What have we learned?

[mookiemookie]

These are just some random thoughts that I had while thinking about the state of SH5.

Silent Hunter 3 was built from the ground up. Sure, it had its bugs, and sure it needed some work when it was released, but I don't recall it having serious game-breaking issues. Empty harbors? No biggie - If you're a realism oriented player you shouldn't be raiding them anyways. Collisions with DD's not realistic? Sure, not realistic, but not a game breaker. The TDC worked, the AI was dumb but could be easily tweaked, and life was good.

Silent Hunter 4 was built on top of the SH3 framework - the devs added some sorely needed features. However, this came at the expense of crippling, game-breaking bugs - remember the quick exit to Windows "A" key bug? The stadimeter bug? The torpedo speed bug? Radars not acting like real radars did? The CO2 bug? Broken stopwatches?

Now comes SH5 - and many of SH4's bugs are still present, along with some new ones. The AI is still dumb (planes fly right over me without acknowledging me at all - hell, they may as well wiggle their wings at me for as much as they do about me being there.), the CO2 bug is still there, the stadimeter is still broke and our new vaunted "RPG crew" system has a host of bugs all its own. It's like the mistakes of SH4 have been recreated, and then compounded by a boatload of new bugs.

When will there be a new SH built from the ground up? When will the mistakes of legacy SH titles be washed away. When are they going to throw out the old code and bugs, and start fresh? If you're building a house on a foundation that's all rickety, it doesn't matter what you add to the house, it's still going to be rickety at the core. Instead of going back through two titles worth of bugs to get a feature working, why don't we just start over and create something right the first time?

Granted, I'm not in the software industry. I don't know how development cycles work. I don't know what mandates the project managers at Ubi give the dev team. But wouldn't it make sense to build a stable game to start with instead of trying to tack something on to a base that's flawed to begin with?

I fear we'll never get the chance to find out. Unless there are some miracles performed by patches to come, I think this game may be the death knell for the series.

[Turbografx]

Yeah, I find it amazing that there are bugs that have carried over from SH3. Five years pass and still the same bugs (e.g. underwater crew).

[codmander]

well said.. someone needs to start from scratch.... soo glad I didnt buy this puppy

[Overboard]

To the op, There Not going to, How many SH games have to come out befor you realise this DUH!!.. Dam".
What are you lost or just dreaming.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Overboard

To the op, There Not going to, How many SH games have to come out befor you realise this DUH!!.. Dam".
What are you lost or just dreaming.

Next time don't type anything. You'll save the wear and tear on your keyboard and will have added just as much to the discussion.

[Overboard]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Next time don't type anything. You'll save the wear and tear on your keyboard and will have added just as much to the discussion.

Nah..Your just kidding"

[Iron Budokan]

Very well said and thoughtful post. You make an excellent argument about comparing the subsequent iterations of this game to a house with a rickety foundation.

It's not like Ubi hasn't known about the bugs in question from /3 to /4 and now to /5. There really is no defensible argument they can give as to why the same ones continue to appear with every subsequent release of this game.

It's obviously a conscious decision on their part not to correct these glaring oversights, the same oversights and bugs that have plagued this series through many iterations. Which begs the question...WHY have they not fixed these things?

I'm afraid we will never have an answer to that one.

[Ducimus]

When will there be a new SH built from the ground up? When will the mistakes of legacy SH titles be washed away. When are they going to throw out the old code and bugs, and start fresh?

Realistic answer. Probably never. I'm surmising that existing code was used to save on costs and development time, and im also guessing that these projects not only have a deadlne, but a budget to stay within. SH3, is probably the last sub sim built from the ground up (at least im guessing it was). Were up to Sh5 now, so i think its a safe bet to say that If Ubi was going to develop a new sub sim from the ground up, they would have done it already. Then there's also the very distinct possibility that SH5 will be the last one made. I really doubt we'll see a SH6.

[Adriatico]

GWX4 was the only solution... It should hve been started 6-8 months earlier...

We would have a modern simulation to play... and Devs&moders another 12-16 months to make the sim out of this...

***
Many members were deligted to have x+1 version of GWX3 and keep the wolves occupied on chewing "dead body" - for a months and months and months...


When I heard that GWX 4 is recalled due to new project... I had a feeeling that I had to swallow a rattlesnake

If, in era of SH4, polishing GWX3 was OK > what is so wrong with release of GWX4 - with SH5 in kindergarten ???

[THE_MASK]

I can see much potential in the modding of SH5 but if the same bugs are going to be there that i hated in SH3/4 then i give up .

[corvette k225]

Have learned not to be in a big rush to buy it yet.

[JScones]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Granted, I'm not in the software industry. I don't know how development cycles work. I don't know what mandates the project managers at Ubi give the dev team. But wouldn't it make sense to build a stable game to start with instead of trying to tack something on to a base that's flawed to begin with?

I'll sum up my thoughts on the Silent Hunter series (SH3/4/5) with one picture...