Talk:Streets of SimCity

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Older

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Confusing sentences in introduction 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Stupidity