Seeing the poll results - it seems like folks really want more fun in the journey that gives sense a "gee that was fun / that was cool" rather than "ah well I beat the craptarded AI again of super ultra-god-deity level using the latest interwebs strategy of doom proving I am the child prodigy my parents thought thought I was."
This was hilarious
I like to play games that gives me challenges but not solely challenges in a technical playstyle manner. I play the game for enjoyment and the game rules are to win. Thus I often get bored with games that I will likely win unless they pose any unique fun challenges. Just like in IV, when you play at a difficulty that challenges you, some games can require immense use of microing, planning and quasi-exploiting and to me this is where fun ends.
In a recent game, I wanted to go Samurai-mongering and built my early empire for this purpose, sacrificing infrastructure. I had no Iron within my borders nor any that I could easilly achieve. I accepted the challenge and played the game until somewhere around turn 290 when the game started going so painfully slow that I got bored. Rifle beeline had saved me from destruction and I don't remember if I was winning or losing, only that I played on too big map settings for my system.
In my last game it was clear quite early I might have a chance at diplo win (friendly with everyone), Alex destroyed my chances of a diplo victory by CS-mongering so when I actually could research globalisation I would have given him a win. So I annexed a couple of his "pet-states" in my vicinity, made some enemies in the process. Next up challenge was scientific-militaristic powerhouse Cathy who build Apollo project when I was an era behind. Now a new objective occurs in my game and I have to stop her as I deemed my chances of outproducing her spaceship progress to be low. Nukes solved the problem, and as I am becoming unpopular now only conquest remains. I am going to show the world that Piety, Order and Freedom are the only acceptable values. Die infidels. Sometimes I quasi-roleplay or make fictional objectives to make games more interesting.
If I am losing or winning is not actually important as long as I am interested in the game, so I only continue playing for a win when going there is still fun... The same applies in a losing game either by game objectives or actually getting destroyed. If losing is fun, I keep going.
If I lose interest in a game, I restart, probably with a Civ I have not played before, likely trying to explore new parts of the game.
It is rare for me not to disable every possible victory condition.
I am going to disable Space Victory as a standard from now on. The current model of science and economy in V favours the dominant empire, small economic/scientific powerhouses are not really viable as it was in IV. Every time I have had the chance on Science victory it has also meant I had to crush the dominant empire who was trying to get a space win before myself, effectively meaning that I am viable for Conquest victory whenever I am for Space victory.
Time condition also make little sense, and is not realistic to achieve when future era hits in the 1500s. If you against the odds play for all those turns, why would anyone want a "win" based on the notice that you have statistical advantage? To me, that is the same as quitting when you have the biggest score, completely ignoring if playing is still entertaining or not.
?
