Tom Chick's Silent Hunter 4 review in Gamespy

[Onkel Neal]

If you've read the "Thanks!" section of the 2007 Submarine Almanac (http://www.subsim.com/almanac/), you know I hold Tom in high regard. He gave SH3 a 5 out of 5 star review, (doesn't mean perfect, etc) which took some heat off yours truly for leading the glowing praise with a 100 rating (doesn't mean perfect, etc).

Note, Tom is a serious sim guy, he's not a PS2 clone who was assigned SH4, so I feel his criticisms are valid and should be taken seriously.

There's a reason there are more movies about submarines than there are about jets with hi-tech avionics. This is a visceral and straightforward type of warfare, with dramatic turns of fortune and an exciting hunter/hunted dynamic.

Tom Chick and the sub that won't go down (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/silent-hunter-4/786237p1.html)

good hunting!
Neal

[Kant Schwimm]

Bit confused as to where the link took me Neal, see below.



:o Is this the review?

[daft]

Your link points to the wrong place I think, but on a more general note I sometimes wish games reviews were written without any scores attached. I review games for all formats for a Swedish games site and awarded SH4 8/10. An uncontroversial score since most of our readers are general gamers not really into sims, but ever so often review discussions simply boils down to that little number appended at the end. There's seldom any consideration taken as to what the reviewer actually had to say about the game or how he/she motivated the score. OT, I know, but sometimes it gets very frustrating when scores are taken out of context. :)

[Front Runner]

(Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

http://odeo.com/audio/1453111/view

:rotfl:

[CaptainHaplo]

I think the correct link is

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/silent-hunter-4/786237p1.html

although its written by Tom Chick - it only shows 3 out of 5. Although I agree with him on most things.

As for the first link... sometimes its better we dont ask things about our respected Onkel. :p

All in good fun Neal!

[Front Runner]

I think the correct link is

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/silent-hunter-4/786237p1.html



Thanks for the corrected link...now on to comments on the review..

"But even for those of us who are inclined to stick with it, Silent Hunter: Wolves of the Pacific is a profoundly frustrating experience, in large part because of how close it is to being sublime."

He has summed up my feelings in just these few words....however, I am still somewhere in the Pacific, stalking the Rising Sun....open outer doors.....

[NefariousKoel]

I'm still baffled why some people think the interface is bad.

I think it's better than SH3 was - with just pictures of some guy's head to denote what station it was. At least in this one it has easily recognizable symbols. The TDC is right at your fingertips too.

[rdtwendt]

I think Tom did a good job of describing the SH4 experience for the majority of players. To come so close to perfection, but fall conspicuously short with bugs and other gameplay issues is truly disheartnening for the subsim faithful. As he mentioned, it's a hard line to draw where gratitude for the game's existence and expectations for stability and quality should meet. I sincerely hope UBI allows the developers more time to polish this game. The wasted potential alone would be heartbreaking for those of us who hold games like this up as a metric for what computer gaming should be.

Most of his technical assertions are valid. However I do disagree with the interface complaint; it is truly better than the heads we were given in SH3 and for the most part gets the job done. I would prefer that some of the icons we had in the previous version return, like the "range at current speed" feature and "follow nearest merchant" option.

All in all SH4 is a game you hate to be frustrated with, but there are just too many barriers to enjoyment right now to make it a rewarding experience.

[Chock]

On the whole, for a short review, I think it's largely pretty fair. And I know achieving this is sometimes hard to pull off, as I'm also a writer by profession (amongst other things) and have done quite a few software reviews in my time. In writing reviews, one has to adhere to strict criteria, and usually get it all to fit in a specified number of words too!

However, because I know this, I did notice that the piece lacks some of the detail a review should really have, i.e. what system was it being tested on and specifically, how much RAM, what video card and what operating system?

These are important things to mention, in view of the fact that the review refers to the sim crashing a fair bit and also alludes to patches being available - so one presumes it was not the 'A' key crash to blame for these mishaps.

This is the kind of valuable information that reviews are supposed to provide, so that 'punter A' can read the review and think: 'hmm, that's similar to my set-up, so I might have problems too'.

The review closes by saying that SH4 is a 'profoundly frustrating experience', but without evidence for a comprehensive test, or at least a mention of if this was done, I find myself not convinced that the software was always the smoking gun. If the game is crashing a lot, then the first suspect ought to be the system it is running on, whereupon the obvious thing to try is another review machine with alternative specs. If it still crashes, then the software should start coming under suspicion. Whenever I run software for a review, I test it on as many differently specced-up machines as possible, and I'd kind of hope people who review stuff and pass judgement on a product would do the same, as an unfair review could end up giving UBISOFTs sales figures a 'profoundly frustrating experience' that they might not have deserved. And then sub simulation fans might find their favourite software genre undeservedly even thinner on the ground than it already is.

For the record, Patched SH4 has never crashed on my machine (Win XP SP'd, ATI PCIx card, 2 gigs RAM). I'm not claiming it's without issues here, just stating a fact.

I find myself disagreeing with the interface complaints, as although the SH4 interface initially threw me and many other 'SH vets', it's not really any worse than stock SH3 was, just different. And with no knowledge as to whether UBISOFT is going to 'do an IL-2' and release expansion disks, there may very well be a good reason for the interface change for all I know, particularly in view of the fact that lots of other stuff is directly ported over from SH3 with no changes whatsoever.

So it would seem to me that if there is no reason for the change (which none of us can either confirm or deny with any degree of confidence) then the changes would simply be a case of the developers making work for themselves, and given that UBISOFT is not some amatuer company, I'd like to think that's unlikely.

Apart from these gripes about the review, which may not have as much foundation as it seems to me, if the test was more comprehensive than the review makes it appear, I agree with a lot of it. I just think that one ought to be careful about stating with absolute conviction that software you review is unstable, when it actually might not be to blame.

I'm personally convinced another patch will sort it, and the review seems rather more pessimistic on this score than I think it should be before the facts are all in.

[Capt. Shark Bait]

is that book available in stores? wouldn't mind reading it

[AVGWarhawk]

I'm still baffled why some people think the interface is bad.

I think it's better than SH3 was - with just pictures of some guy's head to denote what station it was. At least in this one it has easily recognizable symbols. The TDC is right at your fingertips too.


I happen to agree here on the interface. I find it user friendly and easy to operate once you get some game time in. All in all a good review but I have to ask how long did he play the game? For me, over time I learned the quirks and the interface making the game much more enjoyable. As far as the CTD issue, I do not have any.

[mookiemookie]

I'm still baffled why some people think the interface is bad.

I think it's better than SH3 was - with just pictures of some guy's head to denote what station it was. At least in this one it has easily recognizable symbols. The TDC is right at your fingertips too.

I happen to agree here on the interface. I find it user friendly and easy to operate once you get some game time in. All in all a good review but I have to ask how long did he play the game? For me, over time I learned the quirks and the interface making the game much more enjoyable. As far as the CTD issue, I do not have any.
I'm with you guys. I hear a lot of people saying they wish for SH3's interface. I found actually clicking each officer, or the little random portrait, to be very cumbersome. I think SH4's interface is pretty intuitive. Ah well. To each his own.

No CTD issues here either.

All in all a pretty fair review.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well I have to agree with the review on this one - the interface is a bit clunky to me. I prefer sh3 with the sidebar. What they have now combined the sidebar and the "officer" stations. Because some of the reports are no longer available - I find myself wishing for the "old style" controls for some things. In reality though - any gamer can adapt - for most sh3 players that are like me its just a comfort level thing more than the interface being "bad". Its all a matter of preference and I dont see it as any issue worth causing a ruckus over.

The bugs and such are really more the issues with the game.

[Onkel Neal]

Link fixed, thanks. Not sure how LOST has anything to do with SH4, except maybe Ubisoft lost a great chance at another 5/5 :dead:

I can appreciate how he makes the comment
On one hand, since hardcore sims are so few and far between, we should be thankful for what we get. But on the other hand, how many shortcuts should we overlook out of sheer gratitude?

Yes, the game is saddled with more than a few bugs and was released too early, no doubt. Like he suggests, one should not excuse this too much, but with SH4 being the only subsim worthy of the name "simulator", it's not a great idea to crucify it. It's going to be very interesting to see where the Silent Hunter series goes from here.

[D'biter]

has ubisoft announed an SH5?????

[RocketDog]

Like he suggests, one should not excuse this too much, but with SH4 being the only subsim worthy of the name "simulator", it's not a great idea to crucify it. It's going to be very interesting to see where the Silent Hunter series goes from here.

Yep, that's the rub. Microsoft gave up on WWII flight sims and cancelled Combat Flight Sim 4, probably in part because of the roastng it got on various flight sim forums and in some reviews. It just wasn't a good product. I hope Ubisoft doesn't pull the plug on subsims in total because of the mixed reception of SH4. If only they could have commissioned Maddox's crowd at 1C to do it instead... sigh...

Cheers,

RD.

[Jeffg]

I agree on the review,I think that a manual should come out from the UbiSoft as a add-on for the sim or someone else write one that will help all of us out.
Jeffg

[AhhhFresh]

I think it's a pretty fair review since he seems to be reviewing from the perspective of somebody who is familiar with sims, maybe even sub sims, who is not a diehard Silent Hunter fan

Wolves of the Pacific had a chance to be a game that brought a lot of new blood into the subsim market.... it's really purty and just feels real... it also does an amazing job of giving you a personal stake in your sub and crew.

But it's a game that requires a fair bit of investment to really get into it... to even be marginally competent at it you need to have a good understanding of how subwarfare in WWII worked. Couldn't a more effective tutorial gone a long way in this? That's a fair point to penalize I think.

The interface... it works, but it doesn't strike me as very "newbie friendly"... it does most of the things that need to be done (though I needed to use a mod to get back in things like "range at this speed") but I'm not sure it's very easy to pick up. I find the 3D control access to be confusing and tempermental... a great way to let you feel like a real sub skipper in theory... but the execution falls pretty short I think.

I would say it's a pretty good, if short, review.

[SteamWake]

I agree on the review,I think that a manual should come out from the UbiSoft as a add-on for the sim or someone else write one that will help all of us out.
Jeffg

Thats what Subsim is for :up:

Sub Porn ???

[Chock]

Sub Porn

I think he's refering to the fact that subs are long and hard and full of seamen.

[DanCanovas]

Sub Porn

I think he's refering to the fact that subs are long and hard and full of seamen.

:rotfl:

[McBeck]

Im still wondering why so many have crashes....Iv yet to experience just 1...

[Sailor Steve]

Thats what Subsim is for :up:
(doesn't mean perfect, etc)

[daft]

Im still wondering why so many have crashes....Iv yet to experience just 1...

Same here. I pressed "A" when aiming for "S" and I accidentally surfaced on my desktop instead of in the Celebes Sea. This was pre-1.2. :)

[scrapser]

I read that review and agree with it wholeheartedly. I waited 10 years for a new Pacific Theater sub sim and after seeing what was possible with SH3, I could hardly wait for SH4. I bought the game immediately when it came out and almost as quickly put it on the shelf when I realized it was still a rough draft.

I now patiently await reading from others here that patch 1.X (and maybe a few mods) has finally addressed the major issues with SH4 (and there are several to be sure). Only then will I wade in and get my feet wet.

As far as the interface is concerned, I think it comes down to how quickly people acclimate. If it continues to keep nagging you then something's wrong. I still wonder who's bright idea it was to change the keyboard mapping to be different from SH3 (what were they thinking?).

Anyway, I have no doubt SH4 will be improved eventually. I look forward to that day.

scrapser

[tater]

Dynamic campaigns in submarine sims are as old as PC gaming itself, and this one offers the latest and arguably best. Radio traffic keeps you informed not just of local sighting, but also the historical events of the war

Why does this reviewer think the campaign in SH4 is dynamic? It is not dynamic at all. Not even a little.

tater

[RickC Sniper]

"That's a pretty cool interactive protractor on the navigation map and those dials on the attack periscope sure do look cool. Maybe next time Ubisoft can help players use them."


Valid point. This isn't a game that's going to recruit many noobs to the genre.

My game has crashed exactly once. I'm still scratching my head at why it's been labled unstable.

[Onkel Neal]

I think he must have been playing with the review copy; the one I started my review with did invoke a number of crashes. Once I got 1.2, things became pretty stable. No CTDs to date.

It's pretty ironic, Ubi really wants to rope in the "casual" gamer but the substandard manual and tutorials defeat that purpose. Thankfully, the Romanian devs did not skimp on the realism and gave the game plenty of scalability. :up:

[-Pv-]

The game is better than the manual. No doubt. As far as crashes, the review copy must have been a pre 1.1. Those of us with stable OSes have been crashless.
-Pv-

[XanderF]

Dynamic campaigns in submarine sims are as old as PC gaming itself, and this one offers the latest and arguably best. Radio traffic keeps you informed not just of local sighting, but also the historical events of the war

Why does this reviewer think the campaign in SH4 is dynamic? It is not dynamic at all. Not even a little.

tater

"Dynamic" in this context doesn't mean "full strategic war going on in the background, with every action or event effecting everything else". It just means...well...dynamic.

If you go to the same co-ordinates on the same hour of the same day...you aren't ALWAYS going to see the same exact ships there. The convoys are 'random', air patrols are 'random', etc.

It's not "static", it changes every time you play, ergo it's "dynamic".

Which is true of both Sh3 and Sh4 (and 'Aces of the Deep', 'Silent Service', etc).

[Skubber]

I think the reviewer hit it right on the head. The game is sooo close to being sublime.

It still could be.

Forget about the manual and tutorials for newbies. It's too late for that.

If they just get the various gameplay issues sorted, and the few atmosphere-killing graphical flaws (transparent crew, laser-beam lighthouses, you-know-this-old-saw-by-now) ...

... if they could just fix these few things, SH4 could still be the most excellasubadocious sim ever created.

[tater]

Sorry, but "dynamic" has a very specific meaning in relation to games. Yes, there is confusion because the word also has a non-technical meaning, but that is not an excuse. The game is not dynamic, not at all.

In the context of talking about a campaign in a game, the actions of the player MUST change the campaign or the campaign is not dynamic. With triggers, you could argue that individual missions/patrols are dynamic in game, but not the campaign.

tater

[bruschi sauro]

has ubisoft announed an SH5?????
impossible!!!:rotfl:

[Steeltrap]

If they do announce it, here's my nomination for its title.......

SH-V "Silent Developers": Bug Hunt in the Black Sea

[XanderF]

Sorry, but "dynamic" has a very specific meaning in relation to games. Yes, there is confusion because the word also has a non-technical meaning, but that is not an excuse. The game is not dynamic, not at all.

In the context of talking about a campaign in a game, the actions of the player MUST change the campaign or the campaign is not dynamic. With triggers, you could argue that individual missions/patrols are dynamic in game, but not the campaign.

tater

Ummm...no offense, but...since when?

You seem to have a definition of "dynamic" you are happy with, but I confess I've seen no definition of that term in any dictionaly that matches what you are describing.

The second definition in the "American Heritage Dictionary" has...

Characterized by continuous change, activity, or progress

...which...well, it is.

[tater]

I think almost everyone agrees that a "dynamic campaign" in one in which player actions alter the course of the campaign.

In a flight sim, if you get a mission to destroy a given target, once it is totally destroyed you shouldn't be tasked with destroying it again—at least not until a point far enough in the future that it has been rebuilt.

