Do you quit when you know you will definitely win?

[CornPlanter]

Nope, I always go to the end.

 

[Razzlesnaff]

I understand why someone would quit when they're pretty sure they'll win if they keep playing. But it is stupid. You didn't actually win. You just declared yourself the victor and moved on to the next game. If playing until the end is boring or it's not challenging enough for you, then perhaps Civ V isn't the game for you.

If you want to quit playing that particular game, then more power to you. But you're not a winner, you're a quitter.

 

[cr0ws]

I never quite the game until I take my last dying breathe!

 

[Dragonlord]

Yes - once I reach an overwhelmingly dominant position, there is no more challenge and I get bored quickly. At that point, I usually start a new game.

The exception are the very few games where I've had a challenge to the end - if it's only a few more turns to play to reach the finish I will do so ... but knowing I will inevitably win, I just have to slog through another 5 hours of killing unit after unit... nah, that is an instant turnoff for me.

This is not new to Civ5 though - I had the same problem in each and every previous version, back all the way to Civ1. I'm still playing, though...

 

[The Great Apple]

I quit when I know I'm going to win and I know it's going to take a while for many of the reasons pointed out in this thread. I will reach the ending screen sometimes, but it's rare.

I also quit when I know I'm going to lose. I would be interested to know if the people who don't quit when they're going to win continue to play a losing game until the end.

 

[Bandit17]

I understand why someone would quit when they're pretty sure they'll win if they keep playing. But it is stupid. You didn't actually win. You just declared yourself the victor and moved on to the next game. If playing until the end is boring or it's not challenging enough for you, then perhaps Civ V isn't the game for you.

If you want to quit playing that particular game, then more power to you. But you're not a winner, you're a quitter.

The great thing about games is that we play the game and the game doesn't play us. Next softball match when your team is killing the opponant and the mercy rule kicks in I'm sure you have the option to stay and play until the end but your really playing with just yourself at this point....have fun! I'll be having a drink at my favorite hole in the wall waiting for you to come join me.

 

[Alyosha]

If you want to quit playing that particular game, then more power to you. But you're not a winner, you're a quitter.

Oh God. Some us aren't so insecure that we need a screen at the end to tell us whether or not we're a 'winner'. Some of us don't even play games to be a 'winner' (though it's pretty darn hard not to be a winner at Civ 5). I find it amusing that some people don't get that. The nuances of a particular game will always be lost to them, because for these folk a game comes down to simply winning or losing. That's it. It's a rather sad, simple minded notion.

 

[Ambo]

Certainly in previous Civ games, moving around the massive stacks of units in the very late game has just turned me off enough that I can't be bothered to finish, this was a rare thing though. With Civ 5, even this isn't an issue. I haven't had a game yet that I haven't finished.

Edit: btw, that also includes continuing a game right up until the point I lose. (Sadly this hasn't happened in Civ 5 yet...) Some of my most fun moments in previous civ games came from a desperate defence against stronger foes that inevitably crushed me in the end.

 

[Alyosha]

Certainly in previous Civ games, moving around the massive stacks of units in the very late game has just turned me off enough that I can't be bothered to finish, this was a rare thing though. With Civ 5, even this isn't an issue. I haven't had a game yet that I haven't finished.

Though I think I prefer the 1 unit per tile system of Civ 5, did you not find that in Civ 4 having all your units collected into stacks made moving and managing armies much easier?

I find in Civ 5 it gets quite tedious when you've got dozens of units spread across dozens of tiles - sometimes forming battle lines that span a continent!

 

[mamuz]

I used to go until the end to see which my score is. Win against AI is one thing. Win with a better score is a double-win.

I usually leave the game only when i know i've been overpowered with no chance to come back.

 

[jahsoldier]

I rarely finish games of CiV, I don't necessarily declare myself winner, but I quit when it becomes boring.

I enjoy the setup and initial expansion/wars/resource collecting more than any other part of the game. Once I hit the reniassance-ish period and the map's explored, there's just not much left to keep me interested.

Hate to harp on about this, but the diplomacy in previous Civs was what kept things interesting in the late game. You could form alliances, trade strategically and plot. In CiV, you're basically sitting around waiting to see who DoWs you next.

 

[JimT]

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

Wow, I wish it had only been thirty turns on my cultural victory, about 400 turns from knowing I would win to actually winning. At least I had the fear that Augustus might attack my empire which was defended by no more than three units until I started building the Utopia project - he didn't.

This said I have made a point of finishing the game this time as on BTS and Warlords I only had 8 victories in my HOF between them. Maybe when I have completed each victory type I will give up.

 

[JimT]

I usually leave the game only when i know i've been overpowered with no chance to come back.

Those are the only games I play to the end - don't think it will happen until their are a few patches though.

 

[DuseCutter]

I play to the end pretty much every time. The only time I don't is if there's been a lot of time between that last time I played and the game i was in is in the middle. I can understand the temptation to quit and start over because the game did get boring once it was just wait and see if the AI attacks me as I'm building the Utopia Project, which they didn't. But I tend to see what I start through to the end. Even when I'm going to lose.

I used to play Magic:The Gathering years ago and I had a friend who would always decide when he'd lost and "scoop" his cards and declare me the victor. I would always play until the very last card if I knew I was going to lose. Because sometimes, I didn't. I suppose sometimes when he "scooped" I wouldn't of won... but we never found out.

 

[Dishonor]

Point of the game isn't to win as someone said, but to have fun.

no challenge = no fun (at last for me)

 

[Waydeuce]

When it come to the point of just clicking end turn to get to the victory screen, I usually start a new game. When the challenge is gone, so is my interest. But I have been this way with all Civ games...

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

Civ II is the only one that I consistently play to completion. Because A) I like civ II's modern era and B) I often end up still having a challenge on the higher difficulties right down to the end.


But in the other civs I tend to play until I get to the point when A) I can steam the entire world at will and all at the same time or B) I can't win culture or space before 2050 and/or C) I can win diplo whenever the vote comes with every body else voting for a different candidate.

 

[skallben]

Those are the only games I play to the end - don't think it will happen until their are a few patches though.

Word, I still remember my most fun cIV game ever. I lost it to China. We had a coldwar situation coming up, I had super-elaborate plans of naval invations and a simontanleous chopper/paratrooper blitz. I took a few cities but once the game went hot, he had more nuclear weapons. It was a mess and eventually his production capacities overpowered me.

Why was it the most fun?
I believe because of the challenge. I had to adapt to the situation and explore new possible strategies I never needed to use before. It was the tension and the exitment, genuinely not knowing where it was going.

I quit usually, when I have broken the neck of the most powerful civ in V. Usually the rest don't even gang up on me, they war internally instead. I play a bit more but usualy realize, even if they ganged up, they would stand no chance due to my sheer size. Once you come to a dominant position in V, size=science mechanics make sure your technological advantage is sure to only grow.

Most fun this far in V: 500 years of wars with Catherine, fought on neutral ground going absolutely nowhere. Her production was twice mine, my science was better. In the end my tech advantage gained me momentum and I took her production cites, game over Cathy. Finding the other continent revealed the rest of the game would be a cakewalk. But despair not, there are new challenges ahead, in a brand new uncertain game.

 

[SuperJay]

I understand why someone would quit when they're pretty sure they'll win if they keep playing. But it is stupid. You didn't actually win. You just declared yourself the victor and moved on to the next game.

You seem to think people are arbitrarily picking a random turn and declaring "I WIN!" regardless of the game's progress.

Have you played Civ5 at all? It's predictable enough that you can easily get to a point where there's no question that you can achieve victory at will. But if it's anything other than a Domination win, you have to wait... and wait... and wait. Maybe clicking "Next Turn" dozens of times is a challenge for you, but most of us have better things to do with our time.

If playing until the end is boring or it's not challenging enough for you, then perhaps Civ V isn't the game for you.

Obvious conclusion is obvious. Why do you think so many of us are waiting til the next big patch before we bother picking up Civ5 again?

If you want to quit playing that particular game, then more power to you. But you're not a winner, you're a quitter.

Oh gosh, you're right, this witty zinger has made me realize the error of my ways!! What was I thinking??

(BTW, why are you so upset over how someone else plays a video game?)

 

[Pantastic]

I understand why someone would quit when they're pretty sure they'll win if they keep playing. But it is stupid. You didn't actually win. You just declared yourself the victor and moved on to the next game. If playing until the end is boring or it's not challenging enough for you, then perhaps Civ V isn't the game for you.

I disagree, what is stupid is telling people who are enjoying playing a game that the game isn't for them for no good reason. What is stupid is thinking that people should play a video game in a way that they find boring because some guy on the internet doesn't approve. What would be stupid if you worked for Firaxis is telling paying customers who are happy with the game that they shouldn't buy it because they're not playing enough of it.

If you want to quit playing that particular game, then more power to you. But you're not a winner, you're a quitter.

I'm not really worried if some guy on a message board who's self-image is tied to beating a video game thinks I'm not a winner. I just can't imagine saying "Oh noes, I didn't spend an hour clicking next turn to finish off a video game, MY LIFE IS OVER, this guy on the internet doesn't approve!" (If it was allowed here and I kept a bunch of them around, I would link a captioned picture of a disapproving animal here).