Lacking content

[unmerged(65534)]

I've been thinking about wich similar games have been released and compared them to EIC.

The most similar games I could find were the ones in the Buccaneer's Bounty game pack, especially Patrician III. So if we take a look at what Patrician offers and what EIC offers I would have to say that EIC is clearly lacking alot of content. First off and foremost, the multiplayer for the campaign map, this can't be neglected like it clearly has been.
Secondly it's the resource trade and port development, in patrician you could decide wich of the many resources you wanted your port to develop. You could build your own factories, farms etc. In other words, you had alot more to do. There were also alot more resources to choose from, WIC has what, 10 resources that matter? The rest is just random uselss goods.

In EIC it feels like you're just trading and fighting, the missions are basicly useless since spending your time focusing on trading will make your rich alot faster. Once you put your trade fleets on auto, there isn't anything left to do besides destroying ship after ship. The diplomacy is a bit wierd too, if you don't want to fight, just make sure everyone has a pact with you and while the computer fights you're building up a massive fleet. Then the ships, 10 models? Come on!

I'm sorry, but I can't see this game recieving good reviews when it's clearly lacking something in every department. Only thing I can see this game being saved by is some fantastic mod-developing tools.

 

[unmerged(137935)]

I think it's a bit unfair to write off a game before it's even released. Or may I say it's far fetched.

Personally I agree a lot needs to be improved. But EIS is also showing great potential, and the developer has expressed willingness to listen to the players. I am sure over time EIC will grow into a very nice game. I had some doubts but was converted by the new stance on mods and the cooperation with Paradox.

And as to the commercial reviews, who gives a f*** about them any more? Nowadays they are written mostly by amateurs who copy promotional info and other reviews. Seriously, a game like this can only do badly on the major review sites. "Gaming journalists" usually give 70% to indie titles, no matter if they are actually very good, while 90+ reviews are reserved to big titles like Oblivion, no matter if they are actually very bad. There's really not much point to read them any more. I would, however, pay attention to reviews on independent sites that are run by communities / players.

 

[rincewind1]

I think it's a bit unfair to write off a game before it's even released. Or may I say it's far fetched.

Personally I agree a lot needs to be improved. But EIS is also showing great potential, and the developer has expressed willingness to listen to the players. I am sure over time EIC will grow into a very nice game. I had some doubts but was converted by the new stance on mods and the cooperation with Paradox.

And as to the commercial reviews, who gives a f*** about them any more? Nowadays they are written mostly by amateurs who copy promotional info and other reviews. Seriously, a game like this can only do badly on the major review sites. "Gaming journalists" usually give 70% to indie titles, no matter if they are actually very good, while 90+ reviews are reserved to big titles like Oblivion, no matter if they are actually very bad. There's really not much point to read them any more. I would, however, pay attention to reviews on independent sites that are run by communities / players.

I dont know what reviews you read but everything you said there was way off the mark.

 

[Stuckenschmidt]

I dont know what reviews you read but everything you said there was way off the mark.

I agree to everything he said. Exactly my experiences. Honest reviews are restricted to those titles with no advertising budget.

 

[Spoony]

I agree at least to some points as well. Although I would rather wait for the relase and some valid reviews, but I fear that the game will not be for the true economic empire building fans. I have been looking around on the net for some honest previews not the fan hype, and the picture that emerges to me is not the praised grand economy game. The sea battles look very promising and might even beat Empire: Total War, but for a true depiction of the EIC as 18th century economic powerhouse, there is simply not enough depth in the game. At least not as far as I could find out.

As said above, there are only two principles to this game, pure trade and naval battles. There is no true trade empire building here, no historical depiction of the real East India Company and its competitors. The game tries to simulate the 18th century trade and its inseperable colonialism, with the EIC at the forefront. Trade was a major part, yes, but this was only successfull by building up major trade ports, aggressive land moves and inland expansion which is only kept very abstract in the game. A player can only take over a port and that even without landforces, or the player simply uses some diplomatic options to open up a trade port.

There is no "tue" building of a flourishing trade hub as in the Port Roayl series or the Patrician series, no inland trade routes and no inland trading posts or any form of expansion. Nothing that represents the true 18th century EIC. Everything I see is abstract and all you do is take on goods on your ship(s) and trade with them.

There are so many other really great trade empire and economic games out there, which could have been a superb model for EIC. Sadly enough, it seems that games like Port Roayal, Patrician or The Guild, besides their age, have a 100 times more depth.

Besides ship building, sea fights and trade, which EIC is limited to, in the above mentioned games you can actually build somewhat more reallife representing economies, by truely taking over trade ports (including landforces) creating many different buildings and port devellopments such as manufacturing and proccessing plants, trade buildings, port increments, protection and fortifications structures, government buidlings, shipyards and many many more building types. You can send land expeditions and create land trade routes. You can explore and build a true economic empire.
To me the whole game looks a bit too abstract and a great effort was made to simulate sea battles, which is outstanding, but you can have this in Empire: Total War as well, which actually comes with all other aspects of 18th century Empire struggle.

Fair enough, EIC is not suppose to be a grand strategy or war game like Empire: Total War and I am truely looking forward to a great economic simulation game for the 18th century, with the East India Company as its focus. But if simple trade is the only thing you can do in EIC, it does fail to be called an economic EIC simulation.

Ahh well, lets see how it turns out. I don't want to spread too much scepticism, but when I first heard of EIC I was sooo excited and now all my hopes are increasingly destoyed by the emerging facts.

 

[unmerged(146453)]

...First off and foremost, the multiplayer for the campaign map, this can't be neglected like it clearly has been...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

I registered just to say, "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

Multi-player is what takes a game down dramatically. Long live Todd Howard (Oblivion) and Brad Wardell (Galactic Civilizations II)! If you've ever read their quotes, the plain and simple fact (according to them, and I fully agree) is that most games played, by far, are single-player. Every moment, every ounce, every second you put into multi-player takes away from that single-player experience.

I only found out about this game maybe a month-and-a-half ago (and I am having such a hard time pre-ordering it), but I have been dying for a game like this...well, forever. Sid Meier's Pirates! was a great game (the original), the remake was nice, but this game has the potential to be awesome!

Fleet battles (my real beef with Pirates! was that you only got to fight one-on-one) up to 10 ships; building a Trading Empire in Europe, Africa and Asia; hopefully excellent AI at tactical battles and on the trading front.

This is the game I want.

If it has multi-player, I would not object for a second if you "ejected" it.

I cannot wait!!!

 

[unmerged(26876)]

...

Multi-player is what takes a game down dramatically. Long live Todd Howard (Oblivion) and Brad Wardell (Galactic Civilizations II)! If you've ever read their quotes, the plain and simple fact (according to them, and I fully agree) is that most games played, by far, are single-player. Every moment, every ounce, every second you put into multi-player takes away from that single-player experience.

Well, I disagree.
There you go, that just destroyed your argument.
(your argument is a fallacy without proof - can you provide data to back this up?)
Each to their own.
Some people live for Multi-Player.
And MMOs are also a big market.

I only found out about this game maybe a month-and-a-half ago (and I am having such a hard time pre-ordering it), but I have been dying for a game like this...well, forever. Sid Meier's Pirates! was a great game (the original), the remake was nice, but this game has the potential to be awesome!

Potential.
I hate that word in relation to PC Games.
I have seen so many games with "potential". But "potential" does not equal "great game".

Fleet battles (my real beef with Pirates! was that you only got to fight one-on-one) up to 10 ships; building a Trading Empire in Europe, Africa and Asia; hopefully excellent AI at tactical battles and on the trading front.

This is the game I want.

...

Then I suggest you get into Open Beta, see if that is the game on offer, and stand up for your point of view.
Are you in the Open Beta yet?

 

[unmerged(146453)]

Well, I disagree.
There you go, that just destroyed your argument.
(your argument is a fallacy without proof - can you provide data to back this up?)

I wasn't even going to reply, but to say that my argument is destroyed because you disagree is pretty, well, whacko. Did I ever say 100% of people, or did I say "Todd Howard, Brad Wordell and Czar who defends Europe (from what? I might add, computer aliens)?"

I quoted two CEO of successful companies, Bethesda making some of the top games ever (by public and critics status), and I put a whole lot more stake in what they say then, no offense, some Internet poster who claims to defend Europe (from bugs?).

Honestly, what do you do for a living? Do you think that your statement supercedes those two CEO's? I would go with them 100% of the time, plus, I think they are right, anyway.

