Unpopular opinions about ts4

"drake_mccarty;c-16218910" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16218849" wrote:

"aricarai;c-16218216" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16218121" wrote:

"aricarai;c-16218021" wrote:

"LiELF;c-16217136" wrote:


4. Ready for this one? It's a doozy.... I don't think that "gameplay" is always the answer. - Whoa! I know, right?! This one is especially hard to explain but I'll do my best. I think that there are many facets to a Sims game that make it something enjoyable. It's a game like no others and because of its unique nature, it is beloved by millions of people of a variety of ages, worldwide. I see a lot of people on the forums demanding "gameplay" but not specifying what exactly it is they want, and I've also seen a few people describe instead, specific simulations or age groups or objects or even weather, and call it "gameplay". I think that each of us hears the word and then imagines what it means to us, and we universally cry out for "more gameplay", when in fact it isn't exactly what some of us are truly asking for, and sometimes it's even the type of gameplay that's important to us. In my opinion, the Sims games should include gameplay, of course, but also balanced with a certain amount of simulation, flexibility for player choices, environment, time management, activities, interaction, creation, animation, etc. To me, Vampires was definitely a good example of gameplay with a variety of powers and weaknesses to choose from that influenced the behavior of each Sim with it's own progression system and titles and layers. But another reason I loved that pack was the ambiance of Forgotten Hollow and the gorgeous Victorian/Goth vibe in build/buy. In fact, for me, a very underrated addition in that pack was the wall stickers for cracks and stains that added to building run down houses, and I'm not even much of a builder. That's not gameplay, but a grand addition nonetheless, and very important to me. Another example of gameplay is the GTW careers, which some people enjoy, but others can't stand. I've seen a lot of people state that they would much prefer the control to do whatever they want instead of catering to a checklist. I thought I wasn't going to like them very much, but there are days when I do really enjoy playing them. But the point is, I feel that it's more important for us all to try to articulate what exactly it is that we are seeking in our game, being as specific as possible instead of summing everything up as "gameplay" because sometimes, that's not exactly what we're looking for.


Okay, I think that's all I've got for now. :)

I totally agree with this one @LiELF. This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.

I think the Sims has always been a game where you can do what you wish with it, whether it be building, decorating, taking pictures, or playing in a certain style.

So you're right, game play doesn't fix things for everyone.

I think gameplay does matter (and therefore is the answer), even when simmers have their own playing styles and their opinions about what gameplay is may vary. Gameplay concerning extensive lifestages, unique personalities and customizability for example are broadly supported by players (and missed in Sims 4). I in fact think the team has drifted away too much from basically needed gameplay for this game and are making the mistake of too much handing ready to go gameplay. Which leaves a lot of simmers bored and uninterested.

I didn't say it doesn't matter; I simply was agree with what @LiELF said about it not always being the answer. It's different strokes for different folks. Someone who ONLY builds, is ONLY going to be after build/buy items...where's the game play in that?

But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.

They didn’t say it was a builders game, they said people who just like to build are going to be more interested in building tools and content versus animated gameplay for live mode. That’s why I don’t really understand why you talk about cutting out gameplay, adding in more building tools (as an example) doesn’t cut anything out of the game.

Adding ‘gameplay’ in the sense of animated gameplay involving Sims isn’t always the answer. That’s why the stuff packs are relatively annoying IMO. Several major areas of the game are flat out ignored while they constantly spam out new animations for increasingly ridiculous things.

Thank you @drake_mccarty - this is exactly it.

"Scobre;c-16218888" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16218849" wrote:

But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.

Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right. Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "

I don't think Sims is any one thing, but I agree any game without gameplay in it is no longer a game. CAS only focus makes me think of playing with Barbies, build only makes me think of playing with legos. So is like do people want the Sims turned into a children's toy? I don't, I want it to feel like a game made for teens at least and not just some Toys R' Us children's toy. If I wanted to play Barbies, I would not have moved on with the Sims but kept playing my Barbies when I first started playing the Sims. It is like bring us a game we can expand our imaginations with, not just confine it to the imagination I had as a kid. So far, I'm not convinced that the Sims 4 has offered enough than what the CAS demo offers for free. As a builder and someone that plays live mode, I feel alienated in this iteration. I guess that is my unpopular opinion is I find the Sims 4 alienates more Simmers than the Sims 3 did and players still face the Sims games breaking their computers, so this stifling the Sims for the sake of performance ended up hurting the franchise more than helping it and still managed to produce the same results for players complaining about their computer that don't even meet minimum specs yet again. So what was the point? I just hope that the Sims 4 has taught Maxis that selling Sims games with the same specs to run on both systems doesn't work. Bring back the Sims Life Stories series, so I can enjoy my gameplay and build modes again with a proper desktop version and offer a more confined version for laptop players again that doesn't hinder the desktop players anymore. With how technology is advancing and tablets replacing laptops in the Sims 4 game already, laptops will be a thing of the past like landlines are considered now. By the time the Sims 5 comes out, there might just be mobile, desktop, and console focus anyways since that is where the future of gaming is at.

First, I'll get the silly thing out of the way: How the heck were you playing with your Barbies? When I played with my Barbies back when I was a little girl, I built an entire fictional universe around them with character backstories, ongoing story arcs, super powers, magic, monsters...and a spin-off alternate universe side story involving vampires. There was never a dull moment with my Barbie universe, and I used everything from cardboard boxes to broken toys to toys from completely different toy lines in my imaginary stories...Which is why I couldn't play dolls with other girls, as a matter of fact. My fictional realm was just too elaborate for them to understand.

Second of all, the problem isn't that this game was made to try to accommodate lower-powered machines. A machine that meets the recommended specs for The Sims 2 would be considered a toaster nowadays, but it's one of the deepest, most compelling games in the franchise...even without the expansion packs. The problem is that in attempting to make a game for newbies to the series, they oversimplified the game's design in a botched attempt to make it more accessible to novice simmers and the execs rushed the game out before even the basics were fully finished.

Don't believe me? Alright, if the development team had been given their assignment well in advance ("Alright, ladies and gentlemen, we want the next game in the Sims franchise to be a full-featured, numbered title in the franchise that can run smoothly and well on both desktop and laptop systems with these minimum specs."), they would have been able to do it just fine. Why? Because they know the hardware constraints that they need to hold to in order to make such a game, and previous full-featured games in the series (not spinoffs, full, numbered titles) have been made to run on way crappier systems. They have the know-how, they have the expertise...But things were a total mess behind the scenes. They started with (and scrapped) an online Sims title with the working title Olympus, then rushed to start the offline The Sims 4 which was obviously not complete at launch. There has no doubt been copious executive meddling from EA executives behind the scenes to withhold base game content to be added in DLC (hot tubs, diving platforms, etc.) and soften the product as much as possible in terms of both atmosphere and gameplay to appeal to what these middle-aged men think of as the average middle school girl (obsessed with fashion, unable to handle any form of negative emotion, hates anything even slightly scary or violent, doesn't know the Mario Brothers from the Jonas Brothers, etc.). The chaotic, directionless state of things behind the scenes, with executives who wouldn't know a good game if it booted up without warning on their computers and (as the Battefront II debacle clearly shows) only care about how much cash they can squeeze out of their customers for the DLC trying to tell people who actually do know how to make good games constantly sticking their unwashed fingers into other people's pies and a dev team desperately trying to make the best game they possibly can under the tyrannical rule of their corporate overlords and still keep their jobs because they know EA for the developer killer they are and they see the ogres sharpening their knives and stoking their stoves just waiting for them to blink wrong. Making a quality product under those conditions isn't easy.

So, no. It's not the power of the systems the game was made for that is to blame, it's a flawed design philosophy born in equal parts of good intentions and relentless executive meddling. And, whether this game was made from the beginning with desktops or laptops in mind, there would still have been people who would have bought the game to play on systems that don't even meet the minimum specs because there are tons of people every year who just jump into PC gaming without doing any research, thinking PC gaming works just like console gaming in that so long as it says it works for their OS that it should work on their machine, only to find that it doesn't work at all because every PC is different from its fellows in terms of what's in the box so there's more than just "Is it for Mac or Windows and what OS version does it run on?" to consider. Classic novice PC gamer mistake. Yes, even when so many people have the internet literally in their pockets now, because we're trained by the modern consumer market to assume that pretty much everything is standardized for our convenience. That's training that we have to actually make an effort to break when getting into something as finicky as PC gaming.

"Scobre;c-16218888" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16218849" wrote:

But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.

Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.

The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.

Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "

Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.

"SimsLovinLycan;c-16219250" wrote:

"Scobre;c-16218888" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16218849" wrote:

But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.

Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right. Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "

I don't think Sims is any one thing, but I agree any game without gameplay in it is no longer a game. CAS only focus makes me think of playing with Barbies, build only makes me think of playing with legos. So is like do people want the Sims turned into a children's toy? I don't, I want it to feel like a game made for teens at least and not just some Toys R' Us children's toy. If I wanted to play Barbies, I would not have moved on with the Sims but kept playing my Barbies when I first started playing the Sims. It is like bring us a game we can expand our imaginations with, not just confine it to the imagination I had as a kid. So far, I'm not convinced that the Sims 4 has offered enough than what the CAS demo offers for free. As a builder and someone that plays live mode, I feel alienated in this iteration. I guess that is my unpopular opinion is I find the Sims 4 alienates more Simmers than the Sims 3 did and players still face the Sims games breaking their computers, so this stifling the Sims for the sake of performance ended up hurting the franchise more than helping it and still managed to produce the same results for players complaining about their computer that don't even meet minimum specs yet again. So what was the point? I just hope that the Sims 4 has taught Maxis that selling Sims games with the same specs to run on both systems doesn't work. Bring back the Sims Life Stories series, so I can enjoy my gameplay and build modes again with a proper desktop version and offer a more confined version for laptop players again that doesn't hinder the desktop players anymore. With how technology is advancing and tablets replacing laptops in the Sims 4 game already, laptops will be a thing of the past like landlines are considered now. By the time the Sims 5 comes out, there might just be mobile, desktop, and console focus anyways since that is where the future of gaming is at.

First, I'll get the silly thing out of the way: How the heck were you playing with your Barbies? When I played with my Barbies back when I was a little girl, I built an entire fictional universe around them with character backstories, ongoing story arcs, super powers, magic, monsters...and a spin-off alternate universe side story involving vampires. There was never a dull moment with my Barbie universe, and I used everything from cardboard boxes to broken toys to toys from completely different toy lines in my imaginary stories...Which is why I couldn't play dolls with other girls, as a matter of fact. My fictional realm was just too elaborate for them to understand.

Second of all, the problem isn't that this game was made to try to accommodate lower-powered machines. A machine that meets the recommended specs for The Sims 2 would be considered a toaster nowadays, but it's one of the deepest, most compelling games in the franchise...even without the expansion packs. The problem is that in attempting to make a game for newbies to the series, they oversimplified the game's design in a botched attempt to make it more accessible to novice simmers and the execs rushed the game out before even the basics were fully finished.

Don't believe me? Alright, if the development team had been given their assignment well in advance ("Alright, ladies and gentlemen, we want the next game in the Sims franchise to be a full-featured, numbered title in the franchise that can run smoothly and well on both desktop and laptop systems with these minimum specs."), they would have been able to do it just fine. Why? Because they know the hardware constraints that they need to hold to in order to make such a game, and previous full-featured games in the series (not spinoffs, full, numbered titles) have been made to run on way crappier systems. They have the know-how, they have the expertise...But things were a total mess behind the scenes. They started with (and scrapped) an online Sims title with the working title Olympus, then rushed to start the offline The Sims 4 which was obviously not complete at launch. There has no doubt been copious executive meddling from EA executives behind the scenes to withhold base game content to be added in DLC (hot tubs, diving platforms, etc.) and soften the product as much as possible in terms of both atmosphere and gameplay to appeal to what these middle-aged men think of as the average middle school girl (obsessed with fashion, unable to handle any form of negative emotion, hates anything even slightly scary or violent, doesn't know the Mario Brothers from the Jonas Brothers, etc.). The chaotic, directionless state of things behind the scenes, with executives who wouldn't know a good game if it booted up without warning on their computers and (as the Battefront II debacle clearly shows) only care about how much cash they can squeeze out of their customers for the DLC trying to tell people who actually do know how to make good games constantly sticking their unwashed fingers into other people's pies and a dev team desperately trying to make the best game they possibly can under the tyrannical rule of their corporate overlords and still keep their jobs because they know EA for the developer killer they are and they see the ogres sharpening their knives and stoking their stoves just waiting for them to blink wrong. Making a quality product under those conditions isn't easy.

So, no. It's not the power of the systems the game was made for that is to blame, it's a flawed design philosophy born in equal parts of good intentions and relentless executive meddling. And, whether this game was made from the beginning with desktops or laptops in mind, there would still have been people who would have bought the game to play on systems that don't even meet the minimum specs because there are tons of people every year who just jump into PC gaming without doing any research, thinking PC gaming works just like console gaming in that so long as it says it works for their OS that it should work on their machine, only to find that it doesn't work at all because every PC is different from its fellows in terms of what's in the box so there's more than just "Is it for Mac or Windows and what OS version does it run on?" to consider. Classic novice PC gamer mistake. Yes, even when so many people have the internet literally in their pockets now, because we're trained by the modern consumer market to assume that pretty much everything is standardized for our convenience. That's training that we have to actually make an effort to break when getting into something as finicky as PC gaming.

I should have played Barbies when I was little with you. That sounds like amazing stories. I played with my sister so that could have been part of the problem. All she wanted to do was chop their hair, destroy their faces with makeup, and tear off their heads, so probably wasn't the best Barbie experience. Let's just say I was happy Sims came so my sister couldn't meddle with my Sims.

Lower end computers was the excuse, but yeah I believe it was an online attempt which switched with SimCity fiasco and kind of got a confirmation on it so I do know it was a thing. Just don't tell me how because I don't want to get anyone in trouble. I really hope they don't try the online attempt with the next iteration. SimCity proved that it can't be done along with all the other attempts to go with online with the Sims thus far. I don't like that focus of the game of softening the product. Kids know a lot more about the dangerous aspects of life than when I was a kid, so I don't get why the Sims now has to be so politically correct it makes you want to puke. It is like the Truman shop on catnip and makes the 1950s feel more mature than what the Sims 4 offers. Like I can't have extreme weather because it is considered "negative", I can't have supernaturals because it is considered "negative", I can't have real illnesses because it is considered "negative." I saw bring back the negative into the Sims to simulate life into the franchise again. I don't want this safe plum and I'm tired of every single idea I have for the Sims 4 be considered unpopular and "negative" because it doesn't fit into this politically correct garbage. It makes it extremely discouraging to talk about the Sims even with other players that play it now because feels like every idea for the game they deem with the negative label. So not only am I feeling that political nonsense pressure in real life, but in the Sims, and on forums. So how is the Sims supposed to be my escape from the real world problems? Because right now it isn't. How are the Sims going to teach people how to face these real world problems? Because right now it is teaching them how to hide their heads like an ostrich in the sand. The Sims was supposed to be the redeeming game for Maxis after the SimCity fiasco, so they still have quite a ways to go for that to happen. I don't think the Sims 4 will be the game to solve the customer to business relations with EA. The Sims being only online would have probably killed the franchise for good especially now and it is sad that the customer base is as divided as much as it is now. I've never seen the Sims community as divided as it is during this iteration. This is like war time scary division.

I know an unpopular opinion I have is I don't want the Sims 4 lasting eight years. I am not ok with a Sims game costing $960 plus sales tax plus any international tax for an iteration for Simmers. That is at least triple the price of what the Sims 3 packs sold for and then people claiming they can't afford a decent gaming computer, it is like are they kidding? With what computer of theirs can they run eight years worth of content on? So far the Sims 4 needs at least 92 GB of memory and 414 GB of RAM to meet the recommended specs of all the packs released in 3 years. With eight years it is going to be 228 GB of memory and 1,008 GB of RAM. So not only will they be paying the $960 but will have to update their computer, their processor, and their graphics card in that time. Plus with the internet price increase recently you are paying more to install online. So that will probably be an added factor to consider for the future whether to keep the online installing or not. I'm ready for the future of the Sims beyond just the Sims 4 and would like to see the franchise grow again in a couple of years for another reboot. Even though I welcome competition, I don't want the Sims franchise to end with the Sims 4 either like how some want it to. I would like to see it continue. I just hope in an odd way it isn't called the Sims 5 because numbers are starting to look passé now.

