"Cynna;c-17276038" wrote:
"darrenfroggy;c-17275977" wrote:
Just to clarify, I think part of the "they can't" is due to TS4's initial setup, which I think is part of why some things are either hard to do or flat out impossible. And well, the issues with that are a whole different discussion (look, I like the game, but I'm aware of its start and how it was supposed to be something else - something that I hope they'll never consider again, thank you very much).
What I find frustrating is that, if the game isn't capable of accomplishing certain things, why not say so?
Just as an example: when Seasons was about to launch, the word went out that there would be no depth to the snow. The rep said that it wasn't because the engine couldn't handle the snow, it simply didn't look satisfactory. To me, that smacks of spin. If it were only a matter of aesthetics, why hasn't the snow been fixed yet? Furniture has improved, the ball pit was fixed STAT. Likewise, the counters in IL were fixed as soon as there was a disquieting rumble amongst the Game Changers. So, what happened to the snow?
The reps keep touting that TS4 has the best engine within the entire series, smarter Sims, actual emotions (as if the series never had that before) and yet, the things that have been staples of the series have turned out to be too difficult, too costly, or whatever the reasoning is for any given issue.. If this is supposed to be a much better engine that makes creating easier, why is that?
All I ask for is honesty. Being forthright gets you a lot more leeway than 'Yeah, we can do it' then not coming through. EA/Maxis used to be a really honest company that told the community when there were problems and everyone celebrated together when/if the problem was solved.
The corporate "character" (at the moment, I can't think of the phrase that I really want to use) is very different now. Nowadays we get 'We want it to be the best that it can possibly be, using the hallmark function that is the basis of the game'. Nearly six years later, you get the lounge chair that does no such thing. It's dishonest.
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.