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

[theSteamSupported]

For me, it 's probably the lack of a proper grid. In SimCity 2013, all the buildings are, despite the gridless environment, squared. That makes the placing of the buildings scarce and uneven, making it impossible to make campact cities.

Also, SimCity 4 is unplayable for me without the essential mods and loads of custom content. Not to mention it looks terrible, compare this...
http://pcbyone.com/wp-content/uploads/products_img/simcity-4-deluxe-edition.4407585.jpg
with this modded version of SC4:
http://i420.photobucket.com/albums/pp284/bluesinjid/Newmosiac2-1.jpg

 

[Vegosiux]

1. Always Online

So? We're always online as-is!

"We"? Who's "we"? Speak for yourself, mate.

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.

Can I be online 24/7? Pretty much, yes. Do I want to be online 24/7? Hell no.

Sorry, but even when gaming there are often times when I wish to just be left alone and basically have some "me time". And you guessed it, I do that by going offline. Therefore I will always be critical of games that would want to take that possibility from me.

Yes yes, sucks to be me, I know.

 

[Zenn3k]

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?

Yes, Cities XL is like SC4 if it were kept updated instead of shelved and ignored by Maxis.

 

[ThriKreen]

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.

So instead of complaining that your university and ISP overcharges and under-performs for internet access (and they've even admitted they do it for profit, not service), we'll instead complain about companies making use of new technology for their games? That's like complaining to the public transit that their bus route doesn't reach the front step of your house, when said house is on a side street that's too small for a bus to fit through. You should probably be complaining to the city instead. Hrm, ok that might be a bad analogy, but still.

So let's take away internet access, what's next? Oh, my laptop doesn't have a good GPU, let's take out any GPU accelerated support like transforms and lighting, so we don't have fancy 3D graphics anymore. Heck, take out sound support as well while we're at it, since some people prefer playing without sound, or you can't have 5.1 on a laptop's dinky speakers. Oh, without the fancy GPU, it would stress the CPU too much, and without multicore CPUs, it's too much so we'll reduce the game features to a text screen. With that, we don't need a mouse anymore, so let's stick with 80x25 line CRT monitors and a keyboard for all our games from now on!

The game is going to be designed for certain features. By its own extension, do you hate on MMOs because of it's online requirement? Or RTS games for being played best with a mouse, so you hardly see them on consoles?

The Luddite excuse is not a valid reason to hate on a game.

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...

So the whole store structure is similar to The Sims 3, where extra sets can be bought. Mind you, it's all aesthetics, so you aren't forced to buy it and it makes no impact in the game beyond looking like London, Paris, or Berlin. You can expect more sets to appear in the future, and they even said they'd look at mod support (since it'll be client side data, the core itself would still operate the same).

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.

Funny enough, a lot of hardcore SimCity fans who've played the new one via the two beta tests, LIKED IT. At least according to various sources I've seen, people that took part in the beta, on Reddit, reviews, etc. Most, if not all of the detractors I've seen complaining about various issues of the game, haven't NOT played the game at all.

I'm going to listen to those that have played the game.

For me, it 's probably the lack of a proper grid. In SimCity 2013, all the buildings are, despite the gridless environment, squared. That makes the placing of the buildings scarce and uneven, making it impossible to make campact cities.

Hrm, SimCity 2013 still looks quite [http://www.thrikreen.com/temp/simcity/simcity_haven.jpg] pretty [http://www.thrikreen.com/temp/simcity/simcity_seacrook.jpg] to me.

Except for the zombies [http://www.thrikreen.com/temp/simcity/simcity_zombies.jpg] and UFOs [http://www.thrikreen.com/temp/simcity/simcity_wtf.jpg].

Also, IMP! [http://www.thrikreen.com/temp/simcity/simcity_escapistland.jpg]

 

[Lilani]

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.

So instead of complaining that your university and ISP overcharges and under-performs for internet access (and they've even admitted they do it for profit, not service), we'll instead complain about companies making use of new technology for their games? That's like complaining to the public transit that their bus route doesn't reach the front step of your house, when said house is on a side street that's too small for a bus to fit through. You should probably be complaining to the city instead. Hrm, ok that might be a bad analogy, but still.

So let's take away internet access, what's next? Oh, my laptop doesn't have a good GPU, let's take out any GPU accelerated support like transforms and lighting, so we don't have fancy 3D graphics anymore. Heck, take out sound support as well while we're at it, since some people prefer playing without sound, or you can't have 5.1 on a laptop's dinky speakers. Oh, without the fancy GPU, it would stress the CPU too much, and without multicore CPUs, it's too much so we'll reduce the game features to a text screen. With that, we don't need a mouse anymore, so let's stick with 80x25 line CRT monitors and a keyboard for all our games from now on!

First of all, I'm not using university Internet because don't live on campus. I live in an apartment off campus, because it's cheaper than living in the dorms. The apartment's wifi it said it provides is shitty. I could pay to have broadband wired in, but I don't have the money to get it installed and activated and then pay for on a monthly basis.

Secondly, it doesn't need to be online for single player. You said yourself that hackers will find a way to get it to work anyway, so that means the DRM and the idea it will prevent piracy is total bunk. I understand and don't mind at all the idea of a multiplayer experience, but for single player I would like to be able to play without a connection. It's totally unnecessary for single player. It's not like blaming them for owning a bad GPU, it's like blaming them for making a game that requires a very high-end GPU when the graphics aren't that high-quality and it could just as easily run on much less if they'd just make the game properly.

And thirdly stop using the sarcastic hyperbole, please. It's just making you look like a child, especially since you're the one who started it.

 

[Lilani]

the DRM and the idea it will prevent piracy is total bunk.

The point isn't to prevent piracy. The point is to make the game multiplayer focused.

Yeah you can play Guild Wars without playing with a single person, but the game was brought online not to prevent piracy but to encourage multiplayer gaming. Because Guild Wars was designed to have its full potential used in multiplayer. Just like the new Simcity.

If the goal is to make it "multiplayer focused" then they shouldn't have bothered making a single-player mode in the first place. Again, I don't mind the fact that the multiplayer mode exists. Hell if ever I get a place with better Internet I'd probably give it a try. It's the fact that the single-player is bound to remaining online that gets me angry, and for reasons I've stated before is stupid from both a customer service and business perspective. If they make a single player mode, they shouldn't get their panties in a twist when people have the audacity to play by themselves. It would be like setting cream cheese out with a breakfast spread and getting irate when people put it on their bagels.

 

[rodneyy]

for me its that i cant shake the feeling that the only reason that its online only is so they can sell all their own mods, texture packs etc. they saw sim city 4 last for years with a really dedicated modding community and wanted a piece of those extra sales but they knew if it was offline then people would just mod it themselfs and probally do a better job of it.

maybe if i could get myself to belive in noble goals or a real need to make it online only but i have not been able to find a legit reason to not have an offline version other than greed for me that is enough to just ignore it. i might have had fun playing these games in the past but not so much to cry over not getting to play this version

 

[Lilani]

I dont know if your noticed, but the crux of your argument comes from you being online and the point of you being online is to make your single player games able to invite people in. The single player is there as a springboard for multiplayer.

Now I dont know of any multiplayer games that doesn't start with one person. This is no different.

The whole "they shouldn't have bothered to making a single player mode" is just so.... Where do I even start? They shouldn't have bothered to make single person content in WoW because it is a MMO?

Furthermore its not extra work to make single player "mode". There is no single player "mode". You just play in the same mode as multiplayer by yourself.

There's no reason it can't go both ways. Play by yourself online or off, and when you're online be able to invite people in. I assume other people can't just barge in whenever they please and they'll have to be invited in to see your cities either way, so how is playing offline any different from choosing to not letting anybody see your city?

 

[kortin]

I will never install Origin on my main computer. That garbage will not take up any space on it anywhere. Maybe I'll buy a shit laptop and install it there and give it a try, but it will most definitely not be worth $60.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

Snip

You've forgotten the part where I mention that ultimately, all digital rights protection measures can and will be circumvented. Despite the current appearance that the game has a best-before date stamped on it, I'm fairly confident I'll be able to keep playing SC5 long after the official servers get shut down.

Not only that, but once this does happen, I'll finally have a true single-player experience, with the online features only emulated in some capacity.

Look at Diablo III. It took some time, but nosing around Torrent trackers gets you a few private server addresses where most of the game's retail-release features are present. If I want to play this game without stepping on Blizzard's turf, despite my paying good money for it - I can.

 

[Lilani]

First off all its not that simple. There is technical issues in what you are suggesting as well as the shared games aspect that is the main idea of the game.

Secondly I have to repeat myself with Guild Wars? You could have played it offline, but that would have been counter productive to the point of trying to make people play with each other. Before you can make the people dance you need to get them to the ball.

This is EA we're talking about, and the game is $60 at launch and they're charging $10 a pop for what amounts to new skins. I think they can afford to do a bit of research into the matter of getting it to work. I once played an MMO called Final Fantasy XI which had PC, PS2/3, and XBox 360 players all playing together at the same time on the same servers. If something like that can be accomplished, synchronizing so many different types of information in real-time, I think surely EA can devise a way for the game to switch between online and off. Before you point it out I realize they are two very different problems, I'm just saying it wouldn't be the first time a company did something unnecessary so that they could reach as many different audiences as possible.

And I haven't played Guild Wars so I really have not the faintest idea of what you're talking about in regard to its mechanics, how it's "supposed" to be played, or how I would play it if given the opportunity.

You've forgotten the part where I mention that ultimately, all digital rights protection measures can and will be circumvented. Despite the current appearance that the game has a best-before date stamped on it, I'm fairly confident I'll be able to keep playing SC5 long after the official servers get shut down.

Not only that, but once this does happen, I'll finally have a true single-player experience, with the online features only emulated in some capacity.

Look at Diablo III. It took some time, but nosing around Torrent trackers gets you a few private server addresses where most of the game's retail-release features are present. If I want to play this game without stepping on Blizzard's turf, despite my paying good money for it - I can.

I'm fully confident pirates will find ways to play the game after the servers shut down. All I'm saying is it's a rather obnoxious thing for EA to do. I don't care how they "intend" for people to play it, the fact that they're doing so much micromanaging to make sure people play the game how they think it should be played is idiotic to me. Why should they give a shit about how I play? I paid for the game, I'll play it however the fuck I want. I don't care if they've decided the experience is "better" or "easier" if you play it with others. If I decide otherwise then that's my choice. Skyrim wasn't designed or intended to be played without fast travel. But you can do it, if for some reason you desire to. While the feature exists and you're obviously encouraged to use it, the game isn't forcing you to play what most would be consider to be the "better" way. You're free to make whatever stupid or illogical choices you want.

 

[Weaver]

No one asked for an online Sim City, and I sure as hell don't want one.

Ubisoft and Blizzard should have, by now, proven that always online is a really shitty idea. I've heard a few stories of beta testers not even being able to login due to server load.

EA has an awesome habit if closing servers down a few year after a game ceases to bring in the mega dollars. Sometimes, in a little as 1 year.

 

[Comocat]

I'm just not interested in a multiplayer version of SimCity. I don't hate it- I just dont want it. I havent gotten a SimCity update in what 7 years, it's not like missing this one is going to make any difference in my life.

 

[Lilani]

Ok so to summarize what you are saying here.

They charge to much for imaginary skins and therefore they should be able to make up a technology that you just pulled out of your ass because other made cross platform gaming?

Also you have never played guild Wars so therefore the concept of how it works is irrelevant.

Ok this is way to far into troll country for me to care now.

