[Review] SH4 on YouGamers
 

"Suffering from "Get-it-out-the-door" syndrome, there's no escaping the fact that an enjoyable experience is hampered by a lack of testing. If future patches address the major issues, then the excellent gameplay will overshadow the technical problems, not vice-versa."

Verdict: 65%

The review is available here

Cant say I disagree.

Yikes. Tough review. Can't say as I disagree with any of it, though, except the low score they gave on the graphics. Even without AA the graphics aren't that effing bad.

Quoted for truth, and I agree 100%. I think SH4 has some of the most beautiful water I've ever seen in a game.

The water, yes, it does look real and I'm afraid, some scenes, inviting to jump into for a swim. The water is great.

And i like these words:
That a genre is sparsely populated isn't reason enough for any consumer to accept a flawed title.

But i doubt that Ubisoft (or any other publisher releasing beta versions as final versions) will be moved by this. Because of gamers buying anything without thinking, because of most reviewers ignoring the fact that some games are unfinished (usually they writes something like: "yeah, the game has a few bugs/lot of bugs, but they can be fixed" or "every game needs to be patched after release - its natural" :\ )
Gamers and reviewers should look at such games like Splinter Cell 4, Stalker, SH4, TDU etc. more critical, only then there will be chance that publishers will think twice before releasing beta version (or even alpha - like Gothic 3) as final one.
I'm really sick of beta versions - why they (publishers) cant let developers finish their work and let them go on holidays instead of releasing unfinished product and work another 6 - 12 months on patches...?

:up: Thanks for the link

Here's the straight-to-page-one link

I hadn't realized I inadvertently linked the last page, oops.

(fixed) :oops:

Normally I wait for game reviews before I purchase a game. If there are universal accolades, I buy.
The only reason I preordered SH4 was because SH3 was an awesome game. I wont make that mistake again, and I cant say I appreciate being sucker punched like this.



SH4 strikes me as the same, an inferior copy of a fantastic game.

Grunt: I hate to give you more ammo in your "heavy-handed moderators" arsenal, but the rules of the forum... come on, man. ;)

Neal

Let me give you a hint from the forum rules:

A very thorough review and, IMHO, right in many, many aspects...

An excellent review, very true indeed. I am really wondering why a lot of reviewsite and magazines give it such high praises: http://www.metacritic.com/games/plat...esofthepacific

True, the graphics are great. It makes you wonder how many of the professional reviewers actually playtested the game, or were just oogling the external camera for 2 hours before writing their review.

I feel the same as Game Almighty closed: Silent Hunter features countless bugs you'll find on every machine, and this is unforgivable. It's a betrayal to a loyal fanbase and a detriment to gaining new fans. Unfortunately, it's also an exact replay of what happened two years ago when Silent Hunter III shipped.

I myself can only hope that my copy will actually be worth its 50 euros in a month or 6.

1941 - 1945???
 

"Set in the Pacific during World War II (that's 1941 - 1945 for those of us who slept through history class),"

Grrrrrrr :o :damn:

I read this far and stopped reading.....

Even wikipedia says "World War II (abbreviated WWII), or the Second World War, was a worldwide conflict which lasted from 1939 to 1945."

I think someone was asleep:dead:

Because the gamesindustry is just like any other industry. Budgetplanning was made according to needs around funding and stockbroker demands. Bringing out a finished game 6 months later gives the company the same salesfigures, just less griping on the internet. Willingly bringing out a broken game may seem unjust to gamers, but if salesfigures are not lowered by it, then why care? And if salesfigures ARE lowered by it, then the topguys who caused this just stick their heads up their arses, don't make sequels and maybe even fire half of the devs. Either way, gamers don't win.

Reviewers can be bought: mags and sites are funded by commercials of games, the same games also reviewed. Dare I say conflict of interest?

But is remains strange that "we", the gamers put up with it. We already spent our money, so what do they care? I don't know about other countries, but here in the Netherlands its next to impossible to return a game to the store, since those ignorant boobs are scared of illegal copying.

Imagine this being done in the car business. Who would buy a car that would fall apart or wouldn't have the functionality that is promissed in the brochure or manual? Who would bring his new car back to the shop 6 times in a year to get it working like it should have done in the first place? The carcompany that would try this would tank within a year, but softwaremakers just keep on doing this just to make a buck and balance the books.

It's definitely a shady business.:nope: