Gamespot's SH4 Review

[bruschi sauro]

Originally Posted by madmike81

Im sure we are all familiar with game bugs. But im sorry. For all the hype and 50 dollars invested im pretty angry about the playability of this game. Im kinda hoping someone in the mod community raids sh4 for some ideas and produces a nice graphics touch up for sh3. sh4 is about 4-5 patches from playable for me.

SH3 4 patch....

[smoothvirus]

[quote=Safe-Keeper]

titles were finished upon release. X-Com UFO Defense was free of bugs,

/somewhat off topic

X-COM UFO Defense is one of my favorite games of all time. But if we're talking about the PC version it was pretty far from bug free! We found workarounds for the bugs but I don't know that all of them were ever fixed. For instance, if you start a ground mission while the intercept window is still open, the rest of your game is hosed. Everytime you start another ground mission after that you'll go back to the one you were on when you had an intercept window open. AFAIK they never fixed that.

[William516]

You have got to be kidding me on that review. Do they work for UBI? Or maybe they just played for five minutes. I wrote a review already of what I thought and though a fan of all the SH series i have to say this is the worst possible release of any sim. Even SH3 did not have this many problems and even if it did have problems SH3 was a NEW game from SH2. Completly redesigned and so on. SH4 should have been the least of the problems becuase it is built on solid coding of SH3 and they even used most of the same CFG files. All the bugs that were fixed in the SH3 1.4b patch are present again in SH4 even with patch 1.1. Not sure how but people are telling me this game was originaly supposed to be an addon. Well even the addon i have bought for games have performed better then this and only cost 20 dollars Vs 50. Sh4 is not a new game at all.

While i agree that SH4 has a TON of potential to become one of the best sub sims out there, in its current state i would give it maybe a 5 out of 10. 5 only for grpahics.

Seems like UBI is starting to get like every other software company and make the modders fix all the problems. Sad because unlike the developers and managment the MOD teams are not being paid for anything they do. Problem with SH4 is that there are so many problems that even simply modding files may not fix it.

Surely NOT a good sign when a day after the release, at least around me, there was already a 100 Mb patch. God forbid you had to use 56K to get that patch.

8.3 is a joke honestly for a score, i have seen these guys tear up games that far exceed SH4 in completness and they gave this so called "NEW GAME" that score.

Lets Get Real

UBI Get back to work and fix this game, modders cant do it all


William

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by William516

though a fan of all the SH series i have to say this is the worst possible release of any sim.

Really? You remember SH2? Scripted campaign?

What about SH1? Can you list off the top of your head the bugs and unfinished parts of that game? Which parts were listed in the manual but not included in the game?

[Max Theisen]

As an old fart who's been computer gaming since games literally came in Zip-Loc bags, I can say that one thing that has changed radically is the expectations of gamers. "In the old days" games DID have bugs, problems, etc. but we just accepted them as part of the shortcomings of the game and used our imaginations to work around them, or just put up with them. We just felt like it was very cool to be able to pretend we were a tank commander or a combat pilot or fighting aliens, etc. on a computer. Computer Ambush, for example, from SSI took FOREVER to process a turn, the enemy AI only set up in one of three predetermined positions on each map (which kind of took the surprise factor out of a game based on "ambushes") and had a couple of problems with wounds, etc. But we played the heck out of it. XCom:UFO had numerous bugs, which is why there are user mods/patches out, but the game is good enough we accepted them. We kknew that a fix was pretty much out of the question (although once BBS systems became common, occasional patches started showing up.)

The expectations today are so high that people can feel the graphics in a game like SH4 are unacceptable. Now, there's no doubt that SH4 was pushed out the door unfinished - hence the rapid release of 1.1. There's another factor in play that didn't use to be there: the Big Coporate Publisher who makes the calls and has a Board of Directors to whom they have to answer. And there are some problems in 1.1, obviously. But I'm still playing and enjoying the heck out of playing cat and mouse (and sometimes that mouse turns out to be a tiger!) with the IJN, and working around the problems, hopeful that they'll be fixed. SH4, even with its problems, is a pretty amazing piece of software for what it DOES do. I can't wait to see it live up to its potential.[/quote]

This post is speaking to my heart, thanks!

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

And yes, it is certainly a new thing that games are unfinished upon release....

I have a comment on that - the games you are describing lack the complexity of modern games. X-Com came on floppies if you wanted it like that, and its code base was only a fraction of something released today, like SHIV for example. So I think the comparrison being made is more of an apples and oranges thing.

I think the problem could be best described as all games now days will have bugs - no way around it, but that some games are pushed out the door with their developers knowing all too well that it has some major hole in it. That is the real problem! That is the problem that needs to be addressed.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Really? You remember SH2? Scripted campaign?

What about SH1? Can you list off the top of your head the bugs and unfinished parts of that game? Which parts were listed in the manual but not included in the game?

I still liked SH2. I only wish a DC linked to SHIV, then I would be happy! I miss Destroyer Command.

-S

[Ayari]

Originally Posted by It762

I think in general reviews are by far to high. I mean every second title gets 70%++ - But everything thats 60%++ is rated as crap already.

Imho, Best way to do it would be to compare against a generic categories as well as categories that depend on the genre.
These should be only non-biased requirements. E.g. For graphics this would be very accurate settings. These requirements would be valid for a year or so so games can be compared to each other.

Some examples for a simulation would be: (Historical) Accuracy/Realismn, Graphics, Game requirements (yes high minimum game requirements should have negative impact), could think of some more )

Bugs should really reduce the final rating, especially showstoppers and critical issues.

In the end you have (as done usually now) the fun rating which relates to the reviewer's own opinion.

Ah well....

I agree.

Many game reviews are skewed toward one category/criteria: like graphics. If a game has nice eye-candy, it most likely will get a higher review rating than it should. For me, eye-candy is nice, but for a simulation I would take historical accuracy, dynamics, and immersion level over graphics that are "cutting edge".

With most computer gamers having access to the internet, I think all gaming corporations have adopted a " get it out the door and patch the problems later" attitude. Which from a business standpoint makes sense, but from a hobbiest/entertainment POV does not. I think the companies need to find a good balance between the bottom line ($) and putting out a quality product.

I just am glad the modders do it for the love and not the money