For many neurodiverse people, 'The Sims' has been a lifelong comfort(cnn.com)
cnn.com
For many neurodiverse people, 'The Sims' has been a lifelong comfort
https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/18/us/sims-autism-adhd-video-games-community-wellness-cec/index.html
58 comments
a great franchise ruined by DLC release strategy and generalized EA-scumminess.
Pretty sure even the first version around 20 years ago had expansion discs filling the exact same role, perhaps less insidious as there weren't that many available. You could say they just copied Barbie's™ timeless upselling strategy, doesn't make it any better of course.
Just out of curiosity I checked and it costs around $840 to buy Sims 4 with all it's DLCs, just... wtf.
Just out of curiosity I checked and it costs around $840 to buy Sims 4 with all it's DLCs, just... wtf.
To be fair, the first Sims also went in for a lot of flack for its expansion pack money making.
Neurodiverse isn't a real medical term
The Sims is not a medical device
The article defines it as “non medical”. And that doesn't mean that people can't find identity in it.
And Doom too.
> “The Sims” is an open-world game, meaning there is no right or wrong way to experience it
that's a 'diverse' definition, maybe confusing it with the concept of 'open-ended' ? (the sims is not generally considered an open-world game)
that's a 'diverse' definition, maybe confusing it with the concept of 'open-ended' ? (the sims is not generally considered an open-world game)
The Sims has only very weak goals and scoring and functions perfectly as a sandbox.
Thats not what open world means.
My sims can't walk or explore in seemingly endless directions.
My sims can't walk or explore in seemingly endless directions.
> My sims can't walk or explore in seemingly endless directions.
That isn't what open world means either. There isn't a game on the market where you can do that, though it is most of the concept of No Man's Sky. All game worlds are tightly bounded so that they can fit on your computer. The edges of the world are always obvious.
Open world is generally used to refer to a game where you are allowed to walk from any part of it to any other part. Compare Doom, where level 1 and level 2 are completely separated from each other. The only way to get from level 1 to level 2 is to beat level 1. There is no way to get from level 2 to level 1.
(Granted that Sims would never be called an open world game. The player isn't even present in the game world.)
That isn't what open world means either. There isn't a game on the market where you can do that, though it is most of the concept of No Man's Sky. All game worlds are tightly bounded so that they can fit on your computer. The edges of the world are always obvious.
Open world is generally used to refer to a game where you are allowed to walk from any part of it to any other part. Compare Doom, where level 1 and level 2 are completely separated from each other. The only way to get from level 1 to level 2 is to beat level 1. There is no way to get from level 2 to level 1.
(Granted that Sims would never be called an open world game. The player isn't even present in the game world.)
The endless direction bit doesn't imply an endless map just more options than you can reasonably explore. You can easily spend thousands of hours in Skyrim without seeing every NPC with unique dialog and many games are much larger than that. Procedurally generated worlds like Factorio can take hours traveling in one direction just to see the border.
Games with procedurally-generated worlds larger than the player could ever explore are rather common: Minecraft, one of the best-selling games in history, comes immediately to mind. Massive procgen galaxies far predate No Man's Sky as well- see the original Elite and Noctis IV.
Under that definition though wouldn't the original Legend of Zelda games be open world?
Definitely. I would put the original Pokemon games in that as well. The key word here is 'seemingly'. How something 'seems' depends on context, which is related to the period, the technology (hardware and software), and the culture of how one thinks about games. I would put the comparison like this, in Zelda: A link to the past (snes), there isn't a 'right' way to proceed through the game. In fact you could proceed through the game in any number of ways, and there may be an infinite or at least intractably large number of these. In fact, you could just ignore the story component of the game and fight sprites. Same with a game like Pokemon. You don't have to fight gym bosses. You can just wander around and fight wild Pokemon and raise your Pokemon's stats.
Lets juxtapose that with another period game, Super Mario World. Super Mario World is fundamentally on rails. While there is a range of unique ways you can proceed through the world, there is a very calculable and finite number of these. The individual levels are always the same. You can't proceed freely in any direction (internal to the dimensional structure of the game). There is no 'sense of expanse' where you have to explore the game in a somewhat random way to find out whats beyond the horizon.
Open world games aren't necessarily about the size and scale of the game, but how you proceed through the game and what your 'sense' of the world is. The Sim's is fundamentally not an open world game. There is no 'sense' of openness in that, the gameplay is fundamentally on rails. There is a discrete set of ways your sim can interact with the world. Sure there is plenty of customization and uniqueness within that railed environment, but that doesn't make it an open world game.
Some older games that are open world might be Realmz on PC (early 90's DnD clone), MacSyndicate (think cyber punk meets GTA), or even Trucking USA on the Apple IIs. I think characteristic to an open world game is a sense of expanse, the ability to play it in a way that is seemingly ignorant of whatever the developers intended, and that it is 'unrailed' and you should be able to travel freely along whatever dimensional axes define the gameplay.
