Considering what a sims game is and considering all installments, I think TS5 or simply TS if they decide to go SimCity route name wise and forget numbers on the fifth installment, I think it should be a mix of TS2 and TS3. TS4 strays away too much from what a sims game is; they need to actually get back on track with the fifth one. Also, considering it would be a game releasing in around late 2018 I'd expect it to look and feel as such, I don't want an ultra realistic looking sims game, but I also wouldn't want a rinse and repeat of TS4's overly cartoonish style, perhaps a bit realistic just not too much; I also wouldn't want the ultra kid friendly theme/feel TS4 has going on for it (angry poop) and I'd like them to go open world with it, don't really care if travelling through worlds like in TS4 is compromised. But honestly I don't think they should make a TS5 if they aren't going to put enough effort in it and if they aren't going to make it feel and look like an improvement. It would just be a waste of time and an insult for the fans (as if TS4 launching without pools and toddlers etc wasn't already one).
I want them to keep the club system from Sims 4 Get Together. It can be an expansion for Sims 5, doesn't have to be in base game. But I really enjoy making clubs. It's my favorite expansion and I feel it's the only EP that really expanded on the base game.
Interesting topic @king_of_simcity7 (be prepared for it to be moved to OT tho).
There's a lot that I'd like to see for TS5 myself. It would definitely have something from each iteration - difficulty and humor of TS1, memories from TS2, CASt, Open World (or something close to OW), CAW from TS3, and some of the build mode tools from TS4. Just to name a few things.
I think as long as the foundation isn't cracked, it could be a really good game.
However, as much as I would love to see a progressive Sims game; I don't expect to see TS5 before 2020, if at all. The heart and soul seems to be gone!
For all those saying they don't want to start over...that's been happening since TS1. This game is an investment, an expensive hobby, and anyone who has been around since the beginning and collecting everything has spent THOUSANDS!
Just give me a way to create worlds ala Sims 2 and I'll be happy. I don't care about an open world so much, but I do care that the map looks like a phone game rendering and the fake background is distractingly ugly.
I want to be able to pick a map and decorate it myself, I don't want to play in a boring interpretation of someone else's world, and I want to be able to add subhoods and vacation hoods as needed, preferably with a way to section off population so my vacation sims aren't roaming around in my main hood.
Lately every time I open Sims 4 and see the same old tired maps, I end up closing it down because I'm sick of trying to build on the same couple few lots available in the already played to death neighborhoods.
For all those saying they don't want to start over...that's been happening since TS1. This game is an investment, an expensive hobby, and anyone who has been around since the beginning and collecting everything has spent THOUSANDS!
People hate the sims 4 because it doesnt have "open world" and cas but dont bash the sims 2 for those same lack of features. I dont understand,How is sims 4 a terrible game without those things, but sims 2 is not? It baffles me. Sims 4 is called the worst ever just because it doesnt have those things.
IMO, it's pretty simple. 2 is before 3. 4 is -after- 3. 2 was released in 2004, 4 was released in 2014. See a pattern there?
There's a progression -- or at least there should be -- that's the expectation, certainly. When TS2 came out, its features (progression of age categories and such) were new and exciting. When TS3 added in things like an open world and Create-a-Style, those too were new and exciting. When TS4 dropped open world and CASt, left out various different other 'core game' items and such all for an 'emotion' system that's been less than exciting for some users, well, it was less exciting. (For some of us, anyway.)
In general, there's a problem that studios face when they create a sequence of games in a franchise. To whit: Each iteration is expected to be something bigger and/or better -- to be somehow improved from the previous one. Looking at things from the consumers' standpoint, that's a fairly reasonable expectation. Why? Because we all have limited resources (budget) ourselves. If we're to be asked to pay for a new game, then it's only reasonable that we should expect that new game to provide something more/better than what we already have. Otherwise, is not the reasonable response to keep our money and continue playing the game we already have and enjoy?
On the other hand, looking at it from the studio's perspective, by creating a series of iterations of the same game (a 'franchise' -- IE, "The Sims," "Madden Football," "Halo," "Call of Duty," etc.) they set themselves up for what is kind of an impossible task, due to that expectation. The studio doesn't necessarily have a greater resource pool when creating a new iteration than they did for the last one. Ideally, if the franchise is successful, it would be great for the publisher to reinvest a bit more into it each time, but I seriously doubt that's the case. If anything, it seems that publishers are calling for studios to 'do more with less' on a regular basis. (Not based in fact, just on the general talk you see around gaming sites and such. Make of it what you will.)
So we end up here -- with expectations of greater things that are not entirely unfounded -- again, why spend more money for something that's less fun that what we already have -- but expectations that may not actually be attainable given the resources the studio really has available. Still, the big corporations chase these ongoing franchises for their sense of 'safety' or 'stability' and face what generally can only be a sequence of diminishing interest, due to their lack of willingness to invest a greater amount in newer iterations.
So TS5? Well, I'd like to have high hopes for it. I definitely really want an open world and Create-a-Style customization ability -- things like that. I definitely expect all of the 'regular' life stages we've come to expect, Baby through Elder. I don't really expect "pre-teens" in either TS4 or later iterations. IMO, there's just not enough unique gameplay there to justify a whole new age stage. Rounding out Teens better than they are would be time much better spent, IMO.
I do expect a TS5. As far as I can tell, The Sims is still a very profitable franchise, and I don't expect them to just let it go. But they're definitely facing that 'expectation wall' I was describing above, and unless EA really decides to invest in making TS5 a better game, I don't know if things are going to really turn around much or if the slow decline of the franchise overall is just inevitable.
Just give me a way to create worlds ala Sims 2 and I'll be happy. I don't care about an open world so much, but I do care that the map looks like a phone game rendering and the fake background is distractingly ugly.
I want to be able to pick a map and decorate it myself, I don't want to play in a boring interpretation of someone else's world, and I want to be able to add subhoods and vacation hoods as needed, preferably with a way to section off population so my vacation sims aren't roaming around in my main hood.
Lately every time I open Sims 4 and see the same old tired maps, I end up closing it down because I'm sick of trying to build on the same couple few lots available in the already played to death neighborhoods.
People hate the sims 4 because it doesnt have "open world" and cas but dont bash the sims 2 for those same lack of features. I dont understand,How is sims 4 a terrible game without those things, but sims 2 is not? It baffles me. Sims 4 is called the worst ever just because it doesnt have those things.
IMO, it's pretty simple. 2 is before 3. 4 is -after- 3. 2 was released in 2004, 4 was released in 2014. See a pattern there?
There's a progression -- or at least there should be -- that's the expectation, certainly. When TS2 came out, its features (progression of age categories and such) were new and exciting. When TS3 added in things like an open world and Create-a-Style, those too were new and exciting. When TS4 dropped open world and CASt, left out various different other 'core game' items and such all for an 'emotion' system that's been less than exciting for some users, well, it was less exciting. (For some of us, anyway.)
In general, there's a problem that studios face when they create a sequence of games in a franchise. To whit: Each iteration is expected to be something bigger and/or better -- to be somehow improved from the previous one. Looking at things from the consumers' standpoint, that's a fairly reasonable expectation. Why? Because we all have limited resources (budget) ourselves. If we're to be asked to pay for a new game, then it's only reasonable that we should expect that new game to provide something more/better than what we already have. Otherwise, is not the reasonable response to keep our money and continue playing the game we already have and enjoy?
