View Full Version : The failure of DW
I am curious to see what you think made DW be a failure...
Bill Nichols
07-10-09, 03:52 PM
First to vote... 100 percent of all respondants agree with me!
Sadly I forgot an Option :nope:
@ Bill Nichols: now its 50% heheheheheh
Bill Nichols
07-10-09, 04:55 PM
And back up to 66.67%
:yeah:
goldorak
07-10-09, 05:04 PM
You forgot the most important option : make the game an engaging experience for would be buyers. The other options are all good and dandy but they don't address the fundamental reason why DW hasn't splashed into the mainstream.
And before you ask, yes you can make a naval simulator a fantastic gaming experience, be it placed in WWI, WWII, Cold War or even a hypothetical WWIII.
So I didn't vote, but you know what I think having expressed my opinion already in countless threads bashing DW. :D
After two years, I started DW again, just before putting up the pool.
I quitted just after the intro (at the main menu screen), because the intro alone was so exciting and w/o bs, that it's really hard and incredible to believe the game as died like that.
I vote 'bad programming' .. but I think more like 'little attention' .. if there was more support, more feedback, faster patches, addons .. it could rock. LWAMI guys did much more fixes in shorter time in their free time ! If there was 2 people working full time on DW support, it would have been visible. I guess it was only one, and it was not fulltime. SCS simply said: let's sell this old engine one more time, but let's not loose much resources on it. It never was priority project for them.
Those are the reasons .. but I don't want to critize this. It was just a business decision, and I think nobody was really surprised DE did not sell that well.
Too little subsimers ? Look at SH series. Yeah, they look sexy, but will sexy waves keep you looking at them through 30 minut long ride over Atlantic ? No .. there are subsimers out there.
Was DW too hard ? You could turn everything down, even play with truth on. Then it was just a 3d shooter.
I vote 'bad programming' .. but I think more like 'little attention' .. if there was more support, more feedback, faster patches, addons .. it could rock. LWAMI guys did much more fixes in shorter time in their free time ! If there was 2 people working full time on DW support, it would have been visible. I guess it was only one, and it was not fulltime. SCS simply said: let's sell this old engine one more time, but let's not loose much resources on it. It never was priority project for them.
Those are the reasons .. but I don't want to critize this. It was just a business decision, and I think nobody was really surprised DE did not sell that well.
Too little subsimers ? Look at SH series. Yeah, they look sexy, but will sexy waves keep you looking at them through 30 minut long ride over Atlantic ? No .. there are subsimers out there.
Was DW too hard ? You could turn everything down, even play with truth on. Then it was just a 3d shooter.
Little attention ? They even had some active programmers and representants in THIS very forum. Silent Hunter does not AFAIK. They're more smart as they don't listen to every :censored: whine about this and about that. Looks like they're more clever yes ?
Bad Programming ? Please tell me you are kidding, or else tell me you saw the code...
By the way, LWAMI is the reason i got disgusted by DW. Very frequent patches changing unsignificant glitches affecting the whole gaming experience.
I would have stayed with stock 1.04, but nobody would play without the (ever changing) "PATCH" :mad:
goldorak
07-10-09, 06:50 PM
By the way, LWAMI is the reason i got disgusted by DW. Very frequent patches changing unsignificant glitches affecting the whole gaming experience.
I would have stayed with stock 1.04, but nobody would play without the (ever changing) "PATCH" :mad:
You have got to be kidding Nexus7. Default DW even with patch 1.04 is fundamentally broken, if it were not for the pioneering work of lwami and then the guys of AT and RA this game would be 100% dead.
No one would be playing it.
I mean without lwami, the remote controlled helo would only be able to drop sonobouys. Thats a farce, SCS might as well not have included a frigate at all.
You have got to be kidding Nexus7. Default DW even with patch 1.04 is fundamentally broken, if it were not for the pioneering work of lwami and then the guys of AT and RA this game would be 100% dead.
No one would be playing it.
I mean without lwami, the remote controlled helo would only be able to drop sonobouys. Thats a farce, SCS might as well not have included a frigate at all.
Without LWAMI and theyr substainers, Sonalyst would not have left.
You have got to be kidding Nexus7. Default DW even with patch 1.04 is fundamentally broken, if it were not for the pioneering work of lwami and then the guys of AT and RA this game would be 100% dead.
No one would be playing it.
I mean without lwami, the remote controlled helo would only be able to drop sonobouys. Thats a farce, SCS might as well not have included a frigate at all.
By the way, how much dead is it ? 98% ? :nope:
goldorak
07-10-09, 07:28 PM
By the way, how much dead is it ? 98% ? :nope:
No, I don't know about other virtual navies, but we on betasom.it have a dangerous waters section, where we organize course for the different units. We have missions each week in multiplayer, not the type of free for all, but missions designed around teamwork, objective based etc...
We have around 30 players and increasing, and 10-15 play regularly each week.
The french community on mille-sabords have a pretty healthy dw community also.
In the past years we even organized mille-sabords vs betasom dw matches. :woot:
So for us DW is not dead at all, its popularity is even increasing because people that tradionally have played SH 3 or 4 now look for another game. And they read the after mission reports we write after each mission and it ignites their imagination.
I can assume that playing free lance is more difficult, because you have to find players, and if they are in different time zones, say european and far east, or european and american west coast thats makes it very difficult to find a suitable time to play together.
goldorak
07-10-09, 07:34 PM
Without LWAMI and theyr substainers, Sonalyst would not have left.
No, SCS left because they considered DW a lost cause.
It had nothing to do with lwami or other mods.
SCS wanted DW to succeed, but they never unlocked the necessary resources to make that happen. So they left.
Shearwater
07-10-09, 08:06 PM
Okay, maybe this thread offers me the opportunity for a general rant :D
A few days ago, I was about to give up playing DW and stick to SC - maybe I still will. Anyway, I find it comforting that other people (lots of other people) feel the same.
The major issues I have with DW are:
1) The general scope of the sim. Hard to describe it, but I think you know what I mean. A weird mixture of commanding a platform but having to do everything yourself. (Though that's the case with 688 and SC as well). That could be fine in itself if it weren't for the incompetent autocrew. Instead of thinking how to improve the game, every new SCS product just offered more of the same.
Something which would really have helped the sim would have more tools on the Nav screen, perhaps à la SHIII. Just inserting dots, manual solutions and circles is not that much. What about baffles? Incoming torpedoes? Water depths that don't require my cursor to move around the map? No, I have to remember all of those things just because. An A4 sheet of paper offers more situational awareness than the simulated map of a 2 billion $ submarine.
2) Lack of dynamic campaign. I know, I know, it was a deliberate decision on the part of SCS to create a mission-based campaign in order to avoid the simple "go hunt" feeling (i.e. just a series of randomly generated missions with little immersive effect), but I think it still sucks. And it sucks because I know what to expect, even if the details change. Apart from that, many of the missions I find simply to be boring, and the scenario corny.
3) Bugs. BUGS. Not even the ones concerning sensors, platform behavior and the like. It took me hours or even days of tweaking before I got rid of the infamous "sound bug" (stuttering music / sound effects), and if I had not replaced the original water textures of DW with those of SC, the sim would look quite weird (my notebook doesn't have a graphics card that supports the shader effects of DW). Not much of an issue, but: Why screw something up that has worked in the previous game?
And I needn't mention the real bugs that were mentioned in countless threads.
I think I can understand Nexus7 here. The modding community has done a great job, but I often think that this is piecemeal and there is something that they might have overlooked. Let alone the fact that it ought to be the job of the company who made the product to iron out these flaws in the first place. It's just that if a product ships out with that many flaws, I tend to become suspicious, even if they are gotten rid of eventually.
Don't get me wrong. I really like DW, or at least I try to. But sometimes, I wonder if it's worth the effort. Maybe if I would play some multiplayer, I could get more fun out of the game :arrgh!:
goldorak
07-10-09, 08:14 PM
Okay, maybe this thread offers me the opportunity for a general rant :D
A few days ago, I was about to give up playing DW and stick to SC - maybe I still will. Anyway, I find it comforting that other people (lots of other people) feel the same.
The major issues I have with DW are:
1) The general scope of the sim. Hard to describe it, but I think you know what I mean. A weird mixture of commanding a platform but having to do everything yourself. (Though that's the case with 688 and SC as well). That could be fine in itself if it weren't for the incompetent autocrew. Instead of thinking how to improve the game, every new SCS product just offered more of the same.
Something which would really have helped the sim would have more tools on the Nav screen, perhaps à la SHIII. Just inserting dots, manual solutions and circles is not that much. What about baffles? Incoming torpedoes? Water depths that don't require my cursor to move around the map? No, I have to remember all of those things just because. An A4 sheet of paper offers more situational awareness than the simulated map of a 2 billion $ submarine.
Sub Command suffers the exact same problems.
2) Lack of dynamic campaign. I know, I know, it was a deliberate decision on the part of SCS to create a mission-based campaign in order to avoid the simple "go hunt" feeling (i.e. just a series of randomly generated missions with little immersive effect), but I think it still sucks. And it sucks because I know what to expect, even if the details change. Apart from that, many of the missions I find simply to be boring, and the scenario corny.
Sub Command doesn't have a dynamic campaign.
3) Bugs. BUGS. Not even the ones concerning sensors, platform behavior and the like. It took me hours or even days of tweaking before I got rid of the infamous "sound bug" (stuttering music / sound effects), and if I had not replaced the original water textures of DW with those of SC, the sim would look quite weird (my notebook doesn't have a graphics card that supports the shader effects of DW). Not much of an issue, but: Why screw something up that has worked in the previous game?
And I needn't mention the real bugs that were mentioned in countless threads.
I think I can understand Nexus7 here. The modding community has done a great job, but I often think that this is piecemeal and there is something that they might have overlooked. Let alone the fact that it ought to be the job of the company who made the product to iron out these flaws in the first place. It's just that if a product ships out with that many flaws, I tend to become suspicious, even if they are gotten rid of eventually.
Don't get me wrong. I really like DW, or at least I try to. But sometimes, I wonder if it's worth the effort. Maybe if I would play some multiplayer, I could get more fun out of the game :arrgh!:
Sub Command was full of bugs, and the game only improved with surprise surprise a freaking mod, SCX.
