A New Interview With Realism Consultant for SHO
|
Of course, no info about public beta test again...
|
I thought it was kind of cool that the side view of the boat looks very much like the same view in the original Silent Hunter. :sunny:
Quote:
|
it 'looks' promising. i say 'looks.'
but who knows. when he speaks of compromise though, thats potentially a door opening onto a vast room with shifting walls. ill be interested to see what really comes from this in the end. i wish them luck.:yep: |
I don't think that this interview has changed my initial thoughts about this project, the fact that he openly talks about compromises indicates that we are talking about more than a few examples of "MMO style gameplay" trumping historical realism.
I hope that they somehow, sometime make another real Silent Hunter game, this just feels like a half baked cash in. |
"Compromise" is not a problem per se. The extent of compromise might well be ...
:hmm2: . |
Do you think the periscope not ever seeming to move is a compromise or perhaps its welded into a fixed position for historical realism on account of some secret 360 degree optics.
|
Quote:
|
After overanalyzing three Silent Hunter games while in development, I've learned to just relax and wait until it's released to pass judgement.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Gives a serious impression, and judging from his eyes, an high workload :haha:
As he pronounced the word "compromise" it seems to see he'd have preferred to avoid that word (why ? :rotfl2: ) But the word "facts" is pronounced as well, and the reconstruction and implementation of historically accurate navigation maps (Indian ocean ecc.) for the first time, is an improvement punkto realism. |
Quote:
Sometimes I think the people on this forum don't want any more sub games, especially when every game released since SH3 is subject to this endless cycle of doom and gloom. Be glad they're doing anything with it at all, because after the heat they incurred with SH5, I'm surprised that they're still trying. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The hardcore sub-simmer wants to experience being the captain of a submarine, and nothing else. The gamer wants to play a submarine game. The complaints about SH5 stem mainly from the fact that the devs seem to have tried to make a game that both simmer and gamer would enjoy, and failed at both. It's too labor-intensive for the casual gamer, and lacks what the hardcore simmers want. Of course the hardcore simmers are slaves to what they already think of as "definitive sims", which were Aces Of The Deep and Silent Hunter 1. The argument against that is that those two games weren't necessarily "definitive" so much as just first. Anything, when you look at it, could be better, depending on your point of view. It really hinges on what the individual expects of the experience. The letdown of SH4 and SH5 stems from the fact that SH3 had some extreme flaws, and its two successors didn't fix those, and in a couple of cases made it worse by getting rid of things we did like about SH3. Now we have SHO, which is getting rid of even more things that the hardcore simmers loved about the originals. I'm not complaining about it, because it's aimed at a different market than me, and that's fine. I'm just trying to answer your question and explain the percieved difference between a game and a sim. I say "percieved", because of course the perception itself hinges on what each individual player expects of the experience. In reality it's a no-win situation for everybody, and there are no real answers. We all have to compromise in one way or another. |
Quote:
The fun thing about SH1 and AOD is that they are really quite 'gamy' if the level of simulation is judged solely on procedural fidelity. Both automate a lot of processes like TMA and sailing model, and AOD even had an automated deck gun. Whereas the hardcore sim crowd would complain if these stations weren't modelled to the point of manually compensating for windage. I don't think procedural fidelity is something that magically improves the simulated experience. As an example, the one WW1 game that gave me the best experience of "being there" was without a doubt Wings, even though it was hardly a realistic simulation compared to even Red Baron or Knights of the Sky. Its qualities lay in the narrative. Oh yeah, SH1 is one of the few dos sims that hasn't really aged at all if you play it in DosBox today. Even the graphics still look good if you can look past the flat sea. Then experience what has to be THE defining anti-sub AI if there ever was one. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is why I probably won't like SHO. I want to sail out of Kiel and through the canal, with locks and working gates, and that's not what this online game is about. But that's just me. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
A simulation (sim) is what the program models about the subject's systems, processes and reactions to the world around it. As stated above DCS products are excellent examples of simulations in that they approach the level of fidelity that you would find in a training environment. A game is the universe that the program creates for the simulator to exist in. Sometimes you can have a really good (fun) game with a poorly modeled simulator in it (TAW and EECH are examples that comes to mind) or a great simulator with a poorly executed game to exist in (this is where the DCS products fall down, as well as SH2 and many others). Rarely do you find and excellent simulator within an excellent game. JCC |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:01 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2024 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.