|
 |
Ok, I apologize for the "blog-like" post. So sue me. :)
Several years ago I saw this game, ie. SimCity 4, *really* cheap,
practically free, at a store and I bought it even though I have never
been a big fan if simulation games (such as the Sim-style games or RTS).
It was on my games shelf all these years. My intention was to try it "some
day" when I had the time. Of course newer and more interesting games kept
finding themselves on the same shelf, so the poor old SimCity 4 never got
its chance, always set aside by newer and more bombastic games.
This summer it has been really hot in Finland, and my PC doesn't like
hot climate very much. When the room temperature raises to 26 or 27 degrees
celsius and over, the CPU fan starts really spinning and the CPU temperatures
sky-rocket. Usually my PC is really quiet, and in cool conditions I can have
a continuous 100% load on it without it making much noise, but in hot
weather it starts making so much noise that I am afraid to load it too much.
So no gaming during the hot season.
This year I happen to have this laptop, which seems to be less prone to
hot weather, so I have used it as my main gaming platform. Of course being
a laptop, and a bit old one at that, it cannot run the newest games. So you
are probably already guessing where this is going. That's right, while
deciding which game I could play which the laptop can run, SimCity 4 finally
got its chance. Not only is it optimal for the laptop because it's not a
high-end game requiring a supercomputer, but the game itself being a calm
mouse-based resource management style game is very suited to be played on
a laptop.
I wasn't a big fan of simulation-type games, and that hasn't really changed.
The game is not really exciting, but maybe a bit boring. Not much happens.
However, for some reason it has this strange addictive side to it. I keep
going back to the game time and again, although I'm still not very excited
by the game type.
At first the game seemed impossibly difficult. No matter what I did,
expenses were always higher than income, and the city funds were shrinking
rapidly. In fact, my very first city got bankrupt so fast that I just scrapped
it completely and started over, this time much more moderately, building more
slowly, allocating resources sparingly, and waiting for the population to
slowly grow. Yet, still, the expenses seemed to always be higher than the
income, and again the funds shrunk inevitably towards zero. In fact, at one
point I was in debt and had to take a loan.
Of course you could simply raise taxes to the roof in order to bump up
the income, but then nobody wants to live in your city and you are toast.
(This is actually what happened with my first city which I scrapped.)
Then, when everything seemed to be lost, some kind of critical mass was
achieved, and the cash flow became positive. First just a little, but as
more time passed and as I managed evern more resources, the positive cash
flow increased steadily.
A large and important part of the game consists of careful juggling of
funding and resource management, and you have to constantly keep everything
in a nice equilibrium: Spend too little and you are toast, spend too much
and you are toast. Taxes too low? Toast. Taxes too high? Toast. And so on.
There are quite many such things which need careful equilibrium. The
citizens need to be educated, or else they will be poor tax payers, so
you always have to aim for maximum education. Thus you need to build
different types of schools (from elementary to university-level) and
constantly watch their funding: Too little funding and the citizens won't
learn a thing, and in the worst case the teachers will go on strike. Too
much funding and you will be spending all of your income into them.
The citizens need health services. Again, you need to build hospitals
and watch their funds: Too little or too much is bad. The optimal equilibrium
is the goal. Police and firemen need to be employed to keep the city running.
Again, you have to watch the funds.
Then of course there are the resources: You need to provide resources
to the citizens, such as electricity, water and transportation. Here you
also need to carefully reach an equilibrium: Too little resources and
funding, and your citizens won't have the needed resources and move out.
Too much funding, and your expenses will be too high.
Of course there are different types of resource factories, and which one
is the most economical depends on the amount of energy needed. For example
for a small settlement it's enough to have one or two windmills. It's also
the cheapest and cleanest. However, when your city grows, they will not be
enough. You can build more, but at some point they will not be cost-effective,
and instead it will be cheaper to replace them with a larger power station
(which will be more expensive to build, but cheaper to run than the myriad
of windmills for the same energy output). Of course larger power stations
will also contaminate more, which is another factor. (Contamination affects,
amont other things, the likablity of the neighborhood.)
As the city grows larger and larger in population, transportation can
become a real headache. Too many traffic jams, and once again you can have
unhappy citizens who start leaving the city for greener pastures. You have
to always keep your road system flowing. Building better roads,
interconnecting them properly and building a bus transportation system
helps a long way. However, after a certain critical mass of population
is reached, they won't be enough. Then you'll have to start thinking of
highways and metro tunnels, which are really expensive. And if you don't
set them up properly, they might end up being inefficient at easing the
traffic flow.
Of course you have to zone some terrain for the citizens to build their
homes and places of work. As your city grows and the citizens get educated
and healthy, demand for more building area will increase. However, you cannot
expand your city forever, if for nothing else, because there are physical
limits to the sandbox. Rather than expand sideways, your city needs to
expand up. However, it's not you who decides how tall the buildings are,
but the citizes, and getting them to want skyscrapers is a long and arduous
task.
There are tons of other things as well, small-scale and large-scale
(such as business deals with other cities, high-end transportation between
different cities by highways, trains, boats and airplanes for high-end
cash flow, terraforming, landmarks, natural disasters, etc.)
Even though I'm still not very excited about this type of game, it's
just somehow addictive. I want to get the city more developed, I want to
see the taller buildings, I want to see the highways constructed, I want
to maybe break the one million citizens barrier (assuming it's possible)...
I think my current 25000 citizens is just scratching the surface. I want
to see a world-class metropolis, not a country town.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
|
|
On 07/03/09 17:22, Warp wrote:
> got its chance. Not only is it optimal for the laptop because it's not a
> high-end game requiring a supercomputer, but the game itself being a calm
> mouse-based resource management style game is very suited to be played on
> a laptop.
Actually, I think it was considered a resource hog when it came out.
> rapidly. In fact, my very first city got bankrupt so fast that I just scrapped
> it completely and started over, this time much more moderately, building more
> slowly, allocating resources sparingly, and waiting for the population to
> slowly grow. Yet, still, the expenses seemed to always be higher than the
> income, and again the funds shrunk inevitably towards zero. In fact, at one
> point I was in debt and had to take a loan.
Ah, sweet memories.
Games like SimCity and Civilization are among my favorites, but I like
only a few of them. It's really hard to make a good one. A lot of them
require too much micromanagement, which I can't stand. And then again,
the AI is also a big downer at times, and I heard SimCity 4 had this
problem, but I never played enough of it to know for sure.
While I played a lot of SimCity, SimCity 2000 was the one I really
loved. Like you, my first game ended due to too many loans. So when I
started a new game, I *really* planned it well.
How well? I basically noted down all the prices, and paused the game.
You can build a whole bunch of things while paused (zones, etc). So I
took a piece of paper, calculated what stuff I could afford to buy with
the initial seed money, and then bought it while all paused. The benefit
of pausing is that you don't lose any money in this initial phase due to
maintenance of roads.
It worked. I never had to take a loan. It also worked for SimCity 3 and
4, but I didn't really play much of either.
I'll warn you. If you make the city big enough, you'll get attached to
it. I still remember various crises "we" went through - when I lost the
power plant because I was careless, and when various natural disasters
(my favorite) occurred and it took a long time to recover. And how I
went from failing schools to top notch ones.
That was 15 years ago. Brings back memories. If I lose the next week or
so playing SimCity, I'll be silently cursing you.<G>
27 C is not hot, BTW. ;-)
--
I didn't know my husband drank until one day he came home sober.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
