Matrix Games Forums

I'm trying not to start ranting and putting videos and pictures of games that prove that multiplayer adds more fan-base and can actually be fun to 4x-space games..

But I don't want the kiddies to get run over..

Diplomacy is my thing, there just isn't enough options in game for my liking, same with spies, for instance tech sharing pact would be nice, same with spy information sharing, along with the option to spread rumors about an enemy empire, the list goes on, we'll just have to wait and see I guess!

ORIGINAL: Blabsawaw22

I'm trying not to start ranting and putting videos and pictures of games that prove that multiplayer adds more fan-base and can actually be fun to 4x-space games..

But I don't want the kiddies to get run over..

Actually, I think you will find that most of us who will never once play a multi-player version of the game have no problem with it being added. So long as it is not at the expense of a sound single player experience.

However, I have seen too many games lately that have completely abandoned the single player experience and in the process the game flops. A good game will have both components and appeal to both types of gamer.

Don't start! Must... not... derail... thread...

ORIGINAL: Shark7

However, I have seen too many games lately that have completely abandoned the single player experience and in the process the game flops. A good game will have both components and appeal to both types of gamer.

Not every game needs a single player campaign. In fact, many games have probably suffered because a single player mode was tacked in, taking away assets, man-hours and QC from multiplayer development. BF3 when it first came out was definitely a victim of this imo, for example. No one buys a game like BF3 for the single player.

ORIGINAL: HerpInYourDerp

ORIGINAL: Shark7

However, I have seen too many games lately that have completely abandoned the single player experience and in the process the game flops. A good game will have both components and appeal to both types of gamer.

Not every game needs a single player campaign. In fact, many games have probably suffered because a single player mode was tacked in, taking away assets, man-hours and QC from multiplayer development. BF3 when it first came out was definitely a victim of this imo, for example. No one buys a game like BF3 for the single player.

BF3 is a first person shooter.

DW is a real-time strategy game.

they are somewhat different kind of games [:'(]

I love multiplayer in the turn strategy games (both WEGO and IGO-UGO), but I always find very difficult to play Real-Time Strategy games in multiplayer.

I mean: I always play RTS with the pause button activated because I love to micro-manage and this is absolutely impossible to do for me in multiplayer.

for this reason for me in RTS single-player is much more important than multiplayer.

but of course this is only my personal opinion.. [:D]

tm.asp?m=3983517

We argued about this before.

ORIGINAL: Retreat1970

tm.asp?m=3983517

We argued about this before.

very interesting [:D] thank you Retreat1970 !!!

I promise, I"m not going to start.. but ...

BF3 is a first person shooter.

DW is a real-time strategy game.

they are somewhat different kind of games

But who cares, he was giving a really good example.. if you want the games to be in the same genre, then what about Starcraft? Warcraft? Commmand and Conquer.. all realtime multiplayer games with STRONG SINGLEPLAYER AND MULTIPLAYER

Take it to the other thread! [:D]

There is no way a little dev can waste development time for something that only 2.5% will play.Comparing 4x to an RTS is about a silly as using COD Mp as an example.

ORIGINAL: ASHBERY76

There is no way a little dev can waste development time for something that only 2.5% will play.Comparing 4x to an RTS is about a silly as using COD Mp as an example.

100% agree with the first statement.

but, to better understand, what you mean with "COD Mp" ???

Call of Duty MultiPlayer.. [8|]

only 2.5% will play

Source? as long as we're making stuff up I say 50%.

Have you ever heard of Steam? yes, it sells games.. there are how many people on Steam??

And there is this thing called "community hub" in steam.. that lets you see how many players there are in a game.. have a look at the tabs next time if you want statistics..

because last time I checked, there are well over 1200 people playing the most stupid games ever created.. like Mitosis and it's free by the way.. imagine if they charged for that. (and I think you can buy stuff inside the game and that's how they make money.)

its multiplayer. your a blob.. in 2d.. and eat blobs..

But that's not the point, the point is that have you seen this picture in the Discussions forum for Distant Worlds in Steam? and that's 71 x $60 ( and you know there is much more, but they just don't post on steam.. )

Multiplayer isn't hard to implement and takes no special balance but I think in dwu case it would have to be a client/server model with one player acting as host doing all game calculations and the others basically running a terminal program so they can connect to the server and play. Not particularly easy tasks but it's more work and fiddling than actual innovation so it's a time issue mostly and time is money in software development much like any other business. So can they do it? Sure. Will they do it? That's up to the guys in the suits and their cost analysis minions.

That's all somebody needed to say, and kinda was said, in the other post, where we all started fighting about it...

anyway.. its pointless now, they Already Started DW2 and you know they already decided whether not to include Multiplayer already by now.. as that would have had to be discussed before work started on DW2... (they just aren't giving any info)

Nearly 10 years on, GalCiv2 still doesn't have MP and Stardock has substantially more resources. Plus, using a single host/multiple clients system would just exacerbate one of the DW:U game-engine's fundamental problems - it's completely dependent on CPU power for literally everything as it is in post-XP machines and performance suffers substantially as the system gets larger and more populated.

Please, let's end this multiplayer debate. Some of us want it, some don't. No one is right, no one is wrong. Matrix is making the game they want or can, and we can't do anything about it. I know it's a passionate topic, but let's bury it.

let's hope that Distant Worlds 2 will be a more greater space-4X than Distant Worlds, multiplayer or not.

if so, they will have my money for sure [:)]