I was initially on the side of "make it run", until I saw the images posted by the "make it good" crowd. So being conflicted, I finally thought of three possible solutions:

1) Was an idea that I already posted here before, which was to have a Power User game with CASt/realistic sims/etc. and also a Basic User game, which would have no CASt/be very bare bones/etc.

The former would be to draw in the players with enough money to pay for a quality Sims game that would put its predecessors to shame and the latter would be to toss a bone to the players who have ancient machines that are tottering on life support, because you know, almost everybody being poor and chronically under/unemployed is now the status quo worldwide and most likely, it will only get worse over time.

With this option it means more work, but you can draw in both kinds of players without either side having to compromise anything.

These alternate suggestions are based on aw4k3n1ng's post: aw4k3n1ng raises a good point in that EA already tried to make a game that runs for everybody and not only did it end up being spec hungry, all the sims looked ugly and unnatural. So here are the next two suggestions, where EA picks either one:

2) If it is inevitable that it will be spec-hungry, then make the best game [they] can.

or

3) If they still want to make one game that will be available for the most amount of consumers, they might be able to make up for it with better poses/body sliders.



I think the Sims 3 version could almost look like the one to the right if the right model's bodyshape and pose were possible with the sliders. From what little I know about Sims 4, the right model's body might be possible, but I don't know if it can also be possible to bring the sim's legs closer together at the knees (not touching, just closer, because the Sims 3 girl's legs are so widely spaced. Even real people don't stand like that in real life.) as a default standing pose to create that V shape in the hips. (I know, I know, demure tumblr girl pose) Also, I don't know if there will be a slider that allows the sims to have a relatively small ribcage/not so widely spaced shoulders. I do know that big boobs and hips/butt on a girl with skinny limbs and waist is possible in Sims 4, so that is what makes me so extremely hopeful.

Those are just a few ideas out there, if you don't agree or have other ideas that you think are better, post here about why. You'll also notice I left out height sliders, because that would just clog up the game with even more animations, even more delay, etc. Personally, I don't mind the not synching animations, so maybe there will be a permanently change height with SimPE option for Sims 4.

I honestly dont believe that realistic graphics makes a game good, I think that it could be good and playable if they include good gameplay.

But that could just be me being silly.

I remember the times, when games were 2D with huge pixels, played on TV box. A few dots running on the screen - and it was fun So I agree with StupidFlanders about gameplay. I'd prefer if they would sacrifice graphics for gameplay.

After GTA 5 and now my PS4 games, I have to have both to part with my cash

I wonder why it has to be either, can't have both? I mean, it's 2014, why should I expect low graphics for good game play in this day and age? I love looking at the scenery, taking pictures and seeing different angles of my builds, how sims interact in them. That adds to the excitement and fun for me. Now people are suggesting I have to go without that to have a good game? That makes me so sad.

Let's tell the truth. The sims 4 graphics we saw are amazing. Why expecting more than that? The more time the developers dedicate to graphics, the less time they will put to make nice and fun features, as they are working on a schedule. And features, not graphics, is what make a game fun to play.

If you want ultra realistic graphics, open that door and go outside. Now stand there and watch what you can make people do. Not much, right?

I'm not sure what you saw, but I haven't seen anything I can call amazing

Maybe you are being too demanding. Sims 4 is not at level of sims medieval graphic wise, but they are nice enough. I will take any graphic level that makes the game run nicely on my computer.

You owners of space station computers should think a bit more of us, owners of low end computers. Either that, or gift us with one like yours.

There's a big difference between "nice enough" and "amazing" Space station computers lmao

Amazing?! OK, I understand you are awed by what you saw, but your last sentence is assuming. I go out everyday, deal with the real world and take care of my business. Assuming what you think I am because I want to see the game's world without a blue, highly bloomed tint and what I seen doesn't have the crispness I desire doesn't make me a basement dwelling loner. I do expect something better than that when I am paying upward of $80 USD for a game. Sorry, I am not wow'd.

I never wanted ultra realistic graphics either. Just something a bit higher than a Facebook game graphics. Is that too much to expect? If what was presented is the best the game can display, then it's disappointing. There are settings that can be added so those that can play at higher levels can set it that way, those that can't play with the settings higher can have them lowered. What is the problem with that?

Looking at your last sentence, why would I want to go outside and make people do things? Isn't that why I can play The Sims and get the satisfaction? What are you trying to say there?

I apologize, that was another translation that came out badly.

But I still do not see why people are so worried by graphics. Have you played cataclysm? or rogue survivor?

I agree that we can lower the graphics, but there is a limit to what that feature can do. It would be better for everyone if the sims 4 had worse graphics but better features. You could still play it, and so would we. Having really nice graphics would just limit the kind of computers that can run it, and discriminate against poorer people. Is that what you want?

I have never agreed to any discrimination with who can or cannot play. You can have Sims 4 and the crappy graphics, I am not interested. I really hope everything turns out like you want it. However, not spending that much money on something I don't want. Maybe when it's bargain basket cheap. Maybe not. I might be tired of Sims by that time.

No, I have never played any of the other video games, the only one I have invested and played was The Sims. I bought games for my family members and watched them play, but never for myself. Looks like I have come to the end of that era.

I agree with the good gameplay being more important than good graphics, but decent game companies do offer both (Not like EA's one of them, but anyway). But I really don't get why game companies should be catering for lower end computers. I'm personally waiting for Witcher 3, and I while I have a decent computer, I think it is going to make my computer explode immediately, at least if I dare to try high settings. Still it wouldn't cross my mind to whine how they should make the graphics crappier so I don't need to upgrade, I think it would be downright insulting to their talents. I think it's amazing and inspiring how they keep pushing their games forward, and if I really have to wait couple of years before I can afford new computer parts + the game itself, then it should be well worth the wait. It's not their fault I happen to have a low paying job, nor it should be :P

And graphics isn't the only thing that can be demanding for computers, good gameplay could also make your computer beg for mercy. I'm not talking about stuff like more "sim to sim"- or "sim to object"-interactions, but deep systems like complex artificial intelligence, large open and live worlds where your sims actions would have some consequences, maybe some neighborhood economy system which could affect what kind of jobs there are available atm, for example, and other such major upgrades. Not that I really expect to see any of those things ever and definitely not in TS4 but if there's a tiniest change to introduce them in TS series at some point, I wouldn't want to sacrifice any of those things in favor of any lower end computer, even if my own computer would be considered crappy then. I'd be happy for people who can enjoy the game as it is and suck it up until I can afford it too.

It's an interesting debate about the requirements expected for this game. This is not the only game I play, and certainly not the most demanding, especially graphically. I run a nice machine, but not some super, high-end "space station" computers, but enough to run other games like Crysis 3 and Bioshock Infinite on high settings (not the highest, though). And when I think of other games, especially those that are follow ups to successful games, each new version tries to do things better than the one which came before. Better graphics, better AI, a better gaming experience. Sometimes they succeed, sometimes they don't.

But I've never heard a demand for taking features AWAY before. Why would a gaming company build a brand new game that's optimized for old, inadequate hardware? Isn't the principle of software gaming evolution supposed to be making things look better and run faster? Since when is it to make it look lousy? Listen, I think Pac Man was great fun, but I've not kept some old 8 bit system around to keep playing it. And does because I was able to play Pac Man on some 8 bit machine, with great game play if somewhat limited graphics, mean that I'm entitled to all games that come after to be backward compatible with that old, outdated system?

As to us "Rotchilds", 1% rich folks sitting around chortling "Let them eat bloated code" to the unwashed masses stuck with outdated hardware, just how is it you folks are going to be able to invest up to $1,000 in Sims software when you can't upgrade your $500 computer every 4 or 5 years? And if you're not planning on buying all that software, why are you trying to limit what the rest of us can get?

One of the reasons I love your posts Eskie! :lovestruc You've said it better than me, I couldn't think of a way without sounding...elite. I don't have "rich folks, Rotchilds" money but if I want to invest in a hobby for my enjoyment, pay upwards of 1k to buy all the attachments, add-ons, and so forth, you better believe I will have to invest in a machine that will run it. That is the way the cookie crumbles and the ball bounces. Sorry.

Sims 4 haven't showed anything for me to start skrimping, saving my pennies and start eating ramen noodles with baloney sandwiches so I can make sure to have the rig needed to play.

It's getting a bit off topic, but I think it is just the nature of any true progress that only handful of people can afford cutting edge solutions right away, the rest of us have to settle for the next best thing (or 10th best thing), work our asses off for the money or just wait for the prices to come down. And when the prices come down, stuff we buy just isn't the best thing anymore Not being able to buy stuff on a whim is actually making me more critical - poor people can't afford to buy cheap.

I'd be much willing to give my hard earned money to a truly ambitious company which takes it's time to make superior jaw-dropping simulation game and still keeps striving for better rather than reward EA for cutting corners and making just an average "nice" game with "nice" graphics and hardly any true improvements over previous release. Seriously, I work in a crappy factory which is probably going to destroy my health in the long run. Hearing excuses like "These animations would mean so much work, not sure if we are going to include them" isn't going to make me work a single extra hour to get the money for the game, no matter how well it would run on my computer :D

The problem with this is that while you guys have great big wads of cash, you're a relatively tiny portion of the market for The Sims game. The Sims is a game with the broadest appeal of any franchise I know. If they design it as a plaything for a tiny number of people with impressive machines, they're just not going to make as much money, and bear in mind, the game is modular for a reason. I'd hazard a guess that the vastest majority of simmers don't own anything but a handful of EPs/SPs/store content alongside their base game.

Absolutely AMAZING! .... hang on let me go back to......

Rafe Weisz - Why expecting more than that? The more time the developers dedicate to graphics, the less time they will put to make nice and fun features, as they are working on a schedule.

I have NEVER understood this type philosophy – this is from 4 years ago … The Sims turns 10, tops 125 million units
Electronic Arts celebrates aluminum anniversary of virtual life game by touting sales figures; franchise revenues total $2.5 billion!

Who would ever believe this company cannot afford the time & the resources to dedicate to their flagship franchise! In graphics AND gameplay AND features AND fun - of course everyone should expect more and they should be delivering it!

This is exactly the type of comments that let EA off the hook and deliver (at best) a fluffed up version of TS3 with no doubt crossing their fingers that it runs better on the new game engine and create goodwill back from the fans while reaping in even more money for the pleasure that they gave you a less flawless game that may in turn be more fun?

Do you not think that fans that have paid that sort of money plus to a company deserves the devotion to deliver the best game in everyway because no doubt they would be handsomely reward (again) for the effort.

And kiwi_tea…. The problem with this is that while you guys have great big wads of cash, you're a relatively tiny portion of the market for The Sims game…..

……..And how would you know any of this?

If I have ‘big wads of cash’ or not, I DO want a game that will push my 4 year old computer because just like evolution it is an expectation of over successive generations and that is what this series should be stepping up to.
I would be excited if this game pushed the limits of my setup, hell yes! I’d be prioritising the move to make it happen as soon as I found out Hooting! Tooting! Yes! because a game that pushed my setup would also push my imagination, entertainment value and satisfaction!

I don't see why it shouldn't push computers, for the simple reason that computers improve SO QUICKLY. The desk top I had when I got The Sims 2 was new, but the game was tortuously slow to play. You could set it up loading and go and make lunch and come back and MAYBE it would be done. On the next desktop I had it was much better. Now it runs quickly and smoothly on the second hand laptop I bought for $300Aus. So sure, it might be frustrating now, but I'd rather have the best game possible that runs slowly than have them design it so it can run on my second hand laptop, and if that means I wait a while to buy it then so be it.

I would like the game to be good but it needs to be playable on a low-end machine. I don't have sims 3 as I don't have a computer that will run it and I don't really want it. However I want to have sims 4 and will hopefully getting a new laptop soon (I know laptops aren't great for gaming but I need portability and I can't have a good laptop and a good desktop). When I look at the specs of sims 3 I see that now days for a computer they aren't too taxing, apart from the processor speed. From my research you need to spend £400 odd to get that kind of processor speed and that's from a less reliable manufacturer.
These are the system requirements I found:
FOR WINDOWS XP
2.0 GHz P4 processor or equivalent
1 GB RAM
128 MB Video Card with support for Pixel Shader 2.0
The latest version of DirectX 9.0c
Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2
At least 6.1 GB of hard drive space with at least 1 GB of additional space for custom content and saved games
FOR WINDOWS VISTA
2.4 GHz P4 processor or equivalent
1.5 GB RAM
128 MB Video Card with support for Pixel Shader 2.0
Microsoft Windows Vista Service Pack 1
At least 6.1 GB of hard drive space with at least 1 GB of additional space for custom content and saved games
For computers using built-in graphics chipsets under Windows, the game requires at least:
Intel Integrated Chipset, GMA 3-Series or above
2.6 GHz Pentium D CPU, or 1.8 GHz Core 2 Duo, or equivalent
0.5 GB additional RAM

So while the game can be improved (as computers have progressed), the £350 laptop I might get has a 1.5ghz processor, 1TB hard drive and 4gb ram (upgradable to 16gb) as well as an amd quad core processor with 512mb reserved for the built in graphics. They need to make sure it runs well on low end machines. Why do you need fancy graphics to have a great time, they are just a bonus, Some people may disagree, but that is my opinion.

To the people disagreeing every time someone says the sims 4 has to run on low end machines: Why are you so focused on keeping us from playing the game? Would not it be better if everyone could enjoy it?

For the ones still disagreeing: Work for minimun wage for a month and then make some math to see how much time do you need to buy a high end computer AND the game and its expansions. Remember EA is a money hungry company.

For the ones not willing to google the minimun wage on their country and doing the math: You do not deserve to have a computer.

Yes, it would be better if everyone could enjoy it - but it is not acceptable to have a $50+ game that cannot take advantage of good hardware. I'm not talking $300 graphics card-required here. But the balance needs to tip to better machines. Graphics requiring a $50 dollar, non-integrated graphics card is not too much to expect for a game this expensive. If they can make it run well on 512 MB of RAM and integrated graphics, but also take advantage of multiple cores/i7s, 64-bit, and at least a 2GB dedicated graphics card to deliver a much-improved experience, then fantastic, wonderful, that's great. But it's also unlikely. If it's either/or, I'm picking the higher end. And the "higher end" I'm picking isn't that high. Mid-range current system (or one or two year-old one) with a add-on $50 graphics card should be able to handle the game on lower settings. But I don't want a new, expensive, 2014 game designed for a 2004 PC.

I paid about $1000 (I think a little less, but can't recall) for my PC maybe 4 years ago, and I think it would be very reasonable if I had to upgrade to play any $50 game released this year, but I don't think I'll have to to play TS4 on low settings. To aim for specs lower that what I bought then, lower than TS3's, is just ridiculous to me in a game of this price. I don't agree with aiming for the laptop market - they're usually crap for games unless expensive, and that's the choice the purchaser makes (valuing portability over gaming). If they want to do a Sims aimed at the laptop (or tablet) market, that's fine, too, but it should be like Life Stories or Medieval and be it's own thing, not TS4.


Lay off the personal insults.

I don't think anyone personally wants for you not to be able to play the game, or for people earning minimum wage to not be able to play the game. But things have to progress, technology improves very quickly and that should be utilized. What would be the point of making a new game with no graphical improvements? They might as well just make a new expansion pack. Do you begrudge Sony and Microsoft making new consoles? My PC can't play TS3 very well at all, so I stick with TS2. My first computer couldn't even play TS1. I had to wait for years to be able to play it at my own home. I had to play it at friend's houses. And as a kid, that's way tougher to deal with than it is for an adult, so I can empathize with your stance, but I still disagree.

What I'm saying is that people who can't buy a new computer each year should not be kept from enjoying new games. If EA wants to do a game that is graphically a bit less than sims 3, then good for them. It is elitist to say we should keep up with richer nations when those same countries are the ones causing the poverty of others. You did not think the world was fair, or did you?

Also, it looks childlish to imply people you do not agree with are younger than you. For not saying plain rude.

*reads carpedentum's last post a few times*

....when the hell did he say that? I think you might have been missing the point of what he (or she) was trying to say.