(Rant) More focus on gameplay, less on graphics

09-07-06, 03:31 AM

I am seeing more and more games being released these days that have beautiful graphics, but poor gameplay. Why are so many people on this board so concerned about having even prettier graphics in SH4 when SH3 gameplay was released half finished? There are so many things STILL missing or broken in SH3, I don't even know where to begin. But some big ones are:

-realistic u-boat repair times was left out (1 or 2 minute repair times, EVERY time?)
-poor enemy ship ai
-instant death screens (arcadish)
-instant death screen when compartment completely floods (omg, why?)
-broken collision damage model
-missing Hudson aircraft, which was common (a modder fixed this)
-sometimes cannot sit at the bottom of seabed to repair without taking damage at high time compression.
-u-boat crew rarely wounded, usually killed instead.
-cannot sit on seabed bottom without being pinged and detected (this is wrong, developers!)
-horrible and tedious crew management.
-no ability to surrender in campaign game (I can't believe they left this out)
-STILL no SH3 SDK released (this is a big one)

-and many other things not listed here.

Us modders have done everything we can to fix this broken game (SH3), but we have had to find half-a$$ed work arounds because UBI has decided to not release the SDK (so we can fix the broken game correctly). Why not, UBI? And a lot of the broken or missing features are hard-coded, so they cannot be fixed without the SDK. Releasing the SDK to allow us to mod- tweak the game would actually increase the popularity and customer loyalty to SH3. Do you not understand this?

Anyone remember Red Baron 3-d or Aces of the Deep? I do. Yes, they had average graphics and also had things wrong with gameplay, but at least Dynamix tried to give the games character and atmosphere. Like if you were killed in action, afterwards it would show a newspaper article showing that your boat was missing. Or in Red Baron 3-d, if you crashed behind enemy lines, there was a chance that you could make it back to your side. Or if you were captured, there was a chance that you could escapre before the war ended, and start flying again. Why all the focus these days on pretty graphics with poor, unfinished, or unrealistic (arcadish) gameplay? I just don't get it.

Pretty graphics mean nothing without realistic, fun, working gameplay.

Immacolata · 09-07-06, 03:41 AM

I remember a vast amount of games with average graphics and poor gameplay during the years. I think your memory is a tad selective. And realism is highly overrated for entertainment value. In some games, such as SH3, yes, it has its merits, but there are plenty of games where realism is an unwelcome dullard at the party.

Now Ill tell you this much: I doubt I would have played SH3 as much as I did without the ability to stand on the tower and watch the waves break over my prow as I stalked another convoy on the atlantic. Graphics are important. Or we might as well just play tetris the lot of us.

09-07-06, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immacolata

I remember a vast amount of games with average graphics and poor gameplay during the years. I think your memory is a tad selective. And realism is highly overrated for entertainment value. In some games, such as SH3, yes, it has its merits, but there are plenty of games where realism is an unwelcome dullard at the party.

Now Ill tell you this much: I doubt I would have played SH3 as much as I did without the ability to stand on the tower and watch the waves break over my prow as I stalked another convoy on the atlantic. Graphics are important. Or we might as well just play tetris the lot of us.

I am talking about games like SH3, that are supposed to simulate something in real life. I'll say it again, pretty graphics in a simulation mean nothing without good, realistic gameplay. So many small (but important) details were left out or are broken in SH3. If us modders could have access to the SDK, we could fix the problems. That much is sure.

Immacolata · 09-07-06, 03:47 AM

Well really realistic simulation with poor graphics won't fly either. We want it all.

This somehow reminds me of this very apropros Penny Arcade comic.

09-07-06, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Immacolata

Well really realistic simulation with poor graphics won't fly either. We want it all.

This somehow reminds me of this very apropros Penny Arcade comic.

**Sigh** I still think you don't understand what I am trying to say. Yes, graphics do matter. But more and more games are being released half-finished because there is too much focus on pretty graphics and not enough focus on realism or gameplay. Haven't you ever heard the word 'gameplay'? Pretty graphics is not the same as good gameplay. ADOM is a good example, where the focus is on amazing detail and incredibly hard gameplay with almost no graphics.

Safe-Keeper · 09-07-06, 05:00 AM

I think it's sad, too. So many people look only at graphics and not game-play.

My favourite games as of now are Pat Proctor's simulations (look for, among other, BCT Commander, Raging Tiger, and The Star and the Crescent www.shrapnelgames.com), Silent Hunter III, Dominions II (still Shrapnel Games), Out of Order (www.hungrysoftware.com), and X-Com: UFO Defence (Microprose).

Out of all those games, only Out of Order and Silent Hunter III have reasonably good graphics. I still like the rest of them.

Take the wonderful Dominions series. The graphics are outright horrible, but after a short while you stop caring, since the game is so massive (Dominions III will have 1500+ units), the atmosphere so incredibly deep and immersive, and the game-play so incredibly good. If the duo creating the series announced Dominions IV would have state-of-the-art 3D graphics, I would be very disappointed, as it'd mean the rest of the game would suffer greatly.

That's not to say graphics don't add to the game. They do. They just don't really add that much. So by all means, make Silent Hunter IV beautiful. But please, let the focus be on game-play. If that means some models have to be low-res like the planes in Silent Hunter III, so be it.

Quote:

And realism is highly overrated for entertainment value. In some games, such as SH3, yes, it has its merits, but there are plenty of games where realism is an unwelcome dullard at the party.

It depends on what the realism is. I'm tired of generalizing people going "Gameplay>Realism". It's like saying "Good food>Chinese Food", it's an incredibly broad generalization that serves no purpose whatsoever.

Quote:

Now Ill tell you this much: I doubt I would have played SH3 as much as I did without the ability to stand on the tower and watch the waves break over my prow as I stalked another convoy on the atlantic. Graphics are important.

But do those graphics have to be state-of-the-art?

Quote:

Or we might as well just play tetris the lot of us.

Too unrealistic:p.

Onkel Neal · 09-07-06, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvdrifter

Us modders have done everything we can to fix this broken game (SH3), but we have had to find half-a$$ed work arounds because UBI has decided to not release the SDK (so we can fix the broken game correctly). Why not, UBI? And a lot of the broken or missing features are hard-coded, so they cannot be fixed without the SDK. Releasing the SDK to allow us to mod- tweak the game would actually increase the popularity and customer loyalty to SH3. Do you not understand this?

Why don't you make your own game? You talented guys should not be depending on slobs like Ubisoft to make the core game.

You make the game, let someone else do the hard modding part.

Hylander_1314 · 09-07-06, 09:34 AM

Why not put a Dev Group together like GW did, but work with UBI like the guys / girls did for The Battle of Britain. They really made the game shine and once Shockwave added the modern day graphics among other things, it's now a superb game to play.

The catch was, that Rowan retained all the rights to anything added or improved on, so if they wished to repackage the game and re-issue it for sale, they could without the headaches.

So the cost is, that you enhance and fix things, but UBI can re-sell the game as a new version without asking anyones permission, if they so choose. It may even be possible for the talented folks here to work out some sort of compensation for their efforts if the game goes on the market again. I think that was also done with BoB, for the second incarnation.

09-07-06, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Quote:

Originally Posted by nvdrifter

Us modders have done everything we can to fix this broken game (SH3), but we have had to find half-a$$ed work arounds because UBI has decided to not release the SDK (so we can fix the broken game correctly). Why not, UBI? And a lot of the broken or missing features are hard-coded, so they cannot be fixed without the SDK. Releasing the SDK to allow us to mod- tweak the game would actually increase the popularity and customer loyalty to SH3. Do you not understand this?

Why don't you make your own game? You talented guys should not be depending on slobs like Ubisoft to make the core game.

You make the game, let someone else do the hard modding part.

Oh yeah, I forgot that we're not supposed to criticize Ubisoft in this forum.

Nevermind. All the problems with SH3 was just my imagination.

Onkel Neal · 09-07-06, 10:01 AM

No, you can criticize Ubi, but in my opinion, sometimes it seems like the things done right with a game are overlooked. I guess it's that "glass half full/glass half empty" things, drifter. I think the mods have been utterly fantastic, but I also think SH3 was a true jump forward in subsims. Maybe since you spend a lot of time and work trying to improve SH3, you see it differently than me.

Modding a game like SH3 is like editing Hugo or Cervantes. Without the original work, there wouldn't be much to start with.

09-07-06, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

No, you can criticize Ubi, but in my opinion, sometimes it seems like the things done right with a game are overlooked. I guess it's that "glass half full/glass half empty" things, drifter. I think the mods have been utterly fantastic, but I also think SH3 was a true jump forward in subsims. Maybe since you spend a lot of time and work trying to improve SH3, you see it differently than me.

Modding a game like SH3 is like editing Hugo or Cervantes. Without the original work, there wouldn't be much to start with.

Of course a lot of things were done right in SH3, and I do realize that there were some groundbreaking things introduced into SH3. I appreciate the hard work the devs put into the game. It's an awesome game that I love dearly (when I try desperately to overlook all the glaring things that are wrong in the game). But that doesn't mean we shouldn't criticize the these things that are wrong with it. Should we say nothing and hope they don't make the same mistakes in SH4? :p I guess it has a lot to do with the frustrations some of us modders are having is trying to fix what isn't right in SH3. But unfortunately we can fix very few things because most of the problems are hard-coded. We usually end up hitting a brick wall. Oh how I wish they would release that SDK.

TDK1044 · 09-07-06, 11:21 AM

Yeah. I really don't see it as a battle of the graphics guys versus the gameplay guys. Both elements are integral to the enjoyment of the game. I just want SH1V to be a great subsim that corrects the gameplay errors of SH111 and improves the crew management element of the game. If they want to bump up the graphics....fine, but to me the SH111 graphics were fine. I'd rather not have to add more RAM to my system in order to run SH1V.

tycho102 · 09-08-06, 02:38 PM

I also think the developers should take the SH3 graphics engine, fix the significant bugs with it, and use it to make SH4. The graphics are good enough as they are.

The focus needs to be on the interface and game engine. I would very much like to have a tremendous amount of "historical" bulletins and directives as part of the campaign. Missions with frog-men/UDT would be interesting, but not absolutely necessary.

I would also like to see the graphic engine split off from the AI, so the people with dual-core processors can get some use out of them. This would also significantly improve game performance.

kylania · 09-08-06, 02:48 PM

The other thing to remember is us.

Well, not all of us but the us that made the wonderful mods! The devs won't have to put everything into SH4. All they really need do to is make a beautiful, exciting, easy to get into sub game that mass markets can appreciate and enjoy.

Than comes the community. As long as the devs have built for us the tools and framework to extend the game to the levels of SH3 (and beyond hopefully!) anything "lacking" from SH4 will quickly be added, improved and created out of thin air by the players. That's the magic of this system. The devs make a product, and let us do with it what we will. We can make it as real or as gamey as we want.

So there will be room in SH4 for the gamers and the grognards both I'm sure.

09-09-06, 10:01 PM

Subsim: What other improvements can the players expect?

SH4 Dev Team: The most striking improvements will be in the graphics department, where the water and weather have gained a facelift. The ships are totally out of this world, so to speak. Multi-channel rendering with normal and occlusion maps, combined with higher poly counts and larger textures have greatly improved the look of our game.

09-07-06, 03:31 AM	#1
nvdrifter Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	(Rant) More focus on gameplay, less on graphics I am seeing more and more games being released these days that have beautiful graphics, but poor gameplay. Why are so many people on this board so concerned about having even prettier graphics in SH4 when SH3 gameplay was released half finished? There are so many things STILL missing or broken in SH3, I don't even know where to begin. But some big ones are: -realistic u-boat repair times was left out (1 or 2 minute repair times, EVERY time?) -poor enemy ship ai -instant death screens (arcadish) -instant death screen when compartment completely floods (omg, why?) -broken collision damage model -missing Hudson aircraft, which was common (a modder fixed this) -sometimes cannot sit at the bottom of seabed to repair without taking damage at high time compression. -u-boat crew rarely wounded, usually killed instead. -cannot sit on seabed bottom without being pinged and detected (this is wrong, developers!) -horrible and tedious crew management. -no ability to surrender in campaign game (I can't believe they left this out) -STILL no SH3 SDK released (this is a big one) -and many other things not listed here. Us modders have done everything we can to fix this broken game (SH3), but we have had to find half-a$$ed work arounds because UBI has decided to not release the SDK (so we can fix the broken game correctly). Why not, UBI? And a lot of the broken or missing features are hard-coded, so they cannot be fixed without the SDK. Releasing the SDK to allow us to mod- tweak the game would actually increase the popularity and customer loyalty to SH3. Do you not understand this? Anyone remember Red Baron 3-d or Aces of the Deep? I do. Yes, they had average graphics and also had things wrong with gameplay, but at least Dynamix tried to give the games character and atmosphere. Like if you were killed in action, afterwards it would show a newspaper article showing that your boat was missing. Or in Red Baron 3-d, if you crashed behind enemy lines, there was a chance that you could make it back to your side. Or if you were captured, there was a chance that you could escapre before the war ended, and start flying again. Why all the focus these days on pretty graphics with poor, unfinished, or unrealistic (arcadish) gameplay? I just don't get it. Pretty graphics mean nothing without realistic, fun, working gameplay. Last edited by nvdrifter; 09-07-06 at 03:48 AM.