On the other hand, looking at it from the studio's perspective, by creating a series of iterations of the same game (a 'franchise' -- IE, "The Sims," "Madden Football," "Halo," "Call of Duty," etc.) they set themselves up for what is kind of an impossible task, due to that expectation. The studio doesn't necessarily have a greater resource pool when creating a new iteration than they did for the last one. Ideally, if the franchise is successful, it would be great for the publisher to reinvest a bit more into it each time, but I seriously doubt that's the case. If anything, it seems that publishers are calling for studios to 'do more with less' on a regular basis. (Not based in fact, just on the general talk you see around gaming sites and such. Make of it what you will.)
So we end up here -- with expectations of greater things that are not entirely unfounded -- again, why spend more money for something that's less fun that what we already have -- but expectations that may not actually be attainable given the resources the studio really has available. Still, the big corporations chase these ongoing franchises for their sense of 'safety' or 'stability' and face what generally can only be a sequence of diminishing interest, due to their lack of willingness to invest a greater amount in newer iterations.
So TS5? Well, I'd like to have high hopes for it. I definitely really want an open world and Create-a-Style customization ability -- things like that. I definitely expect all of the 'regular' life stages we've come to expect, Baby through Elder. I don't really expect "pre-teens" in either TS4 or later iterations. IMO, there's just not enough unique gameplay there to justify a whole new age stage. Rounding out Teens better than they are would be time much better spent, IMO.
I do expect a TS5. As far as I can tell, The Sims is still a very profitable franchise, and I don't expect them to just let it go. But they're definitely facing that 'expectation wall' I was describing above, and unless EA really decides to invest in making TS5 a better game, I don't know if things are going to really turn around much or if the slow decline of the franchise overall is just inevitable.
Less fun is definitely subjective. I definitely had more fun playing ts2 than i ever did sims 3 and it didnt have those things. My expectations were actually exceeded with sims 4.
People hate the sims 4 because it doesnt have "open world" and cas but dont bash the sims 2 for those same lack of features. I dont understand,How is sims 4 a terrible game without those things, but sims 2 is not? It baffles me. Sims 4 is called the worst ever just because it doesnt have those things.
IMO, it's pretty simple. 2 is before 3. 4 is -after- 3. 2 was released in 2004, 4 was released in 2014. See a pattern there?
There's a progression -- or at least there should be -- that's the expectation, certainly. When TS2 came out, its features (progression of age categories and such) were new and exciting. When TS3 added in things like an open world and Create-a-Style, those too were new and exciting. When TS4 dropped open world and CASt, left out various different other 'core game' items and such all for an 'emotion' system that's been less than exciting for some users, well, it was less exciting. (For some of us, anyway.)
In general, there's a problem that studios face when they create a sequence of games in a franchise. To whit: Each iteration is expected to be something bigger and/or better -- to be somehow improved from the previous one. Looking at things from the consumers' standpoint, that's a fairly reasonable expectation. Why? Because we all have limited resources (budget) ourselves. If we're to be asked to pay for a new game, then it's only reasonable that we should expect that new game to provide something more/better than what we already have. Otherwise, is not the reasonable response to keep our money and continue playing the game we already have and enjoy?
On the other hand, looking at it from the studio's perspective, by creating a series of iterations of the same game (a 'franchise' -- IE, "The Sims," "Madden Football," "Halo," "Call of Duty," etc.) they set themselves up for what is kind of an impossible task, due to that expectation. The studio doesn't necessarily have a greater resource pool when creating a new iteration than they did for the last one. Ideally, if the franchise is successful, it would be great for the publisher to reinvest a bit more into it each time, but I seriously doubt that's the case. If anything, it seems that publishers are calling for studios to 'do more with less' on a regular basis. (Not based in fact, just on the general talk you see around gaming sites and such. Make of it what you will.)
So we end up here -- with expectations of greater things that are not entirely unfounded -- again, why spend more money for something that's less fun that what we already have -- but expectations that may not actually be attainable given the resources the studio really has available. Still, the big corporations chase these ongoing franchises for their sense of 'safety' or 'stability' and face what generally can only be a sequence of diminishing interest, due to their lack of willingness to invest a greater amount in newer iterations.
So TS5? Well, I'd like to have high hopes for it. I definitely really want an open world and Create-a-Style customization ability -- things like that. I definitely expect all of the 'regular' life stages we've come to expect, Baby through Elder. I don't really expect "pre-teens" in either TS4 or later iterations. IMO, there's just not enough unique gameplay there to justify a whole new age stage. Rounding out Teens better than they are would be time much better spent, IMO.
I do expect a TS5. As far as I can tell, The Sims is still a very profitable franchise, and I don't expect them to just let it go. But they're definitely facing that 'expectation wall' I was describing above, and unless EA really decides to invest in making TS5 a better game, I don't know if things are going to really turn around much or if the slow decline of the franchise overall is just inevitable.
Considering what a sims game is and considering all installments, I think TS5 or simply TS if they decide to go SimCity route name wise and forget numbers on the fifth installment, I think it should be a mix of TS2 and TS3. TS4 strays away too much from what a sims game is; they need to actually get back on track with the fifth one. Also, considering it would be a game releasing in around late 2018 I'd expect it to look and feel as such, I don't want an ultra realistic looking sims game, but I also wouldn't want a rinse and repeat of TS4's overly cartoonish style, perhaps a bit realistic just not too much; I also wouldn't want the ultra kid friendly theme/feel TS4 has going on for it (angry poop) and I'd like them to go open world with it, don't really care if travelling through worlds like in TS4 is compromised. But honestly I don't think they should make a TS5 if they aren't going to put enough effort in it and if they aren't going to make it feel and look like an improvement. It would just be a waste of time and an insult for the fans (as if TS4 launching without pools and toddlers etc wasn't already one).
Though...I hardly think it'll happen.
In what way does the sims 4 stray away from a sims game? If anything sims 3 strayed from the original bones of the sims. Can you give an example? Because... Anyway, I love sims 4's art style a lot more than sims 3's style. I cant even call sims 3 an art style , because there is no personality to the visuals.
Less fun is definitely subjective. I definitely had more fun playing ts2 than i ever did sims 3 and it didnt have those things. My expectations were actually exceeded with sims 4.
Emphasis mine. That bold, italicized statement is certainly true. Something we should all keep in mind at all times.
As much as I enjoyed open world in Sims 3, I rather they never do it again. Here are my reasons...
They want the game to be able to run on old computers. They will have to sacrifice a lot in an open world for these reasons. Either increase the required specs(which could make the game amazing on so many levels) or leave the world closed.
Routing...I feel like people who designed the worlds never really played with the Sims in those worlds. Well just look at Isla Paridiso...
Connected worlds. I always wanted to connect my worlds and turn some of the worlds into vacation spots instead of home worlds. I believe this could have been addressed by the team but they never did. So some where stuck getting the traveler mod if they wanted to do that. This is also a problem with Sims 4 as far as changing homeworlds into destination worlds.
No open restaurants due to performance was the claim with Sims 3. I hated how everything was closed and I still didn't understand why when nightclubs were open. Guess adding a chef and waiters was too much *shrugs*
Sims 4 worlds are limited and I think Sims 2 style with an upgrade in graphics could be a happy medium. In Sims 5, I hope we can edit and create the world itself and not get hit with performance limitations. I also hope rotational gameplay is taken into consideration because I get bored playing one family. I am not holding my breath because honestly to make the game I would like to see they would have to increase the computer spec requirements which really needs to be done.
People hate the sims 4 because it doesnt have "open world" and cas but dont bash the sims 2 for those same lack of features. I dont understand,How is sims 4 a terrible game without those things, but sims 2 is not? It baffles me. Sims 4 is called the worst ever just because it doesnt have those things.
But sims 4 has so many cool details that sims 3 did not have also. I feel like they went back to the original style of the sims, with sims 4 and theres a lot of people who dont appreciate that.
