Talk:SimCity (2013 video game)/Archive 2

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)

This is entirely true. The game developers also do not refer to this game as 'the first multiplayer in the series' or something of this sort. PantherBF3 (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Sim City 4 also had an online component, with a handful of regions hosted by Maxis/EA Raymond Holmoey (talk) 19:35, 15 May 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)

Please don't move more the article

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)

It originally started two days earlier on the 16th. Here's the link - X201 (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It is fine as is and follows the same formatting as Medal of Honor (2010 video game) PurpleSteak (talk) 07:15, 26 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)

Cite that they come from the official website, then, and don't make judgements about them. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:33, 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)

Have added a table detailing most of the E3 and Gamescom awards. There are still a fair few missing but have been unable to find suitable references to corroborate anything. As a guide for the E3 ones, most of the Nominations are shown in this picture [1] but I can't make most of them out. JonEastham (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Article currently has 6 winning awards listed on the article. The SimCity.com website currently states it is "Winner of 26 PC Awards" - JonEastham (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2013 (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)

I've updated this using information given by a Maxis employee on the SimCity.com forum which confirmed in November that a release date had not yet been set for Mac. JonEastham (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2013 (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)

If you can find an actual reliable source that talks about it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:03, 15 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.

You still have to follow WP:SOURCES though. A company such as IGN, for example, is a reliable source. Reddit isn't. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I think a post with 1000 upvotes with people complaining about about the DRM in the game is worth a mention. It might not prove that "everyone is pissed off" but it certinally proves that the people of Reddit are pissed off, and there are a lot of gamers there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.151.140 (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A post with 1000 upvotes means absolutely nothing. And what makes "the people on Reddit" so important? Why should their opinion get precedence over confirmed reliable sources? It's the same as citing the opinions of any other social network or forum that relies on user-generated content. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121214/16262621391/simcity-developers-reddit-ama-swiftly-turns-into-wtf-with-online-only-drm.shtml Here's an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.208.42 (talk) 05:00, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Its a bit lacking in neutrality. - X201 (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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)

To my mind there's enough WP:RS to warrant its inclusion in the article provided it isn't given undue weight. -Oosh (talk) 04:15, 19 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)

Just chuck it in, if you break anything, its easily fixed. - X201 (talk) 17:01, 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)

I'm tidying it up at the mo, there's a proper template to place it in, give me an hour. - X201 (talk) 14:09, 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)

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)

Please specify the text you wish to add/remove and where you wish it to be placed so that this edit request can be properly evaluated. — Gmt2001 (talk) 23:17, 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)

...and I agree with the response to the request which states that specific text and a location in the article for said text need to be provided. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:38, 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)

Please see the related User reviews section below. User reviews are considered non-notable by Wikipedia. A paid review does not imply that it's biased or it came from bribery. In fact, paid reviews are more reliable because in almost all cases the reviewer has actually played the game and will often weigh most the game's aspects for determining the score. Is there any proof that the hundreds of low user scores were written by people who have actually played the game? Given the whole DRM criticism, it is far more likely the game is being given such low scores simply out of spite, making them unreliable and non-notable. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please update the MetaCritic stuff with the updated (lower) score. It's down in the 80's now. There should also be at least a mention of the user reviews - plenty of Wiki articles note this when they differ from the critics ratings by a large margin.

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)

User reviews are not notable. Wikipedia uses reliable sources that have proved themselves over a period of time. User reviews are not used as they fall fowl of Wikipedia's Self Publishing guidelines (WP:SPS). Anyone can post on a forum that game X is brilliant, or that game Y is rubbish. Recently, a number of games have suffered from deliberate campaigns to destroy its "user rating" figures, on sites like MetaCritic and through Amazon reviews. SimCity has suffered the same with people giving the game deliberate low scores because of the DRM; they haven't even commented on the actual game and gameplay. Users reviews are prone to extreme bias - in both directions - so we don't use them. - X201 (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, Metacritic also suffers from deliberate campaigns to inflate ratings, with publishers throwing money at review sites to that end. However, I think it's better to go with any reports on these user reactions rather than just citing the reactions directly. A bit like the way the Reddit shitstorm is in the article, but only through reports on the shitstorm. Sakkura (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Granted, but Metacritic uses a weighting method. It doesn't treat an 8/10 from Edge or GamesTM as being equal to an 8/10 from Official Console Magazine or sites that have forgotten that scores below 5/10 can be awarded. - X201 (talk) 16:22, 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)

By "no-name publications" I presume you referring to Polygon. One of the very few websites that has a policy on not accepting corporate hospitality from game companies. Polygon also amended its review score when the launch problems came to light. Eurogamer are holding back their review until they can play on the public servers. IGN are holding their score as well, and doing a rolling review that is being updated at regular intervals with the server problems. - X201 (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

If the overwhelming negative user reviews are covered by a reliable source, then it can go in. Otherwise, it's just original research and violates neutral point of view. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:35, 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)

Your point is not being proven, Wikipedia simply wants reliable sources because anyone can publish anything they want on the internet and thousands of others can join them and make it look like the whole world agrees. Maybe sometimes the world does agree, but not all the time. This is why sources which have proven credible over a period of time are the only ones accepted on Wikipedia (with a few exceptions). See WP:RS — Gmt2001 (talk) 14:15, 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)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please wikilink it, possibly to an article that explains what a "video game reboot" is (I couldn't find one). Otherwise red link is fine by me. 118.236.203.49 (talk) 03:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done, it is now wiki-linked to Reboot (fiction), which covers all media. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.142.189.182 (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:14, 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)

Done. Added the negative customer/user reviews from amazon and Metacritic, and included one of the CNET articles. I was tempted to add their citing of a user review, but I think the review editor of the magazine weighted a bit better than a random amazon/metacritic review. I also avoided the term disastrous even if it exist in several news articles. For now, let see if its enough to just included neutral worded phrasing in the article. I also added a few more sources, just in case this turns to a controversial edit. The sources cited might have additional insight to add, through we need to be careful in not adding too much. Belorn (talk) 23:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. We should also be careful that we don't add undue weight, and follow WP:WORDS to ensure the writing does not introduce bias. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 00:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

why are you suggesting to avoid the term 'desastrous', which is used by reliable sources? and why did you remove that suggestion from your comment above? I call foul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.47.197.7 (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If we must use "disastrous", I suggest we use "The issues have led many critics to label the release as 'disastrous,'" as it would be far more neutral than simply "The release was disastrous." The former is stating a fact while the latter is an opinion. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I support such phrasing, please proceed. 118.236.203.49 (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That works for me too. I just normally avoid over strong wording found in news. Had a review said this was the best game in the world, and that gold and rainbows was pouring down from the sky after playing the game, I would had to avoided those kind of phrasing. Anyway, I do find it slightly odd that the article now say "rating less than 2 out of 5 stars", when the majority of sources says just "1 out of 5 stars". only one source said rating less than 2 out of 5 stars. Belorn (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Re-reading the sources, it is true. I misinterpreted the Forbes source as saying the rating was 2 stars, so I had put "less than 2 stars" to cover all sources. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 07:32, 8 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)

I feel that describing the statements as "blaming the problem on people enjoying the game" is extremely non-neutral, as if Maxis/EA hates joy. I also don't think we need to list off every grievance in the Lead, when the Release/Criticism sections do that already. The Lead is meant to summarize the rest the article, not repeat it. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If I have the right idea of what you are objecting to, the direct EA quote was: "What we saw was that players were having such a good time they didn't want to leave the game, which kept our servers packed and made it difficult for new players to join." If you believe that the text describing this in the article is NPOV, I would ask that you propose alternate text here for consideration and discussion. As for the question of whether or not this material belongs in the lead, I would suggest that an "AAA" game being largely unplayable 3-4 business days after its release is one of its more notable features and that statements from the publisher regarding the reason for this are also quite notable. --DrDeke (talk) 04:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The statements in the lead are not only non-neutral, they are slanderous:

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.

The first sentence frames the quote "wanting to play the game too much" as a direct quote from the EA spokesperson, which is false. It is nowhere to be found in the original statement; this is in fact Destructoid's interpretation. The second sentence victimizes the users. This does not belong in the article, let alone the Lead. For describing EA's statement, I feel that leaving out a comment on "players were having such a good time" would be better because the phrase is ambiguous. Personally, I see it as PR used to express that the game keeps people happy for long periods of time. Other sources see it more maliciously. It is so open to interpretation that trying to write about it would not be neutral. For the entire description, I would write: "Senior producer Kip Katsarelis commented that the game servers were consistently at maximum capacity, which has made it difficult for new users to connect." What do you think? --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

You're directly going against established wikipedia policy by removing user scores which have been reported by a reliable news source. You are the cancer that makes people laugh when someone claims "Wikipedia is neutral". It is obvious you have your own agenda "leet gamer". A free wikipedia should be informative to all. People who are new to this story regarding the release and resulting turmoil of this game have a right to know about the user perception. To blame the negative response on a "minority of angry trolls" is to make a huge assumption, (which is wrong) and only hurts Wikipedia. The funny thing is the truth is out there and people are learning of it. What does it say about Wikipedia when this entry says nothing of what the rest of the media and community know to be true. It just shows how biased, out of touch, and increasingly irrelevant wikipedia is becoming. Well done l337gamer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.222.164.79 (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

This website's supposed to be an attempt at using official cited sources. Users, regardless of whether or not they're justified in their opinions, are not sources for information. It's like quoting a comments section on a news article. At most, it should be noted that a wide consensus of consumers have viewed the game negatively, using a news article or proper survey as citation. -75.209.136.252 (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This was a bad move, and should be reverted. Critical reception is not limited to a set of reviews and opinions from some wikipedia editors definition of professional critics. Wikipedia has a reliable sources policy, not an professional critic policy. Reception, written in reliable sources (be that reviews, news, books and so on), should be included. Attempting to push a view that non-professional critique is not as valid as other critique (when written about in reliable sources) is POV pushing. Claiming that it makes the article read better is dishonest. Belorn (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Undid some of the damage this split causes, as it removed well sourced critical reception. More articles published by reliable sources has also popped up regarding reviews about the game, and those should be added too. Most recently, some articles has focused on path-finding bugs. Belorn (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Forbes reported Amazon stopping sales of the product due to customer complaints, so I put that in. --John Nagle (talk) 16:55, 14 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)

At least two of those positive changed to negative later, however, and MC only uses the first one submitted. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless that would still make it more mixed/positive than mixed/negative.207.255.12.47 (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree - when you factor in most of the reviews (including the ones not listed on Metacritic) there is overwhelming evidence for the statement. FYI if any editor reads this, the Metacritic score is down to 66 (Wiki still showing an older score)71.189.17.24 (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But we can't factor in the ones not listed on Metacritic (in fact we don't factor in some of the ones that are listed on Metacritic) due to them not being reliable sources. - X201 (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Why are we not using the same description as provided by metacritic? They say: "Mixed or average reviews". Belorn (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Amazon's rating, which comes from people who paid real money for the product, is probably more realistic. --John Nagle (talk) 20:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Amazon's rating is generated by random/anonymous people and is not reliable for a variety of reasons. DP76764 (Talk) 20:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

As wikipedia editors, we create articles with the help of reliable sources. We do not decide which review is "worth" more in including, be that to only include professional reviews, or only include people who bought the product. If its published by a reliable source, we can included it if its related to the article. Amazon review scores has been reported by reliable sources. The article has 4 sources from reliable review and news sites all stating the same fact. If you remove it again, I will go to WP:RS/N and they can tell you that we do not censor facts provided by 4 sources just because it happens to be about user generated review scores. Understand that having a reliable source reporting about user reviews are not the same as using the user reviews itself. Belorn (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time for this. I have made a post at the RS/N board. This is honestly quite silly. Belorn (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Coming from Belorn's posting at RS/N, it is completely fair in light of RS sources to say that users responded by giving the game low review scores at Amazon + Metacritic, among other things (like trying to get refunds, etc.) What exactly that rating is is not important, only that users flooded these sites with negativity due to the server issues at launch. --MASEM (t) 21:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the 'if you remove this again' was directed at me or not (which would be odd as I haven't removed any WP:RS'd material, just MC user scores which aren't RS). Earlier in this thread it appeared that someone was suggesting we use the Amazon rating as an opening assessment of the reception section? If used in that manner, I would object on the grounds that user review scores are not reliable (they're easily susceptible to vote stacking and demographic skew, for example) or necessarily notable. Simply mentioning the coverage of the rating reaction, via RS's, is absolutely worth including in the article; I have not suggested anything or acted in a way contrary to that as far as I know. DP76764 (Talk) 22:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

The amazon user rating as reported by reliable sourced was reverted twice, first by The1337gamer and second by DrNegative. My above post was worded slightly bad, and Im sorry Dp76764 if it came off sounded aggressive.

Anyway, as far notability goes, its not exactly like there is just 1 source that just happen to mention it as a side note. this news article is titled ‘SimCity’ averages one star from 1,000 Amazon reviews. Its in the title. I am not sure how much more notable it would take? I can continue with two more articles with similar titles: SimCity possibly one of the worst rated Amazon products in history, and SimCity Rated On Average As 1 Star By Amazon Users. That is just those that have it in the title. We also have bbc article who while not in the title, bbc article do still mention the one-star status of the user reviews on amazon. If so many reliable sources explicitly mention the user score on amazon, how can it not be notable enough for Wikipedia to mention it? But if we want to go the route that Masem said, that would work too. I would still prefer to follow the way illustrated by the sources but I should be open for a compromise. Better to find something that work then to have well sourced information being removed. Belorn (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not arguing against mentioning the scores at all; I'm arguing against using the user scores directly as a source for any claims in the article (as is what seemed to be suggested earlier in the thread). Melodia makes another good point (below) as to why user reviews are not reliable, again, in terms of being used directly as a source themselves. Coverage from 3rd party articles, on the other hand, is great material for inclusion. DP76764 (Talk) 00:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Okey, I am in 100 agreement with that. The reviews or the score itself as posted on amazon is not reliable by them selves as sources for anything. Any statement that uses it as sole source should be removed as by OR/RS. Belorn (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Amazon's rating, which comes from people who paid real money for the product' --- not true. I could easily go an review the game if I wanted to, yet I haven't payed for it. Unless they've changed it, Amazon allows anyone to review, not just limiting it to those who bought it on Amazon (which would be the only way for them to know). ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:02, 15 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)

The source as given by news site (HN, slashdot), was an rockpapershotgun article. In the article they describe a conversation with a developer of simcity 2013 that rockpapershotgun confrimed worked directly on the project, however, rockpapershotgun do not want to give away the name of their source. rockpapershotgun looks to be exclusive in their communication with this insider, so we need to walk carefully here. Belorn (talk) 07:28, 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)

Are there any reliable sources that aren't self-published that address or discuss these issues? Otherwise, this sounds like original research that violates neutral point of view. Also, Wikipedia is not a forum. This isn't the place to discuss the decisions EA took. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 03:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are a couple:

• http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/sim-city-a-great-game-once-you-get-past-the-server-problems/story-e6frfrt9-1226592163140
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2013/03/06/maxis-working-to-fix-simcitys-server-problems/

-- (ɔ|ʇ) uıɐʌoɥɔ ʞɹɐɯ 04:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice, these are some good sources. I'll work on integrating them into the article. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 04:59, 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)

Reddit is not a Reliable Source — Gmt2001 (talk) 07:45, 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)

Warning: If further edits of the Reception take place, then i will Request Page Protection. If i see any particular user being involved, they will be Reported For Edit Warring. Please discuss any change to the Reception you wish to make HERE and allow the community to reach a Consensus before any further edits are made.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.

Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

— Gmt2001 (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

MagmaiKH (talk | contribs) Please discuss here before you make any further edits to the Reception->Pre-release section regarding the factual accuracy of the need for being always online and the inability to have single player as well as anything else you were attempting to argue about in your recent edits to this article. If you attempt to make these edits again and fail to discuss first, you will be deemed to be in an Edit War and will be Reported For Edit Warring. — Gmt2001 (talk) 18:58, 29 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)

Your addition had to be reverted because it was not neutral (referring to the mechanic as "pointless" and "false"), nor did it source any references. --ThomasO1989 (talk) 23:25, 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

I've removed it again. It was in the wrong place and wasn't neutral. - X201 (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

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)

Its the fact you are taking the original quote by EA, removing part of it and then taking the text of a separate sentence form a separate time and place and merging the two together which is resulting in a third sentence that has been manufactured by you, and doesn't sound at all neutral.

You should add your content in the game engine section, and we'll remove the EA claim from the lead at a later date. - X201 (talk) 13:49, 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)

 Done Have used a link from Eurogamer that says the same thing.- X201 (talk) 14:57, 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)

Google searches do not, by themselves, count in determining if its true or not. If the Google search turns up enough Reliable Sources actually using the name, and the name is being used by the source themselves and not by user comments (which cant be counted as reliable sources), then it could be considered. See WP:GNUM — Gmt2001 (talk) 15:05, 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)

If you find a Reliable Source then an editor would consider looking into seeing if there is a spot in the article where it could be included — Gmt2001 (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Upon release the reviews were "mostly positive", they were not "mixed". There are two sources for this fact:

• gameranx "The newly-launched city simulator was a resounding critical success – and why wouldn’t it be? All the reviews that had been published at that point were from reviewers who got to play on private servers, and their experience probably was worthy of a 9/10."
• theverge.com "After a first wave of highly favorable reviews, EA's long-awaited SimCity proved unable to handle the load of players at launch"

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

— 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)

Wow, "the greatest backlash in the history of the internet"? And that's not even the slightest bit hyperbolic or a gross over-statement? If this was such a monumental backlash, it should be an easy job for you to provide some reliable sources covering said backlash. DP76764 (Talk) 19:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is one: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-15-maxis-promises-it-will-fix-simcitys-silly-sims-and-traffic PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Another: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/03/your-complete-guide-to-the-simcity-disaster/ and another: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/12/simcity-server-not-necessary/ and another: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/03/13/simcitys-sims-dont-seem-that-smart-after-all/ PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The Article either uses the references you gave, or uses more up to date versions of them. - X201 (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Honestly all you have to do is google "Simcity 2013 issues" and plenty of RS's turn up! This article must make meantion of the issues even if EA and their employees want to remove all meantion of them! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

If you feel EA and their employees and/or agents are editing Wikipedia (or any Wikimedia project) in bad faith you can report it at WP:ANI - X201 (talk) 21:43, 3 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)

Fixed. Its a persistent problem on WP. People copying the incorrect usage of digital in magazines and the press and not using the correct term; download. - X201 (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Just fixed another one. There really needs to be a WP:MOS section about the correct usage of the word "digital".
MXocrossIIB ^{(So, you were saying?)}; 21:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)