A challenge to the SC4 fanatics!

[lord titan 0]

I must agree to the SC4 fanboys.

CXL has some improvements but not the ones expected by the community.

Some game tecniques are even a step backwards.

- graphics : It looks good from far, but far from good when zooming in

- why must all the games be 3D nowadays?? fake 3D like SC4 is more than enough for me for a city builder game. I would have liked it more if cxl would be in the fake 3D like sc4 but in hi res quality!

- bout the curved roads, its indeed pretty unlogic if you have square building lots. buildings should fill the space between eatchother and not have those gaps

- upgrading roads is hell, its a game it should be fun

- upgrading buildings is hell, its a game it should be fun

Greetings

[knightrider 0]

Well, I think that SC4 vanilla is still better than CXL, but that being said...

Where else in the real world do you evaluate a new product on the market by comparing it to a competitor's product of six years ago? It doesn't happen. Fair or not, it's not about being fair. It's about what the consumer gets for their money, and there is already a product available right now that offers more. That's just the reality of it.

Even so, the lack of enthusiasm over CXL isn't because it does not match SC4, it's because it will never match SC4. The reason for this is CXL's lack of a solid foundation to build upon. The simulation is absent and the MMO is a glorified board game. You can pile buses, trains, and custom buildings on top of it, but it's all still sitting on top of the flawed foundation.

MC did not need to include the equivalent of 6+ years of custom content to make the game appealing. To be successful, they needed:

- a fun game with a solid simulation running behind the scenes that is based in reality

- all the transportation features of the NAM, only integrated into the game instead of tacked on

- look at the top 10 or 20 downloads of SC4 custom content, and make items similar to those to include with the game

If they had done this, which would have been entirely reasonable to accomplish in the time they had, I think we would feel much differently about the game. The added content would come later, built upon a solid foundation. An impressive expansion pack by MC could bring in more revenue. The MMO could be added through expansion pack, as well.

That's far too much talk about what could have been... but the point of it all was--SC4 started bad and got better. CXL is starting bad... that doesn't mean it gets better. Some things just start bad and stay bad.

[jim 546 43]

Originally posted by: knightrider

Where else in the real world do you evaluate a new product on the market by comparing it to a competitor's product of six years ago? It doesn't happen.quote>

If we were to follow this logic, would we compare CitiesXL to SimCity Societies?  If we did, there'd be some interesting conversations going on here.

If we did, I'd say CXL is by far better.  It still resembles a city-builder, unlike SCS which turned itself into a larger version of The Sims.

[el_roy1985 0]

CXL SHOULD be just as good or better then SC4. I could care less if the content is lacking, or if there are a few quirks. These aren't just a few quirks with some lacking content. They are huge issues with core features completely missing.

I didn't even get far enough in the Demo to realize some of the road and building upgrade problems. Those are some issues that I don't want to have to deal with though.  The Demo didn't catch my interest enough to make me want to take time out of my day to get the most out of the 7 day trial. There is huge potential, but there are still major issues that need to be sorted out. Issues that should delay the game from being released.

Who knows, maybe they will "wow" us with the amount of changes they do before release. I'm just not that optimistic of a person though, especially not with what I've seen so far. I want this game to succeed so badly, that I MIGHT still buy it and pay the monthly fee in hopes that things will get better.

[Chris2935 1]

Maybe as an act of good faith, MC should provide a 100% functional demo version which is active for around 5-7 days.

I understand their concern with the size of the file and potential bandwidth issues that would stem from this, but if they truly are committed to the community and it's members, it's a small price to pay.

Providing a full demo would at least give people the opportunity to see everything the game has to offer and could potentially bring some people back on the ship.

I am a little surprised that they didn't go this route as we all know it's a very ambitious game with a lot of expectations falling on it.

Personally, I am going to keep with playing SC4 and using all the great custom content provided from the members here until I hear some decent review of the full-game. It's hard to commit to the initial price of the game when there is still so much that is unknown about it.

[Omniassiah 3]

soltangris - to not compare CXL to any other specific city game it still falls short; however, the reason why people compare it to SC4 is pretty simple and has been said many times over again: SC4 vanilla got the basic core game design right. If you took out all graphics on both of them and just labeled the areas on the map with Text indications for what structure/building is there, SC4 base would still be better.

Key simulation problems I have found:

Education buildings just provide happyness, no need to even bother providing schooling for each age group.

Range done by transportation network(Awesome!, did that right); However, absolutely no factor for being overcrowded.

No way to partially fund services, All or nothing means if you make a mistake you can't trim services till you can full fund it again.

No set of actual stats for planning you city (no, the population numbers are not enough).

All or nothing trade system where your entire city can fall apart because some one dipped below their arbitrary number of whatever that makes up a token

Completely static city - buildings don't change unless bulldozed, once its up and running you can walk away for however long you want and it will never fail as long as you don't have any trades going on.

