Tom Chick's Silent Hunter 4 review in Gamespy

[Onkel Neal]

If you've read the "Thanks!" section of the 2007 Submarine Almanac, you know I hold Tom in high regard. He gave SH3 a 5 out of 5 star review, (doesn't mean perfect, etc) which took some heat off yours truly for leading the glowing praise with a 100 rating (doesn't mean perfect, etc).

Note, Tom is a serious sim guy, he's not a PS2 clone who was assigned SH4, so I feel his criticisms are valid and should be taken seriously.

There's a reason there are more movies about submarines than there are about jets with hi-tech avionics. This is a visceral and straightforward type of warfare, with dramatic turns of fortune and an exciting hunter/hunted dynamic.

Tom Chick and the sub that won't go down

good hunting!
Neal

[Kant Schwimm]

Bit confused as to where the link took me Neal, see below.



Is this the review?

[daft]

Your link points to the wrong place I think, but on a more general note I sometimes wish games reviews were written without any scores attached. I review games for all formats for a Swedish games site and awarded SH4 8/10. An uncontroversial score since most of our readers are general gamers not really into sims, but ever so often review discussions simply boils down to that little number appended at the end. There's seldom any consideration taken as to what the reviewer actually had to say about the game or how he/she motivated the score. OT, I know, but sometimes it gets very frustrating when scores are taken out of context.

[Front Runner]

(Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

http://odeo.com/audio/1453111/view

:rotfl:

[CaptainHaplo]

I think the correct link is

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/silent-hunter-4/786237p1.html

although its written by Tom Chick - it only shows 3 out of 5. Although I agree with him on most things.

As for the first link... sometimes its better we dont ask things about our respected Onkel. :p

All in good fun Neal!

[Front Runner]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaplo

I think the correct link is

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/silent-hunter-4/786237p1.html

Thanks for the corrected link...now on to comments on the review..

"But even for those of us who are inclined to stick with it, Silent Hunter: Wolves of the Pacific is a profoundly frustrating experience, in large part because of how close it is to being sublime."

He has summed up my feelings in just these few words....however, I am still somewhere in the Pacific, stalking the Rising Sun....open outer doors.....

[NefariousKoel]

I'm still baffled why some people think the interface is bad.

I think it's better than SH3 was - with just pictures of some guy's head to denote what station it was. At least in this one it has easily recognizable symbols. The TDC is right at your fingertips too.

[rdtwendt]

I think Tom did a good job of describing the SH4 experience for the majority of players. To come so close to perfection, but fall conspicuously short with bugs and other gameplay issues is truly disheartnening for the subsim faithful. As he mentioned, it's a hard line to draw where gratitude for the game's existence and expectations for stability and quality should meet. I sincerely hope UBI allows the developers more time to polish this game. The wasted potential alone would be heartbreaking for those of us who hold games like this up as a metric for what computer gaming should be.

Most of his technical assertions are valid. However I do disagree with the interface complaint; it is truly better than the heads we were given in SH3 and for the most part gets the job done. I would prefer that some of the icons we had in the previous version return, like the "range at current speed" feature and "follow nearest merchant" option.

All in all SH4 is a game you hate to be frustrated with, but there are just too many barriers to enjoyment right now to make it a rewarding experience.

[Chock]

On the whole, for a short review, I think it's largely pretty fair. And I know achieving this is sometimes hard to pull off, as I'm also a writer by profession (amongst other things) and have done quite a few software reviews in my time. In writing reviews, one has to adhere to strict criteria, and usually get it all to fit in a specified number of words too!

However, because I know this, I did notice that the piece lacks some of the detail a review should really have, i.e. what system was it being tested on and specifically, how much RAM, what video card and what operating system?

These are important things to mention, in view of the fact that the review refers to the sim crashing a fair bit and also alludes to patches being available - so one presumes it was not the 'A' key crash to blame for these mishaps.

This is the kind of valuable information that reviews are supposed to provide, so that 'punter A' can read the review and think: 'hmm, that's similar to my set-up, so I might have problems too'.

The review closes by saying that SH4 is a 'profoundly frustrating experience', but without evidence for a comprehensive test, or at least a mention of if this was done, I find myself not convinced that the software was always the smoking gun. If the game is crashing a lot, then the first suspect ought to be the system it is running on, whereupon the obvious thing to try is another review machine with alternative specs. If it still crashes, then the software should start coming under suspicion. Whenever I run software for a review, I test it on as many differently specced-up machines as possible, and I'd kind of hope people who review stuff and pass judgement on a product would do the same, as an unfair review could end up giving UBISOFTs sales figures a 'profoundly frustrating experience' that they might not have deserved. And then sub simulation fans might find their favourite software genre undeservedly even thinner on the ground than it already is.

For the record, Patched SH4 has never crashed on my machine (Win XP SP'd, ATI PCIx card, 2 gigs RAM). I'm not claiming it's without issues here, just stating a fact.

I find myself disagreeing with the interface complaints, as although the SH4 interface initially threw me and many other 'SH vets', it's not really any worse than stock SH3 was, just different. And with no knowledge as to whether UBISOFT is going to 'do an IL-2' and release expansion disks, there may very well be a good reason for the interface change for all I know, particularly in view of the fact that lots of other stuff is directly ported over from SH3 with no changes whatsoever.

So it would seem to me that if there is no reason for the change (which none of us can either confirm or deny with any degree of confidence) then the changes would simply be a case of the developers making work for themselves, and given that UBISOFT is not some amatuer company, I'd like to think that's unlikely.

Apart from these gripes about the review, which may not have as much foundation as it seems to me, if the test was more comprehensive than the review makes it appear, I agree with a lot of it. I just think that one ought to be careful about stating with absolute conviction that software you review is unstable, when it actually might not be to blame.

I'm personally convinced another patch will sort it, and the review seems rather more pessimistic on this score than I think it should be before the facts are all in.

[Capt. Shark Bait]

is that book available in stores? wouldn't mind reading it

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by NefariousKoel

I'm still baffled why some people think the interface is bad.

I think it's better than SH3 was - with just pictures of some guy's head to denote what station it was. At least in this one it has easily recognizable symbols. The TDC is right at your fingertips too.

I happen to agree here on the interface. I find it user friendly and easy to operate once you get some game time in. All in all a good review but I have to ask how long did he play the game? For me, over time I learned the quirks and the interface making the game much more enjoyable. As far as the CTD issue, I do not have any.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I happen to agree here on the interface. I find it user friendly and easy to operate once you get some game time in. All in all a good review but I have to ask how long did he play the game? For me, over time I learned the quirks and the interface making the game much more enjoyable. As far as the CTD issue, I do not have any.

I'm with you guys. I hear a lot of people saying they wish for SH3's interface. I found actually clicking each officer, or the little random portrait, to be very cumbersome. I think SH4's interface is pretty intuitive. Ah well. To each his own.

No CTD issues here either.

All in all a pretty fair review.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well I have to agree with the review on this one - the interface is a bit clunky to me. I prefer sh3 with the sidebar. What they have now combined the sidebar and the "officer" stations. Because some of the reports are no longer available - I find myself wishing for the "old style" controls for some things. In reality though - any gamer can adapt - for most sh3 players that are like me its just a comfort level thing more than the interface being "bad". Its all a matter of preference and I dont see it as any issue worth causing a ruckus over.

The bugs and such are really more the issues with the game.

[Onkel Neal]

Link fixed, thanks. Not sure how LOST has anything to do with SH4, except maybe Ubisoft lost a great chance at another 5/5

I can appreciate how he makes the comment

On one hand, since hardcore sims are so few and far between, we should be thankful for what we get. But on the other hand, how many shortcuts should we overlook out of sheer gratitude?

Yes, the game is saddled with more than a few bugs and was released too early, no doubt. Like he suggests, one should not excuse this too much, but with SH4 being the only subsim worthy of the name "simulator", it's not a great idea to crucify it. It's going to be very interesting to see where the Silent Hunter series goes from here.

[D'biter]

has ubisoft announed an SH5?????