flowmotion

Uh Wut?! That's not how programming works. I actually posed this question to friends whom are embedded software engineers, and they said that no, quadrupling the size would not quadruple the resource requirements. Would an increase in simulation size increase the required resources? Yes, but not to that level. Given how many corners the simulation itself cuts, I wouldn't be surprised if quadrupling the simulation size would only require 1.5 times the current amount of resources. Without knowing the internals of how the simulation works, it's really useless to speculate IMO. It could scale sub-linearly, or it could scale super-linearly, we have no idea.

RRT2 and TTD are some of my favorite games of all time, but I'd prefer not to deal with resource/industry management in SimCity any more than is required for the 'city theme'. I think it would greatly distract from the core gameplay.

I don't agree with many of the gameplay decisions, but I can certainly understand Maxis' point of view. SimCity 4 came out almost 10 years ago. That is a very long time in the videogaming world. The entire teenaged/student audience has almost no memory of the SimCity francise. While SC4 had extravagant mod support, we all can admit that only a tiny portion of the original players are still actively involved. In some alternative reality, SimCity 5 came out in 2006 and vastly improved on SC4 while retaining most of the gameplay features. That didn't happen. Move on with life. Maxis' challenge now is not building on a successful franchise, but reintroducing some very good core gameplay concepts to a new audience. If they get it wrong, that's probably it, no more SimCity. IMO SimCity 2000 and 3000 were great games. If they could create something new that's about on that same complexity level, on top of a far better simulation engine, that would be really wonderful. Here's where my real issue comes in. Things like global economy and 'resource management' and inability to terraform your world seem to be negative consequences which inadvertently fell out of the whole online idea. My worry is (1) This is going to be impossible to balance properly and they're going to not manage it correctly, (2) They will kill the replayablity of the game. (3) The whole franchise is going to be pushed into the "free-to-play" real money model. If they build neo-SC3000, I certainly won't care about cloverleafs and terraforming. If they're trying to sell me coal deliveries for $1 real money, FU go die in fire.

Believe it or not, SC4 had an online multiplayer component (long since shut down) ... so you are correct, they've been thinking about this for a while and that was always the intent.

Well, SimCity has always been more normative than descriptive in its simulation. They have a greater bias towards density and mass-transit than has actually existed in post-war American planning. Some of this is based on environmentalism or idealism that states that sprawl is "bad". But anther big factor IMO is that tall buildings simply look nicer on a computer screen, and many players would prefer a "New York" rather than a "New Jersey". Houston exists, but it's a boring city to 'fly over' in Google Maps. However, if the economic model really "works", it should be possible to build tons of suburban sprawl in the cheap oil 1950-2010 period. However, what happens when oil resources run low and your sims start refusing to drive long distances? Can you build out mass-transit and increase density? Is there an electric car reward? Or does your economy collapse? If the simulation operates at that level of depth, these could be really fun possibilities to explore.

Thank you for this extensive and well-prepared comparison. Now, here comes the nitpicking. If you are an American of a certain age, you might remember the classic 'Googie' Holiday Inn signs. The SC graphic appears to be a patched-over version loosely based on these signs. They were 20-30 feet tall, so the scale actually would be about right. Or perhaps even too small.

In the second picture, I see an old Chevy pickup, VW Microbus, possibly an AMC Gremlin, possibly a clothtopped Jeep, what looks like a first generation Ford Focus, some real tiny microcars, and a whole bunch of 'Rolls Royces'. I'm not sure if it's the wealth factor, but there are a whole lot of 1980-ish looking cars driving around.

One of the videos showed lot lines appearing perpendicular to a curving suburban road, creating irregular lots. However, the building models are probably going to be rectangular, so they will never complete fill a oddly-shaped lot. I agree, ideally, the game will be able to generate landscaping (or parking lots) to fill these oddly shaped spaces. And, baertooth, I missed the whole Societies thing, so thank you for the background information.

Great article - its interesting to understand the logic behind the creative decisions. Thanks for posting.

Presumably you would need good transit options, just like in reality. Well of course...that's not an option with how they've designed the latest game though. High density development will only occur on higher capacity streets. Nobody here really knows how densities work in the new game ... we shouldn't leap to conclusions based on tiny scraps of possible misinformation. My point is "in reality", if you want high densities or large developments, you need a way to move people there. A real-world mayor can't just zone skyscrapers or shopping malls on the end of 2-lane road, no developer would build them. Either you need good roads or a strong transit network, preferably both.

Presumably you would need good transit options, just like in reality.

We aren't. The core demographic of every SimCity game has been adolescents. (The first one was even marketed as "edutainment" for high school students.) SimCity 4 sold very well, but the vast majority of players haven't touched it in the last 5-10 years, and in all likelihood most of them aren't coming back. The window of opportunity for a true sequel passed a long time ago, so to a great degree they are starting over from scratch. Accessibility is very important. Don't get me wrong, the opinion of the hardcore SC4 fan is important, but it has to be filtered through the view of the general audience. But even if EA managed to sell a copy to every active Simtropolis member, it would be 5000 copies at most.

"Cartoony" graphics serve a real purpose, as they emphasize it is a "toy city" which you can play with, blow up, set fire to, and stomp with Godzilla. If the graphics are too realistic, it creates an atmosphere of "look but don't touch". Think of the difference between a lego set versus a model train diorama. The latter is behind glass and isn't fun to play with. There's also an interesting aspect of consumer psychology. People love colorful houses and cars in photographs. However, in reality they paint their houses beige and buy gray-colored cars. People love stylized skyscrapers, but in reality most office buildings are just big boring boxes. And so on. I think a game world should model that idealized view reality where everything is colorful and stylish, rather than actual (boring) reality where with nondescript houses, nondescript cars, and nondescript offices. Finally, note that "cartoony" graphics can still be realistic. Past SimCities seem somewhat influenced by 1950s "Googie" architecture, and there's other exotic modern and postmodern architecture styles which could be used (e.g. Frank Gehry).

With a full 3D engine, you should be able to fly around with just using the game camera. (Assuming the view isn't locked to certain angles.) On more general interest game forums, "SimCopter" or something like seems to be a commonly requested feature. I think it would sell a lot of copies.

I hope that if Maxis goes through with this regional economy idea that they spend enough time to ensure that it's balanced properly. It seems like a lot of variables which could affect the gameplay in negative ways. (And as I've said previously, I want to play SimCity, not all that interested in SimFossilFuelEconomy.)