Are people's objecting to an online subsim per se, or merely Ubi's "effort" here?

[difool2]

Just woke up, saw the new subforum, said to myself, "Whaaaa?" :hmmm:

Now, I am seeing a lot of vitriol here, but I'm not sure if it is because Subsimmers don't trust Ubi to actually pull it off and make it a total success from a gameplay standpoint, or because people are objecting to the very concept of an "online" (MMO?) subsim. Clarify please.

[Dowly]

A bit of both.

[Hinrich Schwab]

Just woke up, saw the new subforum, said to myself, "Whaaaa?" :hmmm:

Now, I am seeing a lot of vitriol here, but I'm not sure if it is because Subsimmers don't trust Ubi to actually pull it off and make it a total success from a gameplay standpoint, or because people are objecting to the very concept of an "online" (MMO?) subsim. Clarify please.

With all of the very verbose posts, I figured the answer would be obvious. To make a long story short, The objection to the MMO format is because that MMOs are casual by nature. Subsimmers, excluding those who do admit to preferring a more casual experience, want as real and historically accurate experience as possible. Ideally, a sub sum should be so real that the only thing a player needs to provide is the stink of the engines and crew.:D The MMO format cannot supply that experience because of one core incompatibility; death is cheap in MMOs. In a true sub sim,when you are dead, you are dead.*

Without going off on a tirade, Ubisoft has consistently proven that its only care is trying to become another EA Games. It has consistently shown that, at the executive level, they do not care about the gamers that purchase their products. Silent Hunter 5, for many was the last straw. SH5 is barely 2 years old, the last official patch came out after two months of release and support officially cancelled in a year. Dan Dimitrescu stated in a recent post that he tried to convince the suits at Ubi to exclude its stupid, intrusive, broken DRM and they would not listen to him. Ubisoft has proven repeatedly and consistently that they do not care about anything except developing a "cash camel" franchise to compete with Call of Duty or World of Warcraft. They want zero-effort profits.

That means screwing the grognards of the subsim community, who demand high quality, historically accurate products.



*I know that one can save scum in even the best subsim, but the grognards do not. :)

[Sailor Steve]

Well said! Both parts, but especially the first, very well said. :rock:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Both, but moreso Ubi's hankering for a quick buck over an extremely loyal fan-base.

Finish any of the previous SH series to the promise and potential and people might finally have a reason to believe in, and further support, Ubi. :yep:

[BigBANGtheory]

I think Ubisoft trying to simply move on without any recognition of their past crimes is what grates me most. The lack of care and communication to their customers can only be described by words which break forum rules IMHO.

I hold no grudge with the new dev team, so long as they don't pull the weak graphics vs. good gameplay card as I don't want to play this on an iPad.

The message is simple give us a simulation superior to SH 3, 4 & 5.

[flag4]

...what happens if its an amazing success?

[Herr-Berbunch]

...what happens if its an amazing success?

Well I hope it is - drag 'em in to subsims and convert 'em to the rest of the series (and all the other games around here) and pray (note to Ubi chiefs that word is not prey) that Ubi will finally realise what they've to do.

I'm not holding my breath.

[P_Funk]

...what happens if its an amazing success?
Define success. Financially? Game quality?

Where does the measure of success exist? We all know that its subjective. The question of success goes to the very core design principle being applied to the game itself. Sims have a very different messure of success in both the financial and quality categories compared to more mainstream casual ventures. Its a fact that sims are a niche product while online games are almost always targeted towards casual mainstream gamers. There are obvious exceptions, Eve Online being one of them, but thats the exception to the rule.

If you look at the history of Silent Hunter you can see that even a dedicated sim product doesn't easily satisfy its target audience and is only truly realized with heavy modification. Online games however are by their very nature unmoddable. This means that we only get the product we're sold and there's little hope that this online game will be in any way better than any release of Silent Hunter since the last one was far from complete even when it was dropped as a supported product.

So, can it be a success? Sure, I guess. But the odds are so bad that there's basically no chance. The fact is that they shat the bed on SH5 and the suits probably read from that that you can't rely on the simmer base to be a loyal customer (igoring the fact that they sold us a lemon by our standards). So they decided to try and expand their audience to the mainstream gamer. They will of course use the IP to try and tempt the old market but withou a doubt they're going to be aiming to grab a larger one.

Personally even if the game is a perfectly good sim it doesn't interest me to have to pay recurring fees to properly enjoy it. Even if its a one time payment to unlock the full feature list you can be sure that #1 they will be adding more content at a fee and #2 that you will never be allowed to mod the game since it lives in an online format.

So, whatever the final quality of this game it will not be in any way like our vision of Silent Hunter. It will not allow us to mod it which is for me a deal breaker. I have become increasingly disenfranchised with mainstream gaming. What games I do pay for I almost entirely enjoy via mods and play amongst those people. Without mods I can't say I expect to play this game much if at all. Even a single stupid feature cannot be changed without mods, and yet we all know how much we've come to love here the incredible list of innovative changes modders have made over time breaking the puzzle of these games' code.

So, will it be successful? Maybe, by their standards. By my standards it can never be successful because it cannot be modded and it cannot be played offline and as a result it has shut the door on the most satisfying part of gaming for me: the community mod aspect.

No mods, no offline, no community control or direction, no dice. Simple as that.

[u crank]

No mods, no offline, no community control or direction, no dice. Simple as that.

P_Funk


Now that's a good line.:up:

[Red October1984]

No mods, no offline, no community control or direction, no dice. Simple as that.

P_Funk


Now that's a good line.:up:

You sir, deserve a medal for that line.

[Julhelm]

I think that line of reasoning is silly. Most of my favorite games of all time were made without community input and without the possibility of modding:

Fast Attack
Zeewolf
Red Storm Rising
X-COM
Strike Commander
Jet Fighter 2, 3
Aces of the Deep

etc.

It's interesting that all those games and sims were less complex than contemporary sims. Most simmers tend to agree that AOTD is the best U-Boat sim ever, but ironically as a simulator it is in fact less complex than SH3 or SH5.

[flag4]

Define success. Financially? Game quality?

Where does the measure of success exist? We all know that its subjective. The question of success goes to the very core design principle being applied to the game itself. Sims have a very different messure of success in both the financial and quality categories compared to more mainstream casual ventures. Its a fact that sims are a niche product while online games are almost always targeted towards casual mainstream gamers. There are obvious exceptions, Eve Online being one of them, but thats the exception to the rule.

If you look at the history of Silent Hunter you can see that even a dedicated sim product doesn't easily satisfy its target audience and is only truly realized with heavy modification. Online games however are by their very nature unmoddable. This means that we only get the product we're sold and there's little hope that this online game will be in any way better than any release of Silent Hunter since the last one was far from complete even when it was dropped as a supported product.

So, can it be a success? Sure, I guess. But the odds are so bad that there's basically no chance. The fact is that they shat the bed on SH5 and the suits probably read from that that you can't rely on the simmer base to be a loyal customer (igoring the fact that they sold us a lemon by our standards). So they decided to try and expand their audience to the mainstream gamer. They will of course use the IP to try and tempt the old market but withou a doubt they're going to be aiming to grab a larger one.

Personally even if the game is a perfectly good sim it doesn't interest me to have to pay recurring fees to properly enjoy it. Even if its a one time payment to unlock the full feature list you can be sure that #1 they will be adding more content at a fee and #2 that you will never be allowed to mod the game since it lives in an online format.

So, whatever the final quality of this game it will not be in any way like our vision of Silent Hunter. It will not allow us to mod it which is for me a deal breaker. I have become increasingly disenfranchised with mainstream gaming. What games I do pay for I almost entirely enjoy via mods and play amongst those people. Without mods I can't say I expect to play this game much if at all. Even a single stupid feature cannot be changed without mods, and yet we all know how much we've come to love here the incredible list of innovative changes modders have made over time breaking the puzzle of these games' code.

So, will it be successful? Maybe, by their standards. By my standards it can never be successful because it cannot be modded and it cannot be played offline and as a result it has shut the door on the most satisfying part of gaming for me: the community mod aspect.

No mods, no offline, no community control or direction, no dice. Simple as that.

thanks P funk for the immotive responce.
'We all know that its subjective' this is an interesting point. 'We' must include UBI. how did they come to the conclusion
that producing yet another sub- game would be succesful?

after the debacle of SH5 what were they/are they thinking?
im intrigued. whish i was a fly on the wall during the meltdown in those sh5 meetings.

i beleive that sh5 was aimed more at the casual player, so that its not so complex as its predecessors.

this would mean, perhaps, a more arcade style point and shoot set up.
i guess for me the 'success' thing would be; purely as successful as it can be at the level or individual it is aimed at - no more. and if you have to pay then the paying individual is the target. and if your not concerned about mods - then this is for you.

i think trying to understand a companies motivation to create something like online submarines can only mean arcade style gaming. i cant believe they are interested in the hard core player and modder. only last weekend my friend asked me 'are you STILL playing that game?'.....like i should grow up?
'i am STILL.' i replied. he can not see my love of it and its REAL history, and so i can not beleive that the company can or wants to take players like me and thousands of others seriously otherwise SH5 would have been finished correctly, time taken and investment added.

and who knows, maybe they would have gone on to produce
online submarines anyway. ( the market just aint big enough for the both of us!)

'But the odds are so bad that there's basically no chance.' i do not agree so readily. can you imagine sh3 or sh5 with its own wolf packs commanable by the player? maybe with this online thing there will be a possibilty if it takes off? (edit; just been to the site - saw the wolpacks stuff; not a bad idea - each has a sub and working together. it has to be one of the things lacking in the Silent Hunter series; Wolfpacks: a big part of the real history.)

'So they decided to try and expand their audience to the mainstream gamer.' why would they follow on from a damaged product with the possibilty of another failure? surely they - as a gaming company, have some idea whats out there in terms of possibility and saleability.

'So, whatever the final quality of this game it will not be in any way like our vision of Silent Hunter.' P funk, they dont need us! they want a different type of gamer. they are sick to death of our bleating and complaining and demanding - maybe they are hoping to throw it open to a whole new generation of online gamer?

who needs those old simmers anyway. let them play in the bath with their wooden u boats - we're after something new!! ( thats me, waxing!)
seems like they are trying their hand at mmo's. its probably where the future is. get everyone together playing online - then we know where they are and we can control the content. dont want those old modders messin' with our stuff, they've had it too easy.
(maybe im being cynical!)

maybe other questions are: what will happen to pc games in the future? what will happen to sims? how popular are sims and other pc games in light of consoles and online?
'It will not allow us to mod it which is for me a deal breaker.' they dont NEED us, The Old Guard.

your words are true, but i beleive the answers are in your questions. when i read between your lines i can almost see how it will 'PROBABLY' go in the future. though i may be wrong too, i hope!

'No mods, no offline, no community control or direction, no dice. Simple as that.' those of us that care dont have a voice loud enough to change it - they know that, and they dont care.

its going like television; turn it on, look at it, use it, switch it off. done.
can you imagine everyone who had a TV could change the content of each programme to suite themselves - add to it, remove stuff from it?
the TV companies would pull their hair out and then collapse. giving people such freedom and control messes with the status quo. online is where its at. our 'little community' is just that 'little.'

but you never know. there may come a group of modders who could write their own script according to the likes and demands of its community. but even then - not everyone will be happy!

cheers:salute:

[Hinrich Schwab]

I think that line of reasoning is silly. Most of my favorite games of all time were made without community input and without the possibility of modding:

Fast Attack
Zeewolf
Red Storm Rising
X-COM
Strike Commander
Jet Fighter 2, 3
Aces of the Deep

etc.

It's interesting that all those games and sims were less complex than contemporary sims. Most simmers tend to agree that AOTD is the best U-Boat sim ever, but ironically as a simulator it is in fact less complex than SH3 or SH5.

Why is this concept "silly" to you? The consumers should rightfully dictate the direction of the products it is purchasing. This should be especially true in the gaming industry.

Going back to beating the dead horse, if the executives at Ubisoft actually cared about the gamers paying them the money they so desperately seek,
it would be a non-issue because the resulting product would require minimal modding or patching.

Until that happens, the grognards will live up to their name.

[Sailor Steve]

Why is this concept "silly" to you?
I thought he answered that in his post. He gave a list, and AOD, which was made with no community input, is still widely regarded as the best sumsim of all time.

[Julhelm]

Why is this concept "silly" to you? The consumers should rightfully dictate the direction of the products it is purchasing. This should be especially true in the gaming industry.
In what industry does that ever happen, though? Consumers don't dictate the direction of the auto industry. Consumers don't dictate the direction of Hollywood. Consumers don't dictate the direction of the food industry. Or the fashion industry.

Rather, in every case it is the industry dictating the direction of the consumers - so why should games be any different?

In fact, I'd go as far as saying letting the community dictate the design of a game is a recipe for disaster, as design by commitee always is.

The problem with gamers in general is that they tend to be conservative, reactionary, don't think things through completely before they demand things and suffer from a bad case of rose tinted glasses.

And then you have the dilemma of what part of the community to listen to. Do you listen to the hardcore grognards who want full procedural simulation with every last knob modelled and who froth at the mouth of the very thought of conceding realism for the sake of gameplay, or do you listen to the lite simmers who absolutely do not want a superhardcore procedural simulation but rather want a simple to learn UI and fun gameplay mechanics?

And are you going to listen to the nuke fans, the uboat fans, or the fleet boat fans? Budget says you can't please them all. Who gets to decide what the final game evolves into? Those who bitch the loudest?

Like I said, AOD is the best subsim ever and it was done in a time when forums didn't even exist. Whereas sims have become increasingly unsatisfactory ever since internet communities began bitching about "how it should be done".

Going back to beating the dead horse, if the executives at Ubisoft actually cared about the gamers paying them the money they so desperately seek,
it would be a non-issue because the resulting product would require minimal modding or patching.

Until that happens, the grognards will live up to their name.
Except UBI owes you nothing. If you are not happy with their product you can do what you'd do with any other unsatisfactory product: return it for a refund or sell it. Only successful products are supported, and SH5 was a flop, so it had the plug pulled on it, like thousands of games before it.

[Hinrich Schwab]

In what industry does that ever happen, though? Consumers don't dictate the direction of the auto industry. Consumers don't dictate the direction of Hollywood. Consumers don't dictate the direction of the food industry. Or the fashion industry.

Rather, in every case it is the industry dictating the direction of the consumers - so why should games be any different?

Do not sales reflect the consumers' response to industry moves? I think you are confusing initiative with influence. In that case, the producers of goods most certainly do have initiative. However, it is the consumer who makes the final judgment.

In fact, I'd go as far as saying letting the community dictate the design of a game is a recipe for disaster, as design by commitee always is.

The problem with gamers in general is that they tend to be conservative, reactionary, don't think things through completely before they demand things and suffer from a bad case of rose tinted glasses.How does this apply to the subsim community? After 10 years of Silent Hunter iterations by Ubi, the community here is rather certain what it wants. Blanket statements like this won't work because semantics will pick them apart. Had you stated, "...the mainstream gamer...", I might have agreed with you.

And then you have the dilemma of what part of the community to listen to. Do you listen to the hardcore grognards who want full procedural simulation with every last knob modelled and who froth at the mouth of the very thought of conceding realism for the sake of gameplay, or do you listen to the lite simmers who absolutely do not want a superhardcore procedural simulation but rather want a simple to learn UI and fun gameplay mechanics?

And are you going to listen to the nuke fans, the uboat fans, or the fleet boat fans? Budget says you can't please them all. Who gets to decide what the final game evolves into? Those who bitch the loudest?Realism settings and autocrew options can balance this out. It isn't necessarily perfect, but it is better than absolute focus.

Like I said, AOD is the best subsim ever and it was done in a time when forums didn't even exist. Whereas sims have become increasingly unsatisfactory ever since internet communities began bitching about "how it should be done".I have no arguments regarding AOD. I agree with you on that. Regarding the "unpleasable fanbase", all the internet has done is give the sim and wargaming community a voice. Nothing more. While AOD was the best subsim ever, it has its share of flaws, too. Specifically, manual control of the deck gun had to be patched in. Manual control of the deck gun trumps AI auto crew any day of the week, regardless of sim.


Except UBI owes you nothing.I am more than aware of that. Pointing that out to me like I just fell of the turnip truck accomplishes nothing.:nope:

If you are not happy with their product you can do what you'd do with any other unsatisfactory product: return it for a refund or sell it.In an increasingly digital world polluted with DRM, these options are dying out. The new standard is that if one has a computer product one is dissatisfied with, you out the money you spent with no recourse.

Only successful products are supported, and SH5 was a flop, so it had the plug pulled on it, like thousands of games before it.You are stating the obvious. This is Economics 101. Likewise, this is also how consumers can dictate market response; by forcing a product flop.

The gist of your argument is pretty much, "The industry will do as it damn well pleases." However, the only trump to that is if the consumers generate such a vociferous and negative response that the producer in question has no alternative but to listen. That is the whole point of the complaints in the subsim community; to generate this level of response. To date, it has simply been unsuccessful. That doesn't mean there won't be a time where it will succeed.

[Julhelm]

Do not sales reflect the consumers' response to industry moves? I think you are confusing initiative with influence. In that case, the producers of goods most certainly do have initiative. However, it is the consumer who makes the final judgment.
Sales in themselves offer no qualitiative feedback at all. Did SH5 flop because the game was flawed or did SH5 flop because of UBI DRM. In the end, sales will only show it flopped, so it is commercially unviable and won't be done again. No industry ever has direct input by consumers. Rather, they have designers who do their best to try and work out what the consumers actually want, not what they say they want.

How does this apply to the subsim community? After 10 years of Silent Hunter iterations by Ubi, the community here is rather certain what it wants. Blanket statements like this won't work because semantics will pick them apart. Had you stated, "...the mainstream gamer...", I might have agreed with you.
So what does the community want? Is the community a monolithic block of diehard U-Boat fans or what? Are all these requirements compiled into a charter that can be found somewhere here? See, the problem with gamers in general and simmers in particular is that they all know exactly how to design the perfect game but they can never actually pin down what they want into a feature-by-feature list or any other usable format (And which wouldn't take on unrealistic proportions).

Realism settings and autocrew options can balance this out. It isn't necessarily perfect, but it is better than absolute focus.
I beg to differ. I have never played a hardcore procedural sim where realism settings or autocrew managed to transform the game into casual lite sim. Never. DCS has never turned into SF2 and DW has never turned into RSR by the flick of a few settings in a menu. Because they were designed to focus on different aspects. Realism settings the way they are implemented in DCS and DW only serve to dumb down the procedural simulation to a point which defeats it's purpose. The strength of lite sims has always been that they are designed around really good tactical combat.

While AOD was the best subsim ever, it has its share of flaws, too. Specifically, manual control of the deck gun had to be patched in. Manual control of the deck gun trumps AI auto crew any day of the week, regardless of sim.
See, this is the gist of the problem. You concur AOD is the best subsim ever, yet the first thing you bring up is that it lacked certain features. What about all the features that made AOD the best? What are those? That's a hell of a lot more useful to any dev than the neverending negativity and bitching about lack of features.

Community input is only useful if it has some constructive value to it. You say the internet has given the sim and wargaming community a voice. Then I have to say that voice tends to be mostly negative and confrontative towards developers. I remember the big patch wars on the SimHQ SF boards that not only split the community into two warring camps, but also resulted in the main developer (who had always had an open and communicative presence on the boards) to leave all sim boards completely and now can only be found on his own boards. More recently, how about the huge flamewars between Il-2 and Il-2 CoD communities, the amazing vitriol being spewed towards Luthier on multiple forums. Or how about the ridiculous bitching and trolling in the MS Flight forum on AVSIM, so bad they had to close it down.

Or if we look on this very board, the biggest thread on SHO is a 10+ page rant-fest. Read through that thread. It's literally a bunch of angry reactionaries with an axe to grind because they bought SH5 and found out it sucked even though every review portal on the planet said the game was going to be a lemon.

Actually, go to any place really on the internet where people can have their say, and you'll find they usually have negative things to say. As a designer, I'm much more interested in what you like and why than what you hate.

I am more than aware of that. Pointing that out to me like I just fell of the turnip truck accomplishes nothing.:nope:

In an increasingly digital world polluted with DRM, these options are dying out. The new standard is that if one has a computer product one is dissatisfied with, you out the money you spent with no recourse.[/quote]
To be fair, that has always been in the EULAs ever since they started putting EULAs in the installers. You never legally owned those games, you licensed them. DRM is just a way to enforce the EULA. I find the idea ridiculous tbh but that's what we get for voting all these pro-corporate neoliberals into power. It's really a tangent to the discussion and not confined to PC gaming at all like some would imply.

You are stating the obvious. This is Economics 101. Likewise, this is also how consumers can dictate market response; by forcing a product flop.
All that happens by forcing a product flop is that a studio gets shut down and the devs find job elsewhere making farmville clones. Is this really the outcome you want? I doubt it.

However, the only trump to that is if the consumers generate such a vociferous and negative response that the producer in question has no alternative but to listen. That is the whole point of the complaints in the subsim community; to generate this level of response. To date, it has simply been unsuccessful. That doesn't mean there won't be a time where it will succeed.
You don't get it. If a product flops that simply means it is commercially unviable and guarantees it will not be done again. Publishers are publicly traded companies and they only care about turning a profit. If you won't part with your money, they will instead focus on easier consumers who do and who don't start a lot of trouble.

The only way you can hope to have any kind of input or change things is by contributing positive feedback and make sure your pet genre is seen as commercially successful. A massive negative response with calls for boycott etc at this point will only make sure the genre gets buried again, permanently.

[P_Funk]

I think critics of my post are missing a crucial point: target audience. Who are they designing this for? If they're designing it for us then they will make their version but also be aware that a great deal of the community is going to want to create their own. This is why traditionally games have shipped with mission editors, map editors, and even the holy grail of modding the SDK. This however has happened less and less because of the success of console games and the advent of micro transactions. Mods are competition for this cash cow.

Its a cynical mindset that has nothing to do with the health of the community or the long term quality of the product. However, modding potential has given longer life to many games and has in and of itself spawned entire consumer bases based on those mods. I only purchased BF2 to play Project Reality. BF3 however cannot be modded to the same extent as BF2 as easily so the likelihood of anything like PR showing up there is very slim. This is fine for them cause they get their micro transactions from the mainstream community.

But this brings me back to the first point: target audience. Sim communities are pretty much the diametric opposite of mainstream communities. We are niche gamers. We play things that most people don't. Thats fine. They play Call of Duty, I play PR. They play World of Tanks or something, I play IL-2.

There are two audiences at play there, niche and mainstream. They are very different and as such call for very different design decisions. I'm fine with that. I don't need to shame (even though I enjoy it) the mainstream gamer to be able to enjoy my niche game... that is until they start killing all the nice games in favor of trying to turn them into maintream online cash cows.

The simple fact is that they abused and tormented the Silent Hunter community progressively overtime, putting unrealistic pressures on the developers of the games and then basically seeing us as more trouble than we're worth because we won't tolorate a broken game with unsatisfying features that a mainstream audience more readily digests. To be sure broken doesn't work for anyone, but I believe that the progressively worse quality of the Silent Hunter series as it went form 3 through 4 through 5 was a result of them placing mainstream expectations on a niche game. They wanted fast turn over, short development, and quick bucks. Niche games don't work like that and the most successful ones usually have positive relationships between developer and community. This is most easily noticed in how Bohemia, the Arma Infantry Sim developer, interacts with its community. They basically build their game under the assumption that the community will mod it to their liking. They know who their target audience is. They also don't have to answer to a big publisher who doesn't care about the consumer, but just wants to crunch numbers til their bell curves come out with maximum profits for minimum investment looking golden.

But this kind of relationship isn't unprecedented in the history of mainstream gaming. Many major mods for mainstream games have lead to strong relationships with the original developer. A perfect example of this is the Forgotten Hope mod for Battlefield 2. Many of the developers of this mod have been hired by DICE (the original developer of BF2) and have done things like develop mod tools for them, etc. And lets not forget the meteoric rise of Valve. Even Team Fortress 2, one of the greatest and most well balanced online FPS games, was originally a mod for Quake that became a mod for HL1 that became a retail product in the Source engine from Half-Life2.

Remember Half-Life? That game was a real gem for modders and as a result some incredible titles spawned from it. One of the most popular and successful online FPSs was originally a community mod: Counterstrike. Day of Defeat Classic was a winner for a 2001 mod competition which became another title sold by Valve which was then updated, just like TF2, into Day of Defeat Source.

Modding may not directly influence specific decisions in design very often these days but there's no denying that they've had a huge impact on the growth of gaming over the last decade+, but that doesn't mean that mods and developer don't have a potential relationship outside of the Valve model either. The entire thing is about potential. Developers used to always release some kind of tool set for modders. They saw it as an investment in their project. Now however Publishers are preferring short life spans for their games so that they can maximize the profit from new releases or microtransactions over time from online games. Just look at Call of Duty. They're releasing one practically every year but the changes are incredibly minor. MW3 apparently has statics in a few maps from MW1 in it for heaven's sake!

So, what am I really saying? That modders have always been a big part of the history of gaming and only recently have publishers been trying to suffocate us out of existence as micro transactions have risen to prominence in the post Xbox world and as piracy has lead many publishers to rely on online games to protect against this.

But one thing I have to disagree with is the assertion that the consumer has no impact on the design process. Every product under the sun has some kind of consumer test group. You make a new cereal you get a bunch of kids together and see if they actually like what it tastes like.

So what does that mean for us here? It means that if the new SH Online game doesn't taste good to us, the old simmers, then they aren't trying to sell us stuff anymore. Fine, the game was less and less our cup of tea. But what have gamers always done when a game didn't meet their tastes? They modded it, but not anymore. Online precludes this, deliberately. They are trying to do an end run around our own preferences to force us to 'settle' for only whats available.

So why do I get so upset about this? Because I've always lived in my niche, letting the mainstream live in theirs. But now more and more they're chasing the niche out of gaming in favor of courting the mainstream and even trying to force reluctant buyers to have to buy into the microtrans system even if they normally wouldn't fork it over. I mean, how can you NOT buy that map pack that got released day 1 if everyone else is? Basically you're not just buying a $50 game on release day, you're also buying a $10 map pack, and probably a few more, and by the time they're done with you you're paying the better part of $100 for a game that you may or may not love to death but when you get tired of the content you have you can't even go and make your own map because they don't wnat you to anymore AND on top of it all you have to buy one of THEIR dedicated servers because they don't release server code anymore! (See: BF3).

I don't begrudge the mainstream their piece of the pie, hell they can take 99% of the pie, so why do these publishers keep trying to turn that little minority into the rest of the mainstream? Its infuriating.


OH! And one more thing if you're still reading. All those games listed as being great out of the box without any community involvement, well... how old are most of them? When was the last time a game was shipped and didn't beg for a mod or a patch or something to make it even half as good as those great games that came ready to rock and roll a decade ago?

Gaming is changing and its not for the better as far as us niche players are concerned. I don't see why thats a silly point of view.

[Sailor Steve]

While AOD was the best subsim ever, it has its share of flaws, too. Specifically, manual control of the deck gun had to be patched in. Manual control of the deck gun trumps AI auto crew any day of the week, regardless of sim.
AOD was the most realistic subsim ever, gameplay-wise. You're saying that it couldn't be the best until they put in something that is totally unrealistic? That strikes me as odd, to say the least.

[Julhelm]

@Pfunk:

Believe it or not, I actually agree with most of your points. What I disagree with is the notion that constant bitching brings any positive change. The big publishers are publicly traded corporate shareholders who only exist to be as profitable as possible to their shareholders.

This is just the way it is now with the death of 2nd tier publishers and no amount of complaining will turn back the clock.

Bohemia is clearly an exception to the rule, but they have some more leverage by being independent. There's also Eagle Dynamics and Gaijin. The problem is that most of these new independent studios that do show up are only concerned with (big surprise) quick profits and being the next Rovio or Zynga and try to move into the casual/mobile/online market with derivative products. Apparently it must be real easy to get financial backing for that kind of stuff.

What we as a community do need is to support up and coming studios that move into this niche, and be ready to accept a 2nd or 3rd tier game. Basically forget about AAA sims for the time being.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Basically forget about AAA sims for the time being.

If we forget about quality sims then they'll die out - out of sight, out of mind - the big money men will all shake each others todgers and congratulate themselves on being right - 'Look, they don't need sims, they're not missing sims, we'll save a heap-load of money now we don't have to cater for them!' :damn:


*edit - by sims I mean proper, nearasdamnit, simulated machinery/mechanisms - not that crappy series that seems to dominate all webstores when I click under the simulation category!

[Julhelm]

Dude, we're already there. AAA sims are dead, buried, finito. The disasters that were SH5 and Il-2 CoD saw to that. What we can have is A or AA sims like ARMA or Take on Helicopters.

[Herr-Berbunch]

Dude, we're already there. AAA sims are dead, buried, finito. The disasters that were SH5 and Il-2 CoD saw to that. What we can have is A or AA sims like ARMA or Take on Helicopters.

DCS: A-10C anyone? :hmmm: Or DCS anything, if they're not AAA. . .

And there is still hope for the latest IL-2, it's not been given up on by the devs or the community. Yet.

[Ducimus]

Just wanted to voice why I personally could give less then a crap about this Silent Hunter Online.

1. Browser based. Really? I didn't buy a beefy rig to play flash or java games in a web browser.

2. Guaranteed it will be dumbed down. For one it's browser based, for two its probably marketed at a broader audience.

3. I categorically will no longer buy any games that have a mandatory online component. Internet connections can go down, and bandwidth is no longer unlimited. I want to play my game, when i want, and not use my bandwidth to do it.

4. I have learned from experience with Age of Conan, and Lord of the Rings Online that free to play is a farce. It either hampers you so you can't do anything without spending money so it's tantamount to an extended trial, or it entices you in such a way where you end up spending more money in the long run then if you had just gotten a subscription to begin with.

5. It appears that its going to be another battle of the atlantic with a type 7 uboat. If i wanted a sub sim with that dedicated setup, id play SH5.

6. I feel betrayed. Why didn't ubi finish SH4? Why didn't they finish SH5? In fact, they dropped the ball worse on sh5 with half the game content of previous titles, half the usual support patchs, and twice the number of bugs. Instead of addressing all that, they do this. Ubisoft i give you the 1 fingered salute.

7. I'm tired of Das Boot. It's a great movie, and i've had great das boot movie like experiences in SH3 and SH4. However the main inspiration behind this series has grown old and stale on me from the constant usage to the point of being generic.

[P_Funk]

@Pfunk:

Believe it or not, I actually agree with most of your points. What I disagree with is the notion that constant bitching brings any positive change.
Constant bitching? The game was announced on the 27th or something. I guess we're all supposed to silently just analyze the currents of the game industry and keep our opinions to ourselves?

Well that does it. Time to go delete about 60 forum accounts since I won't need them anymore. :-?


DCS: A-10C anyone? :hmmm: Or DCS anything, if they're not AAA. . .

And there is still hope for the latest IL-2, it's not been given up on by the devs or the community. Yet.

Flight sims seem to be totally different from the rest of the sims, though there are also a number of really high fidelity racing sims out there as well. Subs don't seem to have such luck. But then again the death of MS Flight Sim is kind of like killing the most loyal customer base in sim history. If that can happen there's pretty much no way any of the rest of us can consider our loyalty any kind of security against them taking the game in another direction we don't want.

It occurs to me that maybe Ubi decided to go F2P after they saw Microsoft release with perhaps a measure of success their new F2P replacement to the venerable Microsoft Flight Simulator.


It certainly is a transition from big publisher to indie publisher these days. On the one hand it seems like it should be a fairly easy transition with where game development and distribution has gone, as in its become easier. With that said, its just baffling to wonder why big mega companies like Ubi and EA can't manage to target multiple audiences. I mean F2P doesn't exactly strike me as something a AAA sim player would really go for, no matter how many teen agers there are on Xbox live.

I think its just a case of a bunch of suits who dont even understand the product they sell seeing one format for making all their money and trying to force every shape with a jagged corner they can find under their roof into that round hole.

I really hope that EA and Ubi and companies like that crash and burn. Monopolies on the gaming industry and stifling creativity. This is one of the depressing results of successful capitalism. :shifty:

[Julhelm]

DCS: A-10C anyone? :hmmm: Or DCS anything, if they're not AAA. . .

And there is still hope for the latest IL-2, it's not been given up on by the devs or the community. Yet.
I wouldn't say DCS qualifies as AAA game in terms of production values or budget. A good example of a AAA sim would be Birds of Steel, but they are also a huge exception to the rule.

Also I think bringing in racing sims is a bit dishonest. Might as well mention the amazingly popular Farming Simulator and Railworks while we're at it, but they're not really what immediately spring to mind when we talk sims, are they?

Either way, like the guy said in the other thread - SHO is made by a different studio that never had anything to do with SH4 or SH5 so bitching at them is pointless since they most likely have very little design input anyway so what is bitching at them because you have an axe to grind with UBI going to accomplish anything? And I'm not saying you're not entitled to voicing your opinion, but we heard this already with SH5: "wah wah they changed the game bah drm bah online bah boycott".

But hey, the discussion is pointless. Go on and continue bitching against UBI for being a big profit-hungry corporation. Complaining on forums about how subsims suck is bound to be more productive than trying to develop your own subsim the way you want it to play.

Guess that's why I never could find a motivated programmer to work with.

[Wolfstriked]

Flight sims seem to be totally different from the rest of the sims, though there are also a number of really high fidelity racing sims out there as well. Subs don't seem to have such luck. But then again the death of MS Flight Sim is kind of like killing the most loyal customer base in sim history. If that can happen there's pretty much no way any of the rest of us can consider our loyalty any kind of security against them taking the game in another direction we don't want.

It occurs to me that maybe Ubi decided to go F2P after they saw Microsoft release with perhaps a measure of success their new F2P replacement to the venerable Microsoft Flight Simulator.


It certainly is a transition from big publisher to indie publisher these days. On the one hand it seems like it should be a fairly easy transition with where game development and distribution has gone, as in its become easier. With that said, its just baffling to wonder why big mega companies like Ubi and EA can't manage to target multiple audiences. I mean F2P doesn't exactly strike me as something a AAA sim player would really go for, no matter how many teen agers there are on Xbox live.

I think its just a case of a bunch of suits who dont even understand the product they sell seeing one format for making all their money and trying to force every shape with a jagged corner they can find under their roof into that round hole.

I really hope that EA and Ubi and companies like that crash and burn. Monopolies on the gaming industry and stifling creativity. This is one of the depressing results of successful capitalism. :shifty:


I am all for a DCS style submarine.I love realism in my sims and the more real the more immersed I get.Just loving the just released DCS:P51.But how real can it get and be playable.The thing with high realism planes is that you control everything but in a sub you just give orders.

That said I just reinstalled SH5 and OMG I hate Ubisoft again.:nope:WTF happened??Why would they not strive for even more realism then in SH3/Sh4 at same time as creating an easy mode to the casual player????:damn:

[P_Funk]

I wouldn't say DCS qualifies as AAA game in terms of production values or budget. A good example of a AAA sim would be Birds of Steel, but they are also a huge exception to the rule.

Also I think bringing in racing sims is a bit dishonest. Might as well mention the amazingly popular Farming Simulator and Railworks while we're at it, but they're not really what immediately spring to mind when we talk sims, are they?

Either way, like the guy said in the other thread - SHO is made by a different studio that never had anything to do with SH4 or SH5 so bitching at them is pointless since they most likely have very little design input anyway so what is bitching at them because you have an axe to grind with UBI going to accomplish anything? And I'm not saying you're not entitled to voicing your opinion, but we heard this already with SH5: "wah wah they changed the game bah drm bah online bah boycott".

But hey, the discussion is pointless. Go on and continue bitching against UBI for being a big profit-hungry corporation. Complaining on forums about how subsims suck is bound to be more productive than trying to develop your own subsim the way you want it to play.

Guess that's why I never could find a motivated programmer to work with.
I find your opinion annoying. Its tantamount to saying "How dare you bitch about politics if you're not willing to run or bitch about the economy if you're not willing to start your own investment firm". We are consumers and they want us to buy their product. They are retaining the Silent Hunter brand in order to temp us meanwhile basically neglecting all of the factors and design requirements which we actually value. There's no reason we can't sit in our old favourite hang out and complain about how it looks horrible.

They made a press release, we reacted to it. What do you want us to do? Only comment if we have a positive opinion of it?

And get off your high horse on racing sims. Driving an F1 car at 200mph is plenty difficult and the fidelity of some of those sims is far superior to the quality we've been seeing from most mainstream developers. Dishonest? I don't get it. A sim is a sim. Its goal is to simulate real life behavior of one thing or another. An F1 car is an insanely overengineered masterpiece of technology, and the simmer's obcession with it isn't far from our own with Subs or Aircraft or whatever.

I don't see why grinding a 100th of a second off of a lap time is any less sim realism nerd obcessive than manual targeting a convoy or stall fighting with a Messerschmitt.

[Julhelm]

It's dishonest in the sense that racing has a disproportionately bigger audience and even racing sims like RFactor or Project C.A.R.S. have substantial mainstream appeal. Racing simulation is a not a niche genre like submarine simulation or air combat simulation.

Feel free to be annoyed by my opinion. Here's a better analogy for you:

Ever hear these guys who constantly bitch about how bad/retarded politics are and they have all the right answers etc, but they never ever get off their couch and get involved in politics? Everybody knows someone like that. They bitch about the same thing year after year but can't be arsed to actually go out there and try to make a change. Am I saying you can't sit here and complain to your hearts content in a big circlejerk? No, go ahead and do so. I am saying your complaining doesn't make a difference in the end, just like the guy who sits in his couch and bitches about politics doesn't make a difference, either.

I just get so tired of these guys who complain and bitch all the time about how the sims suck and they aren't realistic etc. Know what? You had an alternative that set out to be the hyperrealistic subsim you all wanted. It was called Danger From The Deep and was opensource. You could have thrown your money at that team instead of UBI. But instead you all complained about UBI not getting it right. Now you no longer have any alternative. You can either have SHO or no new subsim at all. Or you can still play SH3 10 years from now - that's progress, right?

So no, go ahead and complain all you want if it makes you feel better about your identity as a consumer.

[Herr-Berbunch]

A good example of a AAA sim would be Birds of Steel, but they are also a huge exception to the rule.


May I ask what planet you are on if you think Birds of Steel is a AAA simulation?

I may be missing something. Not having a console I've resorted to good old Google and YouTube to find out about this game. Not simulator. Game.

First I visited Konami's site for it, where the trailer only showed external 'arcade' views - futher investigation shows that the smaller aircraft do have cockpit views, but they certainly (in my opinion) don't match up to Cliffs, nor DCS titles, nor FSX for that matter. May as well include FS9 as well. BoS = PoS as far as simulation goes, and that's what we're talking about.

I'd put it alongside H.A.W.X, but at least that can be played on PC.

Over to you to deride my opinions again. :03:

[andwii]

Im a bit late to the party but all this complaining before the god dang game even goes to closed beta is crazy. We have no idea how good or bad its going to be, and it might just be good. Now I don't like MMO's at all (except Star Trek Online) but I want to see this from a perspective of unbiased, and all this complaining should be reserved to when the actual game comes out. There is prolly going to be a disclose agreement for the closed beta, but I doubt anyone is going to follow it so when it comes out I am willing to bet you will find game play vids on the internet.

[Herr-Berbunch]

You're right, andwii, but the OP asked a question and both sides must now fight it out until the bitter end, or at least until the game gets released and we actually know what we're talking about. Until then we'll happily/unhappily speculate and bicker like schoolkids.

Oh, and my dad's bigger than your dad. :stare:

:O:

[Ducimus]

Reading through some of this thread, something I blabbered about some months ago occurs to me.

We probably won't see another real submarine simulation ever again. Sub sim's are a nitch market within a nitch market. In the larger picture, they were a fad in gaming started when primarily geeks, and technically oriented people owned home computers. It's probably amazing they've lasted this long. With that train of thought one could reasonably say, "well, we should be thanking ubisoft for anything at all", however i think that time is past with SH5. That was most likely, the last nail in the old and creaky sub sim coffin.

Unless of course hell freezes over and SHO has the simulation base of Sh3, with the mechanical improvements drawn from Sh4 and Sh5* and your willing to play online shelling out money for improvements. If not, then get used to the idea of playing Sh3, 4, or 5 ten or fifteen years from now; assuming your still into sub sims at that point in time.



*(yes, disregarding bugs and broken features, they both improve on the simulation from Sh3: Sh4 with thermal layers, and Sh5 with the effects of unimplemented hydrodynamic drag),

[Julhelm]

May I ask what planet you are on if you think Birds of Steel is a AAA simulation?

I may be missing something. Not having a console I've resorted to good old Google and YouTube to find out about this game. Not simulator. Game.

First I visited Konami's site for it, where the trailer only showed external 'arcade' views - futher investigation shows that the smaller aircraft do have cockpit views, but they certainly (in my opinion) don't match up to Cliffs, nor DCS titles, nor FSX for that matter. May as well include FS9 as well. BoS = PoS as far as simulation goes, and that's what we're talking about.

I'd put it alongside H.A.W.X, but at least that can be played on PC.

Over to you to deride my opinions again. :03:
Yeah, how about you at least read a review for simmers by simmers before posting an uninformed, prejudiced opinion?

Or read the SimHQ review which praises it. (http://simhq.com/_air14/air_517a.html)

It***8217;s simple. Gaijin hit a home run with this one. They listened to their customers, and they must have read suggestions in reviews on their other console games. With options, choices, and tons of content, all at a great price, you can***8217;t go wrong with this purchase. And a developer like Gaijin Entertainment deserves our console customer support for going outside of the norm.

We need to support games like this to get more of them, and less of the "all action, no substance" games that have flooded the console market.

So yeah, maybe you should do some rudimentary research before you trashtalk a great game.

[Herr-Berbunch]

You said it - game. A console game for the console gamers. Doesn't compete nor compare.

I did go to a couple of flight simming sites, both had no mention apart from slight reference in amonst the fora, and none of it good.

[Julhelm]

Yeah, whatever. All of your precious subsims are just that, games.

[Dowly]

Yeah, whatever. All of your precious subsims are just that, games.

Now now, no need to get mad if you are wrong about something. ;)

[longam]

Welcome to Subsim, a friendly place to...

I'm reminded of the release of SH5 and the low blood sugar environment that followed.

@Julhelm - really?

[0rpheus]

Yeah, how about you at least read a review for simmers by simmers before posting an uninformed, prejudiced opinion?

Or read the SimHQ review which praises it. (http://simhq.com/_air14/air_517a.html)

So yeah, maybe you should do some rudimentary research before you trashtalk a great game.

It's made by Gaijin for the console market, in the same manner as IL2-Birds of Prey. I have BOP for the XBOX, and Wings of Prey (almost identical game) for the PC, alongside Cliffs of Dover, IL2 1946 and DCS A-10. I've also tried the demo for BoS. This makes my opinion relevant, by your criteria.

The Gaijin games are categorically not 'simulations' in the sense of the PC IL-2 or A10 etc. They are games that come with a 'sim' flight model, nothing more. BoS in particular is appalling; terribly shonky framerate for a console and the FM is like treacle. 'Triple A simulation' it is not.

Yeah, whatever. All of your precious subsims are just that, games.

It's all 'games' when it boils down to it, no need to be facetious. I note from your post count you're relatively new here - the hostility thing really isn't welcome. Basic civility will likely extend the duration of your stay :up:

[P_Funk]

It's dishonest in the sense that racing has a disproportionately bigger audience and even racing sims like RFactor or Project C.A.R.S. have substantial mainstream appeal. Racing simulation is a not a niche genre like submarine simulation or air combat simulation.
So its not relevant to a discussion of sumulators because its TOO successful? Meanwhile you're banging away about a console would-be sim...

I don't understand the logical premise you're operating under. It seems to be entirely predicated on expounding your own exaustion with dealing with people who have opinions.

You're basically saying that unless you start your own business and make your own product people should basically not have opinions as consumers and take whats given them without commentary.

I think maybe you don't belong on the internet. :doh:

[THE_MASK]

This game can only be 1 of 2 things . The greatest subsim game ever made for pc or the biggest piece of junk ever made for pc . I bet its the latter .

[Herr-Berbunch]

@Orpheus - thank you for your valued expertise on this matter. What you surmised was what I spent 10-15 minutes searching the web for, and found. Eventually, there isn't much reference to it in my usual places - obviously for a reason. :D

Nice to hear it from the horses mouth though.

Or, err, read it from the horses hooves..? :hmmm:

[0rpheus]

Triple A horse-sims? :har:

http://www.racing-index.com/horseracing/wp-content/themes/directorypress6/thumbs/simhorseracing.com.jpg?f=33787

[Julhelm]

The Gaijin games are categorically not 'simulations' in the sense of the PC IL-2 or A10 etc. They are games that come with a 'sim' flight model, nothing more. BoS in particular is appalling; terribly shonky framerate for a console and the FM is like treacle. 'Triple A simulation' it is not.

TBH I played Wings of Prey and it really is "lite sim" in the vein of Strike Fighters. Why I say it is AAA and DCS is not is because the Gaijin games have the kind of cinematic, epic production values we associate with the term AAA. AAA as used today really has nothing to do with quality - it is simply the gaming equivalent of Hollywood Blockbuster movies. IE huge budgets, lots of eyecandy, tightly crafted "experience".

For example SH4 and SH5 sit firmly in AAA land - they have huge focus on superb visuals, soundtrack and generally try to craft an epic blockbuster-like atmosphere. DCS doesn't do this. While it has excellent production values as a simulator it is not really a AAA production.

And I do think there is a place for all types of games: I play Strike Fighters regularily, I play FSX sometimes, I go back and play AOTD and Fast Attack regularily and I had great fun with Wings of Prey and Apache Air Assault. I even enjoyed the first HAWX for what it was, even if I had to suppress the grognard in me. I'm thrilled about DCS now that they're opening up for 3rd party modules.

Interestingly I've been playing the PC MMO version of Birds of Steel and to me the FM feels just like IL-2. Don't like it much tbh.

It's all 'games' when it boils down to it, no need to be facetious. I note from your post count you're relatively new here - the hostility thing really isn't welcome. Basic civility will likely extend the duration of your stay :up:
Actually I've been lurking for 5 years. I just don't post a whole lot except in the classic subsims board. My point is I see a lot of reactionary complaining here and nothing productive. The console-centric AAA business model isn't going anywhere soon, and the mobile/tablet market mainly consists to 90% of Rovio-wannabes run by money-junkies whose sole interest is quick profits and where terms like "artistic integrity" never even enters the vocabulary. Then on PC the publishers have been crying about piracy for years, while looking at the amazing success of World of Warcraft. So now the latest fad is to monetize every single franchise on PC by making it an MMO that can't be pirated and doesn't suffer from poor sales relative to console because they operate on a different business model.

That they make it microtransaction instead of subscription-based is because it makes them more money. I mean, the very first title I ever shipped started as a $3 iTunes download, flopped, and then management had us crunch for a few months to convert the title to free-to-play. Now the title is a free download but you can buy things like powerups to use during matches or $30 clothes sets that powers up your character, and you'd be surprised at how much more income* this scheme generates compare to the $3 download model.

It turns out that the average person is more reluctant to pay a $3 admission to play a game than they are to pay 10x more for an ingame item as long as the game itself doesn't cost anything. It's simple behavioral economics at work. For an even better example, look at Farmville. The entire experience is designed to hook you and make you pay by consistently forcing you to endure ever longer periods of downtime unless you buy ingame currency. It's gameplay as designed by psychologists.

Say what you want about this but can you really fault businesses for wanting in on the same cake when they see the enormous payoff of the Zynga model?

So in conclusion, and what I've been trying to say this whole time, is that all this complaining really amounts to nothing. No matter how much you complain, noone else is going to make another AOTD or SH3 anytime soon, when they could be doing the next Farmville or World of Warcraft instead and basically print money at will (Of course this never actually happens except if you're the 1% but then again capitalism is all about the 99% all thinking someday they and only they will become the 1%). It just won't happen.

So the only reasonable course of action if you really love this niche genre is to take the plunge, form a team and start developing in our own spare time.

And even if only one such enterprise ends up into something along the lines of the first Strike Fighters release, we'll be better off as a community than we are now.

*I know you probably think mobile market is a win win moneymaker, but I can tell you I never got paid for that game, nor the next one I shipped. So I don't really like being called an "industry apologist". I'm just a guy trying to make a living in a highly competitive and often ruthless industry.

[kiwi_2005]

Being a browser MMO I dont think it will be a major success. I like my mmo's I play 4 mmos 2 of them browser mmo's, the browser mmo's seem to be laggy and limited compared to the non browser mmo's. One such game was so laggy at times that the devs put out a client install-to-hdd app you no longer needed to load the game with the browser. This cut the lagg by about 90%. I hope Ubisoft give this option with SHO. I will most likely get right into SHO I wanna head out there with oceanic players some aussies players at subsim wonder if they will be try it out. Good fun

[BigBANGtheory]

Eagle Dynamics prooved a few years ago that if you can demonstrate a SIM which oozes quality you can carve out your own market.

I think subscription or pay-as-you-go models for SIMs has potential if used as a system for growth/content/improvements but you must demonstrate the quality from day one.

If Ubisoft faced their mistakes, sunk another 2yrs dev time into SH5 with the community they could turn the franchise around and name their price.

[Hinrich Schwab]

If Ubisoft faced their mistakes...

:k_rofl: :k_rofl: :k_rofl: :k_rofl: :k_rofl: :k_rofl: :k_rofl: :k_rofl: :k_rofl:

[Wedigenn]

Hi everybody. Just need to vent some frustration. Background - 60 years old. Built model subs all my life. Now command 6ft R/C type VII. Used to play a floppy disc flight simulator (promised to quit when I landed!). Mentioned to daughter one day that I'd wish they'd do the same thing for a sub and six years ago she bought me a copy of SH3. Now play at 100% and when you're dead, you're dead (this time round I'm at May 42 with 63k tons). Will quit when I survive long enough to get Doenitz's signal! It is the only game I play.

SH4 came along but not much different and not really into Pacific operations. Program deleted. Then, family bought me a copy of SH5!!!!!!!!! Into the Atlantic again with superdooper graphics etc! Couldn't wait to load it up but had to whilst the graphics card, ram and chip were all upgraded.

Finally got it running. What a load of rubbish. Nothing more to say.

[Sailor Steve]

WELCOME ABOARD! :sunny:

SH4 has the U-Boats Add-On which, with Operation Monsun installed, becomes a full-blown Atlantic campaign. It lacks some of the cooler immersion mods available for SH3, but it is much the same game except with several improvements. I don't currently play the Pacific campaign either, being of the obsessive-compulsive persuasion and having to play in a linear fashion. If I ever reach 1942 I'll be playing in both theaters.

SH3? I also play in a straight line. If I die, or retire, in August 1942, my new career starts in September 1942. I may be starting a novice career in 1944 but sooner or later I will finally reach the end of the war. Or so I keep telling myself. :dead:

[Herr-Berbunch]

Welcome aboard, Wedigenn :salute:

[Onkel Neal]

He gave a list, and AOD, which was made with no community input, is still widely regarded as the best sumsim of all time.
OMG, a Sailor Steve typo, and on a mission-critical word, no less. Get yer cameras, fellas!


Most simmers tend to agree that AOTD is the best U-Boat sim ever, but ironically as a simulator it is in fact less complex than SH3 or SH5.

Yes, it is less complex than SH3/SH4/SH5. As awesome as Aces is/was, I don't see how anyone can objectively say it is better than SH3 or SH4. There's some serious nostalgia going on here. :) AOD is still widely regarded as the best subsim of its time. There may be people who say best of all time, I can't take that seriously.

[Julhelm]

Because 'more complex' doesn't always equal 'better'?

I've been playing a lot of SH1 lately, and I honestly find it objectively better than SH4. About the only things that aren't better in it are the sea graphics and the map tools. And Red Storm Rising does a lot of things better than Sub Command or Dangerous Waters, despite the almost complete technical realism of the latter. Both of these decades-old titles still hold up as well as back then in terms of playability so it isn't all down to nostalgia.

[Carthaginian]

Aces of the Deep

There has never been a better sub sim, never been one that had all the necessary elements without all the clutter. Though out of nostalgia, I have to say that Silent Service II is the all-time most memorable... well, it was Aces of the Deep that first made me feel like I was in a tiny metal tube hundreds of feet under water, waiting on my fate. You had every major decision of a sub skipper in your hands. You had all the major technical innovations represented. Everything was there without the headaches.

SH4, of all the later sub sims, comes the closest to this feel.

And there has NEVER been a better nuclear sub sim than Red Storm Rising.
In fact, for my money, there has simply never been another; the first was the best and the only one you need.

[Sailor Steve]

OMG, a Sailor Steve typo, and on a mission-critical word, no less. Get yer cameras, fellas!
I make typos all the time. Sometimes I catch them, sometimes I don't. As I've repeated countless times, my problem is never with mistakes people make, but with actual abuse of the language by people who should know better. When Frau Kaleun caught me using 'you're' when I meant 'your'? Now there was a catch! ;)

Yes, it is less complex than SH3/SH4/SH5. As awesome as Aces is/was, I don't see how anyone can objectively say it is better than SH3 or SH4. There's some serious nostalgia going on here. :) AOD is still widely regarded as the best subsim of its time. There may be people who say best of all time, I can't take that seriously.
I specifically mentioned the gameplay, which included wolfpacks and escorts that could be highly intelligent or phenomenally stupid, and anything in between. The gameplay also included evasion by bottoming the boat and realistic fog which limited both u-boat and escort vision. SH3 and SH4 have none of those, and all the mods in the world haven't helped. That said, I prefer the newer games just for the feel, part of which involves graphics and some of which involves sound.

[makman94]

Yes, it is less complex than SH3/SH4/SH5. As awesome as Aces is/was, I don't see how anyone can objectively say it is better than SH3 or SH4. There's some serious nostalgia going on here. :) AOD is still widely regarded as the best subsim of its time. There may be people who say best of all time, I can't take that seriously.

yes Neal...imo it is ...'nostalgia' ! a nostalgia of pure sub sims.
are the sh3/sh4/sh5 really 'complex' ? i don't think so.
the development of sub simulations stopped at sh2. from that day till today ,nothing added or developed-improved further on simulation elements in sh3,sh4 or sh5 (on the contrary ...some elements - without obvious reason - just ...vanished and a huge pack of....bugs added). sh3 or sh4 or sh5 are way far from calling them as 'sims'.
the sim fans are waiting more than 11 years for a real sim to come out(SH2 was released in November 2001 and 688i released in 1997). the best sim ,imo, was the 688i (which was sligthly improved and refreshed a little bit at DW) and i am really hoping these brilliant dev teams (sh1-sh2 dev or 688i dev teams) to show up again on stage with a u-boat sim.

as ,for all these about the 'dead sim market' that i am reading from time to time,...my opinion is that are not valid.think about it...if,indeed, was dead then there wouldn't be so many ,and very VERY good, sims for airplanes.people really like the serious sims and wants them.
companies like ubi just follow the fast road to get some money ...they don't care if the product will be good or not .all that matters for them is the product to be 'ready' in their time schedule and thats all.
there will be a real sub sim at future , i am sure of it ! when ? i don't know...i am just waiting !

[TorpX]

as ,for all these about the 'dead sim market' that i am reading from time to time,...my opinion is that are not valid.think about it...if,indeed, was dead then there wouldn't be so many ,and very VERY good, sims for airplanes.people really like the serious sims and wants them.
companies like ubi just follow the fast road to get some money ...they don't care if the product will be good or not .all that matters for them is the product to be 'ready' in their time schedule and thats all.
there will be a real sub sim at future , i am sure of it ! when ? i don't know...i am just waiting !

+1 :up:

I am waiting too.

I haven't tried SHO, and have little desire to. It is only interesting to me insofar as it provides a window into Ubisoft's "thinking". Sadly, it seems to suggest Ubi is simply unable or unwilling to make a good subsim. :nope:

I think the next real subsim will not come from Ubisoft.

[RAM]

The concept of a subsim MMO is good and workable. In fact any simulation MMO concept is good and workable. It all depends on how you implement it.

serious MMO simulators have to be in some way or another, monthly fee based. Aces high has been running for 14 years now since the first alphas, and 12 from the initial release (at 30 buck a month back then). Has done just fine and is a reasonably hardcore flight simulator that has had success because it has had proper developing over time, and good customer support/feedback. But that requires monthly income. It's unavoidable.

sure enough MMO requires some gameplay concessions here and there (it's just inevitable, it's the nature of the limits a MMO imposes on any online gaming experience), but if finely tuned they don't do a mess nor they impair the realism and immersion a simulation demands.


So what we are offered is a web-browser game implemented under the "F2P" label. And THAT is where I start saying "no way, not for a game of this nature, and not for a game branded as Silent Hunter".

It's just the implementation they chose and the limits imposed by said implementation. Web browser. Flash based. Nothing against those things (they work quite well for something like Minecraft), they just don't cover the bases for something as complicated as a subsim.

Also Free to play?. Seriously, enough with that BS. F2P games are a scam on themselves and they range from "Pay to Win" to "free to get bored in the years long grind in front of you before you get anywhere near competitive enough". Lots of "magical" or "Boost" items for cash to give you surreal performances. Those things simply don't work for a simulation, for starters, and as I said, are scams to get money out of you. I don't like to be scammed. So another "No way, joe, I'm not into that"

Another thing is that I see none of the names that have made Silent hunter series great, involved in this project. And I mean, the modders who selflessly, and for no monetary reward other than donations that I'm sure didn't compensate at all for the work they put in their creation, turned unimpressive stock games into polished jewels of the simulation gaming history. And not only they are out of the project, they won't even be able to contribute to it by free at all because the MMO concept and web browser implementation inherently prevents them from doing so.


Finally the publisher is Ubisoft. Nothing else needed to argument this point.

[Iron Budokan]

Finally the publisher is Ubisoft. Nothing else needed to argument this point.

^^Pretty much this. We have no reason to expect different behavior on their part, given their past.

[scrapser]

My at home gaming began with a Commodore 64 computer. My very first game title was Silent Service from MicroProse (RIP). So you can see I've been around the pond a few times.

My take on this latest development is that online play has become the inevitable fate of computer based games and simulations. Sadly it will take away much of what those of us who have been there virtually since the beginning of computer entertainment enjoy. But this sort of change cannot be stopped...good or bad.

The Internet has changed everything and continues to do so. Just like music video has pretty much redefined what "music" is and removed many of the ingredients that made what we think of today as classic rock possible. The people coming of age today want instant gratification and everything at their fingerstips and on their smartphone. The "artists" of today (I use the term loosely) are more interested in making a big profitable splash than they are communicating something important inside themselves. There are the exceptions of course but by and large most of them just want to get rich as quickly as possible.

The younger folks of today did not experience what came before first-hand so their comprehension of it is only a shadow of what it actually was for those of us who did. They will cite the same old mantra that we older folks are stuck in time (which we also did to our older generation). But I dare say it's more than that.

There really is a difference in quality but only those of us who have lived through both eras can see this without having to be convinced of it. Just look at how music media has changed. There was a time when we all wanted a better media for listening to clean and rich sounding music that would be durable. That came finally with the advent of the CD. Vinyl is still considered the ultimate in delivering quality sound but vinyl is fragile.

But now we are going backwards to MP3 because everyone wants their music on their mobile devices and fully sampled music makes for huge files that would quickly fill the storage space on a smartphone. The CD is fast becoming a faded memory unfortunately and all the older music is being left behind because there simply are not enough buying customers to keep the titles profitably in production. I think this is a sad but unfortunately inevitable tragedy.

My analogy above may not be perfect but I think most who read it know what my point is. Computer gaming has become formulated towards profit and the technology is dictating what is or will be the experience we can all have. When desktop PC's were THE platform and everyone was just starting out developing games, we all were treated to some very diverse and rich types of games. But over time as the companies learned what worked best (for their pocketbooks) the diversity and richness has slowly dried up. Now we are seeing the end of it all.

There are some exceptions to all this (see the new Carrier Command and Far Cry 3 games as examples) but I'm glad there are emulators out there that allow us older folks to continue to enjoy the past. Personally I weep for the future of gamng.

[JU_88]

I dont care for SHO, its just fluff if you ask me. Its like its Ubis way of trying to convince themselves that they are keeping the franchise alive.
They should just fix up Sh5.

The problem I see with SH3, 4 & 5 is that Ubi started over too many times for each one,and here they are doing the same thing again with half arsed browser game.
If they had done a railworks model on a real SH game to make it expandable sim with added DLC and not slapped any silly DRM on it, it would have been alright probably.

They made fatal errors that sealed the fate of the franchise. Hey that sounds like an ephisode of 'Seconds to disaster' :D
"SH5's dont just happen - they are chain of critical events...."
Ubi Airlines anyone?

They would chain you to your seat, play you an unfinnished inflight movie, serve you an unfinnished inflight meal, crash the unfinnished Boeing 737 in to a mountain, then shrug and say "oh well its not really our fault the passengers didnt like it, we had every reason to do those things, but we will try to listen in future. Now we are proud to present Ubi Airlines 2 with a new fleet of unfinnished Boeing 767s" :woot:

[TorpX]

I dont care for SHO, its just fluff if you ask me. Its like its Ubis way of trying to convince themselves that they are keeping the franchise alive.

Ditto. :up:

[scissors]

Yes , I call it Ubihate ..And im not sure what to make of it .
On the one hand ( per SH5). The DRM did suck , It was like a slap in the face saying .. You are a paying customer , Yet you will jump through these hoops , and play when /how we say its ok .. Most of that has been fixed now but it hurt the games sales . As a sub-simmer I .. we have/had an interest in SH5 sales .. No sales= no new subsims .
And ... the game wasn't completely complete .. It was playable . And im not one to second guess a person who can do things i cannot even understand ,(Yes I am .. Sorry ) .
But there were choices made that could have been,just as easily not made, and been much better .. ( The Man beating on the welding machine while in port comes to mind.. Just no!! ) .That particular example is nitpicking but ...Its valid .
Its all Beside the point though in my humble opinion ..
First off ,Anyone willing can go to Neal's interview with the SH5 team before it was released.
They made it clear then, that sh5 was to be a canvas , For the Modders to put the shine on .. And its getting pretty shiny .There is no better open water simulation to my knowledge, I have looked .If anyone knows a better one ?
And as for DRM ..
DRM is the result of living among-st the Masses , Its like Guns and gun control now .
Some few endanger the freedoms of the rest by abusing those freedoms .. (Too dramatic ? )

I havent gotten a beta key yet so i cannot speak to SHO yet ..
I love that there is an interest in taking the franchise further ..
But subs are not tanks . Nor airplanes ,Nor sword wielding heros , They can be just as fun , More interesting , But its a slower , more subtle thing .
Im not sure wow gamers will "get it " ..( see ... worried about Ubis sales again )
I think a previous poster came really close when they said Ubi should revisit SH5 ..
And its not that the Modders dont do amazing work themselves without the direct support of Ubi .. Its quite the opposite .. Its that the Modders have shown what potential is and was there .A lot of it there from the beginning and just turned off .

If they On sh5 engine or better graphically .............. I would like play Halsey , Or Yamamoto.... to control an entire battle-group . Or.Hell, just an aircraft carrier would be primo ..I Would like to replay ..Midway on either/both side complete with all ships i can walk around in and control individually or give commands .THAT is a good idea .I should get paid for ideas like that ..
Its easy to think big when its not your money i guess ..

I take solace in hoping/knowing that things are progressing both with software and hardware and costs will go down ,, and the franchise will live on .

[StarTrekMike]

I made a topic about this a while ago, I think it still is showing true as I learn more about SHO.

Microsoft flight is a great example of what is happening here, they decided that the primary audience was not going to be the FSX or FS2004 crowd anymore, they even openly stated that the game was simply not made for them and it left a lot of long time players out in the cold as they had been waiting for a new version for a long time.

When Flight came out, it was a massive failure, they wanted the casual gamer crowd to replace the hardcore FSX crowd but ended up with neither in the end, the project was cancelled before it even was out a year.

You see, SHO is no different, they pay lip service to us in the interviews but it does not take much to read between the lines and see that this is not going to be a worthy game to carry the SH franchise torch, it will fail and it will be because they essentially have told us that we don't matter, that we are a dying breed and that we need to adapt or die, whats more, it will fail because the market they are hoping to grab simply does not exist, why would anyone want to casually play a subsim in a browser? I mean, would it really compete with the more addictive and simple fare that is more suitable for that platform?

My problem with Ubi at this point is that it is clear that they are not only ignoring the simulation fanbase that they have helped to create but are actually trying to marginalize us out of the market picture, they have done nothing but half hearted releases for franchises like IL-2 (Cliffs of Dover could have been much better if Ubi did not just push it out the door as a afterthought) and SH 4 and 5 (again, pushed out but not really supported in any real way).

They figure that if they ignore us and pretend that we don't exist that we wont and that they won't need to spend the time making quality products that we expect, the same goes for just about any other major publisher that has done sims in the past.

The good news? Eagle Dynamics and 777 are proving that the market is still there but you need to approach it differently, titles like DCS A-10C are gaining traction because of the level of quality that you can see just by watching a youtube video about it, Rise of flight works because it is actually worth the money they charge for planes.

Those companies understand that we are more than willing to shower them in money if they are willing to put the effort in to deliver a solid product.

Ubisoft will not learn this, they want the path of least resistance and building good sims takes time and money that they could use for garish marketing or yet another Assassins creed game or two.

Sad state of affairs and it is the reason I won't touch SHO, I won't show them that we will just buy anything they throw at us, even if it is "free".

[tsotha]

The problem with serving a niche community is it doesn't change the amount of effort you have to put into the game. A really good subsim is going to be just as much work as MW3, and the potential profit is tiny by comparison.

As to the people who are saying "Ubisoft only wants money", well... of course. It's not a charity. Of course the company is going to put its efforts into the most financially promising projects. The guy who wrote Minecraft is a billionaire now (no exaggeration), and nobody is going to make that kind of money serving the tiny community of hard core subsimmers. Personally I'm surprised SH5 got made at all, and it doesn't surprise me they cut corners.

There are only two ways I can see getting a next generation sim - either somebody with a lot of online charisma gets an open-source project going and keeps it alive until the first stable release, or a company like Ubi releases the code for an older game like SH3 or SH4. Come to think of it, it wouldn't hurt them financially to release the SH5 code, and that might be a better starting point.

SHO isn't going to be a hard core sim. It can't be. It might be a fun game of the more casual variety, but the people who haunt this forum aren't going to like it.

[StarTrekMike]

The problem with serving a niche community is it doesn't change the amount of effort you have to put into the game. A really good subsim is going to be just as much work as MW3, and the potential profit is tiny by comparison.

As to the people who are saying "Ubisoft only wants money", well... of course. It's not a charity. Of course the company is going to put its efforts into the most financially promising projects. The guy who wrote Minecraft is a billionaire now (no exaggeration), and nobody is going to make that kind of money serving the tiny community of hard core subsimmers. Personally I'm surprised SH5 got made at all, and it doesn't surprise me they cut corners.

There are only two ways I can see getting a next generation sim - either somebody with a lot of online charisma gets an open-source project going and keeps it alive until the first stable release, or a company like Ubi releases the code for an older game like SH3 or SH4. Come to think of it, it wouldn't hurt them financially to release the SH5 code, and that might be a better starting point.

SHO isn't going to be a hard core sim. It can't be. It might be a fun game of the more casual variety, but the people who haunt this forum aren't going to like it.


Nobody will debate that the subsim market is pretty small compared to something like Assassins creed or the Modern warfare franchise, those properties get millions invested in not only the production of the game but also the advertising and marketing required to compete with others and grab the attention of the target audiences (namely teenagers).

The simulation market is different, we don't value the same things as the teenagers who are the target demographic for most mega-popular franchises, we want quality first and foremost, we are critical and we will not hesitate to say when we feel wronged.

When you say that Ubisoft is a business and it's goal will always be money, that is true, but you must also take into account that the market exists for good simulations, granted they would not get the amazing return that they would get with something like assassins creed but they also would not need to invest millions upon millions into marketing either, we as simmers know what we want and we simply don't value a Mountain dew cross promotion or stuff like that.

In a way, it costs them less money to sell a simulation because the market is already so hungry for more and so savvy when it comes to knowing about upcoming content that it pretty much sells itself.

Is that enough for them to make another actual Silent Hunter game instead of just releasing Farmville the Atlantic edition? probably not but it has always been my belief that the degradation of the sim market is not due to lack of demand but because publishers want the path of least resistance at all times, as a result, we get boring and simple games and it just gets worse and worse the more we excuse it as good business.

So, sure, we can just give them a free pass and say that it is a business and that they are under no obligation to innovate or diversify their projects to meet a variety of different markets but that is simply allowing the current trend to continue, if we don't demand something now, it might be too late later while we are all playing Assassins creed XXII on our integrated targeted marketing devices implanted in our skulls or while we are sipping our Halo/Gears of War/Call of duty XXXXIIII tie in energy drinks.

A good business cares about it's customers and tries to bring them what they want, it does not always work out but the effort can build something that is more valuable than anything to a business, customer loyalty.

[Karl Heinrich]

Agree with what StarTrekMike is saying here. Trying to take niche product such as simulations and watering them down isn't really doing anyone any favours - the likes of Silent Hunter Online isn't probably going to be "interesting" enough for the general market, nor is it going to have the depth or detail that the likes of us want from it. So your customer base isn't likely to be much larger than if you'd just focused on the niche market in the first place. Which is basically what Mike already said in reference to FSX / Flight.

Yes, focusing on us niche lot that would take more work, but similarly (as has been said before) the simulation community is often prepared to pay more than a casual gamer. If someone pulled out the stops on Silent Hunter 6 or equivalent, I'd be happy to pay somewhere in the region of £80.

For the likes of Ubi, why not do the two in conjunction... spend the time developing a decent simulation and then do SHO from that (much as the current SHO utilises the SH5 engine). Not only do they then receive whatever revenue the online, simplified version gets from the more casual games - and use the online game as a marketing tool for the "main simulation" for those that may be looking for a bit more and maybe aren't familiar with the existing SH range.

So, in answer to the original question, the issue is with the effort, not the online part per se (multiplayer on one sub is the day I long for...)

Apologies for the waffle, hopefully some of that makes sense.

[TorpX]

I agree with everything you said, especially this part.

A good business cares about it's customers and tries to bring them what they want, it does not always work out but the effort can build something that is more valuable than anything to a business, customer loyalty.
I would also add that Ubi's own actions is part of the reason that the subsim niche is small. If they had a less shortsighted view, they would be building on past successes, instead of trying to rely on the quick buck strategy. A really good subsim would require substantial investment, but it would have the benefit of attracting new people to the genre, and set the table for future releases. People who bought a good ATO subsim would likely be willing to buy a good PTO subsim, and maybe a good surface WWII sim, a dynamic campaign subsim add-on, etc., etc. But you can't do that if your only idea is to throw together a half-baked kiddie game, and dump it on the market, so you can move on to the next bit of nonsense. By punishing us, they are actually shrinking the potential market for their games.

[Julhelm]

The problem with contemporary sims is that they require far too much work over too much time to be profitable. The CloD team themselves have stated that a single cockpit took more than one year to make. Does that sound like a profitable business model to anyone? There's a reason the Stalingrad sim will revert back to Il-2:1946 level of detail cockpits.

[Karl Heinrich]

I suppose a line needs to be drawn on the level of simulation, but for everyone that's going to be different. I'm an avid FS2004/FSX fan and play on as high a realism as possible (and on VATSIM etc). But I also love IL-2 46 and think the level of detail in the cockpits was sufficient., they looked decent, the gauges worked, and you had pretty good control over relevant aircraft systems if you wanted it.

I've not attempted to play Cliffs of Dover yet and I didn't notice more detail in what I've seen of it, just shinier graphics... but as I've not played it, I don't know, so that's pure baseless waffle :P

Of course the level of simulation we all want is going to be different.

For myself at the moment, modded SH3 is great, but would like more detailed hydrodynamics, manual trimming etc. perhaps more detailed control of engines and certain systems, but not a whole lot more to be honest. What I really want to see is "one boat multiplayer" of some form... (but not a sim that can only be played online).

[StarTrekMike]

The problem with contemporary sims is that they require far too much work over too much time to be profitable. The CloD team themselves have stated that a single cockpit took more than one year to make. Does that sound like a profitable business model to anyone? There's a reason the Stalingrad sim will revert back to Il-2:1946 level of detail cockpits.

The CloD team was horribly mismanaged (funny how Ubi was also involved in that) and work that should have taken far less time was dragged out by many poor choices.

If you actually follow the Stalingrad development, they are expanding on the original IL-2 1946 formula while not making promises they can't keep, add on to that the inclusion of 777 (a company that is noted for delivering a great product with Rise of flight) and you have a recipe for success that should have been done with CloD.

One need only look at Eagle Dynamics to see that a good cockpit need not take a year.

So, in short, CloD is a terrible example of the usual flight sim production but a fantastic example of how little Ubi cares for the simulation market.

[Julhelm]

Most ED titles are years in development and reuse much the same content over and over. Imagine how long A-10 would have taken if instead of mainly focusing on a single jet, they'd have to build a new map, all-new NPC units etc. Exacly why ED's solution to lack of content has been to open up the game to allow 3rd parties to develop new modules.

I have no doubts that 777 will put out a solid game, but a lot of people are going to be gravely disappointed because it will have less fidelity than CloD/A-10.

But it's the right way to go because they know they have a limited budget and there are physical limits to what x amount of money can get you.

For subsims the right way would be to go back to earlier designs like SH and AOD and iterate on their gameplay. On one hand because they were very playable designs and secondly because such a game would actually be within the realm of the possible for an indie team to handle on a small budget. There is no mid-tier dev like 777 to do subsims so it stands to reason any such effort would have to be smaller.

[Cybermat47]

DRM is the result of living among-st the Masses , Its like Guns and gun control now .
Some few endanger the freedoms of the rest by abusing those freedoms .. (Too dramatic ? )


Well, you could have used a less sensitive issue as an example.

[scissors]

Well, you could have used a less sensitive issue as an example.

It was probably a bad example , The two issues are wildly different but the same thing drives the drama behind both ..