Silent Hunter IV - the Oleg Mastruko review
eddys...@hotmail.com
http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/silenthunter4_review/
Good review - touches on what's important to gamers, mentions the mod
community and he's also one of the very few reviewers who really dives
into (ahum) the multi-player aspects of a game.
Just too bad he gives away the plot-ending in the very first
paragraph :)
"Frankly, Silent Hunter 4 was released in buggy state, and its reviews
suffered accordingly. Which is a shame, really, as Silent Hunter 4's
bugs were not the product of bad core design, as is the case with many
other games, just some sloppy final testing. After couple patches this
well designed game has become the finest submarine simulation ever
released, enjoyable for players of varying levels of experience with
simulations and naval games."
Pretend you didn't read that and just go and read the review (minus
that paragraph)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Nats
news:1181549433.2...@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Well he doesnt mention the stopwatch making it impossible to do torpedo
attacks, Lancasters in the American airforce, superswarms of planes when you
surface, repetitive missions over and over again etc. There are still loads
fo problems with the game, I havent played it since the first week I bought
it.
Nats
Oleg Mastruko
wrote:
>> Pretend you didn't read that and just go and read the review (minus
>> that paragraph)
>
>Well he doesnt mention the stopwatch making it impossible to do torpedo
>attacks, Lancasters in the American airforce, superswarms of planes when you
>surface, repetitive missions over and over again etc. There are still loads
>fo problems with the game, I havent played it since the first week I bought
>it.
Are you one of the guys I am arguing with on the WG board? :o)
Stopwatch is NOT a bug, repeat not a bug, it works as intended,
repeat works as intended. Phew. If I have to write another explanation
as to why it works as intended I'll send an invoice to UbiSoft. BTW
the manual is buggy as regards the chronometer thingie, but the game
itself is not. In this case it's the manual that needs patching not
the game.
Lancasters? Yes, because US aircraft companies are imposing some
ridicolous copyrights on how and why their historic aircraft can be
used in games. Get used to it, as game devs are not in the mood to
spend their already limited budgets on licensing the correct model
from whichever company owns right to WW2 Grumman (or Consolidated
or...) designs. Besides, hey it's a land based US bomber model in a
sub game - how many times do you expect to meet those on a mission in
US sub force? (Never.) I guess they'd be spending dollars to licence
the correct model if this is a WW2 USAAF bomber sim, but it's not,
so...
Too many aircraft - agreed, but this shortcoming is easily
moddable.
Missions are IMO excellent - best campaign design I've seen in a
long time.
eddys...@hotmail.com
> BTW
> the manual is buggy as regards the chronometer thingie, but the game
> itself is not. In this case it's the manual that needs patching not
> the game.
For years I had this old PC Mag cartoon taped to my screen - it had 2
engineers going over their options and one of them said : "How about
not fixing the bug, but rewriting the manual ?" :-)
So, how about that one "bug" in your review ? :)
I'm referring of course to the executive summary that's placed right
at the top.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Nats
"Oleg Mastruko" <ol...@bug.hr> wrote in message
news:p6lu635babb53tedl...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Well he doesnt mention the stopwatch making it impossible to do torpedo
>>attacks, Lancasters in the American airforce, superswarms of planes when
>>you
>>surface, repetitive missions over and over again etc. There are still
>>loads
>>fo problems with the game, I havent played it since the first week I
>>bought
>>it.
>
> Are you one of the guys I am arguing with on the WG board? :o)
No
>
> Stopwatch is NOT a bug, repeat not a bug, it works as intended,
> repeat works as intended. Phew. If I have to write another explanation
> as to why it works as intended I'll send an invoice to UbiSoft. BTW
> the manual is buggy as regards the chronometer thingie, but the game
> itself is not. In this case it's the manual that needs patching not
> the game.
Perhaps you can tell me just how it actually works then?
Oleg Mastruko
wrote:
>> Stopwatch is NOT a bug, repeat not a bug, it works as intended,
>> repeat works as intended. Phew. If I have to write another explanation
>> as to why it works as intended I'll send an invoice to UbiSoft. BTW
>> the manual is buggy as regards the chronometer thingie, but the game
>> itself is not. In this case it's the manual that needs patching not
>> the game.
>
>Perhaps you can tell me just how it actually works then?
You have to calculate the target speed *yourself*. Chronometer
works and measures the time for you (that's what chronometers do).
Everything else is up to you, meaning, do some math etc.
Mind you, that's under hard core realism settings and that is in
my opinion perfectly fine. If you don't want to calc the target speed
yourself (using the in-game chrono) simply use easier realism
settings, and you'll get the speed readout immediatelly when you get
the target under periscope reticle.
In SH3 you had this magic auto-calc perfect chrono, that you
just clicked and got the perfect target speed readout in 2 seconds.
Under hardcore realism settings?? Come on. Now, if anything, THAT was
bugged. Players never complained, though, simply because they love to
have it easy. In SH4 devs intended to make it more realistic, and also
harder, hence the chrono as we have it now. It's not bugged.
Devs forgot one thing though, that's to update the manual from
SH3 :o))
BTW the nomograph mod is very useful when doing hard core step
by step calculations. Not having the nomograph in the stock game is an
ommission, I'd agree with that. (But I would still not want to go back
to magic auto-calc Deep Blue chrono from SH3.) Get the nomograph mod
from www.subsim.com (along with half a dozen other fantastic mods.)
Oleg Mastruko
>For years I had this old PC Mag cartoon taped to my screen - it had 2
>engineers going over their options and one of them said : "How about
>not fixing the bug, but rewriting the manual ?" :-)
Exactly, but now it would be with a good reason. Supreme irony.
>So, how about that one "bug" in your review ? :)
>
>I'm referring of course to the executive summary that's placed right
>at the top.
I did it on purpose. Most people don't read the review to learn
something new but to either agree with the reviewer ("Yea man!") or to
flame him. 80% of readers have already formed opinion on the game in
question, they belong to this club or that club, fan bois or hate
bois, or "give us the patch-bois", or "I will never buy this because
of this and that-bois" and need to be reassured they are right or will
find secondary fun in flaming the reviewer/website/magazine.
That's OK, honestly I am no better when I read MOST of other
people's reviews :o)
Sometimes, you know the reviewer, and want to see what this
particular guy you know (Giftz, Cobb, Todd, Eddy, Chick, Trotter,
Oleg....) thinks about the game X, again, so that you can either flame
him or draw parallels like "I always liked the games this guy likes,
so if he likes this it must be good for me..."
Most magazines have simplified numerical rating of the game, so
you can just quickly glance over and know which club the reviewer
belongs to, and which attitude to take towards him and the rest of his
review. Since WG does not have such simplified numerical rating, I
feel it's only fair to give people the "attitude taker" opening
paragraph. I don't like The Trotter Reviews (TTR), where you have to
sift thru 5 pages of Musings of the Day to get to the very beginning
of his opinion on the game.
This is approach I like: this is my opinion in short, the rest
of the review follows, so you can start hating me or agreeing with me
in 3,2,1....
Werewolf
> Stopwatch is NOT a bug, repeat not a bug, it works as intended,
> repeat works as intended. Phew. If I have to write another explanation
> as to why it works as intended I'll send an invoice to UbiSoft. BTW
> the manual is buggy as regards the chronometer thingie, but the game
> itself is not. In this case it's the manual that needs patching not
> the game.
BULLSHIT. It is a bug. It is on the Subsim.com list and is acknowledged
as a bug by the 100's and 100's of SH4 players that post there as well
as by UBI. When you press the start button then the end button on the
stopwatch while locked onto a target in the scope the target's speed is
supposed to be auto-calc'd - period. One can do the calc manually but
what a pain. IRL there was a team of fire control guys to do that.
That's simulated by the stop watch tool and its busted.
> Lancasters? Yes, because US aircraft companies are imposing some
> ridicolous copyrights on how and why their historic aircraft can be
> used in games. Get used to it, as game devs are not in the mood to
> spend their already limited budgets on licensing the correct model
> from whichever company owns right to WW2 Grumman (or Consolidated
> or...) designs. Besides, hey it's a land based US bomber model in a
> sub game - how many times do you expect to meet those on a mission in
> US sub force? (Never.) I guess they'd be spending dollars to licence
> the correct model if this is a WW2 USAAF bomber sim, but it's not,
> so...
Again - BULLSHIT. Internet legend. No company's ever been sued, ever
will be and no US company has fired up any game company over this issue.
Lancasters are in there because the devs took SH3, made some code
changes and used existing aircraft without importing others. Hell they
left totally unused SH3 config files in that anyone can go in and take a
look at and obviously aren't used.
UBI wanted to get SH4 out quick and they did and they cut major
shortcuts to do it.
> Too many aircraft - agreed, but this shortcoming is easily
> moddable.
Been playing SH4 since about 2 days after it's release in all it's
versions and have never experienced this. For the life of me I have no
idea what people are referring to.
> Missions are IMO excellent - best campaign design I've seen in a
> long time.
It is an excellent campaign but there is a repeating mission bug still
extant even after patch 1.2 though I am not sure it is really a bug.
I've been reading Silent Victory again and it wasn't uncommon for boats
to be sent right back to the same patrol area they last patrolled.
Which brings me to say this. I'm starting to wonder if what a lot of
people consider bugs are actually features based on how the real sub war
in the Pacific was conducted especially at the beginning. For example a
lot of folks complain about getting radio messages that add new tasks to
their patrols and multiple times. Some say bug but in fact the commander
of Subron 10 (Fife)played checkers with his subs on patrol based out of
Brisbane for about 3 months in late 42 and early 43 - literally moving
them about frequently. 4 were lost because investigation determined the
Japanese were probably DF'ng sub radio transmissions responding to
Fife's nightly move orders. Fife even offered his resignation as a
result but it wasn't accepted. So is the receipt of multiple patrol
objectives a bug or a feature?
Werewolf
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 21:07:53 +0100, "Nats" <nst...@homecall.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>Stopwatch is NOT a bug, repeat not a bug, it works as intended,
>>>repeat works as intended. Phew. If I have to write another explanation
>>>as to why it works as intended I'll send an invoice to UbiSoft. BTW
>>>the manual is buggy as regards the chronometer thingie, but the game
>>>itself is not. In this case it's the manual that needs patching not
>>>the game.
>>
>>Perhaps you can tell me just how it actually works then?
>
>
> You have to calculate the target speed *yourself*. Chronometer
> works and measures the time for you (that's what chronometers do).
> Everything else is up to you, meaning, do some math etc.
Horse pucky. The manual is explicit about the chronometer and how it
works in manual mode. It is supposed to work exactly like it does in
SH3. Goto subsim.com and read the numerous threads about that and UBI's
occasional response acknowledging it.
> Devs forgot one thing though, that's to update the manual from
> SH3 :o))
Granted there's lots of stuff taken right out of the SH3 manual - hell
SH4's manual is the SH3 manual edited to update it but the chronometer
thing isn't one of them. And if it is then that's just more evidence
that UBI ripped all the SH4 buyers off and released an unfinished product.
Oleg Mastruko
>> You have to calculate the target speed *yourself*. Chronometer
>> works and measures the time for you (that's what chronometers do).
>> Everything else is up to you, meaning, do some math etc.
>
>Horse pucky. The manual is explicit about the chronometer and how it
>works in manual mode. It is supposed to work exactly like it does in
>SH3.
Of course, when the part of the manual is just copy/pasted from
SH3.
>Goto subsim.com and read the numerous threads about that and UBI's
>occasional response acknowledging it.
Point me to a post with "UBI acknowledging it"? On the contrary,
they hinted this is exactly how they wanted the chrono to work (after
all, this is how *I* wanted the chrono to work, along with some other
hardcore realism players).
Oleg Mastruko
>BULLSHIT. It is a bug. It is on the Subsim.com list and is acknowledged
>as a bug by the 100's and 100's of SH4 players that post there as well
>as by UBI. When you press the start button then the end button on the
>stopwatch while locked onto a target in the scope the target's speed is
>supposed to be auto-calc'd - period. One can do the calc manually but
>what a pain. IRL there was a team of fire control guys to do that.
>That's simulated by the stop watch tool and its busted.
Well simply said I disagree, many others who prefer realism
disagree and devs also disagree. I'd love to go to "bullshit" level
with you, but honestly I am simply too tired of repeating same thing
again and again and again on various boards, acting as if I am an
Ubisoft representative. I am not, but devs are, and they were pretty
clear about this.
At least be a man about it and admit it "ok, I don't care if
it's a bug I want MY SUPER EASY MAGIC INSTA AUTO CALC BACK
BOOHOOOOHOOOO".
Eh, now that I think about it, it's hard to say that and be a
man about it :o)
>Again - BULLSHIT. Internet legend. No company's ever been sued, ever
>will be and no US company has fired up any game company over this issue.
So what? Ubisoft didn't want to be the first company sued over
using aircraft 3D models, in a *submarine* game no less.
>result but it wasn't accepted. So is the receipt of multiple patrol
>objectives a bug or a feature?
If you never radio back home you'll never get additional
assignments. It's only when you report intact sub, and some torpedos
remaining, that you get more work to do (seems logical after all)
eddys...@hotmail.com
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 23:57:55 -0700, "eddyster...@hotmail.com"
> >So, how about that one "bug" in your review ? :)
>
> >I'm referring of course to the executive summary that's placed right
> >at the top.
>
> I did it on purpose.
Aha, so it's not a bug, it's a feature ! :)
> Most people don't read the review to learn
> something new but to either agree with the reviewer ("Yea man!") or to
> flame him.
Where did you develop that level of cynicism ? :)
> Sometimes, you know the reviewer, and want to see what this
> particular guy you know (Giftz, Cobb, Todd, Eddy, Chick, Trotter,
> Oleg....) thinks about the game X, again, so that you can either flame
> him or draw parallels like "I always liked the games this guy likes,
> so if he likes this it must be good for me..."
I've got that more with movie critics but I guess it's somewhat true
for wargames too.
> Most magazines have simplified numerical rating of the game, so
> you can just quickly glance over and know which club the reviewer
> belongs to, and which attitude to take towards him and the rest of his
> review.
Granted, when there's a clear percentage number at the bottom in bold
font size 132 it's kinda hard to pretend you didn't see it before
starting to read the review. But if there's a last short paragraph
that obviously is the executive summary of the review I consciously
don't read that first in order to not "kill" the rest of the review
for me. Maybe I'm just weird but reading the executive summary at the
top felt wrong, I felt robbed of the suspense in a way.
> Since WG does not have such simplified numerical rating, I
> feel it's only fair to give people the "attitude taker" opening
> paragraph.
So, in essence, you're not forcing those who want to flame you into
reading the whole review - how considerate of you :)
> I don't like The Trotter Reviews (TTR), where you have to
> sift thru 5 pages of Musings of the Day to get to the very beginning
> of his opinion on the game.
I love them - they're like a good action/horror movie where the
general mood is set in the opening scenes before all hell breaks
loose.
A Trotter review is not a hamburger you can dispose off in 5 minutes,
it's a proper meal which starts with an aperitif and appetizers. Pour
yourself a drink, lean back in your comfy chair, light up a cigar and
start reading.
> This is approach I like: this is my opinion in short, the rest
> of the review follows, so you can start hating me or agreeing with me
> in 3,2,1....
I wonder how much your IRL work as an editor - with constant deadlines
- influences your desire to get cracking from the start.
That said, I'd hate it if reviewers suddenly became clones of each
other - a reviewer should have a personality and be opinionated. If he
isn't, he's got no business telling people how he feels about a game.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Nats
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:00:55 -0500, Werewolf <nu...@biteme.net> wrote:
>
>>BULLSHIT. It is a bug. It is on the Subsim.com list and is acknowledged
>>as a bug by the 100's and 100's of SH4 players that post there as well
>>as by UBI. When you press the start button then the end button on the
>>stopwatch while locked onto a target in the scope the target's speed is
>>supposed to be auto-calc'd - period. One can do the calc manually but
>>what a pain. IRL there was a team of fire control guys to do that.
>>That's simulated by the stop watch tool and its busted.
>
> Well simply said I disagree, many others who prefer realism
> disagree and devs also disagree. I'd love to go to "bullshit" level
> with you, but honestly I am simply too tired of repeating same thing
> again and again and again on various boards, acting as if I am an
> Ubisoft representative. I am not, but devs are, and they were pretty
> clear about this.
This is a bug. If it was a feature it would have a medium option to enable
the stopwatch to calculate the targets speeds as SH3. No serious developer
is going to alienate the majority of gamers who want to play quite
realistically but not have to work hard or have magic submarine settings. I
cant play the game hardcore its just not fun for me after a day at work.
Neither can I play on the easy setting as theres no skill involved. And
thousands of people who have bought the game want the same. The game doesnt
play as it should and that is disgraceful. I havent played the game for
months and this is at least partially because its just not fun due to these
bugs and Im fed up with having to put up with bugged software. And partially
because I just feel like I have been ripped off which leaves a sour taste in
the mouth - which puts me off the idea of even trying to play the game.
I definitely wont be buying another product from Ubisoft and I definitely
wont be supporting the franchise any further. When I get round to it Ill
probably sell the game on Ebay.
One of these days developers will learn but it wont happen until reviews
such as yours stop praising them for releasing bugged software and start
getting tough. You should have been advising people not the buy the game on
principle. You mentioned the bugs but you didnt stress how serious they are
and how detrimental to the atmosphere of the game they are. Having American
Lancasters dive bombing ships is just bloody ridiculous for any simulation -
it makes the whole game a complete joke for anyone with even the slightest
knowledge of WW2.
And this is all in the first quick mission I ever played. Why would I want
to go further? It put me off completely from the first day.
Oleg Mastruko
wrote:
>This is a bug. If it was a feature it would have a medium option to enable
>the stopwatch to calculate the targets speeds as SH3. No serious developer
>is going to alienate the majority of gamers who want to play quite
>realistically but not have to work hard or have magic submarine settings.
LOL why not? If I was a dev I'd alienate you "I want to fukc but
remain virgin" types in no time.
Still, in a way, you're right. I think devs are going to include
magic auto calc option as a middle-of-the-road solution in the next
patch, simply because there are too many of you whiners, and you're
too loud. However, people who prefer realism will not use it, and
strictly speaking it cannot be classified as bug. (If it works as
designed it's not a bug, no matter how you dislike it.)
>cant play the game hardcore its just not fun for me after a day at work.
That's OK, then turn the "manual torpedo targetting" off and you
will have auto calc. Leave manual calc for us who want to do it. The
whole argument is there because "easy auto calc" types want to
practically push your easy calc thingie to players who prefer realism
like me, because you insist it's a bug.
It's not a bug, and I don't want to have your auto calc thingie
shoved on me under heavy realism settings, just because some loud
people refuse to learn maths, and still want to play using "hard"
settings.
>I definitely wont be buying another product from Ubisoft and I definitely
>wont be supporting the franchise any further. When I get round to it Ill
>probably sell the game on Ebay.
Childish reaction and your loss.......
>One of these days developers will learn but it wont happen until reviews
>such as yours stop praising them for releasing bugged software and start
>getting tough. You should have been advising people not the buy the game on
>principle.
But I like the game - warts and all - and honestly think all
things considered it's the greatest sub sim ever. Obviously we
disagree, why do you think your opinion matters more then mine?
BTW I know dozens of people who enjoy SH4 as much as I do.
>You mentioned the bugs but you didnt stress how serious they are
>and how detrimental to the atmosphere of the game they are. Having American
>Lancasters dive bombing ships is just bloody ridiculous for any simulation -
>it makes the whole game a complete joke for anyone with even the slightest
>knowledge of WW2.
I never met a single US plane on bazillions of missions I've
taken. Why would I, when I am in the sub operating deep in the enemy
waters? (OK there are some dive bombers if you play Midway single
mission, but they are not "Lancaster dive bombers" as you put it.)
Plus this is easily moddable :o) (I expect SH4 haters to go thru
the roof when they read this :o))
Oleg Mastruko
>> Since WG does not have such simplified numerical rating, I
>> feel it's only fair to give people the "attitude taker" opening
>> paragraph.
>
>So, in essence, you're not forcing those who want to flame you into
>reading the whole review - how considerate of you :)
Oh but they WILL read it - as evidenced by this very thread ;o)
They can turn on their "flame generators" right away, after reading
the opening paragraph.
>> I don't like The Trotter Reviews (TTR), where you have to
>> sift thru 5 pages of Musings of the Day to get to the very beginning
>> of his opinion on the game.
>
>I love them - they're like a good action/horror movie where the
>general mood is set in the opening scenes before all hell breaks
>loose.
Well, what's good for a historical essay is not necessarily good
for a product review. Especially knowing he'll use real historical
drama to glorify some half baked game from HPS :o)
Oleg Mastruko
>Again - BULLSHIT. Internet legend. No company's ever been sued, ever
>will be and no US company has fired up any game company over this issue.
BTW check this out, before downplaying this issue again:
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=37140&dcn=todaysnews
Nats
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 20:05:10 +0100, "Nats" <nst...@homecall.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>This is a bug. If it was a feature it would have a medium option to enable
>>the stopwatch to calculate the targets speeds as SH3. No serious developer
>>is going to alienate the majority of gamers who want to play quite
>>realistically but not have to work hard or have magic submarine settings.
>
> LOL why not? If I was a dev I'd alienate you "I want to fukc but
> remain virgin" types in no time.
??? You're losing it mate.
> Still, in a way, you're right. I think devs are going to include
> magic auto calc option as a middle-of-the-road solution in the next
> patch, simply because there are too many of you whiners, and you're
> too loud. However, people who prefer realism will not use it, and
> strictly speaking it cannot be classified as bug. (If it works as
> designed it's not a bug, no matter how you dislike it.)
>
>>cant play the game hardcore its just not fun for me after a day at work.
>
> That's OK, then turn the "manual torpedo targetting" off and you
> will have auto calc. Leave manual calc for us who want to do it. The
> whole argument is there because "easy auto calc" types want to
> practically push your easy calc thingie to players who prefer realism
> like me, because you insist it's a bug.
>
> It's not a bug, and I don't want to have your auto calc thingie
> shoved on me under heavy realism settings, just because some loud
> people refuse to learn maths, and still want to play using "hard"
> settings.
Whatever.
>>I definitely wont be buying another product from Ubisoft and I definitely
>>wont be supporting the franchise any further. When I get round to it Ill
>>probably sell the game on Ebay.
>
> Childish reaction and your loss.......
I'll live with it.
>>One of these days developers will learn but it wont happen until reviews
>>such as yours stop praising them for releasing bugged software and start
>>getting tough. You should have been advising people not the buy the game
>>on
>>principle.
>
> But I like the game - warts and all - and honestly think all
> things considered it's the greatest sub sim ever. Obviously we
> disagree, why do you think your opinion matters more then mine?
>
> BTW I know dozens of people who enjoy SH4 as much as I do.
>
>>You mentioned the bugs but you didnt stress how serious they are
>>and how detrimental to the atmosphere of the game they are. Having
>>American
>>Lancasters dive bombing ships is just bloody ridiculous for any
>>simulation -
>>it makes the whole game a complete joke for anyone with even the slightest
>>knowledge of WW2.
>
> I never met a single US plane on bazillions of missions I've
> taken. Why would I, when I am in the sub operating deep in the enemy
> waters? (OK there are some dive bombers if you play Midway single
> mission, but they are not "Lancaster dive bombers" as you put it.)
Yes they are.
> Plus this is easily moddable :o) (I expect SH4 haters to go thru
> the roof when they read this :o))
Stop writing daft reviews then.
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> Lancasters are in there because the devs took SH3, made some code
> changes and used existing aircraft without importing others.
There weren't any Lancasters in SH3. There were shitloads of
Liberators, and I'm sure the number of Short Sunderlands I've met in
my U-Boat career must be well over ten times as many as were actually
built.
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org /is/ a real email address!
Nats
"Graham Thurlwell" <nos...@jades.org> wrote in message
news:ba8688f4...@d.thurlwell.btopenworld.com...
I think the Lancasters are in there because the developers time ran out and
they had to work with what they had, they obviously ddnt have time to design
an American dive bomber. Whatever the reason they look bloomin stupid. At
least SH3 featured reasonably accurate planes for the time and scenario.
Its pretty obvious that the developers planned a quick kill with SH4 and the
project escalated out of control. Some parts like the underwater graphics
and transparent water are done brilliantly it has to be said. But other
simple areas like gameplay suffer terribly with the bugs although they
obviously had some big plans for the game as the dynamic mission testify.
Its a shame the game hasnt been what it could have with a few more months
solid work on it. Whether it was Ubisoft threats or lack of control
generally in the team certainly the game has been released before it was
completed.
Aspects such as none working stopwatch and killer sub damage should never
have been allowed to have gotten through to the final release. It spoils the
imersion compeletely - every time you want to use the periscope you realise
you are playing a badly written game with bugs. Thats disgraceful and we as
consumers should not stand for that kind of thing. Im sure many will take a
stand by refusing to buy any Ubisoft products or SH franchise in the future.
IF the SH franchise goes down it wont be any loss to gaming. Just another
example of a simulation series being ruined by publisher greed probably. And
another example of the decline of PC gaming generally where developers can
only afford to produce games if they use Polish/Russian labour etc. I
remember when it used to be the case that PC simulations were the elite of
PC games and the reason to own a computer. These days I see very few reasons
to play PC games and none on the horizon that I would buy.
Nats
Oleg Mastruko
wrote:
>another example of the decline of PC gaming generally where developers can
>only afford to produce games if they use Polish/Russian labour etc. I
>remember when it used to be the case that PC simulations were the elite of
>PC games and the reason to own a computer. These days I see very few reasons
>to play PC games and none on the horizon that I would buy.
I am amazed at the sheer number of semi lies, unqualified
statements and quasi-guesses you managed to put in the single post.
Most of them I will simply ignore (as many rehash what we already went
over).
I will comment on the cheap "Polish/Russian labour" as I can't
let THIS kind of stupidity pass unchallenged.
- SH4 (as SH3 before) was developed by UbiSoft Romanian studio.
No Poles, no Russians, not even the same ethnic or language group.
They don't even share the same border. Since I assume you're from the
UK, that's as if someone said you gotta be French (for some reason).
How about that?
- Honestly, I don't know of any Polish dev house worth noting.
In what is usually called East Europe I know of Russians, Czechs,
Hungarians, and afore mentioned Rumanians. No Poles in serious
wargame/simulation/military game scene that I would know of.
- Ubisoft has dev teams scattered all over the globe. Montreal,
Bucharest, Paris, Grin in Sweden.... 13 locations in all (that's
thirteen!!) I will not waste people's time by going thru list title by
title, studio by studio, dev by dev, lets just say that UbiSoft
Bucharest studio is the one I personaly trust the most! Followed
closely by Grin of Sweden, who also make very good, lovingly designed
games, when they put their mind to it. OTOH UbiSoft Montreal
studio..... well, don't get me started on them. So much for the cheap
east european labour....
- Incidentally, I met some guys from SH4 team, and I can
guarantee they are as knowledgable and as dedicated as any game
developers from anywhere on the planet.
- Finally, yes, some (I said SOME) Russian and Czech dev houses
did allow serious lack of quality control with some of their latest
releases (Russian developed TOW and T-72 were simply terrible -
incidentally, both games were released by Battlefront; Czech made ArmA
is pretty bad as well). Just so we get the facts straight, and I don't
get accussed of promoting "East European" games (as if any such genre
exists).
Oleg
Nats
> I will comment on the cheap "Polish/Russian labour" as I can't
> let THIS kind of stupidity pass unchallenged.
>
> - SH4 (as SH3 before) was developed by UbiSoft Romanian studio.
> No Poles, no Russians, not even the same ethnic or language group.
> They don't even share the same border. Since I assume you're from the
> UK, that's as if someone said you gotta be French (for some reason).
> How about that?
It was an example to illustrate the point. In my profession the Poles are
taking over as cheap labour. Doesnt matter what country it is the points
still perfectly valid. No one could get the English and the French confused.
But Romania is spitting distance from Russia. I dont see why this point
would particularly take your notice when the whole argument revolves around
the downturn in PC game design especially simulations and the fact that the
only way developers can do simulations these days is to get cheap labout to
do them. Im not knocking the Poles or Romanians or anyone else for than
matter, I happen to know some very nice Polish people.
You are typical of society today that tries to turn a valid argument into
some kind of ethnical slur or absent undertone. No wonder your reviews are
wide of the mark if you are so delicate in your opinions all the time. Try
telling the truth straight forwardly and you may find it works wonders for
communication. This world would be a hell of a lot better if people were
sensible. And this applies equally to the completely stupid way that nazi
swastika is banned in Germany! And disabled car drivers and other minorities
are given tons of parking places and are commandeering the design of
buildings and places to the detriment of others. Its time you and other got
some perspective for gods sake!
Big Salad
> No one could get the English and the French confused.
> But Romania is spitting distance from Russia.
Romania is about as close to Russia as Switzerland is to England.
Unless you are really one masterful spitter, you seem to have a
particularly weak grasp of geography.
But worse you implying not only a geographical but cultural closeness.
Not to stretch the analogy, but confusing Russians and Romanians
shouldn't be any more of an obvious mistake than having trouble
distinguishing any other two non-English European cultures.
Presumably the reason you can't tell the difference between Ukraine,
Romania, Russia, Poland and any other Eastern European country is five
decades of Soviet occupation. So not only are people offended by your
apparently blissful ignorance of geography, history and culture, but you
are also rubbing salt into what is, for some, a particularly nasty sore.
Epi Watkins
big....@hotmail.com says...
And here I thought this was about Silent Hunter IV.
--
It' not a sky-rocket. Click the link for a larger
view:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nailbender/516155124/
----
The Album of the moment is Greatist Hits by Pylon.
The real album name is Hits. Greatest Hits is my
edited version.
----
Cigarettes are love.
Have you ever met an anti-smoker?
----
://www.curlesneck.com
----
Epi
Oleg Mastruko
wrote:
>But Romania is spitting distance from Russia.
Dude, buy a geography Atlas. At their closest points those two
countries are around 600 kilometers apart. Besides they hate each
other. Indeed, it's kinda like French and English thing :o)
>You are typical of society today that tries to turn a valid argument into
>some kind of ethnical slur or absent undertone.
I am not running this into ethnical slur, I am just playing cat
and mouse with a guy whose main argument was that Lancaster should not
be in the role of B-24 Liberator in a *submarine* game, where you are
not supposed to see any of them, but has problems locating Rumania,
Poland or Russia on a map. :o)
To get back on point, I still think SH4 is a great game.
Oleg Mastruko
wrote:
>And here I thought this was about Silent Hunter IV.
Well it WAS :o)
von Schmidt
(SNIP)
And disabled car drivers and other minorities
> are given tons of parking places and are commandeering the design of
> buildings and places to the detriment of others. Its time you and other got
> some perspective for gods sake!
You, sir, are an arse.
-von Schmidt
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> I think the Lancasters are in there because the developers time ran out and
> they had to work with what they had, they obviously ddnt have time to design
I don't buy the time angle, not least because they already had most of
the planes the USA used for ASW done for SH3. If anything putting in
proxies like the Lancaster would take /more/ time.
Presumably Electric Boat have never made hints about demanding
licensing money for the subs otherwise people would be bitching about
plodding around the Pacifc in HMS Tiptoe or HMS Clyde. ;-)
> an American dive bomber.
Did they use dive bombers for ASW in the Pacific? Doesn't seem all
that practical to me.
> Whatever the reason they look bloomin stupid. At least SH3 featured
> reasonably accurate planes for the time and scenario.
I reckon it is the plane licensing issue. Are there /any/ US-designed
planes in the game?
> Its pretty obvious that the developers planned a quick kill with SH4 and the
> project escalated out of control. Some parts like the underwater graphics
> and transparent water are done brilliantly it has to be said. But other
> simple areas like gameplay suffer terribly with the bugs although they
> obviously had some big plans for the game as the dynamic mission testify.
Feature creep maybe? I thought the plan was to basically take SH3 and
use the same game engine but with a dynamic campaign in the Pacific
and the US/Japanese models. I did wonder why the system requirements
had doubled in certain areas.
> Its a shame the game hasnt been what it could have with a few more months
> solid work on it. Whether it was Ubisoft threats or lack of control
> generally in the team certainly the game has been released before it was
> completed.
I wonder if there's any correlation between the release date of the
game and Ubisoft's accounting milestones. The whole affair is starting
to sound a little like Gametek and FFE to me.