User Score
4.0

Generally unfavorable reviews- based on 129 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 129
  2. Negative: 80 out of 129

Review this game

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. sth
    Oct 15, 2009
    4
    Very little transit options, has a lot of bugs. The company forces you to pay their dollar per month fee to use such basic features as mass transit, etc. The cities built online cannot be accessed without an internet connection and active Planet Offer account, neither can the features you paid for. I short, you pay for, let's say, busses. But you are not allowed to keep them! You can Very little transit options, has a lot of bugs. The company forces you to pay their dollar per month fee to use such basic features as mass transit, etc. The cities built online cannot be accessed without an internet connection and active Planet Offer account, neither can the features you paid for. I short, you pay for, let's say, busses. But you are not allowed to keep them! You can only use them as long as you pay the monthly fee. The economic system is flawed, city services unrealistically expensive. Entertainment too expensive and not offset by patronage (like, say, in Tropico, where you can profit from your entertainment venues). Lots come in only two sizes, making your zones look more like something that came from the Borg than a human designer. Graphics are awesome, though riddled with bugs. I enjoy laying out the roads, though you cannot adjust the height and width of them as promised. Roads can curve, though the practice is rendered moot by the strictly rectangular lot shapes. To sum it up...they made much the same errors as Societies - focusing too much on "realistic water" and adding features no one really asked for or wanted. Focus needs to be on city design elements. Period. Expand
  2. subacoustic
    Oct 19, 2009
    3
    This game disgusts me. They sell some incomplete title with about 6 different building types for each zone. They sell you a shell of a game for full price, then expect you to pay monthly for a multiplayer feature. Then when they decide to let you have 8 different building types, there will be another charge. Game lacks any kind of mass transit, so your city ends up looking like a mentally This game disgusts me. They sell some incomplete title with about 6 different building types for each zone. They sell you a shell of a game for full price, then expect you to pay monthly for a multiplayer feature. Then when they decide to let you have 8 different building types, there will be another charge. Game lacks any kind of mass transit, so your city ends up looking like a mentally challenged spider's web. The game lacks any depth. If you have a large city, it looks horrible because the same building will be in your skyline about 15 times. There is no rhyme or reason to how people move in.. You just build homes, then build jobs, or vise versa. Only one thing stops them from moving in, and its the other. Overall, its a paper-thin experience for the money. I paid full price for a game, I expect a full game. Its a shame what game companies are doing with this greedy micro-purchase format these days. If you want a shell of a game with minimal content that you'll breeze through in 15 minutes. By all means go for it. $49.99 for this is a crime. Expand
  3. DaveK
    Oct 18, 2009
    1
    It looks pretty, sorta. I wouldn't know about the advanced features of the game, since it hard-locks my computer after about 10 minutes worth of play. And I got duped into buying the "Limited Edition". As mentioned before - this is really only half a game, even when you include the price-gouging online component (the features conveniently not mentioned prior to purchase). There is a It looks pretty, sorta. I wouldn't know about the advanced features of the game, since it hard-locks my computer after about 10 minutes worth of play. And I got duped into buying the "Limited Edition". As mentioned before - this is really only half a game, even when you include the price-gouging online component (the features conveniently not mentioned prior to purchase). There is a distinctly French/European flavor to the game which I'm also not really enjoying - you can tell this is an "ESL" game. The English translations are... off. They aren't quite right. You click "Connection" not "Connect" to connect to the server. It makes the Windows error sound when the connection _works_. Everything's just... not quite right. At the time I bought it, it's Meta-Score was high - like 85. Now I see it tumble, and can only add my little push to send it off the cliff. Don't buy game, seriously. Expand
  4. GabeFaye
    Oct 10, 2009
    10
    An awesome citybuilder that, im sure, ill play for years. Its less complicated than SC4, while still being a challenge as opposed to plop-games like City Life. The MMO part is cool and adds a new feeling to the overall game experience, while not having too big of an impact. The only real downside is the monthly fee, but me and my friends are more than willing to pay the 7 bucks a month.
  5. AaronS
    Nov 2, 2009
    4
    Graphics fairly nice, though items seem a bit place without SC4-like props. Only a few tile sizes, all square and mostly 2x2ish. NO ambient sound at all, just UI/music. Can't find any GEMs. UI seems a bit clumsy compared to SC4/SC3. Seems fairly unfinished :/
  6. CasualGamergal
    Oct 18, 2009
    6
    I was looking forward to the ultimate 3D version of SC4. I agree with everything Akiba said. My pet peeves are 1. LACK OF CUSTOM CONTENT (having some customisability could keep us distracted until they finish the rest of the game) 2. WHERE IS THE RAIL NETWORK???? Trains are the basic of any starter city. Hello???? This is supposed to be a CITY BUILDING game??? This game has potential. But I was looking forward to the ultimate 3D version of SC4. I agree with everything Akiba said. My pet peeves are 1. LACK OF CUSTOM CONTENT (having some customisability could keep us distracted until they finish the rest of the game) 2. WHERE IS THE RAIL NETWORK???? Trains are the basic of any starter city. Hello???? This is supposed to be a CITY BUILDING game??? This game has potential. But first - GIVE US THE TRAINS AND LEVEL OUT THE SINGLE PLAYER OR MMO PLAYER. Single play should not be dumbed down. Monte Cristo needs to seduce people into PO with EXTRA CARROTS, not punishing original SOLO user base with starvation STICKS. Passive aggression doesn't go down well with a niche market. Have long view Monte Cristo. I honestly want you to survive so that I get to play a REAL SC4 replacement! Expand
  7. WernerA.
    Jan 27, 2010
    2
    I should have seen warning bells when the trial refused to run on my PC, but decided that my lust for a city builder game was bad enough to take the gamble and bought the game. Suffice to say I've had more fun out of most basic cellphone games than out of this abortion. The planet offer was a joke. I was expecting MUCH more after their previous titles.
  8. Sep 26, 2010
    9
    Awsome, fresh, brand new gameplay compared to SC. The only thing that disappointed me was the fact that we could not build train station or bus station either. Eventually Id say that Cities XL is one of the best city builder game ive played !
  9. Oct 24, 2014
    0
    Jogo ruim de mais não quero nem de graça ainda bem que não comprei ele alem de ser pessado e mal optimizado e blablablablablablablablablablablablablablabla
  10. SamsonH
    Oct 11, 2009
    5
    CitiesXL is yet another unfinished product rushed into the market. Although pretentious, it is not even worthy of beta development status. The UI is awful. It freezes and crashes into main menu way too often. The multi-player mode is slow and the website is not complete.
  11. JoshA
    Oct 15, 2009
    0
    What a disgusting grab for money this game is. It's not even that good of a game. If people actually fall for this business model, the face of gaming could change as we know it...people being charged monthly to play an offline game. Disgusting.
  12. KhimL.
    Oct 10, 2009
    4
    If you though this game would build on Simcity 4 + Rush Hour, as the general gaming population expects since it had been half a decade, you've gotten it all wrong.! it's more of a sequel to Monte Cristo's failed City Life franchise, but now features roads with more curvature capabilities, but retains poor alignment and fittings for hilly scenarios. Cities XL is suppose to If you though this game would build on Simcity 4 + Rush Hour, as the general gaming population expects since it had been half a decade, you've gotten it all wrong.! it's more of a sequel to Monte Cristo's failed City Life franchise, but now features roads with more curvature capabilities, but retains poor alignment and fittings for hilly scenarios. Cities XL is suppose to be a casual laid back game but micro management is still present, as you need to consider various categories of the population (unskilled, elites...) rather than just wealth levels (3 levels for simcity4). It also requires trading of resources which contradicts the companies aim to casualize the genre. The company also hopes player investment would complete core features in the game by requiring the player to purchase monthly subscriptions for buses, trains and subway features which would be released when complete. As for custom content, the reason how simcity 4 is still relevant in 2009, it is required of the content producer to pass it for Monte Cristo to review and distribute on their paid monthly plan. Graphics is good, however there is no scaffolding for buildings under construction. They pop out of the earth like a crayon being poked through a paper towel. Sounds are limited to UI and background music. There is no city sounds, meaning no aural indication of any life on your city. Over all, this is an unfinished product which completely fails to address the want of the simcity crowd as well as alienate casual gamers with it's odd design decisions. There's always been a debate whether or not a city building game can be of mass appeal. I believe with a intuitive interface together with opt-in automation, it can be. Monte Cristo's approach just straddles the fence, and thus failed to appeal to any informed crowd. Expand
  13. Lac3dHit
    Oct 18, 2009
    3
    I've been waiting forever it seems like for a good city builder to replace SC4 to come along, but it still hasn't. I put a lot of hours into the game before my trial planet offer expired, but in the end I would not purchase the subscription. This game lacks challenge and depth. I spent most my time getting rid of traffic jams, thats the most of your micro managing you will ever I've been waiting forever it seems like for a good city builder to replace SC4 to come along, but it still hasn't. I put a lot of hours into the game before my trial planet offer expired, but in the end I would not purchase the subscription. This game lacks challenge and depth. I spent most my time getting rid of traffic jams, thats the most of your micro managing you will ever use. Not a good simulator or MMO imo. Expand
  14. RachelM
    Oct 26, 2009
    3
    What a disappointment! Monte Cristo promised us a new SimCity game and we got was a horribly put together mashup of SimCity: Societies and Hellgate: London. Trying to cash in on the popularity of MMOs, Monte Cristo is trying to take the city-building genre online but nobody who enjoys city-builders cares about playing online. The single player game is purposely made annoying to get you to What a disappointment! Monte Cristo promised us a new SimCity game and we got was a horribly put together mashup of SimCity: Societies and Hellgate: London. Trying to cash in on the popularity of MMOs, Monte Cristo is trying to take the city-building genre online but nobody who enjoys city-builders cares about playing online. The single player game is purposely made annoying to get you to subscribe to the online portion of the game with a monthly fee. Basics like mass transit systems aren't even in the game and when they are added they will only be available to subscribers. The only good thing I can say is that the graphics are nice but everything else is crap. Expand
  15. CityBuildfanfan
    Oct 31, 2009
    0
    Hmmm, even if you shelled out 50 odd dollars for this game, you're still shafted. There is no full transportation system, utilities (like energy, water treatment), terraforming, way too damn simple, unintuitive GUI, and on and on. SC4 is much more superior in every way (with the exception of graphics). And yet, Monte Cristo hits you with ingame ads/sale pitches to make you go and get Hmmm, even if you shelled out 50 odd dollars for this game, you're still shafted. There is no full transportation system, utilities (like energy, water treatment), terraforming, way too damn simple, unintuitive GUI, and on and on. SC4 is much more superior in every way (with the exception of graphics). And yet, Monte Cristo hits you with ingame ads/sale pitches to make you go and get a subcription service to gain access to more content that should have been in the game in the first bloody place. To top in all off, it's buggy. They had more than a freaking year to develop the game. It is a rushed pre-beta in my eyes. It's a crap game. Don't even torrent it. It really is not worth it. At all. Expand
  16. Cody
    Jan 3, 2010
    1
    Cities XL really is a prime example of how the developer seems to rush their product, even though they had a long production time and a huge community involvement. They had a strong base, but built poorly on top of it. I myself participated in the Beta, and was surprised at how buggy and un-done it was at that stage. It was slow, full of glitches, took up a lot of disk space, and the lack Cities XL really is a prime example of how the developer seems to rush their product, even though they had a long production time and a huge community involvement. They had a strong base, but built poorly on top of it. I myself participated in the Beta, and was surprised at how buggy and un-done it was at that stage. It was slow, full of glitches, took up a lot of disk space, and the lack of additional features (transit, unlockables) made me feel like this is a freeware game, and that the developer not make the deadline of release. But, they pushed it out anyway, knowing the game feels as if its not even out of Beta. I left the Beta in the last month of testing after my cities got "accidentally over written" on the main server, and could not get restored. I never thought twice about buying the game ever after that. The fact the developers knowingly put out a bad product, but still make you pay for a subscription is absolutely lame and stupid. Hopefully the game will get better over time, with new patches and so on, but right now, its not done. Expand
  17. gamerman
    Oct 12, 2009
    0
    Graphics: 7, Gameplay: 0, logic: 0, (you can zone based on classes of people elites, workers, skilled workers. lol) fun: 0, issues: lots of them, check out the semi-official forum simtropolis , they don't even have their own forum. Personally, I think Sim City 1,2000,3000 and 4 are much much better than this, even Sim City Societies the total train wreck is better IMHO.
