Spinmaster

1) Make sure you're holding down the CTRL, ALT, and/or SHIFT keys while zoning, not simply pressing and releasing. Beyond this, I cannot imagine why it wouldn't work. 2) Check the SC4 Extra Cheats dll. The Moolah cheat doesn't work without the add-on dll. There were also a lot of issues i.e. some people having trouble with it for various reasons, though it seems to work without any issues for most folks (including myself). If you don't have that dll, get it. If you already do have it, and Moolah still doesn't work - read through that thread, the answer is probably in it somewhere. I seriously doubt either of the above problems has anything to do with specific regional releases of the game though. Maybe 2 but even that one, I highly doubt it matters which regional version you have. And if you do end up flamethrowing your computer, please please post a video of it for us on YouTube.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to rural, low-capacity, low-speed streets. The one-way roads in SC4RH/D are clearly intended for high-density downtowns. They have the same speed stats as roads, with the same capacity, just all in one direction instead of bi-directional. True one-way low-speed, low-capacity rural (suburban, more commonly) streets would be nice, but .... Alas, I'm almost certain adding new network types e.g. one-way streets, HSR as an addition (as opposed to sacrificing monorail for it), etc... is actually near-impossible from what I've read. They're not modules, they're hardcoded into the main game engine. Even the rural highway add-on is merely taking advantage of an "unfinished" network that was already burned into the main exe. The NAM team simply finished it (and did a fine job at that). Not sure how GLR works, if that was also an "unfinished" network or if they simply extended the existing el-rail/subway networks. Bottom-line though, we won't see any true "new" networks without sacrificing an existing one, not unless/until EA/Maxis opens lets the modders hack into and add onto the exe. Until then, all that can be done is to override what already exists with something else, hence *why* HSR has to "replace" something - monorail was the chosen victim (to the delight of some, and the dismay of others, including myself... but it was admittedly probably the best choice overall).

Originally posted by: tv_mco I remember, in Sim City, they use to have parades. I wish they had that in SC4, but I can almost guarantee that they won't in SCSquote> But they do have the next best thing - roaming cheerleaders! Very realistic, no? Haven't we all been walking down the street depressed at some point, and some random cheerleader just spontaneously runs up - in full costume - to make us happy? For free?

Search "slope mod" in the STEX. The two most popular are the BRF (originally by BigRedFish, but reuploaded by frankie grove) and bones1. I've tried both, they're both faithful and very similar but decide for yourself (or try one of the others) which is better. BRF's seems to be a little more forgiving i.e. bones1's mod is almost too smooth*, but his also makes use of ANT for an "extremely gradual" slope, if needed. * "Too" smooth may not sound like a real problem, and usually isn't, but if you want a gradually sloped road up a hillside, with a little above-average gradient, "too smooth" can mean cutting a sharp canyon in it sometimes instead.

