Cities: Skyline 2?
- Thread starter Chickenjump
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
if you want controller support buy the Windows 10 edition which is available at the Windows 10 store, it is different from the Steam version and is the same as the console port
multiplayer? no way
Being able to edit friend's cities maybe. Not anything too big. I agree that they shouldn't make it a multiplayer focused game.
You don't need multiplayer for that. Your friend can already do this by sharing their save either on the workshop or just sending it to you.
Received email from paradox some time ago. There was survey about transport tycoon games and cities in motion. I believe that they gonna focus more on transportation so the next game could be mix of CS and transport fever.
I don't think so.
Cities in Motion 1 and 2 = 300.000 copies sold
Cities Skylines = 6.000.000 copies sold
This says all about how a City builder is more profitable than a transport tycoon.
Unless Paradox hires market analysts in the caves, i think we will see more of Cities Skylines style.
Perhaps more importantly I remember a video where Mariina talks about how CO was founded to make a city builder game. Ofc the goals of the company can have changed over the years, but at least the dream initially was to make a city building game, so I would be surprised if they move away from that again especially since CS was such a huge success.
pretty sure they will. Devs also said they have a long term plan for the Cities Skylines franchise, this means many more DLCs or a sequel.
Btw, i've just noticed that the guy on reddit which posted a leak for Cities Skylines 2 with details, also posted a leak about the incoming Halflife VR, one week before it was announced. The guy knows.
- 2
There may be plenty of people out there willing to buy such a game. But there's also plenty of people out there that won't, if it becomes a DCL game. As it is my interest in this game has waned since its release; why? Because many of the things that make this game great have lost its value over time & when that happens, you start to lose customers. Constantly releasing DCL doesn't (re)solve this. I'd happily buy the next version, depending on what the base game looks like. If base game looks somewhat bare/stripped, I won't be buying it for quite some time if at all.
That really is a shame. When I spear-headed NAM for SC4 years ago, the primary focus was always on functionality, not useless & pointless eye candy. Why? Because if I wanted to play a city builder game that was solely eye-candy, I'll go back & do what I did as a child & get all my toy cars, shoe boxes, pencils etc & play City building that way as it'll be much more fun & less expensive. Games need a purpose, & for a City Builder/Simulator it needs to engage its player in a meaningful way. Not 'lets add skins to this, add skins to that' & make & charge individual DLC for it every x months.
Given evolving technology, maps need to be much much larger & algorithms implemented to take these larger map sizes into account i.e. longer more realistic commuting & more realistic scaling. As it is this game uses less than half of my PC's resources on 500K population & it doesn't even look like a proper sprawling city because everything is either a highrise or small buildings all close together &/or mixed, with fire stations on every block, & you can't spread out highways to much because nothing wants to travel. This may be a slight exaggeration but I don't want limits or restrictions.
As for mult-player; it's not impossible, but it'd be challenging to create for a City Builder game. There's a reason why people play solitaire. Personally I'm not much of a multiplayer type with City building. Maxis tried that & failed miserably, more than once.
There's plenty more I'd add but quite frankly, these things often fall on no ones ears, only the walls.
While the concept of delivering a lot of content via DLCs has worked out pretty well for C:S1 in my opinion, it also causes a problem for a possible successor: You cannot provide a C:S2 with all DLC content already integrated (too expensive). But on the other hand if you publish another base game and promise more features via DLC, many people will call you greedy, because they think that you are withholding things that are already there. In this way, CO and Paradox have stepped into a trap they have set up themselves.
A possible way out of this dilemma is to make C:S2 "different" so that people buy it for the new features and you can even release new DLCs that haven't been there in C:S1. But as city builders have stayed pretty much the same in the last 30 years, this is a problem in my view and might annoy many fans: Some may like the idea of nation building, but many others don't and want more micro-managing.
The other argument is of course "better graphics", "better performance", "better AI" and so on. But it will only work when C:S1 really feels worn down and fans really complain about the old version. I am not sure if we are already at this point.
A possible way out of this dilemma is to make C:S2 "different" so that people buy it for the new features and you can even release new DLCs that haven't been there in C:S1. But as city builders have stayed pretty much the same in the last 30 years, this is a problem in my view and might annoy many fans: Some may like the idea of nation building, but many others don't and want more micro-managing.
The other argument is of course "better graphics", "better performance", "better AI" and so on. But it will only work when C:S1 really feels worn down and fans really complain about the old version. I am not sure if we are already at this point.
Let's be honest, CS was pretty much barebones at the release.
It had a lot less content than Sim City 2013. SC2013 had quite a bit of specialized districts + things like Campus and Parklife build into core game. On top of that modular assets were huge feature.
I think it is absolutely reasonable to expect some CS1 DLC's to be incorporated into core of CS2. CO is no longer the same small company that released CS1.
Looking at all DLC's let's have a look what could be incorporated into core and what remade:
1. After Dark - It is so light in content that could be easily incorporated into core or remade but in expanded way. Cycling + taxis are definitely core game material here.
2. Snowfall - either true changing Season (either core or proper expansion) of dropped completely. Looks like probably least favourite expansion. Trams - material for Mass transit remake
3. Natural Disaster's - again either integrated into core or dropped completely. Looks like most people didn't enjoy their cities being randomly destroyed.
4. Mass Transit - That's the proper expansion, future iteration could incorporate trams and trolleys.
5. Green Cities - Again proper expansion material here, but nothing essential either.
6. Parkliffe - Typical city park and recreational areas - definitely core game material. Amusement Parks and Tourist attractions - new dlc.
7. Industries - Considering it is remake of core game mechanics I'd expect it would be simply replaced by similar or new system in core game.
8. Campus - First I'd expect better education mechanics in core of CS2. Potential material for DLC but in different form.
9. Sunset Harbor - It is basically expansion for expansions. Could be easily integrated into core and other expansions.
I truly, only see potential for around 4 of the above to be somehow remade as DLC's in CS2. Other ones could be easily integrated into core, other DLC's or dropped completely.
The problem with doing a C:S2 is that a new game, doing the same job, should need to remove some of the current limitations on the number of cims, assets, networks, area playable and a better AI. The issue is whether they can support the existing assets and mods within a new game. To do that, they need to maintain a lot of the existing game structure so that they will fit in.
That is why CIM1, CIM2 and C:S are all different games. Doing it wrong will upset both the players and the modders - just look at the disaster that SimCity had with the version issued in 2013 and the reason that C:S was so good.
So the options for Colossal are :
1. A totally new game which is not competing against C:S. But then Train Fever is partially a replacement for CIM1.
2. Update the base to remove some of the limitations while still supporting the current users and modders. Problem since that might need Unity to rebuild its underlying structure.
One thing that CO needs to do is be more aware of some of the modders add-ins and not make basic changes which effectively disable them, like the longer metro trains and stations.
That is why CIM1, CIM2 and C:S are all different games. Doing it wrong will upset both the players and the modders - just look at the disaster that SimCity had with the version issued in 2013 and the reason that C:S was so good.
So the options for Colossal are :
1. A totally new game which is not competing against C:S. But then Train Fever is partially a replacement for CIM1.
2. Update the base to remove some of the limitations while still supporting the current users and modders. Problem since that might need Unity to rebuild its underlying structure.
One thing that CO needs to do is be more aware of some of the modders add-ins and not make basic changes which effectively disable them, like the longer metro trains and stations.
- 1
I am 99% percent convinced that CS2 will be completely new game. New core mechanics, new graphical engine and no backward compatibility.
There is no point in making CS2 and still being constrained by providing backward compatibility.
Sim City 2013 failure had nothing to do with previous versions of Sim City. Main reasons of its failure were:
1. Ridiculously small size cities - that was the biggest and most impactful factor. No chance for building any realistically looking cities, at all.
2. Multitude of bugs
3. Game servers not working
4. Requirement for always online play.
5. Lack of terrain engineering - together with point 1, hugely limited creativity
6. Glassbox engine which actually used "fake" agent system. What was the point if it wasn't working properly.
It is natural that games get sequels. That's how it always worked and how it works nowadays for most of the genres.
If they ever decide to implement multiplayer, I think it should be limited to trade between cities such as natural resources, garage, water electricity etc. I’d never be cool with leaving a friend to come into my city and move stuff around or start building his own stuff. Maybe you can build an “Embassy” that is for your friends city that then allows you to conduct import/export trade deals but that’s about all I’d be happy to use as multiplayer
Backwards comptibility for assets could be nice in away that you have some import function for old 3D models, for people who really need them. But in the end, a new or engine should allow more details, higher texture resolution, real transparency and so on. Therefore all assets will have to be rebuilt anyway.
- 1
Or at least make the already purchased DLC compatible so the end-user, i.e. us, doesn't need to purchase stuff all over again. Another company I deal with that has lots of DLC, and does that already. Stuff purchased 5 years ago is still compatible with the program that was just released a year ago. The same with most of the assets available on their FTP server, which has close to 560K assets available for download, with all made by the community with some made 15 years ago.
Any new DLC, however, can't be backwards compatible of course and it isn't in the case of the company mentioned here.
These packages aside, there's no mention anywhere of any new content management features. It would be nice to sort by author, date installed, updates available, enabled, disabled, etc. This is particularly helpful when updating and troubleshooting assets.