schm0

Listen to the podcast on the GFW site. It's provides an interesting take from a bunch of professional game writers. An interesting quote from the podcast: "...this is the SimCity for people who don't want to deal with water pipes." From the interview, it seems that the future of SC5 depends on the success of SCS. If it doesn't have much success, then a true sequel will be in the pipelines. I can only hope, therefore, that this game goes straight to the bargain bin. I'll keep my fingers crossed for SCS to be a huge flop.

Originally posted by: MrFingersWell that's definitely what the author of the graph wants you to think, but telling me there are 300 cubic kilometers of ice disappearing from glaciers each year means nothing unless I have something to compare that number against. 300 cubic kilometers maybe nothing more than a small blip in the total ice in glaciers.quote> Ok, here's the data on the total amount of ice contained within glaciers in the world. [q"]This analysis is focused on mountain glaciers and smaller ice caps, which have a total area at least 785x103 km2. Although they make up only 4% of the total land ice area, they may have contributed to as much as 30% of sea level change in the 20th century due to rapid ice volume reduction connected with global warming."quote>

A hint of pessimistic language thrown in there... they called Caesar IV "slapdash." What an excellent word.

So, to summarize, here are the questions being asked, plus an extra one I'd love to hear feedback on: Do a favor for me. Visit any gaming magazine or ezine (not a SimCity forum) and scroll through the news articles they have on SCS. Most allow a small place for comments. Scroll through those comments, and you'll notice one thing: The opinion is overwhelmingly negative. What does this mean? Is this negative reaction just from a bunch of whiny fans who are disappointed? Or could it be that our gripes are shared by fans of the series that aren't as hardcore? If this game were going to do well, wouldn't it have an equal amount (if not more) of a positive commentary? Can anyone make some historical connections between the reaction to this game as compared to other previous incarnations of a successful franchise? I have seen people compare this reaction to that of Civilization IV... have we seen this phenomenon before? What were the outcomes of that reaction? Offer your opinions and reactions here. I will be doing an informal poll of the comments posted and quickly scroll through them and check them off as negative, positive, or indifferent (wait and see.) I'll post the results here and see what it all means. If anyone wants to beat me to the punch and do a quick survey of all the comments on outside gaming sites (not forums) let me know (I'm not going to bother doing this, as nobody so far disagrees with the basic premise, so let's just discuss the topic.)

First of all, let me clarify. The reaction I was referring to was that from gaming sites on the 'net, not SimCity forums. Sites like 1up.com, IGN and others allow their members to comment on news, and it is this arena of commentary that I was referring to. To those who would say we don't know enough about the game to start being disappointed, I would disagree. There are plenty of things that have been released to the public about the game, the most detailed of which is contained within the Games For Windows article that was recently released. That being said, I have some follow-up questions: Is this negative reaction just from a bunch of whiny fans who are disappointed? Or could it be that our gripes are shared by fans of the series that aren't as hardcore? Can anyone make some historical connections between the reaction to this game as compared to other previous incarnations of a successful franchise? I have seen people compare this reaction to that of Civilization IV... have we seen this phenomenon before? What were the outcomes of that reaction?

Ok, so abandon all hope for the future of the franchise?

Someone (jeronij?) has already made the following point: with all the custom content, the NAM and the upcoming releases from the modders on ST and SC4, SimCity 4.5 has already arrived.

Ok, so which route do we want to take? Should we write EA? Or should we start a campaign to have our voices heard by writing GFW or any other magazine that does a story on SCS?

Bumpity-bump. Please help this project stay alive!

Hmmm... perhaps we can generate more buzz by writing the magazines that do articles on the game? What if we formed a letter that sidestepped EA altogether and went right to the source: other fans. If we announced our displeasure and gathered enough signatures to appear in a small blurb or even in the opinion section, we could make a larger impact than you might think. How about changing the course of this idea and sending it off into a new direction?

I would recommend shutting down any outside program to play music, especially Winamp, as it can steal valuable memory from SC4. In fact, I recommend shutting down everything except explorer.exe and taskmgr.exe.* If you really must have music, I suggest using the internal player. This has its drawbacks (can't pause the music, change songs, etc.) but it will keep your processors from trying to run two programs at once. (* - Go into Task Manager, click on the Processes tab, sort by User Name, and end all programs under your username except these two files. Do NOT end any programs that are being run by the system.)

