"catitude5;c-17654418" wrote:
"SantiagoWitt;c-17651657" wrote:
It must be difficult to design a game for users with vastly different computer set ups. I play TS3 and TS4 on a $1500 gaming laptop and they both run as smooth as silk. And yet $1500 shouldn’t be the barrier of entry to play this game. The developers have to consider younger users with less equipped rigs. Otherwise it’s just elitist.
If that's what they are going to worry about, we will get another sims4. What's wrong with designing something for people with gaming computers? Some of us want something more evolved but we can't have it because of cheap computers?
I agree. I want Sims 5 to force me to upgrade or build--I want NVIDIA to boast Sims in-game shot comparisons on their latest this-gpu-launches-rockets video card announcement. Having the luxury to play a video game itself bars a lot of people from entry--is that elitist? I don't even have all of the packs and have spent almost $700--so why should we spend all this money on a game which has $300 chromebook graphics?! Save the cheap graphics for the mobile experience. I hear the argument is that younger players prefer mobile games anyway. For a AAA PC game, give us a game engine that can throw gorgeous shadows, gorgeous sims and skin details, in an open entirely editable world :love: then downgrade that and stick it on mobile and console so everyone is happy.
