Pretty graphics, YAY or NAY?

[elanaiba]

So just curious, what if SH4 had SH2 graphics?

Would it have been the same to you or worse game?

[AVGWarhawk]

To me, after you soak in all the visuals, it is time for simulation play. It was a very hard toss up between 'no way keep your damn oldie' and 'I would have brought it anyway but like the 2007 graphics". This is a hard one because I have already been spoiled with the 2007 graphics engine. :D

[elanaiba]

Remember, we're talking about the same crap/great SH4, with the sole difference being in the graphics.

[tedhealy]

I like the new graphics, but I also like the gameplay post-mods so I went with the middle option.

[Sonarman]

I think that graphics always add to the atmosphere, the great thing you guys did with the control room was to make the 3d functional rather than indeed just graphics. This is graphics put to it's best use to make things more real. Although I think gameplay is the paramount issue this is a simulation after all and the more realistic the graphics the more convincing the environment & atmosphere.

It's interesting to note that some players here actually stated they preferred the 2d panels of the original "Silent Hunter" to the 3D of SH3 in terms of functionality. I think they could access panels and switches etc more quickly and things were sharper on screen.

On gameplay vs graphics one of the best games I (and probably many others here) ever played was Microprose "Red Storm Rising" which had very little in the way of graphics and yet it was a fantastic experience full of tension & atmosphere. But I think for you to sell that game today to a mass market you would have to give it great graphics although the Defcon game which is essentially a map with symbols is hugely popular, it's all a question of balance.

The real issue with SH2/DC was not the graphics but the very poor AI and static nature of the campaign along with bugs such as the sonar not working consistently in DC. I suspect that as in SH4's case too short a time was given to the developers to finish the job.

I think if we were talkng about adding extra new screens into the game eg engine room,torpedo room etc I suspect that many here might be willing forgo a full 3D representation of additional compartments to gain the benefit of extra functionallity/gameplay.

[mookiemookie]

I prefer gameplay over graphics. I chose the middle button.

[DeepIron]

Even though I went with number 2, I would sacrifice "some" graphics quality IF I got an equal amount (or more) "returned" in gameplay and strategy. I don't think SH2 graphics would cut it, but something like Sonarman mentioned, "flat" instrument panels and the like would work... For myself, I'm not crazy about the external camera stuff as I prefer to play "in situ" from the bridge or control room anyway.
I was a HUGE fan of the original SIlent Hunter, 2D and all...

[RickC Sniper]

Graphics are important. When this game was first released we were looking at low-rez screens and it looked awful on widescreen LCD's.

I think the first patch addresed this and even though I still would have played this game, it became far more enjoyable once it got good looking.

[Ducimus]

Since i never played Sh2, i can't give a fair answer on this one. But, i do know enough about SH2 to know that it had a rendered interior.

In my personal opinion, graphics has been emphasized too much. And understandably so, this day and age, big graphics are nearly a must.

But i think its a matter of only having so much in resources in the way of manhours and time to build something. By emphasizing one item, you might not have the time to work on another in equal measure. In the end, the "other half" of the submarine simulation , i feel is being neglected to some degree.

In sum, i think compromise has to be reached so that one portion doesnt go neglected or overemphaised.

I know this will make my very unpopular, but I have often thoguht of how much trouble and work, one would possibly save themselves, by simply not creating an external view, and instead emphasizing the first person point of view as oriented to "life onboard a submarine". For example You would make waves and such render perfectly from the bridge view, and not have to worry about silly things like "sub on rails" or, "my propellers are turning backwards". The time saved from having to deal with those aspects, could then be spent to better flesh out the submarine itself.

By allowing an external view, you open a whole plethora of problems that must be addressed, while other aspects of the sim such as the internal modeling of the submarine, and various switches, controls, and functionality, dont get the same attention.

Of course i realize that the eternal view and eyecandy go hand in hand. Its one aspect that i think sells games. In the end, i think the trick would be to find the right compromise on where and how one divides their efforts overall.

[seafarer]

Well, I played SH2 on a Gateway PIII with a some old ATI card in it. I'd be pretty bummed if 6 years later, on a dual-AMD 64-bit machine with an NVidia 8800 graphics card with 512MB VRAM if the sim didn't look substantially better!

Seriously, would you be happy now if your desktop graphics in XP or Vista looked no better then a Windows 3 desktop in 640x480 display?

I expect that as the hardware improves to allow for more, that the whole package will improve - game play and graphics. What's the point of a nice big wide screen LCD display if it's filled with drab old VGA graphics? What's the point of GPU's that have more computing power and potential then your main cpu did back in 2001 if you are just going to have them idling 99% of the time?

I want it ALL, dangnabit!


P.S. I mean, companies are using NVidia 8800 series cards and NVidia CUDA tools to run Monte-Carlo simulations for research, and MATLAB has a CUDA plug-in to leverage NVIdia GPUs for parallel computations. At the least, I want mine rendering a decent ocean physics model :D

[stabiz]

Graphics: yes, gameplay: yes. I wouldnt bought a game with truly crap graphics, no. But below branch-shooting-1fps-Crysis-graphics are okay. Theatre of War is a great game, despite its graphical drawbacks, for instance.

Most games are crap these days, if you ask me. Only racing sim makers, Creative Assembly, Ubisoft Romania and some select independent developers put out good games.


I went and bought Rainbow Six: Vegas because of the title some time ago. Holy crap, even if the disk was rewritable it wouldnt have been worth a penny.

[danlisa]

So just curious, what if SH4 had SH2 graphics?

That's a simple question with a simple answer.

I would not have bought it.
However, not due to the lack of 'eye-candy' but rather a lack of realism/simulation/immersion.

Personally, realism & immersion sells me when it comes to this genre, without it you are playing a computerised board game, move here, sink this, move back...

So, if SH4 was as historically accurate as humanly possible but had sh*te graphics, I would be sold.

Without deviating from your original question, I can't see an option in the poll that I can answer.

[Seeadler]

For me the cloud/weather rendering engine in SH2/DC is simple more flexible and better. The old Janus-engine supported more than just two cloud textures. It uses for each cloud formations (Cirrus, Cumulus, etc.) 5-6 TGA's , a similar concept as the MS Flight Simulator.

These textures could be combined for a mission into complex weather fronts via a simple script code. There ware weather mods available, which let in the course of the mission two weather fronts collide. You are sailed still in the sun and saw already the bad weather on the horizon, or saw it raise over the mountains in the landscape, it all looked fantastic and realistic.

This approach would have been great if it were used with today's shader technology in SH4 instead of these unrealistic and to quickly morphing clouds in the game, even the clouds rendering in SH3 looks better to me.

I don't wish to imagine what modder would create today with such a flexible weather system.:yep:

[TDK1044]

I think if you were asking the question prior to the release of SH4, Dan, and that the gameplay could have been made better and less buggy with a trade off in graphics, you would have seen a different set of responses.

But now that SH4 looks as good as it does, especially with the ROW mods, expectations are very high for both graphics and gameplay.

[CaptHawkeye]

Well don't take it too far. Like I said, i'm no fan of annoying stuff like "quick render more dirt under the first officer's finger nails!" which then results in half assed gameplay. But I also wasn't a big fan of soap box ships being tossed around the detailess blanket ocean like a raft like in DC. :)

[Keelbuster]

Weird question - because - provided that SH4 had had great gameplay, realism, and quality (in terms of bugs, etc), I would have happily settled for cheesy graphics. I don't know about SH2 though...no need for archeology - I would have been _quite_ happy with a _gameplay/realism_ overhaul/expansion of SH3 though...

[Ducimus]

Weird question - because - provided that SH4 had had great gameplay, realism, and quality (in terms of bugs, etc), I would have happily settled for cheesy graphics. .

I fired up SH3 the other week, and i acutally found myself missing it. Even stock, Its fleshed out alot better because it has more functionality and atmosphere.

Theater preference aside, If SH3 was released as a title today with the faster loading times, campaign file structure, and mission variety of Sh4, with the same graphics it does now,( as dated as they are) - id buy it in a heartbeat. I realize though, that im probably of a minority opinion.

[DeepIron]

That's funny. I have an old Compaq laptop laying around that runs Win98 so I can play my Commanders Edition of the original Silent Hunter from SSI... Still enjoy it to this day...:up:

[Sailor Steve]

As usual I'm of two minds. I love the way the water looks, I love the way the crew looks and I love the way the ships look. That said, like some others I would have given it all up for SH2's graphics and AOD's gameplay. Still, in SH3 traversing the harbors and looking at the modder-created scenery is one of my big joys.

Yes, I would buy it.

I chose middle button.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Let's see, SH4 Screenshots/Videos: close to 160,000 views;
SH3 Screenshots: some 330,000 views.

Folks like their eye candy :yep:


RDP

[Rockin Robbins]

What's hands down the most popular mod of all time in spite of it's many parted install procedures? Reflections on the Water! People say thay want the gameplay at the expense of graphics but don't believe 'em!;)


We want it ALL. And we're looking forward to photographic reality in a computer game. We're close to that now. SH4 is a visually amazing game.

[TheBlobThing]

Since I'm new to the subsim genre, I was originally attracted to the graphics and then the gameplay depth (no pun intended) compelled me to stay. I'd never have been playing subsims now if not for SH3's great graphics, so my answer has to be "keep your damn oldies!"

[tater]

I didn't have SH2 or 3, but not for eye candy reasons. I love the look of SH4, it's very engaging. I'd trade some visual effects for improvements like having reefs, destabilized deck guns, and real persistence in the campaign (having the units in the roster actually go away if sink, never to be seen again).

[MONOLITH]

I'm all about the visuals.

If I don't like what I'm looking at, all the greatest gameplay in the world won't save it for me.

[Keelbuster]

Weird question - because - provided that SH4 had had great gameplay, realism, and quality (in terms of bugs, etc), I would have happily settled for cheesy graphics. .campaign file structure, and mission variety of Sh4,... - id buy it in a heartbeat. I realize though, that im probably of a minority opinion.
i feel ye - sounds like gameplay is the biggy? I don't know about campaign structure - i guess that's a modding thing. But yea, basically, real gamers are interested in the _game_ over the graphics. On the other hand, Dangerous Waters had basic graphics, and somehow, it never hooked me. On the other hand, it never had a Dynamic Campaign:D

P.S. I voted for the middle option. And, well, I still play UFO: Enemy Unknown:)

Btw - Duce - just read yer first post - good call dude. It's all about immersion - it's a SUBSIM!!!

[clayman]

This is kind of funny ... just yesterday some friends and I were comparing early flightsims to today's stuff after I sent out some old and new screenshots.

I don't exactly miss the oldies ... BUT ... I can still remember how exciting Silent Service was way back on my brand new 386. Almost more exciting then today's sims sans my jaded viewpoint.

I, like most, started for the sake of the simulation and the graphics were just eye candy. But as we approach the photo-real ... I find that the visuals help recapture some of that old excitement.

So, I'll pose the same question I did with my friends ...

Which P-51 would you rather fly ....
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9875/p51fs95zj3.jpg

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/8346/mustangoversanjacintody2.jpg

Let alone this ...
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8849/applefs1ye7.gif

;) ;) ;)

[Keelbuster]

Which P-51 would you rather fly ....

Awwww....the old flight sims. So great. I remember playing a helicopter flight sim on PC junior. I forget the name, but it was all dials and polygons. There were rockets...I think...but i have to say, when Apache Longbow came out (after Comanche, which we all loved right?), I was thankful that graphics had liberated us. Now, I feel like we're on the other side of the boundary - graphics are all but maxed out, and attention needs to be paid to gameplay. It was easy for the game design industry to partner with the graphics card industry on an economic race to photorealism. But now that we're bored with that (because it's not such an interesting goal), it's time to produce something that flies.
We've fallen upon a dark age of gaming, boys. Time for a gameplay revolution:arrgh!:

[Ducimus]

Heres the CGA version of the very first sim i ever played.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO88OZbxoA

The one i acutally played was earlier then this one, on an 8088. The orignal falcon. Falkon AT was the same thing, just ran faster on an 80286.

[Marko_Ramius]

If SH3 was released as a title today with the faster loading times, campaign file structure, and mission variety of Sh4, with the same graphics it does now,( as dated as they are) - id buy it in a heartbeat. I realize though, that im probably of a minority opinion.


Then i'm part of this minority.

Gameplay and realism is far way more important to me for a simulation game. If too much is done for graphics part, there is not enough room for simulation part (IA, realistic systems, etc..).

[maerean_m]

Let's explain how game creation works:

You have some graphic artists (2D and 3D) and about the same amount of programmers (out of which some are render programmers), so in the end there are fewer people working on gameplay features than there are working on the looks of the game.

So, when the looks get finished, the (top) management (that doesn't necessarily plays sims in their spare time in order to understand the game's under-the-hood complexity) wants to see the game on the market.

Because management these days doesn't really want to make great games instead of just great looking games, 90% of the games on the market today are not really GAMES.

[dcb]

If SH3 was released as a title today with the faster loading times, campaign file structure, and mission variety of Sh4, with the same graphics it does now,( as dated as they are) - id buy it in a heartbeat. I realize though, that im probably of a minority opinion.

Then i'm part of this minority.

Gameplay and realism is far way more important to me for a simulation game. If too much is done for graphics part, there is not enough room for simulation part (IA, realistic systems, etc..).

Same here. Gameplay and realism make for 80% of a game IMO.

[danlisa]

Let's explain how game creation works.....

Because management these days doesn't really want to make great games instead of just great looking games, 90% of the games on the market today are not really GAMES.

No explanation needed.

Game producers these days only market/produce content aimed at dazzling and wowing their intended target audience. Just like Magpies with shiny objects, Oh Look, preeety, must have.;)

Therefore, we have pretty video games with no re-playability value or depth.

It maybe why some older gen titles still have a huge following and are actively supported.

[HunterICX]

Like said above by Dan,

Its graphic aimed, nothing new in the game itself story is cheap and replayability none.
Reason to be carefull what you buy.
also Reviews of games have become utterly unreliable..they give silly rates for games that are in fact garbage.

I dont say all games are bad nowadays, but you will have to look for the Gems out there by yourself.

HunterICX

[TheBlobThing]

Reviewers are untrustworthy IMO. They are more concerned with advertising money than doing a truthful review.

[Flick]

This is kind of funny ... just yesterday some friends and I were comparing early flightsims to today's stuff after I sent out some old and new screenshots.

I don't exactly miss the oldies ... BUT ... I can still remember how exciting Silent Service was way back on my brand new 386. Almost more exciting then today's sims sans my jaded viewpoint.

I, like most, started for the sake of the simulation and the graphics were just eye candy. But as we approach the photo-real ... I find that the visuals help recapture some of that old excitement.

So, I'll pose the same question I did with my friends ...

Which P-51 would you rather fly ....
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9875/p51fs95zj3.jpg

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/8346/mustangoversanjacintody2.jpg

Let alone this ...
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8849/applefs1ye7.gif

;) ;) ;)





That's a tough question let me think about it....:rotfl:

[Flick]

I went with option 2. No question graphics sell games.

[DrBeast]

P.S. I voted for the middle option. And, well, I still play UFO: Enemy Unknown:)


Oh man...RESPECT! The X-COM series involves, I think, THE most addicting games I've EVER played! :up:

In another time and another place, I'd say "more gameplay, less graphics", as I think anyone who was a teenager in the '80s or before would say. Back then you didn't have graphics, plain and simple; all that mattered was gameplay. Then came the Amiga, and suddenly you had the best of the two worlds: amazing graphics for that time, with a matching gameplay. When PCs gained the upper hand, videocard and CPU manufacturers started a mad dash for best performance, the game industry swallowed the bait hook line and sink (or maybe it was the other way around...?), and we've now reached the point where all that matters is graphics. Sadly, game companies NEED good graphics to sell, and you know what? As long as it's not at the expense of gameplay (which it usually is), I'm fine with that. Times have changed, whether we like it or not. I'll choose the middle road.

[capt_frank]

It's gotta be visually stimulating...or what's the point!

[TDK1044]

To a degree, I think this is all in the eye of the beholder. For subsimmers, the game is very much about immersion. To the casual gamer, the game is all about enjoyment. Many here would argue that the more realistic the game is, the more enjoyable it is. That means achieving the highest standards of graphics and gameplay together.

The reality is though that there's what the Devs want to do with a game, and there's what the Publisher wants to do with a game. It's the same relationship in terms of what we want from a game and what a casual gamer wants from a game.

As long as the Publisher believes that it is producing a game and not a sim, then graphical appearance will always win the day. You can't sell immersion on the box.

There's no real solution here, because in order to produce the subsim that we all want would take three years of development time and real Beta testing.....never going to happen :D

[Sailor Steve]

Heres the CGA version of the very first sim i ever played.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO88OZbxoA

The one i acutally played was earlier then this one, on an 8088. The orignal falcon. Falkon AT was the same thing, just ran faster on an 80286.
I played that on my Atari 520ST! Do you remember comparing it to earlier flight sims, and thinking how awesomely realistic the graphics were?

[DrBeast]

Heres the CGA version of the very first sim i ever played.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO88OZbxoA

The one i acutally played was earlier then this one, on an 8088. The orignal falcon. Falkon AT was the same thing, just ran faster on an 80286. I played that on my Atari 520ST! Do you remember comparing it to earlier flight sims, and thinking how awesomely realistic the graphics were?

Compared to the graphics of the first flight sim I ever played, F15 Strike Eagle (R.I.P. MicroProse) on an Atari 130XE, Falcon was not of this earth! :yep:

[Captain Vlad]

It's easy to pick gameplay over graphics on principle. It's no so easy when you remember that PC games are an interactive visual media.

On one hand, some of the best games ever made look primitive now, but I happily still play them. On the other hand, when those games came out, they didn't look so awful. But then, they didn't play awful either...it's the immersion, as everyone else has said, that 'pull you in' factor. Fallout, X-COM, Aces of the Deep, TIE Fighter...they all had it. Lots of prettier games didn't.

Visually speaking, I want game I buy to be comparable to other games currently on the market. If I can think 'wow...' when looking at an Oblivion sunrise, I want to be able to think 'wow...' when I play SH4 and see a sunrise over the Pacific. The game, however, doesn't have to be the 100% best looking product on the market for me to love it. I want atmosphere. I want to feel like I'm there. With simulations, this means I want a lot of attention put on making whatever is being simmed run like it's supposed to and for the world I'm driving in to work like it's supposed to.

In summation: I want the graphics to be nice. They don't have to be perfect. I picked option 2 on the poll.

[longam]

It seems they go hand in hand even if it was tactical all the way you still need good graphics for your controls. Stepping out on the bridge to take in the scenery is always enjoyable more immersive then just tactical screens.

I don’t seem to spend much time inside the interior of the boat unless I’m submerged.

[Ducimus]

Stepping out on the bridge to take in the scenery is always enjoyable more immersive then just tactical screens.

I don’t seem to spend much time inside the interior of the boat unless I’m submerged.

And herein lies a problem with SH4, and slighly less so in SH3...... The interface and immersive graphics are handled in two seperate systems, and they dont always mesh well as a result. I think for some real immersion, they should be handled as one in the same system. orat least from the start, designed to be used together, with an interface that is "ergonomic" for want of a better term. It can't be clunky.

[MONOLITH]

Compared to the graphics of the first flight sim I ever played, F15 Strike Eagle (R.I.P. MicroProse)

Just in case you missed it, MicroProse is making a comeback.

http://www.microprosesystems.com/company.htm

[aanker]

I didn't see SH2 graphics until Feb 2004 when I 'donated' to Subsim to get the Pacific Aces mod; having waited for that since I purchased the original SH1 - SHCE - in the late 90's.

It was exciting news for me when I heard SH4 would be a return to the Pacific Theatre. I'll admit the SH4 eye candy is a nice bonus.

Thanks!

Art

PS: now, if we could just get the realistic battery life/range, diving depths, and those pesky reefs around Truk Lagoon...... ;-)

[Zero Niner]

I voted for the middle option. Eye candy is a nice bonus, but gameplay is crucial.

[Bewolf]

Graphics in simulations imho are underrated. I often hear ppl saying they rather have realism then graphics. But they completly ignore that good graphics "are" a very important factor for realism itself. Only with good graphics is it possible to simulate some of the effects skippers back then had to go through themselves, haze, wind, waves, weather conditions in general, just to name a few factors important for u boat sim alone. These are all graphics related.

Considering how many mods here were done just for eye candy's sake, I'd say graphics do play a vital role. And let's face it, many ppl look back at some of the games they played 10 years ago and have lots of fond memories of them. But if these same games came to the market today, nobody would take another look at it, including most of the folks praising these games. Immersion is a key factor here. And you simply can't get good immersion out of a game that does not give you a "real" feel, especially compared to other games out there.

To repeat that, eye candy "is" important because it "is" part of realisism.

For me it is simple. Realism is all fine and good and important. But if an engine does not manage to make me feel like "beeing" there, it does not work. The radio and grammophone functions probably did more for my SHIV expirience then any manual torpedo calculation could ever have. And I have the certain feeling this "oh who needs graphics" stance is more a line to distinguish oneself and appear more mature then the usual game kiddie then based on realistic observations.

[Rockin Robbins]

We hate this stuff:

http://i196.photobucket.com/albums/aa293/RockinRobbins13/Silent%20Hunter%204/Cruise%2015/SH4Img2008-02-01_133953_484.jpg

Give us a text-based subsim and we'll be happy as...........:rock:

[Nisgeis]

Give us a text-based subsim and we'll be happy as...........:rock:

Is that text with coloured background? How about this:


http://i251.photobucket.com/albums/gg307/Nisgeis/TextwithColour.jpg

[DrBeast]

Compared to the graphics of the first flight sim I ever played, F15 Strike Eagle (R.I.P. MicroProse)
Just in case you missed it, MicroProse is making a comeback.

http://www.microprosesystems.com/company.htm
MicroProse without Sid...? Hmmm :hmm: But, here's to hoping...

And LOL @ Nisgeis! :rotfl:

[mookiemookie]

Graphics in simulations imho are underrated. I often hear ppl saying they rather have realism then graphics. But they completly ignore that good graphics "are" a very important factor for realism itself. Only with good graphics is it possible to simulate some of the effects skippers back then had to go through themselves, haze, wind, waves, weather conditions in general, just to name a few factors important for u boat sim alone. These are all graphics related.

You're oversimplifying. Passable haze, wind and water would be just fine. As long as it accomplishes the goal of simulating what it sets out to do, I don't need Crysis style "oh my god I can see each individual leaf on a tree" graphics. If SH4 had the same gameplay improvements but with SH3 graphics, it would have been fine in my book. I don't think a you need groundbreaking graphics in order to be considered a good sim.

Considering how many mods here were done just for eye candy's sake, I'd say graphics do play a vital role.

To some people, yes. Those mods were done to satisfy those people. I'm not opposed to mods that improve the look of the game, I'm opposed to spending development time on graphics at the expense of things like the TDC working correctly, or the game crashing when I press the "A" key.

And let's face it, many ppl look back at some of the games they played 10 years ago and have lots of fond memories of them. But if these same games came to the market today, nobody would take another look at it, including most of the folks praising these games.

Because technology has moved on. It's a false choice to say you've got either cutting edge graphics or 10 year ago graphics. There is a middle ground. That being said, I played through Deus Ex (a game thats now 8 years old) again not too long ago and loved every second of it.

Immersion is a key factor here. And you simply can't get good immersion out of a game that does not give you a "real" feel, especially compared to other games out there.

To repeat that, eye candy "is" important because it "is" part of realisism.

I'd get more of a feeling of immersion from having to navigate reefs, or not being able to reload torpedoes in a pitching and rolling storm, or having ST radar, or being able to flood tanks to ride lower in the water and make dives faster, or being a part of a wolfpack, or not having a GPS style nav map. None of which are graphically intensive.

And I have the certain feeling this "oh who needs graphics" stance is more a line to distinguish oneself and appear more mature then the usual game kiddie then based on realistic observations.

I have a certain feeling that your certain feeling is wrong. Different strokes for different folks, that's all.

[Bewolf]

Oi, appears what I considered just another view to the list hit a nerve. My apologies for that.

I suppose I am just still feeling too young to be satisfied with what I have when there are possibilities to move on. To each their own, mookiemookie. :up:

[mookiemookie]

No worries. :up:

[Sub Sailor]

I suppose it was because of the graphics that required me to upgrade my system, but it was worth it.
The explosions on SH4 are as realistic as I have seen in any sim, looks like the ones in movies.

Last night I torpedo a Gun Boat, WOW, that thing blew up and the forward half was cart Wheeling right at me. Never saw that in any sim before.
I also like the fact that sinking ships blow up, go down by the head roll over and sometimes sink stern first.
I know it required better graphics cards, RAM, but people will not be sorry. I guess from marketing stand point a toned down version would sell. The upgrade needed kept me away form SH4 until I had a problem that I had to take it to the shop and that is when I upgraded.
Will people start building custom missions, or is that even possible in SH4?

Great job,

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[dannygjk]

Hi

This is undecidable. It depends on what is more desirable to you: An intellectual challenge or eye candy. The only way I can think of to cut through that problem is to ask: What gaming experience makes me forget I am playing a game and raises my heart rate/blood pressure, and leaves me wanting to keep playing?

To place a lot of weight on graphics is to be 'penny-wise and pound foolish', ie; if I buy a game and only play it for one day because it's not mentally engaging, I will NOT buy a sequel. Likewise, if a game does not simulate the real world in a way which would fool a toddler, I will not buy a sequel. Also, I have told people since the early 80's: I'll take a well-written book with no pics over a poorly-written book with beautiful pics any day.

But I will address the question directly. If I have a wide scope of command decisions to make, I will choose that over awesome graphics and ego-stroking gameplay.

dannygjk

[ancient46]

I play games for fun and relaxation. If the game meets that criteria I really don't care about graphics. I still play and enjoy, text based games like the old Zork series, and older games like Wasteland, Fallout and Baldur's Gate series. Even though I enjoy Silent Hunter the great graphics have not dimmed my enthusiasm for Silent Service, a longtime favorite. Pretty but boring games are not fun.