Reynold's Interview - Discussion - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Old Test Forums
  Reynold's Interview - Discussion

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Reynold's Interview - Discussion

Jason Beaudoin posted 11-19-98 02:14 PM ET
Did anyone notice that Brian indicated that certain companies (and I guess he meant Microprose) was against multiplayer stating that it was bad for marketing! Is this the reason a multiplayer option was not incorporated in Civilization II? What a blunder! How could anyone think that? Anyone who said that obviously didn't conduct good marketing research and probably never played an online game.
No wonder members of the Firaxis staff left. I'm not surprised at all. They probably enjoy much more creative freedom and they are probably happy to pursue a more productive gaming phylosophy.
DJ RRebel posted 11-19-98 02:21 PM ET
hmmmn .. don't forget though, Civ2 was developed before the big internet boooooom !!!
Jason Beaudoin posted 11-19-98 02:26 PM ET
Before the internet boom? That's not true... they came out with CIVNet around the same time! They were obviously aware of the market for online gaming!!!
Spoe posted 11-19-98 05:50 PM ET
So they didn't want it competing with CivNET then, eh? And IIRC, it was right at the start of the big upswing in consumer internet here in the US.
CClark posted 11-19-98 05:54 PM ET
And if you want to be really cynical, you could say that they purposefully left it out so that they could then ship Civ2 Gold (or whatever they are calling it) and soak you for $50 twice for basically the same game.
Not that any company would do that. That'd be almost like including a skimpy manual to drive up sales of the hint book!
Old_Guy posted 11-19-98 06:27 PM ET
I think it's safe to say that in today's market, strategy gamers expect three main features from a strategy game, turn-based or real time.
1) Single-player mode
2) Multi-player mode
3) Map/Scenario editor and/or randomizer
While these all of course are related, I think you could argue that these are three games in one--the programming is quite different for each one.
My point is that today's games are built to incorporate these feature FROM THE GROUND UP. I don't think this would apply to as many games two years ago. I could be wrong, but my impression has been that multiplayer for Civ and Civ2 was an afterthought. They were single-player cames with multi-player capabilities to come later.
It's reassuring to know that Firaxis seems to have spent a lot of time with all three features throughout the development of SMAC.
Just my $.02.
AUH20 posted 11-19-98 06:33 PM ET
Actually, there are some eccentrics who would be happy with just multi-player, saying SP is boring, and other eccentrics, myself included, who only like SP. I'm glad to say it looks like the single player is finally being paid attention to. Of course Firaxis would, though.
DHE_X2 posted 11-19-98 11:33 PM ET
anybody could make a multiplayer game that is fun. To create a truly fun and replayable AI takes skill.
Firehawk posted 11-19-98 11:36 PM ET
Well said, DHE. Strong agreement here.
CEO Landon posted 11-24-98 05:51 PM ET
I also judge a game by the quality of the AI and the single-player experience. SMAC will reign supreme in this area. Internet play, for me, is simply a way to extend replayability and show off my own superior tactics (or occasional lacking thereof). Besides, I can't generally commit a large continuous block of time to gaming. Most unfortunate, huh...
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Reynold's Interview - Discussion
Jason Beaudoin	posted 11-19-98 02:14 PM ET Did anyone notice that Brian indicated that certain companies (and I guess he meant Microprose) was against multiplayer stating that it was bad for marketing! Is this the reason a multiplayer option was not incorporated in Civilization II? What a blunder! How could anyone think that? Anyone who said that obviously didn't conduct good marketing research and probably never played an online game. No wonder members of the Firaxis staff left. I'm not surprised at all. They probably enjoy much more creative freedom and they are probably happy to pursue a more productive gaming phylosophy.
DJ RRebel	posted 11-19-98 02:21 PM ET hmmmn .. don't forget though, Civ2 was developed before the big internet boooooom !!!
Jason Beaudoin	posted 11-19-98 02:26 PM ET Before the internet boom? That's not true... they came out with CIVNet around the same time! They were obviously aware of the market for online gaming!!!
Spoe	posted 11-19-98 05:50 PM ET So they didn't want it competing with CivNET then, eh? And IIRC, it was right at the start of the big upswing in consumer internet here in the US.
CClark	posted 11-19-98 05:54 PM ET And if you want to be really cynical, you could say that they purposefully left it out so that they could then ship Civ2 Gold (or whatever they are calling it) and soak you for $50 twice for basically the same game. Not that any company would do that. That'd be almost like including a skimpy manual to drive up sales of the hint book!
Old_Guy	posted 11-19-98 06:27 PM ET I think it's safe to say that in today's market, strategy gamers expect three main features from a strategy game, turn-based or real time. 1) Single-player mode 2) Multi-player mode 3) Map/Scenario editor and/or randomizer While these all of course are related, I think you could argue that these are three games in one--the programming is quite different for each one. My point is that today's games are built to incorporate these feature FROM THE GROUND UP. I don't think this would apply to as many games two years ago. I could be wrong, but my impression has been that multiplayer for Civ and Civ2 was an afterthought. They were single-player cames with multi-player capabilities to come later. It's reassuring to know that Firaxis seems to have spent a lot of time with all three features throughout the development of SMAC. Just my $.02.
AUH20	posted 11-19-98 06:33 PM ET Actually, there are some eccentrics who would be happy with just multi-player, saying SP is boring, and other eccentrics, myself included, who only like SP. I'm glad to say it looks like the single player is finally being paid attention to. Of course Firaxis would, though.
DHE_X2	posted 11-19-98 11:33 PM ET anybody could make a multiplayer game that is fun. To create a truly fun and replayable AI takes skill.
Firehawk	posted 11-19-98 11:36 PM ET Well said, DHE. Strong agreement here.
CEO Landon	posted 11-24-98 05:51 PM ET I also judge a game by the quality of the AI and the single-player experience. SMAC will reign supreme in this area. Internet play, for me, is simply a way to extend replayability and show off my own superior tactics (or occasional lacking thereof). Besides, I can't generally commit a large continuous block of time to gaming. Most unfortunate, huh...