[Discussion] Multiplayer vs Single Player

JohnDellums

Newcomer

13 years ago

Mar 13, 2012, 11:24:20 PM

As long as I can beat my colleague dictator's rumpus singing out loud "YOU ARE A PIRATE" as I board his ship, then that's all multiplayer I need.

Danne

Newcomer

Danne

Newcomer

300g2g pts

13 years ago

Mar 13, 2012, 11:30:05 PM

I would enjoy seeing that

Martok

Newcomer

Martok

Newcomer

9 100g2g pts

13 years ago

Mar 14, 2012, 5:31:57 PM

Wulfger wrote:
I would say that while both are important to have, single player should be given more attention. While multiplayer can give a game lasting power and a sense of community, a finely crafted single player experience can do wonders to bring someone into the game world. It also means that less able players, or players new to the genre have the option to practice their skills against a computer with (hopefully) adjustable difficulty and a softer learning curve than the online play. To me at least, games always feel more complete with a solid campaign that lets a good story shine through. Multiplayer is fun and competitive, but it leaves little room for exploration of the game world and backstory.

You took the words right out of my mouth, Wulfger.

I couldn't agree more.

Strobe

Newcomer

Strobe

Newcomer

13 years ago

Mar 15, 2012, 12:38:56 AM

Now this is a silly topic if I've ever seen one. We're talking about a turn-based, intensive strategy game where even in single player the player competes with other factions for resources and space. In a game like this (and in Master of Orion, and Galactic Civilizations, and anything like it), the single player is the multiplayer except with computers at the helm of the other factions. There's not a care in the world to be had about favoring one or the other.

Danne

Newcomer

Danne

Newcomer

300g2g pts

13 years ago

Mar 15, 2012, 3:48:48 AM

That is an interesting point of view you have there. You willing to die for it?

I'm just kidding. I like your view of things.

ApplESeed82

Newcomer

ApplESeed82

Newcomer

13 years ago

Mar 18, 2012, 7:05:33 PM

Multiplayer and Singleplayer! Multi with versus mode and together.

vmxa

Newcomer

vmxa

Newcomer

13 years ago

Mar 18, 2012, 8:50:49 PM

They have finite resources to put into the game. If they do not spend any of them on MP, they have more for a better SP game. It is that simple. So the question is do you want MP or a better SP game? You won't get both a better SP and a better MP. MP improvements and implementation will come at some expense of the SP portion. Now they may determine that they have no choice but to include MP. I doubt that it matters to a TBS game as I see little in the way of MP participation in the game I am aware that are TBS.

You see some in Moo2 and Civ, but not much. It was not even added to civ3 till a patch in PTW and it failed mainly and then finally work (to a degree) in C3C. MP is critical in many RTS game and you could not sell as much without it.

Ashbery76

United

Ashbery76

United

36 100g2g pts

13 years ago

Mar 18, 2012, 9:02:54 PM

Strobe wrote:
Now this is a silly topic if I've ever seen one. We're talking about a turn-based, intensive strategy game where even in single player the player competes with other factions for resources and space. In a game like this (and in Master of Orion, and Galactic Civilizations, and anything like it), the single player is the multiplayer except with computers at the helm of the other factions. There's not a care in the world to be had about favoring one or the other.

No.You add superweapons,mega events,asymmetric factions,etc that give a player a huge advantage and it destroys the whole MP match that you could have been playing for months.MP restricts SP gameplay because you end up with bland factions,bland tech because of balancing MP.

MOO2 was never balanced for MP and Galciv2 did not even have it.

Strobe

Newcomer

Strobe

Newcomer

13 years ago

Mar 19, 2012, 4:20:40 AM

Welp, someone obviously hasn't been introduced to the concept of balance independent from flavor. To use an appreciable non-4X exampe, StarCraft did it best, with a trio of completely independent races and tech trees that were rather well balanced with each other. Balance =/= bland. That's one grievance.

I see no reason why superweapons are a problem. If you spend the cash and resources to build one you damn well better get to use it, multiplayer or not. If the other players can't prevent you from getting one, they better either get their own or try harder next time. This comes down to that balance thing we were talking about earlier and how it doesn't have to be bland. Superweapons are a perfect demonstration. Go play a game of Command and Conquer: Red Alert 2 and tell me the superweapons unbalance the game. Go ahead, try. Two down.

I don't know how a mega event destroying all the enemy factions in single player is any more interesting or fun than it sounds like it would be for multiplayer, so why even put it in at all? For that matter, why does the player need to get these huge advantages you're talking about while denying them to the computers? Non-argument.

So, no, it doesn't restrict single player. You're just thinking too small. And too worriedly. Multiplayer for a game like this will not and further cannot affect single player to the extent anyone is worried about. So just relax.

VIPznork

Ninja

i were a ninja once

VIPznork

Ninja

13 years ago

Mar 9, 2012, 1:34:30 PM

well you are saying i want all becuse all is important, that did not go so well for greace.

The point to force people to choose is not so that dev team would go hey mp is not important lets not do it. Ill asume they are not stupid. But if they have thousends things to do and only have time 900 what should they do? make 1000 things badly or 900 things good.

Smight

Enthusiast

...

Smight

Enthusiast

40 000g2g pts

13 years ago

Mar 9, 2012, 11:23:29 AM

hot water, soft lavatory paper and good dentistry.

tkozlow

Survivor

tkozlow

Survivor

14 500g2g pts

13 years ago

Mar 9, 2012, 11:29:25 AM

Can we have, both are important please ?

VIPznork

Ninja

i were a ninja once

VIPznork

Ninja

13 years ago

Mar 9, 2012, 11:30:08 AM

tkozlow wrote:
Can we have, both are important please ?

No choose!

reynanuy

Newcomer

reynanuy

Newcomer

13 years ago

Mar 9, 2012, 11:58:46 AM

I don't know why the "poll spawn" we are seeing in the forums. Frankly, this one at least, feels rushed at best. It's missing an important option (arguably the most important), as tkozlow pointed out previously, and IMO has an extra useless one.

tkozlow

Survivor

tkozlow

Survivor

14 500g2g pts

13 years ago

Mar 9, 2012, 12:57:48 PM

znork wrote:
No choose!

Then I choose I don't care

. But to be honest i prefer SP slightly as, playing boardgames as multi players is much more fun

Alderbranch

Newcomer

Alderbranch

Newcomer

500g2g pts

13 years ago

Mar 9, 2012, 1:04:00 PM

I chose I dont care as I consider both equally important but from different angles.

VIPznork

Ninja

i were a ninja once

VIPznork

Ninja

13 years ago

Mar 9, 2012, 1:07:50 PM

the thing is if you have to choose what would you choose. And saying both are ass importent is pointless. If they have ro priotresies what is the most important.

Having to option to say yes i want it all is the easyes of them all and that is why poletisans lie to you. Choosing i dont care is not same as posting bothe becuse you cant!

Alderbranch

Newcomer

Alderbranch

Newcomer

500g2g pts

13 years ago

Mar 9, 2012, 1:16:29 PM

I beg to differ.

Favoring one over the other doesnt make a game excellent. Its making it a great symbiot of the both that gives you that. DM had two different skillsets but the same gameengine and that worked. They had both good SP and good MP.

VIPznork

Ninja

i were a ninja once

VIPznork

Ninja

13 years ago

Mar 9, 2012, 1:17:20 PM

But forching you to choose makes it easyer for the dev to prioreteis.

xord

Newcomer

xord

Newcomer

13 years ago

Mar 9, 2012, 1:17:24 PM

multiplayer cause when you finish the singelplayer well the multiplayer are there to keep the gamer to play the game