[Hitman]

Am not concerned about the tonnage objectives, as long as they are not compulsory. In a certain way, Aces of the Deep had also scripted tonnage objectives: You achieve lots of tonnage, then you get medals, promotions, and new subs. You perform poorly, then you don´t get that, or might even be retired from active service ( Like SH1 did ). If the tonnage objectives go like that, I can accept it....

I´m also not much concerned about the TC voyages to and from the Pzone. But the efective randomness of each mission is still a mystery.....

Let´s hope it is well solved.

[Thunderhorse]

I concur Hitman....if the tonnage objectives are relative to medals/promotions/new commands such as in Aces of the Deep, the I'm fine with that, as I think we all are. However, if the tonnage requirements are necessary to complete the current mission and move on to the next, then I think that's ridiculous....silly....unrealistic....whatever word you can come up with. Who know's exactly how's it's gonna be until we get more info. Also, I'm cool with the time compression transit to the assigned patrol zone....I myself did it with AOD, SH1, and SH2. All we can do is hope!

-Thunderhorse-

[bishop]

[Guest]

All that can save the game now is a good (and I mean really good) mission editor. Then it'll never get boring because of the undynamic campaign.

[tinitoon]

Sorry! That was my post. Forgot to login.


BTW: THIS:

[snave]

I see from the SH3 website that 78% of people want detailed, technical paper manuals...

...Should be enough for the gwockles to read to get proficient then, shouldn't it..?
So why skimp on the game depth just to satisfy the mass-market? The history of ALL successful products in the sim market is that they model the sophistication of the subject matter they purport to represent.
The MAJORITY of the money is spent by the few, not the many. All developers need to remember this. They ignore it at their peril.

By all means make a `moron setting` in the game that bypasses all the sophistication so that mudhutters & retards can `play` at being a submariner when they're not busy sticking crayons up their noses, but don't insult the intelligence of the more sophisticated audience by presenting a product that isn't sufficient to reward the proficient under the guise of `mass appeal`...

If SH3 doesn't, then I'll just pass on it, along with any and all derivative product(s). If they want the gwockles pennies, but won't cater to my pounds, then don't expect me to pay to support their incompetence and inabilities. Flight sim has gone the same way with `lowest common denominator` add-ons and technical support in forums that borders on the farcical. The level of questions makes me sick to have to share computer time with morons. "How do you open the doors?" 27 times a week is hardly entertaining, after the first six weeks, when the answer is "...find out for yourself, pillock. Read the manuals, do the tutorials, waste your time, not mine. Get wise, or get lost."

We can all be beginners, but don't make a career out of it. Ditto for a subsim. Make it have sufficient complexity and it will satisfy more people, more of the time for longer. If you don't then no-one buys it, or anything that derives from it.

Setting goal-targets in such a simplistic manner as tonnage limits fails to acknowledge the wishes of the very audience that this development team curries favour from. If there isn't an alternative (read: more sophisticated) method of measuring patrol performance then I think I'll pass on SH3, and anything else from this stable, as it suggests that the wishes of the sophisticated consumer are being trampled on by the need to appeal to the unintelligent, uninformed, under-achiever. And I will not descend to their level. And I've got a lot of money waiting for the sim that does the job properly...

[mystery meat]

Yes there are still many many cool features, most of which we have never had before. It seems to have the makings of a great sim experience since we know that many of the realism features are vastly scaleable. The only intangible is the campaign. We know that there will be scripting but how much? I think that the gamespy article is a red flag that this is a concern. But I bet this game will STILL be good and worth our time. I also have faith in our amazing modding community to bring the campaign situation more into our liking if it proves to be otherwise upon release.
I like this measured response around here. I can only imagine what would have happened if I had posted this over in the official SHIII forum at Ubi. People there are already saying "I will never buy this game! I hope you choke!" (or something like that) It's crazy

[america person]

which of course deoesnt endure those people to the sh3 dev team now does it....

[JJ]

[america person]

agree with the latter half of yor post

[les green01]

sure don't sound good i trying to be open minded about this game but it getting harder and harder,but the fact is i'm not going to pay 50 to 60 dollars for something i won't play long,i did that route with sh2 maybe play it at the most a week and that campaign what kill it for me,the eye candy look good for a while but it will be the campaign that make this game a winner

[Guest]

[CaptainNemo]

"I got conflicting reports on the Multiplayer aspect. One guy said it was going to have multiplayer when shipped (he also said a Sept. release date) while at the other booth, the guy told me that it will not ship with multiplayer (and stated an end-of-year ship date), however, the plan is to do a Destroyer addon for head-to-head (and yes.... they know its been attempted.. )."

Is that true? Does anybody know something in this case?

[Guest]

I do see a problem with all the criticism.

Might make a dev decide that naval sims aren't worth the agravation and move on to another genre.

Especially when people are criticizing a game that is still in Alpha stage.

It's fine to make suggestions...but too much criticism so early just drives devs nuts.

(I know...I was a beta tester for Taldren's Starfleet Command series. The programmers and the CEO got so tired of the criticism over SFC3 after it was announced that they quit reading the boards there for weeks. ).

[bishop]