piccboi824

Nope, I'm on the same page. I did the same thing with The Sims and it was a) cheaper and b) all of the major problems and issues that made me unenthused about the game before were patched through and updated so you get to have a fully positive experience at a better deal. I'm also waiting to see how people feel about the game farther out from now. People are playing it for hours (if they can) and find it so engaging now because it's still new, but will it be as fun 3 months from now after you've done everything you can? And are there even going to be worthwhile expansion packs (The Sims 3 trend has shown they can be quite hit or miss)? Even then there are a lot of things about this game that I know are limiting factors for my style of game play that I'll have to watch pan out before I even consider trying it.

I don't have friends who would play the game with the commitment required for multiplayer. I know that I play in cycles where I play intensively for a few months that back off until I have another creative spurt. With the global economy aspect, you would have to play at least weekly seeing how it would be very likely that you would have different economic conditions that could either advantage or disadvantage you whenever you next opened the game. I know because my friends and I lead busy and spontaneous lives, we wouldn't be able to schedule a weekly "SC Night" to all play at once. Another thing I always think about is the idea best friends don't always make the best neighbor/roommate. You know how you have those friends that you like, but know if you ever lived together you would probably end up resenting them? That's how I would feel playing a region with my friends. We don't have a hive mind and would probably disagree a lot on so many things and spend too much time on conflict resolution than building cities. I know that because I'm so particular, I'd rather just go and do my own thing without having to compromise or get approval from someone else.

Ok I've read a bunch of different forums about this and it's really sad that people who like the game jump down the throats of people who didn't like and didn't want to invest in a game that wasn't going to satisfy what they wanted out of that type of game. No one else jumped down the throats of people who do like the game and frankly alot of the complaints weren't even that ridiculous and were pretty rational. So to be constructive, I'll just say what I hope they do with the game or CXL 2011 -Unlock/include basic transit features like busses, trains, and el-rail/subway in single player from the get go. This was by far what really turned alot of people off from the game because these things were available even before SC4 so it's like a staple feature. -The resource system and the services systems are good concepts, but allow the option of more micromanagement for the people who want to have a challenge -As a single player type of game, it should really funtion as a stand alone single player game first, then add on the MMO aspect later. Like require a subsription in order to have access to custom comment, trade in a global economy with other players, and have sports leagues or and Olympics competition that would be better suited for multiplayer interaction. -And of course fix whatever bugs there were. These simple improvements I feel would satisfy alot of people turned off by the game initially and can atleast keep people more positive and open to the game until the more advanced improvements that we wished for come in.

Other than game crashes, I hate how in low and medium residential, high wealth sims take over everything, but then when you want the high wealth residential towers, they never want to build.

Originally posted by: Ilikeseattle SimCity 5? I want SimCity 3000 3D! The 5th SimCity PC game was SimCity Societies. All of its internal files called it SC5.quote> I would have been happy with that, in fact Cities XL in single player mode should have been SC3000 3D with the road features and better graphics and functional online trading. Just simple buses, passenger trains, and subways. If I'm spending $50 on a game that is suppose to be the next step for a genre, then it should atleast give me the basic things that were present in the genre before, not take five steps backward. Besides graphics and roads, SC2000 had more features than CXL. If they had just made essentially the same game with better graphics in single player and added more specialized custom content like trams, custom lots, etc. through paid online subscription, more people would go out and buy it and would be more prone to subscribe to planet offer for the real good stuff as long as the basic stuff was there. I know I would have bought and maybe subscribed if I was really getting something way better than SC4. But I'm not and probably won't so...

I recently installed the SC4 Update 1 for Rush Hour/Deluxe so I could get the BAT Nightlighting Fix which works fine. The problem though is that my Maxis lots are missing driveways,fences, and parking and paved textures on the lot. Has anyone had this happen before? Is there a fix for it. The game still works, it's just going to irritate me because the lot's just look dumb.

Okay I'll try, thanks for responding!

I use th Road Top Mass Transit (RTMT) mod and the same thing happens, but usually with the GLR stations. Try plogging the stations first then dragging the avenue/road through while the game is playing at regular speed. You have to pass the network through and enable it. You'll know that it worked if the automata continues to drive past the station. If the automata disappears right when they hit the station then it isn't enabled.

You have to download the latest version of the NAM and the latest version of RTMT for the stations. I can't remember if I had to download the T-RAM file separately but I would double check that.

Yeah, but the thing is, DC isn't a failing city with a lack of job opporunities. New residents continuosly move to DC because of the government presence, and companies setting up shop there. This isn't happening because there aren;t any new jobs coming in to Detroit, meaning there isn't in any demand for more housing, which means no more development. Those vacant lots are empty for a reason.

As a Miami resident and having to been downtown numerous times and in the area that the proposed streetcar would run, I can tell you that Downtown isn't a major touris destination and retail isn't all that big either. South Beach is the real retail and tourist destination.

Originally posted by: zambones Here is a fantasy map of South Florida's Tri-Rail. Any SoFLoridiains here tell me the good and bad about this map. quote> Miami's City Hall isn't in Downtown, It's south of the aena in Coconut Grove and not accessibe by the FEC corridor. Where the city hall stop is would have to be adjacent to the Government Center Metrorail station, which Is like our transit hub.

Originally posted by: hym Originally posted by: piccboi824 Instead of blaming the President for being slow on these dramatic changes that he really can't make himself, you should be blaming Congress.quote> The thing Obama is conveniently not mentioning is that he has the statutory power to instruct the Pentagon not to investigate a service member's sexuality. In other words, he has the power to effectively abolish "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but he isn't doing it. quote> I really meant so in general, to all issues. Many people criticize Obama for not following through on alot of different promises, but it hasn't even been a year and really executive orders only go so far. They may be treated as laws, but Congressional Acts hold stronger and are alot harder to reverse. Really if it is as easy as you claim it is, then it would've been done by now.

I think some people need to go back and take American government again and understand how things work in this country. I suggest reviewing your checks and balances. The President is the head of the excecutie branch which is responsible for enforcing the laws of the country, not creating them, that's the job of the legislative branch i.e. Congress. The President can only sign bills into law or veto. He can issue executive orders that are treated as law, but can be easily reversed by someone else. He can support legislation that is in Congress, but Congress has to draft the bill and approve it before he can. So if you want a solid law or Ammendment, you have to go to Congress, not the President. Instead of blaming the President for being slow on these dramatic changes that he really can't make himself, you should be blaming Congress. I mean the Democrats who are mostly behind these ideas have the majority in both the House and the Senate and yet can't make any headway on anything on the Democratic platform.

quote>

But how is the government competing unfairly? No one is making that clear. The rationale that "because I'm already paying for it so I might as well use it" doesn't make any sense because as I have illustrated before, there are alot of things our taxes pay for that we all don't benefit from. The most vocal opposition just plays on emotions and makes strong accusations to rile people up, yet they don't come back with a strong argument with solid proof to back it up. I mean "death comittees" and "euthanasia"?! Where is that in the legislation? If you are going to make a convincing argument give me something directly from the legislation, not some random statistics trying to prove why one side is wrong. Tell me why YOUR side is right. Prove to me why what we have now is working and what is planned doesn't without bringing up the "principle of the free market" or competition yada yada. I doubt that any of you are economist or did well in economics for the most part.

Originally posted by: autumnsolace Originally posted by: MattShizzle A lot of Americans buy into the myth that anyone can become succesful by working hard, when really much of success is due to what economic class you were born into (the single greatest determining factor in what economic class you will be as an adult) along with social connections and plain old luck. Fact is the people who work the hardest make next to nothing while a lot of people who do next to nothing make money on other peoples' backs.quote> that's entirely false and subjective. sure you can work hard your whole life and go nowhere, but that leads to suggest you didn't ever strive for something higher. quote> Though the original poster wasn't completely correct there is some truth to that. People who consider themselves in the upper or middle-classes often think that the working class is full of people who never strived to be anything and were just lazy. It's the rationale that "if I can do it, why can't that they?" It all comes down to the environment you live in. Most of the time the upper- to middle-classes grew up in the same socio-economic category. Generally, that means you grew up in a similar neighborhood that you live in now which afford similar opportunities like access to a decent education that prepares you to move on to higher education and get a good job and so forth. If you look at the neighborhoods that the working class generally live in, they don't have the same opportunities. The schools could perform below par and you aren't thoroughly prepared for college to the extent that you could potentially be successful. Some kids you do extremely well at poor performing schools go on to college and do horribly because they were not prepared correctly. You also have to consider the families you come from. If your parents took an interest in assuring that you were getting a good education and made that a priority and took an active role in your education, then odds are you will be successful in the future regardless of social class and could lead an equivalent or even better lifestyle than the one you grew up with. If your parents don't prioritize the importance of education and you live in an environment where "ignorance is bliss" and the pursuit of knowledge is looked down upon, then you are less likely to succeed and will end up remaining or downgrading in socio-economic status. Also, if you were never supported in your ambitions and were always told "you can't" instead of "you can" then the same result will most likely happen. So in all there are lots of other factors to consider before we start saying that the "poor are poor because they are lazy and never strived for anything better."

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: piccboi824 I missed the part where the government forces everyone to sign up for the public option and we enter a "totalitarian socialist" state. If someone would clarify that for me it would be very much appreciated.quote> They force everyone to pay for it, whether they use it or not. It marginalizes the private sector because that encourages people to use it. And also because unlike a private company it is immune from failing and going bankrupt, so it's hardly "fair competition". The other effect of it being unable to fail is that it will suck since it doesn't have to not suck in order to survive. quote> Well is private education marginalized because our taxes fund public education creating more incentive to send their kids to public school? No. Just as many people send their kids to private schools as do people who send their kids to public school. It is all a matter of priority. If you can afford to send you're kid to a private school that performs better than a public school in your area, than you choose to do it. If you can't afford to or your local pblic school performs well enough for your child, then you send them there. So what would be the difference if there was a public option for healthcare? I think if you are against the public option because you don't want to pay for the health coverage of other people, or supposed "socialism," then you should be against anything provided by the public sector, like public education, transportation, police and fire protection, garbage collection, parkland, etc. All of those things are covered by taxes. Everyone is paying for everyone else already. If you have a problem with this fact, then lets eliminate taxes and you can send your kid to private school, provide your own mode of transportation, contract with a garbage collection service for your personal garbage collection, and buy alot of land and have your own personal park maintained by yourself or some lawn service. Then no one will be mooching off of you except for yourself and your family and your right to carry your own weight won't be infringed upon.

I missed the part where the government forces everyone to sign up for the public option and we enter a "totalitarian socialist" state. If someone would clarify that for me it would be very much appreciated.

It's not really fare to compare Atlanta to New York. I mean New York was founded in the 1600's and by the 1890's it already had like 2 million people living there, while Atlanta was founded later as a hobunk railroad crossing and didn't gain alot of population until the 20th Century after the invention of the car. Most of New York's subway was built in the early 1900's, when NO ONE had a car. They built underground and over the streets while rapid development occurred all around. By the time expressways were even thought of, New York was way to dense to build one and the established infrastructure wouldn't allow it, so they kept building subway lines and opening new services. Atlanta grew in the 20th Century, around when the Ford Model T made cars cheaper for more people to have. Like many Sun Belt cities (which we love to gripe and complain about for not planning anything) Atlanta grew rapidly and expanded along old country roads (thus why there is no widespread grid) and then with the Interstate program going into effect, they built mor highways than rapid transit because on many ways it was just easier for people to access. Mass transit gets more use when it is easier to walk and make direct connections i.e walking. That means small blocks in a grid. In a none grid area, those connections are not that easy because it requires indirect connections i.e. bus, park-n-ride, etc. and during that connecting time, you could already be on your way to work. So could we please just look at the cities we're comparing before we start passing judgements? I mean how many of us are professional city planners anyway, and just because some strategies work in Simcity, they don't always work here in the REAL WORLD.

