Object Babies confirmed....

I would love to be able to take a baby out in a stroller to the park. I miss TS2 days when you could bathe them in the sink and actually see their eye colors and facial expressions. We should also be able to change the clothing they are wearing.

"Triplis;c-16664657" wrote:
Perhaps I can shed some light on this for you.

Object is a term in programming, especially in video game programming, that most likely comes from Object-Oriented Programming (OOP). OOP became popular largely on the idea that it would make programming more like the real world and easier to understand and operate on for that reason, especially with large codebases. Though it has been successfully utilized in that way to some degree, there is disagreement in the programming community as to how useful an object-oriented focus is, largely because programming is not, in fact, like the real world (or when it is, it's not always like it in the right ways). For example, I could walk up to your internal organs and say hello to them, but they probably have no way of knowing that I attempted to communicate with them.

Similarly, object-oriented programming gets some flack for sectioning things off too much, to the point that it becomes a nightmare when you want X to communicate with Y and it needs to jump through an elaborate series of hoops, some of which simply may not exist and need to be created, for it to be able to do so, when it probably could have done the communication a lot more easily had things not been so sectioned off.

In video games, in particular, object-oriented programming is often used literally for objects, where each instance of a simulated object in the game is represented by a copy of a general template, usually called a class, or class object. Ultimately, classes, or objects, are just a way of grouping together information and, in some cases, sectioning it off, with the goal of making it easier to organize and making it less likely that something terrible will happen because of a bug, or, sometimes more importantly, a coder who doesn't understand the codebase well enough and tries to do something funky with it.

It's just a name, ultimately. In the C++ language, there's something called a "struct" that is almost identical to a class and could be used for "objects" in the same kind of way. Another name that is used in some game systems is "entities."

So yes, babies are "objects." Other sims are too. Probably the most important difference to players between a sim baby and, for example, a sim toddler is the baby's inability to move around. Lack of visible needs and inability to take control of the baby in any way are other major factors, I'm sure. These are traits that are unique to the "what makes a sim a sim" experience and because they are missing, babies can tend to seem lifeless and mechanical.

I would like to submit, your honor, that in this context, baby being an 'object' is meant to equate a table, chair, lamp, bed or any other 'object' thusly named in the game, and not this highly technical, though interesting, explanation. Just sayin'. ;) In other words, the baby is below a Sim on said totem pole. It's just NOT a Sim, per se.

I guess my humor got lost in translation. I know that babies and, all sims essentially, are objects. And I know it's not a new thing. I just thought it was funny that even now the game doesn't even try to hide that they are objects.

FYI... you can't appreciate toddlers, children, teens or so forth... only objects.. errr... babies.... :D :tongue:

"ChelleJo;d-946234" wrote:
You often hear, "What makes you think babies in Sims 4 are objects?"

Well, how about the fact that even the game considers them objects?


https://i.imgur.com/eWoYJj7.png



https://i.imgur.com/Hh5h9Dw.png

Lol that's hilarious :joy:

"GalacticGal;c-16665463" wrote:

"Triplis;c-16664657" wrote:
Perhaps I can shed some light on this for you.

Object is a term in programming, especially in video game programming, that most likely comes from Object-Oriented Programming (OOP). OOP became popular largely on the idea that it would make programming more like the real world and easier to understand and operate on for that reason, especially with large codebases. Though it has been successfully utilized in that way to some degree, there is disagreement in the programming community as to how useful an object-oriented focus is, largely because programming is not, in fact, like the real world (or when it is, it's not always like it in the right ways). For example, I could walk up to your internal organs and say hello to them, but they probably have no way of knowing that I attempted to communicate with them.

Similarly, object-oriented programming gets some flack for sectioning things off too much, to the point that it becomes a nightmare when you want X to communicate with Y and it needs to jump through an elaborate series of hoops, some of which simply may not exist and need to be created, for it to be able to do so, when it probably could have done the communication a lot more easily had things not been so sectioned off.

In video games, in particular, object-oriented programming is often used literally for objects, where each instance of a simulated object in the game is represented by a copy of a general template, usually called a class, or class object. Ultimately, classes, or objects, are just a way of grouping together information and, in some cases, sectioning it off, with the goal of making it easier to organize and making it less likely that something terrible will happen because of a bug, or, sometimes more importantly, a coder who doesn't understand the codebase well enough and tries to do something funky with it.

It's just a name, ultimately. In the C++ language, there's something called a "struct" that is almost identical to a class and could be used for "objects" in the same kind of way. Another name that is used in some game systems is "entities."

So yes, babies are "objects." Other sims are too. Probably the most important difference to players between a sim baby and, for example, a sim toddler is the baby's inability to move around. Lack of visible needs and inability to take control of the baby in any way are other major factors, I'm sure. These are traits that are unique to the "what makes a sim a sim" experience and because they are missing, babies can tend to seem lifeless and mechanical.

I would like to submit, your honor, that in this context, baby being an 'object' is meant to equate a table, chair, lamp, bed or any other 'object' thusly named in the game, and not this highly technical, though interesting, explanation. Just sayin'. ;) In other words, the baby is below a Sim on said totem pole. It's just NOT a Sim, per se.

Babies have always been objects though in the game files, that's the thing. It's one of the biggest reasons they aren't creatable in cas, and with good reason. Only difference is that item was portable in sims 3, although forever wrapped as a burrito.

Sims 3 and Sims 4 both did babies wrong IMO, sims 2 did it right.

"GalacticGal;c-16665463" wrote:

I would like to submit, your honor, that in this context, baby being an 'object' is meant to equate a table, chair, lamp, bed or any other 'object' thusly named in the game, and not this highly technical, though interesting, explanation. Just sayin'. ;) In other words, the baby is below a Sim on said totem pole. It's just NOT a Sim, per se.

Here's the difference between a "code object" and an "in game object."

In code, yes, each Sim, each piece of clothing, each baby, each TV, is an "object."

But ask yourself, what the game calls something an object, are the other (toddler and older) Sims considered objects for the purpose of this activity?. That is, can you "Appreciate" another Sim? If not, then "object" in the context of the activity does not mean a "code object" but something more subtle -- i.e., the type of code object that is considered a "thing" and not a "person."

What the OP has provided is evidence that, mechanically in game, a baby is functionally equivalent to any other piece of furniture you could interact with, such as a TV, a painting easel, a bookshelf, or a potted plant. Consequently, the baby is fundamentally different, in terms of how the game views it, and how it is designed, from a Sim, which is not the same as a piece of furniture.

"jimmysnan;c-16665218" wrote:
In the other games we complained about babies just being left on the ground. We complained about them being left anywhere. So they solved the problem by having them stay in the crib.

I was just going to comment that I like this a lot better than seeing babies left all over in Sims3. I mean I wouldn't mind having a little more range within the home but it only lasts a few Sim days so I can deal.

"SarahsShady;c-16665270" wrote:
I would love to be able to take a baby out in a stroller to the park. I miss TS2 days when you could bathe them in the sink and actually see their eye colors and facial expressions. We should also be able to change the clothing they are wearing.

me to

"Neia;c-16664640" wrote:
In past Sims games, you used the moveobjects cheat code to move babies. They have always been programmed as "objects". But the Sims don't seem too bothered by it :p

In past sims games you could move any sim as an object with that cheat, so that's a poor way of differentiating the two. TS4 was simply the first to remove that for proper sims (a terrible idea but for a different complaint thread)

"SillyCharlie;c-16665744" wrote:
Let's be real here: Babies were treated as objects in ALL of the sims games, though some were more "alive" than others.

No they weren't. They were treated as non-playable household members in TS2 and actual, fully-selectable sims in TS3. Especially in TS3, you could pose them with Pose Player and drag them into CAS with a mod (even if all you could really do was change outfits).

Are we really back at this again? four years later?
Yes, babies are "furniture" (all Sims are objects).
We know.

Also, it's great that if you hurry and age them up the second they come from the hospital, all their needs are green and you get rid of them quickly.
...No, I am not a baby person. Why do you ask?