Landmarks

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I have come to the conclusion that landmarks are a menu clutter. I would like to see them either omitted, or optional in the new incarnation of this game.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Well, it seems like they'll be brought back. They're supposed to boost tourism and and thus commerce I believe. I don't mind having them there, so long as there's a new method to creating 'functional lots' for this new game; up until I got this new mouse with a ball bearing scroll wheel, it took several minutes to navigate my current landmark menu which gets old pretty fast.

[CommodoreTech 5]

I agree mostly, they are pointless in some respects. A real city creates landmarks naturally. All the landmarks in the world were created for another purpose if you think about it (The Eiffel Tower was an observation tower that just looked pretty enough to be kept. Buckingham Palace is just the Queen's house). Therefore building them with no other function is pointless and I always disliked it in the other games. Why can't a well developed CBD be a landmark in its self? That would be a really nice addition to the game. Or a busy junction with a monument in it (as per Trafalgar Sq. or the l'Etoile Junction). Or, if I redevelop an area into a large office development (as per the World Trade Center or the Rockefeller Center) it has the potential to become a landmark. Perhaps some sort of agent can be used in this? Like, lets say you have a load of tall buildings, a big church or something, and then these send out tourism agents to hotels or airports or something? Then the simulator can have a 'built-in' tourism simulation that the player doesn't have to fiddle around with much....

  Edited March 14, 2012 by CommodoreTech  

[Bantams 0]

Never Used them myself either in sc4 or cxl

would make a good DLC opportunity for Maxis perhaps and then those that want the Empire State Building can just buy it in a USA DLC Pack.

My First post yay!

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Never Used them myself either in sc4 or cxl

would make a good DLC opportunity for Maxis perhaps and then those that want the Empire State Building can just buy it in a USA DLC Pack.

My First post yay!

Welcome to Simtropolis and the conversation.

Actually, I prefer the ability for a built-up region to become transformed into a tourist attraction on its own by, at some point, sending out the tourist-attraction agent that could be a part of this game. It might also be possible to have some way of declaring a new building a tourist-attracting building. Perhaps an "add agent" feature.

There is good reason to avoid world buildings as landmarks with this feature as the previous poster is right: These have to stand on their original purpose and can not be just dropped in anywhere. The only city that I am aware of that gets away with this is Las Vegas.

Features of the landscape can also become tourist attractions. Think of the Luray Caverns, the Bonachère Caves (at Eganville, Ontario), Grand Canyon, the Great Rift Valley, the Valley of the Kings, Lake Louise. Tourism does not lie in buildings but in sites.

  Edited March 14, 2012 by A Nonny Moose  

[iowndiscti 141]

this seems like a way to incorporate to old aspects of the old sim games into one.

what i suppose we do is add " an enjoy-ability statistic" ( which is basically equivalent to the old sim games fun bar) to Commercial buildings {assuming they still have the query tool in Sc(2013). Buildings which have alot of Agents traveling near or to them, and have an high enjoy-ability factor have the ability to become landmarks. Once every so often a agent from another city would come to that city and say

" Hey you, i enjoyed this { Building } So much, its a whole lot of things to do here. infact its a shame that this building isn't a landmark because now i cant be demolished by the city

Would you like to make it a landmark?

[yes] No

[BurroDiablo 222]

Personally, I'm fine with Landmarks, I've never felt they cluttered the menu. If somebody wants to build a real-world city or just use them to boost demand, I wouldn't deny them that opportunity. Currently we can only talk from a SC4 player perspective, we don't know what the UI will look like or operate like (although we can have a guess...)... obviously the overall UI in SC5 should be more accessible and it probably will be, I mean, even a scroll bar would have improved SC4's UI ten fold.

[Terring 6,473]

I like landmarks, especially if they'll be functional. Parthenon for example could attract tourists and increase the education level, while the Empire State Building could provide tons of jobs and homes.

[LivingInThePast 364]

I don't know. I never understood how many landmarks were technically stuff like museums or commercial developments, but never made a cent on your part. You're right, real cities build landmarks themselves. I've always wanted for a whole "culture" to develop for a city, a history, say, for cultural crossroads (Cincinnati, New York City, Chicago--often creates interesting neighborhoods and good food), a well-known department store (sadly bygone in this era), or a "symbol". New York has the Statue of Liberty. San Francisco has the Golden Gate Bridge. St. Louis has the St. Louis Arch. You could put any one of those in your cities, but unless you're going for a recreation, it's not St. Louis, or New York City, or San Francisco.

Alternatively, if you were going for a gaudy Las Vegas-like city, Statue of Liberty and the Eiffel Tower could exist side by side.

[Mark Waybill 242]

I'd agree with the sentiment that landmarks should arise via tourism and culture, not be plopped ready made. Also with natural features being landmarks, which would also affect real estate prices so for instance homes built in undulating hills with woodlands about are more expensive than those on flat dull terrain.

[Jack³ 291]

In SC4 I rarely, if ever, use the default landmarks. But Maxis is making it sound like they're going to be much better, and I'm interested.

[Odainsaker 2,135]

We cannot allow landmarks to clutter our Landmarks Menu!

Actually, it is one of the long-term failings of SimCity 4 that additional content and custom content usually ended up in the catch-all Landmarks Menu, and that most of our ingame menus and plugin folders are organizational disasters. No doubt, it was not anticipated how much and what type of content would be created, let alone how many content items can fall into multiple categories or exist outside the predefined ones. Even the common word "landmark" cumbersomely covers too broad a category, leaving many real world planning and preservation organizations struggling to define how or where individual structures and features fit. The next iteration of SimCity should have a flexible and expandable menu system where users can easily add, catalogue, and cross-reference their own content categories and even content profiles from within the game, such that players can make their own determination of what constitutes a "landmark" for our own cities, even if that determination arises from simple ground site planning. I'm not sure yet if or how this will work given that this game and its potential content seems to be one that will exist in great part off the computer in Cloud Land.

Regardless of whether they are functional or natural, players are going to want to see real world items like the Empire State Building, Eiffel Tower, Brandenburg Gate, Notre Dame Cathedral, or Shanghai World Financial Center in their cities, preferably in a controllably ploppable way, and Maxis and Simtropolis will be deluged with requests if these are not provided. It is easy enough individually to not use them if one wishes, but far more complicated to uniformly bar others from using them. They all have their place and uses, we just didn't need all of them mixed in an inseparable soup with 5,000 other miscellaneous buildings in a single menu without a basic scroll bar.

God have mercy, please let us not be sucked into doing microtransactions with DLC landmarks and tying credit card numbers into account-locked simcities. That is a marketeer-driven business model best killed now before it turns a fan community into a perpetually-paying, captive subscriber base.

  Edited March 14, 2012 by Odainsaker  

[hamsterTK 93]

I always liked the more mundane skyscraper ones, like Bank of America tower or Peachtree tower(SC3K). In the absence of ploppable BAT's or plop cheats, which this game may not have, those buildings would be useful in rounding out skylines or creating interesting landscapes for CJ's. In the old days of SC3K I would often use the Renaissance Center main tower since it wasn't recognizable to me.

We could do without castles or the Alamo, though

Perhaps this game should have some reward landmarks which are fictitious...a Braun Llama Dome?

[Craig-Abcvs 1,595]

I am fine with landmarks, as long as there is a good variety, and they are not all from the USA... nothing against the US... but yes, I think we need a bit more variety this time around.

As to the other discussion about cluttered landmark menus... well yes that is simply because the current game was never designed with 10 yrs of custom content in mind. Hopefully this time around they will make the menus much more customizeable and expandable... something similar to how document folders work with sub-menus/folders under main menus/folders... hardly a new idea there.

[jacksunny 741]

How about on the query menu for buildings, there is an option to "make landmark" or "promote." It would make the building a landmark, just at a little extra cost. The building would then do everything it originally did, plus what landmarks in SC4 do.

[Jahnri 21]

A variety of options would be best in my opinion. Being able to designate a building as Historic would be great. Building of monuments would serve a city well. Such as statues of the mayor or a industrial monument or free trade monument. Then you have landmarks which are structures designed to attract peoples attention such as the Seattle Space needle. Mind you whether they were intended as long term is fairly pointless to discuss.

Thats just my opinion though. To be honest if they had rare buildings which popped up under certain circumstances which could be historically saved, that would be better.

[meowza 230]

I agree with CommodoreTech. I wish Maxis makes the landmarks feel more organic - a natural occurance, and not something you can plop anytime you want just because you have the funds to build and maintain it. It should gradually develop an important role in the simulation of the city overtime, not just for aesthetics or added tourist value.

[Mark Waybill 242]

I believe we'll be able to make buildings historic. That shouldn't be too difficult as they've done that in SC4 deluxe anyway

[Fornix 4]

My way of creating landmarks used to be to make the building historical. I hope in SC5 plopping will be kept to a minimum, and not too big of a focus will be given on making landmark worthy buildings ploppable only. Let some unique designs shoot out through zoning as well, and have us decide whether or not we want to turn them into historical landmarks.

[hittwice99 618]

Ploppable landmarks shouldn't be the driving force for your city to succeed and grow economically. Not everyone wants world famous landmarks repeatedly dominating their city skylines. Instead, I think they should involve more strategic aspects, rather than the 'build when the money's in the bank' approach from SC4.

I agree that landmarks shouldn't be limited to the ones available in the menu. It would be good if certain structures could be developed to have a 'landmark status'. For example, if you invested in zoning high density, a skyscraper could develop and later become a major tourist attraction, boosting your city's economy. The same could apply if you built a city park area, much like Central Park is an attraction in New York.

All this would depend on factors, such as the location of the structure in relation to the surrounding area. A structure located in the heart of the city (the CBD) would be in a more desirable area for tourists, than say in an industrial zone. This would then increase the structure's popularity. Note: a structure isn't limited to just skyscrapers or towers, it could be a park, city hall, museum/gallery etc.

As jacksunny said, there could be an option to 'promote' a selected structure's status to a landmark, when you think the time is right. This would involve a risk and reward strategy, as you would initially choose how much money to invest in upgrading the structures's facilities (i.e. costs would represent building an observation deck/restaurants on a skyscraper, to attract tourists). There would be no guarantee of success, as it may not generate enough income. But get it right, and the landmark would bring huge economic benefits to your city.

[meowza 230]

Unique/rare growables, landmark promotion and popularity level..

How I hope that the devs are taking notes right now. These are exciting suggestions that are too fun to pass!

[Catmando 7]

I don't see why we can't just designate certain buildings landmarks, with a cap on the number of landmarks of a certain kind based on the characteristics of the city. For example, if you have some 50,000 jobs in your business district and you wanted to make a certain building stand out you could designate it as a landmark, giving it some sort of tourist status and maybe making money for your city because of tours and so on, but still functioning as an office building or whatever it is. This could apply to other buildings like museums and such depending on whether or not your city has sufficient education, etc. In that way landmarks would be a lot like rewards, except you could choose which buildings to designate a landmark.

This has problems, of course. I would miss a lot of the old buildings. I recently moved my plugins folder out of My Documents because it was over six gigabytes and was making the game really slow, and while screwing around in a vanilla city, I went ahead and placed all the landmarks. I didn't realize how much I actually used to like the landmarks before I stopped using them. I'd say having a long list of available museums to designate as landmarks would be a nice compromise for me, although then we get right back into the "menu clutter" problem.

Perhaps Maxis will find a way to avoid menu clutter issues? I've always wanted to create my own menus so I wouldn't have to wait a full minute for all ten thousand landmarks or parks to appear. I could have a menu for beach/seaside things, a menu for ploppable commercial buildings, and so on. The way I see, being able to organize one's own UI is really just an extension of the necessity of organizing one's plugins folder. When I did that around two gigabytes in and later around four and a half, it took weeks but was well-worth it and I have rarely had issues finding something I stuck in there since then.

[meowza 230]

Menu for custom files: Just make it like the STEX.

Search system based, categorized, recently added, most used, favorties, preferences, tags, and among other modern techniques. So we won't have to load everything all at once.

  Edited March 15, 2012 by meowza  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Traditionally, these games have been all in RAM, but now I think with all the content it is sometimes quite a bit in VRAM. Landmarks clutter the memory even if they are not used, and it would be nice if they were confined to some pages that could be loaded only if used. The menu system clearly needs an overhaul and the idea of most recently used is very attractive. The idea of a menu hierarchy that is deeper than the present one would also be nice, especially if a menu for something like the NAM rings could be created by the custom content maker. The elimination of TAB rings would be a considerable advantage.

The idea of "known" landmarks is rather repugnant to me. I don't want the CN Tower in my seaside town, and I can think of no reason to have it other than "its there". I would like the ability to build a scenic attraction, however. Perhaps a landmark making menu with bits and pieces would be possible.

[LivingInThePast 364]

Even a non-descript water tower or business can be a "landmark" in a certain area. When coming into College Station, Texas from the south, you can see a huge water tower in what was once the far south part of town (not really anymore) or going into Houston, there was once a HUGE car dealership about halfway there (which is now closed). Both are "landmarks", but not in a way that Maxis would consider them.

[Jazzmaster 716]

Landmarks for SimCity 4 were considered of high historic and monumental value. They are one of a kind landmarks like Chicago's John Hancock Center and New York's Empire State Building. However, you have a point; a landmark can be anything. The word landmark itself is so vague because it literally means 'marking the land', which can be done by anything tangible.

[WhereisSC5? 20]

I personally think that, instead of being able to build landmarks, unique buildings will occasionally be built in zones and those will become landmarks over time (though they won't have to be paid for). Alternatively, perhaps the mayor would be able to simply designate whatever he wanted as a landmark. Big gathering square in the center of town? Landmark. Huge park close to downtown? Landmark. Stadium? Landmark. Random part of the suburbs where the mayor lives? Landmark. Oil refinery in the industrial park? Landmark. The site of a wrecked train? Landmark. The possibilities are endless.

[LivingInThePast 364]

That was kind of the point behind "Declare Historical" in SC3K. Maybe the two should be merged?

[Mark Waybill 242]

I suppose one might go about defining a 'landmark' as an anomaly, or something containing a certain degree of some variable. For instance take the Illawarra Escarpment hereabouts. What makes it a landmark is it is a raising of the level of the ground making a cliff for some distance in the terrain, and yet if I were to landscape a public park with a scaled down model it wouldn't have quite the same tourism potential. But how exactly one makes a terrain feature into a landmark is difficult to say. Mountain tops of some relative height value would be a possibility, or a rare species of flora or fauna.

Most skyscrapers have the potential to be tourism generating landmarks ios positioned appropriately. In a city with few high rises an observation tower would dominate the skyline, and be an obvious choice. But it could just be a building with some historical significance, or where some famous person lived/died/worked etc

[Catmando 7]

The idea of "known" landmarks is rather repugnant to me. I don't want the CN Tower in my seaside town, and I can think of no reason to have it other than "its there". I would like the ability to build a scenic attraction, however. Perhaps a landmark making menu with bits and pieces would be possible.

The problem is, some people actually like seeing those in their cities! This is especially true for people trying to recreate a city. Even now lots of people make popular buildings from around the world in their cities. Didn't Petronas come out just last year over at SC4D? There's definitely a demand for those buildings, even for those who aren't recreating real life cities. I guess the job of adding real life buildings to the game could be relegated entirely to BATters, but as long as they're optional in the game I don't see much of a problem. Again, if Maxis resolves menu clutter issues then I don't see how the existence of the landmarks in the game could bother you.

Now, the idea of making a landmark out of "bits and pieces" would be nice too, but I think that could go for all buildings. We're already seeing some modularity and customization in the game anyway:

Remember this video? It apparently demonstrates some flexibility in how you may design public buildings. Is this what you were going for?

  Edited March 15, 2012 by Catmando