In the case of SH4, the bare minimum, IMO, is some persistance past the end of a given patrol. If 2xYamato are sunk, it should be possible to never have any chance of seeing a Yamato BB again. That's my minimum requirement for a dynamic campaign instead of a "random campaign" which is what SH4 has. If the typical sub is sinking 1-2 ships per patrol, and you sink 100,000 tons of mostly merchants in a given area, you'd expect the enemy to react to that and steer traffic elsewhere, or use more escorts in that region. In game? Nothing. the player in no way changes the game world, not even a little.

[McBeck]

I think almost everyone agrees that a "dynamic campaign" in one in which player actions alter the course of the campaign.

In a flight sim, if you get a mission to destroy a given target, once it is totally destroyed you shouldn't be tasked with destroying it again—at least not until a point far enough in the future that it has been rebuilt.

In the case of SH4, the bare minimum, IMO, is some persistance past the end of a given patrol. If 2xYamato are sunk, it should be possible to never have any chance of seeing a Yamato BB again. That's my minimum requirement for a dynamic campaign instead of a "random campaign" which is what SH4 has. If the typical sub is sinking 1-2 ships per patrol, and you sink 100,000 tons of mostly merchants in a given area, you'd expect the enemy to react to that and steer traffic elsewhere, or use more escorts in that region. In game? Nothing. the player in no way changes the game world, not even a little.
I think there are several layers of Dynamic.

1) If you start the same patrol over and over...the objectives will change.
If you go to the same spot and a certain time again and again...you will see different ships, weather and what not.
You will not be able to influence the war.

2) Same as above, but you choices and actions will have some effect...IE if you sink the Yamato, it will not appear again in the game.

The problem with nr 2 is that given the tonnage we get on our patrols we will change the ressources of the enemy to an unhistoric/unrealistic level.
Worst case: We will sink most of their ships early and have nothing to hunt for... ;)

So I think the devs did it like nr 1, so they game will continueously give us the level of contacts we should experience.

[HarleyRider]

IMO, the only sim that has a TRULY "dynamic campaign" is "Falcon 4.0" or the newer version "Falcon 4.0: Allied Force". With F4, however you perform on a mission will drastically effect the out come down the road.

For instance, if you are ordered to bomb a bridge to keep the enemy from transporting supplies across it and you fail, you will pay the consequenses later in the sim because the enemy WAS able to transport those supplies across that bridge to support your enemy. Therefore it will change the balance of the war.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Cheers!!!

[edjcox]

Here's one issue for you

By default the Torps are all set to long range slow speed..

Now I tend to get close and shoot high speed fairly exclusively...

Because of the defalt setting I have to reset all of the load Torps to high speed clicking each indivdually using that lousy low high interface....

That's an example of interface issues...

Would really be nice to have a toggle to set the default to high speed... Now if I want to chance a long range shot on a an idiot who doesn't know what Zig Zag means I can..

A few others like this could really make the game more enjoyable.

Here's one more...

You sight a target and swing your Deck gun onto to it... Would be nice if your range setting would be fairly close to dead on say a few hundred yards = or -.. Instead your guessing and wasting precious rounds trying to bracket.... Perhaps a window with an overhead view showing your water splashes short or long allowing you to adjust.. Again these could be options or crutches for learning players that the purists could switch off...

I still think the battle damage control window is totally lacking in adequate data to manage there tasks. Damage seems never to reduce on some items until poof it's fixed... Prioritizing your crews efforts is a captains decision.. You wanna fight some more or go and hide for a while to fix up systems you may employ when you reengage.. The way it is now your hard pressed to determine what is being fixed and when it will be available... I can here you now.. that's the way it was...

Well yes but part of this game is to make you feel like your efforts can change things and the outcome.. If indeed you sink even if you repair and slink away.. well ...

:down:

The bright side of this game is that these and so many other issues are within reach of the modders..

Neal what I'd like to see is some commo about what UBI plans to fix in the next mod and when they plan to leave this baby beind on the street for strangers to feed clothe and rear...:rotfl: