SH4 rating after 1.3

[maerean_m]

Do you want Neal to update the SH4 review and rating after the 1.3 patch has been released?

[ReallyDedPoet]

It has made a difference, so yes.


RDP

[TDK1044]

In all fairness, I think a 'Review' has to be of the game at the time of release. If this wasn't the case, then you could also update the 'Review' based on mods.

Silent Hunter 4 patched to 1.3 and modded is an excellent subsim. I purchased it knowing that additional patches and mods would make it an excellent game.

However, most purchasers of SH4 are not members of Forums such as this, and they purchased the vanilla version of the game in retail stores and will probably never patch or mod the game. Therefore, I believe that the original Review should stand.

[wetwarev7]

Just curious, why would I care if a review gets changed or not?

Now, if you were asking if I rated SH4 higher with the 1.3 patch(which is what I thought from the title), I would say yes. :up:

[Hillsy_]

I agree with TDK1044 comments. Silent Hunter 4 got more than a fair review when it was released. Look at Dark Messiah of Might & Magic. 6.7 from gamespot when it was released. Very,very buggy when it was released! Crashes to desktop, synchronizing of the sound, it was appalling.. I had above the recommended specs and I couldn't get past Chapter 1 due to excessive CTD's. Only with the v1.02 International Patch was most things corrected, which made for a more playable game which I did finish. Was this another UBI-Soft game? Hmmm...

Ubi-soft publish good games, it is a pity they do not give the developers time to finish them...Oh I'm ranting.. Sorry!

Roger, Roger, over and out..

Damn that Star wars!

[Uber Gruber]

I'm with TDK on this. If we start allowing reviews to be modified after patches then it encourage publishers to release buggy and unfinished games. Given how annoying the early release of SHIV was for this community then I would definately not like that behaviour to become the norm.

SO the review should stay as it is, if publishers want better reviews they should let the developers finish the game before releasing it!

[ReallyDedPoet]

In all fairness, I think a 'Review' has to be of the game at the time of release. If this wasn't the case, then you could also update the 'Review' based on mods.


Good point TDK, I guess I was thinking more along the lines of reviewing based upon a completed game. But agree, that is opening a whole can of worms :yep:

Uber raises some good issues as well.


RDP

[John Channing]

Out of my own sense of self interest I have to say yes.

There is still a large untapped market of potential players out there and, with the number of myths, urban legends and outright misunderstandings about the game, even in it's current excellent state, I have to believe it would be helpful to update, not revise, the initial review.

More sales = more stuff for me down the road.

Plus there is precedent here with Fast Attack and a number of others that were re-visited post patching.

Not that it's ever a good idea to look for more things for the Boss to do, but what can I tell yah... I want SH 5 through 10!

JCC

[wetwarev7]

Not that it's ever a good idea to look for more things for the Boss to do, but what can I tell yah... I want SH 5 through 10!

JCC

heh...SH10(Or Silent Hunter 3000) Will be a look back and simulation of the old antimatter submarines of WW8. Discover the dangers of navigating the Earth's 20 foot deep oceans(global warming, you know, all the water evaporated) in an antiquated tungsteen hulled plasma driven flying saucer shaped Uboat, tracking your targets using the then cutting edge technology of tachyon stream particle emmision detection, and blowing them up with malfunctioning photon torpedoes! Great for nostalgic Dads everywhere!

[BarjackU977]

But if they read the review, they will most likely also take a look at the forums, don't you think?
And they will also find out about a patch and install it.

I think the review should be edited, but to add a comment for patch 1.3. So, the original review should remain, with a big remark about the status of the game with patch 1.3.

In all fairness, I think a 'Review' has to be of the game at the time of release. If this wasn't the case, then you could also update the 'Review' based on mods.

Silent Hunter 4 patched to 1.3 and modded is an excellent subsim. I purchased it knowing that additional patches and mods would make it an excellent game.

However, most purchasers of SH4 are not members of Forums such as this, and they purchased the vanilla version of the game in retail stores and will probably never patch or mod the game. Therefore, I believe that the original Review should stand.

[AVGWarhawk]

I believe a fresh review would be nice. I play the game only modded with new textures. No other playability mod is installed. I plan on using Taters new campaign layers when he is completed with it. Therefore and with that said, the game to me is much improved over the original and all the patches with the last being 1.3. IMHO, if SH4 game out of the box in the state it is in with 1.3 patch I would have been very satisfied with the game. The texture mods just add some nice touches. At this time I do not believe I need the somewhat major mods that are available. Playability is quite nice in the unmodded version patched to 1.3. The AI are very unpredictable as it should be. I'm quite happy with the developers version of the AI and the reaction therein.

[Rockin Robbins]

I'm with TDK on this. If we start allowing reviews to be modified ...
Damn! Do I always have to come down on a different side of a discussion than Uber Gruber? I hate to disagree with people I like, but.....

I believe that the purpose of a review is to answer the question, "Do I want to buy this game?" That answer can change, based on patches and mods. Therefore the review that says, "Don't buy this turkey, it's broken!" is doing people a disservice if the game is fixed and a blast to play. "Patch 1.3 fixed almost all the issues that plagued the game on launch. Mods by Subsim modders can make this game an immersive experience without precident in war game simulations. Silent Hunter 4 is fixed and a blast to play! Buy it!" End of review.

Perhaps the review can be changed in a way that preserves the original content, punishing the game manufacturer for jumping the gun on publication, but adding the reviewer's opinion of the game in its present form. We do have some obligation to act in our own best interest.

After all, if you are not willing to change an unfavorable review of a game that is fixed, the review squelches future sales. Why then, would a game company ever want to fix a game again? We've used the stick. There comes a time to switch to the carrot.

After the child responds properly to punishment, reward is appropriate. Are we all here because we hate the child? Hmmmmm?:hmm: (this last paragraph should be read in a German accent for maximum effect)

[Iron Budokan]

I voted no only because I thought he did fair job already and the changes that have been made with 1.3 wouldn't necessarily change his overall review...at least as I understood it. :up:

[The General]

Let's be honest, Neal's original review was a little redundant because the game was already released and in circulation for some time. I also thought it was a little too positive. A review now, would be a complete waste of his/our time.

Obviously I voted 'Non!'

[Uber Gruber]

I'm gonna bend my original reasoning in light of the views expressed by AVGWarhawk and Rockin Robbins.

I think the review should be ammended to reflect the status of the game at release and also after patch 1.3. I also think the score could be modified to reflect the improvement..e.g.

Score: 6/10 (initial release), 8/10 (patched).

Alternatively, a completely new review could be written and linked to from the initial review. I still have to maintain that the intiail review should not be changed as we should ideally encourage publishers to do things correctly in the first instance. That said, I would also like to acknowledge the work done by the developers in producing a great 1.3 patch.

Oh and the following quote had nothing to do with my slight change of heart.....honest:hmm:

Damn! Do I always have to come down on a different side of a discussion than Uber Gruber? I hate to disagree with people I like, but.....

[geetrue]

You can't tell Neal how to do anything ...

I know I've tried ... :lol:

[Reaves]

Another review would have to include 1.3 in the title/heading.

[BarjackU977]

Speaking about mods, everyone should use the Taihosan fix (that small Japanese cargo that, if loaded with ammo, cause CTD when sunk in the default 1.3 installation). This one sounds like a must have mod.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?p=600396#post600396

I don't think the idea of a separate review, personally, as one may end up on the "wrong" review through a Google search, or a link on another web site.
I think it is best to have a single review, made of the original one, with a clear update statement about patch 1.3.

Or you could, on the original review, put a link to the updated one, but that may be more complex than having a single one.

[JScones]

Alternatively, a completely new review could be written and linked to from the initial review. I still have to maintain that the intiail review should not be changed as we should ideally encourage publishers to do things correctly in the first instance. That said, I would also like to acknowledge the work done by the developers in producing a great 1.3 patch.
I agree. There's too much rewriting of history as it is.

The original review should stand as a valid snapshot in time. However, if 1.3 improves the game in such a way that makes the original review no longer reflective, that is, unduly harsh, then I think it should be done like this... http://simhq.com/_air10/air_293a.html . This is a review of the vastly superior BoB v2.06 but with reference back to the original BoB v2 review, which was not quite as "glowing".

I mean, fair's fair and being objective and all.

I certainly don't think that we should cover our eyes and ears and deny SH4 v1.0 through v1.2 ever existed by rewriting the original review.

[nomdeplume]

I agree with the people who say it should be updated to reflect the current state of affairs, but in a way that makes it clear that the review is based on the patched version.

The way I see it, a review should help me decide if a game is worth buying or not. If a game is unplayable without a patch, but is fantastic with the patch applied, it's doing me a disservice to just pretend the patch doesn't exist. If all the reviews focus on bugs which were fixed post-release, I could easily miss out on a really good game.

In that vein, it could be worth mentioning the popular stand-out mods which really enhance the game for particular types of players. Basically, what use is a review of a game in an unpatched, unmodded state, if nobody actually plays it that way?

That said, there isn't much point spending time updating a review if everyone who's going to read it has already either bought the game or decided not to buy it.

[Hillsy_]

Sorry to jump in again but...

Not everyone has the internet to quickly patch the game to v1.3 A review is based on the product out of the box. The review was too positive in my opinion. Silent Hunter IV, Dark Messiah of Might & Magic, Heroes of Might & Magic V were all rushed to get a quick buck. All games released through Ubi-Soft! Then again, the reason why Silent Hunter 4 received a better review then the above mentioned games is, because the reviewer saw potential in the game. With the right patches, fixes, and mods the game could be and is now being appreciated by the vast majority of people. To be honest, It was dreadful when it was released. The only thing which worked for me was the tutorial and even then that had its' discrepancies - such as being able to use radar when you clearly could not. Even though it is alot better now, with the v1.3 patch; you still need the Merchant Fix(Mod) to really have a more complete game. Sorry but I disagree. I say 'No'. Think about it, if we revised all the reviews of all the games available, then well...do I really need to say more? Other games don't get the newly patched reviews, so why should Silent Hunter IV.

[fredbass]

If I'm looking at reviews in order to make a decision on whether it's worth it to me to get the game, then I whole-heartedly want a current review which is based on the latest patch so I have a fairly good idea what I'll be getting at that particular time. So to keep a Publisher on its toes, its important that reviewers need to make it clear to us clients what version of review we are getting. I think having that clarification will hopefully keep the incentive to prevent games from being released unfinished, like SH4 was, as long as we can get reviews at time of release as well as after each subsequent patch.

Of course it may be unrealistic to ask for that because of the time and effort which may be needed for some companies to keep up with all the changes, but that's my two cents worth anyway.

[nomdeplume]

Not everyone has the internet to quickly patch the game to v1.3
That's probably not an issue for many people reading a review on subsim.com :up:

But you do make a good point that it's probably a good idea to mention the size of the patch, and also the fact that you might very well want to install some of the amazing content mods (graphics, audio, radio) which can be pretty hefty, too.

Other games don't get the newly patched reviews, so why should Silent Hunter IV.
Well, I think other games should get updated reviews based on patches. While I do understand the feeling that "patching it after release isn't acceptable", I also think it's better to reward publishers when they do decide to allow the developers more time (i.e. spend more money) to improve an already-released game. Mentioning in a review that the release version 1.0 sucked and isn't worth your money, but the patched version will blow you away and is worth every penny, seems IMHO to strike a nice balance.

I think if the gaming community as a whole refuses to acknowledge the improvements brought about by patches, then publishers will still release games before they're ready; they just won't ever bother touching them after release. They'll focus more on hype before the release, misleading demos (if they have a demo at all), and basically hope they can trick enough people into buying the buggy game to make enough money to make the whole thing worthwhile. Marketing people don't understand the technology: they see what looks like a playable subsim, and they say "what do you mean you need another 6 months? It looks finished to me! Release!".

It might also be worth noting who the originator of this thread is. Who knows; maybe if the Powers That Be at Ubisoft read an updated review which says it's "almost perfect, except for a few small problems with unmannable guns, unrealistic depth changing behaviour, and ..." they might decide to give the developers a bit more time to polish it with a 1.4 patch, in the hopes of earning a 10/10 (or 9.9/10, at least) review. Or they'll green-light SH5, with a more realistic schedule. It's hard to imagine a scenario where improving the public perception of this excellent sim would be a bad thing.

Or as Rockin Robbins said, it's time for the carrot! If you only ever use the stick, they'll just learn there's no chance of pleasing you and not to bother. No more subsims ever, because the market demands absolute perfection upon release, but is way too small to make devoting the resources needed to achieve that goal viable. Especially when you could just churn out another by-the-numbers shooter or real-time "strategy" clickfest and be guaranteed a profit.

[TDK1044]

The problem that I see here is that once you create a precedent for 'Reviews' after patches, then the original 'Review' becomes meaningless because everyone just says "well let's wait for the AP (after patching) Review in a few months."

The message that sends to the publishers is that they can safely underfund their projects, and then patch them to varying degrees after release and then be judged on the patched game.

To me, this is not the way it should be. How would any of us feel buying a new novel, only to discover that it's not really finished and that the publisher will mail us the corrected segments of the book over the following three months?

Silent Hunter 4 should have been given an 18 month development schedule, not an 11 month schedule followed by three patches with a diminished Dev team.

Because of the quality, integrity and talent of this Dev team, and because we have excellent modders, SH4 is now a very good game indeed. But my original point stands; any video game should be judged at the time of release when most people purchase it, many of whom know little if anything about patches and mods.

[Wilcke]

TDK,

I think you just wrote the post-release review! Well done!:up: Yes its unacceptable for publishers to bring a product to market in this shape. On the other hand I just got into Sub-Simming earlier this year. I had heard about the Sub Sim forum through the SimHQ webpage and curiousity being what it is I purchased SH3 and began my new addiction! Suffice to say, that through the work of the Mod Community I am now an avid Submarine Commander. So the post release reviews do add new folks to the community. I ended up purchasing two copies of SH4 and now continue to have a great time with both SH3 and SH4.

Cheers!

Wilcke

[TDK1044]

TDK,

I think you just wrote the post-release review! Well done!:up: Yes its unacceptable for publishers to bring a product to market in this shape. On the other hand I just got into Sub-Simming earlier this year. I had heard about the Sub Sim forum through the SimHQ webpage and curiousity being what it is I purchased SH3 and began my new addiction! Suffice to say, that through the work of the Mod Community I am now an avid Submarine Commander. So the post release reviews do add new folks to the community. I ended up purchasing two copies of SH4 and now continue to have a great time with both SH3 and SH4.

Cheers!

Wilcke

Good point, Wilcke. Glad to have you with us.:D

[geetrue]

The problem that I see here is that once you create a precedent for 'Reviews' after patches, then the original 'Review' becomes meaningless because everyone just says "well let's wait for the AP (after patching) Review in a few months."

The message that sends to the publishers is that they can safely underfund their projects, and then patch them to varying degrees after release and then be judged on the patched game.



Haven't you heard of the new "PC Games AP" magazine? Comes with a CD enclosed with all of the latest patches and the AP reviews. :yep:

Just kidding :lol:

[TDK1044]

I think you may have predicted the future, geetrue. :D

[John Channing]

Actually. if my fading memory serves me, this was they way it was done in the past. I seem to recall that both Falcon 4.0 and Janes F-15 (or was it F/A 18) had patches that came on cd's that were included in some of the magazines.

JCC