JanYpe

Originally posted by: manticorefan Interesting how no one mentions MSNBC, even though they're just as bad if not worse. And CNN was said to stand for Clinton News Network. Fox just must be the worst, right? I smell a real double standard, or does everyone just assume the news media is going to be leftist-leaning, making Fox stick out? quote> No double standard. It´s safe to say that pretty much all your major media outlets in one way or another pander to their owner's bias and the lowest common denominator with idiotic stories like `The government is going to own your computer, oh lawd the socialist menace marches on.` But hey, since you guys seem to enjoy it so much, if only to have the occasional masturbatory patriotic rant about nonsense like this, it´s a trend that´s probably not going to end any time soon. Originally posted by: Ntq$310 Hmm. Just wonderful, now are government is too cheap to buy it's own computers, and has to take them through a disclaimer. Its just wonderful when we have things becoming federal property! But on to Fox News. You either love it or hate it. I lean more towards the right, and I enjoy watching it. Glenn Beck is crazy, but he's also funny and frankly, appears much more alive than other people on the news. You love him or hate him. Just as with Fox News in general, it leans right, and for people who like that, it's great, for people who are on the left, well not so much. But, it's frankly pathetic when the only thing people can say about something is that 'oh it came from here, that source sucks!'. I like the phrase, debunk whats been said, not who said it. Which besides, all news sources are biased in someway, some more than others, and we would have no news if the only thing we could say is 'they are biased, so everything they say is a lie'quote> Except, oops, that's not what anyone has been saying. If you check out the story for yourself, using hightech means like 'Google' and advanced academic skills like 'reading comprehension', it's not too hard to see that the story is based on nothing but deliberate misinterpretation, misrepresentation and fearmongering. You can only lean so far to the right or the left before you fall off the tightrope of fact into the abyss of baseless opinion, like this story illustrates. If this came from any other source. it'd still be an example of poor journalism.

Originally posted by: manticorefan So trusting, JanYpe. Just a bad EULA? It's still enforceable in court, as written. How much does that say about the people involved in the planning and implementation, if that's all it is? Sorry, but this sets a very bad precedent in an era of Patriot Acts and Algore's 'Clipper Chip'. Regardless of political party, they (Federal authorities) have been looking for ways into personal computers for decades. We have far too many outlets for encroachment on our Constitutional rights, in our gov't. The incrementalism is surprisingly plain. In light of this story, I'll put this out there, for the American crowd: Obama's healthcare plan is planned to feature an online component. What you should have just felt was a chill down your spine. quote> Chill down my spine? All I had was gales of laughter at how silly this "issue" is. After 10 seconds of googling and another 10 of basic thought, it became quite obvious that this is a total fabrication from the darling folks at Fox. They really are determined to drag the US political discourse to new lows, not that it wasn't a ridiculous wasteland before.

These terms of service were not on the cars.gov site consumers use, but on a login page for dealers who are registered/ have a contract with this program. Beck even says so in that pathetic video: "the dealer goes to cars.gov". This hasn't got the first thing to do with the 'socialist' government taking over your computer. It's a poorly written EULA, that reminds the people who are part of the program that transactions like these are quite obviously subject to inspection. Congratulations, you just got suckered by the Fox news paranoia machine. And Glen Beck? I mean, really? Bloody hell man, have some self-respect.

Originally posted by: krbe Originally posted by: Duke87And regulation, of course, works against a competitive free market since it prevents people from potentially getting ahead by thinking outide the box. quote> Insurance? A competitive free market? ...how? quote> Well not the market for actual insurance business, obviously. But the marketplace where the various insurance companies compete to buy political cover so that no meaningful reform is going to take place seems to be as free as a bird. Originally posted by: Ntq$310 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2300451/posts http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-5059-0-6-6--.html Believe the sources or not, im just saying what ive heard. Which seeing as this is up in the air so much, there are 1000+ pages of bill, and one congressmen even questioned why you should read a bill in the first place, I have little hope we know what were getting ourselves into, good or bad.quote> Here´s a thought: if you want anyone to seriously consider these kinds of statements, don't ever link to a cesspit like freerepublic.com.

Originally posted by: Aro0w I'm reading Guns, and Steel. it's by Jared Diamond and he explains how he beleives writing started, or how government was formed through the ages... He talks about war and why we go to it, he also goes in depth about germs and diseases and how they have affected humanity and will continue to affect us in the future...quote> Guns, Germs, and Steel? Definitely an interesting book, even if it does stumble here and there because of the scope of all it describes. Originally posted by: Barbarossa Outside Oaks of California and Western Trees, I am also reading Dune: House Atreides. I loved the original set by Frank Herbert, and have already read The Butlerian Jihad, The Machine Crusade, and another post-Frank book I can't recall the name of. Barbarossa quote> I really enjoyed the first Dune, but for some reason I could never get into any of the others. Following on from a post some pages ago, I finally got a chance to pick up The Name of The Rose again after I'd stopped about halfway through. It's a very good read, even in translation, and the way the events of the story and the period in which it's set are woven together is well done. Bookdepository.co.uk just sent me Robert Bartlett's The Making of Europe; Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950-1350, so I'll be able to keep nosing around in medieval times for a while. And of course I'm re-reading the Hitchhiker's Guide series for the bazillionth time.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus Your knowledge of the system is quite limited. It doesn't record everyday noises... all it does is notify police of particularly loud sounds in a certain frequency range that equates to POSSIBLE gun fire. It doesn't record conversations or anything. Minneapolis has this program and it went from 99 murders in 1996 to just 6 this year (along with other programs). quote> Ah, but it does set a precedent. It is not a small leap to change the frequency to record all sounds, is it? Slippery slope, anyone?quote> No. The slippery slope is a fallacy most of the time, not to mention it's an intellectually lazy cop-out. "Owning cars may seem reasonable, but it does set a precendent. It is not a small leap from ownership to mowing down disabled kids, nuns and puppies on the streets is it? Slippery slope, anyone?" Total hogwash. Quite honestly, I don't mind microphones that catch GUN FIRE! quote> You said "possible gun fire". Notice that is not equivalent to "gun fire".quote> Thanks for that chief inspector Obvious. Very few things actually sound like gunfire, so a system set up to catch gunfire would mainly catch things that sound suspiciously like...wait for it...gun fire. How gun fire, in the act of commiting a crime or in self defense, is NOT the business of the police and strictly in the realm of civil liberties... now THAT is beyond crazy.quote> Gunfire is not the business of police. It is the effects of the gunfire that is their business. Let's say a person fires a gun in the air to signal the start of a race or other sporting event, or does something that makes a sound in that frequency and intensity (which will happen sometime). Then the police would come and find nothing that is their business. Not only is this a waste of more valuable resources, it is a vehicle for a slippery slope towards a police state.quote> By god, before you know those fascist pig coppers will show up and trample everyone's liberties by cracking down on their spontaneous, unannounced, surprise marathons and races! It will be just like Nazi Germany! I mean if you're going to pop out some unfounded police state nonsense, at least do us all the courtesy of coming up with an example that is a bit closer to the realm of reality, and a bit less absurd.

That's just wrong.

Sounds good, we need more CJ´s with Apfelstrudel.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property and blood that each war demands of the people, personal enrichment through a war must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all war profits. We demand the nationalisation of all (previous) associated industries (trusts). We demand a division of profits of all heavy industries. We demand struggle without consideration against those whose activity is injurious to the general interest. Common national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth are to be punished with death, without consideration of confession or race.quote> Although Barney Frank does not advocate capital punishment for the last point, I believe that the above 4 points correlate pretty well with his ideology and rhetoric (I won't provide examples of his rhetoric as I am sure you can find it for yourselves). In the first point I mention, replace the second mention of "War" with "banking" and the third mention with "financial", and "each war" with "debt", and remove "blood". Then you get: In consideration of the monstrous sacrifice in property that debt demands of the people, personal enrichment through banking, must be designated as a crime against the people. Therefore we demand the total confiscation of all financial profits.quote> While it does not match exactly (the case with any platform), the similarity is eerie in my view.quote> ...This is some sort of joke right? That sentence is a fiction that fits neither platform nor rhetoric. Not only does it not match exactly, it does not match at all. The fantasy sentence you came out with bears no relation to the initial platform point (control over the military-industrial complex) or the sentiment that has been expressed in recent times about fraudulent behaviour in the banking sector. On the second point I mentioned, I feel that this is consistent since Barney Frank has supported every state takeover of companies that have been proposed.quote> His support is irrelevant, as the US state takeovers concerned a limited amount of failing companies, the collapse of which would cause a serious drop in employment and ripple through related industries. The program point on the other hand relates to the takeover of trusts and much of the industrial base, so on a far larger scale, for economic and military buildup purposes. On the third mentioned point, does that not sound like the nationalization of GM, and the UAW takeover of Chrysler, and the force-it-down-your-throat bankruptcy?quote> No, saying they sound alike is a vast exaggeration. It is absurd to equate the greater role for involved parties in the running and ownership of these companies with the program's suggested division all of industrial profits, along socialist inspired lines. On the fourth point, the punishing of people injurious to the general interest, what about attitudes to executive pay (now moving on to the Obama administration some)? It issued new regulations Wednesday that set pay limits on companies that receive TARP assistance, with the toughest restrictions aimed at seven recipients of "exceptional assistance." Those firms are Citigroup Inc., Bank of America Corp., General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC, American International Group Inc., GMAC LLC and Chrysler Financial. The regulations limit top executives of companies that receive TARP funds to bonuses of no more than one-third of their annual salaries. In a significant expansion of authority, the regulations call for a special compensation overseer who will burrow into the pay practices of some of the country's biggest enterprises. (Source: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Rep-Barney-Frank-seeks-further-limits-on-executive-paychecks-47764242.html)quote> quote>Even with the greatest amount of fantasy this cannot be compared to the vague assertions in the pr against "national criminals, usurers, profiteers and so forth". These regulations specify that TARP funds cannot be spent lining the pockets of the people at the top of these companies, who in many cases share the accountability for the failure of their companies. It would be an obvious and gross misuse of the funds dedicated to this "exceptional assistance". And below is an excerpt from a page on the 25-point program from a website that calls themselves the "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party", and claims to be the successor to the German Nazi party. While they aren't a very reputable site when it comes to news, it should be interesting to see what self-proclaimed successors make of the points: Points 12, 18: In these points, Hitler defined and specified the removal of those who engaged in parasitic business practices. While war profiteers loomed large in his own experience, he used those and other examples (criminals, usurers, profiteers) to set the pace of National Socialist values: hard honest work was expected and rewarded, but those who acted destructively even if legally were to be killed -- equally ("whatever their creed or race"). The NSDAP recognized that not all Germans had German souls, and that bad apples exist even in the best orchards, and their intent was to remove these people who had no moral qualm about making a living by deceiving others. This was one of many reforms designed to protect the average worker from the slick predation of others. quote>quote> This is a pretty uncontroversial political position (guarding citizens from criminal/fraudulent behaviour) clothed in a layer of idiot Nazi interpretation. You have yet to show any relation to executive pay or the Obama administration. Now moving on to the Obama service plan. I believe that it is (or at least should) be common knowledge that the purpose of the Hitler Youth was to enlist young people at an early age, nurture/train/instill traits that would enable them to be good citizens (for the Nazis that would be serving in the SS, SA, Wehrmacht, Gestapo, party leaders, et. al.). Put in other words, it was a program that enlisted people at a young age, and indoctrinated them in order to serve their government. Think about it: isn't the national service plan pretty much the same thing?quote> It is not the same thing on a staggering level. The Hitler Jugend fits into the mould you describe, and fits the fascist mould of the mobilisation of society. But it must also be seen in the context of the time: organised social activity for youths and families on the basis of ideological (as in political or religious preference) was common in the first half of the twentieth century. The Scout Movement is a surviving example of organisations like this. The existence of large youth and social movements and organisations does not imply the presence of the same ideological purpose or indoctrination that is attached to the Hitler Jugend. Section 125 of the GIVE Act states: (a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities: (1) Attempting to influence legislation. (2) Organizing or engaging in protests, petitions, boycotts, or strikes. (3) Assisting, promoting, or deterring union organizing. (4) Impairing existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements. (5) Engaging in partisan political activities, or other activities designed to influence the outcome of an election to any public office. (6) Participating in, or endorsing, events or activities that are likely to include advocacy for or against political parties, political platforms, political candidates, proposed legislation, or elected officials. (7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.quote> What this means that anyone that is serving under the GIVE Act by law have no rights under Amendment I to the US Constiution, which enables the government to furthur put the volunteers in an iron grip.quote> These prohibitions are quite obviously in place so that an organisation aligned with the national government remains national and impartial, and does not become politicised. It is a mystery to me how you could compare the service plan to the Hitler Jugend while completely ignoring the meaning of this section. Also, I would like to draw attention to a provision of the GIVE Act, which fortunately did not pass in the final bill, but the very fact that it almost did is disturbing, and demonstrates intentions to that effect somewhere in the House (and it probably was not the Republicans...). It says that a commission would have been developed to probe: Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.quote> quote> A proposal to investigate if societal cooperation and understanding can be improved is not automatically "disturbing". The effectiveness of a mandatory service requirement , as opposed to an incentivised program, is debatable, but exploring the use and workability of ideas like this seems like precisely what a probe would be for. And take this excerpt from Michelle Obama's commencement address at UC Merced (full text here). I have found that speeches, when examined, can give valuable insight into a person's views. Note that Michelle never mentions individuals as individuals: she only mentions collectives, and only mentions individuals as parts of collectives. With few exceptions, this applies to the entire speech as well. Also, take a look at the Issues page of the White House website (yes, they are there, beneath the big blue box). Note that all the issues are viewed from a collective focus. Collectivism is an important prerequisite for fascism, and the Obamas certainly exhibit this.quote> This is a thoroughly ordinary speech. Of course she speaks in general terms, did you expect something littered with anecdotes and specifics? It is a short piece of inspirational advice and inspirational platitudes along the broad theme of "remember you're not alone in the world". 'Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?' this is not. There is nothing in this speech that is uniquely exhibited by the Obamas, and there is nothing in this that is related to the collectivism displayed by fascist movements. Lastly, there is economic fascism on the part of the government. According to my research over the years, these points characterize the relationship between corporations and a fascist regime: - Private, government-influenced control over means of production (only 2 out of 3 autos and banks to-date) - Companies serve the society (aka nation, national interest, community) - Government supports the companies This does sound like a growing number of relationships between corporations and the federal government. The collectivism, economic fascism, service plans, and also a rather conservative leaning on social issues (despite the rhetoric), is all consistent with fascism In conclusion, I am not saying that Obama and the Democrats are fascists. I am saying that the similarities between fascist policy and current policy is too great to ignore, and that it is probable that Obama and many Democrats exhibit a tendency towards fascist policy. quote> Only if you apply a vague picture of fascism to extremely generalised observations of the current situation does this sound consistent with fascism. To claim they have a tendency towards fascist policy is just inaccurate and implies a lack of perspective. Please do some more research, because it is quite clearly not appropriate to speak of fascist tendencies in this case.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus I suggest that you learn the meaning of the word fascism.quote> Look at the Nazi 21-point program, and compare many of those points to Barney Frank's ideology. A lot of them match. Tendencies towards this ideology can be found in many other democrats, including Obama. More extreme versions of his service program and Michelle Obama's rhetoric sound like the Hitler Youth, and some of Hitler's speeches, respectively. In my view, the similarities are too large to discount. quote> The burden of proof is on you here, and so far you have shown nothing to back up these questionable claims about the many similarities. Until you come up with an actual convincing comparison of the programs (I'll go ahead and assume you meant the NSDAP's 25 point program) and rhetoric, you're not going to look very credible at all.

