That is patently false @Ellessarr - Good graphical fidelity and low end systems are NOT mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples out in the gaming world. I realize I like to jump back to WoW as an example but it works so well for these types of discussions.
WoW can run on toasters - and it certainly will still look decent but if you have a machine with some serious oomph behind it? Man, that game looks freaking gorgeous with full shadows, sun shafts, realistic water and SSAO going. Another good example is EVE Online.
What it comes down to is a company needs to work their game to accommodate a wide array of machines but also building in support (either pre-launch or post-launch) for more options. There's room to have your cake and eat it too but they need to push the limits when and where possible.
Graphically, the base Sims 4 aesthetics are fine. Where they are a bit lackluster right now is all the little touches that can really make things pop. Lighting, shadows, etc. But it doesn't mean they can't keep it accessible for older tech while slowly building in stronger options for the people with the hardware to take advantage of.
wow is both 32 and 64 bits
blizzard =/= blizzard update they games with quality ea just add stuffs.
blizzard make games looking for both sides (low and top) try to play wow on .
please really dont compare a really good companie who care for they game quality with EA this is a insult.
I'm not comparing as much as using it to counter the logic that "You can't build games for low end systems and have good graphic options in it" and that much should be obvious. If I failed to make that clear, my apologies xD
I'm more saying that it should be used as a standard of something to strive for. You accommodate as much of your fanbase as you can but you KEEP pushing for better and greater options for your fans who have the hardware to make use of.
That is patently false @Ellessarr - Good graphical fidelity and low end systems are NOT mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples out in the gaming world. I realize I like to jump back to WoW as an example but it works so well for these types of discussions.
WoW can run on toasters - and it certainly will still look decent but if you have a machine with some serious oomph behind it? Man, that game looks freaking gorgeous with full shadows, sun shafts, realistic water and SSAO going. Another good example is EVE Online.
What it comes down to is a company needs to work their game to accommodate a wide array of machines but also building in support (either pre-launch or post-launch) for more options. There's room to have your cake and eat it too but they need to push the limits when and where possible.
Graphically, the base Sims 4 aesthetics are fine. Where they are a bit lackluster right now is all the little touches that can really make things pop. Lighting, shadows, etc. But it doesn't mean they can't keep it accessible for older tech while slowly building in stronger options for the people with the hardware to take advantage of.
wow is both 32 and 64 bits
blizzard =/= blizzard update they games with quality ea just add stuffs.
blizzard make games looking for both sides (low and top) try to play wow on .
please really dont compare a really good companie who care for they game quality with EA this is a insult.
I'm not comparing as much as using it to counter the logic that "You can't build games for low end systems and have good graphic options in it" and that much should be obvious. If I failed to make that clear, my apologies xD
I'm more saying that it should be used as a standard of something to strive for. You accommodate as much of your fanbase as you can but you KEEP pushing for better and greater options for your fans who have the hardware to make use of.
maybe if we pay monthly subscription, maybe they can actually put some more effort into it.
That is patently false @Ellessarr - Good graphical fidelity and low end systems are NOT mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples out in the gaming world. I realize I like to jump back to WoW as an example but it works so well for these types of discussions.
WoW can run on toasters - and it certainly will still look decent but if you have a machine with some serious oomph behind it? Man, that game looks freaking gorgeous with full shadows, sun shafts, realistic water and SSAO going. Another good example is EVE Online.
What it comes down to is a company needs to work their game to accommodate a wide array of machines but also building in support (either pre-launch or post-launch) for more options. There's room to have your cake and eat it too but they need to push the limits when and where possible.
Graphically, the base Sims 4 aesthetics are fine. Where they are a bit lackluster right now is all the little touches that can really make things pop. Lighting, shadows, etc. But it doesn't mean they can't keep it accessible for older tech while slowly building in stronger options for the people with the hardware to take advantage of.
wow is both 32 and 64 bits
blizzard =/= blizzard update they games with quality ea just add stuffs.
blizzard make games looking for both sides (low and top) try to play wow on .
please really dont compare a really good companie who care for they game quality with EA this is a insult.
actiblizz = a really good company? I think there are plenty of people on battle.net that disagree with you. It's been about a month or two since I checked it out last, but I think there are more bashing of actiblizz than praising.
blizzard last year if i'm not wrong was thrid or forth best game companie in the world while EA was fighting between the worst, just because blizzard bought actvision dont means which she turned in bad.
good part of the bash is because peoples keep wanting wow die, because wow can't be the top mmo in world and all bla bla bla
just look at blizzzard records
diablo 3 best game of the year(in release)
stacraft 2 also best game in the year
wow best mmo in the world
they created now a trade card virtual game which now is selling like water
and now are producing a new first person shooter
and are in beta of they own moba.
compare blizzard with ea is very unfair, while one is easy between top 10 game companies in the world the other keep fighting to not fall in the top 10 worst game companie in the world.
That is patently false @Ellessarr - Good graphical fidelity and low end systems are NOT mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples out in the gaming world. I realize I like to jump back to WoW as an example but it works so well for these types of discussions.
WoW can run on toasters - and it certainly will still look decent but if you have a machine with some serious oomph behind it? Man, that game looks freaking gorgeous with full shadows, sun shafts, realistic water and SSAO going. Another good example is EVE Online.
What it comes down to is a company needs to work their game to accommodate a wide array of machines but also building in support (either pre-launch or post-launch) for more options. There's room to have your cake and eat it too but they need to push the limits when and where possible.
Graphically, the base Sims 4 aesthetics are fine. Where they are a bit lackluster right now is all the little touches that can really make things pop. Lighting, shadows, etc. But it doesn't mean they can't keep it accessible for older tech while slowly building in stronger options for the people with the hardware to take advantage of.
wow is both 32 and 64 bits
blizzard =/= blizzard update they games with quality ea just add stuffs.
blizzard make games looking for both sides (low and top) try to play wow on .
please really dont compare a really good companie who care for they game quality with EA this is a insult.
I'm not comparing as much as using it to counter the logic that "You can't build games for low end systems and have good graphic options in it" and that much should be obvious. If I failed to make that clear, my apologies xD
I'm more saying that it should be used as a standard of something to strive for. You accommodate as much of your fanbase as you can but you KEEP pushing for better and greater options for your fans who have the hardware to make use of.
maybe if we pay monthly subscription, maybe they can actually put some more effort into it.
But a monthly sub should not be the answer to continuing support. While Ellessarr's point that Blizzard is an entity so far above EA/Maxis in terms of their devotion to their games is spot on, there are plenty of companies who make single player experiences w/o a monthly fee that deliver these options.
We as players should never be treated like ATMs just because "This will let us do more for you!" - no, you need to meet us halfway and show that you're serious about providing us with more bang for our buck before we throw more money at you.
I realize maybe I'm trying to find a silver lining where there isn't one, but there's PLENTY of potential for Sims 4 to go up as EPs/patches roll down and I HOPE that we can see good value delivered for our precious gaming dollars, beyond simply saying "Here's some new objects!" - gimme some of that improved lighting too while you're at it!
That is patently false @Ellessarr - Good graphical fidelity and low end systems are NOT mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples out in the gaming world. I realize I like to jump back to WoW as an example but it works so well for these types of discussions.
WoW can run on toasters - and it certainly will still look decent but if you have a machine with some serious oomph behind it? Man, that game looks freaking gorgeous with full shadows, sun shafts, realistic water and SSAO going. Another good example is EVE Online.
What it comes down to is a company needs to work their game to accommodate a wide array of machines but also building in support (either pre-launch or post-launch) for more options. There's room to have your cake and eat it too but they need to push the limits when and where possible.
Graphically, the base Sims 4 aesthetics are fine. Where they are a bit lackluster right now is all the little touches that can really make things pop. Lighting, shadows, etc. But it doesn't mean they can't keep it accessible for older tech while slowly building in stronger options for the people with the hardware to take advantage of.
wow is both 32 and 64 bits
blizzard =/= blizzard update they games with quality ea just add stuffs.
blizzard make games looking for both sides (low and top) try to play wow on .
please really dont compare a really good companie who care for they game quality with EA this is a insult.
I'm not comparing as much as using it to counter the logic that "You can't build games for low end systems and have good graphic options in it" and that much should be obvious. If I failed to make that clear, my apologies xD
I'm more saying that it should be used as a standard of something to strive for. You accommodate as much of your fanbase as you can but you KEEP pushing for better and greater options for your fans who have the hardware to make use of.
the problem is which the sims 4 was build only looking at "low ending machines" they go the the lengths of take of the map colors(the white map) for the sake of low ending, everything on this game looks like or rushed or they put the "best efort" in make the game the most cheap possible, that is the difference, blizzard take as base good machines, then with that base they trying to make the low settings possible based on the medium effort, not looking first to low ending.
they like any top companie look first to what is the most new in gaming then with that in base they try to make the "most low possible".
That is patently false @Ellessarr - Good graphical fidelity and low end systems are NOT mutually exclusive. There are plenty of examples out in the gaming world. I realize I like to jump back to WoW as an example but it works so well for these types of discussions.
WoW can run on toasters - and it certainly will still look decent but if you have a machine with some serious oomph behind it? Man, that game looks freaking gorgeous with full shadows, sun shafts, realistic water and SSAO going. Another good example is EVE Online.
What it comes down to is a company needs to work their game to accommodate a wide array of machines but also building in support (either pre-launch or post-launch) for more options. There's room to have your cake and eat it too but they need to push the limits when and where possible.
Graphically, the base Sims 4 aesthetics are fine. Where they are a bit lackluster right now is all the little touches that can really make things pop. Lighting, shadows, etc. But it doesn't mean they can't keep it accessible for older tech while slowly building in stronger options for the people with the hardware to take advantage of.
wow is both 32 and 64 bits
blizzard =/= blizzard update they games with quality ea just add stuffs.
blizzard make games looking for both sides (low and top) try to play wow on .
please really dont compare a really good companie who care for they game quality with EA this is a insult.
I'm not comparing as much as using it to counter the logic that "You can't build games for low end systems and have good graphic options in it" and that much should be obvious. If I failed to make that clear, my apologies xD
I'm more saying that it should be used as a standard of something to strive for. You accommodate as much of your fanbase as you can but you KEEP pushing for better and greater options for your fans who have the hardware to make use of.
maybe if we pay monthly subscription, maybe they can actually put some more effort into it.
only wow have monthly, diablo, starcraft, heartstone, heroes of the storm we dont need pay to play and all have good quality setting, are making to cater both spectre of they base dont just look to one side.
My computer is not a toaster and it can't run The Sims 3 at all. Besides, buying a top of the line gaming computer to play the sims seems absurd.
neither mine and currently i play sims 3 perfect, i have some little lag here and there but also the sims 4 give me some lag here and there, due to programmers poor knowledge, but overal the sims 3 run very good on my pc.
and during the december patch(which was improved in the last patch) i was experiencing a lot of freezing in the sims 4 but with the last patch the freezing reduced a lot (still happen sometimes).
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
Blizzard is a quality company, look at the effort they put into Diablo 3, which was an one-time purchase. A lot of people were unhappy with the game and difficulty, so they added in several different modes including hell, inferno, and hardcore modes. Half of the community hated the real money and gold auction houses so Blizzard made a bold choice and got rid of them, at the cost of their own revenue since they were taking in 10% of any transaction. Then the entire creative team left or was fired and a new one bought in. The new team apologized and begged for patience. They then pretty much remade the entire mechanics of the game and released it. Unfortunately, certain original design decisions made by the first team were so fundamental to the game that they couldn't be changed. So some people were still left unhappy, but you can't say they didn't try their hardest to listen and improve upon the game. They also took chances, like removing the real money auction house, and making a lot of equipment bound on pickup so that no one could sell. It's not right to put EA in the same category.
There is no comparison possible. TS3 is a life simulation game and TS4. Well TS4 is hard to define but I would go for a cartoon RPG. This is ok if you like cartoon RPGs if not you would be better off with one of the earlier iterations.
Oh wait I forgot the bugs and glitches. Now that is one area where you could compare the two
Each to his own.
I no longer use Origin or My Page. You can find me on YouTube or Twitter as Bettyboop711000. You are welcome to contact me as I explore options for a PC sandbox life simulation game.
Wherever I am friends call me Betty
Sims 3 makes me concentrate on the game. Sims 4 is something I can play while I cook dinner and go about the evening routine. I don't even need to pause it to go do something. These sims aren't going to burn their own house down if I'm not watching them. They'll just chat away until they die of natural causes.
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I can't speak for @SimsILikeSims, but even after I overcame my technical issues with TS3, I quickly came to find the game itself boring and unenjoyable. Which is not something I'm finding with TS4.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "better game", and therefore there is nothing to "admit". The mark of a good game (or, indeed, any piece of media) is whether it entertains the player and holds their interest, and that's only something that can be accurately judged on a personal or individual level. For me, TS4 is a "much better game" than TS3, simply because I enjoy playing it more. For you, clearly, the opposite is true. There's no need to go around implying that the opinions of others are wrong simply because they are different to your own.
Sorry I disagree 100%. I just can't enjoy Sims 4.... Too ugly, too limited, too lacking, too expensive, too boring. Sims 3 is my favorite game and Sims 4 has cemented that for me.
The Sims 4 has the best graphics of all of the Sims games and has the best looking sims. Don't really care for the price, but I think it should be like $45, not $60 (or higher for the extra items) - but like $55 for the extra stuff.
Yes great quality I can see all the hard work that went into the little details of the game
The octagon pans - must be a trend I'm not aware of
In fact, no objects in this game are perfectly round because it's bad quality- low polys
Edit: I shouldn't have taken a second look Why are the drawer handles painted on?
Performance. Which is good because a lot of Simmers don't have great computers.
I'm sure most computers can handle rounded edges unless people are actually running the game on granny's PC from 1990
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I can't speak for @SimsILikeSims, but even after I overcame my technical issues with TS3, I quickly came to find the game itself boring and unenjoyable. Which is not something I'm finding with TS4.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "better game", and therefore there is nothing to "admit". The mark of a good game (or, indeed, any piece of media) is whether it entertains the player and holds their interest, and that's only something that can be accurately judged on a personal or individual level. For me, TS4 is a "much better game" than TS3, simply because I enjoy playing it more. For you, clearly, the opposite is true. There's no need to go around implying that the opinions of others are wrong simply because they are different to your own.
No based on what she said, I think it's a fair assumption since she has only mentioned the game in a bad light with the technical issues. In fact having all of the EP, SP, etc, I would think she would have loved the game if not for the issues. I mean no one would buy that much stuff if they really hated it.
There is such thing as a better game. She may feel differently than I do but I'm going to find out. I in no way implied she was wrong, let's get that straight. I don't even know what game she likes better. That was me wanting her to clarify.
I'm all for judging each game for their own merits. In the end, it is a matter of personal opinion.
TS4 won me because of its overall style. I LIKE cartoony. I like everything absurd about The Sims series. I was never much of a "realistic-play" simmer. I think the overall cartoony style goes very well with the absurdity of the game, and I can't wait to see some supernaturals in it.
I understand that what I love the most about the game is what other people absolutely can't stand about it. It happens. I love you guys anyway.
As much as I loved The Sims 3 that game was buggy as hell and made gameplay an atrocity I also personally didn't like the style it is bland and they look like some horrible CG from the 90s. I like TS4 better because I have yet to have my game crash the game is smooth as balls and I really like the style (It doesn't have to be realistic to be good). The Sims also have more personality so I end up more interested with them.
P.S I have had Sims 3 on 5 different computers crashed on all of them this game has brought me to tears.
As much as I loved The Sims 3 that game was buggy as hell and made gameplay an atrocity I also personally didn't like the style it is bland and they look like some horrible CG from the 90s. I like TS4 better because I have yet to have my game crash the game is smooth as balls and I really like the style (It doesn't have to be realistic to be good). The Sims also have more personality so I end up more interested with them.
P.S I have had Sims 3 on 5 different computers crashed on all of them this game has brought me to tears.
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I can't speak for @SimsILikeSims, but even after I overcame my technical issues with TS3, I quickly came to find the game itself boring and unenjoyable. Which is not something I'm finding with TS4.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "better game", and therefore there is nothing to "admit". The mark of a good game (or, indeed, any piece of media) is whether it entertains the player and holds their interest, and that's only something that can be accurately judged on a personal or individual level. For me, TS4 is a "much better game" than TS3, simply because I enjoy playing it more. For you, clearly, the opposite is true. There's no need to go around implying that the opinions of others are wrong simply because they are different to your own.
No based on what she said, I think it's a fair assumption since she has only mentioned the game in a bad light with the technical issues. In fact having all of the EP, SP, etc, I would think she would have loved the game if not for the issues. I mean no one would buy that much stuff if they really hated it.
There is such thing as a better game. She may feel differently than I do but I'm going to find out. I in no way implied she was wrong, let's get that straight. I don't even know what game she likes better. That was me wanting her to clarify.
Well, "I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is a much better game than Sims 4" definitely sounds to me like you're implying that anyone who thinks TS4 is better is wrong. Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but your specific phrasing makes it sound as though "Sims 3 is a much better game" is a fact that those of us who like TS4 are just denying and need to admit to ourselves.
I agree that it's a fair assumption to say that she liked TS3 because she bought all the extra content, but it's still definitely presumptuous to assume that she thinks TS3 is "a much better game" than TS4.
And besides, IMO technical issues are as much a part of what makes something "good" as anything else. Lagging and crashes and other issues can get ridiculously frustrating and therefore make playing the game completely unenjoyable. It might not be entirely the game's fault, but I don't think it's something that can be so easily ignored or pushed aside. It's just an "if" scenario -- if TS3 didn't lag or crash, it'd be a good game; if TS4 had toddlers and open worlds, it'd be a good game; if I could steady my left hand, I'd be good at nail art.
Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think "there is such a thing as a better game". Surely if a product is made to entertain someone, as a game is, then the game that provides a person with the most entertainment is the better game? And that varies from individual to individual? Do you disagree? How do you define a "good game", if not through your own personal enjoyment?
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I can't speak for @SimsILikeSims, but even after I overcame my technical issues with TS3, I quickly came to find the game itself boring and unenjoyable. Which is not something I'm finding with TS4.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "better game", and therefore there is nothing to "admit". The mark of a good game (or, indeed, any piece of media) is whether it entertains the player and holds their interest, and that's only something that can be accurately judged on a personal or individual level. For me, TS4 is a "much better game" than TS3, simply because I enjoy playing it more. For you, clearly, the opposite is true. There's no need to go around implying that the opinions of others are wrong simply because they are different to your own.
No based on what she said, I think it's a fair assumption since she has only mentioned the game in a bad light with the technical issues. In fact having all of the EP, SP, etc, I would think she would have loved the game if not for the issues. I mean no one would buy that much stuff if they really hated it.
There is such thing as a better game. She may feel differently than I do but I'm going to find out. I in no way implied she was wrong, let's get that straight. I don't even know what game she likes better. That was me wanting her to clarify.
Well, "I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is a much better game than Sims 4" definitely sounds to me like you're implying that anyone who thinks TS4 is better is wrong. Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but your specific phrasing makes it sound as though "Sims 3 is a much better game" is a fact that those of us who like TS4 are just denying and need to admit to ourselves.
I agree that it's a fair assumption to say that she liked TS3 because she bought all the extra content, but it's still definitely presumptuous to assume that she thinks TS3 is "a much better game" than TS4.
And besides, IMO technical issues are as much a part of what makes something "good" as anything else. Lagging and crashes and other issues can get ridiculously frustrating and therefore make playing the game completely unenjoyable. It might not be entirely the game's fault, but I don't think it's something that can be so easily ignored or pushed aside. It's just an "if" scenario -- if TS3 didn't lag or crash, it'd be a good game; if TS4 had toddlers and open worlds, it'd be a good game; if I could steady my left hand, I'd be good at nail art.
Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think "there is such a thing as a better game". Surely if a product is made to entertain someone, as a game is, then the game that provides a person with the most entertainment is the better game? And that varies from individual to individual? Do you disagree? How do you define a "good game", if not through your own personal enjoyment?
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I can't speak for @SimsILikeSims, but even after I overcame my technical issues with TS3, I quickly came to find the game itself boring and unenjoyable. Which is not something I'm finding with TS4.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "better game", and therefore there is nothing to "admit". The mark of a good game (or, indeed, any piece of media) is whether it entertains the player and holds their interest, and that's only something that can be accurately judged on a personal or individual level. For me, TS4 is a "much better game" than TS3, simply because I enjoy playing it more. For you, clearly, the opposite is true. There's no need to go around implying that the opinions of others are wrong simply because they are different to your own.
No based on what she said, I think it's a fair assumption since she has only mentioned the game in a bad light with the technical issues. In fact having all of the EP, SP, etc, I would think she would have loved the game if not for the issues. I mean no one would buy that much stuff if they really hated it.
There is such thing as a better game. She may feel differently than I do but I'm going to find out. I in no way implied she was wrong, let's get that straight. I don't even know what game she likes better. That was me wanting her to clarify.
Well, "I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is a much better game than Sims 4" definitely sounds to me like you're implying that anyone who thinks TS4 is better is wrong. Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but your specific phrasing makes it sound as though "Sims 3 is a much better game" is a fact that those of us who like TS4 are just denying and need to admit to ourselves.
I agree that it's a fair assumption to say that she liked TS3 because she bought all the extra content, but it's still definitely presumptuous to assume that she thinks TS3 is "a much better game" than TS4.
And besides, IMO technical issues are as much a part of what makes something "good" as anything else. Lagging and crashes and other issues can get ridiculously frustrating and therefore make playing the game completely unenjoyable. It might not be entirely the game's fault, but I don't think it's something that can be so easily ignored or pushed aside. It's just an "if" scenario -- if TS3 didn't lag or crash, it'd be a good game; if TS4 had toddlers and open worlds, it'd be a good game; if I could steady my left hand, I'd be good at nail art.
Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think "there is such a thing as a better game". Surely if a product is made to entertain someone, as a game is, then the game that provides a person with the most entertainment is the better game? And that varies from individual to individual? Do you disagree? How do you define a "good game", if not through your own personal enjoyment?
I think you are confusing a good game with a fun game. With games like the Sims I think there is such a thing as a good game and bad game, Sims 4 being a bad game because it does not offer the playstyle for everyone that Sims 2 and 3 did. So, while you may enjoy Sims 4 and Bob enjoys Sims 4 because it has all you need, that's great, it makes it a fun game for you, but because it lacks the playstyle that Billy likes to play, which its predecessors had, it is a bad game.
Does this make sense? To me a game can be fun, for you, but still be a bad game overall, like the Sims 4 because it leaves a bunch of simmers feeling neglected since their playstyle was not offered when the previous Sims games had them.
For me the Sims 4 is a good game because I'm not missing toddlers, open world, and some of the other things on that long list that was making the rounds a while back. I'm having fun with it and that is also my definition of a good game.
Comments
I'm not comparing as much as using it to counter the logic that "You can't build games for low end systems and have good graphic options in it" and that much should be obvious. If I failed to make that clear, my apologies xD
I'm more saying that it should be used as a standard of something to strive for. You accommodate as much of your fanbase as you can but you KEEP pushing for better and greater options for your fans who have the hardware to make use of.
maybe if we pay monthly subscription, maybe they can actually put some more effort into it.
good part of the bash is because peoples keep wanting wow die, because wow can't be the top mmo in world and all bla bla bla
just look at blizzzard records
diablo 3 best game of the year(in release)
stacraft 2 also best game in the year
wow best mmo in the world
they created now a trade card virtual game which now is selling like water
and now are producing a new first person shooter
and are in beta of they own moba.
compare blizzard with ea is very unfair, while one is easy between top 10 game companies in the world the other keep fighting to not fall in the top 10 worst game companie in the world.
But a monthly sub should not be the answer to continuing support. While Ellessarr's point that Blizzard is an entity so far above EA/Maxis in terms of their devotion to their games is spot on, there are plenty of companies who make single player experiences w/o a monthly fee that deliver these options.
We as players should never be treated like ATMs just because "This will let us do more for you!" - no, you need to meet us halfway and show that you're serious about providing us with more bang for our buck before we throw more money at you.
I realize maybe I'm trying to find a silver lining where there isn't one, but there's PLENTY of potential for Sims 4 to go up as EPs/patches roll down and I HOPE that we can see good value delivered for our precious gaming dollars, beyond simply saying "Here's some new objects!" - gimme some of that improved lighting too while you're at it!
the problem is which the sims 4 was build only looking at "low ending machines" they go the the lengths of take of the map colors(the white map) for the sake of low ending, everything on this game looks like or rushed or they put the "best efort" in make the game the most cheap possible, that is the difference, blizzard take as base good machines, then with that base they trying to make the low settings possible based on the medium effort, not looking first to low ending.
they like any top companie look first to what is the most new in gaming then with that in base they try to make the "most low possible". only wow have monthly, diablo, starcraft, heartstone, heroes of the storm we dont need pay to play and all have good quality setting, are making to cater both spectre of they base dont just look to one side. neither mine and currently i play sims 3 perfect, i have some little lag here and there but also the sims 4 give me some lag here and there, due to programmers poor knowledge, but overal the sims 3 run very good on my pc.
and during the december patch(which was improved in the last patch) i was experiencing a lot of freezing in the sims 4 but with the last patch the freezing reduced a lot (still happen sometimes).
How insightful lol.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
I can play at last TS2 TS3 and TS4 So great that toddlers are here!!!
Oh wait I forgot the bugs and glitches. Now that is one area where you could compare the two
Each to his own.
Wherever I am friends call me Betty
Sim enim est vita
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I can't speak for @SimsILikeSims, but even after I overcame my technical issues with TS3, I quickly came to find the game itself boring and unenjoyable. Which is not something I'm finding with TS4.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "better game", and therefore there is nothing to "admit". The mark of a good game (or, indeed, any piece of media) is whether it entertains the player and holds their interest, and that's only something that can be accurately judged on a personal or individual level. For me, TS4 is a "much better game" than TS3, simply because I enjoy playing it more. For you, clearly, the opposite is true. There's no need to go around implying that the opinions of others are wrong simply because they are different to your own.
complete forum tutorial
Thank you @MDianaSanders for halloween-fying Golluma
There is such thing as a better game. She may feel differently than I do but I'm going to find out. I in no way implied she was wrong, let's get that straight. I don't even know what game she likes better. That was me wanting her to clarify.
I'm all for judging each game for their own merits. In the end, it is a matter of personal opinion.
TS4 won me because of its overall style. I LIKE cartoony. I like everything absurd about The Sims series. I was never much of a "realistic-play" simmer. I think the overall cartoony style goes very well with the absurdity of the game, and I can't wait to see some supernaturals in it.
I understand that what I love the most about the game is what other people absolutely can't stand about it. It happens. I love you guys anyway.
Wow I'm in such a nice mood today...
Origin ID: Gabby-Abeille
As much as I loved The Sims 3 that game was buggy as hell and made gameplay an atrocity I also personally didn't like the style it is bland and they look like some horrible CG from the 90s. I like TS4 better because I have yet to have my game crash the game is smooth as balls and I really like the style (It doesn't have to be realistic to be good). The Sims also have more personality so I end up more interested with them.
P.S I have had Sims 3 on 5 different computers crashed on all of them this game has brought me to tears.
Well, "I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is a much better game than Sims 4" definitely sounds to me like you're implying that anyone who thinks TS4 is better is wrong. Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but your specific phrasing makes it sound as though "Sims 3 is a much better game" is a fact that those of us who like TS4 are just denying and need to admit to ourselves.
I agree that it's a fair assumption to say that she liked TS3 because she bought all the extra content, but it's still definitely presumptuous to assume that she thinks TS3 is "a much better game" than TS4.
And besides, IMO technical issues are as much a part of what makes something "good" as anything else. Lagging and crashes and other issues can get ridiculously frustrating and therefore make playing the game completely unenjoyable. It might not be entirely the game's fault, but I don't think it's something that can be so easily ignored or pushed aside. It's just an "if" scenario -- if TS3 didn't lag or crash, it'd be a good game; if TS4 had toddlers and open worlds, it'd be a good game; if I could steady my left hand, I'd be good at nail art.
Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think "there is such a thing as a better game". Surely if a product is made to entertain someone, as a game is, then the game that provides a person with the most entertainment is the better game? And that varies from individual to individual? Do you disagree? How do you define a "good game", if not through your own personal enjoyment?
Excellent point!
I think you are confusing a good game with a fun game. With games like the Sims I think there is such a thing as a good game and bad game, Sims 4 being a bad game because it does not offer the playstyle for everyone that Sims 2 and 3 did. So, while you may enjoy Sims 4 and Bob enjoys Sims 4 because it has all you need, that's great, it makes it a fun game for you, but because it lacks the playstyle that Billy likes to play, which its predecessors had, it is a bad game.
Does this make sense? To me a game can be fun, for you, but still be a bad game overall, like the Sims 4 because it leaves a bunch of simmers feeling neglected since their playstyle was not offered when the previous Sims games had them.