Google+

SimCity review

Decent
Back to Article

30 comments

  • thereptilehouse - March 6, 2013 12:42 p.m.

    Can I just get this straight? EA have released a game, at full price, which many people have bought, and it's a total mess and is basically unplayable. And because of this, you aren't going to review it? Ten years ago if this happened it would have been a 1/10, avoid-at-all-costs review. That is the right thing to do, because part of being a reviewer is performing a public service - you bring to the attention of the public the best and worst of what is out there. As it is, you've buried this story waayyy down on the title page of the website, and the result of that is that people will waste their hard earned cash on what is a currently a broken game. What you should be doing is shouting it out from the headline - "Sim City 5 is a pile of shit!". You would have thought after Skyrim on PS3 the games press would have learned something. Obviously not, because the whole always-online system is doomed to failure, and always has been.
  • Sinosaur - March 7, 2013 5:32 p.m.

    Part of why they aren't giving an actual review is that eventually the game should be working, and at that point in time, anyone who checks out the review from now will get information that's no longer relevant. They're putting up notes that you should not buy the game now, which easily covers the fact that the game is a broken piece of crap right now, but doesn't give a false impression to people who might look it up a month or two down the line. ...Unless the game is still broken a month or two down the line.
  • thereptilehouse - March 8, 2013 5:46 a.m.

    Fair enough - the second update to this article hadn't appeared when I wrote my comment, although that says to me that they could also easily go back and edit a review when and if EA ever get the game working. I suppose I'm just generally having a rant about the way reviewers seem to pander to the publishers these days. Mind you, we live in an age when many gamers consider 7/10 to be a bad or average score, and go mental when a AAA title isn't awarded a 10, so I suppose we get the gaming journalism we deserve.
  • ParagonT - March 9, 2013 5:21 a.m.

    The other reason besides what Sinosaur said is that websites can't pay their bills and employees on goodwill alone. To be honest, most commercial sites have some form of deceit or a non-consumer friendly agenda in them, its just to what extent is acceptable for you to keep coming back. If you give too many games of the same publishers low scores; guess who will remember that and never let you have early access, free games, or information again? So sometimes its not just about what Sinosaur explained (which in this case might be more true), but its a mixture of many things that contribute to decisions we see as irrational. Just because we understand the underlying reasons still doesn't mean you as a consumer has to put up with it though, that's not your job, so your entitled to any opinion you want my friend.
  • thereptilehouse - March 10, 2013 1:59 p.m.

    I agree 100% with what you're saying. I just don't think it has to be this way - Gamesradar already features a lot of advertising, and is owned by Future Publishing so we aren't talking about a small operation. I started reading games magazines in the mid-80's, and since then the industry and the associated press have gone through a lot of changes - not all of it for the better. I get that as the industry has moved from small scale to mass entertainment the junkets have gotten bigger, but what you're talking about is corruption. Obviously the same things go on in the movie industry and the music industry, but even they have to review what they can see and hear, and if a film is unwatchable or a CD unlistenable, they don't say to their readers "we couldn't review it in its current state, tough shit if you've paid for it, but we'll wait until we get free copies that work because we're terrified we'll have to pay for our games otherwise". They tear in to it, and big records and blockbuster films regularly get slated for much less! It's ironic, I suppose, that the games industry wants more than anything for it's products to be treated like "serious art", and at the same time the level of criticism (which is vital to progress within the arts) has been so debased. There was a time when very few games would get 9/10 (and 10/10 was unheard of), and now it's any old shit. Sad times.
  • Person5 - March 5, 2013 4:45 p.m.

    I want to get this, but I'm in a conundrum, I don't want to give EA money, nor deal with Origin. I'd wait for a sale but I forgot that EA actually has a moral objection to sales.
  • Z-man427 - March 5, 2013 2:48 p.m.

    "Hey you know what would be great? if the game was online all the time!" "That's an awesome idea, Gary! That way if the servers aren't ready by launch, which is a very real possibility since we're EA and have to screw people somehow, then no one can play the game we made." "That'll totally boost sales!"
  • bass88 - March 8, 2013 3:50 a.m.

    Gary is a dickhead.
  • Boonehams - March 8, 2013 9:42 a.m.

    Gary was hoping to make it online all the time to help with the social aspect of the game. However, he made his suggestion temporarily forgetting that he worked at EA.
  • bass88 - March 8, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    "I got a better idea, Gary." "What?" "How about, instead of funding a game, we travel to a load of random gamers houses, press our balls against their living room windows before proceeding to piss through their letterbox." "I like the assholerly but do we make money out of this?" "No. But I could add armed robbery to the plan." "Perfect."
  • dontlookimpoopin - March 4, 2013 12:18 p.m.

    yea, thats what the guys over at www.digitalwhip.com are doing too. hopefully they can post something soon!
  • kingsmikefan - March 4, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    I think waiting for the game to go live is a smart idea, considering it's always-online.

Showing 21-30 of 30 comments

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

More Info

Release date: Jun 11 2013 - Mac
Mar 05 2013 - PC (US)
Available Platforms: Mac, PC
Genre: Simulation
Published by: Electronic Arts
Developed by: Maxis
ESRB Rating:
Everyone 10+

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.