Discussion about City Tile Size

[nhgriffith 179]

Old to the forum, new to using it (couldnt recall my 10+ years old account details, using newer one, tho date like 2002 would look cooler)

Guess as i decided participate in discussions ill start with 2nd most disturbing thing about game

 

As long as I know. Maxis propably gonna make city tiles bigger as PCgamer told http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/01/simcity-city-size-maxis/. Would be good I think.

 

Most things in this topic has been for sure said and ppl generaly are bit relieved by info that there are bigger maps coming to game, but i wonder if ppl realize that it will be standard, probably very, very easy to make (they just decided to strip it) DLC that you will have to pay 10$ to enjoy the game ( i honestly dont know what i will do after a single week after creating like 4-5 small cities...) 

They couldn't simply include the larger map size at launch because what it would do to the minimum system requirements and overall sales of the game. 

  Edited March 4, 2013 by CaptCity  
Off topic content removed.

[Vorret 49]

 

Old to the forum, new to using it (couldnt recall my 10+ years old account details, using newer one, tho date like 2002 would look cooler)

Guess as i decided participate in discussions ill start with 2nd most disturbing thing about game

 

As long as I know. Maxis propably gonna make city tiles bigger as PCgamer told http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/01/simcity-city-size-maxis/. Would be good I think.

 

Most things in this topic has been for sure said and ppl generaly are bit relieved by info that there are bigger maps coming to game, but i wonder if ppl realize that it will be standard, probably very, very easy to make (they just decided to strip it) DLC that you will have to pay 10$ to enjoy the game ( i honestly dont know what i will do after a single week after creating like 4-5 small cities...) 

They couldn't simply include the larger map size at launch because what it would do to the minimum system requirements and overall sales of the game. 

 

 

That's ridiculous.

Maybe game should remove high quality graphic from the options because people with low-end system could experience lag if they select it.

Or shadows.

Or surround audio.

 

Anyway you see where I'm going.   It would have been so easy to simply have a slider and a little warning "this setting requires X amount of ram/cpu, may experience slowdown" or whatever.

BAM. Done.

 

They prefer to do it in a DLC to make more money that's all.

[nhgriffith 179]

That's ridiculous.

Maybe game should remove high quality graphic from the options because people with low-end system could experience lag if they select it.

Or shadows.

Or surround audio.

 

Anyway you see where I'm going.   It would have been so easy to simply have a slider and a little warning "this setting requires X amount of ram/cpu, may experience slowdown" or whatever.

BAM. Done.

 

They prefer to do it in a DLC to make more money that's all.

Graphics quality, shadows, audio settings, none of these are gameplay options. Map size is a gameplay option.

The minimum system requirements mean that a PC that meets this criteria can smoothly operate every aspect of the game, even if they have to turn down some of the quality options.

You know that an FPS game like Call of Duty, the different multiplayer maps actually require different amounts of resources to load and run, so while you may run 7 maps fine, the other 5 are too much for your computer? I don't know if you were aware of this or not, but it's a fact. And when they put the minimum system requirements on the box of that game, it's based on the system requirements to run the most taxing map. It's not the system requirements to run the least taxing map.

The system requirements on the box of a PC have to allow the user to play EVERY aspect of the game.

[Vorret 49]

That's ridiculous.

Maybe game should remove high quality graphic from the options because people with low-end system could experience lag if they select it.

Or shadows.

Or surround audio.

 

Anyway you see where I'm going.   It would have been so easy to simply have a slider and a little warning "this setting requires X amount of ram/cpu, may experience slowdown" or whatever.

BAM. Done.

 

They prefer to do it in a DLC to make more money that's all.

Graphics quality, shadows, audio settings, none of these are gameplay options. Map size is a gameplay option.

The minimum system requirements mean that a PC that meets this criteria can smoothly operate every aspect of the game, even if they have to turn down some of the quality options.

