Contract Of Common Sense

[rascal101]

I tend towards Neal's comments below - I'd rather continue to see developers work on games ideas because they have an idea the game will work, and will get a decent return upon release to pay the folks who worked on it to develop the thing.

Having been a gamer since the early 80s, it seems the general rule is publish then mod, to tweak the game to a stage where it mostly works for mostly every one after release. For those of us used to buying things finished in the box, that may come across as a bit much, or not right, but think about it, with the plethora of different hardware and software configurations out there, how else could it be.

However, to be fair - I can only ask that from the developer’s side they take more notice of the wishes of the purchasing public who may, during the course of development come up with ideas, concepts or issues that could well improve the game far and ahead of what the developers originally intended.

I remember that originally the SH3 dev's were going for a scripted career as opposed to dynamic and that when this became known there was such an uproar in this community that eventually they went for a dynamic career instead.

This one decision meant that SH3 became a game that is played and loved years after its original release, as opposed to a game that was shelved within 2-6 months of release.

So to Neal - who was so good at keeping us informed during SH3's development, I would ask that you, or the developers, or both produce a developer diary as soon as possible.

Sure it will inevitably be filled with a lot of useless, or off-topic crap - but at the same time such a diary would allow a really useful exchange of ideas from the dev team and from the community who will eventually purchase the game.

When the game is released I'll be first in line to buy my copy, and I will no doubt thrill at the new features when I get it home and get past installation. Then I w'll play the game somemore and be annoyed by the usual bugs and issues, and then I'll wait for the eventual patch, (or patches) that I know will be on the way.

Any then I will play the game some more while scanning the horizon for any mods that will make the game even more engaging.

Such is life - I cant wait, and if I'm still playing SH5 in 2015 then that will be a vallid tribute to the devs and modders who worked to make the game an ongoing experience.

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

I appreciate that, but I would prefer that you buy the game when it is released and put it on the shelf until the time you feel it is patched and ready to play. Subsim can always use donation, but it is crucial to the survival of the submarine simulation genre that SH5 is a commercial success out of the gate. I endorse buying the game on release as long as Ubisoft is clearly trying to make the best subsim possible. Buy the game, keep the pressure on the suits at Ubi to support the Romanians in touching up any flaws.

I do not give a game--even a subsim--a blank endorsement check. As I said, I endorse buying a game on release to support the genre as long as Ubisoft is clearly trying to make the best subsim possible. SH2 was not a tremendous game, but I knew from months of working with the dev team that they meant to overcome so many obstacles and make it as good as possible. I threw my full support behind SH2, even though it was not the game we all wanted. It was, however, successful, and responsible for keeping the flame alive.

SH3 was a great game. SH4 was a good game that Ubisoft released too early. I was not as involved with SH4 as I was with SH2 and 3, so I cannot vouch for Ubisoft there. The marketing was bureaucratic and not very responsive, I was not "in the loop" much, and I think that was because they knew the game was not ready. If the same situation plays through with SH5, I may agree with the wait and see attitude. Being an optimist, I think Ubi will not make the same mistakes with SH5.

best
Neal