Not a Beginner, bored with the game...

[rainmaker]

What seems different to me is the AI's aren't as aggressive. I'm not as quick to go to war because of the number of units it takes to bring down a city.

I tenf to relax more and maybe get a little bored.

 

[GenericKen]

I think the main problem with the game is two-fold, and both reside in the late-game:

1) The victory conditions suck. Conquest is very similar to domination, which is very similar to UN. Spaceship is boring and uninteractive, and cultural is essentially a variant. The interactions between the victory conditons are non-existant, so you can't strategically decide whether it's expedient to switch from your domination plan to a cultural plan, namely because it's impossible.

What's worse, once you've set your plan for victory into motion, you've got to just spend the last turns of the game waiting for it to complete. There's no thinking whatsoever in the last 40 turns of the game, just waiting.

2) The AI doesn't play to win. The AI barely seems to be aware that there are 5 different victory conditions in the game (excluding time), and seems to namely play for score. There's never any worry that the AI may race and beat you to a different victory condition, namely because the AI is only aware of two.


I've been wanting to start a new game for a while now, just to evaluate the map, spread an empire, and stabalize, but then I think about how I'd have to go through the chore of achieving a victory condition, and my skin crawls.



To all of you saying that these problems can be modded out, technichally, you're right. However, until Firaxis comes out and *says* that they're not going to patch the gameplay, there's no assurance to modders that their attempts to balance the game won't be rendered null and void by an official fix.

 

[romelus]

it's pretty easy for me. in previous civ games, getting to the industrial age means the good part is about to begin. in civ 2 finally getting gunpowder was a huge deal and offered great advantages. in civ 3 there was a fairly long period when you had infantry and artillery but no tank, and cavalry remained a threat against infantry. it simulated the ww1 period of warfare pretty well

in civ 4, getting to the industrial age means the good part is over. you get infantry along with factory in one tech, instantly making the only military unit of choice the infantry (cavalry will drop like flies attacking infantry) and a couple of techs later you have your hands on tanks and bombers already. i sometimes even forgo researching artillery because flight can be researched at the same time. so i go straight from cannons to bombers... the industrial and modern age warfare becomes a 3 unit thing, just bombers tanks and the defenders. then you have nukes that are simply a waste of resources, and helicopters that take forever to get to the frontline despite being flying units. what can i say, time for a new game already

 

[Kolyana]

I think the main problem with the game is two-fold, and both reside in the late-game:

1) The victory conditions suck. Conquest is very similar to domination, which is very similar to UN. Spaceship is boring and uninteractive, and cultural is essentially a variant. The interactions between the victory conditons are non-existant, so you can't strategically decide whether it's expedient to switch from your domination plan to a cultural plan, namely because it's impossible.

What's worse, once you've set your plan for victory into motion, you've got to just spend the last turns of the game waiting for it to complete. There's no thinking whatsoever in the last 40 turns of the game, just waiting.

2) The AI doesn't play to win. The AI barely seems to be aware that there are 5 different victory conditions in the game (excluding time), and seems to namely play for score. There's never any worry that the AI may race and beat you to a different victory condition, namely because the AI is only aware of two.


I've been wanting to start a new game for a while now, just to evaluate the map, spread an empire, and stabalize, but then I think about how I'd have to go through the chore of achieving a victory condition, and my skin crawls.



To all of you saying that these problems can be modded out, technichally, you're right. However, until Firaxis comes out and *says* that they're not going to patch the gameplay, there's no assurance to modders that their attempts to balance the game won't be rendered null and void by an official fix.

BINGO! Give the man a cookie.

One of my most enjoyable games thus far has also been one of an epiphany, because I got BLISTERINGLY bored in the final stages of the game: Earth Scenario, Epic speed, Huge map ... had an absolute blast playing the Chinese for the first time ... until I hit around the 1850's and at this point I got instantly BORED.

I couldn't figure out why, but you've hit the nail on the head.

The victory types are BORING and repetitive, but more importantly, once you've decided on your vistory objectives, not many of them allow you to swing out and into something different. You can't go for cultural half way through a game, you have to go into it with this in mind, you can't decide to take over the world in 1700 ... you better have it well under way centuries before.

The Space Race victory is BOOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRIIINNNGGG and yet it's the only one I ever get ... I will get this (or the AI does) before it EVER gets to points, but if you disable it you're essentially left with conquest/domination or culture.

