this game is boring

[Mr_Wonka]

this is what happens when you let a f'en 20 year old make a game. Sid didn't even make this game, he just overlooked it.

give me a game made by sid himself, then were talking. Alpha Cintauri 2, make it happen sid!!!

 

[kayapo]

this is what happens when you let a f'en 20 year old make a game. Sid didn't even make this game, he just overlooked it.

give me a game made by sid himself, then were talking. Alpha Cintauri 2, make it happen sid!!!

This makes no sense.

Brian Reynods designed Alpha Centaury if my memory isn't failling me. Actually I think CiV 1 was the only game in the Civ family designed by Sid Meier.

 

[patrickkrebs]

seriously, It just isn't a whole lot of fun.

It takes a lot longer to get through turns. I've got a beast of a computer, but even the loading times from the start of the game are ridiculously slow from the start. I loved in the other civs how I could zip right through the turns if I was just building. Now its like waiting for a child to be born.

production takes a long time and i honestly don't feel rewarded for building wonders anymore.


I guess the civ formula is just over done at this point. I'd had a blast with all of the other games in my past. I liked civ rev, was fun.

I'll wait for some expansion packs and maybe the game improves in the next couple years.

Then you are playing the game wrong.

 

[Sadan01]

Then you are playing the game wrong.

How does your quoted response above answer the below?

It takes a lot longer to get through turns. I've got a beast of a computer, but even the loading times from the start of the game are ridiculously slow from the start. I loved in the other civs how I could zip right through the turns if I was just building. Now its like waiting for a child to be born.

These are issues with the design of the game. How are you "playing the game wrong" because the game itself is very unoptimised?

production takes a long time and i honestly don't feel rewarded for building wonders anymore.

Even on quick difficulty it feels that quick equals standard speed in Civ IV terms. I personally like longer games myself but the time between things being built in Civ V is at times excessively long, even on quick speed. How is this "playing the game wrong"?

Wonka is talking about design decisions that probably need to be tweaked. And hell, the game definitely needs to be optimised so it will be a little more speedy on top hardware.

 

[sketch162000]

Then you are playing the game wrong.

Sarcasm tags?

 

[Geddy]

Agreed Wonka.

 

[Jediron]

Any ideas how to get a huge map on marathon exiting AND build a HUGE Empire, instead of watching at a more then 50% undeveloped land for most part of the game ?
I must be donig something wrong here, since it is 300AD now, and not much have happened sofar. 6 cities and a handfull of units....

 

[Haig]

While it's nice that the next patch is going to be about A.I. and diplomacy fixing, it isn't enough to get me back into Civ V.

They would need a huge add-on pack like BTS that would give the game a new world of strategies and variety. They need to bring back religion and espionage in some cool form, the apostolic palace with even more intrigue, United Nations at least like it was in Civ IV and not this current joke where it only allows the victory vote.

The A.I. and diplomacy are problems but I think the biggest for me is that it's just tedious clicking, like a chore, and everything is about war.

Also I'd like to change the terrain graphs to include more animation, and I'd like to see different ethnic graphics for some units like it's in Civ IV BTS.

 

[anti_strunt]

This makes no sense.

Brian Reynods designed Alpha Centaury if my memory isn't failling me. Actually I think CiV 1 was the only game in the Civ family designed by Sid Meier.

Yep. Really looking forward to BRAC II!

 

[Aedn]

Any ideas how to get a huge map on marathon exiting AND build a HUGE Empire, instead of watching at a more then 50% undeveloped land for most part of the game ?
I must be donig something wrong here, since it is 300AD now, and not much have happened sofar. 6 cities and a handfull of units....

Same issue i have, but its not a map issue. There just isnt enough to make me feel like the game is anything but boring in the early eras. I do not think that you can point to any one thing as saying its the root cause. Its just really comes down to the overall mechanics and all the various aspects. I am just disconnected from the game for a very lenghty period early on.

I do not think civ 5 is a bad game, it just does not hold up to what i expect from a civ game, and after beating it in most of the victory modes, at higher levels, there really feels like there is nothing left for me to do.

Even after taking 2 weeks off from Civ, i just cant get past that initial feeling of boredom, and the feeling that i have beaten the game. Mabye its the illusion that i know how the game is going to proceed every single time.

 

[rabidveggie]

I really tried to give this game a chance, but I'm sorry Civ IV to me is the better game. In Civ V a lot of the immersion I used to be able to feel with IV has been removed, all cities are the same with little to no thought put into where I place my cities since they all turn out the same in the end. The AI plays like a bunch of Monty's from IV. Something seems off as I watch Gandhi steam roll the world. Nothing happens on most turns and where in IV as time progressed my economy would grow in this I watch as I spiral into debt. You can't build most buildings due to money constraint and wonders are very unexciting. I honestly don't care if I capture a city with 4 wonders in it the way they are designed. Really though the biggest flaw of this game is the game speed. I bought a high spec computer mostly to play Civ V. Why the hell is their so much god damn slow down? Sure I can play with less computers but why should I have to? I'm sick of buying unfinished games and dlc from day one. Finish the game for god sake that's what I'm paying for!

 

[OneFootInThe...]

I agree. And here's why:
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.

so totally true, I agree with the rest too, but this part really describes the pace of what were once interesting decisions... no more in CiV

 

[ProximaCentauri]

After reading a ton of Civ5 "hatred" posts (or, more accuratly, saddened posts) on this forum I just wanted to share my own experience.
I'm new to the Civilization franchise and began right after Civ5's release, playing it for over 150 hours. Then after reading a lot here I started playing Civ4 for an equally long time (just lost my job).

Just wanted to say a very simple thing, not expanding my opinion atm : I do prefer Civ4 A LOT, for A LOT of reasons.

Just trying to show it's not just a matter of old gamers trying to resist to change.

 

[SuperJay]

After reading a ton of Civ5 "hatred" posts (or, more accuratly, saddened posts) on this forum I just wanted to share my own experience.
I'm new to the Civilization franchise and began right after Civ5's release, playing it for over 150 hours. Then after reading a lot here I started playing Civ4 for an equally long time (just lost my job).

Just wanted to say a very simple thing, not expanding my opinion atm : I do prefer Civ4 A LOT, for A LOT of reasons.

Just trying to show it's not just a matter of old gamers trying to resist to change.

Interesting hearing that perspective from someone just coming into the series for the first time, because you're effectively the target audience for Civ 5. While completely anectodal and subjective, it's interesting that you opted to move on from it within the first couple months. Did you stop playing 5 altogether? If so, what made you decide to do so? Just curious.

(Sorry to hear about your job, btw. But welcome to CFC and the Civ series!)

 

[ProximaCentauri]

@Jay

Yeah, I completly stopped playing C5. I first just wanted to give a try to C4, having read all those complaints on this forum and willing to make my own view. It took some hours but I finally got hooked by C4, more than C5.


There are two sets of reasons for this, the first (but the one of least importance in my decision) being the lack of polishment of the game, software-speaking : tons of bugs, turns sometimes taking ages to end and adding to the emptiness feeling of the game, broken features (general IA, diplomacy).


The second was summarized on this forum as the dead of the "one more turn" feeling.
Here is the highly subjective part : one cannot demonstrate which is better between rushing building or just buying them, doing transports or just embarking, loving C4's civics or C5's policy system. But in average I love C4 better.

My personal feeling is that there are not so much things to do in C5, choices aren't that important (tech order, city placement,...), the enjoyment per turn being lowered and, given the length of turns, the enjoyment per minute having drowned^^.

I think this is not only a result of some lack of features compared to C4 (which is real, but not SO HUGE, and I will not spend ten paragraphs whining on the death of religions that nicely intricated diplomacy, gold and culture, and other feats) : most of the feats are there, but you just don't use them.
IMHO it's more a consequence of the non-existence of AI, which turns the game into a warmongering shooting feast that is the same in every game I created after the first ones where I took time to discover the mechanics. 1 upt is really great, but the IA don't get it.
So in every game I end up founding only 1 to 3 cities, puppetting the rest of the world while getting huge amouts of science and gold for this, and having medium culture production but low new policies costs and thus being able to go for any victory type.
In addition, a feeling of playing alone in the middle of brainless bots in a soulless game due to the lack of a true diplo system.
Of course, the game will probably be wargame-oriented in MP too, but it should be more interesting.


In a few words, less feats, no IA, one way to play, less immersion, lots of bugs. That's what I discovered about C5 trying C4, and will stick to the latter unless a major update shows up (but, more realistic, this will probably need a full expansion).

 

[turfcat]

I want to thank everyone for their views on civ-v. I made the hard decision not to buy it based on the fact that I only have dial-up internet connection and would probably have a hard time handling the whole "Steam Thing". Now after hearing all the negative remarks I don't feel too bad about my decision.
I was somewhat (though not totally) disappointed with civ iv.
I still choose civ III as my favorite.
Maybe if a version of civ-v comes out (minus steam), I'll give it a try.

 

[Xyan]

I just forced myself to finish my first game on Civ5. And I got the game on the first day it was released.

For someone who used to complete 1 standard game per day or 1 marathon game per 2 days for Civ4, that says a lot about Civ5. I just cannot bear to continue...

Just.. One.. more.. Turn?? Are you kidding?

The OP summed up the sentiment very well. I really hope the developers sees it.

 

[HorribleHarald]

Civ 5 is not a bad game but compared to previous versions it has disappointments. It has some good improvements like limited resources and tile by tile cultural expansion. But why make worse diplomacy and trade? Those things should be improved from previous versions, not restrict. WHY? Now Civ 5 more boring than Civ 4. I haven't played Civ 5 anymore. It's not hooking like Civ4. Perhaps I wait more improvements or I change back to Civ4.

 

[Derax]

I want to thank everyone for their views on civ-v. I made the hard decision not to buy it based on the fact that I only have dial-up internet connection and would probably have a hard time handling the whole "Steam Thing". Now after hearing all the negative remarks I don't feel too bad about my decision.
I was somewhat (though not totally) disappointed with civ iv.
I still choose civ III as my favorite.
Maybe if a version of civ-v comes out (minus steam), I'll give it a try.

Having a bad Internet connection is not a reason to not buy civ 5. I play it often (always) offline, too. People seem not to understand how steam (can) works...
My AntiVir actually needs the same ressources as civ 5...


You can set Steam to be offline all the time.

/// Of course hating steam is a reason(I do not mean it in a sarcastic way), but ever1 who is capable of playing civ will also manage to:
1.Create an account (and remember the data)
2. pressing "go offline" in the menu.

 

[Aristos]

After reading a ton of Civ5 "hatred" posts (or, more accuratly, saddened posts) on this forum I just wanted to share my own experience.
I'm new to the Civilization franchise and began right after Civ5's release, playing it for over 150 hours. Then after reading a lot here I started playing Civ4 for an equally long time (just lost my job).

Just wanted to say a very simple thing, not expanding my opinion atm : I do prefer Civ4 A LOT, for A LOT of reasons.

Just trying to show it's not just a matter of old gamers trying to resist to change.

Here, here...

that only means you have what it takes to become a hardcore civver. Welcome! Of course it is not anything related to "fear of change", that is a weak argument coming from weak-minded people (the representatives of the mass market that Firaxis targeted this time, perhaps?)...

Again, welcome to the true Civ, and enjoy it, as it has a long life in front of it judging by the latest iteration...

Oh, and when you are comfortable with the depth and rules of Civ4BTS, get the BUG mod asap, and if possible, Rise of Mankind: A New Dawn... both masterpieces.

cheers,

rjg