I do not think that graphics make always a good game, for example dungeon keeper 2 has great graphics for the time but now they are not great but it is still a great a game. What would make me run is not the graphics but DRM or always online stuff that would make me run.

You misunderstood my last point, as lil bag has already pointed out. Maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough but I meant to say that I can empathize with you, perhaps I felt worse off than you when, as an eleven year old, my family's computer couldn't even install The Sims 1. I know what it's like when you can't access new games, it sucks. But it doesn't change my view now. I'm not saying TS4 should be the new Crysis, but I don't think it should be made with 5+ year old basic PCs and laptops in mind. If the graphics will be worse than TS3, why bother making a new game at all?

I don't think I'm being elitist, nor do I think a Sims forum is the right place to talk worldwide economics. At the end of the day, I think few very people who have the luxury to play any of the Sims games and have time to sit and discuss their hobby here are genuinely in a position of true poverty. You never responded to my question about new consoles by the way. I'd honestly be interested to hear your feelings about them.

Carpedentum, doesn't matter what you write, Rafe will read and respond to what he sees and it don't have to be written word. Still trying to figure out where it was written that someone advocated buying a new computer every year, yet Rafe still posts it.

Let's just look at the facts: There are a lot of games with great graphics out there, and lots more being developed. Why not let the sims be a gameplay based game? What is so wrong with focusing on gameplay rather than graphics, so more people can play it?

Just look at terraria. A great game that does not have shiny graphics. If you need me to name more great games like this, I can.

We don't know what the specs will be for Sims 4, nothing has been released or confirmed about it. Graham has stated there is a new engine for the game and looking at this LINK the engine could be processor intensive. Graphics is not the only thing that will make older computers have a hard time running the game and looking at the screens released how can you come up with The Sims 4 will be playable on 10 yr. old computers?



Will older computers be able to handle all that?

I'm pretty sure the graphics are never the first priority of any game developer. In a successful game, how well it plays will always go first. That being said, why is the Sims team apparently only able to focus on one? There are plenty of PC games (even ones owned by EA) that have outstanding graphics and gameplay. The only time I've ever heard about one being sacrificed for the sake of the other (and was that even confirmed or is this all just speculation on our part?) is with this upcoming Sims game. Now unless the graphics are OUTSTANDINGLY BAD (and TS4 has only reached that point with the hair), I'm not gonna say no to game just because it doesn't look pretty enough. But when you have good graphics in your previous installment (puddings aside, the Sims 3 was beautiful) and then the next one doesn't even look close to you had before, it can be a little...underwhelming. Not a reason to damn the game (like we need more) but still a tad disappointing.

Never heard of it before now. Looked it up. How much did it cost when it was new? Was it a $50/$60 dollar game? Because I've said in the past, games that expensive should have both gameplay and graphics. For just gameplay, there's the 19.99-29.99 rack.

EDIT: IGN lists $9.99 as MSRP, though I don't know if it was that in 2011. I expect a lot different from a $50 game than a $10 one.

I think TS4 should be a gameplay based game. I've never said the primary focus should be the graphics. I just don't think they should be terrible just to include players with very old hardware. I agree games don't need good graphics to be excellent. Some of my favourite games include Tetris and the first three Crash Bandicoot games, for example. But for those with old computers there are TS1, TS2 and in the future there'll be TS3 for them, as well as their respective spin-offs, as well as cellphone and console games. So with that argument, why not let the simmers with amazing computers have TS4 to themselves?

Terreria. From Wikipedia:


source; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraria be sure to check out the high end graphics on display there.

So, you think EA should turn the Sims franchise into a 2D world that can run on just about any old piece of hardware, computer, console, or phone you have laying around, just so YOU can be able to buy it?

Yeah, keep throwing out names of "great games" with shitty graphics that run on anything from a console to phone to a shoe box.

I have a bad computer, there is no way I'm going to be able to update before the Sims 4 comes out. I'd still really rather have them develop a game for today's hardware, because the whole point of having a sequel is progress. I'm talking as someone on a fixed income with an extremely tight budget, so trust me when I say I understand that people can't afford to run out and replace their computers, but by the time I can replace my computer I'd like the game I buy to be an improvement over what I have now. Otherwise it's a waste of money, IMO.

I would like to know why are graphics so important for some of you. And why they are so important that you will base your buying decision on them alone.

I don't think anyone is saying they would buy on graphics alone - if the gameplay or game engine sucks (and they wait long enough to know that), then most wouldn't buy or would at least be disappointed. What most seem to say is they want good gameplay and good graphics. It's not an either/or. If either suck, then it's not worth the money to some of us.

I would like to know what's wrong with wanting good graphics and good gameplay.

Because I can say why slightly worse graphics are good for EA: The hype about new games does not last enough to wait for everyone to be able to upgrade their computers. It will last just a few monts before a new shiny game is released and everyone starts thinking about it and forget about the sims. If EA focus too much in graphics, less people will be able to buy it before they lose their interest. As EA is a money hungry company, the best for them is creating graphics that are able to run in most computers -now-, and focus on creating good gameplay with enough detail attention to keep people buying expansions.

But for the ones that do not buy the base game some months after release, they will probably not but it at all.

Please make sure you understand my post before you answer.

I want to know why it's so important to you that the game don't have higher settings? We still don't know what is the resolution of the game fully, it has been reported that the visuals have improved and I really hope that is true. I don't like what has been presented so far, that is my preference. If what we have seen is lowered settings, shouldn't that be great for you? You were amazed by it, right? Then those of us that want to see the improved graphics and play at a higher setting are still waiting to see it. Will this be okay?

I know for sure I don't want a 2D game, compatible for OS that have no support anymore.

Of course you can. It is important to make it run on the majority of computers. If more people are able to play, more people will buy it, and maybe EA will learn to do games the right way.



I never said that. It is just a misinterpretation of an example I gave for a good game that does not have skyrim level graphics. Someone misinterpreted my example on purtpouse just to mock me, which I found rude, so I did not answer. Please stop. You do not look very smart when you do that.

And last: Next time someone mocks or laughs what I say, I'm talking with staff. Feel free to correct my english, as it is not my language, but it is offensive when you mock me because of it.

First, that statement wasn't directed at you alone, it was an answer to many different approaches that have been presented here in this thread, along with posts in other threads that have said the same things. If I was trying to insult you Rafe, I would definitely put your name on it and you would have no doubts about who and what I am saying. That is what mature people do.

Next, we have differing opinions and should agree to disagree. I thought we were having a discussion about how much graphics do affect how the games play on older or lower end computers, but you are the one that throw insults around and I play along. Since we have been talking about the subject, you have called me spoiled, basement dweller, selfish, failure at economics, and just now you insinuate stupidity, although that may be true in your eyes, I find it insulting. I have never intended to mock you and if I did, I do apologize. Again, the mature thing to do.

Now I will end this with our mutual disagreement. Okay?

Okay I will bite. I am not a graphics whore per say and I always think gameplay is more important than the graphics. Here's the thing and hear me out, Since this game is not an indie game like minecraft or other indie games like it, it's a big franchise sequel title. The gameplay and graphics it should not be sacrificed in this game. It should have both to be honest . Yes the CAS is great and all but the textures could be improved just a bit like the hair, animations and all. Plus the most of the important creative gameplay features are taken out such as Cast. Major/Tiny things like this should not be sacrificed nor forgotten to "Make it run" on computers. Any sequel franchise should go full frontal; not half back-wards. No, I am not a rich person and my computer is really old where I have to save up my money for a new one regardless if I get a next generation game. of course I wanted to make it run and be good simultaneously, just not a the expense of getting rid of the major features and not ante up the graphics a bit.

Because his Pentium 4 with Intel graphics needs to be able to run it

It's been awhile I thought I'd check in. I did notice a $80 base game, so I still expect Effort all around. But I'd side with more of that effort to be placed on Sims and game play, then scenery that I can't tinker with. But at $80 I also expect a well rounded base game,something for everyone to enjoy. Whether you just play or enjoy creating and building (or both!)

EA could make a bundle just on the base game, but they still need us for expansion packs...

Between what I've seen of the game, no CAS, and the Origin requirement, I'm already not planning to buy it. An $80 price tag is just another nail in the coffin

The regular version is just 60 though. Which compared to all the other games, it's not that unreasonable. Sure expensive, but most games are now. I doubt that makes any difference on you buying it, but I'm feeling technical.

I'm dying! That's hilarious. In my opinion, if a $70-80 game is running off of my graphics card, it should [at least] have better graphics than the previous game. Is that a lot to ask for? I too love taking screenshots, and even making videos from time to time. These cartoony, over-inflated emotions are a little much for me.

And no CAS or basic expansions [like weather]??? The game isn't worth it yet.

It isn't for me from what I've seen so far. Unless they make major improvements in the next 6 or 7 months, I'll be picking it up on a Steam sale sometime next year

Hmmm.. So what I see here are two options... Make a shitty graphics whore game, or make a shitty game that can run on a Commodore 64...

Why don't you, I don't know, SETTLE FOR THE MIDDLE-GROUND! This freaking forum will find anything to fight about!

At the graphics whores: I think there's a serious problem when people think good graphics automagically makes a game good... Aesthetics can make a game a bit better, bet Aesthetics and Graphics aren't the same thing...
Graphics, technically speaking, is the level of technology behind the visuals. (Things like Mesh Detail, Bump Maps, Texture Resolution, etc.) Aesthetics are the way things are represented. (the color pallette, visual style, general atmosphere, etc.). You can have the best graphics ever, and have a game look like complete shit, because of uninspired, bland, or just plain ugly aesthetics...
That said, gameplay trumps all of this, and I'd rather play a fun (but ugly) indie game with lots of options, than a really badly designed (but beautiful) AAA game... In fact, with the rediculous price of AAA games, I can't say I've bought any "big" games at full price in years. (Except Saints Row IV)

To the people who think the world of technology should be static for their desires: If you are going on and on about the expense of computers, how can you even afford The Sims games? Don't get me wrong, I had a computer that couldn't play The Sims 2 until 2007, but that was because I was very young, and unable to work... Decent computers aren't that expensive, and if you can't afford to buy a built one, making them is really easy, and often cheaper... As long as you know the parts are compatible, everything plugs together like puzzle pieces... You literally can't screw up with the wiring...
Also, no one says when The Sims 4 comes out you have to burn you Sims 2 or 3 disks... if you can't run it, save up some money, and upgrade your GPU or CPU... In the mean time, the previous games will still be their for you to enjoy at your leisure, as I did with the first one on my afformentioned crappy 2002 molasses generator....

I agree. There has to be a balance between looking decent and being able to run on the computers of the majority of players. If a game can only run on very good computers then you're aiming for an incredibly small target audience. Games that look terrible also don't do all that well, but looking good doesn't always come down to graphic quality; there's another concept called aesthetics that comes into a it. A game can be in 2D or have pretty low poly 3D models and can still look great because of the art style or just because the people who designed it knew how to work with the resources that they have very well. A game doesn't have to look hyper-realistic to look good. However close we keep getting to hyper-realism always ends up looking incredibly creepy a couple years down the line anyway.

I think you'll find the most very successful games can, on low settings, be played on a toaster while at the same time being able to be absolutely stunning while in high settings on a better computer. This fight between "graphics OR running well" is completely imaginary. A game dev wants to sell their game to as many people as possible, which includes people with shite computers as well as people with good computers that expect to see a good looking game.