Lmao

[1989]

Time to upgrade your 32mb Riva TNT2?

Dumbass.

BURN!
_____________

 

[King Flevance]

Probably the Sylvan Leanring Center, if you have one nearby; they seem to give just about every standardized test out there. But I don't believe that the IQ test really tests intellectual capability either (but I am curious about mine; I'll take it someday).

Hehe yeah, if it involves leaving my house, I will get my procrastinating butt up and do it one day. Sylvan may be a good place to check too. I have one somewhere in the city no doubt. I want to find that game 'Intelligence Cube' on Super Nintendo ... I think it was SNES. Not sure. It was like a tetris where this lil guy was running around and blocks come at him in different combinations. Based on what level you got to it would tell you your I.Q. when you lost/beat it. It would be fun to get it, practice, then have your friend come over, have him play first saying you just got it and havent tried it yet. Have his IQ score be around 80 then say 'let me try' then beat it on your 'first try' and constantly give him hell as you shout 'MY IQ IS 400!!11one'

lol. It is a rare game to find. Gamestop here has it priced at 35bucks as a used/previously owned copy. Far from accurate but a great ploy to get a false sense of superiority over a friend and give him hell for a week.

 

[Quentin]

First off, I do respect your opinion as is. This isn't an attack post as much as a want to hear an elaboration of what your talking about. Honestly, I dont see your POV.

I get that we don't play civ for graphics. I have always seen CIV as more of a game based on gameplay elements.
CIV 4 is already resource hungry blamed on either a memory leak or poor memory management. I agree with the latter if it is true that people are having no issues concerning slowed game play on systems under my own specs. Even with these 'wannabe awesome graphics' the game is slow due to poor management not to the graphics themselves.
Honestly I was fine with 2-D if they didn't know how to approach 3-D. We have been playing 2-D for over a decade now. IF they wanted to stress 3-D to compete in the modern PC gamers appeal, the graphics no doubt could have been better. These graphics compete with AOE 2 maybe. But the modern games beat the crap out of these graphics that seem to be as is taking away from the game. So basically we sacrificed our lovable 'gameplay elements' for mediocracy in graphics, that according to everyone is not the reason we play.

The point of this thread was the OP posting their distaste for the graphics for whatever reason. Are we not aloud to say anything bad about this game then because of the Immortal Sid? I mean obviously we sacrificed the major element of civ for something we fans have at the bottom of the 'Civilization Priority List' yet still there are people shouting 'BACK OFF YOU TROLLS' WTH is up people's ***es on here?

EDIT:Quentin this last part was directed at the general crazies early in this post not aiming for you specifically.

Well what I'm saying is that the graphics isn't great simply because pushing the edge ("wannabe awesome graphics") isn't what the developers were looking for; rather, they were hoping to utilise the whole 3D aspect to change parts of the gameplay and also "take the next step". The 3D graphics IMHO works well and FAR surpasses the graphics for any past Civ game without being too showy. Also you can't really push the graphics much since Civ games have too much happening at once, more so than most FPS or RTS games, which tend to be the games that have prettier graphics.

The other part of what I was trying to say is that many people EXPECT Civ to not be resource-hungry (hence the many people trying to run it on low-end systems) so they made a valid decision not to make it too detailed and pretty.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...] Also you can't really push the graphics much since Civ games have too much happening at once, more so than most FPS or RTS games, which tend to be the games that have prettier graphics.
[...]QUOTE]
Now, I have read this statement twice and I stll don't know if it is just bitter sarcasm?

What would the game have to do, while it would be your turn? In principle nothing. Every once in a while you may add a new resource, meet a new nation, or send out a unit. In terms of clock-speed, your input and new events do happen very very rarely.
It might be different for the inter-turns, when the game-engine calculates all the other nations and events, but there you don't have much display...

In fact, the 3D-feature in Civ4 has been completely messed up. We don't get the true benefits from 3D, and we have lost the clear pictures and the overview from 2D.

Granted, there are nice concepts in the game, but much of the technical realisation is just crap.

 

[Quentin]

Nah not bitter sarcasm, but at any one time in a Civ game you'll have several tens of units on screen. You may not make any input, but the animation IS still happening. Imagine if all those units (you may also include the terrain if you'd like those animated) were as detailed as a Doom 3 Imp. I don't know much about such things, but I imagine it would have quite a lot of fun with your computer (no, you won't have much fun ).

