this game is boring

[Atwork]

Vandyr, I completely agree with you. But, if it were for the criticism, critique, suggestions, then the designers and modders wouldn't get nearly the input they require for improving the game. Yes, in a year or two, in all likelihood, C5 will be a radically different and improved game (we hope!). But, until then, wah!

 

[vandyr]

Vandyr, I completely agree with you. But, if it were for the criticism, critique, suggestions, then the designers and modders wouldn't get nearly the input they require for improving the game. Yes, in a year or two, in all likelihood, C5 will be a radically different and improved game (we hope!). But, until then, wah!

Yea, no doubt about that. Of course, I don't think hugely exaggerating the game's problems really helps as far as criticisms go, but at the same time, I think there's a reason a lot of people feel bored by Civ V compared to IV and that's because right now IV has a ton more content and fluff than V, and that's to be expected. But yea, I'm hoping for some nice xpacs and mods in the future that will make Civ V every bit as fleshed out and awesome as IV was/is/has been. I just can't go back to IV because of 1upt, so I'll stick with V until VI comes out

 

[Clement]

For me any boredom i experience while playing civ 5 comes from the lack of diplomatic options and the dissatisfying interactions with the AI leaders, add to that no espionage, no sabotage, no vassalage, no long term allies, no international trade routes, no emergent factions of AI leaders, and there are indeed quite a few whistling/ thumb twiddling moments.

 

[Zydor]

I really think you're massively overexaggerating the difference between the two games.

We all have our perspectives, it what makes the world turn round.

Mine is based on a central part of Civ5, you sit on a Gem or other "happy" resource, press the enter button enough times to generate cash to buy whatever food, weapons and culture you want, then go destroy someone.

Culture is pointless anyway as it only expands borders certainly has no relevance to what culture actually is, and is primarily used as a game mechanic to drive so called "Policies", conceptually its a joke. In any case the game balance discourages settling anywhere near someone elses border, and when you are next to one, chances are you are expected to wipe them out anyway. They even give a "stop spawning units" button in the MS states to prevent too many units being given out from santa's freebie factory. Its more akin to the Wizzard of Oz Fantasy games, than the Strategy genre.

No one will ever convince me thats all deep strategy, not going to happen.

Regards
Zy

 

[Sadan01]

I tend to agree with Zy's post on things, IF Firaxis do not take any steps to reverse what at the moment is a combat game (not simulator) with no soul. I'm happy to give them as much time as they need - like another six months of development time - to see it happen as I'm not playing Civ V anymore.

It is a shame though that a great franchise, which I've followed since 1991, has been reduced to the shambles that is Civ V today. New players of Civ V won't agree but I don't care. Civilization has always had a special place as being a game I knew would be a challenge, a rewarding game and one of the most addictive. Firaxis ruined all that with Civ V.

 

[Eskel]

Civ5 is rather Civ [Panzer] General, than true Civ, for now. Combat plays major role in the game, while empire building is almost unimportant. It surely fits Schafer's declared playstyle, as he prefers to have up to 3 cities only, so management doesnt bother him too much.
However, if someone goes that way, is that really need to have technologies, cities, whatever - at all? It only distracts player from most immersive aspects of game.
IMO, pure Panzer General, without strategic issues is better than what Civ5 tries to be. It is more streamlined, so player can focus on tactical elements, without going into detail, thus achieving maximal joy. Being great game in the past, Panzer General genre is little bit outdated. There is now a lot of very good tactical games, more visually appealing, who won hearts of its former fans, and pushed PG into non-existence.
Thats why I feel that Firaxis made fundamental mistake, going into simplicity. They targeted new audience, which in fact prefer other playstyles or genres (especially RTS-es), and sooner or later will abandon Civ franchise. Simply put, I think they can have the same or bigger ammount of pleasure with other titles, with less effort.
Of course, future Civ can evolve following the need of its new fanbase, but it will not be a Civ game any more.
In the same time, someone still could earn his money on ours - possibly not as popular but still significant in numbers - tastes. What a shame 2k decided not to.

 

[Zydor]

It is sad, I agree. Fireaxis will have to dump the Civilisation genre if they dont fix this mess, because even as a shoot-em-up, it cant compete with other games designed from the base up as combat games. Its the old story, commercial interests target the majority market - in this case the 70% combat dorks - and ignore the rest. They have destroyed the most famous and long lasting Franchise in the Gaming World to make a quick buck by minimising developer time by restricting it to simplistic shoot-em-up - failed miserably at that intent - and I will never forgive them for that, they can put whatever game they "sponsor" in the future in their pipe and smoke it, Fireaxis get no more of my dosh..

