So at least another 5-8 stuff packs, 2-4 game packs, and 1 expansion pack before end of 2018. Alright doesn't matter when it ends though. As long as they take their time with the next game and not rush it or attempt to make another Sims Online then realize people don't want always online DRM via Sim City 2013 therefore scrap the original product (Olympus) and make a new game in under a year with excuses as to why its not good as the past base games. Just take the time to make something good, a true sequel. As for Sims 4....eh its not going places after all these years so another year or two of content won't make a difference. Still lack so much base game features/content from past games after about three years. To which I doubt we will ever see in Sims 4 since there's so many issues and limitations as even the developers have admitted to. Such as beards and lounge chairs are harder to make than in the past.
This is actually upsetting. If a sequel is more limiting then how can it be more fun than the last game?
You obviously didn't understand the context of her tweet, lmao.
The Sims 3 wasn't limited because they used The Sims 2 engine.
The Sims 4 has started from Scratch.
They added beards in Get Together.
*Olympus
Nope.
The person who confirmed Olympus (Patrick Kelly) literally said that Olympus was a 2D game separate from The Sims 4, and was scrapped early on. The Sims 4 was a seperate game. But shared the same "look" which is why people assumed The Sims 4 was Olympus.
Patrick Kelly confirmed The Sims 4 started from a whole new engine
It's just a misconception amongst Simmers who have heard about it through chinese whispers.
Ahem-
This is by far one of the most exaggerated, and untrue posts I have ever seen from you dude. First of all, PK never said Olympus was 2D and he never, ever, ever said that Olympus was a completely different game than The Sims 4. He actually said quite the opposite, and the visual mock ups we have show what, a 3D game??
Sims 4 as an online game failed during development, so they changed course and made it into an offline game with the scraps of what they had. Seriously, that is what Patrick Kelly shared, nothing more. If you have some sort of legitimate source please share, but your anonymous forum post from another website is not legit. Your theory is not legit, because it does not work with the realities of game development.
The only one assuming anything here is you, and you are assuming that people will buy your fabricated, nonsensical, totally unbelievable conspiracy theory. The Sims 4 started out as an online game, there is code remaining from the online game in the offline game we have today. Enough is enough, instead of using your energy creating stories to deny that fact, how about you suck it up and get over it? Trying to make people think it never happened doesn't make Sims 4 a better game.
Also, it's interesting how you've said all this, tell ME to fact check, and then most of this turned out to be wrong
You obviously thought I had made this up or something, and that you were confident that what has been said on here about Olympus was true.
So again, I'll ask you to stop quoting me, accusing me of fabricating information, and then talk to me with unsourced information, that is easily proven wrong from the source itself.
Kind Regards.
Don't see how anything I said is wrong. You were the source of the misinformation that I corrected, and then you provided a link to your information that yielded nothing actually backing up anything you claimed, but threw credibility behind my post.
If you consider proving yourself wrong as proving me wrong then I'm glad you found some closure. It must have been eating you up with how snarky your post comes across.
So in short: Sims 4 began development as an online game, somewhere between 2012/2013 EA made the call to trash the online game and redevelop it as an offline game using the scraps of the online game(cost savings), in 2013 this information was leaked onto the internet where it was pretty heavily scrutinized, and ultimately became more legitimate than not. In 2014 The Sims 4 released, and since then remnants of Olympus has been discovered in the offline game. Some modder even got The Sims 4 working as a multiplayer game (not necessarily a fully functional one), something that would not be possible in a game designed solely for offline single player use.
Take it or leave it, it's really not my concern if someone doesn't want to believe the information that's readily available and has been widely discussed for nearly 4 years already.
Again, I'm posting actual quotes, and you're posting an interpretation of them, which is speculation.
Post facts and actual quotes if you're going to correct me. I am only posting confirmed and factual quotes. Not what people "think" is being said.
The direct quote states they used a new engine for The Sims 4, which means it's not a modified version of Olympus, which is what you said was incorrect.
I remember seeing some pictures from Patrick Keely's leaks which were very primitive graphics and nothing like the graphics in TS4. Those pictures showed a completely different game. But read the Patrick Kelly thread from 2013 on modthesims. All the links and pictures were removed and as the thread explanes almost certainly because EA threatened Patrick Kelly. The thread also sees most of the information from Patrick Kelly (maybe even if he really was Patrick Kelly) as very doubtful. Nevertheless he seemed to have been working on some Sims game. But it looked like a game for a very primitive platform. Maybe for a handheld Nintendo device or something like that.
So at least another 5-8 stuff packs, 2-4 game packs, and 1 expansion pack before end of 2018. Alright doesn't matter when it ends though. As long as they take their time with the next game and not rush it or attempt to make another Sims Online then realize people don't want always online DRM via Sim City 2013 therefore scrap the original product (Olympus) and make a new game in under a year with excuses as to why its not good as the past base games. Just take the time to make something good, a true sequel. As for Sims 4....eh its not going places after all these years so another year or two of content won't make a difference. Still lack so much base game features/content from past games after about three years. To which I doubt we will ever see in Sims 4 since there's so many issues and limitations as even the developers have admitted to. Such as beards and lounge chairs are harder to make than in the past.
This is actually upsetting. If a sequel is more limiting then how can it be more fun than the last game?
You obviously didn't understand the context of her tweet, lmao.
The Sims 3 wasn't limited because they used The Sims 2 engine.
The Sims 4 has started from Scratch.
They added beards in Get Together.
*Olympus
Nope.
The person who confirmed Olympus (Patrick Kelly) literally said that Olympus was a 2D game separate from The Sims 4, and was scrapped early on. The Sims 4 was a seperate game. But shared the same "look" which is why people assumed The Sims 4 was Olympus.
Patrick Kelly confirmed The Sims 4 started from a whole new engine
It's just a misconception amongst Simmers who have heard about it through chinese whispers.
Ahem-
This is by far one of the most exaggerated, and untrue posts I have ever seen from you dude. First of all, PK never said Olympus was 2D and he never, ever, ever said that Olympus was a completely different game than The Sims 4. He actually said quite the opposite, and the visual mock ups we have show what, a 3D game??
Sims 4 as an online game failed during development, so they changed course and made it into an offline game with the scraps of what they had. Seriously, that is what Patrick Kelly shared, nothing more. If you have some sort of legitimate source please share, but your anonymous forum post from another website is not legit. Your theory is not legit, because it does not work with the realities of game development.
The only one assuming anything here is you, and you are assuming that people will buy your fabricated, nonsensical, totally unbelievable conspiracy theory. The Sims 4 started out as an online game, there is code remaining from the online game in the offline game we have today. Enough is enough, instead of using your energy creating stories to deny that fact, how about you suck it up and get over it? Trying to make people think it never happened doesn't make Sims 4 a better game.
Also, it's interesting how you've said all this, tell ME to fact check, and then most of this turned out to be wrong
You obviously thought I had made this up or something, and that you were confident that what has been said on here about Olympus was true.
So again, I'll ask you to stop quoting me, accusing me of fabricating information, and then talk to me with unsourced information, that is easily proven wrong from the source itself.
Kind Regards.
Don't see how anything I said is wrong. You were the source of the misinformation that I corrected, and then you provided a link to your information that yielded nothing actually backing up anything you claimed, but threw credibility behind my post.
If you consider proving yourself wrong as proving me wrong then I'm glad you found some closure. It must have been eating you up with how snarky your post comes across.
So in short: Sims 4 began development as an online game, somewhere between 2012/2013 EA made the call to trash the online game and redevelop it as an offline game using the scraps of the online game(cost savings), in 2013 this information was leaked onto the internet where it was pretty heavily scrutinized, and ultimately became more legitimate than not. In 2014 The Sims 4 released, and since then remnants of Olympus has been discovered in the offline game. Some modder even got The Sims 4 working as a multiplayer game (not necessarily a fully functional one), something that would not be possible in a game designed solely for offline single player use.
Take it or leave it, it's really not my concern if someone doesn't want to believe the information that's readily available and has been widely discussed for nearly 4 years already.
Again, I'm posting actual quotes, and you're posting an interpretation of them, which is speculation.
Post facts and actual quotes if you're going to correct me. I am only posting confirmed and factual quotes. Not what people "think" is being said.
The direct quote states they used a new engine for The Sims 4, which means it's not a modified version of Olympus, which is what you said was incorrect.
I remember seeing some pictures from Patrick Keely's leaks which were very primitive graphics and nothing like the graphics in TS4. Those pictures showed a completely different game. But read the Patrick Kelly thread from 2013 on modthesims. All the links and pictures were removed and as the thread explanes almost certainly because EA threatened Patrick Kelly. The thread also sees most of the information from Patrick Kelly (maybe even if he really was Patrick Kelly) as very doubtful. Nevertheless he seemed to have been working on some Sims game. But it looked like a game for a very primitive platform. Maybe for a handheld Nintendo device or something like that.
I mean it *is* possible that the game originally looked like that.
But Chi Chan already showed us mock ups of The Sims 4 before The Sims 4 was built, and it was 3D. So I doubt it.
I don't understand why people think it's so odd that EA were developing two games at once. All evidence points to two separate games.
So at least another 5-8 stuff packs, 2-4 game packs, and 1 expansion pack before end of 2018. Alright doesn't matter when it ends though. As long as they take their time with the next game and not rush it or attempt to make another Sims Online then realize people don't want always online DRM via Sim City 2013 therefore scrap the original product (Olympus) and make a new game in under a year with excuses as to why its not good as the past base games. Just take the time to make something good, a true sequel. As for Sims 4....eh its not going places after all these years so another year or two of content won't make a difference. Still lack so much base game features/content from past games after about three years. To which I doubt we will ever see in Sims 4 since there's so many issues and limitations as even the developers have admitted to. Such as beards and lounge chairs are harder to make than in the past.
This is actually upsetting. If a sequel is more limiting then how can it be more fun than the last game?
You obviously didn't understand the context of her tweet, lmao.
The Sims 3 wasn't limited because they used The Sims 2 engine.
The Sims 4 has started from Scratch.
They added beards in Get Together.
*Olympus
Nope.
The person who confirmed Olympus (Patrick Kelly) literally said that Olympus was a 2D game separate from The Sims 4, and was scrapped early on. The Sims 4 was a seperate game. But shared the same "look" which is why people assumed The Sims 4 was Olympus.
Patrick Kelly confirmed The Sims 4 started from a whole new engine
It's just a misconception amongst Simmers who have heard about it through chinese whispers.
Ahem-
This is by far one of the most exaggerated, and untrue posts I have ever seen from you dude. First of all, PK never said Olympus was 2D and he never, ever, ever said that Olympus was a completely different game than The Sims 4. He actually said quite the opposite, and the visual mock ups we have show what, a 3D game??
Sims 4 as an online game failed during development, so they changed course and made it into an offline game with the scraps of what they had. Seriously, that is what Patrick Kelly shared, nothing more. If you have some sort of legitimate source please share, but your anonymous forum post from another website is not legit. Your theory is not legit, because it does not work with the realities of game development.
The only one assuming anything here is you, and you are assuming that people will buy your fabricated, nonsensical, totally unbelievable conspiracy theory. The Sims 4 started out as an online game, there is code remaining from the online game in the offline game we have today. Enough is enough, instead of using your energy creating stories to deny that fact, how about you suck it up and get over it? Trying to make people think it never happened doesn't make Sims 4 a better game.
Also, it's interesting how you've said all this, tell ME to fact check, and then most of this turned out to be wrong
You obviously thought I had made this up or something, and that you were confident that what has been said on here about Olympus was true.
So again, I'll ask you to stop quoting me, accusing me of fabricating information, and then talk to me with unsourced information, that is easily proven wrong from the source itself.
Kind Regards.
Don't see how anything I said is wrong. You were the source of the misinformation that I corrected, and then you provided a link to your information that yielded nothing actually backing up anything you claimed, but threw credibility behind my post.
If you consider proving yourself wrong as proving me wrong then I'm glad you found some closure. It must have been eating you up with how snarky your post comes across.
So in short: Sims 4 began development as an online game, somewhere between 2012/2013 EA made the call to trash the online game and redevelop it as an offline game using the scraps of the online game(cost savings), in 2013 this information was leaked onto the internet where it was pretty heavily scrutinized, and ultimately became more legitimate than not. In 2014 The Sims 4 released, and since then remnants of Olympus has been discovered in the offline game. Some modder even got The Sims 4 working as a multiplayer game (not necessarily a fully functional one), something that would not be possible in a game designed solely for offline single player use.
Take it or leave it, it's really not my concern if someone doesn't want to believe the information that's readily available and has been widely discussed for nearly 4 years already.
Again, I'm posting actual quotes, and you're posting an interpretation of them, which is speculation.
Post facts and actual quotes if you're going to correct me. I am only posting confirmed and factual quotes. Not what people "think" is being said.
The direct quote states they used a new engine for The Sims 4, which means it's not a modified version of Olympus, which is what you said was incorrect.
I remember seeing some pictures from Patrick Keely's leaks which were very primitive graphics and nothing like the graphics in TS4. Those pictures showed a completely different game. But read the Patrick Kelly thread from 2013 on modthesims. All the links and pictures were removed and as the thread explanes almost certainly because EA threatened Patrick Kelly. The thread also sees most of the information from Patrick Kelly (maybe even if he really was Patrick Kelly) as very doubtful. Nevertheless he seemed to have been working on some Sims game. But it looked like a game for a very primitive platform. Maybe for a handheld Nintendo device or something like that.
I mean it *is* possible that the game originally looked like that.
But Chi Chan already showed us mock ups of The Sims 4 before The Sims 4 was built, and it was 3D. So I doubt it.
I don't understand why people think it's so odd that EA were developing two games at once. All evidence points to two separate games.
I clearly agree.
But re-reading the Patrick Kelly thread at modthesims actually gave me another suspicion - because why did all pictures and even all the writings from Patrick Kelly disappear - even so efficiently that it now is impossible to find even the slightest remain in web archives or elsewhere? The whole Patrick Kelly story looks very suspicious and so did his pictures with this poor oldfashioned graphics. Whas this really made by EA? Or did it disappear because it was made by a fake "Patrick Kelly" and after complaints from the real Patrick Kelly and because it only was made as some kind of sick joke?
Calling it primitive/oldfashioned graphics based on a UI mockup is like saying a movie was supposed to be black-and-white because of how the storyboard looked, it's completely missing the purpose of a mockup.
Calling it primitive/oldfashioned graphics based on a UI mockup is like saying a movie was supposed to be black-and-white because of how the storyboard looked, it's completely missing the purpose of a mockup.
It had nothing with the UI to do. But as I remember it the graphics was more similar to the Sims 1 graphics than to the graphics in any of the later big Sims game.
This is what makes me suspicious too because if all the "Patrick Kelly" sites (which soon after disappeared even on Twitter and on webarchives.com) were fakes made as a "joke" then this would explain everything. Either the graphics and the animations could be made by himself or they could have been discarded scenes/graphics from an old Sims game for handheld devices. Maybe one of the games which the real Patrick Kelly actually had worked on (which would mean that the fake "Patrick Kelly" knew the real one somewhat).
What indicates that it could have been made by a fake "Patrick Kelly" also is that the real Patrick Kelly must have been very naive and unintelligent if he really thought that he could get away with this without consequences for himself and his whole future.
Calling it primitive/oldfashioned graphics based on a UI mockup is like saying a movie was supposed to be black-and-white because of how the storyboard looked, it's completely missing the purpose of a mockup.
It had nothing with the UI to do. But as I remember it the graphics was more similar to the Sims 1 graphics than to the graphics in any of the later big Sims game.
...
He worked as a UI designer and he called these UI mockups.
So at least another 5-8 stuff packs, 2-4 game packs, and 1 expansion pack before end of 2018. Alright doesn't matter when it ends though. As long as they take their time with the next game and not rush it or attempt to make another Sims Online then realize people don't want always online DRM via Sim City 2013 therefore scrap the original product (Olympus) and make a new game in under a year with excuses as to why its not good as the past base games. Just take the time to make something good, a true sequel. As for Sims 4....eh its not going places after all these years so another year or two of content won't make a difference. Still lack so much base game features/content from past games after about three years. To which I doubt we will ever see in Sims 4 since there's so many issues and limitations as even the developers have admitted to. Such as beards and lounge chairs are harder to make than in the past.
This is actually upsetting. If a sequel is more limiting then how can it be more fun than the last game?
You obviously didn't understand the context of her tweet, lmao.
The Sims 3 wasn't limited because they used The Sims 2 engine.
The Sims 4 has started from Scratch.
They added beards in Get Together.
*Olympus
Nope.
The person who confirmed Olympus (Patrick Kelly) literally said that Olympus was a 2D game separate from The Sims 4, and was scrapped early on. The Sims 4 was a seperate game. But shared the same "look" which is why people assumed The Sims 4 was Olympus.
Patrick Kelly confirmed The Sims 4 started from a whole new engine
It's just a misconception amongst Simmers who have heard about it through chinese whispers.
Evidence please?
The same place that the evidence for Olympus was found
I'll dig around later, but it was been brought up many times, lol.
found anything yet? Love to hear of these alternative facts.
Posted already The only people posting alternative facts are the people not posting direct quotes from Patrick Kelly.
Unlike myself.
Where because I can't see any solid evidence just random things you've picked off the internet to back your idea up and what is the point of copying the gif in my signature trying to act shady when it is just really childish of you LOL wow jack wow you really don't have any actual proof and can not explain what your saying calmly can you so it's just petty childish things instead...
And really, you have no actual proof of what you're making up do you? You literally have something "Patrick Kelly" said picked off the internet, twisted it and labelled it as a fact thats it, all you're doing is spread misinformation around that there was "two separate games" when there was in fact one and we all know that so in fact like you said earlier about "It's just a misconception amongst Simmers who have heard about it through chinese whispers" you are spreading Chinese whispers by saying that there is "two games" when there isn't.
So what was this then? The apparent "second game" that got scrapped was appearing back in 2013 via youtube showing many things like online chatting, 3d sims, and funnily enough look remarkably similar to the sims 4 beta and the sims 4 we have today? Also I did my research and I found something about people finding pictures in the game files which look very similar to the way Olympus did back in it's early stages? Bit of a coincidence that?
Video from 2013 https://youtu.be/h2IPZDJ-pt0[/video]
Picture found in the sims 4 game files which look very similar to these Olympus pictures and videos
Olympus when it was coming to look like the sims 4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsx-pgwMYew[/video]
If you look at this picture, at the top you can see something that looks like a letter for messages and three figures could be representing friends. Once again proving that this game had online features brought from Olympus.
The Sims wiki wrote a page about Olympus but I'm totally confused seeing as Olympus was scrapped early on @jackjack_k like you said, so are they spreading misinformation too?? http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sims_Olympus
Oh and I could go on but heres another video of what seems someone has been able to play multiplayer on the sims 4https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsgVYIGymx0[/video]
This isn't all of it but I'm sure y'all get what I'm saying, So what is this that second game that got scrapped early on then because it's too much of a coincidence that a lot of this looks very similar to the sims 4 and that the sims 4 has had things found dating back to Olympus.
Calling it primitive/oldfashioned graphics based on a UI mockup is like saying a movie was supposed to be black-and-white because of how the storyboard looked, it's completely missing the purpose of a mockup.
It had nothing with the UI to do. But as I remember it the graphics was more similar to the Sims 1 graphics than to the graphics in any of the later big Sims game.
...
He worked as a UI designer and he called these UI mockups.
Calling it primitive/oldfashioned graphics based on a UI mockup is like saying a movie was supposed to be black-and-white because of how the storyboard looked, it's completely missing the purpose of a mockup.
It had nothing with the UI to do. But as I remember it the graphics was more similar to the Sims 1 graphics than to the graphics in any of the later big Sims game.
...
He worked as a UI designer and he called these UI mockups.
I am not sure that Pets and Seasons were more cash cows than other EPs. It doesn't seem to have been the case (even if you liked them mostly) because if they were then I don't believe at all that EA would have postponed them that long or until more simmers had lost interest in the game. They would much more likely have been the very first EPs to be released. So when this didn't happen then I am actually not sure if they will be released for TS4 at all.
In so many threads and feeds, people are asking for seasons, they are asking for pets. They are in demand and get flooded into so many topics. They are probably the two most asked about and in demand for EP's. I do not believe they have been, for as you say postponed ... it took two years for us to get toddlers. People said they would never happen .... yet here they are. They and the vampire GP did bring a lot of people back to the Sims4.
If given the rate of EP's I would say we will get seasons or pets next, then some other new/meshed theme, then the other seasons/pets and one more new/meshed theme before the end and the release of Sims5.
I don't believe that they even had planned to release toddlers for TS4. But EA probably just didn't like that the foss about toddlers just continued even two whole years after the release of the basegame. So EA decided to stop this and told the developers to make toddlers anyway.
EA doesn't listen to the forum and as I have written several times EA clearly sees the main group of customers for this game to be young teens who very rarely visit this forum. The game has sold in millions and it sure isn't the very few hundred adult simmers in this forum who have bought that many games. So EA may be right that it is the very young teens who don't visit the forum but get the games anyway that are the most important simmers. We don't know the sales numbers. But if Pets and Seasons weren't the EPs that had highest sales numbers and both the GPs and the SPs has as high sales numbers then EA's attitude is quite understandable.
EA will probably release an EP late in 2017 and another late in 2018. But they are likely to be the two last EPs. If they won't be exactly Pets and Seasons then one of those may not be released for TS4 at all - unless it will be released as a GP instead.
I am not sure that Pets and Seasons were more cash cows than other EPs. It doesn't seem to have been the case (even if you liked them mostly) because if they were then I don't believe at all that EA would have postponed them that long or until more simmers had lost interest in the game. They would much more likely have been the very first EPs to be released. So when this didn't happen then I am actually not sure if they will be released for TS4 at all.
In so many threads and feeds, people are asking for seasons, they are asking for pets. They are in demand and get flooded into so many topics. They are probably the two most asked about and in demand for EP's. I do not believe they have been, for as you say postponed ... it took two years for us to get toddlers. People said they would never happen .... yet here they are. They and the vampire GP did bring a lot of people back to the Sims4.
If given the rate of EP's I would say we will get seasons or pets next, then some other new/meshed theme, then the other seasons/pets and one more new/meshed theme before the end and the release of Sims5.
I don't believe that they even had planned to release toddlers for TS4. But EA probably just didn't like that the foss about toddlers just continued even two whole years after the release of the basegame. So EA decided to stop this and told the developers to make toddlers anyway.
EA doesn't listen to the forum and as I have written several times EA clearly sees the main group of customers for this game to be young teens who very rarely visit this forum. The game has sold in millions and it sure isn't the very few hundred adult simmers in this forum who have bought that many games. So EA may be right that it is the very young teens who don't visit the forum but get the games anyway that are the most important simmers. We don't know the sales numbers. But if Pets and Seasons weren't the EPs that had highest sales numbers and both the GPs and the SPs has as high sales numbers then EA's attitude is quite understandable.
EA will probably release an EP late in 2017 and another late in 2018. But they are likely to be the two last EPs. If they won't be exactly Pets and Seasons then one of those may not be released for TS4 at all - unless it will be released as a GP instead.
I don't know that they were added simply because of the backlash from so many players. When toddlers finally came out, some official source (blog, guru, can't quite recall) said toddlers were planned all along, or at least from very early on.
It was a guru who said that they had wanted to add toddlers from the beginning. I believe that they even made some preliminary work on toddlers when they were working on the basegame. But what probably happened was that EA had given them too small a budget to make everything that considered and wanted. So the leading producer had to negotiate with EA about how to finish the game within the budget or if they could have a bigger budget. Those negotiations then likely had the result that EA wanted to target TS4 more on partying and new content in SPs and GPs and therefore preferred toddlers to be dropped, babies simplified and that teens were given the same height as adults to save time. But I don't believe for a minute that it was in EA's plans to allow them to add toddlers later. So it must have been the unexpected hype about toddlers even two whole years after the basegame release that finally convinced EA to tell the team to make toddlers for TS4 anyway. That is the only possible reasonable explanation as I see it why toddlers only was added 2.5 years after the basegame release.
Why would they work on something they didn't plan on releasing? Your two statements (bold emphasis mine) are a bit contradictory @Erpe.
Calling it primitive/oldfashioned graphics based on a UI mockup is like saying a movie was supposed to be black-and-white because of how the storyboard looked, it's completely missing the purpose of a mockup.
It had nothing with the UI to do. But as I remember it the graphics was more similar to the Sims 1 graphics than to the graphics in any of the later big Sims game.
...
He worked as a UI designer and he called these UI mockups.
Calling it primitive/oldfashioned graphics based on a UI mockup is like saying a movie was supposed to be black-and-white because of how the storyboard looked, it's completely missing the purpose of a mockup.
It had nothing with the UI to do. But as I remember it the graphics was more similar to the Sims 1 graphics than to the graphics in any of the later big Sims game.
...
He worked as a UI designer and he called these UI mockups.
So what ? That doesn't change the fact that the pictures shown were UI mockups.
Just look at the first video. This certainly isn't a 2013 PC game. It looks much more like something from a much older game for an old console.
It looks like a mockup, which is to be expected from a mockup. Of course it doesn't look like a 2013 game, because it's not a game, why would it look like one ? Just like a storyboard doesn't look like a movie, or an early draft doesn't look like a book. But it's not supposed to, it's not the purpose of a mockup.
Calling it primitive/oldfashioned graphics based on a UI mockup is like saying a movie was supposed to be black-and-white because of how the storyboard looked, it's completely missing the purpose of a mockup.
It had nothing with the UI to do. But as I remember it the graphics was more similar to the Sims 1 graphics than to the graphics in any of the later big Sims game.
...
He worked as a UI designer and he called these UI mockups.
So what ? That doesn't change the fact that the pictures shown were UI mockups.
Just look at the first video. This certainly isn't a 2013 PC game. It looks much more like something from a much older game for an old console.
It was a flash based mockup meant to showcase that UI design, it's not the game, or any part of the game. It's a little interactive 'video' - like any flash based browser game. The Sims pictured were prototype Sims, there only to add references to how it would work in the game.
@Erpe It's normal practice in the arts - everything from Renaissance oil painting to contemporary game design - to make mockups of possible designs in cheaper materials using faster processes, then, after the preferred design is chosen (by you yourself, the patron, your supervisor, whatever), to start the final product separately in the more expensive materials and slower process. Michelangelo did it (if you're lucky, you can find an exhibition that shows design proposals and final work side by side - I went to one like that a couple of years ago), every sculptor who ever worked in bronze did it (the samples are often called "maquettes," and some museums display those as well as final work), and the game design disciplines do it.
EA CREATOR NETWORK MEMBER — Want to be notified of patches, new Broken Mods threads, and urgent Sims 4 news? Follow me at https://www.patreon.com/luthienrising.
Don't see how anything I said is wrong. You were the source of the misinformation that I corrected, and then you provided a link to your information that yielded nothing actually backing up anything you claimed, but threw credibility behind my post.
If you consider proving yourself wrong as proving me wrong then I'm glad you found some closure. It must have been eating you up with how snarky your post comes across.
So in short: Sims 4 began development as an online game, somewhere between 2012/2013 EA made the call to trash the online game and redevelop it as an offline game using the scraps of the online game(cost savings), in 2013 this information was leaked onto the internet where it was pretty heavily scrutinized, and ultimately became more legitimate than not. In 2014 The Sims 4 released, and since then remnants of Olympus has been discovered in the offline game. Some modder even got The Sims 4 working as a multiplayer game (not necessarily a fully functional one), something that would not be possible in a game designed solely for offline single player use.
Take it or leave it, it's really not my concern if someone doesn't want to believe the information that's readily available and has been widely discussed for nearly 4 years already.
Again, I'm posting actual quotes, and you're posting an interpretation of them, which is speculation.
Post facts and actual quotes if you're going to correct me. I am only posting confirmed and factual quotes. Not what people "think" is being said.
The direct quote states they used a new engine for The Sims 4, which means it's not a modified version of Olympus, which is what you said was incorrect.
Below is a quote from the link that you provided. You did quote the same Q&A but only the first line of the answer.
Q: So up until last year the game was multiplayer online? Is it even possible to change the mechanics of the game without breaking it?
A: From what I read in the announcement, they decided to go with a new game engine for the offline version. (The game engine is basically the 3D world of the game.
The Interactions and User Interface are separate from the 3D world/game engine. They will have to hook up the Interactions and UI to the new 3D engine.
The online 3D world (which you all saw in the demos) used a different engine and the world, objects and characters were what’s called “low-poly”.
For an online game you are restricted by the internet connection so the world, objects and characters were simplified. No one was happy with the quality of the online version so it’s a good thing that they moved to offline.
The answer does say a new game engine. Since you just quote the first line of the answer, it looks like we have a completely new game. But the rest of the answer explains that the interactions and user interface of Olympus can be detached from the graphics part of the game, and then attached to a new 3D engine. This way, it is possible to port the low-resolution online Olympus to a beautiful high resolution single-player offline game. So, that's why I think the new "game" engine is referring to just a new graphics engine, but not a new separate game.
@Erpe It's normal practice in the arts - everything from Renaissance oil painting to contemporary game design - to make mockups of possible designs in cheaper materials using faster processes, then, after the preferred design is chosen (by you yourself, the patron, your supervisor, whatever), to start the final product separately in the more expensive materials and slower process. Michelangelo did it (if you're lucky, you can find an exhibition that shows design proposals and final work side by side - I went to one like that a couple of years ago), every sculptor who ever worked in bronze did it (the samples are often called "maquettes," and some museums display those as well as final work), and the game design disciplines do it.
You are talking about physical designs such as sculpture, paintings etc. But here it is instead about design tools on a computer. Modern tools are much more advanced than the tools they used 10-15 yrs ago and they make much better graphics. So why use a 10-15 yrs old tool (program) to design the graphics for a new game? I don't believe that they would ever do that.
Another thing is what should have motivated Patrick Kelly to release all this if it really was something new he had worked on inside EA because he would have faced a lawsuit and wouldn't have had a chance to be hired again in any company. No company would ever hire a person that they couldn't trust.
But let us say that it really was "leaked" by Patrick Kelly himself as a joke which he then likely discussed with his friends in EA. They would have had a good laugh seeing people's reactions - and laughing and joking is actually what they always do because it is their way to deal with their job which is actually often quite monotonous and boring. (Just imagine that you were told to make some childish animations for babies if you didn't even like babies or if you were told to test a lot of technical things for bugs in a game that you never would play yourself.) This would probably be something that Patrick Kelly could do without risking sanctions from EA and which wouldn't prevent him from future jobs because it only was about using a few animations from an old abandoned console game which he had worked on earlier to get a good laugh. He also removed everything shortly after. So I guess that even EA wouldn't care. So maybe this is the most likely explanation?
@Erpe
That's also true for digital designs (like movies or books). Modern tools aren't magically producing content, they are tools, not a creative AI, they aren't "making graphics", no more than your Word is writing your texts, there's work to be done, and there's just no reason to produce high quality assets to use in a mockup (which is basically a draft, something you put together to show how it could work, the sequences of actions in the UI), it's not supposed to reflect the end result and things are highly likely to change at this point (because it's still pre-prod).
If you want to pitch me an idea for a story, you won't spend ages carefully putting a cover together to illustrate it, and the fact that Photoshop or InDesign are far more advanced than the tools we had 10-15 years ago don't change that. You just have no reason to spend time on something that just isn't that useful at that point. Why wait for high quality assets when all you want is to illustrate how the UI could work ?
@Erpe
That's also true for digital designs (like movies or books). Modern tools aren't magically producing content, they are tools, not a creative AI, they aren't "making graphics", no more than your Word is writing your texts, there's work to be done, and there's just no reason to produce high quality assets to use in a mockup (which is basically a draft, something you put together to show how it could work, the sequences of actions in the UI), it's not supposed to reflect the end result and things are highly likely to change at this point (because it's still pre-prod).
This isn't true for three reasons:
1. One of the producers actually showed us earlier in a video how he could walk around in a funny way and the computer then used its camera to create animations for the sims such that walked around in the same way. That was how they created such animations.
2. New tools probably can't even create animations in old outdated graphics because new tools are made mainly to just work with new improved graphics.
3. Creating animations in old outdated graphics wouldn't help them at all when they consider how to make them in new current graphics.
If you want to pitch me an idea for a story, you won't spend ages carefully putting a cover together to illustrate it, and the fact that Photoshop or InDesign are far more advanced than the tools we had 10-15 years ago don't change that. You just have no reason to spend time on something that just isn't that useful at that point. Why wait for high quality assets when all you want is to illustrate how the UI could work ?
They don't use such primitive tools to make the animations and making a Sims game isn't about making a story. It is instead about designing sims, clothes, furniture, building tools, houses and neighborhoods and about designing all the animations and interactions.
@Erpe
That's also true for digital designs (like movies or books). Modern tools aren't magically producing content, they are tools, not a creative AI, they aren't "making graphics", no more than your Word is writing your texts, there's work to be done, and there's just no reason to produce high quality assets to use in a mockup (which is basically a draft, something you put together to show how it could work, the sequences of actions in the UI), it's not supposed to reflect the end result and things are highly likely to change at this point (because it's still pre-prod).
This isn't true for three reasons:
1. One of the producers actually showed us earlier in a video how he could walk around in a funny way and the computer then used its camera to create animations for the sims such that walked around in the same way. That was how they created such animations.
2. New tools probably can't even create animations in old outdated graphics because new tools are made mainly to just work with new improved graphics.
3. Creating animations in old outdated graphics wouldn't help them at all when they consider how to make them in new current graphics.
1. If you think of motion capture, that's not how it was done for TS4. The animations were hand made, based on a video reference, that's what SimGuruMarion explained in an interview :
We have a standard Sim in Maya® (a female in a skin tight suit) with 100+ animatable controls. The animator will load the Sims and objects needed (in this case one Sim and the exercise machine). Then he or she creates poses for the Sim that are loosely based on the reference. We don’t usually copy the video, instead we use it as inspiration and general reference. The animator will start with a rough sketch of the motion, just a few poses and very rough timing. The animation is refined gradually over several days with regular feedback from the animation director. Depending on how complicated the interaction is and how many variations we need to create, an interaction can take anywhere from three days to over 100 days to complete.
2. Launch your Photoshop, and I bet you'll manage to do an awful human shape with a brush in one color, the new tool won't stop you
3. Creating animations isn't this guy's job. He is working on UI/UX. He just needed some scene with a couple of Sims to illustrate how the user could interact with the UI and how that could work. It's like lorem ipsum. There's even dummy text in this video (they most likely didn't plan to have only interactions about hating soap in TS4 or called "Interaction Name").
If you want to pitch me an idea for a story, you won't spend ages carefully putting a cover together to illustrate it, and the fact that Photoshop or InDesign are far more advanced than the tools we had 10-15 years ago don't change that. You just have no reason to spend time on something that just isn't that useful at that point. Why wait for high quality assets when all you want is to illustrate how the UI could work ?
They don't use such primitive tools to make the animations and making a Sims game isn't about making a story. It is instead about designing sims, clothes, furniture, building tools, houses and neighborhoods and about designing all the animations and interactions.
Making a story is an example, because I thought writing is something that is a bit more familiar to most people than making a game. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by primitive tools though. Do you consider Photoshop and InDesign to be primitive tools ?
@Neia You still don't understand my main points to reject your idea which are:
1. It is about as difficult to update oldfashioned graphics for a game as it is to make a completely new game. This is the reason why no game company ever have taken an earlier game and then released it again with much better graphics. (You can also be very sure that EA would have wanted to do that with TS1 after EA realized that sales numbers for TS1 already was many times higher than EA had expected!)
2. If you see primitive graphics in the first presentations of a game then it isn't because everything is finished but just made in old outdated graphics. It is because the characters are missing their hair and their clothes which haven't been made yet.
So no. Patrick Kelly's demonstration of fully developed sims with clothes and hair and fully developed animations which for "random" reasons all were copied from TS2 for consoles - wasn't random at all! He made that with a very clear purpose
@Erpe
Your main points are completely invalid or not related to the matter at hand. Whether it's more or less difficult to update graphics or create new ones is moot. If at some point in the process, you need some content to put in there to illustrate your work, you find something that do the job and you go on with your task, you won't spend ages waiting until your coworkers have polished their work to resume your own. That's why there are dummy texts, placeholders or the same sofa everywhere. They just needed some content to fill the space that would be informative enough for the viewer to get what's happening. This video shows how interactions could work, user click here, this happens, an animation happens, this part of the UI appear, this part disappear. That sorts of things. It's not supposed to showcase animations or graphics.
Look, even Patrick Kelly himself said he was frustrated by how much people were drawing conclusions about the look and feel of the game by viewing UI mockups.
@Neia I don't care at all about the texts. They were not made yet. So what? (Actually they were more likely removed to avoid that we recognized then from TS2 for consoles.)
But my problem is that the sims themselves were fully made and equipped with different types of hair and different types of clothes. So they seem to be finished in the videos. Just just like they were made in the 10 yrs older TS2 game for consoles. This work would have been completely wasted if they instead were meant to later be made over from scratch with a new look, new hair, new clothes and new animations! To make them in the oldfashioned way first would be like building a full size tree house just to find out how in would look later when it was torn down to be rebuild in stones
@Neia I don't care at all about the texts. They were not made yet. So what?
But my problem is that the sims themselves were fully made and equipped with different types of hair and different types of clothes. So they seem to be finished in the videos. Just just like they were made in the 10 yrs older TS2 game for consoles. This work would have been completely wasted if they instead were meant to later be made over from scratch with a new look, new hair, new clothes and new animations! To make them in the oldfashioned way first would be like building a full size tree house just to find out how in would look later when it was torn down to be rebuild in stones
No they were not. They just made a couple of assets and a basic Sim so they could use it if needed to go on with the rest of the work. It's not "wasted", it's draft content to help the rest going, it's a bit like stand-in in movies. This particular work doesn't end up in the final product as is but it's still useful for the whole process. Because they won't wait until everybody else has finished their work and produced final content before starting the next step.
@Neia I don't care at all about the texts. They were not made yet. So what?
But my problem is that the sims themselves were fully made and equipped with different types of hair and different types of clothes. So they seem to be finished in the videos. Just just like they were made in the 10 yrs older TS2 game for consoles. This work would have been completely wasted if they instead were meant to later be made over from scratch with a new look, new hair, new clothes and new animations! To make them in the oldfashioned way first would be like building a full size tree house just to find out how in would look later when it was torn down to be rebuild in stones
No they were not. They just made a couple of assets and a basic Sim so they could use it if needed to go on with the rest of the work. It's not "wasted", it's draft content to help the rest going, it's a bit like stand-in in movies. This particular work doesn't end up in the final product as is but it's still useful for the whole process. Because they won't wait until everybody else has finished their work and produced final content before starting the next step.
Look at the way the sims move in Olympus. You will only find this in Olympus and TS2 for consoles. Not even in the PC version of TS2. The same is the case if you look at the faces and their clothes. No difference between Olympus and TS2 for consoles. Even so not the slightest bit of this can be found in TS4. There just isn't even the smallest detail that Olympus and TS4 have in common. But almost every detail in Olympus can also be found in TS2 for consoles and probably not in any other Sims game. So I don't think that it is just a coincidence that Patrick Kelly also worked on TS2 for consoles
Comments
I mean it *is* possible that the game originally looked like that.
But Chi Chan already showed us mock ups of The Sims 4 before The Sims 4 was built, and it was 3D. So I doubt it.
I don't understand why people think it's so odd that EA were developing two games at once. All evidence points to two separate games.
Insta: https://instagram.com/jkarajs?igshid=oef2ymrand3g
But re-reading the Patrick Kelly thread at modthesims actually gave me another suspicion - because why did all pictures and even all the writings from Patrick Kelly disappear - even so efficiently that it now is impossible to find even the slightest remain in web archives or elsewhere? The whole Patrick Kelly story looks very suspicious and so did his pictures with this poor oldfashioned graphics. Whas this really made by EA? Or did it disappear because it was made by a fake "Patrick Kelly" and after complaints from the real Patrick Kelly and because it only was made as some kind of sick joke?
This is what makes me suspicious too because if all the "Patrick Kelly" sites (which soon after disappeared even on Twitter and on webarchives.com) were fakes made as a "joke" then this would explain everything. Either the graphics and the animations could be made by himself or they could have been discarded scenes/graphics from an old Sims game for handheld devices. Maybe one of the games which the real Patrick Kelly actually had worked on (which would mean that the fake "Patrick Kelly" knew the real one somewhat).
What indicates that it could have been made by a fake "Patrick Kelly" also is that the real Patrick Kelly must have been very naive and unintelligent if he really thought that he could get away with this without consequences for himself and his whole future.
He worked as a UI designer and he called these UI mockups.
Where because I can't see any solid evidence just random things you've picked off the internet to back your idea up and what is the point of copying the gif in my signature trying to act shady when it is just really childish of you LOL wow jack wow
And really, you have no actual proof of what you're making up do you? You literally have something "Patrick Kelly" said picked off the internet, twisted it and labelled it as a fact thats it, all you're doing is spread misinformation around that there was "two separate games" when there was in fact one and we all know that so in fact like you said earlier about "It's just a misconception amongst Simmers who have heard about it through chinese whispers" you are spreading Chinese whispers by saying that there is "two games" when there isn't.
So what was this then? The apparent "second game" that got scrapped was appearing back in 2013 via youtube showing many things like online chatting, 3d sims, and funnily enough look remarkably similar to the sims 4 beta and the sims 4 we have today? Also I did my research and I found something about people finding pictures in the game files which look very similar to the way Olympus did back in it's early stages? Bit of a coincidence that?
Video from 2013
Picture found in the sims 4 game files which look very similar to these Olympus pictures and videos
Olympus when it was coming to look like the sims 4
If you look at this picture, at the top you can see something that looks like a letter for messages and three figures could be representing friends. Once again proving that this game had online features brought from Olympus.
The Sims wiki wrote a page about Olympus but I'm totally confused seeing as Olympus was scrapped early on @jackjack_k like you said, so are they spreading misinformation too??
http://sims.wikia.com/wiki/The_Sims_Olympus
Oh and I could go on but heres another video of what seems someone has been able to play multiplayer on the sims 4
This isn't all of it but I'm sure y'all get what I'm saying, So what is this that second game that got scrapped early on then because it's too much of a coincidence that a lot of this looks very similar to the sims 4 and that the sims 4 has had things found dating back to Olympus.
So what ? That doesn't change the fact that the pictures shown were UI mockups.
Why would they work on something they didn't plan on releasing? Your two statements (bold emphasis mine) are a bit contradictory @Erpe.
It looks like a mockup, which is to be expected from a mockup. Of course it doesn't look like a 2013 game, because it's not a game, why would it look like one ? Just like a storyboard doesn't look like a movie, or an early draft doesn't look like a book. But it's not supposed to, it's not the purpose of a mockup.
It was a flash based mockup meant to showcase that UI design, it's not the game, or any part of the game. It's a little interactive 'video' - like any flash based browser game. The Sims pictured were prototype Sims, there only to add references to how it would work in the game.
Below is a quote from the link that you provided. You did quote the same Q&A but only the first line of the answer.
The answer does say a new game engine. Since you just quote the first line of the answer, it looks like we have a completely new game. But the rest of the answer explains that the interactions and user interface of Olympus can be detached from the graphics part of the game, and then attached to a new 3D engine. This way, it is possible to port the low-resolution online Olympus to a beautiful high resolution single-player offline game. So, that's why I think the new "game" engine is referring to just a new graphics engine, but not a new separate game.
?
It still seems to me to be a fake based on such old games for consoles.
Another thing is what should have motivated Patrick Kelly to release all this if it really was something new he had worked on inside EA because he would have faced a lawsuit and wouldn't have had a chance to be hired again in any company. No company would ever hire a person that they couldn't trust.
But let us say that it really was "leaked" by Patrick Kelly himself as a joke which he then likely discussed with his friends in EA. They would have had a good laugh seeing people's reactions - and laughing and joking is actually what they always do because it is their way to deal with their job which is actually often quite monotonous and boring. (Just imagine that you were told to make some childish animations for babies if you didn't even like babies or if you were told to test a lot of technical things for bugs in a game that you never would play yourself.) This would probably be something that Patrick Kelly could do without risking sanctions from EA and which wouldn't prevent him from future jobs because it only was about using a few animations from an old abandoned console game which he had worked on earlier to get a good laugh. He also removed everything shortly after. So I guess that even EA wouldn't care. So maybe this is the most likely explanation?
That's also true for digital designs (like movies or books). Modern tools aren't magically producing content, they are tools, not a creative AI, they aren't "making graphics", no more than your Word is writing your texts, there's work to be done, and there's just no reason to produce high quality assets to use in a mockup (which is basically a draft, something you put together to show how it could work, the sequences of actions in the UI), it's not supposed to reflect the end result and things are highly likely to change at this point (because it's still pre-prod).
If you want to pitch me an idea for a story, you won't spend ages carefully putting a cover together to illustrate it, and the fact that Photoshop or InDesign are far more advanced than the tools we had 10-15 years ago don't change that. You just have no reason to spend time on something that just isn't that useful at that point. Why wait for high quality assets when all you want is to illustrate how the UI could work ?
1. One of the producers actually showed us earlier in a video how he could walk around in a funny way and the computer then used its camera to create animations for the sims such that walked around in the same way. That was how they created such animations.
2. New tools probably can't even create animations in old outdated graphics because new tools are made mainly to just work with new improved graphics.
3. Creating animations in old outdated graphics wouldn't help them at all when they consider how to make them in new current graphics.
They don't use such primitive tools to make the animations and making a Sims game isn't about making a story. It is instead about designing sims, clothes, furniture, building tools, houses and neighborhoods and about designing all the animations and interactions.
1. If you think of motion capture, that's not how it was done for TS4. The animations were hand made, based on a video reference, that's what SimGuruMarion explained in an interview :
2. Launch your Photoshop, and I bet you'll manage to do an awful human shape with a brush in one color, the new tool won't stop you
3. Creating animations isn't this guy's job. He is working on UI/UX. He just needed some scene with a couple of Sims to illustrate how the user could interact with the UI and how that could work. It's like lorem ipsum. There's even dummy text in this video (they most likely didn't plan to have only interactions about hating soap in TS4 or called "Interaction Name").
Making a story is an example, because I thought writing is something that is a bit more familiar to most people than making a game. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by primitive tools though. Do you consider Photoshop and InDesign to be primitive tools ?
1. It is about as difficult to update oldfashioned graphics for a game as it is to make a completely new game. This is the reason why no game company ever have taken an earlier game and then released it again with much better graphics. (You can also be very sure that EA would have wanted to do that with TS1 after EA realized that sales numbers for TS1 already was many times higher than EA had expected!)
2. If you see primitive graphics in the first presentations of a game then it isn't because everything is finished but just made in old outdated graphics. It is because the characters are missing their hair and their clothes which haven't been made yet.
So no. Patrick Kelly's demonstration of fully developed sims with clothes and hair and fully developed animations which for "random" reasons all were copied from TS2 for consoles - wasn't random at all! He made that with a very clear purpose
Your main points are completely invalid or not related to the matter at hand. Whether it's more or less difficult to update graphics or create new ones is moot. If at some point in the process, you need some content to put in there to illustrate your work, you find something that do the job and you go on with your task, you won't spend ages waiting until your coworkers have polished their work to resume your own. That's why there are dummy texts, placeholders or the same sofa everywhere. They just needed some content to fill the space that would be informative enough for the viewer to get what's happening. This video shows how interactions could work, user click here, this happens, an animation happens, this part of the UI appear, this part disappear. That sorts of things. It's not supposed to showcase animations or graphics.
"Outdated" graphics in early development is the norm. Take a look here to see an example by another publisher (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/stellaris-dev-diary-68-introductions-and-farewells.1012754/) with a PC game released in 2016, with early screenshots that have graphics that wouldn't have been out of place in the 90s.
Look, even Patrick Kelly himself said he was frustrated by how much people were drawing conclusions about the look and feel of the game by viewing UI mockups.
But my problem is that the sims themselves were fully made and equipped with different types of hair and different types of clothes. So they seem to be finished in the videos. Just just like they were made in the 10 yrs older TS2 game for consoles. This work would have been completely wasted if they instead were meant to later be made over from scratch with a new look, new hair, new clothes and new animations! To make them in the oldfashioned way first would be like building a full size tree house just to find out how in would look later when it was torn down to be rebuild in stones
No they were not. They just made a couple of assets and a basic Sim so they could use it if needed to go on with the rest of the work. It's not "wasted", it's draft content to help the rest going, it's a bit like stand-in in movies. This particular work doesn't end up in the final product as is but it's still useful for the whole process. Because they won't wait until everybody else has finished their work and produced final content before starting the next step.