"drake_mccarty;c-16218910" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16218849" wrote:

"aricarai;c-16218216" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16218121" wrote:

"aricarai;c-16218021" wrote:

"LiELF;c-16217136" wrote:


4. Ready for this one? It's a doozy.... I don't think that "gameplay" is always the answer. - Whoa! I know, right?! This one is especially hard to explain but I'll do my best. I think that there are many facets to a Sims game that make it something enjoyable. It's a game like no others and because of its unique nature, it is beloved by millions of people of a variety of ages, worldwide. I see a lot of people on the forums demanding "gameplay" but not specifying what exactly it is they want, and I've also seen a few people describe instead, specific simulations or age groups or objects or even weather, and call it "gameplay". I think that each of us hears the word and then imagines what it means to us, and we universally cry out for "more gameplay", when in fact it isn't exactly what some of us are truly asking for, and sometimes it's even the type of gameplay that's important to us. In my opinion, the Sims games should include gameplay, of course, but also balanced with a certain amount of simulation, flexibility for player choices, environment, time management, activities, interaction, creation, animation, etc. To me, Vampires was definitely a good example of gameplay with a variety of powers and weaknesses to choose from that influenced the behavior of each Sim with it's own progression system and titles and layers. But another reason I loved that pack was the ambiance of Forgotten Hollow and the gorgeous Victorian/Goth vibe in build/buy. In fact, for me, a very underrated addition in that pack was the wall stickers for cracks and stains that added to building run down houses, and I'm not even much of a builder. That's not gameplay, but a grand addition nonetheless, and very important to me. Another example of gameplay is the GTW careers, which some people enjoy, but others can't stand. I've seen a lot of people state that they would much prefer the control to do whatever they want instead of catering to a checklist. I thought I wasn't going to like them very much, but there are days when I do really enjoy playing them. But the point is, I feel that it's more important for us all to try to articulate what exactly it is that we are seeking in our game, being as specific as possible instead of summing everything up as "gameplay" because sometimes, that's not exactly what we're looking for.


Okay, I think that's all I've got for now. :)

I totally agree with this one @LiELF. This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.

I think the Sims has always been a game where you can do what you wish with it, whether it be building, decorating, taking pictures, or playing in a certain style.

So you're right, game play doesn't fix things for everyone.

I think gameplay does matter (and therefore is the answer), even when simmers have their own playing styles and their opinions about what gameplay is may vary. Gameplay concerning extensive lifestages, unique personalities and customizability for example are broadly supported by players (and missed in Sims 4). I in fact think the team has drifted away too much from basically needed gameplay for this game and are making the mistake of too much handing ready to go gameplay. Which leaves a lot of simmers bored and uninterested.

I didn't say it doesn't matter; I simply was agree with what @LiELF said about it not always being the answer. It's different strokes for different folks. Someone who ONLY builds, is ONLY going to be after build/buy items...where's the game play in that?

But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.

They didn’t say it was a builders game, they said people who just like to build are going to be more interested in building tools and content versus animated gameplay for live mode. That’s why I don’t really understand why you talk about cutting out gameplay, adding in more building tools (as an example) doesn’t cut anything out of the game.

Adding ‘gameplay’ in the sense of animated gameplay involving Sims isn’t always the answer. That’s why the stuff packs are relatively annoying IMO. Several major areas of the game are flat out ignored while they constantly spam out new animations for increasingly ridiculous things.

So the hollow phrasing “add gameplay” isn’t the answer. I’m not aware people do that? People specifically define what they want and don’t want. Those stickers mentioned may be a great addition, but only in combination with gameplay. A variety of gameplay definitely is the answer, stickers are just a way to give the gameplay a background. It’s like... saying a house doesn’t need walls because the wallpaper you bought is so amazing. What’s the point in having wallpaper when there are no walls? What’s the point of having nice stickers when the game itself is a bore because there’s not enough to do? (which for me personally in fact defines the problem with Sims 4, it’s why I realized even amazing toddlers couldn’t save things for me, because I don’t just play with toddlers and the rest is still the same meh).

"aricarai;c-16218967" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16218849" wrote:

"aricarai;c-16218216" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16218121" wrote:

"aricarai;c-16218021" wrote:

"LiELF;c-16217136" wrote:


4. Ready for this one? It's a doozy.... I don't think that "gameplay" is always the answer. - Whoa! I know, right?! This one is especially hard to explain but I'll do my best. I think that there are many facets to a Sims game that make it something enjoyable. It's a game like no others and because of its unique nature, it is beloved by millions of people of a variety of ages, worldwide. I see a lot of people on the forums demanding "gameplay" but not specifying what exactly it is they want, and I've also seen a few people describe instead, specific simulations or age groups or objects or even weather, and call it "gameplay". I think that each of us hears the word and then imagines what it means to us, and we universally cry out for "more gameplay", when in fact it isn't exactly what some of us are truly asking for, and sometimes it's even the type of gameplay that's important to us. In my opinion, the Sims games should include gameplay, of course, but also balanced with a certain amount of simulation, flexibility for player choices, environment, time management, activities, interaction, creation, animation, etc. To me, Vampires was definitely a good example of gameplay with a variety of powers and weaknesses to choose from that influenced the behavior of each Sim with it's own progression system and titles and layers. But another reason I loved that pack was the ambiance of Forgotten Hollow and the gorgeous Victorian/Goth vibe in build/buy. In fact, for me, a very underrated addition in that pack was the wall stickers for cracks and stains that added to building run down houses, and I'm not even much of a builder. That's not gameplay, but a grand addition nonetheless, and very important to me. Another example of gameplay is the GTW careers, which some people enjoy, but others can't stand. I've seen a lot of people state that they would much prefer the control to do whatever they want instead of catering to a checklist. I thought I wasn't going to like them very much, but there are days when I do really enjoy playing them. But the point is, I feel that it's more important for us all to try to articulate what exactly it is that we are seeking in our game, being as specific as possible instead of summing everything up as "gameplay" because sometimes, that's not exactly what we're looking for.


Okay, I think that's all I've got for now. :)

I totally agree with this one @LiELF. This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.

I think the Sims has always been a game where you can do what you wish with it, whether it be building, decorating, taking pictures, or playing in a certain style.

So you're right, game play doesn't fix things for everyone.

I think gameplay does matter (and therefore is the answer), even when simmers have their own playing styles and their opinions about what gameplay is may vary. Gameplay concerning extensive lifestages, unique personalities and customizability for example are broadly supported by players (and missed in Sims 4). I in fact think the team has drifted away too much from basically needed gameplay for this game and are making the mistake of too much handing ready to go gameplay. Which leaves a lot of simmers bored and uninterested.

I didn't say it doesn't matter; I simply was agree with what @LiELF said about it not always being the answer. It's different strokes for different folks. Someone who ONLY builds, is ONLY going to be after build/buy items...where's the game play in that?

But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.

C'mon @JoAnne65 - you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. I didn't say it was a builder's game, although that's how initially what Will Wright wanted it to be. Of course The Sims wouldn't be The Sims without the sims, but I firmly believe that it's always been what you make it - which was the beauty of it. It was a sandbox and you could "play" whatever way you wanted whether it be in build mode, live mode, or CAS.

I've always been an advocate of all game play styles being included in the game. I don't think any type of Simmer should be left out.

So no I'm not saying the unpopular opinion is we don't need proper game play (where did I say that?), I was, again, simply agreeing with someone who said gameplay isn't always the answer. If I meant that the game didn't need proper game play, I would have said just that. On the flip side of that, I could easily interpret what you're saying as builders, Sim makers, custom content makers, modders don't matter because it doesn't involve extensive game play, but I wouldn't do that because I'm not about to interpret your words and twist them.

To clarify first: I wasn’t only reacting to what you said, but to the combination of your post and the opinion you quoted. I took building as an example (or just CAS), just to show that only catering one playing style (building, creating sims) isn’t enough to carry this game, that (a variety of) gameplay does matter and in my view definitely is the answer. I read that rather in the post you quoted than in your post (“gameplay isn’t the answer”).

I wonder by the way which opinion is actually unpopular here, because I often see arguments used to praise Sims 4 that apparently are broadly agreed with, that leave me completely indifferent: ‘the game looks so beautiful’, ‘the graphics are stunning’, ‘look how the lighting falls through the windows in comparison to the predecessors’, ‘at least it runs smoothly’. To me all this doesn’t matter without a game (gameplay) pulling me in. Lighting and looks are important to me, but only because it’s the gameplay that pulls me in first. I can enjoy games with great gameplay and poor graphics, I cannot enjoy a boring game with beautiful graphics. So I’m seriously confused about that angle/point of view and it sort of worries me even (not your post or the post you quoted, but the ‘at least it looks good’ vibe).

You can’t misinteprete my words by the way, because I specifically included exactly that in my reaction (I know you didn’t say you misinterpreted me, but in the meantime you of course did, trying to pull my words out of context ;)) Simmers can use the game to just build or create sims and have great fun; the fact you can play it in so many ways is one of his franchise’s unique and strong qualities, which in fact is what I was defending. “There is no wrong way to play Sims” a guru tweeted once and that was a beautiful line. I don’t think in terms of “don’t matter” and “being a ‘real’ simmer” anyway, I can’t even follow that line of thinking. For me that’s a non discussion. We’re only expressing here what matters to us and I can perfectly relate to the simmers who start topics to beg EA to mind the builders (not in the last place because I’m a builder in the third version of the game myself, so I completely get where they’re coming from). I never said players don’t matter. All I’m saying is that a Sims game that doesn’t cater varied playing styles and offers varied gameplay isn’t a Sims game. So, quite the opposite.

Gameplay does matter. It’s essential.

Double post, sorry, but I feel ETA-ing this to my previous post will be confusing ( @aricarai ). I'm still a bit struggling with this phrasing (and it indeed makes me go 'well, those simmers indeed don't matter to me as far as the development of this game is concerned'):

This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.

Maybe I'm completely misinterpreting the 'gameplay isn't the answer' observation, but why shouldn't gameplay be 'the answer' in general just because there are simmers who choose to play the game strictly the way they play Fashion Model or Daz3D? Apart from this by the way, I know a simmer who ended up playing Sims 3 that way because - of course - she loved doing that, but also because she actually missed the gameplay from Sims 2 in the successor. I believe she still played Sims 2, and Sims 3 she only used to make screenshots. In her case, even though she loved doing what she was doing, it was a shortcoming in Sims 3 that made her exclusively play it that way. I believe (lost track of her) she never made the transfer to Sims 4 because in that game she missed both gameplay and looks/appearance (for her, obviously).

I appreciate there are people who don't give a hoot about gameplay but more about stuff, but why would that be an ingredient for the development of a Sims game in general? Isn't that like sayin:"'I only play GTA because I love driving around through that world in a car. Refining and developing all the other gameplay isn't the answer for this game. All they need to do is make beautiful cars for the game, new radio stations with cool music and enough space to drive around in." (actually this is the only way I would ever play that game ;))

"Erpe;c-16219304" wrote:

"Scobre;c-16218888" wrote:

"JoAnne65;c-16218849" wrote:

But The Sims isn’t a builder’s game. Which doesn’t mean you can’t have fun with doing just that, but if they’d cut out all the gameplay except for building (which I also consider gameplay by the way), would it still be a Sims game? Sims is playing with little people. Delivering the game with just amazing CAS wouldn’t make a Sims game either. There are thousands of dressing games for that and that is not Sims. Again, that doesn’t mean you can’t use the game for just that (I know people do and more power to them), but when you make a ‘dressing up characters’ thing out of it, it stops being Sims. Sims needs more. Other gameplay. For people who love doing other things with the game than building houses and creating Sims. To me this unpopular opinion sounds like: we don’t need a proper Sims game anymore, with gameplay for all kind of playing styles. And for simulating lives.

Sims was originally going to be a build only game but Will Wright wanted to add Sims to it.
"Will, who studied architecture in college, originally conceived of the game as an architectural design simulator. To "score" the quality of the design, he added tiny people who would inhabit the buildings. These simulated people quickly stole the spotlight, and Will realized that watching the lives of the Sims unfold was the real entertainment. Again, his instincts were right.

The build only game was the SimCity games. But Will Wright correctly wanted a sidegame which focused more on the people who lived in the houses. He considered the name “Dollhouse” for such a sidegame. But EA wouldn’t accept it and the name instead became the Sims.

Released in 2000, The Sims was the best-selling PC game of of 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003, until it was dethroned by its own sequel The Sims 2, which quickly established itself as the best selling PC game of 2004. "

Yes. But the Sims 2 never sold more than a little over half of the sales numbers for TS1. The reason likely was that a lot of simmers just refused to switch to TS2. I started in the Sims 2 forum and I still remember how angry half of the forum were because EA had released TS2 instead of releasing more EPs for TS1. Those people graduately disappeared from the Sims 2 forum in the next months. But many of them just continued with TS1 and never bought TS2.

I suggest you watch 'History of The Sims' on YouTube. The original concept was focused on building and was an architecture simulator.

"JoAnne65;c-16219521" wrote:
Double post, sorry, but I feel ETA-ing this to my previous post will be confusing ( @aricarai ). I'm still a bit struggling with this phrasing (and it indeed makes me go 'well, those simmers indeed don't matter to me as far as the development of this game is concerned'):

This has so many different "play styles" and not everyone enjoys the game the same way. For example, there are Simmers that spend all of their time in CAS, just to take pictures or edit their Sims; I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't give a hoot about "game play" but more about clothes and hairstyles.

Maybe I'm completely misinterpreting the 'gameplay isn't the answer' observation, but why shouldn't gameplay be 'the answer' in general just because there are simmers who choose to play the game strictly the way they play Fashion Model or Daz3D? Apart from this by the way, I know a simmer who ended up playing Sims 3 that way because - of course - she loved doing that, but also because she actually missed the gameplay from Sims 2 in the successor. I believe she still played Sims 2, and Sims 3 she only used to make screenshots. In her case, even though she loved doing what she was doing, it was a shortcoming in Sims 3 that made her exclusively play it that way. I believe (lost track of her) she never made the transfer to Sims 4 because in that game she missed both gameplay and looks/appearance (for her, obviously).

I appreciate there are people who don't give a hoot about gameplay but more about stuff, but why would that be an ingredient for the development of a Sims game in general? Isn't that like sayin:"'I only play GTA because I love driving around through that world in a car. Refining and developing all the other gameplay isn't the answer for this game. All they need to do is make beautiful cars for the game, new radio stations with cool music and enough space to drive around in." (actually this is the only way I would ever play that game ;))

You are misinterpreting it @JoAnne65 and forgetting a very key word in that phrase - ALWAYS - game play isn't ALWAYS the answer.

Look, for me, I didn't NOT play the Sims 3 because it lacks gameplay. I didn't play because I preferred to build in it.

As someone pointed out earlier, look at it as different categories of game play. I'm a builder and decorator first, so stuff matters most to me. This is by no means me saying that I think game play for the people exactly enjoy playing with Sims should be elimated. I'm just saying it should be inclusive for all types of game play because there are a heck of a lot of people that build, mod, create CC, decorate, take pictures, etc and that's it.

As I said before, this game has always been about what you make it and how you as the player wants to play.

Wow. Unpopular opinion is unpopular. Lol

I just wanted to pop in again because it seems like some people have either read through my post regarding gameplay too quickly, did not read it entirely, or misunderstood it. I highly recommend going back and reading that part again carefully, just for clarification.

@aricarai thank you for responding to so many posts, I feel that you really "get" what I was trying to say. :)

I did state in my post that gameplay was important. I also stated that the term means something different for each person, and that's why it's so important to be as specific as possible when trying to state what you want in game. The point was that some people's idea of "gameplay" is not the same as another's, and I've seen some people yelling for "gameplay", but then go on to describe something that isn't actually playable, like weather. Yes, weather can be a very important part of the game, as it brings immersion, ambience, realism, and even adds to simulation. But I wouldn't call it gameplay. See what I'm saying? Another example is my own request for a fear emotion. Sim emotions aren't gameplay either, they are more simulation. But the lack of a fear emotion leaves a large, gaping hole in the mechanics of the game for me.

Part of the problem that I see when we generally demand "gameplay" is that it's such a generic term that the devs don't know what we're asking for. Look, in Cats and Dogs, we got a brand new playable career, the veterinarian. That's gameplay. But did it make all those who asked for "gameplay" happy? Nope. But it actually IS gameplay. And sure, there are a lot of people having fun with it and others who say they've always wanted it, but many feel that it's just recycled mechanics and would rather have had... wait for it.... doghouses, toys, and pet beds. Yes, *objects*. I have actually seen posts where people would have sacrified actual gameplay for a load of objects that they felt were important, or for an animation of dogs sleeping on Sim beds. But just because these things aren't "playable", per se, it doesn't make them any less important to simmers or the game.

Anyway, I hope that helped to clarify my "unpopular opinion" for some people. It is, after all, supposed to be "unpopular", and if you disagree, you disagree.

Did I win the thread for "most unpopular opinion"? Lol