SimCity 5 Disappointment-All

Depends on what you mean by "what's possible" I suppose.

Well, I talked about that, too.

Vaguely curious: I recall hearing the podcast (or _some_ podcast anyways) talking about "Will this game still be playable in 5 years?" or something of that nature where they doubted if five years or more later the Online Sim City scene would be a ghost town.

I never bought a copy so I'm asking here: Does anyone here who originally bought this game still play it? What is the online scene like 5 years later?

Good lord no. There's absolutely no reason to play this since Skylines came out. It's far from perfect in itself, but there really is only one winner.

omni wrote:

Good lord no. There's absolutely no reason to play this since Skylines came out. It's far from perfect in itself, but there really is only one winner.

So what you're saying is this....

Precisely

My main issue with SC5 was this (quoted from the Skylines thread)

omni wrote:

I had this disease, especially after the SImCity5 debacle, but after a few cities in Skylines, there's just SO MUCH SPACE that you don't have to worry about maxing land use, you might just be able to fill the entire area available before your PC melts, especially if you use the mods that unlock 25 tile cities. Lets not get into the mods that unlock 81 tiles (does not increase max # of buildings etc, so would just be -very- spread out).

Pretty outstanding to look back and compare:

25-Tile City in Skylines
IMAGE(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1689/23607678193_0ec582f06c_o.png)

Max city plot size in SC5
IMAGE(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-enoKBH8UIfQ/UgqDv9qlb5I/AAAAAAAABkY/PlJBMHkGr0c/s1600/1.5+Million.jpg)

Somewhat less than one tile in Skylines...

Do I understand that bottom picture right? That's all you get to work with in SImCity5?

mwdowns wrote:

Do I understand that bottom picture right? That's all you get to work with in SImCity5?

What they really tried to push was the concept of "regions" where different cities could be specialized and connected to one another (this was also part of the multiplayer aspect). However I think you could have a max of 8-9 cities in a region. I liked the concept, especially since it provided asynchronous multiplayer, but you could seriously max out a single city within about 20 minutes.

Looking back now, after putting time into Cities Skylines, the city size aspect was a huge limitation in my opinion, moreso than the whole "always connected" debacle.

When starting out a city the small size didn't matter, but once you started having high rises the postage stamp size map looked silly to me.

I do hope SimCity gets revived in the future, but only if someone buys the license out from EA.

SimCity is a franchise with a long legacy and should be remembered as such. City Skylines is vastly superior to the last SimCity, but it's also doing its own thing so it doesn't really replace the franchise. It does show how EA's approach to DLC and DRM was vastly inferior to Paradox's.

mwdowns wrote:

Do I understand that bottom picture right? That's all you get to work with in SImCity5?

Yes. As T-Prime explained, that was all each city got.

After the huge maps and massive regions in SimCity 4 it was a let down, and then Skylines rubbed salt in the wound.

The funny thing is I think their massive-agent-sim approach would have worked...if they had access to today's parallel processing on GPUs. The research has come a long way since 2013. Though simulating the sewer system with individual agents for each poo was still a puzzling decision.

I think people take it pretty easy on Cities: Skylines. It doesn't have much of a game to it in that it doesn't really push back at all. It works well for creating sprawling cities, but without much resistance it is more of a creative 'paint your own city' program than a game with challenges to overcome. There is nothing wrong with this approach if that is what you're looking for, but I find that it gets dull quickly. Then again I'm not very creative so I don't get enjoyment from just making a cool looking city.

I think Skylines could become a good game if it would just offer some more challenge so decisions mattered. They have a great road system, but traffic isn't really a problem game play wise as far as people getting to work. To me, with the debacle that was SimCity 5 for both their online requirement and small city size, it seemed like people were looking for something to cheer for and Skylines was the benefactor of this goodwill.

I won't disagree with that, but it's not just SimCity's failure people were reacting to, but years of bad city builders in the vein of SC. There was no other champion out there other than SC.

I think the way the community was so vocal for disasters, but then turned around and never used it is emblematic of how people play city builders. Most probably just want to make pretty stuff with a modicum of challenge.

I think I would buy SimCity five if it's ever on a humble bundle. It honestly sounds like it would be fun to play for five hours, and then stop.

It's a great first hour game, for sure. Then it kind of falls apart.

T-Prime wrote:

What they really tried to push was the concept of "regions" where different cities could be specialized and connected to one another (this was also part of the multiplayer aspect). However I think you could have a max of 8-9 cities in a region. I liked the concept, especially since it provided asynchronous multiplayer, but you could seriously max out a single city within about 20 minutes.

They were pushing this as early as SimCity 4 but you didn't have the specialization mechanic or the online play. On the other hand that game was hard as nails and you couldn't max out a city grid in 20 minutes

Gremlin wrote:

The funny thing is I think their massive-agent-sim approach would have worked...if they had access to today's parallel processing on GPUs. The research has come a long way since 2013.

The caveat being that EA typically specs Maxis games at the low-end of the market. Just look at how ridiculously low The Sims 4 minimum reqs were back in 2015. (Here's SimCity 2013's for comparison, which were also pretty low). So offloading some of the processing to the GPU might not be terribly feasible.

garion333 wrote:

I think the way the community was so vocal for disasters, but then turned around and never used it is emblematic of how people play city builders. Most probably just want to make pretty stuff with a modicum of challenge.

Interesting. That goes a long way to explaining why SimCity 4 turned disasters into glorified bulldozer tools.

shoptroll wrote:
Gremlin wrote:

The funny thing is I think their massive-agent-sim approach would have worked...if they had access to today's parallel processing on GPUs. The research has come a long way since 2013.

The caveat being that EA typically specs Maxis games at the low-end of the market. Just look at how ridiculously low The Sims 4 minimum reqs were back in 2015. (Here's SimCity 2013's for comparison, which were also pretty low). So offloading some of the processing to the GPU might not be terribly feasible.

For EA in 2013, it was certainly way out of reach. Even for today, maybe. But in the near-ish future we're going to start seeing some games that really take advantage of this for gameplay stuff--indeed many contemporary games already offload some computations to the GPU.

I still think that SimCity 3000 was one of the best city builders ever made.

Xeknos wrote:

I still think that SimCity 3000 was one of the best city builders ever made.

I think 2000 had the best balance of the set, but 3000 has a lot going for it.

Of course one thing that made SimCity 4 so hard was that its traffic management was notoriously broken and the Rush Hour expansion was considered to be mandatory rather than optional.

As stated much earlier in this thread I wasted months trying to get my 2000 city to work back in the 90's. Wasted them because there was a water management bug I was unaware of until recently. So dispite acknowledging other peoples love for this earlier game I could never bring myself to recommend it to anyone.

Water and sewer were always the fiddly bits I never cared for in city builders. Laying water line you never see added nada to the games for me.

Heck, SC5 was little more than a poop management sim.

garion333 wrote:

Heck, SC5 was little more than a poop management sim.

Wait, is that good or bad?

Hard to believe "Sewage and Municipal Water Service Management Simulator 2016" never really took off.

T-Prime wrote:

Hard to believe "Sewage and Municipal Water Service Management Simulator 2016" never really took off.

Sure it did, it's called Cities: Skylines.

Just wanted to necro the thread to let everyone know I finally built a successful year 1900 city on hard in SimCity 2000. Of course the interwebs helped with the hydro electric power tip. (not having to replace your reactor every 50 years is a big boon)
At some point when SimCity 3000 goes on sale I will give it a stab as it seems to be the best successor to SC 2000. I got a little bored quickly with Skylines once I got passed the neatness of the UI and road building tools.

If you want SC on the go, TheoTown is a really good SC ripoff.

fangblackbone wrote:

Just wanted to necro the thread to let everyone know I finally built a successful year 1900 city on hard in SimCity 2000. Of course the interwebs helped with the hydro electric power tip. (not having to replace your reactor every 50 years is a big boon)
At some point when SimCity 3000 goes on sale I will give it a stab as it seems to be the best successor to SC 2000. I got a little bored quickly with Skylines once I got passed the neatness of the UI and road building tools.

SC2K-3K are far and away my two favorite city buildings games ever. If you loved 2K then 3K is a no brainer in my opinion. I would love to see EA go back and remaster these like Blizzard did with StarCraft. I would buy them both in an instant.

Yeah, the move in SC4 to 'regions' ruined it for me. I much prefer just a big slab of ground, to build one full city.

I liked all of the above. Hell, I liked SC5 for the beginning part of a city. Twas great! But the "cities" were too small and severly bogged down in poop management. If they had managed to get the game engine to work with bigger plots of land it may have been a great game.