I don't really care how ugly or pretty or realistic or unrealistic UBI releases their games, as long as they give us the tools to mod the hell out of it to fix it right... and NOT tie our hands by keeping the SDK locked up. :damn::damn::damn::damn::damn::damn::damn::damn:

Guys, some very bright people in the forum are taking this way too seriously. Call it a sim or call it a game; in the end, we just want to have fun being sub captains in a realistic WW11 environment. SH111 patched and modded certainly achieved that for me, and I'm hoping SH1V will be an improvement on SH111.

[quote=Safe-Keeper][quote]

[quote]
Oh, wow, someone saying realism shouldn't be in because it's "just a game"! I've never heard that before:roll:!

[quote]

Show me...*exactly*.....where I said that.

getting warmer...

[quote=finchOU]Sarcasm must not be my forte......

Here are my two cents:

Silent Hunter III payed WAY TOO MUCH attention to graphics, specially when you considered that they where graphics that you weren't supposed to see! When you play at 100% realism, disabling the outside cam-view, you don't care what your sub looks like on the outside, for example, because you NEVER get to see it from the outside.

Of course, now that we have allready attained this level of graphic detail, we shouldn't take a step back, but for SHIV let's concentrate more on immersion, playability and game stability and not so much on the "Ooooh" factor of pretty graphics.

Dantenoc, I don't think they had a choice really. When someone made their SH3 pitch in the misty early parts of this millennium, I bet that DirectX 9.0c era graphics was a major seller. Submarine simulations has been made many times, and only better graphics is a seller for a new version. Otherwise we would all still be playing AOTD wouldn't we?

So lets say they didn't do the graphics properly? Okay, they could have cut out the 3d interior with no penalty to gameplay what so ever. But not chase cam... LOL? That is such a piece of cake to make ,you already HAVE the 3d-engine, the chase cam is just a repositioning of the player's viewport.

So what parts of the graphics should they have removed then?

Crew on deck?
Shadereffects on sea?
Particle effects on explosions?
Use generic ship models for all ship types?
Or use low poly models?
Not use textures?

This thread just tickles the f*ck out of me....

But I'm feeling a little piss and vinegar myself tonight, so I'll chip in my thoughts:D:

If it were all about graphics, we'd have no game at all - just some really b!tchin' screenshots every now and then and we could all go down to the art house to drink lattes and admire the Silent Hunter series' "blue period." On the other hand, if it were only about gameplay, we'd have a top-down view with shorelines represented by # and the boat represented by a U and surface targets are < or > or whatever. We'd drive with AWSZ and it'd run like the wind on a PC Jr.

John said earlier that the game is marketed to the masses and that's the truth. Not trying to put words in his mouth, but because I believe what he says is true, I think "better" graphics is sort of a necessary evil. Maybe it's just the D&D geek in me, but I will always prefer that devs concentrate on gameplay over graphics - but gameplay is not as "quantifiable" for devs as graphic improvements - and therefore (IMO) it's much harder as well as less palatable. I don't want to say it's easier, but eye candy is more predictable and it's eye candy that sells, unfortunately. It's a shorter route to money than are creativity and imagination. Graphics alone does not a Tolkien classlic make. I'm not to be belligerent in expressing that sentiment, it's just something I believe to be a fact of life.

This is why there are beautiful games that suck. Just royally suck. Two of which are (or "were" - and please note - this is just my opinion and I'm sure people will disagree with it) Sea Dogs and B-17 Mighty Eighth. And I may eat these words, but right now I doubt if I will ever buy a single World War II shooter (or any shooter, for that matter) again. Sick of it. Same worn out storyline (and a dumbass one at that - 1 man vs. the entire freakin' German army or else a whole lot of multiplayers having a fragfest) over and over and over only this time with the latest chipsets and - this is my favorite - "cutting edge, blazing fast, smack yo' mama AA and AF!" Yeah, well. Big f*ckin' deal. The problem with graphics that are so finger licking good is that improvements in that area are so incredibly fleeting. They only get a "w00t!" for a few weeks or months, and then the entire industry has moved on to even bigger and badder and better. "Cutting edge" status has the lifespan of a fruit fly.

And yet I wouldn't ever want to return to the days of text adventures, but I think the memory of them and the fun they were is why some "older" gamers do tend to prefer gameplay and criticize eye-candy - because for cryin' out loud they can remember when graphics were minimal or non-existent. The game HAD to be a gameplay success and you had to see it in your head. "You enter a clearing. The path continues north with a fork to the left (SW). You hear around you the sound of the wind in the pine trees." Playing those games was an entirely imaginative process. LOL, now skip ahead to the early 90s and Myst....

Anyhow, rambling around to my point: the only truly good games (or sims - jeez, whatever you want to call 'em) are the ones that have replayability. What we as a fan community should be doing - IMHO - instead of wasting breath on an argument that will go on forever, is keeping after devs to produce games with REplayability, through both quality visual appearance AND gameplay. Without graphics, nothing sells. Without story, we're just a market buying recycled shlock all the time.

Alright - that's 'nuff from me.

A lower polygon count on the ships, compensated by smarter textures could have easily made the game run faster and smoother on more computers.

As for the sub interior, I really wish that they would develope it MORE for SHIV. I'm not against graphics, I'm against useless graphics... for example, utmost detail should be dedicated to the subs interior, since you'll see it a lot. On the other hand, paying attention to the sea bottom texture is a complete waste, since nobody is ever supposed to see that from the sub.

Now, one very important thing is that we're not really arguing about graphics vs. playability in a general manner... no, we're arguing graphics vs. playability in the context of Silent Hunter III, a game were a lot of effort was obviously put into the graphical aspect of it, but the rest was so completely abandoned that:

* It doesn't have a manual (just a worthless booklet that even talks about features that never made it into the game)
* It originaly shiped without any way of measuring angles on the nav-map
* ALL harbours were gost towns
* The whole dynamic campaign consists of "go to grid blahblah and stay there 24hrs"
* In the game, your's is the ONLY sub in the whole universe
* etc. etc.

To sum it all up: Ubi did a fine job with the graphics on SHIII, but now it's time they worked on the rest of the game to bring it up to par, so that they can release a SHIV that is more balanced and robust (not to mention stable and bug free).

And what then makes you think Ubi soft won't release a more well polished SHIV? You bet that the ship poly count and sea floor texture has nothing to do with the ghost harbours, the dull dynamic campaign. No the reason for that was probably that they thought of this late, and had to spend ressources getting it to work. The dynamic campaign of anything cost the simulation its depth and realism. Not the graphics. I wish people would stop bashing on the graphics as the culprit of all things gone wrong in SH3 already! If you think it it doesn't matter why the heck don't you just play SH2 or AOTD? :damn:

ahem..We can hope that ubi with the experience from SH3 can better plan their work for SH4, and that means they have time to implement the advanced simulation features we are expecting. I think they know that very well. And as Ive said several times before, the graphics guys are not the same as those who makes the AI and the simulation engine. So leave'm out of it.

In any case, SH4 needs a more powerful pc than SH3. Why? Because unless they go with the 8000m visual range bubble again, they WILL need a stronger pc to be able to render further than 8000m.

In any case, SH4 needs a more powerful pc than SH3. Why? Because unless they go with the 8000m visual range bubble again, they WILL need a stronger pc to be able to render further than 8000m.[/quote]

I don't think they will see rendering beyond 8000m as an issue. To the vast majority of the 300,000 SH111 purchasers I'm sure it wasn't an issue.....hell, most of them would have no idea what we're talking about. In my opinion, SH1V will be a slightly visually enhaced version of SH111 but with a lot of the gameplay issues fixed.

I think so too, but hopefully they give us more flexibility in the 3d-rendering, as someone requested a while ago. Would be nice if you could go to less demanding settings if your current machine struggles. And to more demanding settings if your machine. But if they could mod the 8000 m range in SH3, it should be possible in SHIV, even if Ubi decides that 8km visual range is all it takes.

I agree with you, Immacolata. The video card specs are going to be interesting in SH1V.

Btw is it on purpose or a bad habit that you without failure breaks every single quote box you quote, then put it in yellow? :rotfl: All your quotes are yellow but ends with [/quote]:rotfl:

Bad habit.:D

Hear Hear

Agree with your whole post. It seems today it is all about image over substance.

I get nervous when the delevopers are asked about advances made in SH4, and they answer "better graphics" :o ... Better graphics are allright, I like them, but I wish they would focus on bettering the weaker parts of the game, not the already strong ones.

Thats right, the 3D modelers are great and should continue working, but it is also obvious that Ubisoft managment didn't care enough to hire Game design, Programming and AI talent as good as their 3D artists... at least that's the way a lot of us feel.

Anyway, I'm not attacking the graphics (and I don't think the rest are attacking the graphics either). It only seems that people are attacking the graphics because they're venting out in frustration to SHIII other gameplay flaws.

What I say is: Keep the graphics but fix the rest...

Assumming that more eye candy comes at the expense of gameplay, I vote for gameplay every time. Good graphics and sound effects are important, but most people will play a sim indefinately if the graphics and sound effects are adequate as long as the gameplay is good. The reverse is NOT true. Great graphics and sound effects are of no value without great gameplay. SHII is a great example, so many gameplay bugs you couldnt stand to play it even though graphics and sound effects were very good for its day. I played Sub battle simulator more than any other subsim since then, mainly because the gameplay was so good. Graphics and sound effects were almost non-existent. Joe S

I think there's a lot of truth in that statement. In Immacolata's defence though, I think he'd agree also, he just doesn't want Ubisoft to be lazy and complacent.

As you need both graphics and gameplay (you can't go back to SH1 graphics) I think bang for the buck has to be looked at for where time is spent.

Things that get used all the time should have top priority. So for graphics, things like water, weather, main interior, enemy ships etc. should be done. For gameplay, AI, damage model, campaign etc. should be done. All that should have priority as it's in use all the time.

Then there's lots of graphic and gameplay extra that are nice to have but might come second. I'd personally like a full interior sub (doesn't need to have crewmen) and visable damage and flooding (not just that one leaky pipe), but it's all second to getting a proper damage model in the first place (no one min repairs etc.). I've seen some gameplay talk of sub special landing missions and sub vs sub battles... but how often is that going to happen, imo getting a good campaign working is more important or even my interior damaged graphics. So that means that minor gameplay stuff will come second to major graphics and major gameplay stuff comes over minor graphics. Now what YOU think of as major and minor (graphics/gameplay) depends on your gaming tastes, but I'm more talking about how much each has an impact, how often you are going to see or use that function.

Just my 2c ;)

T.