"Sk8rblaze;c-17156884" wrote:
"Sucom;c-17154070" wrote:
"IngeJones;c-17154018" wrote:
Yes, of all the Sims incarnations to decide to carry on for more than 4 years, this was totally not the one!
I thoroughly agree. Why, out of Sims 2 and 3, did they decide to make this one last the longest when they absolutely KNEW the foundation was specifically built for an online experience? What possible chance could it ever have had after being forced to change direction midway? It's such a compromise. How could it ever be satisfactory? I so hope they are working on putting it right with a game built on a solid foundation; I really do.
I'm sure you already know -- it's cheaper to do. They can discount The Sims 4, make it practically free, and entice more and more players to buy DLC through, you guessed it, more sales.
But you are 100% right, this was not the base game to make last the longest. I mean, it does run better than TS3 does, but that doesn't say much. A solid base game should be stable as a given. But it should also have plenty of means to expand upon the core game experience, which I feel The Sims 4 lacks.
It does? I constantly see mention of new bugs, just like Sims 3. And Sims 3 runs totally ok when you play it on a good computer.
