I think there is some lying going on.

[leebloom]

Howdy, peeps.
This game has rav reviews everywhere on the web. Everyone thinks it is great, a near perfect piece of gaming software. I dare anyone to try to find a negative review from any of the big strategy game critics or the advertisers. Hah!
The only negative reviews I can find come from us, the gamers... You know, the people who actually use the software for pleasure.

Why is this happening you think?

Fact: This game has a memory leak that you need a backhoe and hot tar to fix.
Fact: This game shipped with major video issues, some (not Nvidia afaik) fixed as of patch 1.09.
Fact: All (most?) advertising is extremely positive.

I am pretty sure there is a bunch of lying going on, and it disappoints me. Isn't the internet a worldwide forum of freedom of speech? Sure, you can lie if you are inclined that way, but what if you are a major source of news for a large group of folks. That stinks. First we get suckered by lies, then we stop trusting that website, then we find another lying website, and stop trusting that one, too. Soon, we don't trust as much as in the past since we are being manipulated. Then we don't spend as much.

Let me give an example: I am a Civ Fanatic. hehe Been playing since '91. Bought 'em all pre-order or the first couple of days they came out in stores. Played it, loved it. Loved the fact that I could play the game, not fix a game problem with my spare time. Paid for the game cheerfully, knowing that this was a good deal for me, and for the game company. I pre-ordered IV, played it a few times, til 5am hehe. Then, I tried a larger map. Boom! CTD. Huh! Oh, well....reload....a few minutes later....Boom! CTD. Hey! This sucks! So, I starting saving the game EVERY turn, at the end of the turn...in case the CTD happened, or the video overlay went haywire. That sucked most of the fun out of the game, then I noticed that the later in game on the larger maps, the more the code problems happened. Still, I stuck it out for a couple of weeks til the (real) patch showed up, even though I spend a lot of my gaming time watching a bunch of load screens instead of devising some risky strategy to go after Gengis Khan. Patch 1.09 did not help with anything I could notice. However, I quit playing my favorite game bar none, because I couldn't play it. It felt like work. Bleh.
Btw, I am a geek...I fix general purpose windows computers for the general public since '95 professionally. I can always find some kind of solution for the problems I encounter. Not this one...Civ IV feels like work, and I can't fix that. ((

Lee Bloom

ps I wonder how long this negative post will stay in here? lol

 

[xGBox]

Everything about memory leaks or whatever has been addressed and (should be) fixed in the v152 patch.

First of all, they're not really lies, but in reality the majority of us could run the game just fine. There were just slightly more people with issues that it became a noticible problem. I mean, there were people bashing Battlefield 2 all the time for its bugs, but those had a smaller crowd and therefore had a smaller effect.

(Also, you are seeing how bigger of a problem it is when you compare a game that has a 17 year fanbase as opposed to a game that has a 3 year fanbase)

Second, reviewers run and review their games on pretty high-end PCs which can withstand almost anything. That being said, they would've never known that mid-end PCs with 2.2GHz and 9600 XTs would have problems too because they don't review their games on mid-end PCs at the time of the review, which might've been the case.

Now the patch should pretty much redeem them of any shame that had clouded this game. Everything works superbly so I suggest you try it.

 

[Reignking]

>ps I wonder how long this negative post will stay in here? lol

Wow, if that doesn't indicate that someone is a repeat troll...

 

[Willowmound]

@leebloom: are you suggesting that professional reviewers put their credibility, and hence their jobs, on the line by lying? Don't be ridiculous.

 

[*Nosferatu*]

I played BF2, and it, like CIV4 is full of bugs, but is so fun, you just start to not notice them.

 

[akots]

Yes, Firaxis should have put high-speed internet access in the requirements not only for multiplayer but for single player as well. These patches are huge and game is barely playable without them. But good thing the patches do work.

 

[opticaljim]

It's not really lying per se, it would be a marketing disaster if they officially recognized the fact that there are numerous bugs.

There would also be litigation, not by the players but actually by the entities involved in the production of the game.

As for testing the game on high end PC's, c'mon. they didn't notice that the game had to be played on the "install" disc and not the "play" disc? That's pretty freakin' basic.

Anyway, it's all water under the bridge. I enjoy playing the game although I still have issues despite two patches now.

I can tell you this. My choice for a next computer will depend ultimately on it's ability to play Civ IV with full enjoyment.

 

[Evie]

Probably they didn't notice the "install" and "play" disc controversy at the time of writing because the version they used to review the game was almost certainly NOT a final release version. That's because the reviews are usually written up some days before the game officialy comes out, and posted almost right when it does, or some days before it actually comes out in some cases.

Also, they probably didn't comment on it because the install/play issue is an issue with the PUBLISHER (Take-Two), not the programers (Firaxis) or the game itself (Civilization).

 

[NinjaGnat]

Given that most people who are employed in writing game reviews have decent computers, most wouldn't have many problems with Civ 4. Heck, I'm sure Alienware and their ilk give out computers to reviewers for publicity. While I know many people have had issues, as far as I can tell they are in the loud minority, as the happy people are playing the game instead of foruming.

That said, I have seen reviews give developers a wrist-slap for technical issues before, so its not a completly ignored issue.

 

[Shivam]

I reviewed the game on a system that is far below spec. It worked perfectly for me. i then tried it out on my girlfriend's system, which is top of the line and new. It still worked perfectly. This was reflected in my review. Sorry if i couldnt test it under all potential conditions, but i figured Suck! and Rock! were good enough =)

 

[joasoze]

Maybe the game got great reviews cause its a great game?

The game has technical issues, and for some people that spoils the whole experience. I can understand that they are upset. For ppl who dont have technical problems its just a superb game it seems by the reviews.

 

[DaviddesJ]

I am pretty sure there is a bunch of lying going on, and it disappoints me.

Darn, you're on to us. It's a worldwide conspiracy to trick you into playing a sucky game.

I shouldn't let on, but the next step in the conspiracy is that we're all going to pretend that you're a lame whiner, when your acumen is really unsurpassed as you're the only one to see through our ruse. It's the only way we can keep the scam going.

 

[Turner]

ps I wonder how long this negative post will stay in here? lol

It's not what you say, it's how you say it.

 

[calyth]

I am pretty sure there is a bunch of lying going on, and it disappoints me. Isn't the internet a worldwide forum of freedom of speech? Sure, you can lie if you are inclined that way, but what if you are a major source of news for a large group of folks. That stinks. First we get suckered by lies, then we stop trusting that website, then we find another lying website, and stop trusting that one, too. Soon, we don't trust as much as in the past since we are being manipulated. Then we don't spend as much.

I've been questioning mass media since at least 17. Has lying (or the lesser crime of misinformation) has stopped anyone from believing any of the major media sources? Has anyone stop trusting NYT after they've admit that they were wrong and did not do enough to make sure the facts are true?
No.
The Internet isn't some idealistic place that only the good would survive. It allows people to disperse information, good or bad, very quickly, and very easily. And by that virtue, it allows those, who does not have the resources to take a grievance to the traditional mass media, to make their voices heard. Hasn't anyone warned you against using Internet sources unless (at least) it's from a credible website?
Civ 4: There are (were?) memory leaks, but the game itself requires a good amount of RAM to run, even without the leaks. A standard size map require about 300MB on my machine. I was kinda lucky that I used to do quite a bit of video conversion, so I have plenty of RAM. I'm also picky enough to make sure my machine is stable, so I only experience the annoying but mostly harmless bugs. I used to run an ATI Radeon 9000, and the only thing that bothered me was the frame rate. I personally think the game should've much more work, but it is fun enough for me to ignore the problems most of the time.

Please consider stop being in front of the Computer and the TV and go read Orwell's 1984.

 

[AU_Armageddon]

It's called 'selective memory', another form of exxagerating. (I agree with you, it's lying).

Even you do it:

Bought 'em all pre-order or the first couple of days they came out in stores.

You know it.

You are right though. Gamespot, all these places, none of them are reliable anymore, and although most people are ******s, that fact is still filtering through as the disappointments rack up. Everyone sells out in the end. A fact of life.

But it's not all bad. The net is still the net. Before making this purchase I read many of the negative posts on this forum and others, as well as perusing all the player reviews on gamespot that scored Civ4 below the dominating fanboi 10/10. Weighing up all of this info as well the that from the one-eyed 'professional'[sic] reviews, I made the informed decision that I may have serious issues with it, but that for me it would be worth that risk, noting that my graphics card was not among the one's most quoted within negative posts.

Turned out a good decision as memory leaks have proved the only real issue I have had to deal with and for the most part, they are merely an inconvenience. The game is not overall the best it could have been which is disappointing in it's own way, but it is still miles above most of what is available for this specific type of game, and stands out as a very fun game on it's own merits with serious long term potential on the comp, and thus value for money.

The same rules apply to watching any movie, especially at the cinema, buying CDs, listening to the radio, eating at restaurants, and especially books (academic or recreactional). The internet gaming scene has simply caught up to the rest of reality. You have to use your head and take a little time to research, and you fortunately have the option and information there to do exactly that. The alternative is to be another diphorsehocky fanboi sheep, and do your duty as a good little consumer should. Go the plebs, they deserve everything they get.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Civ 4: There are (were?) memory leaks, but the game itself requires a good amount of RAM to run, even without the leaks. A standard size map require about 300MB on my machine. I was kinda lucky that I used to do quite a bit of video conversion, so I have plenty of RAM.

Not to mention that buying an extra 512 MB of RAM, if you need it, is only 30 bucks!

 

[calyth]

Not to mention that buying an extra 512 MB of RAM, if you need it, is only 30 bucks!

I got them while they're at least $200CDN a piece.
I bought them in a pair cause I was using dual channel and didn't feel like dealing with phantom compatibility problems. I know they were a rip, but hey, I've got a stable computer.

 

[MickyLuv]

All good advice.

 

[Fru]

Hi there, I've heard that there may be people "lurking" on these boards.

Explain that one to me

 

[Reg Pither]

Hi there, I've heard that there may be people "lurking" on these boards.

Explain that one to me

Lurking is normally simply someone who visits and reads a forum but doesn't post much, if at all. Not as sinister as it sounds.