tombrown14

For me the idea of connecting to somebodies city is pointless.I'm playing the game so the universe should be mine to design. I'd much rather build two cities myself that trade with each other as generally most of probably wat the perfect bordering on utopia cities. Having to listen to the developers say cities don't exist in a bubble as if that's some kid of profound statement is ridiculous especially since it is not true. In fact cities almost always exist within their own bubble such as London vs the entire rest of the country - London having more people than Scotland and Wales combined (statsitics depending) or New York City vs New York State. Two cities close to each other but in two seperate countries might or might not have a level of interconnectedness. e.g. London and Paris - fairly well connected. On the other hand it takes 7 less minutes to travel to Manchester which is in the same country!!!! So interconnectedness worldwide is dictated by history and circumstance rather than a 'if you build it they will come' attitude. The real issue for me is that in fantasy land i don't want to be burdened by a replica of the doomed and failed economic theories i am trying to escape from in real life. Why in 2013 does this game want to slavishly saddle itself with the economic theories of the 18th ad 19th centuries? At least give us a choice. What if i want a resource based economy with as litle waste as possible? How will i be able to avoid economic disasters seeing as they have happened in other areas like bank runs in the Second Life game!!!!? Isn't it likely that the entire economy will be just as manipulatable as the real world economy???? Don't forget that Pakistan imports coal but has the third largest prove coal fields in the world after Russia and the USA Most pasta comes from South America. Jamaican coffee is by far the worlds best yet 90% of their crop goes to Japan in exchange for poor quality automobiles (they are!!!) OIl revenues have had virtually no long term economic benefits in the Middle East and where it has are the odd ones out (i.e. the minority in their own lands ala UAE, Qatar, Bahrain). Even these states have questionnable economic success and huge debts. So even if you have resources the idea that you can just start trading them is ridiculous from an economic standpoint. Trade goes like this throughout history. Persons agglommerate ad source materials for their own needs. Excess LUXURY items and common TRANSPORTABLE items are traded locally. High Value (to the state) goods are sourced by the state and then much much much later by intermediaries. The only thing missing from the game is corporations which is the actual sustainer of capitalism. Without that legally human, non human entity there in fact is no capitalism as the drive of humanity is constantly at odds with the aims of corporations (which just means body in essence) So there cannot be a stock market without corporations. There can only really be price controls set by the state or common price agreements that are informal and accepted on good faith and common knowledge. It just confuses me to see why this is now a fundamental aspect of a game whe n so much of the uderlying principles are based on flawed ancient economic theories that simply don't have the results to prove their own theory.

Exactly. The problem is that they have lost sight of that ideal. The implementation of that ideal was what made Simcity successful in the first place. I'm always worried when people claim that something has grown to complex. It obviously wasn't much of a jump for anybody to move from Simcity 2000 to 3000. Imho, saying the gme ight have been too complex for new players is really pointing out that SimCity 4 was by far the least finished game in the series. Buggy, awkward, poor pathfinding, contrary game outcomes and so for me i couldn't simply jump in the same way i had in Simciity 2k or 3k. To me, it was because the game wasn't exactly right that people found it difficult or hard to play. Because it didn't play how you expected it to. One example would be the RCI demand graph. Now there is no reason why it should have a negative axis, seeing as that suggests that you need to destroy or close rather than the demand is low. Either the demand is there or not, but it cannot be negative anything as zero is the base. Yet that simple (but utterly ridiculous) concept of supply and demand escaped everybody. It also added a level of complexity that was unnecessary. If games like Anno that dress up simple theoretical economics as something complex can exist then there is no reason why EA and Maxis need to assume that the game is too complex. I can't think of any reviews i read where anybody suggested that the game was unplayable because it was too complicated, rather they complained about shoddy things here and there. The need to appeal to the lowest common denominator seems to be a waste here because on balance if building a fantasy city sounds difficult chances are they don;t want a game with much complexity at all. For me the prostituting for trade aspect is the most creepy, because most people know where to go. You rarely have to advertise unless there's a lot of competition - which there isn't. The alternatives barely come close to what has been achieved however THEY, not SimCity has the new player market. I think the bottom line is if YOU say your OWN product is too complex without the actual players agreeing then you doomed yourself. it's the eternal; 'I'm fat!' 'No! You're beautiful!' But if you don't listen to me the you'll always think you're a fatty.

I am also awaiting delivery of STEX cd's having donated US$50. i donated on the 26th of August and haven't heard anything. Though paypal does produce an online receipt. I'm in the UK so i expected some delay... If anyone is reading this please can they clarify that i'm still going to get my delivery...