A positive perspective

[TDK1044]

I just wanted to post this thread in the hope that some members may calm down a little and just think things through.

I see comments like "they've had two years to make this game work" and "this game is unplayable" and suggestions that the Devs "went through the motions with this game".

So I'd like to point out a few things.

1) They didn't have two years to build this game. Silent Hunter 3 was released in March 2005. The sales for that game were then assessed over the following 6 months, and I believe Silent Hunter 4 got the official green light in September 2005. That gave the Devs about 18 months to build Silent Hunter 4, not 24 months. Big difference.

2) They were in effect asked to build a hybrid that was part sim and part game. Ubisoft made it very clear to them that Silent Hunter 4 had to attract the casual gamer in large numbers, something that didn't happen enough with SH3, as well as make a sim to satisfy the existing hard core sub simmer.

Just think about that last point, Guys. You have 18 months to build a new game using an existing game engine that you know has problems, and you have to create a game set in a different theater of operations which also offers significant graphical improvements over Silent Hunter 3. Oh, and by the way, you also have to add a lot of new elements to the game, such as active crews on the decks of ships reacting correctly to real time events, and life boats in the water allowing the game to give the player the ability to rescue the occupants.

I'm not in any way judging those of you who are expressing their disappointment with Silent Hunter 4, Guys, I understand your frustration. I just want you to think about just how difficult it would be to achieve what I've mentioned above plus a lot more in 18 months.

Companies like Ubisoft care about two things: How much money will this game make for us? How little money do we need to spend in order to achieve how much money this game will make for us?

The schedule for the release of this game was unrealistic from day one, and that's why we now need the additional patches that the Devs are currently working their asses off to give us. Not exactly the actions of people who don't care.

I applaud Dan and his team for their dedication and the many long, long days that they put into building this game, and I thank them for listening to and incorporating many of the ideas suggested in this Forum. If they are allowed to continue patching beyond 1.2, then between the additional patches and the awesome modding we'll have a great game a few months down the line.

Oh, and for those few of you who think that a Moderator shouldn't be making a post like this ...."Get over it"!

[Faamecanic]

While some of my posts the past few weeks have been a bit negative (ok a lot negative), its merely out out frustration and disappointment.

Good post TDK... even in my posts I have made it clear that we shouldnt blame the devs. They have done a fantastic job with the time and money constraints imposed on them by Ubisoft.

Im sure given the opportunity, the devs would love to have released SH4 with all the toys (and maybe even more toys that havent been included) working. Its what they do and what they love.

Its just sad that Ubi did not let these passionate, hard working devs SHINE with SH3 by fixing everything that was broke in that release. And Im afraid they will not have the time or money to really make SH4 as great as it can be. Its not by thier choice, but by the neccessity of business.

With that said...I still love SH3, especialy after GWX. Im sure SH4 will be even greater.

[fredbass]

Good post. You are correct.

It's important to remind folks that the people who actually make the game are not always the ones responsible for it's errors and omissions at the time of release.

[Bahger]

Very eloquent, TDK, my hat is tipped in your direction, or at least it would be if I wore one.

The problem with sophisticated systems simulations is that the demand for fidelity is very, very high and the hardcore clientele very knowledgeable. In the world of flight sims, there will be much distress over a malfunctioning radar sub-mode in FALCON: ALLIED FORCE when in less detailed sims that mode won't even be modelled and its absence will therefore go unnoticed.

SHIV is my first sub sim since SUB COMMANDER and 688i before that. I come from the world of hi-fi combat flight/racing sim geekery and I am only interested in SHIV if manual targeting works as advertised. Therefore I'm not going to play it until the TDC and PK is fixed. However, it will remain on my HD for the next few months as I have almost as much faith in the SHIV devs as I have in the FALCON ALLIED FORCE devs, a very high compliment indeed and one that I hope turns out to be justified.

[WFGood]

Excellent post. We need more of them. If more people took an objective look at the game and all of the wonderful features and improvements instead of focusing on each and every little thing that is wrong (or not exactly the way they wanted it), then I am sure they would find it a fantastic experience. I have been trying to make the same point in my own subtle way, but I think you have expressed it much better and to the point.

[macky]

a moderator shouldnt make a post like.... j/k :p

I am not posting too negative I dont think. Yes I agree with some that this should never have seen the light of day till...etc etc... but I do believe that we must constructively criticise (if you criticise can it really be constructive?).

I also believe we cannot accept when things like this happen because of deadlines, otherwise we will never see a playable game again!

What we do need is more magazine/media articles really shooting down these people so they either shape up or ship out.

That said, SH4 has so much potential it is worth waiting for the fixes, still annoying tho that we had to pay for...no...not here

[TDK1044]

I agree with your point about constructive criticism, macky. It's very important to have that element in a Forum like this. There are some really smart, knowledgeable members here and they put forward some compelling arguments.

My point really is that we need to keep things in perspective, and we need to keep the glass half full. Once I'd posted, I was rooting around to try and find any info to point me at a more precise start date for SH4. And look what I found!

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=87428

They were advertising for programmers on 12/16/2005. So in terms of hands on programming time we're down to maybe 14 months!

The Devs should be saluted for what they've achieved with Silent Hunter 4 in 14 months. I don't have a problem with members being frustrated with the bugs...I'm frustrated with the bugs, but my admiration for this Dev team is huge.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Excellent post, TDK. However I think it should be emphasised that the devs were working with a truly cruddy deadline. All thanks to their most esteemed publishers. Just imagine what they could do given more time.

[Zengaze]

I can only echo the sentiments expressed so far in this thread, especially point out that we simmers are probably the most demanding types around we not only need a good game we need a perfect game, (which may i state i believe we are entitled to). But i do believe we got fall in behind devs who make games for our genre, "lend a hand to the wheel" as it is said.

[Jace11]

Its still a rubbish effort though...

Your comments are just excuses, the product that people have paid for is SUB-STANDARD not a SUB-SIM.

People have been lied to, cheated and let-down, they are disappointed and are rightly aggreived, get over it...

[oritpro]

Originally Posted by Jace11

Its still a rubbish effort though...

Your comments are just excuses, the product that people have paid for is SUB-STANDARD not a SUB-SIM.

People have been lied to, cheated and let-down, they are disappointed and are rightly aggreived, get over it...

Whoa, tell us how you really feel!

Although I agree with you I do not blame the devs or the beta testers for a half-baked piece of software. It is management that determines what gets fixed and what doesn't as well as if it gets fixed at all.

I know this from experience as a software tester although in a different industry--computer networking.

Publishers care only about the bottom line, not whether or not the software works as advertised.

[CCIP]

Frankly, all that I want at the end of the game is a game worth $50. And I spent $400 directly because of it so far, so that tells you whether I thought it was or not. :p

I think the "Sub-standard" comment is totally unfair Jace. What is the standard? Where is the standard? I think SHIV makes many errors and has its share of bugs, don't get me wrong - but it is THE standard in Subsims and will be until we get another title. There's no other standard to go by.

I think also the comparisons to modded SHIII are unfair. Again, modders have to be praised for the massive efforts involved in getting the game where it ended up, but there is just no way the devs could compete with literally dozens of people's manpower being invested over a period of many months, with noone but themselves to answer to when the question of "when is it released?" and "what should we include?" and "what audience should we cater to?" came up.
And the modders would have nothing to work with if there was no game to start with. Don't underestimate just how much even the most advanced mods gain from the original game.


There is no way right now subsims can survive without commercial development. And as such, I think SHIV is a noble effort; it's not perfect but its flaws are well worth putting up with temporarily. There has been a great effort in patching the game and I have faith in support for it continuing.

I'm also taken aback by all the negativity, definitely with TDK here. Constructive criticism is one thing, but please, is your $50 really worth so much that you're going to demand the impossible for it? Think about it, when it goes through the commercial chain (rotten though it may be) - money gained from your copy might realistically cover only the cost of one or two man-hours of the game's development time. Even if it costs less to develop the game in Romania, it still costs a lot. Personally, as much as it's uncomfortable to make this argument - I think many people are just a little too conscious of their consumer rights. Sure, don't buy the game. Don't support "substandard" products. Don't add to Ubi's profit. Don't reimburse the development cost. Demand perfection for your $50. And watch development prospects sink to Davy Jones' locker, and the future of our hobby along with it.

[Marko]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Frankly, all that I want at the end of the game is a game worth $50. And I spent $400 directly because of it so far, so that tells you whether I thought it was or not. :p

I think the "Sub-standard" comment is totally unfair Jace. What is the standard? Where is the standard? I think SHIV makes many errors and has its share of bugs, don't get me wrong - but it is THE standard in Subsims and will be until we get another title. There's no other standard to go by.

I think also the comparisons to modded SHIII are unfair. Again, modders have to be praised for the massive efforts involved in getting the game where it ended up, but there is just no way the devs could compete with literally dozens of people's manpower being invested over a period of many months, with noone but themselves to answer to when the question of "when is it released?" and "what should we include?" and "what audience should we cater to?" came up.
And the modders would have nothing to work with if there was no game to start with. Don't underestimate just how much even the most advanced mods gain from the original game.


There is no way right now subsims can survive without commercial development. And as such, I think SHIV is a noble effort; it's not perfect but its flaws are well worth putting up with temporarily. There has been a great effort in patching the game and I have faith in support for it continuing.

I'm also taken aback by all the negativity, definitely with TDK here. Constructive criticism is one thing, but please, is your $50 really worth so much that you're going to demand the impossible for it? Think about it, when it goes through the commercial chain (rotten though it may be) - money gained from your copy might realistically cover only the cost of one or two man-hours of the game's development time. Even if it costs less to develop the game in Romania, it still costs a lot. Personally, as much as it's uncomfortable to make this argument - I think many people are just a little too conscious of their consumer rights. Sure, don't buy the game. Don't support "substandard" products. Don't add to Ubi's profit. Don't reimburse the development cost. Demand perfection for your $50. And watch development prospects sink to Davy Jones' locker, and the future of our hobby along with it.

I agree but sh4 miss some basics as it went out.
Keys that you hit and u crash, stadimeter that was not working, ugly manual, radar that is unfinished and if it is finished is horrible unreadeable ranges impossible to see what is going on i must relay almost and what a guy say me and after he stop to speaks, a recognition manual that is annoyng to use, shooting at multiple target without auto aiming it is a pain, an interface that speak to u with some programmers mambo-jumbo lanaguage ....
Captain : "Chief whats the status of our engine?"
Chief : "They are 0.098"
Captain : "WTF is that... and our Fuel?"
Chief : "99/100"
Captain : "Surface the boat and prepare my raft.... i am out from this cage of mads"
c'mon lets speak about cubic meters (or whatis is in imperial mesure) let's speak about ampere for the batteries let's speak about percetage of co2 in the air,
let's speak about immersion in a sub game i don't like see windows progress bars in a wwII simulation, sound is horrible (ok modders can do the job thank you for your existance), manning a twin turrent gun and your visual is blocked on port side and starboard side, missing buttons, ok what's left.....well i can sit on the bridge and look at the nice graphics of the water flowing from my periscope while my crew is manning all other thing and i choose the approuch course

we are missing something that we achive with sh3 that's the problem!

[Faamecanic]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Frankly, all that I want at the end of the game is a game worth $50. And I spent $400 directly because of it so far, so that tells you whether I thought it was or not. :p

I think the "Sub-standard" comment is totally unfair Jace. What is the standard? Where is the standard? I think SHIV makes many errors and has its share of bugs, don't get me wrong - but it is THE standard in Subsims and will be until we get another title. There's no other standard to go by.

I think also the comparisons to modded SHIII are unfair. Again, modders have to be praised for the massive efforts involved in getting the game where it ended up, but there is just no way the devs could compete with literally dozens of people's manpower being invested over a period of many months, with noone but themselves to answer to when the question of "when is it released?" and "what should we include?" and "what audience should we cater to?" came up.
And the modders would have nothing to work with if there was no game to start with. Don't underestimate just how much even the most advanced mods gain from the original game.


There is no way right now subsims can survive without commercial development. And as such, I think SHIV is a noble effort; it's not perfect but its flaws are well worth putting up with temporarily. There has been a great effort in patching the game and I have faith in support for it continuing.

I'm also taken aback by all the negativity, definitely with TDK here. Constructive criticism is one thing, but please, is your $50 really worth so much that you're going to demand the impossible for it? Think about it, when it goes through the commercial chain (rotten though it may be) - money gained from your copy might realistically cover only the cost of one or two man-hours of the game's development time. Even if it costs less to develop the game in Romania, it still costs a lot. Personally, as much as it's uncomfortable to make this argument - I think many people are just a little too conscious of their consumer rights. Sure, don't buy the game. Don't support "substandard" products. Don't add to Ubi's profit. Don't reimburse the development cost. Demand perfection for your $50. And watch development prospects sink to Davy Jones' locker, and the future of our hobby along with it.

CCIP... Im not tryng to flame you here.. but here are my thoughts.

Its one thing if the bugs are minor, or details that are wrong. But when the bugs affect the fundimentals of game play, there is a real problem. Especially when these things should have been caught in beta being as they happen to everyone and are not just hardware related.

1) The AAA guns vision being blocked by the conning tower sides.

2) A key causing a CTD

3) The craptastic jaggies that appear on any resolution other than 1024X768 (hello.. we are not in the mid 1990's anymore with 17" CRT monitors). This REALLY ruins the immersion factor for me.

4) TDC and Mk14 and 23 torps not being able to use Fast speed settings without missing target 99% of the time.

5) Missing sounds (rudder...rudder anyone)

6) SD radar (or is it SJ) picking up air targets

Most of these arent game stoppers...but combined all together really ruin a great sim. I know the devs are working on these, and hopefully UBI wont pull the plug on the patches before the devs finish (ala SH3 that if still played with 1.4b isnt finished).

My point is that bugs that are hardware specific (dont happen to all people), or are so buried in the code that they only happen given specific situations, are to be expected. But bugs that stand out like a sore thumb to ALL who play..should have been fixed prior to release.

Again not blaming the devs as they were trying to cram as much fun stuff in as they could before release. And I imagine the choice was to either include all these fun items and not comb through and fix bugs, or fix bugs and leave out important features. I just dont like the idea that UBI may pull the plug and leave the devs with no choice but to leave the game partially finished. Especially if they wont release a SDK so our BRILLIANT modders can fix it for them.

[codmander]

LoL sh4 was a year of waiting and wondering to have -not much deleivered? hmm What concerns me if sh4 isn't any good and has no hope the leaders of this community need to say so!!! Dont be in it for the allmighty $$$$ kinda urks me some To push for sales when they know the game is crap 50$ is a lot of money!! for a game thats incomplete along with less imersion than sh3 eye candy has improved from what I see but gameplay?? sorry but sh4 will be shelved in a couple of months time

Originally Posted by Faamecanic

While some of my posts the past few weeks have been a bit negative (ok a lot negative), its merely out out frustration and disappointment.

Good post TDK... even in my posts I have made it clear that we shouldnt blame the devs. They have done a fantastic job with the time and money constraints imposed on them by Ubisoft.

Im sure given the opportunity, the devs would love to have released SH4 with all the toys (and maybe even more toys that havent been included) working. Its what they do and what they love.

Its just sad that Ubi did not let these passionate, hard working devs SHINE with SH3 by fixing everything that was broke in that release. And Im afraid they will not have the time or money to really make SH4 as great as it can be. Its not by thier choice, but by the neccessity of business.

With that said...I still love SH3, especialy after GWX. Im sure SH4 will be even greater.