this game is boring

[Kryhavok]

Being allied is a higher level of "friendship" than just being friends and thus provides a higher level of food. When friends, you get the +2 and +1 food and with allied city states you get +4 and +2.

Yeah that struck me when I was laying in bed last night. D'oh!

 

[anti_strunt]

Yeah that struck me when I was laying in bed last night. D'oh!

And the bonus grows quite substantively with later ages.

 

[boehj]

I've read with interest people's opinions in this thread. I can see where people are coming from, on both sides of the argument.

My experience has been one of enjoyment. I've clocked up 200 hours thus far.

I loved Civ BTS and I played countless hours. But I was a poor player (Warlord diff.) as I'd neglect my military. (I really don't miss those horsehockey stacks of doom.) Civ V forces you to look at your military and I like this, because I never did before.

Yes, it is too easy at the moment. I can finish it on Deity without too much difficulty. Maritime CS are ridiculously overpowered. The AI is pathetically stupid.

But in spite of these things, I feel that the overall balance and gameplay will be improved with patches and expansion packs. Look at the difference b/w Civ IV vanilla and BTS for example. And these days, it's just how the software world works. Developers release sub-standard, buggy, crashy products and let their massive user community identify those problems so they can fix them. It happens across all sorts of software. This will be no different. If this practice bothers you, then you shouldn't be using fresh software. Give it time to mature before you jump in.

In the meantime, crank up the difficulty to Emp or Deity and see how you go. It can be a lot of fun.

 

[lschnarch]

My experience has been one of enjoyment.<snip> Developers release sub-standard, buggy, crashy products and let their massive user community identify those problems so they can fix them.

No further questions. Your witness.

 

[Slayan]

I found it boring and not fun at all, I went back to playing Elemental

 

[No2AWing]

I have had every Civ (1 to 5) and the best has been Civ2. I try to play 2 at times but the graphics are rather dated. I would love the next Civ to be like 2 with the superb graphics of Civ5 I read all the letters of this post with much interest. This Civ takes some getting used to.

 

[Pitman]

I think this may be the single best post I've seen on this forum; it mirrors my own feelings almost exactly.

I agree. And here's why:

My First Ci_V experience: Went over to a friends place who had purchased it.

Picked Greeks, Marathon - major mistake. In C_IV I didn't like the overly fast pace of technology relative to unit movement. Epic or Marathon beautifully fixed that and turned it into a truly epic feeling game.

Immediately started sweating out my city placement, almost despaired that the terrian seemed relatively barren except for a couple of key resources. Oh well, can't re-role my first game. Pursued technology to harvest what resources I had - WTH, I got 1 extra production? Hmmm. By the end of the game I got the message that it really didn't matter where you placed things. Very odd, this was one aspect that created immediate tension in most Civ games and especially in C_IV. Passion - 1.

Noticed that the city screen doesn't really give you the feel that you're looking at a city. Hard to get the feeling that "ITS ABOUT TO GROW!" or "MY CRITICAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENT IS ALMOST DONE, so I can move onto other vital production!" Passion -2.

Found out that I couldn't hurry production but I could outright buy it? Gone is the tension of finishing production so you can start the next desperate need. Passion -1.

Received a quest from a Military City state: take out my neighbour! The victim city state had resources that I presumed were valuable so I went for it. Made a Trieme and sailed it over to their island. Spent 10-20 or so turns bombarding a warrior before I realized that all I was doing was giving him 1/2 dozen promotions! Ok, that's a little strange that his warrior is now uber strong from sitting there getting arrows in the head and then recovering. Oh well, what ever doesn't kill you clearly makes you stronger. Passion -1.

Finally had an army sufficient to tackle this city. Sailed them across the lands. Had my super Greek Horseman (or whatever it is) take out the uber promoted warrior with Archer assist. Passion +1.

Fought my way through a choke point towards the city state. Difficult to say the least. Passion +1.

Finally, took the city state. Received an allied status for Military City state instigator. Started receiving military units. WTH again! He's gifting me units almost as fast as I could produce them if I was on a full war setting with my 4 cities? Kindof scratching my head as to why he needed help in the first place. Seems to be (more than) a little out of balance. Ok, fine. Actually not fine! What the heck, I'm not playing an RPG here - I don't really want to go on quests to find the sacred sword of a Thousand Truths! (Later I would find that the Military City states might be the least of problems). Passion -1 (and -3 when I learned of the degree of this exploit).

Through my attack on my first city (state) the city bombardment made me realize that a Settler might be my most powerful military unit in the early game. Run into barbarians? No problem, just plop down your settler (location doesn't seem to matter much) and start bombarding. He can't hurt you! Where's the tension of taking a risk of making a settler early run and daring to cross hostile lands to rush to that critical city location! And the Settler is relatively cheap too!
Passion -2 + an angry scowl!

Built my first building. WTH, am I interpreting this correctly, +1 food. Thanks alot! That took forever to build! What a pitiful rate of return if you can call it that. (Later, I would come to understand that these buildings had expensive maintenance! HA, am I to understand that this is a CIV game that wants you to NOT build?!?) Passion -1 (Upgrade that to Passion -3 when I realized the scope of the problem).

Found my first actual Civilization (Persia) strung across 2 smallish, very close islands. How fitting for a Greek conquest! Set up my Trieme between the two islands to cut off naval reinforcements as my major offensive sailed towards Island #1. Finally! A chance to turn that Trieme into a useful military unit after that debacle of ineffectively bombarding and inadvertently promoting my enemies' warrior. Blinked repeatedly in disbelief as I found that I couldn't take out their enbarking canoes sailing right under my nose! Great! I get to bombard them but not engage them! PFFFF! If
you can count rage as passion then +2; but really Passion -2!

Oh well, lets hope the land battle is more decisive. And it should be; I've made my first Chariot Archer with movement of 5! I get giddy as I visualize a series of hit-and-run tactics that wear down my enemies and prepare them for my Greek Horseman charge! Huh? If I shoot (range 2 spaces) then I can't further move...but, but, the standard movement of a melee unit is 2? So if I want to shoot I must end up dead? (Scratch head). Doesn't seem very useful to have all that movement. I guess I could rush very quickly to the front lines in order to fire and then die. Yes, very useful for dying fast - not much else. Of course, come to think of it I couldn't even rush to the front lines very quickly because some stupid worker is in my way. DOH. Major loss here, my giddy bubble of excitement was definately popped. Passion -3 due to the fact that it got my hopes up. To be fair, Passion -1 without my hope.

Spent couple hours bombarding their city and following up with my Greek Cavlary and Spearman (whatever they're called). Kinda going through the motions once their field army is taken out. Long, slow motions actually. Use my otherwise useless Chariot archers and Trieme to bombard their city, doing almost no damage each time (Settlers rock the military house!) but some until I'm sure that my shock troops can get off a win. Probably could have taken them earlier with more experience. Hmmm, that was pretty boring. I remember facing off in Civ3/Civ4 where you (pre-Catapult) have to worry alot about having enough troops to take their city. You know that you're going to lose some troops, maybe alot. This was like, I know that my troops are going to take damage but not die. So as long as I hit, then pull back, I'm not going to lose any troops. Really took any of the tension away. Passion -2.

But thinking about this further: why did they get rid of cottages? Especially for a game that was supposed to move combat outside of the city. Can you imagine the tension as an equal or greater enemy approaches your fertile commercial land? "HOLD THE LINE!" you scream with the realization that even if they don't take your cities they could chop you off at the knees by pillaging the source of the soldiers paychecks! Visions of Hannibal in Rome! This game, who cares? Just build back those "Trading posts" and you're back in business again. Really missed the mark here. Passion -2.

Overall, this is like some dude telling a lifetime Chess player how they've redesigned chess by removing all those complicated pieces and all their complicated moves and "look my red and black pieces can 'jump over' the other piece". So cool eh! You'd be like yeah its an 'ok' game, but it ain't Chess - Chess involves real strategy and tradeoffs.

So not a fan and I won't be spending money on this game. And, FYI Firaxis or who ever is responsible for this mess, I have been a hopeless CIV addict for the past 15+ years. I have bought-destroyed-bought again probably 6-8 copies of every game Civ2, Civ3, Civ4 spending at least $300 per version (Civ1 was pirated, sorry but I've made up for it) because I simply have no ability to control how much I play and cannot keep the darn game in my house without risking my
life/wife/career. So I figure playing like crazy and then destroying the game is way cheaper than losing my job! Rinse-and-repeat.

So I wish you well in finding 8+ console users who will replace an addicted player like me. I'm sure those console players will still be there 10-15 years from now.

 

[trueblue]

mannn


do any of you guys never stop for a moment and think that its not the game, its YOU.


You have changed.


maybe your attention cant be held so easily or whatever. youve got older whatever.


depressing threads, the likes of this one are.

 

[Guardian_PL]

mannn


do any of you guys never stop for a moment and think that its not the game, its YOU.


You have changed.


maybe your attention cant be held so easily or whatever. youve got older whatever.


depressing threads, the likes of this one are.

No, it's the new direction that Firaxis has took in order to get more money, not me.
Target audience has changed this time, so if I would've changed then I could probably like it with the rest of the ppl loving the game. But I haven't.

I've tried Civ4 recently and had a blast - I could start telling you story about it - that's how immersive it was.
Then I've tried another game of Civ5 and it was boring and broken.

 

[trueblue]

well this is Firaxis right. its their ball after all!



the sig says it all, sorry, we dont own Civ.

 

[Derax]

Although I really miss some of the former Civ 4 features such as religion etc.

I really like the new combat system and the other new ideas.
Would be awesome if they have just added the new civ features.

But altogether I have to say playing Civ 5 is acutally quite fun!

 

[kaltorak]

Interesting. Anything that saves me one night at the bar is not a waste.

One night at the bar = $50.
Two nights at home instead of at the bar = Priceless.

And this is why civ5 is a success. It attracts players who are used to games only lasting them a few days. Civ 5 is fun for a few weeks, so it musst be great.

But civ fanatics want civ games to last 5 years, not 5 weeks

 

[Jharii]

And this is why civ5 is a success. It attracts players who are used to games only lasting them a few days. Civ 5 is fun for a few weeks, so it musst be great.

But civ fanatics want civ games to last 5 years, not 5 weeks

Sorry you missed the tongue-in-cheek there.

I've logged well over 100 hours into Civ5, by the way. It's potential and longevity is readily apparent to me. I am sorry if you fail to see that or if you feel differently. No one is able to release a game that pleases everyone inclusively.

 

[krait23]

What Thorite wrote very much mirrors my feelings towards Civ5.

I am more of a builder type than a warmonger, so I was actually excited by losing the stack of doom, and being an old hex-game player, I also looked forward to this change.

Regrettably, as a builder what totally puts me off is that it matters fk all where you actually build things. City placement, which was an integral part of making Civ4 so much fun for me, is all but gone. The effects of buildings and wonders are so cut down as to make them all but irrelevant. And being able to buy things from the get go, but not rushing something, how silly is that?

To me, the current Civ5 feels more like Battle Isle 2010 than an actual Civilization game. I see a lot of potential in the groundwork laid out in this game. I fully support the introduction of 1upt and hexes, and I don't even mind losing religions and civics. And as ridiculous as they may be, I can even forgive (given enough time) the major bugs and balance issues in the release.

But unless they do some serious polishing to make all resources (not just strategic ones) more important again, to make city placement seriously matter, to make buildings and wonders be actually important or even crucial to success, I am afraid I will have wasted my money for good.

And anything resembling trust I might have had in Firaxis is rather nonexistant after they actually did two of the things I hate most in the gaming industry: dumbed down a game to cater to the masses instead of the fans (I realize this is economically desireable, but that doesn't mean I have to like it...), and tried to reinvent the wheel instead of just tweaking it. All I have left is hope that I am wrong in my assessment of them as unscrupulous moneygrubbers with some detached form of vision.

 

[kniteowl]

I mostly agree with Thorite, the game is boring... but there are parts of Civ V I like.

1UPT, Hex tiles, range units actually being able to kill things from a distance, I can't remember any ranged units attacking from a distance or even nukes being able to kill units in Civ 4 (this is from memory I could be wrong).

If modding the game wasn't beyond my ability, I would make a Civ 4 version of 1 Combat Per Tile, (I like stacking my workers for speedy improvements and have all my Great people on 1 tile eg-capital, so I know where they are) disable diaginal movement, grant all units double movement points and give archers and other ranged unit like Siege, the ability to do ranged damage and see how the game balance would work out.

The combat would be similar to advance wars on the DS i guess, but there's still the problem of friendly units blocking your army, I once had an AI unit that i wasn't at war with block my army from attacking another AI that I was at war with.... :S

 

[Thorite]

mannn


do any of you guys never stop for a moment and think that its not the game, its YOU.


You have changed.


maybe your attention cant be held so easily or whatever. youve got older whatever.


depressing threads, the likes of this one are.

True Blue,

I'll admit that my expectations might have changed, but like other people have posted BTS still retains their interest.

Also, Chess boards and pieces are still being made around the world. Strategy games are good because you need new strategies to get better and better - this is what makes them interesting. While starting Civ4 I tried to build too many cities, rushed to get a religion, build missionaries, built temples...doomed myself to bad economy and alot of enemies. I then adapted to fewer cities, financial leaders for more commerce and pursued less religion. Some runaway, vassal dominating civ beat me up for having too little production. Strategies adapted again - more production, less commerce for the win! Then switched out of financial leaders and had to adapt again. Next game(s) I went back to trying to win WITH religion without the feeling that I'm intentionally NOT playing to win (like turning away CS military units or not pursuing maritime CS).

Civ5 you just can't say this. Produce units, produce cities, go to/stay at war. Done. That's what we're lamenting here.

 

[vandyr]

No, it's the new direction that Firaxis has took in order to get more money, not me.
Target audience has changed this time, so if I would've changed then I could probably like it with the rest of the ppl loving the game. But I haven't.

I've tried Civ4 recently and had a blast - I could start telling you story about it - that's how immersive it was.
Then I've tried another game of Civ5 and it was boring and broken.

Civ 4 was probably my least favorite of the entire franchise. Different strokes all around, Civ 2 being my all time favorite and Civ 3 a close second, until Civ 5, which is my favorite yet.

 

[KopOut]

It has been more than 3 weeks since I have even turned CiV on. I haven't even tried the patch yet. I also find it extremely boring.

I view the game as a choice between warring with every other CiV for conquest victory, or grinding though 4-5 hours of mid-late game "next turn" clicking for the other victory types. The problem is that the AI is awful in battle, so a conquest victory is easy and thus boring.

So I have a choice between 2 boring victory paths. My reward? A picture and a couple sentences.

No thanks.

 

[Drakarska]

I would say V definitely WANTS to be a wargame, though... moreso than any previous iteration of the series. I think it's evident in the design decisions, the choices of implementation for non-war aspects of the game, and interviews with the producers and developers.

All that said, personally -- I'm just happy that the OP looks like a promising candidate to recruit for my coming holy war against embarkation.

I'm in. Just point me and my Naval Tradation where ya need 'em.

 

[Oboewan]

No, it's the new direction that Firaxis has took in order to get more money, not me.
Target audience has changed this time, so if I would've changed then I could probably like it with the rest of the ppl loving the game. But I haven't.

I've tried Civ4 recently and had a blast - I could start telling you story about it - that's how immersive it was.
Then I've tried another game of Civ5 and it was boring and broken.

I suggest you reinstall Civ4 from scratch, with no patches and no expansions and see if you can relive the initial release moments again. It was a while ago and I can't remeber specifics myself, but I know I was less than impressed with the initial release.
As they patched it and added expansions, Civ4 become much more engaging and enjoyable for me. I'm hoping Civ5 can eventually get there. I'm going to give it some time to settle in and develop before making any final judgements on the game.