SimCity V (2013) - screens/artwork and information
- Thread starter DennisK4
- Start date
Exactly how many non-square buildings do you drive past between your house and work, where theres no 'wasted space'?
Where i live, thats called land, and unless you live in a city center, you'll pass tons of it and yet you wouldnt call that unrealistic, and aside from a handful of major US cities, its not like the past SimCity design looks anything remotely like what we see in the real world, how many grid-like cities are there? Certainly none of the big cities in the UK or Europe, so basically a few places like NYC and other US city centers, which have been designed far more recently compared to European cities which have evolved but took their free-form shape hundreds of years ago.
They're adding realism thats never been in the game before, and thats a negative now?
Probably should have said plots rather then building. If you look a normal house in a city while it be square the plot isn’t it fells up the available space. You don’t get odd small plots of used space between buildings in cities
And yes I do live in a city and every inch if used. Large builds will often bend to fit the shape of the road and be right next to each other. The cities they showed still have square plots, which won’t fix anything other then a grid of the exact dimensions. So what the point in curved roads if nothing matches them? Cities XL had the exact same fault.
Have, you seen some of the SimCity people have made? They look very realistic. What they’ve showed here still looks like a fake game city.
Soldato
You exactly what I mean, the whole game loosk out of scale, unrealistic.
Way too small scale, and the buildings itself too big...
It looks like a **** version of cities XL...
This is a good scale:
I want to build cities at least a little bit to scale like so:
Being able to recreate SF...
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 698
I can't see your comparisons.. but a non issue for me anyway.
Soldato
In sim city 5, grow 500 buildings and you've got a ''town''.
You need at least 5000 buildings for that imho...
It's cartoony and dumbed down, instead of a proper follow up of sc4+rh. In the ign gameplay video you can see what I mean with wrong scale, it looks even further from ''real'' than sc4...
I guess I want something else than this game, I just want something more complex, harder to learn, more realistic looking space/scale wise, etc...
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Jan 2012
- Posts
- 698
I can see the images now I haven't really looked at the scale when zoomed out like the images you've shown in SC4 but from the gameplay I've seen I didn't have much of a problem with what I saw. It was always going to be become easier though the redesign makes sure of that straight away.
Besides doesn't this game have giant monsters attacking you ? realism out the door just like that.
Clearly i dont
You moaned about whats the point of having 3x2 lane avenues for 50 houses, and i pointed out there is none. However there are skyscrapers, so when you have 50 skyscrapers thats when you'd want 3x2 Av's.
You were taking the base level version of one thing and complaining that the best version of another thing werent comparable and arent appropriate, whereas i was suggesting you compare like for like, and exactly how the 3x2's would be required, as im sure your well aware.
As for huge maps, of which SC4 didnt actually offer you, they're modified content to allow bigger plots, so your complaining that something that SC4 didnt offer you isnt possible in SC5 as if they've revoked a feature.
So you modded SC4, you can mod SC5, so lets just hold the outrage of what they're stopping you from doing till we know one way or the other, because you couldnt recreate SF in SC4... till you used modifications.
Associate
I think i'll probably get this on release day, looks quite good.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 45,997
Unfortunately looks is all cities xl had.
Soldato
Just been reading this.
To say I'm disappointing with some of the answers would be a massive understatement.
They've turned gold into lead.
Why would I care about the fact my city is in a region. I just want to develop my own city
This is the first game I've really looked forward to since Civ 4 which was also a missive disappointment.
To say I'm disappointing with some of the answers would be a massive understatement.
They've turned gold into lead.
Why would I care about the fact my city is in a region. I just want to develop my own city
This is the first game I've really looked forward to since Civ 4 which was also a missive disappointment.
Last edited:
Associate
Oh dear :S
I remember stumbling across the Sim City V page on the EA site quite a while back and having the same "OMG wow!!!" thoughts as the first few posts of this thread. But after reading the last 10 pages and a little more about how the game is shaping it's certainly looking like the usual EA DLC/micro-payment rubbish that several others have made very good points about. Can EA actually release a new version of a classic game without ruining it by demanding always on internet connections or shed loads of money thrown at it for the game to be useable? Its appalling and has really irritated me. I was really looking forward to this release and am now staying away.
Without going too far off topic here I was fooled the other day in getting Theme Park on the Google Play Store for my Android phone. Thinking it would be like the original I was very excited (who doesn't like Theme Park) but its just another micro-payment Farmville style game. I fear Sim City V will be exactly the same on release. At least when I got Theme Park it was free so I didn't loose anything other than that excited feeling. Whereas charging £35+ for a game then another £x for DLC is not on. And the always on internet connection... WHY!!!!!! If I want my city to be part of a "Sim economy" then fine but if I want to play on my own and play my way why have such a restriction? There should be an option to play offline. Not having this just breaks the game. Hopefully EA will come to their senses before the official release and drop this requirement but I have my doubts.
/rant over
On a positive note.. After reading this thread and realizing SC4 has a decent Mod scene (why did I miss that
) and can actually work without the crashes I remember from back in the day, I've jumped on Steam and purchased a copy 
. So at least if SC5 doesn't change before launch I can still enjoy the previous edition.
Now where did I put my SC Classic and 2000 disc...
Without going too far off topic here I was fooled the other day in getting Theme Park on the Google Play Store for my Android phone. Thinking it would be like the original I was very excited (who doesn't like Theme Park) but its just another micro-payment Farmville style game. I fear Sim City V will be exactly the same on release. At least when I got Theme Park it was free so I didn't loose anything other than that excited feeling. Whereas charging £35+ for a game then another £x for DLC is not on. And the always on internet connection... WHY!!!!!! If I want my city to be part of a "Sim economy" then fine but if I want to play on my own and play my way why have such a restriction? There should be an option to play offline. Not having this just breaks the game. Hopefully EA will come to their senses before the official release and drop this requirement but I have my doubts.
/rant over
On a positive note.. After reading this thread and realizing SC4 has a decent Mod scene (why did I miss that
) and can actually work without the crashes I remember from back in the day, I've jumped on Steam and purchased a copy . So at least if SC5 doesn't change before launch I can still enjoy the previous edition.Now where did I put my SC Classic and 2000 disc...
Soldato
True about sc4. But the game desperately needs a refresh and this promised so much.
I would happily pay £50, but only if it's the game it could and should be. There's no technical justification for the omissions. Why ruin what could have been a masterpiece?
I would happily pay £50, but only if it's the game it could and should be. There's no technical justification for the omissions. Why ruin what could have been a masterpiece?
Last edited:
Soldato
It's £35 on pre-order.
Not from Origin it isn't. But £35 in itself is silly money for a PC game - and I'm assuming where ever that price is from, it goes up once the game is released.
Total money grubbing EA.
Not that it concerns me much anyway, as others have pointed out, it looks like an XL copy and paste made for the farmville generation. An insult to previous simcitys tbh.
I don't get regions. In sc4 I opened a next door city and put in industrial land, put on fast speed and came back later to many millions in money. I don't mind the idea of regions if they can be way more inter-connected but the way the pollution made no difference to my main city was stupid. I've barely played it since.Why would I care about the fact my city is in a region. I just want to develop my own city
If it wasnt Origin, but Steam, you wouldnt hear a peep from anyone about the price. God only knows why, apparently everything is acceptable when Steam do it, and digital distribution + steam is an absolute must.
I guess theres still a few more of us out there who dont give a damn what steam have, if its cheaper elsewhere then it gets bought elsewhere, but places like this it seems to be akin to urinating into the wind. Use the O word and it makes peoples blood boil.
Anyone who buys from Origin at full RRP is a fool, and clearly money isnt something they need to worry about, lucky for them, but as with the majority of things as long as you buy a retail copy of the game it'll be unlocked through the digital distribution platform and you'll have the exact same product (possible exclusive DLC deals asside) and 99% of the time at a fair old saving too.
Platforms like Steam & Origin have to charge full RRP really, shops dont, if they charged only what it cost to take the same profit the likes that OCUK or any other online or physical outlet would charge, to make say £5 on the sale of each copy, they'd massively undercut the retailers and who'd stock something they cant price competitively with the official route.
However that doesnt excuse the fact that they're claiming a ludicrous RRP price, i mean £45 is a joke, but £65 for the game and the 3 country theme buildings is simply scandalous. I think most are looking at a £35 price for launch, most likely boosted by the fact that they see this as building on the foundations that The Sims has built, and £35 is an easy sell, plus a ton of DLC for junk bits n bobs because theres a gullible audience for that stuff. So the RRP needs to be £40+ and EA being EA figured lets push it to £45/65 and go fishing for fools who arent put off by that price.
Im lucky i was able to get in when EA India were doing their unjustifiable prices of £11/17 for the 2 copies, and for £17 figured what the heck, but theres not a chance i'd have paid more than £25 under any circumstances. It would have been 'acquired' and then bought when there was a sale on.
