Not a Beginner, bored with the game...

[Rince]

I really get the feeling playing it that Civ IV was "dumbed down" to perhaps reach for a wider audiance.

Can you give an example of a feature which was "dumbed down" in your opinion?

Greetings,

Rince

 

[ThERat]

i can understand your feelings, i have the same issue...

last weekend, had a whole sunday to play...then sit in front of the computer and start reading civfanatics instead...why? maybe it's cause the games follow the same pattern too closely, a pattern I do not enjoy. the initial part about exploring and building is nice. later you develop cites, get anrgy and friendly neighbors. but that doesn't matter all that much, a little bit of tech trading to get to space ship...well, that's just not it for me.
so, i try the warmonger approach, and when cities are so limited, unit production so slow, that tech pace is an issue, it's no fun. just played a warmonger SG game, after a while WW is too high, forced to stop the war, anyway, war consisted of producing maybe 5 untis in 10 turns, because all the other cities are busy to keep up infrastructure to battle unhappiness or unhealthiness...

so, i stop and go back and read here. also, a lot has to do with the graphics that make the game pleasing to the eye but gameplay is just outright horrible especially in the cluttered late game.

 

[Pratputajao]

i can understand your feelings, i have the same issue...

last weekend, had a whole sunday to play...then sit in front of the computer and start reading civfanatics instead...why?

Ive had that feeling. Sit down with the intent to play but go here or over to apolyton's and spent more time reading about the game than playing the damn thing... hehe.. I thought I was the only one...

Hopefully the mods are going to help.

 

[CautiousChaos]

I would agree with the OP. There _is_ something that isn't quite captivating.

I never really got into Civ2, though I recognized it as a good game. Civ3 was where I really got going. I skipped Play the World and then dove into Conquests. So, in a way, I grew up with series in Civ3.

Here's what I think is erroding my fun with Civ4.

- In essence, it's not really that different from Civ3.

- Graphics: The graphics are the biggest change, but I find them to be very confusing and cluttered. They look great on a fresh map, but then once you start getting all those cottages, maps look terrible.

- Performance: The performance is frankly terrible. And I think this ruins much of it for me. It just takes so long for actions to register, for the map to scroll, etc. Especially late game. So, even if I have interest to get to the end of the game, the performance is so bad that I would rather just start a new game so that I can take a turn every once in a while.

- Music. I think this is the biggest culprit. Sure, it's of a higher quality, but, it lacks any memorable tunes (aside from menu) that get stuck in your head. Civ3 had lot's of them. I think that the addition of "real" classical music and such is interesting, but in the end it doesn't add any "personality" to CIV.

- Combat. It's OK. I don't like some of the changes around air power and artillery. I can live with it though.

- Finally, the details. There are so many refinements that were jettisoned, like a mature 'pedia, handy links, advisors, era-specific clothing...

They seemed to have spent a lot of time on the graphics. I like how CIV has "come alive", but sadly it's at the cost of geriatric mid- and end-game when I need to tie in the supercomputer to scroll the map.

Sigh...
-cc

 

[Skyrim]

i know what is is for me, which i hope to soon fix. it is the fact that i cant play on huge maps. i love being to go into the middle ages or higher not knowing anone then having to adapt to their presence. or playing one civ off against another etc.
however i still have a few things which i cant seem to figure out but bother me, one that i know is that i CANT enter other civs boarders...i mean what the hell.
but yea over all i agree that there is something missing,i used to play civ 3 for days and had games that would last sometimes for weeks and i would spend my day planning what i would do when i got home. now cIV has lost all that appeal and although i try i have moved back on to origional war and other 'old' games--- half life

 

[Sirian]

I have beat the game 3 times on Noble; afterwards whenever I got to the Modern age in a new game I would just start another game as it just was not fun any more.

I think this is probably the source of your trouble.

The AIs are designed to be smarter. If you are way ahead of them on material, they will focus more on catching up, rather than on falling farther behind by spinning their wheels in wars they have no hope of winning.

It may a hole in our thinking that we did not set up the game for people to play it on what amounts to a setting that is "lower than their actual skill level". The AIs in that situation try to be smarter and more competitive, but this leads them to do the same things over and over.

We naturally assumed that players who are "bored" with the game would turn up the difficulty level until it stops being boring for them. Was this too much to assume? Apparently it is wrong in at least some cases.



I admit to being baffled by criticisms from players who claim the game is boring when they have not left the realm of lower difficulty.

My advice to folks in your shoes is always to turn up the difficulty level. At least TRY it at a higher setting. If that doesn't work for you either, then perhaps you'll be in a better position to explain what you find to be missing.


In any case, Soren is continuing to work on the AI. He has to be careful, though. Currently, the AIs are not doing enough warring (in many games), but too much warring (Civ3-style) is even worse. Finding the sweet spot in the middle is easier said than done.


- Sirian

 

[Halberd]

In any case, Soren is continuing to work on the AI. He has to be careful, though. Currently, the AIs are not doing enough warring (in many games), but too much warring (Civ3-style) is even worse. Finding the sweet spot in the middle is easier said than done.

Sirian - can I ask why "too much warring (Civ3-style) is even worse"? Is it performance-related or the fact the AI's get obsessed with war and don't keep up with the player? Or something similar?

I'm playing Noble and do NOT want to go up in difficulty yet, as I'm still not winning all my games. However, I do want to have the AI's having more than a love-in every game.

Do you think, from talking to Soren, that this will be patchable, or is it for exp pack only?

 

[Varelse]

Can you give an example of a feature which was "dumbed down" in your opinion?

Greetings,

Rince

Military units for one, there are less options than before especially late in the game. I was hoping Civ4 would have MORE military options, not less.

 

[Varelse]

We naturally assumed that players who are "bored" with the game would turn up the difficulty level until it stops being boring for them.

I can only speak for myself but I do not enjoy the higher levels because they are focused on giving the computer players huge production and technology bonuses. I like noble because the human player and the computer players all have an even playing field. I try the lower levels out at first to get the hang of the game, then move up to noble, but I simply have no interest in playing the higher levels. I'm sure it is challenging to take on 6-7 AI civs which will automatically be way ahead of you in tech and have a larger army than you, but I don't find the idea very satisfying at all. Maybe if there were more foreign policy options other than war, peace or defensive pact, you would see AI's forming bigger alliances that can overwhelm you even in a lower level like noble. I'm surprised I haven't seen more religious wars, but perhaps the comp doesn't even bother trying to coordinate attacks with other civs if there is no specific alliance option. As it stands now you only have defensive pacts which automatically dissolve if you go to war anyway. There is an option for permanent alliances in the customizable game but I have yet to see the AI use them or even be willing to consider having one with the human player. Maybe non-permanant alliances for offensive reasons as well as defensive reasons would be a good idea.

 

[The Condor]

I can only speak for myself but I do not enjoy the higher levels because they are focused on giving the computer players huge production and technology bonuses. I like noble because the human player and the computer players all have an even playing field. I try the lower levels out at first to get the hang of the game, then move up to noble, but I simply have no interest in playing the higher levels. I'm sure it is challenging to take on 6-7 AI civs which will automatically be way ahead of you in tech and have a larger army than you, but I don't find the idea very satisfying at all. Maybe if there were more foreign policy options other than war, peace or defensive pact, you would see AI's forming bigger alliances that can overwhelm you even in a lower level like noble. I'm surprised I haven't seen more religious wars, but perhaps the comp doesn't even bother trying to coordinate attacks with other civs if there is no specific alliance option. As it stands now you only have defensive pacts which automatically dissolve if you go to war anyway. There is an option for permanent alliances in the customizable game but I have yet to see the AI use them or even be willing to consider having one with the human player. Maybe non-permanant alliances for offensive reasons as well as defensive reasons would be a good idea.

That would be awesome. I hate the permanent alliances because as they are called they are permanent so you have to share with the AI till the end (and I don't want that) where as some non-permanent alliance would be great because you could have it for twenty turns or so where you could maybe research together at a faster pace and combine military and other stuff like beat off another civ. Then when whatever is accomplished it could end and you could enjoy the splendors of victory (or defeat if the Ais' can use it against you). Also, I too am getting bored of the game. I played Civ3 (I started on Civ3 and would like to by Civ2 some time cuz it sounds good) and all of its expansion packs till the day I got Civ4 (and never needed or got any mods) and it is kinda weird. Whenever I play Civ4 I always feel like I should be doing something else and get bored pretty quick. Also, like another poster here I have been on this site reading or discussing the game more than I have played the game. Oh well, maybe the expansion pack can renew my interest in the game.

 

[Panda]

I usually take a day's break from Civ after finishing a map. But that doesn't mena it bores me.

 

[TylerDurdon]

I do have to say that the passion doesnt seem to be there anymore... I just said to myself that my gaming flame just burnt away... and well it might just be that... but after reading such thread I realize that I'm not the only one

The game with infinite replayability just seem to grow old a little... and we cant really blame it on the producers... The main objection to CIV III was the lack of multiplayer, they put effort on it... (speeding up the pace) and afterall Civ has never been a multiplayer game... thats more a shooting/rts world!!! any other genre seem to miss it or FORCES their game to be... but it never get good enough!

They also had to try to touch a wider audience (being in a competitive market) so they cant really evolve the game in a more complex way... which can please hardcore fans (who would have bought it anyway) and scare the new players...

Well... maybe the hype was too high and our bubble slowly (die)!!

The main positive point is that I play the game 2-3 hours a week... and can focus more on my RL and social ability

 

[al_thor]

Okay. I have played OODLES of games. I have only finished like maybe 2 or 3 of them. Not sure why.

Difficulty level? I play Monarch. Noble is a bit too easy. Monarch seems about right. Emporer is INSANE. The AI starts with TWO settlers, a Worker, and TWO units? Combine this with the production bonus that they get? Absolutely crazy.

I tried playing with Teams (me and one AI versus three other teams of two AI) on Emporer and was more or less EMBARRASSED at my ARTIFICIAL ineptitude compared with my "team-mate's" un-realistic bonuses. Sure, "we" were winning, but only because of his insane production.

I love the Civics and the options therein.

Religion concept is cool.

Civ attitude towards you is at times inexplicable. And the RED system is often just "dumb".

 

[rabottens]

To me the bridge between city establishment, empire building, and military action seems to be too disconnected. Especially after you have built up a good number of cities. As the modern era approaches it seems like too many options and opportunities are available and it is easy to get lost in the fog of what direction you are pursuing. Military engangement needs a serious overhaul. The promotions are nice but some kind of attack formations and group v.s. group fighting would be better than unit v.s. unit. (Especially where 6 riflemen take on 20 spearmen and have to wait at couple of turns to eliminate the stack. In a field engagement 6 division of riflemen would decimate 20 legions of spearmen with some casulties but they wouldn't have to wait years for a result. Religion has a nice effect and should probably start out stronger in the early ages and lose importance in the modern era which is really representative of the evolution of world religion. I like what they have done with civics but they have made alliances extremely difficult to attain. Seems to me that civs with matching civics should be able to ally on the basis of political idealogy. Good examples: USSR & China 1970 era.
United States & France 1770's. But alliances could be broken due to political shifting United States & France 2003. Maybe this would be to difficult to mod but it would add realism to the game. The economic model on this game is probably the best I have seen of the empire building genre. Tweaking the military model would take it over the top. A field general perhaps as all military academies product military leaders to field armies during wartime? That is missing from this game. I didn't like the army concept from Civ 3 perhaps this general accompanies the stack and gives bonuses to the units in the stack? In many wars it was the leadership or lack therof that turned the tide of the war.

 

[Huszar]

(Sadly) I have to agree with the thread starter. Civ4 is somehow ... boring. Maybe not quite boring, but definitely lacking the magic of civ2. Not sure myself what is the reason, but fact is that I was playing civ2 and civ3 (but especially 2) until late in the night (morning!) every day and this has changed dramatically with civ4. Fact is that I played for years civ2 and civ3 without mods and now I am already installing mod after mod trying to get back the civ feeling somehow.

I am sure there is no universal recipe on how to make all civers happy, but I'll through my 2 cents in on why civ4 lacks the "civ feeling".

In no particular order:
1. The game was streamlined for multiplayer at the expense of SP, when in fact most people still prefer civ in SP. What do I mean by that? Take the great wonders for example: they don't feel great anymore. Sure thing, a MP game would be dead in the very moment when someone had the Civ2 Leonardo's (I think; I never played civ2 in MP). Those wonders were unbalancing. Very true, but in SP not being able to build those Civ2 wonders removes a good part of my fun. Where is my reward for pushing hard for a wonder? Where is my reward for pushing hard for money? (civ2 spies, anyone?) I know, all those wonders and units (spies, howitzers, stealth fighters) were unbalancing, and yet the game was incredibly fun, despite lacking some awesome features we have in civ4 (culture&borders, resources, religion, refined diplomacy). I am convinced that not all players do play civ for the challenge of beating an AI despite of insane bonuses. IMHO the small rewards you get along as you play the game are just as important as winning against a challenging AI. If I move to a higher difficulty level, the game becomes only more difficult, more challenging, but not funnier. I think what schekker says it's important:

I play to relax, so for me the game should not really be a challenge but just difficult enough that it will still give you a satisfied feeling after your almost guaranteed win.
Civ2 was perfectly suited for that. It had the best eye candy of all civ games (the wonder movies and the council movies which were really fun) which were a welcome reward. And once you were in a position to crush your enemies, you could really crush them.

I think this is the key. It may not be the case for outstanding, hardcore players, but I believe many civers think like this. The game should be equally fun and rewarding on all difficulty levels, and the high difficulty levels should play the purpose of satisfying those who look for an "impossible" challange. I am not looking for a guaranteed win, but I am not looking for a struggle either. So I play civ4 on noble, but indeed the game becomes too predictible. Probably 95% of my games end with a spaceship victory, either mine or Gandhi's I know I should try prince or monarch, but I'm scared that the tech race would become even faster, which I detest. Instead I am experimenting with mods/options which make the game longer and give me more fun (more time to use my units, more wonders and buildings, or the Olympics mod for example)

2. The game is too quick. Another help for MP, but a drawback for SP (and epic is not what it should be; it's just longer playing, not more playing).
3. The game is too much geared toward the space race. It is almost inevitable to get there.

Finally some minor complaints, that are somehow annoying, but are definitely not the reason for feeling the game "boring".
4. The interface - a very unhappy choice in many regards, not to mention that is it unfinished. I've seen much improved versions from modders already
5. The civilopedia - a complete failure

I think some outstanding mods and probably a future expansion may help, but as of now I feel very mixed about civ4.

 

[Aeon221]

Its pretty clear why its not so great this run through:

Sid decided to design the game more for newbies than for oldbies.

Just look at the forums if you need evidence. An _explosion_ of accounts rigth when cIV came out...

So instead of the deep, meaty challenge that we all know and love and expected to see more iterations of... we got its mistreated kid brother who nobody bothered to give toilet training.

Its the same all over: less interest in game play, more interest in interface.

In fact, the state of graphical gaming is such that I have had to return to mudding... text base games still care more about gameplay than interface...

 

[akots]

... The AIs are designed to be smarter. If you are way ahead of them on material, they will focus more on catching up, rather than on falling farther behind by spinning their wheels in wars they have no hope of winning. ...

Smarter compared to what? AI in Civ3 or AI in Civ2? IMHO, the AI is exceedingly dumb in Civ4. May be not so predictable like it was in Civ3 but I'm sure with accumulated cumulative experience of the player community it would be even more predictable. Dumbness of the AI of course is "natural" but still many things might be possible to improve especially in military tactics.

... We naturally assumed that players who are "bored" with the game would turn up the difficulty level until it stops being boring for them. Was this too much to assume? Apparently it is wrong in at least some cases.

Unfortunately, this does not work at least for me. The game is boring and very tedious. It might be something related to the speed of animations and city view screens or zooming. IMHO, the animations are taking a bit too longer than they should. This might add some realistic feature but overall, you keep looking on these swordsmen marching a thousand times and get bored. Aslo, game seems to lag slightly before any action is taken not because of performance issues but of some internal timeout. Or am I wrong here?

Actually, increasing difficulty level helps a lot. IMHO, Civ2 only started to being somewhat playable on Deity level, otherwise it was a massacre. Civ3/C3C is rather enjoyable starting from Emperor level. With Civ4 it is not a problem of how the player is playing the game because it is not a problem that a player is lost and does not know how to win on higher difficulty. The problem might be that some people just do not want it. For me, winning on higher difficulty is very tedious. Deity plays like a Sid level game in C3C which are actually extremely tedious.

My advice to folks in your shoes is always to turn up the difficulty level. At least TRY it at a higher setting. If that doesn't work for you either, then perhaps you'll be in a better position to explain what you find to be missing.

Actually, another thing is playing games on the Epic game speed. It is even more tedious in terms of performance but actually less boring. At least it worked for me.

In any case, Soren is continuing to work on the AI. ...

That is a great thing to know, hopefully the stupidity can be somewhat diminished. IMHO, the problem might be not as how the "AI community" interacts within itself and with human players. It might be challenging enough as it is now considering all penalties on deals with a human player. But many things are really-really bad including city placements, military tactics, research paths, and other things.


Well, another thing that comes to mind is the somewhat unbalanced game pace. Of course, this had been done to prevent easy warmongering in the absence of corruption to my understanding. Bigger maps, slower road movement before Engineering, lack of movement 3 troops, penalty for having too many cities, this is all udnerstandable. Otherwise, player just builds many units and takes over the world in no time. But imho, this actually seems to kill the addictive part of the game, "one more turn" syndrome. Frankly, nothing happens, the game is not going to be decided within this one turn. A player thinks: "I'm already winning this war and I know it is going to happen in 10 turns regardless of whatever I do and how the combat goes here and there". Now, of course, there are some critical parts of the game when there are some decisions to be made which cannot be undone. I'd say that Civ4 is more of analytical type game. The player has to forsee the results of his actions actually for a very long in the future of the game and make the right decision. Especially on higher difficulty, making a wrong decision might result in losing the game. However, if a player had made a right decision, the game is basically won no matter what.

Sorry, that was a long post, I hope it is constructive. Overall, it seems that just playing a casual game against AI is not that great fun in Civ4.

Now, another aspect seems to be playing against other human players in GOTM, HOF, MP, or PBEM. I'm sure GOTM will prosper and it is always a great opportunity to advance the playing skill since it is an extremely tough competition. MP might be also fun but hard to tell yet. Civ4 had actually essentially killed multihuman PBEMs due to very slow pace of the starting game. These epic games are very sensitive and are very easy to be killed by one or more players leaving the game. However, funny historic scenarios can be an option for the multihuman PBEM lovers. One on one games though might survive with or without AI once there is a proper patch. The latter genre for me seems the ultimate test of the playing skill and provide for the most enjoyment.

 

[Lucas87]

I think part of the reason people are upset with the modern age is that there are very few technoligies. That combined with the fact that you can generally research them pretty quickly anyway makes it kind of annoying. The whole first half of the game has a really epic feel. They added in the ancient age which they never really had before since you were able to trade techs and make all your worker improvements from the getgo. They have a slow epic pace throughout the ancient, classical, medieval and even somewhat throughout the renaissance age. However the renaissance age turns into the industrial age in a flash as does the industrial age turn into the modern age in a flash. It seems like you spend so long going through the early ages, aiming for this or that and then boom everything becomes available to you. The superease with which space races come also hurts the modern age. I also think nukes are really screwed up, since it requires a huge effort to ever build them and the defences against them are super easy to make. The industrial and modern ages just don't have the same depth as the early ages in this game. I think the industrial and modern eras need significant reworking beyond just increases the existing tech costs, although that would be a start I guess. It is only at the modern age that I get dissatisfied with my games. Still, I think CIV is an excellent game and I have not gotten bored with it yet.

 

[Huszar]

Can you give an example of a feature which was "dumbed down" in your opinion?

Greetings,

Rince

Trades for example. You are not able to trade anymore resources for techs. As in: 20 turns of iron for Music. Getting a strategic resource in return for any combination of techs, money and other resources should make the AI very happy.

 

[Huszar]

I think this is probably the source of your trouble.

We naturally assumed that players who are "bored" with the game would turn up the difficulty level until it stops being boring for them. Was this too much to assume? Apparently it is wrong in at least some cases.



I admit to being baffled by criticisms from players who claim the game is boring when they have not left the realm of lower difficulty.

My advice to folks in your shoes is always to turn up the difficulty level.

- Sirian

This doesn't work for me. I know from the previous versions of civ. I up the difficulty level until a point where the AI presents an acceptable challange but I still win most of my games without having to micromanage every single shield and penny. After that I stay on that difficulty level for a very-very long time. But if the game is good, I can play the same level for one or two years, always having fun in my games. On the other hand, the fun doesn't come from the challenge only, at least not for me.