@Erpe I'm not going into that discussion with you again You may call it a toy, you may call it a game, you may call it Atilla the Hun, I like to play it and many people do I don't think it matters.
(and I can't play with my sims in Freeplay the way I want, I can only play them the way the game wants me to)
@Erpe I'm not going into that discussion with you again You may call it a toy, you may call it a game, you may call it Atilla the Hun, I like to play it and many people do I don't think it matters.
(and I can't play with my sims in Freeplay the way I want, I can only play them the way the game wants me to)
You disagree with even Will Wright then
It is actually true that the Sims Freeplay can feel a little restricted when you start a new game because you have to unlock many things before you get the usual freedom instead of just buying the game and cheating your way through the challenges as most simmers are used to. But for me this is now even years ago. So I forgot it in my description of the game because I don't really remember this anymore. Now I only have quests which I can skip without any real consequences if I want to
@Erpe I'm not going into that discussion with you again You may call it a toy, you may call it a game, you may call it Atilla the Hun, I like to play it and many people do I don't think it matters.
(and I can't play with my sims in Freeplay the way I want, I can only play them the way the game wants me to)
You disagree with even Will Wright then
It is actually true that the Sims Freeplay can feel a little restricted when you start a new game because you have to unlock many things before you get the usual freedom instead of just buying the game and cheating your way through the challenges as most simmers are used to. But for me this is now even years ago. So I forgot it in my description of the game because I don't really remember this anymore. Now I only have quests which I can skip without any real consequences if I want to
I remember saying this before but I'll say it again: I disagree with your interpretation of what Will Wright said
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
You can't really compare the Sims games with other game because the Sims games are much more toys instead of being challenging games. There is no depth in the Sims games and you can do anything successfully. So their attraction is just that you can use them as you want and let the sims do just what you want them to do. The Sims (software toys) are just a mixture of a real life simulation and our fantasies about supernaturals and supernatural powers.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
Your post reads as if you have no idea what a Sims game is about. Bit like me participating in a FIFA or Assassin's Creed forum, not having a clue what people like about it and telling them they are liking a wrong game. I don't care for other 'real' games, I like this franchise and the way it approaches gaming.
I played TS2 for hours every day in about 2 years. I also played both TS3 and TS4 for a couple of months for each game. So I think that I know what the games are about
But you are right though that I don't know why people are buying all the SPs and why many like even more to build and decorate houses than to actually play the game.
I have never played Assassins Creed either. But I know what FIFA games and other sports games are about. I am just not enough interested in sports to play such games myself.
It's a creative outlet, that's why. I'm one of those people that will build first, and maybe play later. When a new pack comes along, my first thoughts are 'what can I build with this' and 'how far out can I extend that build from the ordinary'. Bowling is a prime example. Everyone was throwing tantrums about how it wasn't this magical, spiritual, life changing event or something. Meanwhile, I was thinking about making a 50s style diner with the furniture and DO elements, with a small bowling alley in the back.
One of the best parts about Sims 4 for me is the gallery. I can put up my builds instantly for people to use, without having to go to dodgey third-party sites and the like. I've built more venues and homes than I'll probably ever play with in my game. It's like being able to self-publish your own books, or write your own blog, or make YouTube videos of whatever hobby you have.
Creativity and expression are powerful things. A lot of the time, the actual in-game live play is just a bonus to see how well the builds work, lol.
@Erpe I'm not going into that discussion with you again You may call it a toy, you may call it a game, you may call it Atilla the Hun, I like to play it and many people do I don't think it matters.
