3d Civ. I'm still a doubter.

[Derelict]

Originally posted by nbarclay


Spoken like someone who already had, or at least was about ready to buy, fully adequate hardware to take advantage of the game's graphics.

If Civ IV's "awesome" graphics would require you to pay for a graphics upgrade that you otherwise had no use for, how much money would you regard those "awesome" graphics as being worth compared with Civ 3 style graphics?

Yeah...so we should all moan about the very pleasant graphics in Civ4 because you both have an outdated computer/graphic card and are too cheap to spring a whopping $60 to get a card that would easily pass the recommended specs, and bring you into this millenia to boot.

Come on, what a lame complaint you make. Really though, if that is your situation I guess you'll just have to miss out on the best Civilization game to be released, ever. And all because you don't have at least a 64MB video card. Sad...

And by the way, if Civ IV's "awesome" graphics (and they are kickin') required me to upgrade, even if I had no other use? Hell yeah, $60+ for years to come of Civ IV entertainment is money WELL spent.

The only amusing thing is that you moan for it to have dated graphics so that chumps like you can actually play the game on hardware Moses and company probably used. I gotta say, it's not like the graphics are super cutting edge or anything--they are well done and really add to the game--but it's not like it requires a top tier gaming rig to play this thing.

Seriously, buck up and either get a half way modern rig (and I'm sorry but a 1.2GHZ CPU, 256 RAM and a 64 MEG Video card is anything but; which the min specs call for) or stop your moaning. Hey, I'll bet Civ 3 will run on your box though...bright side to everything I guess.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
Buy it. It just kills your social life

As if that would be a huge change for him.

Seriously, anyone who won't buy the game based on the whinging of a minority of folks on this site need a major reality check (like in the form of the all-round positive reviews from major gaming sites and magazines, for one).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by nbarclay
Spoken like someone who already had, or at least was about ready to buy, fully adequate hardware to take advantage of the game's graphics.

If Civ IV's "awesome" graphics would require you to pay for a graphics upgrade that you otherwise had no use for, how much money would you regard those "awesome" graphics as being worth compared with Civ 3 style graphics?

I plopped down $1700 for my graphics "upgrade," in the form of a new computer. Don't feel too bad about it at all.

Really, why should game designers not take advantage of the technology that's out there to make games? To appease computer luddites?

[Nacht]

Originally posted by evizaer
I can play SMAC endlessly. I can only play Civ4 for a few hours before i get sick of it stuttering come the modern era. I can play SMAC on a HUGE map, i can't play anything above standard size in civ4 and i'm at or above recommended specs.

Aren't you glad that the SMAC developers didn't listen to those who demanded that it should've worked on their 486/4MB/VGA/dos5 pc's?

[Boris Godunov]

Seriously. SMAC came out in 1999, for pete's sake. Come 2011, I'm sure whatever machine you have then will run Civ4 like a dream but have problems with Civ VI (because you is too cheap to upgrade, sucka!)

[siredgar]

Most of the graphics are really good and bring life to the game. I don't like 100% of the interface (end tape, advisor screens, etc.), but the 3D and the animation is good.

It works fine on my computer. But I paid $3,000 for it, so it should...

There is a delay for the button turning from green to red. It seems too slow compared to the rest of play.

[FrostyBoy]

Civ4 does NOT have amazing graphics.

Where did you get the idea it had amazing graphics?

Sure, if the game was released 5 years ago, it would look amazing.

Firaxis did NOT focus on making the game looking next generation, they focused on making the gameplay next generation.

I don't even notice the animations when playing the game. The tree's are made of about 5 polygons, the units maybe 50, the buildings in the cities, surely no more than 30.

Infact, the only part of the terrain, that I find to be really well done, are the pine tree's.



Oh, and btw, if this game were released in 2D, you can say goodbye to flexibility, you can say goodbye to modability, your computer would have an even harder time trying to run it and you can say hello to another dead game.


We all want our game of Civilization to be the way we want it, now you can, BECAUSE it's in 3D.

So say "Thank you Firaxis for making Civ4 in 3D so that I can have my game of Civilization the way I want it, and sorry for being a dumbass".

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Derelict

Yeah...so we should all moan about the very pleasant graphics in Civ4 because you both have an outdated computer/graphic card and are too cheap to spring a whopping $60 to get a card that would easily pass the recommended specs, and bring you into this millenia to boot.

Come on, what a lame complaint you make. Really though, if that is your situation I guess you'll just have to miss out on the best Civilization game to be released, ever. And all because you don't have at least a 64MB video card. Sad...

And by the way, if Civ IV's "awesome" graphics (and they are kickin') required me to upgrade, even if I had no other use? Hell yeah, $60+ for years to come of Civ IV entertainment is money WELL spent.

The only amusing thing is that you moan for it to have dated graphics so that chumps like you can actually play the game on hardware Moses and company probably used. I gotta say, it's not like the graphics are super cutting edge or anything--they are well done and really add to the game--but it's not like it requires a top tier gaming rig to play this thing.

Seriously, buck up and either get a half way modern rig (and I'm sorry but a 1.2GHZ CPU, 256 RAM and a 64 MEG Video card is anything but; which the min specs call for) or stop your moaning. Hey, I'll bet Civ 3 will run on your box though...bright side to everything I guess.

I am much closer to the recommended specs than to the minimum, with 1.6 GHz, 512 RAM and a graphic card with 128 MB RAM (though an older one), yet the game is very slow. The modern age is a nightmare, and I play only on regular maps. Upgrading my comp for 60$ to make it run civ4 well is pure bullsh!t. Tu run it well, I'd need a better proc, at least another 512 RAM and a better graphic card. At least 300 but probably more, which I cannot afford right now. I enjoy the nice graphics but it forces me to upgrade my comp even though normally I wouldn't do it, because it performs well in everything else I do with it. So in the end civ will cost me not 40, but rather 340 euros.

Besides the question is not whether we want to spend money on an upgrade or not; the question is how much does the graphics help the game become more enjoyable. The civ4 graphics is awesome but on any poll asking what do you prefer, nice graphics or awesome gameplay, gameplay wins hands down. Sure, we can have both, but at the moment the hardware demanding graphics interferes with my gaming experience. While I enjoy the game, I ask myself: wouldn't I enjoy it just as much with an enhanced civ3 graphics? The answer is probably yes.

[Robert]

I can do without the fancy graphics as well, but I do love them though. It doesn't affect the gameplay.
And videocards aren't that expensive anymore.

[MattPilot]

Originally posted by nbarclay


Spoken like someone who already had, or at least was about ready to buy, fully adequate hardware to take advantage of the game's graphics.

If Civ IV's "awesome" graphics would require you to pay for a graphics upgrade that you otherwise had no use for, how much money would you regard those "awesome" graphics as being worth compared with Civ 3 style graphics?

Nope. Totally wrong.

My system is about 2 years old with a graphics card that i bought 9 months ago.

I've got a 2 Gig athlon, 786 rams, and a Geforce 6800 GT.

The trick to getting "older" equipment to work good for you is to buy equipment that works well together. Starting with the motherboard, chip, type of ram, etc... Just because something fits into a slot doesn't mean it will perform well with the other brands.


But i will confess to something... I did upgrade for a game 9 months ago (new graphic card), but it wasn't for Civ4.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Seriously, anyone who won't buy the game based on the whinging of a minority of folks on this site need a major reality check (like in the form of the all-round positive reviews from major gaming sites and magazines, for one).

Yes -- because we all know that we should take positive game reviews written by people who do nothing but gush about the game like an awed five-year old is reliable, objective source of information.


And besides that, I haven't made my final decision yet so you can still give me some slack in meantime.

[MrFun]

AND for the record, I'm not one of those cheap whiners who still owns a computer from the early 1990s -- I have gotten an upper-end laptop from Dell over a month ago and I think I would be set for some serious gaming. Medieval: Total War runs great on my laptop.


I am more concerned with all the buzz going around about the various types of bugs with Civ IV. I have noticed how large the thread covering bug reports has gotten.

[Andrew1999]

If you don't like/can't handle all the graphical load, there's a simple solution: just go into the options screen, click on the graphics tab, and start turning things off.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun
Yes -- because we all know that we should take positive game reviews written by people who do nothing but gush about the game like an awed five-year old is reliable, objective source of information.

What are you talking about? All the reviews I've read, while very positive, don't "gush" and honestly state some of the negatives of the game. Do you think there's some sort of conspiracy among dozens of reviewers working for different sources to artificially hype the game or something? Do you just assume that any game that garners all-round positives is a subject of "gushing," or are you just treating Civ4 with a double standard?

And the bug thread is not much to worry about. The vast majority of them are minor, the major ones aren't ubiquitous for the most part, and it's FAR fewer and less serious than were reported for Civ3 at this point in its release.

Trust me, this is a game you will enjoy playing. I'd confirm your laptop specs with other laptop owners first, however, as I know the game has been more finicky with laptops than desktops in some instances.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


What are you talking about? All the reviews I've read, while very positive, don't "gush" and honestly state some of the negatives of the game. Do you think there's some sort of conspiracy among dozens of reviewers working for different sources to artificially hype the game or something? Do you just assume that any game that garners all-round positives is a subject of "gushing," or are you just treating Civ4 with a double standard?

And the bug thread is not much to worry about. The vast majority of them are minor, the major ones aren't ubiquitous for the most part, and it's FAR fewer and less serious than were reported for Civ3 at this point in its release.

Trust me, this is a game you will enjoy playing. I'd confirm your laptop specs with other laptop owners first, however, as I know the game has been more finicky with laptops than desktops in some instances.

[sarcasm] Yes, there is a conspiracy among game reviewers, and I blame Bush [sarcasm]

My laptop specs:

Inspiron 9300
Pentium M 750 (1.86GHz/533 MHz)
1 GB DDR2
80 GB ATA Hardrive
256 MB NVIDIA 6800