Sim City (2013) lowest rated game on Amazon ever (1.2 outta 5, 2600 reviews)

[cramx3]

Is the game really that bad or is this all an outlash at DRM?

From what I've read, the game is actually very good. It's just that a lot of people haven't been able to play it.

Also, it's losing some points for being muliplayer only. Part of the current clusterfuck is that they used it's multiplayer component as a selling point for the always-on internet connection, even though plenty of people just want single player gaming, and then to try and get the servers to not shit all over the people who bought the silly thing, they've had to disable a whole lot of the multiplayer functionality. 

Thanks, I haven't played Sim City in a looong time, I guess I don't understand how it works in multiplayer so id be pretty annoyed too.

[orcus116]

It's not a multiplayer game at all. Never has been, never will be.

[Implode]

I was just saying the other say, 10 years later, and they still can't make a Sim City game quite as well as SC4. The days of the awesome simulator/tycoon games are gone. Game creators aren't willing to make a game with the same mindset now. Sim City and Spore are just a couple examples.

As a huge fan of SC4, I know most the community wasn't expecting too much from the game. Many will reside to play SC4 for 10 more years if they have to.

[toro]

lol fuck EA.

[ReaperKK]

Not surprised by all of this. One of the many reasons I haven't bought an EA title in years.

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

https://www.ea.com/news/a-simcity-update-and-something-for-your-trouble

I find this answer a little to vague, i mean sure..it's hard to pre-test a million players logg in at the same time but their answer is almost like: Don't worry consumers, the game is really good and we have proof of that! It may very well be but that was not really the question or problem, i have faith in the developers and i feel for them but...yea...it's you EA, that's where the problem is.

So what went wrong?  The short answer is: a lot more people logged on than we expected.  More people played and played in ways we never saw in the beta.

OK, we agree, that was dumb, but we are committed to fixing it.  In the last 48 hours we increased server capacity by 120 percent.  It’s working – the number of people who have gotten in and built cities has improved dramatically.  The number of disrupted experiences has dropped by roughly 80 percent.

[orcus116]

I want them to explain exactly how this game is "built for online play".

[Fiery Winds]

I'm curious whether handing out over a million free games is more of a loss than just shipping without online only DRM to begin with.

[Tanatra]

Hmm, StarCraft II is similar in terms of not being able to play without an internet connection. Unless I'm mistaken, you can't even play single-player Campaign mode without an internet connection.

Of course, SC2 is obviously a multiplayer game, and it's for this reason that Blizzard goes above and beyond in keeping the fanbase happy with system updates, prompt notifications of downtime and other issues in advance, being open to player feedback, etc. At least that's always been my experience with them.

[Onno]

Hmm, StarCraft II is similar in terms of not being able to play without an internet connection. Unless I'm mistaken, you can't even play single-player Campaign mode without an internet connection.

Of course, SC2 is obviously a multiplayer game, and it's for this reason that Blizzard goes above and beyond in keeping the fanbase happy with system updates, prompt notifications of downtime and other issues in advance, being open to player feedback, etc. At least that's always been my experience with them.

Yes, but that Blizzard did it with SC2 and D3 isn't that bad IMO. I've never ever had server problems in those two games, and as long as you have a decent internet connection, you can play without any problems. Nowadays, almost everyone has a great internet connection (at least here in Holland), so I don't really mind it too much. It's a bit of a bugger for LAN parties and such though.

[snapple]

someone said Spore...fuck Spore.

[Implode]

That was me. Agreed. EA/Maxis ruined that game too.

[Sigz]

I'm curious whether handing out over a million free games is more of a loss than just shipping without online only DRM to begin with.

If the people continue playing, the DLC sold makes up for it.

[orcus116]

I wonder if the DLC in this case is really superfluous extra crap or critical game features already installed from the initial download but you need to pay to unlock even though you bought the whole game in the first place.

[Fiery Winds]

I wouldn't be opposed to on disk unlockable content like that if they lowered the box price to compensate.  Sort of like halfway to a free to play system.  And even then, the content should be worth buying without being a required purchase.

[orcus116]

I disagree. If you pay money and receive the entire disc, you should be able to access all of it. Imagine buying the luxury version of a car so you get a new CD/MP3 player, AC, heated seats, all that jazz but then in order to actually make those things work you need to shell out more money. It's like the price you used to pay to have everyone now is he price you pay just to have the opportunity to pay to use all of the other features. It's a disgraceful business tactic.

[Fiery Winds]

When talking about physical features like that, sure, but the digital realm is very different.  I downloaded a game on my phone that features microtransactions.  There are abilities to purchase that are built into the game, but you have to pay to use.  But the game itself was free.  And I haven't spent a dime on those features, but they're there if you want to use them.  Seems like a good balance.   

Especially when looking at the pipeline to create new content, just because the content is on the disk, doesn't mean that it's part of the original content.  It's a license to play, not ownership of everything on the disk.  Not all instances are like that though, Mass Effect 3 DLC for one.  That mission and story arc are considered by most to be integral to the overall story of the series, and to set that aside as extra content to be paid for doesn't seem like a good use of that system.

[orcus116]

When I pay full price for a disc worth of material, I expect that I have paid for the entire disc worth of material and should be able to access everything, either right away or through normal gameplay. Expecting the customer to pay more to access the rest is fucking the customer and bad business, end of story.

[Fiery Winds]

Just because something is on the disk doesn't mean that it was part of the original game experience.  Near the end of game development, there are usually many teams that no longer have a workload.  Rather than break the flow, they start working on (already planned) DLC.  Sometimes they get it done before release and can package it on the disk. 

Again, I'm not defending all instances of Day 1 DLC as it's still a relatively new system that needs to be balanced.  I just disagree that the customer is entitled to every bit on the disk/download.   

[snapple]

i love the internet

[orcus116]

But if it's already completed then why can't it be part of the original game? It seems like you're cheating the customer big time. Plus the more and more this kind of things becomes acceptable the more cretins like this crawl out of the woodwork:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZR6-u8OIJTE

[ehra]

On disk DLC is one of those arguments that I don't see much point in getting involved in. Whether it's on the disk or not seems pretty irrelevant to me and it tends to be pretty irrelevant to how people feel about DLC in general. If the DLC released 2 months after the game came out rather than on release day then people would still go on about how it was probably just held back from release so they could sell it later.


If the Sega Genesis Sonic games came out today and had a day one DLC pack that contained the abandoned levels that have since been found in the files people would scream about how it should have been included in the base game, when the alternative is that those levels never got finished at all because they weren't worth the cost of finishing.

[Cable]

I downloaded "Real Racing 3" on my phone the other day. Well, it's a free download, and the game is insanely good. The way they make the money off it is essentially by making it impossible to get anywhere competitive without buying upgrades to your cars with real money. I read an article where someone calculated how much money you would have to spend in order to finish the game (i.e. own all cars in the game). $500. Nice.

And the problem with the mobile games is clearly the same total work hours are not the same as big, up front cost games. So the depth often does not go beyond games from the 80's, which is basically when big games could be done with small teams.

Spending ridiculous amounts of $ to do anything is absurd, thus why my mobile gaming is very limited.

It is a shame the micro transactions are now making their way into big developer games that require up front cost. I don't mind paying a little more up front, or a small charge for stuff. But up to 2k of DLC? :-/ *shrug*
Now I know why I stay away from modern games mostly.

[snapple]

I really like Planetside 2's model. You can "p2w", in the sense that you can get more efficient weapons, but all the stock weapons are just fine. And, with the exception of camo and cosmetics, you can obtain everything else f2p. Also, you can only unlock weapons with $, to get scopes and other upgrades to weapons, you need certs (which is what you get for just playing), you can't buy those.

[Nick]

I do love the SimCity games of old, and will be interested in trying this out one day, it's just a matter of eventually getting unbiased reviews to decide if it's worth it.

[Implode]

Definitely let us know what you think about it! And include what SC games you've played in the past with your thoughts. I've been comparing data.

[El Barto]

I do love the SimCity games of old, and will be interested in trying this out one day, it's just a matter of eventually getting unbiased reviews to decide if it's worth it.

Even the biased reviews speak pretty favorably of it, from what I've seen. I don't think anybody's saying it's not a very good game (when it's playable). What I haven't seen is anybody explaining what makes it an improvement over 4, which works just fine. The question people need to ask is whether or not it's enough of an improvement to put up with all the bullshit involved.

Me personally, I'll probably wait 9 months until it's $20 on Steam (so as not to reward EA for their dickery), and then download a cracked version to actually play so I don't have to deal with the bullshit.

[Chino]

I'd rather see a new Roller Coaster Tycoon.

[JayOctavarium]

I'd rather see a new Roller Coaster Tycoon.

Oh my god yes


What was the most recent one? 3? I grew up on 1 and a few years ago played 2 to death. 3 would never run on my comp

[Implode]

I still play RCT and RCT2 to this day. They are among my favorite games of all time. I don't think them making a new one would be good though. They'd most likely screw it up. I mean, heck. They already did when the expansion packs to 2 came out, and 3 just continued down the wrong direction.

[orcus116]

I do love the SimCity games of old, and will be interested in trying this out one day, it's just a matter of eventually getting unbiased reviews to decide if it's worth it.

Even the biased reviews speak pretty favorably of it, from what I've seen. I don't think anybody's saying it's not a very good game (when it's playable). What I haven't seen is anybody explaining what makes it an improvement over 4, which works just fine. The question people need to ask is whether or not it's enough of an improvement to put up with all the bullshit involved.

As stupid as it sound the removal of water pipes is a very huge feature to me.

I still play RCT and RCT2 to this day. They are among my favorite games of all time. I don't think them making a new one would be good though. They'd most likely screw it up. I mean, heck. They already did when the expansion packs to 2 came out, and 3 just continued down the wrong direction.

Maybe I'll send you the file of the park I made from Arid Heights. Has 7 or 8 different themed areas and I was in the fucking zone when I made it.

[Implode]

We should share creations! I've debated making an RCT thread before. I don't play as intensely as I used to, but I've made some awesome things over the years, and I'm sure other people have too!

I do love the SimCity games of old, and will be interested in trying this out one day, it's just a matter of eventually getting unbiased reviews to decide if it's worth it.

Even the biased reviews speak pretty favorably of it, from what I've seen. I don't think anybody's saying it's not a very good game (when it's playable). What I haven't seen is anybody explaining what makes it an improvement over 4, which works just fine. The question people need to ask is whether or not it's enough of an improvement to put up with all the bullshit involved.

As stupid as it sound the removal of water pipes is a very huge feature to me.

Right. The only thing the game actually does better is the graphics. It really does look amazing. Other than that, the game has been stripped down in functionality so much, it's awful. You can't make highways or water pipes. There is no terriforming at all. Zoning is unnecessarily difficult and often leaves large open spaces in your "city" which is bad enough when they barely give you any room to work with in the first place. You can't control which cities are connected to what. Glassbox was a good idea on paper, but it's been implemented awfully. They had to restrict city size and connectivity because of it. And the path-finding of sims, buses, and garbage trucks are laughable. (https://youtu.be/zcEaHT9mt-Y video for reference) It looks as though cars just look for the shortest distance to take rather than taking into account traffic and road capacity. It was a problem in SC4 that they never fixed. The community has come up with mods to fix it, but EA/Maxis apparently doesn't care enough. And it's even worse than that; someone was running some experiments:

Its actually MUCH worse than them just taking the shortest route, they also have no memory of where the live or where they work so they all are trying to take the most direct route to the closest available house (or job ect)  Once that fills they all take the most direct route to the next available un occupied house.  I confirmed this by building 2 residential areas, one a bit close to my industry and one a bit further.  Every day all the cars would go to the first and when it all filled the would U turn and go toward the second.  This is why all the buses follow each other, they are all trying to get to the same place.

(https://community.simtropolis.com/topic/54642-videos-show-path-finding-inherently-broken/?p=1342166)

Very realistic... 

I mean, sure. It looks good graphics wise, but look how much less you can really create not only on the large scale, but the small scale as well.




vs

[Chino]

I'd rather see a new Roller Coaster Tycoon.

Oh my god yes


What was the most recent one? 3? I grew up on 1 and a few years ago played 2 to death. 3 would never run on my comp

The third installment was complete shit and I like to pretend it didn't happen. I played the first two for thousands of hours as a kid.

I've been debating the second one and all its expansions off Amazon for $10 digital download, but I'm not sure if it will work on my Windows 7 machine.

[JayOctavarium]

I think I played 2 on my windows 7... I don't remember if It was this laptop or my vista laptop. I'm debating on whether or not I want to dig out my copy of 2 or just spend the $10 for it again on Amazon...

[Chino]

I think I played 2 on my windows 7... I don't remember if It was this laptop or my vista laptop. I'm debating on whether or not I want to dig out my copy of 2 or just spend the $10 for it again on Amazon...

$10 for the game and all expansions is a freaking steal.