macvirt

That elevation could also just be part of the model. It reminds me of a civil solar initiative in france, where the local community council lets citizens rent panels and thus "recoup" energy costs, it's a relatively flat structure - they just raised the height of the ground and built on top of that. There is a tool to change terrain but it comes at a price i think. As in DLC? Now that would be less than healthy, from my perspective. I can't imagine such basic terrain tools would be part of such an angle.

I'm merely pointing out that no such thing as self-correcting exists. What we do see in this industry is that parameters are built in as tresholds, connected to signal methods. Alerting, if you will. After which intervention follows. A part of that tends to be programming, but with hard limits. Beyond those hard limits, you find manual intervention. That can take the shape of patches, even DLC introducing changes, but also direct intervention within the transactions or parameters for the market.

For that to look like a real world city it depends entirely on what continent you live Ever been to Europe? There are entire regions and countries here where there is no such thing as bubble cities

Yes, well, that is where they figured out that DLC is the right track for more than just shallow shiny. It is also a valid means (commercially) for catering to what is known as "core" users and "mature" users. Trouble is, that is secondary to meeting initial commercial goals first. Yes, I'd love to see that the other way around, or even in balance. Not many studios have figured that out yet though. Firaxis learned this with the aftermath of the Civ V release (and ended up adjusting DLC planning), but in terms of simulation / strategy gaming products that is about it. On the bright side, Maxis do invest in doing homework, it is quite possible that they have looked at that situation and have worked out how to learn from other people's mistakes and not reinvent the wheel. Thus at least potentially working out options for a DLC roadmap with balance for both widening and deepening the game after release. Overall though, yeah, there is a definite trend of dumbing down. But that is not the gaming industry. It is called culture, or civilisation. It is the trend these days, wether that is the entertainment industry, the gaming industry, heck even the food industry Dumb sells, to more and faster. And it costs less if you don't have customers that invest in their purchases.

Agreed on principle of observations, these are known phenomena in game design, I'm not convinced however on the part of self correcting. There is no such thing as a magic market that fixes itself. I know, it is a popular idea in several of our real world economic models & systems, the trouble is that these are all derivative of human behaviour and interaction (seperately). Most of the time though people forget that because of some wierd fixation on ideology to a point where wishes become convictions and ultimately dogma. As much as it is possible to "game the game", so to speak, that by no means provides guarantees for concepts like a magic self correcting market. This is more known actually in the world of game design than it is in the real world Which is why in game design you often see methods available to developers to make such corrections. That varies from visible interactions, visible additions or changes all the way to discrete and even hidden injections or what some might call manipulations (though these are valid methods of control, no matter how hard they have it with "gaming the gamer"). We will see, I get the idea Maxis will try to seperate the "worlds" of their primary target groups and those of secondary groups who prefer - shall we say - seclusion or seperation from the interconnected requirements of multiplayer / social / ranking elements. It would be self defeating to not invest in such seperations or methods thereto. Still, that "market" is a transaction model yes, but it is also a control system. Patches are a common way to address changes brought on by user behaviour and interaction, but I suspect Maxis will have to be more on the ball than just that. It remains a derivative system, and if there is one golden rule of game design it is "never underestimate the chaos of your users gaming your game better" I agree though, there is no functional requirement for a forced set of methods for online solo or multiplayer gaming here. All there is, really comes down to marketing and methods of sales targets. Personally I fully understand the motivations there, I just don't think it is wise to push anything on the user. It makes more sense in terms of game design and commercial aspects to provide choice and guide the user (subtly, there is never a better way than to enable the user to pick a puzzle and guide himself). It results in a far deeper connection with gaming products. And ultimately, that is not just what builds a long lasting foundation for a gaming product to continue adding on commercially. It is also what builds great franchises and brands alike. Trouble is, and this should be a trend visible to even casual gamers, the concept of single-player is becoming ever more subservient to a change in methods resulting from a wider view on business methods. All understandable, but the result for games as games is that games become more broad in focus for market but less deep in terms of immersion and experience. This is usually compensated with what we call "shiny", trouble is, even the raven that has a nack for that tends to get caught in a cycle of requiring ever more bloom on the shiny to keep him attracted Not to mention that this does cost resources which have to come from elsewhere in the project management for the game. Often an unfortunate result of that is an even more wide focus with the experience becoming increasingly shallow. Anyway, we can debate until we see blue in the face. Customers are not a factor in these decisions. They are a resource. EA sets strategic targets, studios cater to these. Maxis has made its decisions and has executed to meet set targets. It's a done deal. There is only one real window towards enhancements on the topic of options for solo / multi and offline / online play configurations, but that is tied directly to the release meeting targets in such a manner that such enhancements become attractive for DLC tracks. Pure and simple. What some might call "enriching" the game, or what others may call "fixing" the game, regardless of whatever feature or content there a topic is or may be, these days only exists on that DLC road. That is part of business planning. Potential for such things depends on what targets are met for what researched user groups and the visible exposure evolution after release.

Now that would get wierd, pregnancies and such ....

In commercial terms is there no chance for the product to fail, what is possible is that in the subjective and individual reception of the product people may find the product to not deliver according to their respective expectations. Ofcourse, a big factor there can easily be confusion as to what the product is - it is not the next SC4, it is not an SC5 evolution of SC4, it is a product designed and marketed for today. For the different trends and developments of user types and market mechanisms. Someone would might feel the game to be not as perfectly in tune with expectations can ofcourse find new points of satisfaction with the game. I would hope so, the game is definately different and it does aim to create a new set of experiences. Those may very well be or become appealing to the player. Good game design tends to provide for such user behaviour adjustment / discovery paths. I don't doubt that Maxis will have put at least some though in to that, after all they do come from a certain base with previous productions. It's a personal decision / challenge either way. Each to his or her own.

Well, it's always a case of resources and allocation. But yeah, I would hate to see the next SC end up on the same track as Civ V. As hard as Firaxes had to work on those tracks to compensate for severe deficiencies ... not a good situation. So if needed, I would not mind if Maxis avoided those pitfalls and took a bit of extra time if needed. Or - depending on the issues being absent features and not deficiences - a clear roadmap of introduction of followup feature sets to be introduced (and when) upon release.

As I said, a transaction engine tied to a graphics engine, the amalgam of hooks & handlers for interpretation and interaction (which is essentially the logical evolution of Glassbox from its first use in another product to its further development for this product). The question is to what degree the dependancies for data handling are configurable. Consider for example whether such dependancies are only on|off if cheats is enabled. Is cheats on|off the same as multiplayer on|off, or are there configurable combinations possible. The same on the element of data collection / handling / tracking / presentation. Is the agent transation system is a snapshot mechanism, or (for example) is the span of it dependant on system capabilities, or are there hard values / variables.

I find it curious that this close to the planned release there actually still are "debates" or uncertainties at Maxis about what is "in" and what is "out, as features or content. Strange. I know, sometimes things run late, still.

Older towns, yes. However, the trend in new development (established towns as well) is toward regionalization and zoning (similar to theming in SC 2013) - for the simple reason that real-world communities are not bubble communities; they exist as part of a wider region/county/state. A region will have a *flavor* different from another region (even in what may be the same county or, in the case of larger cities, the same city - Washington, DC or even New York City are prime examples - in the case of New York City, look at the differences between Brooklyn and the Bronx, or between either and Queens) - the *village/borough* concept is actually drawn from the real world. I'm actually expecting there to be more data available in SC 2013 than in SC4 (which is not exactly easy to manage on a whole-large-city level) - for that reason we as Mayors may actually be glad of the smaller village concept. If you get the chance, talk to a mayor of a small town - find out exactly what he has on his plate on a daily basis. (If you know of a town or city that also has a city manager, that's another person whose ear you should bend - a manager and mayor have overlapping responsibilities, and are required to work together to keep the town or city running smoothly; it's something that SimCity has implemented in the Advisory Council, which dates back to the original Sim City). Do you REALLY want to drown in Information Overload? (There are times that SC4 threatens to do just that - that is why there is a limit to how large I would let a city there grow.) I love the way you use EA marketing tools in your comment. What SC4 info overload? I find SC4 too simple and was looking for a challenge in SC2013 but what I get is something called "Simvillage 2013", Why can't they give us a choice tough? Even if I wanted it to be as "modern" planning wise as you want it to be, why can't I make it the old ways? Why does it need to be predefined anyway? Heavy on the marketing indeed Besides, very US centric in terms of approach. In Europe neither urban nor regional development can be compared there, it is based on completely different principles and methods. It's almost funny.

