Total Anihilation is in my opinion the best RTS ever. It is quite old so an old computer should run it just fine.

Personally i am looking for games like Dungeonsiege2 or Lionheart?
These two games i can play with my wife on the other computer without having to buy the game twice and these two games allow us to multiplay the main campaign mission.

Ever since playing quake1, i have absolutely fallen in love with games that allow multiplayer campaign. Do you know how much serious fun it is to try to work through a campaign with your wife at your side?? awesome!

I guess that explains why I don't own bioshock, or oblivion.



Let me rephrase. It is required if I am going to buy it. The box for GalCivII was misleading. It suggested it had multiplayer. I don't have it handy but there was something to the effect of "compete with others around the world". Hence the reason I purchased the origional game.

So sure, you may be right. Not EVERY game has multiplayer. Even some that don't do okay. But the vast majority of games do have multiplayer. GalCiv is the only TBS game I've ever owned (besides very old games like moo1, master of magic, or early civ) that doesn't have multiplayer.

Also a search of this forum indicates that has been pretty big interest in multiplayer.

The bottom line is, the competitors to GavCiv are release games with multiplayer (Civ, Moo & SE). Most games provide multiplayer. What are you going to try to justify next? That 256 colors and 640x480 resulotion is plenty good as long as you spend development time on some other feature deemed important?



Ever played Civ? Or moo? timed turns are a good solution to this. Also, the ability to continue after you've 'ended your turn' in civ helps.

A friend and I often play TBS games together. We get together weekly and continue our game. A single game can last months. Or, better yet, try using the pitboss option, which allows for long term games. SEV also has a fan site that allows play by web capability. So when it's your turn you get an email.



Have you considered that having multiplayer would attract a larger customer base? Possibly raising this game from bargin bin status to something more successful?

I guess, you better put one more notch in the column of customers who haven't bought any expansions solely because of the lack of multiplayer. As a matter of fact GalCiv has never been installed on my current computer. I bought this one last December. SE V, Moo3, and Civ4 (+2 expansions) are all currently on this hard drive.

Maybe a post like this and the several other people in this thread that agree with me will eventually add up to enough people for the developers to consider multiplayer important. Too bad people like me have already written off the franchise.

In all honesty, does anyone know how multiplayer is for Civ 4? It is God-aweful boring?? I think multiplayer may work ok, but you would have to have a turn timer, like only 5 minutes per turn like a timed chess match. During your turn, you can move ships, etc. And during your opponents' turns you can still view stuff give orders, etc. They just won't actually happen until it your turn.

I mean is the multiplayer experience in civ 4 really awful?

If galciv2 had mp it basically wouldnt have a sp(worth comparing to wut it is now), and i doubt it would have a larger fan base for that reason.

I located my box. I bought the Collectors Edition of Galactic Civilizations II: Dread Lords. Silver box. Looks really nice. Good marketing material. I said in my last post there was somthing on the box that lead me to believe the game supported multiplayer.



There is no indication on the box what Metaverse II is. I still don't know exactly what it is, but when I bought it I assumed Metaverse II was a matching service for multiplayer play. This is apparently not the case at all.

This sort of deception is not the type of marketing I appriciate. It lead me to spend $30 on a game I played maybe 3 times.

Now to this day I still get spam from this game. Hence the reason I'm here on the forums looking to see if maybe multiplayer support had been added in an expansion.

my my maybe someone should learn to read reviews of a game .there is no where in the advertizing that says multiplayer .i myself always check reviews if im uncertain what type of game it is.I try to avoid multiplayer twitch type games.

If you don't know what a horse is, but asume it is a car and buy the horse from somone who tells you it is a horse, is it a deception on their part?

Check out this recent comparison of Halo 3 and BioShock:

http://www.gamepro.com/microsoft/xbox360/games/features/139569.shtml

BioShock lost only because of its lack of multiplayer -- how stupid is that? If a game is not designed to incorporate multiplayer, why is it being judged on it? It's like comparing a car to an airplane, and the car loses because it can't fly. See? It's not just ridiculous consumers expecting multiplayer, it's ridiculous industry magazines as well.

I just don't understand why so many people think multiplayer is a requirement for a game to be worth playing. Most of the games I can point to as my favourites of all time were single player games -- System Shock 2, Planescape: Torment, Fallout, X-Com UFO Defense and many more. None of these would have been improved by adding multiplayer, IMO, and some would have lost quite a bit in the process.

