Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Test Subject
#51 Old 8th Mar 2014 at 8:27 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Megido
I agree. There has to be a balance between looking decent and being able to run on the computers of the majority of players.


Yes! And right now it doesn't look like EA has found the balance. We'll see (:
Advertisement
One Minute Ninja'd
#52 Old 11th Mar 2014 at 9:58 PM Last edited by eskie227 : 11th Mar 2014 at 11:07 PM. Reason: addendum
Here's an interesting side note to developing a game to run on modest hardware. Titanfall, an A list game, and regarded as THE breakout game for the Xbox One to be successful, is also available for PC's. Just this small problem:
Quote:
Respawn Entertainment’s Richard Baker sat down with Eurogamer, and explained why PC gamers are burdened with the massive 48GB installation. Fundamentally, the decision to stick with uncompressed audio on the PC comes down to sheer processing power. The game’s minimum CPU requirement is a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, and that simply isn’t enough horsepower to run the game and decompress audio at the same time. Baker explains that even modest quad-core machines wouldn’t have a problem decompressing the audio on the fly, but clearly the company is focused on running on as many machines as possible.

source http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...tanfall-is-48gb
While coming from Respawn, it's important to note that EA is the publisher.

What I find telling, is that their minimum spec is for a 2.4 GHz DuoCore. I kind of wish that's the minimum requirement for TS4, as TS3 only needs a lowly P4 to run, and folks still struggle to run 3 well. Now, Respawn's decision to go with bloated audio files to take up HD space might make sense in bringing the game to lots of players, although folks with better hardware are not exactly thrilled with the bloat. But TS4 isn't just bloating up the system, or even insisting on a 64 bit OS to run, which in 2014 is pretty much the standard on even entry level machines (BTW, everyone does know that XP is no longer supported, and even the U.S. CERT put out a warning against continued use of an unsupported OS for security reasons) to make it happen. instead, basic tools, like CAST are out, and "less high frequency detail" is in. Which could just reflect the original online development that was going on for several years before the "single player, offline" announcement came out.

I guess I'd rather they went with uncompressed audio of all the simlish radio stations to lower requirements than cutting basic design stuff from the game. I still have plenty of HD space.

edit: Just for yuks, I decided to check out my sims3 program folder. With all EP's, and a bunch of SP's (well, maybe 3 of them) it weighs in at 32 GB. That's a little larger than I expected. Then again, my Documents/EA folder, with all my cc and mod stuff, as well as worlds and some saves, clocked in at 48 GB. I think I need a therapeutic intervention. I've become an out of control pack rat.
Forum Resident
#53 Old 11th Mar 2014 at 10:50 PM
I say do like the Sims 2 and The Sims Stories: Have major graphics innovation for the high-power (at the time) computers, but have a separate game released afterward (so it doesn't distract EA from the main attraction) for the lower-end laptop market. It makes business sense for EA to pander to the low-end markets since so many sims players are casual gamers, but it's not good for the hardcore fans. Heck, both my laptop and my desktop can't run any Sims 3 expansions (according to MTS Recommendations) and I would still rather wait to upgrade my PCs for a game that will be worth my money: most importantly in gameplay, but also in graphics.

~Someday my prince will come... And he better not bring all his hood's character files with him.~
@)->----- Place this ASCII flower in your sig as a thank you to all of our amazing moderators at MTS!
TS3 vs. Your CPU: The Solution
Shameless plug for my fledgeling Simblr here
One Minute Ninja'd
#54 Old 12th Mar 2014 at 2:46 AM
Amandie, I agree with your statement of expecting to need reasonable hardware to achieve solid gameplay, and it's not just about graphics. Let's face it, running a complex life sim with lots of computer controlled sims doing things in an intelligent manner requires reasonable hardware. If I add a replacement story progression like Twallan's, which admittedly, is an "aftermarket" mod and not optimized in the game engine (although Twallan did put a LOT of effort into trying to make it somewhat "efficient") the demand on my hardware, namely, CPU utilization and memory footprint, goes up. Not demand on my graphics system. So if the goal of a new Sims series is supposed to be for more complex independent behavior by the sim, it's not reasonable to think an entry level, 5 year old processor will be up to the task. It's not just about eye candy, it's about solid, complex, and hopefully entertaining, behavior.
Forum Resident
#55 Old 12th Mar 2014 at 2:52 AM
Eskie, I agree 100%. I'm not against making things efficient, and if a game was too slow it wouldn't be worth playing to me, but I'd rather have solid gameplay than max efficiency. And knowing EA, it's going to be one or the other. (Or quite possibly, neither.)

~Someday my prince will come... And he better not bring all his hood's character files with him.~
@)->----- Place this ASCII flower in your sig as a thank you to all of our amazing moderators at MTS!
TS3 vs. Your CPU: The Solution
Shameless plug for my fledgeling Simblr here
Lab Assistant
#56 Old 16th Mar 2014 at 4:27 PM
Honestly I think people are wilfully misunderstanding Rafe's point, using fun laughing emoticons after arguing with points he's not even making. From what I read, he's not saying EA should release TERRIBLE graphics or 2nd graphics or "run on a phone" graphics. He's saying that if the options are:

1) Amazing gameplay + Amazing graphics, can only run on niche gamer computers
Or
2)Amazing game play + Good Graphics, can run on most computers


EA should take the second option. And I agree. I think that's the most realistic option considering EA is a business who, first and foremost need profit. They need as many people as possible playing their games. Appealing to a couple of elite gamers instead of the masses makes no sense for the Sims, which has always been a game FOR THE MASSES. In the Sims 3, most people complained about bad game play - rabbit holes, boring children, boring elderly, shallow relationships, lack of creative opportunity. Pudding faces were also a big deal, but honestly that's not so much due to toned down requirements than the overall style of the game. They could've fixed that without effecting the requirements much.

If EA makes great game play taking the best of the best from Sims 1,2 and 3 and adding more, while improving the graphics a little, I think they'll please most customers. And that's what smart businesses do. Please MOST customers, not the couple with the most expensive computers.
One Minute Ninja'd
#57 Old 16th Mar 2014 at 5:01 PM
Quote: Originally posted by socherish
Honestly I think people are wilfully misunderstanding Rafe's point, using fun laughing emoticons after arguing with points he's not even making. From what I read, he's not saying EA should release TERRIBLE graphics or 2nd graphics or "run on a phone" graphics. He's saying that if the options are:

1) Amazing gameplay + Amazing graphics, can only run on niche gamer computers
Or
2)Amazing game play + Good Graphics, can run on most computers


I respectfully disagree. Rafe stated quite clearly in his/her posts that their machine can barely run TS3 with a couple of EPs, and they hope 4 will run better, as they are not in a position to replace their computer. Sorry, but a machine that cannot run 3 with a few EPs is hardly a platform that I wish to see 4 optimized for, as that would mean optimization for systems with the 5 year old, entry level specs that 3 had.

And in support of their argument, they offered up examples of games they really love, one of which was a game with minimum specs even less than that for the now 5 year old base game of 3, and the other was a 2D scrolling simulation game that does run on anything from a pc to phone.

If at any point the issue was amazing game play with good graphics that would run on most computers, this entire discussion would never have happened, as not one post has advocated amazing graphics that require a high end, gaming machine. That would clearly be foolish to expect EA to produce.
Lab Assistant
#58 Old 16th Mar 2014 at 5:56 PM
Quote: Originally posted by eskie227
I respectfully disagree. Rafe stated quite clearly in his/her posts that their machine can barely run TS3 with a couple of EPs, and they hope 4 will run better, as they are not in a position to replace their computer. Sorry, but a machine that cannot run 3 with a few EPs is hardly a platform that I wish to see 4 optimized for, as that would mean optimization for systems with the 5 year old, entry level specs that 3 had.

