mayorgeek

What is hilarious about that? It is a pretty reasonable offer for people who bought the limited edition. edit: Oh, SC4... That is pretty funny!

I have this problem as well. I read something about switching from 59 hz refresh to 60 or vice versa, but haven't had a chance to try it yet.

I'm bored with this. Have a good night.

My approach has things happen through natural consequence while your approach requires hard coding of all consequences. This is what I'm talking about when I refer to elegance. Your approach is not elegant.

It's not that simple. Here's what would happen: On day 1, all sims take route A. Route A was congested so on day 2 all sims take alternate route B. Everyone took route B so it was congested. They need a new route. On day 3, all sims take route A... It's called oscillation.

My approach functioning incorrectly performs worse than your approach functioning correctly. Imagine that. Nobody has denied the existence of bugs and nobody has claimed glassbox is functioning perfectly as intended. You seem to be asserting that everything would be working flawlessly on day one if only they had taken your approach. That is absurd. You don't understand my point because you don't want to. You want to complain. I've made very simple statements that anyone can understand. At this point in the thread, I don't expect you to like glassbox, but you should at least be able to understand why I like it. edit: Again, what does this have to do with your major point of developer effort? You were looking for something to complain about and you chose developer effort. It turns out you don't know much about developer effort so then you try to make it about something else.

Your major point was about developer effort. I don't see how your analogy to counting llamas applies to any major or minor point. Maybe at some incredibly superficial level. You still haven't addressed my posts. I'll address the analogy anyway: The optimal way to program a computer to perform a task is not always an attempt to directly replicate the intuitive human way to perform the task.

Right, not to mention it works pretty well. If you played enough, you would know there's nothing wrong with it. Incorrect, I had a sewage plant that was over capacity so I built another in a different part of the city. The original was still over capacity with sewage backing up and the one I built was barely recieving any sewage. To fix this I built a larger one that still did not recieve any of the sewage. I figured out that the agents are to stupid, they always go to the closer place, so I deleted both the original sewage plants and all of a sudden problem solved!! By reducing my capacity I made the system work!! So no, the way its set up actually does not work. It was a waste of effort because it doesn't work perfectly? How do you know there wouldn't be any bugs if they had done it your way? If you had read the entire post you would know that thats exactly what would happen if you just simulated it rather than using "agents". Have you read my posts?

Sure, you could write code to simulate these effects. But then you would have to write, debug, and balance the code for all the effects you wanted. With glassbox, these things just happen because they are natural consequences. It's like you've removed a layer of simulation and replaced it with a layer of reality. It's so elegant.

If they already had the engine developed for other elements, it doesn't really take any more developer time to use it for utilities. What would take more time is developing a different system like the "more direct" one you suggest. That's the beauty of it. One you have the engine working, it is very simple to apply it to anything.

The OP is inaccurate--The blog post doesn't mention anything about buying it at launch. It says on the 18th, everyone who has activated will get it. If you haven't bought it already, you could buy it on the 17th and get the free game. That's how I read it, anyway.

Amazon has suspended both the DVD and the download. The DVD is available only from third party sellers--not from Amazon.

It says there you bought the game. I have bought something on Amazon. That does not give me the right to reviews things I haven't bought. Can you tell us how you got your percentage? If not, why should we believe you? From Amazon's customer service page: Forbes explains it here in this article titled Fake Reviews: Amazon's Rotten Core. I took the number (people can edit their reviews) of Amazon verified users and divided it by the total number of reviews in that ranking. You can count yourself if you'd like. You don't have to believe me, but at least believe Amazon. Are you saying you think someone is paying a bunch of money for people to write hundreds of fake negative reviews?

That wasn't the point. The thread is about all the Amazon reviews. You lose credibility when the majority of the reviews are from people who haven't bought the game. If the majority of the reviews were from people who bought the game, then we would something to debate. You're right, that wasn't your point. That was his point. His point showed that your point was not valid. It is not difficult to follow...

It doesn't make sense - why would people "want" to downrate a product they wanted to buy? By the way, it sounds like another "blame the consumer" argument - take their money, they have legitimate concerns and when they can't use a product they paid for - blame them on top of that. What legitimate concerns? The server issues will be fixed and everyone knows it (or should know it). Anyone downrating based on the server problems are using it as an excuse, or if they're too blinded by their tantrums they're just giving it a reactionary negative vote. What other legit concerns are there? Or, a better question, is what other legit concerns inspire 10 paragraph rants about why EA sucks and they ruined SimCity? What other legit concerns are there that can bring the rating down to 1 star, instead of down to, say, 3 stars? For me personally, I haven't bought it yet (I don't really have the money to anyway), and if I did have the money the main reason for buying it would be to understand the game better so that I'm better prepared when modding is possible. Right now out of the box there are some deal breakers that prevent this from being the SimCity that I want it to be, but I still understand that this should be a 4 or 5 star game. Yeah, I have a rare couple of light weeks during medical school and want to spend some of my extra time using something that I paid for... But my concern is not legit... I am merely a child throwing a tantrum.

Yeah, I have nothing better to do than spend all my time looking for reasons to hate something and then to pay money for it.

What are you talking about? Amazon clearly indicates which reviewers bought the item. Most of the people who review products don't buy the products. You don't have to buy the products to review them. And that is irrelevant because of what I said. Stating it again doesn't change anything.

What are you talking about? Amazon clearly indicates which reviewers bought the item.

They are certainly not basing a review off 20 minutes or zero playtime as a lot of the users are... It's hard to get more objective than a negative review for a nonfunctional product.

Gee, I never looked at it that way. Instead of complaining that tiles are too small and cloud saves are no good, we should have let EA know that they should make bigger tiles and local saves. This whole fiasco could have been averted. Quick, someone call EA!

Exactly. just as reliable as anywhere else i suppose. Don't you just love how, when there are reviews for the game way before it has even come out - and they are just amazing! - that is considered reliable? However, people who have actually paid for their game - their reviews aren't?! Wow - I love how it is still being spinned as the consumer is not trustworthy, even at this point. Last time I checked, the number is growing on amazon - pretty fast and it is holding steady at 1.5 stars! Over 400+ - the majority, with legitimate complaints. This is the first Sim game I have not bought and I am glad that I didn't. You honestly believe every single one of these reviews are by people that have played the game for enough time to give a fair, through review of its features? As mentioned several times, many of these reviews are clearly from people who were unable to play the game because the servers were down, so they gave the game a "1" rating. I bought something and it was nonfunctional due to poor design choices, fueled by contempt for the consumer. Why shouldn't I give it the lowest possible rating? What is unfair about that? Disclaimer: I'm not a big gamer. I've never used Origin. I haven't been following the pre-release hype. I'm not part of any bandwagon.