@SimsLovinLycan Please don't derail this thread. You are speaking about things not relevant to this topic. And since I have many men in my family it's offensive to say such a blanket statement of male coworkes. And sure people should carry it even when going for a walk, alone, etc. However, saying this (in a previous post in this thread) that this is a problem at all the gaming companies out there, where someone has to fear males is sexist, and there is no evidence known to the public this has sort of thing has happened at any of them, such as EA, Apple, or Google or whereever there is workers in AI. And this can go both ways, women often think they can pat someone on the back and it not be a problem for a male who may not bring it up as harrasment. But those conversations don't belong in my thread.
That's not just for the male co-workers. There are women who are creeps in the workplace too. But, yeah, that's a topic for another thread entirely (and, yeah, it's not all companies in the industry, but it is a pretty big problem none-the-less).
However, I do think that adults making bad decisions on behalf of kids is kind of relevant to the topic as far as the direction that this game has gone. Adults assuming that all kids want/need is an ankle-deep game with super-easy goals, nothing too scary/offensive/controversial, and a ton of hand-holding has had an impact on how dull TS4 can be, as well as impacting several recent all-ages games as well. Most people will point to the Gen6 and Gen7 Pokemon games as having a similar problem, thanks to their overly-long mandatory tutorial segments and rivals that are heavily toned down from the ones from the earlier generations. When you take the edge and challenge out of a game to make it more "kid-friendly," you ultimately end up making it more dull for players of all ages.
And in the midst of all this University will be released and I'll definitely be playing that for a while.
Has EA made any official statements, or is this just rumor being spread by folks desperately hoping that *this* will be the white knight pack to solve all their gaming woes? Going to college, RL or sims, is hardly the ultimate in life fulfillment. Even if true, the pack will be disappointing (as they all have of late), and a bit of a grind if the TS2 (which does a much better job with packs than 4) version is any indicator.
No, nothing official but Target has it as a place holder so it's probably true some sort of education pack coming in Nov. Another store leaked they had IL as a place holder and I bet against that one, but was wrong and it turned out to be true. If anyone finds a place holder in the list if games coming to a store, then I think it's sort of safe to believe it, though the titles may not be the actual word for word titles.
Plus it’s not exactly revolutionary, University being next.
And in the midst of all this University will be released and I'll definitely be playing that for a while.
Has EA made any official statements, or is this just rumor being spread by folks desperately hoping that *this* will be the white knight pack to solve all their gaming woes? Going to college, RL or sims, is hardly the ultimate in life fulfillment. Even if true, the pack will be disappointing (as they all have of late), and a bit of a grind if the TS2 (which does a much better job with packs than 4) version is any indicator.
No, nothing official but Target has it as a place holder so it's probably true some sort of education pack coming in Nov. Another store leaked they had IL as a place holder and I bet against that one, but was wrong and it turned out to be true. If anyone finds a place holder in the list if games coming to a store, then I think it's sort of safe to believe it, though the titles may not be the actual word for word titles.
Plus it’s not exactly revolutionary, University being next.
Yeah, and a little late in my opinion. All those home careers and new careers (handful in five years) not needing degrees? Late to me.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
If their true aimed for teenage girls (which is a foolish of itself, because wteff does that mean?) and not CM idea to think of a scapegoat justification why TS4 is crap in the series, than it's insulting of itself that wants to shovely define what teenage girls like and don't like in the game. There's no clear suggestion that it suggested the game is marketed to player who happen be of XX chromose possers, nor does that range is limited to players of 10-14 year olds. I would say Maxis is trying to deliver, intentionally or not, to players of any gender, that are between of a late child to young adults. Why else would Maxis make addition for their promo ad of young adult volunters, as well shoving things that anyone of millennial generation could relate since social media is prominent forte of theirs.
If their true aimed for teenage girls (which is a foolish of itself, because wteff does that mean?) and not CM idea to think of a scapegoat justification why TS4 is plum in the series, than it's insulting of itself that wants to shovely define what teenage girls like and don't like in the game. There's no clear suggestion that it suggested the game is marketed to player who happen be of XX chromose possers, nor does that range is limited to players of 10-14 year olds. I would say Maxis is trying to deliver, intentionally or not, to players of any gender, that are between of a late child to young adults. Why else would Maxis make addition for their promo ad of young adult volunters, as well shoving things that anyone of millennial generation could relate since social media is prominent forte of theirs.
And our game, I don’t know if you’re aware, our game is targeted mostly at teenage girls, which is an oddity in gaming, but they’re and they are very much for inclusion and they don’t like bullying, you know, but we can’t always talk to teenage girls, so we talk to the people who talk to them, and through them sharing their stories and the promotions on social media, you know we’re always highlighting new ways, like this creator has a great story going on with this series that’s talking about a very tragic moment in their “Sims” life, but it’s actually based on their real life, so how do we highlight that to allow people to feel comfortable to talk about those things. So sometimes it’s a little difficult depending on what I’m trying to do, but we at least try and promote things on social media all the time, and make sure our lists are diverse of people we reach out to, and I encourage people constantly, whether you’re a storyteller, or you know, you’re just a let’s player, I’m like, share things with me, I can’t see everything, but please if you see something fun, or you see someone’s bringing up an issue where they don’t feel like they’re represented, share it with me because I can share with the studio and make that something that they look at and say, how can we do this right and how can we include this in the game as a natural fit and not feel like we just shoved it to shove it in. We want everyone to feel comfortable, but I need the help of my community to do that.
Either Drake or Kate also confirmed their audience is teen girls on Instagram with rich parents on twitter but it appears the tweets have been deleted.
Considering that the 13 year old girl target was the aim from the start as famously reported here. I'm surprised that older Simmers didn't leave them to it but they still appear to be here! If it doesn't bore the 13 year olds yet, who are we to criticise. It wasn't meant for us was it?
(Pokemon can be downright dangerous for children from what I read in the newspapers, leading them to some very strange places. ) At least Sims 4 doesn't lead to an actual nude beach or brothel.
In the 1990s, game devs realized with Mario that there is a huge market that they were ignoring -- teenage girls. The problem is that they didn't talk to teenage girls so many games were made by men who thought they knew what teenage girls would like, leading to a bunch of garbage games that no one wanted. Which had devs then saying, yet again, that teenage girls didn't like video games.
One thing I think all devs miss is that girls and women play video games. We have always played video games. You don't need to have games aimed at us (as that aim often just misses) but instead just make good video games that include us. A sims that appeals to everyone will just be a better game than one that attempts to go after a very narrow market.
Sims did not start out as a game aimed at girls. I think devs realized that girls did like the game so decided to focus content for teenage girls, which isn't a bad thing until they decided that's the only audience they're focusing on. I know a lot of men and teenage boys who play the Sims, though fewer play Sims 4. A lot of older women play, and I'm in that category. Sims has a massive audience, and making the best game possible as far as life simulation goes -- all aspects of life, not just a small part -- makes for a richer gaming experience. And everyone -- including teenage girls -- likes rich gaming experiences.
Edit: Can you imagine if Nintendo realized that girls like Mario, and made fundamental changes to the structure of the game based on, "well, girls should like this!" rather than just sticking with the formula that made everyone like it? It would have ended up fading away.
One thing I think all devs miss is that girls and women play video games. We have always played video games. You don't need to have games aimed at us (as that aim often just misses) but instead just make good video games that include us. A sims that appeals to everyone will just be a better game than one that attempts to go after a very narrow market.
This nails it. Especially the missed aim, since it's usually based on what devs think girls an women want in games (and this is where sexism comes in hard) instead of having actual answers from that part of their intended audience.
I do think that TS4 does still have an appeal to audiences other than their intended one, which I'm grateful for. I can all too easily imagine how bad it would be if it *started* as a game aimed at teen girls.
