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!
Lab Assistant
#376 Old 11th May 2012 at 11:39 AM
Hm, sounds like I could give it a try really! Although I've still got 1.29. Anyways, thanks for the info!
Advertisement
Inventor
#377 Old 11th May 2012 at 12:05 PM
One of my favourite worlds is from Quailhogs - Grey Meadow: http://forum.thesims3.com/jforum/posts/list/249858.page

And I'm currently very happy with Los Aniegos from Coasterboi although I normally don't play desert like worlds. But this world is as a whole just perfect, everything fits nicely (http://forum.thesims3.com/jforum/posts/list/295247.page).

Edit: And for medieval fans, I guess Avalon is a must!! http://forum.thesims3.com/jforum/posts/list/419176.page

You never know what’s comin’ for ya.
Instructor
#378 Old 11th May 2012 at 3:37 PM
Quote: Originally posted by noxnoxnox

Since self-population is so easy with Twallan mod, I don't think pre-population is a must-have feature.


Actually, a populated world is really a proxy for something else: a world which has been thoroughly playtested. That is, if you see a world which is not populated, it is a pretty strong indication that the world has NOT been playtested by its creators.

The major problem with many worlds, EA worlds included, is lag. One of the major causes of lag are routing problems; that is, sims get stuck. An unpopulated world will not have routing problems because there are no sims to get stuck. It's only when sims are added to a world that the routing problems start appearing. That's why lag, in many cases, only starts to appear after a world has been played a while.

If a world is unpopulated, it seems highly likely that the creator has not played the world long enough for routing problems to manifest themselves. In fact, such a creator may be entirely unaware that his world has these problems. Of course, once it appears, lag is a very "in your face" problem.

Now it is entirely possible that an unpopulated world was carefully playtested. However, it seems equally possible that my cup of coffee will transform itself into oily sludge, given that quantum physics is probabalistic. It just strikes me that a world creator who populates his world in the process of playtesting it is not likely to exclude those created sims from his finished product.

In fact, there seem to be only two explanations for a creator not including sims in his world: (1) incompetence, and/or (2) laziness. Neither is a particularly good sign.

An incompetent creator won't include sims because he does not know how. However, a creator who lacks the technical skills to populate his world also probably lacks the technical skills to avoid problems like lag.

Laziness is a more serious problem. Quite frankly, there is no reason for a creator not to know how to populate worlds because that information is readily available. If a creator does not want to take the time to figure out how to do it, or expend the effort to do it, one has to wonder what other corners have been cut.

I have played enough defective and incomplete worlds that I really don't care to repeat the process. I no longer am willing to fix problems which should have been caught and fixed during playtesting.
Forum Resident
#379 Old 11th May 2012 at 5:03 PM
That's not necessarily true. Just because a world has had sims injected into it at the end of the building process does not mean it's been thoroughly test-played. Even if the sims are added via a game-save, it doesn't mean that the builder did any more than plop down some families and then save real quick.

You are assuming that the population is created in the process of playtesting, which isn't how it's usually done. (except for in a few cases where a game save is then used for population, AND the creator states that's when it was done...)

In the past, it's been very difficult to add sims to the world. Lots of new bugs and incompatibilities can then be introduced, thus making the world MORE laggy. Are all the sims CC free? Were all of the steps followed properly? Adding a population isn't for the novice world builder. That doesn't mean that the world builder is incompetant. Just that this particular step is complicated in different ways than sculpting and painting land, and making sure routing (which is the biggest lag producer, even before bad cc) is working correctly.

MTS Tutorial on adding a population - note that it's an after step, not a playtesting step. A GOOD worldbuilder then makes a game save to test out the new population and how it interacts with the world. But then, a good world builder would have done that with or without this step.

I think your main gripe is about lack of proper Beta Testing. Just wanted to point out that a pre-made population is not an indicator that proper Beta Testing has been done. It does make for the appearance of a more professional world, and is more likely done by advanced world builders who know what they are doing and have already made sure that the routing isn't going to make things self destruct.
One Minute Ninja'd
#380 Old 11th May 2012 at 7:24 PM
Furthermore, a good world builder doesn't rely on only populating a world and playtesting it themselves. Populated or not, a world builder will pass out a "completed" world to beta testers to get information and feedback from prior to release. In something as complex as a new world, one person cannot possibly properly beta test the world alone, they require multiple testers. Please note, it's the number of beta testers, who will populate the world using a variety of "real world" population methods, that determines the likelihood of identifying routing and other errors prior to release, not the size of the population of sims a creator may dump into a custom world.
Instructor
#381 Old 12th May 2012 at 9:31 AM
Quote: Originally posted by skmt999
I think your main gripe is about lack of proper Beta Testing. Just wanted to point out that a pre-made population is not an indicator that proper Beta Testing has been done. It does make for the appearance of a more professional world, and is more likely done by advanced world builders who know what they are doing and have already made sure that the routing isn't going to make things self destruct.


Bingo!

The problem is that the people who don't test their worlds don't announce that fact. In fact, it seems that a number of world builders pump out worlds so fast, it's pretty clear they have not been play tested.

By the way, that does not seem to be the case with the worlds one finds here. Look at the worlds in the creator feedback section -- those creators are begging for beta testers.

As a player, I really don't want to be a beta tester unless I deliberately sign up for the job. When a world creator labels their world as a beta, you know what you may be in for.

Similarly, if the creator does not know how to populate a world (save game files can be used as well, by the way), it is fair to assume there are other things they don't know how to do. Since the information on doing it is readily available, one is entitltled to assume the failure to do so is the product of sloth.

The bottom line is, with literally thousands of worlds available, I want to download the one which are a labor of love, where the creator has a clear vision of what he is trying to accomplish, where the boundaries of what can be done are being pushed (eg, Jericho), where the creator likes his/her world enough to play it, and where the world displays a high level of craftsmanship.

An unpopulated world, with very few exceptions will not meet these standards, as a general rule. Given the choice between a high quality world, or a mediocre one, I will opt for the high quality world.
Field Researcher
#382 Old 12th May 2012 at 12:58 PM
I have recently tried Great Bear and St.Claire. Both are wonderful, detailed and well-planned, experienced no lag with them.

And I also wanted to add to the discussion on populated worlds. As for me, I play and create unpopulated ones, and I highly disagree that unpopulated equals not playtested. When I uploaded mine here, I tested it for two months, playing till generation four and had several simmers test it as well. I didn't want to create a special population for it because: a) all methods are still highly experimental (though I tried them, it's not that hard actually), who knows what will happend with it in the long run with all the patches and EA borking. I wish CAW would allow it officially but alas; b) for me, and for many others, sim population is somewhat personal and I never play premades; c) to create a nice and coherent population with stories and all as, for example, in kiwi's Riverblossom is a heck of a job. It is really difficult to come up with enough characters and quirks to fill all professions and NPC roles (at least for me).

Noone expects the spanish inquisition!
My simblr and my downloads blog .
Instructor
#383 Old 12th May 2012 at 3:41 PM Last edited by High Plains Gamer : 12th May 2012 at 3:53 PM.
Quote: Originally posted by Miuki
for me, I play and create unpopulated ones, and I highly disagree that unpopulated equals not playtested.


Of course, it is possible that an unpopulated world has been play tested. It's just that there seems to be a high correlation between unpopulated and unplaytested worlds. Similarly, it is possible that a populated world will be unplaytested -- I just don't know of any. (Well, maybe Los Aniegos when it first came out.)

Since getting into a world will take days of my time, I just don't want to take a chance. With thousands of available worlds, why should I?

But, ultimately it's about completeness. I might say that I play worlds without lots, because I want to build my own. Or, that I will play a world without sculpting, because I like Kansas, or a world without trees, because I like desolate places. And the truth of the matter is that a flat world without sculpting and trees will be more playable than a world without sims, but they are all unfinished products. I don't care to waste my time finishing them.

The threshold should be EA's worlds, because EA operates under a constraint that most world builders don't: EA's worlds have to be base game compatible. Even at that, EA's worlds are all populated. If EA released an unpopulated world, many of those saying that unpopulated worlds are just fine would be complaining that an unpopulated EA world was incomplete and a total rippoff. Why should world creators be held to a lower standard?

Besides, you are not impartial here. As someone who has uploaded unpopulated world(s), you have a vested interest in arguing they are complete and finished products. Whereas I would simply say, "Nice start, now finish it."
Field Researcher
#384 Old 12th May 2012 at 5:14 PM Last edited by Miuki : 12th May 2012 at 9:04 PM. Reason: typos
High Plains Gamer Lol. Arguing? I'm just stating my personal point of view of player and builder. Surely it's different, because I tried building and know what it takes and what standards most builders have. If you disagree it's up to you, I don't want to prove anything to you.
I'll just say once again, if there was an official way to populate worlds with CAW (without mods) you'd see those much more often and bunch of random sims portered with Porter doesn't equal a good map. I'd say most worlds are not populated and there is a decent number of ones with problems with routing, etc. that's why it seems that such correlation exists. It's also a matter of builder's wish and talent in story building, not everyone who is good in terrain painting are good in plot creating. As far as I know simsample didn't populate the world by her own choice, does it make it worse? As for me - no. I can name many more examples of unpopulated worlds that are very well made and have a unique character of their own, noticeable even without population.
I wouldn't also take EA's worlds as tresholds or examples, they do have gaps in routing and other various problems, you know, plus decorative content made specially for these maps (as Twinbrook for example), while builders don't have such luxury and have to resort to .dds recolouring or CC, it really does make a difference. Surely it's very useful to consider them if you want to make a map that will run good on most old computers.
So, call me impartial if you want, but your point of view is somewhat offensive toward worlds I like and deminishes work and efford of builders I admire, that's why I voiced mine.))

Noone expects the spanish inquisition!
My simblr and my downloads blog .
Forum Resident
#385 Old 12th May 2012 at 6:55 PM
Quote: Originally posted by High Plains Gamer
If EA released an unpopulated world, many of those saying that unpopulated worlds are just fine would be complaining that an unpopulated EA world was incomplete and a total rippoff. Why should world creators be held to a lower standard?


Um... because they're doing it for free, while EA has paid full-time employees to create their worlds?

Or maybe because they're doing it for free, while EA is CHARGING players for their content?

Do you think that just because EA releases populated worlds that automatically means they thoroughly playtest those worlds before release? I'm pretty sure they don't. Heck I've found EA houses where doors would get stuck because there wasn't proper clearance. I've seen poor layout from EA premade houses time and again because they clearly don't playtest their houses AT ALL. And who hasn't seen lag caused by an insufficient number of doorways in an EA lot?

When people are giving me something for free, I cut them a lot of slack... I don't expect their creation to be perfect. But when I'm paying for it (getting it from EA), you're darn tootin' I b!tch and moan if things don't work properly. Because I've paid handsomely for a product which turns out to be defective. It could be a simple fix, but it annoys me that I have to fix it, when they pay countless employees to do that job. Why should I have to fix their shoddy work?

It seems to me that you expect people who give you something for free to be as professional and competent as the company which charges you for stuff. Wow! That's kinda messed up...

And you said world creators are lazy if they don't include premade sims? Heck... when I build houses, I really hate even decorating, because the build itself is so involved. I'm out of creative juice by that point and hate decorating if I'm limited to basegame or EA-only content (which many downloaders prefer). So I just don't bother, which means I don't offer my houses for download. Creating an entire world is a lot more involved than building a house... I can't imagine the months of work put into that endeavor. And you have the nerve to call these people lazy?

Sheesh!

Look, you have your opinion, and you certainly have a right to it. But I just think it's over the line to refer to anyone who offers free content as lazy because it doesn't meet your arbitrary standards of what "quality" means.
Field Researcher
#386 Old 12th May 2012 at 8:29 PM
I added St. Claire last week and it's my absolute favourite world to play right now. The person who made it obviously spent a long time on it cause every single little part of that world is completely decorated and it works great. The only problem is that it lags a little bit but it's probably cause I have a ton of CC and a shitty computer.
And I like it when I download my worlds unpopulated. I like to watch the town grow and have my sims in the sim bin from other worlds live there and have their own lives, instead of moving into a world that already has about 15 families.
Forum Resident
#387 Old 12th May 2012 at 9:29 PM
Quote: Originally posted by High Plains Gamer
As someone who has uploaded unpopulated world(s), you have a vested interest in arguing they are complete and finished products. Whereas I would simply say, "Nice start, now finish it."


At which point Miuki would run along and do just that and then reupload the world in the "Downloads for High Plains Gamer and ONLY High Plains Gamer Because This is the Only Person in the TS3 Community that Uses Custom Worlds and Therefore All Worlds Should Fit High Plains Gamer's Specifications" section.

I'm not going to reiterate what writerchick pretty aptly summed up but some of us like unpopulated worlds, or flat worlds or worlds that require certain EPs to play. And if it's lagging or there are routing issues or it just plain sucks, then there are plenty of options, not limited to but including: uninstalling it, downloading another world, letting the creator know in case they want to fix it, fixing it yourself, or taking to a "Favorite Custom Worlds" thread and calling some world creators incompetent. Like you said there are thousands of worlds out there and threads like this one and the CAW thread on the official site are pretty good reference guides for good worlds that have been heavily tested by a multitude of players.

And from personal experience, I can tell you that I've spent far more time (just in sheer number of hours) fixing Bridgeport than I have any world, custom or otherwise, that I've ever played.
Lab Assistant
#388 Old 12th May 2012 at 11:04 PM
I adore St Claire but I just can't play it. Am I the only one who is having horrible lag with it?
Scholar
#389 Old 12th May 2012 at 11:11 PM
For the record, populated worlds are an incredible pain in the ass if you're looking to populate it yourself. You have to go through and meticulously clear out every sim in the hood. I don't want to spend an extra hour setting up a savegame just because you hate unpopulated worlds.

Now, the ones I like to see are when the creator includes both.

Back on subject, Quailhogs' Grey Meadow is my absolute favorite world of all time. The level of detail has to be seen to be believed, and it's up to date for Pets, which is a big deal for me. http://forum.thesims3.com/jforum/posts/list/249858.page My only problem with it is since it was made before SHT, there's no space to place the premade SHT Big Show lot...but that's just because I'm too lazy to build my own.

Fortress Rock, by the same creator, is pretty great too.

I tend to install worlds for a while, play them for a bit, and then get rid of them, but the old standbys I always keep onhand are Dragon Falls, Fortress Rock, Grey Meadow, Jerico, Meadow Glen, Morikipo, and Sunset Valley Second Edition (which is pretty much required in order to make SV at all playable). Additionally I've been messing around in both St Claire and Setra (the egyptian-themed world) and both are probably going to wind up being permanent.

Snickerson: a Random Legacy Challenge. There are zebras involved. Zebras.
Field Researcher
#390 Old 15th May 2012 at 1:19 AM
I've checked Nilxis's blog again, his new world, Plav Raj, is ready for download, and has already found its place in my game and my list of favourite worlds. It is a picturesque Mediterranean town with suburban areas attached. Highly detailed, accurate, unique, realistic, and easily playable. Looks like I'm becoming a big fan of that guy.
Top Secret Researcher
#391 Old 15th May 2012 at 2:27 AM
Quote: Originally posted by High Plains Gamer
Of course, it is possible that an unpopulated world has been play tested. It's just that there seems to be a high correlation between unpopulated and unplaytested worlds. Similarly, it is possible that a populated world will be unplaytested -- I just don't know of any. (Well, maybe Los Aniegos when it first came out.)

Since getting into a world will take days of my time, I just don't want to take a chance. With thousands of available worlds, why should I?

But, ultimately it's about completeness. I might say that I play worlds without lots, because I want to build my own. Or, that I will play a world without sculpting, because I like Kansas, or a world without trees, because I like desolate places. And the truth of the matter is that a flat world without sculpting and trees will be more playable than a world without sims, but they are all unfinished products. I don't care to waste my time finishing them.

The threshold should be EA's worlds, because EA operates under a constraint that most world builders don't: EA's worlds have to be base game compatible. Even at that, EA's worlds are all populated. If EA released an unpopulated world, many of those saying that unpopulated worlds are just fine would be complaining that an unpopulated EA world was incomplete and a total rippoff. Why should world creators be held to a lower standard?

Besides, you are not impartial here. As someone who has uploaded unpopulated world(s), you have a vested interest in arguing they are complete and finished products. Whereas I would simply say, "Nice start, now finish it."


Do you have any idea how easily and quickly an unpopulated world can be populated? If you're not familiar with mods, it's time to educate yourself. I would simply say, "Nice try, now learn the facts."

TS2 and TS3: Where adult sims potty train their toddlers.
TS4: Where adult sims make Angry Poops.

Which game is made for the juvenile minded?
Lab Assistant
#392 Old 15th May 2012 at 3:05 PM
And I'd suggest coming back to the topic and make this place more helpful for visitors looking for some nice worlds


Quote: Originally posted by SommarBlomma
I've checked Nilxis's blog again, his new world, Plav Raj, is ready for download, and has already found its place in my game and my list of favourite worlds. It is a picturesque Mediterranean town with suburban areas attached. Highly detailed, accurate, unique, realistic, and easily playable. Looks like I'm becoming a big fan of that guy.


I've just checked this world and it looks very promising, might be used as vacation/honeymoon/or whatever destination.
Forum Resident
#393 Old 15th May 2012 at 9:48 PM
Quote: Originally posted by vanillabuzz
I adore St Claire but I just can't play it. Am I the only one who is having horrible lag with it?


I just downloaded it over the weekend and have logged about 10 hours so far. I got some lag in downtown but I had forgotten to terminate background programs so I don't know if that had anything to do with it. It's a pretty large and detailed world.

I moved my favorite single Sim, Dixi, into one of the brownstones in Kensington and have just been exploring the world. As with all AweSims's worlds, it is ridiculously pretty and it the lots are gorgeous. I also love that she added more of a city vibe in her downtown in this world than her previous ones. Usually I just download her worlds and poach the lots but I think I will actually be playing this one for a while.

So far, St. Claire is a big recommend.
Test Subject
#394 Old 16th May 2012 at 6:30 PM
Quote: Originally posted by kiatyn
I see names of worlds mentioned, and no links, or even a pointer where to find them! Ah, no fair!


http://llnw.thesims3.com/assetDetai...assetId=5249668

hope this helps
Lab Assistant
#395 Old 18th May 2012 at 4:08 PM
I just had to add this....

I downloaded Al Simbalba , an archived world from My Sim Realty, last week....just because I hit a mental road block with my main hood. I can't get enough of it! All the rabbit holes are underground, keeping the look of the town above ground. Sims do a LOT of walking....but that is actually great because you run into EVERYBODY. My only problem now, is putting the townies into traditional desert garb....once I find some.
Theorist
#396 Old 19th May 2012 at 12:12 AM
Quote: Originally posted by shante090
I've got patch 1.31 and could install St Claire without any problem. What's more, I don't have SHT and could still play the world so I'd recommend trying it on your own.


Thanks for this info. I'm patched to 1.33 and been drooling over St. Claire since it was released. Glad to know I can play it. I only have up to Generations and no intention of getting SHT. Thank you!!

~~runs over to Awesims to snag and grab~~

Life is short, insecurity is a waste of time. ~Diane Von Furstenburg
You don't get out of life alive. ~Jimmy the Hand

♥ Receptacle Refugee ♥
dodgy builder
#397 Old 19th May 2012 at 1:08 AM
On the discussion on poplulated versus unpopulated. As someone who don't mind playtesting other worlds (I have learned how to get rid of the crap). I don't jump to conclusions when it comes to quality. Referance is the best way to know, always. Like in this thread.

Quote: Originally posted by writerchick
When people are giving me something for free, I cut them a lot of slack... I don't expect their creation to be perfect. But when I'm paying for it (getting it from EA), you're darn tootin' I b!tch and moan if things don't work properly. Because I've paid handsomely for a product which turns out to be defective. It could be a simple fix, but it annoys me that I have to fix it, when they pay countless employees to do that job. Why should I have to fix their shoddy work?


That's just so fricking true.
Field Researcher
#398 Old 19th May 2012 at 2:20 AM
Currently playing Setra and loving it. It's got suburban areas, glamorous city and a nice, grungy waterfront area that's absolutely perfect.
Forum Resident
#399 Old 21st May 2012 at 12:31 PM
I know some other people gave it recognition but to anyone who was previously turned off by the lagginess of Los Aniegos before, it is MUCH improved now. I get no lag in the game and the ST updates make it a much richer neighborhood. Coasterboi did a great job with the boardwalk which is such a fun place to go on dates and family outings.

I just linked up Los Aniegos to St. Claire (renamed Santa Clara in my game to keep the Spanish, Socal theme going) using Twallan's Traveller mod and am having so much fun travelling back and forth these two worlds.
Destroyer of Worlds
retired moderator
#400 Old 22nd May 2012 at 10:55 PM
I think that my favorite, right now anyway, is Storybrook County by MySimsRealty. It has everything up to showtime and has a quaint downtown, city, and rural area allowing me to play different sims and venues all in one world.

Heaven Sims | Avendale Legacy
"On the internet, you can be anything you want. It's strange that so many people choose to be stupid."
Page 16 of 42
Back to top