Re: Bump
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow do you play computer games? I was thinking of getting this myself, unless someone can make a convincing case for Quake 4 instead, or something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've only played Q4 singleplayer so far, but it's basically just like HalfLife/HL2. I'm sure the multiplayer is pretty decent.

They could charge $200 for Civ4, and I'd pay it.

If you're only looking to play for 30-40 minutes at a time, this game probably won't be a very good fit for you. If you're looking to really get into a game and spend a while developing your civ, then you'll love it.

Freakin

Re: Bump
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wow do you play computer games? I was thinking of getting this myself, unless someone can make a convincing case for Quake 4 instead, or something else.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've read some pretty lukewarm reviews of Quake 4.

Re: Civ4 - Review & Trailer
 

what are the system requirements?

Re: Civ4 - Review & Trailer
 

I went out of my way today to go to State St. and pick this up, and they DIDN'T [censored] HAVE IT. I guess I'll go back tomorrow [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

Re: Civ4 - Review & Trailer
 

[ QUOTE ]
I went out of my way today to go to State St. and pick this up, and they DIDN'T [censored] HAVE IT. I guess I'll go back tomorrow [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys DO know it's not out until Nov 4th, right?

Re: Civ4 - Review & Trailer
 

I wouldn't take the minimum ones too seriously. These days even the recommended specs are often well shy of the mark you need to get an enjoyably playable game.

The min specs were like a Pentium 1.8 and 512 megs of memory and a totally garbage vid card, as I recall. The recommended were a P4 2.5 and a gig of memory and a 128 meg card.

I'd be very surprised if a gig of memory and a 128 meg card was enough to avoid notable slowdowns. When I got Civ 2, I had a great system at the time, and a gig of memory, and I had the map catch and hesitate when scrolling all the time. It struck me as a notably unspeedy game for one which had virtually no movement to speak of. Maybe this one uses fewer resources or uses them better, but since it's 3d, I doubt it.

Re: Civ4 - Review & Trailer
 

oh man, I am [censored]. Oh well.

Re: Civ4 - Review & Trailer
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I went out of my way today to go to State St. and pick this up, and they DIDN'T [censored] HAVE IT. I guess I'll go back tomorrow [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys DO know it's not out until Nov 4th, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

was supposed to be out Oct 24, yesterday.

EDIT: Nov 4th is the european release date.

Re: Civ4 - Review & Trailer
 

Check this out from a gamespy article.

[ QUOTE ]
After hours of play and several games, we've come to a few conclusions about the next Civilization. Not only is it going to be one of the best PC strategy games of the year ... it's actually in the running to be one of the best Multiplayer PC strategy games of the year.

[/ QUOTE ]

This astounds me. The last thing that Civ games seemed to me is less than ridiculous as a multiplayer game. But check this out from the same article:

[ QUOTE ]
In our previous hands-on we talked about how the game plays out faster than the last incarnations of the franchise, even in multiplayer mode. While it's true that it's a much more streamlined game than Civ III, further testing shows that you can easily have a single game stretch on for hours. We played a game on a small ocean map with five civilizations, two of which were controlled by humans, and after about three and a half hours we'd gotten to Napoleonic-era technology. It looked like another two hours or more to finish the game off. Alternatively, if you play on a tiny map with no bodies of water separating the world powers, it looks like you can burn through a game in a couple of hours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Civ in a couple of hours??? Now that's more my speed. I'm not a fan of the 50 or 70 hour civ game.

It still sounds like a multiplayer match could be brutally long, i.e, if it takes one guy five hours to play a game, it will probably take two players at least twice that long, stretching a match into a time-intensive two or three day affair. And that might be at the minimum. But it still sounds workable for the real devotees/mental cases a game like this tends to breed. I don't think many people would want to play one multiplayer game after another that way, but of course the real nuts would. At any rate, most anyone who would get the game would definitely fine the occasional ten hour match fun and doable, and probably pretty rewarding. That bit from the article made me reconsider getting Civ 4. A game that could take as little as a night or two sounds much more palatable to me than one that could take two weeks of near non-stop play before you can come up for air.

Re: Civ4 - Review & Trailer
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I went out of my way today to go to State St. and pick this up, and they DIDN'T [censored] HAVE IT. I guess I'll go back tomorrow [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img].

[/ QUOTE ]

you guys DO know it's not out until Nov 4th, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

was supposed to be out Oct 24, yesterday.

EDIT: Nov 4th is the european release date.

[/ QUOTE ]

check gamespot. it says Nov 4th. gamespot is not usually wrong.