(Rant) More focus on gameplay, less on graphics - Page 5

Steeltrap · 09-13-06, 02:37 AM

"Realism" is always an interesting concept. I suppose the 'best' realism comes from attempting to recreate conditions as they were recorded by those actually there.

Some details I personally find I couldn't give a hoot about (such as walking about the interior - fact is you'd spend almost all your time as commander in the control room, tower or on the bridge).

Others I find vital, such as the fact that you should only need a 2-5 second exposure of scope per observation while stalking a ship. Having to keep it raised for unrealistically long times has an effect once you're confronting escorts with radar able to detect a raised scope (which late model Allied radar could do out to about 500m I think). That's where I draw the line - when I am forced to do things vastly different from how it really WAS done (which you can learn by reading any one of the many books written by actual sub commanders) AND being forced to do so has results which are poor (such as being detected).

Having said that, some other parts of 'realism' aren't too palatable for most players. Consider aircraft. There's a post complaining about the number of aircraft encountered, yet later in the war there were many. Peter Cremer recounts how, on one occasion crossing the Bay of Biscay, he was forced under after 3 minutes, a further 5 minutes, then 13 minutes etc...to the point where he HAD to stay on the surface to replenish compressed air. That was FACT. It might not be too much fun!!

So I think there's a point at which you need to consider (a) is it real? (b) if so, to what degree is it real? (c) if not, to what degree? (d) does the effect of the relative realism cause results which are unacceptable to those looking for a simulation?

If the answer to D is a resounding 'YES' then I think the situation needs to be changed. Of course, the concern about mass-appeal can also be managed through allowing changing of things via realism options, but I do think that the fundamentals need to be sound when playing at 100% realism, even IF the graphics aren't absolutely fabulous - although I agree that there need not BE a 'either/or' relationship between graphics and realism.

Interesting thread.

TDK1044 · 09-13-06, 09:35 AM

I think what this all comes down to is that the balance of realism and graphics is very subjective. How many of us really enjoyed and were totally immersed in AOTD when it hit the stores. In terms of gameplay it was superb, and its graphics were also good for their day. Now the graphics look very dated, but I guarantee you that any player in this forum could still immerse himself in that game.

The reason is that a WW11 subsim is really a game of cat and mouse. You use your instruments to find and track a target, you then get to periscope depth and briefly raise the scope to confirm target identity, range, heading and speed. Then you fire your torp and get the hell out of there. If you're playing at a high level of reality, you rarely see the explosion as your torp hits the ship.

I enjoy having good quality graphics, but I didn't buy SH111 because of its graphics...I bought it to play the game of cat and mouse and see how well I could do. The same will be true for SH1V.

If the DEVS can make visual improvements over SH111 and keep the game specs reasonable for SH1V then I'm all for it, but what I want is AOTD set in the Pacific, and I'll take whatever graphics come with it.

Immacolata · 09-13-06, 11:10 AM

I played AOTD beards ago, so in what aspects the simulation realism back then was better I cannot really remember. I do remember a better story immersion due to the officer's lounge, but this narrative aspects, not mechanical simulation. I also remember that you could gather in wolf packs. But that mechanic I only got to experience 2 times, and I do not remember it as having any significant impact.

I do remember that the spotting range was somewhat larger than in vanilla SH3. What else was improved?

finchOU · 09-13-06, 02:59 PM

I think a major downer is the fact that while Graphics have improved dramaticaly over the last 15 years (due to better computers)....but gameplay has taken a hit. People these days expect newer graphics with each release because of the trend of improving graphics and a move toward FPS and multiplayer.......but the demand of Gameplay...immersion...other realism and longgevity aspects seem to have gone down....it seems there is always a new FPS being produced about every month...and the comsumers are eating it up.....and us old time Simulation buffs are getting less and less of a Simulation...and more and more of what the market demands these days...which...is bussiness. I just think it is sad that people would actually want a WW2 FPS sub simulation vise something they could actually learn some history from (anyone remember the manual from AOD.....I learned so much!!) ......I can see it for the "fun" factor...but the longevity just is not there.

As someone mentioned above, I wish we could get both Graphics and Gameplay aspects......I think Ubi should hire some moders/code writers who participate on this great site.

...would it make a difference on the end product...with todays market demand???? good question

finchOU · 09-13-06, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immacolata

I played AOTD beards ago, so in what aspects the simulation realism back then was better I cannot really remember. I do remember a better story immersion due to the officer's lounge, but this narrative aspects, not mechanical simulation. I also remember that you could gather in wolf packs. But that mechanic I only got to experience 2 times, and I do not remember it as having any significant impact.

I do remember that the spotting range was somewhat larger than in vanilla SH3. What else was improved?

The wolfpack model in AOD was pretty basic and unrealistic....but it was a start and they at least tried ....I mean...who would try and make a WW2 sub sim without...oh wait never mind.
I remember that you would radio a convoy report and magically U-boats would appear on the map surrounding the convoy....and begin trying to attack it....like i said not very realistic.

I do beleive that the reason we did not get friendly subs/wolfpacks in SH3 was due to the awesome graphics we got....I am no computer wiz...but it would seem to me that if we got everything, we would need a supercomuputer to run it.....am I wrong??? or was it a time issue?

Charlie901 · 09-13-06, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMaGe007

Grainy textures and poor quality dials are areas that modders can actually change, adding people and lifeboats and decent port activity are things only the developers can do properly. The harbour trafic mod was restricted, the ships were always there and they didnt move, once again the developers need to do it for it to work properly

New ship models, subs, and towns/harbours are a given, of course they need to be made. The graphics will improve no one is saying don't change them, just that it doesnt need to be the main FOCUS.

They are making the game for US not Nvidia and ATI.

EDIT:
and well said CB..

AMEN!!!

TDK1044 · 09-13-06, 03:38 PM

I think the battle will go on within companies like Ubisoft between graphic enhancement and improved gameplay. It all comes down to time and money. The longer the DEV team are under contract, the more money the game costs you to produce. And the higher you push the game specs, the fewer games you'll sell. Somewhere in there is a middle ground.

Immacolata · 09-14-06, 01:30 AM

[QUOTE=Charlie901]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaMaGe007

Grainy textures and poor quality dials are areas that modders can actually change, adding people and lifeboats and decent port activity are things only the developers can do properly. The harbour trafic mod was restricted, the ships were always there and they didnt move, once again the developers need to do it for it to work properly

So you suggest they should just leave the game ugly to accomodate modders? That is not very nice towards the 90% of the buying gamers that do not use mods, is it? A wee bit egotistical even?

DaMaGe007 · 09-14-06, 04:19 AM

You are a master of missing the point.
Im not even going to bother explaining it to you.

Immacolata · 09-14-06, 05:35 AM

No I understand perfectly your argument. I would prefer they shipped SHIV with as solid and detailed an engine as possible, which no one can meddle with due to CP. Then left the accesible parts like puckering up and cfg-file hax0ring in open files.

However that isn't really good is it? They should purposefully neglect the appearance of the game and thereby the overall impression it will receive to satisfy a few hardcore simmers wish? I keep saying, graphics and gameplay go hand in hand in such games. ITs like discussing women. You want them pretty or smart? Preferably both, right?

TDK1044 · 09-14-06, 06:03 AM

ITs like discussing women. You want them pretty or smart? Preferably both, right?[/quote]

Crude but accurate, Immacolata.

But you don't have to dress them in name brand clothes if they look almost as good with generic brand and at half the price. This argument reminds me of that saying in the music industry "great video, shame about the song." Perfect world is great graphics and great game play, but most people will settle for good graphics great game play rather than the other way around.

I don't think there's an answer to this question. It's a subjective judgement made by each individual.

CB.. · 09-15-06, 05:44 AM

it's the interesting details that get left out...there is nothing quite like knowing they are there right from the go..as it has you looking for these surprises as you play ...think of them as easter eggs...if you like...but relevant easter eggs...they may not happen every patrol but they are there...it's the difference between self assembly furniture and hand crafted top quality furniture...from a distance they may look the same...they may both do the job perfectly well....but you don't spend hours polishing flat pack furniture...never mind the width ..feel the quality i tell you there is infinitely more detail and depth in a traditional board game such as Monopoly..than any computer game were likely to see..now then if the cat and mouse between player and the enemy ASW was as involved unpredictable and replayable as solving the murder in Cluedo....i'd be over the moon...as time goes by i begin to yearn more and more for dice and cards...
roll the dice...get number 4 ...destroyer turns right.. roll again... get 2 ...destroyer slows...
turn card...get sonar scan....destroyer pings....roll dice get 5....destroyer detects me...
roll dice... get 1....doesn't have my depth...roll again..get 3..it drops DC's...
and so on...
it's as old as the hills..but it works

evertime the encounter would be entirely unique...
don't give a flying hoot wether the results would be classicaly "realistic" on paper..
the in game experience would be perfect..too many people want the game to be something other than a game..

Immacolata · 09-15-06, 06:01 AM

You GOT to lay off the omission abuse there pal. That ... was ... like ... some ... kind ... of ... animé ... speech ... bubble ... torture. Kind.... of.... hard... to .... read.... let ... alone... con...cen...tra...te ... on.:rotfl:

John Pancoast · 09-15-06, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immacolata

You GOT to lay off the omission abuse there pal. That ... was ... like ... some ... kind ... of ... animé ... speech ... bubble ... torture. Kind.... of.... hard... to .... read.... let ... alone... con...cen...tra...te ... on.:rotfl:

Maybe so, but this quote of his is right on the money.

"too many people want the game to be something other than a game.."

finchOU · 09-15-06, 04:47 PM

[quote=John Pancoast]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immacolata

"too many people want the game to be something other than a game.."

like maybe a .....simulation??

....I mean...thats what it said on the outside of the box right??

09-15-06, 05:44 AM	#72
CB.. Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: UK Posts: 1,278 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	it's the interesting details that get left out...there is nothing quite like knowing they are there right from the go..as it has you looking for these surprises as you play ...think of them as easter eggs...if you like...but relevant easter eggs...they may not happen every patrol but they are there...it's the difference between self assembly furniture and hand crafted top quality furniture...from a distance they may look the same...they may both do the job perfectly well....but you don't spend hours polishing flat pack furniture...never mind the width ..feel the quality i tell you there is infinitely more detail and depth in a traditional board game such as Monopoly..than any computer game were likely to see..now then if the cat and mouse between player and the enemy ASW was as involved unpredictable and replayable as solving the murder in Cluedo....i'd be over the moon...as time goes by i begin to yearn more and more for dice and cards... roll the dice...get number 4 ...destroyer turns right.. roll again... get 2 ...destroyer slows... turn card...get sonar scan....destroyer pings....roll dice get 5....destroyer detects me... roll dice... get 1....doesn't have my depth...roll again..get 3..it drops DC's... and so on... it's as old as the hills..but it works evertime the encounter would be entirely unique... don't give a flying hoot wether the results would be classicaly "realistic" on paper.. the in game experience would be perfect..too many people want the game to be something other than a game.. __________________ the world's tinyiest sh3 supermod- and other SH3/SH2 stuff http://www.ebort2.co.uk/ The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. W.B.Yeats Last edited by CB..; 09-15-06 at 05:56 AM.

09-13-06, 02:37 AM	#61
Steeltrap Grey Wolf Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 818 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	"Realism" is always an interesting concept. I suppose the 'best' realism comes from attempting to recreate conditions as they were recorded by those actually there. Some details I personally find I couldn't give a hoot about (such as walking about the interior - fact is you'd spend almost all your time as commander in the control room, tower or on the bridge). Others I find vital, such as the fact that you should only need a 2-5 second exposure of scope per observation while stalking a ship. Having to keep it raised for unrealistically long times has an effect once you're confronting escorts with radar able to detect a raised scope (which late model Allied radar could do out to about 500m I think). That's where I draw the line - when I am forced to do things vastly different from how it really WAS done (which you can learn by reading any one of the many books written by actual sub commanders) AND being forced to do so has results which are poor (such as being detected). Having said that, some other parts of 'realism' aren't too palatable for most players. Consider aircraft. There's a post complaining about the number of aircraft encountered, yet later in the war there were many. Peter Cremer recounts how, on one occasion crossing the Bay of Biscay, he was forced under after 3 minutes, a further 5 minutes, then 13 minutes etc...to the point where he HAD to stay on the surface to replenish compressed air. That was FACT. It might not be too much fun!! So I think there's a point at which you need to consider (a) is it real? (b) if so, to what degree is it real? (c) if not, to what degree? (d) does the effect of the relative realism cause results which are unacceptable to those looking for a simulation? If the answer to D is a resounding 'YES' then I think the situation needs to be changed. Of course, the concern about mass-appeal can also be managed through allowing changing of things via realism options, but I do think that the fundamentals need to be sound when playing at 100% realism, even IF the graphics aren't absolutely fabulous - although I agree that there need not BE a 'either/or' relationship between graphics and realism. Interesting thread.

09-13-06, 09:35 AM	#62
TDK1044 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 2,674 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	I think what this all comes down to is that the balance of realism and graphics is very subjective. How many of us really enjoyed and were totally immersed in AOTD when it hit the stores. In terms of gameplay it was superb, and its graphics were also good for their day. Now the graphics look very dated, but I guarantee you that any player in this forum could still immerse himself in that game. The reason is that a WW11 subsim is really a game of cat and mouse. You use your instruments to find and track a target, you then get to periscope depth and briefly raise the scope to confirm target identity, range, heading and speed. Then you fire your torp and get the hell out of there. If you're playing at a high level of reality, you rarely see the explosion as your torp hits the ship. I enjoy having good quality graphics, but I didn't buy SH111 because of its graphics...I bought it to play the game of cat and mouse and see how well I could do. The same will be true for SH1V. If the DEVS can make visual improvements over SH111 and keep the game specs reasonable for SH1V then I'm all for it, but what I want is AOTD set in the Pacific, and I'll take whatever graphics come with it.

09-13-06, 11:10 AM	#63
Immacolata Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 798 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	I played AOTD beards ago, so in what aspects the simulation realism back then was better I cannot really remember. I do remember a better story immersion due to the officer's lounge, but this narrative aspects, not mechanical simulation. I also remember that you could gather in wolf packs. But that mechanic I only got to experience 2 times, and I do not remember it as having any significant impact. I do remember that the spotting range was somewhat larger than in vanilla SH3. What else was improved?

09-13-06, 02:59 PM	#64
finchOU Samurai Navy Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 571 Downloads: 77 Uploads: 0	I think a major downer is the fact that while Graphics have improved dramaticaly over the last 15 years (due to better computers)....but gameplay has taken a hit. People these days expect newer graphics with each release because of the trend of improving graphics and a move toward FPS and multiplayer.......but the demand of Gameplay...immersion...other realism and longgevity aspects seem to have gone down....it seems there is always a new FPS being produced about every month...and the comsumers are eating it up.....and us old time Simulation buffs are getting less and less of a Simulation...and more and more of what the market demands these days...which...is bussiness. I just think it is sad that people would actually want a WW2 FPS sub simulation vise something they could actually learn some history from (anyone remember the manual from AOD.....I learned so much!!) ......I can see it for the "fun" factor...but the longevity just is not there. As someone mentioned above, I wish we could get both Graphics and Gameplay aspects......I think Ubi should hire some moders/code writers who participate on this great site. ...would it make a difference on the end product...with todays market demand???? good question

09-13-06, 03:38 PM	#67
TDK1044 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 2,674 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	I think the battle will go on within companies like Ubisoft between graphic enhancement and improved gameplay. It all comes down to time and money. The longer the DEV team are under contract, the more money the game costs you to produce. And the higher you push the game specs, the fewer games you'll sell. Somewhere in there is a middle ground.

09-14-06, 04:19 AM	#69
DaMaGe007 Watch Officer Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 338 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	You are a master of missing the point. Im not even going to bother explaining it to you.

09-14-06, 05:35 AM	#70
Immacolata Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 798 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	No I understand perfectly your argument. I would prefer they shipped SHIV with as solid and detailed an engine as possible, which no one can meddle with due to CP. Then left the accesible parts like puckering up and cfg-file hax0ring in open files. However that isn't really good is it? They should purposefully neglect the appearance of the game and thereby the overall impression it will receive to satisfy a few hardcore simmers wish? I keep saying, graphics and gameplay go hand in hand in such games. ITs like discussing women. You want them pretty or smart? Preferably both, right?

09-14-06, 06:03 AM	#71
TDK1044 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 2,674 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	ITs like discussing women. You want them pretty or smart? Preferably both, right?[/quote] Crude but accurate, Immacolata. But you don't have to dress them in name brand clothes if they look almost as good with generic brand and at half the price. This argument reminds me of that saying in the music industry "great video, shame about the song." Perfect world is great graphics and great game play, but most people will settle for good graphics great game play rather than the other way around. I don't think there's an answer to this question. It's a subjective judgement made by each individual.

09-15-06, 06:01 AM	#73
Immacolata Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 798 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	You GOT to lay off the omission abuse there pal. That ... was ... like ... some ... kind ... of ... animé ... speech ... bubble ... torture. Kind.... of.... hard... to .... read.... let ... alone... con...cen...tra...te ... on.:rotfl: