japs fleet gigantic..?

[Rockin Robbins]

SH3 is just as fatally flawed as you contend SH4 is and GWX can't fix it. It's not because GWX isn't talented, they are VERY talented. But try as you wish, you cannot escape that the central organizing device of the German submarine strategy was the wolfpack: a feature utterly non-existent in the game.

Compared to that glittering omission, SH4 is a complete game. Face it. These are simulations which conform to the abilities of the programmers and the machines they must be played on. Either you overlook some faults or choose not to play the game.

What's the saying? If you demand perfection in your friends you are destined to have no friends? Hmmmmmmm?

[Bashou0]

That admiral is some guy ! Granted, he has a point when it comes to choose not to play or to live with the faults, I give him that, and it's a strong point.
Also he did put immediately the finger on a very sore spot : SH3, no wolfpack, AND I DIDN'T COMPLAIN...!
Sorry Sir, that's why I complain this time !
Some of you guys keep pushing me into RSRD, wich I didn't play till now, afraid of ruin my obvious smooth going game since I, contrary to posts I read on this forum,encounter during each patrol a multiplicity on vessels in such way I have to refit my boat two to three times BEFORE even reaching my destination. The same for airplanes, but they are a pain in the ass.
To all you guys, it's some comfort to notice that some of you at least partly agree.
Arigato gozaimasu,
soyanara.

[LeeVanSpliff]

Originally Posted by Bashou0

So,why don't FINISH it..??!! Give it a meaning, a purpose. And if that take's another year, well so be it, we are paying, aren't we..?
[...] it's indeed childish because this could be a absolute TOPgame...

I agree that SH4 could be better if more development time had been spend on it. I think that goes for every computer game I have ever played (with the possible exception of Ultima Underworld 2 which was simply perfect).

Game developers are here to make money though (which I definitely don't blame them for). They are not in it for purpose or meaning or for making absolute TOPgames. They're here to make money.

At some point sinking more money into a game that has probably sold the majority of the copies it will sell just isn't gonna pay any more.

I absolutely agree with you that the game could be better. I don't see the point of debating it though: "<blank> would be better with unlimited time, resources and funding" pretty much applies no matter what you throw in as <blank>. An equally valid statement could be that the game would have been less good if it had only had half the budget.

My point is that you are up against reality here. So am I it appears as I have just sprayed a piping hot cup of coffee all over the place! Fortunately most of it missed my keyboard.

Just my 0.02

[ijozic]

Originally Posted by LeeVanSpliff

I agree that SH4 could be better if more development time had been spend on it. I think that goes for every computer game I have ever played (with the possible exception of Ultima Underworld 2 which was simply perfect).

I would rate the first System Shock as one of the greater games of that time, but since they're both made by the same team, it's only a matter of preference

I think the graphics (3d-engine, models, textures, etc.) take most of the development time these days due to ever increasing industry standards (we need a reason for those new graphic cards). Older games were much simpler and thus had more development time for polishing.

Game developers are here to make money though (which I definitely don't blame them for). They are not in it for purpose or meaning or for making absolute TOPgames. They're here to make money.

I think you've mistaken the game developers with game publishing companies. Most lead developers probably want to make the best possible game but they are under constant pressure, time-limits and restraints from the producers (not surprising, considering how much the games cost these days).

[LeeVanSpliff]

Originally Posted by ijozic

I would rate the first System Shock as one of the greater games of that time, but since they're both made by the same team, it's only a matter of preference

I often hear that when I'm on about older games. Unfortunately I never played it and I guess it would be a tad late now

Originally Posted by ijozic

I think you've mistaken the game developers with game publishing companies. Most lead developers probably want to make the best possible game but they are under constant pressure, time-limits and restraints from the producers (not surprising, considering how much the games cost these days).

Yes you are right - I do believe that there are many individuals who would like to make the best possible game. I still like to think the developing companies try to make money though, even though this may be coupled with some creative ambition.

No matter whether we consider the developers or the developer/publisher constellation it still does not rock the key argument in my post imo - that game development does not have unlimited time, money and resources.