Talk:SimCity Societies

Logical Problem
"but it is the first not to have a numbered title". If this game is to be included with the rest of the SimCity games, then it cannot be the first to not have a numbered title, SimCity it's self didn't have a numbered title. -Chris Gray —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.196.206 (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Bottom Infobox Problem
Since SimCity Societies is not developed by Maxis, I believe it should be removed from this infobox: If it is kept it would be inaccurate. --71.105.105.175 04:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right, the only other alternative I can think of would be to re-word the title to allow this article to be on it. Camaron1 | Chris 15:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is what was done! Neil   ╦  11:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it was done after I left the above comment, good move in my opinion. Camaron1 | Chris 11:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I Agree, Its Not Releated To Simcity 4 And Other Simcitys, This Is Not A Simcity!! Its Bad Game! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.203.14 (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

i removed the toolbox. that not releated to simcity 4 or other simcity, it not made by maxis and not releated. removed. --85.64.203.14 (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you mean the infobox, then deleting the bottom of the article does not remove it from there. This has been discussed at Template talk:Sim series, and general consensus is that it should be in the infobox. There are lots of other games there which are not made by Maxis by the way. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Simsville
Does anyone know the relation between Simsville and the recently unveiled Simcity Societies? From the descriptions given, it sounds like Simcity Societies is half-way between the Simcity games and the Sims games. Is it possible that Simcity Societies is the ressurrected form of Simsville? 72.49.194.69 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Josh
 * First, please note that discussion on this page is aimed at improving this article only. So you could call SimsVille a predecessor of this new game, but as one was made by Maxis and the other by Tilted Mill Entertainment, any mention of it in the article should be carefully added and evidence (such as comments from Titled Mills themselves) would be best. Camaron1 | Chris 16:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference
I looked into where a lot of comments in the content of this game were coming from, and I found this: http://www.1up.com/do/previewPage?cId=3160151. We should be able to expand the controversy / differences section with this new information. Camaron1 | Chris 18:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I will do that during the next week. But we must wait until July for more details and information. --85.75.242.198 17:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited the "Controversy" section, and changed it Reception. No more than one sentence is needed right now, and there was no need to list 5 different websites. It sounded more like an advertisement for those websites than information. WalkingSnake 04:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. But we should be able to expand it. --85.75.242.198 17:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Somebody removed the reception claiming it is unsourced, even though it has sources. Please leave a comment on the talk page next time. WalkingSnake 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The source is an Internet forum, which doesn't qualify under WP:RS. -- Kesh 00:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point, but how else do you get a source for public opinion? WalkingSnake 01:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When a reliable source actually documents it, like a New York Times poll or something. Or even just a mention in a published article, noting "fan reaction was X upon the announcement." -- Kesh 01:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Voila, on the website that reported Simcity Societies to begin with: http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3160146. A story that deals with the fan reaction to the news. Does this qualify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.137.42 (talk • contribs) 14:37, June 11, 2007
 * Bingo! Now we've got something to work with. -- Kesh 15:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I added the critism from Simcity Fans section. Hope its okay. --Mazman34340 (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution, but I have removed it as it did not follow policy. Please review WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:AWW. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:24, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Added the announcment of Cities Unlimited to the reception due to its tangible and immediate impact on fan reaction. Greyleaf07 06:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This article shouldn't devolve into another venting place
I wish to state at the outset that I too am very disappointed at the unveiling of what I and many others hoped would be a next-gen SimCity game, but a lot of the wording and external links only to forum posts and polls from sites that obviously are biased in favor of sticking to the original SimCity "formula", and other sources that only cast the game in a negative light are not useful. Wording like "won't even be able to" in the main body is also indicative of the author's negative opinion and should be avoided. Just my two cents... I'm not buying the game, I'm not a shill for Tilted Mill, just a neutrality-minded (and disappointed in SCS) Wikipedian. Talshiarr 08:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This article has grown very quickly from when it was created - with much of it created by anonymous users who are upset about the game and want to hear their views heard, hence I am not surprised there are NPOV issues arising. I have re-worded the "differences" section slightly to be a little less POV. I have specifically said that the zoning will be "reformed" rather than "removed" as some comments by Tilted Mill developers in response to criticism do suggest it might still play a part in the game. The external links section might also need a cleanup. Camaron1 | Chris 16:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like we were both working on this at the same time! I submitted a major rewrite, which unfortunately overwrote your changes. Take a look and, if you prefer your wording to that section, please feel free to re-integrate your changes. I completely changed a lot of the article's grammar, as well as a majority of the links. I did leave one link to a forum post, as it's the most directly relevant to that statement, but I replaced all the rest with actual articles. -- Kesh 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job, your version has all the changes I wanted. It did however accidentally remove the date on the tag - but I fixed that for you. Camaron1 | Chris 16:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, editors. Why is the article's neutrality under dispute? Who tabbed this article as having questionable neutrality? 72.49.194.69 18:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Josh
 * The edit history says - and the reasons for the placement tag are said at the top of this section by this user. Camaron1 | Chris 19:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that much. However the dispute very quickly falls flat. I really believe this to be unneccessary, particularly tabbing the entire article over such a minor issue. 72.49.194.69 23:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Josh
 * Actually, there was a problem with the article's grammar and wording, such that I can see how someone would interpret it as negative. -- Kesh 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree about the grammar but I did not see how it could be interpreted negatively or biased I mean. Nevertheless I'll stick with what you say, just checking to make sure this was neccessary. I don't like having articles tabbed. 72.49.194.69 06:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Josh
 * IMO it's much better as written now, and a link to forum posts in which the developers have commented I believe are certainly worth keeping around. I just didn't think links to non-scientific polls of people on dedicated Sim City fansites or petition sites were fair representations of "everyone" to be used on Wikipedia. Thanks for taking a look at it! Talshiarr 08:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, the tag was justified when it was placed - and I would not consider NPOV problems a minor issue on Wikipedia, even if it is about individual words used. The article has much improved now so I thank Talshiarr for bringing this to general attention. Camaron1 | Chris 11:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Images
There are plenty images at 1up.com, but they are copyrighted. I've e-mailed them to allow me to use a couple but they I didn't get a respond. So is it possible that you find a picture that is non- copyrighted and upload it? I've tried it but to no avail. --Dada222 08:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be great if we got permission to use them, as this article does look a little boring at the moment, and I am not aware of any SCS pictures that are in the public domain. If they do give permission it must be a free licence which allows; 1. Modification 2. Re-distrubution 3. Use for any purpose, including commercial purposes. See Requesting copyright permission for more information. Camaron1 | Chris 09:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You might try asking Tilted Mill themselves, or perhaps an Electronic Arts publicity agent. The contact given in the press release from EA.com is someone named Amanda Taggart - mailto:ataggart@ea.com

There's also the new Simcity Societies homepage .. !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.202.134.22 (talk)

You might have a better chance asking the community at whether you can use some of their (exclusive) screenshots 211.26.207.10 05:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale
I noticed we have managed to get hold of a SimCity Societies image by going down the fair use route, which is good. However I noticed the image had an incomplete fair use rationale - a complete one is required to prevent the image been deleted at a later date. I have attempted to add a fair use rationale to the image to prevent later problems. Camaron1 | Chris 10:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Still no response from 1up.com. I'll try to get one from ST.--Dada222 14:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not enough to ask if these images can be used on Wikipedia. These images must be released under a free license to be used without concern here, such as the GFDL, Creative Commons, or into the public domain.  This will not happen since this is an EA game, and megacorps vigorously protect their rights to their products.  Fair use will be the only route, as permission won't matter. --Tom (talk - email) 01:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not right. If I capture a shot of George Bush, will George Bush own the copyrights of the picture? All we need is the license from the WEBMASTER to use them. And he gave it to me, so I uploaded one. And about the other screenshot, who has uploaded it? Has gamespot allowed him to use it? If not, there are still plenty pictures we can use, found here http://www.simtropolis.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=368&threadid=89604&enterthread=y. --Dada222 05:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Requesting copyright permission states: To use copyrighted material on Wikipedia, it is not enough that we have permission to use it on Wikipedia alone. That's because Wikipedia itself states all its material may be used by anyone, for any purpose. So we have to be sure all material is in fact licenced for that purpose, whoever provided it. Dirk owns the website, that does not make him the copyright holder - he could have got permission to use them by someone else. Currently both images are uploaded under fair use, which is not the same thing as free licence which is what the above quote is talking about. Fair use can be used but the images must be carefully used at a low resolution and with a detailed fair use rationale on why the images qualify under fair use. Camaron1 | Chris 09:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My issue is that we have to use only one screenshot as opposed to the existing two because both picture show roughly the same type of city, a generic-styled city (overuse of fair use images violates WP:FU). While it's possible to create such a city, the choice of screenshots suggests a bias towards that style of buildings, as opposed to the commie-style, futuristic and Victorian buildings SimCity Socities is promising for examples. Neither do I see any critical commentary to accompany the pictures (as stated in WP:FU). I'm removing the second first image for these reasonings. - 60.50.54.92 08:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Another picture
Um OK since the article is pretty small right now we do not need a second one. --Dada222 07:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're talking about. Did you find another article about the game? If so, let us know what it's called so we can figure out what happened. -- Kesh 16:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean either. I have done a search and I could not find any duplicate articles - can you please specify what you are referring to. Camaron1 | Chris 17:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You compeletely misunderstand and I apologise. I mean we do not need a second image. Sorry for not making myself clear.--Dada222 11:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Yes I agree that one image will do for now. When the game is released it would be good if we got a picture showing the box cover like for other game articles. Camaron1 | Chris 10:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Trailer
I'v been following SimCity Societies from the begining as I'm a regular on the TiltedMill forum and think you might find it intersting to look at some of the speeches from Chris Beatrice about the game. http://www.tiltedmill.com/forums/showpost.php?p=157643&postcount=22 The SC:S trailer came out yesterday which you might want to include too. http://uk.media.pc.ign.com/media/925/925931/vids_1.html Freeminder 15:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware but it just says "great game, buy it" it doesn't give any extra info :) --Dada222 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to "Controversy" section
I have cut down and re-worded the controversy section of this article. I have replaced roman abbreviations with English wording to help a general audience per WP:MOS. I have also removed words like "most important" and "very negative" as well as details on individual incidents on websites to make it read less like a personal observation. I have completely cut out details that refer to Cities Unlimited or suggest that the game not been made by Maxis makes it separate from the rest of the SimCity series - these are either irrelevant or based on POV. Camaron1 | Chris 08:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With the cut down, maybe we can bring the paragraph in as the second paragraph in the announcement section, because I really don't think it needs it's own article section. PoeticXcontribs|undefined 21:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed Jgcarter 21:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I will do just that. The "Controversy" section is now more about the response to the announcement so a merge will fit in well. It has also been long argued that it is better to merge negative information into the general sections of an article rather than have sections like "Criticism" and "Controversy" if possible for easier POV balance. Camaron1 | Chris 10:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted attempts by to re-introduce the controversy section. New version did not follow WP:NPOV and generally had the same issues as mentioned above. Camaron1 | Chris 21:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

comparison with simcity 4
can we get a comparison with simcity 4?

such as what is added and what is removed.

what would you buy SimCity 4 or SimCity Societies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.118.208 (talk) 18:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some comparison is already given in the article, which is good, but I do not think comparisons to other games should dominate the article - it can stray the article from the topic and give it a POV tone. Camaron1 | Chris 20:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute tag on fan reaction
The NPOV dispute tag was added to the Fan reaction section by Jgcarter (talk · contribs) without comment. I think this section might need yet another cleanup, but there currently is no dispute occurring here as the tag suggests. If nobody objects I will cut the section down to remove any POV and then remove the tag. The other main option is to completely cut the section from the article. Camaron1 | Chris 18:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I have cut down the fan reaction section and merged it with the "Announcement" section, as that is what it is part of. In the process I have removed the more disputable comments. Camaron1 | Chris 10:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This may need to be reintroduced because its being discussed in some of the reviews I've read which raises its notability and relevance to the article. I'll collect some sources.--Crossmr 00:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Content of reviews should definitely be mentioned in the article. However, I would suggest it goes in a dedicated "Reception" section like with most game articles. Camaron1 | Chris 18:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Release date
I see the release dates stated are the 15th & 16th of November in the different regions. I was surprised today to see that there are shops that are already selling this title online here in South Africa. It’s been removed from the “Pre-Order” lists and has been listed as available from yesterday already! How is this even possible? Idleza 10:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just confirmed this. Simcity 5 was released on 12 Novemver here in South Africa already. I can give links to 2 respected online shops here that have it in stock. Idleza 11:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that SimCity 5 has been Released! Page updated. I did not remove the Pre-Order section because it's still available on the website - That is strange though. They will probably be removing it shortly. The Introduction of this page could do with a rewrite though Idleza 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation Issue
In keeping with WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV and sources which are self-published generally don't meet the criteria necessary to be considered a reliable source. Self-published sources are only valid in situation where the author is discussing themselves. Forums are only usable for citation in which a company representative (who can be reliably identified as such) makes statements, and then only on the official companies forum. Blogs, the type in which random person X sets up a site and starts blogging about some subject, are only usable for citation in an article about Person X. The only real exception to this is if the person who sets up this blog happens to be an expert in the field in which you might be writing an article about. However citation would be needed to establish that this individual is a published expert in that field (e.g. other reliable sources referencing him as an expert). Blogs which are part of professional organizations (like a game website like gamespot, or the NYtimes) are generally acceptable so long as they're really just a blog in name only but in reality they have editorial oversight like any other article on that site.--Crossmr 18:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this Sim City 5?
Is this game officially Sim City 5 or is it like what Vice City and San Andreas were in the GTA series? -- ZookPS3 (talk) 03:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The developers have not officially refereed to this game as SimCity 5, and reviews seem to generally treat it as a spin-off. Camaron1 | Chris 11:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And it sucks. 129.173.241.40 20:15, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not SimCity5. --Tszkin2004 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not SimCity5 AND it sucks! Pray for SimCity5! PRAY for it! -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.110.85 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. And since it is sold as "Sim City Socities", it isn't "Sim City 5" Evils Dark (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