Originally posted by: ilikehotdogsalot Originally posted by: Constantine88 I respectfully disagree about the Metromover in Miami being a failure. Growing up in Miami I took the Metrorail to downtown a few times and then took the Metromover to get easily around downtown. Since then I have obtained a drivers license and moved to Tampa for college a few years later. I do however still take the Metro rail/mover alot when I come home to take summer classes at Miami Dade college. The Metromover takes me directly from the Metrorail Government center stop and to my college literally right across the street from it. The Metromover literally connects to all the major points of Downtown even Bayside.quote> It would make more sense if they connected the metromover to Miami Beach so you wouldn't have to drive across the causeways. quote> FYI, they did plan to extend Metromover Service to Miami Beach, it was just overriden by the Taxi drivers because most of their business are trips to the beach. Besides have you been to Miami Beach? The streets are way too narrow to have Metromover tracks running along them; they would totally make the place cramp and ruin the vibe of the Beach. A streetcar line (like the proposed BayLink) would be better, because it would run on the streets and be less obtrusive. Plus it would add more to the area aesthetically. Driving across the causeways really isn't that bad unless there is some event on the beach. What's bad is driving from the suburbs along the Dolphin, US 1 , or I-95.

Originally posted by: confused04 Unfortunately, its still a bus and study after study after study shows that buses have a stigma to them that is proving hard to shake. There are still racial divides on bus transportation. Whites to this day continue to avoid bus transportation and surveys find that whites are attracted to fixed rail transportation. Now is this true EVERYWHERE? No, of course not. BRT's can work, especially in inner ring suburbs in cities that aren't that consolidated. But BRT to the stereotypical suburbs I think MAY prove to be a waste of money. Whether its true or not, trains are perceived to be more punctual.quote> I agree, buses do have a stigma of being the mode of transit of the working class, especially in suburban areas. This isn't that true major cities like New York and Chicago where various socio-economic classes (though not necessarily the wealthy) can be seen riding the bus. In Miami, we have a busway that extends from the southern terminus of the Metrorail all the way to the southern end of the county to Homestead (a middle and working class bedroom community). It is really useful to the people in Homestead because it is a faster connection to downtown and the major malls along US 1, but as you go north, it is practically abandoned. If the busway was built as light rail, there would be extremely high ridership because it would serve a large poulatiion and provide connections to major destinations along US 1.

Originally posted by: confused04 Originally posted by: piccboi824 I just wanted to comment on the recurring issue of improving mass transit in the suburbs. There are several reasons why making improvements to transit in the suburbs is often infeasible. Let me lay it on the table for you. 1.) Building transit takes HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars. Look up any current transit project in this country and check the price tag. If that kind of money was so easy to come by, then there would be large expansive systems in every major metropolitan area. Because building rail systems is such a huge investment to be made by the local, state, or Federal governments, they're not going to build them where projected ridership isn't high enough for the system to essentially pay for itself. quote> Building anything, mass transit or highway or not takes millions. The shear number of highway projects and their related price tags are staggering (nearly a billion dollars have been invested on 35 W in the past 2 years in Minneapolis alone). Money really isn't the issue, its appropriating it. Its not like European cities have decided to spend a lot more on their mass transit, they have just used their money differently, (as in less highways). Highways aren't cheap and certainly not at the rate we're building them. quote> I wasn't tryong to say that highways are cheaper...I support mass transit 100%. I was just making the point that because it is such a big investment and ridership in farther out suburbs is low, transit beyond buses has low priority.

Originally posted by: autofreak7 Originally posted by: absolute1 if sprawl dies that would be the day, i hate it it has ruined marred, destroyed and desecrated many of those places that i held to be the most beautiful, and not to say the impact on the cities which are decayed due to lack of middle class inhabitants. Suburbs simply have nothing to do, no culture, no community, and simply serve to isolate people, so that all there is to do is shop and be good consumersquote> I really don't agree with this, if there were a place where there is no joint sense of community, it ought to be the inner cities. quote> This really isn't true either. My sister lives in the inner city in a gentrified area and she knows all of her neighbors. They get together and have block parties and cleanup the garbage in their neighborhood and will help each other out whenever. Whenever we are out on her back patio, if her neighbors are out, then they will always say hi to us and start a conversation. When it comes to having a sense of community, it all depends on the people who live there. If you and your neighbors don't take the initiative to form a community or make each other feel welcome, then you're never going to have community whether you live in the city or not.

Sorry, I hadn't finished my post, so I had to update it.