Why the haters of Gigantic realistic cities?

[FourWinds]

Wow OP, just wow...

You didn't even play this, clearly, divine game yet, and yet you seem to be able to magically have an idea of what you would like! I have never heard anything so self-entitled as a person being able to derive their preference independently. To go on and state that preference is way beyond any acceptable behaviour.

I hope that the community rises up and gives you a good thrashing, you self-entitled mofo.

 

[KeanoManu]

Nine tiles are fine for each city, but CO should develop are regional system similar to the one in SC4. Demanding an unlimited city size in an environment where the whole city are simulated all the time are indeed unrealistic. But if a maximum of nine tiles can be active at once and the remaining tiles are semi-paused, wouldn't that be a possible compromise?

There could be a mechanism that checks the other, inactive, for a few basic things tiles once every ten minutes or in-game week. Things like the demand for commuters and such.

And if we want to build a really dense part of town then maybe we should limit that part of our city to just one tile (because of the 1 million limit). More suburban parts of the city can use the full nine tiles.

By limiting the total city size to nine tiles we're also sort of prevented from making certain types of cities. Cities made up by islands, cities built on mountains or cities built in an area with several rivers will be less interesting because the unbuildable land will be a too large part of the map.

Many of the issues that have been discussed fiercely lately comes from that there seem to be two different types of city-builders: Those who just wants to build and create and those who wants to mainly simulate a city.

Those who wants to simulate a city are often fine with the current map size. They are often instead complaining loudly about the lack of a day/night cycle and no rush hour, which is something I personally couldn't care less about that it's not in the game.

For me, and obviously many others, the limitation on map size are instead a big deal. We just want to build, build and build. The only time I go back to a previously built city tile in SC4 are when I want to update the neighboring connections a bit. Otherwise I just expand all the time.

It also seems a little that those who reject the idea of having larger cities by comparing it to other city-builders and comes to the conclusion that Cities: Skylines are larger than SC4 never actually played that game since the region in SC4 was a game-changer in how city tiles should be viewed. SC4 would never have had the lifespan it had if it weren't for the region mode. The modding community would never have thrived like it did without the possibility to build unlimited sized cities.

 

[NorthStars]

DrJamesWhite... sorry for being presumptuous, but heck, let's be informal here, may I call you James?... you keep on saying nobody has given you an explanation on why CO doesn't allow for a setting to expand to whatever size people want based on what they have the capacity to run.

Truthfully, I have found various explanations for that in these forums already, including on this thread. But all of that aside... let me give you one possible explanation that aligns with exactly what CO has been saying. If I were in charge of CO (dream job!), here's how I would be looking at it. Even if I knew this were conceivably possible, what happens if I add all the optional sliders in the world? 25 tiles, heck let's go 36 or 49 just to be daring. 1m? That's NOTHING... I've lived in Cairo... I say 10m is my bare minimum. Now, we put the option sliders in there, we could put all the warnings in the world about minimum system power, but what happens when the game gets released? No matter how many warnings you put up, reviewers are always going to comment on the fact that there's serious lag if you push toward the upper limits... another reviewer might say "the end game really suffers under the pressure on system resources, even with a good rig". The devs cannot afford that type of review. How much better this review, "The game allows you to create a solid mid-size city, on a really decent plot of land, and it functions really well with minimal lag." If I were Mariina, THAT'S the review I'd be shooting for.

Even with their recent announcement on providing a bit more latitude for people to tinker with the 25 tile issue, their warning was super-clear: they take no responsibility for doing so. They want everyone to evaluate their game as a function of how well it performs at the size they feel optimizes performance. Any action they would take to "open it up more", no matter how much they caution people against doing so, would be conveniently forgotten the day it gets released. The game has to be functional at whatever size they officially allow.

And to be honest, I was really disappointed about this originally myself. I wasn't convinced about the need for the agent system, and I would love my 10 million city, cause that's what I used to live in. But the more I've read about what becomes possible with an agent-based approach, the more I have been won over to the opinion that this is a solid trade-off.

So, I don't expect to convince you of anything, based on how strongly I can see you hold your opinion, but pls don't imply that there's no possible reason under the sun for CO to take this approach. Their approach is highly logical (nod to Leonard Nimoy, RIP), and most of us accept those reasons happily and are ready to move on.

 

[peteij]

I've nothing against bigger cities, but having an alternative type of simulation to support them is just not viable - that's a completely new game and another two years of work.

 

[GMeador]

Are you the same Dr. James White, the theologian? That would explain a lot.

