Immersion, Immersion, Immersion

[TarJak]

This one's for you mookiemookie.

Can't have too much of a good thing?

Or can you?

Is immersion the be all and end all or or just part of the enjoyment. Discuss:

[Mikhayl]

Once Destroyers are coming for you, you can never have enough of it :D

[mookiemookie]

http://www.hort.purdue.edu/ext/senior/fruits/images/large/coconut.jpg

[TarJak]

Ouch!:88)

[Sailor Steve]

<SS shoves TJ's head under the water> "How's THAT for immersion, bub?"
:rotfl2:

[Onkel Neal]

Immersion:
LeoVampire ROW
Tomi99 VIIc Engine room
Racerboy's equally great Exhaust Smoke
Diving Duck Open Hatch
Rubini's wonderful Water Streams
Evan82's Uniforms II
OLC's Modified Searchlight Beams

Gameplay, no one says it is not important, it is the heart of the game, but without "immersion", may as well play a board game. :ping:




Immersion:
http://www.subsim.com/sh4/sh4img2420072311sm5.jpg




No Immersion:
http://www.subsim.com/mystery/ms51a.jpg

[V.C. Sniper]

Sound is a VERY VERY VERY VERY IMPORTANT factor in immersion.

[Jimbuna]

http://connectpoliticditto.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/jasparafterthedive.jpg

[Ducimus]

This one's for you mookiemookie.

Can't have too much of a good thing?

Or can you?

Is immersion the be all and end all or or just part of the enjoyment. Discuss:

I think you can have too much of a good thing, although it is part of the enjoyment, but not the end all be all.Immersion is a buzzword around here. But what is immersion exactly? When people say "immersion", what i think they are referring to is a believable and detailed graphic enviorment that makes you feel as if your really there. In less kind terms - eye candy, which has become something of an (unhealthy IMO) obsession with many folks.

Since sub sims are trying to recreate something (historical renactment?) then yes, immersion makes sense, and it is, and should be part of the equation. However immersion alone does not a simulation make. In the end, it is an argument over finite development time, and of form and function. I maintain that form should never take priority over function, or in other words, form should never come at the price of function. If you put a shiny wrapper around a POS, all you end up with is a shiny POS, but a POS none the less.

(Not saying SH5 is a POS, but i have no other metaphor that convey's my point better)

[mookiemookie]

Since sub sims are trying to recreate something (historical renactment?) then yes, immersion makes sense, and it is, and should be part of the equation. However immersion alone does not a simulation make. In the end, it is an argument over finite development time, and of form and function. I maintain that form should never take priority over function, or in other words, form should never come at the price of function. If you put a shiny wrapper around a POS, all you end up with is a shiny POS, but a POS none the less.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Onkel Neal]

http://connectpoliticditto.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/jasparafterthedive.jpg

Made me laugh :DL

[TarJak]

I think the tow most misused words on these threads are gameplay and immersion.

What is gameplay?

What is immersion?

Why are they different and should they be separated at all?

[Ducimus]

>>What is gameplay?

Actions you take. Things you do.

>>What is immersion?

Being engrossed in an atmosphere, scene or setting, that is done well enough that it suspends disbelief. so well infact, that you feel you are are there within that scene or setting.

Yes the two are different and separate, particuarly in context with a submarine sim. As an illustration of how they are different, you can sit there and watch a good movie in surround sound, doing absolutely nothing, making no decisions or taking any action of any kind, and still feel immersed. If immersion is being defined as the gameplay, then by that standard, we could call a FPS a simulation.

[karamazovnew]

I think the tow most misused words on these threads are gameplay and immersion.

What is gameplay?

What is immersion?

Why are they different and should they be separated at all?

Here's a few games that are similar (or from the same series) but excel differently at either immersion or gameplay. This is a purely personal opinion.

Immersion: Morrowind
Gameplay: Oblivion

Immersion: Final Fantasy 9
Gameplay: Final Fantasy 7

Immersion: Flight Unlimited 2
Gameplay: Flight Unlimited 1 (or FSX or FU 3)

Immersion: Mafia
Gameplay: GTA (any since 3)

Immersion: CoD some levels
Gameplay: CoD other levels

Immersion: Battle of Britain 2 and European Air War
Gameplay: IL-2

Immersion: Diablo 1
Gameplay: Diablo 2

Immersion: Wing Commander 4
Gameplay: I-War 1 and 2

Immersion: Max Payne 1
Gameplay: Max Payne 2

Immersion: Jedi Knight 1
Gameplay: Jedi Outcast

Other immersive games: AVP1, Condemned 1, HoMM3 (weird, I know), Fallout (all of them), Icewind Dale 2, and tons more.

Games that might've been immersive for me, but aren't: GTA4, Crysis, Bioshock.

As a rule of thumb, for me, new games are not immersive no matter what they do. I miss the old days. Today graphics just can't balance the weak stories, bugs, bad design.

Immersion is a mix of both gameplay AND excellent design. Simply pouring 1000 gameplay or realistic features doesn't make a game immersive. For example GTA San Andreas had the most options but failed to be as immersive as Mafia. Morrowind for me illustrates how a game with less features and worse graphics can still beat a realistic looking game (oblivion) simply by being perfect in it's originality and story and pure dread.

SH3 is one immersive MF... I can't explain how they did it. SH4 might have better graphics but... it's not even close. SH5 doesn't appear to be that immersive... not sure why. I won't judge it from just a few screenshots but I already expect it to lack that "special thing" that SH3 had.

[OrangeYoshi]

Something I can add to karamazovnew's list:

Immersion: Ace Combat 4 and 5
Gameplay: Ace Combat Zero

There was all kinds of stuff you could do in Ace Combat Zero that was "better" or more in-depth (plus better AI) than in 4 and 5, but I always preferred playing 4 and 5 simply for the great stories they offered when you played them.

Immersion: Any MGS game

Yes, about half of the playing time of those games are cut-scenes and whatnot, but you get so wrapped up in it that you don't care.

