CommodoreTech

I installed it, it never worked, I uninstalled it, now SC4 won't load. I have windows 7 64bit. I've tried all the options with it on, nothing, with almost all combinations but still nothing. I thought uninstalling it would work, still nothing. Also a desktop shortcut kept copying itself randomly, so I had the ones it created, and then one kept copying itself intermittently.

EA always seems to make a blunder somehow. They saw how forcing people online (and to pay, which I don't think EA will do) caused CXL to be a flop. I'm sure most of the current Sim City players don't mind so much about going online (I don't care too much if I don't have to pay). Some people get tetchy about it right now, but i'm pretty sure most people who are new to the market (a majority of which were probably off put or disappointed by SC4) will just see the whole online commitment as pointless chore. So many companies have tried this but I really haven't seen one that has succeeded. Second Life did will, because it is purely online and that's kinda the point of the whole concept. Farmville, which could work without being online, works because there never really was an offline version. What i'm trying to say is that I don't think it'll work because you could play Sim City beforehand without needing an internet connection. So I think most people will ask why? It's just such a blatant way of tying people into a corporate plan. The Sims is much nicer to play with all the online stuff, but I can play a decent game offline. I don't care if I do have to be online, but i'd really rather not.

I'd find it really cool, it would sync with the whole idea of Sim City beautifully. My cities would seem so much more realistic with real adverts on my billboards and hoardings. I think it would greatly improve the gaming experience, so long as it was entirely passive and didn't interrupt me or my playing. However, I don't really think the Sim City audience is wide enough for any profitable advertising in game. The Sims, yes, that sells quite a lot, home store companies could create furniture for it, (Like having a Phillips TV or a Ford car for your family). But, unless this Sim City becomes a big hit, I don't see how any company would feel they'd benefit from advertising to Sim City players. I know the current one has sold a few million copies, but this is over a decade. I don't know reallt, difficult to say.

Parking! I want my sims to have a car that they park in the street or in their drive, which I can see drives to work or the shop, is parked in a space, and which doesn't suddenly and miraculously vanish on arrival to somewhere. Parking is a major issue, especially in the often ancient cities and towns of Europe and the UK. Just because in the US there is basically enough space for it to never really be an issue doesn't mean the game should follow that. Parking along streets would be good as well. I doubt this'll happen, but i'd love it if densification happened automatically, and that I just set a few limits on development. Such as when there's a lot of demand to move into an area, big houses are split into flats, which increases population density, increases demand for public transport because there simply isn't enough room for everyone to have cars, or the existing public transport is used more intensively. And now because there are more people around, offices move into the bigger buildings and areas that are well connected to transport links increase in value because of the help they give to the economy (rather than SC4 where it seemed that only pollution, crime, education, health and aura added to land value). Thus if the economy is going well, there is constant pressure to push upwards and outwards (again rather than SC4 when it depended on how many numbers of things you had) such as in London, where this a great deal of pressure to build loads of skyscrapers because everyone wants to live there, and thus there is constant pressure to improve transport and services because of its inertial attraction. In SC4 once your city was rich enough you didn't really have to bother with anything, you could just leave it once you had a decent R$ population if you wanted to (I created many cities that were just millions of uneducated, unhealthy sims). While there was 'pressure' it didn't amount to more than riots. Stretched budgets! This would be so much more realistic! I never played with a money tree or the BSC funding ordinance, but still I found it easy to have massive budget surpluses in SC4. I think we all know that never exists in real life! I mean I don't want to be stretched to the limit, or if I am, to have some sort of government funding that will keep me out of debt but won't be endless and will itself be limited. I mean, a major city won't really run out of money (in Europe at least, I know about New York in the 1970s etc) because central government will always bail them out to some extent. Lets say you can overspend, but if you keep doing it the more annoyed they get. If they get beyond a certain limit, cuts to services have to be made and your city suffers. However i'd only want this if, when you play it properly, your budgets are fairly balanced. Any surplus goes to improving existing services or towards a big project. But if you act incompetent or stretch budgets too far (lets say you have a small town but try and build an unnecessary prestige project) then you have to be bailed out. I say this because the whole 'impeachment' thing in SC4 seemed a bit unimaginative and didn't really tell you to get your stuff sorted out, it just put you straight back to where you were. It'd also be cool if you got central government help to fund you with massive projects, like a major suspension bridge or something. Basically, I just don't want to have an account balance of billions of unused dollars after a city's fairly 'complete'. Open-ended services. Perhaps with a global budget modifier saying 'Spend $------" per person on health care, and when you have a bit more money you can increase this, but there's no real limit. The quality of healthcare is determined by how many people are in the hospitals. Maybe you have a massive 10,000 paitent hospital, perhaps, and can spend however much you want on each of their healthcare, but the 10,001st person who isn't in the hospital but who needs care but can't get a decent visit gets a 50% healthcare quality, and so do the next few hundred people. Then if it gets I dunno 10% over capacity, everyone in the hospital's healthcare quality is decreased by 10% and so on as the numbers get larger. The same with schools. It'd be different with crime. But maybe the level of crime in any given area would be dependent on education (not income, because the wealthy can commit fraud etc). Thus in an very educated (and thus likely wealthy) area you only need to provide basic coverage, whereas in a rough area you need tougher police cars, equipment etc. This sounds complicated, but I think it is unrealistic you can only spend like 3,500 (or however much it is) a month on healthcare and other services. I mean, what happened if a new drug came on the market? I don't want a random act like to occur of course, it isn't that sort of game, I just want to have no limits to how much I spend on things. If I make efficiency savings in one department then I want to move them to improve another! These are among many but yeah...

