Advice : Wait for Complete Revised Ultra-Platinum Expanded Version

[tikwew]

Well, I used to blame Atari for the bad support and merchandising of the incomplete Civ3, and probably went through buying Civ3 Gold, Civ3 PTW (when Conquests was out) and Civ3 Complete also because English is not my mother's tongue (and that I therefore may have difficulty finding the right information).

I was hoping (read: certain) 2K Games would do better (how could they do worse?). I now regret I wasn't able to wait for Civ4 Complete Revised Ultra-Platinum Expanded Version (to be published somewhere in 2007 **unofficial cynical information **) as I first had commanded myself to do, and meanwhile patiently play Civ3 Complete with wonderful mods like Rhye's of Civilization, R&R, Balancer Reloaded, etc.

...instead of getting ripped off, losing hours of reading contradictory information, upgrading/downgrading hardware/software and computer knowledge to realize Civ IV armies are still behaving like crazy and that the interface is completely whacked.

I'm just guessing, but Civ V will probably be a "program-it-yourself" game.

Ah, this actually did ease my mind!

 

[highstreet]

So....uhhh...do you like it?

 

[heppcatt]

I've played an entire game today, without any crashes or problems. The game ran perfectly.

heppcatt

 

[tikwew]

I guess I do like it, but will really enjoy it once some annoying bugs (armies' behavior, diplomatic dialogs, random pop-ups, non-functional game options, lags on world map, etc.) are fixed, if they ever are. Even if I may play without CTDs (by using standard maps or smaller), these bugs or strange behaviors are present and significantly reduce my appreciation of the game.

Some of those "strategic simplifications" leave me disappointed. For instance, that you may now upgrade units in any city without barracks or trade overseas without a harbor/port... Perhaps this is the flavor most Civ fans expected...

(From Gamecloud:
In early 2006, Firaxis will give Civ fans the ultimate moddability tool in the form of an SDK that will allow players to change the way the game functions at a very high level.)

...I wonder if those strategic aspects will figure amongst the so-called "very high level".

 

[Mujadaddy]

I guess I do like it, but will really enjoy it once some annoying bugs (armies' behavior,

What bugs with Army behavior have you noticed?

diplomatic dialogs,

OK, I've seen ONE diplo-bug---the screen displayed the AI_DIPLO_NOT_SPEAKING_Option ....

random pop-ups,

What random pop-ups?

non-functional game options,

What non-functional game options?

lags on world map, etc.) are fixed, if they ever are.

Lag on world map isn't a bug--it's a sign of a weak or improperly configured computer.

Even if I may play without CTDs (by using standard maps or smaller), these bugs or strange behaviors are present and significantly reduce my appreciation of the game.

I have NEVER crashed to desktop, and I use standard and LARGER maps.

 

[tikwew]

1. What bugs with Army behavior have you noticed?
2. OK, I've seen ONE diplo-bug---the screen displayed the AI_DIPLO_NOT_SPEAKING_Option ....
3. What random pop-ups?
4. What non-functional game options?
5. Lag on world map isn't a bug--it's a sign of a weak or improperly configured computer.
6. I have NEVER crashed to desktop, and I use standard and LARGER maps.

Well, Mujadaddy, overall I have ranted about "bugs" in my post when in fact I have seen enough "strange behaviors" occur, some once or twice and in an unorderly fashion (if I remember well, you musn't call those "bugs") . Sorry if I misused the term. I didn't get to play much either, as these manifestations didn't invite me to do so and as I spent more time (and quite enough already ) looking for some answers. Yet, here are some answers to yours:

1. Armies running away (over water); in "3-unit graphics", 2 units on 3 fighting, 3rd running from afar to fight when its turn comes up; invisible armies.

2. Well maybe it's not a bug, but a behavior: in a deal, clicking on an item in the trading list removes it, except for money, where you have to open the money trade dialog box and set it back to zero. Annoying and permanent. Perhaps I didn't get a subtlety here.

3. I didn't have the time to identify these. It happened twice and I just had the time to see a pop-up window appear and disappear.

4. As an example, I checked "No Units Cycling" in the Game Options. Indeed, the game didn't cycle through the units, but jammed on an unit when it had finished moving. I tried clicking on other units or using the space bar but couldn't escape the selected unit. I also had that kind of unresponsive stuff when I checked "Right-Click Menus".

5. I don't seem to be the only one dealing with issues of this sort. I've seen some conversations about these issues and long lists of changes to do to one's computers in order to get the game to work and I don't consider that a recent computer like mine which has been recently checked by a certified technician and confirmed as being properly configured. Yet, maybe it's my computer, maybe it's just me, but for starters it's a bad sign when a game's 2 CDs' labels are wrong.

6. Well, what can I say?... Enjoy! ...and thanks for your concern.

(Edit)
Nonetheless, I'm still trying to play this addictive game and can't wait for the patch to come out... and they know that!...(therefore: frustration)
(/Edit)

 

[Shazzamx]

I consider this a very bad game for 1 reason only.

I can't run it.

That said let me clarify. I can run it, but with such poor performance that it makes me kick my self in the sensitive spot rather then put myself through the punishment it is atm. to play this game.

Everything is slow and I meen SLOW. It starts off good, but after a few cities and some worker improvements everything slows to a grinding halt.

Videos are choopy and your required to not only fulfill and exceed the recomended hardware and software specifics. Your required to after having purchased the game to go ont ovarious websites, search out more or less official information on how to "repair" the game in order to simply run it.

This is in my book a half tested game that should never have been released by this time, but ofc. Christmas is around the corner and the Hype this game has had will get many people to buy it. I just hope just as many will return it to the stores after it fails to run satisfactorely.

I honestly believe that the game developers have provided false information regarding the required and recomended system specs for running this game.

 

[Yzman]

Do you meet the specs? I had problems too and I met the specs, but I turned off AA on my card and now it runs perfect.

 

[Psyringe]

I honestly believe that the game developers have provided false information regarding the required and recomended system specs for running this game.

Given that many people with about-minimal specs can play the game without problems (me, for example), I don't think that's the case. In my opinion, the better explanation is that the game for some reason (which unfortunately did not get caught by QA) runs slower than expected on some machines despite them exceeding the recommended specs.

Also, some people semm to have had wrong (understandable, but wrong) expectations about what these specs mean. If you just meet the minimal spes (like I do), then you can't expect to play standard maps without lags - small maps should work though, and they do. And even if you exceed the recommended specs, this is no guarantee that you can play, for example, huge maps. This will be a matter of how far you exceed the recommended specs, as it is for other games. Granted, strategy gamers may not be used to this kind of thinking because their games rarely needed high-end hardware, so it's understandable that many people had wrong expectations.

 

[xguild]

Do you meet the specs? I had problems too and I met the specs, but I turned off AA on my card and now it runs perfect.

Take offense, anyone who claims the game runs perfect in it's current state is either a liar or a *&^$&$ $&*$ and a liar.

 

[Psyringe]

He just uses perfect in a different context as you.

The game is obviously not perfect in the sense that it has no bugs - there are some, although far less than I expected. Also there are a couple of annoyances which don't classify as bugs, but make the game non-perfect in that sense.

However, if by "running perfectly" you mean that the game doesn't crash, you don't have graphical glitches, and you don't have endgame lag - yes, that's certainly possible and true for many, if not most people.

 

[Mujadaddy]

Take offense, anyone who claims the game runs perfect in it's current state is either a liar or a *&^$&$ $&*$ and a liar.

The game runs fine for me.

@tikwew: "(Edit)Nonetheless, I'm still trying to play this addictive game and can't wait for the patch to come out... and they know that!...(therefore: frustration) (/Edit)" For the Armies, at least, that's the way it works! (not the invisible ones, which seems to be a further symptom of your graphical issues) ...when you clicked on "no units cycling" what did you EXPECT it to do?

Don't worry---they'll patch the non-working configs as soon as profitable...errr, POSSIBLE

 

[damxam]

1. I love Civ4
2. I've played way buggier games
3. It runs perfect on my desktop. On my laptop the 512mb RAM isn't enough so Win has to increase page size, but performance is still good

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The only problems I have had with the game-to date-were the result of the crappy Radeon 9550 card. Once I 'downgraded' to a 9250 model, it worked perfectly. Sure it runs a couple of seconds slower than at 256MB, but that is a small price to pay for total stability. Oh, and just so you know, everything worked CRAP on the Radeon 9550-NOT just Civ4.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[tikwew]

The game runs fine for me.
...when you clicked on "no units cycling" what did you EXPECT it to do?

I expected it to allow me to select other units with my mouse pointer (or at least one ), which is not too much asking I guess...

It's not reproducing the effect **for the moment being**, so I'll perhaps agree someday on this theory about someone dropping a drugcap in my glass of mineral water at the tea party I didn't attend.

 

[Mujadaddy]

@tikwew: Can I have a sip of your tea?

 

[tikwew]

@tikwew: Can I have a sip of your tea?

Ok I admit it with shame and humility: I replied too quickly previously as my memory had quirked the events: what actually annoys is that armies which have received a "mission" to go somewhere during a previous turn may be selected again instead of simply pursuing their goal (in order to sow doubt in your mind, probably). I also thought this checkbox would keep the computer from cycling automatically between units, not the user. So, not a bug, not at all, just a simple annoyance for and old tea drinker like myself.

Finally, forget everything I wrote. I'm purchasing a new brain tomorrow, and I sure hope I won't need to have it patched.

Cheers.




Oops!... Shoudn't have returned to the desktop to write this post... Seems like I'm going to wage a war against Japan unless I use those arrowkeys again... Now where did I put those...

 

[xguild]

Given that many people with about-minimal specs can play the game without problems (me, for example), I don't think that's the case. In my opinion, the better explanation is that the game for some reason (which unfortunately did not get caught by QA) runs slower than expected on some machines despite them exceeding the recommended specs.

Also, some people semm to have had wrong (understandable, but wrong) expectations about what these specs mean. If you just meet the minimal spes (like I do), then you can't expect to play standard maps without lags - small maps should work though, and they do. And even if you exceed the recommended specs, this is no guarantee that you can play, for example, huge maps. This will be a matter of how far you exceed the recommended specs, as it is for other games. Granted, strategy gamers may not be used to this kind of thinking because their games rarely needed high-end hardware, so it's understandable that many people had wrong expectations.

Actually what I expect is for a PC game to run flawlessly on my system, I paid 50 bucks for it, it should work. Anything else is just a BS excuses and it's apperant that there are a lot of consumers out there who have been convinced (by the marketers of the buggy games) that bugs in a game are an acceptable thing and we just have to live with it. I'll never understand how PC gaming expectations dropped to such a completetly unreasonable level.

At what point are we as gamers going to stop accepting this kind of BS?

 

[Zurai]

At what point are we as gamers going to stop accepting this kind of BS?

The point at which you pay more money for a game and accept that it's going to take an extra year to two years to develop.

 

[PointlessAmbler]

Making a program this complex that is completely bug-free, and has no compatibility issues on any system, is pretty much impossible. There are going to be configurations that the developers and betatesters never had the chance to try. No software ever released has been completely free of bugs, barring very, very simple programs.