Greatest disappointement ever

Solver · August 10, 2001, 04:54

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 · August 10, 2001, 05:03

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 · August 10, 2001, 05:11

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

LaRusso · August 10, 2001, 05:18

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

Grim Legacy · August 10, 2001, 05:24

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 · August 10, 2001, 05:26

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 · August 10, 2001, 05:32

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 · August 10, 2001, 05:32

Quote:

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 · August 10, 2001, 05:35

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 · August 10, 2001, 05:37

Quote:

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 · August 10, 2001, 05:39

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?????

LaRusso · August 10, 2001, 05:41

Quote:

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 · August 10, 2001, 05:43

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 · August 10, 2001, 05:50

Quote:

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.

LaRusso · August 10, 2001, 05:59

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...

Grim Legacy · August 10, 2001, 06:02

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
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...

Ok.

Well let me just say that epilepsy is a condition that is quite rare. if you seriously suffer from epileptic seizures, the use of a LCD screen might be advisable.

Buck Birdseed · August 10, 2001, 06:09

Grim: 3%? Hardly. 45% of everyone who uses this site (according to these statistics) have "inferior" resolutions. Monitors are one of those components that do not drop in price dramatically at the same reverse exponential rate as most hardware, and it's often not the priority during an upgrade. When I ask myself what would increase gaming performance the most- a 17" monitor or that extra DIMM of RAM and that nice new processor I've been looking at I know what the answer is, at least for me. Plus, most office machines have small monitors, especially laptops. All the machines at my University (where I plan to play multiplayer games of Civ3) have 15" monitors that look pretty horrid at 1024*768.

That said, I did run SMAC on 1024*768. Although my desktop is horrible at that resolution, it hurts my eyes from size and not from lack of a decent refresh rate. Civ3, from what I've seen so far, uses big, clear fonts that could well be seen on a 15" monitor just as well.

Where are the 800*600 desktop wallpapers?

Solver · August 10, 2001, 06:13

Quote:

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

Exactly. My monitor is approximately 6 years old ! proud with that. And I love it, it was at home when I first got a PC at home, and have nostalgic feelings. And, note that buying a new monitor would cost me the same money as civ 3 itself.
Look, Firaxis only ask for 350 MHz, which is not much - so they don't leave people with little proccessing powers and memory out in the cold, having to upgrade, but they are killing people with little resolution monitors.

Maybe it is the monitor that makes me sick at 1024, as sometimes it really looks nice, I must admit.

But having wallpaper only for 1024 and higher, is laughing at us.

. :lunatic:. :crazy:.

.

MarkG · August 10, 2001, 06:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
45% of everyone who uses this site (according to these statistics) have "inferior" resolutions

correction: 45% of the visitors in the entire history of apolyton used lower resolutions. this doesnt mean that percentage is the same today or that they dont have the capability to use 1024x768

solver, it seems like you wont be playing civ3 cause you have feeling for your monitor. it's about time you make a choice pal

Buck Birdseed · August 10, 2001, 06:18

Mark: The price of a 17" monitor has not drastically changed since 1998. This leads me to believe that many people just don't bother to buy one.

But it's not 3%, you've gotta realise that.

Grim Legacy · August 10, 2001, 06:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
Grim: 3%? Hardly. 45% of everyone who uses this site (according to these statistics) have "inferior" resolutions. Monitors are one of those components that do not drop in price dramatically at the same reverse exponential rate as most hardware, and it's often not the priority during an upgrade. When I ask myself what would increase gaming performance the most- a 17" monitor or that extra DIMM of RAM and that nice new processor I've been looking at I know what the answer is, at least for me. Plus, most office machines have small monitors, especially laptops. All the machines at my University (where I plan to play multiplayer games of Civ3) have 15" monitors that look pretty horrid at 1024*768.

That said, I did run SMAC on 1024*768. Although my desktop is horrible at that resolution, it hurts my eyes from size and not from lack of a decent refresh rate. Civ3, from what I've seen so far, uses big, clear fonts that could well be seen on a 15" monitor just as well.

Where are the 800*600 desktop wallpapers?

Hm. I do stand by my point that the resolution is not too much to ask. And, to retain some credibility, I'll point to the fact that there is a big chunk of people already running 1024*678 even according to your stats.

Furthermore, I question the validity of these stats. Your stats have been counting since 1998!!! That means that they are inaccurate -showing results from people who have long since upgraded.

Adressing your claim that monitors are relatively expensive (I agree, but

-the required 17" monitor can be bought new for a mere 107 USD, according to pricewatch.

I also think that "office machines" should not concern Sid & Co...after all, it is obvius what those machines should be used for!

Grim Legacy · August 10, 2001, 06:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver

Exactly. My monitor is approximately 6 years old ! proud with that. And I love it, it was at home when I first got a PC at home, and have nostalgic feelings. And, note that buying a new monitor would cost me the same money as civ 3 itself.
Look, Firaxis only ask for 350 MHz, which is not much - so they don't leave people with little proccessing powers and memory out in the cold, having to upgrade, but they are killing people with little resolution monitors.

Maybe it is the monitor that makes me sick at 1024, as sometimes it really looks nice, I must admit.

But having wallpaper only for 1024 and higher, is laughing at us.

. :lunatic:. :crazy:.

.

More injustice cries out from your post.

6 years old!!! Six years ago, a Pentium 133 was the best you could buy. They require a P2-350 -a processor less than three years old-, which you find reasonable, however. I urge you to extend your acceptance to the monitor arena as well.

Grim Legacy · August 10, 2001, 06:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
Mark: The price of a 17" monitor has not drastically changed since 1998. This leads me to believe that many people just don't bother to buy one.

But it's not 3%, you've gotta realise that.

Let me assure it has. I bought a 17" monitor back in Aug 1997 for about USD 600. Now, the best 17" screens cost less than USD 300.

I admiot it's not as bad as other PC parts, but it's far from "not changed drastically since 98".

Sparky · August 10, 2001, 08:29

OMG stop your whining. It's about time that civ 3 and other games take advantage of new hardware. I've seen people complaining that their PI 166 won't work. Of course not... it's too old. Computers are cheap, people! You can't even buy a Dell below celeron 800.

For that 166 guy, you can upgrade that PI to a pentium pro for $3. or, reach a low level "midrange computer" upgrade to a PII300 for $31. Don't complain about Ram --- this is an era you can get 128 PC 133 SDRAM for $20 (I did, three weeks ago).

And you can get some really, really cheap monitors that run 1024x768. I've seen a 1992 14'' screen do it -- in fact, I have it mothballed in the attic.

The moral of the story, save your allowance for a month, go to [url] www.pricewatch.com [url/], and quadruple the speed of your system.

Solver · August 10, 2001, 08:31

Six years ago it was amazing. It is 15" - for these times, wow!
Yes Markos, I do have feelings for my monitor. BTW, I set it to 1024 at work today, to try how it feels, on a 17". Damn my eyes did hurt. I set it back in two minutes. This is absolutely the worst I can expect from Firaxis. Goddamned "support politics". I'm not the only one!

MarkG · August 10, 2001, 09:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
BTW, I set it to 1024 at work today, to try how it feels, on a 17". Damn my eyes did hurt. I set it back in two minutes.

i dont recall the last time i used a 15" i have 17" both at home and at work.....
UPGRADE TO THE 21ST CENTURY SOLVER!!!!

Grim Legacy · August 10, 2001, 09:14

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
UPGRADE TO THE 21ST CENTURY!!!!

Go Mark GO!

Sabre2th · August 10, 2001, 09:29

Solver: I do feel sorry for you and I wish you could play the game on your current monitor, but you are a very small minority. Most people do not have 6 year old monitors. Also keep in mind that the game will look and feel much different from a windows desktop or whatever. I remember trying CtP at 800x600 and couldn't do it. Not enough fit on the screen. Firaxis had to draw the line somewhere and I'm sorry you got left behind, but the company may not be able to give you what you want.

Adm.Naismith · August 10, 2001, 09:46

Sys req. has been know from a while, now (appeared on Infogrames site) and confirmed today. I don't understand all this angry

I guessed about 1024*768 since first scan appeared, taken from a magazine. I have trouble, because my notebook only work 800*600 (and, as any notebook, can't be upgraded at all

on graphic).

Well, hopefully I'll change it in november, so I'll be able to play the game, if first players will assure me about the quality and low bugs number

Solver · August 10, 2001, 09:53

OK all, do you know what I actually want? I want an official response from Firaxis to this - either yes, it is theoretically possible to run Civ 3 on 800x600, or we will add full support for 800x600, or no, there is absolutely no way one can run Civ 3 on 800x600, and it will not be possible.
The last is, of course, less welcome, but even then, I think it is better than the uncertainity, so a resonse from Dan Magaha would greatly ease everything for me.
But again, I must say, this issue is bringing tears to my eyes. It promieses to be so damn good that I was even going to get Civ 3 the first day it's available - even though it would be entirely possible to wait a few weeks, and the price would drop dramatically. I kept thinking about civ 3, and was rabbing my palms in impatience, and now news come that it looks like I can entirely forget about civ 3 for the next 18 months.
Lack of knowledge might force me, as I mentioned, to first get a pirate copy and seek for possibilities, and only then buying the game really, for I don't want to put out 40-50$ just to find out I can not run the game.

Firaxis even ask for only 32 MB RAM, though I guess everybody has more, as running something with 32 MB is pain, unless all you run is Word.
Requirements are very low, as it has always been with civ series, except one area.

. Where is that cry smilie?

I am also ashamed to be behind the line, Sabreth, but I believe I'm not quite in a minority. In monitor age, I'm in minority, no doubt, but as for the resolution, I'm not, as there are some more people wanting to run 800x600.

Markos, argh. You upgrade your OS, you're still in 19th century because of that

.