SimGuruGrant confirms The Sims 4's future; "We're not going Anywhere"

"JoAnne65;c-16425479" wrote:

"filipomel;c-16424274" wrote:

"Zeldaboy180;c-16423624" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16411914" wrote:

"Zeldaboy180;c-16411792" wrote:

"graventhe;c-16200663" wrote:

"catloverplayer;c-16200592" wrote:

"To7m;c-16199917" wrote:
If you’re happy with 10 game packs, 8 EP’s and TWENTY FOUR stuff packs, you’re nuts.

I hope it ends ASAP and somebody, ANYBODY, makes a real sims game. I’m quite happy to forget TS4 entirely.

—T

After Seasons and a Tropial Vacation Destination I think I'll be ready for TS5. Hopefully no lifestates are left out of the base game.

TS5 must be realistic, if it's released in 2020 or 2021 as predicted then it'll be ridiculous if it's cartoony style, by that time technology will much more advanced and they don't have to keep coping with people with older PCs, they can still play older Sims..
TS5 must be like TS3 but with better graphics and much better animation (TS3 animations were very robotics and horrible even with smoother animation on)

There is a difference between Art Style and Graphics. The sims was always meant to be cartoony and whimsical, the more realistic graphics we get the creepier it gets. If sims 5 suddenly got GTA styled graphics or something then that's the day I quit the sims series.

I on the other hand might pick it up again :mrgreen: Though I agree a more stylized art style suits the game better (and I get the same vibes from those examples as you) but for me, I rather have it leaning towards realism than towards cartoon.

P.s. Sims 3 is as stylized as Sims 4 by the way, just not cartoony.

Sims 3 has beautiful lansacapes, especially for 2009 graphics. I dislike the sims appearance, particularly the males, but that is a personal taste thing.

Sims 3 also isnt border line super realistic, there is a lot of cartoony ness still there, I just feel a lot of the base game animations are robotic since they were mostly copy pasted from sims 2.

They really stepped up their animation game later in development though.

I think the Sims 3 art style in general was all over the place, some things looked stylised, other things looked like they were on the verge of realism, and some things just looked completely rough, outdated and out of place. It's not a bad looking game by any means, but comparing the games appearance to The Sims 4, or even The Sims 2 with how consistent the art styles of those games are, The Sims 3 isn't going to age as well as Sims 4 will.

I'd like to see some picture examples here, because I've been playing the game for 8 years now and I have no idea what you're referring to. Maybe I got used to it, but I'm really curious to see what you mean. The art style looks quite consistent to me. As far as I'm concerned Sims 3 ages pretty well by the way (considering it's almost ten years old now). Wouldn't know in what way I'd like it different art style wise. Sims 4 graphics are sharper but in other areas it looks horrible. When we're talking about 'all over the place', Sims 4 rather is in that respect.

http://twinfinite.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/ballpit.png

https://i.imgur.com/rbsyY1l.png

The Sims 3 is aging quite well, all I said is Sims 4 will probably age better, personal opinion of course, by that I mean when you look at the game 20 years from its original release which will look better in its respective time? I'd say the Sims 4 but everyone has personal taste. As for the Sims 3 art style I got a few examples.

Example 1: In this picture you can see the sim sporting a braided/dreadlock hairstyle and a shirt with an iPod and headphones. The hair in some areas looks rather flat and kind of muddy textured, the iPod and headphones are just flat textures on the shirt. Of course those details shouldn't really matter too much since during gameplay you won't really notice the details.


Example 2: Now the sim is wearing a curly hairstyle of sorts and a necklace. The hairstyle looks jagged and sharp around the edges while the necklace is just a painted flat texture on her neck, you also got a better look at the flat iPod and headphones. Again, maybe it shouldn't really matter since in gameplay you won't really notice the details zoomed out.


Example 3: Another curly hairstyle, very clearly jagged and sharp around the edges.


Example 4: Here is where the art style inconsistencies come in. Here you can see the sim wearing a very nice, smooth looking hairstyle, a chocker that's actually modelled in 3D, and a jacket with a tie, the tie which is also modelled in 3D. So while in examples 1 and 2 the accessories are just flat textures (iPod/Headphones, necklace) here they are modelled in 3D, not just the chocker but the shirt accessories as well. And while the hairstyles in the first 3 examples look kind of bad, here it looks good.


Example 5: Here is where parts of the game look like they're on the verge of realism, but didn't quite pull it off due to the visuals of the game, and I guess maybe the visual limitations? You can see the sim standing here, a sim who looks quite stylised, standing next to grass textures that look muddy and not really fitting the games aesthetic. Compare the visuals of the sim, to the visuals of the textures on the house, and then the grass, the grass looks out of place.


Example 6: Last example. Here you can see the sim inside the house with some furniture and plants, the furniture and wall textures look very nice and smooth and fit the games aesthetic quite well, while the plants stand out quite a bit since they don't match the rest of the visuals, again because they look like they're on the verge of realism, but instead look quite muddy.


ALL of this is of course subjective. Maybe I just see things a different way. I just don't understand why some items are fully modelled 3D items, while others are just flat textures, and for some reason these flat textures all look fuzzy around the edges. Again, Sims 3 isn't a bad looking game in my eyes, but the visual inconsistencies, at least for me, are quite noticeable. And I agree, whenever there are items that clearly look out of place in Sims 4 it bothers me, that's why I don't really use CC in 4, even looking at early content the Sims 4 released, specifically hairstyles, some of the items and assets just look gross. To Sims 4's credit, they did update the ball pit model to look less muddy.

@filipomel Thanks :)
I absolutely agree concerning the necklace and things like that, in terms of that it looks flat, but I don't quite see how that adresses art style inconsistency. That's comparable to that ball pit or the fruit bowl in Sims 4, or the awfully designed small animals. And most recently the flat hamster habitat tubes that appear to be painted on the wall, totally flat as well. As for the hairstyles, nothing wrong with the first one imo, but the second and the third one are just really poorly done.

Your 'on the verge of realism' isn't on the verge of realism at all.

http://i64.tinypic.com/2ql8q5d.jpg

This is on the verge of realism:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/de/ec/a4/deeca4149d4272e104c16ac6c1545fd8.jpg

Sims 3 is just more detailed than this:

http://s1.postimg.org/5xl5z5lfz/09_12_14_4_48_PM.png

(for me there's inconsistency between that grass and those 3D flowers by the way)
And Sims 2's grass has in fact the same quality as Sims 3 grass if not more (as do rocks for that matter). The statement "some items are fully modelled 3D items, while others are just flat textures, and for some reason these flat textures all look fuzzy around the edges" actually can be said for Sims 4 as well. The lighting looks realistic, the graphics often are quite sharp, but then there's that ball pit, or the squirrel, or those flat tubes, or the fruit bowl.

https://i.imgur.com/TA5CdxM.png

Some clothes are done well, where other clothes suddenly look rushed and poor quality. Sims 4's art style is consistent where it comes to appearance (it all looks like everything's made of rubber and I think that's a deliberate choice). I prefer a stylized look that makes wood look like wood however, rock like rock, skin like skin, fabric like fabric myself but always loyal to the art style. I honestly think that's what you might be confusing here. But again: that's no different for Sims 2. Sims 2's and 3's art styles are very similar, I often confuse them even seeing pictures.

ETA: I think the sim in your example looks more 'stylized' (in terms of low realism) than necessary in the game by the way.

https://i.imgur.com/Qvd9SZF.png

"JoAnne65;c-16426000" wrote:
@filipomel Thanks :)
I absolutely agree concerning the necklace and things like that, in terms of that it looks flat, but I don't quite see how that adresses art style inconsistency. That's comparable to that ball pit or the fruit bowl in Sims 4, or the awfully designed small animals. And most recently the flat hamster habitat tubes that appear to be painted on the wall, totally flat as well. As for the hairstyles, nothing wrong with the first one imo, but the second and the third one are just really poorly done.

Your 'on the verge of realism' isn't on the verge of realism at all.

http://i64.tinypic.com/2ql8q5d.jpg

The statement "some items are fully modelled 3D items, while others are just flat textures, and for some reason these flat textures all look fuzzy around the edges" actually can be said for Sims 4 as well. The lighting looks realistic, the graphics often are quite sharp, but then there's that ball pit, or the squirrel, or those flat tubes, or the fruit bowl.

https://i.imgur.com/TA5CdxM.png

Some clothes are done well, where other clothes suddenly look rushed and poor quality. Sims 4's art style is consistent where it comes to appearance (it all looks like everything's made of rubber and I think that's a deliberate choice). I prefer a stylized look that makes wood look like wood however, rock like rock, skin like skin, fabric like fabric myself but always loyal to the art style. I honestly think that's what you might be confusing here. But again: that's no different for Sims 2. Sims 2's and 3's art styles are very similar, I often confuse them even seeing pictures.

Perhaps it's not so much art style inconsistencies, but more so just inconsistencies with the quality of assets we get, I just feel like a lot of the stuff in 3 is a mixed bag of good quality assets and questionable assets. I don't think the small animals in 4 are that bad in my honest opinion, but those flat hamster habitat tubes are just wall decals, I don't think they are or were supposed to be 3D models or anything, although that would have been pretty cool.

I may be wrong when I say "verge on realism," but by that I mean instead of the grass looking like a grass texture that fits the Sims overall aesthetic, it kind of just looks like a picture of grass that was taken with a camera.

As for fuzzy Sims 4 objects, I agree, some objects look like they could've been done better, the fruit bowl I don't mind as it's a pretty small object just for décor, but something like the ball pit on its release was absolutely ugly, and for such a big object too, in terms of its actual size but also the fact that it was one of the main features of the pack, thank goodness they updated it.

Personally I just think Sims 4 delivers much better quality assets and items overall than 3 and even 2, especially considering how much I adore the Sims 4 overall aesthetic. I still do like the Sims 3 visuals, it's an iconic look that really can't be replicated in other games, it also holds a lot of nostalgia for me as Sims 3 was my first Sims game back in the day.

For me, The Sims 3 really lets itself down in its world and it’s Sims.

The Sims don’t match the artsyle at all, and always stand out as Cartoon dolls in a realistic world.

And then you have realistic looking assests throughout the world mixed with unrealistic buildings (Rabbit Holes mostly) and unrealistic terrain. The terraforming in the Sims 3 looks like play doh and it’s super distracting with all the realistic flora and trees.

While TS4 has some occasional poor assets, it’s the first time on PC since the original where the Sims actually look like they belong inside the world they live in.

The Sims 3 mixed realism with cartoon looking Rabbit Holes, Sims and terrain and it never worked for me.

YET in Medievil, they changed all the flora and world to a more cartoony look, and I feel like that game has aged much better.

"filipomel;c-16426044" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16426000" wrote:
@filipomel Thanks :)
I absolutely agree concerning the necklace and things like that, in terms of that it looks flat, but I don't quite see how that adresses art style inconsistency. That's comparable to that ball pit or the fruit bowl in Sims 4, or the awfully designed small animals. And most recently the flat hamster habitat tubes that appear to be painted on the wall, totally flat as well. As for the hairstyles, nothing wrong with the first one imo, but the second and the third one are just really poorly done.

Your 'on the verge of realism' isn't on the verge of realism at all.

http://i64.tinypic.com/2ql8q5d.jpg

The statement "some items are fully modelled 3D items, while others are just flat textures, and for some reason these flat textures all look fuzzy around the edges" actually can be said for Sims 4 as well. The lighting looks realistic, the graphics often are quite sharp, but then there's that ball pit, or the squirrel, or those flat tubes, or the fruit bowl.

https://i.imgur.com/TA5CdxM.png

Some clothes are done well, where other clothes suddenly look rushed and poor quality. Sims 4's art style is consistent where it comes to appearance (it all looks like everything's made of rubber and I think that's a deliberate choice). I prefer a stylized look that makes wood look like wood however, rock like rock, skin like skin, fabric like fabric myself but always loyal to the art style. I honestly think that's what you might be confusing here. But again: that's no different for Sims 2. Sims 2's and 3's art styles are very similar, I often confuse them even seeing pictures.

Perhaps it's not so much art style inconsistencies, but more so just inconsistencies with the quality of assets we get, I just feel like a lot of the stuff in 3 is a mixed bag of good quality assets and questionable assets. I don't think the small animals in 4 are that bad in my honest opinion, but those flat hamster habitat tubes are just wall decals, I don't think they are or were supposed to be 3D models or anything, although that would have been pretty cool.

I may be wrong when I say "verge on realism," but by that I mean instead of the grass looking like a grass texture that fits the Sims overall aesthetic, it kind of just looks like a picture of grass that was taken with a camera.

As for fuzzy Sims 4 objects, I agree, some objects look like they could've been done better, the fruit bowl I don't mind as it's a pretty small object just for décor, but something like the ball pit on its release was absolutely ugly, and for such a big object too, in terms of its actual size but also the fact that it was one of the main features of the pack, thank goodness they updated it.

Personally I just think Sims 4 delivers much better quality assets and items overall than 3 and even 2, especially considering how much I adore the Sims 4 overall aesthetic. I still do like the Sims 3 visuals, it's an iconic look that really can't be replicated in other games, it also holds a lot of nostalgia for me as Sims 3 was my first Sims game back in the day.

I agree items in 3 can look surprisingly well and others surprisingly poor (like the shiny basegame clothes for instance), but my point is I just don’t see any difference in that respect with Sims 4, since the same happens in that game. The only difference is that one is a 2009 game and the other 2014, so in some respects graphics improved. But Sims 3’s landscaping isn’t aiming to be realistic, it’s all stylized. I remember showing an ingame picture of China once to my father who is an avid Tomb Raider player and he sort of giggled. Clearly used to a very realistic art style and not understanding stylized can have charm too.

The cartoon doll accusation, sorry, but that comes down to the time you are prepared to spend in CAS (JackJack), apart from the fact you’re highly exaggerating the ‘reality’ of landscape and items in the game there to make your point. I mean, it’s far from this.

https://www.netflix-nederland.nl/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Who-Framed-Roger-Rabbit-Netflix.jpg

In fact it’s often the other way around for me when people cover their sims in realistic CC. Then they quite often look out of place in their stylized environment (but the very same thing goes for Sims 4, I also see that when people have grass replacements but the trees still have their PlayMobil appearance). Sims 3’s art style (and Sims 2’s) is trying to approach reality more than than Sims 4’s, but in Sims 3’s case that includes the sims. They are not cartoony, they just have a tendency to look puffy when you don’t use the facial sliders, but that’s up to the creator.

Art style is a matter of taste, but for me - despite the banana skins that also hit Sims 4 - they did a more than fine job. I often pause and awe in the game and that can happen with both landscapes and my sims. And their houses for that matter.

As for the squirrels not being that bad...

https://pre00.deviantart.net/0a13/th/pre/i/2015/039/d/b/the_sims_4___squirrel_by_bmts4photography-d8h5l9p.png

We all have out own standards then ;) To me they don’t exactly fit the art style to say the least.

(I’d like to see an example of a cartoon looking rabbithole by the way, I have no idea what rabbitholes you are referring to there)(and if anything the somewhat more realistic sims in Medieval in fact mismatch more with the more cartoony environment, not less, though I like the art style in that game as well; in fact I was hoping Sims 4 would bring us something like that)

ETA: found this picture of a typical Sims 3 landscape. Grass, plants, trees, the far away montains, the rocks, I can’t but find it all completely matching (and gorgeous but that’s me).

http://i1121.photobucket.com/albums/l512/Jo-Anne2/Album3/Raven_036_zps826dd180.png

@JoAnne65 oh when you said squirrels I thought you were talking about the rodents in MFPS, on that note I agree, those squirrels look rediculous, good thing they’re such a minor aesthetic piece in the environment.

"Cheekybits;c-16425354" wrote:
Haha sorry @jackjack_k but I do agree with you. Vr is a experience like you mentioned not every game works with the vr.

@Cinebar you can already use the vr for non vr games so unless they add some crazy new feature worth the sims 4 price tag in vr, I wouldn’t see the benefit.

You may be right, by the time EA gets to VR everyone will probably have a holodeck in their homes like they have a personal computer in almost every home these days. lol

According to EA’s ceo AR is more interesting for EA in the next couple of years than VR is - and AR isn’t quite uninteresting in context with the Sims games either.