Simcity 5: Is Maxis becoming Monte Cristo?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

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.

So you knew this stuff yet you purposely refused to acknowledge this?

You kept making reference to mechanic you knew wern't like the ones they have now?

You insisted to keep refering to the mechanical methods of Cities XL and use its multiplayer as a reference when you knew that its method of multiplayer as well as gameplay wasn't the same?

Sorry for wasting your time.

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

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.

So you knew this stuff yet you purposely refused to acknowledge this?

You kept making reference to mechanic you knew wern't like the ones they have now?

Sorry for wasting your time.

http://simcity.wikia.com/wiki/SimCity_%282013_game%29

I was looking at this wiki. I looked through it all.

I actually did reference the region thing, which cloud saves is partly of. Cloud saves don't change much except that we have less control than say, SC4, and may not even be able to mod at all since its always online. You can't exactly mod a game that is 100% online all the time.

Cloud saves don't exactly touch on the real issue I was bringing up.

The problem is that sim city is supposedly meant to be social. To make your region private (solo or friends only) would make the online public social part irrelevant and superfluous. Online would make you take other people into consideration when playing with a city you built, and possibly people who want to mess your city up for sick enjoyment.

A social game where being "social" would mean playing by someone else's rules and keeping others in mind. At least that's the implication of the marketing I am seeing.

Now of course the problem with the concept of online is the genre itself. Its meant to be a sandbox, and you suddenly can't purposely be a bad mayor or else the perfectionist across the way throws a hissy fit. A sandbox that suddenly implies you have to play nice rather than play how you really want with your toys like in SC4.

Want to have a lawless town? Oh wait you can't because the crime effects other real people who have feelings too.

Want an industrial smog ridden city? Oh wait you can't, that guy wants pretty blue sky for his tourist city and smog makes the customers unhappy and sick.

So all in all, is there any real incentive to go into a public region? To even stay a part of the "social" experience instead of just declaring a region private and building it all by yourself? Just like CXL failed to do? After all, CXL died because it failed to keep people interested in its online environment instead of going into their own corner and staying there. That is incredibly hard to pull off.

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

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.

So you knew this stuff yet you purposely refused to acknowledge this?

You kept making reference to mechanic you knew wern't like the ones they have now?

Sorry for wasting your time.

http://simcity.wikia.com/wiki/SimCity_%282013_game%29

I was looking at this wiki. I looked through it all.

I actually did reference the region thing, which cloud saves is partly of. Cloud saves don't change much except that we have less control than say, SC4, and may not even be able to mod at all since its always online. You can't exactly mod a game that is 100% online all the time.

Cloud saves don't exactly touch on the real issue I was bringing up.

The problem is that sim city is supposedly meant to be social. To make your region private (solo or friends only) would make the online public social part irrelevant and superfluous. Online would make you take other people into consideration when playing with a city you built, and possibly people who want to mess your city up for sick enjoyment.

A social game where being "social" would mean playing by someone else's rules and keeping others in mind. At least that's the implication of the marketing I am seeing.

Now of course the problem with the concept of online is the genre itself. Its meant to be a sandbox, and you suddenly can't purposely be a bad mayor or else the perfectionist across the way throws a hissy fit. A sandbox that suddenly implies you have to play nice rather than play how you really want with your toys like in SC4.

Want to have a lawless town? Oh wait you can't because the crime effects other real people who have feelings too.

Want an industrial smog ridden city? Oh wait you can't, that guy wants pretty blue sky for his tourist city and smog makes the customers unhappy and sick.

So all in all, is there any real incentive to go into a public region? To even stay a part of the "social" experience instead of just declaring a region private and building it all by yourself? Just like CXL failed to do? After all, CXL died because it failed to keep people interested in its online environment instead of going into their own corner and staying there. That is incredibly hard to pull off.

You do know there are maps with only 3 regions?

Perfect for any of your theme cities and doesn't set you in a situation where you have to be codependent on other players.

But you ask what the real incentive to do a public region?

What is the incentive to make a public game in borderlands?

I have never done it, yet I have played plenty of hours of borderlands. Same goes with plenty of other multiplayer games I have yet to be part of the "social" aspect of it. You premise that one excludes the other is false.

The only forced social interaction that actually is online scoreboards, and even those can be filtered. You can play this like any other simcity. You can also play it online with friends easier and delegate the work out.

I really dont see your point still. You keep refering to a game THAT IT DOESN'T PLAY LIKE AT ALL.

Maybe, maybe not. Either way everything I have seen of this game makes me want it more and more so I pre-ordered it.

I just really wanted a single player experience with it.
I'm obviously not going to get that, so I'm not going to buy it.

A shame, really.

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

So you knew this stuff yet you purposely refused to acknowledge this?

You kept making reference to mechanic you knew wern't like the ones they have now?

Sorry for wasting your time.

http://simcity.wikia.com/wiki/SimCity_%282013_game%29

I was looking at this wiki. I looked through it all.

I actually did reference the region thing, which cloud saves is partly of. Cloud saves don't change much except that we have less control than say, SC4, and may not even be able to mod at all since its always online. You can't exactly mod a game that is 100% online all the time.

Cloud saves don't exactly touch on the real issue I was bringing up.

The problem is that sim city is supposedly meant to be social. To make your region private (solo or friends only) would make the online public social part irrelevant and superfluous. Online would make you take other people into consideration when playing with a city you built, and possibly people who want to mess your city up for sick enjoyment.

A social game where being "social" would mean playing by someone else's rules and keeping others in mind. At least that's the implication of the marketing I am seeing.

Now of course the problem with the concept of online is the genre itself. Its meant to be a sandbox, and you suddenly can't purposely be a bad mayor or else the perfectionist across the way throws a hissy fit. A sandbox that suddenly implies you have to play nice rather than play how you really want with your toys like in SC4.

Want to have a lawless town? Oh wait you can't because the crime effects other real people who have feelings too.

Want an industrial smog ridden city? Oh wait you can't, that guy wants pretty blue sky for his tourist city and smog makes the customers unhappy and sick.

So all in all, is there any real incentive to go into a public region? To even stay a part of the "social" experience instead of just declaring a region private and building it all by yourself? Just like CXL failed to do? After all, CXL died because it failed to keep people interested in its online environment instead of going into their own corner and staying there. That is incredibly hard to pull off.

You do know there are maps with only 3 regions?

Perfect for any of your theme cities and doesn't set you in a situation where you have to be codependent on other players.

But you ask what the real incentive to do a public region?

What is the incentive to make a public game in borderlands?

I have never done it, yet I have played plenty of hours of borderlands. Same goes with plenty of other multiplayer games I have yet to be part of the "social" aspect of it. You premise that one excludes the other is false.

The only forced social interaction that actually is online scoreboards, and even those can be filtered. You can play this like any other simcity. You can also play it online with friends easier and delegate the work out.

I really dont see your point still. You keep refering to a game THAT IT DOESN'T PLAY LIKE AT ALL.

You cite borderlands, a game with a clear goal and a shooter. A genre that actually got multiplayer right. Hardly comparative to sim city style city builders, which has practically no success online and has very little reason to be online.

Why do people play online? To get dynamic game play and more challenge. Sim city has no challenge. Even the 4th one, the supposedly "hard" sim city, was easy. You can't even cite Minecraft here because minecraft didn't cut out parts of itself to fit online. It still had the ability to be creative on a large scale. Something SC5 didn't have.

So at the cost of map size, modding ability and even rumored terraforming, I get to see a leaderboard? Something that is easily exploited on day one making it useless. You aren't exactly arguing very well for online's validity for being there.

So you seem to dodge the question. Why? Why does it NEED to be online? Why try to force people to care about each other and help each other for a game that is already easy? What does it possibly add to the game instead of taking away? Because from what I am seeing, its more of a burden than an actual innovation. Especially with such a small city size?

How exactly is it going to make online an actual improvement instead of it going down in flames because no one cares about each other's cities? Just like CXL? You can say "oooh but its not SC!" but you fail to notice the fundamental problem that effect not just CXL but online sim city style city builders in general.

If the players find online contrived and go into their own personal corners and never come out, we are still being limited to online limitations while reaping none of its "rewards."

Online tended to be, at best, useless. It added nothing to the genre and instead actually negatively effected the game to accommodate the multiplayer "just in case." So ill ask you again, one last time:

What is the point of online if people just sit in their own personal corners? Whats the point of showing off if you don't get to actually show off? Whats the point of online if its just leader boards? Something games have implemented into single player games without effecting the real game or demanding always online DRM?

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

http://simcity.wikia.com/wiki/SimCity_%282013_game%29

I was looking at this wiki. I looked through it all.

I actually did reference the region thing, which cloud saves is partly of. Cloud saves don't change much except that we have less control than say, SC4, and may not even be able to mod at all since its always online. You can't exactly mod a game that is 100% online all the time.

Cloud saves don't exactly touch on the real issue I was bringing up.

The problem is that sim city is supposedly meant to be social. To make your region private (solo or friends only) would make the online public social part irrelevant and superfluous. Online would make you take other people into consideration when playing with a city you built, and possibly people who want to mess your city up for sick enjoyment.

A social game where being "social" would mean playing by someone else's rules and keeping others in mind. At least that's the implication of the marketing I am seeing.

Now of course the problem with the concept of online is the genre itself. Its meant to be a sandbox, and you suddenly can't purposely be a bad mayor or else the perfectionist across the way throws a hissy fit. A sandbox that suddenly implies you have to play nice rather than play how you really want with your toys like in SC4.

Want to have a lawless town? Oh wait you can't because the crime effects other real people who have feelings too.

Want an industrial smog ridden city? Oh wait you can't, that guy wants pretty blue sky for his tourist city and smog makes the customers unhappy and sick.

So all in all, is there any real incentive to go into a public region? To even stay a part of the "social" experience instead of just declaring a region private and building it all by yourself? Just like CXL failed to do? After all, CXL died because it failed to keep people interested in its online environment instead of going into their own corner and staying there. That is incredibly hard to pull off.

You do know there are maps with only 3 regions?

Perfect for any of your theme cities and doesn't set you in a situation where you have to be codependent on other players.

But you ask what the real incentive to do a public region?

What is the incentive to make a public game in borderlands?

I have never done it, yet I have played plenty of hours of borderlands. Same goes with plenty of other multiplayer games I have yet to be part of the "social" aspect of it. You premise that one excludes the other is false.

The only forced social interaction that actually is online scoreboards, and even those can be filtered. You can play this like any other simcity. You can also play it online with friends easier and delegate the work out.

I really dont see your point still. You keep refering to a game THAT IT DOESN'T PLAY LIKE AT ALL.

You cite borderlands, a game with a clear goal and a shooter. A genre that actually got multiplayer right. Hardly comparative to sim city style city builders, which has practically no success online and has very little reason to be online.

Why do people play online? To get dynamic game play and more challenge. Sim city has no challenge. Even the 4th one, the supposedly "hard" sim city, was easy. You can't even cite Minecraft here because minecraft didn't cut out parts of itself to fit online. It still had the ability to be creative on a large scale. Something SC5 didn't have.

So at the cost of map size, modding ability and even rumored terraforming, I get to see a leaderboard? Something that is easily exploited on day one making it useless. You aren't exactly arguing very well for online's validity for being there.

So you seem to dodge the question. Why? Why does it NEED to be online? Why try to force people to care about each other and help each other for a game that is already easy? What does it possibly add to the game instead of taking away? Because from what I am seeing, its more of a burden than an actual innovation. Especially with such a small city size?

How exactly is it going to make online an actual improvement instead of it going down in flames because no one cares about each other's cities? Just like CXL? You can say "oooh but its not SC!" but you fail to notice the fundamental problem that effect not just CXL but online sim city style city builders in general.

If the players find online contrived and go into their own personal corners and never come out, we are still being limited to online limitations while reaping none of its "rewards."

Online tended to be, at best, useless. It added nothing to the genre and instead actually negatively effected the game to accommodate the multiplayer "just in case." So ill ask you again, one last time:

What is the point of online if people just sit in their own personal corners? Whats the point of showing off if you don't get to actually show off? Whats the point of online if its just leader boards? Something games have implemented into single player games without effecting the real game or demanding always online DRM?

You are still not seeing it.

You are being needlessly reductionist in your argument as well.

The maps are smaller, but that isn't a result of i being online. It is the graphical engine. You are leading your conclusions.... AGAIN!

IT NEED TO BE ONLINE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE COOPERATIVE PLAY WORK! IN ORDER TO MAKE IT EASY AND STRAIT FORWARD ENOUGH TO BE FUN! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAP SIZE!

You keep referring to CXL online as if it is the model, but it isn't.

It is online to make allow for cloud saves to work properly, and that in turn makes drop in and play of games that usually take 1000 hours possible. The main problem with games like settlers and Anno's online game is that it take s way to long and you wont ever finish a game. Making online pointless. This takes a model that we know works from minecraft and apply it to a game that has a lot of the same aesthetics of play as minecraft.

Will it work? I dont know, but the theory is solid, and your comparison are flat out wrong attempts to lead a conclusion based on information you dont have.

You are repeatedly leading this into a single conclusion that you have made BEFORE looking.

The game isn't all ready easy. If you have to control 6 cities then all of a sudden it becomes VERY hard to deal with all of their issues. One of us has actually played this, and know how it plays. The only reason you should say "The game is easy" is if you think that the game plays like CXL. I will not say again. IT DOESN'T PLAY LIKE CXL! STOP PULLING BACK TO IT! IT IS A FALSE CONCLUSION! JUST BECAUSE YOU SAW THEY ARE GRAPHICALLY SIMILAR DOESN'T MAKE THEM PLAY THE SAME WAY!

Also your conclusion on "why do people play online" is also false. I play minecraft online for entirely different reasons.

Go from this point instead. What problems should be solved in order make sim4 fun to play online with friends? Could this version of online play potentially solve some of these problems? Could the game itself be build with a way to scale the amount of tasks to do at one time to fit multiple players while at the same time fit single player?

The answer to the questions above is yes.

However notice the "could".

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

You do know there are maps with only 3 regions?

Perfect for any of your theme cities and doesn't set you in a situation where you have to be codependent on other players.

But you ask what the real incentive to do a public region?

What is the incentive to make a public game in borderlands?

I have never done it, yet I have played plenty of hours of borderlands. Same goes with plenty of other multiplayer games I have yet to be part of the "social" aspect of it. You premise that one excludes the other is false.

The only forced social interaction that actually is online scoreboards, and even those can be filtered. You can play this like any other simcity. You can also play it online with friends easier and delegate the work out.

I really dont see your point still. You keep refering to a game THAT IT DOESN'T PLAY LIKE AT ALL.

You cite borderlands, a game with a clear goal and a shooter. A genre that actually got multiplayer right. Hardly comparative to sim city style city builders, which has practically no success online and has very little reason to be online.

Why do people play online? To get dynamic game play and more challenge. Sim city has no challenge. Even the 4th one, the supposedly "hard" sim city, was easy. You can't even cite Minecraft here because minecraft didn't cut out parts of itself to fit online. It still had the ability to be creative on a large scale. Something SC5 didn't have.

So at the cost of map size, modding ability and even rumored terraforming, I get to see a leaderboard? Something that is easily exploited on day one making it useless. You aren't exactly arguing very well for online's validity for being there.

So you seem to dodge the question. Why? Why does it NEED to be online? Why try to force people to care about each other and help each other for a game that is already easy? What does it possibly add to the game instead of taking away? Because from what I am seeing, its more of a burden than an actual innovation. Especially with such a small city size?

How exactly is it going to make online an actual improvement instead of it going down in flames because no one cares about each other's cities? Just like CXL? You can say "oooh but its not SC!" but you fail to notice the fundamental problem that effect not just CXL but online sim city style city builders in general.

If the players find online contrived and go into their own personal corners and never come out, we are still being limited to online limitations while reaping none of its "rewards."

Online tended to be, at best, useless. It added nothing to the genre and instead actually negatively effected the game to accommodate the multiplayer "just in case." So ill ask you again, one last time:

What is the point of online if people just sit in their own personal corners? Whats the point of showing off if you don't get to actually show off? Whats the point of online if its just leader boards? Something games have implemented into single player games without effecting the real game or demanding always online DRM?

You are still not seeing it.

You are being needlessly reductionist in your argument as well.

The maps are smaller, but that isn't a result of i being online. It is the graphical engine. You are leading your conclusions.... AGAIN!

IT NEED TO BE ONLINE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE COOPERATIVE PLAY WORK! IN ORDER TO MAKE IT EASY AND STRAIT FORWARD ENOUGH TO BE FUN! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAP SIZE!

You keep referring to CXL online as if it is the model, but it isn't.

It is online to make allow for cloud saves to work properly, and that in turn makes drop in and play of games that usually take 1000 hours possible. The main problem with games like settlers and Anno's online game is that it take s way to long and you wont ever finish a game. Making online pointless. This takes a model that we know works from minecraft and apply it to a game that has a lot of the same aesthetics of play as minecraft.

Will it work? I dont know, but the theory is solid, and your comparison are flat out wrong attempts to lead a conclusion based on information you dont have.

You are repeatedly leading this into a single conclusion that you have made BEFORE looking.

The game isn't all ready easy. If you have to control 6 cities then all of a sudden it becomes VERY hard to deal with all of their issues. One of us has actually played this, and know how it plays. The only reason you should say "The game is easy" is if you think that the game plays like CXL. I will not say again. IT DOESN'T PLAY LIKE CXL! STOP PULLING BACK TO IT! IT IS A FALSE CONCLUSION! JUST BECAUSE YOU SAW THEY ARE GRAPHICALLY SIMILAR DOESN'T MAKE THEM PLAY THE SAME WAY!

Also your conclusion on "why do people play online" is also false. I play minecraft online for entirely different reasons.

Go from this point instead. What problems should be solved in order make sim4 fun to play online with friends? Could this version of online play potentially solve some of these problems? Could the game itself be build with a way to scale the amount of tasks to do at one time to fit multiple players while at the same time fit single player?

The answer to the questions above is yes.

However notice the "could".

yes we know about the damn cloud. You've been going off on how its some "magical unicorn" and how its "amazing."

It isn't that amazing nor does the existence of the cloud do anything.

Nowhere did I say it is exactly like CXL, its you that's doing it. And even then I doubt you knew it played back when it was online. Why? Because in CXL it was a fucking miracle you could get the real big cities because you needed multiple deals to make them happen. It was a senseless pain in the ass with pointless busy work. CXL online wasn't easy, it was hard because they tacked on crap no one asked for. Anyone who was there would tell you the same.

I used CXL as an example of how tacked on multiplayer fails and no amount of "fun! social!" crap will save a bad idea. It as never necessary to begin with. Just look at the response to EA alone when it said Sim City was going to be an online "reimagining." Most likey due to EA standards of every game needing an online component. Yet look at the responses here.

"always on? Origin? social networking? No sale."

There is even another huge thread and an entire video here condemning the mentality of everything needing multiplayer. Tacking on a multiplayer no one asked for or wants is a bad idea. Multiplayer is expensive to make, and its not always worth it.

So tell me again: Why does it need online at all? Or, to put it in terms you can understand, why would you want to drag friends into an experience built for one at all? Its like trying to bring 5 people to a party on unicycle. Not every genre is meant for "friend" games. Minecraft has much more leeway online than SC5 and isn't even in the same genre, so it is irrelevant to a city builder discussion.

Just because two strategy games have online and "being too long" doesn't mean sim city needs online or needs to change. You are referencing two games who aren't even in the same category as Sim City. The closest examples to SC 5 is CXL, and star peace. Both died. Settlers and anno are NOT sim city style city builders. They are RTS games with a "city" base building mechanic.

That's my point: When you look into the history of sim city style city builders that had online, they don't last long and often create a huge head ache for its creator. From a historical point of view, the idea is a dead end.

You also assume I (and everyone else) don't have access to any beta knowledge or how it plays. Once you release a beta, nothing is "unknown" its plastered around for anyone to see. Hell there are even videos both by beta players and developers. I know how the systems work. Hell I even managed to find the full on tutorial. There are even mentions of streams. Still not impressed from anything I saw. Unless you are with holding some amazing "secret" that has gone unnoticed and not data mined yet.

No one adheres to the NDA on the internet.

On top of that, EA wants to handle all the data from the saves to the cities. That's why they are small on top for the "pretty pretty graphics." Will Wright has said the only reason spore existed was because creatures could be stored cheaply, and had "complexity caps." The same concept applies here, minimizing the data sizes.

It wasn't hard to imagine why the maps are small. Because "coop" is suddenly a necessity because EA demands it.

6 cities? Whats so hard about keeping an eye on multiple small cities on a game that have been said to be streamlined already? Since SC 5 is said to be easier than SC4, and I find SC4 easy, then it makes sense SC5 is easy too. Keep in mind you are talking to a Dwarf Fortress player who only does high evil biome settlements.

A city builder doesn't get much harder than that.

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

You cite borderlands, a game with a clear goal and a shooter. A genre that actually got multiplayer right. Hardly comparative to sim city style city builders, which has practically no success online and has very little reason to be online.

Why do people play online? To get dynamic game play and more challenge. Sim city has no challenge. Even the 4th one, the supposedly "hard" sim city, was easy. You can't even cite Minecraft here because minecraft didn't cut out parts of itself to fit online. It still had the ability to be creative on a large scale. Something SC5 didn't have.

So at the cost of map size, modding ability and even rumored terraforming, I get to see a leaderboard? Something that is easily exploited on day one making it useless. You aren't exactly arguing very well for online's validity for being there.

So you seem to dodge the question. Why? Why does it NEED to be online? Why try to force people to care about each other and help each other for a game that is already easy? What does it possibly add to the game instead of taking away? Because from what I am seeing, its more of a burden than an actual innovation. Especially with such a small city size?

How exactly is it going to make online an actual improvement instead of it going down in flames because no one cares about each other's cities? Just like CXL? You can say "oooh but its not SC!" but you fail to notice the fundamental problem that effect not just CXL but online sim city style city builders in general.

If the players find online contrived and go into their own personal corners and never come out, we are still being limited to online limitations while reaping none of its "rewards."

Online tended to be, at best, useless. It added nothing to the genre and instead actually negatively effected the game to accommodate the multiplayer "just in case." So ill ask you again, one last time:

What is the point of online if people just sit in their own personal corners? Whats the point of showing off if you don't get to actually show off? Whats the point of online if its just leader boards? Something games have implemented into single player games without effecting the real game or demanding always online DRM?

You are still not seeing it.

You are being needlessly reductionist in your argument as well.

The maps are smaller, but that isn't a result of i being online. It is the graphical engine. You are leading your conclusions.... AGAIN!

IT NEED TO BE ONLINE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE COOPERATIVE PLAY WORK! IN ORDER TO MAKE IT EASY AND STRAIT FORWARD ENOUGH TO BE FUN! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAP SIZE!

You keep referring to CXL online as if it is the model, but it isn't.

It is online to make allow for cloud saves to work properly, and that in turn makes drop in and play of games that usually take 1000 hours possible. The main problem with games like settlers and Anno's online game is that it take s way to long and you wont ever finish a game. Making online pointless. This takes a model that we know works from minecraft and apply it to a game that has a lot of the same aesthetics of play as minecraft.

Will it work? I dont know, but the theory is solid, and your comparison are flat out wrong attempts to lead a conclusion based on information you dont have.

You are repeatedly leading this into a single conclusion that you have made BEFORE looking.

The game isn't all ready easy. If you have to control 6 cities then all of a sudden it becomes VERY hard to deal with all of their issues. One of us has actually played this, and know how it plays. The only reason you should say "The game is easy" is if you think that the game plays like CXL. I will not say again. IT DOESN'T PLAY LIKE CXL! STOP PULLING BACK TO IT! IT IS A FALSE CONCLUSION! JUST BECAUSE YOU SAW THEY ARE GRAPHICALLY SIMILAR DOESN'T MAKE THEM PLAY THE SAME WAY!

Also your conclusion on "why do people play online" is also false. I play minecraft online for entirely different reasons.

Go from this point instead. What problems should be solved in order make sim4 fun to play online with friends? Could this version of online play potentially solve some of these problems? Could the game itself be build with a way to scale the amount of tasks to do at one time to fit multiple players while at the same time fit single player?

The answer to the questions above is yes.

However notice the "could".

yes we know about the damn cloud. You've been going off on how its some "magical unicorn" and how its "amazing."

