I think the worse thing they did besides going closed world, backdrops and no real map - was not giving a game about the Sims characters the attention each stage should have had by this time in the Creation of the Sims games and coming out with the game when it was very obvious it was at least an year more of work that should have been done on the base game to even consider it ready for Simmers. The fact they even considered putting Sims online again after it failed 4 times as an online game was ludicrous. It was widely said repeatedly stated by Simmers we did not want an online sims so they knew this way back when they started the idea - and went with it for 3 years of our development time that should have all been spent doing our Sims 4 to start with. But anyway - when they changed direction and went back to offline then the least they could have done was first use EA's own game engine - it is an amazing game engine and then make us the next sim rendition that should have started where Sims 3 left off. Each time we got a sims game it advanced until Sims 4.....
That should not have happened. Just like we don't want another Sims online - we don't want an alternate Universe either. We want the Sims but better and on a great engine like EA's inhouse engine - we deserve as much. 18 years of buying everything Sims should warrant us the best if you ask me - not less. We should not have had to wait for all the missing - it should never have been missing to start with - especially a life stage - and creative simmers should not have been left out - still waiting to create worlds etc in Sims 4 now almost 3 years. This is insane actually if you think about it.
ETA - I agree the toddlers are amazing as are the Vamps and it is just sad this kind of perfection could have been in the game from day one and isn't. It just makes everything else feel under par but those tots and vamps certainly shine. I see this and feel sad for rest of the game - knowing this kind of talent is there and it not showing through rest of the game.
Post edited by Writin_Reg on
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
GTA 5 is fantastic and it still beats S4 in entertainment/atmosphere even with such an apparent 'linear' game design
GTA 5 is a great game; I've played about 30% of the missions. However it lacks the creativity of TS4. I haven't touched GTA 5 in at least a year and have no desire to at the moment. Immersion, yes. Creativity, no.
But GTA and Sims have such completely different structures and game engines, despite the fact that GTA has an "open world" like TS3 does, that's about where the comparison stops.
I honestly didn't care much about the toddlers. I didn't like the very much in the Sims 2 and actually found them kind of boring. I know that is an unpopular opinion, and understand why people liked them. That being said, I like them in the Sims 4 because they are more complex. I know few will agree with me but I think that the fact you don't have the ability to ignore chance cards is the worst part of the game. Also, no pools at the beginning (I didn't get the game when they didn't have pools).
However, I quite like the fact that fires don't happen very often (I remember in the The Sims 1 they happened way too often) and I am so happy there is no burglar because it always startled me when one arrived. Especially in The Sims 1.
I honestly didn't care much about the toddlers. I didn't like the very much in the Sims 2 and actually found them kind of boring. I know that is an unpopular opinion, and understand why people liked them. That being said, I like them in the Sims 4 because they are more complex. I know few will agree with me but I think that the fact you don't have the ability to ignore chance cards is the worst part of the game. Also, no pools at the beginning (I didn't get the game when they didn't have pools).
However, I quite like the fact that fires don't happen very often (I remember in the The Sims 1 they happened way too often) and I am so happy there is no burglar because it always startled me when one arrived. Especially in The Sims 1.
Hm. I had more fires in 4 than I did in previous games. Am I the only one who had children play with the chemistry set in 4? Or was that fixed with a patch? I do think I know what you're referring to though. Is it the oven and/or weather reeking havoc? I have to admit I like those things. I don't want a perfect game when it comes to simulation. I admit it can be annoying when I have to exit without saving, but there are far worse things I can think of on a day-to-day basis.
Dissatisfied with Sims 4 and hoping for a better Sims 5
In my opinion, the biggest mistake was the lack of an open world. This was a massive step backwards from the Sims 3, especially when so many other games now have it (you'd think a life simulator would be the best example of an open world game...). One of the reasons why I enjoyed GTA 5 so much was the open world, which you can explore by foot, bicycle, car, submarine and airplane. It felt like a living city, and was heightened by the random events and character interactions. Frankly, if they took GTA 5 and filled it with Sims it would make one heck of a life simulator.
The constant loading screens in The Sims 4 really breaks the immersion - as a result, I try to stay in my home lot at all times, only travelling out when I absolutely have to. The neighborhoods do not feel connected in any way and there is little point to exploring. One of the things that I used to love doing in The Sims 3 is follow along behind my Sim and act as if I'm in the game with them. I'd waste a ridiculous amount of time tagging along on errands, looking at the buildings, people, cars and terrain. I also loved flying over the city, zooming in on other houses and seeing what other Sims were up to. It was a big part of my game and was very disappointed that TS4 took it away.
