macvirt

It's not a matter of computing power. It's a case of how much resources you have to expend on what sort of targets for the project, against what resources you have available. This is a topic where business focus trumps game design. I know, the resource management stuff and the marketing, all that aims to suggest a deep focus, but the game targets a much wider focus as opposed to deep: the volume of potential customers and which largest potentials of those can be reached how. Some of us may not like it, but it is a logical continuation of the resources debate and the strategic objectives. That is visible in the visual focus, the visualisation means, but also in elements like the multi/online play reqs that are part of EA's requirements for the project. Again, this is a question of whether this is the next SimCity, or a new SimCity. Every game is a product of the time it is made in.

Hrm, also a wierd distance between the housings, could be related to zone density? The shot with the skyscrapers had a lot less distance between them I think?

Interesting experiment indeed, but it would require too much micromanagement, so I afraid it's not gonna happen. Agreed, a little less strategic focus and a little more game design focus though could easily present such options to users, options where the user decides to what level of detail he or she takes the experience.

Defaulting is hardly unprecedented in the history of nations. To be honest, it's been one of the most popular instruments of trade agreements over the millennia. Same for that dreaded topic of a forced credit crunch, aimed at decreasing the power of what effectively is virtual monetary value without backing in production, labour or resources. I doubt the constitution is as big as a hurdle for any reform than the divide within the country though. To be honest, if there are two things which the US should put on the table for debate first it is a) the political divide between two sides who have become special interest groups of b) the fundamental shift in cultural, societal and legal organisation from economics as part of instrumentation of politics to politics as part of instrumentation of economics. These are issues, which in the absence of external catalysts of (cultural, economic and other) impetus will have to be addressed. There is no prospect of a viable external catalyst in the next 50 years for the US to capitalise on for continuity. Not even in a political or military sense, unless ofcourse once again that is created. So what is an internal challenge cannot be addressed with external challenges (to distract, or utilise even in an economic sense) will continue to be just that: an internal set of challenges waiting. Question is whether the populace will be able to step outside of the established boxes of participatory networks. It is very easy to slag off things like Republicans and Fox News, or Democrats and birth certificates. But Americans still watch that, and go by it. If that does not change, all that's left for countries on such roads in history tends to come down to "bread and games". Old recipee. Fails every time when tried for longer than the short term use. Your alternative to coin, the trade analogy, I should mention is something quite a few think tanks have explored over the decades. The trouble is that due to the relations (legal and otherwise) between the states and their banks and the federal government and the federal reserve this is simply not possible. There's quite a few economists out there who are convinced that going back to that day where the US managed to seperate itself from that institute would really not be a bad idea. After all, it's been at the basis of every global monetary crisis since its reaffirmation in the years before what we today remember as the first fall in the interbellum. For the US government to even be remotely able to do such things would require fundamentally altering the relations with the Federal Reserve, and in practical terms putting an end to its current form of functioning and power. By the way, this or that party holding this or that hostage is a bad thing yes. But, keep in mind that is not a typical US problem. Every imperial power across history has done that. I'm not saying it is right, I'm just saying that it is not unique. It is a cycle which countries engage in, which either only end through great cataclysms or through the populations no longer participating in the support networks of representations that continue that cycle. The US has a bit of a similar problem in that regard as the UK once did, for example when it was busy holding a continental Europe hostage again at the forefront of yet another war when France was wondering about their agreements with the US "but what about your word, what about honour". This takes the form of a two party system, which really only masks a deeper issue: that of societal organisation across and by support networks and dependancies of ideologies. Look at it this way, how many Democrats or Liberals would change their votes on a basis of no confidence in system, as ones both Tories and Liberals in the UK (note, in the UK example it was a cataclys that forced the changes, multiple ones even, from the Boer war to WWI and ultimately WWII - basically 3 wars and still remnants of divide exist, go figure).

Yes, that could be due to development status of the zone though. It does not look anything like any type of industrial zone in the countries around here for example, but considering other screenshots we have seen different states of development over time do appear to be part of SC2013 as well. Also, things like type of map could be at play (for example, rural or urban), or there could be other variables that the user can set which affect the style and density of an area.

Personally? Because I would like to see if there are relations between speed limits, road condition, agent behavioural patterns and thus see if there is impact on things like pollution or maintenance costs or traffic jams. Ofcourse, if hospitals had some sort of mechanism for tracking and reporting organ transplantation requirements and deficiences in meeting those needs of the sims in my city, then I would set them to the highest yes ....

Trouble with that reasoning is the same set of arguments, just from a strategic perspective. EA decides strategic focus, and sets requirements and policies for studios. Don't get me wrong, I doubt even EA would be that wierd in its reasoning (as to cutting off servers without allowing Maxis to present a continuity of use scenario). I cannot discount the possibility however as EA is EA. Particularly sad considering its origins, but the evolution of EA from creative umbrella to gaming house to something close to an investment fund has forced me to - over time - adjust my expectations of it. Only natural, as they changed, methods and priorities changed with it. If I then look at how EA has presented itself, on purpose or through error, I can't really blame people for looking at it with an eyebrow raised, to a degree one of something close to mistrust even. On the bright side, folks at Maxis are not exactly stupid. And they do know how to make their case, relations even between studios and common publishers tend to have room for input as long as the studio knows when to make what case, and how.

Yeah, I kinda had hopes for a Mac version via the Mac Store which had more potential of addressing issues like remote save game and online play requirements

To be blunt, I would really like it if that were up to the user. Speed limits in one country are not the same as in another country. Also on a basic level of experience it would - in the absence of systems like subways to offset transportation network limitations in dense population / usage zones - be quite neat if this were a variable the user could tweak, and observe results of. Same for toll gates and their fees, perhaps it takes it too far, but I would love to be able to tweak individual (or even toll gate type specific) rates to engage in patterns of encouraging / discouraging use.

There's an option to set the depth of field to various levels. Ok, that is actually nice to hear. I can think of some pesky ultrabook users who will appreciate that

There is no comparing SC4 to SC2013 or vice versa for anything other than the names within the established franchise and the general orientation of the genre and scope of the product. We can't even speak of an evolution between the two, in spite of these things because of the different approaches, the origins thereof and the commercial targeting of each individual product. Both are flagship titles, set to function as foundation elements to what is known as brand value. Each is a product of its time. On a codebase level, on an engine level, completely different beasts. One was made in its own derivative right, the other was made as a stepping stone for the societies engine. Most importantly though, and often people forget that, they are different states of products. SC4 today is (indeed, though it took about two years) not a release product, it is a nurtured product (a term reserved for games that have been carried by its users, as opposed to by its publisher or developers). SC2013 faces completely different challenges in that regard than SC4, challenges which did not even exist in those days Don't confuse terminology like "casual" or "leisure" in reference to game design and marketing concepts with very humanly subjective but in this context completely unrelated personal interpretations. These are references of user typing, categories of market and product research. They are not value statements or anything like that. Honestly, don't read that kind of angle in to what is simply research terminology of this industry. I don't discount the hardware evolution that has taken its place between the times of these products, as I said, both are products of their time. In more ways than one, this should be obvious. But I do doubt that the marketing presentation of Maxis will equate to the actual underlying motivations and decisions resulting in the actual state of product upon release We have to be honest there, they would be the first company in the history of this industry using marketing instrumentation prior to release if that were to be the case. This is nothing bad, this is just business "as is". For the casual or leisure type of consumer categories in gaming SC2013 is actually, as stated before, very well tuned in to aspects of trends, points of comfort in exposure and experience and general appeal. It is not the new SimCity, it's a next SimCity. But honestly, the presentations sofar on model capabilities do not match realistically. The online component elements are direct mirrors from EA debates at the last 3 GDC's, up to and including the concept of "presenting cloud connectivity as data handling for the purposes of ensuring protection of various rights and interests". I'll be the first to congratulate Maxis if they actually do a meaningful implementation of a balanced transaction handling system between client and server for more than just the market and attached mechanisms (note the "more" part) and I am willing to admit that a lot of my doubt comes from the direct insistance on remote save game prioritisation (which is a direct copy of EA talk) as something closer to a syndrome of strategic focus first, game second. Either way, as pointed out earlier, we will have to see. There is no point in making any decisions now. People are obviously free to do so, for good reasons It does not hurt though to realise that all we see until release (and actually for a while after that too, as such things are commonly well planned and prepared) is marketing. There is neither truth nor value to that other than means & methods of the sales pitch. That is normal. We all want to believe, especially when we care. That is human, and that is the basis of both marketing and sales (just like any form of human dynamics really). And no, that is not slagging off, nor is it paranoia It's just business.

Think there will be an option to turn off the horizon visibility?

Currency had backing actually, for a very long time. From Assurya to Babylonian days all the way forth to the dark ages after the fall of Rome and the demise of the banks of Constantinople up to the late 19th and early 20th centry, where the last incarnation of a backed finance and currency system (what was known as golden standard balance) became a target of reform by the - back then - leading economies. Notably Great Britain, but also France and later the US finally leading the way to move the global monetary system away from it. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it Reagan in the US - the man who in spite of accomplishments is still heralded as a hero on both ends of the political divide - who moved the dollar away from the golden standard guarantee? Can't remember whether it was him, I do remember that he had the requirements revised for credit creation for private enterprises to a point where a simple concept like oversight became something between discouraged and even disallowed, something which was made part of policy instructions for the WTO and World Bank to follow and implement in their finance regulations & requirements.

Actually, the design principles followed are the same. It caters to generic users of the casual / leisure type categories, focuses on broad gameplay but avoids taking the user to deep gameplay, and so forth. Has a distinct focus on social / sharing elements. Styleguide visibly falls away from realism to the comfort type of stylesets. Etc. It's just not browserbased, but then again, it is cloud focused on all levels. Including having savegames not locally, but in the cloud. Which would not surprise me if that turned out to be nothing more than an anti piracy attempt that bit. It's not a bad thing, just different. People tend to use the term "facebook game" as a bit of a derogatory statement, which is understandable considering how tainted it is by excessive monetisation focus. But let's be honest, whether it is coins or gold or DLC, monetisation is part of the state of affairs these days.

Ok, thanks for making me grin there Serious though, renaming functionality should be in I agree, I doubt it is though. We might get functionality though like "Tweet > user X has just built a Low Tech Factory - would you like to know more?" Sad as it is, I'm close to a point of expecting that sort of stuff.

Heh, perhaps. It is an interesting angle though. But alright, best kept maybe to a seperate topic. I do think though that the issue of small tile sizes (but also many other things people mention as issues, like regions and graphics and the black hole of moddability versus shop) are tied together as consequences of a visible shift in orientation and focus by both Maxis and EA. The programmative element in that may go too far off topic, but it does serve to show how the order of priorities and methods has changed and how thus we have arrived at those issues. Either way, we're not at release yet. Maxis may still make a shift and suprise people pleasantly.

Looks like EA has set the Deluxe Edition to €79,99 ... Starting to wonder how much they are going to charge for custom regions. But we too will be able to create and share our own custom regions right? Right Maxis?

I understand the point, I am merely pointing out that this is not a factor today in how these projects are planned and executed. Depth of gameplay, as you call it, is not a factor in guiding or requiring the elements of programming for mainstream titles. I fully agree that there is a clear and definite potential. The trouble is that this potential is just not interesting for a company like EA to work with. It simply makes less money than taking a different route. By the way, market dynamics are not self creating. Impetus and stimulus are always required, and in the absence of "real" humans inside our computers that really means derivative modelling. So there is just no concept of self sustainability. Rules are required for operations as well as conditional actioning. By default a model of human behaviour (whether that is in the form of a market or another chosen form of organisation and exchange of transactions) is limited. No programming is human proof either. Many game developers have made the mistake of making the assumption that their model or programming or solution is self-creating and self-sustaining. They were taken apart by pesky gamers gaming the game / the developers / and so forth. I used to be a developer yes, still am sometimes. Most of the time these days I divide my time between troubleshooting ventures in this industry, hooking people with ideas up to folks with means, and the occasional hands on venture management. I've kinda gone to the dark side, some devs would say I still try though to constantly keep both those sides in perspective, and in balance. Because it comes down to people, real people, and the aim should always be for the whole to be bigger than the mere sum of parts (that tends to come out of strictly utilitarian strategic prioritisation). At the moment I'm involved with a completely different genre than that of the "sim", I should add. We ran quite a fun venture recently utilising crowdfunding as a means towards venture funding for a mainstream title under development.

Money was invented as an instrument to measure and exchange trust. Things went awry once we as a species seperated that from actual labour. Our current credit issues globally are a direct consequence of attempts to change the use of the instrument, not just of the changes in methods. But on the topic of government, heh. Governments do not just exist to provide collective service to populations. That foregoes basic human behavioural requirements of organisation. Unless ofcourse we choose to believe that human group dynamics regulate themselves. Such a belief is possible, after all lots of people believe in a market that is self regulating and fixing Trouble is, it all is human behaviour, and that does not function without buffering that behaviour against itself. And that too, is a role for the idea of government. Because within group dynamics individuals may regulate behaviour but the group will not without agreements, buffers and a sanction mechanism (which is the balance between reward and punishment, in a nutshell, measured against agreed participation, responsabilities and rules), we as a species require artificial constructs exactly for such purposes. Now keep in mind, government is a term without clear definitions seperated from cultural connotations. We in the west for example tend to see government as seperate from - for example - financial constructs, military, religion, and so forth. Other cultures do not, or have not engaged on that road (yet). It is never a set and fixed concept. Which government. Not only does the country (as such) have multiple ones in terms of concepts derivative of trias politica, but also the country has evolved to become a segregated state divided between economics as element of politics and organisation as element of economics. The struggle in the shift from the first to the second has - in spite of Wallace and others like Marshall - increased since Eisenhower to a point where it is becoming increasingly of interest among the various human sciences to place bets on how long the country will exist in its current state. Unless ofcourse the actual population manages to punch through the veil of - what essentially is - marketing of all the special interests that treat country and people alike - as resources. Slightly off topic, it might be an idea if folks took some time to really study sources of information as well as methods and historic developments before engaging in debates stateside. Very often I find it a bit sad that there is a strong element of people not being able (somehow) to seperate themselves from preconceptions that really come forth out of what is called participatory networks - aka seperating themselves first from perspectives of selective interests and approaching topics without the typical perceptions attached. A fun example is a documentary series by Oliver Stone, the untold history of the united states. For those who's networks do not show that documentary, I'm sure that even in the US it can be found using "other" methods. Readily verifiable information, sources and perspectives. Yet while stateside people tend to jump to debunk, it is interesting to note that in most other places in the world the information contained within is simply part of a much more objective educational curriculum. I can't recall the number of debates I had with the father of a great friend of mine on topics like the airlift campaign to berlin during the blockade who insisted that the city could not even get any food, while the markets and supply was just plain open

It is a work in progress, though the freeze is actually pretty close. Still, somehow it seems caught between trying to cater to the biggest volume and strategic trends for both look & feel (and limitations to the interaction model) and those markets which actually buy it for going deep. Feels a bit like a project caught between the suits with directives and devs still trying to compensate for that with the actual game. Some big risks for the marketing campaign visible in that regard. But yeah, it is an ok video. Definately some pride visible, which is good and fine. But indeed, it is too visible that the prime focus is trends that are really part of other parts of the industry. Bit of a shame.

