"Cynna;c-17276591" wrote:
"darrenfroggy;c-17276253" wrote:
I wasn't properly clear, I apologize.
What I was talking about wasn't the underlying engine and what it can and cannot handle in terms of things like snow depth or multitasking or world sizes (because yeah, there are definitely things that should work better).
I meant the initial code which, as far as I'm aware, has been repurposed from what was initially supposed to be an MMO game which would have a whole different base - there's a vast difference between a game that expects constant player input and doesn't have the mechanics at the core for autonomous story progression for NPCs (and even played Sims) when none of them were originally *meant to* have that ability.
The fact that that's what, supposedly, happened is why I can see them not admitting it. That move (I mean, someone could prove me wrong if that's not what happened but everything in the game tells me it was) was absolutely a bad one.
Using your examples though: there's a difference between fixing something that is purely aesthetic like the design of a specific item and something that would affect a much bigger amount of things in the game: animations in the deeper snow, interaction with existing objects etc. The engine making things easier doesn't mean everything is easy. (and for what it's worth, I think the counter thing was a case of the wrong items being put into the game at first, which is a whole different kind of mess up that shouldn't have happened and has a lot to do with outsourcing of certain elements of the development).
I like to refer to the corporate as TPTB |(The Powers That Be), which I picked up years ago in a non-gaming media. And it never has a good connotation because they never do have the end consumer in mind, only the bottom line. It's, unfortunately, something that's been happening for a long time and just keeps getting worse.
To clarify: I'm not either excusing it or existentially accepting it as inevitable in terms of it never changing again. Just being aware of the probable (very likely) reasons behind what's ultimately business decisions.
Honesty would indeed be nice, I agree. Indie games, where the creators and owners are not quite as bound by the "think of the bottom line" restrictions, tend to be a lot more forthright about the ability and limitations of their product. In a way, I guess I'm resigned to a degree of "it is what it is" when it comes to that: a straightforward "no" is always seen as a failure in those kind of circles (EA, other big producers, big companies in general), for all the wrong reasons.
I agree about the game's origin. However, despite that well known 'secret', the origin of the game and the sudden change of horses midstream has not stopped EA reps from continuing to sell TS4 as the best of an impressive bunch. If it can't accomplish the foundational mechanics that older games have been able to manage or replace them with something better, it really isn't.
The continued dishonesty is as disheartening as the lack of substantive gameplay. That's why I decided to start focusing on indie games and leaving so-called AAA games alone. The Sims series is the last one that I've stubbornly tried to hold onto. Yet, I don't hold much hope for this installment or any installment in the future.
That's understandable. I tend to not listen much to things that are inevitably marketing spin (don't always succeed but at least I try) because that's what advertising always was and will be. The business machine is one that's hard to derail, unfortunately, so it'll take a while for change to happen, even if the push against it has been going on for a while.
It's hard to let go of the Sims, mostly because there really isn't anything else like that out there. Yet.