(and I can't play with my sims in Freeplay the way I want, I can only play them the way the game wants me to)
You disagree with even Will Wright then
It is actually true that the Sims Freeplay can feel a little restricted when you start a new game because you have to unlock many things before you get the usual freedom instead of just buying the game and cheating your way through the challenges as most simmers are used to. But for me this is now even years ago. So I forgot it in my description of the game because I don't really remember this anymore. Now I only have quests which I can skip without any real consequences if I want to
I remember saying this before but I'll say it again: I disagree with your interpretation of what Will Wright said
It isn't about interpretation because Will Wright actually have said many times that he is/was not just interested in making traditional games but also (and often even more) in making software toys or non-games in a more general sense. Other prominent developers agree with him in calling Sims and SimCity for software toys. But the confusion arise because the game stores have never been interested in distinguishing between games and software toys because it is more simple to just call everything "games" and because the stores believe that it would just scare some of the potential customers away if they advertised something as "a software toy" or as a "non-game". So they just call everything "games" to avoid confusing their customers. Also some of the customers might feel more embarrassed about buying a "toy" instead of buying a "game" and think that "toys" only are something for children
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
You can't really compare the Sims games with other game because the Sims games are much more toys instead of being challenging games. There is no depth in the Sims games and you can do anything successfully. So their attraction is just that you can use them as you want and let the sims do just what you want them to do. The Sims (software toys) are just a mixture of a real life simulation and our fantasies about supernaturals and supernatural powers.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
Your post reads as if you have no idea what a Sims game is about. Bit like me participating in a FIFA or Assassin's Creed forum, not having a clue what people like about it and telling them they are liking a wrong game. I don't care for other 'real' games, I like this franchise and the way it approaches gaming.
I played TS2 for hours every day in about 2 years. I also played both TS3 and TS4 for a couple of months for each game. So I think that I know what the games are about
But you are right though that I don't know why people are buying all the SPs and why many like even more to build and decorate houses than to actually play the game.
I have never played Assassins Creed either. But I know what FIFA games and other sports games are about. I am just not enough interested in sports to play such games myself.
It's a creative outlet, that's why. I'm one of those people that will build first, and maybe play later. When a new pack comes along, my first thoughts are 'what can I build with this' and 'how far out can I extend that build from the ordinary'. Bowling is a prime example. Everyone was throwing tantrums about how it wasn't this magical, spiritual, life changing event or something. Meanwhile, I was thinking about making a 50s style diner with the furniture and DO elements, with a small bowling alley in the back.
One of the best parts about Sims 4 for me is the gallery. I can put up my builds instantly for people to use, without having to go to dodgey third-party sites and the like. I've built more venues and homes than I'll probably ever play with in my game. It's like being able to self-publish your own books, or write your own blog, or make YouTube videos of whatever hobby you have.
Creativity and expression are powerful things. A lot of the time, the actual in-game live play is just a bonus to see how well the builds work, lol.
I know that creative people (like you) think that way and probably do many other creative things (like drawing and decorating) in their real life too. But I am just not creative in that sense myself. Therefore I only build houses for my sims when I have to and I never give them new clothes or anything like this. I also don't draw things or make decorative things in my real life either. I am a gamer who just like to play several different games and don't really care about the looks at all
I do like TS4 for the graphics, Sim detail and interaction level, but I very much miss the large, expansive worlds. I used to love making huge swaths of land and placing any number of sims on it. I also had themed worlds. It's disappointing that this aspect of the game isn't in the newest version of the game I love.
@Erpe I'm not going into that discussion with you again You may call it a toy, you may call it a game, you may call it Atilla the Hun, I like to play it and many people do I don't think it matters.
(and I can't play with my sims in Freeplay the way I want, I can only play them the way the game wants me to)
You disagree with even Will Wright then
It is actually true that the Sims Freeplay can feel a little restricted when you start a new game because you have to unlock many things before you get the usual freedom instead of just buying the game and cheating your way through the challenges as most simmers are used to. But for me this is now even years ago. So I forgot it in my description of the game because I don't really remember this anymore. Now I only have quests which I can skip without any real consequences if I want to
I remember saying this before but I'll say it again: I disagree with your interpretation of what Will Wright said
It isn't about interpretation because Will Wright actually have said many times that he is/was not just interested in making traditional games but also (and often even more) in making software toys or non-games in a more general sense. Other prominent developers agree with him in calling Sims and SimCity for software toys. But the confusion arise because the game stores have never been interested in distinguishing between games and software toys because it is more simple to just call everything "games" and because the stores believe that it would just scare some of the potential customers away if they advertised something as "a software toy" or as a "non-game". So they just call everything "games" to avoid confusing their customers. Also some of the customers might feel more embarrassed about buying a "toy" instead of buying a "game" and think that "toys" only are something for children
You are totally wrong here - as someone who has actually talked to Will Wright when i was a tester for him and the Original Sims - he did speak of "his" toys - his robots not the Sims and the Sim City. He took them very seriously as far as his video games went and he wanted the Sims to reflect a light-hearted look on life and a means to bring all our fantasies to life in a game about life.He wanted us to experience the lives of the people in Sims City and the people in SimAnt in depth and in a fun manner. But when Will talked his toys well he was and is a great collector of things - especially sort of unusual things - like REAL old war tanks and aircraft - and tin toys - but his love was robots and robot wars -a far cry from anything Sims or sim City related.
You cannot go around deducing what people say in life and talk about and then make it to diminish the man's work or to make it something it is not. It is a total different ball game when one has actually talked with this man. Yes he has some humorous stories in regards to the Sims but not once did he look upon this game as a toy as far as he was concerned. "It was a fun, light-hearted look at life and possibilities" is what he said. But toys for Will Wright - weird collections and Robot War robots. That was and probably still is Will Wrights idea of toys. Not his lifes work.
You want a good read from Will Wright - go read this in-depth interview with PC Gamer back in 2004 -
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
You can't really compare the Sims games with other game because the Sims games are much more toys instead of being challenging games. There is no depth in the Sims games and you can do anything successfully. So their attraction is just that you can use them as you want and let the sims do just what you want them to do. The Sims (software toys) are just a mixture of a real life simulation and our fantasies about supernaturals and supernatural powers.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
Your post reads as if you have no idea what a Sims game is about. Bit like me participating in a FIFA or Assassin's Creed forum, not having a clue what people like about it and telling them they are liking a wrong game. I don't care for other 'real' games, I like this franchise and the way it approaches gaming.
I played TS2 for hours every day in about 2 years. I also played both TS3 and TS4 for a couple of months for each game. So I think that I know what the games are about
But you are right though that I don't know why people are buying all the SPs and why many like even more to build and decorate houses than to actually play the game.
I have never played Assassins Creed either. But I know what FIFA games and other sports games are about. I am just not enough interested in sports to play such games myself.
It's a creative outlet, that's why. I'm one of those people that will build first, and maybe play later. When a new pack comes along, my first thoughts are 'what can I build with this' and 'how far out can I extend that build from the ordinary'. Bowling is a prime example. Everyone was throwing tantrums about how it wasn't this magical, spiritual, life changing event or something. Meanwhile, I was thinking about making a 50s style diner with the furniture and DO elements, with a small bowling alley in the back.
One of the best parts about Sims 4 for me is the gallery. I can put up my builds instantly for people to use, without having to go to dodgey third-party sites and the like. I've built more venues and homes than I'll probably ever play with in my game. It's like being able to self-publish your own books, or write your own blog, or make YouTube videos of whatever hobby you have.
Creativity and expression are powerful things. A lot of the time, the actual in-game live play is just a bonus to see how well the builds work, lol.
Yaay, I agree with you for once It's like that for me too (in Sims 3 but that's irrelevant because we're discussing the charm of the franchise here).
@Erpe Like I said, I'm really not going into that discussion again because it would be a repetition of a conversation we already had. There, found it, by googling 'Erpe Joanne65 doll house' haha
You know what else GTA 5 has? A massive amount of content! No gimped, half-baked, patch-in-later nonsense like TS4 (e.g., no toddler stage).
Part of the problem with The Sims is its niche, even if popular, position in the industry. I get the feeling a lot of the people that play The Sims don't really play other video games so they don't really have a good idea what to expect from a AAA video game. I can't really think of another series from any top tier developer that can release a game in a state that is most commonly described by game reviewers as "bare bones" and get away with it.
You can't release GTA 5 without cars, say absolutely nothing about their exclusion, then patch them in 2 1/2 years after release and still be praised for it. That kind of thing would be literally insane for any developer of another series to try because their fans would absolutely revolt and the franchise/developer would sink into oblivion.
But with The Sims it is treated as just one of those things. It is pretty mind boggling actually what sims players let Maxis get away with. Which of course is why we see the base game being released the way it is and the constant recycling of the same EP ideas. Because people keep buying it.
For me personally I doubt I'll buy anything else for TS4 and TS5 better be mind blowing or else I don't see any reason to try again. But I'm just one person, millions of others can continue being milked if they want, but I expect better from a AAA developer and a series that has been around this long.
You can't really compare the Sims games with other game because the Sims games are much more toys instead of being challenging games. There is no depth in the Sims games and you can do anything successfully. So their attraction is just that you can use them as you want and let the sims do just what you want them to do. The Sims (software toys) are just a mixture of a real life simulation and our fantasies about supernaturals and supernatural powers.
Other (real) games have much more restricted gameplay because they usually are about challenges and how to win over the restrictions.
What I personally don't really understand is why people want to buy a lot of stuff which don't affect the gameplay at all but only changes the looks - and even pay a huge amount of real money for it. But this is actually the main thing that the Sims games now have more and more in common with real games because especially all the free-to-play MMO games mainly have only the same kind of stuff to sell and thus give the companies an income which can more than pay the wages for all the developers working on the game. Just the amount of such free-to-play MMO games show how popular it now is to buy stuff for games and EA therefore now also have changed the big Sims games such that people can buy many more SPs than other types of expansions.
Your post reads as if you have no idea what a Sims game is about. Bit like me participating in a FIFA or Assassin's Creed forum, not having a clue what people like about it and telling them they are liking a wrong game. I don't care for other 'real' games, I like this franchise and the way it approaches gaming.
I played TS2 for hours every day in about 2 years. I also played both TS3 and TS4 for a couple of months for each game. So I think that I know what the games are about
But you are right though that I don't know why people are buying all the SPs and why many like even more to build and decorate houses than to actually play the game.
I have never played Assassins Creed either. But I know what FIFA games and other sports games are about. I am just not enough interested in sports to play such games myself.
It's a creative outlet, that's why. I'm one of those people that will build first, and maybe play later. When a new pack comes along, my first thoughts are 'what can I build with this' and 'how far out can I extend that build from the ordinary'. Bowling is a prime example. Everyone was throwing tantrums about how it wasn't this magical, spiritual, life changing event or something. Meanwhile, I was thinking about making a 50s style diner with the furniture and DO elements, with a small bowling alley in the back.
One of the best parts about Sims 4 for me is the gallery. I can put up my builds instantly for people to use, without having to go to dodgey third-party sites and the like. I've built more venues and homes than I'll probably ever play with in my game. It's like being able to self-publish your own books, or write your own blog, or make YouTube videos of whatever hobby you have.
Creativity and expression are powerful things. A lot of the time, the actual in-game live play is just a bonus to see how well the builds work, lol.
Yaay, I agree with you for once It's like that for me too (in Sims 3 but that's irrelevant because we're discussing the charm of the franchise here).
@Erpe Like I said, I'm really not going into that discussion again because it would be a repetition of a conversation we already had. There, found it, by googling 'Erpe Joanne65 doll house' haha
*gasps dramatically and looks around desperately for the way out of the Twilight Zone*
We probably would agree on more than we'd like to admit if other things didn't always get in the way, I'd imagine, lol. I doubt Simmers have only one thing in common. But seriously, I'm glad we could find some common ground. Kudos!
@Erpe I'm not going into that discussion with you again You may call it a toy, you may call it a game, you may call it Atilla the Hun, I like to play it and many people do I don't think it matters.
(and I can't play with my sims in Freeplay the way I want, I can only play them the way the game wants me to)
You disagree with even Will Wright then
It is actually true that the Sims Freeplay can feel a little restricted when you start a new game because you have to unlock many things before you get the usual freedom instead of just buying the game and cheating your way through the challenges as most simmers are used to. But for me this is now even years ago. So I forgot it in my description of the game because I don't really remember this anymore. Now I only have quests which I can skip without any real consequences if I want to
I remember saying this before but I'll say it again: I disagree with your interpretation of what Will Wright said
It isn't about interpretation because Will Wright actually have said many times that he is/was not just interested in making traditional games but also (and often even more) in making software toys or non-games in a more general sense. Other prominent developers agree with him in calling Sims and SimCity for software toys. But the confusion arise because the game stores have never been interested in distinguishing between games and software toys because it is more simple to just call everything "games" and because the stores believe that it would just scare some of the potential customers away if they advertised something as "a software toy" or as a "non-game". So they just call everything "games" to avoid confusing their customers. Also some of the customers might feel more embarrassed about buying a "toy" instead of buying a "game" and think that "toys" only are something for children
You are totally wrong here - as someone who has actually talked to Will Wright when i was a tester for him and the Original Sims - he did speak of "his" toys - his robots not the Sims and the Sim City. He took them very seriously as far as his video games went and he wanted the Sims to reflect a light-hearted look on life and a means to bring all our fantasies to life in a game about life.He wanted us to experience the lives of the people in Sims City and the people in SimAnt in depth and in a fun manner. But when Will talked his toys well he was and is a great collector of things - especially sort of unusual things - like REAL old war tanks and aircraft - and tin toys - but his love was robots and robot wars -a far cry from anything Sims or sim City related.
You cannot go around deducing what people say in life and talk about and then make it to diminish the man's work or to make it something it is not. It is a total different ball game when one has actually talked with this man. Yes he has some humorous stories in regards to the Sims but not once did he look upon this game as a toy as far as he was concerned. "It was a fun, light-hearted look at life and possibilities" is what he said. But toys for Will Wright - weird collections and Robot War robots. That was and probably still is Will Wrights idea of toys. Not his lifes work.
You want a good read from Will Wright - go read this in-depth interview with PC Gamer back in 2004 -
You just don't understand what Will Wright is saying because he never used the expressions "software toy" or "non-game" as something inferior to "game". Instead he was proud of being more creative in designing his toys. He found traditional games too limited and once wrote that he had more fun just building things, tear them down, rebuild them and tear them down again than in actually playing a game.
When he left EA it was also for Stupid Fun club where he designed robots with his daughter. The traditional "game" concept has always been way too limited for him. (But even he doesn't really distinguish between "game" and "software toy" - except when he really want to explain why he never has wanted just to make traditional games but instead mainly has seen his "games" as tools for creative people.)
But you should be happy that he had this attitude because otherwise he would never have even dreamed about creating TS1 which most people at the time saw as just a dollhouse simulation for girls at a time where girls didn't even play computer games at all
What does Wil Wright have to do with anything these days? Last I read, he worked on mobile picture apps similar to Instagram.
You're a little late to the party if you're talking about a guy who hasn't had a say in this franchise since before half the forum population was born. Whatshername that everyone threw a fit over before she left, Rachel something I think?, has more relevance to the series, for crying out loud.
I really don't get pointless hero worship of a guy who, let's be honest here, would put this series into a mobile app far faster than anyone at Maxis is trying to.
Give me a BREAK!
You just want him to fit the statements you "made up".
Ridiculous.
No, you are the one who deny the facts. From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-game : "Non-games are a class of software on the border between video games and toys. The original term "non-game game" was coined by late Nintendo president Satoru Iwata, who describes it as "a form of entertainment that really doesn't have a winner, or even a real conclusion".[1] Will Wright had previously used the term "software toy" for the same purpose.[2] The main difference between non-games and traditional video games is the lack of structured goals, objectives, and challenges.[3] This allows the player a greater degree of self-expression through freeform play, since he or she can set up his or her own goals to achieve."
"The 1989 simulation game SimCity was called a software toy by its creator Will Wright, since there is no ultimate objective in the main game (scenarios with objectives existed in some incarnations of the game, such as Sim City 2000, but these were not the focus).[6]"
From http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2008/09/simanimals.html : "When you give someone a toy of a system it gives them a new perspective on it. They see that system as a dynamic, organic thing. Living in it in the real world, they don’t notice day-to-day changes, but when that system is sped up over 50 years or more, they see the changes clearly. And they gain a new perspective on it.”[1] --Will Wright"
and "SimAnimals isn't really a game at all. It's what Will Wright likes to call a "software toy." Watching the designers demo it (on both Wii and DS), I was struck by a powerful urge to get my hands on it and play with it myself...like a toy. It communicates a tactile feel to the player, inviting you to jump in and interact with the animals and their environment."
From http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1523/the_history_of_civilization.php?page=2 : "Groundbreaking games like Bullfrog's Populous and Will Wright's SimCity had recently invented the "god game" genre, where an all-powerful overseer, controlled by the player, directs the course of a population from an overhead view. With their release in 1989, both games -- especially SimCity -- had a profound effect on Meier as a game designer. SimCity taught him that a computer game didn't have to be about chaos and destruction, but could focus on "building things up" instead. Wright's masterpiece provided a vivid illustration that a game could be a "software toy" that let a player experiment with and manipulate a virtual world without a specific objective."
So how did I make up all those statements written by the experts on the subject?!?
I have read the same things years ago in other places which I don't even remember anymore and therefore probably can't find again. But the above statements should be enough. Will Wright invented the term "software toy" and I didn't
But words change there meaning during time. Originally something couldn't be called a game unless it had rules for winning the game. But now sometimes even a drawing tool for children will be called a game even though it isn't about winning or losing either. Maybe we soon will see Microsoft Word and similar tools be called "games" too?
I think their biggest mistake has been their vision for this game overall. What was supposed to be a smarter, more intelligent and "weirder" simulation game turned out to be incredibly superficial. Whims are all about "Buy this! Buy that! Buy all the things!" and they hardly add any new ones. The careers are mostly fantastical and yet again, when was the last time they added a new one? There's hardly any to choose from. Same goes for traits which have no real effect on the sims because they're all tied to emotions, which every sim experiences the exact same way. Which makes all sims feel the same.
In my opinion it seems like they're heavily focused more on objects instead of relationships and how sims interact with each other.
"Maybe we soon will see Microsoft Word and similar tools be called "games" too?"
Or "software toys"... :P
The reason why Will Wright originally called his games "software toys" was that you could "win" the games like you could in all other "games" at the time. But now the limit between "toys" and "games" has become fluent and the limit seems to have become undefined. The reason of course is that the game stores found it much easier just to place both software tools (for creative people/children) and real games under "games".
But for me the problem then is if similar things now are "games" too? If children make drawings on paper are they then playing a game too like they apparently are if they draw things on a mobile device or a computer? If a child see their mum play TS4 and play with dolls in a real dollhouse instead can the child then say: "See me mum - I am playing the same game as you are!" ?
I have been holding back from this thread so far until I think that it is safe for me to enter. So far I will say that the biggest mistake that The Sims 4 ever made was that it did not progress from it's predecessors and if anyone wonders what I mean by that then look around the forums, looks around Youtube and pretty much, every corner of the internet related to The Sims you will understand why TS4 has not done as well as it was originally hoped.
Oh yeah, I also played the Free Trial once, so I guess that means my opinion is valid...
I have been holding back from this thread so far until I think that it is safe for me to enter. So far I will say that the biggest mistake that The Sims 4 ever made was that it did not progress from it's predecessors and if anyone wonders what I mean by that then look around the forums, looks around Youtube and pretty much, every corner of the internet related to The Sims you will understand why TS4 has not done as well as it was originally hoped.
Oh yeah, I always played the Free Trial once, so I guess that means my opinion is valid...
I didn't try the previous Sims games. But I also think that Sims 4 do need to kick it up a notch.
I am not sure that EA actually did any mistakes by aiming TS4 almost completely at new 12 to 15 yrs old simmers who didn't play the previous games and therefore are unlikely to compare them because we don't know the sales numbers and maybe I would even have liked TS4 myself if I hadn't played the previous games too.
For me to see EA wanted to focus much more on SPs this time which must be because they had sold extremely well for the earlier games since they were introduced midway in the TS2 days. They are very fast and cheap to make because they don't require much programming and therefore can be made by much smaller teams. So if they get high sales numbers then they must be more profitable for EA than the big EPs are. The high sales numbers for stuff items and SPs have also showed EA that even the basegame, the GPs and the EPs can get high sales numbers too even if they contain less new gameplay (and maybe more stuff) than earlier. So EA's choices were logical - especially if EA knows that almost all sales are by or for 12 to 15 yrs old teens. Therefore I can't see TS4 as any mistake (even though it isn't a game for me) if sales numbers really are as high as I suspect them to be.
I am not sure that EA actually did any mistakes by aiming TS4 almost completely at new 12 to 15 yrs old simmers who didn't play the previous games and therefore are unlikely to compare them because we don't know the sales numbers and maybe I would even have liked TS4 myself if I hadn't played the previous games too.
For me to see EA wanted to focus much more on SPs this time which must be because they had sold extremely well for the earlier games since they were introduced midway in the TS2 days. They are very fast and cheap to make because they don't require much programming and therefore can be made by much smaller teams. So if they get high sales numbers then they must be more profitable for EA than the big EPs are. The high sales numbers for stuff items and SPs have also showed EA that even the basegame, the GPs and the EPs can get high sales numbers too even if they contain less new gameplay (and maybe more stuff) than earlier. So EA's choices were logical - especially if EA knows that almost all sales are by or for 12 to 15 yrs old teens. Therefore I can't see TS4 as any mistake (even though it isn't a game for me) if sales numbers really are as high as I suspect them to be.
Comments
(and I can't play with my sims in Freeplay the way I want, I can only play them the way the game wants me to)
It is actually true that the Sims Freeplay can feel a little restricted when you start a new game because you have to unlock many things before you get the usual freedom instead of just buying the game and cheating your way through the challenges as most simmers are used to. But for me this is now even years ago. So I forgot it in my description of the game because I don't really remember this anymore. Now I only have quests which I can skip without any real consequences if I want to
It's a creative outlet, that's why. I'm one of those people that will build first, and maybe play later. When a new pack comes along, my first thoughts are 'what can I build with this' and 'how far out can I extend that build from the ordinary'. Bowling is a prime example. Everyone was throwing tantrums about how it wasn't this magical, spiritual, life changing event or something. Meanwhile, I was thinking about making a 50s style diner with the furniture and DO elements, with a small bowling alley in the back.
One of the best parts about Sims 4 for me is the gallery. I can put up my builds instantly for people to use, without having to go to dodgey third-party sites and the like. I've built more venues and homes than I'll probably ever play with in my game. It's like being able to self-publish your own books, or write your own blog, or make YouTube videos of whatever hobby you have.
Creativity and expression are powerful things. A lot of the time, the actual in-game live play is just a bonus to see how well the builds work, lol.
You are totally wrong here - as someone who has actually talked to Will Wright when i was a tester for him and the Original Sims - he did speak of "his" toys - his robots not the Sims and the Sim City. He took them very seriously as far as his video games went and he wanted the Sims to reflect a light-hearted look on life and a means to bring all our fantasies to life in a game about life.He wanted us to experience the lives of the people in Sims City and the people in SimAnt in depth and in a fun manner. But when Will talked his toys well he was and is a great collector of things - especially sort of unusual things - like REAL old war tanks and aircraft - and tin toys - but his love was robots and robot wars -a far cry from anything Sims or sim City related.
You cannot go around deducing what people say in life and talk about and then make it to diminish the man's work or to make it something it is not. It is a total different ball game when one has actually talked with this man. Yes he has some humorous stories in regards to the Sims but not once did he look upon this game as a toy as far as he was concerned. "It was a fun, light-hearted look at life and possibilities" is what he said. But toys for Will Wright - weird collections and Robot War robots. That was and probably still is Will Wrights idea of toys. Not his lifes work.
You want a good read from Will Wright - go read this in-depth interview with PC Gamer back in 2004 -
http://www.gamesradar.com/the-sims-2-inside-the-mind-of-will-wright/
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
@Erpe Like I said, I'm really not going into that discussion again because it would be a repetition of a conversation we already had. There, found it, by googling 'Erpe Joanne65 doll house' haha
*gasps dramatically and looks around desperately for the way out of the Twilight Zone*
We probably would agree on more than we'd like to admit if other things didn't always get in the way, I'd imagine, lol. I doubt Simmers have only one thing in common. But seriously, I'm glad we could find some common ground. Kudos!
When he left EA it was also for Stupid Fun club where he designed robots with his daughter. The traditional "game" concept has always been way too limited for him. (But even he doesn't really distinguish between "game" and "software toy" - except when he really want to explain why he never has wanted just to make traditional games but instead mainly has seen his "games" as tools for creative people.)
But you should be happy that he had this attitude because otherwise he would never have even dreamed about creating TS1 which most people at the time saw as just a dollhouse simulation for girls at a time where girls didn't even play computer games at all
You just want him to fit the statements you "made up".
Ridiculous.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
You're a little late to the party if you're talking about a guy who hasn't had a say in this franchise since before half the forum population was born.
I really don't get pointless hero worship of a guy who, let's be honest here, would put this series into a mobile app far faster than anyone at Maxis is trying to.
"Non-games are a class of software on the border between video games and toys. The original term "non-game game" was coined by late Nintendo president Satoru Iwata, who describes it as "a form of entertainment that really doesn't have a winner, or even a real conclusion".[1] Will Wright had previously used the term "software toy" for the same purpose.[2] The main difference between non-games and traditional video games is the lack of structured goals, objectives, and challenges.[3] This allows the player a greater degree of self-expression through freeform play, since he or she can set up his or her own goals to achieve."
"The 1989 simulation game SimCity was called a software toy by its creator Will Wright, since there is no ultimate objective in the main game (scenarios with objectives existed in some incarnations of the game, such as Sim City 2000, but these were not the focus).[6]"
From http://www.brainygamer.com/the_brainy_gamer/2008/09/simanimals.html :
"When you give someone a toy of a system it gives them a new perspective on it. They see that system as a dynamic, organic thing. Living in it in the real world, they don’t notice day-to-day changes, but when that system is sped up over 50 years or more, they see the changes clearly. And they gain a new perspective on it.”[1] --Will Wright"
and
"SimAnimals isn't really a game at all. It's what Will Wright likes to call a "software toy." Watching the designers demo it (on both Wii and DS), I was struck by a powerful urge to get my hands on it and play with it myself...like a toy. It communicates a tactile feel to the player, inviting you to jump in and interact with the animals and their environment."
From http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/1523/the_history_of_civilization.php?page=2 :
"Groundbreaking games like Bullfrog's Populous and Will Wright's SimCity had recently invented the "god game" genre, where an all-powerful overseer, controlled by the player, directs the course of a population from an overhead view. With their release in 1989, both games -- especially SimCity -- had a profound effect on Meier as a game designer. SimCity taught him that a computer game didn't have to be about chaos and destruction, but could focus on "building things up" instead. Wright's masterpiece provided a vivid illustration that a game could be a "software toy" that let a player experiment with and manipulate a virtual world without a specific objective."
So how did I make up all those statements written by the experts on the subject?!?
I have read the same things years ago in other places which I don't even remember anymore and therefore probably can't find again. But the above statements should be enough. Will Wright invented the term "software toy" and I didn't
But words change there meaning during time. Originally something couldn't be called a game unless it had rules for winning the game. But now sometimes even a drawing tool for children will be called a game even though it isn't about winning or losing either. Maybe we soon will see Microsoft Word and similar tools be called "games" too?
I totally agree!
Hint. Hint. Nudge. Nudge.
Or "software toys"... :P
Hm. I'm sure I could call windows, OSX, and Linux my toys. Why not?
But for me the problem then is if similar things now are "games" too? If children make drawings on paper are they then playing a game too like they apparently are if they draw things on a mobile device or a computer? If a child see their mum play TS4 and play with dolls in a real dollhouse instead can the child then say: "See me mum - I am playing the same game as you are!" ?
Oh yeah, I also played the Free Trial once, so I guess that means my opinion is valid...
For me to see EA wanted to focus much more on SPs this time which must be because they had sold extremely well for the earlier games since they were introduced midway in the TS2 days. They are very fast and cheap to make because they don't require much programming and therefore can be made by much smaller teams. So if they get high sales numbers then they must be more profitable for EA than the big EPs are. The high sales numbers for stuff items and SPs have also showed EA that even the basegame, the GPs and the EPs can get high sales numbers too even if they contain less new gameplay (and maybe more stuff) than earlier. So EA's choices were logical - especially if EA knows that almost all sales are by or for 12 to 15 yrs old teens. Therefore I can't see TS4 as any mistake (even though it isn't a game for me) if sales numbers really are as high as I suspect them to be.
Ridiculous,