Why I am getting bored with this game....

[ohioastronomy]

Have you ever considered that the tech tree has been designed with gameplay in mind? I challenge you to redesign the whole tech tree to make sense historically. While you will probably already fail with that, just imagine afterwards whether such a tech tree would be fun to play.

The pacing is bizarre however, with crazy slingshots interspersed with lots of useless techs in a row. Take a good example: say you want a spaceship game. If you work the top half of the tech tree you can get to Scientific Method pretty quickly. If you're doing Culture, Archeology and Acoustics. However, to progress further you will eventually need to plow through a bunch of random things from the bottom part of the tech tree while getting nothing useful (except military units, which you don't care about in a space or culture win.) After getting Biology I frequently find that I have only 1 (!) research choice at all, and I have to go through the following series to get to anything interesting: note the things that you are getting as you go through:

Machinery Crossbowman, faster roads.
Physics Trebuchet. No science impact at all.
Steel Longswordsman.
Printing Press Theatre, Taj Mahal (at least these are a bit useful)
Gunpowder Musketman.
Economics Windmill, Big Ben (meh)
Chemistry Cannon, Ironworks. No science benefit.
Military Science. Cavalry, Military Academy, Big Ben.

And then I get to Steam Power and a few useful things show up before other long slogs through chains of fluff follow.

Designing a game that forces you to buy 8+ consecutive techs which don't materially help you with all non-military victory conditions is bizarre. And there are other dead zones further up the tech tree - for culture between telegraph/radio and globalization, for instance.

 

[SkepticalSinner]

I'm actually enjoying the game more now at 120 hours played.

Playing on King Level (Current Game Elizabeth) Map Type Small Continents, Map size Large, Game Speed Normal.

My first 2 games at King (Napoleon and Darius) I got utterly squished by the AI. I agree it's dumb when it comes to chokepoints and naval warfare, but I certainly felt it was being smarter than Civ IV.

Re: diplomacy, I'm really seeing what the designers were going for, each opponent really does have their own personality. And they choose the right time to go to war (so far)

The choices you make (Pact of Secrecy, Pact of Cooperation) DO make a difference as long as you stick with them... so, if you make a Pact of Secrecy with Catherine against Caesar, then turn around 3 turns later and give Caesar Open Borders and a Trade, Catherine's not going to like it. Likewise if you enter into a pact of cooperation, and don't co-operate... THEY'RE NOT Going to like you.

If you're neighbors with a warmongering type, you ARE going to have to kill or be killed, but Ghandi, Rhamalamadingdong and Rameses can be bargained and reasoned with. Provided you don't appear too weak.

There are some issues, some that really need attention - but they (at least for me) aren't dealbreakers, and I'm having more fun with this Civ than any other so far. (Been playing since 1991 - every version except Revolutions)

The Mods out there are also great, and will continue to get better.

 

[Rince]

Designing a game that forces you to buy 8+ consecutive techs which don't materially help you with all non-military victory conditions is bizarre. And there are other dead zones further up the tech tree - for culture between telegraph/radio and globalization, for instance.

So what you would like to have is something resembling the social policies system where you have different sub-branches depending on what type of technology you want to focus on?

 

[stormerne]

The original poster listed a bunch of things that were absent from Civ5 as the reasons why they were getting bored with the game. Someone else opined that lack of realism was at least in part why they were also getting bored. Two valid viewpoints. I'll add my two to the latter.

Speaking as an architect in virtual worlds, I understand the need for immersiveness in keeping people interested. Things don't necessarily have to be realistic but they must at least be credible and consistent. (For example, flying and teleporting may not be realistic in the real world but they may be consistent with the rest of the virtual world.) You need to feel you're there, in that world, not manipulating just an avatar from outside. It's what keeps people coming back.

Civ5 designers took a whole bunch of decisions that took the game in the direction they wanted it to go. Many of these were artificial and of questionable realism. (For example, buying tiles, but from whom? And fewer bigger overcrowded cities being happier than more ordered spread-out nations with lots of intercity sporting links!) However, you can learn Civ5 gameplay, and play by their rules, and enjoy it. But when you've mastered those and played several games, are you more or less likely to come back and play more?

So it's a good point. Immersiveness helps with play-again playability. You need as few things as possible that "stand out like a sore thumb". It can stop you getting bored. And it makes good commercial sense, because you don't get brand loyalty from people who are bored.

 

[DuseCutter]

What I found boring was when I was close to a cultural victory, my neighbors didn't care and let me have it uncontested. Next game I went for a space-race victory. I was warring most of the time early and mid-game. Once it comes time to start making parts, I figured the two leftover AIs would try to destroy me especially considering the one's army was 3x as strong as mine. Nothing. Got my spaceship finished quite easily.

Those two victories were never threatened by the AI. They just let me go ahead and win. It seemed... wrong. I felt like they should have went "all out" to stop me.

 

[lschnarch]

Have you ever considered that the tech tree has been designed with gameplay in mind? I challenge you to redesign the whole tech tree to make sense historically. While you will probably already fail with that, just imagine afterwards whether such a tech tree would be fun to play.

Yes, I did.
Since there isn't any gameplay, but just a strange mixture of non-fitting isolated items, the tech tree cannot have been set up with something like a gameplay in mind.

About the so-called "challenge": since I am a lazy guy, I would just have a look at tech trees from mods like ROM and RAR.
Granted, knowing about the target audience, they would have to be considerably stripped, but anyway...

But I take your word for it that you're feeling intellectually satisfied by the current ... eh.... "tech tree".

 

[PieceOfMind]

Since there isn't any gameplay, but just a strange mixture of non-fitting isolated items, the tech tree cannot have been set up with something like a gameplay in mind.

Ok, suppose what you said were true. What was in mind when the tree was set up, then?

 

[SuperJay]

Those two victories were never threatened by the AI. They just let me go ahead and win. It seemed... wrong. I felt like they should have went "all out" to stop me.

I've had the same experience. The AI civs didn't seem to even care what I was doing, unless a lone scout happened to wander within 3 hexes of their borders. THEN they go into frothing convulsions.

But on the run up to my victory? Nothing at all. The AI supposedly "plays to win" this time around, but they seem to do so in a vaccuum. I'd like it if they also played to stop ME from winning, too.

 

[quarterpound]

Hi, first post btw. I do think the design as it stands is pretty intensely flawed, but it's also pretty far from unsalvageable. The only reason it's even "bad" is because the bar is set so high after all those years with civ4. So, sure, I agree that I can't imagine what the devs were smoking when they were taking away religion and replacing the civics with a boring tree and making the tech tree more boring (a little more sensible, really, but too streamlined) as well. I have no idea why the AI is so completely incompetent and the UI is so inconsistent and the Civilopedia is attractive, but useless. But I still think it's fun. It's starting to get a little old and so I'm toying with mods and looking forward to tweaking a few things myself and I'm just relieved that they've stuck tot heir roots; given us a candy update, but left the core game as it should be: a very easy-to-mod sandbox.

 

[xcrissxcrossx]

I have played Civ4 for years, and I rarely got bored of it. On the other hand, in Civ 5, it seems very boring to start a game, and very boring to finish a game. As a matter of fact, the mid game is somewhat boring too. It doesn't seem like a bad game, it just doesn't have the same appeal of any of the Civ's before it.

Does anyone feel the same? Or any tips to make it more fun?

 

[vincentz]

I found myself fighting to go on playing....

It was sooooo boring that I was on a reverse "just 1 more turn"

 

[lschnarch]

I have played Civ4 for years, and I rarely got bored of it. On the other hand, in Civ 5, it seems very boring to start a game, and very boring to finish a game. As a matter of fact, the mid game is somewhat boring too. It doesn't seem like a bad game, it just doesn't have the same appeal of any of the Civ's before it.

Does anyone feel the same? Or any tips to make it more fun?

Yesterday I set Steam to online mode to be able to browse the forums during playing.
Guess what? You can't activate the Steam interface during the inter-turns.

Result: I alt-tabbed into Firefox, browsed the internet and finally closed the game.

Civ4 has been literally the only game I was playing during the past years.
Civ0.V actually isn't getting started anymore. After two weeks.

 

[Officerjackboot]

Take a break from it and come back. I have been reading about people being bored at 60+ hours of play I mean damn that is some serious playtime. Most games you are sitting at 20 hour single player experience. If you really want to have more fun then play online against others if not then take a break from it.

 

[lschnarch]

Take a break from it and come back. I have been reading about people being bored at 60+ hours of play I mean damn that is some serious playtime. Most games you are sitting at 20 hour single player experience. If you really want to have more fun then play online against others if not then take a break from it.

Wouldn't help.
I've spent nights with Civ4 while in the next day I would have to go on a business trip the next day. It just kept my interest. "One more turn!"

With 0.V I am getting upset due to design flaws all over the place. I am not talking about bugs, which unfortunately are unavoidable at larger programs.
I am talking about fundamental design flaws, which I expect cannot be solved without a major, fundamental redesign which is unlikely to happen.

Actually, I think that 0.V prepared the coffin for the series.

 

[Immow]

Well, I played a few games with my friend and it seems that around 80 turns the game is decided if you go for a horsemen rush. Also city states are so powerful for fuelling your civilization science food and cultural wise that the only thing you are doing is making money and spending on them. We are almost even matched when we play civ but if one does not use citystates the other player just wins in both culture and tech (using the policy that focuses on city states).

Found city -> tech to horses -> if needed build new city at horses -> spend 500 gold on a city state for food boost -> build only money making improvements -> build your horsies -> destroy a few civs and gg

 

[JimT]

I don't normally complain about new releases but I'm getting bored myself.

I won the first game on difficulty I'm used to (King) moved up a level, won that, moved up a level.

I am presently going for a cultural victory for a change, I wouldn't recommend it, basically consists of clicking "Next turn" repeatedy, interspersed with amending your building queue.
I share a continent with Augustus who hasn't attacked me despite the fact I am his only way to expand and won't give him open borders (I like my city state allies unoccupied).

I don't think its a fundamental design flaw, I think if they can sort the AI and increase flexibility they will be on to a winner.
I also would like more info on whats happeing in game but then that should come with mods, forums and the add ons

 

[PieceOfMind]

Moderator Action: Threads merged.

 

[lschnarch]

Ok, suppose what you said were true. What was in mind when the tree was set up, then?

I honestly have no clue. I suppose it was just "keeping the tradition".

It even starts at the very beginning.
In principle, you are having four options:
Pottery
Animal Husbandry
Archery
Mining

Yet, playing on huge continents (immortal, so racing for the early wonders is pretty much no option), so far I have never chosen either AH or Archery as the first tech. Depending on the available luxuries, it always has been Pottery (going for Sailing or Calender or even Writing) or Mining (going for Masonry).

So, what's the point in having the other two as starting options? As far as I see it, they are just weak in comparison to Pottery or Mining.

 

[PieceOfMind]

AH for spotting horse resource or for building pastures on sheep/cows, on the way to horseback riding which is powerful to get early.

Archery is a fairly weak early tech I agree. Perhaps part of the reason it's in the first row is because AI's get it for free at some of the high difficulties? If not, city states can get archery early (maybe there are reasons for that). It may be important for Babylon to have a balanced UU for it to have bowman available early? I'm only guessing here, but I don't think the layout of the tech tree is supposed to be such that all choices are equally useful all the time. That's pretty much an impossible expectation. How often did people go for Hunting first in civ4? There were some particular cases where it was a good option, but most of the time it simply wasn't.

 

[lschnarch]

AH for spotting horse resource or for building pastures on sheep/cows, on the way to horseback riding which is powerful to get early.

I agree that Horsemen are very powerful, but there's no way (in my eyes) to chose AH as first tech. Third one, ok...

Archery is a fairly weak early tech I agree. Perhaps part of the reason it's in the first row is because AI's get it for free at some of the high difficulties? If not, city states can get archery early (maybe there are reasons for that). It may be important for Babylon to have a balanced UU for it to have bowman available early? I'm only guessing here, but I don't think the layout of the tech tree is supposed to be such that all choices are equally useful all the time. That's pretty much an impossible expectation. How often did people go for Hunting first in civ4? There were some particular cases where it was a good option, but most of the time it simply wasn't.

First, in Civ4 (always having played on the biggest maps available) Hunting was powerful because of the Scouts > grabbing huts.

Second, I think that the *first* techs should offer equally powerful options. Everything behind is so much influenced by the circumstances that you cannot really say, having tech E is always better than having tech G.
But for the initial ones A,B,C and D, you should avoid having B and C as less attractive ones, as it results in fact in only having two viable choices.