  18. QubaM.
    Oct 12, 2009
    4
    The game's release was rushed. Many of the advertised features are not implemented yet (for example mass transit). The game itself is plagued by bugs and feels more like a beta build than retail product. Multiplayer servers are having problems as well, with trade being either laggy or plain disabled - ruining the MMO aspect of the game. My recommendation: Don't buy now, wait and The game's release was rushed. Many of the advertised features are not implemented yet (for example mass transit). The game itself is plagued by bugs and feels more like a beta build than retail product. Multiplayer servers are having problems as well, with trade being either laggy or plain disabled - ruining the MMO aspect of the game. My recommendation: Don't buy now, wait and see if the game improves over time (with patches). It has a potential, but at the moment far from realized. Expand
  19. WBAU
    Nov 23, 2009
    0
    I only play in Solo mode and, after buying the game, found out that solo mode players will not be able to get new content - ever (according the MC Support). IMHO, this game is a complete turkey and future MC games, of any genre are off my to-buy list.
  20. Akiba
    Oct 13, 2009
    6
    Despite the many shortcomings it's still very possible to have fun with this game, however you're always left with a bitter taste that the game was intentionally released half finished to milk gamers for the "Planet Offer" (PO) which promises to add the features that should have been included out of the box. Single play is possible, although with the trading being such a vital Despite the many shortcomings it's still very possible to have fun with this game, however you're always left with a bitter taste that the game was intentionally released half finished to milk gamers for the "Planet Offer" (PO) which promises to add the features that should have been included out of the box. Single play is possible, although with the trading being such a vital part and the NPC agent charging 4x what he pays you on resources, you can only go so far unless you play on a balanced map. Problems bugging me the most at this point: - No public transport. Yes, there is an icon for it in the menu, but it will have no feature until content update #3, which again you only get when subscribing for the PO - High maintainance leasure buildings which keep higher-class citizens unsatisfied no matter how many you build - Terraforming being level-only. No possiblity to create rivers, seas or mountains, once you've leveled an area it's leveled for good - Often malfuctioning trade window, even offline - No inter-city trading amongst your own cities With time this game could blossom into something great, but I ain't holding my breath for it, especially not with the current attitude of having to pay extra for missing content. Apart from that the PO only offers chat and inter-player trading, which you practically only need to escape the insane prices of the NPC trader in offline mode. Expand
  21. TetraDog
    Oct 15, 2009
    0
    What to say about this game. It lacks everything that made SimCity 4 a success: there's no mass transit, the game becomes boring after creating 1 city, the multiplayer options are bad, there no landscaping options, the buildings are hideous compared to the custom content nowadays created by SimCity 4 users, there's no custom content possible at the moment etc etc. There's What to say about this game. It lacks everything that made SimCity 4 a success: there's no mass transit, the game becomes boring after creating 1 city, the multiplayer options are bad, there no landscaping options, the buildings are hideous compared to the custom content nowadays created by SimCity 4 users, there's no custom content possible at the moment etc etc. There's only a long list of promises of future updates from the developer and a large bill for the monthly subscription. It's just sad. Expand
  22. MajesticP.
    Nov 7, 2009
    2
    Feels more like a CAD program than a game. In the SimCity series I always felt like my city was a living breathing organism. The sims were going about their daily lives and it was my job to look after them and give them a nice place to live. I feel absolutely no connection with the city I'm building in Cities XL. There are no advisors, disasters or street level sound effects, and all Feels more like a CAD program than a game. In the SimCity series I always felt like my city was a living breathing organism. The sims were going about their daily lives and it was my job to look after them and give them a nice place to live. I feel absolutely no connection with the city I'm building in Cities XL. There are no advisors, disasters or street level sound effects, and all the buildings seem generic. No graphs, no mass transit, no newspaper headlines, no saving up for a museum and feeling sorry for your citizens when you can't afford to keep it. It does have a few good ideas for reducing the more tedious micromanagement in SimCity 4 -- like the school bus funding radius -- but the whole thing feels too soulless to be any real fun. If I had just wanted to place 3D buildings and draw angled roads I would have downloaded Google SketchUp and saved myself the 50 bucks. Expand
  23. krells
    Oct 18, 2009
    0
    By far the most disappointing game ever. The UI is terrible, gameplay is tedious. Never is there any sense of your city being alive and developing, buildings don't even have a construction phase. Even the graphics are very average. And if you don't sign up to pay monthly for the MMO you get a severely limited version that is in many ways unplayable (No features such as mass By far the most disappointing game ever. The UI is terrible, gameplay is tedious. Never is there any sense of your city being alive and developing, buildings don't even have a construction phase. Even the graphics are very average. And if you don't sign up to pay monthly for the MMO you get a severely limited version that is in many ways unplayable (No features such as mass transit!) Terrible. Expand
  24. MacM
    Oct 19, 2009
    7
    Cities XL when first played, can be somewhat daunting and confusing compared to the easy to pick up strategy of the Sim City series. However, some of the confusing issues are partially down to some bugs which need fixing. Since it's release it has already had numerous hotfixes which one by one, are starting to improve the game. So, it at least is nice to know that the developers are Cities XL when first played, can be somewhat daunting and confusing compared to the easy to pick up strategy of the Sim City series. However, some of the confusing issues are partially down to some bugs which need fixing. Since it's release it has already had numerous hotfixes which one by one, are starting to improve the game. So, it at least is nice to know that the developers are working away to fix and improve on their game, which was likely a little early to be released. The online features of the game are interesting, and has an "MMO" feel to it with player trading and a chat box where most of the time, players seem very helpful with questions asked. The planet feature is also quite nice too. I am still not sure that the online features are enough to warrant paying a subscription for, but if things improve, I may consider having it. In the UK it costs £11.95 for a 3 month sub, which, providing fixes and improvements continue, may be worth it. Overall, and early play aside, Cities XL is something worth looking at if you are interested in the genre, but don't expect to be blown away just yet. Expand
  25. Michael
    Oct 21, 2009
    0
    Unfortunate enough to buy this game before reading many of the user comments. The game is boring, filled with bugs and obviously oriented towards squeezing every last dollar out of you before you give up. I asked their "support" for help so that a second person (my kids) could play the one installation at home without having to use my Avatar. After a week the response was that I could Unfortunate enough to buy this game before reading many of the user comments. The game is boring, filled with bugs and obviously oriented towards squeezing every last dollar out of you before you give up. I asked their "support" for help so that a second person (my kids) could play the one installation at home without having to use my Avatar. After a week the response was that I could soon buy another key - although that wasn't implemented yet of course. No thanks... Looks nice but that's it. Have since bought SimCity 4 which at 1/4 of the cost is 4 x more fun. Expand
  26. BobS
    Oct 21, 2009
    4
    Highly disappointing for all of the hype. This game is poorly optimized for being relatively simple and doesn't have a simple user interface.
  27. Harle
    Dec 1, 2009
    3
    I was really looking forward to this game, but it's been a pretty big disappointment. Granted, the game lets you build some very attractive cities, but in terms of gameplay, it fails in a number of ways. My two biggest complaints are that the online multiplayer mode is essentially blackmail. It doesn't offer anything at all that warrants a subscription fee; being able to trade I was really looking forward to this game, but it's been a pretty big disappointment. Granted, the game lets you build some very attractive cities, but in terms of gameplay, it fails in a number of ways. My two biggest complaints are that the online multiplayer mode is essentially blackmail. It doesn't offer anything at all that warrants a subscription fee; being able to trade and visit other people's cities(without any gameplay value there) does not warrant a monthly fee. There are plenty of interesting ways in which cities could have interacted, but the best they could do was trading resources, which I'm not sure why they couldn't have simply offered as a standard, no-fee feature. And because they have nothing to offer multiplayer players that's new or interesting, instead they have handicapped solo players arbitrarily by forcing them to use a totally broken trade system. They force you to deal with 'Omnicorp' with whom you buy and sell at a 1/4 loss. One token sold to them is worth 2500, while buying a token from them is 10000, and at a city of 500,000, you are going to end up so deep in the red with resources that your city will be abysmal. Any other game would have allowed you to at least trade between your own solo cities, encouraging building multiple cities with different resources to trade and balance out. But again, because multiplayer doesn't offer anything but trading, solo play is arbitrarily handicapped. The result is that the only worthwhile maps in solo mode are the ones with the widest variety of resources, as having a large amount of resource A doesn't make up for having to buy resource B, C, D, and E from Omnicorp. So this renders a number of the maps pointless save for the sake of variety, if you don't mind kneecapping yourself. The only thing that the Planet Offer gives you is new buildings and new features. This could have(and should have) been done with DLC, like every other sane business plan. I would have happily continued paying reasonable DLC charges for new content, but I will not pay a monthly fee just to avoid having a handicapped solo game. I'm not that much of a sucker. So more than any other game I have ever played, I feel ripped off, taken advantage of, and lied to. This game exists to snub you if you don't give them a monthly fee, for a game that has absolutely no business being a subscription-based game. Nevermind that the game is unfinished, buggy, and has a building UI that, while capable of creating some pretty cities, can be extraordinarily frustrating when roads are placed just a pixel too close so that you can't place a structure, and roads that try to snap to positions that don't make sense, etc, etc, etc, etc. Until they change their entire system and back down from this subscription fee thing, this is not a game worth getting unless you're fine with paying monthly fees for single player games. Expand
  28. pk
    Dec 20, 2009
    0
    Awful game, total waste of money, I was hoping for something like Simcity 4 but improved. So wrong, Fiddly interface, extremely slow loading on a high end pc even with medium settings,just a dreadful game. Avoid it, I wish I had
  29. JonJ
    Dec 2, 2009
    0
    This would have been a fun game, I would not give $5.00 in a bargain bin do to the fact that you have to log in every time you want to play it. A very greedy company indeed! My gaming computer is a stand alone non internet machine. The game is completely worthless for a single playing option. No internet no game, now how stupid is that. What happen to are rights to buy a game and then be This would have been a fun game, I would not give $5.00 in a bargain bin do to the fact that you have to log in every time you want to play it. A very greedy company indeed! My gaming computer is a stand alone non internet machine. The game is completely worthless for a single playing option. No internet no game, now how stupid is that. What happen to are rights to buy a game and then be forced to have to join their server for log on. If own the legal game and I paid for it, it is none of their right to not let me play it offline. Their loss!!!. Expand
  30. cxlsc4csln
    Oct 23, 2009
    2
    Though the game shows a very good progress, it seems like it's half baked, or even, not baked at all. The graphics, in my opinion, does not even half graphics of simcity 4 even if it is superbly 3d. There is a lot more things it need befor it should have been released.
  31. GraniteRock
    Oct 24, 2009
    8
    I've very much enjoyed this game. It is a bit barebones right now but they will be releasing new content as time goes on. If you wanted a sim city... you will be disapointed. This isn't about micromanaging the sewer system. This is about creating great looking cities.
  32. ConradoG
    Oct 24, 2009
    3
    Poor, incoerent builds, no public transportation, the worst simulation game I played.
  33. AaronB
    Oct 26, 2009
    0
    Well, I bought it and regret it. It is not a Sim City 5 or even a replacement for Sim City 4. It may be better then SimCity Societies, but it is still not worth it. So much missing and I am not about to pay to become a member of a site for a game like this. Yeah I will pay for online WoW, but not a poor attempt to grab the Sim City 4 fans and the City Creation game. it is garbage, oh Well, I bought it and regret it. It is not a Sim City 5 or even a replacement for Sim City 4. It may be better then SimCity Societies, but it is still not worth it. So much missing and I am not about to pay to become a member of a site for a game like this. Yeah I will pay for online WoW, but not a poor attempt to grab the Sim City 4 fans and the City Creation game. it is garbage, oh well, come on EA make a good Sim City 5.... Expand
  34. CS
    Oct 27, 2009
    3
    Good screenshots. That's where the compliments end. The "tutorial" alone has enough bugs to turn you off. Simple actions like building roads and zones become frustratingly complicated. No custom content and you have to pay to connect to other gamers. the Sim City Box is $30 cheaper, you don't have to pay to connect to other players and the user-generated content is free for Good screenshots. That's where the compliments end. The "tutorial" alone has enough bugs to turn you off. Simple actions like building roads and zones become frustratingly complicated. No custom content and you have to pay to connect to other gamers. the Sim City Box is $30 cheaper, you don't have to pay to connect to other players and the user-generated content is free for download. Sim City 4 FTW. Expand
  35. JesperN
    Oct 15, 2009
    6
    A journy in how not to develop a game. Lots of broken promises and bad design descitions gives this game a 6!
  36. RiftGuy
    Oct 17, 2009
    0
    The solo player mode is nerfed so you're forced to pay subscription fees for updates that should have been in the game in the first place. Lame.
  37. StoNeD
    Nov 7, 2009
    3
    This is on the market as a single player game with a subscription online component, so it should be reviewed accordingly. This game lacks far too much content single player, to the extent that it is buggy and broken. I gave it a 3 because the free zoning is nice, and graphics are ok. But the gameplay is epic fail.
  38. AdamC
    Oct 19, 2009
    3
    The game is fun for day or two, but once you develop a reasonably sized city, the little quirks of a rushed game really start to show up. Game is graphically pretty, but severly flawed.
  39. Oct 8, 2010
    2
    The game it self is rather good. I covers many aspects and you have to think ahead.
    The graphics is also great.
    There is only one problem that totally destroys my experience of the game. I have a descent quad core cpu with 8gb of memory and dual graphics cards in crossfire. Yet, now my city have more than 250,000 inhabitants, then I have to wait for about half a minute from the time I
    The game it self is rather good. I covers many aspects and you have to think ahead.
    The graphics is also great.
    There is only one problem that totally destroys my experience of the game.
    I have a descent quad core cpu with 8gb of memory and dual graphics cards in crossfire.
    Yet, now my city have more than 250,000 inhabitants, then I have to wait for about half a minute from the time I click to trade, until the window actually appear.
    Also, when I click on a tool, then it sounds like I clicked 4-5 times.
    This is due to the fact that the game ONLY SUPPORTS SINGLE CORE!
    The problem is present no matter if you have the limited edition or the regular one.
    Expand
  40. Jan 19, 2011
    2
    This game was so bad, Monte Cristo was forced into bankruptcy due to a lack of sales. Not joking. It's that bad. I got in on the beta, and most people bailed before the release. Monte Cristo was afraid to push back the release date in favor of completing the game. Could have used those few extra months in development.
Metascore
69

Mixed or average reviews - based on 35 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 13 out of 35
  2. Negative: 0 out of 35
  1. Cities XL fills in the void left by SimCity, since it turned more attention towards human interaction. Its building and management systems are incredibly varied and complex, giving the player complete control over the city’s growth. And the possibility to share online the whole town with other players in an interactive manner guarantees longevity to the gameplay.
  2. Finally a worthy city building successor to SimCity 4! The prices for playing online are quite high, though.
  3. 81
    Its friendlier learning curve as compared to the SimCity series will rope in new players, while its greater city design freedom will keep vets interested. However, even with multiplayer trading and resource balance and management, Cities XL is still not as hardcore as the SimCity series, and the subscription cost is questionably worth the arguably shallow multiplayer content.