Open Neighborhood Rather than Open World

Because maybe the backdrop is just that? Bsckground you can't interact with? For context the sims 2 has back drops. Do I Care? No. The game is amazing. It literally wouldn't bother me if my sims had nothing on either side of their lots but grass. (Sometimes they do for challenges!)

Background scenery is important but it shouldn't be at the sacrifice of gameplay. I mean yes that building over there is pretty but it frustrates me that i can't go up to it and go in it, it's just there for photographs and to provide the illusion, but sometimes it's not enough.

"FloppyFish;c-16022126" wrote:
How do you know the backdrop sacrifices gameplay? And everything added to the game sacrifices SOMETHING. If the developers decided to add in seasons, they are using those resources that could have been spent on preteens or something else, so that would be sacrificed. And the whole point of BACKDROPS is that YOU CANNOT GO IN THEM. IT IS FOR SCENERY AND FOR LOOKS. Would you rather have just a blank, white backdrop?

Why are you shouting? :|

I've already explained about backdrops and that it wouldn't bother me when I play closed world games if my sims have no back drop around them.

We aren't talking about seasons or preteens. It's my opinion that I would rather have a more interactive world than a world that is more set dressing than playable. That's all.

"FloppyFish;c-16022108" wrote:
What is wrong with pretty backdrops being A focus though? If backdrops are impressive, people will be talking about them, lol. It is just, some people say, "NO BACKDROPS" and all of that nonsense.

It would be nicer if that bridge was a neighborhood object Sims could actually cross and you coud actually pick it up and place anywhere in your world as you draw the road leading to it...that's better than a row of houses across the street that never turn their lights off, because they are stagnant...never changing. Ever wonder why those immaginary people who live across from the library never switch all those lights off? I do. A little more immersion might have been to have a few lit, like someone is actually home, then one or two turning off at twelve, like someone left or went to bed....just sayin'. I had Sims living across from them in WC, pretty, but like looking back at a blank stare.

The lights are on, but no one's home...~~~ lol, and another thought like a horror movie, why is no one using the sidewalk across the street where that row of houses set? No, don't cross the street! Don't go there! Don't follow the lights. ROFL.

"Cinebar;c-16022140" wrote:

"FloppyFish;c-16022108" wrote:
What is wrong with pretty backdrops being A focus though? If backdrops are impressive, people will be talking about them, lol. It is just, some people say, "NO BACKDROPS" and all of that nonsense.

It would be nicer if that bridge was a neighborhood object Sims could actually cross and you coud actually pick it up and place anywhere in your world as you draw the road leading to it...that's better than a row of houses across the street that never turn their lights off, because they are stagnant...never changing. Ever wonder why those immaginary people who live across from the library never switch all those lights off? I do. A little more immersion might have been to have a few lit, like someone is actually home, then one or two turning off at twelve, like someone left or went to bed....just sayin'. I had Sims living across from them in WC, pretty, but like looking back at a blank stare.

The lights are on, but no one's home...~~~

That's what I mean.

"FloppyFish;c-16022147" wrote:

"MidnightAura;c-16022139" wrote:

"FloppyFish;c-16022126" wrote:
How do you know the backdrop sacrifices gameplay? And everything added to the game sacrifices SOMETHING. If the developers decided to add in seasons, they are using those resources that could have been spent on preteens or something else, so that would be sacrificed. And the whole point of BACKDROPS is that YOU CANNOT GO IN THEM. IT IS FOR SCENERY AND FOR LOOKS. Would you rather have just a blank, white backdrop?

Why are you shouting? :|

I've already explained about backdrops and that it wouldn't bother me when I play closed world games if my sims have no back drop around them.

We aren't talking about seasons or preteens. It's my opinion that I would rather have a more interactive world than a world that is more set dressing than playable. That's all.

"MidnightAura;c-16022139" wrote:

"FloppyFish;c-16022126" wrote:
How do you know the backdrop sacrifices gameplay? And everything added to the game sacrifices SOMETHING. If the developers decided to add in seasons, they are using those resources that could have been spent on preteens or something else, so that would be sacrificed. And the whole point of BACKDROPS is that YOU CANNOT GO IN THEM. IT IS FOR SCENERY AND FOR LOOKS. Would you rather have just a blank, white backdrop?

Why are you shouting? :|

I've already explained about backdrops and that it wouldn't bother me when I play closed world games if my sims have no back drop around them.

We aren't talking about seasons or preteens. It's my opinion that I would rather have a more interactive world than a world that is more set dressing than playable. That's all.

Great. So lets have some white space in the background of our worlds.

You are missing my point entirely I'm afraid.

"jackjack_k;c-16022062" wrote:
I don't understand the hate for backdrops. Every good game should have them.

Open World games have them too (Skyrim & GTA V both have them).
It's embarrassing and poor design when a world suddenly comes to a halt because the no one bothered to make backdrops. Your world literally stops as soon as you reach the playable area border.

The Sims 3 would have looked a lot better had their been backdrops surrounding the explorable area. The size difference wouldn't have changed. All they had to do was make the worlds bigger but keep the routable area the same.

It's grating to see a City like Bridgeport literally be an island the size of a small town. Had there been a city that continued around Bridgeport it would have looked a lot better.


The Sims 3 on Xbox/PS have backdrops in it's worlds alongside the normal world and it looks great. Not just distant terrain, but houses, objects, decorative pieces. Not just endless Ocean.

It was nice to play a Sims 3 world that wasn't a town on a random island.

Worlds in The Sims 3 had a 'distant terrain' object that honestly serves the same purpose as the backdrops in Sims 4. The 'playable area' did not extend to the border of the map in any world, nor did the camera. There was a point of collision between the DT object and the terrain that hid the connection.

Bridgeport wasn't an island, it was a peninsula. The distant terrain wraps around the side making the 'ocean' more of a gulf and continues backward.

I don't know what you were doing to see nothing but oceans in Sims 3, because that's not possible using the standard camera mode. Sure you can see that using camera-man mode and scrolling to the unroutable edges of the map, but you can see the same thing in 4 except it's not ocean it's nothing because Sims 4's world(s) are floating decorative pieces assembled to look like a world.

I never want to see error 12 again, so I think it would be better to have to load houses. But I think they could give us more open space, have a bigger world and section it off.

"FloppyFish;c-16022147" wrote:

"MidnightAura;c-16022139" wrote:

"FloppyFish;c-16022126" wrote:
How do you know the backdrop sacrifices gameplay? And everything added to the game sacrifices SOMETHING. If the developers decided to add in seasons, they are using those resources that could have been spent on preteens or something else, so that would be sacrificed. And the whole point of BACKDROPS is that YOU CANNOT GO IN THEM. IT IS FOR SCENERY AND FOR LOOKS. Would you rather have just a blank, white backdrop?

Why are you shouting? :|

I've already explained about backdrops and that it wouldn't bother me when I play closed world games if my sims have no back drop around them.

We aren't talking about seasons or preteens. It's my opinion that I would rather have a more interactive world than a world that is more set dressing than playable. That's all.

"MidnightAura;c-16022139" wrote:

"FloppyFish;c-16022126" wrote:
How do you know the backdrop sacrifices gameplay? And everything added to the game sacrifices SOMETHING. If the developers decided to add in seasons, they are using those resources that could have been spent on preteens or something else, so that would be sacrificed. And the whole point of BACKDROPS is that YOU CANNOT GO IN THEM. IT IS FOR SCENERY AND FOR LOOKS. Would you rather have just a blank, white backdrop?

Why are you shouting? :|

I've already explained about backdrops and that it wouldn't bother me when I play closed world games if my sims have no back drop around them.

We aren't talking about seasons or preteens. It's my opinion that I would rather have a more interactive world than a world that is more set dressing than playable. That's all.

Great. So lets have some white space in the background of our worlds.

TS3 has backdrops you place them yourself while in CAW. They are moutains etc. at a far distance once you have routed the world to where Sims can travel. They are layers upon a layer to hide all that white backdrop and to hide where the world's edge ends etc. The difference in that and TS4 is these are right next to your Sim's house...how about more space for played lots, and a lot less backdrop and if any backdrop then at a greater distance away from your Sims.

"Cinebar;c-16022036" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16022015" wrote:

"Cinebar;c-16021999" wrote:
I don't like open world. I like to leave Sims and go play a different Sim, and not 'worry' about them, true TS3 Sims take care of themselves and if you told them to skill etc. they are still doing that when you get back (sometimes) but sometimes I get sick of the whole bunch and just want to go off with one, and explore their life, one at a time without the other running back home etc.

What I do like is open neighborhood, in smaller sections, but then the neighbors would probably never be home, lol, I doubt it would work the way I wanted it to work so all the games have their pros and cons and why modders improve them one way or the other.

Then stop worrying about them, they really don't need you. Focus on that one sim and leave the rest. Sims 3's open world may have its flaws but that aspect they took care of properly.

I'm a micromanager, I can't help it. If I see a red icon I have to check it out. I had Sims run back home (their motives were just fine) when I took several to places to enjoy. I have little patience with Sims, I have killed them for a lot less. ;) It's just a personal choice. Open world and Story Progression were a huge turn off to me, after about six months, when TS3 was first released. We didn't have any toggles back then to turn it off etc. It did get better over the years, and I don't like completely closed world anymore, but I play four to eight Sims for years in these games so sometimes I need some of them out of my hair...away. They all have their pluses and minuses though, I like them all for different reasons.

Yes, I believe turning off SP was bugged in the beginning of TS3? That, added to the fact people were used to no SP in Sims 2, must have been extra annoying for rotational players and micromanagers. I do understand what you mean by the way. It is different when I play a sim at home (surrounded by family) or in some tomb all by him/herself. But I notice I get more and more relaxed concerning this because they do take care of themselves.

It's not possible to micromanage them all, that is true and if you like doing that, open world TS3 style is a problem. Ambitions vs GTW shows this (I only play Ambitions careers when I only have one sim to take care of, this simply does work better in the TS4 set up). I wonder though if it might be possible to find some kind of compromise there. It would make a huge difference if they at least would allow us to give sims staying at home instructions they would perform in the background in TS4. When I first heard about Sims 4 I was very enthousiastic, because we didn't know back then how small the neighborhoods were going to be, we didn't know every lot was seperated by a loading screen and we didn't know there was no way of controlling sims we didn't choose to follow. Back then the set up sounded like the best of both worlds to me. In reality though they didn't take the best of neither Sims 2 or 3 in this respect.

"FloppyFish;c-16022108" wrote:
What is wrong with pretty backdrops being A focus though? If backdrops are impressive, people will be talking about them, lol. It is just, some people say, "NO BACKDROPS" and all of that nonsense.

Well like I said in my last post. Wouldn't you rather go to the beach than see it? It's not necessarily the backdrop, it's the fact that we still can't go there. Which leads to another question that would eventually arise, "Why isn't there a beach yet?" and then other questions arise. and the simmer comes to the conclusion of "If they can paint it? Are they at least looking into putting it in the actual game?"

So It's not a "No backdrops", I just think some of us would simply like to go to those pretty places they paint. Honestly I've never really been excited for a backdrop, it's cute but it doesn't really get me excited. But I'm more interested in if/when they actually put those things in the game.

Like that pretty place on the side of willow creek that we can't go to (by the fairies)....or those 'other houses we can't use. Like I said it's cute and it does make the neighborhood look fuller, but in all honesty I could have actually used those lots for more of my families if those lots were real :cry: .

That's just my little view on it though. So in a way, even though the backdrops are nice, I'd rather it not be the "full" focus because I'd also like to go to some of those places (in some way).