Neal you seem to have a problem now!

[Hitman]

You gave in your review a 10/10 to SH3 in its time. Well deserved, but now that SH4 looks and feels so great, what are you going to do to be fair, uh? I would suggest, give Sh4 a "10 with Oak leaves", but better spare the swords and diamonds for Sh5 and Sh6...just in case. :D

[Kruger]

Of course. SH3 deserved 10/10 in it's time.

[Dowly]

SH4 is a sequel to SHIII and should be reviewed as one. SHIII was a huge leap from SHII and deserved the 10/10.

[ReallyDedPoet]

SH4 is a sequel to SHIII and should be reviewed as one. SHIII was a huge leap from SHII and deserved the 10/10.

Big-time agree here:up:

[Steeltrap]

SH4 is a sequel to SHIII and should be reviewed as one. SHIII was a huge leap from SHII and deserved the 10/10.

Sorry, but I disagree.

Sure it was a GREAT advance, but this also has to be viewed in the context of the time at which it was released. In other words, a big advance over a game released 5 years ago isn't exactly hard to achieve. Add to that the fact that SHII was the most appalling piece of crap out of the box, then the comparison becaomes "damning with faint praise" i.e. yes, a huge advance over SHII, but then SHII was such rubbish that just about anything would've been a huge advance.

IMO, reviews should be done entirely on the basis of what is delivered vs. what is promised. In this case it's a sim. So, the review has to look at how well the product simulates the reality, plus how it delivers on any promises made. It should then consider such 'basics' as sound, video and "playability/enjoyment".

The fact that the modders have managed to make great strides in improving the game indicates that a 10/10 rating for vanilla is nonsense. After all, if you give 10/10 you're saying it can't be improved!! I can think of things that could still be improved (as a simple example, think of the crew fatigue as it operated as per initial design), and I'm sure the master modders could list plenty.

So, let's see a clear discussion of all the strengths and weaknesses of SHIV when it arrives, but not some crazy score based on the fact that it is the 'best yet'.

Having said all that, I think SHIII is terrific, but the mods (such as NYGM) have increased the score the game would receive now, so to give the vanilla 10/10 is simply not justifiable.

Cheers

[jhelix70]

After all, if you give 10/10 you're saying it can't be improved!!

Not quite. Since any game, now matter how good, can always be improved, by that criterion no game should ever get 10/10. To me, a 10/10 indicates that the game can't be improved in any SUBSTANTIAL fashion, ie. that its shortcomings or bugs aren't serious or significant.

My opinion is that SH3, as released, contained enough substantial (significant) problems to only deserve a 9/10, but I wouldn't begrudge anybody giving it a 10/10 since the interpretation of what is significant or substantial is subjective.

[Hitman]

Since any game, now matter how good, can always be improved, by that criterion no game should ever get 10/10. To me, a 10/10 indicates that the game can't be improved in any SUBSTANTIAL fashion, ie. that its shortcomings or bugs aren't serious or significant.


Obviously that is the right approach;) . I was just joking a bit and trying to highlight that SH4 looks terrific and better than SH3 -which is the only sim that scored a 10/10 in subsim's reviews- so it should get something special in the review.

[jhelix70]

SH4 looks terrific and better than SH3

Youre right, it looks fantastic. I just hope it lives up to its promise...I had so much fun with SH1 when it came out, it would be nice if SH4 measures up to that.

[Ark]

Since any game, now matter how good, can always be improved, by that criterion no game should ever get 10/10. To me, a 10/10 indicates that the game can't be improved in any SUBSTANTIAL fashion, ie. that its shortcomings or bugs aren't serious or significant.


Obviously that is the right approach;) . I was just joking a bit and trying to highlight that SH4 looks terrific and better than SH3 -which is the only sim that scored a 10/10 in subsim's reviews- so it should get something special in the review.

Imagine how good SHIV would look if it actually supported FSAA. lol :D

[John Channing]

Relax everyone.

Neal's review amplifier goes to 11

JCC

[bishop]

Relax everyone.

Neal's review amplifier goes to 11

JCC

Did you say Neal or Nigel?

[KiwiVenge]

I think it depends on at what point the review is being done. When someone is on a cherry high trying out a game before release for a day or two and knowing it is not officially "quite done" I think it can be forgiven if someone rates over high on a genre they love.
If in fact the review is being done after a month or two of release things can be more clear.
I am of the opinion SH3 was barely completed enough to be released when it was. So many people had so many different problems getting SH3 running well on their machine. The whole Starforce factor sucked for some, either preventing legit SH3 games from running and then as bad going to the point of shutting down their DVD drive. Nvidia users (whats that, at least 1/3 of all PC owners??) had UZO partical problems, and the fix was automatically shutting off particals for Nvidia users when using the UZO. Saved games (and careers) that would vanish mysteriously.
The list goes on and on, well beyond what I would consider average problems for a new release game.
Don't get me wrong I loved SH3, but was it was far from perfect upon release.

[Safe-Keeper]

Well, he didn't really give it a 10/10 (which it wouldn't have deserved as it had some pretty glaring flaws), but the end score was still 10/10 because he gave it "bonus points" for its positive features. So in effect, it really got less than a perfect 10/10, at least the way I see it.

[DaMaGe007]

Bugs aside, (which he could be forgiven for assuming they would be fixed) sh3 at first looked and played really well, if I was reviewing it I would have scorred it highly (and Im a harsh bastard). The Flaws of the game werent apparent untill some time was sunk into the game such as the campain, radio trafic, lack of ai subs, milkcows ect.
When writing a review they want to get the review up quickly and dont always get the time to see these things.

In the end with greywolves, its close to a 8-9 out of 10 on the DaMaGe scale. Im hopeing Sh4 gets a 10 out of the box.

[Mikkow]

most importantly, the review is merely a reflection of one person's opinion.

[FIREWALL]

As with women you can rate anything now...
an 11. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Onkel Neal]

You gave in your review a 10/10 to SH3 in its time. Well deserved, but now that SH4 looks and feels so great, what are you going to do to be fair, uh? I would suggest, give Sh4 a "10 with Oak leaves", but better spare the swords and diamonds for Sh5 and Sh6...just in case. :D

Well, good point, but SH3 received a 100% from me in part because it was miles ahead of any subsim that came before it, in graphics, new features (animated crew), ambiance (leaving port), and it had sound AI and a good dynamic campaign.

Now, SH4 will have to advance the state of the game by at least as much to stay up with SH3.

SH4 is a sequel to SHIII and should be reviewed as one. SHIII was a huge leap from SHII and deserved the 10/10.

I see it the same way. SH4 would have to break some serious new ground to ride the bull a full 8 seconds.


The fact that the modders have managed to make great strides in improving the game indicates that a 10/10 rating for vanilla is nonsense. After all, if you give 10/10 you're saying it can't be improved!! I can think of things that could still be improved (as a simple example, think of the crew fatigue as it operated as per initial design), and I'm sure the master modders could list plenty.


I disagree. ;) SH3 was not given a 10/10 because it was perfect or flawless, but because it was a lot more than 15% better than Aces, Jane's 688(I), or SH2. Mods improved and changed SH4, but that was like adding an extra layer of frosting to a magnificient 7 layer cake.

As time goes by and games get better, our expectations seem to always stay ahead of the game. SH3 was a great game; it was missing good radio traffic and wolfpacks, with limited MP, and a few bugs, but overall... wow!

When writing a review they want to get the review up quickly and dont always get the time to see these things.

Well, in my case I was able to play several betas and the gold for months before the game was released, so I had a lot of time to evaluate it :) Also, I followed up with specific questions to the dev team during the review process, to make sure I didn't miss anything or misunderstand a feature or part of the game. That's how Subsim was the only website or magazine to include details and images from the dev team outlining the mechanics of the dynamic campaign.

SH4 has been a different experience for me. I have followed it some and was lucky enough to be invited to San Francisco by Ubisoft to demo the game, but I have had very little exposure to the latest version of the game itself. In contrast, with SH3 I was allowed to demo the game at home with a meeting full of Subsim guys and write several test reports on betas. Plus I received (from the producer) two release candidates during the gold process. So, I knew it a lot better than I know SH4.

What rating will I give SH4? No idea! I will have to have the gold or retail copy for a few weeks before I can even guess. SH4 will have to be as good as SH3 in every way and better in many ways to beat it.

[Barkhorn1x]

Way to go Neal. You are a man of integrity. We know you will give it to us straight w/ no BS.

The only problem is that most of us (about 98%) will have the game before your review is even written.

;)

We can still argue about it tho'. :rock:

Barkhorn.

[Mush Martin]

After all, if you give 10/10 you're saying it can't be improved!!
Not quite. Since any game, now matter how good, can always be improved, by that criterion no game should ever get 10/10. To me, a 10/10 indicates that the game can't be improved in any SUBSTANTIAL fashion, ie. that its shortcomings or bugs aren't serious or significant.

My opinion is that SH3, as released, contained enough substantial (significant) problems to only deserve a 9/10, but I wouldn't begrudge anybody giving it a 10/10 since the interpretation of what is significant or substantial is subjective.

Agreed evolution is a continual process with no final result.