"Scobre;c-17460603" wrote:
"Beardedgeek;c-17460535" wrote:
Again, I simply can't make sense of this. You are talking about the "Sims" you see when looking down from Uptown to lower levels, for example. Those are not Sims, do not need to be Sims and should not be Sims.
To call the game "partly rendered" because of these "Sims" not being full Sims is factually false and I would (yes) consider it an outright lie to make the game look bad.
As for "poop graphics" btw... what poop graphics?
They are Sims and I wouldn't call factually false and wow lie, nope it is in all games. It is an opinion just like yours is an opinion. Silly to call something a lie just because you don't agree with it. The FX graphics which are poorly done. If someone made a movie with bad graphics, people probably wouldn't see it especially younger kids who are all about the newest graphics. But yes I can't agree with you that all the graphics in the Sims 4 are good, but subjectively they aren't. You can think they are and that's ok. Not going to call you liar over it. I don't know why you have to constantly need to insult me for saying something bad about the Sims 4. It is just a B rated movie quality game. So yes graphically and game play wise I find the Sims 4 sub-par at best. Even building can be frustrating. But one thing we can agree on is both liking the Sims 2. :) Sims 2 in a lot of ways had better graphics than the Sims 3 with a lot of detail with the objects especially if you look at the stoves and bookshelves. I'm detailed oriented and it is easier for you to brush off the details. That is great, but we are not alike in that way and it is ok. But like art I view the whole picture and how it interacts with other parts of that picture. I just don't see the Sims 4 art and the FX art meshing well so yes it does look like poop in comparison. It is like someone saying how alpha CC doesn't mesh well with the Sims 4 art. Two different teams work on it and it shows and sadly not in a good way. Also impossible to lie about any form of art and silly to suggest so. It is a subjective form of creation.
In TS3 there was options to turn down or off details that weren't relevant to the game itself. With that said...
What Beardedgeek means is those background assets are not sims. As in, theyre not what the game considers to be a sim - a controllable playable character you can interact with. They are just an asset that resembles a sim that has no function out of being an ambient aesthetic object.
With all that said, you don't have to make them actual sims for the renders to be better, but he is right in saying having too many high poly objects to render does just slow down the game, and so the humans are low poly with bad textures because they're unimportant background assets in terms of gameplay itself. How optimal things like this are does depend on how you program them into the game though.
My ex used to work as a QA tester at Sony. The game Uncharted 4 originally programmed in individual particles for every raindrop, and it literally slowed the game down to about 5 fps because the game was loading so many tiny assets.
Now let's talk about The Sims. The Sims, being a sandbox game, you can place as many assets as you wish, essentially, so that's why EA have to be very cautious about the purely ambient aesthetic renders they put in the game themselves. Anything that's a waste of resources kind of just has to go.
That said, given you can get very close to the birds as they're on the ground... Not sure that was a great choice to then make them so low poly.
