It doesn't change my comment. I don't think that the requirements of Civ 4 are advanced according to today's standards, and certainly not tomorrow's. The developers were only thinking ahead to how powerful computers will be when the game has run it's course and Civ 5 is out on the market. That's just good business sense IMO. And it's just not cost effective to have a secondary game engine that allows people with poorer systems to run the game. Doing so would just increase the cost of the game and yet again the player that has an adequate system gets penalized.
Map size vs. Number of Civs?
- Thread starter john k
- Start date
It doesn't change my comment. I don't think that the requirements of Civ 4 are advanced according to today's standards, and certainly not tomorrow's. The developers were only thinking ahead to how powerful computers will be when the game has run it's course and Civ 5 is out on the market. That's just good business sense IMO. And it's just not cost effective to have a secondary game engine that allows people with poorer systems to run the game. Doing so would just increase the cost of the game and yet again the player that has an adequate system gets penalized.
Ya except im sure you like William, never reached full potential on their rigs with civ4, thats problem I have.
Its Guys with the best rigs not being able to play the largest maps or the most civs. This is a crap precendent cuz Like William says:
(link)
cheersBig Civvin Willie said:
Notice the guys who say CIv4 runs great and to bad for you if it don't on yours, are the guys who play a shrinked or at least supressed version of the game?.
Whats the choice again? We can play smaller then ever with less civs then ever and with no mods that expand the game without fear of crash or sluggish gameplay?
Again to my original point before some yonk bypassed it to get us here. .
Its these constraints that killed the fun for most anyone who was a fan of the series before. Better computer means just means less CTDS or MAFS, not smoothness on any real size epic.
wannabewarlord
Prince
Sorry T.A. Jones, but I have a hard time understanding what you are trying to express in your posts so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
What I understand is that you say I cannot handle civIV at its full potential because my gaming rig can't handle it?
that doesn't make much sense to me. I said that either you have a rig that can handle it or live with the limitations if you chose not to invest in such a station. and I said that I personally find that ok, since it's a choice (to either invest, or accept the limits).
Either way, it doesn't matter what I have. My argument stands: I either chose to limit myself, or I have a rig that handles the full load.
Just for your information, I do have a rig I built in Fall 2007 and it handles the full load of CivIV easily (I play Crysis on Very High smoothly). Not that it matters for my argument though.
cheers
-wannabewarlord
What I understand is that you say I cannot handle civIV at its full potential because my gaming rig can't handle it?
that doesn't make much sense to me. I said that either you have a rig that can handle it or live with the limitations if you chose not to invest in such a station. and I said that I personally find that ok, since it's a choice (to either invest, or accept the limits).
Either way, it doesn't matter what I have. My argument stands: I either chose to limit myself, or I have a rig that handles the full load.
Just for your information, I do have a rig I built in Fall 2007 and it handles the full load of CivIV easily (I play Crysis on Very High smoothly). Not that it matters for my argument though.
cheers
-wannabewarlord
lol No NO. Here think this recycled text over then we discuss :
(to me) meaningless 3d effects play smoother on better rigs but they are not (the new rig)offering better simulation + performence brought on by greater amounts of variables and calculations, through increased diversity and variety, and most, freedom in size, not size constraints, especially effected from a players choices of larger mods, to make them MORE playable like did in the past.
IM sayin its game design that restricts taking advantage of better rig to tackle more size and thus realism and better simulation..
(again listen to Wiliam tell ya what happens when you try play using 18 whole countires on the best rigs. SO What if you wanted a world map scenario? )
I look at like this:
" Ya that game plays great on your rig Joe but look! Your world has only 60 cities split by 8 civs!"
A player with new rig should get more of a meatier strategy Xpiernce. Atleast a choice to flex it muscle with out a new downsized default huge map that holds less then 200 cities.
.
Sorry I LIKE CIV GAMES OF THE PAST not rigs of the past. For they atleast you could play 25 civs on mega huge worlds as fast as you wanted on rigs made 3 years after its release.. I give actual video evidence not claims ; )
wannabewarlord
Prince
@T.A. Jones
ah I see. So I did understand you wrongly. Yes, graphical "bling" does not guarantee a complexer or even better game experience. on the contrary, it often replaces or at least serves as an excuse for content even, as I stated in my post as well. and yes, pumped up graphics put up a bigger workload on rigs as you increase size and complexity of the underlying game structure (more civs, more land, etc.).
however, I am arguing that this is ok in my opinion. CivIV is not the graphics monster that are other games (I also think the graphics are adequate and don't have much of a wow-factor. I wouldn't want it simpler) and I am sure even mid-range rigs can handle it just fine, even on more extensive settings. so I think we're blowing the graphical issue a bit out of proportion here. Agreeing with William, I have to say that if your rig can't handle the full monty, maybe it's time to upgrade it, if you crave for larger games and more civs in it.
looks (graphics) count for much in games and entertainment in general so the publisher would be hurting themselves if the graphics were sub-par. as I said, the steak tastes better nicely garnished in a white plate than out of a paper bag. even if it's a few gramms less in weight.
cheer
-wannabewarlord
ah I see. So I did understand you wrongly. Yes, graphical "bling" does not guarantee a complexer or even better game experience. on the contrary, it often replaces or at least serves as an excuse for content even, as I stated in my post as well. and yes, pumped up graphics put up a bigger workload on rigs as you increase size and complexity of the underlying game structure (more civs, more land, etc.).
however, I am arguing that this is ok in my opinion. CivIV is not the graphics monster that are other games (I also think the graphics are adequate and don't have much of a wow-factor. I wouldn't want it simpler) and I am sure even mid-range rigs can handle it just fine, even on more extensive settings. so I think we're blowing the graphical issue a bit out of proportion here. Agreeing with William, I have to say that if your rig can't handle the full monty, maybe it's time to upgrade it, if you crave for larger games and more civs in it.
looks (graphics) count for much in games and entertainment in general so the publisher would be hurting themselves if the graphics were sub-par. as I said, the steak tastes better nicely garnished in a white plate than out of a paper bag. even if it's a few gramms less in weight.
cheer
-wannabewarlord
KingMorgan
Deity
NO!!
The steak tastes the same.
Like will a ton a of feathers hit the ground before a ton of steel?
Hey anyone want to post a map up featuring what civ4 can do in terms of epic proportions on the new rigs?
How bout a demo of 20civs on a overly huge map like I linked up for ya'll
IN civ3 routine is no dely to be heard of. Sure, a lil interturn slowdown when the wars are breaking out between 20+ civs but nothin in the way of troop movement late response, you knowm that loss of of rapid tap commads when moving troops across the board , or deley when diplo bouncing,(going from civ to civ looking for deals) . How bout waits for adviser access those suck aswell.
THis is why new rig owners are frustrated. THey felt they should be able to floss out any epic variables without the restrictions or deleys. Mybe play a cool mod like Rhyes or Total Realism on a huge mnap with 18 civs and not get bogged own mid game
Civ3 gives you 21026 civs on 200x200 maps (500 cities) with no deley at all on todays computers. So mybe one day civ4 will be this responsive but reality is today it is not and tommorow, well tommorow civ5 gets one day closer
THink of all those lil deleys you get when you pop in an out of adviser or diplo meetings with other civs wehn playin stacked proportions (ether mod with extra improvements resources etc.. or just default civ with more civs and land to expand calculations) add them all up in the course of 500 turns.
LIke WIlliam says once you want to play on real proportions its all part of the game.
I don't know whats to blame probably graphics but its a real dis like I said in my OP, for players who bougfht the best thinkin they could repeat the same sized adventures they just came off with civ3, but with all the new eyecandy and new game facets etc in toe
How bout a demo of 20civs on a overly huge map like I linked up for ya'll
IN civ3 routine is no dely to be heard of. Sure, a lil interturn slowdown when the wars are breaking out between 20+ civs but nothin in the way of troop movement late response, you knowm that loss of of rapid tap commads when moving troops across the board , or deley when diplo bouncing,(going from civ to civ looking for deals) . How bout waits for adviser access those suck aswell.
THis is why new rig owners are frustrated. THey felt they should be able to floss out any epic variables without the restrictions or deleys. Mybe play a cool mod like Rhyes or Total Realism on a huge mnap with 18 civs and not get bogged own mid game
Civ3 gives you 21026 civs on 200x200 maps (500 cities) with no deley at all on todays computers. So mybe one day civ4 will be this responsive but reality is today it is not and tommorow, well tommorow civ5 gets one day closer
THink of all those lil deleys you get when you pop in an out of adviser or diplo meetings with other civs wehn playin stacked proportions (ether mod with extra improvements resources etc.. or just default civ with more civs and land to expand calculations) add them all up in the course of 500 turns.
LIke WIlliam says once you want to play on real proportions its all part of the game.
I don't know whats to blame probably graphics but its a real dis like I said in my OP, for players who bougfht the best thinkin they could repeat the same sized adventures they just came off with civ3, but with all the new eyecandy and new game facets etc in toe
Again with the garbled post. And again I'll say that I have no problem playing a larger than Huge map with the standard number of civs. I could probably play with more of than that but I find 11 is enough. Where you get this notion that I have to play a condensed version of the game is beyone me. And it doesn't take that great of a rig to be able to play like that, I was doing it before my latest upgrade. If your machine is powerful enough to handle Vista, it will probably run a Huge game with no problems.
How many people actually want to play with that many civs? Why should Firaxis cater to a very small minority that wants to play those kinds of epic games? The default standards they've set for the game are just fine for the vast majority of the people that play the game. I doubt that most people even play on Huge, most will go for Standard.
That's a bug in the game that creeped in since BtS. To fix it just turn off the background animations during movies in your ini file. The advisor screen will pop up almost instantly.
So go play Civ 3 then if it's that important to you to have an epic game. But like I said, you're in a distinct minority for wanting to do so.
So it's a different game. I'm sure by now that most people have accepted this and moved on. You however still seem to be clinging to your Civ3. Well get used to 3D graphics my friend because you are never, ever going to see another 2D computer game again. Those days are over and if you want to play computer games you're going to need a computer that can handle them. It's just not cost effective to make 2D animations anymore and most people prefer the look of 3D. Even Disney has shut down all of it's 2D animation studios and is now producing strictly in 3D. If you want to live in the past that's up to you, but you need to accept the fact that you're doing so and quit whining about how things are now.
According to polls here? The majority do. See They can't without slowdowns though.
Many on that poll say with their over-touted specs they still have problems when they try going large. You yourself had to tell a bunch you can't play 18civ's (out of a posssable 34) with Todays latest computer without major repercussion(snore facter). All those guys addressed on that thread rarities aswell? How bout Todays latest?
How many didn't bother to fill out the stupid poll nevermind come to this site at all, yet wished they could use the computer to its potential with this game? Oh I bet 6 or 7 atleast!
false assumptions man. you sayin its a small minority. Your some dude thats nursing a grudge on my veiw. . You get your figures from GRUDGE MASTERS DATABASES. Your on a civ praise site and still the complaints of the nature I speak continue seep in all over. Weak retorts wake up to reality.
NOt a bug and it hasn't been fixed .
I do play civ3 but as a civ4 shareholder and member here IM entitled to make my observations and opinions based on facts Ive observed in the process of searching/hoping for civ4 progess in reachin reality sized epics (not arcade travel-sized sum ups)
Moved on? Sure they left but 1st they came here and complained. Thats what my post was about. The many here who wished they could play bigger maps with the way above rec specs they operates civ4 with
You CAll it clinging. I call it simple prefence for playin the best historical simulation that available in actual strategic sizes the closer replicate a macro/micro harmany balance that makes challenge through diverse trade, logistics routes (wars of attrition) and diplo options.
Not into the small lil arcade sim-thing they got going on with civ4 today where you try going large and you just can't play!. lol
YA sorry but since you asked, IM Not into the candy floss 3D that makes earth maps in you words "after 18 civs on the best computers, drag along on ya".
Great they make a better 3d model learning from and mass cries of "big mistake" and I have fun with a nicer looking in depth back to basics winning formula. You know, the stuff found in the game where they got the civ4 marketing catch phrase "just one turn" from
Ive got a computer that could out perform most. Remember civ4 can't handle dual. MY Cedermill(coredue archeture on mono plateform) 3.6ghz-Top P4 EVO overclocked at 4.0ghz Corecell +heat sheilded , 2mb L2 cache 512mb radeon g card (could take care of businesss on all games except civ4 on any real decent size map mid progress)
Going back to civ3 was a treat of course. Having any size map and #civs plus, I liked flipin in an out of diplo/advisor windows speed of light no hassle.
Of course Mods that expand civ4 (TR) don't work on majorty of computers, sorry I meant for those that want more then 8 civs on a single 'large' map.
You call this whining when someone notices the obvious need for reforms based on numerous calls for change. I call this constructive dialect and this comment of yours?, we'ez call dis the same ol fan bois froleck. Peace!
Problem is that while your comment might seem valid as a response to my first paragraph, it's clearly out of context - as a response - when taken in the context that is defined by the second paragraph. Of course, if it's just a stand alone statement I've no idea why you're addressing it to me.
But I'll respond anyway.
The graphics may not have looked pretty, but they were perfectly capable of doing what's important - presenting important information in an clear and concise manner. That's what adequate is for the purposes of playing any game. Anything above that is luxury.
As for your preferences of playing something that doesn't look ugly. There is no doubt in my mind that if the type of graphics engine I would have liked to have seen had been the basis for CivIV - highly customizable with the ability to dramatically reduce the amount of computational power required - that the development team would have still tried to create a game as pretty as they could which made use of high end computer specs. You would not have been forced to play something that didn't utilise your computer's full potential, but you would have had the option to switch off some of the more computationally demanding elements of the graphics. I'm sure you wouldn't have availed of this option, but I, and many others, would have.
Your analogy is bizarre. A better analogy would be forcing a long distance runner to wear shorts and a vest rather than wearing a tuxedo. Sure the tuxedo looks pretty, but it detracts from the runners ability to perform the basic mechanics of his sport - running - though a particularly good runner could still compete. Shorts and vest look bloody unsightly, but the runner performs better.
I do. I play all most all of my games with 18 civs and if CivIV offered the ability to play with more (without having to download a patch) I'd strongly consider playing with more. I generally play maps that are slightly larger than huge with about 65% water coverage. Playing that kind of may with only 11 or 12 civs is my idea of a nightmare - far too much emtpy space. I want politiking and border wars right from the start.
LordKestrel
King
Basing your argument on the fact that a 7 year old game runs well on a current computer is rather silly. Civ4 came out 3 years ago, and also works well on current computers, but obviously Civ3 is faster, because state of the art computers at the time were a lot slower.
When Civ3 came out, it ran pretty slowly on a lot of machines, and there were cries from people saying that it was far too graphics intensive, and that they didn't want something that pretty, because it made the game run too slowly. When Civ4 came out, the exact same things were being said. Apparently they still are.
If the game runs too slowly for you because of the graphics, you can try turning the detail down and running at a lower resolution, or you can buy a discrete graphics adapter, and stop using the built-in integrated graphics on your computer.
Well both games are under wraps. We got a choice now. 2 games, 2 speeds, 2 wide diversitys in sizes. Same computer to run em on.
Yes one day civ4 will catch up but the reality is we are in the now
Civ4 shouldn't have made the game take 4 years and still be so dam slow.
I hope one day civ4 plays as responsive as civ3. (mybe when civ5 is in 2nd Xpak) but...
Just because civ3 turned out so well based on higher L2 cache and clock speeds that came along dosn't mean the same will happen for civ4.
YOu really see civ4 utilizing 31 civs on the same map , a map given 50% more land full of constant animations unturnoffable (tree sway, water ripple etc) to add plenty more constantly growing cities then deafult huge could hold, yet all the while keep a turn time flawless(or time it take for units to to battle in capslock mode and no excees delys or "Please wait") like currently we emjoy in civ3 with todays computer ( even yesterdays rig)
I don't see it because of the graphics choices they made with civ4.Its the lil things like those animations that won;t turn off so large maps add to the problem and then the civ4 city structures. Civ3 kept track of growing cities but kept them off the main gameboard in a screnn called 'city veiw'. Civ4 clutters its main gameboard with needless crap making larger maps to clogged near the end . Now combine with larger selection of civs or laeger amount of variables (a la mod) and ITs over.
Simple as that
.
Yes one day civ4 will catch up but the reality is we are in the now
Civ4 shouldn't have made the game take 4 years and still be so dam slow.
I hope one day civ4 plays as responsive as civ3. (mybe when civ5 is in 2nd Xpak) but...
Just because civ3 turned out so well based on higher L2 cache and clock speeds that came along dosn't mean the same will happen for civ4.
YOu really see civ4 utilizing 31 civs on the same map , a map given 50% more land full of constant animations unturnoffable
(tree sway, water ripple etc) to add plenty more constantly growing cities then deafult huge could hold, yet all the while keep a turn time flawless(or time it take for units to to battle in capslock mode and no excees delys or "Please wait") like currently we emjoy in civ3 with todays computer ( even yesterdays rig) I don't see it because of the graphics choices they made with civ4.Its the lil things like those animations that won;t turn off so large maps add to the problem and then the civ4 city structures. Civ3 kept track of growing cities but kept them off the main gameboard in a screnn called 'city veiw'. Civ4 clutters its main gameboard with needless crap making larger maps to clogged near the end . Now combine with larger selection of civs or laeger amount of variables (a la mod) and ITs over.
Simple as that
.
Show me the polls. And how many people are playing the game that don't hang out here, have you included those in your so-called majority as well? I've been hanging around these forums for many years and from what I've seen of people's posts, most are playing on just Standard maps.
No, I said you'd need a good computer in order to play with that many civs. Even when I was playing Civ 3 on what was then a state of the art computer, my turns would take a long time with lots of civs in the game. If it can breeze through them now it's only because computers are much better than what the game was designed for.
I'm not the one coming here ranting and raving.
Yes it is a bug and I fixed it in my own game by doing what I told you to. I have no lag at all with any screen that opens up, it's almost instant.
And I have just as much right. Yet you're carrying on like I'm not entitled to express them. You're right and everyone else is wrong.
That one doesn't even make sense.
In case you haven't noticed, but you don't need to go large in order to have a challenging game of Civ 4. It's not the quantity that counts in a game, it's the quality. And Civ 4 has way more of that than Civ 3 ever did.
You're quoting things that I never even said.
Ya and I...ah shucks to boisterous ,.. WE (thats me n "T") ended one
I hope so, because you really don't have much to say that's really all that constructive, and it's becoming an awful chore trying to decipher what you're attempting to express from your garbled posts.
quote me some 'garble' You mean like this?
LIL WILLY: "In case you haven't noticed, but you don't need to go large in order to have a challenging game of Civ 4".
Youve been schooled, but only to the point your learning capabilties let you understand this. I can't clear up whats beyond that.
Your on your own son. ..
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2007
- Messages
- 9,311
I don't think it's a very small minority at all; Huge consistently scores similarly to Standard and far higher than Small or Tiny (let alone Duel) in preferred map size polls.
Civ4 gains in popularity because it's newer. But from real-life experience, which one is better is far from a settled war. I've met people who prefer both, as well as Civ2.
More dimensions doesn't necessarily mean better. I'd go for 2D over 1D any day, but I'll certainly take good 2D over mediocre 3D. And the entertainment industry hasn't abandoned 2D - watch The Simpsons Movie for modern 2D.
If your machine can handle Vista, then yes, it probably can handle a Huge map. But might well not be able to handle a Huge map at the same time that it's running Vista.
Microsoft could drastically improve the performance for thousands of Civ4 owners by selling XP instead of Vista, but they don't seem to eager to do so.
(basically, you need 1 GB RAM to handle Vista. 1 GB of RAM with XP leaves plenty for a Huge map [I think], but 1 GB with Vista isn't nearly enough to run a Huge map on)
I'm looking forward to seeing how far I can push Civ4 with lots of RAM and perhaps lots of virtual memory as well (though that slows it down pretty fast). I doubt I'll be able to get maps big enough to handle more than 512 cities, but it's possible.
Civ3 still does slow down with lots of civs though. It's not bad with 12 or fewer civs even on ginormous maps, but 18+ civs on ginormous maps is still quite slow. Even a 4 GHz Core 2 processor would take a couple minutes for the AI turn with 300 cities and 30 civilizations and lots of development, units, and war. O' course, that may well still be much faster than the same computer would handle Civ4 with that much going on (given the likely ginormous RAM requirements and even more epic slowdowns that Civ4 RAM shortages give than Civ3 processor maxxing out).
JujuLautre
Deity
Then, instead of endlessly ranting about how CivIV is badly designed and CivIII is superior for you, why don't you do constructives things? Like, asking people what they prefer, making suggestions for the future CivV, or try to improve the engine so that it's playable with "your preffered settings" ?
After all this time I still don't understand why I see your posts all the time about always the same non contructive thing. CivIV is what it is! Live with it, you will not be able to change that fact!
Similar threads
