Is this game dead?
before I pick up the game I was wondering if this game has a good multiplayer base?
Also how is the multiplayer community? meaning is it more laid back causal type or is it competitive.
In all honesty, the MP is pretty much dead. The MP had serious problems on release, and in fact it still has serious problems (though is improving somewhat) so most of the MP community has left elsewhere. Steam is also near useless in finding games and you're best bet to find any is to visit www.civplayers.com or other similar sites. Even after all that you're stuck with a MP that has no game animations, leaderheads, AI diplomacy, mod support, notifications, normal save function, is barely stable with more than 3-4 players, frequent crashing, DLC incompatibility if everyone doesn't own it, lacking options for simultaneous turns, etc. etc. Some of these missing options might not matter to you depending on your style of play, but it's best to know that MP is at best half the SP experience.
Thank you that's all i wanted to know. i don't want to get a game just based on the SP, i want to play other people. so looks like im not getting it =[. well looks like im back to civ4
I would visit the Civplayers chat room and talk to the players that actually still play before making a decision. Yes MP does have issues, but people still have alot of fun games despite the issues. And FYI, apparently the last patch solved the MP AI issues, though most of us never play AI in MP anyway.
Snap judgement based off one comment on the forums? Atleast look around, wait for further replies and as stated, vist other sites too. I rather enjoy my MP with my friends.. but I can see frustration if you are randomly trying to pick up a game from others.
Yeah i've been looking around, i have seen people rate this games MP very low on these forums. For me i don't have any friends on this game considering i haven't played it haha. so my main thing is how active the players are, so i would have the opportunity to meet people or join a clan(if their are any). and from what i've seen what other have said on these forums about MP. it doesnt look worth it.
Actually, it only half solved the MP AI issue. Yes, the AI will actually build units now but they still never contact a human player. Hence why I specifically stated AI diplomacy and not MP AI.
Originally Posted by CanuckSoldier
dont buy it, it doesnt worth it
The game is great in single player so it's not dead.
It's a sort of multiplayer coma however...
I've stop playing about 2 months ago, waiting for the multiplayer patch.
I really wish multiplayer worked and would play immediately if it did.
Beyond aesthetics this game is a leap backwards from Civ IV BTS.
Yeah I don't think that tech was needed that much in the first place, we can do without it.
Originally Posted by Gyrate
Be on the lookout for it's upcoming expansion, Civ V: Beyond the Aesthetics. Instead of just painting your empire, you actually get to sell the portraits, it sounds really good, it even includes seven different brush types!
Seriously though, why do you even come on these forums? All you do is criticize the game.
The game is so broken that they can't cope with fixing both single and multiplayer at the same time, so the priority is single player.
Originally Posted by XxAkadema
If your interest in solely on online multiplayer, then don't buy the game now, wait for another year or something like that (hopefully). If your intention is to play hotseat, it was just added to the game, I'm yet to play a match with my brother to see how is it doing. And if you can manage to play single player while multiplayer is fixed (if it will, anyway...), then prepare yourself to be angry about some random stuff that will depend on your style of play. This game has glitches and exploits to everybody.
Apparently, I don't play multi-player, that mode is suffering. However, it still has hope because: the patches are still flowing and likely to keep doing so for quite another while.
Now, single-player - how I play it, is vibrant. Civilization V, and yes: 4 too and I even still play 3, is a game with enormous replay value. It's not a cookie-cutter game or one with a (relatively) simple plot that you play once to get the story. This game, I will be playing for years to come. Each game in the series is different, I have installed (with both expansions) and still play 4 occasionally, and also installed (with the *everything* Steam version), still play 3 every once in a while. 3 and 4 are still good games and they've been out ages. I've already got my money's worth out of 5 so when I'm still playing it years from now: that will be even more gravy. Remember, 3 and 4 took a while to mature into the classics they are today. 5 is still well within active development: give it another X number of patches it'll get and, then, in that time: it'll fully, and rightfully, join 3 and 4 in the mature "status."
Edit: Adding a bit about the "maturity" of a Civ game. Compare the depth of a game like Civ to your typical FPS or similar. Those types of games are very clearly defined. You do this, it does that. Simple. The "emergent" game-play of a game like Civ has a huge amount of "unforeseen" interactions. It really is the kind of game that you have to put out there, let people try all sorts of crazy stuff, and balance it as you go. That balancing, and there is no other way to really do it but put it in the hands of tons of people, over time is how a Civ title reaches "mature" status.
I offer help when I can and sometimes have positive things to say. After using Steam for a while I don't hate that. I'm making progress. My goal is to one day not hate the game and since it is a work in progress I swing by from time to time.
Originally Posted by Floating Pants
Originally Posted by Floating Pants
Everyone is fully entitled to their opinion. Fully. That doesn't mean you can't ask someone to clarify something or ask how they support it just that there is no "line" to toe here.
Originally Posted by Gyrate
I'm not saying anything to either of you guys so please don't take any offence, just putting a note in this thread so it's clear
Edit: Just for the sake of completeness, I've come back to put in a link to the: Forum Rules in this post. You can believe all you want and if you generally preface it with (but that's usually implied anyway): "I think.." then you have a lot of latitude in your posts. If something you wrote goes against a written rule however: that is not opinion.
Last edited by headkase; 07-02-2011 at 02:22 AM.
Could be to remind 2 K/Firaxis that it is not acceptable to release a game in such a state.
SP gets better even if I miss many things : random elements like floods, vulcanos etc.
MP is a dissaster:
- Game lobbies are region logged
- You cant see what kind of game you are joing
- DLC is useless right now because it kicks the players without it
- Game is (most of the times) laggy as hell
- Game crashes / kicks you to the loading screen
- even basic functions like ...aehmm "save" are missing....
-Animations are missing, AI is till NOT on the level of SP
Its the worst MP I have seen from a big game company ever. Even CIV3 "Play the world " was better out of the box
multiplayer is dead, at least for me, too many bugs and too many very basic features missing, I gave up
what makes me crazy is yesterday i bought a stupid indie game on steam for 5 dollars, it has awesome multiplayer and it works perfect, ARGH
Take a look a free games like "Battle of Wesnoth" perfect mulitplayer and its for free....
Battle for Wesnoth has been around quite a while. It is a fairly popular open-source game. The graphics in it, while not bad, aren't in the same class as Civilization V. However, it is a good game. And, if you really do keep in mind that the people making it are doing it for Free, by all means: check it out.
Originally Posted by Sombra