Del Sol Valley world size is disappointing

"bixters;c-16791900" wrote:

"wormstache999;c-16791669" wrote:
It's not just the size for me. Every world (except Newcrest) looks really pretty. Especially worlds like San Myshuno, Forgotten Hollow and Windenburg looked so special and nice. The new one looks just cheap to me tbh. Especially the transition between grass and sand looks like they ran out of time or didn't even try. It's like a weird mix between Oasis Spring and Willow Creek with some backdrop skyscrapers from San Myshuno :|
And I was hoping for at least one lot on the beach. I didn't expect any "swimming in the ocean" or something fancy, but just a house on the sandy terrain with a view of the ocean would've been really nice.

edit: Just talking about the map btw. I haven't seen videos yet where they went through the neighbourhoods in live mode.

Agreed, the world is not only small, but it's not very pretty either. I think this it is the least attractive town in the Sims 4. Couldn't they have at least filled in the empty space with plants or buildings?

They filled it in with huge fake roads and fake vehicles. I saw the video from sims camp. Two in fact and both showed the same thing.

I think a lot of people are always like "be happy with what we have" and I think we should BUT I tend to agree with the comments here! I kind of feel like this might be more game pack level rather than expansion pack level. I'm still not sure if I want to buy it??

"Writin_Reg;c-16794890" wrote:

They filled it in with huge fake roads and fake vehicles. I saw the video from sims camp. Two in fact and both showed the same thing.

I was specifically talking about the map being unattractive. The world itself has a lot of detail, but it's all fake like you said... :(

"simgirl1010;c-16792265" wrote:

"bixters;c-16792197" wrote:

"Dianesims;c-16792174" wrote:


Well I play on a MacBook, they kinda suck video games wise, so I'm concerned about performance. However other players have great gaming computers, they shouldn't be penalized either. That being said, my old white plastic MacBook could run TS3 (barely, but still) and the worlds were much bigger.

I understand that some players don't have the money to buy a more expensive computer, and I think it's great that the Sim's team accommodates for them. However, I just don't think their reasons are valid. I can see how Seasons or Cats & Dogs would be tough on an older computer, but adding in a couple more lots to a world? I don't think that would break the game. I was just trying to highlight how ridiculous their excuse is, not criticize users with lower end computers.

Why do you think their response is ridiculous? I'm also wondering why there were so few lots and if it's not a question of performance then what could it be? ?

This is a 64 bit game - it is ludicrous to say it would have performance issues. Who do they think they are kidding?

That might work on young people that know nothing about computers and programming but they best not try flying that one by me and people like me who have been dealing with pcs and programming since the early 80's. It was one thing when they say things like that about the ever sluggish 32 bit games - which was part of Sims 3's problem - but don't go tossing performance as an issue in a 64bit game. That is absurd!

My middle son is a C# and C++ programmer and he has not stopped laughing since he heard that. Never mind the fact someone who works in the business actually said that for a Sims game - in particularly The Sims 4 game.

"Writin_Reg;c-16794913" wrote:

"simgirl1010;c-16792265" wrote:

"bixters;c-16792197" wrote:

"Dianesims;c-16792174" wrote:


Well I play on a MacBook, they kinda suck video games wise, so I'm concerned about performance. However other players have great gaming computers, they shouldn't be penalized either. That being said, my old white plastic MacBook could run TS3 (barely, but still) and the worlds were much bigger.

I understand that some players don't have the money to buy a more expensive computer, and I think it's great that the Sim's team accommodates for them. However, I just don't think their reasons are valid. I can see how Seasons or Cats & Dogs would be tough on an older computer, but adding in a couple more lots to a world? I don't think that would break the game. I was just trying to highlight how ridiculous their excuse is, not criticize users with lower end computers.

Why do you think their response is ridiculous? I'm also wondering why there were so few lots and if it's not a question of performance then what could it be? ?

This is a 64 bit game - it is ludicrous to say it would have performance issues. Who do they think they are kidding?

That might work on young people that know nothing about computers and programming but they best not try flying that one by me and people like me who have been dealing with pcs and programming since the early 80's. It was one thing when they say things like that about the ever sluggish 32 bit games - which was part of Sims 3's problem - but don't go tossing performance as an issue in a 64bit game. That is absurd!

My middle son is a C# and C++ programmer and he has not stopped laughing since he heard that. Never mind the fact someone who works in the business actually said that for a Sims game - in particularly The Sims 4 game.

I’m not young and I’d buy it too ;) Took me reading from people who know a bit about it to find out it’s probably untrue.

Is it true by the way cars and boat trailers are parked next to a house your sim lives in? That would really be kind of awkward...

I don't for one moment believe the excuse about performance. The game only loads one district at a time, irrespective of the size of the "world" -- which isn't actually a world at all (as it was in Sims 3), but just a number of districts, which appear to be inter-connected because of the way they are drawn on the map and the clever backdrops, but are actually not connected to each other at all. I can understand why there might need to be a limit on the size of a district and the number of lots it can contain, but I cannot for the life of me see how the number of districts could affect performance. And if it is to do with the overall number of sims in the game, then why are we able to set limits on this in Household Management? What is the purpose of culling?

Some new article..

Source: Sims Community
Del Sol Valley is a disappointment and the majority of the community agrees

I say just wait till they discount it .... if the price bothers you, as much as I would like to add the small features to my game I may hold out for a while ...

"bixters;c-16792115" wrote:

"CeCeDot;c-16792068" wrote:
https://twitter.com/SimGuruKate/status/1054443669669928962?s=19

Kate's explanation... Really??

Lame. Maybe it'll effect your "performance" if you're playing on a toaster. :D

Some may find your post funny and I see the point you making with it and it is valid. If I am playing with an highend system how does that affect my performance? Now on the other hand if I am playing on an system that just meet the minimum I would accept that reasoning. EA/Maxis just shot themselves in the foot with that explanation for it shows that regardless of how powerful your system it will not play better than an lowend system for it will not take advantage of that system specs other than the graphics or no to less lag. Hate to do it but they just made Sims 3 look better than Sims 4 being it was using features that for me brought creativity to the game. Sure, some may have had some problems but it sure did not affect everyone. How can I glorify an version that comes half stepping to the plate, tweaking an game goes on throughout it's developmental life and sometimes after. Most other games tweaks their games when needed even when the customer does not ask for it. I think a lot of people suspected this and it has been confirmed or has to this time where we must know.

"Goldmoldar;c-16795616" wrote:

"bixters;c-16792115" wrote:

"CeCeDot;c-16792068" wrote:
https://twitter.com/SimGuruKate/status/1054443669669928962?s=19

Kate's explanation... Really??

Lame. Maybe it'll effect your "performance" if you're playing on a toaster. :D

Some may find your post funny and I see the point you making with it and it is valid. If I am playing with an highend system how does that affect my performance? Now on the other hand if I am playing on an system that just meet the minimum I would accept that reasoning. EA/Maxis just shot themselves in the foot with that explanation for it shows that regardless of how powerful your system it will not play better than an lowend system for it will not take advantage of that system specs other than the graphics or no to less lag. Hate to do it but they just made Sims 3 look better than Sims 4 being it was using features that for me brought creativity to the game. Sure, some may have had some problems but it sure did not affect everyone. How can I glorify an version that comes half stepping to the plate, tweaking an game goes on throughout it's developmental life and sometimes after. Most other games tweaks their games when needed even when the customer does not ask for it. I think a lot of people suspected this and it has been confirmed or has to this time where we must know.

Tbh it seems that the bugs in the Sims 4 aren't that far off the level of those in the Sims 3 anyway. So what did they cut all this content for? If that excuse that there's less content for better performance really is the truth (which I highly doubt), then it hasn't worked has it. The bugs are one of the main reasons I stopped playing the Sims 4. If the content had been excellent I probably would have carried on, but it just got to the point where I just thought that this game is so buggy I can barely do anything without glitches ruining it, and it's not even that good a game and not worth the struggles with the system, so why bother. At least in the Sims 3 you get full EPs to play with. Ideally though there shouldn't be any bugs in that game either, and they should've used the time they're not creating new content for it anymore to fix the bugs.