E3: SimCity 4 Preview Goodness

Anonymous Coward writes "Wowie! The folks at Electronic Arts look to be working hard on the next installment of SimCity! Although there's no official, dedicated release date, they plan on demoing it at the Electronic Entertainment Expo. Gamers.com has an article, as does GameSpot, and both seem to have a number of screenshots. Interesting: there now seems to be a nighttime mode, and perhaps there's some weather effects? The note from MaxisJoseph claims there will be a personal angle to every high-level action taken; will there be a chance for dynamic screenshots of our cities during, say, lightning storms, blizzards or sandstorms? And will they ask Koch or Guiliani for endorsements?" I know I'm not the only one who wants to play the Sims in the SimTower in the SimCity on SimEarth with the pesky SimAnts in the balcony garden.

Comments

The key to doing a Sim-Everything: MMORPG!

[wstrong]

Combining all the various Sim* into one game would be tricky, but we came up with a better idea.

A Sim* MMORPG. Some people could play Sims, others could be mayors, others would build life-forms, others could control ants, and the building managers, and so on.

It could be a really cool MMORPG...

my biggest problem with simcity

[kraada]

was always that I would run out of land. Great, I can spend more time making the buildings evolve, but a lot of that involves waiting . . . I loved the expansion, planning, seeing what works, etc, but after a while there's just no more land left . . .
i can only hope there's some way to buy more land in this game! :)
(even if it's buying a new city to have next to your original one, if it's influenced by your other city, it's close enough for me)

Re:Maxis was cool.

[wheany]

For me, The Sims has the same problem that every other "Sim" game has had: It's fun to first build up what ever you are building as normal, then fuxx0r it up. Or in the case of The Sims, just trying to figure out how lousy living conditions are good enough.

Anyway, the point is that at least I get bored with the games before long, because there is no real objective. It's a fun "toy program" that you can play with for a while, but maintaining "growth" always becomes too much of a hassle at some point.

We need a new Sim Earth

[AndyChrist]

I don't think you could integrate SimEarth into that...unless we get to see the Sims evolve from tiny eukaryotes. Maybe we could see insect or cetacean Sims?

A game of Sim City would fit in a few microseconds of Sim Earth. It just woulnd't work.

Re:My question is,

[emptybody]

Nothing bothers me more than seeing the World Trade Center edited out of TV/Movies etc.

In fact, a survey immediately after the disaster foundthat people were renting flicks and watching shows SPECIFICLY TO SEE that landmark that had been a monument to US construction and capitalism.

They were looking for validity that, Yes, it really did exist and it really was that huge and that this really was a sick event that should never ever be allowed to happen again.

Instead we have over zealous network execs removing these images because they might "offend" people.

I am offended at this censorship.

I have been working on a SC3K NYC with the WTC and look forward to continuing with SC4K

Citys and Cars don't necessarily mix.

[Big Sean O]

We've had successful cities for well over 2000 years and we've only had cars for about 100. The tendency to think cities = cars is what's wrong with a lot of modern city planning today.

For instance, a thriving business district in a city neighborhood is a precarious thing. There area ton of things you can do to screw it up:

Let's say you tear down a low-end commercial building and build a city parking lot. Your goal is to increase the number of people who can visit the area:

• You reduce the number of possible destinations in that neighborhood.
  
• Low-end buildings provide much of the unique character of a neighborhood (they never tear down the GAP store).
  
• Low-end, smaller businesses usually represent local owners and economic strength. Removing them might cause others to move.
  
• You create a traffic nexus that can screw up driving on all the streets near the parking lot.
  

Let's say you decide to ban parking along the business distruct people complain that it takes too long to drive through it.

• You decrease the number of people who can visit the area (by reducing parking).
  
• You channel people into the parking nexuses described above.
  
• You make an implicit assumption about the mobility of your visitors (people with children and the elderly might not want to 'Park and Walk'.
• You remove a perceived safety buffer (parked cars) which make pedestrians feel safer from street traffic.
  
• You are decreasing actual safety by improving 'flow' (read increase speed) of the traffic. Pedestrains are more at risk from vehicle accidents.
  

The Fire service claims that they need to widen the street to get the new longer fire trucks through. It's only a couple feet per side so you take it off the sidewalk.

• Well, Fire deaths are down (thanks to Smoke Alarms) and by widening the street you may increase the number of traffic fatalities. Is the benefit worth the risk?
  
• Is the new giant truck really an improvement over a smaller vehicle or just the 'bragging rights' of your Fire Chief?
  
• Narrowing sidewalks reduces the neighborhood's appeal. If you can't walk arm in arm with a child or a spouse, you're not going to hang out there.
  

The original poster made a good point, there's a lot of cities in the world and throughout history that do not follow the 'American Suburban Model' of Bubble Zoning that has brought sprawl.

SimCity was the original popular "simulator game". If they want to continue to surprise and delight us, they should better explore the relationship a neighborhoods success and transportation. In cities especially, people LIKE not using a car for every little thing. The continued suburbanification of cities won't make them more successful and SimCity should explore that.