Life is Strange: Episode 1 Review?

I've heard about the game Life is Strange before but I never got around to playing. Truth be told, I kind of felt that it wasn't the kind of game for me. Don't get me wrong, I actually love story games like this. I really liked Fahrenheit or Indigo Prophecy, despite its godawful ending, back when my PS2 didn't sound like a grinder. I'm still pissed to this day that Heavy Rain isn't on the PC and would have really loved to play Until Dawn. But today, The first episode of Life is Strange was free so I figured, why the hell not or "why the hella not?" as the game would probably put it.

This is just a rambling of my thoughts on it. I don't know if it's correct to call this a review since it's just the first episode. I dunno, maybe it gets really, really good later? I guess the point of making the first episode free is to draw people in so they want to buy the rest.

So the story premise is that you're this young photography student named Maxine Caulfield, who lives in a fictional town in Oregon and has the power to rewind time. You walk around, solve puzzles, grab stuff for people and make decisions which have consequences and shit; butterfly effect or whatnot. Hopefully, you get wrapped up in the characters and drama and you enjoy yourself. To add a bit of tension, you get a premonition about a huge tornado that will destroy the town. I'm guessing your decisions will be important in deciding the fate of everyone who lives there. There's a lighthouse that seems significantThere's also a mystery of a missing person.

So what did I think of it? It was... OK. I didn't hate it but I wasn't blown away by it either. Look, games like these always have what I call a "hook", right? Some games use a horror element, some use a murder mystery element  and so on. Life is Strange has that paranormal element with the time travel thing but it didn't seem to be the draw. After some thinking, I figured it out. Life is Strange's hook is Maxine Caulfield herself or rather, playing as her and exploring her life and relationships with the people around her.

The game is basically about teen/young adult angst, relationships, growing up and that sort of thing. It's a young adult story. To its credit, it looks to be character focused which is a little unusual. Games like these tend to use characters as a means to an end and we usually don't get to delve too deep into them. However, I always preferred  adventure games with a bit more edge to it. I guess that's why I liked Fahrenheit (the first half anyway before things went insane). In Fahrenheit, it starts with you being mind-controlled and killing a man. It was a compelling hook. What I'm saying is that Life is Strange's hook just doesn't work for me. Oh, I can get why people like it, it's just not for me. I'm probably not gonna get the later episodes.

Keep in mind that I could be wrong though. This is only the first episode after all. Maybe the story takes a wild turn later on. This is just the impression it left on me so take it or leave it.

There is no right or wrong here. Some people like horror movies, some people don't. Some people like Chinese food, some don't. Some like Life is Strange, some might not. If what I've described about LIS sounds great to you, give it a try. Girls will probably enjoy this game. Yeah I know that sounds sexist so sue me. 

I do have a few minor complaints. The characters look a little weird sometimes. Is it the lip-sync? Also, the dialogue is... strange. I'm not sure if people actually talk the way the characters do. "Hella"? maybe. It comes off as trying too hard sometimes, like how an out-of-touch adult might imagine how the "kids these days" talk, but it's nothing so outrageous that you can't ignore.

Give it a try. I don't like it that much but it deserves a chance. 

It's hella free anyway.

Please kill me. 





[SPOILER ALERT! TURN AWAY IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE STORY POINTS]

Apparently, I'm kind of an asshole.

Killing Mary Jane

Mary Jane Veloso, if you remember, was a Filipina who was caught smuggling heroin into Indonesia. The punishment for such a crime in Indonesia is death.

"Outrageous!" was the cry of the masses. "Human rights!" Filipinos, many of whom travel overseas, sympathized with her. She was the right character for the story that was to be told for mass consumption. Ah yes, the poor, exploited Filipino overseas worker. We all know that one. Her case made headlines and the government gave this incident more attention than it usually does in matters concerning the Filipinos' well being. Hell, even Manny Pacquiao visited her and gave her some money and a bible or something. Back then, Pnoy wanted a nice feel-good story to give his numbers a little boost. It kind of worked. Her execution was stayed while the rest of the other foreigners who were caught were met their ends.

What's the point of this?

Apparently, society now feels that it is morally acceptable to summarily execute criminals, especially those involved in drug-related crimes. Therefore, it ought to have no problem then with Mary Jane getting the axe. Why not?  Just smoke her ass. Bang! Bang!

