IGN's Silent Hunter 5 Review

[Onkel Neal]

I love the series and have, in the past, been more forgiving of some of the technical troubles purely because the developer's and mod community post-release support has eliminated the worst problems. While I'm sure Silent Hunter 5 will be a better game in six month's time, some of the basic design problems aren't things that can be easily patched.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/108/1080505p1.html

Steve Butts, ladies and gentleman, is a true pro.

[Onkel Neal]

and Fragland (http://www.fragland.net/reviews/Silent-Hunter-5-Battle-of-the-Atlantic/1513/)

[Ducimus]

I love the series and have, in the past, been more forgiving of some of the technical troubles purely because the developer's and mod community post-release support has eliminated the worst problems.

And here is where i point to the bit of wisdom ive gained over the last couple years.

A ride on the "Fix it train" is a ride without end. If you want to enjoy the game; Pick your destination, and jump off at the nearest convenient station.

I rode that train with SH4.. hell, im STILL riding that train. Ain't doing it again.

[THE_MASK]

The game needs a major patch .
The campaign needs to be heavily modded (ships heading to land etc) .
Many modders are needed .

[Onkel Neal]

I like subsims, even ones with problems. :DL

[HundertzehnGustav]

you're almost able to forget

lol... almost only, ablo to forget the things the game does wrong.
LOLz:D

[elanaiba]

I find the review ok but...

Instead of the open-ended campaign in previous versions, Silent Hunter 5 makes use of a scripted campaign that focuses the player on specific objectives.I give up...

Open Ended? SH3? SH4?

Scripted? SH5?

[alexradu89]

All I can say is: OWNED! :up:

[HundertzehnGustav]

open ended maybe more in the sense of
"do what you want to do , where you wanna do it, How you wanna do it as long as you wanna do it, how you see fit"

[elanaiba]

Yeah, and the same is true for SH5.

[Dowly]

Yeah, and the same is true for SH5.

While you're here, may I hijack the thread for a question I didn't get a real answer to on it's own thread; Do you have to do the missions to progress to new ports, for example, the Mediterranean port? How about the french ports? Am I automatically moved to one when France falls or do I have to achieve a certain objective first? :hmmm:

[elanaiba]

You don't HAVE to do anything and history will progress.

Of course if you do something worse than your historical counterparts (Artic convoys comes to mind) then you may see some developments not taking place.

[Dowly]

You'd be a great politician. :haha:

[elanaiba]

Why?

Are you implying that I'm dodging answers?

You don't have to do almost anything to be moved around. We may have a bug related to changing homeport locations and I don't have my finger on it, but other than that, you should be moved when appropriate, regardless of what objectives you achieved.

[Dowly]

Why?

Are you implying that I'm dodging answers?

Nooo, you just gave pretty all-around answer the first time. ;)

You don't have to do almost anything to be moved around. We may have a bug related to changing homeport locations and I don't have my finger on it, but other than that, you should be moved when appropriate, regardless of what objectives you achieved.

Right, crystal clear now. Thanks! :salute:

[AngusJS]

open ended maybe more in the sense of
"do what you want to do , where you wanna do it, How you wanna do it as long as you wanna do it, how you see fit"But given how much we hates scripted campaigns, using "scripted" to describe SH5 when it is not was irresponsible.

[McBeck]

What's even more awesome is that, depending on the boat you're using and the conning tower you've got equipped, you may not even be able to see the deck gun to select it yourself.
Lack of documentation leads to this....he "just" needed to find his way to the deck - then he could use the gun for himself.

[Faamecanic]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/108/1080505p1.html

Steve Butts, ladies and gentleman, is a true pro.

A well worded review indeed..... hit just about all the points I like (few as they are) and dislike (far too many).

One thing I keep seeing tho is folks that say the DRM, while intrusive, isnt that bad.... I still say ANY DRM is bad that either 1) prevents a customer from playing their game due to either NO internet connection (like Sailor Steve) or a crappy ISP (like I had for 2 years because they were the only game in town... I couldnt get above 56 kb down most of the day!! and this was with CABLE) or 2) what about customers that have to PAY by the MB like those in the UK?

[Faamecanic]

Lack of documentation leads to this....he "just" needed to find his way to the deck - then he could use the gun for himself.

You can do that? How do you find your way down to the deck? I can only man my AA gun now????

[McBeck]

You can do that? How do you find your way down to the deck? I can only man my AA gun now????
On the outside of the conning tower there are ladders ;) Use F2 to locate them and use them just the other ladders.

[Faamecanic]

Why?

Are you implying that I'm dodging answers?

You don't have to do almost anything to be moved around. We may have a bug related to changing homeport locations and I don't have my finger on it, but other than that, you should be moved when appropriate, regardless of what objectives you achieved.

Thaks for the answer there......

The fact that you stick around these forums and still interact with the players is why I still blame UBI for rushing you guys and not allowing you to implement your vision :yeah:

With that I will say I must be a strange duck. I see where the Devs were headed with the new morale system and RPG elements...AND I LIKE IT!! Just a shame that it wasnt fleshed out more (more dialog with the crewmen) and the morale system is vauge and broke ATM.

[Faamecanic]

On the outside of the conning tower there are ladders ;) Use F2 to locate them and use them just the other ladders.


LOL...guess thats what happens when your used to just clicking to get there...you forget "what would one use to get down on the deck" LOL

[Onkel Neal]

But given how much we hates scripted campaigns, using "scripted" to describe SH5 when it is not was irresponsible.


Not disagreeing with you, and not defending Steve, but what I think he meant was, the career has a branching map, where you have several career path options, and there are more objectives presented to the player than simply, "go to grid AM43" and sink whatever you can. I think "scripted" was a poor choice of words to describe the changes to the campaign.

[elanaiba]

The thing is we took the campaign of SH3/4 and built on top of it (strategic goals, branching strategic paths, etc) and suddenly people assume its no longer dynamic...

SH5's campaign/map is unfinished but clearly, for my next project - if any, if ever - I need to rethink some of this stuff and the way its presented to the player.

