Hyronymus said:
because quite an amount of complaints come from people with underrated machines.
...and...
Yes, but I refuse to be made silent by those who are disappointed in their PC specifications.
Then please explain to me just why my Intel P4 3.2GHz (on an Intel D845PERL mobo with updated BIOS), 2Gb Kingston RAM and 256Mb Radeon x800XL cannot run the game as intended?
Fact: We paid for a product that would work properly, out of the box, if our machines met the
minimum specifications (and mine exceeds them in every category). It does not.
Fact: A number of people have reported serious problems with the game
even when running PCs that are not underrated. Yes, I am one of them.
I'd
almost be willing to bet that less than 10% of the people who bought this game can actually play it
as intended. The vast majority of people are making allowances of some sort or another, just to play. For instance, who can play a huge map, with 16 civs, on conquest mode (no time limit), to completion? Anyone? If not, then why make excuses? It is an option in the game to play it that way, right out of the box (again, as long as you meet specs), so it should work. Heck, in my case, I can't finish any map above standard sized maps -- and then only if I do it quickly (read: I can't let it get too late into the game, or it will completely crash back to desktop).
It'd be like if you bought a Ferrari and found that you could only drive it 20mph due to a problem with your gas pedal. So what if the same model of Ferrari that I bought goes 140mph? We're both using premium gasoline as the manufacturer suggests. That wouldn't matter to you -- all you'd know is that your Ferrari didn't work as advertised. You'd be pissed, and want it fixed immediately -- or you'd want your money back. In fact, if this really happened, you can bet that Ferrari would issue a recall to fix those cars that they made that had the problem you're experiencing. And you wouldnt be okay with waiting weeks for them to fix it, because all the while they'd be sitting with your hard earned money in their bank account and you'd still be stuck with a broken product. Oh, and this is after you were forced to jimmy open the door just to get in the car in the first place (like unpacking art files to play the game).
So what, in reality, is the difference? In both cases were talking about consumer products where the manufacturer has made a promise as to some level of usability and performance as long as you've done your part (for the game: minimum hardware specs, for the Ferrari: premium gasoline). In both cases, the promise wasn't kept. In both cases weve spent our money for a products that flat-out didnt work as advertised.
So why make excuses? Why are so many people willing to overlook the fact that this game, this consumer product for which theyve paid, does not work as advertised? (Again, if you cannot play large or huge maps, have messed up graphics and the like, then it
does
not
work you are not getting what you paid for.)
We, as software consumers, need to be vigilant and hold software developers feet the fire, and hold them accountable, when they release software that is flawed as badly as Civ4. Otherwise, you can just expect more of the same, across the board, from other developers as well.
Ah, well
I guess were going to see the apologists come out in reply to this. More of the well it plays fine for me crowd
(Even though they cant complete a huge map, have stuttering wonder movies, blacked out terrain, random lockups and the like.)
