This site has entered read-only mode as of July 18th. The new Forums.EA.com are now live.

Some of you guys are giving sims 4 way to much of a break because of sims 3.

Comments

  • Options
    simsacesimsace Posts: 1,483 Member
    edited June 2014
    2011simone wrote:
    If they kept everything it would be sims 3.2, i've already got a game with open world and CAST so i'd rather something different

    Than by that logic it would be completely okay for EA to remove the generational features and age groups added in sims 2. After all we already have a game with those features.
  • Options
    Shadoza2Shadoza2 Posts: 1,580 Member
    edited June 2014
    GumPlyr123 wrote:
    Even though sims 3 has an open world, it is NOT active. Don't say "But if you have the twallan mod..." no, it' still not active. You would just have lots of sims in a world full of rabbit holes. They just stand there and do nothing.

    This is what I think they are trying to fix in the sims 4. To get a more vibrant neighborhood where everyone is doing something and where everyone looks alive. Also, by having a semi-open world you don't have rabbit holes anymore! You can actually go inside a building and see what they are doing. Even though there were lots of building in the sims 3, most of them were rabbit holes expect maybe the beach house, library and... I think that's it?

    Just because the sims 4 isn't all open doesn't mean it's a step backward, but a step forward for something else. They probably have a reason on why we can't have both. Maybe so they can focus a lot more on the sims themselves with the emotions, animation and different interactions. Maybe because they want it to be more packed, if you know what I mean? Like so there isn't any empty zones

    I am not certain where the idea that a world is not active comes from. The world I created (no mods or CC) and played in is very active. I also do not understand why some players do not like rabbit holes...I beleive they add substance to the environment. I am asking for someone to provide a real (not a blanket statement) reason why they beleive this. I am just not seeing the issue; lend me your eyes :p
  • Options
    simsacesimsace Posts: 1,483 Member
    edited June 2014
    Anavastia wrote:
    Simsace let me ask you something? Do you play other games on today's market? How open are you to trying different games? Do you also play some of the indie ones?

    I'm asking these questions for a few reasons. 1 Being that people tend to compare games and than critic them rather than actually look at the game for what it actually is and critic them.

    You know why i didn't like sims 3 for quite a while, because as a game it was subpar. If i wanted a architect simulator i would have easily asked my friend to build a program for me to use to simulate building and customization. Although CAST, CAS, open world, etc were strong visual concepts, when it boiled down to the gameplay it was very subpar. It wasn't what sims 3 lacked from sims 2 that put me off on it. Far from it as i strongly felt the series tried to copy too much from sims 2. No it was the fact as a game, comparing to the subject of video gaming sims 3 was and still is not a good game. You are not playing a game when your characters are spending most of the time traveling across huge maps or in rabbit holes. When most of the play is not controlled by the player but by a series of buffs and text messages. This makes for poor gaming. If any industry other than zynga games tried to pull this crap that game will quickly crumble. That meant no exception to sims who saw a drop in sales in expansions and base game. The only increase they had was in dlc, and that was because a handful of people purchased store content in the 1000's to gift to others

    that being said Sims 3 had it's strong areas and it had it's weak areas. Now that sims 4 has come on to the picture we assume that the game has returned to being like sims 2. We also assume that it will flop. However no one on here has play tested it to see if it's fun or not. How can we assume because it lacks the ridiculously high capabilities of CAST, or incorporated loading screens, or have a lack of terrain tools that the game will flop and that is the least fun. These things aren't a form of gameplay and they never were. The lack of them doesn't define the sims. The game very well may be very fun based on it's own merrits. The game may fit it's own theme now, which was play with life. Something sims 3 couldn't fully accomplish. Today's gaming hasn't made huge leaps and bounds like people think.

    The gaming industry has reached it's cliff so to speak. Right now what dev's are doing is combining other genres to create new experiences because, there is nothing new and innovative to do. Until software and hardware revolutionize gaming will always be at it's cliff hanger. Just because we can process information faster or show more pixels doesn't change the gaming industry. So what are dev's discovering in the wake of all this. Players do not like change. In fact several articles have shown players do not like innovation and it doesn't sell well among them. It shows with sims 3 sales when EA tried to combine rpg elements to innovate sims. At the end of the day what im saying is before we condemn the game. Instead of looking at what it doesn't have from sims 1, 2, or 3. Look at it first as what it is a video game. Judge it of it's own capabilities and decide. If from there after you've learned how it's played, whats in it than make a sound argument that it will fail, or that it's subpar.

    For the record I'm very open with games and I play a large variety of them indie or not, I like rythem games, RPG's, shooters, Mobas, platformers. Generally I'm open to whatever

    But your missing the point. This isn't an issue of "will sims 4 be fun or not?" This is an issue of, should we be paying for this.

    From what I've seen it looks like it could be a very fun game, albeit annoying with load screens but that aside it looks like it could be fun. The problem is though that the game doesn't innovate and add enough to the core experience.

    Each generation of a game like sims is meant to refine what was in the previous one and add more stuff on top of that. We're up to the 4th generation of the sims, yet sims 4 only has enough innovation and improvement to make it 3rd gen for this franchise and that is the problem.

    We've already payed for a third generation of this franchise and it was pretty bad, so why should we pay for it again when we have no garuntee that this time it will be any better? Even if we had a garuntee it would be better why should we pay for the same amount of content again?

    Yes games will always take things out and add things in when it comes to sequels, this is something practically universal save a few exceptions. But when things get taken out more than enough stuff is supposed to replace it, yet here we have 2 major features taken out for no reason and only just enough added to give the base game to make it relatively the same amount of content sims 3's base game had. That is the problem
  • Options
    GumPlyr123GumPlyr123 Posts: 295 Member
    edited June 2014
    Shadoza2 wrote:
    GumPlyr123 wrote:
    Even though sims 3 has an open world, it is NOT active. Don't say "But if you have the twallan mod..." no, it' still not active. You would just have lots of sims in a world full of rabbit holes. They just stand there and do nothing.

    This is what I think they are trying to fix in the sims 4. To get a more vibrant neighborhood where everyone is doing something and where everyone looks alive. Also, by having a semi-open world you don't have rabbit holes anymore! You can actually go inside a building and see what they are doing. Even though there were lots of building in the sims 3, most of them were rabbit holes expect maybe the beach house, library and... I think that's it?

    Just because the sims 4 isn't all open doesn't mean it's a step backward, but a step forward for something else. They probably have a reason on why we can't have both. Maybe so they can focus a lot more on the sims themselves with the emotions, animation and different interactions. Maybe because they want it to be more packed, if you know what I mean? Like so there isn't any empty zones

    I am not certain where the idea that a world is not active comes from. The world I created (no mods or CC) and played in is very active. I also do not understand why some players do not like rabbit holes...I beleive they add substance to the environment. I am asking for someone to provide a real (not a blanket statement) reason why they beleive this. I am just not seeing the issue; lend me your eyes :p
    The buildings are just decorations, eye candy basically. I would much rather prefer to go inside the buillding :roll:
  • Options
    IcySlashIcySlash Posts: 1,070 Member
    edited June 2014
    GumPlyr123 wrote:
    Shadoza2 wrote:
    GumPlyr123 wrote:
    Even though sims 3 has an open world, it is NOT active. Don't say "But if you have the twallan mod..." no, it' still not active. You would just have lots of sims in a world full of rabbit holes. They just stand there and do nothing.

    This is what I think they are trying to fix in the sims 4. To get a more vibrant neighborhood where everyone is doing something and where everyone looks alive. Also, by having a semi-open world you don't have rabbit holes anymore! You can actually go inside a building and see what they are doing. Even though there were lots of building in the sims 3, most of them were rabbit holes expect maybe the beach house, library and... I think that's it?

    Just because the sims 4 isn't all open doesn't mean it's a step backward, but a step forward for something else. They probably have a reason on why we can't have both. Maybe so they can focus a lot more on the sims themselves with the emotions, animation and different interactions. Maybe because they want it to be more packed, if you know what I mean? Like so there isn't any empty zones

    I am not certain where the idea that a world is not active comes from. The world I created (no mods or CC) and played in is very active. I also do not understand why some players do not like rabbit holes...I beleive they add substance to the environment. I am asking for someone to provide a real (not a blanket statement) reason why they beleive this. I am just not seeing the issue; lend me your eyes :p
    The buildings are just decorations, eye candy basically. I would much rather prefer to go inside the buillding :roll:
    Yeah, i really can't see what was the need of those buildings. If they wanted to make the Town seem more alive and real they did it wrong. What was accomplished is giving players false hopes. If this means they will get some use in a near future then it'll be neat.
  • Options
    2011simone2011simone Posts: 2,444 Member
    edited June 2014
    simsace wrote:
    2011simone wrote:
    If they kept everything it would be sims 3.2, i've already got a game with open world and CAST so i'd rather something different

    Than by that logic it would be completely okay for EA to remove the generational features and age groups added in sims 2. After all we already have a game with those features.

    They are core elements that make it a sims game so of course they are always going to stay, CAST and open world are a feature
    My origin id is sim2011
  • Options
    DarkslayerDarkslayer Posts: 9,074 Member
    edited June 2014
    I’m giving the game “a break” because it hasn’t launched yet and I still don’t really know what to expect from it because we’re still only having the same kind of information revealed to us. I try not to automatically crap all over a game without either trying it out for myself first, watching someone else play it or having extensive knowledge of what is actually going to be involved.

    My impression is that TS4 was always doomed right from the beginning; the chosen art style made it stand out and divided opinions pretty heavily and then it all went downhill from there. You’ve mentioned treating TS3 as though it wasn’t the complete broken mess that it was but while we’re playing devil’s advocate have you ever stopped to think that if that open world hadn’t been such a failure in terms of actual gameplay that they wouldn’t have removed it for TS4? Just something to think about.

    You also mentioned improvements; yes sequels generally are supposed to refine and improve upon existing game features while adding new ones and technically you could argue this is what EA has done. From the footage I have seen so far the TS4 sims appear to be much more dynamic, interesting and above all else they actually have appropriate emotions and reactions. I can believe that my TS4 sims are going to acknowledge and even care about their family members. Is this not an improvement?

    Likewise build mode seems to be more intuitive and they’ve made it a lot more user friendly; now if I change my mind about not having a foundation or want to position the bathroom on the left wing of the mansion rather than the right I can tweak things without having to demolish upwards of hours of work, again to me this would be considered an improvement. They’ve made building more flexible.

    At the end of the day EA have done what they have done and I’m mostly reserving my judgement until I’ve seen non-staged in-game footage that hasn’t been provided to me by EA. Once that happens I’ll either buy the game or I’ll walk away from the franchise forever.
  • Options
    GoldmoldarGoldmoldar Posts: 11,973 Member
    edited June 2014
    Darkslayer wrote:
    I’m giving the game “a break” because it hasn’t launched yet and I still don’t really know what to expect from it because we’re still only having the same kind of information revealed to us. I try not to automatically crap all over a game without either trying it out for myself first, watching someone else play it or having extensive knowledge of what is actually going to be involved.

    My impression is that TS4 was always doomed right from the beginning; the chosen art style made it stand out and divided opinions pretty heavily and then it all went downhill from there. You’ve mentioned treating TS3 as though it wasn’t the complete broken mess that it was but while we’re playing devil’s advocate have you ever stopped to think that if that open world hadn’t been such a failure in terms of actual gameplay that they wouldn’t have removed it for TS4? Just something to think about.

    You also mentioned improvements; yes sequels generally are supposed to refine and improve upon existing game features while adding new ones and technically you could argue this is what EA has done. From the footage I have seen so far the TS4 sims appear to be much more dynamic, interesting and above all else they actually have appropriate emotions and reactions. I can believe that my TS4 sims are going to acknowledge and even care about their family members. Is this not an improvement?

    Likewise build mode seems to be more intuitive and they’ve made it a lot more user friendly; now if I change my mind about not having a foundation or want to position the bathroom on the left wing of the mansion rather than the right I can tweak things without having to demolish upwards of hours of work, again to me this would be considered an improvement. They’ve made building more flexible.

    At the end of the day EA have done what they have done and I’m mostly reserving my judgement until I’ve seen non-staged in-game footage that hasn’t been provided to me by EA. Once that happens I’ll either buy the game or I’ll walk away from the franchise forever.

    I can agree with this :D
    Omen by HP Intel®️ Core™️ i9- 12900K W/ RGB Liquid Cooler 32GB Nvidia RTX 3080 10Gb ASUS Ultra-Wide 34" Curved Monitor. Omen By HP Intel® Core™ i7-12800HX 32 GB Nvidia 3070 Ti 8 GB 17.3 Screen
  • Options
    simsacesimsace Posts: 1,483 Member
    edited June 2014
    2011simone wrote:
    simsace wrote:
    2011simone wrote:
    If they kept everything it would be sims 3.2, i've already got a game with open world and CAST so i'd rather something different

    Than by that logic it would be completely okay for EA to remove the generational features and age groups added in sims 2. After all we already have a game with those features.

    They are core elements that make it a sims game so of course they are always going to stay, CAST and open world are a feature

    they weren't in sims 1? So how does that make them a core feautre? See the point I'm making with this.
  • Options
    2011simone2011simone Posts: 2,444 Member
    edited June 2014
    simsace wrote:
    2011simone wrote:
    simsace wrote:
    2011simone wrote:
    If they kept everything it would be sims 3.2, i've already got a game with open world and CAST so i'd rather something different

    Than by that logic it would be completely okay for EA to remove the generational features and age groups added in sims 2. After all we already have a game with those features.

    They are core elements that make it a sims game so of course they are always going to stay, CAST and open world are a feature

    they weren't in sims 1? So how does that make them a core feautre? See the point I'm making with this.

    It did have age groups, baby, child and adult
    My origin id is sim2011
  • Options
    sc038sc038 Posts: 364 New Member
    edited June 2014
    simsace wrote:
    One of the things i constantly see around here right now is comments like, "I don't care about open world or Cast, sims 3 was bad and this looks good." And you know what I won't argue with you, sims 3 messed up big time for a lot of things, but that doesn't mean sims 4 should get a free pass for removing stuff.

    Sims is like a lot of other games that release annually, bi-anually, whatever.(though with a much larger gap in releases) Each game should be an improvement over the last in every way possible. If the last one was bad, i expect the next one to be even greater than how the last one could have been, so why is it for sims, which should be a continuous improvement. It's okay for them to charge us for a whole new cycle of sims stuff(the base game, expansions, store) even though the series has taken 2 steps to the side rather than 2 steps forward? They're basically saying "yeah we screwed up last time, just give us the same amount of money and we'll maybe give you what it should/could have been"

    Let me put it this way, if sims 3 had better animations(more lively), routing problems and glitches fixed, would you guys still be willing to give 4 a free pass?

    It still amazes me that i can see people going around the forum still claiming open world caused so many problems like deserted lots and glitches. No, That was caused by bad routing, bad programing. And in the case of clubs many people are so fond to talk about, that was the Hot Spot feature causing clubs to be deserted if it wasn't routing doing it, and club that wasn't a hotspot was completely empty.

    Why should we have to compromise of stuff like Cast and Open world because Maxis can't make a stable game? Why should we even take a chance, and give them a ton of money, hoping this will be what sims 3 should have been? With nothing to give us hope that it could even turn out as a more stable game.

    okay we shouldnt be judging the game. its not really our job to critique their work. once the game comes out, than you can really have an established attitude towards it, but right now its all pretty much speculation.
  • Options
    pixiedust4267pixiedust4267 Posts: 1,194 Member
    edited June 2014
    I can honestly say I'm happy with the Sims in all forms. I started with 2 and loved it. I have completely enjoyed 3 and all it offers. I am excited for 4!!

    I'm not giving a pass, I just enjoy the games! I have never been one to grip about the games. I even have had great experiences with customer service!

    I'm sorry if you don't feel the same, but then maybe the Sims isn't the right game for you. If you aren't happy, I suggest you move on. I know I'm not alone in being completely satisfied, we just aren't as loud as those who feel the need to complain.

    Agreed. :)
    SQfkfxm6rt.gif
  • Options
    ceejay402ceejay402 Posts: 24,507 Member
    edited June 2014
    simsace wrote:
    match the minimum specs of computers today, which4gb of ra from the look of things it isn't.

    quick comparison
    sims 3, the game that gave us all these new features and the open world, needed 1.5 gigs of RAM

    sims 4, 5 years later removes open world. Yet the minimum amount of RAM computers have has been raised to 4gigs.

    somethings not right there :?

    sorry sims 3 uses more than 1.5 gb of RAM, in fact since some time around the release of Pets it was made LAA making it possible for it to use up to 4gb of RAM. for most it hovers somewhere above 2 for the most part

    as for current requirements - so far we do not have any clue and my concern is that EA will suggest less than 4gb of ram.

    using more than 4gb of RAM is still rare for a program so it would be a big step up if they suggested having installed 4gb but in no way do i think the base would need 4gb even if it was my ideal with open and CASt
  • Options
    stickykissesstickykisses Posts: 2,039 Member
    edited June 2014
    GumPlyr123 wrote:

    Just because the sims 4 isn't all open doesn't mean it's a step backward, but a step forward for something else. They probably have a reason on why we can't have both. Maybe so they can focus a lot more on the sims themselves with the emotions, animation and different interactions. Maybe because they want it to be more packed, if you know what I mean? Like so there isn't any empty zones

    There is always a reason why there isn't a reason because low end computers.

    I was thinking about the pictures that someone posted last night in another thread, comparing sims 3 to sims 4. They have reduced the quality of the textures of the trees, water and sky for sure. I just finished watching a Youtube video where someone slowed down the trailers, so we could see everything in slow motion. The definition on pretty much everything is gone.

    So far Sims 4 is a dressed up Bratz doll. The graphical elements they have eliminated from the game signal a specific kind of desperation taken only when REDUCING processing power is the goal. Which is an odd thing to do given that an I5 will run Sims 3 in all it's glitchy detailed glory just fine. To me it seems obvious that EA wants sims 4 to run on the same computers people had when sims 3 was new, and without needing to upgrade.

    Sorry to keep complaining, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Hopefully EA gets the message...
  • Options
    AnavastiaAnavastia Posts: 6,515 Member
    edited June 2014
    simsace wrote:
    For the record I'm very open with games and I play a large variety of them indie or not, I like rythem games, RPG's, shooters, Mobas, platformers. Generally I'm open to whatever

    But your missing the point. This isn't an issue of "will sims 4 be fun or not?" This is an issue of, should we be paying for this.

    From what I've seen it looks like it could be a very fun game, albeit annoying with load screens but that aside it looks like it could be fun. The problem is though that the game doesn't innovate and add enough to the core experience.

    Each generation of a game like sims is meant to refine what was in the previous one and add more stuff on top of that. We're up to the 4th generation of the sims, yet sims 4 only has enough innovation and improvement to make it 3rd gen for this franchise and that is the problem.

    We've already payed for a third generation of this franchise and it was pretty bad, so why should we pay for it again when we have no garuntee that this time it will be any better? Even if we had a garuntee it would be better why should we pay for the same amount of content again?

    Yes games will always take things out and add things in when it comes to sequels, this is something practically universal save a few exceptions. But when things get taken out more than enough stuff is supposed to replace it, yet here we have 2 major features taken out for no reason and only just enough added to give the base game to make it relatively the same amount of content sims 3's base game had. That is the problem

    Paying for a 4th generation of sims is not the problem i see here at all. Is it worth the price is all going to depend on the player. However if you're going to compare it by measuring content to other content and features you're going to miss out. Why because there will be some things that sims 3 has that sims 4 doesn't and some things sims 4 has that sims 3 doesn't. I'm going to assume you were around for sims 1 days as well do you remember the forums for sims 2 when transitioning from the first of the series. You know a lot of people were upset with EA just as much as now, because the sims 2 lacked the features the sims 1 offered. People thought the graphics were subpar then as well. This argument is never ending when a new version of the series comes out. It'll happen with 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on. As long as this series lives the players always judge the game comparing content from before.

    I'm saying personally this isn't a good way to measure games. You miss out on the really great features of the game that weren't done before. Personally I don't feel the game has returned to being like sims 2. I think a lot of players who do think it's like sims 2 will go into it disappointed. What i do think is that players get set in their ways a little and it's hard to transition when change occurs. I mean if you could have seen Cinebar in such a panicked state in the last few months and now she's preordering. You'd truly understand what I'm saying lol.

    I wouldn't say for no reason just yet. Again what we've seen is trailers that are controlled and set to view what they want us to see. However when the real game comes out or someone who can showcase gameplay steps forward and gives us the read deal we might see the replacement was worth it. Or we may not. Nothing is a guarantee we take that chance when moving on to the next series. Thats why you wait for more information. Many simmers wait even til the end of the series when all expansions are done just so they can have all the gameplay at once rather than sitting there wanting more. Up to you to decide if it's worth your dollar or not. I'm just saying keep an open mind to the game and try to see it in the way the dev's do. You might find you like the game or not.
  • Options
    Kellieann123Kellieann123 Posts: 507 Member
    edited June 2014
    They're actually asking you to pay more. Expansions have been estimated at $50 for this line of the sims. Which I understand is the general pricepoint of games these days, but if it's going to be a subpar game, It should be priced that way.
  • Options
    deibreakdeibreak Posts: 386 Member
    edited June 2014
    pguida wrote:
    deibreak wrote:
    I know you say that the open world wasn't the problem but it was...

    Please, prove it. With data. Because all logic says otherwise.


    Did you even read everything I said? I know that the open world isn't the main cause, but it didn't do anything to help those issues. When I say it's partly to blame it's for that fact, and for the fact that they wanted to do a open world and do it badly. The sims 2 didn't have issues like the the sims 3 and don't twist my words because I'm not saying the the sims 2 ran perfect but it had way less issues being a closed world than the open world of ts3. Whether you believe it or not the open world helped in making more of a mess with the mess the sims team already had.
  • Options
    deibreakdeibreak Posts: 386 Member
    edited June 2014
    simsace wrote:
    Just a general comment at the people going "well I don't care about Cast or open world, that's not important to me."

    Even if those things aren't important to you, that doesn't mean you should be so laid back about their removal and ready to give Sims 4 a go. I won't even miss Cast that much but i recognize why it's removal isn't good by any means, why? Because all that's going to happen from buying Sims 4 is Maxis is going to get encouraged to pull this same BS again in another 5 years with Sims 5. Maybe at that point you'll be the one on the side of the fence going "but this isn't a step forward!" because one of the features you liked got removed that time.

    Food for thought.

    Well technically those things where never removed because you can't remove something you didn't have to start with. The sims 4 is a new game, it has all new animations, a new engine, new cas, and new build/buy mode. I don't see it as the sims team removing things, I look at it like they are trying to make the game work for the majority of people unlike the sims 3. In my eyes it's not a step backward it's a compromise. I actually want a true open world and a color wheel but I understand what that entails and they would have to cut out a portion of there audience to cater to those with high end gaming rigs. They would have to do something more major than not include cast or an open world for me to see things as a step backward. I think your looking at it like they are just not including stuff to give us less and then if we buy it then they will continue to do it, because they are evil over-lords who want the sims fans to suffer and want to not include as many features as possible so we get charged 70 bucks for nothing. :lol: I don't think that's the case though honestly, but hey who knows I could be wrong.
  • Options
    deibreakdeibreak Posts: 386 Member
    edited June 2014
    simsace wrote:
    Cinebar wrote:
    I want a new modern game about the Sim, my TS2 is getting old, so why try to make people think they shouldn't buy it. Leave them alone, they can make up their own minds.

    Yes they can. but based on the number of people going around claiming all the problems open world caused, A lot of people aren't making the most informed decision. All I'm doing is trying to get people to consider all the factors.

    If they change their mind, than they change their mind. If they don't than they don't.

    I agree with you on people not making informed decisions. I think that is the case for both sides though, because none of us have enough info to say if the sims 4 is great or sucks and you shouldnt buy it. We don't know enough, and like I said I won't pre-order til I do.
  • Options
    deibreakdeibreak Posts: 386 Member
    edited June 2014
    Anavastia wrote:
    Simsace let me ask you something? Do you play other games on today's market? How open are you to trying different games? Do you also play some of the indie ones?

    I'm asking these questions for a few reasons. 1 Being that people tend to compare games and than critic them rather than actually look at the game for what it actually is and critic them.

    You know why i didn't like sims 3 for quite a while, because as a game it was subpar. If i wanted a architect simulator i would have easily asked my friend to build a program for me to use to simulate building and customization. Although CAST, CAS, open world, etc were strong visual concepts, when it boiled down to the gameplay it was very subpar. It wasn't what sims 3 lacked from sims 2 that put me off on it. Far from it as i strongly felt the series tried to copy too much from sims 2. No it was the fact as a game, comparing to the subject of video gaming sims 3 was and still is not a good game. You are not playing a game when your characters are spending most of the time traveling across huge maps or in rabbit holes. When most of the play is not controlled by the player but by a series of buffs and text messages. This makes for poor gaming. If any industry other than zynga games tried to pull this crap that game will quickly crumble. That meant no exception to sims who saw a drop in sales in expansions and base game. The only increase they had was in dlc, and that was because a handful of people purchased store content in the 1000's to gift to others

    that being said Sims 3 had it's strong areas and it had it's weak areas. Now that sims 4 has come on to the picture we assume that the game has returned to being like sims 2. We also assume that it will flop. However no one on here has play tested it to see if it's fun or not. How can we assume because it lacks the ridiculously high capabilities of CAST, or incorporated loading screens, or have a lack of terrain tools that the game will flop and that is the least fun. These things aren't a form of gameplay and they never were. The lack of them doesn't define the sims. The game very well may be very fun based on it's own merrits. The game may fit it's own theme now, which was play with life. Something sims 3 couldn't fully accomplish. Today's gaming hasn't made huge leaps and bounds like people think.

    The gaming industry has reached it's cliff so to speak. Right now what dev's are doing is combining other genres to create new experiences because, there is nothing new and innovative to do. Until software and hardware revolutionize gaming will always be at it's cliff hanger. Just because we can process information faster or show more pixels doesn't change the gaming industry. So what are dev's discovering in the wake of all this. Players do not like change. In fact several articles have shown players do not like innovation and it doesn't sell well among them. It shows with sims 3 sales when EA tried to combine rpg elements to innovate sims. At the end of the day what im saying is before we condemn the game. Instead of looking at what it doesn't have from sims 1, 2, or 3. Look at it first as what it is a video game. Judge it of it's own capabilities and decide. If from there after you've learned how it's played, whats in it than make a sound argument that it will fail, or that it's subpar.

    PREACH!! lol you spoke so eloquently what I feel is true. Thank you so much for hitting the nail on the head.
  • Options
    deibreakdeibreak Posts: 386 Member
    edited June 2014
    Sorry for the quadruple post :oops: I couldn't help but respond to some of these posts. Especially Anavastia!!
  • Options
    brendhan21brendhan21 Posts: 3,427 Member
    edited June 2014
    Yes , The open world and CASt were The Sims 3 biggest selling points , but This is The Sims 4.

    and what will the biggest selling points for the sims 4 be.
  • Options
    KelleygirlKelleygirl Posts: 599 Member
    edited June 2014
    brendhan21 wrote:
    Yes , The open world and CASt were The Sims 3 biggest selling points , but This is The Sims 4.

    and what will the biggest selling points for the sims 4 be.

    Well, from what I've seen on this forum, it'll be loading screens and closed world, 'cause they all claim to love them both. ;-)
  • Options
    GreenCatsGreenCats Posts: 9,318 Member
    edited June 2014
    2011simone wrote:
    simsace wrote:
    2011simone wrote:
    simsace wrote:
    2011simone wrote:
    If they kept everything it would be sims 3.2, i've already got a game with open world and CAST so i'd rather something different

    Than by that logic it would be completely okay for EA to remove the generational features and age groups added in sims 2. After all we already have a game with those features.

    They are core elements that make it a sims game so of course they are always going to stay, CAST and open world are a feature

    they weren't in sims 1? So how does that make them a core feautre? See the point I'm making with this.

    It did have age groups, baby, child and adult

    Age groups (child & adult - the baby was just an object) were in the game, but aging was not. Children could not grow into adults and adults could not die of old age. This did not change until TS2, which, along with the new 3D, was the biggest selling point of the game.
    You can still find me on my old My page (http://mypage.thesims3.com/mypage/GreenCats), and see more of my game-play pictures and CC-free uploads at gcsims.com
  • Options
    GreenCatsGreenCats Posts: 9,318 Member
    edited June 2014
    I also wanted to add to this topic, that the giving a break thing cuts both ways. If the lag, crashes, lots that aren't very active, and sims that just perform canned idles rather than simulating more complex emotions, continue to be seen as the inevitable result of the open world, terrain sculpting abilities (I think they are out for TS4?), and CASt, then the producers of TS3 are let off the hook for allowing a shoddy, buggy product to hit the shops shelves.
    You can still find me on my old My page (http://mypage.thesims3.com/mypage/GreenCats), and see more of my game-play pictures and CC-free uploads at gcsims.com
Sign In or Register to comment.
Return to top