The art style was the first thing to put me off. I think it's dreadful. It's fine if you want to play a game that resembles Toy Story or some other silly pixar styled game, but I like my sims games to look "better". I don't like that kind of style.
Lego style clay hair-hats absolutely don't do it for me.
TS3 already took a step backward, with not having animated hair, but I think TS4 took a massive leap backward in terms of everything aesthetic. It looks like a brightly coloured simplistic game to attract children. Objects are huge and oversized, textures are flat and look like bucketfill, sims look like plastic mannequins, and the outdoor scenery.... it resembles like a pokemon styled game. Fake backdrops and with no real substance.
I didn't particularly like how big headed and kinda pasty some toddlers and children appear in TS3, but pasty can often be fixed by the use of custom skintones. And, even using customs, the Sims still fit well into their environment. I don't believe they do in TS4. I've seen some use of alpha hair and custom skintones to make TS4 sims resemble TS2 or 3 sims, and when put into their environment, simply look out of place to me.
I can't honestly say what the gameplay is like now. I stopped watching LP's or keeping up with the game. For one, because as time has gone on, I've given up hoping it will become something I like, and secondly because even the LP's were so terribly boring.
It's like people were just forcing too hard to make the game look fun or interesting, but all the excited chatter in the world couldn't cover up the fact that it seemed so lacklustre and half baked. Not to mention, there doesn't seem to be a lot of freedom, and the developers seem intent on pushing people to play a certain way, rather than just having this gigantic sandbox to roll around in, and do whatever in the world that you want.
I admit this is the first iteration that has led me to attempt to watch LPs. I think I'm just wondering what is so freaking attractive about this game, but I can't get past the first couple of minutes of any of them. They spend more time talking and gushing and squealing than they do in gameplay.
I have no idea if this is normal for LPs. But it's really left me wondering where the appeal is in watching these things.
It's not just you. I don't watch LP's anymore because I question their honesty. TS3 LP's were great though.... R.I.P. Quxxn
Seriously! Like when you watch their old LP's of Sims, Sims2, and Sims 3, you can hear the excitement in their voices as they play. They are truly enjoying themselves. And the same was true when Sims 4 first came out, but as time went on their excitement and enthusiasm waned. One even remarked how boring the game became, and repetitive. It's hard to fake it when the enjoyment factor is gone.
Am I the only one who think the sims in this iteration look like clay?
I don't want to go into it too often because I know how totally dumb it feels when people go on about the same subject concerning Sims 3, but to be honest my feelings about sims in 4 must be very close to other people's feelings about sims in 3. Not lying and not exaggerating, they're my biggest issue with the game next to being bored by the gameplay. Not just their plastic look by the way. It's their posture (like a sandbag), their behaviour (like clowns) and their facial expressions (like there's a how-do-I-make-this-pretty-face-look-as-ridiculous-and-unattractive-as-possible contest going on).
(yes this is bashing and I apologize but it's also on topic here and it's genuinely how I feel; every time I see people declaring they don't like the game 'apart from the amazing sims' I die a little and so does Sims 5)
Am I the only one who think the sims in this iteration look like clay?
I don't want to go into it too often because I know how totally dumb it feels when people go on about the same subject concerning Sims 3, but to be honest my feelings about sims in 4 must be very close to other people's feelings about sims in 3. Not lying and not exaggerating, they're my biggest issue with the game next to being bored by the gameplay. Not just their plastic look by the way. It's their posture (like a sandbag), their behaviour (like clowns) and their facial expressions (like there's a how-do-I-make-this-pretty-face-look-as-ridiculous-and-unattractive-as-possible contest going on).
(yes this is bashing and I apologize but it's also on topic here and it's genuinely how I feel; every time I see people declaring they don't like the game 'apart from the amazing sims' I die a little and so does Sims 5)
I do think they're cute in their own way. The ugliest sims were in S2, even though I managed to make my worlds beautiful
Let's face it, those insanely big mouths on some of them was far from appealing.
I think CC made a lot of us forget about that.
What bothers me about the sims most in S4 is the foreheads on the males. Not sure if it's the actual foreheads or the hairs that are the problem. It's very difficult to hide the overexaggerated wide appearance they all seem to have.
Dissatisfied with Sims 4 and hoping for a better Sims 5
Am I the only one who think the sims in this iteration look like clay?
I don't want to go into it too often because I know how totally dumb it feels when people go on about the same subject concerning Sims 3, but to be honest my feelings about sims in 4 must be very close to other people's feelings about sims in 3. Not lying and not exaggerating, they're my biggest issue with the game next to being bored by the gameplay. Not just their plastic look by the way. It's their posture (like a sandbag), their behaviour (like clowns) and their facial expressions (like there's a how-do-I-make-this-pretty-face-look-as-ridiculous-and-unattractive-as-possible contest going on).
(yes this is bashing and I apologize but it's also on topic here and it's genuinely how I feel; every time I see people declaring they don't like the game 'apart from the amazing sims' I die a little and so does Sims 5)
I do think they're cute in their own way. The ugliest sims were in S2, even though I managed to make my worlds beautiful
Let's face it, those insanely big mouths on some of them was far from appealing.
I think CC made a lot of us forget about that.
What bothers me about the sims most in S4 is the foreheads on the males. Not sure if it's the actual foreheads or the hairs that are the problem. It's very difficult to hide the overexaggerated wide appearance they all seem to have.
I just hate how plastic sims look in Sims 4. They do nothing for me. But I will agree with you on Sims 2, without CC some of those sims have you doing a quadruple take. lol I did a lot of editing and "fixing" of NPC sims in my custom hoods.
OP-here are some fun websites you can go to whenever you get bored of Sims 4: Seventh Sanctum( a site of different game generaters), Doll Divine(a virtual doll dress-up site), Neopets, PowerPets, Subeta Pets, Deviant Art, and IMVU. I frequently use these sites whenever I get bored with Sims 4. If you like online shopping, you could shop and find fun things on Etsy or Amazon. If you have a Facebook account, there are really fun games such as Diner Life, Mouse Hunt and Flower Shop that you could play.
i used to love imvu... spent $1000s. dont go on much past 3 years, all my friends are gone and i dont meet people easy. for my first 4 years i had no friends, i just shopped and made female avatars. then again, thats pretty much what i did when i did have friends. that and create clubs. i had 1000s of avatars lol. being a huge lover of creating sims, imvu was perfect for me.
Am I the only one who think the sims in this iteration look like clay?
Clay with lego hair (or mops on their heads) and they all have the same goofy smile, with the upturned corners. (They could have done them so much better, at least for me).
Am I the only one who think the sims in this iteration look like clay?
I don't want to go into it too often because I know how totally dumb it feels when people go on about the same subject concerning Sims 3, but to be honest my feelings about sims in 4 must be very close to other people's feelings about sims in 3. Not lying and not exaggerating, they're my biggest issue with the game next to being bored by the gameplay. Not just their plastic look by the way. It's their posture (like a sandbag), their behaviour (like clowns) and their facial expressions (like there's a how-do-I-make-this-pretty-face-look-as-ridiculous-and-unattractive-as-possible contest going on).
(yes this is bashing and I apologize but it's also on topic here and it's genuinely how I feel; every time I see people declaring they don't like the game 'apart from the amazing sims' I die a little and so does Sims 5)
I do think they're cute in their own way. The ugliest sims were in S2, even though I managed to make my worlds beautiful
Let's face it, those insanely big mouths on some of them was far from appealing.
I think CC made a lot of us forget about that.
What bothers me about the sims most in S4 is the foreheads on the males. Not sure if it's the actual foreheads or the hairs that are the problem. It's very difficult to hide the overexaggerated wide appearance they all seem to have.
I think the sims in 2 are cute in their own way I did this comparison a while ago and my heart beats for both the TS2 and the TS3 guy. Not for the TS4 guy, can't help it, I wish it did.
Actually I decided to remove the CC I had in TS2 because I realized I prefer him like this to what I had.
The females are much better in TS4 than the males by the way, imo, obviously.
Of course LPs are dishonest when you don't like the game, and are totally legit when you do like it.
I think you should stop poking people with a stick for holding a different opinion to your own.
To be honest, a lot of LPs out there, albeit ones lesser known, will express what they like and dislike about the games they play. People will give credit where its due.
Oh I agree. It was the poster's tone I was more referring to. The same three posters continually display their irrits in this way.
I think my favourite sims (without using mods) where the ones in the sims medieval. The right balance of more realistic skin and cartoonish.
I don't like the sims 4 artstyle...is too cartoonish, and not of the good kind.
The sims 4 is too over the top, both in animations and emotion. Is tryng so hard to be funny that to me feel creepy.
@SarahsShady
I had NEVER played The Sims 3 until this year. I'd launched it before, but never really played it. Can I just say that you definitely should. WAIT, well, as long as you have a PC that can handle it of course... Nraas is a must..
It is so worth it though.
BUT, since it's EA, buy it on Steam, not origin. It's cheaper on steam. They have sales more often too.
I like the female designs in Sims 4, but the male designs (without CC) are offputting, for me, personally.
Sims 3 had better looking sims in general for teens and adult stages, but I disliked the look of the children and some toddlers (I prefer Sims 2 and 4 with younger life state looks).
Each has their aesthetics and art styles, and it all comes down to subjective tastes. I still like all of the games for each of them having their unique look.
I'm fine with the Sims 4 clay-like hair, but many needed more details and/or better textures, especially the earlier hairstyles.
You know, reading through this thread, it occurs to me... it sounds like what some are wanting is simply Sims 3 with better performance, slightly updated for the future.
Which is fine, but maybe Maxis is trying to make each version feel different enough that it's considered its own title. I know there are arguments made about development being rushed, or about Maxis focusing on features they "shouldn't have focused on." Like emotions or multitasking.
But ultimately, the question seems to boil down to: Do you, as a customer, want them to try new things or would you rather them stick to formula? Because it would seem that it's a bit of a zero-sum-game. Resources that go into innovation can't go into repeating what was done before and resources that go into repeating what was done before can't go into innovation. The two can be balanced somewhat, but if you want purely what was done before, that means virtually no resources spent on thinking outside the box. And even if you don't want everything that was done before, the more you get direct from the past, the less resources spent on trying new things.
This balancing act seems to be the tightrope that Maxis faces every day at work. They have fans who are very passionate about particular past features, but if they (the developers) are too repetitious in re-delivering the same features year after year, not only might the developers grow dispassionate, but the game may become stale in its direction.
You know, reading through this thread, it occurs to me... it sounds like what some are wanting is simply Sims 3 with better performance, slightly updated for the future.
Which is fine, but maybe Maxis is trying to make each version feel different enough that it's considered its own title. I know there are arguments made about development being rushed, or about Maxis focusing on features they "shouldn't have focused on." Like emotions or multitasking.
But ultimately, the question seems to boil down to: Do you, as a customer, want them to try new things or would you rather them stick to formula? Because it would seem that it's a bit of a zero-sum-game. Resources that go into innovation can't go into repeating what was done before and resources that go into repeating what was done before can't go into innovation. The two can be balanced somewhat, but if you want purely what was done before, that means virtually no resources spent on thinking outside the box. And even if you don't want everything that was done before, the more you get direct from the past, the less resources spent on trying new things.
This balancing act seems to be the tightrope that Maxis faces every day at work. They have fans who are very passionate about particular past features, but if they (the developers) are too repetitious in re-delivering the same features year after year, not only might the developers grow dispassionate, but the game may become stale in its direction.
Or of course people could want an innovative new version which doesn't throw out huge innovations of the past because they wasted so much time and money creating an online game they realised was not going to fly after they tried to do the same with sim city 2013?!
I've spent a lot of time learning about what lots of different people would like to see in the sims. I am sure it would really not be so complex for them if the energy and investment goes into making a new game that is created from ground up for the finished vision and not forced to be rescued from another kind of game.
You know, reading through this thread, it occurs to me... it sounds like what some are wanting is simply Sims 3 with better performance, slightly updated for the future.
Which is fine, but maybe Maxis is trying to make each version feel different enough that it's considered its own title. I know there are arguments made about development being rushed, or about Maxis focusing on features they "shouldn't have focused on." Like emotions or multitasking.
But ultimately, the question seems to boil down to: Do you, as a customer, want them to try new things or would you rather them stick to formula? Because it would seem that it's a bit of a zero-sum-game. Resources that go into innovation can't go into repeating what was done before and resources that go into repeating what was done before can't go into innovation. The two can be balanced somewhat, but if you want purely what was done before, that means virtually no resources spent on thinking outside the box. And even if you don't want everything that was done before, the more you get direct from the past, the less resources spent on trying new things.
This balancing act seems to be the tightrope that Maxis faces every day at work. They have fans who are very passionate about particular past features, but if they (the developers) are too repetitious in re-delivering the same features year after year, not only might the developers grow dispassionate, but the game may become stale in its direction.
Maxis has thrown a ton of money into marketing this game as 'different' - and honestly it's just a marketing slogan at this point. Nothing has been radically reimagined here, and the underlying CORE gameplay remains the same as The Sims 1-3.
Making unwarranted changes isn't something you want to do if you have a market that's literally willing to throw money your way. When your market is refusing to pay you because you aren't producing what they want, that is when you claim to be 'doing things differently'. You'll notice that was not something they said early on, nor was it a prominent marketing slogan shortly after the game launched. That's the result of poor sales, and marketing making a last ditch attempt to sell a game.
Or of course people could want an innovative new version which doesn't throw out huge innovations of the past because they wasted so much time and money creating an online game they realised was not going to fly after they tried to do the same with sim city 2013?!
I've spent a lot of time learning about what lots of different people would like to see in the sims. I am sure it would really not be so complex for them if the energy and investment goes into making a new game that is created from ground up for the finished vision and not forced to be rescued from another kind of game.
I think that's what everyone wants, ultimately, is the best of both worlds.
But as a point of contention, take TS3's technical issues and performance load. Did they ever actually resolve those problems or did they just make TS4 smaller and more manageable, and sweep them under the rug to deal with later? I mean, even TS4 in all of its instanced glory can still have quite a performance load. I don't know if that's because of "olympus" or whatever; I know that is scapegoated a lot, the belief that this was once going to be an online title (and maybe it was). But TS3 was never going to be an online title that we know of and it had technical issues that made it unplayable for some.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, when you truly try to innovate, there's some risk of wasting time and money involved. You can try to take "safe risks," where you innovate very marginally and carefully, but they didn't jump to the big things people love about TS3 by innovating carefully. They took some risks and it paid off in content (though the cost seems to have been performance).
As customers, I think it's fair to say that most of us would like them to take big risks, but only if they work. Problem is, they don't always work. That's not to say that we should hold back our displeasure. Just that it's a bit of a catch-22 situation for both parties.
And granted, there is such a thing as what I would call "PR Innovation," meaning the marketing department takes something extremely banal and tries to sell it as innovative. But that doesn't seem to be an issue with this particular franchise. These guys seem to be pretty genuine about trying to push the boundaries of what the game can do. They just obviously don't have the resources to both do that and bring back every beloved feature from the past.
Maxis has thrown a ton of money into marketing this game as 'different' - and honestly it's just a marketing slogan at this point. Nothing has been radically reimagined here, and the underlying CORE gameplay remains the same as The Sims 1-3.
Making unwarranted changes isn't something you want to do if you have a market that's literally willing to throw money your way. When your market is refusing to pay you because you aren't producing what they want, that is when you claim to be 'doing things differently'. You'll notice that was not something they said early on, nor was it a prominent marketing slogan shortly after the game launched. That's the result of poor sales, and marketing making a last ditch attempt to sell a game.
I posted my other thing before I read this. I'd like to know in what ways you think they are doing "PR Innovation" (selling something banal as innovative) as I put it in the other post.
BTW, when I talk about doing things differently, I'm not necessarily thinking of radical in every case. The thing is (and this is not a defense of them, so much as a speculation about the framework of the game) changes/additions that sound "little," like "oh whoop dee doo, your sim can combine two activities a little bit" may have cost a lot of budget in working out how to make them happen. If this is the case, it's obviously their own fault, but the kind of stuff they're doing in the sims isn't a streamlined field either, so I think it's to be expected somewhat. It may well be there were other "innovations" that were attempted and scrapped, "wasting" budget and time in the process. It's too bad they are stuck in such a commercial spot because I feel like the potential of a game like the sims could go so far in only a year's time with a team devoted to just trying new things with the framework and seeing what they can come up with. The emotions system, for instance, feels to me like it was the result of compromising on time and budget; like a grand vision not quite realized. I see potential in it for something so much more engaging and immersive, but it ends up playing out as a sort of RPG mechanic that is, at times, downright strange and jarring.
@Triplis
Oh definitely. I'm all for new things.
Take Get Together for example. The club system was a great, new idea right?
(I didn't get attached to it though.. Simply because the main goal of that EP was the clubs, which would let you play with what you already had in a different extent. Aka with more sims in an organized fashion. But I felt like there was not much to do in the beginning anyways.. I mean I realized that when I think of playing the Sims 4, I picture some sims sitting and drinking coffee whilst having a chat.. Like that's my TS4 selling point view. I realized it was kind of sad, Haha!)
You know, reading through this thread, it occurs to me... it sounds like what some are wanting is simply Sims 3 with better performance, slightly updated for the future.
Which is fine, but maybe Maxis is trying to make each version feel different enough that it's considered its own title. I know there are arguments made about development being rushed, or about Maxis focusing on features they "shouldn't have focused on." Like emotions or multitasking.
But ultimately, the question seems to boil down to: Do you, as a customer, want them to try new things or would you rather them stick to formula? Because it would seem that it's a bit of a zero-sum-game. Resources that go into innovation can't go into repeating what was done before and resources that go into repeating what was done before can't go into innovation. The two can be balanced somewhat, but if you want purely what was done before, that means virtually no resources spent on thinking outside the box. And even if you don't want everything that was done before, the more you get direct from the past, the less resources spent on trying new things.
This balancing act seems to be the tightrope that Maxis faces every day at work. They have fans who are very passionate about particular past features, but if they (the developers) are too repetitious in re-delivering the same features year after year, not only might the developers grow dispassionate, but the game may become stale in its direction.
Both: and the old and the new. Without those two things in place, the game is just boring. They added ton of new things, but nothing to live mode. What's that? Emotions and Multitasking? Nothing new about them, we had them in previous game, but in this iteration-- they are flawed deeply than ever (multitasking takes longer than it should be; emotion behaviour is illogical).
Or of course people could want an innovative new version which doesn't throw out huge innovations of the past because they wasted so much time and money creating an online game they realised was not going to fly after they tried to do the same with sim city 2013?!
I've spent a lot of time learning about what lots of different people would like to see in the sims. I am sure it would really not be so complex for them if the energy and investment goes into making a new game that is created from ground up for the finished vision and not forced to be rescued from another kind of game.
I think that's what everyone wants, ultimately, is the best of both worlds.
But as a point of contention, take TS3's technical issues and performance load. Did they ever actually resolve those problems or did they just make TS4 smaller and more manageable, and sweep them under the rug to deal with later? I mean, even TS4 in all of its instanced glory can still have quite a performance load. I don't know if that's because of "olympus" or whatever; I know that is scapegoated a lot, the belief that this was once going to be an online title (and maybe it was). But TS3 was never going to be an online title that we know of and it had technical issues that made it unplayable for some.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, when you truly try to innovate, there's some risk of wasting time and money involved. You can try to take "safe risks," where you innovate very marginally and carefully, but they didn't jump to the big things people love about TS3 by innovating carefully. They took some risks and it paid off in content (though the cost seems to have been performance).
As customers, I think it's fair to say that most of us would like them to take big risks, but only if they work. Problem is, they don't always work. That's not to say that we should hold back our displeasure. Just that it's a bit of a catch-22 situation for both parties.
And granted, there is such a thing as what I would call "PR Innovation," meaning the marketing department takes something extremely banal and tries to sell it as innovative. But that doesn't seem to be an issue with this particular franchise. These guys seem to be pretty genuine about trying to push the boundaries of what the game can do. They just obviously don't have the resources to both do that and bring back every beloved feature from the past.
I was talking about tis with another player earlier. It was a shame that TS3 had some technical issues but I would rather than, considering the game is very much playable for me rather than to play a scaled down version which aside from fast loading times, does not really offer much to compensate what is missing
Or of course people could want an innovative new version which doesn't throw out huge innovations of the past because they wasted so much time and money creating an online game they realised was not going to fly after they tried to do the same with sim city 2013?!
I've spent a lot of time learning about what lots of different people would like to see in the sims. I am sure it would really not be so complex for them if the energy and investment goes into making a new game that is created from ground up for the finished vision and not forced to be rescued from another kind of game.
I think that's what everyone wants, ultimately, is the best of both worlds.
But as a point of contention, take TS3's technical issues and performance load. Did they ever actually resolve those problems or did they just make TS4 smaller and more manageable, and sweep them under the rug to deal with later? I mean, even TS4 in all of its instanced glory can still have quite a performance load. I don't know if that's because of "olympus" or whatever; I know that is scapegoated a lot, the belief that this was once going to be an online title (and maybe it was). But TS3 was never going to be an online title that we know of and it had technical issues that made it unplayable for some.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, when you truly try to innovate, there's some risk of wasting time and money involved. You can try to take "safe risks," where you innovate very marginally and carefully, but they didn't jump to the big things people love about TS3 by innovating carefully. They took some risks and it paid off in content (though the cost seems to have been performance).
As customers, I think it's fair to say that most of us would like them to take big risks, but only if they work. Problem is, they don't always work. That's not to say that we should hold back our displeasure. Just that it's a bit of a catch-22 situation for both parties.
And granted, there is such a thing as what I would call "PR Innovation," meaning the marketing department takes something extremely banal and tries to sell it as innovative. But that doesn't seem to be an issue with this particular franchise. These guys seem to be pretty genuine about trying to push the boundaries of what the game can do. They just obviously don't have the resources to both do that and bring back every beloved feature from the past.
I was talking about tis with another player earlier. It was a shame that TS3 had some technical issues but I would rather than, considering the game is very much playable for me rather than to play a scaled down version which aside from fast loading times, does not really offer much to compensate what is missing
I never really had technical problems with 3. I was careful about what CC or mods I loaded, and respected the limits of the machine I used. There is no doubt in my mind that some people crying about performance tried to do things like load all packs, a lot of CC and mods on a laptop that was made for emails and browsing sites. There are actual problems due to bugs or conflicts but I do think there were unaware player causes also.
"People really love to explore 'failure states. In fact, the failure states are really much more interesting than the success states." ~ Will Wright
Comments
Seriously! Like when you watch their old LP's of Sims, Sims2, and Sims 3, you can hear the excitement in their voices as they play. They are truly enjoying themselves. And the same was true when Sims 4 first came out, but as time went on their excitement and enthusiasm waned. One even remarked how boring the game became, and repetitive. It's hard to fake it when the enjoyment factor is gone.
(yes this is bashing and I apologize but it's also on topic here and it's genuinely how I feel; every time I see people declaring they don't like the game 'apart from the amazing sims' I die a little and so does Sims 5)
I do think they're cute in their own way. The ugliest sims were in S2, even though I managed to make my worlds beautiful
Let's face it, those insanely big mouths on some of them was far from appealing.
I think CC made a lot of us forget about that.
What bothers me about the sims most in S4 is the foreheads on the males. Not sure if it's the actual foreheads or the hairs that are the problem. It's very difficult to hide the overexaggerated wide appearance they all seem to have.
Oh god, and the male jawlines in the Sims 4...
i used to love imvu... spent $1000s. dont go on much past 3 years, all my friends are gone and i dont meet people easy. for my first 4 years i had no friends, i just shopped and made female avatars. then again, thats pretty much what i did when i did have friends. that and create clubs. i had 1000s of avatars lol. being a huge lover of creating sims, imvu was perfect for me.
Clay with lego hair (or mops on their heads) and they all have the same goofy smile, with the upturned corners. (They could have done them so much better, at least for me).
Actually I decided to remove the CC I had in TS2 because I realized I prefer him like this to what I had.
The females are much better in TS4 than the males by the way, imo, obviously.
Oh I agree. It was the poster's tone I was more referring to. The same three posters continually display their irrits in this way.
I don't like the sims 4 artstyle...is too cartoonish, and not of the good kind.
The sims 4 is too over the top, both in animations and emotion. Is tryng so hard to be funny that to me feel creepy.
Ah but remember that you can create sims in Bodyshop (Sims 2) which gives a shait ton of new sliders to work with
I had NEVER played The Sims 3 until this year. I'd launched it before, but never really played it. Can I just say that you definitely should. WAIT, well, as long as you have a PC that can handle it of course... Nraas is a must..
It is so worth it though.
BUT, since it's EA, buy it on Steam, not origin. It's cheaper on steam. They have sales more often too.
Sims 3 had better looking sims in general for teens and adult stages, but I disliked the look of the children and some toddlers (I prefer Sims 2 and 4 with younger life state looks).
Each has their aesthetics and art styles, and it all comes down to subjective tastes. I still like all of the games for each of them having their unique look.
I'm fine with the Sims 4 clay-like hair, but many needed more details and/or better textures, especially the earlier hairstyles.
(She/her)
(She/her)
I'm so glad you took the Sims 2 animated hair into account. I loved that detail so, SO much. Like so much it was weird. I really miss it.
Which is fine, but maybe Maxis is trying to make each version feel different enough that it's considered its own title. I know there are arguments made about development being rushed, or about Maxis focusing on features they "shouldn't have focused on." Like emotions or multitasking.
But ultimately, the question seems to boil down to: Do you, as a customer, want them to try new things or would you rather them stick to formula? Because it would seem that it's a bit of a zero-sum-game. Resources that go into innovation can't go into repeating what was done before and resources that go into repeating what was done before can't go into innovation. The two can be balanced somewhat, but if you want purely what was done before, that means virtually no resources spent on thinking outside the box. And even if you don't want everything that was done before, the more you get direct from the past, the less resources spent on trying new things.
This balancing act seems to be the tightrope that Maxis faces every day at work. They have fans who are very passionate about particular past features, but if they (the developers) are too repetitious in re-delivering the same features year after year, not only might the developers grow dispassionate, but the game may become stale in its direction.
Or of course people could want an innovative new version which doesn't throw out huge innovations of the past because they wasted so much time and money creating an online game they realised was not going to fly after they tried to do the same with sim city 2013?!
I've spent a lot of time learning about what lots of different people would like to see in the sims. I am sure it would really not be so complex for them if the energy and investment goes into making a new game that is created from ground up for the finished vision and not forced to be rescued from another kind of game.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
Maxis has thrown a ton of money into marketing this game as 'different' - and honestly it's just a marketing slogan at this point. Nothing has been radically reimagined here, and the underlying CORE gameplay remains the same as The Sims 1-3.
Making unwarranted changes isn't something you want to do if you have a market that's literally willing to throw money your way. When your market is refusing to pay you because you aren't producing what they want, that is when you claim to be 'doing things differently'. You'll notice that was not something they said early on, nor was it a prominent marketing slogan shortly after the game launched. That's the result of poor sales, and marketing making a last ditch attempt to sell a game.
But as a point of contention, take TS3's technical issues and performance load. Did they ever actually resolve those problems or did they just make TS4 smaller and more manageable, and sweep them under the rug to deal with later? I mean, even TS4 in all of its instanced glory can still have quite a performance load. I don't know if that's because of "olympus" or whatever; I know that is scapegoated a lot, the belief that this was once going to be an online title (and maybe it was). But TS3 was never going to be an online title that we know of and it had technical issues that made it unplayable for some.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is, when you truly try to innovate, there's some risk of wasting time and money involved. You can try to take "safe risks," where you innovate very marginally and carefully, but they didn't jump to the big things people love about TS3 by innovating carefully. They took some risks and it paid off in content (though the cost seems to have been performance).
As customers, I think it's fair to say that most of us would like them to take big risks, but only if they work. Problem is, they don't always work. That's not to say that we should hold back our displeasure. Just that it's a bit of a catch-22 situation for both parties.
And granted, there is such a thing as what I would call "PR Innovation," meaning the marketing department takes something extremely banal and tries to sell it as innovative. But that doesn't seem to be an issue with this particular franchise. These guys seem to be pretty genuine about trying to push the boundaries of what the game can do. They just obviously don't have the resources to both do that and bring back every beloved feature from the past.
BTW, when I talk about doing things differently, I'm not necessarily thinking of radical in every case. The thing is (and this is not a defense of them, so much as a speculation about the framework of the game) changes/additions that sound "little," like "oh whoop dee doo, your sim can combine two activities a little bit" may have cost a lot of budget in working out how to make them happen. If this is the case, it's obviously their own fault, but the kind of stuff they're doing in the sims isn't a streamlined field either, so I think it's to be expected somewhat. It may well be there were other "innovations" that were attempted and scrapped, "wasting" budget and time in the process. It's too bad they are stuck in such a commercial spot because I feel like the potential of a game like the sims could go so far in only a year's time with a team devoted to just trying new things with the framework and seeing what they can come up with. The emotions system, for instance, feels to me like it was the result of compromising on time and budget; like a grand vision not quite realized. I see potential in it for something so much more engaging and immersive, but it ends up playing out as a sort of RPG mechanic that is, at times, downright strange and jarring.
Oh definitely. I'm all for new things.
Take Get Together for example. The club system was a great, new idea right?
(I didn't get attached to it though.. Simply because the main goal of that EP was the clubs, which would let you play with what you already had in a different extent. Aka with more sims in an organized fashion. But I felt like there was not much to do in the beginning anyways.. I mean I realized that when I think of playing the Sims 4, I picture some sims sitting and drinking coffee whilst having a chat.. Like that's my TS4 selling point view. I realized it was kind of sad, Haha!)
Do you like TS4 though?
Both: and the old and the new. Without those two things in place, the game is just boring. They added ton of new things, but nothing to live mode. What's that? Emotions and Multitasking? Nothing new about them, we had them in previous game, but in this iteration-- they are flawed deeply than ever (multitasking takes longer than it should be; emotion behaviour is illogical).
I was talking about tis with another player earlier. It was a shame that TS3 had some technical issues but I would rather than, considering the game is very much playable for me rather than to play a scaled down version which aside from fast loading times, does not really offer much to compensate what is missing
I never really had technical problems with 3. I was careful about what CC or mods I loaded, and respected the limits of the machine I used. There is no doubt in my mind that some people crying about performance tried to do things like load all packs, a lot of CC and mods on a laptop that was made for emails and browsing sites. There are actual problems due to bugs or conflicts but I do think there were unaware player causes also.