@jackjack_k I don't know what TS3 world you used, but if you're going to compare, compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges, not just the quickest, ugliest TS3 hill to carefully picked TS4 images.
For anyone that cares in fairness- check out TS3's Midnight Hollows or even Lucky Palms and Sunlit Tides to see nice mountains/volcano/etc in the terrain and even outer edges in store worlds.
Or Moonlight falls, Starlight Shores for EP worlds. The sim Hollywood sign is rlly neat.
I only think it's fair.
I still see playdoh. Just harder to see.
Sunlit Tides doesn't have any mountain backdrops.
Lucky Palms doesn't use distant terrain either. It used 2D textures over 3D polys.
You see playdoh and that's fine (Sims 3 is not photorealistic). But what on earth is that in the distance there?
You call it an artistic choice and apparently that makes it allright for you, but I prefer your examples of Hidden Springs, Midnight Hollow ánd Lucky Palms. I guess I happen to prefer that artistic choice. The mountains in Sims 4 look like a first set up, someone forgot to finish it.
Are people seriously comparing backdrops in a huge Sims 3 world and call it equal to backdrops in tiny Sims 4 neighborhoods? In Sims 4 the entire 'world' experience is depending on those backdrops, so they better be good. And apparently they aren't. That's the issue here.
Because your opinion is the only valid one?
Some people are saying the backdrops look great to them while they play the game and some people are complaining that they don't like how the 2D backdrops are handled when they take the free cam to the edge of the world. There's no right or wrong here, regardless of what you personally believe.
The real "issue" is (shocker of shockers) everyone has their own opinion, which is actually a non-issue.
Origin ID: ebuchala I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
Are people seriously comparing backdrops in a huge Sims 3 world and call it equal to backdrops in tiny Sims 4 neighborhoods? In Sims 4 the entire 'world' experience is depending on those backdrops, so they better be good. And apparently they aren't. That's the issue here.
Because your opinion is the only valid one?
Some people are saying the backdrops look great to them while they play the game and some people are complaining that they don't like how the 2D backdrops are handled when they take the free cam to the edge of the world. There's no right or wrong here, regardless of what you personally believe.
The real "issue" is (shocker of shockers) everyone has their own opinion, which is actually a non-issue.
Sims 3 being huge and backdrops playing a much less important part in the world experience isn't opinion, that's fact. In fact a lot of the montains shown aren't even all part of a backdrop. Some parts of the mountains in Hidden Springs you can't go to with your sim, but some parts you can climb. The real backdrops, comparable to Sims 4 backdrops, are the very far away silhouets of mountains, the villages, the Eiffel Tower, that's backdrop. And they are horizon stuff. In Sims 4 the backdrops concern a part of the town, the other side of a river, containers, things like that. It's all layers of backdrop, trying to paint the picture of a world. In Sims 3 they didn't have to do that because it's all accessible. I know it's popular to bring everything down to opinion, but some things are not. In Sims 3 backdrops are further back than in Sims 4.
Are people seriously comparing backdrops in a huge Sims 3 world and call it equal to backdrops in tiny Sims 4 neighborhoods? In Sims 4 the entire 'world' experience is depending on those backdrops, so they better be good. And apparently they aren't. That's the issue here.
Because your opinion is the only valid one?
Some people are saying the backdrops look great to them while they play the game and some people are complaining that they don't like how the 2D backdrops are handled when they take the free cam to the edge of the world. There's no right or wrong here, regardless of what you personally believe.
The real "issue" is (shocker of shockers) everyone has their own opinion, which is actually a non-issue.
Sims 3 being huge and backdrops playing a much less important part in the world experience isn't opinion, that's fact. In fact a lot of the montains shown aren't even all part of a backdrop. Some parts of the mountains in Hidden Springs you can't go to with your sim, but some parts you can climb. The real backdrops, comparable to Sims 4 backdrops, are the very far away silhouets of mountains, the villages, the Eiffel Tower, that's backdrop. And they are horizon stuff. In Sims 4 the backdrops concern a part of the town, the other side of a river, containers, things like that. It's all layers of backdrop, trying to paint the picture of a world. In Sims 3 they didn't have to do that because it's all accessible. I know it's popular to bring everything down to opinion, but some things are not. In Sims 3 backdrops are further back than in Sims 4.
