People seem to be forgetting a few things.
1 It's pre alpha and hair and many other graphical things are likely to be improved.
2 Most pc games that aren't shoddy ports from a console game have graphical options.
It's possible that the demo version of the sims was running at what would be lowest settings just to make sure it's as stable as possible.
Don't worry about the hair (I think it looks fine anyway as it goes with the style)
until it's much closer to release and further in development.
0
Comments
I guarantee you, anyone who says the hair isn't good will cave in and buy it if it ends up getting great reviews and well liked by the community.
Mostly because, the people who are saying that are people who use CC anyway. EA is not a CC creator.
Im shocked we haven't even heard anything about them making it better. I dont understand how they aren't even be embarrassed to show it to us. What on earth...
You seem very passionate about hair haha, why would they be embarrassed because the hair looks low detail and cartoony (fits with the style imo btw) the sims is more than just hair. They should be proud because they seem to have improved on the sims 3 greatly already
They should feel embarrassed to show us that for a company with so much money, & such a big team, they FAILED to even make Sims look better than their last generation (which is sims 3 now).
EA should feel ashamed to give us this poor detail. I was expecting to be blown away and I was blown away- by the terrible graphics!
LOL I agree!
The game is far from being completed, since it's do out next year.
The Sims 4 models are quite significantly higher in polygon count, are more articulate. The animations are clearly superior - which is something I greatly appreciate, considering just how bad a lot of the animations and movement algorithms were in Sims 3 after a dozen expansion packs.
Oh and finally the hair has body, dimension and looks more hair-like instead of being a block of colored polygons on the head, or worse, simply a new texture.