Entire Game is a bug

[oldStatesman]

I've read a number of posts now by people that were still able to play the game until the end even with these graphic glitches. You're contradicting yourself. On one hand you say that the graphics aren't important to gameplay yet you complain when they aren't appearing correctly. Several people have been able to get past these graphical anomalies and still enjoy the game, so obviously the game does run on a bottom end machine. Some people have even been able to get the graphics working properly at the expense of game speed.

And where is the rule that says slow gameplay is the only thing to be expected from a low end system? You can expect all sorts of issues, especially when dealing with 3D platforms.

Disabling the fog of war to play the game is not acceptable. Civ without the fog of war is not Civ.

I am getting tired of answering apologists who say that minimum specs don't mean you can run the game. That is not true. Minimum specs mean you CAN run the aplication...perhaps not as fast, but it should run without disabling features. Even Firaxis says this - they want to have a minimum specs where people can play the game. They are working hard - per their web site - to correct the issues that people with low end hardware that meets the specs are having.

Finally, some personal observations:

The game is very good.

The game is well designed.

A lot of innovation and hard work went into it.

It is not perfect.

It has bugs.

It was rushed. Mistakes were inevitable.

Firaxis or Take2 or whoever DID NOT have a support forum on their web site on release day. They directed a lot of people with issues here and to Apolyton. What did anyone expect if users with problems were told to come here...of coarse there is going to be an increase in problem threads.

Evidently Take2's phone support was overwhelmed.

Firaxis itself has done a remarkable job dealing with all this. They got a fix out in almost record time for the major ATI bug.

Modders are working to resolve other issues - kudos.

Lots of good - and some bad.

BTW, This forum is starting to remind me of a political one instead of a game one with the polarization of views. Stand in the middle and you get shelled from both sides.

 

[Talamane]

If you think C4/2K is bad off, you should go take a look at Ensemble's mess with AoE3. Sheesh!

Game companies are going to release less and less titles for PCs because of these reasons. The variance in hardware is too great to support.

If your computer runs the game and then fraps out after a while, it's generally hardware (inadequate cooling usually, if all else is well).

If the game doesnt run at all or the installation botches, chances are the computer is not fully patched, or there are driver issues.

As for me, i had no problems whatsoever. I didnt even have to install their version of DirectX, since i had patched the crap out of it for AoE3.

A note to ATI gfx card owners: While i have always admired their hardware, ATI drivers are frustrating (and is the reason i quit using them). It seems that they have NEVER properly implemented DirectX calls. I dont know who heads software dev @ Nvidia, but my hat's off to them. Most of the issues with AoE3 are with ATI cards. A good friend of mine says that the ATI high end cards only run well on XP platforms, which may be the reason that ES decided not to support Win 2K for AoE3.

 

[Willem]

Disabling the fog of war to play the game is not acceptable. Civ without the fog of war is not Civ.

I wasn't talking about the fog of war. It has something to do with lowering the ARP in SmartGart. It fixes the T&L problems for some people, but it slows the game down. Exactly what you're expecting. I'm not sure of the exact details however, just something I've been reading.

Evidently Take2's phone support was overwhelmed.

Not surprising considering all those ATI users that ran into the problems they did.

BTW, This forum is starting to remind me of a political one instead of a game one with the polarization of views. Stand in the middle and you get shelled from both sides.

Tell me about it. I'm not trying to be an apologist here. I just don't like seeing people bash Firaxis/Take 2 because they may have systems that just aren't up to snuff. For instance, there's a lot of irate laptop users who can't play the game because Intel et al are to cheap to add T&L to their graphic cards. Yet they feel that Firaxis is somehow responsible for that. One guy was even complaining that the game should be able to run smoothly on a P3 900 ghz machine.

There's no call for that sort of attitude, nor for threads like this that state the whole game is a bug. Yes there are problems, as there are for almost every game that comes out these days. But by the sounds of it most people are running the game just fine. And Firaxis has a pretty good reputation for fixing glitches and making their games work properly. A little patience and alot less rhetoric are what's in order at the moment.

 

[AzureMonster]

I don't have to be gracious with people who are acting like their rights are being violated because the game did not work when they first got it. There are plenty of people, for whom the game did not seem to work, who got the answers and fix they needed, and it ran, all with out coming ot these boards and calling Firaxis and Take2 horrible companies and names, and claiming to have expertise in the industry, and how it is the end of Take2, blah blah blah.

There are still those having problems right now, and for them, I empathize. But I do not empathize for those writing that "wow Take2 really screwed it up"... no every pc game has problems. and "wow Take2 doesn't care about my issues", no Firaxis and Take2 does care. But if their phone says "call again in 24 hours", it's really useless to call back in 20 minutes to hear the message again, and then get angry about it.

If your card met the minimum... that does not mean much.... it means you should expect MAJOR problems. When purchasing a PC game, and you only meet the minimum, you better be prepared for the fact that the game is not going to run well. This is not new, this is the way it is, and has been for years. It sucks, but the civ IV engine is going to be around for 5 years, and in 5 years, it will run flawlessy on most people's computers, just like Civ III does now.

I have no problem with people reporting thier bugs, I don't even mind people expressing disappointment the game is not workng well, or worse, not at all. What I do not like to see is people acting like it's a tragedy, or they payed money, and they are owed a custom configuration by the people at Take2.

Why can't people ask for help graciously, instead of like "I payed $55 for this, and it doesn't WORK!!! OMG take2 and Firaxis are CON ARTISTS. And they won;t answer their phones!!! They better take care of this or I am taking my business elsewhere!!!" It's just stupid, and a mindset I hate to see displayed.


BTW, the game does not work flawlessly on my system, as I have stated before, but it runs well, and recovers from annoying glitches, sometimes without even having to restart the game. It has yet to crash on me, allthough it felt like it because it did freeze for more than 2 minutes a couple of times, but it recovered. The whole game however, is not "a bug". The game was obviously written and playtested well.

On my 2800+ with 512 RAM, the loading the game takes about 5 minutes, and unit movements each take about 2-3 seconds. The game is slightly laggy. So if your game seems to be frozen, it may just be that it is running laggy.... especially if your computer is over 2 years old.

Neo, I think someone else had it right. You're a teeny bopping know it all. Minimum requirements are supposed to mean that the game will run just fine on a system that meets those specs. You mention five years of expeience. I have 25, this is the first game I've ever purchased that will not run well on a minimum spec machine. Not only that, but the published minimum specs have changed twice. My box says 256 MB ram minimum (with no small print to avoid lilability), the current firaxis website says 512MB ram minimum. This is false advertising. Hopefully a mistake but given the track record of the company I'm not so sure. EB will be taking my copy back this weekend.

RE: your arguement and everyone else's who thinks it's time to upgrade a computer because it's more than 2 years old. Well.. to start.. mommy and daddy didn't buy everyone's computer on this here board. Firaxis stated minimum requirements and computers meeting those requirements often fail to run the game well. Any game or program should run well at the minimum requirements, albeit maybe slower and maybe not as pretty, but it should still run solid.

I'll likely repurchase a copy of this game early next year after I build my new system but not after checking these forums to see if the game plays solid. My better machine was destroyed in a flood caused by a former tenant so the machine I attempted to play on met the minimum specs published. I'd not have bought the game if it didn't and I wouldn't have fret about it. At the very least I'm a bit upset with Firaxis for wasting my time... :-(

 

[Willem]

My box says 256 MB ram minimum (with no small print to avoid lilability), the current firaxis website says 512MB ram minimum. This is false advertising.

If you have 25 years experience, you should know that any system today needs at least 512MB in order to run any application properly. XP alone uses up almost 200MB. I'm not close to being a computer expert by any means and even I know that. Stop being so nit picky.

Any game or program should run well at the minimum requirements, albeit maybe slower and maybe not as pretty, but it should still run solid.

You should also know that when it comes to 3D programs, having a bottom end video card leaves open a lot of possibilities for things to screw up. With this type of game, it's not just restricted to system slow downs. There can also be artifacts and other graphic anomolies. There's certainly no guarentees that things will run solid.

 

[bugmenot17]

Just because it doesnt work on your machine does not mean it was not tested thoroughly.

Yes, it does.

 

[Willem]

Yes, it does.

100 + beta testers working for the past year would beg to differ. And many of these were people who were very familiar with the Civ series, they've been hanging around here and over at Apolyton for years now.

 

[kefka01]

If you have 25 years experience, you should know that any system today needs at least 512MB in order to run any application properly. XP alone uses up almost 200MB. I'm not close to being a computer expert by any means and even I know that. Stop being so nit picky.

God forbid we choose to believe that the company that releases the system requirements might actually know more about the game than we do. If the requirements state that it can run on 256MB of RAM, I expect it to run on 256MB of RAM. If nit picky is expecting a game to work as advertised, then I guess I'm guilty.

You should also know that when it comes to 3D programs, having a bottom end video card leaves open a lot of possibilities for things to screw up. With this type of game, it's not just restricted to system slow downs. There can also be artifacts and other graphic anomolies. There's certainly no guarentees that things will run solid.

If I have a bottom end video card that meets the minimum requirements, I expect the game to work. Solid. Period.

 

[Neomega]

Neo, I think someone else had it right. You're a teeny bopping know it all. Minimum requirements are supposed to mean that the game will run just fine on a system that meets those specs.

Just fine? Then what do they list the recommended specs for? If you want it to run crystal clean?

Back when I had a Pentium 133 with 32 Mb of RAM, I borrowed Alpha Centaurti, from my boss at the time. It didn't work very well at all, and it was above minimum specs. If you have minimum specs, you best go through MSCONFIG, and disable some start-up items, becasue the computer is going to need some tweaking to even run the game.

You mention five years of expeience. I have 25...

Care to quote me on that? 25 years in what? Obviously not reading posts. I am 28. I don't think my parents are buying me my computers anymore.

this is the first game I've ever purchased that will not run well on a minimum spec machine.

Then you have been really lucky.

This is false advertising.

Yet another ridiculous statement... false advertising?

RE: your arguement and everyone else's who thinks it's time to upgrade a computer because it's more than 2 years old. Well.. to start.. mommy and daddy didn't buy everyone's computer on this here board. Firaxis stated minimum requirements and computers meeting those requirements often fail to run the game well. Any game or program should run well at the minimum requirements, albeit maybe slower and maybe not as pretty, but it should still run solid.

If you tweak your computer first. ANd make it run bare minimum OS... then you might have a chance. I would never buya program if my computer only met the minimum, I would be weary to buy it if my computer had the recommended.


[/quote]
I'll likely repurchase a copy of this game early next year after I build my new system but not after checking these forums to see if the game plays solid. [/QUOTE]

I got to say, I have yet to have a crash, after about 16 hours straight of playing. In fact, I am now running it on full detail graphics, (but have not messed with antialiasing yet)

Zooming up to planet level, and then back to surface level, and the computer hardly even noticed. Most amazing, is I am in the late 17th century, and STILL, the turns are only take about 45 seconds in between. Civ III would take 2-3 minutes at this stage inthe game. It is truly amazing how well this game has been programmed.

If I have a bottom end video card that meets the minimum requirements, I expect the game to work. Solid. Period.

Why would you do that? You are setting yourself up for a letdown. If I buy a game with min requirements, I expect it to work terribly, laggy, and crash all the time.

 

[Willem]

If I have a bottom end video card that meets the minimum requirements, I expect the game to work. Solid. Period.

I guess you're not as much of a professional as you think you are, since your expectations are obviously unrealistic. If you have bottom end equipment there's no way in hell any game is going to run solid. There's going to be issues, guarenteed.

 

[bugmenot17]

I guess you're not as much of a professional as you think you are, since your expectations are obviously unrealistic. If you have bottom end equipment there's no way in hell any game is going to run solid. There's going to be issues, guarenteed.

That doesn't mean that they should be there. It means quite the opposite, that's why requirements are written in the first place. If this is not realistic, it only means that the developers and testers did a crappy job.

 

[Willem]

That doesn't mean that they should be there. It means quite the opposite, that's why requirements are written in the first place. If this is not realistic, it only means that the developers and testers did a crappy job.

Why shouldn't they be there? Are you seriously trying to say that if I have a bare minimum system that the game should run just as good as if I had one that was top of the line? I really don't understand why so many of you people have this expectation, it's just totally off base. Not only that, it would be unfair to the person who made the sacrifice and invested in a good machine. Why bother if a game will run just fine on something really, really basic?

The fact is that as computers get more and more powerful, the people producing the software to run on them are going to take advantage of that power. If you want to be a Luddite and insist that technology has to remain stagnant at a level you feel comfortable with, that's your problem. But don't expect the developer to cater to your whims. They're going to go after the people who are serious about keeping up with the changes and who actually embrace them. Because ultimately, they're the ones who are going to spend the money on the increasingly sophisticated products that will be produced in the future.

