Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Interview with The Sims Creator

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the getting-to-know dept.

An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet has just posted an interview with Will Wright, the creator of The Sims, in conjunction with the launch of The Sims 2. In it, Wright explains that users will be able to bond better and get more emotionally attached thanks to a new 3D engine. He also makes special mention of the 7 Deadly Sims as one of his favorite user-created sites."

52 comments

  1. Translation... by tod_miller · · Score: 4, Funny

    " that users will be able to bond better and get more emotionally attached thanks to a new 3D engine"

    How to put this... higher resolution anatomically correct feminine models rendered with high resolution photographic tectures, and motion capture data from a lesbian rave.

    That sums it up :-)

    I like This guy, he is old skool, yet a pioneer in the game industry!

    Like those bike dudes at kittyhawk, he will be remembered long after I have bit the daiseys, or kicked the dust, or pushed up the bucket... hang on...

    --
    #hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
  2. If this isn't a dupe... by Kris_J · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... it should be. Maybe if we had more paid advertising like this story has to be, we wouldn't need the ad banners.

    1. Re:If this isn't a dupe... by moonbender · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Huh? That's a totally different story, and it was posted more than a week - ages in Slashdot time - ago. I think there were a lot more stories about Doom 3, and The Sims 2 is just (subjectively) a much better game than that, with (objectively) way more complex gameplay. It's also the successor to the best selling PC game, which alone makes it significant. The notion that this comes close to advertising is ridiculous.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    2. Re:If this isn't a dupe... by Kris_J · · Score: 1

      It was an interview with the creator of the Sims, not long before the release of Sims 2. This is an interview with the creator of the Sims, a little closer to the release of Sims 2. It's like going on a talk show to promote your new movie, or doing an FHM shoot because your TV show is starting a new season. It's all advertising and it's all paid. It's also typically devoid of any interesting content.

    3. Re:If this isn't a dupe... by moonbender · · Score: 1

      It was an interview with the creator of the Sims, not long before the release of Sims 2.

      No. It's referred to as a "brief biography" on Slashdot; it's certainly not an interview.

      But even if it had been, it'd still be all right to post this story. If it's of no interest to you, you're free to ignore it - I certainly did. It's not like I read Slashdot Games for the news, they're way to random and old, it's the discussion that's often interesting. And your claim that it's paid advertising is still based on nothing more than your non-standard definition of the word.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
  3. Re:Review by bersl2 · · Score: 1

    I must say version 2 of the game is sim-ply marvellous.

    [slapwiththebackofthehand]

    What the hell were you thinking when you said that? That's the worst pun I've seen in a long time.

  4. give me one too by real_smiff · · Score: 4, Funny
    That's the worst pun I've seen in a long time.

    Aw comeon, I thought it was alWright.

    --

    This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.

    1. Re:give me one too by shfted! · · Score: 1

      lmao. Almost as evil as mine ;)

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
  5. "The Sims" as Art/Philosophy by coaxial · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps inadvertently, "The Sims" seemed to me as indictment of materialism. The sims get up, take a shower and go to work to buy things. These things improve their lives. Better stoves provide better meals. Robot maids provide better more time for entertainment. Eventually you reach a point where you're buying things just to buy things.

    You have all these simoleans, and you feel like you need to spend them. So you buy a plasma screen for your sims' living room. Then their bedroom. Then their dining room, and kitchen. You stick a home theater system in every room of their house. You create a family of trailer trash next door simply so your sims can make enough friends to get a job promotion, so they can earn more simoleans, so they can buy more things they don't need.

    Even in light of lesbian love triangles where two of the participates hate each other so much they can't keep from torturing the other with the voodoo doll; there's something very depressing about the whole game.

    1. Re:"The Sims" as Art/Philosophy by moonbender · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's really just one way to play the game. I agree the game reflects what you say - and why shouldn't it, effectively a better cooking equipment will give you better meals in the real world, all other things being equal. But the game really leaves it up to you to play your character like you want.

      Actually, I think the aspirations in The Sims 2 are a nice way to deal with the different way people play this game. There is the materialist aspiration, making a sim happy simply by buying him things. But among others there are also the family aspiration, the romance aspiration and the knowledge aspiration.
      That last one reflects the way I play my (first) character - max out most if not all skills and reach the top of the career, not because it pays more money, but rather as a goal in itself. I'm now a mad scientist and I guess all that's left is maxing out body, charisma and mechanical, then my character has "won".
      Note that I have more money than I could spend (due to a job special episode that paid 50,000 credits) and I certainly don't have a TV in every room. And I don't have a seperate dining and living room and kitchen as such...

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    2. Re:"The Sims" as Art/Philosophy by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Perhaps inadvertently, "The Sims" seemed to me as indictment of materialism. The sims get up, take a shower and go to work to buy things. These things improve their lives. Better stoves provide better meals.

      What I find disturbing is the fact that "playing the game" means making your character wake up, take a shower, go to work, come home, buy things, eat, meet people, etc. So that means a lot of people are sitting around playing a game which consists of "leading an everyday life".

      Couldn't these people just lead an everyday life? I mean, wanting to play Doom3 I understand. In your life, how often do you get to run around with a BFG shooting monsters?

      Now, I'm not just trying to say "Doom3 rules, Sims2 sucks!" or something. The reason I bring this all up at all is that it seems like people are really getting sucked into computer games. People are spending all their time playing Doom3 and living their whole lives in MMORPGs. That's pretty scary to me already. I've watched people fail to take a shower, go to work, and meet people because they're too busy playing a game. And now they are going to not take a shower, not go to work, and not meet new people because they're playing a game that consists in pretending to take a shower, pretending to go to work, and pretending to meet pretend people?

      Does anyone else find this really screwed up?

    3. Re:"The Sims" as Art/Philosophy by Reapy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but real life doesn't have a fast foward button to skip through work :)

      The fun is also in doing crazy things that you can't do in real life, like set fire to the house, make out with the neighbor, have a wierd guy living on your couch, or deconstructing the door and watching your sim starve to death. :)

    4. Re:"The Sims" as Art/Philosophy by nine-times · · Score: 1
      The fun is also in doing crazy things that you can't do in real life, like set fire to the house, make out with the neighbor, have a wierd guy living on your couch, or deconstructing the door and watching your sim starve to death. :)

      What do you mean you can't do those things in real life. Maybe you choose not to do those things, but I assure you, they're very easy to do.

      There are a lot of things to do in this wide world. More than are dreamt of in your philosophy. If you've spent enough time out in it, I think you'll agree that the Sims world is much more bound by rules, and you're able to do far fewer things, far less interesting things. If you haven't been out in it, I suggest you take a look.

    5. Re:"The Sims" as Art/Philosophy by MilenCent · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Couldn't these people just lead an everyday life? I mean, wanting to play Doom3 I understand. In your life, how often do you get to run around with a BFG shooting monsters?

      Not too often, though judging by the hundreds of games devoted to that premise, it's a common fantasy.

      But anyway there is a degree of screwed-upedness in becoming that addicted to computer games. But I don't see how it's related to The Sims itself.

      The true addicting power of a game is unrelated to its presentation or theme. Nethack is one of the most addicting games known to man, after all. The presentation gets the player in the door, so to speak, gets him started playing, but after that what makes a game addictive is the interaction between his mind and the design.

      The very, very best games are interesting for multiple levels of involvement.

      1. At first, they're fun to play.

      2. As the player plays more, they get interested in doing better, and figuring out tricks that conserve resources. The original visceral thrill of the game begins to fade as the player becomes interested in playing well. This is essentially an involvement with an abstract process.

      3. The player discovers elements of the game that had never occurred to him before, and uses them to greatly refine his approach. Really involved gamers may even devise artificial tests and "records" for himself, such as speed runs.

      4. Eventually he reaches a point where further optimization of his play yields no further benefit, and interest begins to wane. Hearing about new strategies on the Internet may cause interest to spike again for a short time.

      What's important to note about this process is that, beyond the initial contact between player and game, the player is basically optimizing an abstract process. This is almost like an academic pursuit. The same human drive that pushes a mathematician to create and prove theorems is at work here.

      I don't think it even matters what the process is, anything can be fashioned into an addictive game, if the player can be persuaded to work through the "interface" phase and become addicted.

  6. Why the Sims is not elite ... by 2TecTom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, so the game has sold a bizillion copies, yes it's big game. However, it's not considered seriously by the "leet". Why? IMHO, I think it's simply that there's no mad skillz involved. It's simply too shallow. In fact, in some ways, when compared to SimCity, The Sims is even less challenging.

    It's a shame really because it could be so much more. I'd be interested more if The Sims was more of a character engine than just a single game. It would be cool if we had a way to develop characters that was as evolved as the way we display them in 3D. If Will was as far advanced as John Carmack is in 3D, the inner and interpersonal depth and authenticity would rival a real experience. Think bots as good at interacting socially as they do with a shoddy!

    Then Will and the mod community could extend this and enable the engine to plug into other games in order to suport complex characterizations. But why stop with games Will, plug into everything, IM's, desktops, forums, web communities, etc. Let a Sims engine, or some other more Open Standard project, become the Avatar standard. It would be most excellent to create bots which could respond based on certain 'dispositions'. I'd like to have a semi-intelligent reception bot screen my calls for instance. Couldn't a Sim handle that?

    Not only that, but let's say you made this psycologically accurate. Could you model a relationship in order to find real solutions? For instance, could you use it to model the arguments you have with your spouse, in order to experiment with how far you could go before they leave you?

    Anyways, I digess ...

    By the way, Will, when I can I put my Sims in my SimCity, on my SimPlanet with my SimFarms and SimTowns and then connect them to SimWorld? Oh, and when can I wander around it all in 3D?

    --
    Words to men, as air to birds.
    1. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ok, so the game has sold a bizillion copies, yes it's big game. However, it's not considered seriously by the "leet". Why? IMHO, I think it's simply that there's no mad skillz involved. It's simply too shallow. In fact, in some ways, when compared to SimCity, The Sims is even less challenging.

      Since when does every game need "mad skillz" to be fun? I thought gaming was more about spending a few hours just losing yourself in doing fairly inane, mindless stuff. Much like slashdot ;)

    2. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not the Sims appeal to the "leet". The "l33t" are increasingly an utter irrelevance in the world of gaming. Much as a small group of FPS and RPG players might like to see themselves as a genuine elite in the gaming world, ultimate arbiters of what's hot and what's not, the simple fact is that they aren't.

      The "leet" scorned Counter-Strike for a long time, claiming that it was inherantly "less skillful" than the truly elite games such as Quake. When the general gaming populace basically proved that it didn't give a damn about this, and made Counter-Strike the most successful online FPS ever, the "leet" first whinged a lot, then mostly adopted the game as their own and pretended they'd never looked down on it. The idea of a relatively small circle of players (who, in my experience, generally conform to the most negative of the gamer stereotypes) with far too much time on their hands being genuine trendsetters for the audience of what is, these days, fast becoming a mainstream entertainment medium is laughable.

      I didn't actually like The Sims much myself; I got pretty bored after the first few hours. However, it was probably the most significant development in gaming in recent years, more so than Doom 3, Farcry, Warcraft 3 or any of the other games which the "leet" might reasonably be expected to approve of. Why was it so popular? Largely for all the reasons you claim it was a failure. It didn't need the twitch-skills of a attention-deficient 9 year old Korean school-child to get the most out of it. You didn't need to spend hours memorising the optimal patterns and build-orders. You didn't need a postgraduate degree in economics. Your average consumer, male or female, could pick it up, play it and enjoy it. Dying was almost impossible, there was no retarded saves-policy, so you could stop playing at any point (handy if you hear the baby crying in the next room, or a friend drops by) and start again from exactly where you left off. In short, it combined an experience that was accessible to a person who wouldn't self-define as a gamer, but which had many of the addictive qualities which make RPGs and their ilk so popular, such as genuine character progression and the sense of a persistent world (even if this was only an illusion).

