E3: Splinter Cell Blacklist Demo

[Dangit2019]

To me, it seems that people are judging this on the "it's not completely stealth therefore it is s***" level, but the way I see it is that if it's a good game, it's a good game. It could definitely be bad, of course but here's a hypothetical situation for you: If George Lucas made a horror movie set in the Star Wars universe and it was one of the scariest movies of all time, the fact that it was made in a universe for action-adventure shouldn't make everyone think that it's bad.

If this game delivers well on the action approach, I will judge it on how well it works with that approach, not by stealth elements alone.

Here's another hypothetical scenario: It's like your favourite Chinese takeaway suddenly announcing that they're becoming a sushi-bar. Yeh, the sushi might be nice, but i have other places i can get my sushi, i loved their chinese and now they've stopped selling it. It's like that, only in this situation there are hardly any chinese takeaways around for miles, but sushi-bars are ten-a-penny, you're practically drowning in sushi. We've lost a rarity that we loved and in return got some generic samey copy-paste of a million other games out there.

Of course we're annoyed.

Good point, but hey, it could be worse. You could be a regular guy in the army who goes with his squad to these locations and kills everybody with M4s.

 

[TephlonPrice]

So... Assassin's Cell: Blacklist?

Because the gameplay has some of Assassin's Creed's features and design decisions in a way.

Yes, it looks like stealth is a viable option just like always, but you can always take on the full action approach or a mixture of both. Similar to Assassin's Creed.

You have a lot of tools at your disposal, some of which are perfect for the infiltrator, others which can easily level groups of hostiles in a second, and some precision strike death dealers; you get to choose which toys to deploy. Similar to Assassin's Creed.

Enemies can be fooled consistently with things like last-known positions, though I'm sure earlier installments had enemies who did the same thing; I remember a few moments from the first Splinter Cell.

Stealth seems based around spatial, line-of-sight, and altitude above hostiles, similar to Assassin's Creed.

Avoiding Assassin's Creed jokes:

The "mark-and-execute" system is something that could be done away with. I liked it, but it seems like a last resort kind of thing instead of a straight offensive option.

The controls seem to be the exact same from Conviction.

Being able to engage in direct combat on top of stealth maneuvers is something I definitely I like.

As for the plot, it's modern Tom Clancy fare. Which to say could be a little more interesting. Namely, American terrorist groups working with Mexican drug cartels, rogue European terrorist cells, and other things to destroy shit around the U.S. and its allies is a much better story. Hell, Act of Valor's story would've worked better for this one.

As for Sam, isn't Sam in his 50s? I understand he's the leader of Fourth Echelon, but why is he in the field still? Why not another operative? Scott Mitchell from Ghost Recon retired to be a U.S. ops commander; why not Sam training new operatives with his skill set? Why is Grim still with Sam? And why the hell is he moving like Ezio; at 50, I'd be retired from this shit.

Nonlethal options should be here. Ezio from AC has nonlethal options; sure, they're hard as hell to implement, but they're still worthy of implementation.

This is coming from someone who's played all the SC series up to Conviction: I might consider this one, if they show a bit more of more gameplay, maybe a night level or a jungle level to show off some stealth based on shadows and camouflage.

 

[marcooos]

i looked into this thread and its made me click to something. im not looking forward to any any of the games being released by the big publishers. its the first time ever ive never had a AAA game go "i want that"

You really not interested by Watch Dogs? Ubisoft premiered it and it looks like a great new AAA IP.

Also on topic *sigh* I don't like to judge from first demos but the game just looks shit to me, broad daylight gunfights, generic racist plot, no Micheal Ironside and a somehow younger Sam ?!?. I'll probably give this a miss also on another note "OY!!! Ubisoft where the Fuck is the new Rainbow 6!!! ?"

 

[Zetatrain]

Hold your venom and bile, folks. I saw a "move body" button prompt pop up.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/pc4bh

I just feel like when every new game is announced gamers immediately jump on it and lose their ability to think rationally. From what I saw, there's still stealth, but you can also play it quickly like in Conviction. I really don't understand the whining over this one.

Did you ever play Chaos Theory?

Chaos Theory was the epitome of what a great stealth game could be. It allowed you to improvise, to make things up on the fly, without resorting to cheap cinematics and gung-ho gameplay. In Chaos Theory, you could go into a gunfight, but only as a last resort.

The video they showed isn't stealth. Stealth isn't just about shooting people without letting their mates see you, it's about being able to get by without shooting anyone at all. Splinter Cell always allowed you to progress forward with a minimum of killing. Generally speaking, the fewer people you killed, the higher your end-of-level rating.

This just isn't Splinter Cell. It's a generic third-person action shooter, with generic gameplay and 'cinematic action', with none of the freedom of choice and consequence that made games like Chaos Theory so great. Ubisoft should have used Chaos Theory as a foundation point from which to progress. Instead, they've forgotten everything that made it good, and instead focused on cheap action and derivative gameplay.

Sam can now aim from the hip, something he could never do in the old games. Pulling out your gun required Sam to slow down and take aim, something that's necessary in a stealth game.

The Mark-And-Execute feature is the exact same gameplay mechanic from Rainbow Six: Vegas, and exactly the same as the mechanic they crow-barred into Ghost Recon. Cannibalizing gameplay features from your other franchises is not new or innovative. It simply creates a bland uniformity among all your titles. The fact that you don't even seem to need to aim to pull it off just goes to show how far down the shitter the series is going.

And to top it all off, Michael Ironside's no longer Fisher. That's the nail in the coffin. No-one else can do Fisher's voice like Ironside. It would be like trying to voice Snake without David Hayder.

Umm...I don't know what game you played but the Mark and Execute in RB6 Vegas is nothing like Conviction's. In RB6 Vegas its simply just a means to tell your AIs which enemies to attack, something you should be able to do, and is not a means to instantly kill your opponents like in Conviction. Haven't played the new Ghost Recon game so can't comment on that.

While I agree the Chaos Theory was the pinnacle of the Splinter Cell series, Conviction is hardly the third person shooter you make it out to be, at least IMO. You go in guns blazing and you will be cut down within seconds. The whole Mark and Execute thing does make it much easier to take down enemies, but you have a limited number of those (2-4) and once you run out you can only refill you Mark and Execute bars by doing stealth take downs. It felt more a like a way to bail your ass out of a situation you fucked up rather than the primary way to deal with your enemies.

Personally, the thing that bothered me most was the lack of Michael Ironside's voice. Without it, Sam Fisher just doesn't seem the same. I actually wouldn't mind if they brought in a new main character and given how they are constantly making Fisher look younger maybe it's not such a bad idea.

 

[Zetatrain]

Don't be surprised if they change it up. After the reaction Future Soldier got at E3 a few years ago they massively reinvented it.

As it is though, it just makes me sad. What happened to all the stealth games? And why the fuck is Sam the head of a brand new organisation, meaning this is a sequel, but looks younger than he does in any of the other games?

This, on top of the fact that the new organisation is named "fourth echelon," and Sam's at the head. Intelligence agencies do not operate by sequel basis, and they most certainly do not send their leader to do field operations.

Even as someone who liked Conviction, I will not abide by this.

Sam working for the government does not seem to make much sense considering that the impression I got at the end of Conviction was that he had enough of working for the government, considering that it cost him his best friend and almost cost him his daughter.

 

[AJax_21]

So apparently a Ubisoft employee responded to the negative reaction of the E3 demo:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/%C2%AD680898-Thoughts-from-the-ComDe%C2%ADv?p=8359975

His arguement, Mass appeal.

... I don't get it. If you want to get people excited about your game, wouldn't you advertise your game's unique features instead of showcasing it as a generic-military-shameless-Uncharted Creed-knock off. People already have their Call of Dutys, Uncharteds and Gears. I doubt most of that audience want the exact damn game but with different coat of paint. Yeah I'm not buying this bullshit.

 

[Ryotknife]

Hold your venom and bile, folks. I saw a "move body" button prompt pop up.

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/pc4bh

I just feel like when every new game is announced gamers immediately jump on it and lose their ability to think rationally. From what I saw, there's still stealth, but you can also play it quickly like in Conviction. I really don't understand the whining over this one.

Did you ever play Chaos Theory?

Chaos Theory was the epitome of what a great stealth game could be. It allowed you to improvise, to make things up on the fly, without resorting to cheap cinematics and gung-ho gameplay. In Chaos Theory, you could go into a gunfight, but only as a last resort.

The video they showed isn't stealth. Stealth isn't just about shooting people without letting their mates see you, it's about being able to get by without shooting anyone at all. Splinter Cell always allowed you to progress forward with a minimum of killing. Generally speaking, the fewer people you killed, the higher your end-of-level rating.

This just isn't Splinter Cell. It's a generic third-person action shooter, with generic gameplay and 'cinematic action', with none of the freedom of choice and consequence that made games like Chaos Theory so great. Ubisoft should have used Chaos Theory as a foundation point from which to progress. Instead, they've forgotten everything that made it good, and instead focused on cheap action and derivative gameplay.

Sam can now aim from the hip, something he could never do in the old games. Pulling out your gun required Sam to slow down and take aim, something that's necessary in a stealth game.

The Mark-And-Execute feature is the exact same gameplay mechanic from Rainbow Six: Vegas, and exactly the same as the mechanic they crow-barred into Ghost Recon. Cannibalizing gameplay features from your other franchises is not new or innovative. It simply creates a bland uniformity among all your titles. The fact that you don't even seem to need to aim to pull it off just goes to show how far down the shitter the series is going.

And to top it all off, Michael Ironside's no longer Fisher. That's the nail in the coffin. No-one else can do Fisher's voice like Ironside. It would be like trying to voice Snake without David Hayder.

i would love to play chaos theory, or any of the older SC games, but the controls and the UI are horrid. Hell I only played double agent for 11 minutes before i threw it down in utter disgust, which is the first time in the 20+ years I've played that I've done so. usually i will give the game multiple chances before giving up.

And i love stealth based games. you enjoy sneaking past everyone without shooting, i do not. I enjoy figuring out how to take out the enemies without raising the alarm so that if things go tits up i can fall back to a cleared area and set up a series of pre-planned ambushes. You make it sound like in Conviction that you just go around toting an casualty rifle around. you can try to do that, but it is very difficult to accomplish. more likely, you will use a silenced pistol 90+% of the time

mobility should be fluid and crisp in stealth games, not clunky and unwieldy like in the other splinter cells.

 

[daveman247]

snip

The link you posted had the oposite effect of what you hoped I'm now going to wait and see.

OT: I am a conflicted splinter cell fan. I loved the old games, its sneaking and so-such. But i realised something: The only reason you couldn't - really go gun blazing is because of the clunkiness. Sam was just too slow for action gaming, and so stealth was really the only option.

This is why i like conviction ASWELL. They streamlined the complicated controls and made sam react faster. The side effect was that it made it a little easier to run and gun. I feel conviction was a good start, but not quite there yet. Maybe this one will get the balance right.

I'm happy spied vs mercs is returning, i greatly missed that from conviction. And with the increased speed the series has been given, it should be awesome.

The things i didn't like was no non lethal options- maybe they will fix that here?

And the levels felt waaaay to linear. It was basicsally "clear this area, move on" Chaos theory got it right in making buildings feel like actual buildings, with a few different routes to get to the objective. They say they are going to make the levels more open, so there is hope here.

And no ironside. I'm sorry but now sam doesnt sound or look like sam. He is too young. I agree with others, they should have made a new splinter cell agent and have sam as the new supervisor like lambert. Best of both worlds. IT would also explain the change of tactics. Another idea would be a prequal, covering sams history and how he became so grizzled. That would explain his voice change aswell (a lot younger guy back then). Stealth in the 80's would be sweet too.

 

[idarkphoenixi]

I was pretty disgusted by this game to be honest.

Maybe it's just the Lib in me but I'm sick and tired of these "kill every middle-eastern looking guy because obviously he's a terrorist and is evil".
Sam Fisher always seemed to only do what was purely needed for the mission. Meaning if he could avoid killing someone he would. Sure, you 'could' go through every level in Chaos Theory and blast all the bad guys to pieces but you could also use stealth to slip past them. In fact you got better ratings at the end of the mission for NOT killing anyone you didn't need to!

And what the hell was with the end? He 'interrogates' a terrorist (meaning slammed his head repeatedly into a wall) and then blows his brains out at the end of it, telling his superiors that he shot himself. And I'm supposed to be rooting for the guy?! That was just cold-blooded murder and totally against the character that I grew up knowing.

I get it, there always has to be a bad guy. If it's middle-eastern terrorists then fine. I'm okay with that but at least give us the option not to engage. This is supposed to be stealth after all right??

Maybe I'm just nitpicking now but what the hell is up with this new wall-climbing animation? The guys just leaping up sheer cliffside like its nothing. I thought Sam was supposed to be really old? I mean, they always joked about his age throughout the entire series. And it can't be a prequel because they have more advanced equipment.

 

[mrjoe94]

I have mixed feelings, it looks fun as hell i'll give it that, but it's not exactly splinter cell-y.

The only reason you couldn't - really go gun blazing is because of the clunkiness. Sam was just too slow for action gaming, and so stealth was really the only option.

Sam's never exactly been young in these games, he's kind of old you know .

Sarcasm aside you're right about gunplay being clunky, but apparently showing off Sam's (rightfully earned) gun skills make people whine and complain.

I felt that, while I wouldn't call Conviction a Splinter Cell game, it did show what happens when Sam goes all out and I liked that. Here, it seems like he's going to be a bit more subdued, but still capable in a fight.

 

[daveman247]

I felt that, while I wouldn't call Conviction a Splinter Cell game, it did show what happens when Sam goes all out and I liked that. Here, it seems like he's going to be a bit more subdued, but still capable in a fight.

Exactly, which is why they should use a different character now

It would explain the change in tactics: this "aggressive stealth" they keep saying. It made sense in conviction, because sam was pretty riled. But now, he's back on the job and it doesnt. If it was a different character they could just say "this guy doesnt work like sam" then they can get whatever actor/ voice they wanted. And having sam filling lamberts position would be a fitting end for him aswell, like you said. He's old. Man