You know that an FPS game like Call of Duty, the different multiplayer maps actually require different amounts of resources to load and run, so while you may run 7 maps fine, the other 5 are too much for your computer? I don't know if you were aware of this or not, but it's a fact. And when they put the minimum system requirements on the box of that game, it's based on the system requirements to run the most taxing map. It's not the system requirements to run the least taxing map.

The system requirements on the box of a PC have to allow the user to play EVERY aspect of the game.

 

Fine.

Civilization.

 

I can play with a duel/tiny/small/standard/large/huge/giant map.

With 2,3 [..] 48 civ.

 

Of course if I play at work, I'll use a standard map/8 civs

If I play at home, the sky is the limit.

 

How is the size of a city any different?

Is Civilization an unsuccessful series because of that fact?

 

 

 

edit:

Call of duty? Really? That's running on a 2004 engine, anyone can run that.

[nhgriffith 179]

Fine.

Civilization.

 

I can play with a duel/tiny/small/standard/large/huge/giant map.

With 2,3 [..] 48 civ.

 

Of course if I play at work, I'll use a standard map/8 civs

If I play at home, the sky is the limit.

 

How is the size of a city any different?

Is Civilization an unsuccessful series because of that fact?

Does your work computer meet all the minimum system requirements? All of them.

Does your work computer have completely updated drivers?

Have you tried running the largest maps with the maximum number of civilizations and city-states on your work computer? And if so, what happens? Does the game actually crash?

[Vorret 49]

Fine.

Civilization.

 

I can play with a duel/tiny/small/standard/large/huge/giant map.

With 2,3 [..] 48 civ.

 

Of course if I play at work, I'll use a standard map/8 civs

If I play at home, the sky is the limit.

 

How is the size of a city any different?

Is Civilization an unsuccessful series because of that fact?

Does your work computer meet all the minimum system requirements? All of them.

Does your work computer have completely updated drivers?

Have you tried running the largest maps with the maximum number of civilizations and city-states on your work computer? And if so, what happens? Does the game actually crash?

 

It won't crash but it'll be unplayable.

Same thing would happen in Sim City, it would be slow, very slow but it wouldn't crash.

[nhgriffith 179]

1) Define unplayable.

2) You don't know what would happen in SimCity.

[Vorret 49]

1) Define unplayable.

2) You don't know what would happen in SimCity.

 

15+ minutes inbetween turns.

I tried.

You're right, I don't.  If a game crashes it's badly coded which wouldn't be surprising because Maxis games are crash-prone.

[nhgriffith 179]

15 minutes between turns isn't "unplayable".

A game crashing means it's coded badly? Hmm. Yea, I guess technically that's true. That's why Maxis put the map size where it is, because if a computer with the minimum system requirements tried running a bigger map, that computer would run out of processing power and the program would crash. It's not because there's something wrong with the program, it's because the Operating System can't give the program the resources is asking for, and if the program doesn't have a way of dealing with less resources (since SimCity isn't turned based, it can't just take longer between turns...it's real time), then the operating system shuts it down.

Civilization doesn't crash because it can just process everything that happens between turns in its own time. The only time large scale simulation happens in Civilization is between turns (battles are simulated one by one, individually), and the game doesn't have to do it quickly.

In SimCity, if you let the simulator engine try to do this, half a neighborhood may be burnt down by the time the message makes it to the fire department to send a fire truck. You just can't compare the processing a turn-based game has to do to a real-time game.

And again, I want to emphasize, that 15+ minutes between turns does not make the game unplayable. If the game doesn't crash or freeze, you can still complete the game. The performance may not be as great on a computer with more power... but how is that not to be exactly expected?

[Vorret 49]

15 minutes between turns isn't "unplayable".

A game crashing means it's coded badly? Hmm. Yea, I guess technically that's true. That's why Maxis put the map size where it is, because if a computer with the minimum system requirements tried running a bigger map, that computer would run out of processing power and the program would crash. It's not because there's something wrong with the program, it's because the Operating System can't give the program the resources is asking for, and if the program doesn't have a way of dealing with less resources (since SimCity isn't turned based, it can't just take longer between turns...it's real time), then the operating system shuts it down.

