Could Sims 4 have more neighborhoods in worlds? «12...Next Go

andre1906

SimGuruLyndsay addressed in a video from James, why the Sims 4 neighborhoods are so tiny, and its reasons are valid.

So why don't they create worlds with MORE neighborhoods?

If you investigate the Sims 4 files, every neighborhood from any world is an independent file that is loaded only when you're there.

So, the question is... couldn't Maxis create worlds with 6 or 7 or even eight neighborhoods?

Can you imagine a world with eight neighborhoods featuring forty new lots? Again... Since a neighborhood is only loaded when you're there, it wouldn't have any impact on performance.

Chicklet453681

andre1906 wrote: »

SimGuruLyndsay addressed in a video from James, why the Sims 4 neighborhoods are so tiny, and its reasons are valid.

So why don't they create worlds with MORE neighborhoods?

If you investigate the Sims 4 files, every neighborhood from any world is an independent file that is loaded only when you're there.

So, the question is... couldn't Maxis create worlds with 6 or 7 or even eight neighborhoods?

Can you imagine a world with eight neighborhoods featuring forty new lots? Again... Since a neighborhood is only loaded when you're there, it wouldn't have any impact on performance.

Not even in my dreams could I ever imagine TS4 giving us a world that has that many lots.

I would be in heaven if we ever got a world with 20 lots again, instead of the standard 12, with a TON of fake buildings taking up all of the available area where we, as the players who know our own systems, could have built. The limitations Maxis places on things is ridiculous.

Why not something like, low end computer users get only the 12 basic lots available to not tax their system, but users who play on high or ultra when entering that world, has many more available lots to build on. That way everybody wins.

Calico45

I don't know if they could restrict the actual number of lots per performance settings (I have never really heard of anything comparable in other games either), but they could probably do more loading screens at lower levels. For example, at lower settings you would then need a loading screen to access the "open" part of the neighborhood where the townies jaunt around. Basically, straight Sims 2 stuck to home lot on the most basic settings.

This being said, I do feel the video beat around the "constraints" bush. Too hard on performance, too much space, etc.

JestTru

To be honest after all these years of the new worlds being like they are it doesnt bother me anymore.

I do wish that since they are making worlds limited in lot size they could've at least made each neighborhood open. But regardless as more is added to the game rather it be gameplay, world size, number of lots, etc it's all going to play a part on affecting the performance rate. Sims 4 has a lot more packs than other iterations of this game and they are continuing to make more for it.

Calico45

JestTru wrote: »

To be honest after all these years of the new worlds being like they are it doesnt bother me anymore.

I do wish that since they are making worlds limited in lot size they could've at least made each neighborhood open. But regardless as more is added to the game rather it be gameplay, world size, number of lots, etc it's all going to play a part on affecting the performance rate. Sims 4 has a lot more packs than other iterations of this game and they are continuing to make more for it.

That is why I think they made the choice to do it that way. They could do bigger worlds, but in the long term it would mean the Sims 4 as a whole would not be able to support as many packs. There is a genuine argument to be made here in favor of this, too. (Though it should be pretty obvious where the company selling the packs should fall.)

However, I feel like the narrative always put forward here is: constraints = not possible. Rather than admitting it is a choice which is the best one for such and such reasons.

Lorenerd11

andre1906 wrote: »

SimGuruLyndsay addressed in a video from James, why the Sims 4 neighborhoods are so tiny, and its reasons are valid.

What are the reasons? I really don't see why we couldn't have gotten two or three more residential lots in Strangerville. There's definitely no shortage of space for it.

logion

I thought so too, in theory it shouldn't matter because the sims4 just loads one neighborhood at a time anyway. It doesn't matter in which world it is. But I guess it's the total amount of worlds and lots that matter.

As far as I understand it's not possible because they want to support lower-end computers and they also want to continue the sims4 for many more years, too many large worlds could create a sims3 situation where we have to start disabling packs in order for the game to run well. Too many sims and lots could make your save file so large that you will start to have huge loading times and bad performance.