I know no one who would go back playing default 1.08 Sub Command.
Most people playing DW have no freaking idea of what the latest mods are and just how much of a quantum leap they represent.
RA the mod that I'm betatesting is ground breaking. You can get a glimpse downooading an old beta version on subguru's website, but the latest version is even better.
Castout
07-10-09, 08:15 PM
Imo if DW would use 3D graphics like that of Silent Hunter III it would sell hot.
Right now DW only appeals to those who have strong interest in the world of modern naval sim.
However the success of SH3 is roof itself that the market CAN appreciate and WILL appreciate a well made game.
A good products nowadays CREATE their market instead of hoping to fulfill the market needs. SET TRENDS instead of following them.
I know no one who would go back playing default 1.08 Sub Command.
Just because you don't know me :D
Imo if DW would use 3D graphics like that of Silent Hunter III it would sell hot.
A submarine sight is it's sensors, it's there that you see :D
A good products nowadays CREATE their market instead of hoping to fulfill the market needs. SET TRENDS instead of following them.
Good point !
goldorak
07-10-09, 08:22 PM
Just because you don't know me :D
We have an italian saying : "una rondine non fa primavera". I don't know how to translate it in english, but just because you're only one that prefers SC 1.08 over DW with or without mods doesn't mean that most players will agree with you.
Fact is most prefer DW over SC, since DW can do all that SC does and even more. The only difference is the abscense of a certain doctrine command, but in the great scheme of things is irrelevant as far as mission design goes.
:)
Shearwater
07-10-09, 08:23 PM
Sub Command suffers the exact same problems.
Sub Command doesn't have a dynamic campaign.
Sub Command was full of bugs, and the game only improved with surprise surprise a freaking mod, SCX.
I know no one who would go back playing default 1.08 Sub Command.
.
I don't object. As for the campaign system: I didn't like it in SC either. But: If SC already shipped out with a whole lot of bugs until 1.08, why screw up the whole thing all over again, only this time much worse??
As for the mods: I generally think that mods should be the icing on the cake. Not make a stale cake taste good.
In danger of repeating myself: It's good, it's wonderful that so many people are putting that much effort into games they like. But it's also a symptom of what's wrong in the gaming industry. Those people do for free what others ought to have done for money.
Neptunus Rex
07-10-09, 08:24 PM
By the way, how much dead is it ? 98% ? :nope:
Is that dead, a little dead, or mostly dead?
My opinion is that even though most subsimers are passionate about the genre, from the cost point of view, the ROI is not high enough to sustain the effort. Jamie Carlson and Kim Castro of Sonalysts were very heavily involved here for quite some time but either moved on or were reassigned.
from the cost point of view, the ROI is not high enough to sustain the effort.
ROI ? reason of Involvement ??
goldorak
07-10-09, 09:21 PM
ROI ? reason of Involvement ??
ROI : Return on Investment.
Sea Demon
07-10-09, 11:53 PM
You have got to be kidding Nexus7. Default DW even with patch 1.04 is fundamentally broken, if it were not for the pioneering work of lwami and then the guys of AT and RA this game would be 100% dead.
No one would be playing it.
While I agree that some of the modding has been seriously great enhancements, please speak for yourself when saying "nobody would be playing it". I have been enjoying this game from the day of release. Despite the early problems and all. I also wish for more fixes, and wasn't happy that the FFG helo wasn't able to dip the dipping sonar. But I made due. Glad the mod fixed that.
goldorak
07-11-09, 12:14 AM
While I agree that some of the modding has been seriously great enhancements, please speak for yourself when saying "nobody would be playing it". I have been enjoying this game from the day of release. Despite the early problems and all. I also wish for more fixes, and wasn't happy that the FFG helo wasn't able to dip the dipping sonar. But I made due. Glad the mod fixed that.
Well I guess if one is interested only in subs, he would have no problem playing DW 1.04 even with all its bugs and shortcoming that affected at 99% surface and air units. I play all the units, and the game has been bugging me since release.
I also made due, in fact I've been playing the game since the battlefront release. That doesn't mean I haven't aspired for something better in all these years. Lwami fixed some things, and AT and RA got even further.
Now having tried all the mods I WOULD NEVER EVER GO BACK TO DW 1.04.
Do you know that in RA, you can actually program the frigate's helo to perform different search patterns ? Using not only a combination of active/passive dipping sonar but also mad/sad sensors ?
Would you be willing to renounce this advance in helo control this and go back to broken 1.04 ? :nope: Please Sea Demon that would be a joke.
Sea Demon
07-11-09, 12:19 AM
Well I guess if one is interested only in subs, he would have no problem playing DW 1.04 even with all its bugs and shortcoming that affected at 99% surface and air units. I play all the units, and the game has been bugging me since release.
I also made due, in fact I've been playing the game since the battlefront release. That doesn't mean I haven't aspired for something better in all these years. Lwami fixed some things, and AT and RA got even further.
OK. Well put. I see your point, and I agree with you in many ways. I was just objecting to your broad statement that "nobody would be playing it". I have also always aspired for better, including more content in the way of new playables.
Would you be willing to renounce this advance in helo control this and go back to broken 1.04 ? :nope: Please Sea Demon that would be a joke.
I have not seen this feature. But the ability does seem very compelling. I'm reserving judgement for now.
goldorak
07-11-09, 12:45 AM
OK. Well put. I see your point, and I agree with you in many ways. I was just objecting to your broad statement that "nobody would be playing it". I have also always aspired for better, including more content in the way of new playables.
Point taken. I should have been more specific.
I have not seen this feature. But the ability does seem very compelling. I'm reserving judgement for now.
Well then, you're in for a big surprise. :D
I do not think that DW was a failure concerning the program/code itself.
The major problem was that the sim didn't sell well enough.
Therefore, the support was limited.
I think Sonalysts should have invested more in a marketing campaing to raise the awareness. But of course that's easy saying (budget).
Is there a (profitable) market for such a game in today's console world? Difficult to say...perhaps but then you need a broader scope (option for limitied realism, fancy graphics, more atmosphere).
What I would like to know is if the DW engine was enhanced for the government. Then I do not understand why it is not possible to create an updated version for the commerical market (similar like Harpoon/Steel Beats). Does anybody know the reason?
FERdeBOER
07-11-09, 04:13 AM
None of the poll options.
In my opinion the problems are 2:
1- Post developing. A very little at first and none then... since Neal leaves the project we are even ignored...
2- Modding. Both the tools to mod the game as the permission to do that. Almost all of the best-selling and more played games can be modded: Half-Life, Far Cry, TotalWar series, SH, racing games...
LwAmi put the game to a level that we would never have had if we where already waiting for a new patch.
I hope the AT and RA mods will be finished soon; I'm sure they will bring new life to the game.
As for 'bad programming' .. I did not said I consider DW programming bad. I sad I chose that option. I think DW programming quality is just standard. Nothing special. It has bug sure, but those could be easily fixed, if somebody decided to do so.
As for their representative here. Yes, he was here. And he was exactly that only person who I think was working on DW after release.
PeriscopeDepth
07-11-09, 12:10 PM
I just don't think there's too many people who enjoy staring at 2D sensors waiting for a 50 Hz line...setting up a manual solution...and then watching the progress of your weapons from 2D sensors.
PD
XabbaRus
07-11-09, 01:45 PM
Jamie left for EA long ago. He was replaced by Frying Tiger who quite frankly I got the impression he didn't really give a damn.
Jamie would try to answer your question as soon as he could here and on SCS's forum. Frying Tiger didn't seem to bother.
I haven't had DW installed for a long time.
If i was a programmer, I would give a damn about your comments.
CapitanPiluso
07-11-09, 08:54 PM
I just don't think there's too many people who enjoy staring at 2D sensors waiting for a 50 Hz line...setting up a manual solution...and then watching the progress of your weapons from 2D sensors.
PD
That's exactly what I think :up:
I just don't think there's too many people who enjoy staring at 2D sensors waiting for a 50 Hz line...setting up a manual solution...and then watching the progress of your weapons from 2D sensors.
PD
Might be true....on the other hand DW gives you so much choice (air/ship/sup) and variety.
In a typical WWII sub sim you hunt convoys most time...makes fun for some time but I'm just bored of it.
I just don't think there's too many people who enjoy staring at 2D sensors waiting for a 50 Hz line...setting up a manual solution...and then watching the progress of your weapons from 2D sensors.
Why is staring at 3d station any better ? In fact, in SH3 I spend most of the time on the map, which is 2D too. Sure, the boats are pretty. Weather and explosions, cool. But that simply can't keep you playing it. In fact I too consider SH series much more boring then DW.
On the other hand .. SH is sexy .. that's why people TRY it. DW is not. I know dozens of people who played SH series, but never heard of DW.
goldorak
07-12-09, 04:51 AM
Why is staring at 3d station any better ? In fact, in SH3 I spend most of the time on the map, which is 2D too. Sure, the boats are pretty. Weather and explosions, cool. But that simply can't keep you playing it. In fact I too consider SH series much more boring then DW.
On the other hand .. SH is sexy .. that's why people TRY it. DW is not. I know dozens of people who played SH series, but never heard of DW.
Yeah thats something that many old time players forget. In the early days Simulations for the pc were the showcase for cutting edge graphics. Every kind of simulation tried to push the envelop. Remember Microprose ? They didn't devolp just flight simulators, they spanned from air, to surface to subsurface and each of their titles pushed the edge not only of gameplay but also on graphics for their time.
SH I for instance is a 2d game, and still feels more "polished" than DW. Don't even get me started on Sierra Fast Attack, another pureley 2d sub simulator that carries more carisma than DW.
That has to get people thinking.
The more "rough" a game is, the bigger the entry barrier to try it.
A simulation for pc has to capture as i said in other threads the whole experience. Saying just who cares about graphics its the gameplay that matters shows that that person has no knowledge of the history of pc games, and just what make a simulation tick.
100% gameplay 0 graphics : a game that few nerds will play -> failure if you spend big bucks on it.
80% gameplay, 20 % graphics : a game that says hey I'm here try me out.
-> captures the hard core market and a percentage of the casual market. It could be defined as a relative success.