[stellaferox]

I like subsims, even ones with problems. :DL

I like problems, even when presented as subsim.....:smug:

[ReallyDedPoet]

The thing is we took the campaign of SH3/4 and built on top of it (strategic goals, branching strategic paths, etc) and suddenly people assume its no longer dynamic...

SH5's campaign/map is unfinished but clearly, for my next project - if any, if ever - I need to rethink some of this stuff and the way its presented to the player.

I liked this option in SH4 ( strategic goals, etc. ) and was glad it was included in 5. Sure it's not perfect, but it is an improvement over what SH3 has to offer :yep: You feel part of a larger effort.

Part of 4's struggle and now 5s is that SH3 was such a huge leap from SH2, even more so modded. So the bar was raised for anything that came after that. It's just too bad you guys were not given the chance to finish\fix things right out of the box with 4 and now 5.

Anyway, my .02.

[scrapser]

I will ask the developers again here....

Can't you take what you have developed so far and polish it? If not, can you at least explain why this cannot happen?

I see SH5 as an experiment of sorts. You're trying new things and that's good. But just like a house, you need a strong foundation and right now I see a house with a lot of weak spots. Build enough on top of it and it will collapse.

[janh]

The thing is we took the campaign of SH3/4 and built on top of it (strategic goals, branching strategic paths, etc) and suddenly people assume its no longer dynamic...

SH5's campaign/map is unfinished but clearly, for my next project - if any, if ever - I need to rethink some of this stuff and the way its presented to the player.

Elanaiba, I took the freedom to highlight part of your statement that I think is crucial. Maybe SHV is "unfinished" as compared to what many expected after their full and lush SHIII(+GWX) or SHIV(+OM) experiences, but aside from the DRM that is not what went wrong this time.

I think what you guys missed to do was "conveying to the gamers/public/customers" what is under the hood now. New features, list what is still the same, give examples of scripting and its potential etc. Just more information, and that way before the release date. And maybe you guys should still consider doing that now?

Without a mentionable manual (manual that really describes the game, its possibilities, career options, realism and historic features etc etc) like the "manuals of old", people cannot know what to expect. And will speculate and guess to the best of their abilities. The best thing I would find a three column table, comparing all features of SHIII, IV and V -- however long.

[Faamecanic]

I will ask the developers again here....

Can't you take what you have developed so far and polish it? If not, can you at least explain why this cannot happen?

I see SH5 as an experiment of sorts. You're trying new things and that's good. But just like a house, you need a strong foundation and right now I see a house with a lot of weak spots. Build enough on top of it and it will collapse.

Agree........

I see the crew, morale, and campaign style as a GREAT start. But that is just it...its a START in what was supposed to be a FINISHED product that people spend hard earned money for.

And this isnt the first SH that was released unfinished. SH3 was unfinished, SH4 even MORE unfinished. After SH3's final patch it was mostly finished, and SH4 after the PAY for Patch (Uboat missions) it was 90% finished. Now with SH 5, which was released in a worse state than SH 4, and UBI not giving info on patching it.... we wonder if we will even achieve 90% finished state. So we subsim vets have had a bad taste in our mouths for awhile now...

Elanaiba....I am not meaning to demean your or your co-workers hard work. I SEE THE GREAT VISON you had... and maybe thats why so many are so disappointed. ALL of IT is half done...... so all of it feels lacking.

[drtechno]

"But no one who buys a submarine game wants to chat with dull crewmembers about their family back in Germany"
:har:

THANK YOU ! What was Ubi thinking.. :nope:

[Faamecanic]

"But no one who buys a submarine game wants to chat with dull crewmembers about their family back in Germany"
:har:

THANK YOU ! What was Ubi thinking.. :nope:


I must be wierd then..... I wouldnt have minded it provided there were MORE than just the one sentance to converse with my crewman about.

Guess you never read Werner "Iron Coffins" or "U boat War Patrol" where the Kaptain of the Uboat got to know his men very well... to include passing on the message personally when one of his crewman had a baby "mit periscope" and handed out shots of beer to all crewmen.

[Heretic]

"But no one who buys a submarine game wants to chat with dull crewmembers about their family back in Germany"
:har:

THANK YOU ! What was Ubi thinking.. :nope:

I don't think the concept itself is bad. The implementation... yeah.

[thyro]

"But no one who buys a submarine game wants to chat with dull crewmembers about their family back in Germany"
:har:

THANK YOU ! What was Ubi thinking.. :nope:

Enough matter to introduce a new submariner officer ...

the Personal and Moral Officer


:O:

[drtechno]

I don't think the concept itself is bad. The implementation... yeah.

The implementation is always going to be bad..look at the best RPGs with the largest dialogue trees around.. even they get boring the thrid time through after you have gone through all the options. Its interesting the first or second time through. Then it gets old very fast when you know exactly what they are going to say and when. It just degenerates into 'talk to A, choose dialogue options A, C, B' to get effect XYZ, and the content becomes irrelevant.

Faamecanic: Perhaps you would like it even better if we included the need for the ship captain to eat at certain points during the day, go piss, and sleep, you would enjoy that too? You could even pick out the outfit you wear every day. Perhaps a petticoat would go best for the attack on this naval convoy ? :ping: We could call it Silent Hunter: The Sims. Or we could skip the sinking of ships, torpedos, etc. and just chat with the crew all day long about their feelings. :yeah: Perhaps this should be Silent Hunter Second Life ? These aren't real people, this isn't real life, and we can skip all the day to day garbage to get at what most people want- A good sub sim. As I said above, if the best RPGs with massive dialogue trees get stale fast, then you can't possibly design a subsim with enough variety in there to make it entertaining. And would you really they rather spend the extra 2 months fixing bugs or creating more dialogue options that are (essentially) irrelevant to the actual GAME.

Please tell me that you really care to spend 45 mins clicking through your sonarman's childhood memories, wishes and dreams??:zzz: Oh joy. He didn't like it when his mother used to force him to eat weinerschnitzel so that's why he stole Herr Dummkopf's pickles when he was 9. He used his keen hearing to find the right moment to jump the fence. Oh how naughty that little boy was ! That led to an interesting encounter with Frau Aufsnacz that involved an apple, a lightbulb, and a very knobby stick. But thats another story..

[scrapser]

Silent Hunter is a submarine simulation (or was). Up until SH5 this meant simulating a WW2 era submarine in either the Atlantic or Pacific. To create immersion...graphics, audio, random weather (environment), physics, and enemy AI were employed. It's important to realize that the AI for enemy craft (air and sea) can be summarized as a way to make each unit behave to a singular purpose...attack your submarine...almost as if each ship or airplane was a person just as "you" are your "submarine" despite the fact that you have a crew. This is not much different from how FPS games work.

In a FPS game you shoot the enemy and the enemy shoots you until one of you dies or is seriously wounded. It's that simple. The AI is getting better so the enemy can both prosecute you and retreat to survive in increasingly sophisticated ways. But it is still pretty simple in terms of the overall behavior.

With SH5, crew interaction has been introduced and tied to the overall performance of the submarine. In other words, the submarine's ability to do what it needs to do is tied to the crew moral and skill matrix which in turn is affected by how you interact with the crew. This is a big can of worms and nothing like the AI you see with the enemy ships and aircraft or even the AI of the enemy in a FPS game.

I sincerely believe crew interaction is a good idea but I think implementing it in the only submarine simulation on the market demands out of necessity that it be thought through and introduced in increments so it does not cripple the player's ability to enjoy the sim experience. Right now crew interaction is violating one of the principle rules of entertainment..."suspension of disbelief." It's no different than being fully immersed in watching a movie and unexpectedly seeing the microphone hanging over an actor's head or maybe seeing the camera crew and director in the reflection of a window on the set.

So in short, as it stands crew interaction is almost a good idea. It's essentially a work in progress. As far as SH5 is concerned, it is now a submarine captain simulation and the submarine is now part of the background environment...i.e., part of the captain's "world."

[Rip]

Strange I don't have any eels in the torpedo room after I shoot them. Did he have unlimited ammo on maybe?

[JU_88]

Silent Hunter is a submarine simulation (or was). Up until SH5 this meant simulating a WW2 era submarine in either the Atlantic or Pacific. To create immersion...graphics, audio, random weather (environment), physics, and enemy AI were employed. It's important to realize that the AI for enemy craft (air and sea) can be summarized as a way to make each unit behave to a singular purpose...attack your submarine...almost as if each ship or airplane was a person just as "you" are your "submarine" despite the fact that you have a crew. This is not much different from how FPS games work.

In a FPS game you shoot the enemy and the enemy shoots you until one of you dies or is seriously wounded. It's that simple. The AI is getting better so the enemy can both prosecute you and retreat to survive in increasingly sophisticated ways. But it is still pretty simple in terms of the overall behavior.

With SH5, crew interaction has been introduced and tied to the overall performance of the submarine. In other words, the submarine's ability to do what it needs to do is tied to the crew moral and skill matrix which in turn is affected by how you interact with the crew. This is a big can of worms and nothing like the AI you see with the enemy ships and aircraft or even the AI of the enemy in a FPS game.

I sincerely believe crew interaction is a good idea but I think implementing it in the only submarine simulation on the market demands out of necessity that it be thought through and introduced in increments so it does not cripple the player's ability to enjoy the sim experience. Right now crew interaction is violating one of the principle rules of entertainment..."suspension of disbelief." It's no different than being fully immersed in watching a movie and unexpectedly seeing the microphone hanging over an actor's head or maybe seeing the camera crew and director in the reflection of a window on the set.

So in short, as it stands crew interaction is almost a good idea. It's essentially a work in progress. As far as SH5 is concerned, it is now a submarine captain simulation and the submarine is now part of the background environment...i.e., part of the captain's "world."

Thats a pretty good anology there mate :up:

[Bilge_Rat]

So in short, as it stands crew interaction is almost a good idea. It's essentially a work in progress. As far as SH5 is concerned, it is now a submarine captain simulation and the submarine is now part of the background environment...i.e., part of the captain's "world."

whatever fine distinction you want to put on it, a sim is a sim. Sh5 is a sub sim.

Hitting a target on 100% realism in SH5 is as hard as in SH3 or SH4, which is the real test as far as I am concerned..:|\\

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/2796/pq17006.jpg




http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/2828/pq17007.jpg

[AS]

Hi all,

In my opinion the review is way too negative. Some aspects I cannot even confirm,

-e.g. frame dropping (turn off Vertical Sync in the option menue and SH5 will run smoothly on a modern PC)

- deck gun (it works fine for me. Only bug I discovered is that the man and unman deckgun commands are sometimes confused. Once my men refused to unman the deckgun, well just ordering "dive" does the trick)

- map and rudder: haven´t got any problems here. The rudder keys work fine as do the map tools. Using the old SH interface mod helps a lot

- running through your men: well, I´m glad this is so, otherwise you would always get stuck or forced to walk around those guys, which would be annoying as hell considering the cramped size of the U-Boat

RGP elements: yes, they feel unfinished, but I´m thankful for the approach. I like the idea and I use it just for the fun of it

The AI seems ok most of the time. Strangely, planes do not take any notice of me, even when they are exactly above me.

Don´t get me wrong, SH5 has problems and glitches. But compared to the older versions it´s pretty good. PLUS: I´ve been playing for at least 60 hours now, sometimes I keep SH5 running "in the background" the whole day, and I haven´t encountered a single crash. To be fair I have to add that I´m running SH5 on a new computer with a clean Win7 install.

Just my two cents,

Cheers, AS

[SteamWake]

I don't think the concept itself is bad. The implementation... yeah.

I saw a mudcrab the other day :haha:

Pretty good review hard to disagree with just about anything. You can tell he was trying his best to be gracious.

The only 'flaws' I saw with the review was that evidently he could not find his way down onto the deck to man the deck gun and the comment about torps still being in the room after they are all spent.

[scrapser]

whatever fine distinction you want to put on it, a sim is a sim. Sh5 is a sub sim.

Hitting a target on 100% realism in SH5 is as hard as in SH3 or SH4, which is the real test as far as I am concerned..:|\\



You may have missed my overall point but no worries mate. We all have our standards. Nice picture you included by the way.

[janh]

whatever fine distinction you want to put on it, a sim is a sim. Sh5 is a sub sim.

Hitting a target on 100% realism in SH5 is as hard as in SH3 or SH4, which is the real test as far as I am concerned..:|\\



And what is it about those pictures...? Did you want to point at something important???

I guess the review is a bit negative, but not too bad. Using the word "scripted" was surely an unhappy choice, but to be honest, when I saw the first preview video of the new campaign system and explanation, I also was suspecting each one to be set of scripted missions. I haven't seen the developers really explaining what dynamics there is (or showing source examples), and what part of each campaign/force setup, patrol areas etc may be scripted. And how far scripts are designed to dynamically deviate from their plan.

There has not been a good, detailed explanation of so many features in SHV, and whether and how they changed from SHIII->IV->V.

[SteamWake]

Go here... sink x of y before such a date, return to base. Then and only then can you 'advance' the campaign.

Sounds scripted to me.

[mookiemookie]

Go here... sink x of y before such a date, return to base. Then and only then can you 'advance' the campaign.

Sounds scripted to me.

No, you don't have to do any of that. History will still happen no matter what. You can completely ignore all of those goals, and still move on to the next phase.

[mcarlsonus]

Depending on, "Unpaid, Volunteer Staff," a.k.a., "Modders" to make the game playable is letting Ubi off too easily. We've ALL enjoyed the largesse of the modders over the years - and so has UBI !!! Quite apparently, they currently labor under the impression they can release even MORE unfinished product - and charge us money for the privilege and honor of using it! Why? Because they know FULL WELL that our faith and confidence in UNPAID SUBSIM TALENT/"MODDERS" allows them to get away with it! Look at, "our" (meaning, "those who bought the product in the past") experience with two previous, "flawed" and, "more-flawed-than-the-one-before" versions. Sense a trend? SH3 - buggy, SH4-buggy beyond belief, SH5 - so flawed, it's virtually unplayable and, in several cases, unrecognizable to those who've invested time and money into previous versions of the same sim...

Remember the days when Modders were the folks who made the gameplay more fun, more realistic, et.al. ? NOW they're expected to make the dang thing SIMPLY WORK PROPERLY! STOP encouraging Ubi, and other similar firms with similar attitudes, by posting comments like, "Oh, the modders'll make this thing playable in a year," or, "that stuff can be fixed by modders," and/or posting stuff that obviously refers to a mod work-around, such as this from a post above, "...Using the old SH interface mod helps a lot...," ad infinitum. Until Ubi either pays these fine folks, or gives away the product for free as it really IS nothing more than an unfinished beta effort, we should hold THEIR feet to the fire - for a change! After all, we're expected to pay hard-earned money for their MINIMAL effort (I suspect they probably spent more on packaging than development!)

[mookiemookie]

words

Or we can make the best of what we've got and be happy that we have a modding community that fixes things. I'd much rather have a platform that people can build on than nothing at all.

[Bilge_Rat]

And what is it about those pictures...? Did you want to point at something important???


No, I let others discuss the "deeper" meaning of SH5. I just enjoy playing the game and posting screenshots.

Now that a proper historical periscope mod has been released, I can finally play this sim 100% manual TDC/map updates "off" and having a blast toying with convoys. I am finishing my advanced manual targeting tutorial.

We all know SH5 has issues, that it was pushed out too early. This review points out the good and the bad. I keep saying I should go back to SH4 and finish my campaign, but SH5 is so addictive. :arrgh!:

[mcarlsonus]

Or we can make the best of what we've got and be happy that we have a modding community that fixes things. I'd much rather have a platform that people can build on than nothing at all.

As mentioned (exhaustively!) in my previous post:
" STOP encouraging Ubi, and other similar firms with similar attitudes, by posting comments like, 'Oh, the modders'll make this thing playable in a year,' or, 'that stuff can be fixed by modders,' and/or posting stuff that obviously refers to a mod work-around, such as this from a post above, '...Using the old SH interface mod helps a lot...,' ad infinitum."

And, of course, thanks from ALL of us for toeing the line and proving, yet again, that no matter how ghastly the final product, we're (or, "YOU'RE") more than happy to part with our/your cash for a product that is totally wretched !!

(guess you missed the point of the rant, didn't you!)

[Heretic]

Yeah mookiemookie, it's all your fault. I hope you're satisfied. You ruined it for everyone.

[drtechno]

As mentioned (exhaustively!) in my previous post:
" STOP encouraging Ubi, and other similar firms with similar attitudes, by posting comments like, 'Oh, the modders'll make this thing playable in a year,' or, 'that stuff can be fixed by modders,' and/or posting stuff that obviously refers to a mod work-around, such as this from a post above, '...Using the old SH interface mod helps a lot...,' ad infinitum."

And, of course, thanks from ALL of us for toeing the line and proving, yet again, that no matter how ghastly the final product, we're (or, "YOU'RE") more than happy to part with our/your cash for a product that is totally wretched !!



Amen, brother. I love how many are trying to justify a sh|tty product.

[mookiemookie]

Yeah mookiemookie, it's all your fault. I hope you're satisfied. You ruined it for everyone.

I hear this so often it's like water off a duck's back. :O::rotfl2:

As mentioned (exhaustively!) in my previous post:
" STOP encouraging Ubi, and other similar firms with similar attitudes, by posting comments like, 'Oh, the modders'll make this thing playable in a year,' or, 'that stuff can be fixed by modders,' and/or posting stuff that obviously refers to a mod work-around, such as this from a post above, '...Using the old SH interface mod helps a lot...,' ad infinitum."

And, of course, thanks from ALL of us for toeing the line and proving, yet again, that no matter how ghastly the final product, we're (or, "YOU'RE") more than happy to part with our/your cash for a product that is totally wretched !!

(guess you missed the point of the rant, didn't you!)

I didn't miss the point of your rant. I just don't agree with it. You can protest all you want, but you'll soon find no subsims to be protesting to Ubi about.

[Heretic]

As mentioned (exhaustively!) in my previous post:
" STOP encouraging Ubi, and other similar firms with similar attitudes, by posting comments like, 'Oh, the modders'll make this thing playable in a year,' or, 'that stuff can be fixed by modders,' and/or posting stuff that obviously refers to a mod work-around, such as this from a post above, '...Using the old SH interface mod helps a lot...,' ad infinitum."

And, of course, thanks from ALL of us for toeing the line and proving, yet again, that no matter how ghastly the final product, we're (or, "YOU'RE") more than happy to part with our/your cash for a product that is totally wretched !!

(guess you missed the point of the rant, didn't you!)

And I'm sure you're backing up your words by refusing to use mods that fix things so as not to encourage UBI, correct?

[Méo]

" STOP encouraging Ubi, and other similar firms with similar attitudes, by posting comments like, 'Oh, the modders'll make this thing playable in a year,' or, 'that stuff can be fixed by modders,'

Ok how many times have we see comments like this???

A lot of people here seems to think that we're encouraging Ubi to produce crap and blablabla...

It's not the few subsimers like us who bought SH5 (and hope it will become a great sim once heavily modded) that will make a damn difference.

Ubisoft has nothing to gain from making an unfinished game, they just have a lot of new potential customers to lose. (i.e. it's really bad for business in the long term) (Just think about how the game was received by IGN, Gamspot, etc.)

[tater]

Ubisoft has nothing to gain from making an unfinished game, they just have a lot of new potential customers to lose. (i.e. it's really bad for business in the long term) (Just think about how the game was received by IGN, Gamspot, etc.)

Then why do they keep doing it?

[Méo]

Then why do they keep doing it?

1) Bad project planification.

2) It's maybe intentional like a lot of people seems to think.


In any case, sales had always decreased since SH1. (Neal could give the numbers).

[janh]

Then why do they keep doing it?

That is a question that has remained unanswered by Ubisoft officials since SHIV. And was the thing that everyone was aware of, but hoped it would have been a one time mishap. But well, just look through the pdf and information you can get on the Ubisoft corporate homepage. If you read their latest (business) strategy paper, you maybe get a clearer idea.

[Onkel Neal]

Then why do they keep doing it?


tater, with all due respect, this topic has been explored thoroughly. Is that a rhetorical question? :)

Game development (the detailed version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_development))

The short version
Dev team submits a project proposal to game publisher. This pro forma includes the game design, scope, timeline, and resources needed.

Game publisher does market research, forecasts sales, and decides if the game is profitable. If not, they send back to the developer with suggested changes. If the developer and publisher agree to a work document, then the project is greenlit. The publisher will set guidelines and schedules for development before the work commences.

Developer works on the game, meeting milestones until the game is ready for release. If the developer is unable to meet the milestones, slippage occurs. At some point a commercial decision is made to release the game on schedule or invest more resources. A big factor in this decision is the projected amount of revenue the game can make if more resources are invested. If the publisher thinks the game will not make back the investment even with additional resources invested, they will release it and then retain two or three members of the dev team to work on patches.

It all comes down to sales. Always has. If submarine games sold like Naruto games or Madden football, they would get more resources and longer development cycles.

[Iron Budokan]

tater, with all due respect, this topic has been explored thoroughly. Is that a rhetorical question? :)

Game development (the detailed version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_development))

The short version
Dev team submits a project proposal to game publisher. This pro forma includes the game design, scope, timeline, and resources needed.

Game publisher does market research, forecasts sales, and decides if the game is profitable. If not, they send back to the developer with suggested changes. If the developer and publisher agree to a work document, then the project is greenlit. The publisher will set guidelines and schedules for development before the work commences.

Developer works on the game, meeting milestones until the game is ready for release. If the developer is unable to meet the milestones, slippage occurs. At some point a commercial decision is made to release the game on schedule or invest more resources. A big factor in this decision is the projected amount of revenue the game can make if more resources are invested. If the publisher thinks the game will not make back the investment even with additional resources invested, they will release it and then retain two or three members of the dev team to work on patches.

It all comes down to sales. Always has. If submarine games sold like Naruto games or Madden football, they would get more resources and longer development cycles.

Speaking for myself, I didn't know this information and I found it very informative. Thank you for posting it. :salute:

[Méo]

tater, with all due respect, this topic has been explored thoroughly. Is that a rhetorical question? :)

Game development (the detailed version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_development))

The short version
Dev team submits a project proposal to game publisher. This pro forma includes the game design, scope, timeline, and resources needed.

Game publisher does market research, forecasts sales, and decides if the game is profitable. If not, they send back to the developer with suggested changes. If the developer and publisher agree to a work document, then the project is greenlit. The publisher will set guidelines and schedules for development before the work commences.

Developer works on the game, meeting milestones until the game is ready for release. If the developer is unable to meet the milestones, slippage occurs. At some point a commercial decision is made to release the game on schedule or invest more resources. A big factor in this decision is the projected amount of revenue the game can make if more resources are invested. If the publisher thinks the game will not make back the investment even with additional resources invested, they will release it and then retain two or three members of the dev team to work on patches.

It all comes down to sales. Always has. If submarine games sold like Naruto games or Madden football, they would get more resources and longer development cycles.Speaking for myself, I didn't know this information and I found it very informative. Thank you for posting it. :salute:

Agreed, thanks Neal.

But seems like there's no bright future for submarine simulations. :-?

[IanC]

But who's fault is it if the sales are low?
Don't invest more resources because the game might not/is not selling well? Well what about investing more resources to begin with, then the game would get 9 out of 10 review scores and guess what... high sales!
In other words; put out a quality product, and people will buy.
I don't get it, admittedly I know nothing about the vid game business.

[Méo]

In other words; put out a quality product, and people will buy.

That was my point.

However, (although I have no experience in game design) It seems like a U-boat simulation is a very complex project compared to other type of games.

[Onkel Neal]

But who's fault is it if the sales are low?
Don't invest more resources because the game might not/is not selling well? Well what about investing more resources to begin with, then the game would get 9 out of 10 review scores and guess what... high sales!
In other words; put out a quality product, and people will buy.



True, but that's limited to all the people who want a submarine game will buy. Like my summary pointed out, they have to make an educated guess on how many copies will sell, even at the highest quality. They cannot just pour money into a project without expecting a decent return. No one I know would do that with their money.



However, (although I have no experience in game design) It seems like a U-boat simulation is a very complex project compared to other type of games.

Exactly, the submarine simulation is inherently a demanding title, and the core audience is very knowledgable and has high expectations, making it tough to achieve the level of sophistication needed.

[goldorak]

True, but that's limited to all the people who want a submarine game will buy. Like my summary pointed out, they have to make an educated guess on how many copies will sell, even at the highest quality. They cannot just pour money into a project without expecting a decent return. No one I know would do that with their money.


You're right, but Ubisoft is not pouring resources into the SH series without any idea of how the sales will perform. They have past data. They know how well SH 3 sold (and in terms of developing that game, they sure invested much more in it than in SH 5). And SH 3 made a profit, otherwise we would never have seen 2 sequels.
Do I have to remind you how the development of SH 3 was high jacked in mid course so they could add a dynamic campaign ? And at that time they didn't know how well the game would sell. You could say they did an act of faith. And they were rewarded for it. But it seems that lesson was lost on them, as both SH 4 and SH 5 clearly show.

[IanC]

True, but that's limited to all the people who want a submarine game will buy. Like my summary pointed out, they have to make an educated guess on how many copies will sell, even at the highest quality. They cannot just pour money into a project without expecting a decent return. No one I know would do that with their money.


I'm pretty sure there's a profit to be made from a good submarine game. They don't need to pour all their resources into it. Anyways one thing's for sure, they'll never get the sales they want if they keep pushing them out unfinished.

[Cujo]

The review was a little tough, however lets face it, high quality, complex PC simulations are rapidly being replaced by consoles which offer simplistic and redundant run and shoot games that require no thinking or innovation. It will soon be like going to the library and only finding comics to read.

Enjoy now ladies and gentlemen. You are experiencing that last of this breed.

[Iron Budokan]

SH3 sold really well. Not everyone who bought that game was a hard core sub sim fan, either. Word of mouth sold that game and made it a monster hit.

People who had never played a sub sim before heard SH3 was fun and they went out and bought it.

It's not rocket science. Good games sell.

[mookiemookie]

People who had never played a sub sim before heard SH3 was fun and they went out and bought it.


That's exactly how I came to be here. :shucks:

[Onkel Neal]

You're right, but Ubisoft is not pouring resources into the SH series without any idea of how the sales will perform. They have past data. They know how well SH 3 sold (and in terms of developing that game, they sure invested much more in it than in SH 5). And SH 3 made a profit, otherwise we would never have seen 2 sequels.
Do I have to remind you how the development of SH 3 was high jacked in mid course so they could add a dynamic campaign ? And at that time they didn't know how well the game would sell. You could say they did an act of faith. And they were rewarded for it. But it seems that lesson was lost on them, as both SH 4 and SH 5 clearly show.

I'm pretty sure there's a profit to be made from a good submarine game. They don't need to pour all their resources into it. Anyways one thing's for sure, they'll never get the sales they want if they keep pushing them out unfinished.

SH3 sold really well. Not everyone who bought that game was a hard core sub sim fan, either. Word of mouth sold that game and made it a monster hit.

People who had never played a sub sim before heard SH3 was fun and they went out and bought it.

It's not rocket science. Good games sell.

Ah, well, I can't argue with that. I don't have access to the budgets for any of the three games, nor the market segments that actually bought the games. But as long as we are supposing and guessing, it sounds pretty convincing. :03:

[ReallyDedPoet]

Exactly, the submarine simulation is inherently a demanding title, and the core audience is very knowledgable and has high expectations, making it tough to achieve the level of sophistication needed.

Plus there are so many opinions, what one person likes, the other does not, you can't please everybody or be all things to all people.

Many here have criticized the RPG elements in 5, but you take a look at all of the current and past Das Boot Threads here and it is not difficult to see why.
You can't blame them for going in that direction or trying something different, heck many pushed them to go that way.

[scrapser]

tater, with all due respect, this topic has been explored thoroughly. Is that a rhetorical question? :)

Game development (the detailed version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_development))

The short version
Dev team submits a project proposal to game publisher. This pro forma includes the game design, scope, timeline, and resources needed.

Game publisher does market research, forecasts sales, and decides if the game is profitable. If not, they send back to the developer with suggested changes. If the developer and publisher agree to a work document, then the project is greenlit. The publisher will set guidelines and schedules for development before the work commences.

Developer works on the game, meeting milestones until the game is ready for release. If the developer is unable to meet the milestones, slippage occurs. At some point a commercial decision is made to release the game on schedule or invest more resources. A big factor in this decision is the projected amount of revenue the game can make if more resources are invested. If the publisher thinks the game will not make back the investment even with additional resources invested, they will release it and then retain two or three members of the dev team to work on patches.

It all comes down to sales. Always has. If submarine games sold like Naruto games or Madden football, they would get more resources and longer development cycles.

So...taking the above information into account, the really short answer is:

Complex simulation software is too expensive to produce. It's that simple.

In all honesty it makes complete sense to me and nobody should be surprised that the challenges developers face have only increased over the years. But what still doesn't make sense is why the choice is made to go forward when the decision makers know full well before any work begins they will not be able to meet the target...not even close. SH5 is the third release by Ubisoft and both 4 and 5 are built off of SH3. So why is it they don't leverage the code and improve what they already have to make more efficient use of resources?

I suppose I'm assuming each project has a similar sized budget which is probably wrong. Maybe the developers come and say, "We have this program that we could turn into something brand new. Give us X amount of money and time and we can give you something to market." The publisher checks it out and sees viability and gives the green light.

But with SH5, three times is the charm. I think it's clear no matter how the wheels turn at Ubisoft, they are incapable of producing a finished product in time and on budget. They are also the only game in town which is why a lot of people tolerate their product and modders continue to ply their skills. It would be so much better if there were at least three companies competing for the market share.

I read people's descriptions of their experiences with SH5 and quietly weep for the living. For myself, I'm sick of buying software that needs to be fixed before I can enjoy it and that plus the DRM are the main reasons I am not buying SH5. I agree with the poster who advocates we should stop being enablers for Ubisoft to pump out half-baked code but I seriously doubt boycotting would work. If the title cannot turn a profit for them they will simply stop producing it.

Enhancements is a different argument.

Editted to add:
I wrote this post without reading the posts that appeared after Neal's post. Some of what I am saying is being discussed to some extent in later posts. I think the main question a lot of people have in their mind is:

If it's so difficult and expensive to develop a working submarine simulation, why doesn't Ubisoft simply polish what they already have; especially since they are using the same core code with each release?

You would think we would see marked improvements with each release but instead it is getting worse. Problems with new features added in are to be expected and are not counted.

[Faamecanic]

But who's fault is it if the sales are low?
Don't invest more resources because the game might not/is not selling well? Well what about investing more resources to begin with, then the game would get 9 out of 10 review scores and guess what... high sales!
In other words; put out a quality product, and people will buy.
I don't get it, admittedly I know nothing about the vid game business.


Agree 100%.

Following UBI's "business" logic:

Release SH3 at 80% complete... sales = $ X (not as high as we wished at UBI..)

Due to SH 3's sales not being as high, Release SH4 but cut budget 20% and dev time 20%. All the while expecting a more complex sim with better graphics.

SH 4 released at 70% complete..... result...sales = $ X - customers waiting to see if game is patched to complete before buying due to getting burned with SH 3. Base next projection on SH 4 sales in the first month (even though it took months to patch).

Due to SH 4's sales being even lower than SH3, Release SH 5 but cut budget another 20% and dev time 20%. Expect an even more complex sim with better graphics.

SH 5 release 50% complete, full of bugs, Net result Sales = $ X - customers burned by SH4 AND reading bad reviews. Base decision to build SH 6 off first 2 weeks of SH 5 dismal sales....

Blame "Niche Market" and Customer lack of support.

Cancel SH 6.....

[Faamecanic]

Exactly, the submarine simulation is inherently a demanding title, and the core audience is very knowledgable and has high expectations, making it tough to achieve the level of sophistication needed.

I disagree with your statement due to the fact that since SH3 there has been stuff that modders can correct in a few hours of work without the benefit of having the CODE that the devs have.

Obvious stuff that is screwed up should have never made it out the door (ships going in reverse, crashing into docks...), the lack of a LEGIBLE manual, totally broken morale system to name a few.

Gripes about Uniforms, cosmetic details, heck even the fact that there is only one sub and 3 or 4 cargo vessels in game, can certainly be blamed on budget/time/complexity and does not affect the overall playability, I will agree with you on.

[Bilge_Rat]

True, but that's limited to all the people who want a submarine game will buy. Like my summary pointed out, they have to make an educated guess on how many copies will sell, even at the highest quality. They cannot just pour money into a project without expecting a decent return. No one I know would do that with their money.



Exactly, the submarine simulation is inherently a demanding title, and the core audience is very knowledgable and has high expectations, making it tough to achieve the level of sophistication needed.


Exactly, simulations have a very small market share. They are more complex to produce than a FPS. Sim customers are a demanding crowd, since they rightly expect the game to simulate more or less the real events.

Because of that, most major publishers bailed out of the Sim market 10 years ago to concentrate on more profitable titles. Simulations these days are generally put out by smaller developpers who enjoy simulations themselves and are willing to live with a smaller return in exchange for putting out a quality product, companies like Battlefront, Third Wire, DCS, 1C.

Even within the Sim market, naval sims have a very small market share. The most popular sims are flight sims followed by land combat sims. The market for realistic subsims is very small.

Sure, a company could spend millions of dollars designing an ultra-realistic state of the art subsim, but they would just wind up losing money since the potential customers are not there. Anyone who thinks otherwise just does not understand the Sim market.

Right now and for the foreseeable future, SH5 is the only new subsim on the market, so the choice is simple: buy it and play it or dont buy it and do something else.

I already made my decision and have had no regrets. :salute:

[St. Cobra]

I disagree with your statement due to the fact that since SH3 there has been stuff that modders can correct in a few hours of work without the benefit of having the CODE that the devs have.

Obvious stuff that is screwed up should have never made it out the door (ships going in reverse, crashing into docks...), the lack of a LEGIBLE manual, totally broken morale system to name a few.

Gripes about Uniforms, cosmetic details, heck even the fact that there is only one sub and 3 or 4 cargo vessels in game, can certainly be blamed on budget/time/complexity and does not affect the overall playability, I will agree with you on.


Well duh. You are understating the difficulty in creating the game in the first place, for the modders to play with. Anyone can mod an existing game, the hard part is creating the game first. :stare: Give me a copy of Shakespear, I can add a few words here and there, easy!!!

[Capt. Teach]

Hey everyone,

I have been sort of following the SHV discussions ... and I hope I am not saying the same things everyone else is saying ... but there is something I don't understand. [Perhaps you all do, its obvious for you all, and therefore is not clearly stated?]

I don't understand how:

Ubisoft can have SH3 and SH4 +
Know about and visit Subsim.com [assuming they read as well] +
Build using the same core code +
Have access to all the wonderful mods put out [like the rest of us] +
See what the Subsim fans like and don't like [raves on mods etc.] +
seemingly completely ignore all of it.

I would think, that at the very least they would use that as a slice of market research and base decisions upon it. [They did green light SH5 so the decision as to make SH5 is moot.]

It just doesn't make any sense to me that they wouldn't use the core code, re-engineer the mods [or just bring the modders onboard as staff or buy the mod rights from them], and put all of it together into what would be a very stable beta. Sure, it's more of the same but it would be a solid baseline to start from. Then put on a new graphics team to update the look and then start development of all the new stuff like a storyline you can follow [or toss], crew interaction, sub to move through, etc.

It seems like on the money arguement aspect, that just makes perfect sense. It also makes sense on a time aspect [well to me it does anyway]. I would expect all of the stuff for my suggested baseline beta could be done at worst in a few months. That leaves lots of time for development of the new stuff.

Anyway, that is what I don't understand. I'm hoping you guys do and can clear it up for me. Thanks in advance!
:salute:

[bigboywooly]

Fair review

Scipted may not have been the correct wording but I see where he is coming from
Sure the part of the campaign that covers shipping etc is dynamic
Your career path isnt
ALWAYS start in 1939 in Kiel
ALWAYS get the same mission goals to complete no matter how many times you start a fresh career
Scripted
You cant load up the game and think screw 1939 its a cakewalk I fancy starting in 1940 or 41
The script you have to follow is laid out in the campaign choice
Total Germany then Happy times only then do you get a choice Med or Atlantic
And to make a difference dynamically you HAVE to complete all your campaign missions with the wild tonnage figures needed
Yep I know you can free play and ignore all those BUT you still have to play through the career path

Has promise
Just not now

[janh]

Neals assessment is probably quite correct. In that sense it seems very fortuitous that BIS with OFP/ARMA follows a dual strategy by developing this engine simultaneously as a training tool for govermental organisations (or really hardcore "simmers") in form of VBS, Virtual Battlefield System. That probably increases the cashflow substantially.

On the other hand, other publishers like Matrix afford developing titles that are surely not cash-cows, like WITP-Admirals Edition. But it is also a prestige object for their qualifications, capacity and portfolio. However, stockholder companies like Ubisoft don't appear to care so much about customer opinion and prestige objects, but much more about "big sales titles". So I would conclude that it is a wrong expectation to have that big publishers will be intend to invest strongly into small-market products and provide very realistic high quality sims, strategy games etc.

So maybe betting on Ubisoft is a bad future strategy? And maybe this has been evidenced already twice?

[elanaiba]

Fair review

Scipted may not have been the correct wording but I see where he is coming from
Sure the part of the campaign that covers shipping etc is dynamic
Your career path isnt
ALWAYS start in 1939 in Kiel
ALWAYS get the same mission goals to complete no matter how many times you start a fresh career


You have to admit, in SH3 / 4 they were not more different, they were absent...


Scripted
You cant load up the game and think screw 1939 its a cakewalk I fancy starting in 1940 or 41


Have you returned to the start campaign menu after completing a number of campaigns ;) ?

[Faamecanic]

Well duh. You are understating the difficulty in creating the game in the first place, for the modders to play with. Anyone can mod an existing game, the hard part is creating the game first. :stare: Give me a copy of Shakespear, I can add a few words here and there, easy!!!

I will refrain from personal attack here and just state that you missed my point.

There are items in SH 3 , SH 4 , and SH5 that have been fixed by mods (heck I have even fixed them myself in SH3 and 4) that literally took 5 min to change a text line in a .cfg file. Those are the changes that should have been made pre-release that I was referring to.

My main point is... things that have been broken, and KNOWN to be broken since SH3 should not have been just copied over into SH4, then SH5... no excuse (Sub on Rails is an example).

Friendly ships that run in reverse and try everything in their power to ram you is another example of something that should have never been released.

And there are total realism sinkers that would have cost ZERO money and budget to get right. It would not have taken any addtional funding to realize that an individual sinking 100,000 tons of cargo in 1939- june1940 was just totally historically incorrect and laughable. Or for a Uboat to be tasked to sink a capital ship as a Mission objective is just stupid. But these are not game breakers.... just things that ruin the immersion.

Personally I would rather have a SH 4 that was tweaked and 99% MAJOR bug free, and 90% minor bug free...that is immersive and complete...then something with broke new features and flashy graphics that I find almost unplayable if not for my love of subsims.

[SloppyMk27]

This game is in no where near release condidtion. In my opinion, it's still in it's alpha stages. The points at which you can see where they just stopped working on that part of the game are very obvious. The controls (or the lack there of) are a classic example. AI Ships super colliding into one another or the docks themselves at speed of the downfall of the quality standards UBISoft set for this game. We all know there are countless other things as well. The idea of being able to walk around the sub is a big improvement over sh3 and sh4 where you had your stations with limited manuverability and camera view. I wish I could be more positive about the game. SH3 to SH4 was a big step all around, and I had high hopes that SH5 would have been as much of an improvement to SH4. I was wrong. :damn: I'm in 100% agreement with Faamecanic on his comments. Modding is supposed to be minor tweaking of a game. That is what made SH3 and SH4 so much fun. The modders are not supposed to be expected to fix the catostrophic failures of the game itself. Ubisoft gave us a train wreck. There is a ton of work on the development side that still needs to be done. Once they do their part, modding this game will be the way it's supposed to be. (Tweaking, not fixing disasters)

[Claudius]

Ubisoft should give up on pc gaming, they represent and actively push the platforms current problems (delayed games, DRM, lazy ports, "DLC" they are a terrible company).

SH3 the Best!!!

[MGR1]

Have you returned to the start campaign menu after completing a number of campaigns ;) ?

Hmmm:hmmm:, sounds like Republic Commando - you have to complete each level before you can go back and replay certain sections. Once you've completed all of them, you can jump back and forth at will.

Sorry Dan - me no like that!:down:

If I want to start in '41, I don't see why I should run through a campaign or two before I can do it.

Too restrictive. I'd get burn out and lose interest.

At the moment, I'm glad I haven't bought SH5.

Mike.

[Bloomstomb]

5.7 is pretty fail.