Ubisoft Says Complex Gameplay "Holds Back" Splinter Cell

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Stealth is not my favorite genre and when I do take stealth I like it more forgiving than splinter cell but I can see that this will just alienate the fan base. It's perfectly possible for a game to have both elements but usually while trying to get one mechanic better another suffers or is ignored. Every time I hear gameplay overall what I think is well what suffers in the process?

While Ubisoft is probably right about the mass appeal thing trying to be the next call of duty isn't going to happen. I'm sure there are optimists out there but my guess is this strategy is going to fall flat on it's face and in the process alienate their core audience. But only time will tell.

Great, well done Ubisoft. Dumb down your games for more "mass market appeal". It really worked out well for EA. *snaps fingers* Oh no wait, the other thing. That's right, they ruined every one of their franchises.

No Michael Ironside and a dumbed down action game in lieu of a stealth game? Brilliant Ubisoft, well done.

Atlas13:

Acton Hank:

Dr. McD:
Making good games isn't, making games is.Dues Ex: Human Revolution definitely suffers from it, Dishonoured suffers from this too, but much less, blink, for example, should have needed more mana. Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance (still a better title than "Warface") is an action game (although it was originally meant to be an attempt to blend a melee combat system with MGS style stealth, which is one of the reasons it has stealth in it, but the focus is on action), combat is also more like Ninja Gaiden than CoD.

Because Human Revolution and Dishonored make it more satisfying and rewarding when you take the stealth route.
Hitman is also a stealth game that did this kind of thing pretty well.
If you force stealth down a game's throat with no alternative other than a game over screen, then a game often becomes a tedious exercise in trial and error.

Here's the thing about forcing stealth down a stealth game's throat...

IT'S A STEALTH GAME.
IT'S ABOUT BEING STEALTHY.
There are so many other genres you can play if you don't want stealth.
There's only ONE genre you can play if you want stealth.
No, having action doesn't make a stealth game more satisfying, it just takes away development time and resources away from what should have been the main centerpiece of the game.
STEALTH.

The trail and error bit is in fact an important part of the game. It's about actually having to TRY and work at it until you get better. What's wrong with failing until you're good enough to pass it?

I disagree, just because stealth is the main centerpiece of the game doesn't excuse shitty combat if you happen to get caught.
If I have the option to kill everyone in front of me and I choose to slip unnoticed then it's more satisfying for me because I chose to do it.
If the game punishes me with shitty combat and constant trial and error it's less satisfying because the game is just making me do what it wants me to do.

I was hoping blacklist was going to call back to the great Pandora tomorrow or Chaos theory but no, they're just stripping it down even more that Conviction. Why are all my favourite game franchises being destroyed!?

How many stealth game series are there now that are still hardcore stealth? Splinter cell is gone, Metal gear solid has huge on the rail action sections, the new thief game sounds like it's going to concentrate more on action, my favourite genre is a dying breed and this saddens me greatly.

Acton Hank:

Atlas13:

Acton Hank:

Because Human Revolution and Dishonored make it more satisfying and rewarding when you take the stealth route.
Hitman is also a stealth game that did this kind of thing pretty well.
If you force stealth down a game's throat with no alternative other than a game over screen, then a game often becomes a tedious exercise in trial and error.

Here's the thing about forcing stealth down a stealth game's throat...

IT'S A STEALTH GAME.
IT'S ABOUT BEING STEALTHY.
There are so many other genres you can play if you don't want stealth.
There's only ONE genre you can play if you want stealth.
No, having action doesn't make a stealth game more satisfying, it just takes away development time and resources away from what should have been the main centerpiece of the game.
STEALTH.

The trail and error bit is in fact an important part of the game. It's about actually having to TRY and work at it until you get better. What's wrong with failing until you're good enough to pass it?

I disagree, just because stealth is the main centerpiece of the game doesn't excuse shitty combat if you happen to get caught.
If I have the option to kill everyone in front of me and I choose to slip unnoticed then it's more satisfying for me because I chose to do it.
If the game punishes me with shitty combat and constant trial and error it's less satisfying because the game is just making me do what it wants me to do.

The combat doesn't have to be shitty, hell, there doesn't even have to be any combat at all. The main point about stealth games is that you're not a superhero supersoldier. You are not a bullet sponge. You can't instantly shoot 10 people in the head. If you could do that, why would you care about stealth?

And yes, the game should punish you if you fuck up. It shouldn't handhold you and treat you like a baby. You're being punished because you were bad at the game. And yes, the game is making you play how it's meant to be played. It's a STEALTH game, not an action game. If you aren't good enough or don't want to sneak past an area without resorting to killing everyone in the world twice over, then either get better or play a different genre.

Atlas13:

Acton Hank:

Atlas13:

Here's the thing about forcing stealth down a stealth game's throat...

IT'S A STEALTH GAME.
IT'S ABOUT BEING STEALTHY.
There are so many other genres you can play if you don't want stealth.
There's only ONE genre you can play if you want stealth.
No, having action doesn't make a stealth game more satisfying, it just takes away development time and resources away from what should have been the main centerpiece of the game.
STEALTH.

The trail and error bit is in fact an important part of the game. It's about actually having to TRY and work at it until you get better. What's wrong with failing until you're good enough to pass it?

I disagree, just because stealth is the main centerpiece of the game doesn't excuse shitty combat if you happen to get caught.
If I have the option to kill everyone in front of me and I choose to slip unnoticed then it's more satisfying for me because I chose to do it.
If the game punishes me with shitty combat and constant trial and error it's less satisfying because the game is just making me do what it wants me to do.

The combat doesn't have to be shitty, hell, there doesn't even have to be any combat at all. The main point about stealth games is that you're not a superhero supersoldier. You are not a bullet sponge. You can't instantly shoot 10 people in the head. If you could do that, why would you care about stealth?

And yes, the game should punish you if you fuck up. It shouldn't handhold you and treat you like a baby. You're being punished because you were bad at the game. And yes, the game is making you play how it's meant to be played. It's a STEALTH game, not an action game. If you aren't good enough or don't want to sneak past an area without resorting to killing everyone in the world twice over, then either get better or play a different genre.

It's clear we're not going to find any common ground on this.
So let's just say I'm right and you're wrong and end it here.

Sgt. Sykes:
Funny how Splinter Cell games went kinda downhill from Pandora Tomorrow (yea I liked Chaos Theory, but later.... eh).

Crikey, we finally found him.

OT: An odd statement considering Blacklist is looking much closer to Chaos Theory and Splinter Cell of old than Conviction ever did. Likewise, I don't ever remember Splinter Cell being a series that couldn't be called popular.

The problem with Conviction was that stealth really wasn't all that much of an option, whilst Blacklist looks as if they're actually supporting the two dichotomies properly. Which is... fine, really. Besides which, I'm pretty sure they've said they have a Purist mode which switches off Mark and Execute and shit.

In short, the statement's dumb and it doesn't reflect what actually seems to be going on.

The trend of less RPG, less Stealth, less Survival Horror, less story and more multiplayer, more bland shooting, and more micro-transactions astounding,

I'm not entirely sure, but I wonder if this is just a western thing. I can't tell if this CoD bullshit caught on elsewhere too.
In the mean while, I need to figure out how to play Kingdom Hearts again.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here