More Awesome Than You!

A House of Lesser Lose

Download unfurnished: http://thesims2.ea.com/exchange/lot_detail.php?asset_id=557515

Download furnished: http://thesims2.ea.com/exchange/lot_detail.php?asset_id=557514

Cost: $77,668 unfurnished, $203,266 furnished as shown in pictures.

Lot size: 6x2 (ignore the Exchange... they're idiots).

Compatibility: Built in Base Game, so will work for all.

Floors: 2 full floors

Yard: Big one. Enough room for whatever you want, including a greenhouse, garden, pool, pond, etc. You could probably fit all of them in there.

Bedrooms: 1 master bedroom, 4 bedrooms, nursery for 2.

Bathrooms: 4 private, 4 accessible from main areas.

Stairs: Stealth stairs used throughout.

Garage: 2 car garage, 2 car driveway.

Decks: one deck on 2nd floor.

Study areas: Just one. If you move the couches and bookcase out, it's quite big. I just put them there to make the room seem like it's got more stuff in it... I couldn't get the reward collection working in the Base Game, so I couldn't show the room with the skilling objects, but there's definitely enough space for them.

Storage areas: 2x2 on 2nd floor, 2x6 on 1st floor.

Features: An extra room on the first floor can be whatever you need. Locked-down kitchen. Piano in separate room.

Expandability: Possible to expand to the side or up, or to change the garage into living quarters if you don't need that many cars.

Known Problems: You might want to move the mailbox and trashcan, or sims will tend to go through the garage when they get off the bus/carpool. My working sims do not use carpool, so the only sims who would use that entrance were kids and teens getting off the bus. This was good because they'd go stright up to the study.

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/01_Front.jpg)

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/03_1st_Garage.jpg)

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/03_1st_Main.jpg)

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/04_2nd_StudyDeck.jpg)

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/04_2nd_Main.jpg)

See the entance (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/01_Entrance.jpg).

See the yard (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/02_Yard.jpg).

See the vomitorium (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Vomitorium.jpg).

See a living room (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Living.jpg).

See the study area (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Study.jpg) and the [piano room (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Piano.jpg).

See the nursery (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Nursery.jpg).

See the kitchen (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Kitchen.jpg) and the dining room (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Dining.jpg).

See the master bedroom (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Bedroom4-1.jpg), and another view (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Bedroom4-2.jpg).

See a bedroom (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Bedroom3-2.jpg), and another view (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Bedroom3-1.jpg).

See a bedroom (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Bedroom2.jpg).

See a bedroom (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Bedroom1.jpg).

See a bedroom (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c129/saramkirk/builthouse/contest/05_Bedroom5.jpg).


Bribe: I will destroy the paysite of your choice, provided it isn't utterly worthless (Carla Niven comes to mind), and provided the subscription cost is around $10.

Alternative bribe: I can make you up to 10 default facial template replacements, if you provide the sims you want to use and if you tell me which Maxis uglies you want replaced (by going into CAS in debug mode and looking up their names).


Note: The carpool problem has been solved. The carpool will now correctly come to the mailbox in the center of the lot.

Yey a base game house! It's hard to find lots now-a-days that aren't built with Pets or Seasons. Looks good too!

It's a huge pain to build anything in the base game. There just isn't enough stuff. Especially if you are specifically not allowed to use custom content.

I have a neighborhood that I play with just the base game, but when I'm building for myself and not to share, I use tons of custom content to make up for the lack.

Why do you only play with the base game? I wouldn't ever want to go back to only the base game after playing the EPs...

Some people build with the base game (for maximum compatibility with all game versions), but play with whatever EPs/SPs they have.

Well I've been playing with this house all afternoon and I'm impressed. It required very little furniture rearrangement (I like to play without rotating the view all the time) and the sims seem to move around without any complaint. It takes quite awhile for the kids to get to the school bus if they're upstairs as the car pools only seem to sit at the far right (as you look from the front of the house)? Weird.

I've never tried this lot size before.  It looks great, I'll have fun testing it out.   :)

It's one of my many  neighborhods. I like it, it's simpler.


Hmm.

That could be because of the hacked lot size. I've never had that happen on this lot, but it has happened on other lots that were expanded.

I'll take a look at it. I suppose it's possible the car portals become messed up when it is installed from the download. I should have tested that. If something breaks during installation, it could be a fatal flaw.

