Why I won't be buying Civ-BE (even though I have money to blow)

Does anyone really disagree that they need to either improve the AI for 1UPT or make MP a better experience so this game stays challanging for more than 10 games? CiV became a routine so quickly that I seriously doubt Beyond Earth can stay interesting very long otherwise. Unless people really do only seek some occupation with Civilization games. In this case I misjudged the community.

I don't think you'll find anyone seriously saying that MP shouldn't work better, but more that complaints about MP 'hoping BE fails so that they make better MP' is silly.
 
Does anyone really disagree that they need to either improve the AI for 1UPT or make MP a better experience so this game stays challanging for more than 10 games? CiV became a routine so quickly that I seriously doubt Beyond Earth can stay interesting very long otherwise. Unless people really do only seek some occupation with Civilization games. In this case I misjudged the community.


I'm sure "proffessional" gamers can mix/max /exploit everything to such a degree it isn't competitive. To many gamers it's a relaxing diversion not a friggen contest of wills so to speak. I can say in my case it's been a fantastic ride since that day long ago when I popped open the Civ I box, grabbed a cold beer and began my Civ career and I'll never be able to count all the hours I was completely entertained. I have probably about 1500 real hours into Civ V.
 
I'm sure "proffessional" gamers can mix/max /exploit everything to such a degree it isn't competitive. To many gamers it's a relaxing diversion not a friggen contest of wills so to speak. I can say in my case it's been a fantastic ride since that day long ago when I popped open the Civ I box, grabbed a cold beer and began my Civ career and I'll never be able to count all the hours I was completely entertained. I have probably about 1500 real hours into Civ V.

And in the 1500 hours you didn't automatically identify many aspects of the game that are pretty strong / pretty weak and made some optimizations to your play style? You don't start being competetive. Usually that's a thing that evolves the more time you spend with something because you want it to stay entertaining. And when you have spent enough time with a game like Civ V, you should find out that it poses a laughable challange. Unless you turn up the AI cheats to a maximum, which butchers the game in many other ways. So give experienced players a challange so we can have fun with the game. Otherwise it's just a routine. The easiest way to achieve this would be a stable, usable multiplayer part. The only other option is to improve the AI. Sadly not everybody has a learning curve that keeps the game interesting for 1500 hours.
 
Sadly not everybody has a learning curve that keeps the game interesting for 1500 hours.

Yes you are burdened with being a genius, it's so tough, I empathize.

Seriously though, the AI in Civ might be laughingly bad at combat, but if you want to challenge yourself you can. You say you don't like higher difficulties because they change the game or whatever, but even then you could just try unusual strategies (like going Piety) if you're that bored with the game. Civ being a sandbox game makes difficulty easy to tool at an optimal level for your experience, and while I agree that the AI needs to be better in CiVI (I doubt it will be different in CivBE), it doesn't mean that anyone who can still enjoy the game after a thousand hours just has a "slow learning curve".
 
And when you have spent enough time with a game like Civ V, you should find out that it poses a laughable challange. Unless you turn up the AI cheats to a maximum, which butchers the game in many other ways.
Joker, in this and other threads, you seem positively obsessed with AI's "cheats" (extra units, production/tech bonuses, etc.), and seem to feel they pretty much ruin things. That seems to be the lenses through which you view the game.

For my part, I welcome the AI bonuses! Bring them on. Thinking back to Civ 2, it was pretty easy to quickly figure out the game so you could always win, easily, at the top level (I remember my newbie-gamer wife figuring out how to REX on her own, in just two or three games--Civ 2 solved). In later Civ's the developers started giving the AI some serious advantages to compensate for the fact the AI just can't think as flexibly as a human (imagine that!) Thank goodness they did. Far more replayability.
 
"And in the 1500 hours you didn't automatically identify many aspects of the game that are pretty strong / pretty weak and made some optimizations to your play style?"


Why yes I have! with my own experience and watching players like Maddjinn I'm a better player and moved up a few difficulty levels. I like where I'm at now.



"And when you have spent enough time with a game like Civ V, you should find ot that it poses a laughable challange"

Then why are you here out of curiosity?

"snip"

" The only other option is to improve the AI. Sadly not everybody has a learning curve that keeps the game interesting for 1500 hours"

That's real funny Joker, I don't have a 1500 hour learning curve. I could likely beat the game on Deity if I had any interest. Lemme put it this way, I can relax and enjoy or sweat out every optimization. I'll leave that too you, it seems to really paying off in the fun department.


.....
 
Yes you are burdened with being a genius, it's so tough, I empathize.

Give me a break. You can't play the game for two continuous months and not master every aspect of it. And if you don't, I can't relate to that. If that makes me a genius, sure, I'll take that award.

it doesn't mean that anyone who can still enjoy the game after a thousand hours just has a "slow learning curve".

Either that or you are a master in self imposed constraints. If that works for you, that's cool. I don't like deliberately making bad decisions to keep up a challange. I could also, for example, play without buying anything or some crap like that. It's the same problem as 'cheating' AI.

Joker, in this and other threads, you seem positively obsessed with AI's "cheats" (extra units, production/tech bonuses, etc.), and seem to feel they pretty much ruin things. That seems to be the lenses through which you view the game.

That is correct. Cheating is just a contemptuous way of describing cheaply achieved difficulty. Just like any arbitrary things like doubling human player unit costs or stuff like that.

For my part, I welcome the AI bonuses! Bring them on. Thinking back to Civ 2, it was pretty easy to quickly figure out the game so you could always win, easily, at the top level (I remember my newbie-gamer wife figuring out how to REX on her own, in just two or three games--Civ 2 solved). In later Civ's the developers started giving the AI some serious advantages to compensate for the fact the AI just can't think as flexibly as a human (imagine that!) Thank goodness they did. Far more replayability.

I actually care about HOW the difficulty is achieved. Locking me out from most wonders on deity for example is plain unfair and boring.
 
I tend to wonder about the point of these threads, if it's genuinely not straight-up trolling. Does the original poster expect to be convinced of a potential error in his ways? Unlikely. Does he expect to "enlighten" others and alter their behaviour? Even more unlikely. Have an impact on something else by posting their complaint? Least likely of all.

Trust me, having been on a forum or two where only buttlicking is permitted: this is the lesser of two evils.
 
And in the 1500 hours you didn't automatically identify many aspects of the game that are pretty strong / pretty weak and made some optimizations to your play style? You don't start being competetive. Usually that's a thing that evolves the more time you spend with something because you want it to stay entertaining. And when you have spent enough time with a game like Civ V, you should find out that it poses a laughable challange. Unless you turn up the AI cheats to a maximum, which butchers the game in many other ways. So give experienced players a challange so we can have fun with the game. Otherwise it's just a routine. The easiest way to achieve this would be a stable, usable multiplayer part. The only other option is to improve the AI. Sadly not everybody has a learning curve that keeps the game interesting for 1500 hours.

Or you could try challenging yourself to beat the AI with self imposed restrictions. For example, not rush buying anything, or not allying with city states, or only using units that do not require special resources, or using some oddball social policy combo. If the AI isn't challenging enough(which is debatable, I have just recently beaten Prince for the first time), than perhaps you should find ways to challenge yourself.

Think like Maito Gai.
 
Or you could try challenging yourself to beat the AI with self imposed restrictions. For example, not rush buying anything, or not allying with city states, or only using units that do not require special resources, or using some oddball social policy combo. If the AI isn't challenging enough(which is debatable, I have just recently beaten Prince for the first time), than perhaps you should find ways to challenge yourself.

Think like Maito Gai.

Appreciate the advice, though I feel like that's twisting around the problem rather than solving it. May I ask how many hours you have on account? Trust me, very soon you will beat Prince without even thinking about what you are doing. And what's a Maito Gai. ^^
 
Appreciate the advice, though I feel like that's twisting around the problem rather than solving it. May I ask how many hours you have on account? Trust me, very soon you will beat Prince without even thinking about what you are doing. And what's a Maito Gai. ^^

215 hours. And Maito Gai is a character from Naruto who has the unique habit of setting challenges for himself, like for example doing ten thousand pushups with a boulder on his back, and then qualifying it by saying if he fails he will do something even more ridiculous like run around the walls of the village one thousand times on his hands, and so on.
 
Appreciate the advice, though I feel like that's twisting around the problem rather than solving it. May I ask how many hours you have on account? Trust me, very soon you will beat Prince without even thinking about what you are doing. And what's a Maito Gai. ^^

For many civ gamers it's more about the simulation of crazy alternative history for example, rather than a challenge. We take our fun more out of interesting play rather than satisfying wins.
 
Cheating is just a contemptuous way of describing cheaply achieved difficulty. Just like any arbitrary things like doubling human player unit costs or stuff like that.

I actually care about HOW the difficulty is achieved. Locking me out from most wonders on deity for example is plain unfair and boring.
I know, I know--the moment you first realize can't wonder-whore on Diety and still expect to win is a shattering moment for a gaming purist. :cry:

I can almost picture you rage quitting as a cheating AI beats you to the Great Library, even though you did everything right :mad:

But seriously, only human beings "cheat." AI's can only strictly follow their programming. Working as intended. Learn to adapt to the game you're actually playing. :)
 
For many civ gamers it's more about the simulation of crazy alternative history for example, rather than a challenge. We take our fun more out of interesting play rather than satisfying wins.

I prefer a game of Europa Universalis IV or Crusader Kings II for that. Or even Medieval. Way better games at simulating the neccessary context for some interesting role playing. Civilization games are rather geared towards system optimization and competetiveness. At least that's how I feel.
 
I prefer a game of Europa Universalis IV or Crusader Kings II for that. Or even Medieval. Way better games at simulating the neccessary context for some interesting role playing. Civilization games are rather geared towards system optimization and competetiveness. At least that's how I feel.

