Talk:Cities XL

Game Development

I regularily check Cities XL . com , so , there is some stuff that should be updated it. I would put it under game discussions. Should I do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.34.90.227 (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The creation of a replica of New York City [1] might be wikiworthy. I'll let others make the call here. 66.193.18.4 (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Gallery=NPOV?

Somebody want to explain how that works? That thing wasn't being used to make any kind of point or counter-argument, but rather, an excuse to show off screenshots. -Biokinetica (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where you got the NPOV idea. I support having at least one screenshot in the article, but don't care about a gallery with multiple images. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Since when was showing screenshots of the game advertising? That is a point of counter argument because that is the relevant policy; advertising is writing an article in a non-neutral point of view, and images can contribute to giving an article a neutral point of view so it has everything to do with it. If it is the case that showing screenshots is advertising and that many people writing games articles are using the opportunity as "an excuse to show off screenshots" then we have a very severe problem with advertising on Wikipedia. Numerous articles have a lot of screenshots including SimCity 4, Spore, and even featured articles such as Half Life 2. What is probably more likley is that illustrating an article is actually perfectly acceptable, and that those that write game articles are actually acting in good faith and not "showing off".

If the gallery had loads of images with captions saying how wonderful the game was I would agree there may be an advertising issue (along with a copyright one), however that is not the case here. The gallery had three images, two giving a simple illustration of the game and the old Cities Unlimited logo, all with neutral captions. I would be happy with getting rid of old logo as it does add much to the article, but two illustrations are perfectly fine in giving readers a feel for the game to add to the text; as the article gets longer these can be integrated into the article as done for featured games articles and the gallery got rid off. Advertising on Wikipedia is bad but there is such thing as taking the concept to far - and I think this is it. On the same grounds you could also argue the text is also advertising and that the entire article should be deleted. I am restoring the images unless a more detailed explanation on how these images do not follow policy is given; as currently I cannot see one, and neither does Ynhockey by the look of it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the removed images off the fair use orphaned deletion countdown until this is resolved, as can be done if their is a reason to keep them, which there is at present per above. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have re-added one of the screenshots. For now, I think it's enough. The other screenshot does not illustrate anything different, although the artcile could potentially have more screenshots - as long as each illustrates something unique which is important for understand the text (which, for now, is very short), per non-free use criteria. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added another image showing the world view part of the game-play in Cities XL, it is completely different from the other image, and it is definitely not advertising. After that I think there is enough images for now. Camaron | Chris (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Release Data

Is there a refence to the new release data in the info bar? The original release data has not been changed in intro section. Is there anyway to confirm either one? 24.114.255.83 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

According to the FAQ on the official website[2], the release date is first quarter, any more info on this? DocVM (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

GameFaqs says Q2 for a US release, and has no information of an EU release. Judging by the information revealed on the official site so far, I'd say that Q2 sounds about right. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Q1 is official, Q2 is on GameFaqs, there are some speculations about September and the end of 2009 - but the fact is, we don't know. So I edited release date to '2009 (unknown date)'. Should be updated after new OFFICIAL announcement from Monte Cristo. Peter.Hozak (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am generally satisfied the article presently fairly reflects the current situation until Monte Cristo give an update. Camaron | Chris (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

GEM

Is it already confirmed that the GEMs will require one-off payment to be played in the MMO mode? -- 10:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes they will, the devs have said so many times. Warll (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok so now this statment can be cited since there is now a promo image on the main site about discounts to planet offer payers Warll (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Updating this page

If no one objects, I will add new information from the Cities XL site to update this article. Of course it would not be possible for me to break their Non-Disclosure Agreement because I am not in the Beta and therefore I have nothing to disclose thus I was not given the NDA to sign. Azemocram (talk) 07:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes sure, go ahead, just make sure you source your new informtation per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Camaron · Christopher · talk 08:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Broken links

Unfortunately Monte Cristo have re-worked the Cities XL website breaking a lot of the references in this article. I will try and fix these later. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Monte Cristo have also removed a lot of content from the game in relation to what was announced one year ago. For example it was just confirmed that mass transit will not be included in the single player mode (with the exception of buses) and no mass transit will be included in the game at all at launch. It will be a later add-on instead. The same goes for the Game Extension Modules. There will be none of them released together with the game. --05:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.196.72 (talk)

Mass Transit will be in single player. But the player must pay extra for it (exept busses). But if they instead pay the fee for the Planet Offer (Multiplayer) they get it for free. I also think its the same for the GEMs. Just to be clear. --Christoffre (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually GEMs will cost extra over and above the planet offer: http://citiesxlsimple.com/Cities-XL-News/gems-will-be-sold-separately-with-discount-planet-offer-pricing-confirmed.html If the trains and hte like is going to be sold as a GEM then it will cost more, I actually have not seen anything writen by monte cristo aobut mass transit though, only the short mention in the image found in my link Warll (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh and I should also mention that I don't think the cities XL site even has any of the broken links anymore, they seem to have no problem with breaking links and removing content. Warll (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not particularly impressed by the make over to the Cities XL website given there now seems to be less information on it than there was. I'm probably going to have to use other website to replace all the broken links. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

I am getting a little concerned over the reliability of sources being added to the article. Under the linked guideline Information in Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and articles should be based primarily on independent secondary sources. The sources used in this article are:

• Monte Cristo - From the official site so almost certainly reliable, though it is a primary source so it should not be relied upon too much.
• Philippe Da Silva - Use of the blog for historical purposes, and he is a game developer, so probably okay.
• Simtropolis - A fansite whose article was deleted at AfD under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simtropolis (3rd nomination) for lack of reliable sources to pass WP:N, so hence seems unlikely to pass the requirement of having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. However the site seems to have a special deal with Monte Cristo e.g. is doing pre-ordering and statements direct from Monte Cristo staff which appear on the website perhaps could be considered reliable even if the wider site isn't.
• Cities XL, Simple - Seems to be an enhanced blog of an individial, I am far from convinced that this is reliable.
• Gamesindustry.biz - Reliable per WP:VG/S.
• IGN - Reliable per WP:VG/S.
• GamingShogun - Listed at WP:VG/S but currently reliability has not been decided, could be reliable.
• MMOHUB - Listed at WP:VG/S as non-reliable, not extensively discussed so still open to debate.
• SIMphoni - Not sure, seems to be a fansite, which are usually non-reliable.

Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm the author of Cities XL simple and you are correct in that it is really just my blog or at most a fansite so yes it is not suited as a citation. Should you find a better source then by all means cite it. It might be a bit hard to find other sources though, what with MC's destroying their blog posts and forums. Warll (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the article should stabilise after the game is released, once that has happened more attention will probably be given to sourcing. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fansites aren't considered reliable, but what about when they were given exclusive interviews, as was the case with both Simphoni and Simtropolis? Both sites have relationships with Monte Cristo's staff (and Simphoni was the first major city-gaming site to do so). Both sites had staff members invited to Monte Cristo's offices in Paris to preview the game several months before release. Both were involved in beta-test giveaways as a direct result of their staff's relationship with Monte Cristo's staff. Etc. 75.135.193.122 (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to allow the Simtropolis and SIMphoni articles sources through for the time being with the direct link with Monte Cristo, though I would be surprised if the article would get Good article or Featured article status with them in, and non-Monte Cristo staff forum posts would never be acceptable as reliable sources. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up planned

I am concerned this article is not heading in the right direction, similar to the way the SimCity Societies article did around the time the game is released. That article seemed to became a venting place for fans of the game with it being highly unbalanced with a detailed controversy section. History appears to be repeating itself again here, with yet another appearance of a controversy section based on individial incidents from fan sites. Controversy/criticism sections are not banned but they are inherently non-neutral and can easily unbalance the article, and in games articles such a section is easily replaced by a reception section. Details of individial incidents from fan sites should not be mentioned unless they are reported by reliable sources. While I am not accusing fans of lying, it is very bad idea for Wikipedia to take at face value posts on forums which could be from just about anyone. I am planning to give this article a non-merciful clean-up shortly to deal with source reliablity, neutrality, and other issues. I am also planning to add an edit notice to alert new users to what should be in the article, and what shouldn't. Camaron · Christopher · talk 11:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I have given the article a clean-up. The article is shorter than it was but a less detailed well written article is better than a long badly written one. I have removed sources which are obviously not reliable and content reliant on it such as Cities XL, Simple (per above) and forum posts. I have left the SIMphoni and Simtropolis article sources for the moment although these are still questionable. I have removed the controversy section entirely, I am sure it was created in good faith, but as I have said above such section are not a sign of a well written article, and it was based mostly on either unsourced content or non-reliable sources, so had to go in its present state. I have also created an editnotice to give some information to future editors at Template:Editnotices/Page/Cities XL which will appear when users try and edit the article. It is based on other edit notices such as Template:Editnotices/Page/Eurovision Song Contest 2010. For security reasons edit notices can only be edited by admins, if anyone has any suggested changes, please make them on this talk page. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The article as currently written does not reflect a neutral, unbiased point of view. Wikipedia is meant to present a neutral, balanced point of view that reflects the point of views of varying parties, but the article currently only reflects the official marketing position of Monte Cristo in regards to Cities XL. That is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia as this is not meant to be a marketing website. Instead of deleting the information outright, it could have been merged into the article in a more neutral fashion. Therefore, I am adding back the information that was deleted regarding the deletion of the forums, as this is an indisputable fact and not a "biased opinion". You can verify that the forums existed by using the Wayback Machine (http://web.archive.org/web/20080421035323/www.citiesxl.com/index.php?/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,6/task,listcat/catid,1/lang,en/). The developers themselves have also posted information regarding this under their Monte Cristo usernames on Simtropolis.com. I have decided to add the information under "History". I agree that the info about the poor customer service and the long distance phone number doesn't have to be part of the main article as it cannot be currently substantiated.206.108.167.101 (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this passage is that unpublished webforum isn't considered as reliable source (see WP:reliable source#Statements of opinion.) So the user report in Simtropolis is unrealible to WP's standard. WP actually prefers published source by popular/official media over "personal/minority fact." However, Wikipedia does accept citing google cached official materials as reliable citation (WP:citing sources#Repairing dead links). -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The main problem with this content as I have already said is that violates the reliable sources guideline and such sections slant the article in a particular direction. Sourcing the posts from Monte Cristo may be acceptable, but even that is debatable. User testimony from a regular user on a forum is definitely not a reliable source. Putting together internet evidence to reach a conclusion is also not appropriate as it is original research - only material specifically stated in a reliable source should be in the article. The WP:NPOV policy clearly states: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources [underline added]." So most of the criticism section has no protection under this policy. The current wording of the history section needs some re-wording, words like "erased... ...two years of community input and discussions" seems to be trying to express a particular view point, and as stated is not based on reliable sources. I will leave it for now but content which does not follow policy and guidelines will be deleted. Camaron · Christopher · talk 09:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that the criticism part is not reliable. Anyone can write anything in forum therefore it is undoubtedly no a source as stated by someone else. Someone should delete it to comply with wikipedia's rules. 10:09, 9 October 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.57.85.149 (talk)

I have gone ahead and removed the criticism section again as it was bringing down the quality of the article, and was re-created inappropriately without explanation. Pretty much everything in there was based on non-reliable sources or unsourced completely, and any content worth keeping around is now in the history section, plus having a section dedicated to criticism is rarely a good idea in games articles. I have left the second paragraph of the history section, the claim of removing the forum and blogs is not attributed to a reliable source though there may be a case for keeping it as non-challenged information per WP:V, though the wording should be neutral, an issue I hope I have dealt with. The Monte Cristo statement is sourced direct to Monte Cristo (a reliable source) so while on a forum, may be acceptable. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

There have been repeated attempts in what appears to be an organised action to re-insert a controversy section. First off these attempts seem to be based on copying an older revision of the article text, rather than the underlying wikicode, resulting in broken references and no links. I have removed it again given the lack of explanation for re-insertion either here or in edit summaries, the lack of support for such content here, and as explained above the fact the section breaks a listable number of policies, guidelines, and general editing advice. Given that it is becoming disruptive, if this continues I will be considering further action including possibly requesting page semi-protection (I could do that myself but I am involved). Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have done a bit of research and it appears the section has been the subject of attention at Simtropolis, and also appears to being restored by someone from that fansite using a copy and paste of the version posted on that forum (hence the broken references). The section has also been cited in an Amazon user review under "Simcity societies all over again, a real letdown.,". No wonder perhaps that it keeps being restored. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Reception section

I have tried to create a reception section, though the reviews don't appear to be out yet according to MetaCritic [3] and GameRankings [4], which such sections are usually based on. Once the reviews are out and a score exists a balanced reception section should be created. Camaron · Christopher · talk 16:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I always get a little worried when a game's been out for 24 hours and there are no online reviews yet... I reckon a panning is coming! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.210.84 (talk) 10:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reviews are beginning to drip through now, so far they are mostly positive. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Early Bug

Correct me if im wrong but isnt the bug in the Early-Bug-section fixed? I know that there was one but I didnt notice it at the end of the Beta.--Christoffre (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed this section entirely as no sources have been provided and it doesn't seem likely any will be added, and its accuracy is in question. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah leave it out, there were a ton of bugs some of them really bad. it would be silly to add them all. Yes that bug did exist, but it was not the worst. one bug even replaced your entire city with an open field like map if the city got big enough, say >11M. 174.0.171.197 (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Cities XL: 2011?

I've noticed things about a new deluxe version of the game, and rumors are that it comes out in march. The rumor can be tossed aside for now, it is oficcial that it exists. I suggest either adding it to cities xl page or making a a child page to the Cities xl page. Stuart 75.169.115.128 (talk) 04:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

A Google search does not bring-up very much on Cities XL: 2011, with most hits on it from articles declaring the end of the MMO service. Since reliable sources seem to confirm plans for it, it could be mentioned somewhere in this article, however more solid material will need to be available before a new article can be justified. Camaron · Christopher · talk 12:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

The Cities XL website has been relaunched yet again, resulting in a lot of dead links that will need to be fixed. The Internet Archive does not appear to have worked in this instance annoyingly. It would be good to avoid removing content just because its source has gone dead, so I will look into replacing the dead links. CT Cooper · talk 11:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

All dead links have now been replaced. The main area which now needs attention is the reception section, along with developments on Cities XL 2011. CT Cooper · talk 18:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

'Acquired the License'?

Erhm, I'm not too sure what falls under the purview of 'Original Research' exactly, but I noticed mention of 'Focus Home Interactive' acquiring the license to Cities XL. There's one problem with this: as the game's publisher, Focus already had the license to the game to begin with. Essentially, the idea that Focus 'acquired' the license seems to be little more than spin intended to suggest that Focus wasn't involved with Cities XL (and part holder of the License) in the first place.

While commenting on that specifically isn't exactly encyclopaedic, would it be out of place to note in the article that Focus Home Interactive was in fact involved with the game from the start and did, thusly, not acquire the license only recently as their press release makes it appear? Robrecht (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the late reply. According to the present article, it was both developed and published by Monte Cristo originally. I have the box of the original game and it has no mention of Focus Home Interactive. For all sources I have seen, Focus Home Interactive only became involved for Cites XL 2011. CT Cooper · talk 20:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Advertising within Cities XL

Hello. This is AzemOcram the primary contributor to the Wikia wiki (Wikia is some sort of sister company to Wikimedia or something like that, both are ran by that J Wells character). I was wondering whether I should mention the fact that Monte Cristo partnered with a lot companies to make revenue from the presence of certain buildings (Novotel, TransAm Pyramid, Tokyo Tower, Empire State Building, commercial and residential buildings designed by 2 architectural firms, etc) and advertising (Novotel, Ford, Mini, itself; Cities Unlimited had Coca-Cola advertisements but Coke dropped Monte Cristo). Is this a good idea? There is a lot of information that should be only on citiesxl.wikia.com and not en.wikipedia.org but a small section or a sentence might be good. This information was available at Monte Cristo's website and both the Cities Unlimited and Cities XL sites (both down now). I have not checked the Cities XL 2011 site for advertising partners but I know that the articles and blog posts are not officially hosted by Focus. -- Azemocram (talk) 04:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It could be briefly mentioned, though some links to reliable sources, which would probably not include Wikia itself would be preferred for more detailed coverage in the article. Content on Wikia is generally licenced on the same licence as Wikipedia, so content from there can be copied here and vice versa if appropriate, as long as appropriate attribution is given in the edit summary. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cities XL. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080807160200/http://www.simphoni.net/2007/09/cities-unlimited-even-more-revealed/ to http://www.simphoni.net/2007/09/cities-unlimited-even-more-revealed/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)