Why are WWII subsims popular and modern subsims not?

Castout · 06-10-10, 11:57 PM

DW is hard for most casual players and the graphics are not appealing at all. This deter most gamers from trying out.

Add to the fact that modern naval engagement involves top secret data and information very much the kind of information that world governments want to conceal or purposely misguide the public.

DW fell prey to this too with no exception.
For example submarine countermeasures which in Sub Command didn't detonate spoofed torpedo now do though then Sonalysts release a patch to make this optional through a probability number.

Other thing such as the towed decoy not able to detonate incoming torpedoes. But the community soon found out the truth through simple logic that if sub countermeasures did detonate spoofed torpedoes why would navy warship still tow a decoy?!

. That leads to the answer that sub countermeasures don't detonate torpedoes and as last resort navy warship tow torpedo decoy to detonate them.

Things like this made me believe that most government don't want to see a society well informed and knowledgeable about military aspect of the state. It's understandable though since they regard much of this as a war winning information hence the confidentiality. Public could very well also consist of members of the enemy.

I'm saying that modern military games involve and will always involve substantial dumbing down and purposeful misguided, inaccurate implementation of the real thing be it ground, sea or air warfare.

Blacklight · 06-11-10, 01:39 PM

My two cents on the topic:
In this age of Xbox360 and Playstation2000's, the vast majority of people just don't have the attention span to be looking at a sonar screen for hours on end.
Seriously. I can't name ONE person out of EVERYONE I know who plays video games who would be in ANY WAY able to sit through a single Dangerous Waters mission. Some of them have even compared playing Dangerous Waters like watching paint dry. They are also NOT interested in a game that has a manual that's an inch thick. They generally want to jump right in and blow everything to smithereens.

I, on the other hand am ADDICTED to Dangerous Waters a hell of a lot more than I am to Silent Hunter III. To me, DW is FULL of tension as you're sneaking around or trying to track things without being seen. But your average video gamer isn't going to see that. All they'll see is you looking at a sonar screen for hours.

raymond6751 · 06-11-10, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blacklight

My two cents on the topic:
In this age of Xbox360 and Playstation2000's, the vast majority of people just don't have the attention span to be looking at a sonar screen for hours on end.

The Silent Hunter subsims are all PC games, but I agree with the above about wanting to have something to look at.

For me, it's the sights and sounds of being at sea. Rolling waves, wind, the sunsets, the moon, and the visuals within the boats too.

Ducimus · 06-11-10, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymond6751

The Silent Hunter subsims are all PC games, but I agree with the above about wanting to have something to look at.

For me, it's the sights and sounds of being at sea. Rolling waves, wind, the sunsets, the moon, and the visuals within the boats too.

I was about to post something like these lines. Aside from the historical aspect (modern sub sims are "what if" scenarios as far as i know) WW2 sims are more fun to me because you have more dimensions to play with. Surfaced, and submerged. For instance, i used to think the Type21 was the coolest sub to play with.... until i acutally played with one. It was utterly boring, because i simply didn't need to surface anymore. It was like one dimension of the game was removed, and i didn't enjoy that much.

aergistal · 06-11-10, 03:43 PM

I think graphic presentation does matter a lot. Otherwise we wouldn't be such suckers for ads. Think of the normal distribution, the gauss curve. There will be few people interested only in the accuracy of the simulation and few people interested in graphics alone (since we're talking about a sim game and not an arcade game). Similarly there will be few people wanting to play as real as it gets and also few who'd prefer no challenge at all.

The majority lies in between. When it comes to choosing a product, only a few will look for the complete features and take them into consideration. Those interested in graphics would dismiss the game if it doesn't look good before getting to know how actually good the product is and how captivating it could get even without flashy eye-candy.

If the game looks good and is attractive then you can get caught in it and it lets you wanting to know more. I reckon that because I like SH I ended up joining this forum and got to learn a lot more about submarines.

I don't think graphics should be dismissed in a sim, as long as the eye candy does not adversely impact the simulation engine as we all know there's a limit of computations that can be done in 1/30 of a second.

The most complete sim I ever got my hands on was a training software for the Airbus A310. I had to persuade the father of one my childhood friends, a pilot flying the real thing, to copy it for me. It ran under DOS, had only a few mega and it simulated a great deal of stuff (I remember spending a lot of time trying to setup the on-board computer before take-off 'cause the thing wouldn't even start without those being set). It consisted only of the on-board instruments, all crammed in one screen. Although fun for a while you sure wanted to take a look outside from time to time instead of imagining how it would look like.

NFunky · 06-11-10, 08:37 PM

All is true about graphics being vital to the success of a game or even a simulation. The average gamer is all about sensation, not cogitation, and so has little interest in a game/sim who's playing relies almost entirely on the latter. But even a hardcore simmer wants good graphics. For one thing, a simulation is supposed to be as real as possible and thus the graphics need to be as real as possible. Graphics can also greatly effect visual aspects of play such as the periscope, visual sub spotting, air warfare, night/poor weather operations, and on and on because real life warfare involves one hell of a lot of visual detection, tracking and assesing.

This will all most likely kill my own simming career because I'm legally blind. For the most part, the better the graphics get, the harder it is for me to tell what's going on or even where the controls are. But all said and done, the emphasis of thinking over looking and shooting is what makes modern warfare of all types appealing to me as a simmer and that won't change no matter how good the graphics get.

The harder you have to think and strategise, the less time you have to gawk at the eye-candy.

MrHonk · 06-12-10, 07:19 AM

I agree to most of the statements above. One thing one should mention is maybe the higher frustration factor that occurs the more complex and realistic a sim gets. And also the technical requirements increase the better the physics are. That could lead to higher hardware costs (look at contemporary flight sims that are hard to play without HOTAS systems and TIR against human opponents).

If you combine all arguments as seen above it's IMHO rather obvious that the market for high end sims is shrinking. A reason for software studios not do develop hardcore sims - unfortunately.

What I really miss in DW is the atmosphere of being on a ship. I don't feel staying on a bridge. It would be nice to have the imagination of sitting in a "room" (maybe with the possibility to look around) and to have more "busy" ambient noises (people talking or moving, alerts, etc.). That's even more important for me than the outdated 3D models. And I would love to see ships with a realistic movement in the waves...

As the music changes in case of action it should be possible to change ambient noises from "relaxed" to "alarmed" too, or not?

Btw.: Am I right that the core code of SCS' products is similar? I once imagined a merged version of DW and FC - either playing the admiral or jumping into a single unit. Maybe fun in single player missions?

06-10-10, 11:57 PM	#1
Castout Silent Hunter Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Jakarta Posts: 4,794 Downloads: 89 Uploads: 6	DW is hard for most casual players and the graphics are not appealing at all. This deter most gamers from trying out. Add to the fact that modern naval engagement involves top secret data and information very much the kind of information that world governments want to conceal or purposely misguide the public. DW fell prey to this too with no exception. For example submarine countermeasures which in Sub Command didn't detonate spoofed torpedo now do though then Sonalysts release a patch to make this optional through a probability number. Other thing such as the towed decoy not able to detonate incoming torpedoes. But the community soon found out the truth through simple logic that if sub countermeasures did detonate spoofed torpedoes why would navy warship still tow a decoy?! . That leads to the answer that sub countermeasures don't detonate torpedoes and as last resort navy warship tow torpedo decoy to detonate them. Things like this made me believe that most government don't want to see a society well informed and knowledgeable about military aspect of the state. It's understandable though since they regard much of this as a war winning information hence the confidentiality. Public could very well also consist of members of the enemy. I'm saying that modern military games involve and will always involve substantial dumbing down and purposeful misguided, inaccurate implementation of the real thing be it ground, sea or air warfare. __________________ My blog: http://exposingsingapore.wordpress.com/ Last edited by Castout; 06-11-10 at 12:07 AM.

06-11-10, 01:39 PM	#2
Blacklight Ocean Warrior Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Connecticut Posts: 2,507 Downloads: 145 Uploads: 0	My two cents on the topic: In this age of Xbox360 and Playstation2000's, the vast majority of people just don't have the attention span to be looking at a sonar screen for hours on end. Seriously. I can't name ONE person out of EVERYONE I know who plays video games who would be in ANY WAY able to sit through a single Dangerous Waters mission. Some of them have even compared playing Dangerous Waters like watching paint dry. They are also NOT interested in a game that has a manual that's an inch thick. They generally want to jump right in and blow everything to smithereens. I, on the other hand am ADDICTED to Dangerous Waters a hell of a lot more than I am to Silent Hunter III. To me, DW is FULL of tension as you're sneaking around or trying to track things without being seen. But your average video gamer isn't going to see that. All they'll see is you looking at a sonar screen for hours. __________________ Be my friend or be a mushroom cloud. "I am coming at you. You will explode in a couple of minutes !"

06-11-10, 03:43 PM	#5
aergistal Chief Join Date: May 2010 Location: France Posts: 326 Downloads: 23 Uploads: 1	I think graphic presentation does matter a lot. Otherwise we wouldn't be such suckers for ads. Think of the normal distribution, the gauss curve. There will be few people interested only in the accuracy of the simulation and few people interested in graphics alone (since we're talking about a sim game and not an arcade game). Similarly there will be few people wanting to play as real as it gets and also few who'd prefer no challenge at all. The majority lies in between. When it comes to choosing a product, only a few will look for the complete features and take them into consideration. Those interested in graphics would dismiss the game if it doesn't look good before getting to know how actually good the product is and how captivating it could get even without flashy eye-candy. If the game looks good and is attractive then you can get caught in it and it lets you wanting to know more. I reckon that because I like SH I ended up joining this forum and got to learn a lot more about submarines. I don't think graphics should be dismissed in a sim, as long as the eye candy does not adversely impact the simulation engine as we all know there's a limit of computations that can be done in 1/30 of a second. The most complete sim I ever got my hands on was a training software for the Airbus A310. I had to persuade the father of one my childhood friends, a pilot flying the real thing, to copy it for me. It ran under DOS, had only a few mega and it simulated a great deal of stuff (I remember spending a lot of time trying to setup the on-board computer before take-off 'cause the thing wouldn't even start without those being set). It consisted only of the on-board instruments, all crammed in one screen. Although fun for a while you sure wanted to take a look outside from time to time instead of imagining how it would look like.

06-11-10, 08:37 PM	#6
NFunky Machinist's Mate Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 127 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	All is true about graphics being vital to the success of a game or even a simulation. The average gamer is all about sensation, not cogitation, and so has little interest in a game/sim who's playing relies almost entirely on the latter. But even a hardcore simmer wants good graphics. For one thing, a simulation is supposed to be as real as possible and thus the graphics need to be as real as possible. Graphics can also greatly effect visual aspects of play such as the periscope, visual sub spotting, air warfare, night/poor weather operations, and on and on because real life warfare involves one hell of a lot of visual detection, tracking and assesing. This will all most likely kill my own simming career because I'm legally blind. For the most part, the better the graphics get, the harder it is for me to tell what's going on or even where the controls are. But all said and done, the emphasis of thinking over looking and shooting is what makes modern warfare of all types appealing to me as a simmer and that won't change no matter how good the graphics get. The harder you have to think and strategise, the less time you have to gawk at the eye-candy.

06-12-10, 07:19 AM	#7
MrHonk Nub Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Germany Posts: 4 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	I agree to most of the statements above. One thing one should mention is maybe the higher frustration factor that occurs the more complex and realistic a sim gets. And also the technical requirements increase the better the physics are. That could lead to higher hardware costs (look at contemporary flight sims that are hard to play without HOTAS systems and TIR against human opponents). If you combine all arguments as seen above it's IMHO rather obvious that the market for high end sims is shrinking. A reason for software studios not do develop hardcore sims - unfortunately. What I really miss in DW is the atmosphere of being on a ship. I don't feel staying on a bridge. It would be nice to have the imagination of sitting in a "room" (maybe with the possibility to look around) and to have more "busy" ambient noises (people talking or moving, alerts, etc.). That's even more important for me than the outdated 3D models. And I would love to see ships with a realistic movement in the waves... As the music changes in case of action it should be possible to change ambient noises from "relaxed" to "alarmed" too, or not? Btw.: Am I right that the core code of SCS' products is similar? I once imagined a merged version of DW and FC - either playing the admiral or jumping into a single unit. Maybe fun in single player missions?