Forum Announcement, Click Here to Read More From EA_Cade.

Could Sims 4 have more neighborhoods in worlds?

2...Next

Comments

  • EnigmaOFFCEnigmaOFFC Posts: 58 Member
    Paigeisin5 wrote: »
    In the beginning, the size of the worlds was said to be a problem because we were still using 32bit rather than 64. That was also the supposed reason why so much was missing from the base game, then it became the scapegoat again when certain game play features in new packs were buggy and lacked the depth of the same features in Sims2 and 3. When EA announced the teams would be creating new content using 64bit, I was hopeful. But then all conversations about it stopped, and we had no idea when the conversion would actually happen. If I remember correctly, one to two years passed before the conversion was finalized just before DU was released, and players with lower end devices were given the Legacy Edition but could not purchase new packs or update the base game in the future. But at least they were able to play Sims4.

    Fast forward to now and we are still being given the same excuses about world size as were given three years ago: Performance issues may arise for players running PCs with lower specs. EA is trying to paint itself as a hero for making the game playable for everyone no matter what kind of PC a player owns. But 64bit games have been the norm for several years, and those of us who have kept up with the advances in technology are the ones being fed excuses for Sims4's shortcomings. Sims4 is still lacking, it's buggy and the worlds have become smaller and filled with empty unusable buildings. One of my biggest gripes about all of this is the fact EA lied to us. It painted the conversion as something that would help the teams create new content that was more in line with what we saw in Sims2 and 3. The conversion was supposed to open the game up to new possibilities. But it didn't happen that way at all. Sims4 is flailing because it's more profitable for EA to keep those players with low end PCs buying new packs. The amusing part in EA's plan? Many of us are not buying new packs, or we purchase packs in bundles or at half price because the content doesn't justify the cost of those new packs.

    I realize not everyone has the funds to go out and purchase new PCs and laptops. I am not here to offend, or to demean anyone's circumstances. But after almost seven years of being told certain things can't happen with Sims4, something has to change. Fewer decorative buildings we can't use, would ease the loading time and resources used. If the teams would give us a couple of empty new worlds with larger lots that are suitable for players with high end PCs and laptops, we wouldn't be having this conversation. All we're asking for is having fewer restrictions being forced on the players fortunate enough to have the ability to utilize larger worlds. I would happily pay for a pack with a world that isn't bogged down with more CAS and BB assets. I don't need new game play features. I just want a nice big world with a view that doesn't include a phony backdrop. It's called having choices. And that would be an amazing solution at this point.

    @Paigeisin5 I bet Sims 4's problem was ever the 32 bit one, but rather their plans to make it console compatible. Making SIms 4 compatible with console was equal to making Simcity an online game to the extent that it limits the game deeply (and I'm not even accounting the fact that Sims 4 itself was also supposed to be online).
    So, the problem is running a lot of sims info? And loading a bunch of objects at the same time? Then give us a +/- button to delete or add which worlds we want in each file, and start giving us bigger worlds (with empty lots prepared for each pack previously added like a store plot, a restaurant plot, a spa plot, etc so we don't run in the same trouble as Sims 3 not tying all worlds with all packs). Let us manage our save sizes, let us be responsible for our amusement or downfall. Stop giving excuses for mediocrity.
  • EnigmaOFFCEnigmaOFFC Posts: 58 Member
    edited June 2021
    EmmaVane wrote: »
    Part of the reason for limiting the total number of lots is to limit the total number of sims placed in the world.

    Housed sims are not culled. Favourite Sims are not culled. Played Sims are not culled. Only homeless, unfavourited, unplayed Sims are culled (to the max number in Options.)

    Every Sim has info/stats/personal inventory. Every household has info/stats/household inventory.

    All this sim info slows down the game as it needs to be accessed when those Sims spawn in each neighbourhood, when they are contacted off screen, met/socialised with at school/work, gifted items/cash and when any time an action changes their info in any way.

    By limiting the number of lots, the devs are limiting the number of uncullable sims/sims relationships/sim inventories etc.

    It's purely performance related.

    @EmmaVane then they should let us manage which worlds we want in each save, just like they gave us the "favourite household" and "sim limit" so our families didn't get culled. My life playing SIms 4 would change with a simple warning saying "You're passing the limit of worlds supported by your device in your save file. Do you wish to proceed?".
  • Paigeisin5Paigeisin5 Posts: 2,139 Member
    I agree with you on the fact it wasn't about 32bit vs 64bit. It was an excuse the gurus fell back to whenever we questioned why certain features weren't being added to the game.
  • elelunicyelelunicy Posts: 2,004 Member
    In the beginning, the size of the worlds was said to be a problem because we were still using 32bit rather than 64. That was also the supposed reason why so much was missing from the base game, then it became the scapegoat again when certain game play features in new packs were buggy and lacked the depth of the same features in Sims2 and 3. When EA announced the teams would be creating new content using 64bit, I was hopeful. But then all conversations about it stopped, and we had no idea when the conversion would actually happen. If I remember correctly, one to two years passed before the conversion was finalized just before DU was released, and players with lower end devices were given the Legacy Edition but could not purchase new packs or update the base game in the future. But at least they were able to play Sims4.

    They never blamed 32-bit for any of the game's limitations. You're literally making things up.

    In fact, quite the opposite, when the game first launched, they insisted that updating the game to 64-bit will not provide any benefit, justifying their decision of making the game 32-bit. Their reasoning was that the entire game was designed to run on PCs with only 2GB RAM; it would be pointless to make a 64-bit version as the only difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is how much RAM it can use (32-bit applications can only use a max of 4GB RAM). The game was never going to need more than 4GB RAM and it was pointless to make a 64-bit version.
    qidpmcvgek8y.png
  • crocobauracrocobaura Posts: 7,342 Member
    elelunicy wrote: »
    In the beginning, the size of the worlds was said to be a problem because we were still using 32bit rather than 64. That was also the supposed reason why so much was missing from the base game, then it became the scapegoat again when certain game play features in new packs were buggy and lacked the depth of the same features in Sims2 and 3. When EA announced the teams would be creating new content using 64bit, I was hopeful. But then all conversations about it stopped, and we had no idea when the conversion would actually happen. If I remember correctly, one to two years passed before the conversion was finalized just before DU was released, and players with lower end devices were given the Legacy Edition but could not purchase new packs or update the base game in the future. But at least they were able to play Sims4.

    They never blamed 32-bit for any of the game's limitations. You're literally making things up.

    In fact, quite the opposite, when the game first launched, they insisted that updating the game to 64-bit will not provide any benefit, justifying their decision of making the game 32-bit. Their reasoning was that the entire game was designed to run on PCs with only 2GB RAM; it would be pointless to make a 64-bit version as the only difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is how much RAM it can use (32-bit applications can only use a max of 4GB RAM). The game was never going to need more than 4GB RAM and it was pointless to make a 64-bit version.

    My game runs so much better since I upgraded to 16GB RAM from my initial 4GB RAM. 64-bit version was a very good idea after all. 🙂
  • Paigeisin5Paigeisin5 Posts: 2,139 Member
    Then why go through with the conversion at all if what you're saying is true? Dropping support for 32bit systems meant those players wouldn't be able to update their games, purchase future DLC or use the Gallery. When the conversations started about EA's plan to stop supporting 32bit, there were also hints this would make creating new content easier for the teams overall. So if I mistakenly understood that was a positive move forward, I guess that is my fault for believing what was being said by EA. Why EA waited so long into Sims4's run to actually follow through on all of this will forever remain a mystery, I guess.
  • Paigeisin5Paigeisin5 Posts: 2,139 Member
    @crocobaura Exactly. And that could also mean there is no excuse for the new worlds to be so small other than EA being unwilling to give the teams more money for the development of new content.
  • LeGardePourpreLeGardePourpre Posts: 15,175 Member
    edited June 2021
    filipomel wrote: »
    JestTru wrote: »
    To be honest after all these years of the new worlds being like they are it doesnt bother me anymore.

    I do wish that since they are making worlds limited in lot size they could've at least made each neighborhood open. But regardless as more is added to the game rather it be gameplay, world size, number of lots, etc it's all going to play a part on affecting the performance rate. Sims 4 has a lot more packs than other iterations of this game and they are continuing to make more for it.

    I like this idea a lot actually. Instead of giving us a world with 12 lots and separated neighbourhoods, why not just give us one massive open neighborhood with all 12 lots in them?

    More lots also mean longer loading screen, the game loads every lots.
    It could be a pain to travel to the other worlds and come back in this mega neighborhood.

    I'm not hurry to get a 15min loading screen like TS3 did.

  • LoanetLoanet Posts: 4,079 Member
    Sims 4 hasn't got anything like enough Lots.

    You have to travel between Lots to visit people. This is fine, it's just how the Sims 4 engine runs. But each new World has so few Lots, and tons of Shells in their worlds. This is not fair at all. This is EA skimping on budget. If there are less Lots, we need to buy more worlds more often.
    Prepping a list of mods to add after Infants are placed into the game. Because real life isn't 'nice'.
  • SheriSim57SheriSim57 Posts: 6,934 Member
    Sthenastia wrote: »
    This is one of my the biggest complainments about TS4. Worlds are tiny and sometimes it is hard to fit what I want. Del Sol Valley and Britechester are so bad. The worlds look nice but this is probably one and only advantege of that. That's how DSL should looks like in my opinion:

    6BtAu7J.png

    Some space for poor sims, medium class, lower and higher superstars.

    Yes, one of my biggest disappointments was that Del Sol Valley was so small. There should have been more spaces for poor sims, and some lots for middle class, some beach lots, and more downtown lots. I hope if they bring out a car pack they will have 1. At least 4 beach lots where you can swim in the ocean, maybe surf or something as well, and be able to make a pier into the ocean, and make shops and beach lots, 20x20, 20x30, and 40x30. 2. A middle class neighborhood with 5 lots, 20x30 and 30x40. 3. A downtown area with at least 6 lots. 20x30, 20x20, and at least two 40x30 or larger. 4. A poorer area with at least 4-5 lots. 20x15, 20x20, 20x30. And how about a new candy store? Maybe they could make a salt water taffy machine. There are places on the beach in California that have saltwater taffy shops with 30 of 40 different flavors. Maybe the machine could make other types of candy as well.
  • EnigmaOFFCEnigmaOFFC Posts: 58 Member
    Loanet wrote: »
    Sims 4 hasn't got anything like enough Lots.

    You have to travel between Lots to visit people. This is fine, it's just how the Sims 4 engine runs. But each new World has so few Lots, and tons of Shells in their worlds. This is not fair at all. This is EA skimping on budget. If there are less Lots, we need to buy more worlds more often.

    @loanet I wouldn't mind the shells (they make the world more realistic and make it feel more lively) IF we had enough lots in each world...
  • CinebarCinebar Posts: 33,618 Member
    edited July 2021
    elelunicy wrote: »
    In the beginning, the size of the worlds was said to be a problem because we were still using 32bit rather than 64. That was also the supposed reason why so much was missing from the base game, then it became the scapegoat again when certain game play features in new packs were buggy and lacked the depth of the same features in Sims2 and 3. When EA announced the teams would be creating new content using 64bit, I was hopeful. But then all conversations about it stopped, and we had no idea when the conversion would actually happen. If I remember correctly, one to two years passed before the conversion was finalized just before DU was released, and players with lower end devices were given the Legacy Edition but could not purchase new packs or update the base game in the future. But at least they were able to play Sims4.

    They never blamed 32-bit for any of the game's limitations. You're literally making things up.

    In fact, quite the opposite, when the game first launched, they insisted that updating the game to 64-bit will not provide any benefit, justifying their decision of making the game 32-bit. Their reasoning was that the entire game was designed to run on PCs with only 2GB RAM; it would be pointless to make a 64-bit version as the only difference between 32-bit and 64-bit is how much RAM it can use (32-bit applications can only use a max of 4GB RAM). The game was never going to need more than 4GB RAM and it was pointless to make a 64-bit version.

    Well then, why even bother building a 64bit game if 32 bit was just fine. Seems by your logic they wasted their time building the 64bit version if there is no benefit as you just stated they said. You just stated they insisted that updating would not provide any benefit.

    TS4 isn't keeping up with as much as TS3 had to do (story progression) nor as much as TS2 had to do..not by a long shot. It's a matter of money and cost effect of whether they can sell a 3 lot neighborhood 'world' verses the time, money vs a 25 lot neighborhood 'world'. It's all about the cost and effect of will you buy the pack for $40 with 3 lots (yes TS4 players will) or not buy because it doesn't have 25 lots. They have everyone's number.

    Performance was stated to suffer if too many things are in inventory but that didn't stop them building packs where even townies (non played) would have a bucket load of inventory. Now, is it performance and or money..I'm going with the money theory.
    "Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
  • SimburianSimburian Posts: 6,906 Member
    edited July 2021
    I think that when EA/Maxis started the game they meant surrounding areas of neighbourhoods to be used for such things that came later, like skating rinks, ice rinks and other additions that could turn up on unused territory with new packs. The skating rinks for instance, appear somewhere in all the worlds, even Newcrest.

    I'd like to bet they were so surprised that they sold so many Sims 4 packs that they were forced to go 64bit due to the pressure put on them by Simmers and the new 64bit ranges of computers.
  • Briana2425Briana2425 Posts: 3,591 Member
    Yes I don't see why at least like 5 or 6 lots especially residential in one neighborhood.
  • LeGardePourpreLeGardePourpre Posts: 15,175 Member
    edited July 2021
    As usual money spent to do something is money not use to do something else.

    Is a neighborhood worth the sacrifice of content or gameplay ?
  • haneulhaneul Posts: 1,952 Member
    Briana2425 wrote: »
    Yes I don't see why at least like 5 or 6 lots especially residential in one neighborhood.

    They could probably add a lot or two to each neighborhood and be okay, but I think the problem is one of scale.

    More neighborhoods doesn't just mean more lots. It also means more sims, etc. for the game to track. They've said that this game has a couple years left in it and if they added worlds as big as Windenburg each time ... it might actually create performance problems as people would be adding almost twice as many sims and lots to their game with each expansion.
  • CinebarCinebar Posts: 33,618 Member
    edited July 2021
    As usual money spent to do something is money not use to do something else.

    Is a neighborhood worth the sacrifice of content or gameplay ?

    How come TS3 didn't have these problems such as content vs neighborhood size? Look at the worlds released in EPs in the TS3 (not store worlds) and think about the gameplay that came with those EPs..funny how TS4 suffers the either/or sickness. (AKA greed). Or it could be that other illness known as It's too hard, too much to do, can't handle the work load.

    Someone above mentioned there would have to be more Sims...no there doesn't have to be more Sims...they are deleted by players and Maxis...and capped at twenty in any camera area. Unlike TS3's system based on CPU. Performance is a code for too hard, and greed.
    "Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
  • luthienrisingluthienrising Posts: 37,617 Member
    Cinebar wrote: »
    As usual money spent to do something is money not use to do something else.

    Is a neighborhood worth the sacrifice of content or gameplay ?

    How come TS3 didn't have these problems such as content vs neighborhood size? Look at the worlds released in EPs in the TS3 (not store worlds) and think about the gameplay that came with those EPs..funny how TS4 suffers the either/or sickness. (AKA greed). Or it could be that other illness known as It's too hard, too much to do, can't handle the work load.

    Someone above mentioned there would have to be more Sims...no there doesn't have to be more Sims...they are deleted by players and Maxis...and capped at twenty in any camera area. Unlike TS3's system based on CPU. Performance is a code for too hard, and greed.

    TS3 had a huge problem with content vs. neighborhood size. You couldn't add all those new worlds together and make a bigger save. You had to try to cram every feature you wanted to play with into your one save. I freaking hated that. One of the best things about Sims 4 is that I can play the same save for years and keep building it out, without ever having to start over unless I want to start over.
    elelunicy wrote: »
    Yes they can add more neighborhoods (for example Mt. Komorebi technically has 6 neighborhoods, as the base camps are their own neighborhoods). However, there is no point in adding more neighborhoods if their goal is keeping the total number of lots down. That will just result in less lots per neighborhood.

    Asking why the number of lots affect performance (when only lots in the current neighborhood are loaded) is like asking why Sims culling and Max Sim Count are a thing (when only Sims in the current neighborhood are loaded). It's not about what you SEE. It's about what the game needs to track behind the scene. It's like asking why open neighborhoods are not a thing when all lots are already loaded. Again it's not about what you SEE. The other lots in the neighborhood are only loaded physically for rendering purposes; logically the other lots are not loaded at all (i.e. things like object state/stats, routing/pathing info, autonomy graph, etc. are not loaded at all and thus these lots do not function at all).

    Moreover, all Sims data, Lot data, Object data, etc. are serialized and then saved to a single save file. When you load the game everything is then deserialized. Your loading time will significantly worsen as your save file gets bigger.

    Quoting this to keep it visible: an actual technical explanation of why there is a performance issue.
    EA CREATOR NETWORK MEMBER — Want to be notified of patches, new Broken Mods threads, and urgent Sims 4 news? Follow me at https://www.patreon.com/luthienrising.
  • LeGardePourpreLeGardePourpre Posts: 15,175 Member
    edited July 2021
    @Cinebar wrote: »
    As usual money spent to do something is money not use to do something else.

    Is a neighborhood worth the sacrifice of content or gameplay ?

    How come TS3 didn't have these problems such as content vs neighborhood size? Look at the worlds released in EPs in the TS3 (not store worlds) and think about the gameplay that came with those EPs..funny how TS4 suffers the either/or sickness. (AKA greed). Or it could be that other illness known as It's too hard, too much to do, can't handle the work load.

    For example, I think $0 was spent for the color swatches, Create-A-Style did the job. In TS4 they must create new textures.
    300 items x 3 color swatches = 900 textures

    It's clearly not the same job. You can't compare apples to tomatoes.

    TS2 isn't an example too because the players could add custom neighborhoods.
    If The Sims Studio could bring back this possibility it would solve the problem even if this feature use predefined worlds.
    Post edited by LeGardePourpre on
  • SthenastiaSthenastia Posts: 651 Member
    We should have a possibility to switch off random townies or choose the limit of sims per save. It should improve performance for an old consoles and PCs. On my old console, every neighborhood was fine, only the first loading was long, but on PS5 this issue no longer exist.I'm sure that my old PS4 could handle a neighborhood with 50+ lots. I feel that 12 is a magic number for EA. Every new pack has 12 lots (or less), 12 swatches (or less), 12 premade sims (+/- 1 sim)
  • CinebarCinebar Posts: 33,618 Member
    Sthenastia wrote: »
    We should have a possibility to switch off random townies or choose the limit of sims per save. It should improve performance for an old consoles and PCs. On my old console, every neighborhood was fine, only the first loading was long, but on PS5 this issue no longer exist.I'm sure that my old PS4 could handle a neighborhood with 50+ lots. I feel that 12 is a magic number for EA. Every new pack has 12 lots (or less), 12 swatches (or less), 12 premade sims (+/- 1 sim)

    Maybe they will break out of that twelve is the limit since they are now using game changers for builders of lots..for free or at least a free game instead to promote. Free labor means maybe they can add more premades (lots and Sims).
    "Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
  • MiraRoseBlackMiraRoseBlack Posts: 17 Member
    More neighborhoods would be nice, but I would prefer if they added a few more lots to each neighborhood
  • SimburianSimburian Posts: 6,906 Member
    Sthenastia wrote: »
    We should have a possibility to switch off random townies or choose the limit of sims per save. It should improve performance for an old consoles and PCs. On my old console, every neighborhood was fine, only the first loading was long, but on PS5 this issue no longer exist.I'm sure that my old PS4 could handle a neighborhood with 50+ lots. I feel that 12 is a magic number for EA. Every new pack has 12 lots (or less), 12 swatches (or less), 12 premade sims (+/- 1 sim)

    Do you not get this option on the PS5? On the PC you get told of the limit that your machine should not go above. 80 Sims for the less powerful ones, 200 for powerful ones. I have over 200 without problems on one Save and all packs.
  • SthenastiaSthenastia Posts: 651 Member
    Sorry. I meant "per loading screen". It is possible to select the number of sims per save on consoles.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Return to top