Talk:SimCity 4/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Difficulty

I'm not sure about you (that's why I'm asking) I found this game rather difficult compared the others, how you must co-ordinate regions, etc for your city to get bigger. What about you? I thought of mentioning this in the page. The snare 14:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Horrible NPOV Issues

I worked on some serious NPOV issues. The old "problems" section was rife with blatant NPOV violations. I changed it to "criticism", and rewrote the most glaring parts. In my honest opinion, SimCity 4 was a good game to start with, and the patches were undoubtedly needed, but wikipedia deserves a better article than "OMFG SC4 suxors". Next time, write it from a more objective standpoint. DoomBringer 06:37, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I made a fairly significant addition/rewrite to the Criticism section. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I avoided any significant point of view issues; I simply related the facts as I witnessed them back in the time period in question. Maybe a bit of an issue in the last paragraph of the section, but again, those are the facts and it IS interesting. - toroca, August 18, 2005
I read it, and didn't see any particularly bad issues with it. I was happy with SC4 from Day 1 (got it week it came out). I don't think Maxis/EA wanted to call it the "Stage 8 bug" for whatever reasons... the name "Stage 8 bug" was pretty much invented by the community. I would argue that they indeed recognized it as a bug, because a) they listed all affected buildings instead of a nebulous "stage 8" and b) actually fixed it. DoomBringer 05:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Does SimCity4 deserve to be an article?

Does this need its own page? Much better folded into SimCity I'd say - Khendon 13:51 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Own page, which is why i took out those redirects for sim city 2000 and 3000. They all have their own information. -fonzy

They all have their own information, but enough to deserve their own page? No. And I don't think they're likely to get expanded that far either, personally. - Khendon 15:24 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think they are likely to deserve their own pages either. But I suggest leaving it for now, if nobody comes and adds anything after some time we can fold it back into the main article. Enchanter 16:02 Mar 5, 2003 (UTC)
Having played all of them, I'd suggest that there is enough material unique to each to warrant page for each; the models each city describes are actually quite different under the hood, even if the games are superficially only improvements upon the previous one. If some sim fanatic comes along and wants to expound on the different algorithms and such, then it's probably worth leaving them as is--it's not like they're polluting the namespace. JJ 13:10 Mar 6, 2003 (UTC)

and SimCity 4 is Very different. -fonzy

SimCity 4 now has an expansion - Rush Hour Martin TB 22:37, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personally, I do feel that each version of SimCity deserves its own page. Some of them - particularly the more recent ones - are so vastly different in appearance and function from the earlier ones, that they're not nearly the same game. A single page is, in my opinion, simply not enough for a franchise with currently four distinct versions spanning nearly two decades. - toroca, August 18, 2005

I think it should have its own page J C 03:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes it does, no doubt about it, you can't even compare Sim City 1 to 3. Not even a question for anyone who has actually played them.

Vandalization disguised as additions

I removed most (maybe all) of the material added by anon user 202.78... (I suspect it is all the same person). The material was poorly written and could only barely pass off as English. In short, the article was much better without the additions. I usually don't mind cleaning up rough entries, but I couldn't discern any value in any of the added material. It looked more like vandalism than an attempt at improving the article. If someone disagrees with me, go ahead and put the material back in. But please, please, clean it up first and try to make it legible. —Frecklefoot 21:40, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

System requirements

I have not heard of any of these system requirements problems. I play SC4:RH perfectly well on my 1.66Ghz AMD with 512MB RAM, with little slowdowns. Thus I'm inclined to believe that the gripes in the article are the beliefs of a small minority and I will tone down the contentions in the article unless I hear some response here. Goodralph 00:17, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Then evidently you're not very involved with the SC4 community. :) I've had SimCity 4 since February of '03, and regularly visit many boards about the game. There are more than enough complaints about its speed. (The patches fixed some of this....) [ alerante | “” 19:43, 12 May 2004 (UTC) ]
I'm in agreement with Alerante on this. If you have never heard of the complaints then you either are not or previously were not very involved with the SC4 online community. I have been a member of the two largest fansites since well before the game was released, and in the weeks following the initial release there were probably HUNDREDS of people complaining about how slow the game ran or how often it crashed. I also remember one of the most surprising discoveries in those early weeks - people who had less powerful machines were experiencing fewer problems with the game.
Both of the patches for the original SC4 SIGNIFICANTLY improved the playability of the game. For a great many people, they virtually eliminated all crash errors in properly installed and configured copies of the game, as well as providing major improvements in game speed. The release of Rush Hour/Deluxe improved things even further. I can't remember the last time SC4:RH crashed on me without it being my own fault for testing some improperly configured new building or lot or other third-party addon. The same is commonly reported on the fansites.
Indeed, since the release of Rush Hour, people having major slowdowns or crashes probably ARE in a small minority; whereas previously they would have been in a LARGE majority. - toroca, August 18, 2005

Copying from Wikinfo

I know that Wikinfo goes to great lengths to attribute the articles it takes from Wikipedia... but on this unique occasion, something I added to SimCity 4 on Wikinfo has showed up here. Shouldn't there be similar attribution as it is a direct copy of something I did earlier today on Wikinfo? PrezKennedy 17:10, July 21, 2004 (EST)

Patches?

Sorry if this isn't directly related to this article entirely, but the article states:

"Maxis and Electronic Arts have released several patches that deal with many issues discovered in the original versions of SC4 and Rush Hour, including a reduction of the exceptionally high requirements when designing major metropolises, and the so-called "stage 8" problem, which made it nearly impossible to get higher-density buildings such as skyscrapers."

