![]() They all have their own information, but enough to deserve their own Own page, which is why i took out those redirects for sim city 20. ![]() DoomBringer 05:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC) Reply Does SimCity4 deserve to be an article?ĭoes this need its own page? Much better folded into SimCity I'd say - Khendon 13:51 (UTC) I would argue that they indeed recognized it as a bug, because a) they listed all affected buildings instead of a nebulous "stage 8" and b) actually fixed it. the name "Stage 8 bug" was pretty much invented by the community. I don't think Maxis/EA wanted to call it the "Stage 8 bug" for whatever reasons. I was happy with SC4 from Day 1 (got it week it came out). toroca, AugI read it, and didn't see any particularly bad issues with it. Maybe a bit of an issue in the last paragraph of the section, but again, those are the facts and it IS interesting. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think I avoided any significant point of view issues I simply related the facts as I witnessed them back in the time period in question. DoomBringer 06:37, (UTC) Reply I made a fairly significant addition/rewrite to the Criticism section. Next time, write it from a more objective standpoint. In my honest opinion, SimCity 4 was a good game to start with, and the patches were undoubtedly needed, but wikipedia deserves a better article than "OMFG SC4 suxors". I changed it to "criticism", and rewrote the most glaring parts. ![]() ![]() The old "problems" section was rife with blatant NPOV violations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |