Do you quit when you know you will definitely win?

[KopOut]

Cool your jets, son. You expect me to simultaneously respond to like 5 different people? Let's be realistic.

My point is, at what point does it go from "playing a game" to "clicking along to reach the end" of a "very boring piece of software?" The point of a game is to achieve victory by meeting the preset conditions. If the player decides when they've won, why are you playing the game to begin with?

PS - if you're consistently reaching the point where you're cruising around with modern armors and facing pikemen or whatnot, you're more than likely not playing on a high difficulty. If somehow you're some beast who dominates deity every time you try, why is it even fun for you in the first place?

The point of a game is to achieve victory. We both agree on that. Where we diverge is how we define victory. You define it as the screen at the end of the game. I define it as the point at which nobody else but me has a chance of winning the game... meaning I cannot lose.

I am not saying that I am a civ god (i'm not even close), but are we really okay with a game that only challenges you when you set it to the highest possible difficulty level? I don't expect every level to provide a challenge, but I also don't want the only challenge to be early game or I have to play against an AI that has every conceivable advantage possible and doesn't even follow the same game rules I do (which is all Deity is).

And to answer your question, I have consistently been playing less and less of this game for this very reason. So, very shortly, I (and I suspect many others) will no longer be playing this game unless major changes happen.

BTW - It would be nice if the multiplayer function was actually usable as that might provide a unique challenge, but it isn't right now.

 

[Rohili]

No, maybe you play only for the experience of winning, but for many that's not where the satisfaction comes from. I like building an empire. I like the minutiae of building an empire. I also like the idea of pitting my empire against other empires and winning - but that's only one aspect from which enjoyment is derived. Can't you understand? It's not hard.

And sadly the minutiae of managing an empire is what Civ 5 lacks.

Stupid 'streamlining' nonsense...bah.

Word. Civ V is too simple and there are too little things to do with your empire or the AI, that playing the game past the point of victory makes little sense.

The designers of Civ V seem to have neglected the "builder" or "sim" aspect of Civ that many fans enjoy, removing too much depth and complexity and skewing the game in favour of warmongering.

 

[Jharii]

When I'm in that situation (cultural victory waiting mode) I try to micromanage to shave turns off the 30.

If it takes 3 turns to kill the civ, why not do it, considering the 200ish turns you've spent getting there?

There's an auto-production button in cities. I often use it when I feel the AI is doomed, so I don't have to keep telling my scads of cities to build theaters.

And sometimes I do play past the victory screen, until I'm satisfied. Usually I don't, because everyone is dead and there's no competition.

You're playing against yourself at that point, not against the game, per se.

It's a matter of taste. Once the challenge has been lost, the game begins to pale. Some egos need that extra stroking, though, so to each their own.

 

[Pantastic]

My point is, at what point does it go from "playing a game" to "clicking along to reach the end" of a "very boring piece of software?"

At the point where it stops being fun. You may feel some sort of obligation to play games to the victory screen, or you may derive your enjoyment from hitting that screen, but I don't. I enjoy playing the game when there are interesting decisions to make, once the decisions cease being interesting then a civ game stops being entertaining (other games may have different draws).

The point of a game is to achieve victory by meeting the preset conditions. If the player decides when they've won, why are you playing the game to begin with?

The point of me playing a game is to entertain me, not to satisfy a set of criteria some guy I don't know came up with on a message board. You're not at all important to me, so I don't really care if you think I shouldn't be playing a game, and once you accept that you might understand this topic better. Wait, didn't you later admit "And sometimes I do play past the victory screen, until I'm satisfied?" If the point of the game is to achieve victory by meeting the preset conditions, then why would you ever play past the preset conditions, there is no point according to you.

This gets really silly when you start looking at games that don't even have victory conditions, like most of the Sim games, most MMOs, and a lot of other common and popular game formats.

Seriously. If you're so far ahead you "know" you're going to win, why don't you just win? If you're that advanced it shouldn't be hard to finish off the AI.

Because winning takes time, micromanaging armies to complete a non-challenging game is not fun, and I play video games in order to have fun. I don't see what possible relevance it is that it's not hard to finish off the AI - it's not hard for me to watch a lame show on TV, but since a lame show fails to entertain me I will simply change the channel or go do something else instead of watching it.

Also, before I get a bunch of "oh, I don't want to waste my time!" consider how much time you spent getting to the point at which you declared victory for yourself.

Why should I consider it? I was enjoying myself, therefore the game was serving it's purpose as entertainment, and was not a waste of time. Once I'm playing a video game and it's not fun, it becomes a waste of time and I do something else. It's a really, really simple concept.

 

[Zechnophobe]

Civ games notoriously lag the latter into the game you get. If you have infantry when everyone else has longbowmen (civ 4) you will clean up no question. Even if the initial army doesn't conquer the world, you'll be so much larger that you'll research faster, and get tanks and bombers when they get rifleman, even more increasing the lead.

But all of that may be a forgone conclusion once you got that tech/production lead, and require another 50 to 75 turns of play... which can be hours.

The fun part for a lot of people is garnering that advantage. Not the minutiae afterward.

 

[dannythefool]

I don't quit. What's the point? People quit when they think they can't win, people quit when they think they will win... if everybody played like that, we'd all only be re-rolling start locations and filing them under "would win" and "might lose".

 

[SuperJay]

Well said, everyone.

Because pressing end turn 30 times to finish my cultural victory isn't fun.

Because killing the 9th AI civilization in the same game in 3 turns isn't fun.

Because managing the production of 45 cities isn't fun (although that doesnt happen so much in Civ5) etc....

I play the game for the challenge not a congratulatory e-card from 2k games. Once the challenge is completely gone it is no longer fun or rewarding.

And sadly the minutiae of managing an empire is what Civ 5 lacks. Stupid 'streamlining' nonsense...bah.

That patch cannot come quick enough.

 

[greggbert]

When I'm inevitably going to win or lose I always restart. I still haven't made it to FLIGHT yet!!!

 

[Yard Waste]

When I'm inevitably going to win or lose I always restart. I still haven't made it to FLIGHT yet!!!

I keep playing--played and won (domination) 3 times and still haven't developed much past riflemen cannons. I win well before I develop any close to modern military hardware and vehicles--don't even thing I have developed steam let alone armour.

 

[SuperJay]

I keep playing--played and won (domination) 3 times and still haven't developed much past riflemen cannons. I win well before I develop any close to modern military hardware and vehicles--don't even thing I have developed steam let alone armour.

My very first Civ5 game - back when I was excited about it, in the days of yore (you know, about 3 weeks ago) - I played past my science victory just because I wanted to get the rest of the industrial and modern techs, build the units and structures, check out the GDR, etc. That was fun, one time. But since then, I'm in the same boat. If I wanted a modern age game now, I'd have to start it at at least Renaissance, because otherwise it's such a long, boring series of Next Turn clicks that I inevitably quit to go do something that's actually fun.

 

[smitbr]

I would usually play it all the way in cIV but ciV ive played countless times already and could count the number of times ive stuck it out on 1 finger, which would of course be my middle finger

 

[Yzman]

No I win if I know I am gonna win. Not doing so would make achievements quite hard.

 

[Bandit17]

Out of about a dozen or so games I have only finished 2 to the lame victory screen (where's my cool video!). To me it's the "fun" factor and when I already know how the movie is going to end why continue? Domination victories get old pretty quick and hitting the turn button over and over for another type of victory, in which you know for a fact is coming, is also lame. The early and mid game is where "most" of the fun is.

 

[CornPlanter]

Yes, it's the moment when I click on V icon in my quick launch bar to launch Civ5. Unless I am in for testing some exotic sort of strategy.

 

[jpinard]

Without an integrated replay feature or a way to see the Civ's history over time in any fashion whatsoever... yes. This game for me was always the experience not the win.

 

[UknowsI]

I have actually finished a much larger portion of my games in Civ 5 than in 4. The reason is that the enemy is so bad at combat and winning that I you can be behind and still win. In Civ 4 I would often either get so far ahead that it's no point in playing any more or the enemy would become to strong and there was no way I could win. In Civ 5 on the other hand it's much easier to play the underdog, which makes it more fun to finish the game. If I finish the game or not mostly depends on what I have to do to finish. If it's just clicking Next Turn for 1 hour I will probably not finish, but if I have to send out 2 fleets to simultaneously hit the two last enemies' capitals the same turn to beat enemies who has superior strength, then sure I will finish, and lately I've found more of the last type of games.

However, I have to agree that the ending in Civ 5 is very disappointing. I don't even get a full map view!

 

[afa2000]

Yes. Once challenge is over, there's nothing left to do. And I mean challenge by more than just building troops, "pwning" the AIs.

 

[Sadan01]

Having read this thread and posting in it, I decided to play two games to the end. I won a domination victory on both Immortal and Deity difficulty levels.

Even though we all know about the AI problems, if I can win a game of Civilization at either of those difficulties, there is something seriously wrong with this game.

 

[Thander]

I usually finish the game if it's at Quick or Standard speed. On Epic or Marathon, I usually quit early when I have the game in hand.

 

[snoochems]

I've probably finished only 10% of my games in total. It can just get to the point where playing gets boring because it stops being challenging, and to get the actual victory will take an hour or so of extra playing... would rather just start again.