I'm under the assumption that they want to make a good game (or so I hope), but also want to keep older, less powerful computers in the mix too (so they can make their audience large). With that in mind I've got a few questions for the community regarding The Sims 4, and performance.

• Physx, do you think that they would include something like that in the game, or do you think it will be scrapped to help performance?

• Do you think they will still have the open world format, or do you think they'll have to load lots each time you want to go to a new one?

• Supposedly The Sims 4 will be able to run on lower-end computers (varies), so do you think that there will rabbit holes, or how will they compensate to get the extra performance?

Also, just as note I know that a lot of the information we have is somewhat speculative, but I'm just trying to get a general idea here.

I found this image in a "TS4 expectations" thread on the official forums earlier:

So I think they'll get extra performance by sacrificing the blessedly naive souls of official forum users.

After looking at the pictures, definite-fucking-ly. I really think that The Sims 4 is a response to the people that bought The Sims 3 and found out that it is not in the fucking LEAST Low-end PC-friendly AT ALL. I think that EA is trying to do sort of a CitiesXL thing where they are trying to make it so that low-end PCs can run it without lag, which I'm really happy about, but the reason why there is so much negativity about the game is that EA is once again going to give certain features the shaft such as no basegame pets, no basegame weather, and now no Create A Style.

Well, pets weren't in any of the 3 base-games, so I don't know what all the fuss is about. Wouldn't it be expected that there would be no pets in the base-game?

Why do you say "blessedly"?

Thing is, not enough information being released to adequately determine one way or another. We did get some images and game play from an antique version that Graham said has changed but nothing has been released lately. Hard for me to judge.

Ya, I guess it is still fairly early. When you say "antique version" do you just mean that the gameplay shown is from a pre-final build?

According to Graham it is news and it's improving daily. We just don't have proof.

I'd be quite happy if for once the performance does not take a drop with each expansion added. It's rediculous how much expansions slow the game down. I stopped buying more because it would slow the game down too much.

Exactly. It's not that I'm not willing to buy any new expansion packs for The Sims 3, but when I have them all installed the game comes close to unplayable.

I fear we'll get a disc of thrown together rushed content that kinda sorta works (they hope, until of course they break it when they add something else) and looks passable. Which is basically what TS3 is so my fears aren't baseless. We're not going to be getting stunning graphics that's for sure, and from what we've been told so far they're stripping back the game (ditching CASt for instance) so they can keep their potential audience as wide as possible. So I suppose they'll be favouring performance, but at what cost. I know I'm being harsh here but I have absolutely no faith left in this franchise, I would however love to be proved wrong considering I've stuck around for 13 years.

Oh and just to add I'm putting the majority of the blame on the top suits of EA, not the team working on the actual game who must be working under ridiculous deadlines and other constraints if TS3 is anything to go by.

It's a discussion board about The Sims 4, users are free to voice their opinions no matter what their views are towards the series. If you want a praiseful do-no-wrong circle jerk, join the official forums.

I never suggested that we "praiseful do-no-wrong circle jerk", but I am saying we shouldn't judge a game that no one has even seen 10 fucking minutes of yet.

Oh I think there's enough information to begin forming an opinion on what to expect: The removal of one of the series' better design tools, a stronger focus on "emotions" - which ironically most people feel indifferent to - and the simple fact that everybody here has some understanding of the way EA, winner of the company equivalent of the Razzie, operates.

Will opinions change over the coming months? Of course, there's nothing wrong with that. EA might rectify their mistakes or do something to turn off more people. But for now I feel the information we've learned is enough to have some idea about the game. Enough to discuss it, at least.

Fair enough.

Back to your original question, I don't think they'd remove the open world. Taking out CASt is one step back, but going back to the Sims 2 style would be gigantic leap followed by a slap in the face of the player. I'd say that is safe. I'd be more cautious about them saying the game can play on older computers. Back in the days of Sims 2, when that chapter was coming to a close and Sims 3 was slowly being revealed they were saying old clunkers would be able to manage it. I remember a few fans saying that it could "play on your grandmother's computer". I wasn't around on its release to see how the people relying on that reacted.

On the other hand, I'd at least like to think they learned from that mistake and wouldn't make the same lie again, despite their reputation. So maybe it will be stripped back to allow more users to play it.

On the third irradiated and glowing hand which I cannot ignore, there's the risk of bad reviews if they strip too much away. Sequels are meant to improve on the previous installments, add new things and take advantage of the evolving technology. I'm not tech-savvy enough to know if there's a happy medium where they can increase content and graphics without forcing their fanbase to purchase new hardware. The mutated hand says that whilst there may be step backs like with CASt it doesn't think they'll be making it more user-friendly and playable on older, "weaker" computers and I'm inclined to agree.

For the most part I think it'll be a wait, and see type of thing. I really want to have faith in EA, but when they keep on screwing up things it's hard to.

On one hand it's hard to watch a great franchise like The Sims slowly crumble, but on the other at least MTS (and similar communities) help keep the game marginally playable with mods and such. I've got mixed feelings about how this will play out. Regarding CASt, I'm sure they'll include it in some sort of expansion, hopefully.

Who's derailing the thread here?? You wanted opinions and you got one. I recommend you don't bother starting a thread if you don't want opinions, positive or negative. If you want nothing but foolishly blind optimism feel free to head over to the official forums Your last post isn't exactly full of beaming optimism either.

I humbly apologize.

We all gotta stick together, us fans, and remember who the real enemy is: The Gurus. First it was just the Store, but now they're taking our CASt. Soon they'll be forcing our Sim children to fight to the death in arenas for their amusement and to show how much power they have over us.

Also, one thing I forgot to discuss from the original post is rabbit holes. I'm really curious to know if they'll be back. I'm hoping that will be something added in, all I want is one damn cafe or a spa. Things that have been in and visitable since Sims 1. If they're not back in, they'll inevitably on the Store and the circle remains unbroken.

True, and I also smell a book/movie reference in there somewhere.

Well... in The Sims 3: Island Paradise there is a cafe/lounge bar that you can physically go into, and play with. It wasn't like a fool blown cafe, but it was similar to a beach type stand for food. I'll take a screenshot later if I can find it again.

To be honest, the enemy isn't really the Guru's . They have to work with the budget and time constraints upper management places on them, as well as the overall direction as set out by that management (like, online play is a MUST to all EA games from this point on, which they're kind of recognizing the mistake of that "vision", and returning, at least for 4, to a "single player, offline experience" rather late in the design cycle creating untold problems for the Guru's to rework the game with now that a release date is roughly in place). So if they're told, "make this work on basic PC shit", whether they like it or not, that's what they have to do. My impression is that some of the Guru producers and developers do push back against some of the arbitrary constraints placed by management, but there is a limit even they cannot exceed and still deliver a working product with the time and resources available.

So let's keep our fingers pointed at the true "enemy", the upper management folks who create the broad strokes they expect their developers to work within. If they don't give the developers the freedom and resources to build a quality product, they're to blame, not the Guru. And while I don't care for the use of a loaded word like enemy, it is pretty clear the upper management folks who are setting the framework are quite out of touch with what the core franchise player would really want. Otherwise, there would not be so much negative discussion ob what little we've been allowed to see so far.

The upper management of EA has never been in touch with any core franchise. How they ever became such a big company is beyond me.

Very disappointment if the game still use DX9.0C which is very limit in multithreading.
Sims 3 is stupidly CPU intensive I think because lot of AI in town and open world.
32 bit is another big disappointment.

Please EA don't make "Sims 4 lag on high end spec".