No dying in sims is much worse than dying in FPS, cause you have to start all over again (if you play with one sim) and I doubt you save every 20 seconds like in FPS games. The same is when your city goes down in Simcity and etc.

of course its not a good thing when somebody dies in sims, but when you die in fps, game (relatively, cause you have save points) ends. but sims are about whole life cycle. its not that you only concentrate on life on one sim and when he dies, game over.

So what? In doom you can just start another different campaign or something just as you can start another family in sims.

its not "anothed different campagin" its exactly the same linear levels over and over, i mean, i thought that sims is about whole life cycle not only "growing one family and letting it die"

This is pointless, the question was if it's necessary to die in games, not in what games it's more affordable besides that's wholly subjective. So, do you think The Sims is good as is, or should death be impossible? So that you would satisfy your sims' needs only for them to perform well at work and buy goodies, but if you don't they never die? That's the question.

Also I can't believe we're in an abandonware forum, there are other simulation games than The Sims, you know? :P There was no definitive death in Sim City but your city could become pretty much dead if you didn't look after it or disasters hit it. What if all your colonies are killed in Sim Ant?

Sims IS about life cycle, but if you play like me, your first thing when you start a new sim (or family for that matter) your very first thing to do is bring down the console and hammer in "Aging OFF". Just because time wooshes by in Sims, and basicly 30 days in-game (1 sec RL ~ 2 min in-game) is just so very little to live out a normal life. There are (with now all the xp packs) just too much things you can explore and do in the game, and that little time is just not enough. So when you are playing that one sim for weeks (or God forbid months), and the little guy dies for some f*%$ed up reason, it's just so more of a loss than starting over "the same linear levels"...

And yes, there are many simulation games, but taking The Sims is an excellent example to (God knows why) compare it to other genres...

what i actually wanted to say by sims (in first place), it was an example of a game for EoF, where nobody has to "lose" so somebody else can win

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Playbahnosh @ Sep 12 2007, 12:34 PM) [snapback]310404[/snapback]</div>There's aging in The Sims 2 but not in The Sims and in both you can still die of many other causes... So even with aging turned off the question still remains valid.

@Japofran

Well, to answer Da question, I think death in Sims is just as necessary as in FPSes. For the mere educational value, if you don't pay attention to your sim, there should be consequences, and death is by far the ultimate consequence. So yea, death is necessary in many game genres. There are some however, where death is irrelevant. Like adventure games, puzzle games or arcade-like games, where death is not a consequence, rather than a side-effect, if it's even implemented. These genres emphasize different types of 'fun', and not the death-challenge type. Adventure games often tell a story, what you can move forward by your actions or even change. So if death is not part of the game, it's irrelevant to be in there. The same goes for the other genres as well.

I agree of course that The Sims without death would be worse.

There are games where death is not necessary however and still it can be a nice addition. Take for example oldschool Sierra adventures like Space Quest, when you did the wrong thing you'd die in various gruesome ways. It might look annoying to some but it was a nice effort from the developers in an Easter egg fashion, compared to Lucas adventures where you'd get the same dumb "I don't think that will work" and you were as stuck as if you had died and had to restore the game.