But not everyone feels that way.

I know I've only got 822 hours clocked on Civ V, but so far I only play at King level -- it's challenging enough for me. But then again, I'm not into it for the optimization -- I'm more interested in the exploration phase of exploring a new world, figuring out how to adapt to whatever circumstances I'm in, and building up my empire. I rarely play through the end game because I'm not terribly interested in how I'll "win" the game, so much as the journey I'll take to get there.

In the end, there's a variety of gamers out there. Not everyone is looking for the same competitive experience. And so no one product will manage to make everyone happy. The people behind Civ V and Civ:BE have aimed their product at people seeking a certain type of gaming experience; obviously those who are seeking other experiences won't be satisfied with it. But as long as they make their target audience happy, isn't that all that matters in the end? People who want a different experience can simply find a different game to play that's aimed more at them, instead.
 
I know, I know--the moment you first realize can't wonder-whore on Diety and still expect to win is a shattering moment for a gaming purist. :cry:

I can almost picture you rage quitting as a cheating AI beats you to the Great Library, even though you did everything right :mad:

But seriously, only human beings "cheat." AI's can only strictly follow their programming. Working as intended. Learn to adapt to the game you're actually playing. :)

The AI should keep tabs on how many times it makes the player rage quits.

Since humans can just leave the game.

As per your statement --- and then you find out you actually can get wonders on diety with more focus.
 
But not everyone feels that way.

I know I've only got 822 hours clocked on Civ V, but so far I only play at King level -- it's challenging enough for me. But then again, I'm not into it for the optimization -- I'm more interested in the exploration phase of exploring a new world, figuring out how to adapt to whatever circumstances I'm in, and building up my empire. I rarely play through the end game because I'm not terribly interested in how I'll "win" the game, so much as the journey I'll take to get there.

In the end, there's a variety of gamers out there. Not everyone is looking for the same competitive experience. And so no one product will manage to make everyone happy. The people behind Civ V and Civ:BE have aimed their product at people seeking a certain type of gaming experience; obviously those who are seeking other experiences won't be satisfied with it. But as long as they make their target audience happy, isn't that all that matters in the end? People who want a different experience can simply find a different game to play that's aimed more at them, instead.


Exactly. You nailed it. If I want be competitive it's a few million times more important on a golf course or a tennis court....this is simply a game, a large segment of the world including some of the smartest people think it's childish. Now the fact that arthritis has pretty much ended my tennis days is beside the point.
 
Remember when Blizzard-Activision decided that StarCraft 2 should be even more of a competitive experience than the original StarCraft? Remember when they decided to make it almost completely about the multiplayer so they could push it as an e-Sport? Notice how it's become such a small niche now that it's barely even talked about anymore?

"Hardcore" gamers may want to pick apart the AI and min-max and exploit all the weaknesses, but they seem to be ignoring how much more popular Civ 5 has been than any previous versions... bringing in people who never previously played. It's frankly a bit naive to assume companies won't want to appeal to as many people as possible.

And I think the more people who play 4x, the more titles we'll see in the genre appealing to both hardcore and casual gamers alike.
 
I know, I know--the moment you first realize can't wonder-whore on Diety and still expect to win is a shattering moment for a gaming purist. :cry:

I can almost picture you rage quitting as a cheating AI beats you to the Great Library, even though you did everything right :mad:

So difficulty and fairness are seperable things for you? I think every playing 'entity' should have the same prequesites and difficulty should not derive from the abolishment of essential game mechanics. Otherwise your knowledge of the game and your estimation of your enemy aren't the factors that lead to your victory anymore. Instead you will have to find some specialized exploits for the difficulty you are playing on. In what world is that good game design? No matter what type of player you consider yourself.

But seriously, only human beings "cheat." AI's can only strictly follow their programming. Working as intended.

I always thought CPU meant Cheating Person Unit. Thanks for educating me, spares me a lot of embarrassment.
 
But not everyone feels that way.
I know I've only got 822 hours clocked on Civ V, but so far I only play at King level -- it's challenging enough for me. But then again, I'm not into it for the optimization -- I'm more interested in the exploration phase of exploring a new world, figuring out how to adapt to whatever circumstances I'm in, and building up my empire. I rarely play through the end game because I'm not terribly interested in how I'll "win" the game, so much as the journey I'll take to get there.

You are optimzing, otherwise you wouldn't win on King. That does not mean you have to crunch every number. You are satisfied by what you are doing because you are successfully doing it. And that involves not doing certain things because they are bad. And it also doesn't matter whether you see the winning screen or not. I don't play most games past the point where I know I will definitely win either. Civilization is all about your understanding of the game mechanics and seeing how your applied knowledge works out in different situations. The only reason you disagree with this is that my description seems so technical and that again seems contrary to fun. But in fact, it isn't. I just happen to gain more satisfaction from being even more efficient.
 
Top Bottom