Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Get HideMyAss! VPN, PC Mag's Top 10 VPNs of 2016 for 55% off for a Limited Time ×
Games

Is 'SimCity' Homelessness a Bug Or a Feature? 393

sarahnaomi writes: SimCity players have discussed a variety of creative strategies for their virtual homelessness problem. They've suggested waiting for natural disasters like tornadoes to blow the vagrants away, bulldozing parks where they congregate, or creating such a woefully insufficient city infrastructure that the homeless would leave on their own.

You can read all of these proposed final solutions in Matteo Bittanti's How to Get Rid of Homelessness, "a 600-page epic split in two volumes documenting the so-called 'homeless scandal' that affected 2013's SimCity." Bittanti collected, selected, and transcribed thousands of these messages exchanged by players on publisher Electronic Arts' official forums, Reddit, and the largest online SimCity community Simtropolis, who experienced and then tried to "eradicate" the phenomenon of homelessness that "plagued" SimCity."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Is 'SimCity' Homelessness a Bug Or a Feature?

Comments Filter:
  • by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @08:23PM (#48807711) Journal

    I found this one on a trip down memory lane. Runs in a DOSBox and works great on my Win7 laptop! Yes, it's ENTIRELY LEGAL. you can get the download here [origin.com].

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @08:26PM (#48807729)

    It sure is a good thing that players' behavior as modeled in games has no effect whatsoever on their offline behavior, or in any way informs us about their attitudes toward the real world. That might be disconcerting.

  • by elfprince13 ( 1521333 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @08:28PM (#48807743) Homepage
    host the Olympics?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @08:36PM (#48807801)

    If this dude is morally outraged by the way people play Sim City I can only hope someone alerts them to the way people play Dwarf Fortress.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @08:43PM (#48807853)

      I think the PC name for that game is Little People's Fortress.

    • If this dude is morally outraged by the way people play Sim City I can only hope someone alerts them to the way people play Dwarf Fortress.

      Are their homeless people in Dwarf Fortress? I think not.

      • Nope, but there are lazy Nobles, who do nothing except making demands (between trivial and impossible), which you are obligued to obey or face sanctions.

        So people build "immigrant sorters". A gate which remains open when the immigrants arrive, then lines them up allowing only one immigrant at a time to pass, and allow Nazi concentration camp style selection with a toggle of a switch. Left - work. Right - gas chamber. That way they eliminate the nobles before they can become a problem.

  • Not a problem (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Blaskowicz ( 634489 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @08:46PM (#48807869)

    Better to have homeless people on welfare in the streets rather than only drunken frat boys, small criminals and drug addicts. Problem in the US is you don't give them enough welfare (or at all) and no healthcare, hell homeful people at full time min wage employment don't even have healthcare. Nationalise all the evul healthcare companies (this cuts red tape), make the price of medicines drop, make welfare easier to get (less red tape) and redistribute the half a trillion or so you've saved in welfare.

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      We tried to fix the healthcare. We have Mitt Romney care and it sucks for everyone.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Don't worry, eventually we'll get smart enough to blame the parasites leeching off the system to the disadvantage of the rest of us....

        By which I mean the Insurance companies, of course, who did YOU think I was talking about?

    • Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @09:13PM (#48808045)

      This simply isn't true. If were simply a question of the amount of resources available, then the U.S. is not much different than any other developed country. San Francisco in particular has a more progressive homeless outreach program than almost any other city in the entire world--if the homeless population hadn't doubled in the past 15 years, we'd have already housed every last homeless person in the city.

      The problem with homelessness in America is complex, but it mostly comes down to two things: 1) you have to jump through a ridiculous amount of hoops to get assistance, and 2) the people most vulnerable to falling into homelessness (i.e. those with mental illness or disorders) are the least capable of jumping through those hoops.

      We have lots of hoops because of two things: 1.a) our patchwork of federal, state, and municipal programs and 1.b) the American idea of self-help and individualism. The source of 1.a is obvious. 1.b is problematic not because our ideas of self-help and our belief that America is a meritocratic land of opportunity is fundamentally bad. As an American I'm aware of and conscious of my own emphasis on these qualities, and I frankly I like that I'm that way. The problem is that too many Americans don't realize that these ideas are just cultural preferences, and are not connected to reality. They're aspirations rather descriptions of our society. Because people don't realize this, they think that self-help is easier than it is. To admit that self-help isn't very easy is in some sense a denial of the vision of America they hold in their head.

      As for #2, since we've dismantled our mental institutions we've abandoned a huge segment of our population in dire need of state assistance. We did that for two reasons, 2.a) money and 2.b) concern with freedom. Regarding 2.a, I think it's fair to say that we're losing more wealth thanks to our failure to address these problems. Regarding 2.b: it's true that the government once abusively used it's power to commit people to mental institutions without them having committed a crime. From the perspective of a society obsessed with individual liberty, that's an abhorrent state of affairs. However, the problem with mental illness and disorders (of all varieties, not simply clinical illness) is that it's fundamentally in conflict with our assumptions about free will, as well as with an economic approach (personal incentives, costs, etc) to the problem. We need to adjust the way we resolve this conflict and become more comfortable with the idea of _forcing_ people into assistance. And we need to realize that the moral of hazard of "handouts" is nowhere near as significant as it would be if we were all perfectly rational actors, _especially_ when we're giving handouts to those people at the very bottom.

      • Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @10:49PM (#48808495)

        1.a) our patchwork of federal, state, and municipal programs and 1.b) the American idea of self-help and individualism.

        And reason c: People are worried someone might abuse the system. For some reason, people like the idea that it is better to let 9 guilty men go than an innocent man go to prison, so promote the idea of a justice system that makes it harder to get convicted (or at least used to...), but think it is better to let 9 people starve so one person can't scam his way into a small amount of money and crappy way of life.

        • Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Insightful)

          by s.petry ( 762400 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @01:56AM (#48809147)

          1.a) our patchwork of federal, state, and municipal programs and 1.b) the American idea of self-help and individualism.

          And reason c: People are worried someone might abuse the system. For some reason, people like the idea that it is better to let 9 guilty men go than an innocent man go to prison, so promote the idea of a justice system that makes it harder to get convicted (or at least used to...), but think it is better to let 9 people starve so one person can't scam his way into a small amount of money and crappy way of life.

          People _DO_ abuse the system, in fact show me a country with any form of welfare that is not abused. The problem in the US is that those abuses are on both ends of the spectrum. Like other countries we have people that camp on welfare because it's easier than working. That is the portion of risk we consider to be manageable and expected because the percentage is generally very small. Where the US differs greatly is that our programs are abused at the top as well. People "managing" these services receive extra pay for not doing their job. Performing actions like cancelling programs instead of improving programs. This is a very open corruption that anyone can see, though few dare call it corruption... our media calls it "cost saving". This does not just happen with Welfare either, but VA benefits, and Social Security, and just about everything else.

          • Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Informative)

            by reve_etrange ( 2377702 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @03:36AM (#48809399)

            Like other countries we have people that camp on welfare because it's easier than working.

            I do agree with the substance of your post, but what do you mean by welfare? The United States doesn't really have any unconditional cash transfer programs, which is what most people think of when they hear the term "welfare." TANF for example is restricted to families with children, has a lifetime limit of 60 months of benefits for any individual and recipients must have a job within 24 months of joining the program. After doing a bunch of research on our means-tested social programs, I just don't see how it would be possible for a single, able-bodied, working-age individual to satisfy all their needs using federal transfers alone.

            I also don't think it's far to call social insurance programs "welfare." They're insurance policies operated by government, with mandatory premiums garnished from wages. You have to have paid the premiums to get the benefits.

            Where the US differs greatly is that our programs are abused at the top as well.

            Agree 100%, though I don't think the US is alone worldwide in this regard, even if it stands out among OECD members.

        • Actually we have a system where justices are happy to see a not guilty man fry as long as the paper work is in order. Proof of innocence isn't enough, you need to get that paperwork filed in time, and before they throw the switch may not be in time.

      • Re:Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)

        by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @12:07AM (#48808823)

        We have lots of hoops because of two things: 1.a) our patchwork of federal, state, and municipal programs and 1.b) the American idea of self-help and individualism.

        No, the truth is uglier than that. A society committed to "self-help and individualism" would strive to ensure opportunities are available to anyone who cares to take them, no matter where they happen to be, and that one can actually risk failing without also risking homelessness. Such societies exist, and are typically derided as "nanny states" by Americans - because compensating for human frailties and failings is what it takes to actually make it possible for people to follow their own path and seek their dreams.

        Someone once said US's problem is that everyone thinks they're a temporarily embarassed millionaire. But that leaves out a key fact: everyone thinks they're a temporarily embarassed millionaire who wants to ensure they can stomp on those below them, once they get to the top, and votes accordingly. Thus the seemingly irrational support from middle class to policies destructive to said middle class. It's a self-made hell.

        • Last Week Tonight with John Oliver had a great segment about this exact problem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

      • since we've dismantled our mental institutions we've abandoned a huge segment of our population in dire need of state assistance. We did that for two reasons, 2.a) money and 2.b) concern with freedom.

        I'm pretty sure it was due to the fact that media, particularly Hollywood, loved to portray those institutions in as negative a light as possible. They succeeded so well that instead of trying to encourage improvements, no politician has the political capital to survive should something imperfect happen in them while they're in office. So it's easier to get rid of the institutions than risk some sort of scandal.

      • Re: Not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gordo3000 ( 785698 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @02:14AM (#48809205)

        There is also an incredible lack of knowledge about other systems. The choice isn't between working people starving on the streets and French style socialism where every job and employer has tons of regulation and tons of worker classifications along with huge welfare payments.

        I've come to enjoy the Japanese system. It has a fundamental thread of responsibilitythat resonates with me and a strong sense of EVERYONE pays something, even the guy with 0 income for an extended period. It may not be much (20 bucks a month for health insurance) but you are legally required to get it and pay for it. The state will watch out for you, as long as you always fulfill your own responsibilities to society.

        And yeah, if you go cheap and try to save 20 bucks don't get sick because you are expected to show an ability to pay immediately (but you can always get back into the state program by paying all your owed back premiums).

      • Re:Not a problem (Score:4, Informative)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) * <mojo AT world3 DOT net> on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @09:05AM (#48810239) Homepage

        San Francisco in particular has a more progressive homeless outreach program than almost any other city in the entire world

        Not really. In the EU shelter is a human right. I haven't travelled to every country, but at least in the UK and France we don't have homeless people any more. Everyone has the right to shelter - it might not be very nice shelter, but the government will put a roof over your head no matter what. It's massively reduced begging too, because no no-one has an excuse for being on the street when they could be helping themselves with government assistance.

        Having a fixed address is really important. You can't get a job without a fixed address, and somewhere to shower and shave. Plus, it keeps people off the streets and out of the criminal justice system, so it's a win for everyone.

        I'm sure San Fran is doing better than most US cities, but the US is so far behind Europe to start with... You can't really make that claim.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The homeless people are who lived in all the neighborhoods of players who no longer play the game due to being locked out by intrusive DRM.

  • A limited run of 99 copies of How to get Rid of Homeless is available from Bittanti's Concrete Press via Amazon. Volume I is $150 and Volume II is $70.

    Like anyone's going to pay $220.00 for a collection of reddit posts ...

    They lost their way after SimCity 4 + Rush Hour. For aficionados of previous versions of the game, read the reviews first, it'll save you money. As for the "books", you can get the raw posts from reddit and the Simcity site.

    • They lost their way after SimCity 4 + Rush Hour.

      This. SimCity 4 was in my mind the last SimCity game. The two games that followed it with that 'brand' on it (SimCity Societies and SimCity 2013) are not part of the series. They're just bad ripoffs.

  • by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @09:02PM (#48807959) Homepage

    Clearly your city needs a better welfare and education system, and perhaps a work incentive scheme.

  • I was under the impression that no one plays this game. The cities are so tiny that the game gets boring after about 2 hours of playtime. Support for the game has ended. And everyone went back to playing the previous Sim City game, or Cities XL.
    • by Sowelu ( 713889 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @09:24PM (#48808105)

      Are...are you kidding? Cities XL is barely a game. It has some really nice features that were innovative for its time, like free-drawing roads, but a lot of its implementations are complete and utter BS. Like, you have to zone regions based on social class. Part of the challenge of SimCity is that you can't directly control that. Natural resources are garbage... the supply/demand graphs of different zones have hardly any bounce or buffer zone and your citizens move in with no intelligence at all. If you build twice as much unskilled-labor residential than you need--probably because you're trying to plan your city out early--people will SWARM in, and then whine about how there's not enough jobs. Even the very first SimCity game made people only move in if there were jobs (+/- a fudge factor). This is a really huge problem because you have to micromanage your zoning and build it a little bit at a time, rotating through all different kinds. You can't prebuild or everyone goes ballistic. Oh yeah, and road widths. God damn it, road widths. Hey great, I can upgrade this three-lane to a four-lane!...if I bulldoze everything along it, because the game cares about road width down to the foot, and you aren't allowed to build small roads with extra buffer on the side for future expansion. Dump tons of money now to build the nice roads, or you're hosed later.

