Its Boring

[bmrigs]

Really? Just another "I hate Civ 6"-thread? I mean seriously, there's tons of them already, why not use one of those? I honestly don't read this kind of postings anymore.

You are right and there is more new posts about why it sucks than posts about other things. Let's face it, this game has lost momentum.

 

[Esperr]

I have stopped playing Civ VI after over 100 hours of games....

Oh it must have been terrible.

 

[greygamer]

You are right and there is more new posts about why it sucks than posts about other things. Let's face it, this game has lost momentum.

Eh? That's not what I see. But I don't follow the it sucks threads for very long because they are not particularly constructive, they are more of an echo chamber for the haters. Don't see the need for more threads covering the same ground. I see threads merged for covering the same ground on other subjects though.

 

[GIO888]

Its funny but I really didn't like VI when it came out, but the update (and the AngloSaxon mod!!) have pacified me.

Still think Battleships look like T-Rex heads. Just sayin'......

 

[Gorbles]

I cringe every time I see that someone is "bored" after 100 hours of play.

Not every game is meant to be played forever. Sure, you might have a lot more time in CiV, but that's a personal qualifier that nobody's going to be able to convince you otherwise on. And you probably use mods there, to be honest (most people do; I know I'm in a minority of not doing so, and as a consequence I don't really play CiV anymore).

Certainly, you got your money's worth. Check in each time the game is patched, see if the areas you dislike have been improved. Otherwise . . . go and play something else? It's not rocket science.

 

[Xur]

But when you hear the same things over and over again, there is no more constructiveness in it.
Just think of your girlfriend telling you anything that begins with "I've already told you a thousand times.."
See?
This is how we feel when we keep reading new threads like this one.

I think you got a problem then and not your girlfriend When she stops saying that, is when she is leaving. Poor analogy unless you think of Firaxis like the slob boyfriend that hangs around and only pay interest to you when you give him money? Then yea...

 

[spfun]

The devs thought the tech tree was kinda boring, so they gave us 2 boring trees.

Civ 6 is definitely the most boring civ released to date and I've put thousands of hours into each one bar the first. There's just something wrong with the replayability of this one. Civ 5 also had bad AI and diplomacy at release but I played that and Civ 2/3/4 vanilla for far more hours than I did 6. I can't bring myself to finish a game for the first time since... ever.

Some major changes need to happen soon, no way I'll buy DLC in its current state.

 

[MyOtherName]

I cringe every time I see that someone is "bored" after 100 hours of play.

They were bored during some -- maybe even most -- of that 100 hours of play, that's just the point where their boredom finally overwhelmed there sense of "I bought this game let me try to enjoy it".

Not every game is meant to be played forever.

This is true. However, as a game in the Civilization series, it is fair to expect that CiV 6 is meant to be played as long as other games in the series.

 

[Gorbles]

They were bored during some -- maybe even most -- of that 100 hours of play, that's just the point where their boredom finally overwhelmed there sense of "I bought this game let me try to enjoy it".

This is true. However, as a game in the Civilization series, it is fair to expect that CiV 6 is meant to be played as long as other games in the series.

1. Speaking for other people is bad. You have no idea what broke their immersion or lead them to give up the product.

Certainly, 100 hours is a long time to stick with something that could be classed as any definition of "boring".

2. Not at all. That's an entirely personal qualifier that has nothing to do with fairness. I've played less Civ III and Civ IV than I have Civ 1 or Alpha Centauri, and I've played more CiV and BE than all of the previous titles combined (well, maybe. I used to play a lot of SMAC).

 

[HF22]

I think perhaps its unfair to assume people are being inconsistent when they play a game for a 100 hours, yet ultimately find they were bored the whole time.

If gamification has taught us anything, its that game mechanics can drive people to do boring things for long periods. Like grind through to collect meaningless achievements.

A bad game can be a time sink, and yet still be a bad game.

 

[Disgustipated]

The game is boring for me now as well. But compared to Civ 5, it's a winner so far. Civ 5 I got bored of 8 hours into the game, and quit playing until after the first expansion came out. Civ6 I got 200 hours in before I got bored. So far, it opened better than Civ5 for me at least. And I have confidence the expansions will add more fun stuff to do and give me more hours of entertainment. I haven't played seriously since December, and I don't plan on it any time soon.

I'm actually playing Pillars of Eternity again, since the kickstarter (actually they are using Fig) campaign for Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire is going on right now and renewed my interest in the series. 3 days left btw, not that I'm promoting or anything. I'll get back to Civ6 in due time. Of course the new Mass Effect game is coming out soon...

Speaking of, there are so many games out these days, that it's difficult to spend a lot of time on one game. I'm happy with my 200 hours played. It's not like back in the days of Civ2 when that was one of the few games really worth playing (along with games like Xcom, Master of Magic). I have many games on my hard drive at present. Civ 6 is facing some stiff competition from my other games.

I did end up with a lot of hours in Civ5, but I wonder how much of that was spent just trying to play every civilization and get achievements. There were a lot of civilizations in that game, too many if you ask me. So many minor ones I didn't care about. Civ5 really didn't get good until after the 2nd expansion came out (where most of my hours came from).

 

[Karlus]

Yeh OP... I understand you. You payed for this game so you can complain how many times want.

I just returned back to civ4. Playing it now with Realism Invictus Mod. I am having lots of fun. I will never go back to civ5.

 

[Tamir Lenk]

On city center buildings, it would be nice to add the ability to construct one basic district building in the center without the relevant district, perhaps at the expense of building it later when the district is added.

So you could put a market in the city centre, but that might block development of of that district later. For example, if you put a shrine in the center for early faith, no holy site or an increased production cost for that district.

 

[Mustakrakish]

Oh it must have been terrible.

I cringe every time I see that someone is "bored" after 100 hours of play.

Yeah, and I have 99 hours in "Civilization: Beyond Earth", mostly trying to figure out:

1. What is going on
2. Where's the fun
3. Where's "Civilization" part that is present in the title
4. Going on forums to get answers for these life important questions while game is running
5. Going to take a dump while the game is running

And in all seriousness:

I cringe every time I see this being used as an argument / counter argument FOR the game. It's a damn civilization game, it IS more or less "meant to be played forever" in the manner that it's supposed to be highly, ridiculously replayable (replayability is not even giving it proper credit IMO, you're not much replaying, as you're playing a new game that can go completely differently with each "replay"). It is meant to be played at least until the next installment, whether it will be 200ish hours or 2000. It's one of the fundamental things about "Civilization". It's a mighty and important standard that "Civilization" earned over the years. The same standard that is held to other respectable titles in other genres, such as CS:GO, WOW, LOL, DOTA and whatnot to mention a few. The difference is "Civilization" manages to hold that title (of longevity and replayability) with single player alone. If that's no longer a held standard for a civilization game, then I think it's no longer a proper civilization game.

You cannot use same "hours played" standard as you would use for some story driven adventure game for example. I played first "Uncharted" game yesterday for the first time ever. I finished it in 4-5 hours and I enjoyed it very very much and will NEVER play it again. I definitely think It was worth it, worth the money, worth the time. It delivered exactly what it was supposed to.

Now take Anno:1404. A whole other kind of game. I got about 13 hours into it. If I had to break it down, I'd say that about 6 hours went into me learning the game, starting over, adjusting etc. only to realize that no, in fact this game is simply not good - it's not me, it's her. Not my wrong approach, tactics, whatever etc., but it's simply not good on so many levels (which IMPORTANT: I discovered over the hours sinked), that there's no helping it. I can't get a refund no more as it's over 6 hours now (2 hours is the limit on steam). So I try another 6ish hours, maybe just MAYBE I will learn to like it... aaand nope. A complete waste of money and time, but oh boy I must've enjoyed it, I must've got my money's worth right? RIGHT?! I mean it's twice as much hours as Uncharted...

Obviously this is an overblown hyperbole example but still you should see a point. It would have to be ridiculously, of epic proportions BAAAD for a "Civilization" game for you to realize that and stop playing after say 13 hours. Indeed it took about 3 games of Beyond Earth (torturing myself) back in the day before I came to conclusion that the game simply sucked. That is what, about 30ish hours? Then all the trials of patches and even an expansion still hoping that maybe it will somehow magically become better.

Why you'd ask? Because it's "Civilization". A franchise that we all love here, and it deserves our attention, it deserves far more than a few hours of trial before we make our judgements. So yes, I completely understand OP if he was bored during those 100 hours, even though I don't agree he should make a damn thread out of it. Masochistic? Yep, very much so, but see above.

"Civilization" is not delivering an action packed 4-5 hours worth of exiting story never to be played again, it aims to deliver hours upon hours of replayability, something you'll be hopefully playing still from time to time over the years. And it's absolutely dishonest to claim anything else or to apply same "hours sinked" standards. Everyone who likes VI, plays it. They don't shelve it after one game. Unlike say an adventure game that I played once never to be played again. Or are there such people here who loved VI and shelved it after 1-3 games saying to themselves "Oh boy, what a game, loved it, I guess I'll uninstall/sell/whatever it now"?

Now it's a different tune when people think they should get their money back after hours and hours played and whether you did or not get your money's worth have nothing to do with it. It's a product like any other with certain return policy. On steam it happens to be measured in 2 hours. I might not enjoy my headphones as much (or at all) as I hoped / expected to (discovering after a week of usage that they're simply way too tight and while I though I'll get used to it I simply can't and even started getting headaches), but if I failed to return them within 7 days, there's nothing to cry about on that front. I still can and will say I didn't get my money's worth even though I used them for over a week (tru story btw). But I don't think OP said anything like that, so...

It is a matter of opinion after all, but I saw this view quite a few times on these forums and felt I needed to throw this out there so you'd have a different perspective (sorry for the wall of text) and maybe cringe less in the future if you understand the reasoning behind it? I'll cringe less too, promise.

Yeh OP... I understand you. You payed for this game so you can complain how many times want.

I just returned back to civ4. Playing it now with Realism Invictus Mod. I am having lots of fun. I will never go back to civ5.

I prefer K-Mod, now there's some truly functioning AI. Just rediscovered IV two weeks back or so. Still shocked at how good it is and can't believe I endured V all those years. Never going back to V also, but I do want to see where VI lands over time (duh, I'm here aren't I) and hope it will become somewhat playable for me over time.

I think the OP has some valid points & gives reasons for them.

I got lots of points and reasons why VI is bad, boring and outright unplayable for me ATM and I too can explain them in detail. I just don't see a reason for everyone with an opinion on the matter to open a whole new thread.

All of those points (and ones I have) have been discussed to death already. I'd hope there was a dedicated thread (or a whole section) where all issues and gripes are discussed. If there's not, then we should create one I think. I'm all for criticizing the game and all, I just think it should be more organized, instead of random "I have opinion" - threads popping up every once in a while that just make those who enjoy the game (and fan.. I mean uhm, those who REALLY enjoy) annoyed / mad.

 

[Gorbles]

Civilisation isn't "meant" to be played for any length of time.

It's a personal qualifier. Your own qualifier for what it's worth and how much value you got out of your purchase. By dint of the inherent game design it's going to last longer than a single playthrough of a console shooter, yes. But I've played Borderlands 2 for more time than any Civilisation title. Because that's the worth I got out of it.

You somehow completely missed the rest of my post(s). Maybe why you didn't quote it all, I don't know. This will be the last time I repeat myself.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Civilisation isn't "meant" to be played for any length of time.

It's a personal qualifier. Your own qualifier for what it's worth and how much value you got out of your purchase. By dint of the inherent game design it's going to last longer than a single playthrough of a console shooter, yes. But I've played Borderlands 2 for more time than any Civilisation title. Because that's the worth I got out of it.

You somehow completely missed the rest of my post(s). Maybe why you didn't quote it all, I don't know. This will be the last time I repeat myself.

I get what you are trying to say. You're pointing out he's wrong to say it's boring because it's too general, and it's like he's speaking on behalf of everyone when it's just his opinion. Any length of time spent against expectation of time spent is a personal qualifier that is irrelevant in the absolute judgement of something.

But this is an online forum and it goes without saying that everything is an opinion. It's not necessary for an OP to say 'I think it is boring' instead of 'it is boring' because it's subtextual in the fact that he is posting from an individual private account.

What you've ended up doing is derailing the thread with pedantics because of a pet peeve. Just let the dude rant, you're not adding anything to this thread with that line of discussion.

Personally, i've logged about 100 hours myself. I find it boring too because i can't qualitativey see how i'm progressing in the game. In CiV and previously there was a realy feeling of building towards something. You got messages telling you you were advancing eras, there was a real sense of progress and development for me. This game feels like a lot of effort, and real long slog without any real tangible progress, certainly to the mid game, where i've never made it beyond. I've never felt civ is very dip-in dip-out, but civ VI to me feels even harder in this respect, in that i dont get as far in a single session, then when i come back to it, i still would rather start again and play the early game over than try and pick up from where i left off.

There are fun bits within the game, but getting to the end isn't one of them for me.

 

[Gorbles]

I wasn't derailing anything, my first post was an argument against using pure hours played as a measure of a game's quality. People then replied to me, and the point was moved slightly.

I'm entitled to my opinion, so maybe let me have mine, instead of derailing the thread to tell me I'm derailing the thread and dismissing my right to hold an opinion. Ta.

 

[Mustakrakish]

"Last time I repeat myself?" K. If you wish so. No one is derailing anything, you told your view and I pointed out why I disagree with it, explaining quite thoroughly why, so maybe you'd cringe less in the future. I even said it's a matter of opinion in the end. I told you a different perspective, or are you the only one entitled to your opinion?

But maybe I did miss / misunderstood / unjustifiably quoted something in your post, if so, I apologize. I saw people making this, what is basically "oh you have so many hours sinked so stop complaining" - thingy in other threads with similar context as if hours sinked IS the measure of worth. Yet you yourself don't believe that, right? So why do you cringe then when people say something along the lines of played 100 hours and it's boring / did not enjoy? If it's not the measure of worth, then why do you feel OP is wrong in feeling that? Why do you cringe when someone is bored after 100 hours? That's completely contradictory. Or am I missing something completely?

 

[lietkynes]

I cringe every time I see that someone is "bored" after 100 hours of play.

For a game like Civ 100 hours is just scratching the surface

 

[Gorbles]

"Last time I repeat myself?" K. If you wish so. No one is derailing anything, you told your view and I pointed out why I disagree with it, explaining quite thoroughly why, so maybe you'd cringe less in the future. I even said it's a matter of opinion in the end. I told you a different perspective, or are you the only one entitled to your opinion?

But maybe I did miss / misunderstood / unjustifiably quoted something in your post, if so, I apologize. I saw people making this, what is basically "oh you have so many hours sinked so stop complaining" - thingy in other threads with similar context as if hours sinked IS the measure of worth. Yet you yourself don't believe that, right? So why do you cringe then when people say something along the lines of played 100 hours and it's boring / did not enjoy? If it's not the measure of worth, then why do you feel OP is wrong in feeling that? Why do you cringe when someone is bored after 100 hours? That's completely contradictory. Or am I missing something completely?

Well, I was told I was derailing, but that wasn't you. Don't worry, I wasn't talking about you there, either.

And this is new ground, so I'm happy to get into it. I don't cringe if someone is bored after 100 hours. I was bored after a lot less, for a lot of games. The boredom itself is something I can't fault. The issue is how it's used. If you got bored after "only" 100 hours of play, that's different from getting bored (naturally, as everyone does with any game) after a certain timespan. The way it was used, it put the blame on the game as supposed to the natural boredom that happens over time. Certainly, from a "get your money's worth" perspective, 100 hours is a lot for any game. Even at premium AAA collector's edition prices.

Nor did I say people should therefore stop complaining. There are many complaints to be made, valid complaints, that don't involve using the fact that someone played for one hundred hours as a negative statement. All that does is reduce the discussion to inferences based on playtime alone. It's not the negative statement people try to frame it as, because value on time spent is wholly subjective. It isn't the AI not being able to siege a city. It isn't the lack of modding tools. It isn't because <faction> isn't in the game, or <isn't how you wanted it to be>. It's a number.

To base your post around this qualifier makes a weak post. It's cringey, because critics could (and should) do a lot better. People expect developers to perform to a specific standard, I do and also expect critique to live up to a similar standard. Hard to fairly criticise the developers if the required effort isn't put into critique in the first place. I'm a software developer, I do a lot of frontend work. If someone didn't tell me what actually was wrong, and said "I used the program for five minutes and put it down", that's useless to me. I could spend hours performing triage and making (admittedly-useful) fixes to parts of the program that that user had no care for. Wasted effort.