"Luke;c-16411234" wrote:
"Writin_Reg;c-16409030" wrote:
"thevogel;c-16408995" wrote:
"MidnightAura;c-16408893" wrote:
I agree with @JoAnne65. No matter what the sims 3 did or didn't do (and still does) why it okay for the Sims 4 to do the same thing just using a different horse? It shouldn't be. What happened with My First Pet was a disgrace. I Know many don't agree and thats okay but this will just be the start.
That situation is not comparable to the Sims 3,2,1 or anything in the history. We have never had a product that relies on another to make it worth it. We have never had guru's saying before "We don't recommend you buy x unless you have y, but if you want it we can't stop you buying it" (lets be honest, they don't care. They have covered their backsides by making it crystal clear you need an expansion to be able to fully use every item in MFP. It's all over the trailer and as I've said straight from the horses mouths.
That is a first for this game. That cannot be denied or argued because its never happened before. Dlc for dlc is a new low for this iteration only and one I predict will happen again.
THIS!!!!! As if re-colors and re-meshes weren't enough of a blatant rip off of their own product...but DLC for DLC and hoping no one notices??? Yeah, that is scummy and low.
That is why everyone should be concerned. It will happen again, and it will get worse. No amount of DLC is going to fix what is wrong with EA's business practices and the game itself. We need a reboot.
Sims 4 actually was considered a reboot. It is no secret they informed us well before Sims 4 ever came out - we just choose not to see the message. It was their new vision - a remake of the Sims from the beginning with a new focus as if Sims 1-2- and 3 did not exist. They Maxis said it - and not every one paid attention. Most of us figured it would eventually get back on track even though the whole design of the game itself - and their engine made it clear it was a new sims series with little to do with it's former first 3 games. Maxis never tried to hide it - they told us before it came out - even let us pre-try the game before we bought it.
Remember Rachels blog - two plus months before the game came out. A Guru even called Sims 4 a Parallel Universe and it's version of the Sims. But people by and large just ignored all that.
I came to terms with it but not until we got Toddlers - they made enough difference to me that I could finally play the game. I just know better now than expecting a Sims 1-2-or 3 - and realize this is not those Sims games. I can still play those if I like and also play this parallel Universe. LOL.
4 years of bickering over the direction of this game has not changed it - its very design alone makes change improbable.
You're taking the parallel concept too literally.
The storylines of TS4 are in a parallel universe from TS1. Bella Goth, Landgraabs, Pancakes/Newbies, Caliente sisters, etc.
If its its own version of The Sims, that is fine ... go ahead. Remake The Sims. But don't call it The Sims FOUR. Do it like Star Wars. They remade Star Wars Battlefront. They didn't call it Star Wars Battlefront 3. And it still tanked. Sometimes their new direction is a misdirection. You can blame it on people "thinking" that the game is bad simply because they are comparing it to TS1/2/3 ... but I believe that to be inevitable.
You cannot take a franchise - any franchise - and make a reboot, a remake, a sequel, a continuation, etc. WITHOUT people comparing it to the originals. Even if it is supposed to be entirely new. The second you make it a part of an original franchise, you include everyone's past receptions and memories of that franchise. Steven King's IT had to be compared to the original. Did it do a good job as a modern retelling? Was it fresh and new? Or was it lame and boring? Did they call it Stephen King's IT part 3? Because a lot of it was entirely different than the original. But they didn't. Instead, they intended for it to be a retelling of the original novel/movie with bits and pieces - old and new - of the past with their own new vision. Was it complete? Was their vision complete? Or did it have plotholes in it and subpar acting?
See, you can say the exact same thing for TS4. Regardless if you think that it's everyone's fault for thinking that this game was a continuation of the series - side note: 4 does come after 3, so... - but that still doesn't explain the incompleteness of the game. Sometimes a concept for a game is so simple that regardless of the new spins on a game, the framework of the game is always going to remain relatively the same. Just so happens that the only truly relevant games to The Sims franchise are that of its own; the only life simulation games that are as big/bigger than TS4 are TS1/2/3. I have never played a life simulation game quite like it. There are similar ones, but none as big, and they feel a lot more basic.
So ... you can say that TS4 went in a new direction. That it was a remake of a game - from TS1. But I don't understand it, really ... each new iteration of The Sims has its own in-house unique engine. TS4 uses SmartSim, which gives the Emotion system and whatnot. Sims 3 gave the Open World, etc. Sims 2 gave .. a LOT. And this is all in comparison to its predecessors. So they can have their own take on The Sims all they want ... it still doesn't justify the limitations of the game. TS4's engine is just shallow, and has a lot of missteps. Of course it's its own game and has a lot of hardwork, money, and effort behind it ... but that isn't enough to make a good product. To me, each iteration added and took away things from past games. TS2 was a huge overhaul of TS1, but of course things were missing. But that was one of the most innovative iterations of the game aside from TS1 itself. And a lot of the stuff that was missing was superficial and people weren't horribly upset over it. With TS3, we got rabbitholes, so it took away the openness of TS2's lots. But we also got Open World ... so despite the rabbit holes, we could go ALL over the city/town we built. I think of TS2 as an intimate experience where you are focusing mainly on 1 lot at a time with a few Sims in order to take full advantage of your Sims immediate surroundings. TS3 was more of an open experience where you get to focus on the entire action of your world with all the Sims walking around. TS4 tries to offer an experience in between that of TS2/3 ... but it fails in a lot of areas.
Perhaps they could have had 3 base emotions - happy, sad, angry ... maybe it would have allowed them to focus more on other aspects of the game. At the same time, there was a thread a week or two ago that highlighted the fact that EA is a multi-billion dollar corporation. The funding for these projects shouldn't be scarce, and their teams obviously aren't inexperienced amateurs. EA can afford to hire some great people ... so what's the problem? More money should mean higher quality. So why is it less? Hmm, I wonder how EA is as a corporation. Not attacking the employees at all, mainly the people deciding everyone's salaries, budgets, and the overall vision of the company/TS4. It seems like EA has had a lot of trouble creating videogames over the past decade or so. EA used to be a great publisher, but since they have gained control of developing as well, their in-house developed games are misguided.
So maybe TS4 is unfairly compared to past iterations. Maybe peoples expectations are too high. But for the very quality of TS4, there aren't excuses. They don't just come from comparisons to previous games. Some things are actual flaws in TS4. That's what most people are talking about, and the quality that they compare it to is of previous games. The overall quality of TS4 is just mediocre. It is glitchy and buggy in a lot of ways. I am of the opinion that it mainly stems from being overly ambitious with the multitasking and emotions system. But all around, it doesn't seem like EA was too concerned since they released the game that way. EA can afford to pay their people more in order to make sure this doesn't happen. And they will need to change lest they want to be known for greedy, shallow mediocrity. I mean people already think that, but at the same time, here we all are.
TS4 is flawed. Not because of TS1/2/3. It just is a flawed game that sets the standard low on performance, graphics, and complexity. I think it's visually really appealing. But that's about it. I get bored very quickly. Not because of the "newness" ... I handled the game initially when it didn't have pools, ghosts, toddlers, colour wheels, etc. The game is still missing things that were really great about other iterations. But the new systems we do have ... multitasking, retail system, etc. are flawed. And they ruin the game for me. And the fact that these systems are taken and reused in other packs when the systems themselves are unpolished and messy, it just makes more of the game feel unpolished and messy. And some of these ideas are just too limiting and/or restrictive. Like I don't know the last time I played with the actual functions of OR ... and I still cringe at the apartments from CL. The lot traits were a really great idea ... but a lot of CL was lame and wasn't grand enough, like apartments could and should have been way better ... I was expecting a lot more. It's weird - I feel that TS4 is both ambitious and reserved in all the wrong ways. If they were less reserved and more ambitious about their gameplay functions, perhaps they could develop a better product. You know ... I can only handle so many festivals, hangouts, and market stalls before my eyes start rolling.
You forget I actually was the one who asked them 3 different times _"Then why is it named Sims 4." 4 years ago almost. Enough said.
Like I said I had no part of this game except for the basegame and Get to Work - went back to Sims 3 up until the notification from EA "toddlers are here". I came back tried them out - and then bought all the packs out thus far. The day I got toddlers was the first day I saw GT or CL and all the other packs -
