I do worry about the fact that people that does not work for EA/Maxis are defending this.
It is valid criticism for the customer to feel that they are being cheap with the animations and the only real benefit is that EA/Maxis are saving time and money. But that is up to the company to defend, not the fans, it is up to the company to show what new animations and features that they have made and they are doing a really poor job of showing this in the trailers.
They fact that some people in their company are focusing on the negative things does not help either.
It's only valid criticism, if you hated sims 3 for recycling all their animations from sims 2.
Honestly, I think the reused animations probably owe a lot to the COVID-19 pandemic.
While EA probably lets the developers use a lot of the in-house development tools at home, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it is simply not allowed to be taken off the premises, maybe including animation programs etc. Maybe not everything, but enough that it's limited what the developers can and can't do in this pack.
It's not an ideal situation, but it's something I can forgive.
For me, my problem with this pack is that the theme at large is recycled from Island Living--and that's less forgivable, as that would have been nailed down several months before lockdown even started.
Some animation reuse makes sense and is acceptable, others not so much. Reusing eating animation is not the same as blatantly ripping off a previous animation to not having to make a new one, or even missing animations. Sometimes it just look so cheap. Especially if the animation is supposed to represent a completely new scenario for the sim. Some situations are less obvious, but still looks like they are cheap skates; like the toddler animation in the ocean. It wouldn't even take much to change it - just add a different toy and voilá.
I agree. I think in most cases it is fine to reuse animations when they make sense. However, there are some things that reusing, or not reusing well, only makes them seem awkward.
Shower woohoo: I mean, they could have just added a spin-and-clothes-off animation before the reused wardrobe woohoo and I would be fine with it.
Giving cure shot: Throwing liquid on the target’s face? There are a slew of animations to be reused in Get to Work but they decided that throwing liquid on a sim face is fine to represent as giving a cure shot? OK...
Juice brewing: This one I guess should be a new animation, in my opinion. This would be another rant but I’m baffled and sad that most machines were modeled using the 6x6 footprint because they wanted to use the cupcake machine animation. Some things like the trash up-cycle machine or the weather controller makes sense, but for things like juice brewing it feels awkward to me.
Dumpster woohoo: Umm, why would the sims be spitted out by the dumpster? A magical coffin does it makes sense; a futuristic sleeping device that alters sims’ mind... I can suspend the disbelief; but a dumpster spitting sims out? Yeah, right...
These are some of the glaring ones that’s from the top of my head, but I hope I’ve made my point clear for the dev team to understand.
Some animation reuse makes sense and is acceptable, others not so much. Reusing eating animation is not the same as blatantly ripping off a previous animation to not having to make a new one, or even missing animations. Sometimes it just look so cheap. Especially if the animation is supposed to represent a completely new scenario for the sim. Some situations are less obvious, but still looks like they are cheap skates; like the toddler animation in the ocean. It wouldn't even take much to change it - just add a different toy and voilá.
I agree. I think in most cases it is fine to reuse animations when they make sense. However, there are some things that reusing, or reusing well, only makes them seem awkward.
Shower woohoo: I mean, they could have just added a spin-and-clothes-off animation before the reused wardrobe woohoo and I would be fine with it.
Giving cure shot: Throwing liquid on the target’s face? There are a slew of animations to be reused in Get to Work but they decided that throwing liquid on a sim face is fine to represent as giving a cure shot? OK...
Juice brewing: This one I guess should be a new animation, in my opinion. This would be another rant but I’m baffled and sad that most machines were modeled using the 6x6 footprint because they wanted to use the cupcake machine animation. Some things like the trash up-cycle machine or the weather controller makes sense, but for things like juice brewing it feels awkward to me.
Dumpster woohoo: Umm, why would the sims be spitted out by the dumpster? A magical coffin does it makes sense; a futuristic sleeping device that alters sims’ mind... I can suspend the disbelief; but a dumpster spitting sims out? Yeah, right...
These are some of the glaring ones that’s from the top of my head, but I hope I’ve made my point clear for the dev team to understand.
Spot on.
Allons-y!
---> Afterlife Game Pack Idea - improved ghosts, cemeteries and funerals, psychics, new skills, new career and more! <---
I play the piano. Tell me, how would someone play creepily? Is the vampire supposed to pause every other minute to hiss or lift his hands higher or wave them about between notes somehow? Anyway, why would a developer waste time exaggerating piano movements when there was creepy stalking, vampire sparring, dark meditation etc to animate. Frankly, the animations in that pack are stunning in my opinion, and the inclusion of an organ for vampires to play, with actual organ music, was an inspired choice. As well, it's not recycling the "play the piano" animation to have a sim playing the keyboard of an organ since in real life those actions look the same.
@simfriend1968 I play the piano too and I think the creepy playing is for them to find out, like they could exaggerate the movement of the arms for example. Remember this is only an example of how they could change things up and not an actual complaint about the piano animation. The thread is about the animations in Eco lifestyle and the piano thing is only an example on how to make things more interesting sometimes.
I have no problem with reused animations, that means they spent more time building the gameplay. Why would they need to recreate new animations for only one object when they have something similiar in game? Doesn't look smart, does it?
In order to get new gameplay you need new animations. I bet the reasons why we haven‘t gotten cars and horses yet is because there are no animations in their catalogue they can reuse. They see the bee box with all its animations from Seasons and say „hmm, how can we can sell this as something new? Got it. Let‘s just recolor the object, change the bees into worms, change some text files and sell it as an insect farm.“. Or „How can we sell the weeding machine from Seasons as something new? Got it. Let‘s say to our customers that it sucks in pollution“. That‘s not new gameplay. That‘s just slapping a $40 price tag on old features that we‘ve already payed $40 for. They‘re double charging us.
I know the reusing of animations has been a thing in a few packs and I really don't understand it 'cause they don't really make up for it.
What also bothers me is that the animations are not even that smooth. How does The Sims 2 have almost smoother animations than The Sims 4? It even came out in 2004, how is it possible?
Looking at this video makes me realize that TS2 sims animations had a more theatrical exaggeration to them, more dramatic, and because of this they managed to convey more feelings than the animations used for TS4 which are on average much longer but more subtle at expressing emotions.
I think the 'can be easily made unique' is debatable. Animations are very expensive and those resources can be used towards other new content. People are complaining as it is that packs are lacking in content (I disagree,) so can you imagine if they had to make every single animation unique? It'd be a lot worse. Every pack has a budget that they must adhere to.
The Sims community is the only gaming community that is so passionate about a multi billion company saving money.
The problem with TS4 is that we neither get enough new animations nor enough new content to justify the absurdly high asking price. Have you ever played TS3? They reused animations too but they made it up by giving us celebrities + penthouses + vampires in one pack or a tropical island world + underwater world + mermaids + houseboats + resorts in one pack. Meanwhile TS4 after six years still claims that bunk beds are just too expensive and difficult to make.
Meanwhile TS4 after six years still claims that bunk beds are just too expensive and difficult to make.
That excuse comes up all the time nowadays, things are expensive or difficult to make, etc. It makes me wonder why their budget was so severely reduced that they need to prioritize on basic gameplay elements. Do they spend too much on hiring external animation vendors or managing them? What is eating their resources that is not visible in gamepay?
In order to get new gameplay you need new animations. I bet the reasons why we haven‘t gotten cars and horses yet is because there are no animations in their catalogue they can reuse. They see the bee box with all its animations from Seasons and say „hmm, how can we can sell this as something new? Got it. Let‘s just recolor the object, change the bees into worms, change some text files and sell it as an insect farm.“. Or „How can we sell the weeding machine from Seasons as something new? Got it. Let‘s say to our customers that it sucks in pollution“. That‘s not new gameplay. That‘s just slapping a $40 price tag on old features that we‘ve already payed $40 for. They‘re double charging us.
Exactly that!. Of course none of us have an issue with using the same animations in little things we don't notice anyway or in things where it makes sense (eating, drinking etc) but 🐸🐸🐸🐸 using the same animations in major features? NO thanks.
That excuse comes up all the time nowadays, things are expensive or difficult to make, etc. It makes me wonder why their budget was so severely reduced that they need to prioritize on basic gameplay elements. Do they spend too much on hiring external animation vendors or managing them? What is eating their resources that is not visible in gamepay?
@crocobaura many Simmers don't know that and even I found out just a while ago.
So EA and the teams developing the games are kind of a seperate thing. We've all noticed the Maxis logo popping up in many Sims games. But did you ever wonder "Who makes Sims games? EA or Maxis?" Well there is a rather complicated explanation on that but I'll try to simplify it.
Studios like Maxis, Bioware etc. began as independent companies developing games that had nothing to do with EA. Maxis was founded by Will Wright (creator of The Sims) and once SimCity games and other Maxis games started selling EA wanted to acquire Maxis Studios. Maxis Studios accepted the offer (for reasons too compicated for this post) and became part of EA. EA does this with several independent and indie studios in order to profit from their games.
However many of the studios EA acquires end up shutting down (including Maxis, that shut down in 2015). The reason for that is the way EA chooses to manage these studios. EA decides how many resources and time a studio or a team is allowed to have in order to develop their game. Since EA is the big boss they often don't allow the studios to use too much money or time on a game which leads to the team rushing out a half finished game that ends up flopping and then EA uses the low sales as an excuse to shut down the studio (while still owning the rights to the studio's games ex. SimCity, Sims etc.)
What do I want to say with that? I want to say that I am almost certain that the Sims team works harder than we think, eventhough they also make mistakes sometimes. I think the biggest issue here is EA's management that chooses not to provide the team with more money and give them more time for the game. So the Sims team often can't do anything other than use cost-efficient and time-saving ways to develop those packs.
The Sims is a game that to this day sells a lot , eventhough EA's management has the "make the most amount of money, with the least amount of effort" thinking and as long as we keep buying this way of thinking won't change.
That excuse comes up all the time nowadays, things are expensive or difficult to make, etc. It makes me wonder why their budget was so severely reduced that they need to prioritize on basic gameplay elements. Do they spend too much on hiring external animation vendors or managing them? What is eating their resources that is not visible in gamepay?
@crocobaura many Simmers don't know that and even I found out just a while ago.
So EA and the teams developing the games are kind of a seperate thing. We've all noticed the Maxis logo popping up in many Sims games. But did you ever wonder "Who makes Sims games? EA or Maxis?" Well there is a rather complicated explanation on that but I'll try to simplify it.
Studios like Maxis, Bioware etc. began as independent companies developing games that had nothing to do with EA. Maxis was founded by Will Wright (creator of The Sims) and once SimCity games and other Maxis games started selling EA wanted to acquire Maxis Studios. Maxis Studios accepted the offer (for reasons too compicated for this post) and became part of EA. EA does this with several independent and indie studios in order to profit from their games.
However many of the studios EA acquires end up shutting down (including Maxis, that shut down in 2015). The reason for that is the way EA chooses to manage these studios. EA decides how many resources and time a studio or a team is allowed to have in order to develop their game. Since EA is the big boss they often don't allow the studios to use too much money or time on a game which leads to the team rushing out a half finished game that ends up flopping and then EA uses the low sales as an excuse to shut down the studio (while still owning the rights to the studio's games ex. SimCity, Sims etc.)
What do I want to say with that? I want to say that I am almost certain that the Sims team works harder than we think, eventhough they also make mistakes sometimes. I think the biggest issue here is EA's management that chooses not to provide the team with more money and give them more time for the game. So the Sims team often can't do anything other than use cost-efficient and time-saving ways to develop those packs.
The Sims is a game that to this day sells a lot , eventhough EA's management has the "make the most amount of money, with the least amount of effort" thinking and as long as we keep buying this way of thinking won't change.
EA funds the studios with money quantities they wouldn't otherwise have. EA isn't bad per say, it's not black and white. And they don't mean to purposely make bad games just as an excuse to shut down studios they bought themselves. It's just bad management and tone deaf business decisions based solely on profit reports from all over the industry. The execs don't play games...that's the first problem, and they don't know who is playing them either, or why they are playing them.
People also need to realize that...the profits that they have from the sims don't just go into the sims....they allocate their profits as they see fit throughout all their IP's. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. A few years ago it was reported that a lot of the profits coming from the sims 4 were being put into the making of Battlefield....
But hey, at least they put TS4 on sale...a lot.
EA funds the studios with money quantities they wouldn't otherwise have. EA isn't bad per say, it's not black and white. And they don't mean to purposely make bad games just as an excuse to shut down studios they bought themselves. It's just bad management and tone deaf business decisions based solely on profit reports. The execs don't play games...that's the first problem, and they don't know who is playing them either, or why they are playing them.
@Sigzy05 exactly, there are a lot of benefits that come with merging with EA. I just didn't want to get into it because it would be too long. But that was also the reason why Maxis joined EA. They wanted to make a bigger budget SimCity and work on new projects too.
EA is not bad but there is a huge list of studios acquired by EA that ended up shutting down in short amounts of time. EA does have that reputation unfortunately. We don't know what's true and what's not but I think some of their games speak for themselves.
Look. I don't care if they reuse animations here and there when sims are doing the same types of activities. Such as kicking around a soccer ball, eating food, going toilet, talking, etc.
But when they reuse animations for things that should bring new gameplay elements into the game it just feels cheap, rushed, and like they really do not care. They have absolutely no excuse to reuse animations since the amount of items in their EP's are laughable compared to TS3 and TS3 did not reuse as many animations as this game does.
EA funds the studios with money quantities they wouldn't otherwise have. EA isn't bad per say, it's not black and white. And they don't mean to purposely make bad games just as an excuse to shut down studios they bought themselves. It's just bad management and tone deaf business decisions based solely on profit reports. The execs don't play games...that's the first problem, and they don't know who is playing them either, or why they are playing them.
@Sigzy05 exactly, there are a lot of benefits that come with merging with EA. I just didn't want to get into it because it would be too long. But that was also the reason why Maxis joined EA. They wanted to make a bigger budget SimCity and work on new projects too.
EA is not bad but there is a huge list of studios acquired by EA that ended up shutting down in short amounts of time. EA does have that reputation unfortunately. We don't know what's true and what's not but I think some of their games speak for themselves.
I just wish people would comprehend this though, because there's a lot of hate being targeted at the gurus and they don't really control the prices of their packs or how much budget they get to develop their features. Even with all of the creative freedom, they have to make certain decisions based on their apparent small budget limitations not to mention game developing is much more expensive nowadays than what it was when TS3 came out.
I've never been one to blame EA for Maxis' bad decisions. (In my opinion). It's not the CEO of EA who tells Maxis to make a talking toilet. Nor to tell Maxis to make another ball cap. But just like an old episode of South Park, EA is famous for changing the theme of a game genre, and then marketing that changing a studios' focus from one type of game into another. Cartman and his friends had made a game they took to EA producers (on the show) and by the time they left that office the producer (EA) had changed everything about what type of game it would be.
Will Wright didn't go to EA with the idea of The Sims as we know it, but with a different type game and EA changed that idea into what we see today. It's actually good they did in my opinion. Mr. Wright's idea was actually for a character (a Sim) to vote on whether what the player had done with a building was good enough (there is a little FB gameor over on BIg Fish, that does this and is very successful a few years ago) for the 'Sim'. I'm glad they changed that idea into a more robust single player, life simulator instead of a building and critiquing game which included a pixeled person to judge. In this case changing the developer's idea (Wright's) was worth it for both customer and EA/Maxis.
I can't remember the company nor the name of the game that has 'borrowed' the original idea I know to be very much like Mr. Wright's idea, but it has many sequels to it. You see a kitchen some 'Sims' come and list what they are interested in etc. The player designs the 'room' by adding and picking out particular colors, appliances, placement etc. Then it is judged by that 'character'. If you pass you get a chance at other 'customers' who ask for particular things for different rooms etc. That was more of what type of idea Will Wright had.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
I've never been one to blame EA for Maxis' bad decisions. (In my opinion). It's not the CEO of EA who tells Maxis to make a talking toilet. Nor to tell Maxis to make another ball cap. But just like an old episode of South Park, EA is famous for changing the theme of a game genre, and then marketing that changing a studios' focus from one type of game into another. Cartman and his friends had made a game they took to EA producers (on the show) and by the time they left that office the producer (EA) had changed everything about what type of game it would be.
Will Wright didn't go to EA with the idea of The Sims as we know it, but with a different type game and EA changed that idea into what we see today. It's actually good they did in my opinion. Mr. Wright's idea was actually for a character (a Sim) to vote on whether what the player had done with a building was good enough (there is a little FB game that does this and is very successful a few years ago) for the 'Sim'. I'm glad they changed that idea into a more robust single player, life simulator instead of a building and critiquing game which included a pixeled person to judge. In this case changing the developer's idea (Wright's) was worth it for both customer and EA/Maxis.
I can't remember the company nor the name of the game that has 'borrowed' the original idea I know to be very much like Mr. Wright's idea, but it has many sequels to it. You see a kitchen some 'Sims' come and list what they are interested in etc. The player designs the 'room' by adding and picking out particular colors, appliances, placement etc. Then it is judged by that 'character'. If you pass you get a chance at other 'customers' who ask for particular things for different rooms etc. That was more of what type of idea Will Wright had.
@Cinebar Okay I kind of need evidence before crediting the idea of Sims being the way they are on EA. First of all Will Wright wanted to create a building simulator after losing his home to a fire and wanting to recreate a virtual version of his home. While developing that idea he, alongside with his team, came up with the idea you mentioned of a Sim walking in the built house and judging it or reacting to it. After doing that the Maxis team found out that they were having a lot more fun developing these characters and watching their reactions that they went full out and developed a dollhouse simulator.
EA executives did not like The Sims at first! They didn't want to invest in the project because they thought the game would not sell in an industry full of shooters and violent games targeted at boys when the audience for a "dollhouse simulator" as they called it were little girls.
Also Maxis was already part of EA when they started developing the Sims.
I've never been one to blame EA for Maxis' bad decisions. (In my opinion). It's not the CEO of EA who tells Maxis to make a talking toilet. Nor to tell Maxis to make another ball cap. But just like an old episode of South Park, EA is famous for changing the theme of a game genre, and then marketing that changing a studios' focus from one type of game into another. Cartman and his friends had made a game they took to EA producers (on the show) and by the time they left that office the producer (EA) had changed everything about what type of game it would be.
Will Wright didn't go to EA with the idea of The Sims as we know it, but with a different type game and EA changed that idea into what we see today. It's actually good they did in my opinion. Mr. Wright's idea was actually for a character (a Sim) to vote on whether what the player had done with a building was good enough (there is a little FB game that does this and is very successful a few years ago) for the 'Sim'. I'm glad they changed that idea into a more robust single player, life simulator instead of a building and critiquing game which included a pixeled person to judge. In this case changing the developer's idea (Wright's) was worth it for both customer and EA/Maxis.
I can't remember the company nor the name of the game that has 'borrowed' the original idea I know to be very much like Mr. Wright's idea, but it has many sequels to it. You see a kitchen some 'Sims' come and list what they are interested in etc. The player designs the 'room' by adding and picking out particular colors, appliances, placement etc. Then it is judged by that 'character'. If you pass you get a chance at other 'customers' who ask for particular things for different rooms etc. That was more of what type of idea Will Wright had.
@Cinebar Okay I kind of need evidence before crediting the idea of Sims being the way they are on EA. First of all Will Wright wanted to create a building simulator after losing his home to a fire and wanting to recreate a virtual version of his home. While developing that idea he, alongside with his team, came up with the idea you mentioned of a Sim walking in the built house and judging it or reacting to it. After doing that the Maxis team found out that they were having a lot more fun developing these characters and watching their reactions that they went full out and developed a dollhouse simulator.
EA executives did not like The Sims at first! They didn't want to invest in the project because they thought the game would not sell in an industry full of shooters and violent games targeted at boys when the audience for a "dollhouse simulator" as they called it were little girls.
Also Maxis was already part of EA when they started developing the Sims.
I think we're getting a little off-topic here.
It is as I said. And I said EA didn't like the idea. But how it worked is more or less how I stated it. On topic, in fairness to reused animations TS2 reuses many animations, too. Such as when they tell a joke or when they talk/chat it's reused in many different talking situations. Both those animations. After sixteen years, I'm sort of tired of seeing the same animations reused in that game, too. The problem is no one expected me to know those animations like the back of my hand because I continued to play sixteen years later. TS4 is suffering the same problem, it's six years later, things have grown stale (the same animatons etc.) and time to move on to build a new game with new animations that seem more human, in my opinion, or this game will also suffer from more and more backlash. Knowing when to let go of a cash cow (TS3) was actually a good idea and letting go of TS2 (EA/Maxis) was a good idea before the natives revolt and TS4's reputation falls so low no one will play it three or four years a from now. Leave on a higher note then it can still be sold for many more years just like TS3. ETA: Dragging out TS4 is only hurting it's reputation. What they should want to do is introduce a new game, and sell TS4 along side it just like they did TS3. Ka ching.
Negogiations of what type of game EA will invest in doesn't happen in the developer office but between EA and the developer of the game in the EA headquarters (of the past) Of course EA had a hand in what type of game Wright's unwanted idea would become. It's good they hated the first idea.
Post edited by Cinebar on
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
It is as I said. And I said EA didn't like the idea. But how it worked is more or less how I stated it. On topic, in fairness to reused animations TS2 reuses many animations, too.
I was not there so I can just assume the creator of The Sims came up with the idea but hey if you have the proof it was EA then stick to that I guess.
Such as when they tell a joke or when they talk/chat it's reused in many different talking situations. Both those animations. After sixteen years, I'm sort of tired of seeing the same animations reused in that game, too. The problem is no one expected me to know those animations like the back of my hand because I continued to play sixteen years later. TS4 is suffering the same problem, it's six years later, things have grown stale (the same animatons etc.) and time to move on to build a new game with new animations that seem more human, in my opinion, or this game will also suffer from more and more backlash. Knowing when to let go of a cash cow (TS3) was actually a good idea and letting go of TS2 (EA/Maxis) was a good idea before the natives revolt and TS4's reputation falls so low no one will play it three or four years a from now. Leave on a higher note then it can still be sold for many more years just like TS3.
@Cinebar yeah I don't think the problem is the reusing of animations 'cause every game has that. As people previously on this thread meantioned it is the amount that is bothering us, especially when a 40 dollar game has a trailer that shows multiple reused animations.
It is as I said. And I said EA didn't like the idea. But how it worked is more or less how I stated it. On topic, in fairness to reused animations TS2 reuses many animations, too.
I was not there so I can just assume the creator of The Sims came up with the idea but hey if you have the proof it was EA then stick to that I guess.
Such as when they tell a joke or when they talk/chat it's reused in many different talking situations. Both those animations. After sixteen years, I'm sort of tired of seeing the same animations reused in that game, too. The problem is no one expected me to know those animations like the back of my hand because I continued to play sixteen years later. TS4 is suffering the same problem, it's six years later, things have grown stale (the same animatons etc.) and time to move on to build a new game with new animations that seem more human, in my opinion, or this game will also suffer from more and more backlash. Knowing when to let go of a cash cow (TS3) was actually a good idea and letting go of TS2 (EA/Maxis) was a good idea before the natives revolt and TS4's reputation falls so low no one will play it three or four years a from now. Leave on a higher note then it can still be sold for many more years just like TS3.
@Cinebar yeah I don't think the problem is the reusing of animations 'cause every game has that. As people previously on this thread meantioned it is the amount that is bothering us, especially when a 40 dollar game has a trailer that shows multiple reused animations.
I agree. There is no point (to players) in creating an object such as a podium and then just reskin that object into something else and allow the same animation to be the very same for both objects. Stand here, do this the very same way as the podium etc. I wouldn't even bother to download custom content that kept reusing the same animation or bhav. Or building another treadmill and making me buy a new color and style..no. ETA: Hot tub, maybe. lol Because buildmode should have things in it that are similar. Such as columns change the style of architecture. But reused animations for a new interaction or feeling and or reflection etc. no.
"Games Are Not The Place To Tell Stories, Games Are Meant To Let People Tell Their Own Stories"...Will Wright.
I would suggest that all of you people complaining about reusing animations, make your own game. And see how easy it is to make it work with every other mechanic in the game.
It’s not about laziness, if you have a code that is working, why spend time and resources on writing new code just for the visuals when you can spend that time on writing code for new gameplay?
It’s their game. If you don’t like it. Don’t buy it.
I would suggest that all of you people complaining about reusing animations, make your own game. And see how easy it is to make it work with every other mechanic in the game.
It’s not about laziness, if you have a code that is working, why spend time and resources on writing new code just for the visuals when you can spend that time on writing code for new gameplay?
It’s their game. If you don’t like it. Don’t buy it.
Again with these comments "don't like it don't buy it." I'm so tired of this...
No, they are video game developers it IS THEIR JOB! I am not gonna cut them slack, they are in this business, now they need to act like it.
Like someone said earlier, I don't mind reused objects with some mundane things, but when it's on new objects and NEW gameplay, it looks extremely cheap and makes it look like you like taking the easy way out.
And if they like doing this, perhaps video games isn't the right job to be in....
Comments
It's only valid criticism, if you hated sims 3 for recycling all their animations from sims 2.
While EA probably lets the developers use a lot of the in-house development tools at home, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of it is simply not allowed to be taken off the premises, maybe including animation programs etc. Maybe not everything, but enough that it's limited what the developers can and can't do in this pack.
It's not an ideal situation, but it's something I can forgive.
For me, my problem with this pack is that the theme at large is recycled from Island Living--and that's less forgivable, as that would have been nailed down several months before lockdown even started.
I agree. I think in most cases it is fine to reuse animations when they make sense. However, there are some things that reusing, or not reusing well, only makes them seem awkward.
These are some of the glaring ones that’s from the top of my head, but I hope I’ve made my point clear for the dev team to understand.
Spot on.
@simfriend1968 I play the piano too and I think the creepy playing is for them to find out, like they could exaggerate the movement of the arms for example. Remember this is only an example of how they could change things up and not an actual complaint about the piano animation. The thread is about the animations in Eco lifestyle and the piano thing is only an example on how to make things more interesting sometimes.
In order to get new gameplay you need new animations. I bet the reasons why we haven‘t gotten cars and horses yet is because there are no animations in their catalogue they can reuse. They see the bee box with all its animations from Seasons and say „hmm, how can we can sell this as something new? Got it. Let‘s just recolor the object, change the bees into worms, change some text files and sell it as an insect farm.“. Or „How can we sell the weeding machine from Seasons as something new? Got it. Let‘s say to our customers that it sucks in pollution“. That‘s not new gameplay. That‘s just slapping a $40 price tag on old features that we‘ve already payed $40 for. They‘re double charging us.
Count me in!
Laundry and knitting winning?!
HOW?!
Edit: I don't mind animations being reused, but if your trailers for a €40 pack are full of them... 🤔
Looking at this video makes me realize that TS2 sims animations had a more theatrical exaggeration to them, more dramatic, and because of this they managed to convey more feelings than the animations used for TS4 which are on average much longer but more subtle at expressing emotions.
The problem with TS4 is that we neither get enough new animations nor enough new content to justify the absurdly high asking price. Have you ever played TS3? They reused animations too but they made it up by giving us celebrities + penthouses + vampires in one pack or a tropical island world + underwater world + mermaids + houseboats + resorts in one pack. Meanwhile TS4 after six years still claims that bunk beds are just too expensive and difficult to make.
That excuse comes up all the time nowadays, things are expensive or difficult to make, etc. It makes me wonder why their budget was so severely reduced that they need to prioritize on basic gameplay elements. Do they spend too much on hiring external animation vendors or managing them? What is eating their resources that is not visible in gamepay?
Exactly that!. Of course none of us have an issue with using the same animations in little things we don't notice anyway or in things where it makes sense (eating, drinking etc) but 🐸🐸🐸🐸 using the same animations in major features? NO thanks.
@crocobaura many Simmers don't know that and even I found out just a while ago.
So EA and the teams developing the games are kind of a seperate thing. We've all noticed the Maxis logo popping up in many Sims games. But did you ever wonder "Who makes Sims games? EA or Maxis?" Well there is a rather complicated explanation on that but I'll try to simplify it.
Studios like Maxis, Bioware etc. began as independent companies developing games that had nothing to do with EA. Maxis was founded by Will Wright (creator of The Sims) and once SimCity games and other Maxis games started selling EA wanted to acquire Maxis Studios. Maxis Studios accepted the offer (for reasons too compicated for this post) and became part of EA. EA does this with several independent and indie studios in order to profit from their games.
However many of the studios EA acquires end up shutting down (including Maxis, that shut down in 2015). The reason for that is the way EA chooses to manage these studios. EA decides how many resources and time a studio or a team is allowed to have in order to develop their game. Since EA is the big boss they often don't allow the studios to use too much money or time on a game which leads to the team rushing out a half finished game that ends up flopping and then EA uses the low sales as an excuse to shut down the studio (while still owning the rights to the studio's games ex. SimCity, Sims etc.)
What do I want to say with that? I want to say that I am almost certain that the Sims team works harder than we think, eventhough they also make mistakes sometimes. I think the biggest issue here is EA's management that chooses not to provide the team with more money and give them more time for the game. So the Sims team often can't do anything other than use cost-efficient and time-saving ways to develop those packs.
The Sims is a game that to this day sells a lot , eventhough EA's management has the "make the most amount of money, with the least amount of effort" thinking and as long as we keep buying this way of thinking won't change.
EA funds the studios with money quantities they wouldn't otherwise have. EA isn't bad per say, it's not black and white. And they don't mean to purposely make bad games just as an excuse to shut down studios they bought themselves. It's just bad management and tone deaf business decisions based solely on profit reports from all over the industry. The execs don't play games...that's the first problem, and they don't know who is playing them either, or why they are playing them.
People also need to realize that...the profits that they have from the sims don't just go into the sims....they allocate their profits as they see fit throughout all their IP's. Sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. A few years ago it was reported that a lot of the profits coming from the sims 4 were being put into the making of Battlefield....
But hey, at least they put TS4 on sale...a lot.
@Sigzy05 exactly, there are a lot of benefits that come with merging with EA. I just didn't want to get into it because it would be too long. But that was also the reason why Maxis joined EA. They wanted to make a bigger budget SimCity and work on new projects too.
EA is not bad but there is a huge list of studios acquired by EA that ended up shutting down in short amounts of time. EA does have that reputation unfortunately. We don't know what's true and what's not but I think some of their games speak for themselves.
But when they reuse animations for things that should bring new gameplay elements into the game it just feels cheap, rushed, and like they really do not care. They have absolutely no excuse to reuse animations since the amount of items in their EP's are laughable compared to TS3 and TS3 did not reuse as many animations as this game does.
I just wish people would comprehend this though, because there's a lot of hate being targeted at the gurus and they don't really control the prices of their packs or how much budget they get to develop their features. Even with all of the creative freedom, they have to make certain decisions based on their apparent small budget limitations not to mention game developing is much more expensive nowadays than what it was when TS3 came out.
Will Wright didn't go to EA with the idea of The Sims as we know it, but with a different type game and EA changed that idea into what we see today. It's actually good they did in my opinion. Mr. Wright's idea was actually for a character (a Sim) to vote on whether what the player had done with a building was good enough (there is a little FB gameor over on BIg Fish, that does this and is very successful a few years ago) for the 'Sim'. I'm glad they changed that idea into a more robust single player, life simulator instead of a building and critiquing game which included a pixeled person to judge. In this case changing the developer's idea (Wright's) was worth it for both customer and EA/Maxis.
I can't remember the company nor the name of the game that has 'borrowed' the original idea I know to be very much like Mr. Wright's idea, but it has many sequels to it. You see a kitchen some 'Sims' come and list what they are interested in etc. The player designs the 'room' by adding and picking out particular colors, appliances, placement etc. Then it is judged by that 'character'. If you pass you get a chance at other 'customers' who ask for particular things for different rooms etc. That was more of what type of idea Will Wright had.
@Cinebar Okay I kind of need evidence before crediting the idea of Sims being the way they are on EA. First of all Will Wright wanted to create a building simulator after losing his home to a fire and wanting to recreate a virtual version of his home. While developing that idea he, alongside with his team, came up with the idea you mentioned of a Sim walking in the built house and judging it or reacting to it. After doing that the Maxis team found out that they were having a lot more fun developing these characters and watching their reactions that they went full out and developed a dollhouse simulator.
EA executives did not like The Sims at first! They didn't want to invest in the project because they thought the game would not sell in an industry full of shooters and violent games targeted at boys when the audience for a "dollhouse simulator" as they called it were little girls.
Also Maxis was already part of EA when they started developing the Sims.
I think we're getting a little off-topic here.
It is as I said. And I said EA didn't like the idea. But how it worked is more or less how I stated it. On topic, in fairness to reused animations TS2 reuses many animations, too. Such as when they tell a joke or when they talk/chat it's reused in many different talking situations. Both those animations. After sixteen years, I'm sort of tired of seeing the same animations reused in that game, too. The problem is no one expected me to know those animations like the back of my hand because I continued to play sixteen years later. TS4 is suffering the same problem, it's six years later, things have grown stale (the same animatons etc.) and time to move on to build a new game with new animations that seem more human, in my opinion, or this game will also suffer from more and more backlash. Knowing when to let go of a cash cow (TS3) was actually a good idea and letting go of TS2 (EA/Maxis) was a good idea before the natives revolt and TS4's reputation falls so low no one will play it three or four years a from now. Leave on a higher note then it can still be sold for many more years just like TS3. ETA: Dragging out TS4 is only hurting it's reputation. What they should want to do is introduce a new game, and sell TS4 along side it just like they did TS3. Ka ching.
Negogiations of what type of game EA will invest in doesn't happen in the developer office but between EA and the developer of the game in the EA headquarters (of the past) Of course EA had a hand in what type of game Wright's unwanted idea would become. It's good they hated the first idea.
I was not there so I can just assume the creator of The Sims came up with the idea but hey if you have the proof it was EA then stick to that I guess.
@Cinebar yeah I don't think the problem is the reusing of animations 'cause every game has that. As people previously on this thread meantioned it is the amount that is bothering us, especially when a 40 dollar game has a trailer that shows multiple reused animations.
I agree. There is no point (to players) in creating an object such as a podium and then just reskin that object into something else and allow the same animation to be the very same for both objects. Stand here, do this the very same way as the podium etc. I wouldn't even bother to download custom content that kept reusing the same animation or bhav. Or building another treadmill and making me buy a new color and style..no. ETA: Hot tub, maybe. lol Because buildmode should have things in it that are similar. Such as columns change the style of architecture. But reused animations for a new interaction or feeling and or reflection etc. no.
It’s not about laziness, if you have a code that is working, why spend time and resources on writing new code just for the visuals when you can spend that time on writing code for new gameplay?
It’s their game. If you don’t like it. Don’t buy it.
Again with these comments "don't like it don't buy it." I'm so tired of this...
No, they are video game developers it IS THEIR JOB! I am not gonna cut them slack, they are in this business, now they need to act like it.
Like someone said earlier, I don't mind reused objects with some mundane things, but when it's on new objects and NEW gameplay, it looks extremely cheap and makes it look like you like taking the easy way out.
And if they like doing this, perhaps video games isn't the right job to be in....