SimCity V (2013) - screens/artwork and information

Wildace said:
no all the cities are 2kmx2km

http://www.ign.com/wikis/simcity/Cape_Trinity

cape trinity is the zone that was in the beta, 3 cities that are 2kmx2km and 1 great works area. Clear water was the beta zone you could actually build in.
Click to expand...

So... there are regions that are smaller that cant hold 16 cities, yet city size is still only 2kmx2km... that just seems pointless to me, from a multitude of perspectives.

But, it is what it is, I guess.
 
M33X7 said:
So... there are regions that are smaller that cant hold 16 cities, yet city size is still only 2kmx2km... that just seems pointless to me, from a multitude of perspectives.

But, it is what it is, I guess.
Click to expand...

its possible it could be performance related.

a super crappy pc might not be able to handle 16 fully developed cities in a region without lag and only find the smaller 2 or 3 city regions playable.

or you want an easier less micro manage solo experience and dont want to worry about having 16 cities to run.

pretty sure the devs mentioned cities being like a puzzle with certain layouts and resources and wanted you as a player to figure out how to manage the terrain and resources.

so a lower city count means less space overall in the region meaning you will have to be more precise in how to go about laying out the few cities you have available.

personally i think solo some of the smaller regions might be more fun than the large 16 city regions because each of the cities will get more attention and more personal. where as a 16 city region would fit multi-player better.
 
Wildace said:
its possible it could be performance related.

a super crappy pc might not be able to handle 16 fully developed cities in a region without lag and only find the smaller 2 or 3 city regions playable.

or you want an easier less micro manage solo experience and dont want to worry about having 16 cities to run.

pretty sure the devs mentioned cities being like a puzzle with certain layouts and resources and wanted you as a player to figure out how to manage the terrain and resources.
Click to expand...

I see where they could be coming from with that, but as for trying to make it more "accessible" due to people running "crappy systems", isn't reason to limit a game they way they have. Then people need to upgrade.

They also used the cloud issue as an excuse as well, which is just nonsense.

I think the game still has some potential, could be some fun for what it offers (but I don't know about for $60) but all these excuses for smaller cities and a half-strangled game are just nonsense.
 
Archer75 said:
If there's something I don't agree with then it doesn't get my money. I don't care what anyone else thinks or will do, that's outside of my control. I only control my own actions. Maybe enough people agree with me and change happens. Maybe not. But I still don't give in.
Click to expand...

Here lies the problem though, overall I feel that Sim City will be fun, entertaining and occupy my sparse free time for numerous hours. I feel that I will play it enough to warrant the $60 price tag. If I play 60 hours and pay 1$ an hour for solid entertainment then that is worth it in my opinion. I spent 60 bucks at the liquor store this weekend and its gone already. For me the money is not the issue. Sure there are a couple things in this game that I wish were different but I am not going to boycott the game since I don't agree with only a couple small issues that are really not a big deal to me.

Now if I blatently do not like something then of course I will not buy it.

You just have to know when you pick your fights. Online DRM, not going anywhere. There is nothing we can do about it. Companies have to find a way to keep people from getting their hard work stolen and losing profits. I completely understand that and I would feel the same way too. Do I wish there was a single player offline mode, of course I do. I would love to take my Razer's Edge Tablet (when I get it) and play sim city anywhere but this simply is not going to be possible. This is a direction I think the industry has to take to try to deter cybercrime and I accept that.

As far as my other dislike, city size. Simply not a deal breaker and from what I have read, there is a good reason for it and I will adapt.

I am not saying I will blow my money on any garbage on the market but if I believe that I can get my money's worth out of a product then yes I will settle and pony up the cash. I understand that many people can make a change however the change in this scenario is just not that significant to me.
 
What I don't get when they talk about performance issue with larger map is why not simply put a performance slider?

We have that in many games with a cute warning that says "activating this could cause slowdown on slower computers"

So you can expand the city size, let's say you can pick 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 and 8x8.
Each could give some kind of minimum req (ie: Dual Code, Quad, 4gb/8gb/16gb) and the user could then pick whatever matches his system.

problem solved.
 
Vorret said:
What I don't get when they talk about performance issue with larger map is why not simply put a performance slider?

We have that in many games with a cute warning that says "activating this could cause slowdown on slower computers"

So you can expand the city size, let's say you can pick 2x2, 3x3, 4x4 and 8x8.
Each could give some kind of minimum req (ie: Dual Code, Quad, 4gb/8gb/16gb) and the user could then pick whatever matches his system.

problem solved.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I don't think everyone at EA is so dumb as to not be able to think of this solution. There must have been a reason for it. I know next to nothing about the nuts and bolts of technology, but don't phones/tablets mostly run on 32-bit? Limiting it to that spec could have been because they originally designed Simcity for phones and pulled back because their specs were still too limiting. It would explain a lot of the dumb performance compromises and all the forced social and online features.
 
Dolor said:
I agree, but I don't think everyone at EA is so dumb as to not be able to think of this solution. There must have been a reason for it. I know next to nothing about the nuts and bolts of technology, but don't phones/tablets mostly run on 32-bit? Limiting it to that spec could have been because they originally designed Simcity for phones and pulled back because their specs were still too limiting. It would explain a lot of the dumb performance compromises and all the forced social and online features.
Click to expand...

More likely some of the libraries they use for grunt work type things (input, sounds, file management) are 32 bit and reworking all those didn't make the schedule / budget set forth by the men in suits.

Other than something like the Window8 Pro tablets, most mobile devices are far more alien than just the 32/64 bit nature of the platform.
 
MrGoodKat44 said:
Here lies the problem though, overall I feel that Sim City will be fun, entertaining and occupy my sparse free time for numerous hours. I feel that I will play it enough to warrant the $60 price tag. If I play 60 hours and pay 1$ an hour for solid entertainment then that is worth it in my opinion. I spent 60 bucks at the liquor store this weekend and its gone already. For me the money is not the issue. Sure there are a couple things in this game that I wish were different but I am not going to boycott the game since I don't agree with only a couple small issues that are really not a big deal to me.
Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with that. I have no issue with the game and i'm sure i'll get a crap ton of entertainment from it. Good enough for me!

I have no reason to boycott it.
 
FreiDOg said:
More likely some of the libraries they use for grunt work type things (input, sounds, file management) are 32 bit and reworking all those didn't make the schedule / budget set forth by the men in suits.

Other than something like the Window8 Pro tablets, most mobile devices are far more alien than just the 32/64 bit nature of the platform.
Click to expand...

If that's all true, it is an astonishing lack of foresight on EA's part. If I acted that way in my job, I'd be booted out after making a decision with as little forethought as that.
 
Dolor said:
If that's all true, it is an astonishing lack of foresight on EA's part. If I acted that way in my job, I'd be booted out after making a decision with as little forethought as that.
Click to expand...

Well, the value of any such decisions, if it was that (and it's pure speculation on my part that is was), is going to be dictated by sales figures.


If they sold SimCity 4-2, they knew who their audience was going to be. You want them to appease a fan-base, they want to make a profit and in many cases those are very different goals.

It's not the direction I would have picked for the franchise. For all I know, this will be the next SimCity Societies. I do however find it difficult to make the argument that pushing it farther down the Excel spreadsheet path would make it more financially viable... or for taht matter better. They moved way from that to hopefully much more of a simulated city and that takes a lot more resources. 3d buildings and roads take a lot more resources than straight lines and sprites. Sims with needs and lives take a lot more resources than a line drawn to the nearest shop or factory.

I don't know if it's a reasonable trade off or not, I do know most games do not ship with 64bit binaries and so it could be a much more daunting task than you give credit for. I just know I want to have fun. If running a city in SimCIty 5 is fun, I don't care about the city size. If it's not fun, I still don't care about the city size.
 
FreiDOg said:
I don't know if it's a reasonable trade off or not, I do know most games do not ship with 64bit binaries and so it could be a much more daunting task than you give credit for. I just know I want to have fun. If running a city in SimCIty 5 is fun, I don't care about the city size. If it's not fun, I still don't care about the city size.
Click to expand...

Why don't you?
I mean, building a big life-like city is really what this is all about, no?
 
Sim City 4 was a disappointment. Tons of bugs and not a single patch released and the developers quickly abandoned it for The Sims. It did not take long for the game to feel mundane and monotonous. I hope they revamp the AI more so than the graphics.
 
pinoy said:
Sim City 4 was a disappointment. Tons of bugs and not a single patch released and the developers quickly abandoned it for The Sims. It did not take long for the game to feel mundane and monotonous. I hope they revamp the AI more so than the graphics.
Click to expand...

The online requirement and DLC options with the new sim city should hopefully fix some of these issues
 
Razzy said:
Not all cities are big - why does one have to build a BIG city for it to be fun?
Click to expand...


Let me rephrase that.

Why don't you like to build small life-size city? Because right now, 2x2 isn't even the size of a small city.
 
Razzy said:
Not all cities are big - why does one have to build a BIG city for it to be fun?
Click to expand...

progression? you obviously build small at first and you'll want to add things and get more growth, etc.... it's a pretty natural course for a city building game

this game you build and then you'll be artificially limited by some weird puzzle/build next door mechanic that might put you off
 
Razzy said:
Not all cities are big - why does one have to build a BIG city for it to be fun?
Click to expand...

When I think of building a city, I think big - not small. I might be unique, but as I said earlier in this thread, I am interested in building Chicago - not Peoria.

Maybe small cities can be fun, but if small cities are fun, big cities are much better. Taking it to the extreme, a tiny city with one zone for each building type in the city would be a total bore. That implies to me that the smaller scale a city gets, the less fun it is.

Luckily, I recently found Cities XL which - despite its flaws - seems to be much more what I wanted (building a 500k+ population city currently).
 
Dolor said:
When I think of building a city, I think big - not small. I might be unique, but as I said earlier in this thread, I am interested in building Chicago - not Peoria.

Maybe small cities can be fun, but if small cities are fun, big cities are much better. Taking it to the extreme, a tiny city with one zone for each building type in the city would be a total bore. That implies to me that the smaller scale a city gets, the less fun it is.

Luckily, I recently found Cities XL which - despite its flaws - seems to be much more what I wanted (building a 500k+ population city currently).
Click to expand...

It's a little funny that a game that keeps getting retitled with a new year and 1% change in functionality would be something you like when so many people here seem to think it's cool to hate on EA :)

I WANTED to like Cities XL actually but it's just so poorly done. I'd rather be able to do roads however I want and only have 100,000 people than have to stick to the square build mentality forced by the old games.
 
Razzy said:
It's a little funny that a game that keeps getting retitled with a new year and 1% change in functionality would be something you like when so many people here seem to think it's cool to hate on EA :)

I WANTED to like Cities XL actually but it's just so poorly done. I'd rather be able to do roads however I want and only have 100,000 people than have to stick to the square build mentality forced by the old games.
Click to expand...

I haven't and wouldn't buy it new again every year. I hadn't played it until recently, tried it out, and think it is certainly underappreciated for what it is. The yearly refreshes with less than a new coat of paint are lazy and are rightly criticized. It has some performance issues which are a shame, but neither of those make the game bad to a newcomer to the series.

I have put 22+ hours into Cities XL in the last week. I have built two major cities, so that's about 11 hours per city with still a ton to do (only recently got the largest office building type and still waiting on higher-end large residential buildings, haven't filled up 60% of the maps, plus I just started using mods).

From everything I have heard of about the new Simcity, I would be surprised if even an entire region has that kind of longevity - much less two cities.

Yes, for a game with a known brand like Simcity and with the resource backing of EA coming out in 2013, you would expect it to be better in every way than Cities XL and yet that clearly does not seem to be the case - at least not to me.
 
Vorret said:
Why don't you?
I mean, building a big life-like city is really what this is all about, no?
Click to expand...

But if they give a reason to want to start again after 10 or 15 hours in a city, if the city specialization is interesting to play with, if there's real tangible benefits (and draw backs) to other cities in your region, if there are different social dynamics to play with, then not having those cities that you need 40 hours to finish is much less important. (It will still be missed, but it's not nearly as big a deal).

If it doesn't do that, it will not be a good game and I'll probably be disappointed with having spent money on it.
 
Dolor said:
I haven't and wouldn't buy it new again every year. I hadn't played it until recently, tried it out, and think it is certainly underappreciated for what it is. The yearly refreshes with less than a new coat of paint are lazy and are rightly criticized. It has some performance issues which are a shame, but neither of those make the game bad to a newcomer to the series.

I have put 22+ hours into Cities XL in the last week. I have built two major cities, so that's about 11 hours per city with still a ton to do (only recently got the largest office building type and still waiting on higher-end large residential buildings, haven't filled up 60% of the maps, plus I just started using mods).

From everything I have heard of about the new Simcity, I would be surprised if even an entire region has that kind of longevity - much less two cities.

Yes, for a game with a known brand like Simcity and with the resource backing of EA coming out in 2013, you would expect it to be better in every way than Cities XL and yet that clearly does not seem to be the case - at least not to me.
Click to expand...

cities xl is pretty garbage to be honest. and they didnt even fix the issues with platinum they just outsourced a few buildings and slapped a platinum title on it and expect to get paid again.
 
