Talk:Streets of SimCity

Neutrality

It is bad when an article insults its topic in the opening statment, but this article makes numerious 'point of view' references. Insulting anything from the cars, the weapons, or external software. Yes, it is an old game, buggy at times, but it was a fun game. This article primarly amerates the bugs and issues with the game claiming that it sucks with backdoor comments (everyone can 'truely' read between the lines) and that no one plays it (which it blatantly constantly says). I sincerly hate wikipedia now, so I refuse to correct it, I would rather badger others about it.

---I agree...this article is written very negatively. It keeps saying how Maxis totally strayed from the style of their other games and claims the music is possibly the only good part of the game...can we get a rewrite? 199.8.168.68 16:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If you feel the article needs improvement, why don't you do it yourselves? --Taraborn (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is filled with idiots and I shouldn't need to stoop to their level to correct an article that will only be overwritten with the same critism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.222.251 (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Older

I removed the line "Ovarall, it can be considered as a good "bargain purchase", considering its age today.", because it seems non-NPOV, and not very encylopaedic. Lawful Hippo 13:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Noted. Coolgamer 15:05, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

On glitches in SOSC.

Referring to an extraction from the previous edit:

...Such errors included people walking backwards and being able to drive through trees. Even the game itself makes fun of the glitches, in its fake radio commercials within the game.

I feel the first sentence is not true to the facts. These are more of sloppy graphics, and there were more serious problems encountered in the game. I've replaced this passage with one containing problems on the game's unexpected crashes and collision detection.

The second sentence is omitted, since I have yet to hear any commercial making fun of any glitches in the game. If you have evidence, though, feel free to voice out and return this sentence into the article. ++ 25 08:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) ++

Added detailed information regarding the radio. "Commercial" was a slip-of-mind. It was a full-blown song. Coolgamer 23:05, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

My investigation reveals that the song's connection with the game's glitches may very well be coincidental or unproven, considering this song is the only one (with vocals) that appears to mention such similarities, and only managed to point out the "moon walking" pedestrians in the game. Therefore, the statement on the song's connection to the game's bugs is to be removed, as it is mere speculation.

The lyrics actually say "I'm bucking sideways". CheapAlert 11:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, if you're referring to R2.wav ("Czar" I believe it's called) the lyrics are actually "I'm walking sideways". Check the manual at the very end. SMC (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've decided to return the statement about collision detection. The game is notable for having vehicles (player and non-player) stuck in buildings and lots, hence my initial edit on problems in collision detection. ++ 25 13:31, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ++

Does anyone know of this glitch? In all other modes except Sunday Driver the enemy cars bounce up and down in place. If I hit anything the game crashes. Stovetopcookies 03:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That glitch seems to happen when the framerate gets too fast. Using a glide wrapper will slow things down to a "playable" speed (in the sense of stability, not framerate. Yes, an a64 3200 will score 10-20fps too) CheapAlert 11:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot

I'm going to add 2 more screenshots so the article can be better understood. --Moped 20:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No mention of the airfoils or hopper? I actually loved this game, glitches and all. Mannerisky

Me again. I did a lot of work on the page. Sorry, I forgot to log in, lol. Moped65.65.39.188 21:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Confusing sentences in introduction

It instead focuses more on the goals of blowing up other enemy cars, winning races, evading cops, and hitting the occasional cow. The game can be controlled with a keyboard, a joystick, or a gamepad. As a result, the game was mostly only popular with SimCity 2000 users, which, like SimCopter, allowed players to explore SimCity 2000 cities [...]

I don't think this section quite says what intends to. Listing the controls and then saying "As a result..." implies a direct link between the control scheme and the audience the game was popular among, which seems unlikely. I'd move the sentence on the control scheme, but I'm not sure that a link between the previous sentence and the game's audience was what was intended either. Does anyone know what was actually intended?

The final sentence also seems to imply that Simcity 2000 allowed players to explore its own cities, but that's a simple enough grammatical fix. Strephon 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've done some work on the opening paragraphs, attempting to introduce the game in a more neutral way. Geostar1024 05:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Stupidity

Define "These operating systems, can run SOSC, but are highly incompatible with the game"

I find this statment idiotic at best, WINE can run a game designed for Windows and DirectX... but because the game was released before XP and Vista it earns the "Not Compatable" Label? (And WHY Windows ME, which is just Windows 98 + Glitz, wouldn't be compatable is beyond me. But besides these accusations, the game IS FULLY compatable with XP and VISTA... It runs, It renders, It Plays... I have, however, encountered HARDWARE issues which PERSIST even after installing Windows 98 (Yes, I HAVE downgraded to 98 from XP) so that is the likely source of the accusations, but THAT is why you are SUPPOSE to CITE EVERYTHING on Wikipedia... so people can call you stupid and tell you why (Oh, and also maintain encyclopedic quality and stuff).

Also, 2009 released as free? Marked with "Citation Needed?" PLEASE! The only way it can be free is if a distributer (I.E. Grandma) found a few copies (in the attic) and gave them away (to the Aliens). There is no mention of any free download of Streets from Maxis' site nor EA's and unless you claim that the fact

But the natural reply is "Fix it Yourself" right? WHY? This is WIKIPEDIA, the fabled encyclopaedia that has information on EVERYTHING and is 100% accurate... WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO CORRECT SUCH UBERNESS (or lack there of)? The point is, Wikipedia can either be a toy or an encyclopaedia, but not both. If there are errors in articles that I look up, and if these errors are blatant errors (Free Download? Maybe P2P), and "I" am the only one to notice them, why should I trust anything Wikipedia says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.222.251 (talk) 05:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your statements about compatibility - I can run SimCopter on Vista (!) just fine, but I have to run a program called cpugrab to slow my CPU down, as many of these early games used clock timing loops in the programming. I think what a lot of people are confusing as "OS incompatibility" is actually just the fact that they're running those operating systems on high-spec (by 90's standards) machines. I haven't come across any free download for Streets either, so I think that should go. SMC (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, just talking to myself here - I've amended the "OS compatibility" section, though it's still (and probably always will be) unreferenced, like most of this article. There's not much we'll ever be able to do about that, because the game itself wasn't very widely promoted by Maxis, and short of the occasional hate rant released by "critics" like Mobygames there's nothing worth referencing. Anyway, I seriously need to get more sleep instead of editing Wikipedia.. SMC (talk) 17:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)