Forums | MacLife

I'll buy Civ IV in a decade's time when I have a computer that can run it.

Zaimejs wrote:

I have it and you'll be sorely disappointed when you run it and there is no sound

Hmmm. Maybe you should start a thread about your impressions and issues with Civ IV. And be sure to include you computer's specs! While I'm surprized that you have no sound, I am afraid of what happens if you either have only the min specs or don't meet the min requirments.

Zaimejs wrote:

I have it and you'll be sorely disappointed when you run it and there is no sound

What the...

How critical are graphics to gameplay?

mo' ron wrote:

How critical are graphics to gameplay?

The recent Bar Mitzvah (youngest son) says that my old rotten slow poor excuse for a computer makes scrolling over the map and moving units jerky, but that it really doesn't bother him as far as game play goes. However, it's annoying and that I need to buy him ( ) a new Mac immediately if not sooner!  It must not bug him too much since he spent the day playing it!

I still haven't spent enough time with it yet.

'Fraid not. After the iMac G5 the next best is a 600 MHz G3 iBook. I think it would probably just spit out the DVD! However I do have a friend with a G4 desktop (I think it's a G4) maybe I'll give it spin over there.

As to the lag caused by the graphics: I tend to agree with my son. Just in the early game, the slow down/pause due to "flying" over the map between units is bothersome. There is also a pause after you move and then again after you hit Return to end the move. In contrast to Civ II MPG, Civ IV moves very slowly and if you have numerous units, this might make the game play too slow to be fun. After about an hour and a half of game play I only had 3 units, one city and just a few techs, and I attributed this to the speed by which I could play. Thus far my experience has been more frustrating than enjoyable. On the plus side I did discover Judaism first! Couldn't do that in Civ II!

Here is a place where lots of Mac users (including myself) have discussed the details of the performance problems we've been having with Civ IV.

I love the game, don't get me wrong, but I've played it on a PC, and there is no comparison.  It's slow, the sounds are buggy, and it is maxing out my processors.

I'm playing it on a 2.0 g5 with 1.5 gig ram and the radeon 9600 128.  I'm above the minimum into the recommended set up.  I can play it, and it's fun, but it taxes out both processors all the time.  There is some bug that is wasting cycles... I think.

As far as the game goes, it's a great game.  It adds many new features over previous versions of Civ, and the game is visually beautiful.  I still don't understand why the graphics of a 2D turn-based game need to be so taxing... I think this was a design flaw.  Or they could have had a "simple version" with no 3D graphics for people on older computers so they could still enjoy the game. The eye candy is nice, but it's not necessary. 

IMO

Glenda has written that it's actually a very shader-intensive game, on par with many current FPSs. Good graphics capabilities are definitely in order for good performance.

If the settings and res are pushed up towards, say, 1680x1050, I'd guess the 9600 was the biggest bottleneck, tho maxing the CPUs out doesn't bode too well either. The game is tracking a lot of data.

Played Windows demo on 'temporary' Dell (that has replaced a failing 550Mhz Pentium III machine, now a server... ; I will convince my father to buy an Macintosh next year. I WILL!) today. Will have full Windows version in 3-5 days. Even if I'd had an top-of-the-range iMac available, I'd still have gone for the Windows version (and suffered dual-boot) for quite a few reasons apart from the smurf performance of the port. As it is it played fine at full res, full graphics and 4xAA (might have to drop that a little though with real thing) on an okay Pentium D and an X600 (I think).

I'd love to play a game with someone in a while.