Salzburg, Austria.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy Jesus christ, no way you could let anything not be invented by the British I guess. quote> Oh please....such hyperbole. quote> People in glass houses dude.

Stuttgart, Germany.

Very scenic update there, the farmlands and roads along the river look great. And I see you've fallen in love with Simfox's trees as well.

Originally posted by: bluemoose world government->world wide civil war->separation of arguing nations->mega-states like Russia, U.S. and China... so, the world will be pretty much like it is now, minus some smaller countries. And some millenia later, another genius will get the same idea and the cycle will repeat... Babylon, Rome, Greece, India/Persia, the United Kingdom, were all basically world governments and ALL split up eventually. Humans just can't agree on anything, especially when it comes to Religion, Power and Money.quote> None of those were anywhere near to being world governments.

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: GMT the burka is everything but relgious. it's a symbol of oppression here and in many muslim eyes, not at all demanded in the quranquote> A head to toe burqa is not specifically required, modest dress is. It's a more traditionalist interpratation of "modest dress" but it fits. As for it being a symbol of oppression... well, I can see where it might seem that way, but there's something to consider here. It's only symbolic of oppression because some of the stricter, more conservative Islamic governments have required it by law. Which is oppressive. But,In a free society where it is not required, if people are still wearing it... then it obviously must be by their own choosing, no? It's not the garment itself that's oppressive, it's the requirement of it. Indeed, forbidding it is equally oppressive. Either way, it's the government forcing the way of one group of people on another, making the decision for people as opposed to allowing them to make it themselves. quote> You'd be right in saying it is of their own choosing if the free society was somehow a blank slate where everyone is equally informed and sees the society along roughly the same lines, ie. free from backgrounds that are incompatible with the free society. But the whole point is that head-to-toe covering isn't a fashion choice or an invention of conservative Islamic governments, it is based on the convictions of seriously orthodox or Salafi communities where it is hard to say if the woman's own choosing even entered into the decision. Realy, I don't approve of this whole idea of state-enforced secularism. the banning of overt religious symbols in public schools was already a step over the line. To see bans of certain religious things in all public places is distressing. Whatever happened to freedom of expression? Do the people of France not value it? quote> The established French view on secularism, laïcité, is that religion is a strictly private matter for each citizen, so that it is the place of the state to guarantee the freedom of religion but not to acknowledge religion or preference any specific religion beyond that. Strict secularism is one of the defining points of the constitution of the French Republic, it has simply been put in a different light since the interpretation expanded from religious display in politics and government to include display by people making use of public institutions which led to the 2004 ban on headscarves, among other ostentatious symbols, after years of debate. I'm not sure a parliamentary inquiry like this is a good way to approach this issue. Sweeping decisions like a ban are no guarantee for improvement, but seen more likely to create needless tension and lead to polarisation. Originally posted by: sneakeypete A better approach would be to "ban people from forcing their family into wearing them if they do not want to". Or something along those lines.quote> This part of the article suggests that this would be part of the inquiry: "The lawmakers also want to examine whether women who wear the veil are doing so voluntarily or are being forced to cover themselves, our correspondent says."

Interesting read from Time about the elections.

Hurray.

Turns out there´s nothing like a shot at a shiny beta key to bring people out of the woodwork.

Originally posted by: duack This is begining to sound like Germany in the lead up to WWII.quote> Yeah, next thing you know North Korea will occupy Austria.

Originally posted by: buddybud Originally posted by: fukuda MC told us that CXL wouldn't be a CL or SC4 sequel, that it would be a different game. quote> yet at e3 only weeks previous to this the marketing director of mc called the single player componet "much like sc4" article link -> E3 2009: A chat with Cities XL's Alexandre Zambeaux Those are their words not ours. Furthermore that is what they are saying to E3 which happens to be much more influential then we are. So do i listen to you fukuda or do i listen to their marketing director at E3, Seems to me they are willing to tell different crowds different things. A sure way to lead to dissappointment and confusion. Can you really blame anyone with being rather dissappointed by this??. This is by no means a complaint. Just an accurate representation of what is coming out of their departments and their marketing director. I myself will not be dissappointed since i will wait and see since i almost never purchase software on release.....but i know what is being said in some circles is rather misleading. Again who does the public believe.....their marketing director advertising to the world at e3 or...... fukuda........ Bud quote> Alrighty then, let´s look at the acutal quote: How will this be an MMO? Does it redefine the genre, or simply introduce something fresh? Well, here's the thing: it's not just an MMO. At launch, the game can actually be purchased off the shelves at your favorite retail store and played as a single-player city-builder, much like SimCity 4. Yet, at any time, you can go beyond the single-player experience to jump into the online mode. Alexandre tells us that this is a great feature for Monte Cristo, because it will appeal to two distinctly different groups of players, while offering the opportunity for each to crossover.quote> Now, English might not be my first language, but I know enough of it to see that saying "you can play it in single player, like you did with SimCity 4" is a bit different from saying "you can play it in single player, where it will be exactly like Sim City 4 as we've promised you from the start because you are all gullible walking wallets". They're still saying they are making their own game, not a a CL or SC4 sequel. Nothing in that article, nothing that was said on forums or in interviews has indicated, like you say, that they are telling different crowds different things. Different crowds are pretty obivously asking about different things, which is why *shock, horror* a site dedicated to MMO's asks more about the online side of things, while SimCity sites ask more about the singleplayer side.

What is the point in fighting shrinkage, when that means you´re maintaining a system of sprawl that has long since stopped making sense? In the example given in the article about Flint you can see that it isn't just about knocking down abandoned buildings, but that it's knocking down in outlying areas in favour of revitalizing the centre, which in turn becomes more able to support new jobs. If these cities had shrunk down of their own accord over the past fifty years, there wouldn't be all these patches of abandonment. Originally posted by: LivingInThePast The problem with the article, without reading it, is that it comes from a British newspaper...quote>

Originally posted by: gabry85 Originally posted by: mpol gabry85 you obviously do not understand what I was trying to say. YOU can say if you don't like it, but DO NOT be sarcastic or rude to others who say that they do. We can go ahead and express our opinion, but when someone says they are fine with 10x10, then we shouldn't come along and write sarcastic comments like 'Right'. It is plain RUDE. Why can't people be respectful. YOU have every right to YOUR opinion, but putting down anothers, to try and show MC that regions need to be in the game is not the way to go about it mate. Sorry.quote> When I was 'sarcastic' I wanted to highlight that even if one person is okay with something, it could be a problem for somebody else. In this case: one map/no regions = I'm happy/you're not. This is not being sympathetic, IMHO. That's why I answered with that. Remember the "10x10km" thread (when you, me and tr0ub1e joked about karma )? I said that with Region Play, people who don't like it can make one map anyway, but those who have only one map can't make regions. Win-win like they say. AND when Societies was released, there was a HUGE amount of hate on the TM forums about the game. The thing was that it was far too late to cahnge anything. They showed us the product only a few months before release. I do not remember large groups of people praising the game AT ALL.quote> Then you obviously didn't read TM forums I linked in my previous post! If you don't have time to look at them all, just look at this particular thread for example (there are tons of them throughout the forum created by SC4 fans as you know). Read the posts of those who registered BEFORE Jun 2007. OK, for those who are too lazy to open a new tab and take 5 minutes to read, I'll quote some random posts from these members right here: TM members come on the forum and all your propositions will be read and welcome.quote> Not to be rude but can you guys please grow up and act mature about this. The game hasn't even came out yet alone hasn't even been announced. We seen little of the game. I am giving TM a chance. Who knows this could be the best sim city game to date.quote> Also, the game hasnt even come out, niether have you even gotten a chance to try it in beta-test (as far as I know), so youre basically looking at a couple screenshots and whining because it doesnt look like SimCity snip Give me a break and go back to playing SimCity 4 or something... quote> Screenshots are hardly adequate to give you the feel of a game. Its like judging a book by its cover... Wait until theres a demo, or hope that with all your TM-hating, and lack of constructive criticism, that you get a chance to test it... then youll be able to make an informed opinion about the game. I only dont like it because its not a historical CB, or maybe TM is doing two projects and well get the CB too... *shrugs* Ill still test SCS for them if they offer me simply because Im a TM-fan. quote> Deja vu, anyone? Look, I don't want to bring this game down and I have no reasons for that. I don't seek 'revenge.' I'm just reporting some actual facts of what's been said around the Net. Plain and simple, nothing changed or biased. It's easy to cheer when you see screenshots, but I simply don't stop at them: that was MY mistake with City Life. And since I have to make a choice and spend my money on a product of which I know very little, I reasonably need to know what's really about. And so far I learned that most of what I was looking for from the beginning is out, but MAYBE they'll include them afterwards. Then, MAYBE I'll buy it. Am I wrong when I say this? quote> Actual facts? Those weren't random posts, or people praising the game to high heaven. Those were mainly, not even all since you included gstommylee in this, TM fans who were objecting to the absolutely despicable way many SimCity fans went into that forum and started flinging poo around like a collection of particularly dim monkeys. Reacting in a mature way really isn't the same thing as being a gullible consumer who gets lured in by the pretty pictures.

Originally posted by: gabry85 Originally posted by: mpol gabry85, if fukuda is fine with the 10x10 what does it matter mate ?quote> Nothing. I already told you I'm fine with that size too, but you also know I need regions as well, because I can't accept to be restricted by these four 'invisible walls.' But think about this: all these "It's fine to me", "I'm cool with that", "To me it's okay", "I'm satisfied anyway", "I don't see any problems", "I don't understand what's wrong", etc. statements are the perfect way to let companies (not just game companies) make unfinished and low-quality products. If people keep posting these lazy (no offense) messages saying they're fine with everything, no matter what, we'll end up with yet another crippleware game, just like SimCity Societies. Do you know that in the Tilted Mill (SimCity Societies) forums people who registered before the announcement of SCS were perfectly fine with the game? They posted 5-star comments, spread "OMG!", "Awesome!", "I'll buy it today!" comments all over the boards, exactly like in CitiesXL.com. Just read their forums and compare the old members (who joined before June 2007) and the new ones (those who learned about the game after its announcement, most of them from SimTrop, SC4Dev and SIMPhoni). And here we are: EA made SCS and MC worked so thoroughly on the PO taking out dozens of features we asked since the beginning (regions, terraforming, building on slopes, complex transports, modular facilities, free custom content creation, ...) that we don't even know they'll include them after release for a plethora of reasons and 'technical issues.' They don't fear competition because there's none right now; that's why people accept whatever they do. quote> I understand where you´re coming from with this, but I´m not convinced that adjusting expectations of this game is necessarily a bad thing or that it will lead to "half-baked", "unfinished and low-quality products". Is it really reasonable to allege MC have been taking out the features we've asked for in favour of developing the PO concept? I remember the dozens of features that have been asked for from the beginning, and a great many of the suggestions made about them on the Cities Xl forums existed mainly in the realms of fantasy. MC have been fairly upfront about their goals from the start about wanting to make a next generation city builder. Not Simcity 5, not the perfect game, but what they think is a game that is both possible to make right now and satisfying to play. There is nothing wrong with demanding quality, wanting features that are important to us, and being critical. SCS did not come close to providing what we were looking for; it failed for it. But at the same time you can hardly say these "lazy" messages are what stands in the way of us getting all the features we look for. Games are always going to be a compromise, what matters isn't that all our demands are met, but that as many as them as possible are, and that substantial improvements to the genre are made. In tying themselves to the Planet Offer concept, MC makes itself dependent on the continuing approval of the customer base: if the game turns out to be a stinker, people won't "accept whatever they do" and those monthly subscriptions will dry up mighty fast. I don't expect the moon from Monte Cristo, but I haven't given up the ghost on expecting a decent game that can be improved given the time.