Nope not true.... Sims 3 is wonderful in theory, not that great in practice. Sims 4 is yucky in theory, just as yucky in practice.
When you are elected to speak for everyone as an authoritative mouthpiece for what is good versus what is not beyond your OWN mind, let me know.
Till then, I appreciate all the opinions but I'm glad that people can find happiness in a given game that someone else may not be happy with. That's the point of individuality and enjoying what YOU enjoy.
This pervasive "I don't like Sims 3/4 and because it's missing these things/has these issues it's sucky and anyone who likes it is delusional!" attitude is so detrimental and unnecessary.
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I can't speak for @SimsILikeSims, but even after I overcame my technical issues with TS3, I quickly came to find the game itself boring and unenjoyable. Which is not something I'm finding with TS4.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "better game", and therefore there is nothing to "admit". The mark of a good game (or, indeed, any piece of media) is whether it entertains the player and holds their interest, and that's only something that can be accurately judged on a personal or individual level. For me, TS4 is a "much better game" than TS3, simply because I enjoy playing it more. For you, clearly, the opposite is true. There's no need to go around implying that the opinions of others are wrong simply because they are different to your own.
No based on what she said, I think it's a fair assumption since she has only mentioned the game in a bad light with the technical issues. In fact having all of the EP, SP, etc, I would think she would have loved the game if not for the issues. I mean no one would buy that much stuff if they really hated it.
There is such thing as a better game. She may feel differently than I do but I'm going to find out. I in no way implied she was wrong, let's get that straight. I don't even know what game she likes better. That was me wanting her to clarify.
Well, "I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is a much better game than Sims 4" definitely sounds to me like you're implying that anyone who thinks TS4 is better is wrong. Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but your specific phrasing makes it sound as though "Sims 3 is a much better game" is a fact that those of us who like TS4 are just denying and need to admit to ourselves.
I agree that it's a fair assumption to say that she liked TS3 because she bought all the extra content, but it's still definitely presumptuous to assume that she thinks TS3 is "a much better game" than TS4.
And besides, IMO technical issues are as much a part of what makes something "good" as anything else. Lagging and crashes and other issues can get ridiculously frustrating and therefore make playing the game completely unenjoyable. It might not be entirely the game's fault, but I don't think it's something that can be so easily ignored or pushed aside. It's just an "if" scenario -- if TS3 didn't lag or crash, it'd be a good game; if TS4 had toddlers and open worlds, it'd be a good game; if I could steady my left hand, I'd be good at nail art.
Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think "there is such a thing as a better game". Surely if a product is made to entertain someone, as a game is, then the game that provides a person with the most entertainment is the better game? And that varies from individual to individual? Do you disagree? How do you define a "good game", if not through your own personal enjoyment?
I think you are confusing a good game with a fun game. With games like the Sims I think there is such a thing as a good game and bad game, Sims 4 being a bad game because it does not offer the playstyle for everyone that Sims 2 and 3 did. So, while you may enjoy Sims 4 and Bob enjoys Sims 4 because it has all you need, that's great, it makes it a fun game for you, but because it lacks the playstyle that Billy likes to play, which its predecessors had, it is a bad game.
Does this make sense? To me a game can be fun, for you, but still be a bad game overall, like the Sims 4 because it leaves a bunch of simmers feeling neglected since their playstyle was not offered when the previous Sims games had them.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. But to me, a good game is a fun game. And as I said, that's something that you can only judge on an individual level. I disagree with your fundamental point though -- TS3 did not allow for the rotational style of play that many of us like. So by your own definition, TS3 is a bad game too.
sorry, but TS4 might be one day a great game
in its current state it's only an Unbalanced Early Access Shell of it
TS3 is limited in many ways as both previous games were,
but it has also A LOT what both previous games didn't have
there are literally TONS of well looking games out there ... which i do not play
a well looking game with some sort of gameplay is not enough to be compared with TS1, TS2 & TS3
TS4 has first to step up to what a sims game really is
i won't be participating in the forums & the gallery anymore - thanks EA
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I can't speak for @SimsILikeSims, but even after I overcame my technical issues with TS3, I quickly came to find the game itself boring and unenjoyable. Which is not something I'm finding with TS4.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "better game", and therefore there is nothing to "admit". The mark of a good game (or, indeed, any piece of media) is whether it entertains the player and holds their interest, and that's only something that can be accurately judged on a personal or individual level. For me, TS4 is a "much better game" than TS3, simply because I enjoy playing it more. For you, clearly, the opposite is true. There's no need to go around implying that the opinions of others are wrong simply because they are different to your own.
No based on what she said, I think it's a fair assumption since she has only mentioned the game in a bad light with the technical issues. In fact having all of the EP, SP, etc, I would think she would have loved the game if not for the issues. I mean no one would buy that much stuff if they really hated it.
There is such thing as a better game. She may feel differently than I do but I'm going to find out. I in no way implied she was wrong, let's get that straight. I don't even know what game she likes better. That was me wanting her to clarify.
Well, "I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is a much better game than Sims 4" definitely sounds to me like you're implying that anyone who thinks TS4 is better is wrong. Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but your specific phrasing makes it sound as though "Sims 3 is a much better game" is a fact that those of us who like TS4 are just denying and need to admit to ourselves.
I agree that it's a fair assumption to say that she liked TS3 because she bought all the extra content, but it's still definitely presumptuous to assume that she thinks TS3 is "a much better game" than TS4.
And besides, IMO technical issues are as much a part of what makes something "good" as anything else. Lagging and crashes and other issues can get ridiculously frustrating and therefore make playing the game completely unenjoyable. It might not be entirely the game's fault, but I don't think it's something that can be so easily ignored or pushed aside. It's just an "if" scenario -- if TS3 didn't lag or crash, it'd be a good game; if TS4 had toddlers and open worlds, it'd be a good game; if I could steady my left hand, I'd be good at nail art.
Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think "there is such a thing as a better game". Surely if a product is made to entertain someone, as a game is, then the game that provides a person with the most entertainment is the better game? And that varies from individual to individual? Do you disagree? How do you define a "good game", if not through your own personal enjoyment?
I think you are confusing a good game with a fun game. With games like the Sims I think there is such a thing as a good game and bad game, Sims 4 being a bad game because it does not offer the playstyle for everyone that Sims 2 and 3 did. So, while you may enjoy Sims 4 and Bob enjoys Sims 4 because it has all you need, that's great, it makes it a fun game for you, but because it lacks the playstyle that Billy likes to play, which its predecessors had, it is a bad game.
Does this make sense? To me a game can be fun, for you, but still be a bad game overall, like the Sims 4 because it leaves a bunch of simmers feeling neglected since their playstyle was not offered when the previous Sims games had them.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. But to me, a good game is a fun game. And as I said, that's something that you can only judge on an individual level. I disagree with your fundamental point though -- TS3 did not allow for the rotational style of play that many of us like. So by your own definition, TS3 is a bad game too.
I never understood what people meant by Sims 3 didn't have rotational play because you could switch from family to family and play them. Or am I missing something? I would greatly appreciate an explanation for that because I don't understand that point against Sims 3.
I never play TS3 with SP off, but I understand that in the early times of the TS3 life there was a bug with SP turning off that prevent it to work fine and the households were evolving while player was on another active lot and not quite in the rigth direction so to say, but I think the bug was solved later and in any case Nraas SP solved it for good
I can play at last TS2 TS3 and TS4 So great that toddlers are here!!!
As much as I loved The Sims 3 that game was buggy as hell and made gameplay an atrocity I also personally didn't like the style it is bland and they look like some horrible CG from the 90s. I like TS4 better because I have yet to have my game crash the game is smooth as balls and I really like the style (It doesn't have to be realistic to be good). The Sims also have more personality so I end up more interested with them.
P.S I have had Sims 3 on 5 different computers crashed on all of them this game has brought me to tears.
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I can't speak for @SimsILikeSims, but even after I overcame my technical issues with TS3, I quickly came to find the game itself boring and unenjoyable. Which is not something I'm finding with TS4.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "better game", and therefore there is nothing to "admit". The mark of a good game (or, indeed, any piece of media) is whether it entertains the player and holds their interest, and that's only something that can be accurately judged on a personal or individual level. For me, TS4 is a "much better game" than TS3, simply because I enjoy playing it more. For you, clearly, the opposite is true. There's no need to go around implying that the opinions of others are wrong simply because they are different to your own.
No based on what she said, I think it's a fair assumption since she has only mentioned the game in a bad light with the technical issues. In fact having all of the EP, SP, etc, I would think she would have loved the game if not for the issues. I mean no one would buy that much stuff if they really hated it.
There is such thing as a better game. She may feel differently than I do but I'm going to find out. I in no way implied she was wrong, let's get that straight. I don't even know what game she likes better. That was me wanting her to clarify.
Well, "I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is a much better game than Sims 4" definitely sounds to me like you're implying that anyone who thinks TS4 is better is wrong. Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but your specific phrasing makes it sound as though "Sims 3 is a much better game" is a fact that those of us who like TS4 are just denying and need to admit to ourselves.
I agree that it's a fair assumption to say that she liked TS3 because she bought all the extra content, but it's still definitely presumptuous to assume that she thinks TS3 is "a much better game" than TS4.
And besides, IMO technical issues are as much a part of what makes something "good" as anything else. Lagging and crashes and other issues can get ridiculously frustrating and therefore make playing the game completely unenjoyable. It might not be entirely the game's fault, but I don't think it's something that can be so easily ignored or pushed aside. It's just an "if" scenario -- if TS3 didn't lag or crash, it'd be a good game; if TS4 had toddlers and open worlds, it'd be a good game; if I could steady my left hand, I'd be good at nail art.
Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think "there is such a thing as a better game". Surely if a product is made to entertain someone, as a game is, then the game that provides a person with the most entertainment is the better game? And that varies from individual to individual? Do you disagree? How do you define a "good game", if not through your own personal enjoyment?
I think you are confusing a good game with a fun game. With games like the Sims I think there is such a thing as a good game and bad game, Sims 4 being a bad game because it does not offer the playstyle for everyone that Sims 2 and 3 did. So, while you may enjoy Sims 4 and Bob enjoys Sims 4 because it has all you need, that's great, it makes it a fun game for you, but because it lacks the playstyle that Billy likes to play, which its predecessors had, it is a bad game.
Does this make sense? To me a game can be fun, for you, but still be a bad game overall, like the Sims 4 because it leaves a bunch of simmers feeling neglected since their playstyle was not offered when the previous Sims games had them.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. But to me, a good game is a fun game. And as I said, that's something that you can only judge on an individual level. I disagree with your fundamental point though -- TS3 did not allow for the rotational style of play that many of us like. So by your own definition, TS3 is a bad game too.
I never understood what people meant by Sims 3 didn't have rotational play because you could switch from family to family and play them. Or am I missing something? I would greatly appreciate an explanation for that because I don't understand that point against Sims 3.
Simply put, the option to turn Story Progression off didn't work for many of us (I'm not sure if it was a universal problem but it certainly affected me when I tried to use it, and when I googled I found many others who had the same problem). So while you could technically switch from family to family, the game would keep playing your currently inactive families who were supposed to be part of your rotation, making a proper rotational playstyle like that in TS2 just impossible. Not to mention the (more minor) problem of the game not keeping wants and opportunities when you'd switch a family. So even if turning SP off did work, the game clearly wasn't built with rotational players in mind.
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
I don't think that features were actually removed, I think the game was rushed to market and the features were never added in the first place. Since they were building a new game engine for Sims 4, they had to start from scratch, and unfortunately where they started was with the idea of a MMO enabled game. Retooling the game engine undoubtedly took time away from developing new old features. I don't admit that Sims 3 is a better game in all aspects, nor agree with that at all. In fact, Sims 4 is better for rotational play since there aren't problems like time continuing for inactive households, loss of wants when playing another household, and even the bug (fixed later) of played inactive families moving out of the neighborhood, never to return. Sims 4 starts up on my machine much faster, always has. (Even compared to when I only had Sims 3 base game and World Adventures and no other EPs or stuff packs or worlds or store content.) Sims 3 is better for legacy play, and is a complete game, now that all its expansion packs and content have come out. Sims 4 is still being improved upon, and it is unfair to compare a base game to another game with all the expansion packs. I don't mind less detail in Sims 4 - modders will fix that to a large extent with Create a Sim custom content. When Sims 3 came out, people complained similarly about the graphics in the game, the way the Sims looked. People still talk about the unmodified pudding faces in Sims 3. But I remember 8 bit graphics games, and text adventures without graphics, and am not bothered by low graphics quality. For me, it is more about the stories the game can tell rather than the graphics.
I have been playing The Sims since 2001, when Livin Large came out. My avatar deliberately looks like Chris Roomies from TS1.
As much as I loved The Sims 3 that game was buggy as hell and made gameplay an atrocity I also personally didn't like the style it is bland and they look like some horrible CG from the 90s. I like TS4 better because I have yet to have my game crash the game is smooth as balls and I really like the style (It doesn't have to be realistic to be good). The Sims also have more personality so I end up more interested with them.
P.S I have had Sims 3 on 5 different computers crashed on all of them this game has brought me to tears.
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I can't speak for @SimsILikeSims, but even after I overcame my technical issues with TS3, I quickly came to find the game itself boring and unenjoyable. Which is not something I'm finding with TS4.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "better game", and therefore there is nothing to "admit". The mark of a good game (or, indeed, any piece of media) is whether it entertains the player and holds their interest, and that's only something that can be accurately judged on a personal or individual level. For me, TS4 is a "much better game" than TS3, simply because I enjoy playing it more. For you, clearly, the opposite is true. There's no need to go around implying that the opinions of others are wrong simply because they are different to your own.
No based on what she said, I think it's a fair assumption since she has only mentioned the game in a bad light with the technical issues. In fact having all of the EP, SP, etc, I would think she would have loved the game if not for the issues. I mean no one would buy that much stuff if they really hated it.
There is such thing as a better game. She may feel differently than I do but I'm going to find out. I in no way implied she was wrong, let's get that straight. I don't even know what game she likes better. That was me wanting her to clarify.
Well, "I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is a much better game than Sims 4" definitely sounds to me like you're implying that anyone who thinks TS4 is better is wrong. Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but your specific phrasing makes it sound as though "Sims 3 is a much better game" is a fact that those of us who like TS4 are just denying and need to admit to ourselves.
I agree that it's a fair assumption to say that she liked TS3 because she bought all the extra content, but it's still definitely presumptuous to assume that she thinks TS3 is "a much better game" than TS4.
And besides, IMO technical issues are as much a part of what makes something "good" as anything else. Lagging and crashes and other issues can get ridiculously frustrating and therefore make playing the game completely unenjoyable. It might not be entirely the game's fault, but I don't think it's something that can be so easily ignored or pushed aside. It's just an "if" scenario -- if TS3 didn't lag or crash, it'd be a good game; if TS4 had toddlers and open worlds, it'd be a good game; if I could steady my left hand, I'd be good at nail art.
Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think "there is such a thing as a better game". Surely if a product is made to entertain someone, as a game is, then the game that provides a person with the most entertainment is the better game? And that varies from individual to individual? Do you disagree? How do you define a "good game", if not through your own personal enjoyment?
I think you are confusing a good game with a fun game. With games like the Sims I think there is such a thing as a good game and bad game, Sims 4 being a bad game because it does not offer the playstyle for everyone that Sims 2 and 3 did. So, while you may enjoy Sims 4 and Bob enjoys Sims 4 because it has all you need, that's great, it makes it a fun game for you, but because it lacks the playstyle that Billy likes to play, which its predecessors had, it is a bad game.
Does this make sense? To me a game can be fun, for you, but still be a bad game overall, like the Sims 4 because it leaves a bunch of simmers feeling neglected since their playstyle was not offered when the previous Sims games had them.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. But to me, a good game is a fun game. And as I said, that's something that you can only judge on an individual level. I disagree with your fundamental point though -- TS3 did not allow for the rotational style of play that many of us like. So by your own definition, TS3 is a bad game too.
The thing is, Sims 3 only lacked that in comparison to the prequel, rotational play. Where Sims 2 lacked story progression and time continuation. Sims 4 lacks both and it's The Sequel.
Another thing that makes this a bad game for me, is the fact that the sims appear emotional, but in fact they are not. Their reactions are robotic and not accurate at all. Not focussed on other sims for instance (where the game is supposed to be 'about the sims themselves'). And the neighborhoods were a lazy job with the fake backgrounds. In Sims 2 I play the game on just one lot, but the game gives me a sense I'm playing in a real world because the background matches the map.
Sims 4 is all about appearances. Smooth 'funny' animations, nice building tools (which comes down to throwing in instant walls and furniture) , CAS that fools you into thinking you're playing unique sims (when in the game they are all identical twins) and a lot of bright colours. Eyecandy. And the worst thing: nothing to do than talk to other sims.
I started playing Sims 3 so I'm used to open world and CASt. So I expected to miss those once I'd start playing Sims 2. Which is true, I miss it. But not enough to not very much enjoy that game. Which isn't happening in Sims 4, I'm just not enjoying it. Staring at sims constantly talking to each other, doing push ups, hug each other, collect stuff and do a bit of fishing just isn't enough for me to enjoy a life simulation game. There must be something 'behind' it all. And there just isn't. The game keeps yelling 'I was supposed to be MMO' to you.
Now I do get there are people who do enjoy Sims 4 and I'm happy for them. If you're into 'at least it doesn't crash (it does in my case btw) and it runs smoothly (not more smoothly than Sims 2 and 3 in my case)' the game will be great. I believe everyone when they tell they enjoy it. But I'm still waiting for it to become really any good.
Sorry I disagree 100%. I just can't enjoy Sims 4.... Too ugly, too limited, too lacking, too expensive, too boring. Sims 3 is my favorite game and Sims 4 has cemented that for me.
The Sims 4 has the best graphics of all of the Sims games and has the best looking sims. Don't really care for the price, but I think it should be like $45, not $60 (or higher for the extra items) - but like $55 for the extra stuff.
Yes great quality I can see all the hard work that went into the little details of the game
The octagon pans - must be a trend I'm not aware of
In fact, no objects in this game are perfectly round because it's bad quality- low polys
Edit: I shouldn't have taken a second look Why are the drawer handles painted on?
Performance. Which is good because a lot of Simmers don't have great computers.
I kind of think it's nice of them to try and cater to the low-end pcs but then I think ... What if they didn't, what would the sims be like? I feel like they could do numerous things to really make the game wow us all.
Oh well, wishful thinking
oh my god, if the sims franchise come out with super fabulous graphics, I would stand outside EA building in redwood city and throw dollar bills at'em, make it rain!
graphics like.... the order 1886 *sighs*
One can dream but you'll never see that happen IMO - the very nature of the Sims games is supposed to have a more fantastical touch to it's graphical fidelity. Even Sims 3, the most "realistic" still had plenty of cartoony absurdity in it's presentation.
And I think that works - where we should see them pushing the graphical envelope is with supporting graphics options. Better lighting, physics, shadows, etc. Things that can very rapidly bring a "barely at system reqs" system to its knees but which a top end PC would be like "I CAN TAKE THE PAIN MWAHAHA" and then some.
I also appreciate when a game company tries to develop an iconic graphic style for it's universe ala Borderlands.
People who don't like the game... why do you spend what appears to be half your day commenting on how much you don't like it? It's weird. Just accept it and move on.
I hate Sims 3, but I didn't spend half my life telling people how much I hated it. I just didn't play it and got on with my life.
People who don't like the game... why do you spend what appears to be half your day commenting on how much you don't like it? It's weird. Just accept it and move on.
I hate Sims 3, but I didn't spend half my life telling people how much I hated it. I just didn't play it and got on with my life.
@Acidfairyyy because they want TS4 to cater to them. Staying silent won't get us there. If you get annoyed reading about others then skim past them, but don't criticise others just because *you* think you would act differently. We are all different.
You may have missed the many, many heartbreaking stories as to why the sims is more than just a game to people, or maybe that doesn't suit your argument so you didn't read but please don't judge others. It all seems so black and white to some people but there are so many hidden factors you have no idea about. So best to leave comments like that out of your posts, its not worth the daft arguments it will invite
People who don't like the game... why do you spend what appears to be half your day commenting on how much you don't like it? It's weird. Just accept it and move on.
I hate Sims 3, but I didn't spend half my life telling people how much I hated it. I just didn't play it and got on with my life.
This has become more a Sims forum than a Sims 4 forum. People like to talk about Sims, that's why they're here. If this forum was strictly about what's happening in the game I bet there weren't that many Sims 4 dislikers here. The thing is, the forum is very much about things in the game lacking or not functioning (mind you, by people who do like and play the game). Which makes it a useful place to hang around when you've got issues with the game yourself.
Also, I bought this not very cheap game and I'd be very happy if it would change into something worth that money. There's only one way to find out: follow the experiences of other simmers. This is the place for that.
I think the graphics are downgrade. Too Playdohish, too cartoony, and just lacking in detail overall. The game should be around 20 dollars and that is being nice....
I was arrested and put in jail for robbing the Union Depository in Los Santos.
Now I get it... You are loaded with dough so you can afford to throw whatever money you have at Sims 4. Sorry some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to play a game....
Indeed, and some of us would prefer not to rob a bank to buy a new PC just to play a game. So since we didn't spend all our money buying a new machine, we can afford to spend money on the software instead. Besides, some of the suggested pictures of "realistic" Sims that EA "should have used instead" looked really creepy and uncanny.
I would have preferred a game that isn't so downgraded that it could run on a toaster. That's where Sims 4 went wrong. Removing features and content left and right until you can run on a lower end computer. Terrible concept instead of coding and fixing the issue, they remove them altogether. Guess what? Sims 4 still doesn't run that well on lower end computers anyways so what was the point.... Realistic graphics aren't creepy but they do require more work than the cartoon blob style we have now. Probably the reason why we got that style....
I am happy with the game that "could run on a toaster" because it runs well on my laptop with integrated graphics. Incidentally, my laptop does also (barely) run Sims 3 with all the expansion packs, stuff packs, worlds and premium content from the store, but when loading the game at startup, it temporarily stops responding (while I look at a black screen) before it starts responding again and loads up. It runs Sims 3 at about 15 to 25 fps once it is booted.
Have you ever searched for the term "Uncanny Valley" on Wikipedia? It is a term that explains why I think they went with cartoonish graphics rather than realistic graphics. Basically, after a certain point of realism that falls short of true realism, characters seem uncanny and creepy, until they reach the other side of the Uncanny valley. Besides having everything realistic except the eyes would still tend to be creepy. Then again, perhaps you didn't get that off of characters from the Polar Express movie. I would recommend you read that article on Wikipedia, it is interesting, and a common problem in computer animations for games and movies.
You're happy it could run on toaster but are you happy with the route they chose to make it that way. I don't think removing key features and content to make the game run better was the way to do it.... Ignoring your technical issues, I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is much better game than Sims 4. I think the problem is you have all of the EP, SP, worlds, and premium store content. I suggest you uninstall some of them and your game will run a lot better.
I skimmed through that article. I didn't want to read it because I don't buy it. For me, it's not creepy at all whether they are anywhere near uncanny valley or not. I just don't like the fact everything in Sims 4 is less detailed and looks it was made out of Playdoh.
That's a little presumptuous, don't you think? I can't speak for @SimsILikeSims, but even after I overcame my technical issues with TS3, I quickly came to find the game itself boring and unenjoyable. Which is not something I'm finding with TS4.
Ultimately, there is no such thing as a "better game", and therefore there is nothing to "admit". The mark of a good game (or, indeed, any piece of media) is whether it entertains the player and holds their interest, and that's only something that can be accurately judged on a personal or individual level. For me, TS4 is a "much better game" than TS3, simply because I enjoy playing it more. For you, clearly, the opposite is true. There's no need to go around implying that the opinions of others are wrong simply because they are different to your own.
No based on what she said, I think it's a fair assumption since she has only mentioned the game in a bad light with the technical issues. In fact having all of the EP, SP, etc, I would think she would have loved the game if not for the issues. I mean no one would buy that much stuff if they really hated it.
There is such thing as a better game. She may feel differently than I do but I'm going to find out. I in no way implied she was wrong, let's get that straight. I don't even know what game she likes better. That was me wanting her to clarify.
Well, "I'm sure you can admit that Sims 3 is a much better game than Sims 4" definitely sounds to me like you're implying that anyone who thinks TS4 is better is wrong. Maybe that's not what you intended to say, but your specific phrasing makes it sound as though "Sims 3 is a much better game" is a fact that those of us who like TS4 are just denying and need to admit to ourselves.
I agree that it's a fair assumption to say that she liked TS3 because she bought all the extra content, but it's still definitely presumptuous to assume that she thinks TS3 is "a much better game" than TS4.
And besides, IMO technical issues are as much a part of what makes something "good" as anything else. Lagging and crashes and other issues can get ridiculously frustrating and therefore make playing the game completely unenjoyable. It might not be entirely the game's fault, but I don't think it's something that can be so easily ignored or pushed aside. It's just an "if" scenario -- if TS3 didn't lag or crash, it'd be a good game; if TS4 had toddlers and open worlds, it'd be a good game; if I could steady my left hand, I'd be good at nail art.
Anyway, I'm curious as to why you think "there is such a thing as a better game". Surely if a product is made to entertain someone, as a game is, then the game that provides a person with the most entertainment is the better game? And that varies from individual to individual? Do you disagree? How do you define a "good game", if not through your own personal enjoyment?
I think you are confusing a good game with a fun game. With games like the Sims I think there is such a thing as a good game and bad game, Sims 4 being a bad game because it does not offer the playstyle for everyone that Sims 2 and 3 did. So, while you may enjoy Sims 4 and Bob enjoys Sims 4 because it has all you need, that's great, it makes it a fun game for you, but because it lacks the playstyle that Billy likes to play, which its predecessors had, it is a bad game.
Does this make sense? To me a game can be fun, for you, but still be a bad game overall, like the Sims 4 because it leaves a bunch of simmers feeling neglected since their playstyle was not offered when the previous Sims games had them.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. But to me, a good game is a fun game. And as I said, that's something that you can only judge on an individual level. I disagree with your fundamental point though -- TS3 did not allow for the rotational style of play that many of us like. So by your own definition, TS3 is a bad game too.
The thing is, Sims 3 only lacked that in comparison to the prequel, rotational play. Where Sims 2 lacked story progression and time continuation. Sims 4 lacks both and it's The Sequel.
Another thing that makes this a bad game for me, is the fact that the sims appear emotional, but in fact they are not. Their reactions are robotic and not accurate at all. Not focussed on other sims for instance (where the game is supposed to be 'about the sims themselves'). And the neighborhoods were a lazy job with the fake backgrounds. In Sims 2 I play the game on just one lot, but the game gives me a sense I'm playing in a real world because the background matches the map.
Sims 4 is all about appearances. Smooth 'funny' animations, nice building tools (which comes down to throwing in instant walls and furniture) , CAS that fools you into thinking you're playing unique sims (when in the game they are all identical twins) and a lot of bright colours. Eyecandy. And the worst thing: nothing to do than talk to other sims.
I started playing Sims 3 so I'm used to open world and CASt. So I expected to miss those once I'd start playing Sims 2. Which is true, I miss it. But not enough to not very much enjoy that game. Which isn't happening in Sims 4, I'm just not enjoying it. Staring at sims constantly talking to each other, doing push ups, hug each other, collect stuff and do a bit of fishing just isn't enough for me to enjoy a life simulation game. There must be something 'behind' it all. And there just isn't. The game keeps yelling 'I was supposed to be MMO' to you.
Now I do get there are people who do enjoy Sims 4 and I'm happy for them. If you're into 'at least it doesn't crash (it does in my case btw) and it runs smoothly (not more smoothly than Sims 2 and 3 in my case)' the game will be great. I believe everyone when they tell they enjoy it. But I'm still waiting for it to become really any good.
I think you're missing my point, or I'm missing yours. Either way, something's being missed.
TS2 offered rotational play, but lacked SP and inactive households were static. TS3 introduced SP but didn't allow for rotational play. TS4 lacks SP but offers aging for inactive sims, and allows for rotational play.
My point is, if the criteria for a "bad game" is that it neglects a group of players that it previously catered for, then TS4 is a bad game because it neglects those who want to play with SP, and TS3 is an equally bad game because it neglected those who liked to play rotations. TS2 would be a good game, because it introduced new features to the franchise without taking any away, and TS1 would also be a good game simply because there's nothing previous to compare it to. If you (general you) are intent on ascribing some kind of objectivity to what makes a game good or bad, then you need to be prepared to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, and that conclusion might be that the game you like is objectively just as bad as the game you don't like.
The rest of your comment seems to be about what aspects of TS4 you specifically dislike. Which is fine, but not really relevant to the point I was making that good and bad are entirely subjective.
I believe that the Sims 4 is good in its own respective nature
just as the Sims 3 was amazing in its own way.
to say "NAH! SIMS 3 IS BEST AND SIMS 4 IS WORST BECAUSE OF BLAH BLAH BLAH"
I find that silly
thats like comparing
Pokemon Red and Pokemon Yellow
They are different in their own rights
I just wanted to say it was very refreshing seeing someone point out that TS3 and TS4 are completely different games, it doesn't make one better than the other, I personally like both of the games very much and I've never even tried to compare them. Each of them have things I like and don't like about them but I've enjoyed them both equally and I'll continue to do so.
People who don't like the game... why do you spend what appears to be half your day commenting on how much you don't like it? It's weird. Just accept it and move on.
I hate Sims 3, but I didn't spend half my life telling people how much I hated it. I just didn't play it and got on with my life.
No one wants to be like you..
I hate Sims 4, but I can tell everyone how much I hate it because I can.
As much as I loved The Sims 3 that game was buggy as hell and made gameplay an atrocity I also personally didn't like the style it is bland and they look like some horrible CG from the 90s. I like TS4 better because I have yet to have my game crash the game is smooth as balls and I really like the style (It doesn't have to be realistic to be good). The Sims also have more personality so I end up more interested with them.
P.S I have had Sims 3 on 5 different computers crashed on all of them this game has brought me to tears.
People who don't like the game... why do you spend what appears to be half your day commenting on how much you don't like it? It's weird. Just accept it and move on.
I hate Sims 3, but I didn't spend half my life telling people how much I hated it. I just didn't play it and got on with my life.
People who like the game... why don't you spend your day playing your awesome game instead of telling us what to do?
I hate the excuse "Sims 3 and Sims 4 are completely different games" because if that was the case then they shouldn't have put the 4 at the end. Sims 4 implies it is the sequel to Sims 1-3 and thus should add more to the table, or at the least have the basics that the other ones had with some improvements. Sims 4 does neither of those. (Before anyone says it, yes Sims 4 has "new" features, but they are not added to what we have already had, they replace what we had and add nothing else. That's not a sequel.)
Well, you've all solidified for me that this forum is just populated with children. It's like an echo chamber. It's much better to live your life when avoiding things that make you unhappy, but you're all evidently gluttons for punishment. Now I remember why I stopped frequenting these forums after TS2.
Have fun moaning about something you'll never change!
sorry, but TS4 might be one day a great game
in its current state it's only an Unbalanced Early Access Shell of it
Yep for those of us who paid $60 for the sims 4 all we got was an unbalanced early access shell!
Im not getting into which game is better etc but the fact that some of us paid for a game that is unbalanced says it all. I have more bugs in my sims 4 base game than I ever had in any previous game. Especially the sims 3 which is so buggy. The base game of the sims 3 has less bugs than the sims 4 (rolls eyes!)
The sims 4 is not worth what EA is charging and they should have learned from the sims 3 not to issue another buggy game. They should have fixed all the bugs in the sims 4 before release.
> Yep for those of us who paid $60 for the sims 4 all we got was an unbalanced early access shell! > > Im not getting into which game is better etc but the fact that some of us paid for a game that is unbalanced says it all. I have more bugs in my sims 4 base game than I ever had in any previous game. Especially the sims 3 which is so buggy. The base game of the sims 3 has less bugs than the sims 4 (rolls eyes!) > > The sims 4 is not worth what EA is charging and they should have learned from the sims 3 not to issue another buggy game. They should have fixed all the bugs in the sims 4 before release.
I guess it's probably because of their deadline. They already had to push the release date a bit, I believe. So imagine the chaos among fans if they had to push the date any further xD In my opinion, it's better to have a slightly buggy game that's released earlier with patches going along, rather than have a late game and keep fans waiting. But the bugs do get hella annoying, and it wouldn't have hurt them to try and release it a bit later, even if fans did get mad. Also, I agree it was over priced for what it is.
Comments
When you are elected to speak for everyone as an authoritative mouthpiece for what is good versus what is not beyond your OWN mind, let me know.
Till then, I appreciate all the opinions but I'm glad that people can find happiness in a given game that someone else may not be happy with. That's the point of individuality and enjoying what YOU enjoy.
This pervasive "I don't like Sims 3/4 and because it's missing these things/has these issues it's sucky and anyone who likes it is delusional!" attitude is so detrimental and unnecessary.
Yeah, I see where you're coming from. But to me, a good game is a fun game. And as I said, that's something that you can only judge on an individual level. I disagree with your fundamental point though -- TS3 did not allow for the rotational style of play that many of us like. So by your own definition, TS3 is a bad game too.
in its current state it's only an Unbalanced Early Access Shell of it
TS3 is limited in many ways as both previous games were,
but it has also A LOT what both previous games didn't have
there are literally TONS of well looking games out there ... which i do not play
a well looking game with some sort of gameplay is not enough to be compared with TS1, TS2 & TS3
TS4 has first to step up to what a sims game really is
I never understood what people meant by Sims 3 didn't have rotational play because you could switch from family to family and play them. Or am I missing something? I would greatly appreciate an explanation for that because I don't understand that point against Sims 3.
I can play at last TS2 TS3 and TS4 So great that toddlers are here!!!
Delude
Simply put, the option to turn Story Progression off didn't work for many of us (I'm not sure if it was a universal problem but it certainly affected me when I tried to use it, and when I googled I found many others who had the same problem). So while you could technically switch from family to family, the game would keep playing your currently inactive families who were supposed to be part of your rotation, making a proper rotational playstyle like that in TS2 just impossible. Not to mention the (more minor) problem of the game not keeping wants and opportunities when you'd switch a family. So even if turning SP off did work, the game clearly wasn't built with rotational players in mind.
I don't think that features were actually removed, I think the game was rushed to market and the features were never added in the first place. Since they were building a new game engine for Sims 4, they had to start from scratch, and unfortunately where they started was with the idea of a MMO enabled game. Retooling the game engine undoubtedly took time away from developing new old features. I don't admit that Sims 3 is a better game in all aspects, nor agree with that at all. In fact, Sims 4 is better for rotational play since there aren't problems like time continuing for inactive households, loss of wants when playing another household, and even the bug (fixed later) of played inactive families moving out of the neighborhood, never to return. Sims 4 starts up on my machine much faster, always has. (Even compared to when I only had Sims 3 base game and World Adventures and no other EPs or stuff packs or worlds or store content.) Sims 3 is better for legacy play, and is a complete game, now that all its expansion packs and content have come out. Sims 4 is still being improved upon, and it is unfair to compare a base game to another game with all the expansion packs. I don't mind less detail in Sims 4 - modders will fix that to a large extent with Create a Sim custom content. When Sims 3 came out, people complained similarly about the graphics in the game, the way the Sims looked. People still talk about the unmodified pudding faces in Sims 3. But I remember 8 bit graphics games, and text adventures without graphics, and am not bothered by low graphics quality. For me, it is more about the stories the game can tell rather than the graphics.
what? o.o
Another thing that makes this a bad game for me, is the fact that the sims appear emotional, but in fact they are not. Their reactions are robotic and not accurate at all. Not focussed on other sims for instance (where the game is supposed to be 'about the sims themselves'). And the neighborhoods were a lazy job with the fake backgrounds. In Sims 2 I play the game on just one lot, but the game gives me a sense I'm playing in a real world because the background matches the map.
Sims 4 is all about appearances. Smooth 'funny' animations, nice building tools (which comes down to throwing in instant walls and furniture) , CAS that fools you into thinking you're playing unique sims (when in the game they are all identical twins) and a lot of bright colours. Eyecandy. And the worst thing: nothing to do than talk to other sims.
I started playing Sims 3 so I'm used to open world and CASt. So I expected to miss those once I'd start playing Sims 2. Which is true, I miss it. But not enough to not very much enjoy that game. Which isn't happening in Sims 4, I'm just not enjoying it. Staring at sims constantly talking to each other, doing push ups, hug each other, collect stuff and do a bit of fishing just isn't enough for me to enjoy a life simulation game. There must be something 'behind' it all. And there just isn't. The game keeps yelling 'I was supposed to be MMO' to you.
Now I do get there are people who do enjoy Sims 4 and I'm happy for them. If you're into 'at least it doesn't crash (it does in my case btw) and it runs smoothly (not more smoothly than Sims 2 and 3 in my case)' the game will be great. I believe everyone when they tell they enjoy it. But I'm still waiting for it to become really any good.
Someone's missing. Where's Gaige?
I hate Sims 3, but I didn't spend half my life telling people how much I hated it. I just didn't play it and got on with my life.
@Acidfairyyy because they want TS4 to cater to them. Staying silent won't get us there. If you get annoyed reading about others then skim past them, but don't criticise others just because *you* think you would act differently. We are all different.
You may have missed the many, many heartbreaking stories as to why the sims is more than just a game to people, or maybe that doesn't suit your argument so you didn't read but please don't judge others. It all seems so black and white to some people but there are so many hidden factors you have no idea about. So best to leave comments like that out of your posts, its not worth the daft arguments it will invite
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
Also, I bought this not very cheap game and I'd be very happy if it would change into something worth that money. There's only one way to find out: follow the experiences of other simmers. This is the place for that.
I think you're missing my point, or I'm missing yours. Either way, something's being missed.
TS2 offered rotational play, but lacked SP and inactive households were static. TS3 introduced SP but didn't allow for rotational play. TS4 lacks SP but offers aging for inactive sims, and allows for rotational play.
My point is, if the criteria for a "bad game" is that it neglects a group of players that it previously catered for, then TS4 is a bad game because it neglects those who want to play with SP, and TS3 is an equally bad game because it neglected those who liked to play rotations. TS2 would be a good game, because it introduced new features to the franchise without taking any away, and TS1 would also be a good game simply because there's nothing previous to compare it to. If you (general you) are intent on ascribing some kind of objectivity to what makes a game good or bad, then you need to be prepared to follow your argument to its logical conclusion, and that conclusion might be that the game you like is objectively just as bad as the game you don't like.
The rest of your comment seems to be about what aspects of TS4 you specifically dislike. Which is fine, but not really relevant to the point I was making that good and bad are entirely subjective.
I just wanted to say it was very refreshing seeing someone point out that TS3 and TS4 are completely different games, it doesn't make one better than the other, I personally like both of the games very much and I've never even tried to compare them. Each of them have things I like and don't like about them but I've enjoyed them both equally and I'll continue to do so.
I hate Sims 4, but I can tell everyone how much I hate it because I can.
Rude.
People who like the game... why don't you spend your day playing your awesome game instead of telling us what to do?
Have fun moaning about something you'll never change!
Yep for those of us who paid $60 for the sims 4 all we got was an unbalanced early access shell!
Im not getting into which game is better etc but the fact that some of us paid for a game that is unbalanced says it all. I have more bugs in my sims 4 base game than I ever had in any previous game. Especially the sims 3 which is so buggy. The base game of the sims 3 has less bugs than the sims 4 (rolls eyes!)
The sims 4 is not worth what EA is charging and they should have learned from the sims 3 not to issue another buggy game. They should have fixed all the bugs in the sims 4 before release.
> Yep for those of us who paid $60 for the sims 4 all we got was an unbalanced early access shell!
>
> Im not getting into which game is better etc but the fact that some of us paid for a game that is unbalanced says it all. I have more bugs in my sims 4 base game than I ever had in any previous game. Especially the sims 3 which is so buggy. The base game of the sims 3 has less bugs than the sims 4 (rolls eyes!)
>
> The sims 4 is not worth what EA is charging and they should have learned from the sims 3 not to issue another buggy game. They should have fixed all the bugs in the sims 4 before release.
I guess it's probably because of their deadline. They already had to push the release date a bit, I believe. So imagine the chaos among fans if they had to push the date any further xD
In my opinion, it's better to have a slightly buggy game that's released earlier with patches going along, rather than have a late game and keep fans waiting. But the bugs do get hella annoying, and it wouldn't have hurt them to try and release it a bit later, even if fans did get mad.
Also, I agree it was over priced for what it is.