Anyone else find the terrain boring?

[insaneweasel]

When looking at terrain, I find it to be a lot more boring compared to civ 4.
You don't really have the different kinds of terrain improvements, and most bonus/luxury resources provide a negligible increase over anything else. When I played terra, I often found the new world so lacking in interesting or useful land that I just gave up on it.

Anyone else have that problem.

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

I'm not sure what you're talking about by "the terrain is boring".

The terrain has never looked better than in Civ5.

If you're referring to resources and luxuries, there aren't significantly fewer resources than in Civ4. Civ5 is only missing Copper, Rice, Pigs, Crab, and Corn. Copper is sort of redundent with Iron, and the reliance on Copper to produce certain early units and Wonders was unfair. Rice and Corn are redundant with Wheat. Pigs and Crab are redundant with Cows and Sheep, and Fish, respectively. And since you can only trade strategic resources and luxuries in Civ5, Rice, Pigs and Corn are unnecessary.

Regardless, like everything else in Civ5, the variety of resources and luxuries has been stripped down to simplify the game -- and probably to withhold content for the inevitable expansion pack (which is long overdue).

 

[insaneweasel]

I'm not sure what you're talking about by "the terrain is boring".

I find it is quite boring to look at. It lacks the "life" of civ 4, and makes expansion sort of same-old same-old.

Rice and Corn are redundant with Wheat. Pigs and Crab are redundant with Cows and Sheep, and Fish, respectively. And since you can only trade strategic resources and luxuries in Civ5, Rice, Pigs and Corn are unnecessary.

Just because they are redundant doesn't mean they shouldn't be included! Having rice, corn, or pigs wouldn't add any difficulty-it would just make the game look more appealing...I think it was a stupid mistake to take it out.

 

[markusbeutel]

I'm not sure what you're talking about by "the terrain is boring".

The terrain has never looked better than in Civ5.

If you're referring to resources and luxuries, there aren't significantly fewer resources than in Civ4. Civ5 is only missing Copper, Rice, Pigs, Crab, and Corn. Copper is sort of redundent with Iron, and the reliance on Copper to produce certain early units and Wonders was unfair. Rice and Corn are redundant with Wheat. Pigs and Crab are redundant with Cows and Sheep, and Fish, respectively. And since you can only trade strategic resources and luxuries in Civ5, Rice, Pigs and Corn are unnecessary.

Regardless, like everything else in Civ5, the variety of resources and luxuries has been stripped down to simplify the game -- and probably to withhold content for the inevitable expansion pack (which is long overdue).

I can kind of see where insaneweasel is coming from. In CIV IV, improvements came to life when they were worked, with detailed animations that you could zoom in on and observe. Improvements on resources also offered a wide variety of bonuses that far exceeded regular improvement bonuses (a gem mine vs a normal mine, for example).

In CIV V, many resource improvements don't even give an additional yield bonus compared to regular improvements - which makes them feel lackluster at best. While it's still important to manually control your workers on higher difficulties in CIV V, it's also far less punishing to set them on auto-pilot, as everything besides the happiness gained from luxuries is more or less a wash. Factor in additional health bonuses in CIV IV, and the choices required when considering cottages vs farms, and the current CIV V resource system begins to feel fairly bland.

You could take this a step further and then compare how different resources in CIV IV gave production bonuses to different wonders, while in CIV V only marble serves this function, (and offers the same bonus to every wonder at that).

Finally - (and this is more or less a personal preference/opinion) - resources stood out much more on maps in CIV IV in that they didn't so fluidly blend in with the terrain. In CIV V, I find I need to turn resource icons on to get a quick and easy overview of where resources are located on a map - as it can get fairly easy to miss a few, especially on larger maps.

 

[HammerandSickle]

I think the terrain in civ5 is beautiful. I played a game on civ4 a while ago and was amazed on how crude the terrain graphics are compared to civ5's. This can be noticed in sand dunes, mountain ranges, oceans, and even cities.

About the resources, I think it's better that way. As Soryn Arkayn said, copper was redundant. Pigs are indistinguishable from cattle, in general. Fish, clams and crabs are pretty much the same. At least now we have cotton.

 

[Rex_Mundi]

I agree with markusbeutel, it was a really nice feature that the worked improvements were working, while the ones that were not worked stood still. Also when units moved around birds would take off from the tile, every tile had a little thing going on.

I also liked that some improvements changed as you advanced in tech. In regards to Civ 5, I would like a change to the improvements once they get their tech upgrade (fertilizer for farms...), and I would like it if the life returned to the map.

However if any of that impacted performance, then keep it out! Or at least make it configurable.

 

[TM Moot]

It is dull in the gameplay sense, not the visual sense.

At the start of a game I struggle to find 3 or 4 exciting placements for future cities. In previous Civs I would explore and plan where the science city goes, where the production city goes, etc.., now its just a matter of grabbing some additional happiness...

One of the things i miss the most, and imho is lacking in civ5, is city health. This made terrain & buildings important and city placement crucial, such a shame it was left out...

 

[ajl1980]

purely in terms of aesthetics, my personal opinion is that although civ v's graphics are an improvement over the more cartoony civ 4 terrain, the VERY FIRST thing i noticed when i installed the game last fall was the lack of animation on tiles - specifically the way the trees swayed (or didn't sway) back and forth. i actually spent about 15 minutes with my long-time co-civ-enthusiast staring at the screen wondering if our eyes were playing tricks on us.

i was like "what the heck?" is this, it's in the last game but now it's not, isn't that kind of going backwards in game design? it was pretty disappointing

 

[basta]

It is dull in the gameplay sense, not the visual sense.

Extremely well-said! CivV is really gorgeous visually; for that reason alone (and, well, also the totally confused GUI) I can't get back into IV.

But terrain in V is too static, and it would be a great improvement to interesting gameplay to see a greater variety of resources, at least as many as one had in IV. Someone above posted saying they're all pretty much the same, rice and corn are just like wheat. Well, that's just a reductionist argument and variations can be introduced. For example, why not have rice give +1 food to an Asian city, or wheat 1+ to a European one? Pigs give no food bonus to Middle Eastern civs, etc.

The trading post is frankly quite lame; I can't figure out for the life of me why the workshop, and the cottage->hamlet->town progression wasn't kept--what a wonderful mechanic that was. Adding some other improvement like these that one could place on those worthless tiles would be a great addition IMO.

 

[Selous]

I also liked that some improvements changed as you advanced in tech. In regards to Civ 5, I would like a change to the improvements once they get their tech upgrade (fertilizer for farms...), and I would like it if the life returned to the map.

this as above and
i liked that cottages would upgrade after certain amount of turns being worked, i believe that this added to strategy and depth of gameplay
i dont know whe this would have been taken out

 

[DavidCAD]

The far more subdued animation of the terrain fits with the grander, more majestic view. The 'cartoony' graphics of Civ4 where very zoomed in and caricature-ized, creating a heavy juxtaposition of scale. The 3 man squads of Civ4 towered over the terrain while larger then life improvements spun and bounced. It was very much a theme park style of map only bested by CivRev.

Civ5 takes a far more realistic scale to the map - units are still larger then life, as are things like cows, but the scale difference has been heavily toned down. The hex tiles and dynamically generated textures create a view that is far more realistic then any previous Civ game. Mountains are now tall and flowing, instead of waist high square obstacles.

Overall the difference is in apparent view distance - Civ4 follows a scale that has the player standing on a hotel balcony overlooking their theme park map. It's close enough to see lots of movement and animation, right down to trees swaying in the wind. Civ5 is an airplane view, so you're too far away to see trees swaying. Instead only some of the larger then life characters are animated, like units and animals. BTW, check out the fox animations when a unit is present on the tile (especially modern units like tanks) - they are oddly well designed so that the foxes appear to be running around and hiding behind the unit.

 

[tranx]

I too think the terrain in Civ5 is boring to look at, boring to explore, boring to play on, boring to fight for.

Much as already been said about Civ4 lively aspect. Also when you zero in on a tile you can hear the wind blowing in the desert, the waves breaking on the shore, the birds singing in the trees...

Terrain in Civ4 is so much more immersive. I love exploring Civ4's maps. It's so exciting.

In Civ5 you play a map. In Civ4 you play a world.

 

[TM Moot]

Regardless, like everything else in Civ5, the variety of resources and luxuries has been stripped down to simplify the game -- and probably to withhold content for the inevitable expansion pack (which is long overdue).

Perhaps it is just me, but i wish the devs had stripped down the fancy graphics and kept (or dare i say, increased) the gameplay features

if i want a fancy 3D view i just pop outside...

 

[Sir Betti]

It is dull in the gameplay sense, not the visual sense.

I have never complained in a forum setting before about any games I have ever played.
Somehow though this game rankles me in nearly all aspects. Less is better dont work on a sweeping epic title such as a CIVILIZATION game title.

All the minutae of running an empire has been simplified with emphasis on better graphics. Anyway, While the game is a stunner at first, less of everything that makes the game rock dont play in my tavern.

 

[Civciv5]

I would like rice back in game,every time I want to place China,India,Japan and the rest of Asia on the map in a scenario,I can't place it.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Boring or not I had frame rate issues with Civ IV when the terrain became too developed. With V I haven't had frame rate issues at all (same laptop). I can only speculate that all the animated stuff filling up the screen in IV was responsible but maybe I'm wrong.

The terrain in V, to me at least, is the most beautiful and appealing yet.

 

[nokmirt]

I think the terrain in civ5 is beautiful. I played a game on civ4 a while ago and was amazed on how crude the terrain graphics are compared to civ5's. This can be noticed in sand dunes, mountain ranges, oceans, and even cities.

About the resources, I think it's better that way. As Soryn Arkayn said, copper was redundant. Pigs are indistinguishable from cattle, in general. Fish, clams and crabs are pretty much the same. At least now we have cotton.

I use to use a terrain mod for CiIV. I don't remember what it was called but using that really made a difference, but standard CiIV terrain was horrible and plain looking. The water tiles were too light. It kind of hurt my eyes to look at it. Thats why I used the terrain mod. This is of course IMHO.

 

[OrsonM]

It's not bad, there was a lot of work in it. The hexes make it look a bit off from time to time, but other than that, it's shinier than in past civs (a bit too golden tinted perhaps, but it works).

 

[headcase]

I like how two hexes with the same terrain will almost always look different, and sometimes hills will spill over to the next hex, etc.

On the minus side, didn't improvements vary more from era to era in IV? Pretty sure the cities, roads and farms did at least. In this game the Future Era feels too much like the Ancient Era visually.

 

[insaneweasel]

I personally think that CiV has boring terrain because expanding has become dull.

In 4, I would look at the early map and think "ooh, that would be an awesome production city, with hill iron, plains deer and two cows" or "what a sweet place for my GP farm! Two wet rice, pigs, and a few production"

In this game, I expand and usually have trouble finding four spots for a well-supplied city.
I don't like ICS, I want to expand into good city sites. As of now, most places have some hills, plains and maybe a useless bonus resource or two. The only cities really worth settling are either near rivers and/or have at least two luxury resources near them.