The game is designed to be played with multiple players. Even in single player mode, you take turns against the computer which is technically a player in the game. There is no mode where you're just playing with yourself, I would not by any means consider it a single player game and that's by its nature. Basically a computerized board game that requires you to play against an opponent human or ai
If you're trying to argue that Civilization is a multiplayer game first, you're starting a losing battle. Civ was always and still is a single player game front and center.
You might not like that, but that's how the game has always been.
You take turns against other players, real or computer. Doesn't matter who's in control of the players, even since CIV 1 this is how the game works. It's turn based, by nature it's multiplayer. The game is literally designed as a multiplayer computerized board game. This is absolutely not a first player game front and center. A game like that would be pure single player experience like a Mario or Zelda game
Turn based automatically makes it multiplayer? Interesting. Thanks for letting us know.
No, not necessarily. But the fact that you have all players starting on relatively equal footing competing for a win condition does
I'll pass that along to the millions of players that have never touched multiplayer in a Civ game before. Thank you.
Literally what is the difference between a single player game of civ and a multiplayer game besides how you communicate with the other civs?
::: spoiler spoiler
It's the same exact game
:::
Multiplayer means against other humans.
Does it though? If all the players start on relatively equal footing with similar goals where only one can win, does it matter who is in control of the other players?
I will say, this topic also spurred a healthy discussion in my house. In the instance of civ, I firmly believe AI opponents who are playing the same game as you qualify it as inherently multiplayer even when playing alone.
Yes it does.
Riveting rebuttal. Way to explain your reasoning. You won me over /s
I don't need to argue over what are basic definitions.
Me either. Multiplayer games have multiple players playing. Wether the thinking is done digitally or organically makes no difference. It is possible to play a multiplayer game alone, that does not make it a single player game
Multi player are multiple humans. You're very wrong about this.
I'll be sure to pass that along to our AI overlords after the apocalypse
Hold on. You really think that when you play against a CPU you're playing multiplayer?
Wow
You think when you play a multiplayer modes game alone your suddenly playing a game designed as single player? Just because you can play a multiplayer mode alone doesn't make it a single player game.
A player is a person.
Nobody plays multiplayer Civ except for a small niche group of people.
You're simply wrong, that's all. You can learn you're incorrect and accept that knowledge. Or you can continue to reply with wrong statements.
Civilization 6, this game is a time sink
This game is also famously multiplayer
It has a multiplayer mode, yes. So?
The game is designed to be played with multiple players. Even in single player mode, you take turns against the computer which is technically a player in the game. There is no mode where you're just playing with yourself, I would not by any means consider it a single player game and that's by its nature. Basically a computerized board game that requires you to play against an opponent human or ai
If you're trying to argue that Civilization is a multiplayer game first, you're starting a losing battle. Civ was always and still is a single player game front and center.
You might not like that, but that's how the game has always been.
You take turns against other players, real or computer. Doesn't matter who's in control of the players, even since CIV 1 this is how the game works. It's turn based, by nature it's multiplayer. The game is literally designed as a multiplayer computerized board game. This is absolutely not a first player game front and center. A game like that would be pure single player experience like a Mario or Zelda game
Turn based automatically makes it multiplayer? Interesting. Thanks for letting us know.
No, not necessarily. But the fact that you have all players starting on relatively equal footing competing for a win condition does
I'll pass that along to the millions of players that have never touched multiplayer in a Civ game before. Thank you.
Literally what is the difference between a single player game of civ and a multiplayer game besides how you communicate with the other civs?
::: spoiler spoiler It's the same exact game :::
Multiplayer means against other humans.
Does it though? If all the players start on relatively equal footing with similar goals where only one can win, does it matter who is in control of the other players?
I will say, this topic also spurred a healthy discussion in my house. In the instance of civ, I firmly believe AI opponents who are playing the same game as you qualify it as inherently multiplayer even when playing alone.
Yes it does.
Riveting rebuttal. Way to explain your reasoning. You won me over /s
I don't need to argue over what are basic definitions.
Me either. Multiplayer games have multiple players playing. Wether the thinking is done digitally or organically makes no difference. It is possible to play a multiplayer game alone, that does not make it a single player game
Multi player are multiple humans. You're very wrong about this.
I'll be sure to pass that along to our AI overlords after the apocalypse
Hold on. You really think that when you play against a CPU you're playing multiplayer?
Wow
You think when you play a multiplayer modes game alone your suddenly playing a game designed as single player? Just because you can play a multiplayer mode alone doesn't make it a single player game.
A player is a person.
Nobody plays multiplayer Civ except for a small niche group of people.
You're simply wrong, that's all. You can learn you're incorrect and accept that knowledge. Or you can continue to reply with wrong statements.
Either way, have a good one.