By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - SimCity 67 metacritic so far

Slimebeast on 05 March 2013
Mummelmann said:
Over 90 on metacritic, that probably means that I'll love it, just all the other 90+ games we've seen in the past few years (and lord knows there's been a lot of them).
I simply refuse to purchase this on the grounds of Origin and my refusal is further strenghtened by the always online aspect, something that ruined Diablo III and is the most base and unfair copy protection in recent history.

Why did it ruin Diablo 3? I haven't played it yet but I've been thinking of buying it.



Around the Network
Jaywood2010 on 05 March 2013
pezus said:
JayWood2010 said:
pezus said:
TruckOSaurus said:
pezus said:
JayWood2010 said:

The only program i complain about is Usoft because i think it is truly horrific.  Origin isn't all that bad but the updates can be annoying, but from a business perspective i understand why they are doing it.  Not only is it getting traffic but it allows them to advertise there games better. 

From a business perspective it's understandable. But I'm not a part of their business and I want no part in it either. I don't care about their business, I care about the experience itself.

Is the 6GB patch for BF3 or Origin? I'm confused.

BF3, but Jaywood seems to think I was talking about an Origin patch >_>


No i just thought you was being sarcastic lol  I havent played BF3 in a long time so i havent had that 6GB patch

Prepare for a 12GB one then <_<. I don't want endlessly huge patches for the DLC packs I'll never buy.

Erll i font plan on playing BF3 anymore so ill stay away from it lol  a 12GB update would take me forever to download -_-  




       

Mummelmann on 05 March 2013
Slimebeast said:
Mummelmann said:
Over 90 on metacritic, that probably means that I'll love it, just all the other 90+ games we've seen in the past few years (and lord knows there's been a lot of them).
I simply refuse to purchase this on the grounds of Origin and my refusal is further strenghtened by the always online aspect, something that ruined Diablo III and is the most base and unfair copy protection in recent history.

Why did it ruin Diablo 3? I haven't played it yet but I've been thinking of buying it.


The game was literally unplayable for months for many people with servers crashing, forcing you online to play single player is sheer stupidity, you couldn't even go AFK for ten minutes without being kicked from your own single player game. The always online aspect was also closely tied in to the auction house, the single most ruining aspect of the entire game. Blizzard wanted D3 to be WoW but ended up exactly as I though; sold gangbusters but lost the majority of players after a short while since there no incentive to stay, making Blizzard money through outrageous fees and royalties on frickin make believe money as well as real is not an incentive to stay.

Diablo 3 is about the auction house, its the cornerstone of the entire game whether gamers want it to be or not and its all completely deliberate on Blizzards part. The always online is still the shit frosting on the feces cake.



TruckOSaurus on 05 March 2013
Mummelmann said:


The game was literally unplayable for months for many people with servers crashing, forcing you online to play single player is sheer stupidity, you couldn't even go AFK for ten minutes without being kicked from your own single player game. The always online aspect was also closely tied in to the auction house, the single most ruining aspect of the entire game. Blizzard wanted D3 to be WoW but ended up exactly as I though; sold gangbusters but lost the majority of players after a short while since there no incentive to stay, making Blizzard money through outrageous fees and royalties on frickin make believe money as well as real is not an incentive to stay.

Diablo 3 is about the auction house, its the cornerstone of the entire game whether gamers want it to be or not and its all completely deliberate on Blizzards part. The always online is still the shit frosting on the feces cake.

While "unplayable for months" is pushing it a bit, I do agree with your overall analysis on the situation. I tried to resist the auction house for the longest time but in the end it's impossible to finish Inferno without it.



Signature goes here!

dharh on 05 March 2013

Diablo III, SimCity, Assassin's Creed 4. They are going to drag us kicking and screaming into "Online Single Player" gaming and there is nothing we are going to do about it.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.
Around the Network
forest-spirit on 05 March 2013

Perhaps reviewers in general likes it but after seeing some gameplay videos I've decided to downgrade SC5 to bargain bin status. Being able to upgrade buildings is a cool concept and I like the idea of a region with several cities working together. I've also waited for the curvy roads.
But the city size just ruins everything. Building attachements requires more of your precious space and using curvy roads to make nicely looking neighborhoods isn't very efficient so that addition is more or less pointless.
Really don't care about the always online stuff since the map sizes alone is a dealbreaker for me.

Here's hoping for modders to save the game or Paradox to make Grand Cities: Totally not Sim City.



Mummelmann on 05 March 2013
dharh said:
Diablo III, SimCity, Assassin's Creed 4. They are going to drag us kicking and screaming into "Online Single Player" gaming and there is nothing we are going to do about it.


Except not purchase the games. That's one way of doing it.



dharh on 05 March 2013
Mummelmann said:
dharh said:
Diablo III, SimCity, Assassin's Creed 4. They are going to drag us kicking and screaming into "Online Single Player" gaming and there is nothing we are going to do about it.


Except not purchase the games. That's one way of doing it.


Gamers as a whole are going to put up with it. I firmly believe this. 



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.
Mummelmann on 05 March 2013
dharh said:
Mummelmann said:
dharh said:
Diablo III, SimCity, Assassin's Creed 4. They are going to drag us kicking and screaming into "Online Single Player" gaming and there is nothing we are going to do about it.


Except not purchase the games. That's one way of doing it.


Gamers as a whole are going to put up with it. I firmly believe this. 

And I believe you are absolutely right. My point was simply that there is something to be done about it, the fact that most gamers won't be willing to do this notwithstanding.

Seeing all the (justified) hate EA is recieving and has been recieveing for some time now, though, also leads me to believe that they will hurt from all their bullshit in the near future, they look like complete douchebags compared to Valve, for instance, or CD Projekt.



S.Peelman on 05 March 2013

Yes. It is sad. Rant incoming:

I should have known; they didn't dare to name it SimCity 5. Alarm bells were ringing right there. And my feelings were correct, I have watched a few hours of development videos and beta-footage to know what this game is about. Been playing SimCity for like a million years now, but I'll stay with SimCity 4 for another decade it seems. Thanks EA, for ruining it once again and pushing the online.

City size, normal region play, terraforming and even save games are all casualties. Especially that last part, that's crippling. Apparently your city is synched to the clouds. I would like to actually own my game instead of enslaving myself to (in this case) EA's will and hoping I can still play the game or my cities five years down the line. If I even could at any given time, with this online bull****. I still have most of my SimCity 2000, 3000 and all of my SimCity 4 cities. I've built entire countries in SimCity 4.

It's inexcusable by the way, to not be able to build regions the way you like, to not be able to connect cities the way you like, to not have metropolises and multiple cities merged together in the same large region as you have small mountain towns. Not have cities with 500,000 inhabitants and still room to spare or villages with just 500 inhabitants in the midst of a giant forested landscape. Not even able to create railways, highways and subways and to have them connect to neighbouring cities at your will. What city has only 1 exit anyway? Like I said, inexcusable and twenty, nay, fifty steps backwards from SimCity 4.

Still, I must say there's a couple of rays of light. The simulation engine seems top notch. With the so-called Glassbox engine, it seems Maxis created a very advanced piece of programming and manages the city with realism like never before. Also, the ability to expand placable buildings at your will and making curved roads easily are a godsend. Too bad those won't stack up to the disasters I mentioned above.

From what I've seen, I'm heavily disappointed and I'm not going to support this.