Unpopular opinion......
I think relationship culling is a game breaking bug that needs to either be altered or taken completely out of the game. What kind of life simulator can't keep relationships?
I post about this a lot, i feel like a broken record sometimes. But it baffles me. Sure theres a mod available, but i shouldn't need something third party, it should be in the game.
Everyone plays this game differently, but I know rotational is a popular way to play, its how I play sims 2. But is impossible to play in sims 4... Without a mod. Why is that okay? Why is everyone okay with settling for a mod? If i buy this base game, coming in green and i just wana play how I wana play..... Why should i be forced to download a mod. What if im not great at computers? What if im playing on someone else's, and dont feel comfortable downloading mods on it? Doesnt matter to maxis.
Theyre alienating an entire way of playing and forcing a mod.
If I remember correctly, from the very little I played sims 3, you couldn't play rotational either because of the story progession. I'm sure there were mods then too. So 2 game gens in a row, you cant play rotationally without a mod. Why is this okay?? To me it isnt at all.
Ive said it a million times. Why can't households be frozen when theyre not being played?? How is it easier to calculate decay then culling, than just freezing everything? We should also just be able to delete them ourselves. A small "edit relationships" button in the relationship tab somewhere. Click it. Itll bring up a list, just like if you wana call someone. Click to highlight who you want to delete. Then delete. Why isn't something like this an in game option? Esspecially now. My relationship panels are filled with pets and townies from owning a vet clinic. I dont need them. I want to delete them myself leaving only who i want.
The other day, I switched households to marry and impregnate a couple. Come back to my main family, the random pets and townies are still there, but the premades, who i was trying to become friends with, all got culled.
If a modder can do something about the annoyance of relationship decay/culling, so can maxis. If a modder can find the time, maxis should find the time. Plain and simple.
And I dont buy the "maybe theres a technical reason" no. They just edited the culling options. They gave a "max" option, and said that they do NOT recommend using it..... Are they unable to do that with relationships?? "you can now set 30, 60, 80, 100 friends before decay will occur, but we do NOT recommend setting it to 100." They cant do that? Give a max and warning so it can be player controlled. I know maxis seems to forget their own game (Siobhan and Sergio anyone?) But heres a reminder.... The tagline is "YOU RULE" remember maxis??
Which also leads to another unpopular opinion. Mods should be used to enhance, not fix what's broken. Thats maxis' job, ya know, the people who went to computer coding school, get paid a salary for this.... They need to fix their broken game and not allow modders to do it for them. Its lazy on maxis part. I dont use mods or cc at all, but there are some really cool cc pieces out there, and definitely some interesting looking mods, im not down playing their hard work. Im talking about maxis and how they do the bare minimum, leaving mods to do the rest.
I’ve wanted that bolded option since sims 1. I agree. Why on earth haven’t they implemented it by now? Every iteration becomes more restrictive, imo.
It sure seems that way. And me also, its something ive wanted for a long time. There just arent many people asking for it, I guess. At least not that ive seen.
Hm. I consider myself a builder. But if that was all The Sims games offered, I doubt I’d have made it this far. Building is relaxing and enjoyable to me. But what makes building rewarding is seeing how little creatures use what I’ve built. I can equally lose myself in both aspects.
The problem concerning gameplay is I feel it is far too scripted. The game is doing all the playing and dictating and I’m constantly fighting with it and getting more annoyed than I need to be. This exists to some extent in each series but feels the worst in the current one.
Dissatisfied with Sims 4 and hoping for a better Sims 5
4. Ready for this one? It's a doozy.... I don't think that "gameplay" is always the answer. - Whoa! I know, right?! This one is especially hard to explain but I'll do my best. I think that there are many facets to a Sims game that make it something enjoyable. It's a game like no others and because of its unique nature, it is beloved by millions of people of a variety of ages, worldwide. I see a lot of people on the forums demanding "gameplay" but not specifying what exactly it is they want, and I've also seen a few people describe instead, specific simulations or age groups or objects or even weather, and call it "gameplay". I think that each of us hears the word and then imagines what it means to us, and we universally cry out for "more gameplay", when in fact it isn't exactly what some of us are truly asking for, and sometimes it's even the type of gameplay that's important to us. In my opinion, the Sims games should include gameplay, of course, but also balanced with a certain amount of simulation, flexibility for player choices, environment, time management, activities, interaction, creation, animation, etc. To me, Vampires was definitely a good example of gameplay with a variety of powers and weaknesses to choose from that influenced the behavior of each Sim with it's own progression system and titles and layers. But another reason I loved that pack was the ambiance of Forgotten Hollow and the gorgeous Victorian/Goth vibe in build/buy. In fact, for me, a very underrated addition in that pack was the wall stickers for cracks and stains that added to building run down houses, and I'm not even much of a builder. That's not gameplay, but a grand addition nonetheless, and very important to me. Another example of gameplay is the GTW careers, which some people enjoy, but others can't stand. I've seen a lot of people state that they would much prefer the control to do whatever they want instead of catering to a checklist. I thought I wasn't going to like them very much, but there are days when I do really enjoy playing them. But the point is, I feel that it's more important for us all to try to articulate what exactly it is that we are seeking in our game, being as specific as possible instead of summing everything up as "gameplay" because sometimes, that's not exactly what we're looking for.
Okay, I think that's all I've got for now.
I totally agree with this one @LiELF. This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.
I think the Sims has always been a game where you can do what you wish with it, whether it be building, decorating, taking pictures, or playing in a certain style.
So you're right, game play doesn't fix things for everyone.
I think gameplay does matter (and therefore is the answer), even when simmers have their own playing styles and their opinions about what gameplay is may vary. Gameplay concerning extensive lifestages, unique personalities and customizability for example are broadly supported by players (and missed in Sims 4). I in fact think the team has drifted away too much from basically needed gameplay for this game and are making the mistake of too much handing ready to go gameplay. Which leaves a lot of simmers bored and uninterested.
I didn't say it doesn't matter; I simply was agree with what @LiELF said about it not always being the answer. It's different strokes for different folks. Someone who ONLY builds, is ONLY going to be after build/buy items...where's the game play in that?
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
C'mon @JoAnne65 - you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I didn't say it was a builder's game, although that's how initially what Will Wright wanted it to be. Of course The Sims wouldn't be The Sims without the sims, but I firmly believe that it's always been what you make it - which was the beauty of it. It was a sandbox and you could "play" whatever way you wanted whether it be in build mode, live mode, or CAS.
I've always been an advocate of all game play styles being included in the game. I don't think any type of Simmer should be left out.
So no I'm not saying the unpopular opinion is we don't need proper game play (where did I say that?), I was, again, simply agreeing with someone who said gameplay isn't always the answer. If I meant that the game didn't need proper game play, I would have said just that. On the flip side of that, I could easily interpret what you're saying as builders, Sim makers, custom content makers, modders don't matter because it doesn't involve extensive game play, but I wouldn't do that because I'm not about to interpret your words and twist them.
4. Ready for this one? It's a doozy.... I don't think that "gameplay" is always the answer. - Whoa! I know, right?! This one is especially hard to explain but I'll do my best. I think that there are many facets to a Sims game that make it something enjoyable. It's a game like no others and because of its unique nature, it is beloved by millions of people of a variety of ages, worldwide. I see a lot of people on the forums demanding "gameplay" but not specifying what exactly it is they want, and I've also seen a few people describe instead, specific simulations or age groups or objects or even weather, and call it "gameplay". I think that each of us hears the word and then imagines what it means to us, and we universally cry out for "more gameplay", when in fact it isn't exactly what some of us are truly asking for, and sometimes it's even the type of gameplay that's important to us. In my opinion, the Sims games should include gameplay, of course, but also balanced with a certain amount of simulation, flexibility for player choices, environment, time management, activities, interaction, creation, animation, etc. To me, Vampires was definitely a good example of gameplay with a variety of powers and weaknesses to choose from that influenced the behavior of each Sim with it's own progression system and titles and layers. But another reason I loved that pack was the ambiance of Forgotten Hollow and the gorgeous Victorian/Goth vibe in build/buy. In fact, for me, a very underrated addition in that pack was the wall stickers for cracks and stains that added to building run down houses, and I'm not even much of a builder. That's not gameplay, but a grand addition nonetheless, and very important to me. Another example of gameplay is the GTW careers, which some people enjoy, but others can't stand. I've seen a lot of people state that they would much prefer the control to do whatever they want instead of catering to a checklist. I thought I wasn't going to like them very much, but there are days when I do really enjoy playing them. But the point is, I feel that it's more important for us all to try to articulate what exactly it is that we are seeking in our game, being as specific as possible instead of summing everything up as "gameplay" because sometimes, that's not exactly what we're looking for.
Okay, I think that's all I've got for now.
I totally agree with this one @LiELF. This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.
I think the Sims has always been a game where you can do what you wish with it, whether it be building, decorating, taking pictures, or playing in a certain style.
So you're right, game play doesn't fix things for everyone.
I think gameplay does matter (and therefore is the answer), even when simmers have their own playing styles and their opinions about what gameplay is may vary. Gameplay concerning extensive lifestages, unique personalities and customizability for example are broadly supported by players (and missed in Sims 4). I in fact think the team has drifted away too much from basically needed gameplay for this game and are making the mistake of too much handing ready to go gameplay. Which leaves a lot of simmers bored and uninterested.
I didn't say it doesn't matter; I simply was agree with what @LiELF said about it not always being the answer. It's different strokes for different folks. Someone who ONLY builds, is ONLY going to be after build/buy items...where's the game play in that?
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
They didn’t say it was a builders game, they said people who just like to build are going to be more interested in building tools and content versus animated gameplay for live mode. That’s why I don’t really understand why you talk about cutting out gameplay, adding in more building tools (as an example) doesn’t cut anything out of the game.
Adding ‘gameplay’ in the sense of animated gameplay involving Sims isn’t always the answer. That’s why the stuff packs are relatively annoying IMO. Several major areas of the game are flat out ignored while they constantly spam out new animations for increasingly ridiculous things.
4. Ready for this one? It's a doozy.... I don't think that "gameplay" is always the answer. - Whoa! I know, right?! This one is especially hard to explain but I'll do my best. I think that there are many facets to a Sims game that make it something enjoyable. It's a game like no others and because of its unique nature, it is beloved by millions of people of a variety of ages, worldwide. I see a lot of people on the forums demanding "gameplay" but not specifying what exactly it is they want, and I've also seen a few people describe instead, specific simulations or age groups or objects or even weather, and call it "gameplay". I think that each of us hears the word and then imagines what it means to us, and we universally cry out for "more gameplay", when in fact it isn't exactly what some of us are truly asking for, and sometimes it's even the type of gameplay that's important to us. In my opinion, the Sims games should include gameplay, of course, but also balanced with a certain amount of simulation, flexibility for player choices, environment, time management, activities, interaction, creation, animation, etc. To me, Vampires was definitely a good example of gameplay with a variety of powers and weaknesses to choose from that influenced the behavior of each Sim with it's own progression system and titles and layers. But another reason I loved that pack was the ambiance of Forgotten Hollow and the gorgeous Victorian/Goth vibe in build/buy. In fact, for me, a very underrated addition in that pack was the wall stickers for cracks and stains that added to building run down houses, and I'm not even much of a builder. That's not gameplay, but a grand addition nonetheless, and very important to me. Another example of gameplay is the GTW careers, which some people enjoy, but others can't stand. I've seen a lot of people state that they would much prefer the control to do whatever they want instead of catering to a checklist. I thought I wasn't going to like them very much, but there are days when I do really enjoy playing them. But the point is, I feel that it's more important for us all to try to articulate what exactly it is that we are seeking in our game, being as specific as possible instead of summing everything up as "gameplay" because sometimes, that's not exactly what we're looking for.
Okay, I think that's all I've got for now.
I totally agree with this one @LiELF. This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.
I think the Sims has always been a game where you can do what you wish with it, whether it be building, decorating, taking pictures, or playing in a certain style.
So you're right, game play doesn't fix things for everyone.
To me there's always been two different meanings of "gameplay". I think there's gameplay in a sense of playing the sims in game, their interactions, etc. and there's gameplay as in the way each player plays so everything a player loves to do and considers their play style is gameplay to them. I think every player has their own version or idea as to what constitutes as gameplay for them personally.
Editing the town for some people is playing the game, even if they edit the town more than they play the actual sims in town that's just their play style. Spending hours in CAS creating tons of sims is playing the game, even if they don't spend as much time playing them in live mode that's their play style. So when they slack in providing for some areas, then people whose play style falls mostly under that area might feel left out or abandoned. They should advance in every main avenue they have (for the game players, the sim makers, the builders, the creators) so that the game in its entirety is an in-depth and enriching experience.
There are still so many things they have yet to touch on or go in depth with that would make The Sims franchise better and some stuff never should've been left behind but instead kept and expanded upon or improved.
Unpopular opinion......
I think relationship culling is a game breaking bug that needs to either be altered or taken completely out of the game. What kind of life simulator can't keep relationships?
I post about this a lot, i feel like a broken record sometimes. But it baffles me. Sure theres a mod available, but i shouldn't need something third party, it should be in the game.
Everyone plays this game differently, but I know rotational is a popular way to play, its how I play sims 2. But is impossible to play in sims 4... Without a mod. Why is that okay? Why is everyone okay with settling for a mod? If i buy this base game, coming in green and i just wana play how I wana play..... Why should i be forced to download a mod. What if im not great at computers? What if im playing on someone else's, and dont feel comfortable downloading mods on it? Doesnt matter to maxis.
Theyre alienating an entire way of playing and forcing a mod.
If I remember correctly, from the very little I played sims 3, you couldn't play rotational either because of the story progession. I'm sure there were mods then too. So 2 game gens in a row, you cant play rotationally without a mod. Why is this okay?? To me it isnt at all.
Ive said it a million times. Why can't households be frozen when theyre not being played?? How is it easier to calculate decay then culling, than just freezing everything? We should also just be able to delete them ourselves. A small "edit relationships" button in the relationship tab somewhere. Click it. Itll bring up a list, just like if you wana call someone. Click to highlight who you want to delete. Then delete. Why isn't something like this an in game option? Esspecially now. My relationship panels are filled with pets and townies from owning a vet clinic. I dont need them. I want to delete them myself leaving only who i want.
The other day, I switched households to marry and impregnate a couple. Come back to my main family, the random pets and townies are still there, but the premades, who i was trying to become friends with, all got culled.
If a modder can do something about the annoyance of relationship decay/culling, so can maxis. If a modder can find the time, maxis should find the time. Plain and simple.
And I dont buy the "maybe theres a technical reason" no. They just edited the culling options. They gave a "max" option, and said that they do NOT recommend using it..... Are they unable to do that with relationships?? "you can now set 30, 60, 80, 100 friends before decay will occur, but we do NOT recommend setting it to 100." They cant do that? Give a max and warning so it can be player controlled. I know maxis seems to forget their own game (Siobhan and Sergio anyone?) But heres a reminder.... The tagline is "YOU RULE" remember maxis??
Which also leads to another unpopular opinion. Mods should be used to enhance, not fix what's broken. Thats maxis' job, ya know, the people who went to computer coding school, get paid a salary for this.... They need to fix their broken game and not allow modders to do it for them. Its lazy on maxis part. I dont use mods or cc at all, but there are some really cool cc pieces out there, and definitely some interesting looking mods, im not down playing their hard work. Im talking about maxis and how they do the bare minimum, leaving mods to do the rest.
I agree with most of this but especially the parts in bold. I have always wanted some way to protect the main households I play from being affected by anything that I personally didn't do. I just want them to freeze in time essentially, no adopting animals, no getting pregnant and having babies, no changing jobs or getting new jobs, no promotions, no break ups. I think something like a little box to check beside each household name when you click on the household would be good and we can check off the households we don’t want affected. And if something I did before I moved to the next household on my list affects that household like a pregnant sim going into labor or an opportunity I accepted for a sim coming up to its due date then a warning about them could show up with the option to switch to that household with that sim. I've always wanted an option like that.
And yes, they need to fix what they make. As much as I’m ready for them to move on to a TS5 I know that based off their history it’ll probably be just as buggy as the previous games and that will make me hesitant to buy it just like I was hesitant to buy TS4. Just because mods exist that fix the problems doesn’t mean they shouldn’t officially fix the problems. They need to do right by their games.
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right. Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
I don't think Sims is any one thing, but I agree any game without gameplay in it is no longer a game. CAS only focus makes me think of playing with Barbies, build only makes me think of playing with legos. So is like do people want the Sims turned into a children's toy? I don't, I want it to feel like a game made for teens at least and not just some Toys R' Us children's toy. If I wanted to play Barbies, I would not have moved on with the Sims but kept playing my Barbies when I first started playing the Sims. It is like bring us a game we can expand our imaginations with, not just confine it to the imagination I had as a kid. So far, I'm not convinced that the Sims 4 has offered enough than what the CAS demo offers for free. As a builder and someone that plays live mode, I feel alienated in this iteration. I guess that is my unpopular opinion is I find the Sims 4 alienates more Simmers than the Sims 3 did and players still face the Sims games breaking their computers, so this stifling the Sims for the sake of performance ended up hurting the franchise more than helping it and still managed to produce the same results for players complaining about their computer that don't even meet minimum specs yet again. So what was the point? I just hope that the Sims 4 has taught Maxis that selling Sims games with the same specs to run on both systems doesn't work. Bring back the Sims Life Stories series, so I can enjoy my gameplay and build modes again with a proper desktop version and offer a more confined version for laptop players again that doesn't hinder the desktop players anymore. With how technology is advancing and tablets replacing laptops in the Sims 4 game already, laptops will be a thing of the past like landlines are considered now. By the time the Sims 5 comes out, there might just be mobile, desktop, and console focus anyways since that is where the future of gaming is at.
First, I'll get the silly thing out of the way: How the heck were you playing with your Barbies? When I played with my Barbies back when I was a little girl, I built an entire fictional universe around them with character backstories, ongoing story arcs, super powers, magic, monsters...and a spin-off alternate universe side story involving vampires. There was never a dull moment with my Barbie universe, and I used everything from cardboard boxes to broken toys to toys from completely different toy lines in my imaginary stories...Which is why I couldn't play dolls with other girls, as a matter of fact. My fictional realm was just too elaborate for them to understand.
Second of all, the problem isn't that this game was made to try to accommodate lower-powered machines. A machine that meets the recommended specs for The Sims 2 would be considered a toaster nowadays, but it's one of the deepest, most compelling games in the franchise...even without the expansion packs. The problem is that in attempting to make a game for newbies to the series, they oversimplified the game's design in a botched attempt to make it more accessible to novice simmers and the execs rushed the game out before even the basics were fully finished.
Don't believe me? Alright, if the development team had been given their assignment well in advance ("Alright, ladies and gentlemen, we want the next game in the Sims franchise to be a full-featured, numbered title in the franchise that can run smoothly and well on both desktop and laptop systems with these minimum specs."), they would have been able to do it just fine. Why? Because they know the hardware constraints that they need to hold to in order to make such a game, and previous full-featured games in the series (not spinoffs, full, numbered titles) have been made to run on way crappier systems. They have the know-how, they have the expertise...But things were a total mess behind the scenes. They started with (and scrapped) an online Sims title with the working title Olympus, then rushed to start the offline The Sims 4 which was obviously not complete at launch. There has no doubt been copious executive meddling from EA executives behind the scenes to withhold base game content to be added in DLC (hot tubs, diving platforms, etc.) and soften the product as much as possible in terms of both atmosphere and gameplay to appeal to what these middle-aged men think of as the average middle school girl (obsessed with fashion, unable to handle any form of negative emotion, hates anything even slightly scary or violent, doesn't know the Mario Brothers from the Jonas Brothers, etc.). The chaotic, directionless state of things behind the scenes, with executives who wouldn't know a good game if it booted up without warning on their computers and (as the Battefront II debacle clearly shows) only care about how much cash they can squeeze out of their customers for the DLC trying to tell people who actually do know how to make good games constantly sticking their unwashed fingers into other people's pies and a dev team desperately trying to make the best game they possibly can under the tyrannical rule of their corporate overlords and still keep their jobs because they know EA for the developer killer they are and they see the ogres sharpening their knives and stoking their stoves just waiting for them to blink wrong. Making a quality product under those conditions isn't easy.
So, no. It's not the power of the systems the game was made for that is to blame, it's a flawed design philosophy born in equal parts of good intentions and relentless executive meddling. And, whether this game was made from the beginning with desktops or laptops in mind, there would still have been people who would have bought the game to play on systems that don't even meet the minimum specs because there are tons of people every year who just jump into PC gaming without doing any research, thinking PC gaming works just like console gaming in that so long as it says it works for their OS that it should work on their machine, only to find that it doesn't work at all because every PC is different from its fellows in terms of what's in the box so there's more than just "Is it for Mac or Windows and what OS version does it run on?" to consider. Classic novice PC gamer mistake. Yes, even when so many people have the internet literally in their pockets now, because we're trained by the modern consumer market to assume that pretty much everything is standardized for our convenience. That's training that we have to actually make an effort to break when getting into something as finicky as PC gaming.
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.
The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.
Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right. Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
I don't think Sims is any one thing, but I agree any game without gameplay in it is no longer a game. CAS only focus makes me think of playing with Barbies, build only makes me think of playing with legos. So is like do people want the Sims turned into a children's toy? I don't, I want it to feel like a game made for teens at least and not just some Toys R' Us children's toy. If I wanted to play Barbies, I would not have moved on with the Sims but kept playing my Barbies when I first started playing the Sims. It is like bring us a game we can expand our imaginations with, not just confine it to the imagination I had as a kid. So far, I'm not convinced that the Sims 4 has offered enough than what the CAS demo offers for free. As a builder and someone that plays live mode, I feel alienated in this iteration. I guess that is my unpopular opinion is I find the Sims 4 alienates more Simmers than the Sims 3 did and players still face the Sims games breaking their computers, so this stifling the Sims for the sake of performance ended up hurting the franchise more than helping it and still managed to produce the same results for players complaining about their computer that don't even meet minimum specs yet again. So what was the point? I just hope that the Sims 4 has taught Maxis that selling Sims games with the same specs to run on both systems doesn't work. Bring back the Sims Life Stories series, so I can enjoy my gameplay and build modes again with a proper desktop version and offer a more confined version for laptop players again that doesn't hinder the desktop players anymore. With how technology is advancing and tablets replacing laptops in the Sims 4 game already, laptops will be a thing of the past like landlines are considered now. By the time the Sims 5 comes out, there might just be mobile, desktop, and console focus anyways since that is where the future of gaming is at.
First, I'll get the silly thing out of the way: How the heck were you playing with your Barbies? When I played with my Barbies back when I was a little girl, I built an entire fictional universe around them with character backstories, ongoing story arcs, super powers, magic, monsters...and a spin-off alternate universe side story involving vampires. There was never a dull moment with my Barbie universe, and I used everything from cardboard boxes to broken toys to toys from completely different toy lines in my imaginary stories...Which is why I couldn't play dolls with other girls, as a matter of fact. My fictional realm was just too elaborate for them to understand.
Second of all, the problem isn't that this game was made to try to accommodate lower-powered machines. A machine that meets the recommended specs for The Sims 2 would be considered a toaster nowadays, but it's one of the deepest, most compelling games in the franchise...even without the expansion packs. The problem is that in attempting to make a game for newbies to the series, they oversimplified the game's design in a botched attempt to make it more accessible to novice simmers and the execs rushed the game out before even the basics were fully finished.
Don't believe me? Alright, if the development team had been given their assignment well in advance ("Alright, ladies and gentlemen, we want the next game in the Sims franchise to be a full-featured, numbered title in the franchise that can run smoothly and well on both desktop and laptop systems with these minimum specs."), they would have been able to do it just fine. Why? Because they know the hardware constraints that they need to hold to in order to make such a game, and previous full-featured games in the series (not spinoffs, full, numbered titles) have been made to run on way crappier systems. They have the know-how, they have the expertise...But things were a total mess behind the scenes. They started with (and scrapped) an online Sims title with the working title Olympus, then rushed to start the offline The Sims 4 which was obviously not complete at launch. There has no doubt been copious executive meddling from EA executives behind the scenes to withhold base game content to be added in DLC (hot tubs, diving platforms, etc.) and soften the product as much as possible in terms of both atmosphere and gameplay to appeal to what these middle-aged men think of as the average middle school girl (obsessed with fashion, unable to handle any form of negative emotion, hates anything even slightly scary or violent, doesn't know the Mario Brothers from the Jonas Brothers, etc.). The chaotic, directionless state of things behind the scenes, with executives who wouldn't know a good game if it booted up without warning on their computers and (as the Battefront II debacle clearly shows) only care about how much cash they can squeeze out of their customers for the DLC trying to tell people who actually do know how to make good games constantly sticking their unwashed fingers into other people's pies and a dev team desperately trying to make the best game they possibly can under the tyrannical rule of their corporate overlords and still keep their jobs because they know EA for the developer killer they are and they see the ogres sharpening their knives and stoking their stoves just waiting for them to blink wrong. Making a quality product under those conditions isn't easy.
So, no. It's not the power of the systems the game was made for that is to blame, it's a flawed design philosophy born in equal parts of good intentions and relentless executive meddling. And, whether this game was made from the beginning with desktops or laptops in mind, there would still have been people who would have bought the game to play on systems that don't even meet the minimum specs because there are tons of people every year who just jump into PC gaming without doing any research, thinking PC gaming works just like console gaming in that so long as it says it works for their OS that it should work on their machine, only to find that it doesn't work at all because every PC is different from its fellows in terms of what's in the box so there's more than just "Is it for Mac or Windows and what OS version does it run on?" to consider. Classic novice PC gamer mistake. Yes, even when so many people have the internet literally in their pockets now, because we're trained by the modern consumer market to assume that pretty much everything is standardized for our convenience. That's training that we have to actually make an effort to break when getting into something as finicky as PC gaming.
I should have played Barbies when I was little with you. That sounds like amazing stories. I played with my sister so that could have been part of the problem. All she wanted to do was chop their hair, destroy their faces with makeup, and tear off their heads, so probably wasn't the best Barbie experience. Let's just say I was happy Sims came so my sister couldn't meddle with my Sims.
Lower end computers was the excuse, but yeah I believe it was an online attempt which switched with SimCity fiasco and kind of got a confirmation on it so I do know it was a thing. Just don't tell me how because I don't want to get anyone in trouble. I really hope they don't try the online attempt with the next iteration. SimCity proved that it can't be done along with all the other attempts to go with online with the Sims thus far. I don't like that focus of the game of softening the product. Kids know a lot more about the dangerous aspects of life than when I was a kid, so I don't get why the Sims now has to be so politically correct it makes you want to puke. It is like the Truman shop on catnip and makes the 1950s feel more mature than what the Sims 4 offers. Like I can't have extreme weather because it is considered "negative", I can't have supernaturals because it is considered "negative", I can't have real illnesses because it is considered "negative." I saw bring back the negative into the Sims to simulate life into the franchise again. I don't want this safe plum and I'm tired of every single idea I have for the Sims 4 be considered unpopular and "negative" because it doesn't fit into this politically correct garbage. It makes it extremely discouraging to talk about the Sims even with other players that play it now because feels like every idea for the game they deem with the negative label. So not only am I feeling that political nonsense pressure in real life, but in the Sims, and on forums. So how is the Sims supposed to be my escape from the real world problems? Because right now it isn't. How are the Sims going to teach people how to face these real world problems? Because right now it is teaching them how to hide their heads like an ostrich in the sand. The Sims was supposed to be the redeeming game for Maxis after the SimCity fiasco, so they still have quite a ways to go for that to happen. I don't think the Sims 4 will be the game to solve the customer to business relations with EA. The Sims being only online would have probably killed the franchise for good especially now and it is sad that the customer base is as divided as much as it is now. I've never seen the Sims community as divided as it is during this iteration. This is like war time scary division.
I know an unpopular opinion I have is I don't want the Sims 4 lasting eight years. I am not ok with a Sims game costing $960 plus sales tax plus any international tax for an iteration for Simmers. That is at least triple the price of what the Sims 3 packs sold for and then people claiming they can't afford a decent gaming computer, it is like are they kidding? With what computer of theirs can they run eight years worth of content on? So far the Sims 4 needs at least 92 GB of memory and 414 GB of RAM to meet the recommended specs of all the packs released in 3 years. With eight years it is going to be 228 GB of memory and 1,008 GB of RAM. So not only will they be paying the $960 but will have to update their computer, their processor, and their graphics card in that time. Plus with the internet price increase recently you are paying more to install online. So that will probably be an added factor to consider for the future whether to keep the online installing or not. I'm ready for the future of the Sims beyond just the Sims 4 and would like to see the franchise grow again in a couple of years for another reboot. Even though I welcome competition, I don't want the Sims franchise to end with the Sims 4 either like how some want it to. I would like to see it continue. I just hope in an odd way it isn't called the Sims 5 because numbers are starting to look passé now.
“Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller
4. Ready for this one? It's a doozy.... I don't think that "gameplay" is always the answer. - Whoa! I know, right?! This one is especially hard to explain but I'll do my best. I think that there are many facets to a Sims game that make it something enjoyable. It's a game like no others and because of its unique nature, it is beloved by millions of people of a variety of ages, worldwide. I see a lot of people on the forums demanding "gameplay" but not specifying what exactly it is they want, and I've also seen a few people describe instead, specific simulations or age groups or objects or even weather, and call it "gameplay". I think that each of us hears the word and then imagines what it means to us, and we universally cry out for "more gameplay", when in fact it isn't exactly what some of us are truly asking for, and sometimes it's even the type of gameplay that's important to us. In my opinion, the Sims games should include gameplay, of course, but also balanced with a certain amount of simulation, flexibility for player choices, environment, time management, activities, interaction, creation, animation, etc. To me, Vampires was definitely a good example of gameplay with a variety of powers and weaknesses to choose from that influenced the behavior of each Sim with it's own progression system and titles and layers. But another reason I loved that pack was the ambiance of Forgotten Hollow and the gorgeous Victorian/Goth vibe in build/buy. In fact, for me, a very underrated addition in that pack was the wall stickers for cracks and stains that added to building run down houses, and I'm not even much of a builder. That's not gameplay, but a grand addition nonetheless, and very important to me. Another example of gameplay is the GTW careers, which some people enjoy, but others can't stand. I've seen a lot of people state that they would much prefer the control to do whatever they want instead of catering to a checklist. I thought I wasn't going to like them very much, but there are days when I do really enjoy playing them. But the point is, I feel that it's more important for us all to try to articulate what exactly it is that we are seeking in our game, being as specific as possible instead of summing everything up as "gameplay" because sometimes, that's not exactly what we're looking for.
Okay, I think that's all I've got for now.
I totally agree with this one @LiELF. This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.
I think the Sims has always been a game where you can do what you wish with it, whether it be building, decorating, taking pictures, or playing in a certain style.
So you're right, game play doesn't fix things for everyone.
I think gameplay does matter (and therefore is the answer), even when simmers have their own playing styles and their opinions about what gameplay is may vary. Gameplay concerning extensive lifestages, unique personalities and customizability for example are broadly supported by players (and missed in Sims 4). I in fact think the team has drifted away too much from basically needed gameplay for this game and are making the mistake of too much handing ready to go gameplay. Which leaves a lot of simmers bored and uninterested.
I didn't say it doesn't matter; I simply was agree with what @LiELF said about it not always being the answer. It's different strokes for different folks. Someone who ONLY builds, is ONLY going to be after build/buy items...where's the game play in that?
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
They didn’t say it was a builders game, they said people who just like to build are going to be more interested in building tools and content versus animated gameplay for live mode. That’s why I don’t really understand why you talk about cutting out gameplay, adding in more building tools (as an example) doesn’t cut anything out of the game.
Adding ‘gameplay’ in the sense of animated gameplay involving Sims isn’t always the answer. That’s why the stuff packs are relatively annoying IMO. Several major areas of the game are flat out ignored while they constantly spam out new animations for increasingly ridiculous things.
So the hollow phrasing “add gameplay” isn’t the answer. I’m not aware people do that? People specifically define what they want and don’t want. Those stickers mentioned may be a great addition, but only in combination with gameplay. A variety of gameplay definitely is the answer, stickers are just a way to give the gameplay a background. It’s like... saying a house doesn’t need walls because the wallpaper you bought is so amazing. What’s the point in having wallpaper when there are no walls? What’s the point of having nice stickers when the game itself is a bore because there’s not enough to do? (which for me personally in fact defines the problem with Sims 4, it’s why I realized even amazing toddlers couldn’t save things for me, because I don’t just play with toddlers and the rest is still the same meh).
4. Ready for this one? It's a doozy.... I don't think that "gameplay" is always the answer. - Whoa! I know, right?! This one is especially hard to explain but I'll do my best. I think that there are many facets to a Sims game that make it something enjoyable. It's a game like no others and because of its unique nature, it is beloved by millions of people of a variety of ages, worldwide. I see a lot of people on the forums demanding "gameplay" but not specifying what exactly it is they want, and I've also seen a few people describe instead, specific simulations or age groups or objects or even weather, and call it "gameplay". I think that each of us hears the word and then imagines what it means to us, and we universally cry out for "more gameplay", when in fact it isn't exactly what some of us are truly asking for, and sometimes it's even the type of gameplay that's important to us. In my opinion, the Sims games should include gameplay, of course, but also balanced with a certain amount of simulation, flexibility for player choices, environment, time management, activities, interaction, creation, animation, etc. To me, Vampires was definitely a good example of gameplay with a variety of powers and weaknesses to choose from that influenced the behavior of each Sim with it's own progression system and titles and layers. But another reason I loved that pack was the ambiance of Forgotten Hollow and the gorgeous Victorian/Goth vibe in build/buy. In fact, for me, a very underrated addition in that pack was the wall stickers for cracks and stains that added to building run down houses, and I'm not even much of a builder. That's not gameplay, but a grand addition nonetheless, and very important to me. Another example of gameplay is the GTW careers, which some people enjoy, but others can't stand. I've seen a lot of people state that they would much prefer the control to do whatever they want instead of catering to a checklist. I thought I wasn't going to like them very much, but there are days when I do really enjoy playing them. But the point is, I feel that it's more important for us all to try to articulate what exactly it is that we are seeking in our game, being as specific as possible instead of summing everything up as "gameplay" because sometimes, that's not exactly what we're looking for.
Okay, I think that's all I've got for now.
I totally agree with this one @LiELF. This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.
I think the Sims has always been a game where you can do what you wish with it, whether it be building, decorating, taking pictures, or playing in a certain style.
So you're right, game play doesn't fix things for everyone.
I think gameplay does matter (and therefore is the answer), even when simmers have their own playing styles and their opinions about what gameplay is may vary. Gameplay concerning extensive lifestages, unique personalities and customizability for example are broadly supported by players (and missed in Sims 4). I in fact think the team has drifted away too much from basically needed gameplay for this game and are making the mistake of too much handing ready to go gameplay. Which leaves a lot of simmers bored and uninterested.
I didn't say it doesn't matter; I simply was agree with what @LiELF said about it not always being the answer. It's different strokes for different folks. Someone who ONLY builds, is ONLY going to be after build/buy items...where's the game play in that?
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
C'mon @JoAnne65 - you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I didn't say it was a builder's game, although that's how initially what Will Wright wanted it to be. Of course The Sims wouldn't be The Sims without the sims, but I firmly believe that it's always been what you make it - which was the beauty of it. It was a sandbox and you could "play" whatever way you wanted whether it be in build mode, live mode, or CAS.
I've always been an advocate of all game play styles being included in the game. I don't think any type of Simmer should be left out.
So no I'm not saying the unpopular opinion is we don't need proper game play (where did I say that?), I was, again, simply agreeing with someone who said gameplay isn't always the answer. If I meant that the game didn't need proper game play, I would have said just that. On the flip side of that, I could easily interpret what you're saying as builders, Sim makers, custom content makers, modders don't matter because it doesn't involve extensive game play, but I wouldn't do that because I'm not about to interpret your words and twist them.
To clarify first: I wasn’t only reacting to what you said, but to the combination of your post and the opinion you quoted. I took building as an example (or just CAS), just to show that only catering one playing style (building, creating sims) isn’t enough to carry this game, that (a variety of) gameplay does matter and in my view definitely is the answer. I read that rather in the post you quoted than in your post (“gameplay isn’t the answer”).
I wonder by the way which opinion is actually unpopular here, because I often see arguments used to praise Sims 4 that apparently are broadly agreed with, that leave me completely indifferent: ‘the game looks so beautiful’, ‘the graphics are stunning’, ‘look how the lighting falls through the windows in comparison to the predecessors’, ‘at least it runs smoothly’. To me all this doesn’t matter without a game (gameplay) pulling me in. Lighting and looks are important to me, but only because it’s the gameplay that pulls me in first. I can enjoy games with great gameplay and poor graphics, I cannot enjoy a boring game with beautiful graphics. So I’m seriously confused about that angle/point of view and it sort of worries me even (not your post or the post you quoted, but the ‘at least it looks good’ vibe).
You can’t misinteprete my words by the way, because I specifically included exactly that in my reaction (I know you didn’t say you misinterpreted me, but in the meantime you of course did, trying to pull my words out of context ) Simmers can use the game to just build or create sims and have great fun; the fact you can play it in so many ways is one of his franchise’s unique and strong qualities, which in fact is what I was defending. “There is no wrong way to play Sims” a guru tweeted once and that was a beautiful line. I don’t think in terms of “don’t matter” and “being a ‘real’ simmer” anyway, I can’t even follow that line of thinking. For me that’s a non discussion. We’re only expressing here what matters to us and I can perfectly relate to the simmers who start topics to beg EA to mind the builders (not in the last place because I’m a builder in the third version of the game myself, so I completely get where they’re coming from). I never said players don’t matter. All I’m saying is that a Sims game that doesn’t cater varied playing styles and offers varied gameplay isn’t a Sims game. So, quite the opposite.
Double post, sorry, but I feel ETA-ing this to my previous post will be confusing ( @aricarai ). I'm still a bit struggling with this phrasing (and it indeed makes me go 'well, those simmers indeed don't matter to me as far as the development of this game is concerned'):
This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.
Maybe I'm completely misinterpreting the 'gameplay isn't the answer' observation, but why shouldn't gameplay be 'the answer' in general just because there are simmers who choose to play the game strictly the way they play Fashion Model or Daz3D? Apart from this by the way, I know a simmer who ended up playing Sims 3 that way because - of course - she loved doing that, but also because she actually missed the gameplay from Sims 2 in the successor. I believe she still played Sims 2, and Sims 3 she only used to make screenshots. In her case, even though she loved doing what she was doing, it was a shortcoming in Sims 3 that made her exclusively play it that way. I believe (lost track of her) she never made the transfer to Sims 4 because in that game she missed both gameplay and looks/appearance (for her, obviously).
I appreciate there are people who don't give a hoot about gameplay but more about stuff, but why would that be an ingredient for the development of a Sims game in general? Isn't that like sayin:"'I only play GTA because I love driving around through that world in a car. Refining and developing all the other gameplay isn't the answer for this game. All they need to do is make beautiful cars for the game, new radio stations with cool music and enough space to drive around in." (actually this is the only way I would ever play that game )
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.
The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.
Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.
I suggest you watch 'History of The Sims' on YouTube. The original concept was focused on building and was an architecture simulator.
Double post, sorry, but I feel ETA-ing this to my previous post will be confusing ( @aricarai ). I'm still a bit struggling with this phrasing (and it indeed makes me go 'well, those simmers indeed don't matter to me as far as the development of this game is concerned'):
This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.
Maybe I'm completely misinterpreting the 'gameplay isn't the answer' observation, but why shouldn't gameplay be 'the answer' in general just because there are simmers who choose to play the game strictly the way they play Fashion Model or Daz3D? Apart from this by the way, I know a simmer who ended up playing Sims 3 that way because - of course - she loved doing that, but also because she actually missed the gameplay from Sims 2 in the successor. I believe she still played Sims 2, and Sims 3 she only used to make screenshots. In her case, even though she loved doing what she was doing, it was a shortcoming in Sims 3 that made her exclusively play it that way. I believe (lost track of her) she never made the transfer to Sims 4 because in that game she missed both gameplay and looks/appearance (for her, obviously).
I appreciate there are people who don't give a hoot about gameplay but more about stuff, but why would that be an ingredient for the development of a Sims game in general? Isn't that like sayin:"'I only play GTA because I love driving around through that world in a car. Refining and developing all the other gameplay isn't the answer for this game. All they need to do is make beautiful cars for the game, new radio stations with cool music and enough space to drive around in." (actually this is the only way I would ever play that game )
You are misinterpreting it @JoAnne65 and forgetting a very key word in that phrase - ALWAYS - game play isn't ALWAYS the answer.
Look, for me, I didn't NOT play the Sims 3 because it lacks gameplay. I didn't play because I preferred to build in it.
As someone pointed out earlier, look at it as different categories of game play. I'm a builder and decorator first, so stuff matters most to me. This is by no means me saying that I think game play for the people exactly enjoy playing with Sims should be elimated. I'm just saying it should be inclusive for all types of game play because there are a heck of a lot of people that build, mod, create CC, decorate, take pictures, etc and that's it.
As I said before, this game has always been about what you make it and how you as the player wants to play.
I just wanted to pop in again because it seems like some people have either read through my post regarding gameplay too quickly, did not read it entirely, or misunderstood it. I highly recommend going back and reading that part again carefully, just for clarification.
@aricarai thank you for responding to so many posts, I feel that you really "get" what I was trying to say.
I did state in my post that gameplay was important. I also stated that the term means something different for each person, and that's why it's so important to be as specific as possible when trying to state what you want in game. The point was that some people's idea of "gameplay" is not the same as another's, and I've seen some people yelling for "gameplay", but then go on to describe something that isn't actually playable, like weather. Yes, weather can be a very important part of the game, as it brings immersion, ambience, realism, and even adds to simulation. But I wouldn't call it gameplay. See what I'm saying? Another example is my own request for a fear emotion. Sim emotions aren't gameplay either, they are more simulation. But the lack of a fear emotion leaves a large, gaping hole in the mechanics of the game for me.
Part of the problem that I see when we generally demand "gameplay" is that it's such a generic term that the devs don't know what we're asking for. Look, in Cats and Dogs, we got a brand new playable career, the veterinarian. That's gameplay. But did it make all those who asked for "gameplay" happy? Nope. But it actually IS gameplay. And sure, there are a lot of people having fun with it and others who say they've always wanted it, but many feel that it's just recycled mechanics and would rather have had... wait for it.... doghouses, toys, and pet beds. Yes, *objects*. I have actually seen posts where people would have sacrified actual gameplay for a load of objects that they felt were important, or for an animation of dogs sleeping on Sim beds. But just because these things aren't "playable", per se, it doesn't make them any less important to simmers or the game.
Anyway, I hope that helped to clarify my "unpopular opinion" for some people. It is, after all, supposed to be "unpopular", and if you disagree, you disagree.
Did I win the thread for "most unpopular opinion"? Lol
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.
The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.
Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.
I suggest you watch 'History of The Sims' on YouTube. The original concept was focused on building and was an architecture simulator.
There are a couple of videos by that name and they are apparently just made by some simmer who wanted to advertise for the Sims games. So they start with ugly videos from TS1 and continue by just showing how the game became more beautiful for each version. I hate advertising videos. So I won’t see them
Still it doesn’t tell me anything that there are younger simmers who have given a more glamorous interpretation by claiming that TS1 had nothing with SimCity to do and who love the newer versions of the game just because they look more beautiful than the original game even with the dumped down and way too easy gameplay.
The problem with simmers who refused to move on to the next game has been there every time because so many simmers loved their game and hated the idea of switching to a new version where they would have to buy everything again. But it was especially a huge problem with the Sims 1 lovers because they weren’t used to the idea of getting a new basegame every 5 yrs.
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.
The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.
Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.
I suggest you watch 'History of The Sims' on YouTube. The original concept was focused on building and was an architecture simulator.
There are a couple of videos by that name and they are apparently just made by some simmer who wanted to advertise for the Sims games. So they start with ugly videos from TS1 and continue by just showing how the game became more beautiful for each version. I hate advertising videos. So I won’t see them
Still it doesn’t tell me anything that there are younger simmers who have given a more glamorous interpretation by claiming that TS1 had nothing with SimCity to do and who love the newer versions of the game just because they look more beautiful than the original game even with the dumped down and way too easy gameplay.
The problem with simmers who refused to move on to the next game has been there every time because so many simmers loved their game and hated the idea of switching to a new version where they would have to buy everything again. But it was especially a huge problem with the Sims 1 lovers because they weren’t used to the idea of getting a new basegame every 5 yrs.
This is the video I'm talking about and I wouldn't call it advertising. It's actually really interesting and you may learn a thing or two about the franchise:
@Erpe - where did I say anything about younger Simmers or about people who love a specific iteration? You've gotta lay off what Drake said about the target demographic. We know you know the target demographic. I was simply stating the Sims started out as an architecture simulator, which is talked about in the video above.
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.
The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.
Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.
I suggest you watch 'History of The Sims' on YouTube. The original concept was focused on building and was an architecture simulator.
There are a couple of videos by that name and they are apparently just made by some simmer who wanted to advertise for the Sims games. So they start with ugly videos from TS1 and continue by just showing how the game became more beautiful for each version. I hate advertising videos. So I won’t see them
Still it doesn’t tell me anything that there are younger simmers who have given a more glamorous interpretation by claiming that TS1 had nothing with SimCity to do and who love the newer versions of the game just because they look more beautiful than the original game even with the dumped down and way too easy gameplay.
The problem with simmers who refused to move on to the next game has been there every time because so many simmers loved their game and hated the idea of switching to a new version where they would have to buy everything again. But it was especially a huge problem with the Sims 1 lovers because they weren’t used to the idea of getting a new basegame every 5 yrs.
This is the video I'm talking about and I wouldn't call it advertising. It's actually really interesting and you may learn a thing or two about the franchise:
@Erpe - where did I say anything about younger Simmers or about people who love a specific iteration? You've gotta lay off what Drake said about the target demographic. We know you know the target demographic. I was simply stating the Sims started out as an architecture simulator, which is talked about in the video above.
I don’t have the patience to watch such a long video - and who is the simmer who made it?
The Sims started out after the following games
SimCity (1989)
SimCity 2000 (1993)
SimCity 3000 (1999)
So Will Wright thought that it maybe would be just as fun to make a game that wasn’t just about the houses but also about the people who lived in the houses. He was also inspired by his young daughter who of course wasn’t interested in the houses and the mayor’s way of managing the city. But later when the Sims had been so surprisingly successful a lot of people began to rationalize after the fact and invented other explanations. I could probably document that too because I know that I have read it years ago. But I am not really interested in this old story about TS1. What interests me much more is the future and Will Wright isn’t important anymore after he left the Sims games about 10 yrs ago. What interests me much more is therefore EA’s plans for the future.
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.
The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.
Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.
Will's partner Jeff Braun and the Maxis Board rejected that name - in fact they rejected the whole idea and didn't want to fund it. So Will went to EA with the Idea because his Sim City game was doing so well at EA. EA fell all over the idea - seeing they were already publishing the Sims City and the idea to go more indepth with the people in Sim City got Will the financing and publishing he wanted. EA never had any qualms over Will making this game - not once according to Will Wright himself.
What actually caused him to change the name was the reaction he got out of the test panel when all the 12 year old boys in the test group heard that the projected name of the game was the dollhouse - they all ran out of the room not even trying the game -. That's what made Will change the name - as he wanted the game to be a game for everybody, and when young boys wouldn't even try the game because of it's name - he knew he needed to change it.
"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.....
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.
The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.
Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.
I suggest you watch 'History of The Sims' on YouTube. The original concept was focused on building and was an architecture simulator.
There are a couple of videos by that name and they are apparently just made by some simmer who wanted to advertise for the Sims games. So they start with ugly videos from TS1 and continue by just showing how the game became more beautiful for each version. I hate advertising videos. So I won’t see them
Still it doesn’t tell me anything that there are younger simmers who have given a more glamorous interpretation by claiming that TS1 had nothing with SimCity to do and who love the newer versions of the game just because they look more beautiful than the original game even with the dumped down and way too easy gameplay.
The problem with simmers who refused to move on to the next game has been there every time because so many simmers loved their game and hated the idea of switching to a new version where they would have to buy everything again. But it was especially a huge problem with the Sims 1 lovers because they weren’t used to the idea of getting a new basegame every 5 yrs.
This is the video I'm talking about and I wouldn't call it advertising. It's actually really interesting and you may learn a thing or two about the franchise:
@Erpe - where did I say anything about younger Simmers or about people who love a specific iteration? You've gotta lay off what Drake said about the target demographic. We know you know the target demographic. I was simply stating the Sims started out as an architecture simulator, which is talked about in the video above.
I don’t have the patience to watch such a long video - and who is the simmer who made it?
The Sims started out after the following games
SimCity (1989)
SimCity 2000 (1993)
SimCity 3000 (1999)
So Will Wright thought that it maybe would be just as fun to make a game that wasn’t just about the houses but also about the people who lived in the houses. He was also inspired by his young daughter who of course wasn’t interested in the houses and the mayor’s way of managing the city. But later when the Sims had been so surprisingly successful a lot of people began to rationalize after the fact and invented other explanations. I could probably document that too because I know that I have read it years ago. But I am not really interested in this old story about TS1. What interests me much more is the future and Will Wright isn’t important anymore after he left the Sims games about 10 yrs ago. What interests me much more is therefore EA’s plans for the future.
Why are you making assumptions about a video that you don't have the patience to watch? Who said anything about Sims 1? It's a history of the franchise. If you're more interesting in the future of the franchise, this probably isn't the topic for you since it's about unpopular opinions about TS4. I was merely giving information about how the game started out as an architecture simulator in answer to a response by @JoAnne65 about building.
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.
The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.
Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.
I suggest you watch 'History of The Sims' on YouTube. The original concept was focused on building and was an architecture simulator.
There are a couple of videos by that name and they are apparently just made by some simmer who wanted to advertise for the Sims games. So they start with ugly videos from TS1 and continue by just showing how the game became more beautiful for each version. I hate advertising videos. So I won’t see them
Still it doesn’t tell me anything that there are younger simmers who have given a more glamorous interpretation by claiming that TS1 had nothing with SimCity to do and who love the newer versions of the game just because they look more beautiful than the original game even with the dumped down and way too easy gameplay.
The problem with simmers who refused to move on to the next game has been there every time because so many simmers loved their game and hated the idea of switching to a new version where they would have to buy everything again. But it was especially a huge problem with the Sims 1 lovers because they weren’t used to the idea of getting a new basegame every 5 yrs.
This is the video I'm talking about and I wouldn't call it advertising. It's actually really interesting and you may learn a thing or two about the franchise:
@Erpe - where did I say anything about younger Simmers or about people who love a specific iteration? You've gotta lay off what Drake said about the target demographic. We know you know the target demographic. I was simply stating the Sims started out as an architecture simulator, which is talked about in the video above.
I don’t have the patience to watch such a long video - and who is the simmer who made it?
The Sims started out after the following games
SimCity (1989)
SimCity 2000 (1993)
SimCity 3000 (1999)
So Will Wright thought that it maybe would be just as fun to make a game that wasn’t just about the houses but also about the people who lived in the houses. He was also inspired by his young daughter who of course wasn’t interested in the houses and the mayor’s way of managing the city. But later when the Sims had been so surprisingly successful a lot of people began to rationalize after the fact and invented other explanations. I could probably document that too because I know that I have read it years ago. But I am not really interested in this old story about TS1. What interests me much more is the future and Will Wright isn’t important anymore after he left the Sims games about 10 yrs ago. What interests me much more is therefore EA’s plans for the future.
Why are you making assumptions about a video that you don't have the patience to watch? Who said anything about Sims 1? It's a history of the franchise. If you're more interesting in the future of the franchise, this probably isn't the topic for you since it's about unpopular opinions about TS4. I was merely giving information about how the game started out as an architecture simulator in answer to a response by @JoAnne65 about building.
My problem with videos that mainly just wants to show me stuff from all the different Sims games is that I am not interested in stuff. Therefore they are too boring for me to watch (unless they are extremely short).
But the roots for the Sims games in the SimCity games are clear. During the first Sims games the cities in the Sims also had a mayor and in the Danish Sims 2 forum EA Denmark called the forum administer the Sims Mayor too. This was clearly inspired by the Sims being a successor or sidegame to SimCity. I believe that Will Wright himself once told us something similar too. But now it is TS4, the Sims Freeplay, the Sims Mobile that are the newest games and the next is likely TS5. Will Wright hasn’t/hadn’t any influence on those games. So why should we still care so much about him? His only real good game was the Sims and I never really liked any of his other games anyway. Most of them (SimEarth, SimAnt, SimLife, SimFarm etc.) were forgotten many years ago and Spore wasn’t very successful either. So why care?
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.
The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.
Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.
I suggest you watch 'History of The Sims' on YouTube. The original concept was focused on building and was an architecture simulator.
There are a couple of videos by that name and they are apparently just made by some simmer who wanted to advertise for the Sims games. So they start with ugly videos from TS1 and continue by just showing how the game became more beautiful for each version. I hate advertising videos. So I won’t see them
Still it doesn’t tell me anything that there are younger simmers who have given a more glamorous interpretation by claiming that TS1 had nothing with SimCity to do and who love the newer versions of the game just because they look more beautiful than the original game even with the dumped down and way too easy gameplay.
The problem with simmers who refused to move on to the next game has been there every time because so many simmers loved their game and hated the idea of switching to a new version where they would have to buy everything again. But it was especially a huge problem with the Sims 1 lovers because they weren’t used to the idea of getting a new basegame every 5 yrs.
This is the video I'm talking about and I wouldn't call it advertising. It's actually really interesting and you may learn a thing or two about the franchise:
@Erpe - where did I say anything about younger Simmers or about people who love a specific iteration? You've gotta lay off what Drake said about the target demographic. We know you know the target demographic. I was simply stating the Sims started out as an architecture simulator, which is talked about in the video above.
I don’t have the patience to watch such a long video - and who is the simmer who made it?
The Sims started out after the following games
SimCity (1989)
SimCity 2000 (1993)
SimCity 3000 (1999)
So Will Wright thought that it maybe would be just as fun to make a game that wasn’t just about the houses but also about the people who lived in the houses. He was also inspired by his young daughter who of course wasn’t interested in the houses and the mayor’s way of managing the city. But later when the Sims had been so surprisingly successful a lot of people began to rationalize after the fact and invented other explanations. I could probably document that too because I know that I have read it years ago. But I am not really interested in this old story about TS1. What interests me much more is the future and Will Wright isn’t important anymore after he left the Sims games about 10 yrs ago. What interests me much more is therefore EA’s plans for the future.
Why are you making assumptions about a video that you don't have the patience to watch? Who said anything about Sims 1? It's a history of the franchise. If you're more interesting in the future of the franchise, this probably isn't the topic for you since it's about unpopular opinions about TS4. I was merely giving information about how the game started out as an architecture simulator in answer to a response by @JoAnne65 about building.
My problem with videos that mainly just wants to show me stuff from all the different Sims games is that I am not interested in stuff. Therefore they are too boring for me to watch (unless they are extremely short).
Again, you're not listening - that's not what the video is about. If you don't want to watch being you get bored easily, that's perfectly fine, but don't make assumptions about the video if you haven't watched it.
Double post, sorry, but I feel ETA-ing this to my previous post will be confusing ( @aricarai ). I'm still a bit struggling with this phrasing (and it indeed makes me go 'well, those simmers indeed don't matter to me as far as the development of this game is concerned'):
This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.
Maybe I'm completely misinterpreting the 'gameplay isn't the answer' observation, but why shouldn't gameplay be 'the answer' in general just because there are simmers who choose to play the game strictly the way they play Fashion Model or Daz3D? Apart from this by the way, I know a simmer who ended up playing Sims 3 that way because - of course - she loved doing that, but also because she actually missed the gameplay from Sims 2 in the successor. I believe she still played Sims 2, and Sims 3 she only used to make screenshots. In her case, even though she loved doing what she was doing, it was a shortcoming in Sims 3 that made her exclusively play it that way. I believe (lost track of her) she never made the transfer to Sims 4 because in that game she missed both gameplay and looks/appearance (for her, obviously).
I appreciate there are people who don't give a hoot about gameplay but more about stuff, but why would that be an ingredient for the development of a Sims game in general? Isn't that like sayin:"'I only play GTA because I love driving around through that world in a car. Refining and developing all the other gameplay isn't the answer for this game. All they need to do is make beautiful cars for the game, new radio stations with cool music and enough space to drive around in." (actually this is the only way I would ever play that game )
You are misinterpreting it @JoAnne65 and forgetting a very key word in that phrase - ALWAYS - game play isn't ALWAYS the answer.
Look, for me, I didn't NOT play the Sims 3 because it lacks gameplay. I didn't play because I preferred to build in it.
As someone pointed out earlier, look at it as different categories of game play. I'm a builder and decorator first, so stuff matters most to me. This is by no means me saying that I think game play for the people exactly enjoy playing with Sims should be elimated. I'm just saying it should be inclusive for all types of game play because there are a heck of a lot of people that build, mod, create CC, decorate, take pictures, etc and that's it.
As I said before, this game has always been about what you make it and how you as the player wants to play.
I think the confusion (on my part) lies in the question what gameplay is exactly. Because the addition of CASt for instance for me is gameplay. Gameplay I so much miss in Sims 4 that I gave up building, it’s no fun for me. Where in TS3 I love it. This doesn’t mean I don’t play Sims 4 because there’s no CASt, building is just one aspect in the game and if I’d enjoy the rest, I could live without it. So if that is what you (and @LiELF ) mean then I guess we agree? It sort of relates to how I felt after seeing the LGR review of Dragon Valley I once saw. He was listing what the world had exactly, in a rather dry and bored tone of voice, and all I could think was: “You don’t get it. You don’t get how Dragon Valley completely changes my Sims experience, purely through its different atmosphere.” So if that’s what’s meant then yes, I agree, gameplay doesn’t always matter. But only when there’s enough gameplay present already (like wallpaper only makes sense when there are walls). In Sims 4’s case I think gameplay does matter, always, because there’s an overkill of wallpaper and a shortage of walls.
I just wanted to pop in again because it seems like some people have either read through my post regarding gameplay too quickly, did not read it entirely, or misunderstood it. I highly recommend going back and reading that part again carefully, just for clarification.
@aricarai thank you for responding to so many posts, I feel that you really "get" what I was trying to say.
I did state in my post that gameplay was important. I also stated that the term means something different for each person, and that's why it's so important to be as specific as possible when trying to state what you want in game. The point was that some people's idea of "gameplay" is not the same as another's, and I've seen some people yelling for "gameplay", but then go on to describe something that isn't actually playable, like weather. Yes, weather can be a very important part of the game, as it brings immersion, ambience, realism, and even adds to simulation. But I wouldn't call it gameplay. See what I'm saying? Another example is my own request for a fear emotion. Sim emotions aren't gameplay either, they are more simulation. But the lack of a fear emotion leaves a large, gaping hole in the mechanics of the game for me.
Part of the problem that I see when we generally demand "gameplay" is that it's such a generic term that the devs don't know what we're asking for. Look, in Cats and Dogs, we got a brand new playable career, the veterinarian. That's gameplay. But did it make all those who asked for "gameplay" happy? Nope. But it actually IS gameplay. And sure, there are a lot of people having fun with it and others who say they've always wanted it, but many feel that it's just recycled mechanics and would rather have had... wait for it.... doghouses, toys, and pet beds. Yes, *objects*. I have actually seen posts where people would have sacrified actual gameplay for a load of objects that they felt were important, or for an animation of dogs sleeping on Sim beds. But just because these things aren't "playable", per se, it doesn't make them any less important to simmers or the game.
Anyway, I hope that helped to clarify my "unpopular opinion" for some people. It is, after all, supposed to be "unpopular", and if you disagree, you disagree.
Did I win the thread for "most unpopular opinion"? Lol
I reread that part several times already but I’ll admit I keep having trouble totally getting what you mean. But like I said in this post before (and you confirm that), it might have something to do with what can be considered gameplay. Weather indeed isn’t gameplay, it’s atmosphere. But doesn’t the fact many people are craving weather in their game next make the thesis “gameplay isn’t always important” rather a popular opinion? Because personally I don’t really understand that need (and I’ve said so in the poll topic about that). A lot of people are bored, did about everything there is to do (gameplay) and now they want to do it while there’s a thunderstorm and that will make all the difference?
If by “gameplay isn’t always the answer” you mean “boring repetitive gameplay won’t save this game” I agree as well. As far as I’m concerned they can keep their checklist based gameplay, I don’t need it. But that’s hardly unpopular either because lots of people aren’t too happy with the GTW set up I believe.
I’m not having problems with your opinion being popular or not, or me agreeing or not agreeing (I’m in fact starting to believe I do agree to some extent, though not so much in relation to Sims 4), it’s rather that I can’t quite follow what is meant and since lack of good, challenging and replayable gameplay is my main issue with Sims 4, I reacted. In fact I believe it’s exactly the addition of good gameplay (toddlers, vampires, parenthood) that made 2017 such a good year for the game.
But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.
Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.
The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.
Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "
Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.
I suggest you watch 'History of The Sims' on YouTube. The original concept was focused on building and was an architecture simulator.
There are a couple of videos by that name and they are apparently just made by some simmer who wanted to advertise for the Sims games. So they start with ugly videos from TS1 and continue by just showing how the game became more beautiful for each version. I hate advertising videos. So I won’t see them
Still it doesn’t tell me anything that there are younger simmers who have given a more glamorous interpretation by claiming that TS1 had nothing with SimCity to do and who love the newer versions of the game just because they look more beautiful than the original game even with the dumped down and way too easy gameplay.
The problem with simmers who refused to move on to the next game has been there every time because so many simmers loved their game and hated the idea of switching to a new version where they would have to buy everything again. But it was especially a huge problem with the Sims 1 lovers because they weren’t used to the idea of getting a new basegame every 5 yrs.
That analysis shows you indeed didn’t see it. It’s a very respectful video and not at all advertising.
I just wanted to pop in again because it seems like some people have either read through my post regarding gameplay too quickly, did not read it entirely, or misunderstood it. I highly recommend going back and reading that part again carefully, just for clarification.
@aricarai thank you for responding to so many posts, I feel that you really "get" what I was trying to say.
I did state in my post that gameplay was important. I also stated that the term means something different for each person, and that's why it's so important to be as specific as possible when trying to state what you want in game. The point was that some people's idea of "gameplay" is not the same as another's, and I've seen some people yelling for "gameplay", but then go on to describe something that isn't actually playable, like weather. Yes, weather can be a very important part of the game, as it brings immersion, ambience, realism, and even adds to simulation. But I wouldn't call it gameplay. See what I'm saying? Another example is my own request for a fear emotion. Sim emotions aren't gameplay either, they are more simulation. But the lack of a fear emotion leaves a large, gaping hole in the mechanics of the game for me.
Part of the problem that I see when we generally demand "gameplay" is that it's such a generic term that the devs don't know what we're asking for. Look, in Cats and Dogs, we got a brand new playable career, the veterinarian. That's gameplay. But did it make all those who asked for "gameplay" happy? Nope. But it actually IS gameplay. And sure, there are a lot of people having fun with it and others who say they've always wanted it, but many feel that it's just recycled mechanics and would rather have had... wait for it.... doghouses, toys, and pet beds. Yes, *objects*. I have actually seen posts where people would have sacrified actual gameplay for a load of objects that they felt were important, or for an animation of dogs sleeping on Sim beds. But just because these things aren't "playable", per se, it doesn't make them any less important to simmers or the game.
Anyway, I hope that helped to clarify my "unpopular opinion" for some people. It is, after all, supposed to be "unpopular", and if you disagree, you disagree.
Did I win the thread for "most unpopular opinion"? Lol
That is very well said.
You nailed the difference between gameplay and simulation. TS is one of the very few games with this problem because it's very specific in what it provides. Other games are all about gameplay only - TS is made of many smaller components and people value some of them over the others but tend to put them all in the same box calling them "gameplay" because, well, TS is a game and we abuse that term not really paying much attention to what it actually means. People asking for seasons when asked about their prefered type of gameplay are the best example IMO.
Will's partner Jeff Braun and the Maxis Board rejected that name - in fact they rejected the whole idea and didn't want to fund it. So Will went to EA with the Idea because his Sim City game was doing so well at EA. EA fell all over the idea - seeing they were already publishing the Sims City and the idea to go more indepth with the people in Sim City got Will the financing and publishing he wanted. EA never had any qualms over Will making this game - not once according to Will Wright himself.
What actually caused him to change the name was the reaction he got out of the test panel when all the 12 year old boys in the test group heard that the projected name of the game was the dollhouse - they all ran out of the room not even trying the game -. That's what made Will change the name - as he wanted the game to be a game for everybody, and when young boys wouldn't even try the game because of it's name - he knew he needed to change it.
I think that drives the point of why Sims 4 focusing on the dollhouse aspect only are driving customers away. Sims used to be a game that all genders and ages and races and religions could play. Focusing just on the dollhouse is going to drive a lot of male customers away. I know Sims 3 audience was pretty 50/50 at attracting customers both male and female. I know there are guys that do play the Sims 4 and would be an interesting poll on forums to do to see how many there are. If I had a guess, I think the target audience for the Sims 4 are girls. Thing is not all girls play the same way. Sure my sister is someone who would focus on CAS in her Sims 2 and 3 games, but my playstyles are completely different from hers. My brother was mainly a builder and stopped with the Sims 2. Neither have played the Sims 4. So in some cases CAS players didn't move on from the Sims 3. Either way from what Will Wright designed the Sims to be it was neither CAS or build focused, but a nice blend of all three modes.
With above going to be the unpopular opinion I guess I like the vet career and when I saw there was no dog houses I built my own. I actually prefer the vet career over active careers so when it is compared to the medical career I don't agree with it. Medical active career is boring and too grindy for my tastes. I mean I can't even build on that lot without the help of mods and cheats. With the vet career I can make treats, cure patients and feed my vampire's thirst so I find their work day can be a lot more fulfilling and I can get a lot more done within their work day. Plus the financial system in the game is a thing of beauty seeing it as an accountant. I am able to do rags to riches offices so better range with that too. I much prefer cheaper builds because it does make gameplay a lot more interesting not having happy buff override everything. I also would love to have a fear emotion too. I don't like having my Sims be happy all the time as it makes them feel like the Sims 3 Plumbots. It is actually quite interesting to see the trait chip system in that game be very similar to how Sims are designed now in the Sims 4. So I call these Sims Plumbots except shame they don't have seven trait slots like the Plumbots did. That Into the Future pack was very foretelling of what the Sims 4 was going to be like especially the Utopian world. I guess how I make it work is saying how Sims are trapped in Utopian hell with no way to escape their bubble, programmed to be Plumbots, and are stuck in a Truman Show set. So at least it is easy to make Fahrenheit 451 stories except I still need a fireman to make it work better.
I think one fun theory I have is Sims 4 is where Bella Goth got abducted to. It isn't Earth but a film set ran by aliens. Some hints of that are social workers being beam of lights, moodlet influencers in rooms to keep the Sims in a single state of mind so they don't come to realize they aren't living on Earth anymore, and aliens use disguises to spy on Sims.
“Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller
Comments
It sure seems that way. And me also, its something ive wanted for a long time. There just arent many people asking for it, I guess. At least not that ive seen.
The problem concerning gameplay is I feel it is far too scripted. The game is doing all the playing and dictating and I’m constantly fighting with it and getting more annoyed than I need to be. This exists to some extent in each series but feels the worst in the current one.
C'mon @JoAnne65 - you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I didn't say it was a builder's game, although that's how initially what Will Wright wanted it to be. Of course The Sims wouldn't be The Sims without the sims, but I firmly believe that it's always been what you make it - which was the beauty of it. It was a sandbox and you could "play" whatever way you wanted whether it be in build mode, live mode, or CAS.
I've always been an advocate of all game play styles being included in the game. I don't think any type of Simmer should be left out.
So no I'm not saying the unpopular opinion is we don't need proper game play (where did I say that?), I was, again, simply agreeing with someone who said gameplay isn't always the answer. If I meant that the game didn't need proper game play, I would have said just that. On the flip side of that, I could easily interpret what you're saying as builders, Sim makers, custom content makers, modders don't matter because it doesn't involve extensive game play, but I wouldn't do that because I'm not about to interpret your words and twist them.
Thank you @drake_mccarty - this is exactly it.
To me there's always been two different meanings of "gameplay". I think there's gameplay in a sense of playing the sims in game, their interactions, etc. and there's gameplay as in the way each player plays so everything a player loves to do and considers their play style is gameplay to them. I think every player has their own version or idea as to what constitutes as gameplay for them personally.
Editing the town for some people is playing the game, even if they edit the town more than they play the actual sims in town that's just their play style. Spending hours in CAS creating tons of sims is playing the game, even if they don't spend as much time playing them in live mode that's their play style. So when they slack in providing for some areas, then people whose play style falls mostly under that area might feel left out or abandoned. They should advance in every main avenue they have (for the game players, the sim makers, the builders, the creators) so that the game in its entirety is an in-depth and enriching experience.
There are still so many things they have yet to touch on or go in depth with that would make The Sims franchise better and some stuff never should've been left behind but instead kept and expanded upon or improved.
I agree with most of this but especially the parts in bold. I have always wanted some way to protect the main households I play from being affected by anything that I personally didn't do. I just want them to freeze in time essentially, no adopting animals, no getting pregnant and having babies, no changing jobs or getting new jobs, no promotions, no break ups. I think something like a little box to check beside each household name when you click on the household would be good and we can check off the households we don’t want affected. And if something I did before I moved to the next household on my list affects that household like a pregnant sim going into labor or an opportunity I accepted for a sim coming up to its due date then a warning about them could show up with the option to switch to that household with that sim. I've always wanted an option like that.
And yes, they need to fix what they make. As much as I’m ready for them to move on to a TS5 I know that based off their history it’ll probably be just as buggy as the previous games and that will make me hesitant to buy it just like I was hesitant to buy TS4. Just because mods exist that fix the problems doesn’t mean they shouldn’t officially fix the problems. They need to do right by their games.
First, I'll get the silly thing out of the way: How the heck were you playing with your Barbies? When I played with my Barbies back when I was a little girl, I built an entire fictional universe around them with character backstories, ongoing story arcs, super powers, magic, monsters...and a spin-off alternate universe side story involving vampires. There was never a dull moment with my Barbie universe, and I used everything from cardboard boxes to broken toys to toys from completely different toy lines in my imaginary stories...Which is why I couldn't play dolls with other girls, as a matter of fact. My fictional realm was just too elaborate for them to understand.
Second of all, the problem isn't that this game was made to try to accommodate lower-powered machines. A machine that meets the recommended specs for The Sims 2 would be considered a toaster nowadays, but it's one of the deepest, most compelling games in the franchise...even without the expansion packs. The problem is that in attempting to make a game for newbies to the series, they oversimplified the game's design in a botched attempt to make it more accessible to novice simmers and the execs rushed the game out before even the basics were fully finished.
Don't believe me? Alright, if the development team had been given their assignment well in advance ("Alright, ladies and gentlemen, we want the next game in the Sims franchise to be a full-featured, numbered title in the franchise that can run smoothly and well on both desktop and laptop systems with these minimum specs."), they would have been able to do it just fine. Why? Because they know the hardware constraints that they need to hold to in order to make such a game, and previous full-featured games in the series (not spinoffs, full, numbered titles) have been made to run on way crappier systems. They have the know-how, they have the expertise...But things were a total mess behind the scenes. They started with (and scrapped) an online Sims title with the working title Olympus, then rushed to start the offline The Sims 4 which was obviously not complete at launch. There has no doubt been copious executive meddling from EA executives behind the scenes to withhold base game content to be added in DLC (hot tubs, diving platforms, etc.) and soften the product as much as possible in terms of both atmosphere and gameplay to appeal to what these middle-aged men think of as the average middle school girl (obsessed with fashion, unable to handle any form of negative emotion, hates anything even slightly scary or violent, doesn't know the Mario Brothers from the Jonas Brothers, etc.). The chaotic, directionless state of things behind the scenes, with executives who wouldn't know a good game if it booted up without warning on their computers and (as the Battefront II debacle clearly shows) only care about how much cash they can squeeze out of their customers for the DLC trying to tell people who actually do know how to make good games constantly sticking their unwashed fingers into other people's pies and a dev team desperately trying to make the best game they possibly can under the tyrannical rule of their corporate overlords and still keep their jobs because they know EA for the developer killer they are and they see the ogres sharpening their knives and stoking their stoves just waiting for them to blink wrong. Making a quality product under those conditions isn't easy.
So, no. It's not the power of the systems the game was made for that is to blame, it's a flawed design philosophy born in equal parts of good intentions and relentless executive meddling. And, whether this game was made from the beginning with desktops or laptops in mind, there would still have been people who would have bought the game to play on systems that don't even meet the minimum specs because there are tons of people every year who just jump into PC gaming without doing any research, thinking PC gaming works just like console gaming in that so long as it says it works for their OS that it should work on their machine, only to find that it doesn't work at all because every PC is different from its fellows in terms of what's in the box so there's more than just "Is it for Mac or Windows and what OS version does it run on?" to consider. Classic novice PC gamer mistake. Yes, even when so many people have the internet literally in their pockets now, because we're trained by the modern consumer market to assume that pretty much everything is standardized for our convenience. That's training that we have to actually make an effort to break when getting into something as finicky as PC gaming.
Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.
Lower end computers was the excuse, but yeah I believe it was an online attempt which switched with SimCity fiasco and kind of got a confirmation on it so I do know it was a thing. Just don't tell me how because I don't want to get anyone in trouble. I really hope they don't try the online attempt with the next iteration. SimCity proved that it can't be done along with all the other attempts to go with online with the Sims thus far. I don't like that focus of the game of softening the product. Kids know a lot more about the dangerous aspects of life than when I was a kid, so I don't get why the Sims now has to be so politically correct it makes you want to puke. It is like the Truman shop on catnip and makes the 1950s feel more mature than what the Sims 4 offers. Like I can't have extreme weather because it is considered "negative", I can't have supernaturals because it is considered "negative", I can't have real illnesses because it is considered "negative." I saw bring back the negative into the Sims to simulate life into the franchise again. I don't want this safe plum and I'm tired of every single idea I have for the Sims 4 be considered unpopular and "negative" because it doesn't fit into this politically correct garbage. It makes it extremely discouraging to talk about the Sims even with other players that play it now because feels like every idea for the game they deem with the negative label. So not only am I feeling that political nonsense pressure in real life, but in the Sims, and on forums. So how is the Sims supposed to be my escape from the real world problems? Because right now it isn't. How are the Sims going to teach people how to face these real world problems? Because right now it is teaching them how to hide their heads like an ostrich in the sand. The Sims was supposed to be the redeeming game for Maxis after the SimCity fiasco, so they still have quite a ways to go for that to happen. I don't think the Sims 4 will be the game to solve the customer to business relations with EA. The Sims being only online would have probably killed the franchise for good especially now and it is sad that the customer base is as divided as much as it is now. I've never seen the Sims community as divided as it is during this iteration. This is like war time scary division.
I know an unpopular opinion I have is I don't want the Sims 4 lasting eight years. I am not ok with a Sims game costing $960 plus sales tax plus any international tax for an iteration for Simmers. That is at least triple the price of what the Sims 3 packs sold for and then people claiming they can't afford a decent gaming computer, it is like are they kidding? With what computer of theirs can they run eight years worth of content on? So far the Sims 4 needs at least 92 GB of memory and 414 GB of RAM to meet the recommended specs of all the packs released in 3 years. With eight years it is going to be 228 GB of memory and 1,008 GB of RAM. So not only will they be paying the $960 but will have to update their computer, their processor, and their graphics card in that time. Plus with the internet price increase recently you are paying more to install online. So that will probably be an added factor to consider for the future whether to keep the online installing or not. I'm ready for the future of the Sims beyond just the Sims 4 and would like to see the franchise grow again in a couple of years for another reboot. Even though I welcome competition, I don't want the Sims franchise to end with the Sims 4 either like how some want it to. I would like to see it continue. I just hope in an odd way it isn't called the Sims 5 because numbers are starting to look passé now.
I wonder by the way which opinion is actually unpopular here, because I often see arguments used to praise Sims 4 that apparently are broadly agreed with, that leave me completely indifferent: ‘the game looks so beautiful’, ‘the graphics are stunning’, ‘look how the lighting falls through the windows in comparison to the predecessors’, ‘at least it runs smoothly’. To me all this doesn’t matter without a game (gameplay) pulling me in. Lighting and looks are important to me, but only because it’s the gameplay that pulls me in first. I can enjoy games with great gameplay and poor graphics, I cannot enjoy a boring game with beautiful graphics. So I’m seriously confused about that angle/point of view and it sort of worries me even (not your post or the post you quoted, but the ‘at least it looks good’ vibe).
You can’t misinteprete my words by the way, because I specifically included exactly that in my reaction (I know you didn’t say you misinterpreted me, but in the meantime you of course did, trying to pull my words out of context
Gameplay does matter. It’s essential.
Maybe I'm completely misinterpreting the 'gameplay isn't the answer' observation, but why shouldn't gameplay be 'the answer' in general just because there are simmers who choose to play the game strictly the way they play Fashion Model or Daz3D? Apart from this by the way, I know a simmer who ended up playing Sims 3 that way because - of course - she loved doing that, but also because she actually missed the gameplay from Sims 2 in the successor. I believe she still played Sims 2, and Sims 3 she only used to make screenshots. In her case, even though she loved doing what she was doing, it was a shortcoming in Sims 3 that made her exclusively play it that way. I believe (lost track of her) she never made the transfer to Sims 4 because in that game she missed both gameplay and looks/appearance (for her, obviously).
I appreciate there are people who don't give a hoot about gameplay but more about stuff, but why would that be an ingredient for the development of a Sims game in general? Isn't that like sayin:"'I only play GTA because I love driving around through that world in a car. Refining and developing all the other gameplay isn't the answer for this game. All they need to do is make beautiful cars for the game, new radio stations with cool music and enough space to drive around in." (actually this is the only way I would ever play that game
I suggest you watch 'History of The Sims' on YouTube. The original concept was focused on building and was an architecture simulator.
You are misinterpreting it @JoAnne65 and forgetting a very key word in that phrase - ALWAYS - game play isn't ALWAYS the answer.
Look, for me, I didn't NOT play the Sims 3 because it lacks gameplay. I didn't play because I preferred to build in it.
As someone pointed out earlier, look at it as different categories of game play. I'm a builder and decorator first, so stuff matters most to me. This is by no means me saying that I think game play for the people exactly enjoy playing with Sims should be elimated. I'm just saying it should be inclusive for all types of game play because there are a heck of a lot of people that build, mod, create CC, decorate, take pictures, etc and that's it.
As I said before, this game has always been about what you make it and how you as the player wants to play.
I just wanted to pop in again because it seems like some people have either read through my post regarding gameplay too quickly, did not read it entirely, or misunderstood it. I highly recommend going back and reading that part again carefully, just for clarification.
@aricarai thank you for responding to so many posts, I feel that you really "get" what I was trying to say.
I did state in my post that gameplay was important. I also stated that the term means something different for each person, and that's why it's so important to be as specific as possible when trying to state what you want in game. The point was that some people's idea of "gameplay" is not the same as another's, and I've seen some people yelling for "gameplay", but then go on to describe something that isn't actually playable, like weather. Yes, weather can be a very important part of the game, as it brings immersion, ambience, realism, and even adds to simulation. But I wouldn't call it gameplay. See what I'm saying? Another example is my own request for a fear emotion. Sim emotions aren't gameplay either, they are more simulation. But the lack of a fear emotion leaves a large, gaping hole in the mechanics of the game for me.
Part of the problem that I see when we generally demand "gameplay" is that it's such a generic term that the devs don't know what we're asking for. Look, in Cats and Dogs, we got a brand new playable career, the veterinarian. That's gameplay. But did it make all those who asked for "gameplay" happy? Nope. But it actually IS gameplay. And sure, there are a lot of people having fun with it and others who say they've always wanted it, but many feel that it's just recycled mechanics and would rather have had... wait for it.... doghouses, toys, and pet beds. Yes, *objects*. I have actually seen posts where people would have sacrified actual gameplay for a load of objects that they felt were important, or for an animation of dogs sleeping on Sim beds. But just because these things aren't "playable", per se, it doesn't make them any less important to simmers or the game.
Anyway, I hope that helped to clarify my "unpopular opinion" for some people. It is, after all, supposed to be "unpopular", and if you disagree, you disagree.
Did I win the thread for "most unpopular opinion"? Lol
Still it doesn’t tell me anything that there are younger simmers who have given a more glamorous interpretation by claiming that TS1 had nothing with SimCity to do and who love the newer versions of the game just because they look more beautiful than the original game even with the dumped down and way too easy gameplay.
The problem with simmers who refused to move on to the next game has been there every time because so many simmers loved their game and hated the idea of switching to a new version where they would have to buy everything again. But it was especially a huge problem with the Sims 1 lovers because they weren’t used to the idea of getting a new basegame every 5 yrs.
This is the video I'm talking about and I wouldn't call it advertising. It's actually really interesting and you may learn a thing or two about the franchise:
@Erpe - where did I say anything about younger Simmers or about people who love a specific iteration? You've gotta lay off what Drake said about the target demographic. We know you know the target demographic. I was simply stating the Sims started out as an architecture simulator, which is talked about in the video above.
The Sims started out after the following games
SimCity (1989)
SimCity 2000 (1993)
SimCity 3000 (1999)
So Will Wright thought that it maybe would be just as fun to make a game that wasn’t just about the houses but also about the people who lived in the houses. He was also inspired by his young daughter who of course wasn’t interested in the houses and the mayor’s way of managing the city. But later when the Sims had been so surprisingly successful a lot of people began to rationalize after the fact and invented other explanations. I could probably document that too because I know that I have read it years ago. But I am not really interested in this old story about TS1. What interests me much more is the future and Will Wright isn’t important anymore after he left the Sims games about 10 yrs ago. What interests me much more is therefore EA’s plans for the future.
Will's partner Jeff Braun and the Maxis Board rejected that name - in fact they rejected the whole idea and didn't want to fund it. So Will went to EA with the Idea because his Sim City game was doing so well at EA. EA fell all over the idea - seeing they were already publishing the Sims City and the idea to go more indepth with the people in Sim City got Will the financing and publishing he wanted. EA never had any qualms over Will making this game - not once according to Will Wright himself.
What actually caused him to change the name was the reaction he got out of the test panel when all the 12 year old boys in the test group heard that the projected name of the game was the dollhouse - they all ran out of the room not even trying the game -. That's what made Will change the name - as he wanted the game to be a game for everybody, and when young boys wouldn't even try the game because of it's name - he knew he needed to change it.
"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.....
Why are you making assumptions about a video that you don't have the patience to watch? Who said anything about Sims 1? It's a history of the franchise. If you're more interesting in the future of the franchise, this probably isn't the topic for you since it's about unpopular opinions about TS4. I was merely giving information about how the game started out as an architecture simulator in answer to a response by @JoAnne65 about building.
But the roots for the Sims games in the SimCity games are clear. During the first Sims games the cities in the Sims also had a mayor and in the Danish Sims 2 forum EA Denmark called the forum administer the Sims Mayor too. This was clearly inspired by the Sims being a successor or sidegame to SimCity. I believe that Will Wright himself once told us something similar too. But now it is TS4, the Sims Freeplay, the Sims Mobile that are the newest games and the next is likely TS5. Will Wright hasn’t/hadn’t any influence on those games. So why should we still care so much about him? His only real good game was the Sims and I never really liked any of his other games anyway. Most of them (SimEarth, SimAnt, SimLife, SimFarm etc.) were forgotten many years ago and Spore wasn’t very successful either. So why care?
Again, you're not listening - that's not what the video is about. If you don't want to watch being you get bored easily, that's perfectly fine, but don't make assumptions about the video if you haven't watched it.
I reread that part several times already but I’ll admit I keep having trouble totally getting what you mean. But like I said in this post before (and you confirm that), it might have something to do with what can be considered gameplay. Weather indeed isn’t gameplay, it’s atmosphere. But doesn’t the fact many people are craving weather in their game next make the thesis “gameplay isn’t always important” rather a popular opinion? Because personally I don’t really understand that need (and I’ve said so in the poll topic about that). A lot of people are bored, did about everything there is to do (gameplay) and now they want to do it while there’s a thunderstorm and that will make all the difference?
If by “gameplay isn’t always the answer” you mean “boring repetitive gameplay won’t save this game” I agree as well. As far as I’m concerned they can keep their checklist based gameplay, I don’t need it. But that’s hardly unpopular either because lots of people aren’t too happy with the GTW set up I believe.
I’m not having problems with your opinion being popular or not, or me agreeing or not agreeing (I’m in fact starting to believe I do agree to some extent, though not so much in relation to Sims 4), it’s rather that I can’t quite follow what is meant and since lack of good, challenging and replayable gameplay is my main issue with Sims 4, I reacted. In fact I believe it’s exactly the addition of good gameplay (toddlers, vampires, parenthood) that made 2017 such a good year for the game.
That is very well said.
You nailed the difference between gameplay and simulation. TS is one of the very few games with this problem because it's very specific in what it provides. Other games are all about gameplay only - TS is made of many smaller components and people value some of them over the others but tend to put them all in the same box calling them "gameplay" because, well, TS is a game and we abuse that term not really paying much attention to what it actually means. People asking for seasons when asked about their prefered type of gameplay are the best example IMO.
With above going to be the unpopular opinion I guess I like the vet career and when I saw there was no dog houses I built my own. I actually prefer the vet career over active careers so when it is compared to the medical career I don't agree with it. Medical active career is boring and too grindy for my tastes. I mean I can't even build on that lot without the help of mods and cheats. With the vet career I can make treats, cure patients and feed my vampire's thirst so I find their work day can be a lot more fulfilling and I can get a lot more done within their work day. Plus the financial system in the game is a thing of beauty seeing it as an accountant. I am able to do rags to riches offices so better range with that too. I much prefer cheaper builds because it does make gameplay a lot more interesting not having happy buff override everything. I also would love to have a fear emotion too. I don't like having my Sims be happy all the time as it makes them feel like the Sims 3 Plumbots. It is actually quite interesting to see the trait chip system in that game be very similar to how Sims are designed now in the Sims 4. So I call these Sims Plumbots except shame they don't have seven trait slots like the Plumbots did. That Into the Future pack was very foretelling of what the Sims 4 was going to be like especially the Utopian world. I guess how I make it work is saying how Sims are trapped in Utopian hell with no way to escape their bubble, programmed to be Plumbots, and are stuck in a Truman Show set. So at least it is easy to make Fahrenheit 451 stories except I still need a fireman to make it work better.
I think one fun theory I have is Sims 4 is where Bella Goth got abducted to. It isn't Earth but a film set ran by aliens. Some hints of that are social workers being beam of lights, moodlet influencers in rooms to keep the Sims in a single state of mind so they don't come to realize they aren't living on Earth anymore, and aliens use disguises to spy on Sims.