Sims 2 gives you the ability to create your own worlds from scratch. A world in which you decide the terrain, the type of seasons and the order they follow. You can even create multiple subhoods. Sims 4 can’t do that.
In sims 4 you are stuck in worlds with toms of set dressing. Worlds that usually just contain a bar and a park by default. And I can’t understand why people are losing their minds over the side of the new world in the newest pack but it’s the same size as Del Sol Valley. Make it make sense.
Sims 3 worlds are much larger. Some worlds have over 80 lots. Yes some people have issues with it but I personally don’t anymore since I upgraded my pc. Somewhat ironically my sims 3 game runs at a smooth 60 fps, my sims 4 game chugs between 20-45 fps on a Nvidia 2030.
You can move between worlds but yes it’s a pain and you lost relationships but it’s not impossible.
But the difference is with sims 3 worlds, you don’t need to move around all the time. Because most worlds have everything you need. By default if your sim lives in Oasis Springs and wants to go to the library they gotta go to Willow Creek. They want to go to the beach or the pool by default they must travel. I like moving between worlds In sims 4 but it’s not without its flaws. I can’t tell you how sick I am of seeing Judith Ward Everywhere. Mortimer Goth also shows up everywhere and I find that quite immersion breaking.
I think worlds are so small because of performance and because they know the community will lose their minds and buy it anyway.
I think performance plays a larger role than many are willing to accept. While watching Devon Bumpkins tour of the 64x64 lot he built he mentioned that he was asked to remove some items. Some build/buy objects and some of the new garden plots. The reason given? Player optimization. I don't think we're going to see any future worlds with more than 12 lots. Especially if as rumored the game still has a couple of years to go.
Edited to add: Watching Clair Siobhan's cottage build video and she also mentioned they have limitations to what they can do. They submit their build to the Sims team and the team runs it on a computer with very basic performance. If it doesn't play well it goes back to the builder for modification. They're not allowed to use a lot of wallpaper styles, can't use a lot of mirrors, can't use doors that have glass and allow you to see through the house because that causes rendering problems.
I think that plays a large role in how the lots are built and how large the neighborhoods are. I'm not sure if it affects how many neighborhoods you can have though since the game removes the neighborhood when you travel and load another one.
It will be interesting to see how well Henford on Bagley will perform though because I thought the zones were pretty big, I wonder how well they will run with post processing effects while it's raining or snowing.
(Btw, a poll made by Steam, often considered "the" gaming platform on PC, show that more than 60% of customers there play on older computers and only some 15% have 4K screens, 1080p being the most common and even lower resolutions are more common than 4K. In short, the myth of the "PC master race gamers" is a myth, nothing else).
I get what you're saying but I want to point out that 4k is not a gaming resolution. Most "gamers" will prefer 1080p because of the framerates they can get. It's hard to get 200+ fps on a giant 4k monitor.
200 FPs? Sure. How about 60Fps? Because that's what PS5 and Xbox is promising on a 4K screen.
60 fps is not an acceptable framerate for many "serious" PC gamers. My point is that we cannot tell if someone is a serious gamer based on 4k because a lot of gamers purposely avoid 4k due to the lackluster framerates. They care about a monitor's hz/refresh rate more than pixels.
Seriously, that's... what, five times faster than the eye on a healthy person with 20 / 20 eyesight can actually detect? (Speaking of, a lot of these things are just voodoo anyway; for example the fact is that you actually can't tell the difference between a 720p and a 1080p movie on a screen smaller than 34"; for you to actually benefit from a 4k resolution you need a 50" or bigger TV. A computer monitor you sit 1-2 feet away from? Nah. That's just wasted money).
My point still stands tho; the main reason for the small worlds is that EA knows what kind of machines are common enough to have to adapt to.
I think performance plays a larger role than many are willing to accept. While watching Devon Bumpkins tour of the 64x64 lot he built he mentioned that he was asked to remove some items. Some build/buy objects and some of the new garden plots. The reason given? Player optimization. I don't think we're going to see any future worlds with more than 12 lots. Especially if as rumored the game still has a couple of years to go.
Edited to add: Watching Clair Siobhan's cottage build video and she also mentioned they have limitations to what they can do. They submit their build to the Sims team and the team runs it on a computer with very basic performance. If it doesn't play well it goes back to the builder for modification. They're not allowed to use a lot of wallpaper styles, can't use a lot of mirrors, can't use doors that have glass and allow you to see through the house because that causes rendering problems.
I think that plays a large role in how the lots are built and how large the neighborhoods are. I'm not sure if it affects how many neighborhoods you can have though since the game removes the neighborhood when you travel and load another one.
It will be interesting to see how well Henford on Bagley will perform though because I thought the zones were pretty big, I wonder how well they will run with post processing effects while it's raining or snowing.
(Btw, a poll made by Steam, often considered "the" gaming platform on PC, show that more than 60% of customers there play on older computers and only some 15% have 4K screens, 1080p being the most common and even lower resolutions are more common than 4K. In short, the myth of the "PC master race gamers" is a myth, nothing else).
I get what you're saying but I want to point out that 4k is not a gaming resolution. Most "gamers" will prefer 1080p because of the framerates they can get. It's hard to get 200+ fps on a giant 4k monitor.
200 FPs? Sure. How about 60Fps? Because that's what PS5 and Xbox is promising on a 4K screen.
60 fps is not an acceptable framerate for many "serious" PC gamers. My point is that we cannot tell if someone is a serious gamer based on 4k because a lot of gamers purposely avoid 4k due to the lackluster framerates. They care about a monitor's hz/refresh rate more than pixels.
Seriously, that's... what, five times faster than the eye on a healthy person with 20 / 20 eyesight can actually detect? (Speaking of, a lot of these things are just voodoo anyway; for example the fact is that you actually can't tell the difference between a 720p and a 1080p movie on a screen smaller than 34"; for you to actually benefit from a 4k resolution you need a 50" or bigger TV. A computer monitor you sit 1-2 feet away from? Nah. That's just wasted money).
My point still stands tho; the main reason for the small worlds is that EA knows what kind of machines are common enough to have to adapt to.
There's a big difference between 60fps and 144fps. It's hard to explain but when you see it, it is just different. I really don't care, though. I generally game at 60fps because I don't play twitch-type games. My husband games in 1080p on a 4k TV screen -- 1080p scales up perfectly. I would be more interested in actual hardware the majority of steam users are using. "Older" can mean very different things to different people.
It's too bad that the Sims 4 can't scale itself to different CPUs. Sims 3 did. It's a serious limitation, especially since Sims 4 was designed to run on very old hardware.
It's too bad that the Sims 4 can't scale itself to different CPUs. Sims 3 did. It's a serious limitation, especially since Sims 4 was designed to run on very old hardware.
Agreed. It's a balance of making everyone happy. On one end, you can't expect everyone to have a gaming rig. They're expensive. On the other end, your Commodore 64 can't handle the amount of data that is transferred today. The "scaling" you mentioned with Sims 3 would be the best solution, especially since EA has shown it's already possible.
How your Sims builds show your meds' effectiveness
For me EA/Maxis really dropped the ball on the scale up and scale down system as it feels I am being punished for having an system that can use all the bells and whistles just to cater to the lowest denominator. This one reason why I can't get into the Sims 4 mood, it may work great for new comers and low end users, it just doesn't for me. If Sims 4 was to cease publication today I would not miss it there is nothing really for me to miss it but the controversies it has created and that is my opinion.
Omen by HP Intel®️ Core™️ i9- 12900K W/ RGB Liquid Cooler 32GB Nvidia RTX 3080 10Gb ASUS Ultra-Wide 34" Curved Monitor. Omen By HP Intel® Core™ i7-12800HX 32 GB Nvidia 3070 Ti 8 GB 17.3 Screen
Comments
In sims 4 you are stuck in worlds with toms of set dressing. Worlds that usually just contain a bar and a park by default. And I can’t understand why people are losing their minds over the side of the new world in the newest pack but it’s the same size as Del Sol Valley. Make it make sense.
Sims 3 worlds are much larger. Some worlds have over 80 lots. Yes some people have issues with it but I personally don’t anymore since I upgraded my pc. Somewhat ironically my sims 3 game runs at a smooth 60 fps, my sims 4 game chugs between 20-45 fps on a Nvidia 2030.
You can move between worlds but yes it’s a pain and you lost relationships but it’s not impossible.
But the difference is with sims 3 worlds, you don’t need to move around all the time. Because most worlds have everything you need. By default if your sim lives in Oasis Springs and wants to go to the library they gotta go to Willow Creek. They want to go to the beach or the pool by default they must travel. I like moving between worlds In sims 4 but it’s not without its flaws. I can’t tell you how sick I am of seeing Judith Ward Everywhere. Mortimer Goth also shows up everywhere and I find that quite immersion breaking.
I think worlds are so small because of performance and because they know the community will lose their minds and buy it anyway.
Seriously, that's... what, five times faster than the eye on a healthy person with 20 / 20 eyesight can actually detect? (Speaking of, a lot of these things are just voodoo anyway; for example the fact is that you actually can't tell the difference between a 720p and a 1080p movie on a screen smaller than 34"; for you to actually benefit from a 4k resolution you need a 50" or bigger TV. A computer monitor you sit 1-2 feet away from? Nah. That's just wasted money).
My point still stands tho; the main reason for the small worlds is that EA knows what kind of machines are common enough to have to adapt to.
There's a big difference between 60fps and 144fps. It's hard to explain but when you see it, it is just different. I really don't care, though. I generally game at 60fps because I don't play twitch-type games. My husband games in 1080p on a 4k TV screen -- 1080p scales up perfectly. I would be more interested in actual hardware the majority of steam users are using. "Older" can mean very different things to different people.
It's too bad that the Sims 4 can't scale itself to different CPUs. Sims 3 did. It's a serious limitation, especially since Sims 4 was designed to run on very old hardware.
Agreed. It's a balance of making everyone happy. On one end, you can't expect everyone to have a gaming rig. They're expensive. On the other end, your Commodore 64 can't handle the amount of data that is transferred today. The "scaling" you mentioned with Sims 3 would be the best solution, especially since EA has shown it's already possible.