They'll never do plane crashes, because people will mod the Twin Towers and plaster videos of 9/11 re-enactments everywhere, which I doubt EA or Maxis or any of us really want to do. But I really don't want Godzilla or the fake ones. Meteor is highly unlikely and would be stupid to waste time simulating. It also isn't really the responsibility of a city government to clean it up or deal with it either. A UFO attack is also a bit silly, but I could live with it. The others I would like to be able to turn them on or off. Some games I might just want to play a city with a possible economic crisis. Some I might not find necessary, I mean, if I want to build a European city i'm not really going to have to consider hurricanes because they only occur once every few centuries in Europe. Earthquakes too, sometimes i'd like to have to deal with a city built in an earthquake zone, but others not. It's the same with most of them really, I really don't want to be forced to deal with them. Riots are unavoidable, Fires not so much. I don't know why Maxis are obsessed with having to force the player to deal with fires. Boris Johnson doesn't have to dispatch every damn truck! (Though it seems they've got rid of this in SC2013). Though still, I'd like to have a complete sandbox game if I want to. I'm sure new players would like this as well. I remember getting frustrated with SC3K when fires and riots used to pop up randomly.

I agree mostly, they are pointless in some respects. A real city creates landmarks naturally. All the landmarks in the world were created for another purpose if you think about it (The Eiffel Tower was an observation tower that just looked pretty enough to be kept. Buckingham Palace is just the Queen's house). Therefore building them with no other function is pointless and I always disliked it in the other games. Why can't a well developed CBD be a landmark in its self? That would be a really nice addition to the game. Or a busy junction with a monument in it (as per Trafalgar Sq. or the l'Etoile Junction). Or, if I redevelop an area into a large office development (as per the World Trade Center or the Rockefeller Center) it has the potential to become a landmark. Perhaps some sort of agent can be used in this? Like, lets say you have a load of tall buildings, a big church or something, and then these send out tourism agents to hotels or airports or something? Then the simulator can have a 'built-in' tourism simulation that the player doesn't have to fiddle around with much....

The idea of resource prices reminds me of Omnicorp, which reminds me to be suspicious. (Haha yes, more AHH PLEASE NO NOT MORE CXL)

I think manuals with lots of 'story' in really sell it for kids. I still have the SC3K manual (and box! remember when games came in boxes! sheesh) and I remember I used to love reading all the advisor's back stories, the tutorial and all the other information again and again. The same with the SC4 strategy guide, I read that many many times. But I don't care much for them now. I like some bit of paper in the case, otherwise it seems a bit bland when you open it the first time and have nothing relevant to read while it's installing...

We all want it to be then, but it'll end up being later... I'm sure it'll end up tormenting us and being released in like September next year...

I think this is a good idea. Perhaps the game pauses, and you do all this. If you for example (i've done this many a time) place a bus stop or something in the middle of an office block by accident, it can maybe show you that you've done so. Then if you want to undo it you could do so. It could also be useful if the plans sort of took time to happen. I mean, lets say a massive company moves its HQ into your downtown, which causes an increase in traffic, so you want to expand the road that links to it. But the office block is next to the road and requires demolition to widen the road. You give them notice, they move somewhere else, and all the jobs are kept! As opposed to the SC4 problem of demolishing a building with 6000 jobs that sorta kills the momentum of your downtown. If they could move somewhere else then it makes hte game more realistic also, as.. well, no company just vanishes when it's HQ has had to be 'remodelled'.

I think it's sort of got it's own niche, so regardless of what happens to Sim City it'll stay roughly where it is now. Though i'm sure most of it's market share is from the pent-up desire to play a 3D city simulator rather than because of how good a game it is... I dunno, it'll probably wither away...

We all seem to be losing our heads worrying that they're gonna betray our hopes and fulfill our fears! I do think though it will either be an amazing game that we nearly all love dearly, or a complete flop that only a few people like. So far, it looks nice and detailed, and seems to be heading to a nice place. We have to remember though, Societies was Tilted Mill and had nothing to do with Maxis. As Tarkus has said many a time, Maxis know what they are doing! They made the SC4 we all treasure, so they are unlikely to disappoint...

I'd really like to see this put into the game in the form of ordinances, such as emissions regulations and subsidizing public transport. This is realistic. What I fear it will be will be 'uh-oh oil is running out! build an oil well!' which frankly is not a city-building simulation issue. I want to build a city, not constantly faff around with a bloody resource interface! That is what I hated about Cities XL. No mayor has to build a coal mine, he merely permits it to be built. The economy worries about resources, it should only concern the player when the economy requires the players permission to exploit resources. I'd love it if I was the mayor of a city full of coalfields, and coal companies kept asking me for mining permits, which aroused concern amongst environmentalists, and I had to act as a mediator. Do I tell the mining company to get stuffed? Do I permit them limited mining rights? Do I tell the environmentalists to get stuffed instead? This is realistic. However, I'd detest the game if it was 'Mayor! Mayor! we're running out of coal and are completely incompetent at running the economy! if only you took care of every measly task for us!'. This again is the failure of Cities XL, you had to control a basic and rudimentary resource system that was too simple to be fun and so time consuming and irritating as well!. This is, however, what I think EA will do. If they do, then I will personally fly to California and slap them all.

The constant threat of CTDs... I know it's a legacy game and all, but it's so irritating. Though normally when I reload the city ends up better as I can correct some mistakes I made before the CTD, it's just annoying playing on the edge all the time. I just wish it had been written with modding in mind, like one of those paradox games, where you mod them masses without it turning gameplay into a house of cards. This biggest annoyance is the lack of unity in what to do about its legacy... no one can decide whether to try and rewrite it, try and make the best of what we've got or just give up... all we have is CXL, which isn't much better than sim city 4. It's only better in some areas but not in others.

 Water mod! It'll look much better. A place like that wouldn't have tropical blue water... try one of the PEG water mods.  

I think there is potential for a decent change, but there's several opportunities. You can, for instance, with the large ST modding community, 'edit' SC4 to make it very marketable. I mean, SC4 would likely be SC5 if only it had been 3D, however the game was too ahead of it's time for a 3D simulator, as we all know. This means that having the rudimentary four-point view makes the game seem backward to most customers. Because SC4 pretty much is the city simulator genre (there really hasn't been much penetration from cxl, no one knows about it) that means the genre as a whole is disappointing to most potential gamers. Top it off with what is a steep albeit small learning curve for SC4, that means that the whole genre's reputation is seen as boring and lacking in excitement. But if SC4, which is actually a very accurate city simulator (not that i'm a programmer, i'm speaking out of game experience) was updated, then i'm sure it would reinvigorate the whole sector. Of course, not on the scale of the Sims or GTA IV, but it would liven things up a lot, especially after the CXL disappointment. Even being 3D and a quick overhaul of the transport and water files (whoever has heard of every body of water in the world being tidal?), it would be so more deep and interesting. Whether EA would be interested in something like this is difficult to tell. If we try to create a new game, like write a SC5 and we say lets share the profits, they'll likely still seem suspicious, entering a dead market sector with an obscure gaming community as a partner, to compete with it's own game. If they somehow accepted, they'd argue they should have all profits because the core of the game is theirs, like wipers for a car. So, this would mean, don't re-release SC4. That would shoot the product down immediately. What you could try to do is release as an expansion pack. This means you don't really have to tread new ground, as the market is potentially everyone who's bought SC4 (some 20 million people) but the game is vastly improved. This means EA needn't worry about it flopping (i.e, they're guaranteed SOME sort of return on their licensing) and we're all happy. If we at ST volunteer to do most of the work, and all we ask is to legally do it (in a way, that being our price) then EA sells the next 'expansion pack'.. something like SC4000?and keeps most of the money (ST can keep a small percentage, not large as lets face it, we're a fairly insignificant group of gamers, not a massive organized group of wealthy people) then i'm sure they'll at least consider it. This way it benefits them, and if it doesn't work, they haven't lost any money, only licensed their product to a group of people who are actually law-abiding. By this I mean, if any 'new code' was written, EA would demand it would be destroyed or whatever, and because we haven't pirated it (we're not like that ) then we won't shoot ourselves in the foot either. That means that if it fails no one loses out other than the new game... so a lot of wasted effort, but EA doesn't care about that, and we have to remember that. This would of course require a contract to be written up, with lots of clauses and jargon and stuff, that protects us from EA simply going 'Nope, it's failed, destroy everything' after one week. This does leave us with a problem though: what if EA does do something like that? They're a very wealth company with goodness knows how many lawyers, and we are a group of loosely-connected gamers.... who wins? EA, of course. So, any attempt is likely very risky and potentially a complete shot in the foot for the ST community and all other players of SC4 if they have to keep playing a game that is so little but could be so very much more. There's a lot to do, but if we all suceed i'm sure it will be a new stage in the gaming world, where the community actually plays a part in the development rather than just being given a game and playing it.... Well, that's my two cents...

Suicide of the West - Richard Koch & Lord Smith

I never realized that there was a considerable gay community on Simtropolis.... Maybe suggests something about SC4? I should probably stop playing it then.... lolll Anyway, here's my opinion... I don't really know how to define my sexuality, as I swing regularly (most days) between men and women in terms of preference. I like heavy male stereotypes, and heavy female stereotypes in their respective genders. I don't really like the whole 'pride' thing (fine with other people, just I hate it when people suggest it to me) and I don't like the 'queer'/'queen' image... like tight pink clothes, squeaky nasal voice and such. I guess this is because while i'm definitely not straight, I am quite camp and resent it. But, basically, I don't identify myself as 'bisexual' because I don't value each gender equally. I see a long term relationship with a woman as plausible, but with a man, I really don't. A relationship maybe, some sort of mutual exclusivity, but I don't know really... Having a boyfriend seems very foreign to me. Yet, I don't want to abandon the idea. I'm annoyed as a lot of people offer advice but I can never give them direction. I found out about it all the hard way, naturally, with a painful embarrassing experience... That's my... story? I dunno....

To me, the first video made it look like an amateur mini-game you'd download with Google Earth. 'You can even see what cars the people are driving,'... sure, but they don't move, and it just looks so simple in comparison to the much more in-depth game that is SC4. The trailer makes it look exciting, and IBM have made good stuff before, so they might crack the vice that SC4 was in. To be honest, these two videos could be from completely different games, the way they portray it.

