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
Original Poster
#1 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 5:41 PM
Default It's very beautiful and quite cool but...
Not really the Sims!

I love all the Sims games. Always have. I also love Stronghold, Age of Empires, Medieval Total War etc. Sims Medieval is an interesting blend of all these games and pretty cool.

But I think they've made some wrong choices! I mean the thing that makes the Sims uniquely itself is the cycle of birth, aging and death. And I think they should essentially have retained those things at the core of SM. As soon as they lost these things they sort of stopped being the Sims, and instead became something else. A pretty good game I agree. Good graphics. Fun. But not really the Sims.

I really hope they rethink some basic things.The birth/growth/aging style used in Sims 2 and 3 would lend itself so easily to the medieval kingship idea. We could have the fun of seeing the kingdom inherited father to son just as it really was. And of seeing how the inherited traits affected the way they ran their kingdoms. It seem so nuts to have let go all of that and revert to the Sims 1 fiasco of kids that don't grow up when so much rich gameplay could have been made of keeping the whole family/dynasty/family treee thing going!

Anyone agree?
Advertisement
Mad Poster
#2 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 5:50 PM Last edited by el_flel : 2nd Apr 2011 at 3:21 PM.
Well, it's not supposed to be, and never was supposed to be, The Sims. It's a Sims branded spin-off, like SimAnimals or MySims. Having a regular TS set in medieval times would be awesome but that's not what this game is. It's focused on quests, rather than everyday life.
Instructor
#3 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 6:52 PM
I agree. It would be nice to be able to have generational kingdoms passing it on to heirs. Which kind of makes me wonder why make the Heir to the throne quest if they can never take over?

However, in the original sims you could bump them off but they did not age. You would have a baby just the same that would then become a child and never become an adult. Poor things. So it is true to the original game.

I just find it limiting that there is only one style of kingdom. IT would be cool if they had differnt styles for each of the buildings to choose from and ways to expand the room space etc.

It is something I can see myself playing for an intense period and then losing interest in as although the challenges may be different after a while it will become old hat.
transmogrified
retired moderator
#4 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 7:11 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Sidheed
I just find it limiting that there is only one style of kingdom. IT would be cool if they had differnt styles for each of the buildings to choose from and ways to expand the room space etc.


I was pleasantly surprised by the different NPCs that spawned when I selected a different style throne room for my second ambition (I selected "barbarian" from the limited edition bonus content), but I was disappointed that the difference didn't carry over to the other buildings in the kingdom.
Forum Resident
#5 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 7:29 PM
Actually the first sims game did not allow aging, so it would be a bit too much of a stretch to say its what the sims is all about.

Personly I always disable aging either way in sims 2 and 3. I prefer to keep my sims around and don't want them to grow old and die. Besides, they never bothered to give any age group aside from adults any attention so I prefer pretty much all my sims to be adults with the very occasional child.
Test Subject
#6 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 8:11 PM
To the OP I recommend checking out the Guild II also to your list of medieval sim type games, there's a load of functions in that game I wish maxis had looked at
Forum Resident
#7 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 8:49 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Pocus
To the OP I recommend checking out the Guild II also to your list of medieval sim type games, there's a load of functions in that game I wish maxis had looked at


You know that was my thought exactly. A cross between the sims and the Guild 2 would almost be my perfect game, I loved the micromanagement and dynasty scope as well as the running for office (but not the repetitiveness) and I would recomend it to any medieval and sims fan

But yes TSM does seem a bit lacking but at the same time I really like it, I can't help but think of it as a rushed spin off to try and please the fans, in a few interveiws I noticed words along the line of 'we noticed a lot of fans liked a medieval style or wanted to put the sims in a medieval setting', so they jumped right in to make another cash cow. And with that I still can't stop myself from getting it!

Disclaimer: These are the personally, personal opinions of me, myself and I. Yours may vary.
Terms & conditions do not apply
Test Subject
#8 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 9:20 PM
Just what can be classified as a Sims Game? Since everyone play Sims Games so differently. Some people enjoy Legacy playstyle, some do not.
Instructor
#9 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 9:42 PM
I think to answer to your question Shihuacao is one that allows and supports the varying playing style.

It is great to have achievements etc, but I really dislike that once the QP's run out that is it no more exp for your beloved little sims.

IT would even be nice if you could change where the buildings get place, or that there were several random maps with predtermined places. But you never know they may well add these things.

I also wish you could choose career pathways. So just after the midpoint of the Monarch levels you get an option to rule by sword or sorcery. As a mage you could get the option to be a Maleficiant or Beneficiant mage. Knights could become Paladins or Jousters..... something like that.

It would be wicked cool to have a magican monarch to go with my dark sorcery themed throne room.
Scholar
#10 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 10:05 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Inhuman One
Actually the first sims game did not allow aging, so it would be a bit too much of a stretch to say its what the sims is all about.

Personly I always disable aging either way in sims 2 and 3. I prefer to keep my sims around and don't want them to grow old and die. Besides, they never bothered to give any age group aside from adults any attention so I prefer pretty much all my sims to be adults with the very occasional child.


Aye, good to see I'm not the only one who does that. It was even a turn-off when TS2 came out and it looked like I have to have a time limit and some activities imposed on me, instead of screwing around like in TS1. Huzzah for modders, though.
Scholar
#11 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 10:07 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Pocus
To the OP I recommend checking out the Guild II also to your list of medieval sim type games, there's a load of functions in that game I wish maxis had looked at


TBH, I find the first The Guild to be a lot more brutally medieval to a fault. The graphics and engine on that one are dated by now though, and I guess different people have different tastes anyway. Might be worth trying both and, well, each player can make their own mind.
Test Subject
#12 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 10:36 PM
Quote: Originally posted by el_flel
Well, it's not supposed to be, and never was supposed to be, The Sims. It's a Sims branded spin-off, like SimAnimals or MySims. Having a regular TS set in medieval times would be awesome but that's what this game is. It's focused on quests, rather than everyday life.


That was not how it was presented to the consumer. This was presented as the Sims format in Medieval times.
Forum Resident
#13 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 10:40 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Pony_girl
That was not how it was presented to the consumer. This was presented as the Sims format in Medieval times.


As I remember it was presented as an all new base game from the creators of the sims.
Plus the word base game makes me think there'll be more to come....

Disclaimer: These are the personally, personal opinions of me, myself and I. Yours may vary.
Terms & conditions do not apply
Inventor
#14 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 11:29 PM
Quote: Originally posted by shihuacao
Just what can be classified as a Sims Game?

I remember Will Wright saying in an interview - about a hundred years ago - that The Sims was primarily designed as a building game and that little pixel people were just an afterthought. Therefore, a game in which the player can't build everything from ground up is not a Sims game. TSM is such a game.
transmogrified
retired moderator
#15 Old 1st Apr 2011 at 11:44 PM
By that logic, since I don't build in TS2 or TS3, I'm not playing The Sims?

Personally, I think el_flel's post covered it: it's a Sims-branded spinoff, but it ignites controversy because of the PC platform (we don't care so much that wii and DS games don't play like "our" Sims).
Inventor
#16 Old 2nd Apr 2011 at 12:09 AM
Of course you're playing it- You're also missing a big part of it.

I have no problem with "a Sims-branded spinoff". That's what it is.
Mad Poster
#17 Old 2nd Apr 2011 at 6:01 PM
Quote: Originally posted by missy harries
Quote: Originally posted by Pony_girl
That was not how it was presented to the consumer. This was presented as the Sims format in Medieval times.
As I remember it was presented as an all new base game from the creators of the sims.
It was advertised as a new game and EA released a lot of information it about prior to release which showed what it was going to be like and that it wasn't going to be The Sims set in medieval times.

I understand why people might have gotten the impression that it was TS3+medieval but that's not how it was advertised so I don't really think it's fair for people to complain that the game isn't what they expected when their expectations were based on incorrect assumptions.

I think mangaroo is right when she says that the game "ignites controversy because of the PC platform (we don't care so much that wii and DS games don't play like "our" Sims)". If it wasn't on the PC then I don't think people would have thought anything of it.
Forum Resident
#18 Old 2nd Apr 2011 at 6:44 PM
As far as I know the only serious releases regarding sims games are on the PC.

The console versions appear to be cheap trash in comparison merely used to cash in.
Forum Resident
#19 Old 2nd Apr 2011 at 6:50 PM
[QUOTE=The console versions appear to be cheap trash in comparison merely used to cash in.[/QUOTE]

I thought that all the sims games....... :P

Edit: Still. Cant. Stop. Though.

Disclaimer: These are the personally, personal opinions of me, myself and I. Yours may vary.
Terms & conditions do not apply
Instructor
#20 Old 2nd Apr 2011 at 7:07 PM
I find it interesting (or annoying) that the only two "Needs" they chose to use are two of the most tedious. Why not Social? Or Fun? How many in the simming community have complained about the length of time it takes for a sim to feed itself or sleep? I'm sure they could have come up with new needs, such as Combat Readiness or Confidence or perhaps even Social Standing. Something that the player would have to be proactive to achieve.

I am an Angel who has tamed the Dragon. For I am NOT crunchy, NOR good with ketchup!
Forum Resident
#21 Old 2nd Apr 2011 at 8:19 PM
Quote: Originally posted by AngelicScot
I find it interesting (or annoying) that the only two "Needs" they chose to use are two of the most tedious. Why not Social? Or Fun? How many in the simming community have complained about the length of time it takes for a sim to feed itself or sleep? I'm sure they could have come up with new needs, such as Combat Readiness or Confidence or perhaps even Social Standing. Something that the player would have to be proactive to achieve.


Those needs are pretty good ideas
One of the points to the sims though is a cartoonish mimic to reallity and the two most basic needs we have are eating and sleeping so cut them out will really make it feel less of a sims game. Less emphisis on them would be nice as well eating raw ingredients as snackage on quests. Social standing's a great one though, that would have been a nice one to replace the social need. Fun I can understand though since there's not much fun in medieval unless you count getting drunk and throwing tomatoes (Not forgetting whiteling of course)!

Disclaimer: These are the personally, personal opinions of me, myself and I. Yours may vary.
Terms & conditions do not apply
Alchemist
#22 Old 2nd Apr 2011 at 9:37 PM
Quote: Originally posted by AngelicScot
I find it interesting (or annoying) that the only two "Needs" they chose to use are two of the most tedious. Why not Social? Or Fun? How many in the simming community have complained about the length of time it takes for a sim to feed itself or sleep? I'm sure they could have come up with new needs, such as Combat Readiness or Confidence or perhaps even Social Standing. Something that the player would have to be proactive to achieve.


If you give a Sim the Friendly trait, they get a negative buff if they haven't socialized recently, which kind of mimics the Social need. My first physician had Friendly and Insecure as her fatal flaw, and she was very hard to keep focused because of the negative buffs. For her, Friendly acts more as an extra fatal flaw than a positive trait, lol.

I do love your ideas for more specialized needs. They could have different ones for the different professions. That would add a lot to the game.
Test Subject
#23 Old 2nd Apr 2011 at 9:53 PM
Personally I liked having only Energy and Hunger to manage. Some of the quests get difficult enough just trying to manage those two and keep their moods high to keep the Quest going good. If we had to keep all the Sims 3 moodlets, well... the game would become incredibly tedious.

On the topic of The Guild II, while there are some things I liked about it, I didn't like how it basically forces you to marry. If you don't, well, you're gonna lose because you can't carry on. Did like not having to worry about that in TSM (Though I now realize my kingdoms are all screwed when the Monarch dies... maybe except the one where she married the elf princess).
Forum Resident
#24 Old 2nd Apr 2011 at 10:22 PM
The two motives are good. Not sleeping and eating would be too weird, it might as well be a kingdom of golems, undead or such if those needs werent there.
Instructor
#25 Old 2nd Apr 2011 at 11:28 PM
Shush Inhuman one, you are giving away the plans for the next expansion.........
Page 1 of 2
Back to top