Jump to content

Huxleyhobbes

Member
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last Visited

About Huxleyhobbes

  • Rank
    Freshman

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Co. Down, Northern Ireland.

    I've been wanting a decent map of Ulster since forever! Thanks so much, what a joy to come back to SC4 after a long absence to find one of my two favorite mappers has made it.
  2. I just wanted to say that I think you're one of the absolute best modders out there for SC4 and your stuff goes a long way to making the game even better for me. Thank you.

    1. euphonial

      euphonial

      I completely agree - well said, Huxley. . .

  3. Show us your futuristic creations

    @ Yarahi Oh man I'm about losing my mind with joy. Thank you so much for that link!
  4. Show us your futuristic creations

    Whoa whoa there. I've searched for Arcologies for ages and found nothing remotely satisfying. I must prostate myself before you and supplicate for a link to the stuff in that last one! Also these are some fantastic pics in general! Do supply us with more! E: It's part of Sim Mars, isn't it? ;_;
  5. CXL Pricing-Is Monte Cristo serious?

    It seems this needs to be reiterated: Whilst some people have been saying they're against monthly fees on principle, CXL is a great example of why they're not crazy. A game like WoW or EVE requires continued money to exist. Server costs are high, staff costs are high, and the cost of developing new content in order to retain business is high. The majority of people have, however, NOT said that they are opposed to a subscription model in principle, we have said we are opposed to it when we are being charged for things which either should be in the offline game (e.g. mass transit) , or which are trivial and questionably implemented features that can be found for free in many other places (e.g. avatars). The problem isn't paying $10 a month. The problem is paying $10 a month for something worth zero cents a month.
  6. CXL Pricing-Is Monte Cristo serious?

    Originally posted by: pcgamer2 $6 a month really isn't that bad, i can't expect them to give it to us for free online play.For one they are a small company and have limited reasources. And its not cheap keeping all these cities, if you think of it, a city, its trade, population, all and etc is more data then your WoW character.The servers are not free, they cost money to operate.Plus they will also need some sorta GM to moderate the 2 year olds who want to fight over nothing on the chat. Really its 3 dollars, but thats in euros, for us the United States, thank Bush and Obama for our war we can't for causing us to just print out more money.quote> Except that as has been said over and over, paying a monthly fee for a good multiplayer game is fine. Paying a monthly fee to play the singleplayer game which you already bought is the problem.
  7. CXL Pricing-Is Monte Cristo serious?

    Originally posted by: manuelandreiHellgate: London shows that the game in question need to actually be good for people to pay2play. We can add Tabula Rasa, The Matrix Online, and other MMO-failures to that list. The same applies to Cities XL. Even though I accept the subscription model doesn't mean I will stick around if the game is broken, boring or whatever other reason I might find. I am also aware that MMOs are very expensive to run and maintain. But lets not forget that you can actually play Cities XL offline and that the feature list for the offline version might change before launch. Well yes, that's sort of the point. Actual MMOs have a hard enough time. Why would a game which has been disemboweled for the obvious purpose of forcing people to pay on an ongoing basis succeed where actual MMOs which can justify that payment model have failed? Most of us who are big fans of the genre have learned well that it's not worth the time and quite aside from the PO issue it is not an especially deep or engaging game.quote> But that hasen't stopped people playing SimCity 4 since 2003. SC4 is a lot deeper than anything I've heard abou The people who are occasional fans of the genre aren't going to pay monthly for it, or if they do they won't for long.quote> Only time will tell. As long as MC publishes new content every month as they imply on the official website and as long as the game experience is fun I won't cancel my subscriptionquote>
  8. CXL Pricing-Is Monte Cristo serious?

    Originally posted by: manuelandrei Yes. Monte Cristo is serious. I think people need to start accepting the fact that the gaming industry is changing. There is no such thing as a traditional gaming company anymore. Just take a look at the MMO-market and how it has evolved in the last couple of years. It proves that the business model works and that money can be made on the PC-market.quote> quote> Yes, except that as Hellgate: London shows, the game in question needs to actually be an MMO for an MMO subscription model to be viable. CXL is even further from that and the Planet Offer seems to provide very, very little which constitutes 'multiplayer' (Certainly nothing that many companies don't provide a rough equivalent of for free) and a great deal which constitutes 'core elements of the genre'. As a serious MMORPG gamer I have grown accustomed to the monthly fees and the increased value they bring to the game. I have been playing the Cities XL demo for a couple of days and I am very excited about it. I am in particular excited about the planet offer and the interaction between players that will bring. Monte Cristo has undertaken quite a challenge and only time will show if they will prevail.quote> MMO monthly fees aren't about increased value. They exist because MMOs are very expensive to run and maintain, and 'success' is defined as much by player retention as by acquiring new players, so they need the money to continue developing it and adding new content. MMOs are in no way the best comparison here because the PO isn't providing an MMO experience or service or anything like that. The only part of this whole debacle which is MMO is the payment, and given that most actual MMOs aren't good enough to warrant monthly fees, I sincerely doubt that a game like this will deserve it. Cities XL is going to fail because of this. Most of us who are big fans of the genre have learned well that it's not worth the time and quite aside from the PO issue it is not an especially deep or engaging game. We're the only ones who might be guaranteed to actually pay but we'd need something that exceeds what we'd expected of SimCity 5 in order to do so. The people who are occasional fans of the genre aren't going to pay monthly for it, or if they do they won't for long. Monte Cristo might be serious, but that doesn't make their decisions less clownish.
  9. CXL Pricing-Is Monte Cristo serious?

    Originally posted by: Feudal1 Are you guys actually serious? You're whining over paying $9 per month to access the online features? That's the equivalent of a couple of lunches at McDonalds. I just don't get this mentality that people want everything for free any more.quote> I don't see anyone who wants anything for free. I see plenty of people who want the most basic elements of the genre including on the disc. Buying fancy extras like a different aesthetic theme is fine; the lack of mass transit options more comrepehensive than buses is just an insult, and after the debacle that was the demo, I for one have been irrevocably convinced that Cities XL would be a waste of my money. I'm more than happy to pay to play. I subscribe to WoW and have in the past played FFXI, City of Heroes, and EVE Online. I pay for XBox Live on my 360. I donate to Tarn Adams so he can keep making Dwarf Fortress, so you can pretty well tell that if something is worth the money I will pay for it. This is not only deceitful towards those who have been following CXL for awhile, it's also a complete ripoff. Enhancing games through things like expansion packs and DLC is perfectly fine. MMOs are a sui generis and their pricing system is a necessity of their nature. With anything else, however, a system like this is a blatant attempt at moneygrubbing by forcing people to pay on an ongoing basis simply to have the full game. Monte Cristo currently look a lot worse than EA ever have to me. I've never needed to subscribe to get the full experience from an EA game (and a game like Spore would be ripe for it) and often enough expansion packs actually do add enough to make them worth thinking about.
  10. Why EA is every serious gamer's nightmare

    Originally posted by: String As far as mmo's needing to be dumbed down, a person could look at SC4 and say the exact same thing... none of that makes EA the "evil empire" that the original poster would have us believe. quote> Fair point, and one I can't argue with. I retract my comment on MMOs.
  11. Why EA is every serious gamer's nightmare

    Originally posted by: StringEvery serious RPG player out there, every serious strategy gamer out there and every serious mmo player out there blames Blizzard for the downfall of serious computer gaming. Starting with Warcraft which was the complete ruin of turn based strategy games, Diablo which took RPGs to an unbelievably low level of intelect and then WoW which dumbed down mmo's for the mass market.quote> Well first of all, Warcraft was RTS, not TBS. If you're blaming them for making a great RTS game because it harmed TBS gaming, then I'm not sure how to respond to that. Diablo is fun, which is the most important thing. And WoW... MMOs needed to be dumbed down. They were inaccessable and not much fun. Blizz made a great MMO which people love playing.
  12. Why EA is every serious gamer's nightmare

    Yeah, EA are terrible. Gaming would be much better off without SSX, Fight Night Round 3, and Tib. Wars. /sarcasm EA have made some demented decisions, of which SCS is one. But they are not some evil corporation out to ruin gaming. If you don't like their stuff, simply don't buy it. There are competitors. Honestly. They put out year after year of iterative sport franchise games and are torn to pieces for it. They put out an attempt at something original and new and are torn to pieces for it.
  13. The New Official Next Generation Sim City Wish List

    There are a few major things I'd like to see in SC5 (Some may argue it just came out. But Grand Theft Auto is only reaching IV, despite Vice City and San Andreas having followed on from III. I would expect, if we see a return to the pre-Societies style of SimCity, that they will use the name SimCity 5. Especially if SCS doesn't do well and they want to distance it from typical Sim City.) At any rate, here's my wish list; More variation in almost everything. And that would be all, but let me elaborate on what exactly I mean. I. An evolving society I originally had this written out as time periods, but I had the problem of what happens when you reach the last time period (Say, for argument's sake, the 2020's). My overall idea is to have more flux and variation, to not have a game which will end up being static and stagnant once you reach a particular stage. Therefore, I came up with an idea which solves that problem, I believe. Essentially, socities go through changes, yes? Well, your city would reflect that. Partly on account of what you do, and partly on account of the game world at large, the general feelings of society would change. After an economic crash there would be less trust in finance and high technology, for instance, and those sectors would have hard times. If you build a tourist resort it'll suffer hard times during a period of mistrust of foreigners. I don't want to get into too detailed a look at or, heaven forbid, a commentary on the real world. But I'm just trying to give examples of the kinds of things which would effect societies. So, rather than simply starting in, say, 1920 and moving through decades with trends that correspond to real ones, you'd start in 1920 and might launch straight into a 1960's-esque feeling of liberalism and the like. Then around 1933 a war could start (Which wouldn't, probably, impact you directly - but the presence or absence of military bases in your city might.) and it would change people's desires, fears, and society's overall objectives. As I say, this is somthing the player would be able to influence in ways, and should not be entirely out of their hands. This means that even when you reach the late stage in terms of available buildings etc. and an ostensibly 'finished' high-tech ecologically sound paradise, you'll have factors which can change and make you need to stay busy. II. More choices on how to develop When it comes to Sim City, I tend to follow a fairly rigid structure on how to develop something. Build this in that order, fire stations right away, police when crime becomes a problem, schools and water when I want to start getting higher-tax locations, etc. etc. Well, I'd like to have more possibilities on what to do. There are unavoidable essentials, of course, but nevertheless there should be numerous ways to develop a community. Exploiting natural resources, building a financial center, a transportation hub, all these kinds of things. III. More options on local laws etc. I don't just want to be able to legalize gambling or the like. I want more control over more laws. I want to be able to outlaw alcohol, for instance. I want to be able to mandate community service. I want to be able to control the city's laws and see consequences from doing so. Not just the kinds of laws which are generally up for discussion, either, but to go beyond that into laws which we don't have, or being allowed to remove laws we do have. Changing this has obvious economic, corruption, and prison population effects, but it also ties in with the above into the next point. IV. More Atmosphere Here's the one thing SCS does well. If you build an authoritarian cyber dystopia, it will have an entirely different look and feel than an ecologically-minded farming community. I
  14. Genesis Apartments

×