"Zeldaboy180;c-16976386" wrote:
Comparing things like Cats and Dogs to Sims 3 pets is very valid. Not to go too off topic, but I would give it to sims 3 over all. They are similar packs, with similar themes. Both expansion packs and both centered around animals.
Game packs and world packs are completely different. Yes, Lucky Palms was definitely more worth your money. (any other gamepack and my opinion might changes, I just really don't care for strangerville.)
But it's weird and unfair to compare the two.
Yet I see people constantly comparing Sims 4’s performance and graphics/lighting to Sims 3’s and 2’s. Is that fair then ;)? It’s not of course, that has everything to do with what year the games were developed. I think it is fair to take a world in one game and compare it to a world in the other, especially when people also love to compare the ability to travel between those worlds (in 4 you can, in 3 you cannot, without a mod that is). And I think comparing the way they created houses for both worlds most definitely is comparable. When creating LP, someone clearly sat down and took a lot of effort. I don’t really see that looking at the houses for Strangerville.
"Naus;c-16976388" wrote:
"Writin_Reg;c-16976376" wrote:
Lucky Palms cost 47 us dollars when it came out and was nothing but a store world and casino. I know I bought it. It had no ep or gp stuff about it.
That's WRONG. When it first came out the Standard Version was 2100 SimPoints ($21, though it could be less since larger the SimPoint pack you buy the cheaper it is). It was on sale for almost a month when it came out. The price of the Standard edition has been $24.5 ever since, unless it's on sale or part of the Make Me An Offer deal.
FROM THE WEB ARCHIVE (July 1, 2012)
Yes, I got a bit startled reading that.
