Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PC Games (Games) Entertainment Games

Interview with The Sims Creator 52

Posted by CowboyNeal 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interview with The Sims Creator More

Interview with The Sims Creator

Comments Filter:

  • Translation... (Score:5, Funny)

    by tod_miller ( 792541 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @01:30AM (#10263619) Journal
    " 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...

  • If this isn't a dupe... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Kris_J ( 10111 ) * on Thursday September 16, 2004 @01:35AM (#10263636) Homepage Journal
    ... it should be [slashdot.org]. Maybe if we had more paid advertising like this story has to be, we wouldn't need the ad banners.
    • 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.
      • 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.
        • 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 n

  • "The Sims" as Art/Philosophy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @04:02AM (#10264047) Homepage
    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.

    • Great post (Score:5, Interesting)

      by superultra ( 670002 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @07:41AM (#10264784) Homepage
      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?
    • 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

    • Re:"The Sims" as Art/Philosophy (Score:4, Insightful)

      by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @08:48AM (#10265417) Homepage
      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?

      • 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. :)
        • 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

      • 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

        • Re:Soap Operas, Movies, TV Series... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by nine-times ( 778537 ) <nine.times@gmail.com> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @11:47AM (#10267684) Homepage
          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?

          • 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
            • 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"

              • 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.
                • 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 appe

        • 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 wonde
      • 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
  • 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 evolv

    • Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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 ;)

    • Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 16, 2004 @06:44AM (#10264461)
      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.
      • 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 d

    • Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Chess_the_cat ( 653159 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @06:49AM (#10264477) Homepage
      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.

      • 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.

    • Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by neglige ( 641101 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @07:18AM (#10264618)
      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 [wired.com]

    • Re:Why the Sims is not elite ... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by moonbender ( 547943 ) <moonbender@@@gmail...com> on Thursday September 16, 2004 @08:56AM (#10265515)
      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.
    • 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 n

    • 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 peo

    • 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. [ea.com]

      Similarly, Maxis' Streets of Simcity [mobygames.com] 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 i
    • 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

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

  • genre cliches (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mausmalone ( 594185 ) on Thursday September 16, 2004 @07:42AM (#10264790) Homepage Journal
    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.
  • 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
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • 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
  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do you suffer painful hallucination? -- Don Juan, cited by Carlos Casteneda

Close