(Rant) More focus on gameplay, less on graphics

[Laffertytig]

dunno if anyone remembers a subsim called silent service 2 which was out in the early nineties? it was based in the pacific as well and it had one of the best dynamic campaigns ive seen.

when u left port u would move your sub on the strategic map using the cursor keys. any contacts would be reported and u would have the option to investigate, the game would then enter a tactical map and the scenario would begin. u would also be alerted of real time war events such as battles and could even head there for increased activity. the beauty of this system was it dealt with the time compression issues perfectly.

it really does amaze me how they could create such great gameplay 15 years ago but now complain dynamic campaigns are so hard to implement!

ive also read people argue that time spent on good campaign/gameplay would affect graphic quality. RUBBISH
slient service 2 have photo realistic graphics which for an amiga was groundbreaking at the time.

i guess we all know the truth anyway. graphic intensive games will always sell more. devs and gaming companies know that the vast majority of people who buys games/sims will walk into a shop, pick up a game box and check the out the graphics.

if it looks shiny they will buy it. who cares if the novelty wears of after a few days/weeks and they get bored of it, its still a sale right!

[TDK1044]

It's all about demographics. By far the largest demographic in the game buying market is the 18 to 30 age group. X Box and Play Station are targeted almost exclusively at that age group. The PC game buyer is typically in the 30 to 49 age group. Therefore, the makers of PC games work hard at trying to make their games also appeal to the 18 to 30 group.

That dempgraphic is why we have so many movies that are driven by special effects rather than content, and you end up with lousy movies full of things blowing up.

The DEVS try and plot a course that will give the true sub simmer what he is looking for, while at the same time trying to attract a younger audience to the product.

[Myxale]

We all here are a little concerned about the result!
I'm too aware that they as a dev studio and the other as a publisher need to appeal to the masses, and that the average gamer "fellow X" doesn't have the need for a game with a tecnical depth of a hardcore simm!
Or everything that comes with that!

And just in case we get "only" a "updated" SH3, well then i really feel sorry for our great modders!
I don't thing they will have the strenght to deal with a baby game again!

What in really would love is to have a Falcon 4.0 amog WWII subsims!
That would be a dream come true!

[Sailor Steve]

I played Silent Service and SS2. I had several problems with its campaign, the biggest one being that you were always based at Pearl Harbor and you were always in a Gato. In 1996 Silent Hunter changed all that, with a variety of boats and a variety of bases, and a variety of career choices.

I enjoyed Silent Service 2, but I don't consider it to be a good standard to compare campaigns by, as I never saw its campaign as being dynamic at all.

[Laffertytig]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I played Silent Service and SS2. I had several problems with its campaign, the biggest one being that you were always based at Pearl Harbor and you were always in a Gato.

I enjoyed Silent Service 2, but I don't consider it to be a good standard to compare campaigns by, as I never saw its campaign as being dynamic at all.

i assume u mean SS1 as in SS2 this wasnt the case. sure it had its weaknesses but compared to lets say the stock campaign in SH2 id take it any day. SS2 was released some 15 years ago and it was great for its time.

i think the biggest prob the devs have to overcome is the time compression issue.
in SH3 any time compression over 256x would interfere with ship/sensor/air AI.
now id consider myself a reasonably hardcore simmer but sittin at 256x time compression for an hour watchin my sub dot move slowly over the screen just aint fun for me.

this will be a big test for SH4, how r they gonna handle this problem? has anything been officially mentioned about traverssing the massive distances of the pacific?

[Sailor Steve]

I agree about Silent Hunter II, there was no real campaign at all. That's why we had that massive revolution when they originally announced SH3 whould be similar. In SH4 hopefully they will have a "teleport directly to the patrol zone" function. I'll never use it, but it should be there for those who don't want to spend the time.

[NEON DEON]

I too liked SS 2’s way of dealing with the campaign and strategic map.

You did not teleport right to the patrol area you sailed there on the strategic map and it did not take you an hour and half either.

What I don’t get is why you need to portray the entire 3d world from the get go.

If you did some research, you could probably come up with a good representation of historical merchant and military fleet actions for Japan. With all the ships and routes represented in campaign mode, you could add attrition in the game a la TF 1942. That way you couldn’t sink the Yamato 5 times and in 1945 you would be refitting your boat with two deck guns so you could go chase down sampans due to the lack of big targets.

[AJ!]

Its quite a hard issue..... I mean i totaly agree with the statement about some games loosing gameplay for graphics but to make a great game you need a prefect balance of the two.

Simulation games are always a couple years behind other games like fps and rts graphicly, but if silent hunter 4 can excel in both departments (gameplay,graphics) then we will have one hell of a game

[TDK1044]

I think Silent Hunter 4 will be an excellent game both visually and in terms of game play. Will it please everyone here.....No. The modders won't be happy because they will be as restricted with SH4 as they were with SH3, but in my opinion, they won't be attempting to 'fix' the game this time, they will merely be enhancing it.

I really hope we'll be as quick to praise the DEVS for what they've achieved with SH4 as we are to nit pick about things we don't like.

[hyperion2206]

I think the most imminent problem is that the DEVs have to create a SUB-SIM which isn't as attractive for "normal" players like GTA for example. In order to sell the game the DEVs have to concentrate on the graphics because without them only die-hard sub fans would by the game (and the game wouldn't yield a profit).
I think it's okay because they do it because they want to make money and nothing else.:p
BUT I think the DEVs should then be fair and give the modders the ability to enhance the game so that we (the die-hard sub sim fans) are satisfied.

[fredbass]

It does seem that the graphics are getting better at a quicker pace than gameplay improvements, though I'm still hopeful things will begin to come around in the near future.

And you know, everybody cries about not getting the SDK, but most of the time, gaming companies won't provide it because they don't want to let their competition get an edge by knowing too much, therefore we typically get much less to work with.

Though it doesn't hurt to keep asking.

[Chaotic42]

Originally Posted by TDK1044

I think Silent Hunter 4 will be an excellent game both visually and in terms of game play. Will it please everyone here.....No. The modders won't be happy because they will be as restricted with SH4 as they were with SH3, but in my opinion, they won't be attempting to 'fix' the game this time, they will merely be enhancing it.

I really hope we'll be as quick to praise the DEVS for what they've achieved with SH4 as we are to nit pick about things we don't like.

No kidding. It's very rare to get a good, quality military simulation. SH4 won't be perfect, but it sounds like it's going to be an excellent game. I was amazed at SH3 when it came out. When I was little kid, I was a Silent Service 2 fiend, and SH3 is a very sweet taste of that past. SH4 promises to deliver more than I would have dared hope for.

As for realism, like everyone has said, just selling to hard-core simers won't do. They've got to make Joe Bob on the street want to pick the game up and releasing an SDK? This is a company. Spending 20% of their project time catering to .005% of their market just doesn't make sense.

[Iron Budokan]

I'm very glad SH3 has a dynamic campaign. But it got me to thinking. I know originally this wasn't planned. So what was originally planned for SH3? Was it just a bunch of single missions strung together into a scripted story? That would be lame indeed. I want to play a subsim, not a FPS underwater. And why would the devs think this (not having a dynamic campaign) would be a selling point in the first place?

I like the dynamic campaign and if it wasn't included I can assure you I wouldn't still be playing SH3 today. But maybe that's just me...?

[Sailor Steve]

SHII had a scripted campaign much as you described. It was like playing a First Person Shooter; if you died you started the same level (mission) over. If you didn't fulfill the primary goals you started the level over. There were alternate campaigns created, and they were much better, but the problems still existed.

What the SHIII devs seemed to be aiming for was an expanded version of that. Depending on how well you did you would go to different scenarios; one if you did well, one if you did poorly and one if your performance was adequate. How it would have worked, no one knows. I'm just glad they listened to us when we said we didn't want that.

[Iron Budokan]

Oh. My. God. You're not kidding; I'm glad they listened, too. I'm so glad they didn't go with that scripted scenarios. How lame. It reminds me of those D&D books where you read certain passages and depending on what you chose you had to flip to a new page. The idea was lame then and it would have been lame if that's what SH3 originally wnet with.

There's no way I'd still be playing SH3 if that's all it was.