The failure of DW

[Shearwater]

Okay, maybe this thread offers me the opportunity for a general rant
A few days ago, I was about to give up playing DW and stick to SC - maybe I still will. Anyway, I find it comforting that other people (lots of other people) feel the same.


The major issues I have with DW are:
1) The general scope of the sim. Hard to describe it, but I think you know what I mean. A weird mixture of commanding a platform but having to do everything yourself. (Though that's the case with 688 and SC as well). That could be fine in itself if it weren't for the incompetent autocrew. Instead of thinking how to improve the game, every new SCS product just offered more of the same.
Something which would really have helped the sim would have more tools on the Nav screen, perhaps à la SHIII. Just inserting dots, manual solutions and circles is not that much. What about baffles? Incoming torpedoes? Water depths that don't require my cursor to move around the map? No, I have to remember all of those things just because. An A4 sheet of paper offers more situational awareness than the simulated map of a 2 billion $ submarine.

2) Lack of dynamic campaign. I know, I know, it was a deliberate decision on the part of SCS to create a mission-based campaign in order to avoid the simple "go hunt" feeling (i.e. just a series of randomly generated missions with little immersive effect), but I think it still sucks. And it sucks because I know what to expect, even if the details change. Apart from that, many of the missions I find simply to be boring, and the scenario corny.

3) Bugs. BUGS. Not even the ones concerning sensors, platform behavior and the like. It took me hours or even days of tweaking before I got rid of the infamous "sound bug" (stuttering music / sound effects), and if I had not replaced the original water textures of DW with those of SC, the sim would look quite weird (my notebook doesn't have a graphics card that supports the shader effects of DW). Not much of an issue, but: Why screw something up that has worked in the previous game?
And I needn't mention the real bugs that were mentioned in countless threads.
I think I can understand Nexus7 here. The modding community has done a great job, but I often think that this is piecemeal and there is something that they might have overlooked. Let alone the fact that it ought to be the job of the company who made the product to iron out these flaws in the first place. It's just that if a product ships out with that many flaws, I tend to become suspicious, even if they are gotten rid of eventually.

Don't get me wrong. I really like DW, or at least I try to. But sometimes, I wonder if it's worth the effort. Maybe if I would play some multiplayer, I could get more fun out of the game

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Shearwater

Okay, maybe this thread offers me the opportunity for a general rant
A few days ago, I was about to give up playing DW and stick to SC - maybe I still will. Anyway, I find it comforting that other people (lots of other people) feel the same.


The major issues I have with DW are:
1) The general scope of the sim. Hard to describe it, but I think you know what I mean. A weird mixture of commanding a platform but having to do everything yourself. (Though that's the case with 688 and SC as well). That could be fine in itself if it weren't for the incompetent autocrew. Instead of thinking how to improve the game, every new SCS product just offered more of the same.
Something which would really have helped the sim would have more tools on the Nav screen, perhaps à la SHIII. Just inserting dots, manual solutions and circles is not that much. What about baffles? Incoming torpedoes? Water depths that don't require my cursor to move around the map? No, I have to remember all of those things just because. An A4 sheet of paper offers more situational awareness than the simulated map of a 2 billion $ submarine.

Sub Command suffers the exact same problems.

2) Lack of dynamic campaign. I know, I know, it was a deliberate decision on the part of SCS to create a mission-based campaign in order to avoid the simple "go hunt" feeling (i.e. just a series of randomly generated missions with little immersive effect), but I think it still sucks. And it sucks because I know what to expect, even if the details change. Apart from that, many of the missions I find simply to be boring, and the scenario corny.

Sub Command doesn't have a dynamic campaign.

3) Bugs. BUGS. Not even the ones concerning sensors, platform behavior and the like. It took me hours or even days of tweaking before I got rid of the infamous "sound bug" (stuttering music / sound effects), and if I had not replaced the original water textures of DW with those of SC, the sim would look quite weird (my notebook doesn't have a graphics card that supports the shader effects of DW). Not much of an issue, but: Why screw something up that has worked in the previous game?
And I needn't mention the real bugs that were mentioned in countless threads.
I think I can understand Nexus7 here. The modding community has done a great job, but I often think that this is piecemeal and there is something that they might have overlooked. Let alone the fact that it ought to be the job of the company who made the product to iron out these flaws in the first place. It's just that if a product ships out with that many flaws, I tend to become suspicious, even if they are gotten rid of eventually.

Don't get me wrong. I really like DW, or at least I try to. But sometimes, I wonder if it's worth the effort. Maybe if I would play some multiplayer, I could get more fun out of the game

Sub Command was full of bugs, and the game only improved with surprise surprise a freaking mod, SCX.
I know no one who would go back playing default 1.08 Sub Command.

Most people playing DW have no freaking idea of what the latest mods are and just how much of a quantum leap they represent.
RA the mod that I'm betatesting is ground breaking. You can get a glimpse downooading an old beta version on subguru's website, but the latest version is even better.

[Nexus7]

Originally Posted by goldorak

I know no one who would go back playing default 1.08 Sub Command.

Just because you don't know me

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Nexus7

Just because you don't know me

We have an italian saying : "una rondine non fa primavera". I don't know how to translate it in english, but just because you're only one that prefers SC 1.08 over DW with or without mods doesn't mean that most players will agree with you.
Fact is most prefer DW over SC, since DW can do all that SC does and even more. The only difference is the abscense of a certain doctrine command, but in the great scheme of things is irrelevant as far as mission design goes.

[Shearwater]

Originally Posted by goldorak

Sub Command suffers the exact same problems.

Sub Command doesn't have a dynamic campaign.

Sub Command was full of bugs, and the game only improved with surprise surprise a freaking mod, SCX.
I know no one who would go back playing default 1.08 Sub Command.

.

I don't object. As for the campaign system: I didn't like it in SC either. But: If SC already shipped out with a whole lot of bugs until 1.08, why screw up the whole thing all over again, only this time much worse??

As for the mods: I generally think that mods should be the icing on the cake. Not make a stale cake taste good.
In danger of repeating myself: It's good, it's wonderful that so many people are putting that much effort into games they like. But it's also a symptom of what's wrong in the gaming industry. Those people do for free what others ought to have done for money.

[Castout]

Imo if DW would use 3D graphics like that of Silent Hunter III it would sell hot.

Right now DW only appeals to those who have strong interest in the world of modern naval sim.

However the success of SH3 is roof itself that the market CAN appreciate and WILL appreciate a well made game.
A good products nowadays CREATE their market instead of hoping to fulfill the market needs. SET TRENDS instead of following them.

[Nexus7]

Originally Posted by Castout

Imo if DW would use 3D graphics like that of Silent Hunter III it would sell hot.

A submarine sight is it's sensors, it's there that you see

Originally Posted by Castout

A good products nowadays CREATE their market instead of hoping to fulfill the market needs. SET TRENDS instead of following them.

Good point !

[Linton]

Disappointing would be how I would describe DW.We were promised expansion packs and campaigns but they never materialised and sonalysts have not allowed a clone of scx to be developed.This has had a direct effect on my desire to play DW and if I do play now I play SCX.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Linton

Disappointing would be how I would describe DW.We were promised expansion packs and campaigns but they never materialised and sonalysts have not allowed a clone of scx to be developed.This has had a direct effect on my desire to play DW and if I do play now I play SCX.

The clone of SCX is called RA also known as DWX.
You will not be disappointed.

[XLjedi]

Bad programming was the closest thing I could pick to how I feel about it.

I guess I would've been happier with a "Fleet Command 2" style game and all the platforms of the modern navy available for me to command.

I tend to dislike these attempts at trying to please everyone... I look at DW and PacStorm in a similar light. Either focus on making a really good simulator for a specific platform or give me a good strategic level game with lots of platforms, but don't try to do both at the same time. DW was a little heavier on the sim and lighter on strategy, PacStorm was the opposite; and both end up falling short in the end.

[Dr.Sid]

Originally Posted by aaronblood

I tend to dislike these attempts at trying to please everyone... I look at DW and PacStorm in a similar light. Either focus on making a really good simulator for a specific platform or give me a good strategic level game with lots of platforms, but don't try to do both at the same time. DW was a little heavier on the sim and lighter on strategy, PacStorm was the opposite; and both end up falling short in the end.

What part of DW is strategy ? The fact you can give orders to helo from FFG ? For me DW is clean sim.

[OneShot]

DW is the best and actually more or less only tactical ASW simulation around. Yes, there is SC and Janes 688(i) but they only show one side of the ASW game ... DW is the only game showing all sides of ASW. As far as the quality of the simulation goes ... I think that DW does simulate all platforms to a rather good level. Deep enough to allow a lot of stuff to do but not as detailed as F4 or DCS:BS (both are actually study sims of one single platform). Furthermore DW is an entirely different breed compared to PacificStorm, the only thing those two games have in common is the fact that both deal with Naval units.

[Fizanko]

But isn't the real reason of why DW is the best is because there is absolutely no competitor for the modern naval warfare simulation category (at least in the one that involve the player as actually operating the platforms, not just commanding a war in a Harpoon/Fleet Command way)?

Nearly every other naval/subsim/platform operating simulators are WW2 based, none use modern platforms.

The last non-sonalyst engine clone simulation (so discounting Sub Command and 688HK) that could at least compete in the modern sub simulation category is from 1996 (Fast Attack and Tom Clancy SSN).

In such condition, Sonalyst never had any competition in the same genre to make their serie of game, so obviously the sims were the best.

[Dr.Sid]

Yes. DW is not much good, but it is still the best. For me this is reason for NOT complaining, but it may vary for other people. In fact it clearly does.

[Zander]

i voted "bad programing" too.
even so, i would buy this game again in a heart beat.