FreiDOg said:
But if they give a reason to want to start again after 10 or 15 hours in a city, if the city specialization is interesting to play with, if there's real tangible benefits (and draw backs) to other cities in your region, if there are different social dynamics to play with, then not having those cities that you need 40 hours to finish is much less important. (It will still be missed, but it's not nearly as big a deal).

If it doesn't do that, it will not be a good game and I'll probably be disappointed with having spent money on it.
Click to expand...

Well, despite my criticisms, I hope it is an enjoyable game. I think their choice of priorities is tragic for one of my favorite franchises (first game I ever owned was SC 2000), but anything can happen, and I could be surprised.
 
Wildace said:
cities xl is pretty garbage to be honest.
Click to expand...

I have openly admitted its flaws and shown at least one way in which it is superior in my eyes (longevity in keeping my interest) which I view as crucial to a city-builder.

There is a lot of support for opinions similar to yours on Cities XL, however, I was only saying that I see it as being an underappreciated game. Most of the criticisms I have seen come down to relatively superficial reasons like framerate issues or the lazy sequels. My point is that beyond those (agreeably) ugly flaws is a deep and enjoyable city-building game if you have the patience to see it.

I have put down many many many AAA highly-lauded games well before the 20 hour mark, and I feel like this game has even more to offer even after 20+ hours in.

and they didnt even fix the issues with platinum they just outsourced a few buildings and slapped a platinum title on it and expect to get paid again.
Click to expand...

I addressed this in the post you responded to. I called the sequels "lazy" and "rightly criticized", but my ultimate point was that for a newcomer (like me) there is a bunch to like.
 
I had Cities XL 2011 that I picked up for cheap a bit back on one of the Steam sales, but had barely touched ever since the one beta/demo. The upgrade to Platinum was really cheap for previous owners so I grabbed it too, figuring it would at least hold me over for SimCity V, although I'm not really sure about it. From most people I talked to that were looking forward to it and have played the demo, the majority weren't interested in preordering the game if that says anything.
 
castun said:
I had Cities XL 2011 that I picked up for cheap a bit back on one of the Steam sales, but had barely touched ever since the one beta/demo. The upgrade to Platinum was really cheap for previous owners so I grabbed it too, figuring it would at least hold me over for SimCity V, although I'm not really sure about it. From most people I talked to that were looking forward to it and have played the demo, the majority weren't interested in preordering the game if that says anything.
Click to expand...

The Dev company went bellyup after releasing 2011. Focus purchased it but never has had a dev team for the game. They outsourced new buildings for 2012 and same with platinum.
No gameplay changes, fixes or programming has been done or will be done. Its essentially been dead since 2011, they just keep releasing it with a new name.
 
Anyone playing the second beta today? I am still waiting for my key.
 
yeah I got the code this morning -- too bad i FUCKING WORK ALL WEEKEND.

And in the email they sent me -- it says it expires at 6AM Sunday morning -- so the basically setup what? a 24 hour window to download/install/play it?

Seriously -- do they think that making the window to play will entice people more? It pisses me off because 1) i have a life 2) i have a job and 3) i have other obligations besides rushing home to play their game that will (more than likely) suck.

I like beta's (glorified demos) all they have done is take a game I had some serious interest in and piss me off. It was a day one purchase till I started reading some of the things they have cut out or gimped in the game. (my personal theory is so they can just re-add it later and charge for DLC)

Do they know that it sucks that badly and want to actually limit it's exposure in "beta" form?

Fuck you EA - you have once again screwed yourself out of another 60 dollars from me. Congrats :)
 
I've got a beta code for the first person who wants it.

EDIT: Key has been claimed.
 
Last edited:
They made it pretty clear it was going to be a two-day beta so I'm not quite sure why you're so shocked and upset. It's not really their problem that you work this weekend. I haven't even gotten a key yet even though they said people in the first beta would get one automatically. I'm not that worried about it because it's the same exact beta.
 
ROFL loaded t up, hit "Getting Started" and got a "Unable to load city at this time. Please try again later."

GAME OVER MAN, Game over!
 
SilverSliver said:
ROFL loaded t up, hit "Getting Started" and got a "Unable to load city at this time. Please try again later."

GAME OVER MAN, Game over!
Click to expand...

thats the whole point of this beta, to test the server limits and bring them to its knees.
 
U got a beta key today. It told me the beta ends Sunday morning at 6AM. I was like GEE THANKS EA.

I installed and played it. Liked it. Preorder comes with a 20 off next purchase coupon. I figured id preorder it and use the 20 off on crysis 3. WRONG. Oh well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top