Review up on www.eurogamer.dk

[Count Sessine]

Just caught this review of SH5 on www.eurogamer.dk.

They mention Subsim and recommend readers get their mods here

Its in Danish: http://www.eurogamer.dk/articles/sil...r-5-anmeldelse

Or in english with google translate: http://translate.google.com/translat...se&sl=da&tl=en

[Placoderm]

Overall a very balanced and informative review. I think 6/10 was a fair rating, even if a little generous considering this was written post patch 2.

Thanks for the link!

[SteamWake]

Better late than never I suppose.

[McBeck]

They do give SH5 a kicking....im just puzzled why they did not more into depth of the realism settings, since it was what they focused most on.
They could even have mentioned that mods are there to fix all of the shortcomings.

They review seems shallow

[Placoderm]

Originally Posted by McBeck

They do give SH5 a kicking....im just puzzled why they did not more into depth of the realism settings, since it was what they focused most on.

I'm wondering if we read the same review. I read them praise the graphics but lamented the arcadish gameplay and lack of realism in regards to historical accuracy and difficulty.

Originally Posted by McBeck

They could even have mentioned that mods are there to fix all of the shortcomings.

Mods have fixed some, but far from "all" of the shortcomings. Unfortunately, most of the true shortcomings are hard-coded and no amount of modding will ever be able to fix that. Graphics and User Interfaces are one thing, lack of depth and entirely missing features are another. Modders do the best they can with what they are given to work with, but there are limits to what anyone can do with the core game files.

Originally Posted by McBeck

They review seems shallow

Although not at the level of detail that one would expect from Sim HQ or Subsim, it was likely sufficient for its purpose without being redundant over points that have been covered elsewhere. Afterall, when one is reviewing a shallow game, perhaps a shallow review is most appropriate.

[McBeck]

Originally Posted by Placoderm

I'm wondering if we read the same review. I read them praise the graphics but lamented the arcadish gameplay and lack of realism in regards to historical accuracy and difficulty.



Mods have fixed some, but far from "all" of the shortcomings. Unfortunately, most of the true shortcomings are hard-coded and no amount of modding will ever be able to fix that. Graphics and User Interfaces are one thing, lack of depth and entirely missing features are another. Modders do the best they can with what they are given to work with, but there are limits to what anyone can do with the core game files.



Although not at the level of detail that one would expect from Sim HQ or Subsim, it was likely sufficient for its purpose without being redundant over points that have been covered elsewhere. Afterall, when one is reviewing a shallow game, perhaps a shallow review is most appropriate.

They started off going for realism, but never mention the realism options.
My reference to all the fixes was taken out of context. The reference was to the manual shooting, and all the fixes are there for that.

They didnt bother to cover the AI or the depth of the campaign.

I cant help but wonder when realism is mentioned, that they dont cover the insta-jumps between stations, that you no longer can do. And that you in SH5 simulate being the captain. In that respect the games view towards TDC is actully accurate and realistic - We are just not used to that.

[Placoderm]

Originally Posted by McBeck

They started off going for realism, but never mention the realism options.

He mentioned "...even at maximum realism...". No other mention was made of realism options, as it would be redundant...especially in context with the sentence in which it was used. He was referring to the immersive atmosphere at full realism and the feeling of fulfillment that he felt at full realism in manning a sub, and why such a feeling was core to the sub sim enthusiast. Nothing in his text was derogatory towards realism at that point, so I am not sure why mentioning options would even be appropriate. If "at maximum realism", any modified options would only detract from the challenge anyway.

Originally Posted by McBeck

My reference to all the fixes was taken out of context. The reference was to the manual shooting, and all the fixes are there for that.

I did not read that in your text, which was quoted directly and not "out of context". Nowhere did you mention that you were referring specifically to the manual shooting of torpedoes, but rather "...all of the shortcomings". It is true that many great UI mods have vastly improved the manual shooting abilities, but the reviewer was (appropriately) reviewing the game unmodded. In fairness, he does make multiple references at the end of the review to Subsim.com, its community, and even recommends the mods available here.

Originally Posted by McBeck

They didnt bother to cover the AI or the depth of the campaign.

Which is a good thing, as the AI (even after patch 1.2) is often dumber than a bucket of rocks, and the campaign depth is nonexistant...if considering any regard towards history. The campaign is purposely scripted to be "exciting"...not historical. The use of the word "depth" indicates something more than just a superficial treatment...as though there is something more to find, but there is not. You play the missions or ignore them and forfeit parts of the scripted campaign, and whilst watching german liberty ships ply the waters, staring in amazement at Polish merchants navigating the Keil Canal, and sinking capitol ships that never existed, one pretends that they are playing a simulation with a hint of "depth".

Sorry. It is beautiful, and it is fun to play for a while...but it is far from deep, and the AI is no more intelligent than that in SH4 or stock SH3

Originally Posted by McBeck

I cant help but wonder when realism is mentioned, that they dont cover the insta-jumps between stations, that you no longer can do.

Interestingly, you can with some of the mods you alluded to that fix the aforementioned manual targeting.

It is also no more historically accurate to jump between stations instantly than it is to have to walk the length of the sub, repeatedly talk to subordinates about their lives and concerns, order soup for specific members to carry out tasks, view damage meters on targeted ships, lock ships with a periscope, or take over the seats of radio and sonar operators. Captains used voice pipes and spoken commands to his officers...rarely leaving the center compartments of his ship for command.

Originally Posted by McBeck

In that respect the games view towards TDC is actully accurate and realistic - We are just not used to that.

I cannot recall ever reading about any U-boat commander matching the numbers (on his digital map overlay showing the position and heading of his target) with the target's projected numbers. I am pretty sure that the stadimeter used historically was accurate for all ship types, when used properly and consistently. Accurate and realistic are not words that most historians would use to describe any part of the stock TDC in SH5...although heavily modded it does come closer to the concept, insofar as a computer simulation can.

If you are referring to the act of target identification, then I would be more likely to agree with you...but that is only a small part of the process of targeting.




I do respect your opinion McBeck, but just cannot agree with what you have read into the review. Realistically, even if the author had covered the points that you allude to, I doubt that his conclusions would have been any different.

[McBeck]

I did not read that in your text, which was quoted directly and not "out of context". Nowhere did you mention that you were referring specifically to the manual shooting of torpedoes, but rather "...all of the shortcomings". It is true that many great UI mods have vastly improved the manual shooting abilities, but the reviewer was (appropriately) reviewing the game unmodded.

In the review they talked mostly about the manual targeting - that is what I refered to and that still stands. If you install the correct mod, you get all your manual targeting options back - and with no change to insta-jumps , so that realism point also still stands. Its more realistic that the captain would have to walk to the different stations, rather than teleport.

I cannot recall ever reading about any U-boat commander matching the numbers (on his digital map overlay showing the position and heading of his target) with the target's projected numbers. I am pretty sure that the stadimeter used historically was accurate for all ship types, when used properly and consistently. Accurate and realistic are not words that most historians would use to describe any part of the stock TDC in SH5...although heavily modded it does come closer to the concept, insofar as a computer simulation can.

The captain would call out the AOB, use the steadymeter to get range and I dentify the ship, and estimate the speed, but he would NOT use the TDC himself, so the use of TDC in this is actually realistic.
I can understand that for the gameplays sake that some prefer to do it themselves and I respect that.

I do respect your opinion McBeck, but just cannot agree with what you have read into the review. Realistically, even if the author had covered the points that you allude to, I doubt that his conclusions would have been any different.

And I respect your, but we must agree to disagree here