Talk:The Sims (video game)

Template:SGames

The Sims 3

Hey I just saw some loser edited the Sims 3 section and it has no info relating to TS3. Could somebody fix that because I'm not in to the editing thing and don't know what to say about TS3.Bizub4 17:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

All I have to say is..... 'Great Job!'

What?!?!?!?!?!?Bizub4 18:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Please not that the Sims 3 IS NOT rumored to be in development. It was officially anounced in November of 2006 during a financial report of EA.

I'm an idiot, I just mispelled note. Pssh. Sorry, guys.

The current article says the Sims 3 is scheduled for a 2008 release in the U.S. and 2009 in all other regions. No citation is given, where does this information come from, it's a new one on me? Last thing I know EA said, which was last year, is that TS3 would be a fiscal 09 title. 72.49.194.69 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Joshua

The Sims 3 site up at www.thesims3.com nothing yet though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.233.32.18 (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

i know there isnt much information about the game YET,but i think sims 3 should have its own page...this page is for "the sims 1" only,and sims 3 should have nothing to do with it....more info about the game will be available march 19....sims 3 will have its own page eventually,so why delay something thats going to happen anyway...Mimibianca (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo with visual reality simualtor

RE: the photo of 'A Sim enjoys playing with a virtual reality simulator on The Sims: Deluxe Edition.' may i note that the sims deluxe edition was mearly a colllaboeration of all expansion packs and the sims. i beileve that this object came with livin'large. Blacksmith ^talkEditor Review 05:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this object came with the base game. The Sims Deluxe Edition, as explained in the article itself, is a compilation of only The Sims (base game), Livin' Large, and exclusive Deluxe Edition content. --Funnykidrian 22:47, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

More Vandalisms

Some idiot(s) keep tampering with the Sims 3 section, removing the citation for the Sims 3 article, removing punctuation and altering the release date. Ugh, could someone please lock the article or something. 72.49.194.69 07:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Yet again this article is vandalised. Same section, the Sims 3. 72.49.203.96 11:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Joshua

This article has been repeatedly vandalized over and over, now the Sims 3 section has been completely removed. 72.49.203.96 05:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Joshua

Would someone please do something?!

I can see from the edit history that many people (generally anonymous IPs) are vandalising this article on a regular basis. Would someone please block IP edits? 75.88.87.223 06:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC) (we anonymous IPs aren't all bad.. just most)

Split the Article?

I think things pertaining to the entire series should be separated into a different article then the actual first game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.103.218 (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Sims Logo.png

Image:The Sims Logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Unclear text

"In addition, the game includes a very advanced architecture system. The game was originally designed as an architecture simulation alone, with the Sims there only to evaluate the houses.[5] During development it was decided that the Sims were more interesting than the houses. This is a common trait in Maxis games."

What is "a common trait in Maxis games." ? --Rajah 13:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I would presume it means that the people being more interesting than the houses (or the live mode being more interesting than the Build/Buy mode) is a common trait in Maxis games. However, this is POV (certainly not one a simfanatic might share after having spent 100+ hours going through every possible interaction and career) and so I took it out and altered the paragraph a bit. See if you like the new and improved (?) version.--Clicketyclick 18:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

To Crossmr -

Text from cited article: With Alexander on the brain, Wright conceived of a game in which the player would first design and build a house, then invite digital people to come and live in it. Initially, the people were to be little more than an animated scoring system: They'd walk around and "let you know whether your house was good or not." But as the design got farther along, the human figures got more and more interesting, and "we developed this simulation system that ended up being much more robust than I was expecting."

Text in this wiki entry: "In addition, the game includes a very advanced architecture system. The game was originally designed as an architecture simulation alone, with the Sims there only to evaluate the houses, but during development it was decided that the Sims were more interesting than originally anticipated and their initially limited role in the game was developed further."

How are those claims not supported in the citation?--clicketyclick_yaketyyak 10:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Where is it described as a "very advanced architecture system"?--Crossmr 20:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

So it was because of the very first sentence in the paragraph that you were removing the entire paragraph? Let me reiterate: don't throw out the baby with the bath-water. In any case, not every single phrase in an article here must be direct quotation or rewording. It is reasonable to assume that a game created with the "Berkeley architect named Christopher Alexander [...] on the brain" because Wright's "inspiration came from a dense, contrarian, 1,171-page tome on architectural theory" would have a serious focus on an architectural system, especially considering The Sims was only intended to be "a game in which the player would first design and build a house" and then have their design's functionality graded. And if assumption isn't enough, a few minutes of game-play would assure anyone that it has an advanced architectural design system, or at least an advanced one for its time, as many games once considered ground-breaking don't always appear as impressive nowadays (i.e. Tomb Raider's 3D graphics and polygon-pushing). But just because a modern perspective may make these game systems seem less impressive doesn't mean that these games should not be called "very advanced". After all, these games were necessary in the evolution of the systems they were built with/upon and its arguably only because of the older games that more impressive newer games came about, meaning that it is only because the old games were made that we have come to a point where we can look back and, by comparison, say those old games are not impressive.

Wright has been developing architectural design systems for a while now, with the recently released MySims allowing complete customisation of objects and exteriors (instead of choosing from a catalog) by using and manipulating basic building blocks, which is a system that will also be in place in the upcoming Spore. And Spore also features a similar system that allows for creature design customisation by manipulating pre-made shapes. It seems to me that Wright/Maxis have been pursuing a structural design system that is simple and easy-to-use but also allows for a high level of customisation. TS1 was either easy without a high degree of customisation (in-game) or it had a high level of customisation (using third party programs) but it wasn't very easy. TS2 improved on that, and TS3 will prove on TS2, and MySims/Spore improve on it in other directions. But I think it is undeniable that TS1 provided gamers with a level of easy customisation of buildings that they hadn't seen before. Any game which is easy enough that it has a pick-up-and-play style yet is complex enough that it sustains interest by allowing for a high degree of customisation has, by any measure, a very advanced design system.</simfanaticism>--clicketyclick_yaketyyak 22:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like original research. In fact yes all phrases must be sourced, especially when they create point of view or put forth a theory or opinion about the subject like the advanced nature of a product. Also remember this article is about The Sims and not his future products. Its well within norm for future products to be more advanced than its predecessor, that isn't any grounds for calling the original game advanced. You can't draw the conclusion about how advanced you feel something is unless a reliable source draws that conclusion for you. In fact many people would argue that the building system is in fact not really that advanced especially when you consider that fans basically had to beg for 45 degree walls in TS2 and only then most objects don't function correctly when used at that angle. But that is neither here nor there and the talk page isn't the place for the discussion. i've done so only to point out that its arguable either way and unless a reliable source says it for you, you can't draw a subjective conclusion.--Crossmr 04:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Sims 3 infobox

People keep insisting on adding an infobox for The Sims 3. There is no official information to go in the box, so the box itself is automatically original research. Also, it would seem to me that only one infobox per article would be ideal, so as not to confuse people. At any rate, until something is announced, please refrain from adding an infobox for The Sims 3. SpinyMcSpleen (talk) 05:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats right, we should not add an infobox for The Sims 3. Mythdon (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Characters

I think there should be mention of the characters of The Sims, you know the pre made Sims on The Sims and The Sims 2 games. Mythdon (talk) 08:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC) There used to be one, but it was deleted. --Kuriza (talk) 08:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Article for the series of games

I suggest splitting the "Sequels" section into an article called The Sims (video game series) and also have information on the series of The Sims games without having to put all the information on individual articles. Other video game series have articles on them, so can we?. Mythdon (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fansite Newsletter

I noticed someone keeps changing what that Guest wrote up for that fansite producer Email. I'm having a hard time believing we're reverting that because an email went to a fansite. Plus an employee from Maxis has verified (http://bbs.thesims2.ea.com/community/bbs/messages.php?threadID=6bc83c6620658e44fe1b4d6ed5e5b0dd&directoryID=154&startRow=1&openItemID=item.154,item.43,item.61,item.104,item.41,item.127,item.23#d7ab1c37bb834cd2252e1e66af6cbd10) it as a legitimate email. Let's avoid reverting again as it would probably trigger a page lock. (ManagerJosh (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC))

What bugged me is that the email was linked to inline, when it should have been used as a reference (<ref>). I was just going to fix it, but then I saw it had been reverted before, so I just reverted it again. Are fansites considered reliable sources? How can we verify the reliability of a "Maxis employee"? Is the EA BBS a reliable source? If this is so gosh-danged important, why did EA email a fansite instead of making a press release? These are all questions that need to be addressed before I think it can be re-added to the article. (NOTE: ManagerJosh has about 8 edits, hardly an experienced editor). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 20:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fansites generally can be a good source of information. Maxis makes it a point to keep fansites in the loop. Especially with The Sims 3. They've requested fansites get involved last week through this posting and news piece on February 29. Historically Maxis and EA has been inviting Sims fans from around the globe to take a sneak peak at titles. I wouldn't consider all fansites can provide verifyable evidence, but there are some that do make the effort to verify the content and legitimacy of emails. All Maxis employees or Sims Team Employees in the Sims 2 BBS have their text highlighted in a green box. I may have only 8 edits because I don't edit much on Wikipedia since of time. (ManagerJosh (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)).

I took a look at what the letter contains and noticed that you are the operator of the BBS. I therefore conclude that the post is spam. Despite what EA and Maxis do with them, according to Wikipedia policies, fansite BBSes are not a reliable source of information. It's also apparent that Maxis is going to make some big announcement on the 19th. We can wait until then. We don't have to be on the bleeding edge here. Still, this is just MHO. Wait for other editors to chime in. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 21:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

ManagerJosh owns WorldSims, a large fansite which has been running for quite some time. If he's campaigning for fansites to be used as references, then he obviously will have a vested interest in seeing them put on here. Fansites are generally NOT considered a good third-party source. SMC (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

It also disappoints me that only a few (two? three?) of his eight edits have been doing something other than pushing fansite external links into articles. SMC (talk) 23:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The Sims 3 needs its own wikipedia page.

Developers of the game have all hinted that they are about to release loads of information. (March 19) There also have been some interviews and e-mails from these developers. There is also an article in the PC Gamer magazine about the Sims 3 that is coming on the 13th. I don't have time to do it though... Moldy912 (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

oh yeah definitely im surprised that there wasnt one made ages ago when the sims 3 was confirmed! Msman (talk) 09:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

i know there isnt much information about the game YET,but i think sims 3 should have its own page...this page is for "the sims 1" only,and sims 3 should have nothing to do with it....more info about the game will be available march 19....sims 3 will have its own page eventually,so why delay something thats going to happen anyway.....well,since we all agree....then what are we waiting for..ill create it now.....;)........Mimibianca (talk) 15:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

apparentley i cant create the page all by myself.........its protected..and only administrators can create it........:(.....someone tell the administrators to create it.......ASAP....Mimibianca (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)