iamihop11

All it takes for me to make up my mind is to look at the record Russia and China have in the realms of censorship/free speech and the conflicts we have already seen between those countries and tech companies like Google. The less control Russia and China have over the internet, the better off we (and by 'we' I mean all of humanity) are. Putin alarms me and I suspect a fellow name Ai Weiwei would recommend keeping China away from any source of liberty.

This is interesting. It may spur me to start my own CJ, just because I take a different approach to "no-cheat." My focus is in getting a region to develop realistically, and I don't use cheats, either (except some DL content that isn't balanced very well). That means starting out with just a few blocks of development and a bunch of farms, and watching the cities gradually grow and interconnect. Like you, I only build highways, etc, once they're needed, but it allows things to look natural and organic, rather than just grids. There's nothing like trying to put a highway through a dense downtown area to force variety and quirkiness, like real cities have.

Really does remind me of Hotlanta, with the spread-out, almost linear rows of commercial towers. And, of course, the particular buildings...

That's interesting, because I never use terraforming to radically alter a region. It's more fun to develop a city around the topography. However, I use terraforming all the time to create sunken highways, industrial areas, seaports, airports, and lots of other elements. In real life, these projects DO require huge amounts of terraforming. Look at the airport that Hong Kong recently built - entirely on "reclaimed" (ie terraformed) land.

I've wondered this for some time. I have entire industrial districts that get no commuters (no workers if TWrecks is right, and I'm sure he is). We're talking about industries that have existed not just for a few weeks, but for decades. The most extreme example is a large area across a river from my region's commercial center. I guess they just find it easier to get to the commercial areas, even though the industries are often closer to the residents? Do sims show a preference for CO$$$ jobs over I$$$

I think there may be one other revenue stream that EA would like to take advantage of: DLC. The plan is simple - just create a half-baked game, sell it for $80, and then charge $5 or $10 for "additional" content that should have been there in the first place. Then they can come out the next year with a "deluxe" or "gold" version, with all of the DLC included, and sell more units of essentially the same game. Tilted Mill did this with Cities XL.

Others can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe elevated rail/subway has higher capacity (and speeds?). If you want realism, and if you view the NAM on ultra is a bit on the cheat side, I think the key for you will be simply diversifying the possible ways for your residents to make the commute. So, for example, keep the 3 railway lines, but add an elevated rail, a subway connection, and a RHW route (Real Highway - I recommend it and it is included in NAM, I think. It takes a little getting used to, but it can look gorgeous).

Am I just being a grumpy old geezer? Am I clinging to my individual city sim desires just because I'm scared of the inevitable future of gaming? Are we all just being difficult to please? I want to like this game so much, I keep telling myself "Buck up, young man. At least give it a chance." But this release includes two more major blows - lack of teraforming and small maps. Have they ever actually seen a city? Did it fit into 4 square kilometers? Even smallish cities like Baltimore or Raleigh or Tuscon are hundreds of sq km. Have they ever heard of suburbs? What if I want to see some white flight/urban renewal cycling? Goodbye sunken highways? Smoothed seaports? Coastline teraforming for seawalls? If I want to build Denver, am I going to get stuck putting it on a river delta? I don't want to be disappointed, I honestly don't. But I could really use some help from Maxis and EA!

I place both research centers near other growable buildings all the time, with apparently next to no ill effects. In fact, I just recently placed a disease research center near a new suburb, and they grew up $$ and $$$ like normal. If it decreases desirability, it isn't much - not enough to change the bright green on the desirability graphs.

Heh, no, it doesn't. I was thinking more along the lines of "highly-technical piece of software with market dominance which can be sold for absurd sums of money" Can you imagine doing spatial analysis in this sort of environment, though? I'd keep getting distracted by the bumper stickers on the cg cars driving past.

That's very impressive, but there are a few reasons I can think of that Maxis hasn't taken advantage of it. - Most importantly, because 95% of computers out there right now would have conniption fits. My computer would die as soon as it got a look at the box! - Because it isn't theirs, and there's no way that they could produce something comparable for $100 a pop. Applications for this sort of cutting-edge software are more likely to be used by architecture/urban planning firms, or in academics; basically, groups that will sink $1000 into a program without batting an eyelash. Ever tried to get MatLab or ArcGIS for yourself? $$$ - I wonder if realism that striking would necessitate too much micromanagement. Since games seem to be headed determinedly toward pretty, cartoonish looks with shallow learning curves, I bet a lot of casual gamers would be scared off by something that feels so real. While I, too, would love a simcity with graphics like that, I'd rather have an engaging, deep, and realistic gameplay. Anyway, thanks for sharing. It gives an idea of what all games might look like in 10-15 years.

I'm really beginning to hate this cycle of "Oh wow, they're coming out with a new city sim." ...a few weeks later ... "Oh, they're more concerned with trumped up graphics than actual simulation" ...a few weeks later... "And the actual graphics look like a cartoon, anyway" ...a few weeks later ... "I'd only have roads, highways, and bus stops?" ... a few weeks later... "I have to have a constant internet connection and risk ruination at the hands of casual gamers and 10-year-olds?" ... the day it's released ... "...Well, let's see what's new on the Stex. Hello, again, SC4, ol' buddy ol' pal." This looks like it'll be the third time my little heart gets been broken.

Hey N4C, remember me? It's awesome that Blue Hope is back - and with a vengeance! It's been a while since an update, but I assume the region's chugging along. Anyway, I'm sorely tempted to dive in, but I'm doing master's research full-time... and both of my PCs run XP. Alas. I'll definitely be keeping tabs on it, though.

Originally posted by: Brandon8181 This game may not be a bad game for someone that is not coming from Sim City. If it is someone who is just entering the city building community this game may be for them as they don't know any different. Maybe Cities XL will be the start of a new city building game and come out with a new better one every few years quote> I am certainly coming from SimCity. I loved 3000, and SC4 was (of course) even better. I would consider it my favorite game over the last 5 years, and I've poured time into it. I have been excitedly watching the development of CXL for years. Well, I went ahead and got it, so I don't have to postulate based on other people's reactions. No, it isn't SC4, and yes, there are things missing and things that annoy me. But it has its own merits, and I have enjoyed playing it. I always take gameplay over eyecandy, but these graphics are almost exactly what I've dreamed about (being able to see your city from street level, to actually see the skyline rising up...that's just awesome). The way my cities grow just FEELS like a real city. Maybe it's partially my style, but they grow nicely in an organic style, with the little quirks that make cities/urban design so fascinating. SC4's lifeblood was user created content. With patches/mods/maybe even BATs, CXL could do the same thing. Monte Cristo and users together might be able to edge this game closer to perfection. But basically, I find the game to be fun, engaging, and not too easy (although I wouldn't mind it being a little more difficult). MC didn't learn all the lessons that EA did (services that have adjustable costs, lots of transit options, flexible zone sizes or *gasp* region-play), but the fact is, they did a (much) better job than Societies. I guess it's a learning process - it'll get there, and this game is a big step in the right direction in 3D citybuilders.

I've been registered with cities XL (unless they got rid of it somehow) for over a year. I've been trying to use the demo, but the login information that SHOULD work doesn't. I can't recover my password because the system error message that someone noted above is still there, and it's been more than a week. I tried to create a new registration, but nothing has happened. I've scoured my junk mailbox. And other emails from citiesxl have gotten through in the past (like the first time I registered). I'm not going to buy this game if I haven't had a chance to test it out.

Hello, N4C! I've been lurking and I'm impressed as usual. Just one question: call me ignorant, but where did you get those exit/on ramps? Is that part of the RH? By the way, I'm pleased to see that Linaton hasn't been over-developed. I'd say it still has its small-town charm :-)

Two things before I continue: 1- I would be amazed if this problem has not been addressed somewhere, but after searching ST and sc4Dev I've come up with nothing, and 2- I don't know a lot of the lingo with BATting, etc, so bear with me. Being typically several years behind, I just put a good chunk of time into getting CAMeLots up and running. It seems to work fine, but of course it involved downloading a lot of (awesome) buildings I didn't have before. Some of these seem to be developing outside the control of CAM, which would be fine except that for a select few towers (I think it must be those not developing through CAM but that ARE included in CAM) all that shows up are the lots. I can query them and it gives me their information (that's how I know it IS outside CAM), and they seem to function normally, but the model just isn't there. No brown boxes or anything. For an example, I've been using Azurico Plaza II as a case study. I do have the model, and the growable.dat file seems to point to it, but something isn't right. Any ideas? I figure once I know how to fix one, I can fix them all. Thanks!

Thank you! I had read most of that thread before I asked my question and decided it wasn't a fit because it was talking about "landmarks" but now I see. I've edited the .dat, and can only wait to see if more will develop, this time with the building as well. :-)

Shingure - Sure, I'm fine with that idea, I just didn't want you to feel like you had to. What did you have in mind?

N4C - Yeh, if it fits on the other side of the railroad. Does that work? Shingur - Thanks for the offer, but it's okay, I don't want to intrude. I think I'll be building further up the road. Maybe I'll stop by Turner Station some time and say hi

Shingure - shoot, so it is. Sorry about that. Okay, obviously that means that Ihopolis won't be built there, but I think I'm just going to move it further northwest. Would it be possible to move that design to D6 in parcel 19, just snapping into the road that goes through that area? Again, sorry to intrude on Turner Station! Ihop

Interaxion made some great points. I would still vote for London, though. China has some major issues that it's going to be struggling with as it gets closer and closer to super-power status (and yes, I think it's headed that direction). For example, by the time it reaches its pinnacle, China will run under a democracy and it will be fully capitalist. I mean, look at the trends in that last ten years. Local elections are replacing appointments more and more often, and this is bound to spread upward. As far as economics are concerned, China is now a capitalist nation hiding behind a curtain of communist mumbojumbo. The political and economic leaders in China have long-since realized the value in Capitalism, much of which is money in their pockets . I think the West should stop fearing the growing giant in the east and embrace the opportunities - economic growth elsewhere doesn't hurt the US, quite the contrary, if we react appropriately. As the wealth of the Chinese people grows, the emergence of such a large consumer market could be the single greatest opportunity for American business ever. K, enough tangent. Something like a quarter of the world's money passes through London every year. I think it would make a fine world capital. *Hello, page 13. How are you?*

First, I'm really impressed by this discussion -- it's so much more civilized than most conversations I've seen about topics as personal and touchy as this. I think I have an interesting perspective on this issue. My mother is a chemist (science) and my father is a Methodist minister (religion). I've grown up watching my parents live their religious beliefs out, and they brought me up in an amazing church community. On the other side, they have made sure that I get the absolute best education they could find (whether they could afford it or not ). I'm now at a superb university, and I've learned ridiculous amounts from my freshman year. One of these things is looking at ideas like evolution/creationism and God/humanism. I think it's a mistake to assume that most people raised Christian maintain that faith because it's all they know - it's not indoctrination, it's an invitation. I have never felt that I HAD to be Christian just because my parents were. They encouraged me to think and feel for myself; the most powerful advocate for religion has been watching the way that they live. I think that evolution is quite clearly a real process - in fact, my dad (the minister, remember) also believes in evolution. It isn't exclusive of his faith, in fact for him the process simply ignites even more awe of God's power. Finally, with this background, I think the best way to describe my current beliefs is to call me an "agnostic, pragmatic humanist." I personally find the actual existence of the Christian God irrelevant. I was never in church because I feared for my soul; I go to church because it provides a community of caring people around whom I feel comfortable. I believe in the Christian way of life - whether God is there to watch what I do or not, I think that the guidelines of love, pacifism, acceptance, charity, and caring that Jesus embodies are the pinnacle of a good lifesyle. I'm not atheist because I can't prove or disprove the existence of God. I like the idea of something more powerful than myself, because I have no business being the ultimate authority on anything , but it just isn't tangible to me. I'm pragmatic because I'm interested in the practical effects that true Christian belief has on people (I've seen it turn lives around). And I'm a humanist because my actions toward those around me are much more important to me than what happens once I die. Okay, that was longer than I thought it was going to be, but it helps me to write my thoughts out, even if nobody reads them. Cheers, Ihop