hdorriker

Just going to add something a bit here. Also pardon my cynicism. I didn't purchase the last Sim City game, that one that came out after 4/RH a few years ago that shall not be named. The fact it actually was published says something about what EA might be trying to get out of this franchise. Either that or EA doesn't have the finesse to actually know how to balance appealing to "untapped" market segments and appealing to the bread-and-butter fanbase. BUT, assuming they do, I don't think it really matters to them in a business sense for whatever reason. Even if that reason is simply "because everyone else is getting on the (x) bandwagon". SimCity Social is an experiment with that bandwagon, but I think it is an idea whose time has already passed. Social-network-based Sim games, including iOS-based Sim-games are nothing like the Sim-games that the Sim City fanbase, in general, gets excited about. I spent about 30 minutes on Island HD before realizing it isn't a Sim game, it's a rail-ride that tries to get you to spend real money on in-game money so you can continue onto the next, singular direction in the game. Tiny Tower is the same thing. Farmville really isn't that different, slightly less ruthlessly linear, but still really designed with the intent that people might check it for about 5 minutes every day from their smart phone. The point is: SimCity as we know it, is not a casual Social game in this context. It's like trying to make Tetris into a Collectible Card Game. They are different concepts entirely. I think trying to make the PC-based SC2013 follow similar sensibility to social net/iOS or other accessibility-driven game models is either some kind of advanced, arcane cloud-o-nomics reasoning that has yet to make any sense to me, or it is just plain old inattentiveness to reality and this is no different than their last unsucessful attempt to appeal to a market that isn't interested in this kind of game. Neither would surprise me and either way, the result is the same as far as I'm concerned. Frankly, I'd rather pay $60 up front for a decent game than pay money for junk during gameplay that makes my city eventually look just like the one on the splash screen. For those of us who want to just throw 60 bucks at EA to give us an evolution of SimCity 4-like gameplay (and let's be honest, that is what we want. That's why there's still people doing mods for SC4, and why they still sell it on Steam), all these experiments they keep doing are just pushing some of us away for good. They couldn't possibly be unaware of this. Which is why I've resigned to the notion that those of us who want that relatively technical gameplay and moddability (which granted, is much harder to attain because GMAX is deprecated) are no longer relevant to their business model. Regardless of wether or not it's sucessful this time around. Either way, we're not getting that perfect (and obvious) hypothetical mix of CXL'12 graphics and SC4-like gameplay, at least not out of Maxis.

agreed. I really, really, really hate the look of this game. Too kiddie looking in all the worst ways. I play SC4 because it is complex. There is something intensely satisfying about making a complex system work and that's what made the SC series awesome, it's why I bought the games. SCS is not SimCity, it is something that could be done with a flash application. The complexity that makes SC4 appealing is gone. This is pandering and what makes me angry is it is unnecessary. SC4 was like a 2000-piece, paintable blank model kit, full of versatility. However, SCS looks like a collection of happy-meal toys which happen to interlock. Complete with soft-rounded-off corners and colored plastic so it's safe for children who are teething.