Are you saying that the Sims Medieval offered replayability and was not kind of a huge let-down? Or that Sims Stories had more gameplay than TS4? I loved Medieval, but after playing through once I had very little desire to play through again.
Yes. Medieval's quests have MANY branching paths. Depending on how certain quests ends your realm gains points in Culture, Security, etc. and the level you have in those attributes (aspects) determines which quests you get. The quest to assasinate the Monarch will only appear if your Kingdom's Well-Being goes below a certain threshold, for example.
It doesn't matter if YOU didn't want to play anymore. Medieval has objectively a good degree of replayability.
I understand it's an EP vs a GP, and the EP you paid extra for the casino. The EP is set more in the Southwest, while the GP is set more in a place like Arizona/Utah.
Though I agree that Sims 3 worlds compared to Sims 4 neighborhoods may not be 100% fair comparison, I do agree with the OP’s general observations and context.
It’s absolutely acceptable to compare one iteration to another. And I know many fight to disagree, but at the end of the day, collectively speaking, Sims 4 pales in comparison to its predecessors.
Do I enjoy it? Yes, but I’m also not blind to its many faults and short comings. This pack is one that just blew my mind. The story was linear, predictable, and offers no real replay value. I can create multiple different sims with different trait combinations and it will not affect the story in anyway, it will play out the same no matter what.
My opinion? They should spend their resources on tried and true themes while offering improvements to them.
Are you saying that the Sims Medieval offered replayability and was not kind of a huge let-down? Or that Sims Stories had more gameplay than TS4? I loved Medieval, but after playing through once I had very little desire to play through again.
Yes. Medieval's quests have MANY branching paths. Depending on how certain quests ends your realm gains points in Culture, Security, etc. and the level you have in those attributes (aspects) determines which quests you get. The quest to assasinate the Monarch will only appear if your Kingdom's Well-Being goes below a certain threshold, for example.
It doesn't matter if YOU didn't want to play anymore. Medieval has objectively a good degree of replayability.
I agree. I have Sim's Medieval does have replayability. The reason it failed was really because of how it was poorly marketed. People thought it had more of a Sim's 3 vive. Some even thought it was a EP. You couldn't mod it. You couldn't build in it like you could in the sims. It was meant to be a rpg spinoff. I think there was enough quests in it that it had replay value. Its biggest issue was it was not part of the actual Sim's 3 game.
Though I agree that Sims 3 worlds compared to Sims 4 neighborhoods may not be 100% fair comparison, I do agree with the OP’s general observations and context.
It’s absolutely acceptable to compare one iteration to another. And I know many fight to disagree, but at the end of the day, collectively speaking, Sims 4 pales in comparison to its predecessors.
Do I enjoy it? Yes, but I’m also not blind to its many faults and short comings. This pack is one that just blew my mind. The story was linear, predictable, and offers no real replay value. I can create multiple different sims with different trait combinations and it will not affect the story in anyway, it will play out the same no matter what.
My opinion? They should spend their resources on tried and true themes while offering improvements to them.
I agree and endorse this post.
Omen by HP Intel®️ Core™️ i9- 12900K W/ RGB Liquid Cooler 32GB Nvidia RTX 3080 10Gb ASUS Ultra-Wide 34" Curved Monitor. Omen By HP Intel® Core™ i7-12800HX 32 GB Nvidia 3070 Ti 8 GB 17.3 Screen
I agree. I have Sim's Medieval does have replayability. The reason it failed was really because of how it was poorly marketed. People thought it had more of a Sim's 3 vive. Some even thought it was a EP. You couldn't mod it. You couldn't build in it like you could in the sims. It was meant to be a rpg spinoff. I think there was enough quests in it that it had replay value. Its biggest issue was it was not part of the actual Sim's 3 game.
You can also complete quests with different heroes, and each hero has a different way of solving the problem. I've been playing Medieval on and off for 6 or 7 years and I still encounter new situations I haven't encountered before.
I agree. I was also disappointed at first it wasn't more like The Sims 3, but I decided to give it a chance and I started to enjoy it for what is, not what I wanted it to be. I wish they had also released an EP for The Sims 3 to travel to the past with some of the features from Medieval, except the quest and Kingdom system. Both things could've existed simultaneously and cater to different players.
I mean... I don't think it's a fair comparison to take a previous version of The Sims that had different capabilities in terms of processing when it comes to worlds, and put it against a game pack for a different iteration of The Sims that is available on a wider variety of computers.
I loved TS3, don't get me wrong. But TS4 in my opinion is more beautiful, fun, interesting, and available for more users (that last point is not an opinion, that's a fact). To me, the value of a world/pack is not based on how many lots it comes with. Personally, the amount of content matters. That could include A world, CAS additions, build/buy editions, gameplay features, special items, etc.
Why you would compare a game that has large open worlds to a game that does NOT really doesn't make sense to me. It might be better to compare desert worlds within TS4 - Oasis Springs vs. Strangerville, perhaps? But one is from base game and one is a more developed DLC.
I just really don't think this is a comparison that needs to be made.
Regardless of how one may feel about an version being compared to another version, Sims 4 is in the same family in the Sims series, Comparsion is never going to stop. If you think Sims 4 is beautiful then it is but at the same time you feeling that someone else is looking at what Sims 3 had available and may feel Sims 4 lacks in features in comparsion to what Sims 3 had and it is more than lots, it is the other features that Sims 4 does not have and maybe will never have. But again if you find Sims 4 enjoyable than that is your right to feel that way.
Post edited by Goldmoldar on
Omen by HP Intel®️ Core™️ i9- 12900K W/ RGB Liquid Cooler 32GB Nvidia RTX 3080 10Gb ASUS Ultra-Wide 34" Curved Monitor. Omen By HP Intel® Core™ i7-12800HX 32 GB Nvidia 3070 Ti 8 GB 17.3 Screen
The 2-hour LINEAR point-and-click story has been heavily criticized already. Not many people are satisfied with it (and some say they like it for what is). It also has little to no replayability. A lot people are claiming that the world makes this pack worth it, so I just wanted to compare the quality of a world/lots from the previous game with the quality of this world/lots. .
Replayability is based on user. Ive replayed the story 3 times now and each time thoroughly enjoyed it. Same could be said for Jungle Adventures. I still go there from time to time and replay the temple exploration. So that is based upon users preference.
I enjoyed those big towns from TS3 but I enjoy the new gameplay aspect that TS4 gamepacks bring. I hope we get another story based gamepack in the future. It was a lot of fun. TS3 towns were only that big because you couldnt move freely between towns you were basically stuck to the town you chose. Unless you bin your family and moved. But you lost relationships etc.
Though I agree that Sims 3 worlds compared to Sims 4 neighborhoods may not be 100% fair comparison, I do agree with the OP’s general observations and context.
It’s absolutely acceptable to compare one iteration to another. And I know many fight to disagree, but at the end of the day, collectively speaking, Sims 4 pales in comparison to its predecessors.
Do I enjoy it? Yes, but I’m also not blind to its many faults and short comings. This pack is one that just blew my mind. The story was linear, predictable, and offers no real replay value. I can create multiple different sims with different trait combinations and it will not affect the story in anyway, it will play out the same no matter what.
My opinion? They should spend their resources on tried and true themes while offering improvements to them.
Have to agree.
I quite enjoyed Medieval. It had a lot of story options. Strangerville? Not so much.
I got lucky palms off the store from registering my sims 3 expansions and ads. It’s a stunning world.
Are you saying that the Sims Medieval offered replayability and was not kind of a huge let-down? Or that Sims Stories had more gameplay than TS4? I loved Medieval, but after playing through once I had very little desire to play through again.
Yes. Medieval's quests have MANY branching paths. Depending on how certain quests ends your realm gains points in Culture, Security, etc. and the level you have in those attributes (aspects) determines which quests you get. The quest to assasinate the Monarch will only appear if your Kingdom's Well-Being goes below a certain threshold, for example.
It doesn't matter if YOU didn't want to play anymore. Medieval has objectively a good degree of replayability.
I tried to like Medieval, I really, really tried and started it up again and again but really couldn't be bothered after a while. It just didn't have that Sims feel for me. I don't play a game to go on everlasting quests but the artwork was beautiful, better than usual. I just wished some of it could have been incorporated into the main game. StrangerVille is just about right for me in this iteration. I'll fill it with my own builds when I've completed the adventure at my own unhurried leisure.
Maybe you could let us who enjoy it, enjoy it and look forward to a Sims 5 yourself?
I agree. I have Sim's Medieval does have replayability. The reason it failed was really because of how it was poorly marketed. People thought it had more of a Sim's 3 vive. Some even thought it was a EP. You couldn't mod it. You couldn't build in it like you could in the sims. It was meant to be a rpg spinoff. I think there was enough quests in it that it had replay value. Its biggest issue was it was not part of the actual Sim's 3 game.
You can also complete quests with different heroes, and each hero has a different way of solving the problem. I've been playing Medieval on and off for 6 or 7 years and I still encounter new situations I haven't encountered before.
I agree. I was also disappointed at first it wasn't more like The Sims 3, but I decided to give it a chance and I started to enjoy it for what is, not what I wanted it to be. I wish they had also released an EP for The Sims 3 to travel to the past with some of the features from Medieval, except the quest and Kingdom system. Both things could've existed simultaneously and cater to different players.
It is not a bad game at all. I like it. I went in knowing what it was. But that does not mean I want this game to turn from a sandbox game. The Sim's Medieval and like games have their own place.
I really don't see how you could compare it to Sims3. Sims3 has huge worlds, where sims4 has neighborhoods. There is definitely a lot more houses and stuff in Sims3 worlds. Sims4 may look big at times?, but they are mostly backdrops with very little lots.
There’s nothing wrong with comparing Sims 4 to 3 (or 4 to 2 or 3 to 2) you can and should.
However it needs to be done in a fair, equal and logical method. Comparing The Cats and Dogs EP to the Sims 3, Sims 2 or Sims 1 Pets Eps is equal. Comparing a Store World to a Game Pack is not equal.
I really don't see how you could compare it to Sims3. Sims3 has huge worlds, where sims4 has neighborhoods. There is definitely a lot more houses and stuff in Sims3 worlds. Sims4 may look big at times?, but they are mostly backdrops with very little lots.
I agree but I believe some not looking at worlds and neighborhoods and how many lots but it is what you could do in them. Yes, Sims 3 had huge worlds but it goes beyond that I the player was offered the option of buying new worlds or create my own worlds which you do not even have an option to do in Sims 4 and for me regardless if it is an neighborhood or world without no option to create your neighborhood Sims 4 will always lose in that arena and that is my opinion. Right now one has to wait for additional neighborhoods which come far and between the last free neighborhood was back in 2015.
Post edited by Goldmoldar on
Omen by HP Intel®️ Core™️ i9- 12900K W/ RGB Liquid Cooler 32GB Nvidia RTX 3080 10Gb ASUS Ultra-Wide 34" Curved Monitor. Omen By HP Intel® Core™ i7-12800HX 32 GB Nvidia 3070 Ti 8 GB 17.3 Screen
Okay, I hear you, I do. So I guess I'm just wondering WHY make the comparison at all? I'm not familiar with your history on the forum - do you do this with every EP/GP/SP to Sims 1, 2, and/or 3? Are you comparing Strangerville with Lucky Palms because of the desert location? Is it because we have the option to purchase it? I think you CAN compare games, even games that have no relationship - I just don't see why it's even like... worth your time to compare 3 to 4. I'm really not trying to throw shade, I just don't get why the world comparison is important. Is it just to show that The Sims 4 has "less" than The Sims 3 in terms of world features/space/lots?
I think anyone that played the Sims before TS4 knows that TS3 was enormously larger in terms of world sizes and customization capabilities. But it also required different and more expensive hardware (for its time) to even play on low settings. Now you can play TS4 on Ultra with a regular computer or some high end laptops. I think that kind of outweighs the lot amounts. But that IS just my opinion. I also personally think it was refreshing to have a new game that wasn't a copy, but "enhanced" or whatever of the previous game. I think it's perfectly fine the way it is set up now even without open worlds.
I really don't see how you could compare it to Sims3. Sims3 has huge worlds, where sims4 has neighborhoods. There is definitely a lot more houses and stuff in Sims3 worlds. Sims4 may look big at times?, but they are mostly backdrops with very little lots.
I agree but I believe some not looking at worlds and neighborhoods and how lots but it is what you could do in them. Yes, Sims 3 had huge worlds but it goes beyond that I the player was offered the option of buying new worlds or create my own worlds which you do not even have an option to do in Sims 4 and for me regardless if it is an neighborhood or world without no option to create your neighborhood Sims 4 will always lose in that arena and that is my opinion. Right now one has to wait for additional neighborhoods which come far and between the last free neighborhood was back in 2015.
I see what you are saying and it is sad but the thing is, we will never have open hoods, much less worlds (IMO). I miss CAW worlds (I never could make them, but always downloaded them).
I use Newcrest ALOT , I only wish we had different background choices so our builds look better in them. Right now, I could have one stip of Newcrest with old builds, another strip with modern builds and the other strip with a China feel of a strip. Would be nice if we could have the backdrops to choose from where the whole hood would have the China feel, etc. We definitely need another empty neighborhood!
Okay, I hear you, I do. So I guess I'm just wondering WHY make the comparison at all? I'm not familiar with your history on the forum - do you do this with every EP/GP/SP to Sims 1, 2, and/or 3? Are you comparing Strangerville with Lucky Palms because of the desert location? Is it because we have the option to purchase it? I think you CAN compare games, even games that have no relationship - I just don't see why it's even like... worth your time to compare 3 to 4. I'm really not trying to throw shade, I just don't get why the world comparison is important. Is it just to show that The Sims 4 has "less" than The Sims 3 in terms of world features/space/lots?
I think anyone that played the Sims before TS4 knows that TS3 was enormously larger in terms of world sizes and customization capabilities. But it also required different and more expensive hardware (for its time) to even play on low settings. Now you can play TS4 on Ultra with a regular computer or some high end laptops. I think that kind of outweighs the lot amounts. But that IS just my opinion. I also personally think it was refreshing to have a new game that wasn't a copy, but "enhanced" or whatever of the previous game. I think it's perfectly fine the way it is set up now even without open worlds.
For someone who claims that its no shade, asking someone "why its worth their time" is awfully shady. If they want to compare, let them. OP has every right to do so because the worlds/games ARE comparable and AREN'T all that different how you like to put it.
I'm assuming OP wants to highlight how much more creative Maxis was in the past so people don't excuse its mediocrity in the present/future.
I really don't see how you could compare it to Sims3. Sims3 has huge worlds, where sims4 has neighborhoods. There is definitely a lot more houses and stuff in Sims3 worlds. Sims4 may look big at times?, but they are mostly backdrops with very little lots.
I agree but I believe some not looking at worlds and neighborhoods and how lots but it is what you could do in them. Yes, Sims 3 had huge worlds but it goes beyond that I the player was offered the option of buying new worlds or create my own worlds which you do not even have an option to do in Sims 4 and for me regardless if it is an neighborhood or world without no option to create your neighborhood Sims 4 will always lose in that arena and that is my opinion. Right now one has to wait for additional neighborhoods which come far and between the last free neighborhood was back in 2015.
I see what you are saying and it is sad but the thing is, we will never have open hoods, much less worlds (IMO). I miss CAW worlds (I never could make them, but always downloaded them).
I use Newcrest ALOT , I only wish we had different background choices so our builds look better in them. Right now, I could have one stip of Newcrest with old builds, another strip with modern builds and the other strip with a China feel of a strip. Would be nice if we could have the backdrops to choose from where the whole hood would have the China feel, etc. We definitely need another empty neighborhood!
Yes, but that is how it is always going to play out and I do not see too many neighborhoods Imo as it may hinder performance being the more you add the more computer resource it need to process and for the low enders they may start to experience what they experienced in Sims 3. Sims 4 story is not as opened ended as one may think it is for EA/Maxis at least should know at thie point and time what can be done and what can't be done.
Omen by HP Intel®️ Core™️ i9- 12900K W/ RGB Liquid Cooler 32GB Nvidia RTX 3080 10Gb ASUS Ultra-Wide 34" Curved Monitor. Omen By HP Intel® Core™ i7-12800HX 32 GB Nvidia 3070 Ti 8 GB 17.3 Screen
I'm assuming OP wants to highlight how much more creative Maxis was in the past so people don't excuse its mediocrity in the present/future.
Yes, my objective was to show the drop in both QUALITY AND QUANTITY. Not only worlds are minuscule now compared to previous games, but the quality of premade houses has really gone down the drain, particularly in this pack. That's why I showed exteriors and interiors.
Then I also added some easy, quantifiable information to show the relation of content vs price, focusing on lots.
I understand it's an EP vs a GP, and the EP you paid extra for the casino. The EP is set more in the Southwest, while the GP is set more in a place like Arizona/Utah.
Lucky Palms isn't an EP. It's a Store World. It costs +$4.5 than StrangerVille but I think it gives more and better content for its price. The Lucky Simoleon Casino cost an additional $11 and adds 3 new gameplay items, a venue and 8 objects. Both can be bought with SimPoints (which means you don't have to pay money since you can earn SimPoints by watching ads and you're gifted SimPoints when you register some EPs) and are on sale pretty often.
Lucky Palms cost 47 us dollars when it came out and was nothing but a store world and casino. I know I bought it. It had no ep or gp stuff about it.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
Strangerville is a Game Pack. The focus of it was the new gameplay elements added and most importantly, and which I noticed you left out of your post completely, the uniqueness of the added storyline element. THAT was their main focus of this pack and what they put the most time and effort into creating and designing. Not the world. Even so the world is well designed and larger then what we’ve gotten in previous Game Packs.
The 2-hour LINEAR point-and-click story has been heavily criticized already. Not many people are satisfied with it (and some say they like it for what is). It also has little to no replayability. A lot people are claiming that the world makes this pack worth it, so I just wanted to compare the quality of a world/lots from the previous game with the quality of this world/lots.
I think it's a fair comparison because that's what you're getting for $20-25 in each game.
Lucky Palms: 1 gameplay item, large world with 96 items.
StrangerVille: 3 gameplay items, tiny world with 11 items, 2-hour linear story with no replayability, 1 new career with 3 new interactions.
And if you compare stuff packs, sims 4 stuff packs almost always have the same, and sometimes double the amount of stuff as sims 3 packs, as well as 1-4 gameplay items for half the price.
What's the point of this?
All you got with the store pack was the world itself. It's incredibly unfair that you didn't even take into account all the gameplay the pack comes with like the Military career, new trait, and the story. Yes the story is linear, and I'm not a big fan of this type of pack, but it's unfair to discount it just because you don't like it. Not to mention you didn't even count all the CAS and build/buy items that each store set comes with. Only the new gameplay objects were counted, in which you forgot Laptops, as well as a couple items I can't mention because of spoilers.
You're comparing apples to oranges and coming off biased. A world pack on the store is obviously going to be more fleshed out than a game pack that focuses on the story.
Why don't we compare Dine out to the restaurant lot in sims 3? I bet you could easily tell which is worth the $20 (I think it might have even been 25 for sims 3, don't remember)
Edited to add: I don't have an issue with comparing sims 3 and sims 4. My issue is comparing game packs with world packs, they are completely different concepts. Also, for what it's worth, I do not think Strangerville is worth $20 at all.
Lucky Palms was one of the worst worlds in terms of routing (other than Isla Paradiso, of course), stuck sims and having to use Nraas to reset everything, every night. You had to buy this separately (close to $40 AUD for the gold version) and you still couldn't expect it to work.
I understand it's an EP vs a GP, and the EP you paid extra for the casino. The EP is set more in the Southwest, while the GP is set more in a place like Arizona/Utah.
Lucky Palms isn't an EP. It's a Store World. It costs +$4.5 than StrangerVille but I think it gives more and better content for its price. The Lucky Simoleon Casino cost an additional $11 and adds 3 new gameplay items, a venue and 8 objects. Both can be bought with SimPoints (which means you don't have to pay money since you can earn SimPoints by watching ads and you're gifted SimPoints when you register some EPs) and are on sale pretty often.
Lucky Palms cost 47 us dollars when it came out and was nothing but a store world and casino. I know I bought it. It had no ep or gp stuff about it.
No, you did not need to buy the casino. That was the gold version. It was not required to own the casino to own the world.
Comparing things like Cats and Dogs to Sims 3 pets is very valid. Not to go too off topic, but I would give it to sims 3 over all. They are similar packs, with similar themes. Both expansion packs and both centered around animals.
Game packs and world packs are completely different. Yes, Lucky Palms was definitely more worth your money. (any other gamepack and my opinion might changes, I just really don't care for strangerville.)
Comments
Yes. Medieval's quests have MANY branching paths. Depending on how certain quests ends your realm gains points in Culture, Security, etc. and the level you have in those attributes (aspects) determines which quests you get. The quest to assasinate the Monarch will only appear if your Kingdom's Well-Being goes below a certain threshold, for example.
It doesn't matter if YOU didn't want to play anymore. Medieval has objectively a good degree of replayability.
Lucky palms was NOT an EP......
It’s absolutely acceptable to compare one iteration to another. And I know many fight to disagree, but at the end of the day, collectively speaking, Sims 4 pales in comparison to its predecessors.
Do I enjoy it? Yes, but I’m also not blind to its many faults and short comings. This pack is one that just blew my mind. The story was linear, predictable, and offers no real replay value. I can create multiple different sims with different trait combinations and it will not affect the story in anyway, it will play out the same no matter what.
My opinion? They should spend their resources on tried and true themes while offering improvements to them.
I agree. I have Sim's Medieval does have replayability. The reason it failed was really because of how it was poorly marketed. People thought it had more of a Sim's 3 vive. Some even thought it was a EP. You couldn't mod it. You couldn't build in it like you could in the sims. It was meant to be a rpg spinoff. I think there was enough quests in it that it had replay value. Its biggest issue was it was not part of the actual Sim's 3 game.
I agree and endorse this post.
You can also complete quests with different heroes, and each hero has a different way of solving the problem. I've been playing Medieval on and off for 6 or 7 years and I still encounter new situations I haven't encountered before.
I agree. I was also disappointed at first it wasn't more like The Sims 3, but I decided to give it a chance and I started to enjoy it for what is, not what I wanted it to be. I wish they had also released an EP for The Sims 3 to travel to the past with some of the features from Medieval, except the quest and Kingdom system. Both things could've existed simultaneously and cater to different players.
Regardless of how one may feel about an version being compared to another version, Sims 4 is in the same family in the Sims series, Comparsion is never going to stop. If you think Sims 4 is beautiful then it is but at the same time you feeling that someone else is looking at what Sims 3 had available and may feel Sims 4 lacks in features in comparsion to what Sims 3 had and it is more than lots, it is the other features that Sims 4 does not have and maybe will never have. But again if you find Sims 4 enjoyable than that is your right to feel that way.
Have to agree.
I quite enjoyed Medieval. It had a lot of story options. Strangerville? Not so much.
I got lucky palms off the store from registering my sims 3 expansions and ads. It’s a stunning world.
It is not a bad game at all. I like it. I went in knowing what it was. But that does not mean I want this game to turn from a sandbox game. The Sim's Medieval and like games have their own place.
However it needs to be done in a fair, equal and logical method. Comparing The Cats and Dogs EP to the Sims 3, Sims 2 or Sims 1 Pets Eps is equal. Comparing a Store World to a Game Pack is not equal.
I agree but I believe some not looking at worlds and neighborhoods and how many lots but it is what you could do in them. Yes, Sims 3 had huge worlds but it goes beyond that I the player was offered the option of buying new worlds or create my own worlds which you do not even have an option to do in Sims 4 and for me regardless if it is an neighborhood or world without no option to create your neighborhood Sims 4 will always lose in that arena and that is my opinion. Right now one has to wait for additional neighborhoods which come far and between the last free neighborhood was back in 2015.
I think anyone that played the Sims before TS4 knows that TS3 was enormously larger in terms of world sizes and customization capabilities. But it also required different and more expensive hardware (for its time) to even play on low settings. Now you can play TS4 on Ultra with a regular computer or some high end laptops. I think that kind of outweighs the lot amounts. But that IS just my opinion. I also personally think it was refreshing to have a new game that wasn't a copy, but "enhanced" or whatever of the previous game. I think it's perfectly fine the way it is set up now even without open worlds.
I see what you are saying and it is sad but the thing is, we will never have open hoods, much less worlds (IMO). I miss CAW worlds (I never could make them, but always downloaded them).
I use Newcrest ALOT , I only wish we had different background choices so our builds look better in them. Right now, I could have one stip of Newcrest with old builds, another strip with modern builds and the other strip with a China feel of a strip. Would be nice if we could have the backdrops to choose from where the whole hood would have the China feel, etc. We definitely need another empty neighborhood!
For someone who claims that its no shade, asking someone "why its worth their time" is awfully shady. If they want to compare, let them. OP has every right to do so because the worlds/games ARE comparable and AREN'T all that different how you like to put it.
I'm assuming OP wants to highlight how much more creative Maxis was in the past so people don't excuse its mediocrity in the present/future.
Yes, but that is how it is always going to play out and I do not see too many neighborhoods Imo as it may hinder performance being the more you add the more computer resource it need to process and for the low enders they may start to experience what they experienced in Sims 3. Sims 4 story is not as opened ended as one may think it is for EA/Maxis at least should know at thie point and time what can be done and what can't be done.
Yes, my objective was to show the drop in both QUALITY AND QUANTITY. Not only worlds are minuscule now compared to previous games, but the quality of premade houses has really gone down the drain, particularly in this pack. That's why I showed exteriors and interiors.
Then I also added some easy, quantifiable information to show the relation of content vs price, focusing on lots.
Lucky Palms cost 47 us dollars when it came out and was nothing but a store world and casino. I know I bought it. It had no ep or gp stuff about it.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
In dreams - I LIVE!
In REALITY, I simply exist.....
And if you compare stuff packs, sims 4 stuff packs almost always have the same, and sometimes double the amount of stuff as sims 3 packs, as well as 1-4 gameplay items for half the price.
What's the point of this?
All you got with the store pack was the world itself. It's incredibly unfair that you didn't even take into account all the gameplay the pack comes with like the Military career, new trait, and the story. Yes the story is linear, and I'm not a big fan of this type of pack, but it's unfair to discount it just because you don't like it. Not to mention you didn't even count all the CAS and build/buy items that each store set comes with. Only the new gameplay objects were counted, in which you forgot Laptops, as well as a couple items I can't mention because of spoilers.
You're comparing apples to oranges and coming off biased. A world pack on the store is obviously going to be more fleshed out than a game pack that focuses on the story.
Why don't we compare Dine out to the restaurant lot in sims 3? I bet you could easily tell which is worth the $20 (I think it might have even been 25 for sims 3, don't remember)
Edited to add: I don't have an issue with comparing sims 3 and sims 4. My issue is comparing game packs with world packs, they are completely different concepts. Also, for what it's worth, I do not think Strangerville is worth $20 at all.
No, you did not need to buy the casino. That was the gold version. It was not required to own the casino to own the world.
Game packs and world packs are completely different. Yes, Lucky Palms was definitely more worth your money. (any other gamepack and my opinion might changes, I just really don't care for strangerville.)
But it's weird and unfair to compare the two.