That's because (wait, hate?, no, no hate) open world and CASt aren't what it's really about. People love Sims 2 for other reasons and quite often Sims 3 is criticized as well because it's lacking in some aspects. Your post reveals you're not familiar with these forums, because otherwise you wouldn't be surprised. People have explained this a million times by now. And Sims 4 is further away from the original style of the sims than Sims 3. I know the creators thought they gave some of that back, but they really didn't. As if they missed the real point of it all.
People hate the sims 4 because it doesnt have "open world" and cas but dont bash the sims 2 for those same lack of features. I dont understand,How is sims 4 a terrible game without those things, but sims 2 is not? It baffles me. Sims 4 is called the worst ever just because it doesnt have those things.
IMO, it's pretty simple. 2 is before 3. 4 is -after- 3. 2 was released in 2004, 4 was released in 2014. See a pattern there?
There's a progression -- or at least there should be -- that's the expectation, certainly. When TS2 came out, its features (progression of age categories and such) were new and exciting. When TS3 added in things like an open world and Create-a-Style, those too were new and exciting. When TS4 dropped open world and CASt, left out various different other 'core game' items and such all for an 'emotion' system that's been less than exciting for some users, well, it was less exciting. (For some of us, anyway.)
In general, there's a problem that studios face when they create a sequence of games in a franchise. To whit: Each iteration is expected to be something bigger and/or better -- to be somehow improved from the previous one. Looking at things from the consumers' standpoint, that's a fairly reasonable expectation. Why? Because we all have limited resources (budget) ourselves. If we're to be asked to pay for a new game, then it's only reasonable that we should expect that new game to provide something more/better than what we already have. Otherwise, is not the reasonable response to keep our money and continue playing the game we already have and enjoy?
On the other hand, looking at it from the studio's perspective, by creating a series of iterations of the same game (a 'franchise' -- IE, "The Sims," "Madden Football," "Halo," "Call of Duty," etc.) they set themselves up for what is kind of an impossible task, due to that expectation. The studio doesn't necessarily have a greater resource pool when creating a new iteration than they did for the last one. Ideally, if the franchise is successful, it would be great for the publisher to reinvest a bit more into it each time, but I seriously doubt that's the case. If anything, it seems that publishers are calling for studios to 'do more with less' on a regular basis. (Not based in fact, just on the general talk you see around gaming sites and such. Make of it what you will.)
So we end up here -- with expectations of greater things that are not entirely unfounded -- again, why spend more money for something that's less fun that what we already have -- but expectations that may not actually be attainable given the resources the studio really has available. Still, the big corporations chase these ongoing franchises for their sense of 'safety' or 'stability' and face what generally can only be a sequence of diminishing interest, due to their lack of willingness to invest a greater amount in newer iterations.
So TS5? Well, I'd like to have high hopes for it. I definitely really want an open world and Create-a-Style customization ability -- things like that. I definitely expect all of the 'regular' life stages we've come to expect, Baby through Elder. I don't really expect "pre-teens" in either TS4 or later iterations. IMO, there's just not enough unique gameplay there to justify a whole new age stage. Rounding out Teens better than they are would be time much better spent, IMO.
I do expect a TS5. As far as I can tell, The Sims is still a very profitable franchise, and I don't expect them to just let it go. But they're definitely facing that 'expectation wall' I was describing above, and unless EA really decides to invest in making TS5 a better game, I don't know if things are going to really turn around much or if the slow decline of the franchise overall is just inevitable.
Less fun is definitely subjective. I definitely had more fun playing ts2 than i ever did sims 3 and it didnt have those things. My expectations were actually exceeded with sims 4.
It is. I'm strongly addicted to Sims 3's open world and CASt. Yet I miss it less in Sims 2 (a game I started playing when they gave me the UC in 2014) than I do in Sims 4.
This is really devolving into a "My favorite version is better" thing. Can we try to curb that a bit? Remember fun -is- subjective.
