But I want cool EPs and GPs to play with and to wait for. I don't want to put on the back burner because all of you don't want Sims 4 to get anywhere. That's not entirely fair to the people who actually like this game.
EA did split off staff while Sims2 was only halfway through in order for work on Sims3 to develop.
EA did make eps and stuff packs for Sims2 during that time.
How is this any different?
You are asking them to start working on Sims5 6 months after the release of Sims4. That is how it is different. I have no qualms at all if after two years they start working on Sims5. But to say they need to start on it now ... the game came out in September, you want them to start on Sims5 in January.
Yup, Sims4 is what you get when you wait till the last minute to do a new game. There was no time to fix things when they found the online game wasn't going to fly. That was the timeline they set, and had to move ahead with it. So yes, I want them to start working NOW.
Sad to say, but I do believe that there are those who are hoping it will fail. Not sure why.
They probably are so naive, that they think that EA will listen more to their wishes if only the Sims 4 fails. They are just angry and want to punish EA for developing the Sims 4 in a different direction than they wanted. But EA will of course make the game the way that they think will sell best. Therefore EA will always introduce new ways to make new simmers more interested in buying the games instead of just trying to keep as many of the earlier customers for previous games as possible (because otherwise the sales numbers could only go down).
No, you are wrong. It not some "naïve" and "angry" people. This game is NOT a worthy successor to The Sims franchise.
As a standalone game? Perhaps.
As a newer version of Sims Freeplay or MySims? Possibly.
But as an improvement to S2 or S3? Not a chance.
And THAT is why many want this game to die, so that EA can move an and develop a legitimate game worthy of the series.
To go back to 14 year old worlds with limited lots and the inability to edit the lot sizes is NOT an improvement.
To go back to loading screens from 10 years in NOT an improvement.
To go to some cheap low-poly items (the chipmunk is the best example) from 2 sets (S2 and S3) of a greater realism format is NOT an improvement.
Oh, and after viewing pics of clipping in the previews of Sims4, especially when sitting down, after knowing about that problem did EA fix the clipping? Nope; from the latest game pack, I saw a pic of 2 bears sitting on the bench and their legs were clipped SO bad...their legs were literally fused together! Is that an improvement? No way.
So instead of slagging others, maybe look and see WHY they feel as they do: that the sooner EA stops wasting time/money/resources on a game with an inadequate engine, faulty coding, low quality animations, an art style suited not for a PC game but some mobile MyLittlePony game...and starts work on a WORTHY successor for this series (and you have seen pics of other games that WOULD be a logical improvement from Sims3) then all the better.
Your assumption that EA wanted the Sims 4 to be an improved version of the Sims 3 is where you are wrong because EA doesn't just make improved versions of older games. They make new games and that is what the Sims 4 was meant to be whether you like it or not.
They shouldn't have called it The Sims 4, then.
Why not? They didn't call in "New and improved version of the Sims 3".
When they increase the number and otherwise keep the name then it just means that it is a new game similar to the previous one. So I have no problem here. But I have seen much worse examples:
About 20 years ago the publisher Virgin Interactive released two games: Dune and Dune 2. So you would think that those games were similar? But this wasn't the case at all! Dune was an adventure game while Dune 2 was a pure strategic game! So Dune 2 was in no way a continuation of the previous game!
Sims 2 was a PC game with its focus on families and children. So you would expect the Playstation version of the Sims 2 to be that too? No, it wasn't that at all! You couldn't even have children in that game! The Sims 2 (PC) was also a sandbox game. The Sims 2 (Playstation) wasn't that at all! So why was the Playstation game named The Sims 2 too!?!??
Those two examples shocked me.
but was a continuation of the serie, the same with might & magic series, the original creator the fallen died 3do they made their series in 2 type of games a rpg type and a strategy and worked perfect, everything happening in the rpg (story) was carried to the strategy game and everything happened in game was carried to rpg, that was 2 way to see the game and both where about the samething just 2 different games, the current owner ubisoft did the same we have the strategy and the rpg both sharing the same story but different moments and visions, want another exemple??? super mario series, started with a plataform adventure game and now have a race and others sort of games.
again becarefull with statements and do more researchs
You confuse me. But if I read you correctly then you are actually talking about two different series: Might&Magic (1 to 10) and Heroes of Might&Magic (1 to 6
The Might&Magic series were all RPG games while the Heroes of Might&Magic series were all strategic games.
no, they are the same serie being write in 2 different genres, what happen in one game is used in the other(the story and plot), heroes of might and magic 3 was the continuation of might and magic 6, then might and magic 7 was the continuation of heroes 3, one game type is the continuation of the other, you can use different genrers of game to count the same story.
I don't see that at all. MM6 and MM7 were some of my favorite games while Heroes of Might&Magic 2 was my favorite in the strategic series. But I have played HOMM3 too.
There are some similarities in both the names and the fact that both series originally were developed by Jon Van Haneghem for New World of Computing. Later they were taken over by 3DO and Ubisoft. But I don't see any similarities really in their stories.
Heroes of Might&Magic was a spinoff from the Might&Magic series which also had other spinoffs like Crusaders of Might&Magic, Warriors of Might&Magic, Legends of Might&Magic and Swords of Xeen. Like the Sims series which also have had several spinoff like Medieval and the Sims Stories games.
them you dont pay attention to the game story, because the events in heroes 3 had impact on might and magic, after the girl(which i forget the name) become the queen in heroes 3 lead to things which happened in might 7 then what happened in might 7 or was might 8 leaded to the game plot of heroes 4(which like the sims 4 was the worst game ever) then ubisoft take over the game and followed the events of heroes 4 to make might and magic 9 which lead to heroes 5(or was opposed) which lead to might and magic 10 and after everything they had a reboot starting in heroes 6, read about all the lore and you see, heroes and the rpg might and magic share the same world/timeline/verse, both games are direct connected the same goes to wow and warcraft, wow started as a sort of "spinoff from warcraft strategy game", wow lore start 10 years after the events of warcraft 3 and blizzard already told which no more warcraft strategy game because they will keep using wow to tell the story of warcraft and because they already have one strategy game in this case starcraft serie, then they dont need have 2 even if warcraft come first.
Sad to say, but I do believe that there are those who are hoping it will fail. Not sure why.
They probably are so naive, that they think that EA will listen more to their wishes if only the Sims 4 fails. They are just angry and want to punish EA for developing the Sims 4 in a different direction than they wanted. But EA will of course make the game the way that they think will sell best. Therefore EA will always introduce new ways to make new simmers more interested in buying the games instead of just trying to keep as many of the earlier customers for previous games as possible (because otherwise the sales numbers could only go down).
No, you are wrong. It not some "naïve" and "angry" people. This game is NOT a worthy successor to The Sims franchise.
As a standalone game? Perhaps.
As a newer version of Sims Freeplay or MySims? Possibly.
But as an improvement to S2 or S3? Not a chance.
And THAT is why many want this game to die, so that EA can move an and develop a legitimate game worthy of the series.
To go back to 14 year old worlds with limited lots and the inability to edit the lot sizes is NOT an improvement.
To go back to loading screens from 10 years in NOT an improvement.
To go to some cheap low-poly items (the chipmunk is the best example) from 2 sets (S2 and S3) of a greater realism format is NOT an improvement.
Oh, and after viewing pics of clipping in the previews of Sims4, especially when sitting down, after knowing about that problem did EA fix the clipping? Nope; from the latest game pack, I saw a pic of 2 bears sitting on the bench and their legs were clipped SO bad...their legs were literally fused together! Is that an improvement? No way.
So instead of slagging others, maybe look and see WHY they feel as they do: that the sooner EA stops wasting time/money/resources on a game with an inadequate engine, faulty coding, low quality animations, an art style suited not for a PC game but some mobile MyLittlePony game...and starts work on a WORTHY successor for this series (and you have seen pics of other games that WOULD be a logical improvement from Sims3) then all the better.
Your assumption that EA wanted the Sims 4 to be an improved version of the Sims 3 is where you are wrong because EA doesn't just make improved versions of older games. They make new games and that is what the Sims 4 was meant to be whether you like it or not.
They shouldn't have called it The Sims 4, then.
Why not? They didn't call in "New and improved version of the Sims 3".
When they increase the number and otherwise keep the name then it just means that it is a new game similar to the previous one. So I have no problem here. But I have seen much worse examples:
About 20 years ago the publisher Virgin Interactive released two games: Dune and Dune 2. So you would think that those games were similar? But this wasn't the case at all! Dune was an adventure game while Dune 2 was a pure strategic game! So Dune 2 was in no way a continuation of the previous game!
Sims 2 was a PC game with its focus on families and children. So you would expect the Playstation version of the Sims 2 to be that too? No, it wasn't that at all! You couldn't even have children in that game! The Sims 2 (PC) was also a sandbox game. The Sims 2 (Playstation) wasn't that at all! So why was the Playstation game named The Sims 2 too!?!??
Those two examples shocked me.
but was a continuation of the serie, the same with might & magic series, the original creator the fallen died 3do they made their series in 2 type of games a rpg type and a strategy and worked perfect, everything happening in the rpg (story) was carried to the strategy game and everything happened in game was carried to rpg, that was 2 way to see the game and both where about the samething just 2 different games, the current owner ubisoft did the same we have the strategy and the rpg both sharing the same story but different moments and visions, want another exemple??? super mario series, started with a plataform adventure game and now have a race and others sort of games.
again becarefull with statements and do more researchs
You confuse me. But if I read you correctly then you are actually talking about two different series: Might&Magic (1 to 10) and Heroes of Might&Magic (1 to 6
The Might&Magic series were all RPG games while the Heroes of Might&Magic series were all strategic games.
no, they are the same serie being write in 2 different genres, what happen in one game is used in the other(the story and plot), heroes of might and magic 3 was the continuation of might and magic 6, then might and magic 7 was the continuation of heroes 3, one game type is the continuation of the other, you can use different genrers of game to count the same story.
I don't see that at all. MM6 and MM7 were some of my favorite games while Heroes of Might&Magic 2 was my favorite in the strategic series. But I have played HOMM3 too.
There are some similarities in both the names and the fact that both series originally were developed by Jon Van Haneghem for New World of Computing. Later they were taken over by 3DO and Ubisoft. But I don't see any similarities really in their stories.
Heroes of Might&Magic was a spinoff from the Might&Magic series which also had other spinoffs like Crusaders of Might&Magic, Warriors of Might&Magic, Legends of Might&Magic and Swords of Xeen. Like the Sims series which also have had several spinoff like Medieval and the Sims Stories games.
them you dont pay attention to the game story, because the events in heroes 3 had impact on might and magic, after the girl(which i forget the name) become the queen in heroes 3 lead to things which happened in might 7 then what happened in might 7 or was might 8 leaded to the game plot of heroes 4(which like the sims 4 was the worst game ever) then ubisoft take over the game and followed the events of heroes 4 to make might and magic 9 which lead to heroes 5(or was opposed) which lead to might and magic 10 and after everything they had a reboot starting in heroes 6, read about all the lore and you see, heroes and the rpg might and magic share the same world/timeline/verse, both games are direct connected the same goes to wow and warcraft, wow started as a sort of "spinoff from warcraft strategy game", wow lore start 10 years after the events of warcraft 3 and blizzard already told which no more warcraft strategy game because they will keep using wow to tell the story of warcraft and because they already have one strategy game in this case starcraft serie, then they dont need have 2 even if warcraft come first.
As mentioned I didn't play HOMM3 nearly as much as I played HOMM2, and I usually only played the standard games and not the campaign games.
I don't like the newer games in any of the series. M&M9 was awful because they switched to another game engine and made the game more similar to Baldur's Gate which I didn't like either.
I have played both Warcraft and Starcraft. But not WoW because I prefer single player games and surely not an online game where you have to pay a monthly subscription.
Sad to say, but I do believe that there are those who are hoping it will fail. Not sure why.
They probably are so naive, that they think that EA will listen more to their wishes if only the Sims 4 fails. They are just angry and want to punish EA for developing the Sims 4 in a different direction than they wanted. But EA will of course make the game the way that they think will sell best. Therefore EA will always introduce new ways to make new simmers more interested in buying the games instead of just trying to keep as many of the earlier customers for previous games as possible (because otherwise the sales numbers could only go down).