I found the problem. It must have had to do with how I removed the family that was living in the house. The left-hand portals got corrupted... they somehow moved back to the right-hand side, which is where I assume the old lot-size boundaries were. I guess I did too much Clean Installer/InSIM/Teleporter hacking. :(

I'm fixing the problem and will re-upload.

0.75 for aesthetics. A bit bland and bare.

See, that's what I get for making a house in the base game.  :-\

How about uncluttered, with a soothing neutral color scheme? ;)
Tough job when you don't have much to choose from.

It depends on the average size of the room. Factor that in, and I think you can get a good idea of how much clutter is appropriate. Therefore, if you use only the base game, make your houses small.  ;D

I fight it highly amusing that the people giving advice on aesthetics did so much worse than Sara herself.

Tawanda wasn't giving advice, really, she was just pointing out some of the nicer points that the house showed. Dizzy really didn't try to make his house look good, either.

Besides, aesthetics are subjective.

I find it highly amusing that you care enough to comment.

Happy to be of service. ;D
The judging being done by someone whose sim outfit makes my eyes bleed, I didn't really expect much of a score in aesthetics. My idea and your idea of what is appealing are apparently worlds apart. I prefer Sara's house to some of the others you've given a higher score to. Different strokes for different folks.
I'll probably suck on technical merit too, but since I just do this for the hell of it it's not like I'm gonna curl up in a ball and cry over it. I had fun with it.*shrug* 

For someone who didn't try, Dizzy sure bitched about getting a low score.

Although aesthetics are subjective, I did provide clear criteria, and I would point out that making judgements about subjective stuff according to a set of criteria is what I do for a living, so you know, I might actually be able to do it.


You must be really happy that I didn't humiliate you by giving you a good mark, then.

Dizzy broke the criteria as much as my house did. I just wasn't blunt about pointing it out. Landscaping is weighted the same amount as architectural features. If you're going to provide criteria, at least stick to it, for everyone.

Though I guess, being the judge, you can do as you wish, no matter who or how many people disagree with it.

*giggles*

Given that the house rohina gave a great score to was nothing more than a glorified box (even more box-like than my submission), I quit feeling slightly ticked about my score after seeing that. Obviously a different view of what is aesthetically pleasing than mine. Which is cool....aesthetic sense is definitely personal....just would probably be best if there were multiple aesthetic judges for fairness. But, eh, fairness is for sissies.*

This house isn't really a house to me because it's just a lot larger than I like playing. The thing makes an awesome dorm, though. I retooled it and am using it as my main in University Land.


*Totally and completely serious. I enjoyed my sour grapes, by the way. They went well with some blue cheese. Can I get some Peanut Butter Crunch for breakfast?

I'm wondering if Rohina is only looking at the photos posted in the threads, or if she is actually downloading the houses and looking them over with walls up, etc. I ask because I did put in some decorative touches, such as paintings (albeit not many -- I was trying to keep costs down), but they wouldn't have shown up in the photos I posted. I had the walls partially down in order to show the layout from a semi-sideways view, so unless you actually look at the house with walls up you won't see many of the wall-hangings, sconces, etc. No big deal. I really didn't expect to win, or even get a good score. I entered the contest because it seemed like a fun thing to do and I enjoy building houses. I'm just curious about the criteria and methods used for judging. Some of the people who got high marks for aesthetics made some of the same mistakes as others who did not. This makes me question the processes that are involved in the judging. I've noticed that Rohina seems to dislike very bright colours as well as monochromatic neutrals, so the only chance of getting a good aesthetics score seems to lie in finding the elusive 'happy medium' that only she is aware of (typical of any contest, I suppose). I'm really not trying to be difficult -- I'd just like to know the thought processes behind some of her decisions. Most of the houses that I particularly liked got low marks, while some of the ones I didn't necessarily care for seemed to get higher marks. I chalk it up to difference of opinion. *shrugs*

I did the same thing with it and I concur.  In fact, I converted all three House of Lose's into dorms.  One took quite a bit more adjustment than I planned on, but they all turned out great and one or two may end up as Greek houses. 

The photos are generally considered the primary source of info, given that if downloaded and viewed in-game, those of us who don't have the compulsive desire to install every bloatware pack of useless stuff will end up seeing nothing but the bare sheetrock texture, which won't help you score!

That does seem entirely in keeping with the character of Ugly Butt, yes.

Again, I wouldn't worry too much. Ultimately the aesthetic score is only 5% of the contest score. I mean, look what ultimately won LAST time: A gray, blocky thing.

I did not see you volunteering. Besides, it could be worse. I mean, last time we had the Bobblehead deciding that. And people bitched about the Bobblehead's taste, too. Besides, no one said the contest was fair. In fact, all contests are blatantly corrupt. We're just flat out transparent about it: See "Bribery" section.

No, I didn't download the houses. I did, however, look at all posted pictures, which in some cases was quite a lot of shots.

I don't understand why the criteria were "elusive". I posted them. The scoring system was also explained. Did you look at the criteria? They were quite specific. As I said elsewhere, making aesthetic judgements based on a set of criteria is something I do in my job, and calculating marks on a curve or similar scale is also kind of a skilled task, but it is something I do professionally. It wasn't just a random taste thing, and I also took comments and input from 4 other people.

I can understand why houses you liked might not have got good scores if they didn't address the criteria. For instance, many many houses had little or no landscaping, but that was actually quite heavily weighted in my criteria.

I think rohina's aesthetics judgment is completely above reproach.  ;D

 :D I was fairly pleased with my score too, given that I seemed to be judged by the standard of my previous lots and my AwesomeHouse V.2-All Pescados Suck! is not a favourite house of mine either... *Emma shrugs
Who cares? It's only a bit of fun.

I was happy with my score too, the praise reflected what I was trying to do design-wise and the criticism was very fair. A sort of empathy open-sandwich, rather than the full monty.  :D

This experience reflects very similarly on my experience of getting students to grade their own essays. The ones who are competent and do a decent job can see that my comments are fair and generally give themselves a similar mark to what I would give, while the ones who fail miserably give themselves an A+ and can't see how they didn't manage to meet the criteria.

It's unfortunate that landscaping items (trees in particular) are notorious for causing lag.  I'd have liked to use more, but I didn't want to bog my lot down too much with stuff that's primarily decorative.  :/

I'm dishing out advice on aesthetics because I'm currently studying architecture (specifically, the Natural Style of architecture). Of course I know whereof I speak, because this advice comes straight from text books. I'm still trying to find some nice compromise between Awesome Spec and good design, though.

What a pity you made no effort to show your expertise, then.

I'm still learning, so I'm not really in a good position for showing off "my expertise." That's something you get after having a lifetime of experience.

I think I did pretty darn good, all things considered. You may not find much aesthetic about such crude simplicity, but to me that monolith is more beautiful than 99% of the crap that other people show off (on other sites, that is).

Didn't think I was special enough to volunteer. Shall take that under advisement. And I know it wasn't supposed to be fair, that's why I said "fairness is for sissies" and posted the extra note. The problem with joking around like that and pointing out the joke is that often people think it means you weren't joking in the first place.

Totally agreed on Dizzy's score, though. Uh. Yeah. What the heck was that? You are right, though...it's still better than half the crap that's out there.

All I'm saying is that the damn thing had BETTER be full of stars when I look at it.

I'll say this one more time, since you seem to be a slow learner, but it is kind of important if you are intending to work for, you know, actual clients at any point: you totally ignored THE MOST IMPORTANT criterion - the one that not only I, but Pescado also articulated.

Bribe: 0.25
Functionality: 0.9
Scenarios: 0.95
Cost Effectiveness: 1.4
Expand 1.4
Physics: 0.8
Aesthetics: 0.75

Technical: 0.97
Total: 0.682

Correct Behaviors
Level Edges - Will Not Damage Neighborhood
Kitchen Firebreak & Visitor Raid Defense Good
Expansion Room Adequate
Anti-Wolf Fencing

Correctable Issues
Use of "Stealth Stairs" unnecessary, but retrofit to use standard stairs trivial, which reduces score penalty
Uneven Bathroom Service Quality - Should Replace Tubs->Showertubs

Fundamental Flaws
Primary facilities not located upon single viewing deck
Nonstandard Lot Size may cause problems in the future due to data artifacts (misplaced portals, etc.)

It's about as likely as portals committing suicide on their own. And if it does happen, it's easy to fix. I don't think it's a reason not to use non-standard lot sizes.

Here, now be happy. (http://www.moreawesomethanyou.com/smf/index.php/topic,8966.0.html)