"fullspiral;c-16981571" wrote:
@Naus. It's obvious you love the Sims 3. I had little to no performance issues with it. But for me, it just plain plum out of the 4 editions. It was ugly. The sims were ugly. It didn't come NEAR to the play of 2. It doesn't come NEAR to the look and feel of 4.
I don't know what you expect? Some of us just. didn't. like. 3. Just like you don't like 4. Give it a rest.
That's okay. I totally understand you don't like The Sims 3. I've no problems with that. We all have different priorities. I don't care about graphics as long as gameplay is satisfying
to me. You're 100% entitled to your opinion regarding the game, what I don't like is when opinions are presented as facts as @RobinGreenthumb did.
He flat out say The Sims 3 CAN'T be played without performance issues and that it's a terribly executed game, both things are factually incorrect. I could go on and on about the brillance of The Sims 3 engine. How it managed to do something no other game has EVER done, which is to generate texture dinamically (when you change the appearance of an asset with Create-A-Style, the game writes what you've done as lines of code and then it dynamically ensembles a texture when needed); how it managed to simulate hundreds of NPCs with their own dynamic AI; how it overcame a problem with open world games at the time, which needed to load the map as you move. The Sims 3 in contrast uses level of detail meshes and textures and limited simulation but it has the ability to quickly switch to high level simulation and high level of detail as you zoom in. I don't blame so much TS3 engineers for TS3's issues but world designers that didn't know how to paint routable and unroutable terrain and didn't test their worlds thoroughly.
