Contract Of Common Sense

[Jaeger]

Originally Posted by Sonarman

Some hopeful signs and words of encouragement form Ubi CEO Yves Gulliemot in a recent interview with GamesIndustry.biz...

"That's why we believe it's time to invest, because it's the right time to continue to expand the brands we're creating, and to make better games. Because we wanted to come here this year with another level of quality.

On some products last year we were not as happy as we wanted, so this time we've been investing more to make sure that everybody will be happy with the games that we launch."

somewhere here in the forum somebody linked an article about ubi. there i read ubi hired lots of new people for their team in bucharest. for me, this and the info above sounds like we can expect a new level of quality from ubi this time. they also hired beta testers, so we wont see as much bugs as we did last time...

[mookiemookie]

Why hire bug testers? You've got a whole forum full of them here who would gladly work for free just to get an early glimpse of SH5.

[Schultz]

But I can't understand why they didn't use Tomi's work , they could have finished earlier, and I know we have 2 members from Ubi Romania here ,1 is OctoberRed and the other I can't remember.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by infernos

But I can't understand why they didn't use Tomi's work , they could have finished earlier, and I know we have 2 members from Ubi Romania here ,1 is OctoberRed and the other I can't remember.

Elanaiba.....there are a couple more also

[ETR3(SS)]

Go Go stickyed thread!

[Schultz]

Just this 2 members I know from Ubi Romania,but I'm just curious why they didn't use his work.

[ETR3(SS)]

I think somebody answered that in another thread. Basically they have to come up with a model that the guys running the Wal-Mart computer can handle. Tomi's is quite detailed. And It could be possible to that they started work on it before Tomi did.

[Raven08]

I agree with a lot of what's been said, and against my better sense I will likely get SHV shortly after its release, again, my curiosity won't have otherwise. But if it turns out to be another half-finished, half-hearted mess that requires six months to a year to patch and mod...my long affair with these sub simulations will draw to a quiet close. For good.

There is a line between being 'loyal' and being taken advantage of. Repeatedly.


Neal I have trouble understanding on the one hand you say you aren't giving Ubi a blank check because they have a monopoly on this genre, but then state we should purchase their product immediately no matter what shape it's in.? I find that baffling.

In other words we should keep supporting Ubisoft, simply because they are the 'only game in town'.

I think you'll find that a lot of people after being burned the last decade with this franchise will have a hard time accepting that.

[Elder-Pirate]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Why hire bug testers? You've got a whole forum full of them here who would gladly work for free just to get an early glimpse of SH5.

Someone talking about me again?


OH,Bug,not Bugs. Yuck.

[Highbury]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Why hire bug testers? You've got a whole forum full of them here who would gladly work for free just to get an early glimpse of SH5.

Having worked as an on-staff beta tester for a few games I would have to say that when you use the public to beta test you can expect useful feedback from no more then 20 - 30% of them, the rest are there to play a game early and have no idea how to work to make it better. They don't want to do the same redundant function hundreds of times over to try and replicate an error that only happened once.

I would much rather they have quality, paid testers.

[Onkel Neal]

That's the truth

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Highbury

Having worked as an on-staff beta tester for a few games I would have to say that when you use the public to beta test you can expect useful feedback from no more then 20 - 30% of them, the rest are there to play a game early and have no idea how to work to make it better. They don't want to do the same redundant function hundreds of times over to try and replicate an error that only happened once.

I would much rather they have quality, paid testers.

Just an idea

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Raven08

There is a line between being 'loyal' and being taken advantage of. Repeatedly.


I think you'll find that a lot of people after being burned the last decade with this franchise will have a hard time accepting that.

I understand your point, and in part, I agree.

We were "burned" by SH2, but I supported that game because I saw first hand how hard Troy Heere, Shawn Storc, and Ultimation worked on that game as it went through the maze of SSI/MattelInteractive/Gore/Ubisoft, near disasters and cancellations. They sent me betas to play test a YEAR before the game was released, so I had an insider's view of the heroic endeavor to finish the game before the plug was pulled. I wanted that game to be perfect, so did the team, but it was hobbled and that was no secret. Still, for me anyway, I said it was flawed in my review but I was glad to get it, and I strongly urged everyone to pony up and get a copy. Subsim is not Consumer Guide, we do have a bias.

Also, important to remember, SH2 was the sequel to SH1, and if it had died, there would not likely be another SH2 effort, just as there never was a sequel to Fast Attack, Silent Steel, or Aces of the Deep. And other than Silent Hunter...there have been no top tier U-boat sims since 1995...

SH3, I hope no one is going to say we were burned by that game

SH4, yes, I agree, that was a serious screwup by Ubisoft. We were burned (although as most of us anticipated, the Romanians pushed to get the fixes later). I do not know the reasons behind the premature release, by this time my relationship with Ubisoft was not as solid. The marketing dept had their hands on every detail and they dragged their feet on sending previews copies like they had something to hide, which we all know now, they did. I did not finish the review for the game until 2 weeks after it was released. It's was pretty obvious to me, that Ubi wanted to stall reviews as long as possible:

Silent Hunter 4 review

There will always be bugs in games but Ubisoft pushed this title out too soon. Even discounting the minor glitches that do not affect gameplay, there are numerous bugs and missing features with the 1.0 version. SH4 did not get sufficient development time or QA testing, not by a long stretch. US subs at the start of WWII were sent to battle with ineffective torpedoes that ran deep or failed to explode, even exploded prematurely. It's ironic that SH4 skippers who set out to sink IJN ships in the first days since the war began, er, since the game was released, found their torpedoes frequently missing astern. Turns out there is a bug affecting the actual speed of torpedoes set at high speed. You may set the torpedo to high speed, the TDC thinks the torpedo is going to run at high speed and adjusts the solution accordingly, but the torpedo has other ideas and moseys along at low speed, missing the target and having SH4 skippers scratching their heads (and cursing, lots of cursing) with a taste of the frustration that real skippers must have felt. The devs have fixed this and normal operations will resume with patch 1.2 soon.

In addition to the torpedo speed bug, there are a few other notable glitches to list. The TDC locks when approaching a target in a certain fashion. Flooding damage control needs some adjustments. The SD aircraft radar picks up surface contacts. After patch v1.1, the A key invokes an immediate CTD. After a long patrol, the message clipboard will cause the game to pause for several seconds to 30 seconds while the game retrieves it. Also, some players have reported a chronic crew illness problem, where an injured crewmember slowly loses health until he dies.

I promise you, if this happens again with SH5, I will join you with a pitchfork. Even if it kills the franchise (we always have SH3 and GWX). The relationship between Ubisoft (or any game publisher) and Subsim has to be a two-way street of trust and cooperation. I know the Ubisoft marketing group have a job to do, but if the game is half-finished, that I cannot abide.

Neal I have trouble understanding on the one hand you say you aren't giving Ubi a blank check because they have a monopoly on this genre, but then state we should purchase their product immediately no matter what shape it's in.? I find that baffling.

Sorry, I probably didn't make myself clear, What I meant was, I support SH5 (and any subsim game) as long as I trust the game company to make a serious effort to vreate the best game possible, considering the current circumstances.

So, what I meant was, I support SH5, and if the game comes out after a reasonable dev time, and in reasonable condition*, I feel we as the hard core subsim enthusiasts should buy it on Day 1. We want it to succeed.

As I said before, a critical factor, for me, is having a good sense of how much effort went into making the game. I had a great sense with SH2 and SH3, with preview copies coming my way periodically. I knew there was sincere effort going into these two titles--one flawed, and one fabulous. I supported them. I cheered them. And I stand by that.

In the end, this is simply my opinion. I share it with you, I do not think you are obligated to agree. We both want the same thing: a great game.

Neal

.


*No game will ever be 100% bug free, but releasing a game 6 months too early is inexcusable.

[Arclight]

Originally Posted by Highbury

Having worked as an on-staff beta tester for a few games I would have to say that when you use the public to beta test you can expect useful feedback from no more then 20 - 30% of them, the rest are there to play a game early and have no idea how to work to make it better. They don't want to do the same redundant function hundreds of times over to try and replicate an error that only happened once.

I would much rather they have quality, paid testers.

Why not both? Internal, paid QA team to make sure mechanics work as intended, and a public beta to get a copy out to people with all kinds of different rigs. Imho would be a good way to find out about problems with specific hardware (combinations) early on.

[Raven08]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

So, what I meant was, I support SH5, and if the game comes out after a reasonable dev time, and in reasonable condition*, I feel we as the hard core subsim enthusiasts should buy it on Day 1. We want it to succeed.

As I said before, a critical factor, for me, is having a good sense of how much effort went into making the game. I had a great sense with SH2 and SH3, with preview copies coming my way periodically. I knew there was sincere effort going into these two titles--one flawed, and one fabulous. I supported them. I cheered them. And I stand by that.

In the end, this is simply my opinion. I share it with you, I do not think you are obligated to agree. We both want the same thing: a great game.

Neal

.


*No game will ever be 100% bug free, but releasing a game 6 months too early is inexcusable.

Agree!

It seems we are in the unenviable position of catch-22 with the Silent Hunter series. If we don't support it, it will wither away. At the same time we definitely don't want to accept unfinished, untested product.

My main problem was the idea of Ubisoft kicking their code out the door, then 'expecting' the consumers to finish, test and polish the game through mods. That seems a little shady for me, that's all. We're not the developers, they are.


I'm willing to give them one last shot, I will certainly try SHV...I've played these games a very long time, and these sub sims are the only ones I'm drawn back to time and again. They're something I don't want to see go way.

Let's hope for something better out of the box this time!

~raven~