Poll: Why the Un-necessary Hate on the New SimCity?

[VoidWanderer]

I loved the original SimCity and appreciated the irony of earning the key to the city you built, I really loved the design changes for SimCity 2000, it brought more strategy to area development.

But with this new one, it seems more like 'SimCity Facebook Edition'. To me, SimCity is a single-player game, with multiplayer elements later on, where you could connect your city with other people to exchange policies. That was fine, but at the end of the day, it is ONE person building the city, unless you take turns building certain categories...

Diablo 3 is a single-player game, which forced you to be online all the time, even if you weren't in a multiplayer match. I think that killed the game faster than the nonsensical combat style. Being forced into a multiplayer version of what is mainly a single-player game is going to be like playing Crackdown on Xbox 360. Since I have Xbox Live, I keep getting invites or requests from people to join in my single player game that I chose to play. I didn't want to share the game with everyone else, because I haven't played the game in a very long time and wanted to get used to it again.

With simple design, I don't get the gripes regarding that. It was hardly complicated to begin with. But I'm not going to go near this version of the game. Kudos to those who do, but I hope you enjoy spam, because that's what all the policies and sister city requests are going to feel like.

 

[mokes310]

But it's OK, because Cities XL is actually quite nice.

I haven't tried it yet. I really enjoy SC4, would I enjoy Cities XL?

 

[Yopaz]

This

1. ALWAYS ONLINE REQUIREMENT

I completely agree with the dislike of forcing a game to always be online in order to play it. But, I only agree with it on single-player games, but SimCity is designed around building cities next to other players, so I really don't understand the hatred for not being able to play a game offline that is designed around playing online.

and this

5. EA WILL JUST SHUT OFF THE SERVERS WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE IT

Honestly this one is just the silliest. Companies only shut down game servers when the negatives outweigh the positives to running it. When there aren't enough people playing a game, why should you keep officially hosting it? But of course, EA is literally the devil for not hosting a game about 200 people play.

Are reasons to hate it. No-one asked for Sim City to become a multiplayer based game that would require you to be constantly connected to the internet, but that's a minor issue.

They made it so that you can't play it unless you are connected to the servers. EA will shut down the servers as soon as they stop making money. Thus you wont be able to play the game once EA stops making money.

Give me a singleplayer which I can play offline and all my animosity towards this game will seize. Or just give me a promise that I can play it after they shut down the servers.

 

[lacktheknack]

But it's OK, because Cities XL is actually quite nice.

I haven't tried it yet. I really enjoy SC4, would I enjoy Cities XL?

I haven't actually played SC4 (the last SimCity I played was 3000), but every time I told a friend of mine about a feature in Cities XL, he said "Gee, that sounds like SimCity 4!" From what I gather, it's a somewhat more "realistic" version of SC4. I think it's worth a try.

 

[Joccaren]

1. ALWAYS ONLINE REQUIREMENT

I completely agree with the dislike of forcing a game to always be online in order to play it. But, I only agree with it on single-player games, but SimCity is designed around building cities next to other players, so I really don't understand the hatred for not being able to play a game offline that is designed around playing online.

Yeah, I cry bullshit. NEVER played any of the Sim Cities multiplayer. Single only. Even single player in the new one requires cloud saves from memory, so you don't have your saves, but EA does, just to make sure you own the game. Could be thinking of a different game, but that comes as an inherent problem to me who enjoys single player games. Just because its a multiplayer focused game is no reason to force the single player to be played online, or require an Internet connection. It also makes the game unplayable for those with a bad connection.

snip

The rest of it I'm with you on. Its a big W/E to the final 4 from me. The always online requirement, however, is utterly bullshit.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

The smaller cities do look, although i have no idea how big you can actually make them having only watched the intro video. But, for me, the fun was to keep building bigger and bigger. An then when you got bored, destroying your city. ;-)

The always online thing is annoying, but then a PC is always online anyway so its not a big issue. But what is is the idea of being online for a single player offline mode. Because then server issues or the internet breaking impacts your game playing when it shouldnt have any impact what so ever.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I didn't know that there was much hate for it but honestly after reading these comments, I can see why. If EA really just shuts games down after a newer version comes out (and that list is pretty damning evidence) then there shouldn't be always online. It essentially means that EA can just stop letting you play when they want you to buy something else. That is complete bullshit. The other reasons don't seem all that big of a deal to me though.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Here's my take on things. Agree or disagree, I don't really care either way.

1. Always Online

So? We're always online as-is! I'm well aware that some people still don't have broadband and that some remote areas are complicated to service, but this is quickly becoming a non-issue. Tech is progressing, coverage rates are improving, and the old freebie 56K providers I remember from the late nineties are all dead and gone. In no time, everyone will have broadband in one shape or form.

2. Origin is EBIL!

No, it isn't. EA's flubbed in not being as transparent as Valve concerning their data collection habits and they don't cultivate the same mentality towards blowout sales. I'll admit these are negative points. Structurally, however, Origin works quite well. If the lack of fire sales is what's bothering you, check out GamersGate, Green Man Gaming or Direct2Play. You'll find deals averaging Steam's for Origin titles in all three DD purveyors.

3. The Cities are too Small!

I don't care, I still play SimCity 2000 to SimCity 4 because of the mechanics involved. I don't care if my city ends up looking like a Playskool playset, all I care about is whether or not the game lets me tweak its own guts with enough sliders and variable tax and purchase rates to drown out the average and sane man. The idea of specializing an urban area interests me because this is actually a realistic approach to city development. I'm also one of the weird guys who finds the concept of Agents (waste management, electricity, water) tantalizing.

I, for one, hated the way the older games ended with me creating one formless and omnipotent urban sprawl after another. I like the idea of my farming town benefiting my industrial nexus and said industrial core providing leeway for my Las Vegas expy.

4. It's Been Dumbed Down!

I'd call it streamlined, myself. Pipes will always follow street designs even in real life, and most electrical cabling is buried along with them. There's no reason whatsoever for me to waste ten minutes drawing out water mains for my latest residential expansion. There's no reason whatsoever for me to futz about whether or not my power plant is adequately sending its juice across town because of one missing pylon.

On the other hand, previously simple elements have gained in complexity. You can manage hospitals, fire stations and police precincts individually, now, and build whatever additions are needed to augment their effectiveness. Again, this is much more realistic than just pushing more Simoleons their way to see their coverage area increase. Levelling up certain buildings also makes sense to me.

Sewage outflow pipes? Consider me stoked. My father's a real estate appraiser, I grew up listening to urban development spiels where other kids might get nursery rhymes - and having to actually manage contaminated water and soil seems like a feature that's been a long time coming.

5. They'll pull the plug eventually!

Yes, they will. When they do, however, it won't be an issue. Why? Because you'll either be playing the next game, or you'll have found a way to run a server instance on your own machine.

DRM only goes so far. Give it time enough, and the pirate community makes *anything* work offline, even if it means fooling an always-online game with edited drivers, a running copy of Hamachi and an edited HOSTS file.

 

[Auron]

snip

Again, those are almost all EA sports titles and social media titles, very few PC games on the list like Armies of Exigo and bfme, bfme which was a big loss btw and the only game I own from the list sadly I believe it's gamespy's fault like a lot of other recent games dropped.

 

[El_Duderino]

In my opinion it's really about being a smarter consumer. I've never been a huge fan of Simcity, granted, but I think the criticisms the game has been recieving have been fairly justified. I won't buy the game because I don't feel like giving my money to EA. EA have made a lot of wrongs, and a lot of people who despise them or their methods still continue to buy their Generic Shooter 4: Expanded Zombie Edition. I will do my part by not giving them money for making silly decisions. Always online is justified mer, in this case, but it does not give EA the right to stop me from having an enjoyable single-player experience without having to worry about my internet acting up.

Another thing I'm concerned about is that soon after the release of SimCity, there'll be five paid expansion packs and release date DLC, which probably will happen, considering the publisher.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Your title is somewhat of a loaded question, my good fellow. The poll is not much better. Try to provide more categories beyond a basic boolean, it provides more accurate and useful data.

 

[Longstreet]

Well, i never played a sim city game, but i can imagine why people would be pissed about certain issues.

The biggest problems i see are the following.

- Always online.
Yes this is important. Not everyone has a great internet connection. Your internet connection just so happens to crap out? Tough shit, you lost your progress and will get kicked out the game.

- Forced multiplayer.
This speaks for itself. People want single player, especially in these kind of games, to fuck around. Not being hold back by the rules of physics and being able to pump out skyscraper after skyscraper. Multiplayer cancels that out due to the whole NO ONLINE CHEATING! (Granted, i do not exactly know if there is ONLY multiplayer in this game, so take it with a grain of salt) Fact of matter is, why the fuck would you need ONLINE connection for a SINGLE PLAYER mode.

- Cloud storage
Personally, i like to keep my saves locally, you know, in case i screw up. Cloud saving makes this impossible. You can't back it up somewhere. The danger of rollbacks is there. When that happens i'll be grabbing the popcorn. And above that, i do believe that it keeps one save (so no saving this section n case i fuck up, you fuck something up, and want to reload the previous save, but tough luck because the game saved already)

This game will get downloaded to death just because EA is too stupid to realize DRM and always online DO NOT WORK. It just pisses people off.

 

[Lilani]

Here's my take on things. Agree or disagree, I don't really care either way.

1. Always Online

So? We're always online as-is! I'm well aware that some people still don't have broadband and that some remote areas are complicated to service, but this is quickly becoming a non-issue. Tech is progressing, coverage rates are improving, and the old freebie 56K providers I remember from the late nineties are all dead and gone. In no time, everyone will have broadband in one shape or form.

It's not just "remote areas" that lack broadband. I live in the middle of a city with a university and I've got shitty Internet. Internet access also depends on what you pay for. College-aged people (18-25) still make up a sizable portion of gamers these days, and guess what age group is also prone to living in cheap places with few or inadequate amenities? That's right. College students. Yes they've marginalized only a slice of their customer base, but it's one of the largest and most loyal slices in the entire pie.

Yes, they will. When they do, however, it won't be an issue. Why? Because you'll either be playing the next game, or you'll have found a way to run a server instance on your own machine.

DRM only goes so far. Give it time enough, and the pirate community makes *anything* work offline, even if it means fooling an always-online game with edited drivers, a running copy of Hamachi and an edited HOSTS file.

I still play Spyro: Year of the Dragon, even though there are newer games. I still play Kingdom Hearts even though there are several sequels and prequels now. Sometimes I get a kick out of dabbling in some of the older Pokemon games, or Mass Effect 1 or 2. Just because there's a newer version out doesn't mean you can't enjoy the older versions, and nor does it mean you should. Left 4 Dead has its moments, just like L4D2. A newer version being available doesn't always change anything about your desire to play the older version. I got Sim City 4 on Steam, and I'll be able to play it long after the SC5 servers shut down. And you know what? Steam will still be making money on SC4 after the SC5 servers shut down. It's a terrible thing to do to your customers, but it's an even more stupid business plan in the long-term.

Giving a digital game a shelf-life is like giving music albums a shelf-life. Yeah, newer albums will come out, but all you're doing is preventing yourself from gaining profits from the old. While they won't amount to as much as the new albums after a certain time, since they're being distributed digitally they don't have to. The only reason they do this server shit is because they want their sales of the next game to be as much as possible at launch. They're sacrificing customer service and long-term profit for short-term benefits. On the whole, it's just idiotic. I can't believe a company that is supposed to have so many hired professionals under its roof would do such a thing, but here we are.

 

[JemothSkarii]

Welp, the always online component means I can't play it since my wireless drops out whenever the phone is answered and hangs up. The multiplayer focus is..irritating, but I've lived with it before (albeit in other games). I welcome the changes to electricity and water management but that's all. Another thing that gets my goat about this? DLC FOR PREORDER! LOOK!

Spoiler: Screw You EA!

It's not particularly the layout itself but $10 for effectively a skin? Ludicrous! Pre-ordering content that should be in the game!? I can live with Day One DLC as a pre-order bonus...but this?

Just no...

 

[Andrew_C]

I can still play Simcity 4, a 9 (almost 10) year old game whenever I want to. I can still play Simcity 2000 and Simcity 3000 (although the installer for Simcity 3k doesn't work). There is even a Java port of Simcity 1 that works on Windows 7. Will the servers for SimCity 2013 still be up in 10 years time? I don't think so and I doubt that EA will patch the game to work offline.

So is the scorn and disappointment justified? Hell, yes.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm serious, the unadulterated hatred against the new SimCity game is absolutely ridiculous, and what's odd and annoying enough is that it's the same 5 or 6 opinions everyone keeps spewing, so for anyone not really paying attention, I'll list them out and give my two cents on 'em.

1. ALWAYS ONLINE REQUIREMENT
2. ORIGIN
3. THE CITIES ARE TOO SMALL
4. ITS' BEEN DUMBED DOWN
...I haven't played the SimCity games before...
5. EA WILL JUST SHUT OFF THE SERVERS WHEN THEY FEEL LIKE IT

I'm gonna jump around a bit so bear with me.

For starters, the anger and hatred is justified. Just because your viewpoint is different doesn't mean others' views are ridiculous. In fact, your own post will help others justify the hatred and I'll get back to it in a minute.

Okay, the ORIGIN hate is silly. I don't like ORIGIN and I'll refuse to purchase anything on it but I don't think its a reason to hate the game.

The always online requirement and the server shutdown points are about the same thing: connectivity. People, correctly so, don't want to have to be connected to EA just to play a single player game. And yes, I realize EA wanted it to be more multiplayer but the people that want to play it single player (which ideally would be the majority of early adopters as EA are hoping that fans of the series will want to buy it).

Now your points 3 and 4 are the main sticking point for most. And this is the most important part of it all: the actual game itself. This is an area where you yourself admit to complete ignorance on the matter. Jim Sterling once pointed out that we are the most critical of the things we loved the most. This is true of SimCity.

The majority of the legitimate hatred of the game comes from the biggest fans of the series. As with anything, the games have set a level of expectation that the fans think the game should meet. They expect single-player, massive cities with a higher level of challenge than normal. The best and most loving fans of the series just see this current iteration as two steps back in an attempt to gain a new audience. It's understandable that EA wants to have more players but EA also expects customer loyalty. The fans view this change as their years of loyalty to the brand being handed a slap in the face.

And yes, its dumbing down so that everyone can play. Its not simplification. I'll give you an example of what I mean. Say there are two chairs facing each other with a gap between them. You place a bar on the two seats so that you have a horizontal bar. Do you think you could hop over it? Do you think most average healthy people could? I do. So say you hop over this bar that is about 16 inches (~40 cm) off the ground. Good for you. And you would feel more accomplished doing so.

Now say I have a room with two bricks holding up the same bar. Its about 3 inches off the ground. If I ask you to hop over it how high will you jump? We know you can clear the 16 inches but you would probably do what is necessary to clear it and only hop the 3 inches high.

Can you jump higher? Yes. Will you jump higher if you aren't required to do so? Probably not. And this is the effect of dumbing down. In fact, this goes further and says you aren't even allowed to jump higher anymore. New players will jump 3 inches and go cool. Players of the previous games will be wondering why they aren't allowed to jump higher.

You said that you had never played the series. This is exactly the point of contention the fans have and the problem with your post. You haven't taken the time to consider their point of view, just your own as someone new to the series. But you haven't spent the hundreds of dollars and thousands of hours in SimCity that the rest of the folks have. If this wasn't a SimCity game, just a multiplayer urban development game of a different name, no one would have cared. But EA hopes to garner favour with the SimCity brand.

Understand, I can see why you have no issues with it as a person new to the series, but similarly, you should understand that the points you are talking about (especially regarding the core gameplay experiences of SimCitys past) are the things that made SimCity what it is.

 

[WoW Killer]

Probably going to skip this one. I don't really see the point of the online; it's very much a single player game in my mind.

But whatever, the hate isn't justified. Hate is rarely justified. You buy the games you want, and you don't buy the games you don't. That's all you need to do. I can't hate something I have no intention of buying. If you end up buying something on false pretenses, like if the game has been advertised falsely, then yeah maybe that's a good reason to hate it. That's not the case here though. The always online and the multiplayer focus are well advertised. If you know you're not going to like it, don't buy it. Spend your money on a game you think you will like.

 

[Nazulu]

I don't hate it, I probably wasn't even going to get it either. I'm just really ticked off that they decided to make it a multiplayer experience only.

They say they've thrown in a new system that doesn't allow for single player, and to me that is just the biggest load of crap I could hear from any developer. If they wanted to make it both single and multiplayer from the start then they should be able to accomplish it really easily.

Also, this is coming from someone that usually has internet connection problems so I couldn't support this move no matter what. The one thing I do hate is this move to force people online to socialise. I don't want to see other players sometimes, and I don't want them to see me because all I want to do is focus on the damn game.