And have you considered that having multiplayer support actually reduces the value of the game in the eyes of some customers.

Almost all games I play are singleplayer games, mostly because I don't want the trouble of organizing matches with friends. At least once I didn't buy a game because it was multiplayer-centric (Dominion), because I knew I wouldn't be able to appreciate it fully without playing with other human players. I don't know how many are like me, but if there is an appreciable amount, then not adding multiplayer and instead putting more time in other singleplayer-centric stuff (like better AI, varied game experience for more replayability,...) could actually increase the sale of the game.

Just to say that adding multiplayer is not a no-brainer like some people seems to believe.

No disrespect to those of you who think multiplayer is a huge subject but there is already a thread for that in the stuck section.

Kyro did the entire forum not request that the next MP thread be locked as soon as it started and a pointer to the stuck conversation put in the last thread?

It'd be a shame to have no MP *ever*. I play SoTS more often than GalCiv2 now because I can play with my buddies over Hamachi while I work, or in dull moments when there's nothing else to do. SoTS < Galciv2 (of course). Actually, I play PlanetSide and SoTS in windows at the same time. The pace is slow, games can go on weeks, but it's light entertainment to pass the time when nothing else is going on - and I can enjoy it with some friends.

Even if there weren't complex ladders and logging in to central servers - the game only supported LAN play it'd still be worth paying twice as much for than SoTS for the social aspect (with friends). SIGH. Look at all the people that dish out $50 + $20 a month to play online games. I don't think it's that far of a stretch to assume GalCiv2 consumers are bottom of the barrel and can't pitch a little more money at something that will get them long lasting entertainment. I'd still be playing MOO2 if I didn't have to jump through hoops to play with my buddies (multiplayer hoops). Imagine the expansion pack potential along those lines! Upgrade the same game for a decade +, haha.

GalCiv 2 MP Expansion pack! $49! I'll pay it! * 3! (That oughtta cover development cost)

so because you personally do not find multiplay entertaining, it must be stupid??
I do not think it is stupid at all. Games are judged on their entertainment value, so obviously the judges at the magazine realised the multiplay increased its entertainment value, and rightly so.



Entire forum? Entire forum must mean everyone in the forum rite? I knew it, Aliens have altered my memory so i do not remember making that request!

Civilization IV has very good multiplayer. Now, right now, those of you reading this, tell us how many people are available right now to play multiplayer. Note that the game has sold nearly 2 million copies.

I just looked and there are zero games available to join.

Multiplayer is something I do enjoy but it is not a popular feature. I wish it were because I would love to be able to justify putting it in.

And as some know, I was into multiplayer. I was totally into TA's multiplayer to the point where I was a top ranked TA player on Boneyards for a full year (I was that "Frogboy").  So multiplayer isn't something I have anything against.

See the Metaverse link in the left sidebar. It's an online system whereby players compete based on score and activity.

Nowhere on the box will you find the word "multiplayer".

As noted by Brad, Bioshock and Oblivion have shown that single-player-by-design games are alive and well and more than capable of garnering high marks (and sales).

Protests aside, all research and experience has pointed to multiplayer in GC2 not being worth the cost, especially since as a small company, doing multiplayer would mean NOT doing lots of other features. And that's not a compromise that'd be worthwhile to us or to most players.



Bargin bin games don't get multiple expansion packs.

I don't know about civ 4 but one thing that tends to destroy online multiplay after a period of time is mods. Various popular mods will start appearing which are not compatable with each other etc etc and the whole thing just goes to hell from that point on.

As seen in my identity pic, i am a fan of battlezone 2 combat commander. It's online experience was obliterated by various mods.

Thanks for the support frogboy. It's nice to know that it would be there if it was justified. Maybe someday it will be if not in this game maybe the next if it happens. Oh a question you know civ4 has sold 2 million copies, how many gc2 have sold by itself or with expansions??? Just curious I also own Civ 4 haven't played the multiplayer option myself but, I mostly play via local lan against friends not online.

Um, what? Did you even read what you were responding to, Mystikmind?

Point of fact: I do find multiplay entertaining... for some games. In fact, some games I couldn't imagine playing without multiplay. GalCiv2 is not one of those games.

You clearly said they were stupid to say one game was better because it had multiplayer. well i say, if they went to all the trouble of putting in the multiplayer, then they should get credit for that. If you want to use cars as an example, then i would say that a car with airconditioning should get credit for that when compared to another car that does not. The fact that the airconditioning uses more recources, some people may not want it in preference for other things etc etc blah blah blah still does not change the fact that it should get credit for the feature.

I have not used the multiplay for civ4 but only because my wife won't play it. Also when i think about it, i would not use an online multiplayer for Galciv either.

However when my wife sees me playing galciv, she starts asking me questions about it and wants to join my game but i sadly have to dissapoint her. This being the reason i would love a multiplayer but it would not help Stardock's sales since i would object to buying the game twice just to play at home on 2 computers.

Well, actually, I said -- clearly enough to most people, I hope -- that I think the methodology used was stupid, not the people writing the article. And I stand by that.

From that, you somehow got "so because you personally do not find multiplay entertaining, it must be stupid??"

It's a strawman argument. By all means argue with me if you disagree with my assessment of the article, but don't put words in my mouth, mmmkay?



See? That's a better argument, albeit not a convincing one.

Air conditioning as an optional component is not really comparable to multiplayer in a game. It would be more applicable to compare something like, let's say, the quality of sound used in two games. While not an essential component, that is something that you could fairly, if still somewhat arbitrarily, compare in two different games, no matter how different the games are. Multiplayer, however, is not preferred by all players, nor is it unanimously seen as a good thing, such as with GalCiv2.

If the criteria used to judge a game or car's merits is arbitrary, then what really is the point? It may not be apples and oranges -- more like oranges and tangerines -- but it still isn't a fair comparison. For example, I could say that I dislike all games that do not have pictures of spaceships on the box cover; therefore GalCiv2 is clearly superior to the Sims.

a strawman argument? i never herd that one before?

anyhow i am not trying to be specific enough to go onto the detail of methodology verses people or putting words in mouths, sorry about that.

I think i see the missunderstanding.... my point is simple, that the multiplayer is an option that adds value to the game just as airconditioning ads value to a car.

Now when road testing two cars there are many things that are considered by the tester. Car A may have airconditioning while car B does not. However car B may have some other feature to make up for it, i dunno. But despite everything, the airconditioning still helps car A be a little more impressive than if it did not have it. That does not mean it is necissarily better than car B however, car B would also be even more impressive if it also had airconditioning. Now in the case of the two games you mention, the testers decided that the multiplayer was enough to make one game better than the other.

No, it would not....

Civ 4 is garbage. It's missing a very core feature - you cannot build multiple offensive and defensive military units in any way. You can upgrade pre-built units, but never build your own custom units. Therefore it is not as good a game for anybody as gal civ 2.

Is this a valid argument? Lord, no. I don't like Civ 4's unit experience system, not one little bit, but that doesn't make it a sensible thing to use a an "unbiased" review element! For me personally, I can judge things however I like, but a professional review should look at the game as objectively as possible.

Also anybody who really digs Civ 4, keep in mind it's a much simpler game. They built multiplayer onto a game that's both simpler than Gal Civ 2 and still doesn't have as good AI. The units are prebuilt, so no need for AI on those. The cities don't need to be balanced in terms of space limitations, so the AI doesn't need to figure out what to build where in nearly as serious a way. The combat system is significantly simpler than gal civ's, so the AI doesn't have as much organization to deal with. The economy isn't hard to balance at all, and has a lot fewer choices to worry about for the AI. The tech tree is much simpler, and gives the AI more obvious paths, unlike GC2's which tends to require careful consideration of what tech you choose next.

Overall what you got from civ 4 was a quality MP game, but not a very deep SP game by any means, and not a terribly impressive AI. GC2 chose to put its resources into a SP game instead, and look at what we have for it - a much deeper game even though the company is far smaller than Firaxis. I think there's a lesson to be learned here....

Lol. That was needed in this thread. I think you forgot the guy in the corner macroing though.

Outstanding!!!

Shiva, lol. Yeah, sadly many in WoW are that way. The game is still awesome though and I just ignore everyone if they are bungholes.

Believe it or not, there are decent folk in WoW who are more than happy to lend a helpful hand too.