      All of this leads to extremely formulaic gameplay. There's not much variation in what works, and it feels tedious to do. I spent a lot of hours trying to find the fun, on a couple different versions, and it wasn't there. Went back to SC4.

  • go back to simcity version 1 or 2. homelessness wasn't a problem 22 years ago, right?

    • Re:easy solution (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @09:56PM (#48808267)

      We used to forcibly institutionalize mentally ill people instead of kicking them out on the street en mass to fend for themselves. A significant portion of what we call "homeless" have mental health and substance abuse issues, of course. Is releasing them to life in the streets more compassionate or humanitarian than confining them to an institution where they can actually get some help? I'm not sure there's an easy answer there, to be honest. In my neck of the woods, people are getting robbed and assaulted on the streets by homeless people on a pretty regular basis. It's not a good situation for anyone.

  • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @09:28PM (#48808131)

    Are we now going to say it's incorrect for a city simulator to present the player with problems that currently occur in actual real cities?

  • by fightermagethief ( 3645291 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @10:12PM (#48808325)

    They've suggested waiting for natural disasters like tornadoes to blow the vagrants away, bulldozing parks where they congregate, or creating such a woefully insufficient city infrastructure that the homeless would leave on their own.

    That sounds like how the problem is dealt with in real life. I write this while homeless in Santa Monica, CA, whose proximity to Venice and downtown LA's skid row, where homelessness is tolerated/ignored/beaten into submission, probably contributes to the large homeless population. Personally, I just don't care to contribute to a system/country that I find vomit-inducing and am pretty comfortable sleeping under a bridge. However, the vast majority of people on the street are severely mentally ill and most of what I read about in local papers, much less national sources, has to do with "how to get rid of the homeless problem." I routinely see people covered in sores, screaming to themselves, with un-shoed feet where the skin is worn away, and people just skirt around them on the sidewalk without the slightest pause. And this is the most homeless-compassionate city that I have ever seen in the USA. There is almost enough food for people, IF they have the wherewithal to march from chowline to chowline across town, can properly fill out all the paperwork for 200$ a month in foodstamps, avoid missing a phone call or meeting with a caseworker which results in cancellation of said foodstamps, AND they don't mind getting expired food that didn't have much nutritional value in the first place.

    This is the best case scenario for a homeless person in the USA, mainly due to a tolerable, year-round climate (versus winter in Atlanta, which was like a living nightmare). The initial response to such anecdotes are typically, "well you could just get a job somewhere", but not everyone can, and this competitive capitalist BS is a zero-sum game. As long as there are people starving and going mad in the streets, I will be here sleeping next to them on a park bench and blowing the mind of some bourgeois fuck who tries to 'help me' simply because I am healthy looking and not so offensive to their senses while they step over the clinging-desperately-to-life 'problem' all around them. Sorry, you can't easily brush away the 'problem' that is the detritus of a wasteful and exploitative society that YOU contribute to. George Carlin said it best, "America is nothing but shopping malls and restaurants", and it is no less apparent in one of the most liberal and compassionate cities.

    I know my sig says "hire me", but I have had offers in real-life and turned them down because I didn't agree with the what/how the employer produced.

    • by Livius ( 318358 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @10:30PM (#48808403)

      As long as there are people starving and going mad in the streets

      Mental health problems are far more likely to be the cause of homelessness than the reverse.

      And I encounter someone who is mentally ill on the street, I'm not sure what you think I could do for them that the social workers and the police couldn't.

      • by fightermagethief ( 3645291 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @11:25PM (#48808639)

        I would guess that mental illness causes homelessness more than the reverse as well. But just not being able to sleep consistently without interruption (police, criminals) and not getting proper nutrition causes a good bit of premature mental deterioration.

        And I encounter someone who is mentally ill on the street, I'm not sure what you think I could do for them that the social workers and the police couldn't.

        Solidarity is one thing. Don't let businesses run homeless people off who are trying to get out of the cold. Get pissed and tell the workers/managers what the reality of the situation is. Don't let police harass the homeless. I don't worry much about criminals unless I wander accidentally into a severely gang-infested area, but the police (who are "just doing their job") will ticket and arrest you for petty things (varies from state to state) until you are institutionalized from just being poor/uneducated/without other options. The idea that one is just minding their own business or just doing their job IS the problem. Stop buying useless stuff and put the pressure on our corporate oligarchs. Trust me, you can literally get by with absolutely no income whatsoever (no panhandling, no welfare, just leftover food and chowlines).
        Just talk about the issues with people in public.
        Be subversive to people who are more concerned with superficial things.
        Make street art that deals with social issues, see this Basquiat [wikipedia.org]
        Take a homeless person into your home and let them shower and wash their clothes. You must be very careful about this and don't risk anything you can't afford to lose. Like most people, the homeless can be vindictive, deceptive, and violent. I have a rule that if it wears clothes and breathes air, I don't trust it. Think of a combination of cynical-paranoia and compassion for life.
        Giving stuff out can be fine, but can be counterproductive as well. Do stuff for them and with them instead.
        The specific actions that one person could take would vary from individual to individual, but the essence of the problem is a wasteful consumer economy that puts the onus on a handicapped person to bootstrap them self. People are addicted to buying shit and don't care about anything else, so maybe that has to be solved first.
        Personally, I like to just sit in affluent areas looking poor and reaching into trash cans in front of rich people and not asking them for stuff or being rude. And when I have to communicate with them, I like to surprise them with a modicum of well measured speech, generally changing the perception of what it means to be 'poor' in the modern world.
        It would take some creative thinking to come up with a real solution, but the people on this site would probably be well suited to address it. I think many educated/free-thinker types usually retreat to their ivory towers or small communities out of frustration for the general public, which only exacerbates social problems.

        • by Livius ( 318358 )

          There are places where welfare is less generous than others, but where I live homelessness is a lifestyle choice, the way it is for yourself. Now, it's not reasonable to expect the mentally ill to take responsibility for making the best choices for themselves, but again, there's nothing I can do that the professionals can't.

          • by fightermagethief ( 3645291 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @02:53AM (#48809297)

            I have seen a few different communities where homelessness is a lifestyle choice; hippies, gutterpunks, etc. People often ask if I am "traveling" as in a train-riding, lifestyle hobo, and my usual response is that, "no, I am just regular poor." I find that I don't have anything in common with the lifestyle homeless. It seems that those communities are tend more towards general apathy and drug abuse versus use, simply seeking the confirmation of a group, like most people in larger communities. It would be hard for me to ascertain if my current situation is a result of a choice or some flaw in my ability to operate as a human. I think this is the situation that most homeless are in. A perfect storm of circumstance lands them in a situation that is difficult to get out of. I really don't see how social-welfare/homeless advocates could even do their job effectively, because you have to actively seek out those workers. I contacted an office in Atlanta for an old guy that was too downtrodden to even call them back after being in the system for a while. They actually told me to get him to call them back after I explained that he was in such bad shape that he didn't even leave the park in downtown, much less own a phone.
            I am not trying to tell YOU that you need to do something. Hell, I know I could be doing so much more, if I even knew what exactly to do. But if it is a common perception that professionals are handling it, I would like to point out that the professionals are woefully ill equipped to deal with the situation, and they usually have a bad attitude like they are in the industry because it was their only option.

        • by Dr. Evil ( 3501 )

          "Don't let businesses run homeless people off who are trying to get out of the cold"

          Damn right. Screw those bourguois minimum wage kids trying to make it through school cleaning vomit and filth out of bathrooms by people who view the coffee shop where they warmed up as the enemy!

          Can't reason with crazy.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Note to self: Avoid Santa Monica. Non-zero probability of encountering strange person trying to make an obscure point while disguised as a homeless person.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      "Personally, I just don't care to contribute to a system/country that I find vomit-inducing and am pretty comfortable sleeping under a bridge."

      Yeah, so I read your blog - you were arrested for holding burglary tools and appearing to be high and when you got out the first thing you did was score some weed, got high, then at some point got some schrooms, got high, then complained about the homeless life, etc. You sir, are in my opinion, a bullshit artist and your homeless has nothing to do with solidarity; I

    • I know my sig says "hire me", but I have had offers in real-life and turned them down because I didn't agree with the what/how the employer produced.

      The guy above suggested forced-hospitalization of mentally-ill people as a way to help them. If he gets his way, you could be 'hospitalized' with that attitude.

    • by codepigeon ( 1202896 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @02:42AM (#48809275)

      I know my sig says "hire me", but I have had offers in real-life and turned them down because I didn't agree with the what/how the employer produced.

      I took a two minute glance at your blog. I read your comment here and a little bit of your other writings. You sound like you have a decent level of intelligence. I am gonna go out on a limb and assume that you are young (20 - 30). At some point in your life you are going to realize your wasted potential. When that moment of clarity hits you,... it is going to hit you like a stone to the head.

      Part of 'being a man' is doing the work you don't want to do. It is the daily struggle so you can provide for a family; not living under a bridge so your values can remain intact. We are all idealistic at some point in our lives, but, there comes a time to grow up. Don't wait until it is too late.

      my $.02

      • I hear you, but my genetics are corrupt and most people would never believe that I have lived through what I have. I would not want to relate any of the details. It would be irresponsible for me to father a child. Realizing that I don't have the emotional tools to deal with people on a normal level, much less raise a child, is something that I have come to grips with over a long process. My level of detachment and ability to withstand what would be torturous for most people makes me a good candidate to be a

    • by BitZtream ( 692029 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @04:53AM (#48809617)

      I write this while homeless in Santa Monica, CA

      Yet, you can somehow manage to post on slashdot.

      Your priorities are puzzling to say the least.

  • not just a game (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cas2000 ( 148703 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2015 @10:52PM (#48808507)

    the thing that most players don't realise about games like simcity (and other "simulation" games including civilisation and clones, the sims, and many others) is that they're not just simulations, they're also propaganda tools with a particular model of how reality is, or should, be.

    for the most part, these games push the theology of "meritocratic" free market laissez-faire capitalism - with the deserving rich being those who worked hard and the undeserving poor being worthless lazy slobs. this simulates american moralising and judgemental opinions fairly well, but not the real world.

  • ...was the last actual SimCity. Every subsequent game with that name was a dumbed-down fucking shell, a goddamn disgrace. Had high hopes for this latest iteration before all the BS came to light. SMH.

    Hell I still play SC4 now when I get bored. Have an awesome realistic region of 4+ million or so, based on a map made from the Oxnard, CA area (scaled way up). Bah...but enough waxing nostalgic. Fuck fucking EA and what they did to Maxis, smfh.

    • I'm with ya there! I was glad the rollout of the new 'wanna-be-SimCity' was a flop cuz I managed to get a refund for it. Terrible game. Wouldn't even pirate it. SC4 was the last true SimCity.

  • by Jim Sadler ( 3430529 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @12:22AM (#48808877)
    The real answer is to make certain that all people have good quality housing without regard for their ability to pay. More than ever human labor is being replaced and devalued. Work related education is not an answer when jobs do not exist. And for those than can do the math it is cheaper to buy a poor person a home and keep it up for him than to slap him in jail or prison. It is an issue similar to medical care. It is far cheaper to simply give a poor person a whiz bang medical policy for free than to pay his bills when he is sick and at the emergency room door. But if we compromise and give the poor inadequate insurance coverage they will still end up at the emergency room. Oddly the way to save money can be to spend money more freely.
  • by medv4380 ( 1604309 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2015 @01:07AM (#48809003)
    The bugs, and people glossing over the basic info on homeless made them much more of a problem. Homeless only really became a problem with going up to the largest cities. Traffic would snarl resulting in people not getting enough work resulting in homeless. Homeless would build up in that scenario until traffic got under control. Getting rid of homeless was only an issue if you recklessly upgraded everything. Homeless need a level 1 business that needs workers to get out of becoming homeless. If you have too many people and not enough jobs these jobs will be filled by people with homes. I've yet to see a scenario where I changed the economy to level 1 businesses with a surplus of jobs that didn't slowly remove the homeless without going all Machiavellian. Though Machiavellian is a much faster route.

Do not meddle in the affairs of troff, for it is subtle and quick to anger.

Working...