chris0101

I haven't been playing Simcity 4 in a while now, so I probably will need to refresh my memory. I stopped playing in September 2009, but now I've restarted somewhat. Out of curiosity, what happened to the original RTMT v4 project? I remember that it had some big ideas that would change mass transit in simcity pretty Reading above, it seems that you've had some setbacks.

Out of curiosity then, what will the final project be like? It seems these days that Cities XL has died unless the 2011 version releases something truly big. I myself am going back to SC4 more and more when I wish to play.

I think that cities are going to have to be "self-sufficient" nowadays with the online play gone (ex: cities should have a bit of access to all resources) at this point without the ability to interact with other cities.

I suppose that the rest of us who haven't bought the game should just wait and see ... If they do go bankrupt as the poster above fears, then all of the online content is useless because they won't likely release their servers. Perhaps one development if they go bankrupt could be that they release the source code to the general public. That may lead to modding of a true successor worthy of SC4. Of course, bankruptcy is not what we want, just a good game.

Having played cities XL on my friend's PC, at this point, I'd recommend staying away for now. There are just too many unfixed bugs. Plus there are things last mass transit that will be "added" later on. This is a game that has a lot of potential, but seems to be unfinished and needs a lot more work.

Exactly what do you get that is worth the price of the limited edition though? Has anyone bought the limited edition that can enlighten on whether it even justifies the price? For now, I am in favour of not getting this game until there is a real single player game.

At this point, unless the single player features are vastly improved and the bugs completely fixed (I am often ticked off at how many companies release games knowing that they are buggy), I recommend a community boycott.

Sad. I did support many of his views and perspectives. I do hope that there will be somebody as energetic and as active as Ted Kennedy was. Perhaps that was why Ted Kennedy was pushing so hard for a replacement. It is an end of a generation indeed, the Kennedy brothers.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: manticorefan Religion has built more hospitals and universities than atheism has. quote> Relgioius people have built more hospitals and universitites than atheist people have, yes. Which, considering that they heavily outnumber the atheists, and did so even more throughout history up until recent years, is to be expected. Add to that that atheists, not belonging to a religous institution, do not have a huge organization to back them. Individual people don't build hospitals, groups of organized people do. Athesits simply don't organize the same wat religious people do. Many don't like that sort of establishment and far prefer to act independently and unilaterally in what they do. Which precludes doing anything too significant unless you're a millionaire.quote> Most of the existing hospitals and universities (at least in the Western world) are predominantly secular. Sure, you have schools like Regent University, but they are the exception and not the rule. And why is it that the universities and institutions most noted for scientific and technological breakthroughs are mainly secular? Science challenges the established thinking and encourages critical thinking while religion emphasizes faith and often blind devotion without skepticism.

Originally posted by: Ntq$310 There he goes again... bringing up the evil nature of American conservatives and how there wrong and to blame for all our issues. quote> Defensive, aren't you? You've just proved my point that everything I say will be interpreted as anti-Americanism or anti-conservatism, etc. If you re-read my statement, I concluded that the US has both its ups and downs. Ironically, there are a large number of Americans who do agree with what I say, just as there are those that disagree. Originally posted by: Ntq$310 But, there is no easy choice for our situation. Regions like the Great Lakes and Northeast are more industrial, and are facing more and more trouble surviving. Looking at the current downturn, those regions will most likely recover last. But, we could risk hurting the western and southern states in order to save other regions. What we need to do however is make a decision and take the action needed. I think we need to save our industrial sector to a point, and besides, from what I can tell, all great world economies had a strong industrial sector. Besides that, the consumer economy is one that frankly, I don't think works for us.quote> Ah, finally, something we agree. It is true that historically, empires like the British, the Spanish, the Dutch, etc. had a strong manufacturing base. Just before their collapse, much of their economy turned to finance. There's more money the way the economy is set up to move money around that already exists than to create new wealth - hence the sheer power of the finance industry today. The real question is - can you persuade the powers that run the US of this? Can you change a system when the people that got into power are there because the current system put them in? Consumerism is the dominant ideology in the US, like it or not, and most people are very firmly into it. Less than 10% are employed by the manufacturing sector, and I'll bet an even smaller percentage in 10 years if the current trends continue.

Originally posted by: manticorefan At least someone here understands that the US has the most to lose under globalism. It's not some outmoded archaic view that drives rejection of it, but the recognition of its danger. The rest of the world, being so far behind us in so many areas, would love to have the field artificially leveled. quote> Actually, the US has much both to gain and to lose under globalism. Business opportunities can both cost US jobs through outsourcing and create new opportunities. Furthermore, the increasingly global nature of the world means that the dominant power has a greater ability to influence and set the future course for the entire world, not just individual nations. The rest of the world is not so "far behind" actually. As Susan Hockfield, president of MIT acknowledged, the US is falling behind in terms of research, education, and indeed healthcare. In terms of the percentage of people employed by small businesses (ex: businesses with less than 1,000 people), the US is also lower. More people in the US work for larger corporations than in most other developed nations. Indeed, this is a serious problem for the US as it puts the idea of "creative destruction" needed to drive capitalism in serious jeopardy. I myself find it ironic that all anti-war, anti-universal healthcare, and anti-corporate ideas are immediately accused of as "anti-Americanism". Likewise, the idea that "socialism" is all bad, and that "capitalism" is superior in every way is ridiculous, just as the idea that universal healthcare will turn the US into the USSR. Everything in this world has its ups and downs, its problems, and the US is no different.