Keep losing interest in my games

[skallben]

I like VI in early to midgame but I keep getting bored later on. I have been contemplating this for a while because I cannot understand what makes the difference between Civ V and VI for me. Partly I think I feel like there's a loss of challenge and I don't enjoy games I know I will win. I am playing for challenge and am definitely not a completionist. Civ V games seemed to keep my interest longer, but I cannot figure out why. Does anyone have any similar experiences or thoughts on this?

Additional facts: Play Immortal difficulty. Running a tech mod that slows teching and civics just slightly. Usually starts getting bored a bit after turn 200.

 

[WorldWarIV]

I was very excited about Civ VI but I never finished my last Rome game and I barely played 40 hours. The new mechanics are fun but the game itself is just not... dynamic? Too easy and too repetitive.

 

[Zuizgond]

Same here. I never finish my games when I already know I'm going to win. Playing against a braindead no-challenging AI is not engaging. And giving huge bonus to AI to compensate for its lack of strategy is a very lazy design.

 

[Balkans]

This is good thread to share my thoughts. I have about 200 hours played, i don't think it's all game play, sometimes i load the game and leave it on half a day not playing... but i played it a lot and i sometimes love it and sometimes i feel something similar what the thread title says.
What keeps my interest and happiness while playing is the fact that some stuff just feel right, the concepts and ideas really came out almost perfect, the feel is right and i give props to developers and really enjoy the game...and the other stuff, hmm...i feel losing interest happening and slowly drifting away from playing this game.

After all the hours played i am almost on verge of giving the diagnosis of what the problem is - and i think it's the fact that civ vi is 90% builder game and 10% strategy game. Playing asks to play perfectly not try different strategies. For me that means if i'm not in the mood to min max stuff, finish mini quests, optimize everything it feels flat - but if i'm playing it that way i feel i'm playing the civ 6 for what it is.
I also play on highest difficulties but sometimes that doesn't help, i don't feel threatened by the AI, but at least it pushes you to play optimally and that is somewhat engaging until you snowball and then the losing interest happens..
But i'm still hopeful - i feel that polishing, dlcs, expansions, redesigning some stuff will fix the game and that should kill this nasty feeling of constantly losing interest in even finishing the games we start.

 

[WorldWarIV]

After all the hours played i am almost on verge of giving the diagnosis of what the problem is - and i think it's the fact that civ vi is 90% builder game and 10% strategy game.

Good point.

 

[smartcanuck1988]

I have been completing my first few games simply because I wanted to finish each victory type. But I also do see myself getting bored by the end of it and in future games I don't see a reason to continue.

To me the biggest issue is a lack of major differentiation between stages of the game, and equally importantly between civilizations.

During the one game, I really don't feel a big change in gameplay from the early expand and exploit days to the late info era game. Sure you unlock more units of different kinds, but you end up doing essentially the same in all aspects of the game: gather more, spend more. Once you've built your engine of resource gathering, you essentially snowball yourself into victory. You never really feel like you hit a wall because the world has changed and you need to play a different game now. Diplomacy is the major issue for me in this regard; there isn't really any major difference between what you can do in 2000 BCE vs 2000 AD. That's not right, and not fun.

Different civilizations also don't feel that different to me. Yes some abilities are truly unique, but after you played a couple of civs you will feel like you've played this game before with the other ~16 civs. You notice what resource this civ is helping you with, so you build an engine that takes that into account and proceed as usual. Not even the map start bias is that biased. I know some will say that all of this is a good thing because it means multiplayer games are balanced, but to me it takes away from the enjoyment of trying out different civilizations and have different experiences between games. Also, asymmetrical play is not the same as unbalanced. The replayability value here is low right now.

I'm looking forward to see what the devs are up to for future expansions/DLCs. But until the late game gets more substantial game-altering options and not just more of the same, then I'm afraid we'll continue to have this bored feeling.

 

[Stringer1313]

To me the biggest issue is a lack of major differentiation between stages of the game . . .

You never really feel like you hit a wall because the world has changed and you need to play a different game now. . . . until the late game gets more substantial game-altering options and not just more of the same, then I'm afraid we'll continue to have this bored feeling.

This x100000000000. There are no mid- or late-game game changers that mix things up. I think Jon Shafer tries to address this with his new game At the Gates.

However, I vaguely recall (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that both Civ IV and Civ V vanilla had this problem. Civ IV introduced corporations and Civ V introduced late-game ideologies which caused major realignments (I really liked that idea) and United Nations. So this is something that I think happens in every Civ iteration and hopefully they will fix it as they've done in the past.

OR -- they can just force the AI to actually declare war on you after the ancient era and wage a competent war. That can be game changing. As it is now, I have barely an army b/c I know they will never declare war on me or take a city.

 

[ZubieMaster]

Does anyone have any similar experiences or thoughts on this?

I agree with you, but we already knew the franchise had become more a builder game when Civ V took it in that direction. So I think you're a bit late to the party as the ones that hated this direction left long ago during Civ 5. The remaining player base here is happy with the style of the game since it completely fits their builder style or role playing ways of having fun. The minority that still wish it was more of a "strategy" game have already long-accepted the way it is, but stick around because they are still able to have fun playing Civ despite it (or get by with mods) ... so no point in complaining.

 

[Stringer1313]

I agree with you, but we already knew the franchise had become more a builder game when Civ V took it in that direction. So I think you're a bit late to the party as the ones that hated this direction left long ago during Civ 5. The remaining player base here is happy with the style of the game since it completely fits their builder style or role playing ways of having fun. The minority that still wish it was more of a "strategy" game have already long-accepted the way it is, but stick around because they are still able to have fun playing Civ despite it (or get by with mods) ... so no point in complaining.

Can you elaborate on the difference between the "strategy" style some people preferred over the "builder" style? In my view, building is a key part of strategy b/c you're making long term decisions about what districts to build , etc..?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You are constantly being forced to do inputs without making meaningful decisions. Most of what you're doing is automatic.

So you're playing a strategy game where a substantial proportion of your activity requires no strategy, and the game isn't testing your ability in any other way.

Is boredom in such a scenario surprising? And yet the way the game scales you're usually still far from victory.

 

[Victoria]

The first 10-20 turns things move slowly but you churn through the turns
The next 100 odd turns you build on your base at a slower rate but get your key strategies in place.
The rest of the game you just ramp up your strategy to victory with more manual work per turn and little real intervention from the AI.

I think I would have to go back and try Civ V again to check but in Civ 5 the micromanagement of wide cities is not there to bog you down and you were able to be a bit more flexible with your strategy, even delaying your choice somewhat.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, by dumpstering expansion as a viable means to get stronger in civ 5 they partially covered up glaring control issues, but not completely.

At some point they really will need to make player interactions with game more efficient. It's a much lower hanging fruit than making an amazing AI....

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

Other than the first dozen or so techs to research I have found careful selection & planning doesn't really matter much. You wind up popping SO many surges in EVERYTHING...all the time/almost every other turn... there is little need to ever really worry about the tech tree anymore. I don't even bother to see what the hell I did to get what I got. Same goes for the Civics side. I just select the one with the first forms of government to get more cards and let it ride.

As for the gameplay. If I am going to enjoy any sort of depth in this game right now I am resigned myself to either turning off the conquest victory or simply pledging not to pursue it past perhaps taking only one of the nearest capitals. It is incredibly easy to win a conquest EARLY in this game that it is beyond belief. I have not had a single game last past the Renaissance and that was my first one (as Rome on Prince). The AI mechanics with regards to fighting sucks big time. I keep waiting for the warmongering civs to actually warmonger and fight. It is pretty broken. Perhaps something as simple as giving the AI civs WALLS to start might help...I don't know.

I am also very disappointed in the maps or lack thereof. Pangea with high sea levels and new earth (more mountains) don't produce the wonderful bay filled maps you would normally get from the same settings in CivV. No highlands, crappy island and continents maps also provide nothing but disappointment.

I DO like the expanded city concepts...but come on with the bonus' and the adjacency needs. Must I REALLY have to triangulate them all to max them out...then fit them into mountains-possible wonders-mines-rivers-woods-jungle.... Fun...at first ...then just an exercise in frustration and restarts when you miss something which is easy to do when the map images themselves are inconceivably difficult to see/read.

Lastly- I get it. Barbarians. Clear one camp - they pop up next turn around a former location. Where? Search-search-search-search- THIS gets old REAL quick. Also how about a simple ability to assign an escort to all those trade routes?

I'd like to comment on Spys and such...but have never gotten that far in a game. Turning off conquest for now and seeing what can be had with the game.

 

[dexters]

VI has the same problem with many civ games. First 150 to 200 turns are great. last half of the game is just barelling towards a win or loaa though I did have one game where I pulled victory from the jaws of defeat by deploying spies to stop the AIs launchg. to do that usually require I at least have satellites up. When AI tech leaders hit 68 techs to your 40 or 45 and your struggling to find their launchpad it's usually a loss ( I play continents which require more exploration work)

The good news is were talking about this in vanilla form so lots of things they could add later on.

That said, the civ format (working towards a VC) will inevitably mean the early game is most fun. Once you are in the later half of the game it's more about locking down a VC or stopping someone from winning.

 

[qadams]

I'm glad to hear that others feel this way too. In fact, I was about to write my own post on the subject when I saw this one.

Although there are a lot of things I really like about Civ VI, it just doesn't feel as much fun to me, and I find myself getting bored much sooner than I used to in Civ V. The first X number of turns — when I'm fighting off barbs, meeting civs and city-states, planning out my additional city locations — all that is very enjoyable. Even the choices about where to put which district, and in which order to build them, that's a nice challenge. After that, however, well before I reach even the midpoint of the game, it seems like all the fun stuff is over.

 

[WileyWilson]

OP. I'm in the same boat. Only completed 1 game just to see a victory screen. All the other games I've played (220 hours here), once I know "I've won", I've quit. Why? No challenge from Ai and just a matter of pressing "End turn".

 

[bmrigs]

I am finally going through all of the ages with my current game as Russia. Before that I would lose interest by the middle of the Industrial Era.

 

[Stringer1313]

I am finally going through all of the ages with my current game as Russia. Before that I would lose interest by the middle of the Industrial Era.

Why? What's different about this game?

I'm trying to collect each of the "start game at ___ era" achievements so that's artificially keeping me going

 

[bmrigs]

First game as Russia. I like the extra territory. It kept the other Civs from getting a chance to put a city next to me. From there it just blossomed into a well developed eight city empire. I just took China's capital in the modern era. I'm usually not a warmonger but just had to try out the bomber for the first time. Wow. Those units are really powerful in this game.

 

[Lucius_]

Same here. I'm struggling with finishing every game now, and the interest drops off at about the same place, 200 turns at standard speed. I play Emperor, so turning up difficulty may be an option for me, not sure yet. My issues come down to the AI not being challenging enough, not aggressive enough after the early game, and not even remotely effective when they are aggressive. The late game involves lots of clicking and I find I don't really care about it anymore by that point, because I don't feel it matters too much. I think this is mostly to do with manual builders, having to manually improve every tile even beyond a point where it doesn't matter and trade routes. Both of these are probably because of my large (20+) empires. Managing 25-30 trade routes is pretty much, ugh I don't care. The nice thing about CiV was puppet cities. The majority of cities I conquered and kept were made puppets, no management necessary. For their tiles, TP everything, again no thought involved at all towards a city I didn't care the least about.