"dearie_blossom;c-17907331" wrote:
Yeah, I don‘t understand why the worlds are so ridiculously small neither. It‘s not like the entire map gets loaded at once. There is a loading screen everywhere we go. Big-ish Windenburg doesn’t perform any worse than small Del Sol Valley.
While someone shared the video with the reasoning above, they shared it as a twitter post of a 30 minute video.
Here's the exact video, forwarded to the point where they say why:
https://youtu.be/SKzjiiox0Fk?t=496
Watch that from :8:16 to 11:00
(YouTube's embed system is messing with me, and seems to insist on playing that back at a random incorrect point in time, if it does that for you - forward to EXACTLY 8:16 and watch until 11:00)
It's a performance trade off made for some specific reasons:
1. The game is one of the few modern games that will run on some rather old hardware, and they still value keeping those customers.
2. Even if they wanted to say, toss every customer who didn't have a 20xx nVidea CPU and AMD 2xxx or 3xxx CPU... They recall Sims 3 at this point in it's lifecycle where even on the top end machines they had to tell customers to pick and choose which packs to have enabled in any play session because the game had become 'too heavy'. A lot of the 'limits' of Sims 4 were made to allow the game to age well.
My thought. At 5 years in, Sims 3 was no longer a game capable of stability on even that year's newest hardware if one ran the whole game. It was rapidly spinning out of control with excessive load on a machine's hardware. Yet Sims 4 is now 6 or 7 years old, and still rock stable on even less than current PCs.
This is almost certainly due to the lack of an open world, the small size of the worlds, and all the loading screens - which is where you would push things into and out of memory.
Much as I want a pack with 537 new lots... I understand why I'm not getting it, and they made the right call.
I'd rather have a game I can play at all, than a game that checks every dream item on my wishlist but can't even run.
