Some thoughts on the past few day

[fatbuster 44]

I've been reading people's reactions recently and even with the overwhelmingly negative reactions I figured I'd try to find something positive from all this.

With all the comments I've read, the main thing I keep thinking to myself is how everyone can talk features without talking about the one most important thing, gameplay. Even though we might forget, SimCity is a game & at the end of the day, gameplay is king (at least to me). We could have every single feature we ever wanted, but if it isn't fun, challenging and most importantly, play like a SimCity game should, then it's not worth playing. I know people might say "well, it's missing feature x,y & z and it's online only so it's not a true SimCity sequel" and that also brings up two other points.

Firstly, and I think the biggest, is that absolutely no one here has seen, let alone played the game in person. The only true way to tell if this is worthy of the SimCity title would be if people (hopefully from the community) got their hands on it and gave their impressions. I'm bringing this up now because there are at least 2 upcoming events where someone here should get a chance to see the game for themselves. There's the Gamescom event in Germany in a few weeks and also PAX Prime in Seattle in early september. Both of these events are open to the public. All it would take is one of us to go one of these events and see for ourselves if it's something we will actually want to play. This would also be our best chance to speak to the developers themselves. It's one thing to leave comments on a website or forum about how you feel, but telling them in person will get you much better results. Until someone actually plays the game, saying that this game isn't a true Simcity game, even with the missing features & EA's requirements, just doesn't make sense.

Secondly, Maxis has never implied or suggested that this was going to be sequel to SC4. Even if it isn't obvious with the title choice they have also made sure to say that this game was a "re-imagining" or "reboot" of the franchise since the game was announced. Of course, I wish we were getting a straight sequel. But even I knew I had to lower my expectations down to reality when I kept hearing that. I'm sure many other people starting having high expectations when they said this game would be aimed at "core" audience. People have taken this statement to mean that this was going to be a sequel (after all, we all liked SC4 so that would have made sense). They should have instead stated that this was an entirely new game based off the core SimCity formula. At least then we be expecting something totally new. Actually, It seems obvious to me by now that they're currently aiming for at least a SC2K level of complexity. If they can at least pull that off at this point then I would I would be happy.

All I want anyone to take from all this is that we should still wait and see what happens. There's still much to know before we'll really know if this game will be worthy of our money. I know some of you may have made up your minds already and I know I can't change that but we should remember something important. Right now, the city-building genre is pretty much dead. SCS was a mess, SC4 was almost 10 years ago & CitiesXL bombed putting the original developer out of commission (I don't expect FHI to develop the game further either). I really believe this game could be the last chance at reviving the genre. Even if this game isn't a 100% sequel to SC4, if it plays like a SimCity game should and is fun, Hopefully it does well enough to show other developers that this genre is still alive. Hopefully they will also be the ones to take city-building to the next level....Then we won't ever need EA again.

[nukeu123 307]

agree 100% with this statement

it WILL NOT be up to our complete expectations and we should just accept it

i know i said this a thousand times in other forums but lets not judge and look down a pond a game that has not even yet been played by the public

and come 10 years later out of sc4 and we have 3 total gameplay converting mods simmars, NAM and CAM (just of the top of my mind) and countless amount of addons! that alone should inspire us to look forward in to the future! and its not like Maxis/EA discourages it! even the first Simcity had a Map editor that came years later, same thing with 2000's UrbanRenewalKit ,3000 baap and scenario creator ,4's lot editor and lastly BAT.

all maxis provided just months after initial release, so please hold your opinions untill you atleast try the up comming SC5 and besides (like i said above) give it a few months for modding tools

  Edited July 27, 2012 by nukeu123  

[The Bluejay 40]

People keep saying "Oh it's not a seqel to SC4; they never said they'd make one!" as if that somehow makes the game better. Sadly, it does not.

The criticism does not stem from some tribal loyalty to SC4, it stems from the simple fact that the game being shown does not look fun. The inability to create cohesive regions does not look fun, the pre-determined transit layout does not look fun, the size constraint does not look fun and the always online compenent definitely does not look fun. We're all fine with change, as long as it's positive change.

You say we could have all the features in the world and yet not have fun, and this is true. However, the features of a game form an extremely large component of the gameplay, and important ones being missing severely limits the amount of fun one can have.

You also pointed out that city-building is currently unfashionable, which is again true. Unfortunately, it is largely unfashionable because other attempts at city-building games have been almost unmitigated failures. People keep saying "oh EA have to appeal to the casual market or it won't sell, face it, the new generation is awful, back in my day..." and so forth. I don't think that's true at all, and I don't think people should buy into this myth of "Things have to be simplified to sell well" that's put about by marketing departments. The failed city-builder games in recent years all shared this belief, and they all flopped. Meanwhile, the Sims series and Minecraft - both games which use simple mechanics to allow users to create complex creations - maintain their position on the most sold games list, along with SC3K and Sim City 4.

[fatbuster 44]

The criticism does not stem from some tribal loyalty to SC4, it stems from the simple fact that the game being shown does not look fun. The inability to create cohesive regions does not look fun, the pre-determined transit layout does not look fun, the size constraint does not look fun and the always online compenent definitely does not look fun. We're all fine with change, as long as it's positive change.

I agree that online component could take a lot of enjoyment away from the game. The other points you mentioned though are features that I believe would make a good SC4 sequel, but not necessarily what makes a SimCity game fun. Look at it this way, there have been 3 real SimCity games prior to SC4. None of these games had any real regional interaction besides simple trading. These games also were actually simpler in many ways to SC4. There were fewer or no densities and small map sizes in old SC & SC2K. These games also had limited transportation options & even more cartoony graphics(I think). My question is would you still consider these games as true, fun SimCity games? I know that someone might argue that the reason for limited features were because of technological constraints, but I'm looking at it purely from an angle of enjoyment & satisfaction. If these older games are just as true and fun as SC4 even with with less features and complexity, why should this new game be considered less valid?

Unfortunately I do not have that an answer for this because as I said on my previous post, no one has played this game. Until this game gets into someone's hands outside of the developer we can't really tell how true this game will be, if at all. Of course, I'm not saying EA won't screw it all up and leave us with a terrible game (they definitely have in the past) but I at least want to see what they come up with before I make my decision.

[aparrot7 82]

I've been reading people's reactions recently and even with the overwhelmingly negative reactions I figured I'd try to find something positive from all this.

With all the comments I've read, the main thing I keep thinking to myself is how everyone can talk features without talking about the one most important thing, gameplay. Even though we might forget, SimCity is a game & at the end of the day, gameplay is king (at least to me). We could have every single feature we ever wanted, but if it isn't fun, challenging and most importantly, play like a SimCity game should, then it's not worth playing. I know people might say "well, it's missing feature x,y & z and it's online only so it's not a true SimCity sequel" and that also brings up two other points.

Firstly, and I think the biggest, is that absolutely no one here has seen, let alone played the game in person. The only true way to tell if this is worthy of the SimCity title would be if people (hopefully from the community) got their hands on it and gave their impressions. I'm bringing this up now because there are at least 2 upcoming events where someone here should get a chance to see the game for themselves. There's the Gamescom event in Germany in a few weeks and also PAX Prime in Seattle in early september. Both of these events are open to the public. All it would take is one of us to go one of these events and see for ourselves if it's something we will actually want to play. This would also be our best chance to speak to the developers themselves. It's one thing to leave comments on a website or forum about how you feel, but telling them in person will get you much better results. Until someone actually plays the game, saying that this game isn't a true Simcity game, even with the missing features & EA's requirements, just doesn't make sense.

Secondly, Maxis has never implied or suggested that this was going to be sequel to SC4. Even if it isn't obvious with the title choice they have also made sure to say that this game was a "re-imagining" or "reboot" of the franchise since the game was announced. Of course, I wish we were getting a straight sequel. But even I knew I had to lower my expectations down to reality when I kept hearing that. I'm sure many other people starting having high expectations when they said this game would be aimed at "core" audience. People have taken this statement to mean that this was going to be a sequel (after all, we all liked SC4 so that would have made sense). They should have instead stated that this was an entirely new game based off the core SimCity formula. At least then we be expecting something totally new. Actually, It seems obvious to me by now that they're currently aiming for at least a SC2K level of complexity. If they can at least pull that off at this point then I would I would be happy.

All I want anyone to take from all this is that we should still wait and see what happens. There's still much to know before we'll really know if this game will be worthy of our money. I know some of you may have made up your minds already and I know I can't change that but we should remember something important. Right now, the city-building genre is pretty much dead. SCS was a mess, SC4 was almost 10 years ago & CitiesXL bombed putting the original developer out of commission (I don't expect FHI to develop the game further either). I really believe this game could be the last chance at reviving the genre. Even if this game isn't a 100% sequel to SC4, if it plays like a SimCity game should and is fun, Hopefully it does well enough to show other developers that this genre is still alive. Hopefully they will also be the ones to take city-building to the next level....Then we won't ever need EA again.

Thankyou! +1 Alot of people have been complaining, and its pretty annoying. Just because its missing a few features suddenly makes the game boring and a waste of your money? How about we wait until there finally DONE with the game, and all the nooks and crannies have been sorted out. Then we can decide if we like it or not. And even without a few features- I'm sure the game will still be fun to play. I'm just happy that they are actually making an attempt to bring back City Building games.

[William Gates 84]

OP, your points are really weak.

- It doesn't take a rocket scientist to get a basic idea of what gameplay will be like based on the information they've announced.

- I don't understand why the intentions of Maxis have any bearing whatsoever on whether the final product is fun or not fun to play in the opinion of people who consider themselves hardcore city builders. Bluejay addresses this point pretty well.

  Edited July 27, 2012 by William Gates  
Removed off-topic and non-permitted content.

[Jokurr 175]

The criticism does not stem from some tribal loyalty to SC4, it stems from the simple fact that the game being shown does not look fun. The inability to create cohesive regions does not look fun, the pre-determined transit layout does not look fun, the size constraint does not look fun and the always online compenent definitely does not look fun. We're all fine with change, as long as it's positive change.

I agree that online component could take a lot of enjoyment away from the game. The other points you mentioned though are features that I believe would make a good SC4 sequel, but not necessarily what makes a SimCity game fun. Look at it this way, there have been 3 real SimCity games prior to SC4. None of these games had any real regional interaction besides simple trading. These games also were actually simpler in many ways to SC4. There were fewer or no densities and small map sizes in old SC & SC2K. These games also had limited transportation options & even more cartoony graphics(I think). My question is would you still consider these games as true, fun SimCity games? I know that someone might argue that the reason for limited features were because of technological constraints, but I'm looking at it purely from an angle of enjoyment & satisfaction. If these older games are just as true and fun as SC4 even with with less features and complexity, why should this new game be considered less valid?

Unfortunately I do not have that an answer for this because as I said on my previous post, no one has played this game. Until this game gets into someone's hands outside of the developer we can't really tell how true this game will be, if at all. Of course, I'm not saying EA won't screw it all up and leave us with a terrible game (they definitely have in the past) but I at least want to see what they come up with before I make my decision.

Sure, SC, SC2K and SC3K are all true, fun SimCity games, for their time. When each of them was released, they were novel games where each built upon ideas of the previous game. Of course, once the next sequel came out there was no real reason to play past games, but at the time of their release they were fun. So if Maxis decided to rerelease SC3K with shiny graphics I wouldn't buy it, since we've already got a better game. SC2013 does not build on previous titles, unlike any of the previous SC games (not including SCS). This is why there is so much backlash agasint SC2013.

[His Divine Hand 244]

So if Maxis decided to rerelease SC3K with shiny graphics I wouldn't buy it, since we've already got a better game. SC2013 does not build on previous titles, unlike any of the previous SC games (not including SCS). This is why there is so much backlash agasint SC2013.

I would. SC3K was a very fun game, and honestly, if I still had a copy there have been many of a time I would have liked to fire it up instead of SC4, which at times has just become to complex to really be fun. And since Maxis and EA wish to reboot the Sim City series, go back to its roots you might say, I see no reason why I should expect this new game to be Sim City 5. Crying like a spoiled brat doesn't change the fact that EA doesn't want to continue down the line that SC4 represented, get over it and move on. Just play some SC4 instead.

[MINIggy03 227]

Sure, SC, SC2K and SC3K are all true, fun SimCity games, for their time. When each of them was released, they were novel games where each built upon ideas of the previous game. Of course, once the next sequel came out there was no real reason to play past games, but at the time of their release they were fun. So if Maxis decided to rerelease SC3K with shiny graphics I wouldn't buy it, since we've already got a better game. SC2013 does not build on previous titles, unlike any of the previous SC games (not including SCS). This is why there is so much backlash agasint SC2013.

SC2013 simulates every single car. every single sim. That's the biggest leap the series has ever seen.

  Edited July 27, 2012 by MINIggy03  

[Jokurr 175]

Indeed, the glassbox engine sounds amazing. But then they decided to not include many of the features that made SC4 as great as it was, like terraforming, complete control over regions, etc. To expand on my earlier post, I can't think of any definitive features that were removed from one previous SimCity title to the next. some minor things didn't make it like newspapers and such, but the key gameplay features kept expanding and weren't gutted at any point.

[fatbuster 44]

Indeed, the glassbox engine sounds amazing. But then they decided to not include many of the features that made SC4 as great as it was, like terraforming, complete control over regions, etc. To expand on my earlier post, I can't think of any definitive features that were removed from one previous SimCity title to the next. some minor things didn't make it like newspapers and such, but the key gameplay features kept expanding and weren't gutted at any point.

I agree and this is completely true, but it also makes the assumption that this game will be a direct continuation of the previous games. Maxis has actually been very careful not to state that this game will be a sequel. It seems that they want to take this new engine and basically start from scratch. Usually when you start over the first thought on your mind as a game designer is what do all the older games have in common that also make them not only fun, but also immediately recognizable. The reason I brought up the older games in the series was because even though each successive version added new features, they all played basically the same. You could essentially pick up and learn one version of SimCity (except for maybe SC1) and be able to quickly understand how play all the others. They all played like a good SimCity game should. In contrast, we have have SimCity Societies which ignored the most basic SimCity mechanics and we all saw how that turned out.

I also realize people have been asking why they didn't just include the core mechanics AND all the previous features as well. After thinking about I believe it's actually (sadly) obvious...and of course, it involves EA.

The game was announced early this year. From how soon the to how only concept images were shown because the engine wasn't "ready" yet to how sudden Maxis seemed start up their facebook, twitter & youtube channels. It seems that development literally started this year. The reason I bring this up is very important. AAA studios now normally get between 2-3 years to develop their game since modern high-budget games tend to be a huge undertaking. This means EA has apparently given Maxis a year to go from alpha to AAA retail title. All while needing to support multiplayer and connect to their Origin service. This unfortunately means that Maxis is making this game with very limited time. As a result that also means some decisions possibly had to be made regarding the features the game would be required to have by it's release date. You can tell how limited they are just by reading Ocean's response to this person's question about subways being included in the base game (I hope they do though!).

Regardless whether or not this game a good sequel to SC4 (which I agree with most people here that I highly doubt). What is also important to me is that this game at the very least play like a good SimCity game should, while also bringing new ideas to the table. If Maxis can pull that off (especially with the time they have to do it) then I would personally be satisfied(though still secretly wishing for SC5 ).

[Odainsaker 2,137]

So if Maxis decided to rerelease SC3K with shiny graphics I wouldn't buy it, since we've already got a better game. SC2013 does not build on previous titles, unlike any of the previous SC games (not including SCS). This is why there is so much backlash agasint SC2013.

I would. SC3K was a very fun game, and honestly, if I still had a copy there have been many of a time I would have liked to fire it up instead of SC4, which at times has just become to complex to really be fun.

Those who remember the development of SimCity 3000 as the successor to SimCity 2000 may see the irony. It was hoped by independant Maxis management that SC3K would be fully 3D, and screenshots and a demo were released in 1997 for E3. A full 3D city was certainly ambitious and a dream of SimCity fans, but it was obvious the technology at the time would be horrifyingly unforgiving, and the limitiations in available graphics, memory capacity, and processing speed were painfully obvious.

Fans howled and the community was divided by the shocking implications of the first teaser images:

1997 may have been a long time ago in another Century and even another Millenium, but, be sure that fans knew even then that this was bad. I admit, I bashed that image, too, along with all the gameplay sacrifices (miniscule maps, simplified graphics, narrow camera views) made in order to make 3D work.

EA bought out Maxis at that time, and the chunky 3D was dumped in favor of a far more conventional and workable isometric, which was hurriedly drafted and unvield to everyone's surprise and relief a year later. This revamped second version of SimCity 3000 was finally released in 1999, trading 3D town centers for bigger maps, grayscale terrain import, and colorful graphics. While full 3D was thankfully abandoned, useful vestiges remained in the form of the 3D building blocks of its Building Architect tool, from which we got the first "BAT"-named tool. Later, after much fan community prodding, a SCURK-like tool was also finally added as SC3URK.

The moral of the story is that we need not necessarily abandon all hope or simply cast EA as the monstrous devourer of Maxis and wash our hands of the series. SimCity development has shifted before in response to public reception, and EA, for all its Wicked Evil, did in fact give us the revamped SimCity 3000 and then the current favorite SimCity 4, along with all their modding tools for both games. It may yet be possible to see SimCity 2013 become the worthy late successor to the series.

[fatbuster 44]

Actually, Odainsaker, SC3000 was the first game that I followed from announcement to release, including when the game was originally going to be 3D! Originally when I heard it was going back to 2D I was disappointed, then again I didn't know any better! After I heard what was going on behind the scenes though I realized going back to 2D was for the best.

Actually, I have an example of how Maxis treated its fanbase during SC3K's development after the EA buyout (remember EA by that time was already known for eating up studios and dismantling them). I doubt many people remember now but would you believe that SC3000 originally was going to launch without highways! I think the original explanation was that they didn't have the time to add highways into the game (ah, the times before DLC!). I think the game was only a couple of months away from release at that point so it would seem to make sense. The complaints that rose up in their forums could almost have rivaled what we are seeing now, and this was just one feature! Eventually Maxis changed their minds and added the highways we see now into the game. Where most companies (especially the ones owned by EA) would have just brushed the complaints aside and released as-is, Maxis actually listened to us, kept us updated and made the changes late in development. In the end though I think I used the highway in that game exactly once ). This was the moment that gave me faith in post-EA Maxis.

The reason I brought this up was because the main people that worked on that game are still working at Maxis (Will didn't really on SC3K). It's really only because of their past actions that I still have any hope for this game. It may have been a long time since SC3K but I would like to believe that they still not only know how to make a good simcity game (they have yet to let me down) but also take our thoughts into account, even if they can't always fulfill them.

NOTE: Actually, here is an article that explains the events around SC3K's development period. You might recognize a couple of familar names still at Maxis.

  Edited July 28, 2012 by fatbuster  

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

The same old weak attempts to defend a company's bad game design. If you read the first interviews they made the anouncement of the game to be a new continuation of the Sim City series in so many words. Now arguments are being made that this was never meant to be a sequel. Did I miss something? I find it unreasonable to expect. Fans of a series to play a completely different game with the same title with crucial features that defined the gameplay taken out and expect them to have a sense of moving forward.

[Mark Waybill 242]

I see no reason why the 'gameplay' argument can be used to defend EA's decisions. A game can have control and options and realism while at the same time having a simpler mode or an organised structure that allows players of all experience levels to enjoy it. To say that all they've done to destroy what could have been a true successor to 4 is fine because of 'gameplay' is absurd. Limiting players power to the extent that we will be playing 2 by 2 km bubbles on preformed maps with preformed transit connections, while offering us meaningless and unecessary superhero gameplay, how is that a good step? Getting rid of zoning density control, oh yeah- that's a smart move... If we wanted a casual facebook style game we'd head on over to Simcity Social. Simcity and SCS are meant to be two separate games. Simcity is a serious game for players who know how to use their computers beyond accessing facebook apps.

[Jim14409 448]

SC2013 simulates every single car. every single sim. That's the biggest leap the series has ever seen.

With the small maps there won't be many cars and people to watch it seems to me...so how long before that gets old and there's nothing else to keep folks playing? Not long is my guess.

Many advocate buying the game and "giving it a try" That's all EA wants is for you to BUY it. This is why fans keep getting ignored because they keep supporting what they didn't want and otherwise mediocre games. Then they come out with a new edition or something and make excuses knowing people will blindly rush in with money in hand. These big companies with no real interest in gameplay laugh all the way to the bank and we are the fodder.

Thats some of my "thoughts on the last few days."

[fatbuster 44]

Make no mistake, if this game bombs at release Maxis will be as dead to me as Bioware is to RPG fans (I still can't believe they attached Bioware's name to C&C!). I also wouldn't want anyone to spend a single dime on this product, even if it's to "take one for team" just to tell us what they think. This is why I brought up the conventions coming up earlier. This will be their first chance to show off the game to the public (E3 is a closed industry event). I will hope that any fan that attends these events will be able to tell us (and them) whether this game will even be worth anymore of our time, forget money. Personally, If I start hearing negative impressions from the event goers that would pretty much convince me that this game doesn't have a chance, bar some miracle from EA/Maxis.

I understand that to others having small maps, regional control & offline capability are deal breakers. To me, SimCity has always been the very core mechanics (zoning, growth, transportation & city management). I know it's most likely not the popular opinion in here but it is the only reason I haven't completely given up on this game yet. In the end, I know that I don't owe Maxis anything just as much as they don't owe me.

[Rokugatsu 128]

Finally someone talking with sense and not just complaining!

We wont get everything we want, that's true, but what do you excpect? First of all, there are a lot of people waiting for a new Sim City, some of them wants this, others wants something else. They will NEVER make a game good for everyone.

And second and most important. Maxis/EA are the companies that have to make money, not charity, they can't make a huge and expensive game just for our small community. Yes, our community IS small. How many people want realism from new Sim City and would buy the game if it would have everything we wanted? How many people want a real city simulation with huge maps, mods and single player? 1000? 5000? 10000? 15000? Seems a lot, but lets face it, its nothing compared to how much copies they have to sell to actually get some profit. Making games like new Sim City is expensive, so they have to make a game that will be good, but also will also sell a lot of copies, because like I said, they are not a charity, they can't give their own money to make a game for us.

And yes, I know that SC4 was more "core" than SC13 seems to be (but we dont know that for sure, none of us have played it), but it was 10 years ago, players was different. I don't think SC4 would sell THAT good today...

So before complaining about everything, think about it. Of course Im not saying that we shouldn't say anything bad about the game and just accept everything as it is, but we are not 5 years old, are we? We can't act like a child and scream: "I want, I want, I want! I don't care how much does it cost, I don't care about anything, I want a game that will be good for ME!". We have to understand that making a game cost a lot of money and work, and they can't make whatever they want, they HAVE to think about the sells. You would too.

And finally, let's not judge the game before we play it. It may be bad, but we don't know that yet.

[Mark Waybill 242]

They will NEVER make a game good for everyone.

Only because they won't, not because they can't. Simcity isn't another mainstream FPS. Simcity is an institution. It's like if Bart Simpson was suddenly a dog and Lisa became a grown woman, and Homer started working at an organic farm. To accept a compromise to the extent they are offering is like accepting a burger without any filling. It's a waste of money. A game like what they are talking about will be playable for a few months at most and then will become stale. People will get to the borders of their city bubble allocation zones and then realise they can't expand any further.

The limitations of this game make it sound not worth buying. If you enjoyed Societies, then fine, buy it. But if you believe in getting a true successor to 4, then I would think that accepting this game as such would be accepting a vastly inferior substitute for a true 5.

[NMUSpidey 3,956]

They will NEVER make a game good for everyone.

Only because they won't, not because they can't. Simcity isn't another mainstream FPS. Simcity is an institution. It's like if Bart Simpson was suddenly a dog and Lisa became a grown woman, and Homer started working at an organic farm. To accept a compromise to the extent they are offering is like accepting a burger without any filling. It's a waste of money. A game like what they are talking about will be playable for a few months at most and then will become stale. People will get to the borders of their city bubble allocation zones and then realise they can't expand any further.

The limitations of this game make it sound not worth buying. If you enjoyed Societies, then fine, buy it. But if you believe in getting a true successor to 4, then I would think that accepting this game as such would be accepting a vastly inferior substitute for a true 5.

Honestly, I don't think that modern computers have the horsepower to run the game we are all still dreaming of. Having spent some time contemplating the thoughts at the top of this page, I do have to admit that fatbuster makes some good points. When I think about my own time playing SC games, the most fun I have is still with the SNES version, and that is far from being any kind of realistic. But if it is fun, if we have to take a step back in features to take a few steps forward in fun, that seems like it would be an okay deal. Rebooting the franchise, starting from scratch with the simulator engine and all that does not mean that the game is going to suck, different most definitely does NOT mean suck. From what it looks like, this does not appear to be a rehash of SCS (although I suppose there are a few parallels that can be drawn between this and CXL).

However, this is all moot to me anyways because I am not playing a multi-player SimCity where I must worry about resources and specialization and be connected to online servers all the time and basically everything is in the clouds and I don't own any of it and the EA EULA is borderline criminal, but that doesn't change the point that the game and its new simulator engine could still deliver a pretty fun experience.

EDIT: I feel must really stress how I do not think modern computers have the horses to power the game we all want. SC4 is still a system hog on my computer, Civ IV still eats computing power. A 3D SC4 with a more realistic simulator engine? Are we conscious of how much computing power that would take to process? Not all of us have the kind of money to build a serious gaming rig, and then shell out the cash that such a game would cost. That is why if gameplay is great and the game is as fun and fresh as SC for SNES was when it came out, then we have a new starting point and things will grow from there and it might not be that bad.

  Edited July 29, 2012 by NMUSpidey  

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

Calling fans of a mature series a bunch of complainers is not fair. Insinuating that disapointed fans are acting like 5 year olds in light of what we are seeing for the 3rd time in recent years to me shows a disconnect and insensitivity just as the developers seem to have. If you like what they are dishing out then tell us why. Tell us what's so great in your opinion and then show us after you bought the game. At least those who are expressing their disapointment are giving valid reasons with clear evidene. The real complainers to me are those who attack the opinions of others in these forums. Let's talk about the game.

[NCGAIO 562]

Simulation of construction are generally a type of game for a specific niche market, so we talked of the hundreds of thousands, not of many millions of players worldwide.

It is evident that the release of this type of game now has to have the interest of their fans to boost their sales, or even more, really needs to this happen to justify the investment.

So for those who are willing to buy, it would be nice to hope that Simcity is a bestseller and has a high index of profitability online

Only way to avoid the displeasure of seeing the game in a list as this in few years - Service-Updates - for failing to "1% of all online players peak in all EA's titles "

  Edited July 29, 2012 by NCGAIO  

[BEK1 30]

The OP and his supporters have got it wrong on this one. Firstly, if you don't want a game to be a contiunuation of the series, don't call it SimCity! The reason fans were so upset with SCS was that it attempted to appropriate the brand power of SimCity with a terribly designed and overly simplistic name. It's isn't so much about a continuation as it is about standards. As others have said, the previous SC titles were actually quite cutting edge at the time of their release. SC4 left many a computer smoking when it was released took gamelplay to a new level. At this point, SC fans know what will actually make for good gameplay. We have had a few other city sims in the interim to know what works and what doesn't beforehand. EA clearly didn't listen.

I disagree with the point that we can't have the game we really want. In fact, if EA had just spruced up the graphics, fixed the Windows crash, and incorporated the leaps made by NAM and CAM into an add-on for SC4, they'd probably have a bestseller. The standards are actually lower in some cases. Most SC fans will sacrifice a graphics leap for improved gameplay. The market for this type of game is not the same as the FPS market. Sadly, EA and other game makers don't get this point.

The other problem I have with this is that a failure of this title will likely mean that EA and other companies simply decide that there is no real market for these types of games. That is why I think a number of us are so disappointed and so vocal about our issues with the game. You cannot just offer up an oversimplified game with a great engine and expect everyone to go for it. I think there is a rather large untapped market for more complex games. Simplified gameplay became the gospel because so many FPS games made quick money based on online gameplay and good graphics. Now everyone thinks that is what ALL games need. Many games, especially sims like SC and Caesar, languished because this formula doesn't convert well. Tropico seemed to have understood this and the game has done very well. Sometimes we know something won't be good before we actually try it. Saying we have to buy and try is how companies get over on people with substandard products.

[Mark Waybill 242]

I would gladly pay the deluxe edition price for Simcity 4 but multiplayer and in full 3d, with curvy roads and Glassbox. I would pay about fifty cents, if that, for no man's land with a few bubbles of development space connected by prebaked transit networks in regions designed by someone else and affected by a 'global economy' that is highly unlikely to resemble anything close to a realistic economic environment.

I believe in gameplay. I am not asking for a university course in city planning. But previous titles managed to incorporate (no pun intended) both realism and gameplay rather well. The 4 formula worked well, and while it had its problems, was not nearly as far off target as 2013 sounds like it will be. I would put terraforming, zone density control, and control of intercity transportation and the ability to play offline (because, in my case, internet is expensive- more than the eula/origin issue which is not really a simcity issue but an ea issue) as higher priorities than a superhero plot and a few pretty tilesets with predictable effects.

The technological argument, to my mind, seems flawed because 1. Computers are capable of what we want. If we had a array of sc4 style cities placed in a region, we could still have 2 by 2 km limits to each tile while allowing for realistic city expansion and suburban growth. Not all cities are Dubai, and you can't fit Dubai in 2 by 2 km either.

Also 2. the only reason computers would struggle is because they are wasting resources on unecessary cosmetic details like 'tilt shift' rather than focusing on core gameplay like transit and terrain design, and realistic zoning control. This seems more like a city builder than a city sim game atm.

[CaptCity 4,913]

I think the "few days" aspect of this topic has been reached. Most of the comments here are better served in one of the appropriate, pinned topics. We'll close this... Thanks.