SHV Development Questions

[scrapser]

I have these questions which were buried in another thread so I am making this a new thread in hopes of getting some answers and discussion going.

I would like to ask Dan (or Ubisoft developers) a few simple, direct questions.

Why is it with each new SH release there is no evidence of building on the previous release and improving it?

I don't mean cloning SH3 into SH4 (which is obvious what was done there). SHV is about Uboats. Why not polish the SH3 code and give it what everyone asked for after it was first released or modded the h*ll out of it to include and call that SHV? You would have had much of the program already completed right at the start, so all the new budget money could be spent making it a much improved, more accurate, full war campaign simulation with all submarines available with very few bugs!?

The interactive interior in SHV is a component of the overall program. Did implementing that force you to cut back on the rest of the simulation? Are the answers to these questions trade secrets? Do I oversimplify the sim development environment?

I'm simply curious why something so obvious goes undiscussed all the time.

Think of what I'm asking in this way. Ships, planes, and cars are released in generations. Each generation is an improved version of its predecessor. Why can't this happen with simulation software?

[Hitman]

Nice questions :nope: I suggest that, before answering them, Dan must sit himself in an uncomfortable chair, in a dark room, and with a lamp pointing at his face, effectively blinding him. Tiding his hands on the back of the chair would also be a good idea, as well as filling the room with smoke.

Another guy playing "nice cop" would also be fitting to the scene :shifty:

[piri_reis]

Just let them work on the patches will ya??

[CCIP]

I also just don't get the assumption that it's not improved. That's a very unobjective assessment to say the least.

[Iron Budokan]

Few people have been as critical of /5 as have I. But I think your supposition that there is no evidence of building upon previous releases, coupled with a move toward improvement of the series, is patently false.

[scrapser]

I'm surprised by the reactions this thread has received. I really am. The questions are simple, honest, and to the point. What's the big deal?

If there's a wrong assumption can't that simply be pointed out? Why all the grumbling and making it out to be some sort of dark, covert exercise?

To aid in better understanding...let me spell it out even more.

Elaboration begins:

You create a program using a budgeted amount of money and put it on the market. A bunch of people buy and use what you created. So far so good.

Now you want to improve said program.

Do you....

A. Start from scratch with a new budget and reinvent the wheel while trying to plug in new stuff?

B. Use the original program and enhance it, fix things you didn't have time and money for in the first go-around, add new things, etc.? This increases efficiency, saves lots of time and money, gives back even more on the original investment for the first program, leverages the new budget and acts as a force multiplier. Duh!

End of elaboration.

This is all I'm trying to find out. Why is this such a touchy subject? From what I've seen on this board, the implied goal in my questions is the same goal everyone here and at Ubisoft has been after (except Ubisoft also wants to make money).

Let me add that I do not personally know how each title is developed but it appears that each new title is built from scratch. That can also be discussed by the developers if they are able to do so. There's nothing malicious in my questions and no attempt to be rude. But I can understand how people can get uncomfortable when getting to the truth is the goal. Most people don't like the truth.

[janh]

I guess the questions are quite valid, and honest, though likely also uncomfortable. I don't know whether a developer would have the authority to answer those questions, or whether it would better involve a higher level authority at Ubisoft.


Improved -- improved as compared to what standard?

Sure, it has changed. As the change out target audience that Ubisoft attempted would require. It doesn't seem that they have cut back on the simulation part, but added another layer of a "casual-customer more accessible", more "arcade style" simplification. Including, and perhaps most obvious the interface.

The changed the focus of the game, narrowing the time-frame to the "Happy Times" for german U-Bootler. They added a dynamic element to the campaign, subdiving it in "missions" in certain areas of operation and giving it some kind of dynamic feedback reaction to player activities (whatever exactly that is now -- I guess most of us only know what the FAQ and previews mentioned, so very little). They took another try at polishing up the look and graphics, which is also most enticing to casual gamers (and likely less important to simulation-oriented players).

Sure, it has bugs, and after SHIII and SHIV that is surely no surprise. Though one would expect that someone at Ubisoft could have thought of the connection between low-sales volume and the intial state of the release, which of course was mirrored in many previews, reviews and forum posts here. All of which may have -- and for me this is true -- guided other potential customers and convinced them to find a different toy.

I am not quite sure why this time the bugginess appears to be even a worse debacle judging from the ongoing discussions and posts here. Initially I had the impression aside from the moral bug it was more stable than SHIV initial. Maybe it is not.

But maybe people receive it much more critically these days. That could have to do with the high expectations, partly raised by promises. Partly a major lack of information transfer from Ubisoft to the community before the release surely also added into misleading expectations, as speculation partly filled the information gap. As someone said on another thread, many expected something more of "wolf pack/dynamic campaign/AI" patch for SHIII (i.e. keeping changes to its backbone and features otherwise minimal), rather than something different.
Lastly, I have the impression people are generally angered (unhappy doesn't seem to be enough to describe it) by the DRM scheme. And that anger blends into their judgement of SHV, quite naturally. To make up for the DRM problem, SHV must logically offer something ground-breaking to be worthy of the money. I bet if not for the DRM, SHV would have been received very differently.

As for me, I clearly see a lack in the information policy. Lots of misconception as to the bias and focus of the game could have been avoided initially. But it was DRM that sunk it.

[jwilliams]

The SH3 and SH4 code is there.... they did build on top of what they already had. they just added to the old code with new features etc.

Unfortuently they didnt fix the bugs that were in the old code, and that is why bugs that were in 3 & 4 are still present in 5. but with new stuff added bringing in even more bugs.

[kylania]

My question would be was the 3D interior designed with gameplay in mind or simply "hey, look, you can walk around and talk to the cook".

Very simple procedures from earlier games are nightmarishly difficult and time consuming with the new system. Silent running for example. If you were on the bridge and wanted to turn on silent running you have to first climb down two ladders (losing track of what you were monitoring) clumsily turn around to find your XO, talk to him about his family to he's happy enough to finally order Silent Running, then climb back up the ladder. Or previously you could just click a button.

And to replace truly interactive interiors (I LOVED flipping switches on my torpedo doors from the attack scope before attacking) with walk-around-able-but-not-interactive-at-all interiors seems a step back.

[Iron Budokan]

The SH3 and SH4 code is there.... they did build on top of what they already had. they just added to the old code with new features etc.

Unfortuently they didnt fix the bugs that were in the old code, and that is why bugs that were in 3 & 4 are still present in 5. but with new stuff added bringing in even more bugs.

^^Exactly this. *nods*

[scrapser]

The SH3 and SH4 code is there.... they did build on top of what they already had. they just added to the old code with new features etc.

Unfortuently they didnt fix the bugs that were in the old code, and that is why bugs that were in 3 & 4 are still present in 5. but with new stuff added bringing in even more bugs.

^^ I'm not saying I believe this by replying to your post (do you know for a fact this is the case?). But your reply is in the direction of what I'm trying to get at. Is SHV built on SH4 which was built on SH3 (or even better is SHV built directly off of SH3)? If not, then in general terms...why?

My whole point here is trying to get a publisher/developer(s) to talk about this aspect of creating their products. I'm not asking them to compromise themselves but at least talk about what they can to help me and others who would appreciate a better understanding of why things are the way they are.

Common sense tells me if you already have a fairly good U-boat simulation and want to make it better while saving time, effort, and money...then work with what you have and use the new resources for the new stuff. What if the developers pulled out their last revision of SH3 source code and used the money and resources for SHV to give it a complete overhaul. Why didn't that happen? I'm not asking because I'm stuck on SH3, it just happens to be a the best example for demonstrating my point. For the record, I want an overhauled PTO revision but that's beside the point.

[jwilliams]

Is SHV built on SH4 which was built on SH3.



The code from SH3 and SH4 is in the game... some of it is disabled. (but its still there).I would guess this was done to save time and money.

This would enable them to put all the time and money into adding the first person view, new UI, RPG and fancy gfx.

I guess choices where made to make the game more friendly for casual gamers. but i would say they probably ran out of time to fix all the bugs.

IMO. they should have fixed the bugs in the old code before adding to it. but they didnt !

And as to why... I doubt they they would ever say. bound by contracts etc.


*Note* this is just my opinion :- easier to just add to old code. would take a long time to go through the old code and kill the bugs. time costs money and they wanted to get a product out quick. the faster you make a product the more money you make (due to dev cost being lower). as i doubt sale would increase by much if you spent 6months to a year (or more), removing bugs from old code.

[scrapser]

Well if SH5 was built using old code that had bugs and wasn't fixed, this would help explain how a new sim can appear to be made from scratch instead of using code that already exists to save time.

For someone like me (and I realize we are all different) it would seem logical to fix the stuff you know about before adding more complexity and making it even harder to fix things (but that's just me...I'm weird that way).

This would explain why SH4 had the metric system.

It really confounds me why things that are known to be wrong or are simply broken and not fixed years later. Wow!

I write code as part of my job. I do legacy support, add-ons to existing applications, and sometimes I even get to design something from scratch. But I'm not working anywhere near the depth the developers are working to create something like a submarine sim. But I assumed the principles would be the same in scale and in terms of how coding is organized for rework later on.

It would be nice to be able to talk about this aspect of the sim with the developers. I think it would go a long way towards helping people understand why things turn out the way they do and perhaps build some goodwill based on real information instead of just assurances and good intentions.

[Uber Gruber]

I can only conclude, based on recent discussions. that the developers must also be tied to chairs when coding UBIs strategy to make money for its shareholders.

That is to say spend as little as possible to produce a barely passable game whilst hyping expectation by strangling pre-release reviews or coercing editorial control.

Resulting in lemming like sales and a plebicite acceptance of a market slave doctrine.

However, Dan says the devs are also UBI so maybe they are happy with this strategy.

Oh well, i'm off skiing for a week.

Cheers, UG

[St. Cobra]

Oh well, i'm off skiing for a week.

Cheers, UG[/QUOTE]

Thank GOD! :damn:

[janh]

Thank GOD! :damn:

[/sarcasm on] Awesome comment. [/sarcasm off]