E3: Kill With Voice Commands in Splinter Cell: Blacklist

[SayHelloToMrBullet]

Because what a Splinter Cell really needs is the ability for a few jet aeroplanes to swoop and bomb the crap out of everything within a kilometre radius. Unless this is some kind of new silent spy air strike thing, which just seems kinda stupid (why is there a highly trained operative on the scene in the first place?). Ugh, I wish SC would go back to proper stealth, like in Chaos Theory.

What's wrong with being able to call in air support?

I don't know about you but an air strike doesn't exactly scream stealthy.

Now I haven't played the Splinter Cell games, but judging from what I know the spy guys are supposed to be stealthy and take down enemies without alerting them first.

I'd imagine that an air strike would place all the survivors on high alert.

I've also been informed that in the old games, guns were only ever used as a last resort. Judging from the gameplay video, guns appear to be more of an approach option now, rather than a last resort.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

The point is that the Splinter Cells go into an area that at all costs must not be seen to be under the attention of the U.S. government. Even if the enemy force doesn't realise that there is a U.S. operative on the ground, they are going to notice the F-35 that just flew through their airspace and bombed the crap out of a particular installation. Using other U.S. forces in a Splinter Cell mission negates the whole point of the Splinter Cell, which is objective deniability by the U.S. government.

Actually it's not even really an air strike, it's an AGM strike from a UAV controlled by Grim.

If Sam Fisher was caught, he had no US markings, no ties to the U.S. that the opposing forces could use to identify him as working for the U.S., so if the mission goes sour the U.S. doesn't suffer. By having a U.S. bomber fly in to bring an airstrike when Sam wants you have a situation that, even if the mission is successful, there was a U.S. plane bombing the crap out of a diplomatic hotspot, that can't be denied, it can't be hushed up, and if this mechanic was used in any other Splinter Cell game it would have directly resulted in outright war with whatever country you were in.

So then don't call in an air strike.

I mean, in Chaos theory there's an entire level dedicated to you tracking down and blowing up a US spyplane that crashed near you, because if North Korea found it they would use it as leverage to attack the U.S. If Sam Fisher is being put in situations that he works alongside the army then that renders the whole point of Splinter Cells useless: they become another generic specialist army rank, which goes against the whole ideal that Tom Clancy dreamed up in the first place.

So then tell that to the developers. I'm not the one developing the game and I didn't ask for this.

My apathy isn't endorsement.

I don't know about you but an air strike doesn't exactly scream stealthy.

I didn't say an air strike was stealthy.

Now I haven't played the Splinter Cell games, but judging from what I know the spy guys are supposed to be stealthy and take down enemies without alerting them first.

Yeah that's basically it.

I'd imagine that an air strike would place all the survivors on high alert.

So then don't use an air strike.

I've also been informed that in the old games, guns were only ever used as a last resort.

Yeah, Lambert (Sam Fisher's former CO, now dead) tells you that in the first game. You also don't receive an assault rifle until the fourth mission in the game.

Judging from the gameplay video, guns appear to be more of an approach option now, rather than a last resort.

That's something the developers were striving for.

 

[Cyrus Hanley]

My argument was really why the gameplay in the new games didn't make sense because of what the unit originally stood for in Chaos Theory. His argument was simply "not anymore". How am I even supposed to respond to that?

Well, that wasn't even an argument and I didn't claim it to be.

I was telling you about the changes. I wasn't arguing in favour of them.

If a guy in a story is a friendly neighbour with a nice family, and suddenly he's an axe-wielding murderer, you can wonder why he isn't still a nice guy 'til the cows come home.

What does the "friendly neighbour" in your analogy represent? Third Echelon?

If someone's argument is simply that he's isn't a nice guy anymore because, well, because he just isn't, how are you even supposed to respond to that? How is that even an argument?

It's not an argument, it's a response. You can respond to a response by responding.