![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
As it stands now, the article claims this will be the first SimCity to include online play. Are we not counting SimCity 2000 Network Edition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.166.244 ( talk) 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Could some one move to SimCity. The game has been official announced. It does not have "5" on it. http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/06/new-simcity/, http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1219911p1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.137.174 ( talk) 02:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Need citation for claim that Mr. Guggenheim is working on the project. All I have been able to find is claims that he endorsed the game upon its official announcing at the GDC, not that he is actually working on the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curvaceous Mite ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 ( talk) 07:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
SimCity (2013 video game) →
SimCity – The name SimCity is the game's real name. Maxis never refers to it with the year. Also, the original SimCity is now known as SimCity Classic, thereby preventing any confusion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
206.167.101.2 (
talk •
contribs)
14:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_18#SimCity_.282013_computer_game.29.
Let's just leave it at "(2013 video game)". This is the convention outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games), and changing to "computer game" or "PC game" is just a minor issue that we can all ignore for the sake of following the same convention in all game articles. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify for everyone. The above proposed move is closed (green). The rename that happened on the 24th was a separate thing, and was as a result of someone moving the page, and then nominating the redirect for deletion (then moving the page a second time and nominating the redirect for deletion). The two links above are links to those now closed discussions where it was decided that the article should follow the naming guidelines ( WP:NCVG) and be titled SimCity (2013 video game). - X201 ( talk) 07:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone should REALLY update the Gameplay section of the article. New information has been pouring out of the official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.106.5 ( talk) 11:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Sections of the article pertaining to criticism of the game have been systematically removed on multiple occasions, despite the information coming directly from the official website.
This includes elements such as: confirmation that subways will not be included, 2km by 2km city sizes, differences in zoning controls, and non-contiguous city squares in region mode.
This is supposed to be a NEUTRAL article, but I am under the impression that some are trying to word it like an advertisement. All elements, not just the good, should be represented as long as they can be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.215.87 ( talk) 06:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
There has been no confirmed Mac OS X version announced yet. http://www.simcity.com/en_US/faq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlanmaar ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
But it hasn't been denied, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.101.2 ( talk) 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It's confirmed on official blog. http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/simcity-mac-faq Three version are announced for mac on this page : Standard, Limited Edition and Digital Deluxe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.193.233 ( talk) 16:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Despite not being released, this game has won an award.
While this is currently accurate, and is notable, and Wiki may not be for criticism, can we at least include the date to show that a game that is not for sale has won an award? It helps to show how little some rewards are worth. 83.70.170.48 ( talk) 15:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are we listing these? I can see mentioning (some of?) them, and the counts of nominations, but the awards table seems completely unnecessary for an unreleased game. Xeio ( talk) 22:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The Awards section could easily benefit from DEATAILING THE AWARDS. Plus, there's not just one, but more something like 10+. 206.167.106.5 ( talk) 11:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Last time I checked the “pre-order” section of the official SimCity site, the Mac release date was TBD. As I take another look at it this morning, there is absolutely no mention of a Mac version in the pre-order page. So why is it written that the versions for PC and Mac are coming out on the same dates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.106.5 ( talk) 12:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently people are P-Oed about the DRM in the game. Is this worth including? http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/14umm1/we_are_the_simcity_dev_team_from_maxis_amaa/c7gnxdy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.188.214 ( talk) 23:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Might have to wait for a gaming website to pick it up and write an article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.188.214 ( talk) 03:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
-Waiting for an article to summarize what's already posted is lame and (from a historical perspective) provides an additional layer of uncertainty. All one has to do is view the first comment... or 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.
Some sources I have found, perhaps one is usable: http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/326700,simcitys-always-online-requirements-come-under-fire-again.aspx http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/12/so-the-simcity-ama-did-not-go-very-well/ http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/18/maxis-simcity-reddit-modding-drm/ 75.73.114.111 ( talk) 17:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Tried to include the reddit-controversy, I also strongly agree that this is indeed an important issue, also included Maxis SVP's response on the game's official blog. Tucker the hugger ( talk) 10:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry, that's "unweighted?" The "reception" section (which is ridiculous to have when the game isn't even out yet and nobody is reviewing it!) is slanted so heavily in the direction of Reddit that it's laughable and completely brushed off the official response from Maxis. I realize the internet flips out at the mere whisper of the letters D, R, and M in the same sentence, but we can do better than this. Rebochan ( talk) 08:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Talk about how the GlassBox engine was received by critics and the general public. 206.167.106.5 ( talk) 11:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently noticed the Mac FAQ on the official SimCity site, but I haven't been able to implement it succesfully in the little résumé at the top right of the page. Since I don't want to screw up anything else, I refrained from addind any text or info to the main article. Could someone please do it? 206.167.106.5 ( talk) 11:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Three version are announced for mac at http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/simcity-mac-faq : Standard, Limited Edition and Digital Deluxe. No date are announced.