It isn't that amazing nor does the existence of the cloud do anything.

Nowhere did I say it is exactly like CXL, its you that's doing it. And even then I doubt you knew it played back when it was online. Why? Because in CXL it was a fucking miracle you could get the real big cities because you needed multiple deals to make them happen. It was a senseless pain in the ass with pointless busy work. CXL online wasn't easy, it was hard because they tacked on crap no one asked for. Anyone who was there would tell you the same.

I used CXL as an example of how tacked on multiplayer fails and no amount of "fun! social!" crap will save a bad idea. It as never necessary to begin with. Just look at the response to EA alone when it said Sim City was going to be an online "reimagining." Most likey due to EA standards of every game needing an online component. Yet look at the responses here.

"always on? Origin? social networking? No sale."

There is even another huge thread and an entire video here condemning the mentality of everything needing multiplayer. Tacking on a multiplayer no one asked for or wants is a bad idea. Multiplayer is expensive to make, and its not always worth it.

So tell me again: Why does it need online at all? Or, to put it in terms you can understand, why would you want to drag friends into an experience built for one at all? Its like trying to bring 5 people to a party on unicycle. Not every genre is meant for "friend" games. Minecraft has much more leeway online than SC5 and isn't even in the same genre, so it is irrelevant to a city builder discussion.

Just because two strategy games have online and "being too long" doesn't mean sim city needs online or needs to change. You are referencing two games who aren't even in the same category as Sim City. The closest examples to SC 5 is CXL, and star peace. Both died. Settlers and anno are NOT sim city style city builders. They are RTS games with a "city" base building mechanic.

That's my point: When you look into the history of sim city style city builders that had online, they don't last long and often create a huge head ache for its creator. From a historical point of view, the idea is a dead end.

You also assume I (and everyone else) don't have access to any beta knowledge or how it plays. Once you release a beta, nothing is "unknown" its plastered around for anyone to see. Hell there are even videos both by beta players and developers. I know how the systems work. Hell I even managed to find the full on tutorial. There are even mentions of streams. Still not impressed from anything I saw. Unless you are with holding some amazing "secret" that has gone unnoticed and not data mined yet.

No one adheres to the NDA on the internet.

On top of that, EA wants to handle all the data from the saves to the cities. That's why they are small on top for the "pretty pretty graphics." Will Wright has said the only reason spore existed was because creatures could be stored cheaply, and had "complexity caps." The same concept applies here, minimizing the data sizes.

It wasn't hard to imagine why the maps are small. Because "coop" is suddenly a necessity because EA demands it.

6 cities? Whats so hard about keeping an eye on multiple small cities on a game that have been said to be streamlined already? Since SC 5 is said to be easier than SC4, and I find SC4 easy, then it makes sense SC5 is easy too. Keep in mind you are talking to a Dwarf Fortress player who only does high evil biome settlements.

A city builder doesn't get much harder than that.

"That's my point: When you look into the history of sim city style city builders that had online, they don't last long and often create a huge head ache for its creator. From a historical point of view, the idea is a dead end."

Yet you cant seem to grasp the online element doesn't work same way. MAKE THE COMPARISON WHEN YOU GOT SOMETHING THAT CAN COMPARE! YOU DONT!

Honestly it makes me think you either A purposely ignore how the clouding works or B dont understand it

And then you go

"6 cities? Whats so hard about keeping an eye on multiple small cities on a game that have been said to be streamlined already?"

In a game you havn't played. Im done.

You have made have made up your mind long before I started to explain shit. You are quite simply wrong. You are well informed, but you cherry info as well as push your conclusions. Fine be upset with a problem that doesn't exist in the real world, and only in your theory crafting.

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

You are still not seeing it.

You are being needlessly reductionist in your argument as well.

The maps are smaller, but that isn't a result of i being online. It is the graphical engine. You are leading your conclusions.... AGAIN!

IT NEED TO BE ONLINE IN ORDER TO MAKE THE COOPERATIVE PLAY WORK! IN ORDER TO MAKE IT EASY AND STRAIT FORWARD ENOUGH TO BE FUN! IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MAP SIZE!

You keep referring to CXL online as if it is the model, but it isn't.

It is online to make allow for cloud saves to work properly, and that in turn makes drop in and play of games that usually take 1000 hours possible. The main problem with games like settlers and Anno's online game is that it take s way to long and you wont ever finish a game. Making online pointless. This takes a model that we know works from minecraft and apply it to a game that has a lot of the same aesthetics of play as minecraft.

Will it work? I dont know, but the theory is solid, and your comparison are flat out wrong attempts to lead a conclusion based on information you dont have.

You are repeatedly leading this into a single conclusion that you have made BEFORE looking.

The game isn't all ready easy. If you have to control 6 cities then all of a sudden it becomes VERY hard to deal with all of their issues. One of us has actually played this, and know how it plays. The only reason you should say "The game is easy" is if you think that the game plays like CXL. I will not say again. IT DOESN'T PLAY LIKE CXL! STOP PULLING BACK TO IT! IT IS A FALSE CONCLUSION! JUST BECAUSE YOU SAW THEY ARE GRAPHICALLY SIMILAR DOESN'T MAKE THEM PLAY THE SAME WAY!

Also your conclusion on "why do people play online" is also false. I play minecraft online for entirely different reasons.

Go from this point instead. What problems should be solved in order make sim4 fun to play online with friends? Could this version of online play potentially solve some of these problems? Could the game itself be build with a way to scale the amount of tasks to do at one time to fit multiple players while at the same time fit single player?

The answer to the questions above is yes.

However notice the "could".

yes we know about the damn cloud. You've been going off on how its some "magical unicorn" and how its "amazing."

It isn't that amazing nor does the existence of the cloud do anything.

Nowhere did I say it is exactly like CXL, its you that's doing it. And even then I doubt you knew it played back when it was online. Why? Because in CXL it was a fucking miracle you could get the real big cities because you needed multiple deals to make them happen. It was a senseless pain in the ass with pointless busy work. CXL online wasn't easy, it was hard because they tacked on crap no one asked for. Anyone who was there would tell you the same.

I used CXL as an example of how tacked on multiplayer fails and no amount of "fun! social!" crap will save a bad idea. It as never necessary to begin with. Just look at the response to EA alone when it said Sim City was going to be an online "reimagining." Most likey due to EA standards of every game needing an online component. Yet look at the responses here.

"always on? Origin? social networking? No sale."

There is even another huge thread and an entire video here condemning the mentality of everything needing multiplayer. Tacking on a multiplayer no one asked for or wants is a bad idea. Multiplayer is expensive to make, and its not always worth it.

So tell me again: Why does it need online at all? Or, to put it in terms you can understand, why would you want to drag friends into an experience built for one at all? Its like trying to bring 5 people to a party on unicycle. Not every genre is meant for "friend" games. Minecraft has much more leeway online than SC5 and isn't even in the same genre, so it is irrelevant to a city builder discussion.

Just because two strategy games have online and "being too long" doesn't mean sim city needs online or needs to change. You are referencing two games who aren't even in the same category as Sim City. The closest examples to SC 5 is CXL, and star peace. Both died. Settlers and anno are NOT sim city style city builders. They are RTS games with a "city" base building mechanic.

That's my point: When you look into the history of sim city style city builders that had online, they don't last long and often create a huge head ache for its creator. From a historical point of view, the idea is a dead end.

You also assume I (and everyone else) don't have access to any beta knowledge or how it plays. Once you release a beta, nothing is "unknown" its plastered around for anyone to see. Hell there are even videos both by beta players and developers. I know how the systems work. Hell I even managed to find the full on tutorial. There are even mentions of streams. Still not impressed from anything I saw. Unless you are with holding some amazing "secret" that has gone unnoticed and not data mined yet.

No one adheres to the NDA on the internet.

On top of that, EA wants to handle all the data from the saves to the cities. That's why they are small on top for the "pretty pretty graphics." Will Wright has said the only reason spore existed was because creatures could be stored cheaply, and had "complexity caps." The same concept applies here, minimizing the data sizes.

It wasn't hard to imagine why the maps are small. Because "coop" is suddenly a necessity because EA demands it.

6 cities? Whats so hard about keeping an eye on multiple small cities on a game that have been said to be streamlined already? Since SC 5 is said to be easier than SC4, and I find SC4 easy, then it makes sense SC5 is easy too. Keep in mind you are talking to a Dwarf Fortress player who only does high evil biome settlements.

