(Rant) More focus on gameplay, less on graphics

[TDK1044]

In any case, SH4 needs a more powerful pc than SH3. Why? Because unless they go with the 8000m visual range bubble again, they WILL need a stronger pc to be able to render further than 8000m.[/quote]

I don't think they will see rendering beyond 8000m as an issue. To the vast majority of the 300,000 SH111 purchasers I'm sure it wasn't an issue.....hell, most of them would have no idea what we're talking about. In my opinion, SH1V will be a slightly visually enhaced version of SH111 but with a lot of the gameplay issues fixed.

[Immacolata]

I think so too, but hopefully they give us more flexibility in the 3d-rendering, as someone requested a while ago. Would be nice if you could go to less demanding settings if your current machine struggles. And to more demanding settings if your machine. But if they could mod the 8000 m range in SH3, it should be possible in SHIV, even if Ubi decides that 8km visual range is all it takes.

[TDK1044]

I agree with you, Immacolata. The video card specs are going to be interesting in SH1V.

[Immacolata]

Btw is it on purpose or a bad habit that you without failure breaks every single quote box you quote, then put it in yellow? :rotfl: All your quotes are yellow but ends with [/quote]:rotfl:

[TDK1044]

Bad habit.

[cmdrk]

Originally Posted by DeepSix

Anyhow, rambling around to my point: the only truly good games (or sims - jeez, whatever you want to call 'em) are the ones that have replayability. What we as a fan community should be doing - IMHO - instead of wasting breath on an argument that will go on forever, is keeping after devs to produce games with REplayability, through both quality visual appearance AND gameplay. Without graphics, nothing sells. Without story, we're just a market buying recycled shlock all the time.

Alright - that's 'nuff from me.

Hear Hear

Agree with your whole post. It seems today it is all about image over substance.

[Dantenoc]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

And what then makes you think Ubi soft won't release a more well polished SHIV?

I get nervous when the delevopers are asked about advances made in SH4, and they answer "better graphics" ... Better graphics are allright, I like them, but I wish they would focus on bettering the weaker parts of the game, not the already strong ones.

Originally Posted by Immacolata

And as Ive said several times before, the graphics guys are not the same as those who makes the AI and the simulation engine. So leave'm out of it.

Thats right, the 3D modelers are great and should continue working, but it is also obvious that Ubisoft managment didn't care enough to hire Game design, Programming and AI talent as good as their 3D artists... at least that's the way a lot of us feel.

Anyway, I'm not attacking the graphics (and I don't think the rest are attacking the graphics either). It only seems that people are attacking the graphics because they're venting out in frustration to SHIII other gameplay flaws.

What I say is: Keep the graphics but fix the rest...

[Joe S]

Assumming that more eye candy comes at the expense of gameplay, I vote for gameplay every time. Good graphics and sound effects are important, but most people will play a sim indefinately if the graphics and sound effects are adequate as long as the gameplay is good. The reverse is NOT true. Great graphics and sound effects are of no value without great gameplay. SHII is a great example, so many gameplay bugs you couldnt stand to play it even though graphics and sound effects were very good for its day. I played Sub battle simulator more than any other subsim since then, mainly because the gameplay was so good. Graphics and sound effects were almost non-existent. Joe S

[TDK1044]

Originally Posted by Joe S

Assumming that more eye candy comes at the expense of gameplay, I vote for gameplay every time. Good graphics and sound effects are important, but most people will play a sim indefinately if the graphics and sound effects are adequate as long as the gameplay is good. The reverse is NOT true. Great graphics and sound effects are of no value without great gameplay. SHII is a great example, so many gameplay bugs you couldnt stand to play it even though graphics and sound effects were very good for its day. I played Sub battle simulator more than any other subsim since then, mainly because the gameplay was so good. Graphics and sound effects were almost non-existent. Joe S

I think there's a lot of truth in that statement. In Immacolata's defence though, I think he'd agree also, he just doesn't want Ubisoft to be lazy and complacent.

[Tontoman]

As you need both graphics and gameplay (you can't go back to SH1 graphics) I think bang for the buck has to be looked at for where time is spent.

Things that get used all the time should have top priority. So for graphics, things like water, weather, main interior, enemy ships etc. should be done. For gameplay, AI, damage model, campaign etc. should be done. All that should have priority as it's in use all the time.

Then there's lots of graphic and gameplay extra that are nice to have but might come second. I'd personally like a full interior sub (doesn't need to have crewmen) and visable damage and flooding (not just that one leaky pipe), but it's all second to getting a proper damage model in the first place (no one min repairs etc.). I've seen some gameplay talk of sub special landing missions and sub vs sub battles... but how often is that going to happen, imo getting a good campaign working is more important or even my interior damaged graphics. So that means that minor gameplay stuff will come second to major graphics and major gameplay stuff comes over minor graphics. Now what YOU think of as major and minor (graphics/gameplay) depends on your gaming tastes, but I'm more talking about how much each has an impact, how often you are going to see or use that function.

Just my 2c

T.

[TheSatyr]

Alot of people seem to have short memories here. The reason that things were left out and the reason for most of the bugs was because of the late addition of the dynamic campaign. (Which you all demanded).

The devs had a deadline to meet and even though it was delayed in order to add the dynamic campaign it meant that some of the things they planned on adding to the game had to be scrapped due to time constraints. And I'm sure it also meant a shorter alpha and beta test cycle.

Why anyone here would bitch at the devs for the way the game turned out is beyond me. They did the best job they could especially considering that the dynamic campaign was not part of the original design docs.

They had a choice,code the game as it was originally designed,with all the things they planned to put in. Or add in the dynamic campaign and drop some things that were originally planned for the game. And since there was near unanimous requests for a dynamic campaign they chose to go that route.

Since SH4 is being coded as designed with no late changes needing to be made,I expect SH4 to be the best of the series. They have the time to put in more things than SH3 had and more time for beta testing.

[TDK1044]

I agree with you, TheSatyr. Well stated.

[DedEye]

I would imagine the difference between a good/great/exceptional sim depends on the correct balance of graphics, gameplay (including drama), environment, character, and realism. I would also imagine this to be a daunting task for a producer of a sim, who has to balance features, schedule, and budget. Pure speculation on my part

16 colour Red Baron was my first sim, soon followed by Aces of the Pacific, over Europe, and then of the Deep. As someone pointed out, they have nifty little features that give them charm and character. Newspaper headlines make the accomplishment or failure grander. Sure, I can't see outside of the sub and I would die quickly, but some sort of clip/camera view showing my boat plummeting to bottom or a slick with flotsam and jetsam on the surface and appropriate music would make it more dramatic.

The thing I like the most about AotD is that high time compression doesn't break the game, there can be a huge visibility radius, and the combination of the two plus radio chatter meant that it wouldn't take an interminable amount of time for something to happen. I respect that there are people who have the capability of playing SH3 real time for entire patrols and enjoy doing so, and I admit that perhaps the frequency of encounters in AotD is unrealistic, but I find that even playing at 1024x I can go for hours real time in SH3 without anything happening. 256x so the planes spawn properly is about the same depending on year and location of course. When coupled with the drone of the diesels, this tends to put me to sleep! Especially after a few beer lol Crew management? Tedious.

Graphics and environment are important in sims. You want to be there! If it looks real, you're almost there. If it's a ghost town or ghost boats, you're almost there, but alone. I'd like to go through those fore and aft hatches too.

I'd like all craft and munitions in the sim to behave and manouever in a realistic fashion with realistic properties and damage models. Large deficiencies here can cripple immersion. I'm almost there!....oh wait....

In the end, I'm going to buy SH4 buggy or not. I bought SH3 and I still play it. The reason being is despite my gripes, I still consider SH3 to be the best sub sim released to date. Yes it's got warts, but it's still a beaut; very high on the immersion (that's right! I'm almost, almost there!). I'm hoping SH4 will be an evolution not just a sequel. Either way, if it's at least as good as SH3, and I think we can count on more than that, it'll be a keeper.

[codmander]

Originally Posted by nvdrifter

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.

Hmm Thats a pretty bold statement wonder if this dude tryed NYGM realistic enough for me

http://home.comcast.net/~codmander

[cmdrk]

Originally Posted by DedEye

The thing I like the most about AotD is that high time compression doesn't break the game, there can be a huge visibility radius, and the combination of the two plus radio chatter meant that it wouldn't take an interminable amount of time for something to happen. I respect that there are people who have the capability of playing SH3 real time for entire patrols and enjoy doing so, and I admit that perhaps the frequency of encounters in AotD is unrealistic, but I find that even playing at 1024x I can go for hours real time in SH3 without anything happening. 256x so the planes spawn properly is about the same depending on year and location of course. When coupled with the drone of the diesels, this tends to put me to sleep! Especially after a few beer lol

Playing SH3 can lead to snooze time sure enough.
But, its just my guess that the older games just had random generated encounters to simulate shipping traffic. I know the sub community would like realistic shipping traffic - meaning a ship in port sails to another port and tracked the whole trip then after a number of days to unload/load the ship, set sail again. I'm thinking SH3 has that to some degree which would make time compression more cpu intensive and encounters more hit or miss.

If someone has better knowledge, please elaborate on the shipping encounters process.

Also, with US subs having airsearch radar, be prepared to be knocked out of TC often.