Diplomacy is rare, but outside of that Conquest/domination and culture are styles of play that you must adopt from very early on in the game. There's no flexibility here and because of that ... BOOOORRRRIIINNGGG.

I so want to turn the spacerace victory off ... but what the heck does that leave me with???

 

[The Condor]

I think the main problem with the game is two-fold, and both reside in the late-game:

1) The victory conditions suck. Conquest is very similar to domination, which is very similar to UN. Spaceship is boring and uninteractive, and cultural is essentially a variant. The interactions between the victory conditons are non-existant, so you can't strategically decide whether it's expedient to switch from your domination plan to a cultural plan, namely because it's impossible.

What's worse, once you've set your plan for victory into motion, you've got to just spend the last turns of the game waiting for it to complete. There's no thinking whatsoever in the last 40 turns of the game, just waiting.

2) The AI doesn't play to win. The AI barely seems to be aware that there are 5 different victory conditions in the game (excluding time), and seems to namely play for score. There's never any worry that the AI may race and beat you to a different victory condition, namely because the AI is only aware of two.


I've been wanting to start a new game for a while now, just to evaluate the map, spread an empire, and stabalize, but then I think about how I'd have to go through the chore of achieving a victory condition, and my skin crawls.



To all of you saying that these problems can be modded out, technichally, you're right. However, until Firaxis comes out and *says* that they're not going to patch the gameplay, there's no assurance to modders that their attempts to balance the game won't be rendered null and void by an official fix.

I have to agree with Kolyana in saying this guy is a genius (maybe even smarter than me)!

I to (grammar?) believe the victory conditions get a little old quickly because they are so stiff and rigid. I am spontaneous and I like trying new things like maybe trying to conquer the world in the 1500s because I didn't get some of the early important wonders but I can't most likely win because you have to choose your victory condition in the beginning and can't deviate from the plan or else you will end up with a pathetic time victory. Yeah, once someone is essentially close to a victory there really is nothing left in the game to really think about except maybe for a last minute war if you aren't winning.

Yeah, on to (grammar?) many occasions the AI really doesn't really seem like it is playing to kick your butt and take your name and instead live in its own lala land with sugarplum drop fairy princesses and stuff. Also, I agree I have only really played to the end three games on my own (the rest I finished to test mods for friends) and ended the rest around the renaissance or earlier because I realize that the only way to win this victory is to do 1,2,3... or to win this victory it is a,b,c... and I love trying new things out but most likely I will lose or get a crappy time victory because I veered from the plan which leads to a lot of repition (sp) pretty much in all conditions. Also, I only have played one scenario in the game and didn't even finish because it looked and was for the time I played so unfullfilling (yet another sp).

Also, this is really the first Sid game (let alone all of my computer games) I have ever had to play a mod to get enjoyment from (and I still am partially unfullfilled). I played Civ3 all the way from I bought plus the expansion packs to practically three days before Civ4 came out and never lost any interest (in fact I am thinking about putting it back on my computer as I post) with all the cheery animated advisors, the endless turns to complete a game in, the flexibility of the victory conditions, and the real feeling like you are running an empire with all of the managing you have to do whereas Civ4 has bland advisor screens, too short of a game, incredibly stiff and dull victory conditions, and too little managing to do to appeal to more audiences.

Also, it is really nice Firaxis and company tried to get rid of all the unfun or time-consuming stuff but it left the game finishing way too fast. I can play a good epic in four hours in four hours where as with Civ3 I could take a whole week on quick. And I enjoyed those weeks because the game had this way of making you feel like you really were controlling an empire with all the decisions and choices and strategies you could plan and act out where as with Civ4 you just feel like you are giving your index finger or middle finger a workout hitting enter every second with its more than necessary user friendliness.

So inconclusion (I really feel I need to look at a dictionary again sometime soon), I feel Civ4 is very dull, repitive (sp), and dumbed down for a broadened audience when compared to Civ3 which I now have successfully loaded back on my computer again. So please excuse me because I am off to go beat Babylon back to the Stoneage for tresspassing on my land again.

 

[Zinegata]

It's actually interesting to note that a lot of people are complaining about the pacing in Civilization IV. In Civilization II (see Brian's Designer's Notes in the manual), preserving the addictive pacing was one of the major design objectives of the team. In Civilization IV, the focus seems to have been placed elsewhere.

Personally, I think that pacing is a key element of a game. It's the reason why people are still playing games like Diablo 2 even many years down the line =).

 

[jar2574]

Yes, the late game can get boring. But switching to higher difficulties has kept the game challenging (and fun) for me.

I haven't heard of anyone winning a space race on deity on a standard map yet, so there are still challenges out there.

edit -- and I like the faster pacing on standard. I play a standard game if I have one day. I play epic if I have several to spend on Civ4.

 

[Kolyana]

It's not so much a challenge to me ... it's the fun in winning ... there isn't any

 

[UglyElmo]

I think what you are seeing is the game was made with MP as its main focus and research was timed to speed up the game, so you could play it online without having to spend days/months finishing it. Unfortunately, it doesn't translate well to SP. I have always been a big advocate of developing game files separately for SP and MP. I have seen several times, changes made to games which improve the Single Player experience, but unbalance the Multi-Player game and vice versa. If game makers could separate out the two from each other, then you could make changes to one without adversely effecting the other.

I do remember reading a month or so ago, someone mentioned they were able to modify one of the settings for Tech Research Speed to where it was slower than the Epic option in your game settings menu. They liked the game at that pace and said it was close to the CIV 3 pace. Sorry but I can't point you to that post since I do not remember much about it.

I have been playing 6 or so games of CIV IV PBEM and it has been fun. I am currently in a game with 3 Teams of 2-humans and 3 non-teamed AI factions. The game is still in its beginning phase, but I can see using the AI teams to; gather tech, use as a buffer between the other 2-man enemy teams, to use them to harrass the other human 2-man teams by bribing them to start a war with them. etc . .

CIV IV is very different from CIV 3. I only play CIV IV single player when I want to test out a new faction or strategy for my MP games. When I want to play a single player campaign I go back to my CIV 3 game.

PS: I still think SMAC was the best game of all of them. I enjoyed the tech movies, the storyline, the ability to build special custom units, and attitude of all the different factions. I especially loved capturing Meriam and her Believers. They never liked my University faction much! Plus I really enjoyed playing War Monger with the Peacekeeper faction.

 

[taylor]

I think the main problem with the game is two-fold, and both reside in the late-game:

1) The victory conditions suck. Conquest is very similar to domination, which is very similar to UN. Spaceship is boring and uninteractive, and cultural is essentially a variant. The interactions between the victory conditons are non-existant, so you can't strategically decide whether it's expedient to switch from your domination plan to a cultural plan, namely because it's impossible.

What's worse, once you've set your plan for victory into motion, you've got to just spend the last turns of the game waiting for it to complete. There's no thinking whatsoever in the last 40 turns of the game, just waiting.

2) The AI doesn't play to win. The AI barely seems to be aware that there are 5 different victory conditions in the game (excluding time), and seems to namely play for score. There's never any worry that the AI may race and beat you to a different victory condition, namely because the AI is only aware of two.

I agree completly. In fact I used to deselect all the victory conditions except the time victory. And then, anyway, if i wanted to have some fun i also had to limit myself. I never built more than 4-5 cities at noble and not more than 6-7 cities at prince. I used to build these cities quite far from each others and in very good tiles. I used to conquer only if necessary and not more than 1 city per war. Used to found, if possible, not more than 1 or 2 religions and behave consequently facing other people's religions etc. In this way i was often very close to the AI and not too strong.


And then... Ok, i had fun for a while with this system. Then I found that, in the last turns, you can easily win by building a great army (you can ignore everything, hospitals, recycle centers etc.). The factor of power is very important and if your cities in the last 100 turns build only modern armors, bombers, battleships and ICBM you make a load of points very fast. I don't really have any idea what the AI with her 12-15 cities empires is doing... Surely is not looking for victory.


Now i play prince, standard, archipelago, high seas, 15 civs. Some fun. But, again, i'm getting bored.


I "want" to play this game, i like it, i try it everyday and i always face the same frustrations. I'm trying some mods just now and they help a bit but the game, after a while, tend to be repetitive again and, as i said in my other post, the mechanisms of gameplay always limit the game style to the same choices.


(I don't play higer levels 'cause your choices are more and more obliged. Clearly i'm one between the people that like to build an empire with history feeling... This was possible in all the other civ games and, in particular, in C3C with or without the RAR installed. But also in civ2 where i used to end my game with empires quite different from each other, depending on starting location, neighbors etc.).


taylor

 

[Raziaar]

Can somebody help me out? I played Civ 3... but am having problems with Civ 4.

