You'll likely get a different answer for that with every person you ask. It isn't really about the nature of the game itself, but rather the nature of the person playing it. A person who likes games usually likes to play a huge variety of things, because he likes his entertainment. A person who likes sims isn't interested in playing anything. He wants to imagine he's in the middle of his favorite subject period, reliving the actual experience, for good and for bad. The ultimate example of this is probably Falcon, in which the player becomes the pilot of an F-16, and nothing else. It's only one step below an actual training simulator.

The hardcore sub-simmer wants to experience being the captain of a submarine, and nothing else. The gamer wants to play a submarine game. The complaints about SH5 stem mainly from the fact that the devs seem to have tried to make a game that both simmer and gamer would enjoy, and failed at both. It's too labor-intensive for the casual gamer, and lacks what the hardcore simmers want. Of course the hardcore simmers are slaves to what they already think of as "definitive sims", which were Aces Of The Deep and Silent Hunter 1. The argument against that is that those two games weren't necessarily "definitive" so much as just first. Anything, when you look at it, could be better, depending on your point of view. It really hinges on what the individual expects of the experience.

The letdown of SH4 and SH5 stems from the fact that SH3 had some extreme flaws, and its two successors didn't fix those, and in a couple of cases made it worse by getting rid of things we did like about SH3. Now we have SHO, which is getting rid of even more things that the hardcore simmers loved about the originals.

I'm not complaining about it, because it's aimed at a different market than me, and that's fine. I'm just trying to answer your question and explain the percieved difference between a game and a sim. I say "percieved", because of course the perception itself hinges on what each individual player expects of the experience. In reality it's a no-win situation for everybody, and there are no real answers. We all have to compromise in one way or another.

It works with Falcon and DCS because they simulate single-seat aircraft. I've always interpreted the hardcore subsimmers as pretty much wanting something that simulates an entire submarine to Falcon or DCS fidelity, which seems massively impractical. Compare it to the super hi-fi passenger jets like PMDG for FSX which simulate every single subsystem in the real aircraft, but then most people run other programs like virtual co-pilots that automate checklists etc which kind of makes all that detail redundant.

The fun thing about SH1 and AOD is that they are really quite 'gamy' if the level of simulation is judged solely on procedural fidelity. Both automate a lot of processes like TMA and sailing model, and AOD even had an automated deck gun. Whereas the hardcore sim crowd would complain if these stations weren't modelled to the point of manually compensating for windage. I don't think procedural fidelity is something that magically improves the simulated experience.

As an example, the one WW1 game that gave me the best experience of "being there" was without a doubt Wings, even though it was hardly a realistic simulation compared to even Red Baron or Knights of the Sky. Its qualities lay in the narrative.

Oh yeah, SH1 is one of the few dos sims that hasn't really aged at all if you play it in DosBox today. Even the graphics still look good if you can look past the flat sea. Then experience what has to be THE defining anti-sub AI if there ever was one.

That's quite true, and shows the great dividing line between what can and can't be done.

Also true, which is why I said I thought that what makes the difference isn't the type of game itself but the person playing it.

Again I agree. I've always seen being able to turn every single knob and push every button as a waste of time, because these are things the captain can do but never does, because he doesn't have to. I think SH3's 'Weapons Officer Assistance' is very realistic, with the one flaw that it's perfect every time. The best in that department would be to have the player look through the periscope, adjust the rangefinder and click a button, which would then have his observations entered on the map. He would have to make the judgement call, but intering it into the TDC would be automatic.

I'm not familiar with that one, but every week I play a 3D game with my friends which involves moving model airplanes on stands around the floor and rolling dice. You can't see the view from the cockpit, and there are no switches at all, but the feel is amazing and real combat tactics work. Pilots who have played it have praised it almost without fail.

I still play it, though not all the time. I do love sailing in and out of the harbors in SH3, and looking at the sights. SH5 really is even better, if they could only get the mods that I want into that version.

This is why I probably won't like SHO. I want to sail out of Kiel and through the canal, with locks and working gates, and that's not what this online game is about. But that's just me.

A sim is still a video game, and I'm honestly shocked that anyone would think otherwise. :o

Not quite.

A simulation (sim) is what the program models about the subject's systems, processes and reactions to the world around it. As stated above DCS products are excellent examples of simulations in that they approach the level of fidelity that you would find in a training environment.

A game is the universe that the program creates for the simulator to exist in. Sometimes you can have a really good (fun) game with a poorly modeled simulator in it (TAW and EECH are examples that comes to mind) or a great simulator with a poorly executed game to exist in (this is where the DCS products fall down, as well as SH2 and many others).

Rarely do you find and excellent simulator within an excellent game.

JCC

Both of those were benchmark simulations when they came out. Give credit where credit is due.

Look, traditionally pc sims have always been entertainment products; ie: games. It's only recently with the advent of hyper-fidelity simulators like Falcon 4, DCS, later FSX payware etc that sims have become this super-serious religion where the word 'game' is some kind of heresy.

I don't think otherwise. As I said, it's not about the game itself but the people who play it. No, a 'sim' is not a true simulator, but attempts to recreate the 'feel' of actually being there, whereas the 'game' has as its main purpose to have fun. People who are serious about 'sims' are more likely to enjoy the bad as well as the good, the boredom as well as the excitement.

I'm not challenging or criticizing the people who prefer either one; just pointing out what I believe to be the difference.

Of course I'm as biased as anyone.

what a load of rubbish :down:

any heat they got with sh5 they ask for,don't get me wrong i love sub games and i even sign up to betta test this one,if you look at the history the mods save ubi time after time even sh3

In the context of the SH series on PC, then yes it's still a game. You can dress it up however you want, and call it what you like, but it's still a game. There are a few instances where this is not the case, but those are for the most part confined to military applications, and definitely nothing SH related.

We are playing games, which attempt to simulate reality, and I place emphasis on the 'attempt'.

No, rubbish is what I call instant bashing when someone has a different opinion. Mind you, that's the norm around here, especially when someone happens to like these games.

I actually do like simulators where the realism is very high and all the buttons and switches are available and reflect their RL functions, but with some ability to automate (like station officers in SH) so I don't have to do it all myself if I don't feel like it, or want to focus on another aspect of the sim.

Played at around 80 percent difficulty, manual TDC but I leave the external view on for the occasional eye candy (though I refuse to cheat with it). SH IV stuck a good balance for me, enough detail to make me feel like my input (plotting intercepts, calculating firing solutions, etc) made a big difference in the game, without completely bogging me down in details like taking celestial navigation fixes.

I'm not holding out much hope for SHO, I avoid online games for the most part because I detest the whole leader board / I'm l33t and you are not nature of them. Ultimately I think they are going to have to make it appeal to the crowds that want instant action and big kill numbers and make it to gamey for my tastes. I saw the "plot intercept course" option pop up when the guy in the video clicked on the contact and what little hope I had for an immersive sim dissipated just a little more.

Now: If the only data available to each player came from contact reports, and folks got a radio report that read like "convoy contact at "lat, long" heading X, speed Y" and had to go hunting, or even better coordinate a wolf pack with other players, it could be awesome.

Seeing as you decided to ignore the entire point of my post (and probably rightly so) I will return the favour except to say that bashing people is definitely not the norm aound here.

JCC

I feel like a slice of homemade, fried in a pan, smothered in butter, spamalicious, Spam....