Quote:
|
Originally Posted by XanderF
I think the loss to SHIII is pretty much due to two points (and complexity isn't one of them - witness how well "Falcon 4.0" always scored, and that is surely at least as complex as DW!)
* Poor graphics. Not just low quality textures and shaders - which can be excused - but 16bit color?? No support for anti-aliasing at ALL? No widescreen resolutions??? How 20th century!
* Limited replayability. Once you've played through all the dozen or so included missions once or twice...well...that's it. Indeed, read the IGN link. The very FIRST point they make about the game is the "dynamic missions" (read: dynamic campaign) that "aren't scripted".
It really is startling how close DW is to really being absolutely the BEST sim ever made...but those two points are going to haunt it for its entire run, and prevent it from really getting the full accolades it deserves.
|
I agree on the first part of your post.
Its not just poor graphics (which I can excuse), its the absense of 32 bit color for "windowed mode" and the inability to enable antialiasing and anisotropic filtering.
I have to play in 1600x1200 resolution so that the "jaggies" are less apparent but they are still noticeable.
On the dynamic campaign issue, I don't think it is important.
We can't have a dynamic campaign as the one in SH III.
Modern ASW operations are more varied than just going to sea to sink a convoy.
Of course we could have something akin to Falcon 4 dynamic campaign, but as most of you know, Falcon 4 was in development for 4 years, and even then when the game came out it was unplayable because of the thousands of bugs.
The resources Microprose invested on Falcon 4 were just vastly vastly superior to what SCS could invest in DW (just my opinion but i think it is correct).