SHV may be a flop because no one cares anymore

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Egan

lets also not pretend they were making the worlds greatest and most hardcore world war two simulator before the evil suits dropped in to say 'Hey, this isnt what the kids want! where's the phat lewt at?'

I think you would be surprised.

[Egan]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

I think you would be surprised.

Perhaps I would. Perhaps I wouldn't. They still developed the game, though, and it's unfair to suggest that they shouldn't have to shoulder at least some critisism for the game they delevoped as long as that critisism is fair and balanced.

Of course, it would help if we all actually saw the game first, of course. And I'm as guilty of jumping the gun as everyone else.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Egan

Two points I like to make. Firstly, I think that attacking the developers because they happen to work for Ubisoft is out of order, rude and unfair. However, It is also inaccurate to lay the blame for design decisions soley at the door of the Ubisoft executives. There is a growing air of - I dont even know what you call it, protectionism? - towards the devs. Basically I dont believe they are untouchable, as seems to be suggested by various threads and posts I've seen. They are big boys and girls and I for one would like to see detailed and reasonable answers to why certain decisions were made in the development of the game. Constructive critisism can only help to make this game better. Now, As I said, lets not attack them just because they are the more presentable face of a vast and godless corporation but lets also not pretend they were making the worlds greatest and most hardcore world war two simulator before the evil suits dropped in to say 'Hey, this isnt what the kids want! where's the phat lewt at?'

My second point is this: Regardless of what I feel about certain design choices in the game, or the type of anti-piracy measures taken, I think this will be not only the biggest selling edition of the franchise but quite possibly one of the biggest selling sim titles in many, many years. It is far too easy to come to a site like this and belive that it is the whole world. We represent a tiny slice of the market for this game. Good for the devs and good for ubi. Maybe not so good for me but I'm a grown up sometimes and Im sure I'll cope,

Good points, all of them. Yes, the devs are a big part of the design strategy and the individual subsim customers are entitled to decide if they like the direction the game is going or not. Hopefully, they will express their opinions as intelligently as you have done.

One of the problems I see with this round of SH development; in the past the game company was very good about providing us updates and info on the progress of the game. And why not? Subsim has championed these games since SH2 in 1999. But with SH5, there has been very little interaction or access to the game. When I ask my kid to show me their homework so I can see how much they've done, and the kid keeps stalling and stalling...I get the impression the homework is not going as well as I hoped.

At this point, 4 weeks before the game is due to be released; I have not seen anything since Sept, and I expect Ubisoft to delay sending the gold review copy, which other game publishers send 2 weeks before release, until after the game is actually out.

I've got a bad feeling about this, to quote Harrison Ford

[Mikhayl]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I've got a bad feeling about this, to quote Harrison Ford

I still have a positive feeling towards the game (if looking past the "thing"), but yeah some things are worrysome.

The most used view/station in all SH games is the map, and we haven't seen anything meaningful about it except that at 0% realism the enemy ships will have colored vision cones, and we can steer the sub with an arrow on the map. How do we navigate? Still GPS? something else? Plotting? Map notes?

Then obviously targetting, nothing shown about it.

Then the targets, on the website we have cool renders of ships that you would seldom encounter in a "realistic" career, safe for the 2 destroyers. Where are the merchant ships? How many of them?

I understand that there's no point doing a full review before the game is actually out, but usually new games advertise their "features". So far the features advertised are nice but hardly the most relevant to a sub sim.

[Egan]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

I still have a positive feeling towards the game (if looking past the "thing"), but yeah some things are worrysome.

The most used view/station in all SH games is the map, and we haven't seen anything meaningful about it except that at 0% realism the enemy ships will have colored vision cones, and we can steer the sub with an arrow on the map. How do we navigate? Still GPS? something else? Plotting? Map notes?

Then obviously targetting, nothing shown about it.

Then the targets, on the website we have cool renders of ships that you would seldom encounter in a "realistic" career, safe for the 2 destroyers. Where are the merchant ships? How many of them?

I understand that there's no point doing a full review before the game is actually out, but usually new games advertise their "features". So far the features advertised are nice but hardly the most relevant to a sub sim.

The lack of any concrete information on any of the 'nuts and bolts' aspects of the sim is worrying not least because this is the sort of stuff that gets simmers all hot and bothered. I'm 100% with you on that. The screenies of ships that we are likely to never see let alone sink is something that UBI have been pushing since before SH3 came out and was a worry then. It no longer bothers me. Its all about using a powerful image to sell the product and I'm fine with that.I just wish they would show us some manky old tramp steamer occasionally. Compared to the ships you saw in Aces of the Deep, every shot I see from SH5 makes me feel like I'm living in the future and of all of it's possible fault, ugliness will not be one of them. It's so beautiful I want to buy it flowers and write it poems.

[IanC]

In other words... SHOW US SOMETHING NEW #$%^@!

[Iron Budokan]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

At this point, 4 weeks before the game is due to be released; I have not seen anything since Sept, and I expect Ubisoft to delay sending the gold review copy, which other game publishers send 2 weeks before release, until after the game is actually out.

I've got a bad feeling about this, to quote Harrison Ford

Frankly, aside from everything else we've learned about this game so far, this is the most troubling aspect to me.

It's like they KNOW it's bad or something. At the very least that's the impression they are leaving many people with.

[Hartmann]

I suspect that Ubi silence is caused by the huge limitations of the stock game and the new type of game, more 3D arcade than previous versions and focused to casual gamers or an interactive movie.

For example i think that some stations are limited to the 3D crew and not used by the player as a role of captain, for example TDC

[martes86]

Originally Posted by Gunnodayak

Isn't that obvious that the game will be less sim and more arcade than SH3?

No! Totally no! We don't know it will be less or more arcade than SH3, we can't compare what we haven't even tested ourselves. You can't base yourself in 2 trailers and a few interface screens, and qualify it just like that. You need more info, some checking... We saw it at Copenhaguen, and I don't think we got that much info to judge.

And, FYI, our multiplayer mode (in the tournaments of the 24th) can have realism as high as just having unchecked the "No map updates" (it'd be a gameplay madness to have this one checked when navigation isn't reality-like 100%) and "No weapons officer" options (though we must still call out for the weapons officer to ask for solutions). Everything else is always checked. We have been commited for realism for a while (I entered the SubClub mid-year 2004, but the 24th's history goes back to 2002), and many people in our forums are also complaining about what we've seen and read so far.
But that doesn't mean I don't prefer objectivity first.

Originally Posted by Egan

Two points I like to make. Firstly, I think that attacking the developers because they happen to work for Ubisoft is out of order, rude and unfair. However, It is also inaccurate to lay the blame for design decisions soley at the door of the Ubisoft executives. There is a growing air of - I dont even know what you call it, protectionism? - towards the devs. Basically I dont believe they are untouchable, as seems to be suggested by various threads and posts I've seen. They are big boys and girls and I for one would like to see detailed and reasonable answers to why certain decisions were made in the development of the game. Constructive critisism can only help to make this game better. Now, As I said, lets not attack them just because they are the more presentable face of a vast and godless corporation but lets also not pretend they were making the worlds greatest and most hardcore world war two simulator before the evil suits dropped in to say 'Hey, this isnt what the kids want! where's the phat lewt at?'

Yes, one could blame them for certain decisions that directly affect the title's design & development, but it must be constructive (so that it can be improved in the future, if there is one), and more importantly, it must be done with enough information at hand, which can only be obtained by direct testing, or if we were given enough functional information (not the case here).
Protectionism, well, maybe, but only because I understand their position, and think they deserve more than being insulted or critizised non-stop for doing their job when they might be doing a not-so-bad work, but we don't know, so we can't tell accurately enough. And, we can't blame them for OSP/DRM, that's all Ubi's suits' creation.

But things are constantly getting mixed up, and absurdness has invaded Subsim in the name of DRM. I don't agree with its implementation in SH5, but I'm starting to agree with those that think that this is starting to be excessive.

Cheers

[mookiemookie]

Stock SH3 and SH4 would have been flops on their own if not for our modding community. SH5 is supposed to be the most open one ever, so from that standpoint, it has the potential to be the best one ever.

The only thing holding it back is the DRM issue. And I suspect that Ubi will drop that at some point. So it's FAR too early to make bold and sweeping statements like this.

[martes86]

It is being speculated by some that Ubi might release a patch for SH5 to remove DRM once it thinks that the big profit has been taken in already, some time after initial release.
Maybe we can hope for that. In the meanwhile, what there is will be what we get...

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Stock SH3 would have been flops on their own if not for our modding community. .

Disagree.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Disagree.

i think its safe to say they wouldnt have seen near the success they enjoyed if the modding community had brought them to life

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Disagree.

I'll take GWX for the block, Chuck. </Hollywood Squares>

Granted, SH3 was out for a while before the GW team got their hands on it, but its folks like RuB and GW that, I feel, have given the game the staying power that its had. It would be interesting to compare the sales of SH3 in the first 3 months of release vs. the months since then.

[martes86]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Is that not like buying, at full price, a broken car because you happen to be a mechanic?

I won't buy a broken thing that costs me a bunch of money (a car in Spain, the cheapest: 6000 euros; the average: 12000-15000 euros). But I can endure buying a game for 20 bucks, even if it turns out to be incomplete (which we don't know yet), it won't really hurt my wallet if I do it serves a purpose. You can't really compare such opposite situations.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Stock SH3 and SH4 would have been flops on their own if not for our modding community.

SH5 does have potential, but stock SH3 was not a total fail (SH4 maybe). We all bought SH3, and it was a major revolution compared to SH2. Didn't have an acompanying DC2, but it was quite enjoyable. There were no mods when it came out, and, IMO, it was a success among subsimmers as lots of people bought it, and I agree with Neal there.

Cheers