The beginning of the games which I play, that are usually on huge maps with 18 civilizations... are generally exciting. Exploring the map, defending against barbarians as I spread my empire. After that point... seems start to stagnate. As my workers are improving the land, and i've got nearly everything improved in my tiles... seems seem to just stagnate. I feel bored clicking on the next turn, next turn button again and again. Going to war takes a long time to even focus on taking one city, and it just seems like everything takes forever to get anywhere.

I dunno. Maybe its just me.

 

[boarder]

I to feel like a lot of people on here,i have really igiven civ a decent go,but get to bored and usually just cant be bothered continuing the game the next day, i just dont feel the excitment that i felt when i played civ2 or 3, maybe i am just civved out i dont know.
A couple of the problems as i see it are...
the start is boring,in civ3 you could get a lot more done in the first turns then civ, with civ it seems you are just pushing end turn all the time, actually that feeling travels with me throughout the game.
It seems so easy to me, i thought it would be a lot harder than civ3 but i started off straight away on prince and easily won, the monarch a bit harder and so on, yet the harder levels get so boring that i just cant be bothered.
End game, well enough has been said about this.
The specs, really who cares about the graphics, like i have said i got more into civ3 and 2 with way less graphics yet it still felt you where more involved.
The zoom, I really want to see more of my empire when i am playing then two or three cities, sure you can zoom out but you cant really do anything withit zoomed out as you cant see anything clearly.
Maintenence cost, once more to do with the start where often you only have/need 3 or 4 citys by ooo1ad, i want to build a huge empire not play a one or two city challenge.
Or of course i could just be all civved out, I can see that i would probably love this game if i hadn't played any other civ, but now well i played one game since the latest patch and gotten bored,ive tryed mods but they dont do it for me,
I hae spent 100's of hours on civ3 and 2 and havent been bored with them yet here i am after waiting so long for civ4 and following it every day pre release for months before i thought it was going to be the best game ever yet when i get a chance to play a game i dont go for civ at all
CIV=boring imo

 

[Nooble]

I'm bored with the game too. The game usually gets boring after the medieval age. It's always the same thing. And If you try and go for a domination victory, the battles are so boring. All the AI does is mass 10-20 defenders in a city, and all you would do is bombard, bombard, bombard, then attack. Not very fun.

 

[BlizzardGR]

This thread is such a relief! I just discover it today and having read all the posts i must say that you are all sooooo right. I was beggining to think there is something wrong with me! I said to myself: maybe you have grown up and lost interest in video games. mybe you should do domething else.
But...how could i be so bored to play civ?

I started with civ3 wich was really something! I just couldn't get enough of it! I could play for hours and hours... I only visited the forums when i needed information. Now i spend most of my time here without knowing why. Maybe it's more exciting to read other people's stories and imagine what would you do, than actually trying to accomplish it yourself. It's so much easier, and frankly i'm having more fun reading posts, than playing civ4. It has become too tendious for me.

The game just lost it's focus. It's not Civilization anymore. It's a shadow of it's former glorious self. That is soooo sad!

The graphics could be so much better if they weren't so...so....so....cartoon-like....so....eye-pleasing. I don't really enjoy zooming in to see the happy worker irrigating the land next to the little river with the crystal clear waters while i hear the sounds of the animals from a nearby farm! Take the Rome Total War campaign map for example. It's nice and simple. As it should be. It's not looking outdated as the civ3 graphics (which i prefer over the ones in civ4) and somewhat eye-pleasing at the same time. No need to be full of all that graphical junk u see in civ4.

Furthermore, why so much emphasis on multiplayer when this game is clearly intended for singleplay? Whatever they do, civ will never be a good multiplayer game without destroying the whole formula of the game. Just focus on singleplayer and put online play aside (without removing it though).


I could go on and on and on, but most points have already been covered so there is no need to repeat them.

I really hope this thread does not die out because it's kind of a wake-up call to Firaxis. They should try hard to improve the present aspects of the game instead of thinking of new ones. First correct the flaws and THEN AND ONLY THEN add new stuff.

Sorry for the long post but i had to get it out of my system. Now let me continue my CIV3 game.......

