My Theory

[Méo]

Originally Posted by cappy70

I agree with the fast pace and what Neal added about that it has been going on for awhile now

I know it has been going on for awhile.

Nothing happens suddenly, it's a tendency.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Méo

Ok mister, since you seem to be so clever maybe you have a better explanation why deep simulations like Aces of the deep are no longer in development? (except for independent development with very limited budget).

So we could learn something.

Just my opinion, I would say that although Aces was a great sim for its time, it is nowhere near as deep as SH3/SH4/Sub Command/ Dangerous Waters. What do you think makes Aces is "deeper" than SH3? It does radio messages better than SH3, had good gameplay, and some static messages from the "bar", but where does Aces surpass the quad mentioned above? Aces has no sonar station, no manual TDC, very limited ability to "look around" on the bridge, static stations, Crummy graphics compared to today, and no AI crew.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to override your opinion or start a fight, but I think this is a nice topic to discuss and I am curious on what you base that on.

[Adriatico]

Originally Posted by Méo

Ok mister, since you seem to be so clever maybe you have a better explanation why deep simulations like Aces of the deep are no longer in development? (except for independent development with very limited budget).

So we could learn something.

???
You got it wrong Meo...
I just confirmed your point, that today's pace of living, including entertainment, has accelerated in a last few years...

Few years ago, Simhq.com was just a simulation site (good one) and these days there are shooters, RTS, clssic strategies,... everything.

It seems that simulation is dying... except Oleg's work.
If it was up to Ubi... it would end up as arcade easy-entertainment.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Adriatico

???
You got it wrong Meo...
I just confirmed your point, that today's pace of living, including entertainment, has accelerated in a last few years...

Few years ago, Simhq.com was just a simulation site (good one) and these days there are shooters, RTS, clssic strategies,... everything.
It seems that simulation is dying... except Oleg's work.
If it was up to Ubi... it would end up as arcade easy entertainment.

Yeah, I agree, it's pretty obvious that good sims are becoming a dying breed. They were always a niche market, and over the last 10 years, fewer people buy them and the people who support them have become extremely picky and demanding. Ask any games journalist and they will tell you, sim players can be their own worst enemies

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Adriatico

???
You got it wrong Meo...

Ooops... read too fast, See, I'm way too much influenced!

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Just my opinion, I would say that although Aces was a great sim for its time, it is nowhere near as deep as SH3/SH4/Sub Command/ Dangerous Waters. What do you think makes Aces is "deeper" than SH3? It does radio messages better than SH3, had good gameplay, and some static messages from the "bar", but where does Aces surpass the quad mentioned above? Aces has no sonar station, no manual TDC, very limited ability to "look around" on the bridge, static stations, Crummy graphics compared to today, and no AI crew.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to override your opinion or start a fight, but I think this is a nice topic to discuss and I am curious on what you base that on.

Well I admit those are only conjectures. I've based my comparison with Aces of the deep on so many comments I've seen so far, (never played it). They were all saying the complete opposite of this:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Aces was a great sim for its time, it is nowhere near as deep as SH3/SH4/

But I just miss the good old days of Fallout 1, Panzer General 2, etc. ... and people here (and Ubi too) have almost convinced me that SH5 would be dumbed down.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Méo

Well I admit those are only conjectures. I've based my comparison with Aces of the deep on so many comments I've seen so far, (never played it). They were all saying the complete opposite of this:

Wait, what? Lol, you haven't even played it? Well, if you're going to form opinions on what "they" say, please include some links or something so I can see what they are basing that on.

[Safe-Keeper]

Not only are they , they also feel an absurd need to hand-hold you through the game, providing even the most basic and rudimentary help in the form of messages. Modern Warfare takes this to the extreme.

There's the Specter gunship mission where they tell you a dozen times in the same mission that flashing IR strobes means friendlies; the fact that you see the "watch for the grenade indicator" messag every time a grenade kills you; the way it spams hint messages like "Hit Left to switch to grenade launcher" that obscur large portions of the screen (even when you don't want to use that weapon you have to switch to it to make the stupid message go away)...

It's as if even the Modern Warfare developers are growing tired of catering to the metaphorical "ADD crowd", and so have decided to bully you for being thick enough to enjoy their game. "You want hand-holding? I'll give you hand-holding! Muahahahahah, sucker!"

Hit the button to reply to this message.

As a side note, I confess that despite its shortcomings, I found MW and its sequel to be lots of fun, especially in co-op mode.

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Wait, what? Lol, you haven't even played it? Well, if you're going to form opinions on what "they" say, please include some links or something so I can see what they are basing that on.

Ok, ok...

Links, it's been a while, there are SOOOO MANY threads in subsim.com and searching could take hours (many comments were/are off-topic), that's why I said this:

Originally Posted by Méo

I've seen so many comments comparing SHV with simulations like Aces of the deep that I came to wonder why those types of simulations are no longer in development?

Seriously, there are a lot of members (veterans, I don't want to show name and start a drama) who, I'm almost sure, would completely disagree with this:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Aces was a great sim for its time, it is nowhere near as deep as SH3/SH4

At least those who agree with you did not say a word until you did!

Nevertheless, when I started to play PC games (around 1997), I can only notice a tendency of dumbing down successful series (Fallout, Rainbow six, etc.)

Remember, I've also said this:

Originally Posted by Méo

So my ''theory'' (this is only a ''theory'', I don't claim to have a certainty on these things)

[Mikhayl]

Aces and SH1 have the limitations of their days, but other than that they were, and still are fairly solid games. I was really surprised how good SH1 still is, sometimes you tend to embelish your old memories, but this game is really good.

The prob with SH3 and 4 (besides my opinion on gameplay flaws ) is that they completely missed some obvious features, and those aren't in any way limited by the tech available.
One of the obvious, the land that "doesn't exist". Sail just north of Scapa, hidden by the island, and the battleships in the harbour will open up on you. Sit on the bottom (need mod for that) and enemy DDs can pick you up without problem. It can't get more basic than that for a sub game, and it's absent. When you read that wolfpacks barely made it in game but that the exterior sub model has 1 million polygons, well it's clear that the focus isn't quite the same as the old sims.

If a small indie dev made a loose remake of SH1/AOD with all the good old features + the good new features (hydrophone, TDC tools, crew management) with low-tech (cheap and quick) but crispy graphics, I'm sure simmers would buy it.

[IanC]

SH3 has a steeper learning curve than AOD because of the manual targeting, but the general point that todays gamer suffers from slight ADD still stands... or does it? I feel like there might be a little "why back in my days things were better" thing going on. Kids don't read books anymore.. is that even true? What about the whole Harry Potter thing? They might also be doing alot of reading, just that it's on a screen now instead of books?
50 Years from now I'm willing to bet that there will be serious, complex flight sims, and subsims, I mean, things can't be getting dumber and dumber right?

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Méo

At least those who agree with you did not say a word until you did!

They are welcome to disagree with me, my opinion is just one of many. But this is like how a buddy of mine came back from a Vegas weekend with $89,000 a tatoo and a wife--I gotta hear more about this

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Aces and SH1 have the limitations of their days, but other than that they were, and still are fairly solid games. I was really surprised how good SH1 still is, sometimes you tend to embelish your old memories, but this game is really good.


If a small indie dev made a loose remake of SH1/AOD with all the good old features + the good new features (hydrophone, TDC tools, crew management) with low-tech (cheap and quick) but crispy graphics, I'm sure simmers would buy it.

Yes, they definitely were great games.

[Adriatico]

There is a separate set of problems with simulations:

If you make a simulation - you will have many bugs...
If you make a shooter - there is small ground for bugs...

Most of publishers don't have patience for patch 1, 2, 3... till the simulator is playable.

Bohemia made Armed Assault 2 (OFP 2) and it was blasted by critics as unplayable sack of bugs... of course if you have 10-20 AI units that are "thinking", "reacting", "using warfare technology", "changing tactics",...etc that many bugs have to be polished.

Today, after patch 1.5, it is completed and polished great infantry sim, but modern pace is cruel, it has a "bad name" and who cares about it.

And of course, there is competition of titles that you can "instantly play" without reading ten books on warfare, as Dan would say...

[Méo]

Don't get me wrong, maybe I was wrong in my OP.

Maybe it's just that success and/or power 'corrupt'

There are a LOT of successful title that have been 'corrupted' - i.e I prefer the good old Simpsons episodes than the new ones. The first Matrix was cool, the third was awful! (I'm sure we could show many other examples)

...we can only hope it will not be the case for SH5.

[IanC]

Originally Posted by Méo

Don't get me wrong, maybe I was wrong in my OP.

Maybe it's just that success 'corrupt'

There are a LOT of successful title that have been 'corrupted' - i.e I prefer the good old Simpsons episodes than the new ones. The first Matrix was cool, the third was awful! (I'm sure we could show many other examples)

Again, that might be the "back in my day things were better" phenomena. The new generation Star Wars fans love the last three, while we adults hate them. And the cycle will continue. Maybe something to do with memory and nostalgia? What if AOD was just put out today, what would we say about it? We would complain about the graphics and no manual targeting etc..

[Mikhayl]

Yeah, "kids these days" are a convenient scapegoat.

There is a profitable market for sims, but it's small and it's a tough crowd (kids and adults alike).
The "mainstream" market is much larger and people are allegedly easier to please (kids and adult alike).
Publishers and shareholders aren't know for making bold decisions, so here we go. Here, have more polygons