A good showing at IGN for Dangerous Waters

[Winston]

I'm not sure if this is new news or not but Dangerous Waters is the runner up for the category of best simulation in the 'best of 2005' awards. I'd like to congratulate the devs and say well done. :up:

http://bestof.ign.com/2005/pc/8.html

Just think, if Silent Hunter III was not released at the same time Dangerous Waters would have had this one. Not that I begrudge Silent Hunter III though, both good simulations.

[Furia]

Silent Hunter is a good game, I have it and I have fun with it.
It is very inmersive and have a top graphics, however as "simulation" that is emulating something real and technical, Dangerous Waters is much more simulation.
Silent Hunter III also have a "pathetic" multiplayer, where you can only run subs against dumb AI. Not much fun even using 100% realistic settings
On the other hand Dangerous Waters offer an incredible possibility of multiple plattforms, submarines, Air and surface and the never seen before multistation for a crew to man a single platform.
The only weak point for dangerous Waters are its graphics and that is a more realistic (thus complex) sim which makes it sells less than SHIII and of course on the rankings, selling numbers are important factors, not to mention the "lobbying" of the producers on this case UBI, a gigant compared with Sonalyst, on the area of video games.
For me, although I still play and have fun with SHIII, a really nice game, the best SIMULATION by all means is DANGEROUS WATERS!
:arrgh!:

[Oyashio]

I own both games but I personally prefer DW because the campaigns in SH3 can be quite complex. However the thing that DW lacks is the realistic graphic SH3 has. Not only that, but SH3 also has the crew management aspects which makes it very challenging. The thing I like abt DW is of cause, technology :rotfl:

[XanderF]

I think the loss to SHIII is pretty much due to two points (and complexity isn't one of them - witness how well "Falcon 4.0" always scored, and that is surely at least as complex as DW!)

* Poor graphics. Not just low quality textures and shaders - which can be excused - but 16bit color?? No support for anti-aliasing at ALL? No widescreen resolutions??? How 20th century!

* Limited replayability. Once you've played through all the dozen or so included missions once or twice...well...that's it. Indeed, read the IGN link. The very FIRST point they make about the game is the "dynamic missions" (read: dynamic campaign) that "aren't scripted".

It really is startling how close DW is to really being absolutely the BEST sim ever made...but those two points are going to haunt it for its entire run, and prevent it from really getting the full accolades it deserves.

[Furia]

Well, due to the multiple platfforms and incredible number of AI units, the scenario possibilities for DW are unlimited. You only have to visit places like SUBSIM (www.subsim.com), SUBGURU (www.subguru.com) and Commanders Academy & Dive Center (http://www.orionwarrior.com/forum/index.php) to download many of the avalaible new Campaing and missions.
MP possibilities are unlimited while with SHIII, MP is lets say"poor and boring" after 3 games. Shall Silent Hunter III have incorporated a Destroyer Command version so you could have Sub vs Destroyer combats, the score would be completely different, but they have not and thus its MP is really poor.
About complexity, well, comparing the complexity of DW with Silent Hunter III is comparing driving a bycicle or a fighter jet.
Just take a look at the 500+ pages manual of DW and the "brochure" that comes with Silent Hunter III.
However as I said, I still like SHIII, makes me feel on the atlantic riding the waves and I like the aspect of "managing" your crew so it will be on my computer for long time.
However due to the increase use of DW among virtual Fleets because its MP possibilities, you will see after a year which game is ruling.

[Fandango]

* Limited replayability. Once you've played through all the dozen or so included missions once or twice...well...that's it.

Multiplayer is the answer to that...

[Sea Demon]

It really is startling how close DW is to really being absolutely the BEST sim ever made...but those two points are going to haunt it for its entire run, and prevent it from really getting the full accolades it deserves.

I actually am getting alot out of this sim. I don;t see anything haunting DW. It's the only sim that I've seen where you can command 3 nuclear subs, 1 diesel sub, a surface ship, and 2 ASW air platforms. I'm absolutely having fun with it. :|\

Sea Demon

[XanderF]

About complexity, well, comparing the complexity of DW with Silent Hunter III is comparing driving a bycicle or a fighter jet.
Just take a look at the 500+ pages manual of DW and the "brochure" that comes with Silent Hunter III.

It's not just SHIII to compare against. "Falcon 4.0" has an equal complexity to DW, and still manages better graphics and a dynamic campaign.

However as I said, I still like SHIII, makes me feel on the atlantic riding the waves and I like the aspect of "managing" your crew so it will be on my computer for long time.
However due to the increase use of DW among virtual Fleets because its MP possibilities, you will see after a year which game is ruling.

I'm just sayin'. Take DW, add SHIII's 3d engine (which is remarkably easy to graft on, depending on how DW designed theirs...given that SHIII has been mostly disappointing in the market...wonder if the Romanians would be interested in licensing it....??) and add a dynamic campaign, and tell me that wouldn't improve the game a LOT!

[LuftWolf]

Limited replayability. Once you've played through all the dozen or so included missions once or twice...well...that's it. Indeed, read the IGN link. The very FIRST point they make about the game is the "dynamic missions" (read: dynamic campaign) that "aren't scripted".

WHA?!?!?!? :o

Dangerous Waters is easily the most replayable game I've ever bought.

Endless missions and multiplayer experiences... :rock:

[goldorak]

I think the loss to SHIII is pretty much due to two points (and complexity isn't one of them - witness how well "Falcon 4.0" always scored, and that is surely at least as complex as DW!)

* Poor graphics. Not just low quality textures and shaders - which can be excused - but 16bit color?? No support for anti-aliasing at ALL? No widescreen resolutions??? How 20th century!

* Limited replayability. Once you've played through all the dozen or so included missions once or twice...well...that's it. Indeed, read the IGN link. The very FIRST point they make about the game is the "dynamic missions" (read: dynamic campaign) that "aren't scripted".

It really is startling how close DW is to really being absolutely the BEST sim ever made...but those two points are going to haunt it for its entire run, and prevent it from really getting the full accolades it deserves.

I agree on the first part of your post.
Its not just poor graphics (which I can excuse), its the absense of 32 bit color for "windowed mode" and the inability to enable antialiasing and anisotropic filtering.
I have to play in 1600x1200 resolution so that the "jaggies" are less apparent but they are still noticeable.

On the dynamic campaign issue, I don't think it is important.
We can't have a dynamic campaign as the one in SH III.
Modern ASW operations are more varied than just going to sea to sink a convoy.
Of course we could have something akin to Falcon 4 dynamic campaign, but as most of you know, Falcon 4 was in development for 4 years, and even then when the game came out it was unplayable because of the thousands of bugs.
The resources Microprose invested on Falcon 4 were just vastly vastly superior to what SCS could invest in DW (just my opinion but i think it is correct).

[soundken]

these opinions our purly my own please take with beer
ok i try to stay outa this but i cant anymore so i gotta say

WHOA STOP THE BUS :damn:

im new around here so i dont wanna inflame the agrument but both games score very high in my book and both are hits outta the park. especially since in the last few years in the realm of good sim, especially naval there are these two and ....... (crickets)

every year these awards come out and every year its just like the oscars i didnt vote for any of it :nope: instead of arguing about which one is better we need to be out there beating our drums on why we didnt get mentioned in any other catagories and others that were completly missed :arrgh!: go look at the screenshots forum for sh3 and tell me that the graphics are not as good or better than fear its a lot harder to render water than it is a room :stare: i didnt buy call of duty 2 yet and liked the first one so i wont bag it but again sh3 NOT mentioned for sound? obviously the these people have never been DC'd with the lights falshing and the water pipes bursting and the boat rocking and creaking hearing the destoyer pass over head using his active on you (to date one of the scariest game experiances ive ever had) most inovative goes to the movies :down: and yes i did buy it its rife with problems and im sorry there's barley anything inovative about it! again with all the FPS games clamoring to have more drivable vehicles i think the MP aspects of DW should have been mentioned its multistation play is one of the most inovative things ive ever seen
Truth is every year the sim/pc comunity grows bigger and bigger and every year they push us away i look at the activity of the forums here cadc, avsim, orbiter, falcon. and i see a strong comunity craving more that is told every year that "that market is dead" and "its not cost effective to release those types of games" but yet we can release 30 diffrent versions of quake over a year and for every one the game boards go "its the best game ever, its the best game ever" the only pc game gamespot even bothers to mention is civ IV :nope: not to say i dont like civIV i love it but game of the year? im a civ fan from way back but i have to admit it aint that diffrent .

EB games pulls trading of pc games and with this gamespot merger probably wont be stocking pc games in the near future :down:

so sh3 wins best sim of the year, well it probably sold more copys then all the others (i hear it did really well ), the only hope is that ubisoft and the other uber game devs sit up and pay attention to how many it did sell so that they can throw some big money our way for a change.

in my mind anyway, DW ,SH3 ,Falcon are all winners
:rock:

[XabbaRus]

A point about the graphics..

DW isn't about eye-candy. And to be perfectly honest 16-bit and 32-bit I honestly can't really tell the difference if I switch my desktop between 16 bit and 32 bit.

anti-aliasing....well I could give you that but still not a biggy.

Replayability I don't think is limited. The stock missions are just that but so it is with any other sim. IL-2 anyone? Also the mission editor is extremely powerful and easy to use, much better than IL-2's

So it is possible if you wanted you could create a huge dynamic campaign in one huge mission. Or the same thing using many many seperate missions.

Does SHIII have an editor? Don't have SHIII so won't comment at this point.

Also most game reviews seem to put eye-candy ove gameplay. Seriously, why do you think FPSs do so well? Also SCS have given us the tools to make new models.

Would DW sell more if the graphics were better? Would it rank higher in gamers awards? Woud it even get a look in? I don't think so. In fact having perused a few gaming mags recently I wouldn't be surprised if DW got overlooked at all. This might be contraversial but gaming mags seem to come to the lowest common denominator in gaming. Anything that is different or tough gets little coverage or overlooked...Unless it is pretty. One of the reasons why sims have shrunk and that includes flight sims.
When was the last decent helicopter sim? Falcon 4 Allied Force it is a rework but not a new game. LOMAC...hmm still not sure about that one.

So back on topic I think the replayability and graphics issues though I agree they are the reason DW came second in the opinion of IMG I hope that they weren't the overiding factor. Having lurked a little on the SHIII board I get the feeling there are more positives about DW than SHIII.

I guess that is market economics for you. :-?

[gdogghenrikson]

I think SH3 deserves the award more because
1. It is Historical, which is more interesting (to me atleast)
2. dynamic campaign which DW doesnt have (that is a big one, to me atleast)
3. It "seems" to have a bigger modding community

[XabbaRus]

OK pissing contest time.

I think DW deserved the award more because.

1.) It is modern warfare with more toys to play with.
2.) You can play out various what if scenarios.
3.) Powerful mission editor allows you to create single missions or campaign as one wishes.
4.) SCS players have direct access to the people who made Dangerous Waters
5.) (Can't help this one) Doesn't use Starforce. :rotfl:

[Sea Demon]

I got Silent Hunter 3 this month and got to say that it is just amazing. Graphics and gameplay are remarkable. But even though I'm enjoying SH3, I still get much more from DW. This is not a knock on SH3 at all. I recommend you DW players and sub simulation lovers go out there and buy it. You won't be disappointed.

I think Xabba makes great points and I agree DW deserves the award more because it offers so much more in tha package with the ability to fight in virtual naval battle from air, surface, and sub-surface units all in one sim.

Sea Demon

P.S. Don't get that Starforce stuff started again Xabba. :lol: I haven't had any issues with it on my machine. At least none that I can detect. :-?

[goldorak]

P.S. Don't get that Starforce stuff started again Xabba. :lol: I haven't had any issues with it on my machine. At least none that I can detect. :-?


Well in any case starforce is a malware (rootkit) and can break your hardware.
I didn't support SH III because of starforce and will continue boycotting software developers/publishers who use it.
So yes starforce is a big :down: for SH III.

[Winston]

Not to worry Soundken it’s alright to have a debate about why you like a game. No one here is arguing there views to strongly I feel. For my part I have both Dangerous Waters and Silent Hunter III, truth be told I play Dangerous Waters more. For an in-depth simulation it has a very good pick up and play quality. Click the shortcut on my desk top and the action starts right away with the random mission generator, which is good for training you up, or even better the myriad on custom missions produced by the excellent community. Why, just before Christmas Bill Nichols released a new campaign, Red Storm Rising. Not had time yet to play it as it’s been Christmas and I want a good free day to spend some quality time with my game, ;) Also lets not forget the power of the multiplayer. I’ve not even tried that yet…Well only on lan with my Brother. Getting my skills up so I’m not a weak link in a fine crew. I’ve got to practise my TMA ‘cos, well lets just say I suck. I’m getting better though and I’ve been playing for a while now.

I have to admit at this point my pc is a bit of a dog. Even so I still enjoy a game of Silent Hunter III. At the moment I’m doing the stock campaign with no mods as yet so I can experience the game as the makers intended it. I go out in my boat, the U-51, about once a week, some times more if I can find the time. I run it on 100% realism and refrain from popping up my observation scope when being depth charged. It dose make for a very good game. I’ve yet to see a Battleship or a Carrier. Hell, not even run in to a cruiser. Well perhaps I’ll have more luck this time as I’m near Gibraltar.

I guess you could break it down like this. Gameplay comes down to personal preference. I would guess that if you were to line up all the people at subsim then SHIII would win a vote as there are a lot more people who have SHIII. However, a lot of people have both. It would be nice to see what the results would be if the voting was limited to just people who had both. In the interest of diplomacy let’s call this a tie for now, though my personal preference is known ;) Multiplayer would go do DW hands down given all the possible permutations afforded by the available platforms. This adds a lot to the replayability of a game.

Still, we’re quite lucky to get two simulations out in the same year. Much better than none.

[SubMonkey]

I've always enjoyed SSI Silent Hunter (and now Ubi) for their WWII Sub sims. I've also enjoyed Jane's 688i, (then EA and now Sonanalysts) for their modern sub sims.

I enjoy both for different reasons.

Now as far as the difference between Silent Hunter III and DW I'd say the following:

1.) Single Player Sim Award = Silent Hunter III... just a dang immersive good time.

2.) Multi-Player Sim Award = DW hands down. I mean... Multi-Station on ONE platform. Awesome! I remember reading in the Prima Guide to 688i (I still have mine) that Sonanalysts had wished they could have implanted it back in 688i! I was dissappointed when it didn't happen for Sub Command. Now I'm SO HAPPY that we have it with DW.. and not just with THREE subs... try it with a FFG, a Helo, and an Airplane! That rocks!

Yes... I wish the graphics where better.. but hey.. visual was more important for WWII than modern Subs.

I really think sometimes that SH III and DW are like comparing apples and oranges. I like both, but for different reasons and they are hard to compare in some areas.

:) Okay... a big two cents worth :doh: