Sarah Holding says that TS4 tech is more limiting than TS3 was.

"starcrunch;13805983" wrote:
As animation, graphics, physics, and sound have become more advanced they've become a lot less flexible from a content creation standpoint (this is almost universally true of video games - and has been since almost the beginning). As the technology has improved the barrier for content creation has gone up... and up... and up... and the amount of resources it takes to match the quality of existing content has done nothing but increase. Most CC is terrible, some of it is mediocre, and a very small amount reaches the level of what get's published by professionals - and almost all of this CC lives in the land of scripts, or art that requires nothing from an animation or sound design. Some great things get made as CC, but a lot more great stuff that reached dev quality was possible when games as a medium were simpler.

yeah indeed they become advanced but the problem is which this is not true to sims 4, instead they followed a more "cheap way", because they don't wanted to cater high end computers but "low ending(they own words), then make a game with much less in all the areas(less graphic quality), less animations(look at a sim helping a teen or a child in they homework in sims 3 and sims 4, or maybe others sims), sims 4 was a too much simplified game where nowadays game developers are strugle at make more "near perfect things", you know we are a one step of virtual reality with microsoft working in they new hollow(forget the name but the glasses of virtual reality which they showed in the E3), all develop games are doing they best to bring the most top "game possible", while maxis is giving the "most simple game possible", then this make very easy to see many modders being supperior to the dev team when they are doing the "most basic possible" and not trying really hard.

"rudy8292;13805998" wrote:

"Neia;13805992" wrote:

"starcrunch;13805983" wrote:
As animation, graphics, physics, and sound have become more advanced they've become a lot less flexible from a content creation standpoint (this is almost universally true of video games - and has been since almost the beginning). As the technology has improved the barrier for content creation has gone up... and up... and up... and the amount of resources it takes to match the quality of existing content has done nothing but increase. Most CC is terrible, some of it is mediocre, and a very small amount reaches the level of what get's published by professionals - and almost all of this CC lives in the land of scripts, or art that requires nothing from an animation or sound design. Some great things get made as CC, but a lot more great stuff that reached dev quality was possible when games as a medium were simpler.

Well said, and indie developpers going for a more retro look is not just because it's trendy :)

Yes, but we are not talking about an Indie game/developer. We are talking about EA, a massive franchise. EA can do it, but the question is: do they want to invest time and money in it? And it seems like they don't.

There are so many games out there fully fleshed out and great. If only EA took the time and resources.

And EA didn't go for a more retro look, so any content creation needs a greater amount of ressources, that's the whole point.

"starcrunch;13805983" wrote:
As animation, graphics, physics, and sound have become more advanced they've become a lot less flexible from a content creation standpoint (this is almost universally true of video games - and has been since almost the beginning). As the technology has improved the barrier for content creation has gone up... and up... and up... and the amount of resources it takes to match the quality of existing content has done nothing but increase. Most CC is terrible, some of it is mediocre, and a very small amount reaches the level of what get's published by professionals - and almost all of this CC lives in the land of scripts, or art that requires nothing from an animation or sound design. Some great things get made as CC, but a lot more great stuff that reached dev quality was possible when games as a medium were simpler.

I agree.. but, and I speak for myself, I would prefer to spend 30 in a stuff pack with 5 game play items instead of 9.90 in a stuff pack with 5 non game play items, 4 recolours and one gameplay item. They can leave the recolours of the bar and the counter to the community and focus on more important, professional quality content in my opinion, if they lacks staff and money.

I'm curious to know if the developers themselves are disappointed with how the whole game turned out. Like they share the same frustrations as some of you guys, but has to pretend that it's good in order to sell it. I don't think it's solely their fault, EA is responsible for this too. I mean, there's less staff now? What's the deal with that? And are they not getting a higher budget for this? This is THE SIMS we're talking about!

"David_Wharton;13805908" wrote:
I don't think players fully grasp the work that goes into Sims 4. It really annoys me when some people think it's a simple task when it so isn't. Please stop this hate speech directed right to the developers. THEY DO NOT DESERVE IT.

I am sure that a lot of hard work is going into this game, but things like the OP posted are not comforting to hear coming from a Guru. After all, this is not the first Sims game. The devs are probably just as peeved that this version is so limited when they have us screaming quietly lamenting about everything they are doing/not doing. I do agree though they don't deserve the hate, management most likely do, though who knows if they even hear it.

Does anyone recall if there were similar comments made from staff for previous iterations, regarding adding things to the game? I rarely visited the forums during TS3 run because I hardly played it, and I can't remember way back to TS2 forums.

"SiliClone;13806009" wrote:

"starcrunch;13805983" wrote:
As animation, graphics, physics, and sound have become more advanced they've become a lot less flexible from a content creation standpoint (this is almost universally true of video games - and has been since almost the beginning). As the technology has improved the barrier for content creation has gone up... and up... and up... and the amount of resources it takes to match the quality of existing content has done nothing but increase. Most CC is terrible, some of it is mediocre, and a very small amount reaches the level of what get's published by professionals - and almost all of this CC lives in the land of scripts, or art that requires nothing from an animation or sound design. Some great things get made as CC, but a lot more great stuff that reached dev quality was possible when games as a medium were simpler.

I agree.. but, and I speak for myself, I would prefer to spend 30 in a stuff pack with 5 game play items instead of 9.90 in a stuff pack with 5 non game play items, 4 recolours and one gameplay item. They can leave the recolours of the bar and the counter to the community and focus on more important, professional quality content in my opinion, if they lacks staff and money.

yep i agree 100% with that, paying for "deco" is not fun, when the deco is one of the reasons you are buying it, sims game as a life simulator and at how things are evolving can't keep pulling "deco" ketchups", deco furnituries, where the focus is not "killing" or save the world but the bored "normal life" we need have less decoration and more interaction, the focus of the game play is the every day life, is goes to sleep and have nightmares then wake-up, or when wake-up you go to bathroom look at yourself in mirror if you are a guy make your beard or no open the cabinet take some pills, go to toilet take a shower take the towell, change cloths get your newspaper, for a game like that the more interaction and less decoration the more enrich the game become and more "realistic(not in the sense of graphics but real life interactions) the game become, but when we have a game where 70% or more of the things are just "deco" and many non deco are the most basic interaction like chairs make the game look empty, the game must enrich not get worst and more simplified, again if you look at others games they are less and less simplified and more complex overtime and maxis can't keep forever in the stone age or they will ending faill and get expelleds or replaced by more "competent peoples".

"KingofSims;13806021" wrote:
I'm curious to know if the developers themselves are disappointed with how the whole game turned out. Like they share the same frustrations as some of you guys, but has to pretend that it's good in order to sell it. I don't think it's solely their fault, EA is responsible for this too. I mean, there's less staff now? What's the deal with that? And are they not getting a higher budget for this? This is THE SIMS we're talking about!

they get the high budget but expend almost everything in the olympus then they ended having to use the budget they have remain to work in sims 4, then now since sims 4 sales are not 'sky rocket" or even close to or are in the "average" level then they are strugle to get "more money" since probably ea obvious not gonna give more money for a game which failed to achiev what they wanted, then they are making what they feel is needed and could do with the "money they have", the game is paying itself but not give enough money to convince ea to "give more money to then" then without more money maxis not gonna do a better job, since "money is more important".

"Teresita;13805892" wrote:

Yup and its in this very reason the game didn't have as much support. It's like owning a hundred dollar bill to spend as much as you want but only spending ten bucks for a plushie.

I wonder where all the money went to. Titanfall?

Some of the money actually did: http://simsvip.com/2014/01/29/ea-trades-off-the-sims-4-for-titanfall/ Why I'm holding Maxis and EA responsible for how the finances are handled. Not my fault they decided to use Sims 4 funding on Titanfall and expect the Sims 4 to sell on brand name alone. But oh well, they are a big enough company to handle their own business.

"Ellessarr;13805872" wrote:

"rudy8292;841730" wrote:
According to SimGuruSarah the tech used in The Sims 4 is more limiting compared to The Sims 3 Tech.

https://twitter.com/SimGuruSarah/status/615937675816628225

Isn't that sad and hilarious at the same time?
Wasn't TS4 meant to be better, more advanced? This again is another sign that this game is just quickly thrown together to make some money.

She also mentioned that it was ''a lot of work'' and ''expense'' to create different seating postures like for lounge chairs. Isn't the ''expensive'' and ''a lot of work'' not always the first thing we hear? It's sad.

https://twitter.com/SimGuruSarah/status/615994475844800512

https://twitter.com/SimGuruSarah/status/615994367996657664

lol, well it's not the first time things are "too expensive and too difficult" and neither which the sims 4 engineer is a cra p, we already aware but is good to see maybe the "blind followers" can finally try to see how much sims 4 is "awesome" a very limited worst engineer, that is why ts3 emotions work better than ts4 or almost many of things works better, make a "half baked game" from scrap is not really funny or right.

@rudy8292 twitter then cay delete unwanted posts at anytime unlike the forum... then is more easy to speak where they have full control over the users(don't have any rules to follow than they own desires).

I'm sad, but I'd pick sadness over rudeness any day.

Wow. When the developer of a game comes out, after less than a year, & says that the game engine isn't capable of supporting something as simple as a lounge chair? It doesn't help restore my faith that the game will ever be something that I personally want to spend any time with. I guess that's a big, fat 'NO!' to lounge chairs in the upcoming GP. Based on a Spa. That would most definitely have lounge chairs. *smh*

Sometimes it's not all about 'go big or go home', sometimes it's all about 'the devil is in the details'. I'd love EA/Maxis to realise this :/