Patch News!

[Secarius]

We, as software consumers, need to be vigilant and hold software developer’s feet the fire, and hold them accountable, when they release software that is flawed as badly as (fill in the blank). Otherwise, you can just expect more of the same, across the board, from other developers as well.

[The above, bolded, text was edited to be more comprehensive...]

Rise of Nations did not work "out of the box" for me, even though the demo had run fine. It took ten days of diddling to get it to run at all on my machine which wildly exceeded recommended specs.

You're validating my point.

Now, a question... Would you pay $10 more for a good game, if it did work "out of the box", not requiring any patches to fix usability issues? (Allowing for patches to fix gameplay issues, such as balancing units?)

 

[Psyringe]

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.

Please do not assume that your definition of "as intended" is everyone else's.

Do you really assume that a large amount of players should be able to max out the options on a newly released game? When people buy (for example) a new 3d roleplaying game, chances are that they can *not* play it on 1900x1200, full details, maximum view distance, 16xAA, dolby surround, without the framerate slowing down to a crawl, even on a state-of-the art machine. Yet all these options may be in the game, out of the box.

I have a minimal-spec machine and can't play standard maps. I can play smaller maps without any problems whatsoever though. Certainly the game works as intended for me.

I know I won't be able to change your mind, but please keep in mind that a reasoning like yours can only lead to developers *limiting* the options they give to their customers in order to prevent the frustration when maxed out options are too much for even a new PC. Like, for example, Morrowind, which limited the maximum view distance - so that if you wanted better graphics, you had to install a third party program, which in turn tended to crash the game from time to time. Sure, Firaxis would get less complains if they had limited map sizes more rigorously. But I prefer having more options, even if it may take a year or two until I can fully use them.

 

[Bhruic]

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.

That's not a 'fact'. The only 'fact' would be if you said 'you paid for Civ IV'. Nowhere does it say that if your machines met the minimum specs that it would absolutely, guarunteed work properly out of the box on your machine.

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.

Yup, that one I'll give you.

I'd almost be willing to bet that less than 10% of the people who bought this game can actually play it as intended.

I'd take that bet in a minute, as long as you don't try wiggling around with the 'as intended' part. I mean, who's 'intentions' are you referring to?

I suspect that at least 75% of the people who bought the game can fire up a game on 'standard' map size, and play it from start to finish.

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.

I'm sorry, could you point out the spot where it said anything about the specs for 16 civs on a huge map playing conquest with no time limit? Because I haven't seen those anywhere.

So why make excuses? Why are so many people willing to overlook the fact that this game, this consumer product for which they’ve 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.)

What am I overlooking? I can play on large and huge maps. I don't have messed up graphics. Other than some relatively minor bugs (like the Iron Works not functioning properly), everything works fine.

Ah, well… I guess we’re going to see the apologists come out in reply to this. More of the “well it plays fine for me” crowd… (Even though they can’t complete a huge map, have stuttering wonder movies, blacked out terrain, random lockups and the like.)

Oh, I see. So I guess I'm just imaging things when I complete huge maps. I guess I'm just mentally filling in for those movies that don't stutter. I guess all that pretty terrain is just in my head.

I've never understood why people seem to have this obsessive need to project their problems on everyone else. I'm sure you're having issues with the game. That sucks. But despite your claims to the contrary, everyone isn't having them. No amount of complaining on your part is going to change that fact.

Bh

 

[Hyronymus]

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?

You're mixing stuff up which made your reply rather silly.

I said quite an amount of the complaints are from people with underrated computers. Now unless the definition of 'quite an amount' has changed recently that means that a substantial part, not even necessarily the majority, of the complaints comes from people with underrated computers. That leaves amper room for complaints resulting from serious issues.

Now I can get extremely annoying by asking apologies for being accused of something I didn't say or promise (I never promised explanations to anyone) but I think you find that too embarassing. So instead I'm being kind to you: read carefully what someone writes, do not assume intentions and stay calm. It's a game for heaven's sake (and you can always sell it at eBay).

 

[garric]

Where Is The Patch!

 

[Mercade]

Now, a question... Would you pay $10 more for a good game, if it did work "out of the box", not requiring any patches to fix usability issues? (Allowing for patches to fix gameplay issues, such as balancing units?)

Yes!
I would pay € 10 extra even, and possibly £ 10, but surely $ 10.

M.

 

[JackRules]

I finally fired it up on my 2 year old Dell this weekend and find that if I turn down my graphics preferences to "medium" I can run the game fine. However, on "high" I get allot of the problems described above (stuttering, black terrain, etc.). I fully expected to have problems on my machine, though I meet or exceed the minimum specs, and therefore I'm pleasantly surprised that this game actually works, even if not perfectly. I doubt I can play a huge 16 civ game on any settings (haven't tried yet). But I did enjoy playing on standard map size. Maybe this patch will fix my problems-or not. Meanwhile, I'm satisfied that I can play at all and as it stands right now I will certainly get my money's worth. Someday I'll probably get a new high-end pc and be able to utilize the game fully. For now I'll play with what I have and enjoy it. Guess I'm just lucky.

 

[Mercade]

I finally fired it up on my 2 year old Dell this weekend and find that if I turn down my graphics preferences to "medium" I can run the game fine. However, on "high" I get allot of the problems described above (stuttering, black terrain, etc.). I fully expected to have problems on my machine, though I meet or exceed the minimum specs, and therefore I'm pleasantly surprised that this game actually works, even if not perfectly.

Yeah, my four year old Dell meets minimum and I am pleased to play on LOW graphics quality. It's still quite decent. No amount of game patching will make it run as smoothly as an FPS given the specifics of the engine used and the detail in the terrain (moving forests with rendered leaves).

 

[jdurg]

While I'm not presenting this as an excuse for Firaxis or anybody else, I do want to point out some misconceptions which are being flung about here in this thread and in numerous other threads.

1): What an individual defines as 'playable' does not always match up with what the manufacturer defines as playable. When they list 'minimum' and 'reccomended' computer specifications, it's the specifications associated with THEIR definition of playable and NOT yours. In many cases, 'playable' might mean being able to play the game albeit through numerous slowdowns and whatnot. For some people, 'playable' means maximum resolution, uber high AA and AF, etc. etc. For others, 'playable' means being able to load up the game and play. So don't automatically assume that your definition and others' definition of 'playable' is the same.

2): Firaxis/Take Two has NEVER said 'a patch will come out on the xxxxx'. They have only stated that they are working on a patch and that it has been sent to QA. That does not guarantee that it will be out this week, next week, the week after, or any other certain date. It just means that the programmers have finished with their work on Patch 1 and that it is now being tested. If you'd like, you can still whine and demand that they release the patch now, but if you do and they do indeed rush the patch out before extensive testing I GUARANTEE you'll be even more pissed.

3): Enough with these car analogies. You simply cannot compare a car with a piece of software. If software doesn't function properly, you go and find something else to do. Nobody gets hurt. If a car doesn't function properly, people die. Don't even think about comparing the two as the death of an individual is a lot more severe than you not being able to play a game. Cars are also built in a standardized manner using standard components and standard methods of manufacturing. The cars built today only differ from the cars built twenty years ago by frivolties and 'add-ons'. They still have seats, a steering whell, wheels, brakes, engines, etc. The cars have been tested extensively to see if they can handle the roads and highways of modern day society. Computer software is COMPLETELY different. The software written today is NOTHING like the software written ten years ago. That's because the hardware in today's computers has changed drastically. So each time a new game is created, the developers have to make some pretty significant changes to the code to get it to work on the modern day hardware. Creating games for a PC is an incredibly challenging task because you're not sure of what systems you're creating the games for. All hardware manufacturers want to gain an edge on their competition so they tend to do things a bit 'differently' to gain that edge. Those 'differences' are a pain in the butt for developers to deal with. On consoles you rarely see major bugs because the hardware on one XBOX is the same as that on another XBOX. The same can't be said for PCs.

When you purchase something like a car, or a television, or a console game you should expect it to work fully. That's because that car/tv/console game was created knowing exactly which parts are going to be used by the user. When you purchase a PC game, you should expect it to work but at the same time you should expect there to be bugs. You just hope that the bugs aren't too severe.

(One other thing I should note is that if you are getting CTD, then try and run a memory/cpu intensive program like Prime95 or MemTest to see if there are problems with your hardware that you just aren't aware of. Perhaps Civ4 is more intense than people believe).

 

[Birdbrain]

Minimum requirements tells you what computer you must have to play the game at the lowest settings. If you have an minimum requirement pc you cannot expect to use the largest maps or the higest level of animation/resolution settings.

Making a pc game is more complicated than making a car (sorry jdurg). A car must be able to run on 2 types of road (tarmac and gravel). Apc game has many more different systems to run on.

The term "as intended" mean that you are able to play the game. Slow gameplay does not mean that it is not played as intended. Remember they could make a safe bet and make a game like Civilization 1, then you could not complain about this stuff, but you wold not buy the game.

How many car manufacurers have employeers working to get the radio work better after you have bought it? Game developers do, so be happy for the patches.

 

[oldStatesman]

Minimum requirements tells you what computer you must have to play the game at the lowest settings. If you have an minimum requirement pc you cannot expect to use the largest maps or the higest level of animation/resolution settings.

Agreed.

But what about those of us who meet or exceed recommended specs? Using your reasoning, that would mean we should be able to play the game with those settings...

Or perhaps, they should have also listed 'optimal specs' - if recommended specs will not enable all aspects of gameplay.

The issues arose because T2's Q&A did not publish the correct specs to start with...this is not the perogitive of the developers - the publisher determines this in final testing, albeit with input form the devs, play testers, etc. - but it is ultimitaly the publishers Q&A team that has the final say...usually before going gold so they can get them printed on the box, the manual, etc. (And those things need a longer lead time to print - usually 6 to 12 weeks, whereas the gold CD release needs only around a week to press the final CD's.)

One could choose to believe that this was not deliberate - that something, perhaps the copy protection software, perhaps optimiztion issues with the new 3d engine, perhaps simply a line or two of bad code somewhere, has caused the specs to be worthless in many cases.

If deliberate, T2 took advantage of the Civ community...they knew that many Civvers do not have state of the art gaming machines - many civvers are not typical gamers. Previous versions did not require such rigs - and perhaps T2 wanted to take advantage of this segment of the market, and not lose them by publishing specs that were outlandish. Perhaps they took a gamble that the game would not have too many issues on minimum or recommended spec rigs; but if so, it has turned out that gamble was not completely successful, and has left a bad taste in a lot of folks mouths. Not the majority, but definately a substantial percentage ...at least 10%, maybe as high as 25 to 30%. If one projects sales at a million copies (not unreasonable with Civ's popularity) this could mean at least 100,000 folks with some issues. That is not a small number.

Hopefully the patch will be out soon, and address the issues that have resulted in this faux paus. I for one like to believe that there is a bug, that Firaxis did not mean to release a game with such issues...and indications are that this is so; once optimized, many more people should be able to play the game as advertised.

JMO.

 

[Roxinante]

I agree - in theory - with oldStatesman's post. Lets face it, if you're an engineer, you built the bridge right the first time, and the maximum weight alowance is the maximum weight alowance, period. There is no Bridge 2.0 and I think its deplorable that all games require patches, and that some doent even ship with all the graphics included (The History Channel's Battle of Britain for instance). What really makes me mad is how happy I am when a game has few bugs - hey, great! The only problem I have with Silent Hunter III is that the binoculars dont render, and my watchstanders all look like they're pretending to look for badguys.

