SUBSIM: Silent Hunter 5 review (17/03/10)

[TarJak]

Neal, Thanks very much for your open and honest opinion. Reading your review makes my decision not to buy this game even more justfied than simply not wanting to have the OSP yoke of oppression around the games neck.

It will be a bargain bin purchase in the future for me. Hope it won't take too long for the purchase to be justifiable.

[Tarnsman]

Great review.
I actually had the game in my hands today and sadly decided to wait. Not because of its bugs and shortcommings not even the DRM ( I have a constant stable DSL line). But most of all due to the Ubi server problems. It was really a stupid idea and I bet a bunch of people in the boardroom thought so too, but didnt say anything. It smacks of a "corporate decision".

Also, did Corporate think nobody whould notice that the game was buggy as soon as they tried to play it? Did they really earn the profits they expected by making this deadline? I doubt it.

On Amazon SH5 is getting one star reviews. Damn near everybody reads user revews these days. SH4 and SH3 4 stars on Amazon.
On subsim Sh3 got a 100% on its initial review.
Nuff said.

[Safe-Keeper]

Except from the fact that most of "Corporate America" consists of small businesses barely keeping their heads above the water, I agree with you. Then again, I've got next to no knowledge of economics, and based on previous threads on these forums, I've come to realize that sometimes you just have to release games this way.

[neilbyrne]

Thanks for the terrific review. Based on UbiSoft's previous track record of premature release and then multiple patches, I'll wait a while before I purchase until the forum says it's up to speed.

[CaptainHaplo]

Neal,

Having spent alot less time with the game than you, I have to say your review was fair and honest. Well done.

I think he was way too easy on them honestly. A "76" is too high a rating IMHO! I'd be more inclined to give them a "60". The game is still a failure at the present time for most people and needs some critical patches to address significant issues. I feel that the subsim review is giving UBI the benefit of the doubt that these issues will be addressed - eventually. But until it's done, the game is still a broken mess.

[klh]

Neal, at the risk of being repetitive, thanks for the review. I was considering buying a new PC to run SH5, but I was wondering if I would be disappointed. For now I think I'll stick with my old PC and SH3. If the patches come, however, I'm in.

[Sabre]

Good review! Thank you for that (ex 6th flotilla Hundius here)

[edjcox]

I've bought every one of them up till now.

I like to play offline and on the road for relaxation and diversion.

There scheme doesn't allow this as I can't get internet in my cab on the side of the interstate.. Well IO can in some places but not many...

I like what I hear but again its a dumbed down game lsoing not building on it's predecesors. I don't want to have to start all over agin, I want to build on my exisiting skill set and discover new things in a game.

Your review is fair. Your critigue points a little generous.

Do they really expect the mod community to mod in new subs, and overall controls that they should have provided.

Whats with the false colors. We all know the NAZI flags especially what was painted on the bow and stern of the Bismark... I undertand the need in some countries where it is outlawed still.

I think this a major slip back and will wait to buy downstream. UBI my shares of your stock are sold the minute it regains my basis cost... Might be along time though...

[Der Teddy Bar]

I have often been critical of Subsim reviews which I see as overly positive based on the potential and far too reserved in their criticism of the bugs, game play issues and lack of addressing issues from one version to another.

I have felt that reviews that follow this formula contribute to a lack of correction for major design issues i.e. the Tiger Tank u-boat, ship sinking model and limited the addressing of many other issues and slowed forward motion because the Ubi execs see SH3 scores 100% and of course that means nothing needs to be done as this game is perfect, uhm I think not. Even with the GWX/NYGM mods it is still only 85%.

That said I read the Subsim SH5 review and I am very impressed with the frankness and the lack of sugar coated potential taking front of stage. I can only comment on the out of 10 from reading the forums, while I feel the total score is probably on the mark I think the realism definitely is well off the mark and there are a couple of questions around the Historical Accuracy & Game play scores.

Great review

[alexoscar]

Originally Posted by Der Teddy Bar

That said I read the Subsim SH5 review and I am very impressed with the frankness and the lack of sugar coated potential taking front of stage.

(...)

Great review

I agree.

[CCIP]

Definitely one of the finest pieces when it comes to sim reviews. Thanks for telling it like it is Neal - I can subscribe to everything said and I'm really glad that you have focused on the game and its real highs and lows, making neither too small nor too big a deal of the DRM.

I would only disagree with the ratings a bit - personally, if I were rating it, my ratings would be closer to...

Realism - 14/20
(there are still many things amiss in this regard, although there are some steps forward. It's hard to give it a high mark especially when you consider some stuff like the rather faulty damage model and the "special abilities" which can make a Type VII U-boat go a whole 8 knots faster than it ever could historically...)

Historical Accuracy - 7/10
(A number of things hurt this one as well, in particular the unrealistic campaign/tonnage goals and lack of grid references etc. there is some nice context for events however, and the campaign is far better fleshed-out than in any game previous)

Graphics - 9/10
(It's far and above anything we've seen before - definitely a great-looking game. However there are still some spots that are problematic. Explosions are one thing to not quite like - but I think even the wooden crew-men and their clipping problems that are mentioned in the review warrant less than full marks here)

Sound/Music - 8/10
(In total agreement with Neal)

Gameplay - 14/20
(It would be far better if some things weren't outright broken right now. I think some of the faults in damage modeling, AI and the rather ludicrous campaign goals currently take away from the suspense/intensity of it a bit)

Repeat Play - 9/10
(In total agreement with Neal - but most of it is future potential rather than what is currently there)

Stability/Bugs - 5/10
(This is not a 1/10 game in this regard. It's remarkably stable and all in all, while bugs are rife, there are none right now that are game-killing, other than the infamous morale bug perhaps)

Multiplay - 4/5
(I don't think it deserves full marks here because while it delivers on everything that's been out before, it just doesn't add anything that hasn't already been seen previously. It's still a bit of an afterthought and has limited longevity.)

Mission editor (and modding tools) - 4/5
(The devs have provided us with a hereto-unprecedented set of modding tools for this game, which is much appreciated. Unfortunately these tools are not-quite-complete and largely undocumented.)

BONUS: - 5 Released too soon, unfinished, poor tutorial, manual
(to that I would add)
-6 Problematic and unfair DRM scheme
+4 Enhanced editing features such as scripting bode well for future potential of the game

----------
So, if I were giving it a score based on Neal's criteria, my score would be...
67/100

Hey, close enough

[edit] - eep, fixed my rating. I just realized that my math was off and I was rating out of 110

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by Der Teddy Bar

I have felt that reviews that follow this formula contribute to a lack of correction for major design issues i.e. the Tiger Tank u-boat, ship sinking model and limited the addressing of many other issues and slowed forward motion because the Ubi execs see SH3 scores 100% and of course that means nothing needs to be done as this game is perfect, uhm I think not. Even with the GWX/NYGM mods it is still only 85%.

I would have to agree that in that in a more objective scope, SH3 really is far from perfection, and neither is it a complete fulfillment of what it could've been.

On the other hand, in the context of subsims, you have to admit SH3 was a revolutionary, genre-saving and genre-advancing game. 5 years later, I think Neal's assessment that it's the "best subsim ever" definitely rings true. Measured against a dream simulation that would be completely finished and not require work-arounds to have all the features it needs, I'd say it's an 85. Measured against the high bar we've seen so far - well, it IS the benchmark, and it was the benchmark at the time it was released. I don't think we've seen better, and I can tell it will be a while before we do see better. In that sense I don't think the high review was completely unfair.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Der Teddy Bar

I have often been critical of Subsim reviews which I see as overly positive based on the potential and far too reserved in their criticism of the bugs, game play issues and lack of addressing issues from one version to another.

I have felt that reviews that follow this formula contribute to a lack of correction for major design issues i.e. the Tiger Tank u-boat, ship sinking model and limited the addressing of many other issues and slowed forward motion because the Ubi execs see SH3 scores 100% and of course that means nothing needs to be done as this game is perfect, uhm I think not. Even with the GWX/NYGM mods it is still only 85%.

That said I read the Subsim SH5 review and I am very impressed with the frankness and the lack of sugar coated potential taking front of stage. I can only comment on the out of 10 from reading the forums, while I feel the total score is probably on the mark I think the realism definitely is well off the mark and there are a couple of questions around the Historical Accuracy & Game play scores.

Great review

Thanks for that. Yes, it's widely known that I am more lenient and forgiving than many reviewers and a lot of players. I have to look deep into myself and make sure I am not posting a review based on what I wish the game was, or what other people think, or expect. In the end, I try really hard to shut out everything except what I truly feel about the game. In SH5, I like the game, I enjoy most of the game, and I can work around some of the issues. I also recognize that the game has a lot of issues, a lot of stuff that should have been more polished and functional.

Of course, I disagree with the view that "Ubi execs see SH3 scores 100% and of course that means nothing needs to be done as this game is perfect". That's just an assumption on your part, unless you know more about Ubi's executives than the rest of us. I don't know how they see that, we can guess all day. I could argue that Ubi execs see SH3 scores 100 and they say, "make another game as good as SH3!"

Originally Posted by CCIP

I would have to agree that in that in a more objective scope, SH3 really is far from perfection, and neither is it a complete fulfillment of what it could've been.

You make some good points with your scoring. The 1/10 bugs/stabilty reflects the overall unfinished state of the game, the impressive number of bugs, bonked stuff and missing or incomplete features. The game itself seems pretty stable, but the "online all the time" DRM can be a problem, so that contributed to the very low 1/10 bugs/stabilty score.

Yes, I also agree that the realism score could be lower because of the absurd "special abilities " that make U-boats into Uber-boats. I let that slide because the player can make the call to use the speed dial to limit his max speed to historically real numbers. Not the preferred method, I know.

Of course, everyone realizes that the review number score is very subjective. If I were to rescore it two months from now, I doubt it would get the same exact numbers per category. The number score is just a gauge, it could vary either way 5 points. It's the words that matter the most, and the tone and subtext. SH5 is a good game that was released way too early with a lot of bugs, some questionable design choices, and seriously shoddy tutorial/manual. Even a game like that can be fun as hell.

On the other hand, in the context of subsims, you have to admit SH3 was a revolutionary, genre-saving and genre-advancing game. 5 years later, I think Neal's assessment that it's the "best subsim ever" definitely rings true. Measured against a dream simulation that would be completely finished and not require work-arounds to have all the features it needs, I'd say it's an 85. Measured against the high bar we've seen so far - well, it IS the benchmark, and it was the benchmark at the time it was released. I don't think we've seen better, and I can tell it will be a while before we do see better. In that sense I don't think the high review was completely unfair.

Oh man, exactly! Wow, well said, that's better than I could have said it. Silent Hunter III received a 100 rating from me, but no one says it is "perfect". The 100 score does not mean it is flawless. Simply means, as you said, based on the sub games before it, and what I think is reasonable to expect in a great subgame at that point in time, it made a home run, where other subsims made doubles and triples. Like you said, measured against a "dream subsim", it would have been lower. But we understand the "dream subsim" is probably 20 years away. There probably will never be a "dream subsim", actually, because with each step forward in subsim progress, our expectations take three steps. It wasn't long back when people wanted a WWII subsim with a working TDC. Aces did not have one. We will always want more than a developer can deliver, that's why it's our responsibility to be reasonable with our expectations.

With SH5, I expected full boat access, better RPG interaction with the crew (and not asking about someone's kids or wife unless we were at the wardroom table picking fuzz off the meat), real, intelliegent wolfpacks, and more complex objectives like shadowing a convoy and getting radio messages out, without being chased off and losing the convoy, and without attacking until the orders came from BdU--that would be a helluva game in itself!.

When a dev team puts together a plan for a new title, they spend a lot of time determing how many people, who does what, how much it will cost and how long it will take. If the project is approved by the company, then off they go. Unfortunately, the best laid plans ... with software, you can never be 100% and like Alex, SH5 producer said, sometimes what you think will be hard, is harder, very much so. Game development can be like playing a game of Solitaire, there are times when things just don't work out 100%--you get stuck and run out of time. I understand that, which is why I do not fly off the handle and freak out. I also understand, if the game sells well, the company will try to support it, and approve another title:

Remember this: If SH2 had not sold well, there would have never been an SH3.

[CCIP]

As far as the SH series, I think it'd be easy to agree that...

SH1 - the original game; classic by default and a good game in its own right, in its own time. I'd call it an 8/10 game, in the bigger scope of things.

SH2 - the wayward sequel. Introduced many good ideas but ultimately was neither a successful design nor was a finished release. However it kept up the appetite for subsims and spawned a dedicated community around it, who did some remarkable things to it. I'd call it a 6/10 game.

SH3 - a rough diamond when released, it broke a lot of new ground and within a year or two it was polished and has become the true classic of the series. A 9/10 game, although as a WWII sub simulator it remains unmatched.

SH4 - a rough-er diamond when released, it broke little new ground and was sadly overlooked by many. However it was a step forward, and has been quietly polished since by the same community. A real joy to play now, it is in many (but not all) ways superior to SH3. An 8/10 game.

SH5 - in some ways it is like SH2 all over again (with faults in design and completeness), although much of SH3/4's good blood remains in it. However if its life cycle does the same for sub sims as SH2, I don't see why we have to be unhappy. I'd say it's fair as a 7/10 game or so.