A city builder doesn't get much harder than that.

"That's my point: When you look into the history of sim city style city builders that had online, they don't last long and often create a huge head ache for its creator. From a historical point of view, the idea is a dead end."

Yet you cant seem to grasp the online element doesn't work same way. MAKE THE COMPARISON WHEN YOU GOT SOMETHING THAT CAN COMPARE! YOU DONT!

And then you go

"6 cities? Whats so hard about keeping an eye on multiple small cities on a game that have been said to be streamlined already?"

In a game you havn't played. Im done.

You have made have made up your mind long before I started to explain shit. You are quite simply wrong. You are well informed, but you cherry info as well as push your conclusions. Fine be upset with a problem that doesn't exist in the real world, and only in your theory crafting.

1. Yes the online component may not work exactly the same way, but the issue the same. You are taking a solitary game that most find boring as it is and trying to turn it into some social game. That is a HUGE leap from what it originally was. A long way, and a lot can go wrong.

From history, they tend to go wrong easily. Everything I have seen from EA points to them not caring, and the more controversies they rack up the more likely they will mess this up too then turn around and say "PC and facebook are dead." After all, why should they? They are a big factory developer, they are in it for a huge quantity of games that are set up to sell easily. They aren't in it for good games or "realistic simulations." A Sim City styled "mmo" is very much experimental, with no one actually getting it right, and is way out of EA's "play it safe" mindset. Keep in mind Maxis defers all decisions on EA. They own Maxis, they set the rules based on what sells. Yet something like this is a huge gamble, even for EA.

2. Keeping an eye on multiple cities can't be harder than any other game that requires you to be alert of your properies. Its a game they are marketing to a large audience, the UI can't possibly be that archaic to leave you blind outside being so focused on the city's aesthetics. It can't possibly be Dwarf Fortress level of being lost in your own creation. That is my logic, and when problems do unexpectedly pop up I doubt it will be hard to fix it. After all, if people rush for lone wolf play, and if this issue does exist it would be brought up during the beta and fixed.

There is just a level normal "main stream" games don't cross. My idea of "hard city building" is way different from your level.

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

yes we know about the damn cloud. You've been going off on how its some "magical unicorn" and how its "amazing."

It isn't that amazing nor does the existence of the cloud do anything.

Nowhere did I say it is exactly like CXL, its you that's doing it. And even then I doubt you knew it played back when it was online. Why? Because in CXL it was a fucking miracle you could get the real big cities because you needed multiple deals to make them happen. It was a senseless pain in the ass with pointless busy work. CXL online wasn't easy, it was hard because they tacked on crap no one asked for. Anyone who was there would tell you the same.

I used CXL as an example of how tacked on multiplayer fails and no amount of "fun! social!" crap will save a bad idea. It as never necessary to begin with. Just look at the response to EA alone when it said Sim City was going to be an online "reimagining." Most likey due to EA standards of every game needing an online component. Yet look at the responses here.

"always on? Origin? social networking? No sale."

There is even another huge thread and an entire video here condemning the mentality of everything needing multiplayer. Tacking on a multiplayer no one asked for or wants is a bad idea. Multiplayer is expensive to make, and its not always worth it.

So tell me again: Why does it need online at all? Or, to put it in terms you can understand, why would you want to drag friends into an experience built for one at all? Its like trying to bring 5 people to a party on unicycle. Not every genre is meant for "friend" games. Minecraft has much more leeway online than SC5 and isn't even in the same genre, so it is irrelevant to a city builder discussion.

Just because two strategy games have online and "being too long" doesn't mean sim city needs online or needs to change. You are referencing two games who aren't even in the same category as Sim City. The closest examples to SC 5 is CXL, and star peace. Both died. Settlers and anno are NOT sim city style city builders. They are RTS games with a "city" base building mechanic.

That's my point: When you look into the history of sim city style city builders that had online, they don't last long and often create a huge head ache for its creator. From a historical point of view, the idea is a dead end.

You also assume I (and everyone else) don't have access to any beta knowledge or how it plays. Once you release a beta, nothing is "unknown" its plastered around for anyone to see. Hell there are even videos both by beta players and developers. I know how the systems work. Hell I even managed to find the full on tutorial. There are even mentions of streams. Still not impressed from anything I saw. Unless you are with holding some amazing "secret" that has gone unnoticed and not data mined yet.

No one adheres to the NDA on the internet.

On top of that, EA wants to handle all the data from the saves to the cities. That's why they are small on top for the "pretty pretty graphics." Will Wright has said the only reason spore existed was because creatures could be stored cheaply, and had "complexity caps." The same concept applies here, minimizing the data sizes.

It wasn't hard to imagine why the maps are small. Because "coop" is suddenly a necessity because EA demands it.

6 cities? Whats so hard about keeping an eye on multiple small cities on a game that have been said to be streamlined already? Since SC 5 is said to be easier than SC4, and I find SC4 easy, then it makes sense SC5 is easy too. Keep in mind you are talking to a Dwarf Fortress player who only does high evil biome settlements.

A city builder doesn't get much harder than that.

"That's my point: When you look into the history of sim city style city builders that had online, they don't last long and often create a huge head ache for its creator. From a historical point of view, the idea is a dead end."

Yet you cant seem to grasp the online element doesn't work same way. MAKE THE COMPARISON WHEN YOU GOT SOMETHING THAT CAN COMPARE! YOU DONT!

And then you go

"6 cities? Whats so hard about keeping an eye on multiple small cities on a game that have been said to be streamlined already?"

In a game you havn't played. Im done.

You have made have made up your mind long before I started to explain shit. You are quite simply wrong. You are well informed, but you cherry info as well as push your conclusions. Fine be upset with a problem that doesn't exist in the real world, and only in your theory crafting.

1. Yes the online component may not work exactly the same way, but the issue the same. You are taking a solitary game that most find boring as it is and trying to turn it into some social game. That is a HUGE leap from what it originally was. A long way, and a lot can go wrong.

From history, they tend to go wrong easily. Everything I have seen from EA points to them not caring, and the more controversies they rack up the more likely they will mess this up too then turn around and say "PC and facebook are dead." After all, why should they? They are a big factory developer, they are in it for a huge quantity of games that are set up to sell easily. They aren't in it for good games or "realistic simulations." A Sim City styled "mmo" is very much experimental, with no one actually getting it right, and is way out of EA's "play it safe" mindset. Keep in mind Maxis defers all decisions on EA. They own Maxis, they set the rules based on what sells. Yet something like this is a huge gamble, even for EA.

2. Keeping an eye on multiple cities can't be harder than any other game that requires you to be alert of your properies. Its a game they are marketing to a large audience, the UI can't possibly be that archaic to leave you blind outside being so focused on the city's aesthetics. It can't possibly be Dwarf Fortress level of being lost in your own creation. That is my logic, and when problems do unexpectedly pop up I doubt it will be hard to fix it. After all, if people rush for lone wolf play, and if this issue does exist it would be brought up during the beta and fixed.

There is just a level normal "main stream" games don't cross. My idea of "hard city building" is way different from your level.

So breaking down your point

1: This wont work not because of the principal, but because it is EA doing it and you think it will be made into a "facebook game" regardless of what I have been saying over and over.

2: game cant be harder than what you are imagining because other games arn't. The same way Super meat boy isn't harder than Super mario.

"It can't possibly be Dwarf Fortress level of being lost in your own creation." you say without playing it.

Play it.

Then talk to me.

Play Tropico 4 instead.

Maxis and the Simcity franchise have been going downhill for years.

Simcity 2 was great for it's time. SC3 did away with the range limitations which made city planning a simplistic equation of building the right amount of services anywhere. Simcity 4 fixed the problem with SC3, but diluted the experience with minigames and the Sims integration.
Simcity Societies was all about appearances and had no depth whatsoever, just balance the number of houses with the number of workplaces, so an utter failure.

Adding multiplayer won't fix a game like this. The genre is just too slow to get any meaningful results out of multiplayer sessions and most of the enthousiasts are too much of control freaks when it comes to planning.

A proper sequel would have to go all the way back to SC4 or even SC2 as a base and then expand on the simulation part again.

The problem described in the OP simply doesn't exist in SC5.

There's no global region everyone has to play in. You either create your own region, join a region of friends or (I imagine) join a public one. Even if you do join a public one, it's impossible to land-grab since everyone gets the same size region.

Will it be possible to pollute a public region to "grief" the players there-in? I suppose so. But it won't ever affect other regions. So you can just find a community that filters out these douches. Or, risk it and see if you can build a community next to a bad neighbour.

Cities XL tried to be an MMO. SC5 isn't. It just allows (not forces) cooperative play. You *can* play all cities in a region!

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

"That's my point: When you look into the history of sim city style city builders that had online, they don't last long and often create a huge head ache for its creator. From a historical point of view, the idea is a dead end."

Yet you cant seem to grasp the online element doesn't work same way. MAKE THE COMPARISON WHEN YOU GOT SOMETHING THAT CAN COMPARE! YOU DONT!

And then you go

"6 cities? Whats so hard about keeping an eye on multiple small cities on a game that have been said to be streamlined already?"

In a game you havn't played. Im done.

You have made have made up your mind long before I started to explain shit. You are quite simply wrong. You are well informed, but you cherry info as well as push your conclusions. Fine be upset with a problem that doesn't exist in the real world, and only in your theory crafting.

1. Yes the online component may not work exactly the same way, but the issue the same. You are taking a solitary game that most find boring as it is and trying to turn it into some social game. That is a HUGE leap from what it originally was. A long way, and a lot can go wrong.

From history, they tend to go wrong easily. Everything I have seen from EA points to them not caring, and the more controversies they rack up the more likely they will mess this up too then turn around and say "PC and facebook are dead." After all, why should they? They are a big factory developer, they are in it for a huge quantity of games that are set up to sell easily. They aren't in it for good games or "realistic simulations." A Sim City styled "mmo" is very much experimental, with no one actually getting it right, and is way out of EA's "play it safe" mindset. Keep in mind Maxis defers all decisions on EA. They own Maxis, they set the rules based on what sells. Yet something like this is a huge gamble, even for EA.

2. Keeping an eye on multiple cities can't be harder than any other game that requires you to be alert of your properies. Its a game they are marketing to a large audience, the UI can't possibly be that archaic to leave you blind outside being so focused on the city's aesthetics. It can't possibly be Dwarf Fortress level of being lost in your own creation. That is my logic, and when problems do unexpectedly pop up I doubt it will be hard to fix it. After all, if people rush for lone wolf play, and if this issue does exist it would be brought up during the beta and fixed.

There is just a level normal "main stream" games don't cross. My idea of "hard city building" is way different from your level.

So breaking down your point

1: This wont work not because of the principal, but because it is EA doing it and you think it will be made into a "facebook game" regardless of what I have been saying over and over.

2: game cant be harder than what you are imagining because other games arn't. The same way Super meat boy isn't harder than Super mario.

"It can't possibly be Dwarf Fortress level of being lost in your own creation." you say without playing it.

Play it.

Then talk to me.

1. Okay so you are saying a game played entirely in SCII is easier than a game that is specifically meant for drop in play?

image

Do you you even know what is going in in this picture? See those gs? On a huge map those can easily go unnoticed and get into your fort and kill everyone. Even with graphics mods. No actual game made by developers that is meant to be marketed to the mass population would ever take cues from Dwarf Fortress. DF is my level of "hard" and Sim City can never match the difficulty presented by DF, no game that's meant to be marketed can. That would be market suicide.

I think its a safe assumption to say that Sim City won't be Dwarf Fortress level of difficulty. Sim City may be hard for you but my definition of "hard" varies greatly from yours.

2. It is unlikely to work, that's what I have been saying.

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.

You know what's funny, when I first read the title I thought that in Simcity 5 there was some weird Count of Monte Cristo type twist, which would be hilarious considering what Simcity traditionally entails. On topic however, it's difficult to know what will happen, it's possible that they'll implement a system designed to prevent it from happening, but only time will tell whether it will work or not.

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

1. Yes the online component may not work exactly the same way, but the issue the same. You are taking a solitary game that most find boring as it is and trying to turn it into some social game. That is a HUGE leap from what it originally was. A long way, and a lot can go wrong.

From history, they tend to go wrong easily. Everything I have seen from EA points to them not caring, and the more controversies they rack up the more likely they will mess this up too then turn around and say "PC and facebook are dead." After all, why should they? They are a big factory developer, they are in it for a huge quantity of games that are set up to sell easily. They aren't in it for good games or "realistic simulations." A Sim City styled "mmo" is very much experimental, with no one actually getting it right, and is way out of EA's "play it safe" mindset. Keep in mind Maxis defers all decisions on EA. They own Maxis, they set the rules based on what sells. Yet something like this is a huge gamble, even for EA.

2. Keeping an eye on multiple cities can't be harder than any other game that requires you to be alert of your properies. Its a game they are marketing to a large audience, the UI can't possibly be that archaic to leave you blind outside being so focused on the city's aesthetics. It can't possibly be Dwarf Fortress level of being lost in your own creation. That is my logic, and when problems do unexpectedly pop up I doubt it will be hard to fix it. After all, if people rush for lone wolf play, and if this issue does exist it would be brought up during the beta and fixed.

There is just a level normal "main stream" games don't cross. My idea of "hard city building" is way different from your level.

So breaking down your point

1: This wont work not because of the principal, but because it is EA doing it and you think it will be made into a "facebook game" regardless of what I have been saying over and over.

2: game cant be harder than what you are imagining because other games arn't. The same way Super meat boy isn't harder than Super mario.

"It can't possibly be Dwarf Fortress level of being lost in your own creation." you say without playing it.

Play it.

Then talk to me.

1. Okay so you are saying a game played entirely in SCII is easier than a game that is specifically meant for drop in play?

Do you you even know what is going in in this picture? See those gs? On a huge map those can easily go unnoticed and get into your fort and kill everyone. Even with graphics mods. No actual game made by developers that is meant to be marketed to the mass population would ever take cues from Dwarf Fortress. DF is my level of "hard" and Sim City can never match the difficulty presented by DF, no game that's meant to be marketed can. That would be market suicide.

I think its a safe assumption to say that Sim City won't be Dwarf Fortress level of difficulty. Sim City may be hard for you but my definition of "hard" varies greatly from yours.

2. It is unlikely to work, that's what I have been saying.

1: Strawman

I have a problem with arguing you know the difficulty of play without ever playing it. That you somehow can see "Keeping an eye on multiple cities can't be harder than any other game that requires you to be alert of your properies.". In other words your are talking out of thin air with nothing to back it up going "well it cant be".

Besides it shouldn't be as indecipherable as Dwarf fortress. There should just be enough needed oversight that multiple people are a boon. And that can be done.

Once you have tried it you can tell me what you think about the idea of "being lost in your creation". Until then you got nothing.

2: You are saying it is unlikely to work BECAUSE it is EA making it. Making all your walking around completely irrelevant. You try to put in on "well the way they are doing it", but repeatedly misrepresent what is being done and completely ignore what can be done with it. This is just another "EA sucks" thread.

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

So breaking down your point

1: This wont work not because of the principal, but because it is EA doing it and you think it will be made into a "facebook game" regardless of what I have been saying over and over.

2: game cant be harder than what you are imagining because other games arn't. The same way Super meat boy isn't harder than Super mario.

"It can't possibly be Dwarf Fortress level of being lost in your own creation." you say without playing it.

Play it.

Then talk to me.

1. Okay so you are saying a game played entirely in SCII is easier than a game that is specifically meant for drop in play?

Do you you even know what is going in in this picture? See those gs? On a huge map those can easily go unnoticed and get into your fort and kill everyone. Even with graphics mods. No actual game made by developers that is meant to be marketed to the mass population would ever take cues from Dwarf Fortress. DF is my level of "hard" and Sim City can never match the difficulty presented by DF, no game that's meant to be marketed can. That would be market suicide.

I think its a safe assumption to say that Sim City won't be Dwarf Fortress level of difficulty. Sim City may be hard for you but my definition of "hard" varies greatly from yours.

2. It is unlikely to work, that's what I have been saying.

1: Strawman

I have a problem with arguing you know the difficulty of play without ever playing it. That you somehow can see "Keeping an eye on multiple cities can't be harder than any other game that requires you to be alert of your properies.". In other words your are talking out of thin air with nothing to back it up going "well it cant be".