I'd imagine you would break the system entirely if you tried to do that. Resources couldn't move at all and you'd end up with nothing more than empty roads and zones. Agents are what control everything like power and water. Perhaps. I do wonder though, GBE is a graphics engine first and a data abstraction model second. We've seen that before in the industry, in most such projects it turned out that what was presented and perceived as a data agent system was essentially a seperate engine (so to speak, a math model tied to handlers for abstraction and visualisation). It can indeed be the case that the agent system is the motivator element of what the user works with, it can however also be the case that it is just simply used as a means of selective enablement and access. In simple terms, the agent system can very well be a snapshot mechanism allowing the user to interface with the visualisation of data and a transaction mechanism across sessions or states (the multiplayer element and/or regional mapping). It does not have to be more than that, in terms of game design. Which is basically why such mechanisms typically aren't. Some people might see that as a "cheap" angle, it is not however. It is a valid method within both game design and the project management. Look at it this way, you could invest a disproportionately large part of budget to develop the perfect agent and transaction mechanism. Or you could develop for specific requirements. I could imagine the approach where the agent and transaction systems are present and configured for the requirement of multiplayer interaction. Which, considering the design of online play, is a prime requirement for the scope of the design. If Maxis made it more than that, there is potential for turning that off as a cost efficient means towards solo and/or offline play. If Maxis only went for the prime requirements, that will simply not be possible.

Do you realize what you are insisting on, compared to the intent of the developers? You are, in fact, basically insisting that your cities exist in a bubble (which has been the case with SC4 and previous), whereas the developers (Maxis/EA) are taking a more realistic and (believe it or not) honest approach by insisting that the cities be always connected. It has nothing to do with DRM; however, it has *everything* to do with how the agents work in the GBE (Glass Box Engine) and with the core concept (new with SC 2013) of regional/metropolitan play. In other words, "How dare SC 2013 be different!" In reality, no city or town exists in a vacuum (unless it's on an island). If you are that insistent on bubble cities, stick to SC4 or CitiesXL - neither of them are necessarily going anywhere. (However, because they actually ARE *bubble cities*, they are not realistic, either.) The "realism" argument is just marketing. Nothing more. It can't be used in any value statements or comparisons simply because it is just a marketing term. Beyond that, it is a pointless word to use either way because it is subjective. What is realistic to one, is fantasy shiny to the other. Look at subways in SC2013. Maxis states it is aiming for ultra-realism, but there are no subways. See? Plenty users will find that a perfect example of dumbing down the game (in methods and manners very similar to what was observed in the evolution of Civ V), others will find it better because they can embrace Kip's statements of how that allows for a more realistic challenge in the dealing with road networks. Yet others will simply try to insert the functionality regardless of reasons, though they may very well find that such deep third party interaction is not allowed. At the same time, just don't make the assumption that the agent system of Glassbox is a requirement for design goals. It can be turned off, it can be set to local data only. It's just that from a sales perspective enabling that does not make sense if your sales pitch relies to a high degree on making use of social gaming mechanisms. Cities not being bubbles has nothing to do with how the agents in the GBE work. The agent system is configured for design goals. Those are set by commercial requirements. What you are referring to as "how dare SC2013 be different" is a rather short sighted perspective in terms of commercial considerations. Consider the perspectives of user types who just want to puzzle, and build, on their own and in their own immersion. These are all user types that are incredibly substantial in terms of volume. Even just the state of SC4 today still demonstrates that. Discarding (depending what perspective is brought to the table) these potential customer groups as "not in tune with a new product" or "not interesting" is something somewhere between dumb and oblivious - in a business sense, obviously. I have seen a lot of deductions from what in reality are nothing more than marketing statements. It is interesting to see each time how consumers run with that, and after purchase find themselves in disappointment they should have seen coming - but because they spent coin most immediately fall prey to the syndrome of "have to defend the product as it equates to defending my purchase". The irony is that where consumers during the release of information (by marketing of gaming products or services) offset such information with reality checks and good communications of expectations and origins thereof back to the studio you tend to see a much easier road for synergy between the studio's efforts pre- and post release (a big example of that is for example Firaxis who are still building upon pre-release communicated required course corrections for Civ V - course corrections in perspectives that want to embrace the product yes, and not simply content or feature injections). If people just discard or shrug off other people's perspectives, especially those which lie at the basis of how an obsolute product got nurtured to a point where it provided the foundation for the viability of a succeeding product, that is at the least counter productive. If only because it allows marketing elements to essentially decide the interaction between commercial and design goals in a top down direction (as opposed to building something from the ground up, which is a manner that includes ability to both maneuver and complement). Now here is the funny thing, something which many of us in the gaming industry tend to forget. It is not about the intent of the developers. Realistically, the developers never matter unless they manage to capture the perspectives of consumers and cater specifically to those and not their own - while translating that into cases and presentations that keep the almighty suits happy. Without that, it is always the suits that decide. For them neither developers nor customers have any other meaning or weight that resources. So be very careful with statements like "Do you realize what you are insisting on, compared to the intent of the developers?". Developers (application, game or otherwise) have targeted customers; what many seem to want from the game isn't what the developers are targeting. Fair enough. However, that is provided by games that are not only out there - why would (or should) a developer re-invent the wheel? What the developer and publisher want does matter - as it determines whether i will have any interest in the game or not. As it is, my interest in SC 2013 is primarily due to it requiring me to take things into consideration that neither SC4 or CitiesXL do - specifically, the needs of other cities. While there has been the *idea* of other cities (and even an an entire SImNation) since SC2000, how well was it implemented in previous titles? The answer, of course, is rather simple - it wasn't. The idea/concept was there - however, there was no method to implement it. You compensated by building *bubble cities*. Never mind that it isn't realistic - it was *the only game in town*. Now, it isn't. You can build *bubble cities* - *semi-connected* cities, and even fully-connected cities (the last two are supported by SC 2013). The question faced by the long-time SimCity fanbase is this - are we willing to adapt to actually having something that's been hinted at since the early days actually available? No, as stated before, the aim of the game is making money. Nothing more, nothing less. The question is not that of adaptation. It is simply to what extent Maxis will cater to those fall in the user types of builder and puzzle solver who also fall in the category of solo player and less in the categories of casual or leisure player.

Yet Maxis states it aims for ultra-realism. Even if a subway system as concept were as much a niche as you desire it to be, the option should be there - or should be possible to introduce.

They've said that there isn't any route drawing, but routes are created based on demand or something like that. Yeah, that's part of the agent system - if I remember correctly. Basically presence is created by demand. I'm a bit curious though to what degree the visual representation of that kind of generated data will be visible. It would be a bit wierd if routing visibility were not present in for example traffic density statistic overviews.

Actually, farms are in cities Here in Europe in an abundance of metropoles it is part of a growing - and often government stimulated - trend to utilise economic and habitation zones to "green" in what is called "productive manners. Take a city like Amsterdam for example, you will find many office buildings there where the roofs but also entire floors are dedicated to cultivation and farming zones Eindhoven has the same, but stimulates this in habitation areas. See, we can never make any statement on anything being correct or true everywhere everytime. Two decades ago the idea of farmers growing tomatoes on top of data centers utilising their excess heat from internal cooling processes would be laughed away. These days in quite a few places it is quite common. In terms of productive output, initiatives like that even just in this country have grown to rival output of older methods of for example green house farming. Anyway, let's get back on topic. The same general principle applies to subways. Some cities have them, some don't. Some cities never had them, until demographic pressure pushed planners into integrating designs for subway networks into their existing city. And there is the point: it should be a feature element, because it exists as an option of both architecture and urban planning around the world. In terms of game design it is actually a very interesting sample case in the age old trouble of "who is the game built for" versus "who is the game built by". It is a case of perspective mangement during the entire project. Now I'm sure Maxis could (and should) correct the absence of such a feature element using DLC, that does however depend on whether the scoping for the GBE to the design and sales requirements of the product allows for that.

