I've hit rock bottom! ciV boring??!!

[smitbr]

Today for the first time.... after 10 years of playing civ.... i was bored. I never thought it would be possible! For some wild reason i'm even thinking going for a walk wouldnt be so bad, cant be worse than having another turn of ciV. probably take the same amount of time too since i'm trying to navigate a huge size map.

So is anybody else finding this problem? I spend more time reading posts on the forum than actually playing the game anymore

help!

[Thormodr]

Originally Posted by smitbr

Today for the first time.... after 10 years of playing civ.... i was bored. I never thought it would be possible! For some wild reason i'm even thinking going for a walk wouldnt be so bad, cant be worse than having another turn of ciV. probably take the same amount of time too since i'm trying to navigate a huge size map.

So is anybody else finding this problem? I spend more time reading posts on the forum than actually playing the game anymore

help!

I feel the same way. I have no motivation to play the game anymore. It just doesn't interest me. I still like reading and posting on these forums though and I do find that much more entertaining.

BTW, are you perchance more of a builder or a warmonger?

[smitbr]

immersive builder with war thrown in as a tool for growing the empire rather than for a domination win

... however in civ 5. unless your playing archipeligo its near impossible to not end up fighting the whole world. even if i have mech infantry and they have muskets, theyll still declare war on me just for the heck of it

some great potential for modding though. but really, why do we have to pay for a game that we ourselves have to make half the content for and mod in any sort of enjoyment.

i wanted to wait for vicky 2 from paradox to get their bugs sorted before getting it but at this rate ill have to jump on now or i might actually have nothing to do with all my procrastination

[PieceOfMind]

It doesn't matter what the game is, I always have times when I'm bored of it. Yes, even civ4. With civ games though, I always come back. I haven't reached the bored state with civ5 yet, but I'm sure I will, and it will probably come and go in cycles.

[Thormodr]

Originally Posted by smitbr

immersive builder with war thrown in as a tool for growing the empire rather than for a domination win

... however in civ 5. unless your playing archipeligo its near impossible to not end up fighting the whole world. even if i have mech infantry and they have muskets, theyll still declare war on me just for the heck of it

some great potential for modding though. but really, why do we have to pay for a game that we ourselves have to make half the content for and mod in any sort of enjoyment.

i wanted to wait for vicky 2 from paradox to get their bugs sorted before getting it but at this rate ill have to jump on now or i might actually have nothing to do with all my procrastination

I have quite enjoyed Vicky 2. Pretty smooth release and with the new patch it's looking really good. The game is pretty challenging as well.

Anyway, our play styles are quite similar. I am an immersive builder as well, who goes to war very infrequently. So, I understand where you're coming from.

I guess ciV would appeal more to warmongers and if the combat AI gets a lot better it'll be a pretty decent game if you like that sort of thing. To each his/her own I guess.

[smitbr]

Originally Posted by Thormodr

I guess ciV would appeal more to warmongers and if the combat AI gets a lot better it'll be a pretty decent game if you like that sort of thing. To each his/her own I guess.

Would appeal to warmongers if the AI wasnt so hopeless you can crush the world with a general and 4 horseman. Something like this.

Create game.
Get horseback riding.
Dominate everyone while they walk around pantsless.
Victory.

Create game.
Get horseback riding......
...
..

Any other civ I couldnt imagine winning every time on emperor like I do now. Its not strategy, its repetition. And repetition gets borrrinnngg.

And I was waiting for 1.3 to buy Vicky but youve tempted me...

Edit. bored of civ 4? BLASPHEMY!! haha. maybe on my old pc where turn times were ridiculously long on ROM late game i got peeved but not bored :P

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

It doesn't matter what the game is, I always have times when I'm bored of it. Yes, even civ4. With civ games though, I always come back. I haven't reached the bored state with civ5 yet, but I'm sure I will, and it will probably come and go in cycles.

[Jediron]

You mean sometihng like this ?

It's sooo boring, i don't even have the patients..to play another turn

Call me insane, but i still have CIV III installed here

[Jediron]

Well, thank you sir for you kind words

Aldo i rather stick to my idea that the AI sucks and i can walk and talk a little

[Aldor]

I don't feel the same really. If I get into a good game of civ5, I can play for hours on end, forgetting time easily.

Problem is, I find it more difficult to get into a good game compared to civ4. I seem to get poor starts pretty often, like too close to other civs (and I don't enjoy rushing), surrounded by city states so no room to expand anywhere, or other reasons.

It may be a map thing, in civ4 I played fractal mostly, here I play continents...maybe I should get back to my old favorite

[Justicex]

So far, I'm not hitting that boredom stage yet. I'm still getting that "just one more turn" urge.

[smitbr]

World map for me. mixed every so often with europe or continents.
Weirdly I end up restarting a lot since you can get some really dirt rubbish starting positions, and with ciV being so slow i dont want to decide to quit after wasting like 5 hours.

Started a new game of hearts of iron 3 after quitting a new game as Askia when after not fighting anyone for 200 turns 4 civs suddenly attacked me that id been trading with continuously and had numerous agreements with. Finally having some fun and both games have hexes!

[Janig]

civ5 is progress i couldnt go back to civ4 now. i must have played 100+ hours of civ5 and it took that long to be bored, thats not such a bad thing i trust that if we keep playing, keep supporting civ5 that it will improve with patches and expansions. if u think walking is boring try jogging i know from civ3 that if I read strategies and tips here then civ becomes more boring more quickly. its more fun to figure stuff out on your own

[Bamby]

I've played civ since civ 1 and i think civ 5 has some merit it works and is fun. At least, at first... it gets boring oh so quickly... the cuts of many features and simplification really bother me in a big way. I like depth in my games and detail- the greater complexity the better (and it should tend toward realism or be inspired by realism), though I hate too much micro-managing!


The bad of Civ 5:

- The AI is cheap and shabby. It can be so annoying it can give you a headache watching it-sometimes it moves units back and forth like a kid with ADD and loaded with hyper-stimulants. It is irrational and seems to have iron-shod rules in negotiations, even when facing total annihilation (now if the Civ Personality fits with that behaviour then I'm all for it, but I haven't yet played it enough to recognise otherwise). I remember in the very first Civ I you could make demands sometimes and actually get what you want-sometimes you felt like you had the upper hand or called the bluff on your opponent). Having said all that, I appreciate it is possibly hard to design and code a good AI, but I'm going to be dropping these kinds of games if companies don't make the required investment in this under-represented area. It goes for most games, really. A good AI isn't necessarily one that can "win the game", but one that feels real and different, sometimes it makes fatal judgements, sometimes it shows insightful tactics or prescience. For example, it would be cool for an "intelligent" personality to notice you had horses, it didn't have any, then research and build anti-horse units as a counter, or make a defensive pact with another civ if it's next to your borders (assuming you have shown aggressive tendencies and declared war unprovoked-ie began a "war of aggression" prior to these events).


- The illogical structure of the game design really damages the immersion for me at a conceptual level. I just can't get past the global happiness as a core gameplay mechanic. It's like the whole civilisation needs anti-depressants all the time, all at once as if it's an entity that is wed to it's ant queen's mood swings. "Happiness buildings"? .....Seriously? Does that represent true, civilisation building to anyone? It's also too politically correct imo and this is regretful. History needs to be less politicised imo. Allowing butchers like Joseph Stalin and disallowing Adolph Hitler, one of the most influential and powerful leaders of the 21st century (if not the most) is a continuing eyesore on the Civilisation franchise. Added to that, most of the European Civs have made extremely bloody repressions against certain groups. England and France have been brutal and killed hundreds of thousands over time, hell Spain (no doubt in an expansion to come) wiped out two or so civilisations and plundered their treasure and burned their cultural texts. But that's a bit beside the point, Questions and inconsistencies like these continue to bug me- every time I play I am thinking there must have been a better way to make it work more consistently and reasonably:

* How Chariot archers don't require Archery tech to unlock
* How elephant units don't require an elephant resource
* Why Horseback Riding requires The Wheel? Really? That is laughably ridiculous in the extreme. Genghis Khan and American Indians are rolling in their graves, literally.
* Why archers/crossbowmen can "bombard" gun units at range, but gun units can't return fire. wtf
* How cities can bombard without archery, and how they are hard to take in Ancient eras. Trashing native villagers and towns would have been child's play for a band of warriors, just like in Civ 1
* Why there is no gunpowder or copper resources? I would think they are amazingly important.
* Why marble isn't a requirement for some Classical wonders?
* Why some units require Iron, Coal and Oil, but others don't. That is simply ridiculous.
* You should be able to steal land tiles, but this gives the opposing player an option to trigger War (without Diplomacy warmonger rep). To steal a land tile, it might have to be occupied for a number of turns. Etc.

* No razing capitals/city states? A horrible design decision. At least give the option for releasing under a non-militarisation pact (no military units/garrisons/fortifications, but keep the city)
* No option for capturing or trading technologies. Seriously, you see wheels in the streets, and wouldn't use that? Just walk by the blacksmiths and ignore the amazing reflective materials?
* "Civil Service" in wait for it......Medieval Era? No, just No. Not in a time of universal Hereditary and Religious dominance (ie Monarchy).

* NO CIVICS/Permanent Government throughout the Eras......Wow, just Wow. In addition stack up random "social policies" for the entirety of a civilisation. The names representing these "social policies" don't make any sense and never show up in any other way. In short, they are meaningless, except for the bonuses for gameplay.

* List is much longer but I'll cut here.

Other gripes while I'm on the subject:
* No Swordsman in Bronze Age makes me QQ
* Where are the Axemen and Macemen? Those were pretty fun. Spearmen are an incredibly boring unit. Ouch, really. Any Camel units?
* I always liked the feel of Ancient trade (Caravans).


Global unhappiness -_-


In the sense the mechanic of Global Happiness might be passable for the 21st century game, but up until that point there should be different rules. And if this mechanic is to be useful, where are the revolutions? Why doesn't the civlisation become jubilant at vanquishing a foreign foe, as in the past (again, for the 21st century western 'neurotic' society hell bent on a foreign policy of making the whole world exceedingly happy and ebulient, it seems like a reasonable fit-for those political systems in particular)...but to impose it on *all civs* is ridiculous and 2 dimensional (which brings this point to the lack of civics and changing government types-a real deal-breaker for a game about governing civilisations), as is the case imposing it as a fundamental requirement throughout history.

[lovexylitol]

Same here.

Watching and (partly) participating the ranting in these forums are quite entertaining compared to the gaming experience Civ 5 provides after several hours. Hopefully the game will make progress drastically over the weeks.

[Antmanbrooks]

Originally Posted by Bamby

I've played civ since civ 1 and ...
...as is the case imposing it as a fundamental requirement throughout history.

Everything you just said annoys me as well. The game is just too badly planned to make it enjoyable. I haven't wanted to go back to it since 27th Sept. I've been back playing Civ IV with RoM & AND. That for me is how CiV should have been. If they had just taken RoM and added new graphics and hexes and a better AI then they would have had the best Civ in the franchise but no... they took a fraction of the stuff from the vanilla BtS and threw in some terribly ill-thought ideas like global happiness and pointless city states.

FFS city states? The only city states I can think of that had any influence on history were Greek or more recently the Vatican City and maybe at a push Singapore. Every other city state that I could mention has been part of a larger culture and therefore should actually be incorporated into the culture. The ancient Greek city states of Sparta, Athens, Corinth etc and the Renaissance states of Venice, Florence and Genoa are good examples of autonomous cities that made up a bigger culture such as ITALY and GREECE.

If they wanted to add the city state historical influence then why not add it as a civic choice? So any civ could choose to manifest itself as a series of city states? That could have been worked into the civics quite easily.

Instead we have the pointless, memory sapping City States in their current guise.

[cr0ws]

Not me...reason being? I don't play Civ 5. Too hooked on Rise Of Mankind.

[PDAquinas]

Originally Posted by Bamby

I've played civ since civ 1 and i think civ 5 has some merit it works and is fun. At least, at first... it gets boring oh so quickly... the cuts of many features and simplification really bother me in a big way. I like depth in my games and detail- the greater complexity the better (and it should tend toward realism or be inspired by realism), though I hate too much micro-managing!


The bad of Civ 5:

- The AI is cheap and .......

.....a real deal-breaker for a game about governing civilisations), as is the case imposing it as a fundamental requirement throughout history.

This+++

I think that's an excellent synopsis of many of my problems with the game as it stands. A game like civ, if you are going to put so many hours in to it, needs to at least create the overall feeling that you are running a semi-realistic empire and that your decisions matter and have a semi-sensible effect on the world.
I'd add the lack of map trading as a major immersion problem and, as much as it felt like a chore sometimes, the absence of religion is just ridiculous in a game about the rise and fall of civilizations and their interaction. An individual mechanic may not be so much 'fun' but some of them are necessary for the overall immersive feel that makes the whole 'fun'.
All added together it makes a bland, transparent mess that just doesn't demand 10 hrs or so of my time per game to run along a fairly linear predictable track. Not saying it isn't fixable (although I remain to be convinced that the AI is salvageable) but most of it just shouldn't need fixing if any kind of care and thought had gone in to it in the first place. It should also be said that my approach borders on warmonger but I like to at least have the feeling that I have a reason to go to war with a particular AI or defend a particular AI. At the moment I'd might as well chose my opponents based on not liking their tile colour. Everything else is so uniform and unengaging.
Never tried a paradox game before. Going to have a look at it now. Cheers for the heads up.

[cr0ws]

A good intelligence is an intelligence that can surprise you just when you think you've figured out it's fundamental mechanics.

[SpurnSpore]

Originally Posted by smitbr

So is anybody else finding this problem? I spend more time reading posts on the forum than actually playing the game anymore

help!

THIS!
I gave up last night,this puppy s being put down,until they give me what I payed for-a playable game.
maybe even choose starting locations,musket men stronger than spears and no more CTD with any mods installed!

[Bandit17]

I too have found myself more often in these forums or walking than playing civ5: total war. Every once in awhile I can find myself immersed into a match where I feel "somewhat" challenged and think "this is how it was meant to work" but all too often it's the child like diplomacy that gets me all pissy again. Ceasar asks for open borders and I refuse but during the turn I think about it and say sure. But nooooo, for some reason he absolutly changed his mind in a matter of seconds and no amount of wealth thrown in will change his mind. Or you liberate a country only to have them immediatly pissy with you. Or you are dominating a foe and they refuse peace or refuse to give you any decent settlement followed by them gifting you almost everything they own. The fact that you don't have a liberate option upon a defeat of a cs is a shame as well.

I find myself, more often than not, fighting game mechanics than the irrational ai...

Love Paradox games but buyer beware as their business model is one that relies on paying public beta testers!!! But once they get their games patched properly they can be very immersive and a challenging fun time. Anyone know if HOI3 is worth playing now? Tried it last year at release and was very disapointed. Strong pretty graphics but whacky broken gameplay...that sounds familar here...