An Open Letter to Neal and the SH5 Developer team

[rascal101]

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