Battlezone 2 is one of the best damb games ive ever played.mystikmind2005 wrote: I think the best multiplayer format for x4 would copy Battlezone 2's example. .
That would be a good idea
Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum
yeah yeah yeahsilentWitness wrote: Wow... Didn't know people still use 800x600...![]()
So you just want to play in your own sandbox, no matter how well Egosoft could implement the multiplayer feature.silentWitness wrote: No because I'd rather have gameplay features... Real features that make the game interesting... if I wanted to interact with people I'd talk with my husband or go outside!!!
you just all around nice person arent you?silentWitness wrote: Also you're not going to get it...
That's the way I understood it too.TriMagestis wrote: Firstly @ CBJ
I was actually thinking this thread was about whether or not the buyers of the game wanted Multi-player or not (which would give an indication as to whether or not it should be persued) - not the ability of 'EGO' soft to deliver.
I understand fully that it would require a complete re-coding of the game and would take a lot of time and development dollars.
Freedom should not change. However it's true that other people in the game will make the game more challenging... is it that bad though?TriMagestis wrote: @Ramiw00t
How does the freedom change? If you want to blow something up because you're bored - go blow it up...just the consequences might be a little more immediate and dramatic! If it was setup in a way that you can't play modded games in multi-mode then the playing field is the same for everyone!
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!
I would buy it.TriMagestis wrote:I was actually thinking this thread was about whether or not the buyers of the game wanted Multi-player or not.
Yes we wouldn't want to interupt those busy developers from making useful features such as the lottery in X2 to go and waste time making a useless multiplayer feature. (apologies for the sarcasm hehehe)CBJ wrote:Because development time spent on making the game multi-player (and we are talking about a lot of development time here) is time that cannot be spent on other features that other people want.TriMagestis wrote:what does it matter to anyone if there is a Multi-Player component? You don't have to play it...
It has been explained quite a few times that not only does having "limited" multi-player not make it significantly easier to develop, but it is unlikely to be financially viable since this type of multi-player would not generate enough additional income to cover the cost of its development.TriMagestis wrote:And it doesn't have to be a MMOG - but enought to allow like mindeds to connect together, 4-8 would be enough IMO.
Definately the multiplayer features is what made it so good. So good that gamers got together and built a whole new series! Just as if gamers got together and built x3 after x2 got old.Dead_walker wrote:Battlezone 2 is one of the best damb games ive ever played.mystikmind2005 wrote: I think the best multiplayer format for x4 would copy Battlezone 2's example. .
That would be a good idea
It might amuse you to know that, like many of the features that people complain about such as the station announcements, the lottery was actually a player-suggested feature. Your sarcasm, while amusing, is misplaced however. The lottery is the kind of thing that a programmer probably added one evening in their spare time, and does not even register on the scale of development required to implement multi-player.mystikmind2005 wrote:Because development time spent on making the game multi-player (and we are talking about a lot of development time here) is time that cannot be spent on other features that other people want.
Actually the reasoning that kills off multi-player modes in games is often purely financial. I've been through this in detail in previous posts so I won't repeat it, but the reality is that it is often very difficult to recoup the cost of developing a multi-player mode.This kind of reasoning has seen multyplayer modes killed off in more and more games.
I find that a frequent problem, as a software developer myself, is that people find it very easy to identify features they want, but not so easy to understand the complexity of the code required to instantiate that feature.CBJ wrote: Actually the reasoning that kills off multi-player modes in games is often purely financial. I've been through this in detail in previous posts so I won't repeat it, but the reality is that it is often very difficult to recoup the cost of developing a multi-player mode.
Really but you see I would have just cause. Multiplay code would destroy the X series and these no guarantee we'd even get the features we have now... Egosoft are smart enough to know that multiplayer isn't what their core market want.TriMagestis wrote: @silentWitness
Yup, get that one all the time. My particular bugbear at the moment is those in the office who go around 'optimising' the code and not updating the design documentation. So along I come to implement feature A, which ends up breaking these optimisations, when according to the design docs, it should all fit together nicely.mrbadger wrote:The problem is, not matter how 'trivial' the feature, you can be certain, if it was not in the original design, that it will break something else, or make something else less efficient, or throw up new bugs. These are constants of software design.
I think it's lack of multiplayer is actually a strength. No gameplay compromises for multiplayer compatability purposes, no griefers, and more.I'm of the opinion that with-out the multi-player facility...at some point - the X series will wane.
Let's be clear about this. Nobody is stating that X-OU is never coming. In fact I think it is fair to say that the whole history of the X-Universe games has been driven in part by the ultimate goal of developing X-OU.TriMagestis wrote:If XOU is never coming then why do they persist on leaving the .net site up - even though it hasn't been updated in a while - if EGOSOFT have no intention of developing the game - they should take the site down and be done with it.
indeed, but the two problems are irrevocably linked. Even if they want it (and it would not be the same game if they did), it would be very hard.TriMagestis wrote:
@mrbadger
I do believe this thread was about do we want it or not - not what it takes to do it (time or financial)