Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunnodayak
Isn't that obvious that the game will be less sim and more arcade than SH3?
|
No! Totally no! We don't know it will be less or more arcade than SH3, we can't compare what we haven't even tested ourselves. You can't base yourself in 2 trailers and a few interface screens, and qualify it just like that. You need more info, some checking... We saw it at Copenhaguen, and I don't think we got that much info to judge.
And, FYI, our multiplayer mode (in the tournaments of the 24th) can have realism as high as just having unchecked the "No map updates" (it'd be a gameplay madness to have this one checked when navigation isn't reality-like 100%) and "No weapons officer" options (though we must still call out for the weapons officer to ask for solutions). Everything else is always checked. We have been commited for realism for a while (I entered the SubClub mid-year 2004, but the 24th's history goes back to 2002), and many people in our forums are also complaining about what we've seen and read so far.
But that doesn't mean I don't prefer objectivity first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Egan
Two points I like to make. Firstly, I think that attacking the developers because they happen to work for Ubisoft is out of order, rude and unfair. However, It is also inaccurate to lay the blame for design decisions soley at the door of the Ubisoft executives. There is a growing air of - I dont even know what you call it, protectionism? - towards the devs. Basically I dont believe they are untouchable, as seems to be suggested by various threads and posts I've seen. They are big boys and girls and I for one would like to see detailed and reasonable answers to why certain decisions were made in the development of the game. Constructive critisism can only help to make this game better. Now, As I said, lets not attack them just because they are the more presentable face of a vast and godless corporation but lets also not pretend they were making the worlds greatest and most hardcore world war two simulator before the evil suits dropped in to say 'Hey, this isnt what the kids want! where's the phat lewt at?'
|
Yes, one could blame them for certain decisions that directly affect the title's design & development, but it must be constructive (so that it can be improved in the future, if there is one), and more importantly, it must be done with enough information at hand, which can only be obtained by direct testing, or if we were given enough functional information (not the case here).
Protectionism, well, maybe, but only because I understand their position, and think they deserve more than being insulted or critizised non-stop for doing their job when they might be doing a not-so-bad work, but we don't know, so we can't tell accurately enough. And, we can't blame them for OSP/DRM, that's all Ubi's suits' creation.
But things are constantly getting mixed up, and absurdness has invaded Subsim in the name of DRM. I don't agree with its implementation in SH5, but I'm starting to agree with those that think that this is starting to be excessive.
Cheers
