I think Firaxis just got too ambitious..

[rmill27]

My computer is crap compared to all you guys.. talking about 1gig ram, 3.0 ghz and all that. I only have 2.0 ghz, 256 ram, and on a friggin laptop, but it sounds to me I have the exact same problems as all you hightech guys. Honestly, I don't think Civ4 will run perfectly for you unless you have top of the line or just some random stroke of luck. I'm content playing with my 5 frames a second (just irritatingly slow, compared to that of other games) but I really wish the overall graphics scheme was just a whole level less than what Firaxis implemented. I like what they tried to do, but I don't think PCs are ready to do it yet. And since when has civ been about graphics?
Nice try Firaxis, but next time, make sure you have the average gamer in mind. I'll still chug away on civ4 for a bit, but I really wish it ran alot more like civ3. Or bring it to the consoles! I would definately pickup a console version (and a mouse), knowing that it will run like its envisioned to run.

 

[Zanmato]

Yes it is ambitous but is more highly that the current games market demand it to be. Nearly all games use somekind of 3D engine, therefore Firaxis thought (for better or worse) that the game should be ported into a pure 3D world. Secondly, the publisher Take2 demanded the game be released early. Firaxis would have actually wanted more testing time so there you have it again - market forces moving release dates.
Thirdly, yes the demand on the hardware is very high but Firaxis thought that most mid-range machines could handle it. Clearly, it isn't that case as even high-end computers struggle to run Civ4 correctly. Perhaps with more testing time many of the bugs would have been fixed. Many users have actually upgraded their machines to play it, including myself.
Let's say that if the graphics were the same as Civ3, how many users would complain that it looks rubbish compared to other games on the market plus there has been no advancement in the look of it since Civ3. Perhaps people would have thought it looks like Civ3 so it will play like Civ3 but I already played Civ3 so why bother with a repackaged Civ3 but only it is called Civ4 this time. Looks the same, I won't buy it.

 

[Raider62]

Personally I think the CIV4 graphics are crappy anyway. Everything is all blocky and simple looking. I dont understand how this game demands sooo much computing power...

 

[auldian]

There are still a lot of loose ends insofar as the software goes. Once it's soundly patched, which I'm hopeful of, this should run a lot better on the recommended system.
There's nothing revolutionary here graphically.

 

[N3pomuk]

Shhh quiet, I for one don't want them to focus on consoles, you know once they start they won't go back! think about it, shure It's less than a computer but you're also forced to play on a Tv screen and every 2-3 years you'll have to buy the new console. plus you can't work on a console you know....

 

[rmill27]

Well they did put Civ2 on PS1 awhile ago, but it didn't run nearly as good as the PC version. I doubt many played that version, because it just wasn't popular then. I dunno, I would like a console version alongside a PC version, I mean, many games already do this. Though I do see a problem regarding not everyone having a USB mouse and keyboard, but Civ2 for PS1 wasn't that bad without either. I just would prefer a simpler way to enjoy Civ, since I just don't have the money to upgrade my computer every month. But as for the market factors pushing out Civ4, I agree that had a lot to do with the problems. Let's hope Civ4 can recover from the negative factors effecting gameplay with the band-aids Firaxis gives us. But its kinda like trying to heal fractured bones with ozonol.