Replies: 190 (Who?), Viewed: 19417 times.
Page 2 of 8
Forum Resident
#26 Old 25th May 2014 at 12:30 AM
The only similarity's I have seen with the game is that both are extremely buggy games that have had to be fixed by the modding community of both.

I don't know why some of these game developers are so highly regarded while others are not, even though they are guilty of the exact same stuff.

Edit: As modders for Skyrim on PC will tell you it is not well-optimised. Something about the way it loads textures is overboard and puts a lot of work on the computer, there are mods to fix this.
Advertisement
Instructor
#27 Old 25th May 2014 at 1:10 AM
Well, I, for one, know it is not easy to develop a game. This discussion is only speculation on what another company might be able to do if they were to create a life simulation game somewhat like what the Sims is. If someone from EA doesn't like us speculating on another company giving EA competition, then I say show us some WOW from Sims 4. I haven't yet seen that, but when I load Skyrim and look at that world, I say, "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!"

And besides, competition is a healthy motivator for us all.

Is it not better to be counted among the strange rather than the incurably stupid? ♥ Receptacle Refugee ♥
Scholar
#28 Old 25th May 2014 at 1:12 AM
I don't know if Bethesda could manage the Sims - having to employ more than 2 voice actors in a game would probably scare them off.

Heaven's Peak, my CAW WIP
Field Researcher
#29 Old 25th May 2014 at 1:12 AM
Lol you are easily impressed . Apparently only the size of the world matters and not all the other stuff as AI? (Which is still bad in so many games...)
I just don't think Beth could make a Sims game. They don't have the knowledge and experience.
Forum Resident
#30 Old 25th May 2014 at 1:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SimGuruGraham
Fans mistakenly think that developing The Sims is easy. It is not.


I don't think many people think making The Sims is easy, some probably underestimate the complexity and ignore the parts of Sims3 that work just fine.
What I do hope is that you guys at EA are a bit ashamed that a guy like Twallan can singlehandedly identify existing bugs in the game and implement workarounds and fixes - in his spare time, while working a day job. It makes you guys look really bad and incompetent as a multi billion dollar company. I'm assuming incompetence is not the problem, some stuff in Sims3 is rather excellent, so I'm not sure what it is. Attitude? Lack of love for the game? Or maybe just business things I dont understand

Find my Mods: Here at MTS, over at Simlogical
Field Researcher
#31 Old 25th May 2014 at 1:17 AM
BTW, when thinking about which other developers might do something interesting in the life sim market, instead of Bethesda how about Rockstar?

They've produced some amazingly detailed worlds in LA Noire and GTA5. Yeah, yeah, it's not the same thing since their AI is simpler and the majority of their Los Angeles is static while in The Sims players can rebuild almost any lot at any time, but maybe that just means there should be a different approach to making the transition from build mode to live mode. Take more time to precalculate and bake in data needed to support a more realistic world.
Test Subject
#32 Old 25th May 2014 at 2:40 AM
If Bethesda made the Sims 4 then I don't think I would touch it with a 39 1/2 foot pole. I'm not entirely happy with the quality of the expansions during the run of Sims 3, especially when compared to the quality of the expansion packs with Sims 2. However, the games that Bethesda has directly developed (not just published) have been so broken and buggy in a way that they even top The Sims 3 in that department. I'm not sure how Bethesda would do in creating a direct simulation and I know that one positive thing I can say is that the game would definitely have a large variety of free mods out there. My concern would be if we actually got a game that worked even moderately well when it was released.
Field Researcher
#33 Old 25th May 2014 at 3:44 AM Last edited by clay4kelly : 25th May 2014 at 4:03 AM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr_Valentine90
I don't know why some of these game developers are so highly regarded while others are not, even though they are guilty of the exact same stuff.

This.

Besides, which product made by Bethesda can compare to the sims in terms of ambition and scope? To state the painfully obvious, the sims is a LIFE simulator - attempting to encompass the whole human experience, with all its subjectivity, intricacies and limitless possibilities. Think about it rationally, not as a scorned gamer, and let that blow your mind as it just did mine :p

I'm not an EA sympathiser, but I don't think the answer to our woes is fashioning another gaming company into a makeshift night in shining armour.

If another developer got their hands on the franchise, it'd be an equally buggy and rage-inducing experience for some, and the epitome of gaming perfection for others (*cough*official forums) - just as it is now.
Mad Poster
#34 Old 25th May 2014 at 3:54 AM
No one is doubting the difficulty of developing a game from the ground up.

BUT

I think people are looking around at the incredible rebirth of rogue-likes, RTS-es and base-building games and saying- "When will this happen to the Sims?"

Because if Maxis doesn't pick up the slack, someone else will.
Theorist
#35 Old 25th May 2014 at 3:58 AM
When I look at most AAA game developers it's basically same shit, different packaging. Everyone's out to make a buck and anyone who tells you differently is selling something, to paraphrase a princess bride quote.. and it's true. Games aren't made out of the goodness of a developer's heart, they're made to sell and make a profit for said company. No one likes to stray that far from the "norm" in gaming these days and those who attempt to, more often than not fail miserably.

One amazing thing that no one is picking up on or recognizing... Maxis showed developers their hand, essentially. They went to GDC and showcased their innovations in AI and multitasking. This might not jump-start some huge sim clone movement since companies cannot see themselves competing with the franchise, but it's not like they're being a-holes. I think if a company legitimately wanted to, they could package a Sim-like game without using "The Sims". Just think of who the demo would be, though. Do you see them marketing it for adults and older gamers? Or going farther into the dollhouse for the young'uns.

(Whenever I see Graham viewing I always get a knot in my stomach cause I think my posts seem disrespectful when they aren't meant to be. *hides*)
Lab Assistant
#36 Old 25th May 2014 at 4:17 AM
I can sympathize with both sides of the argument. On one hand, it must be incredibly frustrating to be slaving away at The Sims 4 and having to deal with fans who are already making demands about the game, despite knowing very, very little about the technical side of game development.

The lack of the Create a Style Tool, for example, is frustrating for me because I personally understand how the removal of the tool will improve the game, yet I still interact with thousands of fans who are now threatening not to buy The Sims 4 at all. While I’ve never been thrilled with EA, it is simply unfair to call them “lazy” for trying to “ruin” TS4 by not including buggy, clunky tools like Create a Style in the next iteration of The Sims. I think that Maxis has done a great job trying to make sure that TS4 is a stable game that will be accessible to many players with lower-end computers. While people complain about CAST not being in TS4, even more people complain about how buggy and unstable TS3 is, and how it only runs smoothly on expensive, high-end computers.

On the other hand, fans do have the right to voice their opinions about The Sims. Though it must be frustrating to hear criticism as a developer on the game, The Sims 4 team must realize that those who criticize the game care about it deeply.

The Sims 3, in my opinion, was a complete and utter failure in almost every conceivable way. I love to rant and rave about EA and the (again, in my opinion) awful direction that TS3 was taken in, but I only do so out of love. I complain about EA and The Sims franchise because I love it and I wanted The Sims 3 to be as great as TS1 and TS2 were.

I don’t think that it’s unfair for players to hold EA and Maxis to a certain standard of quality, especially when we are shelling out hundreds of dollars for the game and it’s expansions. The key is maintaining a basic understanding of how game development works, and trying to stay realistic. No, you should not get mad that EA is not considering a mental illness expansion pack. It is not reasonable to expect EA to add guns to the game, or Sims in wheelchairs, or photo-realistic graphics. We do, however, have the right to express our opinions. If you want gun-slinging, handi-capable Sims then fine, but don’t get mad when EA doesn’t produce it.
Top Secret Researcher
#37 Old 25th May 2014 at 5:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Consort
... in his spare time, while working a day job...

and without the source code!
Field Researcher
#38 Old 25th May 2014 at 6:15 AM
"Fans mistakenly think that developing The Sims is easy. It is not.

To compare what Skyrim does to what Sims does shows a clear misunderstanding of what the technical demands of the two games are.” —Graham Nardone
From Tumblr. What do you think?
Field Researcher
#39 Old 25th May 2014 at 6:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentonparkninja
I don't know if Bethesda could manage the Sims - having to employ more than 2 voice actors in a game would probably scare them off.


Skyrim has over 70 voice actors and over 60,000 recorded lines. http://elderscrolls.wikia.com/wiki/Voice_Cast_(Skyrim)
But when you round that number down you end up with 2, obviously. Now, how many voice actors can be found in The Sims franchise again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by clay4kelly
This.

Besides, which product made by Bethesda can compare to the sims in terms of ambition and scope? To state the painfully obvious, the sims is a LIFE simulator - attempting to encompass the whole human experience, with all its subjectivity, intricacies and limitless possibilities. Think about it rationally, not as a scorned gamer, and let that blow your mind as it just did mine :p

I'm not an EA sympathiser, but I don't think the answer to our woes is fashioning another gaming company into a makeshift night in shining armour.

If another developer got their hands on the franchise, it'd be an equally buggy and rage-inducing experience for some, and the epitome of gaming perfection for others (*cough*official forums) - just as it is now.


Map of the game world in Skyrim with all of its (unique) locations:


There are things you can accuse Bethesda and Skyrim of, but lack of ambition of scope are not among them. You can travel from one end of this world to the other, and all these locations you see are accessible and can be explored. They each are unique and handcrafted (with recycled elements, yes, but no tomb or cave is 100% the same, unlike in, say, Dragon Age 2 or Mass Effect). No rabbit holes either.

As for bugs, with a world this big and beautiful, I am willing to overlook the occasional bugs. When you create something of this size, bugs and glitches are unavoidable. That said, after the first couple of patches I have never had any game or quest breaking bugs. Nor have my saves ever been corrupted, despite having created over ten characters and putting hundreds of hours in several of them. Obviously save corruption sucks if it happens to you, but it is not a very common issue, unlike hood corruption in The Sims 2.

Did Bethesda make Skyrim out of the good of their heart and without expecting profit in return? Of course not. They are a business and their goal will always be to make money. But to me it's very obvious an immense of mount of work has been put into this, and that's not something I can say of the endless rushed series of stuff packs and expansion packs EA is pooping out. Should they have spent more time ironing out some of the bugs? Perhaps, but again, a game has to be released at some point and squashing every bug is not doable.
Bethesda has also released a toolset and made their game very mod-friendly. A toolset cost them money and they made it available for free as a sign of goodwill and support to their customers. Meanwhile, EA's RPGs and other games are switching to the Frostbite engine which had been prided for being IMPOSSIBLE to mod. Toolset? Nuh-uh. That costs money, licensing, much work, etc. Enjoy our crappy hairstyles! With Sims 4 it remains to be expected how much of it can be modded. So far I have only read that EA/Maxis won't do anything to actively make it impossible. Well, how nice. Such a message radiates support.

Is Bethesda the perfect game producer? Probably not (CDPR is my number 1 at the moment ). Their 30 days XBOX exclusivity deal for all their Skyrim DLC was very annoying, for one. But hey, it left them more time to discover bugs while xbox players play-tested for the PC players. Ditching future Skyrim DLC for their crappy Elder Scrolls Online is not making them more popular, but at least the DLC they did release was worth the money and added a lot of new content: quests, locations, armor and NPCs. Skyrim is indeed not that well optimized either. Bethesda is using a very old engine, so by now it's better if they move on to something new and more stable. But then they might end up with issues about rights when they want to release a toolset again if their new engine has not been produced by them but a different company.

Sims and Elder Scrolls are very different games, and comparing them one on one is obviously not really possible. Still, looking at the amount of content I received and the enjoyment I get out of it, Skyrim beats Sims 3 at least to a pulp. It's a tie with Sims 2.
Field Researcher
#40 Old 25th May 2014 at 7:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubblesO
"Fans mistakenly think that developing The Sims is easy. It is not.

To compare what Skyrim does to what Sims does shows a clear misunderstanding of what the technical demands of the two games are.” —Graham Nardone
From Tumblr. What do you think?


Wait. Did you not read the first page of this thread...where that quote came from?

I know very little about Skyrim. I know even less about developing games. But I know that Sims2 had car animations, baby legs, baby genetics, functioning Mendellian genetics, buyable cell phones, a logical attraction system, a functioning greenhouse and bodyshop.

Sims3 developers: "I tried to put all those things in the game. But then I took an arrow to the knee."

Graham, you're awesome because you're brave enough to come here. Cheers.
One horse disagreer of the Apocalypse
#41 Old 25th May 2014 at 9:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubblesO
"Fans mistakenly think that developing The Sims is easy. It is not.

To compare what Skyrim does to what Sims does shows a clear misunderstanding of what the technical demands of the two games are.” —Graham Nardone
From Tumblr. What do you think?


To Bubbles: What do you mean from Tumblr? He posted it here on this thread.

To the thread in general: I wasn't even particularly talking about Bethesda, just like *any* other established big name gameshouse.

"You can do refraction by raymarching through the depth buffer" (c. Reddeyfish 2017)
Theorist
#42 Old 25th May 2014 at 10:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inge Jones
To Bubbles: What do you mean from Tumblr? He posted it here on this thread.

To the thread in general: I wasn't even particularly talking about Bethesda, just like *any* other established big name gameshouse.


It's "news", though I don't think it really should be. He might don the SimGuru name here, but it's his personal experiences and opinions. I worry it might end up getting him in trouble or cause issues so I don't think it really warranted that much exposure, either way.
Field Researcher
#43 Old 25th May 2014 at 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inge Jones
To Bubbles: What do you mean from Tumblr? He posted it here on this thread.

I don't think bubbles realised the quote she/he found on tumblr originated here in the first place
One horse disagreer of the Apocalypse
#44 Old 25th May 2014 at 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by clay4kelly
I don't think bubbles realised the quote she/he found on tumblr originated here in the first place


The thread is only two pages long :o not really much excuse for not reading it before posting!

"You can do refraction by raymarching through the depth buffer" (c. Reddeyfish 2017)
Lab Assistant
#45 Old 25th May 2014 at 10:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tontrin
Okay, now I have to copy and paste here my reply in the other thread to Jackie Smith about what I think of Skyrim/Sims 4:

It is a different game, however, the world is huge and is beautiful and it has features EA could implement into the Sims and does not. And it's not laggy, even though it's a really big world. A sims game could be made with such a world, where the towns are separate on the same map and load independently. That way one could have his/her sim visit other towns and make friends there, but those towns/people would not all have to be loaded at the same time, reducing lag. Also, that way one could take his/her sim or sims out into the open world to explore, go fishing, harvest the wild plants, like they grow in Skyrim. Also, the hunting aspect could be added to the game this way, even animals that Sims could befriend and adopt for pets could be out in the open world, which reminds me of some of the Harvest Moon games. Wow, I am now thinking of so many possibilities that could be added to the Sims' games that would make them a ton of fun, but that EA would likely not implement. I guess now I'm just bummed out.
That comparison isn't exactly fair. While it's true that Skyrim isn't laggy in spite of it being a big world, there's no story progression whatsoever apart from what happens to your own character. Other characters do not evolve; when you meet them they just act in a certain way (with a very limited set of actions) depending on what flags you have triggered along your way through the game. There's one of the huge differences between The Sims 3 and Skyrim - the former keeps track of the entire world all the time, the latter just a small portion of it at any given time. That accounts for at least some of the lag (although there are surely other causes as well).
Theorist
#46 Old 25th May 2014 at 10:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inge Jones
The thread is only two pages long :o not really much excuse for not reading it before posting!


Hey! I misplaced my reading glasses.. in Canada... on a ship.. with some guy.. maybe.. So.. it happens. I had wine, don't blame me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by letrax
That comparison isn't exactly fair. While it's true that Skyrim isn't laggy in spite of it being a big world, there's no story progression whatsoever apart from what happens to your own character. Other characters do not evolve; when you meet them they just act in a certain way (with a very limited set of actions) depending on what flags you have triggered along your way through the game. There's one of the huge differences between The Sims 3 and Skyrim - the former keeps track of the entire world all the time, the latter just a small portion of it at any given time. That accounts for at least some of the lag (although there are surely other causes as well).


Plus loading screens.
Field Researcher
#47 Old 25th May 2014 at 10:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by letrax
While it's true that Skyrim isn't laggy in spite of it being a big world


True. Ironically Skyrim lags worst indoors, especially in the Riverwood Trader and the Ragged Flagon Cistern.

Also ironic, Skyrim actually runs better with fan-made HD texture pack (not just compared to the official HD textures, but the vanilla SD ones as well). Goes to show just how badly optimized it is.
Theorist
#48 Old 25th May 2014 at 11:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovcat
Don't you know the mantra of the forum? If you're buying the broken items then it's your fault. You're encouraging them to make more and keep things as is.

Is this a safe place to admit we don't actually /pay/ for the game? Or is that frowned upon here too?
Theorist
#49 Old 25th May 2014 at 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShigemiNotoge
Is this a safe place to admit we don't actually /pay/ for the game? Or is that frowned upon here too?


History leads me to believe it's not safe for that either.
Field Researcher
#50 Old 25th May 2014 at 11:18 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShigemiNotoge
Is this a safe place to admit we don't actually /pay/ for the game? Or is that frowned upon here too?


It's not safe anywhere anymore. Well, except MATY but that's only because it doesn't have any moderators to enforce anything...

But hey if people prefer to support corporate interest over their own consumer rights, who are we to judge.
Page 2 of 8
Back to top