Why is it the only people who seem to attack other peoples' opinions are the supporters? Look, there has been a lot of officially-released information about the game. No, I don't mean the screenshots. I mean official statements, press releases, and preview descriptions from reputable sources, not to mention the E3 video. They've said a lot about what will be in SC:S and what won't be. Each person has their own idea of what's important or not to them. Some may love the new direction completely and are happy to "do away" with elements they hated in SC4 and prior. Some may "wait and see," and understandably so, if they're ok with what's being sacrificed for the sake of the "new direction" the series is taking. But some have heard enough. Me, I'm optimistic about SC:S as a new game unto itself, I just don't feel it should be regarded as a Sim City. I'm not pulling this out of thin air, I've read the officially-released statements and previews, I watched the E3 video, and I've watched, read, and listened intently - and openly - to everything that has been said. Zoning, to me, was one of the most interesting parts of the game. Telling the sims "build something here, but you decide what" ... and then watching like a kid on Christmas morning, wondering what wonderful gift I was about to receive... well that was a major point of excitement for me in this game (even when they built an ugly-as-sin block of junk). Now, again... maybe the game will be interesting on its own, but with zoning gone (information that has been officially released by all sources to-date, including EA themselves)... it's simply not Sim City to me any more. It would be like taking the BFG out of Doom. I don't really care what they replace it with, I need my BFG or it's just not Doom. So yes, I have heard enough to know I won't like it, not as a Sim City game. Will I like it anyway? I doubt it. It just doesn't appear to be my "style" of gameplay any more. Neither is Grand Theft Auto. But I certainly won't attack anyone that enjoys GTA either. To each their own. GTA isn't for me, and neither is SC:S based on what I've read and heard about it. I'm reasonably sure that, even if I do buy it, it'll be immediately shelved and forgotten the day someone releases another true city simulation - complete with zoning or something reasonably similar - whether that's EA or a competitor. This isn't based on peoples' remarks in forums. It's based on what I've been officially told by EA et al about the new game's experience. Plus one element nobody else can know - *I* know what I like, far better than anyone. Other folks have their own ideas about what's important to them. In some cases, what has been revealed re: what is being removed, is totally fine with them. Well that opinion is fine with me. I don't share it, but everyone is entitled to their own opinions, for or against. And most are basing their support or disdain based on the released statements. The "Knee-Jerk" thread hasn't seen much action since the first days (but was certainly titled appropriately), but a LOT of information has been officially released since then, and most long-time fans have poured through it all repeatedly. Except for the occasional childish "it suckz dont by it lolz" (and they're usually dealt with swiftly by the moderators anyway), most seem to be speaking objectively and not knee-jerking at all. And nobody is saying you have to hate it just because they do. If you support it, then support it, by all means, and absolutely be passionate about it. But please stop telling me - and those who have heard enough to be at least skeptical - that they/I *HAVE* to like it or try it. That's for me to decide, not you. Kindly keep your men-in-black away from me!

Originally posted by: schm0 First of all, let me clarify. The reaction I was referring to was that from gaming sites on the 'net, not SimCity forums. Sites like 1up.com, IGN and others allow their members to comment on news, and it is this arena of commentary that I was referring to. To those who would say we don't know enough about the game to start being disappointed, I would disagree. There are plenty of things that have been released to the public about the game, the most detailed of which is contained within the Games For Windows article that was recently released. That being said, I have some follow-up questions: Is this negative reaction just from a bunch of whiny fans who are disappointed? Or could it be that our gripes are shared by fans of the series that aren't as hardcore?quote> This is true, but the problem is, even leaving fan sites out of it, still it's almost automatic the negative commentary will prevail. Not necessarily because it'll be a bad game (nevermind our personal opinions for or against), but simply because as others have pointed out, people generally don't speak out passionately for something they like, only what they don't. That, and also consider who is actually watching for info about "the next Sim City." The vast majority of them, even outside ST and other fan-based sites, will be folks who've played at least one of the previous versions and enjoyed it, and are at minimum curious about the new one. Sure, there will be some new folks, and some that played it before but thought it was too complex, but most people paying attention to the news about SC:S are avid fans. Reaction to such a sweeping change to the experience is almost expected to be negative from them. Call that negative reaction whatever you like, educated opinions, paranoid skepticism, childish whining... whatever, it's there and not many will apologize for it. Knowing this already tilts any poll, no matter how informal. It would be interesting, but such a poll, even informal, to be of any value would have to take this into account i.e. maybe to simply compare "true blue" new players who are for or against it. Maybe even two separate polls... new players vs. old, and see the % for vs. against in each bracket. Almost for sure the old-timers would show a serious negative % vs. the positive, but as compared to the would-be new players? I am curious, actually. That would be more objective, but harder to figure out I suppose. Much less "new" players even looking or commenting either way on it. (p.s. thank you schm0 for trying to get this thread - your thread - back on topic... it's about trying to glean "what would non-vets say?" ... not about "I like it" vs. "I don't"... we have enough threads on that already . I don't know how possible or practical it would be to do this poll, but... that is what you're trying to discuss, and I hope others can keep it on that discussion as well now.)

