Why does this game have such crappy graphics?

[Snacko]

Sorry for the Noob question.

I just got this game and think it looks like it might be pretty good. But it was released in 2004, so why are the graphics like 1998 quality? LockOn and Silent Hunter 4 were released in 2005 and their graphics are awesome!

[Molon Labe]

Because graphics aren't important when the entire sim is played from sensor consoles.

Now, go get me some beer and chips!

[caymanlee]

Because graphics aren't important when the entire sim is played from sensor consoles.

Now, go get me some beer and chips!


No offense, I don't agree with that
Game for fun, so I think the graphics is very important, almost most important of a game

even though the sensor consoles is important to the game, but let's face it, the sensor consoles aren't a delicate job

Hope there will be a DW2

more controlable subs, more controlable ships, more planes, more Heloes,
much more beatiful graphics! much more accurate sonar sensor!

cheers! :up:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Hope there will be a DW2

more controlable subs, more controlable ships, more planes, more Heloes,
much more beatiful graphics! much more accurate sonar sensor!

cheers! :up:

I find it disturbing what you placed last :D

[Molon Labe]

Hope there will be a DW2

more controlable subs, more controlable ships, more planes, more Heloes,
much more beatiful graphics! much more accurate sonar sensor!

cheers! :up:
I find it disturbing what you placed last :D

No ****, Kaz.

Is it just me, or has something around here changed over the past two or so weeks? I am in the right forum, right? :roll: I don't know whether to get angry and militant, or just depressed....

[OneShot]

Is it just me, or has something around here changed over the past two or so weeks? I am in the right forum, right? I don't know whether to get angry and militant, or just depressed....

Nah its not only you ... Looks like a lot of new folks have found out that there are other Naval Sims beside the Silent Hunter series - prolly due because the latest release of that series is ridiculously riddled with bugs.

Anyway, while its nice to have an influx of fresh blood it seems apparent that some of them lack either the understanding of what DW is all about, how modern warfare works or simply that good manners are quite helpful even when posting on something so anonymous as the internet. On top of that with every fresh wave of new guys (which is an entirely good thing - the fresh "blood" i mean) come the same old questions which have been brought forward and answered over and over again. Apparently the search function in this board doesnt work and the FAQ is just two sentences to much to actually read it.

I think especially the last point about properly researching before posting any questions can be best summarized with the content of this link : http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php (Thanks ML)

Don't get me wrong, if you have a question and all your searches and studying brought up nil then ask the question(s), but observe some rules along the way ... namely good manners and an earnest attempt at using the language so that other people can understand you. This forum caters to a quite different crowd then your usual BF2, CS, Doom forum.

Cheers
OS

[Molon Labe]

I hope you're right.

[goldorak]

even though the sensor consoles is important to the game, but let's face it, the sensor consoles aren't a delicate job

Hope there will be a DW2

more controlable subs, more controlable ships, more planes, more Heloes,
much more beatiful graphics! much more accurate sonar sensor!

cheers! :up:

Whats wrong with the sonar sensors in DW ? :rotfl:
Are you sure you were not refering to SH IV ? :arrgh!:

[Molon Labe]

Limited number of sound paths modeled.
Crazy strong surface ducts.
Huge gap in performance between rock and mud bottoms; no middle ground.
Clicking cheat still available with active sonar
No signal strength variation for audio returns at active
No returns from the bottom
Interface issues with the NB filter with subs
Bug with SB's that causes one more line to be used by the filter than available
No depth setting capability for SBs.
SB's report hot even when out of range.
No active intercept on the FFG
No TB-23 on the 688I.
[feel free to chime in with anything I missed]

In other words, a lot.

[Dr.Sid]

Graphic are like this. Like it or not .. there is no law of nature that games must be perfect, so they are not.
It is still quite good game.

[Snacko]

I didn't say it was a bad game at all. It looks pretty good to me. And I certainly have a lot to learn. I was just suprised to get this game, load it up, and see 16bit, 10 year old graphics. What is up with that?

[goldorak]

I didn't say it was a bad game at all. It looks pretty good to me. And I certainly have a lot to learn. I was just suprised to get this game, load it up, and see 16bit, 10 year old graphics. What is up with that?

Its all about money and resources.
SCS for DW didn't have a publisher like EA or Ubisoft so they did what they could with the available resources. It means concentrate primarily on the simulation aspect of the game and then use (re-use) the graphics engine from previous games (sub command in particular which came out in 2001 if I'm not mistaken).
Thats why you see 16 bit graphics, no support for AA and AF, no support for 32 but graphics etc...
You just have to live with it.

[Snacko]

Ok, thanks goldorak. This game looks good enough to live with it. There is a lot to learn. I am starting to see that learning to command one of these ships is going to be as or more challenging as flying the Su25t in Lockon.

[goldorak]

Ok, thanks goldorak. This game looks good enough to live with it. There is a lot to learn. I am starting to see that learning to command one of these ships is going to be as or more challenging as flying the Su25t in Lockon.

May I recommend you go to www.subguru.com and peruse the DW section ?
Lots of nice missions available to download (single and multiplayer) and a lot of tutorials also.
You might wanto to read "TimmyG00's Tactical Manual" which was written for Sub Command but it also works quite well for DW.
It has the clearest and easiest presentation on TMA and how to use it, torpedo evasion tactics, different kinds of attacks etc... Well worth reading. :know:

[caymanlee]

Graphic are like this. Like it or not .. there is no law of nature that games must be perfect, so they are not.
It is still quite good game.

No one hate perfect, right?

cause it isn't perfect, we pursuit that, otherwise, we are now playing SC instead of DW:arrgh!:

we are picky, because we love it

[Dr.Sid]

I didn't say it was a bad game at all. It looks pretty good to me. And I certainly have a lot to learn. I was just suprised to get this game, load it up, and see 16bit, 10 year old graphics. What is up with that?
Lol .. please someone count who complains 16bit mode most here .. I bet it's me :|\\
But after those YEARs one just gets settled (and starts to make his own subsim :rotfl:)

[goldorak]

Lol .. please someone count who complains 16bit mode most here .. I bet it's me :|\\
But after those YEARs one just gets settled (and starts to make his own subsim :rotfl:)

Don't kid yourself, I complained about the absence of anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering and incidentally the 32 bit mode before you. :p :rotfl:
So, how is your subsim coming along ? :|\\

[Dr.Sid]

Last two weeks was just awfull. No time at all. But this weekend look promissing (again :-?). But all around I'm still kinda happy with the progress. So be ready, play SH4 a lot so you are really hungry for something fresh (while not THAT juicy :rotfl:).

[desertisland]

I believe Snako raised a legitimate question. DW is after all a game. It isn't too much to ask for decent graphics in games.

[Black_Dingo]

Better graphics? Bah. i think i speak for a few DW players when I say the following:

I would rather have more platforms and more playables than better graphics....anyday!

I think sonalysts should cough up a new database and some new playables OR let the mod community do it SCX style.

A 'career mode' would also be cool, if possible. somewhat like back in 688i where your crew got better with experience and you could 'unlock' new things for your boat.

Just imagine, spending points on a new "chief sonar operator" who enhances your long range detection, or a new "Executive Officer" who improves crew morale on long deployments. that would be the ****e.

[goldorak]

I believe Snako raised a legitimate question. DW is after all a game. It isn't too much to ask for decent graphics in games.

Yes, and I answered why DW has the graphics it has.
There is no mystery there.

Ok here's my dream : SCS decouples the graphics engine from the naval engine and makes it open source. Programmers take the challenge and make a full directx 9 engine with full support to AA, AF and 32 bit graphics etc...

It is as likey to happen as a meteor is likey to crash on the Eiffel Tower. :rotfl:

[Molon Labe]

DW is after all a game. No, it's a sim.

It isn't too much to ask for decent graphics in games. :roll: It's easy to say that something isn't too much to ask for when you only talk about what you get, but pretend that the costs don't exist. It's like we're supposed to pretend we live in a world where the fact that we think we're entitled to something should be enough to make it happen. As if.

Before you go around asserting that it isn't too much to ask, why don't you figure out what it is that we're missing out on in exchange and then try to tell us that the graphical improvements are more important than the opportunity we'd have to sacrifice. Unless you can do that, you haven't done anything constructive--you've just made an emotional appeal to those of us who haven't advanced beyond the mentality of the insolent child pouting and screaming "I want! I want!" at his parents.

[goldorak]

I believe Snako raised a legitimate question. DW is after all a game. It isn't too much to ask for decent graphics in games.

It's a sim.

Its not an excuse Molon Labe.
I recently bought the naval combat pack and was astounded to find that sub command was more "fleshed out" than DW was in terms of graphics.
The overall impression is that SC was more "professional" more as I said "flesh out", the game has even better fonts for petes sake. We needed to mod that aspect into DW because the original fonts were just to big. You want to to talk about the mission briefing screen ? Its so basic in DW that it is almost depressing reading the mission orders. How about the SC mission briefing ? Wouldn't you like to have that in DW ?
How about having the orders being formated like a real military message ?
You see what I mean when I say that DW has many rough edges ?

Nowhere have I ever read that SIM = bad graphics.
We all know why DW has the graphics it has, and justifiying that by saying that DW is a simulation just doesn't cut it. ;)

My 0.2 ***8364;.

[Molon Labe]

I believe Snako raised a legitimate question. DW is after all a game. It isn't too much to ask for decent graphics in games.
It's a sim.
Its not an excuse Molon Labe.
I recently bought the naval combat pack and was astounded to find that sub command was more "fleshed out" than DW was in terms of graphics.
The overall impression is that SC was more "professional" more as I said "flesh out", the game has even better fonts for petes sake. We needed to mod that aspect into DW because the original fonts were just to big. You want to to talk about the mission briefing screen ? Its so basic in DW that it is almost depressing reading the mission orders. How about the SC mission briefing ? Wouldn't you like to have that in DW ?
How about having the orders being formated like a real military message ?
You see what I mean when I say that DW has many rough edges ?

Nowhere have I ever read that SIM = bad graphics.
We all know why DW has the graphics it has, and justifiying that by saying that DW is a simulation just doesn't cut it. ;)

My 0.2 €.

I've had a chance to flesh out the rest of that response more fully since you replied. With a lot of the comments that have been thrown around over the past coulple weeks, I'm getting militant about the game/sim distinction. I didn't care so much about it in the past, because the difference within the community was just symantic anyways. But lately, it doesn't seem so symantic anymore, it actually seems to mean something.

Anyway, I don't think it makes any sense to talk about whether SCS can be excused for what they didn't give us. If SCS needs an excuse, it has to be for failure to deliver something that we bargained for. Bugs fall into that category, but a lack of features does not. If you wanna rag on them for the **** they pulled with the cinematic editor, that's fine though. They deserve to take **** for that.

[OneShot]

How about having the orders being formated like a real military message ?
Ever seen a real military message ? Personnaly I prefer the layout SCS used in their default missions ... lot easier to read and "militarish" enough for my liking. Oh and I couldnt care less how the briefing screen looks graphic wise.

As for the graphics ... well it might be my eyes but I can't really see a big difference in the stations between SC and DW graphics wise. Same goes for the modells in the 3D view, except that now after the last patch some DW models do look significantly better then in SC. If you figure in SCX however its a whole different ballgame - but then this is something we could have easily for DW too, just need some people to make it happen.

Now my 2cts on this whole graphic discussion which seems to crop up regularly ... While it certainly would be nice to have DW with SH4 graphics I'm actually really glad that DW is as it is, ie Not top of the notch graphics but compared to every other naval sim around top of the notch simulation. Unlike SH3/SH4 which had good/better graphics but lacked a lot in other departments.

When I play DW I'm concentrated on my stations, not doodling around in the 3D view ... I did that for a couple of minutes when I first got into the game but nowadays its just not interesting. Sure it could look better, but im happy that SCS did spend the money on improving the sonar model instead of making nice graphics.

Cheers
OS

[goldorak]

Wow, I never said that DW should have SH III/IV graphics.
It seems nobody understands what I'm trying to say : the game has rough edges.
It is like a rough diamond, it is still a diamond but it doesn't shine like a polished one.
And if I didn't like the game I wouldn't be playing it after 2 years.

Now, to me it seems that for the first time in over one year we have a lot of newbies/new fresh blood coming on this forum.
These guys I suppose are not hard core simulation fans, they come from the SH experience.
So it is very normal that the first thing they notice about the game is the "poor" graphics.
The graphics was already so so when the game came out 2 years ago, now it is even more outdated.
We just need to be calm and explain to them clearly why DW has the graphics that is has and to get over it and enjoy the game at its core, the asw simulation.
Wasn't that what SCS wanted ? To go beyond the ultra niche market and reach to normal players ? And thanks to SH IV being the bug ridden game that it is, players are finally looking for a new naval experience.

[SeaQueen]

DW is after all a game. It isn't too much to ask for decent graphics in games.

I don't think of it as a game. I think of it as a simulation and strickly speaking for the submarine platforms, you shouldn't see ANYTHING at all but instrument panels unless you're looking through the periscope.

[desertisland]

If I wanted that much realism, I'd join the Navy and have "fun" while getting paid. I paid 40 bucks for the wimpy fun of playing a computer game in the comfort of my study. And since I paid for this game I believe I am entitled to making complains.

And thank you, goldorak, for arguing both ways. That sort of common sense is a rare commodity in great demand anywhere.

[desertisland]

Another point. I've read an accessment report by the US Army on the PC game (sim, whatever) Steel Beasts' value as a trainer. They did not rate it very high, complaining of its poor graphics. Says the lack of good graphics detracts the sim realism. We are not talking about diehard gamers here, gamers who would overlook poor CG for their favorite game. We are talking about real tankers. They need real looking graphics to convince themselves that they are facing a real situation.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

It is a little different with tankers. For all the advancement in thermal sights, radar and so on, a tanker (or fighter pilot) still spends his time looking at the world, and representing the subtle cues and concealments that the real world offers is important.

A submariner spends his time looking at instruments and barely spends time looking out, so the graphics are less important, most of the time. However, for example, if the simulator's purpose was to train people in periscope observation, than the realism of the view through the computer-simulated periscope becomes very important.

[OneShot]

I think Kaz summed it up the best way. This game at its core is about playing around with those stations even for the FFG as well as the two airborne platforms ... and for that the graphic in the stations is well done IMO.

It sure does have its rough edges ... but as Goldorak pointed out already it still is a diamond ... which is a lot more than can be said for other games/simulations.

Cheers
OS

P.S. : It is a simulation! ;)

[Molon Labe]

DW is after all a game. It isn't too much to ask for decent graphics in games.
I don't think of it as a game. I think of it as a simulation and strickly speaking for the submarine platforms, you shouldn't see ANYTHING at all but instrument panels unless you're looking through the periscope.
Thank you!

It is a little different with tankers. For all the advancement in thermal sights, radar and so on, a tanker (or fighter pilot) still spends his time looking at the world, and representing the subtle cues and concealments that the real world offers is important.

A submariner spends his time looking at instruments and barely spends time looking out, so the graphics are less important, most of the time. However, for example, if the simulator's purpose was to train people in periscope observation, than the realism of the view through the computer-simulated periscope becomes very important. Exactly. :yep:

[Castout]

It would be GREAT to have ala SH3 engine for the next DW-like game.
It makes lookin in the 3D window much more captivating and perhaps in multiplayer game it would mesmerizes the newbies hence losing track of contacts....and got killed for it. So hence the terms killer graphics.:rotfl:

[SeaQueen]

If I wanted that much realism, I'd join the Navy and have "fun" while getting paid. I paid 40 bucks for the wimpy fun of playing a computer game in the comfort of my study. And since I paid for this game I believe I am entitled to making complains.

I work as a naval analyst and I do have fun while getting paid. I don't mean to say you're not entitled to complain, but by the same token, when a consumer buys an orange who's at fault when it's not an apple? Naval sims are slow moving and the graphics are limited. It's the nature of the beast. What is there to see, really? I've been to sea, there's not a lot to look at in the ocean. It's mostly water, lots and lots of it. Modern war at sea is conducted over the horizon using offboard sensors, aircraft and cruise missiles. It's not like WWII. It's futile to try to make a modern naval simulation into something visually spectacular, because it isn't visually spectacular in real life. The graphics that are there are fine. It'd be nice if some of the models were prettier, but it's not essential and people who are into that sort of thing can mod it. If you're really PLAYING the game, you're going to be glued to the chart, and the various stations anyhow. I turn the graphics off most of the time.

The only time I really pay much attention to the graphics in DW, is when I'm poking around in the periscope and when I'm using binoculars from the bridge wing of the FFG. In the airborne platforms it's a little more useful, but given that it's a command simulator and not a flight simulator, it's not essential.

The definative modern naval sim, Harpoon, has NO fancy graphics at all. Red Storm Rising, which in my mind is still one of the best sub sims ever, was all tactical displays too. I mean, geez, the whole challenge of being in a submarine is that you can't SEE stuff. That is THE FUN of a submarine simulation: learning to reason in the face of large uncertainties. All the explosions, nice model ships and what not are just icing on the cake. You probably wouldn't see them in real life anyhow, so you shouldn't be focused on them in the sim either.

[OneShot]

If I wanted that much realism, I'd join the Navy and have "fun" while getting paid. I paid 40 bucks for the wimpy fun of playing a computer game in the comfort of my study. And since I paid for this game I believe I am entitled to making complains.

I work as a naval analyst and I do have fun while getting paid. I don't mean to say you're not entitled to complain, but by the same token, when a consumer buys an orange who's at fault when it's not an apple? Naval sims are slow moving and the graphics are limited. It's the nature of the beast. What is there to see, really? I've been to sea, there's not a lot to look at in the ocean. It's mostly water, lots and lots of it. Modern war at sea is conducted over the horizon using offboard sensors, aircraft and cruise missiles. It's not like WWII. It's futile to try to make a modern naval simulation into something visually spectacular, because it isn't visually spectacular in real life. The graphics that are there are fine. It'd be nice if some of the models were prettier, but it's not essential and people who are into that sort of thing can mod it. If you're really PLAYING the game, you're going to be glued to the chart, and the various stations anyhow. I turn the graphics off most of the time.

The only time I really pay much attention to the graphics in DW, is when I'm poking around in the periscope and when I'm using binoculars from the bridge wing of the FFG. In the airborne platforms it's a little more useful, but given that it's a command simulator and not a flight simulator, it's not essential.

The definative modern naval sim, Harpoon, has NO fancy graphics at all. Red Storm Rising, which in my mind is still one of the best sub sims ever, was all tactical displays too. I mean, geez, the whole challenge of being in a submarine is that you can't SEE stuff. That is THE FUN of a submarine simulation: learning to reason in the face of large uncertainties. All the explosions, nice model ships and what not are just icing on the cake. You probably wouldn't see them in real life anyhow, so you shouldn't be focused on them in the sim either.

Amen to that ... got nothing more to add :up:

[SeaQueen]

Amen to that ... got nothing more to add :up:

Sometimes I think if games companies just stopped feeling like EVERY SINGLE VIDEO GAME IN THE UNIVERSE had to be a SUPER DOOPER XTREME GRAPHIX BLOW OUT!!!! they'd produce better video games. It feels like game companies have been producing the same video game over and over again for the past ten years. Instead, if they just asked, "what are we trying to capture?" and went from there, I think they'd make more fun simulations.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Problem is ... the depth of the game does not show up well in 3-minute trailers, box graphics and advertisements - the graphics do. The prioritization chosen is natural.

[OneShot]

I fondly remember the times when I played with my C64 and Amiga ... the graphics were a far cry from even crappy today graphics but damn those games were fun. Gunship, Silent Service (actually the whole bunch of Microprose games), Lucas Arts Adventures and what not ... not spectacular on the eyes, but damn had I fun and they were addictive like hell. Nowadays this "addictive feeling" is pretty rare ... Most of the games hardly even encourage oneself to actually complete the game or even go for the next mission/chapter/whatever ... (I'm talking about SP games only ... MP is a whole different ballpark - I have a number of games I only touch for playing MP, but hardly played them SP).

Anyway, it would be nice if game developers actually took a step back and made it their top priority that a game immerses you and makes you wanna play it ... because you have fun doin it. Graphics only work for selling ... but even with the most wonderful graphic engine ... if the game itself is crappy it will end up on the shelf in a hurry. But then this is all the Publishers care about ... selling games - sad, isnt it?

Cheers
OS

[SeaQueen]

Problem is ... the depth of the game does not show up well in 3-minute trailers, box graphics and advertisements - the graphics do. The prioritization chosen is natural.

Back in the good ol' days, people sold video games without DirectX. Many of them sold quite well and the screen shoots were just as much a part of the marketing as they are now. People should sell a game based on what it has going for it, not on a half-hearted effort to make it look like what someone thinks people want to see.

[goldorak]

I fondly remember the times when I played with my C64 and Amiga ... the graphics were a far cry from even crappy today graphics but damn those games were fun. Gunship, Silent Service (actually the whole bunch of Microprose games), Lucas Arts Adventures and what not ... not spectacular on the eyes, but damn had I fun and they were addictive like hell. Nowadays this "addictive feeling" is pretty rare ... Most of the games hardly even encourage oneself to actually complete the game or even go for the next mission/chapter/whatever ... (I'm talking about SP games only ... MP is a whole different ballpark - I have a number of games I only touch for playing MP, but hardly played them SP).

Anyway, it would be nice if game developers actually took a step back and made it their top priority that a game immerses you and makes you wanna play it ... because you have fun doin it. Graphics only work for selling ... but even with the most wonderful graphic engine ... if the game itself is crappy it will end up on the shelf in a hurry. But then this is all the Publishers care about ... selling games - sad, isnt it?

Cheers
OS

Its not the same thing OS.
I used to have a Vic 20 in the early eighties and the graphics were just cutting edge for that time for a home computer.
But if you tried to play today those games, you'll be playing them first because of a nostalgia factor and second because of "good " graphics.

DW had "correct" graphic for the time when it was released.
Falcon 4 had great graphics when it was released (along with thousands of bugs :damn: ). Sub Command had great graphics when it was released in early 2001.
F-19 Stealth Fighter had pretty good graphics (CGA for me, I didn't have a EGA computer at the time) when it was released in the late eighties. Even SH I had great SVGA graphics by the mid ninties.
You see where I'm heading, simulations as far as I can remember always had good to great graphics for the time period in which they were released.
This trend was broken with DW.

[goldorak]

Back in the good ol' days, people sold video games without DirectX. Many of them sold quite well and the screen shoots were just as much a part of the marketing as they are now. People should sell a game based on what it has going for it, not on a half-hearted effort to make it look like what someone thinks people want to see.

In the good ol' days computer games as much as computers were not a mainstream affair.
It was pretty geeky stuff, and the games/simulations were aimed to a geeky/hardcore crowd.

[OneShot]

Its not the same thing OS.
I used to have a Vic 20 in the early eighties and the graphics were just cutting edge for that time for a home computer.
But if you tried to play today those games, you'll be playing them first because of a nostalgia factor and second because of "good " graphics.

DW had "correct" graphic for the time when it was released.
Falcon 4 had great graphics when it was released (along with thousands of bugs :damn: ). Sub Command had great graphics when it was released in early 2001.
F-19 Stealth Fighter had pretty good graphics (CGA for me, I didn't have a EGA computer at the time) when it was released in the late eighties. Even SH I had great SVGA graphics by the mid ninties.
You see where I'm heading, simulations as far as I can remember always had good to great graphics for the time period in which they were released.
This trend was broken with DW.

Have to disagree there ... DW has/had good graphics for the time of its release ... not outstanding or above average even, but good. Actually if you just take the stations (which are the game in its essence) then the graphics are certainly above average.

Anyway my point was, that back in the days the graphics only played a secondary role for a lot of games and the main focus was about having fun and gripping the player. It was nevertheless a strong secondary role and for that time a lot of games who gave you great fun had real nice graphics too (remember Monkey Island 2?).

In the end it comes down to the point which was quite perfectly stated already ... DW is an ASW simulator and the main thing about modern naval warfare is that you don't spend a lot of time looking out at nothingness (been to sea ... high res water and cool sky with beautiful colors and resolution, but thats about it when you are in the middle of the atlantic - or even the mediteranean sea), but instead you sit in a dark room in front of a screen pushing buttons. And DW does capture that quite nicely, thank you.

Cheers
OS

[SeaQueen]

In the good ol' days computer games as much as computers were not a mainstream affair.
It was pretty geeky stuff, and the games/simulations were aimed to a geeky/hardcore crowd.

Not mainstream how? By the late eighties (20 YEARS AGO!!!!) pretty much everyone who owned a business had a computer or their accountant would have beaten them. They've been in the school system for decades now. By the early to mid nineties, laptops were everywhere. It really wasn't until when I was in college that anyone without a SGI workstation had an appreciable graphics capability, though. That was maybe... 1995 or so? It's only been in the last five years or so that spectacular graphics were just EXPECTED of every computer game in the world. And yeah... the simulations were always a little bit of a niche audience, but I mean... geez... today when you say something is a niche audience it's like they don't exist at all. In the early 90's (only ten years ago or so) there were always several simulation games on the shelves. There, the draw was REALISM, and that wasn't defined as having Hollywood quality graphics. It was defined as having content that gave one some insight into current affairs. It was the whole, "ripped from the headlines," thing that pulled people in.

[SeaQueen]

DW had "correct" graphic for the time when it was released.
Falcon 4 had great graphics when it was released (along with thousands of bugs :damn: ). Sub Command had great graphics when it was released in early 2001.
F-19 Stealth Fighter had pretty good graphics (CGA for me, I didn't have a EGA computer at the time) when it was released in the late eighties. Even SH I had great SVGA graphics by the mid ninties.
You see where I'm heading, simulations as far as I can remember always had good to great graphics for the time period in which they were released.
This trend was broken with DW.

And Harpoon, when it was released had next to no graphics. It was a throwback even then.

With the exception of sub command, all of those are flight simulations. In flight simulators, your eyes are really important. Fighter pilots are required to have good eyesight. Ship drivers, not so much. The guys in the CIC are overweight chain smokers with glasses. In the naval sims, how much is there to see, really? No matter how good the graphics are, you're going to spend an awful lot of time sailing around, looking at nothing. It's the nature of the beast. It's nice to be able to look out the bridge wing of your FFG and look at what's going on, but it isn't essential. Similarly, it's important to be able to poke around with your periscope sometimes. I like having attractive model ships in DW, don't get me wrong, but most of the time I'm playing, I'm not admiring the view. I'm looking at grams, or blips on the radar or MAD readings. I wish that in DW you could look at a nice LOFAR gram. The new beautiful freighter was nice, but I was playing the game without it. The instruments and the tactics is where the content of the game is, and that's where I'd like to see the bulk of the effort focused.



Now... that being said, I like having the game easily mod-able, so that someone with a mind for making beautiful model ships can come back later and make them gorgeous.

[desertisland]

I am a geekly 39 and am from the good old days, if there ever was one. First computer I have played on is an ATARI back in the 70s. I have played all the "classics" on Apple ][, literally every single game available. Just name one. But I don't live in the past. They are fond memories but that's it. Nothing is going to make me play one for more than 10 minutes. It's not the ancient interface -- I know all the hotkeys by heart -- it's the terrible graphics.

Good graphics doesn't make good games. But it certainly makes a good game better and more accessible to the mass. That is not a bad thing. After all, these are commercial computer games (or sims whatever) we are talking about here.

Looking back I realize we have come this far and have further way to go. I mean, come on, the "history" of computer games is but 40 years old. Are we old enough to claim to have owned an "era"? Are we so ladden with traditions and so proud that we would scorn the youthfulness, the incompetence, and the fickleness of the newer generation? To William Blake, John Donne, Shakespeare, Chaucer, Boccaccio we are but an egg mocking the greeness of an embryo. To me, applying "classics" to "computer games" is an exaggeration. The classic in computer games is yet to be developed, we are only 40 years old.

[Dr.Sid]

I believe Snako raised a legitimate question. DW is after all a game. It isn't too much to ask for decent graphics in games.

It is legitimate question. But useless. What answer do you expect ? There can only be one answer: it has such and such graphics (and other features) because we made it so. We were unable (no money, no people, no time, no talent, no intention) to make it better so we didn't.
Also look at the status of the game. Patch 1.04 took like year of testing and brought nothing much (much less then free-time activity LWAMI mod). There is no 1.05 announced. I bet we can't expect anything spectacular anymore from DW.
Also DW engine clearly is built upon older SCS games. I guess all those limits comes from that. SCS does not seem to be able (or willing) to invest too much resources into this.

[caymanlee]

I believe Snako raised a legitimate question. DW is after all a game. It isn't too much to ask for decent graphics in games.

It is legitimate question. But useless. What answer do you expect ? There can only be one answer: it has such and such graphics (and other features) because we made it so. We were unable (no money, no people, no time, no talent, no intention) to make it better so we didn't.
Also look at the status of the game. Patch 1.04 took like year of testing and brought nothing much (much less then free-time activity LWAMI mod). There is no 1.05 announced. I bet we can't expect anything spectacular anymore from DW.
Also DW engine clearly is built upon older SCS games. I guess all those limits comes from that. SCS does not seem to be able (or willing) to invest too much resources into this.


It's sad to hear that!

more professional game, less people interest; less people interest, less profit, less invesment could be throw in

A really bad cycle!

we really should build it up by ourself

[Dr.Sid]

I believe Snako raised a legitimate question. DW is after all a game. It isn't too much to ask for decent graphics in games.
It is legitimate question. But useless. What answer do you expect ? There can only be one answer: it has such and such graphics (and other features) because we made it so. We were unable (no money, no people, no time, no talent, no intention) to make it better so we didn't.
Also look at the status of the game. Patch 1.04 took like year of testing and brought nothing much (much less then free-time activity LWAMI mod). There is no 1.05 announced. I bet we can't expect anything spectacular anymore from DW.
Also DW engine clearly is built upon older SCS games. I guess all those limits comes from that. SCS does not seem to be able (or willing) to invest too much resources into this.

It's sad to hear that!

more professional game, less people interest; less people interest, less profit, less invesment could be throw in

A really bad cycle!

we really should build it up by ourself

Sorry to bother again, but since really lots of people does not seem to know: we already do:

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/communitysubsim

Just be patient. There will be next round of recruitment after version 1.0, which should be released this summer. Meanwhile we need mostly suggestions.

[Hawk66]

Let's be glad, that DW exists. We all know, that it was not a financial success for the developer and who knows if they would have developed the game, when they had known that in advance...

Harpoon is not an alternative for me. Ok, it does simulate larger naval operations, but its AI and mission editor is too inflexible for me and it lacks any dynamics.

Don't know if this is really possible, but perhaps they could sell (license) a newer simulation engine (API) in the future, which is a by-product of their main business and the community builds the rest (graphics,sounds & user-interface) ?

[Bilge_Rat]

For the past six weeks, most of my gaming time has been taken up by SH4, but I did play a DW mission, mostly to check out the sonar model to compare with SH4, but also to check out the 1.04 patch and the latest LWAMI.

Obviously, DW's graphics are behind the curve when you compare it with a game which has state-of-the-art graphics like SH4. However DW's graphics are still decent and compare favorably with other hard core simulations like Falcon 4 and the Combat Mission series.

The issue is more where do we go from here. Since I started in Subsims, I have always spent more time in 688iHK and SC, rather than SH1 or SH2. This was not because I had a great love for modern subs, but because the games were more realistic.

However SH3, with its 3d crew/sub interior and improved graphics changed all that. SH3 and now 4 are able to cater to more mainstream gamers while still (mostly) pleasing the hardcore crowd. With the success of SH4, there are already hints that we will see a SH5.

Sonalysts has a difficult choice, any future product will inevitably be compared to the SH series. To compete, Sonalysts would have to upgrade the graphics, which means a bigger budget and also means making a more mainstream product to increase sales, with no garantee that they would have the same sales as Ubisoft. On the other hand, they could decide to go with a barebones approach, tweak the existing graphic engine and add new playables, but that means becoming even more of a niche product with limited sales.

I would not be surprised if DW is the last of the series.

[Sea Demon]

I would not be surprised if DW is the last of the series.

If that's the case, that's too bad. Sonalysts Naval games are the only peek we get into the world of modern naval warfare. I really hoped to see Sonalysts go another step forward. I'm very happy with all the games they've put out to date. I think they've created great games, IMHO. In fact, 3 of the 4 of these sims have never left my hard drive.

[Sea Demon]

Sometimes I think if games companies just stopped feeling like EVERY SINGLE VIDEO GAME IN THE UNIVERSE had to be a SUPER DOOPER XTREME GRAPHIX BLOW OUT!!!! they'd produce better video games. It feels like game companies have been producing the same video game over and over again for the past ten years. Instead, if they just asked, "what are we trying to capture?" and went from there, I think they'd make more fun simulations.
This is really excellent insight. :yep:

[SeaQueen]

Sonalysts has a difficult choice, any future product will inevitably be compared to the SH series.

I don't think that's fair, though. Anything simulating pre-1945 submarines is in whole different universe.

[Chock]

It might seem an odd view, but I actually think the 'crappiness' of the (external) graphics actually adds to SC and DW. To me it conveys the notion that you are playing a simulation rather than a game aimed at being 'all-show and no go', it almost has a military training feel to it, and in a sim where the technical and technological aspects are important, that appeals to me.

I'm not saying that I wouldn't buy a modern sub sim that had cool graphics, because I would, but I tend to take DW and SC more 'seriously' than the SH series of sub sims because of their austere appearance.

I wouldn't mind betting that, upon seeing the graphics for SC and DW, the 'ultra-serious' feel they convey has probably put a few people off buying them, rather than actually because they have no flashy graphics. Which is a shame.

[DanCanovas]

i love modern subs but am a real sucker for eye candy in computer games. I'd love a modern sub sim with awesome graphics! :up:

[Snacko]

I can't believe this thread is still alive. :yep:

i love modern subs but am a real sucker for eye candy in computer games. I'd love a modern sub sim with awesome graphics! :up:Hey Dan,

You've heard of SH3 and now SH4? SH4 does have awesome grapihcs!

[Molon Labe]

I can't believe this thread is still alive. :yep:

i love modern subs but am a real sucker for eye candy in computer games. I'd love a modern sub sim with awesome graphics! :up:Hey Dan,

You've heard of SH3 and now SH4? SH4 does have awesome grapihcs!

WWII is hardly "modern."

[Snacko]

I can't believe this thread is still alive. :yep:

i love modern subs but am a real sucker for eye candy in computer games. I'd love a modern sub sim with awesome graphics! :up:Hey Dan,

You've heard of SH3 and now SH4? SH4 does have awesome grapihcs!
WWII is hardly "modern."Oh. I thought he meant modern as in modern games.

[desertisland]

It's just me. But I can't link the word "serious" to a game or a sim. The reason I play any game is "fun". If I take a game seriously I can't play it. Who wants to get killed while having fun?

To each his own. A game should have excellent graphics. For those who prefers an ultra serious no nonsense military simulator/trainer, turn the 3D graphics off. Better still, turn the monitor off. Use voice outputs and inputs alone.

[desertisland]

WWII is hardly "modern."

Actually it is, DW is "contemporary".

[Lagger123987]

You want to know why this game have bad graphics?

Edited: watch your language, mate. -- NS

[LuftWolf]

Reported.

First warning to Lagger123987.

Cheers,
David

PS No point in wasting words.

[Molon Labe]

To each his own. Okay...

The reason I play any game is "fun". If I take a game seriously I can't play it. Well, that's too bad for you. If I can't take a game seriously I don't find it worth playing. I get really annoyed, too, if my teammates or opponents don't take it seriously either. And if it goes for games, it goes double for simulations. But, if you and your friends don't want something serious, that's fine. As you say, to each his own...

For those who prefers an ultra serious no nonsense military simulator/trainer, turn the 3D graphics off. Better still, turn the monitor off. Use voice outputs and inputs alone. Wait! What? But you just said to each his own! Yet here you go insulting people that don't see it your way. Was it really necessary to throw this in at the end?

I'll let this one slide out of respect for the mods, but I urge you to make your point without throwing the cheap shots at the end. We've got enough trouble with trolls without you trying to incite a flame war.

[LuftWolf]

Now now gentlemen.

I think we can all come to agreement on the fact that "Interactive Movies" are in fact the worst catagory of all gaming, including whatever catagory Yahtzee and Poker with wild cards fall into.

Cheers,
David

[HunterICX]

SH3 Player here, I noticed this thread for a while and must say

''I rather have a Good collection of realistic/correct features, then a load of Graphical stuff''

Similators focus on the SIMULATION of the real thing, not the arsty stuff.
dont like the idea of that? sorry, the sim offers what is in the CD

this sim sells because of the Hardcore simulation some people like that , this game doesnt appeal to people who like it simple and graphical.

the reason I do not have DW is as I,m a hardcore WW2 freak but I respect people who have their interest in modern warfare ,and listen to their long chases after a target and stayed up the whole night, I played the sub sims from the old DOS days, same deal, it was darn hard to get a good hit, but that was satisfying. If I had my old doscomp I still would have played it :smug:

[desertisland]

Wait! What? But you just said to each his own! Yet here you go insulting people that don't see it your way. Was it really necessary to throw this in at the end?

I'll let this one slide out of respect for the mods, but I urge you to make your point without throwing the cheap shots at the end. We've got enough trouble with trolls without you trying to incite a flame war.

In what way have I insulted anybody, acted like a troll, or attempted to incite flame war by saying:

"A game should have excellent graphics. For those who prefers an ultra serious no nonsense military simulator/trainer, turn the 3D graphics off. Better still, turn the monitor off. Use voice outputs and inputs alone."

Good graphics doesn't hurt good games. If someone does not like good graphics, turn it off. If you like it, don't. To each his own.

I corrected your usage of the term "modern" only because you tried to correct someone else's use of that term. I took it that you are okay with that.

The fact that you are offended doesn't make me a flame-baiter. People have been talking crap about SH4 here and nobody seems to mind.

[LuftWolf]

People have been talking crap about SH4 here and nobody seems to mind.

This is true to a point... however, it is factually correct to say that a considerable amount of over-the-line posts have been made and that appropriate actions have been taken in response over in the SH side of the community (so I've heard).

Given the fact that most of the truly flame-worthy issues have been resolved in subsequent patches and mods in DW, just about everything that comes up now that is "controversial" are issues that have been talked about in dozens of prior threads.

So, basically, there aren't a bunch of people here to complain, for the most part, about a less-than-expected product anymore, which necessarily keeps the trolling, etc. to a minimum.

Cheers,
David

[Bellman]

:o A profoundly depressing thread to one returning to port !

We have been visited by Magellanic penguins - ''Go to Chile !''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6647485.stm

[CCIP]

:o A profoundly depressing thread to one returning to port !

We have been visited by Magellanic penguins - ''Go to Chile !''

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6647485.stm

:rotfl:

That is the best response to this thread possible.

I'm not a DW player (even though - shame shame - a copy of DW has been sitting on my shelf for 8 months), but I've been stuck with an old computer for a couple of weeks - and now I'm actually less enthused to get my proper one fixed :p

Immensely enjoying older titles like Combat Mission here which, last I checked, gets many of the same complaints as DW as far as graphics. I'd totally echo what people said - I don't think any game/sim that I can't take seriously is worth my attention in the long term.

[Molon Labe]

The fact that you are offended doesn't make me a flame-baiter. People have been talking crap about SH4 here and nobody seems to mind.

It's not about me. If you really meant "to each his own," you wouldn't be making ridiculous "suggestions" about what others should do with their tastes. I've got a few choice remarks about what you should do with yours, but I've appropriately kept them to myself for the time.

[LoBlo]

*input 2cents*

The argument between game and sim is irrelvant. The distinction between whether or not the program is a "game" or a "simulation" is purely up to the user and the two are not mutually exclusive.

game:
1. an amusement or pastime
simulation:
1. imitation or enactment, as of something anticipated or in testing.
2. the act or process of pretending; feigning

If the user wants to uses the program for a RL mockup, then to them its a sim. If its played for enjoyment then its a game. If its both, then its both. Of note is that SCS itself has declared the program a "Game" on their website. (http://www.scs-dangerouswaters.com/).

[desertisland]

So now my suggestions are "ridiculous"? Talking about name calling. "Riduculous" as it is, mine was a suggestion. Anyone should enjoy the game the way they see fit. Good graphics don't hurt those who don't like it since you can turn it off.

The way you tried to ridicule DanCanovas' usage of the term "modern", was that respectful? Especially when you do not have a correct concept of the term yourself?

[Molon Labe]

So now my suggestions are "ridiculous"? Talking about name calling. "Riduculous" as it is, mine was a suggestion. Anyone should enjoy the game the way they see fit. Good graphics don't hurt those who don't like it since you can turn it off. So now you're going to pretend that telling us to play with the monitor off was a serious suggestion? Please.:roll:

Okay, two can play that game. I suggest to you to only play from the Nav station and the sail bridge, with show truth on so you can see all your eye candy. And since you think sim players don't deserve a visual interface, doomers like you shouldn't ever have any need to use the sensor, control, or TMA stations. So go have fun and blow **** up, without having to take any of the tactical problems the sim presents seriously, since that would kill the fun for you. (Oh, but remember! To each his own! Enjoy the sim as you see fit!)

Please keep in mind that I don't say this to insult you or your tastes, nor is it my way of telling you to **** off. It's a serious "suggestion" that I offer with the hope of improving the quality of your experiences with the sim.:rotfl:


The way you tried to ridicule DanCanovas' usage of the term "modern", was that respectful? Especially when you do not have a correct concept of the term yourself?
You really are some piece of work. First of all "contemporary" isn't any better than "modern." If "contemporary" was simply substituted without anything added; it would be synonymous with "modern." To change the meaning to something more precise, you'd have to use "subsim contemporary with...", which would be quite a bit more cumbersome than the rather snappy "modern subsim." Sure, some might think "modern" (or even "contemporary" if that was the term used) modified "simulation" instead of "submarine"--fine. But it's not the term DC used, I knew what he meant by it, and that was good enough for me. Snacko got confused, and I cleared that up. It was YOU who nitpicked DC's use of the term "modern" (post 60), and who is now (erroneously) insulting my vocabulary for continuing the conversation with that term. Quite simply, you're the only one in this thread ridiculing anyone's use of terms.

[Camaero]

DW doesn't need better graphics. I like it having lower end graphics because I can even play it on my laptop. If I tried that with SHIV it would blow up.

The only thing I would like improved (other than gameplay) is sound. High quality and immersive sound can go a long way with me.

[Takeda Shingen]

Personally, I have not really considered graphics to be particularly important in a hardcore simulation like DW, where I spend 95% of my time looking at instrument pannels and running computations through my calculator. Long live simulation at it's purest.

EDIT: Woo! 1500 posts. And it only took me seven years to get there.

[LuftWolf]

EDIT: Woo! 1500 posts. And it only took me seven years to get there.

n00b!!

:lol: :rotfl::p

Cheers,
David

[Takeda Shingen]

EDIT: Woo! 1500 posts. And it only took me seven years to get there.

n00b!!

:lol: :rotfl::p

Cheers,
David

Dood! I cann't deeploy my towedarray! Dis game sux!

[LuftWolf]

nO mAN, it SuXoRS!!

[ASWnut101]

ROFLAMO I pWn n00bs 1111oneone1one11oneone1111111one!


:dead:

[LuftWolf]

This thread officially took a left turn and drove into a wall. :oops:

Cheers,
David

[OneShot]

Actually it passed through a number of walls and is awaiting enough loss of momentum to finally come to rest. And soon enough this can't be.