bit-gamer.net

SimCity (2013) review

Comments 26 to 50 of 55

Reply
javaman 8th April 2013, 16:59 Quote
TBH I'm very reluctant to try this sim city game simply because I haven't found any of them fun. Thats coming from sim city, sim city 2000 and a few recent mobile versions of the game. All had the same problem, it felt like you where watching a city with a few buttons to push without actually being in control like in Anno.
steveo_mcg 8th April 2013, 17:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomrh99
I think this game deserves the 40% it got. Aside from the awful DRM which cripples the game as a whole, the poor AI makes road managing and building managing really poor (they will always take the shortest road route, even if it is full of traffic). The online play is not really needed and is less fun in a lot of ways than if you had just one big city. It also apparently is not fun after about 10 hours for many people, which limits the playtime a lot compared to previous editions.

Hate to break it to you but that is RL, thats why we have traffic jams...
moose67 8th April 2013, 17:23 Quote
I've always been a Simcity fan but have been totally turned off by this latest release.

Normally I would have waited until it's been reduced in price and then I could live with any flaws that might be present. But with SC5 I just can't see one redeeming feature that would make me over look all the negatives.

I've hated EA for years anyway, and I object to being forced to install 3rd party software in order to be able to play a video game, so it's all for the best really, EA didn't get my money and my PC stays crap free.
bigc90210 8th April 2013, 17:50 Quote
perhaps this should have had 2 scores, one if you're an always-on-internet-user, and one if you're not?
rollo 8th April 2013, 17:51 Quote
Problem as a PC player if you ignore origin you ignore battlefield 3/4 crysis 3 and all the need for speed games. Not sure I could personally live without them.

I don't mind origin personally its not intrusive and works as well as steam does for the most part.

Sim city has always been about the management of the city. Cities xl 2012 allows you to make huge cities and is fun to play in a different way to sim city.

Also don't personally get the gripe about game costs either, bf3 has probably cost me less than 10 pence per hour played.

Even sim city is below £1 per hour now and that's after short time.

My sister owns every sims expansion for the sims 3 and has played 1200 hrs acording to origin. That's about 25 pence per hour lol.

Min wage in uk is what £7 so its cost if I earned min wage 1/7th of that per hour worked for 65 hrs to buy sim city that's not really anything special. My fuel costs for petrol are a lot more than 1 game will ever cost.
Kastagir 8th April 2013, 18:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Hate to break it to you but that is RL, thats why we have traffic jams...

Riiight. So.. if the M1 is closed, or has a 117 hour traffic jam you are still going include it in your journey plan and camp on the slip road for 5 days? Or perhaps you are going to choose an alternative route?

This highlights one of the games worse features. Once a sim has chosen its route and set off, it will not change its course. It will sit in a traffic jam for hours trying to get to the same job as countless other sims. Eventually, all of those sims will get to that job and find it full. They will then all attempt to move to another job en masse at another location until all jobs are filled or in most cases, they run out of work hours.

Yes the game is great, and functions quite well while operating in the low density period of the game. Once your population increases however, things quickly spiral out of control.

Anyone who reads the SimCity forums can see the myriad of issues that players face when trying to create the perfect city. Problems from people losing hours of work when their city disappears from the cloud to game breaking flaws such as the recycling centre bug.

The game AI is abysmal. I have personally witnessed a garbage truck driving around in circles for the entire duration of its shift. Emergency vehicles all attending one incident while another goes unanswered.

The game is broken and the developers do not know how to fix it. The only way cheetah speed will ever be enabled is when enough players have stopped playing the game to alleviate the server load.

The review is spot on. For every great feature that this game has, it has twice as many infuriating 'features'.

No amount of paid EA trolling will change that. Ka-ching!
loftie 8th April 2013, 21:13 Quote
The review was good imo. As for the score, personally I agree as I think 50% is average. In a way I wish sites didn't include a rating but people always want one. I'd much rather have pros/cons bullet points and then I can make up my own mind.
leexgx 8th April 2013, 22:46 Quote
I been thinking of getting this game but I also dislike the small map sizes I may or may not get it (guess I wait until the delux version is below £50-40, to bad I did not get the game when it had come out as I would of got an free game out of it)

mite give city XL a go as there maps have been super size on youtube
Zurechial 9th April 2013, 00:16 Quote
Seriously? People defending this travesty of a game? No wonder EA thinks they can ride their customers when people are willing to defend an atrocity of a game like this just because they fear being associated with a bandwagon.

40% is generous.
Elton 9th April 2013, 00:46 Quote
If the game wasn't fundamentally and mechanically broken. The score would've been higher.

Even without the DRM it's still broken. Which is a shame.
Skiddywinks 9th April 2013, 03:13 Quote
I do think 40% is perhaps too harsh, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out that an 80% would be outrageous. The game was advertised as a true simulation, and is in fact only the most basic kind. The game is broken fundamentally in many ways (just look up the videos of all fire engines heading to one fire at a time or 100% residential cities with max population and no crime or fires, no electricity or water etc etc), had a terribly botched launch despite repeated promises they would be prepared, game features are still disabled, they have lied about the reason for online repeatedly (as has been demonstrated by players and even potentially from the horse's mouth), and the game is in many ways far inferior to the last.

Tell me again why the game deserves ~80%? I'm glad people enjoying it are having fun, since I am not spiteful and am glad people are getting their money's worth. But to claim the game is more than a failure that had great potential (the last game with many of the ideas implemented this time would have been incredibly), just because fun can potentially be had from it, does not make it a high quality game. ****, I "had fun" with Daikatana for Christ's sake.

If they had the multiplayer features this game possesses (great works, collaboration between cities etc), with the same map size as the previous iteration, with no online requirement, no less features than the last game (subways for example), the ability to save and was actually a simulation unlike this sorry excuse, they would have had an amazing game. Even with a botched launch the game would have settled out and been a huge success for everyone involved. A game worth the initial trouble.

But no, this game is a <50% for sure.
DbD 9th April 2013, 10:23 Quote
lol 40% - attention seeking score that one.

I got it for my kids who love minecraft and general building games a few days after release. They had almost no connection problems and have spent many hours happily building cities. In addition due to the connection problems they never really suffered they got NFS:MW free.

While I don't like EA and their attempt to extract money from everything, and I agree with the faults (cities too small, no save) it's still a fun game and it works fine if you have the internet (i.e most of us). It's still a more fun game then many of the 80% bit tech scored games.
Elton 9th April 2013, 10:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DbD
lol 40% - attention seeking score that one.

I got it for my kids who love minecraft and general building games a few days after release. They had almost no connection problems and have spent many hours happily building cities. In addition due to the connection problems they never really suffered they got NFS:MW free.

While I don't like EA and their attempt to extract money from everything, and I agree with the faults (cities too small, no save) it's still a fun game and it works fine if you have the internet (i.e most of us). It's still a more fun game then many of the 80% bit tech scored games.

I don't think so, It really highlights the problems with the game, which is the still bugged AI and traffic system. In other words, at one point progression stops being progression and begins to feel arbitrary. Once this happens the game while still fun is less rewarding.
Shirty 9th April 2013, 10:47 Quote
It's good to see people debating about this, and most of them without being overly emotive. Quite why anyone thinks the new games editor is jumping on a bandwagon remains to be seen, since from what I've read he just didn't rate it overall. He is far from alone.

I'm not big on city builders, although the last one I played was SC4 and I've not touched the Anno series, the Cities series, the Tropico series, or indeed any other god games for some time.

So far I have yet to be swayed by the lovers, this sounds like a game I'd play furiously for a couple of days then get frustrated and put it down permanently.
Pieface 9th April 2013, 11:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
It's good to see people debating about this, and most of them without being overly emotive. Quite why anyone thinks the new games editor is jumping on a bandwagon remains to be seen, since from what I've read he just didn't rate it overall. He is far from alone.

I'm not big on city builders, although the last one I played was SC4 and I've not touched the Anno series, the Cities series, the Tropico series, or indeed any other god games for some time.

So far I have yet to be swayed by the lovers, this sounds like a game I'd play furiously for a couple of days then get frustrated and put it down permanently.

Most people who rated it very poorly was a protest over the always online connection, or to do with the start up bugs. This appears to be neither a protest, and was planned after the bugs, so just seems more bandwagon than review. Reading through the review he says he enjoys it, and the only major issues appear to be smaller maps and always online, which hardly justifies a 40% really.
Griffter 9th April 2013, 11:40 Quote
you cant give a score for a few bug patches down the line, for those ppl saying 40% is too low and it will get better. if its broken now, or when they reviewed the game, then its broken. otherwise anyone can say this game is perfect if they just patch it, change some story elements and change the game mechanics..

no one even knows if these "few bug patches" are even coming. u might be stuck with non-cheetah speed.
Elton 9th April 2013, 19:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pieface
Most people who rated it very poorly was a protest over the always online connection, or to do with the start up bugs. This appears to be neither a protest, and was planned after the bugs, so just seems more bandwagon than review. Reading through the review he says he enjoys it, and the only major issues appear to be smaller maps and always online, which hardly justifies a 40% really.

I can see your point, it is a bit delayed.

That said, it's been a few months and still the bugs haven't been cleaned up yet. That surely deserves some disdain.
ccxo 9th April 2013, 23:20 Quote
If Maxis/EA added a offline singleplayer with a large map most of the critism of the game would disappear pretty quickly.
The AI issues are enoying but it wll hopefully be fixed in time and will be interesting to see where the dlc goes- how much was missing from the main game at launch.
Icinix 10th April 2013, 13:16 Quote
Pretty fair score in my opinion. The game feels like half of previous iterations.

Some neat features - but even without factoring in any of the multiplayer components and issues - it feels closer to Sim Town than a Sim City.
sotu1 10th April 2013, 19:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by XXAOSICXX

"fun, but i won't play be playing it for long" deserves a below average score.

So Portal deserves a low score? I've spent more hours on SimCity than Portal, that's for sure...
sotu1 10th April 2013, 19:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zurechial
Seriously? People defending this travesty of a game? No wonder EA thinks they can ride their customers when people are willing to defend an atrocity of a game like this just because they fear being associated with a bandwagon.

40% is generous.

Have you played it out of interest?
Blackshark 10th April 2013, 20:01 Quote
Can I remind all those that dismiss the terrible start the game suffered, that most of the players trying to log in for the first week had pre ordered. Now lets be clear about this. They had preordered - so their location was known and how many. So why were there not enough server to cope with them logging in on the first day plus 20% (say). There was not. There were not enough servers for 30% of the people installing the game that had preordered and prepaid for it.

I havent bought it. I wanted to but did not. I wish it was great. I was really excited by all the glass box videos being put out. The AI sucks, big time. We are not in 2000, it is 2013. AI has come on enough that for a game like this, with the development budget it had, we should not have the marketing department for 2 years promising us individual sims that live in a particular house and go to a particular job. ALL of that has (and 100 time more) has been proven to be an out right lie. The features promised at launch are still not complete and working.

The sooner these companies are sued, the sooner the directors are convicted, the sooner the marketing departments are convicted of fraud, the better.


Ill wait until it is in the bargain bin and then try to develop a region a bit better than SIPS does. At least without so much of the time wasting chat!
mars-bar-man 10th April 2013, 21:38 Quote
M'eh. I really like it.

Guess I'm retarded.
GeorgeStorm 10th April 2013, 21:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mars-bar-man
M'eh. I really like it.

Guess I'm retarded.

Haha no, from gameplay videos/watching people play it IRL I would love to buy it, it's purely a cost thing that's stopped me, even with it's bugs it looks like lots of fun etc (which is what games are about I think?)
mars-bar-man 10th April 2013, 22:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
Haha no, from gameplay videos/watching people play it IRL I would love to buy it, it's purely a cost thing that's stopped me, even with it's bugs it looks like lots of fun etc (which is what games are about I think?)

Sim City - ZiiP link. Worth the money tbh, I've not really been affected by the DRM, once was when my actual internet died on me, and I believe the other was their servers, so I decided to play something else.

Games for fun? You've got to be kidding right? Games must be perfectly polished and pristine in every single way! Look back 10 years, there were never any faults or bugs with games then.. /sarcasm
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums