SimCity 5 Passed Off From Maxis

CVG is reporting that Maxis, makers of the venerable Sim City series, has passed development of Sim City 5 to another company. The new developer, Tilted Mill Entertainment, will be finishing the game. In a departure from the series, it is not going to be a realistic urban simulator. President & Director of Development Chris Beatrice responds to criticism of that choice: "...I do not want to mislead anyone: This SC is not a realistic urban simulation, which I understand, to many, represents the heart of what SC is. No one is blind to that. And if you're just completely turned off, even angered by the mere notion of any game called 'SimCity' that is not a detailed, realistic urban simulator, I absolutely understand that viewpoint, and absolutely respect it. I do want to say, though (with no insult intended to die hard SC fans) that we are absolutely thrilled to be a part of this venerable series, are extremely proud of what we have put together, and make no apologies about what we have managed to create. And while our past experiences (including contributions from many of you) certainly inform all our ongoing efforts, this SC is its own unique creation."

Comments

Strange?

[Zironic]

Isn't it somehow deceiving to take an established franchise, just increase the number counter and then completely change the very core of the franchise?

I thought normal decency at least demanded you use a naming convention like Sim City: XXX.

I love the Sim City series and hope that it won't get dragged in the mud now in the newest installment. Caesar IV wasn't a very good game but there's always hope that a developer can improve isn't there?

all your game franchise are belong to us

[192939495969798999]

I wonder what that meeting was like...

PHB: "Let's take a successful game franchise and change the latest title to not include what the game is best known for, but retain the same name. That way, anyone that doesn't know will still go buy it, and we can market it to a new segment, provided that the old fans dont read the new marketing before they buy."

What are people thinking? This would be like Quake 5 being in 2-d.

Re:all your game franchise are belong to us

[Aladrin]

I have a hard time imagining WHAT the game will be, if not a 'realistic urban simulation'... FPS? RPG? 'unrealistic urban simulation'?

I tend to think the last one has to be it... It's going to be a tycoon game, rather than a simulator.

I personally had more fun with the first SC than any of the others. SC2K was a close second, and the others were just too complex to be -fun- for me. I don't enjoy micro-managing every single water line. Taking the game back to the core, and simulating the fun stuff instead of -everything- is what I'd like to see.

I am -very- disappointed that Maxis thought they couldn't handle it, though... and that someone else could do it better. That or 'sell out' is the only way to look at it.

Just can't win with some people...

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

Gaming is constantly being dogged by how unoriginal it is and how most major games are just slightly prettier rehashes of older ones, and how evrything these days is a formulaic sequel. So Maxis have changed that. They've actually decided to try something new with an established series, even using new developers to do so, and what do they get? "Waaah! It's not a REAL SimCity", "Maxis have ruined my childhood memories". Boo-fucking-hoo. They've tried something new. So what. Everything from Simcity 2000 has been basically the same game anyway, so if you're really that intent on playing the same old thing you've already got three games to choose from. For everyone with an open mind, well maybe they'll find something fresh and slightly original thanks to a developer going out and doing something different with an established franchise for a change. If it sucks and the new concept tanks then you be damn sure Simcity 6 will be back to the old formula again, so it's worth the risk isn't it?

Re:Just can't win with some people...

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

The point would be that franchises should stay mostly the same and you should innovate with new franchises. That way if the innovations fail it won't reflect poorly upon the franchise. I disagree. By your logic any existing franchise will only ever implement features that have been seen before in other games. In my opinion the worst thing that can ever happen to a game series is for it to become stale and unadventurous. After all, it's the innovation and originality that creates all good series' in the first place. To lose that quality out of fear of hurting the franchise is just crazy. If trying something new means that every once in a while a franchise gets a black mark on it's name, well that's fine by me. That's the cost of creating something great.

Re:Just can't win with some people...

[MvD_Moscow]

If it's a community building game, why does it include the name Simcity? There is certain core aspect of the gamplay that makes any given simcity game a simcity game. EA are just leaching of Simcity's branding in order to make a mediocre game that is more accessible to the average gamer. If it's not a simcity game, don't call it simcity societies, call it "Urban Socities" or SimSociety. I wish EA never bought Maxis, before the purchase they where much more willing to make interesting new games. I still play SimTower from time to time, too bad nowadays all you see is "Simcity Lite" and Sims X + Expansion Packs. Though hopefully Spore will prove me wrong.

Though I guess that's the way everything is supposed to be, EA's approach is much more financially successful judging from the state Maxis was in before the purchase. Too bad that EA's approach leads to shitty spinoffs, cough C&C Generals cough.

I can't believe Will Wright let EA do this, Simcity was his masterpiece, his claim to fame. I guess he got bored of the city building thing and he prefers to work on Sims expansion packs nowadays.

Theft and lies

[guspasho]

"...I do not want to mislead anyone: This SC is not a realistic urban simulation... this SC is its own unique creation."

So why the frak call it SimCity? If you want to make a non-urban-simulation game, come up with your own damn franchise, or at the very least steal a franchise that has something to do with your game. Call it "The Sims: Cities" if that's what you're going for, but don't steal an existing franchise that is based on urban simulation for your non-urban-simulation game.

It doesn't have to be horrible, though

[Moraelin]

Just using a franchise for free mindshare doesn't guarantee a dud or "like Quake 5 being in 2-d", though.

Take for example World Of Warcraft: it has nothing to do with the gameplay of Warcraft 1 to 3, and pretty much just uses the same setting and franchise name. Ended up the best MMO by a damn huge margin nevertheless.

Or, you know, take any Mechwarrior game as an example. They took a turn-based tactics game played on a hex-board, and made a real-time FPS out of it. Even the weapons, if you look at the numbers in MW games, have really nothing to do with implementing the Battletech weapons with the same name. Didn't really end up bad games, though, and MW1 is still on my list of the best games of all time.

So it _could_ still be a good game. 'Course, it could also be crap, but let's wait and see.

As to why would they want to do that... maybe because they've done SC to death already. The changes between SC1 and SC4 have been really incremental, and more often in the graphics department than really being a new game. And some were fairly controversial if they made it a better game, or if they change the gameplay that much.

So, basically, you've already bought the same game already. Several times.

If it goes by the same formula again, there's not much obvious stuff which can be added this time, or not without doing more harm than good. (E.g., turning it into a micromanagement nightmare.) I mean, seriously, other than bumping the graphics resolution up some more, what would _you_ add in SC5?

It's not like RPGs, where you can just change the story for the next one, but leave the mechanics the same if they worked well. Here the mechanics _are_ the whole game. It's just a game of placing buildings and applying some formulas to them. And they already had several games to get the buildings and formulas right already. Just tweaking some reltionship to be juuust right in the 5'th decimal... doesn't really a new game make.

So what I'm getting to is: they have a choice between (A) selling a clone of one of their previous games, or (B) trying something new. They went with option B. And, honestly, I'd rather give them some brownie points for even trying, rather than damn them in advance. Sure, it may still end up a bad game, who knows? But, seriously, buying a SC4 clone in higher res doesn't sound too tempting to me.

Re:It doesn't have to be horrible, though

[Moraelin]

Actually I'll go ahead and say just that: that people are damn good at picking what's good for _them_. It may not satisfy _your_ tastes, or _your_ criteria, but it doesn't make their choice wrong either.

In a sense, "best" doesn't even exist in a matter of taste. Some people like sweet wine, some people like dry wine, and some hate both. Is either of the choices "wrong"? Not really, each one just picks the wine he/she likes. Ditto for games, really. Some like The Sims, some like CounterStrike. Some like WoW, some like Everquest. Some like fantasy, some like SF. Neither is deluded into taking the "wrong" choice, each just picked the game that suits his/her individual tastes.

And I'll say that humans are damn good at that. Pretty much invariably when something appeals to only a minority, it failed to appeal to the rest, they didn't fail to pick the "best." They did pick the best... for themselves.

So strictly speaking "best" doesn't even exist in a matter of personally taste.

In another sense, though, I can look at which of them appealed to more people, and use that as a (somewhat warped) measure of "best". Unless one of them was deliberately aiming for a narrow niche (which isn't usually the case, unless they know in advance they can't compete with the big boys), one of them managed to know its potential market better, and to actually make a product that appeals to them more. I can respect that kind of achievement.

In yet another sense, not everything is just subjective taste. There are a few things that are fairly common to most of the population, and are objectively measurable.

E.g., (almost) noone actually wants bugs, so all else being equal it's fairly safe to say, basically, "less bugs == better". (Caveat: almost never is all else equal.) And having played more than half a dozen other MMOs before and after, I can honestly say that WoW was a refreshing change. It wasn't strictly speaking perfect, but it came damn close to that, compared to the previous norm of shoving MMOs out the door when they barely can run... for a while. And it was orders of magnitude better than some of the crappier ones, like AO.

Re:It doesn't have to be horrible, though

[crossmr]

No they're not. Some people are good at picking whats good for them. A lot of people are good with going along with the crowd and just taking what is popular. That doesn't make the product superior or great, it makes it popular. You implied with your statement that WoW was the "best" as in a better product than any other MMO out there. History is rife with examples of inferior products becoming popular due to marketing, backroom deals, etc. While the superior products fade in to obscurity. If people were really good at picking the "best" product as a group, this type of thing wouldn't happen. They're easily swayed by marketing and popular opinion, neither of which make something the "best".

All I want in SCX

[El_Smack]

A really good terrain editor with *fine* control.
The ability to create roads exactly the way I want. No more auto-rotating onramps.
A checkbox that gives me unlimited simoleans.
A way to specify what type of store/office/house gets built. I like to build cities/neigborhoods that look how I want them to. I don't care what the sims want.

None of this will affect the way anyone else plays the game, BTW. You could still let the game run itself like it always did.

Re:Well...

[Mattintosh]

U-Drive-It was part of the expansion pack.

SC4 had all kinds of good stuff that SC3 didn't have. Like Regions. Regions are the best idea to hit SimCity in ages. Also good are the technical limitations that came along with Regions, allowing you to create a pollutionless residential area right next to a smog-filled industrial area, yet have neither town complaining about pollution (no pollution in the residential town, no citizens to complain about it in the industrial town).

The micromanagement thing is horrible, though. Why should the mayor have to order fire trucks to the scene of a fire? The school bus coverage thing is child's play by comparison. It's just one more aspect to design your city around, set the setting, then forget. Worse is when schools shut down due to a teachers strike from underfunding. Worse than that is when the same happens because of overcrowding (this essentially un-does any bus coverage settings you made and/or designed your city around). It doesn't scale back the effectiveness of the school... no, it shuts down. That's just stupid.

If they'd just fix SC4's stupid bugs and logic faults (and the micromanagement issues), I'd buy an upgrade. Oh, and throw in seasonal graphics like the SNES version. And if there's time and budget to spare, upgrade the graphics and allow higher resolutions. Release it as SimCity 5. I'd buy it.