Talk:The Sims 2/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 BoolProp 2 Console Area 3 Sims 2 Pets 4 HPP as SP? 5 Sims News Station 6 Sims 3??? 7 Glamour Life 8 Description section comments. 9 Revision of Description section needed 10 Editions of the game 11 Port articles? 12 Gameplay section? 13 Archive 14 Choose from boy or girl 15 Unrealistic Additions 16 Revised Version Underway 17 Summary of recent changes 18 Peer Review? 19 Use of Prima Guides 20 Consistency issues 20.1 Use of pronouns regarding Sims 20.2 Capitalization of game terms 20.3 Use of game terms 21 Career paths 22 "Smells Bad" Grammar 23 Release dates 24 Babies in The Sims 25 Peer Review Recommendations 26 The Sims 2 Releases for the Upcoming Holidays 27 {{imagereq}} 28 PC != Windows 29 Reality 30 Merge ModTheSims2 into The Sims 2 31 Spelling errors 32 Custom Content Controversy 33 Protection Change 34 Edit Warring. 35 Importance 36 Hotel game 37 Machinima Sim websites 38 Bella Goth 39 Custom Content 40 The "Goth Family"

BoolProp

When editing this article, please remember that the boolProp TestingCheatsEnabled cheat is not the only boolprop cheat. BoolProp just means 'Boolean Property'.

Console Area

In the section about the console releases, it says "In Black Ass Mutha Fucka Mode,the player moves through different locations, fullfiling their Sim's wants".......shouldnt it be "story mode"?

Sims 2 Pets

I just wanted to say bravo to all those who jumped the gun and felt the need not only to add to this article, but create a Sims 2: Pets article. Ebgames has put up a product page, currently listed PSP only. This is why you don't add stuff without official confirmation. --Crossmr 23:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

GameSpot.com lists it as an expansion pack for The Sims 2 to be released for the PC. I trust GameSpot over EBGames. Even if it is for PSP, it'll still need it's own article. Locano 06:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not withstanding, the official line from EA games is that the expansion has not been announced. There wasn't a single shred of evidence this was an actual EP for the game. They said they were not intending to announce the EP until 2 or 3 weeks after E3. A snippet from their PR department was passed on to me by someone (I'll try and find the source) that stated as much saying that at E3 they announced a theme, but the EP itself was still waiting to be announced. Retailers get very little information beyond what the public sees, contrary to what people think, and it wouldn't be the first time I've seen a company speculate on what something is, or when its to be released. Especially with no announcement. Personally I think all the Pet stuff should be removed until we get an official confirmation on what is coming. --Crossmr 06:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

What about Maxoid Hunter's statement? That would count as an official statement from the developers. Jaxad0127 02:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not even remotely. Where in that statement does he say the next EP is The Sims 2 Pets? Like the first statement he made, he has only confirmed an EP was being developed which anyone with a pulse has known forever. They've always planned 7 EPs and nothing is likely going to change that. Until such a time as they make a statement that says "The Next EP is The Sims 2: Pets" which will be accompanied by 8 billion screenshots and 400 teaser videos, any vague statements they make about it doesn't confirm anything. --Crossmr 02:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But we do know something that WILL be in the next ep. Jaxad0127 02:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well thats true, however its already been possible to incorporate your own paintings into the game, just not supported by Maxis. Previously you could start a painting then replace a temp file it creates with the painting you want and it would paint that. That is at least one piece of confirmed info we can use. --Crossmr 03:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm not sure I feel right putting that info under The Sims 2: Pets. I really wish that wasn't placed under the EP heading because thats not the appropriate place for it. I'm also not sure if I want to start the slipperty slope of adding every single tidbit of information they're likely to release over the next 3 months to the article. I know many people are excited for it to come out, but I would hate for the article to turn into the gong show that is the BBS. Look what happened the one time this got linked there. --Crossmr 03:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the fact that it's not the right time to create a Sims 2 Pets page. This expansion pack hasn't been confirmed in any kind of way. The only knowledge we have is the E3 video. I think it's best to wait for an official statement before we draw to any conclusions -Jort227 19:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we're stuck with it at this point. I attempted to have it removed until such a time as there was some confirmation but too many people claimed non-existent credible sources. I'm doing my best to keep it factually accurate and out of the realm of speculation until we start getting some information. --Crossmr 21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Maxis has formally anounced a shipping date here. I've already added this to the article. Jaxad0127 01:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

HPP as SP?

Why is the Holiday Party Pack labeled as a stuff pack? Maxis doesn't think of it as one. They called it a content pack or something like that. While Family Fun Stuff has it's own program folders and executable (Sims2SP1.exe), the Holiday Party Pack is just a file in the base game's program folders (H05.bundle.package). Jaxad0127 02:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Because originally I believe that is how Maxis marketed it and presented it. The controversy arose when people believed that stuff packs would be more like the party pack and they thought family fun stuff was more like an EP. This may be cleared up during the release of the next stuff pack whenever that comes and we can establish which it should be like. --Crossmr 02:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

While it's true that Family Fun Stuff is the first official stuff pack, Holiday Party Pack can be regarded as the first "stuff pack-esque" pack released. It can be viewed that Maxis released the Holiday Party Pack to test the waters for a stuff packs. Some observations that support this notion are:

1. Around the time of its release, Maxis conducted many surveys regarding future expansion packs and the idea of stuff packs.

2. If you look carefully, the background of the Holiday Party Pack (green diamonds layed out on a darker green background) is very similar to the one in Family Fun Stuff (light orange diamonds layed out on a light yellow background).

3. The Holiday Party Pack is very similar in concept to Family Fun Stuff, even in the way Maxis marketed them in their surveys. (no new gameplay elements - now known to be no new gameplay elements that are not already featured in previous expansion packs; additional furniture and clothes) It can be speculated that, and I emphasize the word speculate so I don't get flamed, Maxis later included the expansion pack-esque features to attract more customers.

4. Officially, it is named a party pack and not a stuff pack, but during the time when HPP was released, Maxis was still calling "stuff packs" "shopping packs" (and before this, "booster packs") in their surveys, so the concept of naming these packs "stuff packs" as they are now have not yet been implemented.

These are some of the observations that support the notion that the Holiday Party Pack can be unofficially regarded as a stuff pack. :) --Funnykidrian 07:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go on some of the regional TS2 pages (e.g., the UK site), the Holiday Pack (also called the Christmas Pack outside of North America) is listed under "Stuff Packs." Braindrain0000 05:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Braindrain. (How could I have forgotten that!?) For even more evidence, Gamespot states in its review of FFS, "The Sims 2 Family Fun is the second in Maxis' line of cash-cow 'stuff packs', designed to satisfy Sims fans during the six months between Open For Business and the next expansion." --Funnykidrian 06:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Even so.. The pack was just something Maxis threw out at christmas. While it can be considered a stuff pack it is nothing like the SP's actually. But it doesn't matter. Where else can the HPP go anyway? .:Alex:. 17:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

But the Happy Holiday Stuff is just a H06.bundle.package, not a Sims2SP3 and if you see on the official site the stuff packs are seperated of the holiday pack (in holiday fun section) so they are really two different things -- OmegaClaws 22:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sims News Station

The two sims on the news station call each other "Stoki Ashnar" and "Glon". Stoki is the woman anchor, while Glon is the man in the helicopter who does the reports. There are four distinct news reports: the volcano, the man (possibly Glon himself) on fire, the high speed chase, and the talking politician. Its one of thse funny extras in the game I've always enjoyed, and I wanted add it to the article if no-one objects. BethEnd 19:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sims 3???

Would there be any chance of a sequel? The Sims 3?? in a few years with the sucess of these two I dont know why maxis and ea wouldnt. Jam01 21:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh...yeah, but with only 3/7 eps out, it'll be atleast two years. Jaxad0127 23:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Aye and old Will is spending most of his time developing SPORE so he might not have much say in Sims 3, you know what with creating probebly the greatest god game ever!--Chrisordie 11:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Sims 3 has been confirmed by EA Games and is slated for a release in 2009.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by .:Alex:. (talk • contribs) 16:59, November 5, 2006.

Glamour Life

While Maxis has hinted at what the next stuff pack may be, there has been zero statements made about it in any sourcable fashion. Much like pets there is only a few game sites saying this game is "coming" with no actual way to pre-order. You can simply leave your e-mail address and if and when this is confirmed they'll let you know. This isn't confirmation of a stuff pack as places like gamestop don't get that kind of advanced notice. Its pure speculation on their part.--Crossmr 13:33, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The new stuff pack has been announced today. However, I see that the descriptions for FFS and GLS are copies of those found at the official site. I strongly suggest a rewrite as this can be an infringement on copyright. --Funnykidrian 20:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

For Glamor Life, I removed the description because, copyright aside, it read more like an advertisement, not as an encyclopedia article with NPOV. Instead, I plugged in the link to the official page for Glamor Life. Until it actually comes out or we know specifically the nature of any themed sets and such, no more than that is really needed. Personally, I think the article as a whole should be trimmed down a bit because it's going beyond the "general interest" level somewhat and into the realm of detail where only those playing the game really care. Case in point is the Social Bunny section. I see that I was beaten to the Family Fun description. --Braindrain0000 23:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the FFS section as the old version obviously read better. The Social Bunny section was from another article, someone tried to create a separate article on it and I had it merged here, but never had time for clean-up. It can be removed or cleaned-up as necessary. As for glamour life yes, we need to write only the facts and keep the speculation to a minimum. Every once in a while someone posts a link to this article on the official BBS and this can turn into a gong show, especially during Expansion/Stuff pack speculation.--Crossmr 00:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC

Now that GLS has been officially announced, I think we should create a page for this upcoming stuff pack and state it as a computer game under development. The reason behind my suggestion is that GLS is no longer speculation (like The Sims 2: Pets) but an actual project that has been announced to be in development. --Funnykidrian 03:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as there is enough material to warrant the article. Just because its real doesn't automagically qualify it for an article. There's currently 1 release saying yes its coming, with a product page with some of the objects, screenshots and videos on it. If you can make a non-stub article out of it, I'd say go for it, but if you can't get it beyond a few reasonable sentences, maybe hold off until we get more information (and include the content on the main page). If you want to create a sub page on your userspace to try it out to make sure its not more template and image than content you could do so.--Crossmr 03:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Considering it is announced, I'm inclined to agree that an article will eventually be required (like for FFS). There is only going to ever be so much information for a Stuff Pack - it's going to be more than you want in the main article, but it's never going to be a long article either. Have a look at Family Fun Stuff, work something up and I'm sure it will be battered into shape if need be. Robovski 04:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing we have to keep in mind is that these articles are intended for the general public - not as an exhaustive resource for the benefit of simmers. Right now, pretty much all the TS2 related pages are way too long and filled with details that would only matter to a simmer. Are the stuff packs really so groundbreaking that they merit their own articles? I think not. They are worthy of maybe a paragraph in the main article. At absolute most. Except for the fact that they apparently include gameplay elements from previous expansion packs, there is nothing in them that is truly newsworthy for a general-interest encyclopedia article. Such articles should go in a wiki more in line with such content, such as The Sims 2 article on Gameinfo, which is very barebones right now, a situation I am working to resolve over there. That is one reason why we really didn't need the pets article at this juncture - currently, it is nothing more than a fan interest thing. It isn't a matter of whether the article will be eventually written. It is a question of it being appropriate, in light of the general-purpose audience, to have a separate article at this time. The answer is no. --Braindrain0000 06:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be a general public looking for information on the subject. No one comes here by accident. Comparisons with traditional encyclopedia are woprthless, we have no restrictions on space nor on the allocation of work, and we are no restricted by having to publish and so cvan react, project, and revise. Those who wish to write do so, and if someone wants to write an article for a Stuff Pack then they should feel free to do so. The Pets article exsists because someone made it - and it is one of many articles on projected and speculated software development projects. Pets is no different, and it gives a safety valve for all of the people who want that information. You feel the answer is no, I disagree, but I do agree that we don't need to be as exhaustive as a specialist independent wiki. Robovski 21:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pets was created because someone was all to happy to speculate on something that we've been waiting months for confirmation on. As it turns out it may end up having to be moved when we finally get confirmation because it may not be called pets at all. While its not a paper encyclopedia, its also not an indiscriminate collection of information, and over-detail ruins information articles. We're not a fan site, they exist for a reason. its to go into the detail and provide services that wikipedia can't.--Crossmr 22:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Description section comments.

A few things I noticed when I was reading the article (I'm still not all the way through it, commenting/grammar checking as I go). First, there is a reference to the music being composed by Mark Mothersbaugh. First, while he may have been a primary contributor to the musical selections (I don't know this for sure), he didn't "compose" all the music, as the reference suggests. For instance, there is the music on the Classical radio station, which is taken from historical musical compositions. Additionally, the expansion packs have featured musical contributions by various artists. I don't remember exactly who and what, but there have been podcasts on the TS2 websites with such contributors, in addition to mentions in official and semi-offical announcements. The sentence in question should either be deleted or rewritten so as to seem less absolute.

Also, why is there a whole headlined paragraph devoted to the social bunny? It seems that we are highlighting what is a minor feature, especially since discussion about aspirations (perhaps the second most important change from TS1 next to life stages) did not get similar treatment. I think the social bunny paragraph should be integrated into the section.

Also, I think the Description section needs to be restructured. I propose that there should be two sections - the general Description section and a section devoted to changes from The Sims, as that seems to be the primary focus of the section. Braindrain0000 05:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Revision of Description section needed

For the purposes of simplifying and streamlining the article, the Description section should probably only contain a description of only the core game. There are separate sections for each of the expansion packs, as well as separate articles. This would make the description section smaller and easier to read, and would reduce information redundancy. If this is an acceptable change, I'll go ahead and write it. Braindrain0000 04:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Editions of the game

Since Maxis only officially recognizes The Sims 2, The Sims 2 Special DVD Edition, and The Sims 2 Holiday Edition, I think the "edition" containing The Sims 2 and The Sims 2 University should be deleted. This "edition" seems to be for promotional purposes and is not recognized by EA. --Funnykidrian 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good unless there is any of precedent for keeping this types of things listed, possibly in a trivia section if its warranted.--Crossmr 00:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the section back into its most recent state before the edit (I added that the editions were released "by EA" so as to clear up any future confusion). I'm asking for opinions on where the added information should be placed, if at all. Perhaps we can change that section into various releases of the game and start sub-sections with one pertaining to editions released by EA and one for other types of releases. However, this might be overdoing it so I'm seeing if we should just delete the added information instead.

• The Sims 2 + The Sims 2 University: This edition contains The Sims 2 stored on four CDs, The Sims 2 University Expansion Pack on two CDs and a Manual CD. This edition was originally released in Australia and distributed by Pizza Hut in their PC Game Meal.

I'm including the added information here in case we need it. :) --Funnykidrian 03:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless we start getting various people releasing various editions of the game or packs of it, I wouldn't see the point in having a non-ea and an EA version. Since there is no trivia section, I don't see much point in including it for now.--Crossmr 04:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Port articles?

Please excuse me if there are, but shouldn't there be separate articles for the Sims 2's ports to other systems like the Nintendo DS? Just a suggestion. Øřêōş 22:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gameplay section?

About the features of the game? I mean really, the Social Bunny thing is just out of place... Abby724 14:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone had created the article as a separate entry entirely and it was merged here as it didn't need its own article. If it can't be made to fit into this article properly it can be removed.--Crossmr 14:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That was one of the things I was going to work on, but I went out of town for a couple of weeks and got sidetracked. Now that I can spend a little more time working on these kinds of things, I will see about doing another round of copyediting and addressing the issue. I do believe, though, that the social bunny section should be removed, as it (like much of the stuff in these Sims 2 articles) doesn't exactly fit the "general interest" focus of Wikipedia. --Braindrain0000 07:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and removed the Social Bunny section from the article. See my comment above for the general reasoning. Additinally, there was no one responding here in favor of keeping it, despite the fact that its removal has been discussed in two places on this talk page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Braindrain0000 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 12 August 2006

Archive

Talk with no responses since June 2006 and earlier has been archived to this location Talk:The Sims 2/Archive1 and a link has been placed at the top of the page.--Crossmr 15:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Choose from boy or girl

How can make the pregnant baby choose from boy or girl? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.28.97 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 11 August 2006

Only with a hack. The game chooses gender randomly, favoring the gender with the least memebers in the neighborhood. Jaxad0127 01:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you save while the mother is giving labour, and leave to the neighbourhood IF she gives birth to an undesirable gender, there's a greater chance that the mother will give birth to another gender the second time around. No need to plague your game with hacks. :-) Sillygostly 08:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Unrealistic Additions

The article says that TS2 introduced several unrealistic elements that were actually in The Sims. (Such as the Grim Reaper and Zombies.) I'll try to change these instances, but I may miss a few.--Agent Aquamarine 21:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Revised Version Underway

I am currently editing a draft of a revised version of this article at User:Braindrain0000/The Sims 2. I principally worked from this article, but have condensed it somewhat by removing a lot of the fan-specific content. I have not wikified it and added references yet, but if anyone would like to comment on it, please do so on its discussion page. I will be incorporating certain sections into this article over the next couple of days after it has been wikified and brought up to snuff. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Summary of recent changes

Okay, just so everyone is on the same page with what's going on, here's what I've done concerning the article.

• Changed the lead paragraph to make it (hopefully) more general purpose in nature.
• Brought all the editions sections together under one major section and made it into more of a summary style. We do not need four paragraphs on all the included features in an expansion pack -- that's what the article on the expansion pack is for.

I may look into other changes, especially a major copyedit on the description section to bring a bit more structure to it. I'm not yet sure on the best approach to that section. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I was following your edits, they look solid so far. Cutting down the EPs was a good idea, they added too much bulk to the article. We should be able to hopefully get this article shorter and more manageable.--Crossmr 18:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It cut down big-time. I think the article started today at like 45K. It's at 38K right now. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not bad, how much do we really need System requirements? We have them in the side bar and we can always footnote to the official page if someone really needs more info right?--Crossmr 18:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm also thinking we could fork the humour and references to popular cultures bit to another article. Other major topics often do that as its essentially a list. While an extreme example List_of_neologisms_on_The_Simpsons. A brief paragraph describing that the developers often include humour and references to popular culture with a link to the new article would cover this.--Crossmr 18:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Which I've now done List of Cultural References in The Sims 2. I found not so many of those references were really humourous or in jokes. They were essentially all culturual references. This has gotten the main article down to 23k. Much more manageable. I'll go about tidying up the formatting of the references.--Crossmr 18:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I'm gonna start working on the first two sections. They are the only two that haven't been majorly cleaned up. Perhaps then we can get rid of the cleanup taskforce banner. Who proposed it to them, anyway? --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that OFB was cleaned up by the taskforce and oliver just seemed to assign this article to himself out of the blue. I don't currently see any issues here that require the taskforce, and his one edit to the article aftering doing so actually damaged it and didn't in anyway benefit it.--Crossmr 20:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Why was the game edition section moved? If anything needed to be moved, it was the cultural references. I don't want to get into an edit war about it, but IMO, the article flows better information-wise with the bugs section between the game editions and mods. Something like - here are the editions. Every edition has a few bugs. Often people create mods to solve bugs in lieu of an official patch. However, some mods have provoked controversy. I'd say, put it back in the original order, then throw the Cultural references to the end. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the game editions moved. The only thing I moved was the xbox bug, putting it as a subsection under bugs. What are you referring to?--Crossmr 22:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think he's talking about the reorganization of that section. Nothing was moved. The format was changed. And I personally like it. Jaxad0127 22:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind. When I looked at your changes on the popup the first time, it shows you removing the game editions and putting it lower in the article. I just went back and realized what you did. Sorry to jump the gun on that one. I may make that change myself (dropping bugs down a section). --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

(added after edit conflict with Jaxad's post) Jaxad - I realize we shouldn't take ownership here, but I was the one to do the game edition reorganization. I just misread the popup.--Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The revised page looks awesome! It's short and sweet, and I like it. :) One thing I noticed, though, is that the console and handheld versions of The Sims 2 do not have its own page. So may I suggest moving the old content to a new article and providing a link to it? Since the console and handheld versions are not direct ports of the game, and since they provide fundamentally new gameplay (i.e. recipe system), I think a new article would do them justice. --Funnykidrian 03:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review?

After this latest battery of edits, I think the article's about ready for a peer review. I'd open it up myself, but I didn't quite understand all the directions. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, I figured out what I was doing and made the CVG Peer Review Request. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of Prima Guides

I noticed that a reference has been made to the Sims 2 Prima Guide. While this is well and good, it should be remembered (and for those who didn't already know, mentioned) that the Prima Guides are not always a reliable source. While the information cited in this case is correct, care should be taken in using the Prima Guide as a reference. For example, one would be woefully incorrect in citing the University Prima Guide on a list of Lifetime Wants, as there are a number of LTWs given there that do not appear in-game (such as the Uni careers) and a number which were modified (e.g., five skills maxed in the Prima Guide vs. seven skills maxed in the game). --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. They need to be checked before being used. Jaxad0127 03:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been playing the game since shortly after the original TS2 was released, so I knew the information about the jobs already. I just checked the guide so that it would have a reference. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Consistency issues

I have a few questions about writing style that I'm starting to see become an issue, especially since I would like to avoid an edit war between myself and Coltonblue, who has recently done some copyediting behind my own from earlier this week (not an accusation, just a statement of fact). Most of the changes I'm seeing made are really personal style changes, but I would like to get a bit of consensus before we start having a series of multiple people copyediting, each imposing a different style on the article. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of pronouns regarding Sims

In my edits, I try to avoid using pronouns, but there are some times where they need to be used for the sake of good prose. I use he, she, his and her (usually paired to avoid sexist language) because Sims have gender in the game. I'm starting to see "it" and "they" popping up in various places (though I question the use of the plural "they" and "their" when the antecedent is singular). --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization of game terms

I've noticed for quite awhile that there isn't necessarily consistency on whether to capitalize technical game terms like "Aspiration," "Need," "Hunger," etc. Even I'm guilty of this at times. Are we capitalizing terms, as per the Prima Guide? --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of game terms

What is the consensus on explaining game concepts? I've been seeing (for as long as I've been contributing to this article) the use of inaccurate descriptions of game mechanics instead of just using the appropriate term. For example, Need and Aspiration failure. A Motive getting low and Aspiration Level getting low is not what triggers the Social Bunny and the Sim Shrink - those descriptions are for Desperation stages. Failure is when the particular stat has completely bottomed out.

One of the problems may be that we (self included) don't do enough explaining of terms up front in the description section, meaning that when we get to the Realism section, we need to use an explanation of the term instead of the term itself, leading to imprecision because it is hard to describe the term accurately in that context and still write good prose. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

---

These are just my observations. They are not intended to be a criticism of any one editor, as I have been guilty of some of these inconsistencies myself. This is not intended to be an attack on Coltonblue. I only mentioned him because he's the most recent major copy-editor and we do apparently have some stylistic differences. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:54, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Career paths

What are all the different career paths on the game?--Anthony Orzel 10:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are discussed (in length) on the various fan sites. This is something that should not be talked about here, nor is it appropriate to add to the article. Jaxad0127 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Smells Bad" Grammar

I changed the wording "smells badly" to "smells bad" because in this sense the word smell is a linking verb (linking "smell" to the verb "to be") and does not refer to the Sims sense of smell but instead to how the sims smells. The sentence "He smells badly" means "His sense of smell is not good" while the sentence "He smells bad" means "He has a bad smell" with the past tense form of the verb "to be" and the article "a" not actually spoken, but known to be there, similar to the subject of an imperitive sentence. I hope this explaination helps. Sorry I didn't make it clear with the edit Pnkrockr 19:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Release dates

Gamespot, IGN and Mobygames all list release date for this game September 14 not 17. I think we should change it. --Mika1h 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And what does Maxis and EA say the release dates are?--Crossmr 22:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I only found this gold announcement in Maxis' website:

"Monday August 23, 2004 EA Games' The Sims 2 Goes Gold The athletes over in Athens aren't the only people winning gold medals these days'.the team behind the award-winning The Sims 2 have reason to celebrate -- the game has gone gold and is set to be in stores by September 17th." --Mika1h 08:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[1] This actually covers what happened. Maxis sets an official release date and some stores do actually release it early. Its happened with every expansion pack and game with them as long as I can remember. If we wanted to get technical Brazil and Sweden often get the games days ahead of the US, when Makin' Magic was released Brazil had it so early SimMaster's were banning people from the BBS because they thought they were pirating the game or something. Its a question of whether we put the official release date or the "some stores have released it" date in the article.--Crossmr 14:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Babies in The Sims

Crossmr's edit in the section entitled "Realism compared to The Sims" is correct. In the original The Sims, the characters do not become pregnant. (I just now checked that in the game. No pregnancy; the crib just appears.) Greg 05:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review Recommendations

Probably the biggest outstanding recommendation from the still-active peer review deals with the custom content section. It has been pointed out that there is really nothing in that section that would set TS2 apart from a number of other games. Deletion was recommended. Unless we can provide something encyclopedic (and of general interest) that would distinguish TS2 in this respect, we probably should look at downsizing or removing this section. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Its encyclopedic in that The Sims custom content community is so huge. Not to mention its the only custom content community that I know of where people consider it okay to to charge for it and protect it so vigorously. This sets it apart from any other modding community I've encountered. How you source that, is another story.--Crossmr 13:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've made an attempt at it. What do you think? --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Except for the direct linking to the second site, I think it's a good start. We should compare to other communities, however. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I direct-linked to TSR because the internal article is a redirect to The Sims. It's also the source of the information (it's posted on their main page). Jaxad asked why I removed the paragraph on creating modding tools. The paragraph is a bit awkward because it partially repeats information elsewhere in the section (introducing SimPE). It really needs to be integrated into the rest of the section or the entire section needs to be recast. As far as comparing to other communities, I don't know off-hand of any other game franchise that has so many third-party sites devoted to custom content. However, there isn't any way to really make a sourced statement to that effect. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It definitely needs some more work. Size and behaviour is the notable things here. We need to cover the fact that almost everyone who uploads a sim is considered a contributor to community content and then the behviour of people who make content as opposed to other communities, plus the fact that they charge for it and thats deemed okay here. But if you tried to say charge someone to download a starcraft mod they'd probably gut you.--Crossmr 21:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind you of the many free sites. And that many pay sites have very low quality content, while many free sites have much higher quality content. Jaxad0127 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats because from what I've seen TSRs draconian policies drove many artists away. However for a time, TSR and other pay sites were the place to go for high quality user made content. While many free sites exists, other modding communities have free sites as well, what sets this community apart ist he pay sites, how long they've been around and the fact that for the most part they're tolerated (though again I can see the winds of change on that), where as in other modding communities, people seemingly don't even dare try it. --Crossmr 21:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The rewrite looks good. I made a factual correction (tools like SimPE DO NOT change the format of game files) and fixed some formating (italics weren't ended). Jaxad0127 03:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Need a fact check: The article says that TSR claims to have 200,000 downloads and compares that to 70,000 on Mod The Sims 2. That's mixing apples and oranges because the download count at TSR includes all the downloads for The Sims as well as The Sims 2, while (obviously) MTS2's content is all about The Sims 2.

I'd say the unique thing about The Sims community is sheer volume of fan-created content for the game and the number of fans creating it. (Where can we get some verifiable statistics about that?) The discussion of "pay" sites needs verifiable supporting data to claim that they are unique to the Sims community. As it is, it appears to present a biased point of view. -- Greg 05:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that does not include Sims 1 content. TSR list those two numbers separately. That was not necessarily made to be a comparison between pay and free. Those two just happen to be (from my experience) the most popular sites in each category. I don't think the assertion that TS2 being unique in having a number of pay sites is POV. It may fall under Original Research, as I don't know of any independent source to support that assertion, but it is NPOV, despite what has been said here about free vs. pay, as I didn't consider Jaxad and Crossmr's comments regarding the quality of content and the reaction that most other gaming communities would have to pay sites. I only noted that the pay sites exist and that other games typically don't have them. I won't dispute that the comment needs sourcing, but it's not biased. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 12:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The Sims 2 Releases for the Upcoming Holidays

The Sims 2 Holiday Edition (2006) and The Sims 2: Happy Holiday Stuff has been shown on the front page of the official site under the "Coming Soon!" tab. I'm leaving a note here so others know it is legitimate. :) --Funnykidrian 23:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This stuff pack has been included on online stores and gaming websites for months. Since the website is down, I haven't been able to find any official information on this pack yet, although I would consider it to be legitimate. Sillygostly 05:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is just a brief mention at the bottom of the page with thumbnail box shots and thats about it. Game sites are not reliable sources. They often speculate, both on release dates, but names of products. Contrary to what people think, they get no advanced information about the sale of a game. I've seen many times Amazon, Gamespot, etc put up a page then either change the name, or quietly remove it when the item doesn't pan out.--Crossmr 13:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that online stores are not reliable sources for product releases. The two games I added to the page are on the official site though, so there is no doubt EA is planning their releases (albeit they can cancel them at any time). --Funnykidrian 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holiday Stuff seems like a permanent edition to the Stuff Pack range, and will essentially be a rehash of the Holiday Party Pack released a year earlier. I'm guessing that it will also include gameplay elements included in previous expansions such as Influence and Lifetime wants etc. Sillygostly 23:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

{{imagereq}}

I'm requesting that a full in-game screenshot be provided again in the article. The original screenshot was removed back in August with no reasonable justification, and was subsequently deleted. An article on a video game should have at least one screenshot depicting its interface, graphics and gameplay. The sole screenshot in the article only illustrates a portion of the game interface, something I see as simply insufficient. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 04:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC) ╫

PC != Windows

I recently made an edit correcting most of the references to the game from PC to Windows/Microsoft Windows. The reason for this change is that many operating systems can run on a PC, including, but not limited to, DOS, Linux and various versions of Microsoft Windows. Indicating that The Sims 2 runs on "PC" is, therefore, ambiguous. We've discussed this several times at The computer and video games project and have come to a consensus: if a game is marked as running on a PC, change it so that it specifies a specific operating system. Assuming that a reader will automatially know that PC means "Windows" is rather presumptuous.

Carl (who reverted my edit) pointed out that retailers and the game manufacturer (Electronic Arts) refer to the game as a PC game. Frankly, this doesn't really matter. They also note on the game packaging that Microsoft Windows is required to use the game. They don't just say you have to have an IBM PC compatible computer and nothing else.

I was just attempting to bring the article into compliance of the standards set by The Project (which this article is part of). Now, does anyone have strong objections to changing the references from PC to Micorosoft Windows? If so, what are they? I'd like to resolve this. TIA — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

My reason for favoring PC over Windows is also a matter of consistency (from my view). The designation "Xbox" refers as much to the machine as it does the operating system, as do PS2, PSP, GBA, N64, NGC and others. To refer to something as a PC game means that it is designed to run on that particular architecture. Granted, emulation and API wrap-arounds emulating a Windows environment can be used to run the game on other architectures, but a DOS game can (or at least could) be run in Windows, especially as the Windows OS through about Windows Me was essentially a DOS shell. As I said on Frecklefoot's talk page, the platform is PC with the Windows operating system as a system requirement.

As for ambiguity, saying something is a "Windows" game is equally ambiguous, as a game could be designed for any one of a half-dozen different versions of Windows and be completely incompatible with one or more of them. This was especially true before Windows XP, when a game written for Windows 9x may not run on Windows NT/2000. Also, many games written for Windows 2000/XP are not compatible with Windows 9x, and at least from the Beta testing I've done, there are some significant compatibility issues for Windows XP games running on Windows Vista. The same exists for Mac, as some things from OS 9 are not compatible with OS X and many things from OS X are not compatible with OS 9, and there are compatibility issues created on Macs with the change in chipset. Yet we generally keep the "Mac" designation. --Carl ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Reality

The entire section on how the Sims are not actually like real humans is not very encyclopedic and is mostly a personal criticism of the game instead of sourced information or published opinions talking about how real/unreal the Sims are compared to actual humans. It doesn't really add much to the article. Pnkrockr 20:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge ModTheSims2 into The Sims 2

Since the articles were merged, I'm going to readd MTS2 to the external links section. — Jaxad0127 04:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling errors

I don't know anything about how to edit these pages, but theres a typo in the "controversy" area - its "casualty" not "causality" - they're different words.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.75.195 (talk • contribs)

Also "breach" is spelled wrong.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.75.195 (talk • contribs)

Well, you did pretty good editing this page! It works the same for the article. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Custom Content Controversy

There is a paragraph under the Custom Content section. I don't see how this bears any relevance to The Sims 2 article. I don't mind if its briefly mentioned, but this seems like a publicity stunt largely on the fansites closing in protest.

Explanation, please. Sillygostly

It strikes me as a way of getting exposure for the sites involved - by having the links included in the "controversy". I don't like the paragraph, but what do you folks think? Robovski 23:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It bears relevance to The Sims 2 custom content section though. It's a main topic discussed in many of the custom content communities and is notable since The Sims community is one of the few, in fact the only one I'm aware of, that charges for user content. It defiantly needs to stay in some form and as it is right now it's only about 3 sentences which seems fine to me. I don’t see how it could be made anymore brief than that. I could see trimming it down if it was a huge paragraph but it’s not. It also only links to three websites. http://www.retailsims.com/ is notable since it’s the only website to shut down and http://paysites.mustbedestroyed.org/ is also notable since it is leading the attack against paysites and http://thesims2.ea.com/ which is just a reference as well.--Carmilla 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The cited sources really don't meet Wikipedia's Reliable Sources guidelines. These "community fights" happen all of the time. They're often biased and they're not really encyclopedic. If it's covered in detail a major newspaper or two, it may become notable, but it's not anywear near notable. A great example of something similar that is actually notable was the "Sims Online Mafia" story. It was covered in many major TVs and newspapers. --Kunzite 01:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There was something on fandomwank, but that's not exactly a newspaper. Frankly, I doubt the papers care, so it will never become notable- even though almost everyone in the custom content community knows about it and hotly debates it. I'm in favor of leaving a few sentences in at the least. Kuronue 14:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This isn't directed at anyone in particlar, but we don't want an edit war over this. I've seen a lot of removing the section in question and it being reverted by anon users. Look, let's talk it out before someone ends up with a temp block. Perhaps I should refer this for comment? Robovski 05:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd leave it in. I'm a longtime player of The Sims 2, and I was surprised to see in EA's policy that paysites are illegal. I was intrigued earlier this month when The Sims Resource finally became a free site; maybe that is the reason why? At any rate, custom content creators need to know this. I've always found paysites illogical, since players who own the expansions have probably spent $200 on TS2 already, which is very high for a video game (except for online ones with monthly fees). Paysites Must Be Destroyed is using EA's legal agreement with their users as a source and has the whole statement copied onto their site, with some parts bolded for emphasis. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 14:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It should be in since it is the major controversy in the Sims 2 community at the moment. Sure it ruffles some feathers, but that is why it is a controversy... -- Jordi·✆ 14:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I know who the anon edits are (they're from a forum I visit where someone posted a thread about it) and I'm trying to talk sense into them, since they appear to be ignoring the talk page entirely. Maybe a semiprotect for now? I'm all for leaving the paragraph in, understand, but without a consensus there's no real precedent for including it, since it's not been sourced to a verifiable source. Kuronue 18:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The original paragraph in question appears anon on 11.12.06. I would agree there has been since 2001 ongoing and heated controversy regarding paysites, EA's EULA, the layperson's varied interpretations of same, apparent non-enforcement of same and filesharing. I would remind however that the very definition of the word controversy is an opinion or opinions over which parties are actively arguing. And as such, the entry in question should not qualify for inclusion based Wikipedia's official policy regarding neutral point of view. Continually adding it constitutes vandalism. Since the addition and edits of the paragraph come from members of the forum Paysites Must Be Destroyed these entries can and should be construed as self-serving efforts to do little more than enflame the community and to perpetuate that forum's private and personal agenda. Equal opportunity misanthrope 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Reporting on the viewpoints that are being argued IS neutral, provided one doesn't favor one side over the other. I vote that the paragraph remains in, due to the fact that said controversy will, no doubt, hold a place in the history of the game. User:Arkali

I also vote to for the paragraph to stay in. It's a very interesting one and others may agree.Bettyfizzw 15:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To people who are coming here from a forum post, I'd like to remind you that "Voting is Evil". At Wikipedia, we don't reach decisions by discussion and concensus rather than voting. Because something is "interesting" doesn't make it "encyclopedic" --Kunzite 15:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To people coming from the forum post, I'd like to point out if you read a page into the thread, the owner of the board has repeatedly demanded that people NOT come here and hijack the wiki. Kuronue 17:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection Change

The fansite section needs fixed. The comment isn't done properly and the comment is sitting visible on the main page rather than hidden.--Crossmr 23:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting about that, and sorry for the delay in fixing that. I've just fixed it. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit Warring.

Please stop with the constant reverting. This behaviour may lead to suspension of editing privs. Please read more at Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I requested page protection. Let's come up with a solution to this problem. How's about one neutral sentence to summarize the situation? Can anyone find a source? --Kunzite 23:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Importance

The Sims 2 has sold even more copies than the original and not even halfway through its planned release cycle its spawned larger fan communities, a larger amount of custom created items by fans, more expansions and more console ports. While TS1 started it, TS2 has surpassed it in every way shape and form, its also surpassed any other PC game out there in terms of exposure and cross branding, like artists doing music videos in The Sims 2, as well as having big name artists re-record songs in simlish to contribute to the game. No other PC game has accomplished that.--Crossmr 06:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Even as a sequel to a very influential game, The Sims 2 is a market leading phenomenon - have a look at the best selling game charts. I agree that this is an important article. Robovski 23:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hotel game

There's an entirely different Sims 2 for Nintendo DS that involves managing a hotel. --Gray Porpoise_{Your wish is my command!} 01:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Machinima Sim websites

I just reverted, for the second time, the extern links section titled "Machinima Sim websites." The anon user, 82.45.17.125, re-added it twice, claiming they didn't know why it keeps getting deleted. Simply put, they are spam. See WP:EL for an explanation of why they keep getting deleted. They add nothing to the article. Interested parties may Google for Sims Machinima if they are interested, but it is not our charter to direct them to any. The existence of Sims Machinima is mentioned in the article, and that is enough. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bella Goth

How do you bring back Bella? It said that you could in the article with a hack, but I have no idea what that means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.44 (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

http://www.springhole.net/bella/ This really isn't the place to ask, though. Kuronue 14:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Custom Content

Will some who plays this game alot help me! I am wondering if u know anything about carreer creation where u make a job that is custom does ne one know?! And ne information u have on creating more custom content would be really nice too! Please leave me a message under this post. [[[User:Hhulio]]]

This page is solely for the purpose of discussing how to make the article it belongs to better, not for exchanging tips and strategies. -- Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 04:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Go to www.modthesims2.com and ask. Kuronue 14:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Goth Family"

As it stands, this section is quite uninformative to people like myself, who haven't play the game(s). It mentions that the "Goth Family" is a "legend" among fans of the series, but provides no links or explanations otherwise before launching into the descriptions of what I'm guessing are members are said family. I can't find anything else about it on Wikipedia, except for a rather strange talk page and a passing mention on The Sims Bustin' Out. -- Sarrandúin ^{[ Talk + Contribs ]} 04:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There, I rewrote it per your suggestion. How's it now? Information on the Goths (and the "Newbies", for that matter) really should appear somewhere in The Sims article. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)