Forum Announcement, Click Here to Read More From EA_Cade.
An analogy to Lego; comments on game design in The Sims 3
tea_and_blues
Posts: 889 Member
I think I'll go into this discussion with the following key terms: "Software toy", "Player customisation", "Modularity", and finally "Consistent interactivity". The first two are elements that I feel the designers of TS3 missed the boat on over and over again for no good reason. The second I think they've done quite well with some really glaring exceptions, and the third is just appalling.
What makes an enduring toy? Often it's story-telling and creative potential, like with Lego. There's something really amazing about Lego, or even just wooden blocks. Lego has the most in common with The Sims though, and it's a strong brand for similar reasons - it allows players a very broad creative scope, and it allows players to mix and match parts to make unique characters in unique worlds. The stories that Lego sets provide to players, in the form of names, marketing material like comics, and overall structure, are malleable - even when Lego is attached to brands like Harry Potter, there is nothing to stop a player from taking Ron's head and putting it on Voldemort's body, and making a completely new Gothic story unrelated to the Harry Potter series, especially if many sets are involved. In this sense, The Sims series possibly has even more in common with Lego now at generation three than it did with a doll's house in the original game. I would argue that Sims designers have stopped exploiting that similarity to its full potential in more recent expansions.
A lot of the most enduring and charming Maxis games were originally marketed not as games but as software toys. The Sims series has gradually moved away from this branding but perhaps it should move back towards it. Sims marketing keeps using little hooks like "let the players tell stories" and "virtual dollhouse", but in terms of game design it's shifted far from "toying", and I'll give an example of that in the linear, fixed adventuring of the World Adventures expansion pack and the Private Eye profession from the Ambitions pack. These are both gaming systems that provide players with gameplay direction, and there is nothing wrong with doing that. The problem is that these directions are largely fixed, they are not malleable like a Lego set. To be fair, WA does provide players with the ability to make their own tombs, and the downloadable tool Create-a-World allows players to make their own worlds, but not their own adventures. Imagine the extended gameplay possibilities if designers had looked at their drawing board before making WA and said "This should be like a Lego set". Make the original predefined adventures and worlds - China, Egypt, France - by all means! But make them within a framework that allows players to mix and match like a Lego set. If players want to make additional adventure worlds, allow them to do so, within a reasonable limit. And allow players to design tombs that actually contribute to the adventuring skill. The same of the Private Eye profession, by all means direct the gameplay, but direct it from within a toolset you've provided to players - a set of "Lego blocks" from which other adventures or jobs can be designed and shared - make sure it's modular. It strikes me that in WA almost all the work towards this had been done, except that it wasn't implemented. I would call this the biggest game design oversight in Simming history, and it has certainly cost sales. The modularity in The Sims 3 is a step up from The Sims 2. Sims and families can be shifted around neighbourhoods safely, the inventory system is much improved, and objects and clothing are highly interchangable. In these senses, The Sims 3 is really Lego-like. This only makes it more mysterious as to why players are restricted to three premade adventure worlds, even if the issue is savegame bloat - why not have just one or two additional slots for custom adventure destinations?
The final term I want to discuss is a simple game design lesson that the Sims team don't seem to have absorbed: interactions should be consistent across game worlds. If a player can pick up and move a rubbish bin on a level, then they're going to want to pick up and move other similar objects. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, and it makes for very satisfying quirks of gameplay to discover the world your character inhabits is not just a "set", but an interactive place with definite rules. Small decorative objects that look portable should be inventory-ready, even if that serves no purpose. Clear examples of this are in the rubber duck and tissue box in The Sims 3, but it hasn't been implemented consistently. This harks back to problems with modularity, the world the Sims inhabit is modular, but sometimes designers have made it feel needlessly consolidated. More troubling are objects like decorative food in a game like The Sims where characters actually eat. Items that look consumable ought to be consumable, and if the same animation routine is followed for eating all foods that's fine, but it should be in place for them all. I want to be clear that I don't extend this criticism to the "portable cars" and other large objects in the game, this feature solves a number of game design problems and strikes me as quite good game design because it's pretty consistent (with the Painting skill's easel being a problematic exception).
Kiwi_tea
What makes an enduring toy? Often it's story-telling and creative potential, like with Lego. There's something really amazing about Lego, or even just wooden blocks. Lego has the most in common with The Sims though, and it's a strong brand for similar reasons - it allows players a very broad creative scope, and it allows players to mix and match parts to make unique characters in unique worlds. The stories that Lego sets provide to players, in the form of names, marketing material like comics, and overall structure, are malleable - even when Lego is attached to brands like Harry Potter, there is nothing to stop a player from taking Ron's head and putting it on Voldemort's body, and making a completely new Gothic story unrelated to the Harry Potter series, especially if many sets are involved. In this sense, The Sims series possibly has even more in common with Lego now at generation three than it did with a doll's house in the original game. I would argue that Sims designers have stopped exploiting that similarity to its full potential in more recent expansions.
A lot of the most enduring and charming Maxis games were originally marketed not as games but as software toys. The Sims series has gradually moved away from this branding but perhaps it should move back towards it. Sims marketing keeps using little hooks like "let the players tell stories" and "virtual dollhouse", but in terms of game design it's shifted far from "toying", and I'll give an example of that in the linear, fixed adventuring of the World Adventures expansion pack and the Private Eye profession from the Ambitions pack. These are both gaming systems that provide players with gameplay direction, and there is nothing wrong with doing that. The problem is that these directions are largely fixed, they are not malleable like a Lego set. To be fair, WA does provide players with the ability to make their own tombs, and the downloadable tool Create-a-World allows players to make their own worlds, but not their own adventures. Imagine the extended gameplay possibilities if designers had looked at their drawing board before making WA and said "This should be like a Lego set". Make the original predefined adventures and worlds - China, Egypt, France - by all means! But make them within a framework that allows players to mix and match like a Lego set. If players want to make additional adventure worlds, allow them to do so, within a reasonable limit. And allow players to design tombs that actually contribute to the adventuring skill. The same of the Private Eye profession, by all means direct the gameplay, but direct it from within a toolset you've provided to players - a set of "Lego blocks" from which other adventures or jobs can be designed and shared - make sure it's modular. It strikes me that in WA almost all the work towards this had been done, except that it wasn't implemented. I would call this the biggest game design oversight in Simming history, and it has certainly cost sales. The modularity in The Sims 3 is a step up from The Sims 2. Sims and families can be shifted around neighbourhoods safely, the inventory system is much improved, and objects and clothing are highly interchangable. In these senses, The Sims 3 is really Lego-like. This only makes it more mysterious as to why players are restricted to three premade adventure worlds, even if the issue is savegame bloat - why not have just one or two additional slots for custom adventure destinations?
The final term I want to discuss is a simple game design lesson that the Sims team don't seem to have absorbed: interactions should be consistent across game worlds. If a player can pick up and move a rubbish bin on a level, then they're going to want to pick up and move other similar objects. It's really not a difficult concept to grasp, and it makes for very satisfying quirks of gameplay to discover the world your character inhabits is not just a "set", but an interactive place with definite rules. Small decorative objects that look portable should be inventory-ready, even if that serves no purpose. Clear examples of this are in the rubber duck and tissue box in The Sims 3, but it hasn't been implemented consistently. This harks back to problems with modularity, the world the Sims inhabit is modular, but sometimes designers have made it feel needlessly consolidated. More troubling are objects like decorative food in a game like The Sims where characters actually eat. Items that look consumable ought to be consumable, and if the same animation routine is followed for eating all foods that's fine, but it should be in place for them all. I want to be clear that I don't extend this criticism to the "portable cars" and other large objects in the game, this feature solves a number of game design problems and strikes me as quite good game design because it's pretty consistent (with the Painting skill's easel being a problematic exception).
Kiwi_tea
0
Comments
But I would think the car system in TS3 is very flawed as most players are used to detailed car animations in TS2. So having fading cars a la TS1 is really a step backwards and inconsistent with the overall franchise. I especially hate how cars and bikes run through each other on roads when they didn't even do that back in TS1 (talk about regressing backwards!). It just makes the whole transport system in TS3 feels cheap and superficial.
I'm not a game designer or anything, just my 2 cents as a dedicated Sims player.
The Lego analogy is perfect.
Ok, so this one is a fire truck, but after you've made your firetruck, you can take it apart and make up whatever your imagination can come up with.
World Adventures and the Private Investigator profession both bother me in this aspect--especially the P.I.
The Private Investigator profession was the most disappointing feature I've ever experienced in The Sims. It certainly is story telling for you are told what to do during the whole experience. It requires no thought, I don't see any way to possibly fail at a case, and there doesn't seem to be any way to creatively use P.I. perks for other game play possibilities.
But that's just my impression of it in the few times I've played it. It's just so mind numbingly repetitive: Get a case, click this, read this, click this, read this, click this, read this, solve the case. It is fun that the neighborhood residents play roles in these cases, but why couldn't the cases come from the actual drama that's going on in the neighborhood instead of these fake dramas?
I think I'll play it again just to see if I can play it any other way than the prescribed way. Having to solve the given cases to progress takes the fun out of it because I've read it all before, but I think I will try it using mainly the extra activities.
I do like that EA made the tomb features available to us. It's the adventures themselves that bother me. I think I would have rather just had the destination and explore and discover on my own by getting clues from the locals than being told what to do. I also think traits should play a large role in how successful your sim is. It could make each adventure unique depending on your sim.
And what about having an office? Imagine if you had Sims wander into your office, telling you their stories of betrayal and revenge, as well as the occasional thug threatening or blackmailing you. Or how about following another Sim around town to see if they're up to no good? Isn't that the kind of stuff PIs are always doing (at least in the movies
It seems like the way they handled it was the most boring way possible when there were so many alternatives.
"We've been attributing the state of The Sims 4 to greed but I think it's time to give sheer incompetence another look."
-Honeywell
I'm not sure I particularly agree with some of the comments regarding WA. Mainly the idea of providing "direction" and adding a way for players to create their own adventures. Here's the problem I see. Your average player doesn't want to do that kind of work just to play their game. Yes it's cool we can build our own tombs and we can use CAW too but how many players actually WANT to do that kind of work?
The point I'm trying to make is that they should not rely on the fact that they've given us tools to build what we want. It still doesn't change the fact that WA adventurers and stuff like the PI career are limiting and repetitive. There's a limit to how much direction they can provide. It's like having other kids leave their toys in your sandbox. They just take up room leaving you less space to play in. It's good that they've provided us with some tools yes but it doesn't make up for their bad design decisions.
Add linear game play, and lack of game conent, to poor game design along with bugs and you have what you see in the forums now unhappy simmers, unsatisfied simmers, and eventually a consumer not willing to fund such a game.
I understand EA is trying to appeal to a broader playerbase *coughs* rpg gamers, males, 21-30 *coughs* but they're going about it all wrong in my opinion. Truly do we have to change the core aspects of sims to grab a bigger playerbase, what about the playerbase that is already playing? And at what cost?
You're missing the essential point here: Players can share their work with others, meaning that the few players who DO want to make all that work easily and voluntarily increase the replayability of the game for others. It's win-win, the marketing department wins, the players win.
The same basic principle stands. This is only true up unto a point. This idea assumes that the majority of players are tech saavy enough to find the content they want. EA should not make design decisions expecting the player community to make up for the game lacks.
There are quite a few players who are even afraid to touch 3rd party content. Quite a few others still who don't go to forums or fan sites or simply don't know where to look. Not to mention all the buggy content they can get. THEN comes the next EP where some of that extra content suddenly conflicts so a lot of people simply stay away.
This idea of players providing content to allieviate the short comings of directed game play in the Sims assumes too much from the players. Not just the creators, but the community as a whole being able to find and be willing to use said content. It's a factor that is out of EA's control. Better to simply provide flawless sandbox play with tools than flawed, inflexible or intrusive play hoping the players will fix it for everyone.
I thought Ambitions would be sort of like OFB but with some improvements and oh I was sooo wrong about that one. It's mind numbingly tedious.
Late night. I was the most excited for this one. This was the biggest disappointment for me with celebs and vamps spawning everywhere--makes it hard to take the game seriously (feels funny to use that word when referencing the sims).
Leave it up to a big money hungry corporation to take a good thing and ruin it by trying to 're-do' it....
Ironic. That's what I end up doing anyway. :P
-CC skin
-CC hair
-CC facial hair
-CC eyes
-CC objects
-Story Progression mod
-Overwatch mod
-DebugEnabler mod
-Master Controller Mod
-Stop the "A Simbot!" mod.
All for shaping the game to what I feel it should be and correcting things that go wrong or don't make sense. If I had access to great animations, I would swap out the Fast Walk and Make Out animations too.
Simmers are becoming tech savvy to either make or insert content for what the game lacks.
Even so.. no amount of CC or mods can make up for things like the linear adventures of WA or the PI career. If you want those visa points you still have to do those adventuers over and over.. even if you had 3rd party adventures it amounts to the same linear gameplay.
Or botch the specific genre the game is meant to be, which could potentially result in many dissatisfied and fed up customers/veterans of Sims 1/2.
For the ones who love to create and design wonderful, but there are many times i don't want to do that I just want to play the game, O.o and that's when the truth revealed itself. I ask anyone who mods if you take take them away would you still play the sims. I know i don't have the mods and i don't play it anymore because after you get past the hours of building and creating the game is truly boring.
Where as I am saying this isn't a reliable method of reducing the shortcomings of that framework or any other design issue within the game. Since it would simply end up being more of the same repetitive gameplay plus a lot of players don't want to go fishing for 3rd party content. Whether it comes from the exchange using exclusively EA tools or not.
My arguement based partly on the notion that quest driven gameplay on the level it's given to us was ultimately a bad decision.
Talking about mods to fix bugs and such is just a natural extention of the topic. We don't want EA thinking the players can/will make things better for everyone else regardless of the tools used.
tea_and_blues its a great analogy and I agree with you. The world wide community is what makes the Sims what it is. No matter who you are or what you want in your game you will find a site that fits who you are. They should embrace the sandbox and the community. Yes, I know they can not do so in an official capacity, but with the game code they could.
This place is not good for an old womans BP.
If I didn't have all the things on my list? No, I would not play this game. As I added each bit, my interest rose. The CC came fairly early, Much faster than I expected. Once I had the hair, skin eyes, eyes, and facial hair I was fine with how the sims looked.
I still wasn't happy with the other sims wandering around town, but once I got my hands on the master controller, I set off editing every sim in the game and making my own master neighborhoods that I load up and save a copy of whenever I start a new neighborhood.
I kept story progression off because it interfered with the way I play the game. Now that I can control things that are important to me and I know more about what's happening in town, I love story progression.
The only thing left is game play from the EPs. I enjoy things here and there, but my confidence isn't set yet in the game play as the features come out and I'm wondering if I should just wait until the whole series is finished. However, I know if EA adds any little thing that will improve game play for me I will probably snap it up to bolster the product I've already invested time and money. :P
If something about the next EP turns me off that I skip it, I'm probably out for the duration until I find how they will treat University or if college life is added at all. Uni was a key component for me because I put creativity into it and got a lot of fun out it. It was the highlight of having children in the game for me because I got to send them away to Uni. Uni was the end of a cycle and a start of a new one as I left the parents to play the children. TS3 pleases me in that I can leave the elders to live life on their own while I play the new college grads.
If Uni is just another watered down element that I don't even want to bother with...ugh.
You're reading too much into the arguement and some players ARE afraid to use custom content. If you read enough posts about it here on the forums you'll see for yourself. However, no one said or implied anything about the average player's intelligence.
I can just as easily make the reverse arguement. Not every player is necessarily as tech saavy as say.. you are. Plenty of folks on the forums have stated that they just want to play without worrying about mods and CC and there's nothing wrong with that either. I'm not sure I even want to know where that game dev comment came from.
People simply have different levels of knowledge and comfort zones as well as their own person reasons why they would or would not want to use CC. That's assuming they're aware of what's out there.
Rather than being afraid perhaps you'd be happier with they don't trust 3rd party content not to muck up their game? It's not like I'm saying they have an unhealthy phobia about it.
My point isn't about the competence of anyone my point is as a customer, wether i have internet or not, I should not be sold a product with these bugs, and poor game design. Why, because I may not have the resources needed to correct it, (the internet) or i may not want to download 3rd party content in fear it may cause a virus or mess up my game. The last reason, even if i could i just wouldn't because it's not my responsibility. You as a company should not be selling something like this anyway.
Second the main issue i feel isn't more tools to create a more doll house feel to the sims. The ui gives lee way to many of that and so does create a tool. Now can their be things that could be additionally edited yes. We were allowed to edit vacations spots i don't see why the same ui cannot apply to WA, but still it's the same set of tools and it doesn't create more gameplay it creates more artistic outlook. When you're done designing it's still the same core problems, and you still will not have a doll house feel (or lego).
The reason why the doll house feel is gone is because the actual sim it self and his environment is limited. What i mean by this is your character (sim) can only do what it's programmed to do. Not only that but the program is limited to what's in it's enviroment. An example, my sims will go to the Bistro to eat dinner, at home i can choose what he would like to eat and he prepares it. At the bistro I cannot choose what he wants to eat, I cannot intereact with a waitress or waiter, and inside I cannot intereact with the tables, chairs, or other customers. The only thing my sims can choose from is eating inside or outside. That is constrictive game play, it does not create an environment where I can use my imagination and place my sims in different situations. What constricts it, the rabbit hole, and the lack of interactions.
Another example without the rabbit hole. The gym is open, they create only two excerising tools a treadmill, and weight station. The aerobics room is just a room with a stereo in it. The pool down stairs for swimming. Now why would the gym be constrictive. One there are no npc's in there to give ambience to the environment. No personal trainers, no gym receptionist for memberships, no instructors for swimming or aerobics. It takes away from the gym environment and because of that you cannot create a doll house feeling. Add to the fact that there is only two types of excerise machines and you basically have a useless building. Why because all of your sims can do this at home. You created a constrictive enviroment with the lack of content.
Last example of constrictive game play through controlling, linear questing. Now as argumentive as this is, sims has always had a questing system, however it has never been linear until 3. Sims 1, you could complete npc quests to get items. Sims 2 very identical, except those quests were embedded into the sims lives. Example of quests, was your sims wants and needs. Another form of questing was open for business you complete this task you recieved an award. So questing in sims 3 was nothing new to me. Your wants are a form of questing. The problem is linear questing has no business in a simulation game. Things like the tombs should always reset for future exploration. Game design should have made it so instead of going into the tombs and winning more travel points and treasure, you could go into the tombs find treasure and apply that to the sims hobbies, career, or everyday life. For example making jewelry from the gems and selling them to other simmers, making potions and powders from battles with mummies inside the tombs, making a collection for yourself or for a museum. Now when you incorporate ideas like this, you would also take out the linear questing style it's not needed anymore. Why the questing is still there for the sims but it's not directed and controlled. I can't express this enough tombs should reset. When i mean that I mean game design should have made it so that the tombs recalculate to a different tomb each time. Please don't tell me it's too advanced or too hard on systems, it's not. Many single player games offer dungeon resets or tomb. Sims WA should be no different. It creates the excitement of the unexplored and really the unknown.
Which brings me to my next core problem with sims and why the equation this time is unsuccesful. Everytime you play you can anticpate what your sims will do in 3. There is no momentum of suprise, or randomness. This always takes away from the doll house and lego land feeling. Controlled + contsrictive = boring. This is why sims will not attract male rpg players and why it's losing most of it's player base. Sims 1, why was it so good, because you don't know the outcome of many of the interactions in game. For example when i rubbed the genie lamp i didn't know what i would get, and when i got it i didn't know if it was successful or not. Why does this make a doll house/lego feel? You'd think most children control everything they do when playing. Erp wrong. What made those things fun is you didn't know what would actually happen if you did something.
Example: my brother and i played legos together. We'd spend the time building, but when we started to play i couldn't control how he played. Lol many times he'd go from good guy to bad guy and destroy the whole town. Or he'd fake sick and i'd be taking him to the hospital in an ambulance, and out of nowhere an alien upducted both of us. Play like this made toys exciting, and you cherish them more. This is what made sims exciting and many of us cherished it. Take that away from sims and you took the heart of the game away, and left it a shell.