The topic isn't how big the worlds are. The topic is the backdrops. It doesn't matter if you're sitting on top of the backdrop or your sim has to walk 3 miles to see it. Or in this case, if you have to take your free cam 5 clicks or 15 clicks. A backdrop is a backdrop. And, as far as I can tell, backdrops in TS3 AND in TS4 both integrate just fine with their worlds. Of course the backgrounds in TS3 don't play as big a part. Who's really noticing the background when they're wandering around the rather large worlds (well, except when you wander to the edge of the map and can't go any further (yep, I did that a few times).
The thread apparently tries to make an issue of the fact that the backdrops in TS4 are 2D and then we end up with image after image showing edge-of-world shots with TS4's flat backgrounds which don't show how well the backgrounds integrate with the world around it. They just show that there were 2D backgrounds used to add some depth to the worlds.
How well a person likes the size of the world IS an opinion. How well a person likes the style of background used (2D or 3D) IS an opinion. The only thing I can agree with in the midst of this thread is that the backgrounds should better represent the other adjacent neighborhoods we have in the same world. But they appear to be doing better with this with GT, so I'm hoping they continue doing so.
Origin ID: ebuchala I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
Are people seriously comparing backdrops in a huge Sims 3 world and call it equal to backdrops in tiny Sims 4 neighborhoods? In Sims 4 the entire 'world' experience is depending on those backdrops, so they better be good. And apparently they aren't. That's the issue here.
Because your opinion is the only valid one?
Some people are saying the backdrops look great to them while they play the game and some people are complaining that they don't like how the 2D backdrops are handled when they take the free cam to the edge of the world. There's no right or wrong here, regardless of what you personally believe.
The real "issue" is (shocker of shockers) everyone has their own opinion, which is actually a non-issue.
Sims 3 being huge and backdrops playing a much less important part in the world experience isn't opinion, that's fact. In fact a lot of the montains shown aren't even all part of a backdrop. Some parts of the mountains in Hidden Springs you can't go to with your sim, but some parts you can climb. The real backdrops, comparable to Sims 4 backdrops, are the very far away silhouets of mountains, the villages, the Eiffel Tower, that's backdrop. And they are horizon stuff. In Sims 4 the backdrops concern a part of the town, the other side of a river, containers, things like that. It's all layers of backdrop, trying to paint the picture of a world. In Sims 3 they didn't have to do that because it's all accessible. I know it's popular to bring everything down to opinion, but some things are not. In Sims 3 backdrops are further back than in Sims 4.
The topic isn't how big the worlds are. The topic is the backdrops. It doesn't matter if you're sitting on top of the backdrop or your sim has to walk 3 miles to see it. Or in this case, if you have to take your free cam 5 clicks or 15 clicks. A backdrop is a backdrop. And, as far as I can tell, backdrops in TS3 AND in TS4 both integrate just fine with their worlds. Of course the backgrounds in TS3 don't play as big a part. Who's really noticing the background when they're wandering around the rather large worlds (well, except when you wander to the edge of the map and can't go any further (yep, I did that a few times).
The thread apparently tries to make an issue of the fact that the backdrops in TS4 are 2D and then we end up with image after image showing edge-of-world shots with TS4's flat backgrounds which don't show how well the backgrounds integrate with the world around it. They just show that there were 2D backgrounds used to add some depth to the worlds.
How well a person likes the size of the world IS an opinion. How well a person likes the style of background used (2D or 3D) IS an opinion. The only thing I can agree with in the midst of this thread is that the backgrounds should better represent the other adjacent neighborhoods we have in the same world. But they appear to be doing better with this with GT, so I'm hoping they continue doing so.
Quite.
It was me that posted saying that the backdrops should be contiguous between neighbourhoods in the same 'world'. I too hope that they continue the trend of doing what they did in Windy Town.
