Why the crappy graphics?

I would say they did it to keep from being critizized that hwy were only making another version of Civ, not a new version. I remember I used to play Civ I in EGA on my 486 and it really sped things up. The only time I played in VGA was on a friends computer. Compared to other games at the time; the VGA graphics were much better on Civ I. Now they try to make it all modern and the TnL etc graphics look cheap even with high detail. There should be a patch to play Civ IV on a non-3d graphics card. I would enable it just to speed things up even though I bought a new video adapter just to play the game.
 
It doesn't need a n "uber-geeky" configuration, it merely requires a reasonable configuration of hardware capable of running 3D graphics and handling a large amount of data towards the end of the game, and for the system to be reasonably well-maintained, plus a bit of luck with some chipsets it seems. The people having critical issues with hardware that meets the requirements are in the minority - the large number of threads/posts about people with issues is due to people not expecting to have trouble because previous versions had low requirements, plus the fact that the franchise has sold many copies and has quite a net-savvy fanbase.
 
You can get a computer fully capable of running civ 4 for about $700. That is a lot less than the $2500 I payed for my first computer (386, 40 MB HD, 1 MB RAM)

I am not saying that you should need to buy a new computer to play civ 4 but I am saying that if you have a computer that will not play it then it is probably a few years old. And why should the game designers put out a seemingly outdated game just so people with old computers can play it? I agree that 3D is not necessary but I think that it works well with this game.

They could have made it 2D but then people would complain that it was just an upgrade of Civ 3.

The solution to Civ 4 not working on your system is to play Civ 3.

And when Civ 3 came out I think there were a lot of people who couldn't play that game either.
 
The screenshots don't do the game justice. You need to see it actually in motion to appreciate it.

And, uh. "Basement loners"? Having a system that isn't neolithic doesn't make you some sort of weird computer loser (a mythical creature in the first place), and not upgrading your computer is NOT a virtue. If you can afford the game, you can afford a video card. If buying and installing a new video card would make you feel somehow uncool, of course, you don't get to play the game. Tough noogies.

THIS GAME DOES NOT HAVE HIGH REQUIREMENTS. IT HAS LOW REQUIREMENTS.
 
Libertarian said:
That's the big question, and why it doesn't make sense that they excluded so much of their now former market by requiring an uber-geeky configuration. For the sake of untold numbers who don't get to play, a few basement loners with nothing better to do than re-jazz their systems every week get to watch a shaded cube rotate. Unbelievable.

Why did they exclude that market? Because every other game has been doing it for years without any noticable effect on revenue. This is 2005. A game being 3d isn't exactly a novelty.
 
My specs are in my sig. The graphics are very adequate.
 
henry k c said:
I have decided not to play civ until I can get a video card, however, I wonder why civ 4 requires more virtual memory than civ 3. In my opinion, the graphics from the screenshots look much worse than before. If anything, the game looks less realistic than before. Everything is out of proportion, and the edges on cities and units look really rough and jagged.

civ 4 screen shots http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/browseimages.php?c=2

civ 3 screen shots http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/browseimages.php?c=7

now please pass the eggs wit that spam :p
 
Top Bottom