Immersion: Silent Hunter 3
Gameplay: Silent Hunter 4

I've just never gotten the same feeling playing SH4 (even with OM) as I got with SH3 and GWX. (I don't want to start a discussion on this, just sharing my thoughts)

Immersion: Rome: Total War
Gameplay: Medieval 2: Total War

Medieval was much better in the technical aspects, but when you played R:TW, it felt like you were there in a sense that M2:TW came close to, but failed to equal.

Immersion: Europa Universalis 2 and 3
Gameplay: Victoria: Empire Under the Sun

Vicky is way, WAY more complicated and has more technical aspects, but EU3 is simply more fun because Vicky gives you so much complexity that you can't really get into the game.

[karamazovnew]

Rooome, how could I forget about that one?! Good one Yoshi :up:

[TarJak]

Yes I understand that there are elements that are seperable but what about gameplay elements that add to the immersion? Surely things like having to trim your boat properly would be both?

I'm not convinved that to have a great game one should override the other. Both elements need to be there IMHO to ensure that the enjoyment you gain from the game (let's face it this is the only thing that matters), is maximised.

[mookiemookie]

I think gameplay in a sim does more for immersion than any pretty graphics can. If I'm faced with the same decisions to make, tactical ability, equipment capabilities and operational situations that a U-boat captain had, then that means I am completely immersed in the role.

Of course that doesn't mean that graphics are unimportant, but they should be second priority to getting the gameplay aspects of the sim correct.

[Onkel Neal]

Immersion

http://www.joblo.com/images_arrownews/bikini-micro-string12.jpg












No Immersion

http://www.celebritysmackblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/tara-skinny-bikini.JPG

[karamazovnew]

Unlike fantasy games where the designers tailor everything to their possibilities, simulators are much less likely to achieve immersion factor. Until the Holodeck comes along, we won't have a truly perfect simulator. The devs need to cut corners, a lot of them. Each gameplay option must somehow tie in to the rest AND at the same time, not remind you of any missing features.
For example, in a Flight sim, any button I can't use in the cockpit is an immersion killer.

SH3 didn't show you your latitude and longitude. It also never showed the base time. SH4 did both of these, thus presenting the problem: "why the heck can't we use stars for navigation?! Why did they use a cilindrical map?!". I bet you've never asked that question in SH3. Can't reach America? Increase fuel capacity, case closed.
Allowing the player to do some things manually might actually hurt the game, if those things are not done properly to fit into the whole picture.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see some realistic aspects of working on a sub. But I'd rather see ALL of them or none at all. I was one of those asking for a sextant. Until I actually used a real one on a ship and realized it would actually hurt more "pretending" to use one in the game than not having it at all.

So I'd rather not list any features I'd like to see. We've passed the point of no return, the game is already in Beta so all that remains is to wait and see the finished game. I'm very curious on how they managed to integrate the interior and new crew into the overall gameplay. I bet that in SH5, as with SH3, they played the card of immersion as opposed to simulator.

What's a simulator? In my days of FS2004 I collected real plane operation manuals. There was one plane in particular Level D's 757 that blew me completely because I learned how to fly it in game by reading the real manual. That's a simulator.

[Ducimus]

Honestly, i think they should stop calling this series a sim. They are not, or at the least, they are increasingly moving away from being a simulation. Personally, so long as the game is called a sim, i will expect alot more technical detail then what they provide. Such as this:
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/23/0,1425,i=237874,00.jpg

I also think this series is evolving into hybrid game genre all of its own due to popular demand: more in your face graphics, and better roleplaying. So its my thought that this series is becoming some mix mash of RPG, FPS, some interactive choose your own adventure game, overlayed into some standard naval rule set of do's and don'ts that is about on par with any other games unique rule set.

What bugs me is that, this "standard naval rule set of do's and don'ts" does not appear to be improving. It's becoming this standard template, never changing, never improving, and never increasing in depth or complexity. That to me, is a major drag, because it means that as a player, ive already mastered SH5 when i mastered SH3.

[Ships-R-Us]

I personally get totally immersed to the very bottom by the IJN when I screw up. I do not enjoy that immersion, but I love the immersion otherwise.

[Sailor Steve]

Interesting and complex question, and all of the answers are correct, and none of them come close. How can that be? Well of course most of them do come close, and hit the nail on the head, and it only gets more confusing.

Of course the real answer is that one man's immersion is another woman's trash. I find the harbor traffic mods very immersive, but I'll bet a lot of the same people who always use the 'Start at Sea' options are the same ones who think the new complete interiors and interactive everythings are the absolute most important things about SH5.

I've been a miniatures wargamer for at least thirty-five years, and long before I ever played a computer game I was familiar with the argument between what they called 'Accuracy' and 'Playability', which meant the fine line between things working correctly and the whole thing becoming unworkable. On the tabletop 'Accuracy' usually equals more rules, and it's easy to become bogged down with too many rules governing too many things and the game slowing to a standstill as people have to keep looking things up just to keep up with how it works. The other extreme is making a game so simple that it's fairly easy to play but doesn't reflect the real thing at all. Everybody has their own opinion about what's right, and every so often someone comes out with a new rules set that claims to have finally gotten it all right, but is actually one man's or one group's opinion, and it's quickly dissected and trashed by proponents of the other extreme.

Sound familiar?

Obviously the same thing is happening here. One side is for absolute technical accuracy and the other is for absolute 'feel', and the truth is that nobody is completely on one side or the other. Well, some are, but not many. I'm in an odd middle. I want to feel like I'm doing all the calculations and aiming, and navigation, but I don't really want to do any of that, but just feel like it's happening. So I don't really want absolute technical accuracy, at least not for myself. But I do want the enemy ships to behave like the merchants and destroyers really behaved, so I do want some technical accuracy. Confused? I sure am.

