Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Snackwell, Nov 4, 2005.
Become friends with me. Cause we are in the same boat.
me too where on the same page....
If the game doesn't work for someone after they have tried every solution under the sun I feel very bad for them. To say, "Quit whining and stop being so negative", is a slap in the face of many loyal Civ customers. It is arrogance and childish to carry on about how the game works on their system and to stop complaining.
I am lucky in that the game runs almost perfectly on my system and I love the game. I am sincerely hoping the patch comes out very soon. This game is too good to waste I think. As they say, You never get a second chance to make a first impression. Because of Civ's great reputation, they are getting a second chance. Firaxis and Take 2 (one and the same beast now) better not "drop the ball" so to speak. My 2 cents...
I believe PC gaming is in trouble because games are starting to look and run better on consoles especially as HDTV prices are slowly coming down. I read a review that claimed that Call of Duty 2 looks better on 360 than on PC. I haven't check the prices for 360 yet but I sure it's cheaper than a high dollar video card. Hmmm... Around $300 console that looks as good or better than a pc with a $500 graphic card.
Consoles also looks more attractive to the developers end since it reaches more people , all having the exact same specs. Then either the game runs for everyone or doesn't work for nobody.
Amen brother. I think there's a console in every gamer's future. Paying $2k-$3k every two-three years in order to stay current and then having to spend time "tweaking" the latest releases (my last three purchases were CivIV, BF2 and HL2, all of which required some degree of extra work to get them going) just can't remain a competitve buisness model over a $200 - $400 well-defined standardized gaming console with much greater market penetration. Hopefully great game franchises like Civ will make that leap and not go the way of the silent picture. Just my $0.02 worth.
Is it next week yet ?
Valve constantly released patches for their multi-player components when HL2 was first released. It took them around a month for a patch to be released to fix some of the more "serious" issues such as audio stutter (using Miles sound system) and gameplay lag, even in single player games. But guess what, according to some people (myself not included), the game is still not perfect. It never will be.
In so far as asking if I think cIV was as good/bad a release as HL2, well I dont know if I can comment generally. I can only comment on my own problems with both and I'd have to say that Civ4 wins, hands down. Let me guess? You knew I was going to say that? Well it is true. I struggled with HL2 for a while there, depending on the level I was playing at the time. With Civ4, I have had the crash to desktop a few times (largely because I think of the bug where you have a unit moving (or their animation is playing) and I give the unit another order - bang! Back to desktop), I have had a couple of BSODs (fixed by using the manufacturer video drivers ), and I have had other issues, and now, the voice-overs dont work anymore. Me thinks it is something I've done anyway as I have been frigging with the Civ4.ini file for some time now. Not saying this is you, but with some people's posts on these forums, they would be screaming bloody murder at the fact their voice-overs once worked and now they dont. I'm not. I am 99% sure I stuffed it up. Should I fix it? Do I care? Not really. I've heard them all before anyway. But back to comparing, I just dont think, in my case, that these problems were as serious (besides the BSODs) as what was occurring in HL2. Just my opinion!
There is one thing when comparing (and it is kind of like apples to oranges) and that is that Valve were a year late with HL2. Civ4 was early. Hrmm. Civ4 was "rushed" out the door and HL2 wasnt. What had bugs and problems? Both. Interesting point...
I totally agree (@ face value) with your statement regarding if you have a top-of-the-line system, then any program should work without performance issues. But once again, we are delving into the dark, murky world of PCs here in that, my system might be a PoS but can still out-perform yours (even though your PC might be considerably higher spec) in some areas. Why is that so? Configuration, maintenance, driver levels, and overclocking just to name a few. Just because a PC is top of the line does not necessarily mean you are going to get the "best" performance in any game. We are talking hardware here when it comes to a "top-of-the-line" machine (like how we all love notifying everyone of our specs of our PCs and ramble on that everything should work fine) but forgetting about software that plays an integral part in overall stability, and performance. Off-topic slightly --> Remember, Windows = Bloatware and it is going to get a lot worse in Pista.
Yes I can. Even though we have newer technology, better and newer APIs (in most respects), higher performing systems, we also have this thing called the internet. We also have this thing called "big-business". Years ago, PC gaming was a niche market, as compared to now. Games were less complex back then, mainly due to the hardware around at the time. Games didnt have 3D graphics to the extent we have today. In other words, in many respects, games actually were simpler however they were still a lot of fun (and personally, a lot more original than today's copy-as-many-ideas-as-we-can market). Without the internet, developers tried their hardest to release a game to market without any bugs. There still were games with bugs. Games still crashed. This is part of the reason why I can compare as it really is no different - just the technology has changed.
I am not saying that developers don't debug anymore. Of course they still do. Of course they still beta-test. But what the marketing companies know, besides the fact that it is the $$$$$ (substitute your national currency here ) that counts, that the developers can always release now and patch later. After the game is "fixed", all will be forgotten in due course and it starts over.
This has been said before and I am sure some people wont agree but I have faith in Firaxis to fix and patch this game until it is right. They have done it before and they will continue to do it. Otherwise they do face a loss in sales (and reputation) in the next project they decide to release. Firaxis to me just doesn't seem like the company that doesn't give a sh.. damn about their customers. Unlike EA, fake-Atari, QSI, and HB Studios.
Not in the games market, but the more important business market, Microsoft has been doing this for years. Are people complaining? Are YOU complaining, ahsingjai? Look, professional matters, as far as I am concerned dont come into any conversation here as they are largely irrelevant, however I will use this as a final point and then I'll drop off, and go to bed :yawn: I have a lot to do with supporting, implementing, designing infrastructures and recommending Microsoft products (well as little as possible ). As compared to Civ4 and Firaxis, what Microsoft can get away with is pathetic in terms of the quality of some of their software. People are complaining louder here about some bugs/configuration issues than they do about security holes, interoperability between microsoft products and a plethora of other problems. Aren't these more serious? You are paying a LOT more money for Windows than Civ4...
Will Microsoft fix these issues? Yes they will.......But you'll have to buy Vista to get those fixes.
I too believe that PC gaming going to slowly become an irrelevent market. Consoles are just to obviously an efficient model. They are accelerating in their power as technology just gets cheaper and more accessible. We are already starting to see some co-releases of major games. I believe it's just a matter of time before Civilization goes that route
Personally, I don't think that's a bad thing, as long as they allow for the modification abilities of the games to somehow remain, prefferably with development remaining on PCs.
I think you make good points here. However, there is one thing that has always kept the PC gaming industry going and that is the speed of technological improvement. Example:
I'd say between February and April next year, nVidia will release their new chippy that will surpass the 7800GTX (or RSX in PS3). In fact, based on paper, the RSX has already been surpassed with the 7800GTX 512Mb GPU.
In as far as the XBOX360 and Xenos, ATI will surpass it soon to keep up with nVidia's 7800GTX 512Mb. They'll release an X1800XT PE Ultra, Super-duper, ultimate, insane version. Don't believe me? Just wait... I think ATI is almost ready to go with their next gen chipsets too.
Just think where PC's will be in 5 years time. That is when you'll be seeing the XBOX720 lol and the PS4 - if Sony is still around then (as long as they dont rootkit themselves to death).
This thread is very big and growing as i post can anyone tell me when the patch is likely to be released ?
There is no release date, actually there can't be any. Firaxis already made a patch and sent it to Take2 QA for testing. Thus we can have the patch any day (if QA gives their okay), or it can be several weeks from now (if QA finds serious problems which have to be dealt with before they can release the patch).
Given that the price of console games subsidises the price of the console, I sure as hell hope that consoles dont finish off PCs for the game market.
Even if all games were on console only, I'd still have a PC for other things, so I like the fact the PC I have anyway can also play games. A console might appear cheap, but once you've added the £20 per game subsidy it quickly gets more expensive.
Besides, I dont want to play games in my living room in front of the TV (that stops others from watching TV) I want to play them in my computer room. Yeah I could buy a dedicated TV for the console, but then that ups the price of the console...
My current PC was bought before the xbox came out. They've already replaced that with the 360. In the same time, I've only had to spend £100 on my PC to keep it up to date.
Consoles put the power in the hands of the industry not the consumer - there isnt any freedom. If it goes that way, I wont be following...
I don't think the future of PC gaming is as bleak as that, for a couple of reasons.
First, the hardware/software/OS/hardware/etc. upgrade cycle has gotten less demanding as time has gone on. While top-of-the-line video cards are certainly more expensive now than they used to be, you also need to buy them less often. As an example: I last upgraded my system a few months before HL2 was supposed to be released - to be clear, I mean their original stated release date. Even then, I bought second-tier hardware. I've been running this system essentially unchanged (I did buy a new mainboard, but it was just a replacement nForce2 piece. Oh, and a DVD burner) since then.
I haven't faced a game I can't play yet, including Doom 3, HL2, and Civ IV. I can't play them at peak video quality, of course, but I can play them. Contrast this to the release of previous games: could you play Doom at release on a years-old PC? Quake? Descent? Quake 2? Half Life? Wing Commander (any)? WarCraft? Diablo II? Quake 3? FreeSpace? StarCraft? The answer, of course, is no. If you want to enjoy all the new eye candy of every new release, then the upgrade cycle is as demanding as ever. If you just want to play the game, however, it's gotten easier.
Second, until the baseline hardware that comes with a console undergoes some significant changes, there are some games that will simply never translate well to the platform, and the Civ franchise is a fantastic example. How miserable would it be to play Civ with a console controller? Ditto RTS and flight sims. Even first person shooters are something of a tough sell. I love Halo (not counting the library, of course), but that only works on the XBox because it was designed with the limitations of the control input in mind. As long as games have to be restricted in scope to fit within the comfort zone of console controls, there will be a PC market.
