BigJKO

SimCity: The City Simulator

Recommended Posts

I'll admit I haven't played the new Sim City. But I will say since I'm in the position of not being frustrated at all with the launch since I didn't have to deal with it, that Sim City 4 was a mess when it came out. Again this doesn't excuse any existing issues with the latest Sim City, but for those who are going to jump back to 4 one should remember that when it came out 4 was buggy as hell. It had issues where the full tile sets weren't being built because of some weird bug issue. Traffic algorithms were horrible even after the Rush Hour expansion. One way's and Avenues (four lane roads) weren't even introduced until the rush hour expansion came out. And you still had to download mods if you wanted accurate/adequate usage of public transit and highway systems.

Again, there is a long way to go for the latest but it did take some time and a lot of user mods to fix up 4. Sadly it seems like there won't be any user mods for this...well until a offline hack can be deployed or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, there is a long way to go for the latest but it did take some time and a lot of user mods to fix up 4. Sadly it seems like there won't be any user mods for this...well until a offline hack can be deployed or something.

 

That's one thing I really wonder about. Many of these hallowed franchises are eyeballing online-only frameworks for better control of the end product, but only have the goodwill to do so because the relatively open nature of previous installments allowed fans to polish them to perfection. I know for a fact that barely-there mod support in the later Total War series titles alienated a bunch of core fans and Civilization V couldn't receive the same fan attention because it was a more closed platform. Nostalgia aside, will some series be able to keep their reputation as great games without the fans being allowed to help them become so?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just ridiculous. Why don't they just give in, make an offline-patch, for players not interested in inter-region multiplayer stuff and let them fuck with the game at their own risk? As long as this stuff can't disrupt people actually using the multiplayer stuff, what's the problem??

 

Piracy!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that if they cave in now, and make that offline mode, they'll have to maintain and support that mode going forward, and include it in all future plans and changes. I completely understand that they'd rather get the current infrastructure nice and stable, and then go ahead with their master plan, whatever that is, instead of completely changing it to satisfy the small fraction of players who would rather mod it. Being able to mod a game is sweet, but it's a reasonable requirement of all games, especially ones designed around multiplayer. To me, demanding an offline SimCity version is almost like demanding an offline World of Warcraft (and I'm assuming here Maxis have plans to greatly expand the multiplayer aspects of the game in the coming years.) I think the fact that earlier SimCity games were playable offline, or that you can get parts of the the current game working offline right now, or that a side-effect of the online requirements works as a piracy protection are all irrelevant in this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that if they cave in now, and make that offline mode, they'll have to maintain and support that mode going forward, and include it in all future plans and changes. I completely understand that they'd rather get the current infrastructure nice and stable, and then go ahead with their master plan, whatever that is, instead of completely changing it to satisfy the small fraction of players who would rather mod it. Being able to mod a game is sweet, but it's a reasonable requirement of all games, especially ones designed around multiplayer. To me, demanding an offline SimCity version is almost like demanding an offline World of Warcraft (and I'm assuming here Maxis have plans to greatly expand the multiplayer aspects of the game in the coming years.) I think the fact that earlier SimCity games were playable offline, or that you can get parts of the the current game working offline right now, or that a side-effect of the online requirements works as a piracy protection are all irrelevant in this discussion.

 

I think your choice of the words offline mode is significant, because that's what most people are asking for, not a totally offline game.

People can (& do) accept that the multi-player version of a game should operate differently to the single player, they don't have to mirror every feature. 

 

Frankly my current line of thinking is: Someone will eventually crack the save function as well. At which point my question is simply, what good reason does someone who has bought the game have not to crack it & run it offline? atm none as far as I can see

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that if they cave in now, and make that offline mode, they'll have to maintain and support that mode going forward, and include it in all future plans and changes. I completely understand that they'd rather get the current infrastructure nice and stable, and then go ahead with their master plan, whatever that is, instead of completely changing it to satisfy the small fraction of players who would rather mod it. Being able to mod a game is sweet, but it's a reasonable requirement of all games, especially ones designed around multiplayer. To me, demanding an offline SimCity version is almost like demanding an offline World of Warcraft (and I'm assuming here Maxis have plans to greatly expand the multiplayer aspects of the game in the coming years.) I think the fact that earlier SimCity games were playable offline, or that you can get parts of the the current game working offline right now, or that a side-effect of the online requirements works as a piracy protection are all irrelevant in this discussion.

Well, I wasn't thinking of just people who like to mod. I think there's definitely a size-able amount of people who would like to be able to play this game offline. But you're right, an official offline mode would need maintaining and support. For that reason alone I can understand not giving people the patch. They could do it with a note saying "Whatever, dude. Here it is. We won't support it further. Goodbye!" But hey, why do that when the players are going to crack it to that effect eventually anyway.

 

But requiring you to be always online is still weird, because it's not World of Warcraft. It's designed around asynchronous multiplayer, seemingly. Which is almost different from World of Warcraft, which is built around real-time multiplayer. None of the player interactions in SimCity need players to be online at the same time. Designing it around always-online just seems counter-intuitive to a player's needs. Which makes the piracy protection part of it sound more like the cause of this design, not just a side-effect.

 

EDIT: SimCity right now is comparable to a WordFeud that wouldn't let you view the board when offline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's worth pointing out that EA's public statement has been that the game uses the always-online functionality because some processes are handled by their servers rather than on the users' end, which is now demonstrably a complete lie. Between that and outright refusing to refund customers after promising they would, this is some serious Better Business Bureau shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO:

Jesus, quoting is broken right now.

 

I think your choice of the words offline mode is significant, because that's what most people are asking for, not a totally offline game.

People can (& do) accept that the multi-player version of a game should operate differently to the single player, they don't have to mirror every feature. 

 

Frankly my current line of thinking is: Someone will eventually crack the save function as well. At which point my question is simply, what good reason does someone who has bought the game have not to crack it & run it offline? atm none as far as I can see

But creating an offline mode would be tons of work, not only to design and implement, but to support as well. They can't just make a button that disables all the online stuff – they still have to design that experience as a fully-realised part of the game, compensating for the missing online functionality. It's a big undertaking. Also, who knows what role the servers will play in a year or two? It's like the Xbox hard disk – making it optional limited what you could expect of, and do with, the platform. With SimCity, having everyone always online makes that a thing you can continue to design the game around.

 

 

Well, I wasn't thinking of just people who like to mod. I think there's definitely a size-able amount of people who would like to be able to play this game offline. But you're right, an official offline mode would need maintaining and support. For that reason alone I can understand not giving people the patch. They could do it with a note saying "Whatever, dude. Here it is. We won't support it further. Goodbye!" But hey, why do that when the players are going to crack it to that effect eventually anyway.
 
But requiring you to be always online is still weird, because it's not World of Warcraft. It's designed around asynchronous multiplayer, seemingly. Which is almost different from World of Warcraft, which is built around real-time multiplayer. None of the player interactions in SimCity need players to be online at the same time. Designing it around always-online just seems counter-intuitive to a player's needs. Which makes the piracy protection part of it sound more like the cause of this design, not just a side-effect.

 

EDIT: SimCity right now is comparable to a WordFeud that wouldn't let you view the board when offline.

Asynchronous, yes, but not turn based. They have a constant stream of events going back and forth, and these are related to points on the continuous timeline. You can't just queue them up and then hit a button to sync them. Also, as I mentioned, I'm assuming they'll make more use of the MMO stuff in later upgrades and expansions, which would mean the game is more in a constant state off flux with regard to core functionality and mechanics. Who knows what kinds of interactions, asynchronous or not, they've got in the pipeline?

 

 

I think it's worth pointing out that EA's public statement has been that the game uses the always-online functionality because some processes are handled by their servers rather than on the users' end, which is now demonstrably a complete lie. Between that and outright refusing to refund customers after promising they would, this is some serious Better Business Bureau shit.

How is that a complete lie when it's obvious that all the intra-region stuff requires the server? Just because someone would like to turn those things off, or could live without them, they're still a part of the game. Demanding they redesign the game to make it playable offline is crazy.

 

If, in a year, SimCity has no meaningful functionality that depends on a server, it's a valid discussion. At this point it's premature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's worth pointing out that EA's public statement has been that the game uses the always-online functionality because some processes are handled by their servers rather than on the users' end, which is now demonstrably a complete lie. Between that and outright refusing to refund customers after promising they would, this is some serious Better Business Bureau shit.

 

Not true, all the calculations regarding sending resources, workers, and vehicles back and forth between areas in a region are being run on the server. That is some pretty major work being offloaded, even if a lot of people find those calculations uneccessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems fairly simple: cross-city play requires servers, standalone city play does not. If you're content without the former then the game is pretty much ready to go apart from a lack of being able to save (lol). If you want both then that, understandably, requires servers and I don't think any sane person will have an issue with that.

 

Unfortunately the unrelated issue of city size limits being far too restrictive virtually forces cross-city play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asynchronous, yes, but not turn based. They have a constant stream of events going back and forth, and these are related to points on the continuous timeline. You can't just queue them up and then hit a button to sync them. Also, as I mentioned, I'm assuming they'll make more use of the MMO stuff in later upgrades and expansions, which would mean the game is more in a constant state off flux with regard to core functionality and mechanics. Who knows what kinds of interactions, asynchronous or not, they've got in the pipeline?

FINE. You're right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be the only one who assumes there will be some sort of a single player big city expansion somewhere down the line, right? It just seems obvious that there is a demand for it, and people will surely pay cash money for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't be the only one who assumes there will be some sort of a single player big city expansion somewhere down the line, right? It just seems obvious that there is a demand for it, and people will surely pay cash money for it.

So in other words: they kick their customers in the nuts and then offer to sell them some painkillers. Brilliant! And the next logical step is to make the painkillers poisonous and then offer to sell them the antidote. And then the antidote carries some nasty disease, so they can offer to sell a cure...

 

If such DLC was released, I would lose all respect for anyone who bought it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So in other words: they kick their customers in the nuts and then offer to sell them some painkillers. Brilliant! And the next logical step is to make the painkillers poisonous and then offer to sell them the antidote. And then the antidote carries some nasty disease, so they can offer to sell a cure...

 

If such DLC was released, I would lose all respect for anyone who bought it.

 

*preorders it immediately*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, it seems like direction oversight rather than marketing genius. They wanted to make a simulation of a city, but were tied to a set of rules that only allowed a smaller city size. 

 

Okay cool, turns out a lot of people don't really want that, so I can't fault them for realizing that and creating more content that changes that direction and charging me for it.

 

I didn't buy SimCity, I was really excited for it, but after learning about the direction they took it in, I knew it wasn't for me. If they wanted to build a piece of content for people like me, I'd snatch it up in a second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have mixed feelings about the city size. In some ways I like it: it forces you to think much hard about how you want your city to eventually turn out, and you really have to plan well in advance. It turns any new building into a much more interesting decision, because every new zone or building comes at a cost; you simply can't do everything. It is a much more "gamey" design, but the new SimCity is very much a game instead of a simulation. I think limiting city-size does make it a better game, but a worse simulation. 

 

There's also the fact that the game systems increasingly break down as you ramp up population, or at least that's how it seems to me. Larger cities would suffer from this problem even more.

 

I have been building a relatively low population (sub 25,000) city with a focus on resource extraction, and the game systems work really well at that level. I also don't feel overly restricted in terms of city space. Of course, this is not the kind of city many fans want to build, and I can't blame them for that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely with pretty much everything The 'Blix said.

 

Not that I don't find a lot of this shit pretty hilarious and also sad, but, well, I still really like the game. The small city size is the only thing that bugs me - I purposefully picked an area with interesting terrain and it turns out that was a huge mistake. Building cities organically, WITH the terrain, is what interests me the most. I've learned, now, that I can't do that if I want to have a successful city. Gotta have the grids and shit for optimal efficiency. ERUGH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is that a complete lie when it's obvious that all the intra-region stuff requires the server? Just because someone would like to turn those things off, or could live without them, they're still a part of the game. Demanding they redesign the game to make it playable offline is crazy.

 

Not true, all the calculations regarding sending resources, workers, and vehicles back and forth between areas in a region are being run on the server. That is some pretty major work being offloaded, even if a lot of people find those calculations uneccessary.

 

I should have clarified that I mean single-player functions.

From the Rock Paper Shotgun interview with a Maxis employee two days ago, linked in that article:

The servers are not handling any of the computation done to simulate the city you are playing. They are still acting as servers, doing some amount of computation to route messages of various types between both players and cities. As well, they’re doing cloud storage of save games, interfacing with Origin, and all of that. But for the game itself? No, they’re not doing anything. I have no idea why they’re claiming otherwise. It’s possible that Bradshaw misunderstood or was misinformed, but otherwise I’m clueless.

 

[...]

 

It wouldn’t take very much engineering to give you a limited single-player game without all the nifty region stuff.

 

 

The region stuff is fine, that's actual multiplayer. But from what I'm seeing here, EA has been saying that their servers do things besides handle save storage and region stuff, which is obviously false since it's already been modded to work offline. So basically there's no good reason for the single player component to be online besides DRM, but it's been consistently stated on EA's part that this isn't the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there isn't a "single player component." There is just the game. The exchange of goods and services and guys and ambulances is an integral part of SimCity the game, which is just one game, and it's a multiplayer game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there isn't a "single player component." There is just the game. The exchange of goods and services and guys and ambulances is an integral part of SimCity the game, which is just one game, and it's a multiplayer game.

Yeah but that stuff doesn't actually work, at least reliably. In practice, you can't exchange goods and services and guys and ambulances because the regional stuff is still broken. So the game as delivered and as actually played by people so far is effectively single player. We are playing without multiplayer, which is pretty good evidence that the multiplayer isn't integral to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But there isn't a "single player component." There is just the game. The exchange of goods and services and guys and ambulances is an integral part of SimCity the game, which is just one game, and it's a multiplayer game.

 

No it isn't, BTW there's a hacked offfline mode now that works fine.

 

It's what they "want" the game to be about. This is a huge mistake I've seen any number of games make. "You have to do it this way, even though the rules should allow you to do it another way!" It's just the developer telling you you're wrong for having fun. I hated it in every Halo after the first one with their bullshit invisible walls that block vehicles. Getting a banshee or something into one of the indoor corridor parts of a level in Halo 1 is the best!

 

Similarly, "the exchange of goods and services and guys" is boring, BORING. It means all that simulation and all my planning goes out the window because of convenience. "Ok I have to make sure these places where people work can be reached by anyone that lives in the city without taking too long and that there's enough jobs for everyone or there's unemployment, but where do I?..." is a lot more interesting that "oh off they go, good thing part of the game is taken care of by someone else, wow this got a lot less interesting!"

 

They're wrong, it's funner to build a single player city and they should just acknowledge that they were wrong. Instead of getting upset that people want to actually have fun in a way they didn't think of. It's the equivalent of some dude preventing kids from mixing lego sets together because "that's not how you do it!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't, BTW there's a hacked offfline mode now that works fine.

 

It's what they "want" the game to be about.

Never-the-less, that's what the game currently is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we all understand what the game is*. Whether or not it should be is another matter. IMO they should have provided a segmented experience like virtually every other game rather than force it upon everyone. This approach is making few people happy and is possibly the root of numerous serious flaws with the game.

*A mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but that stuff doesn't actually work, at least reliably. In practice, you can't exchange goods and services and guys and ambulances because the regional stuff is still broken. So the game as delivered and as actually played by people so far is effectively single player. We are playing without multiplayer, which is pretty good evidence that the multiplayer isn't integral to the game.

It's been working for me? I'm fairly certain I've seen ambulances and firetrucks and police cars and garbage trucks and ET CETERA come in and help me out. I know for certain I've seen criminals coming in from other cities. I've also bought and sold energy, water, etc.

 

Also, now you're arguing about the quality of the implementation of the mechanics, rather than whether or not the multiplayer is core to the game design (or at least what they were going for). That's a different argument. Denying reality because something is done poorly doesn't really serve any purpose. The fact is, EA/Maxis, for whatever reason, wants the game to be a multiplayer experience, and that's what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now