Is Sims 2 Biased?

[FlameFlash]

that's why I'm just glad I got it for free about a year ago in some sort of subscription... just wish I could remember which one...

[FrostyBoy]

Well that's right, Sims 1 was not that great, but it was the first real attempt at making a game like this.

Now that Maxis know what to do, I'm sure Sims 2 will be a different game to judge and we should not compare it with Sims 1.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Sn00py
[...]
Especially since I didn't want the hassle of inviting people over just to keep my social life up, it was annoying to do that (my personality).

Sims can be very challenging.

[..]

So the only way to get the highest jobs involves a very annoying game mechanic that is too much hassle to deal with? That might be challenging, but it's certainly not a good thing.

[Skanky Burns]

As usual, there are multiple ways around the problem though. Cheese tactics, if you will.

Start a new game with some throw-away character. Invite your main character over and make friends with them. Once they are friends, get another throw-away character. Rinse and repeat. After doing that with a number of people, load up your main character's game and you suddenly have more friends than you can fit through a doorway in a game-hour.

[FrostyBoy]

I know of that trick, but I wanted to play the game properly.

I wonder if they fixed this back-door cheat in Sims 2

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Dissident
sims is not challenging in any meaningful way.

Quite, and FP's comment is spot on as well. And yes Snoopy I played it; like most other people here have posted it did not hold my attention for more than a few hours. It does not have enough content, and hoop jumping doesn't count from my perspective.

[FlameFlash]

The only way it has 'enough' content is if you buy every bloody X-pack, and I know I don't have the cash for that... heck, the only reason I even ever got the game itself was because it was free.

If Sims 2 comes with more, and the X-packs are cheaper, and there are fewer of them, there may actually be something.

And what's with the alien babies!?

[Skanky Burns]

You do know you can download content from the web? For free?

[FlameFlash]

Not when you have the Mac version.

[Skanky Burns]

:Pointsandlaughs:

[FlameFlash]

Yeah, go ahead, but if I was a serious computer gamer (more of a consoler anyway) and had the money, I'd build my own gaming system. As of now, the only game I can see myself doing that for is C3C which isn't enough for me to invest the time/money/space/effort into it.

[Skanky Burns]

I was more laughing at the apple version rather than at you for using the apple version. Tis strange that the mac version can't have new stuff added to it though.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DrSpike
You have to use your imagination to create a game where otherwise there is none.

You may as well save £35 and write a novel or something.

By jove the doctor has hit on something. I was reflecting on this in another context the other day, after a long alt history thread had tempted me back to the OTF. I sometimes read Soc.history.what.if, a usenet group that is the nets premier forum for the serious, rigorous discussion of alternate history. I also occasionally browse the Paradox forums. And it occurs to me that theres an overlap between the discussions on the two forums - what people do by writing and then critiquing and then modifying timelines in SHWI is really a form of simulation, using text and discussion, the same thing that a relatively accurate history game does. The text gives you the option to add and modify "rules" for accuracy as you go, which is a problem in any commercial history game - the game gives you a mechanism for resolving details youd overlook in the text ("I assert that with15 more divisions the Germans would have won in August 1914" - "nah, Ive gamed it, and you still dont beat the Belgians fast enough to win the race to Paris")

SP playing of a simulation and writing (or reading) an alt history, story, or novel, are distinctly related passtimes, and satisfy related needs.

I think the problem with the Sims (from what ive read)is still that its the first in the genre, and is trying to be a dollhouse (or lets say lego ) game more than a life or personality simulator. Imagine if we had Civ, but no wargames, no Paradox games, no Imps - would we not have a different view of what the strategy genre is capable of?

[DrSpike]

They wont change it though. If it becomes too complicated they'll lose too much of their target audience.

[Skanky Burns]

True enough. The game is more at a solitaire / tetris level of entertainment rather than Civ-style. Why exclude 4-year-olds from your target market?