It is very apparent to me that the overall graphic feel of Sims 4 was very much a calculated design decision. This is shown very clearly if you only use the default sims 4 camera that has limited zoom options and always maintains a slight isometric view so that illusion of a full world is maintained. The lack of detail on the ceilings further reinforces that it was a deliberate decision.
If a player uses nothing but the default controls then the world of the sims 4 looks very attractive, IMO. I actually play using the Sims 3 camera at a lower camera angle so I am often seeing gaps in the illusion. I do play walls up and so they helps an awful lot as most of the time I am in close and mostly see the back grounds from a sims eye view or through windows, doorways, etc. Looks great, IMO.
Played a bit of Sims 3 as well. That looks pretty cool and all. But that game has some completely different design decisions taken.
Sometimes I like apples and sometimes I like oranges.
Awake.
Shake dreams from your hair
My pretty child, my sweet one.
Choose the day and choose the sign of your day
The day's divinity.... The Ghost Song - Jim Morrison
Are people seriously comparing backdrops in a huge Sims 3 world and call it equal to backdrops in tiny Sims 4 neighborhoods? In Sims 4 the entire 'world' experience is depending on those backdrops, so they better be good. And apparently they aren't. That's the issue here.
Because your opinion is the only valid one?
Some people are saying the backdrops look great to them while they play the game and some people are complaining that they don't like how the 2D backdrops are handled when they take the free cam to the edge of the world. There's no right or wrong here, regardless of what you personally believe.
The real "issue" is (shocker of shockers) everyone has their own opinion, which is actually a non-issue.
Sims 3 being huge and backdrops playing a much less important part in the world experience isn't opinion, that's fact. In fact a lot of the montains shown aren't even all part of a backdrop. Some parts of the mountains in Hidden Springs you can't go to with your sim, but some parts you can climb. The real backdrops, comparable to Sims 4 backdrops, are the very far away silhouets of mountains, the villages, the Eiffel Tower, that's backdrop. And they are horizon stuff. In Sims 4 the backdrops concern a part of the town, the other side of a river, containers, things like that. It's all layers of backdrop, trying to paint the picture of a world. In Sims 3 they didn't have to do that because it's all accessible. I know it's popular to bring everything down to opinion, but some things are not. In Sims 3 backdrops are further back than in Sims 4.
The topic isn't how big the worlds are. The topic is the backdrops. It doesn't matter if you're sitting on top of the backdrop or your sim has to walk 3 miles to see it. Or in this case, if you have to take your free cam 5 clicks or 15 clicks. A backdrop is a backdrop. And, as far as I can tell, backdrops in TS3 AND in TS4 both integrate just fine with their worlds. Of course the backgrounds in TS3 don't play as big a part. Who's really noticing the background when they're wandering around the rather large worlds (well, except when you wander to the edge of the map and can't go any further (yep, I did that a few times).
The thread apparently tries to make an issue of the fact that the backdrops in TS4 are 2D and then we end up with image after image showing edge-of-world shots with TS4's flat backgrounds which don't show how well the backgrounds integrate with the world around it. They just show that there were 2D backgrounds used to add some depth to the worlds.
How well a person likes the size of the world IS an opinion. How well a person likes the style of background used (2D or 3D) IS an opinion. The only thing I can agree with in the midst of this thread is that the backgrounds should better represent the other adjacent neighborhoods we have in the same world. But they appear to be doing better with this with GT, so I'm hoping they continue doing so.
Quite.
It was me that posted saying that the backdrops should be contiguous between neighbourhoods in the same 'world'. I too hope that they continue the trend of doing what they did in Windy Town.
It is very apparent to me that the overall graphic feel of Sims 4 was very much a calculated design decision. This is shown very clearly if you only use the default sims 4 camera that has limited zoom options and always maintains a slight isometric view so that illusion of a full world is maintained. The lack of detail on the ceilings further reinforces that it was a deliberate decision.
If a player uses nothing but the default controls then the world of the sims 4 looks very attractive, IMO. I actually play using the Sims 3 camera at a lower camera angle so I am often seeing gaps in the illusion. I do play walls up and so they helps an awful lot as most of the time I am in close and mostly see the back grounds from a sims eye view or through windows, doorways, etc. Looks great, IMO.
Played a bit of Sims 3 as well. That looks pretty cool and all. But that game has some completely different design decisions taken.
Sometimes I like apples and sometimes I like oranges.
Yeah, I knew that. I liked your post cause that's the one thing about how they handled the backdrops within this game that I don't like. Agree, though, it was definitely a conscious design decision, both how they handled the backdrop and how they limited the perspective to work best with the TS4 camera. I use the TS3 cam as well and have seen the illusion breakers but I tend to roll with it. I still remember stepping onto a neighbor's lot in TS3 and watching as the buildings slowly rendered from a blank grey into the colors and features of the house. Or being at home in TS2 and feeling like I'm in a shoebox and I just want to walk out of the box to my neighbor's house or to school or work with my sim. For me, every version has had its drawbacks in some way (or several) in how its world works and I'm generally quite happy to gloss them over because I enjoy the games for what they offer, whether the backdrop is 2D or 3D.
Origin ID: ebuchala I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
There are different versions of Sims, and whether we like them all differently, doesn't make any opinion better, or more valid, than another. I like them all. And they all have their own issues.
However, I personally feel the blur was originally put in the game to kind of hide how "cardboard " the mountains look.
(just my opinion & not stating as fact)
And for the record, I took the pic from "proper angle/normal areas".
In other words, outside my Sims yard, not zoomed out to wherever...
Nor am I "wrong" for thinking this way.
It is how I feel, nor am I bashing anything. I am only stating what I don't like.
(background cutouts & clouds)
I am not trying to prove anything, or attempting to pit one version of Sims against another. Saying any version of game "wins", is just a ridiculous way of saying "na na na na nah nah..".
It's not even a fact. It's an opinion. *SMH*
I'm not trying to side with which backdrops look better cuz you all know which one I prefer and I'm not trying to say that everyone has to agree with me, but I don't see how some people want actual 3D terrain for the backdrops for areas that you can't even access in live mode camera?
Even in animated 3D movies, do you know that most of the background you're seeing are just matte paintings and not even real 3D models? For example this:
If a lot of unnecessary things in the game are 3D modeled, it's just going to give your computer more work to render and load terrain for no reason, let alone the ugly textures they're gonna give these terrain to compensate that.
Also, the 3D backdrop models that TS3 has is also kinda useless cuz it will still look kinda flat and 2D if you look at it from a playable eye level view. Even in real life, mountains in the background look 2D. For example this:
I think the only reason they make some of it 3D is so that when you zoom out to map view, it wouldn't look too bad.
In TS4, they don't have to do this, cuz you can only zoom out so far.
That being said, I feel both artstyles for the respective games look good. TS4 has a more flat cartoony look which suit the overall feel it has, whereas TS3 has this more sharper look. But in my opinion, having a 3D backdrop is just a bit redundant, especially for TS4.
Thanks, Scobre! I'm getting a new comp soon so I'll look into these sites.
Cool, have fun when you do. Yeah I got a lot of my parts from Amazon and Newegg. Most important thing is to keep an eye on shipping costs because those can add up fast. Probably well worth getting a decent computer just to enjoy the lighting update.
“Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller
Lazy, cheap, and too hard to make a quality game apparently.
I respect the community managers for maintaining an honest and un-biased community however I'm really tired of hearing these condescending and unsubstantiated comments about the quality of the product and the competence of the developers. None of these assertions have been supported with any knowledge which would be considered permissible in any field of engineering or in any federal court of law and the arguments are borderlining criminal abuse.
The Sims 4 is a well-engineered product and the reasons for these OPTIMIZATIONS is compliance with the demands of users who are either too incompetent, or too unfortunate to purchase extreme gaming hardware. The purpose is to limit memory consumption and they've balanced it so well that it's nearly possible for even the user to predict the capacity requirement by reviewing their content list! For a product which is fully extensible, that's an amazing achievement!