Note : Standard edition not announced for PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.193.233 ( talk) 16:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The system requirements should be moved into a Template:VG SysReq InfoBox. Thoughts? — Gmt2001 ( talk) 05:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. -
X201 (
talk)
14:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The closed beta info is currently split. Some of it is currently located under the Release->Windows header and it should all be consolidated into Release->Closed Beta. Thoughts? — Gmt2001 ( talk) 05:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Done by
The1337gamer (
talk) —
Gmt2001 (
talk)
14:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
In Germany the game will be released March 7, 2013. source -- DH93 ( talk) 15:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep, it's released in Europe march 7th, except for Hungary which has the same date as USA (5th), and UK+Ireland which is 8th. Can't be bothered to find a "proper" source though 129.177.48.107 ( talk) 21:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Ambulan
Done by
192.35.17.29 (
talk). References still need to be added. —
Gmt2001 (
talk)
14:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 22:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
SimCity (2013 video game) → SimCity (2013) – Common name, highlight the generation Asiaworldcity ( talk) 03:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to provide a quantity of the 8 reviews in the reception section to clarify the metascore the video game is getting. Its backed up by the metacrtic webpage as a source. Wamsersaurus ( talk) 23:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the request; the 8 reviews cited in the metascore section are from obscure, poorly-known reviewers. The reception section is heavily misleading by not including the context of user reviews, also listed on metacritic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.164.33 ( talk) 04:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Answered This request is now marked answered. If the original requester wishes to come back and supply the required information, the request will be re-opened and evaluated. —
Gmt2001 (
talk)
10:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Should mention of server problems and general poor user reviews be mentioned in the reception section? Namely that people who bought the game couldn't play due to the controversial DRM scheme and/or always online requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.144.243 ( talk) 04:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Great edits Thomas, I like how you organized the Release and Reception sections, thanks for fixing my adds! However I think the Release section should be moved down and merged with the following into "Release & Reception" due to its lack of content. Right underneath "Pre-Release" would be perfect I think. Alexj25 ( talk) 12:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone else concerned with the obvious bias towards positive reviews in the Reception/Critical section? There's note that Metacritic has the game at 91%, but makes no note to mention Metacritic only aggregates paid reviews, and that the hundreds of user reviews are at a staggeringly low aggregate of 2.7 as of March 6th, 2013: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/simcity
Also it makes note that GameRankings is showing a 93%, but again makes no note that these are paid reviews, and only 3 total reviews. No player reviews are taken into consideration on GameRankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/663025-simcity/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by An otter ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
71.189.17.24 ( talk) 01:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
There is absolutely no mention of the abysmal user reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.31.43.166 ( talk) 04:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly why wikipedia is becoming increasingly irrelevant and perceived as elitist and heavily biased. The fact that there has been a huge public outcry against features of the game is worth mentioning, yet the main gatekeepers of this supposedly neutral article demand reliable sources instead of finding them themselves. Ah yes, wikipedia, the wiki that anyone can edit* (well, not really - this article is locked by those who have an interest in maintaining a positive perception of this game). The reviews cited within the critical reception section are from no-name publications which obviously have a financial interest in providing inflated scores for the game. Oh well, continue to become irrelevant and lose what little faith the public has in you wikipedia. The sales figures don't lie. Either tell the whole truth or be labeled as a spin doctor - your actions speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.164.37 ( talk) 03:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.164.37 ( talk) 03:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
From Wikipedia's own page on itself: "All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article." As it stands, by not highlighting the abnormally poor user reviews on metacritic and Amazon, this article violates that policy. Multiple people on this talk page have provided trustworthy sources documenting the poor reviews. It doesn't matter if many of these reviews were supposedly given out of spite (which no one can prove/disprove anyway) it's still a major part of the culture of the game and should be documented in an unbiased encyclopedia entry. 108.50.176.99 ( talk) 23:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree that individual user reviews do not meet the standard of reliable sources. However, when reliable sources talks about the user reviews, we can included what the reliable sources have to say. Thus, we (the editors) can't copy any score from amazon or metacritic, and we can't use the review text provided by user reviews, but what we can use is what ever reliable sources have to say when they talk about the user reviews. Belorn ( talk) 00:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
reboot -> reboot
(what's that?) 118.236.203.49 ( talk) 22:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.189.182 ( talk) 02:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I was drawn here by the number of "disastrous" in the headlines [2] [3] [4] [5]. 118.236.203.49 ( talk) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Have added Maxis statement and Katsarelis's opinion of what caused the problems (feeble excuse if you ask me(it begs the suggestion that he thought their game wasn't going to keep people interested), but its a verbatim transcript). Have also added a Rock, Paper Shotgun article that looks at things from a wider angle and ponders if this should have been avoided and damage it may do to the "games as a service" idea. - X201 ( talk) 10:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
In the end of the day, EA spokeperson blamed the users for "wanting to play the game too much." Origin representative said they will not refund users.
I have split the release and reception sections, to hopefully make the article read better. Release should focus on issues with the release and the negative reaction generated from it. Critical reception should be focused on reviews and opinions from professional critics. I've changed some of the wording to better clarify the negative reaction towards the technical issues and the mixed reception from critics as number of reviews have been positive. I also removed the Metacritic and Amazon user scores, even though it was reported by CNET, it is not an accurate or reliable representation of the game's quality and it is not notable as we all know how games get battered with negative user reviews from people who haven't played the game but dislike some of the design choices. Of course negative reaction from customers can be mentioned, but citing user scores is inappropriate. The1337gamer ( talk) 21:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I know there's a circlejerk on this issue, but why does it say the reviews were "mixed to negative"? Metacritic currently lists 14 positive, 10 mixed, and 4 negative reviews from professional critics with a 66 metascore. If only 14% of the reviews are negative, you can't say professional critics hated the game. Mixed to positive makes much more sense here. 207.255.12.47 ( talk) 22:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
A guideline for the above discussion already exists. See WP:VG/USERREVIEW, It explains that reviews taken directly from Amazon etc are not to be used, but if there is a large amount of feedback that is covered by a reliable source, the reliable source's coverage can be included in the article, but this does not mean that the user reviews themselves are then allowed in. - X201 ( talk) 09:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Bradshaw also noted the performance benefit due to the engine utilizing EA's server hardware to assist in gameplay calculations:
-to-
Bradshaw also noted the performance benefit due to the engine utilizing EA's server hardware to assist in regional gameplay calculations:
-Source-
Same reference, fourth and fifth paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimCity_(2013_video_game)#cite_note-SimCity.com-71
-Reason-
There's claims around the internet that EA lied about promising city calculations on their servers. AFAIK, they've only promised regional calculations and the wiki should help clarify the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwalvin ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Should add a controversy section about a large number of angry costumers arguing about the fact that Simcity requires to be online to play and EA fails to maintain an updated software. Servers are constantly down, All game progression is constantly lost every time a player is kicked out from server failure, EA fails to address the issues. Game has a large about of issues with it. This was obviously not ready to be released. -- 108.17.97.125 ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)-- 108.17.97.125 ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Launch problems as well. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57573053-1/simcity-launch-a-complete-disaster/ 108.222.218.247 ( talk) 18:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Launch problems as well.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57573053-1/simcity-launch-a-complete-disaster/
108.222.218.247 (
talk)
18:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Some interesting points raised here also: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/12/simcity-server-not-necessary/
i think the quote "The servers are not handling any of the computation done to simulate the city you are playing. They are still acting as servers, doing some amount of computation to route messages of various types between both players and cities. As well, they’re doing cloud storage of save games, interfacing with Origin, and all of that. But for the game itself? No, they’re not doing anything. I have no idea why they’re claiming otherwise. It’s possible that Bradshaw misunderstood or was misinformed, but otherwise I’m clueless."
is significant as it implies that maxis have intentionally or unintentionally misled the public to justify its service.
possible other controversies are:
http://www.gamechup.com/ea-refuses-to-refund-user-for-simcity-threatens-account-ban/
where after refunds were promised in a press release "“If you regrettably feel that we let you down, you can — of course — request a refund for your order at http://help.origin.com/contact-us,” wrote Hatam. “Though we are currently still in the process of resolving this issue.”"
it turns out the EA are refusing to refund any purchases via Origin: http://www.gamebreaker.tv/pc-games/ea-suspends-ad-campaign-for-simcity-5-and-no-refunds/ -- Jollyfrog ( talk) 12:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
geek.com has quoted an anonymous EA developer claiming that the game would *not* require significant engineering to work offline [1]. geek.com followed this up with a modder demonstrating offline functionality of the game with only turning on debug mode. [2] Djescalera ( talk) 16:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Diego
CHECK REDDIT FOR CONTROVERSY INFORMATION. TONS OF POSTS ABOUT THIS, ITS ACTUALLY PRIMARY MATERIAL ON CONSUMER DISAPPROVAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.209.214 ( talk) 04:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The edits being made to the Reception section regarding mixed, positive, or negative reception are starting to look like an edit war. Please discuss further changes to this here before applying them. If this continues, a report may have to be made to the administrators. Please remember to not break the Three Revert Rule. Remember, however, that you do not have to break this rule to be in an edit war. — Gmt2001 ( talk) 10:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
82.49.120.206 ( talk) 23:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC) edenroz 04/05/13 I didnt find anywhere in the article any reference to the random AI of sims. I think people should know so i decided to edit a single line Let me know if i violated any wikipedia rules of publication Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 23:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok maybe i wanst neutral but that is the true, after 350k fudged population all this randomeness block your city You can find a source here : http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/fans-press-uncover-massive-holes-in-simcitys-ai-server-connection/ Please add this info wherever you want, random broken ai its a fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 23:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thomas please read that article and tell if that information should be in the article instead of "more detailed simulation" Even ocean quigley confirmed Random AI on his twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 23:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
82.49.120.206 ( talk) 10:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC) edenroz: Added source and more neutral tone with reference quote to ocean
Am sorry if i put it in the wrong place (don't know whereelse put it) but it WAS neutral, i quoted the EXACTS words from Ocean Quiqley, so maybe he isn't neutral. The only words i added were: "they go to nearest building avaible". Thats a fact even Ocean stated on twitter so i cant understand why HIS word is not neutral. I don't want start an editing war, you are the editor you decide whats in the page so i surrender.
