The SimCity Thread

[X_kot]

@Shooop

That would be a nice feature, more akin to Diablo II. However, EA seems intent on moving to closed systems regardless of genre. I can only imagine what Plants vs Zombies 2 will look like.

@Nalano

Hyperbole aside, it should be noted that Societies was developed by Tilted Mill, not Maxis. They also pinch hit for Sierra on Caesar IV, another sequel that deviated sharply from its predecessor. Contracting out franchises has mixed results (for example, I thought Dungeon Siege III was a comptent game esp. in light of Obsidian's history of buggy releases).

[Nalano]

@Nalano

Hyperbole aside, it should be noted that Societies was developed by Tilted Mill, not Maxis. They also pinch hit for Sierra on Caesar IV, another sequel that deviated sharply from its predecessor. Contracting out franchises has mixed results (for example, I thought Dungeon Siege III was a comptent game esp. in light of Obsidian's history of buggy releases).

Obsidian's games always have depth to them, if a bit buggy.

But if we're going to talk about developers, today's Maxis is not yesterday's Maxis, and today's EA is reaching even further than yesterday's EA was, and yesterday's EA was... kind of a dick​. After all, who greenlighted SimCity Societies?

[X_kot]

yesterday's EA was... kind of a dick​.

LOL, now that's an understatement! RIP Westwood, Origins, Bioware, and even Maxis, as you say.

But I want to hold on to the notion that the current devs are being honest when they say that the new SC is trading simulation scope for simulation depth. Very similar to XCOM: EU, it's a process of removing mechanisms that may be redundant/time-consuming/incompatible with other design choices. For example, I never liked SC 2000 compared to the original - too many fiddly utilities were added for my taste (water-pipe grids FTL) - but I know that others liked the increased complexity. Finding a way to introduce new systems without succumbing to "feature creep" is a tough call.

As for the mandatory online part, I don't have much to contribute other than express my disappointment at how they won't even explain what will happen after the shelf viability of the game is deemed expired. If they would at least commit to something that would preserve players' ability to enjoy the same experience, even sans MP, I think that would assuage a good portion of the complaints. [I'm more personally affected by the Origin requirement, but that has to do with EA customer service borking my account transfer when they consolidated all of my individual product logins. Way to deincentivize me from using your platform, guys!]

[Nalano]

LOL, now that's an understatement! RIP Westwood, Origins, Bioware, and even Maxis, as you say.

But I want to hold on to the notion that the current devs are being honest when they say that the new SC is trading simulation scope for simulation depth. Very similar to XCOM: EU, it's a process of removing mechanisms that may be redundant/time-consuming/incompatible with other design choices. For example, I never liked SC 2000 compared to the original - too many fiddly utilities were added for my taste (water-pipe grids FTL) - but I know that others liked the increased complexity. Finding a way to introduce new systems without succumbing to "feature creep" is a tough call.

Having a city-sized city isn't redundant or incompatible, and while it's time-consuming, it's the good kind of time-consuming. Hell, for all their depth they're getting rid of just about every interesting aspect of transit, and the whole simulation is based on transit.

[Patrick Swayze]

Having a city-sized city isn't redundant or incompatible, and while it's time-consuming, it's the good kind of time-consuming. Hell, for all their depth they're getting rid of just about every interesting aspect of transit, and the whole simulation is based on transit.

The simulation is based on agents this time round.

ALSO, there is going to be another Beta next weekend for 24 hours on the Saturday, applications are open till tomorrow.

[Ravelle]

The simulation is based on agents this time round.

ALSO, there is going to be another Beta next weekend for 24 hours on the Saturday, applications are open till tomorrow.

I wish they just let it open for a weekend or so, 24 hours is a very small window to test something.

[Cooper]

The simulation is based on agents this time round.

ALSO, there is going to be another Demo next weekend for 24 hours on the Saturday, applications are open till tomorrow.

Fix'd

/10char

[Nalano]

The simulation is based on agents this time round.

I am aware. I am not convinced that's an improvement.

[Shooop]

It was a retorical question. I already know it's DRM. Which makes it sad because it really could have been a feature instead of message to customers that says, "We think you're all a bunch of dirty thieves, but buy it anyway!"

[TechnicalBen]

I am aware. I am not convinced that's an improvement.

Yep. The main problem is basing water and electric off of agents ("packets", why use silly words?). Plus it does not work that way in RL, so is "area of effect" not just easier and simpler and works better anyway? For transit and work and rubbish etc, packets are great! For electric/water, it could have just been zones off of the road or "utilities" tiles. Combine the two, electric and water, or just combine them in the road as now. But to both lower the CPU strain and simplify player use (all utils ARE on the road, so "zones/area of effect" are already redundant), just keep it out of the agent/packet equation. If it's connected to a road and you have a power/water plant then it's ok.

That would IMO allow twice the size of the city, as you've halved the packet/agent count of the simulation. That transit system could go crazy then. :D

[Rizlar]

Dislikes:

• No mass transit (tho this may just be added in future implementations)
• Same mid-America/West Coast architecture and land use (freestanding buildings with oceans of parking)
• No indication of the game's ability to deal with awkward building shapes (the plot can fit whatever, but the building just plonks in the center of it)

Kind of wanted to bring up the second post on this thread again. Despite the issues relating to DRM and the fact that they are already selling extra bits that aren't in the main game, I would still be interested in buying it, were it not for those three Dislikes.

There is just too much US centric styling for me to swallow. I want to be able to build cities of my own imagining, the requirement to have roads connecting everything (even if they can now bend) and the awkward, restricted positioning of buildings completely killed my desire to pay for this game.

I don't suppose Maxis have responded to any of these criticisms yet?

[Fiatil]

@Nalano

Hyperbole aside, it should be noted that Societies was developed by Tilted Mill, not Maxis. They also pinch hit for Sierra on Caesar IV, another sequel that deviated sharply from its predecessor. Contracting out franchises has mixed results (for example, I thought Dungeon Siege III was a comptent game esp. in light of Obsidian's history of buggy releases).

Fairly off topic, but Tilted Mill didn't exactly pinch hit on Caesar 4. Tilted Mill is essentially the remnants of Impressions Games, the studio that made Caesar/Pharoah/Zeus and all. They made Children of the Nile as a spiritual successor to their old series, and managed to hook up with Sierra to continue their old franchise with Caesar 4.

Societies was really lame, but I don't exactly blame that on Tilted Mill. EA wanted an extremely dumbed down version of Sim City for the masses, and Tilted Mill made it. There really wasn't going to be a good outcome to that, although they did release a few heavy patches to try to inject some challenge into the game.

[FriendlyFire]

Their entire concept was to only rely on packet-based data. Having even one element use something else would've required entire swathes of the engine to be reconstructed or modified to hook into everything else properly. I can see why they did it, even if the end result may be less performance-effective.

Plus, I seriously doubt the extremely simple simulation of water and power packets is what makes the game unable to simulate large cities. Much more complex agents (sims, cars, utility vehicles, etc.) are a much likelier culprit.

[Nalano]

Their entire concept was to only rely on packet-based data. Having even one element use something else would've required entire swathes of the engine to be reconstructed or modified to hook into everything else properly. I can see why they did it, even if the end result may be less performance-effective.

Plus, I seriously doubt the extremely simple simulation of water and power packets is what makes the game unable to simulate large cities. Much more complex agents (sims, cars, utility vehicles, etc.) are a much likelier culprit.

What I appear to be gaining by the change:

- The ability to follow a Sim from point A to point B
- The ability to dictate the coverage area of a utility

What I appear to be losing:

- Railways
- Subways
- Elevated Trains
- Trolleys
- Highways
- Bridges
- Tunnels
- Ferries
- Topography
- Scale

It still seems to be SimSuburbanDevelopment. I can't make Toronto; I can't even make Markham, but I can make Cornell.

[TechnicalBen]

Um. A storage number of total power and a check of "connected to road, yes/no" is not a massive thing to program. In fact, if you switch to the visual data, the "area of effect" framework is already there. It's just not plugged into actual effects other than graphics/bar graphs. They could easily set it from "is green colored if within 500 meters" to "is powered if within 500 meters" (it's like 1 routine call).

Besides, it would be worth it to actually give the player more options on things that are visually apparent and with feedback. How do you see electricity is not connected? By the lights being off (area of effect). How do you tell if the fire engine cannot reach? The truck (packet) not getting to the fire. Who would not want larger cities and more traffic/pedestrian simulation if it just meant water and electric went on a really simple road connected + total city wide production check?

PS, it's also not full life packet simulation. As a worker can return to a different home they left etc. It's only partially simulated. Still a good idea, it's just silly to have a hammer and trying to make everything a nail.

[Splynter]

It still seems to be SimSuburbanDevelopment. I can't make Toronto; I can't even make Markham, but I can make Cornell.

It does seem like the focus is very much on suburbia. Has anybody seen any shots with lots of skyscrapers packed tightly like you'd expect in a downtown core? Or proper urban sprawl for that matter? I know they want to you simulate this with connected cities, but the spaces between don't make for a convincing effect.

As a side note, those strike me as odd choices for geographical examples for somebody hailing from NYC. As a local I'd also have to wonder, WHY would you want to make Markham?

EDIT: A quick google search has shown some decent images of downtown areas, so that shouldn't be an issue. Still wish we could have massive swathes of development for region-wide mega-cities without greenbelts everywhere.

[Nalano]

As a side note, those strike me as odd choices for geographical examples for somebody hailing from NYC. As a local I'd also have to wonder, WHY would you want to make Markham?

I went to school for city planning. While in a grad-level course on transportation planning, they had us go on a field trip to Toronto and meet with the planners there. One of the activities they had us do (among things like bike around Toronto, obeying all traffic laws, fuck you Canuck police!) was go to a titular "New Urbanist" development within Markham that our university had a hand in designing. I found it ridiculously drab, empty, and homogeneous socioeconomically. Jane Jacobs would be turning over in her grave, were she dead at the time I was there.

Hence, what I was saying was "I can't do a city in SimCity. I can't even do a suburb of a city. I can barely do a planned community within a suburb." Basically speaking, Markham has no significance for the purposes of my analogy except that Cornell is within it.

Thing is, were I to make a city simulator, I'd like to think I have two choices: Go big or go deep. Go big in the sense that, if I wanted double-decker highways (like the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway or the George Washington Bridge) or double-decker elevated trains (Like the Third Avenue El or the Flushing El or the Coney Island El) or highways that go under buildings (Like the FDR Drive or the Trans-Manhattan Expressway) or boulevards that cut trenches (like the Grand Concourse or the Gowanus Expressway), or train tracks that piggy-back road bridges (like the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges) or freight tracks that are overlaid on avenues (like 10th, 11th and 12th Avenues) or, elevated freight rail that goes through buildings (like the High Line), I could build that. It can't be all that fantastic, as it's already been done. Hell, for that matter, as it's a game, I wanna do fantastic stuff: Highways that fly over neighborhoods, entire underground road systems below pedestrian promenades, anything...

Or, we can go deep, and actually simulate local conditions - crime, bureaucratic corruption and ineptitude, identity politics, civic service laxity - where instead of working on the needs of a whole city, you're plonked in Mott Haven and told, "here's your budget... fix it."

Instead, we get something right in the middle, where it doesn't have the tools to make a really fun City Of Tomorrow, but doesn't have the simulation to create anything particularly compelling from a planning standpoint.

[FriendlyFire]

I'm not defending whether their decision of going packets for *everything* was a good idea or not, I'm merely pointing out the fairly obvious reasoning behind it. Further, TechnicalBen, you've glanced over the point that water and energy are likely extremely simple simulations and that they almost certainly are not the primary cause for cities being smaller.

[DeekyFun]

I'm looking forward to trying this out, but I'm assuming, sadly, that I'm likely to be disappointed. My favourite Sim City is 2000, and I'd really hoped for a nice looking version of that with the slicker UI of modern games, but it seems from the comments/info that they're not heading that way. Seems a shame.

[TechnicalBen]

Really? Considering the amount of packets sent for them. I just meant that efficiency in the system is never a bad thing. Putting water and electric on a packet request and delivery mechanism is just asking for trouble IMO. Unless the old area of effect was the same under the hood (routine calls might play out the same as packet/agent requests anyhow in the code).

I've seen the slowdown something like Dwarf Fortress can hit when the simulation gets too complex. Size of the map really helps speed things up I agree. But I just find some of their design decisions a bit silly.