[Review] SH4 on YouGamers

[flintlock]

"Suffering from "Get-it-out-the-door" syndrome, there's no escaping the fact that an enjoyable experience is hampered by a lack of testing. If future patches address the major issues, then the excellent gameplay will overshadow the technical problems, not vice-versa."

Verdict: 65%

The review is available here (http://www.yougamers.com/reviews/2688_silent_hunter_4_-_wolves_of_the_pacific-page1/)

[SteamWake]

With this patch, it's clear that Ubisoft is putting a genuine effort into fixing the game and creating a better gameplay experience. But even though the first two patches have come quickly following release, there's no excuse for foisting an unfinished product on customers, particularly when the major bugs should have been detected in even the most cursory of QA sessions.

Cant say I disagree.

[Iron Budokan]

Yikes. Tough review. Can't say as I disagree with any of it, though, except the low score they gave on the graphics. Even without AA the graphics aren't that effing bad.

[mookiemookie]

Yikes. Tough review. Can't say as I disagree with any of it, though, except the low score they gave on the graphics. Even without AA the graphics aren't that effing bad.

Quoted for truth, and I agree 100%. I think SH4 has some of the most beautiful water I've ever seen in a game.

[AVGWarhawk]

Yikes. Tough review. Can't say as I disagree with any of it, though, except the low score they gave on the graphics. Even without AA the graphics aren't that effing bad.
Quoted for truth, and I agree 100%. I think SH4 has some of the most beautiful water I've ever seen in a game.

The water, yes, it does look real and I'm afraid, some scenes, inviting to jump into for a swim. The water is great.

[KrvKpt. Falke]

And i like these words:
That a genre is sparsely populated isn't reason enough for any consumer to accept a flawed title.

But i doubt that Ubisoft (or any other publisher releasing beta versions as final versions) will be moved by this. Because of gamers buying anything without thinking, because of most reviewers ignoring the fact that some games are unfinished (usually they writes something like: "yeah, the game has a few bugs/lot of bugs, but they can be fixed" or "every game needs to be patched after release - its natural" :\ )
Gamers and reviewers should look at such games like Splinter Cell 4, Stalker, SH4, TDU etc. more critical, only then there will be chance that publishers will think twice before releasing beta version (or even alpha - like Gothic 3) as final one.
I'm really sick of beta versions - why they (publishers) cant let developers finish their work and let them go on holidays instead of releasing unfinished product and work another 6 - 12 months on patches...?

[Onkel Neal]

:up: Thanks for the link

Here's the straight-to-page-one link (http://www.yougamers.com/reviews/2688_silent_hunter_4_-_wolves_of_the_pacific-page1/)

[flintlock]

I hadn't realized I inadvertently linked the last page, oops.

(fixed) :oops:

[Grunt]

Normally I wait for game reviews before I purchase a game. If there are universal accolades, I buy.
The only reason I preordered SH4 was because SH3 was an awesome game. I wont make that mistake again, and I cant say I appreciate being sucker punched like this.



SH4 strikes me as the same, an inferior copy of a fantastic game.

Grunt: I hate to give you more ammo in your "heavy-handed moderators" arsenal, but the rules of the forum... come on, man. ;)

Neal

[_Seth_]

Comments edited, give peace a chance - NS

Let me give you a hint from the forum rules:
SUBSIM Review has a longstanding policy against software piracy. We do NOT allow discussion or even mention of warez, abandonware, peer-to-peer game swapping, illegal download sites, or rip-off websites.

[JFL1]

A very thorough review and, IMHO, right in many, many aspects...

[Tobus]

An excellent review, very true indeed. I am really wondering why a lot of reviewsite and magazines give it such high praises: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/silenthunter4wolvesofthepacific

True, the graphics are great. It makes you wonder how many of the professional reviewers actually playtested the game, or were just oogling the external camera for 2 hours before writing their review.

I feel the same as Game Almighty closed: Silent Hunter features countless bugs you'll find on every machine, and this is unforgivable. It's a betrayal to a loyal fanbase and a detriment to gaining new fans. Unfortunately, it's also an exact replay of what happened two years ago when Silent Hunter III shipped.

I myself can only hope that my copy will actually be worth its 50 euros in a month or 6.

[Ghostieguide]

"Set in the Pacific during World War II (that's 1941 - 1945 for those of us who slept through history class),"

Grrrrrrr :o :damn:

I read this far and stopped reading.....

Even wikipedia says "World War II (abbreviated WWII), or the Second World War, was a worldwide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war) conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) which lasted from 1939 to 1945."

I think someone was asleep:dead:

[Tobus]

I'm really sick of beta versions - why they (publishers) cant let developers finish their work and let them go on holidays instead of releasing unfinished product and work another 6 - 12 months on patches...?

Because the gamesindustry is just like any other industry. Budgetplanning was made according to needs around funding and stockbroker demands. Bringing out a finished game 6 months later gives the company the same salesfigures, just less griping on the internet. Willingly bringing out a broken game may seem unjust to gamers, but if salesfigures are not lowered by it, then why care? And if salesfigures ARE lowered by it, then the topguys who caused this just stick their heads up their arses, don't make sequels and maybe even fire half of the devs. Either way, gamers don't win.

Reviewers can be bought: mags and sites are funded by commercials of games, the same games also reviewed. Dare I say conflict of interest?

But is remains strange that "we", the gamers put up with it. We already spent our money, so what do they care? I don't know about other countries, but here in the Netherlands its next to impossible to return a game to the store, since those ignorant boobs are scared of illegal copying.

Imagine this being done in the car business. Who would buy a car that would fall apart or wouldn't have the functionality that is promissed in the brochure or manual? Who would bring his new car back to the shop 6 times in a year to get it working like it should have done in the first place? The carcompany that would try this would tank within a year, but softwaremakers just keep on doing this just to make a buck and balance the books.

[Blood_splat]

It's definitely a shady business.:nope:

[1mPHUNit0]

So...YouGamers better than subsimReview?
I think yes...but why, they are more skilled?
Or there is a missing question about subsim?

[The General]

I think the review was spot on. I'm sorry to report I have just uninstalled SH4, I find it's many flaws too frustrating. I bought an expensive video card so I could run SH4 at a reasonable rate, I have a 3.4 Gig Processor, 2 Gig of Ram and a 7600 NVIDIA card and there is absolutely no excuse for this game to run as poorly as it does. It is simply badly made. Some people on the developement team did their job. The ship models are fantastic for example and they deserved to put into a sim that was built new from the ground up, not put into an old, already inherently flawed programme. Ubisoft took a gamble (trying to save money and maximise profit) by using the old engine at the core and it just didn't work out. Patch 1.2 made a valiant attempt at saving the day, but it's obvious they can't fix this lemon.

[joea]

I think the review was spot on. I'm sorry to report I have just uninstalled SH4, I find it's many flaws too frustrating. I bought an expensive video card so I could run SH4 at a reasonable rate, I have a 3.4 Gig Processor, 2 Gig of Ram and a 7600 NVIDIA card and there is absolutely no excuse for this game to run as poorly as it does. It is simply badly made. Some people on the developement team did their job. The ship models are fantastic for example and they deserved to put into a sim that was built new from the ground up, not put into an old, already inherently flawed programme. Ubisoft took a gamble (trying to save money and maximise profit) by using the old engine at the core and it just didn't work out. Patch 1.2 made a valiant attempt at saving the day, but it's obvious they can't fix this lemon.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=436563#post436563


SH4 is so much better than SH3, there won't be anybody left playing it let alone modding it. Some of you dieharders wil say you will, but you won't. SH4's gonna make you forget all about 3. That's progress and you cannot stand in the way.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

[joea]

So...YouGamers better than subsimReview?
I think yes...but why, they are more skilled?
Or there is a missing question about subsim?

What is the missing question then? :shifty:

[Onkel Neal]

He's trying to say I'm bought off. That's untrue, I even bought my own copy of SH4. Ubisoft sent me three copies of the game but I gave them out as prizes. I'm not afraid to say I like the game, despite the bugs. I feel no more pressure from Ubisoft to say the game is GREAT than I do from anonymous forum entities like Phunito to say the game is AWFUL. Btw, I get a lot more pressure from guys like him to join the bash bandwagon that I ever get from game companies. I guess that means Ubisoft has better character than Phunito :rotfl:

[pocatellodave]

I have to agree with the review,and I must say I like many others,feel like I've been made into a Beta tester.I still have confidence in the modders,and a little hope in Ubisoft that the wrinkles..et al ..bugs,can be worked out.I can hear the head dev now to bosses,...but it simply isn't ready to go yet!Bosses...sorry we have put all the money we can afford into this project,get it out the door!Head dev says..O.K.,but were going to get crucified.Bosses..so what the modders will fix it,and you can put out a couple of quick patches!
This will be the last Ubisoft title I will purchase,and I have bought many of them,until I have read many reviews and I know that it isn't another of their incomplete launches.
I in no way want a clash with Subsim,as I think they do a great job,and the dedicated modders have my most sincere thanks and respect.
Pocatellodave

[Tobus]

Btw, I get a lot more pressure from guys like him to join the bash bandwagon that I ever get from game companies. I guess that means Ubisoft has better character than Phunito :rotfl:

Or Phunito has (like al of us gamers) everything to gain, while publishers like UBI don't have anything to lose.

[ronh42]

Heck maybe I'm too old at 65 to worry about a few minor flaws, I've had much bigger disappointments in life. But ever since patch 1.2 I'm having a ball. As for wasting $50 how many bad meals have you had for that much, while here with a little patience you can have hundreds of hours of enjoyment. Remember guys nothing in life is PERFECT! Thanks to everyone for all the help and great mods, I'm glad I discovered this site.

[maerean_m]

Have you noticed that all screenshots in yougamers' review are from patch 1.2 and yet he talkes about the 3D resolution limitation (in v1.0)? I wish he could make his mind about the version he's reviewing. The review is dated Apr 20th, after the release of patch 1.2.

Personally, I think the way Neal gives the score of the game is much more appropriate.

We've all seen how good the game looks and yet yougamers gives it a 60. That is completely wrong, no matter how you put it. SH4 looks as good as any 2007 game. Even more, the graphics look great in the correct places with no exageration in any aspect: no useless efects to ruin the experience, just gorgeous boats, modeled to the last nit. The weather effects and the whole experience make you wonder if you're watching Discovery Channel. But no, it's a game and you're in total control of the world.
The reviewer should have given it a great mark.
This is the mistake all reviewers do this days: there is no place to tell the bad points, only places for good points. So he's forced to give a 60 mark on a game with great graphics.
Neal, on the other hand, has able to give an honorable 10 out of 10 and substract 5 points for the game being obviously released too soon. So, good job, Neal :up:.

My final conclusion is that review is missleading and the mark will scary gamers away. He's obviously talking about the 1.2 patched version, which deserves better than that 65 mark. :down:

I wonder what would be the rating Neal would give to Silent Hunter 4 v1.2 ...

[flintlock]

I felt it was a pretty fair and accurate review overall.

[Ark]

My final conclusion is that review is missleading and the mark will scary gamers away. He's obviously talking about the 1.2 patched version, which deserves better than that 65 mark. :down:

I wonder what would be the rating Neal would give to Silent Hunter 4 v1.2 ...


One of the reasons the score is a "65" is because graphics got a score of "60" due to the locked resolution and the lack of FSAA. That is a pre-1.2 issue....hence the update at the bottom of the review. ;)

I thought the review was pretty accurate.


Updates

Released on April 17, the v1.2 patch fixes the most glaring issues with the game's 3D renderer: the inability to use full-screen antialiasing, and the engine's locked 1024 x 768 resolution. Players may now jump into 2007 and use any resolution, even widescreen selections, without issue (note that SH4 detects and sets the correct aspect ratio for all resolutions, so there's no awkward stretching or shrinking). And while it's not an option in the Graphics Settings, FSAA may be forced via the graphics driver. These two fixes alone make the game much more enjoyable, particularly for those with more capable hardware.

Also of note are general gameplay and bug fixes. Pressing 'A' to maintain depth no longer induces a crash-to-desktop, and high-speed torpedoes will hit their mark without issue (as long as they've been directed accordingly, of course). With this patch, it's clear that Ubisoft is putting a genuine effort into fixing the game and creating a better gameplay experience. But even though the first two patches have come quickly following release, there's no excuse for foisting an unfinished product on customers, particularly when the major bugs should have been detected in even the most cursory of QA sessions. I'm optimistic that Ubisoft will continue to support SH 4, and the dedicated community surrounding the game is to thank for pushing Ubisoft in the right direction.

[NEON DEON]

Maybe there should be a review board to review the reviews.:D

[maerean_m]

I thought the review was pretty accurate.
And the rating?


I felt the review to be more positive about the game than the final rating.

[Ark]

I thought the review was pretty accurate.
And the rating?


I felt the review to be more positive about the game than the final rating.


I believe the final rating is the average of the 4 scores given, rounded up.

A higher "Graphics" score would raise the final rating.

That review is not based on v1.2. If it was, than the "Graphics" score would be much higher.

[Steeltrap]

I think this is far and away the best review I've read. It gives praise where due, but, most significantly, does NOT excuse the horrendous state of the game upon release.

He says people should not buy it until further patches are released. For the 'casual' user, this is absolutely spot on.
For those who say "but that will stop Ubi ever developing sims" I say if that is the price of stopping them foisting incomplete programmes on unsuspecting consumers then I am 100% OK with that.

Note he also has update the review (as posted by Ark) with very reasonable comments.

Had I read this review I would not have bought the game. Given my experiences with it to date, this is the only review that tells me what I both want and need to know. All the other reviews are wishfull thinking or lightweight by comparison, at least from my perspective. Of course others will disagree, and I totally respect that.

Cheers

p.s. I think Neal was overly charitable to SHIV in his review, but I think what Phunito was trying to imply is absolutely insulting. I have nothing but respect for Neal and what he's created here, and I think he gets too little acknowledgement for it.
Incidentally, if you bother to read the Subsim rules, you'll see it expressly stated that this is a sub sim fan site, so the intention is NOT to bash sims but raise issues to have them corrected. Neal's review is entirely consistant with this philosophy - and he's even straight up about the approach the site takes. I find anything impugning his integrity to be highly offensive and totally unjustified.
Sorry all, but that really ticked me off.....

[Seatroit]

Heck maybe I'm too old at 65 to worry about a few minor flaws, I've had much bigger disappointments in life. But ever since patch 1.2 I'm having a ball. As for wasting $50 how many bad meals have you had for that much, while here with a little patience you can have hundreds of hours of enjoyment. Remember guys nothing in life is PERFECT! Thanks to everyone for all the help and great mods, I'm glad I discovered this site.


nice post...that goes for me too...I'm having an absolutely great time with this sim, warts and all...could it be better?...yes...do I care?...nope. I'm having too much fun and at least for me, is worth the ticket price.

[Tobus]

We've all seen how good the game looks and yet yougamers gives it a 60. That is completely wrong, no matter how you put it. SH4 looks as good as any 2007 game. Even more, the graphics look great in the correct places with no exageration in any aspect: no useless efects to ruin the experience, just gorgeous boats, modeled to the last nit. The weather effects and the whole experience make you wonder if you're watching Discovery Channel. But no, it's a game and you're in total control of the world.
The reviewer should have given it a great mark.
This is the mistake all reviewers do this days: there is no place to tell the bad points, only places for good points. So he's forced to give a 60 mark on a game with great graphics.


Sooo: a game that has technical flaws galore, has stuff mentioned in the manual that doesn't work or even exist in the game, has screwy AI, has all the signs of being brought out to early (hence the MULTIPLE patches needed), but looks excellent while doing so, deserves a 10 out of 10?
:lol: :rotfl: :oops:

[MikeJW]

Doesnt need a 10 out of 10 but even pre 1.2 it's better than 65%. If graphics count for 1/4 of their reviews then I take their reviews with a grain of salt. Yep, theres problems in SH4 but some of his problems werent problems with the game but rather problems of ignorance. And they were problems that anyone who spent more than an hour playing would know how to do it correctly.

[jerryt]

Heck maybe I'm too old at 65 to worry about a few minor flaws, I've had much bigger disappointments in life. But ever since patch 1.2 I'm having a ball. As for wasting $50 how many bad meals have you had for that much, while here with a little patience you can have hundreds of hours of enjoyment. Remember guys nothing in life is PERFECT! Thanks to everyone for all the help and great mods, I'm glad I discovered this site.

Lol, same here. I'll hit the big 50 this year and seem to be mellowing out as well.

Bottom line for me and games is, am I having fun? SH4, I have to say yes. Does it need work? You bet, but being a MS flight simmer as well, I know all to well how you basically have to have a mod community to make the game great. So far the sub sim mod guys are doing a great job :up: , and I have high hopes for the sim.

[NEON DEON]

Heck maybe I'm too old at 65 to worry about a few minor flaws, I've had much bigger disappointments in life. But ever since patch 1.2 I'm having a ball. As for wasting $50 how many bad meals have you had for that much, while here with a little patience you can have hundreds of hours of enjoyment. Remember guys nothing in life is PERFECT! Thanks to everyone for all the help and great mods, I'm glad I discovered this site.

Lol, same here. I'll hit the big 50 this year and seem to be mellowing out as well.

Bottom line for me and games is, am I having fun? SH4, I have to say yes. Does it need work? You bet, but being a MS flight simmer as well, I know all to well how you basically have to have a mod community to make the game great. So far the sub sim mod guys are doing a great job :up: , and I have high hopes for the sim.

I Suppose I would take 65 given by the reviewer and then add Neal's reiview (After all this is a sub game) at 9.5 * 10 = 95.

So splitting the difference between the 2 gives it an 80.

However I would tack on another 5 points because I believe Neal is good at what he does :yep: and give it a some what non tilted rating of 85.:D

This is of course is the weekend so my adjusted rating might be a bit off because I am in a good mood. :D

Take her Deep!:ping:

[neeyik]

"Set in the Pacific during World War II (that's 1941 - 1945 for those of us who slept through history class),"

Grrrrrrr :o :damn:

I read this far and stopped reading.....

Even wikipedia says "World War II (abbreviated WWII), or the Second World War, was a worldwide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_war) conflict (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War) which lasted from 1939 to 1945."

I think someone was asleep:dead:
In Aaron's defence, he wasn't asleep but referring to the dates that America officially joined the Allies in the war (given that he's American himself). However, to avoid future confusion, I've adjusted that part of the review accordingly. Shame that one minor error is enough for to stop reading the rest of an article!


Have you noticed that all screenshots in yougamers' review are from patch 1.2 and yet he talkes about the 3D resolution limitation (in v1.0)? I wish he could make his mind about the version he's reviewing. The review is dated Apr 20th, after the release of patch 1.2.

Not all of them but you're right in that we haven't specifically indicated which shots have been taken from which version. I'll get this sorted quickly, otherwise it will just confuse matters I think.

Reviews, due to the amount of hardware testing, do take a while which is why they can often get released after certain patch dates. However, they're also done on a "as released" basis, with any future updates noted in the patches section at the end of the review.


We've all seen how good the game looks and yet yougamers gives it a 60. That is completely wrong, no matter how you put it. SH4 looks as good as any 2007 game.

What other 2007 games limit one to a resolution of 1024 x 768 and don't allow AA, even though no HDR or deferred rendering is taking place?


My final conclusion is that review is missleading and the mark will scary gamers away. He's obviously talking about the 1.2 patched version, which deserves better than that 65 mark. :down:

The review explicitly deals with the v1.0 and v1.1 version of SH4, whereas v1.2 is covered at the end of the review.

Ultimately though, everyone will have a different opinion on the matter though, which is why one should always go through a variety of sources when looking for feedback on a game. How many of us have looked at a review and disagreed with the scores?

Many thanks for the comments and feedback everyone.

[Steeltrap]

Neeyik

I believe the purpose of a review is to reflect correctly the experience the reviewer has when trying a game, both positive and negative. Explanations should be given where possible, and points of view clearly differentiated from statements of fact.

I thought the review was the best and most reasonable I've yet read. I took the trouble to write something on your site to that effect.

For me, the game is a disgrace and I can't see it getting close to the level I expect for at least another 2-3 patches, plus major work by the modding community. Paying $100 for it is insulting - not being able to return it adds injury.

Cheers

[gg5056]

sh4 after practice sh4 is easier than sh3 to play.

[neeyik]

I believe the final rating is the average of the 4 scores given, rounded up.
The final rating isn't an average of the others but a separate "overall" feeling of the game. Our scoring methodology is given here: http://www.yougamers.com/aboutus/methodology/


I believe the purpose of a review is to reflect correctly the experience the reviewer has when trying a game, both positive and negative. Explanations should be given where possible, and points of view clearly differentiated from statements of fact.

Totally agree and any time that we stray from this, then let me know!


I thought the review was the best and most reasonable I've yet read. I took the trouble to write something on your site to that effect.
Thanks for doing so - I'm sure Aaron will be very gratified to read all these comments, given the time he took testing it (I also did a reasonable amount of testing too).


sh4 after practice sh4 is easier than sh3 to play.

I've played SH3 for so long though that I struggle quite a lot with #4 - especially plotting courses, marking lines and so on. It seemed a much quicker and easier thing to do before than selecting a pencil image dumped amongst a pile of other tools.