Is it time to move on? - Discussion/Debate

[daft]

Yep. For me I like doing some calculating but I don't like the game to be all calculation.

I second that opinion. Must be great to win on Deity, but that's not the most important thing for me. Game Flavour is the essence I keep coming back for.
I have a specific date, when I reach it, I stop playing most of my games, save them and start a new ones, with a different leader/tribe.
Sometimes I comeback to those saved games, sometimes it's like a new game when I haven't been playing a save for several weeks, it intrigues me again, gain energy to keep going at it again.
I always play Huge/Epic, so it all takes quite a bit.

 

[Nick31]

Just a quick note to the OP:

Randomized settings can be fun. You don't have preconceived notions, the AI random personality is fun, and it's a more varied gameplay.

I go in and out of CIV but I like playing Immortal random settings and trying out fun things. For me, Immortal is still a fun setting as opposed to Diety, but random options with a Random Civ can provide you some cool roleplay.

 

[warmonger]

I'm also burned out on CiV - haven't played a game this year.

I started the franchise on CivIII; CIV was an awesome step up and I played that to death - best $100 I've ever spent. The sense of excitement over the pending arrival of CiV was second only to the arrival of my kids. I was a middle difficulty player on CIV because I couldn't / wouldn't do the micro-management required of diety.

Won my second game of CiV on diety with the infamous horseman rush - knew something was wrong immediately. I've now played 4-5 years of CiV, won with every leader on pangea diety by domination (can't do any other victory as it's just too much "next turn" pushing). Whilst CiV was entertaining, it never gripped me the way the CivIV did - there's just not that immersive feeling. Don't get me wrong - I don't want CIV back; I've played exactly one game of it since the launch of CiV. I like the combat in CiV but everything else is just filling buckets - not many really important decisions to make.

I will not be rushing to buy CiVI. The launches of both CiV and BE were just plain crap - the trust of Faraxis is no longer there. CiVI will have to be astoundingly good (as determined by the good folks here) before I even bother.

Even if it is the best game ever produced, if it requires Steam to function, I'm out.

 

[Lexicus]

Even if it is the best game ever produced, if it requires Steam to function, I'm out.

I hear you. One of the major reasons I actually have been playing Civ IV and not V is that I can play IV in a window and do something else after I hit "end turn"; the game still "works" while I'm not actually in the game window.

Can't do that with Civ V, the loading screen takes FOREVER, playing in windowed mode makes the UI seem cramped and it's too difficult to see what's going on.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Even if it is the best game ever produced, if it requires Steam to function, I'm out.

I could not agree more. I hate the evil empire Steam and I hate that they track your games. I do not need to see that I average 45hrs a week wasting my life playing this game lol! I know that I could figure a way out how to disable Steam and still load my game but I am a bit lazy to do it.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I don't get why people hate Steam. Pretty sure this is where everything is heading these days anyway, besides, if for some reason your CD/DVD corrupts with your game you don't have to re-purchase it, you just download it, but that's just my opinion of it.

 

[warmonger]

I don't get why people hate Steam. Pretty sure this is where everything is heading these days anyway, besides, if for some reason your CD/DVD corrupts with your game you don't have to re-purchase it, you just download it, but that's just my opinion of it.

I hate Steam for 2 reasons:

(1) It an intrusive resource hogging programme that monitors what I do in-game. It updates itself without my permission; no other programme on my computer is allowed to do that. It patches games whether I want it to or not - even when there are known issues with a new patch. Keeping it in off-line mode solves a couple of these issues but not all.

(2) Its conditions of service are in direct violation of European law. If I buy a physical copy of a game, under EU law, I own that copy. I can do what I like with it.

I can:

make a copy for my own personal use (not for resale)
give it away
resell it​

Steam prevents me from doing any of these things.

 

[claudiupb]

Why would you need a copy for own personal use? You can play on a different computer just log on with your user name and get the game. Yes, you do not get to give it away unless you create an account with that game only, and give the account away. And yes you cannot resell it but if that means that the price for the game will be lower I am satisfied, as I have never considered reselling any of my games and the fact that you can buy a game at a significant discount during a sale really kills the second hand game market, since older games are really cheap during those sales (I got civ V complete for 13 euro during the last summer sale)

 

[Abraxis]

I tried to play both Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis only to come to conclusion I should go back to Kindergarden, the learning curve is really hard in Paradox games.

This might sound harsh, but between this and your unwillingness to go above prince... what we get out of something is generally proportional to what we're willing to put into it. It sounds to me like you don't want to commit anything, you just want to sit back and have entertainment find you. Typically as you get older this becomes less and less an option, entertainment doesn't come so simply anymore. It is at this point you must start seeking greater challenges, more and more complex rule-sets to avoid monotony.

You're unwilling to do anything to change your experience of Civilization V, and you're unwilling to try different games. Yet you seem obsessed with 'moving on' due to monotony. I think this is actually a form of insanity.

If it's intimidation keeping you from CK2 or EU4, I would encourage you to push through it. I would recommend CK2 however, it is more of a sandbox. You don't even need to understand all of it to enjoy or play it. Half the appeal of the game is simply watching the simulation unfold.

 

[Acken]

And actually not understanding everything is part of the game. It simulates you being a crappy ruler And maybe his son will be a better king !

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

This might sound harsh, but between this and your unwillingness to go above prince... what we get out of something is generally proportional to what we're willing to put into it. It sounds to me like you don't want to commit anything, you just want to sit back and have entertainment find you. Typically as you get older this becomes less and less an option, entertainment doesn't come so simply anymore. It is at this point you must start seeking greater challenges, more and more complex rule-sets to avoid monotony.

You're unwilling to do anything to change your experience of Civilization V, and you're unwilling to try different games. Yet you seem obsessed with 'moving on' due to monotony. I think this is actually a form of insanity.

If it's intimidation keeping you from CK2 or EU4, I would encourage you to push through it. I would recommend CK2 however, it is more of a sandbox. You don't even need to understand all of it to enjoy or play it. Half the appeal of the game is simply watching the simulation unfold.

That did sound a little bit harsh, and quite uneccessary for two reasons

1. I don't know why this topic turned into "The OP is bored", that, as far as I know, wasn't the debate, it was if people are done with Civ 5, it just turned into it being about me which I never wanted because of how i choose to play the game

2. Why am I not allowed to be willing to move on when a game that I played for over 1500 hours is boring to me? I can't help it, I tried King got bored the first few turns, there's no more surprise, that's not my fault, neither it is a game I have just played enough with this game to feel like I could use a change.

I don't have the time, or bother enough to really learn EU and CK, they are big games but I have the right to that.

You made me sound like I was lazy (which, in al fairness I am, but I should not be chastized for it because you feel that I'm being reluctant to take such a pointless risk (pointless because it isn't something that will change my life).

Hopefully that didn't sound harsh.

Besides, you have no right to tell me how I should live my life, which I feel you tried to do. Your post was, in essence, a jab at me because of how I chose to look at these games.

 

[Nick31]

This thread is evolving into a debate about people's feelings, which is of course not going to go smoothly. But to the OP:

When you title a thread "Is it time to move on" And then you follow it up with: I like to play the game a certain way and I adamantly refuse to try higher difficulty settings or play differently... well, you're going to get the ensuing pages of responses. Some helpful, some skeptical.

To be clear: there's no need to debate how you feel about the game, or how you play the game, and whether they are valid. Play as you want and be happy .

But asking whether the game is over, and then acknowledging that you're done with it before exploring the higher levels, will raise eyebrows.

 

[Acken]

The Op speaks about feelings and his opinion (as well as wanting C6 sure).
People comment on said feelings and opinion.

Nothing abnormal.

 

[Tatran]

To OP, it's simply over and you have to accept that.
Civ5 is an average game with a bad and braindead AI.
(Sending naked settlers into enemy territory, CoDs dancing around waiting to be destroyed,
denouncements but no military build up instead the AI keeps on constructing wonders, etc.)
Just watch Marbozir's 'let's play civ5 on Deity'.
His quality let's plays kept me playing civ5 BNW for awhile, but after 2 months I'm done.
I can't stand the repetitions, penalties and the stupid AI anymore.

 

[CraigMak]

To OP, it's simply over and you have to accept that.
Civ5 is an average game with a bad and braindead AI.
(Sending naked settlers into enemy territory, CoDs dancing around waiting to be destroyed,
denouncements but no military build up instead the AI keeps on constructing wonders, etc.)
Just watch Marbozir's 'let's play civ5 on Deity'.
His quality let's plays kept me playing civ5 BNW for awhile, but after 2 months I'm done.
I can't stand the repetitions, penalties and the stupid AI anymore.

Yeah, I was done with the AI after about 1 month. Play MP and the game will be interesting virtually forever. I play nearly exclusively MP and have 5000+ hours in the game. I'm still not bored with it because you never know what human players are going to do.

Get bored of FFA and play a 2v2 or 3v3, Get tired of that and play a 2v2v2, get tired of that and it's time to Duel. Get tired of that and it's back to FFA. The game really doesn't get stale.

 

[orasis]

Civ VI will probably not be your cup of tea if you weren't so keen on 4.

V was made for people who liked III and IV was made for people who wanted more of Civ II.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Civ VI will probably not be your cup of tea if you weren't so keen on 4.

V was made for people who liked III and IV was made for people who wanted more of Civ II.

That is actually so true, when I played vanilla V I really felt like it was a better version of Civ III, a lot of features seemed similiar.

 

[beetle]

Could someone explain why V is more like III and IV like II? I don't understand the distinction. The civ iterations all seem like pretty straightforward evolutions to me, but I would characterize the differences between III and IV as being the least significant. Clearly I am missing something! I would also add that SMAC, despite coming before III, seemed more like civ 3.5 in terms of sophistication. FWIW, I went back to SMAC from both III and IV.

I didn't know it at the time, but what I most liked about II (and SMAC and V) was the very natural progression through the difficulty levels. This turned out to be key with keeping me engaged. With both III and IV, one level was much too easy -- but the next one up much too hard.

 

[claudiupb]

When I first got in to civ 4 it was because people were saying that if you loved 2 you will love 4. That was NOT true at all, in fact civ 4 is my least favorite of the series. I actually enjoyed civ 4 colonization better. I soon went back to civ 2 which was my favorite until I started 5. Now that i am used to 1 unit/tile I cannot go back to any other civ without getting bored after 20-30 minutes.
Saying that 3 is like 5 ,and 2 like 4, is exaggerating as each player enjoys each iteration differently.
SMAC is a really good 4x game and it was way ahead of the civ series if you consider the game mechanics, but it did not have the same "rewriting history" feeling and it got boring for me after a while. It would have been interesting in civ 5 to set the science research to a general direction rather than specifying a tech.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

Civ VI will probably not be your cup of tea if you weren't so keen on 4.

V was made for people who liked III and IV was made for people who wanted more of Civ II.

This is interesting. I can see your point. For me Civ V feels like a combination of Civ Revolution (Xbox/PS3) and Civ IV but I can see other Civ versions mixed in as well.