Splinter cell

If they didn't change their games people would probably complain they arent different.

Isn't AC stealth as well?

lolno, not even the first one. At least not an actual stealth game, but more a game with "stealth" elements.

Blame brown people

I honestly don’t know why they abandoned SC. It was super popular for years, pretty sure it didn’t even sell that bad at the end. Playing as an adult made it obvious there’s no blood or violence in these which is the only glaring flaw

You know anons, CT costed like 10 millions in development and another 10 millions in advertising, at least this is what i read on articles.

If i'm part of such a small audience, i would be happy with a lower budget game, like less than 50 millions or 25, i don't get nice graphics, but a much more memorable experience. Instead they keep pulling out 200 or 300 millions for shitty trendy games full of bugs that must be fixed in multiple patches. What a gay earth.

They were chasing the Gears of War bux and when it flopped devided that the franchise was never good in the first place.

Playing as an adult made it obvious there’s no blood or violence in these which is the only glaring flaw

So, are you not an adult, or did you not play the games?
In any case, you're a faggot.

Because if you can't make it an open world with an Ubisoft shopping list of map icons, they're not interested.

Some people will never work out that irony. So they'll basically just have to tell non clancy kind of fiction and pretend it's something that clancy would have wrote. Because Tencent will allow any criticism of the CCP. I'm saying that fully aware that Pandora Tomorrow was made by people in Shanghai.

20 years ago

throw 10M dollars as a developer

make a memorable game

now

throw away 300M dollars

the result is an easy forgettable game

the AI is even more retarded than a retro game

"but at least it looks good"

there is another reason for that, and that is an Ubisoft problem (and other AAA studios), you cant make your teams do smaller projects because you cant split the teams, you cant use your 100 person studio and split it in 4 teams to do 4 small projects because you dont have 4 team leads or 4 leads of any of the departments. There are some big studios that evolved in the way of having multiple teams for multiple projects at the same time, that was common a long time ago with AA games, but the strategy is to always grow your team and company and at a certain point your studio isnt prepared to split up and tackle multiple smaller projects.
It sucks because a lot of franchises really dont need to scale up in scope sideways. Driver is a good example, you had it failing a lot trying to be GTA and having the character walk around and shoot, and the series only got good and strong again by leaving that aspect behind and focusing on how to grow with something truly meaningfull.
Still, Driver San Francisco was the last in the series so take that with a grain of salt.

Plus, you just know that if your promise is a game that can sell less to make a profit you will fail to get investment, they dont want just profit, they want a product that can sell a lot and bring the profit with it. If you start the design with the idea that it wont sell much (because it doesnt have to) you wont even sell the project to investors because they rarely care about the project, they care about numbers and sales

they dont want just profit, they want a product that can sell a lot and bring the profit with it

The problem is they also take a bigger risk, multiple flops and you're forced to get a bigger shot to save yourself, i know more about animation studios than gaming ones, and pixar under disney risked to close if they weren't able to fill the losses from older movies thanks to inside out 2, so i guess it's the same with assassin creed shadows, it's a mild success but i wonder if that's enough. If they can't save themselves they sell their company, focusing only on money will be the downfall of this industry.

I'm told AC had something called "social stealth". The objective wasn't to hide in the shadows like other games, but to hide in plain sight. I remember a clip of the main character walking in a group of missionaries, and using their path to pass through some guards. But I haven't played them myself, so I wouldn't know for certain.

Hitman has social stealth.
The first AC game had you "sneak" across rooftops and "hide" in masses of people with a special "blending in" function.
No idea how the sequels did it; I never played one beyond the first because they started the entire "always online" bullshit.

I prefer non-social stealth, if we want to see if the social variant works better for a larger audience, hitman would be a good franchise to study.

This. We are in a different era now. The eras we grew up with are no longer around. Companies are entirely different now - different employees, different managers, different objectives, and all about shareholders. Everything is as mainstream and soulless as can be.

AC use to be stealth. It's not anymore. Syndicate was the end for traditional AC games. Origins was the beginning of their open world cinematic hamster wheel RPG formula.

If you guys want some hopium, here's a SC clone made by a Korean dev and it looks pretty good
youtu.be/M1n3o-h9aVw?si=xh1sOZloRLg_Cz1T

The only way a new Splinter Cell would sell would be if it was just an open world operator simulator with arcadey gameplay like MGSV

Is there any particular reason why ubisoft decided to fuck this IP so much?

Stealth sections were considered a terrible video game trope around the time of the start of the 7th gen by the normie masses so companies shat bricks and started turning their stealth games into third person shooters that rewarded you more if you chose to be stealthy.

Took about a decade but the stealth genre slowly came back with Hitman and MGSV but the genre was never truly the same with both those games giving you way more lenience than the genre ever did in the past.

Hitman has social stealth.

I would add that it has the superior social stealth and AC was way watered down stuff. Whilst Hitman series is not the core shadow skulking stealth game that i desire, it is still a good challenge with getting the Silent Assassin ranks.

Because AAA games are way too expensive to focus on stealth. Seriously, the target demographic of that genre is just not big enough. A game that costs, all in all, $500mil to make needs to sell 10mil copies to break even. I don't see a Splinter Cell moving that many copies.

oh, I agree with you, certainly there are smaller studios available and a project like SC could be offered to such studio with a smaller production (even if it risks losing some quality since its a different studio, probably would need some support from a more established studio).
But we have seen how they prefer to take the risk with big projects that need big sales, all the Fortnite/COD chasing is result of that, they are desperate for the one sucess story that will bring all the money even if they have to fund 10 failed projects first. Its what Sony was planning on doing with all the GaaS projects it had in development. Concord was that bad in making them think twice about what it means to have a failed project like that. Ubisoft also has had plenty of issues, XDefiant, Skull and Bones, and some others I cant even remember properly like the roller blades game... all failed big time, they still want another Siege but eventually had to cancel the Ghost Recon and Division games they had in development

This game is interesting, although it seems more similar to blacklist, but i guess i'll stick to it.

I miss sneaking around and take people from behind, interrogating them, listening while they repair stuff or give free info away like a door code, Splinter Cell is truly unique but no one seems interested in such mechanics. People only want ultra action.

MGSV is how you do a proper stealth game. Feels like both SC and MGS borrowed a lot of ideas from each other and MGSV was (and still is) the peak of stealth kino. Hitman was great too but wasn't as fun because it was pretty much "find the right path" but they do get points for such amazing level design and attention to detail.
Live service is cancer and has ruined games more than Battle Royale or COD which I thought was impossible at the time. 2007 was the peak for creativity. Gaming slid off after then and in 2016 after gamergate/DEI, the well got outright poisoned. With the introduction of live service, the well turned into a nuclear waste dump.

What did SC take from MGS? It takes way more from Thief.

There is so much about the economic aspect, like a light flop is better than a bigger flop because you can at least cover almost all the loss without long term consequences. It's interesting.

I grew up with SC and each one of them hold a special place in my heart. Some aged better than others though. Can't fault Ubisoft for remixing the formula after Chaos Theory. It was super niche like others have pointed out even for stealth fans. I replayed Blacklist recently and it was pretty dope. People were pissed at the time because they made it too quick and run n gun like COD. That's fair criticism. The shooting segment was dumb but the stealth segments were still fun and impressive. I also replayed the original SC and it didn't age too poorly but was super slow at times. The aiming is so frustrating. You need some kind of balance between Chaos and Blacklist similar to what we got in MGS5.

Btw it's not like splinter cell is not social, it still has interrogation mechanics, it's just an aggressive social one where you must push people doing things.

All i know is that Ubisoft were trying to compete with the popularity of Kojima's games. Turns out they knew how to make better games :^)

But i believe the team for Chaos Theory may have taken inspiration from Thief design considered that game opened up way more.

MGS 1 and 2 were huge inspirations to many games at the time. Stealth sucked balls before MGS.

Speaking to Retro Gamer in Issue 261, the original Splinter Cell director Francois Coulon reveals the team looked to Solid Snake's antics for inspiration when creating Sam Fisher's similarly hush-hush debut. "MGS showed us how stealth mechanics should be done," says Francois, specifically pointing to the classic game's "clear rules" that always clarified what was happening and how to react.

"It is a complete and consistent set of rules that set the way for any stealth game," Coulon continues. "Remove one of its elements and the experience will be dull, frustrating, or ridiculous. MGS was perfectly executed in that regard. No frustration - you know when you lose and you don't blame the game for it."

gamesradar.com/games/splinter-cell/splinter-cell-director-says-metal-gear-solids-clear-rules-showed-the-team-how-stealth-should-be-done-and-set-the-rules-for-any-stealth-game/

It was super niche like others have pointed out even for stealth fans.

I didn't grow up with it like you, but i foubd myself enjoying the slow, calculated and out of sight pace of pre-conviction games. Chaos theory is fantastic and it could get better with more improved mechanics, but i guess it's something only an indie produced could do.

sorry for multiple replies, fuck the quoting system

Stealth sucked balls before MGS

1998 gave us MGS, Tenchu and Thief. The latter two's mechanics and gameplay were far more influential. I love MGS but it really didn't do much for the genre other than being big.

Tenchu and Thief. The latter two's mechanics and gameplay were far more influential.

Such as?

I have a post-facto appreciation for the old stealth games being so different from eachother. I have mainly only played MGS games so far (and some of the Hitman games) but I'm looking forward to playing Thief, Splinter Cell etc.

Light and dark meters, eliminating light sources, sound depending on what you're sneaking on, takedowns, cover systems, moving bodies, verticality to the levels and how it can let players gain advantages over guards, dedicated tools you choose before a mission, climbing on ledges, jumping, shimmying.

Thief had light and shadow mechanics (the mgs games had only obstacles to hide in or behind) different sounds for floor types and walking around crouching or standing (the MSX classic Metal Gear 2 had different sounds for certain floor types, but it didn't make it to MGS1) it had distractions for guards (I legitimately don't remember if MGS had that until MGS3). And it was mainly first person which adds difficulty I think.

I love MGS but it really didn't do much for the genre other than being big.

lol anon.
MGS lived on because it remembered to be fun - doing stealth was more fun then killing. Tenchu and Thief died because they were super anal and strict about stealth and it wasn't very fun. This is why SC fans love Chaos and DAv1 over the first two - because the first two were painfully slow and not fun.

Imagine dying with Sam Fisher's neoprene stealthsuit-clad thighs wrapped around your neck.

Shorter attention spans sure are a bitch. I haven't played those games (Tenchu and Thief), but I'm a firm believer in delayed gratification. Games like Deus Ex and fallout (the RPG ones) and even metal gear solid feel so much better if you take your time and have patience to take the longer, methodical route.

I love the first four SC games so you're wrong. Also they weren't anal about stealth at all other than a mission or two in SC that required no failure. There are areas in MGS that force you to not use guns and such as well, so they all did it. They also all ranked you but still let you play how you liked.

MGS let you knock walls when in cover.

True for a lot of games and genres back then. 3D was new and developers were still figuring things out, stealth included. Tenchu and MGS are both third person PSX stealth games

It's been a while since I played MGS1 but you could do most of those things? I know for sure you could eliminate the floodlights in the Olga battle in MGS2. Also might have been a hardware limitation. Thief was on the PC and MGS1 was on the PS1. Both game out in 1998 but MGS1 was running on 4 year old hardware by then.

If you're gonna be queer about it, Snake and Raiden have better thighs.

stop being a faggot.

I like the missions where he infiltrates wearing more casual clothes. Cargos pants, black beanie, black sweater, gloves and dark face camo

because the first two were painfully slow and not fun.

Speak for yourself. I like the first, Pandora Tomorrow, Chaos Theory and to a lesser extent depending on which version; Double Agent. Slow gameplay is good. MGS is shit in comparison.

Shorter attention spans sure are a bitch.

Yeah so is autism and repetitive patterns of behavior. When a game only gives you one approach and one way to beat a level, it's gonna get boring no matter how good your attention span is. Giving players variety of play and multiple paths to the objective and multiple objectives will keep it fresh longer. That's what Double Agent / Blacklist was trying to do.

I haven't played those games (Tenchu and Thief)

kek, go play those games and get back to me. There's a reason why they haven't had a reboot or remaster in over 15 years.

MGS had no light and dark, situational noise on floors that barely feature in the game, no light elimination (the one you're talking about in 2 is just a gimmick to the boss fight, not in actual stealth gameplay), one takedown when the bodies despawn right after, no verticality to truly speak of. Tenchu came out months before MGS in Japan so really should be the measuring stick. Thief was almost a year later, right at the end of 1998. Also yes, PSX was clearly behind which is why bodies have to despawn amind other things but Thief still did a shitload right and more than most games since have tried.

There's a reason why they haven't had a reboot

You forgetting Thi4f you dumb fuck? no one is touching the genre just because it's literally not popular. Well aside from the Commandos reboot releasing tomorrow.

They did Actually. 2014, 11 years ago (Not 15). It was so bad it killed the franchise. Square Enix sure sucks. They killed Deus Ex and almost killed Hitman.

Tenchu literally has three layouts you can play through at random, so its freshened up. You have a bunch of tools and more you unlock with grand master ranks. The levels are somewhat cluttered and linear at times but there is some good variation there. MGS stays the same every time, same pick ups in the same spots. Thief gives you more objectives on higher difficulties, more loot requirement, no killing restrictions. Again to keep things fresh. The only thing I think that changes in MGS is the radar and damage values.

AC is supposed to be a 'hidden in plain sight' kind of stealth, but they abandoned that after 2

We've been over this.

Corporate greed.

They became infatuated with open world cash-cows. And thought that a less popular stealth genre was not worth pursuing.
That is why they started trying to shift the franchise away from stealth to action, but surprise surprise the original fans wanted stealth.

ok

Ubi was once not the huge company it is today and like any small foreign company there's this weird inferiority complex that compels them to chase a conventional American/global recognition of success. This lead Ubi to turn SC into a movie game, it made CDPR into sellouts, it made Capcom a faggot aligned company etc. For whatever reason these people don't feel validated until they're given the same kinds of accolades old successful American companies reached despite those rewards no longer holding any meaning or value to the public. It's purely a personal display of attention seeking that's been going on since fucking Ghandi was alive.

True. Metal Gear Solid 1 and 2 have very low replayability. The MSX games have more replayability simply by the fact that they're short and can be finished in three hours or less. And also because they have some obtuse design choices that feel better on a second playtrough since you don't have to look up a guide if you have good memory.

I think MGS2 and 3 have more guards with different patrol routes

For whatever reason these people don't feel validated until they're given the same kinds of accolades old successful American companies reached

Sounds like someone I know.

Never tried it. I disliked the stupid shades they had on.

Splinter Cell gets revived but as a live action tv series a la Jack Ryan where it has a completely different storyline compared to the games and everyone deaged

the same reason they canned Prince of Persia
we got old

If you want Sam Fisher to be the MC you would have to de-age everyone. He's like 70 years old at this point. You'd also have to recast Michael Ironside. He's actually the correct age to play a 70 year old Sam Fisher, but the voice work he did in Ghost Recon was bordering on Joe Biden territory. Or he was incredibly drunk.

That "I'm the only one left" clip made the rounds back when it debuted.

I wonder if the new Commandos game will turn out good. The casual retard in this thread saying the slow gameplay of SC 1 & Pandora Tomorrow is bad should stick a gun in his mouth by the way. If this fails at least there's Styx on the horizon i guess.

Ubisoft got the idea that the only game people wanted to buy was fast-paced action that rips from Uncharted heavily. To be fair they weren't entirely wrong because I think Conviction outsold Chaos Theory and Double Agent, but this resulted in the series inevitably crashing and burning because you can't out-uncharted Uncharted. And the next Uncharted game was just everything Blacklist was doing but way, way better and more polished.

They are NEEEEVER going back to tightly-knit 3D Stealth Action ever again. It's going to be lame third person shooters forever, now. For one, I don't think they have the talent to make another Chaos Theory. For two, the people who remember Chaos Theory fondly and don't think of Conviction are pushing 40 now.

I was once with it, then they changed what it was! Now what I'm with isn't it, and what is seems weird and scary to me.

They don't even make Splinter Cell anymore old man "it" is two generations old or older and "the new hip thing" is over 10yo

The demo made a good impression (save for UE5...).
Obviously it will be easier than the old ones because modern audiences and such, but I like that they seem to have based the core gameplay on the first one instead of 2.

The last starwars mega flop is now sending the counter signal, that people a tired of open world mass market slop and want more niche experiences. I'm waiting to see what Clint hocking does with the next assassin's creed to see if ubisoft is completely brain dead.

Well no one wants what's "With it" now because Blacklist was the flop of all flops. No one wanted really shitty and slow Uncharted.