PDA

View Full Version : For G*DS SAKE JUST PUT IN AN MP CAMPAIGN



Atilla
14th Oct 2004, 21:03
Be it in a patch, an add-on or whatever.

If you don't then this title will become an also ran and be smoked by the inevitable release of Napoleonic Total War (id bet the farm on that being the next in the series).

Include and MP campaign and that will really upset CA's apple cart. At present, they have the momentum; the user base, the Total War name built up over the years etc but the one area that they have consistently failed to deliver on is MP.

I'm somewhat tired of listening to all the excuses as to why MP "won't work". "What would you do when other people were fighting battles". Well, what do you do when playing most multi-human player games... you wait! When I'm playing chess, and I'm waiting for the other guy to make his move, I mull over my next move but do what? I wait! When I'm playing risk and waiting for others to resolve their turns... well I wait! And this not even need be an issue. In any game involving just two players then there is no reason not to have the battles always use human players. If you're not fighting your enemies actual empire then your enemy (ie the other human player) controls the AI army.

I see this as being the next true revolution in Turn/Strat games.

The_Russian_Rocket
14th Oct 2004, 23:38
LOL! There is Multi-Player (if that is what you mean by MP)! Look before you write! Can't.....stop.......laughing....!

haradrim
15th Oct 2004, 01:04
He meant a multiplayer campaign im pretty sure, and from what ive heard its not coming out in the release. EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE A BLAST TO PLAY AND INCREASE THE REPLAYABILITY OF THE GAME 10X! Anyway sry about that outburst but Atilla's right if pyro doesn't add a multiplayer campaign someone else will and imperial glory may be swept aside by a big name rts like Napoleonic Total War(which i doubt will be coming out anytime soon, but hey its just an example). So whatya say pyro, plleeeaasse.

Atilla
15th Oct 2004, 16:08
Yes, I meant a multiplayer CAMPAIGN. I thought that was clear enough from the title of my post... can't stop laughing indeed :)

I'm sure IG will be good - it's based on a tried and tested formula after all - but be honest, will it be sufficiently different from the Total War series to generate enough interest and sales. Yes, it's a different timeline, yes the units are different, but at its core the game is identical. More graphical bells and whistles will not be enough in my opinion to really set the game apart. Remember when STW came out the market was awash with RTS games and yet CA made a name for itself by throwing something new into the mix thereby creating a product line which is now in its 3rd incarnation and showing no sign of stopping.

I'm sure the folks at CA have seen the IG trailer and are not the least bit worried - nothing new gameplay wise, and graphics they know they can easily equal with a tweaked RTW engine (which I'm sure they're already doing).

To me, the first company that goes for a full MP campaign will really be able to claim a step forward in the genre and also have a truly new and unique feature that others will then want to try and emulate or face losing popular support to.

Let's face it, AI, no matter how good, is never going to provide the thrill and excitement of playing against a human opponent.

This whole argument has dragged on for so long on the Total War boards and CA's position become so entrenched that I'm now looking elsewhere. Sadly, IG does not at present seem to be the answer.

Lonewulf44
15th Oct 2004, 16:40
Originally posted by haradrim
EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE A BLAST TO PLAY AND INCREASE THE REPLAYABILITY OF THE GAME 10X! plleeeaasse.


Well, I have to agree, in todays market with so many games to choose from, I think this is almost a 'have to have option'. haradrim is right, it would increase the games 'replayability' a ton. Go from being a 6-7month game, to possibly 1-2 year game. Its that important to me at least.


Long Live Prussia!

Mastalerz
15th Oct 2004, 19:21
Actually to be historically accurate they did not have multiplayer campaigns in that certain time period so no I wouldn't expect one from this game.

boudreux
15th Oct 2004, 22:50
Uhh, wasn't the napoleonic wars a huge series of smaller wars between always-changing alliances? I can think of many interesting campaigns and series of battles.

Mastalerz
16th Oct 2004, 03:33
Why does it seem people in this forum have trouble reading? You apparently didn't see that I was joking reread my post it was a joke.

Champagne
16th Oct 2004, 12:24
For the same reaosns MP campaign is virtually impossible in the TW series, it is virtually impossible in this.

Atilla
16th Oct 2004, 16:20
I'm sorry, but to say that a MP campaign is impossible is nonsense.

In MTW you can *almost* do it by using some of the debug cheats to change your faction etc. Only a few extra features would allow commited players to work around the limitations and implement a MP campaign of their own.

I may have sounded harsh towards IG in my earlier posts but that was not my intention. It is frustration more than anything else. Having games such as this and the TW series which could provide such a fantastic MP challenge but don't is, to me, a crying shame.

I am glad they are creating some competition for CA though, competition which should raise the bar of both games, and herald the arrival of new features (hopefully one of which will eventually be the MP campaign).

Paddy the Scot
19th Oct 2004, 11:37
Originally posted by Atilla
Yes, I meant a multiplayer CAMPAIGN. I thought that was clear enough from the title of my post... can't stop laughing indeed :)

I'm sure IG will be good - it's based on a tried and tested formula after all - but be honest, will it be sufficiently different from the Total War series to generate enough interest and sales. Yes, it's a different timeline, yes the units are different, but at its core the game is identical. More graphical bells and whistles will not be enough in my opinion to really set the game apart. Remember when STW came out the market was awash with RTS games and yet CA made a name for itself by throwing something new into the mix thereby creating a product line which is now in its 3rd incarnation and showing no sign of stopping.

I'm sure the folks at CA have seen the IG trailer and are not the least bit worried - nothing new gameplay wise, and graphics they know they can easily equal with a tweaked RTW engine (which I'm sure they're already doing).

To me, the first company that goes for a full MP campaign will really be able to claim a step forward in the genre and also have a truly new and unique feature that others will then want to try and emulate or face losing popular support to.

Let's face it, AI, no matter how good, is never going to provide the thrill and excitement of playing against a human opponent.

This whole argument has dragged on for so long on the Total War boards and CA's position become so entrenched that I'm now looking elsewhere. Sadly, IG does not at present seem to be the answer.

a multiplayer campaign vertainly would be a great addition to the game line up :)

OprahAteMyBaby
20th Oct 2004, 21:30
this title absoluetly needs an MP Campaign, dont say it cannot be done look at the Spartan Multiplayer Campaign, or even the recently released SuperPower 2!

Fighting AI is much too boring, c'mon i wanna fight real people!

haradrim
21st Oct 2004, 02:51
please correct me if im wrong but i cant think of any other rts games that have a multiplayer campaign. Now some people might see this as a reason not to have a n MP campaign but IMO its all the more reason to add one, this could be what seperates IG from being a good game and a truly groundbraking game for the rts genre. There are a lot of good rts games that have come out or are coming out such as ( my opinions so if you disagree w/ me thats cool) axis and allies, LoTR BfME and Rome TW are the three that come to mind. remember to that the games that come out later in 2005 could give IG competition as well such as empire earth 2. so anyway thats my 2 cents. cmon pyro how 'bout we give it the old college try and hook up some brothers w/ a MP campaign mode.:D

Paddy the Scot
21st Oct 2004, 07:40
indeed

the word is out Pyro

you have the opportunity to do something great with this game

let the generals of today really slog this one out :D

OprahAteMyBaby
21st Oct 2004, 20:43
Hara, there has been several games with multiplayer campaigns, the most closely related to imperial glory however, is spartan. Go check it out online and see how interesting the mode is.

I believe that an MP campaign can be very easily established.

Make it for 4 or 5 players.
Leave it as turnbased and when two players get into a battle, just have the AI control their economy, and seperate field armies. What happens if another player attacks a player already embroiled in a battle? Simple, just make that player fight the AI like he would in single player. A general can only be at 1 battle at a time.

haradrim
23rd Oct 2004, 17:53
Oprah i looked up Spartan and it doesnt seem to relate to imperial glory too closely(more of a tbs game from what i gathered. hearts of iron could be a little closer since it is an rts w/ a tbs type view. But thats the best i can come up with. IG looks more as an actual rts game with a tbs type interface when you are zoomed uot on the map. I dont know if i explained myself very well if you still have questions please ask them and ill try to explain this post better.

OprahAteMyBaby
25th Oct 2004, 05:01
Isnt IG turnbased too, with a real time battle engine? That is essentially what spartan is, the battle system could easily be real time, but the developers wanted to stick with realism so sadly you have to set up your plans ahead of time and watch them unfold.

Arctic_Wolf
25th Oct 2004, 23:48
Ehem, that isn't actually very realistic, :rolleyes:

haradrim
26th Oct 2004, 23:32
From what i understand thers no turn based play but im not really sure so i could be wrong

Willmore
27th Oct 2004, 01:16
The strategic map isn't turnbased ?

Arctic_Wolf
27th Oct 2004, 21:32
The grand strategic element of the game, where the economy, diplomacy and army recruitment etc. takes place operates in a turn based structure. Much like that of a board game.

The tactcal element of the game, where armies clash in full 3D glory operates in real time, like most RTS games but without the base building.

haradrim
31st Oct 2004, 01:36
well then i stand corrected, sorry about that

Angel SNR [HG]
21st Nov 2004, 21:48
I guess that implementing the turn based part is relatively easy, that has happened for YEARS! I mean what was Age of Wonders PBEM all about? The hard part is adding in the real time and unless they make it so in MP game it always autoresolves it would be nigh on impossible to play unless the campaign turn based stuff was in real time too. I like playing campaign games but I doubt being connected to my opponent whilst he makes his moves and attacks the AI and builds thing is going to be at all fun!

haradrim
24th Dec 2004, 00:38
im sorry i may be spaming this post a little so it goes back to the top of the forum. If anyone is angry about this my appologies but listen to what i have to say anyway. The multiplayer part of a game as im sure we all agree is what keeps a gaming community together and active once everyone has beat the single player portion of the game. Therefore it is absolutely essential for a game to have a strong MP so that it wont (to borrow the expression) "bite the dust." It is my opinion (and i do not believe myself to be alone on this issue) that for IG to be successful Multiplayerly(?) a multiplayer campaign must be added and would add to the replayability of the game enormously. So in conclusion i humbly plead with pyro to make room for a MP campaign if thier is still time to. Thank you for reading this and i hope that you will consider what i have just written.

regards and good luck,

haradrim

BattleKnight
27th Dec 2004, 15:37
Just want stress Haradrim's point : A game might have the best, most addictive story in the singleplayer portion, you'll beat it once and then never feel the thrill again. Granted, IG is more like RTW. It IS a singleplayer game. But if you ask the fans : what would you like in an expansion or something else, the answer is simple. Put in a multiplayer campaign. It will give the game a good boost and if Pyro succeeds in being the first to do a good online multiplayer campaign, it will be aplauded by every gaming magazine.

Fighting battles online is one thing, fighting battles and running a country is another. Just think of the possibilities : Team up to beat Russia. Or backstab an ally and crush their defences. And etc.

Now, do not bring up arguments : 'it won't work' 'it will take too long' 'put your time in something else'. Those are the people who rather see an AI upgrade. But playing humans is so much more fun because you can't predict their moves. They aren't at the mercy of programming errors or bad pathfinding routines or stupid diplomacy moves. I'll gladly sacrifice hours playing a multiplayer campaign because it has ten times the intensity. An AI who acts like a human isn't for the near feature. Until then, I'll fight humans.

And the technology is there. Look at Spartan. They had an online campaign. Even if only limited to 2 players, I still play that game alot. If IG had a 2 player online multiplayer campaign, I'll worship Pyro as my god.

To sum up : Singleplayer gives shape to a game, multiplayer keeps it alive. A multiplayer campaign will rock!

...

Please?