Yeah I'm not sure what new info is to be gained from such a poll, negative comments always overwhelm positive in just about any subject, let alone a game with a long-established fan base. I'm not so sure about positive comments being flamed though, occasionally by some immature folks, yes, but not too much. Ignored? Eh... more like simply shouted-over by the negative commentary. Then comes the question, how much positive is there to say about it? No, I don't mean that from a cynical perspective, I mean how many features do we know about that DO exist for people to say "I really like because _____..."? A lot has been said about a "totally new experience." But the bulk of people paying attention to the news about SC:S are long-timers who don't really want a totally new experience, they want to go forward with the current experience, not take a sudden left turn. Are there masses "out there" who would love SC:S, because they've never really gotten into the "too complex" past of Sim City, and this new direction would appeal to them? Maybe... ok, I'll even say probably. But they're not here, and not paying attention to the news. Why should they? They have no stake in the series anyway. EA will have to do a major marketing blitz to get the word out to them. Then we'll find out how well-received it is by those folks.... or not. I agree with John-SJ that Sim Societies may have potential to be a good game unto itself, and I've seen many objective posts stating so as well, most just seem to object the idea that it's really a Sim City game. I don't think it's wrong for the detractors to be speaking their minds on the matter, however (provided they do so maturely, and don't engage in personal attacks). Many have bought into the franchise since its inception, and are more than slightly miffed SC:S is deliberately - by its own proud admission - changing the game's direction. I don't know how much surprise there can be, actually... EA has already stated publicly about many of the major differences in SC:S, not to mention the E3 video. Some who are open to the new style will still try it, and may indeed be surprised to love it, or hate it. But some have heard enough already. To each their own.

LivingInThePast: 7. Realistic school systems.quote> Yes, this was a big thing for me too. I'd like to see either probabilities or "other" concerns influence the peoples' ability to learn. In real life some people are just born to be ditch-diggers, no matter how good the schools are. In SC4 it has bugged me that, if I give everyone the opportunity to become rocket scientists, they all do ... then they all yell at me because there ain't enough rockets. Let me provide education to all my people. Let some absorb it, and a few even become geniuses, but let the rest offer me fries and give me the wrong change. My only other suggestion based on a gripe with SC4: persistent freight i.e. freight with a destination, be it another industry, commercial outlet, etc... or just "off to the world" - but by heading for an exit to the region, not just the city. Give me a good reason to build a good seaport somewhere, and a rail system to it. Or a rail or highway out of the region. If I built a nice seaport one tile over, I'd love to see my freight traffic head for it, not just the thick-headed "nearest tile edge" nonsense it does in SC4 (though if I have no neighbor, then fall-back to that I suppose).

