PDA

View Full Version : Daily Questions: realism vs. arcade



Pr0metheus 1962
11-18-2004, 09:21 AM
In the daily questions, Heibges asked:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(HeibgesU999): "The top 34 German U-boat Aces, all scoring over 100k GRT, "averaged" less than 3 ships per Patrol. At the highest levels of realism will this be reflected? For those who like a more "arcadey" experience, will there be variable levels for chances of an encounter."

(Devteam): "The highest level of realism will be challenging, but you have to remember this is a game. The player will be able to do things that were not possible in reality like save/load and time compression that will influence his performance." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand this. How do save/load and time compression influence a U-Boat commander's performance? Okay, I can see if you save after every good mission and ignore every bad mission (though, in my opinion, anyone who would do that is cheating), but time compression? How can time compression possibly alter performance? Time is only being compressed for the player. The actual sub and her commander are experiencing the action in real time, so there's no possibility of time compression influencing performance.

I certainly hope that the game is historically accurate. This is a simulation - not just a game. While arcade options should be available, they should be there as an option, and secondary to the main focus of the game, which should be giving us a realistic appreciation for the experience of a U-Boat commander. The simulation should be as accurate as possible in terms of the adventures of the U-Boat crews and their commanders. I don't want reality automatically tuned to a more exciting 'version'. If the game is going to have options in this regard, then why can't I have the option of full realism for my commander and crew, no matter how boring that level of realism might seem to some?

No matter what Jack Nicholson says in 'A Few Good Men' I DO want the truth, and I CAN handle it.

ParaB
11-18-2004, 10:24 AM
As the devs stated, it is important to realize that SH3 is NOT a historically 100% accurate minute simulation of WW2 submarine warfare, but a computer game based on WW2 sub warfare.

As such the aim of SH3 is to provide the gamer with an interesting, challenging and immersive experience that mixes realism, action, gameplay and grafics for the (hopefully) best result.

It will NOT accurately portray every single aspect of WW2 naval warfare.

CB..
11-18-2004, 11:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
If the game is going to have options in this regard, then why can't I have the option of full realism for my commander and crew, no matter how boring that level of realism might seem to some?

No matter what Jack Nicholson says in 'A Few Good Men' I __DO__ want the truth, and I __CAN__ handle it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He He!! with a bit of extra realism even the "boring " times can be dealt with with some flexible incorporation of extra detailing...

im still hoping for option to play chess or draughts or similar with the crew..we have the mp3 player in the captains quarters (great stuff! and very flexible that will be for modding additional sound effects for the game)

why not take the idea the next logical step (in some future version of the game) and include a chess board as well.(wouldnt even need to be 3d just a old scholl 2d mini game in a new window).enabling the player to spend some of his slow moments playing chess matches against his oficers and perhaps even crew..(it wouldn't take too much to rig up a dynamic league table on the subs notice board ..even if entirely un conected with the rest of the gameplay it wouldn't be at all un realistic..heck if your officers do well on the league table they could even gain a few morale points by doing so..

i think the thing is when i fire up SH2 for example i don't allways do so just to go and sink ships..often it is to pass some time...(it's better than watching the cr*p thats on telly most nights )
stooging towads the next patrol zone can be pleasant way to spend an hour or so..even more so in a game as nicely modelled and graphically advanced as SH3...i can't be the only one who likes a good sunset in a game and doesnt allways rush from one explosion to the next in fear that if i don't i'll be thought strange lol!!

i allso read E-Books...don't see why the heck i can't read an E-Book whilst playing a sub-sim..LOL...so why the heck not include an e-book reader in the captains cabin..wouldnt kill any one..and again it would be Realistic...the possibilities are endless...and all could be reasonably considered an aspect of a much deeper sense of realism..

it's all a matter of pespective..mention the words "mini game" and it's dificult to avoid some folks jumping up and shouting "arcade..arcade" but just how arcade would it actually be to be able to play chess with the officers.? and even tho they might have been some issues regarding the commander playing (and possibly loosing) a chess match with his officers, i no doubt think that it is possibible to stretch the point ..as chess matches...poetry competitions, even book reading classes were held on subs...

there's so much more to realism than first meets the eye and PC games are ideal for incorporating these sorts of "off beat" additions to the main gameplay..(tho a poetry competition might be a little too off beat for most tastes lol i bet it could be done...bit of random text generation ..presented to you for judegment ..the crew member whoose poem you like the most gets some additional morale points...actually holding the competition in the first place boosts you crews morale...(as reaslitic as it gets)...lets have some more realism..lots of it please..all it takes is a bit of imagination.

heck then you can Play a bit of Mozart,
play a game of chess...
read a good book...
and watch the sun gow down over the simulated horizon..people pay good money for that sort of thing y'know!!

and if the crew shouts Alarm!!!! whilst your doing it then that's about as realistic as it's going to get...

ParaB
11-18-2004, 11:16 AM
You forgot the ability to play as cook. Screw up the dinner and your deck gun's cew performance will be reduced...

Too much cabbage and the O2 level within the sub may suffer...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CB..
11-18-2004, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ParaB:
You forgot the ability to play as cook. Screw up the dinner and your deck gun's cew performance will be reduced...

Too much cabbage and the O2 level within the sub may suffer...

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif you took the words out of my mouth ...i was going to suggest that if the crew performs well you might have the opportunity to recruit the best cook in the flotilla and that without a shadow off any doubt what so ever would have had a dramatic effect on any u-boat crews morale...realism again ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

HeibgesU999
11-18-2004, 11:38 AM
the time compression should make low contact missions easier to get through.

before you get radar on your sub in SH1, it was very easy to spend 30minutes at high time compression not make one contact, have 3 weeks of game time go buy, and travel 4000nm patrolling.

Tiberius is an avowed fan of SH1, so maybe this is what they mean. If its based of probility this would be a very easy option to mod I would think anyway.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-18-2004, 11:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ParaB:
As the devs stated, it is important to realize that SH3 is NOT a historically 100% accurate minute simulation of WW2 submarine warfare... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't expect it to be. But the realistic bits they do incorporate should be realistic. I don't need another arcade game - I already have plenty of those. The question is, is it a simulation or is it an arcade game? Why do developers always shy away from the word 'simulation' when they're talking about a sim? Is it because they don't want to scare off the arcade fans?

Pr0metheus 1962
11-18-2004, 01:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeibgesU999:
the time compression should make low contact missions easier to get through. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly hope that won't be the case. If I'm using time compression I'll expect the commander to get word of every sighting and I'll expect to drop out of time compression at that moment. I'd hate to think that I'd have to play for 4 weeks in real (1 to 1) time just to make sure I didn't miss a contact. I doubt whether anyone will be wanting the game to place that much demand on the player. At that rate I would still be on my first campaign career when SH4 comes out.

TASKFORCE1x1
11-18-2004, 03:34 PM
Good example of an Arcade like game is Metal of Honor Pacific Assault.

A few levels of MOHPA are arcade like.

One I can tell off hand is when you have to be in a PT boat and shoot down meatballs out of the sky as they attack battleship row at pearl harbor. The PT boat follows a track pattern. This is most evidant if you die and what you see is an attack that is repeated exactly over and over again. Kinda upsetting. I didnt expect an arcade like game out of MOHPA. Besides also you cant roam the jungle as freely as in BF1942,BFVietnam, or Joint Ops. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

ParaB
11-18-2004, 04:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ParaB:
As the devs stated, it is important to realize that SH3 is NOT a historically 100% accurate minute simulation of WW2 submarine warfare... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't expect it to be. But the realistic bits they do incorporate should be realistic. I don't need another arcade game - I already have plenty of those. The question is, is it a simulation or is it an arcade game? Why do developers always shy away from the word 'simulation' when they're talking about a sim? Is it because they don't want to scare off the arcade fans? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it isn't a problem at all. SH3 is marketed as a subsim. But it seems that people like you expect SH3 to be something the devs never intended to make.

It's all about reasonable expectations...

Jose.MaC
11-18-2004, 05:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ParaB:
As the devs stated, it is important to realize that SH3 is NOT a historically 100% accurate minute simulation of WW2 submarine warfare... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't expect it to be. But the realistic bits they do incorporate should be realistic. I don't need another arcade game - I already have plenty of those. The question is, is it a simulation or is it an arcade game? Why do developers always shy away from the word 'simulation' when they're talking about a sim? Is it because they don't want to scare off the arcade fans? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is a game, intended for the wider feasible audience. So must have adjusts to satisfy most of the wishes of both kind of players. Remember that lots of good sims have been cancelled in previous years -there was a cicle of low demand. If they risk so much in this game, they'll try to atract as much people as they can.

Don't be so rigid. Is just a game. You'll use it to entertain yourself, not for militaria training, so stop acting as if your life were depending on it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Jose.MaC
11-18-2004, 05:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeibgesU999:
the time compression should make low contact missions easier to get through. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly hope that won't be the case. If I'm using time compression I'll expect the commander to get word of every sighting and I'll expect to drop out of time compression at that moment. I'd hate to think that I'd have to play for 4 weeks in real (1 to 1) time just to make sure I didn't miss a contact. I doubt whether anyone will be wanting the game to place that much demand on the player. At that rate I would still be on my first campaign career when SH4 comes out. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Up to date, I cannot remember any sub game in wich, when getting a contact, time dind't return to normal. You don't have to worry about it.

HeibgesU999
11-18-2004, 05:59 PM
Then you must not rememeber SH2, because the TC did not drop to real time.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-18-2004, 06:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ParaB:
I think it isn't a problem at all. SH3 is marketed as a subsim. But it seems that people like you expect SH3 to be something the devs never intended to make. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Responses like the above make me wonder how people get on at all, and the implied assumption that just good enough is good enough makes me wonder how we ever climbed down from the trees.

People like me? Do you know me? Do you know people like me? I sincerely doubt that you've ever met anyone quite like me.

For someone who has never met me, and who is judging my expectations based on the tiniest amount of information, you assume an awful lot.

Maybe my expectations are high. Low expectations can only end up in mediocrity. I prefer something better.

Now why exactly is it that you don't want me to play my copy of the game as I prefer? And if you get to decide that, do I get to decide what features your copy has? I'm asking why we can't have OPTIONAL realism here. Why is OPTIONAL realism so frightening to some folks that they need to belittle those who think it might be nice as an OPTION?

Hmm?

CB..
11-18-2004, 06:34 PM
i guess my point on this is that it is possible to add realism and fun at the same time...whilst playing chess with your crew might not be every-bodys idea of fun , im sure theer are plenty of alternative "mini games" that would have been played on board u boats in order to keep morale up and pass the time ..ive even read about a board game called "stuka" that was made as a propoganda "peg and board" game during the war ..and that this was a game played by u-boat crews whilst on patrol..sort of LUDO with stukas...the MP3 player will do wonders for the game tho even if thats the only extra feature it's still a huge one..(the sum of that features parts will definitely be greater than it's whole!) you can get the entire history of WW2 on MP3...so there's no end of fun to be had with that feature..

just goes to show how one tiny feature can really add a tremendous amount to a game/sim..

Pr0metheus 1962
11-18-2004, 06:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CB..:
i guess my point on this is that it is possible to add realism and fun at the same time... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Realism and fun almost always go hand-in-hand. That is, after all, why sims just keep getting more and more realistic. If realism wasn't fun, all games would be arcade games.

Speaking of mini-games, I recently completed the game 'Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic'. That game had a mini-card game which is pretty addictive, so much so that there have been many requests for LucasArts to release it as a real card game. My point is that mini-games can be a LOT of fun in their own right, and they can only add to a game's interest and longevity.

ParaB
11-18-2004, 07:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
Responses like the above make me wonder how people get on at all, and the implied assumption that just good enough is good enough makes me wonder how we ever climbed down from the trees.

People like me? Do you know me? Do you know people like me? I sincerely doubt that you've ever met anyone quite like me.

For someone who has never met me, and who is judging my expectations based on the tiniest amount of information, you assume an awful lot.

Maybe my expectations are high. Low expectations can only end up in mediocrity. I prefer something better.

Now why exactly is it that you don't want me to play my copy of the game as I prefer? And if you get to decide that, do I get to decide what features your copy has? I'm asking why we can't have OPTIONAL realism here. Why is _OPTIONAL_ realism so frightening to some folks that they need to belittle those who think it might be nice as an _OPTION?_

Hmm? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't want to offend you, Beeryus. But I think you didn't quite understand what I wrote.

Read again: There seem to be a difference what some people expect SH3 to be and what the devs intend to create.

At least that's how I understand it when I read posts like yours.

SH3 will be a great game, and it will offer a a great detail of realism. But realism just for realism's sake doesn't automatically transform into a great game. The problem I see with "people like you" (which wasn't meant in a negative way BTW) is that they apparently see 'realism' as the 'ne plus ultra' while I see it a bit more differentiated. 'Realism' in a computer game is only one part of a system where every part has to work in order to provide an interesting gaming experience.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-18-2004, 07:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ParaB:
But realism just for realism's sake doesn't automatically transform into a great game. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see anyone here asking for realism just for realism's sake. If you assume we're asking for that, you're mistaken. A game can be made MORE fun by adding more realism. Why would you think I'd want anything but more fun?

The fact is, realism and fun go hand-in-hand. If that wasn't the case we would never have simulations as realistic as SH3 is going to be.

Another fact is that games like SH3 are going to become much more realistic as technology improves. We can't stop that, and why would we want to? No one wants to go back to the days of 'Flight of the Intruder', 'Red Baron 1', the original 'Sub Hunt', or 'Pong' (well some people do, but that's a whole different genre). Realism is the future, and fun will be right there alongside it. I just want the most realistic options that are currently possible to be available - that's all. Most simulation games don't give that option, not because technology doesn't exist to do it (it is after all just a matter of getting the balance of forces right, and that can be achieved with the simplest system), but because there is a bias against it - there always has been. Somehow, the conventional wisdom has always been that realism is wrong - that it shouldn't be attempted because it will take away from the fun. It's hogwash, but people just accept it as if it's been handed down on stone tablets. It is a myth that is constantly being proven wrong by every realistic simulation that comes along as the industry produces more and more realistic simulations, yet always, in one area each simulation never quite offers a truly realistic experience. They always hold back by giving a more bloody experience than is necessary, and no way to tone it down to realistic historical levels. For example, B-17 II gave 9 times the historical casualty levels (not two, or five, or seven, but NINE. How the devs can get it so wrong baffles me. I toned it down to realistic levels and offered a mod that was very well received (it took weeks of work). Similarly, I was in the team that created the first 'realism mod' for Red Baron 3D (which, among many other things, gave the player the option to fly contact missions, cutting the campaign length [a standard campaign originally required up to 2000 missions - if you survived that long] by a factor of 7, and permitting players to finish a campaign seven times faster and give a more realistic career experience, because the developers forgot - or ignored - the fact that many patrols in WW1 were cancelled, washed out, or found no enemy to attack). My final mod for RB3D took me 6 months of 12 hour days (I was unemployed at the time) - work that should probably have taken the developers a couple of weeks, but I was hex-editing data - I didn't have the right tools. That mod was such a success that my website host had to shut my account down because their automatic download monitor told them that the huge number of downloads of the mod meant I must be distributing porn. That's how popular this stuff is.

I guess what this rant really comes down to is this - realism is both possible, fun, and popular. Why do I always have to be the one who spends months modifying games in order to give full realism to the thousands of people who want it? While I do it purely for my own satisfaction, the very fact that so many people want more realism should make developers at least offer it as an option. I'm tired of spending months doing what the developer could do in a week. Can't the developers do it just this once and offer a truly realistic non-arcade difficulty level as an option, so I don't have to do it?

I realise it's probably futile. People here probably don't have a clue what work I did on Red Baron 3D. They probably never used my B-17 mod, so they have no idea that realism and fun are directly linked. Please, if anyone has used my mods, clue these folks in for me, 'cos clearly I'm just not persuasive enough to get my message across properly.

CB - you know what I'm talking about, right? You've done this work too - on SH2. You know what a pain it is to see things that are wrong, and no reason for them to be wrong, and you know how much time and effort it takes without the developer's tools, to put those things right so that EVERYONE has the option of a better, more fun, and more realistic experience.

I'm just tired. I'm 42 years old with a 2 year old kid. I'm facing yet another game that has huge potential, but which I fear will more than likely generate too many contacts than was historically accurate, and which will probably force the player to be in combat longer than any historical commander was - all of which means patrols and campaigns that take too long to play, and that are unsurvivable - all (for some inexplicable reason) in the name of 'fun'. I can live without the kind of 'fun' that frustrates my every effort to complete a campaign. I just want this game to be realistic enough so that I can smile when I get it running, and sigh and say 'That'll do', and then look forward to the day when I can teach my daughter to hunt convoys in the North Atlantic.

jensofswede2004
11-19-2004, 02:49 AM
I agree completly with you beeryus! I love realism! And what's making me happy is that I will probably enjoy almost 99% photo realism during my lifetime. When I consider the fact that twenty years ago we were still playing pacman and space invaders, I know that twenty years from now we will have awsome games that will make SH3 look like the ancestor games of the early 80's.

Jose.MaC
11-19-2004, 02:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HeibgesU999:
Then you must not rememeber SH2, because the TC did not drop to real time. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, was such a bad game that I didn't ever play it enought to find all its trouble!

So I'm wrong about this one. Sorry.

Jose.MaC
11-19-2004, 03:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
I'm just tired. I'm 42 years old with a 2 year old kid. I'm facing yet another game that has huge potential, but which I fear will more than likely generate too many contacts than was historically accurate, and which will probably force the player to be in combat longer than any historical commander was - all of which means patrols and campaigns that take too long to play, and that are unsurvivable - all (for some inexplicable reason) in the name of 'fun'. I can live without the kind of 'fun' that frustrates my every effort to complete a campaign. I just want this game to be realistic enough so that I can smile when I get it running, and sigh and say 'That'll do', and then look forward to the day when I can teach my daughter to hunt convoys in the North Atlantic. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree about this. That was the reason I soon dropped SH2. I prefered far more the sistem of AoD, that allowed you to begin a campaing at any point during the war. After 6-8 missions per campaing, I always left, because from my point of view, this captain had acomplished his work.

If SH3 allows you to begin in any point during the war, is up to you to decide wheter to follow or leave a campaing. Of course, if you get about 10 missions, I'll follow them. If, let's say, those missions implies that I'll have to reenter service after a year or so out of the sea, will feel really satisfied.

bertgang
11-19-2004, 04:07 AM
My two cents answer to the first question.

Time compression and savings really affect combat realism, even when not cheating, and even if conceived for different pourpose.

Why? Simply because the player is ready for action after few minutes, or few hours, of gameplaying: the captain, the crew, the boat are less tyred than in real life, where engagements happened after days, weeks or months at sea.

I'm with CB for mini games and e-books inside; I'll seriously add a sort of text editor to write our war diary and reports; maybe we'll never see them in SHIII, but they could be a realistic manner to kill the time during our travels.

Jose.MaC
11-19-2004, 05:48 AM
Methinks that in the FAQ they already said you could write in the war diary.

Minigames will be welcome.

Anyway, have to agree about savings. You can leave whenever you want, and reengage whenever you've time. I wouldn't allow to save if there is anything shoot, or an enemy nearer thant 5 km.

bertgang
11-19-2004, 06:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jose.MaC:
I wouldn't allow to save if there is anything shoot, or an enemy nearer thant 5 km. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But so we have to face with a worst problem, on my point of wiew, as often I have to exit the game regardless what's happening.

I don't wish savings for cheating, but I need free savings anytime just to live my real life.

CB..
11-19-2004, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:

CB - you know what I'm talking about, right? You've done this work too - on SH2. You know what a pain it is to see things that are wrong, and no reason for them to be wrong, and you know how much time and effort it takes without the developer's tools, to put those things right so that EVERYONE has the option of a better, more fun, and more realistic experience.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes i know exactly what you mean..the DES5 mod i made really did take over a year to make..and most of that time was spent just altering a few things..then realising that the only way to test the changes was to play the game ;lots of folks talked about making specific test missions to test snsor changes etc..but SH2 is such a complex bit of kit that this is allmost impossible..theres allways some variable that reandered even the most stricly controlled test mission un viable so the only real way to do it was to play the game as per normal and develop a feel for the changes ..so, many, many hours was spent just provoking destroyers into attacking then see-ing how the encounter played out ..over and over again..there are so many features in SH2 that are only partailly working that it creates a maze of variables that are so subtle in effect that they are allmost non existant..in gameplay terms..which is why in the end i just had to go with what i wanted to achieve ..and thats the issue really not every-one has the same ideals when it comes to gameplay /realism etc...we all want realism....but each of us has a specific area of realism that interest us the most.. the problem is that the tendency has grown amoungst gamers to dismiss anything that falls out side our favourite features as un realistic even arcade...i blame SH2 for this LOL..all that having to play entire missions in one sitting because the save game system is bugged to death has made the majority of SH2 players slightly insane..so much so they (me included) started to think that this was some how part of being a hardcore realism player...(which is daft)

this is one of the reasons i spent months talking with other modders and coders in order to work out some sort of system for mission writting that allowed the player to save without loosing half the gameplay in the process..with help and advice from more experienced VisualBasic coders i then made a campaign generator which used this approach .creating as much randomisation as i could and specifically set up to allow save-ing and reloading of your campaign when and where you wanted without destroying the integrity of your career.(albiet only a short 5 mission one)

what the heck am i talking about??
well what i think i'm trying to say is that there is no such thing as realism in simulations there is only good gameplay and bad gameplay...nothing in SH3 is going to scare me to death...so it cannot be realistic..we could debate this untill our brains explode and still completely miss the point...

it's about balance i suppose...i really do think simulation developers should look further afield for their features than just the normal sim stock and trade stuff....
there should be moments in a sub sim that could be described as "survival horror"
other wise there a whole world of "realism" that's missing from the game..

we have time excelleration so the amount of contacts we are likely to meet is allmost irrelevant ...how many contacts per month of time at sea etc becomes an entirely subjective feature..

how many contacts are actually in the mission to start with , as you say is the issue..
if the gameplay is strong enough it really wont matter..but if the gameplay is entirely centered around sinking ships...then this is a problem if there are no ships to sink..(to take it to it's logical conclusion)

if the gameplay is centered around life on board a german submarine during WW2..of which the sinking of enemy ships is just a part of the purpose of that life, but not the whole of it ..it does not stop being a simulation..

it's about (i believe) where the gameplay in the sim is focused...is it focused on sinking ships ...?

or is it focused on a wider interpretation of life on board a U-boat during WW2..

if it's focused on the life aboard a U-boat during WW2, then there is a whole world of features that can be just as satisfying as sinking ships...
AND to boot,, you allso get the to sink ships as well!! can't be bad.....more than doubling the gameplay satisfaction and fun as well..opening up the player to a whole new area of realism and fun..

"it's realism Jim...but not as we know it.."

i'm with you beery..if folks want to play at being the ultimate war hero, Uber tonnage king killing machine ..well that's what multiplayer is for..

single player is where folks want something a little more complex..me i want to sit at the mealtime table and discuss life with the chief engineer.. i can do this in any number of RPG's ..so i dont see how this can damage the gameplay..you don't have to talk to him..tho this might lower his moral of course ..lol

the possibilities are endless.

i'm not too bothered tho about not being able to survive a campaign as this adds an element of mystery to the thing..if you see what i mean

Pr0metheus 1962
11-19-2004, 07:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
Time compression and savings really affect combat realism... because the player is ready for action after few minutes, or few hours, of gameplaying: the captain, the crew, the boat are less tyred than in real life <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they aren't. Fatigue IS modelled into this sim. You might not be fatigued but your captain and crew will be, and it will affect their work.

bertgang
11-19-2004, 08:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Beeryus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
Time compression and savings really affect combat realism... because the player is ready for action after few minutes, or few hours, of gameplaying: the captain, the crew, the boat are less tyred than in real life <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No they aren't. Fatigue IS modelled into this sim. You might not be fatigued but your captain and crew will be, and it will affect their work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mean that also if fatigue is modelled, and captain and crew will be fatigued in the sim, player's brain won't be, not in the same way, at least: he is able to think more clearly than a really fatigued, stressed, officer, and that could make a substantial difference.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-19-2004, 08:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
I mean that also if fatigue is modelled, and captain and crew will be fatigued in the sim, player's brain won't be, not in the same way, at least: he is able to think more clearly than a really fatigued, stressed, officer, and that could make a substantial difference. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But that's why the feature is in there to begin with - to force the player - however alert he is - to play the game as if he's a tired skipper with a tired crew (and let's not forget that these crews had time to sleep - it's not as if they drove themselves to exhaustion on every patrol - there were beds in a U-Boat after all, and there were work shifts to ensure that the crew remained rested and alert).

Sure, you can't model every aspect of fatigue perfectly (although I'm sure I will stay up all night on some long patrols, hehe) but some aspects of realism should be up to the individual player's tastes.

CB..
11-19-2004, 08:27 AM
perhaps replacing the daft hull integrity meter with an over all crew AND boat combined "Combat Effectivness" meter would satisfy some of these problems..forcing the player to consider backing of from combat untill he can bring his crews morale back up and repair any damage..

that's got to be good for complex gameplay..(and keeping tonnage figures a little lower)


either way lets loose the hull integrity meter/ read out..even in SH2 nothing quite adds tension to a mission than not having any real idea exactly how much more damage you can take before you die..all of which is simply achieved by blanking out (or rendering fully transparent) the hull integrity guage's needle

more gameplay...and yet again more realism...

heck they should make this an option at least in most first person shooters lol!!

remove the health bar from the players view in a FPS and what have you got?...some thing entirely different..it's amazing how one tiny feature dominates the entire gameplay in most games..

Messervy
11-19-2004, 09:59 AM
Just a thought to make this debate more complicated:

In real life you pretty much know when you are about to die, don`t you?

Therefore a Health Bar is not so far fetched.
However a Hull Integrity Bar should be, as someone said before: Light, Moderate, Severe, Critical!

CB..
11-19-2004, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
Just a thought to make this debate more complicated:

In real life you pretty much know when you are about to die, don`t you?

Therefore a Health Bar is not so far fetched.
However a Hull Integrity Bar should be, as someone said before: Light, Moderate, Severe, Critical! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

He He!!fair enough!! to a point but as you never knew which depth charge would be the one that might sink the boat and there by causing your death (the sim not being that complicated), or how much damage any one particular depth charge (for example) might actually cause ; in gameplay terms the impact of not having any sort of health bar and there fore having no imperically accurate measure of how much of a safety cushion (ie how much damage you can recieve without die-ing) you have , far out ways any positive aspects (which are really quite limited) from having a certain knowledge of this information..i am much happier not knowing as i welcome the increased "difficulty" as i dont think of this (to contradict my self) as increased difficulty BUT increased tension atmosphere and fun/realism...you see there's realism that is in the end just blithering nonsense and realism that actually impacts on gameplay.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

some aspects of realism are rarely simulated directly..such as risk etc...so other more round about methods can be used to generate the same situations..if i dont know how much more damage the boat can withstand ..i am more likely to be cautious...and so on.....basic stuff really,

Yarrick_
11-19-2004, 11:11 AM
I think that I must remember two things which appeared in the daily questions:
1-All images which have been shown to us are in "easy" mode, and we will not have the hull integrity indicator in "hard" mode.
2-You can begin a campaign at any time between 1939 and 1943.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-19-2004, 11:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarrick_:
2-You can begin a campaign at any time between 1939 and 1943. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder why we can't start a campaign in 1944 or 1945? Real U-Boat commanders did. Why are we not able to start a career on a Type XXI in March 1945? I know it would probably only last one patrol, but if I just want a career with one patrol, why shouldn't I be able to do it?

My fear is that they're going to force us into some scripted campaign elements that take away from our freedom to play an open-ended campaign. Has anyone heard anything about this?

bertgang
11-19-2004, 11:30 AM
I accept that I can't choice my boat in campaign mode, but can't understand time restrictions for starting campaigns.

Maybe a way to force us to have some training on older subs?

Pr0metheus 1962
11-19-2004, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bertgang:
I'm going to ask in the questions thread why we can't start a career in 1944 or 1945. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've been doing a bit of research and I've figured out why it might be. Basically, it was virtually impossible for a U-Boat to operate successfully in the Atlantic in 1944-45. They could hardly sink a thing, and it was virtual suicide to leave the sub pens. All the big-scoring U-Boats of the last two years were in the Baltic or the Indian Ocean.

Still, I reckon we should be allowed to see what it was like to face suicidal odds in the Atlantic. Like I said before, over 150 U-Boat commanders took their first patrols in the Atlantic and North Sea between January 1944 and the end of the war.

Messervy
11-19-2004, 12:29 PM
@CB..
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> some aspects of realism are rarely simulated directly..such as risk etc...so other more round about methods can be used to generate the same situations..if i dont know how much more damage the boat can withstand ..i am more likely to be cautious...and so on.....basic stuff really, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know what would be ultimate realism?
Suppose someone someday makes the perfect sim.
You install it, you make your training, you get your orders and then you play it.
....And when you die....bang...you can`t play again....never...because it is only possible to play it online and there is central server (the God) that won`t let you play it again.

Oh yes one more thing....the game costs a FORTUNE!!!!

I am preatty sure every depth charge would scare the living daylight out of us! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-19-2004, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
You know what would be ultimate realism?
Suppose someone someday makes the perfect sim.
You install it, you make your training, you get your orders and then you play it.
....And when you die....bang...you can`t play again....never...: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure how that would be realistic. Realism isn't reality. You are not the U-Boat commander. You only control him. He dies, you don't. That's realISM, not realITY. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You experience realism, the U-Boat commander experiences his reality. Lots of people get confused about this (it's not the first time I've seen the 'if you want realism you should die when your sub sinks' argument, which seems very close to what you're suggesting). Let me just show the definitions that we're talking about:

Realism: the quality or fact of representing a person, thing, or situation accurately or in a way that is true to life. (New Oxford Dictionary of English)

Reality: the world or the state of things as they actually exist... (New Oxford Dictionary of English)

Messervy
11-19-2004, 12:59 PM
O.K.
I was refering on the particular aspect of the game that "can be simulated by other means".
Tension, anxiety, fear etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-19-2004, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
O.K.
I was refering on the particular aspect of the game that "can be simulated by other means".
Tension, anxiety, fear etc. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand. How can you simulate a commander's anxiety by making yourself anxious? You're not the commander. You only decide what actions he takes. If we're going to try to simulate his fear we have to simulate that by affecting the speed he issues commands, etc. Making us suffer his precise situation and his fate is a very strange way of simulating these things. For one thing it wouldn't be much fun, or very realistic. You'd just be forcing the vicarious observer to share the fate of the person you're trying to simulate. Changing realism into reality would remove the whole point of it being a simulation.

Messervy
11-19-2004, 01:12 PM
I lost you there too. I guess the point of the simulations is to get as close as possible to the real world and that includes every single feeling. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-19-2004, 01:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
I lost you there too. I guess the point of the simulations is to get as close as possible to the real world and that includes every single feeling. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all. Simulation is by its very nature vicarious. That is its defining characteristic. The last thing I want to experience is the stark terror of a depth charge attack. Watching someone else (whose actions I happen to control) is more than enough for me. The point of a simulation is that you get to experience things second-hand through someone else's reality - in this case a fictitious computerized model of a U-Boat commander. It is a voyeuristic thrill with an element of control.

Take away the vicarious aspect and you take away the realism and replace it with reality. That's not what I want at all.

Messervy
11-19-2004, 01:24 PM
I must admit that I am totaly unfamilliar with the word "Vicarious" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-19-2004, 01:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
I must admit that I am totaly unfamilliar with the word "Vicarious" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hehe, sorry about that. I was just talking to a friend of mine yesterday and we both came to the conclusion that English has too many words. Vicarious is an adjective meaning "experienced in the imagination through the feelings or actions of another person."

In this case it's a fictitious 'person' - the game's U-Boat commander.

Messervy
11-19-2004, 01:40 PM
Second hand experience than? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I did picked the meaning trough the context though.

CB..
11-19-2004, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:

You know what would be ultimate realism?
Suppose someone someday makes the perfect sim.
You install it, you make your training, you get your orders and then you play it.
....And when you die....bang...you can`t play again....never...because it is only possible to play it online and there is central server (the God) that won`t let you play it again.

Oh yes one more thing....the game costs a FORTUNE!!!!

I am preatty sure every depth charge would scare the living daylight out of us! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

don't be daft no one would ever be able to agree on what the perfect sim was ...all i can say is what is the point of playing a hero in a computer game if there is absolutely no real sense of risk in the gameplay..but your right ..emotional realism is something sadly missing from most sims...and within the confines of sanity for a game to really grip the imagination ..it needs to inspire some sort of emotional response from the player....happens all the time in films..why should it be considered odd to expect it from games...can't be that folks are too embarrassed ..emotions..a U-Boat commander ...never..come on there's more to game-play than blowing things up in heroic battles against the enemy...(especailly if there's no simulated fear invloved...if your not worried about your commander die-ing, there's virtually no point in being stoic in the face of danger (etc)...??? the chiseled jaw...the driving on against ever increasing danger....not much point if there's no sense of danger...what danger ....the danger that you might not make it onto the high score board??
...argghh...then you might feel embarrassed..

so there is some danger after all..the danger of feeling embarrassed...some how..


is that really what this is all about?

me-thinks we can do better than that ..some how http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

as for your other idea re the server...there's some merit in that idea even if you say it in jest!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

HeibgesU999
11-19-2004, 05:24 PM
As long as you are going by the Uboat Commanders Handbook for torpedo allocation, it is impossible to sink more than 5 or 6 ships with a Type VII and 8 or 9 with a type IX.

This will greatly limit your tonnage, and make you really pick the juicy targets.

I hope to see a lot more 2k to 3k merchants in SH3, particularly at the beginning of the war. I thought there were too many 7k to 9k merchants in SH2.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-19-2004, 05:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CB..:
as for your other idea re the server...there's some merit in that idea even if you say it in jest!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, if we're talking about multiplayer, I'd totally be into something like that: how about an 8-hour wait to respawn. You get killed, you wait 8 hours before you can play again. That would stop all the stupid suicide tactics (followed by respawns 2 seconds later) that goes on right now and which spoils any chance of developing realistic tactics during online play.

Messervy
11-20-2004, 03:19 AM
I am sure the community will think of something and set up a few servers which will be based on rigorous rules of engagement.
BTW what "in jest" means? Momentarily I am at work with no vocabulary around. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-20-2004, 08:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
BTW what "in jest" means? Momentarily I am at work with no vocabulary around. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'In jest' means 'as a joke' or 'tongue in cheek', or 'not completely serious'.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-22-2004, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ParaB:
As the devs stated, it is important to realize that SH3 is NOT a historically 100% accurate minute simulation of WW2 submarine warfare, but a computer game _based_ on WW2 sub warfare. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm. The devs don't seem to agree with you. In the last news update (22.11.2004) they wrote:

"We strive for as much realism as possible. It will remain for you to judge if we succeeded or not."

While everyone knows that 100% realism is not possible in any sim, it's quite clear that the developers are aiming to get as close as possible, and are not merely trying to create "a computer game based on WW2 sub warfare".

Alpha_456
11-23-2004, 02:39 AM
Beeryus, i can hardly imagine the pain and hours spent to make a mod.Once i tried to do something similar but i failed due to very limited knowledge how to do it.You surely deserve our full respect."people like you" who bleed to make a mod and then make it available to the rest of us for free deserve to be taken seriously when asking from the dev teams something.Most of the times is something the game\simulation really needs.The proof is how many people download and enjoy the mods.I just wish you will not need to build a mod for SH3.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-23-2004, 07:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alpha_456:
I just wish you will not need to build a mod for SH3. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me too.

Thanks for the kind words. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

TASKFORCE1x1
11-24-2004, 09:35 AM
Good example of a latest game feeling like an arcade game with a little sim to it is MOHPA.


I'm quite disappointed that we take a PT boat out for a spin around the bay over and over again in a set uncontrollable pattern. Also the planes attacking repeat themselves. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-24-2004, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TASKFORCE1x1:
Good example of a latest game feeling like an arcade game with a little sim to it is MOHPA. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find those MOH/Battlefield 1942 type games a bit sacriligious really. They take a real (and horrible) event and turn it into a shooting gallery, with no respect at all for the real events they pretend to portray. In my view, arcade games should not be based on real-life war. A simulation has reverence for history, whereas an arcade game dishonors it.

That's not to say that FPS games are always bad (Star Wars Battlefront is one of my favourites). It's just that so far, all FPS games have been arcade shooters rather than simulations. I think historically-based FPS games could be great if FPS developers really chose to make a simulation rather than an arcade game.

Messervy
11-24-2004, 10:21 AM
Told you before....HD 2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-24-2004, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Messervy:
Told you before....HD 2 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I got it last week. It's fun but it's not truly realistic. Aiming is too precise, even with SH2's breathing feature (which, by the way is totally unrealistic - my dad was a marksman in the British army and he taught me how to shoot - as a sniper you don't breathe when you're taking a shot); bullet spray is undermodelled and target damage is overmodelled (which makes kills easy); the use of vehicles is not realistic. All-in-all, it's an arcade shooter. Plus, it has a linear campaign, which is okay given the fact that it is based on SAS missions, but the mission structure forces success and because it's a linear campaign it lacks replay value. I paid $5 for it, so I definitely got more than my money's worth, but it's not what I would call a simulation.

Messervy
11-24-2004, 10:47 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif
Sorry then...glad you only paid five bucks otherwise I would feel responsible.
Well it is the price of "dve pivi"! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pr0metheus 1962
11-24-2004, 11:01 AM
Nothing to be sorry for. It is a good game, and I enjoy it. Thanks for recommending it to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Dve pivi cost $5 now? Ouch! I remember paying less than 30 cents for a beer when I was in Pula - but that was in '84, before the rampant inflation and the war.

Yarrick_
11-24-2004, 12:05 PM
The one which was more or less realistic was that one, call of duty.
If wou played in the hardest mode, also you could take one bullet or two before dying, and it seems to me that I remember that being hit affected you.
It also had a feature that when a bomb hit near you, you got deaf for some time, and this sort of things...

Pr0metheus 1962
11-24-2004, 12:23 PM
Yeah, but it still features you running around like Rambo with no realistic chain of command above you and no realistic restrictions on your ability to kill hundreds of enemy soldiers, and you have to achieve superhuman feats in a pseudo-realistic WW2 setting.

Yarrick_
11-24-2004, 12:28 PM
Does any of you remember "operation Flshpoint"? apart from a slightly bad AI, it was quite a realistic game. It simulated a war between URSS and USA in a fake gropu of islands.
Good simulation, and had lots of addons for new vehicles. The infantery fact was well simulated, but the vehicles were quite arcaddish.
Nowadays, this game is too old, of course.

Messervy
11-25-2004, 12:35 AM
Beeryus said:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> it lacks replay value <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that goes for HD2 though you have a multiplayer. In HD2 - Sabre Squadron you have also co-operative mode of play. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
As for accuracy: I was a sniper as well and when you are shooting at more than 300 yards it is the heart beat that moves your crosshair and not breathing. In the game I seldome used automatics. Enfield is the mother of rifles - not the scoped one. Ordinary foot soldier`s best friend. The sound of that rifle in the game is just awesome! I have Creative Audigy ZS Platinum Pro and Creative THX 6.1 600 Watts. Once I tried it at full throttle and fired few shots...and there were few eyebrows raised on the street. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Yarrick_
11-25-2004, 12:54 PM
In a few years we will be saying, do you remember "SH3"? It is one of the best sub simulations that ever appeared, it took the good of aces of the deep, and the others and improved the bad. It cannot be compared to SH2, which had a very bad AI, and it was the first to include a crew, and so on...

Pr0metheus 1962
11-25-2004, 12:57 PM
I sure hope you're right. I have a good feeling about this one. I haven't felt this good about a sim since AoD, and my instincts are usually pretty good.

Messervy
11-25-2004, 01:34 PM
God Bless Your Instincts! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif