I got a bad feeling about this game.

I mean, I guess out of the nature of the experience EA/Maixs are trying to provide I can understand the nature of the press preview for reviews. But, I don't know, I read an article from ars technica talking about how frustrating it is to grow a city beyond 200k. And with EA talking about micro transactions, and the fact that they're already admittedly holding back on structures in this game.. I think when they flip the lights on there is going to be a bunch of "paid" shortcuts and whathave you.

I hope I'm wrong. But I cancelled my pre-order..and i'm just gonna wait till this game releases. Cause if I am wrong..then shit I can't wait to play it.

I've just been burned too many times the past couple of years. I'm tired of paying full price for a facade.

That's why preordering is stupid.

@oscar__explosion: I kind of like having the game installed when I get home.

It's pretty disgusting what EA has been doing with micro transactions in their games lately. I agree that a lot of the things they've said about Simcity could definitely hurt the quality of the game. It's like they don't understand that mobile games and facebook games do micro transactions because they're free. I'm paying 60 fucking dollars for this thing, I better get all the content! It requiring Origin doesn't help either.

Its got some decent reviews already, but yeah, its usually good news in those initial reviews for some reason.

None of their microtransactions in full priced games so far (ME3 and DS3) have been egregious or necessary. They've been completely ignorable and unobtrusive. Let's wait for them to actually fuck up before we start throwing around words like "disgusting".

Also, Origin's absolutely fine. If you still have issues with Origin they are in your mind. Sure, it's not Steam, but it does its job.

The game received a 9.5 from Polygon. Apparently it's quite good.

@rolyatkcinmai: Yes. I think it will land around 8/10. But for a city builder game almost alone among fps and third-person shooters that's pretty good in my opinion. At least it offers something else.

a lot of the comments are pretty confused by the polygon review though. This one comment stood out to me:

silellak

Ugh. I would be all over this, except:

SimCity demands a constant connection to the EA servers, through Origin, in order to play. This can be problematic at times, but in my experience with SimCity, it was also (when it worked) seamless.

Not good enough. I’m not buying an MMO, I’m buying a Sim City game. “When it works” should be “all the fucking time assuming my computer comes on.”

We reviewed SimCity with pre-release code provided by EA, and played on one of their reserved servers.* Server inavailability was a minor issue, at first, but after a handful of false starts over the course of an afternoon I experienced no problems.*

It’s distressing that server availability and “false starts” were an issue even when EA presumably hascomplete control over the number of people playing. How can there be a lack of servers when they should know exactly how many review copies went out?

More problematic (for me) was my home network set-up and a wi-fi router that has taken to dropping connections of late. If you lose an internet connection while playing SimCity will most likely stop and you will be forced back to the loading screen. Sucks to be whatever sims you may have been trying to help or rescue. If you do not have a connection when you try to start playing, the game will not start.

That’s terrible. There’s not even any grace period? Connection drops and you’re done, no matter what you’re doing? There’s no quick/auto save at that moment? How is that considered acceptable behavior?

It remains to be seen if EA’s servers will be up to the task of hosting however many simultaneous SimCity games will be played post-release. And those with unreliable internet connections may need to consider if the ability to play SimCity is worth an upgrade of either your service provider or equipment, which may be a cost too high to bear.

That’s…just…ridiculous.

Sigh. I realize it makes me an old “GET OFF MY LAWN” curmudgeon, but I refuse to buy a single player game that requires I be online to play it.

Ars Technica is saying not great things about it, but they seem to be stuck on the city size not being as big as before. Doesn't mean the game isn't good.

From Kevin VanOrd's Twitter:

My Sim City review will come this week. I ran into an issue in which half a day's progress went down the drain due to server problems.

Jeff and Alex also have a very long back and forth about a bunch of buggy stuff in the game.

I'm getting a very "Diablo III" vibe from this.

So, whats the word on the street on the city size ... is what was in beta actually the maxium?

Yea idk, I am kind of glad amazon canceled my preorder, hearing really mixed things about it. I know the small city plots would probably drive me crazy. Guess I'll wait to hear more.

@banefirelord: This latest info we're getting makes it seem like there are some issues. Its so odd that if the game is good, they can't make bigger size cities and fix their severs to capitalize on good gameplay; surely testers have wanted bigger play-areas from the start? Odd.

My guess is that they have bigger areas, but you have to micro-purchase those.

I'm personally kind of tired of all the trash talking microtransactions/dlc and the always on DRM stuff and Origin. Origin was shit when it first came out, but it is pretty good now (nowhere near Steam standards, but fine for certain EA games). Microtransactions CAN be done correctly (Mass Effect 3 for example where you could COMPLETELY earn credits on your own by playing to buy packs or buy packs with real money to accelerate the process and it didn't give you unfair advantage due to the coop nature of the multiplayer). DLC is fine and I encourage it. It gives legs to games I've already played or am playing at the moment and want something new or more out of it. The always on DRM stuff has been issues in the past, but with internet being very common nowadays and companies doing it correctly (unlike early Ubisoft and somewhat nowaday Ubisoft but has gotten better), the DRM stuff is totally fine and prevents hacking at least for a bit after launch. Diablo 3 had issues at the start, but we can only hope with the beta testing that was done in this game and the fact that EA knows this game is going to be huge, the servers will work fine on day one. I can account for the fact the server status in the betas got better with each beta.

Yes.

Oh don't worry, it'll be allright.

@cbarnes86: The current state of the game is what is being judged. Not what it could or will end up becoming in the future. If the servers don't work, or there are bugs, then that'll define the release of this game.

This game is going to be Diablo III all over again. The game will be great, but the always online will bother people. It's not going to go away so keep thinking voting with your dollar is going to do anything. Just accept it. Not saying you have to like it, but that's just how things are now.

I don't care about always on DRM. I have a strong internet connection, I pay for my games, and I don't take them with me. Microtransactions in this game would be like; "It seems crime rates won't go down despite your cities vigilance... for 4.99 we can add a superhero!" and I'm basing that off of how they've previously been implemented.

And there is no place in this game for DLC. IF you want to sell me an xpac, that's fine I'll buy an xpac, I think most of us would. I'll make a city on mars, or in the 1700s. But don't nickel and dime me for textures, textures that are obviously done pre-launch. And we can sit here and trivalize them as being non-essential to be more or less successful in the game. But that doesn't change the fact that you're getting less for your money, and allowing them to sell you less content, out of some ridiculous notion of "supporting the developers". Cause if this game was on steam..there would be an ARMY of modders chopping at the bit to add a galaxy of new buildings and scenarios for free, and at, or much better quality than the studio could provide. Who probably didn't even make the assets in the fist place. Probably some sweatshop in China or something.

I played the beta a little bit. There's a good Sim City game in there, but I also ran into the Diablo 3 launch scenario where I just couldn't connect. It's sad that I have to make this recommendation, but regardless of how the actual game turns out, if you're on the fence, don't buy it at launch. Wait for the inevitable storm of complaints about server availability, some legitimate, others hyperbole, to blow over. Then, a week or so out from release, consider buying the game.

Yeah. I read and laughed at that one over there too. Reading comments on internet articles is a great way to find people who hate literally everything. That guy will mumble and grumble and then buy the game and enjoy it like everyone else.

This whole scenario you've drummed up is pretty pointless since there are currently no microtransactions in SimCity and there doesn't appear to be immediate plans for them. If they do implement them, EA's current track record is very good on full priced games, making them completely unnecessary.

People need to stop raging about hypotheticals.

@rolyatkcinmai: I don't need to stop doing anything. If I want to "rage" about hypothetical situations that's on me.

Played the beta and really enjoyed it. The criticisms are already out there: people are miffed the area is too small to build huge cities in, and the multiplayer focus seems like a sticking point for some folks. Also Jeff doesn't like the road tools.

Worry not, EA figured out the majority of consumers are retarded. Game will make bank, always DRM is here to stay, and DLC will be amazing a week after it's out.

Funny enough, only DMC fans have self control to not spend money on stuff they don't want. Why can't the rest of you?

@dirkdeadeye said:

You're right, that is on you and it makes you look completely silly. I'll be right there raging alongside you if they actually do something wrong, but until then I'm mature enough not to go and prematurely condemn something.

I'll just play Simcity 4 until there is more concrete info on this game. Maybe even some Simcity 2000.

If I follow your logic, simcity will be a game history will remember as a overhyped ''meh'' that failed on launch day. Not sure how that makes a good case for always on online DRM being here to stay...

PC gamer has a review in progress for the game (link), sounds like one issue is that it isn't always clear why things go bad in your city. Which is often true of games in the genre.

LIVE quick look in 50 minutes on this site. :)

The part where Diablo III sold 12 million copies says otherwise.

Aaaaand I'm skipping class today. Thanks Giant Bomb!

Winner winner chicken dinner. People bitch about D3 but sales don't lie. Consumers want it, 12 million units don't lie.

I feel for game developers that make niche games like this. You spend a lot of time making a game for an audience that is small, and will never make Call of Duty (or even an average top tier game) numbers. So your publisher doesn't give you the budget or resources you really want, but you make the best of what you have. The problem is the criticism within that small audience scales just the same, you end up with a lot of unhappy fans who decide to skip it so you're not even reaching the limits of your very small audience and you fail to prove that this venture was worth it.

It seems like the reality is that when these games don't make the numbers, it gives publishers like EA just another reason to never bother funding them in the future. So yeah, be upset about the problems you have with the game but it bums me out that people are being turned off to a game that doesn't come around very often. Though I would say getting worried about completely unconfirmed microtransactions is not a legit reason to not buy a game. If things like that turn you off that much then you should never pre-purchase a game.

I don't even know if I'll like it yet, but I'm almost never wrong about what games I will enjoy.

According to a french website, jeuxvideo.com, Sim City is the disappointment of the year. They scored it a rough 6 out of 10. ( 12/20 ) They say it's simply not a very good game, to begin with. Add on top of that the always-online problematic...

He has many of the same concerns as others but Rorie seems to like it.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/78062/simcity-review-return-of-a-classic

Sounds like people are on both sides of the fence, which is normal for strategy games usually. This is going to be interesting.

Its not enough like Call of Duty or Uncharted = Bad GAME. Disappointment of the century!

That was on the good faith of Diablo 2, and hype behind Diablo 3. I think the real question is, can they do it again after shipping this one? Diablo 3 for all intents and purposes was a solid game. But, I don't think it's what a lot of people came to expect. Either they were too attached to Diablo 2..or weren't prepared for the monotonous grind this game had to offer.

I don't think it's fair to say the game was successful because it sold a shitload of copies. I can take a shit in a box, and write Half Life 3 on it. And it'll fuckin' sell 15-30million.

The Cities are

S M A L L.

Jesus christ, Maxis. So small. SimTown rather.

Aye, what the fuck gives?

@mosdl: This PC Gamer review in progress and Ars Technica article were the first press that makes me concerned with this game. I can't wait to play it but 200k population sounds pretty shitty. It could indicate one of those situations where 1-4 hours of beta gameplay doesn't reveal the flaws of the game.

The PCG article talked about how the reviewer tried to fix the roads in his city and it was completely unclear to me what he did? Hitting a million population is a landmark in SC, if they can't make it fun at a 1/5 of that total, there will be an intense backlash.

I'm not thrilled with all the always on/microtransaction nonsense, but this population wall is an actual gameplay design flaw separate from the marketing/distribution of the game. I hope more people expand on it. There seems to be a lot to praise about the game but if the reviewers don't put in the hours they will be seriously misrepresenting the game if this point is indeed legit.

Sounds about right, I would be somewhat okay with this if this game wasn't so expensive from the get-go.

No one said you would pay for bigger cities, sad to see all this false info out there.

@djou: You can upgrade roads to allow higher density

so, from the quicklook, the game looks meh. Cool, my PC probably can't run it anyway. Going to track down simcity 4 and play that instead.

@dirkdeadeye: Pretty sure Diablo 3 only sold 6.3 in its first week, so any sales beyond that were post-controversy. Furthermore, the problems with the game only arose once you got to cap.

On topic: I think my worries about simcity are more with it not being the type of city builder I want it to be. I don't doubt that it will be fun, but I like to expand out, and with all the empty space around your square, that doesn't seem possible.

There's an acheivement in Simcity for hitting 1 million residents, so you definitely can do it!

The city size limitation is crippling. I live in a sprawling prairie town that is at least five times the size of the space they give you, and my city has only 684,000 people in it. In Sim City 4 I was able to just keep building and building, with ample space to model any city I wished.

Simulations live and die by their authenticity, and SimCity has already failed.

The quick look was about what i expected, basically bugs that will get fixed in time and the city size are the biggest complaints. They already said that they will make larger city spaces in the future so i think im still looking forward to it. Jeffs comment at the end basically saying he hates that he likes it says a lot, i think it will get better with time.

Its not only the city size that kills it for me, but the unnatural square box that my city must reside in. Even if the shape was the same area but more organic I think it would not look so arbitrarily limiting. Jeff's huge city tightly packed into a tiny box with open fields all around looks idiotic.

There's nothing stopping you from making a region really represent a city, and each city plot represent a district of sorts, and I feel that's the definition they should have gone with, but I see your point.