[horsa]

Why do I still play SH2? Quirky reasons I guess.

Not as quirky as you suggest. This is a very valid point that gets my support. I think that graphic content/capability often gets confused with what might be called “atmosphere”. Conventional wisdom says that more detailed and rich graphics equals more atmosphere. I suppose the assumption is that the richness of detail is bringing us closer to the real thing. But the opposite is often true. It’s a bit like Radio and Television. TV has sound AND vision whereas Radio has only sound. Seemingly no contest, but then why didn’t TV kill off Radio completely?
Answer - some things work better on Radio because leaving a bit to the imagination can be better than spelling it out, badly . In SH3/4 it’s supposed that adding crew must be better than no crew at all, but you’ve clearly recognised, Blarg, that crew looking like Thunderbird puppets don’t necessarily do us any favours in the atmosphere department. Now, none of this is the fault of the devs. They are almost certainly being driven by the marketing guys who in turn are picking up the need to include these features from the paying public.

Let me add a couple of others.

It’s also assumed that 3D interiors are a smart move forward – after all real life is in 3D, so it must be good. Trouble is video cards/computer capability are still not that good. What it’s made SH3/4 do is substitute boring old 2D graphics which can be photo realistic with apparently more exciting “lets have a good look around” 3D graphics that can’t even come within spitting distance of that sort of quality . In fact they are clearly so artificial that the old atmosphere thing suffers yet another kick. After the initial novelty, I wonder what proportion of playing time is actually spent in these crewed 3D interiors rather than the 2D interfaces that actually give you a relatively real feel of submarine instruments.

Now, who’s going to admit to the next one without risking ridicule and scorn - – are the highly detailed models actually more atmospheric than the chunkier ones in SH2/DC ? There are some things that modern graphics do really well and SH3/4 has them in spades - Water, Smoke, Explosions, Sunsets, Sunrises and Lens Flares. No argument there. But, and this is a big but in my mind, the beautiful detailed models of games like SH3/4 can serve only to emphasise that they ARE computer generated models. Often when I look at them, all I can see is really well made toys. The smudgy, chunky , boringly textured models of SH2/DC, when seen at a distance, actually remind me more of vintage war footage. I have to admit that, up close and personal, SH2/DC models look ugly, whereas the more detailed SH3/4 models look rather smart. Nevertheless I cannot help but feel that a lot of the modelling expertise has been channelled towards this relatively infrequent and artificial close up experience.

None of this is going to wash with most folk, of course - SH3/4 has a better featured and designed gameplay anyway, and the graphic richness I’ve outlined is an unstoppable trend, but I personally have no difficulty in often preferring good old fashioned dated SH2/DC.