Straight from the horse's mouth - recommended hardware specifications not enough ?

[ChuckLe]

There's a particularly enlightening thread over at the public Apolyton forums with comments by Sirian, a(the?)Civ IV map designer.

For those of us that want to play on large maps with the recommended hardware specifications for the game, then tough, you can forget it!

Also, it appears that the excessive RAM and virtual memory usage is there by design, and if you don't like that, then... tough.

Further, despite claims to the contrary, this game has NOT been tested sufficiently. Sirian himself says:

I've played Huge Pangaea on 512MB RAM, but had to put up with intense swap file grindage in the late game.

I'm not sure what the impact is of turning down the graphics and other settings. I'm not sure how much or how little difference it will make, but it may help.

If the map designer himself has not tested other configurations, and further still does not know the effects, then those that say we are beta testers for this snail paced, bug ridden, resource hog have been proved right.

At the very least, it shows that feedback from 'official' beta testers has not been effective.

Anyone intersted in the full comments by Sirian can read it here:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=142296 and http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=142296&pagenumber=2 (Huge + Terra + 18 Civs =awesome game) errmm NOT it later appears.

Those with the attention span of a gnat with amnesia need not concern themselves, as huge maps will have sent you to sleep long before these problems start to manifest themselves, as will actually reading the 'gist' of the Apolyton thread (or this one) so don't waste your time.

 

[baboon]

Your post isn't half as stupid as the topic title.

Moderator Action: Warned for flaming. --Padma
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Sullla]

So - you want to play on the most gigantic maps possible (which Civ4 allows you to do) and play against 18 civs (which Civ4 allows you to do), then you come here and complain that those maps are a drain on your computer's performance?

To quote from The Simpsons, "I want all my groceries in one bag. But I don't want the bag to be heavy!"

 

[balearicrazy]

FFS! Can we have a whine thread please for people like ChuckLe. So sick of certain cretins spoiling this board with the constant Civ bashing. Alright you don't like it but keep it in one of the other dozen "I don't like the game, please tell me you care" threads!

 

[Dida]

Don't try to silence a legitimate gamer making a legitimate complaint. Everyone is entitled to the right of complainting if he isn't happy with the game. It is not like you own share of Take 2 Games anyways.

 

[jdp311]

Ok, everyone has the right to complain. And we have the right to express our opinion that HIS opinion is stupid and he's an idiot.



Moderator Action: Not quite. He has the right to complain that the game doesn't meet his expectations. You do NOT have the right to call him an idiot. You DO have the right to point out where and how he is wrong; just don't get personal. --Padma

 

[jkp1187]

Ok, everyone has the right to complain. And we have the right to express our opinion that HIS opinion is stupid and he's an idiot.

Word.

I am getting a little tired of the "CIV IV IS TEH S UCK" threads. If you have a legitimate complaint with a game you're playing that's one thing.

 

[MattJek]

Ok, everyone has the right to complain. And we have the right to express our opinion that HIS opinion is stupid and he's an idiot.

Well said..... .secondly, Im playing on a amd 2.2Gig with 740ram and a GeForce4 MX. Large map, 18 civs, no problems even late into the game. ANd yeah, Im sick of all "civ sucks" "fixaris stole my money" "{insert childish screeching cry}" post. I already mentioned numerous times that this forum should have a seperate section for all whiners and crybabies.

 

[alireza1354]

Chuckle. I agree. This SHOULDNT be like this. And they didnt test the game well enough, but put it on the market too early. I hope we soon get some patch.

I think the beautiful world maps are a no do. The same counts for MP. MP sucks in civ4. Thats a real shame. Loading time, crashes, freezing...

And believe it or not, my pc rocks and is way above the adviced settings.

Ah well...

 

[scarl]

Actually, that little problem made me disover the pleasures of playing small maps, where intense diplomacy (often using clubs, swords, rifles and sometimes nukes) is really necessary to get your personal space in the world.

In al the previous civs i was alway playing huge maps and just kept colonizing during the entire game. Now there finally is more importance on the fun parts of the game. But I guess some people remain of the "supersized megalomaniac" kind...

 

[narmox]

3 cheers for quotes taken out of context!

 

[ChuckLe]

So - you want to play on the most gigantic maps possible (which Civ4 allows you to do) and play against 18 civs (which Civ4 allows you to do), then you come here and complain that those maps are a drain on your computer's performance?

To quote from The Simpsons, "I want all my groceries in one bag. But I don't want the bag to be heavy!"

Civ IV allows you to do so under what circumstances?!

As the recommended requirements are apparently insufficient then:

What are the requirements to enable you to do so?

Where on the box, in the manual, or the support website, are these requirements stated?

Assuming these theoretical requirements could be met, what performance can you then expect to obtain?

What performance do you then deem acceptable having met these requirements?

It's not my fault that Civ IV fills my grocery bag so full of s**t that I can't lift it!

 

[Novaya Havoc]

Ok, everyone has the right to complain. And we have the right to express our opinion that HIS opinion is stupid and he's an idiot.

His complaint cites the own words of a developer, who essentially says even with recommended specifications, you cannot "fully" play the game.

Your "expressed opinion" is nothing more than troll-flaming. It's the equivalent of comparing "The Daily Show" opinion to, oh, the opinion of someone on Judge Judy. So why not zip it, mmmkay?

---

Anyway, yeah. Ridiculous. I cannot believe the map developer would go ON RECORD and say:

If you stick to your own civ and don't scroll all over the place, it's less of an issue. For a Terra game, you are going to be focused on your nation in the old world, and your explorations and colonies in the new world. That is not as hoggy as a SMALLER map on Archipelago setting where you have to be more active because your cities and units are spread around a bit more and there is land everywhere, no large empty oceans.

Whaaaat? So you cannot, um, scroll and overlook the screen? I don't understand the apologists who actually think these are sound or acceptable answers to performance issues.

Blah.

 

[Maksim]

I would like to address the original point that the map designer should have tested it on other configurations.

It's not his job.

His job is to create maps (well, set up the map generator so it creates maps as advertised). It doesn't matter what graphics settings you have - the map will still stay the same.

Even if he did try it on different settings, he probably didn't measure the response speed etc. to confidently say: "going to low detail will improve speed by 15-20%". Which is why he phrased his statement that way.

 

[balearicrazy]

I wonder how many more of these stupid threads will appear on Civfanatics this week!

 

[Sirian]

For those of us that want to play on large maps with the recommended hardware specifications for the game, then tough, you can forget it!

If you want to play huge maps, you have to put up with slower performance. This was true in Civ1, in Civ2, in Civ3 and it's true in Civ4. That doesn't necessarily mean SLOW performance, but slowER. Of course it's going to be slower, as the computer has more to process. (I should think this would be obvious.)

When I played Civ1 in 1991, it took FORTY-FIVE MINUTES for the game to generate the map on my computer. Between turns in the late game, it took ten minutes of just sitting and waiting for the next turn to start. Civ4 isn't anywhere near these (low) performance levels. My below-recommended-specs computer I have at home (1.4ghz) can create a Huge map in less than three minutes. There's nothing about that that sucks, in my opinion, so your thread title and implications are a complete misrepresentation of my views.


Here's the bottom line:

If the -only- kind of Civ game that you are interested in is one in which you play on maps modded to be larger than anything that comes with the game, running on a machine that barely meets the "recommended" specifications -- and you demand flawless performance with zero waiting, ever -- then you will not get what you want and you should not buy Civ4.

If you have completely off-the-wall unreasonable demands and expectations, that's your prerogative, but don't blame the game for that.

Those who are running at the "recommended" specs on their hardware, and not above, can expect good performance on Standard maps, some slowness in the late game on Huge maps, and can run modified super-sized maps up to whatever point the added slowness makes the game unfun for them.