Civilization doesn't crash because it can just process everything that happens between turns in its own time. The only time large scale simulation happens in Civilization is between turns (battles are simulated one by one, individually), and the game doesn't have to do it quickly.

In SimCity, if you let the simulator engine try to do this, half a neighborhood may be burnt down by the time the message makes it to the fire department to send a fire truck. You just can't compare the processing a turn-based game has to do to a real-time game.

And again, I want to emphasize, that 15+ minutes between turns does not make the game unplayable. If the game doesn't crash or freeze, you can still complete the game. The performance may not be as great on a computer with more power... but how is that not to be exactly expected?

 

I call it unplayable as much as I call playing an FPS with less than 40 FPS unplayble or playing anything with >300ms ping unplayable.

Obviously, everyone has their own benchmark of where the unplayable line is.

 

Guess we'll see, won't we? If they release a DLC in the next 1-2 years that expands the map, their "CPU aren't fast enough" claim was BS.

[nhgriffith 179]

>300ms is pretty much unacceptable these days.

As for FPS, I think 40 is a bit high to say anything under is unplayable. Anything over 30 FPS is perfectly fine (I doubt you'd notice a difference between 30 and 40), and while not ideal, 24 fps is easily playable.

But for me, the playable/unplayable line is defined by whether or not it actually has an impact on gameplay. Extra time between turns in a game of Civilization doesn't make the game unplayable. It may make the game slightly less enjoyable, but not unplayable.

The difference between 30 and 40 frames in an FPS game isn't going to make an impact on your actual ability to play the game. In fact, anything over 30 FPS won't make an impact on how you play the game. Under 30 frames, however, and it might impact you. How low you have to go and how much it will impact you depends on your reaction time. The better the reaction time, the greater an impact it will have on your performance as it goes lower and lower. But if you have a crummy reaction time, there's really not much difference between 16 frames and 30 frames. When I watch friends play FPS games, there will be an enemy on their screen for a solid 2-3 seconds before they notice and shoot in that direction. If it takes you this long to recognize targets, playing at 16 frames doesn't really make the game any more unplayable then your own reaction speed already limits the playability of the game.

And let me go back on the >300ms comment. Whether or not this is unplayable actually depends on the game. For SimCity, >300ms ping is actually perfectly acceptable. For an FPS game, I agree, it's unplayable ping is unplayable even for the player with horrendous reaction time because even when they do spot the enemy, he's always 3/10ths of a second away from where you're shooting at, so you'll never hit him.

But whether it takes 30 seconds between turns or 3 days between turns, the actual GAMEPLAY aspect of Civilization doesn't change at all.

As for future DLC making their current hardware capability claims BS? Hardly. It's not that the cutting edge hardware is not good enough to handle a slightly bigger map. It's that the average computer of the target audience can't handle it... and they have to sell the game (and I already explained stuff regarding the system requirements). They can't make a game that 17 people will buy, because those 17 people aren't paying 6 or 7 figures for a game.

But DLC and expansions don't have to sell nearly as many copies to be profitable and pay for themselves. Moreover, the is a precedence for games increasing their hardware requirements with expansion packs (see World of Warcraft). So in 1-2 years, when the average computer is 1-2 years better, they can easy release an expansion with higher hardware requirements without negating anything they've said today.

The only way they prove that their own claim was BS is if in the future they release a larger map size that is able to run perfectly fine on a computer that meets the minimum hardware requirements for the game that is releasing tomorrow.

[estereth 6]

 

Old to the forum, new to using it (couldnt recall my 10+ years old account details, using newer one, tho date like 2002 would look cooler)

Guess as i decided participate in discussions ill start with 2nd most disturbing thing about game

 

As long as I know. Maxis propably gonna make city tiles bigger as PCgamer told http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/01/simcity-city-size-maxis/. Would be good I think.

 

Most things in this topic has been for sure said and ppl generaly are bit relieved by info that there are bigger maps coming to game, but i wonder if ppl realize that it will be standard, probably very, very easy to make (they just decided to strip it) DLC that you will have to pay 10$ to enjoy the game ( i honestly dont know what i will do after a single week after creating like 4-5 small cities...) 

They couldn't simply include the larger map size at launch because what it would do to the minimum system requirements and overall sales of the game. 

 

I dont know why do you defend them, this 'minimum req spec' must run every aspect of the game argument reminds me of blizzard and removing 'harder' aspects of their games so they become more 'accessible' and just dumping them down

as a hardcore gamer, being constantly put among casuals with no OPTION to enhance my experience (yes, just an option - like well hidden in the menu so my grandpa with wooden pc wont be able to find it and whine that game is not working well on big map) is borderline insulting - atm i run on i5 8gb ram and an old HD4400 card and i cant be bothered to switch out any components of my 2nd botnet pc (i7, 24gb ram, HD7770) because every game i played ran pretty well on it, which, from recent games, inculdes dishonored (it has to run on 7 years old console, so cant have high spec reqs lal) and ofc simcity with fully clogged map, (tho i shouldve switched processor for civ 5, late game on huge maps, 10+ civs and marathon is just pain in the ass as mentioned here before)

 

anyway, i guess u already reserved 10$ for expanded map DLC - can also start preparing 'thankful' letter to EA for including in-game shop that will  allow us to swiftly buy such pack (and all the other awesome DLCs), just when ull be posting it on their forums stop by sims 3 'shop' and count how much are worth all the packages there, might give you some indication of how much more to ull need to spend in the future

[vonhaubitz 5]

_{They should just call it "SimVillage" and in 10 - 15 years when every single PC in the world can run big size maps with the revolutionary Glassbox engine, they can release SimCity 2013.}

[nhgriffith 179]

Well, at the end of the day, your option are

a) A release that is profitable for EA/Maxis.

b) No release at all.

I'm not really trying to defend anything. I'm just trying to explain why the game has to run on a computer owned by more then 0.3% of their target audience.

[BravoGreenONE 120]

Well, at the end of the day, your option are

a) A release that is profitable for EA/Maxis.

b) No release at all.

I'm not really trying to defend anything. I'm just trying to explain why the game has to run on a computer owned by more then 0.3% of their target audience.

If thats the case then maxis launched glassbox before its time. When simcity was first announced we were told that the wait was for technology to advance. That implies that glassbox was ready and to a reasonable person that means fitting an engine to a reasonable sized map. After all a jet engine doesnt work well on a bi-plane.

[nhgriffith 179]

I don't consider the map size to be unreasonably small. It's smaller than what we're used to with SimCity 4, and obviously smaller than what you're happy with, but that doesn't mean it's not a reasonably sized map.

[pcwhiz24 1,187]

I don't consider the map size to be unreasonably small. It's smaller than what we're used to with SimCity 4, and obviously smaller than what you're happy with, but that doesn't mean it's not a reasonably sized map.

 

Define "resonable"

[Vaikin 10]

It's clearly a subjective term. They probably aired too much on the side of getting as many customers as possible vs map size. But they'll either a) release bigger maps soon or b) someone will mod it for bigger maps. 

[stephanieGrey 3]

So, is this a EA-thing we should come to expect?

 

 

Online DRM, no save-modes, and DLC to the infinity and beyond`?

 

Game was probably awesome by Maxis DEv. Then EA included online drm and dlc(stuff), and upset the whole SimCommunity,

I just can't understand why.. Ea? why?

[Spatzimaus 77]

It's clearly a subjective term. They probably aired too much on the side of getting as many customers as possible vs map size. But they'll either a) release bigger maps soon or b) someone will mod it for bigger maps. 

 

I'm actually betting on

c> add a map editor in some future DLC/expansion, which lets people make new large-tile regions of their own.

