warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
oldStatesman said:
Barry Caudill said months ago that you would have to play smaller maps due to the engine constraints (and that raised a big stink).
Straight from the horse's mouth - recommended hardware specifications not enough ?
- Thread starter ChuckLe
- Start date
- Status
Barry Caudill said months ago that you would have to play smaller maps due to the engine constraints (and that raised a big stink).
RIT Beast
Chieftain
ChuckLe said:
Double Barrell is right - I'm assuming you're new to computer-gaming. The minimum specs are what is necessary to play the game at it's minimum. The Recommended specs are the minimum needed to enjoy the game fully. Those of us who have been around computer games longer have come to understand and accept this.
It is a pain in the butt to a newcomer? yeah. Is it the way things are? You betcha.
Try turning your settings down, and don't expect to be able to play with the most system-taxing options. But, don't blame the devs for the fact that you're trying to play the maximum on the minimum.
LogicSequence
Lightwave Alien
For starters, i disagree. Second his "point" has been mentioned so many times it's making my eyes hurt.
ChuckLe said:
NO i suggest they stop using their computers as "junk drawers" for useless cr*ppy programs that don't do anything that they think are cool. I suggest they stop having 500000000 icons worth of sh*t on their desktops. And i suggest they clean out the 10 trillian spyware programs on their computers. AND i suggest they format once every decade. And if all else fails, YES lump up and like it, or upgrade their computer. OR JUST STOP WHINING ABOUT IT.
Brain
Lost in thought
Um, that's true of about any game.ChuckLe said:
Practically all games use 100% CPU, by design. Normal applications usually "sleep" until there's somthing to do. When there's work to do the OS "wakes-up" the application, the app does the work and then goes back to sleep. Games don't do this, because they always have something to do.
The large memory usage is also quite common for games. There is usually a performance trade-off between speed and memory size. Developers have to choose. Use less memory but take more CPU cycles, or use more memory to free the CPU for other things. Nothing is free, you know?
LogicSequence
Lightwave Alien
ChuckLe said:
That's what modern games do, get over it. And if you don't like modern games then play old ones.... or build a time machine
I don't know how to put this, but your system partly exceeds (CPU, GPU) and is partly identical (RAM) to mine, and I do not have the problems you describe. Same game. I believe it is possible that the issues may *also* have to do with your computer's configuration (settings, background processes,, etc.). It cannot only be the game, or I -- and other people with similar or weaker systems -- would experience the exact same troubles.
With literally millions of hard- and software PC configurations today, it is impossible for them to test the game on and every possible combination. So, no, they probably didn't test the game on your very individual computer, but on similar ones. You may be able to tweak your machine or locate the cause of your unusual performance problem.
(This isn't a flame, and I realise you're frustrated, but these threads here tend to be too emotional while neglecting calm facts and reasoning ("don't silence him", yet it is okay for him to deliberately twist Sirian's words?). It's entirely possible that the game is too "touchy", but in that case it should be possible to locate what causes the problems on your system. I don't really believe that it is the hardware -- as I said, it's better than mine, and a turn on a standard map close to 2050 takes two or three seconds, if that.)
RIT Beast said:
Bad assumption I'm afraid.
I've been around playing computer games on the C64 and before that even. My first computer was an Acorn Atom, where I learnt 6502 assembly code. 
If the recommended specs enable you to play the game 'fully' then they are false. I can play the game partially with no problem at all.
In answer to Logic Sequence:
There is NO spyware, adware, or any other malware, on my PC.
Just 'snail-ware' in the form of Python interpreted Civ IV.
Wodan
Deity
In all the threads on this I don't think I've seen anyone mention other possible problems of slowdown. e.g., hard drive speed, or available hard drive space.
Patently, if your hard drive has little free space, then you're going to have problems with any program that uses virtual memory, REGARDLESS of your other specs.
Wodan
Patently, if your hard drive has little free space, then you're going to have problems with any program that uses virtual memory, REGARDLESS of your other specs.
Wodan
oldStatesman
Cybernaut
Possible, but not general - I am one having CTD problems...and I run my up to 3.7GB page file on a different HDD with a dedicated separate 4.2GB partition with no other files or folders on it.Wodan said:
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
ChuckLe said:
You certainly are. I'm listed first in the tester list because I did the most testing. (I wore a bunch of hats during Civ4 development. Map work was, timewise, the least of them.)
You are entitled to your opinion, whether or not it's informed or reasonable, but you are not entitled to drag my name along in an effort to draw more attention to your opinion. What you've done to me here today is wrong. If you want to state your opinion, then state YOUR opinion and let it stand on its own two feet. Propping up your views with my name... Don't do that again.
It is threads like this one that force developers off the public boards because they can't trust fans as a whole not to abuse the things they have taken time to write. When fans twist things and try to use a developer's words to cause harm to the product, in a fit over not getting their own way on every detail of the game, the developers have to protect themselves, and that usually means halting interaction.
I don't know whether you care about that or not, but while fans often talk about whether or not companies are worthy of their loyalty, companies often look at reactions like yours and think, "There's no way to meet the (ridiculous) expectations of many fans, so why go the extra mile?"
If gamers want better games, then they had better figure out the difference between the good games and the bad ones, and support the good ones. If fan expectations get too far out of hand, to where no company can profitably please their fans, then the whole industry could dry up and blow away. Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't speak for Firaxis.
- Sirian
Undertaker798
I studied on killin' you!
My copy works great, the game's great, easy to learn, great fun multiplayer. I must admit I changed the unit graphis to one unit per square like the older versions of good ol' civ.
oldStatesman
Cybernaut
Anything to get this thread off topic, heh?LogicSequence said:Well there's YOUR problem... U should NEVER partition your hard drive. It's evil and causes nothing but maddness. I shutter to think of your drives defrag status....
Well, to reply to your mistaken remark, lest others think you are correct, I will pick one quote from a myriad of them that you can pull up on a google search of this issue - the vast majority of knowledgable computer folks know that separate partitions are good things - especially for the page file.
The issue remains - it has been stated Civ4 will not run fast on Large Maps - I for one would welcome reading serious discussion from all points of view on this issue. Hope we can get back to it on this thread.
microbe
Cascaded Mansion
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2003
- Messages
- 4,596
Sirian said:
Very well said Sirian. While I do have complaints about the game (as of now I'd have to wait for my new laptop to come hopefully next Month to play the game), and the high horsepower requirement for CIV4, I do have respect for the developers and testers especially those responsive to fan questions.
Keep up the good work.
oldStatesman
Cybernaut
Again Sirain, let me state that I respect you highly..and value your opinions and thoughts.Sirian said:
But I beleive you are maybe going a bit far here...as long as people have pc's, they will use them to play games. Games are what has driven the rapid advances in the field since it's inception. I have no doubts about the long term viability of the pc gameing industry as long as there are pc's. It may change it's form, but it will always be with us.
Companies that fail to meet the market's demand however will not survive - that is a fact of a free market economy, whether it is in games, cars or after shave...companies that do treat their consumers with respect and give them value for their $$ will make it.
Lastly, I understand it is a hard thing to do...wear a public and private hat on a fan bulliten board. You do it well. I hope you will continue to discuss serious issues seriously...and separate the wheat from the chaff on all sides as you usually do so well.
Sirian said:
Wow, I had respect for you, until this.
He didn't twist anything. If you were "first" tester, then why the heck don't you know the effects of screen settings on playability and lag? Or did you only test these on 4 GH, 2 MB RAM machines?
Why are you here complaining about people asking a legitimate question instead answering what can be done to solve the problem?
I'm very sorry that you don't have flowers and chocolates thrown at your feet after every enlightening post from your fingertips. People are ungrateful that way, expecting stuff to work as described from the box.
But you know, the reason you should come onto the boards ISN'T to boost your ego, telling exciting tales of development to ardent fans who cling to your every word. The reason to come on is to figure out what could be done BETTER. And that involves give and take, sometimes with rude people who want to know if you are doing anything about the 5 minute waits between large map turns. Do you think that this is a fair issue to raise? Do you see how by your own words it doesn't seem like it was much of a concern?
Is it fair to claim you said the game sucks? Maybe not. But you did imply that the game makers weren't particularly concerned with making the game run well at the recommended specs. I find that latter issue a far more damning problem than the former, since no one is going to take that seriously without some investigation. And quite frankly, it does suck that I can't run a large map with 512mb ram without quality book reading time interposed in the turns, especially since a large map doesn't seem to mean what a large map used to mean. If you are saying that you don't care, its not seen as a problem, why can't people just be happy with their normal sized maps and tell us how great we are - then yeah, maybe you shouldn't be posting to the forums as an official designer.
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
oldStatesman said:
From 1993 to 2003. Ten YEARS. That is how much time elapsed between Master of Orion and Galactic Civilizations. Ten YEARS passed from the original space empire masterpiece to the first worthy successor.
Just because people will play games doesn't mean the games will be good.
There have been many times I've personally looked at the list of available games on Amazon and thought to myself, "I'm not buying any of these. That one is another RTS clone. That one is another FPS clone. That one is another Tycoon clone. That one is another Arcade clone. That one is from a company with a reputation (in my mind) of poorly balanced games, so I don't trust them. That one looked interesting, but it got panned hard by all the customer reviews. And that one over there doesn't appeal to me, even though it is popular."
More often than not, I don't see games that interest me. I'm an extremely tough customer, and when I criticize games, I hit hard and true. The truth hurts more than any exageration or trumped up charge.
Truly, though, companies are damned any way they turn. Civ4 gets review scores of 8 out of 10 for Graphics, from most reviewers, yet the choice to go 3D and improve graphics leaves some fans' three-year-old machines out of the loop, and they get upset. If Civ4 had less graphics, the reviewers and casual fans would pan it. You simply cannot please all of the people.
Civ2 fans absolutely jeered Civ2's pathfinding, and its flaws undercut AI performance. They also jeered the AI. So Civ3 fixed the problem, adding TRUE pathfinding to the game. Now the AI is competent and then some, but that comes at a cost: true pathfinding is a blunt instrument that eats CPU cycles like mad. This is exponentially worse on larger maps, leading to folks like the Original Poster in this thread panning the game for being slow. So Firaxis responds to Civ fans and DELIVERS what they hungered for: a smarter AI. And some slam the game for being slower. "UNACCEPTABLE," they say.
Well, too bad then. Go play something else that is faster and has horrible AI and game balance. Seriously. If speed is that important to them, they can load up Civ2 and play that to their heart's content. As the OP in this thread conceded, the majority of Civ fans are content with the level of performance Civ4 delivers to them. Many of them understand that a better AI and stronger game rules require more resources to process, and prefer to wait a few seconds rather than to have the game run faster with weaker gameplay.
You can't please all the people all the time!
Some customers really do want too much, though. Every restaurant owner knows that sometimes you get a customer who just doesn't like your food. As long as most do, you can stay in business and even thrive.
Civ4 is about as far from sucking as any game I've played. I'm not saying that because I worked on it. Other way around! I would never have agreed to work on it unless I was confident I'd be able to say that by the end.
- Sirian
"If gamers want better games, then they had better figure out the difference between the good games and the bad ones, and support the good ones. If fan expectations get too far out of hand, to where no company can profitably please their fans, then the whole industry could dry up and blow away. Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't speak for Firaxis.
- Sirian"
You know, I can't let this pass, either. If game companies want respect and accolades, make the game work from the box, at the recommended settings. Console games do it all the time, and a decade of the "we'll fix it in Pay-ta testing" paradigm's ascendence has not made it acceptable - if anything, it has made gamers ever more aggrevated.
I know the difference between a good game and a bad one. And Civ IV in its current state doesn't qualify as good (though maybe not bad enough to be bad, but in some kind of purgatory). It is clear it wasn't tested enough, either for compatibility with standard components or for basic gameplay, especially in the late game. And why does the same "random" map keep cropping up, across so many peoples computers? Was it not tested enough, or was it the typical "what do beta testers know" attitude by the developers, or was it set to gold by the publisher too quickly, who insisted on lower recommended specs on the box to sell more units ("hey, they can play a small world fine, right??")
Blaming us, the users, for not tolerating your failures as much as you would like is not going to win you a bit of respect with anyone.
- Sirian"
You know, I can't let this pass, either. If game companies want respect and accolades, make the game work from the box, at the recommended settings. Console games do it all the time, and a decade of the "we'll fix it in Pay-ta testing" paradigm's ascendence has not made it acceptable - if anything, it has made gamers ever more aggrevated.
I know the difference between a good game and a bad one. And Civ IV in its current state doesn't qualify as good (though maybe not bad enough to be bad, but in some kind of purgatory). It is clear it wasn't tested enough, either for compatibility with standard components or for basic gameplay, especially in the late game. And why does the same "random" map keep cropping up, across so many peoples computers? Was it not tested enough, or was it the typical "what do beta testers know" attitude by the developers, or was it set to gold by the publisher too quickly, who insisted on lower recommended specs on the box to sell more units ("hey, they can play a small world fine, right??")
Blaming us, the users, for not tolerating your failures as much as you would like is not going to win you a bit of respect with anyone.
"Truly, though, companies are damned any way they turn. Civ4 gets review scores of 8 out of 10 for Graphics, from most reviewers, yet the choice to go 3D and improve graphics leaves some fans' three-year-old machines out of the loop, and they get upset. If Civ4 had less graphics, the reviewers and casual fans would pan it. You simply cannot please all of the people."
Come on, no one is buying Civ 4 for the graphics. Those hideous leader's faces would have cost them games sold if they did. If they had updated Civ 3's graphics and animations, they still would have got an 8, sold just as many games and not had half the system hogging they do now. You don't need 3-d renderings for this kind of game, especially when it is only featured on the zooming close-ups after techs.
The slowness problem is clearly not the pathing issues, or they wouldn't be warning us about moving the screen around. Any 2.0 GHz machine should be able to figure out pathing on a 100X100 grid without effort, especially with so few rules to follow. It could be other forms of decision making, but considering the number of total lock ups, you can bet its leaking memory and getting caught in loops.
Come on, no one is buying Civ 4 for the graphics. Those hideous leader's faces would have cost them games sold if they did. If they had updated Civ 3's graphics and animations, they still would have got an 8, sold just as many games and not had half the system hogging they do now. You don't need 3-d renderings for this kind of game, especially when it is only featured on the zooming close-ups after techs.
The slowness problem is clearly not the pathing issues, or they wouldn't be warning us about moving the screen around. Any 2.0 GHz machine should be able to figure out pathing on a 100X100 grid without effort, especially with so few rules to follow. It could be other forms of decision making, but considering the number of total lock ups, you can bet its leaking memory and getting caught in loops.
Sirian
Designer, Mohawk Games
Rhandom said:
No, I don't. It is an underinformed complaint. Please see my previous post for the explanation.
If we take out the true pathfinding, then we're back to the Civ2 complaints about bad AI, which is a worse problem. That's just the nature of the beast. That's how it was in Civ3, and Civ4 performs better in this regard. That is all that can be done.
There are limits to what any given machine can process. Rather than impose limits on the players, to decide for them what is or is not an acceptable performance level, the choice is left in your hands. Your machine, your level of patience, your choice. The game plays very well on Standard maps. Larger maps will play a little slower. How much can your machine handle? Beyond that, if your machine starts to slow down, how much slowdown can you tolerate? It's your call. Some people are willing to let it be slower if they can play any map size they like, whether or not their machine is rated to handle it. We could disallow machines below a certain spec to run maps that would be too large to perform well on that machine, but this isn't what fans want! They want to decide this issue for themselves.
Civ4 plays better for me than Civ3 at the same number of plots. Yet no matter how many times I make remarks of this kind, some folks are intent on ripping my words out of context and abusing them to support their own negative opinions -- without regard to my actual views or stated opinions.
Full stop. There are no "yes but"s.
Now you're twisting things, too. None of these remarks are fair or accurate.
If you want any more answers from me, please leave off the personal attacks. Thanks.
- Sirian
- Status
Similar threads
- Sticky
