Template talk:Sim series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


I can understand removing the non-Sim games, but they should probably be on a list somewhere. Also, what's the difference between Other Sim Games and Sim Related Games? Oni Lukos (No, that's not my real name) c 28 June 2005 12:39 (UTC)

Major Changes[edit]

User: has made major changes to the Sim article without discussion. This is poor form. He has arbitrally decided that because a game doesn't use the "Sim" prefix, it is not a Sim game. I don't believe this is true and I have reverted the change. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) June 29, 2005 12:53 (UTC)

I wrote so because I read it from ([1], [2], and [3] — note the name of the games, and [4] — note the definition above the table). Can you give me reason why you regard games without "Sim" in the title to be Sim games? Thanks.
I can't speak for the other games, but I do know a bit about El-Fish. El-Fish is a simulation game and it was published by Maxis. The only reason that the title doesn't have the word "Sim" in it is because it was devloped indepedantly by a Russian development house. Had it been developed in-house it almost certainly would be called "SimFish". (In fact, that is listed as an altenate title on MobyGames.) This oddball title has been published in "Sim" compliation packs along with other Maxis Sim titles. (At least it has here in Europe.) Spore is in development by Maxis and follows it's tradition of Sandbox sim games.
Are we really going to say these games don't belong grouped with the other Maxis simulations just because they lack the word "sim" in their title? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) June 29, 2005 17:14 (UTC)
Being a simulation game and published by Maxis doesn't make the game automatically a Sim game. Some games, like A-Train (train simulation), Unnatural Selection (life and breeding simulation), etc., are simulation games and published by Maxis too, but they are not widely regarded as Sim games.
Also, are you sure that, just because a game is developed independently, it couldn't bear "Sim" name?
There are other Sim games that is developed independently, but bears "Sim" name, like SimFarm (Leaping Lizard Software), SimHealth (Thinking Tools), SimTower (Yoot Saito), etc., and they are widely regarded as Sim games.
So, I think the obvious explanation of it not bearing the "Sim" name is that Maxis doesn't want El-Fish to line up with other Sim games, so Maxis doesn't give El-Fish a "Sim" title.
Are you sure that the alternate name for El-Fish is SimFish. Looking from the page, SimFish is the unofficial name given by fans. But, I have searched newsgroups and web for ``"El-Fish" AND "SimFish", but found few occurences (just 2 sites, not counting MobyGames). Can we call this unofficial name?
As for the "Sim" compilation, can you find me references to it (I can't find any references to it in MobyGames)? If the compilation is obscure and is not widespread, we can simply ignore it (else we are expected to include games in other obscure Sim compilation packs too, and we might include weird titles due to their inclusion in obscure Sim compilation packs).
EDIT: It appeared that SimFish is indeed the alternate name for El-Fish, so we can just list in the article as "El-Fish a.k.a. SimFish". This fulfills the "Sim"-in-the-title rule. 30 June 2005 11:54 (UTC)
As for Spore, well, I think we could make an exception to it (and to all games produced by Maxis after being acquired by EA), because I think the "Sim" in the name rule doesn't apply to games produced after Maxis had been acquired by EA. After being acquired by EA, Maxis (or EA?) got much more liberal in naming their games, so far as to naming other games not developed by Maxis as "Sim", and not naming games that obviously should bear "Sim" name (so categorizing them would be more difficult than games produced before EA acquisition). Consider these games, which was produced after EA acquisition:
  • "Spore" which you mentioned — Life simulations, created by Will Wright, developed by Maxis, published by EA, interfaces similar to previous Sim games, but doesn't bear "Sim" in the title.
  • "SimCoaster" and "Sim Theme Park" — Theme park simulation, bears "Sim" in the title, advertised by Maxis, but developed by EA using Bullfrog brand (or developed by Bullfrog staff in EA?), and is an enhancement/update to Theme Park, a game previously developed by Bullfrog (its interface is similar to Theme Park, and resembles none of previous Sim games).
So, in my opinion, Maxis' Sim games are:
  • For games published by Maxis before EA acquisitions: games that bear "Sim" in its name
  • As for games published by EA (after the acquisition), I am currently undecided (due to EA's liberal use of "Sim") 30 June 2005 04:28 (UTC)

Major revamp[edit]

I've decided to rebuild the box under the grounds that the previous version of the box was not meeting up to expectations for a few reasons:

  1. The box was using two tables, which mean that the table was easily opened to distortion when in contact with text or thumbnails.
  2. Addition of any titles in the box is found to be inefficient because each title was placed in individual table cells. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 12:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC) ╫
Looking nice, though I'm not sure why you need the line break to clear all. I think it would look fine next to a floated element. Also, I'm not sure why you put a line break in the middle of the Other Sim Games section. Remember, it IS variable width, and my screen is kinda wide, so it looks odd with so much empty space. ~ Oni Lukos c 13:18, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The upper line break has now been fixed. ╫ 25 ring-a-ding 07:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC) ╫

What constitutes a "Sim related" game?[edit]

Widget Workshop was just added back to the list after I'd removed it previously. I got to thinking...what constitutes a Sim Related game? Obviously, something like Marble Drop (Oh...hmm...no article. *puts writing a Marble Drop article on a mental checklist of things to do, along with writing a Full Tilt! 2 Pinball article and a Maxis Man article) or Full Tilt! Pinball won't get on (unless you want to call FT!P a Pinball simulator, which blurs it even more), but seriously. Widget Workshop? What's THAT simulating?

Also, Sid Meier's SimGolf was removed because it isn't a Maxis game. While this does seem to be true, it was influenced by Will Wright and it DOES have the Sim name in it... ~ Oni Lukos ct 00:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

New section: Non-Maxis Sim games?[edit]

Seeing as (at least) SimCity 64 and Sid Meier's SimGolf bear the Sim name but are not Maxis-created, perhaps there should be a section for these? ~ Oni Lukos ct 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be oposed to this. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 17:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Neither do I. "Non-Maxis Sim games" would be appropiate to name the section. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 02:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC) ╫
Done. Added Sim Theme Park along the way. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 03:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC) ╫
I don't think that this is an appropriate addition. The template states Maxis and Sim not or. The idea of SimUniverse is based around the Maxis concept. These other games are barely related to Maxis or the Sim concept. The Sim prefix does not a Maxis game make. — Scm83x talk Hookem hand.gif 03:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, then the Sim-Related section doesn't make sense either because those don't have the Sim name! You're taking this a bit too literally. It's not STRICT STRICT STRICT, MUST FOLLOW ALL OF THESE CRITERIA. It's trying to give links to relevant topics. Hell, we can, you know, change the supposed list of criteria to make it fit what it's trying to describe better. It's not all set in stone. ~ Oni Lukos ct 03:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I can't argue with you for that. In fact, you have a point: This template is only designated for titles that Maxis has ever been involved in, and it should stay that way. I see you reverted my changes too; swift work. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 04:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC) ╫

Inclusion of unconfirmed material[edit]

In the interest of factual accuracy and the fact that this is an encylopedia and not a fan site, should we be including information that has not been confirmed by an actual source, say the developer or publisher? --Crossmr 00:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That would reduce the content significantly, and although I'm all for that, most of the article would have to go, since GameSpot is not a 'reliable source' (per one of your edit summaries). I have little problem with deleting wikifying most of the page. ALTON .ıl 03:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sim Brick[edit]

I think only a handful of people will have heard of the parody Sim Brick. Is it notable enough for the box, and if so, where would it go? Spottedowl 12:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sim Brick is a parody game and not by or affiliated with Maxis or EA in any way, so it doesn't really belong on the Maxis Sim Games template. ~ Oni Lukos ct 20:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of unconfirmed material[edit]

In the interest of factual accuracy and the fact that this is an encylopedia and not a fan site, should we be including information that has not been confirmed by an actual source, say the developer or publisher? --RedPooka 22:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


Oni Lukos, please add messages correctly! And the "Sim Related" usually means they have the prefix "Sim-" and are directly a type of Simulation game. Also with the "removing non-sim games" you stated, those ARE in-fact sim games, only they all have one source and do not describe ANYTHING about the games, merely the title and possible release date and so forth, thus making them canidates for deletion. :) --RedPooka 00:31, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

That message was well over a year old, and the circumstances surrounding the message have changed over the past year. It is mostly moot at this point. Also, why did you move my post so that it now looks like it's in response to a post that was made after it? ~ Oni Lukos ct 01:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Arrrrgghhh I thought that was a reply to what I said! Sorry. Let me return it to the top. --RedPooka 13:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


I like the alignment that was just done by Alton, here [5]. We should strive to keep it that way. Its much more readable.--Crossmr 00:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The current guidelines for video game navboxes are being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Navboxes_III:_Son_of_Navboxes. Contribute if you have an opinion about sectioning, style, etc.
As far as alignment goes, the current (although disputed) guidelines have alignment centered, and this is what I see as the general case for several similar navboxes. Honestly, there seems to be enough space between lists as to not cause any confusion. And the left alignment leaves a lot of whitespace on the right side. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 02:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I really want to avoid confrontation with anyone about this minor issue, so go ahead and format it how you wish. I think we'd trust you with updating it according to their "guidelines" (but I think it looks GREAT as is). I have qualms about splitting the box up, however; which box would Sim and Simlish go in? ALTON .ıl 02:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I prefer sections to splitting as well. I changed it to the boxed sections to make up for the two lines used for The Sims 2. TH1RT3EN talkcontribs 02:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, ok, great great! ALTON .ıl 07:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

SimCity 5 Article Link[edit]

I have noticed that there is a lot of reverting being done related to the inclusion of a link to the SimCity 5 article. The reason being provided for the reverting is that the SimCity 5 game is very "distant". While I agree with that, I do not agree that this means there should be no link to the article. If the article is a crystal ball then that is separate issue. In my opinion as long as the article is not deleted and SimCity 5 is going to be a "Sims" game, I think it should remain in the template. Camaron1 21:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is now deleted, so naturally a link to the SimCity 5 article should only be restored when the article is in existence. Camaron1 | Chris 11:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

SimCity (series)[edit]

I added the link to SimCity (series), just if readers want to read a summary of all the SimCity games/features. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 14:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Major restyle[edit]

I did a major restyle on the template, because I felt it looked better organized this way. Now there is a distinct overview on the different Maxis franchises. The only thing I can't work out, are the little edit, and discussion buttons on the top right of the template. Maybe someone can try to fix that? Hopefully you like the new look--Jort227 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the re-style, I have tried to get the view, edit and discussion buttons back with no success, I hope someone can work out why they disappeared. Camaron1 | Chris 11:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

SimCity listing[edit]

I have reformatted this template so all versions of SimCity are included in the template in the order they were released - as shown by the article SimCity (series). Not all of those listed are Maxis made - but this template was changed a while back so versions can be included that are made by other developers. I notice that the location of the SimCity Societies link has been moved a lot. I have once again moved it back to under the SimCity heading for the following reasons: 1. The game has the title "SimCity" in it so it is not speculation to call it a SimCity game. 2. All evidence provided by EA suggest that this game is the next game in the SimCity series and although it is going in a direction, it is still a city building game. Camaron1 | Chris 10:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not want to start a edit war, but I have reverted an attempt by (talk · contribs) to move SCS out of the SimCity section for reasons stated above. The reasons provided for the move is that my earlier move was vandalism and is against evidence. I am little confused on how either is true. Camaron1 | Chris 09:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • 1. Obviously irrelevant.

2. Sorry, Electronic Arts does not make the game, Maxis does. 3. You are the only user who constantly vandalizes the template and information regarding Sim City Societies. 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tilted Mill Entertainment are producing SimCity Societies and Electronic Arts are publishing it, Maxis are not involved anymore. If you look at the edit history I am not the only one who has made edits related to SCS in the template. I would also be interested in hearing on how my edits are vandalism. Camaron1 | Chris 21:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Added SimFarm[edit]

I didn't see any reference to it on here and so I added it to the box. I then noticed it in one of the strikethrough comments. I hope I did not move out of turn in adding it. Acronjsmith 21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Sims Pool[edit]

There is no evidence of such a game on EA's website. As such, it should not be listed here. SpinyMcSpleen 06:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

City Life / Cities Unlimited[edit]

OK, Monte Cristo is not EA; but as Monte Cristo's City Life (released) and Cities Unlimited (in development) are both city simulators, and have received a lot of interest from the SimCity community (especially in the light of Simcity Societies) - should they be added to the template - perhaps in the Sim-related section? I thought I'd canvass opinion before changing the template itself... Mittfh 20:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This template used to be very much strictly kept to Maxis games - now it is more open. Neither City Life or Cities Unlimited are Sims games, but I have no real problem with putting them in the related section. Camaron1 | Chris 18:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

$ .02[edit]

SimCity Societies should really be under "Related" or "Other", for a few reasons-

  1. It is made by a different company. I realize EA is still publishing it! However, it is designed by a different company than every other game in the series. Toyota made looms and cars, but I wouldn't say they are in the same category, would you? The cars would have been designed by different people than the looms, and they operate quite differently.
  2. There is no numbering in the title. This is a smaller point, but the fact still remains. This would seem to indicate that it is supposed to be different from the others.
  3. Game play (From what we know) is radically different from the other games in the series.

Since it is quite obvious that everyone in this discussion is not going to change their opinion no matter what happens, (Much like various Atheist vs. Christian arguments) I would say we wait until the game actually comes out and then have a vote on whether or not the two games a really similar enough to call them part of the same series...-- 21:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Only the third point is really a good one. The first point is mostly irrelevant, and backed up by a horrible analogy. For example, SimCity 64 wasn't made by Maxis, but it's still on the SimCity game list. The second point would suggest that it's a spinoff, like the The Sims console games. However, waiting until it's released to see what gameplay is like sounds like a sensible idea to me. ~ Oni Lukos ct 21:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I remain against moving it from its current location. Many "Sims" games in the template were not made by Maxis, and at least one SimCity game wasn't either. It is true that there is no numbering in the title - though general sources indicate that is because it is a spin-off and/or SimCity is moving in a new direction - not that it is a completely different game. The game-play is different from others in the SimCity series, but the core elements of city building remain. Many of the features of this SimCity originate from previous versions - such as the music from SimCity 4, and the rewards system from SimCity 3000. This new SimCity moves to-wards a more social type of gameplay - but I do not think the changes are enough to label it a completely different game. I do agree however on reviewing the situation after the game is released. Camaron1 | Chris 21:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I went with World in Conflict instead of Simcity Socieites, so I can't say anything first hand, but a couple reviews would indicate that it isn't much like the rest of the series at all. It's like comparing Railroad Tycoon 2, where you have to build up a company, with Loco-comotion, where you build a virutal model trainset. (Still me, by the way. Forgot to log in before.)--Labine50 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I will hopefully shortly get a chance to have a good look at the game, I will re-state my thoughts after I get a chance to play it. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I have been a bit slow responding to this, but after playing SimCity Societies - I conclude that the game is unique, but is not different enough to justify taking it out of the SimCity series section in my view, especially after a recent patch. Camaron | Chris (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Should SimCity 64 go before SimCity 4 or after it?[edit]

I think that, since it came out between SimCity 3000 Unlimited and SimCity 4, it should be between them on the list. I'm changing it back for now. Knowitall (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have put the SimCity series in order of release date, hence putting SimCity 64 between SimCity 3000 and SimCity 4. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Spore is a franchise[edit]

At the 2008 DICE Summit, Electronic Arts CEO John Ricitiello stated, "It's probably the greatest creative risk maybe going on in the game industry today...I believe it's going to be one of the greatest franchises in our industry and will rival World of Warcraft or The Sims or Rock Band. It's going to be right up there." [1] JAF1970 (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of throwing oil on the fire here, I believe JAF1970 may be correct. There are already 3 Spore titles confirmed for release, as well as a 4th that may be confirmed, depending on your definition of "confirmation". How many titles would be required for a game to become an official Franchise? Or is that reserved for games with official sequels? KiTA (talk) 19:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yup, may be an upcoming franchise. So? Does it matter? No. I don't see a "Sim" in Spore, which is what this template is all about. Ergo, Spore deserves it's place under related. Feel free to create a template for all Maxis games, but this is not it. --MrStalker (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The original name for Spore was "SimEverything", but the codename Spore was popular enough that they kept the codename. Does that mean it counts, or not? I donno. I think it belongs under related, too, but wouldn't the other Spore games count as well? How many would there need to be for there to be an additional "Spore series" row? There's already 4 games planned (PC, Wii, DS, Mobile Phones)... KiTA (talk) 00:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? Either way it doesn't matter. The game is called Spore and doesn't have any Sims in it. There is no series, just a bunch of ports. --MrStalker (talk) 10:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
You must be joking. It's very well known that it was originally SimEverything.Wired

right|thumb|150px|Spore was originally conceived as SimEverything, in this early poster.[2]

Spore was originally a working title, suggested by developer Ocean Quigley, for the game which was first referred to by the general public as SimEverything. Even though SimEverything was a first choice name for Wright, the title Spore stuck. Wright added it also freed him from the preconceptions another Sim title would have brought, saying "...Not putting 'Sim' in front of it was very refreshing to me. It feels like it wants to be breaking out into a completely different thing than what Sim was."[3]
Does it bloody look like I'm joking? I honestly don't give a crap if called it SwimUpMyAss, point is it dosn't have any Sim in the name nor Sims in the game. --MrStalker (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
1. Watch the language. 2. It's SimEveryhing, just was given a different name. 3. Wright said that SimEarth and SimLife are the basis for Spore. And by the way, neither they nor SimAnt, SimFarm, SimHealth, etc have any Sims in it. What's your point? You're doubting Wright when he says it's a Sim game, and is adding Sim tools to it so that people who play other Maxis Sim games are more familiar with it... Wow. JAF1970 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Your arrogance is just... Wow. --MrStalker (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, Wright has been adding The Sims 2 tools to Spore, to make it more accessible. JAF1970 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I have no problem either way at this point. It could be that Spore evolved past the Sim label and is something else, but still related. The whole purpose is to give people easy access, and so long as the right games are included - no matter what the label (Spore, Related, etc). JAF1970 (talk) 06:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
That is incredibly flawed view. For example, Mana (series) started off as Final Fantasy Adventure: Holy Sword. However, it soon spinned off onto its own. For now, i suggest making Spore it's own template and putting "Spore" in other.Lucia Black (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

2 more games to consider[edit]

With the inclusion of the Theme Park series in the other grouping I think that El-Fish should also be considered seeing how it is a simulator published by Maxis. Also what about raid at bungeling bay, it should be considered as a related game since it directly influenced the creation of SimCity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Stop making wholesale edits without discussing it with everyone in the talk page. JAF1970 (talk) 04:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If you have something to say to me, comment on my talk page. You're not doing anybody any favours by antagonizing me elsewhere. Firstly, Spore is not a "Sim" game (strictly speaking). The fact alone that the code name of the game was SimEverything doesn't necessarily make it a Sim game (as the code name may have applied to a game that was completely different [conceptually speaking] to what would eventually become Spore; however, since this cannot be proven with hard evidence, claiming that Spore is a Sim game would be based purely on original research/opinion). Secondly, the "Theme" games have nothing to do with the Sim series (Bullfrog is a UK-based company, however the Theme Park World/Inc games were renamed to Sim Theme Park/SimCoaster in North America to make them more marketable in a region where the Sim brand was better known). Apart from the name change, the Theme games have nothing to do with the Sim series. If Theme Park World/Inc are considered to be Sim games, then so should Theme Park and Theme Hospital (the former of which is a prequel to Theme Park World/Inc). Sillygostly (talk) 04:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
No. You're taking this personally, and angering everyone who contributes to the page by making wholesale edits without discussing it first. This is not your personal playpen to change as you see fit personally. JAF1970 (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
How was I taking anything personally? You just attacked me on a talk page hoping that I wouldn't see your libellous comment. Comment on content, not the contributor. Sillygostly (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect fanboyism. --MrStalker (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Fanboyism? From whom? JAF1970 (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

EA Land/The Sims Online[edit]

Since the online game is now EA Land, and formerly The Sims Online, shouldn't the latter be the onw in parentheses? CatMan (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merger[edit]

Ive proposed the merger. I just think there should be only one. ElectricalExperiment 20:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

How about:

Replace the project logo with the plain diamond (without the W). Or just don't have an image at all. --23230 talk 16:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it with out the diamond is better.

--EE 16:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure this template was merged to the right place, I would have thought it would have all been merged to Template:Sim series. The addition of 'The' is not necessary and seems to suggest this template is still just related to the The Sims series. I am quite happy to fix the merger to solve this issue. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will shortly move this template to Template:Sim series for the reasons given above, and merge the two old templates page histories, unless any objections are raised here. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done Template moved to right place with template and talk page histories merged. I have taken the liberty of also correcting most of the pages where this template is transcluded to point directly to this page. I would suggest keeping the Template:The Sims series redirect however for navigational purposes. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


Anyone want to start this article? SimAnimals. E3 revelation JAF1970 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Never mind. Started it off. JAF1970 (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Spore spilt[edit]

Spore should be split from the current template let it have it's own spore template. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

SimAnimals = Sims without people[edit]

SimAnimals is a The Sims game - just without any humans in it. The animals develop as Sims do. JAF1970 (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What does that matter? It is NOT a The Sims game. Your only argument is that EA called it "The Sims but with animals" and that the logos are similar. The logos are similar because the game is developed by The Sims label under EA, which now develops ALL Sim games. SimIsland is NOT a SimCity game, but its SimCity without the city. SimTown is NOT a SimCity game, but its SimCity without the city. When the game is called The Sims: Animals then I'll agree with you, but it's not and it is NOT a The Sims game. (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's a member of the The Sims Series, but it still belongs in the template as all has been doing is removing it. Can't we all just agree that it belongs in the template but perhaps put it in "Other Sim Games" as that's the most suitable category in my opinion. And plus, why does everyone keep removing MySims (PC), that belongs in the template as well as long as it remains an article. Jammy (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
What? I haven't been removing it. I've moved it to "Other Sim games" in every single edit. (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I never noticed that, my apologies. Jammy (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


Somehow the text "SimIsle" in this template does not turn into normal text when I'm at the SimIsle page. It remain as a link unlike all the other Sim pages which they turn to text correspondingly with their own page. I couldn't figure out why it does that. Tavatar (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are trying to say. The current link points to a re-direct at SimIsle, the actual article is now at SimIsle: Missions in the Rainforest. Hence when the link is clicked on in the template it re-directs to the actual article. I am open minded on if the template link should be changed to point direct to the current article. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"Other Sim games" -> "Classic Sim games"?[edit]

I'd like to suggest a rename for the "Other Sim games" title to "Classic Sim games". Since all bar one of those games (SimAnimals, which I have honestly never heard of nor seen in real life) were developed and released in the 1990's, and since EA refers to these games as "EA Classics", should we not call them "Classic Sim games" rather than "Other Sim games"? The title "Other Sim games" suggests that the series title is open to use as a dumping ground for games which are in some kind of weird Sim grey area. These really aren't "Other Sim games" at all; they're games which Maxis experimented with and built on, and referring to them as "others" sounds much like we're just favouring the massive commercial success (The Sims/SimCity series) over those "lesser" games. Just a thought. I'm not about to rush in and edit it, since it's likely someone would cry vandalism, but I don't think that referring to certain games as "others" is setting a good precedent for future game templates. SMC (talk) 14:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some others not in the Other Sim games section have also been referred to as "EA Classics", including SimCity 4. Camaron · Christopher · talk 19:46, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of that. I suppose when a game gets old-ish EA decides to refer to it as a classic. Oh well, it was worth a try. SMC (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

What defines "Related articles"?[edit]

That area is kind of grey. Like way too grey in my opinion. Right now (at least for the next 47 seconds) Super Smash Bros. Brawl is considered a related article. The only reason why it's related is because Dr. Wright shows up. If anything, this is something that should be put on the SimCity article. If you take exception to Brawl, you might as well add Melee, The Drew Carey Show, and like 5 episodes of The Simpsons. (Sarcastic much? Sorry.) Beyond that though, I think it's even a stretch to put Ben Bell in the list. Looking at his article, he only qualifies as a related article because no one knows anything (or has researched anything) about him beyond his work on Sims 3. This is probably something I should take up with the uberWikians (philosophically, links to related articles encourage generalisation) but essentially I just wanted to say that I'm removing the link to Smash Bros. Have a nice day.

Nate547 (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ EA CEO Calls Spore The Greatest Creative Risk In The Industry, Kotaku
  2. ^ C|Net Spore history
  3. ^ "Wright Hopes to Spore Another Hit". Wired Magazine. Retrieved 2007-07-21.