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

Simguru Daniels response about oceans in sims 4

Comments

  • Options
    CiarassimsCiarassims Posts: 3,547 Member
    They're just lazy, I wouldn't expect anything off them at this point just a bunch of excuses.
    giphy_1.gif
  • Options
    HIFreeBirdIHHIFreeBirdIH Posts: 1,410 Member
    edited August 2016
    You guys do know that they can edit the worlds, right? There's nothing that's keeping them from doing it besides deciding how they would allocate resources for editing the BG worlds to allow for swimming. They can edit the terrain, they can make it routable, nothing about the engine not allowing them to.

    It's literally just having to edit terrain in like, 2 neighborhoods to allow for swimming in the ocean. Nothing in the engine is stopping that, since, as noted in a "world flaw thread" by @celipoesias they can edit the world, since they've edited Newcrest for objects that were super out of place.

    But it's still going to be the "weak engine's" (nope) fault. It'll be "too hard (to fit into a smaller pack), too expensive (takes up more resources and time than it should" for the team to do, because "complexity is our enemy" (because we need to optimize stuff, not put layer upon layer of code until it works.)
    Just some random Simmer you probably don't even follow on the gallery! Gallery name's the same as my username! Did I just rhyme there?
    xyIcMqt.png
  • Options
    AineAine Posts: 3,046 Member
    edited August 2016
    I've said this before, but it has dawned on me that this is the game we've got, and whatever game we wish we had won't happen with this iteration. This is it, folks. We might get new features and objects and stuff. But it will still be this game. This is as good as it's gonna get with this iteration. The devs can't perform miracles, and we shouldn't expect them to. I've been in denial for such a long time, not wanting to let go of the dream, but for my sanity's sake, and for my wallet, I have to learn to accept the truth. The game is what it is. I will keep playing sporadically with what I've got, but as for spending more money on it; nah, not likely going to happen. I guess I've finally reached the end of the stages of grief.
    The Sims is dead, long live The Sims.
    Allons-y!

    ---> Afterlife Game Pack Idea - improved ghosts, cemeteries and funerals, psychics, new skills, new career and more! <---
    ---> Burglary Stuff Pack Idea - Burglars, alarm systems, and diamonds to steal!<---
  • Options
    IngeJonesIngeJones Posts: 3,247 Member
    I am pretty much enjoying what there is, but I had to decide to let go of my grief for what I had hoped it would be. I knew it was a choice between that or skipping TS4 altogether. I am just playing it as a different game.
  • Options
    PirateJandcatsPirateJandcats Posts: 635 Member
    Polyrhythm wrote: »
    That's a bit disappointing tbh since Windenburg has so much ocean but oh well

    Hahaha I still wonder how the heck the sims get to the island in Windenberg, they can't swim and there's no boat. Island paradise really was paradise except the 3 hours it took sims to reach school
  • Options
    Saga-MinxSaga-Minx Posts: 580 Member
    I really like the sims 4, but I am disappointed by how limited this game is and I do wonder what that will mean for the future. I also love sims 3, if the loading would be quicker I would play it more. Maybe I should buy a new video card and more memory...
  • Options
    SjappielovePaulSjappielovePaul Posts: 4,794 Member
    Aine wrote: »
    I've said this before, but it has dawned on me that this is the game we've got, and whatever game we wish we had won't happen with this iteration. This is it, folks. We might get new features and objects and stuff. But it will still be this game. This is as good as it's gonna get with this iteration. The devs can't perform miracles, and we shouldn't expect them to. I've been in denial for such a long time, not wanting to let go of the dream, but for my sanity's sake, and for my wallet, I have to learn to accept the truth. The game is what it is. I will keep playing sporadically with what I've got, but as for spending more money on it; nah, not likely going to happen. I guess I've finally reached the end of the stages of grief.
    The Sims is dead, long live The Sims.
    IngeJones wrote: »
    I am pretty much enjoying what there is, but I had to decide to let go of my grief for what I had hoped it would be. I knew it was a choice between that or skipping TS4 altogether. I am just playing it as a different game.

    These both comments sound like you guys would've been okay with it if it hadn't been The Official Sims 4, Successor of The Sims, The Sims 2 and The Sims 3. Just as I said, the moment they realised their MMO plans weren't working they should've stopped making it the official successor. They could've named it The Sims Community and worked on on a worthy successor.

    If they had said, 'Dear fans, we're sorry but the game didn't work out the way we wanted it to, or the way you'd wanted it to. We decided to make it a minor game in the Sims franchise so we can start over and work on a real successor. In the mean time we give you this Sims '...' for €30,- (or dollars offcourse).'

    They'd still been able to save the series! I know I would've respected that decision. I've always been positive about the Sims Stories and the Sims Medieval and all. And I appreciate a company that really wants the best for me, their customer.
    Don't forget to take care of yourself every now and then in this big chaotic world!
    pkJ66Kv.png
    Some links that helped me a lot:
    Missing Store Stencils / Free Kiddy Stuff / Daily Deals / Daily Deals Spreadsheets / The Gifting Directory
  • Options
    NeiaNeia Posts: 4,190 Member
    edited August 2016
    @ebuchala
    People like to truncate SimGurus' phrases to suit their narrative too and use them without their context. Like the fact that "Complexity is our ennemy", which was "when building The Sims", not The Sims 4, but The Sims, and in a tech thread.
  • Options
    HIFreeBirdIHHIFreeBirdIH Posts: 1,410 Member
    Sigzy05 wrote: »
    You guys do know that they can edit the worlds, right? There's nothing that's keeping them from doing it besides deciding how they would allocate resources for editing the BG worlds to allow for swimming. They can edit the terrain, they can make it routable, nothing about the engine not allowing them to.

    It's literally just having to edit terrain in like, 2 neighborhoods to allow for swimming in the ocean. Nothing in the engine is stopping that, since, as noted in a "world flaw thread" by @celipoesias they can edit the world, since they've edited Newcrest for objects that were super out of place.

    But it's still going to be the "weak engine's" (nope) fault. It'll be "too hard (to fit into a smaller pack), too expensive (takes up more resources and time than it should" for the team to do, because "complexity is our enemy" (because we need to optimize stuff, not put layer upon layer of code until it works.)

    Please stop making things up on your mind and read the first post.

    What about the OP am I missing here? Something important apparently, if 7 people agree with you about me being oblivious to some big important agreed on thing here.

    But what do I know, I'm just a person who likes the game, so I'm blind to the flaws and mistakes of this game, and will do anything to defend the company. It's not like I try making inferences based on what we do know, and try to actually reasonably think about rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to something and thinking that the first thing that comes to my mind is definitely right.

    You know, there's a big reason why some of the "moderate posters" don't like posting on the forums, because whenever something happens and we decide to comment on something, our posts are taken and turned into arguments, and that just drives us further and further away from here. We stay silent because that's the only way some of us feel we can have a good time here, by not speaking in our voices.
    Just some random Simmer you probably don't even follow on the gallery! Gallery name's the same as my username! Did I just rhyme there?
    xyIcMqt.png
  • Options
    To7mTo7m Posts: 5,467 Member
    Sigzy05 wrote: »
    You guys do know that they can edit the worlds, right? There's nothing that's keeping them from doing it besides deciding how they would allocate resources for editing the BG worlds to allow for swimming. They can edit the terrain, they can make it routable, nothing about the engine not allowing them to.

    It's literally just having to edit terrain in like, 2 neighborhoods to allow for swimming in the ocean. Nothing in the engine is stopping that, since, as noted in a "world flaw thread" by @celipoesias they can edit the world, since they've edited Newcrest for objects that were super out of place.

    But it's still going to be the "weak engine's" (nope) fault. It'll be "too hard (to fit into a smaller pack), too expensive (takes up more resources and time than it should" for the team to do, because "complexity is our enemy" (because we need to optimize stuff, not put layer upon layer of code until it works.)

    Please stop making things up on your mind and read the first post.

    What about the OP am I missing here? Something important apparently, if 7 people agree with you about me being oblivious to some big important agreed on thing here.

    But what do I know, I'm just a person who likes the game, so I'm blind to the flaws and mistakes of this game, and will do anything to defend the company. It's not like I try making inferences based on what we do know, and try to actually reasonably think about rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to something and thinking that the first thing that comes to my mind is definitely right.

    You know, there's a big reason why some of the "moderate posters" don't like posting on the forums, because whenever something happens and we decide to comment on something, our posts are taken and turned into arguments, and that just drives us further and further away from here. We stay silent because that's the only way some of us feel we can have a good time here, by not speaking in our voices.

    I think he's referring to the fact that they need new terrain to add swimming in water thus indicating that editing the current worlds is out of the question.

    As he said, it's all right there in the OP.

    Nobody's twisting anything.

    --T
  • Options
    SjappielovePaulSjappielovePaul Posts: 4,794 Member
    Sigzy05 wrote: »
    You guys do know that they can edit the worlds, right? There's nothing that's keeping them from doing it besides deciding how they would allocate resources for editing the BG worlds to allow for swimming. They can edit the terrain, they can make it routable, nothing about the engine not allowing them to.

    It's literally just having to edit terrain in like, 2 neighborhoods to allow for swimming in the ocean. Nothing in the engine is stopping that, since, as noted in a "world flaw thread" by @celipoesias they can edit the world, since they've edited Newcrest for objects that were super out of place.

    But it's still going to be the "weak engine's" (nope) fault. It'll be "too hard (to fit into a smaller pack), too expensive (takes up more resources and time than it should" for the team to do, because "complexity is our enemy" (because we need to optimize stuff, not put layer upon layer of code until it works.)

    Please stop making things up on your mind and read the first post.

    What about the OP am I missing here? Something important apparently, if 7 people agree with you about me being oblivious to some big important agreed on thing here.

    But what do I know, I'm just a person who likes the game, so I'm blind to the flaws and mistakes of this game, and will do anything to defend the company. It's not like I try making inferences based on what we do know, and try to actually reasonably think about rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to something and thinking that the first thing that comes to my mind is definitely right.

    You know, there's a big reason why some of the "moderate posters" don't like posting on the forums, because whenever something happens and we decide to comment on something, our posts are taken and turned into arguments, and that just drives us further and further away from here. We stay silent because that's the only way some of us feel we can have a good time here, by not speaking in our voices.

    I for one am glad to hear someone still has hope.

    I also have hope, that you won't be disappointed. But knowing the way s4 has been handled so far I think you will be eventually.

    Really, I'm glad Some people still enjoy the game, I just wish the game had been made so that more people were able to enjoy it!
    Don't forget to take care of yourself every now and then in this big chaotic world!
    pkJ66Kv.png
    Some links that helped me a lot:
    Missing Store Stencils / Free Kiddy Stuff / Daily Deals / Daily Deals Spreadsheets / The Gifting Directory
  • Options
    aws200aws200 Posts: 2,262 Member
    Sims 1 and Sims 2 featured Beach lots didn't they for the ability to swim in 'the ocean'? Which was only possible in the lot's borders.
    1. The Sims 2
    2. The Sims 3
    3. The Sims 4 (5 years later its decent)
    4. The Sims 1
  • Options
    Gabe_ozGabe_oz Posts: 1,880 Member
    edited August 2016
    To7m wrote: »
    Gabe_oz wrote: »
    Bagoas77 wrote: »
    well... that's disappointing. ts3 was ahead of its time, apparently.

    How does that mean anything? All it means it that they had different focuses.

    Man, I have to laugh at some of you. You guys literally have an answer for everything.

    Like c'non people, open your eyes. Everything we ask for gets a 'no' or 'the engine can't do that' or 'not possible this time around'... How are you still defending this thing? It is NOTHING like a Sims game should be. The only thing we all seem to do is make compromises for it. Well, I've had enough. Personally swimming in the ocean is nowhere on my list of priorities but this is actually laughable. It's so basic yet this amazing, advanced game can't handle it? Yuh, ok!



    --T

    I'm sorry, but since you think finding and developing a game is so easy, then why don't you do it? Game developement is VERY expensive and very time consuming. The gurus can't do everything people want, but they try to. And they rarely give a no, it's really more of a "maybe, but we'd have to do x first which may take some time", and all you and others do is see that and spouting that they said no.

    Like this right here "Personally swimming in the ocean is nowhere on my list of priorities but this is actually laughable. It's so basic yet this amazing, advanced game can't handle it?" he never ONCE said the game couldn't handle it, it's once again YOU and others that are twisting and turning his word.

    Man I have to laugh at some of you. Twisting and turning the words of devs in a pity attempt to slay the evil, EA beast and to feed your apparently massive egos.
  • Options
    inmyeyeinmyeye Posts: 398 Member
    edited August 2016
    @inmyeye Awesome pics especially the first with the grassy cliff reflection, I love IP.But seriously,you had to bust out the speedo wearing windsurfer :D MY EYES!!!!

    :D Lol. Those are the "mild" pics. (Florita Hernandez happens to be very fond of that guy and his speedo)
    “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect).”
    ― Mark Twain
  • Options
    Callous_LilyCallous_Lily Posts: 198 Member

    Seasons probably will be tied to certain ''worlds'' like a winter world. Really intuitive and tactile. Otherwise they have to repaint all the backdrops of every world for every season.

    Good point you make there @rudy8292. That makes sense.
  • Options
    DarkAmaranth1966DarkAmaranth1966 Posts: 13,416 Member
    Just maybe we will get something new we haven't thought to ask for yet or, seen in any sims game. Dunno but, I'm anxious to see what's next for TS4.
    Life is what you make it so, make it good.
  • Options
    Gabe_ozGabe_oz Posts: 1,880 Member
    edited August 2016
    To7m wrote: »
    Gabe_oz wrote: »
    To7m wrote: »
    Gabe_oz wrote: »
    Bagoas77 wrote: »
    well... that's disappointing. ts3 was ahead of its time, apparently.

    How does that mean anything? All it means it that they had different focuses.

    Man, I have to laugh at some of you. You guys literally have an answer for everything.

    Like c'non people, open your eyes. Everything we ask for gets a 'no' or 'the engine can't do that' or 'not possible this time around'... How are you still defending this thing? It is NOTHING like a Sims game should be. The only thing we all seem to do is make compromises for it. Well, I've had enough. Personally swimming in the ocean is nowhere on my list of priorities but this is actually laughable. It's so basic yet this amazing, advanced game can't handle it? Yuh, ok!



    --T

    I'm sorry, but since you think finding and developing a game is so easy, then why don't you do it? Game developement is VERY expensive and very time consuming. The gurus can't do everything people want, but they try to. And they rarely give a no, it's really more of a "maybe, but we'd have to do x first which may take some time", and all you and others do is see that and spouting that they said no.

    Like this right here "Personally swimming in the ocean is nowhere on my list of priorities but this is actually laughable. It's so basic yet this amazing, advanced game can't handle it?" he never ONCE said the game couldn't handle it, it's once again YOU and others that are twisting and turning his word.

    Man I have to laugh at some of you. Twisting and turning the words of devs in a pity attempt to slay the EA beast and to feed your apparently massive egos.

    Because I own my own business doing something I like better than making games? Pretty simple. If I wanted to be a game designer I would be and I'd be doing a better job than this lot. Do a job for the passion, not the money because you end up with results like TS4.

    The Devs don't seem like their hearts are in it and it shows in the game.

    Oh, and btw, if the current worlds CANNOT handle swimming in the ocean, then, my friend, that's pretty much not handling it. You know TS3 back patched this feature? I very much doubt TS4 will do that.

    And you think this has a great foundation? They can't even edit the worlds. THAT'S laughable.


    --T

    They can edit worlds, and they have a few times in the past. Once again, twisting words. He also never said that the current worlds couldn't handle it, he just said that it's unlikely that they'll modify the existing ones to do that. Wait, MORE twisting words!

    Just because you don't like something doesn't mean they don't put their hearts into it, and it is quite insulting.
  • Options
    Gabe_ozGabe_oz Posts: 1,880 Member
    To7m wrote: »
    Sigzy05 wrote: »
    You guys do know that they can edit the worlds, right? There's nothing that's keeping them from doing it besides deciding how they would allocate resources for editing the BG worlds to allow for swimming. They can edit the terrain, they can make it routable, nothing about the engine not allowing them to.

    It's literally just having to edit terrain in like, 2 neighborhoods to allow for swimming in the ocean. Nothing in the engine is stopping that, since, as noted in a "world flaw thread" by @celipoesias they can edit the world, since they've edited Newcrest for objects that were super out of place.

    But it's still going to be the "weak engine's" (nope) fault. It'll be "too hard (to fit into a smaller pack), too expensive (takes up more resources and time than it should" for the team to do, because "complexity is our enemy" (because we need to optimize stuff, not put layer upon layer of code until it works.)

    Please stop making things up on your mind and read the first post.

    What about the OP am I missing here? Something important apparently, if 7 people agree with you about me being oblivious to some big important agreed on thing here.

    But what do I know, I'm just a person who likes the game, so I'm blind to the flaws and mistakes of this game, and will do anything to defend the company. It's not like I try making inferences based on what we do know, and try to actually reasonably think about rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to something and thinking that the first thing that comes to my mind is definitely right.

    You know, there's a big reason why some of the "moderate posters" don't like posting on the forums, because whenever something happens and we decide to comment on something, our posts are taken and turned into arguments, and that just drives us further and further away from here. We stay silent because that's the only way some of us feel we can have a good time here, by not speaking in our voices.

    I think he's referring to the fact that they need new terrain to add swimming in water thus indicating that editing the current worlds is out of the question.

    As he said, it's all right there in the OP.

    Nobody's twisting anything.

    --T

    Yeah, you might want to reread what you write, because twisting words is all you've been doing.
  • Options
    To7mTo7m Posts: 5,467 Member
    edited August 2016
    Gabe_oz wrote: »
    To7m wrote: »
    Gabe_oz wrote: »
    To7m wrote: »
    Gabe_oz wrote: »
    Bagoas77 wrote: »
    well... that's disappointing. ts3 was ahead of its time, apparently.

    How does that mean anything? All it means it that they had different focuses.

    Man, I have to laugh at some of you. You guys literally have an answer for everything.

    Like c'non people, open your eyes. Everything we ask for gets a 'no' or 'the engine can't do that' or 'not possible this time around'... How are you still defending this thing? It is NOTHING like a Sims game should be. The only thing we all seem to do is make compromises for it. Well, I've had enough. Personally swimming in the ocean is nowhere on my list of priorities but this is actually laughable. It's so basic yet this amazing, advanced game can't handle it? Yuh, ok!



    --T

    I'm sorry, but since you think finding and developing a game is so easy, then why don't you do it? Game developement is VERY expensive and very time consuming. The gurus can't do everything people want, but they try to. And they rarely give a no, it's really more of a "maybe, but we'd have to do x first which may take some time", and all you and others do is see that and spouting that they said no.

    Like this right here "Personally swimming in the ocean is nowhere on my list of priorities but this is actually laughable. It's so basic yet this amazing, advanced game can't handle it?" he never ONCE said the game couldn't handle it, it's once again YOU and others that are twisting and turning his word.

    Man I have to laugh at some of you. Twisting and turning the words of devs in a pity attempt to slay the EA beast and to feed your apparently massive egos.

    Because I own my own business doing something I like better than making games? Pretty simple. If I wanted to be a game designer I would be and I'd be doing a better job than this lot. Do a job for the passion, not the money because you end up with results like TS4.

    The Devs don't seem like their hearts are in it and it shows in the game.

    Oh, and btw, if the current worlds CANNOT handle swimming in the ocean, then, my friend, that's pretty much not handling it. You know TS3 back patched this feature? I very much doubt TS4 will do that.

    And you think this has a great foundation? They can't even edit the worlds. THAT'S laughable.


    --T

    They can edit worlds, and they have a few times in the past. Once again, twisting words. He also never said that the current worlds couldn't handle it, he just said that it's unlikely that they'll modify the existing ones to do that. Wait, MORE twisting words!

    Just because you don't like something doesn't mean they don't put their hearts into it, and it is quite insulting.

    They can edit the worlds? Okay... The guru just said they couldn't add swimming in the ocean because* it will require new terrain... If that's not editing the worlds I don't know what is. We currently can't swim in the oceans. One would have to edit (key word) the world to be able to make that possible. It's not. I don't know how much plainer that needs to be for you to understand. I want the FULL sims experience. Not just some on it behind a few loading screens and back drops.

    As for my "insult"... Idk what to say to you - you're not a dev, so... Whatever. It's what I think. They'll tell me if they feel insulted, I guess.

    --T

    *typo
  • Options
    To7mTo7m Posts: 5,467 Member
    Gabe_oz wrote: »
    To7m wrote: »
    Sigzy05 wrote: »
    You guys do know that they can edit the worlds, right? There's nothing that's keeping them from doing it besides deciding how they would allocate resources for editing the BG worlds to allow for swimming. They can edit the terrain, they can make it routable, nothing about the engine not allowing them to.

    It's literally just having to edit terrain in like, 2 neighborhoods to allow for swimming in the ocean. Nothing in the engine is stopping that, since, as noted in a "world flaw thread" by @celipoesias they can edit the world, since they've edited Newcrest for objects that were super out of place.

    But it's still going to be the "weak engine's" (nope) fault. It'll be "too hard (to fit into a smaller pack), too expensive (takes up more resources and time than it should" for the team to do, because "complexity is our enemy" (because we need to optimize stuff, not put layer upon layer of code until it works.)

    Please stop making things up on your mind and read the first post.

    What about the OP am I missing here? Something important apparently, if 7 people agree with you about me being oblivious to some big important agreed on thing here.

    But what do I know, I'm just a person who likes the game, so I'm blind to the flaws and mistakes of this game, and will do anything to defend the company. It's not like I try making inferences based on what we do know, and try to actually reasonably think about rather than having a knee-jerk reaction to something and thinking that the first thing that comes to my mind is definitely right.

    You know, there's a big reason why some of the "moderate posters" don't like posting on the forums, because whenever something happens and we decide to comment on something, our posts are taken and turned into arguments, and that just drives us further and further away from here. We stay silent because that's the only way some of us feel we can have a good time here, by not speaking in our voices.

    I think he's referring to the fact that they need new terrain to add swimming in water thus indicating that editing the current worlds is out of the question.

    As he said, it's all right there in the OP.

    Nobody's twisting anything.

    --T

    Yeah, you might want to reread what you write, because twisting words is all you've been doing.

    Because a guru saying they can edit the worlds to add swimming in the ocean and me talking about it is twisting words...! Yeh ok pal.

    They can't edit the worlds. Whether it be for swimmable oceans or something else they, inevitably, can't do, it's still not 100%. So to me, the world might as well be stuck the way they are because that's pretty much how they are.

    The guru said it. Not me.

    --T
  • Options
    luthienrisingluthienrising Posts: 37,638 Member
    edited August 2016
    baddazoner wrote: »
    Gabe_oz wrote: »
    Sigzy05 wrote: »
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    jackjack_k wrote: »
    Well he's right about the terrain. If sims were able to walk into bodies of water surely they'd hardcore clip through the ground and possibly fall out of the world. There is literally no actual ocean terrain in water, it's a really low definition grass texture. Go into free-cam mode and see for yourself. (Windenburg, specifically)
    [/list]

    Exactly the case, but of course, everyone wants a Sims 4 Pity party, so comments with reason like this, are going to be ignored.

    The Sims 3 has an advantage of world aspects, there's no disputing that. But the Sims 4 was never about the "worlds". Neither was The Sims 1 and 2.

    It was a selling point of 3.

    Which makes s4 a downgraded game. Many great aspects from The Sims 2 and 3 disappeared but it didn't add much in my opinion. Yeahh silly walks... and emotions that are shallow in my humble opinion.

    No it doesn't. Not focusing on the world aspect, doesn't make it downgraded.
    The Sims 2 didn't focus on worlds at all, and it's regarded as the best Sims game ever.

    Devs have already said they have barely scratched the surface of what The Sims 4 has to offer.

    In two years, barely scratching what this game has to offer is just silly. What are they doing, waiting for the game to reach it's final year mark and release the best EP? It's like asking for us not to give them money.

    And TS2 had toddlers, actual teens, much greater detail, actual retail stores you could buy from, carpools, NPC's we are still yet to have!! Terrain and pond tools, multi level windows and foundations that aren't for the whole lot.

    And TS3 had Cast and traits as a selling point as well, which I might add, are much better done there than in TS4. And guess what, toddlers weren't sacrificed in the name of anything, yet in TS4 it seems everything was sacrificed in the name of musical chairs, clipping and dancing emotions.

    THe previous 3 games weren't also told to turn 4-5 years of work on an MMO, into a singleplayer game in a year. BUt I guess that pesky fact keeps getting in the way

    And? Is not EA a multi-billion dollar corporation? So what you're saying is that it was right of EA to foist the development costs of their failed attempt at creating a Sims mmo on their customers by releasing a rushed, premium priced, bare The Sims 4? And we all should be understanding of EA and accept that this bare, stripped down and limited game is what we deserve; that there was no way whatsoever EA could have absorbed those costs and created a new Sims game from scratch?

    We need to understand that poor EA could not afford to develop a proper feature packed The Sims 4. But it is okay EA, we your customers will pay for your failed attempt at a Sims mmo and be grateful for whatever you can give us. Quality doesn't matter; value for money doesn't matter. As your customers, all we care about is making sure your shareholders keep getting their big dividends.


    As a customer I do not care what went on behind the scenes. I do not care that they wasted years of development time and money. I should not have to pay for that. All I care about is the end product and it is shoddy, rushed, content lacking and featureless.

    Anyone who makes excuses for EA or is understanding, is being plum. Corporations do not deserve pity; they are merciless and will prey on customers like that.

    I honestly do not understand some of you people. It is like you want to be ripped off. It is like you do not want a feature packed game.

    it's a strange occurrence in video game communities some people tend to defend the company to the death when it comes to their favourite game

    people seem to forget they are consumers

    Consumers are actually capable of understanding that products have development budgets that are not Infinity Dollars.

    Nobody said that can't make the water in existing worlds swimmable. Nobody. What was said is that they are unlikely to choose to do so. That's not going to be a choice made out of spite but out of a feeling that the development dollars are better spent on something else.

    Maybe they'd be spent on something new. Like lounge chairs. More things to do in the swimmable ocean water than just swimming (I would certainly hope so, or I'd be bored by the swimmable oceans in no time). I'd rather have deep-sea diving or deep-sea fishing from boats or a shark cage or snorkelling through life-filled (and entertaining) reefs or proper mermaids or paddleboarding or (better!) surfing. Or lots of those things. That would be, to me, an actual Sims 4 consumer (not someone playing other games but still posting about Sims 4), better choices for the development budget than more places to just swim.
    EA CREATOR NETWORK MEMBER — Want to be notified of patches, new Broken Mods threads, and urgent Sims 4 news? Follow me at https://www.patreon.com/luthienrising.
  • Options
    luthienrisingluthienrising Posts: 37,638 Member
    To7m wrote: »
    Gabe_oz wrote: »
    Bagoas77 wrote: »
    well... that's disappointing. ts3 was ahead of its time, apparently.

    How does that mean anything? All it means it that they had different focuses.

    Man, I have to laugh at some of you. You guys literally have an answer for everything.

    Like c'non people, open your eyes. Everything we ask for gets a 'no' or 'the engine can't do that' or 'not possible this time around'... How are you still defending this thing? It is NOTHING like a Sims game should be. The only thing we all seem to do is make compromises for it. Well, I've had enough. Personally swimming in the ocean is nowhere on my list of priorities but this is actually laughable. It's so basic yet this amazing, advanced game can't handle it? Yuh, ok!



    --T

    SimGuruGraham did not say "no" or "the engine can't do that" or "not possible this time around." That is not what was said about the ocean swimming. Nothing whatsoever in his statement even comes close to suggesting that.
    EA CREATOR NETWORK MEMBER — Want to be notified of patches, new Broken Mods threads, and urgent Sims 4 news? Follow me at https://www.patreon.com/luthienrising.
  • Options
    To7mTo7m Posts: 5,467 Member
    To7m wrote: »
    Gabe_oz wrote: »
    Bagoas77 wrote: »
    well... that's disappointing. ts3 was ahead of its time, apparently.

    How does that mean anything? All it means it that they had different focuses.

    Man, I have to laugh at some of you. You guys literally have an answer for everything.

    Like c'non people, open your eyes. Everything we ask for gets a 'no' or 'the engine can't do that' or 'not possible this time around'... How are you still defending this thing? It is NOTHING like a Sims game should be. The only thing we all seem to do is make compromises for it. Well, I've had enough. Personally swimming in the ocean is nowhere on my list of priorities but this is actually laughable. It's so basic yet this amazing, advanced game can't handle it? Yuh, ok!



    --T

    SimGuruGraham did not say "no" or "the engine can't do that" or "not possible this time around." That is not what was said about the ocean swimming. Nothing whatsoever in his statement even comes close to suggesting that.

    Maybe not to you.

    I have a different intake on the guru's statement. Not being able to edit the current worlds so our sims are able to swim in the oceans might as well be not being able to edit them at all. What good is it to me?

    Like, there's all these limitations and cut offs and compromises. I won't apologise for not being ok with that.

    They're trying to sell some second rate game. I'm not ok with that. Hard as it may seem to most of you I do like this game. At least what it could be if they did it right. I think it looks fantastic. Like a Pixar film, I actually love it. I want to play it. But I'm also not willing to accept mediocre stuff. Which is what this game is.

    --T

This discussion has been closed.
Return to top