The (un)fulfilled expectations?

[soltangris 42]

I'm creating this thread in an attempt to explain a little bit the entire controversy surrounding CXL and its reception, especially by the hardcore SC4 fans. Please note that this is neither a 'bashing', nor a 'pro-MC' thread, I'm just trying to point out facts as opposed to expectations, and (maybe) help temper a little bit the raging tempest of the anti-pro- CXL war of words.

First of all, what is Cities XL? It is a city-builder all right, and the latest and most modern one. This is true, simply by virtue of its release date, its core gaming experience that simulates a city (never mind flaws and missing elements here) and lastly, a number of game elements that are more advanced that in the iconic SC4, like road-building and grid-free system. I think as much is the uncontestable truth, even by the most fierce CXL haters.

CXL is also something else: an attmept to launch city-building into the MMO universe. I'm just reminding you that MMOs are  the most lucrative gaming business currently (just look at the news of how many asians are playing WoW daily, how many of them are addicted and how a whole sub-business is developing of professional gamers that develop characters and sell items). Wether we like it or not, MC are trying to tap this resource; wether we like it or not, they won't stop the process and they'll continue developing their game primarily in this direction.

What is Cities XL NOT? First of all, it's not SC4, and here is the crux of the controversy. In developing the Sim City series, Maxis had decades of experience and three older games on which to improve. SC4 was the pinnacle (so far) of the series, where all their concepts were developed to their fullest, and also most complex levels. IMO, many gamers have complained of the steep learning curve of SC4, and with reason - it is a game for dedicated, patient folks that don't mind spending several hours tweaking aspects of their city without adding a single building.

CXL comes from a company that has build only one city-building game before (City life). This is  therefore their second attempt, and what's even more important, they're not using all of City Life's concepts - they're trying something new. Thus, they have not only limited resources, but also limited experience to work with. Sure, while developing the game, they had enormous input from fans, but how much of it was even remotely doable?  And how much of it were hopes and dreams of that same SC4 fanbase that had nothing to do with the direction MC intended for their game?

Secondly, CXL is NOT a single player, lone-wolf, hardcore city builder. It's aimed and it was advertised as more broadly built, more accessible simulator. In short, it's targeting a somewhat different audience from the SC4 hardcore fanbase.

Where comes the controversy from? Well, two points, actually:

1. The unfulfilled expectations of the hardcore SC4 fans, and :

2. The (relatively) unfinished state of the game at launch.

Let's elaborate on the first point:

What were SC4 fans expecting? Well, SC5, of course! That is, a hardcore, massive simulator, with lots of micro- and macro- management, updated graphics, and generally a game that would have been worthy of landing as a learning tool on the desks of engineering schools.

The fans proceeded, then, to happily announce in the forums all their dreams and fantasies, elaborated in a 7-year long wait for the next city-builder, and scorched badly by a recent disaster, daring to call itself 'the next Sim City'. There were 'the multilane tool' dream, that could control and create every kind of real-life street organisations possible; the 'double-decker bridge' dream that would let you create in your average city bridges that hardly exist in the real world; the 'region play' dream that would let you controll in real time cities across a whole continent on a scale bigger than SC4; and so on and so fort. As long as I remember, the original Cities Unlimited forum had turned into a collection of science fiction novels at some point. Some people were even dreaming of organising the next level of society....

All of this time, MC were drowning in this flood of expectations, and (I suspect) sorely regreting their initially expressed desire to fulfill fan's wishes. But how do you say 'Well, we're sorry, but what you're asking for is impossible" ? Or at least, how do you say it without generating a storm of discontent? Also, how do you say, 'See here, we have our own ideas that we feel would work better'? Well, they didn't say anything of the sort, they just tried to remind us kindly that ours are only ideas, and the game is being developed by them. Unfortunately, many fans chose not to listen to the hints; they continued  thinking that they're actually participating in the game development in something like a 'collective effort'. Well, they got dissapointed. It came as a shock to them when it turned out that their dreams were not being fulfilled. I understand that.

However, let's not forget that the fans don't actually have any stakes in this game; they didn't spend years paying for programming and graphics design; they didn't risk  their company's existence, they didn't sign contracts with sponsors. They just wanted, and wanted, without thinking of any practical aspects. And now that they know the state of affairs, they can simply choose not to spend their money on the game.

Elaborating on the second point:

Here's definetily something to be unhappy about. Yes, the game launched in a relatively unfinished state: there were informations missing from the panels, thinks that were supposed to be animated weren't, some more little details like that. There were glitches with the trading system. And of course, there was no mass transit.

Was it prudent of MC launching the game like this? Of course not. But was it realistic? The truth is - we don't know. I doubt any self-respecting game developer would like to launch an unfinished game, but there are thousands of factors that could force them to do so. All speculation, of course, but: pressure from sponsors; unstable business climate (we're in the middle of a financial crisis, after all), or the decision to launch and THAN add features.

This last point is particularly important: every MMO game does this. Actually, almost every game nowadays (MMO or not) tends to leave out some features to be added later as an expansion. After all, you can charge additionally for an expansion pack.

We can argue, of course, the point of mass transit: how much of a core feature it is so as to be in the initially released version. But this has been argued so many times that I'll just skip the argument here, and just point out something: MC might have wanted to give mass transit such attention, that they needed to work on it after the initial game release rush has passed. My point is partially supported by the fact that the first mass-transport feature, busses, are indeed, amazingly implemented. We could only hope that the rest of Mass transport will receive similar attention to detail.

Finally, a third point: Plannet Offer. I didn't include this with the first two points because I do not consider it a relevant complaint point. Why? Simply because this is a business model that MC decided to follow; you can't deny them the right to do this, wether or not you agree with that. Two things:

- The PO is the MMO aspect of the game; how much this aspect is important in a city-building game is ultimately not important; what is important is how this aspect works. Currently, it works well enough, although there have been complaints that there isn't enough distinction between PO and SP modes. That's also a matter  of personal opinion: for me the online trading option is enough so far to justify the PO. Other people might disagree, though, that's fine  by me. What's not fine is: 

- To complain that PO subscribers have stuff that SP don't. Well, if you're paying an additional monthly fee, you should have something extra, shouldn't you? The only valid complaint that I see is mass transport being PO-only; this is indeed unfair. 

Let's analise now how exactly expectations enter in conflict with reality, based on the above three points: 

1. PO vs SP. As I mentioned above, after years (decades, actually) of city building we've come to expect an initial expense when bying the game, and possibly, a second one for an expansion. It's no wonder that MC's business model of montly subscribing to play the full game comes as a shock.

- Expectations: Well, pay something like 40 - 50$ tops, and then enjoy a modern simulation with great graphics, bug-free, perfect in every sense.  

- Reality: CXL is a modern game all right; but it needs to repay it's development expenses. It also needs financial support in the future, being commited to continuously supporting and updating the game as the other MMO's - something that Maxis or EA never did. Bug-free game? Perfect game? Those are fantasies - the ugly reality shows bugs everywhere and in every new game, even after many months of beta testing. Also, look at how many games are forgotten by their developers mere months after release. PO-subscribtion is the obvious answer to the situation. 

Also, let's not forget that SP still exists; yes, it's not the full game but it DOES exist. In light of the fact that it's gonna be the PO, not the SP, that will support the future development of the game, It's logical PO-subscribers to receive more carrots in their garden.  

Veridct: the fans want the impossible. You can't complain that your impossible expectations weren't met.

2. Custom content. Another fiercely required feature by the harcore fans.

- Expectations: after years of custom content creation for SC4, we expect the same to be possible for CXL. 'Give us the engine and the tools, we scream, and we'll fix your crappy job!' What's more, because of the way EA behaved towards SC4 (ie, they abandoned it), we've come to expect that the same should happen here - the developers should abandon their game and let the community deal with it.

- Reality: MC have not abandoned CXL. They're not only actively supporting it, they're continuously enhancing it. How do you expect a programmer to hand you the tools to modify his program, while he's still working on it? Moreover, CXL is also an MMO, and you can't let mods into an MMO.

Believe it or not, MC are willing to allow modding; but this is a tricky business: Mods must either be approved by them first, or else they have to be SP-exclusive.

Let's not forget that other games had their modding tools many months after release; SC4 including. Give MC some time to figure that out, for goodnes' sake!

Verdict: fans don't want the impossible here, but they are so impatient that it gives the same impression.

3. Missing features. Right, there are some, notably mass transit. Or are there?

-Expectations: Micromanagement, Micromanagement, MICROMANAGEMENT. After SC4, with its infinite adjustments, many unrealistic ones including (school funding=area of effect; as if every college student uses the schoolbus), we expect the same and more from CXL. Mass transit, Mass transit, MASS TRANSIT - busses, trains, metro, airplanes, ships, hooray! 

- Reality: CXL simply concentrates on different aspects of city-building, and also it targets a broader audience than SC4.  You can't expect infinite micro management in a game that specifically evades specialisation. Instead, we have the resource management and trading, which give a different layer of management. We also have the tricky service satisfaction system, which could be a challenge on its own. Instead of micromanagement, we have macromanagement. Lastly, MC have promised us more detailed management in the future..... 

Mass transit - if you are to implement that well, you need time. Even SC4's mass transit wasn't fully developed until Rush Hour, busses trains and metro were actually severely underdeveloped in the vanilla game. Do we have the right to complain that they are missing altogether in CXL? Partially, yes - because you have the right to expect mass transit in a modern sity-builder, moreover one with a monthly subscription. Now, was mass transit inclusion realistic as of the launch date? Probably not. Probably, MC chose not to launch a feature that was expected but unfinished, rather than launch it in its unfinished state and draw further criticism. Well, they didn't evade the criticism.....

Verdict: the fans have come to expect too much. Although not impossible, all the things that are considered missing would have taken many more months to be properly developed. So, we can complain that they chose to launch without mass transit, but not that it's delayed or missing. After all, it will be added later on. As for micromanagement, it's completely unfair to complain that something is missing that wasn't intended to be there at the first place.

My final comments on this (overly) long post are: yes, the fans have the right partially to complain, but they're waaaaay overdoing it. Two months after release everything is clear: now is the time to accept the reality and start working towards working with it and improvng it, rather than simply complaining about what could have been and what you expected. As one of the moderators sayd, Cities XL is here to stay - the sooner we accept the fact and the more support and positive criticism and feedback we give, the more chances we'll eventually get a great game. Everybody admits the potential, yet nobody seems patient enough, or good-willed enough to see it realised. 

To the people that have bought the game - the future is bright! If you don't want to spend money on an unfinished product, don't pay PO until they release more features. Chances are that even if you're unwilling to pay monthly, one way or another you'll get a more complete SP game.  

To the people that are hesitating to buy it - I don't understand you. The game's initial price is not that high.... and again, you don't need to pay monthly if you don't want to. You could enjoy some alternative to SC4 for a time, and later you might even change your decision. Meanwhile, your 40$ might push MC just enough so that they continue pumping out great features.

Finally, to the enraged people - don't buy the game! But also, stop repeating over and over again the same complains and negativism in the forums - this ruins the day for all the rest.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

Excellent post, soltangris. I've read it completely. Some point I want to add something:

Originally posted by: soltangris

Finally, a third point: Plannet Offer. I didn't include this with the first two points because I do not consider it a relevant complaint point. Why? Simply because this is a business model that MC decided to follow; you can't deny them the right to do this, wether or not you agree with that. Two things:

- The PO is the MMO aspect of the game; how much this aspect is important in a city-building game is ultimately not important; what is important is how this aspect works. Currently, it works well enough, although there have been complaints that there isn't enough distinction between PO and SP modes. That's also a matter  of personal opinion: for me the online trading option is enough so far to justify the PO. Other people might disagree, though, that's fine  by me. What's not fine is: 

- To complain that PO subscribers have stuff that SP don't. Well, if you're paying an additional monthly fee, you should have something extra, shouldn't you? The only valid complaint that I see is mass transport being PO-only; this is indeed unfair. 

quote>

I totally agree with you on this point. PO subscribers get more maps, can trade with each other, can build megastructures, and have regular updates. OK, I as Solo Player can live with that. But ruling out any kind of mass transit in Solo Mode is out of the question.

Originally posted by: soltangris

2. Custom content. Another fiercely required feature by the harcore fans.

- Expectations: after years of custom content creation for SC4, we expect the same to be possible for CXL. 'Give us the engine and the tools, we scream, and we'll fix your crappy job!' What's more, because of the way EA behaved towards SC4 (ie, they abandoned it), we've come to expect that the same should happen here - the developers should abandon their game and let the community deal with it.

- Reality: MC have not abandoned CXL. They're not only actively supporting it, they're continuously enhancing it. How do you expect a programmer to hand you the tools to modify his program, while he's still working on it? Moreover, CXL is also an MMO, and you can't let mods into an MMO.

Believe it or not, MC are willing to allow modding; but this is a tricky business: Mods must either be approved by them first, or else they have to be SP-exclusive.

Let's not forget that other games had their modding tools many months after release; SC4 including. Give MC some time to figure that out, for goodnes' sake!

Verdict: fans don't want the impossible here, but they are so impatient that it gives the same impression.

quote>

True, the BAT and the LOT editor were released after SC4RH. It's not something that bothers me, but other people still want to do what you described, so that's quite a problem.

Originally posted by: soltangris

3. Missing features. Right, there are some, notably mass transit. Or are there?

-Expectations: Micromanagement, Micromanagement, MICROMANAGEMENT. After SC4, with its infinite adjustments, many unrealistic ones including (school funding=area of effect; as if every college student uses the schoolbus), we expect the same and more from CXL. Mass transit, Mass transit, MASS TRANSIT - busses, trains, metro, airplanes, ships, hooray! 

- Reality: CXL simply concentrates on different aspects of city-building, and also it targets a broader audience than SC4.  You can't expect infinite micro management in a game that specifically evades specialisation. Instead, we have the resource management and trading, which give a different layer of management. We also have the tricky service satisfaction system, which could be a challenge on its own. Instead of micromanagement, we have macromanagement. Lastly, MC have promised us more detailed management in the future..... 

Mass transit - if you are to implement that well, you need time. Even SC4's mass transit wasn't fully developed until Rush Hour, busses trains and metro were actually severely underdeveloped in the vanilla game. Do we have the right to complain that they are missing altogether in CXL? Partially, yes - because you have the right to expect mass transit in a modern sity-builder, moreover one with a monthly subscription. Now, was mass transit inclusion realistic as of the launch date? Probably not. Probably, MC chose not to launch a feature that was expected but unfinished, rather than launch it in its unfinished state and draw further criticism. Well, they didn't evade the criticism.....

Verdict: the fans have come to expect too much. Although not impossible, all the things that are considered missing would have taken many more months to be properly developed. So, we can complain that they chose to launch without mass transit, but not that it's delayed or missing. After all, it will be added later on. As for micromanagement, it's completely unfair to complain that something is missing that wasn't intended to be there at the first place.

quote>

To summarize in short: good creations require time and effort. I can't use busses yet, but as far as I can see they did a excellent job. For PO subscribers, it was worth waiting. But there's one missing feature that annoys me: missing statistics. I have a very vague idea how much electricity, water, waste recyclying, etc. I'm producing. Statistics about these values would be nice.

Originally posted by: soltangris

To the people that have bought the game - the future is bright! If you don't want to spend money on an unfinished product, don't pay PO until they release more features. Chances are that even if you're unwilling to pay monthly, one way or another you'll get a more complete SP game.  

To the people that are hesitating to buy it - I don't understand you. The game's initial price is not that high.... and again, you don't need to pay monthly if you don't want to. You could enjoy some alternative to SC4 for a time, and later you might even change your decision. Meanwhile, your 40$ might push MC just enough so that they continue pumping out great features.

Finally, to the enraged people - don't buy the game! But also, stop repeating over and over again the same complains and negativism in the forums - this ruins the day for all the rest.quote>

I bought the game, and I still don't give up my hopes yet. I see some bad steps from MC (taking out busses from SP), but also good steps (making OmniCorp more reasonable in SP). Hopefully MC is heading towards the right direction.

Best,

Maarten

[xannepan 513]

Good post.

The only thing I'd like to add is that with the choice for PO, citiesXL also significantly limits the possibility there will ever be a custom creation community. Any mod will interfere with PO gameplay. Moreover MC announced that custom content that will not interfere with gameplay/simulation (I'm talking about buildings etc) will need to be reviewed by MC police, which I'm convinced will be a barrier to many of us who created cusotm content for SC4.

Off course any type of modding will be possible in SP mode, but than without all the goodies PO promises to bring, e.g. mass transit etc..

[USA_Pride 49]

Very nice post.

I understand that the PO subscribes should get a benefit that the Solo players don't get. However, also realize that the advertising for the game often doesn't make that distinction. Also, another big issue is that you can only trade with Omnicorp in Solo mode, this makes you resource limited because Omnicorp doesn't offer fair trade prices, thus it limits how big your city can be and also limits the services you can provide to it.

You do make a great point about the expectations of SC4 die-hards. We have high expectations for the game. There would be no incentive to buy it if it weren't better than the SC4 + RH + Custom Content + Mods that we already have. Why pay for something if what you already own is better despite being 7 years old?

I know that we can't expect SC5 from CXL, but also keep in mind that this communities and followers of the city builders are one of the two target audiences for this game (the other target audience being people that like MMOs).

I guess a good question is, what would make Solo mode people happy they paid $40 USD?

- Fix the bugs (this I expect will happen in the coming months)

- Fix Omnicorp

- Release Mass Transit for the game, even if it's not free. I would pay $10-15 for a mass transit expansion pack

[Rakeesh 0]

You, sir, have created one of the most well thought out posts I have seen here in a good long while. It's refreshing.

In short, I agree with every point you've made.

To Xannepan; mods will be allowed for solo play (and welcomed; by their own statements) after they've managed to split the game's solo and online play so that mods that people want affect only solo play and not online so that there are no chances of people cheating. But you are correct, at this time mods aren't allowed until they solve the above mentioned problem.

[zero7 68]

Originally posted by: xannepan

Off course any type of modding will be possible in SP mode, but than without all the goodies PO promises to bring, e.g. mass transit etc..quote>

Are we sure about that?  As far as I know no-one has yet determined what the .exe itself is capable of and to what degree being connected to a planet enables local features rather than those features being server based.

Good first post and I agree with a lot of it.  However, I have a particular dislike for the current practice of releasing unfinished or bug-ridden software and then patching it later.  Cheap and shoddy, whoever's doing it.

Personally, I'm still in the 'wait and see' camp.  There's a lot I like about the game (and that's before I try the bus system) but I feel both SP and PO lack enough clarity of purpose at the moment.  

[soltangris 42]

Hey, thanks about the kind reception people Just trying to be reasonable.

USA_Pride, your expectations are reasonable enough, I think. And, I really hope MC listens to the community about mass transit - honestly I think it's unreasonable to withold this from SP. However, we could only hope, since what MC will do about it is beyond us.

