1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

I think I'm giving up the game...

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Helmling, Nov 7, 2010.

  1. Helmling

    Helmling Philosopher King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,680
    I don't mean this to be another CiV bashing thread. I've logged almost 300 hours already and the simple fact that I'm up at 1:30 AM is evidence that I've gotten pretty well hooked on this game...

    But, I just can't seem to get into a session anymore. I've played through at Emperor and beaten it via diplomacy (big whoop), space and culture. My last game was...well, kind of perfect for me. I had a hilly peninsula with marble and tons of gold--perfect for a wonder-whore like me. I was drawn out by some early wars and ended up with some puppet-interests on the main continent too, but I was able to pump out wonders in my core cities relatively undisturbed.

    It was a beaut.

    Now, everything else feels somewhat less engrossing. I guess over the last several years, I've spiralled down into playing CIV in one particular way--a way that IV wouldn't really let me prosper with. V, though, let's you keep up with the AI on the upper difficulty levels with small empires.

    I was trying tonight to go even further. I played and replayed this one peach of a start. Three marbles on an isolated island. I wanted to try to nab almost all of the early game wonders. (Truth be told, I was trying to make my son happy. I name my capital after my wife and then the subsequent cities after the kids. He wanted the pyramids in his city, but I couldn't get them built fast enough...sigh.) Just couldn't make it any better than the game I'd finished. The only challenge left was the impossible.

    So, I just can't seem to find any reason to play. I feel like I'm in withdrawal. I want to...I really want to, but I've got to face reality. For several years I was chasing some holy grail in IV, a particular play experience that I could never quite get. V has a lot of flaws, but for a builder like me, some of the changes were really welcome.

    I wonder if that might be the source of the complaints about this game. I think a lot of Civ players have become simple number crunchers. I hear a lot of people saying "all you have to do is this and that" to win. But when I hear these strategies--spamming citys and trading posts--my thought is "why would you want to do that, though?" For me, it was always the experiential aspect that drew me to the game and conquering my foes with mathematics never satisfied me. Maybe that's who the CiV team thought they were writing for, experientialists, and they didn't pay enough attention to balancing the mechanics for the hard core gamers who would go in, do the math, and come away with simple formulas to solve the game.

    The only thing I really feel tempted to do with CiV now is to create my own mod, try to get away from numbers and create some real character differences between the different approaches to the game. That, though, would require time and expertise that I just don't have now...and probably never will.
     
  2. Mystere

    Mystere Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Messages:
    78
    Aww man first of all you sounds like my type of gamer. I am no number cruncher and need to win type either. What I do not completely get however, and forgive me if I sound harsh, is your point?

    Let me eleborate here, you state you had a blast in a certain game and clocked 300 hours. Which is no small thing I must say. Now you cannot really get into the game anymore? Is it because the good game was so much fun the other games don't feel as rewarding anymore? Is it simply because you need a break from the game having thrown all those hours at it allready? I can only speak for myself but every time I play civ (any civ, not just civ5) I always reach a point where I had a enough for the day. Close the game and the next day if I have time again I boot it up and play on. Or is it because you think civ5 is not for you because you are not a number cruncher?

    If I understand you correctly you say that the game has possibly been made for the experientialists and that migth be the reason the number crunchers do not like it too much but you also said you considder yourself the type they made the game for. I am a little confused why you would feel the need to give up on the game after reading that.

    I clocked around 340 hours and I do take more breaks now. Take it a little slower and try something I didn't try yet. Instead of building the wonders, try to build a load of warriors as Germany and make a huge army. Build less cities the next time and see if you can manage with only 2 or 3. Try spamming cities and see if you can stay happy. Try to play peaceful, go warmongering, try to build a couple of giant death robots and gifting them all to a CS and make them declare war on their AI neighbor. Keeping the game fun is all about your own creativity and flexibility. In the end if you don't want to boot up the game then don't. Play something else and come back when you have a new idea or renewed energy for a game. After 300 hours you don't HAVE to play 300 more the next month. The game isn't going away, no hurry man :)
     
  3. Jharii

    Jharii King

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    696
    Location:
    Walled Lake, MI
    The Civilization series, for me, has always possessed this "circular" playability quality about it. You go, go, go, then burn out. Later down the road, you play it again, go, go, go, then burn out. Civilization has always ready to go on my system for the better part of the last decade, though. Civ5 appears to have this quality as well, although I have yet to truly burn out from i yet. I'm probably on the second "go." :)

    I am a very erratic gamer as it is. I tend to buy a new game every 2 weeks or so, so for me, this is a testament to the Civilization series that I consistently come back to play it.

    I am currently trying to play it less so I don't burn out before the AI patch, which is my biggest (only?) issue with the game.
     
  4. Naokaukodem

    Naokaukodem Millenary King

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,245
    So, why do you want to stop playing?

    You are talking about others here, not you.

    +1. I'm the same than you here. I play Civ for the experience. I don't care the exploits, the maths as you say, i just play for the feeling and the "whoa" effect, like "whoa, my capital now is so huge, i would never have imagined that at the start".

    I play for the former feeling we have to rule a civilization among others. This happened in Civ2, where I realized I was surrounded by other civs. In Civ2, frontiers were not visible, they just set by who take the border cities tiles first. Never ever in that game it was suggested that i had to rule a true civilization (except the tile of the game maybe, but i took it as an hyperbole at the moment), but that hit me when i saw frontiers with other entities formed by several "cities". They were named "England", "Egypt" and the like. I have been blowed by this feeling.

    What i love in Civ2 too was the fact that our cities grew infinitely. Never ever it was suggested that my cities would grow so high. When seeing those cities of mine with crop everywhere, 20+ population, overwhelming production, science and gold, I just thought "whoa".

    IMO, Civ3, Civ4 and Civ5 should have focalize on those kinds of aspects. Surprise, overwhelming and civilizations. That's what made me a fan of Civ in the first place.

    Yes I'm a fan. I bought Civ3, but it didn't give me the half of what Civ2 gave me. I loved, though, the Conquest expansion, because it was so well made and the possible games was numerous and original. (mind you Firaxis, Conquest was special and was not just "another expansion"! you should study it or ask those developers to work for you again!) Then, I bought Civ4, which didn't give me the half of what Civ3 gave me. There was the multiplayer, but when played by experienced players this is not anything other than a slump. What i liked the most was playing against newbies. Then Civ5. Civ5 didn't give me the half of what Civ4 gave to me. The reason? The insane multiplayer. On solo, I forgave. I played some solo games, but really... nothing to report. Firaxis is definitely not on the same tracks than me. I disable barbs, disable city states (so annoying and useless), there is only one unit per tile which is not very strategic (the more units you have, the better, the map ends to be filled up with units that can hardly move strategically, yet move alone!), and the progression of the game is so slow! (workers improve minimally, units and buildings are long to build...).

    Firaxis, please, for Civ6, MAKE US DREAM!!!

    Nowadays you are content with market niche: the fans (who will buy your products like me, eventhough they were disappointed with your last products -hoping for a renew), and the new commers. Civ 1 and 2 were blowing, you acquired a huge fanbase through them. Now you make games fore fans. On the other hand, you do not spit on new comers. They assure the growth of your market aim and increase revenues.

    You are content with them. And you are right to be so, economically: those two publics are the most rewarding, economically speaking.

    But come on, Firaxis, are you really happy with this? Fanatics and noobs?

    You run better than that!

    Please bring us the past glory of Civ, I know you can! You just need to listen a lot less to fanatics (who cares exploits? Exploits are fun BTW even if i use them the less I can, only if they are too obviously on my path, i never look for them)...

    ---------------------------------

    Helmling... I still don't know why you want to stop to play at Civ5.
     
  5. Bandit17

    Bandit17 Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    Messages:
    184
    Some of the tricks I use:

    -Keep shorter play times and maybe even cut out a playing session or two.
    -Try different play styles with different civs. Songhai for example can be strong at domination or culture win.
    -Play around with different social policies. Try to figure out which ones suite each civ the best. (Im currently experimenting with two tiers of Tradition for an early boost to capital growth and the 33% wonder increase. I than go into finishing Peity followed by the left side of Patronage. It's a great early game combo that works well with most civs. I'll probably mess around with the Aztecs and an Honor/Autocracy combo of some sort next.
    -Play random civ for a change-up.

    Now if your a pure builder and disdain domination victories than of course your options are more limited. Have you tried the Iroquois yet? They are one of my favs for my building moods and a space ship completion. Make sure you take advantage of the bias start and get all that forest goodness. There are also mods you can try or try the scenarios which I'm told are good.

    If none of these ideas jump out at ya than take a break and come back when the next patch comes out. Good luck.
     
  6. Jharii

    Jharii King

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    696
    Location:
    Walled Lake, MI
    The Iroquois are my favorite Civ in the game for pretty much this reason. They completely change the gaming experience for me. Their special ability definitely captures their essence.
     
  7. Jediron

    Jediron Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Messages:
    396
    Played CIV 3 yesterday again and then you really feel the difference;
    cities spawning every ten turns or so, even faster when you build setlers on more locations; you grab land fast. Settlers pop out every 4 a 8 turns mostly, try that in CIV 5; its impossible unless you set the game speed "very fast" i gues. On a huge map, which i like to play, you ARE gonna settle 100% op the map, if you wish (or the AI). Try that in CIV 5....
    Units, pop out every 4 till 10 turns roughly, you soon have a decent number of troops to work with, try that in CIV 5.....

    Anyway, the pace feels so much faster, you just have much more to do an more importantly, decide when to do it...you have the pace, but it makes the difference between a good ruler and a worser ruler; when to strike or when to wait.

    It also feels better, when cities (or should i say villages, because it are more tiny settlements then cities, which are just founded) are defenceless from scratch. Aldo it's nice to have auto-bombard for your cities, it feels to me like a exploit. Atleast you should build "great wall" or something before a city can defend itself. That's my idea of it.

    City states, great idea but they come instantly, you can trade straight away, they give (overpowered) bonusses from day 1. It just is a shame, how "streamlined" they operate.
    It is also overpowered i think, as their vote is worth as much as a civ. Silly, really.

    Archers, who fire just as far as canon's and catapults. Absurd!

    1upt sounds great, but the drwaback is their, for you and the AI. It never has been easier to destroy the enemies weaker units. There is so much wrong with this game, i yet have not find any joy out of it; whatever setup i try.
     
  8. Mystere

    Mystere Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2005
    Messages:
    78
    And yet you still feel the need to post in the forum of the game you cannot find any joy in. I really suck at names but I have seen YOU post so many negative posts allready your name kinda stuck. I really do wonder why you keep coming back dude :rolleyes:

    In other words, it cannot be all bad right?
     
  9. grallon

    grallon Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    106

    I know the feeling... even though you seem to be looking for something different than me it's the same 'let down' feeling. The problem with this franchise is that it hasn't evolved. What was new 20 years ago is now stale.

    I mean the theory behind the game hasn't evolved - even if the mechanics are now vastly improved. At its core Civ is a tactical wargame - *not* the simulator of the development of civilizations the title might suggest. That is what I'm personally looking for. There are limitations present in V that irked me in all the other versions - so you can imagine how aggravating they've become after 20 years.

    - the premise is flawed - a civilization to stand the test of time. No civilization last - they all die. Their worth isn't judged by their lifespan but rather by what they accomplished, the level of civilization they reached.

    - time is limited, constricted, rigged! We're still forced to play with the absurd BC/AD scheme and to my knowledge we're still capped at 6050 years of play;

    - all the Civs are essentially the same and interchangeable. There's no distinction between them other than one special unit or building and the color scheme - in other words: fluff!

    - all Civs have to go down the same path or researching tech A to get B to get C - down to the end game. They (and we) are all herded in the same direction, no matter what. It's linear and boring!

    - because Civs are as described above we get no feeling of what it's like to be Egypt in the Middle Kingdom era for instance. Or Rome at the peak of its power. Look at Paradox' "Europa Universalis" series for an example of what I mean here;

    - modding has become so complicated that only professionals can do it with meaningful effects. Hell I've been trying to mod the simplistic tech tree to flesh it out as I did with Civ III but I'm completely lost - and the Paxton guide isn't helpful. Besides I have zero interest in spending my time climbing the learning curve of XML database inter-relationships or LUA subtleties. I want to play the game, not work a second job! And in any case, even the professionals will run into hard-coded road blocks such as the absurd time scheme.

    I guess I'm frustrated because Civ could be so much more than what it is now. The game has no depth. It's like ... getting a cheap burger when you want a steak. The burger might be tasty for what it is but its not a steak!




    G.
     
  10. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,877
    China would like to have a word with you.

    Probably would've been better to turn that off completly but meh.

    And unique ability which dictates how that civilization is meant to be play....

    Then don't play. It's been the same way for the past five games and dozen expansions.

    There's a difference. EU is supposed to do that. In this game, unless you're playing a Rome scenario, you shouldn't know how it feels to be Rome. You're wanting too much out of a game that wasn't aimed to show you that. You complained about a linear tech tree but want a linear sort of progression from history.

    The time scheme really isn't as big as a deal as you're making it out to be. And modding could've been a lot harder. The fact is is that the game is more complicated, therefore modding is more complicated and usually look better when they come out (case in point, Fall from Heaven)

    Civilization never advertised itself as a steak. It advertises itself as a burger. Paradox Games advertise themselves as steaks and most people don't want to eat steak all the time.

    :lol:




    G.[/QUOTE]
     
  11. grallon

    grallon Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Messages:
    106
    Stirrups were invented by nomads in the steppes of Central Asia - because they had to cover huge distance on horses - not by farmers tied to their hoes in the Nile valley. That's what I want to see - an interaction between the player and the environment that produces something unique. There's nothing linear about it. It's called coherency.

    Kael is a professional - like I said. For those like me who aren't it's a chore. Besides modding could be made user friendly with a full fledged editor which could also be another source of income for the publisher. I'd pay for that. Wanna change the prereqs of a tech - click here - pull down this menu. Instead we have to get 'under the hood' so to speak.




    G.
     
  12. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,877
    THAT actually makes sense. In the Suggestions area is an idea akin to what you're thinking. Basically, to learn the secrets of sailing....you have to actually have a coastal city. Horse Riding requires a source of horses, etc.

    That would be a pretty cool mod, wouldn't it? :)

    There's already a modtool which does that....for free. The reason why they don't release pay-for mod tools is because given their track record, it would be released buggy. Modding isn't suppose to be so user friendly that anyone can do it. It takes some reading and research to get into. To be fair, modding is marginally easier in CiV thanks to Modbuddy (which is reallllly nice).

    Isn't just Kael. There are people learning XML and Lua to start modding and changing anything simple in this game like build costs is as simple as tweaking a value or two of XML.




    G.[/QUOTE]
     
  13. SewerStarFish

    SewerStarFish King

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    810
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Reading, Pa., USA
    I think when compared to the number of hours that I enjoyed on each of Civ II, Civ III and Civ IV before I first set he game aside it (and I expect by the posts of others) this is "the" problem. Everyone has their own gripes about each iteration of Civ but for my part, my 70+ hours of gaming before deciding "that's enough" is the biggest disappointment. I absolutely do not fault anyone for enjoying Civ V; but for me it's missed the mark.

    What worries me, is how many seemingly more other forum members, the core civvers, have agreed with with me. If too few people enjoy this game enough to try out the next iteration then this could be the end of new Civ games for many years.

    I admit, every new civ has dozens of threads about people being unhappy because that's part of the reason for a forum. Maybe I am projecting my perspective by over emphasizing the negatives I read. But I am not over emphasizing that I expected to enjoy far more hours of Civ V than I did.
     
  14. DaveGold

    DaveGold Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2009
    Messages:
    1,058
    I agree. I finding other things to do than play my perfectly reasonable CIV5 game as I'll just have to give up on the failed diplomacy system, raze and rebuild the cities I've captured, try to make rational decisions based on the irrational economic system, wait endless turns for policies, and then inevitably beat the AI as it throws all it's troops away. I know that when I load up I'll be able to conquer as much or little of Persia as I like but taking a little seems bad, taking a lot will be bad, the other AI nations will hate for taking any of it, and it's all just so wearying.

    The real let down is that I'm trying to make very tight, rational decisions based on irrational AI coding, poor game balance, and bugs. In the CIV series a player is trying to make a great many small decisions that snowball to provide great benefits. In CIV5 those small decisions just become uninformed, obvious, predictable, or meaningless.
     
  15. Jharii

    Jharii King

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2007
    Messages:
    696
    Location:
    Walled Lake, MI
    There are plenty of "core civvers" that enjoy the game as well. The vocal majority does not necessarily equate to the way things really are. I would suggest waiting until this AI/Diplomacy patch hits before making any judgements on the demise of Civilization.
     
  16. lietkynes

    lietkynes Hello sword !

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    883
    Location:
    Rome
    I don't know why people, instead of just saying their opinion, feel the need to decide what the majority thinks. There are people who like the game and people who don't, can both sides live with this ?
     
  17. Helmling

    Helmling Philosopher King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,680
    No, man. I'm telling you--I'm ridiculously picky. I only play as the Greeks. That's how particular my play style is. It's stupid, but that's me.
     
  18. Helmling

    Helmling Philosopher King

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Messages:
    1,680
    Quite the contrary, my friend. I don't feel let down...I feel as though my Civ 5 experience was complete after that last game. There's nothing left to strive for.
     
  19. SewerStarFish

    SewerStarFish King

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2002
    Messages:
    810
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Reading, Pa., USA
    um...I did say seemingly and:

    If I am projecting my perspective, then the negative threads and posts are the normal complaints that have come out of every Civ game. It's just the first time that I'm on the far negative side and I'm worried that the "buzz" about this game may hurt it's hard core future.
     
  20. Toady

    Toady Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 11, 2006
    Messages:
    73
    Really?

    How are the Germans or Ottomans meant to be played then?
     

Share This Page