09-07-06, 09:34 AM	#8
Hylander_1314 Sea Lord Join Date: May 2006 Location: 5 Miles Inland West Of Lake Huron Posts: 1,936 Downloads: 139 Uploads: 0	Why not put a Dev Group together like GW did, but work with UBI like the guys / girls did for The Battle of Britain. They really made the game shine and once Shockwave added the modern day graphics among other things, it's now a superb game to play. The catch was, that Rowan retained all the rights to anything added or improved on, so if they wished to repackage the game and re-issue it for sale, they could without the headaches. So the cost is, that you enhance and fix things, but UBI can re-sell the game as a new version without asking anyones permission, if they so choose. It may even be possible for the talented folks here to work out some sort of compensation for their efforts if the game goes on the market again. I think that was also done with BoB, for the second incarnation. __________________ A legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law. -John Marshall Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ---------------------

09-08-06, 02:38 PM	#13
tycho102 Ace of the Deep Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,100 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	I also think the developers should take the SH3 graphics engine, fix the significant bugs with it, and use it to make SH4. The graphics are good enough as they are. The focus needs to be on the interface and game engine. I would very much like to have a tremendous amount of "historical" bulletins and directives as part of the campaign. Missions with frog-men/UDT would be interesting, but not absolutely necessary. I would also like to see the graphic engine split off from the AI, so the people with dual-core processors can get some use out of them. This would also significantly improve game performance. __________________ My little Silent Hunter 4 repository

09-08-06, 02:48 PM	#14
kylania Silent Hunter Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 3,528 Downloads: 118 Uploads: 0	The other thing to remember is us. Well, not all of us but the us that made the wonderful mods! The devs won't have to put everything into SH4. All they really need do to is make a beautiful, exciting, easy to get into sub game that mass markets can appreciate and enjoy. Than comes the community. As long as the devs have built for us the tools and framework to extend the game to the levels of SH3 (and beyond hopefully!) anything "lacking" from SH4 will quickly be added, improved and created out of thin air by the players. That's the magic of this system. The devs make a product, and let us do with it what we will. We can make it as real or as gamey as we want. So there will be room in SH4 for the gamers and the grognards both I'm sure. __________________

09-07-06, 03:41 AM	#2
Immacolata Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 798 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	I remember a vast amount of games with average graphics and poor gameplay during the years. I think your memory is a tad selective. And realism is highly overrated for entertainment value. In some games, such as SH3, yes, it has its merits, but there are plenty of games where realism is an unwelcome dullard at the party. Now Ill tell you this much: I doubt I would have played SH3 as much as I did without the ability to stand on the tower and watch the waves break over my prow as I stalked another convoy on the atlantic. Graphics are important. Or we might as well just play tetris the lot of us.

09-07-06, 03:47 AM	#4
Immacolata Grey Wolf Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 798 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 0	Well really realistic simulation with poor graphics won't fly either. We want it all. This somehow reminds me of this very apropros Penny Arcade comic.

09-07-06, 10:01 AM	#10
Onkel Neal Born to Run Silent Join Date: Jan 1997 Location: Cougar Trap, Texas Posts: 21,385 Downloads: 541 Uploads: 224	No, you can criticize Ubi, but in my opinion, sometimes it seems like the things done right with a game are overlooked. I guess it's that "glass half full/glass half empty" things, drifter. I think the mods have been utterly fantastic, but I also think SH3 was a true jump forward in subsims. Maybe since you spend a lot of time and work trying to improve SH3, you see it differently than me. Modding a game like SH3 is like editing Hugo or Cervantes. Without the original work, there wouldn't be much to start with.

09-07-06, 11:21 AM	#12
TDK1044 Ocean Warrior Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 2,674 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	Yeah. I really don't see it as a battle of the graphics guys versus the gameplay guys. Both elements are integral to the enjoyment of the game. I just want SH1V to be a great subsim that corrects the gameplay errors of SH111 and improves the crew management element of the game. If they want to bump up the graphics....fine, but to me the SH111 graphics were fine. I'd rather not have to add more RAM to my system in order to run SH1V.

09-09-06, 10:01 PM	#15
nvdrifter Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	Subsim: What other improvements can the players expect? SH4 Dev Team: The most striking improvements will be in the graphics department, where the water and weather have gained a facelift. The ships are totally out of this world, so to speak. Multi-channel rendering with normal and occlusion maps, combined with higher poly counts and larger textures have greatly improved the look of our game.