the graphics are too good

[lordmacroer]

I got an average computer and it cant display the graphics for this game for beans. I got all of the lowest graphics settings set and still the leaders are all dark, and the line of sight feature does not work at all-the entire landscape is black when I play the game. Why must fraxis make games that the users need to buy expensive computers to play?

This is just a rant, so unless you can direct me to a less graphic intensive mod for civ 4 or you agree with me, I dont want to read your crap.

 

[Joshua368]

That's what minimum requirements are for.

 

[BTSFanRandy]

What's even worse, is that minimum requirements can barely run to save your life.

 

[PieceOfMind]

The problems you described could be driver issues. The fact the game even begins to run is a positive sign that your system can run the game.

But you don't have to read my crap.

 

[TABJ]

My computer is almost 6 years old and can barele run Star Wars:Knights of the Old Republic, and has no problems with Civ 4

 

[mechaerik]

If you think this would be bad, try running Crysis; AKA the game that essentially forces you to upgrade your computer.

 

[warpstorm]

Why not list your actual computer specs rather than saying you have an "average" computer. That way we might be able to target tangible things you can do to make the game more playable.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Hang on... Do you even have a graphics card? Or is that a dumb quesiton - maybe the game wouldn't even start with no graphics card.

 

[lordmacroer]

I dont care if civ 4 used civ 1 graphics; graphics are stupid.

I just want to be able to play the game.

Look you could have a green square for grassland, a blue square for ocean, a black square for a region you have not discovered yet, a bunch of little squares put together to look like a dude for the warrior, ect.
It could be 3000 AD with a thousand units, but it would be so simple to display that there would be no lag due to graphics even on a normal computer.

 

[warpstorm]

You still haven't answered what your "normal" computer is. There are certain requirements (as in features in the hardware that the programmers assumed a computer used for gaming in 2005 would have) that are needed to make the game run at all. If your computer doesn't have those features graphic mods won't help.

Have you updated your video drivers lately?

 

[Roller123]

My computer is almost 6 years old and can barele run Star Wars:Knights of the Old Republic, and has no problems with Civ 4

If you have an ATI card thats not surprisingly. With .ini tweaks you can get like a 50fps+ boost over default settings.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I dont care if civ 4 used civ 1 graphics; graphics are stupid.

I just want to be able to play the game.

Look you could have a green square for grassland, a blue square for ocean, a black square for a region you have not discovered yet, a bunch of little squares put together to look like a dude for the warrior, ect.
It could be 3000 AD with a thousand units, but it would be so simple to display that there would be no lag due to graphics even on a normal computer.

Graphics may be stupid, but the calculations made by the AI in Civ4 are extensive and hence very processor intensive. For most people who have a graphics card, they find that their CPU is what eventually limits the speed at which the game runs, and the amount of inter-turn lag in the later parts of the game. Also, people with not enough RAM (usually less than 2GB) struggle with large or huge maps in the end game, when RAM is demanded in high quantities. Yes a lot of that RAM is probably unit art etc. etc., I will give you that.

My point is that having a competent AI will demand at least a reasonable computer, and that's not something we should be prepared to sacrifice.

But in a MP game, yes the game could be very very compact and not CPU intensive.

 

[Snazzye]

OP are u serious?? This games requirements are very minimal. I ran this on an old athlon XP 1800+ with geforce 5200 and it was fine. Remember its 2009 and that computer you got back in 2000 just might not cut it.

 

[Willem]

I got all of the lowest graphics settings set and still the leaders are all dark, and the line of sight feature does not work at all-the entire landscape is black when I play the game.

It sounds to me like you have a video card that doesn't support Hardware T&L. Those issues were a very common complaint when the game first came out. If you're using an onboard video card there's a very good chance that it doesn't and that's a minimum requirement for the game.

Why must fraxis make games that the users need to buy expensive computers to play?

Civilization is at the very low end of games that are on the market today. If you can't even run that then you're in serious need of upgrading your computer. They're not like televisions, the technology they use gets obsolete quite quickly. So if you want to play computer games, you're going to have to be prepared to upgrade once in awhile. It doesn't require alot of money to get a system that's good enough to play the game these days. In fact you may only need to get yourself a new video card.

This is just a rant, so unless you can direct me to a less graphic intensive mod for civ 4 or you agree with me, I dont want to read your crap.

If it's a Hardware T&L issue, which I strongly suspect, there are no mods that will help you. It's a requirement for the game's engine.

 

[Willem]

Look you could have a green square for grassland, a blue square for ocean, a black square for a region you have not discovered yet, a bunch of little squares put together to look like a dude for the warrior, ect.

No one would buy a game these days that looked that basic. I certainly wouldn't.

 

[BTSFanRandy]

I dont care if civ 4 used civ 1 graphics; graphics are stupid.

I just want to be able to play the game.

Look you could have a green square for grassland, a blue square for ocean, a black square for a region you have not discovered yet, a bunch of little squares put together to look like a dude for the warrior, ect.
It could be 3000 AD with a thousand units, but it would be so simple to display that there would be no lag due to graphics even on a normal computer.

If you want Civ 1 graphics, play Civ 1.

 

[PieceOfMind]

No one would buy a game these days that looked that basic. I certainly wouldn't.

I would.

I Know for a fact there are still people still out there that care more about gameplay than the "ooh shiny!" factor.

I think it's hilarious that one would put cutting edge 3D graphics in a game like Chess, but it has been done!

Simple games still have a big appeal to a huge number of people. How many people have played snake on their phone? Cutting edge graphics are more a pursuit of people who might call themselves gamers or tech junkies.

Civ 4 may not be over the moon in graphics, but if you offered me a mod that turned its graphics civ1 style and in doing so increased the speed by even 25% I would not hesitate to take it! I remember playing Civ1 and hitting end turn, you could expect less than 0.5 seconds before your turn, and when moving a unit it was so instant you could move 5 units in about 2 seconds. Part of the reason games did not take days was because turns could be taken so quickly.

 

[Willem]

I would.

When it comes to a game like Civ, then you'd definitely be in the minority. With console games displaying near-video quality in their titles, developers can't afford to cut that many corners in their releases. It would be a quick way to assure their bankruptcy. I don't even consider the graphics in this game to be all that great. They're adequate, nothing more. Compared to games like Oblivion and NWN2 they're pretty basic, but that's all that's really required for the game. And it's not really a problem playing the game with them if you have some half decent gear.

 

[lordmacroer]

I would.

I Know for a fact there are still people still out there that care more about gameplay than the "ooh shiny!" factor.

finaly someone that makes sence!

 

[PieceOfMind]

When it comes to a game like Civ, then you'd definitely be in the minority. With console games displaying near-video quality in their titles, developers can't afford to cut that many corners in their releases. It would be a quick way to assure their bankruptcy. I don't even consider the graphics in this game to be all that great. They're adequate, nothing more. Compared to games like Oblivion and NWN2 they're pretty basic, but that's all that's really required for the game. And it's not really a problem playing the game with them if you have some half decent gear.

The civfanatics forum posters are already a minority.

I'm not sure what near-video quality means to you, but it seems vacuous.

If you are saying graphics are very realistic, just remember it's all relative. Ten years ago 3D graphics looked realistic. Five years ago graphics looked realistic. There will probably be a point in time when developers start to realise that people care more about gameplay than graphics. The only reason games are so darn expensive these days is that so much goes into the art side of the games. I remember back in the day when you could pick up a snes game dirt cheap, have weeks of fun with it, just like any modern game, and it had simplistic graphics.

There is a reason people still do things like play board games and card games. It's not just the social interaction, but the gameplay is obviously good. If the never-ending pursuit for more detailed zombies, with thousands of particles created when you blast its head off etc., and point and click shooting is the pinnacle of gaming, and is called progress in gaming, then I'll stick to civ1, civ4 and any other game where graphics were not so ridiculous. Advances in game graphics may be an interesting technical feat, but I don't think it overall does anything for gamers overall satisfaction in games. Do games provide more enjoyment than they did 10 years ago? I think the only games where you can argue this are ones that try to be very immersive - eg. flight sims, driving simulators, ... pretty much any simulation games.