Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Mar 2013 22:35 UTC
Games "In all the fuss and mess of the disastrous SimCity launch, one refrain has been repeated again and again. While legions may be begging for an offline mode, EA representatives have been abundantly clear that this simply isn't possible. Maxis' studio head, Lucy Bradshaw, has told both Polygon and Kotaku that they 'offload a significant amount of the calculations to our servers', and that it would take 'a significant amount of engineering work from our team to rewrite the game' for single player. A SimCity developer has got in touch with RPS to tell us that at least the first of these statements is not true. He claimed that the server is not handling calculations for non-social aspects of running the game, and that engineering a single-player mode would require minimal effort." This keeps getting worse and worse for EA. It's also clear that Maxis' own developers are not happy with EA's meddling.
Permalink for comment 555315
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: The way to win
by kwan_e on Wed 13th Mar 2013 12:58 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: The way to win"
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

"[q]Some would say the immense amount of sugar and salt involved in gaming is just as bad.


While those two often go hand-in-hand, salt and sugar are not an inherent part of gaming. Your argument is like saying that the job of a car mechanic and smoking are inseparable.

Not to mention the constant sitting down aspect of it.
"

And? There are plenty of these "real life" things, too, that are all about sitting down. Since you're not specifying any more details this argument, too, becomes moot. [/q]

I didn't make an argument based on those things. I brought up those things in ADDITION to my argument, since you mentioned alcohol.

See my other posts for a few points regarding my actual argument.

"As always, quality, not quantity.


Ah, that's the whole: how do you define what kind of socialization is of higher quality and what is of lower quality? And according to whose standards?

Not everyone values the same kind of socialization the same, so there obviously cannot be some blanket statement about what kind of socialization is higher and what is lesser quality. Similarly, you've never experienced e.g. extremely poor, shallow small-talk in real-life and creative, deep discussion about a topic online? It happening in real life is no guarantee of any sort of a level of quality.
"

That doesn't matter, because you only mentioned one metric: socializing with hundreds of people all over the world that they may not meet.

You're the one that has to demonstrate that it is meaningful in anyway. Otherwise, it is similarly a moot point. I shoot down that metric to show how inadequate, if not completely irrelevant, it is.

Reply Parent Score: 2