Talk:SimCity (2013 video game)

Sanitized / POV article?

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)

SimCity: Cities of Tomorrow expansion pack announced

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)

NPOV

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)