Yeah, really, we all know that when you die in reality you first see this nice, action-filled cutscene.

Let's cut the arcade features and implement some realism:p.

But yes, I agree with you, there should be death/capture/surrender/scuttle boat/war at an end cutscenes.

What has that got to do with this? SHIV is not developed for console. Dont use straw man arguments.

Too bad the long time fans are perhaps 5% of the buying public. tHE 95% enjoys a varied diet, where graphics, gameplay and realism are deliciously mixed for a wholesome experience. I have no desire to masturbate over extreme realism if the game is trite to look at. Which is why I never "got" dangerous waters I suppose. Too solemn, too obsessed with realism and just darn ugly.

Ill add my vote for better gameplay and graphics over graphics (quality) improvements. SH3 had good enough graphics and they will improve slightly in sh4 anyway.

In Sh3 the lack of port activity and *dynamic* port activity, no wolfpacks, no milkcows, no people moving on ships and docks, no lifeboats, no oilslicks and flotsum, nerfed guns that cant even kill a seagull let alone a person, was rather insulting to call it a simulator in my opinion.
The only thing they simulated was the boat itself, and a wargame that is Rated G 8+ is just not a wargame, they need to go M 15+ at least mabe even MA 15+, and give the thing some life (and death). Having 8 year olds as the Target Audience is just silly and restrictive, I dont think sales would be hurt at all by going to a higher rating.
Look at Grand theft Auto - San Andreas (MA 15+) there are people walking the streets and the game feels alive, I think its a really important missing component atm. Only the areas around you need people and movement, they dont need 8 million charactors all around the world map, just a spawned contingent on vessels and docks within your view, just like GTA does with cars and people.

Sorry about the Australian ratings I mentioned I dont know the others.

Mods can only go so far in adding things, the developes should be coming out with far better stuff than the mod people. Its rather sad that Grey Wolves was streets ahead of the out of the box game, and it shows that they didnt spend enough time on the gameplay areas as they should.

Edit: Sh3 already has the best graphics of any subsim, there is no reason for them to improve to maintain sales when there is no competition.
Also First person movement throughout submarine when in 3d interior views PLEASE !!

I see no reason to have these people included. Needless extra complications that detracts from the core simulation. If you want splattered people all over the place, go play an infantry game or GTA. No 8 year old plays this game anyway, and I am confident that their decision not to include gore and dead people has nothing to do with rating, more something to do with how necessary it really is. It isn't!

Why must it be such an insult to people that the designers refit the graphics engine for a new release? Do you seriously suggest they just reuse all the models from SH3 in SH4? Same grainy textures for models and dials and gauges? REALLY? No change in graphics what so ever? Not even new terrain tiles for the new lands we are sailing in? They do have to design new models you know. For each american ship that was not present in SH3, for each japanese ship that was not present in SH3. Planes. Everything. Interior of subs is probably redesigned, new models for crew.

It is my opinion that people see screenshots, hear the devs discussing that the most striking difference is new graphics, then decide that all they do is a paint job. I am sure SHIV will be improved upon SH3 in most aspects, but not nearly enough to satiate the realism fetishists. Thats where the mod'ers gets a chance to affect the game.

what confuses me.....hugely.....is why the immersive detailing found in older games such as AOTD and i'm with Drifter here 100% Red Baron 2/3d some how needs to vanish in order to somehow "make room" for the graphics...the AI in AOTD needs to be trimmed down in order to make rrom for the graphics......the seemingly endless detailing and dynamics of RED BARON some how needs to be trimmed down to make room for the graphics.....
people actually accept this.....they actually believe it lol...:rotfl: :damn: :nope: :huh:

must be something in the water...all that geneticaly modified food..
an average hi res texture file from a modern game would be a larger file than the entire AOTD installation...the intro movie file would be a larger file than the entire RB2/3d installation...
#
so they remove simplify the games background code to make room for the graphical engine code... they say the coding for the more comlex features of games like AOTD and RB cost too much money to develop...money needed for developing the graphical side....wake me up when it's over please lol.. so ten year old computer code writing techniques cost too much money , takes far too much time to "rediscover" ...sorry it's bollocks..they can write this code in their sleep...or if not they are in the wrong job...it's about something else...lets not glorify the situation by pretending there's some huge difficulty involved ....we act like natives accepting shiny beads and mirrors from the traders....it's buisness....nothing else

Grainy textures and poor quality dials are areas that modders can actually change, adding people and lifeboats and decent port activity are things only the developers can do properly. The harbour trafic mod was restricted, the ships were always there and they didnt move, once again the developers need to do it for it to work properly

New ship models, subs, and towns/harbours are a given, of course they need to be made. The graphics will improve no one is saying don't change them, just that it doesnt need to be the main FOCUS.

They are making the game for US not Nvidia and ATI.

EDIT:
and well said CB..

What immersive detailing is it that you found in AOTD that is lacking in SH3? I know many of SH3s shipping defects were rush job flaws, forced upon us by ubi's strict budgets and schedules. But of course there is a point in that the graphics takes up more time, more ressources, and thus demands more money to make the game, which in turn inreases the threshold of sold copies where the project was profitable.

But the shortcuts that was taken in SH3 to get the game out of the door might not need to be taken with SH4. This time the engine is mature, and they can perhaps focus more on fine tuning the experience, WHILE HAVING TIME to create better graphics.

Remember, the 3d-artists can't code AI or debug simulation algorithms. What do you expect they do then? Make the game uglier? No, of course they make it prettier.

Lastly, do you believe that SH3 would have been a succes if it had shipped with SH2 era graphics, but more detailed simulation and a true world campaign? Perhaps in a narrow sense amongst 10.000 or 15.000 players. But then we are approaching Battlefront-style developing, and I'd rather not see Silent Hunter turn into Dangerous Waters, to be honest.

sorry i fell asleep half way through...:oops:

Why don't you go to bed and stop being obnoxious, then?

all in good time..:up:

all you said was that the coding is divided into two seperate teams...graphical engine team and game engine team....which just makes the thing worse...even with a dedicated game code team who have nothing else to think about except the game code..they still do an half hearted job of it...

one way or the other the graphics get made...good bad or indifferent..
one way or another the gameplay code gets written ..good bad or indifferent..

there's no real issue

Don't forget that AOTD was made by sim veterans, Dynamis. SH3 was made by a new team, so they probably had more work to do. Also don't forget they introduce the dynamic campaign late in the dev cycle. That might have resulted in some cuts elsewhere. My memory of AOTD is getting vague, but did it have as detailed a dynamic campaign as SH3?

And I didn't say that game engine and graphics engine was seperated. The artists and the wold modellers are working with tools, they are not programming. They make their models in 3DS probably, scan textures etc, all based on coding done by the coders.

we need to agree to disagree...this idea that developers are fragile little pixies who can't cope is begginning to give me the creeps..it just a computer game....i'm sick of arguing for simple small details that were nice to find in games...only to find that the developers brains would explode if they tried to write the code for those details now-a-days.. ok fair enough....it's not life or death
it was just nice and showed that the developers had sat down and thought about it..
we are not going to agree....but doesn't mean i can't say i can appreciate where your coming from...
but remember if we had not pestered them over a dynamic campaign then SH3 would have been an entirely different game....
maybe those details would have been included maybe not had they not gone back and re-wrote the campaign engine...but as it had not occured to them that we might want a dynamic campaign in the first place it is highly likely that it had not occured to them that we might want other interesting details...catch 22

I think we finally are reaching some sort of common ground. That choices are made. And that the choices for more realism at the expenditure of graphics is not just one you can make. Well you can, but then you upset someone else :rotfl:

The common ground would be to have BOTH, somthing they failed to do in SH3.
This is why people are asking for the ballance to be tipped back in the other direction

oh hell....allmost ...trouble is i have absolutely no interest in realism...:D
if you get the gameplay right- realism will take care of it self...
never mind...very much crossed lines here i fear:hmm: