To my mind its not essential to have PBEM now, since you won't know how the game is put together, and how strategies and so on work, that you'd use in multiplayer for a good while. There is a new city resource model, for one thing.

Ultimately, the scores in the game magazines will be based on Single player mode, since theres no-one else to PBEM with, and it takes too long to learn the nuances of a civ game anyway, for the review process, except if you release a review months after its out.

Good intial review scores are definitely what CtP2 'needs'.

I can understand why Activision released 'now'; no Christmas sales and they'd have missed the boat. The 'Civ' genre isn't big enough to guarantee sales the way that a FPS is. Call to Power isn't a big name, in the same way that Diablo or Quake is.

What I get isn't a development team trying to screw the fans over, but an honest attempt to give us what we want, in a commercially viable way.

I do expect to see patches. I have confidence that Activisions given this game a good shot. I am not entirely sure its going to be a 'perfect' civ game, but I do feel sure its a step forward.

Of course there is some time needed before someone learns the game enough to play PBEM, so I wouldn’t have a problem to buy the game now and have PBEM available after a month or so. The only trouble is Activision said that they are not sure whether they will try to fix the bag that made them leave that feature out now!

Thus I am NOT buying the game now.

Dark Order> Play by Email is definitely the best form of multiplayer for a game of this type.

But I do feel that I will be able to enjoy the single-player game, because even if the game isn't up to standards, there will be more than enough people onsite that will address these imbalances. I look at it this way. CTP1 was a flawed game with a lot of potential. Due to the efforts of CD, Nordicus and Wes, the game is very good now. With CTP2 out, I am guessing that the 'fix time' for imbalances will be a lot quicker (if needed), because of the work done in CTP1.

Granted, there are players who refuse to buy CTP2 because of a perception of Activision rushing the game out. Some even refused to play CTP1, because they are not willing to try the mods that have been created. More power to them - however, they have limited themselves from a much better playing experience.

I can look at any game and find flaws in them concerning the AI, interface, inbalances and so forth. I can also see that in those games, fans have created their own adjustments to fix these problems. The fact is, it is very difficult to create a game that will make everyone totally happy and be totally balanced in ALL situations. Many of us have great ideas for what we want in a game, but to balance those ideas with everything else that takes place in a game is VERY hard - we may have justifiable criticism for the companies, but sit down and try to do it yourself sometime, and you begin to realize that its not so easy. Just look at how long it took Wes and others to get MedMod to the point it is now.

Gripe all you want about Activision, (and I confess that I have done so) but the game has been modifiable, and it looks like CTP2 will be too. I do give Activision credit to make some radical changes from CIVII, taking a chance to do so, and my hope is that they will be able to push the envelope further. If I was nothing more than a glorified beta tester for the past 2 years for CTP1, I have mostly enjoyed it.

Those of us, who loves playing PBEM, do very well know it would take at least 1½-2½ year for one game (if no-one finish the game as absolute winner before).

But the PBEM game gives us something, what no else game type can do:

1: Challange - it would never (I hope not) be possible for gamedesigners to make an AI, that thinks long-term strategic like a human (can do). On-line can, I know.

2: The diplomatic ping-pong on the forum. On-line can.

3: Take your turn when you have time - and your turn has arrived, of course (though most games has a 24 hour rule) Singleplayer games also gives this. On-line does not. You are not "forced" to be online 3-5-8 hours for a game. I simply can't allow myself to play that long time (I have flat-rate ISDN so the economic issue is not the reason).

Therefore: PBEM is a must. Not now - a couple of months or so will be ok (then we have time to finish some of our games on CTP).

quote: Originally posted by TheLimey on 11-11-2000 03:24 PM PBEM was reportedly dropped early, due to the change in the simultaneous actions possible (I.E. Mutually Assured Destruction), I believe. Why do you think that Activision won't do somthing about this? They've not been as reticent on the patch issue as Firaxis. They've actually been above standard for the industry, I'd say. If the core game was gone enough, got good enough reviews, and consistent continuing income, then there'd be no reason Activision wouldn't extend the functionality of the game in ways that players desire. In fact, its desirable commercially to do so.

Um, then why didn't they do so for C:CTP?

------------------
Big Dave

I believe you missed the most important point of mine:

'If the core game was good enough, got good enough reviews, and consistent continuing income'

This is absolutely critical. I was disappointed with the initial quality of the game as it stood. Many magazines, and online gaming organizations gave CtP a less than glowing review which meant that after the intial rush of sales- based around the 'Civilization: Call to Power' name. The continuing sales did not support the kind of support that would be necessary to 'fix everything'. This was an understandable commercial situation.

They DID however patch a number of areas.

Firaxis on the other hand, were guilty in another way; they had a continuing success (relatively speaking) and then did not patch some absolutely key errors and omissions that many SMAC players still feel sore about.

Markos,
That's my point. While reviews for C:CTP stunk the game generated as many sales as SMAC. (BTW, Firaxis is slime for not supporting their product either, no double standard here.) So C:CTP generated enough revenue that Activision should have continued to support it. I would have bought a $20 add-on pack with mod support fixed, flat map support, and a few cool (or even lame!) mods. In the above scenario Activision should have been able to justify a reduced or part time programming staff to continue to support C:CTP while CTP2 was being developed? And the lifespan of a civ style game is 3 to 5 years if done properly. Between the mods and the general replay value of the game the replay value should be at least that much! Again, I think this because we're operating outside of Activision's core dicipline. They are primarily an action/shooter type of company, they don't understand what makes TBS players tick. With shooters you always have to update the graphics and get a new game out pronto because people with no lives will solve the 50 levels you sent with the game in short order, i.e. the game has little or no replay value. OTOH, they've done an excellent job expanding C:CTP from the original Civ and Civ II. One more patch could have fixed the mods so that the ModPicker utility wouldn't have been needed.

Anyway, I'll probably get CTP2, after it's patched to (IMHO) a reasonable level.
Respectfully,