The failure of DW

[Dr.Sid]

I too think air platforms and FFG are superb. It's just totally different. The subs, nukes especially, are all pretty similar.

And FFG is the best platform .. since it has GUNS.

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

I too think air platforms and FFG are superb. It's just totally different. The subs, nukes especially, are all pretty similar.

And FFG is the best platform .. since it has GUNS.

Isn't that the truth. I've sunk with the cannon careless skippers that occasionally popped up to fire one or more sams on my helos. Playing the frigate is a completely different experience from subs and it adds to the fun. Its even better when you play in 3 in multistation.

[Fleet Command CC]

I pick Bad programming, too many bugs, because the game is a pain to modify, and also adding new model's is impossible (I don't like using this word but in this case its needed) if you have not got 3D Studio Max R2.5. or R3.1

[Fleet Command CC]

Originally Posted by Max2147

I was a fan of SCS games, but I didn't buy DW.

A few reasons were:
1. Sub Command was disappointing. The learning curve was very steep, the game was buggy, the graphics were dated, and in general it just wasn't fun. I gave up on it before the mods arrived.

2. Premise of the game. I like realism and such, but the simple fact is that modern naval combat is a lot of people sitting in dark rooms and staring at sensor screens. You never even see your enemy, and in a sub you never even see the outside world. So a realistic simulation of modern naval combat won't be terribly exciting, in my mind. In SH4 you could at least cruise around on the surface, see enemy ships through your scope, and shoot at planes from the deck. Fleet Command takes you outside the ship altogether. Both those games, for all their flaws, are simply FUN. Sub Command wasn't fun, and I feared that DW would be the same.

3. Graphics. It's not the most important thing in a game, but I do think they matter. For example, SH4 isn't up there with the latest FPS and such as far as graphics, but they're certainly not bad. DW's graphics were BAD. They weren't really an improvement over Sub Command, which in turn wasn't an improvement over Fleet Command, which had dated graphics when it was released.

4. A Sub Command redux. I didn't really see much in DW to separate it from SC. If the frigate, the Kilo, and the plane had come out as a SC expansion pack, I might have been more interested. But the reviews I read said that the frigate and the plane were the worst parts of the game.

Overall, I loved Fleet Command. It had its flaws, but with the NWP pack it was reasonably realistic but still accessible to a non-expert like me. There's a balance to be had between realism and fun, and FC got that balance exactly right. Unfortunately, SC got it wrong. Having loved FC, the boredom of SC was a big disappointment. Since DW looked like it would be more of the same as far as SC was concerned, I didn't bother.

I read an interview with somebody at Sonalysis not long after DW was released where they mentioned that the company was getting a bunch of government contracts. I think the easy money there caused them to lose interest in games. The Naval Combat Pack was simply an easy cash-in that required almost no work on their part.

What I'd really like to see is a Fleet Command 2.

Max2147

I agree with all your points well said, I'd love to see a new FC game too.

[Neptunus Rex]

It took longer than 15 minutes to play a scenario. That's about the average attention span of most people.

Why do you think they call this generation "The Fast Food Generation"?

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead Nuke

The layout of the sub in general. Were are those spaces?? On that note: If you have seen Stargate Continuim, the interior of the sub is DEAD ON. That is what control and the upper level passageway look like. That is what the wardroom (minus the flat panel garbage) looks like.

Thats because it is the Conn, Wardroom and passageways aboard a US 688(i) class submarine surfaced near the north pole.

The F-15s used later on were real F-15s. (the stuff on the ground not the CGI stuff)

The Airbase where SG-1 is taken was a real USAF Base.

The time machine SG-1 uses to save the world was a real time machine on another planet.

Ok that last was isn't true but the rest is.

The US Military helped out a lot not just on that one movie but though out the whole series. One of the joint cheifs appeared in an episode as I recall.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Neptunus Rex

It took longer than 15 minutes to play a scenario. That's about the average attention span of most people.

Why do you think they call this generation "The Fast Food Generation"?

For some people, maybe. But I had no problem playing 6 hour long scenarios in Fleet Command, or playing entire patrols in one go in SH4. Somehow SC just didn't capture me in the same way, and I didn't see any reason why DW would be different.

[Hawk66]

Cocerning atmosphere:

A lot of missions lack atmosphere (for my personal taste). I mean for example, not enough messages(communication) and that stuff, no big suprises concerning the 'big' picture of a mission.
Also things like limited AI.

But that could be solved by the community: if you would write a scenario generator, which creates the missions (not completely random but based on scenario-stubs created by a designer) and scenario-dependent doctrines (it is possible) dynamic campaigns + interesting (generated) scenarions seem to be possible.

Would be very hard work, no question.
But on the other hand, concerning the SDK discussion a few years ago: Who should use such a SDK if the people do not use the possibilites which the sim is providing now?

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

Cocerning atmosphere:

A lot of missions lack atmosphere (for my personal taste). I mean for example, not enough messages(communication) and that stuff, no big suprises concerning the 'big' picture of a mission.
Also things like limited AI.

But that could be solved by the community: if you would write a scenario generator, which creates the missions (not completely random but based on scenario-stubs created by a designer) and scenario-dependent doctrines (it is possible) dynamic campaigns + interesting (generated) scenarions seem to be possible.

Would be very hard work, no question.
But on the other hand, concerning the SDK discussion a few years ago: Who should use such a SDK if the people do not use the possibilites which the sim is providing now?

If I'm not mistaken, something like a limited dynamic campaign generator was done for Silent Hunter 2 which had no native dynamic campaign engine, only scripted missions were available. So something like that could be done for DW.
The problem if you want to call it that, is that many people with the required technical expertise just don't care anymore for DW. Maybe out of spite towards SCS for having vetoed any kind of "interesting" modding for many years who knows ?

[FERdeBOER]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

Would be very hard work, no question.
But on the other hand, concerning the SDK discussion a few years ago: Who should use such a SDK if the people do not use the possibilities which the sim is providing now?

Because it's a lot of work that has to be done with the DW editor as it is; SCS gave us the scripts and took away the user actions. A combination of both of them would give us many ways of doing fun missions and tutorials in "short" time; plus some options that are present but doesn't work or works bad (Dynamic position + dynamic groups, formations, collisions...) if all of this would have worked well I could have finished several campaigns I started to create...

I would use a SDK

@goldorak
You're right; I would love to know a little programming to try to create such a thing, but I have no time to do that at the moment...

[goldorak]

About the "user actions", have they been eliminated from the code or is it still there somewhere but inactive ?
The same thing happened to video playback during mission briefing, the support is still there (since they recycled a good part of sub command) but is inactive.
A little bit of reverse engineering could expose that capability if of course it is still present in the code. Now WHO would want to embark on such a journey ?

[Nexus7]

The AI already beats the human mind, when it comes to calculable events; think about chess.

The news with DW was, for me at 1st place, the multistations feature; obviously, that is is to be used in a multiplayer context.

Me personally, i basically get quickly bored when facing the AI, even if i loose.

Therefore, i think Sonalyst put theyr efforts on a fizzy multiplayer community.

I got the clear impression that if you look for vs AI scenarious, you need a different game.

[Shearwater]

Reading all the posts in this thread, Falcon 4.0 comes to mind. At its initial release the standard-bearer in terms of realism (though with a dynamic campaign), but also with many bug. Maybe the program that has broken Microprose's back (which is a shame, really).
I see many parallels to DW - at its core a very good, but still unfinished game that is one of its kind, but isn't supported by its publisher anymore (although this time for a different reason), and like Falcon, it has an active modding community.
To get to my point: Actually, I wouldn't mind if a bunch of modders got together and brought out a completely overhauled version of DW, much à la Falcon 4.0 Allied Force. If they could make some money (though they'd have to buy the license in the first place), a lot of the modding effort would be rewarded financially. I would definitely buy it (as I did with F4AF)

[Castout]

Originally Posted by Max2147

For some people, maybe. But I had no problem playing 6 hour long scenarios in Fleet Command, or playing entire patrols in one go in SH4. Somehow SC just didn't capture me in the same way, and I didn't see any reason why DW would be different.

I know why or so I believe.

Yes you can play most games in hours or in prolonged hours like more than 3 hours easily.

But DW IS NOT most game. If you really handled most of the things in DW yourself you could probably at max spend about 2 hours more or less.
DW requires full attention of the player and it involves a lot of work while action is going on.

If one spent too many hours in DW, DW could easily change from being a leisure game to hard work!
DW is meant to be played a little at any one time.

Of course there's the auto crew option however that is not an option for me since if I were to turn on all the autocrew on I would be left with little to play. Since the heart of DW is at its various job stations instead of commanding the sub like in SH3.
If you think DW is about commanding Sub you're wrong. DW is about operating Sub or any other platform available not commanding them.

If you still don't see this just look at the game gameplay. Its various staions just scream: Come get here and operate me!!!
If you want to just command your sub the only station available to you is the map view which is without internal sound!
Plus take a look at the command bar that is there at every station emphasizing that DW expects the player to take command of the various stations while in control of their platform at the same time.

[Dr.Sid]

I have no problem with DW playtime. I mean in singleplayer. There is time compression .. and there is save. You can stop at any time and continue later. The amount of attention may vary, but most of the time I wanted higher time compression, and I was waiting for something to happen.

Multiplayer is altogether different. No time compression, no saving. So you wait much more. On the other hand, the tension is much higher and you hardly get bored, even if nothing happenes for two hours.

I like quick missions. They are usually solved fast. But the mission generator could be a bit better. You should be able to choose from weather conditions, select oponent more exactly, not just a class, add allies, and so on. Sure you can do all that in full editor, but it's much more work.