Lies about Civ4 from Gamespot!

[Novaya Havoc]

You do realise that games run on computers don't you? if the computers get faster then it stands to reason that games will make use that extra speed, therefore the minimum requirements for games will increase with time as well.

Yes. Games will change graphically as hardware specs change.

However.

There is a distinction between genres of gaming, as well, and what fits each type of gameplay. Sure, you will need higher graphical capabilities to play -- say -- DOOM III. It has a lot of real-time rendering going on and is a first person shooter -- what you see is essential.

But for strategy, turn-based, or other puzzle games? Come on. By your logic, the hardware is out there, so next everyone will need to upgrade their PC to play TETRIS VII, or whatever. It doesn't wash. The fault is not with the hardware developers -- it's their job to improve and expand the market. The fault is with the software developers who do not understand their client base and do not maximize the commercial availability and marketability of their product.

So yes, Civilization IV should have better "backwards capability." Yes, it needs to take advantage of the hardware out there, but also the developers (and especially publisher) should be well aware of their target market. A lot of people want to play Civilization at work, and in class, in addition to playing at home. And for most of these people don't have the luxury of a desktop computer that is <3 years old -- or know nothing of upgrades -- Civ4 sends them for a tailspin.

Brand identity had labelled it as a game that is universally friendly -- essentially, most computers can make good use of the game. A little lag for a bigger game, sure, but it'll at least be playable.

I know you don't care. Quite frankly, I'm tired of arguing with the "Ivory Tower" crowd who have nothing more constructive to offer than "Upgrade your PC, idiot!" But the boys and girls over at Firaxis and 2K should understand that in "souping up" their graphics, they've smacked a hornet's nest full of a lot of fans and casual gamers who want to play it on their laptop on their couch, or at a coffee house, or wherever -- and now can't, because they couldn't provide a minimum install option.

You aren't doing anyone a favor by firewalling Firaxis and 2K. They could have handled this much better -- both in design, and in educating the consumer base. They did neither, and in doing so, have harmed the Civ label.

But, c'est la vie. I'm sure you all will find some witty retort about Commadore 64s, or how I can get a cheap video card/desktop on eBay, or how I should alter my life to play a turn-based PC game. Say what you will.

 

[bugmenot17]

But, c'est la vie. I'm sure you all will find some witty retort about Commadore 64s, or how I can get a cheap video card/desktop on eBay, or how I should alter my life to play a turn-based PC game. Say what you will.

Or the latest famous retort, "Get on with the program!" Sounding like some fascist dictator.

 

[tmservo]

In all actuallity, I'm not really complaining about anything. This thread is about Gamespot leading people astray with their comments about how much better Civ4 runs than Civ3.

I would agree with that statement.. seriously. Now, Civ IV does require a TL card (which a Geforce 5200, something that has been out for almost two years now, has, and can be bought for $40). But Civilization III on numerous machines had unbelievable slowdowns late in the game due to player movements. Civ IV doesn't have that (at least I haven't run into it).

There were moments in CivIII where I would sit and watch the other player move units around for 15-20 minutes before a turn came back around to me. That's boring. And it's terrible gameplay. I will admit, out of all the Civ games, Civ III is the only one I barely played and didn't care for very much.

Those kind of problems in my four or five games so far do not exist in Civ IV.

And that is smoother, better gameplay then CivIII. And on lower req PCs, that long break as it calculated opponents moves was tremendously long.. now, it's generally over in a few seconds on my box. That's a major league improvement.

 

[Ozymandous]

"
Sorry buddy.. In the gaming world (and the business/cheap and nasty desktop world) a P3/900 -is- an antique system."

P3 900 is no more antique than a 1.2 Ghz P4 or celeron. Did you know both were sold at the same time? Did you know that p3 performs better?

So are you saying a p4/celeron 1.2 Ghz is antique too?

Yep. Any, and I mean ANY PC that's mroe than 3 years old is considered 'old' and a P3, or low-end P4 (under 1.8 GHz) would probably be considered 'antique' since they came out 4+ years or so ago.

 

[miniloops]

Your point is valid Novaya Havoc and there will be no witty repartee because you have articulated your points.

It is all about the gameplay and strategy in this genre. However, I would like to play civ on my mobile, I can't be with my laptop or dektop all the time. I can't because it's not realistic for it to run it. There are plenty of software developers out there creating games which will run on lower end systems. Civ 4 doesn't because they've chosen to make it more impressive? More importantly what is it about Civ 4 that you want over Civ 3, which will run on the lower end system? It's not just the graphics that have been improved. The AI and game engine has been vastly improved, things that require a better processor. If they needed a better processor to run the game why not make the graphics up to the level of a card that would be expected to accompany that better processor in a modern system?

They have made a game that will run on a 200 dollar system with possibly a 50 dollar graphics card. Now I know that may be out of the reach of some people, but should they really be spending 50 dollars on a new game? If you want help and advice about how to upgrade or build a system that will run it then there are loads of friendly people here who will help you do it at minimal outlay.

If you like Civ that much then enjoy Civ 3 and save up your cash!

 

[Willem]

In all actuallity, I'm not really complaining about anything. This thread is about Gamespot leading people astray with their comments about how much better Civ4 runs than Civ3.

Like hell it is. First of all Gamespot is talking about the gameplay, not the overall performance. Secondly, you bring up the issue of someone having the game run slowly on an ancient system. All you're complaining about is that Civ 4 no longer caters to people who insist that computer technology should never progress faster than what they're used to. Well sorry for your luck, but it looks like you're going to have a tough time dealing with the changes that are coming your way down the road. If you're feeling this way now, I can just imagine how alienated you'll be when you get to be my age.

The only thing constant in life is change.

 

[sequence]

@Novaya Havoc

Yes, traditionally Civ has been a game of low requirements. However my argument is that generally, with time, the minimum requirements of games will increase.

Firaxsis decided it was time to implement a 3D engine, which increased the games minimum requirements. Was it needed for game play reasons? No, but remember that they can't solely rely on existing fans of the series for all their profits. If they want to attract new gamers to Civ then things like 3D engines are needed.

I disagree with you that strategy games have less need for high quality graphics than first person shooters, if its easier to see your units then it gives you a game play advantage, although I accept that this is not an issue with turn based games.

I agree with you that they may have gone over the top a bit, I was suprised at the minimum requirements and performance issues people have had, but the game hasn't been out long, I'm sure that future patches will smooth the frame rate out.

 

[bugmenot17]

I would agree with that statement.. seriously.

You miss the part where Jason says that Civ4 doesn't concentrate on graphics and flash, yet its requirements are over 5 times higher than those of Civ3. Maybe you should just read the first post again.

 

[Padma]

Moderator Action: I've waded through 5 pages of this stuff, and am becoming thoroughly disgusted with the lot of you. Troll thread closed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889


To put it simply, If your system doesn;t meet the minimum specs on the box, don't *expect* it to run. (If it does run, great!) If you don't meet the recommended requirements, don't expect it to run well. And all this means is that this was the platform the designers aimed for. It doesn't mean that anybody "lied" about putting gameplay first.