Anyone else find the terrain boring?

[Breezin]

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.

I like the look of both IV and V although I agree that IV's terrain had more life.

I wonder if they decided to turf terrain animations because of the game's already processor/video card hungry appetite. Maybe they'll add in those animations when computers have become more powerful and can handle all that added detail?

 

[TrailblazingScot]

CiV rivers look dreadful - or certainly did when I played this game a year ago. Apart from that, the art looks good and it nice they've got Natural Wonders of the World.

However, the terrain bonuses were rarely worth getting that excited over and the changes you can make to the land are limited and bland. SMAC - an ancient game and it really let you have variety in improving terrain and terrain bonuses worth getting excited about e.g Monsoon Rainforest and Garland's Crater. Not to mention that SMAC had lots of variety when it came to the elevation of terrain...

 

[Toadman2]

I have found the terrain is SO boring. Who cares about the graphics. The map isn't worth exploring once you get your core empire down. No flavor to the mid+ to end of game. Just boring end of turn button.

Nothing changes graphically, Civ 4 had more options to the world terrain and though I did not like the micro management too much and by mid game it wasn't worth really controlling to make a difference, I did like the more versitle terrain types.

I understand the redundancy. Here's a thought though. Each epic era should not only change the looks like the older versions versions but ALSO allow for more creative yet significant game choices as new technologies ecoem avalable.

O loved the old game that made you build roads to the strategic resourses and you could have ourposts, not cities to gain them.

Ancient eras: dominated by roads as is now

Classical era: Cobblestone roads to connect cities, built like railroads (apian way) with certain benefits to cities, movement, and maybe different effects for certain social policies if in effect.

Medieval: Roads and Bridge bonus is not automatic. You must construct the bridges, and Rebuld the roads that are improved for speed (like railroads). Social policies effecting too were applicable.

Rennaissance: SOmething that involves shipyards and ports. Maybe build their aspects along the coast in the tile sthemselves. Seagoing was the big expansion of that era. Social policies effecting too were applicable.

Industrial; railroads, Social policies effecting too were applicable.

Modern: Interstste highways., Social policies effecting too were applicable.


Howabout bulding the big projects on the map such as the dams, Suspenssion bridges, and MAJOR projects that changes the way economies and countries operated their global economy and industry.


Just thoughts...GIVE ME SOMETHING TO DO!

The game right now is boring past 150 truns. Just big blobs of slowly expanding borders that are all sthe same.

 

[binhthuy71]

Civ IV's animated improvements were nice for a while and, if you added the Blue Marble mod the terrain was gorgeous. Then I dumped the mod and turned off the animations. Once I've I'd seen them a few times I ignored them. The gameplay's the thing for me.

If I had my choice there would be an option to turn off all animation, including units, and make all of the graphics 2D. Huge maps would be, in my opinion, a lot more playable under those conditions. Of course, I started strategy gaming with board games so the previous may just be my Oldtimer's Disease kicking in.

 

[MasterMishi]

" after lux, i auto workers as the improvements make no significant impact" approx

explore possibilities of micro/ go up difficulty/ play multiplayer if you want more depth, adding pigs isnt the same i know , but the micro is the game and makes or breaks mp games.

saying that, i welcomed the addition of stone - needed more hammers

granary also gave more food in last patch

maybe there could be another resource, but what would it give for best balance?

more hammers? food? i think gold if anything, that would be welcome as i'm often skint, and trading posts are weak until economics

 

[SuperJay]

This is silly, but: I recently zoomed in on a tundra tile with Furs that has the little foxes on it. If you watch closely, two of the foxes actually chase each other around and have a playful little fight, nipping and batting at each other with their paws.

I thought that kind of detail was pretty cool.

 

[kaltorak]

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...

This. I always feel the same.

 

[gingerbill]

it was dull before the patches but now it's good . Don't see how anyone could claim its much diffrent from CIV4.

 

[insaneweasel]

it was dull before the patches but now it's good . Don't see how anyone could claim its much diffrent from CIV4.

Here's how:

-Most of the time, the only bonus resources you get are cows, stone and wheat (maybe fish if you are coastal). This means that if you have resource icons turned on, you get to see the same four bonus icons over and over.

-Even if you do get bonus resources, they don't help you that much. In civ 4, a city with two wheat, deer and cow would have been an awesome and exciting city site.
Now, they'll get you maybe a few extra hammers or food. Nothing to write home about.

-Luxury resources tend to provide lackluster bonuses over regular tiles. An early gold or gem tile in Civ 4 meant an extra 6-7 gpt, and faster research. Now...your luxury tiles give maybe a few extra gold or something. Pretty meh.

Basically, Civ 4 made it so that it was fun and exciting to plop down a city in a less-than-ideal location if it had some cool bonus resources. In 5, the only time you would really want a city is if you could get it near a bunch of luxury resources and/or a river (unless you go for boring ICS strategy).

THAT is why the terrain is super dull.

 

[trueblue]

Here's how:

-Most of the time, the only bonus resources you get are cows, stone and wheat (maybe fish if you are coastal). This means that if you have resource icons turned on, you get to see the same four bonus icons over and over.

-Even if you do get bonus resources, they don't help you that much. In civ 4, a city with two wheat, deer and cow would have been an awesome and exciting city site.
Now, they'll get you maybe a few extra hammers or food. Nothing to write home about.

-Luxury resources tend to provide lackluster bonuses over regular tiles. An early gold or gem tile in Civ 4 meant an extra 6-7 gpt, and faster research. Now...your luxury tiles give maybe a few extra gold or something. Pretty meh.

Basically, Civ 4 made it so that it was fun and exciting to plop down a city in a less-than-ideal location if it had some cool bonus resources. In 5, the only time you would really want a city is if you could get it near a bunch of luxury resources and/or a river (unless you go for boring ICS strategy).

THAT is why the terrain is super dull.

are we playing the same game, aye? Civ5?

 

[Thormodr]

I find the terrain to be not too bad in Civilization 5. The graphics in general are fairly decent. (rivers excepted) It would have been nice to include a greater variety of resources like rice for example but it isn't a game breaker.

The addition of atolls was pretty cool. If they do more of that sort of thing and add Eskers, Pingos, volcanoes, lava flows, river deltas etc. into the game I'd certainly be impressed.

I find that where you place your city in Civilization 5 to be boring. cIV was a lot better in that aspect.

 

[TM Moot]

Don't see how anyone could claim its much diffrent from CIV4.

I'm not claiming its much different, I am definitely claiming its worse then previous versions.

A lot of this is down to removing a well balanced and meaningful feature from the game ( HEALTH!!). This worked so well in BtS, it made resources valuable and sort after and City Placement critical, therefore making the terrain interesting.

 

[Shurdus]

While the terrain looks better in civ5 than it did in 4, I find it boring as well. Founding a new city in 4 was always nice. There were always options to force a city into a production powerhouse, even if the city was all grassland.

In 5, you pretty much have to make due with what the terrain gives you. That makes the terrain pretty boring to me.