 

The problem with having it be mod-related is that it'd force all players sharing a region to have the same mod, which really doesn't mesh well with the concept of public regions.  That means they'd want to have it be something standardized for everyone, meaning a patch, DLC, or expansion.  Adding code for making tiles larger isn't useful if there's no maps taking advantage of the feature, which means they either need to spend their own time time making a slew of custom maps (and expecting the old maps to stop being popular), or they need to give us the tools necessary to do the work for ourselves.  Given that map editing is something a lot of folks want for other reasons (being able to tweak tree density, resource placement, etc.), packaging some large-tile logic with it seems like an obvious answer.  Personally I'd expect this to be packaged into a big expansion, along with all of the other "wish list" stuff that couldn't make it into the launch, but it could be a DLC or patch depending on how complex they want to make it.

 

And pcwhiz24, the definition of "reasonable" is simple: the size at which the majority of players don't feel crippled by the tile boundaries.  Note I said "crippled", not "cramped"; if there's enough room to still have fun with specialized cities, then that's enough for the short term.  Sure, you might still want larger tiles, but if there's still enough room that the AVERAGE player (i.e., not us) won't quit in disgust, then it's enough to tide people over until they implement large tiles in one of the ways discussed above.

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

I been looking at some footage and screen shots of actual game play the past couple days and I have to say the size of the maps are smaller than I thought they would be. When I heard small, I figured it was just a matter of taste but should be big enough to be defined as a city. The way these maps look, why put in any mass transit at all? They can walk. Any cries for more mass transit like subways for this sized tile is pointless.

[JJGlover55 6]

I dont know why do you defend them, this 'minimum req spec' must run every aspect of the game argument reminds me of blizzard and removing 'harder' aspects of their games so they become more 'accessible' and just dumping them down

as a hardcore gamer, being constantly put among casuals with no OPTION to enhance my experience (yes, just an option - like well hidden in the menu so my grandpa with wooden pc wont be able to find it and whine that game is not working well on big map) is borderline insulting - atm i run on i5 8gb ram and an old HD4400 card and i cant be bothered to switch out any components of my 2nd botnet pc (i7, 24gb ram, HD7770) because every game i played ran pretty well on it, which, from recent games, inculdes dishonored (it has to run on 7 years old console, so cant have high spec reqs lal) and ofc simcity with fully clogged map, (tho i shouldve switched processor for civ 5, late game on huge maps, 10+ civs and marathon is just pain in the ass as mentioned here before)

 

The problem with putting in options to enhance the experience for hardcore gamers is that to a casual gamer, it may feel like you are paying extra for features that you can't access without dropping some cash to upgrade the PC as well.  I believe EA is under the assumption that there are significantly more casual gamers than hardcore gamers and their solution is to offer hardcore gamers additional features later in a DLC or expansion or whatever. 

 

Either limiting the game for all to play and having expansions later or offering stuff for hardcore PC's only, some group is going to feel jaded. 

[Write 9]

Have you guys seen the minimum specs? They're sooo old. Dual core and five year old graphic cards. Quad core is pretty much standard in all computers nowadays and you can find good deals on graphic cards all over. If they're screwing over people with half decent computers just so anyone and absolutly everyone can play this game they're doing it at the expense of the quality of the game.

[vonhaubitz 5]

Well, at the end of the day, your option are

a) A release that is profitable for EA/Maxis.

b) No release at all.

I'm not really trying to defend anything. I'm just trying to explain why the game has to run on a computer owned by more then 0.3% of their target audience.

Actually, that's not my option, it's their option. For me there's no release, because the limitations are unacceptable. But that's also ok, if Glassbox is such a leap forward, maybe the game will catch up somewhen in the future. I just hope they somehow will be successful and that they will invest in a city simulator that justifies it's name. If not - bad luck. 

[vonhaubitz 5]

Have you guys seen the minimum specs? They're sooo old. Dual core and five year old graphic cards. Quad core is pretty much standard in all computers nowadays and you can find good deals on graphic cards all over. If they're screwing over people with half decent computers just so anyone and absolutly everyone can play this game they're doing it at the expense of the quality of the game.

I think they either have to keep the release date and that's why they release something half way completed or they just had based the game on a perfectly wrong concept and now are trying to find excuses why the tile size is small like a nickel.

[croxis 150]

Have you guys seen the minimum specs? They're sooo old. Dual core and five year old graphic cards. Quad core is pretty much standard in all computers nowadays and you can find good deals on graphic cards all over. If they're screwing over people with half decent computers just so anyone and absolutly everyone can play this game they're doing it at the expense of the quality of the game.

 

And 4 gigs of ram, minimum. I think the community is underappriciating that aspect. Curret games are often ports or multi platform meaning they are designed to run with low ram requirements (PS3 and 360 have only half a gig of ram) so the pc minimum requirements are usually around 2 gigs. Sim City requires at least 4.

 

The problem with ram is that once it starts filling up the OS will start paging things to the hard drive. Eventually it will try and page the game itself if it eats up too much ram, and that is when the computer "locks up" with a thrashing hard drive. This is afar  worse user expeirence than a choppy framerate from a slow cpu or gpu.

[estereth 6]

I dont know, it just makes me both sad and angry what theyre doing with all mainstream games

when i filled whole map with very basic city in 1 hour beta, i was perfectly sure there will are going to be bigger maps - in theory the map is of medium sized sc4 map but the scale is somehow diffrent and map seems more like small one - dunno, i will be rly rly sad after 1 week, probably gonna end with me going to steam and picking up sc4 again :s

 

it would be semi-acceptable explanation that they want to make maps small at start so more ppl would enjoy it but every sane person know that theyre not charity and accessible = more ppl = more money = only reason

 

just very, very sad

 

my game code arrived, gonna activate in 3 days

/signing out

[London-b 90]

 

City tile size is a non issue and will of course be a non issue after many weeks of gameplay. 

Maxis planned this all along as an interesting challenge. 

[mastorofpuppetz 199]

 

Old to the forum, new to using it (couldnt recall my 10+ years old account details, using newer one, tho date like 2002 would look cooler)

Guess as i decided participate in discussions ill start with 2nd most disturbing thing about game

 

As long as I know. Maxis propably gonna make city tiles bigger as PCgamer told http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/01/simcity-city-size-maxis/. Would be good I think.

 

Most things in this topic has been for sure said and ppl generaly are bit relieved by info that there are bigger maps coming to game, but i wonder if ppl realize that it will be standard, probably very, very easy to make (they just decided to strip it) DLC that you will have to pay 10$ to enjoy the game ( i honestly dont know what i will do after a single week after creating like 4-5 small cities...) 

They couldn't simply include the larger map size at launch because what it would do to the minimum system requirements and overall sales of the game. 

This is why you scale your engoine, and allow users the choice to scale up if you have a beefy PC, would not effect the min required specs at all. Give me a break.

[simmerboy 19]

 

 

Old to the forum, new to using it (couldnt recall my 10+ years old account details, using newer one, tho date like 2002 would look cooler)

Guess as i decided participate in discussions ill start with 2nd most disturbing thing about game

 

As long as I know. Maxis propably gonna make city tiles bigger as PCgamer told http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/01/simcity-city-size-maxis/. Would be good I think.

 

Most things in this topic has been for sure said and ppl generaly are bit relieved by info that there are bigger maps coming to game, but i wonder if ppl realize that it will be standard, probably very, very easy to make (they just decided to strip it) DLC that you will have to pay 10$ to enjoy the game ( i honestly dont know what i will do after a single week after creating like 4-5 small cities...) 

They couldn't simply include the larger map size at launch because what it would do to the minimum system requirements and overall sales of the game. 

This is why you scale your engoine, and allow users the choice to scale up if you have a beefy PC, would not effect the min required specs at all. Give me a break.

Tell me, specifically, how the game would not need higher minimum specifications with larger map sizes?