Henford-on-Bagley is a new ridiculously small world again

Maybe it is better to limit random townies number then? I think that currently in my savefiles I have too much ugly, weird and useless townies which I delete sometimes. In my opinion thay can optimalize this aspect than the number of lots because currently we have only 20 sims per loading screen and in the most of time, that sims are new (and have 0 progress and personality). I would like to have 2x less but better townies and 20% more lots. Maybe an option to reduce or increase the number of townies per loading screen will be also a nice improvement. Someone who has next gen console or better PC can have 40 townies per loading screen but someone with worse hardware can have 10 townies for example.

I wish we could turn townie generation off. I play with the pre mades and am happy with the npcs that are in everyone’s files, but I don’t care for the game to always generate new townies.
Would be great to be able to switch off

"SPARKY1922;c-17910879" wrote:

"ironknight35;c-17908773" wrote:

"ncisGibbs02;c-17908621" wrote:

"ironknight35;c-17908611" wrote:
Was hoping it would be bigger. They probably made it small for the people that play on toasters. People really need to get a new PC or upgrade them if they want to play PC games. I used to play on a very low-end PC, but I recently bought a high-end one to be able to play without lagging.

Sometimes it’s the cost of computers and it takes time to save. I’m saving up for a new computer.
More power = more Sims! ????

I hope you get it soon! It really is a huge difference playing on a good PC. My comment was probably a bit too harsh, but I just feel like they could do more if they didn't keep low-end PCs in mind. It just feels like it's holding the game back.

I completely agree with this as why should I suffer because I am prepared to pay out for a performance PC? Do other game companies downgrade the game just because players can't or won't upgrade their PC's? I only ask because I don't understand how game companies work in general around this area?

I play both Sims 4 and the Truck Simulator games, both long runners (Sims 4 came out in 2014; Euro Truck Simulator 2 came out in 2012 and American Truck Simulator in 2016.)

On the Sims 4 forums, people complain that EA is doing too much to keep system requirements low and not enough to take advantage of new hardware to make their gameworld bigger or update graphics or fix bugs or whatever.

On the Truck Sim forums, people whinge that SCS Software isn't doing enough to keep system requirements low and that "I shouldn't have to buy a new computer to play a game I bought 9 years ago", because SCS has added everything from full DirectX 11 support (that's how old the game is—at launch it supported DX9!) to SSAO and HDR lighting effects to a massive amount of map DLC (ETS2 was basically Germany and the UK when it launched and is just about all of Europe now, while ATS started with just California and now has 9 western states with two more coming as confirmed/announced DLC.)

The moral of the story is that you're guaranteed to anger someone whenever you have to deal with a super long-running game that's active many years after you launch it (heck, look at World of Warcraft, which came out in 2004 and which Blizzard has to keep current so it doesn't feel and look like a relic today compared to other MMO games). Keep it accessible and people complain about the technical restraints. Keep up with developments in tech and game design and older players feel left behind or like they have to buy a new computer. You're pretty much boned either way.

"ACruelButLovingGod;c-17911352" wrote:
Keep it accessible and people complain about the technical restraints. Keep up with developments in tech and game design and older players feel left behind or like they have to buy a new computer. You're pretty much boned either way.

@ACruelButLovingGod One is more common that the other though. I rarely see anybody complain about a game being more demanding but looking great. There are dozens of triple-A games coming out everyday and run on the most modern hardware and rarely does anyone ever complain. Other communities apprieciate and crave the technological evolution and graphical progress. Take GTA, Final Fantasy, Cyberpunk and some of the most popular games nowadays, the communities want them to look good and don't mind the hardware requirements as much.

The thing with the Sims 4, is not that it runs on lower end PCs. It runs on ancient PCs by 2021 standards. Really ancient. And when someone complains then people are like "I shouldn't need to have a monster PC to play the Sims". But nobody is saying the Sims 4 should need a monster PC. All people are asking for is to move on from the ancient technology. It's not either this or that there should be a middle way to do it. Find the balance between modern hardware and optimization for some older machines.

@SimmerGeorge Oh, there's absolutely a balance to be struck. I have an upper-midrange gaming PC I bought in February of 2020, and I'm generally in the camp of "long runners need to evolve with changing times."

I think that EA has always viewed the Sims franchise as being a game for non-"gamers" (in the sense of the "PC Gaming Master Race" enthusiasts who buy dedicated hardware for the hobby.) My old laptop—a 2016-issue laptop I bought for work and paid $500 for that just happened to play some fairly low-end games and ran Sims 4 just fine—is an example of EA's idea of its customer base for Sims.

In their eyes, the success of the franchise depends on having as large an installed userbase as humanly possible. If it runs on absolutely everything, then more people can buy it. That's a strategy, coherently executed, and it's made them gobs of money, so to expect them to change a fundamental philosophical decision like that simply isn't going to do anything.

And, of course, you can't please everyone because accessibility and higher-end hardware support are effectively mutually exclusive. Any decision to please one end of the market will, by definition, alienate the other end.

I think the world that upset me the most was Del sol valley. It just seemed wrong to have such a small world that was inspired LA

"LenaDieters;c-17911404" wrote:
I think the world that upset me the most was Del sol valley. It just seemed wrong to have such a small world that was inspired LA

Yeah, I think the main difference is the downtown area in Del Sol Valley. It needs to be there but it leaves less room for residential.

@ACruelButLovingGod

After reading what you wrote I definitely agree with this statement "You're pretty much boned either way" :)

Like the world size, good. Don't like the world size, still good.

"LenaDieters;c-17911404" wrote:
I think the world that upset me the most was Del sol valley. It just seemed wrong to have such a small world that was inspired LA

Agreed. In Del Sol Valley I really want to have a bunch of commercial venues - two lounges (one for each celeb lot trait), a nightclub, a gym, a museum, etc.. Also having no small lots in the cheap area is weird and makes it hard to build (I ended up doing a trailer park and fake apartments) as big houses seem out of place.

For Henford-on-Bagley I just need a pub, a library and maybe a couple others (a cafe, community space and/or vet is what I'm currently thinking). Way less commercial lots needed so I have a bit more space for residential lots. I still would have liked 2/3 extra lots, but for a rural world I can make do with this. I'm not super happy but I'm not as annoyed as I was for Del Sol Valley.