Replies: 190 (Who?), Viewed: 19351 times.
Page 6 of 8
Forum Resident
#126 Old 30th May 2014 at 8:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieSmith
VIDEO game. Visuals matter a lot.


Visuals matter to the point of conveying mood and atmosphere... Beyond that, you can have a horrible game with great visuals, or vice-versa...
I mean, most of the time you play games, you don't watch them... Visuals don't make a game, but they can improve/detract from it...

Also, it's important to remember that taste differs... What some think is beautiful, others think is hideous... Case and point, The Sims 3.
Advertisement
Alchemist
Original Poster
#127 Old 30th May 2014 at 8:05 PM Last edited by Original_Sim : 30th May 2014 at 10:05 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by parrot999
Visuals matter to the point of conveying mood and atmosphere... Beyond that, you can have a horrible game with great visuals, or vice-versa...

Visuals don't make a game, but they can improve/detract from it...

The point is, Todd Howard of Bethesda acknowledges its importance and delivers. Even though not all players may consider Skyrim "gorgeous", you can clearly see the effort put into it. He doesn't throw around marketing terms and the word "fun" repeatedly. He simply talks about the game and what it has to offer.

Rachel Franklin of EA talks about how the Sims 4 is all about what the fans want and fails to deliver. It's all talk. If the Sims 4 is truly about what the "fans" want, why are we having to blow up screen captures, searching for swimming pools and cars? If you're giving us what we want, we shouldn't have to look THAT hard.

And instead of EA representatives telling us that the Sims 4 is "awesome" and "fun" over and over again, they really should just show us.
Forum Resident
#128 Old 30th May 2014 at 8:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original_Sim
Tha point is, Todd Howard of Bethesda acknowledges its importance and delivers. Rachel Franklin of EA talks about how the Sims 4 is all about what the fans want and fails to deliver. It's all talk.


You do have a point there, but it's incredibly hard to please any large fanbase... I suggest you visit any fansite about Doctor Who with a forum... You will likely notice the same kind of factions as you see in The Sims Fanbase... You've got the Classic Series Purists, RTD fans, Moffat Fans, etc...

Ultimately, two people can like the exact same thing for entirely different reasons... Some people like photorealistic sims, others like cartoony, or stylized sims... Some like super clean aesthetics, others like grungy aesthetics... Some like bright colors, others like subdued colors... It is entirely variable from person to person...

I'm loving what I've seen so far visually from The Sims 4. My only concern right now is gameplay... Because I haven't seen too much to get excited over...
Instructor
#129 Old 30th May 2014 at 8:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original_Sim
Tha point is, Todd Howard of Bethesda acknowledges its importance and delivers. Even though not all players may consider Skyrim "gorgeous", you can clearly see the effort put into it. He doesn't throw around marketing terms and the word "fun" repeatedly. He simply talks about the game and what it has to offer. Rachel Franklin of EA talks about how the Sims 4 is all about what the fans want and fails to deliver. It's all talk. If the Sims 4 is truly about what the "fans" want, why are we having to blow up screen captures, searching for swimming pools and cars? If you're giving us what we want, we shouldn't have to look THAT hard. And instead of EA representatives telling us that the Sims 4 is "awesome" and "fun" over and over again, they really should just show us.


Well said. E.A.'s marketingspeak is making my head spin. If I have to hear the word "intuitive" one more damn time...
Theorist
#130 Old 30th May 2014 at 8:58 PM
Just like "telling stories" was the marketing tag line for TS3, I can already tell that "Sims and their emotions" is the tag line for TS4. Ugh.

¢¾ Receptacle Refugee ¢¾ ~ Where are we going, and why am I in this handbasket!? ~
Laura's Legacy
Field Researcher
#131 Old 31st May 2014 at 1:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parrot999
You do have a point there, but it's incredibly hard to please any large fanbase... I suggest you visit any fansite about Doctor Who with a forum... You will likely notice the same kind of factions as you see in The Sims Fanbase... You've got the Classic Series Purists, RTD fans, Moffat Fans, etc...

Ultimately, two people can like the exact same thing for entirely different reasons... Some people like photorealistic sims, others like cartoony, or stylized sims... Some like super clean aesthetics, others like grungy aesthetics... Some like bright colors, others like subdued colors... It is entirely variable from person to person...

I'm loving what I've seen so far visually from The Sims 4. My only concern right now is gameplay... Because I haven't seen too much to get excited over...


Skyrim sold like, 20 million copies or something? Hardly a small fanbase. Though it's true not everybody in it was pleased with Skyrim. Some still hail Morrowind as the holy grail of the sandbox RPGs and see Skyrim as having been "dumped down". So no way to please everyone, no. Though personally I feel Bethesda puts a lot more effort in trying than EA.
Lab Assistant
#132 Old 31st May 2014 at 2:37 AM
So...how Would The Sims being made by Bethesda, known for their adventure RPG's, help with The Sims (Which is a Life Simulator.)

At that point you rather give it to Marvelous Entertainment, at least they've DONE Life Simulators.
Field Researcher
#133 Old 31st May 2014 at 12:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parrot999
Visuals matter to the point of conveying mood and atmosphere... Beyond that, you can have a horrible game with great visuals, or vice-versa...
I mean, most of the time you play games, you don't watch them... Visuals don't make a game, but they can improve/detract from it...


Umm, you seem to be confused. I'm talking about VIDEO GAMES. I do watch them when I'm playing, and if they're a pain to look at there's not much point to playing them, I can just use my imagination in that case or play a board game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by parrot999
Also, it's important to remember that taste differs... What some think is beautiful, others think is hideous... Case and point, The Sims 3.


Up to a limit. If someone told you that rotten meat was their favorite food are you telling me you wouldn't question their place in society?
Alchemist
Original Poster
#134 Old 31st May 2014 at 4:10 PM Last edited by Original_Sim : 31st May 2014 at 5:12 PM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EK_Painkiller
So...how Would The Sims being made by Bethesda, known for their adventure RPG's, help with The Sims (Which is a Life Simulator.)

I "chose" Bethesda because it appears to have a higher budget than EA, an arguably better marketing team and more dedicated developers in general. Todd Howard and his team seem genuinely passionate about what they're doing whereas Rachel Franklin and Ryan Vaughan seem like they're just in it for the money. They don't seem to "get" their own game in a way that Todd Howard does his.

If Todd Howard were interested in developing a life simulation game, I have faith that he'd put effort into the game and give it the right amount of TLC.

Most of the current Sims 4 developers, on the other hand, behave as though they would rather be working on something other than a life simulation game. A "flights of fancy" simulator, perhaps? Bethesda may be "known" for RPGs, but EA is known for skimping out on content and recycling the same old shit each time a new era of the Sims begins.

If what a company is "known for" is something we're considering in this argument, then EA is not the best candidate for any game.
Field Researcher
#135 Old 31st May 2014 at 4:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original_Sim
I "chose" Bethesda because it appears to have a higher budget than EA, an arguably better marketing team and more dedicated developers in general.


Beats the hell out of me how you came up to that conclusion...
Instructor
#136 Old 31st May 2014 at 4:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieSmith
Umm, you seem to be confused. I'm talking about VIDEO GAMES. I do watch them when I'm playing, and if they're a pain to look at there's not much point to playing them, I can just use my imagination in that case or play a board game.

Up to a limit. If someone told you that rotten meat was their favorite food are you telling me you wouldn't question their place in society?


THIS!!!!! Even though Sims 3 isn't AS good, gameplay wise as Sims 2, I have watched my sims go through their worlds and been amazed at the beauty of the world, watching the sunset, the stars, the VISUALS. I do watch my video games as well. When I'm playing Skyrim, I just stop and look at the beauty of the world at times and am in AWE. At night, the sky lights up with what looks like the Northern Lights; that is attention to DETAIL. It is beautiful and amazing; that's just a fact.

Is it not better to be counted among the strange rather than the incurably stupid? ♥ Receptacle Refugee ♥
Alchemist
Original Poster
#137 Old 31st May 2014 at 4:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieSmith
Beats the hell out of me how you came up to that conclusion...

Let me use Skyrim as an example.

Before the game's release, Todd Howard and other developers talked about what the game had to offer and gave details about the development process. They gave specific examples (e.g. what your character can do, how dragons work, the production of dragon shouts, the importance of creating an immersive environment, etc). They also seemed genuinely passionate about their project. They didn't repeat the same "it's a fun game" and "awesome" like EA developers do in every single interview.

They also didn't skimp out on Skyrim content as much as EA did with the Sims 3.

EA developers are constantly making excuses for poor execution and lack of content, like how car animations are "too difficult" to implement and that CAST is too much work for the "tactile" Sims 4 environment. And yet they pop out DLC after DLC on their online Store, charging for shit that could have been included in the base game and expansion packs (e.g. the half-assed restaurant system, the new carousel, new worlds, etc).

Say what you want about bugs and glitches, but you won't find Skyrim players complaining about horses being left out of the game and conveniently appearing for sale on Steam. That's not Bethesda's style.
Lab Assistant
#138 Old 31st May 2014 at 6:00 PM Last edited by memy9909 : 3rd Jun 2014 at 12:09 AM.
Their take on Into the Future (If there would be a Sims 4 version) would be an apocalyptic version of your town (I don't mean like robots controlling it kind and it's a happy fun time all day kind of apocalypse, I mean like your town would have been destroyed by a nuclear blast and no hope for rebuilding)
I can see it being less corny as a whole (I know, cartoony. But the corny aspects of Sims gets old quick.). You could see throught the eye of your sim like Fallout's first person and the ability to move your sim around with arrow keys (I always wanted something like that.), or maybe even the Open world prospective would be better than Sims 3 using the LOD generation of Fallout, it would take no large chunks memory whatsoever. And Sims would be more of an RPG, I can see that. Also, I wanna see a Bethesda Sims Medieval.

Edit: Of course it would take memory, but not a large chunk like what Sims 3 had.
Field Researcher
#139 Old 31st May 2014 at 9:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Original_Sim
Before the game's release, Todd Howard and other developers talked about what the game had to offer and gave details about the development process. They gave specific examples (e.g. what your character can do, how dragons work, the production of dragon shouts, the importance of creating an immersive environment, etc). They also seemed genuinely passionate about their project. They didn't repeat the same "it's a fun game" and "awesome" like EA developers do in every single interview.


Ok Todd Howard is a better actor and a better liar, I'll give you that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original_Sim
They also didn't skimp out on Skyrim content as much as EA did with the Sims 3.




Are you serious? Lmao, half the war elements were scrapped cause Bethesda couldn't make them work on the crappy 7th gen consoles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original_Sim
EA developers are constantly making excuses for poor execution and lack of content, like how car animations are "too difficult" to implement and that CAST is too much work for the "tactile" Sims 4 environment. And yet they pop out DLC after DLC on their online Store, charging for shit that could have been included in the base game and expansion packs (e.g. the half-assed restaurant system, the new carousel, new worlds, etc).


Clearly you've never seen this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGIgXeGC6Dg

How much of that do you think made it into the game? Tip: NONE!!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Original_Sim
Say what you want about bugs and glitches, but you won't find Skyrim players complaining about horses being left out of the game and conveniently appearing for sale on Steam. That's not Bethesda's style.


Clearly you've never seen this ether:

http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/...s_V:_Hearthfire

I'll assume you were trying to point out that Sims Studio left something out of the game only to sell it later. What might that be exactly?

Also you conveniently forgot to mention how Bethesda ditched the game completely after two DLC's and a half, despite the fact that neither of those DLC's were nearly worth the asking price, and that the game still has major bugs that have existed since day one.

Sims Studio on the other hand have been updating the game and releasing expansions for the last five years. And while none of their expansions are worth the asking price ether, at least the patches actually fixed the game and not just some rare (or in-existent) bugs that nobody's even heard of.
Field Researcher
#140 Old 31st May 2014 at 9:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyinbmore
Would you put up your money against The existing Sims fanbase? Not really good business in my opinion.


If a competitor ever *were* to release a Sims game of their own, they'd have to time the release quite carefully, if they'd like to eat some of EA's lunch. Ideally they'd release near the end of an iteration of the Sims, or possibly between iterations, when more potential customers would be up for grabs.
Forum Resident
#141 Old 31st May 2014 at 11:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieSmith
Up to a limit. If someone told you that rotten meat was their favorite food are you telling me you wouldn't question their place in society?


Why should I judge others based on things they like? As long as it's not hurting anyone, I have no right to judge them!

You strike me almost like a member of the German "National Socialist Party" with everything you say... Who are you to question the quality of other people's likes and dislikes? Do you think you're perfect and infalible? Because: news flash! You aren't!

The sooner you realize that you are just as imperfect as the rest of us, and stop trying to force your own opinions down other's throughts, the better you, and everyone else will be!

Good Day Sir/Madam!
Forum Resident
#142 Old 1st Jun 2014 at 12:56 AM
I don't think any of us doubt that the Sims is a huge undertaking and involves a lot of complex programming, but I agree with the basic premise of this thread. Comparing TS3 to Skyrim doesn't really make sense, but comparing EA to other game companies might. I know that I personally have lost a lot of faith and goodwill towards EA and come away with the impression that the overall corporate culture there is out of sync with my own values.

What I truly want is to buy from a game company that truly cares about making great games. Of course they want to make money, too, I get that and respect it, but putting out a quality product should come first. I've had this impression from some of the folks at Irrational Games (specifically from this interview ) but not from EA. Ever.
Field Researcher
#143 Old 1st Jun 2014 at 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parrot999
Why should I judge others based on things they like? As long as it's not hurting anyone, I have no right to judge them!

You strike me almost like a member of the German "National Socialist Party" with everything you say... Who are you to question the quality of other people's likes and dislikes? Do you think you're perfect and infalible? Because: news flash! You aren't!

The sooner you realize that you are just as imperfect as the rest of us, and stop trying to force your own opinions down other's throughts, the better you, and everyone else will be!

Good Day Sir/Madam!


Hypocrisy is in the air tonight.
Lab Assistant
#144 Old 1st Jun 2014 at 10:53 AM
You can like what you like, just don't be a dick about it. Now everybody shake hands and go back to the sandpit.

↖ the one emotion TS4 better have
Forum Resident
#145 Old 1st Jun 2014 at 3:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieSmith
Hypocrisy is in the air tonight.


Tell me. How do you figure my statement is hypocritical?

I have my opinions, and am sometimes very vocal about them, but I never judge people based on differing opinions. I may say, I think something is stupid, but I wouldn't say that you are stupid for liking it. There's a huge difference there...

I can say, I think the new sims look amazing, and you can say they look stupid, and guess what? Neither of us are wrong! Because our like or dislike of such things is based on our opinion on an art style, and not based on any concrete facts...

Even when dealing with concrete facts, there is wiggle room for opinion. I can say a feature of a game is broken, and I hate it because of that. I would be correct in that rhe feature is broken, but even still, other people may find that feature unimportant, and like the whole despite it...

Ultimately, there's a difference between being vocal about a like or dislike, and telling others they are dumb or tasteless because their taste doesn't fully reconcile with your own...
Instructor
#146 Old 1st Jun 2014 at 4:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieSmith
I'll assume you were trying to point out that Sims Studio left something out of the game only to sell it later. What might that be exactly?

Also you conveniently forgot to mention how Bethesda ditched the game completely after two DLC's and a half, despite the fact that neither of those DLC's were nearly worth the asking price, and that the game still has major bugs that have existed since day one.

Sims Studio on the other hand have been updating the game and releasing expansions for the last five years. And while none of their expansions are worth the asking price ether, at least the patches actually fixed the game and not just some rare (or in-existent) bugs that nobody's even heard of.


Ahem, I seem to recall the whole debacle of the surfing station from the Surfs up Sun and Fun set. I remember something about people saying how it was supposedly cut from IP and you can clearly see an in-development version of Isla Paradiso and all that hooplah. Let's cut to the Bohemian Garden. You paid$ 19 for useless fruits because they only did a variant of a pancake and a few nectar recipes, both of which required World Adventures. What's worse was you had to pay $19 more for the Bakery set to actually get any recipes for the harvestables in the Bohemian Garden and, wait for it, It's borked to hell! 'Cause for some the recipes don't even show up so you paid a total of $38 to get screwed over. There's two cases of EAxis cutting shit out of stuff and selling it later. There may be more but I am not in the mood to go around and looking up.

Honestly quantity of DLC doesn't equate to a company giving up on it. All I am gonna say tho.

Now for your third point. Updating what exactly? Cause last I checked, I still needed Mods to fix half the shit EA hasn't fixed yet. I also need mods on top of that to fix their buggy messes of Store content.

BTW the word is non-existent. I dunno what you mean by in-existent but I am assuming you meant non-existent.

(◐ω◑)
What kind of Sim loves like this?
(◐ω◑)
Alchemist
#147 Old 1st Jun 2014 at 5:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackieSmith
<snipped>... at least the patches actually fixed the game <snipped>.


Forum Resident
#148 Old 1st Jun 2014 at 5:20 PM
I have to agree with CircusWolf on this one. There are still many major things that EA never fixed (edit town still permanently destroys the world's routing, doesn't it?), and almost certainly won't. What "updating the game" has been going on with TS3 seems pretty firmly directed at making more money, not necessarily making the game better.
Field Researcher
#149 Old 2nd Jun 2014 at 1:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by parrot999
Tell me. How do you figure my statement is hypocritical?

I have my opinions, and am sometimes very vocal about them, but I never judge people based on differing opinions. I may say, I think something is stupid, but I wouldn't say that you are stupid for liking it. There's a huge difference there...


There you have it.
Test Subject
#150 Old 2nd Jun 2014 at 2:44 AM
Bethesda's environment graphics and world-engine are phenomenal. That is about it that you are looking for in The Sims.

The kind of simulation that the Sims is involves a lot of AI and a good solid one at that - Skyrim doesn't have an AI - it has very little that actually affects gameplay and even the choice system is incredibly limited. Their AI reads like those Choose your Adventure books you may have read as a kid in the 80's and 90's.

Something that a lot of game players don't understand is that developing a sophisticated AI is one of the most difficult and demanding things you can do in programming... and your PS4's have ONLY just come out with an engine that is robust enough to handle half the crap people are demanding from The Sims franchise. You want them to make split decisions on priorities at the drop of a hat, quickly assessing their environment, needs, and wishes before acting instead of by rote going for the nearest Video Game or sprinkler? I do to - but that takes a lot of processing to accomplish. It sounds so easy to us... because our brains very easily process that, often without considering the steps involved, but for computers, you have to spell every tiny little detail out like your talking to the dumbest person on earth.

Bethesda hasn't spent years developing and perfecting an AI system. They've spent years developing and perfecting an immersive and changing world engine.

Very different in more than just genre.

Not to mention Bethesda would need some much better artists for creating people - Bethesda has some of the ugliest models I've ever seen.
Page 6 of 8
Back to top