(Rant) More focus on gameplay, less on graphics

[TheSatyr]

Alot of people seem to have short memories here. The reason that things were left out and the reason for most of the bugs was because of the late addition of the dynamic campaign. (Which you all demanded).

The devs had a deadline to meet and even though it was delayed in order to add the dynamic campaign it meant that some of the things they planned on adding to the game had to be scrapped due to time constraints. And I'm sure it also meant a shorter alpha and beta test cycle.

Why anyone here would bitch at the devs for the way the game turned out is beyond me. They did the best job they could especially considering that the dynamic campaign was not part of the original design docs.

They had a choice,code the game as it was originally designed,with all the things they planned to put in. Or add in the dynamic campaign and drop some things that were originally planned for the game. And since there was near unanimous requests for a dynamic campaign they chose to go that route.

Since SH4 is being coded as designed with no late changes needing to be made,I expect SH4 to be the best of the series. They have the time to put in more things than SH3 had and more time for beta testing.

[TDK1044]

I agree with you, TheSatyr. Well stated.

[DedEye]

I would imagine the difference between a good/great/exceptional sim depends on the correct balance of graphics, gameplay (including drama), environment, character, and realism. I would also imagine this to be a daunting task for a producer of a sim, who has to balance features, schedule, and budget. Pure speculation on my part

16 colour Red Baron was my first sim, soon followed by Aces of the Pacific, over Europe, and then of the Deep. As someone pointed out, they have nifty little features that give them charm and character. Newspaper headlines make the accomplishment or failure grander. Sure, I can't see outside of the sub and I would die quickly, but some sort of clip/camera view showing my boat plummeting to bottom or a slick with flotsam and jetsam on the surface and appropriate music would make it more dramatic.

The thing I like the most about AotD is that high time compression doesn't break the game, there can be a huge visibility radius, and the combination of the two plus radio chatter meant that it wouldn't take an interminable amount of time for something to happen. I respect that there are people who have the capability of playing SH3 real time for entire patrols and enjoy doing so, and I admit that perhaps the frequency of encounters in AotD is unrealistic, but I find that even playing at 1024x I can go for hours real time in SH3 without anything happening. 256x so the planes spawn properly is about the same depending on year and location of course. When coupled with the drone of the diesels, this tends to put me to sleep! Especially after a few beer lol Crew management? Tedious.

Graphics and environment are important in sims. You want to be there! If it looks real, you're almost there. If it's a ghost town or ghost boats, you're almost there, but alone. I'd like to go through those fore and aft hatches too.

I'd like all craft and munitions in the sim to behave and manouever in a realistic fashion with realistic properties and damage models. Large deficiencies here can cripple immersion. I'm almost there!....oh wait....

In the end, I'm going to buy SH4 buggy or not. I bought SH3 and I still play it. The reason being is despite my gripes, I still consider SH3 to be the best sub sim released to date. Yes it's got warts, but it's still a beaut; very high on the immersion (that's right! I'm almost, almost there!). I'm hoping SH4 will be an evolution not just a sequel. Either way, if it's at least as good as SH3, and I think we can count on more than that, it'll be a keeper.

[cmdrk]

Originally Posted by DedEye

The thing I like the most about AotD is that high time compression doesn't break the game, there can be a huge visibility radius, and the combination of the two plus radio chatter meant that it wouldn't take an interminable amount of time for something to happen. I respect that there are people who have the capability of playing SH3 real time for entire patrols and enjoy doing so, and I admit that perhaps the frequency of encounters in AotD is unrealistic, but I find that even playing at 1024x I can go for hours real time in SH3 without anything happening. 256x so the planes spawn properly is about the same depending on year and location of course. When coupled with the drone of the diesels, this tends to put me to sleep! Especially after a few beer lol

Playing SH3 can lead to snooze time sure enough.
But, its just my guess that the older games just had random generated encounters to simulate shipping traffic. I know the sub community would like realistic shipping traffic - meaning a ship in port sails to another port and tracked the whole trip then after a number of days to unload/load the ship, set sail again. I'm thinking SH3 has that to some degree which would make time compression more cpu intensive and encounters more hit or miss.

If someone has better knowledge, please elaborate on the shipping encounters process.

Also, with US subs having airsearch radar, be prepared to be knocked out of TC often.

[Laffertytig]

dunno if anyone remembers a subsim called silent service 2 which was out in the early nineties? it was based in the pacific as well and it had one of the best dynamic campaigns ive seen.

when u left port u would move your sub on the strategic map using the cursor keys. any contacts would be reported and u would have the option to investigate, the game would then enter a tactical map and the scenario would begin. u would also be alerted of real time war events such as battles and could even head there for increased activity. the beauty of this system was it dealt with the time compression issues perfectly.

it really does amaze me how they could create such great gameplay 15 years ago but now complain dynamic campaigns are so hard to implement!

ive also read people argue that time spent on good campaign/gameplay would affect graphic quality. RUBBISH
slient service 2 have photo realistic graphics which for an amiga was groundbreaking at the time.

i guess we all know the truth anyway. graphic intensive games will always sell more. devs and gaming companies know that the vast majority of people who buys games/sims will walk into a shop, pick up a game box and check the out the graphics.

if it looks shiny they will buy it. who cares if the novelty wears of after a few days/weeks and they get bored of it, its still a sale right!

[TDK1044]

It's all about demographics. By far the largest demographic in the game buying market is the 18 to 30 age group. X Box and Play Station are targeted almost exclusively at that age group. The PC game buyer is typically in the 30 to 49 age group. Therefore, the makers of PC games work hard at trying to make their games also appeal to the 18 to 30 group.

That dempgraphic is why we have so many movies that are driven by special effects rather than content, and you end up with lousy movies full of things blowing up.

The DEVS try and plot a course that will give the true sub simmer what he is looking for, while at the same time trying to attract a younger audience to the product.

[Myxale]

We all here are a little concerned about the result!
I'm too aware that they as a dev studio and the other as a publisher need to appeal to the masses, and that the average gamer "fellow X" doesn't have the need for a game with a tecnical depth of a hardcore simm!
Or everything that comes with that!

And just in case we get "only" a "updated" SH3, well then i really feel sorry for our great modders!
I don't thing they will have the strenght to deal with a baby game again!

What in really would love is to have a Falcon 4.0 amog WWII subsims!
That would be a dream come true!