It's actually quite simple.
* What you want can't be done at this time. Maybe in a few years our home computers will have enough power and capacity to create those massive 100+ square kilometer cities you want, but not now.
* You don't have enough time to build that massive city. I don't think you realize just how long that would take you. (It's like people dreaming of buying a huge mansion- great- but they don't take into consideration that they have to dust, vacuum, and keep all those bathrooms clean.... all by themselves.) And what if you could build that huge city- then what? "Huge" wouldn't be enough- you'd want to build it even bigger. Sounds like you'll give up anything as long as you can build, build, and then build some more to your heart's content. I think what you're forgetting is that there's a big difference between building a "massive" city (which takes zero skill- any child can do it) and building a city of any size that actually functions well (that takes skill).
* Publishers will never make the city building game you're looking for, even if they could. There isn't enough "ultra-hard-core" people like you out there to make it financially viable. They need to sell several millions of copies to the "rest of us", not a few thousand to "a select few".
* There are no "haters of gigantic cities". There's just no point to them really, and most of us are just not willing to give up all the other stuff (like "agents". Where'd that term come from?) to get them. I certainly don't need a massive map to build a massive city on. Has it dawned on you that if you want to build a city bigger than the map provided, you can extend it to another map? Do you realize you have an infinite number of maps and you can build an infinite size city spread out over as many maps as you'd like? You mentioned Los Angeles. Why can't you build North Los Angeles on one map, West Los Angeles on another, etc.? Please explain why it just has to be one huge city on one huge map.... other than you just "want" it.

 

[ma2412]

Indeed. Finally, always someone unhappy with _any_ possibilities.

exactly.
you can't make it right for everyone - nobody could ever... no one...

 

[pippu]

How about buying a house in London, or Paris or New York instead of buying a computergame? Then you have your Gigantic Realistic City ...

Dat logic...

 

[Smokki]

I'll be happy that I can build 36m2 city with 50000 simulated citizens in it.

I'll be even more happy when I can build 100m2 countryside with small villages with 50000 simulated citizens in the reagion.

I'm never going to build even close to the citizens limit, but I would surely enjoy building as large countryside as possible (100m2).

 

[NorthStars]

Dat logic...

I think DK115 was having some fun with the good Dr James (the OP)... making fun of how unreasonable his logic was to start with.

 

[Zed68]

I'll be happy that I can build 36m2 city with 50000 simulated citizens in it.

I'll be even more happy when I can build 100m2 countryside with small villages with 50000 simulated citizens in the reagion.

I'm never going to build even close to the citizens limit, but I would surely enjoy building as large countryside as possible.

I kind of think the same. Having 10 bazillions citizens on a town center sized map is useless, I'd prefer a thriving nice city with real neighbourhood and villages and fields around.

 

[Mithkabob]

Unless there is a sudden breakthrough in computing like quantum processors or something similar, it is unlikely we will be able to have a fully functional city simulation of a large area anytime soon.

Unless a development team spends a whole lot of time developing tricks and shortcuts to make the illusion of a large functioning city, but I don't think the market for something like that would be large enough to pay for the development costs.

Don't give up hope though, there is software available for planning roads, zoning, and utilities of a large, fully functional city! See: only $5775 for the Standard edition.

 

[BuckyDee]

Please read my post again.
Please do this.
Please read my post again.
Please do that.
Please read my post again.
Please do the other.
Please read my post again.
Please do not do this.
Please read my post again.
Please do not do that.
Please read my post again.
Please do not do the other.
Please read my post again.
I love typing a lot of words.
Whole bunches of words!
I have a LOT of time on my hands!

I'm beginning to detect a subtle pattern here...

 

[Zed68]

I'm beginning to detect a subtle pattern here...

:laugh:

 

[Leermeister]

Why has CO decided not to invent a holodeck to run the game? is what i want to know.... Ridiculous

 

[cd concept]

To make everyone happy CO should of copied the map tile idea of SimCity 4 not the 2013. Why create a series of small map tiles with boundary lines that are not appealing to look at. Leaving the rest of the map untouched. Just create one large map tile that can handle the maximum capacity for the tile. Use the idea of SimCity4 regional map idea. Allowing you to expand your city to the next map tile by connecting the roads, rail lines and scenery to it. Giving you the option to create a real large city of your choice. All you have to worry about is booting into one map tile to another. But you can see the display of the whole metropolitan area on regional display map. Giving you the boundaries and stats. I think that's the best solution for those players that want to expand the their city. That's one of the reasons why SimCity 4 was so popular that idea worked well.
This would work with SiM 2 as well !!

 

[charlesnew]

Okay, I think we've all gotten the point across. It won't happen. And, we all like it the way it is.

 

[Zed68]

To make everyone happy CO should of copied the map tile idea of SimCity 4 not the 2013.

The way we will be able to build on that map is closer to SC4 than it is to 2013. The tiles are contiguous, they form one big city in the end. In 2013 the "maps" (lol) are tiny AND separated.

 

[Leermeister]

I would just like to know what games these 'hardcore' city builders are playing? they all seem to be playing the same games as everyone else. Sim city 4. I guess everyone's hardcore.

Is there some hardcore citybuilder im missing? because i think i own every city-builder or have played everyone since 1989... i wouldn't call them super hardcore either.

 

[kosh22]

'hardcore' city builders is the biggest load of bulls%&t I have seen on here. Someone else used that in another thread to pretend he was somehow superior in his knowledge and that CSL is only for the hardcore.

These are the priorities for me.

Priority 1 = a working core game. Sorry OP but your daydreaming is missing this fundamental point.
Priority 2 = room to build within a stable software environment.
Priority 3 = having fun.

 

[Kanimir]

Map size thread again? Just go play cities xl, its so fun.