No, you are wrong. It not some "naïve" and "angry" people. This game is NOT a worthy successor to The Sims franchise.
As a standalone game? Perhaps.
As a newer version of Sims Freeplay or MySims? Possibly.
But as an improvement to S2 or S3? Not a chance.
And THAT is why many want this game to die, so that EA can move an and develop a legitimate game worthy of the series.
To go back to 14 year old worlds with limited lots and the inability to edit the lot sizes is NOT an improvement.
To go back to loading screens from 10 years in NOT an improvement.
To go to some cheap low-poly items (the chipmunk is the best example) from 2 sets (S2 and S3) of a greater realism format is NOT an improvement.
Oh, and after viewing pics of clipping in the previews of Sims4, especially when sitting down, after knowing about that problem did EA fix the clipping? Nope; from the latest game pack, I saw a pic of 2 bears sitting on the bench and their legs were clipped SO bad...their legs were literally fused together! Is that an improvement? No way.
So instead of slagging others, maybe look and see WHY they feel as they do: that the sooner EA stops wasting time/money/resources on a game with an inadequate engine, faulty coding, low quality animations, an art style suited not for a PC game but some mobile MyLittlePony game...and starts work on a WORTHY successor for this series (and you have seen pics of other games that WOULD be a logical improvement from Sims3) then all the better.
Your assumption that EA wanted the Sims 4 to be an improved version of the Sims 3 is where you are wrong because EA doesn't just make improved versions of older games. They make new games and that is what the Sims 4 was meant to be whether you like it or not.
They shouldn't have called it The Sims 4, then.
Why not? They didn't call in "New and improved version of the Sims 3".
When they increase the number and otherwise keep the name then it just means that it is a new game similar to the previous one. So I have no problem here. But I have seen much worse examples:
About 20 years ago the publisher Virgin Interactive released two games: Dune and Dune 2. So you would think that those games were similar? But this wasn't the case at all! Dune was an adventure game while Dune 2 was a pure strategic game! So Dune 2 was in no way a continuation of the previous game!
Sims 2 was a PC game with its focus on families and children. So you would expect the Playstation version of the Sims 2 to be that too? No, it wasn't that at all! You couldn't even have children in that game! The Sims 2 (PC) was also a sandbox game. The Sims 2 (Playstation) wasn't that at all! So why was the Playstation game named The Sims 2 too!?!??
Those two examples shocked me.
but was a continuation of the serie, the same with might & magic series, the original creator the fallen died 3do they made their series in 2 type of games a rpg type and a strategy and worked perfect, everything happening in the rpg (story) was carried to the strategy game and everything happened in game was carried to rpg, that was 2 way to see the game and both where about the samething just 2 different games, the current owner ubisoft did the same we have the strategy and the rpg both sharing the same story but different moments and visions, want another exemple??? super mario series, started with a plataform adventure game and now have a race and others sort of games.
again becarefull with statements and do more researchs
You confuse me. But if I read you correctly then you are actually talking about two different series: Might&Magic (1 to 10) and Heroes of Might&Magic (1 to 6
The Might&Magic series were all RPG games while the Heroes of Might&Magic series were all strategic games.
no, they are the same serie being write in 2 different genres, what happen in one game is used in the other(the story and plot), heroes of might and magic 3 was the continuation of might and magic 6, then might and magic 7 was the continuation of heroes 3, one game type is the continuation of the other, you can use different genrers of game to count the same story.
I don't see that at all. MM6 and MM7 were some of my favorite games while Heroes of Might&Magic 2 was my favorite in the strategic series. But I have played HOMM3 too.
There are some similarities in both the names and the fact that both series originally were developed by Jon Van Haneghem for New World of Computing. Later they were taken over by 3DO and Ubisoft. But I don't see any similarities really in their stories.
Heroes of Might&Magic was a spinoff from the Might&Magic series which also had other spinoffs like Crusaders of Might&Magic, Warriors of Might&Magic, Legends of Might&Magic and Swords of Xeen. Like the Sims series which also have had several spinoff like Medieval and the Sims Stories games.
them you dont pay attention to the game story, because the events in heroes 3 had impact on might and magic, after the girl(which i forget the name) become the queen in heroes 3 lead to things which happened in might 7 then what happened in might 7 or was might 8 leaded to the game plot of heroes 4(which like the sims 4 was the worst game ever) then ubisoft take over the game and followed the events of heroes 4 to make might and magic 9 which lead to heroes 5(or was opposed) which lead to might and magic 10 and after everything they had a reboot starting in heroes 6, read about all the lore and you see, heroes and the rpg might and magic share the same world/timeline/verse, both games are direct connected the same goes to wow and warcraft, wow started as a sort of "spinoff from warcraft strategy game", wow lore start 10 years after the events of warcraft 3 and blizzard already told which no more warcraft strategy game because they will keep using wow to tell the story of warcraft and because they already have one strategy game in this case starcraft serie, then they dont need have 2 even if warcraft come first.
As mentioned I didn't play HOMM3 nearly as much as I played HOMM2, and I usually only played the standard games and not the campaign games.
I don't like the newer games in any of the series. M&M9 was awful because they switched to another game engine and made the game more similar to Baldur's Gate which I didn't like either.
I have played both Warcraft and Starcraft. But not WoW because I prefer single player games and surely not an online game where you have to pay a monthly subscription.
well then this end to a matter of personnal taste.
now we talked about it, yeah heroes of might and magic is the pefect exemple for sims 4, heroes was a big sucess until heroes 4, where the dev tried to make "too many changes" and go back to some too old things, like the sims them the game failed and the company went bankrupt, then what ubisoft make, get what is the best in the heroes 3 which is proclamed the best heroes among the fans and players and make the heroes 5 with some changes, the game was a sucess but have little problem specially about the "turns" which turned to be a little mess sometimes, then they goes to heroes 6 and goes back to study heroes 3 and make a almost clone of heroes 3 with new engineer and features then get a great sucess with heroes 6. that is how game companys does they improve a game, make hugh changes like they did in the sims 4 was a horrible move, this can be sucessfull and a fail specially when you dont make up for what you removed/changed which is the problem here, sims 4 was a big stripped game and the features dont lived up for what was take off the trade was too unfair because they needed to rush the game to a point where we have a superficial good graphic until you start to look more carefull and see how bad is really the graphics, they only look good as long you dont pay attention to details.
I agree that the comment from Grant was most likely a threat. Sims fans can be very loyal and I think that was preying on our loyalty to the franchise as whole (not 4 in particular) I expect to see the Sims 5 regardless of how well 4 sells.
I agree with you here. They will probably make a few expansions and see if that brings in new sales. If that failed to generate the sales, the development team would go back to the drawing board creating TS5 sooner then originally planned.
Without the Sims, maxis is dead, particularly after the SimCity debacle where they failed to revive an old IP. That said, even if Sims 4 sold enough, when you look at the metacritic scores, a 40 point gap where the player-reviewers said they were not sold a good product is pretty damning in terms of reputation. That's worse when you consider Maxis a studio with only one working game IP and no immediate future beyond DLC sales.
EA itself couldn't care either way, since stock prices are at an eight-year high after the value crash in 2008 that stayed down until recently. I'd credit that more to Madden, Inquisition, and Titanfall sales than Sims 4.
All I know is that every time I have to do something to make up for bugs and flaws that I become less sympathetic. In fact, once Dying Light comes out next week, I'll probably not need to open Origin again for years. If i'm smart, ever.
I feel that if there is a number next to the name of a game or movie, etc, then I feel that it should have some stuff from previous iterations, but more improved. A sequel should be building up on previous games, not feel like a downgrade or a (stripped-down) reboot.
Otherwise, why put a number there? Why not call it "The Sims" (2014) like they did for "Simcity" 2013, or call it "The Sims Rebooted"?
If I was playing, for a random quick example, say, Uncharted 4, and the graphics were not hi-res or the artstyle changed overall and the characters were not realistic, I would be mad, because the previous games were definitely hi-res and realistic-looking.
Or if Infamous 3 or Elders Scrolls VI had no open-worlds, then I would be majorly ticked off, because the previous games had open-ish worlds.
Skyrim took out some stuff that were in Morrowind, like spell-making and reduced ("streamlined") some stats from previous games, and less topics/less dialogue (and less choices, too), but, for me, it made up for this by having great graphics, more animations, a great world/setting, fun combat, physics, moving objects, creating/buying houses and/or adopting children, dynamic NPC schedules, and keeping some good stuff from previous games, but improving on them or making them less tedious and more fun. While the old game is still good (and I still play it to this day), and there are a portion of Elder Scrolls players who even preferred the older ones, the new game still had some features that made up for getting rid of a few previous features. Skyrim added some good stuff, too, and the lore was still as good as ever.
That's what they want you to believe. This is just a desperate and ludicrous attempt to get more sales. The game is terrible and people should not buy it. #RealityCheck
Sad to say, but I do believe that there are those who are hoping it will fail. Not sure why.
They probably are so naive, that they think that EA will listen more to their wishes if only the Sims 4 fails. They are just angry and want to punish EA for developing the Sims 4 in a different direction than they wanted. But EA will of course make the game the way that they think will sell best. Therefore EA will always introduce new ways to make new simmers more interested in buying the games instead of just trying to keep as many of the earlier customers for previous games as possible (because otherwise the sales numbers could only go down).
No, you are wrong. It not some "naïve" and "angry" people. This game is NOT a worthy successor to The Sims franchise.
As a standalone game? Perhaps.
As a newer version of Sims Freeplay or MySims? Possibly.
But as an improvement to S2 or S3? Not a chance.
And THAT is why many want this game to die, so that EA can move an and develop a legitimate game worthy of the series.
To go back to 14 year old worlds with limited lots and the inability to edit the lot sizes is NOT an improvement.
To go back to loading screens from 10 years in NOT an improvement.
To go to some cheap low-poly items (the chipmunk is the best example) from 2 sets (S2 and S3) of a greater realism format is NOT an improvement.
Oh, and after viewing pics of clipping in the previews of Sims4, especially when sitting down, after knowing about that problem did EA fix the clipping? Nope; from the latest game pack, I saw a pic of 2 bears sitting on the bench and their legs were clipped SO bad...their legs were literally fused together! Is that an improvement? No way.
So instead of slagging others, maybe look and see WHY they feel as they do: that the sooner EA stops wasting time/money/resources on a game with an inadequate engine, faulty coding, low quality animations, an art style suited not for a PC game but some mobile MyLittlePony game...and starts work on a WORTHY successor for this series (and you have seen pics of other games that WOULD be a logical improvement from Sims3) then all the better.
Your assumption that EA wanted the Sims 4 to be an improved version of the Sims 3 is where you are wrong because EA doesn't just make improved versions of older games. They make new games and that is what the Sims 4 was meant to be whether you like it or not.
They shouldn't have called it The Sims 4, then.
Why not? They didn't call in "New and improved version of the Sims 3".
When they increase the number and otherwise keep the name then it just means that it is a new game similar to the previous one. So I have no problem here. But I have seen much worse examples:
About 20 years ago the publisher Virgin Interactive released two games: Dune and Dune 2. So you would think that those games were similar? But this wasn't the case at all! Dune was an adventure game while Dune 2 was a pure strategic game! So Dune 2 was in no way a continuation of the previous game!
Sims 2 was a PC game with its focus on families and children. So you would expect the Playstation version of the Sims 2 to be that too? No, it wasn't that at all! You couldn't even have children in that game! The Sims 2 (PC) was also a sandbox game. The Sims 2 (Playstation) wasn't that at all! So why was the Playstation game named The Sims 2 too!?!??
Those two examples shocked me.
but was a continuation of the serie, the same with might & magic series, the original creator the fallen died 3do they made their series in 2 type of games a rpg type and a strategy and worked perfect, everything happening in the rpg (story) was carried to the strategy game and everything happened in game was carried to rpg, that was 2 way to see the game and both where about the samething just 2 different games, the current owner ubisoft did the same we have the strategy and the rpg both sharing the same story but different moments and visions, want another exemple??? super mario series, started with a plataform adventure game and now have a race and others sort of games.
again becarefull with statements and do more researchs
You confuse me. But if I read you correctly then you are actually talking about two different series: Might&Magic (1 to 10) and Heroes of Might&Magic (1 to 6
The Might&Magic series were all RPG games while the Heroes of Might&Magic series were all strategic games.
no, they are the same serie being write in 2 different genres, what happen in one game is used in the other(the story and plot), heroes of might and magic 3 was the continuation of might and magic 6, then might and magic 7 was the continuation of heroes 3, one game type is the continuation of the other, you can use different genrers of game to count the same story.
I don't see that at all. MM6 and MM7 were some of my favorite games while Heroes of Might&Magic 2 was my favorite in the strategic series. But I have played HOMM3 too.
There are some similarities in both the names and the fact that both series originally were developed by Jon Van Haneghem for New World of Computing. Later they were taken over by 3DO and Ubisoft. But I don't see any similarities really in their stories.
Heroes of Might&Magic was a spinoff from the Might&Magic series which also had other spinoffs like Crusaders of Might&Magic, Warriors of Might&Magic, Legends of Might&Magic and Swords of Xeen. Like the Sims series which also have had several spinoff like Medieval and the Sims Stories games.
them you dont pay attention to the game story, because the events in heroes 3 had impact on might and magic, after the girl(which i forget the name) become the queen in heroes 3 lead to things which happened in might 7 then what happened in might 7 or was might 8 leaded to the game plot of heroes 4(which like the sims 4 was the worst game ever) then ubisoft take over the game and followed the events of heroes 4 to make might and magic 9 which lead to heroes 5(or was opposed) which lead to might and magic 10 and after everything they had a reboot starting in heroes 6, read about all the lore and you see, heroes and the rpg might and magic share the same world/timeline/verse, both games are direct connected the same goes to wow and warcraft, wow started as a sort of "spinoff from warcraft strategy game", wow lore start 10 years after the events of warcraft 3 and blizzard already told which no more warcraft strategy game because they will keep using wow to tell the story of warcraft and because they already have one strategy game in this case starcraft serie, then they dont need have 2 even if warcraft come first.
As mentioned I didn't play HOMM3 nearly as much as I played HOMM2, and I usually only played the standard games and not the campaign games.
I don't like the newer games in any of the series. M&M9 was awful because they switched to another game engine and made the game more similar to Baldur's Gate which I didn't like either.
I have played both Warcraft and Starcraft. But not WoW because I prefer single player games and surely not an online game where you have to pay a monthly subscription.
well then this end to a matter of personnal taste.
now we talked about it, yeah heroes of might and magic is the pefect exemple for sims 4, heroes was a big sucess until heroes 4, where the dev tried to make "too many changes" and go back to some too old things, like the sims them the game failed and the company went bankrupt, then what ubisoft make, get what is the best in the heroes 3 which is proclamed the best heroes among the fans and players and make the heroes 5 with some changes, the game was a sucess but have little problem specially about the "turns" which turned to be a little mess sometimes, then they goes to heroes 6 and goes back to study heroes 3 and make a almost clone of heroes 3 with new engineer and features then get a great sucess with heroes 6. that is how game companys does they improve a game, make hugh changes like they did in the sims 4 was a horrible move, this can be sucessfull and a fail specially when you dont make up for what you removed/changed which is the problem here, sims 4 was a big stripped game and the features dont lived up for what was take off the trade was too unfair because they needed to rush the game to a point where we have a superficial good graphic until you start to look more carefull and see how bad is really the graphics, they only look good as long you dont pay attention to details.
Most people thinks that when a game company goes bankrupt then it is because they make bad games. But this is rarely the case. The problem is that most game companies are started by people who are game designers and who just plan to make games - but without any knowledge about publishing and marketing the games.
This was also the case with Jon Van Haneghem who founded New World of Computing and designed the Might&Magic games. Therefore this became just another game company which made good games but had to close down anyway.
But EA is a company who wasn't started this way. It was founded by Trip Hawkins who the Diirector of Strategy and Marketing at Apple Computer in 1982 when he founded EA as a publishing company for games. Therefore he knew everything about marketing and EA soon became so successful that EA could begin to buy game companies and thereby begin to produce the games themselves. EA just continued to buy other game companies and was so successful that it became the largest game company in the world. So even if EA's games aren't always good EA will still get the most out of them and therefore is able to survive nearly anything. This hasn't been the case for almost every other game company. They didn't fail because they couldn't make good games - but because they didn't understand how to market them and distribute them to the stores.
@Erpe eventually even the biggest corporations can make mistakes that cost them dearly, its not just a case of how the business was started. It relies on the people from the very top, all the way to the very bottom. Larger companies find it hard to track of things sometimes because there are so many different people competing and playing politics within the organisation with different opinions and positions. That's why they require good leadership in large companies, so they actually get something done.
Sad to say, but I do believe that there are those who are hoping it will fail. Not sure why.
They probably are so naive, that they think that EA will listen more to their wishes if only the Sims 4 fails. They are just angry and want to punish EA for developing the Sims 4 in a different direction than they wanted. But EA will of course make the game the way that they think will sell best. Therefore EA will always introduce new ways to make new simmers more interested in buying the games instead of just trying to keep as many of the earlier customers for previous games as possible (because otherwise the sales numbers could only go down).
No, you are wrong. It not some "naïve" and "angry" people. This game is NOT a worthy successor to The Sims franchise.
As a standalone game? Perhaps.
As a newer version of Sims Freeplay or MySims? Possibly.
But as an improvement to S2 or S3? Not a chance.
And THAT is why many want this game to die, so that EA can move an and develop a legitimate game worthy of the series.
To go back to 14 year old worlds with limited lots and the inability to edit the lot sizes is NOT an improvement.
To go back to loading screens from 10 years in NOT an improvement.
To go to some cheap low-poly items (the chipmunk is the best example) from 2 sets (S2 and S3) of a greater realism format is NOT an improvement.
Oh, and after viewing pics of clipping in the previews of Sims4, especially when sitting down, after knowing about that problem did EA fix the clipping? Nope; from the latest game pack, I saw a pic of 2 bears sitting on the bench and their legs were clipped SO bad...their legs were literally fused together! Is that an improvement? No way.
So instead of slagging others, maybe look and see WHY they feel as they do: that the sooner EA stops wasting time/money/resources on a game with an inadequate engine, faulty coding, low quality animations, an art style suited not for a PC game but some mobile MyLittlePony game...and starts work on a WORTHY successor for this series (and you have seen pics of other games that WOULD be a logical improvement from Sims3) then all the better.
Your assumption that EA wanted the Sims 4 to be an improved version of the Sims 3 is where you are wrong because EA doesn't just make improved versions of older games. They make new games and that is what the Sims 4 was meant to be whether you like it or not.
They shouldn't have called it The Sims 4, then.
Why not? They didn't call in "New and improved version of the Sims 3".
When they increase the number and otherwise keep the name then it just means that it is a new game similar to the previous one. So I have no problem here. But I have seen much worse examples:
About 20 years ago the publisher Virgin Interactive released two games: Dune and Dune 2. So you would think that those games were similar? But this wasn't the case at all! Dune was an adventure game while Dune 2 was a pure strategic game! So Dune 2 was in no way a continuation of the previous game!
Sims 2 was a PC game with its focus on families and children. So you would expect the Playstation version of the Sims 2 to be that too? No, it wasn't that at all! You couldn't even have children in that game! The Sims 2 (PC) was also a sandbox game. The Sims 2 (Playstation) wasn't that at all! So why was the Playstation game named The Sims 2 too!?!??
Those two examples shocked me.
but was a continuation of the serie, the same with might & magic series, the original creator the fallen died 3do they made their series in 2 type of games a rpg type and a strategy and worked perfect, everything happening in the rpg (story) was carried to the strategy game and everything happened in game was carried to rpg, that was 2 way to see the game and both where about the samething just 2 different games, the current owner ubisoft did the same we have the strategy and the rpg both sharing the same story but different moments and visions, want another exemple??? super mario series, started with a plataform adventure game and now have a race and others sort of games.
again becarefull with statements and do more researchs
You confuse me. But if I read you correctly then you are actually talking about two different series: Might&Magic (1 to 10) and Heroes of Might&Magic (1 to 6
The Might&Magic series were all RPG games while the Heroes of Might&Magic series were all strategic games.
no, they are the same serie being write in 2 different genres, what happen in one game is used in the other(the story and plot), heroes of might and magic 3 was the continuation of might and magic 6, then might and magic 7 was the continuation of heroes 3, one game type is the continuation of the other, you can use different genrers of game to count the same story.
I don't see that at all. MM6 and MM7 were some of my favorite games while Heroes of Might&Magic 2 was my favorite in the strategic series. But I have played HOMM3 too.
There are some similarities in both the names and the fact that both series originally were developed by Jon Van Haneghem for New World of Computing. Later they were taken over by 3DO and Ubisoft. But I don't see any similarities really in their stories.
Heroes of Might&Magic was a spinoff from the Might&Magic series which also had other spinoffs like Crusaders of Might&Magic, Warriors of Might&Magic, Legends of Might&Magic and Swords of Xeen. Like the Sims series which also have had several spinoff like Medieval and the Sims Stories games.
them you dont pay attention to the game story, because the events in heroes 3 had impact on might and magic, after the girl(which i forget the name) become the queen in heroes 3 lead to things which happened in might 7 then what happened in might 7 or was might 8 leaded to the game plot of heroes 4(which like the sims 4 was the worst game ever) then ubisoft take over the game and followed the events of heroes 4 to make might and magic 9 which lead to heroes 5(or was opposed) which lead to might and magic 10 and after everything they had a reboot starting in heroes 6, read about all the lore and you see, heroes and the rpg might and magic share the same world/timeline/verse, both games are direct connected the same goes to wow and warcraft, wow started as a sort of "spinoff from warcraft strategy game", wow lore start 10 years after the events of warcraft 3 and blizzard already told which no more warcraft strategy game because they will keep using wow to tell the story of warcraft and because they already have one strategy game in this case starcraft serie, then they dont need have 2 even if warcraft come first.
As mentioned I didn't play HOMM3 nearly as much as I played HOMM2, and I usually only played the standard games and not the campaign games.
I don't like the newer games in any of the series. M&M9 was awful because they switched to another game engine and made the game more similar to Baldur's Gate which I didn't like either.
I have played both Warcraft and Starcraft. But not WoW because I prefer single player games and surely not an online game where you have to pay a monthly subscription.
well then this end to a matter of personnal taste.
now we talked about it, yeah heroes of might and magic is the pefect exemple for sims 4, heroes was a big sucess until heroes 4, where the dev tried to make "too many changes" and go back to some too old things, like the sims them the game failed and the company went bankrupt, then what ubisoft make, get what is the best in the heroes 3 which is proclamed the best heroes among the fans and players and make the heroes 5 with some changes, the game was a sucess but have little problem specially about the "turns" which turned to be a little mess sometimes, then they goes to heroes 6 and goes back to study heroes 3 and make a almost clone of heroes 3 with new engineer and features then get a great sucess with heroes 6. that is how game companys does they improve a game, make hugh changes like they did in the sims 4 was a horrible move, this can be sucessfull and a fail specially when you dont make up for what you removed/changed which is the problem here, sims 4 was a big stripped game and the features dont lived up for what was take off the trade was too unfair because they needed to rush the game to a point where we have a superficial good graphic until you start to look more carefull and see how bad is really the graphics, they only look good as long you dont pay attention to details.
Most people thinks that when a game company goes bankrupt then it is because they make bad games. But this is rarely the case. The problem is that most game companies are started by people who are game designers and who just plan to make games - but without any knowledge about publishing and marketing the games.
This was also the case with Jon Van Haneghem who founded New World of Computing and designed the Might&Magic games. Therefore this became just another game company which made good games but had to close down anyway.
But EA is a company who wasn't started this way. It was founded by Trip Hawkins who the Diirector of Strategy and Marketing at Apple Computer in 1982 when he founded EA as a publishing company for games. Therefore he knew everything about marketing and EA soon became so successful that EA could begin to buy game companies and thereby begin to produce the games themselves. EA just continued to buy other game companies and was so successful that it became the largest game company in the world. So even if EA's games aren't always good EA will still get the most out of them and therefore is able to survive nearly anything. This hasn't been the case for almost every other game company. They didn't fail because they couldn't make good games - but because they didn't understand how to market them and distribute them to the stores.
omg i wish know where come your sources, because really looks like you dont know things,
blizzard started by a bunch of gamers making games behind they houses, the same goes for ubisoft the same goes to valve, new world company fail dont have nothing to do with him being a gamer, have to do with his games dont give more the same return and with the fail of the 3do console, man i watched how they failed, i know the story and dont have nothing to do with what you are saying.
many sucessfull games companies are funded exactly by gamers which actually know what the gamers want in they games.
new world was a little soap opera with the company being integrated to 3do then 3do failed with they console then they tried to run back to pc but failed to make some good games, in this case heroes 4 and if i'm not wrong might and magic 8 then the money ended and game over.
yeah EA ruined bullfrog, and others "game companies they put they hands, why do you believe EA have the fame to ruin everything they touch, why do you believe they aways are in the list of worst companies????, they fail because their have bad games, inquisition 2 say hello.
really man is really hard get int what you are saying.
I don't know anything about other video games, I don't give a plum about them. All I wanted was to play a new Sims series and didn't get it. I wanted to throw money at my hobby, but was told to accept an amateurish attempt of a Sims series and you either enjoy it or get out. I was willing to play with backward, non-progress, cartoonish graphics and plum walk-styles and was given so much I loved about the series removed. Enough is enough. Breaks my heart what we got as a new Sims series, breaks my heart even more that a community I use to love more than anything has become so broken, the words escape me. We have fallen for the okie doke, being pit against each other, silence is the main stay now. The morale is so low, I feel beaten.
Nothing to see. I don't even care about the forums.
Yup. It was a threat that was made to scare people into buying TS4 by a guru. Personally I don't believe it. Sim City was a major flop and there's still talk of more of em.
Personally I think EA should start investing and creating TS5. Make it everything TS4 isn't.
They also went back and addressed offline play to my knowledge, although I'm still waiting to see how low the price goes before I make up my mind to grab it or not.
Personally I hope they at least give us worthwhile addons for TS4, I wasn't in a hurry for this game and if this is what we get after all this time TS5 can take it's time to do it right. I have a feeling I'll be making alot of cc myself though...
I don't know anything about other video games, I don't give a plum about them. All I wanted was to play a new Sims series and didn't get it. I wanted to throw money at my hobby, but was told to accept an amateurish attempt of a Sims series and you either enjoy it or get out. I was willing to play with backward, non-progress, cartoonish graphics and plum walk-styles and was given so much I loved about the series removed. Enough is enough. Breaks my heart what we got as a new Sims series, breaks my heart even more that a community I use to love more than anything has become so broken, the words escape me. We have fallen for the okie doke, being pit against each other, silence is the main stay now. The morale is so low, I feel beaten.
Don't feel beaten, we have put up a good fight to try to be heard. We cant control if EA listen but we have stood up for what we believe in, what we love, and to share what we want. Up against a large corporation. Thats very rare and shows the love we all have for the series that we stick around hoping for better-you should be proud for trying! At least if everything goes wrong you know you have tried all you could and thats all we can do as loyal customers and fans. And as for people who criticise that then they obviously fail to see the very obvious here. That we all stand up out of love and a desire to buy into the series going forward because we dont want to lose the sims, its a part of who we are.
Without the Sims, maxis is dead, particularly after the SimCity debacle where they failed to revive an old IP. That said, even if Sims 4 sold enough, when you look at the metacritic scores, a 40 point gap where the player-reviewers said they were not sold a good product is pretty damning in terms of reputation. That's worse when you consider Maxis a studio with only one working game IP and no immediate future beyond DLC sales.
EA itself couldn't care either way, since stock prices are at an eight-year high after the value crash in 2008 that stayed down until recently. I'd credit that more to Madden, Inquisition, and Titanfall sales than Sims 4.
All I know is that every time I have to do something to make up for bugs and flaws that I become less sympathetic. In fact, once Dying Light comes out next week, I'll probably not need to open Origin again for years. If i'm smart, ever.
They do have the Spore IP. In fact i wouldn't be surprised if they were working on that now at least in terms of conceptual stuff.
Sad to say, but I do believe that there are those who are hoping it will fail. Not sure why.
They probably are so naive, that they think that EA will listen more to their wishes if only the Sims 4 fails. They are just angry and want to punish EA for developing the Sims 4 in a different direction than they wanted. But EA will of course make the game the way that they think will sell best. Therefore EA will always introduce new ways to make new simmers more interested in buying the games instead of just trying to keep as many of the earlier customers for previous games as possible (because otherwise the sales numbers could only go down).
No, you are wrong. It not some "naïve" and "angry" people. This game is NOT a worthy successor to The Sims franchise.
As a standalone game? Perhaps.
As a newer version of Sims Freeplay or MySims? Possibly.
But as an improvement to S2 or S3? Not a chance.
And THAT is why many want this game to die, so that EA can move an and develop a legitimate game worthy of the series.
To go back to 14 year old worlds with limited lots and the inability to edit the lot sizes is NOT an improvement.
To go back to loading screens from 10 years in NOT an improvement.
To go to some cheap low-poly items (the chipmunk is the best example) from 2 sets (S2 and S3) of a greater realism format is NOT an improvement.
Oh, and after viewing pics of clipping in the previews of Sims4, especially when sitting down, after knowing about that problem did EA fix the clipping? Nope; from the latest game pack, I saw a pic of 2 bears sitting on the bench and their legs were clipped SO bad...their legs were literally fused together! Is that an improvement? No way.
So instead of slagging others, maybe look and see WHY they feel as they do: that the sooner EA stops wasting time/money/resources on a game with an inadequate engine, faulty coding, low quality animations, an art style suited not for a PC game but some mobile MyLittlePony game...and starts work on a WORTHY successor for this series (and you have seen pics of other games that WOULD be a logical improvement from Sims3) then all the better.
Your assumption that EA wanted the Sims 4 to be an improved version of the Sims 3 is where you are wrong because EA doesn't just make improved versions of older games. They make new games and that is what the Sims 4 was meant to be whether you like it or not.
They shouldn't have called it The Sims 4, then.
Why not? They didn't call in "New and improved version of the Sims 3".
When they increase the number and otherwise keep the name then it just means that it is a new game similar to the previous one. So I have no problem here. But I have seen much worse examples:
About 20 years ago the publisher Virgin Interactive released two games: Dune and Dune 2. So you would think that those games were similar? But this wasn't the case at all! Dune was an adventure game while Dune 2 was a pure strategic game! So Dune 2 was in no way a continuation of the previous game!
Sims 2 was a PC game with its focus on families and children. So you would expect the Playstation version of the Sims 2 to be that too? No, it wasn't that at all! You couldn't even have children in that game! The Sims 2 (PC) was also a sandbox game. The Sims 2 (Playstation) wasn't that at all! So why was the Playstation game named The Sims 2 too!?!??
Those two examples shocked me.
but was a continuation of the serie, the same with might & magic series, the original creator the fallen died 3do they made their series in 2 type of games a rpg type and a strategy and worked perfect, everything happening in the rpg (story) was carried to the strategy game and everything happened in game was carried to rpg, that was 2 way to see the game and both where about the samething just 2 different games, the current owner ubisoft did the same we have the strategy and the rpg both sharing the same story but different moments and visions, want another exemple??? super mario series, started with a plataform adventure game and now have a race and others sort of games.
again becarefull with statements and do more researchs
You confuse me. But if I read you correctly then you are actually talking about two different series: Might&Magic (1 to 10) and Heroes of Might&Magic (1 to 6
The Might&Magic series were all RPG games while the Heroes of Might&Magic series were all strategic games.
no, they are the same serie being write in 2 different genres, what happen in one game is used in the other(the story and plot), heroes of might and magic 3 was the continuation of might and magic 6, then might and magic 7 was the continuation of heroes 3, one game type is the continuation of the other, you can use different genrers of game to count the same story.
I don't see that at all. MM6 and MM7 were some of my favorite games while Heroes of Might&Magic 2 was my favorite in the strategic series. But I have played HOMM3 too.
There are some similarities in both the names and the fact that both series originally were developed by Jon Van Haneghem for New World of Computing. Later they were taken over by 3DO and Ubisoft. But I don't see any similarities really in their stories.
Heroes of Might&Magic was a spinoff from the Might&Magic series which also had other spinoffs like Crusaders of Might&Magic, Warriors of Might&Magic, Legends of Might&Magic and Swords of Xeen. Like the Sims series which also have had several spinoff like Medieval and the Sims Stories games.
them you dont pay attention to the game story, because the events in heroes 3 had impact on might and magic, after the girl(which i forget the name) become the queen in heroes 3 lead to things which happened in might 7 then what happened in might 7 or was might 8 leaded to the game plot of heroes 4(which like the sims 4 was the worst game ever) then ubisoft take over the game and followed the events of heroes 4 to make might and magic 9 which lead to heroes 5(or was opposed) which lead to might and magic 10 and after everything they had a reboot starting in heroes 6, read about all the lore and you see, heroes and the rpg might and magic share the same world/timeline/verse, both games are direct connected the same goes to wow and warcraft, wow started as a sort of "spinoff from warcraft strategy game", wow lore start 10 years after the events of warcraft 3 and blizzard already told which no more warcraft strategy game because they will keep using wow to tell the story of warcraft and because they already have one strategy game in this case starcraft serie, then they dont need have 2 even if warcraft come first.
As mentioned I didn't play HOMM3 nearly as much as I played HOMM2, and I usually only played the standard games and not the campaign games.
I don't like the newer games in any of the series. M&M9 was awful because they switched to another game engine and made the game more similar to Baldur's Gate which I didn't like either.
I have played both Warcraft and Starcraft. But not WoW because I prefer single player games and surely not an online game where you have to pay a monthly subscription.
well then this end to a matter of personnal taste.
now we talked about it, yeah heroes of might and magic is the pefect exemple for sims 4, heroes was a big sucess until heroes 4, where the dev tried to make "too many changes" and go back to some too old things, like the sims them the game failed and the company went bankrupt, then what ubisoft make, get what is the best in the heroes 3 which is proclamed the best heroes among the fans and players and make the heroes 5 with some changes, the game was a sucess but have little problem specially about the "turns" which turned to be a little mess sometimes, then they goes to heroes 6 and goes back to study heroes 3 and make a almost clone of heroes 3 with new engineer and features then get a great sucess with heroes 6. that is how game companys does they improve a game, make hugh changes like they did in the sims 4 was a horrible move, this can be sucessfull and a fail specially when you dont make up for what you removed/changed which is the problem here, sims 4 was a big stripped game and the features dont lived up for what was take off the trade was too unfair because they needed to rush the game to a point where we have a superficial good graphic until you start to look more carefull and see how bad is really the graphics, they only look good as long you dont pay attention to details.
Most people thinks that when a game company goes bankrupt then it is because they make bad games. But this is rarely the case. The problem is that most game companies are started by people who are game designers and who just plan to make games - but without any knowledge about publishing and marketing the games.
This was also the case with Jon Van Haneghem who founded New World of Computing and designed the Might&Magic games. Therefore this became just another game company which made good games but had to close down anyway.
But EA is a company who wasn't started this way. It was founded by Trip Hawkins who the Diirector of Strategy and Marketing at Apple Computer in 1982 when he founded EA as a publishing company for games. Therefore he knew everything about marketing and EA soon became so successful that EA could begin to buy game companies and thereby begin to produce the games themselves. EA just continued to buy other game companies and was so successful that it became the largest game company in the world. So even if EA's games aren't always good EA will still get the most out of them and therefore is able to survive nearly anything. This hasn't been the case for almost every other game company. They didn't fail because they couldn't make good games - but because they didn't understand how to market them and distribute them to the stores.
omg i wish know where come your sources, because really looks like you dont know things,
blizzard started by a bunch of gamers making games behind they houses, the same goes for ubisoft the same goes to valve, new world company fail dont have nothing to do with him being a gamer, have to do with his games dont give more the same return and with the fail of the 3do console, man i watched how they failed, i know the story and dont have nothing to do with what you are saying.
many sucessfull games companies are funded exactly by gamers which actually know what the gamers want in they games.
new world was a little soap opera with the company being integrated to 3do then 3do failed with they console then they tried to run back to pc but failed to make some good games, in this case heroes 4 and if i'm not wrong might and magic 8 then the money ended and game over.
yeah EA ruined bullfrog, and others "game companies they put they hands, why do you believe EA have the fame to ruin everything they touch, why do you believe they aways are in the list of worst companies????, they fail because their have bad games, inquisition 2 say hello.
really man is really hard get int what you are saying.
Why do you think that EA became the largest game company in the world with about 10,000 employees if they only ruined games?
Yes I know that game companies who even several years after they have released a game still makes free patches available just to balance the game a tiny bit better are more popular than EA. But they go bankrupt because they just don't know how to make a profit. Such companies have often been bought by EA who immediately stops this behavior and gives them deadlines and high efficiency instead.
EA is successful because they know how to make a profit from their games. Most other game companies don't.
Sad to say, but I do believe that there are those who are hoping it will fail. Not sure why.
They probably are so naive, that they think that EA will listen more to their wishes if only the Sims 4 fails. They are just angry and want to punish EA for developing the Sims 4 in a different direction than they wanted. But EA will of course make the game the way that they think will sell best. Therefore EA will always introduce new ways to make new simmers more interested in buying the games instead of just trying to keep as many of the earlier customers for previous games as possible (because otherwise the sales numbers could only go down).
No, you are wrong. It not some "naïve" and "angry" people. This game is NOT a worthy successor to The Sims franchise.
As a standalone game? Perhaps.
As a newer version of Sims Freeplay or MySims? Possibly.
But as an improvement to S2 or S3? Not a chance.
And THAT is why many want this game to die, so that EA can move an and develop a legitimate game worthy of the series.
To go back to 14 year old worlds with limited lots and the inability to edit the lot sizes is NOT an improvement.
To go back to loading screens from 10 years in NOT an improvement.
To go to some cheap low-poly items (the chipmunk is the best example) from 2 sets (S2 and S3) of a greater realism format is NOT an improvement.
Oh, and after viewing pics of clipping in the previews of Sims4, especially when sitting down, after knowing about that problem did EA fix the clipping? Nope; from the latest game pack, I saw a pic of 2 bears sitting on the bench and their legs were clipped SO bad...their legs were literally fused together! Is that an improvement? No way.
So instead of slagging others, maybe look and see WHY they feel as they do: that the sooner EA stops wasting time/money/resources on a game with an inadequate engine, faulty coding, low quality animations, an art style suited not for a PC game but some mobile MyLittlePony game...and starts work on a WORTHY successor for this series (and you have seen pics of other games that WOULD be a logical improvement from Sims3) then all the better.
Your assumption that EA wanted the Sims 4 to be an improved version of the Sims 3 is where you are wrong because EA doesn't just make improved versions of older games. They make new games and that is what the Sims 4 was meant to be whether you like it or not.
They shouldn't have called it The Sims 4, then.
Why not? They didn't call in "New and improved version of the Sims 3".
When they increase the number and otherwise keep the name then it just means that it is a new game similar to the previous one. So I have no problem here. But I have seen much worse examples:
About 20 years ago the publisher Virgin Interactive released two games: Dune and Dune 2. So you would think that those games were similar? But this wasn't the case at all! Dune was an adventure game while Dune 2 was a pure strategic game! So Dune 2 was in no way a continuation of the previous game!
Sims 2 was a PC game with its focus on families and children. So you would expect the Playstation version of the Sims 2 to be that too? No, it wasn't that at all! You couldn't even have children in that game! The Sims 2 (PC) was also a sandbox game. The Sims 2 (Playstation) wasn't that at all! So why was the Playstation game named The Sims 2 too!?!??
Those two examples shocked me.
but was a continuation of the serie, the same with might & magic series, the original creator the fallen died 3do they made their series in 2 type of games a rpg type and a strategy and worked perfect, everything happening in the rpg (story) was carried to the strategy game and everything happened in game was carried to rpg, that was 2 way to see the game and both where about the samething just 2 different games, the current owner ubisoft did the same we have the strategy and the rpg both sharing the same story but different moments and visions, want another exemple??? super mario series, started with a plataform adventure game and now have a race and others sort of games.
again becarefull with statements and do more researchs
You confuse me. But if I read you correctly then you are actually talking about two different series: Might&Magic (1 to 10) and Heroes of Might&Magic (1 to 6
The Might&Magic series were all RPG games while the Heroes of Might&Magic series were all strategic games.
no, they are the same serie being write in 2 different genres, what happen in one game is used in the other(the story and plot), heroes of might and magic 3 was the continuation of might and magic 6, then might and magic 7 was the continuation of heroes 3, one game type is the continuation of the other, you can use different genrers of game to count the same story.
I don't see that at all. MM6 and MM7 were some of my favorite games while Heroes of Might&Magic 2 was my favorite in the strategic series. But I have played HOMM3 too.
There are some similarities in both the names and the fact that both series originally were developed by Jon Van Haneghem for New World of Computing. Later they were taken over by 3DO and Ubisoft. But I don't see any similarities really in their stories.
Heroes of Might&Magic was a spinoff from the Might&Magic series which also had other spinoffs like Crusaders of Might&Magic, Warriors of Might&Magic, Legends of Might&Magic and Swords of Xeen. Like the Sims series which also have had several spinoff like Medieval and the Sims Stories games.
them you dont pay attention to the game story, because the events in heroes 3 had impact on might and magic, after the girl(which i forget the name) become the queen in heroes 3 lead to things which happened in might 7 then what happened in might 7 or was might 8 leaded to the game plot of heroes 4(which like the sims 4 was the worst game ever) then ubisoft take over the game and followed the events of heroes 4 to make might and magic 9 which lead to heroes 5(or was opposed) which lead to might and magic 10 and after everything they had a reboot starting in heroes 6, read about all the lore and you see, heroes and the rpg might and magic share the same world/timeline/verse, both games are direct connected the same goes to wow and warcraft, wow started as a sort of "spinoff from warcraft strategy game", wow lore start 10 years after the events of warcraft 3 and blizzard already told which no more warcraft strategy game because they will keep using wow to tell the story of warcraft and because they already have one strategy game in this case starcraft serie, then they dont need have 2 even if warcraft come first.
As mentioned I didn't play HOMM3 nearly as much as I played HOMM2, and I usually only played the standard games and not the campaign games.
I don't like the newer games in any of the series. M&M9 was awful because they switched to another game engine and made the game more similar to Baldur's Gate which I didn't like either.
I have played both Warcraft and Starcraft. But not WoW because I prefer single player games and surely not an online game where you have to pay a monthly subscription.
well then this end to a matter of personnal taste.
now we talked about it, yeah heroes of might and magic is the pefect exemple for sims 4, heroes was a big sucess until heroes 4, where the dev tried to make "too many changes" and go back to some too old things, like the sims them the game failed and the company went bankrupt, then what ubisoft make, get what is the best in the heroes 3 which is proclamed the best heroes among the fans and players and make the heroes 5 with some changes, the game was a sucess but have little problem specially about the "turns" which turned to be a little mess sometimes, then they goes to heroes 6 and goes back to study heroes 3 and make a almost clone of heroes 3 with new engineer and features then get a great sucess with heroes 6. that is how game companys does they improve a game, make hugh changes like they did in the sims 4 was a horrible move, this can be sucessfull and a fail specially when you dont make up for what you removed/changed which is the problem here, sims 4 was a big stripped game and the features dont lived up for what was take off the trade was too unfair because they needed to rush the game to a point where we have a superficial good graphic until you start to look more carefull and see how bad is really the graphics, they only look good as long you dont pay attention to details.
Most people thinks that when a game company goes bankrupt then it is because they make bad games. But this is rarely the case. The problem is that most game companies are started by people who are game designers and who just plan to make games - but without any knowledge about publishing and marketing the games.
This was also the case with Jon Van Haneghem who founded New World of Computing and designed the Might&Magic games. Therefore this became just another game company which made good games but had to close down anyway.
But EA is a company who wasn't started this way. It was founded by Trip Hawkins who the Diirector of Strategy and Marketing at Apple Computer in 1982 when he founded EA as a publishing company for games. Therefore he knew everything about marketing and EA soon became so successful that EA could begin to buy game companies and thereby begin to produce the games themselves. EA just continued to buy other game companies and was so successful that it became the largest game company in the world. So even if EA's games aren't always good EA will still get the most out of them and therefore is able to survive nearly anything. This hasn't been the case for almost every other game company. They didn't fail because they couldn't make good games - but because they didn't understand how to market them and distribute them to the stores.
omg i wish know where come your sources, because really looks like you dont know things,
blizzard started by a bunch of gamers making games behind they houses, the same goes for ubisoft the same goes to valve, new world company fail dont have nothing to do with him being a gamer, have to do with his games dont give more the same return and with the fail of the 3do console, man i watched how they failed, i know the story and dont have nothing to do with what you are saying.
many sucessfull games companies are funded exactly by gamers which actually know what the gamers want in they games.
new world was a little soap opera with the company being integrated to 3do then 3do failed with they console then they tried to run back to pc but failed to make some good games, in this case heroes 4 and if i'm not wrong might and magic 8 then the money ended and game over.
yeah EA ruined bullfrog, and others "game companies they put they hands, why do you believe EA have the fame to ruin everything they touch, why do you believe they aways are in the list of worst companies????, they fail because their have bad games, inquisition 2 say hello.
really man is really hard get int what you are saying.
Why do you think that EA became the largest game company in the world with about 10,000 employees if they only ruined games?
Yes I know that game companies who even several years after they have released a game still makes free patches available just to balance the game a tiny bit better are more popular than EA. But they go bankrupt because they just don't know how to make a profit. Such companies have often been bought by EA who immediately stops this behavior and gives them deadlines and high efficiency instead.
EA is successful because they know how to make a profit from their games. Most other game companies don't.
because they have good lawers and a easy cheap community which will buy any crap they give no matter how bad they are..., which don't care if even after 3 or 4 or 5 years bug which can easy break the game never get fixed.
really high efficience, simcity was a show of "high efficiency" the sims series also is a show of "high efficiency", serious really then where the support when i need it???? you know i tried to get my money back from the 24h from a game(cheap game 5 dolars) and never could i just get forever waiting in the phone and even in net their dont give back my money, without count the bugs which still have in the sims 4 which my game is broken and i can't play really man serious, and since when ubisoft and blizzard are in bankrut???(they give patchs for free and even games for free too) or even microsoft???? or maybe sony??? or whatever, well really awesome your logic, if ea is so fantastice then why she never entered in the list of best companies and aways end in the list of worsts... something is very wrong with your logic.
just because some random companies are bad at market this can't be used to generalize while we have many exemples of companies making a lot of sucess, you are just sound biased.
what happened with new world computing was their own fault, because of several internal problems(discuss and disagreement, many workers leaving) this dont have nothing to do with your logic of "games company made by gamers dont know how to make money this a biased logic i never saw in net nothing say that, you can link your source please.
in the same way i can call a lot of companies which are sucesfull or even more sucesfull than EA easy and one of that is blizzard lol.
My impression of the game so far is that they should have just taken Sims 3 and given it the graphics upgrade that Sims 4 got and I would be unbelievably happy.
As for whether there will be a Sims 5.. I kind of hope not - not through EA, anyways. I'm not going to bash the people who actually work on the game, as I'm sure they put in a lot of work to give us this product. I don't know there the breakdown is within EA that allows this consistently buggy product to go to market and for it to be consistently updated with new bugs, but it's somewhere in the company. I love playing Sims, but it can be at the same time one of the most entertaining and one of the most frustrating gaming experiences I've ever had.
Perhaps the best case scenario is for some new company, hopefully staffed by lifelong Simmers who know what fans want from the game, to purchase the IP and start putting out the amazing game that Sims4 and any sequels have the potential to be.
Sad to say, but I do believe that there are those who are hoping it will fail. Not sure why.
They probably are so naive, that they think that EA will listen more to their wishes if only the Sims 4 fails. They are just angry and want to punish EA for developing the Sims 4 in a different direction than they wanted. But EA will of course make the game the way that they think will sell best. Therefore EA will always introduce new ways to make new simmers more interested in buying the games instead of just trying to keep as many of the earlier customers for previous games as possible (because otherwise the sales numbers could only go down).
No, you are wrong. It not some "naïve" and "angry" people. This game is NOT a worthy successor to The Sims franchise.
As a standalone game? Perhaps.
As a newer version of Sims Freeplay or MySims? Possibly.
But as an improvement to S2 or S3? Not a chance.
And THAT is why many want this game to die, so that EA can move an and develop a legitimate game worthy of the series.
To go back to 14 year old worlds with limited lots and the inability to edit the lot sizes is NOT an improvement.
To go back to loading screens from 10 years in NOT an improvement.
To go to some cheap low-poly items (the chipmunk is the best example) from 2 sets (S2 and S3) of a greater realism format is NOT an improvement.
Oh, and after viewing pics of clipping in the previews of Sims4, especially when sitting down, after knowing about that problem did EA fix the clipping? Nope; from the latest game pack, I saw a pic of 2 bears sitting on the bench and their legs were clipped SO bad...their legs were literally fused together! Is that an improvement? No way.
So instead of slagging others, maybe look and see WHY they feel as they do: that the sooner EA stops wasting time/money/resources on a game with an inadequate engine, faulty coding, low quality animations, an art style suited not for a PC game but some mobile MyLittlePony game...and starts work on a WORTHY successor for this series (and you have seen pics of other games that WOULD be a logical improvement from Sims3) then all the better.
Your assumption that EA wanted the Sims 4 to be an improved version of the Sims 3 is where you are wrong because EA doesn't just make improved versions of older games. They make new games and that is what the Sims 4 was meant to be whether you like it or not.
They shouldn't have called it The Sims 4, then.
Why not? They didn't call in "New and improved version of the Sims 3".
When they increase the number and otherwise keep the name then it just means that it is a new game similar to the previous one. So I have no problem here. But I have seen much worse examples:
About 20 years ago the publisher Virgin Interactive released two games: Dune and Dune 2. So you would think that those games were similar? But this wasn't the case at all! Dune was an adventure game while Dune 2 was a pure strategic game! So Dune 2 was in no way a continuation of the previous game!
Sims 2 was a PC game with its focus on families and children. So you would expect the Playstation version of the Sims 2 to be that too? No, it wasn't that at all! You couldn't even have children in that game! The Sims 2 (PC) was also a sandbox game. The Sims 2 (Playstation) wasn't that at all! So why was the Playstation game named The Sims 2 too!?!??
Those two examples shocked me.
but was a continuation of the serie, the same with might & magic series, the original creator the fallen died 3do they made their series in 2 type of games a rpg type and a strategy and worked perfect, everything happening in the rpg (story) was carried to the strategy game and everything happened in game was carried to rpg, that was 2 way to see the game and both where about the samething just 2 different games, the current owner ubisoft did the same we have the strategy and the rpg both sharing the same story but different moments and visions, want another exemple??? super mario series, started with a plataform adventure game and now have a race and others sort of games.
again becarefull with statements and do more researchs
You confuse me. But if I read you correctly then you are actually talking about two different series: Might&Magic (1 to 10) and Heroes of Might&Magic (1 to 6
The Might&Magic series were all RPG games while the Heroes of Might&Magic series were all strategic games.
no, they are the same serie being write in 2 different genres, what happen in one game is used in the other(the story and plot), heroes of might and magic 3 was the continuation of might and magic 6, then might and magic 7 was the continuation of heroes 3, one game type is the continuation of the other, you can use different genrers of game to count the same story.
I don't see that at all. MM6 and MM7 were some of my favorite games while Heroes of Might&Magic 2 was my favorite in the strategic series. But I have played HOMM3 too.
There are some similarities in both the names and the fact that both series originally were developed by Jon Van Haneghem for New World of Computing. Later they were taken over by 3DO and Ubisoft. But I don't see any similarities really in their stories.
Heroes of Might&Magic was a spinoff from the Might&Magic series which also had other spinoffs like Crusaders of Might&Magic, Warriors of Might&Magic, Legends of Might&Magic and Swords of Xeen. Like the Sims series which also have had several spinoff like Medieval and the Sims Stories games.
them you dont pay attention to the game story, because the events in heroes 3 had impact on might and magic, after the girl(which i forget the name) become the queen in heroes 3 lead to things which happened in might 7 then what happened in might 7 or was might 8 leaded to the game plot of heroes 4(which like the sims 4 was the worst game ever) then ubisoft take over the game and followed the events of heroes 4 to make might and magic 9 which lead to heroes 5(or was opposed) which lead to might and magic 10 and after everything they had a reboot starting in heroes 6, read about all the lore and you see, heroes and the rpg might and magic share the same world/timeline/verse, both games are direct connected the same goes to wow and warcraft, wow started as a sort of "spinoff from warcraft strategy game", wow lore start 10 years after the events of warcraft 3 and blizzard already told which no more warcraft strategy game because they will keep using wow to tell the story of warcraft and because they already have one strategy game in this case starcraft serie, then they dont need have 2 even if warcraft come first.
As mentioned I didn't play HOMM3 nearly as much as I played HOMM2, and I usually only played the standard games and not the campaign games.
I don't like the newer games in any of the series. M&M9 was awful because they switched to another game engine and made the game more similar to Baldur's Gate which I didn't like either.
I have played both Warcraft and Starcraft. But not WoW because I prefer single player games and surely not an online game where you have to pay a monthly subscription.
well then this end to a matter of personnal taste.
now we talked about it, yeah heroes of might and magic is the pefect exemple for sims 4, heroes was a big sucess until heroes 4, where the dev tried to make "too many changes" and go back to some too old things, like the sims them the game failed and the company went bankrupt, then what ubisoft make, get what is the best in the heroes 3 which is proclamed the best heroes among the fans and players and make the heroes 5 with some changes, the game was a sucess but have little problem specially about the "turns" which turned to be a little mess sometimes, then they goes to heroes 6 and goes back to study heroes 3 and make a almost clone of heroes 3 with new engineer and features then get a great sucess with heroes 6. that is how game companys does they improve a game, make hugh changes like they did in the sims 4 was a horrible move, this can be sucessfull and a fail specially when you dont make up for what you removed/changed which is the problem here, sims 4 was a big stripped game and the features dont lived up for what was take off the trade was too unfair because they needed to rush the game to a point where we have a superficial good graphic until you start to look more carefull and see how bad is really the graphics, they only look good as long you dont pay attention to details.
Most people thinks that when a game company goes bankrupt then it is because they make bad games. But this is rarely the case. The problem is that most game companies are started by people who are game designers and who just plan to make games - but without any knowledge about publishing and marketing the games.
This was also the case with Jon Van Haneghem who founded New World of Computing and designed the Might&Magic games. Therefore this became just another game company which made good games but had to close down anyway.
But EA is a company who wasn't started this way. It was founded by Trip Hawkins who the Diirector of Strategy and Marketing at Apple Computer in 1982 when he founded EA as a publishing company for games. Therefore he knew everything about marketing and EA soon became so successful that EA could begin to buy game companies and thereby begin to produce the games themselves. EA just continued to buy other game companies and was so successful that it became the largest game company in the world. So even if EA's games aren't always good EA will still get the most out of them and therefore is able to survive nearly anything. This hasn't been the case for almost every other game company. They didn't fail because they couldn't make good games - but because they didn't understand how to market them and distribute them to the stores.
omg i wish know where come your sources, because really looks like you dont know things,
blizzard started by a bunch of gamers making games behind they houses, the same goes for ubisoft the same goes to valve, new world company fail dont have nothing to do with him being a gamer, have to do with his games dont give more the same return and with the fail of the 3do console, man i watched how they failed, i know the story and dont have nothing to do with what you are saying.
many sucessfull games companies are funded exactly by gamers which actually know what the gamers want in they games.
new world was a little soap opera with the company being integrated to 3do then 3do failed with they console then they tried to run back to pc but failed to make some good games, in this case heroes 4 and if i'm not wrong might and magic 8 then the money ended and game over.
yeah EA ruined bullfrog, and others "game companies they put they hands, why do you believe EA have the fame to ruin everything they touch, why do you believe they aways are in the list of worst companies????, they fail because their have bad games, inquisition 2 say hello.
really man is really hard get int what you are saying.
Why do you think that EA became the largest game company in the world with about 10,000 employees if they only ruined games?
Yes I know that game companies who even several years after they have released a game still makes free patches available just to balance the game a tiny bit better are more popular than EA. But they go bankrupt because they just don't know how to make a profit. Such companies have often been bought by EA who immediately stops this behavior and gives them deadlines and high efficiency instead.
EA is successful because they know how to make a profit from their games. Most other game companies don't.
because they have good lawers and a easy cheap community which will buy any crap they give no matter how bad they are..., which don't care if even after 3 or 4 or 5 years bug which can easy break the game never get fixed.
really high efficience, simcity was a show of "high efficiency" the sims series also is a show of "high efficiency", serious really then where the support when i need it???? you know i tried to get my money back from the 24h from a game(cheap game 5 dolars) and never could i just get forever waiting in the phone and even in net their dont give back my money, without count the bugs which still have in the sims 4 which my game is broken and i can't play really man serious, and since when ubisoft and blizzard are in bankrut???(they give patchs for free and even games for free too) or even microsoft???? or maybe sony??? or whatever, well really awesome your logic, if ea is so fantastice then why she never entered in the list of best companies and aways end in the list of worsts... something is very wrong with your logic.
just because some random companies are bad at market this can't be used to generalize while we have many exemples of companies making a lot of sucess, you are just sound biased.
what happened with new world computing was their own fault, because of several internal problems(discuss and disagreement, many workers leaving) this dont have nothing to do with your logic of "games company made by gamers dont know how to make money this a biased logic i never saw in net nothing say that, you can link your source please.
in the same way i can call a lot of companies which are sucesfull or even more sucesfull than EA easy and one of that is blizzard lol.
man i really can't take you serious anymore lol.
You just ignore how the market works.
All successful companies have good lawyers because they have to exploit the laws to their limits to be able to compete with other companies. They just have to keep within the limits of the laws.
Game companies shouldn't be any less professional than companies who make furniture, electronics, cars, clothes or other products. But a huge number of game companies have been more like hobby companies created by game designers who were more interested in making the games than having a good economy. Therefore nearly none of those companies have been able to survive more than at most 5 to 10 years. New "hobby" companies still arise and they are still also closed down or bought by a professional company like EA.
I like the hobby companies too because they are more enthusiastic about their games and usually give much better service. But the problem with them is that they don't survive and then their game series have an uncertain future.
Sad to say, but I do believe that there are those who are hoping it will fail. Not sure why.
They probably are so naive, that they think that EA will listen more to their wishes if only the Sims 4 fails. They are just angry and want to punish EA for developing the Sims 4 in a different direction than they wanted. But EA will of course make the game the way that they think will sell best. Therefore EA will always introduce new ways to make new simmers more interested in buying the games instead of just trying to keep as many of the earlier customers for previous games as possible (because otherwise the sales numbers could only go down).
No, you are wrong. It not some "naïve" and "angry" people. This game is NOT a worthy successor to The Sims franchise.
As a standalone game? Perhaps.
As a newer version of Sims Freeplay or MySims? Possibly.
But as an improvement to S2 or S3? Not a chance.
And THAT is why many want this game to die, so that EA can move an and develop a legitimate game worthy of the series.
To go back to 14 year old worlds with limited lots and the inability to edit the lot sizes is NOT an improvement.
To go back to loading screens from 10 years in NOT an improvement.
To go to some cheap low-poly items (the chipmunk is the best example) from 2 sets (S2 and S3) of a greater realism format is NOT an improvement.
Oh, and after viewing pics of clipping in the previews of Sims4, especially when sitting down, after knowing about that problem did EA fix the clipping? Nope; from the latest game pack, I saw a pic of 2 bears sitting on the bench and their legs were clipped SO bad...their legs were literally fused together! Is that an improvement? No way.
So instead of slagging others, maybe look and see WHY they feel as they do: that the sooner EA stops wasting time/money/resources on a game with an inadequate engine, faulty coding, low quality animations, an art style suited not for a PC game but some mobile MyLittlePony game...and starts work on a WORTHY successor for this series (and you have seen pics of other games that WOULD be a logical improvement from Sims3) then all the better.
Your assumption that EA wanted the Sims 4 to be an improved version of the Sims 3 is where you are wrong because EA doesn't just make improved versions of older games. They make new games and that is what the Sims 4 was meant to be whether you like it or not.
They shouldn't have called it The Sims 4, then.
Why not? They didn't call in "New and improved version of the Sims 3".
When they increase the number and otherwise keep the name then it just means that it is a new game similar to the previous one. So I have no problem here. But I have seen much worse examples:
About 20 years ago the publisher Virgin Interactive released two games: Dune and Dune 2. So you would think that those games were similar? But this wasn't the case at all! Dune was an adventure game while Dune 2 was a pure strategic game! So Dune 2 was in no way a continuation of the previous game!
Sims 2 was a PC game with its focus on families and children. So you would expect the Playstation version of the Sims 2 to be that too? No, it wasn't that at all! You couldn't even have children in that game! The Sims 2 (PC) was also a sandbox game. The Sims 2 (Playstation) wasn't that at all! So why was the Playstation game named The Sims 2 too!?!??
Those two examples shocked me.
but was a continuation of the serie, the same with might & magic series, the original creator the fallen died 3do they made their series in 2 type of games a rpg type and a strategy and worked perfect, everything happening in the rpg (story) was carried to the strategy game and everything happened in game was carried to rpg, that was 2 way to see the game and both where about the samething just 2 different games, the current owner ubisoft did the same we have the strategy and the rpg both sharing the same story but different moments and visions, want another exemple??? super mario series, started with a plataform adventure game and now have a race and others sort of games.
again becarefull with statements and do more researchs
You confuse me. But if I read you correctly then you are actually talking about two different series: Might&Magic (1 to 10) and Heroes of Might&Magic (1 to 6
The Might&Magic series were all RPG games while the Heroes of Might&Magic series were all strategic games.
no, they are the same serie being write in 2 different genres, what happen in one game is used in the other(the story and plot), heroes of might and magic 3 was the continuation of might and magic 6, then might and magic 7 was the continuation of heroes 3, one game type is the continuation of the other, you can use different genrers of game to count the same story.
I don't see that at all. MM6 and MM7 were some of my favorite games while Heroes of Might&Magic 2 was my favorite in the strategic series. But I have played HOMM3 too.
There are some similarities in both the names and the fact that both series originally were developed by Jon Van Haneghem for New World of Computing. Later they were taken over by 3DO and Ubisoft. But I don't see any similarities really in their stories.
Heroes of Might&Magic was a spinoff from the Might&Magic series which also had other spinoffs like Crusaders of Might&Magic, Warriors of Might&Magic, Legends of Might&Magic and Swords of Xeen. Like the Sims series which also have had several spinoff like Medieval and the Sims Stories games.
them you dont pay attention to the game story, because the events in heroes 3 had impact on might and magic, after the girl(which i forget the name) become the queen in heroes 3 lead to things which happened in might 7 then what happened in might 7 or was might 8 leaded to the game plot of heroes 4(which like the sims 4 was the worst game ever) then ubisoft take over the game and followed the events of heroes 4 to make might and magic 9 which lead to heroes 5(or was opposed) which lead to might and magic 10 and after everything they had a reboot starting in heroes 6, read about all the lore and you see, heroes and the rpg might and magic share the same world/timeline/verse, both games are direct connected the same goes to wow and warcraft, wow started as a sort of "spinoff from warcraft strategy game", wow lore start 10 years after the events of warcraft 3 and blizzard already told which no more warcraft strategy game because they will keep using wow to tell the story of warcraft and because they already have one strategy game in this case starcraft serie, then they dont need have 2 even if warcraft come first.
As mentioned I didn't play HOMM3 nearly as much as I played HOMM2, and I usually only played the standard games and not the campaign games.
I don't like the newer games in any of the series. M&M9 was awful because they switched to another game engine and made the game more similar to Baldur's Gate which I didn't like either.
I have played both Warcraft and Starcraft. But not WoW because I prefer single player games and surely not an online game where you have to pay a monthly subscription.
well then this end to a matter of personnal taste.
now we talked about it, yeah heroes of might and magic is the pefect exemple for sims 4, heroes was a big sucess until heroes 4, where the dev tried to make "too many changes" and go back to some too old things, like the sims them the game failed and the company went bankrupt, then what ubisoft make, get what is the best in the heroes 3 which is proclamed the best heroes among the fans and players and make the heroes 5 with some changes, the game was a sucess but have little problem specially about the "turns" which turned to be a little mess sometimes, then they goes to heroes 6 and goes back to study heroes 3 and make a almost clone of heroes 3 with new engineer and features then get a great sucess with heroes 6. that is how game companys does they improve a game, make hugh changes like they did in the sims 4 was a horrible move, this can be sucessfull and a fail specially when you dont make up for what you removed/changed which is the problem here, sims 4 was a big stripped game and the features dont lived up for what was take off the trade was too unfair because they needed to rush the game to a point where we have a superficial good graphic until you start to look more carefull and see how bad is really the graphics, they only look good as long you dont pay attention to details.
Most people thinks that when a game company goes bankrupt then it is because they make bad games. But this is rarely the case. The problem is that most game companies are started by people who are game designers and who just plan to make games - but without any knowledge about publishing and marketing the games.
This was also the case with Jon Van Haneghem who founded New World of Computing and designed the Might&Magic games. Therefore this became just another game company which made good games but had to close down anyway.
But EA is a company who wasn't started this way. It was founded by Trip Hawkins who the Diirector of Strategy and Marketing at Apple Computer in 1982 when he founded EA as a publishing company for games. Therefore he knew everything about marketing and EA soon became so successful that EA could begin to buy game companies and thereby begin to produce the games themselves. EA just continued to buy other game companies and was so successful that it became the largest game company in the world. So even if EA's games aren't always good EA will still get the most out of them and therefore is able to survive nearly anything. This hasn't been the case for almost every other game company. They didn't fail because they couldn't make good games - but because they didn't understand how to market them and distribute them to the stores.
omg i wish know where come your sources, because really looks like you dont know things,
blizzard started by a bunch of gamers making games behind they houses, the same goes for ubisoft the same goes to valve, new world company fail dont have nothing to do with him being a gamer, have to do with his games dont give more the same return and with the fail of the 3do console, man i watched how they failed, i know the story and dont have nothing to do with what you are saying.
many sucessfull games companies are funded exactly by gamers which actually know what the gamers want in they games.
new world was a little soap opera with the company being integrated to 3do then 3do failed with they console then they tried to run back to pc but failed to make some good games, in this case heroes 4 and if i'm not wrong might and magic 8 then the money ended and game over.
yeah EA ruined bullfrog, and others "game companies they put they hands, why do you believe EA have the fame to ruin everything they touch, why do you believe they aways are in the list of worst companies????, they fail because their have bad games, inquisition 2 say hello.
really man is really hard get int what you are saying.
Why do you think that EA became the largest game company in the world with about 10,000 employees if they only ruined games?
Yes I know that game companies who even several years after they have released a game still makes free patches available just to balance the game a tiny bit better are more popular than EA. But they go bankrupt because they just don't know how to make a profit. Such companies have often been bought by EA who immediately stops this behavior and gives them deadlines and high efficiency instead.
EA is successful because they know how to make a profit from their games. Most other game companies don't.
because they have good lawers and a easy cheap community which will buy any crap they give no matter how bad they are..., which don't care if even after 3 or 4 or 5 years bug which can easy break the game never get fixed.
really high efficience, simcity was a show of "high efficiency" the sims series also is a show of "high efficiency", serious really then where the support when i need it???? you know i tried to get my money back from the 24h from a game(cheap game 5 dolars) and never could i just get forever waiting in the phone and even in net their dont give back my money, without count the bugs which still have in the sims 4 which my game is broken and i can't play really man serious, and since when ubisoft and blizzard are in bankrut???(they give patchs for free and even games for free too) or even microsoft???? or maybe sony??? or whatever, well really awesome your logic, if ea is so fantastice then why she never entered in the list of best companies and aways end in the list of worsts... something is very wrong with your logic.
just because some random companies are bad at market this can't be used to generalize while we have many exemples of companies making a lot of sucess, you are just sound biased.
what happened with new world computing was their own fault, because of several internal problems(discuss and disagreement, many workers leaving) this dont have nothing to do with your logic of "games company made by gamers dont know how to make money this a biased logic i never saw in net nothing say that, you can link your source please.
in the same way i can call a lot of companies which are sucesfull or even more sucesfull than EA easy and one of that is blizzard lol.
man i really can't take you serious anymore lol.
You just ignore how the market works.
All successful companies have good lawyers because they have to exploit the laws to their limits to be able to compete with other companies. They just have to keep within the limits of the laws.
Game companies shouldn't be any less professional than companies who make furniture, electronics, cars, clothes or other products. But a huge number of game companies have been more like hobby companies created by game designers who were more interested in making the games than having a good economy. Therefore nearly none of those companies have been able to survive more than at most 5 to 10 years. New "hobby" companies still arise and they are still also closed down or bought by a professional company like EA.
I like the hobby companies too because they are more enthusiastic about their games and usually give much better service. But the problem with them is that they don't survive and then their game series have an uncertain future.
i'm not ignoring i just asking you to link where come your logic about market, because for what i see in market at last in my experience dont work exactly like what you are saying, and again you generalized saying which any "only game company will fail because companies made by gamers aways fail or in most case fail which is a lie, i can point a lot of old "game companies, which com from the buttom and are top or at last able to keep alive without fear of bankrut, again if you can't bring numbers or source then just stop to use that bad excuse.
have game companies which are bad at market is very different from all the game companies being bad at market, really very different.
So it is not just about an isolated example of a single game company which didn't understand how to market and sell its games or to get a good economy. It is a general tendency among game companies and I don't think that you can find anything similar among companies which makes another type of products than games. Where have you ever heard about another company which became big just by buying 40 other companies like EA did?
EA was only a small game publisher in the first half of the 1980s. But EA earned a lot of money while the companies who produced the games - earned nothing. They therefore went bankrupt. But EA needed them to produce more games so EA could earn even more money by publishing. Therefore EA started buying all those bankrupt game companies and with a plan to run them much more efficiently. This is what EA still does and EA earns more money than ever.
If TS4 flops it's because they failed, not the game. Fire those who made junk and make TS5 the game simmers want to have and you will make more $$ then any previous incarnation of the sims.
The trouble is a lot of companies just don't look at it that way. Instead of looking internally to see what went wrong and why a sequel didn't do as well as the previous titles they instead just assume there is no demand anymore for that particular genre / game and kill off the series entirely.
Look at what happened with Sim City; I doubt we were only ever supposed to get a couple of bits of DLC and one expansion pack for that game but it's been a long time now since anything else was done for it. I can't say with 100% certainty of course but it wouldn't surprise me if EA had killed off the franchise because it "didn't sell well".
I do believe we are in a situation where TS4 has to do well otherwise EA-logic may dictate we won't even get a fifth.
That's why so many of us are standing up to be counted here and all over the internet to show them there very much is a healthy appetite for a next generation sims game (that's properly funded and inclusive) I want to know I stood up for better for the sims and did my best to do so.
If EA choose to say it's because there's no appetite for a next generation sims game that won't wash well when you have pleas from all over the world on the internet for better from the sims, it only takes a cursory look anywhere sims related to see what the main issues are!
Very true, but I just don't think any of that will influence EA if they do decide to pull the plug on a "failing" franchise. They'll probably just look at the bottom line which are the sales figures.
Everyone else might well know what really went down, but I feel it won't change the final outcome.
Maybe instead of a Sims 5 why don't they replace EA with an EA-2. A company that actually listens to their customers, doesn't care about money only and doesn't ignore their fans suggestions! Ah that's a dream, that will probably not come true :(
Just because people like to complain on the forum does not mean the game is doing all that bad the complainers are actually a small percent of who plays. Sadly they are the loudest and most annoying.
I love this game. In fact for me it was a much needed return to something similar to TS2 but that doesn't mean I'm going to overlook and ignore all the problems the game has. People who complain about the game have absolutely every right to complain because a lot HAS been taken out of this game, people's play styles have been restricted and it must feel like a slap in the face to anyone who has ever spent money on this franchise before.
I'm lucky. The game didn't hurt my play style, it removed features that I personally found to be annoying or broken and it added a great deal to the sims themselves where I'd previously found them to be lacking but what about people who play Legacies? There's no Toddlers anymore, the babies are objects and there's not even a family tree. A Legacy player who enjoyed all those things about the game can't play that way anymore.
Edit: Yes there are an obnoxious minority here who seem to just enjoy going around spoiling the atmosphere for anyone else but these people come from both sides of the camp and quite frankly everybody else shouldn't be lumped in with them. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with expressing displeasure here - ESPECIALLY when this is the fourth game in a very long-running franchise that, if you have been with the series since day one, has easily cost over £1,000 over all the years.
Comments
them you dont pay attention to the game story, because the events in heroes 3 had impact on might and magic, after the girl(which i forget the name) become the queen in heroes 3 lead to things which happened in might 7 then what happened in might 7 or was might 8 leaded to the game plot of heroes 4(which like the sims 4 was the worst game ever) then ubisoft take over the game and followed the events of heroes 4 to make might and magic 9 which lead to heroes 5(or was opposed) which lead to might and magic 10 and after everything they had a reboot starting in heroes 6, read about all the lore and you see, heroes and the rpg might and magic share the same world/timeline/verse, both games are direct connected the same goes to wow and warcraft, wow started as a sort of "spinoff from warcraft strategy game", wow lore start 10 years after the events of warcraft 3 and blizzard already told which no more warcraft strategy game because they will keep using wow to tell the story of warcraft and because they already have one strategy game in this case starcraft serie, then they dont need have 2 even if warcraft come first.
I don't like the newer games in any of the series. M&M9 was awful because they switched to another game engine and made the game more similar to Baldur's Gate which I didn't like either.
I have played both Warcraft and Starcraft. But not WoW because I prefer single player games and surely not an online game where you have to pay a monthly subscription.
now we talked about it, yeah heroes of might and magic is the pefect exemple for sims 4, heroes was a big sucess until heroes 4, where the dev tried to make "too many changes" and go back to some too old things, like the sims them the game failed and the company went bankrupt, then what ubisoft make, get what is the best in the heroes 3 which is proclamed the best heroes among the fans and players and make the heroes 5 with some changes, the game was a sucess but have little problem specially about the "turns" which turned to be a little mess sometimes, then they goes to heroes 6 and goes back to study heroes 3 and make a almost clone of heroes 3 with new engineer and features then get a great sucess with heroes 6. that is how game companys does they improve a game, make hugh changes like they did in the sims 4 was a horrible move, this can be sucessfull and a fail specially when you dont make up for what you removed/changed which is the problem here, sims 4 was a big stripped game and the features dont lived up for what was take off the trade was too unfair because they needed to rush the game to a point where we have a superficial good graphic until you start to look more carefull and see how bad is really the graphics, they only look good as long you dont pay attention to details.
I agree with you here. They will probably make a few expansions and see if that brings in new sales. If that failed to generate the sales, the development team would go back to the drawing board creating TS5 sooner then originally planned.
Gallery ID: RAINE78 or click HERE
[img][/img]
EA itself couldn't care either way, since stock prices are at an eight-year high after the value crash in 2008 that stayed down until recently. I'd credit that more to Madden, Inquisition, and Titanfall sales than Sims 4.
All I know is that every time I have to do something to make up for bugs and flaws that I become less sympathetic. In fact, once Dying Light comes out next week, I'll probably not need to open Origin again for years. If i'm smart, ever.
Otherwise, why put a number there? Why not call it "The Sims" (2014) like they did for "Simcity" 2013, or call it "The Sims Rebooted"?
If I was playing, for a random quick example, say, Uncharted 4, and the graphics were not hi-res or the artstyle changed overall and the characters were not realistic, I would be mad, because the previous games were definitely hi-res and realistic-looking.
Or if Infamous 3 or Elders Scrolls VI had no open-worlds, then I would be majorly ticked off, because the previous games had open-ish worlds.
Skyrim took out some stuff that were in Morrowind, like spell-making and reduced ("streamlined") some stats from previous games, and less topics/less dialogue (and less choices, too), but, for me, it made up for this by having great graphics, more animations, a great world/setting, fun combat, physics, moving objects, creating/buying houses and/or adopting children, dynamic NPC schedules, and keeping some good stuff from previous games, but improving on them or making them less tedious and more fun.
(She/her)
This was also the case with Jon Van Haneghem who founded New World of Computing and designed the Might&Magic games. Therefore this became just another game company which made good games but had to close down anyway.
But EA is a company who wasn't started this way. It was founded by Trip Hawkins who the Diirector of Strategy and Marketing at Apple Computer in 1982 when he founded EA as a publishing company for games. Therefore he knew everything about marketing and EA soon became so successful that EA could begin to buy game companies and thereby begin to produce the games themselves. EA just continued to buy other game companies and was so successful that it became the largest game company in the world. So even if EA's games aren't always good EA will still get the most out of them and therefore is able to survive nearly anything. This hasn't been the case for almost every other game company. They didn't fail because they couldn't make good games - but because they didn't understand how to market them and distribute them to the stores.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
blizzard started by a bunch of gamers making games behind they houses, the same goes for ubisoft the same goes to valve, new world company fail dont have nothing to do with him being a gamer, have to do with his games dont give more the same return and with the fail of the 3do console, man i watched how they failed, i know the story and dont have nothing to do with what you are saying.
many sucessfull games companies are funded exactly by gamers which actually know what the gamers want in they games.
new world was a little soap opera with the company being integrated to 3do then 3do failed with they console then they tried to run back to pc but failed to make some good games, in this case heroes 4 and if i'm not wrong might and magic 8 then the money ended and game over.
yeah EA ruined bullfrog, and others "game companies they put they hands, why do you believe EA have the fame to ruin everything they touch, why do you believe they aways are in the list of worst companies????, they fail because their have bad games, inquisition 2 say hello.
really man is really hard get int what you are saying.
They also went back and addressed offline play to my knowledge, although I'm still waiting to see how low the price goes before I make up my mind to grab it or not.
Personally I hope they at least give us worthwhile addons for TS4, I wasn't in a hurry for this game and if this is what we get after all this time TS5 can take it's time to do it right. I have a feeling I'll be making alot of cc myself though...
Don't feel beaten, we have put up a good fight to try to be heard. We cant control if EA listen but we have stood up for what we believe in, what we love, and to share what we want. Up against a large corporation. Thats very rare and shows the love we all have for the series that we stick around hoping for better-you should be proud for trying! At least if everything goes wrong you know you have tried all you could and thats all we can do as loyal customers and fans. And as for people who criticise that then they obviously fail to see the very obvious here. That we all stand up out of love and a desire to buy into the series going forward because we dont want to lose the sims, its a part of who we are.
https://twitter.com/sparkfairy1
They do have the Spore IP. In fact i wouldn't be surprised if they were working on that now at least in terms of conceptual stuff.
Yes I know that game companies who even several years after they have released a game still makes free patches available just to balance the game a tiny bit better are more popular than EA. But they go bankrupt because they just don't know how to make a profit. Such companies have often been bought by EA who immediately stops this behavior and gives them deadlines and high efficiency instead.
EA is successful because they know how to make a profit from their games. Most other game companies don't.
really high efficience, simcity was a show of "high efficiency" the sims series also is a show of "high efficiency", serious really then where the support when i need it???? you know i tried to get my money back from the 24h from a game(cheap game 5 dolars) and never could i just get forever waiting in the phone and even in net their dont give back my money, without count the bugs which still have in the sims 4 which my game is broken and i can't play really man serious, and since when ubisoft and blizzard are in bankrut???(they give patchs for free and even games for free too) or even microsoft???? or maybe sony??? or whatever, well really awesome your logic, if ea is so fantastice then why she never entered in the list of best companies and aways end in the list of worsts... something is very wrong with your logic.
just because some random companies are bad at market this can't be used to generalize while we have many exemples of companies making a lot of sucess, you are just sound biased.
what happened with new world computing was their own fault, because of several internal problems(discuss and disagreement, many workers leaving) this dont have nothing to do with your logic of "games company made by gamers dont know how to make money this a biased logic i never saw in net nothing say that, you can link your source please.
in the same way i can call a lot of companies which are sucesfull or even more sucesfull than EA easy and one of that is blizzard lol.
man i really can't take you serious anymore lol.
As for whether there will be a Sims 5.. I kind of hope not - not through EA, anyways. I'm not going to bash the people who actually work on the game, as I'm sure they put in a lot of work to give us this product. I don't know there the breakdown is within EA that allows this consistently buggy product to go to market and for it to be consistently updated with new bugs, but it's somewhere in the company. I love playing Sims, but it can be at the same time one of the most entertaining and one of the most frustrating gaming experiences I've ever had.
Perhaps the best case scenario is for some new company, hopefully staffed by lifelong Simmers who know what fans want from the game, to purchase the IP and start putting out the amazing game that Sims4 and any sequels have the potential to be.
All successful companies have good lawyers because they have to exploit the laws to their limits to be able to compete with other companies. They just have to keep within the limits of the laws.
Game companies shouldn't be any less professional than companies who make furniture, electronics, cars, clothes or other products. But a huge number of game companies have been more like hobby companies created by game designers who were more interested in making the games than having a good economy. Therefore nearly none of those companies have been able to survive more than at most 5 to 10 years. New "hobby" companies still arise and they are still also closed down or bought by a professional company like EA.
I like the hobby companies too because they are more enthusiastic about their games and usually give much better service. But the problem with them is that they don't survive and then their game series have an uncertain future.
have game companies which are bad at market is very different from all the game companies being bad at market, really very different.
It is a fact that at least 90% of earlier game companies don't exist anymore an it is also a fact that EA became the largest game company in the world just by buying more than 40 other game companies. See http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Electronic_Arts
So it is not just about an isolated example of a single game company which didn't understand how to market and sell its games or to get a good economy. It is a general tendency among game companies and I don't think that you can find anything similar among companies which makes another type of products than games. Where have you ever heard about another company which became big just by buying 40 other companies like EA did?
EA was only a small game publisher in the first half of the 1980s. But EA earned a lot of money while the companies who produced the games - earned nothing. They therefore went bankrupt. But EA needed them to produce more games so EA could earn even more money by publishing. Therefore EA started buying all those bankrupt game companies and with a plan to run them much more efficiently. This is what EA still does and EA earns more money than ever.
Very true, but I just don't think any of that will influence EA if they do decide to pull the plug on a "failing" franchise. They'll probably just look at the bottom line which are the sales figures.
Everyone else might well know what really went down, but I feel it won't change the final outcome.
I love this game. In fact for me it was a much needed return to something similar to TS2 but that doesn't mean I'm going to overlook and ignore all the problems the game has. People who complain about the game have absolutely every right to complain because a lot HAS been taken out of this game, people's play styles have been restricted and it must feel like a slap in the face to anyone who has ever spent money on this franchise before.
I'm lucky. The game didn't hurt my play style, it removed features that I personally found to be annoying or broken and it added a great deal to the sims themselves where I'd previously found them to be lacking but what about people who play Legacies? There's no Toddlers anymore, the babies are objects and there's not even a family tree. A Legacy player who enjoyed all those things about the game can't play that way anymore.
Edit: Yes there are an obnoxious minority here who seem to just enjoy going around spoiling the atmosphere for anyone else but these people come from both sides of the camp and quite frankly everybody else shouldn't be lumped in with them. There should be absolutely nothing wrong with expressing displeasure here - ESPECIALLY when this is the fourth game in a very long-running franchise that, if you have been with the series since day one, has easily cost over £1,000 over all the years.