The Paradox Life Sim game Super-Thread

[ellessarr]

Popping in to state the popularity of the Original Sims game was adopted primarily by males. There are (more accurately: were) many masculine elements to it besides 'playing with dolls.'

The idea behind the game has changed over time, which does make it feel more geared toward females, and I feel that's where the creators went wrong, but it's not even that.

Basically, what I'm wanting is a 'life sim.'

The ability to build/create worlds and people and play with all of them. A God game does actually fall into the category of strategy, actually.

What the Sims team did was strip away those elements that allowed one to play God. FYI, The game became less consequential and strategic over time. The delicate balances of trying to keep a sim (or world) alive has become too easy and forgiving.

What a life sim needs is consequences and both positive and negative elements of life. It requires a certain element of 'seediness' imo. Taverns, violience, environmental elements, along with action/reaction.

I understand why a lot of people feel The Sims is geared toward females. A quick look at CC kind of tells this story, but the request for another company to take over just goes to show that some of us aren't into that. Not all of us want happy sunshine and unicorns farting rainbows.

I'm primarily an RPG and FPS player. My husband is a Strategy and flight Sim buff. Yet we both found enjoyment in playing a life sim in different ways. Frankly, he plays more like a girl than I do. He prefers the family life. I'm the one who wants archery and taverns, and the ability to beat up other sims.

Why couldn't a life sim appeal to males if there were a more balanced approach to strategy in maintaining life? SimCity (or Societies) touches on this in a more broadened aspect. Jumping from that macrocosm into the microcosm of every day life shouldn't really have a gender tag attached to it. If done well, it should appeal to both.

I would think, if it were geared more toward being an actual life sim with the elements of attraction to architecture and God Play, it could appeal to both genders without anyone feeling emasculated by the mere thought of playing it.

That's really what I had hoped for with The Sims. It's not even about being effeminate. I feel even that cliche was stripped from its atmosphere. It's all about being attractive to anyone who wants to play a game without consequences. It feels like it's geared toward a generation that is content with excuses as to why things can not be done and why challenge doesn't exist. It's a game that coddles and teaches those special individuals that nothing wrong ever happens now. It's too safe to play. Quite frankly, it's as boring as watching paint dry.

Challenge and having to use one's head is not an affliction solely suffered by females. It's an affliction suffered by the audience EA is after with their latest iteration. That, and offering a live service to make more money for less from the fool who is easily parted with their money.

I really do wish there was an alternative out there that appealed to me. As I could play The Sims for years on end when the atmosphere of the game suits me, but when it becomes too safe to play, I may get about 5 minutes before yawning and shutting the game off because I know no matter what I do, it will be safe to do so, taking all of the fun out of it.

i really loved your posts and really agree a lot.

for me i feel like the problem started in the sims 2 about the "doll house", i'm not saying which the game was bad, but the fact which looks like sims 2 was more focused in family and that things is what probably attracted more "females" and make males numbers falls, then the game started to go more and more being just a fun and safe game over time specially with sims 3 and later 4, sims 4 where when they dropped almost complete the "life simulator" and make just a "fun kid games", currently i'm waiting for a sims 3 school mod be released to play a little and i really love how awesome some modders are in sims 3 and how awesome and cool things they are able to make with it this make me feel even more anger toward maxis which if a person alone can do what maxis need a team to do with even better quality make you really doubt about the game developer skill works.

whatever like i told i just give up in sims 4 and waste my time in they forums, i really feel tired to get "told which i'm just must shut up and happy accept what they are doing" as if money grow in trees" by other peoples really tired i'm currently looking for some good games which gonna come soon and others which already exist which can't be a AAA game but at last are good and fun enough to diserve a try and i really hope when finish my game developer course maybe i can try to make my own life simulator one day at last i know which i don't gonna make poor and excuses to myself.

 

[Susanna]

Oh yes, the Sims games have definitely gotten easier over time - Sims 1 was the one where it was by far the hardest to keep a sim's needs in the green. Sims 2 was a bit easier, but no walk in the park (particularly the case with pregnant sims). Sims 3 is very much easier in that regard, and I haven't played 4, but it looks like that's much easier even than Sims 3.

For me the sweet spot in the entire Sims series continues to be Sims 2. Still a challenge to play, the personality, attraction and chemistry systems have never been equaled since, and the sims actually had working Mendelian genetics. Sims 1 and 2 are the most sandbox games in the series - Sims 3 is a good game, but it is less of a freewheeling wide-open sandbox. Sims 1 won't run on many modern systems, alas, and lacks the full life cycle, which was introduced in Sims 2. (I will say, however, that Sims 3's CASt, which allows you to change the appearance of clothing and furnishing patterns on the fly, is a massive step forward. Unfortunately, it's also a memory drain.)

Sims 2 also has toddlers, which apparently are too hard for EA to program these days.

A 64-bit Sims 2, with modernized graphics and cleaned up coding (the modders have fixed much, but there's only so much modders can do), optimized for up-to-date computers and monitors - that I would buy in a heartbeat.

I will never buy Sims 4.

 

[CookieMonk]

Popping in to state the popularity of the Original Sims game was adopted primarily by males. There are (more accurately: were) many masculine elements to it besides 'playing with dolls.'

The idea behind the game has changed over time, which does make it feel more geared toward females, and I feel that's where the creators went wrong, but it's not even that.

Basically, what I'm wanting is a 'life sim.'

The ability to build/create worlds and people and play with all of them. A God game does actually fall into the category of strategy, actually.

What the Sims team did was strip away those elements that allowed one to play God. FYI, The game became less consequential and strategic over time. The delicate balances of trying to keep a sim (or world) alive has become too easy and forgiving.

What a life sim needs is consequences and both positive and negative elements of life. It requires a certain element of 'seediness' imo. Taverns, violience, environmental elements, along with action/reaction.

I understand why a lot of people feel The Sims is geared toward females. A quick look at CC kind of tells this story, but the request for another company to take over just goes to show that some of us aren't into that. Not all of us want happy sunshine and unicorns farting rainbows.

I'm primarily an RPG and FPS player. My husband is a Strategy and flight Sim buff. Yet we both found enjoyment in playing a life sim in different ways. Frankly, he plays more like a girl than I do. He prefers the family life. I'm the one who wants archery and taverns, and the ability to beat up other sims.

Why couldn't a life sim appeal to males if there were a more balanced approach to strategy in maintaining life? SimCity (or Societies) touches on this in a more broadened aspect. Jumping from that macrocosm into the microcosm of every day life shouldn't really have a gender tag attached to it. If done well, it should appeal to both.

I would think, if it were geared more toward being an actual life sim with the elements of attraction to architecture and God Play, it could appeal to both genders without anyone feeling emasculated by the mere thought of playing it.

That's really what I had hoped for with The Sims. It's not even about being effeminate. I feel even that cliche was stripped from its atmosphere. It's all about being attractive to anyone who wants to play a game without consequences. It feels like it's geared toward a generation that is content with excuses as to why things can not be done and why challenge doesn't exist. It's a game that coddles and teaches those special individuals that nothing wrong ever happens now. It's too safe to play. Quite frankly, it's as boring as watching paint dry.

Challenge and having to use one's head is not an affliction solely suffered by females. It's an affliction suffered by the audience EA is after with their latest iteration. That, and offering a live service to make more money for less from the fool who is easily parted with their money.

I really do wish there was an alternative out there that appealed to me. As I could play The Sims for years on end when the atmosphere of the game suits me, but when it becomes too safe to play, I may get about 5 minutes before yawning and shutting the game off because I know no matter what I do, it will be safe to do so, taking all of the fun out of it.

I (male) play like your husband, i play the happy family thing, maybe if there were more life changes involved, i would be a little more aggressive in my game play, but they are slowly adding everythihg back in, that they took out of the game, just niclke and dime us to death. Such a shame, such a shame.

 

[nerovergil]

Life simulation is not a time management game.

I want sims to smart enough to do everything in their life. The player just 'play god'

example:

1. Lucy is your character. she decide to go on culinary education. But you dont like it, instead, you make her choose medical education to become a doctor.

2. Lucy love Brian. But you dislike him. You make them break up. You make Lucy find another man.

Sims is smart enough to do basic things in life and have their own decision in life, its up to you to follow or order them to choose another things.

Not like the sims series where the character wont sleep unless u order them to sleep at night. Sims should be smart enough to sleep, eat, bath, social and make a critical life changing decision. You just 'play god'

 

[LukeSky]

Paradox? a life simulation game similar to the Sims?

I think I just giggled involuntarily, this would be a great idea,

Just imagine the apocalyptic hordes of teenage girls this would do the fan base, Shams would be the new reincarnation of Michael Jackson and Justin Bieber, woman fainting wherever he goes

I know you're being sarcastic because teenage girls from The Sims are better than little edgy boys(Think Call of Duty and Minecraft for example) and Neo-Nazis and ISIS.

 

[kremesch]

Question: How can you play God and have the sims be smart enough at the same time?

Just curious.

I see it said over and over that players want their sims to be smart enough to do things on their own, but at the end of the day, you're not playing God if that's happening. Is it?

I want a God game. I know I want a certain level of AI, but at the same time. I don't want a game to be so smart that it no longer needs me to direct it. That's not a God game.

An example in S4 is where sims constantly wander to the fridge for water. Or they go to bed when they're not even in the red. I was constantly chasing after my sims. Saying. No! Very rarely was I saying. Yes! They don't do a dang thing you tell them to because the AI overrides it.

That's not playing God. Nor is it playing a game. That's a game playing you.

 

[ellessarr]

Question: How can you play God and have the sims be smart enough at the same time?

Just curious.

I see it said over and over that players want their sims to be smart enough to do things on their own, but at the end of the day, you're not playing God if that's happening. Is it?

I want a God game. I know I want a certain level of AI, but at the same time. I don't want a game to be so smart that it no longer needs me to direct it. That's not a God game.

An example in S4 is where sims constantly wander to the fridge for water. Or they go to bed when they're not even in the red. I was constantly chasing after my sims. Saying. No! Very rarely was I saying. Yes! They don't do a dang thing you tell them to because the AI overrides it.

That's not playing God. Nor is it playing a game. That's a game playing you.

well it' is possible here a exemple:
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1540704528/tgl-thanksgiving-life/description
the characters are smart enough to take care of themselfs and keep pushing they lifes but this don't means which you can't "play god" and change it and that is the sales point of this game as GOD you have the full power to change then and that was @nerovergil point @kremesch , he/she want a game where the game "can play alone and you as a GOD you can choose to alter they lifes or just keep watching and see what can happen that is really a "GOD" like game, where you have the power to change or not the things.
here another trailer

i was really hyped for this game cuz he really looked like a big possible rival for the sims but the production failed to attain they kickstart funds because some backers didn't payed end they are refunding the peoples and now we don't know if they gonna keep or not the production but the game really looked amazing all the features and the complex ai they where working hard to make.

well long and short story, peoples want see a "realistic alive world"(in sense of AI) where they can feel a big immersion and really feel like "GODS" when comes to deal with the peoples in that world where they can choose change or not the things.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=422537663

it's really sad which probably this game not gonna happen anymore really sad he could really have the potential to blow up the sims and maxis but now we go back to 0 where peoples still being trapped in the hands of maxis and they lazy/greedy team which only do "enough" efforts to give some "halfassed things which a big ammoung of diehard maybe brainwashed fans will happy accept no matter how bad the things can be because they already tamed to accept anything.

this game is really how a "true sandbox" was supposed to be, a alive world where you can do whatever you want and change things if you want.

 

[taikinexus]

Honestly a new life sim IP from another developer is what we need. EA has dominated that market for so long I feel like they need a healthy dosage of competition.

 

[ellessarr]

Honestly a new life sim IP from another developer is what we need. EA has dominated that market for so long I feel like they need a healthy dosage of competition.

well to be honest "dominate" for me not is the proper word since the problem is just lack of competition which is where lie the big problem for me is more like just they are the "only ones" in that area, well we have a lot of others "sort" of simulations games and ones which the game details and immersion where close to "life simulators like skyrim or fallou 4 but really the problem is really lack of peoples wanting to true step on it, at the current state of sims 4 any big or medium and maybe strong indy games could pull something better, than what maxis is pulling at now.

They just are playing in the "safe zone" since no one is interested on it, then they can do wathever they want which they know which the sims fans will be aways forced to "bow down" to then since they are the only one on there for then and that is the sad part =/, i really feel bad for sims fans because i can see which many of then really want a games to be "prised" and honored to play not a trash excuse which they are now whiling to pull because nowadays make games become "too difficulty" and expensive".

 

[ellessarr]

well since we don't get any news/info or hint or whatever opnion from devs or moderators i'm really now start to believe which at this point is really pointless ask this to paradox they really don't look interested in do that thing, probably this is not on the range of what they want to work.

 

[loup99]

well since we don't get any news/info or hint or whatever opnion from devs or moderators i'm really now start to believe which at this point is really pointless ask this to paradox they really don't look interested in do that thing, probably this is not on the range of what they want to work.

Given that this would be a published game, there are not really any developers to speak of. And the moderators are on the forums for moderating, they do not decide what games PI is to publish or not.

 

[ellessarr]

Given that this would be a published game, there are not really any developers to speak of. And the moderators are on the forums for moderating, they do not decide what games PI is to publish or not.

i don't say which moderators are the ones to make games, but is common developers give some hints to moderators pass to the users, is about "communication", not who does the things.

 

[kremesch]

Meh. TGL doesn't interest me. Don't get me wrong. I do want a certain level of AI, but at the same time, I don't want so much of it that the game doesn't need me either. S4 is more like just watching a game do what it would rather do than what I'd rather do.

The role-playing element is completely obliterated by it's new 'time-management' theme that doesn't work as advertised.

There was a time where the developers wanted us to basically play with action vs reaction. Situations existed for us to play with, and cause and effect played a major role. This is not the case anymore.

 

[ellessarr]

Meh. TGL doesn't interest me. Don't get me wrong. I do want a certain level of AI, but at the same time, I don't want so much of it that the game doesn't need me either. S4 is more like just watching a game do what it would rather do than what I'd rather do.

The role-playing element is completely obliterated by it's new 'time-management' theme that doesn't work as advertised.

There was a time where the developers wanted us to basically play with action vs reaction. Situations existed for us to play with, and cause and effect played a major role. This is not the case anymore.

this was more to show which this sort of game does exist and we have others exemples like civilization or like majesty which some peoples enjoy that game and is possible to play fine on that sort of games, ofcourse this don't means which everyone must like but it's just a style of game as others.
well while i somehow can understand and in some level agree" about not want the game full play for me, i only thing that about "my played character" but for the peoples around the character in this case the npcs(the ones which i actually don't play) i do really want a strong AI where they are smart enough to live they lifes and i can fine play with my "played characters" and interact and learn more about that npcs, this is what i hate in the sims 4 and even a little in the sims 3, the npcs feel a little "empty" in the sims 4 is the worst case they are totally empty, cuz the AI is so poor which they are limited to they "emotions", for me the npcs must really be "smart" i want my characters have some challenge or at last feel like they are really interacting with others living beings not "robots" which just work based on emotions or poor scripts, i my neighborn is a loner or hate childs he must really be a loner and hate childs, if i want my character have a relationship with npc A it's must be in a "realist way" not just flirt, flirt flirt then woohoo maybe can work with few peoples in real life but every character no, while for the played characters i don't mind they being dumb for the npcs is really very important for then to be "smart" because is much better when i feel i really need to work on the relationship than just spam the same option 3 or 4 times and everything will work, i must find the characters traits what he like or hate to see what i can do to make him like my character, then same for work and others things, the npcs must really have strog brains to make me feel like really immersed but a game where each npc do exactly the samething because "emotions" and poor coded AI, make things really bad and on this bethesda is much better just looking at skyrim and fallout series and how they love to work on the AI of the characters with more "complex things" than be the "same" person over and over.

 

[kremesch]

Ah. I get what you're saying now. I agree with everything you mentioned there. I want them to behave the way I designed them to behave, pretty much. They should freely pursue the interests and skills I have them work on. Rather than every character being drawn to the exact same thing, it would be preferable to see them attracted to things that actually made sense and suited their character.

 

[PaNDie]

I am waiting... for a competitor or sims 5... 4 is a mess...

 

[Miikado]

@PaNDie I don't believe the sims 5 will be a good game. Because... you know... it still will be EA's :/

 

[LukeSky]

@PaNDie I don't believe the sims 5 will be a good game. Because... you know... it still will be EA's :/

I'm pretty sure they won't even make a Sims 5, since Electronic Arts could go bankrupt or stop making The Sims.

 

[The_Meme_Man]

I'm pretty sure they won't even make a Sims 5, since Electronic Arts could go bankrupt or stop making The Sims.

Well, since they basically own a monopoly on this admittedly very niche genre, they could literally do whatever they wanted. If they gave up on the Sims though, it would give A LOT of space for a competitor to step in.

 

[kremesch]

@LukeSky I hate to agree, but I do. SimCity wasn't a game for me from the get-go, but I saw what happened there.

I meant to quote, but I have no idea what happened.