ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
Listen to Brad Wardell's explorminate interview.Stardock spent a third of the games resources on MP and only one man and his dog played it.It is a massive resource hog that is better spent on the SP game.
That many, eh?
ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
Listen to Brad Wardell's explorminate interview.Stardock spent a third of the games resources on MP and only one man and his dog played it.It is a massive resource hog that is better spent on the SP game.
An immense amount of time testing and balancing would be required. Matrix doesn't have an unlimited budget to make DW2. Other things would inevitably have to be sacrificed to include multiplayer.
An immense amount of time testing and balancing would be required.
ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
ORIGINAL: Chris H
More race specific technology. The empire policy screen for each race list preferred research and design that the AI uses. I know some think AI design ships are rubbish but using the list in you own designs leads to a much more interesting game. Hiding research and/or making it harder to research stuff that isn't on the list would stop the 'one suits all design' that currently exists. This should not stop getting the tech through spying, nor acquiring it from space debris.
The AI ship design is horrible. It makes "weak" combat strength ships that I can take over an redesign and make twice the power and more defense as well. It just uses the very basics and doesn't use the full amount of potential that is out there. If I relied on AI designed ships the hard difficulty would stomp my ass.
ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
ORIGINAL: aaatoysandmore
Sorry, but, Galactive Civilization II takes that honor. DW is a cute little 4x but it's hardly King material with all it's flaws.
Errr no.GC2 was never even better than Moo2.DW is a next generation 4X with Stellaris taking that model further.GC is a bland game with bland ideas.
ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76
Errr no.GC2 was never even better than Moo2.
ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
They already made DW1 such an in-depth game..so DW2 can only bring new to the plate
ORIGINAL: Raap
For me, the ideal and realistic sequel would just be the same essential game we have now, with slight improvements here and there, but built on top of a new future-safe game engine that runs better.
ORIGINAL: Retreat1970
Wouldn't it be great, though, to play co-op with a friend against the AI?
Listen to Brad Wardell's explorminate interview. Stardock spent a third of the games resources on MP and only one man and his dog played it.It is a massive resource hog that is better spent on the SP game.
This is the main reason to avoid multiplayer. A minority of players argues that single-player-oriented clients are being selfish. Yet 1% of the fan base demands an investment of 30% of the dev-time for multiplayer... Let's be honest, not many people are willing to play multiplayer games that run for 10s of hours. The entire game would need to be redesigned with multiplayer in mind, something I think is a very bad idea. Also, I think a major flaw in many modern 4Xs is the desire to balance perfectly for multiplayer, which really screws up a lot of the interesting variety you can have when instead designing an asymmetric single player only experience.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Raap
For me, the ideal and realistic sequel would just be the same essential game we have now, with slight improvements here and there, but built on top of a new future-safe game engine that runs better.
^this x1000.
A new engine plus all these features is a lot of work for one guy on a tiny budget.
ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
retreat1970, lets go play a multiplayer game. haha..
if Distant Worlds was multiplayer now, I could use some help defending my 200 mining stations that are impossible for a "single" player to defend.. I could also use help defeating off the Shakturi with some human help.. blah blah.. ha.
leave these single"players" to their singling..
Look, there is a concept called drop-in, drop-out multiplayer gaming.. actually I think it even has a more technical name I can't think of right now but it's been around for ages people.. ages in the computer world..
A game is hosted.. as long as the host is up, the game has a persistent world in which players can "drop in, and drop out" of the host game at anytime.. there is no need to play "10 hour games"
it's just another element of fun and if there isn't enough "resources", then shame on Matrix and the Developer for not getting with it in 2015
Kickstarter, GoFundMe, Indiegogo, RoceketHub, Indiefund, they can put it up "early accees" for $900 on Steam (bastards..) Facebook even has some funding thing now,
Don't lie to yourself and think that in 2015 people won't donate money for computer games..
uh.. Star Citizen? and that's just the biggest game.. I didn't list the other millions of smaller games that still make good money! Don't make me post the smaller games and how much money they made.. and they are crappy compared to Distant Worlds..
Everybody has a choice, mine is I don't play multiplayer and/or real time games. Your choice seems to be you do. If I'm correct then go play them and leave us single game players to enjoy the games we enjoy.
ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
You seem to live in the past thinking about things like Game Developers test games today? ha.. no they send them out to the public after charging for things like "early release" and crap and then have people tell them the problems and they try to fix it.. maybe try to fix it..
ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
Matrix doesn't need to spend millions and much effort when they have beta testing teams of free- no charge people testing for them.. hello..
ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22
this is what companies do today.. put out shoddy products and wait for the public to tell them whats wrong and then try to fix it.. like I said, maybe..
ORIGINAL: Retreat1970
An immense amount of time testing and balancing would be required.
The game is naturally unbalanced so no need to balance anything. What testing would be required besides connection and networking? We could play the game right now, as it is, against each other. Set the game rules and go. Auto design or not, auto research or not, etc.., default game speed, game speed when window open. connect and go. Can't play anymore? Drop and AI takes over. Lose connection, AI takes over. Then me and Blab can play each other lol, until someone else wants to try kicking my Atuukian butt lol.
ORIGINAL: Chris H
In the real world even weapons that are supposed to be the same do not necessarily perform the same from country to country.
ORIGINAL: Chris H
Just because one country say has a 120mtr it does not mean another has or would even use it it found out it existed.
ORIGINAL: Kayoz
An immense amount of time testing and balancing would be required. Matrix doesn't have an unlimited budget to make DW2. Other things would inevitably have to be sacrificed to include multiplayer.
ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I would hope that humanity comes together in a unified confederation, free of borders, hate and prejudice. I think I'm more likely to see what I want than you.
ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Developing a game to a budget is a zero-sum game. If you want to add somewhere, the resources ($$$) have to come from somewhere else. Add multiplayer, so the dev time, QA, game balance, etc - all has to come from somewhere. In the end, it's a business decision. Allocation of resources to maximize the return on investment.
ORIGINAL: Kayoz
I'll leave someone from Matrix staff to address the lack of importance QA seems to have in your view of the game development cycle.
It's what SOME companies do. Matrix Games is not CA. Matrix is not Konami. It's rather disingenuous to paint all game companies with the same brush, for the misdeeds of a few.
ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Nothing you wrote, in any way, contradicts my point that the time and expense to make DW a multiplayer game would cause other aspects to suffer. I'm not sure how your post addresses anything I wrote.
ORIGINAL: Kayoz
Eh? You're saying that an F-16 in Taiwan won't work the same as one in Turkey, comparing like fighter configurations? I'm not sure of the basis for this.