Full User Manual please!

[TDK1044]

I hope Ubisoft doesn't produce an incomplete user manual for Silent Hunter 4. There is a growing tendency with game producers to save money by producing a booklet rather than a full user manual for their games. In my opinion, a sub sim needs a detailed user manual which fully explains the simulation. The book for Silent Hunter 3 was OK, and I'm hoping for at least that if not more for SH4.

What do you guys think?

[LZ_Baker]

I would love to see a manuel like they had for SH2. That thing was great. I didn't just learn about the game, but alot about U-Boats and submarines in general.

[TDK1044]

I agree. I'd rather pay an extra $2 and have a really good user manual.

[Drebbel]

I would love to see a manuel like they had for SH2. That thing was great. I didn't just learn about the game, but alot about U-Boats and submarines in general.

Hmm. In many countries SHII was shipped without a printed manual. All there was was a thin leaflet and a PDF file.

Maybe we should go for PDF manual only, that way the manual could be updated to the last minute and even be updated after the game has been released.

I also assume a PDF manual will be cheaper so that leaves room for a more comprehensive manual

[kylania]

I agree. I'd rather pay an extra $2 and have a really good user manual.

Problem is a full manual would cost $2 extra to produce, but they'd sell it for $20 more for a collectors edition, which never sells as well as normal, so they skip it. :)

[LZ_Baker]

Hmm. In many countries SHII was shipped without a printed manual. All there was was a thin leaflet and a PDF file.

Maybe we should go for PDF manual only, that way the manual could be updated to the last minute and even be updated after the game has been released.

I also assume a PDF manual will be cheaper so that leaves room for a more comprehensive manual

That sucks, the manuel I have is like a small book. An in depth pdf would be nice, especially if they did it right with all of the hotlinks to different pages and stuff.

[TDK1044]

.pdf obviously makes sense, but you know, I think there's a lot to be said for having a really good user manual in the retail box. How many of us would want a pdf document as our owners manual for our car?

[Safe-Keeper]

I'd love a thick, detailed manual, but in this day and age, I doubt we'll see one. Even PRIMA's strategy guides have been reduced to thin little books that could barely be called manuals. I remember the huge bricks that came with the two first X-Com games I bought. Not even the slightest little ammo clip in the games were without at least a paragraph of strategy, how-to-get, and so on. Good times.

.pdf obviously makes sense, but you know, I think there's a lot to be said for having a really good user manual in the retail box. How many of us would want a pdf document as our owners manual for our car?Cars and games don't have much in common.

[TDK1044]

Cars and games don't have much in common.

In both cases they say a lot about us.

[Dantenoc]

Most of today's games don't really need manuals because they're designed for the brain dead, where it's basicaly "fire! fire! fire!" and that's it.

Other games don't come with a manual because they have interfaces that are extremely well designed and the games themselves deal with stuff that ordinary people are very familiar with already (car driving sims come to mind). In these games any person can simply take the controls and just roll with it without thinking twice about it.

Yet another type of games is purpousfuly designed without a manual because they're so poorly designed that the player gets more gratification from discovering how to play the game than actualy playing it. Little kids are very fond of this type of games, where they basicaly earn bragging rights by learning how to do a particular trick in their game from dedicated magazines, and hence feeling important because their "in the know"

There are, likewise, more other categories were a manual isn't crucial.

This game, however, DOES NOT fit any of those categories. This game touts itself as a simulator (it says so in the cover box) and should therefore come with a high school sized book, in which not only the games interface is explained in detail, but the theory and background knowledge that one would need in order to be a competent captain should be explained.

Ordinary people have no idea of how CO2 poisoning works (well, aparently neither did the developers) or what the law of the sines is. Ordinary people have no clue in their regular lifes that it is a good idea to order your crew to open up the torpedoe tubes before firing, nor do they know how to convert speed over time into a distance traveled.

Since all of these details (and many, many more like them) are so crucial to the game play experience, the correct thing to do would be to include a high school sized book that covered all of this, plus some tidbits of Uboat trivia or the like for background flavour.

[bookworm_020]

I would love to have a great manual, as well as a target identification book for all the ships we hope to meet (and sink). I think our chances are slim, but we can always ask, with a big Please proceeding the request. I give them an even bigger thank you if they put one in.

Even if the Target Identification book was in PDF, I wouldn't mind!!:yep:

[TDK1044]

I agree. This is not a 'shoot em up' game. The Devs go to great lengths in order to give us a high level of historical and technical accuracy within the game, and I believe that Ubisoft should give us a user manual that reflects the commitment of the Devs. I can dream!!!!:D

[Payoff]

A manual would be great. An AOD style map included would be even better.