Originally posted by: MrFingersI don't trust that graph, it takes advantage of the fact that I don't know the relative size of the growth rate and total size. However, I never said that globally glaciers aren't on average receding, I just said that it is not as simple as that.quote> I don't know how much more reputable of a source you can find... The growth rate is negative after you add it all up, as shown by the graph. As for the total size, it doesn't matter. The graph shows total volume change, and plainly reveals that it is curving downward steeply. It is the beginning of a very long and disturbing parabolic curve. sea ice melting allows warmer sea water to penetrate under land ice... hmm, gunna have to walk me through that logic quote> Sure, no problem. Sea ice is formed during winter or is released from existing land ice due to warmer water penetrating the edge of the ice cap. Obviously, I am not talking about the former but rather the latter. Evidence of this has been seen in the Antarctic with huge chunks of ice breaking off from the ice sheet. Most of this ice was formerly attached to land, but warmer, more saline water at the bottom of the ocean ebbed away at its foundation. The water carves its way underneath, and the ice eventually breaks off due to its mass. I said antarctica's ice mass was growing, I didn't say how, although you are correct, but I don't see how that's relevant. my point was that the place with 90% of the world's ice is growing, and thus this song and dance about rising sea from melting poles is nonsense.quote> From one of your articles posted above, on sciencedaily.com: One reason for that queasiness is that no one is quite sure what the long-term implications of these changes may be. Tulaczyk noted that if the ice streams continue to slow and stop, the ice shelf that covers the Ross Sea is likely to break up. The removal of the lid of ice that currently covers the Ross Sea could have significant effects on global ocean circulation and the global climate, he said.quote> Sea ice does not change sea levels when it melts. glaciers account for less than 3% of the world's ice, I highly doubt they are melting 30 times faster than antarctica is growing. quote> You completely dismiss my entire argument and restate your own. Excellent debate. Please note the arguments above concerning sea ice and how it melts. Originally posted by: cologned91 You know what sucks about this thread? No body can truly prove anything until its either to late or global climate change never really does anything to us in the long run.quote> There has been consensus for quite some time. Nothing behind the general theory of Global Warming needs to be proved, to be honest. What "sucks about this thread" is that people are misinformed or have been led to doubt the science behind the theory. (content edited) Point is.. this could be just a cycle but since we can't PROVE that well then it could just as easily be greenhouse gasses are causing the eventual end of the world, this is just about as hard to argue as which came first the chicken or the egg. Religious people say the chicken came first, god put the chicken there first, while scientific people claim it was the egg, it was from a mutated gene of some other animal. We cant prove that one either.quote> Not hard to prove at all. Just read the IPCC report. What is being debated in the world of climate change today are the minutia surrounding smaller variables in the overall scheme of things. (Such as sea ice and its melting and how it affects the global sea level. ) Scientists are not sitting around mulling over whether they think the theory is correct. Instead, they debate the finer details of the argument. As for me, i think i am just gonna live my life as best I can and do my part in keeping the environment clean. Wether this will help keep away global climate changing or not it still benefits me and the rest of the world, a clean environment is always a good thing.quote> An excellent stance, my friend. Welcome to the thread. Originally posted by: John94538 You've got a point, cologned91. Most of the news lately is from opinions, and some from experiments. But then again, experiments can't 100% prove ideas, unless they would be done immediately when a scenario is happening.quote> If you don't think experiments can prove a theory, then go outside with a penny and drop it until gravity stops working. The data and science behind the theory of Global Warming is overwhelmingly vast and supportive. You are correct in that there certainly is debate about climate change, but not over the general consensus. (See my above point.)

Ok, we're getting a little too specific here. Right now I'm looking to see if anyone thinks it's a good idea. The basic theme of the the letter will be the path that has been chosen for the franchise, and how it has strayed from the core philosophy of the game. The supporting arguments will relay things that are missing in SCS that are part of this "core" and how it has affected the fanbase.

Originally posted by: MrFingers yeah we've been over this before, sea ice melting will not change the sea level. Simple physics - buoyancy principle. The world's glaciers have been gradually retreating on average since the little ice age ended in the 19th century, but there are plenty of places where they are growing, and many of the changes with glaciers have nothing to do with global warming.quote> I found a nice link for you to peruse. I'll quote some of it here for posterity. It's from a series called "How to talk to a Global Warming skeptic." (Very appropriate, eh?) Objection: A few glaciers receding today is not proof of global warming. Glaciers have grown and receded differently in many times and places. Answer: Firstly, it is more than "a few glaciers" that are receding; it is a pervasive, sustained, and accelerating global trend. The National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC) maintains a chart of global glacier mass balance, and for as far back as their data allows us to look, all but a few years have shown a loss in ice volume of subpolar and mountain glaciers. Further, annual losses are increasing. SOURCE: GRISTMILL quote> Also, sea ice melting will allow warmer sea water to penetrate under land ice, which will release it into the ocean, which will melt, which will allow warmer sea water to penetrate under land ice, which will release it into the ocean, which will melt, which will allow warmer sea water to penetrate under land ice, which will release it into the ocean, which will melt, which will allow warmer sea water to penetrate under land ice, which will release it into the ocean... are you seeing a trend? Sea ice melting will lead to further sea level rise. It's simple physics. Oh, and arctic geology, too. Fact is, 90% of the world's LAND ice is in Antarctica, and that ice mass has actually grown the last 30 years, against a 6000 year trend of melting before that.quote> http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet.htm http://www.jefflindsay.com/snippets/warming.shtml http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0520-08.htm http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antarctic_020822.html http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N45/C2.jsp http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast27dec_1.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020130074839.htm http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-04-28/antartic.htmquote> quote>

Perhaps, but do you think they'd dismiss 1000 people outright?

Hidden in the IGN article, which provided the first non-fluffed criticism towards the release of SCS, was a short snippet: "SimCity: Societies isn't SimCity 5 for a reason. It's a new direction, not the next iteration." The worst part about it, we'll have to wait several more years to get what we've been waiting for. Personally, with all the disappointment surrounding this game, it actually inspires me to have patience and hope for the next revolution in the SC series. Now, all we have to do is get EA to release the original code so we can start modding the game seriously. What are your thoughts?

We haven't reached the end by any means.

We haven't reached the end by any means.

Originally posted by: MarcosMX Dude, they aint gonna make another SC5 simply because it was too "hard". Remember that article at 1up.com, there was a question that said, if scs was the next sequel to SC4 and it said yes.quote> "But what's the deal with the "Societies" bit? Is this or is it not the fifth installment of the series? The answer is a confounding "yes." It definitely continues the SimCity line, but this absolutely is not the same old SimCity...for better or worse." The next "installment" of the series that continues the SimCity line, but not in the "same old" way means spinoff, not SC5. Perhaps they'll jump the number (SimCity 6?), or rename it something completely different . Either way, this is a social engineering game, not an urban planning simulator. The very nature of the game has been so fundamentally altered that it can only be considered as a spinoff, not a true "sequel." Someone in some other thread posted that SCS was like The Sims: Life Stories... a game with the same name and basic theme, but a completely different type of gameplay. Another example would be Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus. These two examples are not sequels, but spinoffs.

Originally posted by: MarcosMX Dude, they aint gonna make another SC5 simply because it was too "hard". Remember that article at 1up.com, there was a question that said, if scs was the next sequel to SC4 and it said yes.quote> "But what's the deal with the "Societies" bit? Is this or is it not the fifth installment of the series? The answer is a confounding "yes." It definitely continues the SimCity line, but this absolutely is not the same old SimCity...for better or worse." The next "installment" of the series that continues the SimCity line, but not in the "same old" way means spinoff, not SC5. Perhaps they'll jump the number (SimCity 6?), or rename it something completely different . Either way, this is a social engineering game, not an urban planning simulator. The very nature of the game has been so fundamentally altered that it can only be considered as a spinoff, not a true "sequel." Someone in some other thread posted that SCS was like The Sims: Life Stories... a game with the same name and basic theme, but a completely different type of gameplay. Another example would be Final Fantasy VII: Dirge of Cerberus. These two examples are not sequels, but spinoffs.

Originally posted by: cleaner475 Sorry to ruin your hopes guys but EA have already said that this is Simcity 5 when they released news about the game.quote> Um, no they didn't. Here's the EA Press release on the EA website. There is no mention of this being SC5. From Merriam-Webster's dictionary: Main Entry: it·er·a·tion Pronunciation: "i-t&-'rA-sh&n Function: noun 1 : the action or a process of iterating or repeating: as a : a procedure in which repetition of a sequence of operations yields results successively closer to a desired result b : the repetition of a sequence of computer instructions a specified number of times or until a condition is met -- compare RECURSION 2 : one execution of a sequence of operations or instructions in an iteration 3 : VERSION, INCARNATION <the latest iteration of the operating system> Originally posted by: nealos101 It is probably the replacement for Simsville. Thus, one issue is resolved but another is appeared... Would you rather not have Simcity 5 at all than wait a little longer for it? You are still on a Simcity 4 Fansite. Neal.quote> I will wait, even if it takes another 4 years.