 

[doronron]

It's all pretty black and white for you, isn't it, bug? It must be their fault, because nothing can ever possibly be yours.

Are you honestly so naive to think that these guys, who are good enough to get paid to do this kind of work, aren't professional enough to do their jobs at the most basic level? The problems cropping up are the result of either improper user maintenence of their own machines, or users refusing to accept the fact that their machines are not powerful enough to run the software. That inlcudes the ATI Render bug, which has since been solved.

 

[Wlauzon]

...My box says 256 MB ram minimum (with no small print to avoid lilability), the current firaxis website says 512MB ram minimum. This is false advertising. Hopefully a mistake but given the track record of the company I'm not so sure. EB will be taking my copy back this weekend.

Can you even BUY a computer any more with only 256? I just checked, and a 256 additional RAM stick for most older computers is like $30, with some for even less.

 

[Wlauzon]

If I have a bottom end video card that meets the minimum requirements, I expect the game to work. Solid. Period.

I guess it depends on your definition of "working".

I can run Windows XP on a 256k machine. I would not say that it "works" though.

 

[bugmenot17]

Why shouldn't they be there? Are you seriously trying to say that if I have a bare minimum system that the game should run just as good as if I had one that was top of the line? I really don't understand why so many of you people have this expectation, it's just totally off base. Not only that, it would be unfair to the person who made the sacrifice and invested in a good machine. Why bother if a game will run just fine on something really, really basic?

Why are you twisting my words? Are you a republican? Or are you simply too dumb to be functionally literate? All I and kefka01 were saying is that a game should run without issues on a system that equals the bare minimum requirements. Of course that system won't run the game as fast as a more powerful one, but it should run it without issues.

Now read what I said a few dozen of times before you embarrass yourself again and again prove your illiteracy.

 

[Willem]

Why are you twisting my words? Are you a republican? Or are you simply too dumb to be functionally literate? All I and kefka01 were saying is that a game should run without issues on a system that equals the bare minimum requirements. Of course that system won't run the game as fast as a more powerful one, but it should run it without issues.

Now read what I said a few dozen of times before you embarrass yourself again and again prove your illiteracy.

I read what you said just fine. Enough to know that you live in some fantasy world where everything works the way you want it to. Like I said, no way in hell are going to have a minimum system not have issues with a game, especially if it involves 3D graphics. You can delude yourself all you want, but it isn't going to change reality any.

I see you've reached the point that your arguments are falling so far flat you have to resort to insults. Sorry but I won't rise to the occasion and stoop to that level.

 

[bugmenot17]

Like I said, no way in hell are going to have a minimum system not have issues with a game, especially if it involves 3D graphics. You can delude yourself all you want, but it isn't going to change reality any.

Again, for you illiterate dumbnut...
Just because there are issues with systems that meet the minimum requirements, it doesn't mean that they should be there. It means quite the opposite, that's why requirements are written in the first place. If this is not realistic, it only means that the developers and testers did a crappy job.

I see you've reached the point that your arguments are falling so far flat you have to resort to insults. Sorry but I won't rise to the occasion and stoop to that level.

How about your own words for this part...
I read what you said just fine. Enough to know that you live in some fantasy world where everything works the way you want it to.

Too bad that doesn't include me and other more intelligent people than you, eh?

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

If you have the minimum req, the game should run. That is, after like 10 minutes it should start, and then "work". Of course only with all animations and sounds disabled, and low gfx performance.
Expecting anything else is silly.
You are allowed to use the German Autobahn if your car can run 61km/h. But, don't expect to be able to hunt down Porsches in that case...


I also start feeling disgusted about the conversation style lots of you new members seem to find acceptable.
This is a civilized site. I may agree or not with "experienced" members like Neomega or Willem. But none of us would use personnal insults like "Dumbnut".
If you cannot adapt the level of adultness which is prevalent among folks that have been here more than 2 month, please, feel free to stay away. You won't be missed.

 

[MayanKing]

Don't bother Bug, he seems too busy thinking about his next post to read what you are saying. You are right though, a minimum spec comp should be able to run the game, but they either a) put the wrong specs on the box or b) decided they made a mistake and changed them on it's site (which at the very least should get you a refund np).

Personally, I'm playing with a 965 processor, so I'm dreading the late game, but since it's BELOW the minimum spec, I'll not be mad at Firaxis about it.