Sorry...but I don't understand...

[JudgeDredd]

I've been looking through this forum, reading up to see if it's worth buying.

I love the Silent Hunter series and since I've had GWX installed, SHIII has been transformed and I'm once again enjoying it.

But I don't get it...I see lots of "Well done devs" and "Good work devs" and "Keep up the good work devs" and an awful lot of ....what is wrong with us that we actually congratulate developers on trapping bugs after they've sold us the game? Why do we congratulate and thank for allowing us to BETA test a product we paid full price for? (that's the royal "we", as I will not be purchasing it until it's fixed...so I am keeping a keen eye on these forums...which is why I picked up on this)

Before anyone goes haywire at me for posting this, I am a developer and I know it's "virtually" impossible to release bug free software. I, personally, have released various programs and always had bug reports back. And I do know the contraints put on developers by publishers....but some things are completely inexcusable.

For example, I created and released software which processed NVQs. There were some bugs in it...but it did process NVQs. I mean...if a particular piece of software was specifically designed to perform a specific task, then it is my job, as the developer, to make sure that core function worked...and I can honestly say that as a developer, never have I released software where the key components were not fully functioning.

I'm sorry...but submarine warfare is designed to specifically fight using torpedoes as it's primary weapon system...and as such, torpedo calculations are a key feature...and the fact that this was released bugged is unforgiveable...so I don't get why people compliment and thank developers for finding these bugs which, frankly, should never have manifested at all...period. Someone thought to program the ability to have two torpedo speeds...did no one honestly check to make sure that both torpedo speeds worked?

Is that the kind of service we've come to expect nowadays?

Sorry for ranting...but I couldn't sit back and watch all this thumbs up malarky. This game is still sitting on the shop wall begging me to purchase it...and as much as I want to....

[Grothesj2]

Microsoft Windows. XP been out how long and it's STILL being patched?

[JudgeDredd]

I know....UBI and the SHIV are not the only developers that are guilty of this....in fact there will more than likely be NO developers or publishers who are not guilty of this...

As a side note, I've recently bought S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl and I've yet to hit a bug and it is rock steady...so well done to them. It appears it can be done. That isn't to say there aren't bugs...simply that I haven't noticed any.

But I am on the SHIV forum...talking about SHIV. I have posted about similar praise bestowed on other products which have game killing bugs when I have been on those forums.

[macky]

Originally Posted by Grothesj2

Microsoft Windows. XP been out how long and it's STILL being patched?

Thats mainly security issue patches (because hackers are getting better). XP tho was "fit for purpose", unlike SH4 which needed the great modders here to make it fit for purpose.

Altho I have the game, I delay playing it too much until the next patch comes out. Yes, I have only a mid ranged system, so I am hoping for more graphical options as well as game play fixes.

With people finding more SH3 stuff in SH4 it makes me feel more that this is just an SH3 expansion, badly done. Yes there are improvements, but GWX gave us more % improvement over stock SH3 then SH4 has. We got GWX free and rightly showered the devs with accolades, we pay for SH4 and rightly shower those devs with critisism.

Yes the people here will mod it and will make it a better game, perhaps in the nth patch it will be better also. Yet we cannot allow developers, nor corporations, to get away with selling (yes selling) sub-standard media without some critisism.

That being said, SH4 has a great future to look forward too, the base work is there, it just needs someone good to find it. I'm more confident in the guys here in doing that than the devs who created the game in the fisrt place. Only fast and complete patches will change my mind of that.

[Fat Bhoy Tim]

Originally Posted by JudgeDredd

As a side note, I've recently bought S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl and I've yet to hit a bug and it is rock steady...so well done to them. It appears it can be done. That isn't to say there aren't bugs...simply that I haven't noticed any.

You'd be the first.

[joea]

Well the devs started doing do a good job, but they were not allowed to finish it. Hopefully they will now. Recall devs are not publishers.

[Snowman999]

Originally Posted by joea

Well the devs started doing do a good job, but they were not allowed to finish it. Hopefully they will now. Recall devs are not publishers.

These devs are Ubi employees. They're not at HQ and aren't management, but they aren't indie devs either. Management knew, or should have known, the exact condition of the product at gold.

[mookiemookie]

Because these guys work their tails off, and continue to do so to patch the bugs that are a result of an impossible schedule put upon them by suits in upper management. I'm sure if it were up to them, the bugs would have been worked out before release. But they didn't have the luxury of setting their own release schedule.

I can't in good conscience come down on these guys when they did the best they could given what they were given.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by JudgeDredd

I know....UBI and the SHIV are not the only developers that are guilty of this....in fact there will more than likely be NO developers or publishers who are not guilty of this...

As a side note, I've recently bought S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl and I've yet to hit a bug and it is rock steady...so well done to them. It appears it can be done. That isn't to say there aren't bugs...simply that I haven't noticed any.

But I am on the SHIV forum...talking about SHIV. I have posted about similar praise bestowed on other products which have game killing bugs when I have been on those forums.

The main diffence is there are dozens of Stalker-style shooters, only one submarine simulation. Subsim is an enthusiast website (fanboy, whatever). Our policy has not changed since Silent Hunter 1 was released; support the dev teams that make good games. That does not mean we do not point out shortcomings, does not mean we do not criticise, does not mean we stand up for a total crap no-effort involved game. But we keep a constructive perspective.

Stalker: http://www.futuremark.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41805

The game has a crazy amount of bugs and it is fairly poor quality in general. I was really looking forward to the game because I am very intrigued about the Chernobyl area; to bad they made a half-ass attempt at recreating it. I only played about an hour of the game and had one gun fight.

Is he right? And you are wrong? Who knows, but one thing I am sure about, people, especially online, like to focus on the negative.

All games have bugs, most get released sooner than we wish. Silent Hunter 4 is a good game, it does far more right than wrong, and it is appreciated by people like us who are realistic and glad that SH2 is not the last WWII subsim to play. And we won't bow to peer pressure or convention and bash a good game that was released 3 months too soon and has bugs that will be patched.

cheers
Neal

[OddjobXL]

All games have bugs, most get released sooner than we wish. Silent Hunter 4 is a good game, it does far more right than wrong, and it is appreciated by people like us who are realistic and glad that SH2 is not the last WWII subsim to play. And we won't bow to peer pressure or convention and bash a good game that was released 3 months too soon and has bugs that will be patched.

cheers
Neal

/sign

[AVGWarhawk]

All games have bugs, most get released sooner than we wish. Silent Hunter 4 is a good game, it does far more right than wrong, and it is appreciated by people like us who are realistic and glad that SH2 is not the last WWII subsim to play. And we won't bow to peer pressure or convention and bash a good game that was released 3 months too soon and has bugs that will be patched.

cheers
Neal

That is all I have to say

[JudgeDredd]

I think my comments were more to do with the praise bestowed on the developers for posting details of a fundamental bug found by people who paid full price for the product. Although the way the developers posted it's acknowledgement of it was unique.

Also, I was pointing out the fact that, whilst bugs can be forgiven in any software, the fact that there is a bug in the torpedo management, rendering manual firing of torpedos a guessing game at best and totally useless at worst, is pretty unforgiveable...time constraints or no time constraints.

In particular, it was about one particular thread regarding this bug and the amount of praise laid at the feet of said developers and why such praise should be put forth.

I don't know any of the developers from adam.
I do know that there's a damn fine chance that they want to produce the best sub sim ever.
I do know that time contraints forced on them, most probably by publishers, make bugs an inevitable.
I also know that, even without the time contraints forced on them by publishers and outside pressures, there comes a time in the development cycle where you have to say "Enough is enough".

So I'm not pouring scorn on the developers. I know the world they live. I'm not a games developer, but I am a developer. So I live their life.

The game is unfinished. Some bugs can be forgiven, others cannot...I'm just very surprised at the misguided congratulations.

I'm sure there are positives to the game and I'm sure they are many...but there are some bugs you simply cannot excuse...

[fastfed]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Because these guys work their tails off, and continue to do so to patch the bugs that are a result of an impossible schedule put upon them by suits in upper management. I'm sure if it were up to them, the bugs would have been worked out before release. But they didn't have the luxury of setting their own release schedule.

I can't in good conscience come down on these guys when they did the best they could given what they were given.

How do you know this??

I mean really?? I don't care if a publisher screams and forces me NOT to get paid, I would never just turn my book in if I didn't finish the ending of it. ( Analogy )

And how do you know they "worked their tails off" maybe they knew the date it was SUPPOSED to be done, and just didn't finish in time because THEY DIDN'T WORK THEIR TAILS OFF!

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by fastfed

How do you know this??

I mean really?? I don't care if a publisher screams and forces me NOT to get paid, I would never just turn my book in if I didn't finish the ending of it. ( Analogy )

And how do you know they "worked their tails off" maybe they knew the date it was SUPPOSED to be done, and just didn't finish in time because THEY DIDN'T WORK THEIR TAILS OFF!

He knows...

[donut]

Originally Posted by JudgeDredd

I'm sorry...but submarine warfare is designed to specifically fight using torpedoes as it's primary weapon system...and as such, torpedo calculations are a key feature...and the fact that this was released bugged is unforgiveable...so I don't get why people compliment and thank developers for finding these bugs which, frankly, should never have manifested at all...period. Someone thought to program the ability to have two torpedo speeds...did no one honestly check to make sure that both torpedo speeds worked?

Is that the kind of service we've come to expect nowadays?

Sorry for ranting...but I couldn't sit back and watch all this thumbs up malarkey. This game is still sitting on the shop wall begging me to purchase it...and as much as I want to....

Also needs fixing,unable to put 2 shots under keel,with out resetting depth.Setting should stay set, until you change it! It's reseting when we change tubes.Not only that.w/testing,we are not getting detention @ 3ft under keel Rec.Manual draft .info.