend afternoon etc.. Also with Sins, which is a very popular 4x rts, only a very small group of players play it on the internet.

Therefore I rather have the developers working on the single player aspect of the game instead of wasting resources to develop multiplayer (now or in a future patch/expansion). This is just my opinion. I would be happy to hear yours.

[jam3]

I know multiplayer is a minority but that 10-20% of the player base that plays multiplayer in these types of games are typically the more serious hardcore players who really push the game to its limits. Heart of Iron 3 would be a near perfect comparision as the real-time mechanic is almost identical and the scope of the game is massive. It's also played over multiple sessions 30-40 hours games are common. While multiplayer would take dev time from single player aspects also realise that mutliplayer in these types of games is the best way to really test out exploits,flush out ai weaknesses, strenuously test the game, and achieve unit and gameplay balance. In the end it does end up paying dividends to the single player community.

With that being said I am perfectly fine with them not implementing multiplayer until either an expansion or they make DW2.

[Igard]

I wouldn't bother with multiplayer either. However, I think it's best to wait and see how much demand there is here on the forums for multiplayer to be implemented. If the devs think it's viable then all I would say is, don't let it alter the single player game in any way. There's nothing more annoying than exteraneous buttons and chat boxes getting in the way.

[HsojVvad]

I am in the no multiplayer camp. I find that in most cases, that the single player experiance suffers because of multiplayer. Just look at Civ IV. Imagine how much it could have been better if they didn't build it with multiplayer first.

You want multiplayer, go play Civ Revolutions. I don't mean that in a bad way. I love that game, but I think games like DW is for single player only. Just look at The Elder Scroll Games. Yes I know they are RPG games but Arena, Daggerfall Morrowind and even Oblivion are awsome single player games because they don't bother with multiplayer. You think we would have all those option is multi player was involed? Just look at Battlespire. That was a game that was made for multiplayer and it failed. It failed at multiplayer and failed at a single player as well.

There is only a very few games that have good multiplayer and single player. I think they are the exception. So please no multiplayer. You want multiplayer go play SoaSE then. Go play MOO3, (another game that failed because of multiplayer) Just concentrate on the single player and put all resources making the single player game awsome.

Thank you. [:)]

[Gertjan]

Good to see some responses. I agree with the advantages of multiplayer jam3. However, I still feel the disadvantages outweigh them. Lets see how much support there is.

[theonlystd]

Mp is quite important ..

Until someone designs an AI that can provide long term challenge without simply stacking the bonus the Ai gets my thinking on this wont change ...


tho i understand why so many indie devs dont have mp support.. But i wont stop wishing..

[jam3]

I appreciate Davor's position but have to disagree MOO3 failed due to multiplayer. MOO3 was a failure in nearly every way, not to mention that single player didn't even work until community patches made it playable. Also Civ4 is a brilliant game in every regards and could be held up as a standard as a game where multiplayer and single player not only both work brilliantly but also synergize from one another.

Most multiplayer games fail because the developers have no idea how to write proper netcode nor do they have an understanding of fundamental network topologies and protocols. Alot of problems are happening all over multiplayer gaming in general due to the over abundance of UDP and peer to peer topologies.

I also think it is a knee jerk reaction to jump to the conclusion that multiplayer takes time away from single player development and is therefore bad for single player. Bad games are bad games, bad design is bad design, and the converse is true as well. Given the right developer, the right amount of time, the right budget, and both can be done very succesfully.

[Gertjan]

How many % of the Civ4 buyers have played over 5 MP games? I wonder.

[idgar]

ORIGINAL: Gertjan

How many % of the Civ4 buyers have played over 5 MP games? I wonder.

Me and some friends still play it regularly and I know several other people who do it as well. Great game both for SP and MP but I'm guessing an overwhelming majority of the players only play SP even this is not the case among my friends.

For Distant Worlds the choice has already been made. For MP to work well in a game it must be part of the design from the start. While it's possible to "throw it in" as an afterthought it involves a lot more work than most people think and the result is rarely (if ever) good.

So I guess I'm with the "against MP" crowd... [;)]

[csebal]

Definitely pro-MP here. Ironically enough, DW is a game that would be ideally suited for MP gaming, as it is played in real time. Sure the games would be long, but you know what? I have played week long SE4 PbEM/ PbW matches, i've played SOTS and CIV4 MP games that did span multiple sessions over several days and they were all fun.

Multiplayer is not just about instant gratification quick gaming sessions. It can be just as epic as any single player game, even more so as the opponents have the same intellectual (okay, almost the same) capabilities as my own.

No, such games are certainly not for everyone, especially not for those who reload on every problem and/or discard their game if its not going their way.

Since quite a few of us are perfectionists, who hate it when things dont go according to their plan and as such fall into the above mentioned reloading/abandoning category, we can safely say, that multiplayer in these games is not a highly demanded feature as far as demographics are concerned.

Then again, if its sheer numbers we are looking at, then DW should not exist either, as the number of people interested in the 4X space strategy genre is about as slim compared to the popular mainstream crowd, as the number of people interested in MP compared to those who only want to play SP.

Bottomline: It would be nice to have MP, the game would be ideally suited for MP but as others already said, it has to be treated with care, as a game has to be designed from the ground up with MP in mind. Not because MP requires the sacrifice of SP features, but because network synchronization requires lots of thought when designing your application to do it properly.

[Ranbir]

I prefer more effort in single player content, greater procedural generation. A further development of the dynamic universe. More events, more stories, expansion of 'stuff' that just pulls the player's imagination further in.

If this were to ever get mp, I'd prefer in a psuedo-mmo way. But I would also prefer that mp to be as a private citizen and let the AI control the state, warring, making peace all happening in the backdrop while we, the players work to take advantage of the ever continuing situations that arise.

[VarekRaith]

Sorry, no to MP. Here's why, the MP feature would be utilized by, what, less than 5% of the total player base? And SP will be negatively affected by the addition of MP.

[theonlystd]

ORIGINAL: VarekRaith

Sorry, no to MP. Here's why, the MP feature would be utilized by, what, less than 5% of the total player base? And SP will be negatively affected by the addition of MP.

What number of the players after the game has been out a couple months and are still playing. Would be utilizing MP? Will be much higher than 5%.


Not to mention i find 5% to be pretty low ball

[jam3]

In alot of metrics of games that have multiplayer the number comes in around 10-20%. That is comparing over sales and number of users created on their multiplayer service. It not completly acurate, varies by game, and doesn't include multiplay outside of the service but its a reasonable assumption. Probably the most intersting one recently was demigod. Demigod is essentially a purely multiplayer game, the only real single player was a skirmish mode against ai bots. The percent of people who bought the game and created a login to the multiplayer service was right around 20%.

And Civ4 i would actually put pretty high up there like in the 15% plus area. I still play all the time. Just login to multiplayer lobby and you'll see 20+ games up at any time. Civ4 multiplayer benefits alot from the various modes of play it offers. Like it offers a pitboss mode where one machine is the pitboss and people can login to it and play their turns asymetrically, kind of like PBEM without the e-mail. And thats just one of many methods it offers.

[XoX]

Multiplayer sucks. I absolutely hate it how much effort the modern pc games industry puts into it. For most games it should be very much a secondary concern after single player.
A little theory I've got is that the reason for this is multiplayer games sell better due to there being drastically less piracy with them- you can't play online with a invalid license code. So I suppose it makes sense from a buisness angle but still. Single player loving me hates it.