Dynamic clothing and hair is sadly a long way out still for games in general. There are very few games out there that even tries it, mostly on console and even then it's very very limited.
Are you kidding me? Dude, you seriously need to play more games. Practically all modern games feature dynamic hair, and clothing physics to some extent. The average game renders photorealistic gameplay at 60 frames per second on both console and PC. GTA 5, Batman:Arkham Knight, Dragon Age: inquisition, Alien: Isolation, Saints Row 4, Mad Max....you get the idea.
GTA 5 on PC is Need For Speed with a story, bald tyres and horrible helicopter controls. But yes, it looks fancier than Sims 4.
Batman: Arkham Knight on PC is the most broken game that ever existed, it dethroned AC:Unity which was another unoptimized garbage.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is a fantastic example, I give you that. It's also EA's game and has colorwheels in character creation process unlike Sims 4. Okay, it doesn't have body inflating and stuff, but well, it's not a game where it'd be a necessity.
Other games you mentioned I don't have nor played.
But I do have and played The Witcher 3 and Metal Gear Solid 5.
The crazy looking hair, in fact nVidia's hairworks is available ONLY ON PC in The Witcher 3. I haven't seen such hair spectacle in any other game. Square Enix also promised hair bonanza in upcoming Deus Ex: Mankind Divided though, a game that's supposed to be released in 4 months, but because of censorship here I can't link to it's trailers.
What consoles and what attempts on inferior garbage are we talking about? PC is currently the only platform that can do the hair thing. The reason some games don't work on PC as smooth as on consoles is poor ports by their developers. And not in one occasion it was modders who fixed the poor port.
Sims 4 executable is 32bit.
It can't grab more than 4 Gb of RAM, and even that is questionable.
Fancy graphics in new games need more RAM, and that means 64bit exe. Those who know and those who don't, last year's Gamespot GOTY (Divinity: Original Sin) got it's EE version a few days back. With fancier graphics - but also 64bit only exe!
So yea, early Sims 4 builds probably used more details. But in the development process, someone decided the game has to sacrifice visuals for sakes of old machines. I?m sure I'll get some hate on me again for saying it, but Sims 4 feels like a game from past decade, not like a modern PC game.
Which is, IMO, sad.
PC games should look like PC games, not like tablet games.
The process didn't stop there. Another sad thing is that EA merged Sims with phone development. Even a newborn child could understand that you can't do a core game on phones - there will always be watering and dumbing down stuff there.
I really hope Sims 4 is not the last life sim game made by EA. But honestly, I don't (want to) buy phonegames on my PC.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
But no fun to play, unfortunately. I certainly can't be entertained with only bright colors.
Anyhow...don't mind me...I have tried to play again and it didn't last long. Over it.
There are more than just bright colours, but I do understand that it comes down to preference. There is no game out that has everyone enjoying playing it.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
assassins creed only was bug fest in the first few months the majority of bugs where fixed and the game is currently pretty stable and fine, some low fps here and there but is much better now and that is another difference between dev teams, while most of the game dev run fast to fixe they mess maxis still clueless about how to fix the majority of they bugs or keep creating new bugs with new content.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
assassins creed only was bug fest in the first few months the majority of bugs where fixed and the game is currently pretty stable and fine, some low fps here and there but is much better now and that is another difference between dev teams, while most of the game dev run fast to fixe they mess maxis still clueless about how to fix the majority of they bugs or keep creating new bugs with new content.
Yes they chose to admit the issues and work hard to get early investors in the game back on side. I watched it very closely. The bosses came out to apologise and admit it wasn't good enough and offered things to make up for the poor experience.
How companies react to mistakes and situations that dobt go well says a lot about them.
I agree, Ubisoft handled the Unity debacle pretty well. They didn't just apologize, they gave season pass holders a free game (newer games were chosen from the Ubisoft library as compensation, including Far Cry 4). Everyone who purchased the game received the Dead Kings DLC for free.
They made it clear during promo for AC Syndicate that they wanted and needed community feedback and hosted test sessions for fans to take part in. Then they posted footage from those event on YouTube so the whole community could see what Ubisoft's process is for correcting mistakes.
I wish we could get even 1/4 of that kind of response from EA.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
assassins creed only was bug fest in the first few months the majority of bugs where fixed and the game is currently pretty stable and fine, some low fps here and there but is much better now and that is another difference between dev teams, while most of the game dev run fast to fixe they mess maxis still clueless about how to fix the majority of they bugs or keep creating new bugs with new content.
Yes they chose to admit the issues and work hard to get early investors in the game back on side. I watched it very closely. The bosses came out to apologise and admit it wasn't good enough and offered things to make up for the poor experience.
How companies react to mistakes and situations that dobt go well says a lot about them.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
assassins creed only was bug fest in the first few months the majority of bugs where fixed and the game is currently pretty stable and fine, some low fps here and there but is much better now and that is another difference between dev teams, while most of the game dev run fast to fixe they mess maxis still clueless about how to fix the majority of they bugs or keep creating new bugs with new content.
Different companies put out patches at different rates. And unfortunately no game is ever bug free. But there are some who rarely address issues with their games.
I have have admit whether it's another game or The Sims, I do enjoy watching videos and looking at pictures of glitches etc, some amaze me.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
assassins creed only was bug fest in the first few months the majority of bugs where fixed and the game is currently pretty stable and fine, some low fps here and there but is much better now and that is another difference between dev teams, while most of the game dev run fast to fixe they mess maxis still clueless about how to fix the majority of they bugs or keep creating new bugs with new content.
Yes they chose to admit the issues and work hard to get early investors in the game back on side. I watched it very closely. The bosses came out to apologise and admit it wasn't good enough and offered things to make up for the poor experience.
How companies react to mistakes and situations that dobt go well says a lot about them.
Yeah that is why i'm still a ubisoft fan, they still have problem in develop games and have issues but they come to the public admit they mistakes and try to compensate for it while they are really hard working in fix they bugs the most fast they can before even release they first "extra content(packs), they don't just ignore bugs and make a pack fest focusing in releasing packs and stack more bugs like maxis love to do to maybe later(very late fix it).
that is what sepparated good develop team for bad ones.
I agree, Ubisoft handled the Unity debacle pretty well. They didn't just apologize, they gave season pass holders a free game (newer games were chosen from the Ubisoft library as compensation, including Far Cry 4). Everyone who purchased the game received the Dead Kings DLC for free.
They made it clear during promo for AC Syndicate that they wanted and needed community feedback and hosted test sessions for fans to take part in. Then they posted footage from those event on YouTube so the whole community could see what Ubisoft's process is for correcting mistakes.
I wish we could get even 1/4 of that kind of response from EA.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
assassins creed only was bug fest in the first few months the majority of bugs where fixed and the game is currently pretty stable and fine, some low fps here and there but is much better now and that is another difference between dev teams, while most of the game dev run fast to fixe they mess maxis still clueless about how to fix the majority of they bugs or keep creating new bugs with new content.
Yes they chose to admit the issues and work hard to get early investors in the game back on side. I watched it very closely. The bosses came out to apologise and admit it wasn't good enough and offered things to make up for the poor experience.
How companies react to mistakes and situations that dobt go well says a lot about them.
Totally agree. That's a show of good practice in the sector. They made mistakes and they dealt with it well. They didn't blame customers or try to get out of dealing with it. It shows its a choice made by the company. It is possible for companies to fix things, even big companies,-but to do so sufficiently they have to admit their mistakes and show humility towards those who invested early and gave them the benefit of the doubt. That wins you extra wiggle room and time in sorting things. Moaning about your customers or how hard it is to do something does the opposite. I'm proof of that. It made me totally lose faith in them after months of defending them.
They should be very grateful to those who invested early and gave them the benefit of the doubt. I don't see that at all. Those first customers paid the most, got the least amount of content and where was the benefit for them? They've had to watch everyone else get it discounted heavily month after month, wait months for the missing stuff to be released and read 'excuses' from Maxis of how unreasonable their customers are asking for 'EP content' when EA know full well that's not what the issue is at all. They released an unfinished base and even acknowledged it!
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
It's interesting comparing The Sims 4 to other games.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Normally I look for both: graphics and gameplay a game with a good gameplay which can entertain me and have awesome graphics is aways wellcome that is why i like the witcher, assassins creed, batman arkham series, most of blizzard games, heroes of might & magic series and others games.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
assassins creed only was bug fest in the first few months the majority of bugs where fixed and the game is currently pretty stable and fine, some low fps here and there but is much better now and that is another difference between dev teams, while most of the game dev run fast to fixe they mess maxis still clueless about how to fix the majority of they bugs or keep creating new bugs with new content.
Yes they chose to admit the issues and work hard to get early investors in the game back on side. I watched it very closely. The bosses came out to apologise and admit it wasn't good enough and offered things to make up for the poor experience.
How companies react to mistakes and situations that dobt go well says a lot about them.
Yeah that is why i'm still a ubisoft fan, they still have problem in develop games and have issues but they come to the public admit they mistakes and try to compensate for it while they are really hard working in fix they bugs the most fast they can before even release they first "extra content(packs), they don't just ignore bugs and make a pack fest focusing in releasing packs and stack more bugs like maxis love to do to maybe later(very late fix it).
that is what sepparated good develop team for bad ones.
None are perfect. But I'd much rather throw my money at a company who show appreciation for my custom and appreciate that by giving a quality product or if there are issues admitting and fixing them timely or coming to customers and say they need more time but know the issues are serious to the customer.
I don't appreciate a company with access to the brightest and best staff and resources making excuses for why a product isn't up to standard. I don't think a self imposed time limit excuses them at all-they didn't have trouble charging AAA prices despite all the issues. If they had dropped the price and then said it had issues so we're mitigating with the cost of the product I'd be less frustrated about the situation.
They didn't. They played on the brand loyalty to sell the product and released knowing it wasn't finished and then seem to get 'offended' that some customers want a full base experience for their premium base money.
I agree, Ubisoft handled the Unity debacle pretty well. They didn't just apologize, they gave season pass holders a free game (newer games were chosen from the Ubisoft library as compensation, including Far Cry 4). Everyone who purchased the game received the Dead Kings DLC for free.
They made it clear during promo for AC Syndicate that they wanted and needed community feedback and hosted test sessions for fans to take part in. Then they posted footage from those event on YouTube so the whole community could see what Ubisoft's process is for correcting mistakes.
I wish we could get even 1/4 of that kind of response from EA.
We do get 1/4 of that kind of response from EA, they say they want and need community feedback, but that's about as far as it goes.
I agree, Ubisoft handled the Unity debacle pretty well. They didn't just apologize, they gave season pass holders a free game (newer games were chosen from the Ubisoft library as compensation, including Far Cry 4). Everyone who purchased the game received the Dead Kings DLC for free.
They made it clear during promo for AC Syndicate that they wanted and needed community feedback and hosted test sessions for fans to take part in. Then they posted footage from those event on YouTube so the whole community could see what Ubisoft's process is for correcting mistakes.
I wish we could get even 1/4 of that kind of response from EA.
We do get 1/4 of that kind of response from EA, they say they want and need community feedback, but that's about as far as it goes.
Yeah they say that but then elsewhere say the opposite when they are trying to say customers want EP content and all those comments.
I agree, Ubisoft handled the Unity debacle pretty well. They didn't just apologize, they gave season pass holders a free game (newer games were chosen from the Ubisoft library as compensation, including Far Cry 4). Everyone who purchased the game received the Dead Kings DLC for free.
They made it clear during promo for AC Syndicate that they wanted and needed community feedback and hosted test sessions for fans to take part in. Then they posted footage from those event on YouTube so the whole community could see what Ubisoft's process is for correcting mistakes.
I wish we could get even 1/4 of that kind of response from EA.
We do get 1/4 of that kind of response from EA, they say they want and need community feedback, but that's about as far as it goes.
Yeah they say that but then elsewhere say the opposite when they are trying to say customers want EP content and all those comments.
The problem is which they are focusing on the customers which are fine with sims 4(regards bugs and lack of content) and just want more eps, which is more easy and a garanted money.
They already get they "target customers" now they will try to focus on it.
The only reason they cold act different could be if the simmers acted liked the fans of ubisoft or like simcity 2013 where really the big majority of fanbase not only complained but also closed they pockets for the game and where vocal on all medias and scared ea and maxis as they did in that others places, but since the sims fans in general are more "easy to accept cheap moves" then we get what we get.
Comments
GTA 5 on PC is Need For Speed with a story, bald tyres and horrible helicopter controls. But yes, it looks fancier than Sims 4.
Batman: Arkham Knight on PC is the most broken game that ever existed, it dethroned AC:Unity which was another unoptimized garbage.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is a fantastic example, I give you that. It's also EA's game and has colorwheels in character creation process unlike Sims 4. Okay, it doesn't have body inflating and stuff, but well, it's not a game where it'd be a necessity.
Other games you mentioned I don't have nor played.
But I do have and played The Witcher 3 and Metal Gear Solid 5.
The crazy looking hair, in fact nVidia's hairworks is available ONLY ON PC in The Witcher 3. I haven't seen such hair spectacle in any other game. Square Enix also promised hair bonanza in upcoming Deus Ex: Mankind Divided though, a game that's supposed to be released in 4 months, but because of censorship here I can't link to it's trailers.
What consoles and what attempts on inferior garbage are we talking about? PC is currently the only platform that can do the hair thing. The reason some games don't work on PC as smooth as on consoles is poor ports by their developers. And not in one occasion it was modders who fixed the poor port.
Can't agree more.
All I can say is some of the PS4 games look better when played on a TV than a gaming PC monitor.
GTA 5 is a perfect example. On a TV it looks unbelievable, however on a gaming monitor it looks cartoon like.
Dragon Age: Inquisition is the reverse. It looks terrible on a TV screen and much better on a gaming monitor.
At the end of the day all games styles are different, and should only be judged by their predecessors and not against other games.
Going off that, I think in some ways 4 has improved, I'm able to notice subtle differences more. And I love all the colours, they bring the game to life and are so beautiful to look at and watch.
Anyhow...don't mind me...I have tried to play again and it didn't last long. Over it.
There are more than just bright colours, but I do understand that it comes down to preference. There is no game out that has everyone enjoying playing it.
that is the problem the only good thing thing in sims 4 (and for only some peoples) are the "shine, fancy and cuting cartoon colors, when comes to "technical side of graphics the sims 4 is terrible and few step downs compared with current tech.
One thing is comparing gameplay which we can't but another is comparing techinical aspects which we can, graphics, bugs, sound and others technical aspects can be compared because they "are the same in the end" unlike gameplay which is the difference, where we can only compare games from the same gender.
Some aspects of 4 are an improvement for me, they eyes I prefer for an example. They look like they have spark and life in them.
There are loads of games with different graphics from high quality to low quality. I have always preferred how a game plays to how it looks. Looks can't hide a game that lags and has little to see or do. It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", lots of games use this technique and it's wrong. Little Big Planet 3 is a great example, the game is boring a relies heavily on its graphics to try and impress.
Because SimsVIP isn't EA. It's info that wasn't officially released.
For me if a game don't have a minimum graphics (average to good for his age) then even if peoples saying which the game is awesome I still don't play, a good exemple is minecraft, while many peoples love the sandbox and gameplay but I can't stand for the "cube" graphics its a personal level, but I already see peoples doing some crazy works with minecraft and make really some good things, but for me still not the best, then we have now lego trying to copy it .
And if you thing the sims 4 is not too much different from that "It then just becomes a bad game in a "pretty wrapper", because the amount of bugs and lack of animations and game play don't make it better.
Oh thanks haha.
There are many great examples of being able to use Minecraft to create works of art. The models made in it of Titanic are perfect examples.
That game has has lot of content in it, and on the right screen, it's graphics can still impress.
That's why I acknowledged that no one game can impress everyone. I dislike the Batman game for example. And Assassins Creed is a bug fest unfortunately, there are so many hilarious pictures and gifs from that game that highlight that.
But I do know people who enjoy those games, it's preference and personal taste. If we all enjoyed th same things it would be an awfully boring world.
assassins creed only was bug fest in the first few months the majority of bugs where fixed and the game is currently pretty stable and fine, some low fps here and there but is much better now and that is another difference between dev teams, while most of the game dev run fast to fixe they mess maxis still clueless about how to fix the majority of they bugs or keep creating new bugs with new content.
Yes they chose to admit the issues and work hard to get early investors in the game back on side. I watched it very closely. The bosses came out to apologise and admit it wasn't good enough and offered things to make up for the poor experience.
How companies react to mistakes and situations that dobt go well says a lot about them.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
They made it clear during promo for AC Syndicate that they wanted and needed community feedback and hosted test sessions for fans to take part in. Then they posted footage from those event on YouTube so the whole community could see what Ubisoft's process is for correcting mistakes.
I wish we could get even 1/4 of that kind of response from EA.
Different companies put out patches at different rates. And unfortunately no game is ever bug free. But there are some who rarely address issues with their games.
I have have admit whether it's another game or The Sims, I do enjoy watching videos and looking at pictures of glitches etc, some amaze me.
Yeah that is why i'm still a ubisoft fan, they still have problem in develop games and have issues but they come to the public admit they mistakes and try to compensate for it while they are really hard working in fix they bugs the most fast they can before even release they first "extra content(packs), they don't just ignore bugs and make a pack fest focusing in releasing packs and stack more bugs like maxis love to do to maybe later(very late fix it).
that is what sepparated good develop team for bad ones.
Totally agree. That's a show of good practice in the sector. They made mistakes and they dealt with it well. They didn't blame customers or try to get out of dealing with it. It shows its a choice made by the company. It is possible for companies to fix things, even big companies,-but to do so sufficiently they have to admit their mistakes and show humility towards those who invested early and gave them the benefit of the doubt. That wins you extra wiggle room and time in sorting things. Moaning about your customers or how hard it is to do something does the opposite. I'm proof of that. It made me totally lose faith in them after months of defending them.
They should be very grateful to those who invested early and gave them the benefit of the doubt. I don't see that at all. Those first customers paid the most, got the least amount of content and where was the benefit for them? They've had to watch everyone else get it discounted heavily month after month, wait months for the missing stuff to be released and read 'excuses' from Maxis of how unreasonable their customers are asking for 'EP content' when EA know full well that's not what the issue is at all. They released an unfinished base and even acknowledged it!
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
None are perfect. But I'd much rather throw my money at a company who show appreciation for my custom and appreciate that by giving a quality product or if there are issues admitting and fixing them timely or coming to customers and say they need more time but know the issues are serious to the customer.
I don't appreciate a company with access to the brightest and best staff and resources making excuses for why a product isn't up to standard. I don't think a self imposed time limit excuses them at all-they didn't have trouble charging AAA prices despite all the issues. If they had dropped the price and then said it had issues so we're mitigating with the cost of the product I'd be less frustrated about the situation.
They didn't. They played on the brand loyalty to sell the product and released knowing it wasn't finished and then seem to get 'offended' that some customers want a full base experience for their premium base money.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
We do get 1/4 of that kind of response from EA, they say they want and need community feedback, but that's about as far as it goes.
Yeah they say that but then elsewhere say the opposite when they are trying to say customers want EP content and all those comments.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
The problem is which they are focusing on the customers which are fine with sims 4(regards bugs and lack of content) and just want more eps, which is more easy and a garanted money.
They already get they "target customers" now they will try to focus on it.
The only reason they cold act different could be if the simmers acted liked the fans of ubisoft or like simcity 2013 where really the big majority of fanbase not only complained but also closed they pockets for the game and where vocal on all medias and scared ea and maxis as they did in that others places, but since the sims fans in general are more "easy to accept cheap moves" then we get what we get.