Dw was 60% gameplay, and 10 graphics (recycled from an 10 year old engine), the rest 30% is the unifished state of the game -> utter failure in the causal market, a relative success in the hard core market but not enough to keep the game going.
We're still playing it, fresh mods are out, it works great.... it failed? :sunny:
goldorak
07-12-09, 05:16 AM
We're still playing it, fresh mods are out, it works great.... it failed? :sunny:
Well RA is not released yet and if it comes out in 2009 that will be 4 years after the intial release of DW on battlefront.
Its a little to late to capture the casual market right now.
Don't you think so ?
I see DW heading the same way as Falcon 4, a game that will survive only due to long time players. The inability to caputure any kind of mass market appeal will mean that in the long run this game will die (I assume its a natural thing).
The only thing that could revive it and bring new players to the table, would be for an independent software house to "lease" the source code to DW for x years, and start doing a heavy graphics update. And I mean heavy.
Then fix whats still broken in the navalsimegine, and finally don't try to sue the modders that extend the game.
Who knows, by that time maybe cina will be in open naval confrontation with taiwan and the us, so you can even use real events to market the new "cold war" sim. :D
How comes that SC survived long enought to be patched to the pretty good 1.08 version ?
And that was 2D sensors as well... and I speculate that the effort/cost to produce it was superior than the one to produce DW, as DW takes a lot from SC...
goldorak
07-12-09, 05:58 AM
How comes that SC survived long enought to be patched to the pretty good 1.08 version ?
And that was 2D sensors as well... and I speculate that the effort/cost to produce it was superior than the one to produce DW, as DW takes a lot from SC...
Because if I'm not mistaken Sub Command had as publisher EA, one of the largest if not largest publisher for pc games at that time. So funding was no problem I suppose. And even with that kind of commercial support you still had to wait some time for the patch to arrive.
Because if I'm not mistaken Sub Command had as publisher EA, one of the largest if not largest publisher for pc games at that time. So funding was no problem I suppose. And even with that kind of commercial support you still had to wait some time for the patch to arrive.
Is there any rough numbers on how much those games have sold ?
goldorak
07-12-09, 06:48 AM
Is there any rough numbers on how much those games have sold ?
I have no idea.
But I think its safe to say that SC sold more than DW.
-GrayOwl-
07-12-09, 09:06 AM
Well RA is not released yet and if it comes out in 2009 that will be 4 years after the intial release of DW on battlefront.
Its a little to late to capture the casual market right now.
Don't you think so ?
I see DW heading the same way as Falcon 4, a game that will survive only due to long time players. The inability to caputure any kind of mass market appeal will mean that in the long run this game will die (I assume its a natural thing).
The only thing that could revive it and bring new players to the table, would be for an independent software house to "lease" the source code to DW for x years, and start doing a heavy graphics update. And I mean heavy.
Then fix whats still broken in the navalsimegine, and finally don't try to sue the modders that extend the game.
Who knows, by that time maybe cina will be in open naval confrontation with taiwan and the us, so you can even use real events to market the new "cold war" sim. :D
The problem was that SCS did not want to use new technologies - for the licenses it was necessary to pay bucks.
Even on an exhibition of electronic games SCS they have not gone - have said - " for it must to pay money ".
Any format in game - FREE-OF-CHARGE. Bmp, J3D, Wav, etc, etc...
Really - very few money is enclosed in this game.
The engine of game - 12 years old.
For DW - used all old from the engine.
Really - on it have spent about 3 months. (To add a new code).
All other time - was drawn by graph 4 interfaces for: - FFG, Kilo, P-3, MH-60. LOL...
I think 2-3 men only made this game.
SCS - is has departed from Sonalysts.
Sonalysts - now does not want to relate to any games.
SCS simply unscrupulously have taken away money.
I agree with that that DW was a mistake and financial failure.
However - in this game not many money have enclosed (Not buy any licenses – modern technology)- so SCS all the same not strongly of steel poor.:haha:
Well RA is not released yet and if it comes out in 2009 that will be 4 years after the intial release of DW on battlefront.
Its a little to late to capture the casual market right now.
Don't you think so ?
No idea to be honest. I think some kind of article at a mainstream gaming site would help with that, but the kind of thing RA brings to the simulator appeals more to the hardcore sim market anyhow.
What I don't do is measure the success of DW by anything the casual market thinks of it. The causal market isn't qualified to evaluate DW. :DL
Popularity is a poor measure of worth.
goldorak
07-12-09, 09:54 AM
No idea to be honest. I think some kind of article at a mainstream gaming site would help with that, but the kind of thing RA brings to the simulator appeals more to the hardcore sim market anyhow.
What I don't do is measure the success of DW by anything the casual market thinks of it. The causal market isn't qualified to evaluate DW. :DL
Popularity is a poor measure of worth.
You got me wrong. The casual market of course is not in a position judge DW.
But and this is a big but, without casual players, DW is a commercial failure. Case in point, SCS has abbandoned DW, and there will be no more games from them. So yes in this respect it is a gigantic failure.
Do not underestimate what RA can do for generic players. People that don't live and die by manual TMA, naval strategies etc... are drawn to a modern sub sim because they want to relieve certain types of "romantic" experiences. For instance the ability to drive the Red October. Even if you're not a naval enthusiast, casuals still enjoy that film. And having a HFRO campaign in DW with a playable RO well its just :shucks: :|\\
Being able to command such a ship is a reason to play DW. And from there who knows ?
Do not underestimate what RA can do for generic players. People that don't live and die by manual TMA, naval strategies etc... are drawn to a modern sub sim because they want to relieve certain types of "romantic" experiences. For instance the ability to drive the Red October. Even if you're not a naval enthusiast, casuals still enjoy that film. And having a HFRO campaign in DW with a playable RO well its just :shucks: :|\\
Being able to command such a ship is a reason to play DW. And from there who knows ?
But that's exactly the wrong direction to go for DW, as it's strength is exactly the detail and the quality of that detail.
I fear it will be a poor experience to look vor visual pleasure in a simulator that was born not to care a darn about graphics but to spend all resources in direction realism... It's like if you born a child, it was a boy, but you want to turn it into a girl lol. (I think it gives the idea)
Btw, HFRO is one of the sub movies with the most factual errors
-GrayOwl-
07-12-09, 11:21 AM
You got me wrong. The casual market of course is not in a position judge DW.
But and this is a big but, without casual players, DW is a commercial failure. Case in point, SCS has abbandoned DW, and there will be no more games from them. So yes in this respect it is a gigantic failure.
Do not underestimate what RA can do for generic players. People that don't live and die by manual TMA, naval strategies etc... are drawn to a modern sub sim because they want to relieve certain types of "romantic" experiences. For instance the ability to drive the Red October. Even if you're not a naval enthusiast, casuals still enjoy that film. And having a HFRO campaign in DW with a playable RO well its just :shucks: :|\\
Being able to command such a ship is a reason to play DW. And from there who knows ?
I Agreed :
- You are right - any more there will be no games from SCS is simply not competition is capable.
Too old contents.
=======================
TRIBUTE: :cry:
-- Arturo Gatti - Is Dead. --
Great Boxer!
Sadly...
==============
SCS - this is dead...he players have remained without support, it is very a pity...
Shearwater
07-12-09, 12:12 PM
But that's exactly the wrong direction to go for DW, as it's strength is exactly the detail and the quality of that detail.
I fear it will be a poor experience to look vor visual pleasure in a simulator that was born not to care a darn about graphics but to spend all resources in direction realism... It's like if you born a child, it was a boy, but you want to turn it into a girl lol. (I think it gives the idea)
Btw, HFRO is one of the sub movies with the most factual errors
I think you're right. For me, there are two types of games: The ones that give me pleasure / are fun, and the ones that give me the satisfaction.
The first type of games are i.e. FPS or RTS games. There's times when I like to mindlessly blow everything up end empty my head. A really good way of distracting myself.
The other type of games, those that give me satisfaction, are TBS games, and most of all, sims. I think especially in sims, the immersive factor can be enormous.
You have to put a lot of effort into mastering those games, but you get much more back in return from those games than from shallow action-oriented games. As I said, I don't dislike either one of them - but they serve a different purpose.
A lot of people critisise fans of hard-core sims for slavishly adhering to realism and forgetting about the real "game". To me, this is nonsense. As Nexus7 has put it: Detail, and quality of detail. I think immersion is lost to a great deal when I find out that something is not just simplified (which is okay, to some extent), but plain wrong. This is most annoying when a game pretends to be serious.
Don't want to hijack the thread .. but let me see some page with those errors in HFRO. Actually I think the score would be pretty low. I saw some such page, with like 50 errors .. but all was just overlooked details on viewers side. I can't recall any critical problem in the movie, not counting the caterpillar drive.
Bubblehead Nuke
07-12-09, 09:36 PM
Don't want to hijack the thread .. but let me see some page with those errors in HFRO. Actually I think the score would be pretty low. I saw some such page, with like 50 errors .. but all was just overlooked details on viewers side. I can't recall any critical problem in the movie, not counting the caterpillar drive.
They were there.. trust me. I had a good laugh in the theatre. I was almost tossed out with a few shipmates but the people in front and behind us asked that we be allowed to stay. They said we made the movie watchable.
Errors.. Bear with me as it has been a LONG time since I have seen it. These are off the top of my achohol addled mind.
1) Light in the periscope...(I liked the blinking morse code myself).
2) Attack depth (damn they are going to use a lot of air! to mpulse that torp). Make your depth 1200 feet and swoosh, down they go and NAIL the depth as they get there. I loved the creaking noises. Never heard them myself.
3) Torpedo evasion (Fly Big D.. Fly!). If it is range gating on you, going to the roof ain't going to help. You are gonna die on the surface.
4) Weapon active out of the tube. You know, it it is active, the magnetic exploder would have been active. It would not have gone far you know.
5) The CRAZY manevering in close quarters. Wow.. you would have thought they were fighters and could actually see each other. Not too mention that the Typhoon handled like a pregnant cow.
6) OMG the sonar, they could hear a whale fart and tell the what they had for dinner. Actually, they filmed it when I was in and I had heard that had done an actual sonar contact callout. Did you know that a LOT of the control room folks were actual bubbleheads who vollenteered to make it right? They could not stand the thought of a script butchering it.
When the Navy reviewed everything they about had a cow. They had to go back and reshoot a LOT of the control room scenes. The last thing they wanted was authenticity. I am suprised that the had the manual time bearing in the control room. That was the guy who called out 'Possible turn based on aspect change" or something to that effect. I am really supprised they allowed that.
The layout of the sub in general. Were are those spaces?? On that note: If you have seen Stargate Continuim, the interior of the sub is DEAD ON. That is what control and the upper level passageway look like. That is what the wardroom (minus the flat panel garbage) looks like.
Let me get back to you on the rest. I have to get my laserdisc out (yes, I have a WORKING one and I hate to buy duplicates).
I will correct spelling later..Thank you and have a good night
goldorak
07-13-09, 12:48 AM
But that's exactly the wrong direction to go for DW, as it's strength is exactly the detail and the quality of that detail.
I fear it will be a poor experience to look vor visual pleasure in a simulator that was born not to care a darn about graphics but to spend all resources in direction realism... It's like if you born a child, it was a boy, but you want to turn it into a girl lol. (I think it gives the idea)
No you still don't get it.
Its not a mutually exclusive proposition. Having a detailed simulation in no way means you have to have crap graphics. On the ther hand having nice graphics does not mean the simulation is geared towards casual gamers.
You can have a detailed simulation with nice graphics. I hate to bring the eternally dead horse of Falcon 4, but that game had for its time really nice graphics (not an 1988 graphics engine just to keep the parallel between that and DW), and it had 3 difficulty levels, from arcade like experience were the radar basically was a top down 360 degree god view of the battlefield, to the all manual approach were you had to manually start up even the jet plane in the hangar !!!
And nobody in their right mind would classify Falcon 4 as an arcade geared towards casual gamers even though it was newbie friendly.
Btw, HFRO is one of the sub movies with the most factual errors
I'm not a navy man, so even if there are some factual errors, it didn't take away my enjoyment of the film. Its still one of my guilty pleasures, together with the novel. By the way how I wish someone would bring RSR to the silver screen, that would definitely kick ass. :|\\
OneShot
07-13-09, 02:52 AM
The problem with appealing to the casual market is .. the casual market. I don't know the box arts/screenshots on display in the US but the one in germany looks ok enough and the screenshots are polished/nice enough to make it look good (not SH4 good, but better then DW truly looks). Now what happens when Mr./Mrs. Casual gamer looks at the box and goes ... ooh and then buys the game. The good part is that SCS just made a few bucks, the bad part is that after starting up the game (and possibly looking past the not-so-state-of-the-art graphics) Mr./Mrs. casual will learn that the game is quite mind boggling for them and will promptly deinstall the game and put the box somewhere hidden. Thats not the worst, as SCS has already sold another game, but Mr./Mrs. casual will tell their friends that DW while looking nice in the store is unplayable because its too difficult. That will prevent further sales ... very bad.
Now my point is, that the major problem for DW wasn't its graphics engine. Heck, most games nowadays put screenshots from the render movies on the box anyway, you could have done the same (or used the 2D Stations), add some nice box art and you are set. The problem was and is the fact that the game is not really accessible even with AC because of lack of tutorials, and a well thought out manual. On top of that comes the lackluster promotion of the game by SCS and its various publishers.
As for the usefullness of the mods/modding ... to lengthen the life of a game, mods are useful, but only for those who already bought the game. People seldom buy a game because they love the mods for it... Which takes us back to the initial point ... selling the game in the first place. Sure when mods are there and good, people who bought the game might tell their friends, hey game XY just got better because there is this kick-ass mod which in turn might compell them to buy the game, but usually they would have bought the game before that because the game itself was good.
goldorak
07-13-09, 03:03 AM
T
Now my point is, that the major problem for DW wasn't its graphics engine. Heck, most games nowadays put screenshots from the render movies on the box anyway, you could have done the same (or used the 2D Stations), add some nice box art and you are set. The problem was and is the fact that the game is not really accessible even with AC because of lack of tutorials, and a well thought out manual. On top of that comes the lackluster promotion of the game by SCS and its various publishers.
On these points I agree 100%.
The problem was and is the fact that the game is not really accessible even with AC because of lack of tutorials, and a well thought out manual. On top of that comes the lackluster promotion of the game by SCS and its various publishers.
On these points I agree 100%.I agree 100% #2, and I feared this would be an significant hurde at the very start of the whole DW story.
I always felt like there should be a solid way to help new players understand the game mechanics (witch is the basis to enjoy it).
Personally I find the fat manual not so usefull. As a fact it failed to help me out in using the frigate, and a lot of other little things that I had to figure out by myself or asking here in the forum.
For such a sim, IMO, the support is critical. The manuals and the tutorials, as said, are (IMO) not detailed enought (not sufficent).
The solution (theorical) could be to make this forum an official reference for any understanding issue, but then it must be very clear to the guy that has the CD in his hand.
Another (theorical) solution would be to incite the buyers to join some virtual navy, as those orgs are great in introducing new players to the sim.
The problem of both solutions is that they are theorically valid, but troublesome to insert...
Basically the idea is that most players "wont' make it past the learning burden" if not DIRECTLY helped.
I agree 100% #2, and I feared this would be an significant hurde at the very start of the whole DW story.
There are more complex war games out there than DW that are successful. Take the Harpoon Series for instance. Its got a learning curve that's even steeper than DW and its managed to make a very successful following including official navy buyers.
Seems like the same gamer demographic that goes for the Harpoon series would be the type that goes for DW... which begs the question... I wonder what percentage of Harpoon 3 gamers went for DW, why and why not. Maybe SCS should have found a registry of Harpoon players and sent them all advertisements.
What if instead of appealing to the casual market, they just charged *us* more?
Going back to the very beginning, I remember the discussions around here were often not so "polite"...
- "Will you wait next year to release the game ?"
- "Does the new patch arrive already ?"
That sort of stuff was quite irritating but very constant.
It enoughs to browse the topics in late 2005 to see what the athmosphere was like... as an example: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=82081
Thinking back at the atmosphere around, I wonder a little less that Sonalyst got pis***-off
What if instead of appealing to the casual market, they just charged *us* more?
Yeah, I always had the feeling that DW is cheap for what it offers :yep:
But then its suddenly too expensive when the Producer goes AWOL...
goldorak
07-13-09, 07:02 AM
Going back to the very beginning, I remember the discussions around here were often not so "polite"...
- "Will you wait next year to release the game ?"
- "Does the new patch arrive already ?"
That sort of stuff was quite irritating but very constant.
It enoughs to browse the topics in late 2005 to see what the athmosphere was like... as an example: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=82081
Thinking back at the atmosphere around, I wonder a little less that Sonalyst got pis***-off
I can't believe you are blaming the community for S.C.S shortcomings. :nope:
Without members of the community who took the time to write manuals about how to use the different units a whole less people would be playing this game. I know that if it were not for the manuals of the p-3, the kilo, tma etc... I would have left years ago.
I had 0 knowledge of naval tactics and warfare when I bought the game (including the 600+ pages so called manual). There was no one to explain me the nuts and bolts of naval tactics. And little by little with help from the manuals, from questions answered on this forum I came to "dominate" DW.
Now think what a casual player would have done, 5 minutes installing not understanding anything and deleting the game as fast as it was installed.
goldorak
07-13-09, 07:05 AM
Yeah, I always had the feeling that DW is cheap for what it offers :yep:
But then its suddenly too expensive when the Producer goes AWOL...
Yeah we got a broken game.
And it still is a broken game even with all the fantastic mods.
For 100$ I want a product that kicks ass on all sides, including GRAPHICS.
Anything short of excellence is forbidden.
Accepting something like DW 1.04 for 100$ is a sure way to say to the software houses keep "Fu..king" us with all your might we are all to happy to oblige. :down:
I wonder what percentage of Harpoon 3 gamers went for DW, why and why not.
Speculating, I could name as a minor reason that if you wanted to buy the game but browsed this forum seeing the feedback, I would think twice before opening the money-pocket :yep:
If I take a look at the posts back then, the atmosphere was quite nervous and negative :nope:
And I add that the people that were hurrying up Sonalyst to release the game in the expected date, might have to do a self-examination... :ping:
goldorak
07-13-09, 07:13 AM
And I add that the people that were hurrying up Sonalyst to release the game in the expected date, might have to do a self-examination... :ping:
If you think that a software house establishes its release schedule according to its fanbase, I've got a bridge to sell you. :smug:
I can't believe you are blaming the community for S.C.S shortcomings. :nope:
Without members of the community who took the time to write manuals about how to use the different units a whole less people would be playing this game. I know that if it were not for the manuals of the p-3, the kilo, tma etc... I would have left years ago.
I had 0 knowledge of naval tactics and warfare when I bought the game (including the 600+ pages so called manual). There was no one to explain me the nuts and bolts of naval tactics. And little by little with help from the manuals, from questions answered on this forum I came to "dominate" DW.
Now think what a casual player would have done, 5 minutes installing not understanding anything and deleting the game as fast as it was installed.
From what I can remember, I didn't like the atmosphere back then. As said, nervous and negative.
Btw, I did my little part in complaining (I had an issue in regard of how the TMA works but I can't remember exactly what).
What did irritate me the most, was the pressure that some people where injecting into Sonalyst to make them release game & patches faster...
I am not addressing the whole community, but yes, a lot of elements were, IMHO, destructive...
Disappointing would be how I would describe DW.We were promised expansion packs and campaigns but they never materialised and sonalysts have not allowed a clone of scx to be developed.This has had a direct effect on my desire to play DW and if I do play now I play SCX.
If you think that a software house establishes its release schedule according to its fanbase, I've got a bridge to sell you. :smug:
:har:
goldorak
07-13-09, 07:33 AM
Disappointing would be how I would describe DW.We were promised expansion packs and campaigns but they never materialised and sonalysts have not allowed a clone of scx to be developed.This has had a direct effect on my desire to play DW and if I do play now I play SCX.
The clone of SCX is called RA also known as DWX.
You will not be disappointed. :D
goldorak
07-13-09, 07:37 AM
I am not addressing the whole community, but yes, a lot of elements were, IMHO, destructive...
I remember well, and yes in particular there were some people who were very vocal about the state of DW 1.0. Honestly you can hardly blame them, as the game in that state was basically a beta and many things were broken.
