Biggest Failure of CXL?

[kevinj319 0]

When they got to the point in development where they put the curved roads together with the square lots, that should have sent up a big red flag that they needed to go back to the drawing board. You can't claim to be revolutionary for offering curved roads and then have no solution to properly place buildings along them.

So, here it is.

Square lots

Buildings on slopes use retaining walls

When deleting a road, must delete entire road segment

When upgrading a curved road, cannot exactly match new road to same curve

When demolishing to make a road wider, the leftover space is wasted because all lots are same size

Cannot place a lot if the space is even 1 pixel too small

All intersections are the same, for example, a farm road crossing a highway results in stoplight every time

Zerba crossings everywhere, streetlights and sidewalks everywhere, even out in the countryside

No real terraforming

Zoning by class (caste system)

Unqualified workers will always be unqualified, no matter what education you provide. And so on.

Mayors shouldn't trade with other cities for business needs, the free market should do that

What is the thought process behind trading workers to another city? Where does this occur?

Location of resources on the map restricts where you can build (i.e. forces farms in the middle of the map, etc)

This is just off the top of my head.

[rtil 1]

I hate to bring up another complaint about this game.. I actually didn't think the demo was all that bad although it didn't convince me to pre-order. However I have to say, creating a custom avatar was a really frustrating experience. I couldn't make a custom character without him looking like a middle-aged creepster. I ended up just trying to make him look as hilarious as possible because of the terrible modeling tools, and I guess the demo doesn't allow you to make a female avatar. The in-game models + animations for the people were equally terrible.

Does anyone know if they are going to improve on this, or does anyone from MC want to say anything about it? The avatar offer is a considerable part of the "online experience", considering the lack thereof, I think they should offer a little more wiggle room in terms of what you want it to look like. Are those avatars simply butt-ugly, or am I just imagining things?

[morriswalters 16]

Couple of things.  It is possible to upgrade curved roads if homes are on one side.  See above pictures.  Roads snap to homes.  Start your road at the ceter of a house.  The game will space it correctly.  Snap at the center of the next home.  Rinse and repeat.  Having said this, curved roads extract a price.  They are fussy and require effort.

Square lots.  I wish it were otherwise, but it's not. Is there a city builder that has any other type?

Retaining walls.  Fact of life in a 3D game.  This is a player issue. Just because you can build something, doesn't mean you should.

Deleting road segments.  Use marker roads to isolate the roads, then delete.

Pretty poor planning.  All small roads in the game can be used as markers for larger roads. Roads require planning both in RL and in the game.

If it don't fit, it don't fit.

Yeah, I wish they would change this.  However rural roads behave somewhat differently, and are useful in avoiding some of the problems with paved roads.

Sure there is terraforming, however not anywhere near as robust as SC4.  Lots of maps though, a maybe a map editor later?????

I grew up in an unqualified neighborhood, got an education and moved uptown.  Dad said he was to old to upgrade and decided to stay with his friends.  Isn't fantasy great.  However this is really about the lack of an auto upgrade mechanism.

I hear this about Mayors,  but I have to ask, does this make sense? There is no one in your city with you.  Your playing a game.  There is no one else to make choices.  Like it or don't, Monte Cristo has made trade part of the game.

When Boulder Dam was built workers came from all over the US to work there. Cities were built for them.  And transient labor is used all over the world.  However I find this one of the games weakest points. Primarily developed for blueprints I believe.

I suspect resource balancing to be a continuing issue.

Enough fun.  Think for yourself , I do.

This is my very humble opinion and not to be confused with truth or the  facts.

[kevinj319 0]

WIth some effort and in certain situations you can eventually line up a new curved road with an old one, no one is disputing that. After a little while playing the game, this gets tiresome. Dragging a new road over an old one should be an option to avoid all of this.

As for square lots... the fact that other games have this limitation does not excuse it. You can make curved roads or roads at any angle, yet each lot is a huge square? Back to the drawing board.

Retaining walls are not a fact of life, it's lazy design. If you don't mind them, that's fine, but lets not blame the player for the recycling of poor design concepts.

Deleting road segments. I shouldn't have to lay down roads in order to delete roads.

I shouldn't have to lay down guide roads and then delete them. This is a work-around, not a solution. That's the difference between a great game and something that seems thrown together and incomplete.

If the lot sizes were flexible, the fact that an area was slightly out-of-square wouldn't be an issue.

There should be a variety of intersections that can be customized by clicking on them. The intersections would affect traffic flow. Right now, there is only one intersection type so they don't even figure into the traffic calculation. Why should traffic on a large avenue or a highway have to stop at a traffic light for every tiny road that crosses?

Terraforming just doesn't work right. It doesn't have to be like SC4 where you can level the whole map.

The type of neighborhood should be decided by property value, safety, education, etc, not by fiat. Neighborhoods should change over time. Whether those changes happen too quickly/easily in SC4 could be debated, but they don't happen at all in CXL.

There are certain things that should happen as part of the simulation, and those are the things that you as a player do not have direct control over. The simulation should deal with shortages and surpluses in a way that simulates individual business owners making decisions. I'm just not interested in a socialist simulation where the city owns all of the resources

Of course workers can come from different cities to work in yours. This happens in reality, too. But no one orders them where to go. They should do this by choice (as part of the simulation), not because they are ordered to do so.

[Rallo00 0]

 

Retaining walls?

[ Resized image - max for ST is 800x600...   also that is a Sim City 4 screen shot not CXL.]

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

Rallo00, that city needs major terraforming. looks like one of my cities when I first started playing and did not think to deal with terrain. In SC4 it can be dealt with and made a non issue in most cases. If it's yours you can flatten the terrain and you will not have retaining walls all over the place. Cannot say what I saw in the beta due to NDA concerning this issue in CXL. Wait for reviews.

[kevinj319 0]

Yes Rallo00, good job identifying "retaing walls" [sic] in SC4. This is about CXL. Reducing or removing retaining walls was, as I remember, one of the popular suggestions offered to MC back at the beginning.

[pipvac 0]

This made me chuckle. The vast number of negative comments on Simtropolis have been as a result of both direct comparisons with SC4 and reference to past discussions. When someone points out the same flaw exists in SC4 as well, he is derided.

I understand the emotions involved in the Simtropolis community. Clearly there was a sense of ownership of the project due to the initial consultation process with MC. There is an obvious sense of 'betrayal' from many posters.

However, I think I will wait for more objective reviews from the independant press before making any decision, rather than based on anything said here.

In the meantime I will contine to play and enjoy SC4. The CitiesXL demo was intriguing but was not enough for me to base a decision. The question on value for money for the Planet Offer remains open, and I look forward to less emotional responses from my regular trusted games reviewers.

[pipvac 0]

Let me qualify my post a little bit as it sounds harsher than I intended...

My interest in Cities XL is as a gaming experience in the genre that I enjoy, but view independantly of those that came before it.

For example, I love first person shooters. As a massive Counter Strike fan, I was always hungry for the next FPS to hit the streets. When I looked at Call of Duty, I was not anticipating a Counter Strike 2, but something different, that would excite me in a similar way. Appealing to my gaming skills and enjoyment in the same way, but offering something fresh and new.

Certainly I would expect the developers to improve the genre, by seeking to better those before it. At the same time, I new the content wouldn't necessarily be the same, and the play style would almost inevitably be different. Thank goodness. Afterall, I want something new, not something repolished with a new name.

My hope is that Cities XL, relative to the genre rather than SC4 will do something similar. The jury is still out on that one. Only time will tell, after the independant reviewers get their hands on the release code.

[DazzaDazza 29]

Originally posted by: kevinj319

popular suggestions offered to MC back at the beginning.quote>

HA, there where many of those 

 

Indeed square lots are a problem now, but what is done is done, and maybe it will change over time with custom content     

on a side note jenYpe what is with the duck

[gabry85 2]

Originally posted by: Rallo00

 

Retaining walls?

[ Resized image - max for ST is 800x600...   also that is a Sim City 4 screen shot not CXL.]

quote>

Heh, nice try, dude.

Retaining walls were indeed a plague in SC4, but, as long as I can control their position (an apartment building basement connected to the road below, a promenade on a cliff, a dam) they're not that annoying, but they were particularly bad on low-density houses. Don't forget I can still terraform to correct the problem. You can't even terraform in CXL.

Even though this was a workaround, at least you can make nice suburbs on slopes, even on steep hills. Here's an image taken directly from the Omnibus:

While in SC4 some of the lots are separated from their respective buildings, (so they can have random props such as a swimming pool or a nice backyard), in Cities XL ALL buildings and lots are one thing. Keep in mind that these lots are even smaller than those in CXL and they keep popping up fresh and new because of random props, hence much more realistic and less redundant. Look at that bus stop on the left of this image: the terrain automatically fixed itself as you plopped it. And don't forget the small park tiles, also shown in this image.

Can we avoid retaining walls in SimCity 4? Yes We Can!

Except for curved roads and 3D, SimCity 4 (Vanilla, no Rush Hour) still beats Cities XL in ANY other department: regions, lot sizes, zone upgrading, highways, mass transportation, terraforming, budget management (taxes and ordinances), utilities, stats & graphs, civic management (MUCH cheaper), custom content freedom, no limited City Links (to support Region Play), no City Hall at start restriction, save button (such a basic feature, lol), unlockables (only for special rewards), bulldozing (of small sections of roads or a whole area), etc., etc., etc...

[Asheroo 53]

Originally posted by: kevinj319

Yes Rallo00, good job identifying "retaing walls" [sic] in SC4. This is about CXL. Reducing or removing retaining walls was, as I remember, one of the popular suggestions offered to MC back at the beginning.quote>

That was my ultimate legendary Buildings On Slopes thread.

Well, from the images we have of the Ski GEM, the way the issue is handled is great! They have solved the building on slopes problem in the Ski GEM, but all they need to do now is do it for the normal game. Looks great too.

[MandelSoft 2,775]

Originally posted by: gabry85

Except for curved roads and 3D, SimCity 4 (Vanilla, no Rush Hour) still beats Cities XL in ANY other department: regions, lot sizes, zone upgrading, highways, mass transportation, terraforming, budget management (taxes and ordinances), utilities, stats & graphs, civic management (MUCH cheaper), custom content freedom, no limited City Links (to support Region Play), no City Hall at start restriction, save button (such a basic feature, lol), unlockables (only for special rewards), bulldozing (of small sections of roads or a whole area), etc., etc., etc...

quote>

I completely agree with that. I think when you compare CXL to SC4, you should compare it with the standard version (SC4 vanilla without Rush Hour). Even then it beats CXL handsdown, as far as I know.

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

on a side note JanYpe what is with the duckquote>

   Ah!   The duck.   Well the ST duck is a mystical entity of Simtropolis that only Dirk knows the true depth of its powers. 

Oh and it holds way more powerful properties than a moderator's sheild.  

[morriswalters 16]

One thing that holds true with either game is that either the model or the tile holds level.  If the terrain is not level then some kind of foundation will have to be used.  Those lots of the SC4 screen shots look really good, however it is possible for those same lots to look really bad with stretching and other things. And the buildings have foundations.  I can't see well.  Where do those sidewalks lead to?   Screen shots of CXL show some buildings without lots.  Look closely at farm buildings.   In point of fact there is a building in the demo with no foudation.  The windmill.  It looks good until you look close. To my knowledge there is no solution to this problem with any  3D engine.  Google earth has some of these same issues.  Model makers add terrain to keep buildings from hovering above the map.   Limitations show the quality of the builder.  In both games it is possible to  overcome some of the limitations of the game.  Currently SC4 has the advantage here, it's been here longer and people understand it better.  CXL is much more sensitive to unlevel terrain then SC4.  For one thing you can't see it as well.  One thing that SC4 did extremely well was to make the texture on the terrain reactive, you can see your changes.  In CXL the  textures stretch, but they don't change.  It will be interesting to see how model makers deal with this.

[Lukfi 3]

Originally posted by: mrtnrln

 I completely agree with that. I think when you compare CXL to SC4, you should compare it with the standard version (SC4 vanilla without Rush Hour). Even then it beats CXL handsdown, as far as I know.quote>

Don't forget that you're comparing a full game to a demo version.

[Soviet779 1]

Originally posted by: Lukfi

Originally posted by: mrtnrln

 I completely agree with that. I think when you compare CXL to SC4, you should compare it with the standard version (SC4 vanilla without Rush Hour). Even then it beats CXL handsdown, as far as I know.quote>

Don't forget that you're comparing a full game to a demo version.quote>

Yes and the purpose of a demo is to demonstrate what the full game will be like. If a demo sucks theres a very good chance the full game will suck.

[asd195 1]

highways are only buildable when you get to a certian poulation. which is stupid. I like to just plan with highways then roads then streets to kind of premake a city

[spa 970]

Well as a custom content creator, having to get custom content approved and adapted by MC pretty much is the final straw for me. I tried the game and it's fun in some ways and I figured it might find a home alongside SC4 on my computer since it does somethings way better than SC4 does (curves, traffic simulation being two off hand). I stopped seeing XL as a replacement for SC4 a while ago as details came out, but I figured the two could fill different niches on my computer. These days, however, I don't think XL will even make that cut since I really have limited gaming time.

[LivingInThePast 364]

I know some awfully bad things have been said about Monte Cristo recently, but no one has brought up any specific things they promised. Right now everyone seems to be complaining about mass transit and how MC "betrayed the community" but other things, such as the Multiple Lane Tool dropped off the radar entirely. MC has even removed the developer blog, erasing records of promises. Another thing I noticed is MC was "heavily inspired" by the NAM but the only thing I've seen really nothing of anything by it.

What about you? What else did MC promise but not deliver?

[JakeMD 107]

I am pretty sure Monte Cristo didn't "Promise" anything, especially over the internet. They may have put out ideas, or future plans, but plans change.

[USA_Pride 49]

I'm not aware of any "promises", I didn't follow that closely and I wasn't in the beta. However, promises aside, there were a lot of expectations people had that weren't included, for example:

- Mass Transit

- The ability to save your cities in a fully featured game and not have to pay a monthly subscription

- The ability to do in-place upgrades of roads

- Different lot sizes

- More in-depth game play

To be fair, judging by the demo, there are some things that MC did right:

- Curving roads

- Fully 3D

Yes, I understand that SC4 wasn't perfect at launch, but the bottom line is that this game competes with SC4. The most fierce competition for CXL is a nearly 7 year old game, and SC4 in it's current condition absolutely wins that battle in my opinion.

[Tropod 144]

Originally posted by: USA_Pride

I'm not aware of any "promises", I didn't follow that closely and I wasn't in the beta. However, promises aside, there were a lot of expectations people had.........quote>

And there lies the problem;

*peoples expectations*.

Some people tend to think that their expectations should equate to something material, or something being realised, and don't bother to think for a minute that the world doesn't revolve around them...........it revolves around me

My or anyone elses expectations doesn't paramount to a promise. I'm guessing some people don't/wouldn't know the difference.

Anyway.....MC have made several statements here and there about certain aspects, some people have a tendancy to read to much into what gets said; which is understandable. If people don't like something though, the best thing they can do is vote with their wallet.

[kevinj319 0]

Just that they were listening to the community in general.  I was excited about this from the start, because I thought they would write the game spec directly from the suggestions they got from the players.  They always say "we listened, we listened," but I don't see the evidence.  They demonstrated the curved roads, and everyone oohed and aahed.  There was some business about changing the width of the sidewalks. Big deal. 

Ever have that person who asks for your advice, then does the opposite? He looks like a jerk and you feel like a jerk.  I feel that's kind of what happened.  MC had no obligation to use our ideas. But then why ask?  Why stir everyone? And then a few months ago, they spring the news that, guess what, it's an MMO!  A feature that probably four people asked for.  Everyone feared that was basically dooming the single player game, but we were assured that the single player game was solid.  There was some kind of flashy graphic to illustrate it, too.  Now it turns out, the MMO is the main focus, and the single player is tacked on and not even complete.

Which brings us back to the question, why ask our opinion?

Well, someone on a forum hocking their game is a spammer. Someone looking for suggestions is a savior.  They knew they didn't have what it takes to keep up with SC4's modders, so they needed the modders on board.  The modders are actually competition to MC.  They provide tons of content for free, content that MC could otherwise charge for. They sure got the buzz they were looking for.  I don't think they anticipated the backlash, though.

Or did they...

Jerome Gastaldi:

If we were leaving out content from a soloable game, we could have a back lash. But we’re not going to do that.

source: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/09/02/the-talk-of-the-town-cities-xls-jerome-gastaldi/

Was that a promise?  Was anything they said on the old forums a promise?  I don't know. A product in development can always change before completion.  I do know this:   I don't see any reason to believe anything this company says anymore.

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

 Stand by for thead merge in  3...  2... 1...

Edit.   Merged. 

[USA_Pride 49]

Originally posted by: Tropod

Originally posted by: USA_Pride

I'm not aware of any "promises", I didn't follow that closely and I wasn't in the beta. However, promises aside, there were a lot of expectations people had.........quote>

And there lies the problem;

*peoples expectations*.

Some people tend to think that their expectations should equate to something material, or something being realised, and don't bother to think for a minute that the world doesn't revolve around them...........it revolves around me

My or anyone elses expectations doesn't paramount to a promise. I'm guessing some people don't/wouldn't know the difference.

Anyway.....MC have made several statements here and there about certain aspects, some people have a tendancy to read to much into what gets said; which is understandable. If people don't like something though, the best thing they can do is vote with their wallet.quote>

Tropod,

This is capitalism, not who gets to go down the twirly-slide first.  Expectations are very important.  As a consumer, the world does revolve around me; if you don't sell what I want at a price I want it at I won't buy it!  Monte Cristo is selling something that in my perception isn't as good as the thing that I've already had for the last six years!  There is no incentive for me to buy CXL because it's so far off of my expectations.  Plus, the perceived value isn't there either.  The game is missing a lot, and we are told to open our wallets and subscribe at $9.25 a month to an undefined promise for additional content!

This isn't a matter of what's fair!  It's a matter of what will motivate people to buy the game.  For example, when I found out that Half Life 2: Episode 1 only had about 6 hours of gameplay I wasn't willing to pay the full price for it.  6 hours of gameplay does not meet my expectations as a consumer.  I waited until the price dropped down to $10, and then I bought it.

[Edited caps]

[morriswalters 16]

Seems like a lot of people putting the cart before the horse, no matter what's been promised nothing has been delivered but talk.  October 9, the rubber will hit the road.  And then we''ll know everything there will be to know. A lot a things are being repeated here and elsewhere, but we have no facts, other than what has been stated by the reps.  IMHO the information given to content creators, what is working in the game and what's not, what content is in the game in terms of buildings is not known today and will be the most important parts.  All we have now are negatives.

[USA_Pride 49]

Originally posted by: morriswaltersSeems like a lot of people putting the cart before the horse, no matter what's been promised nothing has been delivered but talk.  October 9, the rubber will hit the road.  And then we''ll know everything there will be to know. A lot a things are being repeated here and elsewhere, but we have no facts, other than what has been stated by the reps.  IMHO the information given to content creators, what is working in the game and what's not, what content is in the game in terms of buildings is not known today and will be the most important parts.  All we have now are negatives.quote>

Morris,

We have the demo.  The demo is a trimmed down version of the Planet Offer with two notable restrictions:

- It's missing 90% of the buildings

- You can't grow your city past 22K

However, many feel that the demo, which is supposed to be a demonstration of what's for sale, is very close to the real game in terms of fundamental game mechanics.  Many of the criticisms of the demo are more than likely going to hold true for when the rubber hits the road.

Why would Monte Cristo release a demo that is drastically different from the product they are selling?  They wouldn't!

So the criticism isn't being made blindly, it's being made off of what we know from the demo of the game.

[knightrider 0]

The fact of the matter is, they want  to convince us into paying for something in the hopes that it will eventually be good, whereas usually a company makes a good product and then convinces people to buy it.

[morriswalters 16]

knightrider

What you say is perfectly true, how you feel about that depends on what you think about the potential for the game is.

USA_Pride

You are certainly right, however bug fixes for graphical glitches, fine tuning,  whatever additional content is ready,  and gameplay with larger populations,  is what I mean.  I should have been for specific.

In any case, Monte Cristo has certainly given the community a very useful tool to help those people who are interested make an intelligent choice, depending upon their outlook. Love it or hate it, nobody who buys the game can complain that they didn't know what they bought..