A New Interview With Realism Consultant for SHO

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

What's the difference?

You'll likely get a different answer for that with every person you ask. It isn't really about the nature of the game itself, but rather the nature of the person playing it. A person who likes games usually likes to play a huge variety of things, because he likes his entertainment. A person who likes sims isn't interested in playing anything. He wants to imagine he's in the middle of his favorite subject period, reliving the actual experience, for good and for bad. The ultimate example of this is probably Falcon, in which the player becomes the pilot of an F-16, and nothing else. It's only one step below an actual training simulator.

The hardcore sub-simmer wants to experience being the captain of a submarine, and nothing else. The gamer wants to play a submarine game. The complaints about SH5 stem mainly from the fact that the devs seem to have tried to make a game that both simmer and gamer would enjoy, and failed at both. It's too labor-intensive for the casual gamer, and lacks what the hardcore simmers want. Of course the hardcore simmers are slaves to what they already think of as "definitive sims", which were Aces Of The Deep and Silent Hunter 1. The argument against that is that those two games weren't necessarily "definitive" so much as just first. Anything, when you look at it, could be better, depending on your point of view. It really hinges on what the individual expects of the experience.

The letdown of SH4 and SH5 stems from the fact that SH3 had some extreme flaws, and its two successors didn't fix those, and in a couple of cases made it worse by getting rid of things we did like about SH3. Now we have SHO, which is getting rid of even more things that the hardcore simmers loved about the originals.

I'm not complaining about it, because it's aimed at a different market than me, and that's fine. I'm just trying to answer your question and explain the percieved difference between a game and a sim. I say "percieved", because of course the perception itself hinges on what each individual player expects of the experience. In reality it's a no-win situation for everybody, and there are no real answers. We all have to compromise in one way or another.

[Julhelm]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The ultimate example of this is probably Falcon, in which the player becomes the pilot of an F-16, and nothing else. It's only one step below an actual training simulator.

It works with Falcon and DCS because they simulate single-seat aircraft. I've always interpreted the hardcore subsimmers as pretty much wanting something that simulates an entire submarine to Falcon or DCS fidelity, which seems massively impractical. Compare it to the super hi-fi passenger jets like PMDG for FSX which simulate every single subsystem in the real aircraft, but then most people run other programs like virtual co-pilots that automate checklists etc which kind of makes all that detail redundant.

The fun thing about SH1 and AOD is that they are really quite 'gamy' if the level of simulation is judged solely on procedural fidelity. Both automate a lot of processes like TMA and sailing model, and AOD even had an automated deck gun. Whereas the hardcore sim crowd would complain if these stations weren't modelled to the point of manually compensating for windage. I don't think procedural fidelity is something that magically improves the simulated experience.

As an example, the one WW1 game that gave me the best experience of "being there" was without a doubt Wings, even though it was hardly a realistic simulation compared to even Red Baron or Knights of the Sky. Its qualities lay in the narrative.

Oh yeah, SH1 is one of the few dos sims that hasn't really aged at all if you play it in DosBox today. Even the graphics still look good if you can look past the flat sea. Then experience what has to be THE defining anti-sub AI if there ever was one.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Julhelm

It works with Falcon and DCS because they simulate single-seat aircraft.

That's quite true, and shows the great dividing line between what can and can't be done.

I've always interpreted the hardcore subsimmers as pretty much wanting something that simulates an entire submarine to Falcon or DCS fidelity, which seems massively impractical.

Also true, which is why I said I thought that what makes the difference isn't the type of game itself but the person playing it.

The fun thing about SH1 and AOD is that they are really quite 'gamy' if the level of simulation is judged solely on procedural fidelity. Both automate a lot of processes like TMA and sailing model, and AOD even had an automated deck gun. Whereas the hardcore sim crowd would complain if these stations weren't modelled to the point of manually compensating for windage. I don't think procedural fidelity is something that magically improves the simulated experience.

Again I agree. I've always seen being able to turn every single knob and push every button as a waste of time, because these are things the captain can do but never does, because he doesn't have to. I think SH3's 'Weapons Officer Assistance' is very realistic, with the one flaw that it's perfect every time. The best in that department would be to have the player look through the periscope, adjust the rangefinder and click a button, which would then have his observations entered on the map. He would have to make the judgement call, but intering it into the TDC would be automatic.

As an example, the one WW1 game that gave me the best experience of "being there" was without a doubt Wings, even though it was hardly a realistic simulation compared to even Red Baron or Knights of the Sky. Its qualities lay in the narrative.

I'm not familiar with that one, but every week I play a 3D game with my friends which involves moving model airplanes on stands around the floor and rolling dice. You can't see the view from the cockpit, and there are no switches at all, but the feel is amazing and real combat tactics work. Pilots who have played it have praised it almost without fail.

Oh yeah, SH1 is one of the few dos sims that hasn't really aged at all if you play it in DosBox today. Even the graphics still look good if you can look past the flat sea. Then experience what has to be THE defining anti-sub AI if there ever was one.

I still play it, though not all the time. I do love sailing in and out of the harbors in SH3, and looking at the sights. SH5 really is even better, if they could only get the mods that I want into that version.

This is why I probably won't like SHO. I want to sail out of Kiel and through the canal, with locks and working gates, and that's not what this online game is about. But that's just me.