I finally understand why hate SHV and the devs

[ERPP8]

First of all I love SHV.

But the devs did half-do a lot.
They thought: "That's a good feature, I'll tell Brenard to finish it..."
You could see where that would go.
They dove in over their heads and so much ended up dysfunctional.

[THE_MASK]

Hate the devs hey , they are people you know and some of them are like brothers to certain parts of the community .

[SabreHawk]

Well I tell ya, I have seen the word 'hate" used on these forums a might too much. And I think it's time it stopped.
Yes these folks known as the devs are friends of this community and have been for years. They have poured their hearts into these subsims, and if you look around you'll find that they are pretty much the only ones doing this sort of sim. Just how many other WWII Uboat warfare sims do you know of?
You think they have to make SH? You think they just do it for money alone? I dont, cause they could obviously make a lot more making other genres that there's a lot bigger market for. The silent hunter series has a much narrower following than most any other.

No, they do it cause they love it. And I also think that they must have a love for us to keep on making it.
So lets just cut this hate talk ok? They dont deserve that.

[Takao]

Hate the devs? Hardly! They did what they could given the time constraints placed on them by Ubisoft. My wrath is focused on Ubisoft, for not giving the devs the time they needed to produce a quality subsim.

Look at it from another POV. Diablo III was announced several months before Silent Hunter V, however, it is still currently under development with an expected release date of sometime 2011, at the earliest! Also, look at how long Star Craft II has been under development, although some delay was caused by Blizzard having to meet the needs of its thriving WoW MMORPG.

You would have thought Ubi learned their lesson when they released SHIV following a compressed developmental schedule. I guess not... From reading all the reviews and complaints, this game could have used another year before release to the public.

Ahh well, no sense crying over spilled milk. Nor is there any sense in paying $50 for it either.

[mookiemookie]

Look at it from another POV. Diablo III was announced several months before Silent Hunter V, however, it is still currently under development with an expected release date of sometime 2011, at the earliest! Also, look at how long Star Craft II has been under development, although some delay was caused by Blizzard having to meet the needs of its thriving WoW MMORPG


If you think SHV was going to sell as many copies as Diablo 3 or Starcraft 2 in order to warrant a development schedule as long as those titles, you're fooling yourself. Dev time costs money. Money that will only be recouped in number of units sold. You cannot make that comparison.

[Kptlt_Lynch]

Yeah, ya can;t blame this on the Dev team. They did what they could in the time they had. Blame UBI for the DRM and development time.

All annoyances about SH5 aside, I think for such a niche market... we're getting treated pretty good. Lets face it... 'Jim Bob's Redneck Fishing' or the like doesn't look anywhere as nice as SH5.

[DVAFP]

the game is not finished! i'm glad its getting bad reviews, too bad i paid 55€ for half a game.

is this dev team the same that made SH4 or SH3? i had the impression it wasnt

[McBeck]

the game is not finished! i'm glad its getting bad reviews, too bad i paid 55€ for half a game.

is this dev team the same that made SH4 or SH3? i had the impression it wasntSome of them are the same - so you got that wrong.

But the devs did half-do a lot.
They thought: "That's a good feature, I'll tell Brenard to finish it..."
You could see where that would go.
They dove in over their heads and so much ended up dysfunctional.

In this case the devs have done all they could with the timeline and budget they had. Some even worked WAY beyond what they were getting paid for. They poured their time, heart and soul into this game to do what ever they could.

Its comments like this that blame the devs, that makes them think "Why should I spend my time here helping the community?" Devs have spend lots of time in the mods forum supporting the modders....that has stopped now.
Why do you think that is?:damn:

[kiwi_2005]

I don't hate the devs or the SHV I love the look of it and the interior just blows me away. Problem is I can't run it! :har: with this online bs, and i wont mention the fix did i just mention the fix! But it doesn't let you finish the missions you can play as long as u wish offline but can't save it! :wah:

Get rid of the online option and i'll go back to it or will wait for a better fix to come out. Hey i paid ****ing $89. Why should i get better internet just so i can play this game. Nah either an offline patch or a future fix which ever comes first.:nope:

[Feuer Frei!]

The "other" thread's already up to 109, and counting.
Wonder what we'll end up with here. :hmmm:

[Nisgeis]

The "other" thread's already up to 109, and counting.
Wonder what we'll end up with here. :hmmm:

Eleven, if no one else replies to this troll thread. Take Webster's advice and don't respond to the content. My amp goes to eleven.

[JScones]

Its comments like this that blame the devs, that makes them think "Why should I spend my time here helping the community?" Devs have spend lots of time in the mods forum supporting the modders....that has stopped now.
Why do you think that is?:damn:
:hmmm: They must have very short memories then, because Dan has posted here numerous times just today (the last just over 30mins ago), let alone over the last week. So they can't be that upset. But if they are, I'm sure they can speak for themselves, they're big boys. ;)

TBH I'm amazed that a thread that mentions the words "hate" and "devs" in the same sentence hasn't been blown into oblivion by now. At least a thread merge?

[Decoman]

'Hate' is an interesting word. I would argue that it unfortunately means more than the obvious angry discontent with something or someone.

What ought to be the topic of serious contemplation or reflect, is the fact that 'hate' is not really directly associated with 'racism' or 'violence'. Anger or ill will would surely be a more apt description of something emotional or expressive, merely *associated* with the word 'hate', 'hatred' or 'hating'.

I am not trying to be clever here to justify ill will in any way, but a discussion of 'hate' or how we use the variants of the word 'hate' ought to be a serious one, because it seem obvious that once there is a watering down or outright condemnation of the word 'hate', it trivialized and barres something serious. It's like condemning people for being or expressing anger in normal ways.

And one way of talking about a normal way, is to point out the fact that people are sometimes really angry, and it is then of little or no importance that the word 'hate' is used, as if the use of the word as such made people angry.

Now, I tried to learn the etymological knowledge about the word 'hate' and so far, it seems like the noun hate or verb hating is linked to the more common word 'hat'. This link is probably not of great importance, but helps sketching out how words are used, and I would say that this link show an example of how this scary word 'hate' can be said to have a more trivial meaning. Afaik, etymology is useful in dealing with dead metaphors, for understanding the forgotten or also subtle meaning of a what can be said to be a dead metaphor. 'Flower bed' is supposedly an example of a dead metaphor.

So, what I came across some time ago (and I have to believe that what I read is not something just made up) is that convicts (unknown of time or place) were tagged by an item, and without any real explanation of the link between hat and hate, (if I remember correcty) the older word 'hatting' was supposedly used for this event. And it seem obvious that in this respect, that 'hate' might very well be understood as a simple exposition by event or some kind of tagging. Simliar to any common mental processes putting words to context. From this there is the obvious danger of harassing others, if one were to try brand or dispose or exlude someone physically. It is safe to claim that noone presently *really* bothers about controlling thought processes, and I don't see how this will change anytime soon other than influencial or a quasi-manipulative media (like being passively relating to *something* by reading newsitems)(probably simply a question of situational acceptance more than anything concrete), but then there is the unavoidable situations where for example the accusation of a 'scandal' of someone/something would only be sensible by means of various forms of expression. As in flat out saying 'I think this blah blah is a scandal and that you (someone) is to be blamed for it'. The legal repercussions or social backlash of such expressions probably simply vary (for a variety of reasons) with levels of, well I don't really know, but I suppose that a policeman or school teacher is likely to risk some kind of negative feedback rather than some guy on the internets.

Now, given our ability to put words to things, even in anger and simple discontent, *to hate x for something* (any reason really) is not really anything like a crime as such. So I am subscribing to two sensible interpretations when 'hate', 'hating' or 'hated' is used. And these two interpretations or ways of understanding is nothing like the stupefying use of categories. 'Hate' never was and probably never will have a categorical meaning, where the word 'hate' is simply a denominator of an action of attitude, doing or simply an interpretation or condemnation. The attitude part is correct of course, but it would be silly to imply that one cannot or should not be angry with something. There is also something odd by the use of 'freedom' in our days, and it probably does not the same thing for every person. For example, it seem obvious that there is a difference in being free (to do something) and having so called 'freedom'. I am undoubtedly free to move about in my appartment as I wish and what is probably known as 'freedom' has nothing to do with this capacity of me moving about, unless one would argue that my very life is depending on society in not outright killing me (it would be absurd, and it would imply that a state or organization owns me like a slave).

Pheu, this became a long text. The world/life is complicated and I see no reason to always trivialize it. :know:

So if I were to state that 'I hate this or that game' for whatever reason stated or otherwise, there probably is something to it, and I mean it would be wrong to categorically dismiss such an expression on the basis of some kind of hate crime. Apologies for mixing the notion of hate-crime with computer games, but I am really trying to make a point.

In Norway, when one hate something, a common way to express this seem to be something of an understatement, where one would say 'I don't like it'. And I want to change that, at least personally. So far, it seem to me that people seem unable to grasp the nuances in the language, probably a result of the trivial use of words in the media the last 20 years or so. Or they just don't care. Maybe they simply have been thinking that I am complaining and that they don't have to listen or understand it because they think I simply intend to argue. It is really simple to deal with critisism. People ought to make points and they ought to explain. Both making points without explanation, and explaining something without making points is bad. Then it perhaps leads to a neverending argument of definitions and problematics of actualizations.

I suppose some kind of ironic distance is healthy, but I really can't relate to things this way, and I don't want my newspapers to relate to people this way.

Hehe, I would say that I hate the newspapers in Norway. They seem to practice shoddy journalism.

I suppose frequent use of 'hate' is stupefying, but then again, what isn't stupefying when used over again and again categorically or generally. :hmmm:

EDIT: I did not intend to start a discussion, but I just wanted to make a point. There are alot of issues that I could touch upon, but I just want to add here this link to a lecture class at Yale university (US) that ought to be inspiring.
Introduction to theory of literature: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YY4CTSQ8nY

[DVAFP]

I loathe them! I LOATHE them!!!! :rock:

[Yosarian]

They did what they could given the time constraints placed on them by Ubisoft.
Nonsense, the dev-team make a schedule for a project and Ubisoft says yes you will get this time or not. And when a team of developers do not get this time, they should be man enough to say's no we not do this project. But the Romanian developers do everything Ubisoft(Paris) says, they are not independent, they belong to Ubisoft, they are Ubisoft and have to fear losing their jobs and so will indeed continue to produce crap in the name of Ubisoft and that is the problem.

