Hey Neal, any eta on a review??

[flakmonkey]

Just curious, i always enjoy reading subsim reviews, even if i already have the game!

[Letum]

Perhaps Neal is waiting for a patch or two.
A wise decision IMHO.

[Noren]

But is that fair?

What about mods then? That will sweeten the score by a great degree...

[janh]

Well, if you want that way... three seperate reviews would be nice:
i. initial state
ii. fully patched state (in a year from now or whenever)
iii. fully patched plus modded (in 3 years from now...)

I for my part only care about (i), at least for now. Anything else will only influence my long term buying decision, and that can be 2-3 years down the road until it is OSP-DRM free in the $10 bin, and I have really seen what the modders got out of the baby (hoping that some serious ones still care).

First, they have to get it to equal shape to SHIII-GWX for me to have reason to consider switching. And that could take a while as it appears.

[Méo]

three seperate reviews would be nice:

So I guess you're better make some pretty good donation to subsim, cuz he's gonna need a lot of time on his own to answer your request.

[Safe-Keeper]

What about mods then? That will sweeten the score by a great degree... Can't hurt to mention in the review that there's already lots of mods out that solve pretty much all the initial gripes people have with the game:up:.

[Turbografx]

I agree with the last couple of posts. It's not representative of what was released and paid for to review a game 2-3 months and the same number of patches down the road.

The review should be of the game AS IS and then, 3-6 months later an additional or new review of the improvements.

Reviews shouldn't rely on patches and mods. The original product should be reviewed.

[janh]

So I guess you're better make some pretty good donation to subsim, cuz he's gonna need a lot of time on his own to answer your request.

<<Well, if you want that way...>> is crucial in my statement...
<<I for my part only care about (i)>>

Indeed Turbo*, I also think things should not be convoluted, i.e. a product review should in first order not be a mod review.

[robbo180265]

<<Well, if you want that way...>> is crucial in my statement...
<<I for my part only care about (i)>>

Indeed Turbo*, I also think things should not be convoluted, i.e. a product review should in first order not be a mod review.

Neal's probably busy playing the game - think I read that he put in 14hours last weekend.
In my opinion that should tell you something;)

Why not look at the reviews here from subsim members who have the game?

That's all the reviews I needed.

[Noren]

exactly, hardcore sim fans such as you gives me all the feedback I ever need.

I have a friend who reviews games for a big danish gamer magazine, he plays the games about 10-20h and comes up with the verdict. But I assume Neil takes his good time, there are'nt to many big releases in this genre unfortunately.

[Charlie901]

He's probably trying and failing to log into the UBI Servers like the rest of us so that he can spend enough time actually playing SH5 enough to give us a proper review... :damn:

I really hope he's not afraid to really lambaste this one where it counts! :up:

[SSN*593]

It's now down to a 4.6 average USER rating score. Don't these people count? http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/silenthunter5/players.html?tag=scoresummary;user-score

People who don't know NEAL, and DO NOT know SUBSIM can and do buy these games and it's exactly what UBI wants, CASH FLOW.

Now these people take the damn thing home and guess what, IT BLOWS.

"Anyone who is a fan of any of the previous Silent Hunter titles will find this a BIG disappointment. It's all eye candy."

[Safe-Keeper]

Reviews shouldn't rely on patches and mods. The original product should be reviewed. In one way, I agree with you. However, the main reason we have game reviews is to help gamers decide whether to buy a game. Surely if you have one lacking game that can't be modded, and another that is easily moddable and already has plenty of fixes big and small one week after release, the review should take this into account?

I see a big difference between"Anyone who is a fan of any of the previous Silent Hunter titles will find this a BIG disappointment. It's all eye candy. Worse yet, the developers have announced they will not be able to spend much time on making patches for the game, and the player community has discovered that most of its features are hard-coded, and that they can do little or nothing to improve its quality and lifespan."
and"Anyone who is a fan of any of the previous Silent Hunter titles will initially be disappointed, but the game comes with an incredible moddability and lots and lots of potential for really cool features never before seen in the Silent Hunter series, and already there are mods out that greatly enhance the experience. In a few months or years, this game may very well be as good, or better, than the previous titles in the series."
Actually, this is one of my biggest pet peeves about reviews -- they review a game once it's out, and then just drop it. Not a word about patches or mods. A web site visitor reading a review on release day gets the same impression that he or she would get reading the same review two years after release, but in those two years, modders and patches can have turned the whole game upside-down. The reason they don't follow up games is very likely sheer time pressure and lack of resources to keep track of the patching and modding of every title out there. Neal and other "small-time reviewers" don't suffer from this problem and thus can, and should take the time to give the game's moddability, mods and patches the respect they are due.

It's now down to a 4.6 average USER rating score. Don't these people count? http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/silen...ary;user-score (http://www.gamespot.com/pc/sim/silenthunter5/players.html?tag=scoresummary;user-score)

People who don't know NEAL, and DO NOT know SUBSIM can and do buy these games and it's exactly what UBI wants, CASH FLOW.

Now these people take the damn thing home and guess what, IT BLOWS.

"Anyone who is a fan of any of the previous Silent Hunter titles will find this a BIG disappointment. It's all eye candy."...in your opinion:shifty:. See, this is the problem, all the people who just take one look at the game and goes "this sux", for then to proclaim this loudly for everyone to hear. Rational voices who have fun with the game and see the awesome potential... are drowned out.

[Will-Rommel]

Good job safe-keeper. Spoke my mind.

[Steeltrap]

Actually, this is one of my biggest pet peeves about reviews -- they review a game once it's out, and then just drop it. Not a word about patches or mods. A web site visitor reading a review on release day gets the same impression that he or she would get reading the same review two years after release, but in those two years, modders and patches can have turned the whole game upside-down. The reason they don't follow up games is very likely sheer time pressure and lack of resources to keep track of the patching and modding of every title out there. Neal and other "small-time reviewers" don't suffer from this problem and thus can, and should take the time to give the game's moddability, mods and patches the respect they are due.

...in your opinion:shifty:. See, this is the problem, all the people who just take one look at the game and goes "this sux", for then to proclaim this loudly for everyone to hear. Rational voices who have fun with the game and see the awesome potential... are drowned out.

Agree and disagree.

I disagree in that a game that is reliant on modding/patches to become functional/enjoyable needs to have this pointed out in both senses: yes, the game can be good, but only if you are inclined to do the work to find mods and go to the trouble of installing them.

It is true that games can alter substantially with mods, but I think you've covered fairly well why reviewers don't deal with that.

I don't like the trend towards excusing publishers for very poor quality releases on the grounds of what it might become, especially as installing mods is not always an easy process (less of an issue here, but worth noting).

You might give a release two scores. One based on the 'as is' provided by the publisher, another on its perceived 'moddability' and mods available at the time of review.

For me, there's an annoying tendency to ignore the former and score things on the latter, which assumes everyone can and will find/install mods, and that this somehow excuses the publishers from their responsibility for producing a stable, enjoyable game.

Cheers