Forum Discussion
"Beardedgeek;c-17452595" wrote:
Of course I tried all the travel pack features. They were boring and pointless, the crypt thing for example was just annoying. The "Nectar" thing in France was just... I can't even remember what the point was with it actually.
I just don't like vacations in Sims. the Holiday pack in Sims 1 was horribad. So was it in Sims 2. And boring in Sims 3. Outdoor Living in Sims 4 is the only expansion pack I truly regret buing even on sale, it adds absolutely nothing to the game, is just tedious and boring. (Oddly enough I really enjoy Jungle Adventure tho, unlike Outdoor Living)
So, therefore after trying everything in that pack once, I only used one vacation world, and that was China, and I only played it once with every family and only to get the training dummy, and then you never had to go there again for as long as you played that family.
As for the rest: No. I am not being arbitrary or moving goalposts. I have played 2200 hours of Sims 4 so far, most of the time completely without mods and I have enjoyed it a lot.
So no, Mods is not a valid argument when talking about ANY game. Not Sims, not Fallout, not Skyrim, Mass Effect, Dragon Age or any other. When you compare game features across games saying "Oh but you can fix that with mods" is not a plus, or a feature. It a minus, not a plus.
Hey there - first off, if you're going to quote someone, please don't quote their entire post, basically reposting what they're saying again. it floods the discussion making it harder to navigate. quote the relevant part.
Second of all, I love the holiday packs. I liked the tombs in World Adventures even if they get frustrating. I liked Nectar Making, in fact it's a pretty in depth skill, way more in depth than anything The Sims 4 has to offer. Photography (and skills in general) are waaaay more developed in The Sims 3. And even comparing the joke that is Outdoor Living to how immense and full of content World Adventures is, is.... laughable, honestly. At the end of the day though, if you don't like the tombs and the adventuring gameplay, you're not going to like World Adventures.
With that said, you said "what was the point of nectar making". If you're going to argue that, what's the point in skills in general? What's the point in painting, for example, or writing? Since they're the most apt base game comparisons.
Nectar sold for money. If made well, it sold for a LOT of money ($700+ per bottle), and could potentially be a very fast way to make money once you have good, well fertilised crops grown. You could make bottles of nectar faster and more idly than you could paint. You could easily make nectar and have a job, whereas balancing writing and a career? Not as easy.
Just because something isn't made for you, doesn't mean it's bad. World Adventures is niche, and I'll admit that, but in terms of content, it has far more than pretty much any The Sims 4 pack. Same with literally every The Sims 3 pack.
Onto your opinion of worlds though...
I also am glad you can enjoy The Sims 4 for 2200 hours. I wish I could. I build cute sims and cute houses to take screenshots, play a new pack for a little when it comes out, then stop playing and go back to The Sims 2 or 3 because they have so much more to offer in terms of content, and as @ClarionOfJoy said the neighborhoods in The Sims 4 are all tiny and non-customisable, and you can do EXACTLY what you're asking in The Sims 2 anyway.
Something tells me with the way you speak, you've never played The Sims 2, or at least to its full potential, because unlike 3, you don't even need a seperate Create-a-World tool or to download ANYTHING to make new worlds. You can make new worlds from blank presets and add lots at your leisure. If you really want to make your own terrain, you do it in SC4, but it's not necessary to make a new world.
By the way, do you consider gallery sims to be "mods"? If so, how is downloading a town from The Sims 3 Exchange (albeit it's kind of dead now) any different from getting a Sim off the gallery? By doing this, you can have as many towns in as many different sizes as you like, with no CC necessary.
In either of those games, you can add everything that's part of the other neighborhoods in The Sims 4, into your base neighborhood. You don't need all of those little neighborhoods which have like 10-12 lots each max? 3-5 of which you'll likely take up with community lots anyway? Some like Midnight Hollow have even less. Even if you couldn't add lots, which you can with CaW, Sunset Valley, with 92 lots, likely has as many lots by default as there is in the entirety of The Sims 4 up to this point, and far more than TS4 did on release. Sure, The Sims 3 had rabbit holes, but even if you took them out, you still have a LOT of lots. So your talk about how worlds weren't big enough for everything you wanted, yet you're content with The Sims 4? It's a load of bull, frankly.
There is no way you can seriously argue that The Sims 4 has better worlds. It's ridiculous.
Edit: I'd also like to add I use no mods for The Sims 3, whatsoever, except error trap and intro cutscene skip. I use no script mods in TS4. 2 is the only game I use script mods, and they're entirely irrelevant to this conversation, so please don't bring mod talk into this. my game is NOT modded.- LiELFSeasoned Veteran
"Magnezone;c-17452626" wrote:
There is no way you can seriously argue that The Sims 4 has better worlds. It's ridiculous.
Of course they can. It's called personal preference. It's entirely in the perspective of the player and their gameplay needs. It's like arguing which is better... Coke or Pepsi, PC or Mac, McDonald's or Burger King... no one is "right".
I also like the Sims 4 worlds much better than Sims 3's and even Sims 2, which is my favorite iteration. I'd prefer some of them weren't as small, but I definitely like having a large variety of environments to choose from and the freedom to jump easily between them. And aesthetically I like them a whole lot more than the others.
As for functionality, they do fall flat where lots cannot be changed or moved and there is no environmental tool. I want nothing more than to bulldoze all of the playgrounds and cookout sites. So that was a very bad design choice, in my opinion. But even so, I still like Sims 4 worlds better in general. "LiELF;c-17452709" wrote:
Of course they can. It's called personal preference. It's entirely in the perspective of the player and their gameplay needs. It's like arguing which is better... Coke or Pepsi, PC or Mac, McDonald's or Burger King... no one is "right".
I also like the Sims 4 worlds much better than Sims 3's and even Sims 2, which is my favorite iteration. I'd prefer some of them weren't as small, but I definitely like having a large variety of environments to choose from and the freedom to jump easily between them. And aesthetically I like them a whole lot more than the others.
As for functionality, they do fall flat where lots cannot be changed or moved and there is no environmental tool. I want nothing more than to bulldoze all of the playgrounds and cookout sites. So that was a very bad design choice, in my opinion. But even so, I still like Sims 4 worlds better in general.
Functionality is what he's arguing though. He's arguing the worlds function better, not that they're prettier. They are - I agree. But they don't function better by any given metric, even if you call it a "preference".
Edit: also, im not talking about the base worlds. I.e. strangetown vs sunset valley vs oasis springs. I'm talking about worlds as a concept, as a function.- I would not mind the all individualism, but the personalities of all the sims 4 are basically the same with the emotion system, so theyre not really that individualistic besides appearance and career choices. The sims team also pick and choose what lifestyles they want in the game so really there is still bias and/or some not being representented.
- LiELFSeasoned Veteran
"Magnezone;c-17452726" wrote:
"LiELF;c-17452709" wrote:
Of course they can. It's called personal preference. It's entirely in the perspective of the player and their gameplay needs. It's like arguing which is better... Coke or Pepsi, PC or Mac, McDonald's or Burger King... no one is "right".
I also like the Sims 4 worlds much better than Sims 3's and even Sims 2, which is my favorite iteration. I'd prefer some of them weren't as small, but I definitely like having a large variety of environments to choose from and the freedom to jump easily between them. And aesthetically I like them a whole lot more than the others.
As for functionality, they do fall flat where lots cannot be changed or moved and there is no environmental tool. I want nothing more than to bulldoze all of the playgrounds and cookout sites. So that was a very bad design choice, in my opinion. But even so, I still like Sims 4 worlds better in general.
Functionality is what he's arguing though. He's arguing the worlds function better, not that they're prettier. They are - I agree. But they don't function better by any given metric, even if you call it a "preference".
Edit: also, im not talking about the base worlds. I.e. strangetown vs sunset valley vs oasis springs. I'm talking about worlds as a concept, as a function.
I see where you're coming from, but preference is still a very big factor and functionality remains debatable. If someone isn't a builder and doesn't care at all about that aspect of the game, then moving lots and changing the world environment isn't going to mean anything to them. So it does actually come down to what the player wants from the world and from the game.
Without mods, Sims 3's worlds kind of lock the player into them. You can't move a household to another world without losing something or having consequences. There are worlds that can be visited, sure, but if you're the kind of player who likes to change environments, move Sims around, or colonize and have Sims living in different regions or settings, it can actually feel very limiting, no matter the size.
When I played Sims 2, I had Sims living in various worlds yet they were able to still meet and interact on community lots and I could switch what cities and towns they lived in. Community lots were always thriving, the same in Sims 4. When I played Sims 3, my nightclub had hardly any Sims in it, which defeated the purpose of using it. Community lots were very sparse (when they weren't rabbit hole buildings, which I can't stand.) The large world was also very cumbersome and twitchy to me and it was harder for me to do things quickly or keep track of locations and Sims in the world. The world mechanics didn't seem very streamlined to me at all. Sims 3 worlds are also known for routing problems and crashing.
I think Sims 3 had potential to have better worlds, but the execution turned out poor and some functions were taken away from Sims 2 in exchange for others. Just as Sims 4 sacrificed functions from Sims 3 for its own function.
And therein lies the real problem: Maxis removed features from previous games in order to offer new ones; rather than working on a system that only expanded on what we had. The series should never have had anything removed to begin with or people wouldn't need to be debating which features are better (or more functional) in what game. "LiELF;c-17452901" wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but preference is still a very big factor and functionality remains debatable. If someone isn't a builder and doesn't care at all about that aspect of the game, then moving lots and changing the world environment isn't going to mean anything to them. So it does actually come down to what the player wants from the world and from the game.
You see, this is the only thing I can give The Sims 4's worlds - convinience. You load up the game and it has everything you would ever need on a basic functional level from the get go. No need to add things. No need to build things if you won't want. And I can see why this would appeal to some people.
That said, I find a lot of the Maxis builds in The Sims 4 weirdly sad, big and empty though... In terms of decor that is, as you said, Sims do flock them as intended. Maxis lots have never been great, but you won't find a Maxis lot quite was depressing as Planet Honey Pop, the default Karaoke bar from City Living (the absolute worst offender imo) in The Sims 2.
They're still the least flexible neighborhoods and lots to this date. Even a non-builder player who only plays family play one day might go "I'm running out of lots where my extremely extended family of 7 generations can live." In previous games you go "OK, let's add a new lot to the world map then.". In The Sims 4 you go "Looks like I to get rid of a community lot to house them!"
The other thing I like from a function perspective about The Sims 4 though is its incredibly easy to change lot type in build mode. In The Sims 3 you had to go into edit world, and in The Sims 2 you had to exit out of your family onto the world map. I know this annoyed me when I was trying to build a lot I affectionately call "Ugly Dive Bar" in The Sims 3. The Sims 4 just has a better and more accessible build mode with way more options for customisation in general though, but.... What's the point in such a good and in depth build mode when your neighborhoods are going to be so crap and uncustomisable? 1 step forward, 2 steps back.
I do see what you mean about community lots in The Sims 3 being empty though. I find it's very hit or miss, and neighborhoods in their fresh states with all of the maxis premades still in tact tend to have more active community lots without mods, though this may be an utter coincidence. Some times I'll go to a community lot to see no one. Others I'll see an entire group. And for certain lots like libraries that's OK I guess. But I've never been to a pub irl that's just been a complete ghost town, but then again... I don't go to a lot of pubs. :tongue:- Beardedgeek72New Spectator
"Magnezone;c-17452909" wrote:
"LiELF;c-17452901" wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but preference is still a very big factor and functionality remains debatable. If someone isn't a builder and doesn't care at all about that aspect of the game, then moving lots and changing the world environment isn't going to mean anything to them. So it does actually come down to what the player wants from the world and from the game.
You see, this is the only thing I can give The Sims 4's worlds - convinience. You load up the game and it has everything you would ever need on a basic functional level from the get go. No need to add things. No need to build things if you won't want. And I can see why this would appeal to some people.
Exactly. That, plus the worlds just being more beautiful. "Beardedgeek;c-17454631" wrote:
"Magnezone;c-17452909" wrote:
"LiELF;c-17452901" wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but preference is still a very big factor and functionality remains debatable. If someone isn't a builder and doesn't care at all about that aspect of the game, then moving lots and changing the world environment isn't going to mean anything to them. So it does actually come down to what the player wants from the world and from the game.
You see, this is the only thing I can give The Sims 4's worlds - convinience. You load up the game and it has everything you would ever need on a basic functional level from the get go. No need to add things. No need to build things if you won't want. And I can see why this would appeal to some people.
Exactly. That, plus the worlds just being more beautiful.
Too bad maxis' default builds aren't.- Beardedgeek72New Spectator
"Magnezone;c-17457935" wrote:
"Beardedgeek;c-17454631" wrote:
"Magnezone;c-17452909" wrote:
"LiELF;c-17452901" wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but preference is still a very big factor and functionality remains debatable. If someone isn't a builder and doesn't care at all about that aspect of the game, then moving lots and changing the world environment isn't going to mean anything to them. So it does actually come down to what the player wants from the world and from the game.
You see, this is the only thing I can give The Sims 4's worlds - convinience. You load up the game and it has everything you would ever need on a basic functional level from the get go. No need to add things. No need to build things if you won't want. And I can see why this would appeal to some people.
Exactly. That, plus the worlds just being more beautiful.
Too bad maxis' default builds aren't.
Maxis' builds are weirdly... diverse.
A third is decent or better.
A third is weird but usabe.
A third is just broken and lack stuff or extremely badly placed stuff. Or all of the above. - I feel like the Sims 4 is marketing towards being a Christian dollhouse game but yeah far from being a sandbox game. It is like nothing bad happens at all and everything feels fake. But makes sense since they were trying to make it into a movie game rather than a simulation game. Probably why the interactions feel so choppy and why the Sims feel like they are resetting all the time with errors that MCCC catches every time a Sim resets. My notification window fills fast with all the errors that are caught which is sad because I do have a decent custom build desktop. Poor Gumby Sims trapped in errors.
About The Sims 4 General Discussion
Join lively discussions, share tips, and exchange experiences on Sims 4 Expansion Packs, Game Packs, Stuff Packs & Kits.33,039 PostsLatest Activity: 4 days ago
Related Posts
Recent Discussions
- 8 minutes ago
- 17 minutes ago
- 22 minutes ago
- 29 minutes ago