Will we be able to play this game via LAN or Internet?
It would rock to play with a friend/some friends and compete for resources and such.
It would rock to play with a friend/some friends and compete for resources and such.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Looks much more like a Dungeon Keeper like for me... which could have a multiplayer mode.
Time will tell !
Time will tell !
Answer in the “Questions To Developers” thread - but here is what it says. . . . .
“Originally Posted by Thorwaldsson
Right now we feel like a multilayer aspect would fit the game poorly. The game is best played single player, should we have some stroke of genius and find an awesome game mode this might change post release.”
“Originally Posted by Thorwaldsson
Right now we feel like a multilayer aspect would fit the game poorly. The game is best played single player, should we have some stroke of genius and find an awesome game mode this might change post release.”
Still accurate. Multiplayer will not be a part of the game on the day of the release, sorry guys.
Who knows what the future will bring though? I certainly do not! .. or do I?
Still accurate. Multiplayer will not be a part of the game on the day of the release, sorry guys.
Who knows what the future will bring though? I certainly do not! .. or do I?
This was to be expected, but that second part just sparked some hope for me. It's time to clean mountains of those rude Black Iron Dwarves and their mushroom filled, wine stinking presence!
Well I am happy to hear this, I was about to buy War of the Roses that looks amazing but I will pass because I am a single player guy, and today the trend is everything multiplayer and single player part is just an ad on (time ago was the other way around).
So I am very happy and looking forward this interesting game, paradox has already other interesting games based in multiplayer, so it’s cool to see at least one developed for single player gaming.
I hate to see how developers are pushed and feel in the “duty” today to make a good multiplayer and waste time and resources on it, and I as a consumer to pay for a feature that I am not going to use.
I feel the same way.
If I want to play a multi-player game I will get out a deck of cards and gather the family. PC games - single player thank you.
Multiplayer pc games have a million times more potential than card games, as you can play with people from anywhere in your hemisphere (or outside it if you want terrible lag)
I'm pretty sure that that was his point. That he wants to play multiplayer games with people knows and face to face.
I am the other way around though. I can enjoy a singleplayer game from time to time (mainly the paradox grand strategy game but even though I enjoy much more in a big LAN with friends for instance) but what gives a game longevity for me is the multiplayer aspect. It's what keeps me interested and also gives me a sense of competition that I enjoy but fully understand that a lot of others don't.
It's been this way ever since the first time I spent a major amount of time on a multiplayer online game, which in my case was "Myth: The Fallen Lords". That game was also a great example of an awesome singleplayer experienced coupled with very exciting multiplayer. Damn you Bungie for abandoning it in favour of Halo!
But, if we disregard the Sims. Then the most popular games by far these days are multiplayer games, so to tell developers that some of you people here have done that they are wasting their time with a multiplayer aspect is nothing short of short sightedely looking to your own interests. I do understand the developers decision in "a Game of Dwarves" though. The game is by an untried studio with a very indie concept, but with a bit of luck they could strike a new Magicka.
I am the other way around though. I can enjoy a singleplayer game from time to time (mainly the paradox grand strategy game but even though I enjoy much more in a big LAN with friends for instance) but what gives a game longevity for me is the multiplayer aspect. It's what keeps me interested and also gives me a sense of competition that I enjoy but fully understand that a lot of others don't.
It's been this way ever since the first time I spent a major amount of time on a multiplayer online game, which in my case was "Myth: The Fallen Lords". That game was also a great example of an awesome singleplayer experienced coupled with very exciting multiplayer. Damn you Bungie for abandoning it in favour of Halo!
But, if we disregard the Sims. Then the most popular games by far these days are multiplayer games, so to tell developers that some of you people here have done that they are wasting their time with a multiplayer aspect is nothing short of short sightedely looking to your own interests. I do understand the developers decision in "a Game of Dwarves" though. The game is by an untried studio with a very indie concept, but with a bit of luck they could strike a new Magicka.
Yeah, it was.
Multi player games can be – and are – very fun. But what gets me is when a Developer makes a game only multi player when it could have been an awesome single player game as well. Or even the other way too – a single player game that could be an awesome multi player game. Many games could be both – some are. And those are the ones that seem to really take off.
As far as agod being Muli Player, I guess I could see it being that. It would be interesting to try it out – opposing Dwarf clans pitted against each other or teaming up against the common enemies. Yeah, I think I could see that being something fun to play. But I don’t think I would play it all that much though – but that is just me. I would play a single player version (of any game) 99 times out of 100.
I love multiplayer. It's not an either or. There are many strategy titles that competent single and multiplayer components.
I understand what you say but MP needs a lot of time planning and resources, things that can be more useful enhancing the game in other ways. Add to it the bugs carried with MP gaming, bugs that the multiplayer guys obviously push to be patched and again a lot of resources and time that may be spend in enhance the game in other way.
When a game is only multiplayer we single player guys understand that the game was designed in that way, and even the review game pages get it; but when a only single player game is released it seems that developers made a great sin; and in the reviews they get a penalty and the reason “no MP”, and the developers are pushed to released an improvised MP in a game that was not designed for it, I really hate this trend.
Ahhh Love DF and this seems awesome as well.....
Too bad I won't be raiding my friend's foodstuck any time soon
Too bad I won't be raiding my friend's foodstuck any time soon
For a game on this scale and with such gameplay mechanics, multiplayer would be a metaphorical gold-mine in a sense. Would be perfect, what could possibly be better than having alternate human colonies out there. Just cant beat going against unpredictable-human intelligence, keeps you on your feet as you soon adapt to AI 'monsters'.
It is respectfully a requirement in my opinion. With a DLC option already implemented for additional content, I would like to presume the designers share the same view, and that time constraints would have been the issue with initial release.
It is respectfully a requirement in my opinion. With a DLC option already implemented for additional content, I would like to presume the designers share the same view, and that time constraints would have been the issue with initial release.