Tuscan

The City Simulation genre has been plagued over the past decade by poor design decisions by "high ups" who do not appear to understand their audience or SC for that matter. That's all the problem is really. All it would really take to make a legendary sequel to SimCity 4 is: * A decent modern engine like Glassbox * The 3D graphics of SimCity 2013 * A traditional single player OFFLINE sandbox mode * SimCity 2013 features + bring back all the SC4 features that were removed! * Regions / city sizes atleast the same size as SC4 * User-friendly mod support * Someone leading the dev team who understands his/her target audience, and SC That's all it would take to make a new king of city building IMO. The online mult-player mode should be a bonus feature which could even be included as a part of a future expansion or DLC, but not an essential core feature of the game, This is a fatal mistake that both Monte Cristo and Maxis have made now. Please, someone in Maxis or another dev company, read this post and then read it again!

I knew it would be a disaster the moment they said "Online Only" back in early 2012. They liked to call it "the evolution of gaming", but us true fans knew exactly what it REALLY meant for the future of SimCity. They became so caught up in combating piracy, maximizing profits, and telling us how we should play the game, that they forgot what SimCity is all about.. "letting your imagination run wild". This is something that SimCity 4: Rush Hour can offer, and something that SimCity 2013 cannot, at least in it's current state. I think this is why people continue to come back to SimCity 4 despite it beginning to show it's age.

Based on what I have learned so far, I am highly disappointed with SC 2013. It sounds like my favourite game has been stripped bare, dumbed down and turned into a circus for 12 year old Facebook addicts.

I wish people would stop saying it has a single player option. It doesn't! It's an MMO, and the "solo" option just means you can play online in a region where nobody else is playing. Single Player has been ditched. The reason? Profit.

This game sounds like absolute garbage to be honest. I won't be purchasing it unless they keep the core features that made SC4 good!

One thing most of us SimCity fans seem to agree on is that we love the traditional offline sandbox gameplay from previous SimCity titles. While online play is "nice to have", I for one certainly don't want to see it replace offline play altogether. I don't want to be forced online, or forced to take part in a global markets. I want the option to choose! This community has already had enough disappointments already, without profit hungry fat cats at EA ruining it for us again! Let yourself be heard and ask questions on this page: http://www.simcity.c...-SimCity-Social We already have several offline related queries, the more fans who ask questions, the better! Merged with the already existing and pinned "always on" topic. -CaptCity

I like the idea of natural disasters, but there should be an on/off option, and a frequency bar (Rare/Occasional/Frequent/Insane). Don't like the idea of fantasy disasters though, this is just silly. But if we must have them, there should also be a fantasy disasters on/off option.

After having been a dedicated member of the Cities XL community (Back when it was code named Cities Unlimited) I was deeply disappointed. Im afraid I don't hold very high hopes for this new title either. Its still lacking in basic features you would expect from a City Builder by the sounds of it. You can offer fancy graphics and trading systems but at the end of the day I want to build a city that comes to life and grows, the sounds of traffic and construction sites, watching things unfold, manipulating the way the city grows rather than simply plopping down buildings etc etc, because thats what truly gets me hooked to city sims. But you just don't seem to get that feel outside SC4.. I will keep track of progress though and would like to hear the feedback of the fans.

I hate to sound like a negative but I seriously think the whole project is already doomed, and I can't see MC releasing code to fans, they don't even listen to fans anymore for a start. .

Originally posted by: YannickMtl Single player is the only mode available and everything is much better. The fact that the game will be completed with CitiesXL2011 + all the goodies we had in PO (old england, blueprints, etc), I think this game is much better, on every level. All we need now (hopefully with CXL2011) is full transit system, more maps and region play. That's pretty much about it. And then, if people starts to buy the game (knowing its much better), we'll get (again hopefully) annual content packs with new stuff, new buildings and new maps!quote> Wishful thinking

I think it was a precise review to be honest lol

Monte Cristo tried to create a new king of city simulators. Heres where they dropped the crown: Big mistake = Lack of freedom for modders Serious mistake = Lacking the simulation depth and content found in earlier rivals Fatal mistake = Attempting to create a niche market by transforming a traditionally "offline" genre into an MMO. Tips for next time Monte Cristo: Learn from your rivals Modders are your friends, not your enemies When it comes to fans, the majority opinion is the right opinion Biggest tip of all... Build a decent product before you go revolutionizing a genre..

As I said about 2 years ago, MC should have made a successful single player game first an then released a planet offer expansion, atleast then you would have a solid fanbase. Jumping straight into PO and ignoring the fans was one enormous mistake IMO. "The end of Planet Offer" the best news since Cities Unlimited! There may just be hope for this game yet! MC, if you start working on mass transit, add background sounds, give us a nice massive selection of maps, open the game to modding, make it feel like my city is alive as SC4 does but with the superior graphics engine of CXL, you will once again have my full support! Regions would also be nice ;-) Im so relieved your ditching PO and wish you the best of luck with this move!

Originally posted by: valhum Ok, so seriously, the Solo version is THAT bad?!?!? I mean, what is missing besides trading and Buses ?!?!?!?!?!?quote> Well Valhum, the same things that are missing from PO really, except in Single Player your chances of seeing these things fixed/added in the near future are slimmer. Basically as a single player gamer you will be the last to get any new features/content like mass transit and public transport, eventually im sure it will come, but as a single player gamer Monte Cristo will probably charge you for it. Single Players also get much less options when it comes to choosing maps too. If you want to play Single Player id suggesting sticking to SC4, it has far more features (which come with the game), it has regions and you can build your own maps, unless you are playing purely for graphics, then go for CitiesXL. Keep your fingers crossed and hopefully in a year the CitiesXL single player experience would have improved.

Originally posted by: mrdazza_460 Well it must be me then; I delete my cities all the time, no point in keeping something like that unless you are a gold fish. I may take some picks of the best bits but, really how often are you going to look at all your saved cities, I used to save all my cities in SC2000 and SC3000 on to a floppy discs, I found them late last year I thought WOW that's grate, but then I realized I don't own a floppy drive any more, so I trashed them, and thought to myself ummmm that was a waste of time keeping those. But that's just me I guessquote> But in SC4 they have this special thing called regions so you can build as many cities/regions as you like and link them all together, this way your old cities never become redundant or "pointless unless you are a gold fish" as mrdazza put it, they will always play a part in regional growth and you can go back and visit/improve them at any time.

Just going off topic for a moment, Another one of my favourite games is a game called hearts of iron 2, its the most comprehensive and most realistic ww2 strategy game ever made. When CXL/CU was under development, I was also following a new game called "Hearts of Iron 3" it was to be the best thing since hearts of iron 2, its dedicated fan base went crazy when they heard the news. Funnily enough though it followed a very similar scenario to the one we have been following with Monte Cristo ("The fans waited ages, the fans gave the devs their input, the fans waited even longer, the game was released, the game was a big disappointment, the fans said the original game is still superior, the fans argued, the fans waited patiently for patches to revolutionise it") another prime example of game developers ignoring the fans, and we are all still waiting for that patch,. However, a few months back (much to my amazement), the devs released all their official code for their previous title "hearts of iron 2" to the modding community, within a month of releasing that code, look what happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenal_of_Democracy_(video_game) an official stand-alone game built by the fans and modding community, and the funny thing is, its now actively competing with hearts of iron 3! I wonder why?... Anyway getting to the point of all this, its modders from the fans that make the perfect game not the game developer. The game developer is just there for the money, and they wil attempt to squeeze as much money as possible out of a product before they throw it in the bin, all those CitiesXL PO subscribers actually fell for it. Even if Cities XL fails and we never see a Sim City 5, im confident the fans will still keep the genre alive, and one day we might just see a single player focused miracle.

So the conclusion to this topic "Pretty much the same as it was the last days, but with some buses".