Besides it shouldn't be as indecipherable as Dwarf fortress. There should just be enough needed oversight that multiple people are a boon. And that can be done.

Once you have tried it you can tell me what you think about the idea of "being lost in your creation". Until then you got nothing.

2: You are saying it is unlikely to work BECAUSE it is EA making it. Making all your walking around completely irrelevant. You try to put in on "well the way they are doing it", but repeatedly misrepresent what is being done and completely ignore what can be done with it. This is just another "EA sucks" thread.

That would be the case if the idea was done before, and didn't have a history of being the genre's "unicorn." To take into account the creator and its publisher is just as important.

When I looked back at Monte Cristo's history while it was developing CXL, I said it was a bad idea too.

Secondly, the "but you haven't played it! it really is hard!" doesn't really work unless you explain how its "harder" than anything else. Especially since I consider different things "hard" which you describe as "indecipherable."

Especially since EA itself has stated that the beta is limited to medium density, with the already small city size. You would have to elaborate how you can mess that up.

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

1. Okay so you are saying a game played entirely in SCII is easier than a game that is specifically meant for drop in play?

Do you you even know what is going in in this picture? See those gs? On a huge map those can easily go unnoticed and get into your fort and kill everyone. Even with graphics mods. No actual game made by developers that is meant to be marketed to the mass population would ever take cues from Dwarf Fortress. DF is my level of "hard" and Sim City can never match the difficulty presented by DF, no game that's meant to be marketed can. That would be market suicide.

I think its a safe assumption to say that Sim City won't be Dwarf Fortress level of difficulty. Sim City may be hard for you but my definition of "hard" varies greatly from yours.

2. It is unlikely to work, that's what I have been saying.

1: Strawman

I have a problem with arguing you know the difficulty of play without ever playing it. That you somehow can see "Keeping an eye on multiple cities can't be harder than any other game that requires you to be alert of your properies.". In other words your are talking out of thin air with nothing to back it up going "well it cant be".

Besides it shouldn't be as indecipherable as Dwarf fortress. There should just be enough needed oversight that multiple people are a boon. And that can be done.

Once you have tried it you can tell me what you think about the idea of "being lost in your creation". Until then you got nothing.

2: You are saying it is unlikely to work BECAUSE it is EA making it. Making all your walking around completely irrelevant. You try to put in on "well the way they are doing it", but repeatedly misrepresent what is being done and completely ignore what can be done with it. This is just another "EA sucks" thread.

That would be the case if the idea was done before, and didn't have a history of being the genre's "unicorn." To take into account the creator and its publisher is just as important.

When I looked back at Monte Cristo's history while it was developing CXL, I said it was a bad idea too.

Secondly, the "but you haven't played it! it really is hard!" doesn't really work unless you explain how its "harder" than anything else. Especially since I consider different things "hard" which you describe as "indecipherable."

Especially since EA itself has stated that the beta is limited to medium density, with the already small city size. You would have to elaborate how you can mess that up.

Strawman again.
I didn't say that It was really really hard. I said that there is so much to be done when you are one person controlling 6 cities that it coop viable, even preferable.

Again there is still no land grap like Monte Cristo so you are again comparing mechanics that dont exsists in this game. False comparison. Stop doing it.

And yeah the creater is important. However you are ignoring every single piece of information that doesn't fit your preset. Your preset that you made completely on the basis on it was EA making it. If you are going just insist pushing this then you can ignore every video anyway (like it seems you do).

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And you have nothing other than "its EA" to stand by your complaints.

PH3NOmenon:
The problem described in the OP simply doesn't exist in SC5.

There's no global region everyone has to play in. You either create your own region, join a region of friends or (I imagine) join a public one. Even if you do join a public one, it's impossible to land-grab since everyone gets the same size region.

Will it be possible to pollute a public region to "grief" the players there-in? I suppose so. But it won't ever affect other regions. So you can just find a community that filters out these douches. Or, risk it and see if you can build a community next to a bad neighbour.

Cities XL tried to be an MMO. SC5 isn't. It just allows (not forces) cooperative play. You *can* play all cities in a region!

Reminds me of Minecraft, at least i hope so.

I played all the early incarnations of Sim City up to '2000' one. In fact, I still do.

No, I don't think it can be a success. I don't get - as in, at all - why EA is fronting and backing and dancing their little jig dance around it and slaughter a goat, except to make money fall out of the sky.

The last time I felt that a 'game' brought out the worst in people was when I picked up 'Lord of Ultima' - both during the closed beta and after its release. If you don't turn into a complete addict throwing money and/or time at a javascript game that feels like playing World Of Waitcraft, you won't get anywhere. If you don't play as power monger incarnate, you'll be roadkill, no matter how strong you think you are. When a more offensive alliance lands on your shores, identify them and hook up with them if your alliance turns out to be made up of peace-loving beatniks and fun people with real lives that you actually enjoy hanging out with. In order to 'win' and get the eponymous title, you will raid your former allies for weeks and months, or you'll at least fund the relentless assault of your new allies. Also, while the top-ranking Lords of Waitcraft don't necessarily have to be implementing pay-to-win strategies, they, more often than not, either are very dedicated people with nothing else to waste their attention on, or they're playing all day long from the office. While doing facebook. Not sure what jobs exactly allow for this much time and attention to be dedicated to non-work-related tasks. Those that spent months building up their petty 'empires' and don't get the survival-of-the-fittest bit will lose... well, everything. I don't see how that could possibly make people come back for more.

RE: Sim City - Will Wright left EA in 2009. What 'Maxis' And EA are doing with/to a franchise might be lacking sparkle and soul by default. I fear that since the focus is on the online 'experience', the offline, single player ride might just be very well sub par. The online experience is bound to deteriorate into either yet another black-hole-style time sink or playable proof of homo homini lupus.

I have no confidence in SimCity 5.
SimCity 4 had great ideas but the execution lacked...I dunno. "Personality."
It all felt so rigid and flat, despite the advancements in depth and complexity allowed.

If SimCity 5 is going to be multiplayer-centric, I'd already be hesitating. That's usually a buzzword for "killjoy grief-fest" in the making, when a traditionally single-player franchise inserts multiplayer into the equation.

This is all bollocks to me though, because it's owned by EA. And I refuse to buy any games published by them.

Still, I am curious to see how development on this unfolds.

If you could promise me that it would become an apocalyptic distopian nightmare guaranteed to crash and burn in a month, I would be preordering that in a heartbeat.

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

1: Strawman

I have a problem with arguing you know the difficulty of play without ever playing it. That you somehow can see "Keeping an eye on multiple cities can't be harder than any other game that requires you to be alert of your properies.". In other words your are talking out of thin air with nothing to back it up going "well it cant be".

Besides it shouldn't be as indecipherable as Dwarf fortress. There should just be enough needed oversight that multiple people are a boon. And that can be done.

Once you have tried it you can tell me what you think about the idea of "being lost in your creation". Until then you got nothing.

2: You are saying it is unlikely to work BECAUSE it is EA making it. Making all your walking around completely irrelevant. You try to put in on "well the way they are doing it", but repeatedly misrepresent what is being done and completely ignore what can be done with it. This is just another "EA sucks" thread.

That would be the case if the idea was done before, and didn't have a history of being the genre's "unicorn." To take into account the creator and its publisher is just as important.

When I looked back at Monte Cristo's history while it was developing CXL, I said it was a bad idea too.

Secondly, the "but you haven't played it! it really is hard!" doesn't really work unless you explain how its "harder" than anything else. Especially since I consider different things "hard" which you describe as "indecipherable."

Especially since EA itself has stated that the beta is limited to medium density, with the already small city size. You would have to elaborate how you can mess that up.

Strawman again.
I didn't say that It was really really hard. I said that there is so much to be done when you are one person controlling 6 cities that it coop viable, even preferable.

Again there is still no land grap like Monte Cristo so you are again comparing mechanics that dont exsists in this game. False comparison. Stop doing it.

And yeah the creater is important. However you are ignoring every single piece of information that doesn't fit your preset. Your preset that you made completely on the basis on it was EA making it. If you are going just insist pushing this then you can ignore every video anyway (like it seems you do).

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And you have nothing other than "its EA" to stand by your complaints.

The land grab wasn't really the problem in that game, it was the overly convoluted supply lines coupled with human behavior. You needed deals that had expiration dates, and for resources mayors should have had no part in.

CXL cities needed too much, and trusted the players too much to play nice. After all, that's all they designed the game for: Being nice because they assume everyone would willingly work together. It was human behavior that killed the game. The same that causes people to just go out and ruin people's days.

You said it was difficult to control multiple cities and deal with their problems. That implies that the city structure is inherently unstable and could go for a number of reasons. Instability and lack of oversight implies difficulty, and I doubted that it was set up that way.

You act like Maxis is clear, and its not. Keep in mind Will Wright is gone now, so they can't appeal the game design wizard anymore. He works at second life now. This is their first game without him. A lot has changed, and spore hasn't endeared a lot of confidence. Especially since they stated that the development team was heavily divided during spore's development, and couldn't work together. Maxis may have been the wonder child, but this isn't 2004 anymore. Things have changed.

The only "preset" here is skepticism amidst a haze of business politics. If this was 2004, I would have a lot more confidence, But this isn't 2004. An idea like this, being made when the publisher is in trouble and the developer has lost its main figure, does not exactly scream "confidence."

This isn't even considering the PR disasters of trying to market the game that back fired into outrage and condemnation.

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

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.

So you knew this stuff yet you purposely refused to acknowledge this?

You kept making reference to mechanic you knew wern't like the ones they have now?

Sorry for wasting your time.

http://simcity.wikia.com/wiki/SimCity_%282013_game%29

I was looking at this wiki. I looked through it all.

I actually did reference the region thing, which cloud saves is partly of. Cloud saves don't change much except that we have less control than say, SC4, and may not even be able to mod at all since its always online. You can't exactly mod a game that is 100% online all the time.

Cloud saves don't exactly touch on the real issue I was bringing up.

The problem is that sim city is supposedly meant to be social. To make your region private (solo or friends only) would make the online public social part irrelevant and superfluous. Online would make you take other people into consideration when playing with a city you built, and possibly people who want to mess your city up for sick enjoyment.

A social game where being "social" would mean playing by someone else's rules and keeping others in mind. At least that's the implication of the marketing I am seeing.

Now of course the problem with the concept of online is the genre itself. Its meant to be a sandbox, and you suddenly can't purposely be a bad mayor or else the perfectionist across the way throws a hissy fit. A sandbox that suddenly implies you have to play nice rather than play how you really want with your toys like in SC4.

Want to have a lawless town? Oh wait you can't because the crime effects other real people who have feelings too.

Want an industrial smog ridden city? Oh wait you can't, that guy wants pretty blue sky for his tourist city and smog makes the customers unhappy and sick.

So all in all, is there any real incentive to go into a public region? To even stay a part of the "social" experience instead of just declaring a region private and building it all by yourself? Just like CXL failed to do? After all, CXL died because it failed to keep people interested in its online environment instead of going into their own corner and staying there. That is incredibly hard to pull off.

its called choice. people who want to join the public can do so and take the risk. others like myself can play coop with a mate, something we've always wanted, and others can do solo only. there's nothing wrong with giving options, far better than what your saying, that EA should pick one only and force it.
Weather the public online is popular is irrelevant, if people buy and play the game and its popular as solo and coop, then EA and customers both win.

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.

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.

Ok, so, a few things: The people won't be such sticklers as they were in Cities XL because the world market has competitive pricing. That's not to say the world market would be your preferred choice, but it isn't a pain in the ass like it was in Cities XL. Another thing, from my understanding, one player chooses to "host" a game (obviously, it's hosted on the EA server though) and then you can invite either friends or the public. At any time, you can kick people out of your region and resume control of their cities.

Additionally, resources are much more "equal" now. Everything can be used, and, conversely, you can choose to use nothing at all. You don't NEED oil, or coal, or metals, etc. You can have a totally eco, green city. And if you want something like the great works, you HAVE to work together. Finally, each city in each region will have only one or two resources. So you HAVE to work together if you want the best resources.

Idk... it's just, from what I've heard, I think EA is finally doing it right. Cities XL also sucked cause the interface and trading programs sucked. The entire simulation of trade was a pain. Simcity seems like they're doing things right.

I guess we'll find out in a lil over a month...

As a side note, though, I'm planning on playing it entirely single player (it's optional if you want to play it with other players in your region).

Well it isn't really an MMO.

SimCity will no doubt be successful than CitiesXL, because SimCity has a well known name.

However you raise a good point, how long will people be interested in this online feature for.
I think the servers will stay up for at least 4/5 years (which is longer than some MMOs mind you).

However this is really an experiment, EA is trying something new here and very risky.
I have pre-ordered, I like what I see and I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Here's hoping that an offline option will come in the future, EA has been known to change their minds about DRM and provide options to get rid of them a little later.

After all, Origin's offline mode works MUCH better than Steams.

Ultratwinkie:

Draech:

Ultratwinkie:

That would be the case if the idea was done before, and didn't have a history of being the genre's "unicorn." To take into account the creator and its publisher is just as important.

When I looked back at Monte Cristo's history while it was developing CXL, I said it was a bad idea too.

Secondly, the "but you haven't played it! it really is hard!" doesn't really work unless you explain how its "harder" than anything else. Especially since I consider different things "hard" which you describe as "indecipherable."

Especially since EA itself has stated that the beta is limited to medium density, with the already small city size. You would have to elaborate how you can mess that up.

Strawman again.
I didn't say that It was really really hard. I said that there is so much to be done when you are one person controlling 6 cities that it coop viable, even preferable.

Again there is still no land grap like Monte Cristo so you are again comparing mechanics that dont exsists in this game. False comparison. Stop doing it.

And yeah the creater is important. However you are ignoring every single piece of information that doesn't fit your preset. Your preset that you made completely on the basis on it was EA making it. If you are going just insist pushing this then you can ignore every video anyway (like it seems you do).

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And you have nothing other than "its EA" to stand by your complaints.

The land grab wasn't really the problem in that game, it was the overly convoluted supply lines coupled with human behavior. You needed deals that had expiration dates, and for resources mayors should have had no part in.

CXL cities needed too much, and trusted the players too much to play nice. After all, that's all they designed the game for: Being nice because they assume everyone would willingly work together. It was human behavior that killed the game. The same that causes people to just go out and ruin people's days.

You said it was difficult to control multiple cities and deal with their problems. That implies that the city structure is inherently unstable and could go for a number of reasons. Instability and lack of oversight implies difficulty, and I doubted that it was set up that way.

You act like Maxis is clear, and its not. Keep in mind Will Wright is gone now, so they can't appeal the game design wizard anymore. He works at second life now. This is their first game without him. A lot has changed, and spore hasn't endeared a lot of confidence. Especially since they stated that the development team was heavily divided during spore's development, and couldn't work together. Maxis may have been the wonder child, but this isn't 2004 anymore. Things have changed.

The only "preset" here is skepticism amidst a haze of business politics. If this was 2004, I would have a lot more confidence, But this isn't 2004. An idea like this, being made when the publisher is in trouble and the developer has lost its main figure, does not exactly scream "confidence."

Ok so we cleared the idea that this is playing like an MMO by now right? No human nature is needed here since interference from other players are completely optional. The system doesn't work ANYTHING like your OP suggested.

We cleared the idea that there is no difficulty here. I wont say it needs the amount of insight that sim4 requires. It is kinda hard to compare since most of the games oversight is very well supplied by good interfaces. It does however add the ability to customize buildings in design as well as functionality. Essentially there were times where I completely ignored a problem for way to long because my "gamer OCD" kicked in.

Now we are down to confidence in developer and publisher. And here I got absolutely no problem. You not buying from EA on principal like Atmos Duality I see no issue with that. You are basing your expectations previous results. Absolutely reasonable.
What I am saying is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating for better or for worse.
From what I have seen this use of cloud saves is probably the best attempt at making the long-strategy/god games games work as multiplayer. Until now other attempts at by Ubisoft have mainly focused on competition (settlers 7 / Heroes 5), but started to move towards cooperative play (Anno 2070). However they did it with half steps. What EA does here is a full step, and it might just work. I wont know yet. Plenty of things that they can still screw up on the way.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked