Oh yeah for certain! Even Conan Exiles has limited sandbox qualities. I agree with you on that, there is a fine line between reality and fantasy. From a writer's perspective, when you as the writer/creator cross that line from fantasy to reality the line becomes blurred. And then you can't tell the difference between what is real and what is fantasy. So all in all, a writer or dev of a video game must never cross that line. If you do cross that line even though you meant it to be fantasy. People are going to see that and think that this is real when it's actually meant to be fantasy.
I think that used to be the beauty with the Sims is that line was blurred. There was a mix of both. Now packs are neither fantasy or realistic, but more Kim Kardashian direction like the leads said the game was focused on.
"Join KIM KARDASHIAN on a red carpet adventure in Kim Kardashian: Hollywood! Create your own aspiring celebrity and rise to fame and fortune!
Dress up in designer fashions, give yourself a makeover and live your best Hollywood life! Get famous and become an A-list actor, cover model, entrepreneur and more. Create your story and live the virtual life of your dreams. Find romance, and date and dump celebrities at the best parties and hottest clubs! Meet and become friends with Kim Kardashian in this interactive story adventure!"
Ok, i'm going to play devil's advocate here, because, well, why not lol?
First of all, to those claiming that the sims is..... "just a game".... need to revisit all the politics the community brings into the sims world about race, gender equality, cultural norms, etc. If the sims is "just a game", then we need to stop working so hard to have the sims world a perfect, and major representative of our very own lives. The sims team has become politically correct because we keep bringing our daily issues into the sims game with us. We should be checking our dramas at the door so we all "can" be playing.... just a game.
If we, as a (sims) community can applaud the decision of updating skin tones in respect to African American people, and, applaud the decision of adding the option for transgender sims in respect to the LGBTQ community, then how is it we, as a community can have a ranting issue with the decision to better respect sexual consent and the way sexual activity is achieved in the sims game? ......
..... and that's not even addressing the bigger picture. How is it ok, that the sims, a major platform rated "teen", can promote to such an extent sexual activity to its audience. Is everyone here ok with the sims promoting sex to teens? But that's not today's topic......
...... The topic here is about sexual consent. Which to me, seems to be a bit of a redundant argument. How can we argue sexual consent in a game that doesn't allow for consensual awareness or abilities of any form.... whether it be about what they wear, eat, have a relationship with, and.... also sexual activity.
So what exactly is the argument here? Are we saying that we want our sims to be more autonomous? More free thinking? To have, and be aware of, their morals, preferences, life goals?
On the surface it can be argued that the only sims we should be able to control is ... our own. That "one" sim we create to represent ourself in the game. We control that sim. Every other sim should control themselves. I have zero control over my neighbors in real life, so why is it I have so much control over my neighbors in the sims? That's about the only way (off the top of my head) that would allow sims to be consensual. Or open the door to such.
Beneath that surface argument is.... we as sims players would lose our control of the game. We'd have world of sim characters running around doing whatever they wanted whether we like it or not. Not only would that pretty much destroy gameplay for storytellers, but the whole sandbox idea would go completely out the window.
However, as is, the sims game is being torn apart by our daily lives. If the sims game is ever going to be fairly credited as being "just a game", then at some point we have to stop making it a platform for race, gender equality, and..... sexual abuse issues.
Ok, i'm going to play devil's advocate here, because, well, why not lol?
First of all, to those claiming that the sims is..... "just a game".... need to revisit all the politics the community brings into the sims world about race, gender equality, cultural norms, etc. If the sims is "just a game", then we need to stop working so hard to have the sims world a perfect, and major representative of our very own lives. The sims team has become politically correct because we keep bringing our daily issues into the sims game with us. We should be checking our dramas at the door so we all "can" be playing.... just a game.
If we, as a (sims) community can applaud the decision of updating skin tones in respect to African American people, and, applaud the decision of adding the option for transgender sims in respect to the LGBTQ community, then how is it we, as a community can have a ranting issue with the decision to better respect sexual consent and the way sexual activity is achieved in the sims game? ......
..... and that's not even addressing the bigger picture. How is it ok, that the sims, a major platform rated "teen", can promote to such an extent sexual activity to its audience. Is everyone here ok with the sims promoting sex to teens? But that's not today's topic......
...... The topic here is about sexual consent. Which to me, seems to be a bit of a redundant argument. How can we argue sexual consent in a game that doesn't allow for consensual awareness or abilities of any form.... whether it be about what they wear, eat, have a relationship with, and.... also sexual activity.
So what exactly is the argument here? Are we saying that we want our sims to be more autonomous? More free thinking? To have, and be aware of, their morals, preferences, life goals?
On the surface it can be argued that the only sims we should be able to control is ... our own. That "one" sim we create to represent ourself in the game. We control that sim. Every other sim should control themselves. I have zero control over my neighbors in real life, so why is it I have so much control over my neighbors in the sims? That's about the only way (off the top of my head) that would allow sims to be consensual. Or open the door to such.
Beneath that surface argument is.... we as sims players would lose our control of the game. We'd have world of sim characters running around doing whatever they wanted whether we like it or not. Not only would that pretty much destroy gameplay for storytellers, but the whole sandbox idea would go completely out the window.
However, as is, the sims game is being torn apart by our daily lives. If the sims game is ever going to be fairly credited as being "just a game", then at some point we have to stop making it a platform for race, gender equality, and..... sexual abuse issues.
Just saying.
Sims is a god game. You control everything, including reproduction. Unless you're using mods, there is absolutely no consent in the game beyond what the player wants. And I want a way for all sims to have a baby without being constrained by a trait. Sometimes people who don't like kids have a change of heart and sometimes they make stupid mistakes. Either way, it is up to the player to decide. And dazed doesn't mean drunk. Unless they're drunk when they're sick, drunk when they're tired, drunk when they have a bad day at school because, yeah, kids also get dazed.
Isn't the idea of The Sims is that they do have individual personalities? Often ones you have given them in the first place. Would be boring if they werev all the same. Unless you are a control freak ...
Do we want a sims world that fairly represents us in all diversity, including race, sexual preference, cultural norms? ..... a world that protects us from predatory issues such a domestic and sexual abuse, as well as teaches against it?.......
Or.... do we want ..... just a game.
Because in my opinion, we can't have both.
To argue tooth and nail that skin tones should be updated to better represent African American people.... fair enough. I'm on board with that. But don't later start nic-picking which social issues the sims gets to be used as a platform for..... complaining when the topic becomes about sexual consent/abuse. Either we are using the sims game as a platform for our very own daily issues, or we're not.
I would prefer to have the sims be "just a game" full of options I can freely use or not use without having to worry about who might be offended by my game despite them never going to have to see, or experience any of it.
But unfortunately, there are simmers in our community that feel differently. That too is fair enough. But we can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't treat the sims like a platform for racial inequality one minute, then argue that next minute that the argument of sexual abuse doesn't belong in the sims because .... its just a game.
No... I'm not saying the sims need to be a tool for political agendas. I'm saying the sims "is" a platform for political agendas because we the community keep bringing race, gender equality, cultural norms, and now sexual consent/abuse into the game.
.
@muzickmage Sorry but am I not understanding this situation correctly? The problem with the Sims that hate children was that the "try for baby" interaction had a higher success rate if dazed. That means they would neglect to use protection after having a few drinks.
The "woohoo" interaction was left untouched though and works like every other sim. I don't undestand what people mean when they say "consent" and "abuse".
The whole thing is about whether a sim decides to use protection or not. Not if the sim did consent about woohooing. The woohoo has the same success rate anyway!
No... I'm not saying the sims need to be a tool for political agendas. I'm saying the sims "is" a platform for political agendas because we the community keep bringing race, gender equality, cultural norms, and now sexual consent/abuse into the game.
.
@muzickmage Sorry but am I not understanding this situation correctly? The problem with the Sims that hate children was that the "try for baby" interaction had a higher success rate if dazed. That means they would neglect to use protection after having a few drinks.
The "woohoo" interaction was left untouched though and works like every other sim. I don't undestand what people mean when they say "consent" and "abuse".
The whole thing is about whether a sim decides to use protection or not. Not if the sim did consent about woohooing. The woohoo has the same success rate anyway!
I'm a bit confused to. Reading through the comments here on this thread, I seen a couple references to the whole thing being about consent/abuse. Somehow it all got upgraded to that by a few people or so. I'm guessing for them thats what this is all about, or has come to be about. I have no idea.
Maybe i'm reading it all wrong and addressing the wrong opinions lol.
No... I'm not saying the sims need to be a tool for political agendas. I'm saying the sims "is" a platform for political agendas because we the community keep bringing race, gender equality, cultural norms, and now sexual consent/abuse into the game.
.
@muzickmage Sorry but am I not understanding this situation correctly? The problem with the Sims that hate children was that the "try for baby" interaction had a higher success rate if dazed. That means they would neglect to use protection after having a few drinks.
The "woohoo" interaction was left untouched though and works like every other sim. I don't undestand what people mean when they say "consent" and "abuse".
The whole thing is about whether a sim decides to use protection or not. Not if the sim did consent about woohooing. The woohoo has the same success rate anyway!
I'm a bit confused to. Reading through the comments here on this thread, I seen a couple references to the whole thing being about consent/abuse. Somehow it all got upgraded to that by a few people or so. I'm guessing for them thats what this is all about, or has come to be about. I have no idea.
Maybe i'm reading it all wrong and addressing the wrong opinions lol.
The whole thing started with the following line from the patch notes: Asking a Hates Children Sim to "Try for Baby" has no chance of success unless the sim is Dazed. a GC posted on twitter: Consent is important. Do better. And the sims twitter responded that they were right and that they would do better and remove it from the game.
The OP, like many others felt again that things that could be used for drama and creating fun stories in this game gets nerfed immediately by people who want the sims to be a happy safe space and something that should correctly represent everything without offending anyone.
No... I'm not saying the sims need to be a tool for political agendas. I'm saying the sims "is" a platform for political agendas because we the community keep bringing race, gender equality, cultural norms, and now sexual consent/abuse into the game.
.
@muzickmage Sorry but am I not understanding this situation correctly? The problem with the Sims that hate children was that the "try for baby" interaction had a higher success rate if dazed. That means they would neglect to use protection after having a few drinks.
The "woohoo" interaction was left untouched though and works like every other sim. I don't undestand what people mean when they say "consent" and "abuse".
The whole thing is about whether a sim decides to use protection or not. Not if the sim did consent about woohooing. The woohoo has the same success rate anyway!
I'm a bit confused to. Reading through the comments here on this thread, I seen a couple references to the whole thing being about consent/abuse. Somehow it all got upgraded to that by a few people or so. I'm guessing for them thats what this is all about, or has come to be about. I have no idea.
Maybe i'm reading it all wrong and addressing the wrong opinions lol.
The whole thing started with the following line from the patch notes: Asking a Hates Children Sim to "Try for Baby" has no chance of success unless the sim is Dazed. a GC posted on twitter: Consent is important. Do better. And the sims twitter responded that they were right and that they would do better and remove it from the game.
The OP, like many others felt again that things that could be used for drama and creating fun stories in this game gets nerfed immediately by people who want the sims to be a happy safe space and something that should correctly represent everything without offending anyone.
So the idea of "consent", or lack of, came from the initial argument against this particular game feature. Ok understood. I don't have twitter so i'm relying no what I read here on the forum. (trying to keep up lol)
My understanding of the issue of "consent/abuse" talked about in this scenario is... that a sim who is "dazed" i.e. drunk, is unable to give informed consent to either woohoo or indeed to get pregnant. Its ridiculous because Sims don't have free will.
No... I'm not saying the sims need to be a tool for political agendas. I'm saying the sims "is" a platform for political agendas because we the community keep bringing race, gender equality, cultural norms, and now sexual consent/abuse into the game.
.
@muzickmage Sorry but am I not understanding this situation correctly? The problem with the Sims that hate children was that the "try for baby" interaction had a higher success rate if dazed. That means they would neglect to use protection after having a few drinks.
The "woohoo" interaction was left untouched though and works like every other sim. I don't undestand what people mean when they say "consent" and "abuse".
The whole thing is about whether a sim decides to use protection or not. Not if the sim did consent about woohooing. The woohoo has the same success rate anyway!
I'm a bit confused to. Reading through the comments here on this thread, I seen a couple references to the whole thing being about consent/abuse. Somehow it all got upgraded to that by a few people or so. I'm guessing for them thats what this is all about, or has come to be about. I have no idea.
Maybe i'm reading it all wrong and addressing the wrong opinions lol.
The whole thing started with the following line from the patch notes: Asking a Hates Children Sim to "Try for Baby" has no chance of success unless the sim is Dazed. a GC posted on twitter: Consent is important. Do better. And the sims twitter responded that they were right and that they would do better and remove it from the game.
The OP, like many others felt again that things that could be used for drama and creating fun stories in this game gets nerfed immediately by people who want the sims to be a happy safe space and something that should correctly represent everything without offending anyone.
I agree that it feels like it was nerfed unnecessarily because some people took the "dazed" aspects as a person being black-out drunk/so passed out that they're not conscious to consent. This is a virtual game, not reality. Dazed does not equal drunk in the Sims. I don't know if at any point your sim can be so drunk that they pass out and are unable to respond/move.
If it makes people uncomfortable, they could choose to NEVER play that way. Turn autonomy off, monitor your sims, never have them dazed, and never have a dazed sim woohoo or try for baby with anyone. It's that simple. I rarely play with "Hates Children" sims because they legit are a struggle for any sort of legacy/family oriented gameplay. This dazed option could have helped us switch it up in terms of game play, story-telling, or just getting around a NPC that your sim falls in love with but doesn't want to have kids because of this trait that they were randomly assigned.
Let's not assign morals & values to a rated-T virtual game where consent and abuse cannot really occur.
Wait. They're removing the Hates Children trait? My family oriented sim married a sim that hates children because I was hoping for some drama. Granted, I never really got any because the traits don't work very well, but I don't like that this game is being stripped of anything. The game already kind of sucks as a life simulator, and it will only get worse if people keep asking for stuff to be removed. The game already lacks drama! The emotions don't work right and can be easily manipulated. You can literally play the game as a perfect, always happy place (which I personally find boring).
As for the topic of consent, Sims literally have to accept woohoo. Sims that are unhappy won't go through with the command and will tell you no. Your sims can also be rejected by other sims. That is consent. I don't understand the argument. The dazed emotion often pops up when sims are deliriously happy. The only other time I've seen it is when my sim got hit in the face with a soccer ball. Dazed doesn't mean drunk or high. This type of nitpicking and mental gymnastics will destroy this game. If the issue is renaming the emotion then they can rename the emotion. Why are we over complicating everything? As a someone who was assaulted as a teen, I don't really appreciate this discussion or the assumptions people are making. All I know is I feel angry, and I'm starting to remember why I left the forums after Sims 3 came out.
Edit: I just want people to know that I'm not mad at anyone in this thread. I'm angry about the Twitter problem, and it reminded me of why I left the forums back when that behavior was a problem here. I'm also angry that there are people who seem set on destroying this game by trying to protect everyone. Some of us do not want or need their protection.
No... I'm not saying the sims need to be a tool for political agendas. I'm saying the sims "is" a platform for political agendas because we the community keep bringing race, gender equality, cultural norms, and now sexual consent/abuse into the game.
.
@muzickmage Sorry but am I not understanding this situation correctly? The problem with the Sims that hate children was that the "try for baby" interaction had a higher success rate if dazed. That means they would neglect to use protection after having a few drinks.
The "woohoo" interaction was left untouched though and works like every other sim. I don't undestand what people mean when they say "consent" and "abuse".
The whole thing is about whether a sim decides to use protection or not. Not if the sim did consent about woohooing. The woohoo has the same success rate anyway!
I'm a bit confused to. Reading through the comments here on this thread, I seen a couple references to the whole thing being about consent/abuse. Somehow it all got upgraded to that by a few people or so. I'm guessing for them thats what this is all about, or has come to be about. I have no idea.
Maybe i'm reading it all wrong and addressing the wrong opinions lol.
The whole thing started with the following line from the patch notes: Asking a Hates Children Sim to "Try for Baby" has no chance of success unless the sim is Dazed. a GC posted on twitter: Consent is important. Do better. And the sims twitter responded that they were right and that they would do better and remove it from the game.
The OP, like many others felt again that things that could be used for drama and creating fun stories in this game gets nerfed immediately by people who want the sims to be a happy safe space and something that should correctly represent everything without offending anyone.
I agree that it feels like it was nerfed unnecessarily because some people took the "dazed" aspects as a person being black-out drunk/so passed out that they're not conscious to consent. This is a virtual game, not reality. Dazed does not equal drunk in the Sims. I don't know if at any point your sim can be so drunk that they pass out and are unable to respond/move.
If it makes people uncomfortable, they could choose to NEVER play that way. Turn autonomy off, monitor your sims, never have them dazed, and never have a dazed sim woohoo or try for baby with anyone. It's that simple. I rarely play with "Hates Children" sims because they legit are a struggle for any sort of legacy/family oriented gameplay. This dazed option could have helped us switch it up in terms of game play, story-telling, or just getting around a NPC that your sim falls in love with but doesn't want to have kids because of this trait that they were randomly assigned.
Let's not assign morals & values to a rated-T virtual game where consent and abuse cannot really occur.
I don't think its just a matter of... if they don't like it, don't use it... idea.
For them, (based on how they interpret the whole function) is maybe that the game offers this activity in general.
Just because they don't use the function, don't mean they can't have an opinion over the idea that the function exists in the first place.
I'm going to also assume that being they are against such an idea, that they are likely to NOT use it..... as you suggested.
At any rate, regardless of whether or not I agree with their argument. I still choose to respect it, and their right to have, and share, such opinions.
Presumably for some people, consent to woohoo while dazed is ok, while consent to try for baby while dazed is not ok, because it produces a child which might annoy them? That’s awfully selfish.
I feel like there’s an argument to remove woohoo while dazed but they missed it here. And no, I don’t agree it needs to be removed. A sad sim can’t initiate woohoo and I already think that’s too restrictive.
Wait. They're removing the Hates Children trait? My family oriented sim married a sim that hates children because I was hoping for some drama. Granted, I never really got any because the traits don't work very well, but I don't like that this game is being stripped of anything. The game already kind of sucks as a life simulator, and it will only get worse if people keep asking for stuff to be removed. The game already lacks drama! The emotions don't work right and can be easily manipulated. You can literally play the game as a perfect, always happy place (which I personally find boring).
As for the topic of consent, Sims literally have to accept woohoo. Sims that are unhappy won't go through with the command and will tell you no. Your sims can also be rejected by other sims. That is consent. I don't understand the argument. The dazed emotion often pops up when sims are deliriously happy. The only other time I've seen it is when my sim got hit in the face with a soccer ball. Dazed doesn't mean drunk or high. This type of nitpicking and mental gymnastics will destroy this game. If the issue is renaming the emotion then they can rename the emotion. Why are we over complicating everything? As a someone who was assaulted as a teen, I don't really appreciate this discussion or the assumptions people are making. All I know is I feel angry, and I'm starting to remember why I left the forums after Sims 3 came out.
They are removing the dazed part. They changed it to Sims with the Hates Children trait are very unreceptive to being asked to ‘Try for Baby’
I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you.
@Logion thank you for the clarification. That makes more sense than removing the whole trait. I was so confused by the back and forth discussions on the topic.
I was thinking about this recently, why is everything offensive those days ?, why has everything to be tip toed around ?, shall we just wrap the next generation is bubble wrap because everything could be seen as offensive because someone is a overthinker, why is some people reading too much into a game rather than enjoying it, I even saw a comment of someone thinking the erratic trait is offensive because the icon is a straitjacket
I was literally just coming here to post the exact same thing. And like you, @CelSims I too struggle with mental health issues. My anxiety is so bad, I can't drive, work, cook or otherwise do anything to take care of myself on my own and I've been going to therapy since 2017, but have only made minimal progress. And in addition to anxiety, I have depression as well, which thankfully isn't AS severe, but it still affects me in my day to day life.
And I also personally don't see anything offensive about about the icon for erratic. It's just an icon.
I'm glad yous both agree with me about this, I have social anxiety and I lost one of my friends to mental health issues, what some people don't understand is if people keep reading too much into a game although their hearts are in the right place, they could end up ruining it @MeowchaFrappe@CelSims
Oh no, I totally agree with you. I don't think people have bad intentions when bringing this stuff up. But you're right, if people keep reading too much into everything, it very well could end up ruining it. I'm a person who tends to overthink too, so I can understand why it happens, but as discussed here time and time again: almost anything could be offensive if you think hard enough on it. So where do you draw the line?
I don't know, it's difficult. I feel that we should respect that people feel very differently regarding different subjects, but we should also not let people who feel too strongly about something dictate what should be allowed or not.
So when this comes to what should be included in the game I think we should give people options, right now it feels like the sims4 is struggling to be both a sandbox(dollhouse) and a life simulation game with consequences.
Oh yeah, we should defintely respect them for sure. I agree with that entirely, but I do think some people blow certain things out of proportion (and this is coming from a pro at overthinking. ) options would defintely be a nice thing, even if it's just a different "mode" of some sort, but I don't know if it's something that would be added or not. So like, what route do you go with? People who actually want a life simulation game (which is what Sims4 is supposed to be) or the dollhouse building crowd?
And thus is why it's difficult to please everyone in the video game industry, and the devs at Maxis know this. Because no matter what they release for the game. There's always going to be someone who's not happy with it.
Maybe it's time for two versions of the Sims - an Adult version and an all ages version. I was on youtube yesterday and there was review an more adult mod and the younger viewers were commenting on the video, I'd better not let my folks see this etc. So kids are going to get mods for a more adult game. I hope that doesn't make EA stop allowing modding. IMHO two versions - one that can't be modded and pretty much dollhouse play and then the sandbox more adult version.
Maybe it's time for two versions of the Sims - an Adult version and an all ages version. I was on youtube yesterday and there was review an more adult mod and the younger viewers were commenting on the video, I'd better not let my folks see this etc. So kids are going to get mods for a more adult game. I hope that doesn't make EA stop allowing modding. IMHO two versions - one that can't be modded and pretty much dollhouse play and then the sandbox more adult version.
This is about where I'm at right now. The Teen rating is kind of a joke at this point because the game is more PG rated than PG-13. Honestly, I think an adult sandbox version would sell really well. Just look at how popular games like The Witcher, Red Dead Redemption, and Grand Theft Auto are.
I just want to weigh in on the statement comparing this to the skin tone, gender and culture demands. Short version, we can have both. They are not the same argument.
Representation requires mostly visual tweaks and additions. More colors, more meshes, more styles, more objects, etc. We already have body tweaks in CAS and pregnancy preferences. Most things that fall under the "representation" category are going to fit into these realms, with the occasional script changes.
What we are arguing in this thread is mechanical/coding/programming/behaviors and player choice/game results. As has been said many times before, for a Dazed Sim who hates children to have a chance to reproduce, it must involve player choice. It is not forced on any player. It is also something that is completely subjective to player interpretation. So while one player could interpret this as an act of non-consent, does not mean that it, by default, is. And if this act of player interpreted "non-consent" does take place, then it is the specific result of player directed interaction, not game autonomy.
This is why the complaint in question is a non-issue and should not qualify for change in the game. And while I understand and appreciate the intent behind the complaint, to promote consent in real life, (which I wholeheartedly support,) I just think that this is a case of someone jumping to a snap judgement without putting thought into the actual feature and if/how it is used or interpreted. As stated by many people in this thread, the circumstances in question are often translated as the Sim consenting, but choosing to not use protection, during a time when they are in some sort of state of euphoria, whether "natural" or by outside circumstances. Dazed is, in fact, treated as an Emotion in the game and is, by game purposes, considered an emotional state for a Sim. If we really want to compare to real life, being intoxicated or high is not an emotional state at all. But that's kind of arguing semantics.
And just to further explain in general why this particular complaint and call for change is overreaching and rash...
One of the main purposes of a Sims game is to give the player the tools to create and direct their Sims and stories, whether good or bad. In the past, the Sims games have given us consequences for our choices, which is one of the many reasons why so many people love those games. Sims 4 has a tendency to not do that and instead, sugar coat outcomes. Players have been frustrated with this since the game's release and have been begging and ranting to have consequences back in the game. This feature in question, to me, qualifies as a consequence. It is not, in any way, a violation of consent. I'll give an example:
I'm playing a Sim who hates kids. Say she has twelve drinks at the bar and gets Dazed. Okay, so most people would say she's drunk. (Keep in mind she could have been struck by lightning or bitten by bugs or hit by a soccer ball in the head and have the exact same emotional result, but we're going for the "worst case scenario" interpretation right now.) So I'm playing this Sim and she flirts with some dude at the bar. Maybe at first she gets rejected. But let's just say he flirts back. Great! Where do we go from here? Well, I could choose to say goodbye and go home. I could choose to invite him back to her home. Or, I could choose to have some fun in the closet right here. Hey, I'm the player, so I'm going for that. Well, lookie here, suddenly the game gives me the option to Try For Baby! Normally I don't have that option with this Sim, so now I have another choice, as the player. What kind of story do I want to tell? Do I want this Sim to go Woohoo in the closet and go home and sleep it off, or do I want to raise the risk and have my Sim have unprotected Woohoo and see what happens? Well, if you know me then you'd know I'm going for the latter. My Sim does her thing with her new flame, then goes home to sleep it off. Maybe she invites him back. Who knows? (Well, I do because it's my story, right?)
So in the above scenario, we can see that the player has several moments in this unfolding tale where they must make choices. Another player could argue that the closet Woohoo was technically not consent either way, since the Sim was drunk. Well, if that's the story you want to tell, who am I to stop you? You could have just sent the Sim home after drinking or not had those twelve drinks and just had two, or maybe just sent your Sim to the Spa instead of the bar in the first place.
In the end, the consent is in the hands of the player. That is where it belongs. No one should be policing other peoples' stories or game or dictating how a feature should be interpreted, especially if said feature is flexible enough to have many possibilities. If you want to play your game as a Utopian paradise where your Sims only make good choices and everything is always okay and safe and happy, be my guest. You can. But you don't get to tell me how to play mine.
Ok, i'm going to play devil's advocate here, because, well, why not lol?
First of all, to those claiming that the sims is..... "just a game".... need to revisit all the politics the community brings into the sims world about race, gender equality, cultural norms, etc. If the sims is "just a game", then we need to stop working so hard to have the sims world a perfect, and major representative of our very own lives. The sims team has become politically correct because we keep bringing our daily issues into the sims game with us. We should be checking our dramas at the door so we all "can" be playing.... just a game.
If we, as a (sims) community can applaud the decision of updating skin tones in respect to African American people, and, applaud the decision of adding the option for transgender sims in respect to the LGBTQ community, then how is it we, as a community can have a ranting issue with the decision to better respect sexual consent and the way sexual activity is achieved in the sims game? ......
..... and that's not even addressing the bigger picture. How is it ok, that the sims, a major platform rated "teen", can promote to such an extent sexual activity to its audience. Is everyone here ok with the sims promoting sex to teens? But that's not today's topic......
...... The topic here is about sexual consent. Which to me, seems to be a bit of a redundant argument. How can we argue sexual consent in a game that doesn't allow for consensual awareness or abilities of any form.... whether it be about what they wear, eat, have a relationship with, and.... also sexual activity.
So what exactly is the argument here? Are we saying that we want our sims to be more autonomous? More free thinking? To have, and be aware of, their morals, preferences, life goals?
On the surface it can be argued that the only sims we should be able to control is ... our own. That "one" sim we create to represent ourself in the game. We control that sim. Every other sim should control themselves. I have zero control over my neighbors in real life, so why is it I have so much control over my neighbors in the sims? That's about the only way (off the top of my head) that would allow sims to be consensual. Or open the door to such.
Beneath that surface argument is.... we as sims players would lose our control of the game. We'd have world of sim characters running around doing whatever they wanted whether we like it or not. Not only would that pretty much destroy gameplay for storytellers, but the whole sandbox idea would go completely out the window.
However, as is, the sims game is being torn apart by our daily lives. If the sims game is ever going to be fairly credited as being "just a game", then at some point we have to stop making it a platform for race, gender equality, and..... sexual abuse issues.
Just saying.
The sims is just a game, as I said it's entertainment, not education, when some people make it serious, it ruins the fun in it, real life issues shouldn't even be brought up, it's a game we're you decide what happens etc, you are god but it's seems we're apparently not God in our own game because a few people tries to make a mountain out of a mole hill and then it gets cut out, some people need to realise what's really important...real life, perhaps sort the real issues out there instead of creating drama and being a keyboard gangster because of a game, I'm not trying to be rude, this is my personal opinion about this topic
Welp then. It is getting removed then. For now then, the only way to have sims who hates children try for baby is to have them initiate it.
But how to replace it so it won't offend anyone and still gives the player choice? Good question... Maybe a topic to ponder on...
Perahps add in a new interaction called "Assure I Will Take Care of Children" or something like that which will allow sims who hates children to accept try for baby interaction if it succeeds.
While we can say anything, it's up to the game changers. Gosh that makes me feel like a peasant...
Maybe it's time for two versions of the Sims - an Adult version and an all ages version. I was on youtube yesterday and there was review an more adult mod and the younger viewers were commenting on the video, I'd better not let my folks see this etc. So kids are going to get mods for a more adult game. I hope that doesn't make EA stop allowing modding. IMHO two versions - one that can't be modded and pretty much dollhouse play and then the sandbox more adult version.
This is about where I'm at right now. The Teen rating is kind of a joke at this point because the game is more PG rated than PG-13. Honestly, I think an adult sandbox version would sell really well. Just look at how popular games like The Witcher, Red Dead Redemption, and Grand Theft Auto are.
This is what makes the most sense to me, to develop the game with all its possibilities and then have an edited All Ages version where things are nerfed and toned down automatically. But I really would want a set of control in settings so I can choose what to include in my game - there are so many things that would benefit from toggles and settings - especially if you could set them per save. That would be amazing.
Allons-y!
---> Afterlife Game Pack Idea - improved ghosts, cemeteries and funerals, psychics, new skills, new career and more! <---
Do we want a sims world that fairly represents us in all diversity, including race, sexual preference, cultural norms? ..... a world that protects us from predatory issues such a domestic and sexual abuse, as well as teaches against it?.......
Or.... do we want ..... just a game.
Because in my opinion, we can't have both.
To argue tooth and nail that skin tones should be updated to better represent African American people.... fair enough. I'm on board with that. But don't later start nic-picking which social issues the sims gets to be used as a platform for..... complaining when the topic becomes about sexual consent/abuse. Either we are using the sims game as a platform for our very own daily issues, or we're not.
I would prefer to have the sims be "just a game" full of options I can freely use or not use without having to worry about who might be offended by my game despite them never going to have to see, or experience any of it.
But unfortunately, there are simmers in our community that feel differently. That too is fair enough. But we can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't treat the sims like a platform for racial inequality one minute, then argue that next minute that the argument of sexual abuse doesn't belong in the sims because .... its just a game.
Make up your mind people.
I agree with you. The contradictions that happen within the Sims community regarding calling the game realistic, but the actions towards the game are anything but realistic. Then the rich life might be a fantasy for some Simmers but not to all. I just want the Sims and SimCity series to be a sandbox style again, but EA's push for online only for all their games and then censoring the Sims 4 as much as it is, Sims 5 won't last long as a MMO game and they would have a better chance bringing a kid friendly game like the MySims series back instead. The longest lasting MMO games are sadly M rated anyways and it is a tough market to get into, so Sims will have to change its identity completely and not call it the Sims 5 taking the MMO route. I feel like the Sims 4 is the identity crisis game or in a sense going through a mid-life crisis.
“Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it.” –Helen Keller
Comments
"Join KIM KARDASHIAN on a red carpet adventure in Kim Kardashian: Hollywood! Create your own aspiring celebrity and rise to fame and fortune!
Dress up in designer fashions, give yourself a makeover and live your best Hollywood life! Get famous and become an A-list actor, cover model, entrepreneur and more. Create your story and live the virtual life of your dreams. Find romance, and date and dump celebrities at the best parties and hottest clubs! Meet and become friends with Kim Kardashian in this interactive story adventure!"
This interview explains why the game was handled with kid gloves:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOiYMtwINXI
First of all, to those claiming that the sims is..... "just a game".... need to revisit all the politics the community brings into the sims world about race, gender equality, cultural norms, etc. If the sims is "just a game", then we need to stop working so hard to have the sims world a perfect, and major representative of our very own lives. The sims team has become politically correct because we keep bringing our daily issues into the sims game with us. We should be checking our dramas at the door so we all "can" be playing.... just a game.
If we, as a (sims) community can applaud the decision of updating skin tones in respect to African American people, and, applaud the decision of adding the option for transgender sims in respect to the LGBTQ community, then how is it we, as a community can have a ranting issue with the decision to better respect sexual consent and the way sexual activity is achieved in the sims game? ......
..... and that's not even addressing the bigger picture. How is it ok, that the sims, a major platform rated "teen", can promote to such an extent sexual activity to its audience. Is everyone here ok with the sims promoting sex to teens? But that's not today's topic......
...... The topic here is about sexual consent. Which to me, seems to be a bit of a redundant argument. How can we argue sexual consent in a game that doesn't allow for consensual awareness or abilities of any form.... whether it be about what they wear, eat, have a relationship with, and.... also sexual activity.
So what exactly is the argument here? Are we saying that we want our sims to be more autonomous? More free thinking? To have, and be aware of, their morals, preferences, life goals?
On the surface it can be argued that the only sims we should be able to control is ... our own. That "one" sim we create to represent ourself in the game. We control that sim. Every other sim should control themselves. I have zero control over my neighbors in real life, so why is it I have so much control over my neighbors in the sims? That's about the only way (off the top of my head) that would allow sims to be consensual. Or open the door to such.
Beneath that surface argument is.... we as sims players would lose our control of the game. We'd have world of sim characters running around doing whatever they wanted whether we like it or not. Not only would that pretty much destroy gameplay for storytellers, but the whole sandbox idea would go completely out the window.
However, as is, the sims game is being torn apart by our daily lives. If the sims game is ever going to be fairly credited as being "just a game", then at some point we have to stop making it a platform for race, gender equality, and..... sexual abuse issues.
Just saying.
Sims is a god game. You control everything, including reproduction. Unless you're using mods, there is absolutely no consent in the game beyond what the player wants. And I want a way for all sims to have a baby without being constrained by a trait. Sometimes people who don't like kids have a change of heart and sometimes they make stupid mistakes. Either way, it is up to the player to decide. And dazed doesn't mean drunk. Unless they're drunk when they're sick, drunk when they're tired, drunk when they have a bad day at school because, yeah, kids also get dazed.
Do we want a sims world that fairly represents us in all diversity, including race, sexual preference, cultural norms? ..... a world that protects us from predatory issues such a domestic and sexual abuse, as well as teaches against it?.......
Or.... do we want ..... just a game.
Because in my opinion, we can't have both.
To argue tooth and nail that skin tones should be updated to better represent African American people.... fair enough. I'm on board with that. But don't later start nic-picking which social issues the sims gets to be used as a platform for..... complaining when the topic becomes about sexual consent/abuse. Either we are using the sims game as a platform for our very own daily issues, or we're not.
I would prefer to have the sims be "just a game" full of options I can freely use or not use without having to worry about who might be offended by my game despite them never going to have to see, or experience any of it.
But unfortunately, there are simmers in our community that feel differently. That too is fair enough. But we can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't treat the sims like a platform for racial inequality one minute, then argue that next minute that the argument of sexual abuse doesn't belong in the sims because .... its just a game.
Make up your mind people.
@muzickmage Sorry but am I not understanding this situation correctly? The problem with the Sims that hate children was that the "try for baby" interaction had a higher success rate if dazed. That means they would neglect to use protection after having a few drinks.
The "woohoo" interaction was left untouched though and works like every other sim. I don't undestand what people mean when they say "consent" and "abuse".
The whole thing is about whether a sim decides to use protection or not. Not if the sim did consent about woohooing. The woohoo has the same success rate anyway!
I'm a bit confused to. Reading through the comments here on this thread, I seen a couple references to the whole thing being about consent/abuse. Somehow it all got upgraded to that by a few people or so. I'm guessing for them thats what this is all about, or has come to be about. I have no idea.
Maybe i'm reading it all wrong and addressing the wrong opinions lol.
The whole thing started with the following line from the patch notes: Asking a Hates Children Sim to "Try for Baby" has no chance of success unless the sim is Dazed. a GC posted on twitter: Consent is important. Do better. And the sims twitter responded that they were right and that they would do better and remove it from the game.
The OP, like many others felt again that things that could be used for drama and creating fun stories in this game gets nerfed immediately by people who want the sims to be a happy safe space and something that should correctly represent everything without offending anyone.
So the idea of "consent", or lack of, came from the initial argument against this particular game feature. Ok understood. I don't have twitter so i'm relying no what I read here on the forum. (trying to keep up lol)
I agree that it feels like it was nerfed unnecessarily because some people took the "dazed" aspects as a person being black-out drunk/so passed out that they're not conscious to consent. This is a virtual game, not reality. Dazed does not equal drunk in the Sims. I don't know if at any point your sim can be so drunk that they pass out and are unable to respond/move.
If it makes people uncomfortable, they could choose to NEVER play that way. Turn autonomy off, monitor your sims, never have them dazed, and never have a dazed sim woohoo or try for baby with anyone. It's that simple. I rarely play with "Hates Children" sims because they legit are a struggle for any sort of legacy/family oriented gameplay. This dazed option could have helped us switch it up in terms of game play, story-telling, or just getting around a NPC that your sim falls in love with but doesn't want to have kids because of this trait that they were randomly assigned.
Let's not assign morals & values to a rated-T virtual game where consent and abuse cannot really occur.
As for the topic of consent, Sims literally have to accept woohoo. Sims that are unhappy won't go through with the command and will tell you no. Your sims can also be rejected by other sims. That is consent. I don't understand the argument. The dazed emotion often pops up when sims are deliriously happy. The only other time I've seen it is when my sim got hit in the face with a soccer ball. Dazed doesn't mean drunk or high. This type of nitpicking and mental gymnastics will destroy this game. If the issue is renaming the emotion then they can rename the emotion. Why are we over complicating everything? As a someone who was assaulted as a teen, I don't really appreciate this discussion or the assumptions people are making. All I know is I feel angry, and I'm starting to remember why I left the forums after Sims 3 came out.
Edit: I just want people to know that I'm not mad at anyone in this thread. I'm angry about the Twitter problem, and it reminded me of why I left the forums back when that behavior was a problem here. I'm also angry that there are people who seem set on destroying this game by trying to protect everyone. Some of us do not want or need their protection.
I don't think its just a matter of... if they don't like it, don't use it... idea.
For them, (based on how they interpret the whole function) is maybe that the game offers this activity in general.
Just because they don't use the function, don't mean they can't have an opinion over the idea that the function exists in the first place.
I'm going to also assume that being they are against such an idea, that they are likely to NOT use it..... as you suggested.
At any rate, regardless of whether or not I agree with their argument. I still choose to respect it, and their right to have, and share, such opinions.
I feel like there’s an argument to remove woohoo while dazed but they missed it here. And no, I don’t agree it needs to be removed. A sad sim can’t initiate woohoo and I already think that’s too restrictive.
They are removing the dazed part. They changed it to Sims with the Hates Children trait are very unreceptive to being asked to ‘Try for Baby’
I'm sorry to hear about what happened to you.
Maybe it's time for two versions of the Sims - an Adult version and an all ages version. I was on youtube yesterday and there was review an more adult mod and the younger viewers were commenting on the video, I'd better not let my folks see this etc. So kids are going to get mods for a more adult game. I hope that doesn't make EA stop allowing modding. IMHO two versions - one that can't be modded and pretty much dollhouse play and then the sandbox more adult version.
This is about where I'm at right now. The Teen rating is kind of a joke at this point because the game is more PG rated than PG-13. Honestly, I think an adult sandbox version would sell really well. Just look at how popular games like The Witcher, Red Dead Redemption, and Grand Theft Auto are.
Representation requires mostly visual tweaks and additions. More colors, more meshes, more styles, more objects, etc. We already have body tweaks in CAS and pregnancy preferences. Most things that fall under the "representation" category are going to fit into these realms, with the occasional script changes.
What we are arguing in this thread is mechanical/coding/programming/behaviors and player choice/game results. As has been said many times before, for a Dazed Sim who hates children to have a chance to reproduce, it must involve player choice. It is not forced on any player. It is also something that is completely subjective to player interpretation. So while one player could interpret this as an act of non-consent, does not mean that it, by default, is. And if this act of player interpreted "non-consent" does take place, then it is the specific result of player directed interaction, not game autonomy.
This is why the complaint in question is a non-issue and should not qualify for change in the game. And while I understand and appreciate the intent behind the complaint, to promote consent in real life, (which I wholeheartedly support,) I just think that this is a case of someone jumping to a snap judgement without putting thought into the actual feature and if/how it is used or interpreted. As stated by many people in this thread, the circumstances in question are often translated as the Sim consenting, but choosing to not use protection, during a time when they are in some sort of state of euphoria, whether "natural" or by outside circumstances. Dazed is, in fact, treated as an Emotion in the game and is, by game purposes, considered an emotional state for a Sim. If we really want to compare to real life, being intoxicated or high is not an emotional state at all. But that's kind of arguing semantics.
And just to further explain in general why this particular complaint and call for change is overreaching and rash...
One of the main purposes of a Sims game is to give the player the tools to create and direct their Sims and stories, whether good or bad. In the past, the Sims games have given us consequences for our choices, which is one of the many reasons why so many people love those games. Sims 4 has a tendency to not do that and instead, sugar coat outcomes. Players have been frustrated with this since the game's release and have been begging and ranting to have consequences back in the game. This feature in question, to me, qualifies as a consequence. It is not, in any way, a violation of consent. I'll give an example:
I'm playing a Sim who hates kids. Say she has twelve drinks at the bar and gets Dazed. Okay, so most people would say she's drunk. (Keep in mind she could have been struck by lightning or bitten by bugs or hit by a soccer ball in the head and have the exact same emotional result, but we're going for the "worst case scenario" interpretation right now.) So I'm playing this Sim and she flirts with some dude at the bar. Maybe at first she gets rejected. But let's just say he flirts back. Great! Where do we go from here? Well, I could choose to say goodbye and go home. I could choose to invite him back to her home. Or, I could choose to have some fun in the closet right here. Hey, I'm the player, so I'm going for that. Well, lookie here, suddenly the game gives me the option to Try For Baby! Normally I don't have that option with this Sim, so now I have another choice, as the player. What kind of story do I want to tell? Do I want this Sim to go Woohoo in the closet and go home and sleep it off, or do I want to raise the risk and have my Sim have unprotected Woohoo and see what happens? Well, if you know me then you'd know I'm going for the latter. My Sim does her thing with her new flame, then goes home to sleep it off. Maybe she invites him back. Who knows? (Well, I do because it's my story, right?)
So in the above scenario, we can see that the player has several moments in this unfolding tale where they must make choices. Another player could argue that the closet Woohoo was technically not consent either way, since the Sim was drunk. Well, if that's the story you want to tell, who am I to stop you? You could have just sent the Sim home after drinking or not had those twelve drinks and just had two, or maybe just sent your Sim to the Spa instead of the bar in the first place.
In the end, the consent is in the hands of the player. That is where it belongs. No one should be policing other peoples' stories or game or dictating how a feature should be interpreted, especially if said feature is flexible enough to have many possibilities. If you want to play your game as a Utopian paradise where your Sims only make good choices and everything is always okay and safe and happy, be my guest. You can. But you don't get to tell me how to play mine.
The sims is just a game, as I said it's entertainment, not education, when some people make it serious, it ruins the fun in it, real life issues shouldn't even be brought up, it's a game we're you decide what happens etc, you are god but it's seems we're apparently not God in our own game because a few people tries to make a mountain out of a mole hill and then it gets cut out, some people need to realise what's really important...real life, perhaps sort the real issues out there instead of creating drama and being a keyboard gangster because of a game, I'm not trying to be rude, this is my personal opinion about this topic
But how to replace it so it won't offend anyone and still gives the player choice? Good question... Maybe a topic to ponder on...
Perahps add in a new interaction called "Assure I Will Take Care of Children" or something like that which will allow sims who hates children to accept try for baby interaction if it succeeds.
While we can say anything, it's up to the game changers. Gosh that makes me feel like a peasant...