Reviews of Cities XL

[geek12 0]

I felt like gamespot's review hit the nail on the head(1-2). They pointed out a lot of the good, but they also shared what they felt held the game back. I also found it intersting that they were.... I guess you could say complementing City Life(3), i wasn't expecting that since i had only heard bad things about the game from the community here.

1. "Taking a city builder online like this is long overdue, so kudos to Monte Cristo for making the attempt. But boos to Monte Cristo for shoddy implementation.For starters, the online aspect of the game is shoved in your face too much. You need to register the game and log online to play the single-player cities, which is unnecessarily intrusive and makes offline play seem like an afterthough."

2. "As engaging as Cities XL can be for those who appreciate straightforward city building, the game is only halfway there. The single-player mode has clearly been manipulated to nudge gamers toward the MMO-styled subscription plan, which doesn't offer great bang for the buck at present."

3. "Where those games tried a different approach to city building with six different demographic groups of citizens that you had to keep separated to avoid riots, the game design here is more of a straight-up SimCity clone. This is pretty disappointing, as the class warfare of the City Life games made for challenging urban planning"

Link: http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/citiesxl/review.html

[Asheroo 53]

@ Geek12 - That 3rd one is a little surprising. That's actually the main reason why most people dislike City Life. The social classes, although challenging, is just not realistic, and most city building fans want to build a realistic city. City Life did provide a good offside challenge, but it really shouldn't be sequeled with those classes, which thankfully it wasn't.

@ Attachtatuk - Yeah, they were a little too harsh in some places. I'd usually find IGN to be the more harsh ones for a majority of their reviews I have read for games I like, but this is one of the only few reviews where Gamespot have been more harsh. I must say, this quote is quite harsh...

"The soundtrack is also barely noticeable, being a mash of woozy jazz that sounds like something Moby would come up with after drinking a few cups of chamomile tea."

Though, the Gamespot review does surely pick up a lot of good points as to why a lot of people dislike the game and to what's wrong with the game. As for the IGN one, it's rather me, or that reviewer rather...

1) Enjoys continuously clicking buildings listening to the novelty sounds they make or

2) Is actually hearing the real world, and not the virtual world.

That 2nd one though actually goes well with the game. I was just looking inside a group of trees once, and I heard a few birds chirping and flying around the trees, which was actually just coming from just outside the window to my right.

Though, once again, overall with reviews, there does tend to be a whole group of reviewers that have the one rating (like how IGN and all those others have 8/10) and how there's the odd one or two out that put something way below or higher, and with those ones, they do put a lot of honesty in it. But we've got to remember, we all have our own opinions, I mean, I love this game, and yeah would give it about 8/10, but do agree with most of Gamespot's review. I agree with it's weaknesses, but what the game still has got i enjoy a lot.

[littlesquare.dot 0]

Aside from the obvious issues, no mass transit, no ambient city noise (<-WHAT THE HECK!?), lack of information, etc., my main gripe with the square plots.

They're exceedingly annoying..   could they not have made dynamic lawns on the plots to fill the voids on curved roads?

Unless your city is comprised solely of boring, right-angled grids, it looks so darn sloppy.  Curved roads are great, but without curved plots it's like taking one step forward, then two steps back, because while the roads may look cool, everything else just looks more sloppy.

And seriously, what's with the absolute lack of sound!?  It's just plain crazy.  It's quite difficult to become completely immersed in a silent city.

So much potential, but for me it's currently falling flat.

[dedgren 830]

@Gamespot:

Unfortunately, you aren't getting a whole lot for that monthly fee at present. Mostly you just get promises...quote>

Heh! And, as those of us who've been around since the Cities Unlimited days know, mostly broken promises at that.

6.0 looks like a pretty fair review score to me.

David

[edcase2k4-thugangel1983 1]

6/10 was my personal "predicted" score for the game after being a beta tester. looks like Gamespot got it right.

even if SC4 and Rush Hour had no Custom Content or Mods to this date i still wouldn't improve CXL's score much beyond that. i think if SC4 had never existed and SC3000 or CityLife were still the best city-builder we had, then i guess CXL would have taken the crown - despite its flaws. although SC3000 had more features and a better simulation than CXL, the majorly superior graphics and potential for improvement would make it a definite replacement for the decade old SC3K.

we don't live in a fantasy world though, and that is not the reality. SC4 did come about and at release had more features and a more realistic simulation than CXL has at release, with more attention to detail too (visually, and through functionality).

Originally posted by: dedgren

@Gamespot:

Unfortunately, you aren't getting a whole lot for that monthly fee at present. Mostly you just get promises...quote>

Heh! And, as those of us who've been around since the Cities Unlimited days know, mostly broken promises at that.quote>

well put David...

and i'm not impressed at all by that latest little promo on the CXL website about the next three things that P.O. subcribers will be getting...

well, maybe when i have the time i'll be able to give some kind of contribution such as finishing my SimCity Series (from Classic to SC4) vs. CXL comparison table, or posting up my "What We (THOUGHT) We Knew About CXL So Far" i salvaged from the now-gone cxl forums, and looking at just how many things actually have not been devliered which were supposed to be in the game...

for the love of the city-building genre, we can only hope that if there is a looming failure of the P.O. that it does not bankrupt MC, and that the company directors and leading decision-makers realise the only way to start reeling in many of us is to start listening to us again and providing the things they promised, and the things we wanted from a new city-building game that would make it a succesor to SC4.

[Brandon8181 0]

Good post above, as I've always said I think Cities XL had a good idea, that they didn't stay on track with which lead to, in my opinion its current failure. However, I really think that it has great potential, if they would just listen, and make the changes we've asked for. I know everything can't be done over night, but has ANYONE heard Monte Cristo respond to any of our serious complaints about the game (yes I know there have been responses to basic stuff like bugs etc) but haven't heard any serious responses.

I would really like to hear Monte Cristo at this time say "Simtropolis members, we hear you and greatly appreciate your insight and we are working hard to improve Cities XL to meet everyones request to better the overall game play and Monte Cristo as a business".... I think that would be a good start. We'll see

Good luck, Cities XL

Brandon

[Coney 0]

Originally posted by: Brandon8181

Coney,

I think "bashing" is the wrong word. For the far majority of us here are trying to help everyone, including Monte Cristo by presenting unique views some good, some bad, of how we feel about the game. Yes, there are a few here who have "bashed" the game, but as I said that is not the general goal of the majority of us on this blog. Everyone was having general discussion about the game and then you came in with the negative comment. I think many of us including myself are just disappointed with how the game ended up turning out since it seemed so promising early in development. Also, Coney, withing the last few months Monte Cristo has changed a lot of things and not delivered on many things that were originally promised.

Everyone has the right to their opinioin, but I really don't think its right of you for someone who hasn't been regularly participating in discussion to come in and challange another users opinion, especially not even doing it in a constructive manner.

Can we get back to the constructive part of the discussion trying to point out the good and bad of the game? Maybe if we continue a positive discussion about the good and bad in the game, we'll get the game we've always dreamed of

Brandonquote>

I'm very sorry if I came on to harsh, I just kinda had enough... I was seeing post and post again stating this and that was bad and why SC4 was so much better. I just don't find that constructive... On the other hand, many of the people who replied to me have made a lot of constructive, explanatory posts - which I found a great change from the usual I'm sorry if I offended anyone though... That was not my goal...

Although I don't think it matters how long one has been a member anywhere, your comment about it was a lot more sound than the other one, and I understand what you mean... Thanks for not just taking it to degrading me off the bat

** Note - I act so promptly on the whole "paid review" thing as it is a very serious accusation, and one that I simply do not find basis for - even if the reviewer seems onesided.... There is so many other, more reasonable possibilities for why he simply just liked the game, than him being paid... And I think it is unnecessary to even suggest it...

[gabry85 2]

Originally posted by: edcase2k4-thugangel1983

6/10 was my personal "predicted" score for the game after being a beta tester. looks like Gamespot got it right.

even if SC4 and Rush Hour had no Custom Content or Mods to this date i still wouldn't improve CXL's score much beyond that. i think if SC4 had never existed and SC3000 or CityLife were still the best city-builder we had, then i guess CXL would have taken the crown - despite its flaws. although SC3000 had more features and a better simulation than CXL, the majorly superior graphics and potential for improvement would make it a definite replacement for the decade old SC3K.

we don't live in a fantasy world though, and that is not the reality. SC4 did come about and at release had more features and a more realistic simulation than CXL has at release, with more attention to detail too (visually, and through functionality).

Originally posted by: dedgren

@Gamespot:

Unfortunately, you aren't getting a whole lot for that monthly fee at present. Mostly you just get promises...quote>

Heh! And, as those of us who've been around since the Cities Unlimited days know, mostly broken promises at that.quote>

well put David...

and i'm not impressed at all by that latest little promo on the CXL website about the next three things that P.O. subcribers will be getting...

well, maybe when i have the time i'll be able to give some kind of contribution such as finishing my SimCity Series (from Classic to SC4) vs. CXL comparison table, or posting up my "What We (THOUGHT) We Knew About CXL So Far" i salvaged from the now-gone cxl forums, and looking at just how many things actually have not been devliered which were supposed to be in the game...

for the love of the city-building genre, we can only hope that if there is a looming failure of the P.O. that it does not bankrupt MC, and that the company directors and leading decision-makers realise the only way to start reeling in many of us is to start listening to us again and providing the things they promised, and the things we wanted from a new city-building game that would make it a succesor to SC4.

quote>

Brilliant post, tr0ub1e, as always. Especially the last paragraph.

Maybe you should consider to post that old thread of yours here at ST?

[Attachtatuk 0]

Originally posted by: LBII

@Attachtatuk

It takes another Québécois to understand the subtility of your nickname! Un jour, il faudra bien un site québécois de fans de Cities Xl..!

Anyway, thanks for clearing a little more the fun aspects of the game with your review! I agree with you, Gamespot is quite severe, but they have very good points to.

quote>

[wondergreat 0]

Regarding Gamespot's comment about the music, I think the reviewer isn't quite knowledgable at the music field. There's no single track in CXL you can classify as "jazz". And the leitmotif (movable la-based minor: la mi lala re, sol re mimi do ti sol...), really makes the soundtrack easily recognizable. The composer(s) also did a good job at arranging the motif in different moods. The only issue with the music is that I expect the soundtrack to be longer and more (variety), but overall the music of CXL is equally good as SC3k/4 IMHO.

[lilm2k9 0]

This Is A Review Of The Demo Not The ACtual Game The ACtual Game Is Better Much Better

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

[edcase2k4-thugangel1983 1]

i think the ST review of CXL was for the mostpart fair, but did overlook some of the game's flaws.

as many of us have said, the biggest problem i see from here is that MC is in no way engaging with the community, and judging by the game's website, the way they have communicated since the citiesxl.com forums went down (only responding to feedback about bugs), and the way they are promoting the game and future updates for the "Planet Offer" only, they have very little interest in what we want to see improved and only want to follow their own directions.

[DazzaDazza 35]

Yes how can they improve the game if there not even controlling the feed back?

[Barabus 0]

Gotta say the reader reviews are much better and much funnier than the official IGN one...this one is pretty spot on if a bit crude...

http://rr.pc.ign.com/rrview/pc/cities_xl/14231775/111994/

[soltangris 42]

as many of us have said, the biggest problem i see from here is that MC is in no way engaging with the community, and judging by the game's website, the way they have communicated since the citiesxl.com forums went down (only responding to feedback about bugs), and the way they are promoting the game and future updates for the "Planet Offer" only, they have very little interest in what we want to see improved and only want to follow their own directions

 

Actually, you're wrong. They do have interest in what we have to say, but as far as we're able to discern, they plan on ?implementing the imporvements in PO only. And before you cry 'We don't want that', I'll agree that it's not the average gamer's dream having to pay monthly for his fun. However,  that's exactly what those millions that play WoW do....

 

As far as I'm able to forsee, we have two possible outcomes of the present situation (assuming that MC doesn't go bankrupt):

1. MC concentrates entirely on Planet offer; it gets most of the goodies (like mass transport), while SP retains basic playability with some GEMs. This will basically turn CXL into an online MMO with an optional single player, wether we like it or not. Again, many gamers don't mind paying monthly fee for their fun. I admit that I'm not one of them, but....

2. MC redefines what they want with PO, or should I say, defines better what PO is all about. I mean, they could add additional multiplayer-oriented actions besides trading and megastructure building. For example,  organising the Olympics competition, or other competition-oriented missions that require real-time playing. Hell, they could think of hundreds of fun tasks that could only be achieved when you play online with others!

In the same time, they could add the 'missing' features in SP, (again mass transport comes in mind), thus letting those of us that want to play separately have our own fun. This could, in theory, keep both camps satisfied.....

Well, let's keep our fingers crossed and hope they won't go puff!!! Anything but that, and the future  definitely holds hope. I could gather as much from all the reviews that have come out so far.

[rhenry 1]

Originally posted by: littlesquare.dot

Aside from the obvious issues, no mass transit, no ambient city noise (<-WHAT THE HECK!?), lack of information, etc., my main gripe with the square plots.

They're exceedingly annoying..   could they not have made dynamic lawns on the plots to fill the voids on curved roads?

Unless your city is comprised solely of boring, right-angled grids, it looks so darn sloppy.  Curved roads are great, but without curved plots it's like taking one step forward, then two steps back, because while the roads may look cool, everything else just looks more sloppy.

And seriously, what's with the absolute lack of sound!?  It's just plain crazy.  It's quite difficult to become completely immersed in a silent city.

So much potential, but for me it's currently falling flat.quote>

I'm replying to this long after but I wanted to say that given the number of possible variations in curviture of roads in CXL, it would have been impossible for them to have included curved plots for them. I think the best they could have done was probably to make the square lots so they would blend in rather than having little fences around everything.

That would be cool.

[Soviet779 1]

Wow the metacritic user scores dropped even more, its at 4.7 now.

[edcase2k4-thugangel1983 1]

soltangris: it doesn't even seem like they currently have any intention to fix some of the things which are less than satisfactory (whether it be for the PO only or not is irrelevant).

only having square lots? no word on that. the "zoning tags" which the game was SUPPOSED to include? no word on that. the "multiple lanes tool" allowing complete customisation of our roads which the game was SUPPOSED to include? no word on that. a completely adjustable (rotatable, moveable, sizeable) alignment grid to help with accurate spacing, rotation, and arrangment of our creations when manually laying out and placing individual zones/Lots and roads? no word on that. the zebra crossing texture changing width with every road rather than staying fixed? no word on that. bike and pedestrian-only paths which the game was SUPPOSED to include? no word on that. greater depth to citizen profiles such as age, sensitivities, health, education level, etc (rather than having only the single characteristric of wealth for citizens) which the game was SUPPOSED to include? no word on that. civic services having actual effects on the dynamics of your population rather than just affecting their "happiness"? no word on that. ability to lay out parks and other such features rather than just a generic "filler" tool? no word on that. regional play? no word on that. removing un-needed 'intersections' at road corners? no word on that. adding the hustle and bustle of life to the city with more pedestrian/road traffic relevant to the density/population of an area, and also visual usage of recreation areas/facilities? no word on that. being able to demolish things in a more user-friendly way, particularly with transport, without the game destroying so much of the adjoining network when just wanting to make a change to a small part of it? no word on that.

many of those things were SUPPOSED to be in the game, and i'm sure i have forgot a lot of things. those were just off the top of my head.

according to MC, so far, all they've promoted as forthcoming features since citiesxl.com's forums went down are mass transit, new buildings, and GEMs. they MAY in fact be listening to us, but by a complete lack of engagement with the communities AT ALL, we are left completely in the dark as to whether this is the case or not. it doesn't show us that they are serious about our concerns/wishes at all.

[gabry85 2]

^^^ Beta testing sort of answered these questions, though, yeah, there's definitely still lot to be known about what you've listed here. They've not been exactly candid about these hot issues, nor do I expect to get any answers anytime soon, which is bad since they introduced themselves as 'listeners' back in 2007. It was indeed a hard blow, especially for us ex-CitiesXL.com forum members.

---

Found another review: Cities XL: City Management Stumbles Headfirst into the Online World.

Rated 6/10.

[Androv 6]

Originally posted by: Soviet779

Wow the metacritic user scores dropped even more, its at 4.7 now.

quote>

Well the *official* rating is still holding at 76

[gabry85 2]

Originally posted by: Androv

Originally posted by: Soviet779

Wow the metacritic user scores dropped even more, its at 4.7 now.

quote>

Well the *official* rating is still holding at 76 quote>

That's why I LOVE Democracy!

[edcase2k4-thugangel1983 1]

good review, gabry. thanks for the link! pretty good overall summary of everything the game has and doesn't have going for it.

[Soviet779 1]

Originally posted by: Androv

Originally posted by: Soviet779

Wow the metacritic user scores dropped even more, its at 4.7 now.

quote>

Well the *official* rating is still holding at 76

quote>

Yeah but even then that sucks, every game gets 80+ these days, anything less and its got some serious flaws.

[Androv 6]

Well SC4 Rush Hour only got 79 so I guess it has serious flaws as well?

And gabry, that reviewer just seemed to be negative, perhaps because he couldn't play it at all - or more likely he didn't play it for very long, especially the online trading part. The bit that did it for me was when he said that "the citizens won't drive more than a mile to work." This sounds more like SimCity 4 rather than Cities XL - my citizens drive from one corner to the other and don't even complain (that much). In SimCity 4 they definitely had trouble trying to navigate their way across a small map. I'd agree about the lack of ambient sounds though.

[Soviet779 1]

Originally posted by: Androv

Well SC4 Rush Hour only got 79 so I guess it has serious flaws as well?

And gabry, that reviewer just seemed to be negative, perhaps because he couldn't play it at all - or more likely he didn't play it for very long, especially the online trading part. The bit that did it for me was when he said that "the citizens won't drive more than a mile to work." This sounds more like SimCity 4 rather than Cities XL - my citizens drive from one corner to the other and don't even complain (that much). In SimCity 4 they definitely had trouble trying to navigate their way across a small map. I'd agree about the lack of ambient sounds though.quote>

Yeah but look at what the users thought:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/simcity4rushhour

They loved it, and ultimately theyre the people that matter.

[Androv 6]

Originally posted by: Soviet779

Yeah but look at what the users thought:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/simcity4rushhour

They loved it, and ultimately theyre the people that matter.

quote>

Sample size of 8 :S  Not sure how much validity that has ...

[His Divine Hand 244]

Originally posted by: Androv

Originally posted by: Soviet779

Yeah but look at what the users thought:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/simcity4rushhour

They loved it, and ultimately theyre the people that matter.

quote>

Sample size of 8 :S  Not sure how much validity that has ...

quote>

Not to mention that you have no proof that your "user" score is not the same few people posting under different names.  

In the anonymity of the interwebs, "user" scores are as worthless as Zimbabwean money.  

[tbro221 0]

5/10 It's only half a game. They have a long way to go. I do not care to play this or any MMO game, so why didn't they tell us from the beginning that this is a MMO and not a solo game. I bought this for the solo only and it's a joke. Yeh, great graphics but after that-nothing. Like I posted elsewhere, can't wait for the ski gem. Yep, buy the ski gem then they will tell me to pay $10 a month if I want snow with it, and you're just renting the snow on top of it. No mass transit in a city building game-what a great idea!!! Nice demo-can't wait for the real game to come out.

[Androv 6]

I can tell that some people favour SimCity, and some people favour Cities XL.

Some people want to bash Cities XL and some people want to stand up for something new - I know Cities XL isn't perfect but I *know* it's not the LOLZOMGBBQDISASTER!!!11 people try to make it out to be.

Gentle reminder:

Please talk about the issues, not each other.

--Liv