[Review] SH4 on YouGamers - Page 2

1mPHUNit0 · 04-21-07, 05:57 AM

So...YouGamers better than subsimReview?
I think yes...but why, they are more skilled?
Or there is a missing question about subsim?

The General · 04-21-07, 05:59 AM

I think the review was spot on. I'm sorry to report I have just uninstalled SH4, I find it's many flaws too frustrating. I bought an expensive video card so I could run SH4 at a reasonable rate, I have a 3.4 Gig Processor, 2 Gig of Ram and a 7600 NVIDIA card and there is absolutely no excuse for this game to run as poorly as it does. It is simply badly made. Some people on the developement team did their job. The ship models are fantastic for example and they deserved to put into a sim that was built new from the ground up, not put into an old, already inherently flawed programme. Ubisoft took a gamble (trying to save money and maximise profit) by using the old engine at the core and it just didn't work out. Patch 1.2 made a valiant attempt at saving the day, but it's obvious they can't fix this lemon.

joea · 04-21-07, 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The General

I think the review was spot on. I'm sorry to report I have just uninstalled SH4, I find it's many flaws too frustrating. I bought an expensive video card so I could run SH4 at a reasonable rate, I have a 3.4 Gig Processor, 2 Gig of Ram and a 7600 NVIDIA card and there is absolutely no excuse for this game to run as poorly as it does. It is simply badly made. Some people on the developement team did their job. The ship models are fantastic for example and they deserved to put into a sim that was built new from the ground up, not put into an old, already inherently flawed programme. Ubisoft took a gamble (trying to save money and maximise profit) by using the old engine at the core and it just didn't work out. Patch 1.2 made a valiant attempt at saving the day, but it's obvious they can't fix this lemon.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...563#post436563

Quote:

Originally Posted by The General

SH4 is so much better than SH3, there won't be anybody left playing it let alone modding it. Some of you dieharders wil say you will, but you won't. SH4's gonna make you forget all about 3. That's progress and you cannot stand in the way.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

joea · 04-21-07, 06:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1mPHUNit0

So...YouGamers better than subsimReview?
I think yes...but why, they are more skilled?
Or there is a missing question about subsim?

What is the missing question then?

Onkel Neal · 04-21-07, 09:33 AM

He's trying to say I'm bought off. That's untrue, I even bought my own copy of SH4. Ubisoft sent me three copies of the game but I gave them out as prizes. I'm not afraid to say I like the game, despite the bugs. I feel no more pressure from Ubisoft to say the game is GREAT than I do from anonymous forum entities like Phunito to say the game is AWFUL. Btw, I get a lot more pressure from guys like him to join the bash bandwagon that I ever get from game companies. I guess that means Ubisoft has better character than Phunito :rotfl:

pocatellodave · 04-21-07, 09:50 AM

I have to agree with the review,and I must say I like many others,feel like I've been made into a Beta tester.I still have confidence in the modders,and a little hope in Ubisoft that the wrinkles..et al ..bugs,can be worked out.I can hear the head dev now to bosses,...but it simply isn't ready to go yet!Bosses...sorry we have put all the money we can afford into this project,get it out the door!Head dev says..O.K.,but were going to get crucified.Bosses..so what the modders will fix it,and you can put out a couple of quick patches!
This will be the last Ubisoft title I will purchase,and I have bought many of them,until I have read many reviews and I know that it isn't another of their incomplete launches.
I in no way want a clash with Subsim,as I think they do a great job,and the dedicated modders have my most sincere thanks and respect.
Pocatellodave

Tobus · 04-21-07, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Btw, I get a lot more pressure from guys like him to join the bash bandwagon that I ever get from game companies. I guess that means Ubisoft has better character than Phunito :rotfl:

Or Phunito has (like al of us gamers) everything to gain, while publishers like UBI don't have anything to lose.

ronh42 · 04-21-07, 01:47 PM

Heck maybe I'm too old at 65 to worry about a few minor flaws, I've had much bigger disappointments in life. But ever since patch 1.2 I'm having a ball. As for wasting $50 how many bad meals have you had for that much, while here with a little patience you can have hundreds of hours of enjoyment. Remember guys nothing in life is PERFECT! Thanks to everyone for all the help and great mods, I'm glad I discovered this site.

maerean_m · 04-21-07, 02:04 PM

Have you noticed that all screenshots in yougamers' review are from patch 1.2 and yet he talkes about the 3D resolution limitation (in v1.0)? I wish he could make his mind about the version he's reviewing. The review is dated Apr 20th, after the release of patch 1.2.

Personally, I think the way Neal gives the score of the game is much more appropriate.

We've all seen how good the game looks and yet yougamers gives it a 60. That is completely wrong, no matter how you put it. SH4 looks as good as any 2007 game. Even more, the graphics look great in the correct places with no exageration in any aspect: no useless efects to ruin the experience, just gorgeous boats, modeled to the last nit. The weather effects and the whole experience make you wonder if you're watching Discovery Channel. But no, it's a game and you're in total control of the world.
The reviewer should have given it a great mark.
This is the mistake all reviewers do this days: there is no place to tell the bad points, only places for good points. So he's forced to give a 60 mark on a game with great graphics.
Neal, on the other hand, has able to give an honorable 10 out of 10 and substract 5 points for the game being obviously released too soon. So, good job, Neal

.

My final conclusion is that review is missleading and the mark will scary gamers away. He's obviously talking about the 1.2 patched version, which deserves better than that 65 mark.

I wonder what would be the rating Neal would give to Silent Hunter 4 v1.2 ...

flintlock · 04-21-07, 02:27 PM

I felt it was a pretty fair and accurate review overall.

Ark · 04-21-07, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maerean_m

My final conclusion is that review is missleading and the mark will scary gamers away. He's obviously talking about the 1.2 patched version, which deserves better than that 65 mark.

I wonder what would be the rating Neal would give to Silent Hunter 4 v1.2 ...

One of the reasons the score is a "65" is because graphics got a score of "60" due to the locked resolution and the lack of FSAA. That is a pre-1.2 issue....hence the update at the bottom of the review.

I thought the review was pretty accurate.

Quote:

Updates

Released on April 17, the v1.2 patch fixes the most glaring issues with the game's 3D renderer: the inability to use full-screen antialiasing, and the engine's locked 1024 x 768 resolution. Players may now jump into 2007 and use any resolution, even widescreen selections, without issue (note that SH4 detects and sets the correct aspect ratio for all resolutions, so there's no awkward stretching or shrinking). And while it's not an option in the Graphics Settings, FSAA may be forced via the graphics driver. These two fixes alone make the game much more enjoyable, particularly for those with more capable hardware.

Also of note are general gameplay and bug fixes. Pressing 'A' to maintain depth no longer induces a crash-to-desktop, and high-speed torpedoes will hit their mark without issue (as long as they've been directed accordingly, of course). With this patch, it's clear that Ubisoft is putting a genuine effort into fixing the game and creating a better gameplay experience. But even though the first two patches have come quickly following release, there's no excuse for foisting an unfinished product on customers, particularly when the major bugs should have been detected in even the most cursory of QA sessions. I'm optimistic that Ubisoft will continue to support SH 4, and the dedicated community surrounding the game is to thank for pushing Ubisoft in the right direction.

NEON DEON · 04-21-07, 02:33 PM

Maybe there should be a review board to review the reviews.

maerean_m · 04-21-07, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ark

I thought the review was pretty accurate.

And the rating?

I felt the review to be more positive about the game than the final rating.

Ark · 04-21-07, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maerean_m

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ark

I thought the review was pretty accurate.

And the rating?

I felt the review to be more positive about the game than the final rating.

I believe the final rating is the average of the 4 scores given, rounded up.

A higher "Graphics" score would raise the final rating.

That review is not based on v1.2. If it was, than the "Graphics" score would be much higher.

Steeltrap · 04-21-07, 05:29 PM

I think this is far and away the best review I've read. It gives praise where due, but, most significantly, does NOT excuse the horrendous state of the game upon release.

He says people should not buy it until further patches are released. For the 'casual' user, this is absolutely spot on.
For those who say "but that will stop Ubi ever developing sims" I say if that is the price of stopping them foisting incomplete programmes on unsuspecting consumers then I am 100% OK with that.

Note he also has update the review (as posted by Ark) with very reasonable comments.

Had I read this review I would not have bought the game. Given my experiences with it to date, this is the only review that tells me what I both want and need to know. All the other reviews are wishfull thinking or lightweight by comparison, at least from my perspective. Of course others will disagree, and I totally respect that.

Cheers

p.s. I think Neal was overly charitable to SHIV in his review, but I think what Phunito was trying to imply is absolutely insulting. I have nothing but respect for Neal and what he's created here, and I think he gets too little acknowledgement for it.
Incidentally, if you bother to read the Subsim rules, you'll see it expressly stated that this is a sub sim fan site, so the intention is NOT to bash sims but raise issues to have them corrected. Neal's review is entirely consistant with this philosophy - and he's even straight up about the approach the site takes. I find anything impugning his integrity to be highly offensive and totally unjustified.
Sorry all, but that really ticked me off.....

04-21-07, 05:57 AM	#16
1mPHUNit0 Chief Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 313 Downloads: 60 Uploads: 0	So...YouGamers better than subsimReview? I think yes...but why, they are more skilled? Or there is a missing question about subsim? __________________

04-21-07, 05:59 AM	#17
The General The Old Man Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Mountain Ash, Wales, U.K. Posts: 1,548 Downloads: 188 Uploads: 3	SH4 is a Lemon. I think the review was spot on. I'm sorry to report I have just uninstalled SH4, I find it's many flaws too frustrating. I bought an expensive video card so I could run SH4 at a reasonable rate, I have a 3.4 Gig Processor, 2 Gig of Ram and a 7600 NVIDIA card and there is absolutely no excuse for this game to run as poorly as it does. It is simply badly made. Some people on the developement team did their job. The ship models are fantastic for example and they deserved to put into a sim that was built new from the ground up, not put into an old, already inherently flawed programme. Ubisoft took a gamble (trying to save money and maximise profit) by using the old engine at the core and it just didn't work out. Patch 1.2 made a valiant attempt at saving the day, but it's obvious they can't fix this lemon. __________________ *THE GENERAL*

04-21-07, 09:33 AM	#20
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,385 Downloads: 541 Uploads: 224	He's trying to say I'm bought off. That's untrue, I even bought my own copy of SH4. Ubisoft sent me three copies of the game but I gave them out as prizes. I'm not afraid to say I like the game, despite the bugs. I feel no more pressure from Ubisoft to say the game is GREAT than I do from anonymous forum entities like Phunito to say the game is AWFUL. Btw, I get a lot more pressure from guys like him to join the bash bandwagon that I ever get from game companies. I guess that means Ubisoft has better character than Phunito :rotfl: __________________ SUBSIM - 26 Years on the Web

04-21-07, 02:04 PM	#24
maerean_m Captain Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Bucharest, Romania Posts: 529 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Have you noticed that all screenshots in yougamers' review are from patch 1.2 and yet he talkes about the 3D resolution limitation (in v1.0)? I wish he could make his mind about the version he's reviewing. The review is dated Apr 20th, after the release of patch 1.2. Personally, I think the way Neal gives the score of the game is much more appropriate. We've all seen how good the game looks and yet yougamers gives it a 60. That is completely wrong, no matter how you put it. SH4 looks as good as any 2007 game. Even more, the graphics look great in the correct places with no exageration in any aspect: no useless efects to ruin the experience, just gorgeous boats, modeled to the last nit. The weather effects and the whole experience make you wonder if you're watching Discovery Channel. But no, it's a game and you're in total control of the world. The reviewer should have given it a great mark. This is the mistake all reviewers do this days: there is no place to tell the bad points, only places for good points. So he's forced to give a 60 mark on a game with great graphics. Neal, on the other hand, has able to give an honorable 10 out of 10 and substract 5 points for the game being obviously released too soon. So, good job, Neal . My final conclusion is that review is missleading and the mark will scary gamers away. He's obviously talking about the 1.2 patched version, which deserves better than that 65 mark. I wonder what would be the rating Neal would give to Silent Hunter 4 v1.2 ... __________________ Kilroy was here Last edited by maerean_m; 04-21-07 at 02:20 PM.

04-21-07, 02:33 PM	#27
NEON DEON Ace of the Deep Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 1,207 Downloads: 39 Uploads: 5	Maybe there should be a review board to review the reviews. __________________ Diesel Boats Forever!

04-21-07, 09:50 AM	#21
pocatellodave Engineer Join Date: May 2005 Location: Pocatello,ID Posts: 203 Downloads: 92 Uploads: 0	I have to agree with the review,and I must say I like many others,feel like I've been made into a Beta tester.I still have confidence in the modders,and a little hope in Ubisoft that the wrinkles..et al ..bugs,can be worked out.I can hear the head dev now to bosses,...but it simply isn't ready to go yet!Bosses...sorry we have put all the money we can afford into this project,get it out the door!Head dev says..O.K.,but were going to get crucified.Bosses..so what the modders will fix it,and you can put out a couple of quick patches! This will be the last Ubisoft title I will purchase,and I have bought many of them,until I have read many reviews and I know that it isn't another of their incomplete launches. I in no way want a clash with Subsim,as I think they do a great job,and the dedicated modders have my most sincere thanks and respect. Pocatellodave

04-21-07, 01:47 PM	#23
ronh42 Swabbie Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Florida USA Posts: 9 Downloads: 139 Uploads: 0	Heck maybe I'm too old at 65 to worry about a few minor flaws, I've had much bigger disappointments in life. But ever since patch 1.2 I'm having a ball. As for wasting $50 how many bad meals have you had for that much, while here with a little patience you can have hundreds of hours of enjoyment. Remember guys nothing in life is PERFECT! Thanks to everyone for all the help and great mods, I'm glad I discovered this site.

04-21-07, 02:27 PM	#25
flintlock Ace of the Deep Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,177 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I felt it was a pretty fair and accurate review overall.

04-21-07, 05:29 PM	#30
Steeltrap Grey Wolf Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 818 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	I think this is far and away the best review I've read. It gives praise where due, but, most significantly, does NOT excuse the horrendous state of the game upon release. He says people should not buy it until further patches are released. For the 'casual' user, this is absolutely spot on. For those who say "but that will stop Ubi ever developing sims" I say if that is the price of stopping them foisting incomplete programmes on unsuspecting consumers then I am 100% OK with that. Note he also has update the review (as posted by Ark) with very reasonable comments. Had I read this review I would not have bought the game. Given my experiences with it to date, this is the only review that tells me what I both want and need to know. All the other reviews are wishfull thinking or lightweight by comparison, at least from my perspective. Of course others will disagree, and I totally respect that. Cheers p.s. I think Neal was overly charitable to SHIV in his review, but I think what Phunito was trying to imply is absolutely insulting. I have nothing but respect for Neal and what he's created here, and I think he gets too little acknowledgement for it. Incidentally, if you bother to read the Subsim rules, you'll see it expressly stated that this is a sub sim fan site, so the intention is NOT to bash sims but raise issues to have them corrected. Neal's review is entirely consistant with this philosophy - and he's even straight up about the approach the site takes. I find anything impugning his integrity to be highly offensive and totally unjustified. Sorry all, but that really ticked me off.....