[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Der Teddy Bar

I have often been critical of Subsim reviews which I see as overly positive based on the potential and far too reserved in their criticism of the bugs, game play issues and lack of addressing issues from one version to another.

I have felt that reviews that follow this formula contribute to a lack of correction for major design issues i.e. the Tiger Tank u-boat, ship sinking model and limited the addressing of many other issues and slowed forward motion because the Ubi execs see SH3 scores 100% and of course that means nothing needs to be done as this game is perfect, uhm I think not. Even with the GWX/NYGM mods it is still only 85%.

That said I read the Subsim SH5 review and I am very impressed with the frankness and the lack of sugar coated potential taking front of stage. I can only comment on the out of 10 from reading the forums, while I feel the total score is probably on the mark I think the realism definitely is well off the mark and there are a couple of questions around the Historical Accuracy & Game play scores.

Great review

Thanks for that. Yes, it's widely known that I am more lenient and forgiving than many reviewers and a lot of players. I have to look deep into myself and make sure I am not posting a review based on what I wish the game was, or what other people think, or expect. In the end, I try really hard to shut out everything except what I truly feel about the game. In SH5, I like the game, I enjoy most of the game, and I can work around some of the issues. I also recognize that the game has a lot of issues, a lot of stuff that should have been more polished and functional.

Of course, I disagree with the view that "Ubi execs see SH3 scores 100% and of course that means nothing needs to be done as this game is perfect". That's just an assumption on your part, unless you know more about Ubi's executives than the rest of us. I don't know how they see that, we can guess all day. I could argue that Ubi execs see SH3 scores 100 and they say, "make another game as good as SH3!"

Originally Posted by CCIP

I would have to agree that in that in a more objective scope, SH3 really is far from perfection, and neither is it a complete fulfillment of what it could've been.

You make some good points with your scoring. The 1/10 bugs/stabilty reflects the overall unfinished state of the game, the impressive number of bugs, bonked stuff and missing or incomplete features. The game itself seems pretty stable, but the "online all the time" DRM can be a problem, so that contributed to the very low 1/10 bugs/stabilty score.

Yes, I also agree that the realism score could be lower because of the absurd "special abilities " that make U-boats into Uber-boats. I let that slide because the player can make the call to use the speed dial to limit his max speed to historically real numbers. Not the preferred method, I know.

Of course, everyone realizes that the review number score is very subjective. If I were to rescore it two months from now, I doubt it would get the same exact numbers per category. The number score is just a gauge, it could vary either way 5 points. It's the words that matter the most, and the tone and subtext. SH5 is a good game that was released way too early with a lot of bugs, some questionable design choices, and seriously shoddy tutorial/manual. Even a game like that can be fun as hell.

On the other hand, in the context of subsims, you have to admit SH3 was a revolutionary, genre-saving and genre-advancing game. 5 years later, I think Neal's assessment that it's the "best subsim ever" definitely rings true. Measured against a dream simulation that would be completely finished and not require work-arounds to have all the features it needs, I'd say it's an 85. Measured against the high bar we've seen so far - well, it IS the benchmark, and it was the benchmark at the time it was released. I don't think we've seen better, and I can tell it will be a while before we do see better. In that sense I don't think the high review was completely unfair.

Oh man, exactly! Wow, well said, that's better than I could have said it. Silent Hunter III received a 100 rating from me, but no one says it is "perfect". The 100 score does not mean it is flawless. Simply means, as you said, based on the sub games before it, and what I think is reasonable to expect in a great subgame at that point in time, it made a home run, where other subsims made doubles and triples. Like you said, measured against a "dream subsim", it would have been lower. But we understand the "dream subsim" is probably 20 years away. There probably will never be a "dream subsim", actually, because with each step forward in subsim progress, our expectations take three steps. It wasn't long back when people wanted a WWII subsim with a working TDC. Aces did not have one. We will always want more than a developer can deliver, that's why it's our responsibility to be reasonable with our expectations.

With SH5, I expected full boat access, better RPG interaction with the crew (and not asking about someone's kids or wife unless we were at the wardroom table picking fuzz off the meat), real, intelliegent wolfpacks, and more complex objectives like shadowing a convoy and getting radio messages out, without being chased off and losing the convoy, and without attacking until the orders came from BdU--that would be a helluva game in itself!.

When a dev team puts together a plan for a new title, they spend a lot of time determing how many people, who does what, how much it will cost and how long it will take. If the project is approved by the company, then off they go. Unfortunately, the best laid plans ... with software, you can never be 100% and like Alex, SH5 producer said, sometimes what you think will be hard, is harder, very much so. Game development can be like playing a game of Solitaire, there are times when things just don't work out 100%--you get stuck and run out of time. I understand that, which is why I do not fly off the handle and freak out. I also understand, if the game sells well, the company will try to support it, and approve another title:

Remember this: If SH2 had not sold well, there would have never been an SH3.