Originally posted by: baertooth Originally posted by: soltangris The problem here isn't unfulfilled expectations. It's MC's crappy business model. They want my money, make me a product I want. CitiesXL is pretty close but it's got a pretty huge caveat that's making this wallet a no-sale. No baertooth, the problem is exactly that you don't expect such a business model applied to a city-building game. You wan to have access to all your cities, all the time - fair enough. But you won't get that with CXL's PO, at least not now (I persist in my optimistic opinion that the wind of change is blowing). Let me ask you a question: if MC develops the game to the level that you expect, but keeps the business model, are you gonna be happy paying monthly, or you're still gonna wish for another business model? If your answer is YES, I'll be happy to pay, than you have objective and specific in-game expectations that are not being met as of now. If your answer is NO, I still don't wanna pay montlhy for a city-building game, than ?you're simply disliking their business model, and this game can't satisfy you whatever it becomes.quote> They should have started off with the intention of creating the CitiesXL community first, and then building a business model on that. I think they would have been far better off to create a solo mode game first, much like the community wanted in the first place, and then build an online component for the game to soak the playerbase who wants more later. Instead, they created a niche product which appeals to fewer people and allienates much of the existing Simcity 4 fanbase they were trying to tap. Now they're fighting an uphill battle where if they did it the other way, it would be at least a more level field.quote> I got to agree 100% there. Using PO created a niche product, it was the worse move MC could have possibly made, and the timing was incredibly bad. If they concentrated more on a decent solo game first like you said, build themselves a solid fanbase first, and then released PO as a later expansion pack they may have snatched the crown from SC4 as the king of city builders.

Yea I agree, there is only one answer for SC4's stable popularity, and thats its mod friendly mechanics. If MC close the door to modders, CitiesXL's popularity will depend solely on MC's ability to release new content and keep it interesting, in which case they will be really limiting themselves to any hope of success. You want CitiesXL to live MC? Then let the fans save it!

Those lights screenshots do look awesome I must admit, especially the vehicle headlights. I hate to sound like im bashing MC again here though but shouldn't they be worrying about more important features [which I wont mention on this thread]? Its good to see MC have been at work though :-)

I must admit, I came very close to purchasing Cities XL even after its mainly negative reception I was almost fooled by the publicity stunts you all speak of, I held it in my hand in EB Games. Its only the feedback I read on Simtropolis that really prevented me from taking it to the checkout, and im kind of glad I didn't because I know I would have been somewhat disappointed. Its going to need some vast improvements before I go anywhere near it again, im talking mass transit, public transport and better trading to name but a few.

Originally posted by: toroca I don't understand why so many people are so surprised that CXL is being compared to SC4... Am I the only one who realizes that CXL is the first real competition to come along for SC4 in seven frakking years? They're both city-builders. Comparisons are inevitable. Get over it or go find something else to read. I don't count Societies as real competition, by the way, because the SimCity fanbase watched the prerelease coverage and knew in advance that it wasn't the game they wanted. That's why it sold so miserably. We were hoping for something different with CXL because of how much Monte Cristo engaged the fanbase. EA and Tilted Mill essentially made a game and expected us to like it because it was a new SimCity, regardless of the fact that it didn't have anything we wanted or asked for in SC4's supposed replacement. I have said this elsewhere, but it bears repeating, because it is evidence of just how GOOD SC4 actually is: In Societies' debut month, November of 2007, it was OUTSOLD by SC4 Deluxe. What was then almost a five-year-old game outsold its own successor when it was brand new. What's more, SC4 Deluxe was the tenth highest selling game of November, 2007. THAT'S staying power. And it wasn't a fluke, either; SC4 Deluxe has appeared in the top ten best selling PC game charts sporadically ever since it was released, and SC4 Vanilla DOMINATED the sales charts when it was new. Neither SCS nor CXL can make the same claim. SimCity 4 may not have sold as well as The Sims (but then again, no game in history ever has, so that's not really saying anything) but it IS a best-selling game that has surely made a huge profit for EA. The fact that it can still be found new on the shelf (and not even the bargain bins) in practically every game store is further evidence; how many other PC games that are seven years old still have such a prominent place on store shelves? Now, because of the fact that SC4 remains the market leader in city building games, comparisons with CXL were inevitable and to be expected, especially since Monte Cristo made it a point early on to engage the SimCity fanbase, ostensibly to find out what we wanted in the "next big thing" in our genre. And that's why there is so much dissappointment over CXL. It is NOT the game we were hoping MC was going to make. Much of our input was seemingly ignored. And the release version seems half-finished, even compared with the original non-Rush Hour release of SC4 back in January of 2003. Two of the primary ommisions are also two of the most ludicrous: lack of terraforming tools and lack of mass transit. There hasn't been a major city-building game without both of those features since the original SimCity, and that was 20 years ago! What were they thinking? Are they actually surprised by the fan backlash over these two omissions? They shouldn't be; it was present during the beta. CXL is a major step forward in city builders in some areas. The graphics are beautiful, of course. The road construction system wins hands down over any prior city builder. The way they did farms is great. But in every other way I could think of during the beta, CXL is a step backward from SC4, which, be honest, is the game it has to beat to be successful. The zoning is a step backward, and a big one; the last time the SimCity series had a comparable zoning feature was the original version (I'm referring to the set sizes and lack of flexibility in building sizes). The only place the zoning comes out ahead is the fact that it can align to the newly-curvable roads. That's a plus, but not a big enough one to overcome the lack of flexibility. Another step backward is in the area of information presentation. Many of the complaints I've seen (and made) about CXL is that you're not given any real information. There's a lack of water? Okay, so how many water structures do I need to build to take care of it? No idea, because we're not given any data on output or consumption. Where are the charts and graphs we've become accustomed to? There are some there, but they all seem to lack some critical information. The simulation is not very deep, as others have mentioned. It mostly boils down to "build what satisfies them." In SC4 a whole myriad of factors could affect your city and what happened in various parts of it. In CXL... not so much. CXL seems more sterile than SC4, less alive. It also seems more like a model set than a sandbox. In SC4, one of the joys for me was never knowing what new building might appear, or when an area might upgrade itself to higher wealth, or whatever. In CXL, you pretty much know what to expect from the moment you place a zone. It's only one step away from a system in which you manually place every single building. I always avoided custom RCI buildings that were only ploppable in SC4 for the precise reason that I don't WANT to plop every single thing. I'd rather have them grow naturally when conditions are right for them. Nothing like that happens in CXL. And while SC4's development engine could sometimes be overzealous in building and rebuilding an area, I prefer that to the static, unchanging neighborhoods in CXL. I had high hopes for CXL. I really did. Monte Cristo's early involvement with the community made me hope that they would get it right where EA screwed it up. I was dearly hoping that CXL would be the city builder that would finally dethrone SC4 as the reigning king of city builders. In part, I had these hopes because I'm petty and I wanted to see a smaller developer bloody the nose of giant EA in a genre they have a virtual monopoly in, especially after they released the crap that was Societies and dared to stick the venerable SimCity name on it. But I don't think it's going to happen. CXL has some definite positives, but in most of the areas people are looking for, SC4 still reigns supreme. Gameplay can keep ancient games alive; I know of several active gaming communities surrounding games that are now over a decade old (one I'm thinking of was originally released on DOS for frak's sake), and it's because the games they center on were so well made that even though they look very dated now, they're still great fun to play. SC4 is pretty much in that category; it's showing its age, but it's still so fun to play that thousands of us continue to play it. The proof is in the size of the still-active fan community. I wish Monte Cristo had paid more attention to the fan community in the end. I think CXL would have a better chance at longevity if they had. They did a better job than EA did with Societies, no doubt whatsoever about that. But for me, at least, and many other gamers I've discussed this with, they have not managed to replace SC4. Not yet. Maybe they will eventually when more of the content is released, but as others have said, I'm not willing to pay for a half-finished game. Give me a final product that has what I want in a city builder and you'll have a fan for life. Until then, I'll stick with SC4. No "crying" here, just a simple statement of fact.quote> I think you hit the nail on the head there!

Cities XL is an expensive joke, it represents all that is wrong with modern day games.. Thats Tuscans opinion

Originally posted by: RegisteringSucks Originally posted by: Apache To put it simply .."Your either on the new wave of CB games or your stuck playing SC4 until the end of time praying to whoever your god may be for simcity5 to come out" but by then the new wave will be Cities XL 4. The train is about to leave the station........will you be on it with me or will you be holding your SC4 cover box hoping that EA wakes up?.....plain and simplequote> I think the train's leaving the station, but it's going the wrong way. I'll sit in the station for now. Just out of curiosity, aside from it being new, what do you like about CXL? I'm sure curved roads and updated graphics are two things, but that can't be everything. What are some examples of other things you like? quote> The trains going in the wrong direction you say? More like a train thats about to derail from the tracks lol I think I will be joining your wait at the station. In fact I already cancelled my order and i just this minute finished installing NAM and SAM for the first time.

lol, well thats the issue I have, and thats why im not even going to buy it (atleast yet). How can a modern city building game call itself a modern city building game when it doesnt even have a mass transit system? Its like having a railway typhoon game which doesnt include passenger train stations.. its incomplete:-s