New to the Civilisation Series players will not recognise all this, they do not know in depth the 25 year Franchise history and attached games. It will take a while for it to surface, then the shallow nature of this "version" (abomination) will become evident, and they will quietly drift away. Fireaxis will go seek another popularist combat game driven by a fast buck and leach off that, leaving the most famous game Franchise in the world, wrecked and in the dust. It makes me spit.

Regards
Zy

 

[Zaimejs]

I would just like to add that I was sick on Monday so I thought I'd try Civ V again. It has been about a month since I last played it. My story is identical to many others here. Long time Civ fan. Played hundreds and hundreds of hours on Civ IV and it's various incarnations.

But this one? Dullsville. I tried to have fun. I thought it was just a new learning curve... but there is really nothing to look forward to turn after turn. Someone just missed the boat.

Thanks for starting this thread and making me feel that it isn't just me.

 

[Aedn]

Yea, no doubt about that. Of course, I don't think hugely exaggerating the game's problems really helps as far as criticisms go, but at the same time, I think there's a reason a lot of people feel bored by Civ V compared to IV and that's because right now IV has a ton more content and fluff than V, and that's to be expected. But yea, I'm hoping for some nice xpacs and mods in the future that will make Civ V every bit as fleshed out and awesome as IV was/is/has been. I just can't go back to IV because of 1upt, so I'll stick with V until VI comes out

The problem with V is that it has been streamlined or simplified to excess.The changes have had for many negative side effects that do not appear to be realized by the developers during development. The removal or simplification of happiness management, Religion, Tech choices, city placement, tile improvements, City improvements, empire building etc is a problem for me, because it leads to a game where my path to success is going to revolve around a minority of choices. everything outside of those few choices has no real impact on how the game unfolds, unlike previous civ versions.

All computer games, and games in general generally have some "best choice" options that will give you success. The difference between Civ 5 and previous Civ's, is that there is a lack of other "choices" that will lead to success, because the game mechanics are simplified and lack depth. This limits the player to a few strategies, or composition of strategies, which in turn leads to boredom because most players feel as if they have "won" after a few times.

City states are just one glaring example of a mechanic that has simplified the game extensively.

 

[CarpeDiem]

I agree it's boring, very stale

 

[Jharii]

Can someone cry me up a river? I need to settle a new city.

/sorry

I've been holding on to this for a couple days. Just share a laugh.

 

[Atwork]

Something my roommate has mentioned a few times to me, is that the game lacks the 'game within the game' feel that C4 had.

In C4 -- there was a early religion rush, and that religion contest remained relevant through most of the game (maybe too much so).

then there was the espionage game -- even if you had nothing else to do except hit enter -- you could always use your spies to have a look around, maybe conduct a mission.....the was even more fun with the "Superspy mod."

then there was the first around the world challenge -- always pleasing if you succeeded!

then there were the corporations -- very pleasing if you founded one and then there was a little rivalry game going on against rival corps that effected trade, war, and peace. The random events sometimes gave you additional challenges based on the corporations....

And of course, there's no random events anymore, which add some random spicing and an element of surprise....not always positive!

The global effects of things means that individual cities are just another face in the crowd.....I liked the local effects because I would take pride in each city for its individuality -- not as just some part contributing to a whole. I don't know if that makes sense.....it's such a subjective feeling!

As it is now, without these little games to play during the course of the game, you don't get the frequency of the anxious to reward loop....you don't get the feeling of pride as you achieve success in one of these small areas......there aren't as many highs anymore -- and the highs you do get are limited to just a few elements and they're much more delayed because buildings, units, and esp. wonders take forever to build.....As my roommate put it, he spends so much time feeling like, 'this is taking forever!', that he just ends up feeling like it isn't worth it for such small and infrequent highs.....

 

[Balerune]

I tend to agree with Zy's post on things, IF Firaxis do not take any steps to reverse what at the moment is a combat game (not simulator) with no soul. I'm happy to give them as much time as they need - like another six months of development time - to see it happen as I'm not playing Civ V anymore.

It is a shame though that a great franchise, which I've followed since 1991, has been reduced to the shambles that is Civ V today. New players of Civ V won't agree but I don't care. Civilization has always had a special place as being a game I knew would be a challenge, a rewarding game and one of the most addictive. Firaxis ruined all that with Civ V.

Since China will soon have a larger share of asset wealth than the US and as they do have a great culture and civilization it only makes sense that Firaxis should have hired some Chinese to advise them on how a game of civilization should have been implemented. Its almost ironic that the decline of western civilization and the decline of the civ franchise are occurring at the same time. Now if I only spoke Chinese and they had a freer society I'd be set. So will it be Confucianism or Buddhism and the bureaucratic state.... or .... sorry, is this a game or real life....O.... that religion and civic stuff isn't in Civ V. Sigh, I guess they'll never change to democracy....

 

[PawelS]

Decline of the civ franchise??? Now this is funny Calling the fact that some people don't like the game a decline of the franchise is a gross exaggeration

 

[Kaleb]

I tend to agree with Zy's post on things, IF Firaxis do not take any steps to reverse what at the moment is a combat game (not simulator) with no soul. I'm happy to give them as much time as they need - like another six months of development time - to see it happen as I'm not playing Civ V anymore.

It is a shame though that a great franchise, which I've followed since 1991, has been reduced to the shambles that is Civ V today. New players of Civ V won't agree but I don't care. Civilization has always had a special place as being a game I knew would be a challenge, a rewarding game and one of the most addictive. Firaxis ruined all that with Civ V.

I must say this is sadly the conclusion I've come to too.

Been playing Civ since the demo of Civ I came out and every version since a LOT. definitely the most disappointing version in the franchise so far. Looks so badly thought through.

Unless there are some good mods coming out soon that do away with things like City States for a start I think I'll get a more rewarding experience trying out some of the many excellent mods that the community has made for Civ4

I think Firaxis are making a big mistake in alienating their core community. We're the ones who buy every version the game and all the expansions and that's because we've known what to expect from the franchise

Call to Power 3 anyone?

 

[RobAnybody]

Can someone cry me up a river? I need to settle a new city.

I would, but it would just be dull & lifeless.

 

[Skwink]

Because this is the general discussion forum for Civilization V and I bought Civilization V. Just because I do not like the game in it's current state doesn't mean I cannot post about why I do not like it or why I think it is boring.

But in the same vein, if you enjoy Civilization V, then good on you - I don't understand why you feel the need to post in a thread that has nothing to do with how you're feeling about the game to which you add nothing to the discussion.

I don't have, or have played 5. There have been tons of topics like this one, it's getting old.

 

[Bandobras Took]

It's time to remind people of a little quote from the very first Civilization game ever.

Conquer the World: If you succeed in eliminating all other civilizations in the world, the game automatically ends. This is the ultimate achievement possible by a civilization. You are shown your civilization score and may be entered into the Hall of Fame. You may review a replay of the world's history.

Now that we've gotten this whole "Civ 5 is the first wargame in the series" out of the way . . .

Not dumbed down ..... rofl. You cant get more dumb than have a central tenant to game than "buying" culture, how utterly stupid.

As opposed to:

A central tenet of destroying your own population in order to build axemen? Where are the people coming from if you're killing them to make the weapons? (Civ 4)

A central tenet of cities far away from your capitol being unable to build a darn thing? (Civ 3)

A central tenet of trade caravans building wonders for you? (Civ 2)

A central tenet of carpeting the ground with cities? (Civ)

Never mind that you're not buying the culture, you're buying the land. It's happened a few times in history. Offhand, the Louisiana purchase qualifies as a real-life example.

With military resources, how did the City States get the wherewithal to make 'em? We spend the whole game with the concept that CS are weak and don't take too many or the AI will be hissed off, and then watch the AI take em at will - take the very organizations that magically produce weapon systems out of thin air, yet cant defend themselves ? Its a nonsense and an obvious game mechanic.

As opposed to:

Magically producing axemen by annihilating large portions of your population? (Civ 4)

Magically producing swordsmen by annihilating large portions of your population? (Civ 3)

Ugh, I'm already getting tired of this . . .

Magically producing wonders with a trade caravan? (Civ 2)

As for food, come on, its ridiculous. A small city state magically produces enough food to feed a global world wide empire ..... its utterly ridiculous, another obvious game mechanic bowing to shoot em up mentality and reduce the need to use the brain.

As opposed to:

Magically feeding a global world wide empire with a single source of fish located just off antarctic? (Civ 4)

Magically feeding a global world wide empire with a bunch of burial tombs? (Civ 3)

Then we have that freakin Robot at the end of the game .... where did that come from?

Most likely the same people who gave us a Freakin Spaceship capable of going to Alpha Centauri.

From a developer viewpoint, having got rid of the complexities of Culture, Food, and manufacture of weapons systems

You mean the culture that didn't exist until Civ 3 and was barely worthwhile until Civ 4, the food that was "build Granaries first in every city," and the rushbuy that has been available since practically forever?

they can concentrate far less resource on building a shoot em up at a cheaper cost, and pander to individuals thinking they are being terribly "strategic" manipulating so called "strategies" like "warrior rush", "horse rush" et al. Strategies my fiddlesticks, its game mechanics, nothing near military strategy. Pure tosh.

Anybody who claims building a few horsemen in Civ 5 is any different than building a stack of Axemen in Civ 4 or a stack of pick-your-offensive-unit-of-choice in Civ 3 is, I agree, spouting pure tosh.

The Civ Franchise up to Civ IV was far from perfect, would always butt up against the complexities of real life, but it was "believable", certainly had the immersion factor, and could still be played as a shoot-em-up if the player wanted to. Civ5 has dumped Immersion Empire building, and gone for simplistic shoot-em-up because that's the bigger commercial market.

Actually, none of the Civ games have been particularly believable to me. You just don't want to believe Civ 5 for some obscure reason that has nothing to do with the concerns you have listed, which can be applied with equal validity to any previous game in the series.

The previous games did not "certainly" have the immersion factor because that is entirely subjective. As a counterexample, watching units wander across my borders in Civ 3 pretty much broke immersion right there, and realizing that under its corruption model San Fransisco would be one of the least productive cities in the United States -- well, I won't describe my reaction to that.

Now you claim that Civ 5 has dumped Immersion Empire building. How? It can't be because of building maintenance -- that's been in since the beginning. It can't be because ICS is possible -- that's been in since the beginning. It can't be because of Giant Death Robots, because those come at the end of the game and can be completely skipped if you want a culture or spaceship victory. It must be because there are Maritime City-States that you can get before you could get Sid's Sushi in Civ 4 or The Pyramids in Civ 3. And if that breaks immersion (as far as Empire Building) for you, what exactly was it that immersed you in the previous games that is demonstrably and definably absent in Civ 5 in regards to Empire-Building?

They will live off the Franhcise past reputation for the duration of Civ5 as people can still be conned into believing they are empire building - because thats traditionally what the Franchise did, so they play with that assumption. It will not be long before the simplistic structure of the game comes through after many tries with it, and it dawns on people the shallow level of the game now.

If that were true there would never have been a Civ 4. I've never played a game that punished Empire-Building on the scale Civ 3 did.

Meanwhile back at the Franchise, the shoot-em-up developers are tearing down his creation because they know 70% of the market place out there wants simplistic dramatic shoot-em-ups.

You keep mistaking Civ 5 for Civ 3. You remember Civ 3, right? Spam Settlers, but you can only really build anything in the first 3 or 4 cities, and buildings will cost you maintenance when you finally manage to build them, so you're better off just spamming military units because every city you conquer allows you to build more military units, and the AI will always declare on you unless you devote yourself to building military units, which you can't do in peripheral cities because of waste, which means that the cities you'd like to have building things because they actually generate hammers will need to be building military anyway even if you want to play a peaceful game . . .

Using the brain to play sophisticated genuine strategy games is not commercially popular. Its been a great 20+ year ride, but its a shame that dumb commercialism has taken over and not allowed the Immersive Empire Building tenants to be built on and further improved. It was a great ride while it lasted.

I must have missed that one. Surely it's not the series that spawned this?

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ2/aistupidities/

A sophisticated genuine strategy game without a sophisticated, genuinely strategical opponent?

Immersive Empire Building, forsooth. The series abandoned immersion after Alpha Centauri.

 

[charon2112]

I agree with you 100%. Thanks for taking the time to write this out, but I'm sure it will fall on mostly deaf ears.

It's time to remind people of a little quote from the very first Civilization game ever.



Now that we've gotten this whole "Civ 5 is the first wargame in the series" out of the way . . .



As opposed to:

A central tenet of destroying your own population in order to build axemen? Where are the people coming from if you're killing them to make the weapons? (Civ 4)

A central tenet of cities far away from your capitol being unable to build a darn thing? (Civ 3)

A central tenet of trade caravans building wonders for you? (Civ 2)

A central tenet of carpeting the ground with cities? (Civ)

Never mind that you're not buying the culture, you're buying the land. It's happened a few times in history. Offhand, the Louisiana purchase qualifies as a real-life example.



As opposed to:

Magically producing axemen by annihilating large portions of your population? (Civ 4)

Magically producing swordsmen by annihilating large portions of your population? (Civ 3)

Ugh, I'm already getting tired of this . . .

Magically producing wonders with a trade caravan? (Civ 2)



As opposed to:

Magically feeding a global world wide empire with a single source of fish located just off antarctic? (Civ 4)

Magically feeding a global world wide empire with a bunch of burial tombs? (Civ 3)



Most likely the same people who gave us a Freakin Spaceship capable of going to Alpha Centauri.



You mean the culture that didn't exist until Civ 3 and was barely worthwhile until Civ 4, the food that was "build Granaries first in every city," and the rushbuy that has been available since practically forever?



Anybody who claims building a few horsemen in Civ 5 is any different than building a stack of Axemen in Civ 4 or a stack of pick-your-offensive-unit-of-choice in Civ 3 is, I agree, spouting pure tosh.



Actually, none of the Civ games have been particularly believable to me. You just don't want to believe Civ 5 for some obscure reason that has nothing to do with the concerns you have listed, which can be applied with equal validity to any previous game in the series.

The previous games did not "certainly" have the immersion factor because that is entirely subjective. As a counterexample, watching units wander across my borders in Civ 3 pretty much broke immersion right there, and realizing that under its corruption model San Fransisco would be one of the least productive cities in the United States -- well, I won't describe my reaction to that.

Now you claim that Civ 5 has dumped Immersion Empire building. How? It can't be because of building maintenance -- that's been in since the beginning. It can't be because ICS is possible -- that's been in since the beginning. It can't be because of Giant Death Robots, because those come at the end of the game and can be completely skipped if you want a culture or spaceship victory. It must be because there are Maritime City-States that you can get before you could get Sid's Sushi in Civ 4 or The Pyramids in Civ 3. And if that breaks immersion (as far as Empire Building) for you, what exactly was it that immersed you in the previous games that is demonstrably and definably absent in Civ 5 in regards to Empire-Building?



If that were true there would never have been a Civ 4. I've never played a game that punished Empire-Building on the scale Civ 3 did.



You keep mistaking Civ 5 for Civ 3. You remember Civ 3, right? Spam Settlers, but you can only really build anything in the first 3 or 4 cities, and buildings will cost you maintenance when you finally manage to build them, so you're better off just spamming military units because every city you conquer allows you to build more military units, and the AI will always declare on you unless you devote yourself to building military units, which you can't do in peripheral cities because of waste, which means that the cities you'd like to have building things because they actually generate hammers will need to be building military anyway even if you want to play a peaceful game . . .



I must have missed that one. Surely it's not the series that spawned this?

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ2/aistupidities/

A sophisticated genuine strategy game without a sophisticated, genuinely strategical opponent?

Immersive Empire Building, forsooth. The series abandoned immersion after Alpha Centauri.

 

[Atwork]

Bandrobas makes valid points. But, just as he is willing to criticize past versions for their shortcomings, so are people prepared to criticize C5 for its many shortcomings. It is by pointing out the weaknesses that the game will be improved.

By the way, anyone check out the list of changes for the upcoming patch? A good solid list!

Posted by 2k Greg:

AI
• Worker AI improvements .
• Update to tactical AI pillaging code. Additionally, always check to make sure it’s not trying to pillage in an enemy dominance zone.
• AI victory emphasis improvements (more efficient end-game when focusing on Science and Diplo victories).
• AI should colonize other continents regularly.
• AI will emphasize production of an Ocean going explorer unit when the time comes.
• Adjust Napoleon to make him more likely to go for culture.
• More aggressive second wave expansion (mostly off shore) after initial empire building and consolidation has occurred.
• Optimization when finding routes (pathfinder improvement).
• Multiple tweaks and bug fixes.
• AI will now build ranged and mobile units more in line with the flavor settings.
• Multiple defensive AI tweaks.

GAMEPLAY
• Cities heal more quickly.
• Only allow one upgrade per unit from a goody hut.

UI
• Tweaked the single-player score list to hide the civs of unmet ai players.

DIPLO
• AI's attitude towards you is now visible in the diplo screen and diplo drop-down.
• Added info tooltip for an AI leader's mood. Lists things that are making an AI player happy/upset.
• New diplo system: Declaration of Friendship (public declaration with diplomatic repercussions).
• New diplo system: Denounce (public declaration with diplomatic repercussions).
• New custom leader responses (Serious Expansion Warning, Aggressive Military, Luxury Exchange, Borders Exchange, Gift Request).

MODDING
• Parent category counts now include counts of child categories.
• Selecting/deselecting a category now automatically selects/deselects it's children and its parent.
• Tweaked category name truncation to better fit names.
• Hide categories w/ no children and a count of 0.
• Added support for fallback languages (if mod is not translated, fall-back to English so text keys are not showing).

MISC
• Fixed save format which causes saves to increase the memory footprint of the game drastically when loading frequently over the course of the game.