I finally understand why hate SHV and the devs

[TheSatyr]

I kinda blame the Devs more than Ubi for the state the game is in. I'm sure they signed a contract stating that the game would be ready for release on a specific date and for a specific budget. And if the game ISN'T ready by that date than Ubi doesn't have lot of choices:

1)Delay the release,and add more funding. (Not likely since this isn't an AAA title.)
2)Take the financial hit and cancel the project. (Which I'm glad they didn't do.)
3)Release "as is" and try to patch it up to what it was supposed to be. (Which is what they apparently chose to do.).

I'm not trying to knock the Devs here,I just think they may have over reached on what they wanted to acomplish with the time and budget they had.

[IanC]

Originally Posted by SabreHawk

So how's this, what if the devs had been given more time to finish it and it didn't launch for another three months instead of when it did?
Thats right, everyone would be in here stomping up and down yelling, where's the game man? Whaddya guys doing twiddling yer thumbs?
You promised, you promised...............and what happened to march 4th?

Nope, disagree. I'd say about 90% of the members here would think that's great news. Because we all know what extra time means. An extra 3 months is nothing, in fact I don't think anybody would've had a problem with the devs working an extra 6 months on SH5. Most of us here probably wish that would've been the case.

[ERPP8]

I know they were probably pressed for time, and I know how they feel.
But they really jumped in over their heads and alot was unfinished.
The game is great.
And most of what's not working is small (aside from the airplanes)

[Placoderm]

Originally Posted by IanC

I disagree with that "it's the consumers fault" philosophy. That doesn't make any sense to me. Blame the bad quality because of low sales? Not. How about blaming the low sales because of the bad quality. Does that make any sense?
And I don't need to talk a few friends into anything. They'll buy it themselves when and if they see review scores higher than 6 out of 10.

^ This ^

[Reece]

One has to wonder why the patch is about to be released with a large number of fixes, why couldn't they hold off producing the game until they could patch it, fixing many faults, surely the game would be much better and reviews much higher and therefore more sales, seems a dumb move to have released the game when they did! I would like to know who gave the "All clear" for its release! was it the devs or higher up the chain?

[Méo]

Originally Posted by Reece

One has to wonder why the patch is about to be released with a large number of fixes, why couldn't they hold off producing the game until they could patch it, fixing many faults, surely the game would be much better and reviews much higher and therefore more sales, seems a dumb move to have released the game when they did! I would like to know who gave the "All clear" for its release! was it the devs or higher up the chain?

That's what I was wondering (I don't really care who gave the "All clear", but I would be curious to know the real reason why they did).

BTW, they are not the only ones, I don't know if you have played Hearts of Iron 3 on release but it had major issues too (but they released the patch 1.4 last week and it seems to be a lot better).

[Westbroek]

It's a drag that it seems PC users are the ones really facing the blunt end of this new trend.
Console users seem to always get a solid, playable, mostly bug free product right OTB.
I've been anti console as long as I can remember (citing subsim.com and the modding community here as a main reason for all that time as well) so it hurts to have to admit that. Is there an end in sight to this royal PC snubbing? We can only hope, but sales don't look good.

[Nordmann]

Console games may appear to have fewer bugs, because the games themselves are rather simplistic, compared with those of the PC. In any case, I believe console games can now be patched (unlike the old days), so it seems unlikely that they are released in any better condition.

[mcarlsonus]

Originally Posted by SabreHawk

In the end they are darned if they do, and darned if they dont. They just cant win.
So I say give them some respect for doing the very best they can.

Well, that's definitely true, but what perplexes me is that when one digs into the SH5 code itself, so many of the really good features of SH3 and 4 are still there, but DEACTIVATED!

To respond with a 'net colloquialism, "WTF?"

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by mcarlsonus

Well, that's definitely true, but what perplexes me is that when one digs into the SH5 code itself, so many of the really good features of SH3 and 4 are still there, but DEACTIVATED!

To respond with a 'net colloquialism, "WTF?"

And why do you think that is?
Could it be that they were left the intentionally for us to find, so we would have the option to put them back in, rather then removing them?

[mcarlsonus]

Originally Posted by McBeck

And why do you think that is?
Could it be that they were left the intentionally for us to find, so we would have the option to put them back in, rather then removing them?

Don't get me started on how I feel about the use and abuse of unpaid labor by companies that can well afford to release something other than what amounts to a beta version of a product, at a minimum, while still expecting, "us" to fork over hard-earned dinero for the privilege of doing testing and debugging and, in some cases, the "grunt work" that results in a more evolved, market-ready product. If, "they" are going to do this sort of thing, i.e., "(we) have the option to put them back in" (regarding my previous comment, "...many of the really good features of SH3 and 4 are still there, but DEACTIVATED!") I'd much prefer they give us the opposite option to SHUT IT OFF instead! At least we'd know the capability was actually available!

