(Rant) More focus on gameplay, less on graphics

[nvdrifter]

I am seeing more and more games being released these days that have beautiful graphics, but poor gameplay. Why are so many people on this board so concerned about having even prettier graphics in SH4 when SH3 gameplay was released half finished? There are so many things STILL missing or broken in SH3, I don't even know where to begin. But some big ones are:

-realistic u-boat repair times was left out (1 or 2 minute repair times, EVERY time?)
-poor enemy ship ai
-instant death screens (arcadish)
-instant death screen when compartment completely floods (omg, why?)
-broken collision damage model
-missing Hudson aircraft, which was common (a modder fixed this)
-sometimes cannot sit at the bottom of seabed to repair without taking damage at high time compression.
-u-boat crew rarely wounded, usually killed instead.
-cannot sit on seabed bottom without being pinged and detected (this is wrong, developers!)
-horrible and tedious crew management.
-no ability to surrender in campaign game (I can't believe they left this out)
-STILL no SH3 SDK released (this is a big one) :damn:
-and many other things not listed here.

Us modders have done everything we can to fix this broken game (SH3), but we have had to find half-a$$ed work arounds because UBI has decided to not release the SDK (so we can fix the broken game correctly). Why not, UBI? And a lot of the broken or missing features are hard-coded, so they cannot be fixed without the SDK. Releasing the SDK to allow us to mod- tweak the game would actually increase the popularity and customer loyalty to SH3. Do you not understand this?

Anyone remember Red Baron 3-d or Aces of the Deep? I do. Yes, they had average graphics and also had things wrong with gameplay, but at least Dynamix tried to give the games character and atmosphere. Like if you were killed in action, afterwards it would show a newspaper article showing that your boat was missing. Or in Red Baron 3-d, if you crashed behind enemy lines, there was a chance that you could make it back to your side. Or if you were captured, there was a chance that you could escapre before the war ended, and start flying again. Why all the focus these days on pretty graphics with poor, unfinished, or unrealistic (arcadish) gameplay? I just don't get it.

Pretty graphics mean nothing without realistic, fun, working gameplay.

[Immacolata]

I remember a vast amount of games with average graphics and poor gameplay during the years. I think your memory is a tad selective. And realism is highly overrated for entertainment value. In some games, such as SH3, yes, it has its merits, but there are plenty of games where realism is an unwelcome dullard at the party.

Now Ill tell you this much: I doubt I would have played SH3 as much as I did without the ability to stand on the tower and watch the waves break over my prow as I stalked another convoy on the atlantic. Graphics are important. Or we might as well just play tetris the lot of us.

[nvdrifter]

I remember a vast amount of games with average graphics and poor gameplay during the years. I think your memory is a tad selective. And realism is highly overrated for entertainment value. In some games, such as SH3, yes, it has its merits, but there are plenty of games where realism is an unwelcome dullard at the party.

Now Ill tell you this much: I doubt I would have played SH3 as much as I did without the ability to stand on the tower and watch the waves break over my prow as I stalked another convoy on the atlantic. Graphics are important. Or we might as well just play tetris the lot of us.
I am talking about games like SH3, that are supposed to simulate something in real life. I'll say it again, pretty graphics in a simulation mean nothing without good, realistic gameplay. So many small (but important) details were left out or are broken in SH3. If us modders could have access to the SDK, we could fix the problems. That much is sure.

[Immacolata]

Well really realistic simulation with poor graphics won't fly either. We want it all.

This somehow reminds me of this very apropros Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/09/06) comic.

[nvdrifter]

Well really realistic simulation with poor graphics won't fly either. We want it all.

This somehow reminds me of this very apropros Penny Arcade (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/09/06) comic.
**Sigh** I still think you don't understand what I am trying to say. Yes, graphics do matter. But more and more games are being released half-finished because there is too much focus on pretty graphics and not enough focus on realism or gameplay. Haven't you ever heard the word 'gameplay'? Pretty graphics is not the same as good gameplay. ADOM is a good example, where the focus is on amazing detail and incredibly hard gameplay with almost no graphics.

[Safe-Keeper]

I think it's sad, too. So many people look only at graphics and not game-play.

My favourite games as of now are Pat Proctor's simulations (look for, among other, BCT Commander, Raging Tiger, and The Star and the Crescent www.shrapnelgames.com) (http://www.shrapnelgames.com%29), Silent Hunter III, Dominions II (still Shrapnel Games), Out of Order (www.hungrysoftware.com) (http://www.hungrysoftware.com%29), and X-Com: UFO Defence (Microprose).

Out of all those games, only Out of Order and Silent Hunter III have reasonably good graphics. I still like the rest of them.

Take the wonderful Dominions series. The graphics are outright horrible, but after a short while you stop caring, since the game is so massive (Dominions III will have 1500+ units), the atmosphere so incredibly deep and immersive, and the game-play so incredibly good. If the duo creating the series announced Dominions IV would have state-of-the-art 3D graphics, I would be very disappointed, as it'd mean the rest of the game would suffer greatly.

That's not to say graphics don't add to the game. They do. They just don't really add that much. So by all means, make Silent Hunter IV beautiful. But please, let the focus be on game-play. If that means some models have to be low-res like the planes in Silent Hunter III, so be it.

And realism is highly overrated for entertainment value. In some games, such as SH3, yes, it has its merits, but there are plenty of games where realism is an unwelcome dullard at the party.It depends on what the realism is. I'm tired of generalizing people going "Gameplay>Realism". It's like saying "Good food>Chinese Food", it's an incredibly broad generalization that serves no purpose whatsoever.

Now Ill tell you this much: I doubt I would have played SH3 as much as I did without the ability to stand on the tower and watch the waves break over my prow as I stalked another convoy on the atlantic. Graphics are important.But do those graphics have to be state-of-the-art?

Or we might as well just play tetris the lot of us.Too unrealistic:p.

[DanCanovas]

you've got to remember that in order for the game to be successful, it has to reach out to more than the subsim community. without doing this the losses would mean that we wouldnt see a SH4. This is the reason they spend so much time on graphics in comparison to perhaps other features. its unfortunate but hey...this is business:arrgh!:

[TDK1044]

The balance between graphic quality and good game play is very subjective. I've been making the point in other postings that personally, I'd much rather see SH1V look visually similar to SH111 but have all the important game play items that nvdrifter mentions be working in the game at the time of release. The patch mania on SH111 drove me mad...Installing mods 3 times and then uninstalling them again in order to add the latest patch is very frustrating. I also agree with nvdrifter regarding the SDK. I see no reason that this shouldn't be offered.

The bottom line is that there is a finite amount of production time that Ubisoft will pay for, and how you balance that time between visual enhancement and game play enhancement is the crucial point.

This may not be a very popular view, but for me, give me SH111 set in the Pacific and patched beyond 1.4 at the time of release. Re-think the crew management and give the modders access to the SDK.

[nvdrifter]

The balance between graphic quality and good game play is very subjective. I've been making the point in other postings that personally, I'd much rather see SH1V look visually similar to SH111 but have all the important game play items that nvdrifter mentions be working in the game at the time of release. The patch mania on SH111 drove me mad...Installing mods 3 times and then uninstalling them again in order to add the latest patch is very frustrating. I also agree with nvdrifter regarding the SDK. I see no reason that this shouldn't be offered.

The bottom line is that there is a finite amount of production time that Ubisoft will pay for, and how you balance that time between visual enhancement and game play enhancement is the crucial point.



This may not be a very popular view, but for me, give me SH111 set in the Pacific and patched beyond 1.4 at the time of release. Re-think the crew management and give the modders access to the SDK.
I agree with everything you said. It seems to me that SH3 had some serious quality control problems upon release. Simple (but important) features that could have and should have been included or fixed in a patch, but never were.

As most of us old time gamers know, graphics don't make the game. Gameplay makes the game. Good graphics are just icing on the cake.

[Onkel Neal]

Us modders have done everything we can to fix this broken game (SH3), but we have had to find half-a$$ed work arounds because UBI has decided to not release the SDK (so we can fix the broken game correctly). Why not, UBI? And a lot of the broken or missing features are hard-coded, so they cannot be fixed without the SDK. Releasing the SDK to allow us to mod- tweak the game would actually increase the popularity and customer loyalty to SH3. Do you not understand this?

Why don't you make your own game? You talented guys should not be depending on slobs like Ubisoft to make the core game. :arrgh!: You make the game, let someone else do the hard modding part.

[Immacolata]

As most of us old time gamers know, graphics don't make the game. Gameplay makes the game. Good graphics are just icing on the cake.

Speak for your self, pretty please. I consider myself an old time gamer. My first subsim was Silent Service. That should qualify. Graphics are part of the gameplay in computer games. When it is about simulation, I would even say that they are essential. A simulator is a very precisely cut attempt of Virtual Reality, and thus the graphics and sound AS WELL as the mechanical simulation should resemble the real object as close as possible. Neglet one part and you inevitably ruin the overall impression.

[Hylander_1314]

Why not put a Dev Group together like GW did, but work with UBI like the guys / girls did for The Battle of Britain. They really made the game shine and once Shockwave added the modern day graphics among other things, it's now a superb game to play.

The catch was, that Rowan retained all the rights to anything added or improved on, so if they wished to repackage the game and re-issue it for sale, they could without the headaches.

So the cost is, that you enhance and fix things, but UBI can re-sell the game as a new version without asking anyones permission, if they so choose. It may even be possible for the talented folks here to work out some sort of compensation for their efforts if the game goes on the market again. I think that was also done with BoB, for the second incarnation.

[nvdrifter]

Us modders have done everything we can to fix this broken game (SH3), but we have had to find half-a$$ed work arounds because UBI has decided to not release the SDK (so we can fix the broken game correctly). Why not, UBI? And a lot of the broken or missing features are hard-coded, so they cannot be fixed without the SDK. Releasing the SDK to allow us to mod- tweak the game would actually increase the popularity and customer loyalty to SH3. Do you not understand this?
Why don't you make your own game? You talented guys should not be depending on slobs like Ubisoft to make the core game. :arrgh!: You make the game, let someone else do the hard modding part.
Oh yeah, I forgot that we're not supposed to criticize Ubisoft in this forum. :roll: Nevermind. All the problems with SH3 was just my imagination.

[Onkel Neal]

No, you can criticize Ubi, but in my opinion, sometimes it seems like the things done right with a game are overlooked. I guess it's that "glass half full/glass half empty" things, drifter. I think the mods have been utterly fantastic, but I also think SH3 was a true jump forward in subsims. Maybe since you spend a lot of time and work trying to improve SH3, you see it differently than me. :)

Modding a game like SH3 is like editing Hugo or Cervantes. Without the original work, there wouldn't be much to start with.

[nvdrifter]

No, you can criticize Ubi, but in my opinion, sometimes it seems like the things done right with a game are overlooked. I guess it's that "glass half full/glass half empty" things, drifter. I think the mods have been utterly fantastic, but I also think SH3 was a true jump forward in subsims. Maybe since you spend a lot of time and work trying to improve SH3, you see it differently than me. :)

Modding a game like SH3 is like editing Hugo or Cervantes. Without the original work, there wouldn't be much to start with.

Of course a lot of things were done right in SH3, and I do realize that there were some groundbreaking things introduced into SH3. I appreciate the hard work the devs put into the game. It's an awesome game that I love dearly (when I try desperately to overlook all the glaring things that are wrong in the game). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize the these things that are wrong with it. Should we say nothing and hope they don't make the same mistakes in SH4? :p I guess it has a lot to do with the frustrations some of us modders are having is trying to fix what isn't right in SH3. But unfortunately we can fix very few things because most of the problems are hard-coded. We usually end up hitting a brick wall. Oh how I wish they would release that SDK. ;)

[TDK1044]

As most of us old time gamers know, graphics don't make the game. Gameplay makes the game. Good graphics are just icing on the cake.
Speak for your self, pretty please. I consider myself an old time gamer. My first subsim was Silent Service. That should qualify. Graphics are part of the gameplay in computer games. When it is about simulation, I would even say that they are essential. A simulator is a very precisely cut attempt of Virtual Reality, and thus the graphics and sound AS WELL as the mechanical simulation should resemble the real object as close as possible. Neglet one part and you inevitably ruin the overall impression.
I think it's a balance of graphics and gameplay. If you have wonderful gameplay and lousy graphics, it's not very believable. If you have wonderful graphics and lousy gameplay, it's not very believable. In my opinion, once we got to patch 1.4 in SH111, the game became very enjoyable. Others will have the opinion that there were so many things that never got fixed in SH111 that they could not enjoy the game. But I don't know anybody who was so unhappy with the graphics in SH111 that they couldn't immerse themselves in the game. Other than wave texture and transparency discussions, the consensus was that the graphics in SH111 were pretty good. Relative to SH1V, I'm not expecting a major bump in graphics quality....I am hoping that the gameplay is in better shape than SH111 was at the time of its release.

[finchOU]

The balance between graphic quality and good game play is very subjective. I've been making the point in other postings that personally, I'd much rather see SH1V look visually similar to SH111 but have all the important game play items that nvdrifter mentions be working in the game at the time of release. The patch mania on SH111 drove me mad...Installing mods 3 times and then uninstalling them again in order to add the latest patch is very frustrating. I also agree with nvdrifter regarding the SDK. I see no reason that this shouldn't be offered.

The bottom line is that there is a finite amount of production time that Ubisoft will pay for, and how you balance that time between visual enhancement and game play enhancement is the crucial point.

This may not be a very popular view, but for me, give me SH111 set in the Pacific and patched beyond 1.4 at the time of release. Re-think the crew management and give the modders access to the SDK.

The "good feeling" of new graphics only lasts so long. Gameplay/Realism, on the other hand, can make or break a good sim...and make you come back and back again.

and just think about how much more time could be focused on new features vise fixing things that havent been fixed a la SH3. Just think if they just could have had a little more time to test and fix SH3. Waiting for more news......

[TDK1044]

Yeah. I really don't see it as a battle of the graphics guys versus the gameplay guys. Both elements are integral to the enjoyment of the game. I just want SH1V to be a great subsim that corrects the gameplay errors of SH111 and improves the crew management element of the game. If they want to bump up the graphics....fine, but to me the SH111 graphics were fine. I'd rather not have to add more RAM to my system in order to run SH1V.

[Immacolata]

[quote=Immacolata][quote=nvdrifter]But I don't know anybody who was so unhappy with the graphics in SH111 that they couldn't immerse themselves in the game. Other than wave texture and transparency discussions, the consensus was that the graphics in SH111 were pretty good. Relative to SH1V, I'm not expecting a major bump in graphics quality....I am hoping that the gameplay is in better shape than SH111 was at the time of its release.

I think people are reading too much into this graphics overhaul they are doing in SHIV. They need to create all new ships and subs. Now they are at it, why stop with last years standards? They up the polys, increase the texture res, redo the particles system and perhaps add a few shaderwhatchacallums on the ocean surface. Done deal.

I am positive that the extra eye candy we get is minor compared to the bread and butter work they have to do anyways. You perhaps import basic ship meshes from SH3, but Id bet the graphics designer would rather be found dead than seen reusing SH3s textures and models. At the very least they will make sure to use higher res everything so the game will look more detailed.

Oh, and for graphics - there was a few niggles I had. Forced resolution and the 8000 m visibility range was major problems I had with SH3. The latter part was really nasty IMO, and I am worrying they haven't fixed this for SH4. Unbelievably the interviewer didn't ask about it >.<

Realism is overrated. I might want to make that my sig. Some people have almost a fetishistic view of Realism (lightning strike and thunder, horses whinnying in panic somewhere outside the viewframe). I'd like mine served rather realistic but also pretty and at the very least enjoyable. Sometimes the much lauded Realism (thunder and another bout of whinnying of horses) gets in the way of actually playing the game. I remember for a while that I didn't even bother playing SH3 because I found out about this 8000m range. I suddenly realized that this was a decision made by the devs for some reason. And they had padded this deficit up with giving the player an artificially inflated amount of radio contacts, to compensate for the ridiculously low visibilty.
After I discovered this severe lack in the Realism (thunder and lighting strikes another time and send the horses whinnying yet again) department, I didn't bother playing SH3 for quite a while. NYGM "saved" me after half a year. And I realized that this Realism (thunder and whinnying) obsession had robbed me of a good bit of enjoyment. I could still have played SH3 and had fun, but nooo. I nurtured hurt feelings and a swollen Realism (thunder, whinny) gland instead.

[TDK1044]

Points well made, Immacolata.:up:

[Immacolata]

Thanks, oh and I forgot Finchou: no, the good feeling is a major reason to why I still bother leaving port for another patrol in my VIIC, today 1½ years after SH3 was released. I really, REALLY enjoy the silent moments on the conning tower, just cruising across the waves as the rising sun climbs above the horizon. At some point, yes I tend to ignore this "graphics" but perhaps it is because they are rather good and makes me forget about them being graphics. Actually, I am reminded every time I gawp at a ship through my periscope and notice the jaggies created on the ships wires running from masts. It is there because the low resolution makes it impossible to draw the line unbroken, even with 6x AA turned on.

But no, good graphics means high aesthetics. And you never grow tired of a good painting ^_^

[Safe-Keeper]

Sometimes the much lauded Realism (thunder and another bout of whinnying of horses) gets in the way of actually playing the game.I never really understood why people constantly need to point this out.

"Too much spoils the experience"? That goes for all things. Too good graphics might get in the way of playing the game. Too much simplicity could get in the way of playing the game. And so on and so forth.

After I discovered this severe lack in the Realism (thunder and lighting strikes another time and send the horses whinnying yet again) department, I didn't bother playing SH3 for quite a while. NYGM "saved" me after half a year. And I realized that this Realism (thunder and whinnying) obsession had robbed me of a good bit of enjoyment. I could still have played SH3 and had fun, but nooo. I nurtured hurt feelings and a swollen Realism (thunder, whinny) gland instead.Isn't that your problem more than the game's?

The "good feeling" of new graphics only lasts so long. Gameplay/Realism, on the other hand, can make or break a good sim...and make you come back and back again.Yup. In the beginning, sure it's great to have 3D compartments, a cheering crowd at dock (complete with marching band), and what the Heck not. But today, I spend ,5% of my in-game time in the 3D compartments, I've grown tired of waving at my fans in port, and the sea-gulls are "just there".

Sure, graphics are awesome, but, it's game-play that's the experience.

[Immacolata]

Isn't that your problem more than the game's?

Well it is a game problem if you think Realism. 8000m visibility from a conning tower about a dozen feet above the surface and in bright clear sun shine? Isn't that a bit of a problem for a game that supposedly simulations a u-boot skipper and his crew doing submarine warfare on the Atlantic? The lookouts could see smoke columns 20-30 km out from the conning tower in good weather.

[Onkel Neal]

Points well made, Immacolata.:up:

Yes, you make your point very well, Immacolata. Now let me tell you why you're wrong... oh wait, I agee with most of it :yep:

[John Pancoast]

<snip>

Realism is overrated. I might want to make that my sig. <snip >

If you don't, I will :)

Agree completely, especially how it can prevent one from enjoying a game if allowed to.

[TDK1044]

The realism issue is an interesting one. To many, realism is vital. To me, a realistic feel to the game is important, but so is the enjoyment level of playing the game and that sometimes conflicts with realism.

As an example, if you take the actual realism game settings; I find playing SH111 at the 100 percent realism setting very challenging but less enjoyable than allowing myself a few cheats and playing at about 70 percent. So I choose enjoyment over absolute reality. And for those that say that realism is everything; then the sim should show us badly burnt, injured and dead people floating in the water as you pass on the surface a ship that you sunk at close range.

As Immacolata stated very well, "realism is overrated".

[Sailor Steve]

I agree with a lot of nvdrifter's list of complaints, and there are others as well. I won't mention them, because I'm in an 'on the other hand' sort of mood today. One of the major complaints is the 'instant death' screen, but for realism's sake it should be mentioned that when you die you probably don't get to see your boat sink into the depths, and I'm certain you can't read your own obituary in the hometown newspaper. Those are features I would like to see, but I'm just arguing for realism's sake.

Likewise, if we are criticizing UBI for blowing it on realism, one of our loudest complaints should be about all the time, energy and memory wasted on those stupid external views. How much better the game would have been if they had devoted themselves to a realistic interaction between you and the people you deal with. Wouldn't it have been better to have a cut scene of Onkel Karl himself pinning your Iron Cross on your chest, or your sailors stepping off the boat and having their girlfriends leap into their arms. These are things you could really see in real life.

No, don't take me seriously; I'm just being contrary.

[mr chris]

I would have loved to have seen the crew on the deck of the boat prior to leaving base so you could have given them a up and at them type of speach to get them in the mood for the patrol. also when you return from base it would have been great to have your pennants flying showing how much tonnage you had sunk.
A more relastic build patrols in the baltic prior to leaving on your first war patrol would have been great.

[bigboywooly]

It all boils down to preferences
No one is forced to use a particular mod that makes things harder or graphically better
Your choice

I will say this though
The out of the box game was a great idea and step forward
The reality is the stock game was a half arsed half finished release
If I hadnt stumbled across this site my SH3 would have been back in the box on a shelf long before now

Big sales may help Ubi short term but if a couple of months after playing it its back in the box cos it didnt grab\hold your attention then your not going to rush out and buy the next Ubi release are you

Well I am not anyway

[Pants]

I agree with Nvdrifter, games these days rely more and more on eye candy..games companys dont give a hoot these days..money money money...thats why we get patch after patch to fix things..look at BF2 they release a patch to stop people unlocking weapons, screwed up the game so they release a patch to fix a patch
Games back in the 80's early 90's had better gameplay due to having not so good graphics, Thats all they had to sell the game, the game HAD to have good gameplay ( replay value ) due to having shocking graphics ( by todays standards ), these days they hope you get blown away by the graphics.

[STEED]

If you want 100% realism nip back in time and enlist in the U-Boat service and you will have all the 100% realism. OK only joking, but face facts there is no such thing as 100% realism, on the graphics side of the issue yes there are a lot of people out there will rush out and buy a game based on the pictures on the box. That reminds me of one of my friends who has that habit, there are many games out there which look great but how long do you play them before getting bored with them.

Games in the U.K cost the earth and I am very careful on the one's I buy. On the SH3 front I am still enjoying this game and next year I will be doing a bit of upgrading on my PC ready for SH4 and also I am going to give grey wolfs ago as well.

[John Pancoast]

I agree with Nvdrifter, games these days rely more and more on eye candy..games companys dont give a hoot these days..money money money...thats why we get patch after patch to fix things..look at BF2 they release a patch to stop people unlocking weapons, screwed up the game so they release a patch to fix a patch
Games back in the 80's early 90's had better gameplay due to having not so good graphics, Thats all they had to sell the game, the game HAD to have good gameplay ( replay value ) due to having shocking graphics ( by todays standards ), these days they hope you get blown away by the graphics.

Wouldn't agree with this. As you say, those graphics are shocking...*by today's standards.*

At the time, they were incredible, and got the same "Wow !" reaction that good graphics deservedly get today.

Hell, I remember when I thought wire-frame F-16's in a flight sim were amazing. :)

[Threadfin]

I agree with John. I can remember when I used to race Papy's first NASCAR sim and Papy's IndyCar2 sim. I learned I could run them in 'high res' which at that time meant 640x480 and I can remember being quite impressed :)

[tycho102]

I also think the developers should take the SH3 graphics engine, fix the significant bugs with it, and use it to make SH4. The graphics are good enough as they are.

The focus needs to be on the interface and game engine. I would very much like to have a tremendous amount of "historical" bulletins and directives as part of the campaign. Missions with frog-men/UDT would be interesting, but not absolutely necessary.

I would also like to see the graphic engine split off from the AI, so the people with dual-core processors can get some use out of them. This would also significantly improve game performance.

[kylania]

The other thing to remember is us. :) Well, not all of us but the us that made the wonderful mods! The devs won't have to put everything into SH4. All they really need do to is make a beautiful, exciting, easy to get into sub game that mass markets can appreciate and enjoy.

Than comes the community. As long as the devs have built for us the tools and framework to extend the game to the levels of SH3 (and beyond hopefully!) anything "lacking" from SH4 will quickly be added, improved and created out of thin air by the players. That's the magic of this system. The devs make a product, and let us do with it what we will. We can make it as real or as gamey as we want.

So there will be room in SH4 for the gamers and the grognards both I'm sure.

[nvdrifter]

Subsim: What other improvements can the players expect?

SH4 Dev Team: The most striking improvements will be in the graphics department, where the water and weather have gained a facelift. The ships are totally out of this world, so to speak. Multi-channel rendering with normal and occlusion maps, combined with higher poly counts and larger textures have greatly improved the look of our game.


:shifty:

[MadMike]

We've come a long way since Atari Pong, lol.

http://www.pong-story.com/atpong2.htm

Yours, Mike

[Immacolata]

Subsim: What other improvements can the players expect?

SH4 Dev Team: The most striking improvements will be in the graphics department, where the water and weather have gained a facelift. The ships are totally out of this world, so to speak. Multi-channel rendering with normal and occlusion maps, combined with higher poly counts and larger textures have greatly improved the look of our game.


:shifty:

You can hardly claim that implementation of thermal layers will be "striking" can you? Or that adjustments to weather routines will have a profound effect on the overall experience? I think you are nit picking semantics, and that you will find something to hang your detraction on no matter what. Of course there will be focus on the graphics, thats the first bloody thing you see! If there are changes to the simulation mechancis these most likely will be felt as subtle, and only reveal themselves over long periods of gaming. I am sure that the simulation is as well looked to so that the gameplay experience overall is improved. Notice that they just point at one improvement, the most striking. They are trying to sell the game here on some of those things that will catch people's attention.

[TDK1044]

Subsim: What other improvements can the players expect?

SH4 Dev Team: The most striking improvements will be in the graphics department, where the water and weather have gained a facelift. The ships are totally out of this world, so to speak. Multi-channel rendering with normal and occlusion maps, combined with higher poly counts and larger textures have greatly improved the look of our game.


:shifty:

Feels like a game requiring a decent P4 processor, a Gig of RAM and a good video card to me.

[Immacolata]

Feels like a game requiring a decent P4 processor, a Gig of RAM and a good video card to me.

There is no such thing as a decent P4 processor ^_^. At 2007, asking for a gig of ram and a 2000+ Mhz processor isn't entirely unreasonable. Simulators on pc's have a long history of high system demands.

[John Channing]

The thing some people forget is that the developers are not building this for us (as much as we would like to think they are). They are building it for the mass market.

Subsim.com has, as of this morning, 7,742 members in total. If every member owned a copy of Silent Hunter 3 (which I am sure they don't) then that accounts for about 2.6% of the total sales. And even if they did there is no consensus here on what is important as far as features go.

While it is fine to put forth your opinions on what is important, is is also important to remember that no one speaks for even the small minority that we represent.

JCC

[TDK1044]

I agree with you, John. Very well put. That's why the original SH111 specs stated minimum RAM at 256MB until about a month before the game's release when it was bumped to 512MB. Each time you bump the RAM you lose sales, but I can't see how you could run SH1V at less than 1Gig of RAM if the stated improvements are real.

[finchOU]

Thanks, oh and I forgot Finchou: no, the good feeling is a major reason to why I still bother leaving port for another patrol in my VIIC, today 1½ years after SH3 was released. I really, REALLY enjoy the silent moments on the conning tower, just cruising across the waves as the rising sun climbs above the horizon. At some point, yes I tend to ignore this "graphics" but perhaps it is because they are rather good and makes me forget about them being graphics. Actually, I am reminded every time I gawp at a ship through my periscope and notice the jaggies created on the ships wires running from masts. It is there because the low resolution makes it impossible to draw the line unbroken, even with 6x AA turned on.

But no, good graphics means high aesthetics. And you never grow tired of a good painting ^_^

I have to agree that the Graphics are just awesome!! I too love that feeling of just looking around ...looking at the crew...watching the sun rise or set...pretty cool and makes the sim more playable. :sunny:

I kind of look at it from a dating prespective.....you always want to play with the hot girl (read good graphics)...but if she is dumb as rocks (lack of game play) and can't hold a converstion with you...you lose interest and long for something more....unless that is all you look for in a sim.. I mean girl. :cool:

All I am saying is Graphics should not take precedence over gameplay. I know this is hard for some to fathom...since you are always initially attracted to Hot chicks...I mean Graphics. But in the long run...GOOD grahics, with solid game play is better IMHO, than Awesome Graphics, with descent game play.


Good thread!!!!:up: ...like the discussions!

[kylania]

I agree with you, John. Very well put. That's why the original SH111 specs stated minimum RAM at 256MB until about a month before the game's release when it was bumped to 512MB. Each time you bump the RAM you lose sales, but I can't see how you could run SH1V at less than 1Gig of RAM if the stated improvements are real.

Prices for 1GB of RAM are around $75-$150 USD right now. There's simply no escuse to own a computer and not have 1GB of RAM anymore. If you can afford $50 on a game, you can afford $100 to vastly improve your ability to play the game and any other use for your PC you can think of.

[Charlie901]

I am seeing more and more games being released these days that have beautiful graphics, but poor gameplay. Why are so many people on this board so concerned about having even prettier graphics in SH4 when SH3 gameplay was released half finished? There are so many things STILL missing or broken in SH3, I don't even know where to begin. But some big ones are:

-realistic u-boat repair times was left out (1 or 2 minute repair times, EVERY time?)
-poor enemy ship ai
-instant death screens (arcadish)
-instant death screen when compartment completely floods (omg, why?)
-broken collision damage model
-missing Hudson aircraft, which was common (a modder fixed this)
-sometimes cannot sit at the bottom of seabed to repair without taking damage at high time compression.
-u-boat crew rarely wounded, usually killed instead.
-cannot sit on seabed bottom without being pinged and detected (this is wrong, developers!)
-horrible and tedious crew management.
-no ability to surrender in campaign game (I can't believe they left this out)
-STILL no SH3 SDK released (this is a big one) :damn:
-and many other things not listed here.

Us modders have done everything we can to fix this broken game (SH3), but we have had to find half-a$$ed work arounds because UBI has decided to not release the SDK (so we can fix the broken game correctly). Why not, UBI? And a lot of the broken or missing features are hard-coded, so they cannot be fixed without the SDK. Releasing the SDK to allow us to mod- tweak the game would actually increase the popularity and customer loyalty to SH3. Do you not understand this?

Anyone remember Red Baron 3-d or Aces of the Deep? I do. Yes, they had average graphics and also had things wrong with gameplay, but at least Dynamix tried to give the games character and atmosphere. Like if you were killed in action, afterwards it would show a newspaper article showing that your boat was missing. Or in Red Baron 3-d, if you crashed behind enemy lines, there was a chance that you could make it back to your side. Or if you were captured, there was a chance that you could escapre before the war ended, and start flying again. Why all the focus these days on pretty graphics with poor, unfinished, or unrealistic (arcadish) gameplay? I just don't get it.

Pretty graphics mean nothing without realistic, fun, working gameplay.


YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!!

If SHIV is just SHIII with prettier graphics alone I definately won't be purchasing...and I actually prefer the Pacific Sub war over the Atlantic.

I've seen many a great game series go down the tubes due to prettier graphics and "dummbed" down gameplay...usually when ported over to the Console Market.

I just don't understand how developers go backwards in a game series in this respect, give me more features and realism over better graphics any old day. This is somewhat of a "Study" subsim series after all, not "FARCRY" which was sold to the masses based on great graphics. Subsims will never apeal to the masses based on prettoer graphics but the longtime fans will appreciate the added features and Realism. :up:

[Safe-Keeper]

-instant death screens (arcadish)Yeah, really, we all know that when you die in reality you first see this nice, action-filled cutscene.

Let's cut the arcade features and implement some realism:p.

But yes, I agree with you, there should be death/capture/surrender/scuttle boat/war at an end cutscenes.

[Immacolata]

I've seen many a great game series go down the tubes due to prettier graphics and "dummbed" down gameplay...usually when ported over to the Console Market.


What has that got to do with this? SHIV is not developed for console. Dont use straw man arguments.

I just don't understand how developers go backwards in a game series in this respect, give me more features and realism over better graphics any old day. This is somewhat of a "Study" subsim series after all, not "FARCRY" which was sold to the masses based on great graphics. Subsims will never apeal to the masses based on prettoer graphics but the longtime fans will appreciate the added features and Realism. :up:

Too bad the long time fans are perhaps 5% of the buying public. tHE 95% enjoys a varied diet, where graphics, gameplay and realism are deliciously mixed for a wholesome experience. I have no desire to masturbate over extreme realism if the game is trite to look at. Which is why I never "got" dangerous waters I suppose. Too solemn, too obsessed with realism and just darn ugly.

[DaMaGe007]

Ill add my vote for better gameplay and graphics over graphics (quality) improvements. SH3 had good enough graphics and they will improve slightly in sh4 anyway.

In Sh3 the lack of port activity and *dynamic* port activity, no wolfpacks, no milkcows, no people moving on ships and docks, no lifeboats, no oilslicks and flotsum, nerfed guns that cant even kill a seagull let alone a person, was rather insulting to call it a simulator in my opinion.
The only thing they simulated was the boat itself, and a wargame that is Rated G 8+ is just not a wargame, they need to go M 15+ at least mabe even MA 15+, and give the thing some life (and death). Having 8 year olds as the Target Audience is just silly and restrictive, I dont think sales would be hurt at all by going to a higher rating.
Look at Grand theft Auto - San Andreas (MA 15+) there are people walking the streets and the game feels alive, I think its a really important missing component atm. Only the areas around you need people and movement, they dont need 8 million charactors all around the world map, just a spawned contingent on vessels and docks within your view, just like GTA does with cars and people.

Sorry about the Australian ratings I mentioned I dont know the others.

Mods can only go so far in adding things, the developes should be coming out with far better stuff than the mod people. Its rather sad that Grey Wolves was streets ahead of the out of the box game, and it shows that they didnt spend enough time on the gameplay areas as they should.

Edit: Sh3 already has the best graphics of any subsim, there is no reason for them to improve to maintain sales when there is no competition.
Also First person movement throughout submarine when in 3d interior views PLEASE !!

[Immacolata]

I see no reason to have these people included. Needless extra complications that detracts from the core simulation. If you want splattered people all over the place, go play an infantry game or GTA. No 8 year old plays this game anyway, and I am confident that their decision not to include gore and dead people has nothing to do with rating, more something to do with how necessary it really is. It isn't!

Why must it be such an insult to people that the designers refit the graphics engine for a new release? Do you seriously suggest they just reuse all the models from SH3 in SH4? Same grainy textures for models and dials and gauges? REALLY? No change in graphics what so ever? Not even new terrain tiles for the new lands we are sailing in? They do have to design new models you know. For each american ship that was not present in SH3, for each japanese ship that was not present in SH3. Planes. Everything. Interior of subs is probably redesigned, new models for crew.

It is my opinion that people see screenshots, hear the devs discussing that the most striking difference is new graphics, then decide that all they do is a paint job. I am sure SHIV will be improved upon SH3 in most aspects, but not nearly enough to satiate the realism fetishists. Thats where the mod'ers gets a chance to affect the game.

[CB..]

what confuses me.....hugely.....is why the immersive detailing found in older games such as AOTD and i'm with Drifter here 100% Red Baron 2/3d some how needs to vanish in order to somehow "make room" for the graphics...the AI in AOTD needs to be trimmed down in order to make rrom for the graphics......the seemingly endless detailing and dynamics of RED BARON some how needs to be trimmed down to make room for the graphics.....
people actually accept this.....they actually believe it lol...:rotfl: :damn: :nope: :huh:

must be something in the water...all that geneticaly modified food..
an average hi res texture file from a modern game would be a larger file than the entire AOTD installation...the intro movie file would be a larger file than the entire RB2/3d installation...
#
so they remove simplify the games background code to make room for the graphical engine code... they say the coding for the more comlex features of games like AOTD and RB cost too much money to develop...money needed for developing the graphical side....wake me up when it's over please lol.. so ten year old computer code writing techniques cost too much money , takes far too much time to "rediscover" ...sorry it's bollocks..they can write this code in their sleep...or if not they are in the wrong job...it's about something else...lets not glorify the situation by pretending there's some huge difficulty involved ....we act like natives accepting shiny beads and mirrors from the traders....it's buisness....nothing else

[DaMaGe007]

Grainy textures and poor quality dials are areas that modders can actually change, adding people and lifeboats and decent port activity are things only the developers can do properly. The harbour trafic mod was restricted, the ships were always there and they didnt move, once again the developers need to do it for it to work properly

New ship models, subs, and towns/harbours are a given, of course they need to be made. The graphics will improve no one is saying don't change them, just that it doesnt need to be the main FOCUS.

They are making the game for US not Nvidia and ATI.

EDIT:
and well said CB..

[Immacolata]

what confuses me.....hugely.....is why the immersive detailing found in older games such as AOTD ... they say the coding for the more comlex features of games like AOTD and RB cost too much money to develop...money needed for developing the graphical side....wake me up when it's over please lol.. so ten year old computer code writing techniques cost too much money , takes far too much time to "rediscover" ...sorry it's bollocks..they can write this code in their sleep...

What immersive detailing is it that you found in AOTD that is lacking in SH3? I know many of SH3s shipping defects were rush job flaws, forced upon us by ubi's strict budgets and schedules. But of course there is a point in that the graphics takes up more time, more ressources, and thus demands more money to make the game, which in turn inreases the threshold of sold copies where the project was profitable.

But the shortcuts that was taken in SH3 to get the game out of the door might not need to be taken with SH4. This time the engine is mature, and they can perhaps focus more on fine tuning the experience, WHILE HAVING TIME to create better graphics.

Remember, the 3d-artists can't code AI or debug simulation algorithms. What do you expect they do then? Make the game uglier? No, of course they make it prettier.

Lastly, do you believe that SH3 would have been a succes if it had shipped with SH2 era graphics, but more detailed simulation and a true world campaign? Perhaps in a narrow sense amongst 10.000 or 15.000 players. But then we are approaching Battlefront-style developing, and I'd rather not see Silent Hunter turn into Dangerous Waters, to be honest.

[CB..]

What immersive detailing is it that you found in AOTD that is lacking in SH3? I know many of SH3s shipping defects were rush job flaws, forced upon us by ubi's strict budgets and schedules. But of course there is a point in that the graphics takes up more time, more ressources, and thus demands more money to make the game, which in turn inreases the threshold of sold copies where the project was profitable.

But the shortcuts that was taken in SH3 to get the game out of the door might not need to be taken with SH4. This time the engine is mature, and they can perhaps focus more on fine tuning the experience, WHILE HAVING TIME to create better graphics.

Remember, the 3d-artists can't code AI or debug simulation algorithms. What do you expect they do then? Make the game uglier? No, of course they make it prettier.

Lastly, do you believe that SH3 would have been a succes if it had shipped with SH2 era graphics, but more detailed simulation and a true world campaign? Perhaps in a narrow sense amongst 10.000 or 15.000 players. But then we are approaching Battlefront-style developing, and I'd rather not see Silent Hunter turn into Dangerous Waters, to be honest.

sorry i fell asleep half way through...:oops:

[Immacolata]

Why don't you go to bed and stop being obnoxious, then?

[CB..]

all in good time..:up:

all you said was that the coding is divided into two seperate teams...graphical engine team and game engine team....which just makes the thing worse...even with a dedicated game code team who have nothing else to think about except the game code..they still do an half hearted job of it...

one way or the other the graphics get made...good bad or indifferent..
one way or another the gameplay code gets written ..good bad or indifferent..

there's no real issue

[Immacolata]

Don't forget that AOTD was made by sim veterans, Dynamis. SH3 was made by a new team, so they probably had more work to do. Also don't forget they introduce the dynamic campaign late in the dev cycle. That might have resulted in some cuts elsewhere. My memory of AOTD is getting vague, but did it have as detailed a dynamic campaign as SH3?

And I didn't say that game engine and graphics engine was seperated. The artists and the wold modellers are working with tools, they are not programming. They make their models in 3DS probably, scan textures etc, all based on coding done by the coders.

[CB..]

we need to agree to disagree...this idea that developers are fragile little pixies who can't cope is begginning to give me the creeps..it just a computer game....i'm sick of arguing for simple small details that were nice to find in games...only to find that the developers brains would explode if they tried to write the code for those details now-a-days.. ok fair enough....it's not life or death
it was just nice and showed that the developers had sat down and thought about it..
we are not going to agree....but doesn't mean i can't say i can appreciate where your coming from...
but remember if we had not pestered them over a dynamic campaign then SH3 would have been an entirely different game....
maybe those details would have been included maybe not had they not gone back and re-wrote the campaign engine...but as it had not occured to them that we might want a dynamic campaign in the first place it is highly likely that it had not occured to them that we might want other interesting details...catch 22

[Immacolata]

I think we finally are reaching some sort of common ground. That choices are made. And that the choices for more realism at the expenditure of graphics is not just one you can make. Well you can, but then you upset someone else :rotfl:

[DaMaGe007]

The common ground would be to have BOTH, somthing they failed to do in SH3.
This is why people are asking for the ballance to be tipped back in the other direction

[CB..]

I think we finally are reaching some sort of common ground. That choices are made. And that the choices for more realism at the expenditure of graphics is not just one you can make. Well you can, but then you upset someone else :rotfl:
oh hell....allmost ...trouble is i have absolutely no interest in realism...:D
if you get the gameplay right- realism will take care of it self...
never mind...very much crossed lines here i fear:hmm:

[Steeltrap]

"Realism" is always an interesting concept. I suppose the 'best' realism comes from attempting to recreate conditions as they were recorded by those actually there.

Some details I personally find I couldn't give a hoot about (such as walking about the interior - fact is you'd spend almost all your time as commander in the control room, tower or on the bridge).

Others I find vital, such as the fact that you should only need a 2-5 second exposure of scope per observation while stalking a ship. Having to keep it raised for unrealistically long times has an effect once you're confronting escorts with radar able to detect a raised scope (which late model Allied radar could do out to about 500m I think). That's where I draw the line - when I am forced to do things vastly different from how it really WAS done (which you can learn by reading any one of the many books written by actual sub commanders) AND being forced to do so has results which are poor (such as being detected).

Having said that, some other parts of 'realism' aren't too palatable for most players. Consider aircraft. There's a post complaining about the number of aircraft encountered, yet later in the war there were many. Peter Cremer recounts how, on one occasion crossing the Bay of Biscay, he was forced under after 3 minutes, a further 5 minutes, then 13 minutes etc...to the point where he HAD to stay on the surface to replenish compressed air. That was FACT. It might not be too much fun!!

So I think there's a point at which you need to consider (a) is it real? (b) if so, to what degree is it real? (c) if not, to what degree? (d) does the effect of the relative realism cause results which are unacceptable to those looking for a simulation?

If the answer to D is a resounding 'YES' then I think the situation needs to be changed. Of course, the concern about mass-appeal can also be managed through allowing changing of things via realism options, but I do think that the fundamentals need to be sound when playing at 100% realism, even IF the graphics aren't absolutely fabulous - although I agree that there need not BE a 'either/or' relationship between graphics and realism.

Interesting thread.

[TDK1044]

I think what this all comes down to is that the balance of realism and graphics is very subjective. How many of us really enjoyed and were totally immersed in AOTD when it hit the stores. In terms of gameplay it was superb, and its graphics were also good for their day. Now the graphics look very dated, but I guarantee you that any player in this forum could still immerse himself in that game.

The reason is that a WW11 subsim is really a game of cat and mouse. You use your instruments to find and track a target, you then get to periscope depth and briefly raise the scope to confirm target identity, range, heading and speed. Then you fire your torp and get the hell out of there. If you're playing at a high level of reality, you rarely see the explosion as your torp hits the ship.

I enjoy having good quality graphics, but I didn't buy SH111 because of its graphics...I bought it to play the game of cat and mouse and see how well I could do. The same will be true for SH1V.

If the DEVS can make visual improvements over SH111 and keep the game specs reasonable for SH1V then I'm all for it, but what I want is AOTD set in the Pacific, and I'll take whatever graphics come with it.

[Immacolata]

I played AOTD beards ago, so in what aspects the simulation realism back then was better I cannot really remember. I do remember a better story immersion due to the officer's lounge, but this narrative aspects, not mechanical simulation. I also remember that you could gather in wolf packs. But that mechanic I only got to experience 2 times, and I do not remember it as having any significant impact.

I do remember that the spotting range was somewhat larger than in vanilla SH3. What else was improved?

[finchOU]

I think a major downer is the fact that while Graphics have improved dramaticaly over the last 15 years (due to better computers)....but gameplay has taken a hit. People these days expect newer graphics with each release because of the trend of improving graphics and a move toward FPS and multiplayer.......but the demand of Gameplay...immersion...other realism and longgevity aspects seem to have gone down....it seems there is always a new FPS being produced about every month...and the comsumers are eating it up.....and us old time Simulation buffs are getting less and less of a Simulation...and more and more of what the market demands these days...which...is bussiness. I just think it is sad that people would actually want a WW2 FPS sub simulation vise something they could actually learn some history from (anyone remember the manual from AOD.....I learned so much!!) ......I can see it for the "fun" factor...but the longevity just is not there.

As someone mentioned above, I wish we could get both Graphics and Gameplay aspects......I think Ubi should hire some moders/code writers who participate on this great site. :up: ...would it make a difference on the end product...with todays market demand???? good question

[finchOU]

I played AOTD beards ago, so in what aspects the simulation realism back then was better I cannot really remember. I do remember a better story immersion due to the officer's lounge, but this narrative aspects, not mechanical simulation. I also remember that you could gather in wolf packs. But that mechanic I only got to experience 2 times, and I do not remember it as having any significant impact.

I do remember that the spotting range was somewhat larger than in vanilla SH3. What else was improved?

The wolfpack model in AOD was pretty basic and unrealistic....but it was a start and they at least tried ....I mean...who would try and make a WW2 sub sim without...oh wait never mind.
I remember that you would radio a convoy report and magically U-boats would appear on the map surrounding the convoy....and begin trying to attack it....like i said not very realistic.

I do beleive that the reason we did not get friendly subs/wolfpacks in SH3 was due to the awesome graphics we got....I am no computer wiz...but it would seem to me that if we got everything, we would need a supercomuputer to run it.....am I wrong??? or was it a time issue?

[Charlie901]

Grainy textures and poor quality dials are areas that modders can actually change, adding people and lifeboats and decent port activity are things only the developers can do properly. The harbour trafic mod was restricted, the ships were always there and they didnt move, once again the developers need to do it for it to work properly

New ship models, subs, and towns/harbours are a given, of course they need to be made. The graphics will improve no one is saying don't change them, just that it doesnt need to be the main FOCUS.

They are making the game for US not Nvidia and ATI.

EDIT:
and well said CB..



AMEN!!! :up:

[TDK1044]

I think the battle will go on within companies like Ubisoft between graphic enhancement and improved gameplay. It all comes down to time and money. The longer the DEV team are under contract, the more money the game costs you to produce. And the higher you push the game specs, the fewer games you'll sell. Somewhere in there is a middle ground.

[Immacolata]

[quote=DaMaGe007]Grainy textures and poor quality dials are areas that modders can actually change, adding people and lifeboats and decent port activity are things only the developers can do properly. The harbour trafic mod was restricted, the ships were always there and they didnt move, once again the developers need to do it for it to work properly



So you suggest they should just leave the game ugly to accomodate modders? That is not very nice towards the 90% of the buying gamers that do not use mods, is it? A wee bit egotistical even?

[DaMaGe007]

You are a master of missing the point.
Im not even going to bother explaining it to you.

[Immacolata]

No I understand perfectly your argument. I would prefer they shipped SHIV with as solid and detailed an engine as possible, which no one can meddle with due to CP. Then left the accesible parts like puckering up and cfg-file hax0ring in open files.

However that isn't really good is it? They should purposefully neglect the appearance of the game and thereby the overall impression it will receive to satisfy a few hardcore simmers wish? I keep saying, graphics and gameplay go hand in hand in such games. ITs like discussing women. You want them pretty or smart? Preferably both, right?

[TDK1044]

ITs like discussing women. You want them pretty or smart? Preferably both, right?[/quote]

Crude but accurate, Immacolata.:D But you don't have to dress them in name brand clothes if they look almost as good with generic brand and at half the price. This argument reminds me of that saying in the music industry "great video, shame about the song." Perfect world is great graphics and great game play, but most people will settle for good graphics great game play rather than the other way around.

I don't think there's an answer to this question. It's a subjective judgement made by each individual.

[CB..]

it's the interesting details that get left out...there is nothing quite like knowing they are there right from the go..as it has you looking for these surprises as you play ...think of them as easter eggs...if you like...but relevant easter eggs...they may not happen every patrol but they are there...it's the difference between self assembly furniture and hand crafted top quality furniture...from a distance they may look the same...they may both do the job perfectly well....but you don't spend hours polishing flat pack furniture...never mind the width ..feel the quality i tell you there is infinitely more detail and depth in a traditional board game such as Monopoly..than any computer game were likely to see..now then if the cat and mouse between player and the enemy ASW was as involved unpredictable and replayable as solving the murder in Cluedo....i'd be over the moon...as time goes by i begin to yearn more and more for dice and cards...
roll the dice...get number 4 ...destroyer turns right.. roll again... get 2 ...destroyer slows...
turn card...get sonar scan....destroyer pings....roll dice get 5....destroyer detects me...
roll dice... get 1....doesn't have my depth...roll again..get 3..it drops DC's...
and so on...
it's as old as the hills..but it works

evertime the encounter would be entirely unique...
don't give a flying hoot wether the results would be classicaly "realistic" on paper..
the in game experience would be perfect..too many people want the game to be something other than a game..

[Immacolata]

You GOT to lay off the omission abuse there pal. That ... was ... like ... some ... kind ... of ... animé ... speech ... bubble ... torture. Kind.... of.... hard... to .... read.... let ... alone... con...cen...tra...te ... on.:rotfl:

[John Pancoast]

You GOT to lay off the omission abuse there pal. That ... was ... like ... some ... kind ... of ... animé ... speech ... bubble ... torture. Kind.... of.... hard... to .... read.... let ... alone... con...cen...tra...te ... on.:rotfl:


Maybe so, but this quote of his is right on the money.

"too many people want the game to be something other than a game.."

[finchOU]

[quote=Immacolata]
"too many people want the game to be something other than a game.."

like maybe a .....simulation??:yep: ....I mean...thats what it said on the outside of the box right??

[John Pancoast]

[quote=Immacolata]
"too many people want the game to be something other than a game.."

like maybe a .....simulation??:yep: ....I mean...thats what it said on the outside of the box right??

Call it whatever you want; it's still just a game in the end.

[Immacolata]

[quote=Immacolata]
"too many people want the game to be something other than a game.."

like maybe a .....simulation??:yep: ....I mean...thats what it said on the outside of the box right??

It says so outside on the box of The Sims 2. So naturally The Sims 2 must be ultra realistic by your notions. More semantics you want to split hair on?

[Safe-Keeper]

like maybe a .....simulation??:yep: ....I mean...thats what it said on the outside of the box right??:up:

Call it whatever you want; it's still just a game in the end.Oh, wow, someone saying realism shouldn't be in because it's "just a game"! I've never heard that before:roll:!

It says so outside on the box of The Sims 2. So naturally The Sims 2 must be ultra realistic by your notions.Judging by the box? Yes. Game-play? No.

"Simulations" are pretty much by definition realistic.

[HunterICX]

Ehm...Bad Graphics dont sell?

just look at BF2, the game is beautifull. but the realism is Sh!t.
but just look at the amount of players playing BF2.
the downside is that the players are those Counterstrike Hippies that are too addicted and spend an huge amount of time playing that game , that I find an waste of someone life . but also I played the game for a while and I started to hate the game because of all the cursing and 12yr old acting on those servers...you cant enjoy the game with all that yelling ''n00b, FU!, Its my vehicule, and the 12yr old power hungry admins on the server bans you for no reason at all...I dumped the game away and focused myself on the Sims I have.

what I find of SH3 already that they found an good balance between looking-good and realism. and with the mods they brought out they added some more realism (reffering to NYGM)

if an game is all about realism and let down the graphics of the game , what you will get is that only an small group would buy the game. bad for the publisher.

if you find an good balance between Graphics and Realism you will attract more people, it will be noticed.

if you go fully for the graphics and an Arcade style of game...you will atract those kiddo's that sh!t on realism and the game will be very boring soon for the ones that want an challenge

I say if SHIV has an good balance between Graphics and Realism and give the Moderators the posibillity to Mod the game like SH3 the game will be succesfull.

[Immacolata]

like maybe a .....simulation??:yep: ....I mean...thats what it said on the outside of the box right??:up:

Call it whatever you want; it's still just a game in the end.Oh, wow, someone saying realism shouldn't be in because it's "just a game"! I've never heard that before:roll:!

It says so outside on the box of The Sims 2. So naturally The Sims 2 must be ultra realistic by your notions.Judging by the box? Yes. Game-play? No.

"Simulations" are pretty much by definition realistic.

It seems that definitions aren't as iron cast as you believe. SimCity is also a simulation. Is it realistic? One idea of realism is socalled Laplacian realism.
"Given for one instant an intelligence which could comprehend all the forces by which nature is animated and the respective positions of the beings which compose it, if moreover this intelligence were vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in the same formula both the movements of the largest bodies in the universe and those of the lightest atom; to it nothing would be uncertain, and the future as the past would be present to its eyes.."

This is the foundation for the Virtual Reality paradigm. Realistic simulation of physical phenomenon. However, there are such things as social realism. By todays computer science only poorly simulated, which is why narration and scripting is used instead.

And what about the perceptual realism? No uboot skipper was awake round the clock. He would sleep in between. As would the crew. The continous timeflow in SH3 is in other words not realistic.

And the men never speak about anything. Where are the jokes, the tales from back home? That would be realistic, but this is cut out as well. So the game is less realistic, and more game.

By the way, some of the games that I have found most challenging have not necessarily been the most realistic. I have played many a console game where I have been ready to yell out in frustration due to the difficulty of the challenges put in front of me. Realism and challenge are not connected by default. Inventive design that is abstracted can be indeed be very challenging. Ever played chess? As abstract as it comes, I gather.

[nvdrifter]

I don't really care how ugly or pretty or realistic or unrealistic UBI releases their games, as long as they give us the tools to mod the hell out of it to fix it right... and NOT tie our hands by keeping the SDK locked up. :damn::damn::damn::damn::damn::damn::damn::damn:

[TDK1044]

Guys, some very bright people in the forum are taking this way too seriously. Call it a sim or call it a game; in the end, we just want to have fun being sub captains in a realistic WW11 environment. SH111 patched and modded certainly achieved that for me, and I'm hoping SH1V will be an improvement on SH111.

[John Pancoast]

[quote]

[quote]Call it whatever you want; it's still just a game in the end.

[quote]
Oh, wow, someone saying realism shouldn't be in because it's "just a game"! I've never heard that before:roll:!

[quote]

Show me...*exactly*.....where I said that.

[CB..]

And the men never speak about anything. Where are the jokes, the tales from back home? That would be realistic, but this is cut out as well. So the game is less realistic, and more game.

getting warmer...

[finchOU]

[quote=Immacolata]
"too many people want the game to be something other than a game.."

like maybe a .....simulation??:yep: ....I mean...thats what it said on the outside of the box right??

Sarcasm must not be my forte......

[Dantenoc]

Here are my two cents:

Silent Hunter III payed WAY TOO MUCH attention to graphics, specially when you considered that they where graphics that you weren't supposed to see! When you play at 100% realism, disabling the outside cam-view, you don't care what your sub looks like on the outside, for example, because you NEVER get to see it from the outside.

Of course, now that we have allready attained this level of graphic detail, we shouldn't take a step back, but for SHIV let's concentrate more on immersion, playability and game stability and not so much on the "Ooooh" factor of pretty graphics.

[Immacolata]

Dantenoc, I don't think they had a choice really. When someone made their SH3 pitch in the misty early parts of this millennium, I bet that DirectX 9.0c era graphics was a major seller. Submarine simulations has been made many times, and only better graphics is a seller for a new version. Otherwise we would all still be playing AOTD wouldn't we?

So lets say they didn't do the graphics properly? Okay, they could have cut out the 3d interior with no penalty to gameplay what so ever. But not chase cam... LOL? That is such a piece of cake to make ,you already HAVE the 3d-engine, the chase cam is just a repositioning of the player's viewport.

So what parts of the graphics should they have removed then?

Crew on deck?
Shadereffects on sea?
Particle effects on explosions?
Use generic ship models for all ship types?
Or use low poly models?
Not use textures?

[DeepSix]

This thread just tickles the f*ck out of me....

But I'm feeling a little piss and vinegar myself tonight, so I'll chip in my thoughts:D:

If it were all about graphics, we'd have no game at all - just some really b!tchin' screenshots every now and then and we could all go down to the art house to drink lattes and admire the Silent Hunter series' "blue period." On the other hand, if it were only about gameplay, we'd have a top-down view with shorelines represented by # and the boat represented by a U and surface targets are < or > or whatever. We'd drive with AWSZ and it'd run like the wind on a PC Jr.

John said earlier that the game is marketed to the masses and that's the truth. Not trying to put words in his mouth, but because I believe what he says is true, I think "better" graphics is sort of a necessary evil. Maybe it's just the D&D geek in me, but I will always prefer that devs concentrate on gameplay over graphics - but gameplay is not as "quantifiable" for devs as graphic improvements - and therefore (IMO) it's much harder as well as less palatable. I don't want to say it's easier, but eye candy is more predictable and it's eye candy that sells, unfortunately. It's a shorter route to money than are creativity and imagination. Graphics alone does not a Tolkien classlic make. I'm not to be belligerent in expressing that sentiment, it's just something I believe to be a fact of life.

This is why there are beautiful games that suck. Just royally suck. Two of which are (or "were" - and please note - this is just my opinion and I'm sure people will disagree with it) Sea Dogs and B-17 Mighty Eighth. And I may eat these words, but right now I doubt if I will ever buy a single World War II shooter (or any shooter, for that matter) again. Sick of it. Same worn out storyline (and a dumbass one at that - 1 man vs. the entire freakin' German army or else a whole lot of multiplayers having a fragfest) over and over and over only this time with the latest chipsets and - this is my favorite - "cutting edge, blazing fast, smack yo' mama AA and AF!" Yeah, well. Big f*ckin' deal. The problem with graphics that are so finger licking good is that improvements in that area are so incredibly fleeting. They only get a "w00t!" for a few weeks or months, and then the entire industry has moved on to even bigger and badder and better. "Cutting edge" status has the lifespan of a fruit fly.

And yet I wouldn't ever want to return to the days of text adventures, but I think the memory of them and the fun they were is why some "older" gamers do tend to prefer gameplay and criticize eye-candy - because for cryin' out loud they can remember when graphics were minimal or non-existent. The game HAD to be a gameplay success and you had to see it in your head. "You enter a clearing. The path continues north with a fork to the left (SW). You hear around you the sound of the wind in the pine trees." Playing those games was an entirely imaginative process. LOL, now skip ahead to the early 90s and Myst....

Anyhow, rambling around to my point: the only truly good games (or sims - jeez, whatever you want to call 'em) are the ones that have replayability. What we as a fan community should be doing - IMHO - instead of wasting breath on an argument that will go on forever, is keeping after devs to produce games with REplayability, through both quality visual appearance AND gameplay. Without graphics, nothing sells. Without story, we're just a market buying recycled shlock all the time.

Alright - that's 'nuff from me.

[Dantenoc]

So what parts of the graphics should they have removed then?


A lower polygon count on the ships, compensated by smarter textures could have easily made the game run faster and smoother on more computers.

As for the sub interior, I really wish that they would develope it MORE for SHIV. I'm not against graphics, I'm against useless graphics... for example, utmost detail should be dedicated to the subs interior, since you'll see it a lot. On the other hand, paying attention to the sea bottom texture is a complete waste, since nobody is ever supposed to see that from the sub.

Now, one very important thing is that we're not really arguing about graphics vs. playability in a general manner... no, we're arguing graphics vs. playability in the context of Silent Hunter III, a game were a lot of effort was obviously put into the graphical aspect of it, but the rest was so completely abandoned that:

* It doesn't have a manual (just a worthless booklet that even talks about features that never made it into the game)
* It originaly shiped without any way of measuring angles on the nav-map
* ALL harbours were gost towns
* The whole dynamic campaign consists of "go to grid blahblah and stay there 24hrs"
* In the game, your's is the ONLY sub in the whole universe
* etc. etc.

To sum it all up: Ubi did a fine job with the graphics on SHIII, but now it's time they worked on the rest of the game to bring it up to par, so that they can release a SHIV that is more balanced and robust (not to mention stable and bug free).

[Immacolata]

And what then makes you think Ubi soft won't release a more well polished SHIV? You bet that the ship poly count and sea floor texture has nothing to do with the ghost harbours, the dull dynamic campaign. No the reason for that was probably that they thought of this late, and had to spend ressources getting it to work. The dynamic campaign of anything cost the simulation its depth and realism. Not the graphics. I wish people would stop bashing on the graphics as the culprit of all things gone wrong in SH3 already! If you think it it doesn't matter why the heck don't you just play SH2 or AOTD? :damn:

ahem..We can hope that ubi with the experience from SH3 can better plan their work for SH4, and that means they have time to implement the advanced simulation features we are expecting. I think they know that very well. And as Ive said several times before, the graphics guys are not the same as those who makes the AI and the simulation engine. So leave'm out of it.

In any case, SH4 needs a more powerful pc than SH3. Why? Because unless they go with the 8000m visual range bubble again, they WILL need a stronger pc to be able to render further than 8000m.

[TDK1044]

In any case, SH4 needs a more powerful pc than SH3. Why? Because unless they go with the 8000m visual range bubble again, they WILL need a stronger pc to be able to render further than 8000m.[/quote]

I don't think they will see rendering beyond 8000m as an issue. To the vast majority of the 300,000 SH111 purchasers I'm sure it wasn't an issue.....hell, most of them would have no idea what we're talking about. In my opinion, SH1V will be a slightly visually enhaced version of SH111 but with a lot of the gameplay issues fixed.

[Immacolata]

I think so too, but hopefully they give us more flexibility in the 3d-rendering, as someone requested a while ago. Would be nice if you could go to less demanding settings if your current machine struggles. And to more demanding settings if your machine. But if they could mod the 8000 m range in SH3, it should be possible in SHIV, even if Ubi decides that 8km visual range is all it takes.

[TDK1044]

I agree with you, Immacolata. The video card specs are going to be interesting in SH1V.

[Immacolata]

Btw is it on purpose or a bad habit that you without failure breaks every single quote box you quote, then put it in yellow? :rotfl: All your quotes are yellow but ends with [/quote]:rotfl:

[TDK1044]

Bad habit.:D

[cmdrk]

Anyhow, rambling around to my point: the only truly good games (or sims - jeez, whatever you want to call 'em) are the ones that have replayability. What we as a fan community should be doing - IMHO - instead of wasting breath on an argument that will go on forever, is keeping after devs to produce games with REplayability, through both quality visual appearance AND gameplay. Without graphics, nothing sells. Without story, we're just a market buying recycled shlock all the time.

Alright - that's 'nuff from me.

Hear Hear

Agree with your whole post. It seems today it is all about image over substance.

[Dantenoc]

And what then makes you think Ubi soft won't release a more well polished SHIV?

I get nervous when the delevopers are asked about advances made in SH4, and they answer "better graphics" :o ... Better graphics are allright, I like them, but I wish they would focus on bettering the weaker parts of the game, not the already strong ones.

And as Ive said several times before, the graphics guys are not the same as those who makes the AI and the simulation engine. So leave'm out of it.

Thats right, the 3D modelers are great and should continue working, but it is also obvious that Ubisoft managment didn't care enough to hire Game design, Programming and AI talent as good as their 3D artists... at least that's the way a lot of us feel.

Anyway, I'm not attacking the graphics (and I don't think the rest are attacking the graphics either). It only seems that people are attacking the graphics because they're venting out in frustration to SHIII other gameplay flaws.

What I say is: Keep the graphics but fix the rest...

[Joe S]

Assumming that more eye candy comes at the expense of gameplay, I vote for gameplay every time. Good graphics and sound effects are important, but most people will play a sim indefinately if the graphics and sound effects are adequate as long as the gameplay is good. The reverse is NOT true. Great graphics and sound effects are of no value without great gameplay. SHII is a great example, so many gameplay bugs you couldnt stand to play it even though graphics and sound effects were very good for its day. I played Sub battle simulator more than any other subsim since then, mainly because the gameplay was so good. Graphics and sound effects were almost non-existent. Joe S

[TDK1044]

Assumming that more eye candy comes at the expense of gameplay, I vote for gameplay every time. Good graphics and sound effects are important, but most people will play a sim indefinately if the graphics and sound effects are adequate as long as the gameplay is good. The reverse is NOT true. Great graphics and sound effects are of no value without great gameplay. SHII is a great example, so many gameplay bugs you couldnt stand to play it even though graphics and sound effects were very good for its day. I played Sub battle simulator more than any other subsim since then, mainly because the gameplay was so good. Graphics and sound effects were almost non-existent. Joe S

I think there's a lot of truth in that statement. In Immacolata's defence though, I think he'd agree also, he just doesn't want Ubisoft to be lazy and complacent.

[Tontoman]

As you need both graphics and gameplay (you can't go back to SH1 graphics) I think bang for the buck has to be looked at for where time is spent.

Things that get used all the time should have top priority. So for graphics, things like water, weather, main interior, enemy ships etc. should be done. For gameplay, AI, damage model, campaign etc. should be done. All that should have priority as it's in use all the time.

Then there's lots of graphic and gameplay extra that are nice to have but might come second. I'd personally like a full interior sub (doesn't need to have crewmen) and visable damage and flooding (not just that one leaky pipe), but it's all second to getting a proper damage model in the first place (no one min repairs etc.). I've seen some gameplay talk of sub special landing missions and sub vs sub battles... but how often is that going to happen, imo getting a good campaign working is more important or even my interior damaged graphics. So that means that minor gameplay stuff will come second to major graphics and major gameplay stuff comes over minor graphics. Now what YOU think of as major and minor (graphics/gameplay) depends on your gaming tastes, but I'm more talking about how much each has an impact, how often you are going to see or use that function.

Just my 2c ;)

T.

[TheSatyr]

Alot of people seem to have short memories here. The reason that things were left out and the reason for most of the bugs was because of the late addition of the dynamic campaign. (Which you all demanded).

The devs had a deadline to meet and even though it was delayed in order to add the dynamic campaign it meant that some of the things they planned on adding to the game had to be scrapped due to time constraints. And I'm sure it also meant a shorter alpha and beta test cycle.

Why anyone here would bitch at the devs for the way the game turned out is beyond me. They did the best job they could especially considering that the dynamic campaign was not part of the original design docs.

They had a choice,code the game as it was originally designed,with all the things they planned to put in. Or add in the dynamic campaign and drop some things that were originally planned for the game. And since there was near unanimous requests for a dynamic campaign they chose to go that route.

Since SH4 is being coded as designed with no late changes needing to be made,I expect SH4 to be the best of the series. They have the time to put in more things than SH3 had and more time for beta testing.

[TDK1044]

I agree with you, TheSatyr. Well stated. :D

[DedEye]

I would imagine the difference between a good/great/exceptional sim depends on the correct balance of graphics, gameplay (including drama), environment, character, and realism. I would also imagine this to be a daunting task for a producer of a sim, who has to balance features, schedule, and budget. Pure speculation on my part :)

16 colour Red Baron was my first sim, soon followed by Aces of the Pacific, over Europe, and then of the Deep. As someone pointed out, they have nifty little features that give them charm and character. Newspaper headlines make the accomplishment or failure grander. Sure, I can't see outside of the sub and I would die quickly, but some sort of clip/camera view showing my boat plummeting to bottom or a slick with flotsam and jetsam on the surface and appropriate music would make it more dramatic.

The thing I like the most about AotD is that high time compression doesn't break the game, there can be a huge visibility radius, and the combination of the two plus radio chatter meant that it wouldn't take an interminable amount of time for something to happen. I respect that there are people who have the capability of playing SH3 real time for entire patrols and enjoy doing so, and I admit that perhaps the frequency of encounters in AotD is unrealistic, but I find that even playing at 1024x I can go for hours real time in SH3 without anything happening. 256x so the planes spawn properly is about the same depending on year and location of course. When coupled with the drone of the diesels, this tends to put me to sleep! Especially after a few beer lol :) Crew management? Tedious.

Graphics and environment are important in sims. You want to be there! If it looks real, you're almost there. If it's a ghost town or ghost boats, you're almost there, but alone. I'd like to go through those fore and aft hatches too.

I'd like all craft and munitions in the sim to behave and manouever in a realistic fashion with realistic properties and damage models. Large deficiencies here can cripple immersion. I'm almost there!....oh wait....

In the end, I'm going to buy SH4 buggy or not. I bought SH3 and I still play it. The reason being is despite my gripes, I still consider SH3 to be the best sub sim released to date. Yes it's got warts, but it's still a beaut; very high on the immersion (that's right! I'm almost, almost there!). I'm hoping SH4 will be an evolution not just a sequel. Either way, if it's at least as good as SH3, and I think we can count on more than that, it'll be a keeper.

[codmander]

I am seeing more and more games being released these days that have beautiful graphics, but poor gameplay. Why are so many people on this board so concerned about having even prettier graphics in SH4 when SH3 gameplay was released half finished? There are so many things STILL missing or broken in SH3, I don't even know where to begin. But some big ones are:

-realistic u-boat repair times was left out (1 or 2 minute repair times, EVERY time?)
-poor enemy ship ai
-instant death screens (arcadish)
-instant death screen when compartment completely floods (omg, why?)
-broken collision damage model
-missing Hudson aircraft, which was common (a modder fixed this)
-sometimes cannot sit at the bottom of seabed to repair without taking damage at high time compression.
-u-boat crew rarely wounded, usually killed instead.
-cannot sit on seabed bottom without being pinged and detected (this is wrong, developers!)
-horrible and tedious crew management.
-no ability to surrender in campaign game (I can't believe they left this out)
-STILL no SH3 SDK released (this is a big one) :damn:
-and many other things not listed here.

Us modders have done everything we can to fix this broken game (SH3), but we have had to find half-a$$ed work arounds because UBI has decided to not release the SDK (so we can fix the broken game correctly). Why not, UBI? And a lot of the broken or missing features are hard-coded, so they cannot be fixed without the SDK. Releasing the SDK to allow us to mod- tweak the game would actually increase the popularity and customer loyalty to SH3. Do you not understand this?

Anyone remember Red Baron 3-d or Aces of the Deep? I do. Yes, they had average graphics and also had things wrong with gameplay, but at least Dynamix tried to give the games character and atmosphere. Like if you were killed in action, afterwards it would show a newspaper article showing that your boat was missing. Or in Red Baron 3-d, if you crashed behind enemy lines, there was a chance that you could make it back to your side. Or if you were captured, there was a chance that you could escapre before the war ended, and start flying again. Why all the focus these days on pretty graphics with poor, unfinished, or unrealistic (arcadish) gameplay? I just don't get it.

Pretty graphics mean nothing without realistic, fun, working gameplay.



Hmm Thats a pretty bold statement wonder if this dude tryed NYGM realistic enough for me

http://home.comcast.net/~codmander

[cmdrk]

The thing I like the most about AotD is that high time compression doesn't break the game, there can be a huge visibility radius, and the combination of the two plus radio chatter meant that it wouldn't take an interminable amount of time for something to happen. I respect that there are people who have the capability of playing SH3 real time for entire patrols and enjoy doing so, and I admit that perhaps the frequency of encounters in AotD is unrealistic, but I find that even playing at 1024x I can go for hours real time in SH3 without anything happening. 256x so the planes spawn properly is about the same depending on year and location of course. When coupled with the drone of the diesels, this tends to put me to sleep! Especially after a few beer lol :)


Playing SH3 can lead to snooze time sure enough.
But, its just my guess that the older games just had random generated encounters to simulate shipping traffic. I know the sub community would like realistic shipping traffic - meaning a ship in port sails to another port and tracked the whole trip then after a number of days to unload/load the ship, set sail again. I'm thinking SH3 has that to some degree which would make time compression more cpu intensive and encounters more hit or miss.

If someone has better knowledge, please elaborate on the shipping encounters process.

Also, with US subs having airsearch radar, be prepared to be knocked out of TC often.

[Laffertytig]

dunno if anyone remembers a subsim called silent service 2 which was out in the early nineties? it was based in the pacific as well and it had one of the best dynamic campaigns ive seen.

when u left port u would move your sub on the strategic map using the cursor keys. any contacts would be reported and u would have the option to investigate, the game would then enter a tactical map and the scenario would begin. u would also be alerted of real time war events such as battles and could even head there for increased activity. the beauty of this system was it dealt with the time compression issues perfectly.

it really does amaze me how they could create such great gameplay 15 years ago but now complain dynamic campaigns are so hard to implement!

ive also read people argue that time spent on good campaign/gameplay would affect graphic quality. RUBBISH
slient service 2 have photo realistic graphics which for an amiga was groundbreaking at the time.

i guess we all know the truth anyway. graphic intensive games will always sell more. devs and gaming companies know that the vast majority of people who buys games/sims will walk into a shop, pick up a game box and check the out the graphics.

if it looks shiny they will buy it. who cares if the novelty wears of after a few days/weeks and they get bored of it, its still a sale right!

[TDK1044]

It's all about demographics. By far the largest demographic in the game buying market is the 18 to 30 age group. X Box and Play Station are targeted almost exclusively at that age group. The PC game buyer is typically in the 30 to 49 age group. Therefore, the makers of PC games work hard at trying to make their games also appeal to the 18 to 30 group.

That dempgraphic is why we have so many movies that are driven by special effects rather than content, and you end up with lousy movies full of things blowing up.

The DEVS try and plot a course that will give the true sub simmer what he is looking for, while at the same time trying to attract a younger audience to the product.

[Myxale]

We all here are a little concerned about the result!
I'm too aware that they as a dev studio and the other as a publisher need to appeal to the masses, and that the average gamer "fellow X" doesn't have the need for a game with a tecnical depth of a hardcore simm!
Or everything that comes with that!:shifty:

And just in case we get "only" a "updated" SH3, well then i really feel sorry for our great modders!
I don't thing they will have the strenght to deal with a baby game again!:nope:

What in really would love is to have a Falcon 4.0 amog WWII subsims!:rock:
That would be a dream come true!

:shifty:

[Sailor Steve]

I played Silent Service and SS2. I had several problems with its campaign, the biggest one being that you were always based at Pearl Harbor and you were always in a Gato. In 1996 Silent Hunter changed all that, with a variety of boats and a variety of bases, and a variety of career choices.

I enjoyed Silent Service 2, but I don't consider it to be a good standard to compare campaigns by, as I never saw its campaign as being dynamic at all.

[Laffertytig]

I played Silent Service and SS2. I had several problems with its campaign, the biggest one being that you were always based at Pearl Harbor and you were always in a Gato.

I enjoyed Silent Service 2, but I don't consider it to be a good standard to compare campaigns by, as I never saw its campaign as being dynamic at all.

i assume u mean SS1 as in SS2 this wasnt the case. sure it had its weaknesses but compared to lets say the stock campaign in SH2 id take it any day. SS2 was released some 15 years ago and it was great for its time.

i think the biggest prob the devs have to overcome is the time compression issue.
in SH3 any time compression over 256x would interfere with ship/sensor/air AI.
now id consider myself a reasonably hardcore simmer but sittin at 256x time compression for an hour watchin my sub dot move slowly over the screen just aint fun for me.

this will be a big test for SH4, how r they gonna handle this problem? has anything been officially mentioned about traverssing the massive distances of the pacific?

[Sailor Steve]

I agree about Silent Hunter II, there was no real campaign at all. That's why we had that massive revolution when they originally announced SH3 whould be similar. In SH4 hopefully they will have a "teleport directly to the patrol zone" function. I'll never use it, but it should be there for those who don't want to spend the time.

[NEON DEON]

I too liked SS 2’s way of dealing with the campaign and strategic map.

You did not teleport right to the patrol area you sailed there on the strategic map and it did not take you an hour and half either.

What I don’t get is why you need to portray the entire 3d world from the get go.

If you did some research, you could probably come up with a good representation of historical merchant and military fleet actions for Japan. With all the ships and routes represented in campaign mode, you could add attrition in the game a la TF 1942. That way you couldn’t sink the Yamato 5 times and in 1945 you would be refitting your boat with two deck guns so you could go chase down sampans due to the lack of big targets.

[AJ!]

Its quite a hard issue..... I mean i totaly agree with the statement about some games loosing gameplay for graphics but to make a great game you need a prefect balance of the two.

Simulation games are always a couple years behind other games like fps and rts graphicly, but if silent hunter 4 can excel in both departments (gameplay,graphics) then we will have one hell of a game

[TDK1044]

I think Silent Hunter 4 will be an excellent game both visually and in terms of game play. Will it please everyone here.....No. The modders won't be happy because they will be as restricted with SH4 as they were with SH3, but in my opinion, they won't be attempting to 'fix' the game this time, they will merely be enhancing it.

I really hope we'll be as quick to praise the DEVS for what they've achieved with SH4 as we are to nit pick about things we don't like.

:D

[hyperion2206]

I think the most imminent problem is that the DEVs have to create a SUB-SIM which isn't as attractive for "normal" players like GTA for example. In order to sell the game the DEVs have to concentrate on the graphics because without them only die-hard sub fans would by the game (and the game wouldn't yield a profit).
I think it's okay because they do it because they want to make money and nothing else.:p
BUT I think the DEVs should then be fair and give the modders the ability to enhance the game so that we (the die-hard sub sim fans) are satisfied.:yep:

[fredbass]

It does seem that the graphics are getting better at a quicker pace than gameplay improvements, though I'm still hopeful things will begin to come around in the near future.

And you know, everybody cries about not getting the SDK, but most of the time, gaming companies won't provide it because they don't want to let their competition get an edge by knowing too much, therefore we typically get much less to work with.

Though it doesn't hurt to keep asking. :yep:

[Chaotic42]

I think Silent Hunter 4 will be an excellent game both visually and in terms of game play. Will it please everyone here.....No. The modders won't be happy because they will be as restricted with SH4 as they were with SH3, but in my opinion, they won't be attempting to 'fix' the game this time, they will merely be enhancing it.

I really hope we'll be as quick to praise the DEVS for what they've achieved with SH4 as we are to nit pick about things we don't like.

:D

No kidding. It's very rare to get a good, quality military simulation. SH4 won't be perfect, but it sounds like it's going to be an excellent game. I was amazed at SH3 when it came out. When I was little kid, I was a Silent Service 2 fiend, and SH3 is a very sweet taste of that past. SH4 promises to deliver more than I would have dared hope for.

As for realism, like everyone has said, just selling to hard-core simers won't do. They've got to make Joe Bob on the street want to pick the game up and releasing an SDK? This is a company. Spending 20% of their project time catering to .005% of their market just doesn't make sense.

[Iron Budokan]

I'm very glad SH3 has a dynamic campaign. But it got me to thinking. I know originally this wasn't planned. So what was originally planned for SH3? Was it just a bunch of single missions strung together into a scripted story? That would be lame indeed. I want to play a subsim, not a FPS underwater. And why would the devs think this (not having a dynamic campaign) would be a selling point in the first place?

I like the dynamic campaign and if it wasn't included I can assure you I wouldn't still be playing SH3 today. But maybe that's just me...?

[Sailor Steve]

SHII had a scripted campaign much as you described. It was like playing a First Person Shooter; if you died you started the same level (mission) over. If you didn't fulfill the primary goals you started the level over. There were alternate campaigns created, and they were much better, but the problems still existed.

What the SHIII devs seemed to be aiming for was an expanded version of that. Depending on how well you did you would go to different scenarios; one if you did well, one if you did poorly and one if your performance was adequate. How it would have worked, no one knows. I'm just glad they listened to us when we said we didn't want that.

[Iron Budokan]

Oh. My. God. You're not kidding; I'm glad they listened, too. I'm so glad they didn't go with that scripted scenarios. How lame. It reminds me of those D&D books where you read certain passages and depending on what you chose you had to flip to a new page. The idea was lame then and it would have been lame if that's what SH3 originally wnet with.

There's no way I'd still be playing SH3 if that's all it was.

[hyperion2206]

SHII had a scripted campaign much as you described. It was like playing a First Person Shooter; if you died you started the same level (mission) over. If you didn't fulfill the primary goals you started the level over. There were alternate campaigns created, and they were much better, but the problems still existed.

What the SHIII devs seemed to be aiming for was an expanded version of that. Depending on how well you did you would go to different scenarios; one if you did well, one if you did poorly and one if your performance was adequate. How it would have worked, no one knows. I'm just glad they listened to us when we said we didn't want that.


If they'd done that we'd basically have SH II with improved graphics and a slightly different campaign. That would have really been lame! I already disliked SH II because of that scripted campaing.:nope:

[Hylander_1314]

Scripted campaigns are why I don't mess around with IL2 series very much, and for the first time in 6 years, CFS2 has improved to where it's playable without becoming boring or too difficult, due to the damage modelling. A dynamic campaign generator, and tweaks to the damage model have helped tremendously. I got spoiled by Dynamix, with their Aces series, and Red Baron games. Excellently done campaigns. The same for EAW. Silent Hunter and AOTD were my first sub sims, and until SHIII came out I didn't buy another subsim, due to lack of a decent campaign, or they were outside the WWII era, which is my favorite era.

But when the real old games were produced, graphics were minimal compared to what can be done today. My old 486 DX2 had a whopping 16 megs of ram total. There was no vidcard. And that was a "powerhouse" in it's day, and now I struggle to keep up with what's the latest and greatest in hardware. I remember having to make bootdisks to free up himem in the config.sys, and autoexec.bat files, so the games would run smoother.

And with all the technology increases, the eye candy and envirornmentals can be increased. Now there 512mb vidcards that can be run in dual modes giving you a full gig of video memory. There are sound cards, and they are starting to have their own memory on them to reduce the drain on the main system, as games are becoming more and more intricate. So game developers are in a tough position, as things get more intricate, either more time to make the game is required, or hiring more staff to cover the same same ground, and keep up with the schedule. But you have to generate enough revenue to accomplish either path to the same end. Tough choice.