Lacking content

[unmerged(141752)]

But what total war provided was a fantastic singleplayer experience full of content and hours/days of gameplay... With EIC on the other hand, it is lacking WAY to much content in singleplayer and will become boring rather quickly.

This point is something that bothers me in your preview. How do you define 'content'? Is lots of fluff and graphics galore with shallow gameplay equal to plenty of 'content'? Isn't a balanced gameplay with a working AI contributing to the 'content' at all? IMO the number of main trade items and ship models available is not a good indicator for the level of >interesting< content available. How long the game keeps you in the grips depends on how much it provides incentives to learn and try new things for beating the game from different angles. Some games deliver their content with less fluff and tighter gameplay, others with extraenous fluff and mindless gameplay. So what it is for you in this game? Do you need just more stuff and better graphics? How much content value have you put on the gameplay experience achieved while playing through a campaign?

 

[merlin2199]

Nine years playing P'dox games, did one MP session. Played MMO's, only true fun one was WW2OL, no grinding. Played TBS via PBEM.

Short of it is, games that are time intensive lend themselves to single player, you can take as long as you want to carry out a set of moves/strategems/tactics. Games that can be started or dropped easily lend themselves to be MP, as it is quick to get in have some fun and go away.

I've been tracking EIC since 2005, the naval battles are the game's bread and butter in my opinion. Will try the beta, will probably buy it too, after the first patch of course, as with HoI3.

 

[unmerged(146453)]

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!

Yeah, I have a cheering fan!!!

Thanks, I appreciate the comments!

 

[unmerged(146453)]

...You guys are morons...

Does that mean I can count you as my 2nd cheering fan?!?

 

[Spoony]

Honestly, you guys spend too much time in the forums... :rofl:

It truely is hilarious going through the novel explanations. Two thumbs up for this debate

 

[unmerged(146453)]

Man, I'm getting my on little cheering section. Can I call them "Hooligans?" Can they beat people up for me???

 

[unmerged(26876)]

...

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

Right.

Now, would you please enlarge on exactly why you feel this way and exactly what you mean by "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."

FWIW I think I know where you are going with this... because it was my thought too.

Please, say what you think they need to do?

 

[unmerged(26876)]

This point is something that bothers me in your preview. How do you define 'content'? ...

midhaven, please try to clarify this. It would help the discussion.

How long the game keeps you in the grips depends on how much it provides incentives to learn and try new things for beating the game from different angles.

Depends on the player - but I expect this will be true for the sort of people who tend to play Strategic games. The people who play Paradox games as an example.

 

[unmerged(26876)]

...

Short of it is, games that are time intensive lend themselves to single player, you can take as long as you want to carry out a set of moves/strategems/tactics. Games that can be started or dropped easily lend themselves to be MP, as it is quick to get in have some fun and go away.

....

Nice summary.
Bit of generalization... but in a good way.

So, which do you think EIC is? Time intensive or started and dropped easily?
Or maybe a bit of each?

 

[Cat Lord]

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

You guys are morons..

And everybody watches his language and don't resort to insult here, please. This is not welcome on these forums.

Thanks.

Cat

 

[unmerged(65534)]

Content..
I would say the ammount of things you can do in a game and how long you can enjoy it before it gets repetitive and boring.
Take a bucket (the game) and fill it up with things to do (content).

czar:
Improving the game on multiplayer is what 'I' belive would be the best and easiest way to improve this game if they wanted to sell more copies. Playing a game on multiplayer is usually completely diffrent from playing it alone hence the word you see alot these days "Game experience may change during online play".

 

[unmerged(26876)]

Content..
...
czar:
Improving the game on multiplayer is what 'I' belive would be the best and easiest way to improve this game if they wanted to sell more copies. ....

I believe you are right. ;-)

What improvements exactly are you talking about though?
This thread might help?

 

[unmerged(146453)]

And everybody watches his language and don't resort to insult here, please. This is not welcome on these forums.

Thanks.

Cat

Roger, that! Sorry...

Ps- I do love the ignore list, though, so shouldn't be a problem anymore.

 

[unmerged(65534)]

I believe you are right. ;-)

What improvements exactly are you talking about though?
This thread might help?

There is one post in that thread that pretty much sums up my consern.
#9: "Is the multiplayer limited to battles or can we play a campaign with a friend? If no, then it's a deal-breaker. "

And by reading the announced features, the multiplayer will be limited to just battles.