No multi-core Support - That's going to slow things down significantly on larger cities(by the way that is not something that is easy to change in a patch at all

soltangris, I'd love to give CXL a chance, but the problem is they pushed for the MMO aspect and as such they shot themselves in the foot. If they would have cut all the trading and MMO stuff out. Put a better simulation in, maybe not to the detail of SC4, and make a decent single player game in I probably would have went full bore into Mass Transportation or not. Problem is as many people have found out the game doesn't even qualify in their "It's okay" category. Now combine with the fact that MC has been very questionable with regards to consumer interactions and it doesn't lend itself to the give them money they'll make it better. The problem with Mass transportation was we have seen news about it, photos about it, all this information on it and suddenly now its not going to be in release, and we'll have to pay for the option to use it?

Personally the idea that we too difficult to please in incorrect, If CXL could have contributed even a quarter of what SC4 core game could do then it might matter. As much as you are tired of hearing about the mass transport, there are a lot more complaints about the game. You know what we only ever here about the fact it has curved roads and is 3D. Pay for support? Who cares if MC dumps a billion building designs a month after release, Once I have my city maxed out which will happen before then. The new buildings won't replace the old buildings because the game will not change the building till you bulldoze it.

End statement result is what you get from a lot of people: The game itself is fundamentally flawed to them in many ways that would be nearly impossible to change after release without major problems to current users.

[USA_Pride 49]

Originally posted by: jim 546If we were to follow this logic, would we compare CitiesXL to SimCity Societies?  If we did, there'd be some interesting conversations going on here.

If we did, I'd say CXL is by far better.  It still resembles a city-builder, unlike SCS which turned itself into a larger version of The Sims.

quote>

No argument here. SCS is horrible.  I did not buy it, but just reading the description I knew it wasn't for me.  I'm sure some people have fun with it, I just can't imagine die-hard SC4 peeps liking it in hordes.

[Garek Maxwell 1]

Originally posted by: USA_Pride

Originally posted by: jim 546If we were to follow this logic, would we compare CitiesXL to SimCity Societies?  If we did, there'd be some interesting conversations going on here.

If we did, I'd say CXL is by far better.  It still resembles a city-builder, unlike SCS which turned itself into a larger version of The Sims.quote>

No argument here. SCS is horrible.  I did not buy it, but just reading the description I knew it wasn't for me.  I'm sure some people have fun with it, I just can't imagine die-hard SC4 peeps liking it in hordes.quote>

I don't know, sometimes I have to wonder with the way things have progressed since the early press releases.

I gave Societies the benefit of the doubt. I mean, I figured, between the information on it continually getting more bizarre and disappointing and release, something would have changed at the end and I would have been very surprised. No such luck, obviously. With such lack of interest in it from the start (outside of people playing the demo and buying it cheap out of curiosity, and other things like that), Societies got nowhere. Today, long after it's release, there's been little modding partly because of the severe lack of interest. I certainly never became interested in it enough to try more than the demo.

I suspect Cities Societies is heading down the same route....

I mean, just look at one of the screenshots!

It's a wonder people aren't far more afraid of this game! Those dang mimes are back! >=(

(Note that if this game does bomb, I think someone should totally make a Candy Cane Street Light mod for it if at all possible. =P )

[Cyrilix 0]

Originally posted by: soltangris

Hihihi, knightrider, I guess I'm earning reputation as the 'stupid and obstinate defender' just as you are earning yours 'negative and angry'...  But let's see:

- Roads can't be upgraded. True, this sucks big time, I hate it too. But so many people complained about it that it might be that MC will do something about it. Anyway, in real world it's difficult to enlarge roads too, in downtown areas it usually means destruction of stuff nearby. Not that I'd like this to happen in the game, don't get me worng.

- Lack of variety in 'free' zones. True, all we have now is a bunch of lots that 'fit' into the zone. However, don't forget that all this is due to the fact that we only have one size of square lots for now , it's highly probable that in the full game we'll have more sizes, and the engine would try to place different- sized lots so as to better fit the zone we've drawn. Also, I hope (nobody seems to believe it, but yes, I AM the crazy optimist), so I hope that there WILL be irregular lots along with the square ones. They would fit along curves, while the other ones would fill in the rest. Won't this solve all the issues with non-grid based roads VS square zones?

- I don't understand your issue with the parks: do you want to be able to build a green area in the woods? What's the problem if the park is bordered by roads?

- Hotels and leisure. It's the same old discussion about plopable VS growable stuff, obviously you want your hotels and leisures to be growable, but MC decided to make them plopable. Which, by chance, gives you more controll over it. Again, I urge you to wait for the full game and see how everything fits together before delivering judgement. (by the way I agree with you here: they should be growable zones).

Look, I'm not stupid and ignorant, nor have I been paid by MC, I'm just trying to find good points where everybody keeps searching for the bad ones. Of course I wouldn't want to pay for updating the game; I can't even conceive of a city-builder without mass transit; I realise right now the zones look superficious and boring.... There's a ton of stuff I don't like, but there also is tons of stuff that I like. I can see potential here; I can see that with some work the missing parts of the picture will be added.

All I'm saying is: don't be so quick do deliver judgement and condemn a game that you haven't even tried! (the demo doesn't count) Would you say a girl is stupid and ugly and you never wanna meet her, when all you know about her comes from some stories from friends and seeing her picture?quote>

Way to go with your failed analogies. Hint hint: If I brought a girl out to a date or two (the demo), I'd know whether or not I'm still interested. I don't have to marry her for 5 years to tell that she isn't my type.

In my opinion, one of the biggest problems is that it goes on an MMO model. One person in this thread commented something to the effect of "do you complain when you pay your WOW monthly fee?" I don't play WOW, or any MMOs, or anything that requires a monthly fee. All I want is for Monte Cristo to deliver a city builder, with an SDK / designer toolkit so that you can develop additions and modifications to the game. Once they've done that, I don't want to see them again. I've paid them their money, and now it's up to the community to make the most of it to create WHAT PEOPLE WANT. That's right. Here's the difference between paying Monte Cristo and having an open toolkit. Monte Cristo charges money, and wants to make sure that they can continually charge money. They might make something that you like, if you pay them enough money, or they might totally drop the ball and not actually make what you want. The community cares about itself, and cares about what people in the community want. They don't exist to nickel and dime you.

I hope that Cities XL becomes a business model failure, so that future companies, as well as Monte Cristo, decide not to push the monthly fee. Also, I hope that a business model failure forces them to change their business model to the traditional, well-liked model. At this point, however, I don't have much hope for this game, since I've played the demo, and they are missing so many details from a simulation standpoint (tax sliders and ordinances), detailed effects of civic buildings like schools, hospitals, police stations, etc., and that it essentially becomes a game for 10-year olds called "make the circle turn green". The demo also has plenty of bugs, from trades not working, and getting cancelled unexpectedly, to consistent crashing-to-desktop when building certain buildings (there was a commercial zone and a hotel that I was trying to place one after another that would crash my game over and over again until I decided to stop trying).

Edited for masked swearing, against forum rules.

--Liv

CXL Forums Moderator

[soltangris 42]

All I want is for Monte Cristo to deliver a city builder, with an SDK / designer toolkit so that you can develop additions and modifications to the game. Once they've done that, I don't want to see them again.

 

That's one way of looking at it. And because of this way of looking at things there isn't Sim City 5. Oh, wait, you don't wanna hear any of this 'business' and 'profit' crap, right? All you want is somebody to waste 2 years developing a game, and then get dumped by the community playing the game. Because, after all, what is a game developer but a provider of a source code-graphics engine combination that YOU, the representative of the community, don't have the necessary tools to create?

(You can skip the next paragraph, you won't be able to understand it)

Really, why don't we have SC5, after the 'obvious' mega-success of SC4? WHY? Anybody thought of that already? The answer is simple, if you stop deluding yourself.

Because it's not worth the time and expense.

Because EA saw what's happening to the 'Highly successfull' SC4 - the same limited fanbase spend some bucks to buy the game, and then jumped hapilly into modding it. And EA didn't get any profit from this game beyond the first couple of years. WHY? Because the COMMUNITY is LIMITED. It's not growing, or if it is growing, it's a slow process.

So, what do they think? 'Why should we take the time and effort and expenses to create a next-gen city builder, when all we'll get in return is the same community's initial expense, nothing more? Oh, and they'll probably start complaining right after they buy the game....'  

So, Monte Cristo, regarding that same community, and having in mind the above circumstances, realised that the ONLY way to make a profit of a city-building game is turn it into a kind of MMO. Well, their mistake, they should've realised that this same community is NOT willing to support the company in any way, besides providing ideas free of charge.

You don't like how I put thinks? That's your right, of course. I actually understand both sides. The community wants a great game for the same price as SC4, upon which they can build like they did with SC4. MC wants profit. Easy.

So, good luck in trying to squeese some more fun from SC4's limited resourses. It seems you people will be stuck with it for some more years to come, if not forever.

Edited excessive use of punctuation

[knightrider 0]

A city builder could be made profitable by creating a solid core game that we'd actually want to buy, and then through timed releases of expansion packs and DLC. I'm not opposed to the MMO model, but first, the game has to be solid. Then, the MMO has to actually be worth playing. Trade and chat does not make an experience worth paying a monthly fee.

[GlobexCo 33]

Originally posted by: Garek Maxwell

I suspect Cities Societies is heading down the same route....

I mean, just look at one of the screenshots!

It's a wonder people aren't far more afraid of this game! Those dang mimes are back! >=(

(Note that if this game does bomb, I think someone should totally make a Candy Cane Street Light mod for it if at all possible. =P )

quote>

Oh no, please delete that photo, it's horrible, really horrible.

I remember that someone in the Beta chat said this: "Probably EA games will buy MC -- And EA will ask MC to make SimCitySocieties2"

[SimDragon 3]

Why are we as a community attacking each other over different view points about a game. The point of being part of a community is being able to discuss things freely, not bash each other because we see things in a different light. Well you can't say we are not a passionate group.

One thing I think most people are missing in this whole discussion of CXL vs SC4 is when ever you go to purchase something new to replace something old the something old is your benchmark. We really are judging against the benchmark to determine if we are getting our money's worth out of the something new rather than just holding onto the something old. Yes SC4 was released in January of 2003. Is it fair to compare CXL coming out in 2009 to a game in 2003? Maybe not, but doesn't it speak volumes about these games. Doesn't it speak volumes like it or not that we are comparing it to SC4 no matter how hard we try not to? Many City Builders have come out since SC4 and many of us have played them. But we all go back to the benchmark of SC4. Yes you may have enjoyed some of the other city builder games but who hasn't reinstalled SC4 or gone back to it after playing them? Why because it was more fun and it became the benchmark. Plus we have a fan base and awesome communities like Simtropolis that keep it alive. What I think is happening is people are getting to the point of why bother with the new game if its not going to be more fun than SC4? Another difference is the city builder core players are very unique and have been playing for so many years we are very particular on what we want. This could actually be the death of the genre because nobody is filling the niche and the benchmark is not changing.

Maybe if you think it differently we can be more understanding. When you buy a new car you do the same thing if you are trying to just upgrade the same model. You own a 2002 Camaro and it cost you 25K fully loaded. (hypothetical numbers) They stopped making the Camaro after 2002. Why because only the diehard Camaro lovers were buying them and the rest of the sports car fans found the Camaro past its time and lacking in features that everyone wanted. The 2010 Camaro comes back on the market. You decide to upgrade your 2002 for a 2010. You now have your 2002 as your benchmark. You test drive the 2010 Camaro which costs 35K. Well you find out Chevy decides nobody needs CD players anymore so your radio does not have a CD player. Oh you can't get an RS version with a spoiler and fancy rims because Chevy thinks the new style looks better than anything else out there so you don't need them. It doesn't handle better than my 2002 and the acceleration is not like my 2002. It's upgraded looks are very appealing and it does 200 mph and my 2002 only does 140 mph. My 2002 gets 20 mpg and the 2010 gets 21 mpg. (again all hypothetical) So you decide based on your benchmark. It looks cool but I can't get a CD player, fancy rims, a spoiler, I only get 1 mpg more 8 years later and its costs me 10K more. Your either going to decide to keep your benchmark because its not worth the money for the new Camaro that's missing features you really want and your benchmark 2002 is still fun to drive and runs well or your going to go test drive other sports cars to get what you want and maybe buy another car instead. Same thing is happening here folks. Its called exercising your right to spend you dollar where you want.

I played the beta and made my benchmark comparison and I can say hands down SC4 is more enjoyable in the long run and I went back to playing SC4. I will save my dollar for a possible future replacement.

Seriously, I thought many things about CXL sounded good and I gave the it a shot in the beta but it did not wow me. Curved roads are cool in the game but you can't build against them because all the lots are square. After trying to shoe horn buildings in around a curve it makes things look hideous. The Avatar makes no sense to me and is a waste of code because it serves no purpose. Dancing in somebody elses city and making emotes loses its appeal after the first time. The big disappointment for me was the actual lack of city to city interaction. You are playing all alone with a chat window and you can trade some items if you want to but you don't have to. There is more city to city interaction in region play in SC4. I know its been mentioned at nausea but mass transit killed it for me. In SC4 I am planning my mass transit from the moment I plop my first power plant. I think that's why I was so bored in CXL because I did not have that to guide me in my city layout. You can't even plan for it because you don't even know how much space any of it will take up.

You really can't compare the money side of it. The fact is if the game seemed enjoyable and it had all the must have features and the online play and the GEMs made it so much more enjoyable you would spend the money if you could.

[gabry85 2]

Totally agree, SimDragon! Excellent post and analogy.

The only part I disagree... well, actually I hope that won't happen, is that if there's no other game that beats the current benchmark (SC4), the CB genre dies. I too had that fear from time to time and it's naive to expect you can play SC4 forever IMO because it won't run on new computers and OS. I already have zooming crashes under Vista.

Wish somebody out there at Maxis or anybody else realize there's actually a profitable market in CB games, both for casual and hardcore gamers. MC figured it out quite well with the GEM formula, but they lost their track (how appropriate ) on the journey of development with this PO mess. Too bad, really.

Maybe EA will come to their senses and makes another SC due to 2011? I read in the news here at ST in Summer 2007 that if they (Rod Humble perhaps?) failed with SCS, they'd try again. Anybody?

[USA_Pride 49]

Sim Dragon is right, in my opinion.

People say "You can't compare SC4 to CXL! That's not fair!"

If anything, it's not fair to SC4 because it is so old, yet SC4 in the minds of many is still superior to a game released in 2009.

Bottom line, why pay out the nose for something that's simply inferior? Unless you really like getting called bad names by a 12 year old in a chat box, SC4 doesn't offer that "feature".

[Soviet779 1]

Originally posted by: soltangris

All I want is for Monte Cristo to deliver a city builder, with an SDK / designer toolkit so that you can develop additions and modifications to the game. Once they've done that, I don't want to see them again.

 

That's one way of looking at it. And because of this way of looking at things there isn't Sim City 5. Oh, wait, you don't wanna hear any of this 'business' and 'profit' crap, right? All you want is somebody to waste 2 years developing a game, and then get dumped by the community playing the game. Because, after all, what is a game developer but a provider of a source code-graphics engine combination that YOU, the representative of the community, don't have the necessary tools to create?

(You can skip the next paragraph, you won't be able to understand it)

Really, why don't we have SC5, after the 'obvious' mega-success of SC4? WHY?Anybody thought of that already? The answer is simple, if you stop deluding yourself.

Because it's not worth the time and expense.

Because EA saw what's happening to the 'Highly successfull' SC4 - the same limited fanbase spend some bucks to buy the game, and then jumped hapilly into modding it. And EA didn't get any profit from this game beyond the first couple of years. WHY? Because the COMMUNITY is LIMITED. It's not growing, or if it is growing, it's a slow process.

So, what do they think? 'Why should we take the time and effort and expenses to create a next-gen city builder, when all we'll get in return is the same community's initial expense, nothing more? Oh, and they'll probably start complaining right after they buy the game....'  

So, Monte Cristo, regarding that same community, and having in mind the above circumstances, realised that the ONLY way to make a profit of a city-building game is turn it into a kind of MMO. Well, their mistake, they should've realised that this same community is NOT willing to support the company in any way, besides providing ideas free of charge.

You don't like how I put thinks? That's your right, of course. I actually understand both sides. The community wants a great game for the same price as SC4, upon which they can build like they did with SC4. MC wants profit. Easy.

So, good luck in trying to squeese some more fun from SC4's limited resourses. It seems you people will be stuck with it for some more years to come, if not forever.quote>

No its not the community being too small its just EA being greedy, they want to release a new game for every franchise every year if possible, or they did back in 2004 when simcity 4 was released, simcity 5 wouldve taken too much time for a new game every year or so.

Now as of 2009 EA has changed its attitude somewhat (i still hate EA dont get me wrong) in  seeing activision blizzards success they have realised that quality > quantity, theyve realised it a little late for my liking but at least theyve gotten the message. They didnt screw with mass effects development, making for a good game, they made dead space which was an excellent game, i seriously cannot fault it and it came from an EA studio not some bought out subsidury, amazing. Theyre focusing more on good franchises rather than many franchises, probably in hopes of getting their own WoW type game or at least something as good as starcraft/diablo is. This is opposed to the past where EA marketing or EA corporate or whatever would stick their nose in and basically mess the game up, its easy to tell when that happens because you end up with abortions like simcity societies or spore, its very prominant with spore. Even simcity 4 when it was released had a lot of issues that couldve been solved with a little more dev time and better testing.

[soltangris 42]

I agree with SimDragon's post as well. Very well put! Good, solid logic and it covers all aspects of it.

After all we have to admit that CXL will never be like SC, just because its simulation has a different basis. I don't know if somebody here has played games like Caesar, but that's the kind of simulation CXL is going for - more compartmentalised sim, where all parts of the 'society' (used here in the good sense) come together to support that same society.

So, if we are not ready to go into a little different kind of sim, we could as well wait for the next game.... I just hope we don't wait forever.

Me personally, I REALLY hope there will be SC5, but still I'm gonna give a try to CXL, maybe I'll like it.

After all, all arguments are useless, since everybody can assume one of two attitudes - either go with MC, buy the game, try some time in the PO and so on, or NOT go with them,  and not even buy the game. As I see it, somebody that tries to do something in between (like buy the core game, but not any aditional stuff) is just losing their money and time, since they'll get only a fraction of the product.

Although if anybody starts a petition to MC to make all features available outside PO, I'm signing it!

[north country dude 207]

Originally posted by: Cyrilix

  ......If I brought a girl out to a date or two (the demo), I'd know whether or not I'm still interested. I don't have to marry her for 5 years to tell that she isn't my type.

In my opinion, one of the biggest problems is that it goes on an MMO model. One person in this thread commented something to the effect of "do you complain when you pay your WOW monthly fee?" I don't play WOW, or any MMOs, or anything that requires a monthly fee. All I want is for Monte Cristo to deliver a city builder, with an SDK / designer toolkit so that you can develop additions and modifications to the game. Once they've done that, I don't want to see them again. I've paid them their money, and now it's up to the community to make the most of it to create WHAT PEOPLE WANT. That's right. Here's the difference between paying Monte Cristo and having an open toolkit. Monte Cristo charges money, and wants to make sure that they can continually charge money. They might make something that you like, if you pay them enough money, or they might totally drop the ball and not actually make what you want. The community cares about itself, and cares about what people in the community want. They don't exist to nickel and dime you.quote>

Excellent point.

Originally, I was ambivalent about whether or not I would spend my hard earned dollar/euro/whatever on CXL, but, after reading the challenge (an apples and oranges comparison at best), and reading that I would have to pay a monthly fee for what would essentially be CXL's custom content, I have made my decision. To hear what that decision is, meet me on the corner of Ne and Ver.

You buy the CXL installer which is the same as paying a security deposit for an apartment or house, then if you want to continue playing CXL, you pay a monthly fee?,...so basically, you are renting it?

From what I've read here, CXL does not come with a SDK/Editor? I can't make my own custom content? Hmmm, silly me, of course not, otherwise Monte Cristo wouldn't be able to sell me the monthly GEM.