Umm.... yeah, what they said. And my two cents: About the grid: actually, no... don't get rid of it completely: get rid of the need for it, but a grid should still be optional and configurable (even orientable?).... I could see a grid making things easier in many situations, but only as a "helpful guide," not limiting the canvas, itself. Disasters: allow options to increase/decrease their probabilities, including disabling them completely Real customers: the people actually use the shops, services, bars, parks, sports & recreation facilities, etc... and use transit to get to it, not just to/from work. Maybe even a tourism element - visitors who neither work nor live in the city, contributing to its taxes to use the airport, hotels, amusement park, or just hang out on my beach ... then go home. Culture: it would be nice to see how my city-building influences peoples' lifestyles, as reflected perhaps by props and other decorations; sort-of as it's done with wealth level in SC4 now, but with more of a "society" effect. Just note the key word: effect... not to be confused with "the whole point of the game" (no no no no no....) Simplify by subtraction: don't ... building a truly magnificent city shouldn't be easy at all, and should require the player to learn and make full use of a vast array of tools - even ones he/she may not really want to spend so much time with; provide every useful and irritatingly tedious tool you can think of; taxes, civic funding... maybe I even have to choose the layout of each and every traffic light, stop sign, etc... Simplify by addition: bingo - in real cities, the mayor isn't a "do-all king of all things." (S)He has advisers/commissioners/directors... subordinates. In some cities they do everything, the mayor just kisses babies. In others, the subordinates are virtually subhuman and indeed the mayor does everything. Most are somewhere in between. So give us subordinates to "take care of" some of the micromanagement for us... or all of it... or none of it - options. Give me a transportation adviser that can actually show me where my new elevated rail route should go, and even build it for me - but let me tell him to shut up, if I prefer to figure it out myself. Same for the other subordinates - like a) they do the work, I just approve/veto everything, b) they recommend what must be done, but I must do it, or c) they just scream when I miss something. A casual player can enjoy dealing with some things, and not worrying about others. The young'ns and new players can play with all the "do it for me" options on while they learn all the tools. The hardcore player can enjoy being the ultimate self-critic and silence the subordinates. Someone who likes laying water pipes but hates fiddling with school funding can appropriately tell the water-adviser "just tell me about problems" and the education adviser "take care of it for me, for I care not how you do it. Let the player decide how simple vs. complex the game is. I, for one, don't want to deal with the layout of each and every traffic light, stop sign, etc.... but sometimes, I might. Customization, customization, customization!!!!!: SC4 has stayed strong for so long because people could add content to it from the public. A development team of 10, 15, even 50 people... has no chance of making enough buildings, transit stops, parks, etc... to satisfy even a fraction of the public. So... let the public do it. Heck, maybe even open this up before releasing the game i.e. let the public contribute what will become the "comes with the game" content. "Over 350 buildings" ... HA!! Try "thousands of buildings from all around the world... and many more to come." Mmmmmmm. Mimes: NO 4. Keep the building styles, but add more, and provide more older buildings, so we could create a older district.quote> Expounding a bit, if I may... maybe an extra dimension to the "building style" concept - building "era" as well. Once upon a time, Houston had old buildings too. Give me many styles to choose from, including eras. Ahh...and to tie it to customization - allow me to create my own building styles, and choose per-city which ones to use.

Eh I'm not sure one will necessarily be better than another, assuming CL stays true to "building cities" unlike SC:S. They appear to be going in two different directions now. CL's direction, however, definitely seems better for me. SC:S might be fun in its own way, and I might even try it, but to call it a "realistic city building simulation" almost makes me laugh... or hurl, not sure which. The only thing I might be worried about, was he did mention "50% say it's too difficult." I pray they don't make the same mistake, imo, that EA made, and take away the "complexity" most long-time fans call "features" and enjoy, but instead simply add options to make it easier for some. For example, add options to let the game take care of some things for you if you want.... but that can be turned off, for the more hardcore players. In some cities, yes, the mayor is king and makes all the decisions. In most others, he's little more than a figurehead, with his subordinates handling most mundane management tasks. It's not unthinkable to provide a similar context in a city simulation, with advisers who optionally do things for you (instead of just yelling at you when you screw up), and it would solve the "too hard for some, too easy for others" syndrome of a good, realistic simulation that's also supposed to be a fun game. I wish EA had considered this. Well guess what I found in that hand? Hopefully CL can fill this void now. Thank you, Dirk, for bringing CL into the discussion. And thank you, Philippe, for joining it. I wonder... is it possible to push Simtropolis "up the tree" so-to-speak, to incorporate SC and CL? Maybe "Simtropolis" doesn't so much have to be about Sim City specifically (even if that is its roots), but simulating a metropolis ... using whichever game/tool suits you best, be it SC4, SC:S, City Life, ... or any other popular city builder i.e. with enough fans to contribute donations to the site to make it worth supporting, of course.

One must separate wish from reality. Wish is clear from most of the SC fans here and elsewhere, as to the question "sequel vs. spin-off." Reality, not so much - even EA, I would not be surprised, isn't really sure. My theory - based solely on their own statements and various articles (and thus not a reliable theory by any means, I know): EA thought SC:S would become the "new way of things" for the entire franchise, intends SC:S to indeed be the next sequel, and the next next one will be based on SC:S if it's successful.... with a possible return to "the real deal" (the wish) if it's not. Basically, they hope SC:S *is* in effect SimCity 5, but they're taking away the sequencing solely as a realization it's not keeping anything from its predecessors, except the base franchise name. I also wouldn't be surprised if they're rethinking this approach already though, given the extreme uproar here and on just about every other fan site. SC:S is too far along to change in any sweeping manner. The video shows it pretty much working already and they plan to release it by the end of the year, so most of the code is "in the can" now, leaving just bug testing, last-minute tweaks, and adding pre-modeled content (buildings etc...). It's not too late to change its marketing strategy though. And even if it is released as "the sequel" ... well if it doesn't do as well as they'd hoped, then perhaps a true SC5 (or 6) will come along someday - though I've a hunch someone else will have filled the niche they left behind by then. I see no reason to be optimistic about a true SC5/6 from EA within the next 4 years - SC:S has to flop first, otherwise the next SC after it will just be SC:S #2 (oh the horror...).

