Silent Hunter 4 Patch 1.1

[Father]

Originally Posted by Hans Schultz

well the resolution does go higher than 1024.

Yes the menu resolution does and that's it, the game graphics themselves get worser the higher res you go, I run 1920x1200 and it looks more jaggy at that res then at 1024, the graphics just seem to inflate like zooming in on a photograph and it gets more pixelated.

Looks so horrible that I can't even be bothered playing.

[jeff lackey]

What is really sad and shortsighted: people reviewing this for the major magazines (and some outlets, like Gamespot) will be required to review the "out of the box" version. So, for example, my review for Games for Windows (previously known as Computer Gaming World) will have to be of the 1.0 version, with all of the issues that come with that version. If they were able to patch this thing within a week, they would have been SO much better off holding off for a week and releasing the updated version. The reviews/review scores would surely be a lot better. Ugh.

[Nightmare]

Originally Posted by jeff lackey

What is really sad and shortsighted: people reviewing this for the major magazines (and some outlets, like Gamespot) will be required to review the "out of the box" version. So, for example, my review for Games for Windows (previously known as Computer Gaming World) will have to be of the 1.0 version, with all of the issues that come with that version. If they were able to patch this thing within a week, they would have been SO much better off holding off for a week and releasing the updated version. The reviews/review scores would surely be a lot better. Ugh.

That is exactly what I was afraid of hearing.

[jeff lackey]

Well, there's a good reason most magazines review the out-of-the-box versions: that's what people are getting when they buy the product. Also, at least one editor told me a few years ago that he didn't want to encourage publishers to push things out the door unfinished, knowing they could still get a better review with a patch (I've had publisher PR folks send me a patch and tell me to not review the version in the box, but only the patched version - they then got very POed when I told them I was reviewing what my neighbor would get if he bought the game at Best Buy.)

I try to throw in a comment about a patch being available if it's out when the review is written, but the score and review still has to reflect the version shipped for review/retail shelves. Which is why it is really not good business to push a product out the door a week earlier (or even a couple of weeks, or even 4 weeks) if you could have significant bug fixes, etc. if you wait. Certainly not for a single week.

Immaculata - nothing to do with "high horses". The version they sent for review is the version we review. How long do you wait? Do I wait for a couple of weeks when I get a copy for review, hoping there might be a patch? Do I tell the editor to wait for two more weeks when a patch comes out so I can run that through the paces? There will be another patch after this one - do you wait for it? This patch isn't even out yet.

If the publsiher ships copies for review, and if they ship these to the shelves for people to purchase, that's what gets reviewed. It's up to the publishers to decide what they want to push out the door.

[Iron Budokan]

Originally Posted by jeff lackey

Well, there's a good reason most magazines review the out-of-the-box versions: that's what people are getting when they buy the product.

Egg-sactly! You just gotta love the argument I've heard all day: "Don't review the stock version, review the game with the load of patches that fix the orginal bugs and functionality and therefore make it a more enjoyable gaming experience. Anything less is not fair to the game itself!"

Kee-effing-rist, give us a break with that nonsense. Does Consumer Reports wait for the "fix" before they report the P.O.S. vacuum cleaner that rips up your carpet? I suppose we're supposed to overlook the functionality of a toaster that ignites into a fire bomb. It's all good just wait for the "patch" and ignore those third degree burns, look how well it toasts your bagel now? It is to laugh. It's this kind of sheep-like acceptance of shoddy goods and services that makes manufacturers continue to turn out over-priced garbage.

SH3 was buggy out of the box. From all reports SH4 is buggy out of the box. That's the reality. That's what should be reviewed, not the "sweetened" fixes, but the original game as released.

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by jeff lackey

Well, there's a good reason most magazines review the out-of-the-box versions: that's what people are getting when they buy the product. Also, at least one editor told me a few years ago that he didn't want to encourage publishers to push things out the door unfinished, knowing they could still get a better review with a patch (I've had publisher PR folks send me a patch and tell me to not review the version in the box, but only the patched version - they then got very POed when I told them I was reviewing what my neighbor would get if he bought the game at Best Buy.)

I try to throw in a comment about a patch being available if it's out when the review is written, but the score and review still has to reflect the version shipped for review/retail shelves. Which is why it is really not good business to push a product out the door a week earlier (or even a couple of weeks, or even 4 weeks) if you could have significant bug fixes, etc. if you wait. Certainly not for a single week.

Immaculata - nothing to do with "high horses". The version they sent for review is the version we review. How long do you wait? Do I wait for a couple of weeks when I get a copy for review, hoping there might be a patch? Do I tell the editor to wait for two more weeks when a patch comes out so I can run that through the paces? There will be another patch after this one - do you wait for it? This patch isn't even out yet.

If the publsiher ships copies for review, and if they ship these to the shelves for people to purchase, that's what gets reviewed. It's up to the publishers to decide what they want to push out the door.

Not for nuthin' Jeff, but it strikes me that there is a certain amount of irony at play here.

Most sub-simmers, at least the bleeding-edge, early adaptors, are also internet savy and experienced in the release-then-patch process and so will be able to avail themselves of any patches. Failing that I seem to recall that on SH3 there was some kind of auto-update feature.

Now without doubt your review will mention that the game was rushed out the door before it was ready, and, I guess, rightfully so.

However... with the first patch imminent, and the knowledge that it will fix a lot of the issues that are causing concern, isn't there an elemnet of rushing your review out the door?

Almost certainly the second pressing will be 1.1 or higher and that is the one that the late adaptors and casual gamers will be buying, so your review, based on a product that we know isn't the one they will be able to buy, might be seen as misleading and unfair?

I just askin'.

JCC

[Potoroo]

Originally Posted by John Channing

Almost certainly the second pressing will be 1.1 or higher

That didn't happen with SH3 so why assume it will happen with SH4? The SH3 retail copies around today are still 1.0.

[Snowman999]

If the publsiher ships copies for review, and if they ship these to the shelves for people to purchase, that's what gets reviewed. It's up to the publishers to decide what they want to push out the door.

Jeff, just wanted to say I appreciate your reviews in that new-named rag. Been a CGW subscriber since the mid-80s, and of Computer Games for about five years. CGW has always prided themselves on only reviewing finished, shhipped games in the state the customer recieves them at the register. In the past year I can recall one (1) follow-up review after a major patch, and it was very short (1/4 page maybe.) Don't recall the title. I have seen, as you say you'll do, many reviews mention that a patch is promised, but what else can you say?

Others here have made valid business arguments that a launch is a complex animal--and it is, I've done them in packaged goods--but there is a trade-off in looking inside the firm for good logistics and revenue behaviors at the expense of product quality. To expect consumer demand to be equivalent with a broken game versus a finished game is to misunderstand basic microeconomics.

The trick, it seems to me, the sweet spot, is to post-pone those logistic and marketing decisions late enough in the cycle that product quality is a bit more of a sure thing than we're seeing here. It's hard. But there are trade-offs either way. As the saying goes you can pay me now, with penalty charges to pressing plants and shippers, etc., or you can pay me later, with lost demand as word-of-mouth spreads that the game is unfinished. Either way no free lunch.

Keep doing reviews as you do and I'll keep buying the mag.

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by jeff lackey

Immaculata - nothing to do with "high horses". The version they sent for review is the version we review. How long do you wait? Do I wait for a couple of weeks when I get a copy for review, hoping there might be a patch? Do I tell the editor to wait for two more weeks when a patch comes out so I can run that through the paces? There will be another patch after this one - do you wait for it? This patch isn't even out yet.

If the publsiher ships copies for review, and if they ship these to the shelves for people to purchase, that's what gets reviewed. It's up to the publishers to decide what they want to push out the door.

Thats just being lazy. If there is a patch right after release and your deadline isnt up, use it. It is that simple. No one said you can't talk about that in your review. But if there is a patch, and it fixes some of the things you didn't like about the game, tell that as well. Thats being fair and objective isnt it? Not imagining some thought up demographic of people that reads game reviews and buy games off the shelves and do never patch.

Yes, of course I was a Joe Housesweater or what ever years ago. But guess what, EVEN BACK THEN GAMES WERE BUGGY! That didn't turn me off gaming. This "the average" consumer stramwan argument drawn up everytime sickens ME to the bone. Yes, we all want games without bugs. It shouldn't have to be stated so often (and stating it so often doesn't seem to work anyways, so why waste everyones time with it?).

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by jeff lackey

What is really sad and shortsighted: people reviewing this for the major magazines (and some outlets, like Gamespot) will be required to review the "out of the box" version. So, for example, my review for Games for Windows (previously known as Computer Gaming World) will have to be of the 1.0 version, with all of the issues that come with that version. If they were able to patch this thing within a week, they would have been SO much better off holding off for a week and releasing the updated version. The reviews/review scores would surely be a lot better. Ugh.

Well you could get off your high horses and review the version available with patches if they are there, pardon me for being so frank on the matter. This is maybe more aimed at the editors than the reviewers who just follow order. You're not doing the readers any service by ignoring the patches, on the contrary. If there is a patch, install it and review the game with it. This "out of the box" policy stands so much against the reality of how pc games releases have been for over a decade. You know it, the readers know it. Hats off to the editor that recognizes this and do their reviews to match reality.


The real issue here is that game reviewers have limited time to play a game and base their score on that time frame. So the producers makes the game able to "pass inspection" in the gaming rags/sites. Which is why games like the Total War series keeps getting high scores, in spite of them being buggy and more of a show than a good strategy game.

[difool2]

Originally Posted by jeff lackey

What is really sad and shortsighted: people reviewing this for the major magazines (and some outlets, like Gamespot) will be required to review the "out of the box" version. So, for example, my review for Games for Windows (previously known as Computer Gaming World) will have to be of the 1.0 version, with all of the issues that come with that version. If they were able to patch this thing within a week, they would have been SO much better off holding off for a week and releasing the updated version. The reviews/review scores would surely be a lot better. Ugh.

My experience with such magazines (PC Gamer included) is that they will often overrate
the games they review. YMMV.

[NightCrawler-SimHQ]

Originally Posted by difool2

My experience with such magazines (PC Gamer included) is that they will often overrate the games they review. YMMV.

I know Ubisoft is shaking in their pants right now! :rotfl: How are we going to make everyone happy NOW!

[gnirtS]

Magazines survive off advertising revenue. The people advertising are the same software and hardware suppliers they review. As a result they're more than prone to give artificially high ratings.

[Snowman999]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Magazines survive off advertising revenue. The people advertising are the same software and hardware suppliers they review. As a result they're more than prone to give artificially high ratings.

That has not been my experience with the magazine Jeff writes for. They have been around more than 25 years, far longer than most (any, now?) of the publishers and developers they review. And, with "Windows" in their title now, I think they have some fairly deep-pocketed advertisers available.

[jeff lackey]

Originally Posted by gnirtS

Magazines survive off advertising revenue. The people advertising are the same software and hardware suppliers they review. As a result they're more than prone to give artificially high ratings.

Misconception. Most reviews are written by freelancers, such as myself. I've written for CGW, Computer Games, Gamespot, etc. I don't give a plugged nickel who advertises, and I've never had a review bumped up in score. The editorial side in legit outlets is kept pretty insulated from the advertising section intentionally.

I thought exactly what you did before I started writing in this industry, but I've been very pleased at how the editors have responded when a publisher starts screaming about a review they don't like. Basically - if you can point out factual errors in the review, fine, otherwise, take a hike.