I think here, the old-fashioned phrase comes to mind: "Everything in moderation," Capitalism and Socialism have pros and cons. In society today, most people essentially see them as two ends of the spectrum. Why not be in the centre? Rhine capitalism is a good example. Large companies (like Volkswagen and various German steel companies) aren't corporate, they're communities. Its capitalism with a few perks of socialism. This means companies can thrive and the people are treated fairly. This is most like why Germany is one of the top 5 richest countries in the world. But, let's look at productivity per hour. Germany's is half as much as somewhere more capitalist like the UK. This is because Germans can go on strike easily and is full of powerful unions. They're still leaning towards socialism in the economic policy. Complete capitalism is essentially the USA. The best thing, I would say, is finding the centre, something like either the UK or France have a system I mean. Government intervention to prevent disastrous failures of capitalism and enough support to stop it leaving out those left behind.

True. Of course, in Britain, that's the main problem. Things do last for centuries. The only time we had a major constitutional upheaval, (the civil wars and formation of the Commonwealth), no great reforms were made to the British system of governance. While France had a almost entirely medieval system until 1789, it was changed to modern by 1792 and has remained so. Many other countries have done this, removed the old system in a great revolution. This has never happened in Britain, and parliament is still based on the old balance of power between, the Lands, the Lords and the Crown. Many people don't understand this, and simply disregard the Queen as some old-fashioned pointless institution, or more ignorantly as a dictator. They see the Lords as basically the chums of the Queen, a bunch of rich, landed snobs who don't care. The land is everybody left. (My definitions) This basically dates back to 1215, with the Magna Carta. Of course, the unwritten British constitution is incredibly old, but this gives it the unfortunate air of being feudal/victorian in image. But, it is the very fact that it's survived this long that is a great testament for conservatism. Kinda like, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Britain's system has been modern for many years. No other monarch in Europe let anything like the Magna Carta be signed for at least a few centuries. This means that the first past the post system in Britain is almost specifically tuned to Britain. A reason it sort of works is that once its done, we have a clear leader with (vitally) a strong government. Countries with proportional representation nearly always seem to have weak governments that are nearly always in coalition, which is essentially as damaging as a 5-year hung parliament. What i'm trying to say is that, many don't know if it will work in the UK and at this time, electoral reform shouldn't be at the top of people's agendas. The economy is very fragile and a hung parliament is only going to tip it further. I think the idea of PR in councils is much better though. And i'd prefer a de-centralized, federal sort of system. While many thinks this only works in countries as big as the US where it has to be states, the UK has big populations in comparison. And it means Westminster having to pass laws that may only be relevant in a completely different part of the country. If it was changed to lets say, greater councils for the current 'regions' with PR in their elected senates or whatever. This would allow Westminster to focus more on things like foreign policy and healthcare and education rather than 'where to send money for a bride 500 miles away'. Of course, allow the decentralization of law to, so lets say some regions have different laws on certain things. (Like states do the US).

It seems a lot of people say the conservative victory is the result of an 'out-dated' and unfair voting system. This only seems to be because of some random thing people have with the Tories, they think they're a morally wrong party and that Cameron is some reincarnation of Thatcher. They also seem to be 'worried' that the Tories will get into power. Why? They're gonna hunt you down or something? They're still a democratic party, just slightly more right than Labour. (Labour is no longer left-wing, lets face it). This is so stupid. Like when people say 'voting for the BNP is wrong'. No, its your opinion. I'm sure the Nazi's thought it was wrong to vote for anyone but them. We wanna ban people voting a certain party cos we don't like the fact Labour's 13 year term has seen the rise of the far-right in a DEMOCRACY? Sure, that's democratic. Vote for these selected group of people, who we, the governing body deems suitable. Many middle class voters in England like to pat themselves on the back by being 'fair and caring' by voting Labour, yet all they're doing is corrupting the system. This is stupid, vote for policies, not ideologies. Also, anyone noticed how the BNP is racist and homophobic? Yes, when they're at their strongest, the perfect time to give them a voice in parliament with proportional representation. I think this is because i'm a staunch direct democrat. I hate forcing ideologies onto people (such as socialism, capitalism or any others) and think only politicians with sufficient knowledge (not to offend less intelligent people, a phrase which typifies this culture obsessed with being tolerant and politically correct) should propose ideas to the public, and they vote on it. Essentially, like the American system where certain parties try to push for yes or no on 'Proposition ...'. Kinda like government by referendum. Its slow, but if there's a strong leader in the government, then the country has nothing to worry about.