From the article i quoted: “it’s not like each Sim has a specific job that’s his, and a specific house that’s his." You can find the exact quote with date here: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/28/first-look-simcity/ I start to think you are the ones not neutral, the line i change was a false commercial ad from EA and Maxis..... Have a nice day and a cool sponsored ad page on wikipedia for simcity, i'll try to talk with wikipedia's revisor's in my native language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 12:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok i understand where the problem is, in my nativa language page this is under "Critics to developer"
Can you please add this information in the way it's supposed to be? Am not neutral (angry customer) so it's plain i can't write neutral sentences. I don't want screwed up this page and encounter in 3R Rule, let me know if you are avaible in adding this information or before i do it in the proper way we will encounter in 3RR. Best regard and thanks for explaining me my mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 13:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for you time, i think people have the right to know. Have a nice day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 16:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarging this revert, see this Google search "SimCity 5". Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 07:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Why is the game considered to be a reboot of the SimCity series? It is a city building game. It's not like there is any storyline to reboot. The articles which are linked to mentioned the word reboot, but that is it. They don't explain why. 114.134.166.150 ( talk) 00:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I feel I am fair when I say the game does not work. For example, after extensive testing, I have concluded education can't work as intended with mass transit, even in a small city in it's own region. My best guess is that student sims get lost in the mass transit system, perhaps stuck on buses.
Masstransit buses drive around without a clue, often looping between two stops
People complaining about DRM and online play as the important problem are apparently missing gameplay issues which keep cities from working at all like they should. The game was always announced as being an online game, which means it's a "feature" not a bug.
The latest patches introduced a major bug with pollution making cities sick. They are playable, but not at all fun.
If you can't execute even simple plans for a city without running into bugs (due to glassbox behavior in many cases,) the game is not playable due to it not being fun.
My comments are just a short list of what's wrong with actual gameplay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.234.210.4 ( talk) 16:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Upon release the reviews were "mostly positive", they were not "mixed". There are two sources for this fact:
So, the reviews at release time were "mostly positive". The reviews only became negative after the release, when the server problems were evident. If this is not clear in the article, then the sentence should be rewritten. But please don't remove correct facts from the article just because the situation changed later. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 08:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears that an Edit War is about to start over whether SimCity 5 is a reboot of the series or not. Please discuss the issue and any sources/policies that are in your favor here before continuing or i will have to Request Page Protection.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
—
Gmt2001 (
talk)
21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
As has previously been raised; I too had grievous concerns on reading this article for the complete lack of representation of this game's release and reception seeming to be cleaned up. This game, without doubt, has caused the greatest backlash in the history of the internet. More was written and said on this than the NSA wiretapping in PRISM. More rage was focused at EA over this than the always on and always watching you Kinect in the XB One. It was, without a doubt, the largest clusterfuck in contemporary marketing and this article barely even mentions it!
I'm not yet prepared to mark the article up as NPOV as I believe that there would be enough wikipedians present who aren't on an EA payroll to try and fairly represent the level of hilarity that ensued after the release of this game, from the companies overt lies (and being caught in such) about needing connectivity through to almost all claims about the mechanics behind the game being so complex it needs server-side technology to render the details and calculations of the simulation (and being caught in THAT lie also) along with lies to cover up lies, etc. that caused the largest shit storm in marketing history, and possibly in the history of the internet.
Something of this magnitude rarely occurs online, but the level of drama generated by the release of SimCity and the lie-fest that occurred really did grab the attention of the entire gaming world and most mainstream media, especially contemporary it-sites like reddit, etc (who swore to never buy another EA game again, at least until the next title release of a game they really like (oh internets)), but this article features NOTHING on the subject.
What the hell? Seriously? This would be something I'd file away in /r/HailCorporate on reddit for sure. So please, if you have insight into this subject and sources at hand, get editing. This sanitized version of events is sickeningly corporate propaganda, and a quick look at the edit history shows a very slow, very careful manipulation of the article by a small group of accounts--if said accounts do seem to be reverting your edits, feel free to report them to the admin boards immediately, it's well within your rights to challenge corporate wanks trying to turn Wikipedia into an agenda pushing machine, also consider getting a 3O if you get stuck in a 3-revert stalemate--but please, can we have SOME neutrality on this subject? BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the new expansion pack? It is clearly mentioned on the Simcity website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.123.80 ( talk) 22:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like advertising copy in many sections, with namedropping throughout the article. While there are citations, none are from scholarly works to support the substantial claims made about the design of the core engine. It would be Original Research to point out that the substantial portion of the game's engine works exactly like the original game from the 80s, with merely more variables, and therefor more chance of failure. This article needs to be cleaned up substantially. - 174.62.68.53 ( talk) 19:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Quote from the article:
"
About 54 percent of total sales have been of digital versions of the game.
"
Really? Only 54%? So does this mean the other 46% is distributed as, say, analogue paper books of human-readable source code? 97.115.28.244 ( talk) 05:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
As it stands now, the article claims this will be the first SimCity to include online play. Are we not counting SimCity 2000 Network Edition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.166.244 ( talk) 22:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Could some one move to SimCity. The game has been official announced. It does not have "5" on it. http://www.joystiq.com/2012/03/06/new-simcity/, http://pc.ign.com/articles/121/1219911p1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.137.174 ( talk) 02:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Need citation for claim that Mr. Guggenheim is working on the project. All I have been able to find is claims that he endorsed the game upon its official announcing at the GDC, not that he is actually working on the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curvaceous Mite ( talk • contribs) 22:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 ( talk) 07:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
SimCity (2013 video game) →
SimCity – The name SimCity is the game's real name. Maxis never refers to it with the year. Also, the original SimCity is now known as SimCity Classic, thereby preventing any confusion. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
206.167.101.2 (
talk •
contribs)
14:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_18#SimCity_.282013_computer_game.29.
Let's just leave it at "(2013 video game)". This is the convention outlined at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games), and changing to "computer game" or "PC game" is just a minor issue that we can all ignore for the sake of following the same convention in all game articles. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 14:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify for everyone. The above proposed move is closed (green). The rename that happened on the 24th was a separate thing, and was as a result of someone moving the page, and then nominating the redirect for deletion (then moving the page a second time and nominating the redirect for deletion). The two links above are links to those now closed discussions where it was decided that the article should follow the naming guidelines ( WP:NCVG) and be titled SimCity (2013 video game). - X201 ( talk) 07:56, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Someone should REALLY update the Gameplay section of the article. New information has been pouring out of the official website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.106.5 ( talk) 11:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Sections of the article pertaining to criticism of the game have been systematically removed on multiple occasions, despite the information coming directly from the official website.
This includes elements such as: confirmation that subways will not be included, 2km by 2km city sizes, differences in zoning controls, and non-contiguous city squares in region mode.
This is supposed to be a NEUTRAL article, but I am under the impression that some are trying to word it like an advertisement. All elements, not just the good, should be represented as long as they can be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.215.87 ( talk) 06:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
There has been no confirmed Mac OS X version announced yet. http://www.simcity.com/en_US/faq — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlanmaar ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
But it hasn't been denied, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.101.2 ( talk) 14:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It's confirmed on official blog. http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/simcity-mac-faq Three version are announced for mac on this page : Standard, Limited Edition and Digital Deluxe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.193.233 ( talk) 16:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Despite not being released, this game has won an award.
While this is currently accurate, and is notable, and Wiki may not be for criticism, can we at least include the date to show that a game that is not for sale has won an award? It helps to show how little some rewards are worth. 83.70.170.48 ( talk) 15:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are we listing these? I can see mentioning (some of?) them, and the counts of nominations, but the awards table seems completely unnecessary for an unreleased game. Xeio ( talk) 22:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The Awards section could easily benefit from DEATAILING THE AWARDS. Plus, there's not just one, but more something like 10+. 206.167.106.5 ( talk) 11:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Last time I checked the “pre-order” section of the official SimCity site, the Mac release date was TBD. As I take another look at it this morning, there is absolutely no mention of a Mac version in the pre-order page. So why is it written that the versions for PC and Mac are coming out on the same dates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.167.106.5 ( talk) 12:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
Apparently people are P-Oed about the DRM in the game. Is this worth including? http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/14umm1/we_are_the_simcity_dev_team_from_maxis_amaa/c7gnxdy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.188.214 ( talk) 23:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Might have to wait for a gaming website to pick it up and write an article about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.188.214 ( talk) 03:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
-Waiting for an article to summarize what's already posted is lame and (from a historical perspective) provides an additional layer of uncertainty. All one has to do is view the first comment... or 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.
Some sources I have found, perhaps one is usable: http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/326700,simcitys-always-online-requirements-come-under-fire-again.aspx http://www.uproxx.com/gammasquad/2012/12/so-the-simcity-ama-did-not-go-very-well/ http://www.pcgamer.com/2012/12/18/maxis-simcity-reddit-modding-drm/ 75.73.114.111 ( talk) 17:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Tried to include the reddit-controversy, I also strongly agree that this is indeed an important issue, also included Maxis SVP's response on the game's official blog. Tucker the hugger ( talk) 10:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I'm sorry, that's "unweighted?" The "reception" section (which is ridiculous to have when the game isn't even out yet and nobody is reviewing it!) is slanted so heavily in the direction of Reddit that it's laughable and completely brushed off the official response from Maxis. I realize the internet flips out at the mere whisper of the letters D, R, and M in the same sentence, but we can do better than this. Rebochan ( talk) 08:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Talk about how the GlassBox engine was received by critics and the general public. 206.167.106.5 ( talk) 11:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I recently noticed the Mac FAQ on the official SimCity site, but I haven't been able to implement it succesfully in the little résumé at the top right of the page. Since I don't want to screw up anything else, I refrained from addind any text or info to the main article. Could someone please do it? 206.167.106.5 ( talk) 11:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Three version are announced for mac at http://www.simcity.com/en_US/blog/article/simcity-mac-faq : Standard, Limited Edition and Digital Deluxe. No date are announced.
Note : Standard edition not announced for PC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.193.233 ( talk) 16:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
The system requirements should be moved into a Template:VG SysReq InfoBox. Thoughts? — Gmt2001 ( talk) 05:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Done. -
X201 (
talk)
14:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
The closed beta info is currently split. Some of it is currently located under the Release->Windows header and it should all be consolidated into Release->Closed Beta. Thoughts? — Gmt2001 ( talk) 05:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Done by
The1337gamer (
talk) —
Gmt2001 (
talk)
14:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
In Germany the game will be released March 7, 2013. source -- DH93 ( talk) 15:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Yep, it's released in Europe march 7th, except for Hungary which has the same date as USA (5th), and UK+Ireland which is 8th. Can't be bothered to find a "proper" source though 129.177.48.107 ( talk) 21:13, 3 March 2013 (UTC)Ambulan
Done by
192.35.17.29 (
talk). References still need to be added. —
Gmt2001 (
talk)
14:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was not moved. -- BDD ( talk) 22:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC) ( non-admin closure)
SimCity (2013 video game) → SimCity (2013) – Common name, highlight the generation Asiaworldcity ( talk) 03:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to provide a quantity of the 8 reviews in the reception section to clarify the metascore the video game is getting. Its backed up by the metacrtic webpage as a source. Wamsersaurus ( talk) 23:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the request; the 8 reviews cited in the metascore section are from obscure, poorly-known reviewers. The reception section is heavily misleading by not including the context of user reviews, also listed on metacritic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.164.33 ( talk) 04:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Answered This request is now marked answered. If the original requester wishes to come back and supply the required information, the request will be re-opened and evaluated. —
Gmt2001 (
talk)
10:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Should mention of server problems and general poor user reviews be mentioned in the reception section? Namely that people who bought the game couldn't play due to the controversial DRM scheme and/or always online requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.144.243 ( talk) 04:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Great edits Thomas, I like how you organized the Release and Reception sections, thanks for fixing my adds! However I think the Release section should be moved down and merged with the following into "Release & Reception" due to its lack of content. Right underneath "Pre-Release" would be perfect I think. Alexj25 ( talk) 12:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone else concerned with the obvious bias towards positive reviews in the Reception/Critical section? There's note that Metacritic has the game at 91%, but makes no note to mention Metacritic only aggregates paid reviews, and that the hundreds of user reviews are at a staggeringly low aggregate of 2.7 as of March 6th, 2013: http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/simcity
Also it makes note that GameRankings is showing a 93%, but again makes no note that these are paid reviews, and only 3 total reviews. No player reviews are taken into consideration on GameRankings: http://www.gamerankings.com/pc/663025-simcity/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by An otter ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
71.189.17.24 ( talk) 01:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
There is absolutely no mention of the abysmal user reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.31.43.166 ( talk) 04:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This is exactly why wikipedia is becoming increasingly irrelevant and perceived as elitist and heavily biased. The fact that there has been a huge public outcry against features of the game is worth mentioning, yet the main gatekeepers of this supposedly neutral article demand reliable sources instead of finding them themselves. Ah yes, wikipedia, the wiki that anyone can edit* (well, not really - this article is locked by those who have an interest in maintaining a positive perception of this game). The reviews cited within the critical reception section are from no-name publications which obviously have a financial interest in providing inflated scores for the game. Oh well, continue to become irrelevant and lose what little faith the public has in you wikipedia. The sales figures don't lie. Either tell the whole truth or be labeled as a spin doctor - your actions speak for themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.164.37 ( talk) 03:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.164.37 ( talk) 03:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
From Wikipedia's own page on itself: "All opinions and viewpoints, if attributable to external sources, must enjoy an appropriate share of coverage within an article." As it stands, by not highlighting the abnormally poor user reviews on metacritic and Amazon, this article violates that policy. Multiple people on this talk page have provided trustworthy sources documenting the poor reviews. It doesn't matter if many of these reviews were supposedly given out of spite (which no one can prove/disprove anyway) it's still a major part of the culture of the game and should be documented in an unbiased encyclopedia entry. 108.50.176.99 ( talk) 23:39, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree that individual user reviews do not meet the standard of reliable sources. However, when reliable sources talks about the user reviews, we can included what the reliable sources have to say. Thus, we (the editors) can't copy any score from amazon or metacritic, and we can't use the review text provided by user reviews, but what we can use is what ever reliable sources have to say when they talk about the user reviews. Belorn ( talk) 00:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
reboot -> reboot
(what's that?) 118.236.203.49 ( talk) 22:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.189.182 ( talk) 02:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I was drawn here by the number of "disastrous" in the headlines [2] [3] [4] [5]. 118.236.203.49 ( talk) 22:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Have added Maxis statement and Katsarelis's opinion of what caused the problems (feeble excuse if you ask me(it begs the suggestion that he thought their game wasn't going to keep people interested), but its a verbatim transcript). Have also added a Rock, Paper Shotgun article that looks at things from a wider angle and ponders if this should have been avoided and damage it may do to the "games as a service" idea. - X201 ( talk) 10:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
In the end of the day, EA spokeperson blamed the users for "wanting to play the game too much." Origin representative said they will not refund users.
I have split the release and reception sections, to hopefully make the article read better. Release should focus on issues with the release and the negative reaction generated from it. Critical reception should be focused on reviews and opinions from professional critics. I've changed some of the wording to better clarify the negative reaction towards the technical issues and the mixed reception from critics as number of reviews have been positive. I also removed the Metacritic and Amazon user scores, even though it was reported by CNET, it is not an accurate or reliable representation of the game's quality and it is not notable as we all know how games get battered with negative user reviews from people who haven't played the game but dislike some of the design choices. Of course negative reaction from customers can be mentioned, but citing user scores is inappropriate. The1337gamer ( talk) 21:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
I know there's a circlejerk on this issue, but why does it say the reviews were "mixed to negative"? Metacritic currently lists 14 positive, 10 mixed, and 4 negative reviews from professional critics with a 66 metascore. If only 14% of the reviews are negative, you can't say professional critics hated the game. Mixed to positive makes much more sense here. 207.255.12.47 ( talk) 22:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
A guideline for the above discussion already exists. See WP:VG/USERREVIEW, It explains that reviews taken directly from Amazon etc are not to be used, but if there is a large amount of feedback that is covered by a reliable source, the reliable source's coverage can be included in the article, but this does not mean that the user reviews themselves are then allowed in. - X201 ( talk) 09:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Bradshaw also noted the performance benefit due to the engine utilizing EA's server hardware to assist in gameplay calculations:
-to-
Bradshaw also noted the performance benefit due to the engine utilizing EA's server hardware to assist in regional gameplay calculations:
-Source-
Same reference, fourth and fifth paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SimCity_(2013_video_game)#cite_note-SimCity.com-71
-Reason-
There's claims around the internet that EA lied about promising city calculations on their servers. AFAIK, they've only promised regional calculations and the wiki should help clarify the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwalvin ( talk • contribs) 00:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Should add a controversy section about a large number of angry costumers arguing about the fact that Simcity requires to be online to play and EA fails to maintain an updated software. Servers are constantly down, All game progression is constantly lost every time a player is kicked out from server failure, EA fails to address the issues. Game has a large about of issues with it. This was obviously not ready to be released. -- 108.17.97.125 ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)-- 108.17.97.125 ( talk) 01:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Launch problems as well. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57573053-1/simcity-launch-a-complete-disaster/ 108.222.218.247 ( talk) 18:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Launch problems as well.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57573053-1/simcity-launch-a-complete-disaster/
108.222.218.247 (
talk)
18:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Some interesting points raised here also: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/12/simcity-server-not-necessary/
i think the quote "The servers are not handling any of the computation done to simulate the city you are playing. They are still acting as servers, doing some amount of computation to route messages of various types between both players and cities. As well, they’re doing cloud storage of save games, interfacing with Origin, and all of that. But for the game itself? No, they’re not doing anything. I have no idea why they’re claiming otherwise. It’s possible that Bradshaw misunderstood or was misinformed, but otherwise I’m clueless."
is significant as it implies that maxis have intentionally or unintentionally misled the public to justify its service.
possible other controversies are:
http://www.gamechup.com/ea-refuses-to-refund-user-for-simcity-threatens-account-ban/
where after refunds were promised in a press release "“If you regrettably feel that we let you down, you can — of course — request a refund for your order at http://help.origin.com/contact-us,” wrote Hatam. “Though we are currently still in the process of resolving this issue.”"
it turns out the EA are refusing to refund any purchases via Origin: http://www.gamebreaker.tv/pc-games/ea-suspends-ad-campaign-for-simcity-5-and-no-refunds/ -- Jollyfrog ( talk) 12:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
geek.com has quoted an anonymous EA developer claiming that the game would *not* require significant engineering to work offline [1]. geek.com followed this up with a modder demonstrating offline functionality of the game with only turning on debug mode. [2] Djescalera ( talk) 16:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Diego
CHECK REDDIT FOR CONTROVERSY INFORMATION. TONS OF POSTS ABOUT THIS, ITS ACTUALLY PRIMARY MATERIAL ON CONSUMER DISAPPROVAL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.209.214 ( talk) 04:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
The edits being made to the Reception section regarding mixed, positive, or negative reception are starting to look like an edit war. Please discuss further changes to this here before applying them. If this continues, a report may have to be made to the administrators. Please remember to not break the Three Revert Rule. Remember, however, that you do not have to break this rule to be in an edit war. — Gmt2001 ( talk) 10:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
82.49.120.206 ( talk) 23:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC) edenroz 04/05/13 I didnt find anywhere in the article any reference to the random AI of sims. I think people should know so i decided to edit a single line Let me know if i violated any wikipedia rules of publication Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 23:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok maybe i wanst neutral but that is the true, after 350k fudged population all this randomeness block your city You can find a source here : http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/03/fans-press-uncover-massive-holes-in-simcitys-ai-server-connection/ Please add this info wherever you want, random broken ai its a fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 23:32, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Thomas please read that article and tell if that information should be in the article instead of "more detailed simulation" Even ocean quigley confirmed Random AI on his twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 23:45, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
82.49.120.206 ( talk) 10:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC) edenroz: Added source and more neutral tone with reference quote to ocean
Am sorry if i put it in the wrong place (don't know whereelse put it) but it WAS neutral, i quoted the EXACTS words from Ocean Quiqley, so maybe he isn't neutral. The only words i added were: "they go to nearest building avaible". Thats a fact even Ocean stated on twitter so i cant understand why HIS word is not neutral. I don't want start an editing war, you are the editor you decide whats in the page so i surrender.
From the article i quoted: “it’s not like each Sim has a specific job that’s his, and a specific house that’s his." You can find the exact quote with date here: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/03/28/first-look-simcity/ I start to think you are the ones not neutral, the line i change was a false commercial ad from EA and Maxis..... Have a nice day and a cool sponsored ad page on wikipedia for simcity, i'll try to talk with wikipedia's revisor's in my native language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 12:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok i understand where the problem is, in my nativa language page this is under "Critics to developer"
Can you please add this information in the way it's supposed to be? Am not neutral (angry customer) so it's plain i can't write neutral sentences. I don't want screwed up this page and encounter in 3R Rule, let me know if you are avaible in adding this information or before i do it in the proper way we will encounter in 3RR. Best regard and thanks for explaining me my mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 13:56, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for you time, i think people have the right to know. Have a nice day :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.49.120.206 ( talk) 16:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarging this revert, see this Google search "SimCity 5". Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 07:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Why is the game considered to be a reboot of the SimCity series? It is a city building game. It's not like there is any storyline to reboot. The articles which are linked to mentioned the word reboot, but that is it. They don't explain why. 114.134.166.150 ( talk) 00:42, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I feel I am fair when I say the game does not work. For example, after extensive testing, I have concluded education can't work as intended with mass transit, even in a small city in it's own region. My best guess is that student sims get lost in the mass transit system, perhaps stuck on buses.
Masstransit buses drive around without a clue, often looping between two stops
People complaining about DRM and online play as the important problem are apparently missing gameplay issues which keep cities from working at all like they should. The game was always announced as being an online game, which means it's a "feature" not a bug.
The latest patches introduced a major bug with pollution making cities sick. They are playable, but not at all fun.
If you can't execute even simple plans for a city without running into bugs (due to glassbox behavior in many cases,) the game is not playable due to it not being fun.
My comments are just a short list of what's wrong with actual gameplay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.234.210.4 ( talk) 16:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Upon release the reviews were "mostly positive", they were not "mixed". There are two sources for this fact:
So, the reviews at release time were "mostly positive". The reviews only became negative after the release, when the server problems were evident. If this is not clear in the article, then the sentence should be rewritten. But please don't remove correct facts from the article just because the situation changed later. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 08:13, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
It appears that an Edit War is about to start over whether SimCity 5 is a reboot of the series or not. Please discuss the issue and any sources/policies that are in your favor here before continuing or i will have to Request Page Protection.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
—
Gmt2001 (
talk)
21:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
As has previously been raised; I too had grievous concerns on reading this article for the complete lack of representation of this game's release and reception seeming to be cleaned up. This game, without doubt, has caused the greatest backlash in the history of the internet. More was written and said on this than the NSA wiretapping in PRISM. More rage was focused at EA over this than the always on and always watching you Kinect in the XB One. It was, without a doubt, the largest clusterfuck in contemporary marketing and this article barely even mentions it!
I'm not yet prepared to mark the article up as NPOV as I believe that there would be enough wikipedians present who aren't on an EA payroll to try and fairly represent the level of hilarity that ensued after the release of this game, from the companies overt lies (and being caught in such) about needing connectivity through to almost all claims about the mechanics behind the game being so complex it needs server-side technology to render the details and calculations of the simulation (and being caught in THAT lie also) along with lies to cover up lies, etc. that caused the largest shit storm in marketing history, and possibly in the history of the internet.
Something of this magnitude rarely occurs online, but the level of drama generated by the release of SimCity and the lie-fest that occurred really did grab the attention of the entire gaming world and most mainstream media, especially contemporary it-sites like reddit, etc (who swore to never buy another EA game again, at least until the next title release of a game they really like (oh internets)), but this article features NOTHING on the subject.
What the hell? Seriously? This would be something I'd file away in /r/HailCorporate on reddit for sure. So please, if you have insight into this subject and sources at hand, get editing. This sanitized version of events is sickeningly corporate propaganda, and a quick look at the edit history shows a very slow, very careful manipulation of the article by a small group of accounts--if said accounts do seem to be reverting your edits, feel free to report them to the admin boards immediately, it's well within your rights to challenge corporate wanks trying to turn Wikipedia into an agenda pushing machine, also consider getting a 3O if you get stuck in a 3-revert stalemate--but please, can we have SOME neutrality on this subject? BaSH PR0MPT ( talk) 10:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the new expansion pack? It is clearly mentioned on the Simcity website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.123.80 ( talk) 22:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
This article reads like advertising copy in many sections, with namedropping throughout the article. While there are citations, none are from scholarly works to support the substantial claims made about the design of the core engine. It would be Original Research to point out that the substantial portion of the game's engine works exactly like the original game from the 80s, with merely more variables, and therefor more chance of failure. This article needs to be cleaned up substantially. - 174.62.68.53 ( talk) 19:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Quote from the article:
"
About 54 percent of total sales have been of digital versions of the game.
"
Really? Only 54%? So does this mean the other 46% is distributed as, say, analogue paper books of human-readable source code? 97.115.28.244 ( talk) 05:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)