Zero, your dislike for releasing unfinished games is well-grounded, but unfortunately the current business climate indirectly stimulates that practice. The market is so competitive that it means financial suicide for every company that is not EA or Blizzard to develop a game for more than two years. Whomever follows closely will know of many projects that got scrapped just because they turned inviable with time and the changes in the status quo.

Still, in CXl's case, there is at least chance that all the problems will be fixed with time, which I think is better than if the game hadn't come out at all.

[Cthuulhu 0]

Fantastic post! I completely agree with your points and I'm glad to see some common sense on these forums!

As someone who has played all the past SC games but more recently has been an mmo player I'm happy with the game,

I've waited for patches and expansions, watched games evolve and played betas, I guess its easy to forget that not everyone

has become accostomed to being asked for their opinion, giving thier opinion and having their opinion only winced at by

developers. glad to see some proper ideas around these forums finally!

[TaurosElan 0]

soltangris, you make some good points and you are right about some things.

You are right in many of your points that player expectations will ALWAYS exceed Developer capabilities. You are right that since they are being paid subs they will continue (and now players have a right to expect them to) to develop the game, adding new content and fixing bugs.

There are some features that I suspect beta testers clearly said were needed, but were never added. The ability to modify funding to your cities' various institutions for one, the ability to see how certain buildings will impact your game for another.

Take education. Is it better to build four elementary schools or two middle schools? You don't really know, though the monthly cost is the same. A displayed radius of effect would definitely assist you in this. Afterall, city planners DO place schools and other public buildings according to city need. And, it is clearly obvious that a radius of effect is part of their performance in the game, you just can't see it.

[Asheroo 53]

Brilliant post Soltangris! A lot of this was also talked about later in the CXL forums when there was a whole heap of complaining.

To your first point on our ideas we had, yeah, we went a bit overboard with it, with people making flash animations, pictures and big articles to express an idea, but it showed how incredibly high the SC4 players expectations were, but that's to be expected from all the mods and everything. But I remember when some of us were talking to some of the developers on the Unofficial CXL/CU Chat Site (by Romaq) how we kept talking about our ideas and they kept saying "the solution is the technical coding of it" and things like that. Also, I think what everyone forgot with a lot of the announced and shown stuff was it was "Work In Progress", and was subject to easily change, and it did. Both the Multiple Lanes and Mass Placement Tools were lost, and all the mass transit, but with the buses released yesterday, we can see a bright future. A lot of people were too hyped about it all, and forgot it could easily change.

To the point about custom content, yeah, a fair bit of people when judging CXL keep forgetting that it's only the vanilla version, and there's no custom content yet. So, then a fair bit of people keep saying they want the tools now, but how long was it til Maxis released tools for SC4 after release? And how long after that did the amazing mods which really made SC4 were created and released? On some good news on this, it was recently stated that MC are doing tests with some modders right now on custom content for CXL, so, we could have the tools earlier than expected, like say, early next year, but we'll see. We may receive news on this very soon.

Lastly, I just want to make the point that I still do stand by a statement I made a month or two ago which caused a bit of racket. I still stand by that I see the vanilla release of CXL as a "step back", then MC will go forwards. Why? Simply put - MC haven't made numerous amount of city building games like Maxis with SC and are not like the big company EA; SC4 was abandoned by EA, and there hardly are any companies that would take on us but MC has put it as their challenge for their passion in CB games; and this step back will make it more simpler for new comers and would attract new city building fans, building up our market so we have a bigger one for better success. MC are going forward with a lot of extra content for CXL, making it better and better each month, plus, just wait until custom content comes by.

Also, just one more point, MC didn't really know the proper expectations of city builders until the survey they did on City Life and until they started up CUPlanet (later on citiesxl.com) but we just came in and burst out with all these complex ideas and high expectations coming up from SC4 wanting a proper SC5 (or SC6 since I call SCS SC5).

[RickyD26 0]

great thread and I hope MC take it seriously

[soltangris 42]

Tauros, about schools: I'm experimenting with services lately and I found that there actually IS range, and coverage efficiency effect, athough it doesn't come in the form of a circle as in SC4. Instead, the streets light up when you hover with the BP above them; they turn more yellow, or, if the coverage is very good, they go towards green. If you zoom out and play a bit, you can see the exact area that's gonna be covered by the new building, before you place it.

If the building won't do any good, the streets won't change color at all.

I know the concept is a little difficult, try to experiment and you'll see what I'm talking about.

[ScaryMonkey 0]

Excellent post Soltangris!  I think you summed up exactly what all the grief has been about; Your final paragraph, especially, is right on.  Also, I'm getting a warm glow from seeing a calm, civil discussion in this thread... that's the kind of thing I come to Simtropolis to read!

Just one tiny thing, I'm not usually a spelling nazi but...

Originally posted by: soltangris

Let's analise now how exactly expectations enter in conflict with reality, based on the above three points:quote>

It's "analyze" (or "analyse" if you're British).  "Analise" means... something else.

[masochist 111]

Great thread, many excellent points made. Thank you for the post, soltangris!

[willisj 1]

Have to agree with the others, Soltangris, that was a well considered and fair post! I am one of the SP only players and, yes, I would have liked a bit more but, as you said, MC is the author and developer of CXL and they have the absolute right to release/withhold any content/features they deem appropriate.

When all is said and done, we can either accept what we are given or, vote with our wallets and not buy anything from MC again, but constant carping about CXL only annoys everyone (and again I am just as guilty of that too.........) and really serves little purpose. At worst, MC could be considered a little "one-eyed" against SP's but from what I have read, they are not immovable and seem to be coming round a bit. I'm quite happy to adopt a wait and see attitude towards CXl's future.

Again, thanks for a great post.

[soltangris 42]

Again, thank you all for the kind comments. I'm also trying to write a comprehensive CXL guide (the thread is called 'Cities XL Manual'), everybody's welcome to contribute.

ScaryMonkey, thanks for the correction. I'm in fact a Bulgarian, so English isn't even close to a native language to me. Please excuse my spelling and phraseological mistakes!

[TaurosElan 0]

Originally posted by: soltangris

Tauros, about schools: I'm experimenting with services lately and I found that there actually IS range, and coverage efficiency effect, athough it doesn't come in the form of a circle as in SC4. Instead, the streets light up when you hover with the BP above them; they turn more yellow, or, if the coverage is very good, they go towards green. If you zoom out and play a bit, you can see the exact area that's gonna be covered by the new building, before you place it.

If the building won't do any good, the streets won't change color at all.

I know the concept is a little difficult, try to experiment and you'll see what I'm talking about.quote>

Really?  Interesting.  I will try that out today.  Thank you for the tip!

Now my only other concerns are performance after being in-game a while and the trade panel performance.  But those aren't the topic of this thread.

By the way, I did want to say that I've been playing around with the new Bus system and its awesome.  Being able to place your own bus routes and then manage them as well as the bus size is better than SC4 IMHO.

[DazzaDazza 29]

well soltangris, I like your style, instead of making silly statements like some other CXL seaports do you have though provoking post, am most importantly you try back it up with facts   not hear say , good work.

 

CXL

comes from a company that has build only one city-building game before (City life). This is  therefore their second attempt, and what's even more important, they're not using all of City Life's concepts - they're trying something new. Thus, they have not only limited resources, but also limited experience to work with. Sure, while developing the game, they had enormous input from fans, but how much of it was even remotely doable?  And how much of it were hopes and dreams of that same

SC4

fanbase that had nothing to do with the direction MC intended for their game?

 

 

Lets not forget that is there 3rd attempt at city building game and there second at a multiplayer one as well, Star peace, most of the ideas that you see in CXL are not new, star peace was released  in 2001 and was a flop (that is fore certain), so they where interested in this concept for some time, this means they have had over 9 years to perfect the next star peace, Cities XL.

 

 

Secondly,

CXL

is NOT a single player, lone-wolf, hardcore city builder. It's aimed and it was advertised as more broadly built, more accessible simulator. In short, it's targeting a somewhat different audience from the

SC4

hardcore fanbase.

 

You are 100% right it is not a single player game, it is a MMO with a single play Add-on, in the words of the grate jerry Seinfeld “ not that there’s anything wrong whit that” this is just the facts I new that when I bort the game and so should every on ells  

 

Where comes the controversy from? Well, two points, actually:

1. The unfulfilled expectations of the hardcore

SC4

fans, and :

 

I don’t think it is that,  I think it is more the game in general, the way the game works, it is not very true to life, this is why I think many people get upset when they buy the game.  Its not that it not hard core enough or anything like that, its more the true to life, where SC dose a better job at that, well at lest it give you the impression of it anyway         

 

2. The (relatively) unfinished state of the game at launch.

 

Well this may have something to do with it, even the most hard core CXL fan can see this was not a good idea, but this come back to the star peace game, they did the same back in 2001 they released that game unfinished as well, but I guess if you look at it in a diplomatic way, the internet accuses nowadays can carter for high amount of downloads, the CXL thinking might just be the way other games go as well, 

 

 

All of this time, MC were drowning in this flood of expectations, and (I suspect) sorely regreting their initially expressed desire to fulfill fan's wishes. But how do you say 'Well, we're sorry, but what you're asking for is impossible" ? Or at least, how do you say it without generating a storm of discontent? Also, how do you say, 'See here, we have our own ideas that we feel would work better'? Well, they didn't say anything of the sort, they just tried to remind us kindly that ours are only ideas, and the game is being developed by them. Unfortunately, many fans chose not to listen to the hints; they continued  thinking that they're actually participating in the game development in something like a 'collective effort'. Well, they got dissapointed. It came as a shock to them when it turned out that their dreams were not being fulfilled. I understand that.

However, let's not forget that the fans don't actually have any stakes in this game; they didn't spend years paying for programming and graphics design; they didn't risk  their company's existence, they didn't sign contracts with sponsors. They just wanted, and wanted, without thinking of any practical aspects. And now that they know the state of affairs, they can simply choose not to spend their money on the game.

 

Lets face it  the whole CXL development stage with CXL.com in hindsight was really a big publicity stunt, when you look at the  2 other of the games they have produced, we probably should have seen what was coming. This is where so more argument come from as well, I suspect that many people back at CXL.com and even ones hear now, enjoyed the development stage more then they do they game, they are still hook on it, they don't wont it do end,  they can’t get over it, you only have to look at some older post hear, "we should bring back Cites unlimited”  and stuff like that,  when in realty Cites unlimited   was a terrible   name,    they believe that they had or should of have had  more of a input into the game. that they are right, When in reality they where there to keep the CXl publicity train going.

 

As for the rest of the points I agree with you, mostly,

you do bring up  Micromanagement its funny because I am glad they left some parts this out of the game, it really doesn’t  interest me at all,  nor do GEMs, I really feel that Micromanagement  would just slow down the game play to much, giving pointless tasks that seem fun at first but would become a hassle down the track .  I wont to build a city not run a theme park or worry about how my hospital is doing. This is the main reason why Sc4 is so successful, it in simple to play, the game lets you worry about cool stuff like, where should I put this skyscraper and stuff like that, not my  hospitals are going bankrupt I need to fix there budget. But this is my personal opinion, I am all for custom lots. I guess it is the same for the busses, I really don’t wont to have to tell the buss where to go crate bus roots, I just don’t car about it, that’s the bus company problem to mine, if busses to come to Single player I would really like it to be automatic like SC4.           

iI can see why some people like Micromanagement so I would not begrudge MC for putting it in, I will just not buy that pack, that is the best thing a CXL, when the game gets going and content become available to single player I can pick and chooses how I want to play the game,  

[Livin in Sim 83]

Respect, soltangris, and all who posted.  Now, thaz what I'm talkin' 'bout. 

[bluespottedhorse 49]

i agree that it's obviously not SC5, and for me that's ok. It is very similar to SC4 but has much less content, options, and customization, etc. I can also live without these because it is such a new game. It really wasn't until the community came together that SC4 really became alot more fun to play. I don't think it needs to be restated what is missing in the game, I'm sure the developers heard it from the beta testers long before release. I believe that the game will continue to evolve in a positive way and will shake off the empression of being a half baked attempt at a city builder game. We now have transit and after that we'll see trains added too. A few people are content to have the game in it's current state, I'm patiently waiting for the right mix of components to be added to the game before I purchase it.

We all have expectations...they just aren't all the same.  The glass is half-full.

[Ocram's Razr 963]

StarPeace was merely relased/published by Monte Cristo, they had as much to do with it as Sega. StarPeace (in its current form at least is rather fun) was developed by Oceanus, a Cuban group of students who worked in Toronto.

[commanderkai 38]

You're lacking a few issues with this analysis, and you put too much blame upon SC4 fans and not on MC.

One of their biggest issues is the lack of communication. It took a great deal of effort to find out what was lacking in Single player mode, and even then, that information was usually unreliable. Many people expected to have some semblance of mass transit added within the single player game, and only recently I've realized that this isn't the case. So basically, I'm going to have that grayed out mass transit box and overlays, telling me what I lack.

People who purchased the game expected a full singleplayer game. That's not expecting too much. I did pay 40-50 dollars for it, didn't I? Don't I deserve receiving the full game if I purchased it for the same, full price? I'm fine with not receiving some new special building sets here and there, or online trading, and heck, I'm even fine with dealing with the Omnicorp, even if its prices are inflated to hint at people to use the PO offer. But, having an incomplete game, with features that were promised, or are commonly expected with a Single Player game (both from Simcity, and even from Citylife) should not be dismissed as whining or expecting "too much." The original Citylife had some mass transit, and any game that is not based within the Ancient or Medieval ages has some mass transit within it. I did not expect having everything from subways to monorails within the original game. 

The people who hesitate have every right to hesitate. Right now, there's been a massive price drop (25-50%) for the game, showing that the company NEEDS more money. That's not a healthy sign for any company. Who knows what the future holds, or if Planet Offer will be able to sustain itself. I actually wish I did hesitate, because then I might have saved myself $20.

Do you think MC shares no blame in the situation here? Is this ALL the fans' fault? Or do you think the miscommunication by its representatives has caused some of this. All three of your verdicts pin most of the blame on the high or impossible expectations of the fans. Now yes, expectations WERE high, but some of the criticisms are completely justified, specifically on the lacking mass transit that will not be added in the Singleplayer game. I can understand no custom content until they'll ready to move on to other projects, and I accept that PO players will get more content for paying more, but that does not mean non-PO players should receive a half finished product.

[bluespottedhorse 49]

Hmm, I don't have any sympathy for those who already bought the game and now are complaining about this or the lack of that. Prior to the release of the game it was disclosed that it was missing key components, i.e. mass transit, rail, etc, etc. However, that did not stop people from running out and purchasing it. I and many others have not purchased the game and I won't until they've added rail, smaller lots, and customization into the mix. The bottom line is if the game features were a big secret I would have purchased the game myself. But they weren't so I didn't purchase it. To those that already purchased the game, just be patient I'm sure the game will continue to improve over time. Rome wasn't built in a day nor was CITIESXL!

[soltangris 42]

Look, commandercai, I think the word 'blame' you're using is too strong.

First of all, I'm not 'blaming' anyone. In order to blame, there has to be an incident or something really serious that happened. That's not the case, what we're having here is many people that are dissapointed with the reality that downed after Cities XL's release. All I was trying to do is explain the source of that disapointment. Keeping in mind that it's primarily the SC4's fanbase that is disapointed, I think I've covered the reasons pretty well, and others agreed with me. That's also the reason I'm talking mainly about them in my post, not that I'm putting 'blame' on anyone. 

About the lack of communication: I don't think anybody that knew well what city-building is all about just jumped right in and bought the game after he watched the promotional movies. If you read carefully most of the complaint posts you'll deduce that they come of long-time city-building fans. How likely is that anyone of them wouldn't have read at least couple of reviews/forum posts befory buying the game? How likely is that he wouldn't know what is and what's not in SP, given the fact that 90% of all posts and 100% of the reviews mention the facts about mass transit? 

Now, I'm not saying you (or anyone that claims he didn't know that) are to 'blame' that you haven't informed yourself better. What I'm saying is that whomever is likely to get furious because mass transit is PO-exclusive would have known it beforehand; and the ones that DID jump in the bowl without reading anything probably didn't care about that. At least I gather as much from the chat in PO - most people just enjoy the game as it is, nobody (or very few) complains that mass transit should be in SP.

One more point about communication: it was exactly the lack of care in MC's communication during the development fase that landed them in 'the jam' (if you can call it that). I think they must have stated clearer that they're not gonna heed 100% of the proposals, that they're working on a business model different from expected. I covered as much in the original post. Now you can see that they're being far more carefull with promises, they've finally learned.

Again, we don't know what made MC release the game without mass transit. It might have been any number of reasons. I said already that I consider mass transit an integral part of a city-builder, and that it should be included in SP also ( I think you missed that part in my post) . I also speculated as of WHY it wasn't, and  if you read more carefully, you'll find out again that I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just reasoning.

And your thoughts on MC needing more money are also the logical answer of that. It's an ugly truth, I know. But it's reality - they'll need more money to finish the game.

So, the choice is ours - wether we'll support them (at least to a degree) and get eventually a great and complete city-builder, or we'll choose to turn away in disgust and ruin the last chances of a worthy successor of SC4. If you don't like this dilemna, just look back couple of years towards SC Societies. Also, ask yourself what is EA doing right now - do you think they're not following the situation? Do you think they'll risk SC5 if CXL turns out a failure? Everything is business, and nobody will risk money and time to develop a product that won't be a financial success.

On the other hand, an increased and more versatile fanbase, as that witch CXL has the potential of creating, might stimulate EA to finally develop SC5, to 'challenge the challenger', so to speak.

[commanderkai 38]

Originally posted by: soltangris

Look, commandercai, I think the word 'blame' you're using is too strong.

First of all, I'm not 'blaming' anyone. In order to blame, there has to be an incident or something really serious that happened. That's not the case, what we're having here is many people that are dissapointed with the reality that downed after Cities XL's release. All I was trying to do is explain the source of that disapointment. Keeping in mind that it's primarily the SC4's fanbase that is disapointed, I think I've covered the reasons pretty well, and others agreed with me. That's also the reason I'm talking mainly about them in my post, not that I'm putting 'blame' on anyone. quote>

I disagree. In all three of your verdicts, you pin most of the issue upon the fans and very little upon the MC for the issues that were created. Much like how many city-building fans were grossly disappointed in the simplistic approach of Simcity Societies, many see the same issues with Cities XL. Sure, the fans expected a lot, but high expectations don't fully explain the massive disappointment both games unleashed upon the City Simulation/Management niche.

You are "blaming" or casting judgment, if you want a nicer term, upon the fans of both Simcity 4 for the unfulfilled expectations of Cities XL. I disagree, partially. There's plenty of blame to go around, and a large portion of it goes to MC.

About the lack of communication: I don't think anybody that knew well what city-building is all about just jumped right in and bought the game after he watched the promotional movies. If you read carefully most of the complaint posts you'll deduce that they come of long-time city-building fans.quote>

Of course, I being one of them. But we're not JUST complaining about unfulfilled expectations, but also the half completed single player mode, the poor trading mechanism within Single Player (which was planned, if you did play the tutorial saying how much better prices are in PO, and, of course, the lack of mass transit.

How likely is that anyone of them wouldn't have read at least couple of reviews/forum posts befory buying the game? How likely is that he wouldn't know what is and what's not in SP, given the fact that 90% of all posts and 100% of the reviews mention the facts about mass transit? quote>

So you're telling me there was no miscommunication? I believe there was, and my frequenting on non-Simtropolis forums (usually larger game sites) kept stating that mass transit (buses) would be included for Single Player for free. Even now, it takes people on these forums to pull teeth to get a few hard answers from the developers of this game.  And I can even give you a review from a major game site without any mention about buses being solely for PO.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/citiesxl/review.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review

And from the largest gaming site that gave it its highest review, IGN

http://pc.ign.com/articles/103/1035096p1.html

So far, even if the 100% of reviews mentioning mass transit was exaggerated, two of the largest gaming sites on the web mention nothing about buses or mass transit. I explored forums/comments for both sites for the answers, but those answers came too late.

Now, I'm not saying you (or anyone that claims he didn't know that) are to 'blame' that you haven't informed yourself better. What I'm saying is that whomever is likely to get furious because mass transit is PO-exclusive would have known it beforehand; and the ones that DID jump in the bowl without reading anything probably didn't care about that. At least I gather as much from the chat in PO - most people just enjoy the game as it is, nobody (or very few) complains that mass transit should be in SP. quote>

You mean the people who pay for it (and also seemingly are guaranteed mass transit) aren't upset that the Single Player portion of the game is not getting mass transit? No kidding? Once again, there was miscommunication by MC. First mass transit would be included, then just buses, and then none at all. Just because you're happy with it, does not mean us "high expectation" fans should be. I enjoy the game, but I don't enjoy the lack of features, and once I satisfy my desire to justify a 40-50 dollar expense, it'll be uninstalled and it'll rot away on my Impulse account.

One more point about communication: it was exactly the lack of care in MC's communication during the development fase that landed them in 'the jam' (if you can call it that). I think they must have stated clearer that they're not gonna heed 100% of the proposals, that they're working on a business model different from expected. I covered as much in the original post. Now you can see that they're being far more carefull with promises, they've finally learned. quote>

Yes, they might have been careless originally, but from their loose lips to their zipped mouths, poor communication is a major factor in both the high expectations, and now with the confusion/frustration/anger over this game currently. Once again, that's MC's fault for letting expectations get so high, not the fans.

And no, I don't give MC any leeway, they have developed a City builder before  (remember Citylife?) and I actually did enjoy that game, far more than I probably will with this one. I believe most of my high hopes came from Citylife over Simcity, because this was a MC game, and not an EA game.

Again, we don't know what made MC release the game without mass transit. It might have been any number of reasons. I said already that I consider mass transit an integral part of a city-builder, and that it should be included in SP also ( I think you missed that part in my post) .I also speculated as of WHY it wasn't, and  if you read more carefully, you'll find out again that I'm not blaming anyone. I'm just reasoning.quote>

I didn't miss any portion of your post. Don't try veiled jabs at my capabilities of reading and understanding your post. I saw you stating how they created high expectations during the development phase (it's called marketing, all gaming companies promise the Second Coming) , as well as not adding mass transit in the original game. I don't mind it not being in the package, if it wasn't finished...BUT not providing it to Single Player portion for free is a huge mistake and, once again, a part of their miscommunication and alienation of many gamers. They didn't add the mass transit icon in the UI if the original plan was to leave all mass transit out

I also read your verdicts clearly as well, which puts the blame, or reasoning, or however you choose to justify it, on the hands of the "Old Guard" of city management games, Simcity 4 fans.

So, the choice is ours - wether we'll support them (at least to a degree) and get eventually a great and complete city-builder, or we'll choose to turn away in disgust and ruin the last chances of a worthy successor of SC4. If you don't like this dilemna, just look back couple of years towards SC Societies. Also, ask yourself what is EA doing right now - do you think they're not following the situation? Do you think they'll risk SC5 if CXL turns out a failure? Everything is business, and nobody will risk money and time to develop a product that won't be a financial success.

On the other hand, an increased and more versatile fanbase, as that witch CXL has the potential of creating, might stimulate EA to finally develop SC5, to 'challenge the challenger', so to speak.quote>

How do you know we'll ever get a complete and great game from what we have now? There already has been a huge price drop from my original purchase at the release, and a very large, alienated group of city management and simulation gamers (who are, basically, the core SC4 fanbase). How do we know how stable MC's position really is?

If you want to make a call for all city management niche lovers to unite behind Cities XL, in the hope we might get a complete game, then good luck. I already contributed $50 when I preordered. I've made my contribution, but I'm not jumping head first into Planet Offer. It's funny, really. I would have joined PO if the Single Player game didn't feel incomplete. If they complete Single Player, or at least provide possible addon/expansion packs to the Single Player game, they MIGHT get more money. Might. I've already made a large investment as it is, even if you don't see it as such.

MC made its choices, maybe out of greed, or desperation, or maybe because it wanted to be innovative. I'm not sure. I don't work for MC. But, people, at least I, have come to terms this will not be Simcity 5, or Citylife 2. I believe PO, their business model, was a huge mistake, and their miscommunication during and AFTER development made that mistake much worse.

[soltangris 42]

I think we're not on the same page here, Commanderkai. You keep using the words 'blame' and 'verdict' and 'judgement' as if I was the Supreme Court of Gaminig Industry, and my post was the Great Verdict Upon The Development and Misdevelopment Of The Next City-Building GAME. And that you're challenging this verdict...

I didn't mean anything terminal of the sort. I was just stating my thoughts of what happened, and what's happening on the pages of this forum. I've seen so much flaming and so strong words, and that's only on the posts that weren't removed from moderators. I was just guessing why are you people dissapointed. I wasn't delivering a judgement, because no one here has the right to do that. Everybody can feel however he chooses to, I'm just explaining those feelings. The words 'verdict' that you see after each point are maybe, not correctly used. I put them because I was discussing how the expectations created were differing from reality, and what did I think about that.  

 disagree. In all three of your verdicts, you pin most of the issue upon the fans and very little upon the MC for the issues that were created.

 

What issues did they create? The fact that they created a game that didn't line up with your expectations. ?They have the full right to do that, since (again) it's their money and their development resources. If you didn't like what came out, don't spend your money on it, and you're clean.

Hope is for sale in our world. If you start blaming somebody that he tricked you into buying something, than you should start blaming the whole industry and commerce and go live in the mountains. You can't blame MC that they're trying to sell their product. 

You are "blaming" or casting judgment, if you want a nicer term, upon the fans of both Simcity 4 for the unfulfilled expectations of Cities XL. I disagree, partially. There's plenty of blame to go around, and a large portion of it goes to MC.

Again, what portion of unfulfilled expectations? You seem to persist in not understanding that the fans don't have the right to dictate what's gonna be in the game and what won't, at least not by ways of letters and forum posts. The only fair way to do that would be , again, to not give MC your money.  

Now, if they choose to listen to any suggestions from the fanbase, we can only be happy about that.

And I can even give you a review from a major game site without any mention about buses being solely for PO.

 

?Did you look at the dates of those two reviews you mention? October? When was the bus pack released? How could the reviewers have known for sure wether or not busses will be PO-only?

How do you know we'll ever get a complete and great game from what we have now? There already has been a huge price drop from my original purchase at the release, and a very large, alienated group of city management and simulation gamers (who are, basically, the core

SC4

fanbase). How do we know how stable MC's position really is?

 

We don't. However, the price drop is something normal, any game sells on the original price only couple of months, unless it's a huge blockbuster (what CXL clearly isn't). ?But, what are you trying to convey here, commanderkai? A sadistic pleasure that the game is failing? I don't understand your very reason to argue your point, unless you're feeling guilty somehow. Obviously, what you're trying to get me to tell is something like : 'You're right, MC is the Devil and they're destroying the city-building genre"? Are you trying to establish the SC4 community as the one and only organism capable of properly developing a city-building game? And because MC didn't follow their wise lead they're gonna fail?

Look, I'm not denying the fact that the very people that play city simulators would know what they'd like to see in a next-gen simulator. But again, such a simulator hasn't appear for 7 years. Why? And now, when there's finally some hope, albeit a faint one, you're quick to dismiss it, even though the game is still developing, still receiving upgrades, and by general opinion getting better by the week? If that's how you choose to feel, be my guest, of course, but then you won't have the right to complain that there's no SC5 and you're still stuck with a 7-year old game.

But I'm getting a little hotheaded. I'll stop here and urge you to reread my posts, having again in mind that I'm not blaming anyone for anything. And I'm not gonna argue semantics with you anymore.

[Rob86 34]

if you believed these dreams are too lofty to be realized, i believed you had misunderstood the design process. During the design process for the FIRST city management/building game from MC, their design team would already had suggested and thought of improvements over Rush Hour. A few iterations of building games from MC later, isn't it logical for them to predict what is expected of them? (especially if they want to compare their games to RH)

Afterall, are IN the industry. I don't believe all these years of experience of making city games would still generate amateurish or lacklustre attempts.

It's obvious the minimum the fan base wants would be a 3d version of RH.

The only possibility is that perhaps MC had mismatched their own resources with their own goals.

[Asheroo 53]

Just a one linear I want to say: It's not MC's fault you don't like the game, you just simply want more than what the company can give you for now.

Yes, we did have a community, but yes, MC did get all our opinions, but we did not make the game, we just expressed opinions. They continuously said how our ideas and opinions are just that, nothing more, but are being read and taken in by, by MC, but they can't implement all our ideas and perfect the game to all our opinions. But yes, there were some very highly requested ideas, but once again, just ideas, what do any of us now about every single bit and piece of coding in a 3D city building game like CXL? Hardly anything, so you can't say that MC didn't listen to you. Implementing a feature in a game is not called listening to someone's idea, it's called "Implementing a feature in a game". Listening to someone's idea is called "Listening to someone's idea". This is the one problem with many of the past users from the CXL forum, we were just too hyped up with the whole "we tell MC ideas and opinions and they will listen" thing, forgetting that all it was we wrote were words and MC just read and took in.

Next time, I suggest MC don't hype up the "communications" business so people can just come in normally expecting to just write their opinions and have it read by developers, instead of hyping it all up and getting people too hyped up thinking that their opinions and ideas will be implemented.

[DazzaDazza 29]

soltangris is right MC are trying to sell you a computer game, there main focus is to do just that,   McDonalds say that there burgers    are grate, but they aren’t, hungry jacks say  that "the burgers are better hungry jacks", they are crap, it is up to you if you wont to believe the adverting it or not, MC are hear to sell a computer game, and they will do everything that is legal to do just that. Lets not forget that. But if you believe the hype and pr odder the game before you have played it, and you don't like it. then that is your bad luck, you just got suck into the marketing witch every company and every product has.    

 

its not about having too high expatiations, or CXL being the second coming of SC4,   the people are smarter then that, they know what can or cant be done. I believe that they could of made the SC5 that every one wonted, they didn't,  they chooses a different model to go with, o’h well  

 

Ilikeseattle @ you are right in a sense, but the two games are very similar, every thing is there in one forum or anther, the, planet view, trade, chat, and the rest it all there, just 7 years before CXL. They have been thinking about this fore some time.   

 

Asheroo @ they should do the same if not better, they should hype everything, that is there duty to do just that, it must of work to  because they seem to have sold a few copies more  to people that don’t even like the game       

 

On a note to all CXL fans that think negative comments on the forums is some how are damaging the Cites XL brand, the majority people that buy cites Xl  won’t even know at Simtrop even there, or that this kind of conservation are going on between a few hard core fans, the majority of people don’t read reviews before buy a game, they just pick up the box at a shop, look at it, if they like it, they will buy it then and there, they probably wont go way  and spend the nest week reading reviews and post from people they don’t know or care what they think.

also let try not to get this thread looked, like the last one let try to act nice toward each other when debating, I quite enjoy reading people opinion about the game, good or bad        

                   

[cheuk18me94 0]

I just want ot tell you.

Cities XL can't be MMO, city building game is typically is a single-player mode.

The purpose of PO is fact is let MC to get more money from player......