I got it!-New idea for Dangerous Waters

[Captain Norman]

Because Sonalysts said they would only add new platforms in an addon or a new game, I have a great idea for a new one. An Aircraft Carrier!
They could even do their next game on an aircraft carrier, cause it could still use the Dangerous Waters engine and format.
Imagine this. Ur sailing in the Persian Gulf when you get orders to scramble all fighters. You immediately give out the order to do so, and set a series of waypoints that lead them to their target, a series of enemy ships.
If they did it right, which im sure they could, this could make for an interesting game, with all the tactical possiblities.

[Linton]

Sonalysts for their own reasons do not want to make DW into another SCX so I ask two questions:
1 Just what do they intend to do with DW and over what timescale?
2 What will replace DW?
The ability to play many different submarines was the beauty of SCX yet this has been ignored with DW.Many of us outside the colonies would like to drive their own warships.I would even volunteer to do the RN officer vocal parts for nothing!
So far I have been very dis-illusioned with DW because I am being restricted over what platforms I can use.If I had more time I would be reverse engineeriing the increased reality back into SCX.
Finally what will replace DW?when I first started reading this site there was a certain buzz on iy as various people were busy making Subcommand into SCX, that seems to be missing at the moment with DW.
In the Uk we sometimes describe something as a Curate's egg-only good in parts.That would be an over estimation for DW

[Captain Norman]

Thats a very good point you have. In my opinion, the ability to control every ship is a little too large, but, what Sonalysts is doing now is a little stupid. We are limited with what we can mod, as we can only mod existing platforms. The community should be supported more, as many submarines and ships id like to see our missing (cough cough Canada). Now, an aircraft carrier would be cool as a seprate game, but, there needs to be a larger sphere of units we can control in Dangerous Waters.

[Linton]

Sonalysts are you reading this thread?

[Sea Demon]

I'm not trying to kill your ideas or anything. I want to see new playables also( *cough* Arleigh Burke *cough*). But Sonalysts has explained their business model many times before. I suggest you read through some of the other threads that explain why they do this. Actually it looks like their business relationship with the government is the only reason you even get a naval sim of the caliber of DW in the first place. Sonalysts IS NOT primarily a game maker. But they are darn good at what they do. They have said that they will make add-ons if sales permit.

And I'm not sure of what all the complaining is about. I have yet to find ANY naval sim of the depth and performance of DW. Have faith gents. :up:

[Captain Norman]

I wanna have faith, and I know they arent a game development company, but come on. Thats what mods are for. If they give US the tools in the hands of talented people *cough* Bill Nichols and TLAM Strike *cough*, we could do it, and it wouldnt cost em money. Some of the best games have been in the form of mods, so let us have a shot.

[Sea Demon]

I wanna have faith, and I know they arent a game development company, but come on. Thats what mods are for. If they give US the tools in the hands of talented people *cough* Bill Nichols and TLAM Strike *cough*, we could do it, and it wouldnt cost em money. Some of the best games have been in the form of mods, so let us have a shot.

If I read their business model correctly, this type of modding may be the end of Sonalysts naval combat games. If we can modify their products, why not their government business clients as well? And if that's the case, what incetive would Sonalysts have in creating new games? I mean they are in business to make money after all. And from what I understand, naval games are made for a very niche market. Sounds to me like most of the money from development of these products come from govt. clients that have a modified version of what we get.

BTW, Sonalysts said they will build new add-ons with adequate sales. But they have to make them. Not that big of a deal.

[holyspirit]

DW even doesn't offer enhanced realism compared the previous title Sub Command
. Yes, DW is cosmetically slightly better than Sub Command but that's all. With the same kind of campaign(or slightly more dissapointing because no more of that voiced-slideshows in between campaign mission). The campaigns seem to be a loose combination of separate missions there's just no continuing feeling anymore.

I dun really mind the obsolete graphics if a game can offer a terrific gameplay such like Steel Beast(Worst gaming graphics i've ever seen in the 2000s but i'm really hooked with it because of the sheer realism of the GAMEPLAY). DW is lacking in realism thus gameplay AND graphics. I think DW was a somehat rushed game not meant to be a classic). Oh there i said it. Though i still keep DW in my harddrive, i usuaaly stop playing after half an hour. It's there just to remind me the memory of how Sub Command brought me hours of fun that's now seem to be desperately lacking in DW.

But look at the bright side at least someone got it beautifully correct in Silent Hunter III. I hope a modern sub sim which compares to SH3 will come out....SOON. If not maybe i will have to take a few years course in 3d modelling and AI programming to make myself one out of my own pays :shifty:.

[LuftWolf]

The real achievements of DW are missed by a lot of people: 1) the integration of the battlespace for playable air, surface, and submarine platforms, as well as 2) the ability for multiple players to command a single platform against other playable platforms in multiplayer.

I think its great that the people calling for more modding ability are amongst the least likely to do any of the modding.

I quite happy with what's on my plate now. The potential of DW to surpass SC/SCX is very significant, and the team has more than enough tools at our disposal, without any help from SCS, although to their credit, they are beginning to understand that they need us (the modders).

TLAM is currently modelling for the next release of LWAMI, and Bill Nichols is doing excellent work in mission design. I can't speak for them, but I can say that suggesting that we do more work for the community takes for granted that we are already doing a lot of work for the community, or at least that's my opinion.

A lot of people talk like DW is not moving forward, or inevitably doomed to be limited because of this reason or that, but those comments are really ignorant, if only because so few people know anything about DW at all.

Cheers,
David

PS My wishes include the reinvolvement of jsteed, Ludger, finiteless, and Thomasew in the daily activities of SubSim. DW is years behind without them.

[goldorak]

Luftwolf you're doing one hell of a job :up: and the community as a whole should be happy to see just how far DW has come from the 1.0 release.

You know this situation with DW reminds me of all the problems with modding that Falcon 4 AF has.
Falcon 4 had a very large community of modders who took literaly the game to new heights.
The new version is shall we say "crippled" with respect to modding and a lot of good modders just left F4AF to its own destiny because of this and gone back to good old mod friendly Falcon 4.
Even with this desertion F4AF is still a lot better than old Falcon.

I think that DW is facing the same kind of problems of F4AF.
Limited modding and only very few modders willing to do something about it.
In this very difficult context people should really appreciate what you're doing. :sunny:

Maybe with time more SC/SCX old time modders will see the light and come give you a hand.

[aaken]

We are limited with what we can mod, as we can only mod existing platforms.
Who told you that? Do you want a playable Victoria? A playable ASW surface platform of your country? Do you have some data about its sensors and weapons? If the weapon layout of the ship you'd like to drive is not too different from the layout of the Perry FFG (the same applies for the submarines) then it's not too difficult to make playables in the place of the exisiting playables. Unfortunately no-one, except SCS, can ADD new playables, but everybody can make playables that overwrite the previous, provided that you have some data, for the sake of realism. I've been doing that for the past months and mainly for the Italian Navy (although I made a sub and an FFG for Spain and, recently the Victoria for Canada). If I can do it, anybody can, and if somebody can't, then just write down your ideas and possibly somebody will try to implement them. It doesn't happen in one day but most modders do what they do in their own free time, which is limited.

[LuftWolf]

Here is where we get into a gray area.

Technically, all that is needed to make a Platform Changing Utility is some kind of shell like JSGME that swaps out databases which contain different versions of platforms, and perhaps if we get cocky, even new graphics files for the platforms.

So, using this format, various missions could be marked as PSU-1, PSU-2, PSU-3, etc. and setup to take advantage of the various platforms as configured in that database/doctrine/interface set.

Now, aside from the significant logistical challenge this poses to the community, it is also CLEARLY a violation of SCS's stated request not to mod new playables.

Jamie has been very clear on this: no hacking of DW for new playables, even if it is of the "soft"-hack variety.

My personal opinion on this is that there is so much other work that has to be done to improve what is already in DW, that spending time adding new things is a bit irresponsible. That having been said, when it perhaps comes time to make period databases, I'll be much more interested in pushing the boundaries of what SCS considers to be hacking.

But like I said, as things stand now, I have more than enough on my plate and am interested in improving the support I get from SCS, not reducing it and getting myself removed from the Beta process.

[aaken]

I definitely concurr, it's a grey area.
But again, just for the sake of the discussion, it's not obvious to grasp the legal difference (if there is any) between modifing the database changing, for example, the characteristics of a torpedo, or the top-speed of a sub (also a playable sub) or the range of a sensor (also the ones used by playable units) and changing the characteristics of a playable unit (thus making it an altogether different unit).

[goldorak]

Aaken you can afford to stay on the grey line, but Luftwolf is caught between the hammer and the anvil.

[aaken]

Yeah I know, I'm lucky. I love lingering in the grey area

[Linton]

Luft wolf the people who did the modding on Sc I have the ultimate respect for.I have not yet got to grips with the improvements with DW.I am a complete simpleton as regards repainting skins,changing files etcetera,but I am a complete fan of how the standard Sc game was improved by the community.The regular names I used to see on the SC forum seem to have melted away.
I think that SCS need to think where DW is going,before frustration builds and more gamers lose interest.There is an adage:you have to speculate to accumulate.The more people say that the game is being constantly improved and just keeps getting better the more they will sell.I just wish that a lot of the improvements of Dw could be put into Sc.

[goldorak]

I just wish that a lot of the improvements of Dw could be put into Sc.


Sorry for SC fans but I hope this never happens.

[Nexus7]

If I was Sonalyst, and I was about to enhance the availability of platforms, your posts would change my mind.

I personally didn't even yet master to use the "so limited" platforms in game, maybe you all achieved. But even then, what fascinates me in DW is not the number of platforms, but the quality of the platforms.

To me it sounds like stating that chess has become an old game and you want new figures to be put on the game :nope:

[Linton]

I just wish that a lot of the improvements of Dw could be put into Sc.


Sorry for SC fans but I hope this never happens.
Goldorak would you care to explain why you do not wish this to happen?I can only think that ANY improvement is a benefit.

[Sub Sailor]

I have to agree with Luftwolf, continue improving DW, instead of adding more platforms. I am in agreement with much of what has been said in this post, but "at present" there is a wide choice of platforms, some I have never played, and I expect I am not alone in that regard. I will always question why the OHP was chosen instead of the AB or Spruance, but I am not much of a surface fan anyway. I am a complete Cluster F... with aircraft, well I crash well.
I believe if the market shows interest, someone will build new simulations.
I believe that there is a market for an improved Fleet Command, also from the stand point of the US Navy, a new sub sim based on the Virginia, and that could incorporate many of the models from SC and DW.
I am not an expert on building sims, but I believe you can add to much to them that they become unstable, some people have done that, on other sites, I just tried one the other day, no sound, and crashing all the time.
I do have a question, Microsoft is coming out with with Vista next year, so how does that effect us and how soon do we have to buy that system to play these sim?

Respectfully,

Ron Banks, MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[goldorak]

No, as long as DW or its succesors use Dirext X they will be compatible with Vista.
Now if they only use Dirext X 10 which is only Vista specific, it will only run on Vista and not Windows 200, Windows Xp etc...

[DivingWind]

Oooooohhhhh.... That Vista is evil! XP is the last Windows OS I use! PLease make DW compatible with Linux!:up:

[Kurushio]

Me too...I'd rather give up computers and go back to the stone age, then have a computer where big brother knows my every move, can spam me online and offline with junk (free marketing for them)...visit a supermarket website to buy oranges on Sunday and be spammed by Tropicana on Monday? No thanks!!

Bill Gates can suck a big banana...I hate the geek's guts! He's already got 30 billion dollars the greedy &*"£"£$*!! :down:

[FERdeBOER]

I also will be VERY HAPPY if I could run DW on Linux. I still have Windows for playing games...

On the other hand, we allways want more!

We forget the great improvevment that is driving, not only different subs with different characteristics, but also a surface ship, a helo and a plane!
And we want more playable!!! When 688i Hunter/Killer or Fast Attack came, did we asked for more and more playable platforms?
DW still has many things to improve so, I think is better making a great game with "few" controllables than a lot of controllables than doesn't works fine (I want my Akula to go up without breaking the TA... and without surfacing!).

The only think I would change is add more countries. It will increase a lot the mission design giving us the cahnce of creating more possible scenarios. SCS only wants us to create missions (a great mission editor I should say, despite still needs improvements), so please, wive us more toys to play with ;)

[Captain Norman]

We are limited with what we can mod, as we can only mod existing platforms.
Who told you that? Do you want a playable Victoria? A playable ASW surface platform of your country? Do you have some data about its sensors and weapons? If the weapon layout of the ship you'd like to drive is not too different from the layout of the Perry FFG (the same applies for the submarines) then it's not too difficult to make playables in the place of the exisiting playables. Unfortunately no-one, except SCS, can ADD new playables, but everybody can make playables that overwrite the previous, provided that you have some data, for the sake of realism. I've been doing that for the past months and mainly for the Italian Navy (although I made a sub and an FFG for Spain and, recently the Victoria for Canada). If I can do it, anybody can, and if somebody can't, then just write down your ideas and possibly somebody will try to implement them. It doesn't happen in one day but most modders do what they do in their own free time, which is limited.
Ive heard that it wasnt possible, but now that I remember what u showed me, it is. What I mean to say is, that you cant create a brand new one, it has to be based on an existing platform. For example, if I remember, u modeled the Victoria, but it has to use Russian/Chinese torpedoes and missiles cause its based on the Kilo. Thats what im talking about. Sonalysts can say that they would not make money and lose clientele if they released mod tools, but that IMO is bull. Many games have released their mod tools, and still make lots of money, they dont lose money from it, especially if you license these tools to make money.

[aaken]

Thank God, the chinese torpedoes are used just by chinese. Given that, you can modify the torpedoes used by chinese kilos to make whatever torpedo you want and don't suffer any drawback from it. I kept the chinese torps cause I have no idea what torps the Victoria uses.

[Captain Norman]

Oh, thanks for telling me. I dont know what the Vic uses either, id imagine its British. Dude, ur genius.

[John Channing]

MK 48's (not ADCAPs)

JCC

[Linton]

Goldorak, you made a rather sweeping statement that you would not like to see some of the dw changes put into sc, but never explained why,so for the second time why do you object to this?

[goldorak]

Goldorak, you made a rather sweeping statement that you would not like to see some of the dw changes put into sc, but never explained why,so for the second time why do you object to this?
There is nothing to explain, Dw has features that will never be able to be included in SC short of someone stealing the source code.
How are you going to add multistation ?
How are you going to add an integrated naval battlespace ?
How are you going to add a new sonar model etc... ?

Lets get real, SC evolved into SCX/SCU because of illegal tinkering.
And this crippled not only the community but SCS as well.
No wonder they are trying to enforce a strict no mod policy on DW with regards to playable units.

Players should realize that they had a free ride with SC but now SCS is in command again and the future is with DW not with SC.
And if players are allways bitching why can't we mod this why can't we mod that and in repsonse they go back to sub command they are not supporting SCS and we as a whole will likely not see another game from them.
Is that what we want ? :roll:

Look this whole bitching on the mod capability of DW with respect to SC I've already seen it in exactly the same way with the Falcon 4 franchise.
In that community there are a lot of players and modders so pissed off at LP for having a very strict control (to say the least) on Falcon 4 that they prefer to not support F4 AF, go back to playing a dead game such as Falcon 4. Now how dumb is that ?
The only effect they will have is that of trying to kill the Falcon 4 franchise.
Really stupid thing if you ask me.

I say accept the fact that SCS controls DW, and be happy for the day they decide to release new playable units.
They are in control, not us its as simple as that.

[Kurushio]

Goldorak, you made a rather sweeping statement that you would not like to see some of the dw changes put into sc, but never explained why,so for the second time why do you object to this?
There is nothing to explain, Dw has features that will never be able to be included in SC short of someone stealing the source code.
How are you going to add multistation ?
How are you going to add an integrated naval battlespace ?
How are you going to add a new sonar model etc... ?

Lets get real, SC evolved into SCX/SCU because of illegal tinkering.
And this crippled not only the community but SCS as well.
No wonder they are trying to enforce a strict no mod policy on DW with regards to playable units.

Players should realize that they had a free ride with SC but now SCS is in command again and the future is with DW not with SC.
And if players are allways bitching why can't we mod this why can't we mod that and in repsonse they go back to sub command they are not supporting SCS and we as a whole will likely not see another game from them.
Is that what we want ? :roll:

Look this whole bitching on the mod capability of DW with respect to SC I've already seen it in exactly the same way with the Falcon 4 franchise.
In that community there are a lot of players and modders so pissed off at LP for having a very strict control (to say the least) on Falcon 4 that they prefer to not support F4 AF, go back to playing a dead game such as Falcon 4. Now how dumb is that ?
The only effect they will have is that of trying to kill the Falcon 4 franchise.
Really stupid thing if you ask me.

I say accept the fact that SCS controls DW, and be happy for the day they decide to release new playable units.
They are in control, not us its as simple as that.

Not necessarily. Us (i.e. the consumers) are in control. Without the consumer to buy/pay for the product, these companies wont even exist.

I have no sympathy for gaming companies because they'll drop you like a brick if they think there is a bigger market elsewhere. Just look at Oblivion, Bethesda, the company who "...made games they want to play" sold out to the console crowd leaving their long-time dedicated fans in the lurch. Anyone else read the near suicidal threads on their messageboard the day it came out? :lol: Rainbow 6 sold out as well. Ghost Recon too. Actually, nearly every quality franchise you can think of either just died or betrayed it's fan base.

So no.....games companies can lick my gonads. I will never be loyal to any games company ever again. Instead of buying a game blindly, I'll try the demo and then wait for it to go in the bargain bin (which seems to take shorter and shorter these days), buy it from Ebay or get it online from the far east. :smug:

[goldorak]

Not necessarily. Us (i.e. the consumers) are in control. Without the consumer to buy/pay for the product, these companies wont even exist.
[cut]

I'm sorry but in this case SCS is definitely in control.
Their primary customer is the US Navy, not the computer gamer.
We got this game as an afterthough.
Just keep that in mind.
SCS is not Bethesda, not Blizzard, not EA, not Lionhead Studios, etc....

[Captain Norman]

Goldorak, you made a rather sweeping statement that you would not like to see some of the dw changes put into sc, but never explained why,so for the second time why do you object to this?
There is nothing to explain, Dw has features that will never be able to be included in SC short of someone stealing the source code.
How are you going to add multistation ?
How are you going to add an integrated naval battlespace ?
How are you going to add a new sonar model etc... ?

Lets get real, SC evolved into SCX/SCU because of illegal tinkering.
And this crippled not only the community but SCS as well.
No wonder they are trying to enforce a strict no mod policy on DW with regards to playable units.

Players should realize that they had a free ride with SC but now SCS is in command again and the future is with DW not with SC.
And if players are allways bitching why can't we mod this why can't we mod that and in repsonse they go back to sub command they are not supporting SCS and we as a whole will likely not see another game from them.
Is that what we want ? :roll:

Look this whole bitching on the mod capability of DW with respect to SC I've already seen it in exactly the same way with the Falcon 4 franchise.
In that community there are a lot of players and modders so pissed off at LP for having a very strict control (to say the least) on Falcon 4 that they prefer to not support F4 AF, go back to playing a dead game such as Falcon 4. Now how dumb is that ?
The only effect they will have is that of trying to kill the Falcon 4 franchise.
Really stupid thing if you ask me.

I say accept the fact that SCS controls DW, and be happy for the day they decide to release new playable units.
They are in control, not us its as simple as that.

Not necessarily. Us (i.e. the consumers) are in control. Without the consumer to buy/pay for the product, these companies wont even exist.

I have no sympathy for gaming companies because they'll drop you like a brick if they think there is a bigger market elsewhere. Just look at Oblivion, Bethesda, the company who "...made games they want to play" sold out to the console crowd leaving their long-time dedicated fans in the lurch. Anyone else read the near suicidal threads on their messageboard the day it came out? :lol: Rainbow 6 sold out as well. Ghost Recon too. Actually, nearly every quality franchise you can think of either just died or betrayed it's fan base.

So no.....games companies can lick my gonads. I will never be loyal to any games company ever again. Instead of buying a game blindly, I'll try the demo and then wait for it to go in the bargain bin (which seems to take shorter and shorter these days), buy it from Ebay or get it online from the far east. :smug:
Wow, I never thought of it that way, but its a good point. I left Sub Command cause of SCX, and Ive been leaving major game developers cause all games now are the same. Sims are what is appealing to me more, especially these navy sims. Im trying to get my mindset away from modding and stuff, u all gotta know, im 16, I grew up playing FPS games and sims, and I feel like ive been brainwashed by all the game developers to support their linear all the same games. Ill give u a good example. Im in my 2nd last year of highschool, finishing this week. All of my friends have an Xbox or an Xbox 360, and they all have Xbox Live. Guess what their favourite game is, and they worship it like a god? Halo. I like Halo, it was good, but just good. It copied so many things from other games. If I suggest another game at all, they shoot it down and say Halo is better. I cant suggest even Dangerous Waters to people cause to them a sim is boring (it definitely isnt IMO). I cant stand all these mainstream games anymore that offer anything new, I need sims, which have more depth and more thought involved. I apologize for these comments trying to make DW an action game, but believe me, im trying to get my mind outta the gutter, and get back into the type of games that got me hooked to gaming as a child (oh US Navy Fighters, how I remember u so).

[Fire_Spy]

About the only thing I would love to see in DW would be the inclusion of a dynamic campaign. Not a series of missions loosely linked. I know you can kind of simulate a dynamic campaign through the use of doctrine but I am thinking more along the lines of what a game like SHIII has or even Aces of the deep..

Where you set out from port and patrol places and have incounters that way. Every game would be different.

And if that got boring you could always play the single missions for a challenge.

I don't know how possible that would be..I think it would require a whole new engine.

Overall I am quite happy with the amount of platforms available. I havent really played them all yet. And with Lwami the "realism" is getting better.

Not that I would object if SCS released an addon with more platforms.:cool:

[aaken]

I say accept the fact that SCS controls DW, and be happy for the day they decide to release new playable units.
They are in control, not us its as simple as that.
I say I love the grey area...lol

[Linton]

Goldorak,that was a very comprehensive answer.I like playing submarine games which is why i would like to see sc be improved by anything that dw can offer.Both games are owned by the same company and sc is now very hard to come by so I cannot see SCS objecting to sc being improved.DW has many things to offer but at the moment is far from perfect.If I had wanted a flightsim i would have bought a stand alone one.The choice of the perry was also very limiting and just how many kilo's do you need?The response about scs losing its major customers if anybody can tinker with its code is a smokescreen.If a customer asks for an application for a training programme,he will not buy it and then start tinkering with it.All he requires is that it works and is fit for purpose.I dont know how much cbt you have done,but all the coures i have done on computer used the manufacturers stock software.
All the mods to sc have been FREE and scs are getting all this work for nothing!It is a shame they did not include an scu mod into the warship element of dw.
I dont think we will ever get a consensus but I am surprised that someone would be so opposed about trying to IMPROVE these games!
I

[Kurushio]

Well Captain Norman, you're exactly a case in point. There are more "trashy" games players out there for every war-simmer. And it plays into the hands of games companies, because it takes less time to make a demented game. Ghost Recon is a good case in point. The original and all it's expansions were very realistic (was and still am a big fan). But that was before consoles really took off. By the time GR2 was made, XBox was here and UBI realised they could make the console version cheaper and because of the fact consoles don't have keyboards...much simpler in the control department...oh, and linear. So what happens? They dump the PC version all together. The third comes out and yes the PC version was made (based on the console one)...but now, instead of being realistic, you have robot-like futuristic soldiers and other twaddle. Bah! :down:

The way I see it...games companies have no loyalties, right? Fine...then neither do I. They make very, very little (if any) money off me. I'm a bargain-bin scavenger, a distribution rights abuser (import games from the Far East) and an Ebay recycler....a general pain in the arse for their accountants. And proud of it. :smug:

[FERdeBOER]

About the only thing I would love to see in DW would be the inclusion of a dynamic campaign. Not a series of missions loosely linked. I know you can kind of simulate a dynamic campaign through the use of doctrine but I am thinking more along the lines of what a game like SHIII has or even Aces of the deep..

Where you set out from port and patrol places and have incounters that way. Every game would be different.

And if that got boring you could always play the single missions for a challenge.

I don't know how possible that would be..I think it would require a whole new engine.

Yes, a new engine would be needed... and very powerfull one. In SHIII you can go everywhere you want but, in exchange, the sound propagation physichs is very limited and simple. Also there is the time compression, I doubt the actual DW engine could compress the time more and still calculate everything with acuracy.

In DW, the water physichs is the most important thing, so the engine can create only a limited area. I suppose that a completely new engine would be needed to generating a whole ocean physichs... and we would have to buy the ultimate computer model!! :doh:

But yes, a more dynamic options will be great. For mission design, the creation of only a few almost real random groups makes the screen plenty of ships, triggers, scripts... and then hours of testing!

[Captain Norman]

Well Captain Norman, you're exactly a case in point. There are more "trashy" games players out there for every war-simmer. And it plays into the hands of games companies, because it takes less time to make a demented game. Ghost Recon is a good case in point. The original and all it's expansions were very realistic (was and still am a big fan). But that was before consoles really took off. By the time GR2 was made, XBox was here and UBI realised they could make the console version cheaper and because of the fact consoles don't have keyboards...much simpler in the control department...oh, and linear. So what happens? They dump the PC version all together. The third comes out and yes the PC version was made (based on the console one)...but now, instead of being realistic, you have robot-like futuristic soldiers and other twaddle. Bah! :down:

The way I see it...games companies have no loyalties, right? Fine...then neither do I. They make very, very little (if any) money off me. I'm a bargain-bin scavenger, a distribution rights abuser (import games from the Far East) and an Ebay recycler....a general pain in the arse for their accountants. And proud of it. :smug:
Yeah, Ghost Recon 2 and 3 sucked. Look at Gamespot. They absolutely loved GR3, and they absolutely dont like sims. Everyone these days wants a Halo. I dont want a Halo, I want something new. Consoles are rising in power, but PCs still provide the best gameplay experience, and developers need to know something: compared to a console gamer (minus myself :D ), PC Gamers arent stupid. We dont accept crap and ported games, we want new and innovative games. Thats what was great about SH3, I game I absolutely love and play to death. It had a true dynamic campaign, excellent gfx, sound, and gameplay, and it was challenging. U need to think and plan before you do something in it, its not a run and gun shooter.
Thank god for simulations.

[Linton]

I still find it hard to believe that any forum member would OPPOSE any improvement to the games we play.

[Kurushio]

I still find it hard to believe that any forum member would OPPOSE any improvement to the games we play.

I think some forum members argue a point just for the sake of arguing. ;)

[XabbaRus]

Lets get real, SC evolved into SCX/SCU because of illegal tinkering.
And this crippled not only the community but SCS as well.
No wonder they are trying to enforce a strict no mod policy on DW with regards to playable units.

Players should realize that they had a free ride with SC but now SCS is in command again and the future is with DW not with SC.



As someone involved in SCX I have to disagree with some of your stuff. SCX wasn't illegal tinkering, it was infact if not official sanctioned, approved of by Jamie and the team, ie they weren't against us doing it and gave us a lot of help and tools to enable Thomas to do the work he did, (The dbase editor came from Ludger but SCS didn't mind him making it, so much so they helped him out with info for DWEdit.) and thus arrive at SCX. SCU was a seperate entity altogether, though for it to work you needed to have SCX installed. SCS never intended to addon extra playables for SC, though they weren't too happy with SCU, as SC had gone as far as it could they let it slide. DW was created with a different way of marketing and extending from the start, ie it was always intended to create additional platforms, though whether sales are high enough to justify that is another question.

SCX/SCU didn't cripple the community or SCS at all, infact SCX attracted people to SC. It was just that when DW came out Jamie laid down the law as to what could be modded and what couldn't. If SCS had not intention of producing addon packs and were happy with the community making new playables they would have said so.

SCU actually required hacking the dlls and exe, that is the main issue with it. So to say it crippled the community is nonsense. If it had crippled the community then Jamie wouldn't have anything to do with Luft, Ami, Thomas, Ludger or whoever else would be involved in modding DW.

As it is though SCS have been quiet the team have been pulled onto other jobs as someone pointed out the US Govt is the main customer. Fingers crossed whatever they do for the NAvy will filter down to DW minus the obviously classified stuff.

[Linton]

Great post Xabbarus.I started on this forum because I enjoyed playing SC.The stock game would have rapidly become very tedious without the scx realism and the scu platform changer made a huge difference.I am sure that the games side of scs's business is not a major profit centre for them but saying that we cannot do some of the mods they tacitly sanctioned for sc and then promising extra platforms but not producing them is just a bit frustrating!:hmm:

[XabbaRus]

They never sanctioned SCU, I don't think they realised until too late what that was about but by then DW was on the way.

As for SCX, they couldn't support it with tech help and anything it did to your system, but they liked it.