Actually, he's not the only person. I also agree with him.
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead
Just an OCN poster and ... he isn't.
What's your point?
Originally Posted by GrizzleBoy
The best part is that not one of you has actually formulated any kind of argument against what I said.
Would be nice if you could reply to the content of my post and not just attack me instead.
I'm not holding my breath but w/e.
Edit: So the only way you can reply is to attack me some more instead of addressing the actual argument. Says it all tbh.
Good ol' ad-hominem
. It never gets old.
Actually, they have 'formed an argument', it's just that they're arbitrarily choosing one of two possible interpretations and asserting that their arbitrary interpretation is the only one possible.
Originally Posted by Rubers
^ There is little point in even trying to make you see sense. We all know this too well. We could try, but you'd do circles and then try to insinuate all manner of things
Try someone who isn't used to your bull.
It's EA. They're in the wrong, again, and you refuse to see it and are defending them.
In other news, the sun rises.
I'm no fan of EA whatsoever, and I certainly have no particular inclination to side w/Grizzle as a matter of principle. I *do* however, have principles in general, and I believe as Grizzle believes in this particular case.
Originally Posted by Master__Shake
EA didn't lie...they stretched the truth
Actually, I think it's most accurate to say that they were 'not entirely forthcoming'. To me, that's not the same as lying.
Originally Posted by andrews2547
No they didn't, they were writing/speaking fiction.
Yeah ... Well, I disagree.
Originally Posted by GrizzleBoy
A car with a smashed windscreen and the lack of ability to utilise gear 5 "works".
A cooker that only has three out of five burners "works".
But you could never try to call the person doing your yearly check up a "liar" if he pointed out that it doesn't work PROPERLY.
At the moment, the servers control all region play and game saving, which is why his mod does not allow region play or game saving. It doesn't work PROPERLY.
A fairly good analogy. I have another one coming up
Originally Posted by Junkboy
Add him to ignore and move on folks, there's no reason to derail the thread because someone can't see reason. EA is already getting killed in the media and forums across the net so isn't that what really matters.
Grizzle is not derailing the thread, his argument is perfectly on topic.
Originally Posted by Shpongle
Honestly, Grizzle is right (I never thought I'd say that). Without having the servers there to allow your city to interact with the other cities, the game wouldn't be working the way they wanted it to work. it's simply a difference in the way gamers and the publishers wanted the game to play. And the publishers never lied about the servers being a requirement for their vision of the game.
Yup ... pretty much what we're arguing here. The 'internet' is interpreting the phrase 'the game' to mean 'the city (lets call it the 'client') portion that runs locally on one's PC', whereas it's perfectly logical to ME (and Grizzle, and you apparently) that when Ms. Bradshaw spoke about 'the game', she meant 'the game as the makers have envisioned it, a GROUP of cities, with complex/extensive 'regional' calculations (in their vision, this is based on actual input from 100's or 1000's of connected client cities) that, in turn, impact and interact with all the individual Cities".
EA are asserting that in order for the game to FUNCTION AS THEY ENVISION, people being connected online is 'required'. They're asserting that to change this would require a large amount of work on their part.
This is not difficult to imagine, because it would mean they'd have to a) rewrite both server-side and client-side code to allow flexible operation from either remote server OR the local 'regional' server machine, b) rewrite the 'local regional' code to 'scale' based on an unknown amount of local pc resources, and most importantly c) entirely change the 'source' for the data for the regional calculations.
Presently, the data source (I'd guess) is based on data collection from actual clients/cities running out there in the world. To make an 'offline' version, it would have to be re-written to a process that's much more 'random' in nature, i.e. one that DOESN'T require this input from 100's or 1000's of interconnected clients. The source data has to just be 'made up'. This would mean a radical change to the code, tons of testing time, etc. A major undertaking IOW.
Based on EA/Maxis interpretation of 'what the game is', we have no evidence (yet) that 'they lied'. It's only based on 'the internet's interpretation of the game' as being ONLY the city/client portion of the game, that makes Ms. Bradshaw's statement 'a lie'.
IOW, to me, asserting that 'they lied' outright is based on an arbitrary interpretation of what constitutes 'the game'. And AFAIC, EA/Maxis are the rightful ones to decide 'what the game is', not the gamers.
Originally Posted by 47 Knucklehead
END OF DISCUSSION about what Maxis could have done. They ADMITTED they could have made the game with an offline mode. That, right there, completely contradicts (ie is a LIE) what she said before about your computer not having the computing power and thus HAD to be online connected to their servers.
Anyone who can't even admit that EA lied about that is either an EA employee, a troll, or hopelessly stupid.
I guess I'm hopelessly stupid then, because I'm positive I'm neither of the other two options. I would ask, though, that you show me where EA asserted that it was NEVER IN THEIR POWER to have made an offline mode for this game? Because from all I've seen, they've stated that it would require a lot of work NOW, to CREATE an 'offline mod' ... for the game that they've ALREADY MADE.
Now, let me lay out an analogy for you all that rather perfectly describes the situation at hand, IMHO
Say Fred has a girlfriend across town, and Fred makes a date with her, and she asks if he's going to come round and pick her up for the date. And Fred tells her "I can't, I don't have a car". She arrives at Fred's house to pick him up, and discovers Fred's car sitting there in the driveway. She explodes with rage, calling Fred a 'liar'. Fred explains that he told her a couple days ago that his car massively overheated on the way home from work, that he thinks the head-gasket is blown, and that it's going to take him a month to save up the money to get it fixed.
In this scenario, Maxis/EA is the dude with the car, and the 'internet', including Rubers, Knucklehead, Andrews, etc, are the aggro girlfriend
In reality, yes, Fred/EA was not technically 100% accurate in their account. You could perhaps argue that they were not entirely forthright.
However, Fred ALREADY DID inform his girlfriend exactly what the situation was (as Grizzle has posted evidence of, as far as a year ago, wherein Ms. Bradshaw said your city can run locally w/o a connection to the server, for a period of time), and in a similar vein, anyone who's 'in the know' at all about cars would understand that a blown head gasket means the car is undrivable. And it's not uncommon for someone to say they 'don't have a car', when what they really mean is that their car is not drivable, for whatever reason. This is a similar scenario. It's more like a misunderstanding than a lie.
"The internet", and the people on this thread, are basically insisting that the ONLY interpretation is that of the aggro chick. However, other, perfectly reasonable people like myself (and in this case, GB), are on Fred's side in this argument. In our opinion, it's not really his fault that his girlfriend doesn't understand cars, or common vernacular
Edit: Ooops, just realized that this thread was locked. Not entirely sure why, I'll look into it Edited by brettjv - 3/17/13 at 3:42pm