Yes, thank you for summarizing me in the way in which you could express the most condescension. I will number it out:

1. EA has never been known for their customer service. Making Sim City be playable online or off would not only be a great gesture for them to mend that part of their reputation, but would also earn the money of the many of us out here who want to buy the game, but literally cannot because of their unnecessary feature and strange desire to micromanage how people play the game. I merely gave the example of another game so that it couldn't be argued that I'm asking EA to do something above and beyond what has been asked of or done by other game companies (because a common criticism offered to people like me is that I'm somehow expecting EA to do more than what is expected of other companies, so I was heading that off before we had to go there, which apparently caused more problems than solved).

2. The skins are not "imaginary," look at the first post here on page two to see them.

3. I did not say your Guild Wars example was irrelevant. I was saying you were operating under the assumption that you knew what I was talking about, so if you want me to understand you're going to have to calm down and give me some more information and context.

 

[Mid Boss]

because EA EVIL

Yeah it's an EA game. I'd rather flush my money down the toilet.

 

[VladG]

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

I really don't understand the hatred for not being able to play a game offline that is designed around playing online.

Yeah... I used to think like that too.. then Diablo 3 happened.

So what if the game was designed around multiplayer? So is Left4Dead, to give a random example, but that game still has the option to play offline. Sim City still has the option of solo play, so the only REAL reason to make the game always online is DRM. DRM fucks over paying customers ONLY!

2. ORIGIN

I got tired and over of the huge fiasco over Origin a LONG time ago, but people still love to beat it up because EA EVIL, apparently. Really in terms of the architecture, how it works, and what it does Origin is pretty much Steam, the only difference is Steam selling a multitude of other games while Origin focuses on selling EA (and now recently Ubisoft games).

Yes, EA being the douchiest of the douches is a strong factor in my decision to not buy this game. I do not agree with EA's decisions, statements and all around consumer attitude. I make my displeasure known by not buying their games.

3. THE CITIES ARE TOO SMALL

It's true that the largest size you can have is about a medium sized city from the older SimCity games, but it's already been mentioned to death by Ocean Quigley (who has the greatest name and mustache I've seen in a long time) that the GlassBox engine and how they've designed the game limits the scale they had in games like SimCity 3000. Quigley has even mentioned how that it's easier to start a game small and wonderful, then expanding it, than making a large and average game beautiful.

And it can also make sense in terms of gameplay by forcing you to specialize what your city does, instead of having some kind of mega-city which does everything, which ties back to the region of multiple cities and the multiplayer connectivity.

I don't have much of a problem with this, I understand a compromise had to be made. I would still like larger cities to be possible. I would also not be surprised if a future expansion will give us considerably larger cities (thus making the statement that it's an engine limitation BS as well as reinforcing my dislike of EA).

4. ITS' BEEN DUMBED DOWN

We honestly need to end this idea now, that simplifying something automatically means dumbing it down. Take the game Dungeon of Dredmor, the game which took the rogue-like gameplay of older PC titles to a new audience.

Do you have to press ALT+SHIFT+F5 to use a potion? No, you can just click it on the inventory bar, but it's not dumbed down. We had these same arguments with Civ 5, XCOM: Enemy Unknown, and now SimCity.

But honestly, SimCity needed to be simplified. I haven't played the SimCity games before, but I found an old copy of SimCity 3000 lying around, tried it, and was absolutely confused on what I should do. And that's absolutely terrible for trying to get people into a new genre is when they look at your game and don't know what to do.

But I can look at the new SimCity and think "Oh, that makes sense! I am interested in this game because the learning curve isn't a wall."

I feel that's just typical consumer bullshit. From what I've seen of the game there's NO dumbing down whatsoever. It's a more streamlined experience delivering the SAME depth in a much more elegant and intuitive way. True, this might not be true and only the full game will tell.

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.

Did I miss anything? Am I right? Am I wrong? Put your opinions, replies, and hatred in the comments below.

Actually, this is EA we're talking about. They are KNOWN to pull shit like this - just look at the MANY studios they destroyed. Any other company and I'd agree with you that this is a bullshit reason. Except not when we're talking about EA.