Quote:
|
Originally Posted by EAST
Interesting response.
The graphics were just average for the time. Somethings were a little better, some (like the ocean) a little worse. Our physics are good, but limited. Sound was good, sometimes great. Music was very good - a full original score by Tim Clarke. Our voice response was the best in any game period. Probably the worst thing about Enigma (besides no multiplayer) was the misunderstanding (and mis-marketing by Dreamcatcher) by the subsim afficionados about what Enigma was supposed to be. Everyone wanted a multiplayer AOD or SHx, Enigma wasn't that. Hell, half the people who bought it during the first 3 months didn't even realize it was alternate history.
Our objective with Enigma was NOT to create a ship simulation, but a command simulation - an experience: One guideline was never letting the player be more than 3 minutes from combat; we had to because we have no time acceleration in the game. Another was to create a high pressure situation, layer by layer in each mission. We did this by mis-direction, pre-discovery, carefully timed segments in the missions (enemy aircraft coming in JUST as you were coming in range of a convoy for example).
Face it, SH3 does a much better job of letting you pretend you are running a real submarine, you can plot your approach, take readings and use a TDC to setup your shots. But without time acceleration, SH3 would be beyond boring.
We wanted to focus on the actual combat experiences themselves - attack and avoid, broken approaches and pursuit, overwhelming odds, poor position on a sweet target. Command decisions.
I think you are mistaking what you are getting from looking at the memory. The AI was forced to play by the same rules as a player. They both utilized the same interfaces in the same way for controlling the ships/subs, they both utilize the exact same discovery methods and rule sets with only 1 exception: The mission scripts can be set for any ship to be aware of any other ship. In most cases, the enemy ships will be aware of your position at the beginning of the scenario, or shortly after it starts. This is likely what you were observing.
Not only does the AI not cheat, it utilizes group tactics (surface vs sub) as well as pretty standard naval strategies throughout. I know guys (not on our dev team) who could finish campaigns in a day. Some completed all the patrols and campaigns for surface and submarine for all factions within 2 weeks. Considering some of your comments, its clear you made your mind up before playing it. Nothing wrong with that, your loss not mine.
Incidently, even without getting a multiplayer version done, Enigma has sold very well and continues to sell a couple 1000 units a month more than 3 years after its initial release. We did it as a group of starving developers with next to ZERO funding and singlehandedly revived the genre. Don't agree? Check your history - SH3 was never coming out, UBI made that clear. Naval was dead in the water. Then Enigma started getting interest and making money...then UBI decided to re-look at SH3 (check the development start dates for yourself). Then came the Battlestations Midway video, Navy Field, et. al.
You may not like Enigma, but we accept your thanks for kicking this genre in the balls and getting it rolling again.
--East
|
I have to totally agree with East here. I play Enigma from time to time, most often when I really dont want to get into hours and hours of 2048x time compression and still have the uncertainty of ever finding a contact. Sure, Silent Hunter 3 is a great game, and it surpasses Enigma only if you view Enigma as a die-hard simulation, which it isnt, and never really claimed to be.
Enigma: RT delivered where it counted, an affordable submarine game that someone could just pick up and play. Who cares if its got outdated graphics? It means it runs faster. It still had three campaigns (if I recall) and some pretty damn good immersion.
Oh, and with regards to the AI, its a common misconception. No, its not the AI's fault, you just need practise.