Talk:Civilization IV/Archive 1

message: Quick note - Anyone know when Civilization IV will be released in the UK? I want to buy this game preferably before November 2nd for a friend's birthday. Thanks --Raddicks 19:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

message: I wonder if this Civ will be ported to the Mac like previous versions -- this article doesn't say.  Anyone know?  --Quasipalm 18:52, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but if there was Mac versions in past, a Mac version maybe is under development. HappyApple 02:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There was a mac version for civ III which i played, if your not prepared to wait 4-6 months for Civ IV to come out your best bet is to use Virtual PC, or just dish out on an 1.8ghz+ windows XP baby --Raddicks 03:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mac Version

message: Yamla, I removed your addition to the system requirements section. It seemed to be an unnecessary defense of the game's hardware requirements, written in an argumentative tone and based on a short-sighted view of the game's audience.
The Civilization series is played by people who do not consider their computers to be video-game systems, and would not be inclined to upgrade their computer's video card, so it's not a point you can dismiss. Furthermore, it's in a section called "System requirements"; there's no need to point out that it's clearly written on the box, because we know that system requirements are written on the box. The complaint that people apparently have is not that they bought the game and can't play it, but that they know they can't play the game and are disappointed that a Civilization game would be so resource-intensive.
Finally, it's bad style to argue with the article in the text. Articles should make a coherent statement, and should not be a discussion board. If you think the text should be changed, you can change it or you can discuss it on the talk page.
RSpeer 16:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above.  Also, FWIW, the version I bought did not have the system requirements on the box.  Friday (talk) 16:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, wikipedia articles are meant to present both points of view where such a conflict exists, but I don't think you are denying that.  I probably shouldn't have altered the paragraph in the way I did (better wording, placed it into a different paragraph, whatever), but the paragraph as written was and remains not neutral.  Friday, where do you live?  Certainly the U.S. and Canadian releases had system requirements on the box, though you may possibly have missed them (or they may have been removed at your point of sale), or perhaps you live outside of North America.  --Yamla 17:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: NPOV doesn't mean that an article should argue with itself. I don't think this is really a POV issue, as it's such a small part of the article, and the article says many deservedly positive things about Civ 4 that are more significant than "its system requirements don't suck too much". But if that statement needs to go in, it should expand the statement about system requirements instead of contradicting it. For example, "Although Civilization IV has fairly low hardware requirements compared to most new games, many would-be players have complained about these requirements..." RSpeer 19:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to reword it along the lines of what you have suggested here (provided nobody beats me to the punch, of course... I hope to be busy playing Civ4 tonight...), and I'll discuss the rewording here before posting it back to the article.  I agree with what you are saying.  I must admit, I was quite surprised to hear people were having problems with system requirements (though not so surprised with the ATI problems), it doesn't seem to require much hardware to run the game.  But again, as you point out, lots of non-gamers want to play Civ4.  --Yamla 19:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Now that I look again, I was indeed mistaken.  They're on the bottom of the box.  Funny thing, I speficially looked for them in the store, and concluded they weren't there.  Oh well.  As for the article, different points of view are nice, sure, but I agree that the way it was presented before wasn't very neutral.  Friday (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  System requirements 

message: A couple of these problems seam to be the job of the publisher Take Two.  It would make sence to mention them here also, instead of throwing all the blame on fraxis.
:That's a good point.  Have take two made an official comment? --Apyule 05:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Launch Problems 

message: should we mention about wonders in civilization IV? I heard some controversy on the Wonders choosed in the game. (Like changing Hoover Dam to Three Gorges Dam). SYSS Mouse 04:14, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wonder 

message: ACCK!  bbatsell just pointed out that I've been reverting legitimate changes to this article.  Honestly, I thought I was simply reverting removal of information, I hadn't noticed that the edits I was reverting were moving information around.  Sorry about that, everyone.  I'm normally very good about this.  --Yamla 20:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry for reverts