Why MultiPlayer Won't Work

"Seera1024;c-17421499" wrote:
Agreed. Multiplayer just has so many things that would make it hard to do in the main series. Spin off. Sure, go for it.

That doesn't even get into how the game handles who owns things when Sims from different players marry.

Who gets control over the kid(s)?

What happens when Sims divorce if the players aren't in agreement on who gets what? Friends fall out all of the time. How would that affect their Sims?

This is why I don't see them building a game such as people are expecting which would allow them to have a family or more than one Sim in the game. It seems almost impossible to think how does this work in a large household (more than one Sim to control). What would a player have to do? spend all their time chatting it up with others to say, 'Ok now I'm going to control the toddler or kid and make them go to bed etc.?' Who would decide that stuff? Player A or B? or even C or D? It's why there probably won't be any such game that would allow a player to control more than just one Sim in the server world if it is multiplayer.

Also, it would be my theory if any Sims other than two players in a household that all others would be NPCs or nonplayable extras, like the kids would be extra where no player could control them, maybe only direct them slightly and or influence the nonplayable Sim to do something. Like go tell a kid Sim to do something. (Send to store for supplies).

People didn't like that in The Sims Medieval with those kids in game. Players couldn't control them, either, and could only call them home etc. But couldn't make them go to bed and or eat or bathe or whatever. I think pc gamers of The Sims will always want to control all of their household members. It was requested over and over in that game to make them controllable to the player but that would have actually hurt the design of game which was 99.9%.questing. You just had to live with it.

Considering how much backlash for CL apartment structures, for those who enjoy a single player game, I don't see them liking shells in a server world, either. Where they can't add a room or move a wall but only decorate a space. Or even the watered down dorms of TS4's lastest pack about college life. Or if they could expand a home or other building in a multiplayer it would probably just be cubes and not something they could actually change to the outer structure. For all we know homes might be rabbit holes, where Sims go for the night and or to revive themselves. I'm not saying it won't appeal to some who never started with The Sims but some of the other games like The Urbz and or console versions, but I really believe most players who were around when The Sims were released don't have the DNA to play a multiplayer so we can probably consider this series ended (with TS4) with a whimper rahter than a bang as far as gameplay goes. Because if the next one is multiplayer, it's very sad to think this series glory days ended with the shallow TS4.

All we have to do is look at their social games. If a player can have a family in a server world it's be belief they would only be able to control one of those at a time. And we know how much TS3 players don't like this about TS2 where they can only control those out on a community lot and not those left at home. So, it may be only one or a few of our Sims could go out into the 'server world' to do something, which would be to interact with others who would be real people rather than a generated townie.