Slashdot Mirror


Sexuality And The Sims

Jim Rossignol writes "An article on a new blog I'm contributing to discusses how The Sims (mostly the original, but also the sequel) gets used for sexual purposes, and also examines how this kind of response is essential to the appeal of the game. Here's an extract: 'On sites like Simulated, Eight Deadly Sims, Pandora's Sims and Strange Sims we see increasingly bizarre uses of the modding tools. While mainstream sites are for all ages, these have reached such a level of risqué or alternative content that the majority hide behind pay-for-access barriers to ensure that the users at least have a credit card (i.e. aren't minors), and to earn a little cash. Of all the mod cultures online — and virtually every PC game has users making their own additional content either in publisher-supported or unofficial ways — it's only The Sims which has such an obvious number of sites which demand money for access. This is particularly unusual: there's a clause in EA's tool license that they can only be used 'on your personal non-commercial website'. That Electronic Arts hasn't gone after such a sizeable community is interesting in and of itself.'" Jim Rossignol is a well-respected games journalist in the industry, and his new blog (Rock, Paper, Shotgun) is well worth checking out.

91 comments

  1. Sex and the Sim City by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Obligatory? maybe

    1. Re:Sex and the Sim City by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The monorail now comes with three times the innuendo.

  2. Really? by JamesRose · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It sounds like they expect EA to sue these users using it commercially, frankly, a good company that knows what its doing puts in that clause to cover itself, but wouldn't even consider suing its users. Unfortunately more recently its become the norm to be scared of being sued by the people you buy your software from. EA understands how to build a community, and lets face it, the sms has a pretty obvious appeal as a community game, EA starting to sue the odd site that makes a profit on these things would more damage than good because there's always trouble drawing the line at who you should sue.

    1. Re:Really? by mdahl · · Score: 0

      EA understands how to build a community


      You have obviously never played any of their games competitively. EA is jack shit when it comes to community/tournament support. This is both form my own experiences with Medal of Honor and Call of Duty where nothing ever happened, and my friend who won one of their FIFA tournaments, and never got his price money.

      Take a look at what blizzard is doing, if you wanna take lessons on how to build a community.
    2. Re:Really? by mqduck · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think it's more like this: They're not willing to try to ban all sexual mods (in fact, as the article states, they probably want them). But they're not going to sue them for charging money, because that would equal demanding they give them away for free. And that's too risky politically for them.

      --
      Property is theft.
    3. Re:Really? by perlchild · · Score: 1

      It was my understanding that EA announced that Maxis was run more like its own company than other divisions, to great success, and they were going to restructure to allow each division to be more autonomous because the success of the sims was seen as stemming from their independance instead of despite it(I believe that was on slashdot too, as a matter of fact).

      It seems to me that talking of EA in the singular is going to be only possible when talking about money matters, but flavour, for lack of a better word, will depend on the division.

    4. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EA can't sue these modders any more than a hammer manufacturer can sue the hammer buyer for using the hammer the way they want to.

  3. This is just silly by TibbonZero · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Sims is one of the few non-pornographic games that let you have sex and/or relationships of complexity with any other characters. Why? Because it's a life simulation game. If it were missing sex/relationships then it would be missing a huge part of life. That's not to say it's the only 'fun' thing in the game, or that it's even particularly fun in the game.
    He takes the fact that you can have sex, to mean, "The purpose of this game is to score by, well scoring". It's not the purpose of the game any more than it is in GTA. At the same time, everyone's got to try it at least once in game right? Who hasn't slept with a hooker in GTA, then ran her over and took the cash? I know several people who have played The Sims just as a home decoration program to make fun looking houses, and forget all about the people.

    --
    Tibbon
    tibbon.com
    1. Re:This is just silly by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the game is a life sim, then the only way *to* score is *by* scoring.

      The point of life is to get your genes into another generation. Everything else is just fluff.

      --
      I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    2. Re:This is just silly by Mprx · · Score: 1

      Isaac Newton died a virgin.

    3. Re:This is just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isaac Newton died a virgin.

      No he didn't. None of his romances were presented prominently in history due to the fact he was gay, but that does not make them any less deniable.
    4. Re:This is just silly by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      That's what life tends to do, but "point"? Life just is. Making a point of it is up to you.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    5. Re:This is just silly by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Didn't your English teacher not forbid you not to avoid using no double negatives? :P

      But if Isaac Newton died without children (virgin or otherwise), then genetically, he failed. Except in as much as his research and discoveries improved the survivability of others that shared his genetic material, which would be all of us to some extent, since he was human. So maybe not so much fail after all. :)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    6. Re:This is just silly by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Isaac Newton died a virgin. Score.
    7. Re:This is just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Double negatives do not apply to negative interjections at the beginning of a sentence. You should complain about the missing comma, instead. :P

    8. Re:This is just silly by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

      Life just is.
      No, it isn't.

      The reason for life is life itself. Being alive means to give new life; to people. And ideas.
      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    9. Re:This is just silly by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speak for yourself. Do you see reasons for the sun and the stars, the mountains and oceans? The question isn't "why are we here"--we're here because of an eons-long chain of chemical and physical phenomena in the universe that lies behind us, not for anything that lies before us. The question is, "okay, we're here--now what are we going to do about it?". And don't you presume to answer that question for me.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    10. Re:This is just silly by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      So gave you the authority to speak for the sun, stars, mountains, and oceans?

    11. Re:This is just silly by joib · · Score: 1


      Who hasn't slept with a hooker in GTA, then ran her over and took the cash?


      I prefer to use the baseball bat.

    12. Re:This is just silly by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      One of the nicest (and probably best) theories on this I've ever read is that the point of live is to distribute energy. On a global scale, this seems to be pretty much all we do. Procreating is just an efficient way of doing this.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    13. Re:This is just silly by PhoenixOne · · Score: 1

      Who hasn't slept with a hooker in GTA, then ran her over and took the cash?

      Me? Not that I have anything against people who do (its just a game). But I played GTA like an RPG, and the character I created didn't think that way. On the other hand, he liked to run over inline skaters.

      --
      Spell cheek you've failed me four the last thyme!
    14. Re:This is just silly by FreakWent · · Score: 1

      I agree; life is just a chemical convection current.

    15. Re:This is just silly by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      So gave you the authority to speak for the sun, stars, mountains, and oceans?

      They'll stop as soon as the sun, stars, mountains, or oceans lodge an objection.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    16. Re:This is just silly by djasbestos · · Score: 1

      I think humans are beyond propagation of genetically similar meatbags...knowledge is our higher purpose now. Look at Stephen Hawking: assuming he did not have children, I think most people would consider him to have been successful.

      And there's always genetic engineering. Nazi-super-babies. (I guess that's pseudo-Godwinian, but only in reference to eugenics and not the fascist aspect...so does that count?).

    17. Re:This is just silly by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      You do you assume lack of consent is the same as tacit consent?

    18. Re:This is just silly by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The question isn't "why are we here"--we're here because of an eons-long chain of chemical and physical phenomena in the universe that lies behind us, not for anything that lies before us.

      Actually, that is the (possible) answer to the question "how did we came to be here", not "why are we here". The question of why doesn't neccessarily have any answer, as it implies that there is a purpose for human existence, which in turn isn't provable one way or another.

      The question is, "okay, we're here--now what are we going to do about it?".

      That question has been answered: sex, drugs (optional) and rock'n roll (or old game music in instrumental remixes). Oh, and anime.

      And don't you presume to answer that question for me.

      You are here to be dazzled by this brilliant reply and to shake in frustration as your feeble threats are contemptuously ignored ;).

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    19. Re:This is just silly by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      You do you assume lack of consent is the same as tacit consent?

      Uh... no. Are you a troll or something? I assume that 'consent' is only relevant when dealing with something that's actually sentient and therefore capable of giving or denying consent. Mountains et al don't qualify.

      I'll be happy to revise my opinion the very instant you introduce me to an ocean that can converse with me. Get back to me when you've got one, I'll be fascinated.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    20. Re:This is just silly by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

      You're seeing it from the wrong point of view.

      You're a machine used by your genes to propagate themselves.

      --
      Deleted
    21. Re:This is just silly by Alsee · · Score: 1

      If it were missing sex/relationships then it would be missing a huge part of life.

      Oh.

      I guess I need to get out more.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    22. Re:This is just silly by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      But if Isaac Newton died without children (virgin or otherwise), then genetically, he failed. Typical shallow understanding of genetics. If Newton's success- or any of his actions- improved the survival and/or prospects of his close relatives (who obviously share a lot of his genes), then he hasn't "failed" genetically.
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    23. Re:This is just silly by fractoid · · Score: 1

      But if Isaac Newton died without children (virgin or otherwise), then genetically, he failed. Typical shallow understanding of genetics. If Newton's success- or any of his actions- improved the survival and/or prospects of his close relatives (who obviously share a lot of his genes), then he hasn't "failed" genetically. Aha! But if you read the very next sentence you'll see that I said:

      Except in as much as his research and discoveries improved the survivability of others that shared his genetic material, which would be all of us to some extent, since he was human. So maybe not so much fail after all. :) Selective quoting for the lose.
      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    24. Re:This is just silly by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > 'consent' is only relevant when dealing with something that's actually sentient

      And your definition of sentient is... ?

    25. Re:This is just silly by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      And your definition of sentient is... ?

      Okay, you're either a troll or else you're actually that clueless, since I pointed out a test in the very message you're replying to. Either way, I strongly doubt that you qualify as sentient in my book. :->

      Since it's vastly more likely that you are a troll, I'd appreciate it if you could email me and tell me what possible benefit you get from that. I've never understood your kind.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    26. Re:This is just silly by djasbestos · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I'm saying, though: my meatbag wants to make meatbags similar to itself, but I (my mind) wants to create art and information. And despite being interdependent, my mind is much superior to my meatbag. The meatbag needs to understand that its job is to move my mind around...its not a sentient machine on its own, so it needs to chill out. If it breaks, then hopefully by then science will be able to give me a new one.

    27. Re:This is just silly by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Selective quoting for the lose. Not intentionally- I just wasn't paying enough attention and overlooked the qualifier. On reflection I don't know how though- it's right there in black and white and staring me in the face. My mistake either way, and sorry for picking you up on a mistake you didn't make :-(
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    28. Re:This is just silly by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      > I assume that 'consent' is only relevant when dealing with something that's actually sentient and therefore capable of giving or denying consent. Mountains et al don't qualify.

      That's a logical fallacy. You have a _very_ narrow definition of what sentient even is. Of all the millions of sentient beings & things in the universe, you are basing your definition on what? One planet? And a few living species? Are animals sentient? Are plants sentient?

      i.e.
      Amobea's don't give deny or give consent, but clearly they are alive.

      God doesn't give his/her consent, so therefore (s)he must not be sentient.

      Bzzt. Thx for playing. You don't prove a negative with a negative. Lack of evidence is NOT proof of a negative.

      > I'll be happy to revise my opinion the very instant you introduce me to an ocean that can converse with me. Get back to me when you've got one, I'll be fascinated.

      Its not the universe's fault that you are unable to communicate with it. If you would actually take the time, you could learn all sorts of interesting things. You would learn that "life" exists in many places that people only dream of.

      You're not even willing to spend the _lifetimes_ it takes to be able to communicate with it, yet you have the gall to make a broad statement that mountains, oceans, are not sentient.

      You're like a child wanting to understand advanced calculus when you don't even understand basic math. What are you willing to DO to earn this ability?

      I am saying you have every right to believe what you do, but I am ALSO saying your definitions of what sentient and consciousness are, are _severly_ limited.

      Learn to think outside the box, and you'll be reward.

      Peace

    29. Re:This is just silly by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1
      Sometimes it's fun to play with trolls. Like training at altitude, when you get back to sea level you can really fly.

      Proposition 1: You are a human being.

      Proposition 2: It takes a minimum of several years for humans to learn sufficient communication skills to post on Slashdot.

      Proposition 3: You are posting on Slashdot.

      Proposition 4: Humans must consume other living things to remain alive for several years.

      From 1, 2, and 3, we can conclude that you are a human being who is at least several years old. From 4, we can conclude that you've been eating at least plants, probably animals, and certainly many kinds of bacteria and amoebas. Please explain to me how you arranged for their consent to be eaten.

      Or, alternatively, please explain which of the above propositions is incorrect. I'll assume #3 is correct. Are you not a human being? Are you still living off breast milk? Are you just really really hungry? Are you so spiritually advanced you don't need food? If either of the latter, why are you wasting time on Slashdot when you could be saving literally millions of lives by disseminating your knowledge about how to live without food?

      Or... you're just a schmuck playing word games. Lack of evidence is indeed not proof of a negative, but the real world doesn't have much to do with "proof". Everything is a matter of probabilities, and everything we've seen so far indicates that sentience involves a fairly complex information-processing system. There is zero evidence of such a system in oceans, stars, and mountains. There's some evidence of information-processing capabilities in plants and ameobas, but not at a high level of complexity.

      If you've got actual evidence of such things... present it. So far all you've said is that 'if you take enough time' you can talk to an ocean. What do they say? If they are much, much smarter than humans, can I give you a 4096-bit number for them to factor? That's easy to check, but Very Hard to do. Show that, and you'd get lots of attention, not just from me but from many others.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    30. Re:This is just silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and we've hijacked the machine for our own ends.

      Fuck you, nature!

  4. Riiight... by morari · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I remember when those pay sights went up. I had not yet become bored with the original game (anything after Hot Date is lost on me). They're not there to protect the children, they exist solely to make money. The Sims community is pathetic. What you usually get is a simple recolor and a terrible read-me; "hi, i made this. i hope u like it!". The fact that people are trying to sell this shit, and are succeeding, is merely a side effect of how Maxis and EA already run the game. You buy an expansion pack every six months, and the three month periods in-between see the release of a cheaper, completely mediocre "Stuff Pack". Capitalism and pretending to have friends isn't just the goal of the game, it's the goal of the surrounding community. Compare this to a Quake mod, which is made up of a team of motivated hobbyists who sometimes create an entirely different game within the confines of the system and then release it for free!

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
    1. Re:Riiight... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      What the fuck do "the children" have to do with anything?

    2. Re:Riiight... by ACS+Solver · · Score: 1

      Sims is a game largely for a different audience than the rest of the games. It seems that many players of the Sims are teenage girls. Maxis was smart to make a game that could cater to them so much. How many teenage girls (or females of any age, for that matter) are there playing Unreal Tournament or Starcraft?

      I know there are also other demographics playing the Sims, but I guess that most of them aren't really hardcore gamers, either. Which would largely explain why the franchise sells so very well.

    3. Re:Riiight... by Babbster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've downloaded a lot of Sims stuff in the past (haven't played in a couple years) for free and there was a LOT more going on than simple "recolors." Everything from elevators to some (turning in a "man card" here) ridiculously nice fashions were available. I remember the original stuff at 7 Deadly Sims and there were some excellent designs with full new furniture sets and the like. It may not have been your cup of tea (and I never paid myself), but people have done a lot more work on those downloads than you're giving them credit for.

  5. Re:speaking of sex by morari · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I can't believe that I sat and read through that entire post...

    --
    "He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
  6. Re:speaking of sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    shame on you. as soon as you saw "11 year old" you shoulda gagged and left.

  7. Re:speaking of sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know what you mean. I dropped trou and started jacking off before I made it to the end. And I'm at work!!!

  8. My favorite site is SuicideSims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the alt/punk/goth Sims.

  9. Re:speaking of sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't believe that I sat and read through that entire post...
    I can't believe you admitted that non-anonymously.
  10. Rotten Egg. by Erris · · Score: 1

    Breathless prose:

    Im someone who tends to see the world as a brittle shell over a twitching mass of sexual longings, and my games tend to devolve into love-dodecahedrons as everyone has had a passing moment with everyone else. It could easily be argued that Im not writing about everyone, but just myself.

    Yes, I'd say he was writing about himself.

    --
    DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
  11. Re:speaking of sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not everyone thinks the same way as you. Some would take mention of an eleven-year-old as further incentive for reading the rest.

  12. Are we surprised? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

    I mean, we've already seen that Sims-type games are disproportionately more popular with women than are other games, and women are the people who tend to write fanfics, read trashy romance novels and the like. Guys don't tend to do much with sexual game mods beyond "Surprise buttsecks!" and other such attempts to humiliate other guys with homophobia, while women, being women, are more interested in actual pleasurable sex.

    1. Re:Are we surprised? by benzapp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      being women, are more interested in actual pleasurable sex.

      Women and men have different opinions and needs regarding sex, but it is ridiculous to assume that men aren't interested in "pleasurable" sex. Of course men are interested in pleasurable sex. The issue is men and women somewhat differ on what the definition of "pleasure" is. This is wholly subjective value judgment, and neither is better or worse than the the other.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    2. Re:Are we surprised? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "The issue is men and women somewhat differ on what the definition of "pleasure" is."

      If what you say is true, then most male gamers are homosexual tops into BDSM.

      Women are the ones more likely to pursue the sexual angle in whatever it is they're doing (the point of my post), and generally of the variety they themselves find enjoyable, while men spend most of their online gaming time playing power games with each other. So in order for what you assert to be true, then at least 75% of male gamers are closeted and enjoy teabagging other guys far more than they'd like to admit.

  13. EA probably has no interest in making headlines by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right now the Sims is perceived by the public as a great family friendly game. The last thing they want to do is put the Sims in the headlines next to "adult content" or "bizarre sex acts" or anything that is going to cause an outswell of ill-founded but inevitable comparisons to the 'hot coffee' mod and general backlash against their game.

    1. Re:EA probably has no interest in making headlines by Eponymous+Bastard · · Score: 1

      Too late. The daily show did a segment on that quite a few years ago. IIRC it was Samantha Bee talking to people who made sexual scenarios, bondage items, etc for the Sims, all the time acting like she didn't get it.

      It was pretty funny, but in the end it looked like the Daily Show didn't get it, or hadn't seen the actual mods, until they showed clips of a Sims dungeon as their moment of Zen, showing that they understood what was going on and were playing it for laughs.

  14. Still, we should take into account that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Surprise buttsecks!

    1. Re:Still, we should take into account that by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Guys don't tend to do much with sexual game mods beyond "Surprise buttsecks!" and other such attempts to humiliate other guys Surprise buttsecks! For those of you who didn't find that funny, here's a picture of a cute cat instead!
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  15. Re:speaking of sex by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    as soon as you saw "11 year old" you shoulda gagged and left.

    But "15 year old" was ok?

  16. no surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    people use Poser to make all sorts of porno scenarios and even create and sell "fetish" items, clothing, lingerie, sex toys for use in Poser.

  17. yes really by crossmr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    pandering isn't the same as knowing how to build a community. Much like knowing how to grab your ankles doesn't make your prison stay that much more pleasant.

    Suing people would go a long way towards giving the sims fans a long needed kick in the teeth.
    They're the whiniest bunch of crybabies I've ever seen assembled in a single place. You might say "Well that's because there are so many kids there", while true the adults aren't any better. They are the only community I know of where there is such rampant commercialism among the fans. Which has led every 12 year old and stay at home mom who joins the community to think they can retire next week off the crap they just whipped up in paint. And then behave like the RIAA the moment someone else uses it, or thinks about using it, or makes something that remotely looks like if you apply half a dozen photoshop filters and squint.

    Places like the sims resource require artists to sign exclusivity contracts and make various legal threats. in fact they really are the *AA of the sims world.

    But hey if that's what you're looking for in a community, yeah, EA does a fantastic job.

  18. Grossly underrated post by Travoltus · · Score: 1

    I can't believe this one is only a 2. Come on, people, laugh for crying out loud. :(

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:Grossly underrated post by BobPaul · · Score: 1

      I don't laugh if it's not funny. That only got a smile. Sorry.

  19. No sex by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

    Sex is actually completely absent from the game. Even the "Hot Date" add-on never featured sex of any kind, simulated or otherwise. Babies were produced in the game by alternating between giving someone a back-rub and kissing. The

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:No sex by MorePower · · Score: 2, Informative

      What do you mean there is no sex in the game? Even before "Hot Date" you could get two Sims with a high enough "friendship/love" rating (either male/female or female/female but for some reason not male/male), to go to the bed, take off their clothes (behind a blur, of course, just like when they shower or go to the toilet), get in to the bed together, cuddle up to each other and then slide completely under the blankets. The blankets would then bounce up and down for a several seconds and the Sims would emerge with much higher "social" and "fun" scores.

    2. Re:No sex by AusIV · · Score: 1

      Even before "Hot Date" you could get two Sims with a high enough "friendship/love" rating (either male/female or female/female but for some reason not male/male), to go to the bed, take off their clothes (behind a blur, of course, just like when they shower or go to the toilet), get in to the bed together, cuddle up to each other and then slide completely under the blankets. The blankets would then bounce up and down for a several seconds and the Sims would emerge with much higher "social" and "fun" scores.

      And let's not forget a much lowered cleanliness score. But as I recall in the sims 1, you couldn't "Play in bed" or "woohoo" until hot date introduced the big bed with the heart. The Sims 2 allowed sims to "Woohoo!" in any bed, hot tub, etc. But the Sims 1 was much more limited.

  20. The original author by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jim is a well-respected games journalist who apparently knows little about the games industry. The Sims is one of the best selling PC games of all time, and I wouldn't be shocked if it was the single best selling PC title of all time. What he is discussing is a small series of modders who added adult content to a title extremely popular with adults.

    The original game is extremely family-friendly, features no sex and in that regard is somewhat lacking as a life simulator. The game is mundane enough that I don't think it ever really caught on with the kids, and despite having a predominant adult audience, the game is in no way adult in nature. The game doesn't cater to adult mods, nor were there any official mod tools that I know of.

    The reason adult mods exist for the Sims, is that any major PC game often receives adult mods. If he had spent 5 minutes of a Google search he would have found several sites (won't Google for them at work personally) that cater to providing adult mods for any game out there. His supposition is completely flawed, disturbingly so for a journalist who supposedly specializes in the games industry.

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:The original author by mqduck · · Score: 1

      I suggest you read the whole article before you reply.

      --
      Property is theft.
    2. Re:The original author by SimHacker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just wanted to address a few points in your post:

      The Sims surpassed Myst at the top selling game of all time, quite a few years ago, and has continued to sell very well. The franchise has sold about 85 million games to date.

      The success of The Sims is largely due to the fact that players can add their own content to the game. Conversely, The Sims Online was a flop because it didn't allow players to add their own content, even though that feature was initially promised, to the delight of the fans, then later forgotten, do the fan's dismay.

      Yes there are official and semi-official mod tools. I wrote the character animation system in The Sims, and several tools for creating custom content. Before we release The Sims in March 2000, instead of releasing a demo, I developed a tool called "SimShow" that displayed the animated characters, and enabled players to create their own Sims. After we release The Sims, Will Wright hired me to use The Sims source code to develop The Sims Transmogrifier, a tool for cloning objects, exporting and importing theie graphics and properties, so players can modify them and create their own objects. I've created other easier to use "drag-and-drop" tools like Show-N-Tell for displaying Sims objects in a web browser, and Rug-O-Matic for creating picture story rugs. (You can enter text that's displayed in the catalog and in an in-game pop-up window, that tells a story about the picture on the rug.)

      One important way that The Sims is family friendly, is that it does not discriminate against families with gay people, nor does it perpetuate the hypocritical anti-gay homophobic agenda of the Republican party (like some other games from Texas and Senators from Idaho whose names I won't mention). Any of The Sims characters can participate in gay or straight relationships with each other, without any negative consequences or stereotypes. Anything less would be hostile to many families and gay people. Anyone who would argue that it's family friendly to discriminate against gays is homophobic, and needs to have their head examined, and work through their self-loathing personal issues with a mental health professional, just like Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, or Republican Senator James Foley of Florida, or Republican Evangelical Crystal Meth and Gay Sex Addicted Reverend Ted Haggard. (Oops, sorry -- I just couldn't resist naming some names.)

      -Don

      --
      Take a look and feel free: http://www.PieMenu.com
    3. Re:The original author by Enderandrew · · Score: 1

      Thanks for your response. I found the gameplay a bit mundane for my taste, but it absolutely amazed me how well the game resonated with many people who normally don't play computer games. Other "Sim" games seemed to evolve in the challenges that would develop as your city/anthill/whatever progressed, but with The Sims, gameplay and the challenges contained within basically stayed the same. Empty your bladder, keep up your energy, do something social. The game never changed, yet people just ate it up.

      Last I saw (which was years ago) there were plenty of tools to export content from the game and display it, and unofficial tools to create content, but I didn't recall official tools to put content in the game. However, as it wasn't my cup of tea, I didn't continue to follow the community.

      It is a bit off-topic but I can't help but ask if you have any opinions on all the controversy on how EA treated their staff, or on EA buying out companies like Maxis and how that has affected the industry.

      Lastly, do you think the success of Second Life owes largely to games like Ths Sims? I'm curious why The Sims Online wasn't more like how Second Life turned out.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    4. Re:The original author by crossmr · · Score: 1

      obviously you've never woohoo'd...

  21. Whoa... by marshallbanana6 · · Score: 1

    "anime, or more generally cartoon porn."

    I guess I have a hard drive full of porn. Who knew?

    XD
    1. Re:Whoa... by julesh · · Score: 1

      I guess I have a hard drive full of porn. Who knew?

      Come on. This is Slashdot. 90% of us have hard drives full of porn. The other 10% archive it off onto permanent storage rather than keeping it on their hard disks.

    2. Re:Whoa... by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

      OK, I'll byte.

      Work : 6G
      Images (non-pr0n) : 8G
      Software : 23G
      Text : 25G
      pr0n : 57G
      Music : 181G
      Videos (non-pr0n) : 240G

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
  22. Nope by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    Nope. In The Sims 1 there was no such thing, until Hot Date introduced the "love bed". And then it would work only with the love bed, normal beds were still only for sleeping.

    So given that you're describing the animation for the love bed, I'm really curious _how_ you got that before Hot Date.

    I'm not discounting that maybe later, much later, someone copied the scripts to the regular bed or made a new skin (ok, new sprite) for the love bed. (Most objects for The Sims 1 were actually this latter category: they just took an existing object and changed what it looked like.) But before Hot Date? Nope, people hadn't figured the scripting yet.

    So it's a bit bizarre to hear that Sex was essential to The Sims 1's success, when it took two expansion packs for that to happen at all. The game was already a great hit when, yes, like the GP correctly mentioned, babies were produced by kissing and hugging. (And I don't mean some removing-tonsils-with-the-tongue two-hands-up-her-blouse kinda kiss, either. It was all really really tame at that point.) Then a popup would come up asking if you want a baby.

    I'm sorry, but that was as non-erotic as you can possibly get. If anyone considered it "scoring" that their sim gave a backrub and had a friendly kiss, or worse yet as some pornographic material to choke the chicken to, I'd seriously worry about their mental health. Then they'd probably be as turned on by a bowl of rice.

    Yes, later more was introduced, but The Sims 1 was already a huge success long before that.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Nope by steeleye_brad · · Score: 1

      Warning: incoming pedantic nerd!

      The love bed (a big tacky vibrating bed) was introduced in Livin' Large, the first expansion pack for The Sims 1.

      And yeah, anything pertaining to sex in The Sims was rather tounge-in-cheek and cartoonish. I can't say I know anyone who ever bought the game for its hot, erotic possibilities...yech!

    2. Re:Nope by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but that was as non-erotic as you can possibly get. If anyone considered it "scoring" that their sim gave a backrub and had a friendly kiss, or worse yet as some pornographic material to choke the chicken to, I'd seriously worry about their mental health. Then they'd probably be as turned on by a bowl of rice.

      You underestimate the power of human imagination. I've known people who have masturbated while interacting with a succubus in Nethack: "Time stands still while you and the succubus lay in each others arms...". That text, and the letter @ (the player character) next to the letter & (a demon; a succubus in this case) next to each other in the screen is all it takes.

      The phrase "There is someone who is turned on by X" is true for all values of X. There are people who get turned on by bowls of rice; there are people who get turned on by Goatse and Tubgirl; and there are people who get turned on by watching an animated GIF of a cartoon character performing seppuku. By contrast, the guy who gets his kicks from having one Sim perform a backrub on another is positively glowing with mental health. Or is it just the afterglow ?-)...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    3. Re:Nope by jgrahn · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but that was as non-erotic as you can possibly get. If anyone considered it "scoring" that their sim gave a backrub and had a friendly kiss, or worse yet as some pornographic material to choke the chicken to, I'd seriously worry about their mental health.

      You underestimate the power of human imagination. I've known people who have masturbated while interacting with a succubus in Nethack.

      Uh, I think that is covered by the phrase "seriously worry about their mental health".

    4. Re:Nope by Alsee · · Score: 1

      masturbated while interacting with a succubus in Nethack

      Wow.

      I proudly refer to myself as a geek/nerd, and I got embarrassed just reading that.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  23. That seems a bit harsh by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    That seems a bit harsh. Let me point out that:

    For all their "we love modders" hot air, EA and Maxis never released any tools, specs or support, other than (very late) for clothes and wallpapers. (And recently even took to giving you scary warnings that bad things might happen to your game if you enable third party mods.) But for making new objects? Nope. EA makes a good living selling those "Stuff Packs" (Livin' Large and wossname party were just stuff packs for the original The Sims 1 too) which give you a couple of objects and no new interactions or anything. So it's not actually in their interest to support modders.

    So it took years of reverse engineering to get any kind of a grip on scripting it, and even then it involved essentially editing bytecode FFS, because EA never released a compiler. It's like scripting in assembly.

    So, yes, at first there were only recoloured objects. But even for those, someone had to reverse engineer the file format and find out where the images are, and how they can be replaced without crashing the game.

    If you compare it to the Quake community, those got all the tools and specs they needed from ID, so _of_ _course_ those had a headstart.

    So calling The Sims community pathetic just because it took a while, is... surrealistic. There were thousands of people doing voluntary unpaid work, in their free time, for years. Just to figure out how to mod a game that EA never really wanted modded. WTH did you expect? That someone has a stroke of enlightenment, and gets the file and scripting specs from an archangel the next night after the game is released? It's been hard work and _of_ _course_ it took time.

    That said, once scripting and stuff did get figured out -- by now The Sims 2 was already out -- some _amazing_ mods came out. E.g., Christianlov's all-in-one-NPCs on Mod The Sims 2 are all that the butler was in EA's The Sims Superstar, and a hell of a lot more. And it's for free too.

    Heck, his nanny NPC alone made me grateful. Maxis's nanny was so idiotic, it made me want to brain her each time I watched her do exactly the wrong things while the toddler is bawling his little lungs out. A toddler which can already speak FFS, so you'd imagine there wouldn't be as much guessing, realistically. How stupid can one be to keep trying to stuff an already full toddler, until he shits himself and falls asleep in the chair, because he never had a chance or way to get out and take care of those needs? Dunno, maybe others found it funny, but for me watching that kind of a tortured childhood just made me _angry_.

    Christianlov's actually feeds the toddler when he's hungry, puts him in the crib when he's sleepy, on the potty when he... umm... needs to go potty, and gives some social interaction when the kid wants attention. And mostly stays out of the way the rest of the time. How hard a concept can that be? Watching Christianlov's nanny do it right just made me realize how much Maxis's nanny sucked all along.

    It may seem like a small detail, and not as glorious as editing 10 maps for a Quake mod, but it's such quality-of-life things that make me happy I can get TS2 mods.

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  24. To some extent they do, actually by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Other "Sim" games seemed to evolve in the challenges that would develop as your city/anthill/whatever progressed, but with The Sims, gameplay and the challenges contained within basically stayed the same. Empty your bladder, keep up your energy, do something social. The game never changed, yet people just ate it up.


    To some extent they do.

    As you progress up any career path, for example, you start needing more friends, and more time keeping them friends, while at the same time needing more time to improve your skills for a promotion. Higher job levels also routinely involve longer hours, or more bizarre hours, and usually tax your needs more. While the entry job got your sim back home at 3 PM and as fresh as when they left, the highest job level would often get your sim back in the evening and almost ready to cry.

    Worse yet, all that army of friends has wildly different personalities and interests, and often just getting them all in one room for a all-in-one socializing evening is a recipe for disaster. (Unless you created/edited a small army of identical sims.) Some will get to be enemies by just boring each other to death, some insecure guy will go ballistic because his wife danced with someone else (for bonus points: with another woman), etc.

    You start needing more time, and having less time, basically. You start upgrading your objects just to get more out of them in less time (e.g., a more confortable sofa instead of a park bench in front of your TV, so you get some comfort points faster) or to combine effects (e.g., lying in a bathtub gets you some comfort too, while a shower doesn't.)

    It may seem like "yeah, but you take care of the same needs in the end", but then the same thing can be said about SimCity too. There too, essentially you need water, electricity, employment, education, and a couple of other things. They stay the same throughout the game. There is no entirely new challenge that springs up as your city grows, it's just a matter of quantities and interdependencies: raising one factor (e.g., employment) causes another to lower (e.g., air quality.) So now you build something else to raise this one (e.g., parks) but that just impacts you in another way (e.g., longer drive times and more congestions from home to work, through all that forest you planted to keep pollution away.) And so on. All while managing a budget.

    By and large, The Sims isn't any different. It's just managing some variables and interdependencies, and it does subtly change over time.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:To some extent they do, actually by nuzak · · Score: 1

      > All while managing a budget.

      And limited time. And oh so ungodly-horrible intelligence. I have to take my sims to the bathroom, and it takes them an hour to navigate around the furniture, and another to do their business, if they even make it. I'd have enjoyed the game far more if it the sims weren't so damn slow, stiff, and stupid. The Sims 2 added diagonal paths and furniture placement, and made sims a tiny bit smarter about managing their bodily functions, but otherwise didn't improve on the state of the art. I couldn't even get through the demo.

      If the Sims 3 adds a real actual 3d engine, I might get it, but it's really such a "couch game" for me that I can't just sit at a PC to play it anymore -- it's console or nothing for me. I actually enjoyed the Sims 1 "Busting Out" title on the PS2 more than the Sims 2 on the PC just because I could play it casually.

      Meanwhile, my GF is addicted to Viva Piñata, and while I claim to be immune, I found myself late for work this morning because I tried to shoot for "just one more award".

      --
      Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
  25. Sorta by Moraelin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jim is a well-respected games journalist who apparently knows little about the games industry.


    You're sorta right that he doesn't seem to "get" what made The Sims popular, but I wouldn't necessarily say you have to know little about the game industry to be stumped there.

    The fact is, a lot of _members_ of the industry are just as stumped trying to understand it. I can think of at least three games which tried to bolt-on some kind of "at home" mode to their game, apparently for no other reason than to try to get a bit of that market too, and got it _all_ wrong. Not just a little wrong, but they "streamlined" out everything that was fun to anyone, and left only the mundane parts in... and even managed to get those wrong. Considering that Will Wright gave interviews and speeches all over the place as to what worked and why, just makes it even more surprising to see someone "streamline" out exactly those.

    As a short detour, that seems to be a more general illness of the industry. Someone who doesn't even understand or like a genre, sets out to make a clone of last year's bestseller... and gets it all wrong. Whether it's The Sims, or RPGs, or car racing games or whatever.

    Thing is, it's hard to explain _why_ people like The Sims, to someone who doesn't. Explanations like "because it's simulated life" or "because you can watch someone do chores around the house" are too superficial and somewhat mis-leading. Listening to Will Wright talk about fluid dynamics and such in an interview is actually a lot closer to describing it, but conversely leaves most people wondering something like "so WTF does that have to do with games?" or "so how the heck would one make a game like The Sims based on that?"

    So a lot come out with half-baked, and occasionally pejorative, explanations like "maybe it's for the sex" or "maybe it's to pretend they live someone else's life".

    People like The Sims for a variety of disconnected reasons, like using it to experiment with home layouts, or as props to film a story, or actually playing with the constraints and interdependencies to some goal they set for themselves. For some that goal will be creating love triangles and dodecahedrons, for some it will be something else.

    And some will just get bored and start doing stuff like downloading stuff that turns it into a porn game or killing sims left and right, because that's the kind of event that's more like what they want to play.

    The problem, and source of such articles, IMHO is that surprisingly few people seem to realize that there's more than one personality and more than one gamer type. Almost everyone seems to assume that he's the yardstick of gamer tastes, everyone else should like exactly the same things, and if they don't, there must be something hideously wrong with them. It's the stuff that fanboy flamewars are made of, and, sadly, more than one serious article.

    The Sims is one of the best selling PC games of all time, and I wouldn't be shocked if it was the single best selling PC title of all time.


    It is. It outsold all Quake games _combined_, for example.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
  26. The children by laederkeps · · Score: 1
    When the fuck are THE CHILDREN not involved at all?

    More specifically, TFS mentioned that the credit card checks (and even charges) are supposedly to ensure that minors (Who don't have the guts to borrow their dad's VISA) don't get their hands on the dirty dirty content they "create".
    Surely, the grandparent post couldn't have been trying to counter that claim?
    The point, if I may take a wild guess, was probably something like this:

    These sites don't really have any good reason to charge money for their content, since it's mostly just crap.
    The idea of having credit card requirements for the sake of age verification is bullshit
    1. Re:The children by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I was wondering how to hijack a higher thread to say just that.

      Once more : Mod sites that charge money just want that, money. Age verification my ass.

      --
      Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
    2. Re:The children by steeleye_brad · · Score: 1

      Yep, charging money to prevent minors from downloading "adult themed add-ons" is essentially bullshit. Hell, there are loads of pay sites for The Sims that have no adult content! I remember when pay sites started appearing (way back around when Hot Date was released)...back then it was all about covering hosting fees. Understandable for some particularly large sites, but then brand new pay sites started popping up without ever offering any content for free (aside from occasional samples)! It probably all started because these middle aged crazy cat-ladies and soccer moms (which make up the bulk of the Sims communnity) couldn't figure out how to find cheaper hosting or reduce bandwidth usage, so selling their crummy add-ons or abandoning the community in a fit of drama were the only solutions. At some point I guess the notion that creating add-ons for the game and putting them online was an expensive venture had penetrated the community, and pay sites became an accepted thing.

      There is also the argument that the authors of these add-ons have done a lot of work to make their creations, and would like some compensation for it. Nothing wrong with that. But look at the pricing for some of these Sims websites, and it all becomes quite laughable. Even taking into account bandwidth usage and the hard work put into making stuff for the game, it is obvious that many of these authors just want to make a buck.

      Really, when it comes to user-created content, The Sims has a very strange community compared to other games.

  27. Re:speaking of sex by Corwn+of+Amber · · Score: 1

    For a male? Are you one? If yes, you already know that every boy from 12 onwards thinks about sex for the whole of his waking time. Else, now you do.

    --
    Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
  28. Kieron Gillen wrote the article by Phydaux · · Score: 2, Informative

    The article clearly states that Kieron Gillen wrote it.

    We can see all the people on /. that are critisising the article without bothering to read it. They criticise Jim.

  29. Sexual attraction drives virtual worlds like in RL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jim is a well-respected games journalist who apparently knows little about the games industry.

    That's your opinion. My opinion is that Jim is spot on, and comprehends why huge numbers of games have a sexual element possibly even better than the games designers do themselves. It's you who seems to be rather blind to how the world really works. Games are no exception.

    What Jim describes applies to almost all games that feature male and female characters with recognizably attractive physical attributes, because "attraction" is inherently associated with gender-related appeal.

    This applies to pretty much all current MMOGs (do you think female elves appear so sexy to male eyes for no reason at all?), and to non-MMOG worlds like Second Life as well. Gender-related attraction (which is the basis of sexuality) drives games and virtual worlds just as much as it drives the real world. No player is unaffected by it, except (possibly) if they have a medical condition that has switched off that normal human machinery.

    This is all part of being human. We may one day have control over it, but all the signs point to interest in massive enhancement instead of removal of these primitive urges. Jim sees gaming in this and related genres very accurately indeed.

  30. Re: Doll House by gaffle · · Score: 1

    Will Wright has said in an interview that The Sims was originally conceived as a Doll-house style game. The sims and the whole game surrounding them were added later, at the suggestion of others. And no, I dont' know what interview that is. I probably read it on gamasutra.

  31. Unless, of course, your chemistry makes you by weston · · Score: 1

    And don't you presume to answer that question for me

    Unless, of course, the long chain of physical and chemical processes has produced the kind of person emminently suited for answering questions of choice for other people. :)