Hoping it's not as car-centric as the previous one

[safe-keeper]

So the CS II trailer made me a bit nervous, and I've seen content creators on YouTube echoing the same sentiment.

One of the things that me and many others disliked the most about Cities Skylines was how it pretty much forced you to build a North American car-centric city. Your city was primarily connected to the outside world by a highway, all assets you built had to be directly connected to roads, and public transport services and pedestrian and cycle paths weren't even available until your city had grown. There was also no mixed zoning, so cities never felt quite real. Heck, you couldn't even have things like pedestrian shopping streets without mods or DLCs.

I was sure this would be adressed for Cities Skylines II, with all the feedback the Finnish (!) devs have been receiving on this, and the increasing popularity of urbanism that promotes giving cities back to the people and not building everything around private car ownership, but the trailer just shows what appears to be car-centric cities. Where are the bikes, boats, and trains? I know this game will have all those things, it'd be really strange if it didn't, but when they aren't in the trailer at all, that makes me concerned. There is a single bike in the trailer, and it's shown in a clearly car-centric street, even with cars parked on pavements. The trailer says "start from the beginning", and shows nothing but car infrastructure, perpetuating the myth that modern cities are "built for the car" (Not Just Bikes has entered the chat).

Maybe they made the announcement trailer this way so as not to scare away North Americans who are such a big part of the potential player base, but I just really hope CS II won't be another game that forces you to build everything around the car.

(PS: spare me the stupid false dilemmas like "but cities need roads, what about emergency vehicles if you ban cars, what if I need to haul three bookcases and seven shopping bags from IKEA, etc." in replies, please. I get enough of those in urbanist comments threads)

 

[safe-keeper]

Okay, I've got nothing against disagreement (and I don't care about downvotes), but I dislike people just leaving a red cross for then to run away, because that tells me exactly nothing about what your thoughts are and what I might have gotten wrong. Care to try to put into words exactly what you disagree with?

 

[gustavotoniato]

I believe this is because most of the cities in the world are still completely geared towards the use of cars. Even with advances, this is still a reality. But I agree with the criticism, it would be nice to have a way to make a city that wasn't car-centric. Although I don't know how to imagine a new city, made from scratch in the modern world that doesn't depend on the car, at least until heavier infrastructure is built, like trains, which are much more expensive.

 

[Meesmoth]

Okay, I've got nothing against disagreement (and I don't care about downvotes), but I dislike people just leaving a red cross for then to run away, because that tells me exactly nothing about what your thoughts are and what I might have gotten wrong. Care to try to put into words exactly what you disagree with?

This is the reason why I had to delete my post on the announcement thread. At least other users like @Mazisky posted a valid reason why he disagreed on my post and didn't use the disagree button, but other users decided to downvote it without posting a valid reason why.

 

[PedsNotCims]

You're reading far too much into a CGI trailer that explicitly says in huge letters at the start "not actual gameplay footage". If there was some rule that said "everything featured in the game must be reflected in the trailer", it would end up being hours long. There are no power plants shown, but they'll be in the game. There was no rocket launch site shown, but its likely to be in the game (since it was in the original). There were no police stations, hospitals or fire stations shown, but its a safe bet they'll be in the game. The trailer was designed to show the new shiny things that (generally) are new to CS, not to focus on stuff that is part of the previous game

Literally noone but CO/PDX know how zoning, roads, ped facilities and the like are going to work in the new game. Relax and wait until gameplay footage is released before worrying about literally anything that is or isn't going to be in the game

 

[humorpalanta]

Every settlement starts out as a car focused city because people have to get around somehow. Then they can move away from it. I am pretty sure in CS II we are going to have options because we received plazas in CS and by that time CS II was waaaaaay in production.

 

[akeela84]

So the CS II trailer made me a bit nervous, and I've seen content creators on YouTube echoing the same sentiment.

One of the things that me and many others disliked the most about Cities Skylines was how it pretty much forced you to build a North American car-centric city. Your city was primarily connected to the outside world by a highway, all assets you built had to be directly connected to roads, and public transport services and pedestrian and cycle paths weren't even available until your city had grown. There was also no mixed zoning, so cities never felt quite real. Heck, you couldn't even have things like pedestrian shopping streets without mods or DLCs.

I was sure this would be adressed for Cities Skylines II, with all the feedback the Finnish (!) devs have been receiving on this, and the increasing popularity of urbanism that promotes giving cities back to the people and not building everything around private car ownership, but the trailer just shows what appears to be car-centric cities. Where are the bikes, boats, and trains? I know this game will have all those things, it'd be really strange if it didn't, but when they aren't in the trailer at all, that makes me concerned. There is a single bike in the trailer, and it's shown in a clearly car-centric street, even with cars parked on pavements. The trailer says "start from the beginning", and shows nothing but car infrastructure, perpetuating the myth that modern cities are "built for the car" (Not Just Bikes has entered the chat).

Maybe they made the announcement trailer this way so as not to scare away North Americans who are such a big part of the potential player base, but I just really hope CS II won't be another game that forces you to build everything around the car.

(PS: spare me the stupid false dilemmas like "but cities need roads, what about emergency vehicles if you ban cars, what if I need to haul three bookcases and seven shopping bags from IKEA, etc." in replies, please. I get enough of those in urbanist comments threads)

I haven't really been to many cities where there is a total ban of traffic. More a section of city, like walking streets in Europe or parts of Sydney and Melbourne CBD where a single part of road is closed off for most traffic.
I haven't gotten the Promenade & Plaza DLC but wasn't that what was added with such DLC?

 

[kolpo]

Cities like Tokyo or Shanghai would be total traffic disasters without their extensive metro and train networks. The previous game didn't have cities of those sizes but I hope CS2 allows them and allows them to have functioning public transportation like those have in the real world.

 

[safe-keeper]

I believe this is because most of the cities in the world are still completely geared towards the use of cars.

I'm not even sure if this is true. Japanese and Dutch cities are way more pedestrian-friendly than those of comparative size in the USA. When I visited Viet Nam their cities were geared towards swarms of scooters and motorbikes. Other cities in turn can be dominated by bikes and rickshaws, or even people on foot. True, there are unfortunately lots of car-centric cities in the world, and lots of developing countries unfortunately take after the Western world (perhaps most of all the USA) in this regard, but I highly doubt it's some kind of 'global default setting' for a city.

Even with advances, this is still a reality. But I agree with the criticism, it would be nice to have a way to make a city that wasn't car-centric. Although I don't know how to imagine a new city, made from scratch in the modern world that doesn't depend on the car, at least until heavier infrastructure is built, like trains, which are much more expensive.

This is what I'm talking about, though, and it's why I'm so concerned about the trailer, because it seems to echo exactly this misconception -- that cities are inevitably designed for cars first, with no consideration for pedestrian traffic, bikes, and public transportation.

Cities typically start out as (walkable) homesteads, villages, or trade posts, often connected to, for example, a harbour or railroad, a body of fresh water, or some natural resource. In the case of the cities before the 20th century, they then grew into people-friendly towns and eventually cities, with pedestrians, people on bikes, horse carriages, and street cars all sharing the public space that was the city streets.

Then the wealthy and influential automobile owners, and in the US' case, the car and oil companies, lobbied heavily to turn them into the polluted, noisy, car-centric spaces they are today, with literally no consideration for people on foot or dependent on other kinds of transport.

You've got it [donkey]-backwards if you imagine the car came first (or that old myth that American cities were built for the car) and that public transport, bicycles, and, you know, human beings walking about was an afterthoughth. It was the other way around -- cities developed from people-friendly public spaces which were torn down for highways and parking lots. As Jason Slaughter of Not Just Bikes points out in one of his videos, showing before-and-after photos of Houston's downtown, "this city wasn't built for the car, it was demolished for the car. It didn't have to be this way."

And yes, outside of car-centric North America there are definitely cities built around the world around public transport. Did you see the pictures from China of subway stations built in the wilderness? They were built to serve as connections between planned new cities and the existing public transit network. Again, there's no law of nature saying public transport and people can't be a consideration from day one. I'm 100% sure that if we Europeans were to found a new city somewhere, it, too, would have public transit services as a day-one feature.

Also, more expensive? Do you think massive freeways got their name because they don't cost anything to build or maintain? Do you think it's less expensive to build a car-centric city with wide highways than it is to build more sensible roads and pair them with bus services and rail networks?

Every settlement starts out as a car focused city because people have to get around somehow. Then they can move away from it. I am pretty sure in CS II we are going to have options because we received plazas in CS and by that time CS II was waaaaaay in production.

Again, no, small settlements start out as walkable, by virtue of them being, well, small settlements. Whether they expand into walkable, people-friendly cities or car-centric concrete deserts depends on the vision of the city planners.

You're reading far too much into a CGI trailer that explicitly says in huge letters at the start "not actual gameplay footage". If there was some rule that said "everything featured in the game must be reflected in the trailer", it would end up being hours long. There are no power plants shown, but they'll be in the game. There was no rocket launch site shown, but its likely to be in the game (since it was in the original). There were no police stations, hospitals or fire stations shown, but its a safe bet they'll be in the game. The trailer was designed to show the new shiny things that (generally) are new to CS, not to focus on stuff that is part of the previous game

Nope, in fact that's the whole point of a trailer, to showcase the developers' vision for the game. They're never meant to be simply a bunch of features on parade. If it helps, imagine if it was the other way around, and the trailer showed only public transport services and people walking or riding bikes. The comments threads would be full of people declaring they would never buy the game because it didn't feature roads or cars.

You're also completely missing the point -- of course power plants, trains, and ambulances will be in the game. No one said otherwise, least of all me. I'm worried Cities Skylines will be as car-centric as the predecessor, for the reasons I stated.

I haven't really been to many cities where there is a total ban of traffic. More a section of city, like walking streets in Europe or parts of Sydney and Melbourne CBD where a single part of road is closed off for most traffic.
I haven't gotten the Promenade & Plaza DLC but wasn't that what was added with such DLC?

No clue, then again I said explicitly in my OP that I was not talking about a total ban on cars, so I don't know why you're asking.

This is the reason why I had to delete my post on the announcement thread. At least other users like @Mazisky posted a valid reason why he disagreed on my post and didn't use the disagree button, but other users decided to downvote it without posting a valid reason why.

Sorry, but I don't agree that disagreement (with or without explanation) is a reason to delete a post. A red x is just that, a red x. It's not like you're receiving threats or hate mail, just that someone happens to disagree with you.

 

[TitaniumMan91]

Cities that started out walkable did so because cars didn't exist, but they still were connected to the road network of the day. We're starting with cars already in existence and every shop or house will need a road for vehicles to get to it, that's how materials are delivered to build it for a start. I hope we're given more promenades/pedestrian focused roads/traffic restrictions.

 

[safe-keeper]

Cities that started out walkable did so because cars didn't exist

Um, nope. Did you even read the post directly above yours?

, but they still were connected to the road network of the day. We're starting with cars already in existence and every shop or house will need a road for vehicles to get to it, that's how materials are delivered to build it for a start. I hope we're given more promenades/pedestrian focused roads/traffic restrictions.

Repeating myself from the OP:

(PS: spare me the stupid false dilemmas like "but cities need roads, what about emergency vehicles if you ban cars, what if I need to haul three bookcases and seven shopping bags from IKEA, etc." in replies, please. I get enough of those in urbanist comments threads)

Of course we need roads and no one has ever stated otherwise. Why is this a question of car-centric city planning or no cars at all to so many people?

 

[PedsNotCims]

Um, nope. Did you even read the post directly above yours?


Repeating myself from the OP:

(PS: spare me the stupid false dilemmas like "but cities need roads, what about emergency vehicles if you ban cars, what if I need to haul three bookcases and seven shopping bags from IKEA, etc." in replies, please. I get enough of those in urbanist comments threads)

Of course we need roads and no one has ever stated otherwise.

If the intent of your original post was to have a healthy debate about your perception of the trailer, but then in the last sentence stating that a particular response is unwelcome due to it disagreeing with your position (exemplified by your descriptor of "stupid false dilemmas"), not to mention being dismissive of other people's opinions because they don't align with your own, then its clear that you are only seeking validation of your own opinions. This is not what debate is about. Please try to be less dismissive of other poster's opinions in your replies, and consider the debates presented with an open mind. Every opinion is as valid as yours

In specific response to your comment about the trailer, I'm sure you are well aware that there are various types of trailer; reveal, launch, gameplay features among others. This was a reveal trailer, and the reveal trailer generally for any game and any genre of game, is not about vision. In fantasy games, you will typically get a CGI showing the heroes (and sometimes villains) taking part in activities (eg. dragon slaying) in an abstracted style that has absolutely nothing to do with how the game will actually play. In a simulation game you'll see stylised interpretations of what the marketing people deem as things that they need to show off to drum up interest in the game. "Developer vision" has little to no influence on launch trailers. Showcasing what is new and shiny, and specifially, different, where a sequel is concerned, is the primary aim of a launch trailer. You will (probably) see gameplay presented in eg. preview videos prior to release, and a feature showcase later down the line. There is nothing in this trailer whatsoever to be "afraid" of, since there is no gameplay presented, and there is no confirmation in either direction as to how buildings need to link to infrastructure. At the minute for all we know, we might be able to build a 10 storey house with a pool in the middle of a desert with a single 10 mile path leading to it which you can only drive a go-kart up from a pier served by 1 ferry a week. Relax, and wait for gameplay

 

[akeela84]

No clue, then again I said explicitly in my OP that I was not talking about a total ban on cars, so I don't know why you're asking.

I wasn't asking a question.. I was asking if it isn't the same as the above mentioned DLC..

 

[TitaniumMan91]

Um, nope. Did you even read the post directly above yours?


Repeating myself from the OP:

(PS: spare me the stupid false dilemmas like "but cities need roads, what about emergency vehicles if you ban cars, what if I need to haul three bookcases and seven shopping bags from IKEA, etc." in replies, please. I get enough of those in urbanist comments threads)

Of course we need roads and no one has ever stated otherwise. Why is this a question of car-centric city planning or no cars at all to so many people?

Yes, I did read your post. Did you read mine, where I pointed out that ye olde walkable city still had roads, except you walked instead of drove on them? You don't appear to have read anything I wrote, only registered that I disagreed with your ideas and attacked me personally.

 

[safe-keeper]

Yes, I did read your post. Did you read mine, where I pointed out that ye olde walkable city still had roads, except you walked instead of drove on them?

Yes. Did I ever say they didn't? Really confused here.

 

[safe-keeper]

If the intent of your original post was to have a healthy debate about your perception of the trailer, but then in the last sentence stating that a particular response is unwelcome due to it disagreeing with your position (exemplified by your descriptor of "stupid false dilemmas"), not to mention being dismissive of other people's opinions because they don't align with your own, then its clear that you are only seeking validation of your own opinions.

Um, nope. I clearly stated why. I don't like false dilemmas, and that particular one pops up as a strawman every single time this topic is discussed, no matter how carefully worded the OP, video, or article.

Edit: as in, no matter how carefully you state that you think a city or game is too car-centric, someone will inevitably reply as if you said you wanted to ban not only cars but also roads. That's at best someone not bothering to take in what you're saying, and at worst a strawman (if you can't tell how those are very, very different positions, I'm sorry, but I can't help you). And yes, seeing it pop up in every single discussion, even in ones (like this thread) where I explicitly stated that's not what I meant, does get very irritating after a while, hence the tone of the PS.

In specific response to your comment about the trailer, I'm sure you are well aware that there are various types of trailer; reveal, launch, gameplay features among others. This was a reveal trailer, and the reveal trailer generally for any game and any genre of game, is not about vision.

Of course it's about vision. You can watch a trailer and learn not only what characters or features are going to be in it, but also a lot about atmosphere and mood, genre, what the developers intend to focus on with their project. Watch this Breath of the Wild trailer. Doesn't it tell you, without saying so, that this is a game about a wide open world and exploration (and less about dungeons, for that matter)?

Now watch this mock trailer of the Shining. Would you say it's misleading as to what kind of movie it's portraying? If so, why? It's just showing a bunch of scenes. It's not like it's saying anything about vision.

Of course you're supposed to read things into trailers. That's the whole point.

 

[PedsNotCims]

Um, nope. I was asking people to not post that because it's a stupid strawman that pops up every single time urban planning is discussed, no matter how carefully layed out the OP, article, or video is.

We're done here

 

[TitaniumMan91]

Yes. Did I ever say they didn't? Really confused here.

Then what are you even ranting about, "Oh no, they showed vehicles in the trailer for a city builder and therefore it's car centric?" I don't get your point, I don't know what you're asking for mechanically, you just seem to want to rant at people who you think disagree with you.

 

[safe-keeper]

Then what are you even ranting about, "Oh no, they showed vehicles in the trailer for a city builder and therefore it's car centric?" I don't get your point, I don't know what you're asking for mechanically, you just seem to want to rant at people who you think disagree with you.

As I said in the OP:

"One of the things that me and many others disliked the most about Cities Skylines was how it pretty much forced you to build a North American car-centric city. Your city was primarily connected to the outside world by a highway, all assets you built had to be directly connected to roads, and public transport services and pedestrian and cycle paths weren't even available until your city had grown. There was also no mixed zoning, so cities never felt quite real. Heck, you couldn't even have things like pedestrian shopping streets without mods or DLCs."

I and many others want a city builder that doesn't all but force you to build North American-style car-centric cities, and where public transportation and pedestrian/cycle paths aren't an afterthought.

But yes, I think we're done here.

 

[Mazisky]

To be honest car management (traffic, parking) is like 60% of the fun for me, so I really hope that cars will still be relevant in CS2.

That said, the game should definitely allow for car-less cities for those who want a more clean city without cars.