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

Ok, for one: If somebody doesn't LIKE the graphics of CIV4, that's a matter of taste and nobody can blame him for simply not liking them - neither can he blame anybody for not making everything after his liking

HOWEVER, the CIV4 graphics are, in comparison to your average nowadays games, "below average" AT BEST. No, really. Look at those units: One couldn't believe how many years of development and increase in computing power lie between THIS and that oldtimer game "Warzone 2100" (AFAIK the first true 3D strategy game ever - and it HAD real 3D terrain, as opposed to CIV). It is, frankly, UNBELIEVABLE, how a TURN BASED game can slow down that much because of those measly rendered low-poly figurines?!? I mean, seriously, if you knew CIV4 only, wouldn't you think there could never, ever be something like a real-time strategy game with such graphics or, Christ, an ego-shooter? But, believe it or not: Those games do exist, and they have FAR superior graphics handled in REAL time. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

But, ok, as was said: We don't play CIV because of the graphics. THAT'S RIGHT, FOLKS - so would please all those who say: "yeah, STFU, CIV4 is cool b/c the graphics are MUCH better!" stop wailing? It's not the point. Most of us long-time CIV players have been playing CIV in spite of the old-fashioned grahics or sometimes even BECAUSE of them.

Let's get to the point: "3D adds so much to gameplay". Well said. Please let me ask: WHAT? What, in Heaven's name, does 3D ADD, the way it's implemented? I don't see it. CIV is as 2-dimesnional as ever, it's just SHOWN in 3D. So much for "gameplay improvement by 3D". And, no, it doesn't help at all that you now have all those low-poly buildings directly on the map, because those old-fashioned icons for barracks, docks & airports were 20 times easier to read. So, in fact, 3D has a BAD influence on gameplay (aside from making the game sluggish beyond recognition in the late game).

As far as I am concerned: Right now I play CIV4 with the lowest graphics options possible, no animations / effects, and I hardly ever zoom - for all practical effect, I play it 2D. Not that it would be as smooth as CIV3, but at least I have a bit less of distraction from the important map information.

Every single man-hour that went into the development of that fully redundant 3D engine could have gone into real gameplay issues instead. I do realize that at some points there really are those tiny, but helpful improvements we all have been craving for (e.g. the new way the build queue is handled, or the mini-city manager you can reach from city advisor). Thanks for that, really. I realize, too, however, that there are at least as many new problems, badly designed aspects and outright bugs that I can only explain by saying: "Too much emphasis on the graphics".

To sum it up: Firaxis always has been a company with a superb know-how of how to do brilliant strategy games. They in a way always sucked at graphics, but we loved their games anyway. With CIV4, they left their home terrain and did instead their best on foreign ground. As we see: "Their best", as far as graphics are concernd, quite obviously isn't much - they still suck at graphics. Sadly, with CIV4, they don't make up for it with a gameplay and engine / interface that lets you forget about that.

 

[MarkC1]

seems like some people around here cannot stand one bit of criticism of this game

 

[Chayton]

Hmm while the performance of the graphic engine seems to be poor (thought have no problems at all running it on a Athlon XP 2,6 ghz, with Geforce 5900 FX, 1,5 gb ram and Win2000) and i agree that it sure could be updated, i can definatly not agree on how it looks question.

That people say that today standart it could look much better i cant understand where is the prove? There are limits of pc's it doesnt not just count on how something looks whatever its tough or not for the pc. There is no other game out yet that would show it can be diffrent. Rome Total War has a great looking 3d graphic but that only comes up when you fight battles, the map world is in the same style like Civilication 4, its maybe a bit sharper for that it has way less animations (units, world). If you want to look at your city, you have at first to switch to the 3d engine (load) no real time animation on the world map. I assume much more realistic graphics would conclude that you can play Civ 4 only on a AMD Dual Core/AMD 64bit with Geforce 7800 and ATI equal, if at all. How many got that? The PC with such fully animated world maps has a HUGE ammount of calculations to do. So i cant see why people say it could be better when there is no prove for it as there is no game out that shows that a fully animated world map can look like Half Life 2 or Age of Empires 3.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: liltammy1988, sl4vik, warned for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Mazruk]

I personally like the graphics (my gfx card is a 6600gt and I'm at 1024x768).