Other elements were also minimized or removed, such as toddlers (took them long enough to put it back!), cars, world customisations, and create-a-style, just to name a few. The similarities in life stages was also a surprising - I usually can't tell if someone is a teen or an adult (the only way to know for sure was by clicking on them and checking for romantic interactions). It seems that the game was overall a huge step backwards, almost as if they wanted to reboot the series and make everything from scratch instead of expanding on what was already there.
I've played TS3 for years and got every expansion pack, but I quickly got bored with TS4 and I hardly ever touch it now. I get sad whenever I think about it (especially since I preordered for the Deluxe) and I'm strongly considering reinstalling TS3. Or maybe I'll just play other games on Steam until TS5 is announced.
Anyways, my two cents.
That you can't build in at all, nor bulldoze everything you want gone on the fly. Seems like a Sims game I'd never play, anyway.
You can only build up or bulldoze 5 lots or fewer in most neighborhoods. Two neighborhoods in WB have more than 5 lots, and the city world's hoods all have less than 5 lots you can change freely. The rest of the world (any world) cannot be edited in any way. Your point here is moot because it's essentially exactly how The Sims 4 already operates.
You can build more on the smallest lot in the Sims 4 than you could do anywhere whatsoever in GTA 5. You could talk to any random Sim (and then ask them to move in, marry them, divorce them, etc) more than you can talk to any random cannon fodder 'NPC' in GTA 5. All that GTA 5 has in comparison are cars, guns and drugs. Two of those neither apply nor are needed in a Sims game.
Say what you want to about the 'huge' GTA 5 world, but if you think the Sims 4 worlds are mostly background filler, that's the entirety of the other game. And the reason it's so big is because it lacks everything but shooting and stealing cars. You know what the biggest activity to do in GTA 5 is? Pointless hot-wheels style tracked car racing. The 'city' becomes even more of a backdrop.
When did this become Sims 4 vs GTA5? From the persons post I gathered they like the detail the world holds while still being relatively large in size and open without loading screens (key word in their post is explore). They didn't say anything about racing, or shooting guns, that was you.
If we're comparing backdrop to backdrop here both games have backdrops. There is no such thing as 'building' in GTA so using that as a pro for 4 is like saying apples are better than oranges because oranges don't produce apple juice. The same goes for any argument of Sims 4 vs GTA - they are two completely different games from two completely different genres.
My post was in response to "bulldoze everything you want gone on the fly" which is a bit of a stretch. I detailed exactly what could be deleted, up to 5 lots in select neighborhoods (most with less, 2 with more) and beyond that nothing. Don't chalk up Sims 4 as being so much better when the other game doesn't even do what you're talking about, it's just apples to oranges and a ridiculous waste. I assume you misunderstood where they were going with their post, it took me a minute but I don't read it as "I want GTA in my sims game" I read it more or less as it pertained to the world they explored and how they wish they could do that in The Sims 4.
When did this become Sims 4 vs GTA5? From the persons post I gathered they like the detail the world holds while still being relatively large in size and open without loading screens (key word in their post is explore). They didn't say anything about racing, or shooting guns, that was you.
If we're comparing backdrop to backdrop here both games have backdrops. There is no such thing as 'building' in GTA so using that as a pro for 4 is like saying apples are better than oranges because oranges don't produce apple juice. The same goes for any argument of Sims 4 vs GTA - they are two completely different games from two completely different genres.
My post was in response to "bulldoze everything you want gone on the fly" which is a bit of a stretch. I detailed exactly what could be deleted, up to 5 lots in select neighborhoods (most with less, 2 with more) and beyond that nothing. Don't chalk up Sims 4 as being so much better when the other game doesn't even do what you're talking about, it's just apples to oranges and a ridiculous waste. I assume you misunderstood where they were going with their post, it took me a minute but I don't read it as "I want GTA in my sims game" I read it more or less as it pertained to the world they explored and how they wish they could do that in The Sims 4.
It turns into S4 vs GTA quite often, actually. I don't care for GTA so I'll leave it at that.
I want to touch on bulldozing everything on the fly. I know you're not talking to me, but I just want to say that bulldozing everything on the fly is something that would appeal to me like a homemade apple pie. If you won't let me create it, at least let me build it in the image I'd prefer.
Dissatisfied with Sims 4 and hoping for a better Sims 5
When did this become Sims 4 vs GTA5? From the persons post I gathered they like the detail the world holds while still being relatively large in size and open without loading screens (key word in their post is explore). They didn't say anything about racing, or shooting guns, that was you.
If we're comparing backdrop to backdrop here both games have backdrops. There is no such thing as 'building' in GTA so using that as a pro for 4 is like saying apples are better than oranges because oranges don't produce apple juice. The same goes for any argument of Sims 4 vs GTA - they are two completely different games from two completely different genres.