Thanks for playing.

 

[unmerged(26876)]

...

I quoted two CEO of successful companies, Bethesda making some of the top games ever (by public and critics status), and I put a whole lot more stake in what they say then, no offense, some Internet poster who claims to defend Europe (from bugs?).

....

Fair enough.

So, you do know that Paradox also includes Multi-player option in it's games?
And Paradox is not only a Developer but also a Publisher?
And Blizzard includes Multi-player too (Starcraft II & Diablo III)?

So, where does that leave the argument?

Edit: What was happening in Europe in 1940??

 

[unmerged(146453)]

...

So, where does that leave the argument?

Edit: What was happening in Europe in 1940??

Edit Answer: Why, THE BIG ONE, of course.

On to the debate...
I know that Multi-player is big, and MMORPGMPROSOOOMOPORS things are well liked. I often think that the enjoyment by a certain crowd seems so public and therefore portrays a much stronger influence on what the balance is really like between SP and MP. If you look at all the SP games that there are and were, they do outwiegh the MP games. Then, I have seen most games that have MP also have SP. Hundreds upon thousands upon millions of those different games are played by people in their house, with no outside influence (eg multi).

My cousin leaps to mind. When I lived with her for a year, she played scrabble on the computer. She had the option to go on-line and play, but I dont' think in the year I was there I ever saw that happen. That does not get any public exposure. World of Warcraft saying it has 11 millions subscribers, well, that's 11 million that do it, so it seems so incredibly public, and the way it is reported (and I've found often times the way forum members scream about it being so important) just seems to magnify it.

I've really thought the last few years that a LOT of SP gamers don't even post because they get shot down by the "BOARD MANIACAL" Multi- gamers that shoot down anything they don't like, and swear how great their multi-player is.

What's funny is, if you really go into a board and start watching, what they really do mostly is complain about multi-player, but outside or if any one challenges them in there, they fight to the death about how great it it.

Let me see if I can find that piece by Brad Wardell, I thought it summed up my views, and to be honest, what I think are the views of the majority of gamers are. No way to be positive, but one-thing for sure, just the nature of Multi-player being on-line, it gets a lot more "play-time" (old radio reference) and therefore I think the public view of its popularity is partially inflated.

Hold on, I am going to see if I can find that piece...

I'm still looking...

FOUND IT: Brad's Blog on SP/MP (<-- it's a clickable link; go ahead, click on it!!!)

If you get a chance to read the whole thing, I thought it was quite interesting. I once read something extremely similiar from Todd Howard (Bethesda- Oblivion & Fallout, et al).


These are the beginnings of his different points. If you have the time, read the whole article. I thought it was very informative and very true. He comments about 95% of TBS games not being played on-line. I've heard other things that would tend to support this, Multi- is just so visually "in your face," I really do think it inflates it to the general public.

To people who don't develop games, multiplayer may seem like a simple checkbox feature. Indeed, many developers I've spoken to feel pressured to put multiplayer in because some reviewers will give the game a lower score if it lacks it despite the fact that for most strategy games, the percentage of players playing on-line is very low.

#1 It sacrifices single player features. Ask any game developer whether they be at Ensemble, Paradox, Firaxis, or Big Huge Games, most people play strategy games by themselves on a single computer. What % that is depends on the game. But on a TBS game, I would wager that greater than 95% of players never play a single game on-line even if the option is available -- that includes Civilization IV.

#2 The majority ends up subsidizing the minority. Outside some game reviewers and people who have friends who are really into this stuff, most people don't know other people on-line to play these games with. And let's face it, playing a turn-based strategy game with strangers is an excercise in frustration (I am not sure I've ever actually managed to complete a TBS on-line without the other player either dropping or quitting prematurely).

#3 It would have changed the design priorities.

When you design from the start to be a good multiplayer experience you have to make sure the game is streamlined -- particular the interface. So things that might slow the multplayer pacing tend to come out.

And that's really the point -- multiplayer is a feature. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. In some RPGs sometimes they're better being single player (Knights of the Old Republic) and sometimes they're better being multiplayer (Neverwinter Nights).

For those who think multiplayer is a must in strategy games I hope this post has at least made the case that maybe sometimes multiplayer doesn't belong in the base game.

We know how to make multiplayer games. We had the budget to make GalCiv II a multiplayer game if we wanted. We like multiplayer games. But we felt that GalCiv II would be a better game if multiplayer was not part of the base game.

These two from directly above are the things that I think could be the most important.

...multiplayer is a feature...
...For those who think multiplayer is a must in strategy games I hope this post has at least made the case that maybe sometimes multiplayer doesn't belong in the base game.

An absolute place and time for everything, but so often it just seems like people say "MAKE Multi-player much better," and as Brad said, that is sacrificing the majority for the minority.

I am, and think always will be, more of an SP gamer. I will admit that some of the most fun I ever had was playing Baldur's Gate II with a friend 800 miles away. She had 3 party members, I had 3 party members, and it was a blast.

I bet with this game, I never even turn on the multi-player...

 

[unmerged(26876)]

So, what I get from the above is that you have managed to get an opinion from someone (a developer admittedly - but still only one guy) that maybe multi-player is not the way to go?

What's more (reading the linked post) you have selectively cut the quotes to suit your argument. (Fair enough, I am about to do the same, but it doesn't make this opinion 'right')

...
On to the debate...
I know that Multi-player is big, and MMORPG...S things are well liked. ... Hundreds upon thousands upon millions of those different games are played by people in their house, with no outside influence (eg multi).

Yes.
There could be many reasons for that - not just that people prefer SP games.
The fact is that until recently the technology did not support multi-player games very well.

I've really thought the last few years that a LOT of SP gamers don't even post because they get shot down by the "BOARD MANIACAL" Multi- gamers that shoot down anything they don't like, and swear how great their multi-player is.

You are confusing the argument. "Fanbois" as they are known are a current plague. They attack everyone who does not share the blind faith regardless of game. They are really bad in MMORPGs. And you cover why here:

What's funny is, if you really go into a board and start watching, what they really do mostly is complain about multi-player, but outside or if any one challenges them in there, they fight to the death about how great it it.

Because multi-player is by nature - social.
This argument is roughly equivalent to saying "It's mostly people who work outside who worry about the weather."
And yes, multi-player gamers complain about the multi-player - that is what they are interested in!

... piece by Brad Wardell, ...

Brad's Blog on SP/MP


...These are the beginnings of his different points. If you have the time, read the whole article. I thought it was very informative and very true. He comments about 95% of TBS games not being played on-line. I've heard other things that would tend to support this, Multi- is just so visually "in your face," I really do think it inflates it to the general public.[/COLOR]

No. He does not. That is a misquote. He says:

From this, I've concluded two things:

1) Some strategy games really benefit from a multiplayer component. Multiplayer extends their "fun" lifespan.

2) Some strategy games don't benefit from multiplayer and the sacrifices made for multiplayer lessened the overall experience.

&

...What % that is depends on the game. But on a TBS game, I would wager that greater than 95% of players never play a single game on-line even if the option is available -- that includes Civilization IV.

So, it depends on the game AND he would GUESS at a 95% figure.

And the rest relates to Galactic Civilizations - which quite possibly falls into the group of strategy games {that} don't benefit from multi-player?

And as for the polls?

When we were making Galactic Civilizations II, we took a poll on multiplayer. Only a small percentage of GalCiv I players cared about it. We took additional polls since multiplayer advocates were so vocal. Same thing.

So, they polled established Gal Civ players. That is a selective sample and does not prove anything in terms of all gamers and all games.

I am, and think always will be, more of an SP gamer. I will admit that some of the most fun I ever had was playing Baldur's Gate II with a friend 800 miles away. She had 3 party members, I had 3 party members, and it was a blast.

I bet with this game, I never even turn on the multi-player...

So, it depends on the game.

What about EIC then?
Does EIC benefit from Multi-player?

Well, before you say "No." I suggest you get in game and try it (the game I mean).
It's no Gal Civ.

Oh, and for the record, I don't play multi-player either.
I either play SP or MMORPGs (and a bit of e-mail PBM too) - but don't see the point in multi-player mostly - and my lifestyle does not allow for it mostly.

However, I do understand that some games (as Brad Wardell says) benefit from it. EIC may be one of those games?

 

[unmerged(141752)]

Sorry czar, but I see the point Sunjah is making. These days MP is seen as an obligatory feature and too often lazy devs scratch up a poor show just to tick another feature from the list of must-haves. If the development time is taken from some critical SP feature or streamlining, the whole game becomes less than the sum of its parts. EIC is no different in that regard.

 

[unmerged(26876)]

Sorry czar, but I see the point Sunjah is making. These days MP is seen as an obligatory feature and too often lazy devs scratch up a poor show just to tick another feature from the list of must-haves. If the development time is taken from some critical SP feature or streamlining, the whole game becomes less than the sum of its parts. EIC is no different in that regard.

On that point I agree.

But, are you saying EIC is one of those games?

 

[unmerged(146453)]

...First off and foremost, the multiplayer for the campaign map, this can't be neglected like it clearly has been...

Considering this is the first real substantial thing the man said, I would tend to think that yes, it is thrown in due to the obligitory meeting of the (quick to scream bloody-murder) multi-player crowd. What does he do first, complain that it isn't good enough.

It was not a misquote, it was a paraphrasing or Mr. Wordell. Coming down to taking his word as fact, or the great European defender, I again would go with him 100%. The man runs a successful game company IN the business.

As I also stated, I've read and heard much more than that, I just thought it was put quite nicely by him.

Then you point out that you don't even like multi-player? So you are arguing just to argue?

That makes as much sense as your (rather moronic) statement of:

Well, I disagree.
There you go, that just destroyed your argument.

Pretty obvious that you read whatever you want into anything you feel like. His stance and opinion there were quite obvious. Sorry I spent 1/2 hour trying to find it so you could read it. It really was my own mistake, some of the earlier comments should've clued me in to your apparent "perception" of the world.

Best of luck building a great East India Company Empire!

Ps- I'd do more research and get you more to read from other leading members of the gaming industry; but let's face it, it is pointless. You're an "I'm right!" kind of guy, so guess what? You're right!

 

[unmerged(26876)]

Considering this is the first real substantial thing the man said, I would tend to think that yes, it is thrown in due to the obligitory meeting of the (quick to scream bloody-murder) multi-player crowd. What does he do first, complain that it isn't good enough.

Yes. But he doesn't say how or why.

It was not a misquote, it was a paraphrasing or Mr. Wordell. Coming down to taking his word as fact, or the great European defender, I again would go with him 100%. The man runs a successful game company IN the business.

You need to re-read what he wrote. He did not say that multi-player is always a bad thing. He said that in some cases it is a bad thing.
Your original position was:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

I registered just to say, "NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!"

Multi-player is what takes a game down dramatically. Long live Todd Howard (Oblivion) and Brad Wardell (Galactic Civilizations II)! If you've ever read their quotes, the plain and simple fact (according to them, and I fully agree) is that most games played, by far, are single-player. Every moment, every ounce, every second you put into multi-player takes away from that single-player experience.

He did not say that is true of all games as you appear to be suggesting.
As for him being IN the industry and therefor being right?
There are some very famous names IN the industry that have had some very big falls in the last couple of years.
But, if you read what he wrote, he was mainly talking about the Gal Civ series. This is a very different game.

...
Then you point out that you don't even like multi-player? So you are arguing just to argue?

No. I am arguing because I can see other points of view.
There are people who really like multi-player. There are some games that just work better in/with multi-player.
It's not my thing - but I can stand back and say "Yeah...okay... there are people who will like this."

That makes as much sense as your (rather moronic) statement of:

Well, I disagree.
There you go, that just destroyed your argument.

Your argument was based on the Bare Assertion Fallacy
That is;
Brad Wardell voices an opinion.
You agree.
Therefor it is fact?

You will note that Brad Wardell never claimed his opinion was correct in all cases.

So, in answer to that I used the same Fallacy to rebut your argument.
My opinion is right. "I disagree." Therefor your argument is wrong.

The fact is that using selected quotes by Brad Wardell is 'cherry picking'

Pretty obvious that you read whatever you want into anything you feel like. His stance and opinion there were quite obvious. Sorry I spent 1/2 hour trying to find it so you could read it. It really was my own mistake, some of the earlier comments should've clued me in to your apparent "perception" of the world.

His stance is not global.
It's clear in the title: "Galactic Civilizations: The case for no multiplayer
Not all strategy games benefit from multiplayer"

Ps- I'd do more research and get you more to read from other leading members of the gaming industry; but let's face it, it is pointless. You're an "I'm right!" kind of guy, so guess what? You're right!

True in this case.
The fact is that for every example you could produce I could almost certainly produce a counter example of a game that had increased value due to multiplayer.
In fact, if you read Brad Wardell's article he concludes with

And that's really the point -- multiplayer is a feature. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. In some RPGs sometimes they're better being single player (Knights of the Old Republic) and sometimes they're better being multiplayer (Neverwinter Nights).

For those who think multiplayer is a must in strategy games I hope this post has at least made the case that maybe sometimes multiplayer doesn't belong in the base game.

So, my argument in this case is: Is EIC better with Multiplayer or without?
The fact that one player has said

...the multiplayer for the campaign map, this can't be neglected like it clearly has been.

does not mean that the whole multiplayer aspect of the game should be discarded.
(And BTW - why is it you are so prepared to believe this poster absolutely and not me?)
The same poster also goes on to say

resource trade and port development... WIC has what, 10 resources that matter? The rest is just random useless goods.

In EIC it feels like you're just trading and fighting, the missions are basicly useless ... Once you put your trade fleets on auto, there isn't anything left to do ... diplomacy is a bit wierd too... the ships, 10 models? Come on!

... it's clearly lacking something in every department. Only thing I can see this game being saved by is some fantastic mod-developing tools.

So again, using his post to justify the fact that multiplayer somehow is the downfall of the whole game is a bit of a reach?

Based on what the OP said - maybe it's just a bad game?

 

[unmerged(146453)]

Okay, enough with the pompous idiot...on to the ignore list.

 

[unmerged(26876)]

Okay, enough with the pompous idiot...on to the ignore list.

It won't last. It will burn you that I have raised valid points and you have failed to counter.

See you tomorrow.

 

[unmerged(141752)]

It won't last. It will burn you that I have raised valid points and you have failed to counter.

See you tomorrow.

Highly doubt it. You two have just raised two opinions from the different sides of the coin. Whereas Sunjah had included interesting references as the background to his opinion you have contributed barely anything of use to me. Nothing personal but I enjoyed reading Sunjah's opinion more than yours. But it doesn't matter, the game will likely have a multiplayer part so we'll see it will turn out the best it can be. Cheers!

 

[unmerged(26876)]

Highly doubt it. You two have just raised two opinions from the different sides of the coin. Whereas Sunjah had included interesting references as the background to his opinion you have contributed barely anything of use to me. Nothing personal but I enjoyed reading Sunjah's opinion more than yours. But it doesn't matter, the game will likely have a multiplayer part so we'll see it will turn out the best it can be. Cheers!

That's because I have been careful not to give my personal opinion on this one... yet.

Read back.

I spent most of my time asking the same question: Should EIC have multiplayer?

Sunjah spent all his time saying "NO! Brad Wardell says NO!"

Well, I don't want Brad Wardell's opinion on why he left multi player out of Gal Civ II.
I want to discuss if multiplayer has any value in EIC.

There is an Open Beta on. Sunjah should get in game and look at THIS game.

Then come back and comment further.

The thread is called "Lacking Content" - if that is the case (?) could/would multiplayer make up for that in EIC?

 

[unmerged(65534)]

Well since I seem to have started some kind of wierd discussion wich I for one can't make sense of, I guess I'll throw in a few of my thoughts.

You guys are morons..
On the OP I said "First off and foremost, the multiplayer for the campaign map, this can't be neglected like it clearly has been." and with this I somehow started a discussion on singleplayer vs. multiplayer. Thats like having a discussion on whether apples tastes better than pears. Some people like this, some like that, some like both!

So back to the point..
If you read about the planned multiplayer features for EIC you'll see they have added multiplayer support, but you'll only be able to fight battles kind of like in the old total war games.
But what total war provided was a fantastic singleplayer experience full of content and hours/days of gameplay. So even tho better multiplayer was desired, it wasn't necessary for it to become a great game. With EIC on the other hand, it is lacking WAY to much content in singleplayer and will become boring rather quickly. However if they had spent some time improving on the multiplayer they would not only satisfy fans of that type of play, they'd also offer players another way to play the game. Wich would in turn give players alot more for their money. I for one am not going to spend $50 on a game with half-ass single and half-ass multiplayer.

It saddens me to see another game with great potential make its way down the drain.