Persuade me, please

[WernherVonTrapp]

Well, Sailor Steve has covered your inquisition much better than I could've. You say that you've decided to give SHIV a try, yet you ask for convincing. That sounds rather indecisive. Still, for someone who alludes to not ever having played the game, you seem to have quite a predisposition toward SHIV. No one had to convince me. I tried it myself, developed my own opinion from my own experience, and have been playing it ever since. I cannot comment on (or berate against) similarities to SH1, 2 or 3 since I've never played them and have no baseline with which to compare. Good luck in your endeavor.

[Fish40]

Either you want to play it or not! If you do, game interfaces et.al, won't mean a thing. If you really want to give this, or anything for that matter a try, you'll accept changes and deal accordingly That's life my friend!

[Rockin Robbins]

SH4 is the best submarine simulator in the world right now, warts and all. And I'll agree with some of your warts, the interface not being one of my agreement points, or the crew management either. Frankly if you want a good submarine simulator there is no choice, except for SH3, which shares all the same defects.

Let me educate you on how software versions work. It is a myth that the same people are involved in successive versions. Often, even different companies are publishing the different versions, forget about having the same people there. So Version 1 gets done. It was in development for as long as it took to get it right. The company publishes it and it does well. But games have a fatal defect. They produce one big slurg of money and nothing after that.

What do you do? Version 2! Maybe the game company was eaten in corporate Pac Man, maybe the programmers of version 1 are busy working on some FPS game that week, doesn't matter, programmers have no unique skills worth noticing--they just do as they are told. A new team is assigned to version 2.

They don't know how version 1 worked. They take a look at it and think they can use a module here or there, but they don't know how the modules work, can't modify them, so they use them as in, slamming square pegs into round holes just to save some work. This transfers some of the defects from v1 directly into v2. Then they add more defects by the mismatch between the requirements for the new game engine and the output of the v1 modules. Then the programmers introduce their own creative bugs in the software they write themselves. Oh yeah, there's a few improvements to give them something to advertise. Shove it out there! What, It's not ready yet? Too bad! We don't expect to sell as many units as v1 anyway, gotta limit expenses. It's only a drink coaster, whaddya want? It produces another not quite as big a slurg of money as v1.

Repeat for v3, v4 and v5, each version keeping the accumulated bugs and idiocies of the previous version, introducing a passel of their own and introducing some inconsequential improvement over the previous version.

Software, even business software, tends to devolve with successive releases. In the newspaper I worked at we used the Collier-Jackson newspaper software. It was an excellent package in 1988. But as it got passed from company to company, programming group to programming group, with a new release every couple of years, by 2000 it was a smelly rotten hulk, just a shell really of mostly nonfunctioning parts. Everything was a workaround of some sort and none of the elegance of the original software was retained at all.

Similarly, the Silent Hunter series has changed hands and programming crews several times. SH3 was actually a shining exception to the rule, as it was a brand new concept and all programming done from scratch with as much time as necessary taken by the Romanian programming crew that revolutionized submarine simulation. The SH4 crew contained a couple of the members of the SH3 programmers, so it mostly maintained the standard while introducing some notable improvements over SH3. Even it suffered from some devolving due to the mechanism above.

Take it or leave it. SH4 is the best we're going to get with the business model of putting out drink coasters that produce a single slurg of money to the game companies. They are too focused on limiting expenses to produce excellence. As a matter of fact, they need a dictionary to recall what "excellence" means. They are all about minimizing expenses.

All the same, SH4 is a darned good submarine simulator, the best ever made and it has been undisputed champion, along with SH3 for four years. That's not bad performance from a drink coaster. I look forward to your better simulator that you are undoubtedly preparing and let me know if you need a beta tester.

[Sailor Steve]

RR, I love your take on this. It makes sense, and it fits what I know of SH3, 4 and 5. Unfortunately by that standard I have to qualify your statement; SH4 is the best ongoing simulator. Aces Of The Deep is still the best stand alone sub simulator. Nothing yet has touched its gameplay. That said, SH4 allows more modability and more realism in the approach, if not the quality of AI action, and can still be worked with. And SH4's graphics are seventeen years behind the time.

So I agree, in a half-hearted sort of way.

[washishu]

Well that certainly seems to have stirred up some sediment. Not my intention but there you go I suppose; that was my error; I don't possess any psychic-reading powers (unlike some it seems; that's a good trick; where can I learn how to do that? I don't think I want to go so far as beating people though.)

It was intended as a piece of very tongue-in-cheek, light-hearted jest, slightly provocative perhaps, but has been taken far, far more seriously than ever intended. I wonder if that's the key perhaps; to me this is just a website forum about a computer game. A Game. A very, very good one in many, many respects, but a game nonetheless and it has only very slight connection with the real world. It's a consumer product and I make much the same demands of it as I do of any other consumer product. It's computer software and I make much the same demands of it as I do of any of the other computer software I use. Sometimes weeks or months go by and I don't even think about Silent Hunter.

The comments about design team continuity etc. are fairly made but those type of issues are not new to the games industry and established methods and procedures exist to guard against them; I'd go so far as to suggest that it's standard business practice - or it certainly should be in an industry that now grosses more than the film industry.

My original comments relate to frustrations and disappointments directed towards the industry as a whole and I stand by that. The unprofessional standard of the written communications within the games and in the instruction manuals suggests that they are produced by people who either -

- have a level of literacy that is not of a level I believe we have a right to expect in professional copy writing.

Or

- Do not have the necessary quality checking and controls in place, such as is provided in traditional media by editors and sub-editors.

Or

– they have a cynical disregard for the consumer / end user and a "what the hell?" attitude.

Absent from the list above is the packaging for games, which, in my experience is more often than not the only aspect which demonstrates that professionals familiar with textual communications have had a hand.

Finally, if, Sailor Steve, you found my "hung by the neck until dead" remark offensive to your friend, that was not my intention and I really can't believe that you thought I was serious. I still find that screen to be very visually cluttered and unclear and although the "new interface" comment is well made, that screen does not encourage me to persist to the point of familiarity. That's my opinion; your and other peoples' opinions are different; fine. I note that you state you have had many years naval service "before most of you were born". That will, clearly, colour your views. Similarly I have had more than forty years experience in and around the publishing industry and that colours my views.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I can't believe nobody's mentioned this yet -

... they're wanting us to give 'em money for this stuff and the least they can do is pay some attention to the details.

I'm wondering just how much you paid for the game in the first place. I doubt it was anywhere near the initial MRSP, probably closer to a fifth of that.



Source

VAT is up to 20%, so that'd be even less to Ubi. So if you paid £8 (you should shop around), Ubi as Publisher and Licence holder (I assume) would get less than 50%. Less than four quid. How much of that would go to the guys who wrote the manual?


They've obviously missed off Neal's 6%.

[Bubblehead1980]

SH 4 was awful out of the box, I was a noob to subsims so was hooked but found the glaring issues annoying, esp once I read up on sub warfare, it left me with a WTF look but still loved it.After a while I moved into MODS and mods like TMO , RSRD, RFB, just saved the game.For those of us who prefer fleetboats, SH 4 with mods, well it's a godsend.I like U boats but just have much more fun in the Pacific against the Empire. Best part is, we will have plenty to look forward to with the IJN mod coming out sometime, the WW I mod, We Dive at Dawn is if you want to play things from the Brit perspective, RFB and TMO will no doubt will improved upon

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by washishu

It was intended as a piece of very tongue-in-cheek, light-hearted jest, slightly provocative perhaps, but has been taken far, far more seriously than ever intended.

Fair enough. Unfortunately it didn't come across that way for most of us. I'm not in a position to say what would have been better, so I'll just apologize for taking it wrongly. That said, it looked pretty serious to me.

Finally, if, Sailor Steve, you found my "hung by the neck until dead" remark offensive to your friend, that was not my intention and I really can't believe that you thought I was serious.

I figured that was probably intentionally over the top, but in fact I've spent time with the head of the design team and it's my impression that he wasn't as in control of the project as he would like to have been. I'm not defending his choices, because there are things I don't like either. I am, however, defending his integrity and honesty and his commitment to trying to make the best sim possible.

I still find that screen to be very visually cluttered and unclear and although the "new interface" comment is well made, that screen does not encourage me to persist to the point of familiarity. That's my opinion; your and other peoples' opinions are different; fine.

Of course people have differing opinions. Life would be boring otherwise. I support and even agree with your opinions to a point. As was said, however, your request to be persuaded could have been worded better. Did you really want persuading, or just a place to vent your frustation? It looked more like the latter to me, and apparently to others, so we responded to that challenge. Wrong? Perhaps, but can you really blame us?

I note that you state you have had many years naval service "before most of you were born". That will, clearly, colour your views. Similarly I have had more than forty years experience in and around the publishing industry and that colours my views.

I was only in the navy for two years, and I got out in 1970. That is indeed before most of the members here were born. I'm curious as to exactly what you think is colored about my views, especially in that regard.

Also, in my original response I addressed some of your questions. I notice that you didn't respond to any of those, especially the one on the periscopes. Again, this makes it look like you were more interested in venting than in getting answers.

[Egan]

I've just reinstalled it after a very long break (about three years, I think,) and I'm running it with TMO and RSRD and I think this is my favorite of the series - even including the very first one from all those distant years ago.

I'd agree with Steve here: Aces of the Deep is still, for my money, the best Sub sim there has been, but SH4 is wonderful in a whole bunch of ways.

I think it's better than SH3. Graphics are nicer, the crew management is much improved (although no where as good as I'd like,) and, as a sucker for fleet boats and the PTO, I get a huge kick out of leaving from places like Pearl Harbour or Freemantle to patrol in the DEI or imperial waters.

I enjoyed the stock game enough but, like SH3, eventually various little niggles came to the fore and I lost interest. With TMO/RSRD most of those issues seem to have gone and I don't know if I could ever play the game without the campaign improvements or without Nisgeis's amazing radar and 3D TDC mod which takes the game to a completely new level (if you're willing to put the time into learning how it works - the basics are easy to grasp but to get the most out of it you are going to have to practice, practice and practice some more.)

I've never had a problem with the interface, to be honest. Yes, it can be a little clunky at times but nothing that has really ever stopped me from doing what I wanted to do.

As for the 'eye candy' I'm one of those Simmers who believes that a sim should, hopefully, be more than a simple recreation of various technical systems. I want the game to look as beautiful as it possibly can because the graphics add to the immersiveness of the sim and, when your slowly easing your boat forward towards a Japanese convoy in the dead of a moonlit night, or when you first spot a ship, floating ethereal and distant on the hazy horizon, I want to feel the atmosphere.