But, CivIV is an astonishingly complex thing, run on a wide array of different computers, all with different components, histories, opsys, etc. and for it to work as well as it does on as many systems as it does is an accomplishment.
I will reserve my cursing about 'recommended requirements' until the patch comes out, however. I bought a new computer based around the recommended requirements (Hi, my name is Don, I've been adicted to Civ before it had roman numerals) and it slows down on the biggest maps and continues to run in process after the game closes down. We'll see what the patch does, and just how close to recommended my machine actually comes.

 

[DaveShack]

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 we’ve spent our money for a products that flat-out didn’t work as advertised.

Well, I'd say the difference is many thousands of dollars spent.

 

[doggiedaddy]

Yeah, my four year old Dell meets minimum and I am pleased to play on LOW graphics quality. It's still quite decent. No amount of game patching will make it run as smoothly as an FPS given the specifics of the engine used and the detail in the terrain (moving forests with rendered leaves).

This makes me wonder how many hardware variables can affect gameplay.
I have a dell with a few years on it that also plays the game fine. I recently went back to a high level of resolution, and aside from choppy sound, have no problems.
Doing a defrag and registry clean have probably been my best aids, but maybe being on a Dell ain't so bad either!

 

[AbuMusaab]

Where is the patch?

 

[DukeUpdate]

For instance, who can play a huge map, with 16 civs, on conquest mode (no time limit), to completion? Anyone?

I feel guilty after reading all of the posts from people who are unable to play the game, but I've been able to run it through 4 games, all epic, all on Huge maps, all with 8-14 civs. They all ended between 1956 and 2003. I turned up the graphics settings to the highest level after the first game (I forgot to do so before the 1st game)

Yes, I have a fast computer (Pentium D Dual Core, 3.2GHz, 256MB nVidia GeForce 6800, 4GB DDR2 SDRAM) but the only two crashes I have had both came while saving the game. Not horrible, but mildly annoying.

I actually came to the forums to look for a solution to the bug that prevents the Production Queue from saving, and I was unaware of all of the problems that other people have been having.

I suspect that the forums overstate the percentage of people having problems, because many of us that are playing the game without problems are not necessarily checking the forums.

I'll duck and hide in the corner now.

 

[Hurin]

I have a very high-end system and I know what I'm doing. So, no surprise that I can play the game on huge maps w/ Epic timescale for 10 hours straight with no crashes or problems (even in late-game).

My brother, who has no clue about computers and doesn't do a darn thing to keep his system clean and working smoothly can run the game decently on his laptop which has an ATI 9200-based video card, 512MB RAM, and a P4 2.0 GHz class CPU.

Let's be very clear about one thing: Go to any message board for any game, and there will be people claiming that the game was defective and doesn't work for anyone, that the software company should be ashamed, that people are going to sue, etc.

The quality of the game doesn't matter. People who are having problems will always be more vocal and more motivated to post than those who are satisfied. Every discussion forum devolves into this no matter how many (or few) people are actually having problems.

The best thing to do is to try to help those who can manage to be polite and reasonable. . . and ignore the ones who can't.

H

 

[Airlik]

Any patch news for those of us for whom it DOESN'T work well at all?

Per the news, they've been testing the patch for a week... heck, since it couldn't get much worse for me, let me test it, heh.

 

[jdurg]

Any patch news for those of us for whom it DOESN'T work well at all?

Per the news, they've been testing the patch for a week... heck, since it couldn't get much worse for me, let me test it, heh.

Heh. If you think the complaining is bad now, just imagine what it would be like if they released the patch and there was even one tiny bug in there.

 

[Borgholio]

Heh. If you think the complaining is bad now, just imagine what it would be like if they released the patch and there was even one tiny bug in there.

We both know that the patch (as good as it may be) won't make the game run on 100% of all the computers out there. With that being the case, I'll bet you anything that almost immediately after the patch is released, we'll have people whining about how it didn't fix their problems, made things worse, or some other crap like that.