Next SH.....as WE want it.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Blood_splat

I remember playing B17 II and having to order a crew member to put out a fire. Damn that game was ahead of its time.

Great game! Too bad about all the bugs and stability problems it had/has. But really gave you the 'I'm there' immersion.

[Navarre]

An AAA graphics engine (if the game is again marketed as a AAA game), that deserves the triple A.
meaning:
- Light sources behind non-transparent objects should not be this visible through these objects
- shadow rendering as in other AAA graphic engines
- no longer transparent sailors due to incorrect environment/shaders development

[Sonarman]

I and many others, judging by my recent Subsim poll ,its counterpart on the Ubi Forum & the huge populartity of the SHIII schnellboot mod, I suspect would actually prefer to have a surface command game next time in the style of "Destroyer Command" or the great old Microprose title "Task Force 1942".

If the devs/ Ubisoft ever think about going down that road they should check out this fantastic 9 page article from simHQ, written by a former naval officer about the strengths and weaknesses of the original "Destroyer Command" game and his thoughts on what would a good sequel would contain.

[CaptHawkeye]

Originally Posted by Sonarman

I and many others, judging by my recent Subsim poll ,its counterpart on the Ubi Forum & the huge populartity of the SHIII schnellboot mod, I suspect would actually prefer to have a surface command game next time in the style of "Destroyer Command" or the great old Microprose title "Task Force 1942".

OH how I hope they're paying attention to these. I keep hearing complaints about a surface action game akin to "player can't act on his own!" and "no stealthz, always on the run from teh planz". But in all honesty, that's just making excuses. Where would we get if just sat on our thumbs crying into our beer about challenges in gameplay design? Off the top of my head I can already think of numerous ways of dealing with the outlined problems.

If the devs/ Ubisoft ever think about going down that road they should check out this fantastic 9 page article from simHQ, written by a former naval officer about the strengths and weaknesses of the original "Destroyer Command" game and his thoughts on what would a good sequel would contain.

I liked his article but occasionally thought he was nitpicking. I like a realistic sim, but I ALSO like a sim to be intuitive. I want a realistic game, but I ALSO want developers to acknowledge that no matter what they dream of, it IS a video game. The only way the player can interact with the world is through a screen, keyboard, and mouse. Maybe a joystick if he's lucky. Voice input if he's in good standing with God or something. But none of this equates to the efficiency of real world control.

That's why I get annoyed at games like Red Orchestra that tout themselves as "uber realistic". In RO they actually expect the player to take into account the WEIGHT OF THE GUN as he fires it! Since the changing center of balance will actually change the aimpoint of the gun on the sight! This is just insane. I'm not ACTUALLY HOLDING THE GUN. So why punish the player for something totally out of his control or even influence? Let the avatar "handle" things like that. You can't tell me a trained or experienced soldier wouldn't subconsiously know to compensate for something like that.

Or RO's tanks. They again claim "ultra realism" because they force players to use multi crew. But again, it's not realistic, it's just annoying. A real tank crew, one with experience and TRAINING, would act as a single entity. That's why if you were to ask me who's tanks were more realistic in that aspect, Forgotten Hope's or Red Orchestra's, i'd say FH. A good sim is both realistic AND intuitive. A sim that is diffcult to control or unwieldy is ironically not realistic.

[LukeFF]

Originally Posted by CaptHawkeye

That's why I get annoyed at games like Red Orchestra that tout themselves as "uber realistic". In RO they actually expect the player to take into account the WEIGHT OF THE GUN as he fires it! Since the changing center of balance will actually change the aimpoint of the gun on the sight! This is just insane. I'm not ACTUALLY HOLDING THE GUN. So why punish the player for something totally out of his control or even influence? Let the avatar "handle" things like that. You can't tell me a trained or experienced soldier wouldn't subconsiously know to compensate for something like that.

Ever try to hold a WWII rifle longer than say, 30 seconds? Your arms will tire and your aim will start to sway.

And yes, I'm a real-world soldier.

[Kptlt. Neuerburg]

What I'd like to see in the next SH game if there ever will be one is full emersion. Walk around from bow to stern, climbing up the ladder to the con tower, watching crew running from the stern to the bow during a crash dive and see the watch crew come sliding down the ladders! And some wild life other than stupid seagulls, like some fish!!! More overall control over the sub. Better AI, as in no more Bernards!! Realistic weather. You know in winter I'd like to see snow falling and not just on the ground. Being able to hide on the bottom. Just throwing out some ideas.

[maerean_m]

Originally Posted by Kptlt. Hellmut Neuerburg

What I'd like to see in the next SH game if there ever will be one is full emersion. Walk around from bow to stern, climbing up the ladder to the con tower, watching crew running from the stern to the bow during a crash dive and see the watch crew come sliding down the ladders! And some wild life other than stupid seagulls, like some fish!!! More overall control over the sub. Better AI, as in no more Bernards!! Realistic weather. You know in winter I'd like to see snow falling and not just on the ground. Being able to hide on the bottom. Just throwing out some ideas.

All that is nice, but you have to bring some gameplay to that. You'll get bored after two walks from bow to stern and looking at the fishes.

[CaptHawkeye]

Originally Posted by LukeFF

Ever try to hold a WWII rifle longer than say, 30 seconds? Your arms will tire and your aim will start to sway.

Let me explain it better, I fully expect and intend to compensate for something like exhaustion in gameplay. I actually believe that games that don't take it into account are not paying enough attention to detail and are failing to be a simulation outright.

But in RO, they take into account the weapon's changing center of gravity as the magazine empties. According to them, (regardless of the weapon's actual weight) the placement of the bullets according to the position of the iron sight changes on the sight because of this. But this is insane, such a minor detail would be handled subconsciously by the soldier using the weapon.

And yes, I'm a real-world soldier.

Ok?

[piersyf]

Ever try to hold a WWII rifle longer than say, 30 seconds? Your arms will tire and your aim will start to sway.

And yes, I'm a real-world soldier.[/quote]

er, yes. Well, sorta. When I was in uniform my personal weapon was an SLR, Australian version of FN. 7.62mm long rifle, weighed 10lb. If you train with it you can use it. I'm no Arnie (6'2 tall and 165lb) but I had no issues. Hell, at one stage I had a female officer in charge and she was about 5'6" and 90lb soaking wet and I watched her shoot an M60 with a 75rd belt attached from the shoulder STANDING. Training + Attitude...

As for immersion in the game, I'd just like one that doesn't keep crashing to desktop... that'd help with immersion a HEAP.