cirugo

cool story bro

Why didn't they finish the freakin' game before releasing it? My guess (as well as many other's) - they ran out of money and time.quote> I think a question that a lot of us have is why did they waste development time and money on things that no one wanted in the first place?

to be fair, a lot of these quotes are coming from even the pre-Beta phase of the development cycle. I'm sure that a lot of us who were looking forward to the game wouldn't have had an issue with statements like these even six months ago.

Originally posted by: ASheroo And I know, that once MC get pass CXL, I know that they will come back, with what the CB genre really wants. quote> Someone else explained it very well in another post somewhere. We're not going to get the CB we want from Monte Christo. If this game fails they won't do another one. If it's successful they'll just make another one like it or continue with their "successful" formula. So, if you like the direction they're taking the genre then fine...but don't expect them to change direction if they end up being successful if you don't like it.

I'll give THIS game another shot if it comes out and they fix it enough and don't require me to play online...I don't even mind paying extra money to get some additional features...just don't make me play online with other people to be able to access those features. That's not why I play a game like this. Edited excessive use of captials.

I had read earlier that someone had uninstalled the demo (Vista OS) and that doing so had wiped their games folder in the startup menu. Can anyone else confirm this? I am hesitant to uninstall because of this but the demo has expired and I have no reason to keep it on my computer now.

well, sure, you could create anything you want except a remotely realistic looking city. It wasn't a terrible game but it should never have been marketed as anything even close to SimCity. EA set themselves up for a huge backlash and TM was caught in the crossfire.

Originally posted by: gabry85 I want to highlight this: if people reconsider and buy the game because of just ONE feature, then MC did the right thing (for their own sake) by taking out the rest? This sounds a bit naive to me. I believe the mass transportation issue is stealing the focus and dwarfing the other game's problems and shortcomings. I mean, MC took this, this and this out... oh and also took mass transit out. "OH NOES!" BOOM! "BUT, if you put mass transit, despite the bizarre gameplay, the 'zoning' tricks, the unlockables and other weird things plus the other features they removed to favor the PO... then I forgive you and buy your game." Now you say say you'll forget everything and buy the game if MC put at least mass transit in single player. And what about your earlier reasons? This doesn't make any sense to me. I'll just make a hypothetical example: If Company A makes a lousy 3D city-builder with unrealistic straight roads you can't bend, a restrictive grid, no taxes, random terrains at start, a joke of a simulation, bugs and CTD (Crash To Desktop) errors, lots of restrictions and no customer support, but with a solid and complete mass transit system available at release (realistic and incredibly detailed buses, freight and passenger trains, subways, elevated rails, ground rails, monorails, maglevs, modular airports and seaports and a gazillion of vehicles), will you buy their game? If Company B makes a good full 3D city builder game with curvy roads, where you can choose different maps, but with some restrictions here and there, lousy budget management but a decent mass transit system with tons of vehicles, including monorails and maglevs, will you buy it? Or, if Company C makes an excellent full 3D city builder game with smooth curvy roads, where you can choose every maps, even with terraforming and maybe region play, no weird restrictions, an advanced and accurate budget system and simulation engine, but no mass transit whatsoever, will you buy it? Finally, if Company D makes a good (not great, but still good) 3D game with decent curvy roads, solid region play and terraforming, average budget management, a minimum mass transit system (buses, trains and subways only), a few small restrictions and some annoying bugs and unnerving CTD errors, but plenty of room for future expansion packs and patches, will you buy it? Which company will you trust? A, B, C or D? quote> I'm going with option D Chuck.

Originally posted by: andisart This is one of the best economy simulating games I've ever played. It's abolutely beautifully crafted. And very addicitve. The most visually appealing in it's genre I've seen to date. Highly recommendedquote> I agree and playing the campaign adds a lot of depth to the gameplay.

Originally posted by: citiesxlfan42 Everyone is saying that the demo is awesome. I REALLY need to look into this demo. Really hope they don't have a 4 hour downloading period, only to get a fractured file every time like CXL. From what I've seen, this game looks incredible! And did I hear something about a sandbox mode? Would someone fil me in? I would like to know more. Gotta download... gotta download... gotta download...quote> Downloaded quite quickly for me from Gamespot and I don't have a premium membership...do have cable internet though. but most people do now don't they? I agree that the demo definitely did it's job and whetted my appetite for full game. I enjoyed the original Tropico quite a lot and am looking forward to release of this game.

Too much anime influence for my taste.

Originally posted by: Spinmaster Actually, in a way there IS a "single player" version of WoW. It was just never called that. Rather, there are countless fantasy RPG "slay the oddly-named monster" games out there, many of which I've enjoyed myself, and even toyed with online from time to time. But I don't usually enjoy playing them online much, even for free, which pre-WoW most such "online experiences" were. I'm not knocking anyone who does enjoy that and feels SP "doesn't even make sense," just stating that, myself... I have no intention of being locked into online-only play to enjoy what I want in a game, free or not. I'm with geek12, though for different reasons. I'm not poor and college is 16 years behind me. But I'm not a continuous player, either, and I don't care about interacting with other folks while I'm building my city. Nothing against any such folks, I just want to build my game in peace, pause it when I want to, walk away for 5 minutes or 3 hours if I want to, and not really care about trades and projects. I just want to unwind from a long day of work or sop up an otherwise boring Sunday afternoon, and build a city. Heck, sometimes I don't even really build a city, I just spend an hour or so seeing what kind of strange road or transit layouts I can come up with, or slapping a few parks together, or repeatedly blowing up a power plant, whatever mood I'm in. And I want to know I can simply take a break from games altogether, maybe not play at all for months (or maybe even play a different game for a while), and know that, if I do come back to this one, I can still enjoy it, and haven't lost anything... nor paid a subscription fee just to keep it in a coma. I understand the PO offer. I like the idea of maybe building in coordination with other real people. I like the idea of trading. I like the thought of others visiting my city, and me visiting theirs. And the idea of large projects requiring multiple players to cooperate? Genius!!!! I probably would try that out eventually, maybe even get hooked into paying an ongoing fee for it. But I had not imagined they would basically force me to play online to get content that does make perfect sense for single-player offline. I would pay for expansion packs. I bought Rush Hour. Had there been more, I'd probably have them all by now. I would've paid for NAM if they could've legally charged for it. And I'd probably end up spending more money in the long run than I would with a "cheap" subscription fee. Even GEMs - I'd pay a reasonable price for each one I wanted, eventually I'd probably get them all (though maybe I'd skip on Barbieworld). But I have to play online for 'em? I have to play online for mass transit? I have to play online to create multiple interconnected cities? Nevermind that I have to pay a fee, I won't be strong-armed into playing online, not even for free. So ok... I simply won't buy the game, until/unless an expansion pack is released including at least basic mass transit (at least what was in SC4 vanilla) and multi-city for single-player, offline. When MC does this, I'll buy the game. If they never do, then I never will. quote> I cannot stress enough how much I agree with this post.

Sim City 4 at release we knew we were getting patches and expansion packs. We knew we were getting a BAT. With this we are getting some half-baked MMO hybrid with no chance of updates without subscribing to their "MMO." SimCity 4 out of the box at release sucked. I couldn't play it without crashing until they patched it. I don't think anyone's under the illusion that it was great at release. It DID have most of the tools available to make a reasonably realistic facsimile of a real-world city though. I DO NOT WANT to play some trading game online with other people. I just want to build a city...with planes, trains, and automobiles (and subways)

Originally posted by: citiesxlfan42 You know, the reason we are all dissapointed and we are getting a busted shell of a game is because it is believed that MC went broke due in part to the fact that the concept was SO, SO ambitious. That why they are asking so much. Once they make money, they will add the features with that money (or not.) and make an expansion pack to the vanilla version, riping off the people who buy it now. Mommy, look! I even showed my work. That's what I think. I'm about to get absolutly RIPPED by commentary now... Don't be harsh.quote> They went broke? You know this for sure or are you just speculating? Because if they did then it's all the more reason to stay away from the game.

Originally posted by: Attila464 Originally posted by: GlobexCo Pre-ordered it. I'll also buy GEMs. BUT I'll never pay for the PO. Why? Because CXL can replace SC4 in 1 or 2 years of patches and custom contents. What you'll do if MS Windows 9 (?) won't install SC4 and you PC is too modern to install XP?quote> My SC4 works on Windows 7 just fine and it will work on windows nine as well... Not sure what you are trying to point out, Unless windows 9 really changes the operating system all the way to the kernel level nothing will change, hell i still have doom on my comp.quote> Did you ever play it on Vista? Because mine crashes to the desktop randomly and periodically...which has kind of kept me from playing it.

Looking forward to this game as I loved the original Tropico...played the demo and it definitely whetted my appetite. completely different game than a SimCity type game though.

Building a game based on an MMO model that the audience you're targetting has repeatedly told you they have very little interest in playing.

Originally posted by: pcgamer2 $6 a month really isn't that bad, i can't expect them to give it to us for free online play.For one they are a small company and have limited reasources. And its not cheap keeping all these cities, if you think of it, a city, its trade, population, all and etc is more data then your WoW character.The servers are not free, they cost money to operate.Plus they will also need some sorta GM to moderate the 2 year olds who want to fight over nothing on the chat. Really its 3 dollars, but thats in euros, for us the United States, thank Bush and Obama for our war we can't for causing us to just print out more money.quote> But that's just it...nobody wanted an online game in the first place...particularly at the expense of features we've come to expect as standard.

Originally posted by: Chiliwack I hate this push towards online. I have no desire to play any game online. Esp. a city builder. I wish somebody would just release a solid city builder. $50. Bam done. Online optional. Give us patches as they become available. Have an online store where people can buy custom content or wait for a service pack which would contain all patches,updates,new content and other various goodies...release one or two a year for $25 a pop. Get back to basics. The SC4 model works. quote> Amen. Although I have and do play online games...just not THIS type of game.

It only remains to be seen whether what they say in Hollywood is true: that there is no such thing as "bad" publicity. David quote> I think we already know the answer to that question...It is SimCity Societies.

I've played it a bit as well. Basically it's City Life online with better graphics and a chat window. If you liked City Life you'll love it. If you didn't well, then...

But isn't that the problem though. Most of the features most people are looking for are going to be added at some point in the future. IF enough people buy the game and subscribe to the PO, IF they don't or they don't stay subscribed then all bets are off if many of the promised components are ever added. I should also note I really don't think the graphics are all that great. quote> This isn't going to happen. I would stake my life on it. People are not going to subscribe to this game to access features they consider core to a particular style of game. So single player will fail because the word is getting out about what it lacks and multiplayer will fail because, well, city builders aren't multiplayer games.

Originally posted by: Huxleyhobbes Originally posted by: Feudal1 Are you guys actually serious? You're whining over paying $9 per month to access the online features? That's the equivalent of a couple of lunches at McDonalds. I just don't get this mentality that people want everything for free any more.quote> I don't see anyone who wants anything for free. I see plenty of people who want the most basic elements of the genre including on the disc. Buying fancy extras like a different aesthetic theme is fine; the lack of mass transit options more comrepehensive than buses is just an insult, and after the debacle that was the demo, I for one have been irrevocably convinced that Cities XL would be a waste of my money. I'm more than happy to pay to play. I subscribe to WoW and have in the past played FFXI, City of Heroes, and EVE Online. I pay for XBox Live on my 360. I donate to Tarn Adams so he can keep making Dwarf Fortress, so you can pretty well tell that if something is worth the money I will pay for it. This is not only deceitful towards those who have been following CXL for awhile, it's also a complete ripoff. Enhancing games through things like expansion packs and DLC is perfectly fine. MMOs are a sui generis and their pricing system is a necessity of their nature. With anything else, however, a system like this is a blatant attempt at moneygrubbing by forcing people to pay on an ongoing basis simply to have the full game. Monte Cristo currently look a lot worse than EA ever have to me. I've never needed to subscribe to get the full experience from an EA game (and a game like Spore would be ripe for it) and often enough expansion packs actually do add enough to make them worth thinking about. quote> I play MMOs too. I'm not planning on paying for this though...I did pre-order it before I started reading about all of the standard stuff that was going to be left out. Stupid of me but oh well. A game like this does not lend itself to the MMO model....why they are trying to smash this square peg into a round hole is beyond me because it's going to fail. They could have had a single-player game that would have blown City Life (their horrid previous city builder) out of the water...instead they've come up with this weird hybrid thing...

who knows they had the potential to convert all of us but for some reason they're hung up on the MMO thing even though it just doesn't fit with a city builder. And they should have left any resemblances AT ALL to City Life dead and buried. Horrid game that wasn't even as good as SimCity Societies.

but they ARE leaving out content you would get from a traditional city game. And why would they be surveying what City Life people want? Was the "success" of that game what they want to emulate?