If you want high resolution, fully 3D environments, which can be explored from corner to corner, and a simulation which will grow autonomously to infinite depth, then show the developers that you're willing to invest in the technology which is required to support it at the desired depths. Build the $10,000 gaming system that I've suggested on page 2, then start sharing the values of entertainment media, graphic modeling, processing and semiconductor architecture, software engineering, social networking, and international commerce with your friends, family, and at least one billion consumers, before attempting to assess the competence of industry pioneers.
"Video gaming began as an engineer's hobby and a means of creative expression for those of higher technical inclination. It is expected that those who are capable of higher engineering-related achievements will see value, in electronic entertainment products, where others see failure." -Sasquatch
I'm not going to post sims 3 screenshots because this thread is about the sims 4's backdropsWell, the game backdrops in the sims 4 look so bad, the devs had to add a blurry filter by default for distant zones, so the people who don't change the settings are left playing with the filter on, and these pics were taken from playable areas:
Filter (by default):
No filter:
Filter:
No filter:
And to make things worse, even in playable areas you can see all those fake buildings:
Even inside a house the outside is blurry and looks fake:
Anyway, here are albums with screenshoots of some of the towns in the sims 4 I took last year ( I don't know if it has improved, because I uninstalled the game afterwards), from playable and unplayable areas, judge for yourself and enjoy
I've never had an issue with overall art style chosen for the game. I find the cartoony look prevents the look of the sims from dropping down into the uncanny valley. I also find that the lack of detail in the backgrounds also makes the sims stand out more against that background.
The fact that it is a 2014 game is irrelevant, IMO.
Awake.
Shake dreams from your hair
My pretty child, my sweet one.
Choose the day and choose the sign of your day
The day's divinity.... The Ghost Song - Jim Morrison
The fact that it is a 2014 game is irrelevant, IMO.
It's not irrelevant. Videogame graphics have advanced you know. In 2019, the sims 4's graphics will look outdated as hell. But most simmers will not complain, because they'll be able to play the game on their old computers. If you like videogames you should check out recent games, anyway for some players graphics do matter.
@DyingLight
I see nothing wrong with the No filter pictures. I think it looks great.
For a 2014 game????? Okayyyyy, it seems people have different standards.
That's an approximation of selective focus, which is how our vision works naturally (what we aren't focused on is less clear), as well as aerial perspective (things farther away are seen through atmospheric distortion that makes them seem hazy). It's common in all sorts of 2D art forms, and in 3D cinema. It is an art-style choice. Maybe this isn't common knowledge among hardcore gamers? It's pretty par for the course, basic stuff in the art world.
EA CREATOR NETWORK MEMBER — Want to be notified of patches, new Broken Mods threads, and urgent Sims 4 news? Follow me at https://www.patreon.com/luthienrising.
@DyingLight
I see nothing wrong with the No filter pictures. I think it looks great.
For a 2014 game????? Okayyyyy, it seems people have different standards.
Indeed, I care about games having a distinctive and cohesive art style.
I'm not talking about art style, I'm talking about graphics, geez these casual gamers don't seem to get it.
What does "casual gamers" have to do with the topic ?
As some who has played hundreds of videogames over the years (some of them with excellent graphics) I think it has to do with the core of these backdrops, unplayable areas and closed worlds issues.
@DyingLight
I see nothing wrong with the No filter pictures. I think it looks great.
For a 2014 game????? Okayyyyy, it seems people have different standards.
Indeed, I care about games having a distinctive and cohesive art style.
I'm not talking about art style, I'm talking about graphics, geez these casual gamers don't seem to get it.
What does "casual gamers" have to do with the topic ?
As some who has played hundreds of videogames over the years (some of them with excellent graphics) I think it has to do with the core of these backdrops, unplayable areas and closed worlds issues.
Backdrops and unplayable areas can be made in many different styles. They chose one. They could have chosen one that read as more 3D and detailed to you (for me, the defocus actually aids that: it supports my perception of distance). Nothing in the fact of an area being unplayable determines that.
EA CREATOR NETWORK MEMBER — Want to be notified of patches, new Broken Mods threads, and urgent Sims 4 news? Follow me at https://www.patreon.com/luthienrising.
Comments
Thanks, Scobre! I'm getting a new comp soon so I'll look into these sites.
You call it an artistic choice and apparently that makes it allright for you, but I prefer your examples of Hidden Springs, Midnight Hollow ánd Lucky Palms. I guess I happen to prefer that artistic choice. The mountains in Sims 4 look like a first set up, someone forgot to finish it.
Because your opinion is the only valid one?
Some people are saying the backdrops look great to them while they play the game and some people are complaining that they don't like how the 2D backdrops are handled when they take the free cam to the edge of the world. There's no right or wrong here, regardless of what you personally believe.
The real "issue" is (shocker of shockers) everyone has their own opinion, which is actually a non-issue.
I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
The topic isn't how big the worlds are. The topic is the backdrops. It doesn't matter if you're sitting on top of the backdrop or your sim has to walk 3 miles to see it. Or in this case, if you have to take your free cam 5 clicks or 15 clicks. A backdrop is a backdrop. And, as far as I can tell, backdrops in TS3 AND in TS4 both integrate just fine with their worlds. Of course the backgrounds in TS3 don't play as big a part. Who's really noticing the background when they're wandering around the rather large worlds (well, except when you wander to the edge of the map and can't go any further (yep, I did that a few times).
The thread apparently tries to make an issue of the fact that the backdrops in TS4 are 2D and then we end up with image after image showing edge-of-world shots with TS4's flat backgrounds which don't show how well the backgrounds integrate with the world around it. They just show that there were 2D backgrounds used to add some depth to the worlds.
How well a person likes the size of the world IS an opinion. How well a person likes the style of background used (2D or 3D) IS an opinion. The only thing I can agree with in the midst of this thread is that the backgrounds should better represent the other adjacent neighborhoods we have in the same world. But they appear to be doing better with this with GT, so I'm hoping they continue doing so.
I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
Quite.
It was me that posted saying that the backdrops should be contiguous between neighbourhoods in the same 'world'. I too hope that they continue the trend of doing what they did in Windy Town.
It is very apparent to me that the overall graphic feel of Sims 4 was very much a calculated design decision. This is shown very clearly if you only use the default sims 4 camera that has limited zoom options and always maintains a slight isometric view so that illusion of a full world is maintained. The lack of detail on the ceilings further reinforces that it was a deliberate decision.
If a player uses nothing but the default controls then the world of the sims 4 looks very attractive, IMO. I actually play using the Sims 3 camera at a lower camera angle so I am often seeing gaps in the illusion. I do play walls up and so they helps an awful lot as most of the time I am in close and mostly see the back grounds from a sims eye view or through windows, doorways, etc. Looks great, IMO.
Played a bit of Sims 3 as well. That looks pretty cool and all. But that game has some completely different design decisions taken.
Sometimes I like apples and sometimes I like oranges.
Shake dreams from your hair
My pretty child, my sweet one.
Choose the day and choose the sign of your day
The day's divinity....
The Ghost Song - Jim Morrison
Yeah, I knew that.
I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
Really?
There is no "win".
There are different versions of Sims, and whether we like them all differently, doesn't make any opinion better, or more valid, than another.
I like them all. And they all have their own issues.
However, I personally feel the blur was originally put in the game to kind of hide how "cardboard " the mountains look.
(just my opinion & not stating as fact)
And for the record, I took the pic from "proper angle/normal areas".
In other words, outside my Sims yard, not zoomed out to wherever...
Nor am I "wrong" for thinking this way.
It is how I feel, nor am I bashing anything. I am only stating what I don't like.
(background cutouts & clouds)
I am not trying to prove anything, or attempting to pit one version of Sims against another.
Saying any version of game "wins", is just a ridiculous way of saying "na na na na nah nah..".
It's not even a fact. It's an opinion. *SMH*
Even in animated 3D movies, do you know that most of the background you're seeing are just matte paintings and not even real 3D models? For example this:
If a lot of unnecessary things in the game are 3D modeled, it's just going to give your computer more work to render and load terrain for no reason, let alone the ugly textures they're gonna give these terrain to compensate that.
Also, the 3D backdrop models that TS3 has is also kinda useless cuz it will still look kinda flat and 2D if you look at it from a playable eye level view. Even in real life, mountains in the background look 2D. For example this:
I think the only reason they make some of it 3D is so that when you zoom out to map view, it wouldn't look too bad.
In TS4, they don't have to do this, cuz you can only zoom out so far.
That being said, I feel both artstyles for the respective games look good. TS4 has a more flat cartoony look which suit the overall feel it has, whereas TS3 has this more sharper look. But in my opinion, having a 3D backdrop is just a bit redundant, especially for TS4.
And some FX effects I wish were functional instead of having no form of transportation other than travel via rabbit hole.
I respect the community managers for maintaining an honest and un-biased community however I'm really tired of hearing these condescending and unsubstantiated comments about the quality of the product and the competence of the developers. None of these assertions have been supported with any knowledge which would be considered permissible in any field of engineering or in any federal court of law and the arguments are borderlining criminal abuse.
The Sims 4 is a well-engineered product and the reasons for these OPTIMIZATIONS is compliance with the demands of users who are either too incompetent, or too unfortunate to purchase extreme gaming hardware. The purpose is to limit memory consumption and they've balanced it so well that it's nearly possible for even the user to predict the capacity requirement by reviewing their content list! For a product which is fully extensible, that's an amazing achievement!
If you want high resolution, fully 3D environments, which can be explored from corner to corner, and a simulation which will grow autonomously to infinite depth, then show the developers that you're willing to invest in the technology which is required to support it at the desired depths. Build the $10,000 gaming system that I've suggested on page 2, then start sharing the values of entertainment media, graphic modeling, processing and semiconductor architecture, software engineering, social networking, and international commerce with your friends, family, and at least one billion consumers, before attempting to assess the competence of industry pioneers.
Filter (by default):
No filter:
Filter:
No filter:
And to make things worse, even in playable areas you can see all those fake buildings:
Even inside a house the outside is blurry and looks fake:
Anyway, here are albums with screenshoots of some of the towns in the sims 4 I took last year ( I don't know if it has improved, because I uninstalled the game afterwards), from playable and unplayable areas, judge for yourself and enjoy
Album 1
Album 2
Album 3
I see nothing wrong with the No filter pictures. I think it looks great.
For a 2014 game????? Okayyyyy, it seems people have different standards.
There is a Nature Appreciation thread in GD that has some really lovely screencaps in it if anyone feels like checking it out:
http://forums.thesims.com/en_US/discussion/888688/the-sims-4-nature-appreciation/p1
The fact that it is a 2014 game is irrelevant, IMO.
Shake dreams from your hair
My pretty child, my sweet one.
Choose the day and choose the sign of your day
The day's divinity....
The Ghost Song - Jim Morrison
Indeed, I care about games having a distinctive and cohesive art style.
It's not irrelevant. Videogame graphics have advanced you know. In 2019, the sims 4's graphics will look outdated as hell. But most simmers will not complain, because they'll be able to play the game on their old computers. If you like videogames you should check out recent games, anyway for some players graphics do matter.
I'm not talking about art style, I'm talking about graphics, geez these casual gamers don't seem to get it.
What does "casual gamers" have to do with the topic ?
That's an approximation of selective focus, which is how our vision works naturally (what we aren't focused on is less clear), as well as aerial perspective (things farther away are seen through atmospheric distortion that makes them seem hazy). It's common in all sorts of 2D art forms, and in 3D cinema. It is an art-style choice. Maybe this isn't common knowledge among hardcore gamers? It's pretty par for the course, basic stuff in the art world.
As some who has played hundreds of videogames over the years (some of them with excellent graphics) I think it has to do with the core of these backdrops, unplayable areas and closed worlds issues.
Backdrops and unplayable areas can be made in many different styles. They chose one. They could have chosen one that read as more 3D and detailed to you (for me, the defocus actually aids that: it supports my perception of distance). Nothing in the fact of an area being unplayable determines that.