The people who still talk about Aces Of the Deep are talking about that ship behaviour, and their immersion was in the ease for them of imagining they were really there not because it looked and felt and sounded right, but because it acted right. SH1 had that as well. SH2 certainly did not, and gave up possibly the most important factor of all - randomness; the possibility of every voyage being different from the last. SH3 brought that back, and added so much more, but lacked some of the enemy behaviour that made for believeability. The mods not only added depth to the visual and aural experience, but fixed a lot of those AI problems. A lot of them can't be fixed, though, and that's been a constant complaint. SH4 improved several things, and made them more enjoyable, but created some new problems that still can't be fixed. Which is more accurate? Which is more immersive? Opinions have been given, and I agree and disagree. I still prefer SH3, but only slightly, and only because some great things have been created for it that still haven't found their way into SH4. Will SH5 come with them built in? Will they be fixable by modders?

'Gameplay'? 'Immersion'? To some they are completely different things, to others the exact same thing. As I see it 'Gameplay' still refers to technical accuracy, which to me doesn't have to be perfect but will ruin the whole game if it's broken and can't be fixed. 'Immersion' is anything that makes me feel like I'm really there. It's all wonderful but in the end unnecessary except as an aid to the imagination. I love candy, but if the meat is bad you'll very quickly starve.

[karamazovnew]

Dulcimus, a while ago I might've disagreed, but right now I can only admire your ability to hit bullseye with such a comment. We might enjoy the SH5 adventure and, who knows, we might even see some new naval sim firsts. I'd be very glad if we could call it a true sim.

Simulated features are worth zero without some proper documentation. A good sim engine allows you to use real procedures. For example Mafia is one of the only games where you can properly do a parallel parking. I remember using it a lot practicing for my drivers license. Ubisoft should get a few of the guys that worked at Microprose or Looking Glass. When I attended flying school on gliders, I actually used the Flight Unlimited 1 manual for explanation of aerobatic maneuvers. Falcon 4, M1 Tank Platoon 2, F15 Strike Eagle 3, even F22 ADF had superb documentation explaining aspects of real equipment and how to use them in the game. I've learned to read real approach plates and aviation maps in FS2004 and used that knowledge in real situations. I've learned how to ride a thermal in Flight Unlimited 3 and broke the airfield height record without help from the instructor. After getting my countries 30m mesh I used real maps to navigate in the game. I've improved my snow driving skills in Richard Burns Rally and it saved my life once. Yet now, after 2 cruises as a cadet and as I train to become a navigation officer, I can't find any single thing in SH that could help me, or an environment where I can repeat what I've seen on real ships. I will buy SH5 and most likely enjoy it, it might even be immersive. But a sim? As I've said, for me personally, the more they leave out, the better. I hate "pretending" when it comes to simulators.

[JScones]

Honestly, i think they should stop calling this series a sim. They are not, or at the least, they are increasingly moving away from being a simulation. Personally, so long as the game is called a sim, i will expect alot more technical detail then what they provide. Such as this:
http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/23/0,1425,i=237874,00.jpg

I agree 100% with you, but if you look at the dev's focus:
Our focus is to create the perfect German submarine experience, with the highest detail current technology allows in real time. Silent Hunter is not about surface ships, is not about strategic decisions. What truly means Silent Hunter is life of a captain, his boat, his crew, a desperate battle for survival they themselves may not understand or agree with, sinking ships, live a drama on the high seas.it seems that they are moving from U-boat simulator to U-boat crew simulator. A subtle, yet significant difference for some of us, but still, in Ubisoft's eyes, a simulator (sneaky buggers).

Having said that though, was SH3 ever a true simulator? IMHO if SH5 includes even just one more (what we call) "gameplay" enhancement, then I guess it can claim the tag just as much as SH3 did. Admittedly, some (inc I) bagged SH3 as not being a simulator at all, but I guess we eventually got over it and started turning it into one, as best as the coding would allow us.

[elanaiba]

(...lots of good stuff...) As I've said, for me personally, the more they leave out, the better. I hate "pretending" when it comes to simulators.

Can you re-explain this part since I seem to have trouble understanding it?

[IanC]

Eh.. since when is immersion not conducive to a simulator?
It doesn't make much sense to me when somebody says "walking around the boat is a cute feature, but I'm much too 'hardcore-expert-simmer' to find it of any use". :06: :88)
Whatever helps the 'I am there' factor, must be advantageous in a sim, simply by the very definition of what a simulator represents. This is assuming of course that there isn't a big immersion-realism trade off.
Belittling immersion makes as much sense as belittling wolfpacks. Zero.

[mookiemookie]

Eh.. since when is immersion not conducive to a simulator?
It doesn't make much sense to me when somebody says "walking around the boat is a cute feature, but I'm much too 'hardcore-expert-simmer' to find it of any use". :06: :88)
Whatever helps the 'I am there' factor, must be advantageous in a sim, simply by the very definition of what a simulator represents. This is assuming of course that there isn't a big immersion-realism trade off.
Belittling immersion makes as much sense as belittling wolfpacks. Zero.

If they had an accurately modelled crap bucket in the engine room, that would be very immersive. But this isn't a "sit on the bucket and crap" simulator, it's a sub warfare simulator. Anything that takes away from accurately modelling what a sub does in favor of what a sub looks like is wrong. True immersion comes more from accurately modelling the situation, rather than the environment.

[Uber Gruber]

Having said that though, was SH3 ever a true simulator? IMHO if SH5 includes even just one more (what we call) "gameplay" enhancement, then I guess it can claim the tag just as much as SH3 did. Admittedly, some (inc I) bagged SH3 as not being a simulator at all, but I guess we eventually got over it and started turning it into one, as best as the coding would allow us.Agree completely. SH3 was released around Jan 2005....five years ago....and i'm still playing it. Not because it was a good game but because of all the work modders have had to put in to making the game come anywhere near a decent sub simulation.

Did UBI learn from this ? No, they just went on to release SH4....a disaster....which had to be saved by the modders yet again. Then they released Super Dooper U-Boat Mission Add Ons for Yer Aunt Fanny....a joke. No really, it was a joke.

Now we have the impending SH5.... or rather SH4 in a bad dress.

Lets just hope the devs bypass the La La Land of Ubi and at least enable the APIs so that modders can AGAIN try to hammer it into a half decent sub sim.

Sigh......all this is so avoidable :nope:

[Mikhayl]

Simulation = more functions, and as technically/historically accurate as possible. 3D stuff isn't a function, you can have a very immersive damage/flooding control experience with a 2D screen, if the systems are programmed in detail.

On that front, reading the Q&A, it doesn't sound so good.

Will the navigation map handle the earth as a cylinder like in SH3?

Yes. Although not geographically correct, the cylindrical view is the easiest to understand and use of all cartographical projections, especially if we consider the possibility that the player could roam all the seas as he / she wishes. We investigated other projections as well, using a globe or specific maps of several locations (like they did in reality) but the drawbacks in terms of usability, freedom and understanding were too big to consider them further. Also, there is a number of technical problems associated to other geographical projections, which we chose not to tackle for now.Unless they designed a specific system, that rules out "real navigation", -1 for the sim aspect

Will there be any AI operated boats forming a Wolfpack?

There will be AI operated boats. Wolfpack mechanics are under consideration. This is something we always wanted to do but we want to do them properly so there’s a question if we’ll be able to fit them before release.If you search the net, there's an interview from when SH3 was in development saying the same thing, that "Wolfpacks are great and maybe we'll have them". I still hope they'll be in but it sounds unlikely now.

Will more elements limit the max duration of your patrol in SH5? (ex: food, water, medical supplies, crew morale, crew wanting to return home after a long period etc)

In SH5, crew morale is the deciding factor; the longer you stay on patrol, the more affected the crew is, and the less you are able to demand that “extra mile” from them. The morale system takes into account many modifiers that represent factors such as the “longing for home”, exhaustion, lack of food, while we chose not to bother the player, the U-Boat captain, with mundane tasks such as managing the food inventory.Too bad, ok it's not that big a deal, but that's the sort of attention to detail that made the old school sims so enjoyable.

What about surface ships firing torpedoes? In SH3 even torpedoes boats didn't attack another ships by torpedoes, only guns, guns, guns...

This is a nice feature and one we have in plan. However, it is regarded as less important than other features such as AI submarines - friendly and enemy."In plan", note that it's from November.

Will there be random damages or problems with the U-boats? I am thinking about problems with the Diesel-Engine or other technical problems (maybe like sabotage by dockyard workers, which happened more often later in the war).

While we strive to give the player a realistic view on the war and the machines taking part in it, we think random malfunctions or sabotages are very dangerous for gameplay reasons. These kinds of events cannot be controlled by the player and they may ruin a mission, a plan, or a patrol for you. In the future, we will tackle them in some way, but for now, we have no such thing in the game.-1 for simulation, it could have been optionnal like in SH3 Commander. 105% realism :)

Will there be weight simulation? The more weight within the sub the lower it sits in the water thus more drag with the water, will torpedoes, AAA ammo, deck gun ammo, and fuel all affect the subs weight, thus changing the speed vs fuel usage?

We’re working on improving the submarine dynamics (underwater drag mainly) in relation to the customizable items on the deck: deck gun, conning tower, flak guns. This feature is still some ways away, though!that's from December, so some ways away probably means "in SH6"

Will there be a feature if you're being pinged by a enemy vessel to have one of your officers do a depth under keel ping/check at the same time an enemy ping goes off to help prevent them from finding you while checking to see how deep you can go?

Would it really be possible for the pings to be timed so well as to disguise them? It’s an interesting question and a good suggestion noted for the future. Considering the layout of the Atlantic, I doubt it would be useful in most convoy battles though.Same as food, not that big a deal but this attention to detail is what makes a great sim.

There's some good stuff in the other question, like better flooding and the like, but all in all it doesn't seem like it will be more or less "sim" than SH3 or 4, sadly.

[Lanzfeld]

Mikhayl nailed it.

SH-5 out of box is going to be a fail.:down:

We will see what the modders can do to it.:hmmm:

I will not buy it (never bought SH-4) until I see if it even works.

[karamazovnew]

Can you re-explain this part since I seem to have trouble understanding it?

I meant that since playing simulators means "pretending", having a few unfinished extra features, just for the sake of it, can break the feeling completely as you begin to feel that you're "pretending to pretend". For example, hearing an entire convoy on the hydrophones at 5 km away while the sonar operator says "No contacts". Suddenly you're no longer on a simulated sub, you're just looking at polygons and you can see the config files disintegrate before your eyes, Matrix style. I'd rather have a sub sim where I can't sit at the sonar station but the operator can react correctly according to a formula I can trust. But the best example would be anchors. It would take a small amount of time to implement laying anchor. Some might like it and they'd use it every time they return to port. But that would only remind me of the absence of currents and wind effect (which I agree, are not simple to implement correctly). So I'd rather not have them.

To the game's credit, there is a part in SH which I consider to be sim and for me it's the best part of the game: manual targeting. Sure, there are a few small complaints but overall I can say that the game nails the formula there. Positioning your boat relative to the targets can be very fun. And SH 3 and 4 are the only sub games where the entire chain of equipment and theory are link very well together. Although I still hate the PK and not having ship lentgths in the manual in SH4 :haha:

[IanC]

True immersion comes more from accurately modelling the situation, rather than the environment.

This is actually very debatable. I remember playing a WW1 flight sim that was very realistic, lots of formulas involved, all the right gauges, right physics for different a/c and it was all on pen and paper! Was it realistic? Sure (I guess), did I feel like I was in the cockpit? Not really. So I loaded Red Baron on my comp instead. Those pen and paper engagements were probably more 'realistic' but it was with the video game Red Baron that I truly felt like I was flying over the front.

[Onkel Neal]

Anything that takes away from accurately modelling what a sub does in favor of what a sub looks like is wrong. True immersion comes more from accurately modelling the situation, rather than the environment.

That's a seriously broad statement. Anything? So, Ubi Romania should not assign a graphics artist to make the control look authentic, because those resources could be used for coding a sub-routine in the AI? No 3D crew that began with SH3? No regard whatsoever for the direction with which the propellers of subsim destiny turn?

Anything? Anything? :O:

[mookiemookie]

That's a seriously broad statement. Anything? So, Ubi Romania should not assign a graphics artist to make the control look authentic, because those resources could be used for coding a sub-routine in the AI? No 3D crew that began with SH3? No regard whatsoever for the direction with which the propellers of subsim destiny turn?

Anything? Anything? :O:


Ok, so I'm guilty of a bit of hyperbole. :O: But what's going to keep you coming back to the game time after time, year after year? A wall of shiny and immaculately modelled valves in the control room, or gameplay that offers a realistic and unpredictable experience every time you start a new career?

I don't know about you, but I can only look at a wall of valves so many times before the novelty wears off.

Don't get me wrong, I love pretty visuals as much as the next guy, but I'm willing to sacrifice bleeding edge graphics for other things.

[Onkel Neal]

I don't know about you, but I can only look at a wall of valves so many times before the novelty wears off.



You're in the Kriegsmarine, sailor!

[Nisgeis]

No regard whatsoever for the direction with which the propellers of subsim destiny turn?

Hopefully not backwards, like in SH4. Not that I ever cared about that, but the propellers of destiny! Let's hope they are set to go forwards and make progress for subsims.

[Onkel Neal]

But, remember, this is WWII era, going backwards is progress.

[V.C. Sniper]

Imagine being in the engine room and listening to the engines which sounds like a honda prius.

[karamazovnew]

Imagine being in the engine room and listening to the engines which sounds like a honda prius.

Toyota Prius? The guys sleeping there wouldn't mind a bit. :zzz: Plus the damn things never break (well, mine at least).

[Platapus]

To me, immersion/reality is not a binary matter i.e., this is good and this is bad. To me it is more a matter of priority -- what should the initial focus be and what can wait.

A "good" simulator needs a specific level of graphics (anyone remember Action Stations?) in order to be enjoyable. However a simulator should, in my opinion, simulate the operation of the, in this case, submarine.

I do not begrudge the emphasis on glitzy graphics. I begrudge the emphasis on glitzy graphics at the expense of simulating the submarine.

If, all the other "missing factors" in submarine simulators were taken care of, then, I would like the glitzy graphics. But, in my opinion, there is so much more work that needs to be done to accurate model the operations of the critical aspects of WWII submarines.

The software developers have only so much time/money to invest in SH5 development. Where do I want the limited resources of Ubi-effort focused?

It is not glitzy graphics. It is not questions about the fricking soup. It should be about focusing the programming capabilities to increase the realism of the submarine's operations and not just its appearance.

Any "improvement" in the simulation should directly affect or be affected by what the player can do. Wonderfully rendered hatch doors are great and I am in awe of the artistic capability of the artists. But if rendering a hatch does not change what I can do with the simulator or what the simulator can do for/to me, it should be a low priority.

All this being said, I understand that there is a large component of the Sub Sim community that is interested in graphics. Many of the mods for SH3/4 are graphically focused.

I am probably in the minority. I would much rather have a more capable hydrophone than water rendered into some new artistic levels.

I would rather have my CPU be busy calculating angles/speed/objects than be busy rending some graphic that does not add to the game play but adds to the game appearance.

I guess that is the root of my position. I am more interested in game play than game appearance.

I hope that SH5 has something to offer all types of customers.

YMMV :salute:

[IanC]

Ok, so I'm guilty of a bit of hyperbole. :O: But what's going to keep you coming back to the game time after time, year after year? A wall of shiny and immaculately modelled valves in the control room, or gameplay that offers a realistic and unpredictable experience every time you start a new career?

I don't know about you, but I can only look at a wall of valves so many times before the novelty wears off.

Don't get me wrong, I love pretty visuals as much as the next guy, but I'm willing to sacrifice bleeding edge graphics for other things.

I agree with you. I wasn't even talking about graphics here, I'm talking about features that add to the feeling of being there. Something that should not be looked down upon, by any simmer.
For example I find Aces of the Deep to be more immersive/atmospheric than Silent Hunter 3. Why? Well simply because of the dynamic comms between yourself and BdU and other U-boats and BdU. That just threw me back in a time machine.
But AOD is also missing some realism features that are present in SH3. That's why I said as long as there isn't a big trade off between immersion and realism, immersion features can only help in a simulation.

edit: Can only help and is important I might add.

[Ducimus]

You know what would be immersive? If, when ordering the sub to surface, i could hear the squeal of high pressure air pushing the water out of the ballast tanks, while looking at a gauge and seeing the level of high pressure air onboard become less and less as it is being used to push the water out of the main ballast tanks. I would find myself grateful that i had plenty of compressed air left, even after the volume consumed by firing 6 torpedos in a submerged attack. After all, if i didn't have compressed air to clear the water, i woudlnt be surfacing at all!

Finally, upon surfacing, i could hear the low pressure blowers pushing the rest of the water out of the ballast tanks, and somewhere below a compressor is running to refill the high pressure air flasks. Gotta keep those topped off at all times. I then order the starboard engine taken off the propulsion and put on battery charge because the port engine is damaged and not running to capacity, and right now, with lots of planes in the area, i need the fastest recharge possible right now in case i have to dive again. After all, no battery, means no forward momentum over the dive planes, which means poor depth control.

Ahh, dream a little dream. Thats the kind of detail, we probably won't ever see. I sure hope that soup is tasty.

[Nisgeis]

Hmmm, US boats didn't surface normally like that, not sure that German boats did either. German boats used their diesel exhaust rather than low pressure blowers didn't they? That was quite advantageous and gave an effect similar to running the low pressure blowers full time on the US boats, which added speed. The boats would be at near neutral buoyancy when submerged and to blow ballast would give you quite an unctrolled surface. The air in the ballast tanks would expand as the water pressure decreased giving you more and more buoyancy the closer you got to the surface and the faster your ascent would become.

