Cities Unlimited

[Arthuryazhemskiy 0]

didnt the river floor in simcity 2000? why did they get rid of random disasters?

[JCS072488 0]

I would love to set my own climate in my cities. In each season the wheather would change to rainy to hot and muggy to cold and dry like it does in some places in real life.

[JCS072488 0]

I wish you was able to plop down some trees on your own where it need them.

[rctshack 182]

Originally posted by: Elaclairee Yeah yeah, you want it ALL to be in the base game, but wouldn't you rather them take the extra time and just go all-out with it, then deliver it 6-8 months later?quote>

If it's not an extra $30 then sure. But a game shouldn't need to rely on add-on's, it should be worthwhile right out of the box. I'm not against expansions, but they shouldn't be thought about until after a great game is made and sells well, then the developers can think to themselves what are fans wanting. They shouldn't plan right now what expantions to make, because they have time to add it to the game right now.

[Elaclairee 0]

But the longer they take, the higher thier expenses go, the harder it is to get a good profit, the less likely they are to add or make a new version. Plus, if they don't have to put as much focus on something that could be as complex as weather/seasons and the effects it has on your city, they can spend more time on the actual core game play effects. True, a franchise like Sims 2 is only good because of the EP's, but thats because they purposefully put out an extremely hollow shell of a game. I'm just saying I'd rather see them focus more on the core game, and then build some great additions later on.

In any sort of simulation game, especially a city builder, the core mechanics are extremely difficult and time consuming to make, and especially so to do right. Let them get the things in that need to be there, things that would screw up the game if added later. Expansions are meant to add to the game play, not screw it up like RushHour did for SC4.

[MayorCain 2]

They god rid of random disasters to enhance the 'god-mode' gimmick.

You are god... so therefore you are in control of disasters.

Disasters had been relegated to a pointless extra.

Disasters prior to Sim City 4 were there to challenge you and mess things up to force you to change strategy or clean up the mess, which removed profitable buildings and could potentially bankrupt a city. But, they could be turned off so players didnt moan 'My whole downtown was destroyed and now I hate this game' etc etc.

The disasters in Sim City 4 werent random so didnt really provide a challenge, because you chose where they appeared, where they went and for how long most of the time. I think, because Maxis games have a very 'story-telling' base (City Journals and Sim-Diaries/Movies), disasters were simply there to help you tell a story or to provide a cool picture. And just if you were stressed and felt like killing millions of sims and unleashing untold destruction mwahahahaha!

I personally aint big fan of random disasters cuz they jus... annoy me. Similar to 'Galactic Events' in Gal. Civ 2 Dark Avatar, which purposefully upset the balance of gameplay to force you to change strategy and your method of play...

[rctshack 182]

Originally posted by: Elaclairee But the longer they take, the higher thier expenses go, the harder it is to get a good profit, the less likely they are to add or make a new version. Plus, if they don't have to put as much focus on something that could be as complex as weather/seasons and the effects it has on your city, they can spend more time on the actual core game play effects. True, a franchise like Sims 2 is only good because of the EP's, but thats because they purposefully put out an extremely hollow shell of a game. I'm just saying I'd rather see them focus more on the core game, and then build some great additions later on.

In any sort of simulation game, especially a city builder, the core mechanics are extremely difficult and time consuming to make, and especially so to do right. Let them get the things in that need to be there, things that would screw up the game if added later. Expansions are meant to add to the game play, not screw it up like RushHour did for SC4.quote>

But the sims 2 is doing the same expantions over and over... and I doubt if they included the first 3 expansions into the actual game... they would have not lost money on the game.

[Jumorgan 0]

Originally posted by: theyeti2001 One of the things I'd like to see if you do happen to go down the zoning path is to be able to split zone densities for better realism and then tag buildings with what zones they fit into. For example instead of having just medium density residential, this could be split into medium res-urban/inner city, medium res-suburban and medium res-rural so that the kind of aparment blocks that you would see in an inner city area don't grow in the suburbs or vice versa and rural areas may have logging camp style medium res, same with say light commercial you could have light com-urban, light com-suburban and light com-rural so that you don't get small office towers growing where all you are looking for is corner shops or farming supply depots in the inner city. with industrial you could make light industrial park zones, dirty factory zones, warehouse zones, farm zones etc so that the right kind of builings grew where you wanted and not like SC4 where you had to constantly demolish those odd buildings that just didn't fit correctly into the area you were trying to create. I think if this had been available in SC4 from the start then not so many CJers would have gone down the "plop most buildings" path and EA/SC:S wouldn't have made the mistake of interpreting this as "Players want to plop all their buildings." quote>

 

Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head concerning the misinterpretation of "plopping all buildings".  I think part of that was because when some of us (including myself) started playing SC4, we didn't realize how much taxes influence the wealth levels and how the overall region economy affects what is built too.  For instance, I once had R$ walk-ups and rowhouses where I wanted nice townhouse suburbs to be because taxes for all wealths were low and neighboring cities hadn't satisfied their R$ demand (demand carries over to an extent between cities).  Also, land value could've helped a bit too to get R$$ desirability.  Stage levels occuring sooner or slower than expected also could cause unexpected buildings to grow...but I agree with your main point, with having even more zone type subsets within the basic RCI.  In real life there are warehouse districts, for example.  I really would have liked to choose between CS and CO, because the sims ultimately chose that regardless of the density.

Hey Badfish30, I recently got a degree in Geography too (B.A.)!  Where'd you go to study?

[JCS072488 0]

Originally posted by: Jumorgan

Originally posted by: theyeti2001 One of the things I'd like to see if you do happen to go down the zoning path is to be able to split zone densities for better realism and then tag buildings with what zones they fit into. For example instead of having just medium density residential, this could be split into medium res-urban/inner city, medium res-suburban and medium res-rural so that the kind of aparment blocks that you would see in an inner city area don't grow in the suburbs or vice versa and rural areas may have logging camp style medium res, same with say light commercial you could have light com-urban, light com-suburban and light com-rural so that you don't get small office towers growing where all you are looking for is corner shops or farming supply depots in the inner city. with industrial you could make light industrial park zones, dirty factory zones, warehouse zones, farm zones etc so that the right kind of builings grew where you wanted and not like SC4 where you had to constantly demolish those odd buildings that just didn't fit correctly into the area you were trying to create. I think if this had been available in SC4 from the start then not so many CJers would have gone down the "plop most buildings" path and EA/SC:S wouldn't have made the mistake of interpreting this as "Players want to plop all their buildings." quote>

 

Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the head concerning the misinterpretation of "plopping all buildings".  I think part of that was because when some of us (including myself) started playing SC4, we didn't realize how much taxes influence the wealth levels and how the overall region economy affects what is built too.  For instance, I once had R$ walk-ups and rowhouses where I wanted nice townhouse suburbs to be because taxes for all wealths were low and neighboring cities hadn't satisfied their R$ demand (demand carries over to an extent between cities).  Also, land value could've helped a bit too to get R$$ desirability.  Stage levels occuring sooner or slower than expected also could cause unexpected buildings to grow...but I agree with your main point, with having even more zone type subsets within the basic RCI.  In real life there are warehouse districts, for example.  I really would have liked to choose between CS and CO, because the sims ultimately chose that regardless of the density.

Hey Badfish30, I recently got a degree in Geography too (B.A.)!  Where'd you go to study?quote>

 

I agree too.

[TheCrybKeeper 300]

 I love the thinking behind the development of Cities Unlimited, Now this is a game I can really dig! Speaking of digging, let's not forget the underground; subways, basements, coal mines, etc.

[Arthuryazhemskiy 0]

lets not also forget the hole digging lots from simcity4 which should have been standard with the game.

[Arthuryazhemskiy 0]

what happened to this thread? it used to be so full of excitement and information and ideas. It just died. Phillip, can you liven this thread up a bit with some info to discuss?

[KeanoManu 42]

We wait for the website or some new information/screens.

[dasilva 3]

Hi guys,

I may be less involved in the different discussions around but I'm still present. I'm reading each thread cautiously every day even if I'm not answering them right now.

The main reason is that I'm working heavily in the website making sure that I can release it as soon as possible. We are all very excited to share with you our views on different aspects of the game and looking to hear from you. Many of the questions and ideas I read so far are really, really interesting and we should address them quite intensivelly in the dev team blog entries.

Be patient, it's coming along... ;-)

[KeanoManu 42]

dasilva: Do you know how long time it's left until the site can be released? a day or two? weekend? at the end of the month?

[dasilva 3]

You shouldn't wait too much time... The website development is done and we are just making some adjustments in the overall layout and translating content.

[+Guest]

Fantastic mate. I can not wait to see the new sight and to get our first real glimpse at this promising project.

[rctshack 182]

YAY!

[lrfox 2]

Dasilva/ any other Monte Cristo Developers- I was just curious as to whether or not you or any of the other development team members have much experience playing SimCity 4 and what you'd like to see in an ideal urban simulator. I know you have all had experience in city simulators, but i'm curious about SimCity 4 specifically. If this game is done correctly, Monte Cristo is poised to steal the City Simulator market from EA which is an incredible opportunity considering their role in all things gaming.

I think it's awesome that you guys are here listening to our rants, suggestions (some reasonable, some admittedly borderline crazy), and bickering. I hope you'll be able to gain some substance from this mess and i hope we can help Monte Cristo to make a fantastically entertaining game that gives us hope after what looks to be a dud in Sim City Societies and steal away the market from E.A.

Finally, I do have one suggestion of my own. One of my bigger complaints about SC4 is the rivers. I'd like a river to be able to move across a region (if it's set up that way) from high in the mountains right down to sea level with cascades and waterfalls along the way. Again, i believe the general consensus of most players is realism, and this aspect of it was a big miss in SC4.

thanks again,

Jon

[dasilva 3]

Hi Irfox,

I cannot talk on behalf of all Monte Cristo employees but most of the ones I talked to, we really appreciated playing Sim City 4 a lot at some point: Some did stop, others still play it. We may be a different studio, we love playing games generally and not only ours

Will Wright and Maxis created a great genre and they are genious for that. I would love to, like many of you I suppose, get a chance to meet him one day, have a sit and a drink with him talking about games generally. When I personally played the first SimCity (I think it was on my old Atari ST 520 ), I just reacted the same way I saw Star Wars for the first time: I couldn't get my eyes of it and played hours and hours.

The purpose of our communication with you so soon in our development process is to really validate our directions. I'm sure you'll understand we cannot satisfy everyone and we'll make our best to get as much as possible into the game. However, getting all this comments and suggestions from you allow our developers to make sure the game could, after release, expand one way or another.

On your suggestion about rivers, I think it's just a great topic to discuss in CU dev team blog: I'll raise this to the person in charge in the team.

Cheers

[lrfox 2]

Thanks for the response and again, it's great to see you guys in here.

[Badfish301 60]

Once again, doing a great job Phillipe, and the entire CU team.. Hopefully a few CityLife2008 programmers start working on CU..

Heavy Fog, the likes of lace>Londonlace> should be included and atmospheric weather.  You could walk in the outskirts of town by a cottage in heavy fog for example.  By atmospheric, I mean, somewhat dreamlike, or almost too beautiful to be true.  

(credit:Arnold Pouteau http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=134257663&size=m)

Other weather, such as heavy rainstorms when viewed near the sun should produce rainbows, or just amazing sheets of rain in the distance.

I may have lost a few of you, perhaps, just a way to edit the weather, or have weather plug-ins would be the solution, so people who want more realistic looking weather, or more exaggerated weather could be accommodated. 

I want my City Builder Physics as realistic as possible, but I want to make my weather a little over the top if I wish. 

Most importantly, and I'm echoing what others have said here, but make sure the sense of scale is correct. This is of utmost importance really.

[lrfox 2]

eh i agree with some of your post, Badfish. Scale is important, and weather is a nice touch but not completely important in terms of game play (we are limited by our computers capabilities).

However, I disagree with the skyscraper in the center of the city theory. In most middle-large North American cities you're correct, the skyscrapers are near the center of the city and the tallest are in the middle. But seeing as this is a game that, as the developers have mentioned, is intended to be marketed towards the whole world, that wouldn't be fair. 

Many cities (yes, even in North America) have pockets of skyscrapers... and some even have the tallest building outside of a downtown area. Paris has it's tallest buildings in different areas of the city (Montparnasse (sorry if it's spelled wrong)). In North America, the tallest buildings in my Hometown (Boston) are in a totally different neighborhood (Back Bay) than the "downtown (Financial District)." Even Houston, in the pictures you posted has some really tall buildings outside of downtown. Many other cities in the world don't follow the American trend.

I do, however like the idea of being able to build cities with supertalls, and also cities like Quebec City (pictured above) with a historic downtown and feel. even combinations of the two would be nice (see almost any large European city). f

That being said, in SC4 you had the option to create towering skyscrapers wherever you wanted. Placing a super tall landmark in the city center such as the Pan Pacific Place by NDEX from the STEX; then zoning Dense commercial around it (maybe even some dense residential) followed by a layer of medium density commercial would give you the effect of a "peak" building and a descending slope of towers from that supertall.

I'd assume that in any new city building game you'd be able to have some sort of flexibility in your downtown, but restricting it to an ONLY American building style would be a mistake.

Also on the weather thing- maybe an add-on weather customizer for download or purchase would be a cool idea. but i wouldn't want to focus on it too much on the main game. Not that weather should be left out, it just shouldn't be the main focus

[Nevets13 27]

Yea, I agree, cities don't need to have a bunch of skyscrappers all together. Metro Detroit has several downtownish areas that all of skyscrappers. Yes there is downtown Detroit has its skyscrappers, but its suburbs also have them....such as Southfield and Troy,

[Badfish301 60]

yeah, that kind of came out the wrong way.. I just really don't want to see plateus of tall buildings everywhere, that's all.    I want tall buildings to be a smaller percentage of the entire urban area.

 

[dasilva 3]

Do you mean that on a game play perspective, you think that getting dense population should be somewhat the most difficult thing to perform in a modern city building game? What other think about this?

[lrfox 2]

Then Badfish, I agree with you. I think it's unrealistic for every part of an entire city to look like central Manhattan.

I don't think it should be the most difficult to have a dense population. In fact, i think in poorer areas, it should be relatively easy. I think that the most difficult aspect should be getting a dense WEALTHY population. Another SC4 flaw was that Apartment towers in some big cities stood above the the height of commercial buildings, so it was almost impossible to distinguish the Central Business District from the Residential areas around it.

I think the game developers for EA/ Maxis forgot that 50 story residential building (a HUGE apartment building by the way) is NOT as tall as a 50 story commercial tower. This is because in most countries the minimum height for one story is lower in a residential building than it is in an office tower.

I think maxis missed the boat on one thing for sure. in most mid-large cities (excluding large Asian cities), the majority of the layout is residences in the 3-7 story range, similar to "row homes and townhouses" in the USA... Most of the similar European buildings are slightly more intricate, but same story 3-7 stories. I think that should be the standard for density in Cities Unlimited.

Of course, there are high rises residences in real life, but they shouldn't be as tall as the tallest 1/3 of the office towers. They also shouldn't be as easy to pop up in cities. there should be strict requirements for them to grow. For example, in SC4, the there shouldn't be a 45 story low wealth residential tower with 5,000 residents in a city that has 26,000 people (26k is no random number, i think that was the min. pop for high density res. in sc4) and vast amount of open land left to develop.

Density in moderation is what i'm getting at i guess. Density should evolve as the city evolves as it does in real life. When you start running low on real estate (be it a game map, city limits, whatever CU utilizes), THEN you start building up. All throughout the world, the center of most cities is the central business district, or downtown. This area also happens to be the most densely inhabited by both buildings and people. density should radiate out from the main area of the central business district and decrease as it gets further away (with random exceptions such as suburban office parks, apartment complexes, hospitals, etc)... i think this is similar to what badfish was getting at in his previous posts and i couldn't agree more.

but to get back to the point, density should be evolutionary and dependent on more factors than (as in simcity) what color zone one plops down. It really needs to depend on what already exists in the city. start small and go from there. SC4 attempted this but was still way off the mark.

Ok, i think that's my last rant for the day. We had the day off from school and I didn't have to work so i had WAAAY too much time to hog the space in this thread. time for others to chime in.

[Badfish301 60]

Phillipe, that's roughly what I'm saying.

It's highly unlikely a city with 50,000 people will have a 40 story buildings (unless it is close to another large city).   It is also unusual to find a city that has  kyscrapers covering a majority of its land area. 

In fact, most cities with a large number of residential condos see this as a result of restricted geography, usually peninsular settings, or locations restricted by water.  Even land-sprawling cities like Minneapolis, and Dallas, and Denver eventually see large residential condos, but only after they get large enough population, and even then not to the extent to which land-restricted cities do.

Residential highrises and commercial highrises should be dictated by different forces, and shouldn't always have to be equal.

Commercial towers should result from strong business sectors, shipping and airline links, while Residential towers should be driven by good healthcare, schools, and parks/entertainment.

Vancouver is mostly a Residential high-rise city, while Los Angeles is mostly a commercial high-rise city.

Adding things like streetcars should bring higher densities within walking distance also, as should subways and other mass transit.   

[Androv 6]

I think the difficulty would be in simulating a large enough urban area to support the number of low density houses, to support the medium density, and then the high density. If the simulator can cover this much area then great, but I don't think modern machines are capable of running a 1000km2 city (large cities in SC4 = 16km2). So we either have to reduce the detail of the smaller sections of the city (ie: don't zone streets/individual lots) or allow the city to expand beyond the edges of the map (into the 'region') as was done in SC4. These 'suburb' cities could either be created directly or simply increase in size as the population and density of the main city increases.

[rctshack 182]

high rises should definitely be the hardest thing to obtain, well the tallest ones. A lot of major cities still have only but a few. Why would a city of 20,000 have 10? It should also depend on heavy coversion of zones, transportation and areas wealth. A skyscraper wouldn't pop up in the middle of Shreveport Texas, it is not dense enough, it will although pop up in the middle of Dallas, only because it is so dense, all transportation arrives to where the downtown is located, and the area is wealthy enough to afford building the buildings. Also Dallas has about 5 different areas with skyscrapers, not only it's central downtown, but they are miles and miles apart from each other.