Pretty graphics, YAY or NAY?

[aanker]

I didn't see SH2 graphics until Feb 2004 when I 'donated' to Subsim to get the Pacific Aces mod; having waited for that since I purchased the original SH1 - SHCE - in the late 90's.

It was exciting news for me when I heard SH4 would be a return to the Pacific Theatre. I'll admit the SH4 eye candy is a nice bonus.

Thanks!

Art

PS: now, if we could just get the realistic battery life/range, diving depths, and those pesky reefs around Truk Lagoon...... ;-)

[Zero Niner]

I voted for the middle option. Eye candy is a nice bonus, but gameplay is crucial.

Graphics in simulations imho are underrated. I often hear ppl saying they rather have realism then graphics. But they completly ignore that good graphics "are" a very important factor for realism itself. Only with good graphics is it possible to simulate some of the effects skippers back then had to go through themselves, haze, wind, waves, weather conditions in general, just to name a few factors important for u boat sim alone. These are all graphics related.

Considering how many mods here were done just for eye candy's sake, I'd say graphics do play a vital role. And let's face it, many ppl look back at some of the games they played 10 years ago and have lots of fond memories of them. But if these same games came to the market today, nobody would take another look at it, including most of the folks praising these games. Immersion is a key factor here. And you simply can't get good immersion out of a game that does not give you a "real" feel, especially compared to other games out there.

To repeat that, eye candy "is" important because it "is" part of realisism.

For me it is simple. Realism is all fine and good and important. But if an engine does not manage to make me feel like "beeing" there, it does not work. The radio and grammophone functions probably did more for my SHIV expirience then any manual torpedo calculation could ever have. And I have the certain feeling this "oh who needs graphics" stance is more a line to distinguish oneself and appear more mature then the usual game kiddie then based on realistic observations.

[Rockin Robbins]

We hate this stuff:



Give us a text-based subsim and we'll be happy as...........

[Nisgeis]

Originally Posted by Rockin Robbins

Give us a text-based subsim and we'll be happy as...........

Is that text with coloured background? How about this:

[DrBeast]

Originally Posted by MONOLITH

Just in case you missed it, MicroProse is making a comeback.

http://www.microprosesystems.com/company.htm

MicroProse without Sid...? Hmmm :hmm: But, here's to hoping...

And LOL @ Nisgeis! :rotfl:

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Graphics in simulations imho are underrated. I often hear ppl saying they rather have realism then graphics. But they completly ignore that good graphics "are" a very important factor for realism itself. Only with good graphics is it possible to simulate some of the effects skippers back then had to go through themselves, haze, wind, waves, weather conditions in general, just to name a few factors important for u boat sim alone. These are all graphics related.

You're oversimplifying. Passable haze, wind and water would be just fine. As long as it accomplishes the goal of simulating what it sets out to do, I don't need Crysis style "oh my god I can see each individual leaf on a tree" graphics. If SH4 had the same gameplay improvements but with SH3 graphics, it would have been fine in my book. I don't think a you need groundbreaking graphics in order to be considered a good sim.

Considering how many mods here were done just for eye candy's sake, I'd say graphics do play a vital role.

To some people, yes. Those mods were done to satisfy those people. I'm not opposed to mods that improve the look of the game, I'm opposed to spending development time on graphics at the expense of things like the TDC working correctly, or the game crashing when I press the "A" key.

And let's face it, many ppl look back at some of the games they played 10 years ago and have lots of fond memories of them. But if these same games came to the market today, nobody would take another look at it, including most of the folks praising these games.

Because technology has moved on. It's a false choice to say you've got either cutting edge graphics or 10 year ago graphics. There is a middle ground. That being said, I played through Deus Ex (a game thats now 8 years old) again not too long ago and loved every second of it.

Immersion is a key factor here. And you simply can't get good immersion out of a game that does not give you a "real" feel, especially compared to other games out there.

To repeat that, eye candy "is" important because it "is" part of realisism.

I'd get more of a feeling of immersion from having to navigate reefs, or not being able to reload torpedoes in a pitching and rolling storm, or having ST radar, or being able to flood tanks to ride lower in the water and make dives faster, or being a part of a wolfpack, or not having a GPS style nav map. None of which are graphically intensive.

And I have the certain feeling this "oh who needs graphics" stance is more a line to distinguish oneself and appear more mature then the usual game kiddie then based on realistic observations.

I have a certain feeling that your certain feeling is wrong. Different strokes for different folks, that's all.

Oi, appears what I considered just another view to the list hit a nerve. My apologies for that.

I suppose I am just still feeling too young to be satisfied with what I have when there are possibilities to move on. To each their own, mookiemookie.

[mookiemookie]

No worries.

[Sub Sailor]

I suppose it was because of the graphics that required me to upgrade my system, but it was worth it.
The explosions on SH4 are as realistic as I have seen in any sim, looks like the ones in movies.

Last night I torpedo a Gun Boat, WOW, that thing blew up and the forward half was cart Wheeling right at me. Never saw that in any sim before.
I also like the fact that sinking ships blow up, go down by the head roll over and sometimes sink stern first.
I know it required better graphics cards, RAM, but people will not be sorry. I guess from marketing stand point a toned down version would sell. The upgrade needed kept me away form SH4 until I had a problem that I had to take it to the shop and that is when I upgraded.
Will people start building custom missions, or is that even possible in SH4?

Great job,

Ron Banks MMCM(SS), USN(Ret)

[dannygjk]

Hi

This is undecidable. It depends on what is more desirable to you: An intellectual challenge or eye candy. The only way I can think of to cut through that problem is to ask: What gaming experience makes me forget I am playing a game and raises my heart rate/blood pressure, and leaves me wanting to keep playing?

To place a lot of weight on graphics is to be 'penny-wise and pound foolish', ie; if I buy a game and only play it for one day because it's not mentally engaging, I will NOT buy a sequel. Likewise, if a game does not simulate the real world in a way which would fool a toddler, I will not buy a sequel. Also, I have told people since the early 80's: I'll take a well-written book with no pics over a poorly-written book with beautiful pics any day.

But I will address the question directly. If I have a wide scope of command decisions to make, I will choose that over awesome graphics and ego-stroking gameplay.

dannygjk

[ancient46]

I play games for fun and relaxation. If the game meets that criteria I really don't care about graphics. I still play and enjoy, text based games like the old Zork series, and older games like Wasteland, Fallout and Baldur's Gate series. Even though I enjoy Silent Hunter the great graphics have not dimmed my enthusiasm for Silent Service, a longtime favorite. Pretty but boring games are not fun.