Would you purchase a $20 multiplayer-only expansion pack for Galciv II?

At first I thought "No" unless it included other treats; but then thats redundant because it would then be a traditional expansion. Well, now I voted yes. I might want to try this game in multi-player but it's not a priority. $20 bucks...mmm...I have a job.Sure.So,Stardock, what are your plans now that you're getting the results of this pole?

-Wade
25,054 views 38 replies
Reply #1 Top
Stardock? Frogboy?...um...any of the others that I can't remember their names...My bad.

-Wade
Reply #2 Top
No, I would not. I have zero interest in multi-player games. I would buy an expansion pack that had new features, campaigns, etc.

-M
Reply #3 Top
Nope. No interest at all in MP.

There are plenty of choices of good MP games out there - but very few SP games worth a hoot.

Stardock only has so many people and a limited amount of time and resources to work on the game - I'd rather they spent it on things to improve SP.

Keep the MP slider at 0.
Push the research and SP sliders all the way up.

They have said they will do MP in GC3...I have no issue with that as it would be budgeted from the start.
Reply #4 Top
I'm a Single Player dyed in wool.

Never played online or multi-player with anyone else.

For a long duration game such as CivGal2 (or Stars!) or a similar strategy game, it's too much of a chore to organize everyone to be consistently online IMHO.

You invaribly end up with many unfinished games where players simply give up over boredom.
Reply #5 Top
Keep the MP slider at 0.
Push the research and SP sliders all the way up.

They have said they will do MP in GC3...I have no issue with that as it would be budgeted from the start


That is a good one!
If this is what Stardock will do then that would be good to. I can wait for Galactic Civilizatons 3. Though multi-player is not a priority for me also. For Galactic Civilizatons 3 Stardock should have quite a team and bugdet...or quite an even better team. I mean an even larger team...I mean...Uh, please don't hurt me.


-Wade
Reply #6 Top
For a long duration game such as CivGal2 (or Stars!) or a similar strategy game, it's too much of a chore to organize everyone to be consistently online IMHO.


I've played a couple games of Stars on pbem. And while it is difficult to get a good game together, good games are pretty memorable.

Galciv II would be a great PBEM game, I would pay for a MP expansion (though it would be nice to add some SP enhancements to the pot as well, make it nice and sweet)

Reply #7 Top


(though it would be nice to add some SP enhancements to the pot as well, make it nice and sweet)


There will be a single player expansion. The poll is about one for only multi-player. As I understand it.

-Wade
Reply #8 Top
I am not even slightly interested in multi player but would happily buy a single player expansion.
Reply #10 Top
CivGal2? Stars?
Reply #11 Top
Eh, I'm undecided. While I think that GC2 multiplayer would absolutely rock the house....I also remember slogging through games of MoO2 and BotF and not getting even close to the end.

So, as the question is stated, no. I would not pay $20 for multiplayer GC2. However, if it was multiplayer, some new stuff tossed in and maybe something to allow players to meet up to play a game (SDC seems like it could manage to host a game room or something similar) then I would be more inclined to buy it. However, I think the best part of GC2 is one of the reasons the Devs stated that they weren't adding multiplayer in to start with. This type of game is not best designed to play multiplayer. The exception is for a LAN party (OMG.....imagine the possibilities!!!)

That's my two cents, feel free to listen to it or ignore it. I don't mind
Reply #13 Top
I wont pay 20 bucks.

Mostly because I'm not sure what Im gonna get, my concern is as usual with this kind of games:

If it takes even an hour or in most cases more to play a game, it is very unlikely that 2 people would meet at the right time with both having these 2 hours to play. In case of more players per map its even worse.

As a result, my fear is that "normal" strategy game wont be possible because people would leave due to RL and it sucks A LOT to play 80 minutes to build up and see enemy leaving. In the game like this you think way too forward to allow enemy come and go like that. Even worse is not to play because you dont have 2 hours, but can spare only 40 minutes

In case the game would be modified to be shorter somehow, I suspect it will loose a lot of strategy aspect.


So, no, for 20 bucks I can play EVE for a month if I want online.

Reply #14 Top
I voted no, but in retrospect I *Might* depending on its features.
Reply #15 Top
Nope. No interest at all in MP.

There are plenty of choices of good MP games out there - but very few SP games worth a hoot.

Stardock only has so many people and a limited amount of time and resources to work on the game - I'd rather they spent it on things to improve SP.

Keep the MP slider at 0.
Push the research and SP sliders all the way up.

They have said they will do MP in GC3...I have no issue with that as it would be budgeted from the start.


Amen to that!
Reply #16 Top
I would happily buy it, soley for its LAN party goodness. Something easily loaded up, easy to learn to play, and with so many possibilities for gameplay, it'd be a blast. Seems I'm in the minority though, so I may have to simply suck it up and wait for GalCiv3 to have my Space-based TBS LAN party.
Reply #18 Top
Never had the oppy to have a lan party but they do sound a hoot. The thing with epic games like this is indeed time. I like to take my sweet time playing and some prick constantly screaming "hurry up" would ruin the fun. (I can appreciate their pov tho). PBEM would be a great addition but not for $20. IMO it should have been included with the initial release but it wasn't and the game is not really lacking because of the absence.

I agree MP, of any flavor, should wait for GC3. As one stated, if for no other reason, than it's budgeted from the start and can be given the quality attention SD is nothed for. As an after thought to add it to the current version will probably just cause a lot more problems.

Leave it off. I can wait for GC3 for a PBEM availability. And live MP I don't care if they wait until GC X.
Reply #19 Top
I guess I would, I'm just not sure how popular the MP feature would be, And it would be a dissapointment for me to spend $35 (In NZD) on something that would not be used by others.
Reply #20 Top
I don't miss multiplayer one bit. Internet is a crappy place play with people unless you know them well enough. Somewhere in this site someone put it quite well. Only 10% or so games are really satisfying and the other 90% not. People leave when they're not winning, they're abusive, cheat and so on. Besides, turn based strategy games are not the best ones for mp anyway.
Reply #21 Top
GC does not fit the MP mold.

Do it like dozens of other companies have done when they wanted to change the "flavour" of a game - make it into a completely new game, an offshoot of the main game. Take out all of the elements that make GC2 a slow-paced, relaxed (relatively), turn-based game and make "Galactic Battles" (or some less cheesy name), using the GC style, but playing more like Total Annihilation or Command & Conquer. Have battle maps that include battles "out in space", battles "in orbit", and ground battles to represent planetary invasions.

Have you ever played the Total Annihilation campaign? That basic core idea of going from planet to planet through galactic gates was amazing. GB could have more of a "conquer the galaxy" feel, by making you have to progress through conquering the galaxy in a series of space, orbital and surface battles. This sort of fast-paced game would be ideal for creating a MP/RTS game in the GC "universe", while turn-based GC would not lose what makes it great.

In the long-term, there might even be room for a FPS game based on the Q4 engine or something like that, where the maps/missions would involve shipboard combat, espionage (BE the agent who sneaks aboard a Drengi starship and steals the key research for the Phasor technology), rescue (save the captured Torian diplomat in-transit to the Yor homeworld for interrogation), and so on.

Heck, integrate it all - make it so you can click on an icon in the GC game and "jump" over to the RTS game to "play" the invasion of the Drengi homeworld (of course, you'd have to own both games).
Reply #22 Top
Nope, this game those not lend itself to mp play. Players would kill each other arguing over turn length. Heck, some of us spend hours designing ships at different stages of the game. Its not something that's likely to be considered feasable in an mp game -- yet is fairly important in the mid to late game. Concentrate on the great sp game you have instead of trying to split efforts between sp and mp "modules". You'll get more (loyal) customers by building on what you have going now than throwing together an mp version of the game.
Reply #23 Top
Nope.
Reply #24 Top
I would buy an exspansion only if it included the following.
1.ship mods that include starwars/startrek/stargate/battlestar galactica.
2. map mods that replicate the the following battles/ starwars clone wars/ starwars empire at war/ starttrek, borg,dominion, species 8472/ 12 colonies of kobol and the cylons.
3. more hull designs and customizations.
4.multiplayer that was similar to CIV4 multiplayer.
5.Priced at £9.99

I would then purchace it. but if it was only multiplayer then no i wouldnt bother





Reply #25 Top
I for one am a single player junkie. The only multiplayer games I have played include Planetside and SWG. I like a persistant gameworld and could never see myself playing a game like GC2 as I like to take my time and play the game. Nor do I have the time to spend playing online, just give me a great SP game which you have and throw the MP out.