I hope it doesn't mean that worlds are going to get smaller and smaller and performance worse and worse the longer they continue this game.

Sindocat

I don't know Willow Creek well enough from memory to say, but Oasis Springs is actually rather large. There the the El Cheapo neighborhood where Johnny Zest lives, the middle class neighborhood, the upper class gated community, the top drawer neighborhood where the Landgraabs live, the city center with the bar, museum, lounge and gym, and the big park.

Six neighborhoods, and my impression is that Willow Creek and Newcrest are a similar size.

So, obviously it is possible to have more neighborhoods. I suppose limiting it to three per expansion world is a way of limiting how much design and building each pack requires, leaving development budget for other features. Kicking around the worlds I have that came in packs, it seems that three neighborhoods is the design standard.

Could there be more? Apparently. Are there likely to be? Apparently not.

RamblineRose

I agree with @JestTru if the worlds are going to be limited in size, I would also like to see the neighborhood open. A lot of us have been asking this question for years.

Jyotai

Calico45 wrote: »

However, I feel like the narrative always put forward here is: constraints = not possible. Rather than admitting it is a choice which is the best one for such and such reasons.

Its very difficult to explain tech limits to non tech people. And what is intended as an explanation will often get 'short handed' in the mind of recipient into 'don't want to or claim they can't',

If we look, they actually have said why it's done the way it is. But the message is rarely received.

RamblineRose wrote: »

I agree with @JestTru if the worlds are going to be limited in size, I would also like to see the neighborhood open. A lot of us have been asking this question for years.

From a game play view I agree. But when I start thinking about how the game would perform if all the lots in a given neighborhood were loaded in at once... then I see why it is how it is.

If we go into Willow Creek with the default houses and don't add anything into them - then that's reasonable. But the moment people start adding in a things from the many packs over the years - it starts to build up very quickly.

We would basically have hit the 'end of lifecycle' for Sims 4 roughly middle of last year if it was all opened up. The game as it stands right now would probably have been able to happen as these last few packs have been more on CAS/Build and less on gameplay, but I suspect we would not be able to get the upcoming rural farming pack, and probably not have been able to get the likes/dislikes system that prepared up for DHD despite how the gameplay of DHD is not 'deep mechanics'.

Sthenastia

This is one of my the biggest complainments about TS4. Worlds are tiny and sometimes it is hard to fit what I want. Del Sol Valley and Britechester are so bad. The worlds look nice but this is probably one and only advantege of that. That's how DSL should looks like in my opinion:



Some space for poor sims, medium class, lower and higher superstars.

Onverser

Sthenastia wrote: »

This is one of my the biggest complainments about TS4. Worlds are tiny and sometimes it is hard to fit what I want. Del Sol Valley and Britechester are so bad. The worlds look nice but this is probably one and only advantege of that. That's how DSL should looks like in my opinion:



Some space for poor sims, medium class, lower and higher superstars.

Yes! This map is spot on on what it should have been. The LA inspired world in 3 was one of my favorites in that game and it's so disappointing how badly it was done in 4. Like how can you make California without a beach??

Paigeisin5

In the beginning, the size of the worlds was said to be a problem because we were still using 32bit rather than 64. That was also the supposed reason why so much was missing from the base game, then it became the scapegoat again when certain game play features in new packs were buggy and lacked the depth of the same features in Sims2 and 3. When EA announced the teams would be creating new content using 64bit, I was hopeful. But then all conversations about it stopped, and we had no idea when the conversion would actually happen. If I remember correctly, one to two years passed before the conversion was finalized just before DU was released, and players with lower end devices were given the Legacy Edition but could not purchase new packs or update the base game in the future. But at least they were able to play Sims4.

Fast forward to now and we are still being given the same excuses about world size as were given three years ago: Performance issues may arise for players running PCs with lower specs. EA is trying to paint itself as a hero for making the game playable for everyone no matter what kind of PC a player owns. But 64bit games have been the norm for several years, and those of us who have kept up with the advances in technology are the ones being fed excuses for Sims4's shortcomings. Sims4 is still lacking, it's buggy and the worlds have become smaller and filled with empty unusable buildings. One of my biggest gripes about all of this is the fact EA lied to us. It painted the conversion as something that would help the teams create new content that was more in line with what we saw in Sims2 and 3. The conversion was supposed to open the game up to new possibilities. But it didn't happen that way at all. Sims4 is flailing because it's more profitable for EA to keep those players with low end PCs buying new packs. The amusing part in EA's plan? Many of us are not buying new packs, or we purchase packs in bundles or at half price because the content doesn't justify the cost of those new packs.

I realize not everyone has the funds to go out and purchase new PCs and laptops. I am not here to offend, or to demean anyone's circumstances. But after almost seven years of being told certain things can't happen with Sims4, something has to change. Fewer decorative buildings we can't use, would ease the loading time and resources used. If the teams would give us a couple of empty new worlds with larger lots that are suitable for players with high end PCs and laptops, we wouldn't be having this conversation. All we're asking for is having fewer restrictions being forced on the players fortunate enough to have the ability to utilize larger worlds. I would happily pay for a pack with a world that isn't bogged down with more CAS and BB assets. I don't need new game play features. I just want a nice big world with a view that doesn't include a phony backdrop. It's called having choices. And that would be an amazing solution at this point.

EnigmaOFFC

andre1906 wrote: »

SimGuruLyndsay addressed in a video from James, why the Sims 4 neighborhoods are so tiny, and its reasons are valid.

So why don't they create worlds with MORE neighborhoods?

If you investigate the Sims 4 files, every neighborhood from any world is an independent file that is loaded only when you're there.

So, the question is... couldn't Maxis create worlds with 6 or 7 or even eight neighborhoods?

Can you imagine a world with eight neighborhoods featuring forty new lots? Again... Since a neighborhood is only loaded when you're there, it wouldn't have any impact on performance.

@andre1906 its just an excuse, they can't say that SIms 4 worlds take more time, effort and 3d modeling than Sims 2/3 did and they won't want to spend more money in worlds instead of gameplay.

Carl_Veluz1992

Sthenastia wrote: »

This is one of my the biggest complainments about TS4. Worlds are tiny and sometimes it is hard to fit what I want. Del Sol Valley and Britechester are so bad. The worlds look nice but this is probably one and only advantege of that. That's how DSL should looks like in my opinion:



Some space for poor sims, medium class, lower and higher superstars.

I hope it will be included in the Get Famous update.

SERVERFRA

They need to go back into the packs & had more lots, especially for:
Forgotten Hollow, Glimmerbrook & Promenade.

Also they need to make the following worlds liveable & more lots:
Sylan Glade, Cave, Sixam, Salvadora, Granite Falls & Batuu.

And finally unlock all thoughts Special Lots so they can be residental lots.

logion

Sindocat wrote: »

I don't know Willow Creek well enough from memory to say, but Oasis Springs is actually rather large. There the the El Cheapo neighborhood where Johnny Zest lives, the middle class neighborhood, the upper class gated community, the top drawer neighborhood where the Landgraabs live, the city center with the bar, museum, lounge and gym, and the big park.

Six neighborhoods, and my impression is that Willow Creek and Newcrest are a similar size.

So, obviously it is possible to have more neighborhoods. I suppose limiting it to three per expansion world is a way of limiting how much design and building each pack requires, leaving development budget for other features. Kicking around the worlds I have that came in packs, it seems that three neighborhoods is the design standard.

Could there be more? Apparently. Are there likely to be? Apparently not.

I hope that three neighborhoods will not be the standard now with the way they are designing their expansion packs but I fear that you are right.

LeGardePourpre

It seems the number of the lots is limited to 15.
More neighborhoods mean less lot per neighborhood.

For example 10 neighborhoods would be with 1 or 2 lots for each.

elelunicy

Yes they can add more neighborhoods (for example Mt. Komorebi technically has 6 neighborhoods, as the base camps are their own neighborhoods). However, there is no point in adding more neighborhoods if their goal is keeping the total number of lots down. That will just result in less lots per neighborhood.

Asking why the number of lots affect performance (when only lots in the current neighborhood are loaded) is like asking why Sims culling and Max Sim Count are a thing (when only Sims in the current neighborhood are loaded). It's not about what you SEE. It's about what the game needs to track behind the scene. It's like asking why open neighborhoods are not a thing when all lots are already loaded. Again it's not about what you SEE. The other lots in the neighborhood are only loaded physically for rendering purposes; logically the other lots are not loaded at all (i.e. things like object state/stats, routing/pathing info, autonomy graph, etc. are not loaded at all and thus these lots do not function at all).

Moreover, all Sims data, Lot data, Object data, etc. are serialized and then saved to a single save file. When you load the game everything is then deserialized. Your loading time will significantly worsen as your save file gets bigger.

Paralee

Paigeisin5 wrote: »

In the beginning, the size of the worlds was said to be a problem because we were still using 32bit rather than 64. That was also the supposed reason why so much was missing from the base game, then it became the scapegoat again when certain game play features in new packs were buggy and lacked the depth of the same features in Sims2 and 3. When EA announced the teams would be creating new content using 64bit, I was hopeful. But then all conversations about it stopped, and we had no idea when the conversion would actually happen. If I remember correctly, one to two years passed before the conversion was finalized just before DU was released, and players with lower end devices were given the Legacy Edition but could not purchase new packs or update the base game in the future. But at least they were able to play Sims4.

Fast forward to now and we are still being given the same excuses about world size as were given three years ago: Performance issues may arise for players running PCs with lower specs. EA is trying to paint itself as a hero for making the game playable for everyone no matter what kind of PC a player owns. But 64bit games have been the norm for several years, and those of us who have kept up with the advances in technology are the ones being fed excuses for Sims4's shortcomings. Sims4 is still lacking, it's buggy and the worlds have become smaller and filled with empty unusable buildings. One of my biggest gripes about all of this is the fact EA lied to us. It painted the conversion as something that would help the teams create new content that was more in line with what we saw in Sims2 and 3. The conversion was supposed to open the game up to new possibilities. But it didn't happen that way at all. Sims4 is flailing because it's more profitable for EA to keep those players with low end PCs buying new packs. The amusing part in EA's plan? Many of us are not buying new packs, or we purchase packs in bundles or at half price because the content doesn't justify the cost of those new packs.

I realize not everyone has the funds to go out and purchase new PCs and laptops. I am not here to offend, or to demean anyone's circumstances. But after almost seven years of being told certain things can't happen with Sims4, something has to change. Fewer decorative buildings we can't use, would ease the loading time and resources used. If the teams would give us a couple of empty new worlds with larger lots that are suitable for players with high end PCs and laptops, we wouldn't be having this conversation. All we're asking for is having fewer restrictions being forced on the players fortunate enough to have the ability to utilize larger worlds. I would happily pay for a pack with a world that isn't bogged down with more CAS and BB assets. I don't need new game play features. I just want a nice big world with a view that doesn't include a phony backdrop. It's called having choices. And that would be an amazing solution at this point.

I have trouble buying the affordability excuse. Im on disability, cant work and are as broke as they come and i still managed to build a PC that can run better than TS4 is giving us.

At this point EA is just making excuses for people who quite frankly just have better things to do with their money and time than play video games. They just dont like games enough to save up for such things, so we are basically being sold out for people who arent even gamers imo.

If you're that broke you probably wouldnt be spending money on all the packs EA spits out anyway. All of them together costs almost as much as a new computer at this point. If you managed to get even close to a complete Sims collection you coulda gotten yourself a decent computer. I doubt a silly video game like The Sims would be the *only* leisure purchase in your budget if you're just a casual gamer.

The community has long said EA wants it to appeal to casual gamers but the term casual gamer implies they choose to spend their money on other things rather than they *have* to spend their money on other things. People spend money on what they prioritize whether they are broke or not.

The fact people would rather scapegoat poor people than just admit EA actively chooses to make a bad game for profit reasons is kinda... gross actually.

ChocoSulSul

Regarding semi-open neighborhoods, I always had a question. After reading about the subject I understood that it is possible but that they do not do it because maybe you have a restaurant in the neighborhood and that will ruin things but ... Why not just open houses and parks? those would be great. The only thing I complained about when the sims 4 came out was this characteristic, I am not interested in the open world but if I would have liked the open neighborhoods ...

filipomel

JestTru wrote: »

To be honest after all these years of the new worlds being like they are it doesnt bother me anymore.

I do wish that since they are making worlds limited in lot size they could've at least made each neighborhood open. But regardless as more is added to the game rather it be gameplay, world size, number of lots, etc it's all going to play a part on affecting the performance rate. Sims 4 has a lot more packs than other iterations of this game and they are continuing to make more for it.

I like this idea a lot actually. Instead of giving us a world with 12 lots and separated neighbourhoods, why not just give us one massive open neighborhood with all 12 lots in them?

logion

filipomel wrote: »

JestTru wrote: »

To be honest after all these years of the new worlds being like they are it doesnt bother me anymore.

I do wish that since they are making worlds limited in lot size they could've at least made each neighborhood open. But regardless as more is added to the game rather it be gameplay, world size, number of lots, etc it's all going to play a part on affecting the performance rate. Sims 4 has a lot more packs than other iterations of this game and they are continuing to make more for it.

I like this idea a lot actually. Instead of giving us a world with 12 lots and separated neighbourhoods, why not just give us one massive open neighborhood with all 12 lots in them?

That would probably be more demanding because the game loads all lots in a neighborhood when you visit one lot in a neighborhood...

If they have to cut corners to make these worlds, then I would rather that they cut down on the size of the neighborhoods so we could have one more neighborhood with lots. I don't enjoy walking around in the world that much and I don't see the reason to have a huge neighborhood with a 20 sim limit.

EmmaVane

Part of the reason for limiting the total number of lots is to limit the total number of sims placed in the world.

Housed sims are not culled. Favourite Sims are not culled. Played Sims are not culled. Only homeless, unfavourited, unplayed Sims are culled (to the max number in Options.)

Every Sim has info/stats/personal inventory. Every household has info/stats/household inventory.

All this sim info slows down the game as it needs to be accessed when those Sims spawn in each neighbourhood, when they are contacted off screen, met/socialised with at school/work, gifted items/cash and when any time an action changes their info in any way.

By limiting the number of lots, the devs are limiting the number of uncullable sims/sims relationships/sim inventories etc.

It's purely performance related.

Sthenastia

In my opinion we should have any choice how mamy random townies we want to have in each savefile or how many sims we want to have per loading screen instead of small number of lots.

LeGardePourpre

filipomel wrote: »

JestTru wrote: »

To be honest after all these years of the new worlds being like they are it doesnt bother me anymore.

I do wish that since they are making worlds limited in lot size they could've at least made each neighborhood open. But regardless as more is added to the game rather it be gameplay, world size, number of lots, etc it's all going to play a part on affecting the performance rate. Sims 4 has a lot more packs than other iterations of this game and they are continuing to make more for it.

I like this idea a lot actually. Instead of giving us a world with 12 lots and separated neighbourhoods, why not just give us one massive open neighborhood with all 12 lots in them?

It would be like San Myshuno apartments, small lots with restrictions.

More lots mean smaller size.