Do you realize what you are insisting on, compared to the intent of the developers? You are, in fact, basically insisting that your cities exist in a bubble (which has been the case with SC4 and previous), whereas the developers (Maxis/EA) are taking a more realistic and (believe it or not) honest approach by insisting that the cities be always connected. It has nothing to do with DRM; however, it has *everything* to do with how the agents work in the GBE (Glass Box Engine) and with the core concept (new with SC 2013) of regional/metropolitan play. In other words, "How dare SC 2013 be different!" In reality, no city or town exists in a vacuum (unless it's on an island). If you are that insistent on bubble cities, stick to SC4 or CitiesXL - neither of them are necessarily going anywhere. (However, because they actually ARE *bubble cities*, they are not realistic, either.) The "realism" argument is just marketing. Nothing more. It can't be used in any value statements or comparisons simply because it is just a marketing term. Beyond that, it is a pointless word to use either way because it is subjective. What is realistic to one, is fantasy shiny to the other. Look at subways in SC2013. Maxis states it is aiming for ultra-realism, but there are no subways. See? Plenty users will find that a perfect example of dumbing down the game (in methods and manners very similar to what was observed in the evolution of Civ V), others will find it better because they can embrace Kip's statements of how that allows for a more realistic challenge in the dealing with road networks. Yet others will simply try to insert the functionality regardless of reasons, though they may very well find that such deep third party interaction is not allowed. At the same time, just don't make the assumption that the agent system of Glassbox is a requirement for design goals. It can be turned off, it can be set to local data only. It's just that from a sales perspective enabling that does not make sense if your sales pitch relies to a high degree on making use of social gaming mechanisms. Cities not being bubbles has nothing to do with how the agents in the GBE work. The agent system is configured for design goals. Those are set by commercial requirements. What you are referring to as "how dare SC2013 be different" is a rather short sighted perspective in terms of commercial considerations. Consider the perspectives of user types who just want to puzzle, and build, on their own and in their own immersion. These are all user types that are incredibly substantial in terms of volume. Even just the state of SC4 today still demonstrates that. Discarding (depending what perspective is brought to the table) these potential customer groups as "not in tune with a new product" or "not interesting" is something somewhere between dumb and oblivious - in a business sense, obviously. I have seen a lot of deductions from what in reality are nothing more than marketing statements. It is interesting to see each time how consumers run with that, and after purchase find themselves in disappointment they should have seen coming - but because they spent coin most immediately fall prey to the syndrome of "have to defend the product as it equates to defending my purchase". The irony is that where consumers during the release of information (by marketing of gaming products or services) offset such information with reality checks and good communications of expectations and origins thereof back to the studio you tend to see a much easier road for synergy between the studio's efforts pre- and post release (a big example of that is for example Firaxis who are still building upon pre-release communicated required course corrections for Civ V - course corrections in perspectives that want to embrace the product yes, and not simply content or feature injections). If people just discard or shrug off other people's perspectives, especially those which lie at the basis of how an obsolute product got nurtured to a point where it provided the foundation for the viability of a succeeding product, that is at the least counter productive. If only because it allows marketing elements to essentially decide the interaction between commercial and design goals in a top down direction (as opposed to building something from the ground up, which is a manner that includes ability to both maneuver and complement). Now here is the funny thing, something which many of us in the gaming industry tend to forget. It is not about the intent of the developers. Realistically, the developers never matter unless they manage to capture the perspectives of consumers and cater specifically to those and not their own - while translating that into cases and presentations that keep the almighty suits happy. Without that, it is always the suits that decide. For them neither developers nor customers have any other meaning or weight that resources. So be very careful with statements like "Do you realize what you are insisting on, compared to the intent of the developers?".

Maxis Marketing: "we are aiming for ultra-realism". Reality: not even subways.

Is this new? Or are you just agreeing that it hasn't moved to beta phase yet? Because I'm pretty sure that technically a "Closed Alpha" is underway from the moment the developers can run the program No, it's old news. Closed Alpha is a different stage from internal demo's and test runs btw. A lot of studios today tend to put a friends & family round (as it was originally called) in the same box as closed alpha. Kinda funny.

Indeed, a big question though is whether they allow third party modding in these particular matters. It would be very easy to have a flag for type of map (public / private - cheats enabled yes / no), along those lines. Whether they do, well, I guess we will see. To be honest, it would be rather emberassing if such a simple thing had not been considered for both ends of the spectrum, leaving just a case of "disallowed that's our cash cow".

I don't know, these last ones have that "plastic" feel to them back a bit. What I'd like to see is whether the buildings and roads look like when - for example - not fully utilised or suffering from lack of usage / maintenance.

Yup, $20 map packs, special buildings, but also building styles, and so forth. Increasingly, I hope I am wrong, I get the idea that we will be allowed to mod, but that EA wants to ensure that customers do not get in the way of DLC strategy. What would be the value of the investment of making maps when users are crazy enough to make their own much more realistic maps? I'm sure we'll be able to edit building blocks, but whether that really is modding?

They just said in the live video stream today that there is no terraforming.... I suspect someone will find a mod or developer edit that will allow it... That depends entirely on the level of access the design allows for third party customisation. Content art is one thing, hooks and handlers to scripting is another thing on the other far end of the scale. But now consider that today making money with a game after the sale of the game is more important than the initial purchase. Especially where it comes to EA. What does that mindset bode for how deep moddability will be allowed to go? Well, I can easily see maps be DLC only, and that kind of acces not available by default to modding.

Well, one major concern I personally have with the increase in 3D, so to speak, is how easy it is for a design/develop perspective to get lost in the 3D. Oversight and insight, particularly visually is critical. It is incredibly tempting, even without realising, to give in to the desire / plan to make it look as good and shiny as possible. Trouble with that is that very often to achieve realisme for view and usage you have to stop and remember that neither design nor develop perspective matters. It is the customer perspective that matters. It's amazing to be able to create a full 3D experience of a city or landscape, absolutely. But if that goes over the top, and the user is much more presented all that than he or she is able to actually put it all to use regardless of purpose ... then problems do show up. Which would be a shame. I hope SC2013 has not fallen into that trap. I don't expect they have, but it is possible to overshoot - so to speak.

If they were so intent on keeping it online, they should've just stuck with the macro-level scale of actual city planning to allow the creation of larger cities and regions. Too late for that now... Perhaps, but not sure yet. We have not officially seen the actual product as a game yet. I am absolutely willing to agree that the "sims" user types represent the biggest volume of potential customers. Great portions of those however also fall in categories of "casual" and "leisure" type players. Which offsets that giant potential with the necessity to match a balance in design there. Glassbox is less an engine than it is a model, something of interest. The development of it for SC2013 does not mean that for a next project it can only be taken along the same way for scope, focus as well as feature and content elements attached. And a next project does not have to be a next game, but can also be an expansion pack for not simply content, but also features - able to both widen and deepen both focus and scope of the game. Which obviously depends on commercially focused decision processes, ofcourse, still the goal is to make money using customers so there is always at least some presence of catering to a selection of user categories. Never just really one category. Games that do that tend to end up as either a niche game or a failed venture. Since Maxis exists to make monkey for EA, I doubt they would make such mistakes. Sure, they may yet make the mistake to cross the streams, so to speak, trying to hybridise or use one to cater to all (but leave all with something missing). For example by taking the path of trying to hook a Sims incarnation up with SC2013. Possible. But as I said, there are very natural limits to such attempts, which all too quickly tend to end up in disasters that only look good on paper or briefings to a ceo distracted by browsing through a shiny catalogue shopping for his next car If anything, it is reasonably fair to say that SC2013 in its first release represents a foundation product. More can be slapped on, and should, but only ever carefully (not even mentioning the risk of incorrectly utilising user synergy and ending up in competition with the customer for what can be hooked on to the established foundation). It will be a game that brings a decent amount of features to a selection of user types - including the armies that have nurtured SC4 - packaged in manners to appeal to other selections of user types (sims, so to speak) without kneecapping those into facing the deep end of the game (only the wide scope). There will be enough to please both these rough groups. What comes after, is really much more important. SimCity is a concept which appeals to elements of our human psyche in ways that connect with both the adult and child aspects of our mentalities. The builder, the puzzle solver, the cruncher, the artist, and so forth. What comes after can address all those types without foregoing balance and thus building an empire with a franchise rather than just a game. Whether Maxis will do that, is up to them. They're smart enough to see and accomplish that as long as they know how to sell EA properly. Trouble is, most studios and publishers alike tend to be stuck still in the obsolete school of releases and product cycles. I tend to see much more room for a game like SC not as a product model but as a service model. So, let's relax to wait and see what shows up. How it shows up and what they do right after that will really say a lot more on how viable and fun SC2013 is going to be for a john doe player to invest in. And yeah, hope to god they do not restrict it to Origin only. That would just be counterproductive for both short and long term prospects (both of and above the level of the game product). That would really just be a decision of ego under the guise of "lolstrategic vision".