We need more lots!!

Hopefully the upcoming Game Pack releasing this quarter comes with a world/destination with empty lots. We only really get good sized worlds with Expansions and if Seasons is this year then we probably won't get another decently sized world till next year, unless they patch in a fourth world.

Keeping in mind that the game only ever loads one lot at a time, I wonder why 1) the "overworld" maps aren't bigger and 2) why there are so few lots?

From a performance standpoint, I could understand keeping the worlds smaller if this were an open-world game, but it's not and we never load the world as a whole--so why should it matter how big it is or how many lots are on it?

It's a head-scratcher IMO.

I'd love a new world as well, even though I don't really need the space. :D I'm not sure if you already do this, but have you bulldozed excessive gyms, libraries, and museums? I usually have only one of each, and sometimes no museum at all seeing as I never visit them.

One factor here is because they simulate maps to appear larger.

There are only 4 or 5 lots per area in Willow Creek; however, they stuck in a ton of fake housing, etc to simulate a bigger world.

Our 4 or 5 lots can be surrounded by 30 or so fake houses, etc.

Foundry Cove - Willow Creek:
https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/sims/images/6/6e/Foundry_Cove_from_above.png/revision/latest?cb=20141230152650

So, the problem is there is no such thing as an empty world in TS4. Newcrest is full of emply lots, yet when you go there, it has tons and tons and tons of fake housing and shops, etc.

EDIT:
My point being that is not easy to just make these things - ie just hand over an empty world - full of empty lots - because of all of the fake scenary that they have to include.

"So_Money;c-16288178" wrote:
Keeping in mind that the game only ever loads one lot at a time, I wonder why 1) the "overworld" maps aren't bigger and 2) why there are so few lots?

From a performance standpoint, I could understand keeping the worlds smaller if this were an open-world game, but it's not and we never load the world as a whole--so why should it matter how big it is or how many lots are on it?

It's a head-scratcher IMO.

No it isn't. They want your money.

"DeservedCriticism;c-16288311" wrote:

"So_Money;c-16288178" wrote:
Keeping in mind that the game only ever loads one lot at a time, I wonder why 1) the "overworld" maps aren't bigger and 2) why there are so few lots?

From a performance standpoint, I could understand keeping the worlds smaller if this were an open-world game, but it's not and we never load the world as a whole--so why should it matter how big it is or how many lots are on it?

It's a head-scratcher IMO.

No it isn't. They want your money.

Maybe, but I'm not convinced that it's all about enticing us to buy packs. There are plenty of reasons to buy the packs and plenty of reasons not to, but I can't imagine many simmers are making the decision based on the extra lots provided.

And they did give us Newcrest for free.

One thing I know is for sure is why they haven't yet given a tool to create new worlds for the player ` EA knows nobody would want to buy a DLC for a new world, when the fanbase knows simmers are more creative and talented and would prefer downloading something for free with the outstanding breathtaking scenery. As for not giving us a tool to add, change and remove lots: it's they're lost really. Can't come with an conclusion why they haven't release one yet. Is it really engine/budget to blame here?

Wild guessing, but Newcrest could have been just an exception for the players to gain a wee bit of their trust due to the negative reputation they get everytime for dump and poor choices they made, and the lack of respect they show/provide to their fanbase.

"DragonCat159;c-16288367" wrote:
One thing I know is for sure is why they haven't yet given a tool to create new worlds for the player ` EA knows nobody would want to buy a DLC for a new world, when the fanbase knows simmers are more creative and talented and would prefer downloading something for free with the outstanding breathtaking scenery. As for not giving us a tool to add, change and remove lots: it's they're lost really. Can't come with an conclusion why they haven't release one yet. Is it really engine/budget to blame here?

Wild guessing, but Newcrest could have been just an exception for the players to gain a wee bit of their trust due to the negative reputation they get everytime for dump and poor choices they made, and the lack of respect they show/provide to their fanbase.

Except the vast majority of Packs/DLC don't even come with worlds so I'm guessing that while a new world does factor somewhat into the buying decision making process on the packs they come in it's probably not a huge part of it for the general public.

Plus there was the ability to create worlds in both Sims 2 and 3 and it didn't stop anyone from also buying EPS or Store Worlds just because there were free options available elsewhere.

I do however agree that we need more worlds/blank worlds/the ability to create our own worlds. I'm not a huge world builder (generally loose interest in Sims 2 and have never tried in Sims 3) and I rarely use up all the lots that are currently available in the game but I still see & agree that this is probably one of the biggest overall base additions that needs to be added now that they've added toddlers to the game.

"So_Money;c-16288178" wrote:
Keeping in mind that the game only ever loads one lot at a time, I wonder why 1) the "overworld" maps aren't bigger and 2) why there are so few lots?

From a performance standpoint, I could understand keeping the worlds smaller if this were an open-world game, but it's not and we never load the world as a whole--so why should it matter how big it is or how many lots are on it?

It's a head-scratcher IMO.

Even though it may not happen, it is to me more than just plopping now an neighborhood, it is the inability of the user to alter the lot size or add lots that can go a long way. Being the lots and neighborhoods are static and not flexible it makes it hard for one to really get creative and it does not need to be open world to do that. I am guessing that Sims 4 is not flexible too give the end user those tools also while we may not load the whole neighborhood as an whole it is still is important for some players who have different playstyles and some players may not want to put an family in another neighborhood because they can't fit them in the current neighborhood and it is all about keeping whatever storyline intact in that neighborhood. As far as performance goes it all comes back to what everyone rig can do. I would not expect too much from low to some mid levels rigs but there are others whose rigs can perform. Sims 4 does not have the ability to scale up beyond graphics settings so whether you use an low level rig to high level rig it does not matter beyond graphics. Sims 4 lost a lot of features that did matter to me and only one or two features in Sims 4 matter to me but that is not enough. I have stopped playing Sims 4 because I can't see EA/Maxis taking it beyond the packs as far as features goes however being the collector I am, I still buy the packs whether the pack is mediocre or excellent.

One idea would be a more countryside neighbourhood. They wouldn't have to fill the imaginary lots with such detailed houses as they've done with the other worlds, and have simpler backgrounds around the lots, such as fields, water, etc. I would really appreciate both the scenery as I mostly create countryside houses, aswell as it would probably save time and work for the creators.

Keep in mind that I don't have any idea of how creating games work though xD