Hacker News Reader

Comment by esikich | Hacker News Reader

Literally missing the forest for the trees. You're building a city, not a yard. I don't think making the city look procedurally worn or whatever they mean is trivial either. Feels like complaining about the graphics in Minecraft... That's not the point of the game.

View on HN

Also the visuals can be misunderstood to be communicating something - e.g. the dirty walls - does that mean my city is bad in some way? Is crime increasing or is the wall being stained by pollution?

You can't just make stuff 'look nice' without affecting how the player behaves

If you’re playing a city builder to min/max but want it somewhat grounded in reality then you have to accept it isn’t an Apple Store on every block IMO. If you want perfect symmetry and cleanliness that’s valid too but it’s the default for most games, so I think they make some good points.

No big city is spotless. Anything exposed to the elements will accumulate dirt and stains. This is common sense! A little weathering can actually help players connect with the game, because it makes the city feel believable and lived-in, not artificial.

Did you read what I wrote though? Sure it will immerse you - but the game also relies on visuals to send signals to the player about how their city is doing. If things are weathered and worn is that bad? Will I be able to tell the difference between ‘weathered’ and ‘abandoned’?

> the game also relies on visuals to send signals to the player about how their city is doing

I agree, and that's why a city shouldn't look perfectly spotless. A little weathering here, some extra foliage there, a bit of dirt on the street, etc... These details send exactly the right signal: A real city that feels lived in. Not artificial, not abandoned either, but a lively middleground.

> Will I be able to tell the difference between ‘weathered’ and ‘abandoned’?

Artistic nuance is required to find the right balance, of course. But, imo, abandoned buildings in Cities Skylines already stand out enough, not just because of the icon, but also because they're much darker in color. That leaves enough room to make regular buildings look a little more worn without blurring the distinction.

Part of the author's point is that the way the city "feels" is not just part of the game but, for them and for a subset of other players, a key part of the game. We're talking about how to make a city simulator have more verisimilitude with the cities you are simulating!

But if you miss the trees for the forest it's bad too. I wouldn't want a building to be represented by a box that says (office) even if it made for a better simulation. Nevermind I just remembered how much time I soent playing dwarf fortress.

I had an argument at one point, honest!

A city builder is a lot of different things to a lot of people. Some people want to feel like their creation is “alive,” and varying degrees of wear and tear can achieve that. It makes the city feel lived in. I wouldn’t say it’s my highest priority but I’d say it’s definitely a valid one.

Also, it's very much a matter of taste. I like the pristine look. I have real life if I want to see dingy, worn down buildings and yards. I don't want that in my fantasy city.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com