Forum Announcement, Click Here to Read More From EA_Cade.

Dissapointment with latest sims interview

Comments

  • SimmyFroggySimmyFroggy Posts: 1,762 Member
    You know, it's interesting to see so much "they're aiming it all at the younger generation, technology bad".

    I had a mobile phone before TS1 came out. I've met my best friends via the internet. I've made friends worldwide via the internet who've done more for me than people IRL (my own family included). I was also an adult when TS1 was released. Technology has opened doors to knowledge and education in many many ways to me and many others and the "reliance on technology makes people dumb" argument is, frankly, insulting. (Me and my kid read more books than we could ever get our hands on physically thanks to e-readers. I don't see how that is a bad effect of technology).

    To touch on a few things in this thread:

    Can we get by without technology? Sure we can. It's a choice (and the off-the-grid lot trait - which of course can still be improved but that's a whole different conversation - is a step in that direction within the game). But in the past two decades, many things have moved from offline to online: maps, travel, job searches, news, and many more. The game simply reflects what life is nowadays.
    I'd love the option to turn off or disable a Sim's phone because hey, options are always good. But technology, as it is now, is way beyond just a fleeting trend. The "trends" that were mentioned in the article referred not to tech in general but more to the evolution from a basic text phone to smartphones.

    Fringe examples of tech not being reliable doesn't erase the amounts of times when it absolutely is superior to paper. Like the maps vs GPS discussion: people get sidetracked with GPS but falling off bridges? That happens when they're not actually paying attention and the fault isn't on the tech alone. People got lost with maps in the past, still do when they use them now. Maps weren't always up to date either and thus not reliable. Things with good sides often have bad sides too, the question is which side outweighs the other.

    I think the biggest thing that I've seen here is that people read the article and think: oh, the devs are just trying to make TS4 "trendy" and substance doesn't matter. Which isn't at all what any of the answers said. To me, it spoke about how they're working on reflecting life as it is now when they're working on content, make it relatable to people's lives (people of all ages, for example when it comes to technology: my Dad is 70+, has a smartphone, a tablet, Skypes with us, etc, so it's not just the youngins who are into tech), make sure it has components that exist in real life, and that the content's wrapping isn't irrelevant to what it's meant to be a simulation of.
    Some writers use typewriters for writing, or write by hand. But the vast majority uses computers and the game reflects that move. The same goes for landlines vs mobile phones, job ads being online more than in papers, kids having educational tablets, freelancer careers being more widespread, etc. The game moves with the times.

    For some people, of course (not aiming this at anyone in particular, it's a general observation from various places on and offline), real life has changed in ways that they disagree with, be it the decline of newspapers, the openness and acceptance of LGBT+ folx, the development of technology, the clothing, the media we consume, everything and anything that one can imagine.

    I love that the team tries to keep up with the way the world is changing. It keeps the game relatable. Whether it's at the detriment of gameplay is up for discussion in general, it's just NOT what the article/interview touched on or even implied in any way.
    avatar art: Loves2draw1812
  • RouensimsRouensims Posts: 4,858 Member
    I think trendiness, narcissism, and inclusivity are three separate issues. I definitely want inclusivity in my game. Some trendiness can be fun, mixed with old-fangled stuff. I would prefer no narcissistic elements in my game.
    Ooh Be Gah!! Whipna Choba-Dog? Whipna Choba-Dog!! :smiley:
  • LiELFLiELF Posts: 6,439 Member
    fullspiral wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    SimTrippy wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    The way the internet generations are evolving (or devolving when it comes to social honesty, self-representation and emotional stamina and behaviors), if the game continues to emulate the sheltered lifestyle of falsehoods on social media, there's going to be no gameplay left whatsoever. The Sims 5 will literally be a virtual young adult Barbie dream house of superficiality with selective inclusivity, claiming to be diverse while catering to the immaturity of childish ideals.

    It's not that I'm exactly psyched about them focusing more on younger generations - even though it's not exactly hard to see why they do it, cause they do need to reel in new players over and over again, and it's arguably questionable how often we'll pay for exactly the same game and packs (1, 2, 3 .. 5 sims games?), but that's a different matter - but ... I'm also not fond of calling "internet generations" lacking compared to us. Isn't that, technically, what all "older" generations think about the young? And ... aren't we on the internet as well, typing here on this forum instead of, you know, out there socializing with like-minded people?

    I'm not trying to be contrarian or annoying, and I have my fair share of disappointments with this game, but I wouldn't underestimate younger generations just because they're young and doing things we may not always understand. People definitely didn't always understand us either, and most of us turned out just fine.

    I definitely get what you're saying and it's a fair point. I wasn't trying to trash a whole young generation, however, so my wording was probably too hasty and incorrect. I'll try to clarify without going on about it too much, but I don't know if I can explain it well. But I was referencing this quote from @fullspiral :

    "This game forces the social aspect of these sims which is a false dichotomy of the real world we live in as it is lived on line through the computer. People aren't actually social in the real world. And the lives they present on line on their simstagrams are mostly fake stories. I guess maybe that's why these sims seem so fake and shallow...."

    When I responded, I meant to refer to how online trends integrate with the false perceptions that people (of all ages) portray of themselves, not just "all of those darn kids", lol. That's why I used "generations" in the plural. I was trying to reference the illusion of the self on social media; for example, how people generally misrepresent themselves to make everything in their lives seem stellar and enviable when in reality, they might be struggling with finances or depression or any other life obstacle. I was also trying to reference social internet-based trends (which are indeed usually led by younger generations) where a virtual playground of social media sites dictate what's socially acceptable, and where disagreement or debate is often dramatized as hateful or malicious (and sometimes it is, surely, but often it's just discussion of an alternate perspective.) I feel that a company like EA, who when they say they cater to current "trends", it means including pandering to those types of illusions and close-mindedness in the name of representation, to gain social points with the online crowd, yet in gameplay terms, it also means moving away from some of the honest depictions of life, in the challenges, humor and obstacles that we used to have in previous games. Maybe that's looking too deep into a simple interview, but that's just what I see.

    My stance is, I absolutely support the continuing inclusion of races, cultures, and sexual identities, etc. in the future of the franchise. This is a given. And I understand (but may not necessarily like) updating fashion trends and the evolution of society and technology, although I would prefer options for playing retro households. But what I fear for the future of the game is having EA force my gameplay into a socio-political trend that feeds into the ideals of a focus group and strays from the honesty and relatability of life outside of the internet. I know, it sounds dramatic, lol. But it really isn't. I just feel that a game that wants to represent trends of life in modern times isn't going to be that interesting or entertaining in general because, from an outside perspective, the people aren't either.

    As a student of human psychology and human behaviour, I totally got you, just like you understood what I was saying.

    I was a psych major and still an enthusiast myself. :)
    #Team Occult
  • OEII1001OEII1001 Posts: 3,682 Member
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    From life simulator to trend simulator.

    How the mighty have fallen. :'(

    This is life. Whether you like it or not, influencers are a part of life. Cell phones are a part of life. Tech is a part of life. The LGBT community is now able to be more open without fear, unlike 20 years ago when the game was first released.

    The game has simply evolved and is now a reflection of modern life.

    TS2 was a reflection of early 00s life, with the introduction of cell phones (which weren't so common) and MP3 players, and terrible fashion.

    TS3 was a reflection of the 00-10s life, with the introduction of being able to take selfies, and again, the clothing. Technology became more important in the game as well.

    TS4 has a lot of issues, I admit that, and I want to see it fixed, but to call it a trend simulator is disingenuous.

    I didn't call TS4 a trend simulator. I was referring to a possible future Sims game becoming one. But honestly, I don't think it's disingenuous at all to use in reference to Sims 4. Throughout Sims 4's development, the devs have always talked about what's trending and putting trends into the game and promoting it as such. It's not like it's been a secret. I would even go so far to say that trends take priority over more important development decisions. My opinion, yes, but I'll stand by it. It doesn't mean I don't find enjoyment in the game overall, but I do have some strong opinions on things that I feel have been ignored in development for too long in favor of trend fluff.

    As for the rest of your post, I agree. As life progresses, it can be expected that the game will reflect that. Many changes have been good ones. But I also think it's a slippery slope because this iteration has more people claiming boredom than any other game has. If there's one word I don't think I've ever heard used to describe Sims 1, 2, or 3, it's "boring". But I see posts here all the time of people asking for suggestions on how to enjoy the Sims 4. And I think part of that is because modern, tech-obsessed society is kind of boring. There's only so many times I can find interest in watching my Sims stare at screens and do what I'm doing in the present, lol.

    As a final attempt to engage, I think you're wrong about the assertion that things like dark skin tones and newspapsers -- what the article was about -- take precedence over the open world and personality matrix. What I read said that The Sims series evolves with its times, and I doubt that things like more dark skin tones are taking the place of the things that you want in the game. I don't think that what you want is fluff. I don't think things like the gender patch is fluff. And, in the end, I don't think that framing games development as a struggle between features and inclusivity is a useful dichotomy.

    I think you're making too many assumptions of what exactly you think I'm referencing, so I'll try to clarify a little. I can tell you that I am not an advocate of open world, so that is way off.

    When I refer to things I think are important, I'm talking mainly about what I see as things that were incomplete in the base game upon release, things that feel abandoned or unfinished, things that in previous games were consistently expanded throughout the series and things that leave noticeable gaps. For instance, the emotion system, the main focus of behaviors in the game, has no Fear emotion. Grant, the lead producer, even admitted on Twitter that they had dropped the ball by omitting it. So why was it never worked on and patched in, or at least some other kind of Fear system? Another, Sim Traits, aren't all equal in how effective they are. Some hardly do anything at all and feel as if time ran out during development so they slapped on some moodlets and threw them into the game. People have been leaving feedback about this for years. Then there's the incomplete whims system that was suddenly dropped and remains outdated. Whims used to be specific to Sim personalities and changed and expanded as development went on, but now they don't even get updated with packs. CAS remains limited in familial and relationship choices.

    These things and more just seem to me to be things that were the result of a hurried premature base game release. You may disagree, and that's certainly your right, but I feel that at least some of these things should have been a priority to fix before piling packs on top and complicating the development process.

    Now when I refer to "trendy fluff", I'm not referencing the gender patch (something I've wanted since Sims 2) or diverse skin tones or culture. Representation on a worldwide scale is something that should definitely exist in a game like this. But I don't consider LGBT issues trendy. I don't consider world cultures trendy. Or diversity. These things exist in humanity and always have.

    I feel like there's all of this dev talk about "what's hot now" (Stranger Things TV show, tiny homes, streaming celebrities, environmental concerns, social politics, internet hype, "brands" and images, etc.) and how to incorporate hyped topics into packs instead of finding a way to fill out the core of the gameplay that players have concerns about and have been leaving a lot of feedback on. I mean, I would pay for a Fear emotion. I don't think I should, but I would, because I understand that development costs money. I'd pay for more Traits, I'd pay for Sim memories, I'd pay for preferences or flaws or something that would make the Sims feel developed and the game feel balanced.

    Yes, in the article they referenced skin tones and inclusivity. That is not what I have an issue with. It's the focus on trends that I don't like, and some of the social online behaviors that are associated with trends. I know this is all subjective of course, but that's the point of discussion, yes? To share opinions and perspectives.

    So, do you feel that the reason that we have systems that you don't care for are because we have cellular phones, gender patches and dark skin tones instead? Do you feel it is because devs are looking at what careers might look like in the next decade? I ask this because those things are what the article is about.

    This is what I am talking about when I refer to inserted subtext.
  • SindocatSindocat Posts: 5,622 Member
    I think you are projecting.

    What I drew from the 20th Anniversary coverage on Polygon & elsewhere is that Maxis is an atypical studio, in that many of its developers have been with the franchise over multiple iterations, and that the culture of The Sims is one of continuity, not turnover.

    No one can help if you feel disappointed but you. May I recommend you take a look at the assumptions and expectations you bring to the experience? They are trying to make the best game they can, for the largest audience they can. It's that simple. Honest.
  • OEII1001OEII1001 Posts: 3,682 Member
    Sindocat wrote: »
    I think you are projecting.

    What I drew from the 20th Anniversary coverage on Polygon & elsewhere is that Maxis is an atypical studio, in that many of its developers have been with the franchise over multiple iterations, and that the culture of The Sims is one of continuity, not turnover.

    No one can help if you feel disappointed but you. May I recommend you take a look at the assumptions and expectations you bring to the experience? They are trying to make the best game they can, for the largest audience they can. It's that simple. Honest.

    I think what it boils down to is this idea in gaming that concepts are implemented in a gladiatorial-style death match. It doesn't help that the community stuff packs are implemented in just that fashion, but the reality is that content really doesn't preclude content.

    I would really like burglars in The Sims 4. I don't care for nose and eyebrow piercings at all. But the fact that we have the piercings is not the reason that the burglars are absent. The reason that we don't have cars isn't that there is a social media career. The devs aren't forgetting concepts because they're thinking about future sim occupations.

    People are conflating the absence of A with the presence of B. That's just not reality.
  • ChampandGirlieChampandGirlie Posts: 2,482 Member
    I don't actually feel like this article said a lot. I mean, times really have changed though I can understand wanting some historic elements. Yeah, I'd play with more historic content. I don't necessarily need to play a typical house from 2005 in a new game.

    There's a balance between appealing to changing interests and keeping variety for different types of players. Personally, I don't really need to see the newspaper back though it would be good to have the option. I guess it's a question of prioritization. There are a lot of things that they can do but only so much time, so decisions need to be made about what to focus on.

    Now ... I don't want to play a game full of Kardashians or with ... any ... Kardashians but I admit that there's a chunk of the population out there that wants to, so I don't completely blame them if they make that possible. I don't have any issue with adding inclusiveness.

    At the end of the day, we all want content that we want. What is that? Where's the median for that? I think they are trying. We don't all want the same things so it's a case of combining things in a way that is palatable for as many players as possible. That probably means having different tracks of development in terms of different themes.

    I mean, medieval stuff is basically a trend so maybe we'll see more of that eventually along with an ability to ditch the cellphones in those cases.

    Staying on top of trends doesn't mean only looking at teens, but I wouldn't assume from one comment that they only focus on teens. There are different generations that tend to have different interests. Meh, there are probably a lot of retiring baby boomers who have more time to play this game now, for example. They probably want to appeal to all ages but it's true that bringing in teens is probably important to them. They're new buyers, they spend money casually when they have it, they pressure their friends to buy things and they have many years ahead to buy more things as well. But as above, one casual mention of studying what teens think a job is doesn't mean that they are only focusing on teens.
    Champ and Girlie are dogs.
  • LiELFLiELF Posts: 6,439 Member
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    From life simulator to trend simulator.

    How the mighty have fallen. :'(

    This is life. Whether you like it or not, influencers are a part of life. Cell phones are a part of life. Tech is a part of life. The LGBT community is now able to be more open without fear, unlike 20 years ago when the game was first released.

    The game has simply evolved and is now a reflection of modern life.

    TS2 was a reflection of early 00s life, with the introduction of cell phones (which weren't so common) and MP3 players, and terrible fashion.

    TS3 was a reflection of the 00-10s life, with the introduction of being able to take selfies, and again, the clothing. Technology became more important in the game as well.

    TS4 has a lot of issues, I admit that, and I want to see it fixed, but to call it a trend simulator is disingenuous.

    I didn't call TS4 a trend simulator. I was referring to a possible future Sims game becoming one. But honestly, I don't think it's disingenuous at all to use in reference to Sims 4. Throughout Sims 4's development, the devs have always talked about what's trending and putting trends into the game and promoting it as such. It's not like it's been a secret. I would even go so far to say that trends take priority over more important development decisions. My opinion, yes, but I'll stand by it. It doesn't mean I don't find enjoyment in the game overall, but I do have some strong opinions on things that I feel have been ignored in development for too long in favor of trend fluff.

    As for the rest of your post, I agree. As life progresses, it can be expected that the game will reflect that. Many changes have been good ones. But I also think it's a slippery slope because this iteration has more people claiming boredom than any other game has. If there's one word I don't think I've ever heard used to describe Sims 1, 2, or 3, it's "boring". But I see posts here all the time of people asking for suggestions on how to enjoy the Sims 4. And I think part of that is because modern, tech-obsessed society is kind of boring. There's only so many times I can find interest in watching my Sims stare at screens and do what I'm doing in the present, lol.

    As a final attempt to engage, I think you're wrong about the assertion that things like dark skin tones and newspapsers -- what the article was about -- take precedence over the open world and personality matrix. What I read said that The Sims series evolves with its times, and I doubt that things like more dark skin tones are taking the place of the things that you want in the game. I don't think that what you want is fluff. I don't think things like the gender patch is fluff. And, in the end, I don't think that framing games development as a struggle between features and inclusivity is a useful dichotomy.

    I think you're making too many assumptions of what exactly you think I'm referencing, so I'll try to clarify a little. I can tell you that I am not an advocate of open world, so that is way off.

    When I refer to things I think are important, I'm talking mainly about what I see as things that were incomplete in the base game upon release, things that feel abandoned or unfinished, things that in previous games were consistently expanded throughout the series and things that leave noticeable gaps. For instance, the emotion system, the main focus of behaviors in the game, has no Fear emotion. Grant, the lead producer, even admitted on Twitter that they had dropped the ball by omitting it. So why was it never worked on and patched in, or at least some other kind of Fear system? Another, Sim Traits, aren't all equal in how effective they are. Some hardly do anything at all and feel as if time ran out during development so they slapped on some moodlets and threw them into the game. People have been leaving feedback about this for years. Then there's the incomplete whims system that was suddenly dropped and remains outdated. Whims used to be specific to Sim personalities and changed and expanded as development went on, but now they don't even get updated with packs. CAS remains limited in familial and relationship choices.

    These things and more just seem to me to be things that were the result of a hurried premature base game release. You may disagree, and that's certainly your right, but I feel that at least some of these things should have been a priority to fix before piling packs on top and complicating the development process.

    Now when I refer to "trendy fluff", I'm not referencing the gender patch (something I've wanted since Sims 2) or diverse skin tones or culture. Representation on a worldwide scale is something that should definitely exist in a game like this. But I don't consider LGBT issues trendy. I don't consider world cultures trendy. Or diversity. These things exist in humanity and always have.

    I feel like there's all of this dev talk about "what's hot now" (Stranger Things TV show, tiny homes, streaming celebrities, environmental concerns, social politics, internet hype, "brands" and images, etc.) and how to incorporate hyped topics into packs instead of finding a way to fill out the core of the gameplay that players have concerns about and have been leaving a lot of feedback on. I mean, I would pay for a Fear emotion. I don't think I should, but I would, because I understand that development costs money. I'd pay for more Traits, I'd pay for Sim memories, I'd pay for preferences or flaws or something that would make the Sims feel developed and the game feel balanced.

    Yes, in the article they referenced skin tones and inclusivity. That is not what I have an issue with. It's the focus on trends that I don't like, and some of the social online behaviors that are associated with trends. I know this is all subjective of course, but that's the point of discussion, yes? To share opinions and perspectives.

    So, do you feel that the reason that we have systems that you don't care for are because we have cellular phones, gender patches and dark skin tones instead? Do you feel it is because devs are looking at what careers might look like in the next decade? I ask this because those things are what the article is about.

    This is what I am talking about when I refer to inserted subtext.

    I think that just because those specific things were mentioned in the article, it doesn't mean that the article was exclusively referring to those things and those things only, which is what you seem to be implying. Here are some comments that stood out to me:

    "People are still mad that Sims don't have newspapers delivered every day," Rodiek said. "I can't honestly say whether we're right or not right for not doing it. If a big part of our brand and our goal is to let you have the choices to do stuff, I mean, theoretically we could just say, 'Fine, if you want to still subscribe to the physical New York Times, your Sims can do that too.'"


    The above statement is referring to something they know a lot of people want in the game. And he is pointing out that it's a part of their brand to let players choose how they want to play, and it's an acknowledgement of developer choice whether to fulfill these player requests or not. Many times I've heard/seen statements from Maxis saying that they have to make choices, and if they put one thing in, another gets cancelled. So yes, some features that I see as important and needed core game features have most likely been pushed to the wayside many times for something "trendier". Because even the article states this:

    Right or wrong, The Sims 4 has hewed tightly to trends, including trends in technology. (And they go on to pursue the the topic of technology.)

    So this statement by the author of the article is indeed addressing Sims 4's general intent to stick to trends, which is what we're discussing. It's not subtext. It's text right there in the article. The next statement by the author is also broad:

    The Sims 4 is not a perfect model of life, and still struggles with some aspects of what being a person is in the year 2020. Beyond the fact that the game only got gaming laptops with the last expansion, there are still limitations to what kinds of curly hair are present in the game, the ways it expresses gender, and it still only has a smattering of darker skin tones.

    This quote goes from laptops to hair but the sentiment is still there; that the game "struggles with some aspects of what being a person is in the year 2020." Is it not fair to include human character traits in that summary? Don't all humans still feel fear in 2020? Or worry? From what I perceive, high anxiety is on the rise and more prominent than ever due to tech-heavy lifestyles, yet it's nowhere in the emotional spectrum of the game. Maybe if fear and worry were considered "trendy", they would be incorporated.

    Though The Sims 4 contains a worrisome portent about the continued stability of the media industry, Rodiek and the other game designers must also stay on the cutting edge of trends.

    Finally, this statement in the article is followed by an example of how the team researched job trends to understand how "young people" think of them. But it's there again. "Stay on the cutting edge of trends." Not balance of player wishes, but trends.

    I don't think anyone needs to look for subtext in the article, especially if you also pay attention to the whole picture, which includes dev public statements as well as the CEO's quarterly reports. There's an intended direction, and if specific content isn't a quick stop along the road to trends, that content gets left at the wayside.
    #Team Occult
  • DevilNDisguiseDevilNDisguise Posts: 2,225 Member
    edited February 2020
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    I can agree with this. Trends happen, last for a little while, and then disappear. How is that fun? They're in the game forever at that point, when the trend has become "old news".

    I definitely don't prefer trendiness in The Sims.

    Do you react with disgust when seeing the MP3 player in The Sims 2? I don't. The Sims 2 is a product of its time, as all games are.

    Good thing I've never played TS2, I guess? My comment isn't regarding a specific iteration, anyway.

    My opinion is my opinion. 😉 You don't have to agree. I like TS4— I think I can still dislike certain aspects of it. I'm not "disgusted" by anything.
  • OEII1001OEII1001 Posts: 3,682 Member
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    From life simulator to trend simulator.

    How the mighty have fallen. :'(

    This is life. Whether you like it or not, influencers are a part of life. Cell phones are a part of life. Tech is a part of life. The LGBT community is now able to be more open without fear, unlike 20 years ago when the game was first released.

    The game has simply evolved and is now a reflection of modern life.

    TS2 was a reflection of early 00s life, with the introduction of cell phones (which weren't so common) and MP3 players, and terrible fashion.

    TS3 was a reflection of the 00-10s life, with the introduction of being able to take selfies, and again, the clothing. Technology became more important in the game as well.

    TS4 has a lot of issues, I admit that, and I want to see it fixed, but to call it a trend simulator is disingenuous.

    I didn't call TS4 a trend simulator. I was referring to a possible future Sims game becoming one. But honestly, I don't think it's disingenuous at all to use in reference to Sims 4. Throughout Sims 4's development, the devs have always talked about what's trending and putting trends into the game and promoting it as such. It's not like it's been a secret. I would even go so far to say that trends take priority over more important development decisions. My opinion, yes, but I'll stand by it. It doesn't mean I don't find enjoyment in the game overall, but I do have some strong opinions on things that I feel have been ignored in development for too long in favor of trend fluff.

    As for the rest of your post, I agree. As life progresses, it can be expected that the game will reflect that. Many changes have been good ones. But I also think it's a slippery slope because this iteration has more people claiming boredom than any other game has. If there's one word I don't think I've ever heard used to describe Sims 1, 2, or 3, it's "boring". But I see posts here all the time of people asking for suggestions on how to enjoy the Sims 4. And I think part of that is because modern, tech-obsessed society is kind of boring. There's only so many times I can find interest in watching my Sims stare at screens and do what I'm doing in the present, lol.

    As a final attempt to engage, I think you're wrong about the assertion that things like dark skin tones and newspapsers -- what the article was about -- take precedence over the open world and personality matrix. What I read said that The Sims series evolves with its times, and I doubt that things like more dark skin tones are taking the place of the things that you want in the game. I don't think that what you want is fluff. I don't think things like the gender patch is fluff. And, in the end, I don't think that framing games development as a struggle between features and inclusivity is a useful dichotomy.

    I think you're making too many assumptions of what exactly you think I'm referencing, so I'll try to clarify a little. I can tell you that I am not an advocate of open world, so that is way off.

    When I refer to things I think are important, I'm talking mainly about what I see as things that were incomplete in the base game upon release, things that feel abandoned or unfinished, things that in previous games were consistently expanded throughout the series and things that leave noticeable gaps. For instance, the emotion system, the main focus of behaviors in the game, has no Fear emotion. Grant, the lead producer, even admitted on Twitter that they had dropped the ball by omitting it. So why was it never worked on and patched in, or at least some other kind of Fear system? Another, Sim Traits, aren't all equal in how effective they are. Some hardly do anything at all and feel as if time ran out during development so they slapped on some moodlets and threw them into the game. People have been leaving feedback about this for years. Then there's the incomplete whims system that was suddenly dropped and remains outdated. Whims used to be specific to Sim personalities and changed and expanded as development went on, but now they don't even get updated with packs. CAS remains limited in familial and relationship choices.

    These things and more just seem to me to be things that were the result of a hurried premature base game release. You may disagree, and that's certainly your right, but I feel that at least some of these things should have been a priority to fix before piling packs on top and complicating the development process.

    Now when I refer to "trendy fluff", I'm not referencing the gender patch (something I've wanted since Sims 2) or diverse skin tones or culture. Representation on a worldwide scale is something that should definitely exist in a game like this. But I don't consider LGBT issues trendy. I don't consider world cultures trendy. Or diversity. These things exist in humanity and always have.

    I feel like there's all of this dev talk about "what's hot now" (Stranger Things TV show, tiny homes, streaming celebrities, environmental concerns, social politics, internet hype, "brands" and images, etc.) and how to incorporate hyped topics into packs instead of finding a way to fill out the core of the gameplay that players have concerns about and have been leaving a lot of feedback on. I mean, I would pay for a Fear emotion. I don't think I should, but I would, because I understand that development costs money. I'd pay for more Traits, I'd pay for Sim memories, I'd pay for preferences or flaws or something that would make the Sims feel developed and the game feel balanced.

    Yes, in the article they referenced skin tones and inclusivity. That is not what I have an issue with. It's the focus on trends that I don't like, and some of the social online behaviors that are associated with trends. I know this is all subjective of course, but that's the point of discussion, yes? To share opinions and perspectives.

    So, do you feel that the reason that we have systems that you don't care for are because we have cellular phones, gender patches and dark skin tones instead? Do you feel it is because devs are looking at what careers might look like in the next decade? I ask this because those things are what the article is about.

    This is what I am talking about when I refer to inserted subtext.

    I think that just because those specific things were mentioned in the article, it doesn't mean that the article was exclusively referring to those things and those things only, which is what you seem to be implying. Here are some comments that stood out to me:

    "People are still mad that Sims don't have newspapers delivered every day," Rodiek said. "I can't honestly say whether we're right or not right for not doing it. If a big part of our brand and our goal is to let you have the choices to do stuff, I mean, theoretically we could just say, 'Fine, if you want to still subscribe to the physical New York Times, your Sims can do that too.'"


    The above statement is referring to something they know a lot of people want in the game. And he is pointing out that it's a part of their brand to let players choose how they want to play, and it's an acknowledgement of developer choice whether to fulfill these player requests or not. Many times I've heard/seen statements from Maxis saying that they have to make choices, and if they put one thing in, another gets cancelled. So yes, some features that I see as important and needed core game features have most likely been pushed to the wayside many times for something "trendier". Because even the article states this:

    Right or wrong, The Sims 4 has hewed tightly to trends, including trends in technology. (And they go on to pursue the the topic of technology.)

    So this statement by the author of the article is indeed addressing Sims 4's general intent to stick to trends, which is what we're discussing. It's not subtext. It's text right there in the article. The next statement by the author is also broad:

    The Sims 4 is not a perfect model of life, and still struggles with some aspects of what being a person is in the year 2020. Beyond the fact that the game only got gaming laptops with the last expansion, there are still limitations to what kinds of curly hair are present in the game, the ways it expresses gender, and it still only has a smattering of darker skin tones.

    This quote goes from laptops to hair but the sentiment is still there; that the game "struggles with some aspects of what being a person is in the year 2020." Is it not fair to include human character traits in that summary? Don't all humans still feel fear in 2020? Or worry? From what I perceive, high anxiety is on the rise and more prominent than ever due to tech-heavy lifestyles, yet it's nowhere in the emotional spectrum of the game. Maybe if fear and worry were considered "trendy", they would be incorporated.

    Though The Sims 4 contains a worrisome portent about the continued stability of the media industry, Rodiek and the other game designers must also stay on the cutting edge of trends.

    Finally, this statement in the article is followed by an example of how the team researched job trends to understand how "young people" think of them. But it's there again. "Stay on the cutting edge of trends." Not balance of player wishes, but trends.

    I don't think anyone needs to look for subtext in the article, especially if you also pay attention to the whole picture, which includes dev public statements as well as the CEO's quarterly reports. There's an intended direction, and if specific content isn't a quick stop along the road to trends, that content gets left at the wayside.

    You put a lot of effort here, and we're approaching the end of my rule of three, but I wanted to at least acknowledge your effort. I think you're doing what I said above: conflating the absence of things that you care about -- the emotion system being better balanced in a way that reflects more negative results -- with the presence of things that you don't care very much about -- tech-heavy lifestyles. Again, I don't think they're related, and attempting to link them is inserting a subtext that you claim isn't being inserted, but I think is pretty clearly the case above.

    So, that's that. I don't think we'll agree, and any further discussion is not likely to be fruitful.
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    I can agree with this. Trends happen, last for a little while, and then disappear. How is that fun? They're in the game forever at that point, when the trend has become "old news".

    I definitely don't prefer trendiness in The Sims.

    Do you react with disgust when seeing the MP3 player in The Sims 2? I don't. The Sims 2 is a product of its time, as all games are.

    Good thing I've never played TS2, I guess? My comment isn't regarding a specific iteration, anyway.

    My opinion is my opinion. 😉 You don't have to agree. I like TS4— I think I can still dislike certain aspects of it. I'm not "disgusted" by anything.

    Then how about in The Sims 3? The point is that the MP3 player had a pretty short lifespan, and by 2014 the SmartPhone had eclipsed it. So it wasn't included; only earbuds were. That's a reflection of our time, which is what the article was about.
  • ScobreScobre Posts: 20,665 Member
    edited February 2020
    fullspiral wrote: »

    Here's the difference. In Sims 2, it was the choice of the player as to whether to purchase that. Just like it was the choice of the player if they wanted their sims to have cell phones. You bought them at the kiosk and YOU got to decide which sims you wanted to use them.

    Sure, you can opt for a sim to use sm in sims 4, but EVERY pack, and almost everything revolves around that in this iteration. You cannot escape it and play any other way. Your sim is born with a cell phone. And they auto use it for selfies, games, etc. The player is left with hitting the "cancel, cancel, cancel" action.
    I wish it was optional. Not everyone can afford a smart phone especially in some parts of the world and for storytelling purposes it would be nice to have it optional to reflect different parts of the world and different time periods. Inclusive should go beyond just a few things but expand on much more and there are many areas which are severely lacking and the need for tech is one of those areas that is really not including households that aren't so tech dependent and lower income households. I also think how the term "safe space" is being excused as removing anything that is different from the typical young American lifestyle. If anything I know about mental illness, the more you push positive elements into anything the more it supports the idea of fight or flight. I don't think Sims 4 has been inclusive towards those facing mental illness and honestly encourages the ostrich in a hole approach rather than facing challenges that come up in life. It just isn't a life simulation game if anything that makes life well alive is absent from it from the emotion system to the random interactive neighborhood critters. Everything is too tied into a predictable FX system, looks like 50s sitcom like Leave it to Beaver is playing rather than a real life situation.
    “Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller
  • LiELFLiELF Posts: 6,439 Member
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    From life simulator to trend simulator.

    How the mighty have fallen. :'(

    This is life. Whether you like it or not, influencers are a part of life. Cell phones are a part of life. Tech is a part of life. The LGBT community is now able to be more open without fear, unlike 20 years ago when the game was first released.

    The game has simply evolved and is now a reflection of modern life.

    TS2 was a reflection of early 00s life, with the introduction of cell phones (which weren't so common) and MP3 players, and terrible fashion.

    TS3 was a reflection of the 00-10s life, with the introduction of being able to take selfies, and again, the clothing. Technology became more important in the game as well.

    TS4 has a lot of issues, I admit that, and I want to see it fixed, but to call it a trend simulator is disingenuous.

    I didn't call TS4 a trend simulator. I was referring to a possible future Sims game becoming one. But honestly, I don't think it's disingenuous at all to use in reference to Sims 4. Throughout Sims 4's development, the devs have always talked about what's trending and putting trends into the game and promoting it as such. It's not like it's been a secret. I would even go so far to say that trends take priority over more important development decisions. My opinion, yes, but I'll stand by it. It doesn't mean I don't find enjoyment in the game overall, but I do have some strong opinions on things that I feel have been ignored in development for too long in favor of trend fluff.

    As for the rest of your post, I agree. As life progresses, it can be expected that the game will reflect that. Many changes have been good ones. But I also think it's a slippery slope because this iteration has more people claiming boredom than any other game has. If there's one word I don't think I've ever heard used to describe Sims 1, 2, or 3, it's "boring". But I see posts here all the time of people asking for suggestions on how to enjoy the Sims 4. And I think part of that is because modern, tech-obsessed society is kind of boring. There's only so many times I can find interest in watching my Sims stare at screens and do what I'm doing in the present, lol.

    As a final attempt to engage, I think you're wrong about the assertion that things like dark skin tones and newspapsers -- what the article was about -- take precedence over the open world and personality matrix. What I read said that The Sims series evolves with its times, and I doubt that things like more dark skin tones are taking the place of the things that you want in the game. I don't think that what you want is fluff. I don't think things like the gender patch is fluff. And, in the end, I don't think that framing games development as a struggle between features and inclusivity is a useful dichotomy.

    I think you're making too many assumptions of what exactly you think I'm referencing, so I'll try to clarify a little. I can tell you that I am not an advocate of open world, so that is way off.

    When I refer to things I think are important, I'm talking mainly about what I see as things that were incomplete in the base game upon release, things that feel abandoned or unfinished, things that in previous games were consistently expanded throughout the series and things that leave noticeable gaps. For instance, the emotion system, the main focus of behaviors in the game, has no Fear emotion. Grant, the lead producer, even admitted on Twitter that they had dropped the ball by omitting it. So why was it never worked on and patched in, or at least some other kind of Fear system? Another, Sim Traits, aren't all equal in how effective they are. Some hardly do anything at all and feel as if time ran out during development so they slapped on some moodlets and threw them into the game. People have been leaving feedback about this for years. Then there's the incomplete whims system that was suddenly dropped and remains outdated. Whims used to be specific to Sim personalities and changed and expanded as development went on, but now they don't even get updated with packs. CAS remains limited in familial and relationship choices.

    These things and more just seem to me to be things that were the result of a hurried premature base game release. You may disagree, and that's certainly your right, but I feel that at least some of these things should have been a priority to fix before piling packs on top and complicating the development process.

    Now when I refer to "trendy fluff", I'm not referencing the gender patch (something I've wanted since Sims 2) or diverse skin tones or culture. Representation on a worldwide scale is something that should definitely exist in a game like this. But I don't consider LGBT issues trendy. I don't consider world cultures trendy. Or diversity. These things exist in humanity and always have.

    I feel like there's all of this dev talk about "what's hot now" (Stranger Things TV show, tiny homes, streaming celebrities, environmental concerns, social politics, internet hype, "brands" and images, etc.) and how to incorporate hyped topics into packs instead of finding a way to fill out the core of the gameplay that players have concerns about and have been leaving a lot of feedback on. I mean, I would pay for a Fear emotion. I don't think I should, but I would, because I understand that development costs money. I'd pay for more Traits, I'd pay for Sim memories, I'd pay for preferences or flaws or something that would make the Sims feel developed and the game feel balanced.

    Yes, in the article they referenced skin tones and inclusivity. That is not what I have an issue with. It's the focus on trends that I don't like, and some of the social online behaviors that are associated with trends. I know this is all subjective of course, but that's the point of discussion, yes? To share opinions and perspectives.

    So, do you feel that the reason that we have systems that you don't care for are because we have cellular phones, gender patches and dark skin tones instead? Do you feel it is because devs are looking at what careers might look like in the next decade? I ask this because those things are what the article is about.

    This is what I am talking about when I refer to inserted subtext.

    I think that just because those specific things were mentioned in the article, it doesn't mean that the article was exclusively referring to those things and those things only, which is what you seem to be implying. Here are some comments that stood out to me:

    "People are still mad that Sims don't have newspapers delivered every day," Rodiek said. "I can't honestly say whether we're right or not right for not doing it. If a big part of our brand and our goal is to let you have the choices to do stuff, I mean, theoretically we could just say, 'Fine, if you want to still subscribe to the physical New York Times, your Sims can do that too.'"


    The above statement is referring to something they know a lot of people want in the game. And he is pointing out that it's a part of their brand to let players choose how they want to play, and it's an acknowledgement of developer choice whether to fulfill these player requests or not. Many times I've heard/seen statements from Maxis saying that they have to make choices, and if they put one thing in, another gets cancelled. So yes, some features that I see as important and needed core game features have most likely been pushed to the wayside many times for something "trendier". Because even the article states this:

    Right or wrong, The Sims 4 has hewed tightly to trends, including trends in technology. (And they go on to pursue the the topic of technology.)

    So this statement by the author of the article is indeed addressing Sims 4's general intent to stick to trends, which is what we're discussing. It's not subtext. It's text right there in the article. The next statement by the author is also broad:

    The Sims 4 is not a perfect model of life, and still struggles with some aspects of what being a person is in the year 2020. Beyond the fact that the game only got gaming laptops with the last expansion, there are still limitations to what kinds of curly hair are present in the game, the ways it expresses gender, and it still only has a smattering of darker skin tones.

    This quote goes from laptops to hair but the sentiment is still there; that the game "struggles with some aspects of what being a person is in the year 2020." Is it not fair to include human character traits in that summary? Don't all humans still feel fear in 2020? Or worry? From what I perceive, high anxiety is on the rise and more prominent than ever due to tech-heavy lifestyles, yet it's nowhere in the emotional spectrum of the game. Maybe if fear and worry were considered "trendy", they would be incorporated.

    Though The Sims 4 contains a worrisome portent about the continued stability of the media industry, Rodiek and the other game designers must also stay on the cutting edge of trends.

    Finally, this statement in the article is followed by an example of how the team researched job trends to understand how "young people" think of them. But it's there again. "Stay on the cutting edge of trends." Not balance of player wishes, but trends.

    I don't think anyone needs to look for subtext in the article, especially if you also pay attention to the whole picture, which includes dev public statements as well as the CEO's quarterly reports. There's an intended direction, and if specific content isn't a quick stop along the road to trends, that content gets left at the wayside.

    You put a lot of effort here, and we're approaching the end of my rule of three, but I wanted to at least acknowledge your effort. I think you're doing what I said above: conflating the absence of things that you care about -- the emotion system being better balanced in a way that reflects more negative results -- with the presence of things that you don't care very much about -- tech-heavy lifestyles. Again, I don't think they're related, and attempting to link them is inserting a subtext that you claim isn't being inserted, but I think is pretty clearly the case above.

    So, that's that. I don't think we'll agree, and any further discussion is not likely to be fruitful.
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    I can agree with this. Trends happen, last for a little while, and then disappear. How is that fun? They're in the game forever at that point, when the trend has become "old news".

    I definitely don't prefer trendiness in The Sims.

    Do you react with disgust when seeing the MP3 player in The Sims 2? I don't. The Sims 2 is a product of its time, as all games are.

    Good thing I've never played TS2, I guess? My comment isn't regarding a specific iteration, anyway.

    My opinion is my opinion. 😉 You don't have to agree. I like TS4— I think I can still dislike certain aspects of it. I'm not "disgusted" by anything.

    Then how about in The Sims 3? The point is that the MP3 player had a pretty short lifespan, and by 2014 the SmartPhone had eclipsed it. So it wasn't included; only earbuds were. That's a reflection of our time, which is what the article was about.

    Yeah, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore, lol.

    It just seems to me that you're actually conflating what I say by choosing specific contexts and changing my language. But I'll take my share of responsibility for it because I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well. It doesn't really matter that much at this point because, as you said, we're not going to agree anyway, which I'm okay with. I may still mull it over.
    #Team Occult
  • ScobreScobre Posts: 20,665 Member
    edited February 2020
    Sometimes I express myself better with music. If I were to express how the Sims 4 comes off as.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lyu1KKwC74
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8vsuOXZBXc
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOxnzMTWkno
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtVgELWhdCQ
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um7pMggPnug
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiKj0Z_Xnjc

    I do speak some French and last song pretty much about a father being so absent with work and the son wonder where their father is.
    “Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller
  • OEII1001OEII1001 Posts: 3,682 Member
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    From life simulator to trend simulator.

    How the mighty have fallen. :'(

    This is life. Whether you like it or not, influencers are a part of life. Cell phones are a part of life. Tech is a part of life. The LGBT community is now able to be more open without fear, unlike 20 years ago when the game was first released.

    The game has simply evolved and is now a reflection of modern life.

    TS2 was a reflection of early 00s life, with the introduction of cell phones (which weren't so common) and MP3 players, and terrible fashion.

    TS3 was a reflection of the 00-10s life, with the introduction of being able to take selfies, and again, the clothing. Technology became more important in the game as well.

    TS4 has a lot of issues, I admit that, and I want to see it fixed, but to call it a trend simulator is disingenuous.

    I didn't call TS4 a trend simulator. I was referring to a possible future Sims game becoming one. But honestly, I don't think it's disingenuous at all to use in reference to Sims 4. Throughout Sims 4's development, the devs have always talked about what's trending and putting trends into the game and promoting it as such. It's not like it's been a secret. I would even go so far to say that trends take priority over more important development decisions. My opinion, yes, but I'll stand by it. It doesn't mean I don't find enjoyment in the game overall, but I do have some strong opinions on things that I feel have been ignored in development for too long in favor of trend fluff.

    As for the rest of your post, I agree. As life progresses, it can be expected that the game will reflect that. Many changes have been good ones. But I also think it's a slippery slope because this iteration has more people claiming boredom than any other game has. If there's one word I don't think I've ever heard used to describe Sims 1, 2, or 3, it's "boring". But I see posts here all the time of people asking for suggestions on how to enjoy the Sims 4. And I think part of that is because modern, tech-obsessed society is kind of boring. There's only so many times I can find interest in watching my Sims stare at screens and do what I'm doing in the present, lol.

    As a final attempt to engage, I think you're wrong about the assertion that things like dark skin tones and newspapsers -- what the article was about -- take precedence over the open world and personality matrix. What I read said that The Sims series evolves with its times, and I doubt that things like more dark skin tones are taking the place of the things that you want in the game. I don't think that what you want is fluff. I don't think things like the gender patch is fluff. And, in the end, I don't think that framing games development as a struggle between features and inclusivity is a useful dichotomy.

    I think you're making too many assumptions of what exactly you think I'm referencing, so I'll try to clarify a little. I can tell you that I am not an advocate of open world, so that is way off.

    When I refer to things I think are important, I'm talking mainly about what I see as things that were incomplete in the base game upon release, things that feel abandoned or unfinished, things that in previous games were consistently expanded throughout the series and things that leave noticeable gaps. For instance, the emotion system, the main focus of behaviors in the game, has no Fear emotion. Grant, the lead producer, even admitted on Twitter that they had dropped the ball by omitting it. So why was it never worked on and patched in, or at least some other kind of Fear system? Another, Sim Traits, aren't all equal in how effective they are. Some hardly do anything at all and feel as if time ran out during development so they slapped on some moodlets and threw them into the game. People have been leaving feedback about this for years. Then there's the incomplete whims system that was suddenly dropped and remains outdated. Whims used to be specific to Sim personalities and changed and expanded as development went on, but now they don't even get updated with packs. CAS remains limited in familial and relationship choices.

    These things and more just seem to me to be things that were the result of a hurried premature base game release. You may disagree, and that's certainly your right, but I feel that at least some of these things should have been a priority to fix before piling packs on top and complicating the development process.

    Now when I refer to "trendy fluff", I'm not referencing the gender patch (something I've wanted since Sims 2) or diverse skin tones or culture. Representation on a worldwide scale is something that should definitely exist in a game like this. But I don't consider LGBT issues trendy. I don't consider world cultures trendy. Or diversity. These things exist in humanity and always have.

    I feel like there's all of this dev talk about "what's hot now" (Stranger Things TV show, tiny homes, streaming celebrities, environmental concerns, social politics, internet hype, "brands" and images, etc.) and how to incorporate hyped topics into packs instead of finding a way to fill out the core of the gameplay that players have concerns about and have been leaving a lot of feedback on. I mean, I would pay for a Fear emotion. I don't think I should, but I would, because I understand that development costs money. I'd pay for more Traits, I'd pay for Sim memories, I'd pay for preferences or flaws or something that would make the Sims feel developed and the game feel balanced.

    Yes, in the article they referenced skin tones and inclusivity. That is not what I have an issue with. It's the focus on trends that I don't like, and some of the social online behaviors that are associated with trends. I know this is all subjective of course, but that's the point of discussion, yes? To share opinions and perspectives.

    So, do you feel that the reason that we have systems that you don't care for are because we have cellular phones, gender patches and dark skin tones instead? Do you feel it is because devs are looking at what careers might look like in the next decade? I ask this because those things are what the article is about.

    This is what I am talking about when I refer to inserted subtext.

    I think that just because those specific things were mentioned in the article, it doesn't mean that the article was exclusively referring to those things and those things only, which is what you seem to be implying. Here are some comments that stood out to me:

    "People are still mad that Sims don't have newspapers delivered every day," Rodiek said. "I can't honestly say whether we're right or not right for not doing it. If a big part of our brand and our goal is to let you have the choices to do stuff, I mean, theoretically we could just say, 'Fine, if you want to still subscribe to the physical New York Times, your Sims can do that too.'"


    The above statement is referring to something they know a lot of people want in the game. And he is pointing out that it's a part of their brand to let players choose how they want to play, and it's an acknowledgement of developer choice whether to fulfill these player requests or not. Many times I've heard/seen statements from Maxis saying that they have to make choices, and if they put one thing in, another gets cancelled. So yes, some features that I see as important and needed core game features have most likely been pushed to the wayside many times for something "trendier". Because even the article states this:

    Right or wrong, The Sims 4 has hewed tightly to trends, including trends in technology. (And they go on to pursue the the topic of technology.)

    So this statement by the author of the article is indeed addressing Sims 4's general intent to stick to trends, which is what we're discussing. It's not subtext. It's text right there in the article. The next statement by the author is also broad:

    The Sims 4 is not a perfect model of life, and still struggles with some aspects of what being a person is in the year 2020. Beyond the fact that the game only got gaming laptops with the last expansion, there are still limitations to what kinds of curly hair are present in the game, the ways it expresses gender, and it still only has a smattering of darker skin tones.

    This quote goes from laptops to hair but the sentiment is still there; that the game "struggles with some aspects of what being a person is in the year 2020." Is it not fair to include human character traits in that summary? Don't all humans still feel fear in 2020? Or worry? From what I perceive, high anxiety is on the rise and more prominent than ever due to tech-heavy lifestyles, yet it's nowhere in the emotional spectrum of the game. Maybe if fear and worry were considered "trendy", they would be incorporated.

    Though The Sims 4 contains a worrisome portent about the continued stability of the media industry, Rodiek and the other game designers must also stay on the cutting edge of trends.

    Finally, this statement in the article is followed by an example of how the team researched job trends to understand how "young people" think of them. But it's there again. "Stay on the cutting edge of trends." Not balance of player wishes, but trends.

    I don't think anyone needs to look for subtext in the article, especially if you also pay attention to the whole picture, which includes dev public statements as well as the CEO's quarterly reports. There's an intended direction, and if specific content isn't a quick stop along the road to trends, that content gets left at the wayside.

    You put a lot of effort here, and we're approaching the end of my rule of three, but I wanted to at least acknowledge your effort. I think you're doing what I said above: conflating the absence of things that you care about -- the emotion system being better balanced in a way that reflects more negative results -- with the presence of things that you don't care very much about -- tech-heavy lifestyles. Again, I don't think they're related, and attempting to link them is inserting a subtext that you claim isn't being inserted, but I think is pretty clearly the case above.

    So, that's that. I don't think we'll agree, and any further discussion is not likely to be fruitful.
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    I can agree with this. Trends happen, last for a little while, and then disappear. How is that fun? They're in the game forever at that point, when the trend has become "old news".

    I definitely don't prefer trendiness in The Sims.

    Do you react with disgust when seeing the MP3 player in The Sims 2? I don't. The Sims 2 is a product of its time, as all games are.

    Good thing I've never played TS2, I guess? My comment isn't regarding a specific iteration, anyway.

    My opinion is my opinion. 😉 You don't have to agree. I like TS4— I think I can still dislike certain aspects of it. I'm not "disgusted" by anything.

    Then how about in The Sims 3? The point is that the MP3 player had a pretty short lifespan, and by 2014 the SmartPhone had eclipsed it. So it wasn't included; only earbuds were. That's a reflection of our time, which is what the article was about.

    Yeah, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore, lol.

    It just seems to me that you're actually conflating what I say by choosing specific contexts and changing my language. But I'll take my share of responsibility for it because I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well. It doesn't really matter that much at this point because, as you said, we're not going to agree anyway, which I'm okay with. I may still mull it over.

    You had explained yourself very thoroughly, and I thank you for it. While I fully disagree with your position, as well as the matter about conflation, I at least understand it. We aren't going to see eye-to-eye, and the longer it goes the more frustrated we'll get over the fact that we're not abandoning our own positions to take the opposing view. That's why I have my rule of three -- three rounds of discourse allows for adequate time to explain and discuss without it becoming hostile. I thank you for your candor and hope you'll have a nice day, or night.
  • LiELFLiELF Posts: 6,439 Member
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    LiELF wrote: »
    From life simulator to trend simulator.

    How the mighty have fallen. :'(

    This is life. Whether you like it or not, influencers are a part of life. Cell phones are a part of life. Tech is a part of life. The LGBT community is now able to be more open without fear, unlike 20 years ago when the game was first released.

    The game has simply evolved and is now a reflection of modern life.

    TS2 was a reflection of early 00s life, with the introduction of cell phones (which weren't so common) and MP3 players, and terrible fashion.

    TS3 was a reflection of the 00-10s life, with the introduction of being able to take selfies, and again, the clothing. Technology became more important in the game as well.

    TS4 has a lot of issues, I admit that, and I want to see it fixed, but to call it a trend simulator is disingenuous.

    I didn't call TS4 a trend simulator. I was referring to a possible future Sims game becoming one. But honestly, I don't think it's disingenuous at all to use in reference to Sims 4. Throughout Sims 4's development, the devs have always talked about what's trending and putting trends into the game and promoting it as such. It's not like it's been a secret. I would even go so far to say that trends take priority over more important development decisions. My opinion, yes, but I'll stand by it. It doesn't mean I don't find enjoyment in the game overall, but I do have some strong opinions on things that I feel have been ignored in development for too long in favor of trend fluff.

    As for the rest of your post, I agree. As life progresses, it can be expected that the game will reflect that. Many changes have been good ones. But I also think it's a slippery slope because this iteration has more people claiming boredom than any other game has. If there's one word I don't think I've ever heard used to describe Sims 1, 2, or 3, it's "boring". But I see posts here all the time of people asking for suggestions on how to enjoy the Sims 4. And I think part of that is because modern, tech-obsessed society is kind of boring. There's only so many times I can find interest in watching my Sims stare at screens and do what I'm doing in the present, lol.

    As a final attempt to engage, I think you're wrong about the assertion that things like dark skin tones and newspapsers -- what the article was about -- take precedence over the open world and personality matrix. What I read said that The Sims series evolves with its times, and I doubt that things like more dark skin tones are taking the place of the things that you want in the game. I don't think that what you want is fluff. I don't think things like the gender patch is fluff. And, in the end, I don't think that framing games development as a struggle between features and inclusivity is a useful dichotomy.

    I think you're making too many assumptions of what exactly you think I'm referencing, so I'll try to clarify a little. I can tell you that I am not an advocate of open world, so that is way off.

    When I refer to things I think are important, I'm talking mainly about what I see as things that were incomplete in the base game upon release, things that feel abandoned or unfinished, things that in previous games were consistently expanded throughout the series and things that leave noticeable gaps. For instance, the emotion system, the main focus of behaviors in the game, has no Fear emotion. Grant, the lead producer, even admitted on Twitter that they had dropped the ball by omitting it. So why was it never worked on and patched in, or at least some other kind of Fear system? Another, Sim Traits, aren't all equal in how effective they are. Some hardly do anything at all and feel as if time ran out during development so they slapped on some moodlets and threw them into the game. People have been leaving feedback about this for years. Then there's the incomplete whims system that was suddenly dropped and remains outdated. Whims used to be specific to Sim personalities and changed and expanded as development went on, but now they don't even get updated with packs. CAS remains limited in familial and relationship choices.

    These things and more just seem to me to be things that were the result of a hurried premature base game release. You may disagree, and that's certainly your right, but I feel that at least some of these things should have been a priority to fix before piling packs on top and complicating the development process.

    Now when I refer to "trendy fluff", I'm not referencing the gender patch (something I've wanted since Sims 2) or diverse skin tones or culture. Representation on a worldwide scale is something that should definitely exist in a game like this. But I don't consider LGBT issues trendy. I don't consider world cultures trendy. Or diversity. These things exist in humanity and always have.

    I feel like there's all of this dev talk about "what's hot now" (Stranger Things TV show, tiny homes, streaming celebrities, environmental concerns, social politics, internet hype, "brands" and images, etc.) and how to incorporate hyped topics into packs instead of finding a way to fill out the core of the gameplay that players have concerns about and have been leaving a lot of feedback on. I mean, I would pay for a Fear emotion. I don't think I should, but I would, because I understand that development costs money. I'd pay for more Traits, I'd pay for Sim memories, I'd pay for preferences or flaws or something that would make the Sims feel developed and the game feel balanced.

    Yes, in the article they referenced skin tones and inclusivity. That is not what I have an issue with. It's the focus on trends that I don't like, and some of the social online behaviors that are associated with trends. I know this is all subjective of course, but that's the point of discussion, yes? To share opinions and perspectives.

    So, do you feel that the reason that we have systems that you don't care for are because we have cellular phones, gender patches and dark skin tones instead? Do you feel it is because devs are looking at what careers might look like in the next decade? I ask this because those things are what the article is about.

    This is what I am talking about when I refer to inserted subtext.

    I think that just because those specific things were mentioned in the article, it doesn't mean that the article was exclusively referring to those things and those things only, which is what you seem to be implying. Here are some comments that stood out to me:

    "People are still mad that Sims don't have newspapers delivered every day," Rodiek said. "I can't honestly say whether we're right or not right for not doing it. If a big part of our brand and our goal is to let you have the choices to do stuff, I mean, theoretically we could just say, 'Fine, if you want to still subscribe to the physical New York Times, your Sims can do that too.'"


    The above statement is referring to something they know a lot of people want in the game. And he is pointing out that it's a part of their brand to let players choose how they want to play, and it's an acknowledgement of developer choice whether to fulfill these player requests or not. Many times I've heard/seen statements from Maxis saying that they have to make choices, and if they put one thing in, another gets cancelled. So yes, some features that I see as important and needed core game features have most likely been pushed to the wayside many times for something "trendier". Because even the article states this:

    Right or wrong, The Sims 4 has hewed tightly to trends, including trends in technology. (And they go on to pursue the the topic of technology.)

    So this statement by the author of the article is indeed addressing Sims 4's general intent to stick to trends, which is what we're discussing. It's not subtext. It's text right there in the article. The next statement by the author is also broad:

    The Sims 4 is not a perfect model of life, and still struggles with some aspects of what being a person is in the year 2020. Beyond the fact that the game only got gaming laptops with the last expansion, there are still limitations to what kinds of curly hair are present in the game, the ways it expresses gender, and it still only has a smattering of darker skin tones.

    This quote goes from laptops to hair but the sentiment is still there; that the game "struggles with some aspects of what being a person is in the year 2020." Is it not fair to include human character traits in that summary? Don't all humans still feel fear in 2020? Or worry? From what I perceive, high anxiety is on the rise and more prominent than ever due to tech-heavy lifestyles, yet it's nowhere in the emotional spectrum of the game. Maybe if fear and worry were considered "trendy", they would be incorporated.

    Though The Sims 4 contains a worrisome portent about the continued stability of the media industry, Rodiek and the other game designers must also stay on the cutting edge of trends.

    Finally, this statement in the article is followed by an example of how the team researched job trends to understand how "young people" think of them. But it's there again. "Stay on the cutting edge of trends." Not balance of player wishes, but trends.

    I don't think anyone needs to look for subtext in the article, especially if you also pay attention to the whole picture, which includes dev public statements as well as the CEO's quarterly reports. There's an intended direction, and if specific content isn't a quick stop along the road to trends, that content gets left at the wayside.

    You put a lot of effort here, and we're approaching the end of my rule of three, but I wanted to at least acknowledge your effort. I think you're doing what I said above: conflating the absence of things that you care about -- the emotion system being better balanced in a way that reflects more negative results -- with the presence of things that you don't care very much about -- tech-heavy lifestyles. Again, I don't think they're related, and attempting to link them is inserting a subtext that you claim isn't being inserted, but I think is pretty clearly the case above.

    So, that's that. I don't think we'll agree, and any further discussion is not likely to be fruitful.
    OEII1001 wrote: »
    I can agree with this. Trends happen, last for a little while, and then disappear. How is that fun? They're in the game forever at that point, when the trend has become "old news".

    I definitely don't prefer trendiness in The Sims.

    Do you react with disgust when seeing the MP3 player in The Sims 2? I don't. The Sims 2 is a product of its time, as all games are.

    Good thing I've never played TS2, I guess? My comment isn't regarding a specific iteration, anyway.

    My opinion is my opinion. 😉 You don't have to agree. I like TS4— I think I can still dislike certain aspects of it. I'm not "disgusted" by anything.

    Then how about in The Sims 3? The point is that the MP3 player had a pretty short lifespan, and by 2014 the SmartPhone had eclipsed it. So it wasn't included; only earbuds were. That's a reflection of our time, which is what the article was about.

    Yeah, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore, lol.

    It just seems to me that you're actually conflating what I say by choosing specific contexts and changing my language. But I'll take my share of responsibility for it because I'm not sure if I'm explaining myself well. It doesn't really matter that much at this point because, as you said, we're not going to agree anyway, which I'm okay with. I may still mull it over.

    You had explained yourself very thoroughly, and I thank you for it. While I fully disagree with your position, as well as the matter about conflation, I at least understand it. We aren't going to see eye-to-eye, and the longer it goes the more frustrated we'll get over the fact that we're not abandoning our own positions to take the opposing view. That's why I have my rule of three -- three rounds of discourse allows for adequate time to explain and discuss without it becoming hostile. I thank you for your candor and hope you'll have a nice day, or night.

    That's very sensible. You have a good night/day as well. (Very late here, I'm up with the Vampires. 😈)
    #Team Occult
  • ScobreScobre Posts: 20,665 Member
    edited February 2020
    This is an interesting interview following Grant's interview that is interviewing Lyndsay Pearson. http://aca.st/86b830

    I have always respected her as a career woman climbing up the ladder and feel like she has a good understanding what the Sims is about. I like the term kind communities much better than the safe space. Safe space just makes me think of a mental asylum or trapping Sims into the safe in the Sims 4. I remember how nice it was to interact with her during the Ideas for Toddlers thread and she called me passionate. It was really neat to go back and forth with a Simmer over toddler beds in that thread and have that appear in the game. Lyndsay has a really good understanding in the lore of the Sims and she created some of my favorite features in the Sims 2.

    I agree that the Sims 2 had a good zaniness about it. I disagree with the Sims 4 being bizarre with the article wrote for Grant's interview. It is nothing more than a paper town with nothing to make it unique or life like. Just a set in a bubble of the Truman Show. I like how she calls the Sims not smart too.
    Post edited by Scobre on
    “Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller
  • HoveraelHoverael Posts: 1,230 Member
    i had hoped some time out to think about things would of encouraged a change of direction from a specific user on this thread but it seems i'm wasting my time as they have already made their mind up long in advance and has been carrying out a campaign with no respect for other users point of view. i had hoped to explain my point of view.

    blasted shame the way things ended up like that.
  • SimzSizzleSimzSizzle Posts: 433 Member
    edited February 2020
    If they want to be trendy we need to be able to drop our phones in the toilet, have it get ruined by getting wet in all the rain we get, lose it or get a virus on it, and the videographer career, taking videos of people without their permission and posting it on our social media accounts, and even post something,anything on our social media account.
    Its strange we can check our social media account but that's all.
    edited to add some things about the phone
  • ScobreScobre Posts: 20,665 Member
    SimzSizzle wrote: »
    If they want to be trendy we need to be able to drop our phones in the toilet, have it get ruined by getting wet in all the rain we get, lose it or get a virus on it, and the videographer career, taking videos of people without their permission and posting it on our social media accounts, and even post something,anything on our social media account.
    Its strange we can check our social media account but that's all.
    edited to add some things about the phone
    LOL yeah it is limited what these so called trendy phones can do. Those things sound like fun. My grandpa would always drop his phone in his depends. Actually interesting Sims never did go the pager route so they haven't always been trendy. Not all of us have unlimited data on our devices either and always found it interesting that all phones are treated equal when in real life we have different phone looks and plans. It took years before my family could even afford texting. I have no data on my devices, so I use Wi-Fi instead. I also still have a landline too because if my phone does break potential employers and family can still contact me. It would be fun to have a slow internet lot trait too. Things like you described is why the Sims 4 lacks the bizarre because nothing really bad happens in the game to lead to consequences like owning a phone.
    “Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller
  • secretlondon123secretlondon123 Posts: 181 Member
    fullspiral wrote: »
    I still dislike that my sims HAVE to have a cell phone. I would like home phones back. I don't have a cell phone irl and don't feel my sims should be forced to. What's wrong with adding a home phone back in? And a phone booth for us to place on community lots for travel? Or just have us click on our sim to go home and let them travel that way?

    It's not about forcing the changing world on us as players, it should be about options for us to play our own ways.

    If you don't have a cell/mobile phone you are very, very unusual. Especially as you clearly have a computer.

    Phone booths are pretty much obsolete irl. They are generally broken and smell of urine.
  • secretlondon123secretlondon123 Posts: 181 Member
    SimTrippy wrote: »

    It's not that I'm exactly psyched about them focusing more on younger generations - even though it's not exactly hard to see why they do it, cause they do need to reel in new players over and over again, and it's arguably questionable how often we'll pay for exactly the same game and packs (1, 2, 3 .. 5 sims games?), but that's a different matter - but ... I'm also not fond of calling "internet generations" lacking compared to us. Isn't that, technically, what all "older" generations think about the young? And ... aren't we on the internet as well, typing here on this forum instead of, you know, out there socializing with like-minded people?

    Well I got my first internet access in the 1990s. I've managed not to end up a miserable luddite complaining about political correctness.

    I don't think the article says what people are complaining about - I think they've just attached the standard whinge to the article. Some internet spaces are really negative but I think this is still the worst gaming one I know.

    The past isn't coming back - whether it is newspaper deliveries or phone boxes. I think these must reflect real life feelings and emotions - fear of change and the unknown, a nostalgia for the past.
  • PrincipleOfEntropyPrincipleOfEntropy Posts: 389 Member
    edited February 2020
    fullspiral wrote: »
    I still dislike that my sims HAVE to have a cell phone. I would like home phones back. I don't have a cell phone irl and don't feel my sims should be forced to. What's wrong with adding a home phone back in? And a phone booth for us to place on community lots for travel? Or just have us click on our sim to go home and let them travel that way?

    It's not about forcing the changing world on us as players, it should be about options for us to play our own ways.

    If you don't have a cell/mobile phone you are very, very unusual. Especially as you clearly have a computer.

    Phone booths are pretty much obsolete irl. They are generally broken and smell of urine.

    I've not owned a mobile for seven years, I get newspapers and magazines delivered weekly and I live in an English village with two well maintained classic red phone boxes. One was almost removed due to construction work in 2018 but locals saved it with a petition.

    Things that are obsolete to some folks or places aren't to others. It'd be nice to have a choice. Grant even says in the article that it's odd not to give those choices after saying the game is all about giving players a choice.
    Madotsuki-Chair-Spin.gif
Sign In or Register to comment.
Return to top