We Recommend


  • BladedFalcon - January 13, 2014 4:12 p.m.

    Alternate title for this article: "I refuse to admit I was wrong from the begging when I defended SimCity for being a Multiplayer only game more than a year ago, and instead I'm going to blame it on everything else but me or the fact that it was a stupid idea to make a known single player only series into a MP only game" Sure, it's a long as title, but far more honest and true of what this article is about.
  • GR HollanderCooper - January 13, 2014 5:07 p.m.

    Nope, I stand by it being a good idea. If it was executed well we wouldn't be having this conversation--the concept itself isn't the problem, it's the total failure to actually pull it off.
  • BladedFalcon - January 13, 2014 6:40 p.m.

    Maybe the concept wasn't bad, but then it should have been called SimCity Online, not just SimCity. Y'know, a series that has traditionally always been single player and offline, and which is what pretty much what their entire audience was USED TO. And more to the point: Did it really need to be always online? would it have really detracted from the concept if they had given users the option to play offline? The thing is you blame the infrastructure not working as the ONLY problem, but isn't it a problem forcing you to be online to play to begin with? Why not give users that option?
  • GR HollanderCooper - January 13, 2014 6:44 p.m.

    Every online game needs to have "online" in the name, now? And would it have detracted for it to be offline? Yes. They developed what is tantamount to a SimCity MMO. Sure, they didn't call it World of SimCity, but, well, that's what it was.
  • BladedFalcon - January 13, 2014 6:51 p.m.

    If it's necessary for it to function, and it's named after a brand previously known for being offline only? Yes, I'd say it'd kinda necessary. Do I really need to elaborate on the why? Okay, if it works like an MMO, i can understand why always being online was necesary - But if that's the case... Again, why call it JUST SimCity when the fundamental concept is THAT different? You said it yourself: World of Warcraft was named like that to differentiate themselves from being thought as JUST WarCraft. I agree this is more a problem of branding rather than that of the concept itself. But you can't just handwave all the naysayers and people agree on the fundamental concept just because YOU personally was okay with it.
  • TheVoid - January 15, 2014 7:07 p.m.

    While it's been a long time since I've commented on this site, I've pulled myself out of retirement to support BladedFalcon's argument. Sorry Coop but there's simply no reason why SimCity couldn't have included an offline mode in addition to an online mode. The franchise's single player roots reach deep and I personally felt EA's insistence on an always online SimCity to be a huge slap in the face to longtime supporters of the series. In fact, I think this whole trend of "telling me how to play my game" via required online components has become increasingly tiring and troublesome. I'm pretty old school in this regard, but I doubt I'm alone. Maybe I want to build a city, only to watch it burn. But now that my decisions affect adjacent cities (and their respective players/mayors), I'd feel less compelled to play it the way I'd like to for fear that my actions might negatively impact someone else's experience. And that sucks. One of my all-time favorite gaming experiences was my first few hours with Battlefield 1942, specifically the offline bot mode. Oh boy did I go nuts, grounding aircraft carriers, fragging my own troops for the sake of the win, etc. It was gaming freedom like I never experienced before. But when I tried it online, it was a far more buttoned-up experience. I understood that the actions I employed in single player would be an improper use of resources, let alone a big letdown to the other players. All of the sudden I felt way more confined. I ultimately enjoyed the experience but was glad to have the bot mode to "cut loose" if I felt like it. Long story short, I played and appreciated both the offline and the online modes available to me. So Coop - explain to us again why this couldn't have been the case with SimCity? Because it's the future? Seriously? And us knuckle-draggers are holding it back? Rather we should just fall in line with the developer's grand vision? Whatever. I won't even get into the questionable motivations/sincerity of the "always online" decision, nor the botched launch server-wise. I will, however, focus on the fact that EA flipped SimCity's devoted fanbase the ultimate bird when the inclusion of a single player mode - there now, but honestly too little, too late - was all we really wanted. And curvy roads, thank you very much. You can be a real ass, you know that? Again, not at all against the idea of an online mode. Even if I purchased strictly for the single player, I'm sure I would have checked it out. I might have even loved it. But to thrust players who have come to expect something into an unsolicited vision without any concession to those that have made the SimCity franchise a success over the years is, at best, lousy business practice. Yet another blockheaded move from the fine folks at EA. And I'm sorry Coop but that opening paragraph was facepalm city, let alone the rest of the article (which I honestly only continued to read to see if, in fact, you were actually "going there"). And why is it that you, far more than anyone else at GR, can be found repeatedly trying to defend your articles within the comments? Kind of speaks volumes about the integrity of the articles, doesn't it? You don't see Lucas or Henry getting the same levels of heated responses, do you? And I wouldn't say it's because they are "playing it safe" while you tend to opt for more daring perspectives - rather it's the difference between injecting some healthy debate into the mix and simply pissing people off. And this article pissed me off, not to mention your smug and dismissive responses to BladedFalcon's comments. There's simply no couth with you, is there?
  • Redeater - January 13, 2014 7:59 p.m.

    There are mountains of games with good ideas gone horribly wrong. The debate about whether we would be arguing about it if they succeeded is irrelevant. A broken game is still broken game.
  • Rubbr Chickin - January 13, 2014 4:04 p.m.

    My main problem is that my internet isnt great (at least it wasnt). Online gaming for me is hard to manage, and the only time I game online is in actual interactive games like GTA V. I still play RollerCoaster Tycoon 2, and that is 100% offline and I still love it.
  • asincs - January 13, 2014 4:01 p.m.

    "The future of gaming, at least for some genres, should be online-enabled, and you should be required to be online in order to take advantage of the new technology" I definitely agree, but that doesn't mean you should have to be always online to enjoy the game in single player mode. "because no one was ready for the future" Especially their servers.
  • GR HollanderCooper - January 13, 2014 4:58 p.m.

    Totally agree. A requirement for always-online should be that THEIR servers need to always work.

Showing 41-49 of 49 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000


Connect with Facebook
