SHV may be a flop because no one cares anymore

[Gotmilk]

I swear when the Godfather 2 game was coming out. Most of us knew that it will be a crap. But still the forums were full of poeple who waited for the game and said "OMG IT WILL BE THE BEST GANGSTA GAME EVA!!!!!"

So now i sit in SH5 forum. Everyone is rambling. This game is going to suck and everyone agrees. I have never seen that before. It looks like no one is waiting this game out. Everyone is prepared for the worst.

This game is a laughing stock. I only feel bad for the developers. It looks like UBI is killing off the SH series :/\\chop

[Task Force]

well, ubi is not trying to exactly kill off the series... they are just trying to sell a slower paced game to people who want lazers blazeing, guns fireing, and things happening every other second.:yep:

[Tarnsman]

So does this mean there will be sharks with laserbeams on their heads?

[TarJak]

No you will have to mod those in just like the rest of the war post 1943. But this time you will have the tools to do it.

[conus00]

You said it in the thread title! :yep:

[Tonnage_Ace]

I'm actually starting to think that everyone's low expectations of SHV will help it when it finally comes out. The mood in the forum for SHIV was much more anticipatory and that hurt people's opinions of the game when it didn't meet their standards.

[Feuer Frei!]

Addressing the title of thread:
i think plenty of people care.......maybe the care factor has abated or waned recently.....but judging by the numerous posts about, well........stuff, i think plenty of people care.....

[THE_MASK]

I think maybe SH5 could be the best modded silent hunter game yet if not for the OPS (DRM) .

[Bubblehead1980]

People care, or they/we would not be posting so much.There would be no outrage on DRM or the arcade like features that we have heard about or the war ending in 43 or only having one type of submarine.Hopefully all this can be modded and DRM will ultimately be left out.We shall see.

Again, plenty of people care.

[urfisch]

with the eyecandy and action content, they hope for all the fancy casual people, cause they are addicted to eyecandy and willed to buy every week a new game.

we are the modding community, and we need to create the game new. to our needs.

[Brag]

Wether the game is good or bad is pure speculation. The way Ubi been releasing info has fanned negative reactions. What we do know for sure is the DRM/OSP infection, which is totally unacceptable to most people and makes the game unplayable offline.

Moo!

[Gunnodayak]

It's obvious that developers don't give a ... something about all these posts in subsim forums, they will just try to sell the game mainly to the arcade style game players. The mainstream matters these days. So, in the event that the game can and it will be modded, and I put an emphasis on "if the game can be modded and brought to a playable level", if the game will be released on the market in march, it will be probably fully playable by simulator enhusiasts not sooner than next year. And that in the best case scenario. And there are too many "if"'s, unfortunately ... Rebirth of the GWX4 project will probably be the last "chance" for a lot of us.

[Feuer Frei!]

It's obvious that developers don't give a ...

Developers or Ubisoft?

[TDK1044]

Silent Hunter 5 looks like being an arcade game targeted at the casual gamer and only available via the internet.

I can't think of a worse combination than that.

[Gunnodayak]

Developers or Ubisoft?


Both of them, they are very "related". And I feel really sad and disappointed to say that, thinking that the game is being developed in my own country. And the saddest this in all that is the fact that I know for sure the developers can do a lot more, but since the "direction" is being given from higher spheres ... they will just obey, they are doing this for money, they must earn a way of living somehow. In some degree, I understand them. It's the same like in the music industry and other stuff that needs to maximize the money profit in the first place. But unfortunately, some of us are still living in an idealistic world.
Just remembring that first trailer in english makes me feel sick in the stomach. That was the first sign that the game will probably not be for me.

[Kapitanleutnant]

SH5 will flop because the simulation has been diluted in an effort to chase a larger market.
There are a lot of people - gamers - who will look at a subsim (or any sim) and think "BORING!". They're not bad people, they're not stupid either, they just have different taste. And they make up the vast, vast majority of the gaming market. Ubisoft is desperate to give this series a broader appeal, and is prepared to lower the quality of the simulation to do that. But it won't work.

Does anybody think that the average Modern Warfare or Halo player (both good games) will look at Silent Hunter 5 and think "Oh gee wow special abiities this is just what I've been waiting for!"? The answer is no. They will not.
These new "features" won't draw in a non-subsimming crowd, because these people are not interested in submarine simulations. That's it. And by futilely pandering to this market, Ubisoft have damaged the series' credibility with their core market of simulationists.

I don't think I've ever seen such a botched attempt to market a game before.
Well, maybe Daikatana...

[Gunnodayak]

Unfortunately, I feel that we are somehow in the position of a young gal who was just being cheated by his fiancee before the step to the altar. We cannot do something about it, the same way she can't, we'll just have to accept it. And my personal way of accepting that will be just not buying the game, just sticking to the old fashioned SH3+GWX and hope that someday GWX4 will be alive and I can play SH4/GWX4 as well.

[IanC]

<snip>
Just remembring that first trailer in english makes me feel sick in the stomach. That was the first sign that the game will probably not be for me.

Yeah, good point. I remember after seeing the first trailer, I posted something like "I hope the game will be better than the trailer". Something just felt...wrong somehow.

[Gunnodayak]

Yeah, good point. I remember after seeing the first trailer, I posted something like "I hope the game will be better than the trailer". Something just felt...wrong somehow.
And not to speak about the latest glitch from this long series of disappointments ... that so called "sh5 pdf campaign overview" that was leaked a couple of days ago ... totally unprofessional stuff. There's a translation of that act. It looks like: "OK, you are demanding more info about the game, you are hungry, here's some ... s*!@, eat it while it's still hot!"

[Brag]

Since the announcement that SHV was in the works, Ubi marketing was mostly quiet (a good thing).

The first trailer was sort of bleah, but not enough to discourage people from buying.

Then came the BIG IMPACT statement. DRM/OSP infected game. This derailed the whole project and alienated the SH series main client support base.

Then, meet the crew came out, a badly written mish mash copied from some fantasy script.

I wonder what Ubi's marketing team will come up with next.

Their effort, so far, has been to speed up the pace of a train off the rails.

Toot, toot!

Stand back, train wreck in progress.

Moo.

[martes86]

It's obvious that developers don't give a ... something about all these posts in subsim forums [...]

Totally wrong. What's obvious to me is that a lot of you newbies to Subsim love to criticise the devs, and say they don't care, and insult their hard work, without even knowing squat about them. I direcly blame Ubi for the big stuff and its consequences. I'm sure that, if all the current SH5 team was an indie team, we wouldn't be having lots of these discussions.

Cheers :rock:

[Fish40]

I don't know what to think anymore:hmmm: Thank God at the moment I don't have a system that'll run the game that great, so it takes the pressure off me alittle. Although I firmly believe that eyecandy is a large part of any sim, it dose not compensate for lack of realism and an arcade "feel" to the game. If all the negative interpretations and observations thus far pan out to be true, this is not a sim anymore, plain and simple!

I don't think it's a matter of "careing", it's a matter of $$$$! Let's face it. I can't remember an employer I ever worked for that cared for his workers more than his bottom line. If you know of one, give me his number please!

[frau kaleun]

I wonder what Ubi's marketing team will come up with next.

Their effort, so far, has been to speed up the pace of a train off the rails.

Toot, toot!

Stand back, train wreck in progress.

Moo.

http://verydemotivational.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/129051822527690716.jpg

[Gotmilk]

So a friend gave me a phone call yesterday.

I told him about SH5. About this new innovative game.

I told about my new upcoming crew.

I told him that Benno likes to cry under pressure and torpedo (fisting) guy Faust guy is mocking him.

Then i told that i can make everything better by ordering chef for some more coffee. :yeah:

I did not wonder that he was a somewhat .... confused :hmmm:

[Gunnodayak]

Totally wrong. What's obvious to me is that a lot of you newbies to Subsim love to criticise the devs, and say they don't care, and insult their hard work, without even knowing squat about them.
With no intention to offend, I wonder if you are playing SH3 on "easy" or on "moderate" level ... Because you can fully understand all these frustrations that are emerging from the way SH5 will look and will feel only if you are playing on "realistic" level and beyond (with no map contacts update) ... Isn't that obvious that the game will be less sim and more arcade than SH3?

[Brag]

Ah, teamork :D

There is a book about Epic failures, very funny.

[Gunnodayak]

Totally wrong. What's obvious to me is that a lot of you newbies to Subsim love to criticise the devs, and say they don't care, and insult their hard work, without even knowing squat about them.
With no intention to offend, I wonder if you are playing SH3 on "easy" or on "moderate" level ... Because you can fully understand all these frustrations that are emerging from the way SH5 will look and will feel only if you are playing on "realistic" level and beyond (with no map contacts update) ... Isn't that obvious that the game will be less sim and more arcade than SH3?

[Egan]

Totally wrong. What's obvious to me is that a lot of you newbies to Subsim love to criticise the devs, and say they don't care, and insult their hard work, without even knowing squat about them. I direcly blame Ubi for the big stuff and its consequences. I'm sure that, if all the current SH5 team was an indie team, we wouldn't be having lots of these discussions.

Cheers :rock:

Two points I like to make. Firstly, I think that attacking the developers because they happen to work for Ubisoft is out of order, rude and unfair. However, It is also inaccurate to lay the blame for design decisions soley at the door of the Ubisoft executives. There is a growing air of - I dont even know what you call it, protectionism? - towards the devs. Basically I dont believe they are untouchable, as seems to be suggested by various threads and posts I've seen. They are big boys and girls and I for one would like to see detailed and reasonable answers to why certain decisions were made in the development of the game. Constructive critisism can only help to make this game better. Now, As I said, lets not attack them just because they are the more presentable face of a vast and godless corporation but lets also not pretend they were making the worlds greatest and most hardcore world war two simulator before the evil suits dropped in to say 'Hey, this isnt what the kids want! where's the phat lewt at?'

My second point is this: Regardless of what I feel about certain design choices in the game, or the type of anti-piracy measures taken, I think this will be not only the biggest selling edition of the franchise but quite possibly one of the biggest selling sim titles in many, many years. It is far too easy to come to a site like this and belive that it is the whole world. We represent a tiny slice of the market for this game. Good for the devs and good for ubi. Maybe not so good for me but I'm a grown up sometimes and Im sure I'll cope,

[karamazovnew]

I still care about the game. Sure:
- OSP will be crap at first...
- bugs are part of marketing lately (games like Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2 are raaaare these days)
- probably silly documentation (but I hope to be wrong)
- lots of modding to do...

But I won't resist buying it... no way....I've been waiting for it for tooo long :haha:. Plus, I hope to be the first to review it :woot:

[IanC]

<snip> I think this will be not only the biggest selling edition of the franchise but quite possibly one of the biggest selling sim titles in many, many years. <snip>

Biggest selling sim title in many years... That doesn't mean much really. It just means that they managed to appeal to a wider crowd, ie the casual gamer, and for a sim, that's not really good news.

[Egan]

Biggest selling sim title in many years... That doesn't mean much really. It just means that they managed to appeal to a wider crowd, ie the casual gamer, and for a sim, that's not really good news.

I absolutely agree, but the series has been attempting to do that since SH3 came out.

Actually, what gets me the most is that there is no competition to the Silent Hunter Series. MY biggest wish is that we DO get a professional indy outfit dedicated to making a top class title. Lower sales could be offest by higher prices but I don't think that is really any problem. Simmers tend to be an extraordinarily supportive bunch when they feel there is something there to be supportive of. At the very least it would force everyone to up their game.

[danurve]

So does this mean there will be sharks with laserbeams on their heads?

No, but you can mod mutated sea bass.

[mookiemookie]

lets also not pretend they were making the worlds greatest and most hardcore world war two simulator before the evil suits dropped in to say 'Hey, this isnt what the kids want! where's the phat lewt at?'
I think you would be surprised.

[Gunnodayak]

I absolutely agree, but the series has been attempting to do that since SH3 came out.

Actually, what gets me the most is that there is no competition to the Silent Hunter Series. MY biggest wish is that we DO get a professional indy outfit dedicated to making a top class title. Lower sales could be offest by higher prices but I don't think that is really any problem. Simmers tend to be an extraordinarily supportive bunch when they feel there is something there to be supportive of. At the very least it would force everyone to up their game.


Agreed! We need indie, not corporate.

[Onkel Neal]

Two points I like to make. Firstly, I think that attacking the developers because they happen to work for Ubisoft is out of order, rude and unfair. However, It is also inaccurate to lay the blame for design decisions soley at the door of the Ubisoft executives. There is a growing air of - I dont even know what you call it, protectionism? - towards the devs. Basically I dont believe they are untouchable, as seems to be suggested by various threads and posts I've seen. They are big boys and girls and I for one would like to see detailed and reasonable answers to why certain decisions were made in the development of the game. Constructive critisism can only help to make this game better. Now, As I said, lets not attack them just because they are the more presentable face of a vast and godless corporation but lets also not pretend they were making the worlds greatest and most hardcore world war two simulator before the evil suits dropped in to say 'Hey, this isnt what the kids want! where's the phat lewt at?'

My second point is this: Regardless of what I feel about certain design choices in the game, or the type of anti-piracy measures taken, I think this will be not only the biggest selling edition of the franchise but quite possibly one of the biggest selling sim titles in many, many years. It is far too easy to come to a site like this and belive that it is the whole world. We represent a tiny slice of the market for this game. Good for the devs and good for ubi. Maybe not so good for me but I'm a grown up sometimes and Im sure I'll cope,


Good points, all of them. :yep: Yes, the devs are a big part of the design strategy and the individual subsim customers are entitled to decide if they like the direction the game is going or not. Hopefully, they will express their opinions as intelligently as you have done.

One of the problems I see with this round of SH development; in the past the game company was very good about providing us updates and info on the progress of the game. And why not? Subsim has championed these games since SH2 in 1999. But with SH5, there has been very little interaction or access to the game. When I ask my kid to show me their homework so I can see how much they've done, and the kid keeps stalling and stalling...I get the impression the homework is not going as well as I hoped. :-?

At this point, 4 weeks before the game is due to be released; I have not seen anything since Sept, and I expect Ubisoft to delay sending the gold review copy, which other game publishers send 2 weeks before release, until after the game is actually out.

I've got a bad feeling about this, to quote Harrison Ford :dead:

[Egan]

I think you would be surprised.

Perhaps I would. Perhaps I wouldn't. They still developed the game, though, and it's unfair to suggest that they shouldn't have to shoulder at least some critisism for the game they delevoped as long as that critisism is fair and balanced.

Of course, it would help if we all actually saw the game first, of course. And I'm as guilty of jumping the gun as everyone else.

[Mikhayl]

I've got a bad feeling about this, to quote Harrison Ford :dead:

I still have a positive feeling towards the game (if looking past the "thing"), but yeah some things are worrysome.

The most used view/station in all SH games is the map, and we haven't seen anything meaningful about it except that at 0% realism the enemy ships will have colored vision cones, and we can steer the sub with an arrow on the map. How do we navigate? Still GPS? something else? Plotting? Map notes?

Then obviously targetting, nothing shown about it.

Then the targets, on the website we have cool renders of ships that you would seldom encounter in a "realistic" career, safe for the 2 destroyers. Where are the merchant ships? How many of them?

I understand that there's no point doing a full review before the game is actually out, but usually new games advertise their "features". So far the features advertised are nice but hardly the most relevant to a sub sim.

[Egan]

I still have a positive feeling towards the game (if looking past the "thing"), but yeah some things are worrysome.

The most used view/station in all SH games is the map, and we haven't seen anything meaningful about it except that at 0% realism the enemy ships will have colored vision cones, and we can steer the sub with an arrow on the map. How do we navigate? Still GPS? something else? Plotting? Map notes?

Then obviously targetting, nothing shown about it.

Then the targets, on the website we have cool renders of ships that you would seldom encounter in a "realistic" career, safe for the 2 destroyers. Where are the merchant ships? How many of them?

I understand that there's no point doing a full review before the game is actually out, but usually new games advertise their "features". So far the features advertised are nice but hardly the most relevant to a sub sim.

The lack of any concrete information on any of the 'nuts and bolts' aspects of the sim is worrying not least because this is the sort of stuff that gets simmers all hot and bothered. I'm 100% with you on that. The screenies of ships that we are likely to never see let alone sink is something that UBI have been pushing since before SH3 came out and was a worry then. It no longer bothers me. Its all about using a powerful image to sell the product and I'm fine with that.I just wish they would show us some manky old tramp steamer occasionally. Compared to the ships you saw in Aces of the Deep, every shot I see from SH5 makes me feel like I'm living in the future and of all of it's possible fault, ugliness will not be one of them. It's so beautiful I want to buy it flowers and write it poems.

[IanC]

In other words... SHOW US SOMETHING NEW #$%^@!

[FIREWALL]

First I want to say I wish Ubisoft no ill wil.

I will be honest I don't buy any of their products but,

the IL2 series and Silent Hunter series only.

I ONLY play Sub,Flight (except RoF) and racing Sims.

My own opinion on SHV is, they, Ubisoft, have their own idea in what a Submarine sim is that differs from mine AND their, past work.

While IMHO we have the best Modders on the internet I don't want to rely on them for a Sim fresh out of the box.

I will enjoy the screenshots of the members that buy SHV.

Then go back to playing GWX. :DL to the end of the War in my IXC.

[martes86]

Isn't that obvious that the game will be less sim and more arcade than SH3?

No! Totally no! We don't know it will be less or more arcade than SH3, we can't compare what we haven't even tested ourselves. You can't base yourself in 2 trailers and a few interface screens, and qualify it just like that. You need more info, some checking... We saw it at Copenhaguen, and I don't think we got that much info to judge.

And, FYI, our multiplayer mode (in the tournaments of the 24th) can have realism as high as just having unchecked the "No map updates" (it'd be a gameplay madness to have this one checked when navigation isn't reality-like 100%) and "No weapons officer" options (though we must still call out for the weapons officer to ask for solutions). Everything else is always checked. We have been commited for realism for a while (I entered the SubClub mid-year 2004, but the 24th's history goes back to 2002), and many people in our forums are also complaining about what we've seen and read so far.
But that doesn't mean I don't prefer objectivity first.


Two points I like to make. Firstly, I think that attacking the developers because they happen to work for Ubisoft is out of order, rude and unfair. However, It is also inaccurate to lay the blame for design decisions soley at the door of the Ubisoft executives. There is a growing air of - I dont even know what you call it, protectionism? - towards the devs. Basically I dont believe they are untouchable, as seems to be suggested by various threads and posts I've seen. They are big boys and girls and I for one would like to see detailed and reasonable answers to why certain decisions were made in the development of the game. Constructive critisism can only help to make this game better. Now, As I said, lets not attack them just because they are the more presentable face of a vast and godless corporation but lets also not pretend they were making the worlds greatest and most hardcore world war two simulator before the evil suits dropped in to say 'Hey, this isnt what the kids want! where's the phat lewt at?'

Yes, one could blame them for certain decisions that directly affect the title's design & development, but it must be constructive (so that it can be improved in the future, if there is one), and more importantly, it must be done with enough information at hand, which can only be obtained by direct testing, or if we were given enough functional information (not the case here).
Protectionism, well, maybe, but only because I understand their position, and think they deserve more than being insulted or critizised non-stop for doing their job when they might be doing a not-so-bad work, but we don't know, so we can't tell accurately enough. And, we can't blame them for OSP/DRM, that's all Ubi's suits' creation.

But things are constantly getting mixed up, and absurdness has invaded Subsim in the name of DRM. I don't agree with its implementation in SH5, but I'm starting to agree with those that think that this is starting to be excessive.

Cheers :rock:

[mookiemookie]

Stock SH3 and SH4 would have been flops on their own if not for our modding community. SH5 is supposed to be the most open one ever, so from that standpoint, it has the potential to be the best one ever.

The only thing holding it back is the DRM issue. And I suspect that Ubi will drop that at some point. So it's FAR too early to make bold and sweeping statements like this.

[martes86]

It is being speculated by some that Ubi might release a patch for SH5 to remove DRM once it thinks that the big profit has been taken in already, some time after initial release.
Maybe we can hope for that. In the meanwhile, what there is will be what we get... :damn:

[Egan]

[QUOTE=FIREWALL;1257076]While IMHO we have the best Modders on the internet I don't want to rely on them for a Sim fresh out of the box.
QUOTE]

For me, this is a very important point. I can't begin to tell you how many games I've bought over the years that 'had potential' only for some of that potential to be realised by modders. In many cases the modders have got hold of a good game and made it incredible. However, there are an increasing number of games that seem to be released by publishers in a less than fantastic state safe in the knowledge that the modders will finish it for them. Modders should be there to do things that either the devs could not or would not do or to improve upon an already enjoyable experience by taking an existing title in a new direction. What I see happening more and more often are modders left to add in features that should have been there out of the box. And the more time a modder takes in finishing a game for the dev the less time we get for genuine evolution to take place.

I too would love to buy a sim that required no modding to get it to where it should be. Unfortunately I think those days are gone. IL2 did not allow modding until recently, of course, but that was to do with it's online mode and not because it was as perfect as 1C could make it.

Note: I am not aiming this at UBI-soft Romania. This is a general thing that I've noticed more and more within the gaming scene. With respect to the SH5 team, the decision to leave out other classes of boat and end the campaign in 1943 will lead to modders straining to put those back in. We all know it. Just what the knock on will be I do not know, but I'm going to guess that a full 3d interior for a Type IX is going to be pretty time consuming regardless of what modding tools are released.

[Nisgeis]

before the evil suits dropped in to say 'Hey, this isnt what the kids want! where's the phat lewt at?'

I was there when that happened and they actually said 'Where's the FaT LuT torpedoes?'.

[onelifecrisis]

I was there when that happened and they actually said 'Where's the FaT LuT torpedoes?'.

Haha :DL very clever.

[Galanti]

. You can't base yourself in 2 trailers and a few interface screens, and qualify it just like that. .

How would you describe the asinine, childish engine and depth 'readouts' (for lack of a better word) in that infamous periscope screenie as other than arcade?

You could possibly argue that maybe that's only in the lowest difficulty, but I find it hard to believe they actually designed entire interfaces for each of the difficulty levels.

[Safe-Keeper]

Have you considered that it might just be that those of us who want the game don't whine as loud as you?

That's what I hate about people saying "nobody" or "people" on the Web - 99% of the time they're just talking about themselves.

[Iron Budokan]

At this point, 4 weeks before the game is due to be released; I have not seen anything since Sept, and I expect Ubisoft to delay sending the gold review copy, which other game publishers send 2 weeks before release, until after the game is actually out.

I've got a bad feeling about this, to quote Harrison Ford :dead:

Frankly, aside from everything else we've learned about this game so far, this is the most troubling aspect to me.

It's like they KNOW it's bad or something. At the very least that's the impression they are leaving many people with. :cry:

[Hartmann]

I suspect that Ubi silence is caused by the huge limitations of the stock game and the new type of game, more 3D arcade than previous versions and focused to casual gamers or an interactive movie.

For example i think that some stations are limited to the 3D crew and not used by the player as a role of captain, for example TDC

[martes86]

How would you describe the asinine, childish engine and depth 'readouts' (for lack of a better word) in that infamous periscope screenie as other than arcade?

You could possibly argue that maybe that's only in the lowest difficulty, but I find it hard to believe they actually designed entire interfaces for each of the difficulty levels.

I won't judge SH5 based on the GUI either. Specially since it can be changed via Python scripts, and I know how to write in programming languages, so it's not much of a problem for me.

Cheers :rock:

[Platapus]

I won't judge SH5 based on the GUI either. Specially since it can be changed via Python scripts, and I know how to write in programming languages, so it's not much of a problem for me.

Cheers :rock:

Is that not like buying, at full price, a broken car because you happen to be a mechanic?

[Onkel Neal]

Stock SH3 would have been flops on their own if not for our modding community. .

Disagree.

[Webster]

Disagree.

i think its safe to say they wouldnt have seen near the success they enjoyed if the modding community had brought them to life

[IanC]

Stock 1.4 is actually very good and playable.

[Webster]

Stock 1.4 is actually very good and playable.

but we had to beg and damn near perform sexual favors just to get that 1.4 patch, as originally released sh4 wasnt even a working game without constant CTD issues

[Onkel Neal]

i think its safe to say they wouldnt have seen near the success they enjoyed if the modding community had brought them to life

I disagree with that too. The mods enhanced the game, but I thnk it's very safe to say 90% of the people who bought SH3, would have bought it if a single mod never existed.

There were no mods for Aces of the Deep and Silent Hunter 1 to speak of, and their strong sales were the commercial basis for SH2, SH3, and on.

[Steeltrap]

I disagree with that too. The mods enhanced the game, but I thnk it's very safe to say 90% of the people who bought SH3, would have bought it if a single mod never existed.

There were no mods for Aces of the Deep and Silent Hunter 1 to speak of, and their strong sales were the commercial basis for SH2, SH3, and on.

It's probably more reasonable to say that the sorts of people who reside in subsim (i.e. the uber realism junkies) would never have seen a sim done to the level of detail they like were it not for the modders.

That might be something to consider with SH5. Developers have never built the sim to be a 'true' sim based on the wealth of historical reference materials available, so there's probably little point in hoping they will any time soon.

[mookiemookie]

Disagree.

I'll take GWX for the block, Chuck. ;) </Hollywood Squares>

Granted, SH3 was out for a while before the GW team got their hands on it, but its folks like RuB and GW that, I feel, have given the game the staying power that its had. It would be interesting to compare the sales of SH3 in the first 3 months of release vs. the months since then.

[Lord Justice]

So now i sit in SH5 forum. Everyone is rambling. This game is going to suck and everyone agrees. I have never seen that before. It looks like no one is waiting this game out. Everyone is prepared for the worst.

This game is a laughing stock. I only feel bad for the developers. It looks like UBI is killing off the SH series :/\\chopSir Gotmilk, it gives me great concern, however painful and distressing, to see a conduct so founded that leads me to believe you are a fair and open man to the cause :doh: one finds this thread title remarkable, i must here say i shall abandon my remarks, opinions, and can only add the highest encomiums to this sensible thread, :haha: the remainder shall go unmolested, as i think it unnecessary to tread in a place perhaps less favourable to me, iam no fan boy, but i am not Everyone. :nope: Good Day.

[Méo]

Developers have never built the sim to be a 'true' sim based on the wealth of historical reference materials available, so there's probably little point in hoping they will any time soon.

Nevertheless, I think that vanilla SH5 will be better than vanilla SH3.

Now everything is about how much SH5 will be unfinished at release, this will be critical, a lot more than DRM/OSP, IMHO.

[Onkel Neal]

I guess I'm just a sucker for blanket statements that don't ring true: SH3 would have been a flop. SH3 is not a simulation because you cannot turn some widget or control the #3 ngative ballast tank or you cannot take specific gravity readings of each battery. SH3 was not as good a subsim as .... ?

Mods giving a game staying power, that makes sense to me. And I can find that easy to agree with, I think you are right. But I don't know about how many people bought SH3 because of RUB or GWX. Certainly most people who bought SH3 were delighted to add mods to it.

[tonschk]

Without a doubt , :woot:I am waiting the 04/03/2010 to buy my Brand New :woot: SILENT HUNTER 5 Game :yeah:

[Greentimbers]

Without a doubt , :woot:I am waiting the 04/03/2010 to buy my Brand New :woot: SILENT HUNTER 5 Game :yeah:

Same here :salute:

[Thomen]

As it was mentioned before, Ubi is not doing it itself any favors with its PR campaign.
I was strolling the Ubi forums and found some mentioning this:

PLATFORM: PC
RELEASE DATE: 3/2/10
RATINGS: Rating Pending
GENRE: Action, Adventure
(Emphasis mine)

However, we can look forward to the new simulation: Imagine: Sweet 16 for the DS

http://www.ubi.com/US/Games/Search.aspx?cal=cs

I just hope its another screwed up text/description. :shifty:

[JScones]

Two points I like to make. Firstly, I think that attacking the developers because they happen to work for Ubisoft is out of order, rude and unfair. However, It is also inaccurate to lay the blame for design decisions soley at the door of the Ubisoft executives. There is a growing air of - I dont even know what you call it, protectionism? - towards the devs. Basically I dont believe they are untouchable, as seems to be suggested by various threads and posts I've seen. They are big boys and girls and I for one would like to see detailed and reasonable answers to why certain decisions were made in the development of the game. Constructive critisism can only help to make this game better. Now, As I said, lets not attack them just because they are the more presentable face of a vast and godless corporation but lets also not pretend they were making the worlds greatest and most hardcore world war two simulator before the evil suits dropped in to say 'Hey, this isnt what the kids want! where's the phat lewt at?'
Completely agree. :up:

At this point, 4 weeks before the game is due to be released; I have not seen anything since Sept, and I expect Ubisoft to delay sending the gold review copy, which other game publishers send 2 weeks before release, until after the game is actually out.

I've got a bad feeling about this, to quote Harrison Ford :dead:
So, still no preview copy Neal? I'm a firm believer of the old adage "Actions speak louder than words"...

[martes86]

Is that not like buying, at full price, a broken car because you happen to be a mechanic?

I won't buy a broken thing that costs me a bunch of money (a car in Spain, the cheapest: 6000 euros; the average: 12000-15000 euros). But I can endure buying a game for 20 bucks, even if it turns out to be incomplete (which we don't know yet), it won't really hurt my wallet if I do it serves a purpose. You can't really compare such opposite situations.


Stock SH3 and SH4 would have been flops on their own if not for our modding community.

SH5 does have potential, but stock SH3 was not a total fail (SH4 maybe). We all bought SH3, and it was a major revolution compared to SH2. Didn't have an acompanying DC2, but it was quite enjoyable. There were no mods when it came out, and, IMO, it was a success among subsimmers as lots of people bought it, and I agree with Neal there.

Cheers :rock:

[Jimbuna]

So, still no preview copy Neal? I'm a firm believer of the old adage "Actions speak louder than words"...

The silence is certainly deafening :hmmm:

[THE_MASK]

Dan: can we give Neal a copy of SH5 yet.
Ubi : no , the servers are not up yet.
Dan: can we give Neal a copy of SH5 yet.
Ubi : no , the servers are not up yet.
Dan: can we give Neal a copy of SH5 yet.
Ubi : no , the servers are not up yet.
Dan: can we give Neal a copy of SH5 yet.
Ubi : no , the servers are not up yet.

[TDK1044]

If the Publisher has moved away from a sim to an arcade game, why would they bother giving Neal a Preview copy?

It would be like giving the Editor of Kelly Blue Book a Tonka Toy to test. :)

[Onkel Neal]

Completely agree. :up:


So, still no preview copy Neal? I'm a firm believer of the old adage "Actions speak louder than words"...


Too late in the game to do a preview now, I'll wait for the final version and do a review. It's likely that the game will be released before I finish (I am not going to race to be first either) and so there will be a lot of user reviews posted.

I just hope the game is worth all the carping about DRM. This could be a case of don't worry about the DRM, the game isn't very good anyway.

[It762]

Actually during the master of orion 3 release it was similar, if not worse :)

The pictures look like crap and everyone was like OOOHHH MY GAWWD!
and some beta ppl who have signed a nda contract said: if it moves it looks better!

.... of course it did not :)

Though graphics is not everything I bought the game. Finding out plenty of glitches:

- manual combat AI unfair advantage could fire missiles even when out of range - human played could not do it

- Broken ai, sometimes it was building transports for troops .... using up all resources for transports which were useless...

- broken invasion, I think (if i remember correctly) the AI was unable to invade a planet in certain cases - a game breaker

- broken diplomacy , also here the AI was lacking..


All in all it was not the game many had hoped for. I hope that SH5 will be the exception but what goes on currently it looks like it will be a medicore uboat sim.

[TDK1044]

My original thought when I heard the release date for Silent Hunter 5 was that it was going to be released as an unfinished game. Big surprise there. But now I think it's even worse than that. It will be an unfinished Arcade game that has to be played online.

By the time there is an off line option for SH5, I'll be able to buy this thing for about $10 in a bargain bin. Suits me. I'm so over Ubisoft. :)

[Letum]

This could be a case of don't worry about the DRM, the game isn't very good anyway.

In times like these, that almost sounds like optimism.

[frau kaleun]

By the time there is an off line option for SH5, I'll be able to buy this thing for about $10 in a bargain bin. Suits me.

:sign_yeah:

[Jimbuna]

If the Publisher has moved away from a sim to an arcade game, why would they bother giving Neal a Preview copy?



That is precisely one of my primary concerns :hmmm:



I just hope the game is worth all the carping about DRM. This could be a case of don't worry about the DRM, the game isn't very good anyway.

....and another :yep:

[scrapser]

To the OP, you should have been around when Hasbro released "Gunship". That was the biggest flop of a simulation ever published and it got so bad the company quit the military simulation titles completely and quietly shelved and later sold their ownership of the "MicroProse" brand.

I think the economic situation has made it nearly impossible for anyone to produce fully detailed simulations as they did back in the mid to late 90's. It has been steadily declining ever since.

A new business model is sorely needed for sims to be produced like the passionate simmers would like them to be.

Personally I think it needs to be more like buying custom made merchandise where you pay for the fact that it's a niche market. All we need is a company that's willing to try and put out some feelers to see what sort of market response they can expect.

In the meantime, I have my sights set on "Carrier Command" from Bohemia Interactive. If they deliver anything close to the original it will be one awesome game (even if it is a sci-fi title).

[Steeltrap]

In the meantime, I have my sights set on "Carrier Command" from Bohemia Interactive. If they deliver anything close to the original it will be one awesome game (even if it is a sci-fi title).

You mean the one from around 1990 that I had on my Amiga 2000??

Wow. Brilliant little game, miles ahead of its time.

[tater]

Neal is right WRT modding and SALES. I bought SH4 not knowing squat about modding (how to do it, or frankly if it was needed). It took about zero time from me to realize SH4 NEEDED to be modded to be even remotely realistic (all it took was seeing a bunch of Akizuki DDs in 1941 to know someone without even part of a clue made the campaign).

[Steeltrap]

I remember seeing a chart of HMS Hood's trial performance. It took her around 25 minutes to get to top speed from a standing start (going from memory, but it was a LONG time).

Compare that with the 'performance' of vessels in SH3 and 4.....

As I said before, the modders are the ones who make the games approximate a 'realistic' sim. The developers provide a rough shell.

[tater]

Acceleration of ships is not controllable to the extent desired unless they made a fundamental change in SH5. It can be made more realistic, but nothing like it should be, sadly.

[SteamWake]

Silent Hunter 5 looks like being an arcade game targeted at the casual gamer and only available via the internet.

I can't think of a worse combination than that.

It sure looks that way. :nope:

[karamazovnew]

To the OP, you should have been around when Hasbro released "Gunship". That was the biggest flop of a simulation ever published and it got so bad the company quit the military simulation titles completely and quietly shelved and later sold their ownership of the "MicroProse" brand.

I think the economic situation has made it nearly impossible for anyone to produce fully detailed simulations as they did back in the mid to late 90's. It has been steadily declining ever since.

A new business model is sorely needed for sims to be produced like the passionate simmers would like them to be.

Personally I think it needs to be more like buying custom made merchandise where you pay for the fact that it's a niche market. All we need is a company that's willing to try and put out some feelers to see what sort of market response they can expect.

In the meantime, I have my sights set on "Carrier Command" from Bohemia Interactive. If they deliver anything close to the original it will be one awesome game (even if it is a sci-fi title).

Great post. And btw, thanks, I had no idea about Carrier Command.

Acceleration of ships is not controllable to the extent desired unless they made a fundamental change in SH5. It can be made more realistic, but nothing like it should be, sadly.

Somewhere in the code, there must be a formula on which the speed is dynamically calculated. Ubi could very well make ample config files for each difficulty setting. I see no reason for the game to be arcade for those who want it so, but realistic for the others. Let's say we have 2 ships, Nelson and a Torpedo Boat... A perfect sim should have something like this:
Speed+= Power - Friction
Speed+= p*e^(-a*T) - h*e^(b*S)
where T is the time, S is the speed, p is power, h is hull friction and a and b are logarithmic factors. In this way, with just 4 parameters for each ship, you can realistically mimic any ship behavior you want. You can make them go as fast as you need, and accelerate as fast as you want. Plus, when turning, all you need to do is apply a new formula for the hull friction
h=a + e^(b*r), where a is the "go ahead" normal friction, b is an amplitude and r is the angle of the rudder. Throw in some wind and wave effect and with 2-3 formulas and a few parameters you can mod any ship...

[THE_MASK]

Great post. And btw, thanks, I had no idea about Carrier Command.



Somewhere in the code, there must be a formula on which the speed is dynamically calculated. Ubi could very well make ample config files for each difficulty setting. I see no reason for the game to be arcade for those who want it so, but realistic for the others. Let's say we have 2 ships, Nelson and a Torpedo Boat... A perfect sim should have something like this:
Speed+= Power - Friction
Speed+= p*e^(-a*T) - h*e^(b*S)
where T is the time, S is the speed, p is power, h is hull friction and a and b are logarithmic factors. In this way, with just 4 parameters for each ship, you can realistically mimic any ship behavior you want. You can make them go as fast as you need, and accelerate as fast as you want. Plus, when turning, all you need to do is apply a new formula for the hull friction
h=a + e^(b*r), where a is the "go ahead" normal friction, b is an amplitude and r is the angle of the rudder. Throw in some wind and wave effect and with 2-3 formulas and a few parameters you can mod any ship...I think the devs said the drag is improved so wouldnt this be a great improvement

[rascal101]

Yes roll on Carrier Command - though I must ask who's producing it, will it have the DRM or equivelent and.............. oh why do I bother.....

Soon you will all be mindless zombies watching endless cooking, home decor, dancing shows on TV - why struggle, dont fight it - forget computer games - eat, dance, renovate and die!

R


To the OP, you should have been around when Hasbro released "Gunship". That was the biggest flop of a simulation ever published and it got so bad the company quit the military simulation titles completely and quietly shelved and later sold their ownership of the "MicroProse" brand.

I think the economic situation has made it nearly impossible for anyone to produce fully detailed simulations as they did back in the mid to late 90's. It has been steadily declining ever since.

A new business model is sorely needed for sims to be produced like the passionate simmers would like them to be.

Personally I think it needs to be more like buying custom made merchandise where you pay for the fact that it's a niche market. All we need is a company that's willing to try and put out some feelers to see what sort of market response they can expect.

In the meantime, I have my sights set on "Carrier Command" from Bohemia Interactive. If they deliver anything close to the original it will be one awesome game (even if it is a sci-fi title).

[karamazovnew]

I think the devs said the drag is improved so wouldnt this be a great improvement

My boss used to say: "If you don't log it, it doesn't exists". I say "If you can't mod it, it doesn't matter" :shucks:

[tonschk]

I play just the SILENT HUNTER 3/4 in my computer , all the other games are silly and boring , therefore without a doubt the next Month I will buy the :salute: SILENT HUNTER 5 :yeah:

[Gunnodayak]

Great post. And btw, thanks, I had no idea about Carrier Command.



Somewhere in the code, there must be a formula on which the speed is dynamically calculated. Ubi could very well make ample config files for each difficulty setting. I see no reason for the game to be arcade for those who want it so, but realistic for the others. Let's say we have 2 ships, Nelson and a Torpedo Boat... A perfect sim should have something like this:
Speed+= Power - Friction
Speed+= p*e^(-a*T) - h*e^(b*S)
where T is the time, S is the speed, p is power, h is hull friction and a and b are logarithmic factors. In this way, with just 4 parameters for each ship, you can realistically mimic any ship behavior you want. You can make them go as fast as you need, and accelerate as fast as you want. Plus, when turning, all you need to do is apply a new formula for the hull friction
h=a + e^(b*r), where a is the "go ahead" normal friction, b is an amplitude and r is the angle of the rudder. Throw in some wind and wave effect and with 2-3 formulas and a few parameters you can mod any ship...


This is a very important aspect and I really hope it can be modded.

[Castout]

I was a bit carried away with then the hype of SHV but after seeing some discussion here and looking at the game interface through the video I've concluded that it will be a far arcade game than even SHIV. For this reason I adopt a wait and see stance and instead looking forward to my board game preorders and Mass Effect 2 and Napoleon Total War instead. [Genuine] Games come here a little late than in other countries.

So far I'm not impressed by SHV. And not going to buy a game on title that would in the end upset me for not reaching my simulation expectation.:nope:
I can live with ETW like protection but this DRM which obliges the players to stay connected when playing is stupid imo.

And I just want to say that it's not piracy that's making game publishers to lose money but a badly designed game that doesn't cater to what the actual fans and would be players had expected. Stop blaming piracy for sales drop and instead focusing on publishing what the gamers want and that means not taking shortcuts.

[martes86]

I still have hopes for the background operations of the boat being realistic. I think that the GUI is probably contributing (a lot) to the idea of the game being awfully arcadish. The thing with the GUI is that the Devs wanted it clean, and minimalistic due to the new camera style, but due to the minimalistic part, they probably had to compromise a little in the design (meaning, no dials like in SH3) so that it was viable and user-friendly (letters/numbers in the right size, easily readable, and all that). And the "crew abilities points" thing probably contributes a lot too. But these will probably be easily moddable, so we might still get lucky after all.

Cheers :rock:

[scrapser]

You mean the one from around 1990 that I had on my Amiga 2000??

Wow. Brilliant little game, miles ahead of its time.

Yes. I played it on my Amiga 500 and it was and still is one of my all time favorites. The original authors have already given praise for what Bohemia is doing with the remake. You can visit their website for a preview. It's supposed to be released this spring.

[IanC]

Yes. I played it on my Amiga 500 and it was and still is one of my all time favorites. The original authors have already given praise for what Bohemia is doing with the remake. You can visit their website for a preview. It's supposed to be released this spring.

Just a quick note to anybody who may not know, you can still play all those old games today on Emulators. :up:

[Sailor Steve]

I remember seeing a chart of HMS Hood's trial performance. It took her around 25 minutes to get to top speed from a standing start (going from memory, but it was a LONG time).
Was it this one?

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/accelerationgraph-1.jpg

At the Hood website http://www.hmshood.com/ship/hoodspecs4.htm they have this same chart. Also of interest is this page:
http://www.hmshood.com/ship/handlingnotes.htm

Note the time it takes just for the engines to respond to a command:
(d) Full Speed -

Note 3: It takes about 40 seconds from the time a Telegraph is put from Stop to Ahead or Astern before the engines start to move.

And stopping the ship:

(y) From 12 knots ahead stopping and reversing engines.
Half astern both and 150 revolutions, ship will travel about 5 cables. (4 minutes).

At full speed and using full power, even if it only took one minute that is still a long time.

I've seen charts that have some destroyers accelerating to as much as fifteen knots in one minute. Though that seems very fast, it's still and average of only one knot every four seconds. That's fast compared to any merchant, but very slow compared to any torpedo.

[Leandros]

As for acceleration a ship like HMS Hood to achieve these figures needs to have the steam pressure already on top. If not, steam first needs to be built up, then comes the acceleration. A Diesel-powered ship accelerates faster because it needs not to build up steam. The same applies for destroyers and equivalent size vessels. To achieve the speed of destroyers they need to be steam/turbine-powered. Frigates and corvettes (escorts/sub-hunters) could normally do with diesels due to less demand for speed.

So, let's say a battleship on convoy escort duty wouldn't normally cruise with top boiler pressure as this consumes much more fuel (oil or coal). Consequently if there was a need for acceleration it would have taken even longer time.

During the destroyer skirmishes in the Channel the German T-boote (light destroyers) and destroyers usually got away because they had quicker acceleration. The U-boote, being diesel-driven, could accelerate away from a destroyer under given conditions but only till its top speed was achieved.

The only larger diesel-driven combat vessels during WW2, that I know of, were the German pocket battleships. They had long range and fast acceleration but could not achieve the max. speed of steam-driven vessels. That would have taken more, or larger, diesels. Because of the higher efficiency of diesel versus steam these ships had extreme cruising ranges.

[THE_MASK]

Some of the big container ships i see leaving the docks get up speed pretty damn quick but its gradual , nothing like sh3/4 .

[MasterCaine]

I could have told all the excited people here months ago that SH5 was going to be a major flop, but at the time they probably would have lopped my head off. At least now it cannot be denied any more. :88)

[Steeltrap]

Steve, it might have been that chart.

It shows the 'real' performance of a broad range warships. One wonders, given the information, why it isn't possible for any SH game to model it even vaguely accurately.

Perhaps they don't even try? :hmmm:

[Sailor Steve]

SH3 - maybe they didn't think it would make a difference, or that anyone would care.

SH4 - maybe they didn't see the threads with people discussing it. There weren't that many.

SH5? We'll see.

[Platapus]

I could have told all the excited people here months ago that SH5 was going to be a major flop, but at the time they probably would have lopped my head off. At least now it cannot be denied any more. :88)

I think it is a little premature to call SH5 a flop.

[Letum]

They just didn't want to spend time writing an AI that could navigate with real ship maneuverability.

[Fido]

In my humble opinion, SH5 seems to be historically accurate in at least one respect, Dönitz forced his commanders to "radio home", using Enigma, before they were allowed to "play", and by using DRM, Ubi has done the same. I believe just like Dönitz, Ubi will lose commanders at the same alarming rate, and they too will never figure out why.
Fido

[stabiz]

:hmmm:


:rotfl2:

[mookiemookie]

I could have told all the excited people here months ago that SH5 was going to be a major flop, but at the time they probably would have lopped my head off. At least now it cannot be denied any more. :88)

How can it not be denied anymore when the game isn't even out yet?

I suppose we should all stand in awe of your prescience. :doh:

[ERPP8]

Other than DRM why is SHV supposed to suck?

[Brag]

I haven't seen the game and will not see it until DRM is removed

[Sailor Steve]

Other than DRM why is SHV supposed to suck?
The early end date (1943).
Only one type of sub (Type VII).
Silly-looking periscope interface.

Those are all listed objections. As I've posted in other threads, I don't see any of them as a real problem, due to the claimed modability of the game, but those are things others have complained about.

[Frederf]

Silent Hunter 5 looks like being an arcade game targeted at the casual gamer and only available via the internet.

I can't think of a worse combination than that.
SH5 will flop because the simulation has been diluted in an effort to chase a larger market.
There are a lot of people - gamers - who will look at a subsim (or any sim) and think "BORING!"

I can't help but agree that this should be common sense from a marketing standpoint. How can you hope to make SH5 appeal to a(n) arcade/console audience? Why would you try? Is it not the same as making high heels that are good for mountain climbing?

A sim should not try to compete with action console games, they will drag him down to their level and beat them with experience. Even the most arcade sub sim can't compete with CoD:MW2 for ADHD action.

(Developers) are big boys and girls and I for one would like to see detailed and reasonable answers to why certain decisions were made in the development of the game. Constructive criticism can only help to make this game better.

I too would love to talk to SH5's design committee to find out what they were thinking, what direction they were going, what was considered important/expendable. The general statements they were making I agree with "make SH5 an experience historically", "focus on a limited part of the war to achieve a better feel", "make the player connect with the crew/boat" but I have no idea how those ideas ended up with what appears to be the end result.

Honestly, DRM is a pretty independent issue and it should be treated as such. It is much more worrying that SH5 will be a crap game. It is much more desirable that SH5 be a good game protected by bad DRM than SH5 to be a bad game protected by an acceptable DRM scheme. DRM can be changed, an awful game cannot.

I respect the idea that TypeVII and 1943 limitations if they result in a better game. A full interior for a submarine takes time and if that means cutting the scope down to one type then that's fine... as long as I have fun in that one type. The campaign in SH3 encompassed the whole war but did so very poorly. If SH5 does '39 to '43 very well by cutting down on the scope, then that's good as well. Scope can be expanded but quality usually isn't.

[martes86]

A full interior for a submarine takes time[...]

The Devs made it clear that a lot of detail in models doesn't mean taking time from adding new features (programming), as they're different departments. What one could argue is that making too many ship models took time away from making interiors for more sub types, though it would be pure speculation.

Cheers :rock:

[Oneshot/Onekill]

I guess I'm just a sucker for blanket statements that don't ring true: SH3 would have been a flop. SH3 is not a simulation because you cannot turn some widget or control the #3 ngative ballast tank or you cannot take specific gravity readings of each battery. SH3 was not as good a subsim as .... ?

Mods giving a game staying power, that makes sense to me. And I can find that easy to agree with, I think you are right. But I don't know about how many people bought SH3 because of RUB or GWX. Certainly most people who bought SH3 were delighted to add mods to it.Totally agree with you on this one Neal. I originally purchased SH3 in 2005 shortly after it's release, and after it was patched to 1.4 I played it as is for well over a year and a half before I even knew about GW, or many of the other mods that were out there. Don't get me wrong, I loved the eye candy, but for the most part the vast majority of all of those early mods were just that, eye candy. Nothing really to alter the game's original function's.:up:

[Frederf]

The Devs made it clear that a lot of detail in models doesn't mean taking time from adding new features (programming), as they're different departments. What one could argue is that making too many ship models took time away from making interiors for more sub types, though it would be pure speculation.

Cheers :rock:

Now, strictly 2D art and 3D modeling yes, but each new submarine means new systems. A dozen or so radar systems and displays across 10 submarine types means appreciable programming (not art) work. Animations for crew would need to be coded for each interior, etc.

That being said, you likely have a point. I just wanted to feel good that because we're only getting a limited sub selection that that would mean a higher quality product... wishful thinking.

[martes86]

Now, strictly 2D art and 3D modeling yes, but each new submarine means new systems. A dozen or so radar systems and displays across 10 submarine types means appreciable programming (not art) work. Animations for crew would need to be coded for each interior, etc.

Good point, though I personally think the time taken by those would be minimal, compared to other features. :DL

That said, I just wanted to show reality to those saying that, since we are getting a game full of nice 3D models, that the gameplay will lack badly, and everything about such statement is completely wrong, because making nicer 3D stuff doesn't mean having a crappy functionality. Just wanted to separate those facts.

Cheers :rock:

[psykopatsak]

am rather excited about it, but my comp cannot run it probably, and scince im out of money (im a muscician-student and damn instruments and stuff is expensive:wah:) my desk wont be seeing a new rig for a while...

[Jimbuna]

am rather excited about it, but my comp cannot run it probably, and scince im out of money (im a muscician-student and damn instruments and stuff is expensive:wah:) my desk wont be seeing a new rig for a while...

At least when your position improves you should have a good idea if the upgrade will be worthwhile.....in an SH5 context.

[Solidsnake2234]

You've never seen everyone not wanting a game to come out? Go check the Brothers in Arm's fanbase. No one want's BiA- Furrious Four, to come out besides CoD fans XD

[Hans Uberman]

When I can play more than just a Type VII sub, I'll express a greater interest in SH5. It seems like a fine title, with a lot of promise, but the previous two games offer much more variety at the moment. I would buy an expansion pack in a heartbeat if it included more subs. Still, when I feel like a little Type VII action, it's nice to have SH5 at the ready.

[JU_88]

Ugh another zombie thread.
The only other subs you might get apart from type VII will be modded ones. No expansion, no silent hunter 6, no more silent hunter anything from UBI (ever again probably)

[Hans Uberman]

The only other subs you might get apart from type VII will be modded ones. No expansion, no silent hunter 6, no more silent hunter anything from UBI (ever again probably)
Yeah, that's kind of a given. It's a shame that the DRM scheme had to debut with SH5 and Assassin's Creed II. It may very well be that they've destroyed their SH franchise no matter how good SH5 may be.

[JU_88]

Yeah, that's kind of a given. It's a shame that the DRM scheme had to debut with SH5 and Assassin's Creed II. It may very well be that they've destroyed their SH franchise no matter how good SH5 may be.

The DRM is only part of SHVs problems, also it tried to pander to the causal gamer by heading in a new direction, alienating many fans of the previous games - this might have been fogivable/workable had the game actually been finished. Still, thanks to the work of modders, V is alot better now.

But, I just cant see UBI giving the SH Franchise another reboot in maybe 5 years or so... I just dont think they will bother with it again now.

[Hans Uberman]

The DRM is only part of SHVs problems, also it tried to pander to the causal gamer by heading in a new direction, alienating many fans of the previous games - this might have been fogivable/workable had the game actually been finished. Still, thanks to the work of modders, V is alot better now.

But, I just cant see UBI giving the SH Franchise another reboot in maybe 5 years or so... I just dont think they will bother with it again now.
I just hope that someone else will pick up the ball, eventually or that the SDK gets released. (Won't hold my breath on that last one.)

[Sailor Steve]

Ugh another zombie thread.
I love it when someone objects to a statement made over a year-and-a-half earlier. My comments from back then could easily be taken the wrong way now, especially since most of my complaints back then have been fixed. Arguing about this now makes no sense, at least to me.