My post was in response to "bulldoze everything you want gone on the fly" which is a bit of a stretch. I detailed exactly what could be deleted, up to 5 lots in select neighborhoods (most with less, 2 with more) and beyond that nothing. Don't chalk up Sims 4 as being so much better when the other game doesn't even do what you're talking about, it's just apples to oranges and a ridiculous waste. I assume you misunderstood where they were going with their post, it took me a minute but I don't read it as "I want GTA in my sims game" I read it more or less as it pertained to the world they explored and how they wish they could do that in The Sims 4.
It turns into S4 vs GTA quite often, actually. I don't care for GTA so I'll leave it at that.
I want to touch on bulldozing everything on the fly. I know you're not talking to me, but I just want to say that bulldozing everything on the fly is something that would appeal to me like a homemade apple pie. If you won't let me create it, at least let me build it in the image I'd prefer.
I guess to each their own, but I honestly don't really see the comparison. I wouldn't compare Pokémon to The Sims, its a comparison that wouldn't really do much of anything. I feel that way toward Sims 4 vs GTA. I don't see why pitting either against each other is meant to deduce a winner when they aren't in the same race.
I totally agree with the pie analogy. I'm all for more options, but sadly Sims 4 has yet to provide anything beyond the standard build mode.
I guess to each their own, but I honestly don't really see the comparison. I wouldn't compare Pokémon to The Sims, its a comparison that wouldn't really do much of anything. I feel that way toward Sims 4 vs GTA. I don't see why pitting either against each other is meant to deduce a winner when they aren't in the same race.
I totally agree with the pie analogy. I'm all for more options, but sadly Sims 4 has yet to provide anything beyond the standard build mode.
Agreed on all points. If anything, the comparison is counterproductive. Then again, so is comparing it to actual sims games that came before. Guess it depends on who responds. Want a slice? I added a secret ingrdient.
Dissatisfied with Sims 4 and hoping for a better Sims 5
The idea behind TS4 must have been to make the game much more suited for SPs which are fast and cheap to make and usually have sold extremely well anyway. It is difficult to evaluate if this really was a mistake though when we don't know the sales numbers. But if it was then maybe EA had underestimated the effect of simplifying the basegame to make it easier to make a huge number of SPs and the effect of reducing the amount of content in the EPs and also maybe of replacing about half of the EPs whith smaller and cheaper GPs to be able to move even more developers to the SP teams.
The idea behind TS4 must have been to make the game much more suited for SPs which are fast and cheap to make and usually have sold extremely well anyway. It is difficult to evaluate if this really was a mistake though when we don't know the sales numbers. But if it was then maybe EA had underestimated the effect of simplifying the basegame to make it easier to make a huge number of SPs and the effect of reducing the amount of content in the EPs and also maybe of replacing about half of the EPs whith smaller and cheaper GPs to be able to move even more developers to the SP teams.
I'm not entirely convinced of that (better suited for SPs). I'm not entirely convinced of cheaper add-ons either. When it gets to a point of not being able to add functionaliy the game was sold on, I'd say foresight is the biggest issue. Sales are always welcome to a large company and they often interpret numbers in the wrong way. but here, I'd say something under the hood is more amiss.
Dissatisfied with Sims 4 and hoping for a better Sims 5
The idea behind TS4 must have been to make the game much more suited for SPs which are fast and cheap to make and usually have sold extremely well anyway. It is difficult to evaluate if this really was a mistake though when we don't know the sales numbers. But if it was then maybe EA had underestimated the effect of simplifying the basegame to make it easier to make a huge number of SPs and the effect of reducing the amount of content in the EPs and also maybe of replacing about half of the EPs whith smaller and cheaper GPs to be able to move even more developers to the SP teams.
I'm not entirely convinced of that (better suited for SPs). I'm not entirely convinced of cheaper add-ons either. When it gets to a point of not being able to add functionaliy the game was sold on, I'd say foresight is the biggest issue. Sales are always welcome to a large company and they often interpret numbers in the wrong way. but here, I'd say something under the hood is more amiss.
For a company like EA sales numbers are everything. The only other thing for EA to consider is the expenses (primarily the wages to all the developers in the months where they work on each expansion). But SPs require much smaller development teams and they are finished much faster than the traditional big EPs are. The reason of cause is that there are almost no programming in the SPs which are mainly just made by the artists while the EPs require a lot of programming and testing before they can be released. So I think that EA can easily make at least 3 to 4 SPs for the same amount that it cost EA to make just a single EP. So if SPs has as high sales numbers as EPs usually have then I find EA's decision quite understandable.
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
The problem is that we have no other choice but letting them get away with it, because like you say a lot of us don't care to play anything else and this game is one of a kind. I assure you that if there would be a similar, better game out there, this place would be deserted. It's better than nothing, that's where a lot of us are standing.
I guess to each their own, but I honestly don't really see the comparison. I wouldn't compare Pokémon to The Sims, its a comparison that wouldn't really do much of anything. I feel that way toward Sims 4 vs GTA. I don't see why pitting either against each other is meant to deduce a winner when they aren't in the same race.
I totally agree with the pie analogy. I'm all for more options, but sadly Sims 4 has yet to provide anything beyond the standard build mode.
Agreed on all points. If anything, the comparison is counterproductive. Then again, so is comparing it to actual sims games that came before. Guess it depends on who responds. Want a slice? I added a secret ingredient.
Comparing games indeed is counterproductive, comparing features and options though is not. In that respect the comparison with an entirely different game with a completely different approach and core is pointless.
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
You can't really compare the Sims games with other game because the Sims games are much more toys instead of being challenging games. There is no depth in the Sims games and you can do anything successfully. So their attraction is just that you can use them as you want and let the sims do just what you want them to do. The Sims (software toys) are just a mixture of a real life simulation and our fantasies about supernaturals and supernatural powers.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
You can't really compare the Sims games with other game because the Sims games are much more toys instead of being challenging games. There is no depth in the Sims games and you can do anything successfully. So their attraction is just that you can use them as you want and let the sims do just what you want them to do. The Sims (software toys) are just a mixture of a real life simulation and our fantasies about supernaturals and supernatural powers.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
Your post reads as if you have no idea what a Sims game is about. Bit like me participating in a FIFA or Assassin's Creed forum, not having a clue what people like about it and telling them they are liking a wrong game. I don't care for other 'real' games, I like this franchise and the way it approaches gaming.
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
You can't really compare the Sims games with other game because the Sims games are much more toys instead of being challenging games. There is no depth in the Sims games and you can do anything successfully. So their attraction is just that you can use them as you want and let the sims do just what you want them to do. The Sims (software toys) are just a mixture of a real life simulation and our fantasies about supernaturals and supernatural powers.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
Your post reads as if you have no idea what a Sims game is about. Bit like me participating in a FIFA or Assassin's Creed forum, not having a clue what people like about it and telling them they are liking a wrong game. I don't care for other 'real' games, I like this franchise and the way it approaches gaming.
I played TS2 for hours every day in about 2 years. I also played both TS3 and TS4 for a couple of months for each game. So I think that I know what the games are about
But you are right though that I don't know why people are buying all the SPs and why many like even more to build and decorate houses than to actually play the game.
I have never played Assassins Creed either. But I know what FIFA games and other sports games are about. I am just not enough interested in sports to play such games myself.
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
You can't really compare the Sims games with other game because the Sims games are much more toys instead of being challenging games. There is no depth in the Sims games and you can do anything successfully. So their attraction is just that you can use them as you want and let the sims do just what you want them to do. The Sims (software toys) are just a mixture of a real life simulation and our fantasies about supernaturals and supernatural powers.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
Your post reads as if you have no idea what a Sims game is about. Bit like me participating in a FIFA or Assassin's Creed forum, not having a clue what people like about it and telling them they are liking a wrong game. I don't care for other 'real' games, I like this franchise and the way it approaches gaming.
I played TS2 for hours every day in about 2 years. I also played both TS3 and TS4 for a couple of months for each game. So I think that I know what the games are about
But you are right though that I don't know why people are buying all the SPs and why many like even more to build and decorate houses than to actually play the game.
I have never played Assassins Creed either. But I know what FIFA games and other sports games are about. I am just not enough interested in sports to play such games myself.
I'm not saying you don't know what the games are about, I just wonder if they are your cup of tea when you are referring to them as 'toys', having 'no depth' and referring to other games as 'real', suggesting The Sims is not real. We've had this discussion before by the way, there's no need to repeat that I'm just wondering if the franchise brings you what you expect in a game, if that part bothers you (if it does, maybe I'm misinterpreting).
I am agreeing with "What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it" by the way. In terms of..., the looks of the game are important for me, but I do need there to be game changing gameplay and consequences. And things happening you perhaps didn't plan but having to deal with it. I don't want the game to fill in everything for me though. I'm playing in an apartment now in Sims 3 and that comes with frustrations (because the tenants refuse to leave the premises, they even don't go to work (and I did make sure they have jobs). Still I prefer that to apartments with scripts.
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
You can't really compare the Sims games with other game because the Sims games are much more toys instead of being challenging games. There is no depth in the Sims games and you can do anything successfully. So their attraction is just that you can use them as you want and let the sims do just what you want them to do. The Sims (software toys) are just a mixture of a real life simulation and our fantasies about supernaturals and supernatural powers.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
Your post reads as if you have no idea what a Sims game is about. Bit like me participating in a FIFA or Assassin's Creed forum, not having a clue what people like about it and telling them they are liking a wrong game. I don't care for other 'real' games, I like this franchise and the way it approaches gaming.
I played TS2 for hours every day in about 2 years. I also played both TS3 and TS4 for a couple of months for each game. So I think that I know what the games are about
But you are right though that I don't know why people are buying all the SPs and why many like even more to build and decorate houses than to actually play the game.
I have never played Assassins Creed either. But I know what FIFA games and other sports games are about. I am just not enough interested in sports to play such games myself.
I'm not saying you don't know what the games are about, I just wonder if they are your cup of tea when you are referring to them as 'toys', having 'no depth' and referring to other games as 'real', suggesting The Sims is not real.
I am not the only one who think that the Sims games more correctly should be described as software toys instead of games. I am also not at all the first one who wrote this because experts in the field wrote that already many years ago to describe TS1. "Software toy" is a more general type of software than "game" is.
No game is perfect and this is also the case about the Sims games for me. I like the life simulation part of the Sims games which you can't find in the same way as in other games. But I don't like the easiness, supernatural part or the focus on decorating houses and changing the looks of the sims. Real life isn't that easy and I don't have fantasies about friendly supernaturals myself either. Therefore I still think that vampyres, zombies, dragons etc. are monsters that are much more suited as dangerous creatures in very different types of games. I don't need them in my Sims games.
TS1 was in a way a better game because it was much harder to satisfy the needs for our sims. But since then the Sims games have been much easier and trivial.
The best Sims game currently is for me the Sims Freeplay because I like the challenges in the game. But even so I don't really play it anymore because I have reached a point where there isn't really more for me to do - and I don't think that the game is interesting enough for me just to reset it and start over from the beginning again.
I am agreeing with "What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it" by the way. In terms of..., the looks of the game are important for me, but I do need there to be game changing gameplay and consequences. And things happening you perhaps didn't plan but having to deal with it. I don't want the game to fill in everything for me though. I'm playing in an apartment now in Sims 3 and that comes with frustrations (because the tenants refuse to leave the premises, they even don't go to work (and I did make sure they have jobs). Still I prefer that to apartments with scripts.
I am playing a few other free-to-play games too and I am still wondering about the high prices when stuff are offered to me in those games. Why would anybody want to buy decorations for prices from $10 to $120 for each item in even such free games? Why do people do the same in the Sims games (both in TS3, TS4 and the Sims Freeplay)?
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
You can't really compare the Sims games with other game because the Sims games are much more toys instead of being challenging games. There is no depth in the Sims games and you can do anything successfully. So their attraction is just that you can use them as you want and let the sims do just what you want them to do. The Sims (software toys) are just a mixture of a real life simulation and our fantasies about supernaturals and supernatural powers.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
Your post reads as if you have no idea what a Sims game is about. Bit like me participating in a FIFA or Assassin's Creed forum, not having a clue what people like about it and telling them they are liking a wrong game. I don't care for other 'real' games, I like this franchise and the way it approaches gaming.
I played TS2 for hours every day in about 2 years. I also played both TS3 and TS4 for a couple of months for each game. So I think that I know what the games are about
But you are right though that I don't know why people are buying all the SPs and why many like even more to build and decorate houses than to actually play the game.
I have never played Assassins Creed either. But I know what FIFA games and other sports games are about. I am just not enough interested in sports to play such games myself.
I'm not saying you don't know what the games are about, I just wonder if they are your cup of tea when you are referring to them as 'toys', having 'no depth' and referring to other games as 'real', suggesting The Sims is not real.
I am not the only one who think that the Sims games more correctly should be described as software toys instead of games. I am also not at all the first one who wrote this because experts in the field wrote that already many years ago to describe TS1. "Software toy" is a more general type of software than "game" is.
No game is perfect and this is also the case about the Sims games for me. I like the life simulation part of the Sims games which you can't find in the same way as in other games. But I don't like the easiness, supernatural part or the focus on decorating houses and changing the looks of the sims. Real life isn't that easy and I don't have fantasies about friendly supernaturals myself either. Therefore I still think that vampyres, zombies, dragons etc. are monsters that are much more suited as dangerous creatures in very different types of games. I don't need them in my Sims games.
TS1 was in a way a better game because it was much harder to satisfy the needs for our sims. But since then the Sims games have been much easier and trivial.
The best Sims game currently is for me the Sims Freeplay because I like the challenges in the game. But even so I don't really play it anymore because I have reached a point where there isn't really more for me to do - and I don't think that the game is interesting enough for me just to reset it and start over from the beginning again.
I am agreeing with "What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it" by the way. In terms of..., the looks of the game are important for me, but I do need there to be game changing gameplay and consequences. And things happening you perhaps didn't plan but having to deal with it. I don't want the game to fill in everything for me though. I'm playing in an apartment now in Sims 3 and that comes with frustrations (because the tenants refuse to leave the premises, they even don't go to work (and I did make sure they have jobs). Still I prefer that to apartments with scripts.
