Simcity 5: Is Maxis becoming Monte Cristo?

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Now before I go any further, let me give some back round story here as to how I drew this parallel.

I was part of the cities XL beta. Back when it was online.

Now, while it was a good idea, it ran into the fundamental problem as basic as time:

Human nature.

Monte Cristo assumed "players will meet and automatically help each other! Trading resources! it will be great!" Yet when the servers came online and the beta commenced, it all fell into a dystopian nightmare.

Players rushed for oil spots, automatically knowing their worth, creating oil barons that set outrageous prices for even 1 oil resource. Resources were finite. Sometimes they would ask another player for all the resources you have for a single resource unit. That's if the player kept on playing "out of the goodness of his heart."

Once the player left, bored of practically robbing others, he just leaves the oil fields empty. The deals expire, the oil fields become forever unusable. The player cant be evicted. Once they leave, they take the resources with them. Eventually, one by one, the major oil fields were turned off. Cities on the entire server stopped in their tracks, and the cities bigger than a small town collapsed. Entire servers became ghost towns.

City builders online was a complete disaster. No one wanted to help anyone else for anything. Even the most basic trading was like trying to get a good deal out of a scammer. Cities XL quickly died, and so did Monte Cristo. Eventually it was retooled into a mediocre single player, and exploited by a small time publisher selling already on-disc locked, unfinished, or cut content under the guise of "new editions" for full price.

A sad end to a city builder dev. A sad end or an MMO.

It wasn't the first online city builder failure, either. Star peace, back in 2000, followed the same fate. The idea of online city builders have always failed before, and no one got it right for the last 13 years. The failures were always the same. Lack of interest, lack of cooperation, etc. Basic human behavior.

So this got me thinking:

Is EA/Maxis going down the same path that killed Monte Cristo? Since they are trying an idea that just never worked before?

Sim city 5 has reportedly the same architecture as Cities XL. Resources like oil, global trade, online. The basic idea of a online city builder. A concept that crashed and burned like it was the Hindenburg before.

That is a scary future to consider, as Sim City dying like Cities XL did could send the genre back into its grave. Not to mention it gives EA incentive to say anything but shooters are dead. The servers will be shut down and it will be another sad reminder of what could have been, like Dungeon Keeper 3.

Of course, if this "MMO" thing fails, it could have far reaching effects for EA as well. Just like it put a dent into Monte Cristo's pocket enough to put them out of business, it could be a drain on EA and of course effect its already-almost-dead stock. On a company already dropped from NASDAQ because "EA isn't relevant anymore."

So what do you think? Will Simcity share the fate of past attempts? Or, by some miracle, will it be a success and get what past games did wrong?

Personally, Maxis is chasing a bad idea that is known for practically killing who ever chases it. I expect EA to abandon non-shooters in the wake of the crash and continue to fail in that genre too.

I highly doubt it will be a success.

Not in the way EA will be hoping anyway.

I see what happened to ToR happening here. It will have a small core group of players but EA won't be making the buckets of cash it hoped to.

Making it multiplayer isn't going to make it a runaway success.

Always online is a minor, secondary problem with the new Simcity. The primary problem is the size of the cities.

Seriously, watch a video and check them out. They're like postage stamps. Soooo tiny. Much smaller than even Simcity 4's notoriously small cities. It's more like Simvillage. And because they're so tiny, everything gets crammed in at the borders, so all the cities look like weird little artificial squares with empty green fields on every side.

Fortunately, Anno 2070 has satiated my city building desires and then some.

Hmmm, I've never played either game, so I can't comment there. But I think the issue with all MMOs and such is that they reflect human nature, sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a bad way. Personally, I'm an advocate of the social experimental side of online gaming, looking at how things like EVE Online have managed to accurately represent a simulation of a full economical system, as a single example, or as you say looking at how everyone ran for the oil fields and then inflated prices artificially - a clear reflection of the real-world actions of groups like OPEC and so-called 'Big Oil' companies such as BP. On that note, I'd love to see more 'games' in that regard, that simulate the world itself - it would be fun to be involved in something like that, and it would be interesting to see if such games could accurately predict future trends in various fields and maybe even be used to come up with solutions to such problems. Imagine if the current global recession could be fixed by methods and economic tools discovered through playing WoW for 20 hours of the day...? xD

i dont think they will make it compulsory as such especially with sharing resources but they will go the route of the sims and add the ability to share bits and pieces, im assuming trade treaties, etc

So basically it is like the real world >.>

Thats a major problem if it functions like that, but my issue is still....I just want to play by myself when I'm at a cafe or on vacation without needing internet

Do you think they give a shit?
Simcity might not be in the news nonstop but it's printing money like crazy, and so will the next game, it's the perfect time to slide in absolute online control while this stuff is hot.

In case you people missed it all these non spotlight games are a testbed for future EA nonsense, sports games had all that always online, disk locked content, day 1 DLC, project $10, premium shit, buy power, shut it all down after a year,... before it ever came around to games we talk about.

And as long as you keep paying for this they will keep going.

Here's what I wish the new Simcity would offer:

Importing of cities from older games. (Simcity 4 and 3000)
The option to play online.
Integrating your Sims characters into the cities.
Classic gameplay (cost of zones, roads, etc) AND more realistic cost of building a city. (as much as possible)

If these were options for the player I would be more excited. I'm a fan of Maxis and that seemed to die after Simcity 4 came out.

BloatedGuppy:

Fortunately, Anno 2070 has satiated my city building desires and then some.

I'm imagining a model much closer to anno 2070 than cities xl.

Only time will tell.

Seeing as you have to invite/accept an invite from someone to claim one of your plots, I'd say it's a non issue.

Trivun:
Hmmm, I've never played either game, so I can't comment there. But I think the issue with all MMOs and such is that they reflect human nature, sometimes in a good way and sometimes in a bad way. Personally, I'm an advocate of the social experimental side of online gaming, looking at how things like EVE Online have managed to accurately represent a simulation of a full economical system, as a single example, or as you say looking at how everyone ran for the oil fields and then inflated prices artificially - a clear reflection of the real-world actions of groups like OPEC and so-called 'Big Oil' companies such as BP. On that note, I'd love to see more 'games' in that regard, that simulate the world itself - it would be fun to be involved in something like that, and it would be interesting to see if such games could accurately predict future trends in various fields and maybe even be used to come up with solutions to such problems. Imagine if the current global recession could be fixed by methods and economic tools discovered through playing WoW for 20 hours of the day...? xD

Sure it can "predict" things, but what ended up happening was entire servers dying because no one could get a hold of oil.

One off the major reason people help each other is because they get something out of it too. With a runaway rare item, all they get in return is trash.

Has an EA tag

I'm not buying it.

As Yahtzee once said, "I'm apparently more skilled in pattern recognition than most"

$100 bucks says that this game is plagued with launch and server issues.

first of all thanks for telling what happened to Cities XL. i always wondered that but wasnt bugged enough to google it up.
If the Sim CIty 5 really going to segregate the resource fields for players (i havent looked much into it once i head its online, it was an automatically no-go for me) it will lead to same fate. the only way of this working i see is expiring players. a player leaves a field, he does not login for a week, his city is free-for-all to take over. this is very harsh for those who dont play regullary, god knows how many of my singleplayer cities would be lost if this happened, but necessary for online gaming. you dont get to hold stuff by not playing. eventually with such owner change there will come a guy that was repressed under an oil baron and decide to stick it to the man and sell em cheap. cities around would flourish, and other oil barons would suffer. sure you may say "but no human would act like this". well, i would. if i played the game anyway. eventually that would shift into gear, sure there would be 1st world and 3rd world places all around, but thats true to real life as well.

Sure it can "predict" things, but what ended up happening was entire servers dying because no one could get a hold of oil.

thats kinda the problem. the people who just quit didnt get evicted. in every multiplayer you need expiration of any ownership of territory if you ever want servers nto to turn into ghost towns. there is a reason you need to paly weekly fee for houses in MMOs, because once you quit you dont pay and the game lets other people have it.

Personally, I'm an advocate of the social experimental side of online gaming, looking at how things like EVE Online have managed to accurately represent a simulation of a full economical system,

eve online is not excempt from the problem though. its called techtenium. one alliance controls it and they dictate how much they want it on the market. thing is, in eve you can invade with force and kick them out and take over the techtenium. something this type of sinc city needs. but it would turn into travian with graphics then.

that right there sounds like the background exposition of some post-apocaliptic story

no seriously that was awsome

Maxis died when Will Wright left.

i suppose i have to expand on that so i don't get nobbled by the auto mod...

it takes a power of incoming shit to make someone walk away from "thier" company.

if you like something follow "the talent" not a the badge it wears and even then don't follow it blindly.
there's only ever so much lightning in the bottle.

something like that.

i've played Sim City from the first game to the last.
they're all still there sitting on my shelves with 100s of hours pumped into them.
but i'm a "disasters off" type of guy and they can stuff their multiplayer up their arse.

Strazdas:
first of all thanks for telling what happened to Cities XL. i always wondered that but wasnt bugged enough to google it up.
If the Sim CIty 5 really going to segregate the resource fields for players (i havent looked much into it once i head its online, it was an automatically no-go for me) it will lead to same fate. the only way of this working i see is expiring players. a player leaves a field, he does not login for a week, his city is free-for-all to take over. this is very harsh for those who dont play regullary, god knows how many of my singleplayer cities would be lost if this happened, but necessary for online gaming. you dont get to hold stuff by not playing. eventually with such owner change there will come a guy that was repressed under an oil baron and decide to stick it to the man and sell em cheap. cities around would flourish, and other oil barons would suffer. sure you may say "but no human would act like this". well, i would. if i played the game anyway. eventually that would shift into gear, sure there would be 1st world and 3rd world places all around, but thats true to real life as well.

Sure it can "predict" things, but what ended up happening was entire servers dying because no one could get a hold of oil.

thats kinda the problem. the people who just quit didnt get evicted. in every multiplayer you need expiration of any ownership of territory if you ever want servers nto to turn into ghost towns. there is a reason you need to paly weekly fee for houses in MMOs, because once you quit you dont pay and the game lets other people have it.

Personally, I'm an advocate of the social experimental side of online gaming, looking at how things like EVE Online have managed to accurately represent a simulation of a full economical system,

eve online is not excempt from the problem though. its called techtenium. one alliance controls it and they dictate how much they want it on the market. thing is, in eve you can invade with force and kick them out and take over the techtenium. something this type of sinc city needs. but it would turn into travian with graphics then.

There's a problem.

Oil wasn't infinite. You got like 10-30 credits when your city was through with it. Keep in mind Cities in city XL were more gas guzzling than real world cities.

A small group of medium/high density industries would suck up all the oil you had for anyone else to use. Industry was literally dead in the water. And you can't just be a commercial or farm city like in simcity 4, you needed to diversify so cities would "support themselves."

So at most you will likely help at max a single city to the end game, or 3-5 cities to mid-development.

Not that it takes a long time, it takes 1-2 days to get to that level. Once you got there there was no end game, and people just left. player-run resources broke the game's back.

Which a mayor should not do in the first place, it should be up to the private sector to do that. Zone, supply the citizens with necessities, and let the private market fight it out. That's how cities should work. A 100% nationalized city builder is a pain in the ass opposed to the free market of Sim City 4. A mayor shouldn't do every single thing.

Real cities are not smurf villages.

Ultratwinkie:
Now before I go any further, let me give some back round story here as to how I drew this parallel.

I was part of the cities XL beta. Back when it was online.

Now, while it was a good idea, it ran into the fundamental problem as basic as time:

Human nature.

Monte Cristo assumed "players will meet and automatically help each other! Trading resources! it will be great!" Yet when the servers came online and the beta commenced, it all fell into a dystopian nightmare.

Players rushed for oil spots, automatically knowing their worth, creating oil barons that set outrageous prices for even 1 oil resource. Resources were finite. Sometimes they would ask another player for all the resources you have for a single resource unit. That's if the player kept on playing "out of the goodness of his heart."

Once the player left, bored of practically robbing others, he just leaves the oil fields empty. The deals expire, the oil fields become forever unusable. The player cant be evicted. Once they leave, they take the resources with them. Eventually, one by one, the major oil fields were turned off. Cities on the entire server stopped in their tracks, and the cities bigger than a small town collapsed. Entire servers became ghost towns.

City builders online was a complete disaster. No one wanted to help anyone else for anything. Even the most basic trading was like trying to get a good deal out of a scammer. Cities XL quickly died, and so did Monte Cristo. Eventually it was retooled into a mediocre single player, and exploited by a small time publisher selling already on-disc locked, unfinished, or cut content under the guise of "new editions" for full price.

A sad end to a city builder dev. A sad end or an MMO.

So this got me thinking:

Is EA/Maxis going down the same path that killed Monte Cristo? Since they are trying these ideas too?

Sim city 5 has reportedly the same architecture as Cities XL. Resources like oil, global trade. Ideas that crashed and burned like it was the Hindenburg before. Especially since resources are described as finite.

That is a scary future to consider, as Sim City dying like Cities XL did could send the genre back into its grave. Not to mention it gives EA incentive to say anything but shooters are dead. The servers will be shut down and it will be another sad reminder of what could have been, like Dungeon Keeper 3.

Of course, if this "MMO" thing fails, it could have far reaching effects for EA as well. Just like it put a dent into Monte Cristo's pocket enough to put them out of business, it could be a drain on EA and of course effect its already-almost-dead stock. On a company already dropped from NASDAQ because "EA isn't relevant anymore."

So what do you think? Will Simcity be the new Cities XL? Or will it be on the scale of, say, The Old Republic? Or, by some miracle, will it be a success and get what Cities XL did wrong? Or will it be another "economic" MMO that failed to account for the inherent viscous mentality of a player-run market economy and human nature?

Personally, Maxis is chasing a bad idea that is known for practically killing who ever chases it. I expect EA to abandon non-shooters in the wake of the crash and continue to fail in that genre too.

And herein lays the reason why a certain degree of regulation is required. Maxis, or whoever need to step in and essentially 'play the state'. They need to fix a series of rules regarding purchase of land, pricing, and deals. I think there have been enough examples in real life to show what occurs when human nature is left to run amok.

Ultratwinkie:

strazdas:
snip

There's a problem.

Oil wasn't infinite. You got like 10-30 credits when your city was through with it. Keep in mind Cities in city XL were more gas guzzling than real world cities.

A small group of medium/high density industries would suck up all the oil you had for anyone else to use. Industry was literally dead in the water. And you can't just be a commercial or farm city like in simcity 4, you needed to diversify so cities would "support themselves."

So at most you will likely help at max a single city to the end game, or 3-5 cities to mid-development.

Not that it takes a long time, it takes 1-2 days to get to that level. Once you got there there was no end game, and people just left. player-run resources broke the game's back.

Which a mayor should not do in the first place, it should be up to the private sector to do that. Zone, supply the citizens with necessities, and let the private market fight it out. That's how cities should work. A 100% nationalized city builder is a pain in the ass opposed to the free market of Sim City 4. A mayor shouldn't do every single thing.

Real cities are not smurf villages.

Any game where you need to see progress of people needs the raw resources to be infinite (although limited, like, say, you can only extract 30 units per real life day and such (then numbers are random, i do not know the real amounts needed in that game) or at least at such size that it would be worth capturing a land, expand, sucking it dry, moving elsewhere and still have something left over.
With such limitation i can see where the problem and overpricing of oil does come form, that is a HUGE problem from the developers side. Of course the time till endgame has to be expanded, but thats all depending on level of detail the games goes into.

P.S. capcha says time machine, how fitting.

Strazdas:

Ultratwinkie:

strazdas:
snip

There's a problem.

Oil wasn't infinite. You got like 10-30 credits when your city was through with it. Keep in mind Cities in city XL were more gas guzzling than real world cities.

A small group of medium/high density industries would suck up all the oil you had for anyone else to use. Industry was literally dead in the water. And you can't just be a commercial or farm city like in simcity 4, you needed to diversify so cities would "support themselves."

So at most you will likely help at max a single city to the end game, or 3-5 cities to mid-development.

Not that it takes a long time, it takes 1-2 days to get to that level. Once you got there there was no end game, and people just left. player-run resources broke the game's back.

Which a mayor should not do in the first place, it should be up to the private sector to do that. Zone, supply the citizens with necessities, and let the private market fight it out. That's how cities should work. A 100% nationalized city builder is a pain in the ass opposed to the free market of Sim City 4. A mayor shouldn't do every single thing.

Real cities are not smurf villages.

Any game where you need to see progress of people needs the raw resources to be infinite (although limited, like, say, you can only extract 30 units per real life day and such (then numbers are random, i do not know the real amounts needed in that game) or at least at such size that it would be worth capturing a land, expand, sucking it dry, moving elsewhere and still have something left over.
With such limitation i can see where the problem and overpricing of oil does come form, that is a HUGE problem from the developers side. Of course the time till endgame has to be expanded, but thats all depending on level of detail the games goes into.

P.S. capcha says time machine, how fitting.

Actually that's how it worked. Its finite in how much you actually get out of it, which isn't that much save for a very lucky few who claimed large oil fields.

Except you can't just pull 100-200 credits out of just any oil field. Oil was restricted to a section of of your land, and output was basically a game of "cram the extractors into small spaces" and those extractors have a set production limit.

So if a oil field gives 50 credits, there is no way to expand production unless you had ungodly amounts of oil fields. Even then it would require multiple oil fields for one "upgrade" and then multiple upgrades for another "upgrade." So it gets harder to provide for anyone unless you stumbled upon a plot of land with more oil than the middle east. Without huge amounts of oil fields to really bring out the heavy industrial level output, All you get is the base credits for both your use and everyone else. Even with gas, you could still run into gas shortages if you wanted a large city to impress people.

Which was what cities XL was all about, impressing people online with your city planning and letting avatars wander the streets of your "super cool city." Yet the senseless resources (some are out of place like "holidays") killed that and killed the very attraction people wanted online.

So basically: one good soul can't really help anyone unless he was really lucky and had at least 6 oil fields minimum. Of course while it was in MMO form this was nigh impossible.

BloatedGuppy:
Always online is a minor, secondary problem with the new Simcity. The primary problem is the size of the cities.

Seriously, watch a video and check them out. They're like postage stamps. Soooo tiny. Much smaller than even Simcity 4's notoriously small cities. It's more like Simvillage. And because they're so tiny, everything gets crammed in at the borders, so all the cities look like weird little artificial squares with empty green fields on every side.

Fortunately, Anno 2070 has satiated my city building desires and then some.

I have been lucky enough to try a little of the build at the time a few weeks ago.

Yes you hit the main issue here.

All other issue people have been complaining about when they have gone "Game is dumbed down" and "Game is always online" are really non issues here.

The real issue is the limited creative expression given to you by limiting your city sizes. It really cuts into the carrying element of the game.

Ultratwinkie:
-snip-

Now I may be misunderstanding an overall point you are trying to make here (I never played Monte Cristo and I am just going from your description), but there is close to no comparisons here mechanically.

With the idea of a land grab will always set up people against each other. In the new Sim City there is nothing to be gained over someone else. However there is benefits to gain with someone else (A good example is multiple cities working together to make an airport).

There are multiple problems of Monte Cristos design. Things that Eve online had to deal with as well, but took care off by making it a complete FFA. Nothing would be locked down if you couldn't hold it.

Essentially they are to mechanically different to make this comparison and it makes it to early to tell the outcome for the game.

EA is trying to make a Farmville for hardcore gamers. You can bet the game will have micro-transactions. And it's not gonna work. Gamers aren't that stupid.

What am I saying? 6 million people bought Diablo 3.

Draech:

BloatedGuppy:
Always online is a minor, secondary problem with the new Simcity. The primary problem is the size of the cities.

Seriously, watch a video and check them out. They're like postage stamps. Soooo tiny. Much smaller than even Simcity 4's notoriously small cities. It's more like Simvillage. And because they're so tiny, everything gets crammed in at the borders, so all the cities look like weird little artificial squares with empty green fields on every side.

Fortunately, Anno 2070 has satiated my city building desires and then some.

I have been lucky enough to try a little of the build at the time a few weeks ago.

Yes you hit the main issue here.

All other issue people have been complaining about when they have gone "Game is dumbed down" and "Game is always online" are really non issues here.

The real issue is the limited creative expression given to you by limiting your city sizes. It really cuts into the carrying element of the game.

Ultratwinkie:
-snip-

Now I may be misunderstanding an overall point you are trying to make here (I never played Monte Cristo and I am just going from your description), but there is close to no comparisons here mechanically.

With the idea of a land grab will always set up people against each other. In the new Sim City there is nothing to be gained over someone else. However there is benefits to gain with someone else (A good example is multiple cities working together to make an airport).

There are multiple problems of Monte Cristos design. Things that Eve online had to deal with as well, but took care off by making it a complete FFA. Nothing would be locked down if you couldn't hold it.

Essentially they are to mechanically different to make this comparison and it makes it to early to tell the outcome for the game.

Basically my point is that resource trading beyond what SC4 did will crash and burn if not done right. Why? because mayors don't need to worry about food, vacations, or fuel nor do they do deals so the citizens can eat and have fun. Its pointless busywork.

Now when I heard SC5 was doing the "online and resources" ideas, it immediately brought back memories of Cities XL's horrid failure. Since EA is getting a bit more careless and more and more debacles crowd around them, a second CXL could very well be happen. Possibly for the same reasons like an awful community full of griefers and exploiters.

Which leads me to the question of SC5 will end up a failure since they seem to push the "online! Social! Online! Social" so hard as if its a 100% fool proof plan.

Ultratwinkie:

Basically my point is that resource trading beyond what SC4 did will crash and burn if not done right. Why? because mayors don't need to worry about food, vacations, or fuel nor do they do deals so the citizens can eat and have fun. Its pointless busywork.

Now when I heard SC5 was doing the "online and resources" ideas, it immediately brought back memories of Cities XL's horrid failure. Since EA is getting a bit more careless and more and more debacles crowd around them, a second CXL could very well be happen. Possibly for the same reasons like an awful community full of griefers and exploiters.

Which leads me to the question of SC5 will end up a failure since they seem to push the "online! Social! Online! Social" so hard as if its a 100% fool proof plan.

Now the "crash and burn if not done right" is pointless. Of course it will. If you do a crap job you will get a crap result. However it doesn't make the idea of resource management invalid. Games like Anno have build up around it, and it work well there.

The thing is most of your argumentation here has no base in reality. To talk about griefing shows that you havn't seen the mechanics of the game well enough. It is like complaining about someone stealing mobs from you in Guild Wars. The mechanics down right prevent that. Let go of your XL memories, because they have no basis in this game.

As for the social aspect it can flip both ways. Ubisoft have tried for quite a while to do this with Anno and Settler, but with limited success. I believe that is mainly due they think of social gaming as competitive gaming and that doesn't go well with what does games are trying to do.

EA is trying a more no-pvp-minecraft approach where you can let people do their own thing on a area locked part of the server, but also work together by trading materials and joining in on joined projects.

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Basically my point is that resource trading beyond what SC4 did will crash and burn if not done right. Why? because mayors don't need to worry about food, vacations, or fuel nor do they do deals so the citizens can eat and have fun. Its pointless busywork.

Now when I heard SC5 was doing the "online and resources" ideas, it immediately brought back memories of Cities XL's horrid failure. Since EA is getting a bit more careless and more and more debacles crowd around them, a second CXL could very well be happen. Possibly for the same reasons like an awful community full of griefers and exploiters.

Which leads me to the question of SC5 will end up a failure since they seem to push the "online! Social! Online! Social" so hard as if its a 100% fool proof plan.

Now the "crash and burn if not done right" is pointless. Of course it will. If you do a crap job you will get a crap result. However it doesn't make the idea of resource management invalid. Games like Anno have build up around it, and it work well there.

The thing is most of your argumentation here has no base in reality. To talk about griefing shows that you havn't seen the mechanics of the game well enough. It is like complaining about someone stealing mobs from you in Guild Wars. The mechanics down right prevent that. Let go of your XL memories, because they have no basis in this game.

As for the social aspect it can flip both ways. Ubisoft have tried for quite a while to do this with Anno and Settler, but with limited success. I believe that is mainly due they think of social gaming as competitive gaming and that doesn't go well with what does games are trying to do.

EA is trying a more no-pvp-minecraft approach where you can let people do their own thing on a area locked part of the server, but also work together by trading materials and joining in on joined projects.

yes, anno. A series build around either:

A) Colonialism: which has history with violence and more open other than "here is my deed to the gold mine, now suck it."

B) Near-future pseudo-apocalypse: A modern world where global warming opens up a new age of colonialism and fighting over whats left.

Both allow much more than sim city does, and both make sense. However, Sim City is passive aggressive at best. You can't build a sim army and ravage the country side because the world is changing or that they see wealth. It was never intended to be that way.

In the current world, that doesn't fit with the theme. In the current world, a city just sets and forgets. A passive aggressive online game is already disadvantaged right out of the gate because its a one way street. If I do something, you can't exactly do anything about now can you? In Anno, you could. In Sim City, you pretty much can't.

If I was to claim something in anno, you can do something about it. Intercept my ships, beat me to settling the island, or just invade. In a non violent city builder, you are stuck with whatever they give you. You have little choice other than just "drink the kool aid."

Even if it was organized trolling like EVE's "resource cartels."

You can't do anything about it. If I start churning out more pollution than china and your city starts suffering in terms of health, not much you can do as far as developer statements. If I go lawless and the crime ruffles your jimmies for a "perfect city," not much you can do to stop me either. Unless you go private for solo or "friend co-op", which is stretching it because a co-op would still run into the problems Jim already stated. The other player, and responsibilities and the consequences of playing with another. Including conflict of interests like "lets wreck shit" instead of build it. On a genre that is already niche and boring enough to the mainstream as it is.

Everything EA has been pushing is "how will you influence others?" You are not locked to yourself by any means. The videos I seen has explicitly said other cities' problems soon become your problem too.

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Basically my point is that resource trading beyond what SC4 did will crash and burn if not done right. Why? because mayors don't need to worry about food, vacations, or fuel nor do they do deals so the citizens can eat and have fun. Its pointless busywork.

Now when I heard SC5 was doing the "online and resources" ideas, it immediately brought back memories of Cities XL's horrid failure. Since EA is getting a bit more careless and more and more debacles crowd around them, a second CXL could very well be happen. Possibly for the same reasons like an awful community full of griefers and exploiters.

Which leads me to the question of SC5 will end up a failure since they seem to push the "online! Social! Online! Social" so hard as if its a 100% fool proof plan.

Now the "crash and burn if not done right" is pointless. Of course it will. If you do a crap job you will get a crap result. However it doesn't make the idea of resource management invalid. Games like Anno have build up around it, and it work well there.

The thing is most of your argumentation here has no base in reality. To talk about griefing shows that you havn't seen the mechanics of the game well enough. It is like complaining about someone stealing mobs from you in Guild Wars. The mechanics down right prevent that. Let go of your XL memories, because they have no basis in this game.

As for the social aspect it can flip both ways. Ubisoft have tried for quite a while to do this with Anno and Settler, but with limited success. I believe that is mainly due they think of social gaming as competitive gaming and that doesn't go well with what does games are trying to do.

EA is trying a more no-pvp-minecraft approach where you can let people do their own thing on a area locked part of the server, but also work together by trading materials and joining in on joined projects.

yes, anno. A series build around either:

A) Colonialism: which has history with violence and more open other than "here is my deed to the gold mine, now suck it."

B) Near-future pseudo-apocalypse: A modern world where global warming opens up a new age of colonialism and fighting over whats left.

Both allow much more than sim city does, and both make sense. However, Sim City is passive aggressive at best. You can't build a sim army and ravage the country side because the world is changing or that they see wealth. It was never intended to be that way.

In the current world, that doesn't fit with the theme. In the current world, a city just sets and forgets. A passive aggressive online game is already disadvantaged right out of the gate because its a one way street. If I do something, you can't exactly do anything about now can you? In Anno, you could. In Sim City, you pretty much can't.

If I was to claim something in anno, you can do something about it. Intercept my ships, beat me to settling the island, or just invade. In a non violent city builder, you are stuck with whatever they give you. You have little choice other than just "drink the kool aid."

Even if it was organized trolling like EVE's "resource cartels."

You can't do anything about it. If I start churning out more pollution than china and your city starts suffering in terms of health, not much you can do as far as developer statements. If I go lawless and the crime ruffles your jimmies for a "perfect city," not much you can do to stop me either. Unless you go private for solo or "friend co-op", which is stretching it because a co-op would still run into the problems Jim already stated. The other player, and responsibilities and the consequences of playing with another. Including conflict of interests like "lets wreck shit" instead of build it. On a genre that is already niche and boring enough to the mainstream as it is.

Everything EA has been pushing is "how will you influence others?" You are not locked to yourself by any means. The videos I seen has explicitly said other cities' problems soon become your problem too.

I am sorry to say this but you repeatedly are referring to mechanics that dont exist in the way you are saying they exist. For example you cannot pollute another city in the way you are suggesting.

You cannot make resource cartels because there is no land grab aspect. There is no ability to hog more than others.

You have 2 ways of player can interact. Consensus or not at all. When you are talkign other cities problems you are talking "The city I am going to send my sims to work in has power problems and cannot support enough workers. This is now my problem.". You are drawing an incomplete information conclusion here. The key word is cooperative here.

I have said this 3 times now.

Stop making making parallels between mechanics you dont know. You are making problems that do not exist because dont know the game you are talking about.

I have tried the build a few weeks ago. You clearly havn't.

Ultratwinkie:
snip

Then clearly it was too small output if you could not support your own city even with your city geared for maxed extraction. Thats whats in MMO world is called balancing, Cities XL clearly lacked it.

Sleekit:
Maxis died when Will Wright left.

Is it bad if I just realized this? As In, I didnt knew this usefull piece of information until you said it.

Who knows...there is a 90% likelyhood I'll be pirating SimCity 5. I don't want this online only crap, I want a new single player SimCity to replace the aging and flawed SimCity 4, but it doesn't look that I'm going to be getting what I want, which is sad.

Eh, I'll just keep playing SC4 I suppose.

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Now the "crash and burn if not done right" is pointless. Of course it will. If you do a crap job you will get a crap result. However it doesn't make the idea of resource management invalid. Games like Anno have build up around it, and it work well there.

The thing is most of your argumentation here has no base in reality. To talk about griefing shows that you havn't seen the mechanics of the game well enough. It is like complaining about someone stealing mobs from you in Guild Wars. The mechanics down right prevent that. Let go of your XL memories, because they have no basis in this game.

As for the social aspect it can flip both ways. Ubisoft have tried for quite a while to do this with Anno and Settler, but with limited success. I believe that is mainly due they think of social gaming as competitive gaming and that doesn't go well with what does games are trying to do.

EA is trying a more no-pvp-minecraft approach where you can let people do their own thing on a area locked part of the server, but also work together by trading materials and joining in on joined projects.

yes, anno. A series build around either:

A) Colonialism: which has history with violence and more open other than "here is my deed to the gold mine, now suck it."

B) Near-future pseudo-apocalypse: A modern world where global warming opens up a new age of colonialism and fighting over whats left.

Both allow much more than sim city does, and both make sense. However, Sim City is passive aggressive at best. You can't build a sim army and ravage the country side because the world is changing or that they see wealth. It was never intended to be that way.

In the current world, that doesn't fit with the theme. In the current world, a city just sets and forgets. A passive aggressive online game is already disadvantaged right out of the gate because its a one way street. If I do something, you can't exactly do anything about now can you? In Anno, you could. In Sim City, you pretty much can't.

If I was to claim something in anno, you can do something about it. Intercept my ships, beat me to settling the island, or just invade. In a non violent city builder, you are stuck with whatever they give you. You have little choice other than just "drink the kool aid."

Even if it was organized trolling like EVE's "resource cartels."

You can't do anything about it. If I start churning out more pollution than china and your city starts suffering in terms of health, not much you can do as far as developer statements. If I go lawless and the crime ruffles your jimmies for a "perfect city," not much you can do to stop me either. Unless you go private for solo or "friend co-op", which is stretching it because a co-op would still run into the problems Jim already stated. The other player, and responsibilities and the consequences of playing with another. Including conflict of interests like "lets wreck shit" instead of build it. On a genre that is already niche and boring enough to the mainstream as it is.

Everything EA has been pushing is "how will you influence others?" You are not locked to yourself by any means. The videos I seen has explicitly said other cities' problems soon become your problem too.

I am sorry to say this but you repeatedly are referring to mechanics that dont exist in the way you are saying they exist. For example you cannot pollute another city in the way you are suggesting.

You cannot make resource cartels because there is no land grab aspect. There is no ability to hog more than others.

You have 2 ways of player can interact. Consensus or not at all. When you are talkign other cities problems you are talking "The city I am going to send my sims to work in has power problems and cannot support enough workers. This is now my problem.". You are drawing an incomplete information conclusion here. The key word is cooperative here.

I have said this 3 times now.

Stop making making parallels between mechanics you dont know. You are making problems that do not exist because dont know the game you are talking about.

I have tried the build a few weeks ago. You clearly havn't.

http://www.simcity.com/en_US/game/info/multiplayer

Oh really? Then why does the site itself say that players can pollute other cities and cause sims to be sick? And why does the multi-city video at around 3:57 say the criminals will cause trouble in other cities too if you do nothing about it? And on the gameplay video, at 6:00+ he says the same thing.

If these mechanics "don't exist" then why do the developers boast about them every chance they get?

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

yes, anno. A series build around either:

A) Colonialism: which has history with violence and more open other than "here is my deed to the gold mine, now suck it."

B) Near-future pseudo-apocalypse: A modern world where global warming opens up a new age of colonialism and fighting over whats left.

Both allow much more than sim city does, and both make sense. However, Sim City is passive aggressive at best. You can't build a sim army and ravage the country side because the world is changing or that they see wealth. It was never intended to be that way.

In the current world, that doesn't fit with the theme. In the current world, a city just sets and forgets. A passive aggressive online game is already disadvantaged right out of the gate because its a one way street. If I do something, you can't exactly do anything about now can you? In Anno, you could. In Sim City, you pretty much can't.

If I was to claim something in anno, you can do something about it. Intercept my ships, beat me to settling the island, or just invade. In a non violent city builder, you are stuck with whatever they give you. You have little choice other than just "drink the kool aid."

Even if it was organized trolling like EVE's "resource cartels."

You can't do anything about it. If I start churning out more pollution than china and your city starts suffering in terms of health, not much you can do as far as developer statements. If I go lawless and the crime ruffles your jimmies for a "perfect city," not much you can do to stop me either. Unless you go private for solo or "friend co-op", which is stretching it because a co-op would still run into the problems Jim already stated. The other player, and responsibilities and the consequences of playing with another. Including conflict of interests like "lets wreck shit" instead of build it. On a genre that is already niche and boring enough to the mainstream as it is.

Everything EA has been pushing is "how will you influence others?" You are not locked to yourself by any means. The videos I seen has explicitly said other cities' problems soon become your problem too.

I am sorry to say this but you repeatedly are referring to mechanics that dont exist in the way you are saying they exist. For example you cannot pollute another city in the way you are suggesting.

You cannot make resource cartels because there is no land grab aspect. There is no ability to hog more than others.

You have 2 ways of player can interact. Consensus or not at all. When you are talkign other cities problems you are talking "The city I am going to send my sims to work in has power problems and cannot support enough workers. This is now my problem.". You are drawing an incomplete information conclusion here. The key word is cooperative here.

I have said this 3 times now.

Stop making making parallels between mechanics you dont know. You are making problems that do not exist because dont know the game you are talking about.

I have tried the build a few weeks ago. You clearly havn't.

http://www.simcity.com/en_US/game/info/multiplayer

Oh really? Then why does the site itself say that players can pollute other cities and cause sims to be sick? And why does the multi-city video at around 3:57 say the criminals will cause trouble in other cities too if you do nothing about it? And on the gameplay video, at 6:00+ he says the same thing.

If these mechanics "don't exist" then why do the developers boast about them every chance they get?

Tell me how you do that without you having me invited to the game or you have no argument.

You going to keep grasping for straws in an effort to lead to a conclusion that you made before you got information then I am going to stop wasting my time.

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

I am sorry to say this but you repeatedly are referring to mechanics that dont exist in the way you are saying they exist. For example you cannot pollute another city in the way you are suggesting.

You cannot make resource cartels because there is no land grab aspect. There is no ability to hog more than others.

You have 2 ways of player can interact. Consensus or not at all. When you are talkign other cities problems you are talking "The city I am going to send my sims to work in has power problems and cannot support enough workers. This is now my problem.". You are drawing an incomplete information conclusion here. The key word is cooperative here.

I have said this 3 times now.

Stop making making parallels between mechanics you dont know. You are making problems that do not exist because dont know the game you are talking about.

I have tried the build a few weeks ago. You clearly havn't.

http://www.simcity.com/en_US/game/info/multiplayer

Oh really? Then why does the site itself say that players can pollute other cities and cause sims to be sick? And why does the multi-city video at around 3:57 say the criminals will cause trouble in other cities too if you do nothing about it? And on the gameplay video, at 6:00+ he says the same thing.

If these mechanics "don't exist" then why do the developers boast about them every chance they get?

Tell me how you do that without you having me invited to the game or you have no argument.

That's the key word here:

Invite.

That implies you know the online will be like an open sewer that will cause nothing but problems so its all private. Just like Cities XL's single player was more popular because the multiplayer was utter crap. Which would then make online pointless because then its nothing more than a glorified co-op (on an already "boring" and niche genre) on tiny, pre-made maps. Which would then bring us back to the original flaw that Sim City style online city builders are a bad idea.

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

http://www.simcity.com/en_US/game/info/multiplayer

Oh really? Then why does the site itself say that players can pollute other cities and cause sims to be sick? And why does the multi-city video at around 3:57 say the criminals will cause trouble in other cities too if you do nothing about it? And on the gameplay video, at 6:00+ he says the same thing.

If these mechanics "don't exist" then why do the developers boast about them every chance they get?

Tell me how you do that without you having me invited to the game or you have no argument.

That's the key word here:

Invite.

That implies you know the online will be like an open sewer that will cause nothing but problems so its all private. Just like Cities XL's single player was more popular because the multiplayer was utter crap. Which would then make online pointless because then its nothing more than a glorified co-op (on an already "boring" and niche genre) on tiny, pre-made maps. Which would then bring us back to the original flaw that Sim City style online city builders are a bad idea.

Again you dont understand the bloody mechanics of how it will work. You are just working with you damm presets.

I am wasting my time since you already made up your mind long before you asked the question. You just present it as a question to pull suckers like me in.

I wont say this again.

Your preset idea of how the mechanics of the multiplayer works is wrong.

Your comparisons are wrong.

It doesn't work anything like what you trying to present.

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:
Tell me how you do that without you having me invited to the game or you have no argument.

That's the key word here:

Invite.

That implies you know the online will be like an open sewer that will cause nothing but problems so its all private. Just like Cities XL's single player was more popular because the multiplayer was utter crap. Which would then make online pointless because then its nothing more than a glorified co-op (on an already "boring" and niche genre) on tiny, pre-made maps. Which would then bring us back to the original flaw that Sim City style online city builders are a bad idea.

Again you dont understand the bloody mechanics of how it will work. You are just working with you damm presets.

I am wasting my time since you already made up your mind long before you asked the question. You just present it as a question to pull suckers like me in.

I wont say this again.

Your preset idea of how the mechanics of the multiplayer works is wrong.

Your comparisons are wrong.

It doesn't work anything like what you trying to present.

Oh, I don't understand how the mechanics (already explained) work?

Okay then, do tell how they work other than an argument from ignorance of how "we won't know until its released."

Go on. I am waiting.

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

That's the key word here:

Invite.

That implies you know the online will be like an open sewer that will cause nothing but problems so its all private. Just like Cities XL's single player was more popular because the multiplayer was utter crap. Which would then make online pointless because then its nothing more than a glorified co-op (on an already "boring" and niche genre) on tiny, pre-made maps. Which would then bring us back to the original flaw that Sim City style online city builders are a bad idea.

Again you dont understand the bloody mechanics of how it will work. You are just working with you damm presets.

I am wasting my time since you already made up your mind long before you asked the question. You just present it as a question to pull suckers like me in.

I wont say this again.

Your preset idea of how the mechanics of the multiplayer works is wrong.

Your comparisons are wrong.

It doesn't work anything like what you trying to present.

Oh, I don't understand how the mechanics (already explained) work?

Okay then, do tell how they work other than an argument from ignorance of how "we won't know until its released."

Go on. I am waiting.

I dont know how much I can go into without a breach of contract, but essentially they can cloud the save games among multiple players meaning that your friends game is no longer dependent on everyone being there.

Like you own little private minecraft server.

Old school method of hosting the game one side doesn't apply anymore. Your Cities XL reference of dealing with it doesn't work. Furthermore from a gameplay perspective it make sense as well since you can still control multiple "cities" in in single player, but building in 2 cities at once need 2 people. Like I said like 5 times now. You comparison is wrong.

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Again you dont understand the bloody mechanics of how it will work. You are just working with you damm presets.

I am wasting my time since you already made up your mind long before you asked the question. You just present it as a question to pull suckers like me in.

I wont say this again.

Your preset idea of how the mechanics of the multiplayer works is wrong.

Your comparisons are wrong.

It doesn't work anything like what you trying to present.

Oh, I don't understand how the mechanics (already explained) work?

Okay then, do tell how they work other than an argument from ignorance of how "we won't know until its released."

Go on. I am waiting.

I dont know how much I can go into without a breach of contract, but essentially they can cloud the save games among multiple players meaning that your friends game is no longer dependent on everyone being there.

Like you own little private minecraft server.

Old school method of hosting the game one side doesn't apply anymore. Your Cities XL reference of dealing with it doesn't work. Furthermore from a gameplay perspective it make sense as well since you can still control multiple "cities" in in single player, but building in 2 cities at once need 2 people. Like I said like 5 times now. You comparison is wrong.

Oh look, Something that's been on the sim city wiki since Roosevelt was president.

We know cloud saves exist. we know friends are not dependent on being there. We know regions can be private. Its even in the videos I posted saying that if griefers are a problem you can set the personal region to private.

Far from a secret. A "secret" I referenced multiple times in my older posts.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked