View Full Version : Vote for best simulation - go vote for SHIII
http://ve3d.ign.com/pollpage.html
Aye Herr Kaleun!
:yep: :yep: :yep:
I'm Sorry...As much as I enjoy Silent Hunter 3,I could not in good concience vote for Silent Hunter 3 with Falcon 4.0 in the list so I voted Falcon 4.0.
In terms of being what I would consider a true simulator....Falcon 4 is hands down head and shoulders above Silent Hunter 3 in terms of realism,feel,immersion factor and just plain old fun to play IMHO.
hamburger
12-14-05, 09:34 AM
I'm sorry too, but how could i vote for silent hunter 3 as the best simulation? maybe the game with the most bugs of the year 2005 :up:
Redwine
12-14-05, 10:59 AM
I'm sorry too, but how could i vote for silent hunter 3 as the best simulation? maybe the game with the most bugs of the year 2005 :up:
:up:
Drebbel
12-14-05, 06:49 PM
Just voted.
SHIII OF COURSE !!!!
http://ve3d.ign.com/pollpage.html
Camaero
12-14-05, 06:52 PM
SHIII... Hands down one of my favorites ever. (The only thing that beats it for me is Nascar Racing 2003)
Marhkimov
12-14-05, 06:55 PM
I play all SH3, all the time, 24/7...
...
So I voted for Falcon 4.0 :up:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: jk ;)
I play all SH3, all the time, 24/7...
...
So I voted for Falcon 4.0 :up:
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: jk ;)
I was already giving orders to my midget nuclear sub commanded by my neighbors dog to come and blast your poophole (Ok ok, I hate the dog and yes, it is a kamikaze boat! But don´t tell that to the dog! :) ).
Marhkimov
12-14-05, 07:13 PM
hehe, SH3 is the greatest! Could have been better, but it's still the greatest!
Sailor Steve
12-14-05, 10:42 PM
SHIII
Could have been better
Now there's an understatement if ever I read one.
:gulp:
Problem one: Haven't tried Falcon or DW.
Problem two: Don't like modern stuff that much.
Conclusion: can't vote honestly
Marhkimov
12-15-05, 04:31 AM
Problem one: Haven't tried Falcon or DW.
Same here.
Problem two: Don't like modern stuff that much.
Same here.
Conclusion: can't vote honestly
I would have to disagree here... SH3 was good enough to entice you to pay for it, right? The same can't be said for Falcon or DW.
Gizzmoe
12-15-05, 04:38 AM
I have all three games and I voted for DW. SH3 isn´t bad, but it´s hardly the best sim of 2005.
Too bad T-72: Balkans on Fire isn't on that list, if it were, it would get my vote hands down. Abolutely awesome sim! :up:
timetraveller
12-15-05, 09:38 AM
One of the problems is defining the word "Best".
Does it mean best in adherance to realism and detail? That's mainly what "simulation" means. But at what cost to gameplay? I think best also means gameplay.
DW is highly complex (at least for me), very detailed, but graphics and models are poor. The learning curve is very steep, but I'm sure rewarding once you are past it. Gameplay? I dunno. I don't have time to get past the learning curve.
SH3 is medium complex, nice models, realistic enough, great gameplay, a great community, tremendous modding capabilities. Lots of history too. I love history.
I voted for SH3. Can't say I've ever tried Falcon 4.
TT
I have all three games and I voted for DW. SH3 isn´t bad, but it´s hardly the best sim of 2005.
Come on! I checked some screenshots of DW as I do not own a copy. The graphics STINK! I can't understand how someone would prefer DW before SH3!
Gizzmoe
12-15-05, 10:24 AM
I have all three games and I voted for DW. SH3 isn´t bad, but it´s hardly the best sim of 2005.
Come on! I checked some screenshots of DW as I do not own a copy. The graphics STINK! I can't understand how someone would prefer DW before SH3!
Graphics isn´t the most important thing for me, the gameplay and things like an excellent mission editor are the deciding factor. Technically DW is much more advanced than SH3.
IMO.In "simulations", eyecandy should always come after the authenticity and realism when it comes to resources, development and planning games. Remember out-of-the-box-SH3 :huh: Not that good, but pretty.
As Gizzmoe and Krupp stated graphics are not what make a game good.Ive said it before and will say it again..The Combat Mission series is a very obsolete looking game graphics wise but is still to this date the best wargames made in terms of reality and feel of commanding troops in the field.
This is the criteria I used for games when voting for one comes into play.Not neccasarily in this order.
1. Graphics
2. Gamplay
3. Support from developers
4. Flaws and Bugs in the game
5. How true to real life is the game
SH3 falls short in numbers 3,4..lower score in 4 in turn brings down my scoring on number 2 due to bugs and flaws popping up.The graphics are top notch but that cant save it from its other problems of being buggy and flawed and having an unfinished feel.No support from the devs after a few months kills the score a bit as well..as well as the patches that never even attempted to fix some of the more glaring issues.As for true to real life it does well but still lacks something IMHO.Gamplay is fun and enjoyable but the mentioned flaws and bugs lower it a bit and do effect the gameplay.
Flacon 4.0 AF to me scores high in all categories but is short a bit in graphics but not by much.It is still supported by the devs and they communicate with the community as to what is going on.Gamplay is top notch and with one of the most advanced,easy to use,and well designed mission editors around.Also one of the most advanced dynamic campaigns ever seen in a simulator.Very few major flaws and bugs that effect the game and is probably the most advance,realistic simulator you will find on the PC to date.
Dangerous Waters I do not own so could not really count this into my choices.But I do own its predeccesor Sub Command and enjoyed it completely.
Falcon 4 Allied Force is just a heavily modded Falcon 4.0 game. I own the original 4.0 Falcon game and I saw Allied Foce in action.....it's a pimped 4.0!
As I don't consider Falcon to be a new game, my vote went to SH III. I do like immersive simulations, but Falcon isn't new and DW graphics don't cut if for me.........they look to be suited for a Windows 95 environment!
Although the out-of-the-box SH III is far from perfect, the modders over here made sure that we can play SH III the way it could/should have been, if UBI had given the developers enough time!
Long live SH III !!!!!!
benetofski
12-15-05, 06:29 PM
I think people should 'read' the title of the poll BEFORE VOTING:
"BEST SIMULATION"
does not read...
"MOST POPULAR SIM-LIKE GAME PLAYED BY SMALL GROUP OF SUB-NUTS"
or
"BEST SUB SIM EVER"
... pity they didnt include 'REAL' sims in the poll!
:lol:
... pity they didnt include 'REAL' sims in the poll!
You are right:
the forgot the Sims Night Life! :lol:
done, voted for sh3... (but like f4af too)
Shakermaker
12-16-05, 09:24 AM
Conclusion: can't vote honestly
Don't be so prudent. It's an online vote ffs
Redbear
12-17-05, 10:18 AM
Mission Accomplished! :up:
Smaragdadler
12-17-05, 01:53 PM
I own SHIII and DW. Never got SHIII to run on my computer, so I have never played it and can not really commend about it.
DW I will play for years to come. It is actually more then one sim for the price. 4 different subs, a ship, a heli and a plane. (in SH3 terms it would a little be like to have playable subs, a integrated Destroyer Command and additionally maybe a Sunderland 'Flying Boat' ASW-Plane sim and to be able to to play all this platforms in single and multiplayer with even more than one player on one platform.)
I think the point of a subsim is to learn efficently use of the different stations. So good graphics are nice, but not the main thing.
To make it short: More button&switches to play with -> more fun and deeper sim. For me DW wins.
Come on! I checked some screenshots of DW as I do not own a copy. The graphics STINK! I can't understand how someone would prefer DW before SH3!
I love SH3, it's a fantastic game and I've learned much from a design perspective just by playing it (The UbiSoft Romania team did an excellent job)... But if you judge a game solely on its graphics then you're missing the point.
Games have slowly become more and more "dumbed down" over the last decade and the superficiality of consumers (even full grown adults!) has perpetuated the problem of PC game developers simply producing sequel after sequel and squashing innovation altogether because they hope that they will "break even" on their investment.
Again, I'm glad you like SH3, I wholeheartedly think that you should... but with statements like that you definitely are "part of the problem, not part of the solution"... :down:
Catfish
12-29-05, 05:05 PM
Hello Jamie,
i got Sub Command, and since i am interested mostly in submarines, this one still does it for me - but otherwise i would own "Dangerous waters" if it would be only possible to get a copy in Germany. And "DW" is not available in Neal's "online store" - which certainly is a shame ;) (Yes, i will buy it.)
I agree that the tendency towards beautiful graphics neglecting gameplay and accuracy has seriously hit the sim market, but "Silent Hunter 3" is a real good exception incorporating historical accuracy, beautiful graphics and good gameplay/immersion. And if UBI would only have given some more time to the developers it might have been even better.
I would still give "Sub command" 9 points out of 10 for long term fun and playability, and i guess the new DW will be even better - BUT apart from being the only "real" modern-sub simulator available Sub command seriously lacks "immersion" and "feeling" - in comparison to a more entertaining sim like SH3, that is.
Sub command (and DW i guess) is about intelligence/education and cold perfection: You are alone with some screens, you order and the sub does it - perfectly, there is never a failure. You know i never had the feeling of really being THERE in the ice-cold waters of the Bering Strait or Kara Sea. There are no problems, there is no technical failure and no real damage management, in a way that you have to face other problems than plotting an intercept course for you or your torpedoes. Playing at high settings, you are alone on your sub. The subs look somehow tiny, you never get the impression of moving in a 6000-ton monster, and it lacks the fascination a submarine usually incorporates. Don't get me wrong, the simulation of detection and counter-detection is, well, perfect again, but "feeling" is obviously not what modern warfare is about - not your fault certainly. You order 68 ft, and you're at 68 ft - exactly, be it in storms or wherever, all responds perfectly. You stare at screens, and you're suddenly dead - or not. The career is just a bundle of single missions, it is not dynamic in any way. There is no storyline. The sim is maybe a perfect simulator for Navy purposes, and interesting in that respect, but it is not a "game". The old "Fast attack" sim featuring 688 subs is still more tense or fun to play - for me.
It is a bit like comparing the modern IL2/Forgotten battles from 1c with the old Aces series from Sierra/Dynamix back then. The almost "perfect" IL2 looks somehow cold and un-immersive, even if it models physical behaviour of planes in a much better/realistic way than its predecessors.
"Reality" or better "simulated realism" should not stop in modeling the technical properties, but add some more things that happen in a "real" environment. Technical failure and dealing with it is only one aspect - i wish you knew what i mean (?).
Greetings,
and a happy New Year,
"Catfish"
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.