• Moose

Gamma Stardust

Member
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last Visited

  1. From the gameplay pov it does look improved, and aside of the visual discontinuity, as i see it, the thing that bothers most is the missed oportunity: Regions in SC4 represented the possibility to build "wider" and "integrated" cities, region play in SC2013 does integration better but only precariously addresses the "wider" part, sorely missed since the city tiles are smaller against SC4. All other things aside i do appreciate the apparent gameplay improvements to the region play.
  2. "Vaporware is a term in the computer industry that describes a product, typically computer hardware or software, that is announced to the general public but is never actually released nor officially cancelled." or "An advertised product, often computer software, whose launch has not happened yet and might or might not ever happen." This was the meaning which i was refering to. Disclaimer: not that we've heard any of this from Maxis official loudspeakers. But the buzz is indeed out there.
  3. It is not the speculation per se... it is using it as a selling point. I would say nothing wrong for you as a consumer to speculate how you may extend a product's life cycle, yet a company cannot sell vapourware.
  4. One thing is to unreasonably expect any developer/publisher to make its product usable "forever" in this ever changing hardware/software industry. Another thing altogether is to expect said developer/publisher NOT making attempts at blocking its future usage or to artificially hinder its life expectancy. (even if as a collateral effect) I can certainly see why one could put these disparate circumstances on the same level. It makes fair expectations look unreasonable. Workarounds to extend a products use are consumers' prerrogative not the other way around. Speculation at its finest, to sell a mere future possibility, gullibility to pay and fall for that.
  5. That is indeed a good point, but then again: Why market the game as if? (... longstanding fans being the intended market target) It looks like Superman, it smells like Superman, it flyes like Superman... but when you get to know for sure, it is not Superman afterall. Battlefield 2 "sequel" (BF3) turned out the same exact pattern.
  6. (while not trying to move you personaly from enjoying your future purchase, nor antagonizing at all...) One can of course take the defeatist position. I rather not. "What gets me riled up is that people blame EA as if they are the only ones or even the first ones to do this but they aren't." EA, because it is the case at hand, also the fact that EA is not alone acting in disfavour of gamers does not aleviate one bit of their responsability. "The only way to get a new game made that is not going to be multiplayer or online-only is to make it yourself." Does not hold true in this world, in wanting to make it as general a phrase, in support of the defeatist position, it started to bump into reality, until it broke apart altogether. "you either learn to live with it or just stop playing new games all together." If the premise is wrong from the begining nevermind the supposed consequence, of course one can keep playing new games, cheer up, there is much more out there. By what has been said one would think the "industry standard" is in the stage you describe. The diference is one can easily verify otherwise, conceding at most that what is described is indeed big game producers "whishfull thinking". Of course they will lend all their weight towards that goal on the way. I not only hope they fail in that purpose, I will also try and lend my help in raising awareness to prevent it. I would say there is no point in finding subterfuges to ease the swallowing of this figurative pill.
  7. "I then realized that most of my disappointment was an overreaction due to my longing desire for a worthy successor to SC4." One expects an enumeration of reasons why it was an "overreaction" afterall, but: 1. City Size <> "region modding" (exchanging a given against a mere possibility) 2. "Minor things" <> individualy overlooked (considered "minor" only until they're actually missing, ie. not minor at all) Always online <> having a 99% permanent connection (while dismissing the recurring caveat of server failure or actual shutdown in its lifecycle as defined by the provider instead of oneself) 3. Charging DLC <> "a way to thank the devs and artists for their time and effort (kind of like donating to a kickstarter)" (a way to cheat oneself, at best you are throwing money at EA's investors, the actual makers are far out in the receiving end of those possible benefits) 4. Modding <> "[they] want to give it to us" (again exchanging a given for a mere possibility) 5. Improvements <> over previous (I actually agree with some, but i would argue that they would compare only in a level field, which SC2013 is not against SC4) "awaiting the day when we can recreate New York City", after how many DLCs and dollars spent...? I would say that all these concessions have not been directly addressed in any point. I would personaly consider them mere remorse valves for after the fact buying such a thing, an actual regression at so many levels. But that is from a individualistic viewpoint, one could complement it with the broader consumer (idealistic) viewpoint, and the trend EA is trying to implement more generaly throughout its franchises, ie Buying vs Renting; Full Product vs DLC; One time Payment vs Microtransactions; Anonymous Use vs Personal Data Extraction (Origin); etc etc... In other words, i consider us to be paying more, both dollars, our own personal data (which is priceable too) and consumer rights, in exchange for less, less, and less when we happen to close a deal of this kind.
  8. Disclaimer: I fall into the camp of players which for this reason or another have already quit trying to expect anything from SC2013. Keep this in mind, iyp. Simply put this game here has been wrongly marketed, willingly or unwillingly is irrelevant about now. As a departure from original SC series this 2013 iteration divides the potential costumers in fuzzy camps, some of them mutually exclusive in as far as there is willingness (resources/time/technical constraints/whatever) to provide certain claimed features. The problem is that SC2013 is being marketed towards these disparate groups indescriminately. The group which is not having their expectations realized is being targeted as much as the others. In their turn, not having much reason to think othewise they keep voicing their concerns. I used to fall on this camp, until a finaly realized there was not much of a point, yes, indeed it was kind of hard to put my mind in wait mode until a true sequel follows along. I find it pointless, these "competing" groups eating each other on the forum, I mostly blame the marketing in making us think we are all on the same boat, when in fact we aren't ALL on the same boat. The best any of us can do individually is actually understand if EA/Maxis is inviting us aboard or not in effect, ignoring all the marketing crap, the bells and whisles and all the shiny. The hard part is to abandon what looked like "the wait is over" mood. Despite all this, not wanting to move anyone from keeping their expectations up, which is a totaly valid stance, make at least sure what is one gambling, and if it is realistic to expect this or that feature to finaly be implemented in the game or a future DLC. Keywords: gamble / realistic. I think there is still room to voice criticism and reclaim unmet features, but in the process one could well stop trying to manage each other's expectations, we have EA/Maxis markting dep. failing at it already.
  9. @connect2ashes nice write up there, you should consider a carreer I stand pretty much on the same spot. I don't even care what EA/Maxis brings up to the table anymore, it could even be my own dreamt Simcity, as long as i am forced online + Origin it is a definite no buy. Your boycott is not a lonely boycott, be sure.
  10. "average computer's processing power and memory" (assesment) predates Glassbox development. You're spinning the issue on its head. Yet, i am told time and time again: (0:55) "GlassBox is a, eha, the new simulation engine that's been developed in house, ahmm, they've been wanting to build this for years, ahmm, but now it's just at the point where the technology can support this level of detail in the simulation..." I'll say it again. This technology issue is a non-issue. The issue is the obscured disconnect between the Simcity vision EA/Maxis is putting forward and the vision original Simcity series' players hoped for. Maxis says it "shares" the vision with those players when it is blatantly obvious that it does not. Eventually technology would be up to the task to materialize player's vision of the series, but we'll never know since it is not an attempt to achieve that that lies in front of us. So goes the reason for which i'll abstain in this poll.
  11. This pretty much! What about that debut soundbites about "how technology had finaly reached a level to fully realize the Simcity vision"? Actually nothing wrong with that, the problem is what exacly we make out of such "simcity vision", and if you have PR agencies constantly obscuring that so called "view" is effectively unrelated with the gameplay "we" grew to enjoy with up to and including SC4, then that argument is besides the issue. If technology is not, afterall up to the required standard, do not trick players into thinking it actually is.
  12. If I had to guess, i'd consider it this way: 1. Simcity (2013) is generally catering for a different demographic than SC4, more casual, more impulsive, more social, younger gamers. 2. Simcity (2013) life span will be tied to the sustainability of an online service, which is mostly dependent on returning online population. By the reason in 1. there is no question if the previous SC4 game population will let SC2013 "dethrone" it or not, as soon as the reboot proves to be a different thing and not fulfilling those gamers whishes, the longer standing community will fallback to it's king. By the reason in 2. the game will live off mostly dependent on sustained marketing and newcomers, as soon as the playing population level does not fit the minimum threshold or a new sequel is announced and released, online service will be shutdown, and the game will see it's end (all the while SC4 keeps serving its customers) For this and that, I voted "No". But hey... i am just guessing, and i don't have access to priviledged information. PS: I agree there should a more moderate option in the poll to help evacuate the pressure, but i am convinced we can all respond without flaming ourselves. Also i like polarization, it helps in delimiting the debate to usefull conclusions.
  13. Care with words is always welcome since "online only game" is at odds with "mainly multiplayer". But i still remember the surprise when the planet offer was unvealed, and that was after the game was originally announced. There was a a considerable amount of cepticism then too. It is irrelevant if the game is entirely multiplayer or not, what does matter is the features one becomes deprived from because of the arbitrary "service shutdown". The more features are developed with the multiplayer in mind the higher risk the game becomes useless after the event. Take note I am not simply dismissing the multiplayer game mode, what i expect is the single player not to suffer in its features because of it.
  14. Keep wishing... name one of this list that got called for update released. Untrue! I was pretty involved in Cities XL and its beta, so called "Planet Offer" was introduced to a surprised community as an option and at a late stage of development.
  15. Path choosen by EA: December 2011, EA (blue) shares decouple from Nasdaq (yellow), begining of redline coincides with BattleField 3 launch (late october '11). Activision shares in red for reference.