And in the midst of all this University will be released and I'll definitely be playing that for a while.
Has EA made any official statements, or is this just rumor being spread by folks desperately hoping that *this* will be the white knight pack to solve all their gaming woes? Going to college, RL or sims, is hardly the ultimate in life fulfillment. Even if true, the pack will be disappointing (as they all have of late), and a bit of a grind if the TS2 (which does a much better job with packs than 4) version is any indicator.
No, nothing official but Target has it as a place holder so it's probably true some sort of education pack coming in Nov. Another store leaked they had IL as a place holder and I bet against that one, but was wrong and it turned out to be true. If anyone finds a place holder in the list if games coming to a store, then I think it's sort of safe to believe it, though the titles may not be the actual word for word titles.
Plus it’s not exactly revolutionary, University being next.
Yeah, and a little late in my opinion. All those home careers and new careers (handful in five years) not needing degrees? Late to me.
Can't speak for TS3, but TS2 launched its university pack as the second one so current careers could be plugged into it. Since it was already in place, plugging new careers in as they came out was easy. Waiting this long, assuming the rumors are true, is bad planning and worse execution.
And in the midst of all this University will be released and I'll definitely be playing that for a while.
Has EA made any official statements, or is this just rumor being spread by folks desperately hoping that *this* will be the white knight pack to solve all their gaming woes? Going to college, RL or sims, is hardly the ultimate in life fulfillment. Even if true, the pack will be disappointing (as they all have of late), and a bit of a grind if the TS2 (which does a much better job with packs than 4) version is any indicator.
No, nothing official but Target has it as a place holder so it's probably true some sort of education pack coming in Nov. Another store leaked they had IL as a place holder and I bet against that one, but was wrong and it turned out to be true. If anyone finds a place holder in the list if games coming to a store, then I think it's sort of safe to believe it, though the titles may not be the actual word for word titles.
Plus it’s not exactly revolutionary, University being next.
Yeah, and a little late in my opinion. All those home careers and new careers (handful in five years) not needing degrees? Late to me.
Can't speak for TS3, but TS2 launched its university pack as the second one so current careers could be plugged into it. Since it was already in place, plugging new careers in as they came out was easy. Waiting this long, assuming the rumors are true, is bad planning and worse execution.
Sims 3 made it so your degree would place you higher in the relevant field. For instance, a degree in science and medicine would start you as an intern in the medical field. There were also some new jobs, but they were more tied into the social groups, and I felt that was a bad implementation.
Considering that the 13 year old girl target was the aim from the start as famously reported here. I'm surprised that older Simmers didn't leave them to it but they still appear to be here! If it doesn't bore the 13 year olds yet, who are we to criticise. It wasn't meant for us was it?
(Pokemon can be downright dangerous for children from what I read in the newspapers, leading them to some very strange places. ) At least Sims 4 doesn't lead to an actual nude beach or brothel.
That's all from Pokemon GO, the mobile spin-off. They have had a lot of problems with that one because of decisions the developer, Niantic, made about how pokemon spawn. The main handheld and console games are about as safe as a Ming vase wrapped 45 feet thick in high-grade bubble wrap. The biggest risk they've taken in years is not having the National Dex in Gen8...
In the 1990s, game devs realized with Mario that there is a huge market that they were ignoring -- teenage girls. The problem is that they didn't talk to teenage girls so many games were made by men who thought they knew what teenage girls would like, leading to a bunch of garbage games that no one wanted. Which had devs then saying, yet again, that teenage girls didn't like video games.
One thing I think all devs miss is that girls and women play video games. We have always played video games. You don't need to have games aimed at us (as that aim often just misses) but instead just make good video games that include us. A sims that appeals to everyone will just be a better game than one that attempts to go after a very narrow market.
Sims did not start out as a game aimed at girls. I think devs realized that girls did like the game so decided to focus content for teenage girls, which isn't a bad thing until they decided that's the only audience they're focusing on. I know a lot of men and teenage boys who play the Sims, though fewer play Sims 4. A lot of older women play, and I'm in that category. Sims has a massive audience, and making the best game possible as far as life simulation goes -- all aspects of life, not just a small part -- makes for a richer gaming experience. And everyone -- including teenage girls -- likes rich gaming experiences.
Edit: Can you imagine if Nintendo realized that girls like Mario, and made fundamental changes to the structure of the game based on, "well, girls should like this!" rather than just sticking with the formula that made everyone like it? It would have ended up fading away.
This is post nails EXACTLY why games deliberately aimed at young girls are always so bland. Most people running game companies and making games are grown men who had mostly male social circles during their elementary through high school years (because our society doesn't encourage kids to play in mixed-gender groups nearly as much as we should), have been taught since before they could talk that girls = soft and fragile and squeamish, and who never have had an honest conversation with a woman about her tastes and opinions where they actually listened to a single word out of her mouth because society tells men that women are this homogeneous group of oversensitive, braindead carebears who don't like anything cool and if you've heard one woman talk, you've heard 'em all. So, when making games for girls, what do they do? They rely on the old stereotypes that have been drilled into their heads since they were infants instead of actually talking and listening to their target audience, and they end up making shovelware trash as a result. And let's not even get into how even female game developers can easily fall into the same hole because they themselves have internalized the very same stereotypes, even though they know them to be biased generalizations based on their own personal experiences, because they've been hammered with them so much themselves that they just rely on them without even thinking, just like the guys.
Something about that quote from Drake also really unsettled me. Drake said, "...but we can’t always talk to teenage girls, so we talk to the people who talk to them." So, they're not actually forming focus groups of teenaged girls from diverse backgrounds and with varying personalities and tastes to talk to about what they want and don't want, like and don't like, in video games...they're mainly getting second-hand accounts from adults who "talk to" teen girls--so, therapist, school counselors, parents, etc.--whose accounts no doubt are colored by their own biases, preconceptions, and misconceptions about both teens in general, girls in general, and teen girls in particular, therefore making those accounts much less reliable than ACTUALLY HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THE GIRLS AND LISTENING TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY!! Oh, no, with girls, second-hand sources who CLAIM to know what's going on in our dizzy little fluff heads are more than good enough!!
Would they say that about the dudes who play GTA? "Well, we can't always talk to teen boys and young men, so we talk to the people who talk to them." No. They get their info direct from their target demographic, period. No second-hand accounts from teachers or therapists or parents or wives/mothers/sisters/girlfriends/homegirls. No. But somehow they think they can get away with that with girls. Like girls and women aren't important enough to actually be asked for our first-hand input!! That's how we ended up with those crappy Barbie games where Barbie was useless and helpless and died in, like, one hit, and controlled like absolute garbage. It's almost like they think female players don't want a game, just a slightly interactive screensaver. It's freaking insulting.
And in the midst of all this University will be released and I'll definitely be playing that for a while.
Has EA made any official statements, or is this just rumor being spread by folks desperately hoping that *this* will be the white knight pack to solve all their gaming woes? Going to college, RL or sims, is hardly the ultimate in life fulfillment. Even if true, the pack will be disappointing (as they all have of late), and a bit of a grind if the TS2 (which does a much better job with packs than 4) version is any indicator.
No, nothing official but Target has it as a place holder so it's probably true some sort of education pack coming in Nov. Another store leaked they had IL as a place holder and I bet against that one, but was wrong and it turned out to be true. If anyone finds a place holder in the list if games coming to a store, then I think it's sort of safe to believe it, though the titles may not be the actual word for word titles.
Plus it’s not exactly revolutionary, University being next.
Yeah, and a little late in my opinion. All those home careers and new careers (handful in five years) not needing degrees? Late to me.
Can't speak for TS3, but TS2 launched its university pack as the second one so current careers could be plugged into it. Since it was already in place, plugging new careers in as they came out was easy. Waiting this long, assuming the rumors are true, is bad planning and worse execution.
