System requirements

this is not your typical game. Most computers sold in last 2 years will play game in tiny and small galaxies. For those lucky enough to own dream machines, the gigantic galaxy end-game will be no problem.

Well I play in gigantic without any problems.
Only movements go not so smooth when I made a fleet of ships.

See my other post for my rig.

I think that way Stardock gains respect by people who want to buy a game and see that a particulair system (pentium 3 500 cannot run a gigantic system) unlike having them to find out while trying to run the system.

My p2-400, which I play GalCiv on, was purchased in 1998. Gigantic galaxies are a problem on it but I can play up to the 12x12 without any real problem.

And if I didn't know how fast it played on my p4-1.7ghz I probably wouldn't have a problem with my p2-400 at all.

I'm playing GalCiv on a P-200 MMX I picked up about six years ago, and I only see problems under certain circumstances where you'd expect a delay in the first place (loading animation, saving game, etc.)

hey folks these are the sys requirements as they will apear on the box.

Minimum requirements:
Windows 98/ME/2000/XP

PIII 600 MHz Processor or equivalent

128 MB of RAM

DirectX 7.0

Compatible Video Card with 8 MB VRAM


Recommended requirements:
Windows 98/ME/2000/XP

PIII 1000 MHz Processor or equivalent

256 MB of RAM

DirectX 8.1

Compatible Video Card with 16 MB VRAM

Ah ok, they seem in line with what the game needs to run good

There are alot games which have rediculously low requirements that are not realistic at all (which alot people get frustrated about )

I have an Athlon 1.4 Ghz with 512 MB RAM and a new Radeon 9000 (128 MB) AGP card and DirectX 8.1. It's just as well that my system exceeds the recommended specs, because I wouldn't think of playing at any size below huge. To my way of thinking, it's not a galaxy unless it's spread out across thousands of light years with hundreds of stars.

what citizen joea64 said regarding galaxy size. i really dislike short games.

'There are alot games which have rediculously low requirements that are not realistic at all (which alot people get frustrated about) '

Oddly enough, my experience has been that everything it to the exact opposite: 'minimum' requirements are almost universally overstated just to spur on the sales of pointlessly overpowered computers.

I have no less than 15 programs that I semi-regularly use with stated requirements that my computer doesn't meet in almost every category.

Can you name a few games ?

I can name one game where Minimum sys requirements where set waay to low.
Wheel of time - if you had minimum system requirements, the game practically wouldn't run, and there couldn't be ANY music at all

Based just on what I've used in the past, and ignoring the obvious (I'm playing GalCiv on a system vastly below the listed reqs): Master of Magic, Master of Orion 2 both had reqs higher than what my computer was capable of when I aquired them (memory in both cases), I've had Win95 running with acceptable results on a 486 with 4MB of RAM, and my computer still doesn't meet the reqs for Diablo II even after several upgrades.

Well the games you see these days won't be so forgiving, rts games run fine on a lower specced machine with low end gfx set but the worst thing that can happen is that the game slows down suddenly when you have a bit more units.(or the cpu)

Also this applies even more too 3dgames. (there is the videcard the bottleneck sometimes in combo with the cpu)
With system requirements just meet you can play these games on the ugliest setting (even quake3 would look better and run better, that is not what people want right ?)