you know the one
Chasing the dragon of AAA games with harsher and harsher system specs.
Staying eternally pre-2005 that any potato can play.Always happy to start my thousandth game on Civilization IV as Mao leading the People's Republic of China to glorious, global Communism.
But I must admit I do love Rome: Total War more despite the brutal imperialism.
How different is Civ 4 from 5? That's the only one I've played, but it drains my laptop like a motherfucker. Love playing Railroads on that thing
Pretty significant on the tactical level. Civ V is the first one to use hexes instead of squares and also the first to limit how many units can be on a space.
Hexagonal squares made the game way easier vs AI. In Civ 4 I'd always get destroyed by the enemy showing up with 10 units at once, taking out my cities that were defended by just 2 or so units. In Civ 5 I can actually hold that off with like 1 well placed melee unit and 2 archers.
The combat got fucked 5 on. I'm no longer scared and can routinely build/buy armies in laye game faster than any enemy. Just play nice build productive forces EZ outpace every time
my opinion: Civ4 is all around a better game. Most details are just better in Ci4. Except, Civ5's one-unit-per-tile + hex-tiles are superior to Civ4's stacks-of-doom. It boils down to what's important to you, tile based tactics, or the rest of the game.
Addendum question: what if I'm absolute ass at strategy games? I cannot understand enough of Civ to have any strategy nailed down, and that's why I enjoy it. Is Civ 4 better or at least equal on this front? Do I need a bunch of old game knowledge to make this fun? For reference, I'm okay with being steamrolled by AI, as long as I don't need to do any googling to get past it
ok so there is grand strategy and tactics. Both probably the same in grand strategy, civ5 probably requires more thinking the tactics department. in civ4 you just make sure your stack of doom is bigger (more units in single tile).
I mean you can even go as late as the early 2010s and get good gameplay from potato specs
Civ 5 is runnable on most shit boxes because frame rate really doesn't matter much. Played it on a shitty Celeron for a very long time
Amen to that. I keep going back to pixel graphics and games old enough to have cd's.
Some modders make great low resource mods, but anything Forge is awful about this. TheCaveMinersWorld is one of my favorite non-forge mods ever, and is pretty much invisible performance wise, even with minor improvements in some areas.
But I don't want low resource mods
I want a million billion dragons and swords
The specs required to run high render distance mods with beautiful shaders keep going down. There’s legit work being done if you don’t fall into the trap of moving the goalpost every time a new wave of mods comes out.
“Paradox did a somewhat decent job optimizing CK3 so surely Vicky 3 will get a similar treatment, right?”
-My naive ass once upon a time
these cockfucks said 1.6 was going to have performance improvements and it literally made the game 3x slower at the start and it's still this way and they're just like "idk ummmm AMD???"
This is exactly how Stellaris went for years.
Paradox - "Hey, this patch should make Stellaris run 2x faster after 2300!" Reality - Game runs more sluggishly than ever
Every. Fucking. Time. I'm not sure they've fixed it as of late since I've not played since before the last couple of DLC. Might have to fire it up again and try to not play commie foxes in space (I will)
It’s literally unplayable now on console it’s so slow. Like they are basically just scamming people by still selling it
how they manage to get a game that could've been implemented in fucking excell to run slow is beyond me.
it's because it has a lot of shit to track that it's constantly tracking that is constantly updating and sometimes they're like "hey what if we put in more shit to track"
Tbh I've made spreadsheet files that crashed my laptop
Probably should have been in a database at that point but can't be fucked to learn SQL or whatever
I just tried to boot up CK3 on my steamdeck and the whole game crashed, this is optimized? Are you saying that if I can get it to load it'll run decently?
Guess I should have had the modifier "at launch" since I haven't played CK3 in quite a bit.
CK3's launch was notable for being one of the few PDX launches that wasn't barely-functioning hot garbage, so that might inflate perceptions...
The work-arounds I had to do for Vicky 3 on deck were astounding and I still refuse to play it in the state it's in. -bad at technology
The nice thing about switch games is that they almost never get that big*
The crappy thing is that they run worse than games that have a DRM
*Indies at least
Looking at you Fae Farms, with your 3 minutes to actually start the game after selecting your save file.
I find it wild games release like this and only run on top tier rigs that like a fraction of steam users actually have. They have access to hardware surveys and just ignore them.
One thing I've found annoying is all the praise the original DD pc port is now getting... I don't know who tf memory holed that port but at release it was horrible and barely scraped 30fps on my system at the time.
Friendly reminder that game cracks aren't just for pirates...
hello fellow laptop user.
