Does Liking Civ 5 Depend Having A Brand New-ish Computer?

[Sommerswerd]

I posted this poll because I was really dissapointed with Civ 5... the graphics and gameplay and everything were such a let-down.

But then when I turned all the settings way down and chose the smallest map size, I was actually able to play the game at a more tolerable speed. Once I was able to just play through the game more, I started liking it alot more.

Don't get me wrong, I really liked religions and I absolutely loved espionage, and I am sad that they are gone (hope they get added back in an expansion ), but what I am trying to figure out is how many people's main beef with the game is that they cant enjoy it because the Specifications are too high.

Im mostly interested in the folks at or above recommended specs. Are they liking the game more then those below recommended specs?

 

[shadowplay]

I have two computers exceding the recommended specs and things are still a little glitchy. Not as bad at Civ4, where myself and a lot of other ATI card users depended on a third party patch to play the game for a long time.

I think it has less to do with the power of the computers involved and more to do with all the kinks having not been ironed out yet.

 

[JohnRM]

As it stands now, I exceed the requirements for the game and I don't like it. I think that it needs a lot of work/patching and if I were able to do it over again, I would have waited at least another six months before purchasing this title. The unfortunate truth about the video gaming business today is that it is more important to punch out the games and turn a profit than it is to take your time and sell a quality product. I suspect that part of the reason this is done is because releasing the game with tons of bugs allows the developer to rely on the user to find them rather than paying someone else to do it. It probably saves them tons on labor.

 

[rrhal]

I actually have and oldish computer - the CPU just meets the recommended spec and the Graphics card exceeds it by a bit. I am disappointed my DX10 card gets no love and I am forced to play at DX9.

The game plays pretty well - it bogs down in the later stages. Over all it feels like the action unfolds slower - the opening is not the frantic grab for resources that all the earlier civs were. It seems like learning the diplomacy game is very important. It seems like you are roleplaying the leader of a large Civ more than the other civs did.

 

[stormerne]

I'm liking the game.

I run it on a Dell Inspiron 1520 laptop that's nearly 3 years old. It has XP Pro 32 bit, DX9, 3GB memory, Core 2 Duo T5250 @ 1.5 Ghz, and an NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS graphics card.

I had to tweak the video options. I run the following:
Anti-aliasing OFF
Leader Scene Quality MINIMUM
Overlay detail LOW
Shadow Quality LOW
Fog of War Quality LOW
Terrain Detail Level LOW
Terrain Tessellation Level LOW
Terrain Shadow Quality LOW
Water quality MEDIUM
Texture quality HIGH

I left GraphicsSettingsDX9.ini alone.
In config.ini I changed Minimum Zoom Level = 4.000000 (essential)
And of course in UserSettings.ini I changed SkipIntroVideo = 1 (duh!)

Yeah there are still bugs in the game, and there are one or two poor design decisions regarding usability (notably in the diplomacy summary screens) where style has regrettably triumphed over substance, but with the above settings I've managed to be able to tolerate most of these, have a usable interface, and set about exploring the game.

And the game is amazing. Huge and rambling and not in neat boxes! (Rather like real life.) And worth $50.

One tip: between lengthy gaming sessions, switch off your machine. Completely. No power. (Same if you do a lot of work the rest of the time - like I do - with full size and thumbnail images and videos.) This is a simple way of forcing a RAM defrag and it will play much better on power-up.

 

[SuperJay]

I suspect that part of the reason this is done is because releasing the game with tons of bugs allows the developer to rely on the user to find them rather than paying someone else to do it. It probably saves them tons on labor.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a single developer at Firaxis Games who WANTS to release a game with one single bug left in it.

But this is the reality of commerce and software development. It has more to do with deadlines to publishers (2K) than it does "saving tons of labor."

I know in the fantasy-world most gamers inhabit, everything should be perfect the instant it reaches our greedy little hands.... because we are OWED perfection, right? I mean, how dare these professional designers, programmers, and producers deliver us such a broken, awful piece of crap when it's soooo obvious nobody tested it at ALL?

As to the OP - I'm playing on a POS Dell desktop I bought like 6 years ago, and I'm still really enjoying the game. No shortage of Just One More Turn Syndrome and the inevitable late nights / early mornings it leads to.

 

[stormerne]

I suspect that part of the reason this is done is because releasing the game with tons of bugs allows the developer to rely on the user to find them rather than paying someone else to do it. It probably saves them tons on labor.

This approach is sometimes called "Your QA department is the world"! Some say it was pioneered by a certain knighted 70 year old British inventor whose early electronics products, they say, seemed to use this method to a large degree. The fact that said inventor cleaned up his act and went on to become a respected household name in a later decade could possibly give us cause for optimism.

 

[dannythefool]

I have something in the middle of minimum and recommended (although I had to bend my GTX 260 a little to fit it in the case), and I like the game.

I turned graphics settings way down, I always do that eventually, nothing beats a smooth game. But it does run nicely on medium-high settings in DX10 mode until turn 200 or so, I just think quickly responding ui >>> all.

 

[Padje Dog]

I have a 5 year old Dell laptop, only 1 gig of RAM in it, 1.83Ghz Dual CPU. I can play the game fine on strategic level, trying to play with the pretty graphics is not going to happen.

 

[iamflatline]

I built up a new system in May 2009 that was relatively close to top-of-the-line at the time (maybe 8-12 weeks behind the cutting edge?) for Fallout 3.

I've been running Civ V at full settings with no noticeable graphics issues or slowdown. Last night I played about 200 turns entirely in the strategic view though. I'm actually starting to like that more than the full 3D view despite not having problems.

 

[boredatwork]

I know in the fantasy-world most gamers inhabit, everything should be perfect the instant it reaches our greedy little hands.... because we are OWED perfection, right? I mean, how dare these professional designers, programmers, and producers deliver us such a broken, awful piece of crap when it's soooo obvious nobody tested it at ALL?

Actually in the 80s and early 90s before the internet became all prevalent that's how game design worked. You couldn't release something and then "patch it later" because distribution of a patch involved sending out floppy disks in the mail.

In that respect software design was like the printing buisiness - you had to make sure it was as close to perfect as poossible because fixing mistakes was expensive and there was alot more competition for your customers to turn to if your game was an unplayable mess.

Since the internet however standards have been relaxed in order to meet important retail release dates. It's 'better' to release something buggy now in time to hit the christmas season rather than delay it till the new year. It can always be "finished" later.

 

[SuperJay]

Actually in the 80s and early 90s before the internet became all prevalent that's how game design worked.

Yep, true. (I was born in 75, so I remember that.)

But how is that relevant nowadays?

My point wasn't defending software releases with bugs in them - it was in response to JohnRM pointing his finger at the wrong people (lazy developers at Firaxis) rather than just recognizing the reality of publisher deadlines in today's software market.

You don't have to like it, but you might as well accept it. The choice we have as consumers is to vote with our wallets. Feel free to not buy games, it's your prerogative.

 

[Janig]

civ5 is my favourite game and im below the minimum specs, so i didnt vote