Before you cry about how she was duped and how it was someone else who planted the drugs, think on what you're crying about. You're arguing for her innocence, yes? Evidence? Circumstances? Isn't that what people typically do in, hmm what was it called? A trial? Oh yeah. So she gets a trial because she's sympathetic enough to you but the regular filth on our streets don't? In this way, supporting Duterte's plan to kill the bad guys without a trial yet trying to find reasons to keep Mary Jane alive after she's been found guilty in a court, is hypocrisy.

There is the central conceit that lies in the heart of Duterte and his fans' support for extrajudicial killings. The conceit is that the people that are going to be (and are being) killed are all, without exception, irredeemable scumbags who are nothing like the saintly Mary Jane. We know "deep in our hearts" that Mary Jane is innocent just as we all know "deep in our hearts" that the weekly corpse on the street was no doubt guilty as sin. Feelings. Because that's what it all comes down to doesn't it, when you take due process out of the equation? It all comes down to how good the sob story of the wrongdoer is. If Indonesia were to adopt our mentality, Mary Jane would have been shot shortly after the discovery of the drugs and Joko Widodo would have taken a page from Duterte and told us to go fuck ourselves.

Oh but we're only going to kill the really bad guys like drug lords. Uh huh. The Davao Death Squad didn't kill only drug lords. Don't be naive. It's mental programming. "Drug lord" is mentioned a lot so that when we hear about how some alleged criminal got shot, we've already been trained to imagine him as the worst of the worst regardless of the circumstance. It's classical political strategy to paint your intended victim in the worst possible extreme. Imagine the Indonesian media painting a not so flattering picture of Mary Jane as yet another  disrespectful foreigner among many, feigning ignorance  and bringing the drug menace to their country. See? It's all a matter of perspective. Feelings. We feel you're either innocent or guilty.

It may seem I'm against the killing of criminals but it's a little complicated. I'll explain my stance another time.

Just wanted to rant.

The Duterte Code

He caused quite a stir but that's to be expected. Duterte is an extreme personality so naturally, he draws extreme reactions. He's no joke. While it's a given that Mindanao is pretty much in his pocket, the fact that he received a sizable chunk of support in Manila upon filing his candidacy, has the traditional Northern elite a little worried. The thinking is that the boost in support is temporary and as the voters know more about him and Duterte overexposes himself, his support will eventually wane. Hey, whatever helps one sleep at night.

This is gonna be a long post so grab a comfy chair.

I have a theory on why Duterte is enjoying a lot more support than people expected. When the human body is under attack by a virus, it will of course, react by sending antibodies. The Philippines has had years of terrible leadership under PNoy. PNoy is a pantywaist to put it simply. All he does is open his mouth and then promptly put his foot in it. He's incompetent, indecisive, and worst of all, indifferent. Couple all that with the general breakdown of law and order and the demoralizing fact that the Maguindanao massacre trial is still going on, you can see how a man like Duterte could enjoy such widespread support. When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally favor the strong horse. People look at PNoy and all they see is weakness. People see in Duterte a man who can get things done. His rise is but a natural response to the seeming inability of our government to do any goddamn thing. Must I go over the many times our President fiddled while the country burned? How are the Yolanda victims doing? Why don't we ask them what they think?

The rise of Duterte is born mainly from anger and frustration. Filipinos of course, are an unusually emotional lot. The arguments for Duterte tend to appeal to feelings about how horrible it is to be victimized by crime and so on. Filipinos are gullible too by the way. Why don't we go over this whole thing, shall we?

Death Squad

One of the selling points of Duterte is that he's tough on crime. "Tough" is an understatement. If you believe in his personal mythology, Duterte solves crime by simply killing the criminals without a trial. Trials are slow but bullets are indeed faster.

Summary executions, eh? I thought Filipinos hated killings and forced disappearances? Oh, that's right, it's OK when it's the correct people who are killed. We're such a bunch of hypocrites. It's alright to slaughter people only if they're criminals because fuck them, right? Well this whole thing with the death squads relies on two major premises: firstly, that Duterte will only use his powers for good and secondly, criminals and ONLY criminals will be killed. To believe in these is to be hopelessly and dangerously naive.

It's ironic that people who decry the justice system as irredeemably flawed (it has its many flaws to be fair) believes that a single man can be so flawless; flawless enough to entrust to him the power to play god. To say he's playing god is apt since it would take nothing but blind faith to believe that Duterte, a politician like any other, could do what he does perfectly and with nothing but warm and fuzzy intentions. Bullshit. If a man has that much power over life and death, it would be so tempting to simply take out your critics, rivals or anyone really, even if they haven't done anything. Wait, I forgot. Duterte is a god and can do no wrong, right? Right. I guess this is why arguing with his most hardened supporters is like arguing with a religious zealot. It's pointless since their trust in Duterte is based on faith and not reason. Well, Filipinos would know a lot about blind faith so it figures.

What if Duterte, as he gets even older, starts going senile and orders the wrong hits? Will anyone stop him? Suppose he dies, who'll be left with the finger on the trigger? Such are the perils of putting your faith in one man rather than an institution.

As to the second premise that only criminals will be killed, there's really no way of knowing with the whole lack of a trial thing. If a person was killed by Duterte's boys, how do we really know he was a criminal? Because they said so? I guess we'll just have to believe them. This is all pretty much a faith-based exercise at this point. Hey, remember the last time in Philippine history when the police and military were given broad and far reaching powers? What a great time that was! The authorities exercised their powers responsibly and there were absolutely no abuses whatsoever. There were definitely no innocent people illegally detained, killed or whisked away to God knows where in the dead of night. Nope, no sir! It's gonna be even better this time around now that we allow them to kill but ONLY the baddies! You see how juvenile this all sounds? You have to have a mind of a child to think roving death squads is the best solution to our problem.

False Options

It should come to no surprise that I'd rather there be due process. I'm a fan of it actually. I'm a fan of being presumed innocent, is that so wrong?

Supporters of Duterte will probably cry that I've never experienced the pain of being victimized by criminals. I have to admit that if a person murdered someone I loved, I'd probably go into such rage and grief. Being human, I would probably want the ones responsible to be killed.

But this isn't about how one feels. It's about society as a whole. This whole law thing with the due process, bill of rights, trial and hearing, evidence and all that? It exists for a reason. When we are ruled by raw emotion, we make mistakes. We gave government the responsibility of settling conflicts so that civil society doesn't descend into anarchy with people slaughtering each other for wrongs, real or imagined. We have trials and all that to make sure there's no screw ups leading to innocent people suffering needlessly.

The thing with Duterte is that he presents a false choice. Since our judicial system is so bad, we should therefore do away with it completely and resort to summary executions. I'm sorry but can I have a third option? Is this a joke? Is there a middle ground somewhere? How about we fix our system instead of scrapping it entirely? Do you burn your whole house to rid it of rats? Ah, fixing our judicial system is too much work, right? Better to just kill people and let God do the work for once.

Call me crazy but I think we should seriously explore how we can fix our judicial system. Of course, this administration won't do anything since they hate the judiciary. PNoy has had it in for the third branch ever since they struck down his Truth Commission and dared to actually (GASP!) disagree with him! None of the other candidates are saying anything about the justice system. Hence, Duterte is winning on this issue since nobody else is addressing it. The judiciary may be important to us mortals but for the politicians of the other two branches, it's an afterthought.

Filipinos are fond of shortcuts. There's an undeniable appeal to the thought of summary executions. Too little thought however, is given to justice and the best way to attain it. Fixing whats ailing with our system won't happen because it takes actual leadership.

Life is Feudal

I mentioned before than I'd support Duterte since he's into federalism. Yes, I support decentralization but I'd rather not have to bargain away my fucking rights for it.

I always assumed that Duterte was actually an intelligent person with a macho facade to fool the dumb masses. The extrajudicial killings, I thought, might just be due to extraordinary circumstances existing in Davao and existing only in that geographical area. Perhaps he was a cerebral Machiavellian type who does what's necessary. However, when Duterte opened his mouth and bragged about his sex life and cursed the Pope, I guess he's not so smart. Don't get me wrong, I'm not that devout, but how wise is it to essentially call the Pope a son of a whore in a nation that is predominantly Roman Catholic? His bragging about his girlfriends and extramarital adventures are negligible, however. It's tastless sure, but the people of this allegedly Catholic country already elected Erap so yeah. I'm beginning to think he's just a vulgar thug who got lucky nobody killed him before he got too powerful.

