An Open Letter to Neal and the SH5 Developer team
 

Hi Neal,

Many thanks for keeping us up to date with SH5 development - interesting interview and great new in-game footage.

I've watched the video and read the interview a couple of times - and I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion, as are a number of long time players and forum members, that the use of the term 'Dynamic Campaign' is somewhat misleading, possibly even mischievous.

One can only conclude that while individual missions may have a degree of dynamism, i.e. randomness and surprise. However the overall game must be scripted to reference your completion of your 'objectives' within a given mission, so you can then gauge the affect of your actions, (choices) on the overall progress of the war.

If the above is incorrect, why after a number of 'interviews' and other promotional videos does the word 'educational' keep popping up, this would seem to give the game away.

When I purchase a simulation, be it tank, plane or in this case U-boat I don’t want to be educated, I want an accurate simulation of history and the environment in which the events took place!

What you, or rather the developers seem to be describing sounds very much like PT Boats Knights of the Sea - nice graphics - but definitely a game not a simulation and nothing to excite people who might be interested in Pt Boats or their history - certainly nothing to ‘learn’ from.

PT Boats Knights of the Sea consists of quite nice graphics, without any regard for weather or environment coupled with a childish campaign made up of a series of vaguely believable missions ranging from easy to ridiculous - until you get bored to death -

PT Boats Knights of the Sea is not a simulation; it’s a game - what the SH5 developers seem to be describing sounds like a very sophisticated version of PT Boats rather than a simulation.

The question to the developers is this - if you do seriously believe a scripted game will bring more players to the franchise, can you stand to loose your dedicated fan base, i.e. the members of Subsim who will drop it like a stone if your experiment fails.

I'm in my forties, I don’t need educating about WW2, I want to see how well a simulation matches with the history that I know, or what I think I know - and then how well the overall game play and graphics measure up to my expectations.

The value in a sub simulation is not that it’s easy to play, or will appeal to a bunch of folks who previous never would have played. They’re not playing Grand Theft Auto because they're waiting for a nice easy to play WW2 U-boat Sim, they simply will not think of buying the WW2 U-boat Sim

Think about it those guys aren’t likely to swap Grand Theft Auto for a top of the line WW2 U-Boat simulation, just as they are unlikely to got to Rise of Flight, it's simply not their thing. No matter how much 'educational' content there may be. Probably less so as these guys usually want a break from being 'educated' any way.

Like these folks I don’t play games to be 'educated' likewise I don’t play simulations for anything but their measure of realism and their graphics.

So my question to you and the developers is - Why after so much pre-publicity does the SubSim community remain so doubtful re the dynamism of the so called Dynamic Campaign.

Not least as it would appear, at least for members of the SubSim community a real dynamic campaign is the solid heart of the game, from which all else follows?

I find all of this profoundly disturbing and not a little odd - especially as pre the release of SH3 - the SubSim community went berserk when they learned that SH3 would not be dynamic, but scripted, no here we are at Sh5 and we are none the wiser!

It seems that despite a couple of attempts to describe the game to the contrary we find that low and behold we're looking at a series of scripted missions within a time line.

I don’t care that the game stops at 1943, nor am I worried if it features only one U-Boat type or variations therein, these can always be fixed or modded at a later date.

But why, after so much has been written and said does it appear that Ubisoft is trying to describe a limited, predictable series of scenarios arranged within a time line as a dynamic campaign - Please tell me I'm wrong!

I played SH3 since its release right through to the present, I bought SH4 and U-boat missions - but always returned to SH3 - because it was a game you could return to time after time and still encounter something new, not least because of the efforts of a dedicated team of modders and fans.

What you seem to be describing in your interviews and in the various video promos is a game, not a sim - sure it will be fun and great to look at for a limited time, but not a game that will survive the rigors of six months playing.

And certainly nothing new for a community that expects a little more from a simulation than to be ‘educated’ or to blow stuff up – surly the Silent Hunter series is worth more than for it to be wind up as Knights of the Sea with bubbles.

I’m trying to be fair and not simply say rude things about Ubisoft or the developer's, which is silly, boring and childish -

However I really would like some straight talking on this one issue. For me, as for so many others it's the deal breaker - as it was in SH3, calling it a different name or using vague, or obtuse language when questioned does not hide this.

If this is what has been done that’s fine, then I will concentrate on other games and maybe invest in Rise of Flight at one end or Aliens V’s Predator at the other, as both or either would seem to be more interesting at least to this old fart.

Lets get this out in the open now so I don’t have to keep logging into SubSim to find out the latest on Sh5 only to discover its not what I thought it was in the end anyway.

Best Regards to you

Rascal

This is also one of my major worries!!:cry:
Dev team - Please make it truly dynamic as it was in SH3!:oops: a late release date is OK!:yep:

I'm not sure I understand where all this is coming from. From what I've seen the campaign will be much more dynamic than its predecessors, not less. What could not be dynamic about having the enemy respond to you and put new forces in the areas where you've been most successful?

As I said on another thread, it's my impression that the whole Malta thing was given as an example, not as the sum total of the game. Again, I think people are reading way to much into this.

And if it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be right at the forefront of the complaints.

Whilst there may be more dynamic elements in the responses of the AI crew, enemy, friendly forces, I'm hoping I'm wrong in saying that it sounds like you have to start as an XO in 1939 in Wilhemlshaven ,when you start the campaign.

What if I've been there, done, that got the T shirt etc. and want to start another campaign from a different date, port or flotilla? Or a Med career starting in 1941 through '43? (FFS a 'career starting in '43 will be bloody short even if it is possible!).

From the description in the interview these options currently available in SH3/4 will not be there in SHV. For me this is not the kind of game I'm going to want to play many times over once I get whatever lame ar$e message I get in May 1943, that will be it game over. The disk goes on the shelf I free up some disk space and go back to SH3 even though its now 5 years since it was released.

Hmm...one black, one white.

Egalitarianism lives!:rock:

Does that mean you don't eat eagles?:D

No, it means I have a fondness for using big words I don't really understand.

Lollapalooza!:sunny:


Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!:rock:

That's just your antidisestablishmentarianism coming out.

If the Rascal's worst nightmares about "dynamic" campaign come through I am afraid that SHV will fail. Even with beautiful graphics, full 3D interior, excellent RPG-like crew management etc., the scripted campaign is gonna put a huge dent on the re-playability. The last thing I wish for is SH series to turn into CoD series: it sure looks pretty, it has gripping action and effects but it is always THE SAME.

The SH3 has been installed on my PC since the date it was released and has never left my hard drive. I can finish one career and almost immediately start another one, knowing for SURE that there is going to be something I have not seen before....

I'm very afraid that SHV will not provide the same....

I really, REALLY wish to be wrong...

:o Oooh, pretty! :D

A reply to you very considered response
 

Hi Sailor Steve, you're right and I absolutly respect where you are coming from -

For me there are a number of ways to interpret what we've heard so far - ie what triggers the interest of the additional forces in the Malta example - is it my own activities as a naughty, evil U-Boat captain, or is it that I've simply fulfilled a particular aspect of a script, ie sunk a given ship, at a particular time, at a particualr place.

Like one of those games where the same monster jumps out, at the same place, in the same way and does the same thing - when you do the same thing and it does so no matter how many times you play the game and you get a limited set of pre-determined responses - ie shoot it.

With the reduced coverage as described from 1939 to 43 - this would indicate less patrols, as compared to a sim running 39-45 at the same time our actions while on patrol will be required o fit in with with various historical aspects of the war.

This is fine but does seem to indicate less opportnity for random, or seemingly random encounters or new or surprising events-

Coupled with the supposedly more in-depth interaction with your crew - does the cook offer me some soup every time I go near him, even under heavy depth charge attack! -

To my small insect like mind these factors seem to indicate an overall time-line within which certain things must occur in order for any progress to be made - and its this that I find totally unacceptable in a simulation, as opposed to a game where its stock and standard.

Sure there may be some small variation within any given mission but I'm worried there may be less scope for individual, random experience of the theatre, Atlantic, mediteranean or wherever as a whole.

In SH3 I could and did set out on a number of patrols where I didnt find a dam thing, or only some light coastal traffic. These were not scripted, I simply happened to be in the right place and came accross them. The encounter may have been totally random with my sinkiung them or they beating me off with a surprise or my missing them and running out of torpedoes - whatever the game didnt cease and I could go back to base and set out again for another patrol

Would this be the case in SH5 or do I simply not progress until I have fullfilled some supposedly vital aspect of a given mission. In SH3 you affectivly have the entire theatre of operation, you may be assigned to a particualr grid but you may just as well encounter ships or other events on the way to or from, let alone what you might achieve when you got there - In this case Malta and the mediteranean. I have not heard any coverage of these issues in any of the current discussion or mentions of the so called dynamic ampaign.

I'm not saying all is lost by any means, I would like to just have some more detail on what for me is a vital aspect of this series, not least as this particualr aspect of the SH series is so dam important to nearly all of us. I would have thought there would be a lot more detail available covering this aspect of the game than has so far been the case

I've tried to be even and not engage in Ubi bashing or attacking Neal in any way - this is not my intention - I have simply become more worried about this with every new bit of promotion or video, not less.

This late in the development process I would expect to be concerned about less important or fundamental things.

Not sure if I've answered you - but I'm hoping you get my drift - I hope you are right - but so far all that I have heard could indicate: A) a slighly more sophitiscated verion of PT Boats Gameplay, ie Pt Boats with Bubbles or B) a more sophisticated and surprising dynamic campagin than even my small mind can imagine - I just hope the reality is the latter not the former -

I'm trying to say is which way I'm hoping it will go - I dont want to see the SH series end up sacrificed in a vain attempy to attract more players by dumbing it down -

So far you must admit much of what we have seen or heard in regards to game play does not calm any of these fears - though graphically the game looks wonderful, time will tell.

Regards
Rascal

Thanks for the thoughtful message. If Dan says it has a dynamic campaign, who are we to doubt him. He knows this better than any of us and he is a very straightforward guy. This is not Ubi marketing talking, this is the lead designer. I see no reason to worry, Dan likes realistic and dynamic subsim gameplay AT LEAST as much as 99% of us. :)

I cannot speak for the developers, but I can say that since the first computer game was about to be released, the first players who posted in the first forum set an annoying trend/mindset that persists to this day: mild mass hysteria :arrgh!:

Seriously, as far back as Aces of the Deep and Jane's 688(I), people get really worked up and passionate over imagined and real objections to these games, so much so it's silly. Sure, people should express their thoughts, whether they approve or disapprove of a game and it's features. But it's like there's an unwritten rule that people have to one-up each other with negativity. That is one of the main things that led me to start a Subsim forum back in 1998. I was really tired of reading unrestrained idiocy in other forums, I wanted a place where people could discuss games without degrading the theme into "This game SUXX!!" and similar rants. Who needs that? :shucks:

As for SH5, I have not had a first hand test drive, so I am waiting like everyone else to see if it will pass muster, if the amplified RPG elements will make the game fun and if they will make the narrorer scope worth it. I do not know what market research Ubisoft did to lead them to try this different variant, but, I try to keep an open mind. Hey, it may turn out to be frigging great, who knows. I was really happy with SH3 and pretty happy with SH4 (patched). If SH5 does not live up to my expectations, well, I hope that will factor into the concepts behind SH6 (if there will be one, again, who knows :-?).

As for DLC, and adding a Type IX: if the SH5 with the Type VII gameplay and realism are terrific, and the interactive crew raises the genre to a new level like SH3 did, then hell yes, I would be happy to buy a Type IX DLC or add-on. I don't see this as a way for Ubi to squeeze $$ out of us, they are a business and I want the most subsim content I can get. Some people who do not know what they are talking about, do not know what the dev costs and resources are into making this game, may argue they are being ripped off, so let them skip it. But if the game turns out to be good, they will silently join us. Even if they admit they were mistaken (very rare), they sure did not do the sub game business any favors with their bad and uninformed word of mouth.

Of course, if the game is broken and released unfinished and does not get patched, then that's a different story.

That has always been my concern. Ubisoft has a history of allowing insufficient development time for the Silent Hunter series.

too black dident read :shifty:

Well said, Neal!

I'm getting pretty fed up with this mass hysteria not based on any hard facts.

Like with many others, it was a shock to read the campsign ends in 1943, but that was based on being acostumed to the whole war, not a rational reaction.

I hope cooler heads will prevail. All this ranting is not doing the subsim community any good at all.

If I was UBI I would consider not making any further subsims.