"kremesch73;c-16289104" wrote:
"RnM92;c-16289022" wrote:
I have to give this a 4/10 at the most. Still unsure whether 3 or 4 in reality.
*snip*
But yeah, it really doesn't surprise me that the Sims 4 is such a downgrade compared to the previous games, after all I'm seeing a general pattern forming with most EA games as of late. Most of their franchises have seen terrible new games as of late (eg Mass Effect, Star Wars BF2, Sim City) which has resulted in an alienation of the fan base and cancellation of future games and/or closure of the studio. Therefore it really doesn't surprise me that the same has happened to the Sims. EA has clearly got to a point where making maximum profit is all that matters, and they'll rush out a game before its finished regardless, while investing as little as possible in the creation of the game.
Im curious about the pros. You gave it a 3/4 and only mentioned the cons. Your sentiment mirrors my own so I’m intrigued. What do you like about Sims 4 to give it that score?
Regarding the bolded area: I don’t understand the mentality of decreasing quality to maximize profits. I feel you’re correct, but this is the pattern that usually closes the doors on a company. I just don’t understand why they’d stick their own feet in a grave they appear to be digging. Time will tell, I guess.
Edit: sorry to snip your post. But the quote was so long. Nothing wrong with it. It’s just that you already said it. :)
Sorry, I haven't really been able to go into detail about everything as I'm too tired and feeling unwell, so I just thought I'd mention my main points. There isn't a whole lot I do like to be honest, but I don't think it's bad enough for 1. I've heard of plenty of games that are so bad they they definitely deserve a 1. I would say the stuff that I haven't mentioned is just meh rather than bad. I kinda like the diversity of skills (piano and art rather than just creativity), collecting stuff etc but there isn't anything I really really like, not enough for me to really go into detail.
You'd better ask EA why they're doing that, I don't know. God knows why a company would do such a thing, but it seems to be exactly what they're doing. Other game companies are doing the same thing, especially ones building games around loot boxes and ruining the gameplay in the process. I think it might be the whole short termism thing. It's well known that large corporations often make their goal maximum profit in the short term, while ignoring long term implications. It's what happened in the early 80s when game companies at the time made awful games with minimal investment and pushed them out at the earliest opportunity. This then caused the game industry to crash and wiped out several game companies. The straw that broke the camel's back was when Atari made the developer of ET the game make the whole thing on his own in 5 weeks. Obviously it was terrible, there was massive outcry and they failed to sell many, hence the whole thousands of game cartridges buried in the desert thing happened. Nintendo was left standing because they didn't do such shady practices and picked up the pieces. Tbh I see a repeat of this looming on the horizon as nearly every major game company (except Nintendo again) is now following suit and making terrible games or adding manipulative monetisation practices. More gamers are getting angry and distrustful of new games, so yeah I would say it's likely to happen again. Analysts are saying that if EA's new game, Athem, is terrible and receives the same reception from gamers as SW BF2, then EA is in serious trouble.