Sometimes I wish Duterte would talk about issues other than killing but law and order is his biggest card. Can't blame him for playing it.

My Stand

You might think that I'm against Duterte at this point. To be honest, I don't mind if he wins. I've already accepted the fact that our democracy is a sham no matter who wins, the people will lose.

You might think I'm against the idea of summary executions and I am. I, however, concede that there are people who support it and there's nothing wrong with that. People are free to have their own stupid opinions. Perhaps Duterte's greatest asset is Davao itself. There's no greater argument than success. People can elect Duterte if they want. Such is the magic of democracy. Just be careful not to slip on the blood.

A Duterte presidency might be good if he could seriously implement a policy of decentralization. If he wins, it would be fun seeing Philippine society unmasked for what it truly is. The most interesting thing for me however, is seeing the clash of narratives.

On the one hand, you have the human rights crowd who go on and on about due process and morals and all that crap. On the other hand, you have people who have given in to their cynicism so much that they don't mind people being killed and would vote for a monster. I've always wondered which of these points of view were correct. Idealism versus cynicism; a classic.

Always remember that your vote does not matter, it has already been decided and everything is beyond your control.

MayPac: The Aftermath

So... people waited five years for that?

"Fight of the Century" or the cure for insomnia? People were disappointed to say the least. Manny didn't knock Floyd out as they had wanted. Instead, Floyd evaded Manny's fists and landed accurate counter-punches to rack up points. That's about it. Save for a small cut on Floyd's face, both fighters probably had a comfy sleep later that night and woke up to the aroma of bacon, eggs and freshly printed money.

You know, this whole affair reminds me of DOTA 2. If you're not familiar with DOTA then I'm sorry. The grand finale last 2013 of The International, DOTA 2's biggest event, featured the team of Na'vi versus Alliance. Na'vi was the crowd favorite. They were likable enough but what impressed people were their propensity to pull off the "big plays". They made the game look fun and that's what people loved about them. They're like Manny Pacquiao in certain ways. They were really fun to watch.

During the finale, Na'vi were wiping the floor with Alliance. However, while the entire team of Na'vi were pushing up the lane to the enemy base, Alliance sneakily split-pushed them while they weren't paying attention. Na'vi may have owned in the fighting but the objective of the game is to destroy the enemy's throne. Aliance relied on this particular hero that was really good at pushing lanes solo. When Na'vi realized this and attempted to teleport back to stop it, Alliance cancelled their teleportation with a well placed Dream Coil and Na'vi lost the match.

For all their skill, they seemed to lose sight of the main objective of the game: destroying the throne. That's the final objective. Killing the enemy team is but a step towards the final goal.

So it was with Manny. You have to beat your opponent, not just try to knock him out. A knockout is great but there's more than one way to win. The ideal scenario for him would have been to catch Floyd and unleash a flurry of powerful punches to knock his ass out. Floyd, to his credit, always remembered that Boxing has rules and you can use these rules to your advantage. As much as Filipinos wanted to see a glorious knockout, it all came down to punches thrown and accuracy.

People want an epic fight; the kind of fight you'd tell your children about. In the end, it just kinda boils down to bullshit stuff like that. Na'vi were great but were beaten by some guy who just went for the win while they weren't looking. Manny is exciting to watch but knockouts aren't the only way to win a Boxing match.

Like Alliance, Floyd was smart. Who cares what the crowd thinks, really? The contestants are there to win not to make people happy. In the end, it's only the sport that suffers anyway so why care? Just laugh all the way to Bern and offload that sweet prize money in a Swiss bank account.

That's life basically. We want life to be like the movies; exciting and thrilling but in the end, it's just about boring rules and technicalities.

The Great Storyseller

Floyd Mayweather boasted today about how he was "greater than the greatest". I learned about this since his statement was apparently important enough to make most of the front pages of the national and local newspapers. I used to think the headlines were for things of great importance, not for the "greater than the greatest". I digress. Floyd is referring to Muhammad Ali, a boxer who was known as the "greatest" and many would consider him so. Floyd is, in effect, claiming he is bigger than the boxing Jesus.

Me and my mother were having breakfast one morning. Small talk eventually led to the MayPac bout because of course it would. She didn't follow boxing but told me that she hoped Manny would win. I asked her why she hoped so. She told me that she'd like to see Manny win because that Floyd person was so arrogant.

I was reminded immediately of pro wrestling. In pro wrestling, you have a good guy fight the bad guy. The bad guy would do all sorts of things to get the crowd to hate him. He'd insult the local sports team, denounce America and so on. The logic was that people would pay good money to see the bad guy get his ass kicked by the American hero. It's catharsis. It's nice to see a bad guy get his comeuppance and for good to prevail; the feeling of revulsion, triumph then relief.

Of course, boxing isn't a fixed fight but the principle is the same. It's Floyd's way of drumming up the hype for the fight. By making arrogant, semi-ridiculous boasts, Floyd is not only generating buzz for the media but also getting people to hate him enough to want to pay to hopefully see his ass kicked. Ironically, Muhammad Ali knew this as well. Why do you think Muhammad Ali called himself the "greatest" in the first place? He knew how it worked. He crafted his own cocky persona that would generate the hype and hate. 

We are all salesmen. In our everyday interactions with other people and society at large, we are selling our image. From the way we dress down to the way we walk, we project what we want others to think of us consciously or subconsciously. We are all the heroes of our own storybooks; the leading actors of the movies of our lives and like movie stars, it is necessary to craft an image with wide appeal and fit for mass consumption.

Floyd is probably only acting like an arrogant prick for the reasons I already stated. Even if he is an arrogant person in real life, that's irrelevant. What matters is his persona and the interest it generates. You have to understand Americans. They like a guy with a cocky swagger. The tastes have changed but there is still an appeal to what he does.

You look at Manny and you already know the storyline. It's so obvious. In fact, it seems almost made-to-order for the Philippine market. A man from humble origins... poor and downtrodden Kid Kulafu. He fought his way to the top. He fought for his country... for us. Jeez, that's cheesy but it works. Filipinos eat it up.

But the real reason why Manny is so beloved by the country is that he lived the part. He's the real method actor. Manny did in fact, come from humble origins. The best stories are those with a bit of truth in them, which is why despite Floyd's boastful claims, it's easy for people who pay attention to see through the gimmick.

We are all salesmen. PNoy for example, isn't a very good salesman and is a very lousy actor in the tragicomedic play that is his life. The son of heroes is he! He is honorable and pure. He is light and his enemies are darkness. Anyone against him is corrupt and allied with the forces of evil. I've written before how PNoy is a victim of his own mythology. What happens when the actor does not match the character? The best stories are those with truth in them. PNoy liked to sell this idea that he was righteous solely because he came out of the vagina of a righteous person. But the actor did not play his part very well. He wasn't who he said he was. That's why his approval rating is so low. You can't make a sale when nobody is buying.

Look at Mar Roxas. He's even worse. Mar likes to direct traffic, haul bags of onions and other menial tasks in an attempt to look relatable to the common man. Nobody bought it. He looked ridiculous. Poor actor. Poor salesman.

Can you imagine a man like Jaime Zobel de Ayala manning a counter at McDonalds in order to look relatable to food service personnel? How about Lucio Tan collecting garbage to appear like a good public servant? You can't sell false stories. Not even businessmen tycoons like them are skilled enough to sell themselves like that. It takes a certain cunning and skill to change roles like a chameleon changes color. It's called charisma.

So in the end, here we have Manny vs. Floyd. It's a battle between a humble and pious Filipino boy vs. the smug American coward. People will pay. People want to see how the movie ends since it really is unpredictable. If Manny wins, songs of victory will be sung and the hero vanquishes the villain. If Floyd wins, then a new tale will be spun from whole cloth to suit the needs of whoever. 

What's your story?

City Games: Simulators vs. Builders

Now that the year is almost over, can we all just agree that SimCity (2013) was the worst video game of 2013? What garbage that was. Aside from the "always online" requirement, the bugs and the flawed mechanics, what bugged me the most was that it was the latest official entry into a much beloved franchise. It's a disgrace.

Do Not Buy This Game

The SimCity games are some of my favorites. For a time, it was the only game of its kind; a game that let the player build and run his own virtual city. It was also unique in that it was an educational tool as well and achieved popularity without being a violent game. Other games would have you build small towns and villages in ancient Rome or what have you but no other game came close to the greatness of SimCity and its later versions; SimCity, SimCity 2000, SimCity 3000, Simcity 4 and SimCity 4: Rush Hour.

I'm just a little nostalgic. The last SimCity game I played was SimCity 4: Rush Hour. Ever since then, no other game comes close to it. I tried other city simulators like City Life 2008 or Cities XL but it doesn't quite feel the same.

What I realized was that the other simulators could not capture the same magic because they were not simulators so to speak. Rather, they were city builders not simulators. There's a difference that needs elaboration.

A simulator to me, is one that imitates an actual real life city. The player is free to build the city of his dreams but the player must work within the limitations imposed by the simulator. These limitations are the same as or come close to being the same as the limitations a real city would face. Granted, SimCity had a lot of unrealistic parts like buildings being built instantly but for the most part, it runs in a realistic manner. Simulators are complex with different layers and interconnecting systems that provide constant challenges to the player.

A builder on the other hand is straightforward. The player builds the city of his dreams directly. There may be limitations imposed on the player but these limitations are either based on the games own internal mechanics and not based on the limitations of real life cities or are simple and don't have any connection with other mechanics. 

But enough pretentious babble. Let me give you an example.

In SimCity 4, I want to build a city. Any fool can create a basic city but I want a city with some "personality". What I want is my own little suburbia; a bedroom community filled with middle class citizens with their pretty townhouses and freshly-mowed lawns. However, there are challenges. By default, the game produces low income citizens with their trailer parks and ugly pink flamingo  lawn ornaments. To get middle class citizens, I need to attract blue collar industries and a bit of commercial office space too. But in order to get those, I need educated citizens and a stable water supply. Building a water pump is simple enough but to get educated citizens, I need to build a grade school, wait a few years for it to take effect, then build a high school and so on.

An Example Made by Some Other Hardcore Fan

Aside from the goal of building the saccharine, all-white American suburb of my dreams, there's the ever-present problem of electricity, garbage disposal and traffic. There's also the matter or healthcare facilities, police stations and fire departments. Recreational facilities are also important to make the city more attractive to the target class. All of these are demanded by the middle class and are therefore a requirement.. All of these cost money upfront and then must be funded regularly. You must tax the people but if you raise taxes too much, demand for housing will plummet as fewer people will be keen to move into a city with high tax rates. Oh, and they also cannot stand pollution so you need to build the factories far away, perhaps in another city and then THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY.

See the limitations one must work with? Notice that the limitations more or less, reflect problems real cities face and also reflect principles of urban planning like the proper placement of industries and traffic networks. You can build what you want sure, and the peaceful suburb of Bonnie Dell is achievable but the steps you need to take require a lot of planning and micromanagement.

Now then, it pains me to do this but to give you an example of a city "builder", let's use the game, SimCity Societies. I did not include SimCity Societies in the main list of SimCity games for a reason. It is the black sheep of the SimCity family. It was a terrible disappointment. Woe to the man who mentions this game in a SimCity forum.

Anyway, In SimCity Societies, I want to build a farming town. Oh no, problem since the game already provides "farming town" buildings for me to simply drop and place. Same thing with suburbia. There are "suburb" type buildings I can simply drop and place right away. There are prepackaged themes like "industrial", "spooky(?)" and even "authoritarian". It goes without saying but this isn't how real cities operate. No mayor tells his underlings to "give it a Halloween theme" then roll with it.

Drag and Drop Suburbs

There are limitations in Societies but nowhere near as complex as the ones in SimCity 4. You just place a house building then a job building and watch as it produces a set amount of money without consideration of income class. Costs are also set and you can't micromanage funding and service range as much as you could in 4. Traffic is easy to manage. Electricity is easy to manage. It's just too simple.

You know what? I don't think badly of Societies. Both simulators and builders have the same core goal which is to let the player CREATE the city of his dreams but both differ on the "hows". Societies should have just dropped the SimCity from its title. It doesn't simulate anything. It doesn't imitate how a city is run from a real life standpoint. It's just a toy really and I guess the reason why it just didn't click was because it was too easy and didn't offer the "simulation" aspect that longtime fans enjoyed.

It depends on the kind of player you are. If you just want to create the perfect city right away then a builder would suit you. However, if you're the type of player that wants a simulation of running a city and then working with that to create the perfect city, you should give the old SimCity games a try. SimCity 4: Rush Hour is pretty awesome though other SimCity diehards may swear on 2000 as the best. 

All of them are great anyway (except Societies and SimCity 2013).