Okaaayyy... well I've only seen one patch on EA/Maxis's site for SimCity 4, and none of its fixes or changes in the accompanying documentation files mentioned fixing system requirements or high-density-building bugs. Where are these lower-system-requirements patches? This computer of mine is better than most peoples' gaming systems, it runs Doom 3 quite well (rarely dips below 40fps even on intensive moments), and yet SimCity 4 turns into a slideshow and tends to crash to the desktop often.

If there is an URL / are URLs with official patches that fix these things, EA/Maxis sure hasn't linked to any of them.

There's only one patch listed? I see two, and that's only because patch 1 is superseded by (SC4 original) patch 2. SimCity 4 chugs on even higher-end systems because of all the calculations it has to do. [ alerante | “” 16:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC) ]
Maxis did indeed release a total of three patches for the game. You will only find two at the official site nowadays because the very first patch was replaced by the second one. All of the changes made by both of the first two patches were included in Rush Hour/Deluxe when it was released. Maxis then released a third patch, which is only intended for people who have Rush Hour/Deluxe. If I had the dates for all three, I'd post them for you. I could probably find them on SimCity Central; the old patch thread there no doubt contains a date/timestamp when the release of the patches was announced there.

Not "notable"

Well Dudyconstructor.com started January 6. We actually have content about the game and a good community, thanks for the edit superchad

SuperChad Productions

Refering to the recent edits by 12.203.219.158 and 12.202.192.173 [1], SuperChad Productions should not be listed yet as the team is non-notable, with no buildings released as of August 2005, although it is known that some are in production [2].

Until their have submited downloads into public and become well-known in the community, this addition is considered to be vanity. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 17:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC) ╫

Wikibooks

Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: SimCity/SimCity 4

Don't forget, you can help write a book about Sim City 4 at Wikibooks. Gerard Foley 12:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

I'm really sorry for asking something that is not about the article. My question is is there a way to use the weaknesspays cheat by pressing up on the directional keys? My friend told me there was but he forgot. Please let me know soon.69.26.107.174 23:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have better luck getting replies in a SimCity 4 Internet forum like Simtropolis. Wikipedia talk pages are intended to discuss changes made in the article only. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 01:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC) ╫

fansites

wouldn't it be better to save maxis some bandwith and place the two most visited fansites (simcitycentral and simtropolis) on the main page?

If you're referring the main page to the main article (SimCity 4 article), it's already done. But the SimCity 4 fan site listing is still useful, in addition to being the official web directory for SimCity 4, albeit taking longer to load and linking to partially defunct sites. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 10:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC) ╫

Exit 12: Relinking our City Journals

I need people to change the links on the City Journals. -Tracker 19:06, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Other Problems?

I just tried to play SC4 again after a long time, I installed it, downloaded and installed the patch for it, it seemed to work ok, except for the mouse flashing and leaving the marks of where the mouse has been all over the screen. Then it just shut off and went to the desktop, like nothing ever happened. Any ideas?

This talk page is mainly about the article, not problems with the game. Try posting your problem at a forum. --Snkcube 05:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


2D/3D terminology

"sprites wrapped around polygons" - is this referring to textures? If not ... what does it mean? Cammy 20:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Went and read the linked article, which is very interesting. I'm guessing the above phrase refers to the fact that some building models are just drawn as a texture, and then wrapped around a 'billboard' (a polygon which is always oriented towards the user), thus producing the effect of a sprite. Others are fully 3D, and there are some which use a combination of both approaches. The engine itself is fully 3D, but using an orthographic projection for speed rather than perspective projection. I'll modify the article to make this clearer. Cammy 20:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
The passage on large building being fully 3D is incorrect as the buildings are still depicts with sprite-like elements; larger building would map larger sprites into polygon models that mimics the sprite's design (creating "3D sprites"), just like smaller props [3][4][5]. It also contradicts the performance issue mentioned in the following paragraph, as the amount of detail on the buildings would certainly slow down the game if they were completely 3D objects. I'm rewording the passages to clarify this. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 18:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
The official SC4 website also states that the user interface is excepted from the consideration of 3D treatment. This article will also be corrected in this regard. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 18:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC) ╫
It seems that we are using the same terminology for slightly different purposes. To make my above explanation a bit clearer: when I say '3D building', I mean that the building is modelled as more than a flat plane or a box, then textured (textures being 'sprite-like elements', I guess, at a stretch). Of course performance would be abysmal if buildings were fully rendered in 3D - this is the whole rationale behind using textures (and their more advanced cousins, bump/normal/parallax maps). Also, when I talk about the user interface being 3D, I don't mean that it's 3D modelled - I simply mean that it's rendered as a texture on a 3D plane that happens to be fixed in place relative to the viewer.
I'm re-rephrasing the article to make the point about the buildings clearer, and just removing the detail about the user interface (as it has proven to lead to confusion, and I can no longer find the article in which the reference was made) Do you think inserting the images you linked into the article would be a good idea? I find them very useful to illustrate the way in which buildings are constructed. Cammy 15:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

ban 81.104.165.184 from editing

this guy keeps removing the city journal stuff claimings its "spam" ITS NOT SPAM, PROVE IT, city journals are known by every single fansite, everybody has heard of them, and almost everybody has heard of the SCJU

this guy also removed fansites for no reasons such as simvision, sc4ever, dudy constructor, zurban, insims, and the SCJU, these are fine links simvision is one of the big fansites not the biggest but pretty well known, so please band this guy from editing he has no clue what he is doing and thinks that cjs and fansites are spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchad (talk • contribs)

Do note that Wikipedia is not a link respository. The number of fansites in the extrenal links section are excessive and provide the same form of contents repeatedly, in addition to distracting readers and downgrading the quality of the section. To an extent, I do agree with anon user that all non-notable fansites (with the exceptions) should be removed, in place of a few link directories instead. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:37, 2 June 2006 (UTC) ╫

some of the fansites are major, like simvision, they are one of the top fansites, and scju is well known, maybe link to scju wiki would be better, every link in the fansites were major, well known or notable, the city journals are well known, so at least keep the article describing what they where and keep the cj links in a seprate article from sc4 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchad (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia presently has (and has had for a very long time) a problem where everyone wants to add their website to external links in an article. Typical rules for extlinks are that they are directly relevant to the actual content of the article, with useful further reading. In the case of games, you're looking at a couple of official links, and a small number of superlative websites. Simtropolis, for example, is evidently a major site (100,000 users, apparently), so it gets a link. Simvision, on the other hand, claims 3,000 members, much smaller, so it doesn't. Typically, we allow one, maybe two, links to each site (if there is something about it to justify the extra links). What isn't acceptable is a whole slew of around 20-30 links to individual threads on their message boards - they're just not relevant to the outside world. Of course, you have the right to your opinion, but you may have some difficulty when policy is not on your side. 81.104.165.184 11:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Wikipedia is not a form of advertisement.

Notability of City Journals

everyone has heard of simvision they are not advetertising, they are a major fansite, probably the 3rd or 4th with st being the 1st and scc being the 2nd, , simvision also has a top 40 simcity site program, and a fairly large exchange and fourums, simtropolis may have over 100,000 users but a small fraction of them are active, simvision has 9,000 posts, there bigger than some of the other sites, simglobal has less members, and sims zone is not enlish so it does not belong in en wikipidea or needs to be known as an english site, and what is wrong with the city journal section

please explain why the city journal section is spam and junk, what is wrong with it, and what is wrong with the cj links no one made a big deal about them untill 81.104.165.184 came along and removed them —Preceding unsigned comment added by superchad (talk • contribs) 2006-06-05 00:19:14

I totally agree with the above, the CJ links (as i am aware) linked to the most popular cj's in SC4 history, to my knowledge, they all had won awards from at least the 2 most heavy weight SC4 websites, Simtropolis and SCC. Simcity.ea.com is an absolute joke, yet you put Simtropolis and SCC below an infobox hinting that it's spam. Have you ANY idea, the amount of work, hours and dedication people have put into custom creations such as BAT's and LOT's on those two sites alone? Yet the "official" site which is crammed full of plagurised or mediocre spam, is literally elivated on a pedestal above the "this is spam infobox" as if it deserved to be visited? It's an absolute insult and i really think that the page be reverted to its previous glory.

As for the SCJU, I believe it should have a place, it may have a small community, but it's completely unlike any other simcity fan website, it's a political interactive roleplay forum that unites many CJ authors from many SC4 websites and provides an outlet for them to further hone in their creativity. The others are simply a forum on discussions about simcity4 and to download.

You may not agree with what i have said, but as a simcity fan since the very original, I thought i would voice my dismay at these recent changes. ~6underground

Links have been deleted except for SCC and Simtrop. Nothing else is notable. Additionally, the CJ section is not notable because it is not really a part of the game. Also, it is not as popular as the section's author makes it appear. Also, Superchad (talk • contribs), please consider WP:OWN with regards to this edit summary. — Scm83x hook 'em 06:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
City journals are community cruft. I myself have never heard of Simvision. æle ✆ 2006-06-05t18:00z
city journals ARE not community cruft, its the most popular thing in the community, if you think cjs are junk, then no wonder you have never heard of simvision, because you must not be on the internet much, without cjs scc and simtropolis would be very inactive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchad (talk • contribs) 2006-06-06 21:26:50
I personally feel that a city-journal link or three (but not more) is highly appropriate here; if the mods are 'notable', then certainly journals are: they are a significant use of the game. However, they should represent the best ones, showing how SimCity users can use their game and document their city. As the previous comment states, they are probably the most popular aspect of the community. – TTD Mocha! Bark! 04:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
yea, they also show user creativity and can give ideas which can help other people make better city journals, consider it as a fun activity that anyone can do, maybe a seprate article for city journals with a link in the sc4 article - Superchad
I feel that city journals aren't notable enough to merit their own article: they're just an aspect of the game and should be briefly inculded as such.
Superchad, you can sign your comments automatically using "~~~~", and please use colons to indicate continuation of the discussion thread. Please refrain from personal attacks like that from the comment before the previous one. Also, don't mark additions to discussion pages or total reverts of pages as "minor edits". – TTD Mocha! Bark! 04:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
City journals are the SimCity equivalent of guild Web sites in, say, World of Warcraft. Neither are very notable. æle ✆ 2006-06-08t10:09z
It's worth adding to this discussion that we talk about mods, but don't actually list any specifically, so for me the argument that including mods means we should include city journals fals down pretty quickly. 81.104.165.184 11:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
we should have a section describing what they are, that links to a list of well know ones. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by superchad (talk • contribs) .

No longer playing SimCity games

I play The Sims ( site | Sims here | console )...

I'm playing Chris Sawyer's Locomotion. It's a RollerCoaster Tycoon-meets-SimCity-strategy game.

This guy no longer plays SimCity as of February 2006. --RCT Locomotion Wikipedia 00:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed Developement section

I have removed the section entitled 'Development' as it was not a stub. It was an empty section. A stub should contain at least some form of expansion on the actual heading else it has no purpose. This page should be used to discuss the need to add things to it if there is no information available instead. -Localzuk (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

How to?

How does one upload screenshots on to Wikipedia?--70.189.248.92 16:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The "Upload file" link in the toolbox bar on the left allows you to upload files, but you need to create an account, and adhere to Wikipedia's image use policy. Next time, though, it may be a better idea to visit Help:Contents for directions or inquiries. Asking questions in seemingly unrelated talk pages may not produce any responses. I hope you find this useful next time. :) ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 19:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC) ╫

Simtropolis merge suggestion

Simtropolis was nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simtropolis). I closed that discussion as no consensus. As an editor, I would like to bring here the discussion about whether or not to merge the article into SimCity 4. Personally I think the website is notable enough to get a mention, but not to get a full length article as has now so I'm suggestion it should be merged (as did some others on the AFD discussion). Petros471 19:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No. they are completly diffrent.--Mac Lover Talk 03:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep separate as per little duplication of material. However consider a compilation of SimCity fansites instead of one focusing on Simtropolis. There were some long-running ones spanning several SimCity versions including the currently titled SC4ever.com. Although they're dying, I think it's a shame that notable equates to current. Certainly that's not a criterion that will stand the test of time. Davilla 14:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Against the merger, unless a section were created in this article for brief descriptions of notable fansites. SimCity Central deserves at least half the mention of Simtropolis, IMHO. Following Davilla's suggestion, SC3000.COM (linked in SimCity 3000 as the SimCity 3000 Resource Center), is also worthy of mention. -AndromedaRoach 04:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I can only see a merger of Simtropolis (ST) to SimCity 4 as beneficial if the fansite has directly contributed significantly to the further development of SimCity 4 after its release, and has been referred by notable publications for this (Meeting these criteria would at most grant the site a mention in the Modd Squad section). I'm also concerned on whether creators of mods are worthy of mention in articles on computer games. Mods themselves have mostly been permitted for mention, especially those for modable games, but not many of those who help create or host them (teams or individuals). ST in particular has only been a site that hosts forum discussions, modding activities and offer user-made downloads, a reason I believe the site's mention should be kept in a bare minimum (which the article currently has) and ST article simply redirected to the SimCity 4 article, if a merge is required. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 15:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) ╫

simtropolis deserves its own article [superchad]

I think fan sites in all desrve some type of article inside of this about how the add ons have helped the game survive over the 3 1/2 years.

Against. Put simply: SimTropolis is a WEBSITE. SimCity 4 is a VIDEO GAME. Nothing more needs to be said. I'm removing the merge templates. Lakeyboy 11:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sims 2 Neghboorhood layouts

it should probaly be mentioned some place in the arctcle that files from SC4 are used to form the layouts for negihboorhoods in sims 2. I mean any city you lay out in SC4, you can then make a S2 town with the same layoutLego3400: The Sage of Time 03:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hard to say. This would be more suited in The Sims 2 than here, the same way The Sims article doesn't mention SimCity 4 as having derived the latter's character design and objects in the game from, yet have the SimCity 4 article mentioning how it is compatible with the first Sims. Besides, this article is intended to discuss primarily SimCity 4-related topics, not the other way around. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 04:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ╫
Actually, since this article already mentions how SC4 is compatible with The Sims, I think it is suitable to add a very brief mention of its compatibility with The Sims 2 as well. --Funnykidrian 16:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

City length

Just a small edit, dunno where this would go, so I just shoved it at the bottom of the page:

The player also has the option of starting the city in a segment of any of three area sizes, the largest being 256 by 256 tiles, approximately 4 by 4 miles in real measurement.

Changed the wording of that sentence so it actually reads 4.096km by 4.096km - this is correct, as each tile is 16m by 16m. Just a small correction, is all. 58.168.48.29 06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sectioned this message. Thanks for the input. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 10:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Game's Item

Avenue, Water Pipe, Cloverleaf junction, Hydrogen Power Plant, Small Park Green, these are some of the items that can be found in the game. I have been thinking of creating either a new section on this page about the list of items available in SimCity 4 & SimCity 4 Rush Hour or creating a new article about the list of items available in SimCity 4 & SimCity 4 Rush Hour. If you feel like adding your thoughts about my idea, feel free to write down your thoughts here. Aranho 20:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been some problems in Wikipedia regarding the merit of specific gameplay-related information. It's not justified by Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (stating that articles should not include video game guides) and is considered by certain editors to be cruft (in fact, the amount of gameplay information is more than enough, as the other features are nothing special). Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic articles, and are only meant to provide a basic overview of a topic. Everything else can be provided in a sister Wikis, WikiBooks (which has a SimCity entry), or StrategyWiki. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 14:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC) ╫

Fansite Links

please stop removing them you say they violate wikipedias policy but they dont, they provide usefull information

here is the policy

Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines

people are missinterpiting the policy, the policy says it is okay to have content-relevant links and links to a major fansite, simtropolis is the biggest SimCity 4 fansite, plus the main site hasnt been updated in about 2 years and the exchange has nothing worth downloading on it, ST has tuturials, mods, bats, and lots like mcdonalds, wendys, walmart, that are very realistic, the turorials teach how to do things that are not taught on the main site like underwater tunnels, Simtropolis even has its own wikipedia article, meaning it is very notable and is major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superchad (talk • contribs)

You state that it adds content, please point us to some of the content on the site that would be acceptable to be included within the article? That is what that section means. Your claim that the site is the biggest is your opinion, and will lead to people arguing over which site is most popular, largest, most comprehensive etc... The idea of not including any is to prevent pointless edit wars. Also, I believe that guideline has been altered. Last time I read it through fully it said 'including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate'. I shall discuss this apparant alteration there now.
I still maintain that the site contains nothing, content related, that could be included within the article.-Localzuk(talk) 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Having just looked at it, it states this: If there are many fansites for the topic covered by the article, then providing a link to one major fansite (and marking the link as such) may be appropriate. and also Fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included. I think this is quite clear... -Localzuk(talk) 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see. There appears to be an inconsistency with the what wikipedia is not policy and the external links guideline. I have posted a question to find out what other people reckon.-Localzuk(talk) 22:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
okay some content is the Network Addon Mod an unoffical addon that adds new interchanges for highways, new on/off ramps, no highway possiblites, el rail above roads, monorail above roads, etc. and a way to remove the pedrina plant lot, and a whole lot of mods. there is also an airport pack for custom airports, tutorials like how to make underwater tunnels, how to make split highways. there are tons of lots in the stex based off real buildings, like real stores, world trade center, landmark with jobs which allow landmarks to have jobs. there are tools like the SC4 Terraformer, a regional terraformer so you can hand terraform a region without opening every city tile.
here are some links
Mods & Downloads http://www.simtropolis.com/modding/index.cfm?page=1&view=all
Stex: http://www.simtropolis.com/stex/index.cfm?page=1
search thinks like wtc, simgoober, airport, and any building you can think of
--SuperchadSuperchad 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand my question. How would any of that be includable in this article as content? None of that is encyclopedic in the least. Wikipedia is not a howto site or a mod's database.-Localzuk(talk) 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
just include the link to simtropolis that way you dont have to put stuff in, its worth mention mods if they help the game, just put it in the additional resources so people wont add there fansites it is includeable but the NAM in the third party addons also if the modd squad deserves mention then so does the NAM considering it is more known, how come people where fine with the fansites untill you came along and removed them.
But that is the point. We are only supposed to include links to official sites and any site that provides information that, over time, can be written into the article itself. Not just link to related items. Also, I am not the only person who is removing the links (IIRC, I was not the first person to remove them).-Localzuk(talk) 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

SimCity 5

I was about to start a SimCity 5 article, but when googling for information I found from Google's cache that Wikipedia used to have a SimCity 5 article. Is it removed because not much information is known yet? Taskinen 18:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimCity 5 (working title), the current consensus is that there is still little facts revealed to have a SimCity 5 article (the only sources that the article cites are brief hints in GameSpot of the game's release). When more details about the game come about, then the article may be recreated. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 19:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC) ╫

Trivia

When I was playing today I suddenly noticed High Tech Industries called "Kane Tiberium". Are there other little tributes like this in the game that could be used to form some sort of a trivia section?

Cyanara 13:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Simtropolis

Simtropolis was recently nominated for deletion. I've merged the article with SimCity4 in order to preserve its contents. Please let me know if you have any objections to its incorporation. I believe Simtropolis serves well within this context. Kugelmass 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

This has apparently been proposed before, but the general feeling seems to be that it is not an appropriate merge. Chris cheese whine 00:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I did not realize that a merge was previously discussed. As someone who has never played SimCity 4, I found the Simtropolis content very supportive and pertinent to the subject. Where can I find an archived discussion page? Among other things, I am very curious as to why it was not deleted during the previous nomination.Kugelmass 01:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Scroll up a bit. Chris cheese whine 02:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Misleading Caption

"A small town in SimCity 4, surrounded by farmland. New regional gameplay made towns such as this feasible for the first time in the SimCity series." - the caption below the farm town picture

Farming towns weren't feasible before because they invariably turned to manufacturing (in sim city 3000 unlimited). Sim city 4 made zoning for farmland an option. So the regional play doesn't really deserve credit for making farming towns possible.

  • I also feel that simtropolis.com is worthy of a link. It is a direct result of the game and tools created by maxis. It has added a lot of depth to the game and for that reason merits a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.190.218 (talk)
    • Yes, I think that Simtropolis is very important for many players. Simtropolis used to have its own article, so it would be acceptable to add it as an external link.Reguiieee (talk) 14:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why you posted this here, but the reason it isn't linked to is because it is a fansite, which the guidelines/policies state we shouldn't link to. Instead, we have a link to a directory of fansites. Remember, wikipedia isn't a collection of links.-Localzuk(talk) 14:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

R.E screenshots

Have all of the screenshots been taken by you from your own game? A little more would not go amisss D. BULL 11:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many violates WP:FU policy #3, and this article may already have too many. It's advantageous to focus on cramming as many features in lesser screenshots as possible. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

ok thanks for your speedy reply. D. BULL 15:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Building Designs

I think the building designs section should be slightly rewritten, to mention that buildings in the game were inspired by more than just San Francisco structures. There is probably no "verifiable source" to cite, but there was a discussion once on the old SimCity Central site about the origins of many of the games buildings, and members of that forum located dozens and dozens of real world buildings that are reproduced very accurately in the game. Buildings from New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Hong Kong, Atlanta, and many others were identified in-game, usually with very slight alterations in design. Toroca 04:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Provide a link on it. I'm interested to know myself. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC) ╫

Rush Hour Section

I have noticed that the Rush Hour expansion pack now has its own article, though the section on Rush Hour in this article is not that much shorter than the Rush Hour article itself. Perhaps, we should reduce the Rush Hour section in this article to a summary, and put most of the information in the Rush Hour article, so to avoid repetitiveness. Camaron1 | Chris 18:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now merged most of the information about Rush Hour into the main article, and just left a summary paragraph. I have tried to avoid losing some encyclopedic information in the process, however excessive repeating of information should now not exist. Camaron1 | Chris 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The recent merge virtually cut off everything about the EP except the release date, which only reduces the informative value of the section when read from the SC4 article. A summary is still needed anyway even though it has its own article. ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC) ╫
I did leave a summary, I disagree that the merge was "sloppy". The summary that was left was sufficient and the relationship between this article and the Rush Hour one is better than it was. I do however agree the summary currently placed in this article "fits in" better now than it did. Camaron1 | Chris 16:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

SimCity 3000 trailer in SimCity 4

Hey, if anyone who has SimCity 4 and got a drive-in cinema (you can get one in commercial development), watch the movie that will be played on the screen. This movie is actually a short section of the SimCity 3000 trailer. The movie is about the UFO section of SimCity 3000 trailer. Should we add this to the trivia section? Aranho 11:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.204.116 (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Easter eggs

I have noticed that the trivia section of this article has become an easter eggs section. I do have to dispute this slightly as not all the content in that section is necessarily about an "easter egg". For example A few of the vehicles in the game are from the cancelled game SimsVille which Maxis also worked on. is more about links to other games, not easter eggs. I suggest we either clean that section to be about easter eggs in a perhaps less listed format, or we turn it back into a temporary trivia section. Camaron1 | Chris 10:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now cleaned and moved this section - I think it looks better now. Camaron1 | Chris 13:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The easter egg about Dr. Vu is incorrect - there was an Assistant Producer by the name of "Vu" on the project.74.71.66.14 15:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed this point completely - it does not pass WP:OR as Vu could mean a variety of things and no verification has been provided. Camaron1 | Chris 08:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think that this section is still unecessary as it could classify under WP:TRIVIA? I think the facts need to be integrated into the article, or removed, probably putting the easter eggs under a paragraph rather than bullet points, which actually makes them look like trivia facts. ætərnal ðrAعon 10:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think you are right, putting it into prose seems to be a good idea, and would allow it to fit into the article better. Camaron1 | Chris 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Agricultural Zones?

What are the farms useful for? Huge tracts of land have tiny farmhouses that employ 2 people, and they generate so much pollution. 59.183.184.210 19:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Vader1941

Welcome; you might want to visit a SimCity 4 fan-site like Simtropolis for a better answer. This talk page is only for discussion on how to improve the article. Camaron1 | Chris 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

An great point Camaron! While this is a good topic to discuss, this page is reserved for discussions of the article itself and not a board for arguing the values of certain zones. SimCity 4 fansites such as Simtropolis are great places to discuss such matters. Sorry for writing for the point of arguing your point, my point is (in a nutshell); ditto. Rbpolsen♦☺♦ Talk to me! 04:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

SimCity 4 (csc)

Does anybody know anything about it? If you do, tell me what it is and where I can get it.--MP123 05:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Confusing captions

The text under one of the images -I believe is it one within the section involving add-ons- reads "urban city." It should either read "urban area" or, simply, "city." All cities are urban, which makes the phrase "urban city" a rather redundant statement, as if someone had been trying to use BIG WORDS without first double-checking their meaning in a dictionary.

Sorry about the rant.

sorrythankyou —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.94.107.8 (talk)

No need to be sorry, I have re-phrased this caption for you. Camaron1 | Chris 09:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Drive to GA

I have began the slow process of getting this article to GA post peer review. I have done the following:

  • Re-named "Gameplay changes" to "Gameplay" - section should focus on SimCity 4 itself most of the time.
  • Cut building design section for now. Relevance to SimCity 4 was questioned in the peer review and had inappropriate citations. Something on this could be re-added for the Gameplay section though. I have merged the building design section into the gameplay section, this will need cleanup.
  • Re-organised general images and captions. More images I do not think would be appropriate - especially since most are uploaded under fair use. I am going to make sure they all have fair use rationales as needed.
  • Re-organised some text to make some sections clearer.

I plan to also:

  • Possibly merge "Future updates", "Add-On Modifications" and "Bugs" section into one section of continues prose.
  • Create a game development section.
  • Extend introduction.
  • Generally improve sources used.
  • Remove trivial information in Gameplay section and make it read less like an advert.
  • Extend Reception section - add review comments.

I will continue working on the article as necessary. Camaron1 | Chris 15:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am continuing to work on this article. I have now cleaned-up the Gameplay and Graphics and music sections as well as extend the introduction - though I might add a few more references to these sections if possible. I am next going to work on merging and cleaning up the Bugs and Add-ons and Modifications sections by converting it into prose and making it more concise, then I will extend the Reception section. Camaron1 | Chris 17:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Reception

This section is really short, but not much can really be added here. The content of this section ought to be merged into the rest of the article, preferrably into the introduction (as it was previously tagged as being too short, which I deleted after expanding the intro).

ætərnal ðrAعon → 12:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I still think the introduction is still to short - it needs to be at least two paragraphs for an article this size to get GA. Some reception information is a good idea - though it should keep to an overview of the entire article. Some more details on game-play would be a good extension too.
I think a few sections should merged, though I think reception could potentially deserve its own section. A lot can be written on third party reviews and comments on the game - as suggested by the peer review. Camaron1 | Chris 16:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S: Fansites

I noticed that Simptropolis has been but up for AfD. Certain fansites, like Simtropolis and sc4ever are really relevant to the topic that we might want to merge it into the rest of the article as well.

ætərnal ðrAعon → 12:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

True, Simtropolis is now deleted. It has proved controversial on if fan-site information should be included in a game article (see archived discussion of this page). At most it should be a summary of one or two of the more notable fan-sites. Camaron1 | Chris 16:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, you start getting into the whole 'why is that site more notable than X site?' arguments and stuff like that and the section will slowly but surely get bigger as more and more are included.-Localzuk(talk) 17:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The same problem occurred with external links for fan sites in this article (see archives), one was added for Simtropolis and then a lot more appeared. Any such fan site section would have to be implemented carefully. Camaron1 | Chris 18:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
well most people know how big simtropolis is, and with all that content they would benifit with a link, so for example someone comes to wiki to learn more about sc4, while there they learn about simtropolis, and while there find tons of custom content, i think we should mention simtropolis since this would allow people to find custom content easily, and maybe some other sites could be added later, but just simtropolis for now, we shouldnt just not mention about custom content and where to get it, or people will think whats in the game is all there is.--Superchad 22:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)superchad
I don't know how big simtropolis is, and stating it is big is not a valid argument. If we have valid, reliable, external sources stating that it is the biggest and most notable site then it should exist as its own article, but not included here. Also, considering it now covers 'Sim City: Societies', it would not be appropriate here. I think it is fine as it is to have a link to dmoz where these sort of sites are listed in abundance, until such a time when a reliable source or sources (preferably) can be provided for its own article.-Localzuk(talk) 22:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
all we need is a link to simtropolis and one or two other sites, no information, just a link to it that might say, "has great custom content and has a great community" or something like that, the ea fansite listing is a bunch of bs of lots of crappy fansites, which if you look through them, then you would find out that few are any good, simtropolis is one of the few good ones, also why would st not be appropriate here if it also covers sim city societies?--Superchad 03:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)superchad
My main concern here is observing Wikipedia' s WP:NPOV policy, Simtropolis been the best and largest community is ultimately down to opinion. I agree that maybe the external links section of this article needs reviewing - perhaps to be cut down a little. Though I am still going to be cautious before adding Simtropolis to the external link list or even more creating a section on it in this article. If there is going to be content on Simtropolis I would rather it had its own article. Camaron1 | Chris 09:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

I have cleaned and cut down the external links section. I have re-formatted the official site section so there are no longer re-directs to the SimCity Societies website while maintaining links to useful resources such as the "Inside scoop" and "fan-site directory" - most fan sites can be found this way, meaning direct links to fan sites in this article are generally unnecessary.

I have cut down the additional resources section to one link per website - I have added the Simtropolis Omnibus as it contains some useful SimCity 4 information for readers beyond the scope of this article, with no registration been required. I have removed the "Mods/Downloads" section completely; only fan-site home page links and such sections of websites require registration to use and should be avoided per WP:EL. Camaron1 | Chris 11:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I am bringing up the external link issue yet again as Superchad (talk · contribs) has re-added a direct link to Simtropolis for this article. This is has been discussed many times in the past and the general result is that there is no consensus that link should be there, if anything consensus is against it. I am considering removing it again, my reasoning is as follows: With a direct link to Simtropolis, it becomes very disputable on why Simtropolis should have a "exclusive link" while other SimCity 4 fansites don't. The most common reason given is that Simtropolis is the largest/most important/most active/most useful SimCity 4 fansite; that is a opinion and debatable with the growth of competing fansites such as SC4 Devotion. It has been shown in the past history of the article that once one fansite is directly linked, a lot more appear quickly.

This link also seems to be against the WP:EL guideline, including falling under the criteria of "Links normally to be avoided" in been: Links mainly intended to promote a website, for many sections of Simtropolis: Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups) or USENET, and with Simtropolis no longer been just a SimCity 4 site and looking at the current state of the homepage: Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. I left a link to the Simtropolis SimCity 4 Omnibus as I considered that a additional resource which was generally directly relevant to the article and contained only content that could be viewed by unregistered users. The WP:EL guideline also states If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. If necessary, the SimCity 4 Omnibus link can be further deepened to information strictly only on SimCity 4.

Finally, the SimCity 4 directory is already linked - this lists most SimCity 4 fansites and more can be submitted. This is a better place to go and view SimCity 4 fansite lists, and its linkage makes direct links to fansites redundant. Camaron1 | Chris 19:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gameplay section and Rush Hour

The gameplay section of this article is only for the original SimCity 4 game, this does not include Rush Hour, that has its own article at SimCity 4: Rush Hour. To verify, the original SimCity 4 game had two police station sizes, two fire station sizes, and two hospital sizes (with the smaller been called a clinic). Rush Hour added two further sizes of police station, and a fire department landing strip. Camaron1 | Chris 16:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

SimCity 4 reviews

As part of the expansion of the review section, I am creating a list of SimCity 4 reviews and similar that can be used below for reference to help:

Overall, the views are positive, with most saying SimCity 4 is a very good game, though a few are quite negative and should be used to resolve issues brought up at the peer review saying that this article is to promotional. Camaron1 | Chris 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Vista

Does this game work with Vista? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.153.204.116 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does - though it is not listed in the system requirements as the game was released before Vista came out, Windows Vista vs. SimCity 4 could be mentioned in the article if there is a good reliable source available. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
A set of suggested system requirements for a PC running Vista are on the article. This also states that SC4 only uses one core on dual-core machines. This is not unique to SC4 - most programs written before multi-core processors became popular will by default only run on one core. However, AMD have released a program called a "dual-core optimiser" which apparently automatically load-balances tasks designed for single cores across both cores - provided your processor is an AMD one (surprisingly enough). Mittfh (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
That section has been added since I made that comment, and I am bit concerned over its appropriateness for an encyclopaedic entry. This section seems to be based on the recommendations of one or more users, and given how many times its content has been changed recentley, its factual accuracy is very debatable. If a section on Windows Vista beyond the system specs given by the game developers is going to be in the article it should be reliably sourced, otherwise I am going take out this section, as it compromises the rest of the article. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Image accomp. 'Third party add-ons' section

I noticed that the image is reversed, but have no idea how to go about replacing an image. Not only would flipping it horizontally allow the railway sign to be read, but would give a thumbs up to the seeming theme for every shot on the page (sloping downward from left to right). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.224.122.23 (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Simtropolis 1000

I just created my account today and please forgive me if I put this in the wrong section. A group of Simtropolis members are working on an open source version of SimCity 4. They are building it from scratch despite desires to work with the SC4 source code. Should it be mentioned in this article? Should there be an article on Simtropolis 1000 (the name of their project/game)? Should said article wait to be made until ST1000 is finished Azemocram (talk) 05:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Azemocram 10:00pm

The thing to look at is if it is notable. Are any of the people famous, has it got backing of famous people, is it in the mainstream media etc... I am guessing that it isn't yet notable and as such wouldn't be suitable for inclusion.-Localzuk(talk) 16:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if it becomes notable then the game should simply have its own article, with maybe a mention in this article if sourcing clearly presents it as based on SimCity 4. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Update sections of article

I have a suggestion for a few changes: Change "The game simulates urban decay and gentrification with buildings darkening accordingly." to something like "...buildings deteriorating accordingly." The Problems section is almost useless. "SimCity 4 can have a common error during gameplay and an error during startup. The common error happens when the game crashes and closes without a message." This happens on many games, and is relatively pointless. "SimCity 4 can also fatally crash the system in an attempt to start up on Windows Vista showing a BSOD. This problem happens because the kernel of the game is not compatible without the Intel Turbo Memory Driver." This should perhaps be moved to the Bugs section and the Problems section deleted altogether. Evils Dark (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Buildings sentence - checkY Done.
I have deleted the problems section completely as content was unsourced and redundant to the bugs section, which could possibly be re-named if necessary. I have deleted the last paragraph of the bugs section as unsourced with disputable factual accuracy and inappropriate "how to" content. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a crash to desktop bug that involves multi core or hyperthreaded processors, though. The only mention I've seen of this issue is here. The fix I came up with is to set the affinity of the game in to only the first core Task Manager, and I can verify that this makes the game very stable for me now on my 2.5 GHz AMD Phenom Quad Core. Before, I would play from between 30 minutes to 3 hours and the game would suddenly crash to desktop. I currently use WinLauncherXP to launch the game restricted to only the first core and I can play for hours without a single crash to desktop. I wonder if this should be mentioned if only to point to one possibility for people having CTD issues. Nickistre (talk) 18:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Did SimCity 4 win any major awards?

Did the game win any major awards, such as "Game of the Year" or "Best Strategy Game" from a major game reviewer like IGN or GameSpot? If so, please include it in the Reception section, especially since some reviewers gave some very positive reviews to the game. Gary King (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

After a search I have found SimCity 4 was runner-up at IGN PC's Best of E3 2002 Awards [6], winner of IGN January 2003 Editors' Choice award [7], and also a Prestigious Parents' Choice Gold Award winner [8]. I have not found any others yet. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I have added them. Gary King (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Designers

I don't think the Joseph Knight that the Designers link links to is the Joseph Knight who worked on this game. Perhaps the link should be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.117.191 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No probably not given that this person appears to have died 200 years before this game was released, I have removed the link. Thanks for the heads up. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Community Interest in SimCity 4

As a member in Simtropolis, it is worth noting that there has been a large number of community interest that, like NASCAR Racing 2003 Season, it has allowed SimCity 4 to succeed reasonably well beyond its shelf life. Any thoughts? --Marianian (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

SimCity 5

Is there going to be another simcity (e.g. simcity 5) or are there any plans to make a new one please respond if you know 91.104.113.103 (talk) 14:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note this is not a forum for general discussion about SimCity 4, it is supposed to be about improving the article. You would probably get a better answer to your question by going to SimCity 4 fansites such as Simtropolis. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SimCity_4/Archive_1&oldid=1140197156"