And then, they went extinct because they where unable to adapt.
Also, gotta say I prefer the middle artstyles over the full 3d one.
The graphics from Simcity 4 (even Simcity 3000) hold up very well today.
I think it's the mixture of a high quality creative direction and immense detail.
Honestly, the SimCity series was a series where I didn't care much about elaborate graphics. I mean, okay, I guess it's frosting on top of the game, but I also had fun with the original Lincity, and that's got even less glitz than the original SimCity.
If someone came out with a new, interesting game with the look of the original, I'd happily get it.
And Cities: Skylines 2 got its development into serious trouble over its graphics, of all things. I mean, okay, it's pretty, but I'm not getting the game to generate and stare at cityscapes. I'm getting it because it's got lots of levers to pull that interact in interesting ways. I remember reading reviews from people . They weren't upset about its lack of graphical detail, but about its primitive economic model.
I feel that a number of strategy-oriented series -- even games I like -- have kind of gone overboard on assets.
Like, Civilization 5 is pretty, but it's also sometimes unresponsive and it can't run on a phone, whereas Unciv, which is the same game, does just fine on both counts.
Stellaris is pretty, but I'm just never zoomed in to look at the graphics. I'm zoomed way out and mostly looking at icons on the map.
And this is true of a number of war games that have a lot of scale. Eugen's Wargame and Steel Division series are another good example. They could have omitted all of the 3d graphics and just used unit icons and from my standpoint, it would have pretty much been the same game, because that's pretty much what I'm actually looking at during the course of the game.
There are games that I really do feel benefit from snazzy 3D graphics. I remember being impressed with how cinematic Fallout 4 felt when running around in Call to Arms in ArcJet Systems, walking down steel catwalks and having godrays filtering through the gratings shine down.
But there are a number of games where I just feel like I get very little good out of all the money being spent on asset development. And city simulators are just pretty high on that list for me.
played it at launch, felt this. It was a pretty terrible game in almost every way, but in retrospect, the zombie invasion disaster was pretty neat. I'd mess around with that in Cities Skylines for sure.
Me too, tried the games a few year or months later, and it was a lot smoother and pretty nice or decent. Added some mods and the game was relatively fun. Just very limited in the space you've got.
What a huge jump from the first to second tile (is that Sim City 2000?)…
Yes, that’s simcity 2000. It also looks the best of all of these.
The second tile is
indeed SC 2000.more likely 3000 (with the third tile being 4?).Only because I wanted to see 2000, I looked it up and the second tile seems to be it…
Yeah, that's Simcity 2000. On some level, both Simcity 3000 and Simcity 4 were an evolution of Simcity 2000.
My hot take was that once it stopped being online-only, SimCity 2012 was actually quite an ok game. It got abandoned and has a bit of a balance problem (you can never ever ever build enough housing), and I'm not saying the game is perfect but it's quite serviceable and it looks very good, especially with the DLC. Personally I enjoyed it a lot, despite it's issues.
It was the last game I pre-ordered and I think the last EA game I bought (outside of some retro titles).
I don't really get hyped for games, Simcity 2012 was an exception. And then I played and it was clear they were deceptive in their marketing and management had no clue what they were dealing with.