 

[Stanque LeFeete]

Civ IV,....Civilization 4.... The name itself appeals to someone who would be thinking EPIC. Variety of leader types, various terrain, resources, culture, war machine, tactics, religion, and on and on. Personally I dont see any game of this type to be played on a "Duel" or "Small" or even "Standard" map, or the corresponding shorter play turns. Can you say "EPIC?". "Warhammer Dawn of War" is for the 1 to 4 hour per game player. I cant think "strategy" on an epic game if all I can do is pump out war units. If military is all that this game has going for it, then why call it Civilization at all? I dont yet know this game like the back of my hand {which is good}, but then I play ALL my civ IV games on the FX marathon 1200 turn setting. So far I find Noble to be easy When emphasizing culture, but very hard indeed with war. I am learning.This game is worthy of some improvements, my main fume is with diplomacy. Your neighbor is at ease with your coexistance, then ,POW, its war. Anyway, Im a perfectionist type, wanting every turn to be right-wanting to savor my civ at each turn; study the possibilities, be ready for whatever may come. A CIVILIZATION game should be nothing less than epic.

 

[Stanque LeFeete]

Of course I should amend or refine the generallity of my statements of the last post. I CAN see playing on smaller maps with a lower end computer. I cannot understand {fully} the desire to play with shortest turns possible. I see many posts stating CIV IV wooing a broader audience, to me, this game is for a particular genre. Dont make it a quick 3 hour experience. Oh well I need to soak my Feete. Say, how do you start a new paragraph when making a post ? :}

 

[Smidlee]

I really hope this thread does not die out because it's kind of a wake-up call to Firaxis. They should try hard to improve the present aspects of the game instead of thinking of new ones. First correct the flaws and THEN AND ONLY THEN add new stuff.

Firaxis know some civfans would get bored and won't be excited about civ4. They stated they was trying to appeal to gamers who new to civ knowing that building a game just for hardcore fans will eventually spell doom for any series.
I still remember reading all the complaints from civ2 fans about their disappointments of civ3. To be honest I was very dissappoint in civ3 until the conquest expanision. I only finished a few civ3 games until conquest came out.
I do agree though there is a cost in building a game like civ4 around multiplayer.

 

[_Os_]

To throw in my 2c on this.. I too find that with Civ4 games, somewhere in the mid-game, the gameplay reaches a point where it is not as fun to play, and I find that I end up deciding to start a new game, or move to a different game.

I think the main problem that I find with the gameplay, has to do with the fact that there are many different ways to advance your civ in the game, but none of them are very clearly defined or seperate from the other ways to advance your civ.

You lose sight of exactly what it is that you want to do.. there are just too many ways to do what you want to do, and you kind of feel like you're in a huge swimming pool, and it doesn't matter which way you swim, because ultimately, you're still in the middle of the same huge pool, with no real tangible difference between the other ways that you could've swimmed.

It's also kind of similar to driving a car, but instead of one pedal for gas, one for stopping, and a few other control mechanisms that all work together in a simple format, there are 7 pedals, all of which do basically the same thing, but in slightly different ways.. you sit there in the car, trying to decide how to proceed, and ultimately decide to push the 2nd pedal, then the 4th pedal.. but it doesn't feel like it would've mattered if you pushed the 7th then the 5th instead.

I hope I've explained it somewhat clearly.. the gameplay feels too muddled, in the mid-game.. that's the simplest way to put it.. but it's a multi-factored thing. I just don't feel like the choices that I make in the game matter.. ultimately, I'll win, or lose, but the journey is too convoluted to be worth it.

edit: and while at the higher difficulty levels the choices do matter more... the sheer amount of consideration that is required to decide on a course isn't worth the trouble. And the multitude of possible choices in the future make it so that you have to consider the next 5 things that you'll do with every choice as well.. making it like a knot that isn't worth unravelling.

 

[Pratputajao]

I have so many unfinished games in my save game file... I mean games I was going to win for sure, and ..well.. just moved on to a new game. I guess I did this because I find the early game much more fun the mid and end game. I know it is hard (if not impossible) to have the same elements that are fun in the early game in the mid and late game but I wish there was 'something' else to make the game as fun to finish as it is to start.

 

[BlizzardGR]

Firaxis know some civfans would get bored and won't be excited about civ4. They stated they was trying to appeal to gamers who new to civ knowing that building a game just for hardcore fans will eventually spell doom for any series.

That is indeed true, but i think they have overdone it. Surely there where better ways to appeal to new players don't you think?
I mean what kind of new players do they want to attract? Little kids? When i play the game i can't help it but feel i'm playing a game designed for infants. Don't get me wrong, i know it's not, but that's the feeling i get from the graphics and the sounds of the game.

It's just...weird to say the least.