No Zones?

[skyline7284]

According to the 1Up Preview you guys have gotten rid of zones? :( Thats one of the things that made the game fun for me, i hope you have something good for buildings if u got rid of zoning :D

[Azeem]

I'm really curious about that aspect as well. I'm thinking that it can mean one of the following: 1) that the city is actually completely ploppable :eek: ; 2) that we can plop certain types of buildings and those buildings "evolve" or change depending on conditions; 3) we can plop specific structures, but those structures must meet certain conditions in order to grow or prosper.

[skyline7284]

would be intresting to see a skyscraper in the middle of the desert...

[Azeem]

would be intresting to see a skyscraper in the middle of the desert...

In Korea, there are tall apartment complexes randomly scattered about the countryside right next to rice fields. :p

[arcan]

would be intresting to see a skyscraper in the middle of the desert...
Well, it wouldn't be too different from Las Vegas, would it ? :rolleyes:
:D :D

[Azeem]

Well, it wouldn't be too different from Las Vegas, would it ? :rolleyes:
:D :D

Or Dubai for that matter. :p

[offspring_dude]

Removing zones takes away ENTIRELY most of the versatility and excitement that came with the game.

For most gamers, alot of the excitement was zoning, then watching as your city grew, and your zones responded by having gradually larger and larger buildings. You didn't choose when, but that made you work harder to have your zones one day 'randomly' (Obviously calculated by the game) plop a big skyscraper or something.

Either way, another reason not to buy.

[newbielives]

If buildings are only ploppable like the landmarks in SC4, then I'm truly dissapointed.

It has always been the most exciting aspect of the game to see how the engine would generate buildings for you, eg like a small living world changing itself to adapt to the conditions.

The more I read the more dissappointed I become with this vision of SCS that has totally ignore every wish from every single "Simcity 5 Wish List" thread out there.

[javispedro]

I agree.... No Zones makes me sad. :(

Let's hope they put something similar as an option...

[Hardin]

No zones to? This isn't Sim City :(

[John-SJ]

No zones, true. But reading what is available it seems that there are factors that will affect the appearance of your city, and presumably (yes, an assumption on my part) part of that appearence will be in the buildings that appear. In SC4 you might change the building that the engine places in a zone by altering wealth or education or traffic level or education, etc. It seems in this game you will accomplish the same thing by making your sims happier, more comfortable, etc.

Sure, its a shift, but I can't see how its bad, just different.

[Hardin]

It's bad because zoning is an integral part of city planning.

[Azeem]

Maybe "Zoning" as in click-and-drag "Zoning" has been done away with, but one possibility is that you can place certain "types" of buildings and these buildings will change over time due to conditions in your city. I'm hoping this is the case. :)

[Hardin]

I hope that isn't the case. I like zones because it lets me put industrial, commercial, and residential where I want it to be.

[Rnett]

I have to agree, no zones would feel a bit strange for a simcity.

[John-SJ]

I hope that isn't the case. I like zones because it lets me put industrial, commercial, and residential where I want it to be.

And being able to place buildings of this type (think commercial, residential, industrial) here and buildings of another type over ther will not allow you to do what you wnat to do how, exactly?

[Anya]

Exactly. I'd like to place buildings as I like. The problem with zones was that you did not choose the individual buildings. I liked the ability to choose the buildings that you got in Tycoon City New York. If you wanted a commercial block with coffee shops, fast food, bars you could make that. If you wanted a block with clothing shops you could build that etc. This new game sounds interesting, I'm looking forward to hearing more about it.

[Hardin]

And being able to place buildings of this type (think commercial, residential, industrial) here and buildings of another type over ther will not allow you to do what you wnat to do how, exactly?
That would take a very long time to plop individual buildings on a large landmass but I guess it wont be large anymore :(. Being the mayor of a city doesn't mean you can build the buildings you wanted. Thats what the sims did based on demand. This is what I didn't like about City Life. That I could choose what kind of building my "inhabitants" would have instead of them picking the buildings they want like you can with zoning.

[NappySick]

I like the idea of having complete control of what appears where , had to use high taxes in the past with zoning to try to control what grows where , which wasnt an ideal situation. or selective demolishing which again didnt feel right . The only downside i see is , expecting as many buildings as i do in SCS it is going to be one hell of a list to scroll through to find the ones you want .

[Hardin]

The only downside i see is , expecting as many buildings as i do in SCS it is going to be one hell of a list to scroll through to find the ones you want .
That's another problem created by not having zoning. If we can choose what buildings to put down there might not be a whole lot or else the list will be really long. Take City Life for example. It had very few buildings maybe like 3 or 4 for each type(residential, commercial etc)

[offspring_dude]

Exactly. I'd like to place buildings as I like. The problem with zones was that you did not choose the individual buildings. I liked the ability to choose the buildings that you got in Tycoon City New York. If you wanted a commercial block with coffee shops, fast food, bars you could make that. If you wanted a block with clothing shops you could build that etc. This new game sounds interesting, I'm looking forward to hearing more about it.
But then it's not a city simulator. I don't understand the excitement of deciding where every single building goes, it detracts from the variety of the game and doesn't reward you with anything..

Part of the 'reward' system of older sim cities was watching your city expand, and with it seeing bigger and taller buildings reflect this in the zones. Plopping a few houses here and there just doesn't sound exciting.

And once again, you're comparing it to a sub-par, underperforming game like Tycoon City New York. And we all know how much that sells for on the shop shelves now.

[the Monkeys Uncle]

Zoning is an integral part of city building. Along with roads, they are practically the lifeblood of how cities work. The fun of it is to place zones, then give them services and parks, and watch how the sims react to the services you provide. If you get an ugly, poor neighborhood, you know you've done something wrong. But the real reward is when you do it right, and you get a beautiful shiny skyscraper grow toward the sky on it's own.

Plopping everything building sounds not only unexciting, but extremely time consuming and boring to me.

[NappySick]

Plopping everything building sounds not only unexciting, but extremely time consuming and boring to me.
But isnt that sim city and the very reason we love it ..Im completely sold on no zoning its unrealistic to have a high wealth next to a low wealth in between a meduim wealth residential block , and some times ive spent hours bulldozing and regrowing to get the ones i wanted if it grew at all it would of been much easier and less painfull to just plop it in the first place, the best of the best city journals the ones with awards are plopped , ploping will be more challenging than zoning , surely the game will punish you for over ploping , now if they give you a trillion simoleons and plop only that could be soul destroying ly boring .

[offspring_dude]

But isnt that sim city and the very reason we love it ..Im completely sold on no zoning its unrealistic to have a high wealth next to a low wealth in between a meduim wealth residential block , and some times ive spent hours bulldozing and regrowing to get the ones i wanted if it grew at all it would of been much easier and less painfull to just plop it in the first place, the best of the best city journals the ones with awards are plopped , ploping will be more challenging than zoning , surely the game will punish you for over ploping , now if they give you a trillion simoleons and plop only that could be soul destroying ly boring .
If you'd learnt the game mechanics a little more in depth I doubt you would've had the problem of low wealth buildings popping up everywhere. This isn't a dig at you; this is at the general attitude of SCS enthusiastics. Just because some people don't like the fact that you have to UNDERSTAND the game's complicated system to get the most out of it doesn't mean its neccessarily too hard; instead of stripping it down to the barebone why don't the designers just make it optionally easier for people who don't want such a complex experience?

Much easier and less painful? What's so hard about zoning? And how is plopping a building supposed to be more challenging?

[UnzippedSim77]

I hate not having control of what grows in my zoned areas in SC4... I always got that ugly Brown Hi-Rise building and spent a lot of my cash bulldozing it each and every time. Zoning is, ultimately, in the hands of the mayor, and so, as a city builder, this is what Tm is delivering for us - the buildings to 'approve' or 'allow' to grow in our city. Yet another example of someone having an ear to the community at SimTrop as these ideas were submitted in forum threads there. By choosing buildings, you can also restrict building heights for areas, another thing that annoyed me with SC4, I would get hi-rise in places where I specifically did not want them to go over a certain height, mainly due to traffic issues I didn't want to have to spend another billion simoleons demolishing areas and installing highways and underground to barely support the residents of the impromptu skyscraper zones. (Zoning for Mid-Wealth did not counteract this, btw. Low-wealth only succeeded in ensuring I had little houses rather than shopping districts etc)

[offspring_dude]

I hate not having control of what grows in my zoned areas in SC4... I always got that ugly Brown Hi-Rise building and spent a lot of my cash bulldozing it each and every time. Zoning is, ultimately, in the hands of the mayor, and so, as a city builder, this is what Tm is delivering for us - the buildings to 'approve' or 'allow' to grow in our city. Yet another example of someone having an ear to the community at SimTrop as these ideas were submitted in forum threads there. By choosing buildings, you can also restrict building heights for areas, another thing that annoyed me with SC4, I would get hi-rise in places where I specifically did not want them to go over a certain height, mainly due to traffic issues I didn't want to have to spend another billion simoleons demolishing areas and installing highways and underground to barely support the residents of the impromptu skyscraper zones. (Zoning for Mid-Wealth did not counteract this, btw. Low-wealth only succeeded in ensuring I had little houses rather than shopping districts etc)
Cool, I can take your argument on board... I just disagree with it... :)

IMO zoning is a perfect system for a city building simulation, I think it needed tweaking though, with less emphasis on your entire city becoming a mess of hi-rise blocks after a certain population, that was pretty unrealistic.

[UnzippedSim77]

No probs offspring :) I do understand where you're coming from, and I do acknowledge the importance of zoning in cities, to ensure they don't become a place like Dapto here in Australia, where zoning was so higgledy piggledy that houses and factories built alongside shops and clubs. It is only now getting its long-overdue zoning attention, so I don't disagree with you totally...
Ed

[NappySick]

If you'd learnt the game mechanics a little more in depth I doubt you would've had the problem of low wealth buildings popping up everywhere. This isn't a dig at you; this is at the general attitude of SCS enthusiastics. Just because some people don't like the fact that you have to UNDERSTAND the game's complicated system to get the most out of it doesn't mean its neccessarily too hard; instead of stripping it down to the barebone why don't the designers just make it optionally easier for people who don't want such a complex experience?

Much easier and less painful? What's so hard about zoning? And how is plopping a building supposed to be more challenging?

Well your the expert you have a lil think about it , for insulting me im only going to post my answer tomorrow if you dont figure it out yourself .And i never said zoning was hard just that i found i had to use radical methods to control areas when zoning dense mixed wealth cities .I bet you keep your sims poor with things like no water , that is not realistic, taxing a wealth so demand goes negative is unrealistic also , even poor sims get school in my cities, Zoning , ploping who cares its all good , i think there bigger issues at stake here , and when push comes shove whether the city is plopped or zoned isnt one of my main concerns .

[arcan]

NappySick and offspring_dude offspring_dude
that's precisely one of the main interests of the complexity of SC4, and what drastically lacked clitylife. There are so many tweakers, parameters that makes so many different possibilities that anyone can find his own strategy.
I want to go for poor and uneducated ? no water no schools. Poor and education ? no water but schools. "high standards" poors ? low citizen demand and better places for medium and rich classes, and so and so and so.
If the different energies or social or whatever they call it make for more diversity and possilibities then good. We'll have to check that SCS stay just as adaptative as SC4.

[Hardin]

It's actually quite easy to not have lots of low wealth buildings. Make sure its watered and they are educated and build lots of parks as high and medium wealth don't like to be around low value land. Lots and lots of parks really help. And I'll never accept plopping as the replacement for zoning.

[Suomenikus]

Nothing intrests me, only the next: do we have build (nice= also not the avarage , angled, as in new york) skyscrapers? i wait it so much, but how did you understand, that it isn't a realistic city builder??? And the name, Societies, also do we have build in arabian style too? I like to build Dubai city!!!!

[offspring_dude]

Well your the expert you have a lil think about it , for insulting me im only going to post my answer tomorrow if you dont figure it out yourself .And i never said zoning was hard just that i found i had to use radical methods to control areas when zoning dense mixed wealth cities .I bet you keep your sims poor with things like no water , that is not realistic, taxing a wealth so demand goes negative is unrealistic also , even poor sims get school in my cities, Zoning , ploping who cares its all good , i think there bigger issues at stake here , and when push comes shove whether the city is plopped or zoned isnt one of my main concerns .
Can't understand what your point is or what you're trying to say, and erm no I didn't insult you. Oh my God no answer until tomorrow? A greater travesty could not have befallen me.

[NappySick]

It's actually quite easy to not have lots of low wealth buildings. Make sure its watered and they are educated and build lots of parks as high and medium wealth don't like to be around low value land. Lots and lots of parks really help. And I'll never accept plopping as the replacement for zoning. Just maybe i wanted lots of educated low wealth sims , it was the higher wealth buildings i was trying to control. To make every lil square historical i feel is truly soul destroying , and il be so pleased to see the back of that ,i done so much making historical it would make you puke.Also what scale do you build in compared to i ,its possible we both have very differant views because my city isnt the same as yours .Parks are just cap busters , you can get the highest wealth buildings in sc4 with just a good range of basic servises,a spinkling of trees on baron land , and a good job near by and not one park.Also im aware that by loosing the zones we loose some of the magic of sc4 , checking it out soon as the scoffold goes up to see what it is , i do know where your comming from .Im just hoping that expansion pack Volume 1 is out soon so we can buy the rest of the game .And then we can make you as many parks as you want

[BarbulaM1]

All trees do in SimCity 4 is add asthetics, and reduce polution. In order to achieve stage 8 buildings, the surrounding area has to be condusive to their development. Since it is unlikely that parks are all over people's downtowns, Stage 8 CO$$$ buildings have to be incrimentaly brought up, maybe at one time the area had parks which started the inital CO$$$ development, as well as well educated sims. But once you get into the stage 7s and 8s desirabilty is inherent from what is being built then, and what was built there before. You cannot just go into the game and automaticly start building high wealth anything. The factors all have to be there, education, desirabilty, security, traffic (commute), jobs, healthcare and the basics water and power. Not matter how small a town is, it must have those, a small town with a clinic, firestation, school and water will produce R$$$ but not very much... The machanics of the game are intresting, yes somewhat complex, but the concepts are easy and should be easily understood, it's logic.

[NappySick]

im sorry to disagree , but i found that if you had enough demand for something , way more than the 6000 suggested by the rci , i could start a city with a single road , with power and water and get a chong , a mclelen , then into the stage 8 maybe van poolgen would show all within the first few structures, this lead me to conclude that demand could over rule desirability , now the building would be fast to delapadate if conditions arent right , but the foundations were set on demand factors only because basicly the city was empty. To measure how much Co demand i had in my region , and to see if it was worth transfaring given the problems each time i did this , i set up a city empty city water ,gas , garbage removed, cops and fire , zone 4x4 dense com and measure what grows while watching caps and these building grow not a problem if there s enough demand and the region population is high enough. If i can get 500,000 CO jobs or more in my tempary city ,il then ,exit without save , and work my way back to the place the CO jobs are going ,which could be over 15 large tiles away , play each tile in order giving each city time to settle and satcfying any residential demand s or negatives to neutral as i go , then maybe 7 hours later i arrive at my destination with another 500,000 CO jobs for my super city -) i totaly agree with you your text book method is fool proof but the is more then 5 ways to skin a cat.Anyway a strong powerful super power nation is built on an elite educated lower wealth working class , one thats sustainable is anyway .And another thing what about my huge custom factories , whos going to work there if i got no low wealth sims , and my snm i cant disarm one of you b%4£ards might attack.

[Hardin]

If you already have a well developed region then the demand will be there but like you said it might not last long if the land value and desirability is low. And I normally replace all my low tech factories with the cleaner industrial or commercial and eventually I will have little need for low wealth sims. This is a very interesting discussion that I don't think would be possible without zoning.

[willy88]

One suggestion for TM would be to have two types of gameplay:


"Normal": no zones, no water pipes, plop everything
"Classic": the old Simcity formula where you zone RCI, lay down waterpipes, etc...

[Aushun]

^^ That could work, although it would almost be like having two different games on one disk. Maybe there could be a compromise between the two; like using zones for commercial, and 'plopping down' residential buildings. One must also keep in mind that 'ploppable' buildings, as seen on city-builders, do have some degree of evolution to them (similar to zoning) Residential buildings for example, grow bigger and better as they get access to more resources, as seen in virtually every historic citybuilder.

[Christoffre]

I have played both Sim City and City Life. The big, and then I mean BIG, downside with City Life is the buildings you just place there.

Sim City 5 can have ploppable buildings if they want, but they must have zones as well. I dont want to manualy place every wini tiny building in a city. Its just boring.

[Avalon]

Or Dubai for that matter. :p
I'm from Dubai. :)
It isn't as great as our government wants you to think. Trust me.

Unless of course you're from there yourself :P
Sorry to go offtopic though.

[thomil]

Hi all!


I have watched this zoning debate for quite a while now and just had this idea how it "could" work. Suppose you just build several core "service" buildings (like schools and maybe a park if you want a residential area), and houses, and later appartment blocks are built in the neighbourhood if the site is attractive enough. Later, if enough residential buildings are concentrated around that "core", business will appear once the potential market is large enough. You would still have to build roads and said core infrastructure, but you would not have to worry about plopping every single building.

Now, I don't know how good the programmers here at Tilted Mill are, but would such an approach be feasible?


regards

Thomas

[willy88]

Hi all!


I have watched this zoning debate for quite a while now and just had this idea how it "could" work. Suppose you just build several core "service" buildings (like schools and maybe a park if you want a residential area), and houses, and later appartment blocks are built in the neighbourhood if the site is attractive enough. Later, if enough residential buildings are concentrated around that "core", business will appear once the potential market is large enough. You would still have to build roads and said core infrastructure, but you would not have to worry about plopping every single building.

Now, I don't know how good the programmers here at Tilted Mill are, but would such an approach be feasible?


regards

Thomas

That's exactly what you do in Simcity 4/3K/2K....

[Hardin]

I think he's actually trying to say that you plop down a big block like in the first Sim City game and buildings will develop in it but I could be reading it wrong.

[Chief of Staff]

Basically like in real-life city planning, zoning can be and is quite an important tool in urban planning in SimCity. It allows you to control the development by adjusting densities and also to designate areas for specific purpose (i.e. commercial zone for purpose of commerce, residential zone for housing, industrial zones for industrial development, et cetera).

Density control can also affect how much traffic you can expect along specific routes in and out of that area in question.

Now, Houston is largest city in the United States that does not actually have any zoning at all. So the question is, should zoning be optional and that for area to become developed, you just simply tags them for development without any specific zoning? Keep in mind, Houston is fourth largest city in the United States so that pretty much demonstrates zoning is not exactly a crucial prerequisite to achieving a city of millions.

However, I am strongly in opposition of an idea of making all development ploppable (well, except for cheat code but that's different story :p). We do not build houses, factories, farms, or shops ourselves. That is the responsibility of the people. Period.

The idea for us instead of the Sims to build houses, factories, farms, or shops is pretty much contrary to the idea of free market system, better known as capitalism and free enterprise system. How can we really expect our city's economy to grow if it have to wait on us to build houses, factories, farms, or shops?

That's precisely what zoning, or simply zoning areas for development without any specific uses like residential or industrial in cases similar to Houston, is for... to allow them to build up within the constraint of zoning. Zoning is basically a constraint intended to maintain limitation on development for good reasons. Not only does zoning imposes restraints on density to prevent overcrowding, but it also affects traffic as I mentioned above, affects amount of pollution emitted from either traffic or developments, especially those in industrial areas, and likewise.

In conclusion, zoning does have lots of impact on your city's growth and development than you might think.

-City Planner on Unauthorized Lunch Break

[thomil]

I think he's actually trying to say that you plop down a big block like in the first Sim City game and buildings will develop in it but I could be reading it wrong.

Most likely you're reading it all wrong. My bad.

What I meant is that you don't do ANY zoning, and that the Simulation decides what building (and what type) should be placed where according to what infrastructure (schools etc., see my original post) and maybe one or two "trigger" buildings are available.

That would do away with the need for zoning while still avoiding the "one building - two mouse clicks" trap that City Life has fallen into.

The trigger buildings I have mentioned would simply be buildings of the four types known in SC4 (Agricultural/Industrial, Commercial, Residential) that steer the development of a certain area in a certain direction.

I hope that's a bit clearer.

[Hardin]

That's interesting but it might be weird having buildings appear haphazardly all around a school with no user control.

[Trixin]

Indeed, removing zoning from a city simulation game is very wrong. In SimCity 4, you assume position of the mayor, but you don't actually build the houses, shops or factories yourself. The municipal government never actually constructs any buildings, unless they are civic buildings or essential services, they just approve of what gets built. I can't understand how every single building would be ploppable, because when it comes to zoning, skyscrapers and larger buildings can only be built on higher density zones, specific to the type of structure being constructed (residential, commerical or industrial).

[Azeem]

Just a thought here - the "zones" in SimCity classic were ploppable zones, basically one large block that you set down and grows or morphs depending on city conditions. This is unlike the click-and-drag "zoning" in later SimCity games. Perhaps this is what is meant by "plopable" buildings and no "zoning"?

@Hadrin: Actually it's not all that wierd to have buildings grow haphazardly around certain key structures. That's what goes on in many industrializing countires where building codes aren't stringently enforced. :)

[Sim Nation]

You guys arent playing the game properly i cant see your reasoning , if it grows, when its grows if its the one you want then you must make it historical , that seems like a very long boring proscess to me, no wonder most you guys cities are just a mish mash of random building all over the place, what even crazier is some of you have even convinced yourselfs it looks realistic, jeesh .
________
LINCOLN V12 ENGINE HISTORY (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Lincoln_V12_engine)

[ManagerJosh]

But then it's not a city simulator. I don't understand the excitement of deciding where every single building goes, it detracts from the variety of the game and doesn't reward you with anything..
Chris told us in a clarification that SCS is still a city simulator.

I think Zoning is necessary. It's been part of SimCity since day 1. While the ploppable idea sounds very neat, I think this adds a degree of micromanagement I rather not get myself involved with. Too time consuming in the long run.

[Hardin]

You guys arent playing the game properly i cant see your reasoning , if it grows, when its grows if its the one you want then you must make it historical , that seems like a very long boring proscess to me, no wonder most you guys cities are just a mish mash of random building all over the place, what even crazier is some of you have even convinced yourselfs it looks realistic, jeesh .
Sorry I don't consider having the same 2 or 3 buildings realistic.

[offspring_dude]

You guys arent playing the game properly i cant see your reasoning , if it grows, when its grows if its the one you want then you must make it historical , that seems like a very long boring proscess to me, no wonder most you guys cities are just a mish mash of random building all over the place, what even crazier is some of you have even convinced yourselfs it looks realistic, jeesh .
Right, because it's more realistic to have a multi-coloured texture of buildings thrown haphazardly anywhere on the map - much more realism. :rolleyes:

I'm sorry, but plopping buildings down is exactly what realism is NOT. Just gets boring, repetitive, and dull very quickly.

[Sim Nation]

Ok then maybe it depends where in the real world you live , maybe we have differant idea s on realistic , In the UK many suburbs are uniform , same texture , same design , identical , to me that s realistic .Plus no council anywhere in the world would just let a builder put up any old shape building usually they need planning permision, so it already been decided what building is going to be plopped.And thats in the real world Anyway i think whether zoned or plopped will be the leastof our worries when the full game gets realeased
________
UPSKIRT HIDDEN (http://www.****tube.com/categories/1119/hidden/videos/1)

[Azeem]

In the UK many suburbs are uniform , same texture , same design , identical , to me that s realistic

This is true in Korea as well. Seoul is an anomaly, but in the rest of the country, buildings tend to look exactly alike as if builders follow only one set of building blueprints, especially schools and apartment buildings. Even if you're passing through completely different cities, a newcomer would probably get one of those "hey, didn't I see that before" feelings. ;)

[UnzippedSim77]

Ok then maybe it depends where in the real world you live , maybe we have differant idea s on realistic... Plus no council anywhere in the world would just let a builder put up any old shape building usually they need planning permision, so it already been decided what building is going to be plopped.

Finally, someone has made the realisation - people are getting themselves all tied up with what is their very own personal opinion based on their culture, their way of playing and their understanding of what certain words mean such as realism. These issues many are having with SCS are unfounded as yet, and yes, there has been mention of it, and oh my goodness, it might not be exactly what you expect for how you play the game, but ultimately, EVERYONE plays the game DIFFERENTLY and EVERYONE has a different OPINION. All I can see is people shouting down other people's opinions without considering the facts and the basis of their own arguments. A little bit of decorum is necessary in the threads people. And congrats SimNation for the excellent insight you have shown in the above quote!

[jman8934]

All of the talk about how zones were not "good enough" to fufill your desire to control the size/height/type of buildings. Lets think, how does a real city do it!? They have more than 9 different zones! If we were to make sim city more realistic you would have to have many more zones. This is what I am for. Example near airports you would have zones that have height restrictions.

"I hate how you can get low wealth near high wealth, its so unrealistic", this is why you have a new version! In the new version the game is improved to make it more realistic. It's not like Sim City 4 was the absolute best!

"A city planning council gets to decide if something is built". They approve a building. Citizens initiate that process.

Does anyone remember plopin sim town for like win 3x?(notice the lack of sim town 2, maxis even realized it sucked)
it was pretty terrible.

I hope the graphics are not cartoonish

I hope SimNation is right about this being the least of our worries in the final game. It may give a new game experience! It isn't what we've hoped for; but, surely there'll be a sim city 6! maybe that will be what we have been waiting for. I'm excited to try it.

[Romaq]

I've seen http://media.pc.ign.com/media/925/925931/vids_1.html (http://media.pc.ign.com/media/925/925931/vids_1.html) and it relates directly to the 'no zones' issue. In the demo, Ms. Berstein plops an antique shop. I must say, I really *really* do not want to plop down individual antique shops. Part of what I look forward to with SC4 is seeing what grows out of the game engine with careful tending to the transit network and civic necessities. If EAGames says ‘no zones,’ by contract that’s what SC5 is *not* going to do. However, I do request consideration of ‘neutral’ building blocks that might function this way:

In this demo I imagine, I plop a 6X6 unit ‘block’ of ‘open venue construction’. The game engine notes the placement, and considers if venues are needed, and what kind. The game engine might decide to fill some or all of the block with venue that fits the current environment, but really adds nothing or takes away from the environment. So placing this structure doesn’t hurt or help me, and if I want my city to be more effective I will simply *have* to rework some of the buildings in order to really ‘advance’ within the game. What it does do for me is allow me to fill an area with ‘something’ without having to plop resident buildings for 67,000+ people just for the city of Bellingham, resident home by horrific resident home. And gas stations up and down The Guide, and every silly antique and pawn shop up and down the streets of downtown. If people howled about managing the budget for every tiny civic building in SC4, plopping every single-family resident and corner shop within a given city is going to be a *real* chore. Even with SC4, I’ve tended to build within 6x6 blocks and zone 6x6 resident areas so things like http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/index.cfm?id=13806 would spring up and look pretty much like the drive along The Guide south of I-5. What I’ve just now seen tells me I have to plop every single one of those single-family homes and small-town shops. You expect me to place ‘house by house’ what you see on this link: http://maps.yahoo.com/broadband#mvt=h&trf=0&lon=-122.486159&lat=48.768845&mag=1 ? That’s going to suck. No two ways about it. If you can’t do ‘zones’, I surely hope you have a plan for ‘single family resident plopable city blocks’. Maybe I can even break a plopped block of single family homes to stuff a gas station on one corner and a pawn shop on the other. Let the blocks come as a plopable package without each plopped block being strictly identical to the next. Something. Yeesh. But that video of plopping down a single antique store and having that represent every single-unit family home within my city is downright scary stuff.

--Romaq

[majortom1981]

The problem though is that this is a video game and i dont think that Ai can accurately make decisions yet for real proper zoning. I mean in sc4 you put a commercial zone but you really didnt see stores poping up and different kinds of stores wich affected the area.

This way you can make the comemrcial zones yourself by putting the stores in yourself and they will affect the whole city.

Remember in video games I dont know if ai can realistically handle doing it to be more realistic yet.

Its bad enough sim city 4 ran so bad on top of the line machines when it came out.

Also We dont know if there will be blocks of buildings that you can also place.

We just have too little info to make any kind of assumptions.

[Romaq]

(*snip*)
We just have too little info to make any kind of assumptions.

Yeah, there's too much fuss over too little info, and I happen to agree with you. My computer drives two monitors (TM: HINT HINT!!!) so I run email, web, and topographical maps of what I'm attempting to build on one monitor while I use the other monitor for the game. I'm very happy I can use the SC4 Startup Manager and run SC4 within a 'window' without 'Windows Exclusive Mode' so I can easily flip from game editing to source material *for* the game and *about* the game (TM: HINT HINT!!!).

Windows Exclusive Mode or not, SC4 is a *PIG*. In PAUSE mode! With or without the hack to break 'Exclusive' mode. I have no idea how developers get anything done unless they have a 'play' computer and a 'developer' computer separate. Or perhaps they have a cheat command during the development phase to tell the software 'quit screwing around doing nothing and share the CPU nicely with my development tools!' Something I wish I had access to in SC4 (TM: HINT HINT!!!).

Anyway, I'm guessing it must be a bear for a developer to discuss *anything* having to navigate with NDA, contractual obligations that can't be revealed, unfrozen features under consideration, and the problem that anything mentioned can and will be understood in the worst possible way, and held against them forever and ever amen. What a minefield!

Still and all, I am thinking through the issue of allowing for 'city block scale' development without 'zones'. While I can't know without reading a contract I don't have access to, it's quite possible EA laid down the law of 'no freakin' zones!' for which TM would simply have no say in the matter, other than to drop the contract. Or there might be some wiggle room, or alternate ways to resolve the problem.

That problem being, I get the willies every time I think of plopping down a single small antique shop in a city of sixty-seven THOUSAND people. Given the number of small buildings within any given small city, that's a lotta ploppin' goin' on. I'm trading the tedium of installing a 'money cheat' in SC4 to avoid budget management for *this*? I hope not. How can we neutralize trading one tedium for another? I'm all for positive suggestions that TM can *contractually* act upon.

--Romaq

[ManagerJosh]

Our classic sort of zoning is gone, based on the YouTube Gamedaily preview. From what I can tell, it's no longer residential, commercial and industrial. Rather, it's now homes, work places, and venues.

[Romaq]

I understand that part: Homes (residential), workplaces (commercial/ indsutrial) and venues (commercial only). I'm curious how the engine will treat 'venue' for the barmaids and dancers, but that's a different thread topic.

But even a small city tends to have lots and LOTS of single family dwellings (SFD). Lot and lots and lots. Mt. Baker Apartments had lots of both shop venues and entertainment venues built around the first floor entrance. Would a 'Mt. Baker Apartments' style building be too complex for the game engine to handle? And how much pain is going to be involved in making 'normal residential suburbs'? To what extent would we trade 'budget tedium' for 'plopping tedium'? Hopefully, we can simply remove the tedium. But we shall see.

--Romaq

[Adagio]

I really hate the fact that there is no zoning in the game. Zoning was one of the better features in SimCity, why replace it with the worst feature in City Life? :confused:

[skyline7284]

Ive never played City life, was it any good?

[Jeff Fiske]

Not addressing one vs. the other as being better, just shedding some light on one reason why we felt the need to avoid a 'nurture / zoning' system in SCS and use an absolute control system.

(Incase you had not read this already anywhere else- Without stepping away from what RCI intends for you to do, you absolutely will hose yourself if you do not build your larger scale cities without a strong plan for your Homes, Workplaces & venues and how they relate to transportation. The concept of laying out RCI areas from a logisitcs perspective remains valid.)

When you combine a nurture system with a traditional City building 'domino model' where one failure can cause a collapse, this combination can create a feeling of lack of control, a feeling of unpredicablity, or worse- a lack of understanding/feeling of failure. Often this is why people say they put down a city building game - not that it is overly complicated- they don't understand the nuances of the model and don't want to spend hours learning it.

While we don't have as punitive a system as most CB games, we have a much wider variety of buildings that affect gameplay in a much more dramatic way, and the risk of changing a building(in SCS) based on 'how your city is evolving' could arguably could be even more damaging to your play.

One 'nurture element' we do have, is the profiling which affects building props, lighting, clipping plane in some cases, building & road textures, music, etc. BUT it does not affect gameplay. That is where the big difference is, because we did not want to take gameplay control away from you.

You will have over 350 buildings to put down that can have subtle effects and differences, so we felt that you really needed to know exactly what building was going to be and it would remain there- because if it changed to something else- it could really affect gameplay and it would be too difficult to provide meaningful feedback with your city constantly morphing on its own.

So in SCS you decide how you want your city to play, during your current play session. Yes, your cities can really look & play differently- and the game does its best to try and make it look even more, like the type of city you are trying to build, by modifying the above mentioned graphics and audio.

Hope this helps explain a few things.

[Romaq]

(snip)Hope this helps explain a few things.

It does, for me, to some extent. The devil is in the details. I must report in my wife's play-session with SC4 that what you said (unwillingness to learn the nuances) is exactly why she is NOT playing SimCity4 ever. She wants to 'putter' within a game session and not have the city scream at her with no-transit zots, no power zots, advisers shaking their fists at her, wagging their heads in disapproval. We get enough of that sort of 'feedback' at work, and she's simply not going to put up with it on the game.

My solution, of course, was to shove in custom content that gave me limitless money and and invest the time to make the fist-shaking, head wagging and finger pointing from the advisers go away. Any problem you can solve with money you have at your disposal is not a problem, and I can hack a LOT of money into SC4.

I show her the videos and demos, and Mikaela is interested in SC:S. Once we are sure the wallet has recovered from our Las Vegas vacation, we'll pick up C:IV and putter with that as a 'preview' to SC:S.

--Romaq

[sinjun]

Sorry I don't consider having the same 2 or 3 buildings realistic.


then many cities might just tax your sanity then.

[Talshiarr]

My only fear for those of us who like building realistic looking cities is that while there may be 350 buildings, they're divided among the six "energy" types, and only 15% of those bulidings are unlocked at the beginning. That means you're only going to have the same couple or three houses to start with, the same handful of shops, etc...one might argue that SC4 and previous only had that as well but the numerous lots and numerous props made it look like there were many many more than that. I can't stand building repetition, but I've seen screenshots where the same two or three towers were repeated all over the place. 350 buildings sounds like a lot, but not when most have to be unlocked or are of an "energy" type you don't want to pursue.

[Azeem]

SimCity 4 vanilla's buildings were horribly repetitive, even with props included. It wasn't until modding and until the expansions came that we have a wealth of different interesting building types.

15% of 350 comes to around 52 to 53 different buildings. That's still quite a lot compared to what SC4 vanilla had. It was mentioned that buildings in SCS change appearance in response to the city's overall societal climate. I suppose that could mitigate the repetitiveness.

[Ocram]

I hope the game automatically changes the color of certain buildings because even cookie cutter houses have different gardens and paint colors.

[sinjun]

SimCity 4 vanilla's buildings were horribly repetitive, even with props included. It wasn't until modding and until the expansions came that we have a wealth of different interesting building types.

15% of 350 comes to around 52 to 53 different buildings. That's still quite a lot compared to what SC4 vanilla had. It was mentioned that buildings in SCS change appearance in response to the city's overall societal climate. I suppose that could mitigate the repetitiveness.

If that's true then could it be that there are a lot more than 350 if you cound all the influances that could alter it i mean it would then be 350 X 6 for whatever has the most influance right? what if it's muptiple influances will that be taken into account as well? could it be something like 350 X 12 or more. maybe not diffrent buildings but that's a lot of diffrent looks that you could have. even on the low side of 350 x 6.

looking good so far i'd say :D but a little charification would be nice :D

[sinjun]

You know maybe in an expansion you might get the option of say choosing a main building then choosing a subgroup by selecting diffrent types to make buildings. like in these examples


Resteraunt
X Itallian
X Pizza
X Franchise
X Med
X Type 3 (with various types of looks)
X Outside Eating
X Brick

Home
X Brick
X Pool
X Garden
X Deck
X Carport
X High Class
X Gated Community (or you could do this by using walls etc)

Industry
X High Tech
X Train Port (if traintracks are near)
X 24 Hour Security (while it might class a little with the police a high tech company would probably have their own security many gated communities do as well)
X Electronics
X Neon
X Style 3
X Covered Parking


the list goes on and on which is why i suggest this for an expansion. It would take work but you would/could have an insane number of diffrent looks for buildings and you could go so far as to changing the nature of the building depending on what you choose.

[Aushun]

Some sort of colour randomiser would be very welcome. I think I've explained elsewhere before, but the same building in different colours can create the dramatic illusion that they're actually two different buildings. When, and if, cities start reaching SimCity-esque proportions, such variance could help ease the repetition issue, even if in reality it's just the same building. Of course, having more buildings types, and props being added according to prevalent societal values definitely help, but randomised colours would add that little bit extra I think.

[Romaq]

Of the apartments I live in, there are two buildings that are identical except for a difference in the trim color. There are the Indianapolis Pyramids (http://www.indypyramids.com/). The buildings in Germany, particularly the tourist trap places all looked alike with those funny 'wooden support/ wattle & daub' look. A strip mall is being built nearby in this city, and more of the newer strip malls already built have a common look about them. Fairhaven buildings (http://www.bellingham.net/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=6) look pretty much alike, and the new condos being built by Kellog Road all look alike except for color. Come to think of it, industrial parks typically are built by the same contractor to a single generic plan, and the industrial plant I work in is part of a megaplex operated by Bellingham Cold Storage, warehouses all alike.

Repitition in buildings isn't *common*, but it isn't exactly *rare*. SC4 appeared to have a means for making a family of props that randomly spawn with the same typical set of generic buildings, and custom content could take advantage of the same prop tree and random spawning ability for getting milage out of a given building.

My hope is for some sort of 'lasso' selection where I can take a group of buildings, typically single family dwellings with a corner mom & pop, plop a copy and have that copy mix things up in the property tree so it's not an exact copy. As I've shown before in a Google map, cities will have miles and miles of single family dwellings that are all nearly but not quite alike, and I'll be good and god damned if I'm going to plop each and every single freakin' one. But an 'apartment complex/ gated community/ suburbia/ "Over The Hedge Megaplex" ' tool would be greatly appreciated, one that will let me pick 'plop houses like this one' and I can just pave an area with homes 'not quite but like that one'. And then give me a reasonable selection to start with, and trust our fine and trusty custom content creators to ship a terabyte's worth of 'cookie-cutter' buildings and randomly spawning prop trees for single family dwellings, condos and apartments.

--Romaq

[Azeem]

Aside from modding in completely new 3d models of buildings, the addition of a built-in in-game "mix-and-match" tool could allow for some differences in building styles. It doesn't need to be complex; it could just be a mixing and matching of different props and building aspects. For example, there could be one generic "single house" building and there would be a selection of different window types, paints, awnings, building textures, and lawn ornaments to choose from.

[sinjun]

I would say that being given the option of choosing the exact type of Building and how it would look would be preferable in some instances over a randomizer.

I know that some people dont'like playing this way but sometimes i'd like to place buildings that look an exact way with absolutely no regard to a simulation at all. yeah somethings i just want to build for looks and not simulate. It would be nice to have the option to do that in the game.

[Romaq]

It would be nice to have the option to do that in the game.

Yes. Options on things like that are very good. PEG's commercial zoned dock buildings are like that. If you use one menu button, you get a random selection of buildings to 'paint' with. But you may choose specific buildings off the menu as well. I'm not sure how TM can *impliment* choices like that, but the ability to choose is always better than not having the choice. Unless, of course, there are so many choices the easiest choice is to quit playing and find something else to do.

--Romaq

[UnzippedSim77]

Hope this helps explain a few things.




Thanks Jeff, and yes, it does clarify a few things, for me at least. I am intrigued by the change in music, as that was one aspect I was most interested in hearing about, and created a thread about, so to have that confirmed is awesome.

I think the direction this game is taking is great, and will ensure there are many new SC fans out there. Factor this direction, and a few other ideas floating around the forums into a base game of SC4 (in 3D of course) and I believe you would have SimCity perfection - or SimCity: Utopia, if you want a pun.

Thanks again, Jeff.

[DareDeviL]

I don't care about zoning and nothing like that.

I just wish I could pick up a couple of cavemen, build a couple of huts, get those bastards to work, harvest food, wood, and call it a city. Then I would push their technology till nowdays, get machines to harvest food and wood so they could be space cavemen!

Actually they would require more and more raw materials over the time (as the technology increases), creating a lot of different materials for buildings, getting to bricks, iron, petroleum and all that stuff. It should be just like evolving from huts to skycrappers and moon bases :P But unlike spores, I wanna have control over all kinds of resources. And no, I hate Civ4.

No kidding, I want a game like that...

But I can deal with SCS as well, as long as I can have a primitive society ><

[MarkDuffy]

DareDeviL, you can be my WingMan anytime, or I would be most Proud to be yours! :)