And in support of their argument, they offered up examples of games they really love, one of which was a game with minimum specs even less than that for the now 5 year old base game of 3, and the other was a 2D scrolling simulation game that does run on anything from a pc to phone.

If at any point the issue was amazing game play with good graphics that would run on most computers, this entire discussion would never have happened, as not one post has advocated amazing graphics that require a high end, gaming machine. That would clearly be foolish to expect EA to produce.


I reread all of his posts in this thread and I can't find one where he says his computer can't run Sims 3. Maybe he removed it, I don't know. In the posts that are there, he advocated "nice enough" graphics. He also expressed approval at the current preview of Sims 4 graphics, which I doubt can run on a 5 year old pc. The terraria argument was clearly just to point out graphics don't make a game, not to say the Sims should look like terraria.

There were definitely people advocating a Sims that could only run on high end machines. One poster said s/he didn't want "nice" graphics. They said they wanted the most cutting edge graphics possible, even if it meant most couldn't afford to buy a computer that could run it for years.
One Minute Ninja'd
#59 Old 16th Mar 2014 at 7:07 PM
Quote: Originally posted by socherish
I reread all of his posts in this thread and I can't find one where he says his computer can't run Sims 3. Maybe he removed it, I don't know. In the posts that are there, he advocated "nice enough" graphics. He also expressed approval at the current preview of Sims 4 graphics, which I doubt can run on a 5 year old pc. The terraria argument was clearly just to point out graphics don't make a game, not to say the Sims should look like terraria.

There were definitely people advocating a Sims that could only run on high end machines. One poster said s/he didn't want "nice" graphics. They said they wanted the most cutting edge graphics possible, even if it meant most couldn't afford to buy a computer that could run it for years.


Check out this thread:

Quote:
I'm asking this because I do not know if I should allow mywself to get excited, or forget about playing it, as my pc can barely run half the expansions of sims 3.


Quote:
Lets hope they make it work in computers like mine. I mean, I can even run the wolf among us, so I guess it is not no so bad after all.


source: http://modthesims.info/m/showthread...501#post4325501

posts #1, 17

Quote:
And what would you do if you simply could not afford a new computer? Not everyone is born into the Rotchild family.

post # 22

Quote:
Of course, if you want hyper modern graphics in every game, you can either play Skyrim and GTA to show companies you value graphics above all. Or change the market by buying people better computers. But trying to leave us out of the fan base makes you look, to say the least, very selfish and spoiled. I want to be able to play the sims 4 on this computer. You can always make new textures for the game so it looks like you want, and crank the graphics up to the highest.

post #50

I can keep going, if you like. The pattern of advocacy that Rafe has followed spans far more than just this thread. This thread you are now reading was actually started in response to the thread above.

And can you please point out a post which advocates for this game to be limited to play on only high end gaming machines? If anything, some folks have questioned whether or not it would be possible to have baseline graphics that can scale up in detail with better hardware. That is not the same as it should only run on high end machines. It is simply asking for "detail" to scale according to capability, allowing game play on lower end machines, while still providing higher "detail" for those who have invested in such hardware.
Scholar
#60 Old 21st Mar 2014 at 2:25 AM
I rather see them focussing on optimizing. Like getting rid of those routing issues that caused so much computer performance problems for many people. I mean whats the point of having new shiny graphical features in the engine, if no one can use them in a neighbourhood because the sims keep getting stuck. All the bad performing TS3 neighbourhoods seem to be about routing issues anyway.
Graphical improvements can be done with later updates too. This could be rolled out when ep's are released. Just look at MMO's, the long running like WoW and Guild Wars, do this too.( just to be clear, I am not asking for TS4 to be always online, thats besides the point here :p)

Anyway, I think performance first, extra shinyness second. Ofc , TS4 should look better then TS3 from the start. But this is already possible because the average pc at TS4 release will be faster.
Page 3 of 3
Back to top