*************!!!!!!user:kie250ITS WELL SIMCITY-5 GET WITH IT!!!!!*********** —Preceding comment was added at 16:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Society Choices
I've rephrased some of 71.137.6.101 edit, which was reverted here, to a new version, found here, because I feel it is a potentially worthy, and encyclopedic, contribution. I've tried rephrasing it to make it sound less commercial, but I haven't played SCS in a while and had to primarily go by information given by user 71.137.6.101. It's Christmas, so I don't know if I'll have time today, but I might play a bit tonight and see if I can add some more. Currently, the list is a bit small (I couldn't list any noteworthy buildings for Cyberpunk, for example). I hope that we can agree to both keep and add to the list, since it is a relatively large gameplay element. PoeticXcontribs|undefined 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes good move, it looks potentially encyclopedic to me and the article does need to expand. I have now got myself a copy of SimCity Societies so I should be able to help. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Expansion?
We need a reference for that bit about the expansion, "Destinations." I haven't seen anything about it anywhere on the Internet. Whoever added that part, where did you find out about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.161.100 (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it is verified in the SimCity Societies: Destinations, the links in the references will take you to places that mention it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality issues
Issues with neutrality appear to have once again resurfaced with this article, which is understandable given the controversy of the game. The first sentence of sections is often important - the first section of the Reception section is now SimCity Societies received primarily poor reviews. This is not an accurate or balanced interpretation of reviews; I removed it but it has now reappeared again. There can be many interpretations of what poor means, which is in itself a problem. Assuming it means 50%-60%+ then SimCity Societies did not receive primarily poor reviews, this sections own sources such as give clear evidence of this. In particular such a assessment ignores several notable positive reviews by GameZone, Game Informer, NZ Gamer, and Pelit. It also does not consider recent improvements to the game mentioned in this section. In response to the reason given for the re-adding of this sentence, Wikipedia articles are supposed to be built on reliable sources, which means that the apparent opinions of fans on SimCity fan sites, though can be considered, should not soley determine the content of the first sentence in the reception section. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Due to no response I have edited this section to address my concerns per above. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Spooky download addon?
Spooky: (Download addon). It features new spooky buildings and textures.

The above quote doesn't say anything about how a person can acquire the spooky download addon. A reference or external link would be helpful. Steohawk (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know if this is related but Prima's game guide for SimCity Societies mentions a hidden profile that's included as a sort of easter egg. The profile is called the Haunted Town profile and isn't mentioned as a download.203.212.147.87 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If no one minds. I can go ahead and change that sentence. I'm not sure how to cite sources though so if you want to know, the source I'm going to use is Primas Official Game Guide for SimCity Societies page 179. If someone could ref that then thanks.58.179.65.189 (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Header
The result was No consensus. -- X201 (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Does SimCity Societies: Destinations really need its own article page? It has minimal information that would be better used to help expand the main SimCity Societies article which is looking a bit anemic as it is. - X201 (talk) 12:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The article would be eventually expanded overtime. There is lot of short article in this site. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree There is no evidence the article would expand. Expansion articles are typically short, and unless there are numerous patches for it it won't get much longer at all. With the initial offering being so lauded by critics and gamers its unlikely that there will suddenly be a lot of exposure of this game and hence a lot of coverage from which to build an article. Should that happen the article can easily be split back off. At this time there is nothing to indicate that will happen though.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Article can be expanded further at present, for example the article gives no mention of reviews and a search reveals enough that could give an entire section. There is very little on game play either, currently there is just bullet points, which if the knowledge is gathered can probably be added to as done for other expansion articles such as SimCity 4:Rush Hour. Guideline wise, the article does (or at the very least can) meet WP:N meaning a merger is unnecessary at this point. I am generally against merge-due-to-current-content mergers per WP:POTENTIAL. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I agree with SkyWalker and Chris, the article has plenty of room for expansion. PoeticXcontribs|undefined 05:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with the above stated opposition to the merge, I see no point in it.--Karl Svensson (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

'God' capitalization
This edit is an area of controversy. I wanted to open it up to this article's talk for discussion on whether or not god should be capitalized in this instance. Washburn mav (talk) 19:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It should not be capitalised. In the context it is used in this article the player is controlling or acting like a god. It should only be capitalised if the player were controlling or playing the role of the deity that is worshipped by the Christian church, then the G should be rightly be capitalised. - X201 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Omission of information under Reception
I noticed some vital information regarding the supporter base reception of this game has been omitted. The majority of the supporter base does not regard this game as a genuine sequal as in the case of previous numbered sequals and there are genuine rumours of a Sim City 5 all over the place. Any Sim city or Sim games forum will explain and convey the same fact. Just because news corporation or another major media publicator won't publish a story on it doesn't mean it should be omitted, and if so it's only to the detriment of this encyclopedia. It is important and noteable that this game is suspected to have been released cheaply and is of a poorer quality than it's predecessors. Discussion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick carson (talk • contribs) 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If the information is worthy of inclusion then there will be reliable, third party sources, about the topic of which the article should be based on. Fan sites are not reliable sources, and content based on them should be rightly removed, as their inclusion compromises the reliability of the article, and there are also undue weight issues. There is already a mention of fan reaction in the announcement section and I do not see how any more is appropriate. If a new game is notable, then it should have its own article, but if it based on rumours it is likely to be deleted as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and this has happened in the past with Articles for deletion/SimCity 5 (second nomination). Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sim city 5 > Sim city Societies
Sim city 5 shouldnt link to Sim city Societies... --Rocket50 (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * SimCity 5 has pointed to SimCity (series) for a long time, though Sim City 5 pointed here. I have corrected it so both now point to the main SimCity article. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Collaboration with BP
There's no info on this.. there's a BP logo on the 50s Gas Station and power plants in this game (or at least the wind farms).

http://bpsimcitysocieties.com/simcity-societies-bp-ea/

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/11/01/simcity-societies-an.html

Info on it. Could someone put something about this in the article?24.192.75.54 (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Although I confess to only playing SCS for a few hours, the "BP collaboration" doesn't seem to be much more than a marketing ploy. A game company with years of experience hardly needs expert advice to add a couple rather trivial, and not exceptionally realistic characteristics to models of power plants. Piano non troppo (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The designer's "collaboration" with BP for all practical measures in the game is just plastering their green flower logo on some of the power plants. Whether they were there or not there, the difference in game play would have been zero. BP hardly has a patent on power plant design and function. In my opinion it was nothing more than a shameless advertising ploy that coincided with BP's television spots running around the time of release with the 'person on the street' question ads. Talshiarr (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Good job for a good game?
The Sim City series going up to this point has only been expanding to better than worse, SimCity 4 was made to build a city while SimCity Societies was made to design a city. With a filler to the next Simcity on March 5 2013 it did a good job to the point you SHOULD play it. SimCity 4 was definetly better looking at an 2003 game with enough space to hold a huge region with over millions of sims in them. They had good variety of gameplay and different ways to play the game. There is no real end like Minecraft but, back to SimCity Societies. You keep building, more and more like the orginal SimCity's gameplay but it keeps getting worse (wait what?!). The graphics were touch up to the point I could barf but in a computer game made for everyone it was ok. Maybe if Maxis put work into it I would call it the little brother of the SimCity family but without the Maxis touch it falls right onto the other person in a line. The style was ok with that I could understand and the glitches are always kept to a low on the crime/sezuire scale. I guess if I had to compare a place, design and build like SimCity 4 would totally be better, it isn't. You place down building, in SimCity 4 you layer building, placing what it needs to make the buildings grow. SimCity Societies does have a freeplay mode which I <3 but I would be butthurt to say it, SimCity 4 would still beat that with the traveling from regions to make the biggest, most awesome region. The terraforming tool was I guess removed which makes the points count, but it would be for the great or good if IGN might rate it a little higher. Listen, SimCity Societies was a casual game, same with all the others (I don't know about SimCity Creator on the other hand) but it was made for a slow - fast pace building game. It's not a race for time like Tastey Planet on adventure mode, and it's to relax all the time placing school by school till you start making the money your quickly losing. That's it, I will not talk about the SimCity box, SimCity Destinations, and Snap city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.160.81 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)