Sim City

nesf

Azza wrote: »

I might pick this up now, seems to be in decent order now after several patches and it can be picked up pretty cheap now.

*hate*

Laviski

Azza wrote: »

I might pick this up now, seems to be in decent order now after several patches and it can be picked up pretty cheap now.

still gonna wait till its cheaper before i buy although people that buy this game will now know it work all be it small city sizes.

the_syco

Mc Love wrote: »

Update 7 is out and the reports I have seen so far have said huge improvements in traffic and services now functioning as they should have from day one!! Plus you can build tunnels and overpasses!

Reinstalls game.

Azza wrote: »

I might pick this up now, seems to be in decent order now after several patches and it can be picked up pretty cheap now.

Would €24 suit you?

Mc Love

You guys dont know what you are missing out on! Sure the city size is ridiculous but its practically the only issue with the game at this point. I had a large city (pop) and the small fire station was doing the job!

Slutmonkey57b

Eoin247 wrote: »

Not unless he was undercover :P

But seriously, simcity as it is is one of the most taxing games out there for computers. I think it's the GPU you should be looking at rather than CPU. A quick google search for GPU reviews and benchmarks shows that simcity at max settings gives you one of the lowest fps of any game currently available!

Has it occurred to you that the poor performance might be down to **** coding, not the stresses of the game?

Azza

Slutmonkey57b wrote:

Has it occurred to you that the poor performance might be down to **** coding, not the stresses of the game?

Is there any evidence to support that claim. As far as I'm aware the game doesn't have a reputation for being unoptimized.

nesf

Azza wrote: »

Is there any evidence to support that claim. As far as I'm aware the game doesn't have a reputation for being unoptimized.

Most of the questioning I've seen has been: "Where is all the power going?" The graphics maxed out do not look like they should stress a high end GPU like they do.

the_syco

Looks a bit better. Pity you can't build power lines, though. Gonna have to demolish some houses just to put a road down to magically power some houses

the_syco

Jaysus, came across the blog about raising and lowering the roads. It's almost like they've raised their hands and admitted that their traffic lights are failures!

Dcully

Sure the city size is ridiculous but its practically the only issue with the game at this point

Its been the number one issue for me since release,depressing the hear its still not addressed.
I havent played since 3 weeks after release.

Kirby

I'm not that fussed with the size. People calling for 5x the size for example are going a bit overboard. I think Double the size would solve a lot of problems and is very doable.

No, for me the biggest issue is the simulation itself. It needs to feel more real with more going on under the hood. Sims with real problems.

nesf

Kirby wrote: »

I'm not that fussed with the size. People calling for 5x the size for example are going a bit overboard. I think Double the size would solve a lot of problems and is very doable.

No, for me the biggest issue is the simulation itself. It needs to feel more real with more going on under the hood. Sims with real problems.

I agree the simulation is a core problem, but for the people calling for 5x remember the city size possible in SC4 and the scope available to you. I think they very much miss this, though most would recognise that other than being about cities SC4 and SC5 are very, very different games in terms of core design.

Slutmonkey57b

Azza wrote: »

Is there any evidence to support that claim. As far as I'm aware the game doesn't have a reputation for being unoptimized.

Have you read this thread? This is a game which is so badly coded and full of bugs they effectively had to switch off half its features to get it working for more than a few minutes at launch. And you believe coders that can't work out how to get login working on an in house Amazon cloud system were able to write well optimised graphics code? The default position must be "prove it's *not* crap" or the terrorists win. And by terrorists I mean **** coders and theiving lying sales people.

VinLieger

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Have you read this thread? This is a game which is so badly coded and full of bugs they effectively had to switch off half its features to get it working for more than a few minutes at launch. And you believe coders that can't work out how to get login working on an in house Amazon cloud system were able to write well optimised graphics code? The default position must be "prove it's *not* crap" or the terrorists win. And by terrorists I mean **** coders and theiving lying sales people.

Yes because the people building the game engine were responsible for the login servers

Newaglish

I still never understood how the network/login issues and turning off cheetah speed were related.

Slutmonkey57b

Newaglish wrote: »

I still never understood how the network/login issues and turning off cheetah speed were related.

Only in that crap code, nonexistent qa and management signoff of broken product with the intention of covering up by pr hype and a craven spineless press corps applied to more than one coding team.

Slutmonkey57b

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes because the people building the game engine were responsible for the login servers

There is indisputable evidence of bad coding at all levels of this game. From design, networking, functionality, performance, usability, bugs, graphics you name it, it was broken at launch.

Laviski

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

There is indisputable evidence of bad coding at all levels of this game. From design, networking, functionality, performance, usability, bugs, graphics you name it, it was broken at launch.

broken at launch i don't think anyone would dissagree with you but i caved in and i must say the game seems very much playable and enjoyable. i did a lot of research in recent articles and youtube videos before i made the purchase and they all pretty much say this is how the game should have being at launch. but i wouldn't have paid full price for this game.

humanji

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

There is indisputable evidence of bad coding at all levels of this game. From design, networking, functionality, performance, usability, bugs, graphics you name it, it was broken at launch.

You're mistaking bad coding for lazy coding. The game worked, but not in the way it was expected to.

Laviski

anyone on boards still playing this feel free to add me ;-)

VinLieger

Gave it a bash again over the last 2 days and found it still has the same problems with trading and raw material industries

the_syco

Going to build an entire new map. Although long cul-de-sac's promote a good neighbourhood, the houses at the end won't have electricity. A simple power-line or two would fix that, but can't see such an idea happening.

New map will hopefully have spaghetti junctions instead of crossroads, so that fire-engines can get to the fire faster!

cherryghost

New expansion announced - Cities of Tomorrow. Now with
- The same sized map
- Still always online play

Dcully

lol yet more sim town - oh the joy.

Yakult

€40 on Origin.. LOL. EA/Maxis - go home, you are drunk.

Dcully

I find this announcement to be fcuking hilarious.
Im not alone either .



Taken from corsual.com and i couldnt agree more.


This expansion offers absolutely nothing players are asking for, even one look at the youtube video comments are a great determining factor of what players actually want. There are almost 500 comments on the video so far and the majority of them are either asking for bigger plot sizes (which they have been for months now) or arguing with other people about why there should be bigger plot sizes. Plot sizes EA, it isn’t a difficult thing, people want bigger pieces of land and they want to build farther into the landscape instead. I’ve never played a previous SimCity for longer than an hour but as far as I remember the land plots were FAR larger.

Besides the horrendous login issues at the release of this game, it was actually fairly entertaining for a while. I invested about a weeks’ worth of time into the game and actually enjoyed myself quite a bit, but that was it, a week. The game was essentially the exact same thing over and over, which is apparently entertaining to some but I just couldn’t try and lie to myself that after a week, I wasn’t bored of doing the exact same thing each time. I understand the different options available during play, but they just seemed so scarce for a launch, you essentially got what could have been a $5 indie game for $60 and it left me feeling extremely ripped off, but it’s EA so that was to be expected.

With the release of an expansion pack will there be a reason to actually play the game again? My guess is going to be no. They added a few new locations for you to play in, along with a couple of new buildings to build and a different way to build them, a new disaster and a few other things that are so trivial there is probably no reason to even invest the time in using them.

There is something very unnerving about the fact that EA can constantly release these sub-par games and “DLC” that should have been in the game in the first place, and actually still consider themselves a competing and driving force in the video game industry. They might make good sales sure, but there are already people boycotting them and with the way the internet works nowadays when one person hates something, so do 10, 000 other people. I’m curious as to how long it takes until EA fizzles out into absolute nothingness because even their loyal fans get tired of their constant DLC and refusal to actually implement something worth it in their games.

BlitzKrieg

There is something very unnerving about the fact that EA can constantly release these sub-par games and “DLC” that should have been in the game in the first place, and actually still consider themselves a competing and driving force in the video game industry. They might make good sales sure, but there are already people boycotting them and with the way the internet works nowadays when one person hates something, so do 10, 000 other people. I’m curious as to how long it takes until EA fizzles out into absolute nothingness because even their loyal fans get tired of their constant DLC and refusal to actually implement something worth it in their games.

That's a bit of a delusion there

Outkast_IRE

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

That's a bit of a delusion there

The tide is turning a bit on EA at the moment though.

Don't think I will buy BF4 this year, because of the whole thing with Premium etc it looks like it will cost about €120 to play the full version of the game.

Grumpypants

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

That's a bit of a delusion there

Look at the person who wrote it, zero insight into the industry and the whole article is based on YouTube comments.

Dcully

Grumpypants wrote: »

Look at the person who wrote it, zero insight into the industry and the whole article is based on YouTube comments.

But hes correct in what hes saying apart from the bit about how long wil EA last etc.
Everything else is on the money.

Will you be buying this so called expansion?