New Splinter Cell: Less Stealth, More Accessible

dthree

Hey!
Jun 13, 2008
165
0
0
I remember penny arcade saying a similar thing about Prince of Persia 2. In fact when went back to search for the post, I found this interesting comment:

"So they listened to the people who didn't like their game and totally fucked those of us who loved it. Thanks Ubi, you know a lot of people really hate all the sneaking around in Splinter Cell. Why don't you give Sam a dual Uzis and a rocket launcher?"

Full post here: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2004/12/3/
 

LornMind

New member
Dec 27, 2008
283
0
0
After playing with the demo and having played the first and second games, I liked the direction they took things. Stealth is very fun, and Splinter Cell was almost unflinching in it's stealth mechanics, but this greater degree of freedom I think gives you the option to go stealth or go loud.

I mean, I can only speak from the perspective of the demo since I don't have the game yet, but it didn't seem like it was preventing you from being stealthy, only encouraging it. Sam is fast and deadly, but he's just a dude, and he dies VERY fast. You can't really run and gun all that much because your accuracy wanes rather pathetically and rushing a guy that can see you running at him while he brandishes a gun is great way to kill yourself. The action opened up, and you get combat high's now, but I still felt that the game deliberately paced me and tugged back on the leash whenever I got seriously injured to remind me: you're not indestructible, just very agile.

I disliked how heavily Sam ran in the first two games: this man is in top physical condition and is wearing a suit DESIGNED to make him more stealthy, not some black tank that can barely fucking run. "Grandmother" indeed. The game feels more fluid, but I still think that the stealth is there, it's just coupled with more "Oh shit" or "Holy crap!" moments than in the first games.

It's a bit more like the Splinter Cell novels now, come to think.

I like the direction the series took, especially since I wasn't too interested in Double Agent.
 

Cucipher

New member
May 19, 2009
35
0
0
Tdc2182 said:
Cucipher said:
Andy Chalk said:
Wow! This is terrible journalism!

This is not news. This is an opinion piece. An unsubstantiated, unqualified, subjective piece of writing. If that was what was intended, then that's cool! But dont for the love of god call it news.

Who is the writer to claim what is and is not a "true" stealth game?

I really enjoy most of the content created by the Escapist but since when did sweeping generalisation and opinions become part of a news article? That's for comments surely?!?

I had to go back and check if it was the same guy who wrote the article about the kid who spent all the money on Farmville/Facebook - and indeed it was! Another article full of unwanted, unnecessary and finger-wagging opinions. Andy Chalk - either you need to get funnier and get a review column or check back and see what the definition of "news" is.

I for one am looking forward to the game, and I have enjoyed stealth titles for years. Obviously there will be controversy when things are changed, but games have to evolve and improve through experimentation just like anything else. Who says stealth has to be a game of tiny steps? Can this new approach not lead to some excellent developments in the genre in years to come?
You don't read much news, do you?
Good point. :) Thankfully no Fox here so there's still hope.
 

Georgie_Leech

New member
Nov 10, 2009
796
0
0
buy teh haloz said:
Georgie_Leech said:
BOO. I've played the demo, and the lack of stealth was awful. They even gave Fisher that wierd habit of regenerating wounds like Wolverine. I liked the previous games because of the stealth (gasp). I didn't want another third-person shooter. I wanted a stealth game.
It is still a stealth game. It's still there. You probably weren't playing the game properly.
When the demo opens with a scenario interrogating someone violently in front of a witness, forces you to kill one of two guards to get into the building, gives you that odd health regeneration thing (or very temporary damage), and gives you that ability to tag a bunch of targets for easy death, no, I didn't see much stealth. Part of it being a stealth game is that the point is to not be seen. The demo could be beaten by taking cover and shooting everybody; I tried and succeded. In the other Splinter Cells, it was actually possible to make it through the levels without leaving a trace of your existence, but not so in this one so far.
 

INF1NIT3 D00M

New member
Aug 14, 2008
423
0
0
My post is really long.
Okay, I've played the game's co-op campaign with my friend, and personally I think it's a great experience. I NEVER felt like a spy in Double Agent or any of the other games. I spent more time trying and re-trying than I spent playing, and it was almost never fun. I'd be sneaking through a base and then a guard would flick a light on and shoot me in the face. Cue restart of whole mission, and a long loading screen. NOT FUN. I specifically remember some guards that would pseudo-spawn in when i went to certain areas. Enter area near tent: Guard comes out; Wait 15 minutes after re-loading for guard to appear: No guard; Walk past, thinking it's safe then: SUPRISE! GUARD!. Now in Conviction, this is okay; just jump into shadow, or shoot the guard, or melee-kill him, or flashbang, or whatever comes to mind. In Double Agent, that guard always meant alert being raised, instant death, or a detection-game over. Now call me impatient, call me not-in-the-spirit-of-stealth, but when I set up a cunning infiltration plan only for it to be royally screwed over, I'd much rather be able to fix my fuckups on the fly rather than re-loading and trying to perfectly re-create 30 minutes of progress. I also hated the method of doing things in Double Agent, and it made me want to drop stealth games altogether. Opening a door in Double Agent, or any Splinter Cell game before Conviction, became a complex and flow-breaking ordeal. Walk up to door, Press A, HOLD A, Now you have three options. Option 1: Smash door open REALLY LOUDLY (Like any good spy would), Option 2: Open door while making normal door-opening sounds, or Option 3: Open door silently, as fast or as slow as you want. That means that just to open ONE door requires 3 button presses (technically 4 if you did option 3, because you have to press the stick forward to make him move forward and push the door with him. I suppose if you wanted to only open the door halfway and leave it there, this would be a welcome design choice). That's A, then D-pad right (or left) twice while holding A. And pulling out your emp+pistol/assault rifle was fun too. Point Sam in the right direction, hit X, wait for him to comprehend the action, give the game a second to switch camera angles, wait for him to pull out his pistol, aim, then you can shoot an enemy in the head to kill him, or in the body to lose the game. Everything just took so long to do I got bored while doing it. Stashing bodies is the best example of how I felt about the games. Hiding bodies is realistic, but it's complicated and time-consuming and instead of making you feel good about being undetected, it makes you feel bad about killing someone in the name of secrecy. I feel that ditching the overly complicated door-opening mechanics and overall retarded controls were a step in the right direction for Splinter Cell. Now most actions require a contextual button press and take little time. Now instead of getting shot while trying to navigate a menu to open a door, one press automatically chooses the 'open the door quietly' option and another button chooses 'make lots of noise, get detected quickly, and destroy the door'. Now I can kill a guard, disappear into shadows, and use the other guard's confusion to take them out or escape. If my plan to sneak through the room fails, I can hide, re-evaluate, and continue playing, rather than having to restart. I get that many people feel that the faster pace ruins their fun. I myself was baffled at the exclusion of the option to hide bodies, and a few bits required killing, but I don't think the direction taken is a bad one. No longer do I feel like a cow trying to escape a meat packing plant, I feel like a badass infiltrating an enemy base. I think that this could be the start of a middle ground between the classic "Hardcore" stealth of Thief or older Splinter Cells, and straight up tactical shooters like Rainbow Six Vegas. If you like the old version of Splinter Cell, good for you. However, I'd really hate to see negative feedback kill this new streamlined stealth gameplay.

And on a related note, why are some of you "Hardcore" Splinter Cell veterans so diametrically opposed to killing the guards? It's my understanding that a lot of the guys we're supposed to be getting past are all hardened killers, most of them being terrorists bent on murdering innocents. Every time I've been spotted they've killed me on sight. Now, shooting a Rent-A-Cop is just in bad taste, and killing in an embassy isn't an option for obvious reasons, but how exactly is is better for me to leave the actual terrorist guards alive? Surely once I've gotten whatever I wanted from the base they'd be fired for incompetence or killed, why go through the red tape? And by leaving a base full of terrorists alive you may feel stealthier, but IMO you're just letting another batch of career criminals move on to the next terrorist cell or drug ring. Dead men tell no tales, surely there's no proof you're there if none of the guards are alive to talk about it? Now the terrorists might get spooked if they suddenly realize a base-load of their guys just fell off the face of the earth, but by then it's not really my department. If that's what keeps them from pulling off their plan, then haven't I actually done what we set out to do? Stop terrorists from... terrorizing people? I've never felt bad about neutralizing a guard, and I almost always do so in order to lessen my chances of being detected (I REALLY hate it when a guard patrols up right behind me without me realizing). So... Yeah. That's all I really had to say.
So if you just want to know my thoughts on Conviction and don't care for my justifications, I thought it was awesome and way better than the other Splinter Cells I've played. I don't think the stealth is gone or lessened, rather it's just been retooled to be a lot more smooth. Oh, and the Co-op Campaign is really fun. I haven't really mentioned what the game itself plays like, but anyone who's played it knows, and anyone who hasnt will either find out by playing or doesnt want to play it at all. Which is a shame, because they're missing out.
 

INF1NIT3 D00M

New member
Aug 14, 2008
423
0
0
Tdc2182 said:
Andy Chalk said:
Marik2 said:
The stealth is still there, just faster.
I dunno. That's a LOT of killing for a stealth game.
I agree. It has kind of betrayed it's roots a bit. Also, from what I have seen, it rewards you too much for using run and gun technique, even on its hardest difficulty. And you use the Mark and Execute more than you actually manually aim.
Wait a minute there, buck-o. You mean YOU used the Mark and Execute more than you manually aimed. Don't blame the game for your lack of patience or aiming skill. The button is there, but no one FORCES you to use it. They don't even bug you about it. I played the entire co-op campaign with my buddy, and between us we used the 'Execute' part of Mark and Execute a total of about 3 times between the both of us for the whole campaign. No gun in the game is accurate past 2 shots, and your character can take maybe 3 or 4 hits before he straight up dies on normal. I can't remember a single time Run And Gun worked for me and my partner. And trust me, we TRIED. Getting shot due to a lack of stealth and retrying is frustrating, and often led to us trying to go too fast to make up for lost progress, and that would lead to worse fails. How you choose to play the game is EVERYTHING. I don't know what strategy YOU used, but that isn't the only way to play. Don't forget that. IMO, playing with ONLY manual aiming and more CQB kills than gun kills is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE, if more challenging. The word "Accessible" doesnt always mean "Casual". All it means is that YOU can get through your way, and I got through it my way. There's more options, increasing what strategies you have access to. See that? More options = ACCESS to more strategies = more ACCESSibility. There's only less stealth in the game if you USE less stealth in the game. It's become more forgiving for fuckups, what's wrong with that? If you don't want forgiveness, you can just reload a checkpoint every time you're detected.
And to everyone holding up the demo as proof that the game sucks, no demo has ever perfectly encapsulated gameplay. It's just as ignorant to say the game is bad because of the demo as it is to say it's bad without ever even seeing so much as a screenshot. The demo doesnt have much of the freedom of the full game. I tried multiple times to get through without killing, but it's made to show off the Mark and Execute, so that's not an option. To haters of that variety, I'd urge you to play the full game before resuming your cries of "it's not boring enough!" or whatever you have against a perfectly good game. At the end of the day, we ALL agree it's beter than ET for the Atari...
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
INF1NIT3 D00M said:
Don't get me wrong, I mainly played the demo and have played an hour or two of the game at a friends house. I love the game. I just think that in an attempt to make it more playable to a larger audience, it sacrificed the spirit of Splinter Cell.

If a game gives you something to use that makes the game easier, why would I not use it? It eventually gives you 4 executes later on in the game. Think about it. That is four free kills every time you sneak up on someone and press B. In the first game, you were punished for shooting a guy, let alone alerting a whole room of people.

I think that they should have made it a thing that slows down time so you end up having to aim in slow mo.
 

Chrissyluky

New member
Jul 3, 2009
985
0
0
Stealth is still here. The main thing that was frustrating with chaos theory was sam fisher was a grandmother. Regardless i am not buying this for the single player i am doing it for the multiplayer.
 

dthree

Hey!
Jun 13, 2008
165
0
0
Now that I've been through the first couple of single player levels, I can see where you guys are coming from. The gameplay style is definitely different, even if it's possible to go through a particular section without killing anyone, it's very difficult to do so AND they configure the levels and the bot paths so that mark & execute works REALLY well compared to stealth only. I'll stick with it because its still pretty fun but it's not your fathers splinter cell.
 

dthree

Hey!
Jun 13, 2008
165
0
0
Tdc2182 said:
I think that they should have made it a thing that slows down time so you end up having to aim in slow mo.
Sure! That makes ANY game fun, right?
 

Tdc2182

New member
May 21, 2009
3,623
0
0
dthree said:
Tdc2182 said:
I think that they should have made it a thing that slows down time so you end up having to aim in slow mo.
Sure! That makes ANY game fun, right?
Well... it is a cheap way to get a few quit fun parts, I guess
 

BlueberryMUNCH

New member
Apr 15, 2010
1,892
0
0
Arkhangelsk said:
I was even more pissed to hear that the single player campaign is 5 fucking hours short!

Seriously? Uh GOD that blows; i really fancy this but from reading this thread im totally not feeling it anymore. i really fancy a good stealth game, and this looked okay...but 5 hours for a £40 game? nothanks:/
 

Arkhangelsk

New member
Mar 1, 2009
7,702
0
0
BlueberryMUNCH said:
Arkhangelsk said:
I was even more pissed to hear that the single player campaign is 5 fucking hours short!

Seriously? Uh GOD that blows; i really fancy this but from reading this thread im totally not feeling it anymore. i really fancy a good stealth game, and this looked okay...but 5 hours for a £40 game? nothanks:/
Hold on. That statement was before I bought the game. I can say this now: The multi-player makes it worth it. I played all night with my brother where the only objective was "kill each other" and it was incredibly fun sneaking up on him and snapping his neck.
 

JUMBO PALACE

Elite Member
Legacy
Jun 17, 2009
3,552
7
43
Country
USA
Well leave it to Ubisoft to take what defines a game and rip it apart. I guess I'll just have to replay Chaos Theory. Shame shame Ubisoft. Shame shame.
 

Stormz

New member
Jul 4, 2009
1,450
0
0
It's final. Gaming is dead to me. Will we never see a game that isn't dumbed down for the retarded masses again?
 

Chicago Ted

New member
Jan 13, 2009
3,463
0
0
I like the change personally. I prefer the more Bourne style this game has. After all, I don't like the Stealth games that force you into one method. I prefer mine with a lot more of a Hitman taste. I like the strategy it takes to pull that off more then Splinter Cells hardcore stealth.
 

Fidelias

New member
Nov 30, 2009
1,406
0
0
I just bought this game and LOVED it. I don't know why people are saying that there isn't any stealth. There is, they just took out some stuff. Noise, in the other games, was not fun, it was ANNOYING. Me and my friend have played Splinter Cell games for years, and the co-op is much more interesting and fun than any experience we've had with the old games.

And about people's comments about Mass Effect 2...
It was awesome. Very immersive, I don't know what the hell your talking about. Better at everything when compared to ME1 except for story.