      This is the future of "mainstream" gaming. This is the kind of audience that's going to attract the big publishers, due to the immense and as-yet largely untapped profit potential. The "leet" are perfectly welcome to go on bouncing around the same old Quakeworld maps, figuring out that perfect jumping technique for moving 0.000001mph faster (apparently to some warped minds, this counts as "depth"), just don't expect anybody to pay them the slightest bit of attention.

    3. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I think it's simply that there's no mad skillz involved.

      I fucking hate games like that. Games that are so hard you throw the controller through the window isn't what I'm looking for.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    4. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by neglige · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Will was as far advanced as John Carmack is in 3D, the inner and interpersonal depth and authenticity would rival a real experience.

      This is IMHO not quite an appropriate comparison. In no way I want to belittle the achievements by John Carmack, but to my mind improving a graphics engine is also supported by next generation graphic cards which allow for more complex eye candy.

      Improving on the "inner and interpersonal depth", on the other hand, is not supported by advances in hardware (yet) but requires a better understanding and 'reproduction' (for lack of a better word) of mental processes. In short: real-life Sims need real-life artifical intelligence. And research in the AI department has been rather slow over the last decades. I guess it will happen, and then we will see smarter and more realistic sims.

      But then again, maybe not:

      Wright's learned even more from fans' interactions with The Sims -- lessons he's now applying to his robotic creations: like not making the machines too life-like.

      "One of the reasons The Sims seem so realistic is because everything in the game is somewhat abstract. You see icons of what a Sims is talking about, not the exact words," Wright said. "It invites the player to come in and imagine the details. To pour personality into these empty vessels. If we gave The Sims too much detail, the illusion would break."

      From Wired News

      --
      My cats ate my karma. They also wrote this comment.
    5. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by moonbender · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Why? IMHO, I think it's simply that there's no mad skillz involved.

      Whatever. Maybe they're not "mad skillz", but try telling a friend of mine whose (virtual) wife just died and who can't get his toddler to learn to walk that this is an easy game. I found raising two toddlers and one infant at the same time quite strenuous myself. The Sims can be a quite challenging game if you're willing (or careless enough) to create challenging situations.

      The Sims is not considered leet because it did sell a lot of copies, because it appeals to the masses and the masses are per definition non-leet. The Sims is not considered leet because it doesn't try to hide the fact that it's essentially a virtual doll house - although it's really quite similar to most CRPGs (minus the fighting) who do try to hide that fact. Think of it as doll house versus action figures. (Key notion I just got.) Or perhabs rather Lego versus action figures, because like Legos The Sims is just an extremely open and creative game.

      [W]hen I can I put my Sims in my SimCity

      In a very halk-baked way, you already can. I assume SC4 doesn't support importing The Sims 2 characters, though. What I found very interesting that The Sims 2 actually supports importing SimCity 4 areas. Not the city itself, just the terrain with some streets and bridges, but still. Allows people to make use of SC4's great terraforming engine to create The Sims 2 neighbourhoods.
      And as for SimPlanet, man I would love to see a Sim Earth remake. I think it was the first Sim * game I played (in English, without knowing a word) and it was awesome. It's really a shame they never made a sequel. I always dreamed of that SimCity in SimNation on SimEarth design you mentioned when I was playing the original SimCity and SimEarth.

      --
      Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
    6. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by nine-times · · Score: 1
      It would be cool if we had a way to develop characters that was as evolved as the way we display them in 3D. If Will was as far advanced as John Carmack is in 3D, the inner and interpersonal depth and authenticity would rival a real experience. Think bots as good at interacting socially as they do with a shoddy!

      Yeah, good luck on that. I mean, this guy makes computer games for a living, and...well, you've seen his picture, right? I mean, it's in the article. Am I the only one who thinks this guy might not have a full and well rounded experience of "personal relationships"? I mean, if he programs fake people all day...

      But seriously, don't you think social interactions are a fair bit more complex than run-and-shoot? How are you going to have full, deep relationships without having developed real AI? And if you made real AI, would it be fair to play games with them?

      For instance, could you use it to model the arguments you have with your spouse, in order to experiment with how far you could go before they leave you?

      Probably you couldn't go as far as creating a simulated wife to test "how far you can go before she leaves you".

      By the way, Will, when I can I put my Sims in my SimCity, on my SimPlanet with my SimFarms and SimTowns and then connect them to SimWorld? Oh, and when can I wander around it all in 3D?

      How about this: go put on a pair of glasses, and pretend they're VR goggles. Then go outside. You'll find it an amazingly accurate simulation of real life. And the graphics are terrific (as long as those glasses match your prescription).

    7. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SIM2 is a game for women.

      And people who use the word leet, seldom get in touch with women.

    8. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet if it wasn't for the fact that the game never ends, it would probably be possible to 'finish' the whole game in a week or two even for non-hardcore gamers.

    9. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by rpillala · · Score: 1
      However, it's not considered seriously by the "leet". Why? IMHO, I think it's simply that there's no mad skillz involved. It's simply too shallow.

      No. Leetness is about numbers and being better than other people, and killing these people in game. Take Diablo 2 for example, which is very much a numbers game. Get on battle.net and you'll find any number of people who really love being high level but really don't love playing the game. And while the combat mechanics can get pretty involved there, these people bypass that in favor of a formula.

      Ravi
      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    10. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by spyrochaete · · Score: 1

      Mr. Wright actually incorporated the very feature you seek in the latest iteration of Simcity. You can and base your success as a city planner based on their reflective thought bubbles.

      Similarly, Maxis' Streets of Simcity lets you race around in your imported Simcity 2000 megalopolis!

      As mentioned in the above article, Wright has a very good sense of gamers' needs. He knows people get tired of their games and ultimately try to hack them up and modify the experience. Interoperability between products is a brilliant way to make gamers happy and sell more of his products.

    11. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by ArmpitMan · · Score: 1
      Oh, man, congratulations. A fine troll, indeed. My hat is off to you.

      Let me sum up:
      "The Sims is not l33t because it does not require mad skillz. It would be better if it had human-like AI that could be generally used for everything. Come on! Doom 3 looks so good, why can't we pass the Turing test yet?"

      The mad skillz, I'm not even going to comment on. The open avatar bullshit? Seriously, Sims forget to go to the fucking bathroom. They are not bright. The only way they function at all is by you constantly telling them what to do. Which may be what your complaint is actually about, except that what you propose is something that mankind has not figured out how to do, and likely won't for a long damn time.

      I shake my head at moderators who see "Open Standards" and "mod community" and somehow are able to equate it with "fantastic modular AI bots which will bend to our every whim using a nice GTK slider interface." Grassroots "we can do it if we just try hard enough" AI work (also known as GOFAI, or "Good Old-Fashioned AI") hasn't gotten us anywhere in the past 50 years; I would wager that it's just not going to.

      Kudos, though, for somehow making your psychotic rambling look well-reasoned and insightful.

    12. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by NonSequor · · Score: 1

      This is BY FAR the best troll I have seen in a long time. You, sir, have my respect.

      --
      My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
    13. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes it does matter. They are a sure sign that a game has depth and is capable of sustaining long term interest. No depth = no elite. Oh, and I wasn't referring to the FPS "leets", just top players in general. You simply assume way too much.

      BTW, many top FPS players originally panned CS due to deficiences lacking in the original engine and mod, most of which have now been addressed. In fact, this proves my point. CS would not exist if not for the depth of the Half-Life engine and it's open extensible design.

      By the way, the future is never the result of the mainstream or the masses. There will always be exploitive boring mainstream games from greedy corporations. These are never that revelutionary or progressive. In fact, IMHO, corporations are incapable of developing a gaming community due to the lack of integrity necessary to enter into an open and honest relationship with customers.

      Ever game has top players, stop equating the elite with FPS.

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    14. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      You've missed my point entirely. It's not controller dexterity, it's the complexity of the experience and the depth of skills, manual, emotional or intellectual, that allows one to master the game.

      It sounds to me like you simply aren't patient or persistant enough. Perhaps you should try harder.

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
    15. Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... by 2TecTom · · Score: 1

      Call it what you will. I never intended to simply troll for reactions. However, I suspect that such an explanation will not suffice given the generous nature of your obviously dismissive perspective. You sir, have my complete and entire sympathy.

      --
      Words to men, as air to birds.
  7. Great post by superultra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps inadvertently, "The Sims" seemed to me as indictment of materialism.

    Quite an intriguing statement, and you're probably right. But I think that Wright's design is open enough that, theoritically, your goal could be to have a happy sim in a small house with a limited number of objects. It could very well be done. Perhaps the game is designed not so much as an indictment but as a reflection. We think that happiness comes from material, so we obviously think that that's the way the Sims works. Maybe Sims 2 doesn't have to be that way. In Sims, you didn't have to either. It was certainly more difficult, but you could depend on other Sims for happiness instead of objects. Not at unlike a modern American society.

    Besides, we're back to the whole sand house/doll house things. What kid do you know of spends their time building a shovel instead of a massive dump truck, or how many Barbies buy a reasonably priced used Ford escort instead of a corvette?

    1. Re:Great post by klmth · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, as it turns out, the game heavily emphasizes physical needs in the beginning of you character's career, but as the game progresses, the shift turns towards social needs. So in effect, it forces you to turn towards other Sims for happiness.

  8. genre cliches by mausmalone · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Instead of genre staples such as lobbing grenades or casting spells, the game asked players to get excited about tasks such as personal hygiene and interior design.
    Okay, it's got no grenades or spells, but it's not in a war or fantasy genre. Sims is a micromanagement game, and it has all the cliches of a micromanagement game. In fact, it all comes down to maximizing profit and minimizing losses. In this case, maximizing your character's happiness.
    --
    -=-=-=-=-=
    I'd rather be flamed than ignored.
  9. Maybe I just don't get it by DeDmeTe · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really.. c'mon, what makes this game so much fun? I tried to play Sims 1 when it came out.. I just couldn't get into it. To much micro-managment and not enough "fun". However. my wife LOVED it. She spent countless hours playing that game... she'd play while talking to her girlfriend on the phone (while her girlfreind was playing) and they'd talk about what was happening with their sims. Jesus... it's pretend life. I finally had to uninstall it so she could get back to her chores :-) (that was a joke) Anyway... I just don't see the entertainment value in this game.

    --
    -Guns kill people like spoons made Rosie O'Donnell fat-
    1. Re:Maybe I just don't get it by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      How is this flamebait?

      He said his wife loved it he didn't.

      Look two posts later(time-wise).
      some idiot named aaraczynski posted
      that's flamebait/troll

  10. Just rename it and be done with it by MMaestro · · Score: 1

    Just rename the game Simulated Reality TV and face the fact that you're really just playing a reality game. The only difference is that YOU are in control. Other than that, its the same crap you see on TV which if why the same people who hate reality shows hate this game.

  11. Soap Operas, Movies, TV Series... by Khyl'Dran · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not so screwed up as it seems. Spending your time watching what your Sim will do when he finds out that his wife is cheating on him isn't entirely different from spending time watching "Friends" to see who will stay with who. The difference is that the Sims is an interactive form of entertainment while TV is not. But they are both entertainment, and both represent ways to escape from your day to day life and to identify with the problems of your day to day life as well. Many people don't make alter ego's of themselves in the sims to go and meet pretend people, but when they do, its the same thing as watching a TV series and identifying with one of the characters.

    Anyways, a lot of people who spend time playing the sims, if they didn't have sims, they'd look for other forms of escape, such as TV, etc...

    1. Re:Soap Operas, Movies, TV Series... by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The difference is that the Sims is an interactive form of entertainment while TV is not. But they are both entertainment, and both represent ways to escape from your day to day life and to identify with the problems of your day to day life as well.

      Well, I find it disturbing, too, sometimes when people identify a little too much with TV. Like when people care a little too much if Ross and Rachel end up together?

      But where I think Sims is worse, perhaps, is that by being interactive, not only do you get emotionally invested in this little fiction, but you feel like you are accomplishing things. There's a really weird phenomenon that psychologists are studing: With books/movies/TV, people do get emotionally invested, but in a fairly passive and removed way (usually). However, in computer games, some people (actually a fairly large percentage of avid gamers) start to feel like tasks they perform matter. People start to think that, if they don't fend off the aliens, somehow this will have negative consequences.

      So, it does get to be like when people really really want Ross and Rachel to get together, but they end up feeling like it's their responsibility to make it happen. They become almost afraid to stop playing, as though they're letting the characters down.

      It seems to me that this is potentially more dangerous than TV, since people begin to derive a great sense of accomplishment from completing tasks that don't actually have an effect. They feel like they've saved the world, when the world, in reality, is no better off. In the case of the Sims, they spend an awful lot of time completing their daily chores in this digital world, bettering their digital characters, while their house and themselves remain a mess.

      Anyways, a lot of people who spend time playing the sims, if they didn't have sims, they'd look for other forms of escape, such as TV, etc...

      And this has a lot to do with my point. People are "escaping" from their real lifes by leading a poor digital imitation of an ordinary life. If your life is really so bad, isn't all that time and energy and attention better directed towards improving your real life?

    2. Re:Soap Operas, Movies, TV Series... by coaxial · · Score: 1

      Spending your time watching what your Sim will do when he finds out that his wife is cheating on him isn't entirely different from spending time watching "Friends" to see who will stay with who.

      Really? One of my main problems with the Sims was that they never seemed to become proactive. I always had to make them take the shower. I always had to tell them to make dinner. I always had to tell them "hey now! Be pissed off!" or "Hey now! 'Play' with her on the vibrating heart shape bed!". That "I wonder what happens next, either didn't exist for me, or didn't exist at the level I wanted. Perhaps I should dust off Sims1 and play it again.

    3. Re:Soap Operas, Movies, TV Series... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this has a lot to do with my point. People are "escaping" from their real lifes by leading a poor digital imitation of an ordinary life. If your life is really so bad, isn't all that time and energy and attention better directed towards improving your real life?

      But if the people playing the games are enjoying their life more then living in reality then haven't they already improved their life?

  12. Speaking of cliches... by Dmala · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, sincerely hope the game succeeds in getting (some) players excited about personal hygiene.

  13. Let Sims do the stuff by themselves? by antdude · · Score: 1

    Is it possible to let sims to run their lives without or with little of your interactions? I would love see what Sims would do with little or no interaction from me.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Let Sims do the stuff by themselves? by Warlokk · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually you can... they're not quite as efficient as they would be if you direct them, but from what I've seen so far they'll eventually get around to doing what they need or want to. Left to their own devices, they can get into quite a bit of trouble depending on what sort of personality you give them, and it can really be hilarious. I'm a hard-core gamer of all types, FPS, RTS, RPG (never MMORPG however), and I admit, I like the Sims... and Sims2 is even better so far. Can't wait to see what the community comes up with for custom content. My Sims install was over 10gb...

  14. No mod points when I need them.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This post and the parent posts are all so much better then 95% of the stuff I've read on Slashdot last week when I had Mod points.

    Nice to see people thinking about what we are consuming from the media and games.

    1. Re:No mod points when I need them.. by coaxial · · Score: 1

      thanks.

  15. All I need to know about Sims 2 by realdpk · · Score: 1

    Look at that 7 Deadly Sims site, with the crazy flashing "free ipod" and the shaking "congratulations you've won" ads. Anyone that likes that site either has a lot of tolerance or appreciates the nature of a sell out.

  16. Uh, what's so weird about that? by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

    This whole "it's disturbing that people get addicted to this game" is silly. People get obsessed about any number of games, and not just games either. People here on Slashdot treat Linux like a religion.

    There's a really weird phenomenon that psychologists are studing: With books/movies/TV, people do get emotionally invested, but in a fairly passive and removed way (usually). However, in computer games, some people (actually a fairly large percentage of avid gamers) start to feel like tasks they perform matter. People start to think that, if they don't fend off the aliens, somehow this will have negative consequences.

    Uh, maybe that's because when reading books and watching television, you're not actually DOING anything but just sitting there and passively receiving information? Of course you feel like your actions have consequences in a game, because they actually do (in the game). You're actively doing something instead of just sitting there letting the story dictate to you. If that very obvious conclusion requires a "study," I guess I'm smarter than I thought!

    1. Re:Uh, what's so weird about that? by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Uh, maybe that's because when reading books and watching television, you're not actually DOING anything but just sitting there and passively receiving information? Of course you feel like your actions have consequences in a game, because they actually do (in the game).

      But what's wierd or unexpected is that such a large percentage of gamers, in their minds, seem to drop the "(in the game)" part of that sentence. As they become pulled into the game, they begin to believe that they need to "save the aliens" or whatever. It starts to take precidence over little things like "having a life", because, hey, what's your life in comparison to saving so many (fictional characters). They begin to forget that, once they turn off that game, all their work will have come to nothing, and nothing will have changed.

      It's not completely unexpected to many gamers, but then, many gamers take for granted that you should be so obsessed with games as to have it ruin at least some aspects of your life. Like that's normal.

      The rest of the world is fascinated by your OCD. Your grandfather probably can't even imagine how seriously you take it. Psychologists are just starting to try to figure out the different aspects of this new mass neurosis, let alone what's to be done about it.

    2. Re:Uh, what's so weird about that? by rd_syringe · · Score: 1

      The rest of the world is fascinated by your OCD.

      My OCD? I have no OCD. I just think it's a fun game and I play it now and then. I was just making a point that it's cliched to make fun of people for playing The Sims. It's no different than playing any other game, or treating anything else religiously.

    3. Re:Uh, what's so weird about that? by nine-times · · Score: 1
      My OCD? I have no OCD. I just think it's a fun game and I play it now and then. I was just making a point that it's cliched to make fun of people for playing The Sims. It's no different than playing any other game, or treating anything else religiously.

      I'm not particularly making fun of people for playing the Sims, I'm saying I find people's obsession over the Sims to be a particularly disturbing example of a disturbing trend. I was noting that psychologists are starting to study avid gamers for what appears to be a particular obsessive compulsive disorder, which you, and many others, call "game addiction". "Game addiction", many psychologists are starting to believe, is not so much an "addiction" as a form of OCD.

      You feeling like you absolutely have to save the world from aliens is psychologically closer to someone who feels like they need to wash their hands every 5 minutes than it is to an alcoholic. The looming negative "consequences" of your failure to win the game, these psychologists believe, is comparable to the perceived looming negative consequences to stepping on a crack between sidewalk tiles. People replaying the same game sequence to get it just right, or wandering dungeons for hours looking for ever-more-powerful items, these are actions equivalent to straightening the fring on your rug.

      Now, I don't mean you, in particular. You as in how the French would say "one". But what psychologists are finding both surprising and disturbing is how pervasive this OCD is in "gamers", as well as how accepted it's becoming. I'm not saying it's impossible to have healthy gaming habits, but games like MMORPGs and the Sims seem to fit just-so into what would be the target OCD audience for this theory.