I'm just glad it hasn't come to a point yet where babies are made by the storks dropping them on the doorsteps.
As Writin_Reg said, in The Sims babies appeared in a puff of smoke after your sims kissed.
It's already come to that point, and yet amazingly we moved past it.
Their target audience are people who never played Sims 1, 2, or 3.....
Well, that's true.
The people who already played are likely to buy the new one, so they don't really need to appeal to them as much as a new demographic.
So while at work today and on break my supervisor saw me playing Sims FreePlay on my phone and said his son loved the sims and he had trouble getting him off the pc to do anything else. Also all of his son's friends love the game. I asked which version his son played and he said Sims 4. It was a gift from his grandmother. I then asked how old his son was and he said 11! So I guess EA is hoping to attract a whole new generation of simmers. Simmers who don't care about toddlers and open world and the color wheel because they were too young to know these features even existed in prior versions.
And these Simmers will eventually outgrow The Sims 4 and move on to something else. At 11 years old, they won't appreciate the game in the same way an adult will, and they won't become attached to their Sims. They'll play until the novelty wears off, especially since there's no real violence in the game to speak of.
I have to respectfully disagree on this one. I have been playing sims since I was around 7, I did get attached to my sims, and still do to this day! (Not Sims 4 though). I have never been into shooter, MMO, RPG, or 1st person games.
This arguement sounds ridiculous. So their target audience is someone the game is not even rated for now? The game is rated T for teen so their target audience is not little kids who can't even purchase the game with their allowance in some stores.
How many 17 year olds do you know who read Seventeen magazine? It's intentionally targeted at kids who want to be cool and read a magazine for "older" kids.
I dont know any 17 year olds in real life. 17 magazine is not written for 5 year olds. The age demographic is 10-17. I seriously doubt they are writing articles about dating and sex to target five year olds. If I saw a five year old reading the magazine, I would seriously side eye their parents.
Well when I was growing up, that magazine was popular around ages 11-12, maybe into 13, after which it was uncool. People under a certain age tend to think it's cool to do "grown up" stuff. Companies have realized this and have started appearing to market things to an older audience than they really intend. Next time you have the tv on, check out commercials for kids' stuff. The kids in the commercials are almost always older than the ages they're marketing to, because the kids at home think it must be cool if older kids like it, and feel empowered by having such things.
You were still in the age range of the magazine's target audience. Your example about the magazine proves my point.
Also, most commercials for childen's products use kids in the target age range. I have yet to see a product for a 2-year old with a 5+ year old in the commercial. Have you even taken a marketing course? Do you know there are regulations on how products can be marketed to certain ages in the US?
How does it prove your point that the maximum age for 17 magazine is actually 17 and that far more of their readership is far younger? There is a huge difference between the ages of 2 and 4, much less 2 and 5 - just as there is a massive difference between ages 11 and 17. But I wasn't talking about toddlers anyway, toddler ads are directed at parents, so it's reasonable that the ads for those products would show children that look more like the parent's child who are enjoying the toy.
Regulations don't mean a thing when the word of the law is obeyed and the spirit is not. Do you really believe tobacco companies don't market to minors? Or that they really want their anti-smoking campaigns to work? Marketing classes and marketing regulations and marketing realities should never trump common sense. I'm not here to spew my credentials all over the place to try to claim that my observations are superior. It would make me look petty
Just because you know a lot of five year olds whose parents let then read the magazine does not mean the magazine's target audience is not 10-17 year-olds. Do you really think 17 magazine is marketing towards 5 year olds? The magazine contains articles about dating and sex. It is clear they are not trying to target 5 year olds but instead 10-17 year-olds. Girls who are in middle and high school. If they wrote an article about dating in kindergarten or should kids in elementary school be having sex, I bet a lot of parents would be outraged. Marketing execs have enough common sense not to market a magazine that deals with sex and dating to five year olds.
This arguement sounds ridiculous. So their target audience is someone the game is not even rated for now? The game is rated T for teen so their target audience is not little kids who can't even purchase the game with their allowance in some stores.