Lets juxtapose that with another period game, Super Mario World. Super Mario World is fundamentally on rails. While there is a range of unique ways you can proceed through the world, there is a very calculable and finite number of these. The individual levels are always the same. You can't proceed freely in any direction (internal to the dimensional structure of the game). There is no 'sense of expanse' where you have to explore the game in a somewhat random way to find out whats beyond the horizon.
Open world games aren't necessarily about the size and scale of the game, but how you proceed through the game and what your 'sense' of the world is. The Sim's is fundamentally not an open world game. There is no 'sense' of openness in that, the gameplay is fundamentally on rails. There is a discrete set of ways your sim can interact with the world. Sure there is plenty of customization and uniqueness within that railed environment, but that doesn't make it an open world game.
Some older games that are open world might be Realmz on PC (early 90's DnD clone), MacSyndicate (think cyber punk meets GTA), or even Trucking USA on the Apple IIs. I think characteristic to an open world game is a sense of expanse, the ability to play it in a way that is seemingly ignorant of whatever the developers intended, and that it is 'unrailed' and you should be able to travel freely along whatever dimensional axes define the gameplay.
> I would put the original Pokemon games in that as well.
> Super Mario World is fundamentally on rails. While there is a range of unique ways you can proceed through the world, there is a very calculable and finite number of these.
The Pokemon games are also fundamentally on rails. It's true that you can walk backward from wherever you are to wherever you've been in the past, which is very common in RPGs. But at almost all times, there's only one option if you want to go forward.
Then again, as the series progresses, more and more gameplay gets hidden behind "winning" the game by beating the elite 4 and rolling the credits, and things are pretty open at that point.
> Super Mario World is fundamentally on rails. While there is a range of unique ways you can proceed through the world, there is a very calculable and finite number of these.
The Pokemon games are also fundamentally on rails. It's true that you can walk backward from wherever you are to wherever you've been in the past, which is very common in RPGs. But at almost all times, there's only one option if you want to go forward.
Then again, as the series progresses, more and more gameplay gets hidden behind "winning" the game by beating the elite 4 and rolling the credits, and things are pretty open at that point.
they predate the term, and the scale of interaction is different, but being able to explore and complete dungeons and sidequests in arbitrary orders is certainly open-world-y
weak goals?
admittedly I haven't play the game since the original or maybe 2(?) , but as far as I remember you need to eat, sleep, excrete, entertain yourself, all of which become harder if you don't have money or a supportive multi-sim household.
so in other words, personal-sim needs and money are hard goals , in most cases.
These goals are generally game-ending; I don't consider that a sandbox.
admittedly I haven't play the game since the original or maybe 2(?) , but as far as I remember you need to eat, sleep, excrete, entertain yourself, all of which become harder if you don't have money or a supportive multi-sim household.
so in other words, personal-sim needs and money are hard goals , in most cases.
These goals are generally game-ending; I don't consider that a sandbox.
What is the overall end goal of the entire game?
The Sims 3 was an open world game by most definitions. The Sims 2 and The Sims 4 can still make a case for being open world; you can explore at will, but with many loading screens.
I think 'open-ended' would be selling it short. A Halo 'combat arena' is open-ended. The Sims is absolutely an open-world game.
The simulated (game-)world is open to the player -- they are free to interact with it as much or as little as they like, in a manner of their choosing. Importantly, the simulation will proceed (in meaningful ways) with or without action by the player.
The simulated (game-)world is open to the player -- they are free to interact with it as much or as little as they like, in a manner of their choosing. Importantly, the simulation will proceed (in meaningful ways) with or without action by the player.
(just because a game is 'more than open-ended' doesnt make it 'open world', which is a term that already has a definition, and is not relevant to sims core gameplay)
"Software toy" is the term most famously associated with Will Wright's products.
[deleted]
Everyone is “neurodiverse”, no?
It's supposed to be the counterpart to "Neurotypical". Neurotypicals are especially more neurologically typical than average, and the Neurodiverse are especially neurologically diverse. While we may all be unique, some are less unique than others.
I tend to hate woke disability jargon like this because jargon has the incredibly ironic flaw of being less accessible to people with learning disabilities, who are ESL, or who are young. Neurodiverse is one of the more common bits of jargon though, wiki has a big page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity
I tend to hate woke disability jargon like this because jargon has the incredibly ironic flaw of being less accessible to people with learning disabilities, who are ESL, or who are young. Neurodiverse is one of the more common bits of jargon though, wiki has a big page on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity
> Neurotypicals are especially neurologically typical than average, and the Neurodiverse are especially neurologically diverse
That's a tad too tautological.
That's a tad too tautological.
I dont think that's expressed particularly well, but that's pretty much how all variable traits are. E.g. Normal height people are closer to average than abnormally tall people.
> woke disability jargon
It’s just a label used to describe people with similar or overlapping developmental disorders. The word could be more concise I suppose, but then you’re just waging this tiny cultural war on words being too big.
I’m starting to think the anti-“woke” crowd are just people who get offended at any vocabulary that gains popularity after their early 20s.
It’s just a label used to describe people with similar or overlapping developmental disorders. The word could be more concise I suppose, but then you’re just waging this tiny cultural war on words being too big.
I’m starting to think the anti-“woke” crowd are just people who get offended at any vocabulary that gains popularity after their early 20s.
No it really is specifically about jargon. Also Neurodiverse was coined in the 90s, it's pretty old now. Also within these communities, ND/NT are not very verbose, because they can be abbreviated like that.
Have you looked around in tech? There's tons of people who lack a full command of English. There are tons of "barstool conservatives". Using words like "neurodiverse" is like shooting myself in the foot before I even get started. I'm not consistent about being concise and not wordy, look at how I write in general, it's really not that accessible but it's hard to write accessibly but an easy way to do so is to avoid jargon.
I'll use these terms within these communities where necessary, but not outside of them, notice how the mere use of this word caused a shitstorm in the comments.
Have you looked around in tech? There's tons of people who lack a full command of English. There are tons of "barstool conservatives". Using words like "neurodiverse" is like shooting myself in the foot before I even get started. I'm not consistent about being concise and not wordy, look at how I write in general, it's really not that accessible but it's hard to write accessibly but an easy way to do so is to avoid jargon.
I'll use these terms within these communities where necessary, but not outside of them, notice how the mere use of this word caused a shitstorm in the comments.
> Have you looked around in tech? There's tons of people who lack a full command of English.
Have _you_ looked around in tech? This argument that ND/NT are "jargon" and "difficult" for ESL people is patently absurd.
> jargon
> special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.
ND/NT are simple combinations of their base words that derive meaning from the most intuitive interpretation of combining them.
Looking up new words is just part of daily life for ESL. Learn some basic common words/morphemes: neuro, divergent, typical. Combine them and get a nearly self-defining new word and simple concept.
You know what's _not_ that simple? Idioms. AWS. "My dogs are barking". "You're not even wrong". Spelling e.g.: centre/center. Pronounce e.g.: thought/drought/tough.
But ESLs in tech have it hard? Yeah, when it comes to tech. Learning NT/ND is about as difficult as remembering that Burger King sells burgers.
Tech is where it's actually rough on not just ESL, but _everyone_. Everything in tech is _actually_ jargon, and sometimes it's piles of jargon built on mountains of jargon. And when it's not jargon, it's math and computer science, if you even distinguish that. ESL learners spend all day looking at AWS concepts like EC2/ECR/ECS/EBS/EFS/beanstalk/Alexa/Athena/Aurora/Corretto and they are graciously thankful NT/ND is a simple word that's not a trick word or an idiom or jargon.
The real problem anyone has with ND/NT is purely political tribalism and has nothing to with the word itself.
Have _you_ looked around in tech? This argument that ND/NT are "jargon" and "difficult" for ESL people is patently absurd.
> jargon
> special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are difficult for others to understand.
ND/NT are simple combinations of their base words that derive meaning from the most intuitive interpretation of combining them.
Looking up new words is just part of daily life for ESL. Learn some basic common words/morphemes: neuro, divergent, typical. Combine them and get a nearly self-defining new word and simple concept.
You know what's _not_ that simple? Idioms. AWS. "My dogs are barking". "You're not even wrong". Spelling e.g.: centre/center. Pronounce e.g.: thought/drought/tough.
But ESLs in tech have it hard? Yeah, when it comes to tech. Learning NT/ND is about as difficult as remembering that Burger King sells burgers.
Tech is where it's actually rough on not just ESL, but _everyone_. Everything in tech is _actually_ jargon, and sometimes it's piles of jargon built on mountains of jargon. And when it's not jargon, it's math and computer science, if you even distinguish that. ESL learners spend all day looking at AWS concepts like EC2/ECR/ECS/EBS/EFS/beanstalk/Alexa/Athena/Aurora/Corretto and they are graciously thankful NT/ND is a simple word that's not a trick word or an idiom or jargon.
The real problem anyone has with ND/NT is purely political tribalism and has nothing to with the word itself.
> I tend to hate woke disability jargon like this because jargon has the incredibly ironic flaw of being less accessible to people with learning disabilities, who are ESL, or who are young.
You must hate literally everything that's not basic English.
You must hate literally everything that's not basic English.
I think they mean neurodivergent, which makes a lot more sense
That gets kinda to the heart of the problem of "labels" right there. It's just a way for people to label groups of "other" to make them easier to target for fear and hatred. Everyone is different (even so-called "identical" twins), and you can group 'em together a billion billion different ways.
Individuals can’t be diverse. Only groups.
The word diverse can mean "different" (implicitly, different from "norm") which individuals certainly can be.
Other comments are saying things like woke people are redefining terms, but this is not a new usage. Wiktionary has quotes from the 1700s using it https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/diverse
Other comments are saying things like woke people are redefining terms, but this is not a new usage. Wiktionary has quotes from the 1700s using it https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/diverse
barry-cotter(1)
Sounds like newspeak to me...
[deleted]
debacle(8)