Greatest disappointement ever

[Solver]

Now I wish civ3.com would not open. I have never been so disappointed by any computer game, even when I first played Settlers 3, that piece of crap.
Under sys requirements, it states that the required resolution is 1024. This means no Civ 3 for me, as there are several reasons to me for not buying a new monitor. And strong enough ones.
If there will not be at least unofficial support for 800x600, and here I mean making it possible by modifying the game files, I'll have to postpone civ 3 till at least 2003.
If there is unofficial support, I'll still get it, for I'm sure that Civ 3 is going to be by and far the best strategy game ever made.

[Warm Beer]

1024...

oof! I have a decent system (700mhz 128RAM) yet, I have a dinky monitor myself (1024x768 will make me go blind). That bites, for you and for me.

Thanks for pointing that out to all of us too busy looking at gameplay issues instead of hardware reqs (i thought I didn't need to worry bout them... i was wrong!)

[Solver]

BTW, http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...970#post412970 is the previous thread with my whining on it.

[Fidel]

I commiserate with Solver. I have 15'' at work and 14'' laptop at home and 1024 will suck at both. yikes

[Grim Legacy]

Now that I have finally obtained the ability to post I can react to your complaints about the system requirement, Solver.

I think you're wrong to blame anybody but yourself for the situation. As previous polls have shown, you are part of a 3% minority that still uses inferior resolutions.

I find it outrageous that you complain about Civ3 requiring 1024*768...a modest resolution, standard on 17" monitors, which can be had very cheaply nowadays, I might add.
This requirement is *very* 'soft'. I also think there is good reason for it. It's a bird's eye view game after all. Lower resolutions would mean puny, tiny graphics or scrolling hell.

You should check the requirement for other titles being released now...a p3-500 is just about sufficient to run the latest version of Solitaire.

Not that I do not feel sorry for you personally...but don't blame it on the man!

[Eli]

Civ3 wont run on my computer but i'm going to buy a new one anyway.

Actually the main reason that I but a new computer is Civ3.

[Solver]

I do have a powerful PC in other means but monitor. I see no reason to run 1024, it makes me pretty much sick. At Linux it tends to look OK, but Civ 3 is only going to be for Windows for a long time. Anyway, I do have strong, really strong reasons not to buy a new monitor. I fear I'll have to get a pirate copy of civ 3, and seek for 800x600, before getting a legal one. Wish this wouldn't be the case, but unless Firaxis take care to respond, so it will be.
The earliest when I may buy a new monitor is 2003, as I mentioned, but even then I'll only do so if hard pressed.

[Alex 14]

Re: Greatest disappointement ever

Originally posted by Solver
Now I wish civ3.com would not open. I have never been so disappointed by any computer game, even when I first played Settlers 3, that piece of crap.
Under sys requirements, it states that the required resolution is 1024. This means no Civ 3 for me, as there are several reasons to me for not buying a new monitor. And strong enough ones.
If there will not be at least unofficial support for 800x600, and here I mean making it possible by modifying the game files, I'll have to postpone civ 3 till at least 2003.
If there is unofficial support, I'll still get it, for I'm sure that Civ 3 is going to be by and far the best strategy game ever made.

I am shocked by the system requirements, Firaxis are scaring me . I can play any game on my PC except for Civ 3. You don't need a new monitor mate (mind you they are damn expensive), buy a graphics card for $100 and you'll be abel to witch into 1024x768, no problem. You do have 16-Bit color don't you?

[Solver]

My graphics card is 6 months old, only, and can get 1200, or whatever that resolution is. No, I don't have 16 bits, I have 32 bit color.
And I too can play any current game, because all support 800x600, except Civ 3. FIRAXIS, DO YOU THE HECK HEAR ME?

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Solver
I do have a powerful PC in other means but monitor. I see no reason to run 1024, it makes me pretty much sick. At Linux it tends to look OK, but Civ 3 is only going to be for Windows for a long time. Anyway, I do have strong, really strong reasons not to buy a new monitor. I fear I'll have to get a pirate copy of civ 3, and seek for 800x600, before getting a legal one. Wish this wouldn't be the case, but unless Firaxis take care to respond, so it will be.
The earliest when I may buy a new monitor is 2003, as I mentioned, but even then I'll only do so if hard pressed.

If I might be allowed a small conjecture...

The reason you get sick at 1024 might well be due to your current monitor, not the resolution in itself. I'm referring to the monitor's capability of drawing the individual pixels -a small screen has trouble with higher resolutions, resulting in fuzzy images. And also the ability of the monitor to sustain an acceptable refresh rate, your monitor might well be unable to refresh the image fast enough, resulting in a flickering image.
As I said, the combined effects of these things might cause your sickness.

[MarkG]

i'm sorry people, but i'm tired of "low requirements for the people" policies!
i've had enough with smac's 256 colors, i dont want the same happening with civ3!!

solver, you have a 6 months old graphics card and a monitor that wont support 1024x768?????

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy


If I might be allowed a small conjecture...

The reason you get sick at 1024 might well be due to your current monitor, not the resolution in itself. I'm referring to the monitor's capability of drawing the individual pixels -a small screen has trouble with higher resolutions, resulting in fuzzy images. And also the ability of the monitor to sustain an acceptable refresh rate, your monitor might well be unable to refresh the image fast enough, resulting in a flickering image.
As I said, the combined effects of these things might cause your sickness.

ever tried playing at 21''? if you do not vomit, you should enlist in air corpse....
15'' is just fine. i see no real reason to upgrade to 17 except for this darn thingie....

[MarkG]

just saw the other other thread.

if when upgrading 6 months ago, you decided to not get a new monitor(a 15" at least, they are very cheap) and instead get a new graphics card, it's your fault!

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by LaRusso


ever tried playing at 21''? if you do not vomit, you should enlist in air corpse....
15'' is just fine. i see no real reason to upgrade to 17 except for this darn thingie....

You seem to confuse screen size with resolution as well. Though they have to do with each other, they are not the same.
I personally have just 17 and 19 inch screens. I run the 17" at 1024*768 and the 19" at 1280*1024. I can assure you there is no inherent quality that makes higher resolutions cause sickness.

Now...1024*678 is indeed a tad high for a 15" monitor, so that's probably also why you dislike that res. Your 15" hasn't got enough dots to display the res properly and/or hasn't got the juice to fire the electron guns quickly enough to negate refresh rate issues.

[Fidel]

i am not confusing it. running 1024 on small screen is as painful for the eyes.....and gets better only if you have a big screen...by which time you get epileptic because it is so big...