How many 17 year olds do you know who read Seventeen magazine? It's intentionally targeted at kids who want to be cool and read a magazine for "older" kids.
I dont know any 17 year olds in real life. 17 magazine is not written for 5 year olds. The age demographic is 10-17. I seriously doubt they are writing articles about dating and sex to target five year olds. If I saw a five year old reading the magazine, I would seriously side eye their parents.
Well when I was growing up, that magazine was popular around ages 11-12, maybe into 13, after which it was uncool. People under a certain age tend to think it's cool to do "grown up" stuff. Companies have realized this and have started appearing to market things to an older audience than they really intend. Next time you have the tv on, check out commercials for kids' stuff. The kids in the commercials are almost always older than the ages they're marketing to, because the kids at home think it must be cool if older kids like it, and feel empowered by having such things.
You were still in the age range of the magazine's target audience. Your example about the magazine proves my point.
Also, most commercials for childen's products use kids in the target age range. I have yet to see a product for a 2-year old with a 5+ year old in the commercial. Have you even taken a marketing course? Do you know there are regulations on how products can be marketed to certain ages in the US?
How does it prove your point that the maximum age for 17 magazine is actually 17 and that far more of their readership is far younger? There is a huge difference between the ages of 2 and 4, much less 2 and 5 - just as there is a massive difference between ages 11 and 17. But I wasn't talking about toddlers anyway, toddler ads are directed at parents, so it's reasonable that the ads for those products would show children that look more like the parent's child who are enjoying the toy.
Regulations don't mean a thing when the word of the law is obeyed and the spirit is not. Do you really believe tobacco companies don't market to minors? Or that they really want their anti-smoking campaigns to work? Marketing classes and marketing regulations and marketing realities should never trump common sense. I'm not here to spew my credentials all over the place to try to claim that my observations are superior. It would make me look petty
Just because you know a lot of five year olds whose parents let then read the magazine does not mean the magazine's target audience is not 10-17 year-olds. Do you really think 17 magazine is marketing towards 5 year olds? The magazine contains articles about dating and sex. It is clear they are not trying to target 5 year olds but instead 10-17 year-olds. Girls who are in middle and high school. If they wrote an article about dating in kindergarten or should kids in elementary school be having sex, I bet a lot of parents would be outraged. Marketing execs have enough common sense not to market a magazine that deals with sex and dating to five year olds.
@blueasbutterfly isn't saying 5 year olds are reading it. She was saying it actually gets read by 11-13 year olds who want to look cool by looking older and that the advertising exploits that desire to 'look grown up'.
@SweetieTreats it was you who mentioned 5 year olds initially? I don't understand why the 5 year old comment? @blueasbutterfly really wouldn't advocate for that
Please, excuse my bluntness, my filter isn't as strong at the moment. I blame my late afternoon nap.
Screw the target audience. If you enjoy a game, play the darn thing and have the time of your virtual life. If I cared about targeted audience I wouldn't play half of the games I do. I mean, for crying out loud I still play Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing. I have at least two MMO characters, in various games, with the most ridiculous, immature, hilarious names I could think of.
Furthermore, I would actually read magazines targeted at females. In my teenage years, I would have actually read Seventeen magazine. Instead of rolling my eyes at the whole notion, that a piece of paper was instructing me how to act/dress/get a man and so forth. If I didn't follow that piece of paper, I was somehow less of a female than those that did.
As for The Sims, I enjoy the stupid, immature, classless humor. Because that is just the type of person I am. I can find humor is pretty much anything, and will laugh if someone belches in public. I still enjoy funny woohoo, and now the high-five that is exchanged before the deed. My sims farting after eating frank and beans makes me laugh. Heck, when I actually played The Sims 3 I would spend an entire 10 minutes, laughing hysterically at a freshly electrocuted sim. I even find enjoyment out of seeing my sims pass out due to lack of sleep.
Lastly, gaming companies always target a specific audience. Always. Some happen to be younger, or male, or female. Which leads me back to the beginning of my post.
Play whatever game you want. As long as it makes you happy that's all that matters.
Personal Note: I am 32 years young and still act like a goofball. Who refuses to let her inner child go.
Edit: Ah kin spelz!!
Well if I go by the targeted audience, I guess I for sure would not be playing..
I am just young at heart I guess. they just makes me happy.
I love things like puppets and once a year at a Old Home Day, I get the chance of my life, to be a clown with my puppet JoJo the Monkey. I love playing with him, I become young again, He looks so real some of the kids are afraid of him. He passes out balloons and things. I am really in my glory then.
So the sims make me feel young again too. brings out my inner child also. I enjoy playing them, keeps my mind young. they make me laugh.
Brings out my creative side too. They are even more funnier with all their emotions. Just love them.
This arguement sounds ridiculous. So their target audience is someone the game is not even rated for now? The game is rated T for teen so their target audience is not little kids who can't even purchase the game with their allowance in some stores.
How many 17 year olds do you know who read Seventeen magazine? It's intentionally targeted at kids who want to be cool and read a magazine for "older" kids.
I dont know any 17 year olds in real life. 17 magazine is not written for 5 year olds. The age demographic is 10-17. I seriously doubt they are writing articles about dating and sex to target five year olds. If I saw a five year old reading the magazine, I would seriously side eye their parents.
Well when I was growing up, that magazine was popular around ages 11-12, maybe into 13, after which it was uncool. People under a certain age tend to think it's cool to do "grown up" stuff. Companies have realized this and have started appearing to market things to an older audience than they really intend. Next time you have the tv on, check out commercials for kids' stuff. The kids in the commercials are almost always older than the ages they're marketing to, because the kids at home think it must be cool if older kids like it, and feel empowered by having such things.
You were still in the age range of the magazine's target audience. Your example about the magazine proves my point.
Also, most commercials for childen's products use kids in the target age range. I have yet to see a product for a 2-year old with a 5+ year old in the commercial. Have you even taken a marketing course? Do you know there are regulations on how products can be marketed to certain ages in the US?
How does it prove your point that the maximum age for 17 magazine is actually 17 and that far more of their readership is far younger? There is a huge difference between the ages of 2 and 4, much less 2 and 5 - just as there is a massive difference between ages 11 and 17. But I wasn't talking about toddlers anyway, toddler ads are directed at parents, so it's reasonable that the ads for those products would show children that look more like the parent's child who are enjoying the toy.
Regulations don't mean a thing when the word of the law is obeyed and the spirit is not. Do you really believe tobacco companies don't market to minors? Or that they really want their anti-smoking campaigns to work? Marketing classes and marketing regulations and marketing realities should never trump common sense. I'm not here to spew my credentials all over the place to try to claim that my observations are superior. It would make me look petty
Just because you know a lot of five year olds whose parents let then read the magazine does not mean the magazine's target audience is not 10-17 year-olds. Do you really think 17 magazine is marketing towards 5 year olds? The magazine contains articles about dating and sex. It is clear they are not trying to target 5 year olds but instead 10-17 year-olds. Girls who are in middle and high school. If they wrote an article about dating in kindergarten or should kids in elementary school be having sex, I bet a lot of parents would be outraged. Marketing execs have enough common sense not to market a magazine that deals with sex and dating to five year olds.
@blueasbutterfly isn't saying 5 year olds are reading it. She was saying it actually gets read by 11-13 year olds who want to look cool by looking older and that the advertising exploits that desire to 'look grown up'.
@SweetieTreats it was you who mentioned 5 year olds initially? I don't understand why the 5 year old comment? @blueasbutterfly really wouldn't advocate for that
I don't understand her argument when 11-13 year-olds are part of the target group of the magazine. So it makes no sense for a 11-13 year-old to feel grown up when they are reading a magazine marketed towards them. The articles in the magazine are directed at this age group. So she must be talking about 5 year-olds.
This arguement sounds ridiculous. So their target audience is someone the game is not even rated for now? The game is rated T for teen so their target audience is not little kids who can't even purchase the game with their allowance in some stores.
How many 17 year olds do you know who read Seventeen magazine? It's intentionally targeted at kids who want to be cool and read a magazine for "older" kids.
I dont know any 17 year olds in real life. 17 magazine is not written for 5 year olds. The age demographic is 10-17. I seriously doubt they are writing articles about dating and sex to target five year olds. If I saw a five year old reading the magazine, I would seriously side eye their parents.
Well when I was growing up, that magazine was popular around ages 11-12, maybe into 13, after which it was uncool. People under a certain age tend to think it's cool to do "grown up" stuff. Companies have realized this and have started appearing to market things to an older audience than they really intend. Next time you have the tv on, check out commercials for kids' stuff. The kids in the commercials are almost always older than the ages they're marketing to, because the kids at home think it must be cool if older kids like it, and feel empowered by having such things.
You were still in the age range of the magazine's target audience. Your example about the magazine proves my point.
Also, most commercials for childen's products use kids in the target age range. I have yet to see a product for a 2-year old with a 5+ year old in the commercial. Have you even taken a marketing course? Do you know there are regulations on how products can be marketed to certain ages in the US?
How does it prove your point that the maximum age for 17 magazine is actually 17 and that far more of their readership is far younger? There is a huge difference between the ages of 2 and 4, much less 2 and 5 - just as there is a massive difference between ages 11 and 17. But I wasn't talking about toddlers anyway, toddler ads are directed at parents, so it's reasonable that the ads for those products would show children that look more like the parent's child who are enjoying the toy.
Regulations don't mean a thing when the word of the law is obeyed and the spirit is not. Do you really believe tobacco companies don't market to minors? Or that they really want their anti-smoking campaigns to work? Marketing classes and marketing regulations and marketing realities should never trump common sense. I'm not here to spew my credentials all over the place to try to claim that my observations are superior. It would make me look petty
Just because you know a lot of five year olds whose parents let then read the magazine does not mean the magazine's target audience is not 10-17 year-olds. Do you really think 17 magazine is marketing towards 5 year olds? The magazine contains articles about dating and sex. It is clear they are not trying to target 5 year olds but instead 10-17 year-olds. Girls who are in middle and high school. If they wrote an article about dating in kindergarten or should kids in elementary school be having sex, I bet a lot of parents would be outraged. Marketing execs have enough common sense not to market a magazine that deals with sex and dating to five year olds.
@blueasbutterfly isn't saying 5 year olds are reading it. She was saying it actually gets read by 11-13 year olds who want to look cool by looking older and that the advertising exploits that desire to 'look grown up'.
@SweetieTreats it was you who mentioned 5 year olds initially? I don't understand why the 5 year old comment? @blueasbutterfly really wouldn't advocate for that
I don't understand her argument when 11-13 year-olds are part of the target group of the magazine. So it makes no sense for a 11-13 year-old to feel grown up when they are reading a magazine marketed towards them. The articles in the magazine are directed at this age group. So she must be talking about 5 year-olds.
No she's saying it's called 17 so that 11-13 year olds aspire to read it because it looks 'grown up'
This arguement sounds ridiculous. So their target audience is someone the game is not even rated for now? The game is rated T for teen so their target audience is not little kids who can't even purchase the game with their allowance in some stores.
How many 17 year olds do you know who read Seventeen magazine? It's intentionally targeted at kids who want to be cool and read a magazine for "older" kids.
I dont know any 17 year olds in real life. 17 magazine is not written for 5 year olds. The age demographic is 10-17. I seriously doubt they are writing articles about dating and sex to target five year olds. If I saw a five year old reading the magazine, I would seriously side eye their parents.
Well when I was growing up, that magazine was popular around ages 11-12, maybe into 13, after which it was uncool. People under a certain age tend to think it's cool to do "grown up" stuff. Companies have realized this and have started appearing to market things to an older audience than they really intend. Next time you have the tv on, check out commercials for kids' stuff. The kids in the commercials are almost always older than the ages they're marketing to, because the kids at home think it must be cool if older kids like it, and feel empowered by having such things.
You were still in the age range of the magazine's target audience. Your example about the magazine proves my point.
Also, most commercials for childen's products use kids in the target age range. I have yet to see a product for a 2-year old with a 5+ year old in the commercial. Have you even taken a marketing course? Do you know there are regulations on how products can be marketed to certain ages in the US?
How does it prove your point that the maximum age for 17 magazine is actually 17 and that far more of their readership is far younger? There is a huge difference between the ages of 2 and 4, much less 2 and 5 - just as there is a massive difference between ages 11 and 17. But I wasn't talking about toddlers anyway, toddler ads are directed at parents, so it's reasonable that the ads for those products would show children that look more like the parent's child who are enjoying the toy.
Regulations don't mean a thing when the word of the law is obeyed and the spirit is not. Do you really believe tobacco companies don't market to minors? Or that they really want their anti-smoking campaigns to work? Marketing classes and marketing regulations and marketing realities should never trump common sense. I'm not here to spew my credentials all over the place to try to claim that my observations are superior. It would make me look petty
Just because you know a lot of five year olds whose parents let then read the magazine does not mean the magazine's target audience is not 10-17 year-olds. Do you really think 17 magazine is marketing towards 5 year olds? The magazine contains articles about dating and sex. It is clear they are not trying to target 5 year olds but instead 10-17 year-olds. Girls who are in middle and high school. If they wrote an article about dating in kindergarten or should kids in elementary school be having sex, I bet a lot of parents would be outraged. Marketing execs have enough common sense not to market a magazine that deals with sex and dating to five year olds.
@blueasbutterfly isn't saying 5 year olds are reading it. She was saying it actually gets read by 11-13 year olds who want to look cool by looking older and that the advertising exploits that desire to 'look grown up'.
@SweetieTreats it was you who mentioned 5 year olds initially? I don't understand why the 5 year old comment? @blueasbutterfly really wouldn't advocate for that
I don't understand her argument when 11-13 year-olds are part of the target group of the magazine. So it makes no sense for a 11-13 year-old to feel grown up when they are reading a magazine marketed towards them. The articles in the magazine are directed at this age group. So she must be talking about 5 year-olds.
No she's saying it's called 17 so that 11-13 year olds aspire to read it because it looks 'grown up'
I don't think that is the reason for the name of the magazine. If 11-13 year-olds wanted to look more grown up, they would opt for the newspaper because that is marketed towards adults.
To me, it just depends on the teen location and race. When I was a teen Seventeen wasn't popular. Basically those teen magazines all talk about the same stuff. The magazine's everyone read were the ones with the pull out posters that you could hang on the wall. Some of them had the word "teen" in the name. The posters were more important than the magazine content.
By the way, the person you quoted I have on ignore. I am mostly replying to you.
This arguement sounds ridiculous. So their target audience is someone the game is not even rated for now? The game is rated T for teen so their target audience is not little kids who can't even purchase the game with their allowance in some stores.
How many 17 year olds do you know who read Seventeen magazine? It's intentionally targeted at kids who want to be cool and read a magazine for "older" kids.
I dont know any 17 year olds in real life. 17 magazine is not written for 5 year olds. The age demographic is 10-17. I seriously doubt they are writing articles about dating and sex to target five year olds. If I saw a five year old reading the magazine, I would seriously side eye their parents.
Well when I was growing up, that magazine was popular around ages 11-12, maybe into 13, after which it was uncool. People under a certain age tend to think it's cool to do "grown up" stuff. Companies have realized this and have started appearing to market things to an older audience than they really intend. Next time you have the tv on, check out commercials for kids' stuff. The kids in the commercials are almost always older than the ages they're marketing to, because the kids at home think it must be cool if older kids like it, and feel empowered by having such things.
You were still in the age range of the magazine's target audience. Your example about the magazine proves my point.
Also, most commercials for childen's products use kids in the target age range. I have yet to see a product for a 2-year old with a 5+ year old in the commercial. Have you even taken a marketing course? Do you know there are regulations on how products can be marketed to certain ages in the US?
How does it prove your point that the maximum age for 17 magazine is actually 17 and that far more of their readership is far younger? There is a huge difference between the ages of 2 and 4, much less 2 and 5 - just as there is a massive difference between ages 11 and 17. But I wasn't talking about toddlers anyway, toddler ads are directed at parents, so it's reasonable that the ads for those products would show children that look more like the parent's child who are enjoying the toy.
Regulations don't mean a thing when the word of the law is obeyed and the spirit is not. Do you really believe tobacco companies don't market to minors? Or that they really want their anti-smoking campaigns to work? Marketing classes and marketing regulations and marketing realities should never trump common sense. I'm not here to spew my credentials all over the place to try to claim that my observations are superior. It would make me look petty
Just because you know a lot of five year olds whose parents let then read the magazine does not mean the magazine's target audience is not 10-17 year-olds. Do you really think 17 magazine is marketing towards 5 year olds? The magazine contains articles about dating and sex. It is clear they are not trying to target 5 year olds but instead 10-17 year-olds. Girls who are in middle and high school. If they wrote an article about dating in kindergarten or should kids in elementary school be having sex, I bet a lot of parents would be outraged. Marketing execs have enough common sense not to market a magazine that deals with sex and dating to five year olds.
@blueasbutterfly isn't saying 5 year olds are reading it. She was saying it actually gets read by 11-13 year olds who want to look cool by looking older and that the advertising exploits that desire to 'look grown up'.
@SweetieTreats it was you who mentioned 5 year olds initially? I don't understand why the 5 year old comment? @blueasbutterfly really wouldn't advocate for that
I don't understand her argument when 11-13 year-olds are part of the target group of the magazine. So it makes no sense for a 11-13 year-old to feel grown up when they are reading a magazine marketed towards them. The articles in the magazine are directed at this age group. So she must be talking about 5 year-olds.
No she's saying it's called 17 so that 11-13 year olds aspire to read it because it looks 'grown up'
I don't think that is the reason for the name of the magazine. If 11-13 year-olds wanted to look more grown up, they would opt for the newspaper because that is marketed towards adults.
11 to 13 year olds are not looking for newspapers, possibly not that mag these days either, but the example is still valid. I do remember when that mag (17) was still popular... Am thing back to about 25 years ago or more, 17 year olds that I knew of either didn't read it or admitted to it, but 12 year olds sure were, I did, my friends did... The articles, fashion, you name it. When I was 16, many of us were buying magazines marketed to young 20somethings. Even my 4 year old doesn't want thing that are obviously marketed to little girls, this is why she thinks barbies are cool.... She also really loves the sims 4. She called it the "house building game" but also really loves the families.
The difference between Sims 1 and 2, and Sims 4, is that the first two could be enjoyed by any age. (Sims 3 was when they started dumbing it down but it was still enjoyable.) Children who played Sims 1 and 2 didn't get the more adult humor but the game was fun enough for them to enjoy anyway. However, the story lines and game play really were more adult in those versions and that's why it appealed to older Simmers as well. (I was in my 30's when I started playing.) Sims 4 feels like a children's game to me and just doesn't hold much appeal. I've really tried to like it but I just don't care if I never play it again. (Since the last update I can't play it anyway because it keeps crashing.) With so much missing from this version (CASt, Open World, Legacy Gameplay) I find my attention wandering and my boredom increasing way too often. I'm very sad because I love this franchise but unless they make some big changes in the future I'll probably be content with my older Sims games.
So while at work today and on break my supervisor saw me playing Sims FreePlay on my phone and said his son loved the sims and he had trouble getting him off the pc to do anything else. Also all of his son's friends love the game. I asked which version his son played and he said Sims 4. It was a gift from his grandmother. I then asked how old his son was and he said 11! So I guess EA is hoping to attract a whole new generation of simmers. Simmers who don't care about toddlers and open world and the color wheel because they were too young to know these features even existed in prior versions.
And these Simmers will eventually outgrow The Sims 4 and move on to something else. At 11 years old, they won't appreciate the game in the same way an adult will, and they won't become attached to their Sims. They'll play until the novelty wears off, especially since there's no real violence in the game to speak of.
I have to respectfully disagree on this one. I have been playing sims since I was around 7, I did get attached to my sims, and still do to this day! (Not Sims 4 though). I have never been into shooter, MMO, RPG, or 1st person games.
That doesn't make my point irrelevant. I'm talking about *today's* 11 year olds who are a whole lot different than the 11 year olds we had 15 years ago. You started playing either The Sims or The Sims 2 at a young age; both of those games have a lot more to offer in terms of game play than The Sims 4 does. You're also forgetting that there's a lot more competition for the tween market today than there was fifteen years ago. My 7 year old grandson is into Minecraft, Angry Birds, and Mario Brothers, in no particular order. He also likes the Sims 3, and now the Sims 4, since I introduced him to my game. But, he's mercurial, and he goes from like to like....3 years ago, when he was 4, he was all about Thomas the Tank Engine, and just before his Mama died, he was all about My Little Pony. He's also about Adventure Time and has some of the toys.
I stand by my words. Kids today have the attention span of a gnat, but that's because they're surrounded by too much stimulation. You were fortunate enough to play The Sims franchise when it was in its heyday and the Development Teams actually cared about the quality of the product. But today's 11 year olds who are playing the Sims for the very first time in the form of The Sims 4, I don't think they'll find the game nearly as entertaining or challenging as the 11 year olds of yesteryear.
So, yeah, all of you folks who tell me that you started playing The Sims at a young age...consider the games that you were fortunate enough to be able to play. By the way, I don't "hate" the Sims 4. My overall feeling about this game is "meh". It has it's moments, mind you, but they're few and far between.
EA Marketing Department Motto:
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally) I Took The Pledge!
The difference between Sims 1 and 2, and Sims 4, is that the first two could be enjoyed by any age. (Sims 3 was when they started dumbing it down but it was still enjoyable.) Children who played Sims 1 and 2 didn't get the more adult humor but the game was fun enough for them to enjoy anyway. However, the story lines and game play really were more adult in those versions and that's why it appealed to older Simmers as well. (I was in my 30's when I started playing.) Sims 4 feels like a children's game to me and just doesn't hold much appeal. I've really tried to like it but I just don't care if I never play it again. (Since the last update I can't play it anyway because it keeps crashing.) With so much missing from this version (CASt, Open World, Legacy Gameplay) I find my attention wandering and my boredom increasing way too often. I'm very sad because I love this franchise but unless they make some big changes in the future I'll probably be content with my older Sims games.
Reading this I couldn't but think of the difference of a animated film geard towards small children and one geared towards families. While parents might tolerate the former, a really great film is not only going to be enjoyed by children as they age, the parents are really going to enjoy it numerous times as well. What makes these films enjoyable is that they are not dumbed down for the younger viewers while offering much value for the adults as well... It's the same for games. They want to make more money? Make it transcend through the generations
Comments
As Writin_Reg said, in The Sims babies appeared in a puff of smoke after your sims kissed.
It's already come to that point, and yet amazingly we moved past it.
Officially blocked by @SimsVIP on Twitter!
Well, that's true.
The people who already played are likely to buy the new one, so they don't really need to appeal to them as much as a new demographic.
Officially blocked by @SimsVIP on Twitter!
I have to respectfully disagree on this one. I have been playing sims since I was around 7, I did get attached to my sims, and still do to this day! (Not Sims 4 though). I have never been into shooter, MMO, RPG, or 1st person games.
Me too ...
I'm jealous that a lot of people were able to anticipate S2 and S3, and I didn't
@blueasbutterfly isn't saying 5 year olds are reading it. She was saying it actually gets read by 11-13 year olds who want to look cool by looking older and that the advertising exploits that desire to 'look grown up'.
@SweetieTreats it was you who mentioned 5 year olds initially? I don't understand why the 5 year old comment? @blueasbutterfly really wouldn't advocate for that
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
Well if I go by the targeted audience, I guess I for sure would not be playing..
I am just young at heart I guess. they just makes me happy.
I love things like puppets and once a year at a Old Home Day, I get the chance of my life, to be a clown with my puppet JoJo the Monkey. I love playing with him, I become young again, He looks so real some of the kids are afraid of him. He passes out balloons and things. I am really in my glory then.
So the sims make me feel young again too. brings out my inner child also. I enjoy playing them, keeps my mind young. they make me laugh.
Brings out my creative side too. They are even more funnier with all their emotions. Just love them.
I don't understand her argument when 11-13 year-olds are part of the target group of the magazine. So it makes no sense for a 11-13 year-old to feel grown up when they are reading a magazine marketed towards them. The articles in the magazine are directed at this age group. So she must be talking about 5 year-olds.
No she's saying it's called 17 so that 11-13 year olds aspire to read it because it looks 'grown up'
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
This. This is what we are saying @SweetieTreats
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
I don't think that is the reason for the name of the magazine. If 11-13 year-olds wanted to look more grown up, they would opt for the newspaper because that is marketed towards adults.
By the way, the person you quoted I have on ignore. I am mostly replying to you.
11 to 13 year olds are not looking for newspapers, possibly not that mag these days either, but the example is still valid. I do remember when that mag (17) was still popular... Am thing back to about 25 years ago or more, 17 year olds that I knew of either didn't read it or admitted to it, but 12 year olds sure were, I did, my friends did... The articles, fashion, you name it. When I was 16, many of us were buying magazines marketed to young 20somethings. Even my 4 year old doesn't want thing that are obviously marketed to little girls, this is why she thinks barbies are cool.... She also really loves the sims 4. She called it the "house building game" but also really loves the families.
That doesn't make my point irrelevant. I'm talking about *today's* 11 year olds who are a whole lot different than the 11 year olds we had 15 years ago. You started playing either The Sims or The Sims 2 at a young age; both of those games have a lot more to offer in terms of game play than The Sims 4 does. You're also forgetting that there's a lot more competition for the tween market today than there was fifteen years ago. My 7 year old grandson is into Minecraft, Angry Birds, and Mario Brothers, in no particular order. He also likes the Sims 3, and now the Sims 4, since I introduced him to my game. But, he's mercurial, and he goes from like to like....3 years ago, when he was 4, he was all about Thomas the Tank Engine, and just before his Mama died, he was all about My Little Pony. He's also about Adventure Time and has some of the toys.
I stand by my words. Kids today have the attention span of a gnat, but that's because they're surrounded by too much stimulation. You were fortunate enough to play The Sims franchise when it was in its heyday and the Development Teams actually cared about the quality of the product. But today's 11 year olds who are playing the Sims for the very first time in the form of The Sims 4, I don't think they'll find the game nearly as entertaining or challenging as the 11 year olds of yesteryear.
So, yeah, all of you folks who tell me that you started playing The Sims at a young age...consider the games that you were fortunate enough to be able to play. By the way, I don't "hate" the Sims 4. My overall feeling about this game is "meh". It has it's moments, mind you, but they're few and far between.
"We Don't Care If You LIKE The Game, Just As Long As You BUY The Game!"
I Disapprove (Naturally)
I Took The Pledge!
Reading this I couldn't but think of the difference of a animated film geard towards small children and one geared towards families. While parents might tolerate the former, a really great film is not only going to be enjoyed by children as they age, the parents are really going to enjoy it numerous times as well. What makes these films enjoyable is that they are not dumbed down for the younger viewers while offering much value for the adults as well... It's the same for games. They want to make more money? Make it transcend through the generations