Well, it's going to happen in some place or another at some point. Making assumptions now is pointless, no-one knows what will happen. Cannabis isn't really addictive (dependent on a lot of things, I know, more addictive if you're depressed or have anxiety problems) hence the health affects from smoking won't be as paramount. (But still there). It doesn't cause violence like alcohol, so most of the money spent on clearing up boozed up yobs vandalism and paying to stitch their faces back together could be spent elsewhere. A properly regulated, by which I mean more heavily than tobacco or alcohol, market for cannabis could be relatively problem free. Give a quota or something so you can't buy that much of it. Naturally a stoned population won't be productive, so if it is, in a sense rationed or only available on weekends, then that won't affect the working week so much. To the people who keep saying 'lets say a stoned guy does this and endangers people' Let's say a drunk guy gets in a car, and kills an innocent person. Let's ban alcohol. Lets say a depressed person kills themselves by walking into traffic. I don't want to pay to clear it up. Another thing a lot of people seem to forget is some of the drugs in the US and UK healthcare systems are much much MUCH worse than cannabis, and yet are perfectly legal. For example, something like SSRI's. You stop taking them, you fall to pieces, much like you're just addicted. But the drug companies call this 'dependence' instead. Something like cannabis (unless you're a very heavy user) you can stop, and you're fine. Naturally, you'd have to resist the urge to do it again if it was legal, but millions of ex-smokers do this trouble-free everyday, and of course, it isn't addictive, so the urge is purely mental, not physical. But, SSRI's? You stop taking them, all the problems come back instantly and you have to take it again to be okay. I'm not saying these drugs are bad, but just how hypocritical it seems that the governments legalize and encourage use of this yet ban cannabis. I know that cannabis has, in some respects, more problems than tobacco, as it has been proven to cause psychosis to people genetically pre-disposed. And, then, there is the risk of lung cancer from over consumption, as cannabis smoke is a more lethal cocktail of carcinogens than that of tobacco smoke.

Welcome to the introduction of my updated city journal! Now, my last tip-toe into CJ-ing was a failure, because I didn't like how close my CJ was linked to CSGDesign's Natural Growth. So, after some time, I decided to dig up the old one I made some time ago and change it a little. So, here it is. But, what do you mean, exploration in urban development? Well, by this I mean that I will showcase various bits and bobs and odds and ends of urban development on this city journal. I'll use methods used by American and British towns and cities in Sim City 4 and see how they work out. Of course, i'm using inspiration from CSGDesign, but, unlike my first journal, I won't be copying him so much, as i'm not one for the bandwagon. Okay, so what methods you gonna use? Similar to the 'Natural Growth' principle, I refuse to use blatant cheats. I don't want to use the BSC funding thing at all, the money tree or all the other things. I believe this ruins the whole point of the game and shows anyone who uses it to have little skill in city building. Unless you're recreating a real city or trying to build a realistic metropolis very quickly, then I don't wanna see it! Anyway, I'll use my own version of the Natural Growth principle, which means, growing slowly. No city started off with a fully funded health, education, police and fire service, at least no metropolis I know. So, i'll be starting off with little towns and villages that run mainly off farms. Then, after a long time, put in some industry to start an 'industrial revolution' which pumps up the population, and sees masses of slums sprawling all over the map. Then, we move on to educating and treating this population, with the onset of (very unevenly spread) schools and hospitals. This will eventually produce a fairly realistic, long-term growth model of a city, probably what Maxis tried to create. (i'll eventually create a nice timeline graphic of this method) So, i'll be traveling along a 2 thousand year journey from agrarian to industrial and eventually commercial development. Of course, i'll try to make it look nice too, with proper shaped fields and forests, but, i'm not going to scrape the STEX looking for medieval homes. (If you wanna create some, then please do, i'll happily use them!) Shall we begin?

 Very interesting! Hopefully see this grow to a metropolis of some kind! Nice work