I do think, though, that PC gaming is becoming and will continue to become more specialized. That is, the mass-market segment of video gaming will end up almost completely on consoles. Your Crazy Taxis, GTAs, and DDRs will all be console-based. With the exception of sports franchises, anything that is more of a simulation than a toy (and I include a certain category of FPS in this), however, will still be PC. In some ways, this brightens the future of PC gaming. For quick gaming fixes, button-mashing fun, and rescuing the princess from the evil Ganondorf, I'll have my XBox and my GameCube (Sony can go suck eggs for all of me). For immersive, long-term cerebral gaming, I'll have my PC. Anyone who pretty much only likes one of those styles, of course, will only have one of those platforms, and will make do with ports otherwise.
Picture: would you ever want to play Soul Calibur with a mouse and keyboard? Would you ever want to play Civ with an NES Max?
Then at least can someone help me get this blasted game out of my head?! I am completely obsessed with checking this forum (and Civ 4's site) 8 to 9 times a day to see if the patch is finally here. I try and stop, but it keeps calling me back with its buggy-semi-beta-unstable-yet-oh-so-tantalizing-siren song.
Spend some time with your significant other(s). Apart from getting Civ4 at least partially out of your head, this should have the very useful side effect of creating a buffer of good vibrations which might come in handy once the bugs are fixed and you're absorbed by Civ4 again.
Yes, in the tens of millions. Microsoft has been sued by entire governments. The uproar, if you want to call it that, caused by Civ IV not working correctly on a percentage of machines does not compare by any perspective, until you perhaps get to the very niche market of strategic gaming. History will long record the response to Microsft in this kind of behavior.
I think it raises some interesting philosophical questions, that will probably be answered with simple brutal economics. If high-end graphics games such as Age Of Empires III, Black & White 2, and Quake 4 run on my machine no problems, no graphics issues, no memory issues, completely smooth right out of the box, without any patches or driver updates whatsoever to my system, should I expect that simularly powered game such as Civ IV to run on my system with the same level of quality? In other words, whose responsibility is it? Should I go through and revamp my system to run Civ IV or should the developers at Firaxis decide that if these other games can run on a system that is above the recommened specs, then their game should run too?
I've seen a lot of people flame away at their 'rights' to have a game run on their system and others flame back that their system is crap or that their maintenance of their system is. But how do we decided how much responsibility is on the developer and how much is on the player?
For me, the question, or better perhaps the answer, doesn't apply so well. If Firaxis would give me the code, I would be happy to debug the software until it runs on my machine. I love programming, I've done it for most of my life, I do it proffessionally, and I know I could get the thing working. But I'm pretty sure %99.999 percent of the general purchasing public buying this kind of game would not be interested in debugging code. I think a chunk of those, especially Civilization fans, aren't particularly enthusiastic about updating drivers, tweeking hardware, or reconfiguring their system for any reason much less for a game. This doesn't make them lesser fans of the game, this just makes them 'normal'.
No matter how strong the opinions are on this board, the philosophical question has no obvious philosophical answer. The idea of 'responsibility' is very human, and I think even a young idea at that. But there is a much more practical real economic answer. If philosophy, and people flaming each other on this board, can't answer that question, I gaurantee you economics can answer the question.
Pesonally, I'm not touching my system right now. I've done the hardcore gaming existance: upgrading the latest drivers endlessly, Bios upgrades, saving up for the latest hardware and chugging games on the new system to push my fresh hardware beyond its limits. And I had fun doing that sort of thing. It's really just a matter of personal protest that won't make a difference to anyone except me and those who depend on my spare time . If AOE III, Quake 4, and Black&White 2 run beautifully on my system without me ever having to touch anything in the game configurations or my system's configuration, on a system exceeding the recommended requirements, then Civ IV definitely should run on my system.
If I have to wait until the SDK comes out to fix it, no problem. In fact for me, that will be fun in a twisted sort of way.
Heh I use civ as my very small personal escape from my significant others. Kinda like closing the bathroom door.
Thanks for the family advice, but believe me I spend plenty of time with them and they are awesome. (Good call on the "buffer" thing though! )
-TSteamer, wonderful wife, 3 kids, 2 cats and a mortgage.
I'm sorry to tell you guys but tests have shown that the pc game market is rising in demand. Not to mention the money they make in the pc market
Indeed. And if they would release games like Civ4 for Linux, they could see their profits increase even more!
Well, I'm really NOT trying to step on toes, but I think this needs to be said.
As I sit here waiting for the patch, watching my game stutter and grind to a halt, and finally crash yet again, some thoughts occur to me. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced.
Take a look at the list of the beta testers in the back of the manual. It's a decent sized list, and most of the names appear to be the usernames of members of this forum, (or Apolyton, PlanetCiv, etc.). Take a look- some of these usernames will be familiar.
Given the obviously wide scope and severity of problems with this game, I find it impossible to believe these problems did not surface during beta testing. And I'm pretty sure the beta testers talk to each other, as well as the developers. Hence, I believe that, beyond the sloppy development, we have been misled, even deceived. I don't pretend to know at what level this took place, whether at the top or a lot closer to home.
The bottom line is, we got all the advertising, we got all the hype, but no one told us the other side of the story. Well, now they've got you're 50 bucks, and mine- so enjoy your game, if it runs!
Separate names with a comma.