Silent hunter 5 is terrible! (merged)

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by El Sid

Hi people and sorry for such a negative way to introduce myself...and leave.

But SH 5 is without doubt the most disappointing rip-off, cow pat universe of a poopy game I have ever paid my pension money for.

It really is that bad.

Ubisoft's new generation of children have taken a brilliant (if flawed) WWII sub sim and totally ruined it.

It really is that bad.

How could these young guns take such an epic grasp of WWII u-boat warfare and do such a travesty of the atmosphere, interface, indeed everything, including the graphics? (The crew from SH3 moved me..these new clowns of a crew make me want to join the Royal Navy). You had the gold already and went with the bronze, fools.

I spent over $90 of my pension money on this cow-pat universe of ****e and as a result forwent a new battery for my little 19 foot sailing boat.

True.

This is the last Ubisoft game I ever buy, you crooks.

From an old salt.

Also, after I deleted this piece of robbery I played SH-3 (grey wolves...thank you people here so much) one last time. Then I deleted the lot and went sailing without a motor.

$90AU? What, or who are you people subsidizing, or are there still lots of those jailbirds the British exported kicking?

EDIT: Oooh! I'm now Crusty and I like it.

[mcarlsonus]

I agree with OP !! I simply can't BELIEVE what Ubi's done here. Not only did they, "reward" us loyal fans with a POS, they REMOVED stuff that worked fine in previous iterations! Thank GAWD, though, I only paid $33US, including P&H...but I still want my money back!

It strikes me that it appears we've unintentionally encouraged Ubi to market trash due to our expecting modders to fix what's broken! Look at posts throughout this board. "Yeah, it's busted, but the modders'll fix it," "It'll be a great game after the modders get finished with it," etc. WRONG!

Why? Simply this. It's like telling Ubi we don't mind paying them money to do not only beta testing on an unfinished product, but we're willing to accept any half-baked piece of trash they put out because UNPAID PEOPLE WHO DON'T WORK FOR UBISOFT WILL FIX IT ---- FOR F-R-E-E !!!

Traditionally, modders have served to enhance ones experience with the game. Also, traditionally, those who use mods have had the privilege (and honor) of picking and choosing which mods they want to use. However, when one expects the modders to make the game PLAYABLE AT THE LOWEST LEVEL, that's letting Ubi off the hook...unless they want to GIVE the game away for nothing !

[Heretic]

I just don't understand this vehemance. In the twenty-five years I've been buying computer games, I've bought dozens of games that I ended up not liking due to bugs or bad design or whatever. Not once do I recall ever feeling personally affronted or felt the need to seek out a fan site - not even the publisher's site, but a fan site, to vent. I chalked it up to 'buyer beware' and failure to read reviews before I bought. Then I tossed it aside without a second glance and went on with my life.

Originally Posted by Heretic

I just don't understand this vehemance. In the twenty-five years I've been buying computer games, I've bought dozens of games that I ended up not liking due to bugs or bad design or whatever. Not once do I recall ever feeling personally affronted or felt the need to seek out a fan site - not even the publisher's site, but a fan site, to vent. I chalked it up to 'buyer beware' and failure to read reviews before I bought. Then I tossed it aside without a second glance and went on with my life.

same here, it is indeed a strange first post?
almost troll like?

[Adriatico]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

However you are talking apples and oranges. Those are proper first/third person games. For maritime grpahics i have never seen better, more realistic looking than in SH5.

If you could show me a naval sim that has same quality graphics I'll buy it (if the gameplay is decent).

Apples and oringes took Ubi - not me. This is FPS/RPG/Sim and many of these features are average in graphics.

Of course that sea is the best of naval simulation - as naval simulation ganre simply does not exist seriously in 2010.

[Fantasm]

To be fair here, notice he said Pension money? People who live on a fixed income like myself do have to plan for expenses etc... finding out you've just wasted limited funds on something that shoul have been a lot better is going to be upsetting for everyone...
I too might have bought it, but the DRM news made adopt a "wait and see" stance... (still waiting, not seeing.... LOL)
Likewise, a man on a pension is not likely to have an extreme gaming rig. I run 2 decent ATI graphics cards, 3 gigs of Ram and a pretty decent machine... and I still find the graphics 'choppy'... I'd bet his bad graphics are due to the game's graphics not being optimised enough for an older machine....
Let's face it... Ubisoft should have put more work into the graphics end of it, especially for lower end machines... I can play most other games with my grpahics set to 'ridiculously high' and still don't get the lag and low frame rates of this game...
A game should not depend on it's community to make it work... the comminuty is supposed to enhance the game, not rescue it...

I honestly don't see Ubisoft doing much more with this game... I'd bet the chances of a good patch are remote... and even a partial fix may not be likely... they may just drop it altogether....

[JU_88]

If SHV is the worst game you bought, I reckon you havent bought many games.
Take PT Boats KNOTS for example....

[Ark]

Originally Posted by Adriatico

Maybe you need to try Bad Company 2, Mass Effect 2, or brother called Assasins Creed 2 ...etc.

This is year 2010 and graphics is average for a PC title.

Of course, if you compare it with poor old SH3 it is "great".

Clouds, sun, torp. explosion&splash, faces, ...it is not a " PC premier league "...

The Year is 2010.........and you mention Mass Effect 2? You can't even use FSAA in that game. If anything spits in the face of modern day PC capabilities it's not being able to enable FSAA. BFBC 2 is good (my favorite FPS) but needs improvements graphically, and I haven't played Assassin's Creed 2.

Regarding the year, what exactly does 2010 have to do with it? Feel free to name another simulator that looks better than SH5.
FS9? Nope.
FXS? Nope.
Dangerous Waters? Nope.
SB Pro PE? Nope.
Silent Hunter 3/4? Nope.
Lomac? Nope.
FC2? Nope.
DCS : BS? Nope.
Ship Simulator? Nope.
Knights of the Sea? Nope.
IL-2? Nope.
Wings of Prey? Maybe...but not up close. So, "nope" there as well.
WWII Online? Nope.
RoF? Nope.

If you think the games you mention above look better than SH5, than that is your opinion...it certainly isn't mine. The only thing I would really change graphically are the explosions, and I would put those back to how they were in SH3/SH4.

SH5 has great graphics if you have the hardware to run it. Anybody who says the graphics are bad either: A) Have lower-end hardware or B) Have unrealistic expectations.

Lastly, if this game is the worst you have ever played......you have not played many games. lol

SH5 does need a lot of fixes, but a graphical failure it is not.

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by Piggy

Unless it was deleted without a noted edit, I see no personal attacks in his post.

Is attacking a piece of software is now getting personal?

How could these young guns take such an epic grasp of WWII u-boat warfare and do such a travesty of the atmosphere, interface, indeed everything, including the graphics? (The crew from SH3 moved me..these new clowns of a crew make me want to join the Royal Navy). You had the gold already and went with the bronze, fools.

This is a personal attack, directed at the devs

[Sgtmonkeynads]

Originally Posted by Fantasm

A game should not depend on it's community to make it work... the comminuty is supposed to enhance the game, not rescue it..

+1 , but thank God they have.

[longam]

here it is....

[drtechno]

Originally Posted by Ark

The Year is 2010.........and you mention Mass Effect 2? You can't even use FSAA in that game. If anything spits in the face of modern day PC capabilities it's not being able to enable FSAA. BFBC 2 is good (my favorite FPS) but needs improvements graphically, and I haven't played Assassin's Creed 2.

Regarding the year, what exactly does 2010 have to do with it? Feel free to name another simulator that looks better than SH5.

SH5 does need a lot of fixes, but a graphical failure it is not.

Picking upon a near non-existant genre of flight sims, naval sims?
How about pretty much any car sim. released in the last 2 years.
Dirt 2, Yep
NFS, Yep
F1 2010, Yep
Burnout Paradise, Yep

[Adriatico]

Originally Posted by Ark

The Year is 2010.........and you mention Mass Effect 2? You can't even use FSAA in that game. If anything spits in the face of modern day PC capabilities it's not being able to enable FSAA. BFBC 2 is good (my favorite FPS) but needs improvements graphically, and I haven't played Assassin's Creed 2.

Regarding the year, what exactly does 2010 have to do with it? Feel free to name another simulator that looks better than SH5.
FS9? Nope.
FXS? Nope.
Dangerous Waters? Nope.
SB Pro PE? Nope.
Silent Hunter 3/4? Nope.
Lomac? Nope.
FC2? Nope.
DCS : BS? Nope.
Ship Simulator? Nope.
Knights of the Sea? Nope.
IL-2? Nope.
Wings of Prey? Maybe...but not up close. So, "nope" there as well.
WWII Online? Nope.
RoF? Nope.

If you think the games you mention above look better than SH5, than that is your opinion...it certainly isn't mine. The only thing I would really change graphically are the explosions, and I would put those back to how they were in SH3/SH4.

SH5 has great graphics if you have the hardware to run it. Anybody who says the graphics are bad either: A) Have lower-end hardware or B) Have unrealistic expectations.

Lastly, if this game is the worst you have ever played......you have not played many games. lol

SH5 does need a lot of fixes, but a graphical failure it is not.

FSX, FC2 and even moded Il-2 1946 have better graphics.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post2984306

Clouds are 3D but look artificial. Moded ones look better.
Coast of Portugal (Giblartar mission) looks like Hungarian river bank .
...
Sea surface is great looking but... it must be that way. Sea surface is the same for all the parts of world... contrary to landscapes in these flight sims.

Explosions - no further coments...

I would say just average graphics all togather... except sea surface (but not under surface)

(I had occassion to watch the game... not only screens.)

[goldorak]

Originally Posted by McBeck

This is a personal attack, directed at the devs

Uhm you haven't look at your forum signature lately.
If El Sid's post comes across as a personal attack, you McBeck don't honestly have a leg to stand on with all the "ubisoft hits silent hunter fans in the back" and "ubisoft kicks the SH V dev team" in your signature.

Originally Posted by Adriatico

FSX, FC2 and even moded Il-2 1946 have better graphics.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.ph...ml#Post2984306

Clouds are 3D but look artificial. Moded ones look better.
Coast of Portugal (Giblartar mission) looks like Hungarian river bank .
...
Sea surface is great looking but... it must be that way. Sea surface is the same for all the parts of world... contrary to landscapes in these flight sims.

Explosions - no further coments...

I would say just average graphics all togather... except sea surface (but not under surface)

(I had occassion to watch the game... not only screens.)

Well I will say that Wings of prey has one of the best graphics of any flight sim imho, but SH5's graphics are very good too, far better than the default FSX and IL-2 you talk of, I have them all, so I know

here are some of my screens of WoP http://s564.photobucket.com/albums/s..._2009/SH5/WoP/
here are some of my screens of SH5 http://s564.photobucket.com/albums/s...onV6_2009/SH5/


both look stuning imho and better than the default sims you mentioned but then I guess, "Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder" lol, and it wolud be a boaring world, if we ALL liked them same thing, yes?
Simon