SH4 just plain unappealing!

[dean_acheson]

Well, like the man said, if you think that this game is problematic, you were not around for SH2.

I like SH4, I like it alot. Sure, I had to mess around with my graphic card settings to get it to work right, but after about ten minutes, no problems.

For goodness sakes, there must be a bazillion different types of computer setups, it ain't like making a console game where things are standardized....

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by dean_acheson

Well, like the man said, if you think that this game is problematic, you were not around for SH2.

Remember two years ago, when some were saying "SH3 is a total POS, just like SH2!"? Now they're using SH3 as a benchmark to criticize SH4.

[CaptainAsh]

Actualy I went to SH2 long time after it was out.
Same for SH3 I guess. Was patch 1.2 or 1.3 when I bought it.
As I m really into SH3, I was tempted to buy SHIV right now... with all I can read I can tell it doesn t look like a good idea.

[7Enigma]

Originally Posted by fredbass

Wrong - The reasons are based on agreements, budget and deadlines made and set at the beginning of development.

And I would be willing to bet you if they received the proper bad press for releasing such an unfinished product, and thus also receiving poor sales figures, this trend would change. Gamers buy games based on 4 main factors:

1. The media blitz gets their attention and they buy based on hype

2. Review sites that say yay/nay

3. Friends/family/peers

4. Demo's or pirated versions

Businesses like money, plain and simple. They look at the bottom line. If you can release a product that is unfinished and reap very similar profits than holding off for a couple more months to get the job done right, every business person out there will push the product out early.

When you have review after review praising a game while brushing over the severe bugs or mentioning in passing I see a major problem there. What I would love is to have someone step up to the plate and flatly score a product. If there are CTD and savegame flaws prevalent, that game should NOT receive over a 5/10. I don't care if its the best, most revolutionary gameplay ever created. If its reviewed on release, as purchased in the store or sent from a manufacturer, that's the game. No, "we've been told by UBI that a patch is in the works that will fix these minor issues". Just, "Sorry, this game failed to meet a minimum criteria of acceptability".

Maybe I'm asking too much, but maybe, just maybe, we've all been slowly brainwashed into thinking this current "norm" is acceptable.

[7Enigma]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Remember two years ago, when some were saying "SH3 is a total POS, just like SH2!"? Now they're using SH3 as a benchmark to criticize SH4.

That could be more telling then it sounds at first glance....

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by 7Enigma

And I would be willing to bet you if they received the proper bad press for releasing such an unfinished product, and thus also receiving poor sales figures, this trend would change. Gamers buy games based on 4 main factors:

1. The media blitz gets their attention and they buy based on hype

2. Review sites that say yay/nay

3. Friends/family/peers

4. Demo's or pirated versions

Businesses like money, plain and simple. They look at the bottom line. If you can release a product that is unfinished and reap very similar profits than holding off for a couple more months to get the job done right, every business person out there will push the product out early.

When you have review after review praising a game while brushing over the severe bugs or mentioning in passing I see a major problem there. What I would love is to have someone step up to the plate and flatly score a product. If there are CTD and savegame flaws prevalent, that game should NOT receive over a 5/10. I don't care if its the best, most revolutionary gameplay ever created. If its reviewed on release, as purchased in the store or sent from a manufacturer, that's the game. No, "we've been told by UBI that a patch is in the works that will fix these minor issues". Just, "Sorry, this game failed to meet a minimum criteria of acceptability".

Maybe I'm asking too much, but maybe, just maybe, we've all been slowly brainwashed into thinking this current "norm" is acceptable.

In the abstract what you say is correct, but how do you deal with the following real world scenario.

- Business Affairs meets with the Developers and agrees upon a release date.

- Marketing books ads in Trade magazines, reserves shelf space in stores worldwide, schedules interviews, create ad copy, schedules previews with major sites and publications and generally does their job. All of this is cancellable, but some will incur financial penalties.

- Distribution books production time with several DVD Replication Shops worldwide to assure prodct is available. Cancellable, but with financial penalties.

- Maunfacturing books time to create, manufacture and ship DVD cases, with jackets, to DVD houses to conicide with the finish of the burn process. Cancellable, but with financial penalties.

- Shipping companies are contracted to get the product to retailers. Cancellable, but with financial penalties.

- Printers are booked to produce manuals and game inserts and arrangements are made to have them shipped to the fulfillment houses at the same time the DVDs and other packaging arrives. Cancellable, but with financial penalties.

- release dates are sent out to on-line store who begin taking pre-orders based on the ship date Marketing has provided.

And then

- The developers discover that there is no way in hell that the product can be ready in time for the release date that was agreed to about a year ago.

If you cancel the entire chain of events, aside from the financial penalties that you would incur, you have to re-set the chain, which means you have to pull resources off other, probably more profitable projects. As well you are going to have a lot of negative press about your inability to hit your ship dates (SH3 and the Dynamic Campaign delay anyone?).

As to the financial penalties, you have not budgeted for them, so that cost has to come from somewhere. Where? You can't say "from increased sales of a better project" becuase if you go to any Project Manager anywhere with that statement you will be laughed out of the room, and rightfully so. You don't make financial projections based on "Gee Whiz, guys... it'll be great!".

Again, in the abstract it would be great if deadlines for a bug free product could be predicted a year in advance so that none of this would happen, but in reality thats not the way the world works.

JCC

[Tobus]

Originally Posted by 7Enigma

And I would be willing to bet you if they received the proper bad press for releasing such an unfinished product, and thus also receiving poor sales figures, this trend would change. Gamers buy games based on 4 main factors:

1. The media blitz gets their attention and they buy based on hype

2. Review sites that say yay/nay

3. Friends/family/peers

4. Demo's or pirated versions

Well, most reviews I have seen are rating top-notch for SH4. Only Yougamer has rated mediocre (65%) because of all the bugs, stating the the game is just not finished. It makes you wonder why other reviewers write such startlingly praising reviews. Is this because they don't understand their jobs? Or is it that most of their sites and mags are sponsored bigtime (via commercials and sneak-previews) by the same publishers of the games they review?

Otherwise, we have all bought the game, wether it is finished or not. Knowing that, it probably doesn't matter to UBI, since sales figures are there, good game or broken game. The only difference then is timing: making the budgetyear and expanding revenue. We gamers feel cheated, but UBI won't feel that in its cash-register.

Originally Posted by CaptainAsh

I m a big fan of SH3 and was tempted to buy SHIV of course but read a lot here on the game. Honnestly, you re scary people
It s impossible for me to buy the game right now with all you said.
So what s the logic thing to do?
Search for a demo of course! So I can see if it s that bad...
Here is the issue... I can t find any demo?!?!?!? Is UBI so worry about the quality of the software to avoid publishing a demo and just hopping some people will buy the game without testing it first?

This is exactly why I post what I do. I would highly suggest you do not purchase SH4 til its in a playable state...if thats possible.

Whatever fun SH4 offers is drown in a sea of bugs, poor design, and just plan frustration.

Youll have fun playing for about 20 minutes, then your be enraged as you understand you just got snookered.

[tycho102]

Originally Posted by John Channing

In the abstract what you say is correct, but how do you deal with the following real world scenario.

- Business Affairs meets with the Developers and agrees upon a release date.

- Marketing books ads in Trade magazines, reserves shelf space in stores worldwide, schedules interviews, create ad copy, schedules previews with major sites and publications and generally does their job. All of this is cancellable, but some will incur financial penalties.

- release dates are sent out to on-line store who begin taking pre-orders based on the ship date Marketing has provided.

I would take off and nuke the entire marketing division from orbit. Twice.
It's the only way to be sure.




/they're all a bunch of lushes, anyway

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by Tobus

Well, most reviews I have seen are rating top-notch for SH4. Only Yougamer has rated mediocre (65%) because of all the bugs, stating the the game is just not finished. It makes you wonder why other reviewers write such startlingly praising reviews. Is this because they don't understand their jobs? Or is it that most of their sites and mags are sponsored bigtime (via commercials and sneak-previews) by the same publishers of the games they review?

It's not always a conspiracy, you know. Different people look for different things in their examinations of a product. Even the release version looked fantastic on my system, so if a reviewer weighted graphics heavilly they would naturally give it a higher review.

The "A" crash was not introduced until 1.1, so, if they reviewed it out of the box, that would not be an issue.

The "torpedo drag" problem could have easily been missed due to an unfamiliarity with the manual targeting process (not unlike what actually happened in the early months of 1941).

In the case of this review there were a number of errors that highlighted the fact that the reviewer was not overly familiar with the mechanics of the game... but he included them anyway. I don't hear anyone crying that the review was rushed out!

A great many of the 'bugs" that people reported (and continue to report) are turning out to be siutations where they think SH4 acts the same as SH3... which is clearly not the case (the repeating objective "bug" for instance).

Another sizeable amount of "bugs" is turning out to be as a result of people friggin' with the .exe, or using illegally downloaded versions. Not really the developer's fault is it?

But, as I've said a million times, I am not saying the game was released in a finished state, or that there isn't more work to be done. Far from it. But if people are going to take the responsibiliuyt to review a product, they should take that responsibility seriously enough to actually spend the amount of time with it that it requires to get really familiar with it, before passing judgement.

JCC

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by tycho102

/they're all a bunch of lushes, anyway

And they speak so highly of you...

[7Enigma]

Originally Posted by John Channing

In the abstract what you say is correct, but how do you deal with the following real world scenario.

1 Business Affairs meets with the Developers and agrees upon a release date.

2 Marketing books ads in Trade magazines, reserves shelf space in stores worldwide, schedules interviews, create ad copy, schedules previews with major sites and publications and generally does their job. All of this is cancellable, but some will incur financial penalties.

3 Distribution books production time with several DVD Replication Shops worldwide to assure prodct is available. Cancellable, but with financial penalties.

4 Maunfacturing books time to create, manufacture and ship DVD cases, with jackets, to DVD houses to conicide with the finish of the burn process. Cancellable, but with financial penalties.

5 Shipping companies are contracted to get the product to retailers. Cancellable, but with financial penalties.

6 Printers are booked to produce manuals and game inserts and arrangements are made to have them shipped to the fulfillment houses at the same time the DVDs and other packaging arrives. Cancellable, but with financial penalties.

7 release dates are sent out to on-line store who begin taking pre-orders based on the ship date Marketing has provided.

And then

- The developers discover that there is no way in hell that the product can be ready in time for the release date that was agreed to about a year ago.

If you cancel the entire chain of events, aside from the financial penalties that you would incur, you have to re-set the chain, which means you have to pull resources off other, probably more profitable projects. As well you are going to have a lot of negative press about your inability to hit your ship dates (SH3 and the Dynamic Campaign delay anyone?).

As to the financial penalties, you have not budgeted for them, so that cost has to come from somewhere. Where? You can't say "from increased sales of a better project" becuase if you go to any Project Manager anywhere with that statement you will be laughed out of the room, and rightfully so. You don't make financial projections based on "Gee Whiz, guys... it'll be great!".

Again, in the abstract it would be great if deadlines for a bug free product could be predicted a year in advance so that none of this would happen, but in reality thats not the way the world works.

JCC

I changed your dashes to numbers for easier replying:

1. Rather then a fixed date (which IMO is almost 100% of the time missed) a date RANGE should be implemented (ie Q1, or first 1/2 of the year). Gives more flexibility to the project while still pinning down a BY NOW date. If 6 months prior to release its clear there is no chance for an acceptable product to be released, push it back, not a month, not a week, 3 months. If only Blizzard and Stardock were the norm...I know I know they're only mildly popular small companies with a small following of gamers, and barely making a profit.

2. A month or two delay should not greatly impact this point. Just look at how far in advance we've been seeing the previews for Spiderman 3.

3. This one you're going to have to eat. There's no easy explaination for it (unless you have a supplimental disk/CD added later to apply a patch (I've seen this before but it was a long time ago). Clearly in that case the "GOLD" copy was made and then they further fixed some problems and put it on a 3.5" floppy (I think it was a chopper sim...Commanche?) I gained a LOT of respect for this company at the time.

4. Store em'. Simple, relatively cheap, and effective. I really can't imagine a warehouse is all that expensive in the grand scheme of things.

5. I don't see how this is much of a factor. Contact FedEx and say its coming next month.

6. Store em' with #4.

7. If I had a nickel for every time a game's release date changed I would be FAR richer and more sane then I am today (worked for 5 years at an EB store). I very might well still be on the pre-order for Team Fortress 2......Plus trust me, online retailers will not feel bad about taking your money ahead of time even if it gets pushed back and some pull their money. Most just curse and say when's it coming out now (HL1 and 2, Diablo1 and 2, Falcon 4.0, Warcraft (any of them), I could go on all day with how many times I had to look up the current "release" date)

Bottom line is those are all valid points you made, but compromise past a certain point is not acceptable. Releasing SH4 without AA support was a bummer, but had no impact on the game itself. Adding that as a feature (rather then calling it a patch) after release I can find somewhat acceptable. There's your anti-piracy move. Initial cracked release goes out without AA followed by an update threw UBI's servers that gives AA access. Yes it will be cracked as well and on the net by morning but its a better implementation then trying to program your game to recognize a pirated version and screw up legit copies (see any game released with Starforce and some Securom titles). I've heard enough issues with members on this board with supposed legit copies getting some of the glitches that are copy protections. <-----Those guys laugh at that. And that just infuriates me even more when you can guarantee programmers were taken off the job at hand to implement these failed attempts at preventing pirating.

Now, when you release a game that has rampant OBVIOUS glitches from the first day of play, I call foul. And I keep hearing how not everyone is having problems, game works perfect for them, etc. So for all of those singing the praises, here's my smoking gun:

-Load up a new campaign and steam right into a convoy of ships. Launch a couple of torps at a ship or two for good measure. Make sure at least one is sunk or damaged. Save your game. Reload your game. Point made.

[John Channing]

Originally Posted by 7Enigma

-Load up a new campaign and steam right into a convoy of ships. Launch a couple of torps at a ship or two for good measure. Make sure at least one is sunk or damaged. Save your game. Reload your game. Point made.

I did exactly that last night. I had come across a Task Force who were riding out a storm in the Celebs Sea. I set up on a light Cruiser, put three torps into her and sent her to the bottom. Dinner bell rang so off to eat I go, having saved the mission. I re-started a couple of hours later and proceeded to send a Destroyer full of digital Japanese sailors off to meet their digital ancestors.

What did I miss?

JCC

[7Enigma]

Originally Posted by John Channing

I did exactly that last night. I had come across a Task Force who were riding out a storm in the Celebs Sea. I set up on a light Cruiser, put three torps into her and sent her to the bottom. Dinner bell rang so off to eat I go, having saved the mission. I re-started a couple of hours later and proceeded to send a Destroyer full of digital Japanese sailors off to meet their digital ancestors.

What did I miss?

JCC

The part where the light Cruiser is still there, the whole convoy has disappeared or moved to a different location, your crew is suddenly wounded, ect. I now follow the "7-step" guide to getting a savegame to reload exactly how it was left:

1. No ships nearby.

2. Not close to a crew change.

3. Not submerged.

4. Not moving.

5. On the map screen.

6. Holding my breath.

7. Praying?

OK those last 2 were my own additions but you get the idea. This is a holdover from SH3 with load issues and I've seen quite a few dandy one's myself. I'm happy for you that your reload worked fine.

[NEON DEON]

The only problem I have seen with saves is if I reload while in the middle of the game.

If I save and quit to main menu or exit and come back and reload the saved game I have no problems.