Splinter Cell: Blacklist Assaults the Ghost Panther

Splinter Cell: Blacklist Assaults the Ghost Panther

Splinter Cell: Blacklist will let you play super-spy Sam Fisher as a ghost, a panther or just a crazy dude with a machine gun.

How do you like your Sam Fisher? A smooth pro who's in and out without ever being seen? Or a loose cannon psycho with enough firepower to overthrow Ecuador? Perhaps something in between is more your speed - all the murder with none of the mess. However you want it, you can have it in Splinter Cell: Blacklist, which as Ubisoft's new trailer so helpfully explains lets you play stealthily, violent or stealthily violently.

I'm not entirely convinced that the choice between quiet and noisy really qualifies as "groundbreaking" and I'm pretty sure the "mark-and-execute" and "last known position" things aren't new either. Then again, I'm still mad that Michael Ironside is out, so maybe I'm letting my bitterness cloud my judgment; but I can't help thinking that by trying to be all things for all gamers, the new Splinter Cell is at great risk of being not much of anything for anyone.

Splinter Cell: Blacklist comes out on August 20 for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, PC and Wii U. The delay of the PC version has not yet been announced.

Permalink

Wait, if the enemy can't see you. shouldn't they be focused on your "last known position" anyway?

DVS BSTrD:
Wait, if the enemy can't see you. shouldn't they be focused on your "last known position" anyway?

That would make sense if they had you pinned down and moved to surround you as a team. But if its anything like Convictions last known position mechanic, then they'll just sit in cover staring at the last place they saw you, occasionally taking disturbingly accurate shots at it.

Andy Chalk:
Then again, I'm still mad that Michael Ironside is out

Don't worry, so are we.

I am disappointed that it is not a literal panther.

Splinter Cell: Ghost Panther Assault would be a great title.

The ghost panther... it haunts my dreams, assaults my mind.

Andy Chalk:
Splinter Cell: Ghost Panther Assault would be a great title.

"What was that? Over there! Shoot them!"

*gang of goons/terrorists/arabs/russians fires entire clips at an oddly silhouetted group*

"OH NO! Our bullets are useless! It's the GHOST PANTHER ASSAULT SQUAD!"

*flash to logo and release date*

---

See, I've done the advert already.

OH... oh... NOOOO... Chaos theory! Help me.... remind me of what a good Splinter Cell game is like!

Thank you... I needed that... now to get to criticizing this... well I can't call it a betrayal because that happened 2 games ago. This is just a combination of light and images that respond to user input.

This looks absolutely horrible. For one simple reason. ASSAULT MODE!? They have been pushing Splinter Cell into this ridiculous TPS direction ever since Double Agent flopped hard. Now they just dropped the pretension and said "Hey college guys with your call of duties and your halos! This game has guns too and you can shoot with them and red stuff flies out of people when you do so! So buy this game!"

This is gonna suck harder than Conviction, which I finished in 4 hours and which had what is basically the stupidest level in Splinter Cell history where you frontally assault the white house fighting off waves of enemies charging at you and one of the stupidest plots imaginable. I was joking about this months before with my friends, you know why didn't Cheney just kill Bush and take over control... that was the plot they went with.

However even in Conviction the hands off violence could be explained. He was a pissed off ex-agent, a free dad pissed off and hunting for his daughter. Here he is supposed to be a reinstated agent again and he's blowing up entire installations and running and gunning all over the place?!

Go ahead Ubisoft. Go after that frat boy money. Sam Fisher is dead anyway when you fired him for a younger guy who could be all hip with the young people.

I'm going to play some Chaos Theory now. The good thing about PC games? They can't shut off support for it.

Looks good,always nice to have choices.

I really wish people would stop complaining about how much of a betrayal this is, or how real splinter cell was only ever pure stealth. Yes chaos theory was a great stealth game but there was always the option to go loud; you had the assault loadout just for that very option. Also the first game had forced combat sections where you had no choice but to fight or run.

So can we all stop complaining about how having the option to go in fighting is a big betrayal when in reality one of the things which made the game fun was the ability to choose your own approach. Its not some big betrayal.

Now the Michael Ironside thing that we can complain about.

Well in my day, Splinter Cell would only give you an automatic weapon in a level that gives you a game over for shooting anyone. You had to ration ammo for the thing like a bastard too.

I still don't get why they even bother keeping Sam Fisher as the protagonist. He was old in Chaos Theory, now he seems to be aging backwards. Why not just make it a new guy with a new story? That way it's not so weird to not hear Ironsides voicing him.

I got this for free with my new graphics card, so I guess I'll see if it turns out to be any good, but I didn't really care for Conviction much, so I'm not terribly optimistic.

You can knock everyone out in 'ghost'. So Ghost and Panther are 99% similar. You just press the stab button instead of the strangle.

Basically potentially Deus ex:HR , Farcry 3, even Fallout new vegas, Dishonoured had these 3 playstyles.

Actually labelling playstyles is such a major step backwards. To have an entire marketing campaign dedicated to it shows how limited and simple this game is

Andy Chalk:
The delay of the PC version has not yet been announced.

Hee hee, very nice.

I can't wait to not use the mark/execute. Granted, I may not even buy this game. I already own five Splinter Cell titles, don't want another. All I want from Ubisoft at this point is perhaps one of the next gen titles and Beyond Good and Evil 2.

I feel like this is a good place to mention that Double Agent for Xbox/PS2 is a very different game from it's big brother on PS3/360/PC. It plays pretty much like Chaos Theory 2, and therefore is vastly superior to it's counterpart. I suggest anyone who hasn't tried it to give it a go. The coop mode has about 15 levels too, compared to Chaos Theory which had about 6 if I remember right (I think 2 of them were downloadable later on), so if you have a buddy, it's even more worth it.

Yeah, I'm gonna be different: This looks fucking awesome and I'm happy with Ironside's replacement. Ironside sucked in the last game.

I see your blacklist trailer and raise you this rare deus ex one

1337mokro:
This looks absolutely horrible. For one simple reason. ASSAULT MODE!? They have been pushing Splinter Cell into this ridiculous TPS direction ever since Double Agent flopped hard. Now they just dropped the pretension and said "Hey college guys with your call of duties and your halos! This game has guns too and you can shoot with them and red stuff flies out of people when you do so! So buy this game!"

What's wrong with a game getting fluid controls? Splinter Cell has always been a TPS, why not have solid TPS controls? When a game like Splinter Cell does get fluid TPS controls, you'll naturally be able to gun your way through areas. But there's nothing wrong with that as long and the stealth elements are still there in spades. It's like the same logic Demon's/Dark Souls fans have about an easy mode being added to the game. Adding an easy mode to Dark Souls or a run and gun option to Splinter Cell doesn't change YOUR gameplay experience whatsoever. The Metal Gear Solid community didn't care that MGS4 became a smooth as shit TPS because the core MGS gameplay was still there. I'm pretty sure the Hitman community didn't care that Absolution got fluid controls either as long as the game was still Hitman; I haven't played Absolution myself but I have Hitman friends that loved it and I think the main complaint I've heard is the linearity of the levels compare to the previous games, not that you can run and gun (because that is an OPTION).

I only ever played the 1st Splinter Cell game and it just didn't grab me at all as the stealth felt very basic, just basically hiding in shadows, and the controls were kinda clunky. I just watched the gameplay in that SDCC Splinter Cell video and the game looks fucking awesome. You have so many options at your disposal. I love the fact that there's a trophy for a "no-kill" run, it gives me that MGS feel.

A game getting better and more fluid controls is only a good thing. The era of shooters where you get stiff and clunky controls is pretty much over and I'm very glad about that.

Phoenixmgs:

1337mokro:
This looks absolutely horrible. For one simple reason. ASSAULT MODE!? They have been pushing Splinter Cell into this ridiculous TPS direction ever since Double Agent flopped hard. Now they just dropped the pretension and said "Hey college guys with your call of duties and your halos! This game has guns too and you can shoot with them and red stuff flies out of people when you do so! So buy this game!"

What's wrong with a game getting fluid controls? Splinter Cell has always been a TPS, why not have solid TPS controls? When a game like Splinter Cell does get fluid TPS controls, you'll naturally be able to gun your way through areas. But there's nothing wrong with that as long and the stealth elements are still there in spades. It's like the same logic Demon's/Dark Souls fans have about an easy mode being added to the game. Adding an easy mode to Dark Souls or a run and gun option to Splinter Cell doesn't change YOUR gameplay experience whatsoever. The Metal Gear Solid community didn't care that MGS4 became a smooth as shit TPS because the core MGS gameplay was still there. I'm pretty sure the Hitman community didn't care that Absolution got fluid controls either as long as the game was still Hitman; I haven't played Absolution myself but I have Hitman friends that loved it and I think the main complaint I've heard is the linearity of the levels compare to the previous games, not that you can run and gun (because that is an OPTION).

I only ever played the 1st Splinter Cell game and it just didn't grab me at all as the stealth felt very basic, just basically hiding in shadows, and the controls were kinda clunky. I just watched the gameplay in that SDCC Splinter Cell video and the game looks fucking awesome. You have so many options at your disposal. I love the fact that there's a trophy for a "no-kill" run, it gives me that MGS feel.

A game getting better and more fluid controls is only a good thing. The era of shooters where you get stiff and clunky controls is pretty much over and I'm very glad about that.

Yea, ok, you don't like splinter cell games. So instead of changing splinter cell to be a game it's not, how about you play any other run of the mill shooter out there.

You aren't SUPPOSED to have options, you aren't SUPPOSED to be able to just take thousands of bullets while gunning everyone down. That isn't stealth. And no, Dark Souls should NOT have an easy mode. It's meant to be a hard game. Don't want to get better at Dark Souls? Don't ask for it to cater to you then.

There's such a thing as niche games. Not everyone wants to play Call of Duty clone #65. Some people want a challenge, some people want stealth. By mucking up the core elements of the gameplay, you're pretty much just making it a shooter "Oh, but you can crouch and hit that guy with a gun, so sneaky."

Games like this aren't supposed to cater to you, you're supposed to find away around the limits the game gives you. Yes, you should be able to die. And yes, if you're bad at the game, you shouldn't be able to progress until you get better. Enemies are supposed to be a threat, instead of just a minor annoyance.

Atlas13:
Yea, ok, you don't like splinter cell games. So instead of changing splinter cell to be a game it's not, how about you play any other run of the mill shooter out there.

You aren't SUPPOSED to have options, you aren't SUPPOSED to be able to just take thousands of bullets while gunning everyone down. That isn't stealth. And no, Dark Souls should NOT have an easy mode. It's meant to be a hard game. Don't want to get better at Dark Souls? Don't ask for it to cater to you then.

There's such a thing as niche games. Not everyone wants to play Call of Duty clone #65. Some people want a challenge, some people want stealth. By mucking up the core elements of the gameplay, you're pretty much just making it a shooter "Oh, but you can crouch and hit that guy with a gun, so sneaky."

Games like this aren't supposed to cater to you, you're supposed to find away around the limits the game gives you. Yes, you should be able to die. And yes, if you're bad at the game, you shouldn't be able to progress until you get better. Enemies are supposed to be a threat, instead of just a minor annoyance.

I only ever played the one Splinter Cell game, I'm sure the games changed/improved over time. I remember wanting to try that Spies vs Mercs mode way back but I never took my PS2 online so I just never even got that game. It's not that I don't like Splinter Cell, the 1st game just didn't grab me and I never picked up any of the other games. I like stealth games, I love MGS and Hitman, I just never got into Splinter Cell. I loved playing Deus Ex all stealthily, the fact that you could play Deus Ex a different way didn't bother me.

If you give a game like Splinter Cell fluid and solid TPS controls, you just will naturally be able to gun your way through areas just solely due to the controls. I don't see what's wrong with that. I'm not going to play like that, but I like the option of being able to do that when shit goes wrong and I can take an enemy hostage and have smooth shooting and aiming to take out the other enemies. The SDCC video I saw looked like an awesome stealth game to me, that's all that matters to me.

So you're one of THOSE Dark Souls fans. Not only do you think Dark Souls is hard, but you think having an easy mode is stupid as well. I was actually hoping Dark Souls 2 would get a hard mode this time around because Dark Souls was a fucking easy game disguised as a hard game. Bayonetta has a fucking casual mode and it's basically the best damn hack and slash this gen because (Oh, I don't know) you don't have to fucking play on casual mode. Why not like people just experience the story and characters of Bayonetta if they want? It's literally not hurting anyone.

Phoenixmgs:

1337mokro:
This looks absolutely horrible. For one simple reason. ASSAULT MODE!? They have been pushing Splinter Cell into this ridiculous TPS direction ever since Double Agent flopped hard. Now they just dropped the pretension and said "Hey college guys with your call of duties and your halos! This game has guns too and you can shoot with them and red stuff flies out of people when you do so! So buy this game!"

What's wrong with a game getting fluid controls? Splinter Cell has always been a TPS, why not have solid TPS controls? When a game like Splinter Cell does get fluid TPS controls, you'll naturally be able to gun your way through areas. But there's nothing wrong with that as long and the stealth elements are still there in spades. It's like the same logic Demon's/Dark Souls fans have about an easy mode being added to the game. Adding an easy mode to Dark Souls or a run and gun option to Splinter Cell doesn't change YOUR gameplay experience whatsoever. The Metal Gear Solid community didn't care that MGS4 became a smooth as shit TPS because the core MGS gameplay was still there. I'm pretty sure the Hitman community didn't care that Absolution got fluid controls either as long as the game was still Hitman; I haven't played Absolution myself but I have Hitman friends that loved it and I think the main complaint I've heard is the linearity of the levels compare to the previous games, not that you can run and gun (because that is an OPTION).

I only ever played the 1st Splinter Cell game and it just didn't grab me at all as the stealth felt very basic, just basically hiding in shadows, and the controls were kinda clunky. I just watched the gameplay in that SDCC Splinter Cell video and the game looks fucking awesome. You have so many options at your disposal. I love the fact that there's a trophy for a "no-kill" run, it gives me that MGS feel.

A game getting better and more fluid controls is only a good thing. The era of shooters where you get stiff and clunky controls is pretty much over and I'm very glad about that.

When did I ever mention controls?

I was talking about the gameplay. You see there is a huge difference between a TPS and a stealth game that is not just tied into controls. You should really not project your own excuses for why you like this game onto other people. I call it an excuse because really all you are going on about is controls and nothing else. So you didn't like the controls in other splinter cell games? So what? Why does this now mean that it has to become a TPShooter rather than a TPStealth game? Why don't they just tighten the controls, which to be quite honest were perfectly functional in my opinion. You bring up a wonderful example yourself. Namely Hitman Absolution and MSG4 the movie the game. I'll leave MSG4 to the sides because I never actually bothered to play it and instead will focus on the game that I completed on the hardest difficulty whilst fighting it's counter-stealth mechanics every step of the way, Hitman.

You do know the nickname Hitman Absolution got from fans right? Shitman Abomination, how mature, but wholly accurate, is what it's usually called. Not because people inherently hate fluid controls or because having to dig through 6 menu screens is the true epitome of fun. But because it stopped being a Hitman game. Literally. There are no HITS in that game besides the very first level, which is scripted to shit. Other than that we have the absolutely broken disguise system and a horrible story where a weapons manufacturer is trying to make a deal for a few million dollars. The average revenue of your run of the mill arms manufacturer these days is in the billions and here we have an idiot running across half the country trying to exchange an assassin clone for pocket change. Why all the changes though? Because it had to be more action oriented. Hitman was old and clunky and who the hell ever wanted to explore levels and carefully plan out hits?! No it was all about shooting and running and jumping and so on being hip with the young people! All the same signs were all over the Shitman Abomination production like they are with Splinter Cell: Black Ops.

The same mentality went into Splinter Cell Conviction. Where you can literally instakill people even when they are shooting you in the guts. You can only jump and climb in specific places, no I don't mean specific ledges or pipes, no I mean you have to stand in exactly the right spot in front of a specific ledge or pipe to activate the bend knee sub routine in robot Fisher's brain. It has forgotten what kind of TPS it is in favour of bland mass appeal. I wholly invite you to play this because hey to you it looks awesome, congratulations Ubisoft gutted the game I liked so it could appeal to you! At least one of us will be happy with this game right? After all you get your highly improved controls in a game that you haven't played at all which means you couldn't possibly know what the game even feels like!

Your last paragraph betrays it all really. You never liked Splinter Cell. You just didn't get what was so fun about pressing up against a wall or hanging from girders waiting for your moment to shine. You didn't get the fun of hanging around corners listening in on guards or bypassing security. You just flat out don't get nor like stealth, getting spotted is death simply because you are NOT an action hero. You are outgunned, outclassed and fighting your way out should be near impossible in any good stealth game. Hiding, picking off targets, then silencing the alarms. That is how stealth action is done. However you want to be able to shoot your way through the level! Which is all fine! You want shooters. No problem here, why would there be? Go buy your shooters. There are only a few million of them released every day. However I humbly request that you leave my niche to me. I only get like 2 or 3 of these games if I am lucky.

Because I can't leave on an amiable note though I will just end by saying that it's people like you that look at games like Silent Hill and say: "Man these controls suck and why is there mist everywhere! We should really get rid of this fog so I can see better."

PS: No there shouldn't be an easy mode in Dark Souls. There isn't a fucking hard mode in Assassin's Creed either now is there? Catering to everyone is not a solution, it will never be because guess what, the people that don't play Dark Souls already will be bored to shit on easy mode because it's all about the repeated challenges. The game IS the struggle to overcome the odds against you, not to go sightseeing through the world squashing enemies with your 78+ electric damage blade. This again betrays that you simply don't get what makes these games have their appeal in the first place.

I wouldn't buy Assassin's Creed any more or less if there was a hard mode because really the AC games are not about the combat.

1337mokro:
When did I ever mention controls?

I was talking about the gameplay. You see there is a huge difference between a TPS and a stealth game that is not just tied into controls. You should really not project your own excuses for why you like this game onto other people. I call it an excuse because really all you are going on about is controls and nothing else. So you didn't like the controls in other splinter cell games? So what? Why does this now mean that it has to become a TPShooter rather than a TPStealth game? Why don't they just tighten the controls, which to be quite honest were perfectly functional in my opinion. You bring up a wonderful example yourself. Namely Hitman Absolution and MSG4 the movie the game. I'll leave MSG4 to the sides because I never actually bothered to play it and instead will focus on the game that I completed on the hardest difficulty whilst fighting it's counter-stealth mechanics every step of the way, Hitman.

MGS4's controls were the reason you could run and gun if you wanted to, it wasn't because of added gameplay mechanics or changes to core mechanics, it was due to the controls alone. That's why I mentioned controls. Your loss for missing out on MGS4, which also included the best online shooter this gen (every shooter now is borrowing from MGO as it was way ahead of its time). Yeah, MGS4 should've had more gameplay but Kojima had a shit-ton of story to tell to wrap everything up. I haven't played Hitman so I really can't comment on that, I have a friend that loves Hitman and he loved the new game so that's all I got there.

Your last paragraph betrays it all really. You never liked Splinter Cell. You just didn't get what was so fun about pressing up against a wall or hanging from girders waiting for your moment to shine. You didn't get the fun of hanging around corners listening in on guards or bypassing security. You just flat out don't get nor like stealth, getting spotted is death simply because you are NOT an action hero. You are outgunned, outclassed and fighting your way out should be near impossible in any good stealth game. Hiding, picking off targets, then silencing the alarms. That is how stealth action is done. However you want to be able to shoot your way through the level! Which is all fine! You want shooters. No problem here, why would there be? Go buy your shooters. There are only a few million of them released every day. However I humbly request that you leave my niche to me. I only get like 2 or 3 of these games if I am lucky.

Because I can't leave on an amiable note though I will just end by saying that it's people like you that look at games like Silent Hill and say: "Man these controls suck and why is there mist everywhere! We should really get rid of this fog so I can see better."

I don't dislike Splinter Cell, the 1st game just really didn't grab me so I just never played the others. And, I love stealth games, and from the SDCC video, Blacklist looks like a pretty awesome stealth game.

PS: No there shouldn't be an easy mode in Dark Souls. There isn't a fucking hard mode in Assassin's Creed either now is there? Catering to everyone is not a solution, it will never be because guess what, the people that don't play Dark Souls already will be bored to shit on easy mode because it's all about the repeated challenges. The game IS the struggle to overcome the odds against you, not to go sightseeing through the world squashing enemies with your 78+ electric damage blade. This again betrays that you simply don't get what makes these games have their appeal in the first place.

I wouldn't buy Assassin's Creed any more or less if there was a hard mode because really the AC games are not about the combat.

I'm waiting for when Dark Souls gets a hard mode because the game is really easy in its current state; I shouldn't be able to get through dungeons without dying and beat bosses on my first try.

The AC games have really become about not anything to be honest, they have no core gameplay. I stopped playing that series at AC2 when I realized the puzzles (glyphs) were the most enjoyable part of the game. The 1st AC kinda felt like Hitman-lite where it was about the assassinations themselves, I was hoping the series would go more in that direction but it went in the exact opposite direction.

Phoenixmgs:
snip

All I really have to say here about Splinter Cell is what you said about MSG4 to me.

I bet you also speed run Half Life in 85 minutes, unlike that hack that did it in 90 a while back. Amateur.

I love just love how you basically sum up almost any Splinter Cell fan's feelings about Blacklist when you talk about AC but completely failed to empathize with them at any level. It's quite amazing to have the same feelings but be completely unable to recognize them in other people.

1337mokro:

PS: No there shouldn't be an easy mode in Dark Souls. There isn't a fucking hard mode in Assassin's Creed either now is there? Catering to everyone is not a solution, it will never be because guess what, the people that don't play Dark Souls already will be bored to shit on easy mode because it's all about the repeated challenges. The game IS the struggle to overcome the odds against you, not to go sightseeing through the world squashing enemies with your 78+ electric damage blade. This again betrays that you simply don't get what makes these games have their appeal in the first place.

I wouldn't buy Assassin's Creed any more or less if there was a hard mode because really the AC games are not about the combat.

I don't see how having a hard or easy mode in a game is the same thing as what is happening with Splinter Cell: Blacklist.

Assuming that an easy or hard mode just means simple changes such as damage you receive, damage you deal, and number of enemies I don't see what the problems is. If splinter Cell 1-3 had an easy mode, it would not have made the games any worse, because the core gameplay elements are unchanged and you are not force to play on easy mode. In short, it would still be a game built around the idea of hardcore stealth gameplay with an easy mode tacted on at the end.

The situation with Blacklist is different from what I described above, because in order to make the game more accessible they changed the core gameplay elements. Unlike the first 3 SC games Blacklist was a game primarily built around the idea of accessibility. A game like Blacklist would still be way more accessible than an old school Splinter Cell game with an easy mode.

While the two concepts mentioned are centered around the same principle, accessibility, how they do it is completely different.

Phoenixmgs:
[
MGS4's controls were the reason you could run and gun if you wanted to, it wasn't because of added gameplay mechanics or changes to core mechanics, it was due to the controls alone. That's why I mentioned controls. Your loss for missing out on MGS4, which also included the best online shooter this gen (every shooter now is borrowing from MGO as it was way ahead of its time). Yeah, MGS4 should've had more gameplay but Kojima had a shit-ton of story to tell to wrap everything up. I haven't played Hitman so I really can't comment on that, I have a friend that loves Hitman and he loved the new game so that's all I got there.

As someone who played MGS4 I have to disagree. IMO, the addition of an over the shoulder camera view with a target reticle and the ability to move in first person are what allowed it to be more run and gun.

I should also mention that MGS3 and MGS3 Subsistence made two changes that made gun battles more survivable. The first one was the fact that bullets would no longer stun/stop you in you tracks unless they wounded you. The second one was the addition of a third person camera. However, unlike in MGS4 the TP camera in MGS 3 Subsistence did not make it much easier to shoot enemies because

1) The direction of the camera was not synced with the direction you were aiming in
2) You had no target reticle

Personally, I would consider these changes to be gameplay changes and not control changes.

Delete Please

double post

Zetatrain:

1337mokro:

PS: No there shouldn't be an easy mode in Dark Souls. There isn't a fucking hard mode in Assassin's Creed either now is there? Catering to everyone is not a solution, it will never be because guess what, the people that don't play Dark Souls already will be bored to shit on easy mode because it's all about the repeated challenges. The game IS the struggle to overcome the odds against you, not to go sightseeing through the world squashing enemies with your 78+ electric damage blade. This again betrays that you simply don't get what makes these games have their appeal in the first place.

I wouldn't buy Assassin's Creed any more or less if there was a hard mode because really the AC games are not about the combat.

I don't see how having a hard or easy mode in a game is the same thing as what is happening with Splinter Cell: Blacklist.

Assuming that an easy or hard mode just means simple changes such as damage you receive, damage you deal, and number of enemies I don't see what the problems is. If splinter Cell 1-3 had an easy mode, it would not have made the games any worse, because the core gameplay elements are unchanged and you are not force to play on easy mode. In short, it would still be a game built around the idea of hardcore stealth gameplay with an easy mode tacted on at the end.

The situation with Blacklist is different from what I described above, because in order to make the game more accessible they changed the core gameplay elements. Unlike the first 3 SC games Blacklist was a game primarily built around the idea of accessibility. A game like Blacklist would still be way more accessible than an old school Splinter Cell game with an easy mode.

While the two concepts mentioned are centered around the same principle, accessibility, how they do it is completely different.

Is this going to be a thing now? Where people state why something is wrong and then completely ignore that they basically summed up just now in their own words why people are disappointed and furious at the changes made?

Splinter Cells 1-3 do have different difficulties. Why is this okay? Because the gameplay is not centered around challenge. It is centered around stealth, see obvious reason why Blacklist fails at that. However here changing the leeway for game over does not impact the element of stealth it's main component. A person on easy will have to use the same techniques as one playing on expert. The threshold for success is simply more complex seeing as it isn't really higher by the addition of more guards or less allowed mistakes as the same gameplay is used to accomplish both difficulties.

By changing the things you mention in Dark Souls 2 it essentially loses a gigantic part of it's gameplay that is centered around patience, avoidance of mistakes and planning. You can make more mistakes now, running that dragon gauntlet is no longer impossible without careful timing. Not to mention the segregation based on difficulty for the online elements. After all you can't pull an easy mode gamer into a normal mode, they would get massacred or the reverse would happen where an easy mode was able to grind to a point where he basically becomes a troll ghost. The entire game changes based on the difficulties, barriers that exist fade with a lower difficulty and the player is not asked to learn the same set of skills as their regular mode counter parts. Not to mention the diversion of resources to make sure both modes are entirely balanced and playable. In the worst case scenario the situation gets reversed where the easy mode is the standard mode and they just beef up the enemies or put negative modifiers on the PC.

Accessible is really just another word for dumbed down. Resident Evil 6 was accessible, it was also the game that gave us an experience similar to a slug giving head to a giraffe.

1337mokro:
All I really have to say here about Splinter Cell is what you said about MSG4 to me.

I bet you also speed run Half Life in 85 minutes, unlike that hack that did it in 90 a while back. Amateur.

I love just love how you basically sum up almost any Splinter Cell fan's feelings about Blacklist when you talk about AC but completely failed to empathize with them at any level. It's quite amazing to have the same feelings but be completely unable to recognize them in other people.

So... we are in agreement?

Why would you think I would speed run any game? I never do speed runs in any game (not even MGS) as they don't really appeal to me.

From what I understand about Blacklist is that it's keeping added mechanics from Conviction but putting back in the things that makes Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell. The gameplay from SDCC seems like a really good stealth game so I don't see what you guys are complaining about especially when the game isn't even out yet. Plus, I've read posts from old-school Splinter Cell Spies vs Mercs players that have played and liked the multiplayer in Blacklist.

Zetatrain:
As someone who played MGS4 I have to disagree. IMO, the addition of an over the shoulder camera view with a target reticle and the ability to move in first person are what allowed it to be more run and gun.

I should also mention that MGS3 and MGS3 Subsistence made two changes that made gun battles more survivable. The first one was the fact that bullets would no longer stun/stop you in you tracks unless they wounded you. The second one was the addition of a third person camera. However, unlike in MGS4 the TP camera in MGS 3 Subsistence did not make it much easier to shoot enemies because

1) The direction of the camera was not synced with the direction you were aiming in
2) You had no target reticle

Personally, I would consider these changes to be gameplay changes and not control changes.

To me, they are control changes, and MGS4 just controls the way a TPS should control. I'm a pretty hardcore competitive TPS player and the controls for MGS4 and MGO (which I played weekly for 4 years) are the best TPS controls ever; the aiming is just spot-on without any need for bloody aim-assist and the controls have that depth like being able to lean (that almost no shooter has anymore, not even FPSs) and all the little things like shoulder swapping are done properly (TPSs like Ghost Recon Future Soldier, Uncharted, and The Last of Us can't even do shoulder swapping properly). Uncharted doesn't even allow you to adjust the game's camera sensitivity while MGS4 has 3 separate camera sensitivities to adjust.

The aiming reticule isn't that big of a deal because in any TPS you aim with the free look camera anyways. When you go to L1/LT aim in a TPS, the reticule should already be on the enemy and if it's not, you're usually dead.

Your character should aim in the direction of the camera, that's just kinda how you make a TPS. That makes it easier to shoot, but it doesn't stop you from playing stealthy either. It's just overly clunky if you don't aim in the direction of the camera.

The addition of being able to move 1st-person isn't that helpful at all. You move 1 step at a time when moving in 1st-person, it's not like it even comes close to playing as a FPS. You really only use 1st-person for very precise shots and leaning, that's it.

I don't even recall the difference you're talking about with bullets stunning you from MGS2 to MGS3. I remember being able to kill guards pretty easy in MGS2 with no problems after getting spotted as every so often I'd just have a bit of fun killing all the reinforcements.

1337mokro:

Is this going to be a thing now? Where people state why something is wrong and then completely ignore that they basically summed up just now in their own words why people are disappointed and furious at the changes made?

Splinter Cells 1-3 do have different difficulties. Why is this okay? Because the gameplay is not centered around challenge.

Care to elaborate on this? All games are based around challenge to some degree or another.

1337mokro:
It is centered around stealth, see obvious reason why Blacklist fails at that. However here changing the leeway for game over does not impact the element of stealth it's main component.

That is exactly what I'm saying

1337mokro:
A person on easy will have to use the same techniques as one playing on expert.

While the player can still opt to do all the fancy stealth moves that he normally would use on a higher difficulty, depending on how much the player is buffed by easy mode he may be able to simply shoot his way out.

1337mokro:
The threshold for success is simply more complex seeing as it isn't really higher by the addition of more guards or less allowed mistakes as the same gameplay is used to accomplish both difficulties.

Lets see, more guards means it will be harder to stealth by and the player will have be much more careful. Less health will also mean that the margin for error is much smaller, which would make the game more difficult. If they added a very hard mode in which the game ends if you are spotted once(MGS's extreme difficulty)then that greatly effects the difficulty and the play style that the player most adopt in order to survive.

1337mokro:
By changing the things you mention in Dark Souls 2 it essentially loses a gigantic part of it's gameplay that is centered around patience, avoidance of mistakes and planning. You can make more mistakes now, running that dragon gauntlet is no longer impossible without careful timing.

Everything you mentioned there can be applied to Splinter Cell or stealth games in general. Patience is a must in a stealth game. Charging in without studying a guard's patrol and looking for the safest route to take with most likely end in disaster. How is making changes to health, damage, or enemy numbers in Dark souls any different than doing it in Splinter cell?

1337mokro:
Not to mention the segregation based on difficulty for the online elements. After all you can't pull an easy mode gamer into a normal mode, they would get massacred or the reverse would happen where an easy mode was able to grind to a point where he basically becomes a troll ghost.

I will the admit that I didn't think about the effects this could have on online play since I never bothered with it. However, this does not mean there can't be a solution. The easiest way they could probably mitigate this is to restrict interaction between players based on the difficulty setting they chose, and make the difficulty level unchangeable once they start their playthrough/character. Basically if your setting is easy mode then only someone else who is also on easy mode can invade your game.

1337mokro:
The entire game changes based on the difficulties, barriers that exist fade with a lower difficulty

The challenge/difficulty changes but the gameplay remains the same.

1337mokro:
Not to mention the diversion of resources to make sure both modes are entirely balanced and playable.

True, but how much resources are we talking about? It could be significant or it could be negligible.

1337mokro:
In the worst case scenario the situation gets reversed where the easy mode is the standard mode and they just beef up the enemies or put negative modifiers on the PC.

Or they could just design the standard mode with the hardcore gamers (those that want a challenge)in mind and not the easy mode crowd. I'm not saying they can't fuck it up, but at the same time I see no reason why they can't do it properly.

1337mokro:
Accessible is really just another word for dumbed down. Resident Evil 6 was accessible, it was also the game that gave us an experience similar to a slug giving head to a giraffe.

You'll get no argument from me about RE6. However, what happened to RE6 is still not the same as adding a difficulty mode to Dark Souls.

 

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