Sims 3 made it so your degree would place you higher in the relevant field. For instance, a degree in science and medicine would start you as an intern in the medical field. There were also some new jobs, but they were more tied into the social groups, and I felt that was a bad implementation.
I agree (I dislike and completely ignore the whole social groups thing). I’ve also always regretted how you don’t really need a certain degree for some careers (or rather levels), like in real life.
I think the innovation is no longer there, and hasn't been since my Sim first opened their front door and stepped out into an open world. I think that is the last great innovation there has been and that's ten years ago.
That was certainly a WOW moment - seeing that trailer video advertising the open world and cast for sims 3 for the first time - I still remember how I felt watching that. Nothing has wowed me like that since.
Of course, there are good features and new innovations for sims 4 - like being able to pick up and move rooms or whole houses, gallery downloads plopping straight into your game, wearing hats with any hair, any pregnancy clothes etc. The innovations they have now are just on a much smaller scale. But then, in reality, what could they do that would top open world and cast and still be able to run on an average computer?
Personally, I would like to see a sims 5 that brings the best of all versions, but mostly concentrating on making sims with their own individual personalities that react to situations better, have their own likes and dislikes and so on - so closer to the sims 2 than any other. The sims themselves are the most important aspect, everything else is just set dressing.
Maybe that's why some people don't get on with Sims 4 as well as they do with other versions? Although we can make some great looking sims - personality wise, they've gotta be the worst yet.
Considering that the 13 year old girl target was the aim from the start as famously reported here. I'm surprised that older Simmers didn't leave them to it but they still appear to be here! If it doesn't bore the 13 year olds yet, who are we to criticise. It wasn't meant for us was it?
(Pokemon can be downright dangerous for children from what I read in the newspapers, leading them to some very strange places. ) At least Sims 4 doesn't lead to an actual nude beach or brothel.
That's all from Pokemon GO, the mobile spin-off. They have had a lot of problems with that one because of decisions the developer, Niantic, made about how pokemon spawn. The main handheld and console games are about as safe as a Ming vase wrapped 45 feet thick in high-grade bubble wrap. The biggest risk they've taken in years is not having the National Dex in Gen8...
In the 1990s, game devs realized with Mario that there is a huge market that they were ignoring -- teenage girls. The problem is that they didn't talk to teenage girls so many games were made by men who thought they knew what teenage girls would like, leading to a bunch of garbage games that no one wanted. Which had devs then saying, yet again, that teenage girls didn't like video games.
One thing I think all devs miss is that girls and women play video games. We have always played video games. You don't need to have games aimed at us (as that aim often just misses) but instead just make good video games that include us. A sims that appeals to everyone will just be a better game than one that attempts to go after a very narrow market.
Sims did not start out as a game aimed at girls. I think devs realized that girls did like the game so decided to focus content for teenage girls, which isn't a bad thing until they decided that's the only audience they're focusing on. I know a lot of men and teenage boys who play the Sims, though fewer play Sims 4. A lot of older women play, and I'm in that category. Sims has a massive audience, and making the best game possible as far as life simulation goes -- all aspects of life, not just a small part -- makes for a richer gaming experience. And everyone -- including teenage girls -- likes rich gaming experiences.
Edit: Can you imagine if Nintendo realized that girls like Mario, and made fundamental changes to the structure of the game based on, "well, girls should like this!" rather than just sticking with the formula that made everyone like it? It would have ended up fading away.
This is post nails EXACTLY why games deliberately aimed at young girls are always so bland. Most people running game companies and making games are grown men who had mostly male social circles during their elementary through high school years (because our society doesn't encourage kids to play in mixed-gender groups nearly as much as we should), have been taught since before they could talk that girls = soft and fragile and squeamish, and who never have had an honest conversation with a woman about her tastes and opinions where they actually listened to a single word out of her mouth because society tells men that women are this homogeneous group of oversensitive, braindead carebears who don't like anything cool and if you've heard one woman talk, you've heard 'em all. So, when making games for girls, what do they do? They rely on the old stereotypes that have been drilled into their heads since they were infants instead of actually talking and listening to their target audience, and they end up making shovelware trash as a result. And let's not even get into how even female game developers can easily fall into the same hole because they themselves have internalized the very same stereotypes, even though they know them to be biased generalizations based on their own personal experiences, because they've been hammered with them so much themselves that they just rely on them without even thinking, just like the guys.
Something about that quote from Drake also really unsettled me. Drake said, "...but we can’t always talk to teenage girls, so we talk to the people who talk to them." So, they're not actually forming focus groups of teenaged girls from diverse backgrounds and with varying personalities and tastes to talk to about what they want and don't want, like and don't like, in video games...they're mainly getting second-hand accounts from adults who "talk to" teen girls--so, therapist, school counselors, parents, etc.--whose accounts no doubt are colored by their own biases, preconceptions, and misconceptions about both teens in general, girls in general, and teen girls in particular, therefore making those accounts much less reliable than ACTUALLY HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THE GIRLS AND LISTENING TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY!! Oh, no, with girls, second-hand sources who CLAIM to know what's going on in our dizzy little fluff heads are more than good enough!!
Would they say that about the dudes who play GTA? "Well, we can't always talk to teen boys and young men, so we talk to the people who talk to them." No. They get their info direct from their target demographic, period. No second-hand accounts from teachers or therapists or parents or wives/mothers/sisters/girlfriends/homegirls. No. But somehow they think they can get away with that with girls. Like girls and women aren't important enough to actually be asked for our first-hand input!! That's how we ended up with those plum Barbie games where Barbie was useless and helpless and died in, like, one hit, and controlled like absolute garbage. It's almost like they think female players don't want a game, just a slightly interactive screensaver. It's freaking insulting.
But TS4 is not considered bland by teenage girls. (Most) maybe a few here and there on other sites. This game is not run by 'men' it's been in the hands of women for many decades. Lucy Bradshaw, Rachel Franklin, Lyndsay (sorry I misplaced her name). Lucy Bradshaw was over The Sims since TS2. She becoming GM after Ron Humble in TS3. Rachel Franklin was over Maxis in 2014, and now Lyndsay since she left. The game hasn't been 'run by men' per se since Will Wright left and Lucy took over, in 2004 after TS2 base was done, and now those positions (top of Maxis and The Sims) women have held those spots since mid TS3 era and Lucy even longer, when Ron no longer over saw Maxis.
Women have been the CMs (marketing) too of TS4 since it's launch after that Charlie guy, so it isn't all men who are making all the decisions or marketing or green lighting projects it's been the women who held the higher positions for many decades. And it's not been 'men' who have said the target was teens on instagram but a woman. ( I assume Drake and Kate identify as women, my apology if they don't)> Lead Producers don't go rogue as Lyndsay joked about Grant, they have to present their ideas to her, and or someone such as the Creative Director but it is still Lyndsay or before her Rachel and before her Lucy, who green light anything.
ETA: And edited to add, if I'm bored and unhappy with the franchise I can't actually blame a developer (the person who is actually working on animations, programming and or interactions or objects) it's the GM, and the Creative Director that decides what is in and what is out and what is not in the 'spirit of the game.' So, looking at TS4 as an example. Lucy B was GM, Rachel was over TS4 specifically, and Lyndsay was the creative director. Now, Lucy gone, and Rachel gone and Lyndsay sits as GM and I'm no longer sure the name of the Creative Director for TS4 since there have been quite a few since the launch of TS4. So, any bugs, any problems, any boredom or any 'direction or focus' falls on Lyndsay, and it isn't men making the decissions as some of these posts here would like to imply and or try to blame, a lead producer can only do what the GM will allow. Or what the Creative Director (2nd in command) will agree about and talk to Lyndsay about as a project or all agree in a meeting. It's never one person, but the buck has always stopped with the GM. So, if I'm unhappy with the new focus of the franchise it's not because a so called group of men called all the shots, but the GMs. (no matter if male or female but been females for many years and not males as you have implied).
Post edited by Cinebar on
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
Considering that the 13 year old girl target was the aim from the start as famously reported here. I'm surprised that older Simmers didn't leave them to it but they still appear to be here! If it doesn't bore the 13 year olds yet, who are we to criticise. It wasn't meant for us was it?
(Pokemon can be downright dangerous for children from what I read in the newspapers, leading them to some very strange places. ) At least Sims 4 doesn't lead to an actual nude beach or brothel.
That's all from Pokemon GO, the mobile spin-off. They have had a lot of problems with that one because of decisions the developer, Niantic, made about how pokemon spawn. The main handheld and console games are about as safe as a Ming vase wrapped 45 feet thick in high-grade bubble wrap. The biggest risk they've taken in years is not having the National Dex in Gen8...
In the 1990s, game devs realized with Mario that there is a huge market that they were ignoring -- teenage girls. The problem is that they didn't talk to teenage girls so many games were made by men who thought they knew what teenage girls would like, leading to a bunch of garbage games that no one wanted. Which had devs then saying, yet again, that teenage girls didn't like video games.
One thing I think all devs miss is that girls and women play video games. We have always played video games. You don't need to have games aimed at us (as that aim often just misses) but instead just make good video games that include us. A sims that appeals to everyone will just be a better game than one that attempts to go after a very narrow market.
Sims did not start out as a game aimed at girls. I think devs realized that girls did like the game so decided to focus content for teenage girls, which isn't a bad thing until they decided that's the only audience they're focusing on. I know a lot of men and teenage boys who play the Sims, though fewer play Sims 4. A lot of older women play, and I'm in that category. Sims has a massive audience, and making the best game possible as far as life simulation goes -- all aspects of life, not just a small part -- makes for a richer gaming experience. And everyone -- including teenage girls -- likes rich gaming experiences.
Edit: Can you imagine if Nintendo realized that girls like Mario, and made fundamental changes to the structure of the game based on, "well, girls should like this!" rather than just sticking with the formula that made everyone like it? It would have ended up fading away.
This is post nails EXACTLY why games deliberately aimed at young girls are always so bland. Most people running game companies and making games are grown men who had mostly male social circles during their elementary through high school years (because our society doesn't encourage kids to play in mixed-gender groups nearly as much as we should), have been taught since before they could talk that girls = soft and fragile and squeamish, and who never have had an honest conversation with a woman about her tastes and opinions where they actually listened to a single word out of her mouth because society tells men that women are this homogeneous group of oversensitive, braindead carebears who don't like anything cool and if you've heard one woman talk, you've heard 'em all. So, when making games for girls, what do they do? They rely on the old stereotypes that have been drilled into their heads since they were infants instead of actually talking and listening to their target audience, and they end up making shovelware trash as a result. And let's not even get into how even female game developers can easily fall into the same hole because they themselves have internalized the very same stereotypes, even though they know them to be biased generalizations based on their own personal experiences, because they've been hammered with them so much themselves that they just rely on them without even thinking, just like the guys.
Something about that quote from Drake also really unsettled me. Drake said, "...but we can’t always talk to teenage girls, so we talk to the people who talk to them." So, they're not actually forming focus groups of teenaged girls from diverse backgrounds and with varying personalities and tastes to talk to about what they want and don't want, like and don't like, in video games...they're mainly getting second-hand accounts from adults who "talk to" teen girls--so, therapist, school counselors, parents, etc.--whose accounts no doubt are colored by their own biases, preconceptions, and misconceptions about both teens in general, girls in general, and teen girls in particular, therefore making those accounts much less reliable than ACTUALLY HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THE GIRLS AND LISTENING TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY!! Oh, no, with girls, second-hand sources who CLAIM to know what's going on in our dizzy little fluff heads are more than good enough!!
Would they say that about the dudes who play GTA? "Well, we can't always talk to teen boys and young men, so we talk to the people who talk to them." No. They get their info direct from their target demographic, period. No second-hand accounts from teachers or therapists or parents or wives/mothers/sisters/girlfriends/homegirls. No. But somehow they think they can get away with that with girls. Like girls and women aren't important enough to actually be asked for our first-hand input!! That's how we ended up with those plum Barbie games where Barbie was useless and helpless and died in, like, one hit, and controlled like absolute garbage. It's almost like they think female players don't want a game, just a slightly interactive screensaver. It's freaking insulting.
But TS4 is not considered bland by teenage girls. (Most) maybe a few here and there on other sites. This game is not run by 'men' it's been in the hands of women for many decades. Lucy Bradshaw, Rachel Franklin, Lyndsay (sorry I misplaced her name). Lucy Bradshaw was over The Sims since TS2. She becoming GM after Ron Humble in TS3. Rachel Franklin was over Maxis in 2014, and now Lyndsay since she left. The game hasn't been 'run by men' per se since Will Wright left and Lucy took over, in 2004 after TS2 base was done, and now those positions (top of Maxis and The Sims) women have held those spots since mid TS3 era and Lucy even longer, when Ron no longer over saw Maxis.
Women have been the CMs (marketing) too of TS4 since it's launch after that Charlie guy, so it isn't all men who are making all the decisions or marketing or green lighting projects it's been the women who held the higher positions for many decades. And it's not been 'men' who have said the target was teens on instagram but a woman. ( I assume Drake and Kate identify as women, my apology if they don't)> Lead Producers don't go rogue as Lyndsay joked about Grant, they have to present their ideas to her, and or someone such as the Creative Director but it is still Lyndsay or before her Rachel and before her Lucy, who green light anything.
ETA: And edited to add, if I'm bored and unhappy with the franchise I can't actually blame a developer (the person who is actually working on animations, programming and or interactions or objects) it's the GM, and the Creative Director that decides what is in and what is out and what is not in the 'spirit of the game.' So, looking at TS4 as an example. Lucy B was GM, Rachel was over TS4 specifically, and Lyndsay was the creative director. Now, Lucy gone, and Rachel gone and Lyndsay sits as GM and I'm no longer sure the name of the Creative Director for TS4 since there have been quite a few since the launch of TS4. So, any bugs, any problems, any boredom or any 'direction or focus' falls on Lyndsay, and it isn't men making the decissions as some of these posts here would like to imply and or try to blame, a lead producer can only do what the GM will allow. Or what the Creative Director (2nd in command) will agree about and talk to Lyndsay about as a project or all agree in a meeting. It's never one person, but the buck has always stopped with the GM. So, if I'm unhappy with the new focus of the franchise it's not because a so called group of men called all the shots, but the GMs. (no matter if male or female but been females for many years and not males as you have implied).
I think you forgot the part where I talked about women who fall into the same hole as the men when it comes to how they think about people of their own gender because of the stereotypes society drills into them about girls, women, and femininity. Also, you have to remember that the people who really get the last call aren't GMs or Creative Directors, but the executives and marketing teams on high. If they say, "Eh, teenaged girls just want a game that's all style and no substance, cut this, and this, and this, and this," then, yeah, the developers have to do what their bosses say. Most of the folks in those boardrooms? Men.
Again, just because there is technically a woman at the head of the project does not mean that sexist views and assumptions about what girls like and want out of a game do not make an impact on the final product. Societal stereotypes about who and what girls are, internalized sexism (yeah, that's a thing), the tendency to dismiss the opinions and feelings of women and girls in general in favor of masculine interpretations of them, and the tendency to view females as a homogeneous whole based on a small sampling of socially prominent women and girls who best display society's already established ideas about femininity all play a role in basically ruining games that are aimed at girls and turning them into sickly-sweet, pink, sparkly disasters.
They don't recognize the diversity of personalities and interests of REAL girls. Case in point, my teenaged self. I hated the teen dramas on T.V., because they were shallow, mindless, and full of people acting like idiots all the time. I liked Gilmore Girls because I related to the geeky, off-beat Rory, with her focus on academics and her close relationship with her mother, and absolutely could not watch the show anymore when they jumped the shark by having her get with her now-married ex-boyfriend, because they broke the character that episode, they ruined her, they ruined the entire show because from then on Rory was just like all the other girls in all the other shows, she wasn't relatable anymore. I loved fantasy and sci-fi novels (not just the YA ones, but stuff by authors like Andre Norton and Larry Niven), and dove head-first into the core mythology and folklore behind werewolves. I loved action movies, martial arts flicks, and shonen anime (I had the biggest crush on Gene Starwind from Outlaw Star), The Matrix was my favorite live action flick, and Lina Inverse from The Slayers was basically my spirit animal. I played a ton of JRPG's and fighting games, and you could not tell me that Streets of Rage for the Sega Genesis/Megadrive was NOT the greatest co-op game ever made. Would I have gotten bored with TS4 as a teen like I do now? Yeah, I would have. I would have gotten annoyed with the bad AI, the watery-thin content, the shallow gameplay...with the game's only saving graces being CAS, Build Mode, and the progression system for Vampires. Teen me would be just as appalled and have the exact same things to say about the state of this game and female-aimed games in general because teen me was just as concerned with the way that society just plain ignores teen girls like my teenaged self, preferring to point to the pumps, celebrity gossip, and lipstick crowd and say, "That's what teen girls are, that's what teen girls want, and that's the end."
That's why I'm so upset about Drake's comment in that interview. If you're not talking to teen girls, all KINDS of teen girls from all kinds of backgrounds and with all kinds of personalities and interests, then you're only getting the surface bubbles from the chili pot.
I am very happy that girl Simmers like and play other games, playing strong Avatars in a male dominated gaming world but what about those girls and boys who don't want that and are very happy playing a game that allows them to build houses and make their own stories without horrific appocalyptic storylines. Surely there is room for a game for them?
I am very happy that girl Simmers like and play other games, playing strong Avatars in a male dominated gaming world but what about those girls and boys who don't want that and are very happy playing a game that allows them to build houses and make their own stories without horrific appocalyptic storylines. Surely there is room for a game for them?
Yes, there's room for options in the game that allow them to set the game up to their liking. There's room for options to tweak the frequency of or totally turn off the dangerous or bad stuff. There's room for options that allow them to make career progression as easy or difficult as they like. There's room for options that allow every player to craft the experience that they want in the game...and the MC Command Center mod proves it. The developers could easily create pre-set conditions for the player to choose from, and sliders and drop-down menus that allow for more specific customization. A more robust set of options built into the game itself would have made everyone much happier. People who want Sparkle-Sparkle Candyland with no challenge to the gameplay could have that, while players who want random meteors and endless chaos with careers that require ranks in five skills and an extremely active social life could have that, and everyone who wants anything inbetween could also have their fun their way. Having barely any options at all, and those with negligible effects on the actual difficulty or level of player control in the game, may serve one set of players very well, but it alienates everyone else...especially when those options are just to cover up the fact that that the game is on universal Easy Mode no matter what you do.
I am very bored with this installment and only use amazing mods to enhance my gameplay....but this series is still near and dear in my heart...I am just so disappointed of how they are handling the 4th one. Kinda ... wait NO I wish they would just stop the series or move on TS5...
I think the innovation is no longer there, and hasn't been since my Sim first opened their front door and stepped out into an open world. I think that is the last great innovation there has been and that's ten years ago.
That was certainly a WOW moment - seeing that trailer video advertising the open world and cast for sims 3 for the first time - I still remember how I felt watching that. Nothing has wowed me like that since.
Of course, there are good features and new innovations for sims 4 - like being able to pick up and move rooms or whole houses, gallery downloads plopping straight into your game, wearing hats with any hair, any pregnancy clothes etc. The innovations they have now are just on a much smaller scale. But then, in reality, what could they do that would top open world and cast and still be able to run on an average computer?
Personally, I would like to see a sims 5 that brings the best of all versions, but mostly concentrating on making sims with their own individual personalities that react to situations better, have their own likes and dislikes and so on - so closer to the sims 2 than any other. The sims themselves are the most important aspect, everything else is just set dressing.
Maybe that's why some people don't get on with Sims 4 as well as they do with other versions? Although we can make some great looking sims - personality wise, they've gotta be the worst yet.
I loved that trailer, personally (linked here for reference).
My favorite comment on that video is, "The sims 3 opened the door, the sims 4 shut that sucka closed."
It would have been worth shutting that door if they actually created very intelligent Sims with in depth gameplay at every corner of the game. But that simply did not happen and my Sims from TS2 are still the smartest in the series.
That TS3 trailer is what sold me on TS3 though I don't even like moodlet and buff systems, lol. I remember being so excited when I first saw it. That's some good marketing. I was exactly like some TS4 players are here, who may not be able to imagine newer, better, innovation of an engine. I was like no you will never take my TS2, lol, from my cold, dead hands. I loved it so much, but then they came out with the TS3 trailer and I was omg! I have to see that for myself! Ran out to Best Buy early the morning of release to buy TS3. I loved TS2 so much but I wasn't going to pass up seeing how open world worked and all because of a marketing trailer. That's the sort of innovation (just think how much it changed gaming for The Sims by looking at that one house on an empty street) I want to see, now. Huge leap in innovation. I digress.
ETA: but I also think this current marketing team hasn't figured out yet, the voice actor they hire for their trailers can sometimes cause some to not to buy a pack (seriously) and or to buy a pack. TS4's gameplay trailer was ok but the voice actress grated on my ears, compared to the male voice actor of TS3's trailer, and or TS2's trailer. I have wondered why that is, and I finally decided I was turned off by the valley girl sound of the voice, like they aren't breathing in deeply enough to say every thing they need to say, and some voices grate and consumer doesn't love the shown gameplay nor the concept sometimes, because of how it was marketed. Compare which packs did very well for TS4, such as Vampires and which voice actors are used, and though a pack or new game may not be any better than a previous, the voice actor is the one trying to get people excited enough to buy so the ones I dislike most seem to be ones that didn't make me like the trailer to start with, even if the gameplay looked ok.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
The reactions in Sims 2 were seriously brilliant and so entertaining. All these years later, I can still remember Don flirting with some gal at the H & M store not knowing that a heap of his other romantic interests were shopping there... and suddenly there was a line of females queuing up to slap him. I was laughing my socks off.
As much as I enjoy the Sims 4, the consequences are non-existent and it very much spoils being able to play any misbehaving sims in any way. Romance, kleptomania, evil, mean... all far far too inconsequential and therefore not fun.
Sims 4 has the best graphics and runs smoothly, but Sims 2 and 3 had the best Sims personalities. Sims 4 sims personalities dull, boring, flat, lifeless making the game dull boring flat and all the personalities is exactly the same no matter what traits you choose...no different outcome. Sims 4 does not have enough "meat"...gameplay...feels hollow, shallow. I miss world adventures as well. Sims 2 and 3 I could play for hours and hours without rest...it was that addictive. Sims 4 is tedious, everything is oversimplified and there are no consequences to your traits. I don't even know what the sims 4 are talking about, in sims 2 and 3 you could understand what the sims are talking about. I don't know why a sim in sims 4 is upset, crying etc. In Sims 2 and 3 I had empathy with my sim and loved their stories. I really am seriously disappointed with Sims 4. Sims 4 is VERY BORING. I cannot play it its too boring. There is not much to do in Sims 4 and the SIMS ARE BORING. Their personalities is boring. I have never felt bored with sims 2 and 3 and I think it is because of the traits, personalities that the sims has, story telling. There's also not a lot to do in Sims 4. I have all the packs of sims 2,3,4.
If their true aimed for teenage girls (which is a foolish of itself, because wteff does that mean?) and not CM idea to think of a scapegoat justification why TS4 is plum in the series, than it's insulting of itself that wants to shovely define what teenage girls like and don't like in the game. There's no clear suggestion that it suggested the game is marketed to player who happen be of XX chromose possers, nor does that range is limited to players of 10-14 year olds. I would say Maxis is trying to deliver, intentionally or not, to players of any gender, that are between of a late child to young adults. Why else would Maxis make addition for their promo ad of young adult volunters, as well shoving things that anyone of millennial generation could relate since social media is prominent forte of theirs.
And our game, I don’t know if you’re aware, our game is targeted mostly at teenage girls, which is an oddity in gaming, but they’re and they are very much for inclusion and they don’t like bullying, you know, but we can’t always talk to teenage girls, so we talk to the people who talk to them, and through them sharing their stories and the promotions on social media, you know we’re always highlighting new ways, like this creator has a great story going on with this series that’s talking about a very tragic moment in their “Sims” life, but it’s actually based on their real life, so how do we highlight that to allow people to feel comfortable to talk about those things. So sometimes it’s a little difficult depending on what I’m trying to do, but we at least try and promote things on social media all the time, and make sure our lists are diverse of people we reach out to, and I encourage people constantly, whether you’re a storyteller, or you know, you’re just a let’s player, I’m like, share things with me, I can’t see everything, but please if you see something fun, or you see someone’s bringing up an issue where they don’t feel like they’re represented, share it with me because I can share with the studio and make that something that they look at and say, how can we do this right and how can we include this in the game as a natural fit and not feel like we just shoved it to shove it in. We want everyone to feel comfortable, but I need the help of my community to do that.
Either Drake or Kate also confirmed their audience is teen girls on Instagram with rich parents on twitter but it appears the tweets have been deleted.
I know and remember that she said that. In this forum's euphemism, I call that Bullpoop, since it doesn't add up.
Promotional ad has additioned young adults. That scapegoat stunt SGD is a dumb way to stereotype a certain age group of XX chromosome holders, and quite a foot killer to choose them over pretty much everyone that helped The Sims series stay afloat all those years (not that it ever was drowning, but got a slight cram during 2009's-2014 before it started to really struggle).
Does still imply only teenage girls are only the people like messing around with witchcraft, skiing across an ocea with an aqua sled, playing a mad scientist that goes loose with Sim-ray, etc.? If so, that needs to be elaboration as to how that's a thing more prevalent in girls via backed up psychological study.
Do Maxis believe all about being a teenage is laying down in their pink bedrom and texting their friendzies how cute justin bieber is? Are these the ones that hate P.E. ? Or/and are they talking about those that run away and cry, as they suppose, after being exposed to wuvy bad stuf? If that's so, like
It's funny how we view teen girls (speaking as the mother of two young women and two young men). Vapid, vain, and stupid. Pumpkin spice lattes become popular with teen girls? It becomes a huge joke, because teen girls like them (they're delicious, btw, but not the point I'm making). A musician becomes popular with teen girls? They must be terrible because, well, teen girls like them. Etc. And I see that attitude from all over the spectrum. If something is popular with teen girls, it must be trash because reasons.
Add to it devs not talking to teen girls, but instead talking to people who talk to teen girls. That's ridiculous. Often people who work with teen girls see the surface pettiness and drama that all teens get involved with (yet only girls are faulted for it).
Thing is, I feel Maxis feels security from how the "teen girls" are downplayed, and deliberately choose not to insert themselves to defend the victims of this steorytypical prejudice. Why? Because for every problem the game has, people can blame the demography issue because Drake revealed the big ol secret, instead of you know: having people behind management and personal that's responsible for in-game workings to be accountable for their mistake. If maxis was that stupid to cater, and have this outlook of teenage girls we speak, then the game of today would be design with a pink user-interface, a CAS background of flowed beds and flora, animals that sing like it's disney, and female Sims would have more interactions than other sex, as well the opposite being glorified as woohoo romantic dolls with townies having muscle definitions of what not... I argue it even makes less to bring up as an argument why certain are absent, despite the thing being more prominent for said sex to be adored (like family play).
I wish we could all forget the fact what Drake said, that the game "is targeted mostly at teenage girls", and stop addressing it as If it's the pinnacle source of big issue for why every game problem exists.
It's funny how we view teen girls (speaking as the mother of two young women and two young men). Vapid, vain, and stupid. Pumpkin spice lattes become popular with teen girls? It becomes a huge joke, because teen girls like them (they're delicious, btw, but not the point I'm making). A musician becomes popular with teen girls? They must be terrible because, well, teen girls like them. Etc. And I see that attitude from all over the spectrum. If something is popular with teen girls, it must be trash because reasons.
Add to it devs not talking to teen girls, but instead talking to people who talk to teen girls. That's ridiculous. Often people who work with teen girls see the surface pettiness and drama that all teens get involved with (yet only girls are faulted for it).
I absolutely think it's important for video games to have something relatable in them for people. But I think about video games that really have a wide following across all genders -- Mario, Pokémon, Stardew Valley, Dragon Age (really, most Bioware RPGs). The Sims is on that list as well. For most of them, they weren't made with "oh, girls like this, boys like that, yadada" -- they were made to be engaging.
There are people who love playing with dolls and that's great and there should always be that option. But it should be an option, along with other options. I started playing Sims 3 again, and I'm actually a bit dizzy with all the options of various types of gameplay I have.
On another tangent -- one thing gamers from across the board call for is consequences. If you make X choice, there should be some Y reaction. If my Lone Wanderer decides to blow up a city for money from a rich psychopath, my character should be viewed differently and have some things opened up for them and some things closed. And if my Sim decides to break up a family, maybe the ex should hunt down my Sim and beat her up, and maybe the ex's friends should dislike my sim, and maybe there should be a lot of gossip regarding it. Being able to do things consequence free, while fun for awhile, does grow boring. And it's not only sims gamers who feel this. A huge criticism to games that I see is there needs to be more consequences, good and bad.
Isn't there enough violence in Society that you want to get an 'ex' to be beaten by their previous partner in game? You can make that story up yourself if you want but most Simmers are probably playing the game without doing it because they see too much of it in real life.
I was thinking of the scenario in Sims 3 where an ex would show up just looking to get into a fight. It can be avoided, though -- you can book it out of there, you can try to talk them down, etc.
And violence in video games does not reflect on my real life. I LOVE shooting up things in video games. I hope I never have to use a gun in real life.
Edit: And think about it -- you just broke up a marriage and you see the now-ex coming towards you. What is a more immersive reaction? Them yelling at you and wanting to fight? Or them giving you a hug and chatting because the room has nice decor?
Comments
That's not just for the male co-workers. There are women who are creeps in the workplace too. But, yeah, that's a topic for another thread entirely (and, yeah, it's not all companies in the industry, but it is a pretty big problem none-the-less).
However, I do think that adults making bad decisions on behalf of kids is kind of relevant to the topic as far as the direction that this game has gone. Adults assuming that all kids want/need is an ankle-deep game with super-easy goals, nothing too scary/offensive/controversial, and a ton of hand-holding has had an impact on how dull TS4 can be, as well as impacting several recent all-ages games as well. Most people will point to the Gen6 and Gen7 Pokemon games as having a similar problem, thanks to their overly-long mandatory tutorial segments and rivals that are heavily toned down from the ones from the earlier generations. When you take the edge and challenge out of a game to make it more "kid-friendly," you ultimately end up making it more dull for players of all ages.
Yeah, and a little late in my opinion. All those home careers and new careers (handful in five years) not needing degrees? Late to me.
Quote from the former Sim Guru Drake. Source: https://simsvip.com/2017/09/03/pax-west-simgurudrake-talks-managing-sims-community/
Either Drake or Kate also confirmed their audience is teen girls on Instagram with rich parents on twitter but it appears the tweets have been deleted.
(Pokemon can be downright dangerous for children from what I read in the newspapers, leading them to some very strange places.
One thing I think all devs miss is that girls and women play video games. We have always played video games. You don't need to have games aimed at us (as that aim often just misses) but instead just make good video games that include us. A sims that appeals to everyone will just be a better game than one that attempts to go after a very narrow market.
Sims did not start out as a game aimed at girls. I think devs realized that girls did like the game so decided to focus content for teenage girls, which isn't a bad thing until they decided that's the only audience they're focusing on. I know a lot of men and teenage boys who play the Sims, though fewer play Sims 4. A lot of older women play, and I'm in that category. Sims has a massive audience, and making the best game possible as far as life simulation goes -- all aspects of life, not just a small part -- makes for a richer gaming experience. And everyone -- including teenage girls -- likes rich gaming experiences.
Edit: Can you imagine if Nintendo realized that girls like Mario, and made fundamental changes to the structure of the game based on, "well, girls should like this!" rather than just sticking with the formula that made everyone like it? It would have ended up fading away.
This nails it. Especially the missed aim, since it's usually based on what devs think girls an women want in games (and this is where sexism comes in hard) instead of having actual answers from that part of their intended audience.
I do think that TS4 does still have an appeal to audiences other than their intended one, which I'm grateful for. I can all too easily imagine how bad it would be if it *started* as a game aimed at teen girls.
Can't speak for TS3, but TS2 launched its university pack as the second one so current careers could be plugged into it. Since it was already in place, plugging new careers in as they came out was easy. Waiting this long, assuming the rumors are true, is bad planning and worse execution.
Sims 3 made it so your degree would place you higher in the relevant field. For instance, a degree in science and medicine would start you as an intern in the medical field. There were also some new jobs, but they were more tied into the social groups, and I felt that was a bad implementation.
That's all from Pokemon GO, the mobile spin-off. They have had a lot of problems with that one because of decisions the developer, Niantic, made about how pokemon spawn. The main handheld and console games are about as safe as a Ming vase wrapped 45 feet thick in high-grade bubble wrap. The biggest risk they've taken in years is not having the National Dex in Gen8...
This is post nails EXACTLY why games deliberately aimed at young girls are always so bland. Most people running game companies and making games are grown men who had mostly male social circles during their elementary through high school years (because our society doesn't encourage kids to play in mixed-gender groups nearly as much as we should), have been taught since before they could talk that girls = soft and fragile and squeamish, and who never have had an honest conversation with a woman about her tastes and opinions where they actually listened to a single word out of her mouth because society tells men that women are this homogeneous group of oversensitive, braindead carebears who don't like anything cool and if you've heard one woman talk, you've heard 'em all. So, when making games for girls, what do they do? They rely on the old stereotypes that have been drilled into their heads since they were infants instead of actually talking and listening to their target audience, and they end up making shovelware trash as a result. And let's not even get into how even female game developers can easily fall into the same hole because they themselves have internalized the very same stereotypes, even though they know them to be biased generalizations based on their own personal experiences, because they've been hammered with them so much themselves that they just rely on them without even thinking, just like the guys.
Something about that quote from Drake also really unsettled me. Drake said, "...but we can’t always talk to teenage girls, so we talk to the people who talk to them." So, they're not actually forming focus groups of teenaged girls from diverse backgrounds and with varying personalities and tastes to talk to about what they want and don't want, like and don't like, in video games...they're mainly getting second-hand accounts from adults who "talk to" teen girls--so, therapist, school counselors, parents, etc.--whose accounts no doubt are colored by their own biases, preconceptions, and misconceptions about both teens in general, girls in general, and teen girls in particular, therefore making those accounts much less reliable than ACTUALLY HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH THE GIRLS AND LISTENING TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY!! Oh, no, with girls, second-hand sources who CLAIM to know what's going on in our dizzy little fluff heads are more than good enough!!
Would they say that about the dudes who play GTA? "Well, we can't always talk to teen boys and young men, so we talk to the people who talk to them." No. They get their info direct from their target demographic, period. No second-hand accounts from teachers or therapists or parents or wives/mothers/sisters/girlfriends/homegirls. No. But somehow they think they can get away with that with girls. Like girls and women aren't important enough to actually be asked for our first-hand input!! That's how we ended up with those crappy Barbie games where Barbie was useless and helpless and died in, like, one hit, and controlled like absolute garbage. It's almost like they think female players don't want a game, just a slightly interactive screensaver. It's freaking insulting.
Of course, there are good features and new innovations for sims 4 - like being able to pick up and move rooms or whole houses, gallery downloads plopping straight into your game, wearing hats with any hair, any pregnancy clothes etc. The innovations they have now are just on a much smaller scale. But then, in reality, what could they do that would top open world and cast and still be able to run on an average computer?
Personally, I would like to see a sims 5 that brings the best of all versions, but mostly concentrating on making sims with their own individual personalities that react to situations better, have their own likes and dislikes and so on - so closer to the sims 2 than any other. The sims themselves are the most important aspect, everything else is just set dressing.
Maybe that's why some people don't get on with Sims 4 as well as they do with other versions? Although we can make some great looking sims - personality wise, they've gotta be the worst yet.
But TS4 is not considered bland by teenage girls. (Most) maybe a few here and there on other sites. This game is not run by 'men' it's been in the hands of women for many decades. Lucy Bradshaw, Rachel Franklin, Lyndsay (sorry I misplaced her name). Lucy Bradshaw was over The Sims since TS2. She becoming GM after Ron Humble in TS3. Rachel Franklin was over Maxis in 2014, and now Lyndsay since she left. The game hasn't been 'run by men' per se since Will Wright left and Lucy took over, in 2004 after TS2 base was done, and now those positions (top of Maxis and The Sims) women have held those spots since mid TS3 era and Lucy even longer, when Ron no longer over saw Maxis.
Women have been the CMs (marketing) too of TS4 since it's launch after that Charlie guy, so it isn't all men who are making all the decisions or marketing or green lighting projects it's been the women who held the higher positions for many decades. And it's not been 'men' who have said the target was teens on instagram but a woman. ( I assume Drake and Kate identify as women, my apology if they don't)> Lead Producers don't go rogue as Lyndsay joked about Grant, they have to present their ideas to her, and or someone such as the Creative Director but it is still Lyndsay or before her Rachel and before her Lucy, who green light anything.
ETA: And edited to add, if I'm bored and unhappy with the franchise I can't actually blame a developer (the person who is actually working on animations, programming and or interactions or objects) it's the GM, and the Creative Director that decides what is in and what is out and what is not in the 'spirit of the game.' So, looking at TS4 as an example. Lucy B was GM, Rachel was over TS4 specifically, and Lyndsay was the creative director. Now, Lucy gone, and Rachel gone and Lyndsay sits as GM and I'm no longer sure the name of the Creative Director for TS4 since there have been quite a few since the launch of TS4. So, any bugs, any problems, any boredom or any 'direction or focus' falls on Lyndsay, and it isn't men making the decissions as some of these posts here would like to imply and or try to blame, a lead producer can only do what the GM will allow. Or what the Creative Director (2nd in command) will agree about and talk to Lyndsay about as a project or all agree in a meeting. It's never one person, but the buck has always stopped with the GM. So, if I'm unhappy with the new focus of the franchise it's not because a so called group of men called all the shots, but the GMs. (no matter if male or female but been females for many years and not males as you have implied).
I think you forgot the part where I talked about women who fall into the same hole as the men when it comes to how they think about people of their own gender because of the stereotypes society drills into them about girls, women, and femininity. Also, you have to remember that the people who really get the last call aren't GMs or Creative Directors, but the executives and marketing teams on high. If they say, "Eh, teenaged girls just want a game that's all style and no substance, cut this, and this, and this, and this," then, yeah, the developers have to do what their bosses say. Most of the folks in those boardrooms? Men.
Again, just because there is technically a woman at the head of the project does not mean that sexist views and assumptions about what girls like and want out of a game do not make an impact on the final product. Societal stereotypes about who and what girls are, internalized sexism (yeah, that's a thing), the tendency to dismiss the opinions and feelings of women and girls in general in favor of masculine interpretations of them, and the tendency to view females as a homogeneous whole based on a small sampling of socially prominent women and girls who best display society's already established ideas about femininity all play a role in basically ruining games that are aimed at girls and turning them into sickly-sweet, pink, sparkly disasters.
They don't recognize the diversity of personalities and interests of REAL girls. Case in point, my teenaged self. I hated the teen dramas on T.V., because they were shallow, mindless, and full of people acting like idiots all the time. I liked Gilmore Girls because I related to the geeky, off-beat Rory, with her focus on academics and her close relationship with her mother, and absolutely could not watch the show anymore when they jumped the shark by having her get with her now-married ex-boyfriend, because they broke the character that episode, they ruined her, they ruined the entire show because from then on Rory was just like all the other girls in all the other shows, she wasn't relatable anymore. I loved fantasy and sci-fi novels (not just the YA ones, but stuff by authors like Andre Norton and Larry Niven), and dove head-first into the core mythology and folklore behind werewolves. I loved action movies, martial arts flicks, and shonen anime (I had the biggest crush on Gene Starwind from Outlaw Star), The Matrix was my favorite live action flick, and Lina Inverse from The Slayers was basically my spirit animal. I played a ton of JRPG's and fighting games, and you could not tell me that Streets of Rage for the Sega Genesis/Megadrive was NOT the greatest co-op game ever made. Would I have gotten bored with TS4 as a teen like I do now? Yeah, I would have. I would have gotten annoyed with the bad AI, the watery-thin content, the shallow gameplay...with the game's only saving graces being CAS, Build Mode, and the progression system for Vampires. Teen me would be just as appalled and have the exact same things to say about the state of this game and female-aimed games in general because teen me was just as concerned with the way that society just plain ignores teen girls like my teenaged self, preferring to point to the pumps, celebrity gossip, and lipstick crowd and say, "That's what teen girls are, that's what teen girls want, and that's the end."
That's why I'm so upset about Drake's comment in that interview. If you're not talking to teen girls, all KINDS of teen girls from all kinds of backgrounds and with all kinds of personalities and interests, then you're only getting the surface bubbles from the chili pot.
I am very happy that girl Simmers like and play other games, playing strong Avatars in a male dominated gaming world but what about those girls and boys who don't want that and are very happy playing a game that allows them to build houses and make their own stories without horrific appocalyptic storylines. Surely there is room for a game for them?
Yes, there's room for options in the game that allow them to set the game up to their liking. There's room for options to tweak the frequency of or totally turn off the dangerous or bad stuff. There's room for options that allow them to make career progression as easy or difficult as they like. There's room for options that allow every player to craft the experience that they want in the game...and the MC Command Center mod proves it. The developers could easily create pre-set conditions for the player to choose from, and sliders and drop-down menus that allow for more specific customization. A more robust set of options built into the game itself would have made everyone much happier. People who want Sparkle-Sparkle Candyland with no challenge to the gameplay could have that, while players who want random meteors and endless chaos with careers that require ranks in five skills and an extremely active social life could have that, and everyone who wants anything inbetween could also have their fun their way. Having barely any options at all, and those with negligible effects on the actual difficulty or level of player control in the game, may serve one set of players very well, but it alienates everyone else...especially when those options are just to cover up the fact that that the game is on universal Easy Mode no matter what you do.
I loved that trailer, personally (linked here for reference).
My favorite comment on that video is, "The sims 3 opened the door, the sims 4 shut that sucka closed."
It would have been worth shutting that door if they actually created very intelligent Sims with in depth gameplay at every corner of the game. But that simply did not happen and my Sims from TS2 are still the smartest in the series.
ETA: but I also think this current marketing team hasn't figured out yet, the voice actor they hire for their trailers can sometimes cause some to not to buy a pack (seriously) and or to buy a pack. TS4's gameplay trailer was ok but the voice actress grated on my ears, compared to the male voice actor of TS3's trailer, and or TS2's trailer. I have wondered why that is, and I finally decided I was turned off by the valley girl sound of the voice, like they aren't breathing in deeply enough to say every thing they need to say, and some voices grate and consumer doesn't love the shown gameplay nor the concept sometimes, because of how it was marketed. Compare which packs did very well for TS4, such as Vampires and which voice actors are used, and though a pack or new game may not be any better than a previous, the voice actor is the one trying to get people excited enough to buy so the ones I dislike most seem to be ones that didn't make me like the trailer to start with, even if the gameplay looked ok.
As much as I enjoy the Sims 4, the consequences are non-existent and it very much spoils being able to play any misbehaving sims in any way. Romance, kleptomania, evil, mean... all far far too inconsequential and therefore not fun.
I know and remember that she said that. In this forum's euphemism, I call that Bullpoop, since it doesn't add up.
Promotional ad has additioned young adults. That scapegoat stunt SGD is a dumb way to stereotype a certain age group of XX chromosome holders, and quite a foot killer to choose them over pretty much everyone that helped The Sims series stay afloat all those years (not that it ever was drowning, but got a slight cram during 2009's-2014 before it started to really struggle).
Does still imply only teenage girls are only the people like messing around with witchcraft, skiing across an ocea with an aqua sled, playing a mad scientist that goes loose with Sim-ray, etc.? If so, that needs to be elaboration as to how that's a thing more prevalent in girls via backed up psychological study.
Do Maxis believe all about being a teenage is laying down in their pink bedrom and texting their friendzies how cute justin bieber is? Are these the ones that hate P.E. ? Or/and are they talking about those that run away and cry, as they suppose, after being exposed to wuvy bad stuf? If that's so, like
Thing is, I feel Maxis feels security from how the "teen girls" are downplayed, and deliberately choose not to insert themselves to defend the victims of this steorytypical prejudice. Why? Because for every problem the game has, people can blame the demography issue because Drake revealed the big ol secret, instead of you know: having people behind management and personal that's responsible for in-game workings to be accountable for their mistake. If maxis was that stupid to cater, and have this outlook of teenage girls we speak, then the game of today would be design with a pink user-interface, a CAS background of flowed beds and flora, animals that sing like it's disney, and female Sims would have more interactions than other sex, as well the opposite being glorified as woohoo romantic dolls with townies having muscle definitions of what not... I argue it even makes less to bring up as an argument why certain are absent, despite the thing being more prominent for said sex to be adored (like family play).
I wish we could all forget the fact what Drake said, that the game "is targeted mostly at teenage girls", and stop addressing it as If it's the pinnacle source of big issue for why every game problem exists.
I was thinking of the scenario in Sims 3 where an ex would show up just looking to get into a fight. It can be avoided, though -- you can book it out of there, you can try to talk them down, etc.
And violence in video games does not reflect on my real life. I LOVE shooting up things in video games. I hope I never have to use a gun in real life.
Edit: And think about it -- you just broke up a marriage and you see the now-ex coming towards you. What is a more immersive reaction? Them yelling at you and wanting to fight? Or them giving you a hug and chatting because the room has nice decor?