I had this SAME feeling years ago after installing a, "fraught with peril" version of MS Windows. Ultimately, I called Microsoft and asked for a list of all known bugs. They told me that list was not available to the general public. Immediately, I began rooting for Linux or one of the Apple OS's to take over the world... Unfortunately, I'm STILL waiting (although Windows 7 has proven soothing to some extent! Example: I now bootup in 56 seconds, rather than the eight MINUTES it took Vista - if it booted at all!)

[Capt_Sluggo]

Along with counting all the shortcomings, it would not hurt to step back and look at SH5 in a broader sense.

There must be money-is-no-object comparisons within the halls of NASA or JPL or Livermore Labs. But where else are you going to find (much less for a paltry sum roughly that of 3/4 a tank of gas) a "game" which places you as an FPS-type moving avatar inside of a complex, fully controllable and fully-rendered 3-D vehicle, itself within a first class simulator worthy of real world comparison? The closest you'll get in PC-land is "as real as it gets" Flight Simulator and that's not even close.

After 25+ years and 10 major revisions and all the financial muscle and savvy that Microsoft brought to bear, and the subsequent efforts of outsource programmers, you do not get up and walk around inside a Flight Simulator 747 en route. Not even when it is sitting still on the tarmac. Instead, you use key combos to "slide" your viewpoint, usually to a place that has been left undefined. That or "jump" to pre-defined fixed positions, exactly like SH3/4!

I'm amazed that SH5's first implementation of this innovation is so incredibly good. The fact that they did it and not only retained but improved upon the surrounding environment (graphics, e.g) is, well, truly significant. So what if the crew dialog sucks? A lot of "great" features of SH3/4 were not yet implemented? That will all come, and more.

[JScones]

Originally Posted by McBeck

And why do you think that is?
Could it be that they were left the intentionally for us to find, so we would have the option to put them back in, rather then removing them?

Just like SH3 files were left behind in SH4 so the modders could easily get U-boats and other SH3 stuff into SH4? I recall people having to buy an add-on to get that stuff...can't recall too many U-boat based mods released before then.

No, the legacy files are more likely a result of, erm, "convenient" coding.

[mcarlsonus]

Originally Posted by Capt_Sluggo

There must be money-is-no-object comparisons within the halls of NASA or JPL or Livermore Labs. But where else are you going to find (much less for a paltry sum roughly that of 3/4 a tank of gas) a "game" which places you as an FPS-type moving avatar inside of a complex, fully controllable and fully-rendered 3-D vehicle, itself within a first class simulator worthy of real world comparison? The closest you'll get in PC-land is "as real as it gets" Flight Simulator and that's not even close.

One can't compare Silent Hunter - any version - to Microsoft Flight Simulator - any version. MS Flight Simulator is basically a training aid. Being able to take a seat on the upper deck of a 747 and having the attendant bring you a cup of joe simply isn't part of the intended scenario. Further, stating SH is a, "FPS" ("First Person Shooter") is a bit misleading as most acknowledged FPS's put one in imminent and constant danger, which is certainly not the case whence transversing an area, sometimes for hours, looking for hostiles.

From our old friend Scones: "No, the legacy files are more likely a result of, erm, 'convenient' coding." Let me add: like extensive documentation, code housekeeping is, indeed, a thing of the past!

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by mcarlsonus

Don't get me started on how I feel about the use and abuse of unpaid labor by companies that can well afford to release something other than what amounts to a beta version of a product, at a minimum, while still expecting, "us" to fork over hard-earned dinero for the privilege of doing testing and debugging and, in some cases, the "grunt work" that results in a more evolved, market-ready product. If, "they" are going to do this sort of thing, i.e., "(we) have the option to put them back in" (regarding my previous comment, "...many of the really good features of SH3 and 4 are still there, but DEACTIVATED!") I'd much prefer they give us the opposite option to SHUT IT OFF instead! At least we'd know the capability was actually available!

I had this SAME feeling years ago after installing a, "fraught with peril" version of MS Windows. Ultimately, I called Microsoft and asked for a list of all known bugs. They told me that list was not available to the general public. Immediately, I began rooting for Linux or one of the Apple OS's to take over the world... Unfortunately, I'm STILL waiting (although Windows 7 has proven soothing to some extent! Example: I now bootup in 56 seconds, rather than the eight MINUTES it took Vista - if it booted at all!)

You are looking at the from a much to narrow perspective...if these were the options, please let me know which you would rather have?
1) The devs should take out all the SH3/4 stuff left dormant
2) The devs should leave the SH3/4 stuff left dormant

I totally agree thats its bad practise if Ubi decided to depend on modding the fix issues.