My only criticism of Skylines is that it’s not a game, it’s just an art board for painting cities that move. There aren’t enough meaningful challenges to building your city, the reward for playing comes from making something aesthetically appealing.
More like "The reward comes from playing with your own objectives and succeeding at them" which is one of the hallmarks of sandbox games, not just Cities: Skylines in particular.
I've played Cities: Skylines quite a bit, the genre is my favorite one. While I agree the game doesn't force you into completing arbitrary objectives, I've found it quite challenging myself, but that's also because I setup my own objectives to be challenging.
bish bash bosh sips tea hugo there, and hugo there
There's NOTHING wrong with that!! Traffic simulation is incredibly hard, and its very fun to resolve that issue (or "attempt" to resolve the issue). To truly solve traffic problems requires you to understand how and why all the cars are moving the way they do.
The main issue IMO with City Skylines, is that once you "solve" the traffic problem (which is almost always a combination of Highway -> 3-way Artery road with few intersections -> "cul-de-sac" style distribution of cars to their final endpoints + a few mass-transit options), there's nothing else to the game. All problems start, and end, with traffic management.
As such, if you're already a "traffic expert" (due to playing games like Factorio or OpenTTD beforehand), you can quickly build an optimal City Skylines setup and then have not much else to do.
SimCity was truly a game with multiple dimensions. Skylines is mostly a traffic simulatior (a good one, but still... "just" a traffic simulator).
You can definitely get to an optimal state then stop, but you can also keep growing. As the city grows, it requires refactoring roads and public transit to keep things going.
I recently got the Industries add-on, and found that also adds an interesting dimension: as you add factories, they require more of certain types of raw materials and I find myself wishing I had made the farming zone bigger, for example, debating if I should raze this nearby 5-star neighborhood, reroute a well-flowing multi-lane highway, or start a second zone somewhere else.
I kind of like I can get it to an equilibrium and stop, while not feeling like I'm leaving it unfinished. I tend to play for a couple weeks then take a break for a few months.
In real life, could a city do this (outside of forcing people out of their homes with military power)? Are there checks and limits on how much eminent domain can do in terms of claiming already-owned land?
Once the vast majority of your neighborhood signs on, you don't really have much choice. You can hold out for a better offer, but you might also have them literally just build around you [1].
[1] https://www.boredpanda.com/stubborn-home-owners-refuse-to-se...
I keep hearing this, but what other dimensions does it have?
I remember playing SimCity in highschool and can't really remember anything it has that City Skylines does not. That is likely due to multi-decade-old memories and not that it actually lacks those dimensions.
1. SimCity2000 has much higher relative costs for infrastructure. Roads, Police, Firefighters, etc. etc. cost lots of recurring money, to the point where a typical player even on $20,000 "Easy" mode will probably fail the first few times they play. I've never run out of money on City Skylines, literally never. But even with all my experience on SimCity 2000, I can "fail to bootstrap" on medium ($10,000) or hard (Bonds/Debt) mode. (Especially if an unlucky early game fire disaster happens). In contrast, the recurring costs in Skylines is so puny that I forget about that aspect entirely.
2. Disasters in Sim City 2000 force you to rebuild occasionally. Or at least, carefully consider the placement of your items. (Ex: low-lands may flood, getting destroyed. Airplanes may crash, causing fires near airports). Despite being a pain in the ass, the chaos of disasters grossly changes the feel.
------------
Ultimately, Skylines has more similarities to Rollercoaster Tycoon and/or Tropico than SimCity. Skylines simulates every individual sim (with HEAVY emphasis on traffic). The emergent behavior of each individual sim following simple rules is a particular style of gameplay.
However, SimCity was more of a abstract economic simulator, where larger decisions had more pronounced effects. Opening commercial roads to neighbors would create trade between cities. Airports and/or seaports need to be managed with your neighbors. This style of gameplay: a "big picture" city simulator, ultimately plays extremely differently than City Skylines.
In City Skylines: building an airport or seaport causes a traffic spike that you need to manage. In SimCity, building an airport or seaport causes an increase in commercial demand and/or industrial demand. Its just fundamentally different.
--------
Really: its just that one thing: Skylines's infrastructure costs are laughably low. There's no worry about ever running out of money... no matter what you build, you're always flush with cash.
In SimCity, you'd worry whether or not you've saved up enough cash to bootstrap a new section of your city. In Skylines, you just build it, and if it doesn't work (unforeseen traffic issues or whatnot), delete it and build it again.
As much as I like Cities Skylines, it kind of assumes that everyone can aspire to live in a nice high rise condo with solar panels on the roof.