One must separate wish from reality. Wish is clear from most of the SC fans here and elsewhere, as to the question "sequel vs. spin-off." Reality, not so much - even EA, I would not be surprised, isn't really sure. My theory - based solely on their own statements and various articles (and thus not a reliable theory by any means, I know): EA thought SC:S would become the "new way of things" for the entire franchise, intends SC:S to indeed be the next sequel, and the next next one will be based on SC:S if it's successful.... with a possible return to "the real deal" (the wish) if it's not. Basically, they hope SC:S *is* in effect SimCity 5, but they're taking away the sequencing solely as a realization it's not keeping anything from its predecessors, except the base franchise name. I also wouldn't be surprised if they're rethinking this approach already though, given the extreme uproar here and on just about every other fan site. SC:S is too far along to change in any sweeping manner. The video shows it pretty much working already and they plan to release it by the end of the year, so most of the code is "in the can" now, leaving just bug testing, last-minute tweaks, and adding pre-modeled content (buildings etc...). It's not too late to change its marketing strategy though. And even if it is released as "the sequel" ... well if it doesn't do as well as they'd hoped, then perhaps a true SC5 (or 6) will come along someday - though I've a hunch someone else will have filled the niche they left behind by then. I see no reason to be optimistic about a true SC5/6 from EA within the next 4 years - SC:S has to flop first, otherwise the next SC after it will just be SC:S #2 (oh the horror...).

Now after my coffee, the other major thought I had about it before: true integration with other simulations. The Sims: a Sims character can actually enter the city. Yes, I know we have this already but My Sim is nothing more than a mindless clone. I'm seeing the Sim's personal character from The Sims influencing how he sees and interacts with the city. And experiences gathered in the city enhance the character back in The Sims. Amusement park: build your own amusement park ala RCT3 - and put it in your city. Do the people there like it? And wouldn't it be nice to see your city's skyline from atop your killer rollercoaster? I was incensed when, after doing everything necessary to get it, I finally earned the "tourist trap" reward for the first time, expecting my own Disneyland - only to discover it was just a damn South of the Border style gift shop. Is that a giraffe or a long-neck chihuahua, by the way? (p.s. just in case someone's not aware, my "South of the Border" reference is not about Mexico; it's a very cheesy Mexican-themed tourist trap in South Carolina, with cheap and mostly goofy souvenirs and other oddities that have virtually nothing to do with Mexico itself... I'm not sure, but I think the "tourist trap" in SC4 is a direct homage to it, actually). Pick-a-tycoon: actually many/most of the "___ Tycoon" games would be wonderful add-ons. Even Mall Tycoon, Prison Tycoon... Trailer Park Tycoon. Design your mall, prison, trailer park, airport, etc.... and then plunk it into your city somewhere, to see how people react to it, how it affects your city, etc.... Imagine your Sim enters your city and interacts with your amusement park, the airport, maybe visits a friend in prison - and his mother in the trailer park. Even first-person action games would be a whole lot of fun with your own city as a back-drop. Imagine racing around in a Ferrari, on the streets of your own city. Yes, I know much graphical detail would have to go bye-bye for something like this, but only while actually driving, or shooting it out with Combine forces, or.... my oh my. But the key to it all is allowing each such game to interface with each other, or with the city as a "hub" perhaps ... but still be enjoyable all by itself. The city simulation should be about building cities, only. The airport simulation should be about building an airport, only. But cities do need airports - why not add the ability to put them together? This is a much bigger idea than just making the next successor to SC4, especially since most of the best simulation games I have in mind are from EA's competitors. But SC:S is definitely a big step away from it. EA really missed something here, I think.

Now after my coffee, the other major thought I had about it before: true integration with other simulations. The Sims: a Sims character can actually enter the city. Yes, I know we have this already but My Sim is nothing more than a mindless clone. I'm seeing the Sim's personal character from The Sims influencing how he sees and interacts with the city. And experiences gathered in the city enhance the character back in The Sims. Amusement park: build your own amusement park ala RCT3 - and put it in your city. Do the people there like it? And wouldn't it be nice to see your city's skyline from atop your killer rollercoaster? I was incensed when, after doing everything necessary to get it, I finally earned the "tourist trap" reward for the first time, expecting my own Disneyland - only to discover it was just a damn South of the Border style gift shop. Is that a giraffe or a long-neck chihuahua, by the way? (p.s. just in case someone's not aware, my "South of the Border" reference is not about Mexico; it's a very cheesy Mexican-themed tourist trap in South Carolina, with cheap and mostly goofy souvenirs and other oddities that have virtually nothing to do with Mexico itself... I'm not sure, but I think the "tourist trap" in SC4 is a direct homage to it, actually). Pick-a-tycoon: actually many/most of the "___ Tycoon" games would be wonderful add-ons. Even Mall Tycoon, Prison Tycoon... Trailer Park Tycoon. Design your mall, prison, trailer park, airport, etc.... and then plunk it into your city somewhere, to see how people react to it, how it affects your city, etc.... Imagine your Sim enters your city and interacts with your amusement park, the airport, maybe visits a friend in prison - and his mother in the trailer park. Even first-person action games would be a whole lot of fun with your own city as a back-drop. Imagine racing around in a Ferrari, on the streets of your own city. Yes, I know much graphical detail would have to go bye-bye for something like this, but only while actually driving, or shooting it out with Combine forces, or.... my oh my. But the key to it all is allowing each such game to interface with each other, or with the city as a "hub" perhaps ... but still be enjoyable all by itself. The city simulation should be about building cities, only. The airport simulation should be about building an airport, only. But cities do need airports - why not add the ability to put them together? This is a much bigger idea than just making the next successor to SC4, especially since most of the best simulation games I have in mind are from EA's competitors. But SC:S is definitely a big step away from it. EA really missed something here, I think.

It does need a major shift for a true full sequel. Beyond just "add this" and "fix that" little features, but sweeping changes - reinvention - of the experience, to make it worthy of a full new game, not just an "expansion pack." But to do so without ignoring the things that made the series increasingly realistic and successful for 18+ years... is hardly impossible. 1. Leave the grid. 2. 3D? If it can be done without sacrificing too much detail, then definitely... otherwise, 2.5D ok, but perhaps at least provide "a way" to view your city from street-level, even if you can't build or interact with it. 3. Make it easier to play for those who don't like micromanagement. No, not by taking it away, but by adding features to allow the game to optionally "take over" many of those tasks. I could envision, for example, an education director (formerly known as an "adviser") being tasked with managing the funding of all the schools for me automatically and even proposing to build a new school when needed - including where it should go. A transportation director proposing expansions and upgrades to existing networks, maybe even proposing new transit routes. Public safety directors to increase police and fireman funding, personnel, vehicles, even propose new station. Many others. 3b. This could even lead to a political aspect - directors can be fired or thrown out by the public (education rating tanks, the education director gets fired), new ones elected, and their effectiveness could vary... as well as their corruptness. 4. Ok, a "social aspect" would have been a fine addition, particularly to have the people actually use commercial services, parks, tourist areas... "venues" in SC:S terms, and the growable building styles and/or props could even reflect the societies growing within my city. This would put some "care about the societies" into the game, without making it the point of the game. "Societies" should be the affect, not the cause. 5. Road expansions - adding individual lanes to existing roads to increase capacity without affecting speed. 6. Weather and varying climates and ecosystems to deal with. 7. Optional scenarios return. Disaster recovery, overhaul a city to win an Olympics bid, decrease average commute time by x%, fix the pollution problems, balance the budget... endless possibilities here, but optional is still the key. 8. The ability to view others' cities real-time over the internet or a LAN. Probably not build or interact, but at least "visit" them by private or public invitation. Would require a decent internet connection, sure, but certainly do-able with a thin-client approach I think. ... many others I've thought about from time to time, just not on my cortex right now (I haven't even had coffee yet) There are many broad changes that could be made for a new addition to the franchise. Not just little things to make an SC4.5, but major changes to the experience, to make the new game worthy of calling it SC5. We're not at "the end" by any means, particularly as technology progresses. Not just in our own computers, but new innovations in programming occur all the time. New algorithms, new paradigms, breakthroughs in everything from graphics to AI... no, it's not the end by a long shot, even if EA did give up on it in favor of Candyland. So who will extend the legacy? It's a big hole EA has left. Someone will fill it eventually, there is a huge market being left behind by SC:S, and a LOT that can be done to create a true successor to SC4, satisfy the loyal fans of the franchise, and draw in lots of fresh new players at the same time (even the "it's too complex" crowd). My only question is, will EA realize this first? Or will a competitor?

