The Reviews are misleading

[Paddy]

This game has a Very positive 84% score on Steam HOWEVER look a bit closer and you will find these reviews misleading. Why? Well out of the almost 11,000 reviews for this game only 400 people who reviewed it have played over 10 hours. Given that 10 hours is barely enough time to get a good look at the game it appears almost all the positive reviews are from people who have played this for just a few hours.

Clearly they are posting a review before they have fully experienced everything this game has to offer, it's bugs and it's replayability. I feel again the desperation to drive this game to become something greater is what is driving these positive reviews. I understand it but I feel people should be aware just how Raw this game is. Usually Early access games in this state are much cheaper so you understand it but this game is one of the most expensive early access games at launch so please understand you are paying to support this developer and not a particularly relayable game right now even with what's currently available.

I'm writing this because I'm starting to notice as the honeymoon period starts to end the game is receiving more flak and I hope it doesn't put the developer off. They have a HUGE uphill battle. They will need to spend months just making what they have included work correctly nevermind adding more stuff to the game. I like Manor Lords approach to early access. It doesn't have much content but what is there works as intended and then they add more content bit by bit.

[Angel]

Origineel geplaatst door Jinobe:

it just means people want something more than what the sims have to offer

Everybody wants that now or today, but that is even for a god impossible.

[Paddy]

Origineel geplaatst door The Star Treker (aka Michael):

Origineel geplaatst door Paddy:

You obviously didn't read much of what i wrote because not once did i compare this to the Sims 4. I never even mentioned the Sims 4 so you clearly have issues with this. Also I don't know why people keeping using the Sims 4 as a comparison. The Sims 4 is played mainly by teenage girls and young women. It's for a completely different demographic. I don't care about the Sims 4. It's a boring Dollhouse simulator

Also this game is most certainly in the top tier price for early access ESPECIALLY for what content it has. Not only that but the content that is there doesn't work as intended. As I said the developer should look toward Manor Lords as a way to do Early access right. Don't throw a pile of features in a game that doesn't work. Instead only include the features that does work and build up from there. That's typically what early access games done right does.

Oh, I read everything you wrote—I just also recognized the sheer amount of bias and nonsense packed into it. You may not have explicitly mentioned The Sims 4, but let's not pretend it isn't the elephant in the room when discussing inZOI. And you clearly have some weird, outdated misconceptions about The Sims as a franchise. Saying it's "mainly played by teenage girls and young women" is not only wildly inaccurate but also reeks of an ignorant, dismissive attitude toward an expansive and diverse player base. The Sims has been a massively successful life-simulation series for decades, appealing to all kinds of players, from casual gamers to hardcore builders and storytellers. It was never just a "boring dollhouse simulator"—but then again, I wouldn't expect someone with such a shallow understanding of it to know that. And I used to play The Sims myself.

As for your argument about inZOI's pricing—again, completely off the mark. Calling it "top-tier" pricing for early access is ridiculous when plenty of early access games have launched at similar or higher prices. And let's not act like games with fewer features at launch are automatically better just because they're more "polished." That's not how early access works. Some developers take a "small and stable" approach, sure, but others opt to build a broader foundation with features that will evolve over time. There’s no one correct way to do early access. Saying inZOI should copy Manor Lords is like saying every open-world RPG should be structured exactly like Elden Ring—it's a lazy, one-size-fits-all take that ignores the different goals of different developers.

If you're not interested in The Sims or inZOI, that's fine, but at least try to form an argument that isn't dripping with condescension and misinformation. People are enjoying inZOI, bugs and all, and the devs are actively working to improve it—so maybe let them do their job instead of pretending you hold the golden standard for early access development.

Again i don't feel the Sims 4 is the elephant in the room at all. In fact i HATE that people justify the low standards by comparing this to Sims 4. The Sims 4 is for an entirely different demographic. When I claimed the vast majority of players are teenage girls and women I'm not dismissing anything. I'm claiming that EA have realized they can't pump out superficial DLC's that add clothing and furniture and this demographic will buy it. It's similar to young men with the likes of fortnight but I won't go into that as it's a discussion for another thread. By the way i used to love the Sims. I played it as a kid as did most people however look at what it is now and it's not surprising it mainly appeals to a narrow demographic today and EA are happy with this. Why innovate when you can pump out cosmetic packs for the same price.

Also what early access titles has launched for more than $60 AUD and offer so little in terms of actual gameplay? There might be one or two but I haven't heard of them.

Also you didn't really address any of my points I feel. My main point of this post was to make others aware that while this game as 84% very positive rating and is quite expensive for a early access at $60AUD please don't have high expectations. I'm noticing more and more reviews and posts as people put more hours into it that the features they were enjoying at just 6 hours of gameplay they are realizing are actually quite broken at 15 hours of gameplay. Relationships at the moment barely work as intended for example and people are starting to see through the illusion of the open world.

Also I'll get this game. It's the Sims game we have always wanted. I'm just stating that poeple need to lower their expectations for what it currently is. I REALLY appreciate the amount of people that have purchased and are supporting this as it makes a finished product possible so thank you all who purchased this

[Mechron]

Ive played for 20 hours... but even at 2 hours i could of told you that its got a LOT of balancing to be done... Lot of content to be added... But its early access and has a lot of promise. It definitely needs to spend a lot more time in the oven. But that being said its still a good game... Its not a sims killer yet... but it has the potential to be. especially after they add mod support which is the only thing keeping sims alive. If your looking for completed game style reviews then Early Access isnt for you.

[snickii]

It's not that much to do anymore after my 20 hours. Tested the most things but it's Early Access. For example: Jobs are useless, just make Art - you will get alot money.
And the World is cool but small, we need some more from sims.
Holidays, trips, hobbys like horse,animals etc... maybe we should play the Zoi at the Job... there is ALOT they can do in future. Base Game is good if they update it now more and more

[Ada Wong lUCl™]

You are expecting a reviewer who work as a reviewer. Most of us are just simply gamers and just said what we think of the game, they are not on neutral side. Most of the games i put review just my own thought and expect no one to trust my judgment. If i like it , even if I only spend 2 hours, then so be it lol

[Dopeh]

Origineel geplaatst door snickii:

It's not that much to do anymore after my 20 hours. Tested the most things but it's Early Access. For example: Jobs are useless, just make Art - you will get alot money.
And the World is cool but small, we need some more from sims.
Holidays, trips, hobbys like horse,animals etc... maybe we should play the Zoi at the Job... there is ALOT they can do in future. Base Game is good if they update it now more and more

thats how devs should work, make the base solid, dont start adding fluff on top , it just makes it harder to roll back mistakes in the base, look at the hello world (edit: oops i mean wildcard lol. *alltho nms is also a contender for adding content before ironing out bugs that are still in game at present* )with ARK for examples how not to do it ..... crowdpleasing over build quality has a heavy price to pay down the line....

[GameAW]

The core issue and the reason why people keep bringing up that its an EA game is simple and everyone who goes into getting an EA game NEEDS to understand this:

You're not buying a game. Not yet. You're buying the framework of a game that is unfinished. You're literally paying to beta-test it as it goes through getting the features needed to be a fully fleshed-out game. If you go into an EA game and hold it to the same standard as even a similarly priced game, that's on you alone, not the devs or the game. You're voting that you like what you see so far and are willing to enjoy what is there at the moment. You are saying that in its current state, you're already satisfied enough with what's there and what's being asked of you. If you buy it and treat it the same as any other fully released game then that's not the game's fault, its yours alone. You didn't buy a game; you knowingly bought an unfinished program. You're basically buying the ingredients to a killer sandwich that they haven't put together yet, and you get to taste the ingredients but not the sandwich itself.

This is exactly why some people swear against buying EA games- they're unfinished and not up to the same critiquing standard. And this is a valid decision to make as well. An EA release is an unreleased game, plain and simple. And if you're against buying that then its on you to not buy it until they remove the EA label and mark it completed. THEN you can judge it like any other game. Until then, you really only have yourself to blame for buying an unfinished game and then complaining that its unfinished.

[nullpo]

To be fair it is that good. At least the character creation and building system. Well, tbh the building system is more impressive but also less accessible for new user. The in-game it's still very lacking, I also notice since I can't use smart inzoi the AI is dumber than sims 4 (especially for talking, the AI is for some reason obsessed with speaking while sitting down), but it's early access, so the jank is expected. The positive review just shows the game have huge potential once it's fully finished

[TAI]

I'm 14hrs in and I would write a positive review, when I get the time. Most of my playtime is building homes and decorating them, and also creating Zois. That's the bulk of my play time. Game play wise, I haven't fully went in depth because I'm still getting used to the UI and controls. Y'all chill, it's only been 3 days. People got lives.

Also this isn't my first time buying an Early Access game, so I know what' I'm in for. For the others complaining, I've seen MUCH less in some EA games that I literally just let the devs cook and come back later.

[The Star Treker (aka Michael)]

Origineel geplaatst door Paddy:

Origineel geplaatst door The Star Treker (aka Michael):

Oh, I read everything you wrote—I just also recognized the sheer amount of bias and nonsense packed into it. You may not have explicitly mentioned The Sims 4, but let's not pretend it isn't the elephant in the room when discussing inZOI. And you clearly have some weird, outdated misconceptions about The Sims as a franchise. Saying it's "mainly played by teenage girls and young women" is not only wildly inaccurate but also reeks of an ignorant, dismissive attitude toward an expansive and diverse player base. The Sims has been a massively successful life-simulation series for decades, appealing to all kinds of players, from casual gamers to hardcore builders and storytellers. It was never just a "boring dollhouse simulator"—but then again, I wouldn't expect someone with such a shallow understanding of it to know that. And I used to play The Sims myself.

As for your argument about inZOI's pricing—again, completely off the mark. Calling it "top-tier" pricing for early access is ridiculous when plenty of early access games have launched at similar or higher prices. And let's not act like games with fewer features at launch are automatically better just because they're more "polished." That's not how early access works. Some developers take a "small and stable" approach, sure, but others opt to build a broader foundation with features that will evolve over time. There’s no one correct way to do early access. Saying inZOI should copy Manor Lords is like saying every open-world RPG should be structured exactly like Elden Ring—it's a lazy, one-size-fits-all take that ignores the different goals of different developers.

If you're not interested in The Sims or inZOI, that's fine, but at least try to form an argument that isn't dripping with condescension and misinformation. People are enjoying inZOI, bugs and all, and the devs are actively working to improve it—so maybe let them do their job instead of pretending you hold the golden standard for early access development.

Again i don't feel the Sims 4 is the elephant in the room at all. In fact i HATE that people justify the low standards by comparing this to Sims 4. The Sims 4 is for an entirely different demographic. When I claimed the vast majority of players are teenage girls and women I'm not dismissing anything. I'm claiming that EA have realized they can't pump out superficial DLC's that add clothing and furniture and this demographic will buy it. It's similar to young men with the likes of fortnight but I won't go into that as it's a discussion for another thread. By the way i used to love the Sims. I played it as a kid as did most people however look at what it is now and it's not surprising it mainly appeals to a narrow demographic today and EA are happy with this. Why innovate when you can pump out cosmetic packs for the same price.

Also what early access titles has launched for more than $60 AUD and offer so little in terms of actual gameplay? There might be one or two but I haven't heard of them.

Also you didn't really address any of my points I feel. My main point of this post was to make others aware that while this game as 84% very positive rating and is quite expensive for a early access at $60AUD please don't have high expectations. I'm noticing more and more reviews and posts as people put more hours into it that the features they were enjoying at just 6 hours of gameplay they are realizing are actually quite broken at 15 hours of gameplay. Relationships at the moment barely work as intended for example and people are starting to see through the illusion of the open world.

Also I'll get this game. It's the Sims game we have always wanted. I'm just stating that poeple need to lower their expectations for what it currently is. I REALLY appreciate the amount of people that have purchased and are supporting this as it makes a finished product possible so thank you all who purchased this

I get what you're saying, but you're off on at least one major point—inZOI isn't $60 AUD. I paid $43.89 USD with tax for it on Steam, so let's not act like it's some premium-priced title when it's well within the standard range for early access games. If you're going to argue it's expensive, at least get the price right. I know there are other early access games which I can't think of right now, I know they exist and someone else already pointed out one in this forum. There were MMOs I've played early like Star Trek Online when it was in closed-beta but that's different. I think I also did the same thing with DC Universe Online and I might have done it with Star Wars: The Old Republic as well but don't remember. They came out over a decade ago.

And as someone who has played The Sims since the very first game—as a teenager, as an adult, and now in my 40s—I can confidently say that The Sims has always appealed to a much broader demographic than you're giving it credit for. The idea that EA is only targeting teenage girls and young women now is just wrong. Sure, they've leaned heavily into DLC, and yeah, The Sims 4 became a grind of cosmetic packs instead of true innovation—but that's a business decision, not a reflection of its player base. The franchise has always attracted all kinds of players, from casual life sim fans to deep modders and storytellers. Acting like it's now some niche game for a single demographic completely ignores its history and the community behind it.

As for inZOI, I'm fully aware that it's rough in places—it's early access. I've put in the hours, I've seen the glitches, I know the features aren't fully fleshed out yet. But none of that is stopping me from enjoying it. In fact, it already feels like it offers more than The Sims 4 did at launch, and the fact that it has mod support this early is a huge plus. Could things be better? Of course. But I'd rather support a game with ambition and potential than sit around waiting for a "perfect" launch that may never come.

I don't disagree that people should manage their expectations—this isn't a fully finished game yet. But let's be real: plenty of people are still having fun, and the devs are actively improving it. If you’re getting the game anyway, great—just don't talk down to the people who are already enjoying it despite the bumps along the way. I ran into a glitch/bug, with my two Zois (son and mom), were supposed to sit on a bench but they were sitting and floating and I thought it was hilarious even took a screenshot of it. Lol. You see I was having fun even with the bugs and glitches.

[life4trinity]

i think it deserves 84% given that they beat the impossible which is ending the life-sim monopoly the sims created

[life4trinity]

Origineel geplaatst door GameAW:

The core issue and the reason why people keep bringing up that its an EA game is simple and everyone who goes into getting an EA game NEEDS to understand this:

You're not buying a game. Not yet. You're buying the framework of a game that is unfinished. You're literally paying to beta-test it as it goes through getting the features needed to be a fully fleshed-out game. If you go into an EA game and hold it to the same standard as even a similarly priced game, that's on you alone, not the devs or the game. You're voting that you like what you see so far and are willing to enjoy what is there at the moment. You are saying that in its current state, you're already satisfied enough with what's there and what's being asked of you. If you buy it and treat it the same as any other fully released game then that's not the game's fault, its yours alone. You didn't buy a game; you knowingly bought an unfinished program. You're basically buying the ingredients to a killer sandwich that they haven't put together yet, and you get to taste the ingredients but not the sandwich itself.

This is exactly why some people swear against buying EA games- they're unfinished and not up to the same critiquing standard. And this is a valid decision to make as well. An EA release is an unreleased game, plain and simple. And if you're against buying that then its on you to not buy it until they remove the EA label and mark it completed. THEN you can judge it like any other game. Until then, you really only have yourself to blame for buying an unfinished game and then complaining that its unfinished.

this is common sense but that is pretty rare nowadays

[Lamiosa]

So how many hours you need to play to be "allowed" to give a serious review?
The refund policy is 2 hours of playing, means to decide if the game is worth playing or you want give it back is under 2 hours.

[Tay of the Lor]

Giving an early access game a negative review for being in early access and missing things is the definition of stupidity if you ask me.

[The Star Treker (aka Michael)]

Origineel geplaatst door GameAW:

The core issue and the reason why people keep bringing up that its an EA game is simple and everyone who goes into getting an EA game NEEDS to understand this:

You're not buying a game. Not yet. You're buying the framework of a game that is unfinished. You're literally paying to beta-test it as it goes through getting the features needed to be a fully fleshed-out game. If you go into an EA game and hold it to the same standard as even a similarly priced game, that's on you alone, not the devs or the game. You're voting that you like what you see so far and are willing to enjoy what is there at the moment. You are saying that in its current state, you're already satisfied enough with what's there and what's being asked of you. If you buy it and treat it the same as any other fully released game then that's not the game's fault, its yours alone. You didn't buy a game; you knowingly bought an unfinished program. You're basically buying the ingredients to a killer sandwich that they haven't put together yet, and you get to taste the ingredients but not the sandwich itself.

This is exactly why some people swear against buying EA games- they're unfinished and not up to the same critiquing standard. And this is a valid decision to make as well. An EA release is an unreleased game, plain and simple. And if you're against buying that then its on you to not buy it until they remove the EA label and mark it completed. THEN you can judge it like any other game. Until then, you really only have yourself to blame for buying an unfinished game and then complaining that its unfinished.

Origineel geplaatst door Tay of the Lor:

Giving an early access game a negative review for being in early access and missing things is the definition of stupidity if you ask me.

Exactly! It blows my mind how some people still don't understand what early access actually means. If you're going to criticize a game, fine—but giving a negative review just because it's still in development is beyond ridiculous. The whole point of early access is that the game isn't finished yet. It's a chance for players to support the devs, provide feedback, and watch the game grow.

If someone buys an early access title expecting a fully polished, feature-complete experience, that's on them. It's like ordering a meal at a restaurant, getting served the appetizer, and then complaining that the main course isn't on the table yet. If you don't have the patience to wait for a game to improve, then don't buy an early access game in the first place.

Constructive criticism? Always valid. But acting like a game is a failure just because it’s still evolving? Yeah, that's just stupidity.