I don't need or want another full 3d simulator. I own Trainz2006 and have more free custom content for it than I really need. Okay, it isn't a city simulation, but I can build one and drive a train through it if I set it up right. I can even walk around in it. I can modify the terrain, the sky, water, time of day, and even the weather. I can take beautiful screenshots and make up stories to go with them. I can even add sound effects, though those don't come out too well in the screenshots. I did get my money's worth with that simulation.

Although SC4 and Rush Hour isn't full 3d, it is a good city simulation,...and the custom content is free! I paid 49.99USD at Kmart for it in 2003, and gladly paid the 29.99USD for Rush Hour when it came out. I got my money's worth. It's now going on 2010 and I still enjoy it.

If what I'm hearing here is true, and I would have to pay a monthly fee just to get additional content, for what I understand is a mediocre city simulation at best, and you want to sell me on it, then meet me at another location, the corner of Nota and Chance, next to Inhell.

[Addendum]

Don't get me wrong, I don't hate CXL, I've never tried it, I just don't like the amount of money I'd have to pay for it. As for the financial woes of software development,...crying about that isn't going to sell me either.

I could go on and on about the number of successful franchises that have released games with an SDK kit for their fans to build new games with ( yes, some of them are totally new games based only on the original game's engine, these are known as 'total conversions' ). Just look here: http://www.moddb.com/

Yes, it's hosted by ID Software for any software mods based on any developers software. So how is anyone making any money? Easy, it's Marketing. It's a free exchange of ideas and a place to showcase talent. Some design teams have even gotten together and developed their own packages for sale to the public. Some individual designers have even been hire from here. This is one of the birthplaces for that up and comming group of developers known as 'Indies'.

http://www.affuniverse.com/home/  -Another example of a beta version game based on the Unreal 3 engine that is free to the public,...for now anyway, it's final version may not be for free. It is also an MMO as well as for Offline Single Player,...I've tried it, stunning work here, I didn't have Unreal 3 before, but I did buy it just to try this mod...but, I digress.

To sum up, crying about the cost of development for really good games and simulations isn't going to fly with me,...I know better. I will buy a Basic game or simulation and its Addon packs if it is:

1) a solid framework for futher modifications without additional cost, and

2) has a very high replayabilty value.

I won't buy CitiesXL until it's complete. If and when it is released with most of it's GEM content for one price, I may reconsider, but the current Marketing Model it is based on doesn't interest me and I doubt the "casual gamer" market will sustain it either.

[to Sim Dragon]

Originally posted by: SimDragon

You own a 2002 Camaro and it cost you 25K fully loaded. (hypothetical numbers) They stopped making the Camaro after 2002. Why because only the diehard Camaro lovers were buying them and the rest of the sports car fans found the Camaro past its time and lacking in features that everyone wanted. The 2010 Camaro comes back on the market. You decide to upgrade your 2002 for a 2010. You now have your 2002 as your benchmark. You test drive the 2010 Camaro which costs 35K. Well you find out Chevy decides nobody needs CD players anymore so your radio does not have a CD player. Oh you can't get an RS version with a spoiler and fancy rims because Chevy thinks the new style looks better than anything else out there so you don't need them. It doesn't handle better than my 2002 and the acceleration is not like my 2002. It's upgraded looks are very appealing and it does 200 mph and my 2002 only does 140 mph. My 2002 gets 20 mpg and the 2010 gets 21 mpg. (again all hypothetical)....quote>

Awww, c'mon, don't pick on my Camaro,...it really does come with many Trim levels from tiny 6 cyl. to the the big V8 with std. shift( which will definitely paste you into your seat with it's acceleration), and the dealer said if I wanted a CD player(with Sirius) I could get it,....

[Addendum 2]

Read this thread here and follow the links: https://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=370&threadid=109813&enterthread=y

It looks to me as if someone saw the traffic on the STEX, LEX and other SC4 fansite exchanges and decided that that is where the money is to be made.

I also read the threads in the custom content section for CitiesXL. Given what is read in the ELUA and TOS for CitiesXL and Planet Offer, I don't think you'll be able to make very much in the way of Custom Content, except maybe some buildings?

So, to sum this posting up, The "challenge" falls flat. You cannot compare the two given what people are most unhappy and disappointed about. CitiesXL has limited Single Player playability, and unless you are willing to pay alot of money over the course of a couple of years, you just don't get very much for that money.

From the start, CitiesXL offers less than what Sim City 4 offered in all it's flawed glory when it was initially released, unles you are willing to subscribe to it for an additional monthly fee. What will that cost? 200$ over thcourse of 1-2 years just to build a 3D city that you can walk around in? I already have software that can do that, and it cost 1/4 of that price.

Given that the "hardcore city simulation player" is a niche market, and CitiesXL had to balance that with the larger "casual gamer" market, I don't think either will be happy with a compromise. Sorry to say, but the "hardcores" feel scammed, and the "casuals" won't have enough interest to sustain it beyond the first year.

Apples and oranges.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

You have 4 choices:

Play a SimCity 4-Deluxe

Play a newer city player game (SCS, CL, CU/CXL, SC Creator, MySims City) that might not measure up to your expectations

Play something in a similar genre (AoE, Anno, Civ, Tropico)

Go open source

The choices picked by fans will change over time so SC4 will eventually hit the bottom of the list for most.

[websta019 0]

Originally posted by: soltangris

- Lack of variety in 'free' zones. True, all we have now is a bunch of lots that 'fit' into the zone. However, don't forget that all this is due to the fact that we only have one size of square lots for now , it's highly probable that in the full game we'll have more sizes, and the engine would try to place different- sized lots so as to better fit the zone we've drawn. Also, I hope (nobody seems to believe it, but yes, I AM the crazy optimist), so I hope that there WILL be irregular lots along with the square ones. They would fit along curves, while the other ones would fill in the rest. Won't this solve all the issues with non-grid based roads VS square zones?

 

quote>

I really hope so soltangris, if this issue was fixed I would certainly buy the game.

[kellydale2003 2,276]

^^^ el oh el

I suggested this in the "would you buy cities XL?". And I answered Yes because compared to Maxis' first release. (Simcity Classic **I THinK!?**). It was horrible, they had somewhat efficient tools in those days.

Considering now how Monte Cristo's first release in my opinion is... "not bad".

Overtime they will improve along with their graphics, stability, and everything else. Right now they need some money and a good base to work with because they are in a big competitive force with Maxis. Maxis worked its way up, but Monte Cristo cannot do the same as they are in the century with HQ graphics.

They'll improve overtime, I give them a bit of a break.

[Fourjays 0]

The whole "custom content isn't profitable" argument doesn't work, as proven by EA themselves with the Sims franchise. There is a huge amount of custom content. One of the things EA did with the Sims 3 was to get all the content creators involved to see what they could do with it.

I think that any future Sim City should take the Sims approach and release expansions, and not to add stuff that should be there in the first place either. The Sims 2 was great with all the expansions, but was still good without them. It was only after an expansion pack came out that people would be like "it's so dull without the expansion". I played SC4 without RH for years and thoroughly enjoyed it. It is only now that I have played RH that I realise it is better with it. But with CXL people are saying it is dull and add-ons will make it better... this is not a good start.

Unfortunately for MC, even if they changed to an expansion pack model I wouldn't bother - the game mechanics are fundamentally flawed, and even an expansion pack can't fix that.

[jim 546 43]

Kellydale: This isn't Monte Cristo's first city-builder. They made "Cities Unlimited" before this, which was very similar to Cities XL.

[City Planner 121]

Originally posted by: Mctittles

Ok can't really say without RH because I just recently started playing sim city deluxe for the first time. I have not mods installed though. I am fully hooked. I haven't had enough time to play because of work, but even though I want to play CXL when it is released I think I would rather continue playing this until I get bored of it. Which from the look of these forums, might be never!

Nah, I'll still save time for CXL, but yea first time ever on SC4 deluxe and it's great even by today's standards.quote>

I fully agree.  I too can't take it all the way back to SC4 Vanilla as I've disrupted my original SC4 disk and had to pay the $19.99 for the deluxe version.  So I play SC4+RH=Deluxe version.

Many people I know on the internet now for 3 to 6 or more years are still suprised that I play SC4 as it was intended, "Working with a budget?" they say, "Why do you still play like that?".  Simply because SC4+RH is an addictive and enjoyable game that fully engrosses me into the gameplay.

Sure I've had and still have a 4GB plugins folder, but I recently had to install SC4 deluxe on my new computer and played it just the way it comes for several months before I started to add in more CC and still found it totally fascinating and enjoyable and highly addictive.  I don't even care to count the nights that I lay awake with insomnia that I ended up playing SC4+RH all through the night and could barely pull myself away in the morning to start work.

With CXL, I've been in the beta and I've played the demo and quite honestly there is nothing there that can hold my interest for any long term period of time.  The all powerful curvey roads I have no desire to build when you can't even get housing to align properly to them.  It does indeed seem that they tried to include some new things in CXL but failed to include the necessary things to make it 100% functional.

The fact that every building in CXL is a one inch (+/-) square is just shameful and boring to say the least.  The developers have said that it's due to performance issues.  If that is so, then it's obvious that more time should have passed before they released this game to the market.

It's already dull and doesn't even compare in features and asthetics to a game thats been out for what, more than 6 years already?  Im not talking about the huge CC that is available, Im talking about the base game and it's simulation core.  The fact that MC wishes to moniker this game as an MMO is surely a death wish for their company to try to compete in an ever growing (and failing) MMO market is absurd in my opinion.  Pushing an annoying chat box window onto my screen does not make it an MMO.  Just because there are 19 other players playing the game at the same time as me does not make it an MMO by any stretch of the imagination.

I was all hyped for CXL when they first announced it and with all the little bits of information that would come out.  Now I i find it to be a disgraceful attempt to suck more money out of our wallets by calling it an MMO.  Originally, I was against their whole GEMS situation, I felt that they would likely hold back many of the single player parts of the game and put them in GEMS.  Now I see that I am wrong, they were holding them back to stick them in the planet offer.

I for one refuse to rent my game from them.  The sheer fact that I can only play with the "deluxe" version of CXL by continuing to pay them their online fees is unsatisfactory to me.  The fact that after a years term of paying if I decide I don't wish to keep my wallet open to MC, I must go back to playing vanilla CXL is disturbing to say the least.

I have opened my mind to GEMS and their ability to add more content to the game, but if they are (and all signs say they are) going to hold back on features and only offer them to planet subscribers, then I must say that Im really no longer interested as neither are any of my friends in real world or online.

To sum it up, to purchase SC4 Deluxe now at the current rate of only $19.99 is still far more entertaining that the vanilla version of CXL is by far, and until we actually see what they put out in GEMS and what they put out in monthly updates (yeah right, even the best developers have a tough time keeping to that schedule unless the contents are little more than some minor tweaks), none of us really knows how the game will be unless we choose to open our wallets to MC, and I for one will not do that.

Give me a solid single player game that is feature rich first, and has some multiplayer aspects as a secondary and I might subscribe (atleast for a little while), but what it feels like to me, is like Everquest, where you can play offline in a tutorial mode and then pay to play the full game online.  Except that CXL doesn't have anywhere near the features that are needed to be an Everquest or WOW or any other MMO by todays standards.

I wish them luck, however I and my friends, both online and offline have already written off CXL as a game that thinks it could have competed with the likes of SC4+RH Vanilla.  It hasn't, I don't suspect that it will, and I suspect that perhaps they will sell enough copies of it, and gain enough subscribers that it will allow MC to keep in business since they are not as large as an EA or Blizzard by any means, so they may well have a success on their hands for thier small company. 

I didn't want a SC4 clone in 3D, but I did want the great features that were in SC4+RH to be built upon or added onto them, and I wanted those features in SC4 that were not so popular to be reworked to make them popular and above all else I wanted a solid city simulation at it's core, all of which we have none (in my opinion).

Good luck to MonteCristo, I think they will need all the luck they can gather with this title.

Edit

Really about the only thing that is better in CXL over SC4 is the graphics.  But only at close zoom.  They are complete opposites in graphics in my opinion.  Zoom out a fair amount in SC4 and it still looks outstanding today (my opinion and it's subjective with regards to graphics), but zoom in as far as you can in SC4 and it looks horrible (all jaggy etc), now take CXL and zoom out a fair amount and it looks horrible, your view is either obscured by blue fog, or if you zoom in a little the details are horrendously missing, but zoom right down close to the level that you can in SC4 and have high enough settings in CXL and the image appears very pleasant.  But turn the settings in CXL to low and well.... The graphics are then actually better in SC4 in my opinion again.  Granted the demo is probably not going to be indicative of the final product but I can't imagine it changing a whole heck of a lot in CXL at this point in time.

[panthersimcity4 162]

Well, Simcity vanilla definetally is better than Cities XL vanilla. Take for example... the fact that you can actually build railroads and terraform in Sc4. And region play of course... NONE of which requires an extra cost.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Originally posted by: jim 546

Kellydale: This isn't Monte Cristo's first city-builder. They made "Cities Unlimited" before this, which was very similar to Cities XL.quote>

Actually, City Life was their first city builder. Cities Unlimited was the original codename for CitiesXL. Cities Unlimited had some features that were taken out because they were buggy and too difficult to implement properly. That means that you should compare CitiesXL to SimCity 2000.

[RegisterST2 0]

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

That means that you should compare CitiesXL to SimCity 2000.

quote>

Is that a mistake?

We should compare a game made during the 2007-2009 span of years to a game released the same  year Intel unleashed the Pentium processor running an incredible 60 Mhz, Microsoft released Windows NT, and Doom came out?

I think you meant something else or I'm missing your point entirely (in which case I apologize).

[Garek Maxwell 1]

Originally posted by: RegisteringSucks

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle

That means that you should compare CitiesXL to SimCity 2000.

quote>

Is that a mistake?quote>

Yeah, that can't be right. ...

SC2000 had mass transit! Ba-dump-ch! 

...Oh, if only that joke was funny.

(And ignored that, as I recall, SC2000 didn't have buses.)

[Ocram's Razr 964]

What I meant was that it was nonsensical to compare citiesxl to SimCity Classic because CitiesXL is MonteCristo's 2nd city builder, not first. CitiesXL is very good for a company's 2nd city builder and is OK for a company's 12th game. I myself compare it to SimCity 4 (vanilla/original, no Rush Hour) and SimCity 4 Deluxe with the Network Addon Mod and I find CitiesXL Solo Mode somewhere between those 2 on average. Planet Offer in the year 2010 should exceed the Network Addon Mod (unless they decide to leave out trams, lightrail, elevated rail and monorail -- which I rarely use anyways). I do not plan on getting the Planet Offer for more than 2 months but I do plan on getting Planet Offer for the month of next August.

[soltangris 42]

The whole comparing think is getting kinda tiring.

Actually , I think it's impossible to really compare CXL with any Smi City game - they simply have different simulation concept.

It's not only 'SC had mass transport, CXL doesn't', because there will be eventually mass transport in CXL.

It's not the graphics either, or the time the game was made....

Or, actually, it's all of those things together! There are simply too many variables in order for a detailed comparison to be made.

I think the only comarison possible is 'I like it - I don't like it'