Blowing tanks to compensate for flooding or taking on water from firing torps or flooding, sure, but not a normal surface. You'd plane up to the surface and then run your low pressure blowers/diesel exhausts.

[Ducimus]

I might not have the sequence correct (im not going to argue what is correct, it's not worth the time or effort), but i think you'll agree there should be something there to begin with. But... there isn't, and probably won't ever be. Still, one can hope. In the meantime, soup de jour!

[tomoose]

I would tend to agree with Ducimus and Sailor Steve.
I'm not sure 'immersion' neatly fits into a one-size-fits-all category. For my part I would define 'gameplay' as the ease (or lack of same) by which the player can settle into, understand the intended concept and enjoy the game. 'Immersion' is the individual player's emotional? connection while playing the game.
In that vein I would venture that SH3 w/GWX provides more immersion for me in that I can get caught up in the stress of evading a serious DC attack or trying to get in position to attack a convoy. Ergo the gameplay between SH3 and SH4 is quite similar but the immersion factor is different. I still enjoy both but for different reasons.
By the same token, take a game such as "B17, the Mighty Eighth". The gameplay can vary depending on how much of the bomber you want to control. I, personally, enjoy the immersion of playing the bombardier and gunners and taking care of the crew without actually flying the bomber (which can be quite involved in itself). It can still be quite immersive despite the lack of current day graphics and 3-D enhancements/technology.
I would suggest that the games that provide good gameplay and/or immersion are still being played by many of us. Which games they are is due to personal taste and personal opinions on what constitutes gameplay or immersion. The result: a satisfied customer/gamer, which, to us, is the bottom line but to UBI it's probably more quantity than quality hence the dire need for modders. Games that do NOT provide good gameplay and/or good immersion are quickly dumped and forgotten which, again, is a personal choice as I'm sure there are many people who have dumped SH3 and SH4 simply because they didn't like the gameplay or were not satisfied with the immersion.
I digress. Apologies.:yawn::D

[Tomi_099]

That's a seriously broad statement. Anything? So, Ubi Romania should not assign a graphics artist to make the control look authentic, because those resources could be used for coding a sub-routine in the AI? No 3D crew that began with SH3? No regard whatsoever for the direction with which the propellers of subsim destiny turn?

Anything? Anything? :O:

------------------------------------

I'm not sure, but what she writes seems interesting.
Even in my bad English could take man
That's given the chance.
Excused but can someone explain what precise and easy it is accurate.
That I can understand in my bad english.
:arrgh!:

Immersion, Immersion, Immersion ...a NEW GAME ENGIN ????

Wer Steuert das , und wer Programiert das !!
Who Controls the, and who programmed this!

[Deep Dive]

You know what would be immersive? If, when ordering the sub to surface, i could hear the squeal of high pressure air pushing the water out of the ballast tanks, while looking at a gauge and seeing the level of high pressure air onboard become less and less as it is being used to push the water out of the main ballast tanks. I would find myself grateful that i had plenty of compressed air left, even after the volume consumed by firing 6 torpedos in a submerged attack. After all, if i didn't have compressed air to clear the water, i woudlnt be surfacing at all!

Finally, upon surfacing, i could hear the low pressure blowers pushing the rest of the water out of the ballast tanks, and somewhere below a compressor is running to refill the high pressure air flasks. Gotta keep those topped off at all times. I then order the starboard engine taken off the propulsion and put on battery charge because the port engine is damaged and not running to capacity, and right now, with lots of planes in the area, i need the fastest recharge possible right now in case i have to dive again. After all, no battery, means no forward momentum over the dive planes, which means poor depth control.

Ahh, dream a little dream. Thats the kind of detail, we probably won't ever see. I sure hope that soup is tasty.

You got me dreaming for a moment :sunny:
THX

[Jimbuna]

I just hope cookie has baked plenty of bread to go with all that soup :DL

[Tomi_099]

Originally Posted by Ducimus
You know what would be immersive? If, when ordering the sub to surface, i could hear the squeal of high pressure air pushing the water out of the ballast tanks, while looking at a gauge and seeing the level of high pressure air onboard become less and less as it is being used to push the water out of the main ballast tanks. I would find myself grateful that i had plenty of compressed air left, even after the volume consumed by firing 6 torpedos in a submerged attack. After all, if i didn't have compressed air to clear the water, i woudlnt be surfacing at all!

Finally, upon surfacing, i could hear the low pressure blowers pushing the rest of the water out of the ballast tanks, and somewhere below a compressor is running to refill the high pressure air flasks. Gotta keep those topped off at all times. I then order the starboard engine taken off the propulsion and put on battery charge because the port engine is damaged and not running to capacity, and right now, with lots of planes in the area, i need the fastest recharge possible right now in case i have to dive again. After all, no battery, means no forward momentum over the dive planes, which means poor depth control.

Ahh, dream a little dream. Thats the kind of detail, we probably won't ever see. I sure hope that soup is tasty.


You got me dreaming for a moment :sunny:
THX

---------------------------------------------------------------

:salute:....:yeah:.....:up:........;)......:smug:. ....
Doo wah diddy diddy dum ditty do....Doo wah diddy diddy dum ditty do.

This is expressed perfectly understandable ... why are saying this yet ....
When we make this dream come true.:arrgh!:

[subsimlee]

Well guys, I agree and disagree with all of the above but the discussions might be better aimed at SH-6. The reality is that at this late date the die is already cast for SH-5. All we can hope for is the comprimises that Ubi has settled upon satisfy something of the multitude of desires expressed. Complete or close immersion is very difficult to achieve until you can experience the heat/cold, noise and SMELL of a conventional boat....( I served on British "A" and "O" boats out of Halifax in the sixties ) I,ve always found something to enjoy and something to wish for in all the SH series. I think that's what keeps us hooked! Fingers crossed......

[IanC]

Well guys, I agree and disagree with all of the above but the discussions might be better aimed at SH-6. The reality is that at this late date the die is already cast for SH-5. All we can hope for is the comprimises that Ubi has settled upon satisfy something of the multitude of desires expressed. Complete or close immersion is very difficult to achieve until you can experience the heat/cold, noise and SMELL of a conventional boat....( I served on British "A" and "O" boats out of Halifax in the sixties ) I,ve always found something to enjoy and something to wish for in all the SH series. I think that's what keeps us hooked! Fingers crossed......

Welcome aboard sir! :salute:
Always good to have real submariners around, to set some of us straight on certain things. :up:

[subsimlee]

Thanks IanC,
My perspective was that of a sonarman aboard the boats, so like most i'm a babe in the woods when it comes to the broad perspective of a commander in the reality levels of our sims. I've enjoyed learning from those experienced in the SH series.......It has certainly helped in my sense of immersion!

[V.C. Sniper]

GF 100 SILENT HUNTER 5 WITH WATER SIMULATION AT LAST??

http://www.nvidia.com/object/gf100.html

[JU_88]

Well immersion can come from any number of elements.
I kinda like what the devs are going with SH in way
Perhaps Im not a true Simmer, as I find it hard to become truley immersed in most sims due the almost complete lack of the 'Human' element.
I cant get immersed in 'technical detail & depth' alone.

[Randomizer]

Well immersion can come from any number of elements.
I kinda like what the devs are going with SH in way
Perhaps Im not a true Simmer, as I find it hard to become truley immersed in most sims due the almost complete lack of the 'Human' element.
I cant get immersed in 'technical detail & depth' alone.
This is exactly why no game can ever make everyone happy. I am at the opposite end of the spectrum where computer a generated human element destroys immersion rather than creating it. Far better (for me at any rate) to imagine crew interaction rather than doing so via via a CGI drone interacting through some drop-down menu worthy of an M$ EXCEL spreadsheet.

Too each his/her own, all opinions carry the same weight in the big scheme of things.

[IanC]

This is exactly why no game can ever make everyone happy. I am at the opposite end of the spectrum where computer a generated human element destroys immersion rather than creating it. Far better (for me at any rate) to imagine crew interaction rather than doing so via via a CGI drone interacting through some drop-down menu worthy of an M$ EXCEL spreadsheet.

Too each his/her own, all opinions carry the same weight in the big scheme of things.

I know exactly what you mean, when SHIII first came out one of the questions I asked the modders was if it's possible to 'delete' the animated crew.
I'm realizing we can recreate objects perfectly with CGI, but when it come to humans (or living things like dogs, cats etc...), we still don't have the technology. Something about facial expression I think... :hmmm:

[Reaves]

I want laser guided torpedoes and invincibility with non depleting shells. Plus an instant action button that takes me directly to a firing solution position on a battleship.

[Ducimus]

Small soapbox here.

Immersion i define as suspension of disbelief. I feel a truly immersive game should appeal both visually, and technically, but i put more priority over "technically" then "visually". (insert: You can shine a turd, but it's still a turd metaphore here).

My last patch to TMO, was mostly with eyecandy. So i don't want anyone thinking im "anti-eye candy". But i had a moment in time where i drew the line.. actually, two moments in time. Both of which involve the kingpin of eyecandy.... the external camera. I have two beefs with it:

1.) Gameplay: It's a cheat when you consider you can gain a tactical picture that no WW2 sub skipper would have had. Want to know what that sonar contact is from 20KM away and never have to pop the scope to see? Go ahead, activate the camera.

2.) A modders point of view. If anyone remembers the sub on rails effect in Sh4, or the quiliting effect of seafoam? I was hashing away for a few days on this stuff when one night when i realized that all of the time i was devoting to visual asthetics, could have been spent fixing things more crucial to play. You could make the enviormental visuals look incredibly realistic from the bridge (where it most mattered IMO), but the instant the external camera came into play, it was all hosed, people would whine, and you'd have to spend MORE time on visual asthetics. And if you don't cater to the demand, then all your work is considered crap. After that, i never looked at enviormental stuff quite the same way again.

[THE_MASK]

SH5 looks pretty damn immersive from the grahics/1st person/crew interactivity that i have seen so far . If the gameplay is as good then we have a winner .

[Tarnsman]

I want sharks with freakin laserbeams on their heads!
Oh wrong movie.

Crew interaction is the key to immersion for me. 688i was immersive as heck and it didnt have any animated crew. But the voices sounded so real and responded so smartly, I felt I was there. SH3 fell down on that one because they didnt model enough voices -- why cant have a voice for every text message, I dont know. Sh4 is even more mute.

When I give an order I want to hear a response echoed down the boat. Subsimming is mostly about sound and I think the visual stuff has been allowed to overtake the audio. As much as I like the 3d crew I hope -- but I doubt-- that they will have much more to say.

[Sailor Steve]

This is exactly why no game can ever make everyone happy. I am at the opposite end of the spectrum where computer a generated human element destroys immersion rather than creating it. Far better (for me at any rate) to imagine crew interaction rather than doing so via via a CGI drone interacting through some drop-down menu worthy of an M$ EXCEL spreadsheet.

Too each his/her own, all opinions carry the same weight in the big scheme of things.
Back when I played Silent Hunter 1 regularly, I enjoyed the lifeguard missions. The pilot in his raft looked like a little weeble or lego guy, but once he was on board I would spend the rest of the patrol giving him a tour of the boat and showing him life from the 'underside'. Now with SH4 we have lovely animated planes going down and pilots in parachutes, but once they are onboard do they appear with the crew? Do they have a name. No, I'm not asking for those things, merely pointing out that it's a lot prettier, but you still have to imagine some of it.

@ Ducimus: I agree completely (I think - I may have misunderstood you). Every time someone complains about the sea floor not being realistic, or the propellors, I always come back to "But the external view isn't realistic in and of itself!"

People seem to want the trivial stuff to be perfect, while not caring if the thing works right or not.

[Ships-R-Us]

I'm the one that posted the thread a while back about the props. Believe me if anyone read it rather than gloss over things with glazed eyes as most do they would realize I was simply analyzing how different modders dealt with certain aspects. I analyze lots of things, and it was a way to pass the time constructively......

[Sailor Steve]

I'm the one that posted the thread a while back about the props. Believe me if anyone read it rather than gloss over things with glazed eyes as most do they would realize I was simply analyzing how different modders dealt with certain aspects. I analyze lots of things, and it was a way to pass the time constructively......
Not to worry, Ships, this prop thing has been going on for years. Some point it out, some try to fix it and some squeal like it's the most important thing since subsims began. It all depends on which you are.

[Iron Budokan]

SH3 rocked because of its immersive qualities and replayability. :up:

[JScones]

SH3 rocked because of its immersive qualities and replayability. :up:
And I'm guessing it's gonna continue to rock for some players for some time to come... ;)

[Jimbuna]

And I'm guessing it's gonna continue to rock for some players for some time to come... ;)

I sure hope so...I've no plans to take it off my system http://www.psionguild.org/forums/images/smilies/wolfsmilies/pirate.gif

[don1reed]

Simulation. Immersion. Game-Play.
All excellent responses--pro and con. As I approach my septuagenarian years and think back over years to some of the military schools I’ve attended, as many of you have; we’ve a pretty good idea of what “simulation” is and means.

The difference between a board-game and a simulation, from my pov, is imagination. With a board-game, after a successful roll of the die, a player must imagine a torpedo running and hitting a target. With a computer sim, a player can see the animation actually accomplish the mission due to the result of good tactics, seamanship, planning and execution, all simulated, of course.

The ultimate “Immersion”, I suppose, would be to feel a brief spike of joyous pride for having hit what you were aiming at, followed by a twinge of guilt having just killed defenseless merchant sailors by sinking their unarmed ship.

[Uber Gruber]

I'm not keen on Immersion....they cost a fortune to run. I use a gas boiler now on a timer....much mor efficient, and I don't have to get out of bed to switch it on before taking a shower.

Thanks UBI!:salute:

[johan_d]

As a casual player, Sh3 wGWX gives me a lot of immersion, but not enough.
Something is missing, and like a flightsim guy I am, I miss the finer controls, actions and communication(!) with the rest of 'us'.
Dangerous Waters is a lot of gameplay, but its to much for one guy, like a PMDG747 at VATSIM on your own, or better an INS equipped 742 at VATSIM.
Almost unable to do alone..
Now on SH3 I dont do manual targetting, I think this is for your crew to figure out. Immersion is in the decision making, what lacks a lot in SH3, since you are on a random encounter course.
Immersion = interraction, not in graphics, nor in the TDC.
Altough graphics helps a lot, for example somehow the modern game graphics, like Sh4 look cartoonish. For me it is.
Same with FS9 vs FSX, something is cartoonish, and it aint FS9.

Just look carefull at pictures of recent games, COD:MW2 for example. Looks good, like Asassins Greed 2, but there is something in the screen filtering that looks wrong. I cant pinpoint it, maybe compare some other games. Original Flashpoint was immersive, maybe due the bad graphics, and the need for imagination (immersion) versus Arma2. Same story, somewhere all those high FSAA games loose something, and then I didnt touch the attention span most games got!

Now for Sh5, I think immersion comes with at least more interraction with BdU, we need orders, goals and missions, more captain decisions, meaning more boat control actions, like ways to safe fuel, and human like enemy counter actions.. luck factors, tiredness, time of day etc.

end of rants.. :stare:

[THE_MASK]

Immersion: for me i achieved a diffrent level of immersion when playing SH3 after i turned all cameras off . Whoa , how do i see ships now , oh yeah i have to go to periscope depth and use the periscope etc . It just felt diffrent and i was more nervous etc . The devs can give diffrent levels of immersion by using diffrent technics . I said i would like the screen to have water on it to simulate water in your eyes . What this does however is give the immersion of really raining and the benefit of realism by reducing vision when it rains . The devs can use in game things to create immersion .

[Platapus]

I want sharks with freakin laserbeams on their heads!



Ubi will probably give us mutated Sea Bass. But they they promise that they will be ill tempered:yep:

[IanC]

Simulation. Immersion. Game-Play.
All excellent responses--pro and con. As I approach my septuagenarian years and think back over years to some of the military schools I’ve attended, as many of you have; we’ve a pretty good idea of what “simulation” is and means.

The difference between a board-game and a simulation, from my pov, is imagination. With a board-game, after a successful roll of the die, a player must imagine a torpedo running and hitting a target. With a computer sim, a player can see the animation actually accomplish the mission due to the result of good tactics, seamanship, planning and execution, all simulated, of course.

The ultimate “Immersion”, I suppose, would be to feel a brief spike of joyous pride for having hit what you were aiming at, followed by a twinge of guilt having just killed defenseless merchant sailors by sinking their unarmed ship.

Anybody interested in this subject, there's a great book called War Games by Thomas B. Allen. It's a little dated (around 1987) but a good read about simulations and war gaming.
For example he lists the spectrum of war gaming for realism starting with the most realistic; Military field exercises- Military field experiments- Map exercises- War games- Computer simulations- Analytical models.
The list is reversed for Convenience and Accessibility and Degree of Abstraction.

[don1reed]

Tnx IanC, I'll check it out. :salute:

edit: found a used copy for $0.01 @ Amazon.

cheers,

[IanC]

Tnx IanC, I'll check it out. :salute:

edit: found a used copy for $0.01 @ Amazon.

cheers,

:o :up:

[tonschk]

Immersion: Silent Hunter 3
Gameplay: Silent Hunter 4

I've just never gotten the same feeling playing SH4 (even with OM) as I got with SH3 and GWX. (I don't want to start a discussion on this, just sharing my thoughts)


.

I agree , I give up SH4 because have too many flaws even with the mods added , and went back to SH3 plus GWX Gold