Silent hunter 4 Mod's commented on Finnish game mag "Pelit"

[Dowly]

I hope they'll do an in-depth review of the biggest mods in the future. Just like back in the TGW & NYGM days.

[Rockin Robbins]

Frankly I don't like the article. The author complains about un-simulator like behavior and then complains about not being able to see the tops of masts and the mast heights being wrong in the game. Then they praise using the stadimeter on funnel tops and cabin tops, something that was never done in real life. Accurate information has no place in a simulation of WWII US submarines. It's fine in a game. In real life, for many ships encountered, subs had no information whatever!

He says the devs have abandoned SH4 when they have done nothing of the kind.

He says that patch 1.4 was lame. The game has been brilliant since patch 1.3!

He loves Werner's keel damage addition to NSM. It is great because you can now break every ship you fire at into 2 pieces. He likes video games, not simulations.

He makes false claims that without TM you cannot accurately measure target speed. Bilgewater!

I'd characterize the entire article as nothing better than filler material written by an author who doesn't know the game. He spelled the names right. He has a fair amount of outdated info on the mods. He did as much damage as good with a very halfhearted effort. Hope he's paid well...

[Dowly]

Well, frankly, I apologize, but I must disagree. 'Pelit' is (or atleast WAS whne I still ordered it) one of the few remaining neutral gaming magazines there is/was. Whereas Halo was given the godlikes status by all, 'Pelit' came out and didnt just give the good bits, but also pointed out the bad things. That is the single reason I dont trust the big reviewers like Gamespot, PCGamer and IGN, they say what the game devs like to hear so they are ensured that the reviewer in question is still worth to send a early preview copy to.

And I'm no way saying that the article was bad, or misleading. They just seem to be abit late on things. For example, their site still has a review and links to TGW, not GWX. The same thing is with these mods, once they are build up, they wont be updating the articles.

Oh and as for the devs abandoning part, I bet you can remember that the community had to outright beg for ubisoft to patch the game?

And as for 1.4, yes it is a good game with it, but, there are still things to fix.

It is obvious he is comparing it to SHIII, so yes, might not be fair but Ubi should've learned better and make it right at once. Not after numerous patches (which I still need to remind we had to beg for the first one).

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Oh and as for the devs abandoning part, I bet you can remember that the community had to outright beg for ubisoft to patch the game?

And as for 1.4, yes it is a good game with it, but, there are still things to fix.

It is obvious he is comparing it to SHIII, so yes, might not be fair but Ubi should've learned better and make it right at once. Not after numerous patches (which I still need to remind we had to beg for the first one).

Yes, the community begged and Jesus Kentucky Fried Munchkin over at @#$ Forums made an absolute fool of himself and whoever would worship him threatening Ubi about something that was already almost ready for release.

I quit playing SH3 because of its nasty habits of forgetting saves and flaky behavior when restoring a save game. Don't save submerged, don't save within x kilometers of land, don't save when any ships are detectable, turn in circles three times counterclockwise and only use a red mouse and you might be able to continue your career when you come back.

SH4 has been rock solid since I started playing in version 1.2 with hundreds of saves submerged, submerged under attack, near land, in surface battle, total disregard for situation and not one save lost in a year. That alone made me love the game.

The article didn't even mention that aspect. There was just too much he didn't know and he attempted to substitute bravado and attitude for knowledge. He could have interviewed players to find out what he needed to know. He would have discovered all the contributions being made by SH3 players migrating over here to see what's up with SH4UBM. That would have been worth a mention. He could have eliminated the obvious fact that he doesn't know the game he is writing about.

It still amazes me that all the features he praised were arcade stuff: the ability to blow ships into halves with any fired torpedo, exact knowledge of mast heights of every ship in the game and using unrealistic measurings of stack height (those suckers were modified all over the place to disguise ships. They NEVER would have used a stack) and cabin height to obtain unrealistic torpedo accuracy.

The guy is reviewing a simulation and finds fault with it because it isn't arcadey enough. He doesn't like airplanes so fewer airplanes is better. If he just played realistically and kept himself from being seen by them he wouldn't be bugged half as much. Fluckey's yo-yo stragegy has always worked flawlessly in SH4. Planes in any quantity are a non-factor.

I'm not saying the article isn't neutral, I'm saying it is clueless.

[Ducimus]

RR, you seem upset, so if it helps, ill tell you another reason why i said "Meh".

I'm not gonna get excited, nor put too much emotional stock into an small backpage article, in some obscure game magazine i never heard of, written in a language i cannot read, from a country that the most i'll see or hear of will be probably come from a saturday afternoon episode of "Cities of the underworld" on the history channel.

[Captain von Keldunk]

Hello
Author of the article is probably a member of this board.:hmm:

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by Captain von Keldunk

Hello
Author of the article is probably a member of this board.:hmm:

And...?

[Ducimus]

and.. i guess the insinuation is that he's reading all of whats being written here. Which might upset him.

Anywho, all im saying is, theres no reason for anyone to be upset. Im happy that Sh4 modding in general has at least gotten a write up at all. Something, is always better then nothing. Reviewers are not always going to be up to speed with the community, particuarlly this one, we do move fast. A few months back, i got a mention in gamespy about TM version 1.4, when by the time it was published, i was up to version 1.6 and the review was already out of date.

[Rockin Robbins]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

and.. i guess the insinuation is that he's reading all of whats being written here. Which might upset him.

Anywho, all im saying is, theres no reason for anyone to be upset. Im happy that Sh4 modding in general has at least gotten a write up at all. Something, is always better then nothing. Reviewers are not always going to be up to speed with the community, particuarlly this one, we do move fast. A few months back, i got a mention in gamespy about TM version 1.4, when by the time it was published, i was up to version 1.6 and the review was already out of date.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that as long as they get the names right, the press can't be expected to get the facts right. I think that just getting the correctly spelled names of the game, mods and some of the authors is great. After all, isn't the main deal "SH4 modders make print?" That's all good, no matter how inaccurate the article is. There's no anger here, just legitimate criticism.

Anger would be if I were a dev. With no truth at all (look Ma, no hands!) the author threw them under the bus, ran over them, knifed them, shot them, poured gasoline over them (stretched the magazine budget on that one!) and lit them up in a grand Romanian bonfire.

You can bet he's not here reading any of this. If he were he would have been asking questions before he wrote the article. After all research is something you do before you do such a thing.....sometimes. If he had been a lurker here, his article would have been very different. Had he conducted some PM interviews his article could have been wonderful. Bah! Too much work. That would be admitting he doesn't know it all and he's a consumately skilled writer (gets paid even!). He doesn't need facts, let the purple prose fly!:rotfl:

I'm just always wishing it could have been better. That's an analog to CTD. At least in Finland they have such an independent gaming magazine. In the big old US of A I can't think of one. Of course I'm not a gamer anyway, so if there were I wouldn't know about it.:rotfl:

[Superbus]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

You can bet he's not here reading any of this. If he were he would have been asking questions before he wrote the article.

Oh but I am. Thanks for your feedback. There is never enough criticism in the Finnish language forums of the magazine. I don't know whether it is because there are so few people playing simulation games or that the ones who are, are just happy with what I write for them.

[bigboywooly]

:rotfl: :rotfl:

Welcome aboard

[Sailor Steve]

Yes, WELCOME ABOARD!

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

It still amazes me that all the features he praised were arcade stuff: the ability to blow ships into halves with any fired torpedo, exact knowledge of mast heights of every ship in the game and using unrealistic measurings of stack height (those suckers were modified all over the place to disguise ships. They NEVER would have used a stack) and cabin height to obtain unrealistic torpedo accuracy.

The information about the stadimeter disagress with my own reserach into stadimeters. Do you have a source that they never used stadimeters on funnels or cabin tops, so I may investigate it further? Thanks.