Have the devs had time to play the game?

Nisgeis · 01-13-10, 07:51 PM

So, SH3 took 2.5 years to develop and received a 100% score from Mr. Neal Stevens (whoever he is). SH4 took eleven months, with the final four being on 'crunch' of long hours. The manual had to be finalised before the features it described had been implemented, so many of the "screenshots" in the manual were fabricated in photoshop and also translation issues caused trouble. This explains why the maual was so bad. Ubisoft clearly did not give the project enough time to be delivered as a fully working game, which was very frustrating for all of us, as I think we could all see the genius that was in the game, but that it was just a smidgen away from our grasp.

Clearly, the devs had modelled some very detailed systems, which the manual let down by not expalining it clearly. Things like radar signals being affected by waves and ships being obscured by other ships etcetera, or torpedo strike angles being faithfully calculated according the the angle of the 3D model it hit. All of those things deserve a standing ovation for the amount of detail they went into. If only the manual had told us that these great things were in there, we might have complained less.

The developers just plain did not have enough time. The team behind SH3 and SH4 are keen subsimmers and with SH4, they were let down by a lack of reasonable development time and also their playtesters, who as casual gamers were not as into subsims as the developers were, so did not spot the 'hardcore/realism' game problems. The devs themselves knew all about the historical systems and how they were used, but with time frames being so tight, the devs did not get the chance to take a break and sit back and actually play the game that they were working all hours to produce. It would be as if the community here created a game, but never got to play the fully assembled product.

At this very moment, the devs will be on crunch and will be working very long hours to get everything they possibly can into the game, not only because that's the way it is, but because they want to deliver a great game that they themselves would like to play (after all, they are subsim fans too). Being on crunch would explain the lack of announcements and tidbits coming our way as well.

So, with all that, I beleive that the devs will deliver the very best game they can and all we can do is buy it, play it and then bitch about it. We're going to complain about it, even if it's perfect, so the real question is, have the devs had time to play the game?

01-13-10, 07:51 PM	#1
Nisgeis Ocean Warrior Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,909 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 11	Have the devs had time to play the game? So, SH3 took 2.5 years to develop and received a 100% score from Mr. Neal Stevens (whoever he is). SH4 took eleven months, with the final four being on 'crunch' of long hours. The manual had to be finalised before the features it described had been implemented, so many of the "screenshots" in the manual were fabricated in photoshop and also translation issues caused trouble. This explains why the maual was so bad. Ubisoft clearly did not give the project enough time to be delivered as a fully working game, which was very frustrating for all of us, as I think we could all see the genius that was in the game, but that it was just a smidgen away from our grasp. Clearly, the devs had modelled some very detailed systems, which the manual let down by not expalining it clearly. Things like radar signals being affected by waves and ships being obscured by other ships etcetera, or torpedo strike angles being faithfully calculated according the the angle of the 3D model it hit. All of those things deserve a standing ovation for the amount of detail they went into. If only the manual had told us that these great things were in there, we might have complained less. The developers just plain did not have enough time. The team behind SH3 and SH4 are keen subsimmers and with SH4, they were let down by a lack of reasonable development time and also their playtesters, who as casual gamers were not as into subsims as the developers were, so did not spot the 'hardcore/realism' game problems. The devs themselves knew all about the historical systems and how they were used, but with time frames being so tight, the devs did not get the chance to take a break and sit back and actually play the game that they were working all hours to produce. It would be as if the community here created a game, but never got to play the fully assembled product. At this very moment, the devs will be on crunch and will be working very long hours to get everything they possibly can into the game, not only because that's the way it is, but because they want to deliver a great game that they themselves would like to play (after all, they are subsim fans too). Being on crunch would explain the lack of announcements and tidbits coming our way as well. So, with all that, I beleive that the devs will deliver the very best game they can and all we can do is buy it, play it and then bitch about it. We're going to complain about it, even if it's perfect, so the real question is, have the devs had time to play the game? __________________ -------------------------------- This space left intentionally blank.