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.
Yeah; I had to just shake my head sadly when I saw that.
By the way: It should have been Kings Bounty Armored Princess (or possibly Empire Total War which I havent played due to Steam allergy)
I lost faith in gamespot in the 1990s.
Just out of curiosity, whats a good site for game reviews/previews? Ive always used Gamespot, would be nice with a good alternative.
I ignore reviews mostly. I just visit forums and read comments by customers who have played the game far more then the reviewers. A much more accurate picture of the game's quality appears this way.
The only reason gamespot gives good reviews to games is becuase game companies give them exclusives etc. if they give a BIG company a bad score, they will no longer give them stuff like that.
I beleive they mostly give high scores to EA games, EA has lost touch with so many players, they milk games till there are dry, and they dont put nay effort into most game like they used to. Games Like FIFA from 2001 to 2004 were just plain awful until pro evo seris came out, then you saw EA finally getting off there asses to do somehting about it. and now Fifa is way better then before.
I think why Sims 3 won, is because it appealed to both boys and girls, of all ages. I never seen my sister play command and conquer, but she loves sims 3. its a game for all ages and most casual, and non hard core gamers. I dont see anyone bragging at school that they got a 25 kill streak on sims 3, and then nuked the whole map. rofl.
I've been watching Gametrailers.com reviews. They don't rely on blocks of text, so they actually put effort into their video reviews. To me at least they seem to do a pretty good job covering all the aspects of the game, and they usually show you in the video what they mean if they complain about AI or glitches or whatnot.
Is the sims a strategie game?
I thought it was an interior-design/managing a life game. I really dont think the sims even qualifies for strategie.
I think that's the point of the OP: Its *not* a strategy game.
To be fair, it's closer to 'strategy' then any other genre and the strategy games that have come out this year have been almost uniformly trash. Empire Total War, I'm looking at you.
So I assume they gave Modern Warfare 2 RPG of the year?
Honestly? My personal 2009 game of the year awards list is empty. I was not significantly impressed by any 2009 titles.
What.... WHAT!?!?!? You know what... im not goin to ask why...
Whats a good site for reviews you ask... um about that... ya I just use them for info and what comin out...
For PC Games, I read www.rockpapershotgun.com.
Gamespot is a joke and has been for a long time. I really don't know why anyone bothers reading that site.
They've really not fond a great category for games like Sims 3. I don't care what the haters say, the Sims series did something unique; it did it well, and it sold very well. Having said that, the Sims and the Sims 2 were very progressive and enough of a jump between the two to warrant talking. Sims 3, not so much. It's not bad but, well you didn't see their expansion up on the charts lately have you? I am not sure even the original Sims 3 has been up there, and Sims and Sims 2 were at the top ALL the time.
Zero Punctuation's reviews are great, although it's more console-oriented. I know they're funny, but more importantly I can almost always tell whether or not I will like a game based on ZP. Somehow Yahtzee seems able to give a "gamer" perspective as opposed to so many reviews that are a "game-industry" perspective, which is way different.
Seriously? No one ever thought to put Sims in the Simulation category?
("Life Simulator" would also fit, if you want to get specific.)
I enjoy ZP videos for the humor, but they are not game reviews.
Are you just trying to be cute or are you being serious? You think the that Sims should be classified next to the flight and train simulators... really?
Social Simulator... essentially they are simulators. As in, they simulate something specific, people's lives in this case. They are not a strategy game (and neither are games like C&C because they deal with a battlefield on a tactical level, not strategic). There are a lot of titles which have been poorly typified.
In the case of Sims, I don't see why they shouldn't be classified next to a flight simulator. The essential premise of both is the same, to simulate (imitate with a great depth and detail), unlike the essential premise of, say, Starcraft and Sims (blow up aliens and dress up dolls).
Well then the sim city and cities xl would need to shift to simulators too, maybe even some of the city builders as they are simulating cities. What about the racing games, those are simulating car races. I mean if the only thing a game needs to do to get put in the simulation section is simulate something, we need to reclassify a ton of games, not just a handful, anything that simulates a job, simluates delivering papers, simulates drivinga car, simulates cooking, cleaning, gardening, simulates riding a horse, maybe we can put all the fitness games out there in the category too, simulating fitness and all.
I knew that "Paper Boy" was more than meets the eye
I knew there would be an attempt at this kind of argumentation, but to put it succinctly - you got the whole idea wrong.
The basic premise of a simulation is to mimic the functioning of a certain item, entity or a whole group of entities to a great extent. There is such a thing as a city simulation, if that game simulates the functioning of an entire city, yes. However, racing games are not car race simulations since most of them do not bother with the periphery of car races which are vital to the organization and functioning of the races themselves - the game is only concerned with the actual driving of a race car, and even that usually in a very simplified manner. You could call it a race car simulator if it absolutely required you to use a wheel with a gear shift, if you had to take into account the condition of your tyres, wind drag, condition of the road, weather conditions etc. much like you have to in, say, an airplane simulator.
So, detail, detail, detail. That's the key to naming something a simulation. So, if someone makes a tactical game which simulates the dynamics and conditions of a WWII battlefield, we can talk about a WWII battlefield, or tactical, simulator. If someone creates a game which simulates the strategic dynamics of an entire world set in the WWII era, we can say that its a WWII simulator as it simulates the dynamics of World War II. For example, Hearts of Iron III. It's also a strategic game in a broader sense.
You cannot have a game draw up a tank with infinite ammo, arcadish controls and no component damage and call it a tank simulator, although some have tried. Same goes for other games which approach their subject in a superficial manner, lacking depth or attention to detail.
In that sense, Sims are a social simulator. The game deigns to simulate a group of people whom player can influence by altering their "world" settings. The game does this with a great attention to detail, simulating the behaviour of a human being to a great depth, as much as can be attained by a simple computer game.
It is NOT, however, a strategy game. Strategy games require, yes, you guessed it, the ability of the player to resolve conflicting situations by employing strategy in an overarching theatre. Strategy games deal mostly with war. You could say that strategy means simply to formulate a specific plan which leads to a fulfillment of a certain goal, but then I could employ your argument and say that practically anything is a strategy game.
It's simply a matter of choosing which classification fits a game best. In the case of Sims, as their very name and intention implies, I think a simulator is a more fitting classification than strategy.
You can call this discussion whatever you want. If you think the sims actually simulates life, I wonder if you have played the game. The flight and train simulators reach a depth that most games wouldn't even consider. You want to classify games by the use of dictionary, most games are classified to help gamers find like games they might enjoy. If you say you enjoy strategy games, there is a like theme in you liking strategy games. If you say you like FPS games, then there is group of games you generally might enjoy. It's one thing to complain you don't like sims and hate the idea of it as a winning strategy title, it's another thing to try and claim it doesn't even belong in the genre. Pretty much all you do in a game of sims is plan ahead, you know, strategize. It's a one strategy after another. It would be ridiculous to through Sims alongside a flight simulator just because the dictionary says you could if you really tried hard. I think you misunderstand the goal of game categories.
Every game is a role playing game.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