 

[ollobrains]

if fans want co op multiplayer campaign then they should be accomdated in an expansion

 

[unmerged(26876)]

There is one post in that thread that pretty much sums up my consern.
#9: "Is the multiplayer limited to battles or can we play a campaign with a friend? If no, then it's a deal-breaker. "

And by reading the announced features, the multiplayer will be limited to just battles.

Having multiplayer limited to battles doesn't really concern me to be honest, but a lot depends on how it is done.

I can see a definite market for a game that does Age of Sail battles well, and allows players to set up historical scenarios and play them.
(I still play Wooden Ships Iron Men via EPBM)

TBH I have always wondered how Multiplayer games work in Hearts of Iron etc? I mean, if someone has to leave... or is a 'no show' for a session isn't that a game killer?

 

[unmerged(26876)]

if fans want co op multiplayer campaign then they should be accomdated in an expansion

"expansion" is up there with "potential" for me.

You can / should never count on an expansion.

Case in point was Imperial Glory. There was a game with potential and room for expansion.
As players became more aware of the way it was going (game features) many started saying "that will be in the expansion" / "wait for the expansion" etc.
The game bombed.
There was no expansion and there never will be.

If a game does not succeed on first release it is amazing how quickly developer support ends.

 

[unmerged(141752)]

Content..
I would say the ammount of things you can do in a game and how long you can enjoy it before it gets repetitive and boring.
Take a bucket (the game) and fill it up with things to do (content).

An interesing definition. Now, how would you define Tetris in your terms? Completely devoid of content because it is highly repetitive and contains only a single thing to do? For me tetris gives good gameplay value with less things to do. So according to your definition Tetris is a low content game. But if looked from the repetitiveness point of view, I think tetris has substance even with less things to do. The same goes with Sid Meier's Pirates! and Colonization, they aren't filled with stuff but still contain lots of gameplay. I would compare EIC content to Colonization and Pirates instead of some other game series that already has a long history of game revisions. Looking from that perspective EIC does have content: it provides balanced gameplay with plenty of choices to make throughout the campaign. You need to develop your fleets and trade routes as well as use diplomacy and naval battles to ensure access to the most profitable ports. Watching your competitors and balancing money consumption between fleet and port development and trade is required during an entire campaign. So I'd say EIC has substance, with more content value than in Colonization or Pirates remakes.
(EDITED to clarify).

 

[unmerged(26876)]

An interesing definition. Now, how would you define Tetris in your terms? Completely devoid of content because it is highly repetitive and contains only a single thing to do? ....

I liked his definition and interpreted it as follows:
The 'bucket' is the game itself - the technical part. Does it work? (does it hold water?)
The contents of the bucket are the game features. How much is there to play with?

My comparison would be between the game of Ludo / Parcheesi and Monopoly.

Ludo, while being a very solid game (watertight bucket) lacks content.
It's still a good game - but not something you would want to play for days and days at a stretch.
Monopoly by comparison has more content. But there are a couple of small holes in the bucket.

 

[unmerged(65534)]

An interesing definition. Now, how would you define Tetris in your terms? Completely devoid of content because it is highly repetitive and contains only a single thing to do? For me tetris gives good gameplay value with less things to do. So according to your definition Tetris is a low content game. But if looked from the repetitiveness point of view, I think tetris has substance even with less things to do. The same goes with Sid Meier's Pirates! and Colonization, they aren't filled with stuff but still contain lots of gameplay. I would compare EIC content to Colonization and Pirates instead of some other game series that already has a long history of game revisions. Looking from that perspective EIC does have content: it provides balanced gameplay with plenty of choices to make throughout the campaign. You need to develop your fleets and trade routes as well as use diplomacy and naval battles to ensure access to the most profitable ports. Watching your competitors and balancing money consumption between fleet and port development and trade is required during an entire campaign. So I'd say EIC has substance, with more content value than in Colonization or Pirates remakes.
(EDITED to clarify).

Tetris, Pirates, Colonization?
Are you honestly saying a game with content equal to that of Tetris would stand a chance against the games today?

Pirates is what you would call a "fun" game featuring a bit of each style and can't realy be compared to EIC.

I've never been a fan of the Amiga so I can't say much about Colonization, I'm sure it was a great game, Sid Meier's after all. But praising EIC for having more content than a 15 year old Amiga game, well.. Big achivement there..

You point out the game being balanced, well yeah of course.. Every nation is identical except for the flags and their position on the map. You also point out "plenty of choices", what choices? Trade.. Build.. Fight.. and since trading is basicly automated and there is barely anything to build, all that remains is fighting. I'm not complaining about the naval battles I like those, but they're not enough to build a game on.