Its Sims3. No kidding. I was already losing faith in them (they give all the BIG games good scores), but this really just kills all credibility.
Haha. I am starting to really like you
So in your opinion Sims belong in the same category as Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron series or similar? I find that a bit strange. In fact, I would go as far as to suggest that the Sims series are about the last thing on the mind of an average strategy game enthusiast when he's thinking which game he should buy next. So I doubt that chucking it in the strategy bin will help gamers choose wisely.
And if "planning ahead" is the main requirement for calling a title a "strategy game", then every game more complex than Space Invaders could be called such. Tetris is then a strategy game - you have to plan ahead there too.
Personally I don't give a space rat's arse which game is the "ohlala winner of this or that category of the year", but lets call things as they are - and Sims are definitely NOT a strategy game.
The fact that you used the word "he" is part of the problem. You want to the strategy field to be so narrow that you want to exclude titles that are strategic but not what you enjoy. Still, I am the one, if you bothered to read what I wrote, that said there isn't a great category for the Sims series. Which means, drum roll, that I don't think strategy is a perfect place for it. Compared to simulators, yeah I think strategy is a better choice. Tetris would be more like a puzzle game but now you're not being serious, just pissy.
For reviews, I prefer IGN and Gamesradar. Both are better than Gamespot. Gamespot does focus on big titles and inflate their scores (they even have "launch centers"), and they give good games bad scores. Brett Todd is one of the worst game reviewers I've seen.
I mainly read PC Gamer, but that has gone in a bad direction too. Ever since Gary Steinman became Editor-in-Chief (he is gone now) he made a lot of really bad changes. The new art style was bad, he killed the editors columns, he got rid of the preview section, which gave really good insights into games, and mashed it into the Eyewitness section, which is now a total mess, filled with useless crap. Sins of a Solar Empire: Diplomacy got a stupid "17 word preview". If you read the newest issue, with Crysis 2 on the cover, you'll find that a total letdown (they had 2 screens and three questions). Hopefully someone will turn that magazine around, and fast.
What!?!?!?!? You mean I'm NOT the heroic L-Block just itching to slot into the tower and clear three lines!?!?! BLASPHEMY!!!
No what I was thinking exactly but it's funnier.
I used the word "he" because I usually do not bother with being politically correct. I am fully aware that there are female gamers and strategy enthusiasts as well. I am quite sure that when she thinks of strategy games Sims are the last thing on her mind as well.
We could simply agree to disagree, but instead of bailing out from an interesting discussion, tell me - why do you think strategy would befit Sims better as a classification than simulation?
I mean, simply take a look at the cross section of both genres; take a look at well established and classic strategy games like already mentioned Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron etc. (even take into account "strategy" games like Warcraft series, C&C series etc.) - I don't see many common points with Sims, if you do, which ones? All I see is the ability to plan ahead and work towards some overarching goal, but that is hardly enough to label something a strategy title.
On the other hand in Sims I see many similarities with other simulation games. You have a virtual machine concept, great focus on the dynamics and functioning of a specific entity, attention to detail including not only the entity being simulated but also its surroundings and so on, all of which are specific for simulation games.
In fact, you know what? I suspect that with throwing in "strategic" into the definition the publisher simply wants to generate more revenue by appealing to a wider audience. Its as simple as that.
It has nothing to do with gamers and their interests and is in fact misleading, much like calling games such as Arma2 "shooters" when in fact they are tactical simulators - gamers expecting actual shooting aka Modern Warfare 2 will be disappointed by the amount of time they have to spend crawling through grass and looking through the binoculars.
Considering the entire industry barely spends enough money on "ink" to study what a female gamer thinks, I seriously doubt that you would know what most female gamers think.
Okay
Incorrect. The publisher, which you must know is EA, does not list the Sims series as a strategy title. That is gamespot's doing and while i know websites like IGN, gamespot and the rest have bowed down to the mighty dollars of the publishers, it wouldn't make a lot of since for EA to push a website to make the Sims a winner in a category EA doesn't even list the Sims belongs to.
Back to the original idea/discussion.
I am having trouble keeping this somewhat short so... my apologies.
What does the Sims series have in common with strategy titles, long term planning. The fact that the goals are set by the players and not the game, to me, is not important. A lot of people, there are exceptions, set goals for themselves playing the game and they work towards them, and when they are done with that, set new goals and rinse and repeat. It's not mindless, and while some people just watch what happens, judging from playing the 3 primary games and participating in those communities, I would say a lot typically have plans. What it doesn't have in common with other strategy titles is any sort of loss system, or punishment for bad decisions. There is also no combat system, war or revolt type thing. There are, however, reactions to bad events.
What it has in common with simulators is it has a loose simulation on life, but it's very loose. Sure your sims wash and eat and take care of kids, but it's not so deep that your going to walk away learning much from it. You play a flight or a train simulator, you're going in pretty deep with the highest rated games. Sims also let's you design clothes and build houses, simulating a house, in a physical sense, sure that describes it pretty well and some people simulate real houses and clothes very well, so definitely simulation there but that entire part is optional. You don't have to make any clothes or houses, you can just choose them. So while some people might spend 12 hours building a replica of some victorian house (maybe even more hours than than that), or a few hours just creating one for fun, there are number that never do that at all.
Now looking at some other games often lumped next to the Sims series, whether the sims is put in the simulation, strategy, or life simulator catgory or all of the above.
Kudos: The problem is Kudos is a life simulator, right up to the minimum wage, not enough life balance and money issues. It doesnt' really have goals, but it has an ending and it's pretty punishing.I would call this a life simulator because of the more realistic approach, but the sims lacks that realism.
Spore: Spore was, imho, was just an attempt to hit lightning twice by trying to appeal to the sims players and everyone else and they wound up with a weird little action game with a simulation phase and 2 strategy phases, so 50% weak strategy, 25% social/simulation thing, and the one i liked best was that stategic/action water cell phase. anyway, this has very little in common with the sims but it's also weird in that not only does it satisfy few people, it doesn't really have a great category either
The Game of Life: what the hell Amazon, this ia board game. I don't care if it has the word life in it.
SimCity: Well I suppose this one could fit into simulation in that you player a mayor and run a city with some realistic elements, it seems to fall into strategy titles too though
Airpot Tycoon: If this is the one i remember, it does not simulate an airport. I could be thinking of Airline Tycoon I suppose, but then again, 3-5 tycoons fall into life simulator but not the others, not Rollercoaster, Zoo tycoon for example?
Diner Dash: That's a time management game, not a life simulator or strategy
East India Company: I haven't played this one so I can't say for sure, but I got the strong impression this isn't a life simulator either.
The Guild and the Guild 2: I've played these, and seems more like a strategy title with a very, very minor amount of any life simulation in it in that you have a character and a family that marries and has kids
Steam lists games like the Tropico series in simulation AND strategy and Majesty hits both too, don't believe they have a life simulator section, and don't appear to sell Sims at all.
Like I said. I don't know that there is a great category for the Sims series, and while life simulator might be an okay fit, so long a there is a strong attempt to separate it from flight and train sims, just look at what e-tailers throw into that category, pretty much everything. Simulation and strategy seems to be a catch all for the moment with many of the titles often listed under both listings. So to say that the Sims series is not a strategy title and therefore cannot win strategy game of the year, is a pretty hollow argument since no one has really agreed what separates simulation from strategy in the first place.
Having said that, Sims 3 is not award winning in any category. A lot of credit should be given to Sims 1 and 2, (despite what the haters say) but 3 is just Sims 2 with some icing. I disagree with their decision, but it has nothing to do with the category it's in.
Nah nah- you're the once Straight-Block cop who suddenly had a change of heart and became a crooked L-Block
I will never listen to Gamespot again after this. I knew they weren't really any good anyways, but this just does it for me. Even though I'm sick of the Microsoft-fanboyism at IGN, I'm afraid I still tend to trust some of their reviews. They usually do get them right, or if they don't they clean it up when they mention the game in the future. Hell, the worst thing they could ever do is give Gran Turismo 5 less than a 9 because it "isn't unique". But then een the Xbox fanboys would pack up and leave that site. I still have terrible memories about their Kingdom Hearts 2 review.....7.5 because "it is too easy for the ultra-pro reviewer". Right. And yet many people had trouble beating the game on the hardest difficulty, and the game was never meant for ultra-pro gamers in the first place. Right, Jeff Haynes. Right. A 7.5 for a game that deserved more than an 8 because it was too easy for you. Right.
I am very thankful I usually don't pay any attention to Gamespot now. How could they.....it's just beyond me. Sims 3 wasn't even that great; the buggy mess that was Empire was way better then that, as a stategy game. Dawn of War 2 was much better than that as well, but hey; that's if you can even class the game as strategy.
And since i like strategie games but not sims, it should not be classified as strategie game!
Or maybe all games are strategie game since there is hardly one where there is no need to plan ahead. In that case, why didnt GTA4 or Puzzle quest won? Or [insert random game name]?
The point is that the goal of the sims is not to reach some kind of victory by applying strategies. it is about toying around with the sims. You CAN use something someone would call a "strategie". But that alone doesnt make it such a game.
This was the best post ever. But it got put into the wrong thread.
All games are simulations and most require some sort of strategy, but we create more specific classifications to group similiar games. I tend to think of Simulations as more open ended where a big part of the enjoyment in the game is just watching how the pieces interact and behave. Sims is definately a simulation...there is a reason it is named such. Strategy tends to be more goal oriented, more about defeating an enemy. Sins is a type of RTS. There are definately games that fit both requirements, such as Majesty.
Besides, Gamespot sold out many, many years ago. Their reviews have not been relevant for some time -- if you use their site, your time is better spent looking at the player reviews.
I like www.gamespy.com for reviews (an IGN affiliate). That and message boards, as someone else already said. Gamespot is probably the last place I would ever go for a review, they are clearly in bed with the publishers.
1 month old thread but whatever. I like gamespy. Why? Mainstream, utterly mainstream. Thats how I keep tabs on the silly mainstream and thier "oops we did what you did, half as good, 8 years later" ideas. Gamespy used to be quite good actually back with miguel and that sony fanboy. But now, with the serial greifer idiot, the whiny ass Ryan scott and various friends - its crap.
I listen to gamers with jobs podcasts for useful opinions on games (even if Im PC only).
I also have trained my senses to figure out how bad a game is before release. Im pretty good, 90% accuracy. That dosn't mean I don't play bad games. I bought Terminator Salvation just to see how bad it was. Not as bad as Dragon Rising - OMG what a horrible game! I knew this before buying in both cases, im just a bit wierd.
Roplaying games- living and making decision as someone else in someoneelses life. You do not do this in every gsme; many games like max payne and so on have these decision already chosen for you and you can't refuse them or the story won't move forward.
Best site for reviews is metacritic, unless you are a PS3 or X-Box owner who has to put up with each others fan boys scewing your user reviews.
As a guide critic review score should be the score you take if you have no bias towards the type of game, user review score should be used more if you are in love with the genre.
Gametrailers is pretty good, but it's also pretty good at getting you psyched up about trash from good trailers, EA are so good at marketing shit on there you have to be wary.
Can't criticise Gamespots choice if sims 3 comes under strategy for them as I haven't played Sims 3 but I think they are wrong to put Sims 3 in the strategy bin, it's more like a computerised Dolls House, genre of it's own.
Well, I was an editor at GameSpot for more than four years, and I was recently the head of IGN PC, so I not only know both organizations from the inside, I'm friends with many of the personalities mentioned here.
The Sims 3 was an odd choice, but I see it more of the shrinkage of the "traditional" PC genres. In previous years, it was labelled in the simulation category, but there are hardly any sims left, so they lumped it with the strategy games. The Sims has always had a strategic element to it, just like real life. The Sims 3 is also a huge leap forward for the franchise.
And a step back in terms of content. EA stripped the title down to sell more DLC and expansions and is selling it at ridiculous prices. Unfortunatly the Sims cow is never going to run out of milk.
Classifying The Sims as a 'strategy' game demeans both the category and The Sims. The Sims requires no continual theory or strategy to be employed; in fact, most players would enjoy the game in a more reactive way as opposed to a pro-active way. There is basic planning required to succeed in whatever your after (friends, career, property, etc.) however calling this basic planning a strategy is beyond reaching in my opinion.
The Sims is a unique brand of gameplay and, by all means, falls into the same category as Animal Crossing and most social simulation titles. They're Sandbox games that defy classification by definition. If I had to pick a label, I'd go with 'Simulation'. The title 'The Sims' doesn't just come from nowhere.
And calling The Sims 3 '[Anything] of the Year' should void any and all opinions ever formed by whomever or whatever made such a claim. The game is a re-hashed money grab at best that adds a small set of features while removing nearly all of those established over the too-numerous-to-count expansion packs to its prequels to better force additional expansion packs and micro-transactions, and horrible customer service, down their customers throats.
A strategy is a plan of action designed to achieve a particular goal.
So if you play your game with the goal of making them a star athlete, or have 12 kids, or 30 lovers or whatever else you want, it's not strategy because YOU say so... nice.
^It's not strategy in the colloquial sense/jargon that is associated with the field of gaming, which means calling the Sims a "non-strategic" game is perfectly justifiable given the context (videogames). The classification of the Sims as a "Strategy" game is simply a failure of the reviewers to look at it in proper context. If we weren't to look at games (or anything else, for that matter) within their own context (and therefore the associated colloquial terms) then any argument for or against anything goes out the window.
For instance, "The Sims is a game with forward planning. Strategy games have forward planning, therefore the Sims is a strategy game." is one such argument; out of context, it makes perfect sense, but when we put it into proper context (videogames) it collapses, as the connotations of "Strategy" in the videogame world are far different to what is written in the dictionary.
As another example, I could call Final Fantasy a life simulation game, as it simulates life in a fantastic world; which is made inherently easy due to the fact afformentioned fantasy world, and the supposed "life actions" undertaken within it, are irrifutable except by the designers themsevles, as it is a fantastical world, in which only the creators know its full extent as to what constitutes "life" ("Life" could be nothing but slaying dragons!). But if we look at Final Fantasy in context (videogames) it is clearly an RPG, despite the fact one could argue it posseses the elements of a simulation if we take them in the strictest sense (i.e. from the dictionary), we know it isn't, because as far as context is concerned, FF belongs to the "RPG" genre.
So no, in context, the Sims is NOT a strategy game, despite what the dictionary may tell you. Something is defined not by a book full of words and explanations, but how people think of something. In today's world, dictionaries aren't that helpful, such has been the propagation of connotations, colloquialisms, and jargon. In context, for all those pople arguing with Oxford, that's how we must look at this.
Nice try, but I never it was a strategy title. Actually, if you read more than the last few lines of this argument, you would see that I actually said I don't think it fits any category nicely. The point is, five, ten, 20 or even 100 people don't get to classify a game because they get their feathers ruffled when they think of the game being mentioned as a strategy title. If anyone should classify the game its the MILLIONS of players who should. not only that, saying the Sims games requires no, i repeat, no strategy is ridiculous. Guess what, Left 4 Dead doesn't "require" any cooperation either. You don't have to cooperate, but if you don't, you won't get very far will you. Most games require some form of strategy. Final Fantasy plus life simulation = Rune Factory. I'll spell this out for you, since we are now talking down to each other for kicks and giggles, there is no, no, no no solid defiition that splits simulation from strategy. None of the storefronts, developers or publishers classify their games in the same way. So argue until you are blue in the face. You're still not going to force Amazon, Gamestop, Walmart, EA, Steam, Impulse or any hundreds of locations to change their description to suit you.
The Sims 3 isn't a strategy game. On what level does it earn genre comparisons with Real Time or Turn Based Strategy games? What tools are given to the player to enable greater strategic depth? How do the strategies on offer different in The Sims 3 compared to the previous Sims games? What strategies are common or generally employed by players? Why do the offical forums lack a strategy discussion area? The Sims 3 requires an ability to say to ones self "I want [Goal]" and then work towards it through proper time management that is planned out. There are no strategies required to achieve that goal, only basic management.
Using the limited genre definitions of narrow minded publishers and retailers as justification for a social simulation title being credited with Strategy Game of the Year makes about as much sense as calling 'Die Hard' a romatic comedy because you have two genre labels in common usage: Romantic Comedy and Animated. All we need now is for 'New Super Mario Bros Wii Brawl DS 64 Redux Game of the Year Edition' or whatever they're up to now to be given the Multiplayer Strategy Game of the Year award because its multiplayer mode has moments where you need to all stand on a platform at the same time to finish level 5-3.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