It does need a major shift for a true full sequel. Beyond just "add this" and "fix that" little features, but sweeping changes - reinvention - of the experience, to make it worthy of a full new game, not just an "expansion pack." But to do so without ignoring the things that made the series increasingly realistic and successful for 18+ years... is hardly impossible. 1. Leave the grid. 2. 3D? If it can be done without sacrificing too much detail, then definitely... otherwise, 2.5D ok, but perhaps at least provide "a way" to view your city from street-level, even if you can't build or interact with it. 3. Make it easier to play for those who don't like micromanagement. No, not by taking it away, but by adding features to allow the game to optionally "take over" many of those tasks. I could envision, for example, an education director (formerly known as an "adviser") being tasked with managing the funding of all the schools for me automatically and even proposing to build a new school when needed - including where it should go. A transportation director proposing expansions and upgrades to existing networks, maybe even proposing new transit routes. Public safety directors to increase police and fireman funding, personnel, vehicles, even propose new station. Many others. 3b. This could even lead to a political aspect - directors can be fired or thrown out by the public (education rating tanks, the education director gets fired), new ones elected, and their effectiveness could vary... as well as their corruptness. 4. Ok, a "social aspect" would have been a fine addition, particularly to have the people actually use commercial services, parks, tourist areas... "venues" in SC:S terms, and the growable building styles and/or props could even reflect the societies growing within my city. This would put some "care about the societies" into the game, without making it the point of the game. "Societies" should be the affect, not the cause. 5. Road expansions - adding individual lanes to existing roads to increase capacity without affecting speed. 6. Weather and varying climates and ecosystems to deal with. 7. Optional scenarios return. Disaster recovery, overhaul a city to win an Olympics bid, decrease average commute time by x%, fix the pollution problems, balance the budget... endless possibilities here, but optional is still the key. 8. The ability to view others' cities real-time over the internet or a LAN. Probably not build or interact, but at least "visit" them by private or public invitation. Would require a decent internet connection, sure, but certainly do-able with a thin-client approach I think. ... many others I've thought about from time to time, just not on my cortex right now (I haven't even had coffee yet) There are many broad changes that could be made for a new addition to the franchise. Not just little things to make an SC4.5, but major changes to the experience, to make the new game worthy of calling it SC5. We're not at "the end" by any means, particularly as technology progresses. Not just in our own computers, but new innovations in programming occur all the time. New algorithms, new paradigms, breakthroughs in everything from graphics to AI... no, it's not the end by a long shot, even if EA did give up on it in favor of Candyland. So who will extend the legacy? It's a big hole EA has left. Someone will fill it eventually, there is a huge market being left behind by SC:S, and a LOT that can be done to create a true successor to SC4, satisfy the loyal fans of the franchise, and draw in lots of fresh new players at the same time (even the "it's too complex" crowd). My only question is, will EA realize this first? Or will a competitor?