StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Man don't worry, if you can name stupid ass shit about Jutland that sucks i'll help you do it.

But where do you think these retarded developer decisions come from? Do you think developers are out to make to make their games as unplayable as possible because that's what they want? Why would a developer waste his time making a massively unwieldy interface unless demand was present for other things like perfect historical accuracy?

CaptHawkeye wrote:Man don't worry, if you can name stupid ass shit about Jutland that sucks i'll help you do it.

But where do you think these retarded developer decisions come from? Do you think developers are out to make to make their games as unplayable as possible because that's what they want? Why would a developer waste his time making a massively unwieldy interface unless demand was present for other things like perfect historical accuracy?

I actually think it has more to do with skillset. First, there are the simulation designers, who still dream of the glory days of Falcon 4.0 and forget that people do not want to read 400 page manuals before liftoff.

I'll just look back at SH3 - it was buggy, it had crappy historical accuracy yet it was fun. Historical accuracy got fixed by mods because the game was very open to modding. Ubisoft also took the time to iron out 95% of the bugs. SHIV had the same problem, but the same advantages. They both enjoy a huge fanbase that is very dedicated to the programs.

However, the Jutland developers took huge steps to make the game unplayable and unaccessible. For example, WTF is up with that DRM? And the game is unmoddable from what I have heard. I am far of an expert regarding Jutland and anyone who is is more than welcome to connect me, but this seems to me a case of overblown designer ego. It looks as if they are catering to a very small percentage of the market who look for this, but do everything in their power to piss off that small percentage as well.

I maintain that if I can launch torpedos, reload, dive, shuffle around crew, send radio signals, plot a course, time torpedos etc. within a few clicks in SHIII, I bet I could do the same for Jutland as well.

A game does not need 100% accuracy, it needs to make a decent effort. For me, that involves getting dates, models etc. right while allowing for a certain flexibility regarding game mechanics. Like me not having to wait several minutes so that my crew can get to diving stations on SHIII or not having to manually correct the trim of the boat after firing torps.

However much people want small developers to save gamng from EA, small teams in niche markets are often a bunch of guys making a game for themselves. They don't care about confusing UI or idiosyncratic design decisions, and they have no process for 'polishng' a game beyond 'has xyz feature I think is cool'. The Jutland guys sold their game with a bug that made gunnery near useless, for fucks' sake.

I play Jutland just because their is nothing out there remotely like it and I wasn't around for the days of old sims for better or worse. Make no mistake, it's a shitty game. The UI is designed to be as unwieldy as possible and the unit control is only good up to a 4-6 unit formation. Fleet wide commands are totally broken and the game completely fails to communicate what its doing back to the player. (The campaign map's "comm delay" is fucking annoying and obviously there just because SES wanted it there.)

Anyway, i'm the first person to find that both ends of the spectrum are shit. You should see the trolling I do to the Bohemia Fanhards on the Codemaster's forums.

Stark wrote:However much people want small developers to save gamng from EA, small teams in niche markets are often a bunch of guys making a game for themselves. They don't care about confusing UI or idiosyncratic design decisions, and they have no process for 'polishng' a game beyond 'has xyz feature I think is cool'. The Jutland guys sold their game with a bug that made gunnery near useless, for fucks' sake.

It's really that bad?

I was tempted when I first heard about the game, but the DRM really put me off, but if there's a bug in the gunnery that really screws it up.

I only ever remember one other Jutland game but that was back in the days of the Atari ST and Amiga and it wasn't up to much either.

Battleships, when hit, explode at random. The problem is that this happens on the german side as well, and more than once on the british side.

Jade Falcon wrote: It's really that bad?

I was tempted when I first heard about the game, but the DRM really put me off, but if there's a bug in the gunnery that really screws it up.

I only ever remember one other Jutland game but that was back in the days of the Atari ST and Amiga and it wasn't up to much either.

I played the old demo (there is a new demo version that includes the post-release patch that fixed the issue). Hawkeye told me about it (he's got the full version) and that it was fixed in a patch - apparently their fire-control code was broken, so your ships would land their shells in a tight, consistent pattern... NOWHERE NEAR THE ENEMY. First shot would go long, second short, then the third salvo would be dropping in a sqaure meter of ocean, hundreds on meters behind and beyond the target... and consistently hit that worthless spot, with no correction. I had two ships in a scenario for hours and neither sank because hits were pure chance.

They sold a naval game about visual-range gunnery with a bug that made gunnery broken. That's the level of quality we're talking about here.

Thanas wrote:Battleships, when hit, explode at random. The problem is that this happens on the german side as well, and more than once on the british side.

Well that could be classed as semi-accurate on the British side bearing in mind some of what happened at Jutland especially with the Battlecruiser squadron, and ammunition storage of the time in the RN.

Stark wrote:I played the old demo (there is a new demo version that includes the post-release patch that fixed the issue). Hawkeye told me about it (he's got the full version) and that it was fixed in a patch - apparently their fire-control code was broken, so your ships would land their shells in a tight, consistent pattern... NOWHERE NEAR THE ENEMY. First shot would go long, second short, then the third salvo would be dropping in a sqaure meter of ocean, hundreds on meters behind and beyond the target... and consistently hit that worthless spot, with no correction. I had two ships in a scenario for hours and neither sank because hits were pure chance.

They sold a naval game about visual-range gunnery with a bug that made gunnery broken. That's the level of quality we're talking about here

Hmm...thanks for setting that straight. I might try the newer demo, but based on what you've said I don't hold out much hope. The last naval game I played for any length of time was the ancient Aces of the Deep, but I'd like to see if anything will come out. Battlestations Pacific might be worth checking out as well.

Jade Falcon wrote:

Thanas wrote:Battleships, when hit, explode at random. The problem is that this happens on the german side as well, and more than once on the british side.

Well that could be classed as semi-accurate on the British side bearing in mind some of what happened at Jutland especially with the Battlecruiser squadron, and ammunition storage of the time in the RN.

Yeah, but that is why I said "more than once".

Thanas wrote:Yeah, but that is why I said "more than once".

Well I was being slightly sarcastic, I should have used a smiley.