I dont have performance problems (the end game is faster than civ3).

I love the gameplay additions in civ4 (civics, promotions, religion, etc).

I havent played (or want to play) civ 3 since getting civ 4.

I paid £18 for the game, which is the cheapest game (bought new) that I have bought in the last 10 years (factoring in inflation). It is excellent value for money IMHO. If other people bought their game at expensive retailers, that isnt the programmers fault.

Looking at the longer game viewpoint, this is the first edition of civ in 3d, I'd expect it to be a bit rough around the edges compared with 4th generation 3d games that some people are comparing with. Civ 5 will I'm sure be excellent graphically.

The game was rushed out the door due to 2kgames pressure - one of the final stages of developement and testing is optimisation - that is why there are some performance issues (like poor memory management [not a leak]). These will get patched.

The end result will, again IMHO, be an excellent game that I will play for years (a quick calculation recons I'm getting about 100 hours per £ out of this game which is miles better than any non-civ game I've ever bought in my life).

I can fully understand that some people dont like the change to 3d (or even some of the changes like religion or promotions) but I do so I'm happy. No game will please everyone all the time, but this one will please enough most of the time.

 

[DemonDeLuxe]

That people say that today standart it could look much better i cant understand where is the prove?

You might want to have a look at Age of Empires 3 - and that is REAL TIME STRATEGY. Proof enough?

There are limits of pc's it doesnt not just count on how something looks whatever its tough or not for the pc.

You might want to have a look at one of the major ego shooters out there to get an impression what exactly IS possible with today's hardware.

If you want to look at your city, you have at first to switch to the 3d engine (load) no real time animation on the world map.

Until now, people have failed to tell me what exactly it would be that is so helpful on the world map in CIV4. I am way quicker to go into the city screen to check for the presence of a certain building - even if said city screen takes longer to be displayed than the CIV3 one. If I was interested in rough polygons, I'd do Origami. I am not, I'm interested in CIV.

I assume much more realistic graphics would conclude that you can play Civ 4 only on a AMD Dual Core/AMD 64bit with Geforce 7800 and ATI equal, if at all.

You assume wrong. The reason why CIV4 is slow although it has (by today's standards) poor graphics is simply that the Firaxis coders are no experts on the topic. I mean, come on, Sirian told us that on some screens you get those still image icons instead of 3D animations - for performance reasons! Now, one question: HOW can it be that in a real time strategy game from 1999, Warzone 2100, every single unit and building is fully 3D and turning around in every single menu? I had a Pentium 450 and a Riva TNT2 when I played that one...! How can it be that Warzone had one dream of an interface, smooth, crisp... and CIV4 takes a deep breath if you just switch production in a city? Tell me, please.

The PC with such fully animated world maps has a HUGE ammount of calculations to do.

I don't want "fully animated world maps", dangit! I want a smooth game, a DECIPHERABLE map, a witty AI and an easy-to-use, ready-at-my-command interface. And the CPU does NOT have much to do with those animations in CIV4. These are side routines, pre-calculated, much as frames in an animated GIF. Most work is done by the graphics card. Tell me, how is it possible that I played a game in which there were more than 100 units moving independently in real-time over a real 3D terrain under a barrage of fireworks-like rockets, shots and flamethrowers, in 1999? According to you, I must have dreamt that because it would be "too much work" even for the computer of today. I can assure you: It is not. I still play Warzone occasionally.

Plain fact is: The graphics in CIV4 are "nice", nothing more, nothing to write home about. They don't add to the game in the slightest and because of a lack of optimization they cost the computer THAT amount of time that should be invested in the AI.

 

[CyberChrist]

I must admit that I am fully with DemonDeLuxe on this.

The quality (or comparably lack thereof) of the current graphics in CIV does not really warrant the enormous amounts of memory they require or the following system slow down that this memory drain causes(especially during longer sessions) - even on top end systems.

I am only hoping that the upcomming patch will address this serious problem in a major way.

 

[MeteorPunch]

The whole "large maps/lots of units slowdown problems" from Civ 3 should have been one of the first things to fix for Civ 4 - to make it playable. It seems like they ignored it though.

Also the graphics suck for Civ 4 - just like in every version of Civ, so I guess we should come to expect as much. The buildings in the cities look all blocking and fake while the units look like toys.

 

[Shigga]

Close the thread pls, it's purely fishing for attention...

 

[warpus]

I sort of agree with DemonDeluxe too. The graphics in CIV4 are pretty nice, but it doesn't seem to me like the code is optimized very well. My PC can handle games like halflife 2, FEAR, Doom 3, etc. with no problems at all, I can usually play them at the highest settings, but when I play CIV4, things slow down, even on standard maps. I haven't had any technical problems at all, no crashes, the game is fully playable, etc., but the slowdowns are noticable.. and comparing CIV4 to other games out there that are 3D, these slowdowns should not be happening.

 

[Chayton]

You might want to have a look at Age of Empires 3 - and that is REAL TIME STRATEGY. Proof enough?

No it isnt not, as Age of Empires 3 is a real time strategy game on small/mission based maps, not a world map (one loading screen and that was it), where cities consist out of a few buildings. Not to mention that AOE 3 is very hardware hungry. What a proof enough would be if Rome Total War game would be completly in its 3d engine. And sorry i highly doubt that even with currents top quality hardware you would be able to make such a game, where every city is fully detailed, every warrior fully detailed, every tree, every mountain, etc and that in real time that even when you just see London the PC has to calculate whats happening in Beijing in case you scroll there is and everything between those two cities (now if you image Rome world map, exactly the same distance) millions of trees, several other cities, hundreds of units, animals, lakes, mountains, weather etc. is possible.

So your other sayings become wrong as it isnt possible. If you compare that to a Egoshooter than the Egoshooter will be absolute easy for the computer. Unless the Egoshooter becomes a real world, that loads once and then never again and you can play in whole Berlin for example.


"Until now, people have failed to tell me what exactly it would be that is so helpful on the world map in CIV4. I am way quicker to go into the city screen to check for the presence of a certain building - even if said city screen takes longer to be displayed than the CIV3 one. If I was interested in rough polygons, I'd do Origami. I am not, I'm interested in CIV."

That was an quote to Rome Total War, as reference that the Rome engine doesnt animate the City like Civ4 does in its world map, in order to have a look at it you need to extra load so you come to the 3d view.
And if that is so then why do you argue that the graphics arent up to date?

"Plain fact is: The graphics in CIV4 are "nice", nothing more, nothing to write home about. They don't add to the game in the slightest and because of a lack of optimization they cost the computer THAT amount of time that should be invested in the AI."

You say the graphics are nice then why start this post at all? People talk about that the graphics arent today standart, yet they say that they dont even want this, they just want a smooth game. A Civ with today standart graphic, would be the Rome Total War 3d part in a look of a Half Life 2/Unreal 3 and this on a whole world map and this is with todays hardware not possible. There is another such World map game comming called Supreme Commander if you will look at it, then the graphics cant also match with todays Egoshooters or Age of Empire 3.
Here are some screenshots: http://media.pc.ign.com/media/755/755287/imgs_1.html

 

[jdurg]

The amount of time spent on 'graphics' has nothing to do with the amount of time spent on the gameplay. Programming graphics and how the game functions are two COMPLETELY different things. I fear what would have happened if they had their graphical programmers working on the coding of the game itself or vice-versa. So you cannot say 'They could have spent all the time spent on graphics making the gameplay better.' Do you think they only have one computer and the graphics/gameplay people have to share it? How would they spend more time on the gameplay, hire more programmers who don't exist? So many people are jumping to conclusions about what's causing this and why that is happening. Yes there are problems, but unless we can see the code simply saying 'the game crashed on me, I hate it' doesn't help anyone. If you want to complain, that's fine. It's a free world. But PLEASE, at least make your complaints constructive so that the problem can be found and corrected.

On a side note, I'm actually happy they've moved to 3D. If they released ANOTHER 2D game it would have seemed like an expansion to Civ3 and not a new game. With a new number in the title, they have to make changes. In addition, they need to expand to a new market. Kids today will only play a game if it has 3D graphics in it. In order to stay successful, you need to introduce your product to new customers. If they made the same exact Civilization game, they wouldn't grab any new customers and introduce them to the game. In addition, their old customers may have grown out of playing the game and they'd lose them as well. The move to 3D HAD to be made in order to keep the series going.

 

[FuzzyWeasel]

I'll have to go with what others have stated. If the game graphics are bad for you then it is time to upgrade your graphics card.

I'm still fairly new to these boards, but in no way new to the Civ string of games. I don't understand this mentality. Felvence says it right. Up until this game was released no one ever played Civilization because of the snazzy graphics. Graphics were something that was low on the totem pole for priorities for the civ community. Who cared about pixilation? About models? About eye-candy? Yes... they are a nice thing. But over the years we've played the Civ games because they were flat-out red-eyed fun. The gameplay was amazing... the replayability was the highest of any game line on the market. I've played civ because its a damn fine game. Unfortunately at some point I feel that Sid and Firaxis lost this focus.

Reguardless on if you like the new graphics or not you must admit that Firaxis spent a great deal of time and energy on them. Games have budgets. Good ol' Sid didn't have a never-ending stream of money to make this game. He had to make choices on what was a priority. An upgraded graphics engine and the 3D modeling were high on his list. At what cost? Testing? A real multiplayer interface? Checking for memory leaks? An expanded (or maintained) diplomacy system? If you read my last statement and got pissed and slotted me into the "game hater" category and are already formulating your counter-post... bite me. I love this new game... I am overall happy with it. However, I am severely dissapointed that too much time, effort, and money were spent on something that I couldn't give a flip about.

Here are some things that are facts:

- The game has a new 3D game engine. The graphics are improved over the old 2D environment.
- The 3D graphics in this game are sub-par compared to other 3D games .
- The game doesn't work well or at all on many people who have equipement that is up to spec according to requirement printed on the box... and even many who have "reccomended" or better.... mostly due to graphics issues.

If someone has gone out and bought the game and their system meets required/recommended specs then you have some nerve telling them "If the game graphics are bad for you then it is time to upgrade your graphics card."

Its about expectations. The game was sold with those specs and the game doesn't function. The deisgners/publishers/producers set an expectation that couldn't be reasonably met. Shame on them.

On my system its running fine. I am enjoying the game. Though I can't stand trying to find a multi-player game and have set the game aside until a patch is released to fix it. But why are people so vehemently putting themselves in the camps of "lovers" and "haters" or "fan-boys" and "whiners"? It's a game. It has good points and bad points. Don't flame someone because they are happy or unhappy with it... let people speak their peace.

Personally, I would have been MUCH happier if they had scratched the plan for the 3D engine and improved other areas of the game with their budget. The eye-candy is nice but not worth the price.

However, I am downright angry about the memory leaks. This shows shoddy production. I am a software developer by trade. A coorporate license for a VC++ add-in that finds your memory leaks for you is around 10k-15k bucks. Thats a drop in the bucket. Any amount of QC or playtesting should have found this.... especially if they playtested on the hardware listed as 'required'.

My two kronars...

-Weasel

 

[phalzyr]

I agree. The graphics in this game are nothing special, and the framerate one gets for the graphics given are even worse.

I can run Doom3 at 1280x1024 @ 256mb high textures at roughly 30-40fps. Zoom out to earth view on civ4, which quite unimpressive graphics, and chug-chug-chug.

For a Civ game, the graphics are nice, and as someone mentioned the graphics arnt the reason you play the civ games. But they ARE pretty poor for the given framerate and the current technology.

And just how many objects are in memory at one time in that game? Not many compared to Civ 4, it already is a resource hog you want it to take 10 timesw the memory? though hark said some of the memory management was a simple bug.... You still have hundreds if not thousands of objects in memory at one time. The graphics look fine from the normally played perspective, yes a bit bad when zoomed in but...

would you rather play the game, or wait for it to load graphics everytime you switch locations/ move around map? Just so it can look great This isn't an FPS.

 

[phalzyr]

no where did i type graficks or suxor, i dont even know what the hell suxor would mean. I posted the thread to kind of see what other people thought of the graphics in this game. and it doesnt make me look like a complete fool. stop actin like u aint never heard of ebonics or slang, DAMN.

You don't know what suxor means? It is common slang after all . ANY version of slang sounds stupid to those that don't speak it. Yes you and your crowd might think it sounds cool, but to others it just plain stupid. I myself usually just ignore the slang and try to understand what the person is trying to say (you didn't even know what suxor means so you can't say I should know what all your slang means), and not be grammer police (besides I don't use good grammer online either) but in generall using slang or short words in general, just makes the post come off somewhat immature.

I'd suggest dropping the slang when talking to those who don't use it.