Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Instructor
#51 Old 20th May 2013 at 4:34 PM
Wasn't it said that Sims 3 couldn't cope with some things that people wanted (like open businesses and details) and that is why it isn't going to be introduced? They would have to use a much more updated system if they want to keep the open neighbourhood plus more in Sims 4. Unless they give us a slightly upgraded Sims 3...

Love does not consist of two people looking at each other, but of looking together in the right direction. - Antoine de Exupery
Advertisement
Theorist
#52 Old 20th May 2013 at 9:32 PM
Quote: Originally posted by whiterider
You guys know that A) you can set the desktop view as default so you never see metro, and B) if you click where the start button should be you'll get the regular old start menu, right? :P


Is there a setting for that? I had to go through some really annoying process to set up an automated startup task which also adds quite a bit of extra time to the boot process. Is there any easier way? I did end up installing StartIsBack which has a simple checkbox for it and takes you to desktop much quicker than the automated task fudge-fix way of doing it, but it's not a free app.

There is an invisible place to click where Start Menu used to be, but you don't get the "regular old start menu" back, you get the annoying fullscreen Metro Start Menu. I had to use StartIsBack to fix that, too.

Then for me, Windows 8 is just ugly. I hate the "flat" UI design. Maybe because I'm an old fogie, but I grew up with the "flat UI" - that's how they all were in the past - Win 3.1, Win95, Win98... because computers had limited graphics capability, not because it looked good. I'll take Windows 7 Aero transparency and rounded corners over Win 8's flat UI any day. StartIsBack and "Aero Glass for Win8" do a good job making Win8 tolerable... by making it more like Windows 7, but then I might as well just save my money and stick to 7. So yeah, I only upgraded one of my machines and will leave the others on 7.

Resident wet blanket.
Mad Poster
#53 Old 21st May 2013 at 5:59 AM
when ts3 was released, my computer was capable of running just ts2 (not without crashing) and i still installed ts3 anyway because i was really curious. it played terribly, but along the line i've gotten computer upgrades. now ts3 and every expansion up to uni life runs fine. i'm not looking forward to when windows xp becomes unsupported (i don't want a newer operating system because i only like xp). so that would really suck. i'm sure ts4 will require more ram and support a different list of graphics cards. i'm wary of this so i might opt for at least a new graphics card this summer.
Forum Resident
#54 Old 21st May 2013 at 8:52 AM
I'm actually quite surprised how high one can set the graphics for TS3 using low-end or integrated graphics cards. It seems TS4 is heading towards a less detailed style, which definitely makes me think none of us will need to go sprinting out for a new graphics card any time soon.

However, I really hope TS4 doesn't suffer from the same issue that TS3 does with eating memory. I swear, you could buy a carton of the most blinged out RAM sticks and cool that shit with unicorn tears and TS3 will still eat it and spit you back out to your desktop after an hour or two.

If anything, I'd say look into upgrading RAM in preparation for TS4. It's one of the cheapest and easiest pieces of hardware to upgrade, IMO.

"Given enough time, hydrogen starts to wonder where it came from, and where it is going." - Edward R. Harrison
Alchemist
#55 Old 21st May 2013 at 1:30 PM Last edited by kennyinbmore : 21st May 2013 at 3:33 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by ElementMK
If anything, I'd say look into upgrading RAM in preparation for TS4. It's one of the cheapest and easiest pieces of hardware to upgrade, IMO.


I'd disagree. Anyone who games should already have at least 4gigs of RAM. TS3 is running on my file server with 4gigs of memory and it has a single core Sempron processor in it. It runs the game great, however it also has a Radeon HD 7770. If someone is playing TS3 with less than 2 gigs of RAM, then I'd agree with you, but the processor and graphics card are way more important than RAM for Sims games. In any event as I said before, unless your computer has ancient specs, I doubt anyone will have problems running TS4 since I believe EA will dumb down the specs. My statement of course doesn't apply to the laptop people
Test Subject
#56 Old 21st May 2013 at 2:36 PM
Sims 4 will have pretty low system requirements for obvious reasons. It's a "massive" title and EA wants to be sure that most if not all can run it... even on their toaster. So please people, don't be silly. EA got a pretty bad reputation atm so they really need to make sims 4 ready for a broad audience and not us people that spend over $3k on a computer every year.

Also note that sims 3 has some nasty memory leaks going on and doesn't even handle laa properly. You could have issues with TS3 on a computer with 32gb ram for crying out loud. There are fixes tho and most of them work but still the game at it's core has flaws. Most issues however only arise once you have a lot of expansions and store content. Vanilla sims 3 and even with a few expansions runs perfectly fine.

What they really need to be working hard on is loading. It's just terrible in sims 3. Even saving a game takes far too long for a "modern" game. The loading reminds me of neverwinter 2. It's just poorly optimized.
Lab Assistant
#57 Old 25th May 2013 at 7:02 AM
I want to see TS4 uses Frostbite3 enging lol.
It can run low on budget card like HD7770 and it also run ultra on enthusiast cards.
TS3 today middle cards/highend cards/enthusiast cards run quiet the same performance.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top