Why is it boring? Too long between rewards.
- Thread starter Solo4114
- Start date
and yes, playing on Chieftan shooting pikemen with artillery will be boring, and difficuilty level is relevant.
'Yes, you can build Notre Dame, but...for +1 culture and +5 happiness (or whatever minimal benefit it offers)...why would you?'
apart from the fact that your hard pushed to get ND on the hard levels, if i could build it i would. but then again, thats coz on harder levels things are harder. the extra happiness can be needed, or just plain advantagious for GA's
sounds like the OP wants to throw up rods, have huge citiesm massive science and everythgin in teh first few turns. also sounds like dude wants to be playing civ4 and leaving civ5 to us....
'Yes, you can build Notre Dame, but...for +1 culture and +5 happiness (or whatever minimal benefit it offers)...why would you?'
apart from the fact that your hard pushed to get ND on the hard levels, if i could build it i would. but then again, thats coz on harder levels things are harder. the extra happiness can be needed, or just plain advantagious for GA's
sounds like the OP wants to throw up rods, have huge citiesm massive science and everythgin in teh first few turns. also sounds like dude wants to be playing civ4 and leaving civ5 to us....
Suspiria
Warlord
Civ5 can indeed be boring pressing enter on turns where nothing has ever happened.
Of course every game can be boring for anyone. For me games like Bioshock, Far Cry and so on are extremely boring but that doesn't mean the game is boring to other people.
I'd say that CIV 5s design is very good. What makes the game feel boring and bad for many is how bad the game was balanced and how bad the computer opponents are programmed. In my mind the difference (atleast in design) between CIV 4 and CIV 5 are that CIV 5 are more for the thinking gamers (again not the implemetantion of the game but how it were designed) and CIV 4 are more for the immersion type of gamers. This also leads to those immersion type of gamers think the game feel less immersive and hence more boring.
I'm sure Firaxis will patch/expansion the game to be what it was suppose to be. Meanwhile I chosed to go back to CIV 4 and that's only thanks to the Mods the vanilla CIV 4 are extremely boring.
I'd say that CIV 5s design is very good. What makes the game feel boring and bad for many is how bad the game was balanced and how bad the computer opponents are programmed. In my mind the difference (atleast in design) between CIV 4 and CIV 5 are that CIV 5 are more for the thinking gamers (again not the implemetantion of the game but how it were designed) and CIV 4 are more for the immersion type of gamers. This also leads to those immersion type of gamers think the game feel less immersive and hence more boring.
I'm sure Firaxis will patch/expansion the game to be what it was suppose to be. Meanwhile I chosed to go back to CIV 4 and that's only thanks to the Mods the vanilla CIV 4 are extremely boring.
I believe Saarud is correct.
Like the OP I find CiV boring to play, in the early turns everything takes too long and once a decent army is built it feels like playing Sim Traffic Jam.
And overall the game just doesn't feel "fun" to play.
Making it harder doesn't make it enjoyable, Lawn Bowls is still dull even if I'm playing Olympic gold medalists.
A Civ game should (I believe) still be fun to play with 0 enemy players.
I don't want to "Win a Game", I have Battlefield BC2 for that.
I want to "Build an Empire".
Like the OP I find CiV boring to play, in the early turns everything takes too long and once a decent army is built it feels like playing Sim Traffic Jam.
And overall the game just doesn't feel "fun" to play.
Making it harder doesn't make it enjoyable, Lawn Bowls is still dull even if I'm playing Olympic gold medalists.
A Civ game should (I believe) still be fun to play with 0 enemy players.
I don't want to "Win a Game", I have Battlefield BC2 for that.
I want to "Build an Empire".
Um. Try playing Caesar 4 or something similar to that. Civ 5 isn't really the genre that you are looking for.
Taking a long time to build an army is a game mechanic.
If production times were halved, everyone would be complaining about the AI carpets of doom, and unit maintenance costs, and the fact that their 10 swordsmen aren't enough because they get so hurt wading through the carpet, that they have to return home to heal, and that the game is all about getting enough promotions to get march and blitz.
I personally am grateful that production times are as they are currently, as it makes me like micromanaging my army more. I don't like controlling 40 units in a 1upt game, as I would need to do in a game with accelerated production.
Now, let me pose you a question: Is the difficulty the unit costs, or is it really your civilization's production output? I guarantee if you reach 100+ manufactured goods in demographics, unit production costs will no longer be an issue.
If production times were halved, everyone would be complaining about the AI carpets of doom, and unit maintenance costs, and the fact that their 10 swordsmen aren't enough because they get so hurt wading through the carpet, that they have to return home to heal, and that the game is all about getting enough promotions to get march and blitz.
I personally am grateful that production times are as they are currently, as it makes me like micromanaging my army more. I don't like controlling 40 units in a 1upt game, as I would need to do in a game with accelerated production.
Now, let me pose you a question: Is the difficulty the unit costs, or is it really your civilization's production output? I guarantee if you reach 100+ manufactured goods in demographics, unit production costs will no longer be an issue.
Not really --
Can't speak for OP, but I don't WANT my games to be bite-size, single setting experiences. I prefer games that can take literally weeks to complete... Previous iterations of Civ or other games I enjoy (wide variety of Paradox titles, a few Stardock titles, etc) require evenings upon evenings of gameplay.
I WANT that. I want to go to sleep running through my mind what I did and need to do next, and love the fact that I can entertain myself at work the next day considering my next move when I get home.
I agree wholeheartedly with OP -- the time between rewards is the killer -- and simply making the game faster and smaller isn't anything approaching an adequate substitute.
I WANT massive, sprawling games that may take hundreds of hours to complete - but I need something to keep me clicking during those hundreds of hours.
FTFY.
Civilization, the series, in fact used to be precisely that... a massive empire builder.
Civilization 5 isn't.
But I won't have the good names of CivI, II, III (yes, even III), and IV slandered with such a broad brush.
It's two things:
1) It's how many units I can produce in a given era or tech. I can't actually produce enough to create a sizable army that can affect the game before the next era is almost upon me. I miss the days where half my army could die, and I could reproduce it (with a wartime economy) before the next era. I feel like I get in maybe one good war with swordsmen, then I'm now using (and facing) longswordsmen. I can either make the case that it costs too much to produce/buy units, or that techs come way too quickly.
2) Units have too much value placed on them. If I have an army and I stupidly lose a few units in Civ4, I can make a comeback. If I lose even 1-2 units in Civ5, I feel like my siege will probably come to a complete stop. This is due to two things:
- Just general low unit numbers
- Too much value in upgrades
The game stops becoming dynamic when both perfect play (not losing anything) is very possible, and absolutely needed at higher difficulties. There is no sacrificing units for better positions or cities, you'd rather keep your units. The game at Deity turns into picking away at your enemy without losing a single unit, then eventually taking cities. The game feels like the movie 300, except with even less death.
Yes I can manage my production and gold output in order to produce units. That's not the problem at all.
You're also greatly exaggerating. I'm pretty sure we can increase unit production without needing to "micromanage 40 units", and without causing a carpet of doom.
It sounds like deity/epic or marathon/ standard+ mapsize is what you need. The AI is too lacking to play on anything other than deity and expect actual competition. I find it rewarding in defeating deity, and it takes the amount of planning you mention to implement.
I find it exciting trying to maximize production before i have an army, and see if I can get everything made and some defense before some overpowered AI decides to attack me. I find it interesting to figure out how to best trap the AI tactically, without allowing the AI enough time to close the tech gap between victory and stalemate.
Raise your optimization level. Challenge yourself. Do what you are trying to do, but 3 turns faster, by optimizing something.
I personally get bored only when victory is assured. I'm like, "I know I'm going to win in a 100 turns [because of clear tech lead and lack of good tactical AI], so why bother." Frequently, I don't manage to finish those long games vs many AIs because of this. Therefore, I prefer small/quick.
Also, I like multiplayer, because games are more unpredictable than vs. AI. Its also incredibly satisfying taking the city of an opponent who challenges you greatly, especially when they are the type of person that hates losing.
I think new players should play on Prince until they learn how the game works. Once they get a couple games under their belt, they should play on Immortal, until they develop strategies. Then they should play on Deity or multiplayer.
The chance to lose is what makes competition fun. In every game, you get to compete both vs your previous records, and your opponents. I prefer to do both at once, to achieve more satisfaction.
I remember a game a few weeks back in multiplayer where China managed to get a solid tech lead, and many CKNs and longswords. His score was about 50% higher than anyone else's.
I, meanwhile, did not want to have to face Chinese riflemen, having gone steel first, which means I would not win the rifleman race. However, this guy had like 5-6 size 7+ cities. Rome, meanwhile, had sacrificed all of his tech by building extra praets instead of NC, which he was planning to use vs England, who had left after I got swords 6 turns faster than him and stopped his worker from mining his iron.
I convinced Rome that China was the clear leader, based on score, size, demographics, and that our only chance of victory was a joint invasion [though I actually knew I had a decent chance of beating alone- it wouldn't hurt to get 10+ praets on my side]. So on turn 75 or so, I marched in 12 longswords, attacking with 8+GG at the north end near his capital, and 4 at the bottom [this was the most synchronized way of attacking, based on my current troop locations]. China had many CKNs and some longswords for defense, I managed to go about 1:1 with him in casualties at the north end. However, the bottom front got annihilated once Rome's 10+ praetorians hit China, along with my 4 longswords on the bottom right.
China cursed us for teaming and forfeited. Rome then forfeited because he knew he couldnt beat my longswords, but left happy because our invasion of China was glorious. It was great!
totally, but oddly enough funny stuff starts to happen if you plan and do stuff other then hitting End Turn so fast.
Interesting points here.
Can't we just add more techs, make them cheaper, more units (and make them cheaper), more buildings (and make them cheaper), and that would solve it? As long as the game is still balanced, right. Can't this be done in a mod or something?
Can't we just add more techs, make them cheaper, more units (and make them cheaper), more buildings (and make them cheaper), and that would solve it? As long as the game is still balanced, right. Can't this be done in a mod or something?
Ddude97
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 761
Not really, its more difficult then that. You add more units, whats the point, will it add something to the game or are you just cluttering. Making things (especially units) won't work either, then you get carpet of doom, and adding more techs is also pointless, what will these techs do? If they do nothing I'd rather do without. Yes it could be, and I beleive it sort of is in the strong ecoonomy mod
Well the more stuff you add the less the game's going to be balanced. But we shouldn't be looking at balance as the deciding factor if stuff should be added or dropped. Games in this genre have never been completely balanced before. Instead they just need to be "balanced enough". No matter how much stuff is cut or tweaked, I seriously doubt Civ5 would ever be considered near Starcraft2 (one of the pinnacles of balance in PC gaming). Sometimes layering a lot of really difficult decisions that play off each other and mixing them with some (fairly tame) random elements can give the illusion of balance which is all a game in this genre actually needs.code9 said:
I've come to terms with that sometimes complex content just for the sake of complex content can sometimes be a good thing. Religion wasn't really a needed concept at all yet a lot of people liked going around hitting cities with the Buddhist stick, and building stuff around that theme. It also gives something to do between other decisions, which is something the OP talked about. I think my view on that has definitely changed since the release of Civ5...
Teperi Blaze
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 225
WHY???? does the AI start with 2 settlers and a multitude of other units at the start on Deity?
They can then buy more of these units for a fair!!!!!! rebate.
Such an illogical program is meant to die, like games in the 90-ies.
The AI was always the problem with Civ and noone ever bothered to figure out why? So I guess we all have to move on, to something.....else....whatever that is!
But I'll be missing Civ.
They can then buy more of these units for a fair!!!!!! rebate.
Such an illogical program is meant to die, like games in the 90-ies.
The AI was always the problem with Civ and noone ever bothered to figure out why? So I guess we all have to move on, to something.....else....whatever that is!
But I'll be missing Civ.
Right - balance is the key.
At a high level, yes -- more would help, but it can hurt if more leads to unbalance.
I was fine with vanilla BTS... until I found RoM/AND --- and on RoM/AND, I played with virtually all options enabled, eternity/enormous (or whatever the slowest/largest settings were... they've been defaults for so long I forget).
HOWEVER - it took quite a few releases, betas and patching to get that balance just right... There were more than a few iterations that went backwards.
The other problem -- 1UpT and the globalization of so many concepts and removal of others means that cannot just overlay the RoM/AND "more is better" onto Civ5.
For example, a lot of the extra buildings in RoM/AND had smaller, more incremental changes in health and happiness (and in many cases - carried both benefit in one area and mallus in another).
You cannot do that in V because 1)happiness is global, so it's pointless to even such smaller, city-based increments, 2)health, religion, and espionage are completely gone - so a lot of the balancing and interplay between the fuller menu of buildings cannot be achieved, and 3)culture is now a global accumulation ("pink tech") rather having much in the way of city-specific benefit or effect.
If CiV only had "less stuff to do" -- that would indeed be something modders could fix by simply adding more stuff... but the V canvas has been irreconcilably altered to prevent a lot of the "more stuff" possibilities.
It's really a vicious cycle... by so radically de-emphasizing cities and globalizing everything - they removed a big chunk of what people like me and OP liked... and what's worse, made it such one really cannot even mod the whole "more stuff" back in because cities have basically become AoE style depots and PG style tank traps.
SpearMan153
Prince
While I agree with the statement: boring = too long between rewards - I don't think its very helpful in analyising why civ5 is boring for many people (I quite like it btw). plus as a statement its kind of obvious if you think about it...
the question is: what do you find rewarding in a civ game? what is too long for you? and I think that the answer is going to be different for every civ player (although along common themes)
Now I disagree that civ5 is boring just because of slower build times - this is not an issue for me.
For me - I don't find having building x complete or unit x complete a reward in itself - its more about completing my medium and longer term goals. And I don't find all the busy work in civ4 compelling or interesting game play - missionary/corporation/unit spamming that sort of thing. In fact all that busy work tends to be part of the "too long" factor for me.
In civ4 I would typically have 4 or 5 items in the build queue so I wouldn't have to deal with the city build popups - so in civ4 actually more turns could pass before I visited an individual city then when I'm playing civ5.
For me the main boredom factors are when the game is too easy (you've pretty much won already and are just in the mopping up part of the game) plus when the end turn takes too long to process because of the combination of crappy pc and civ5 crappy performance
You can cure the too easy issue by upping the level - but if your already on deity then what?
This is a real issue for civ5 because the poor tactical ai combined 1upt does not allow the ai to make full use of their production bonuses to partially cancel out their stupidity factor. This makes the game much easier on the higher levels then in previous civs (stacks hide ai stupidity better than 1upt by allowing production bonuses to be used to full effect).
Its the turn times that are the real issue for me though (crap pc).
Now assuming you have played civ4 on the same pc you are playing civ5 on. civ5 end turn waiting times can be (depending on your system) an order of magnitude slower then the equivalent settings in civ4, due to increased system requirements plus additional processing required for 1upt and city states etc.
So straight away with no design/gameplay considerations civ5 is going to feel noticably slower and take longer to do anything in civ4. hence "longer" between rewards hence boring
Now combine this with the civ5 design of slower build times (not necessarily a problem imo) plus the fact that IIRC civ5 games have more turns then the equiv in civ4 (I seem to recall that 400 turn game is now 500). So you have the same amount of stuff streached out over 25% longer games with end turn processing running x00-x000% slower.
civ5 is designed around a "less is more" philosophy, civ4 is more on the "bigger is better" side of things.
So if you're "bigger is better" inclined civ5 is going to feel dumbed down, with no options. If your a "less is more" kind of guy (like me) then its going to feel streamlined.
Combine a slower feeling game, that is too easy with a design changes not to your preference and you have = boring game
the question is: what do you find rewarding in a civ game? what is too long for you? and I think that the answer is going to be different for every civ player (although along common themes)
Now I disagree that civ5 is boring just because of slower build times - this is not an issue for me.
For me - I don't find having building x complete or unit x complete a reward in itself - its more about completing my medium and longer term goals. And I don't find all the busy work in civ4 compelling or interesting game play - missionary/corporation/unit spamming that sort of thing. In fact all that busy work tends to be part of the "too long" factor for me.
In civ4 I would typically have 4 or 5 items in the build queue so I wouldn't have to deal with the city build popups - so in civ4 actually more turns could pass before I visited an individual city then when I'm playing civ5.
For me the main boredom factors are when the game is too easy (you've pretty much won already and are just in the mopping up part of the game) plus when the end turn takes too long to process because of the combination of crappy pc and civ5 crappy performance
You can cure the too easy issue by upping the level - but if your already on deity then what?
This is a real issue for civ5 because the poor tactical ai combined 1upt does not allow the ai to make full use of their production bonuses to partially cancel out their stupidity factor. This makes the game much easier on the higher levels then in previous civs (stacks hide ai stupidity better than 1upt by allowing production bonuses to be used to full effect).
Its the turn times that are the real issue for me though (crap pc).
Now assuming you have played civ4 on the same pc you are playing civ5 on. civ5 end turn waiting times can be (depending on your system) an order of magnitude slower then the equivalent settings in civ4, due to increased system requirements plus additional processing required for 1upt and city states etc.
So straight away with no design/gameplay considerations civ5 is going to feel noticably slower and take longer to do anything in civ4. hence "longer" between rewards hence boring
Now combine this with the civ5 design of slower build times (not necessarily a problem imo) plus the fact that IIRC civ5 games have more turns then the equiv in civ4 (I seem to recall that 400 turn game is now 500). So you have the same amount of stuff streached out over 25% longer games with end turn processing running x00-x000% slower.
civ5 is designed around a "less is more" philosophy, civ4 is more on the "bigger is better" side of things.
So if you're "bigger is better" inclined civ5 is going to feel dumbed down, with no options. If your a "less is more" kind of guy (like me) then its going to feel streamlined.
Combine a slower feeling game, that is too easy with a design changes not to your preference and you have = boring game
That's a fair point that people find different things interesting/boring.
For me, I always enjoyed the building and moment-to-moment elements of Civ. I've never been a "hardcore" player, I don't plan long-term strategies, I'm not a War Academy contributor, etc. I still found the game fun at lower levels in previous iterations, though.
Those who say "Well up the difficulty level, dude" miss the point (as perhaps I miss theirs). I might not find it boring at that point -- but I'd probably find it irritating. What thrills me is not the "challenge of beating the AI." (Especially when the AI isn't really "smarter" at higher levels, it just has a heavier hand on the scale.) It's the building of a civilization -- which does include combat, diplomacy, etc. -- and doing it on an enormous scale over a really long period of time. Marathon settings, huge world (preferably an Earth map with accurate start locations -- not something really possible in Civ 5, or at least not possible in a balanced way), all that good stuff.
Precisely.
Similar threads