I wouldn't worry, I don't think anyone would accuse you seriously of that after those posts . Most of the time people take some time seperating from established expectation patterns, very often because marketing feeds anticipation but does little to utilise (or adress) expectations. Still, really, you have a few (understandable) preconceptions. First of all, the programming does not run the venture. The programming is not even part of the venture for anything more than it as a resource (and expendable one at that). Nor does the programming enter as a variable of decision processes. It is a resource element, it is fitted to decisions. Only in studios which have continuity issues in our industry do we see that the other way around This is the games industry. Big business. In your father's days matters would have been different. It is both interesting and sad to recognise how matters have shifted, but also how beneficial that has been (admittedly, selectively). Maxis is not going for a faithful representation of how a city works. That is part marketing, and part forgetting design decisions visible. Yes, they have made effort to present it as such, yet on the other hand Maxis like not other knows the innate limitations (of business and development) they face in such a venture. At the same time they have also made it clear that it is not going to be a representation of how a city works. It is an interaction model, pure and simple (their words by the way, from some time ago at a GDC). SC2013 is a product tailored to broad and current trends in the gaming industry. Yes, our industry does have its issues in such matters, but it is doing business according to priorities set. Never forget to seperate the marketing from the actual product. Making that mistake creates an awful lot of debates that cannot be engaged on without realising that we're dealing with perspectives that are completely subjective on the user's end, and completely dependant on strategic objectives set by the house / publisher (where the studio has about zero effective input). There will never be any way to roll with individual sims and "true" economy unless we manage to encapsulate actual humans as virtual constructs. Not even the world's best science fiction authors manage to agree on how such a concept would even work Don't expect us in the industry to get on that road anytime soon Even if we tried, I daresay half the world would be roleplaying various apocalypses in protest of such a post human aspiration. Ever seen how many economists swear they have the true economy as model or idea? It's often as bad as religeous debate. Which is only natural, because most people tend to (consciously or unconsciously) forget that it is about human beings. Proper simulation, again understandably subjective. There is no real definition possible on it. In game design we tend to deal with that "problem" on a basis of established research on what makes which type of gamer tick under what circumstances (artificial, derivative of actions, primary actions, and so forth). It's unfortunately a result of natural limitations that any such research has bottlenecks. One has to make choices and in our industry the definite trend has become that of catering first to the highest potential volume of generic players and only after that working on product elements which are actually tied to the concept of the product. Form comes first. Function must first meet strategic objectives. We see that with SC2013 very clearly, the look & feel but also the social elements as well as the preset multi and online play requirements. Either way, a "proper" simulation can not be seperated from either form or function. We can't simply say "discard graphics", because of how human beings think and are s/t/imulated (bit of a pun intended there ). Nor can we discard function to just present a derivative simulation of recorded & repeated data. For the same reason. A proper simulation will require an intrinsic balance between both form and function. And that is before any commercial considerations come in to account, considerations which tend to override that balance, because it "has to sell". And that, is visible particularly with SC2013. It is presented as simulation, is created to cater to broad generic targets as primary focus, but is a limited interaction model due to the choices in methods of how to cater to those broad generic targets. Some people see that as "meh", very often these people are of the non-leisure non-casual user categories. And very often they are clear users of SC4. It is understandable, because people operate on a basis of both expectations and established patterns (of behaviour, of play, etc). SC2013 should really just be seen as a new (not a "next", btw) product in an established franchise timed and built to cater to trends in the industry. Best people can do is wait till release, see if it gives them that special feeling, and if it does they should buy it. And if not, they should not buy it, and see after a while if things have been added that add that special feeling. This entire situation is really not that different from the issues, decisions, mistakes and smart moves surrounding the Civ V development & release by Firaxis.

He has a point though, considering industry research that shows the largest volumes of potential user categories (casual and leisure types) generally don't bother to go deep, so to speak, into gaming elements. In simple terms, they generally don't give a crap about how deep or accurate a simulation is. Instead they display engaged behaviour on a basis of completely different stimuli. One of those falls in nicely with the debate of form versus function. By appealing to the general trends in the realm of "form" it is easier to capture (so to speak) those user type groups because it matches expectation and comfort patterns. No need to actually go into function beyond what is required for the operational conditions. Each to his or her own indeed, but let's not actually fall for the marketing talk. It really is simple in our industry. I understand the hope for "more", but keep in mind that depends on completely different conditions. It is tied to the prospects over time to utilise the product as a continued flagship element of brand value. That means that as long as the general sales does not under perform there is little chance for those conditions to be created enabling users to nurture the product (the way SC4 was done, the reason also why there is no SC5 niche product but a SC2013 trend product). There is irony in this. If the game sells less, there is more chance to "issues" being addressed. If the game sells more, less chance of it. And that applies to DLC tracks too. Less sales, more DLC focus on shiny extra, and not core issues.

Chances are that just comes down to a case of figuring out how the model mixes elements, as there is no manual zoning. Still, that mixed automatic approach would not be very likely, in most places in the world people tend to have rules in urban development policies against such things

Not to mention that toning down the plastic shiny would not be a bad idea. Great models, very neat texturing visible, but particularly for industrial architecture and objects this stands out too much.

Just a marketing term for a special purpose round.