I am playing a few other free-to-play games too and I am still wondering about the high prices when stuff are offered to me in those games. Why would anybody want to buy decorations for prices from $10 to $120 for each item in even such free games? Why do people do the same in the Sims games (both in TS3, TS4 and the Sims Freeplay)?
Simmers said that? Or gamers in general? Because that's my point. Mind you, you don't have to be a simmer on my account, but there are certain objections that just make a game not the right game for you. I can think of many games where that applies for me, while they are highly popular amongst many. Those objections are not really relevant on a forum for that particular game though (I don't like fighting/soccer/building rollercoasters etc), because they may be objections for you, they are not to the people who are into the game and its theme. The fact you praise Freeplay as the best speaks volumes to me. Because it's not a Sims game
Another biggest mistake: "catering" only for party-players. Even If that doesn't apply true to you, The Game still (imo) caters for one or a few of-a-particular-thing players, but not all (family-players, builders/mappers). It really does feel like playing a spin-off/console game, due not only the lack of content, but the focus of 'player however you want'
No game is perfect and this is also the case about the Sims games for me. I like the life simulation part of the Sims games which you can't find in the same way as in other games. But I don't like the easiness, supernatural part or the focus on decorating houses and changing the looks of the sims. Real life isn't that easy and I don't have fantasies about friendly supernaturals myself either. Therefore I still think that vampyres, zombies, dragons etc. are monsters that are much more suited as dangerous creatures in very different types of games. I don't need them in my Sims games.
Yeah, I would prefer a more challenging game as well. IMO, clothes should cost Simoleons, as well as changing hairstyles or getting a tattoo, etc. These things don't come free in life so they shouldn't be free in a life simulator either. Clothes should also wear out over time and you should also be able to destroy them (e.g., if a Sim catches fire while wearing a particular set of clothes). Cleaning the house should be mandatory - all objects should get dirty over time, not just counter tops. You should also be able to buy things on credit and have to pay fees and taxes. Relationships are also way too easy, especially romances - I was able achieved the Serial Romantic aspiration with little effort. I would also like some unexpected events as well, such as being fired from a job because of layoffs, or being rejected from a job application, getting burglarized or mugged (in TS3 they had burglars), accidental damage to your house or property, etc. A life simulator is supposed to simulate life and so should also simulate the challenges of life (plus, a challenging game is always more rewarding to play).
And I agree about the supernatural stuff. Why they put that stuff in a life simulator is beyond me.
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
You can't really compare the Sims games with other game because the Sims games are much more toys instead of being challenging games. There is no depth in the Sims games and you can do anything successfully. So their attraction is just that you can use them as you want and let the sims do just what you want them to do. The Sims (software toys) are just a mixture of a real life simulation and our fantasies about supernaturals and supernatural powers.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
Your post reads as if you have no idea what a Sims game is about. Bit like me participating in a FIFA or Assassin's Creed forum, not having a clue what people like about it and telling them they are liking a wrong game. I don't care for other 'real' games, I like this franchise and the way it approaches gaming.
I played TS2 for hours every day in about 2 years. I also played both TS3 and TS4 for a couple of months for each game. So I think that I know what the games are about
But you are right though that I don't know why people are buying all the SPs and why many like even more to build and decorate houses than to actually play the game.
I have never played Assassins Creed either. But I know what FIFA games and other sports games are about. I am just not enough interested in sports to play such games myself.
I'm not saying you don't know what the games are about, I just wonder if they are your cup of tea when you are referring to them as 'toys', having 'no depth' and referring to other games as 'real', suggesting The Sims is not real.
I am not the only one who think that the Sims games more correctly should be described as software toys instead of games. I am also not at all the first one who wrote this because experts in the field wrote that already many years ago to describe TS1. "Software toy" is a more general type of software than "game" is.
No game is perfect and this is also the case about the Sims games for me. I like the life simulation part of the Sims games which you can't find in the same way as in other games. But I don't like the easiness, supernatural part or the focus on decorating houses and changing the looks of the sims. Real life isn't that easy and I don't have fantasies about friendly supernaturals myself either. Therefore I still think that vampyres, zombies, dragons etc. are monsters that are much more suited as dangerous creatures in very different types of games. I don't need them in my Sims games.
TS1 was in a way a better game because it was much harder to satisfy the needs for our sims. But since then the Sims games have been much easier and trivial.
The best Sims game currently is for me the Sims Freeplay because I like the challenges in the game. But even so I don't really play it anymore because I have reached a point where there isn't really more for me to do - and I don't think that the game is interesting enough for me just to reset it and start over from the beginning again.
I am agreeing with "What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it" by the way. In terms of..., the looks of the game are important for me, but I do need there to be game changing gameplay and consequences. And things happening you perhaps didn't plan but having to deal with it. I don't want the game to fill in everything for me though. I'm playing in an apartment now in Sims 3 and that comes with frustrations (because the tenants refuse to leave the premises, they even don't go to work (and I did make sure they have jobs). Still I prefer that to apartments with scripts.
