[REQ] No text message: Enemy unit destroyed

[U-Bones]

Originally Posted by Beery

Only if you ignore playability. The problem is, usually it's the LESS realistic features that also make the game less playable and less fun. Take the hull integrity feature or the instant notification of sinking - both 'middle of the road' features meant as a concession to an arcade playstyle, and both features that actually remove fun from the game. Sometimes even the middle road is fraught with pitfalls.

Anyway obsession with realism is where modders come in.

Wow. I (and some others) in fact DO like hull integrity notification, and the assertion that it means we have an "arcade play style", and that it actually "removes fun from the game" - is blindness to other perspectives at best and arrogant dismissiveness at worst.

I encourage everyone to play and mod as they like, but I insist on having my own opinions, and would prefer to not be insulted about them when they are different from someone elses.

Playability is -subjective-.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by U-Bones

Wow. I (and some others) in fact DO like hull integrity notification, and the assertion that it means we have an "arcade play style", and that it actually "removes fun from the game" - is blindness to other perspectives at best and arrogant dismissiveness at worst.

I encourage everyone to play and mod as they like, but I insist on having my own opinions, and would prefer to not be insulted about them when they are different from someone elses.

Playability is -subjective-.

I don't see how calling your playstyle 'arcade' is insulting. If you choose arcade features (such as a % notification of hull damage) over a realistic alternative you're favouring arcade style play. There are only two extremes - arcade or simulation.

As for whether giving a percentage readout on hull integrity adds or removes fun, how much fun can there possibly be in knowing exactly how many points out of 100 your hull has left? I mean I guess people could game it so that they tried to get as close to 100 as possible without sinking, but if that's the game what part of that is relevant to being in a WW2 submarine? I mean the game is either here to make it feel like we're in a WW2 sub or it's not. In my opinion the game looks and feels like a WW2 sub and clearly that's what the developers intended it to be. If people want to play some fantasy sub where every minute detail of the sub's status is spoonfed them I'm sure there are games like that out there. I just don't think games like SH4 should be aiming towards that. There is fun in suspense, but the % hull integrity removes all suspense from that aspect of the game. The removal of suspense does not increase the fun value. The only people who think it does are those who desire a more simplified and more controllable (and some would say more shallow) game experience - i.e. the arcade fan.

Call it arrogant dismissiveness if you want, but if I went to the Doom forums arguing for fewer arcade features and more realism I think a certain amount of arrogant dismissiveness towards my point of view would be merited. Doom is not a simulation, and SH4 is not an arcade game.

[U-Bones]

Originally Posted by Beery

I don't see how calling your playstyle 'arcade' is insulting. If you choose arcade features (such as a % notification of hull damage) over a realistic alternative you're favouring arcade style play. There are only two extremes - arcade or simulation.

It's not so much the tag as the demeaning way in which it is applied. I will simply continue to be rubbed the wrong way by your condesending attitude towards middle of the roaders. Some things never change.

Carry on and pardon my interruption, I meant well.

[Beery]

Originally Posted by U-Bones

It's not so much the tag as the demeaning way in which it is applied. I will simply continue to be rubbed the wrong way by your condesending attitude towards middle of the roaders. Some things never change...

As far as condescending attitudes go, I find it a little condescending and demeaning when my preferred playstyle is referred to as "the dark side where the market shrinks to the not worth making level". I mean how much more condescending and demeaning can you possibly get?

As far as I'm concerned, SH3 and SH4 are simulations. In a simulation more realism (not to be confused with 'reality') is always better. I can never regard an arcade playstyle (or a 'semi-realistic' playstyle - which amounts to the same thing) as healthy for a simulation game because I do not agree that a move away from realism can improve playability. In my opinion realism and playability go hand-in-glove, as the popularity of the RUb mod (and other realism mods I've made) prove.

I see a 'middle of the road' playstyle (a sort of simulation-lite) as extremely harmful. I have a condescending attitude towards middle-of-the-road FEATURES, not the players who favour them, but if someone's arguing for a less realistic feature, when such a feature makes a mockery of the word 'simulation' and when such a feature reduces the suspense value of the game, I'm going to argue with those people. If people see the fact that I make arguments for realism and against watering down realism as condescending, that's a profound mischaracterization.

[Beery]

Here's what it boils down to for me. I believe a simulation should be as realistic as possible. It should be set to 'realistic' in its default configuration. If 'sim-lite' features exist they should be optional. There should never be a situation like there was in SH3 where a 'sim-lite' feature (like the 'enemy unit destroyed' notification) cannot be turned off except by modding it. If simulations were made with 'realism first' as the watchword the realism fans wouldn't need folks like me who are willing to spend six months working 12 hour days making these games more realistic.

In my view game developers should give us a sim first and foremost. Only then should options be added so it can be played by people who don't like ultra realism. The problem with simulation games is that all too often they start at sim-lite and make only a few concessions towards realism.

We simulation fans may be a niche market, but if we weren't an important niche games like this wouldn't exist at all. Realism is important to folks like us, and game developers will lose us if they don't take our needs seriously. Then there will only be games like Doom made, and not even the middle-of-the-roaders want that. Diversity is important and realistic simulation games are an important aspect of that.

[U-Bones]

Originally Posted by Beery

Here's what it boils down to for me. I believe a simulation should be as realistic as possible. It should be set to 'realistic' in its default configuration. If 'sim-lite' features exist they should be optional. There should never be a situation like there was in SH3 where a 'sim-lite' feature (like the 'enemy unit destroyed' notification) cannot be turned off except by modding it. If simulations were made with 'realism first' as the watchword the realism fans wouldn't need folks like me who are willing to spend six months working 12 hour days making these games more realistic.

In my view game developers should give us a sim first and foremost. Only then should options be added so it can be played by people who don't like ultra realism. The problem with simulation games is that all too often they start at sim-lite and make only a few concessions towards realism.

We simulation fans may be a niche market, but if we weren't an important niche games like this wouldn't exist at all. Realism is important to folks like us, and game developers will lose us if they don't take our needs seriously. Then there will only be games like Doom made, and not even the middle-of-the-roaders want that. Diversity is important and realistic simulation games are an important aspect of that.

This is a game first, simulation second, no matter how hard you wish otherwise. A "realistic" sim would usually make you finish your 5th patrol without firing a single torpedo. I can't see many people lining up to buy that. Ubi was wise to leave a little game in your sim.

And I am all for options, even with "realistic" defaults, sans the scorn for checking a few boxes differently than "we simulation fans" of course.

[U-Bones]

Originally Posted by Beery

As far as condescending attitudes go, I find it a little condescending and demeaning when my preferred playstyle is referred to as "the dark side where the market shrinks to the not worth making level". I mean how much more condescending and demeaning can you possibly get?

I see a 'middle of the road' playstyle (a sort of simulation-lite) as extremely harmful. I have a condescending attitude towards middle-of-the-road FEATURES, not the players who favour them, but...

I was referring to the "dark side" market reality of a pure sim vs a game, not playstyles.

It is not possible to criticize a playstyle without that criticism spilling over onto its adherents. Your contempt for "sim-lite", and by extension the people who enjoy it, is unfortunate and undiplomatic at times.

THAT was my original complaint. I am sorry I let it spill over into more than that. I simply wanted a less divisive tone on the board. Gamers are people too (and a very important part of this community). I will not be responding further.

Apologies all.

[Jams79]

Originally Posted by Beery

In my view game developers should give us a sim first and foremost. Only then should options be added so it can be played by people who don't like ultra realism. The problem with simulation games is that all too often they start at sim-lite and make only a few concessions towards realism.

Here's my two cents, unfortunately hardcore simmers are considered an astounding minority in the market resulting in publishers preferring to dumb the game down to get more sales. Unlike casual gamers who'll just ignore a game if it's too "serious/boring" we have wonderful people like you and Ducimus and all the others who will spend the time and effort to make it more realistic for our needs. It's just irritating as hell when they program something "dumbed down" so that we can't get to it easily to mod it out.

Originally Posted by U-Bones

This is a game first, simulation second, no matter how hard you wish otherwise. A "realistic" sim would usually make you finish your 5th patrol without firing a single torpedo. I can't see many people lining up to buy that. Ubi was wise to leave a little game in your sim.

And I am all for options, even with "realistic" defaults, sans the scorn for checking a few boxes differently than "we simulation fans" of course.

I have to agree with U-Bones. SH4 was released as a game, not as a simulation. No matter how much some modders want SH4 to be ultra-realistic, it's never going to happen due to the game's limitations. I think that the obsession in this forum with ultra realism is becoming excessive. Most of the modders here want realism, but some of the attitudes here are getting a little ridiculous. The obsessive attitudes of a few of the modders in this forum might perhaps be scaring away other modders from releasing their own mods due to criticisms. I am all for realism, but if some modders want to release less realistic mods, then they have every right to do so without being criticized by others here who claim to be experts. If people want a more serious realistic pacific gaming experience, then I recommend the great strategy game War in the Pacific by Matrix Games. SH4 is a game and always will be, no matter how many 'super realistic' mods are released.

[tater]

Asking for diversity, and the option of realistic play is "getting rediculous?" Seems to me that coding for different customer's wishes only broadens the appeal.

I thought beery put it well:

We simulation fans may be a niche market, but if we weren't an important niche games like this wouldn't exist at all. Realism is important to folks like us, and game developers will lose us if they don't take our needs seriously. Then there will only be games like Doom made, and not even the middle-of-the-roaders want that. Diversity is important and realistic simulation games are an important aspect of that.

On topic, the instant announcement of a player death really blows in any kind of multiplayer game. In something like this where "fog of war" is the meat and potatoes of the game, it's something to consider. The devs went to the trouble of creating an adversarial capability, the ability for the host to turn off such kill messages is actually pretty critical.

A toggle that modders can turn on or off is always the right choice

tater

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by tater

Asking for diversity, and the option of realistic play is "getting rediculous?" Seems to me that coding for different customer's wishes only broadens the appeal.

I thought beery put it well:

On topic, the instant announcement of a player death really blows in any kind of multiplayer game. In something like this where "fog of war" is the meat and potatoes of the game, it's something to consider. The devs went to the trouble of creating an adversarial capability, the ability for the host to turn off such kill messages is actually pretty critical.

A toggle that modders can turn on or off is always the right choice

tater

BINGO Well put. The devs need to fix it so this game can be adjusted
and fine tuned for all type of players. This game is brand new and were a
kinda "I want it fixed yesterday" crowd. So a little patience is needed to see what the devs come up with. United we stand. Divided we will surely
fall. We all may get what we want.

[tater]

As a quick multiplay example, a few subs attack a major task force with a player running the TF. He thinks he has one cornered, and has a desdiv go over, and they hammer the living crap out of the spot where he should be. If the game awards a kill on the 2d rack of DCs that goes off, he can instantly send the 4 escorts elsewhere to harry the remaing couple subs. If he's not sure... he's not sure, and has to leave a few in that area in case the sub pops back up.

The ability to turn off that message would help the "realism" crowd offline, and allows multiplay (honestly, I'd almost call instant kill awards a showstopper for multiplay---I don't like it in Il-2, and I really like the fact WW2OL doesn't have it).

tater

[GatorSub1942]

I completely agree. If someone can find a way to get rid of that Enemy Destroyed message, excellent. (Maybe Ubi shoud have a go in the next patch? )