Reality V Enjoyment

[TDK1044]

I think with all the "realism" discussions as to whether the Silent Hunter series is a sim or a game, or whether gameplay is more important the graphics, it's easy to lose track of the fact that enjoyment of the playing experience is crucial.

I've played SH111 at 100 percent reality and I find it challenging but less enjoyable than playing it at about 70 percent reality. That's why, for me, the Silent Hunter series are games and not simulators. A true simulator doesn't give you the ability to select 'easier' options, it simply confronts you with a series of events containing varying degrees of difficulty and then asseses how well you deal with them.

So I look forward to SH1V, with the hope that it's an improvement on SH111 patched to 1.4 both in terms of gameplay and graphics, and that it's more modder friendly.

[CB..]

here's a slightly contentiuos thought...not dissimilar to the gameplay versus graphics confusion..spend time and money on the graphics or spend time and money on the gameplay ( a nonsense if you ask me)

if the developers spent less time making sure that each destroyer had exactly the right number of portholes masts funnels rivets turning circle top speed etc etc etc- endlessly on and on
they might have enough time to write genuinely realistic AI routines for the said destroyer...and that IMO is the issue in a nut shell both on realism versus gameplay AND realism versus graphics..

want a 100% realistic (light glinting on the windows etc) destroyer with all the correct specs and equipment?
so you can pretend your up against the "real thing"
or genuinely realistic AI tactics co-operation movements (pineapple manuevers etc etc)....because apparantly developers are not capable of doing both at the same time..as some would have us believe..

the AI is the game...full stop...good AI will give many hours of enjoyment..and be realistic at the same time..you need to be made to feel that those DD captains up top tracking you down are human..not automated life less characterless BOTS simply going thru the motions

there are ways and means of tackling and prioritising realism that add to the gameplay...and to the enjoyment of the game, immaccolata mentioned crew conversations, very realistic very immersive and very enjoyable,
enjoyable gameplay in this genre is all about creating a convincing illusion there's no reason why that illusion should not contain as much dynamic detail as say an RPG, using references from history this would be entirely realistic, and enjoyable.
what ever you choose to call it realism or gameplay it is about dynamic details..a living world, not just a dead beat black or white game enviourment beacuse that is in itself the most unrealistic detraction possible

if you/me/any-one do/does not enjoy playing the sim/game then why would anyone play it? macsosism??? some deluded idea that it actualy makes you/me/any-one a hero? give it a bit of thought and you can see how barmy the idea is..

[TDK1044]

Entirely agree, CB:up:

[Immacolata]

Im not sure you understand how the developement works. There are model designers. They design models such as submarine, interior, ships, buildings, houses etc. They do not make AI. They make their models to specs, and the programmers imports them and fits them to their code.

You cannot argue that a 3d artist obsessing over port holes somehow affects the AI in the end. The artist is not a general purpose unit that can spend spare timeslots on AI or coding.

[finchOU]

Im not sure you understand how the developement works. There are model designers. They design models such as submarine, interior, ships, buildings, houses etc. They do not make AI. They make their models to specs, and the programmers imports them and fits them to their code.

You cannot argue that a 3d artist obsessing over port holes somehow affects the AI in the end. The artist is not a general purpose unit that can spend spare timeslots on AI or coding.

well maybe then they need less of graphic coders and more AI coders? I think his point is that AI needs more developement than gnats ass graphic detail. Maybe beef up the brain before the body? Thats what I read into it.

[CB..]

Im not sure you understand how the developement works. There are model designers. They design models such as submarine, interior, ships, buildings, houses etc. They do not make AI. They make their models to specs, and the programmers imports them and fits them to their code.

You cannot argue that a 3d artist obsessing over port holes somehow affects the AI in the end. The artist is not a general purpose unit that can spend spare timeslots on AI or coding.

i see so the guys whose responsibility it is to write the AI code...what are they paid for? dear me this is basic stuff again...
either they are very limited in ability imagination or desire...or they are instructed not to spend too much time on it...or they have their budget limited- the AI code gets written, the graphics code gets written, the models get made--good bad or indifferent -three guesses which is good, which is bad and which is indifferent..an interesting question tho..do they even have an AI team?
is it important enough to even warrant that much attention? etc etc
when you order a pizza how do you divide it up?? be fascinated to see the delivery that when once you have given 70% to the graphics guys there's still somehow 70% left for the rest of the team...

[Immacolata]

AI code is the thing that you can put in last. You have to know all other elements, have all entities in the game before it makes sense to start creating AI. Maybe some rudimentary AI is put into place when you get your first real version up, so that you can test various things. I bet the AI was the thing they worked most on at the end of the project.

If you change paramters for ships or subs, then you have to test if the AI works as you intend every time. A time consuming proces.

SO the poor state of vanilla AI in SH3 is caused by

1) Inexperience. They had not make submarine sim before. AI is very specific for each game.
2) Time pressure. ubi wanted this baby out of the door YESTERDAY. So just make it so good the reviewers will give it high grade. They already got their dynamic campaign, so **** the AI just get the damn game out NOW!!! Or you are all FIRED!

[CB..]

and so on... ad nauseum

[Threadfin]

Personally I would change the premise.

Not reality vs enjoyment, but

realism = enjoyment

For you, they are mutually exclusive, and that's fine. For me, they are the same thing.

[kylania]

Personally I would change the premise.

Not reality vs enjoyment, but

reality = enjoyment

For you, they are mutually exclusive, and that's fine. For me, they are the same thing.

The reality of Silent Hunter III, a u-boot simulator, was that 90% of players would die and lose their ship. That they'd spend weeks with no targets only to sink to a random air attack. Their equipment would be obsolete and their weapons wouldn't work.

While that's all "reality" and has been modeled into several mods for SH3, for some losing like that isn't "enjoyment". Some people enjoy the challenge of using unusable equipment in a losing struggle while others just want to blow stuff up or enjoy commanding a submarine. Super duper AI can be very challenging, but if it's too strong it can ruin the game for many players.

[Immacolata]

and so on... ad nauseum

"At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid."

[Threadfin]

The reality of Silent Hunter III, a u-boot simulator, was that 90% of players would die and lose their ship. That they'd spend weeks with no targets only to sink to a random air attack. Their equipment would be obsolete and their weapons wouldn't work.

While that's all "reality" and has been modeled into several mods for SH3, for some losing like that isn't "enjoyment". Some people enjoy the challenge of using unusable equipment in a losing struggle while others just want to blow stuff up or enjoy commanding a submarine. Super duper AI can be very challenging, but if it's too strong it can ruin the game for many players.
I have no idea how to respond to this, maybe it wasn't directed at me, but you did quote me.

I'll try again, for me realism = enjoyment. The more realistic it is, the more I enjoy it. The two sims I play more than all others are Grand Prix Legends and Falcon 4: Allied Force. I also play SH3 and find it far too easy. It's a great subsim, but far from realistic. Too many ships, sailing too straight a course at too steady a speed, with a sub and torpedos that are too reliable. Even on 100% settings I can sink a million tons per year in SH3, and that says it all really.

Again, it's fine with me if others want to play it however they enjoy it, but for me I want it as realistic as possible. Believe me, if SH4 has a setting that is 'historical torpedo performance' that is what I'll use. I want erratics, and duds, and faulty magnetic exploders. I want torpedos that can't keep proper depth, that broach, and porpoise, and jog off track for seemingly no reason. Essentially, i want it to be like reality. I could not care less for any attempt to 'play balance' a sim.

If others want it to be more gamey, because that's what they enjoy, that's fine, I have zero problem with that, and that's what options are for. One needs look no further than the majority of screenshots on this forum to see how many use exterior views, and event camera and the 'detection meter' thing. In Falcon 4 lots of people use labels, and they offer a million different ways to justify it. For me, it's not realistic to have labels, and I don't use them, simple as that.

[John Pancoast]

The reality of Silent Hunter III, a u-boot simulator, was that 90% of players would die and lose their ship. That they'd spend weeks with no targets only to sink to a random air attack. Their equipment would be obsolete and their weapons wouldn't work.

While that's all "reality" and has been modeled into several mods for SH3, for some losing like that isn't "enjoyment". Some people enjoy the challenge of using unusable equipment in a losing struggle while others just want to blow stuff up or enjoy commanding a submarine. Super duper AI can be very challenging, but if it's too strong it can ruin the game for many players.

I have no idea how to respond to this, maybe it wasn't directed at me, but you did quote me.

I'll try again, for me reality = enjoyment. The more realistic it is, the more I enjoy it. The two sims I play more than all others are Grand Prix Legends and Falcon 4: Allied Force. I also play SH3 and find it far too easy. It's a great subsim, but far from realistic. Too many ships, sailing too straight a course at too steady a speed, with a sub and torpedos that are too reliable. Even on 100% settings I can sink a million tons per year in SH3, and that says it all really.

Again, it's fine with me if others want to play it however they enjoy it, but for me I want it as realistic as possible. Believe me, if SH4 has a setting that is 'historical torpedo performance' that is what I'll use. I want erratics, and duds, and faulty magnetic exploders. I want torpedos that can't keep proper depth, that broach, and porpoise, and jog off track for seemingly no reason. Essentially, i want it to be like reality. I could not care less for any attempt to 'play balance' a sim.

If others want it to be more gamey, because that's what they enjoy, that's fine, I have zero problem with that, and that's what options are for. One needs look no further than the majority of screenshots on this forum to see how many use exterior views, and event camera and the 'detection meter' thing. In Falcon 4 lots of people use labels, and they offer a million different ways to justify it. For me, it's not realistic to have labels, and I don't use them, simple as that.

<shrug> All a matter of perspective I guess. I.e., GPL has a heavily flawed tire model (among other things).

AF has an incredibly unrealistic awacs code (among other things).

In other words, until a game itself is 100% realistic (which means most likely never), I won't be wasting my limited off-time playing it as such :)

My .02 fwiw.

[Threadfin]

:damn:

[Threadfin]

Ya know it's funny John, because your gripe with GPL has always been the tire model. You don't drive it because it's not realistic enough for you. So I'm not sure where you stand exactly, because you now seem to be taking the opposite stance.

[John Pancoast]

Ya know it's funny John, because your gripe with GPL has always been the tire model. You don't drive it because it's not realistic enough for you. So I'm not sure where you stand exactly, because you now seem to be taking the opposite stance.


Huh ? Simply pointing out that no game is realistic, and GPL was an example given.

And since the tire flaw does exist, what's the problem ?

Also, fwiw, I still play GPL occasionally, after playing it regularly for *years*, so I guess it's not to bad a "gripe", eh ?

NR2003 has a similar problem, and I still play that one occasionally too :)

[Threadfin]

Well, I know that there is a difference between reality and realism. I'm saying I want it as realistic as possible. That's it.

[Sailor Steve]

It can never be real, but it's nice when it feels real.

[John Pancoast]

Well, I know that there is a difference between reality and realism. I'm saying I want it as realistic as possible. That's it.

I'd agree with that :)

Also think Sailor Steve's comment is a good one; it needs to *feel* real.