I am playing a few other free-to-play games too and I am still wondering about the high prices when stuff are offered to me in those games. Why would anybody want to buy decorations for prices from $10 to $120 for each item in even such free games? Why do people do the same in the Sims games (both in TS3, TS4 and the Sims Freeplay)?
Simmers said that? Or gamers in general?
No, I actually think that it was Will Wright. He originally used the expression about SimCity though. He also talked about "non-games" in about the same meaning though. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-game :
The 1989 simulation game SimCity was called a software toy by its creator Will Wright, since there is no ultimate objective in the main game (scenarios with objectives existed in some incarnations of the game, such as Sim City 2000, but these were not the focus).[6]
Because that's my point. Mind you, you don't have to be a simmer on my account, but there are certain objections that just make a game not the right game for you. I can think of many games where that applies for me, while they are highly popular amongst many. Those objections are not really relevant on a forum for that particular game though (I don't like fighting/soccer/building rollercoasters etc), because they may be objections for you, they are not to the people who are into the game and its theme. The fact you praise Freeplay as the best speaks volumes to me. Because it's not a Sims game
EA's idea about the Sims Freeplay, the Sims Social and other earlier Sims games has always been to use the Sims concept to create Sims games for other platforms too. Those games just have to be a little different because mobile devices, Facebook and consoles doesn't support the idea to create 30 expansions to sell too. But if you define "Sims games" to be characterized only by having dozens of EPs, GPs and SPs to buy too - then you are of course right EA still doesn't agree with you though.
Sims Freeplay is a Sims game in the sense that you can play with your sims as you want. You can also build houses, decorate houses, change the look of your sims, change their clothes, send your sims to work, let your sims do hobbies, let your sims date, get engaged, marry, have babies, let the babies grow up to toddlers, let toddlers grow up to preteens, let preteens grow up to teens, let teens grow up to become adults, let adults grow up to elders, and let elders die in the same way as in other Sims games. Or you can do challenges instead if you want. So it is actually clearly a Sims game even though you don't like that you only can buy a huge number of items in the store and not SPs, GPs and EPs
My main issue is lack of family play. I never cared that it wasn't open world and that the color wheel was gone. In fact I preferred the switch back to closed off lots. But when I go back to sims 2 I see all the little games like cops and robbers and red hands and I just miss it. They took a step in the right direction with toddlers and I hope they build in that direction. All this being said I still love the game and I'm not looking for a copy of the old, I just wish families felt more real in this generation.
Comments
That should not have happened. Just like we don't want another Sims online - we don't want an alternate Universe either. We want the Sims but better and on a great engine like EA's inhouse engine - we deserve as much. 18 years of buying everything Sims should warrant us the best if you ask me - not less. We should not have had to wait for all the missing - it should never have been missing to start with - especially a life stage - and creative simmers should not have been left out - still waiting to create worlds etc in Sims 4 now almost 3 years. This is insane actually if you think about it.
ETA - I agree the toddlers are amazing as are the Vamps and it is just sad this kind of perfection could have been in the game from day one and isn't. It just makes everything else feel under par but those tots and vamps certainly shine. I see this and feel sad for rest of the game - knowing this kind of talent is there and it not showing through rest of the game.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
GTA 5 is a great game; I've played about 30% of the missions. However it lacks the creativity of TS4. I haven't touched GTA 5 in at least a year and have no desire to at the moment. Immersion, yes. Creativity, no.
But GTA and Sims have such completely different structures and game engines, despite the fact that GTA has an "open world" like TS3 does, that's about where the comparison stops.
Sim Stuff by Pegasys
However, I quite like the fact that fires don't happen very often (I remember in the The Sims 1 they happened way too often) and I am so happy there is no burglar because it always startled me when one arrived. Especially in The Sims 1.
Hm. I had more fires in 4 than I did in previous games. Am I the only one who had children play with the chemistry set in 4? Or was that fixed with a patch? I do think I know what you're referring to though. Is it the oven and/or weather reeking havoc? I have to admit I like those things. I don't want a perfect game when it comes to simulation. I admit it can be annoying when I have to exit without saving, but there are far worse things I can think of on a day-to-day basis.
When did this become Sims 4 vs GTA5? From the persons post I gathered they like the detail the world holds while still being relatively large in size and open without loading screens (key word in their post is explore). They didn't say anything about racing, or shooting guns, that was you.
If we're comparing backdrop to backdrop here both games have backdrops. There is no such thing as 'building' in GTA so using that as a pro for 4 is like saying apples are better than oranges because oranges don't produce apple juice. The same goes for any argument of Sims 4 vs GTA - they are two completely different games from two completely different genres.
My post was in response to "bulldoze everything you want gone on the fly" which is a bit of a stretch. I detailed exactly what could be deleted, up to 5 lots in select neighborhoods (most with less, 2 with more) and beyond that nothing. Don't chalk up Sims 4 as being so much better when the other game doesn't even do what you're talking about, it's just apples to oranges and a ridiculous waste. I assume you misunderstood where they were going with their post, it took me a minute but I don't read it as "I want GTA in my sims game" I read it more or less as it pertained to the world they explored and how they wish they could do that in The Sims 4.
It turns into S4 vs GTA quite often, actually. I don't care for GTA so I'll leave it at that.
I want to touch on bulldozing everything on the fly. I know you're not talking to me, but I just want to say that bulldozing everything on the fly is something that would appeal to me like a homemade apple pie. If you won't let me create it, at least let me build it in the image I'd prefer.
I guess to each their own, but I honestly don't really see the comparison. I wouldn't compare Pokémon to The Sims, its a comparison that wouldn't really do much of anything. I feel that way toward Sims 4 vs GTA. I don't see why pitting either against each other is meant to deduce a winner when they aren't in the same race.
I totally agree with the pie analogy. I'm all for more options, but sadly Sims 4 has yet to provide anything beyond the standard build mode.
Agreed on all points. If anything, the comparison is counterproductive. Then again, so is comparing it to actual sims games that came before. Guess it depends on who responds. Want a slice? I added a secret ingrdient.
I'm not entirely convinced of that (better suited for SPs). I'm not entirely convinced of cheaper add-ons either. When it gets to a point of not being able to add functionaliy the game was sold on, I'd say foresight is the biggest issue. Sales are always welcome to a large company and they often interpret numbers in the wrong way. but here, I'd say something under the hood is more amiss.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
But you are right though that I don't know why people are buying all the SPs and why many like even more to build and decorate houses than to actually play the game.
I have never played Assassins Creed either. But I know what FIFA games and other sports games are about. I am just not enough interested in sports to play such games myself.
I am agreeing with "What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it" by the way. In terms of..., the looks of the game are important for me, but I do need there to be game changing gameplay and consequences. And things happening you perhaps didn't plan but having to deal with it. I don't want the game to fill in everything for me though. I'm playing in an apartment now in Sims 3 and that comes with frustrations (because the tenants refuse to leave the premises, they even don't go to work (and I did make sure they have jobs). Still I prefer that to apartments with scripts.
No game is perfect and this is also the case about the Sims games for me. I like the life simulation part of the Sims games which you can't find in the same way as in other games. But I don't like the easiness, supernatural part or the focus on decorating houses and changing the looks of the sims. Real life isn't that easy and I don't have fantasies about friendly supernaturals myself either. Therefore I still think that vampyres, zombies, dragons etc. are monsters that are much more suited as dangerous creatures in very different types of games. I don't need them in my Sims games.
TS1 was in a way a better game because it was much harder to satisfy the needs for our sims. But since then the Sims games have been much easier and trivial.
The best Sims game currently is for me the Sims Freeplay because I like the challenges in the game. But even so I don't really play it anymore because I have reached a point where there isn't really more for me to do - and I don't think that the game is interesting enough for me just to reset it and start over from the beginning again.
I am playing a few other free-to-play games too and I am still wondering about the high prices when stuff are offered to me in those games. Why would anybody want to buy decorations for prices from $10 to $120 for each item in even such free games? Why do people do the same in the Sims games (both in TS3, TS4 and the Sims Freeplay)?
And I agree about the supernatural stuff. Why they put that stuff in a life simulator is beyond me.
The 1989 simulation game SimCity was called a software toy by its creator Will Wright, since there is no ultimate objective in the main game (scenarios with objectives existed in some incarnations of the game, such as Sim City 2000, but these were not the focus).[6]
EA's idea about the Sims Freeplay, the Sims Social and other earlier Sims games has always been to use the Sims concept to create Sims games for other platforms too. Those games just have to be a little different because mobile devices, Facebook and consoles doesn't support the idea to create 30 expansions to sell too. But if you define "Sims games" to be characterized only by having dozens of EPs, GPs and SPs to buy too - then you are of course right
Sims Freeplay is a Sims game in the sense that you can play with your sims as you want. You can also build houses, decorate houses, change the look of your sims, change their clothes, send your sims to work, let your sims do hobbies, let your sims date, get engaged, marry, have babies, let the babies grow up to toddlers, let toddlers grow up to preteens, let preteens grow up to teens, let teens grow up to become adults, let adults grow up to elders, and let elders die in the same way as in other Sims games. Or you can do challenges instead if you want. So it is actually clearly a Sims game even though you don't like that you only can buy a huge number of items in the store and not SPs, GPs and EPs