Yes I did mention in the 'thread rules' to not make this a throwing match.
To add some balance, how about talk about what would be cool to see in the base game? I want to see Pets to save them having to make a 5th Pets EP at some point
Considering what a sims game is and considering all installments, I think TS5 or simply TS if they decide to go SimCity route name wise and forget numbers on the fifth installment, I think it should be a mix of TS2 and TS3. TS4 strays away too much from what a sims game is; they need to actually get back on track with the fifth one. Also, considering it would be a game releasing in around late 2018 I'd expect it to look and feel as such, I don't want an ultra realistic looking sims game, but I also wouldn't want a rinse and repeat of TS4's overly cartoonish style, perhaps a bit realistic just not too much; I also wouldn't want the ultra kid friendly theme/feel TS4 has going on for it (angry poop) and I'd like them to go open world with it, don't really care if travelling through worlds like in TS4 is compromised. But honestly I don't think they should make a TS5 if they aren't going to put enough effort in it and if they aren't going to make it feel and look like an improvement. It would just be a waste of time and an insult for the fans (as if TS4 launching without pools and toddlers etc wasn't already one).
Though...I hardly think it'll happen.
In what way does the sims 4 stray away from a sims game? If anything sims 3 strayed from the original bones of the sims. Can you give an example? Because... Anyway, I love sims 4's art style a lot more than sims 3's style. I cant even call sims 3 an art style , because there is no personality to the visuals.
Style is one person viewpoint. It therefore subjected to ones taste. Limitations on sims 4 wallpapers and that lot. If I wanted to make over top rooms in Sims 3 I could do so. sims 4 I cant do that.
@king_of_simcity7 I see how you said that you don't want TS4 to end because it would be unfair to other player saying that you haven't played TS4 to judge if its good or not the demo doesn't count because it doesn't do it justice. So how do you even judge a game fairly if you have no idea what its like past the demo?
This is really devolving into a "My favorite version is better" thing. Can we try to curb that a bit? Remember fun -is- subjective.
Yes I did mention in the 'thread rules' to not make this a throwing match.
To add some balance, how about talk about what would be cool to see in the base game? I want to see Pets to save them having to make a 5th Pets EP at some point
Well I did that earlier comment. I really hope people realize that each Sims game has something unique that brings something to table. That could be added upon on next generation series.
@king_of_simcity7 I see how you said that you don't want TS4 to end because it would be unfair to other player saying that you haven't played TS4 to judge if its good or not the demo doesn't count because it doesn't do it justice. So how do you even judge a game fairly if you have no idea what its like past the demo?
There's videos, there's reviews, there's forums!
It's easy to make up an opinion with all of the information out there and why waste the money if you know that things you enjoyed from previous iterations isn't there and isn't coming back.
People hate the sims 4 because it doesnt have "open world" and cas but dont bash the sims 2 for those same lack of features. I dont understand,How is sims 4 a terrible game without those things, but sims 2 is not? It baffles me. Sims 4 is called the worst ever just because it doesnt have those things.
IMO, it's pretty simple. 2 is before 3. 4 is -after- 3. 2 was released in 2004, 4 was released in 2014. See a pattern there?
There's a progression -- or at least there should be -- that's the expectation, certainly. When TS2 came out, its features (progression of age categories and such) were new and exciting. When TS3 added in things like an open world and Create-a-Style, those too were new and exciting. When TS4 dropped open world and CASt, left out various different other 'core game' items and such all for an 'emotion' system that's been less than exciting for some users, well, it was less exciting. (For some of us, anyway.)
In general, there's a problem that studios face when they create a sequence of games in a franchise. To whit: Each iteration is expected to be something bigger and/or better -- to be somehow improved from the previous one. Looking at things from the consumers' standpoint, that's a fairly reasonable expectation. Why? Because we all have limited resources (budget) ourselves. If we're to be asked to pay for a new game, then it's only reasonable that we should expect that new game to provide something more/better than what we already have. Otherwise, is not the reasonable response to keep our money and continue playing the game we already have and enjoy?
On the other hand, looking at it from the studio's perspective, by creating a series of iterations of the same game (a 'franchise' -- IE, "The Sims," "Madden Football," "Halo," "Call of Duty," etc.) they set themselves up for what is kind of an impossible task, due to that expectation. The studio doesn't necessarily have a greater resource pool when creating a new iteration than they did for the last one. Ideally, if the franchise is successful, it would be great for the publisher to reinvest a bit more into it each time, but I seriously doubt that's the case. If anything, it seems that publishers are calling for studios to 'do more with less' on a regular basis. (Not based in fact, just on the general talk you see around gaming sites and such. Make of it what you will.)
So we end up here -- with expectations of greater things that are not entirely unfounded -- again, why spend more money for something that's less fun that what we already have -- but expectations that may not actually be attainable given the resources the studio really has available. Still, the big corporations chase these ongoing franchises for their sense of 'safety' or 'stability' and face what generally can only be a sequence of diminishing interest, due to their lack of willingness to invest a greater amount in newer iterations.
So TS5? Well, I'd like to have high hopes for it. I definitely really want an open world and Create-a-Style customization ability -- things like that. I definitely expect all of the 'regular' life stages we've come to expect, Baby through Elder. I don't really expect "pre-teens" in either TS4 or later iterations. IMO, there's just not enough unique gameplay there to justify a whole new age stage. Rounding out Teens better than they are would be time much better spent, IMO.
I do expect a TS5. As far as I can tell, The Sims is still a very profitable franchise, and I don't expect them to just let it go. But they're definitely facing that 'expectation wall' I was describing above, and unless EA really decides to invest in making TS5 a better game, I don't know if things are going to really turn around much or if the slow decline of the franchise overall is just inevitable.
@king_of_simcity7 I see how you said that you don't want TS4 to end because it would be unfair to other player saying that you haven't played TS4 to judge if its good or not the demo doesn't count because it doesn't do it justice. So how do you even judge a game fairly if you have no idea what its like past the demo?
There's videos, there's reviews, there's forums!
It's easy to make up an opinion with all of the information out there and why waste the money if you know that things you enjoyed from previous iterations isn't there and isn't coming back.
I don't get your argument.
Ok so you are telling me that you can tell if a game is good or not over videos? I would think you would need to play the game and all the stuff with it to judge it yourself but that is just me. I don't judge games off other peoples reviews and gameplays sorry.
Comments
Though...I hardly think it'll happen.
Saying "not to be rude", then blatently being rude does not excuse rude behavior.
There's a lot that I'd like to see for TS5 myself. It would definitely have something from each iteration - difficulty and humor of TS1, memories from TS2, CASt, Open World (or something close to OW), CAW from TS3, and some of the build mode tools from TS4. Just to name a few things.
I think as long as the foundation isn't cracked, it could be a really good game.
However, as much as I would love to see a progressive Sims game; I don't expect to see TS5 before 2020, if at all. The heart and soul seems to be gone!
I want to be able to pick a map and decorate it myself, I don't want to play in a boring interpretation of someone else's world, and I want to be able to add subhoods and vacation hoods as needed, preferably with a way to section off population so my vacation sims aren't roaming around in my main hood.
Lately every time I open Sims 4 and see the same old tired maps, I end up closing it down because I'm sick of trying to build on the same couple few lots available in the already played to death neighborhoods.
Preach....
IMO, it's pretty simple. 2 is before 3. 4 is -after- 3. 2 was released in 2004, 4 was released in 2014. See a pattern there?
There's a progression -- or at least there should be -- that's the expectation, certainly. When TS2 came out, its features (progression of age categories and such) were new and exciting. When TS3 added in things like an open world and Create-a-Style, those too were new and exciting. When TS4 dropped open world and CASt, left out various different other 'core game' items and such all for an 'emotion' system that's been less than exciting for some users, well, it was less exciting. (For some of us, anyway.)
In general, there's a problem that studios face when they create a sequence of games in a franchise. To whit: Each iteration is expected to be something bigger and/or better -- to be somehow improved from the previous one. Looking at things from the consumers' standpoint, that's a fairly reasonable expectation. Why? Because we all have limited resources (budget) ourselves. If we're to be asked to pay for a new game, then it's only reasonable that we should expect that new game to provide something more/better than what we already have. Otherwise, is not the reasonable response to keep our money and continue playing the game we already have and enjoy?
On the other hand, looking at it from the studio's perspective, by creating a series of iterations of the same game (a 'franchise' -- IE, "The Sims," "Madden Football," "Halo," "Call of Duty," etc.) they set themselves up for what is kind of an impossible task, due to that expectation. The studio doesn't necessarily have a greater resource pool when creating a new iteration than they did for the last one. Ideally, if the franchise is successful, it would be great for the publisher to reinvest a bit more into it each time, but I seriously doubt that's the case. If anything, it seems that publishers are calling for studios to 'do more with less' on a regular basis. (Not based in fact, just on the general talk you see around gaming sites and such. Make of it what you will.)
So we end up here -- with expectations of greater things that are not entirely unfounded -- again, why spend more money for something that's less fun that what we already have -- but expectations that may not actually be attainable given the resources the studio really has available. Still, the big corporations chase these ongoing franchises for their sense of 'safety' or 'stability' and face what generally can only be a sequence of diminishing interest, due to their lack of willingness to invest a greater amount in newer iterations.
So TS5? Well, I'd like to have high hopes for it. I definitely really want an open world and Create-a-Style customization ability -- things like that. I definitely expect all of the 'regular' life stages we've come to expect, Baby through Elder. I don't really expect "pre-teens" in either TS4 or later iterations. IMO, there's just not enough unique gameplay there to justify a whole new age stage. Rounding out Teens better than they are would be time much better spent, IMO.
I do expect a TS5. As far as I can tell, The Sims is still a very profitable franchise, and I don't expect them to just let it go. But they're definitely facing that 'expectation wall' I was describing above, and unless EA really decides to invest in making TS5 a better game, I don't know if things are going to really turn around much or if the slow decline of the franchise overall is just inevitable.
Well said
Less fun is definitely subjective. I definitely had more fun playing ts2 than i ever did sims 3 and it didnt have those things. My expectations were actually exceeded with sims 4.
My dear, I think someone gets it.
In what way does the sims 4 stray away from a sims game? If anything sims 3 strayed from the original bones of the sims. Can you give an example? Because... Anyway, I love sims 4's art style a lot more than sims 3's style. I cant even call sims 3 an art style , because there is no personality to the visuals.
Emphasis mine. That bold, italicized statement is certainly true. Something we should all keep in mind at all times.
Yes I did mention in the 'thread rules' to not make this a throwing match.
To add some balance, how about talk about what would be cool to see in the base game? I want to see Pets to save them having to make a 5th Pets EP at some point
Style is one person viewpoint. It therefore subjected to ones taste. Limitations on sims 4 wallpapers and that lot. If I wanted to make over top rooms in Sims 3 I could do so. sims 4 I cant do that.
Also, controversial alert...I miss the store! I liked it for the contests and being able to gift Simmers!
I really want to get PEPS again! I miss having that
Well I did that earlier comment. I really hope people realize that each Sims game has something unique that brings something to table. That could be added upon on next generation series.
There's videos, there's reviews, there's forums!
It's easy to make up an opinion with all of the information out there and why waste the money if you know that things you enjoyed from previous iterations isn't there and isn't coming back.
I don't get your argument.
You make some good points. I have many of the same ideas regarding expectations.
http://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/916105/ts5-pondering-expectations#latest