Can You "Fail" At SimCity?

[JinRenegade 0]

Hi there,

I'm currently writing a dissertation for university on what defines a "game", and would like some help with something (skip to the end if you want to know what piece of information I specifically need to complete my work). I have read through many academics on their works, from past to present (e.g. Johan Huizinga - "Homo Ludens", Roger Caillois - "Man, Play and Games", Chris Crawford - "The Art of Computer Game Design", Jesper Juul - "Half-Real" etc).

One of the many occurring examples, that the more recent academics write in their works (i.e. Costikyan, Berger, Juul etc), on the topic of what constitutes not to be a game, is apparently SimCIty (the first game). For example, Greg Costikyan writes that:

Quote

Sim City has no goals. Is it not a game?

No, as it's own designer willingly maintains. It is a toy.

And the only way to stay interested in it for very long is to turn it into a game -- by setting goals, by defining objectives for yourself. Build the grandest possible megalopolis; maximize how much your people love you; build a city that relies solely on mass transit. Whatever goal you've chosen, you've turned it into a game.

Even so, the software doesn't support your goal. It wasn't designed with your goal in mind. And trying to do something with a piece of software that it wasn't intended to do can be awfully frustrating.

Since there's no goal, Sim City soon palls

I have never played the first two SimCity games - I have only ever played SimCity 3000 (which was a long time ago and I do not have a copy anymore) and SimCity 4.

However, upon reading the manuals of both SimCity and SimCity 2000, apparently the games came with two modes of play - scenario play and the base game itself. Within these scenarios, you assume the role as mayor of a currently built city, and you must reach certain goals within a time limit to win. If you do not, you fail. This is what many would constitute to be a game as it provides at least three tenets that make up a game: 1. Rules, 2. Conflict, 3. A meaningful outcome. The scenario modes were suggested to be implemented by the publisher at the time, Brøderbund, that it would make the product truly a "game" rather than just a simulation.

Exerpt from the SimCity Manual:

Quote

SCENARIOS
Each of the eight included Scenarios is actually a game in itself, with an
unlimited number of ways to win - or lose.

Each Scenario is a city which is either the victim of horrible planning or
about to become the victim of a natural disaster. After you load in a
Scenario, you will have a limited amount of time to correct or repair the
problem. If you are successful you will be given the key to the city. If
not, you may be ridden out of town on a rail

My questions to you SimTropolis are the following:

1. Is it possible, in both the first SimCity and SimCity 2000, to "fail" (i.e. achieve a "Game Over" screen) in the core game (i.e. not the scenarios)? If so, how?

I for one know that it is indeed possible to at least fail in the core games of SimCity 3000 and SimCity 4 if your finances take a dip, but I do not know the specifics and do not have the games on hand nor the time at the moment (it was a long time since I last failed SimCity 3000 and SimCity 4, which was many, many years ago when I was messing around with the game to see what would happen if you financially destroyed yourself). So, my second question is the following:

2. How exactly do you fail (i.e. achieve a "Game Over" screen) SimCity 3000 and SimCity 4? Specifics would be great. (I think it had something to do with a certain amount of debt? How much was it?)

Any answer to either of these two questions would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,

Jin

[CorinaMarie 29,858]

1 hour ago, JinRenegade said:

Since there's no goal, Sim City soon palls

^ From your first quote.

IMO, this part was said by someone who should not play golf. (Lacks the ability to distinguish a part of their anatomy from a hole in the ground.) While the various Sim Cities themselves do not have pre-defined goals (other than scenarios) we players do indeed set our own. The part where Mr. Costikyan says you turn it into a game by setting goals is correct so I'm confuzzled why he would then conclude that it will soon pall. SimCity 4 is an excellent counterpoint to that statement. 13 years later and it still has a loyal following. (Peeps who lack imagination and who need to have a specific set of objectives handed to them might well agree with the part I'm nit-picking.)

Each person does indeed set their own goal(s) and then it is a game to accomplish them. In SC4 it might be to create a city tile with 1 million residential Sims living there. Failure is assured until one understands the intricacies of the simulation. One has to balance zones, amenities, and the transportation network to achieve the self selected population threshold. Or the goal could be the most beautiful looking city. Or any other result the person imagines. It is then a game to figure out how to achieve those.

For all editions of SimCity, failure would simply be not getting the final outcome one had decided they want.

[JinRenegade 0]

Everything that you have said is indeed true, but I'm wondering if it is possible to literally fail the game (i.e. achieve a "Game Over" screen") in the first two SimCity games (not the scenario section, but the "Create Your Own City" gamemode)? If so, how is that possible to achieve? I at the very least know that it certainly is possible to get a "Game Over" screen in both SimCity 3000 and SimCity 4, so I was also wondering how exactly you can achieve this (i.e. what amount of debt do you have to acquire in order to fail)?

Reason I ask is because, if there is at least one outcome that be achieved (i.e. failure), then SimCity can at the very least be considered a borderline game rather than not a game at all, therefore putting all of these academic's points that SimCity is not a game at all into the toilet, by the very definitions that they have drawn up.

[CorinaMarie 29,858]

1 hour ago, JinRenegade said:

I'm wondering if it is possible to actually fail the game (i.e. "Game Over" screen") in the first two SimCity games? If so, how is that possible to achieve?

Ah. I see. I won't be any help for that cause I never attempted to fail. It just isn't in my nature.

(And yes, I have played the original, 2000, 3000, and now 4.)

[MushyMushy 3,618]

You get a "game over" in SC4 if you go 100,000 in debt. The game does not specifically say "game over," instead it basically just tells you you're an awful mayor and maybe try some other level of government. Then, if I recall, it will just exit to the region map so you can load the city from the last save prior to failing.

[airman15 4,113]

5 minutes ago, MushyMushy said:

You get a "game over" in SC4 if you go 100,000 in debt. The game does not specifically say "game over," instead it basically just tells you you're an awful mayor and maybe try some other level of government. Then, if I recall, it will just exit to the region map so you can load the city from the last save prior to failing.

You beat me to it! I was writing up that exact answer! It is what happens and a little advice I could give is don't try to build water pumps all over the city in place of a pipe network! The other level of government was spot on too; it tells you that you're better off running as a senator!

[JinRenegade 0]

6 minutes ago, MushyMushy said:

You get a "game over" in SC4 if you go 100,000 in debt. The game does not specifically say "game over," instead it basically just tells you you're an awful mayor and maybe try some other level of government. Then, if I recall, it will just exit to the region map so you can load the city from the last save prior to failing.

Excellent, just what I needed, thank you very much! 

Now, I just need to know about SC1, 2k and 3k! (especially the first game)

[MushyMushy 3,618]

1 minute ago, airman15 said:

It is what happens and a little advice I could give is don't try to build water pumps all over the city in place of a pipe network!

Yeah, I remember my horrendous attempts at playing the game when I was really little (I got it when I was like 7 or something). I did stuff so wrong that I failed the game several times... and I wasn't even trying to!

[airman15 4,113]

Just now, MushyMushy said:

Yeah, I remember my horrendous attempts at playing the game when I was really little (I got it when I was like 7 or something). I did stuff so wrong that I failed the game several times... and I wasn't even trying to!

That's about when I picked up the game, it was a reward for finishing the 4th grade with good markups. Sometimes I lost my patience with waiting for skyscrapers so I plopped a bunch of the tallest landmarks and called it a city, which I went bankrupt there too. And then there was another plan that seemed to work out by taking out all of the loan money the game allowed but the crippling debt would later catch up and got kicked again. Fun times with the very first cities 

[rsc204 21,860]

Sim City (the original) was pretty simplistic, although it was totally possible to fail and get a game over. SC2K was a real problem for me when I was younger, I just couldn't get my head around things to build anything, whilst maintaining a healthy budget, so I failed often and put the game to one side. It was many years later before I had the patience to really get into it. That's a key factor in this question, because all simulators have rules, you have to make money, you need good city services etc. If you fail to adhere to these systems, then your city will not work correctly. This is pretty much the essence of what makes a game, rules and systems.

As an avid collector/enthusiast of consoles and games, I think of all the Sim City products as games. The reason for this is because actually, what I suspect I and many other people want from a city simulator, is precisely for the game element to be removed. Think about it, what makes Lego or Meccano so great? Provided you have the pieces, you can make whatever you like. The only limitations are your imagination and the size of your wallet. But the Sim City games are not like this, because no matter how much time you spend installing or even creating custom content, you will always find yourself bound by the underlying game's mechanics or rules. Until we are freed from that, players have to find creative solutions to problems, that will always be inherent in this system of rules. Rules which continue to dictate whether or not what you are trying to do works. Sure you can cheat or mod your way around some of them, but the mere fact that you might have to, I believe supports my game theory.

It's quite correct to say there is no clear way to win the game, with the exception of the scenarios, which were added to enhance the game-element. But since when is a game defined by having a clear way of winning? If we go back to the early arcade games, many of these simply went on until you got to the point where the people coding it assumed you'd have lost and stopped coding anything new. Take PacMan for example, how do you win that? In essence by getting the highest score possible, a very common game mechanic. What if you finish the game though, have you won if you make it to the kill screen? Perhaps winning is not the point, it's scoring that is the true point of playing these games. The point being that having a clear goal to win is not something that's intrinsically linked to the definition of games, it can be as simple as the experience or joy of playing.

You might think philosophically speaking, a number of people choose not to play simulators as games, which I would agree with. BadSim's AntigOne is an excellent example of a player, who simply bypassed the game at every step, to force the game to allow him to realise a vision. In a similar vein, many of the CJers also bypass the game element in their quest to create a specific vision. In essence, these players are using whatever means they can to cajole the game into working more like a digital toolbox for creating. I would argue the mere fact that you would have to, supports my theory that simulators are games. This is further supported by the reality that in such cities, simply switching the simulator from paused to on would cause everything to collapse very quickly. Precisely because these creations have not adhered to the rules of play in their creation.

At the heart of this question is the developers/publishers, for it is they who decided that simulators would be games. I think there is a belief that a simulator must have game elements in order to sell. If we were all free to just use the assets of a game however we liked, we'd all be too bored or too overwhelmed to enjoy the product. Personally I believe that there is a market for simulators with no game attached to them. Simply nothing more than a toolbox that allows us to create whatever we want, free of rules. On the day such a product is released, I would agree it was no longer a game. How would I categorise such a piece of software? Well, I think a digital hobby, or simply pastime really is the best way to describe it. I think many of the avid SC4 and C:S community, unrestricted from the limits of space, time, money and other halves, might be quite keen hobbyists. Making landscapes, model railways and such on a large scale. What a simulator does well, is allow people to experience the creative freedom of such hobbies, but without the sheer expense and other limiting factors getting in the way. Just think how much bigger a digital train set could be? Of course, it's not all about trains, a quick look through the content of ST and you'll see people who are interested in all the different elements. Those who are into recreating highway systems, landscaping, cities, railways and more besides. I bet every single one of those players when asked, could find one part of the game that gets in the way of their design goals. In conclusion, if Sim City and simulators are not games, they sure act like them to me.

[JinRenegade 0]

24 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

Sim City (the original) was pretty simplistic, although it was totally possible to fail and get a game over. SC2K was a real problem for me when I was younger, I just couldn't get my head around things to build anything, whilst maintaining a healthy budget, so I failed often and put the game to one side.

Ah, so you can definitely achieve a "Game Over" screen in the first and second games? In the "Create Your Own City" gamemode (free-form play)? Do you know what the requirements are to achieve that? It'd be really useful to know so that I can write about it in my dissertation as I must provide evidence for each point I make, and stating the specific requirement can be counted as evidence - it provides the lecturer an avenue to find out for themselves whether or not I was telling the truth, in the same way that you have to cite where (i.e. which page / line) you draw your quotes and sources from academic / factual documents.

If at all possible, a screenshot would be perfect evidence as well (requirement should also be stated as I said above, though).

[CorinaMarie 29,858]

2 hours ago, JinRenegade said:

If at all possible, a screenshot would be perfect evidence as well (requirement should also be stated as I said above, though).

How soon do you need it?

[rsc204 21,860]

I've owned the original Sim City on PC, SNES and even a Psion Organiser at one point. I know it's possible to fail, ultimately this is a budgetary thing, to get a game over you are simply in debt at a point the game considers you will not be able to recover from.

It's the scenario's that are simplest to fail. For example you have to do X within X years. At the end of the time period a clear win or lose situation occurs. An example SimCity scenario I was able to find:

As for the free-play mode, I figured I'd boot up SC2K to see how easily I could get a game over. How hard can it be to get into debt . Well pretty hard actually, I plopped a bunch of fire stations on hard mode, hit full speed and waited for the inevitable debts to mount. Now I can't say the exact conditions for loosing are being 100k in debt based on this single example. It could be other factors come into play as well. So without further testing or finding a reliable source on the matter, I wouldn't assume that's what's going on. But that's when I saw this:

[JinRenegade 0]

46 minutes ago, CorinaMarie said:

How soon do you need it?

There's still time - I have until the 17th to submit it.

44 minutes ago, rsc204 said:

I've owned the original Sim City on PC, SNES and even a Psion Organiser at one point. I know it's possible to fail, ultimately this is a budgetary thing, to get a game over you are simply in debt at a point the game considers you will not be able to recover from.

It's the scenario's that are simplest to fail. For example you have to do X within X years. At the end of the time period a clear win or lose situation occurs. An example SimCity scenario I was able to find:

As for the free-play mode, I figured I'd boot up SC2K to see how easily I could get a game over. How hard can it be to get into debt . Well pretty hard actually, I plopped a bunch of fire stations on hard mode, hit full speed and waited for the inevitable debts to mount. Just as that hit 100k, I got this:

Now I can't say the exact conditions for loosing are being 100k in debt based on this single example. It could be other factors come into play as well. So without further testing or finding a reliable source on the matter, I wouldn't assume that's what's going on.

This is excellent evidence for proving scenarios, with specific challenges and outcomes, do exist in SC1 and showing that you can actually fail SC2k in free-form play (therefore achieving the "Meaningful Outcome" part of Juul's Classic Game Model, which constitutes what is a game and what is not a game). If I could get "Game Over" quotes from SC1, SC3k and SC4 (as an image would be best), to see if they're all the same, then that'd be perfect as well (I can refer back to this thread in my bibliography). But so far, thank you very much for posting these!

If anyone's interested, this is what Jesper Juul has to say about SimCity (the first game). The third part, where he says "No outcomes are assigned values" can be wrong if you are able to achieve a "Game Over" screen by poorly managing your finances. If the game is completely endless, where you literally cannot fail, then it cannot be considered a game unless you apply your own meaningful outcomes to it (e.g. "I'm going to build a city of X population with X amount of time"). For example, Cities: Skylines - there is no "Game Over" screen, and if your finances plunge into unplayability, you are given free bailouts every month until you have enough to start over again rather than being forced back to the main menu. If you do not apply your own meaningful outcome, then it just becomes a "fun activity". It's more a game of "paidia" rather than "ludus". 

Quote

 

Borderline Case: SimCity

As previously mentioned, SimCity is considered a borderline case.

1. Rules: Rules regarding economy, buildings, assumptions about how the city works, transport. Some rules are explicit, some are inferred by the player from the setting, some contradict the setting--a power plant can be built in a few months in the game, unlike in real life.

2. Outcome: Few specified outcomes.

3. Value assigned to outcome: No outcomes are assigned values, though the player may feel that building a city is better than not building one, but the game conversely accommodates players who want to destroy their creations. Players may assign their own personal values to the different outcomes.

4. Effort: Building, planning.

5. Attachment: Whatever happens is to some extent the player's fault, but this is loosely defined.

6. Consequences: Not a prime candidate for betting since the outcome is not clearly defined.

 

 

[Cool_Z 1,547]

11 hours ago, CorinaMarie said:

For all editions of SimCity, failure would simply be not getting the final outcome one had decided they want.

This !! Exactly.

Simtrop is the perfect example of how people have different goals with the game.

Some paint a city house by house, curve by curve or tree by tree. Others want to fill grids and watch the city prosper. Others want to see beautiful buildings and custom ones appear in their city....

[Sabretooth78 808]

FYI, here is the SC4 "Fail" dialog.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the threshold may be a negative budget at §-200k.

 

I played a good amount of SC3k back in the day, though I never got far enough into any individual city such as to reach any kind of end game.  Nor did I ever do anything bad enough to fail, as IMHO the game was much easier than SC2k.  I did fail SC2k several times before everything finally just clicked - I can actually still remember that exact moment where I realized I had gotten over the hump (I usually spiraled out of control after 40+ years and the power plant needed replacement) - some 20+ years later lol; that iteration did seem to have quite the steep initial learning curve.

[Compdude787 916]

Yeah, back before I figured out how to balance the budget, (aka years ago) I would just play a particular city until I got to 0 Simoleons, then I'd just obliterate the city and start over. I never got to the "game over" screen. I liked playing Roller Coaster Tycoon 3 more at the time because there was a sandbox mode with unlimited money.

[Lost Realist 762]

I, for one, actually tend to agree with the definition of games vs. toys that's used here. SimCity itself is certainly a game since it has a definite outcome, but the way that custom content has made many people play - cheat ordinances, money cheats, demand mods - has essentially removed failure as an outcome and turned the whole thing into an excercise that yields mostly an artistic feeling of achievement which I also wouldn't consider similar to the completion of a fixed objective or reaching of a goal. So in that spirit, I consider SimCity 4 a game turned toy the way I'm using it.