Basic things regarding sonar in particular. A subsim that has a broken sonar model you're not going to be happy with after spending big bucks buying it.
I remember well, and yes in particular there were some people who were very vocal about the state of DW 1.0. Honestly you can hardly blame them, as the game in that state was basically a beta and many things were broken.
Basic things regarding sonar in particular. A subsim that has a broken sonar model you're not going to be happy with after spending big bucks buying it.
That's why I said in a previous post, in a rude way, "if I was a programmer, i would give a darn about the community", meaning that getting involved in the discussions is just too expensive in terms of time, energy, and poor effectiveness when you have certain destructive ppl around...
Again, I dare to say that the feedback here, taken as the whole, was not really a motivation boost for Jamie & Co, rather the countrary :-?
As a positive note, now DW is very cheap to get (if i saw well, about 7$ @ the subsim.store :o:o:o) and maybe the low price will attract some more ppl :ping:
goldorak
07-13-09, 11:35 AM
As a positive note, now DW is very cheap to get (if i saw well, about 7$ @ the subsim.store :o:o:o) and maybe the low price will attract some more ppl :ping:
In Italy you can still buy it for 4,99 € :DL
Max2147
07-13-09, 01:04 PM
I was a fan of SCS games, but I didn't buy DW.
A few reasons were:
1. Sub Command was disappointing. The learning curve was very steep, the game was buggy, the graphics were dated, and in general it just wasn't fun. I gave up on it before the mods arrived.
2. Premise of the game. I like realism and such, but the simple fact is that modern naval combat is a lot of people sitting in dark rooms and staring at sensor screens. You never even see your enemy, and in a sub you never even see the outside world. So a realistic simulation of modern naval combat won't be terribly exciting, in my mind. In SH4 you could at least cruise around on the surface, see enemy ships through your scope, and shoot at planes from the deck. Fleet Command takes you outside the ship altogether. Both those games, for all their flaws, are simply FUN. Sub Command wasn't fun, and I feared that DW would be the same.
3. Graphics. It's not the most important thing in a game, but I do think they matter. For example, SH4 isn't up there with the latest FPS and such as far as graphics, but they're certainly not bad. DW's graphics were BAD. They weren't really an improvement over Sub Command, which in turn wasn't an improvement over Fleet Command, which had dated graphics when it was released.
4. A Sub Command redux. I didn't really see much in DW to separate it from SC. If the frigate, the Kilo, and the plane had come out as a SC expansion pack, I might have been more interested. But the reviews I read said that the frigate and the plane were the worst parts of the game.
Overall, I loved Fleet Command. It had its flaws, but with the NWP pack it was reasonably realistic but still accessible to a non-expert like me. There's a balance to be had between realism and fun, and FC got that balance exactly right. Unfortunately, SC got it wrong. Having loved FC, the boredom of SC was a big disappointment. Since DW looked like it would be more of the same as far as SC was concerned, I didn't bother.
I read an interview with somebody at Sonalysis not long after DW was released where they mentioned that the company was getting a bunch of government contracts. I think the easy money there caused them to lose interest in games. The Naval Combat Pack was simply an easy cash-in that required almost no work on their part.
What I'd really like to see is a Fleet Command 2.
I was a fan of SCS games, but I didn't buy DW.
4. A Sub Command redux. I didn't really see much in DW to separate it from SC. If the frigate, the Kilo, and the plane had come out as a SC expansion pack, I might have been more interested. But the reviews I read said that the frigate and the plane were the worst parts of the game.
? The P-3 is modelled well IMO and the frigate has some shortcomings like the TMA station but it is far from unplayable...it's a complete other feeling as being in a sub.
Actually, I've read a review that the P-3 itself is worth this sim.
Did you try out the demo? There, you can control the MH-60
OneShot
07-13-09, 02:13 PM
As far as I'm concerned I think both Air platforms are well modelled (not the 3D model unfortunatly) and quite playable. I can't speak for the FFG, but the few times I played this platform I rather enjoyed it (the TMA problem didnt occur to me as I used AC for that).
Aside from those platforms, the other addition compared to SC is the Kilo Class sub which plays quite different compared to the Nuke subs. All in all is DW a much more advanced sim then SC both in terms of playable platforms/ASW levels (right out of the box) as well as other capabilities ... Multistation comes to mind.
So its a bit more then just an expansion to SC, unfortunatly lots of people limit the game as well as themselves to the subs instead of exploring new ground in DW (FFG/Air) ...
I too think air platforms and FFG are superb. It's just totally different. The subs, nukes especially, are all pretty similar.
And FFG is the best platform .. since it has GUNS. :arrgh!:
goldorak
07-13-09, 06:14 PM
I too think air platforms and FFG are superb. It's just totally different. The subs, nukes especially, are all pretty similar.
And FFG is the best platform .. since it has GUNS. :arrgh!:
:haha: Isn't that the truth. I've sunk with the cannon careless skippers that occasionally popped up to fire one or more sams on my helos. Playing the frigate is a completely different experience from subs and it adds to the fun. Its even better when you play in 3 in multistation.
Fleet Command CC
07-13-09, 06:39 PM
I pick Bad programming, too many bugs, because the game is a pain to modify, and also adding new model's is :down:impossible:down: (I don't like using this word but in this case its needed) if you have not got 3D Studio Max R2.5. or R3.1 :arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!::arrgh!:
Fleet Command CC
07-13-09, 06:53 PM
I was a fan of SCS games, but I didn't buy DW.
A few reasons were:
1. Sub Command was disappointing. The learning curve was very steep, the game was buggy, the graphics were dated, and in general it just wasn't fun. I gave up on it before the mods arrived.
2. Premise of the game. I like realism and such, but the simple fact is that modern naval combat is a lot of people sitting in dark rooms and staring at sensor screens. You never even see your enemy, and in a sub you never even see the outside world. So a realistic simulation of modern naval combat won't be terribly exciting, in my mind. In SH4 you could at least cruise around on the surface, see enemy ships through your scope, and shoot at planes from the deck. Fleet Command takes you outside the ship altogether. Both those games, for all their flaws, are simply FUN. Sub Command wasn't fun, and I feared that DW would be the same.
3. Graphics. It's not the most important thing in a game, but I do think they matter. For example, SH4 isn't up there with the latest FPS and such as far as graphics, but they're certainly not bad. DW's graphics were BAD. They weren't really an improvement over Sub Command, which in turn wasn't an improvement over Fleet Command, which had dated graphics when it was released.
4. A Sub Command redux. I didn't really see much in DW to separate it from SC. If the frigate, the Kilo, and the plane had come out as a SC expansion pack, I might have been more interested. But the reviews I read said that the frigate and the plane were the worst parts of the game.
Overall, I loved Fleet Command. It had its flaws, but with the NWP pack it was reasonably realistic but still accessible to a non-expert like me. There's a balance to be had between realism and fun, and FC got that balance exactly right. Unfortunately, SC got it wrong. Having loved FC, the boredom of SC was a big disappointment. Since DW looked like it would be more of the same as far as SC was concerned, I didn't bother.
I read an interview with somebody at Sonalysis not long after DW was released where they mentioned that the company was getting a bunch of government contracts. I think the easy money there caused them to lose interest in games. The Naval Combat Pack was simply an easy cash-in that required almost no work on their part.
What I'd really like to see is a Fleet Command 2.
Max2147
I agree with all your points well said, I'd love to see a new FC game too. :rock::yeah::rock::yeah::salute:
Neptunus Rex
07-13-09, 08:20 PM
It took longer than 15 minutes to play a scenario. That's about the average attention span of most people.
Why do you think they call this generation "The Fast Food Generation"?
TLAM Strike
07-14-09, 12:14 PM
The layout of the sub in general. Were are those spaces?? On that note: If you have seen Stargate Continuim, the interior of the sub is DEAD ON. That is what control and the upper level passageway look like. That is what the wardroom (minus the flat panel garbage) looks like. Thats because it is the Conn, Wardroom and passageways aboard a US 688(i) class submarine surfaced near the north pole. :03:
The F-15s used later on were real F-15s. (the stuff on the ground not the CGI stuff) :DL
The Airbase where SG-1 is taken was a real USAF Base. :yep:
The time machine SG-1 uses to save the world was a real time machine on another planet. :rock:
Ok that last was isn't true but the rest is. :shifty:
The US Military helped out a lot not just on that one movie but though out the whole series. One of the joint cheifs appeared in an episode as I recall.
Max2147
07-14-09, 12:32 PM
It took longer than 15 minutes to play a scenario. That's about the average attention span of most people.
Why do you think they call this generation "The Fast Food Generation"?
For some people, maybe. But I had no problem playing 6 hour long scenarios in Fleet Command, or playing entire patrols in one go in SH4. Somehow SC just didn't capture me in the same way, and I didn't see any reason why DW would be different.
Cocerning atmosphere:
A lot of missions lack atmosphere (for my personal taste). I mean for example, not enough messages(communication) and that stuff, no big suprises concerning the 'big' picture of a mission.
Also things like limited AI.
But that could be solved by the community: if you would write a scenario generator, which creates the missions (not completely random but based on scenario-stubs created by a designer) and scenario-dependent doctrines (it is possible) dynamic campaigns + interesting (generated) scenarions seem to be possible.
Would be very hard work, no question.
But on the other hand, concerning the SDK discussion a few years ago: Who should use such a SDK if the people do not use the possibilites which the sim is providing now?
goldorak
07-14-09, 02:07 PM
Cocerning atmosphere:
A lot of missions lack atmosphere (for my personal taste). I mean for example, not enough messages(communication) and that stuff, no big suprises concerning the 'big' picture of a mission.
Also things like limited AI.
But that could be solved by the community: if you would write a scenario generator, which creates the missions (not completely random but based on scenario-stubs created by a designer) and scenario-dependent doctrines (it is possible) dynamic campaigns + interesting (generated) scenarions seem to be possible.
Would be very hard work, no question.
But on the other hand, concerning the SDK discussion a few years ago: Who should use such a SDK if the people do not use the possibilites which the sim is providing now?
If I'm not mistaken, something like a limited dynamic campaign generator was done for Silent Hunter 2 which had no native dynamic campaign engine, only scripted missions were available. So something like that could be done for DW.
The problem if you want to call it that, is that many people with the required technical expertise just don't care anymore for DW. Maybe out of spite towards SCS for having vetoed any kind of "interesting" modding for many years who knows ? ;)
FERdeBOER
07-14-09, 03:34 PM
Would be very hard work, no question.
But on the other hand, concerning the SDK discussion a few years ago: Who should use such a SDK if the people do not use the possibilities which the sim is providing now?
Because it's a lot of work that has to be done with the DW editor as it is; SCS gave us the scripts and took away the user actions. A combination of both of them would give us many ways of doing fun missions and tutorials in "short" time; plus some options that are present but doesn't work or works bad (Dynamic position + dynamic groups, formations, collisions...) if all of this would have worked well I could have finished several campaigns I started to create... :nope:
I would use a SDK :yep:
@goldorak
You're right; I would love to know a little programming to try to create such a thing, but I have no time to do that at the moment...
goldorak
07-14-09, 04:21 PM
About the "user actions", have they been eliminated from the code or is it still there somewhere but inactive ?
The same thing happened to video playback during mission briefing, the support is still there (since they recycled a good part of sub command) but is inactive.
A little bit of reverse engineering could expose that capability if of course it is still present in the code. Now WHO would want to embark on such a journey ? :dead:
The AI already beats the human mind, when it comes to calculable events; think about chess.
The news with DW was, for me at 1st place, the multistations feature; obviously, that is is to be used in a multiplayer context.
Me personally, i basically get quickly bored when facing the AI, even if i loose.
Therefore, i think Sonalyst put theyr efforts on a fizzy multiplayer community.
I got the clear impression that if you look for vs AI scenarious, you need a different game.
Shearwater
07-14-09, 05:55 PM
Reading all the posts in this thread, Falcon 4.0 comes to mind. At its initial release the standard-bearer in terms of realism (though with a dynamic campaign), but also with many bug. Maybe the program that has broken Microprose's back (which is a shame, really).
I see many parallels to DW - at its core a very good, but still unfinished game that is one of its kind, but isn't supported by its publisher anymore (although this time for a different reason), and like Falcon, it has an active modding community.
To get to my point: Actually, I wouldn't mind if a bunch of modders got together and brought out a completely overhauled version of DW, much à la Falcon 4.0 Allied Force. If they could make some money (though they'd have to buy the license in the first place), a lot of the modding effort would be rewarded financially. I would definitely buy it (as I did with F4AF) :)
Castout
07-15-09, 03:51 AM
For some people, maybe. But I had no problem playing 6 hour long scenarios in Fleet Command, or playing entire patrols in one go in SH4. Somehow SC just didn't capture me in the same way, and I didn't see any reason why DW would be different.
I know why or so I believe.
Yes you can play most games in hours or in prolonged hours like more than 3 hours easily.
But DW IS NOT most game. If you really handled most of the things in DW yourself you could probably at max spend about 2 hours more or less.
DW requires full attention of the player and it involves a lot of work while action is going on.
If one spent too many hours in DW, DW could easily change from being a leisure game to hard work!
DW is meant to be played a little at any one time.
Of course there's the auto crew option however that is not an option for me since if I were to turn on all the autocrew on I would be left with little to play. Since the heart of DW is at its various job stations instead of commanding the sub like in SH3.
If you think DW is about commanding Sub you're wrong. DW is about operating Sub or any other platform available not commanding them.
If you still don't see this just look at the game gameplay. Its various staions just scream: Come get here and operate me!!!
If you want to just command your sub the only station available to you is the map view which is without internal sound!
Plus take a look at the command bar that is there at every station emphasizing that DW expects the player to take command of the various stations while in control of their platform at the same time.
I have no problem with DW playtime. I mean in singleplayer. There is time compression .. and there is save. You can stop at any time and continue later. The amount of attention may vary, but most of the time I wanted higher time compression, and I was waiting for something to happen.
Multiplayer is altogether different. No time compression, no saving. So you wait much more. On the other hand, the tension is much higher and you hardly get bored, even if nothing happenes for two hours.
I like quick missions. They are usually solved fast. But the mission generator could be a bit better. You should be able to choose from weather conditions, select oponent more exactly, not just a class, add allies, and so on. Sure you can do all that in full editor, but it's much more work.
Multiplayer is altogether different. No time compression, no saving. So you wait much more. On the other hand, the tension is much higher and you hardly get bored, even if nothing happenes for two hours.
In SC i never got bored by multiplay games (played about 300 multiplay battles)... in the VN i was, there was a time limit of 2h witch was almost always sufficent to resolve the battle.
Some maps were knifefights, meaning you can detect your enemy at the very start of the mission... Those usually got resolved in 10-20 min :)
When DW came out and was introduced in the VN and most SC players switched to it, all this changed dramatically. In a sub vs sub context, the 2h limit was hit quite often without a solution for the battle. Some reasons for this are:
- countermeasures do WONDERS (they are even able to detonate the fish). I always hated that to death :nope:
- subs are more silent, not only the Kilo
- multiplayer maps get old fast, because of the lwami mod changing often.
So, less action than in SC (it was not rare to have no contact for 2h).
What really pissed me off, was to *waste* 2h working hard to find a contact without to be able to find any...
goldorak
07-15-09, 06:44 AM
In SC i never got bored by multiplay games (played about 300 multiplay battles)... in the VN i was, there was a time limit of 2h witch was almost always sufficent to resolve the battle.
Some maps were knifefights, meaning you can detect your enemy at the very start of the mission... Those usually got resolved in 10-20 min :)
When DW came out and was introduced in the VN and most SC players switched to it, all this changed dramatically. In a sub vs sub context, the 2h limit was hit quite often without a solution for the battle. Some reasons for this are:
- countermeasures do WONDERS (they are even able to detonate the fish). I always hated that to death :nope:
- subs are more silent, not only the Kilo
- multiplayer maps get old fast, because of the lwami mod changing often.
So, less action than in SC (it was not rare to have no contact for 2h).
What really pissed me off, was to *waste* 2h working hard to find a contact without to be able to find any...
Well beyond some technical issues which have been addressed such as the countermeasures now not making the torpedo explode EVER, DW in my humble opinion required a radical new way to play in multiplayer.
The biggest difference over Sub Command, 688i H/K etc... was the addition of multistation which really is a + over any other naval simulation software out there. Thing is, if you're looking for quick fights in 10-20 minutes :haha: you'll get absolutely no fun.
People wanting to play DW as a kind of FPS are using the wrong attitude, is it a wonder then that they bash and trash this game ? :shifty:
We on betasom have developed a tightly knit group of players, new ones are joining every month and we teach them how to use the different units, tactics and all. Then they are in effect able to particiapte in our games. Not fps kind, they are complex and engaging missions, puting multiplayer multistation at its best. Cooperative missions that last between 2-3 hours.
They are so complex that we only design one per week, and we play with 10-15 players in general.
We have been playing these kind of missions since the days of lwami when AT3 was not even on the horizon. And such missions were as fun then as they are now. And we have transitioned from lwami, to AT, to the french mod and in future to RA. You learn to adapt and go forward.
Crying because version 2 of mod alpha changed some small bits to version 1 of mod alpha is ridiculous.
Well beyond some technical issues which have been addressed such as the countermeasures now not making the torpedo explode EVER, DW in my humble opinion required a radical new way to play in multiplayer.
The biggest difference over Sub Command, 688i H/K etc... was the addition of multistation which really is a + over any other naval simulation software out there. Thing is, if you're looking for quick fights in 10-20 minutes :haha: you'll get absolutely no fun.
People wanting to play DW as a kind of FPS are using the wrong attitude, is it a wonder then that they bash and trash this game ? :shifty:
We on betasom have developed a tightly knit group of players, new ones are joining every month and we teach them how to use the different units, tactics and all. Then they are in effect able to particiapte in our games. Not fps kind, they are complex and engaging missions, puting multiplayer multistation at its best. Cooperative missions that last between 2-3 hours.
They are so complex that we only design one per week, and we play with 10-15 players in general.
We have been playing these kind of missions since the days of lwami when AT3 was not even on the horizon. And such missions were as fun then as they are now. And we have transitioned from lwami, to AT, to the french mod and in future to RA. You learn to adapt and go forward.
Crying because version 2 of mod alpha changed some small bits to version 1 of mod alpha is ridiculous.
...
congratulations for adapting and going forward. You are one of the very few :shifty:
I will not comment further.
goldorak
07-15-09, 09:13 AM
...
congratulations for adapting and going forward. You are one of the very few :shifty:
I will not comment further.
Hey I'm not the one that has stopped playing DW for futile reasons.
Its a pity you cannot or will not adapt, in the end its your loss.
Me after 4 years I'm still enjoying this game, and the future is bright. :salute:
Hey I'm not the one that has stopped playing DW for futile reasons.
Its a pity you cannot or will not adapt, in the end its your loss.
Me after 4 years I'm still enjoying this game, and the future is bright. :salute:
Sei una testa di minchia (you are a dickhead)
Io ho una vita al di fuori di DW (I got a life beside DW)
Le stronzate che spari portano a un futuro di merda (the bull**** you express leads to crap)
goditi il simulatore amputato ma non rompermi le palle (enjoy the crippled simulator and don't get personal)
goldorak
07-15-09, 12:39 PM
Congratulations Nexus7, you've just had the privilege of being the first a-s-s-h-o-l-e to make it onto my ignore list.
Good riddance to you. :shucks:
I can't suffer arrogance :nope:
Bad programming was the closest thing I could pick to how I feel about it.
I guess I would've been happier with a "Fleet Command 2" style game and all the platforms of the modern navy available for me to command. :yawn:
I tend to dislike these attempts at trying to please everyone... I look at DW and PacStorm in a similar light. Either focus on making a really good simulator for a specific platform or give me a good strategic level game with lots of platforms, but don't try to do both at the same time. DW was a little heavier on the sim and lighter on strategy, PacStorm was the opposite; and both end up falling short in the end.
Castout
07-15-09, 10:21 PM
I have no problem with DW playtime. I mean in singleplayer. There is time compression .. and there is save. You can stop at any time and continue later. The amount of attention may vary, but most of the time I wanted higher time compression, and I was waiting for something to happen.
....
I like quick missions. They are usually solved fast. But the mission generator could be a bit better. You should be able to choose from weather conditions, select oponent more exactly, not just a class, add allies, and so on. Sure you can do all that in full editor, but it's much more work.
I meant that 2 hours more or less with or without time compression when the action is relatively high and played most of the station by ourselves.
I agree that the quick mission could have been made better
I tend to dislike these attempts at trying to please everyone... I look at DW and PacStorm in a similar light. Either focus on making a really good simulator for a specific platform or give me a good strategic level game with lots of platforms, but don't try to do both at the same time. DW was a little heavier on the sim and lighter on strategy, PacStorm was the opposite; and both end up falling short in the end.
What part of DW is strategy ? The fact you can give orders to helo from FFG ? For me DW is clean sim.
OneShot
07-16-09, 09:33 AM
DW is the best and actually more or less only tactical ASW simulation around. Yes, there is SC and Janes 688(i) but they only show one side of the ASW game ... DW is the only game showing all sides of ASW. As far as the quality of the simulation goes ... I think that DW does simulate all platforms to a rather good level. Deep enough to allow a lot of stuff to do but not as detailed as F4 or DCS:BS (both are actually study sims of one single platform). Furthermore DW is an entirely different breed compared to PacificStorm, the only thing those two games have in common is the fact that both deal with Naval units.
Fizanko
07-16-09, 11:25 AM
But isn't the real reason of why DW is the best is because there is absolutely no competitor for the modern naval warfare simulation category (at least in the one that involve the player as actually operating the platforms, not just commanding a war in a Harpoon/Fleet Command way)?
Nearly every other naval/subsim/platform operating simulators are WW2 based, none use modern platforms.
The last non-sonalyst engine clone simulation (so discounting Sub Command and 688HK) that could at least compete in the modern sub simulation category is from 1996 (Fast Attack and Tom Clancy SSN).
In such condition, Sonalyst never had any competition in the same genre to make their serie of game, so obviously the sims were the best.
Yes. DW is not much good, but it is still the best. For me this is reason for NOT complaining, but it may vary for other people. In fact it clearly does. :arrgh!:
FERdeBOER
07-16-09, 02:47 PM
Well, seems that your ComSubSim will be a great competitor to DW :up:
I think that most of people's complains are because DW is great, but it clearly shows what it could have been if it had been completed...
Hey don't praise me or I will blush .. at the moment I have terribly little time for CSS :down: Damn financial crisis means we had to fire few people, and now we have to do their work. But still, while the project is crawling, it is crawling forward. :salute:
Yes. DW is not much good, but it is still the best. For me this is reason for NOT complaining, but it may vary for other people. In fact it clearly does. :arrgh!:
? Being the only i could as well say it is the worst lol :D
Complaining is, I agree, like complaining against the air since Sonalyst has closed the door, and has closed the code too, so there's no way to fix some things.
Now I ask myself how would I act in the scenario where Sonalyst comes back into games business with some new stuff.
I'd think at least twice before spending money to them again... rather I'd boycott the, that's a fact...
Now that is interesting point of view.
Would you buy DW again if you knew how it will (won't) evolve ?
My answer is: totally.
Now that is interesting point of view.
Would you buy DW again if you knew how it will (won't) evolve ?
My answer is: totally.
Good question. I'd probably be too curious to not buy it, if there was a demo it might have sufficed. Maybe I wouldnt buy it as quickly as i did and wait the price lowers lol
Neptunus Rex
07-17-09, 10:26 PM
Cocerning atmosphere:
A lot of missions lack atmosphere (for my personal taste). I mean for example, not enough messages(communication) and that stuff, no big suprises concerning the 'big' picture of a mission.
Also things like limited AI.
But that could be solved by the community: if you would write a scenario generator, which creates the missions (not completely random but based on scenario-stubs created by a designer) and scenario-dependent doctrines (it is possible) dynamic campaigns + interesting (generated) scenarions seem to be possible.
Would be very hard work, no question.
But on the other hand, concerning the SDK discussion a few years ago: Who should use such a SDK if the people do not use the possibilites which the sim is providing now?
Atmosphere? Then try this.
Take your PC into the smallest room you have. Drag your bed in there too. Take your kitchen trash outside, pour some used motor oil in there and some dirty clothes. Allot of dirty socks too.
Take that bag and throw it into that small room. Don't tie it closed, that's cheating.
Now get a scuba full dive tank with 3000 psig and run a hose from it into the room.
Get some food and a empty can and take that in. (The can is your WC).
Have 12 friends join you in the room.
Close the door and have a friend nail the door closed.
Wait 12 hours in the "game room" to simulate the manuevering watch. Remain standing. Begin game play. Remain standing.
Tell your friend on the outside of the door that when he hears you shoot a torpedo, bang real hard on the door and give a blast of air from the dive tank.
For added fun, if you take a weapon hit and emergency blow, have your friend open the tank valve full open until the tank is empty. For even more fun, have him blow some smoke under the door to simulate a fire. Home Depot carries smoke in a can to test smoke detectors. Remain standing. Here's where your 12 friend in there come in. Tell them when weapons start getting shot, have them all start screaming "What the hell are you doing?" Not in unison, over each other. Tell them to keep this up for 30 to 60 minutes.
After 6 hours of game play, go to sleep for 12. Have your friend outside bang on the door every 15 minutes or so. Tell him when he wakes you to be rude about it. The messenger of the watch has the rest of the on coming watch section to wake up.
Continue game play for 6 more hours.
Continue game play until all food is expended and your WC can is full. Remain standing.
Don't forget to surface the ship and ventilate. Your friend won't open the door until you do.
Update - During game play, you have to announce that you need to take a dump. Your friend outside will open the door and place a sign over your WC can "Danger Blowing Sanitaries". You can't use it with that sign up. Your friend may remove the sign after about 15 minutes, but it sometimes takes as long as an hour. If you cheat and use your can, your friend will come in, stick the air hose in the can, then leave and shut the door. You are not allowed to stop or interfer with him. When he shuts the door, he will open the air valve blowing the contents of the can in "the game room". Remember, you're on watch. If you clean it up, you've left your watch station. Get one of your 12 friends in the room to help but I doubt they will.
Frame57
07-17-09, 11:39 PM
Ahhhh! Neptunus is making me home sick....:salute:
TLAM Strike
07-20-09, 02:29 PM
Atmosphere? Then try this. No joke when I moved to my new place I considered making my walk in closet a computer room complete with rig for red lighting but before I could my clothing got put in there along with with my boxes of old stuff. :damn:
No joke when I moved to my new place I considered making my walk in closet a computer room complete with rig for red lighting but before I could my clothing got put in there along with with my boxes of old stuff. :damn:
This could be interesting: to set up some PC port (usb/serial...) to activate some room lights for actions like
-dive/surface
-battle stations
-don't know what else...
and of course a well placed 5.1 sound system is a must...
adcaptorpedo
07-24-09, 06:36 PM
First of all - Dangerous Waters never died. The only thing that died was peoples intentions to play. Fortunately - not everywhere. Some places are still occupied by people with imagination. That's the way this topic 'runs' - you are only talking bull**** just to get it going. Get a grip and start playing or shut the hell up.
Regards for real DW players.
:roll:
Cool down (Goldorak ? :haha:). I am expressing my opinion. Being the code closed, and the owner of the code absent probably forever, and no future for modern sub sims in sight, I consider it as a failure.
Second reason why I consider it a failure... the people posting here are still the same people like 2 years ago more or less, so even bad in promoting the gendre.
If you consider it a success... oh well... :doh:
FIREWALL
07-27-09, 06:14 PM
I'm not too embarrassed to say.... I'm to STOOPID to figure out how to play it.
As for price. I got it at my local Target store for $9.99
Price can't be an issue. I guess it must be the Lunkhead Factor. :haha: btw I wasn't to hot with 688i H\K either
OneShot
07-28-09, 12:26 AM
:roll:
Cool down (Goldorak ? :haha:). I am expressing my opinion. Being the code closed, and the owner of the code absent probably forever, and no future for modern sub sims in sight, I consider it as a failure.
Second reason why I consider it a failure... the people posting here are still the same people like 2 years ago more or less, so even bad in promoting the gendre.
If you consider it a success... oh well... :doh:
Simple reason for that ... the majority of players buys a game, plays it and unless they are really really excited by it (or already a fan of the genre/game series) will never be active in a community. Maybe, if they encounter a problem, they use Google and try to fix the problem, tho that doesn't mean they get active in a community.
So, even if DW would have been a huge commercial success (as in sold a lot of boxes) I doubt that we would have seen an equally huge influx here - because face it ... DW even with A/C caters more to the hardcore player then Mr./Mrs. Casual. Those most likely would have installed the game, played it a bit, followed by quick uninstall and the thought .. thank god its only $10 (or so).
SUBMAN1
07-28-09, 12:32 AM
Where is the 5th option? Lack of advertising?
-S
i voted "bad programing" too.
even so, i would buy this game again in a heart beat.
Where is the 5th option? Lack of advertising?
-S
Rather i missed
1. Producer abandoning the project :dead:
Seademon
07-29-09, 03:57 PM
dangerous waters didn't sell because
1. It didn't have any COPY PROTECTION !!! There was no cd key to get past.
2. The game itself with multiple stations in each platform, while a good concept, was useless due to the high learning curve needed for each station and co-ordinating all that was hard and took a long time to learn wtf you were doing.
3. Then when you had a group of guys/girls playing the game on the one platform, they needed the skill level in the section they were in to operate effectively and the proper communication skills between each station to do it. It required constant training, situational awareness and command discipline, something that some gamers tried but it just burnt them out.
4. Yes the AI didn't help much.
5. Coupled with the fact that the sonar could be seen from one side of the map to the other in minutes, unlike 688, while an old game, it offered better adversarial possibilities as you had to use the sonar and work at it to get contacts when they became acknowledged more closer in.
So basically the simulation was not a "game" it became hard work, so then it left the realms of being fun to being hard work. I know i lost patience with it and dropped it as it didn't engage me and hold my interest in that regard. no fun factor.
Sure if it had a dynamic campaign it would be slightly better, but the grass roots problems would still remain. DW was built on SC which was also a failure, it was looked apoun as the great blue water hope after games like 688 and it failed to live up to the hype.
Shearwater
07-29-09, 06:49 PM
In general, I would agree that lack of copy protection is a major reason that games do not sell well. But I don't think that it applies to DW.
I think that the game in itself is useless without the printed manual, and having it copied at a local copy shop is just as expensive, or more, than buying it here on this site. I think that Sonalysts are still making money with it. So even it you haven't bought the game, you probably want to buy the manual.
However, I'll agree with you concerning the steep learning curve, and the manual does virtually nothing to solve this. You have to figure it out yourself, some way or other, and that's plain annoying. Even when buying a coffee maker, the manual doesn't explain how the thing works, but what I have to do when I want coffee. The DW manual works the other way round.
As for the fun factor: I've stated it above that I don't play DW for fun. It's something other than that - call it enjoyment or satisfaction. I don't expect it to keep me at the edge of the seat for all the thrill. Rather, I like it when ID, TMA and all that work out and I can track and hunt down a sub. Flaws and all, DW is still second to none in that category.
XabbaRus
07-30-09, 05:31 AM
I disagree that Sub Command was a failure, in fact for submarine warfare I find it more enjoyable than DW especially with SCX installed.
Doing some raw calculations:
programmer cost/piece: 5000$/month
number of programmers: 3
duration of development: 12 months
Total expense: 5000x3x12 ~= 180'000 $
Number of copies to be sold to cover the production expense:
180'000$ / 60 $ = 3000 copies
Number of votants on current pool : 70 ~= 3% of minimal sell requirement
:woot:
SeaQueen
08-02-09, 10:33 AM
Imo if DW would use 3D graphics like that of Silent Hunter III it would sell hot.
Right now DW only appeals to those who have strong interest in the world of modern naval sim.
There's other issues too. Scripted scenarios lack replay value and scripted campaigns are even worse. To do a multiplayer simulation realistically would take hours of time that people don't have. I mean... geez... one time I played one and people were complaining when they hadn't located the enemy after only 10 minutes of play time. The name of the game in ASW is hide-and-seek, so it's SUPPOSED to take a long time to find people, but 10 minutes is way too long for most video gamers.
The name of the game in ASW is hide-and-seek, so it's SUPPOSED to take a long time to find people, but 10 minutes is way too long for most video gamers.
Especially when there is no intelligence reports at all, you can end up not finding anyone after 2 hours because you search in the wrong direction... Realistically it takes days/weeks I guess? And seek and find nothing certainly isn't fun.
This has been one of the frustration factors to me in regards of DW.
The 10 minutes, was the "Weapons Free" limit in a lot of SC multiplay scenarios.
Skybird
08-21-09, 05:31 AM
Hehe, life can be funny. I am currently on travel and just hop in here on the fly. Don't know what devil has ridden my back to jump into the DW forum after so long a time. I played SC and fought with it's technical state for over a year until their final patch solved most decisive issues, at least I considered them decisive, while most of the community was more forgiving. But then my interest already had faded significantly, and while then having a worth to be played SC, I did not any more.
Then came DW, and the same thing repeated, together with the same old graphics engine (although that did not concern me too much), which told me that they had not learned from their earlier mistakes. This time it just took months before I lost interest in DW. The idea and concept is great, the execution is - well, sub-optimal, to put it that way, or '"not convincing".
Regarding the poll: "bad programming" my choice. It's really a shame.
But they set up a benchmark manual. I really loved it. But I doubt that I will ever reinstall DW again, despite my attraction by that electronics environment. Huge potential - but wasted. So much was lost, due to not adding so little more.
Lt. Staumeier
08-21-09, 05:56 AM
I personally feel it was a combination of several things.
Buggy, unrealistic (TORPEDO IN THE WATER!!) and horrible graphics in combination with a very niche market :/
I personally hated that they always yelled torpedo in the water. I want to spot the transients myself, damnit! Couldn't you at least have made it "Transients, bearing 332!" instead of "TORPEDOES OMG!!"
Would've given a lot more feel to it. The physics engine and graphics are just awful. Compare it to Silent Hunter III, which is older and you have a MASSIVE difference. Comparing it to SH4 is just a big joke.
Most of what bugged me wasn't the distorted polygons though, but rather the physics. A ship barely got dented when hit (unless you managed to get a lucky shot and the thing suddenly looked like it'd been in a 15 car pile-up), and sank almost immediately in addition to spinning fast while sinking and then hitting rock bottom about 20 ft before actually touching the bottom, all the while looking like a piece of paper singling out of the sky.
There was just too little effort put into the eyecandy, in my opinion and that put me off big time.
FERdeBOER
08-21-09, 03:19 PM
I personally hated that they always yelled torpedo in the water. I want to spot the transients myself, damnit! Couldn't you at least have made it "Transients, bearing 332!" instead of "TORPEDOES OMG!!"
:haha: I agree with you and it's easy to change... it's only a matter of find someone whith a voice similar to that in game.
The physics engine and graphics are just awful. Compare it to Silent Hunter III, which is older and you have a MASSIVE difference. Comparing it to SH4 is just a big joke.
Most of what bugged me wasn't the distorted polygons though, but rather the physics. A ship barely got dented when hit (unless you managed to get a lucky shot and the thing suddenly looked like it'd been in a 15 car pile-up), and sank almost immediately in addition to spinning fast while sinking and then hitting rock bottom about 20 ft before actually touching the bottom, all the while looking like a piece of paper singling out of the sky.
It's more a problem of eyecandy than physics in my opinion. The sound physics in DW is by far better that SHIII and IV. So are the sail physics.
SeaQueen
08-22-09, 12:28 PM
It depends on the relationship between the sensor ranges of the platforms involved and the sizes of the areas to be searched. I'd argue that in general it's more like hours to days depending on the platform and the scenario.
Especially when there is no intelligence reports at all, you can end up not finding anyone after 2 hours because you search in the wrong direction... Realistically it takes days/weeks I guess? And seek and find nothing certainly isn't fun.
This has been one of the frustration factors to me in regards of DW.
The 10 minutes, was the "Weapons Free" limit in a lot of SC multiplay scenarios.
Shearwater
08-22-09, 04:57 PM
It's more a problem of eyecandy than physics in my opinion. The sound physics in DW is by far better that SHIII and IV. So are the sail physics.
Are you sure about that? I agree on the sound physics. But sail physics? I'm not an expert, but it appears to me that the Uboats in SH3 behave much more credibly than the FFG in DW.
There's other issues too. Scripted scenarios lack replay value and scripted campaigns are even worse. To do a multiplayer simulation realistically would take hours of time that people don't have. I mean... geez... one time I played one and people were complaining when they hadn't located the enemy after only 10 minutes of play time. The name of the game in ASW is hide-and-seek, so it's SUPPOSED to take a long time to find people, but 10 minutes is way too long for most video gamers.
I'm ambarrased to say i have never finished the Karasea search V2. This is one of the things in my never-ending TO-DO list.
I totally agree on the scripted missions. This was one of my main problems, i didnt dare to start a mission just like that before mastering everything beacuse i was afraid of ruining the mission for me due to limited replay value. But that was the problem, i never had enough time on my hand to master it all (1st son was born few months after i bought DW, so spare time was something i didn't, and still dont, have much of it on my hand).
My problem is that i respect this sim too much that it prevents me from just playing it for fun (very silly of me i know).
But hey, i reinstalled it few weeks ago, and trying to get into it again (did i mention twin daughters are on the way:doh: so help me god).
BTW, DW's guide is far from being a benchmark, it really lacked the general picture explanations about the sea warfare tactics, sonar, sound conditions and so, not enough drawings and diagrams in the training sections like the 688i old manual or the other great guides written by other players since SC.
Sheppard
08-25-09, 09:42 AM
I voted bad programming -- mainly because there was no way to do an option which said "insufficiently fast time compression".
This also limited Fleet Command, by the way, it's SLOOOW time compression.
Yes .. this is important feature. And DW does not manage to run at full 32x in most late campaign missions.
Sure, it is CPU demanding problem. But I like SH approach with simplified simulation to achieve higher compression.
PeriscopeDepth
08-28-09, 03:56 AM
I don't think it's bad so much on the programmers' part as on Sonalysts part. The handed the developers an arguably obsolete base to work with and obviously did not devote a great amount of resources to it.
So I voted insufficient number of simmers for Sonalysts to justify a large investment.
PD
Hertston
08-30-09, 11:38 AM
None of the above. The third option is closest, it was actually an insufficient number of sub simmers prepared to play games set outside WW2. You see pretty much the same phenomenon in computer wargames as well; games set in other conflicts can succeed, but WW2 games have a huge head-start in user interest and hence inevitably publisher interest.
SeaQueen
08-31-09, 07:16 AM
I'm ambarrased to say i have never finished the Karasea search V2. This is one of the things in my never-ending TO-DO list.
Heh, if you're going to do it in real time, bring a book because unless you're lucky, it'll take at least a few hours.
Doing a side consideration on the pool results...
There is a ruuning pool in the Silent Hunter V Forum. The voters seem to have stabilized to ~150.
I figure those who voted here did play DW... and that's ~100 (2/3) !!
Not bad...
JamesT73J
09-14-09, 10:39 AM
It depends on the relationship between the sensor ranges of the platforms involved and the sizes of the areas to be searched. I'd argue that in general it's more like hours to days depending on the platform and the scenario.
This was common, even in the SC days. The problem was scenario design by folks that didn't really know multiplayer (and the inherent time limts) and the game itself.
Most scenarios could be around two hours long. In Sub Command, people didn't typically drive the platforms more than 10kts; it was too risky. So, at best; a sub could cover around 20nm. Obvious enough, but if detection ranges were <10nm, you can see the problem immediately. Two hours of play, and nada.
DW made it worse, because scenarios were designed by FFG or Airborne specialists; I recall playing one that had the submerged assets around 30nm from the action. Hopeless - players using those platforms wouldn't even get a sound contact.
The good news, of course, is that these problems are easily fixed. Generally speaking, things need to be contrived to ensure that platforms meet in the middle.
And to answer the question, DW didn't fail, not for me. It's still a unique, fascinating, and enjoyable simulator.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.