[GlobalExplorer]

TBH I'm amazed that a thread that mentions the words "hate" and "devs" in the same sentence hasn't been blown into oblivion by now. At least a thread merge?

Perhaps people are making these threads faster than Neal can close them down.

[Onkel Neal]

No, no one wants to lock any threads. But we do want a forum where people enjoy the friendly atmosphere.

[McBeck]

:hmmm: They must have very short memories then, because Dan has posted here numerous times just today (the last just over 30mins ago), let alone over the last week. So they can't be that upset. But if they are, I'm sure they can speak for themselves, they're big boys. ;)

TBH I'm amazed that a thread that mentions the words "hate" and "devs" in the same sentence hasn't been blown into oblivion by now. At least a thread merge?Dan may still be around - yeah thats true

[Jimbuna]

Perhaps people are making these threads faster than Neal can close them down.

I suspect that could be a fundamental reason or part of a wider plan why some start these threads.

Far better to exercise a little patience, then when things get out of hand the consequences are more fitting ie: brig time.

There is never any excuse for taking personal liberties toward the games dev team, it is or should be common knowledge that he who pays the piper calls the tune.

I am in no doubt that the devs performed as well and as best they could given the budget and time constraints imposed upon them.

Better to steer all this energy toward working out what is required to improve the game....it's not as if we haven't been in this position before.

[AVGWarhawk]

Exercise restraint! DO NOT GO INTO THE LIGHT!

[Westbroek]

I gotta go out on a limb here and say... I love this game.
Flawed? perhaps....
buggy? certainly...
patches on the way...mods on the upswing...more fun and more engrossing than either sh3 vanilla and sh4 vanilla all the way.
I love this game and this community.
2 cents entered.

[Faamecanic]

The comment I never see made is:

Did the DEVS over promise to UBI KNOWING full well the budget and timeline?

Or did UBI demand the DEVS make all these new features (directly by telling them to do it, or indirectly by making the DEVS feel they HAD to pitch all these new features to get funding from UBI)?

Bottom line is one or BOTH are responsible for not using a level of sanity when proposing all these new (and possibly WONDERFUL if ever finished) addtions to the SH fanchise (ie the RPG element which I like, being able to move about in your sub).

A wiser course of action would have been an improved graphics engine (I LOVE the water in SH5), FIX the bugs that were left over from SH3 and 4, and leave out all the other riff-raff that sucked up massive Dev time.

Then BETA TEST with some of the gifted MODDERS from this forum, and release a game that was 90% bug free, AI that behaved as one would expect, and a sim that did not destroy immersion by being half done.

[Capt_Sluggo]

As jimbuna, mookiemookie and McBeck point out, it's simple economics.

With (obviously) a lot of personal enthusiasm and commitment by the dev team thrown in. Not to mention the selfless, unpaid efforts of the extensive modder community.

I don't like the unfinished parts either. Had to re-enable the dumb 2-D pop-up radio control from SH3 to get live music back in the boat. It would have been much nicer to go below to the radio room, click on that big antique box, see the rainbow dial slowly glow to life and watch the needle move across the arc as I scan for channels. Want more things like this finished? Then stop belly-aching and instead talk a few friends into buying SH5 too. With double the sales volume, it is a sure bet that we will get a better, more finished effort in future.

The negativity and "loathing" should instead be entirely focused on the lowlife thieves, most of whom come here to this forum ("Hey, why can't I see the mission objectives marked on my map?") expecting to not only shaft the economic equation that keeps SH afloat but to sponge off the efforts of the paying community here that is ultimately responsible for SH's existence and success. :nope:

[Ark]

I finally understand why hate SHV and the devs (http://174.123.69.202/~subsimc/radioroom/../../%7Esubsimc/radioroom/showthread.php?p=1351637#post1351637)


Immaturity?

[SabreHawk]

And whatever the modders do, as genius as it is they are standing on the shoulders of giants. And those giants are the devs who developed and wrote that which our fine and generous modders are working with.

[IanC]

Want more things like this finished? Then stop belly-aching and instead talk a few friends into buying SH5 too. With double the sales volume, it is a sure bet that we will get a better, more finished effort in future.


I disagree with that "it's the consumers fault" philosophy. That doesn't make any sense to me. Blame the bad quality because of low sales? Not. How about blaming the low sales because of the bad quality. Does that make any sense? :hmmm:
And I don't need to talk a few friends into anything. They'll buy it themselves when and if they see review scores higher than 6 out of 10. :03:

[OldFrenchy]

I finally broke down and purchased the game from a solid e-bay seller for $15.50. Hopefully it is legit.
I would like to be able to make up my own mind on this debate over whether SH5 is 'Da Bomb!' or 'The Devil's Spawn!'. I have issues with DRM, but am willing to overlook them at this price and for what I perceive for the potential of this game.
That being said, I think it is unfortunate to berate the Devs when any final commercial release is the result of a corporate decision. I applaud the devs in assisting the modders- good for them! It shows more than just a monetary interest in thier work. They obviously have a sincere interest in this subject, and the Subsim community. Ubisoft is like any other company. Profit is the bottom line. If DRM is going to be a sales killer, then hopefully they will figure it out and remove it like they did with some of their other games. As for further patching by UbiSoft of SH5 after patch #2, I doubt it, so please treat the devs with some respect and brotherhood. The game needs all the friends it can get!

[Hanomag]

You think they have to make SH? You think they just do it for money? I dont, cause they could obviously make a lot more making other genres that there's a lot bigger market for. The silent hunter series has a much narrower following than most any other.


LOL....Like that ridiculous rabbit game they made..?! :yeah:

http://rabbids.us.ubi.com/rabbidsgohome/

Sorry Sabre couldnt resist.... :woot: I am not a dev "hater" btw!

[OldFrenchy]

LOL....Like that ridiculous rabbit game they made..?! :yeah:

http://rabbids.us.ubi.com/rabbidsgohome/

Sorry Sabre couldnt resist.... :woot: I am not a dev "hater" btw!

Give 'em a break. Everyone is allowed to get blind drunk and do stupid things once in a while!:rotfl2:

[SabreHawk]

Actually I should go back and edit my post to ask do we think they do it "just" for money only. Cause they do thier jobs for their pay like any of us, but I know there has to be a lot of love involved cause this genre cant draw the large audience that so many others might.

We are a rare breed in the PC game world, and I have to think that both UBI and the good folks who work for them have to have a passion for it or they wouldnt even approach it to begin with.
Now given the narrow audience that the SH series attracts, it simply cannot generate the kind of income that would allow a long development period or a large budget.

So how's this, what if the devs had been given more time to finish it and it didn't launch for another three months instead of when it did?
Thats right, everyone would be in here stomping up and down yelling, where's the game man? Whaddya guys doing twiddling yer thumbs?
You promised, you promised...............and what happened to march 4th?

In the end they are darned if they do, and darned if they dont. They just cant win.
So I say give them some respect for doing the very best they can.

[TheSatyr]

I kinda blame the Devs more than Ubi for the state the game is in. I'm sure they signed a contract stating that the game would be ready for release on a specific date and for a specific budget. And if the game ISN'T ready by that date than Ubi doesn't have lot of choices:

1)Delay the release,and add more funding. (Not likely since this isn't an AAA title.)
2)Take the financial hit and cancel the project. (Which I'm glad they didn't do.)
3)Release "as is" and try to patch it up to what it was supposed to be. (Which is what they apparently chose to do.).

I'm not trying to knock the Devs here,I just think they may have over reached on what they wanted to acomplish with the time and budget they had.

[IanC]

So how's this, what if the devs had been given more time to finish it and it didn't launch for another three months instead of when it did?
Thats right, everyone would be in here stomping up and down yelling, where's the game man? Whaddya guys doing twiddling yer thumbs?
You promised, you promised...............and what happened to march 4th?


Nope, disagree. I'd say about 90% of the members here would think that's great news. Because we all know what extra time means. An extra 3 months is nothing, in fact I don't think anybody would've had a problem with the devs working an extra 6 months on SH5. Most of us here probably wish that would've been the case.

[ERPP8]

I know they were probably pressed for time, and I know how they feel.
But they really jumped in over their heads and alot was unfinished.
The game is great.
And most of what's not working is small (aside from the airplanes)

[Placoderm]

I disagree with that "it's the consumers fault" philosophy. That doesn't make any sense to me. Blame the bad quality because of low sales? Not. How about blaming the low sales because of the bad quality. Does that make any sense? :hmmm:
And I don't need to talk a few friends into anything. They'll buy it themselves when and if they see review scores higher than 6 out of 10. :03:

^ This ^

:up:

[Reece]

One has to wonder why the patch is about to be released with a large number of fixes, why couldn't they hold off producing the game until they could patch it, fixing many faults, surely the game would be much better and reviews much higher and therefore more sales, seems a dumb move to have released the game when they did!:hmmm: I would like to know who gave the "All clear" for its release! was it the devs or higher up the chain?:hmmm:

[Méo]

One has to wonder why the patch is about to be released with a large number of fixes, why couldn't they hold off producing the game until they could patch it, fixing many faults, surely the game would be much better and reviews much higher and therefore more sales, seems a dumb move to have released the game when they did!:hmmm: I would like to know who gave the "All clear" for its release! was it the devs or higher up the chain?:hmmm:

That's what I was wondering (I don't really care who gave the "All clear", but I would be curious to know the real reason why they did).

BTW, they are not the only ones, I don't know if you have played Hearts of Iron 3 on release but it had major issues too (but they released the patch 1.4 last week and it seems to be a lot better).

[Westbroek]

It's a drag that it seems PC users are the ones really facing the blunt end of this new trend.
Console users seem to always get a solid, playable, mostly bug free product right OTB.
I've been anti console as long as I can remember (citing subsim.com and the modding community here as a main reason for all that time as well) so it hurts to have to admit that. Is there an end in sight to this royal PC snubbing? We can only hope, but sales don't look good.

[Nordmann]

Console games may appear to have fewer bugs, because the games themselves are rather simplistic, compared with those of the PC. In any case, I believe console games can now be patched (unlike the old days), so it seems unlikely that they are released in any better condition.

[mcarlsonus]

In the end they are darned if they do, and darned if they dont. They just cant win.
So I say give them some respect for doing the very best they can.

Well, that's definitely true, but what perplexes me is that when one digs into the SH5 code itself, so many of the really good features of SH3 and 4 are still there, but DEACTIVATED!

To respond with a 'net colloquialism, "WTF?"

[McBeck]

Well, that's definitely true, but what perplexes me is that when one digs into the SH5 code itself, so many of the really good features of SH3 and 4 are still there, but DEACTIVATED!

To respond with a 'net colloquialism, "WTF?"
And why do you think that is?
Could it be that they were left the intentionally for us to find, so we would have the option to put them back in, rather then removing them?

[mcarlsonus]

And why do you think that is?
Could it be that they were left the intentionally for us to find, so we would have the option to put them back in, rather then removing them?


Don't get me started on how I feel about the use and abuse of unpaid labor by companies that can well afford to release something other than what amounts to a beta version of a product, at a minimum, while still expecting, "us" to fork over hard-earned dinero for the privilege of doing testing and debugging and, in some cases, the "grunt work" that results in a more evolved, market-ready product. If, "they" are going to do this sort of thing, i.e., "(we) have the option to put them back in" (regarding my previous comment, "...many of the really good features of SH3 and 4 are still there, but DEACTIVATED!") I'd much prefer they give us the opposite option to SHUT IT OFF instead! At least we'd know the capability was actually available!

I had this SAME feeling years ago after installing a, "fraught with peril" version of MS Windows. Ultimately, I called Microsoft and asked for a list of all known bugs. They told me that list was not available to the general public. Immediately, I began rooting for Linux or one of the Apple OS's to take over the world... Unfortunately, I'm STILL waiting (although Windows 7 has proven soothing to some extent! Example: I now bootup in 56 seconds, rather than the eight MINUTES it took Vista - if it booted at all!)

[Capt_Sluggo]

Along with counting all the shortcomings, it would not hurt to step back and look at SH5 in a broader sense.

There must be money-is-no-object comparisons within the halls of NASA or JPL or Livermore Labs. But where else are you going to find (much less for a paltry sum roughly that of 3/4 a tank of gas) a "game" which places you as an FPS-type moving avatar inside of a complex, fully controllable and fully-rendered 3-D vehicle, itself within a first class simulator worthy of real world comparison? The closest you'll get in PC-land is "as real as it gets" Flight Simulator and that's not even close.

After 25+ years and 10 major revisions and all the financial muscle and savvy that Microsoft brought to bear, and the subsequent efforts of outsource programmers, you do not get up and walk around inside a Flight Simulator 747 en route. Not even when it is sitting still on the tarmac. Instead, you use key combos to "slide" your viewpoint, usually to a place that has been left undefined. That or "jump" to pre-defined fixed positions, exactly like SH3/4!

I'm amazed that SH5's first implementation of this innovation is so incredibly good. The fact that they did it and not only retained but improved upon the surrounding environment (graphics, e.g) is, well, truly significant. So what if the crew dialog sucks? A lot of "great" features of SH3/4 were not yet implemented? That will all come, and more.

[JScones]

And why do you think that is?
Could it be that they were left the intentionally for us to find, so we would have the option to put them back in, rather then removing them?
Just like SH3 files were left behind in SH4 so the modders could easily get U-boats and other SH3 stuff into SH4? I recall people having to buy an add-on to get that stuff...can't recall too many U-boat based mods released before then. :hmmm:

No, the legacy files are more likely a result of, erm, "convenient" coding.

[mcarlsonus]

There must be money-is-no-object comparisons within the halls of NASA or JPL or Livermore Labs. But where else are you going to find (much less for a paltry sum roughly that of 3/4 a tank of gas) a "game" which places you as an FPS-type moving avatar inside of a complex, fully controllable and fully-rendered 3-D vehicle, itself within a first class simulator worthy of real world comparison? The closest you'll get in PC-land is "as real as it gets" Flight Simulator and that's not even close.

One can't compare Silent Hunter - any version - to Microsoft Flight Simulator - any version. MS Flight Simulator is basically a training aid. Being able to take a seat on the upper deck of a 747 and having the attendant bring you a cup of joe simply isn't part of the intended scenario. Further, stating SH is a, "FPS" ("First Person Shooter") is a bit misleading as most acknowledged FPS's put one in imminent and constant danger, which is certainly not the case whence transversing an area, sometimes for hours, looking for hostiles.

From our old friend Scones: "No, the legacy files are more likely a result of, erm, 'convenient' coding." Let me add: like extensive documentation, code housekeeping is, indeed, a thing of the past!

[McBeck]

Don't get me started on how I feel about the use and abuse of unpaid labor by companies that can well afford to release something other than what amounts to a beta version of a product, at a minimum, while still expecting, "us" to fork over hard-earned dinero for the privilege of doing testing and debugging and, in some cases, the "grunt work" that results in a more evolved, market-ready product. If, "they" are going to do this sort of thing, i.e., "(we) have the option to put them back in" (regarding my previous comment, "...many of the really good features of SH3 and 4 are still there, but DEACTIVATED!") I'd much prefer they give us the opposite option to SHUT IT OFF instead! At least we'd know the capability was actually available!

I had this SAME feeling years ago after installing a, "fraught with peril" version of MS Windows. Ultimately, I called Microsoft and asked for a list of all known bugs. They told me that list was not available to the general public. Immediately, I began rooting for Linux or one of the Apple OS's to take over the world... Unfortunately, I'm STILL waiting (although Windows 7 has proven soothing to some extent! Example: I now bootup in 56 seconds, rather than the eight MINUTES it took Vista - if it booted at all!)
You are looking at the from a much to narrow perspective...if these were the options, please let me know which you would rather have?
1) The devs should take out all the SH3/4 stuff left dormant
2) The devs should leave the SH3/4 stuff left dormant

I totally agree thats its bad practise if Ubi decided to depend on modding the fix issues.

[McBeck]

Just like SH3 files were left behind in SH4 so the modders could easily get U-boats and other SH3 stuff into SH4? I recall people having to buy an add-on to get that stuff...can't recall too many U-boat based mods released before then. :hmmm:

No, the legacy files are more likely a result of, erm, "convenient" coding.
I dont know why the SH3 stuff was left in SH4, so this is speculation, but I think it was left there to give us the option to play with it if we wanted.

[mcarlsonus]

You are looking at the from a much to narrow perspective...if these were the options, please let me know which you would rather have?
1) The devs should take out all the SH3/4 stuff left dormant
2) The devs should leave the SH3/4 stuff left dormant


In my world, neither #'s 1 or 2 are relevant to the question at hand. My question has nothing to do with what should remain or what should be removed. It's more along the line of, "why remove/deactivate stuff that's proven useful, popular, and reliable in the past and has contributed significantly to the gaming experience?" Let's just take one relatively tiny portion of the game as an example: ship inventory. Now we have, basically, four freighter types (and Liberty ships also exist in the German merchant marine!) What happened to those fast, heavily armed medium European hot rods? The Victory ships? What about those tiny coasters, trawlers, armed tugs? They're all still there - just not available to the SH5 enthusiast. Does reducing shipping diversity contribute positively to the game experience? Highly doubtful - and easily, CHEAPLY remedied. SO, what WAS the point?

I believe the best way to describe it is: for some inexplicable reason, "they" threw out the baby with the bathwater.

[McBeck]

In my world, neither #'s 1 or 2 are relevant to the question at hand. My question has nothing to do with what should remain or what should be removed. It's more along the line of, "why remove/deactivate stuff that's proven useful, popular, and reliable in the past and has contributed significantly to the gaming experience?" Let's just take one relatively tiny portion of the game as an example: ship inventory. Now we have, basically, four freighter types (and Liberty ships also exist in the German merchant marine!) What happened to those fast, heavily armed medium European hot rods? The Victory ships? What about those tiny coasters, trawlers, armed tugs? They're all still there - just not available to the SH5 enthusiast. Does reducing shipping diversity contribute positively to the game experience? Highly doubtful - and easily, CHEAPLY remedied. SO, what WAS the point?

I believe the best way to describe it is: for some inexplicable reason, "they" threw out the baby with the bathwater.
I give up and will leave the discussion :yawn:

[Onkel Neal]

I believe the best way to describe it is: for some inexplicable reason, "they" threw out the baby with the bathwater.

:06: Very unusual application, are you sure that's what you mean?

Anyway, what difference does it make if the developers left files from previous versions in the root directory?

[Webster]

What happened to those fast, heavily armed medium European hot rods? The Victory ships? What about those tiny coasters, trawlers, armed tugs? They're all still there - just not available to the SH5 enthusiast. Does reducing shipping diversity contribute positively to the game experience? Highly doubtful - and easily, CHEAPLY remedied. SO, what WAS the point?

I believe the best way to describe it is: for some inexplicable reason, "they" threw out the baby with the bathwater.

have you ever considered it may have been done to reduce the computer slowdowns by have less for the game engine to deal with?

im not convinced 100% its a new engine (its so slow i see flashbacks of sh3 and IMO its the sh3 game engine with more stuff unlocked is all) but they say it is new so assuming its true and if we are looking at it from the devs side of thinking, you plug in everything from sh3 and sh4 and see what you can make work. well you ran out of time and a whole lot of stuff never got addressed or activated, what do you do? if you quickly just activate everything thats there it can start major bug issues and CTD that would prevent the games release and very likely cost you your job, or you can delete all that stuff but then why? why not leave it all there so IF a modder wanted to do the work to activate it he can because he would have the needed time to debug and test it properly.

[mcarlsonus]

Webster - you have a valid point - and I hadn't thought of that. Further, I agree. It's NOT a new engine!

Neal - Outside of housekeeping concerns, it makes no difference whatsoever that the program contains inactive code - and that's simply NOT troubling! I use the term "threw out the baby with the bathwater" in the context they deactivated code that enhanced immersion, depth of detail, and added richness and diversity to the gaming experience. They wrote, or RE-activated (looks like the former) code that resulted in, "dumbing down" the experience - like developmentally disabled escorts, an oversimplified - and pretty darned ineffective! - torpedo targetting system, and, concurrently, INCREASED the difficulty of handling ("conning") the boat due to such things as lack of instantaneous, "user friendly" rudder control (ala, hit the NumLock "." key to turn the rudder 1 degree). As I enter Campaign 1942, I've noticed that the escort AI has improved, but they're still not dangerous, just more persistent and less prone to sailing along like nothing happened after numerous companions explode dramatically around them. As mentioned, they still don't drop cans anywhere near me, but they frantically rush about pinging madly for much longer periods of time. Guess that qualifies as an, "improvement"...

What still baffles me, though, is WHY are the Historical and many of the MP missions so much MORE challenging and entertaining? The, "guts" are the same, yet the destroyers can kill you, the aircraft DO attack aggressively...

[Jimbuna]

In fact by looking in the right place you'll find jimbuna (and TarJak IIRC) mentioned as was the case in the files of SH4.

[Capt_Sluggo]

For "basically a training aid" FS sure has broad application (virtual airlines e.g.) and has a lot of fanatical developers and followers. And the "outside the pilot's seat" experience is most certainly part of the desire. Aircraft have working passenger doors, some have fully modeled passenger and cargo interiors etc. I salivate to think of how much money could be made if I had a payware C-130 to sell that allowed you to flip on the autopilot, climb back to the cargo bay and operate the goodies to make a low-level cargo drop, all in the same first-person way that the flight controls work. But that's not in the cards, because the FS engine won't allow it. You can only make yet another alternate panel, flip between that and outside view, and pretend. See Flightsim.com, simviation.com, avsim.com, ad infinitum.

No, of course SH5 is no FPS. The way one moves in the boat... oh forget it.

My point is that SH5's "you are there" immersion experience (in my opinion) cannot be matched by sims that peg the user into pre-defined stations. I may be mistaken but as far as I know it's the only PC simulator of any genre that has blended free user movement into a freely-controllable sim vehicle of any type with good results. It cannot have been an easy undertaking, as SHIFT+U suggests.

Sorry if I sound like a fan-boy here but I think the innovation deserves acknowledgment and I see very little of that.

Devs, you have my sincere thanks.

[mcarlsonus]

Along with counting all the shortcomings, it would not hurt to step back and look at SH5 in a broader sense...
where else are you going to find (much less for a paltry sum roughly that of 3/4 a tank of gas) a "game" which places you as an FPS-type moving avatar inside of a complex, fully controllable and fully-rendered 3-D vehicle...

After 25+ years and 10 major revisions and all the financial muscle and savvy that Microsoft brought to bear, and the subsequent efforts of outsource programmers, you do not get up and walk around inside a Flight Simulator 747 en route. Not even when it is sitting still on the tarmac. Instead, you use key combos to "slide" your viewpoint, usually to a place that has been left undefined. That or "jump" to pre-defined fixed positions, exactly like SH3/4!

Based on your earlier post quoted above: clearly, it wasn't me who began discussing similarities to FPS's!

The comparison you seem adamant about supporting regarding similarities between MS Flight Simulator and SH any-version remain invalid. As a pilot with a ATP Certificate, I've spent many hours with MS Flight Simulator perfecting such things as instrument approaches in zero visibility conditions and partially disabled navaids. I frankly don't give a whit about whether the door's been shut properly or getting up and walking about the cabin. I'm sure others do, but, entertaining the masses is NOT the simulator's, "raison d'etre!" I've never used - or even SEEN - MS Combat Flight Simulator, though. Maybe that's more what you had in mind.

[Takao]

Simulation???? According to Amazon.com SHV is an "Adventure" game not a simulator Don't believe me, see here: http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Hunter-Battle-Atlantic-Pc/dp/B002PAIPQO
Look under the "Product Details." Quite frankly I agree with them, SHV is subsim "Lite". Hopefully, a supermod will raise it to GWX, but I have my doubts.

Now, would MS Flight Simulator have become as popular as it has if you could walk all around an airplane, but the only airplane you had to fly was a Boeing 747? Steel Beasts is an outstanding tank simulator, yet there is no interaction with other crewmembers, the same can be said for Dangerous Waters and other Sonalyst submarine titles.

I enjoy a real simulation, that's why I've stayed with SHIII + GWX

[mcarlsonus]

Simulation???? According to Amazon.com SHV is an "Adventure" game not a simulator Don't believe me, see here: http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Hunter-Battle-Atlantic-Pc/dp/B002PAIPQO
Look under the "Product Details." Quite frankly I agree with them, SHV is subsim "Lite". Hopefully, a supermod will raise it to GWX, but I have my doubts.

Now, would MS Flight Simulator have become as popular as it has if you could walk all around an airplane, but the only airplane you had to fly was a Boeing 747? Steel Beasts is an outstanding tank simulator, yet there is no interaction with other crewmembers, the same can be said for Dangerous Waters and other Sonalyst submarine titles.

I enjoy a real simulation, that's why I've stayed with SHIII + GWX

Well, Takao, I'm inclined to agree with Amazon's categorization. Further, you're absolutely correct that SH3+GWX is more along the lines of a, "simulator" as the average person looking for a challenge certainly isn't going to be looking for that MUCH of a challenge!

As far as MS Flight Simulator, the continued references to the Boeing 747 were simply, "examples." Really I'd rather fly a DC-3 than a modern, "inflatable" heavy! But, no matter, people who bought MS Flight Sim expecting a game probably shelved it long ago, or did one have to have it to run the more consumer-oriented Combat Flight Simulator? And, of course, as we all know, the Microsoft sim team has been disbanded and no one's clear what happens now. No more Train Simulator - that's for sure!

(I REALLY liked the old LucasArts Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe and all the add-on aircraft!)

[Reece]

No more Train Simulator - that's for sure!
I prefer Trainz!! Would just love it if it was multi-playable though!:yep:

[Task Force]

I prefer Trainz!! Would just love it if it was multi-playable though!:yep:

I thought trainz had MP?

Hateing the Devs is not the right thing to do. Hate the UBI suits who get these Ideas, and set the product budget. They make the decisions that effect the developers product. If they had gotten more time, and money im sure they could have done better.

Lets put it this way... Your developing a game, but you only get a limited amount of time to do it, and your budget is not the best. Now GO GO GO!!!

Is your product going to be great, or lacking. I think the after...

Simulation???? According to Amazon.com SHV is an "Adventure" game not a simulator Don't believe me, see here: http://www.amazon.com/Silent-Hunter-Battle-Atlantic-Pc/dp/B002PAIPQO
Look under the "Product Details." Quite frankly I agree with them, SHV is subsim "Lite". Hopefully, a supermod will raise it to GWX, but I have my doubts.

Now, would MS Flight Simulator have become as popular as it has if you could walk all around an airplane, but the only airplane you had to fly was a Boeing 747? Steel Beasts is an outstanding tank simulator, yet there is no interaction with other crewmembers, the same can be said for Dangerous Waters and other Sonalyst submarine titles.

I enjoy a real simulation, that's why I've stayed with SHIII + GWX

Lol, I saw SH5 under Action at best buy today.
The issue with the GWX in sh 5 is. It will never happen, untill abunch of modder in the SH5 community get together and start working, GWX isnt together any more and wont be makeing a GWX 5. So untill someone starts a group up, It wont happen.

[Takao]

mcarlsonus,

I understand that the 747 is merely an "example", that is how it was intended in my post. After all, there is not much room to explore in a little Cessna.

No, one did not need MS Flight Simulator to play MS Combat Flight Simulator, the were separate games. Yeah, I've had both. Flight Simulator came with a basic dogfighting scenario, however, it was not that much fun to play.

I loved SWOTL and its many add-on aircraft, I used to play that game for hours on end! The FW-190 and ME-410(add on) were my favorite planes in that game.

[Faamecanic]

I kinda blame the Devs more than Ubi for the state the game is in. I'm sure they signed a contract stating that the game would be ready for release on a specific date and for a specific budget. And if the game ISN'T ready by that date than Ubi doesn't have lot of choices:

1)Delay the release,and add more funding. (Not likely since this isn't an AAA title.)
2)Take the financial hit and cancel the project. (Which I'm glad they didn't do.)
3)Release "as is" and try to patch it up to what it was supposed to be. (Which is what they apparently chose to do.).

I'm not trying to knock the Devs here,I just think they may have over reached on what they wanted to acomplish with the time and budget they had.

Like they did with SH3 and SH4.... except not as bad as they have with SH5.

But again I ask...did the DEVS feel compelled to over-reach in order to get UBI to fund SH5? Or did they just over-promise....

[mcarlsonus]

mcarlsonus,

I understand that the 747 is merely an "example", that is how it was intended in my post. After all, there is not much room to explore in a little Cessna.

No, one did not need MS Flight Simulator to play MS Combat Flight Simulator, the were separate games. Yeah, I've had both. Flight Simulator came with a basic dogfighting scenario, however, it was not that much fun to play.

I loved SWOTL and its many add-on aircraft, I used to play that game for hours on end! The FW-190 and ME-410(add on) were my favorite planes in that game.

Thanks for the info, Takao!

AH, the days of SWOTL! Limping home nearly out of fuel, out of ammo in my P-80 with a 262 on my tail - he must be out of ammo too!

THOSE were the days! And everything worked on my 20MHz 386SX CPU, VGA 640x480 graphics, 640K RAM...