Despite the fact that the mechanics are the least suited to it. Like making a dating sim in Civilisation by arranging your cities in a loveheart shape.


What happened to the fun of screwing with the Sims' dollhouse lives by introducing a gay lodger with his eyes on the Husband, or forcing people to live in a house haunted by roughly 30 ghosts all killed in fire accidents?

We can make our own fun, EA! Just concentrate on not breaking the mechanics, OK?

After swallowing all the horror I experienced when I read your name above that avatar:

Then get back to Sims 2. Why would you want another game to do exactly the same again? You can always return to something that was before and is still unchanged from whatever happened after. Just as I said in my first post here. ^_^

But the Sims 2 doesn't have pretty graphics or open towns. :C

I'm not saying there shouldn't be missions, just that the game shouldn't focus on them because that's not what the Sims was ever meant to be about! World Adventures should have been a vacation EP damn it! :meh:

Nobody likes my new avatar.



Oh, I do. I only own the original Sims game, it's my sister that buys each new one. I just borrow them from her to see what they're like, and they keep getting worse.

It does not quite befit the magnificent disturbance you are able to provide.

I would say different. Not worse. TS2 focused on enhancing the first game in the Maxis way. TS3 opened up the neighbourhood and made it more focused on straight gameplay.
...
Huh. Now that I wrote that, I kind of notice why people might complain. Being more open and at the same time more focused on a single family sounds somewhat silly at first. :shifty:

You make me sound like something Captain Kirk would have to investigate.



I just found it too fiddly to cope with. It was hard to macromanage and micromanage everything at once, in real time. I preferred it when you could focus on sandboxing with a family in the traditional dollhouse way, without having to work on bizarre and arbitrary life goals.

Well, if you were into hairy-chested Canadians there'd be nothing wrong with that.
See, you like a different style of game. ^_^

Those weren't appealing to the masses. They were misguided films wrought from a man drowning in hubris.

See I always thought though that things, like Jar Jar for instance, were put in to try and appeal to a younger generation.

That's the thing with mass appeal; in the end you can only guess what the audience is and what they'll like, and sometimes your attempt ends up liked by nobody.

Wut? The Sims is still around? I used to love building houses in the first one, never actually bothered to do anything else though.

How do you have adventures in the Sims?

Please tell me you are kidding. It's only the best-sold game series of all times.

Probably because the simulations in the sims (or even user action) is so limited and quickly repetitive,it gets rather boring very quickly if someone expects 15+ hours of content. I find myself able to play versions of Sim City longer than Sims, and hell, as far as sim-like games go, one of the games I helped test long ago, Casino Inc., is far more fun than that, especially getting in shootouts with cops.

Actually, casual players tend to get much more playtime out of games like The Sims than hardcoe players. Some of my cousins have played it for hundreds of hours. And the only times they've killed their sims was by accident.




Anyway, I don't think any series I have liked was ruined by "appealing to the masses". Some of them were definitely ruined by having idiots in charge of them.

That's actually synonymous with what I said, although added onto that, I've bought Sims games for a handful of friends, primarily female, and all of them not in the least bit "hardcoe", yet they all fell into the same trap of getting bored of repetition a few hours later, more affixed on building rather than simulating, and before completely getting bored with the game, going ape[censored] on mods. It's like clockwork. The issue in this game between "hardcoe" and "casual" becomes parallel, and really to enjoy the game is to narrow one's expectations.

People who play Sims are rarely pure casual players.

If you played the ENTIRE Tenchu series, you will be like this:

Tenchu 1: Amazing
Tenchu 2; Birth of the stealth assassins: Yes yes I get to see how it all started
Tenchu 3; Wrath of Heaven: Badass
Tenchu 4; Fatal Shadows:
Tenchu Z: Wtf?

Why did you combine those two?

The first 2 were for the PSX. The next 2 were for the PS2, hence why I numbered it "4". The last is for the 360. There's more in the series, such as Shadow Assassins which is a direct sequel to tench 3. But tenchu 4 takes place between Tenchu 1 and Tenchu 3. My gripe with Z mainly is it fell victim to age old "eye candy > content" problem. Seems all the development was put into the customs..but the stages are merely copy/pastes, with a near empty storyline. Fatal Shadows was just aggravating. Of those 5, the last 2, I beat those once and never touched them again.

Shadow Assassins is Tenchu 4. Fatal Shadows is just a spin-off like Z.

I'm not sure what "conflict conflict" means. There was no great war or anything (thank [censored] god). I don't see direction as being integral or necessary to a game's plot. It was clumsy and inconsistent in it's handling, but it's still the best Bioware story since probably Baldur's Gate. Which, admittedly, isn't saying a whole lot. Bioware almost always uses typically "epic" storylines that are dull and samey, but with great production value. I'm more than fine with sacrificing some of that production value if it means getting something a little different.

The lyrium idol played a pretty sizable role in each of the major acts. :shrug: And it wasn't really an ancient evil, it corrupted individuals, driving them insane, but it only intensified their original feelings. The main conflict was between mages and templars, and was probably the only really interesting thing to come out of Origins. Again, clumsy handling with choices that really change nothing, but choices in Bioware games rarely do.

By the end, I was really hopping for a Bloodlines-esque ending where I could just say, "[censored] all you guys." Unfortunately this was not an option.

In this case it does. Because we have seriously been playing through the exact same story for decades now, and especially when looking at Bioware games in particular.

Yes, Origins was more about positioning and prior planning, Dragon Age 2 more about quick thinking in the thick of things and companion cooperation. It's a trade-off, to be sure, but I don't see any real net loss in complexity. Both games were pretty much mind-numbingly easy and endlessly repetitive in their combat. In Dragon Age 2, things at least seemed to end a little quicker so I could go back to being a total dike to everyone I met. Of course, both games had their inexplicably challenging fights like some of the dragons and the Rock Wraith in number Two.

I'll give you equipment selection. It's not something I really ever cared about, pretty much hating loot grinds in RPGs. It does offer fewer companion options, though.

I'm aware of that. I've explained why I called it 4 anyway.

Judging by what I read about Shadow assassins(I dont own a wii) it seems some old lost glory has been restored, storyline wise.

But from those 2 games, I had lost a ton of faith in the series.

With proper strategies, battles in DAO can end a lot faster than DA2, which no matter how well thought your classes/specs are, you can't deny that there are more enemies waiting to be spawned.

My problem with Origins wasn't so much any single battle, but that each "dungeon" could take an entire play session to get through. Most of these were filled with the same fight ad infinitum, and the same useless piles of loot everywhere. So while a single fight in Origins tended to have fewer enemies to deal with, the constancy of combat became very aggravating.

Nintendo took a ass beating with the Wii gimmicks if you ask me. I have hopes that the new console will be less... [censored] though.