It's a simple fact: the larger the map, the more RAM and CPU power is needed to maintain "good" performance.

If the map designer himself has not tested other configurations...

Hello? Please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.

I have only ever played Civ4 on the HIGHEST graphical settings. I do not know the effects or benefits of turning down the settings, but I have played the Huge maps on my subpar machine at the highest settings and done fine. A little slowness in the late game doesn't bother me, because I know that's the price of admission to the biggest map sizes, but it's there and would bother some people. Those people can play on Standard maps, or get themselves more RAM or a stronger computer.

If the map designer himself has not tested other configurations, and further still does not know the effects, then those that say we are beta testers for this snail paced, bug ridden, resource hog have been proved right.

I give players information, and you twist my words and slam my work? That wasn't very nice of you. However, I'm not concerned. I think most players can understand what it means if I say I've tested on the most demanding graphical settings ONLY, and that I am not sure how much extra performance they can squeeze out of lower settings. The fact that I'm content at the high settings, even on my below-recommend machine, speaks for itself.


- Sirian

 

[Psyringe]

To the original poster, and some others: Please, relax. No need to get personal.

Civ4 currently does demand a lot of memory. I meet the minimum specs (256 MB) and I was surprised about the lag on standard maps from late midgame onwards. I suspect (although I can't be sure at this point) that no patch will be able to change that as long as I don't buy additional RAM. However, although I was surprised about the game's memory hunger, I'm not feeling treated unfairly. When I have the minimum specs, I simply cannot expect that the game runs full speed on standard settings. With smaller mapsizes and minimal details, the game runs quite well, eben with 18 civs. And I have a lot of fun with the game. Actually it runs more stable and has less bugs than I expected.

I think that many rants we're seeing (not all, but many) are the result of people having wrong expectations about the game. TBS games never were especially hardware dependent, and if they were, you could easily remedy that by adjusting graphic settings. It's understandable that many people exprected Civ4 to be same - i.e. many people seem to have expected that they could play large maps even on minimal or next-to minimal specs. Or they didn't expect that they would have to surpass the recommended specs by a fair amount for the really huge maps. However, it's also understandable that Civ4 *does* have these constraints. They are neither new to the gaming industry, nor are they unjustified. They just may not have been expected.

And of course everyone's entitled to have his or her own opinion about how totally gamebreaking (or utterly irrelevant) these constrictions are.

 

[MattJek]

Ok, when I played on a large map with 18 civs in civ3, by the middle ages, I had to wait about 1 whole minute for the end of the turn and later on in the game over 2 mins (the reason I stopped playing civ3 about a year and half ago) Id often be doing something else like reading a book while playing the game. But in civ4 the wait is about 2-5 seconds on same size and same number of civs. Obviously a huge improvement.

 

[Dida]

I played `8 civs on only standard map, and by the modern age, I have to wait like 5 minutes for each turn to end, not to mention the increased frequency of 'crashing to desktop'.
Tell me why I should believe that they actually did adequate testing on this thing.
My spec is the following:
AMD FX - 57
nVidia 6800GT
1 gb Corsair RAM
250 gb SATAII HDD

 

[smarpoe]

Ok, when I played on a large map with 18 civs in civ3, by the middle ages, I had to wait about 1 whole minute for the end of the turn and later on in the game over 2 mins (the reason I stopped playing civ3 about a year and half ago) Id often be doing something else like reading a book while playing the game. But in civ4 the wait is about 2-5 seconds on same size and same number of civs. Obviously a huge improvement.

I agree with you. I finally got this game working and I'm playing huge map, all civs and high graphics running on a Pent 4, 2.4g, 1 meg ram and ATI 9600SE and I have very little lag at mid game.

At first, I was really pissed that I couldn't get the game to run, but when I look back on it... I learned a hellova lot in my attempts to get it up an running. Stuff I never knew about and it's thanks to a lot of folks in this forum. A lot of smart people here.