[Safe-Keeper]

Ordinary people have no clue (...) how to convert speed over time into a distance traveled. Sad, that. It's not that hard that it matters, either.

Bah, if the math teachers only told their kids that arithmetics was required for playing simulator games:D...

[Drebbel]

A manual would be great. An AOD style map included would be even better.

I disagree, a SHIII stylemap would be better. It contains much more information.

Remember that the AOD map just showed the grids and a general overview of the Atlantic.

Besides the grid information the SHIII map on the otherhand gave us things like ports/convot routes/single merchant routes/high naval traffic areas/air coverage info

[Payoff]

AOD map had names of cities, ports, waterways and small islands as well as depth soundings, instead of different shades of blue.:rock:

[Drebbel]

AOD map had names of cities, ports, waterways and small islands as well as depth soundings, instead of different shades of blue.:rock:

Are you sure ? The map hangs above my desk and I see no depth soundings at all, Or you must be referring to those unreadable scribbles that are even smaller than the almost unreadable city names :D

[Payoff]

I am going by memory. My wife has long since sentenced my map to the black hole that is our attic never to be seen again, but I do recall it was much more authentic looking with bathometric features and so forth.

[fxn]

I would love a user manual in book format for SHIV. The bigger the better!

[Drebbel]

I am going by memory. My wife has long since sentenced my map to the black hole that is our attic never to be seen again, but I do recall it was much more authentic looking with bathometric features and so forth.

Yes, it definately looks much more authentic than the SHIII map.

Maybe they could include a large (A2 or A3) map that one can print out at the local copy/print shop. Would be real nice to have a detailed map in poster size :up:

[Sir Big Jugs]

PDF manual is so difficult. On my rig you can't have it open at the same time as SH III due to Acrobat Reader being a huge resource hog.

I'll gladly pay $10 more for a full, comprehensive manual.

[fredbass]

I think it usually boils down to marketing. How much time and money will they put into the game. The more they add, the more it will cost. Many of us have no problem forking out a few extra bucks, but many people won't. And they aren't going to give us anything for free you know. That's our job. :know:

But given that, I do think it's their responsibility to provide us with ALL the basic information, and then, places like this, is where people should come to find the rest of the story. :D

[TDK1044]

I think if Ubisoft are going to refer to Silent Hunter 4 as a world war 2 submarine simulation, then they should give us an impressive user manual to go with that designation.

[Harry Buttle]

The problem with a printed user manual is that it is out of date as of the 1.01 patch (frequently available before the actual product arrives these days) - the only way to fix that is to use a binder so that replacement pages can be printed and now we are pushing up the price and the size of the packaging (= shipping cost), particularly if we go for a standard A4 size.

Possible solution, don't supply a binder and make the pages of the manual sized to fit 2 pages to a landscape A4 page, then we can buy our own binder and print our own replacement pages (supplied on .pdf as part of any patch).

[Dantenoc]

But isn't it sad how we now have come to accept today's patch system as "normal"? Today's ugly trend is that it's OK to buy an unfinished and defective program and then patch it later :nope: . It used to be that finding a bug in a game was a rare easter egg like affair, and it would cost the publishing/distributing company quite a lot of money in recals. Now they very sinicaly release defective products and then expect us to absorb part of the cost of debuging (we ourselves report the bugs) and fixing/patching it (it's our bandwith being used every time we download a patch). :damn:

This shouldn't be an issue at all. The manual should be correct from day 1 because no software publisher should release a defective or incomplete product.

[Safe-Keeper]

PDF manual is so difficult. On my rig you can't have it open at the same time as SH III due to Acrobat Reader being a huge resource hog.Cough, printers, cough;).

But isn't it sad how we now have come to accept today's patch system as "normal"?Definetly. Ah, the good old days when games were finished upon release. Makes me want to plug in my old SNES again (it still works, and it's got give-or-take 8 games, all 99,999% or 100% bug-free) :cool:.

[bookworm_020]

But isn't it sad how we now have come to accept today's patch system as "normal"?Definetly. Ah, the good old days when games were finished upon release. Makes me want to plug in my old SNES again (it still works, and it's got give-or-take 8 games, all 99,999% or 100% bug-free) :cool:.[/quote]

Should we start a thread to see if anyone can guess how many patchs will be needed by SHIV.

I wonder if they will stop patching after 3 or 4 patchs as they would rather focus on other projects, like they did for SHIII

Here's to SHIV:()1: and all who load you onto their computers! May it be smooth sailing.

[Sir Big Jugs]

PDF manual is so difficult. On my rig you can't have it open at the same time as SH III due to Acrobat Reader being a huge resource hog. Cough, printers, cough;).

Cough, don't have access to one cough, cough...:shifty:

[Dantenoc]

Besides, it would be waaaaay more cost efective for them to print the manual on a profesional printer isntalation and then charge you for it, than have you print it on your printer at home. Darn toners and ink cartridges are expensive, not to mention high quality paper.

[Harry Buttle]

But isn't it sad how we now have come to accept today's patch system as "normal"? Today's ugly trend is that it's OK to buy an unfinished and defective program and then patch it later :nope: . It used to be that finding a bug in a game was a rare easter egg like affair.

This shouldn't be an issue at all. The manual should be correct from day 1 because no software publisher should release a defective or incomplete product.

Back in the day, the game released and there was no ability to patch, the games were also a lot simpler. Then a few patches became available on the cover disks of PC magazines, some stuff became available on BBSes, then the internet took over.

If you want to wait for all software to be perfect before release, don't expect to see a lot of new software and do expect it to cost a lot more.

The worrying trend now IMO is the "3 patches and we are done" approach - no matter how many faults remain - I'd be happy to pay extra for a commitment to quality.

[DaMaGe007]

Look at the manual for Falcon 4, are you seriously saying that sh3 was more complicated ? and therefore it was ok for it to be bug filled and incomplete ?
I would say that games have become simpler from a gameplay point of view and shoddy manuals just compliment the shoddy workmanship on the games.
There are some games that come out complete and relativly bug free these days, but publishers only care about money and most developers dont have the power to say NO.
The only part that has become more complicated is the graphics and other developers and thier publishers have proven you can have both.
Ubisoft doesnt have a good reputation when it comes to "finished" games with good manuals.

As for manuals needing to change at the last minute...this shows a lack of planing and poor quality employees doing the job. Why ? Money..and making more of it.

Games you are refering to were not big money makers "back in the day" they were made with *mostly* loving care to do the best with the limited (computing)recources they had to play with. Nowdays there are recources to burn and efficent code written to the best it can be is a hard thing to find.

Sh3's crappy manual is imo mainly due to the fact that there is no "game" to document because it was never completed anywhere near what it could and should have been.

Its all about cutting costs to improve the bottom line, blame rests solely with the Corporation.

[WilhelmSchulz.]

Most of today's games don't really need manuals because they're designed for the brain dead, where it's basicaly "fire! fire! fire!" and that's it.

Other games don't come with a manual because they have interfaces that are extremely well designed and the games themselves deal with stuff that ordinary people are very familiar with already (car driving sims come to mind). In these games any person can simply take the controls and just roll with it without thinking twice about it.

Yet another type of games is purpousfuly designed without a manual because they're so poorly designed that the player gets more gratification from discovering how to play the game than actualy playing it. Little kids are very fond of this type of games, where they basicaly earn bragging rights by learning how to do a particular trick in their game from dedicated magazines, and hence feeling important because their "in the know".

That reminds me of the Grand Theft Auto Games. :hmm:

BTW: Whats a PDF?

[Torplexed]

PDF = Portable Document File

[atfcharger]

Look at the manual for Falcon 4, are you seriously saying that sh3 was more complicated ?

I don't think I've ever seen a bigger manual (printed or electronic) than the one for Falcon 4. Too have something like that for an SH game would be insane, but cool. Besides, for the people who don't want to kill their own printers to print it out, take the file to Kinkos or something. I don't know how they charge for printing documents, but they laminated my SHIII map for under $5.

[Dantenoc]

That reminds me of the Grand Theft Auto Games. :hmm:

What part?

Interesting subject though... even though they are extremely differente types of games that belong to completely diferent categories, lets compare SHIII to San Andreas:

Music:
San Andreas has hours of legaly licensed music from very very famous artists from the era that they're representing... SHIII stock comes with a couple of minutes worth of speech in the gramaphone.

Map:
They both come with a nifty map, but as a personal opinion, I think the San Andreas' one had a little more info on it

Instrunction manual:
SHIII is by nature a sim game that demands a thick instructional book, but instead comes with a very poor booklet, printed with a very limited number of colours, talks about features that aren't in the game, and is in general of mediocre quality. San Andreas is by nature a very simple game to play, which would demand only a very simple flyer for instructions, but instead comes with a high quality hard cover book printed with very nice colors that not only teaches you the very simple controls of the game, but also includes A LOT of extras (like tourist information, and fake advertisments) that realy help to inmerse more into the game and further ease your mind into beleiving that San Andreas does indeed exist.

Gameplay:
SHIII comes with a handfull of single player missions, and an interactive campaign that, although very heavily scripted to include lots and lots of special events, to the common player feels like nothing more than a bunch of go to square XY and sit there for 24hrs missions that never ever end (worst of all, most players find nothing in said patrol squares and then dedicate their time to freelancing). You can either play the single missions or the campaing, but thay're in no way conected or related to each other. San Andreas, on the other hand, has a "big picture campaign" type of story that includes very different types of missions to perform, from ilegal street racing, to robbing banks, to buying real estate and coletcting rent, to doing hit jobs on oponents, to fighting gang wars for turf, to... well basicaly any out of the law experience that you can think of. As a bonus, there are many many side missions that you can acomplish, independantly from the main story, but that will reward you in their own way. These are basicaly the equivalent of SHIII single players missions, but are presented in an integrated fashion within the main game, and don't feel like two distinct and separate things.

In game graphs and textures:
Take a look at the dials in stock SHIII... do we need to go any further?. San Andreas may not be the greatest when it comes to graphics, but come on SHIII!!! gauges that can't even be read?!?!

Voice acting and sound efects:
SHIII comes with terrible voice acting and sound efects, so much that a majority of us download mods to fix this (and the textures as well). San Andreas has so-so sound efects that do the job in a suficiently adequate way, but also includes excelent voice acting from professional and very famous holywood actors.

Player interface:
SHIII plays out in mainly in first person view, but the options to be done in said view are limited at best... you end up using abstract guis for most of your chores. San Andreas plays out mainly in third person view (an inferior choice to begin with) but prooves itself to be highly interactive and ituitive, making the player think that the little guy in the screen can do almost anything in his virtual world.

Maturity of gameplay:
SHIII, although basicaly a war game, feels that it needs to protect the audience from themselves, and white washes most every aspect of the game, such as no sailors on the enemy ship's (your not hurting anyone, your just blowing up empty ships), or no swastikas or nazi logos anywhere (you're not realy playing for the bad guys). Ubisoft seems very preocupied with not hurting anyone's feelings with any type of controversial matter. This earns the game a "Teen" rating even though we all know that today's teens don't have the patience or interest necesary for this types of games, whereas we (the loyal gamers of this genre) feel cheated out of some of the aspects that we were looking for in the SHIII experience when we first decided to buy the game.
Meanwhile, San Andreas, even though it's just a Pop-culture shoot em up of sorts, recognizes that today's gaming market isn't made out of just helpless kids, and chooses to target a mature adult audience head on, with a product that involves touchy subjects such as crime, violence, police corruption, ilegal street racing, drugs, murder and sex. They don't care that by doing that they'll earn a rating of "Mature" that will basicaly cut them off from a big part of the market, as long as they make a product that will apeal to their intended audience: Adults... If you feel like it's too violent or crude for you, don't worry, your not the audience that the game was intended for (don't play it)

I guess I could go on and on, and I'm sure that many won't agree with my sometimes incorrect opinions, but it all boils down to this:

One company decided to take a smart subject, and do a rush job on it, cutting corners on most anything that they could think of trying to save a buck, and chose to have one outsanding feature as their selling point (the graphics), trying to make a profit by limiting their potential losses.

The other company took a very dumb pop-culture instant gratification visceral experience, and decided to do it in a big way, spending incredible amounts of money on it, risking heavy economical losses in the process, by choosing not to spend heavily on just one big selling feature, but on many many features that would make the game cooler but costed a fortune to implement (can you imagine what the famous actors got payed for their voices, when they could've just as easily used unknown voice talent?)

Who came out on top? :|\\

[Harry Buttle]

Look at the manual for Falcon 4, are you seriously saying that sh3 was more complicated ? and therefore it was ok for it to be bug filled and incomplete ?

[snip for brevity]

Its all about cutting costs to improve the bottom line, blame rests solely with the Corporation.

1. Falcon 4 was a fiasco that, simply put, didn't work, was dumped on the market in an appalling condition, was never made to work by its manufacturers, and IIRC was only salvaged after years of work by hobbyists working on an illegally leaked copy of the source code - do you really want to hold up F4 as an example of good software development/documentation practices?

Silent Hunter III is in a lot better shape than F4 was.

2. Welcome to the real world, corporations have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to maximise profits, if you don't like their products, don't buy them.

[DaMaGe007]

Falcon 4 was way way way more complicated than SH3, at least they attempted to make a Simulator, and they didnt fail in the manual department either. I never said Falcon4 was released bug free I was only using it for the manual side of things.
When I mentioned "Other Developers" a little further down I was not refering to F4 anymore, sorry if this confused.
I disagree that Sh3 was released in better condition tho, I think more work went into F4 despite its short comings.

Other developers/publishers (and I dont mean F4 in this part either) have proven that thier "Legal Obligation" can still be achieved without resorting to destroying thier art, there is no reason for Ubisoft to use the "Legal Obligation" as an excuse unless they were going to sell it at half price, for the half game(simulator?) they released.

There is no excuse or legal obligation for Corps to rip people off, just that so many do because of the wording chosen and its disgusting practise.

and for what its worth...I will buy sh4 if its another rush job I wont be getting 5, I give them a chance or 2, but yeah I vote with my wallet for all the good it does (very little)

Sh3 was a waste of some beautifull 3d models.

[Safe-Keeper]

Back in the day, the game released and there was no ability to patch, the games were also a lot simpler.I know the "no ability to patch"-part, but I don't understand what you mean with "games being a lot simpler". X-Com UFO Defence aka UFO Enemy Unknown was anything but simple.

If you want to wait for all software to be perfect before release, don't expect to see a lot of new software and do expect it to cost a lot more.Because? If they could do it right before, why can't they now?

Who came out on top?Excuse me, but didn't it occur to you that maybe GTA came out on top because the genre had a bigger following than the submarine sim genre has?

2. Welcome to the real worldThat's not even an argument, just a personal attack. You might as well cry "OMG u're teh ignorant so Im not talkin 2 u!!1". Please address what he has to write instead of just calling him "ignorant".

corporations have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to maximise profitsI have no idea what kind of "legal obligation" you are talking about here. Please enlighten me.

If you ask me, companies and corporations have an ethical obligation to make their products as good as possible.

if you don't like their products, don't buy them.Nor do I like this "argument". It addressed nothing, justifies nothing, and pretty much is just a way to avoid the whole discussion.

[Dantenoc]

Back in the day, the game released and there was no ability to patch, the games were also a lot simpler.I know the "no ability to patch"-part, but I don't understand what you mean with "games being a lot simpler". X-Com UFO Defence aka UFO Enemy Unknown was anything but simple.
here here :yep:. Yesterday's games may seem simple now, but try to program one for yourself and see exactly how much work it took. It's all about doing the best with what you have at the moment, and today's games seem to fall short for the most part... they don't feel like they're pushing the envelope on technology, they just feel like resource hoghs.

If you want to wait for all software to be perfect before release, don't expect to see a lot of new software and do expect it to cost a lot more.Because? If they could do it right before, why can't they now?
Damn straight :up: . SHIII in particular is not only bugged, it's just plain incomplete. Just one example out of many: it includes sound files that are never used!!! that's not a bug, that's releasing an incomplete product on purpouse!

Who came out on top?Excuse me, but didn't it occur to you that maybe GTA came out on top because the genre had a bigger following than the submarine sim genre has?
Your right, it is unfair to compare them sales-wise, however, I was refering more on the lines of: "who gave their customer more than they expected, and who gave their customer less than they expected", as a way of measuring which is the more profesional company.

As a side note, let us not forget that there was a time when the GTA series was somewhat obscure (I never bother to play I, II or III)... It was only when they came out with GTAIII, which was a incredibly vast improvement over GTAII, that the franchise took off. If Ubisoft did the same, making SHIV a vast improvement over SHIII, then they would probably see a very significant increase in sales by the time SHV rolled by... maybe, no? ;)

corporations have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to maximise profitsI have no idea what kind of "legal obligation" you are talking about here. Please enlighten me.

If you ask me, companies and corporations have an ethical obligation to make their products as good as possible.
Yes indeed, and the thing of it is, that succesfull bussines people understand that the way to maximize profit is precisely to deliver a high quality product that "blows the competition out of the water".

[elanaiba]

Dantenoc, I generally agree with you... though you should know that the exceedingly accusing tone does not help getting your point across.

But you realize you're comparing San Andreas - which is something like the 3rd iteration of the GTA3 game, with long development time, to SH3 - which was the first experiment for its team?!

Likewise, Falcon 4 is certainly a revolutionary product even in its unfinished release form, but it had a development time of how many years?!

Always assuming malicious intentions on the part of the developers is a little bit insulting. For example, swastikas are present in the US edition, while the European ones are devoid of it because some countries - Germany for example - do not allow displaying it in a game.

[Harry Buttle]

Falcon 4 was way way way more complicated than SH3, at least they attempted to make a Simulator, and they didnt fail in the manual department either. I never said Falcon4 was released bug free I was only using it for the manual side of things.
I disagree that Sh3 was released in better condition tho, I think more work went into F4 despite its short comings.



F4 constantly crashed on most machines several patches after release.

SH3 works, you may not like some of the design decisions, but it worked. F4 was a dismal failure - a dismal failure with a pretty manual is of little help.



Other developers/publishers (and I dont mean F4 in this part either) have proven that thier "Legal Obligation" can still be achieved without resorting to destroying thier art, there is no reason for Ubisoft to use the "Legal Obligation" as an excuse unless they were going to sell it at half price, for the half game(simulator?) they released.

There is no excuse or legal obligation for Corps to rip people off, just that so many do because of the wording chosen and its disgusting practise.

Sh3 was a waste of some beautifull 3d models.

and I'm sure that in every case there is someone just like you complaining about the game - it is the nature of the beast, you can't please everyone.

[Harry Buttle]

corporations have a LEGAL OBLIGATION to maximise profits

I have no idea what kind of "legal obligation" you are talking about here. Please enlighten me.


Do a spot of reading on corporations law, a board of directors is required to act (within the law) to maximise the return to shareholders.



If you ask me, companies and corporations have an ethical obligation to make their products as good as possible.



The difference is that directors cannot go to jail for being unethical, but they can for breaking the law and not trying to get proper returns to shareholders.



if you don't like their products, don't buy them.Nor do I like this "argument". It addressed nothing, justifies nothing, and pretty much is just a way to avoid the whole discussion.

No, it is a practical suggestion - if enough people do not buy the product (ie do not like it), the maker will have to react in the marketplace and it matters little if you 'like' the argument.

[DaMaGe007]

Its easy to argue that by releasing shoddy products they are reducing profits to shareholders because people stop suporting the product.
You are arguing that they should be reducing the cost of R&D department by cutting corners, not concidering that final sales far outstrip the saving they make in R&D, they will lose sales if they keep doing it and thats bigger money, after all sales easily pay for R&D and then some. This is where the profit comes from.

I think you are using the Corporate Obligation to shareholders as a poor argument because we are criticising your favorite game. This seems strange to me because our comments are related to making the game better, which is what you want too.

If F4 was a "Dismal Failure" how can you not say the same about Sh3 which crashes to desktop losing an entire patrol for me on several occasions.

Falcon4 is still being played by lots of people because of the complexity of the game and the fact that other people have fixed alot of the problems, even though alot of other flight sims have been released.

Sh3 will be forgotten the minute somthing else comes along with more complexity.
Most likely Sh4 in this case but if they drop the ball again sales will suffer for it.
Im sure they will still get your money though.

I never patched F4 and I cant remember a single crash for what its worth, I thought most of the complaints regarding it were regarding some of its features not working quite right or being incomplete, which is exactly the same problem as sh3. Note I said some. Alot of the comunity work has gone into updating the graphics.

I cant believe you are defending them for being unethical, says alot really, as I said arguing because we are criticising your game of the moment.

[John Channing]

Falcon 4.0 had both crashes and a host of gameplay bugs. The campaign, as released, was almost unplayable. The first patch was out within 2-3 days of the release and it made things even worse. I know cuz I was there (and I don't mean on the purchaser side, either).

The problem with your example is that Falcon 4.0 spent so much money in the development stage trying to fix the many problems it had that it ended up bankrupting Microprose, in spite of the fact that it reputedly grossed around $25,000,000 in sales.

JCC

[bishop]

The problem with your example is that Falcon 4.0 spent so much money in the development stage trying to fix the many problems it had that it ended up bankrupting Microprose, in spite of the fact that it reputedly grossed around $25,000,000 in sales.

JCC

I remember when the 1.08 patch was released and the very next day the entire Falcon 4 team was laid off.

[Safe-Keeper]

The difference is that directors cannot go to jail for being unethicalThey can if they don't follow the law. But whatever.

No, it is a practical suggestion - if enough people do not buy the product (ie do not like it), the maker will have to react in the marketplace
Right. Especially since patches and such tend to go to the games with the highest following. The ones that don't sell are neglected.

And yes, "if you don't like it, don't use it" is a poor "argument", for the reasons I specified.

I think you are using the Corporate Obligation to shareholders as a poor argument because we are criticising your favorite game. This seems strange to me because our comments are related to making the game better, which is what you want too.I personally do not know why he's making it. "It's OK to release sloppy products, because it makes them more money and whatever makes you money is OK"?

That's like saying "Ice cream companies shouldn't use natural ingredients, 'cause they cost more and thus the producers break corporate law". In fact, come to think of it, by your reasoning there shouldn't be any freeware patches whatsoever, just more releases and expansion packs. Makes the publishers more money, you know.

Given the choice between many unfinished games (today's state) and fewer games, all of which were finished and didn't need patching (the old days), I know what I'd choose. Any time. I'd even be willing to pay more for them. Well, a bit more:p.

[Dantenoc]

Dantenoc, I generally agree with you... though you should know that the exceedingly accusing tone does not help getting your point across.

But you realize you're comparing San Andreas - which is something like the 3rd iteration of the GTA3 game, with long development time, to SH3 - which was the first experiment for its team?!

Well... you're right. Ubisoft had their hands tied on the swastika deal on countries like germany and a few others... but it certainly wasn't just because of legal reasons that they only allowed swastikas on the U.S. version... or... no, I don't think that the swastikas is banned in ALL of europe, is it?... nonetheless you are correct, there is no need to get confrontational.

In an effort to minimize missunderstandings, let me refrase my thoughts.

Programming is not an easy thing to do... I should know, I have a bachelor's degree in computer sciences. To make a project as big as SHIII takes a lot of work. As a matter of fact, a project like SHIII is so big and awesome, that it needs more than just mere programming to be completed. Just look at the credits for today's hottest games and you'll quickly realize that the programming team is but a small part of a very, very big effort.

I like SHIII, and I enjoy playing it very much. However, other games in the past have left me feelling like "Wow! That's incredible... I wonder how they managed to do that? :up: ". I specialy love games where I end up getting so much more than what I was expecting at the moment of purchase :yep:.

But then there are games like SHIII :roll: ... games that I love because I can recognize great potential in them, but that at the same time, irk me to no end because they're full of newbie mistakes. It makes me feel paranoid and I start to think that somebody on the developing team must have sabotaged the game on purpouse. Honestly, that's how I feel when I look at some of the impressive things that were acomplished on SHIII, and yet, they couldn't do other things that were fairly easy to do? Again, it makes me wonder if they aren't messing up on purpouse.

Here are some examples:
* Seeing a target through the periscope makes it impossible for your soundman to listen to it from the hydrophones, even if he had it "locked on" a moment before.
* Major enemy ports are modeled, but there's no use in trying to reach them... they're completely empty.
* A big part of navigating is being able to measure angles on a map, and SHIII does include a nifty nav map, but (as originaly released) you are given no way of measuring angles on it (the protractor originaly came out as a mod and was incorporated into a patch for the game).
* When asking the soundman to guess the range to target with the sonar, he'll ping the enemy (which would give him the exact range to target) but still only gives you a vage range guess that varies wildly.
* Your watch officer is incredibly good at giving you the range to the closest ship, but is completely unable to even guess at the range of the second or third closest ship (or any other ship for that matter).
* Your soundman can give you info on the closest target, or the closest warship, but is unable to give you info on any other ship (the second closest or the closest merchant ship, for example)
* Boat sections like the command room are completely modeled in 3D, and all of the important instruments work (or were supoused to) and are even clickable... yet, they do nothing but display their name when you click them.

Now, take notice that none of these "errors" are bugs per se. None of these result from a misterious error somewher deep inside the code. Lord knows I've had my share of those, and I know that they're hard to track.... but no, all of these are conscious decitions to implement features in a poor way. It is not because of a bug that the game comes with such a poor manual, it's a conscious decision. It's not because of a bug that they decided not to include wolfpacks: they just thought it was a non-essential feature that really wasn't worth the effort and could be left out of the game. etc. etc. etc.

Maybe I'm reading things wrong... I certainly don't know all of the story, since I'm not privy to Ubisoft's inner workings or confidential info (heck I didn't even know they existed before SHIII). But the fact that the game was able to deliver on some very exciting and dificult features, but completely fails to deliver on others that were considered standard even a decade ago just irritates me to no end.

It kinda makes me feel betrayed... like: You could do all those hard parts but no the easy stuff?!?!? come on !!!! :damn:

But yes, I will continue to play with it, for I am adicted to subsimming... I need my fix, but I'll still hate all the unfinished or poorly implemented features on it and wail about it so that maybe someone at Ubisoft takes notice and realizes that it is not acceptable for them to deliver a half finished product... and I hope that they mend their ways for SHIV.

If they get it right next time, I'll gladly pay 59.99 for SHIV (SHIII cost me 24.99) and would even recomend it to everyone. (I haven't recomended SHIII to anyone)

[bishop]

But the fact that the game was able to deliver on some very exciting and dificult features, but completely fails to deliver on others that were considered standard even a decade ago just irritates me to no end.


Well, After six posts in this thread alone spouting Watergate sized consipiracy theories of massive deceit and 'intentional' coding errors with the sole intent of strong arming $40 bucks of out your wallet, this is obvious...

Did you ever take time to consider, that maybe... just maybe... these people (and they are people you've been insulting with all these accusations, with jobs, and kids and lives, and maybe even pride in their work) really are trying to put out the best possible product they can given severe budget and time restraints. Put yourself in their place for once, you gotta wonder why they would even want to bother to continue trying to please someone who so far has given them very little credit for anything...

Anyway, I hope for your sake, they are reading this and make it their mission to deliver this game 100% error free (intentional or otherwise) so that you can get on with your life...

[elanaiba]

Lol ;)

[Dantenoc]

errr... :-? .... no... I don't think I'm getting my point across at all...
You see my posts as an attack to the game... I see my posts as a statement of honest disatisfaction with some of the games features (that's why I even bother to point out specifics and not just speak vaguely). It is my hope that some of the guys at Ubisoft will take my posts and many many others like it and walk into the office of whatever bean counting pencil pusher responsible for some of the game's shortcomings and tell him to his face: "See! we told you that if you forced us to realease the game before it was completed that people would notice. We told you that if you forced us to cut corners on secondary things like a decent manual people would be upset about it... And we told you that not properly suporting a game with ongoing patches will hurt our sale potential in the future... So get off our backs and let us do a good job on SHIV!!!!"

But you're right in one thing: I've said enough already. This message won't grow any stronger by me repeating it. If other people are dissatisfied with certain parts of the game, they need to speak up for themselves also... I've already spent more than enough time on the soap box. :yep:

P.S.: If I didn't see any potential in this game, or thought that it was too dificult to fix it, I wouldn't bother posting about it. :up:

[Lionman]

I love virtuality and combat simulation of all kinds.

Apart from my love of SII and SHIII I have been playing Red Baron 3D online ever since it came out and belong to one of the oldest and best RB3D squadrons (The Royal Air Corps http://www.citigraph.com/rac/ ) I mention this because I have an original copy of the game which came with a fantastic, THICK, beautifully illustrated and printed, full-colour, wide-format manual. Those who developed that game (Sierra) long stopped supporting it and it has only survived through its user community. But that manual is a prized and precious collector's item now and Red Baron 3D remains to this day the best WW1 aeriel combat simulator ever. I think the attention to detail in the realism of its flight models and the manual reflect why, regardless of the fact that it's graphics have long been surpassed, it is a gaming classic and is still to this day played online, all be it by a relative handful of a few hundred loyal enthusiasts. It still remains the standard against which any contemporary attempt at a WW1 air combat simulator is judged by any virtual pilot who has ever flown it. Quality matters and LASTS.

I believe that the Silent Hunter series has become a classic game too and remains THE definitive standard for future submarine combat simulation. It doesn't just deserve an excellent, properly colour printed and comprehensive manual at least as good as Red Baron's, it DEMANDS it! Anything less will represent a complete failure on the part of the developers (Ubisoft?) to realise what they have in this family of simulators, in market terms.

Like Red Baron 3D, SHIII and SHIV are the kind of products that breed intense enthusiasm and loyalty amongst we gamers who become immersed in their realms. They will make MORE sales with an excellent manual, not less, even if they have to charge $5-$10 more for the option of a game version that has the full manual. Ubisoft, please listen to the GAMERS WHO BUY YOUR PRODUCTS and ignore the bean counters and finance executives who live by cynical predictions of 5 cent margin losses which are ALL based, after all, on pure negative speculation!

Give your buyers a STUNNINGLY WELL PRODUCED product with an excellent "collector's item" calibre manual and they will pay whatever it costs. Trust me, I am one of your buyers. Make it a "Special Edition" or a "DeLuxe Version" if you must and sell a PDF manual version for the folk who don't care. Just as MS did with Flight simulator FS9 2004 and just look at the price of THAT when it first came out? (£75!!!! but niether the delluxe nor the standard version had decent manuals even!) Make the SH series into THE all-time best simulator in its realm. After all, before MS took that gamble with the MS FS series there WAS NO flight simulator market. SH II and SHIII have already bred a huge range of MODs and add-ons, some of them payware. Look at the vast range of products and new markets (= "other ways of making money" for your bean counters) that the MS Flight Simulator series has generated?

Yesterday I was at the International Flight Simulation Convention at the NEC in Birmingham where I spoke with Oleg Maddox the boss and originator of the team (Maddox Games) that worked with Ubisoft to produce the amazingly successful WW2 air combat series of games that began with IL2 Sturmovik and continued with Forgotten Battles and it's many pay-ware expansions and add-ons since. (Pacific Fighters, Aces Expansion Pack, Battle for Europe, Operation Barbarossa etc). He is delaying the publication date of Battle of Briatin, the first of his new generation of WW2 combat sims called the "Storm of War " series by a YEAR to be sure that he gets it "right" and achieves all his objectives. Will his buyers wait that long and still buy it? YOU BET! Because we all understand that he is simply being a perfectionist and our experience of his former products means that we all KNOW that it will be well worth the wait in the end. Oleg knows that the gamers who buy his products are in the main extremely knowledgable enthusiasts who don't want to find themselves paying to be beta testers for an unfinished product. So we know BOB SOW will be incredibly high quality when it is finally published and that any remaining issues discovered by those who buy it will be rapidly fixed and adressed in free patch downloads. (However none of Oleg's SW has had proper large printed manuals so far, sadly. Their ONLY flaw.)

So make sure there is a version of SHIV that has a really excellent, big, illustrated, full-colour printed manual please Ubisoft! We all promise to buy it if you do!