Weird question - because - provided that SH4 had had great gameplay, realism, and quality (in terms of bugs, etc), I would have happily settled for cheesy graphics. I don't know about SH2 though...no need for archeology - I would have been _quite_ happy with a _gameplay/realism_ overhaul/expansion of SH3 though...

I fired up SH3 the other week, and i acutally found myself missing it. Even stock, Its fleshed out alot better because it has more functionality and atmosphere.

Theater preference aside, If SH3 was released as a title today with the faster loading times, campaign file structure, and mission variety of Sh4, with the same graphics it does now,( as dated as they are) - id buy it in a heartbeat. I realize though, that im probably of a minority opinion.

That's funny. I have an old Compaq laptop laying around that runs Win98 so I can play my Commanders Edition of the original Silent Hunter from SSI... Still enjoy it to this day...:up:

As usual I'm of two minds. I love the way the water looks, I love the way the crew looks and I love the way the ships look. That said, like some others I would have given it all up for SH2's graphics and AOD's gameplay. Still, in SH3 traversing the harbors and looking at the modder-created scenery is one of my big joys.

Yes, I would buy it.

I chose middle button.

Let's see, SH4 Screenshots/Videos: close to 160,000 views;
SH3 Screenshots: some 330,000 views.

Folks like their eye candy :yep:


RDP

Also
 

What's hands down the most popular mod of all time in spite of it's many parted install procedures? Reflections on the Water! People say thay want the gameplay at the expense of graphics but don't believe 'em!;)


We want it ALL. And we're looking forward to photographic reality in a computer game. We're close to that now. SH4 is a visually amazing game.

Since I'm new to the subsim genre, I was originally attracted to the graphics and then the gameplay depth (no pun intended) compelled me to stay. I'd never have been playing subsims now if not for SH3's great graphics, so my answer has to be "keep your damn oldies!"

I didn't have SH2 or 3, but not for eye candy reasons. I love the look of SH4, it's very engaging. I'd trade some visual effects for improvements like having reefs, destabilized deck guns, and real persistence in the campaign (having the units in the roster actually go away if sink, never to be seen again).

I'm all about the visuals.

If I don't like what I'm looking at, all the greatest gameplay in the world won't save it for me.

i feel ye - sounds like gameplay is the biggy? I don't know about campaign structure - i guess that's a modding thing. But yea, basically, real gamers are interested in the _game_ over the graphics. On the other hand, Dangerous Waters had basic graphics, and somehow, it never hooked me. On the other hand, it never had a Dynamic Campaign:D

P.S. I voted for the middle option. And, well, I still play UFO: Enemy Unknown:)

Btw - Duce - just read yer first post - good call dude. It's all about immersion - it's a SUBSIM!!!

This is kind of funny ... just yesterday some friends and I were comparing early flightsims to today's stuff after I sent out some old and new screenshots.

I don't exactly miss the oldies ... BUT ... I can still remember how exciting Silent Service was way back on my brand new 386. Almost more exciting then today's sims sans my jaded viewpoint.

I, like most, started for the sake of the simulation and the graphics were just eye candy. But as we approach the photo-real ... I find that the visuals help recapture some of that old excitement.

So, I'll pose the same question I did with my friends ...

Which P-51 would you rather fly ....
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/9875/p51fs95zj3.jpg

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/8...jacintody2.jpg

Let alone this ...
http://img138.imageshack.us/img138/8849/applefs1ye7.gif

;) ;) ;)

Awwww....the old flight sims. So great. I remember playing a helicopter flight sim on PC junior. I forget the name, but it was all dials and polygons. There were rockets...I think...but i have to say, when Apache Longbow came out (after Comanche, which we all loved right?), I was thankful that graphics had liberated us. Now, I feel like we're on the other side of the boundary - graphics are all but maxed out, and attention needs to be paid to gameplay. It was easy for the game design industry to partner with the graphics card industry on an economic race to photorealism. But now that we're bored with that (because it's not such an interesting goal), it's time to produce something that flies.
We've fallen upon a dark age of gaming, boys. Time for a gameplay revolution:arrgh!:

Heres the CGA version of the very first sim i ever played.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pO88OZbxoA

The one i acutally played was earlier then this one, on an 8088. The orignal falcon. Falkon AT was the same thing, just ran faster on an 80286.

Then i'm part of this minority.

Gameplay and realism is far way more important to me for a simulation game. If too much is done for graphics part, there is not enough room for simulation part (IA, realistic systems, etc..).

Let's explain how game creation works:

You have some graphic artists (2D and 3D) and about the same amount of programmers (out of which some are render programmers), so in the end there are fewer people working on gameplay features than there are working on the looks of the game.

So, when the looks get finished, the (top) management (that doesn't necessarily plays sims in their spare time in order to understand the game's under-the-hood complexity) wants to see the game on the market.

Because management these days doesn't really want to make great games instead of just great looking games, 90% of the games on the market today are not really GAMES.