I just want to state that I believe the Co-op deniable ops campaign is the best co-op campaign for Splinter Cell games to date. The story had feeling it was moving and it was interactive through out. On the other side I can see why people may have disliked it I find the main reason to be that it wasn't longer. The Blacklist Co-op in comparison seemed as if it was without story and had little to no feeling. Saying this what do you believe the new co-op campaign (if there is one) should be like. Possible story options?
The Coop Campaign in conviction was great, i don't know what you mean by feeling though, i wasn't exactly crying or anything, but i though Archer&Kestrel were great and had more Character than Blacklist's Sam Fisher, and the ending was a nice twist that i did not see coming.
Blacklist Coop Campaign was horribly designed and not fun to play at all, even worse than the main Singleplayer Campaign, thats an achievement on its own.
My favorite is the Chaos Theory Campaign, i liked how it was connected with the main story, not as a prequel like conviction, but integrated with the events of the main game, it felt like a Campaign where you needed a 2nd player, the other Coop Campaigns felt like a 2nd player was unnecessary and was just there to call it Coop.
And of course the gameplay was better.
If they do have Coop in SC7, i want it to have more of a purpose for the story, it must have different agents (not Sam, Sam works alone) allow us to pick and choose maybe create? characters, decent length maybe half of the main singleplayer story, whatever the devs think best, i'd rather have a short, fun and replayable campaign than a long one that drags on.
Also more coop takedown moves (like in Chaos theory) and the levels must be designed for 2 players (hiigh walls, security where 1 player needs to hold down something etc)
The one thing i DO NOT want is for SC7 main story to be able to be played in Coop, that would be a mistake, most games i know where you can play both Singleplayer and Coop end up horribly balanced and generally bad, they must both be separate and both must have a certain purpose, just adding a, hey you can have a friend join you here isn't appealing to me, plus i am worried it would affect the game in a negative way somehow.
I'd say the Chaos Theory coop campaign was the best. More missions and LONGER ones too.I believe the Co-op deniable ops campaign is the best co-op campaign for Splinter Cell games to date.
6th Gen Double Agent was probably the worst due to their being a SERIOUS lack of enemies and that it was just flat out boring.
COMPLETELY agree. And the fact that I can't stand Sam as a character already. We hear enough of his ******baggery in the single player, I don't want to hear more of his cocky *** in the coop. (I'm talking about the Eric Johnson Sam Fisher)it must have different agents (not Sam, Sam works alone)
Something I posted on the forums before Blacklist came out. I always wanted to customize my character in all modes. Hopefully they'll let us do so now that it's been posted after at least two games.allow us to pick and choose maybe create?
I agree in terms of coop. One thing I had for an idea since Chaos Theory was whenever you're playing coop, those are mandatory, but sometimes, you can't get a coop partner or he's just stupid as hell and you wish you could play the mission alone. I wish for it to be possible to do that by changing the map specifically for single player, but I can also see how it would ruin the whole point of a first time coop experience. I hope there's some way to make the best of both worlds in this case, cause I want to replay the CT coop missions using one character and have Ubisoft remake the mandatory coop sections so a single player can finish it. It's a very risky idea of mine, but it's a thought I always had because when people are too stupid or you can't find any players, it becomes a completely wasted mode and all those maps and stories were for nothing.Also more coop takedown moves (like in Chaos theory) and the levels must be designed for 2 players (hiigh walls, security where 1 player needs to hold down something etc)
DEFINITELY AGREE. They WOULD screw it up. I KNOW they would. They would have the stupid "You need a coop partner to take this route" BS in it. THAT would be STUPID.The one thing i DO NOT want is for SC7 main story to be able to be played in Coop, that would be a mistake, most games i know where you can play both Singleplayer and Coop end up horribly balanced and generally bad, they must both be separate and both must have a certain purpose, just adding a, hey you can have a friend join you here isn't appealing to me, plus i am worried it would affect the game in a negative way somehow.
I can see your point here, and i agree, it would be best if they did that, change the map for Singleplayer.Originally Posted by EddieTheBunny2 Go to original post
+1, no problems here either, use a smaller budget and relocate it accordingly is the best tactic.Originally Posted by H0EY Go to original post
***WARNING, PURE COMPLAINS***
IMO I think both BL and SCC's coop are below SC average(one is simply terrible). aside from the fact both of them having too many forced linear small level gameplay(one has tons).
One major thing soured my coop experiences for these two games is that they trys to give 2 players protagonists some sort of Characters. and devs really seems trying to develops some story or some sorta personality from coop characters. so they talks, a lot.
and it simply failed, of course in SCB we got a SCB version of Sam who has been established in SP campaign as a questionable angry gun-ho rogue agent, and we got another angry gun-ho rogue agent. and what do we have in SCC? two angry gun-ho rogue agent, and they all talks/swears for no reason constantly, or giving expositions constantly, or giving bad oneliners. also.... there's Grim. in short, if you got two generic action hero at the same time and space, their genericities really shows, and I'll take mute protagonists than talky boring ones anyday.
geez. I already hooked up with my friend on skype for this coop thing, I already have someone to exchange opinions with, he Really has characteristic, and between us we have 2 brains and way better jokes and oneliners, the game can trys Not to ruining the immersion with boring dialogues and spared us the long wordy instructions and expositions, I think we are ok here. I already suspense my disbelief to accept that the other climbing jumping dude IS the person on the other side of skype, til someone whispering "azzhole" for every 5 minutes. I mean, it's a CoOp, we are trying to have some quality shiz and giggles with our human companions. just... I'd really love to keep online characters meaningless dialogues at minimum. especially in Tactical-based/Stealthy Coop games.
take CT for example, I don't care who agent 1 and 2 are, they are me and my friends, and Lambert only has a handful of really crucial infos to say. and I don't need to know agent 1&2's backstory or opinions or feel their attitudes. in fact that one dialogue exchange where the agents wondering if they as SCs are two of a kind in the world tells me enough stories. see, we really don't need to spawning some more character drama or conflicts/story development here in coop, because nothing compares to the drama of really got lost in a bank or trying to figure out a missile claw machine for the first time.
***complain ends***
We don't think we really needs character based stories in coop, we need some relatable explainable situations, why we are here, whats the stakes. and we Are all suppose to be interchangeable blank online characters. we already don't have as much story times as a SP campaign, so forget it, it rarely works, so focusing on the gameplay instate.
and sure the coop experience needs to be bigger, less levels maybe, but bigger levels, after all, we are stuffing two human in there.
tone down any instructions, encourages players to explore the levels. it's only fun when you really solve a coop situation by yourself.(or a coop puzzle, if we get puzzles)
and because it's coop, it only seems natural if players go separate ways for different objs, backtracking ability is a must! (damn you SCBL and SCC, we are always stuck in some jam-packed area togather becuz the stupid coop-breaching-NoLeaving BS)
and in order to challenge two human players, of course the NPC's countermeasure will upgrades, But it can not just be pure number based, thats just cheap level design(and more AI=more bug ready to happens). the situation which the level provides should base on timing, awareness, proper communication...etc, NOT 1 player can takeout 7 NPCs, so we throw in 14 in there!
and I'm ok with taking away(lower) gadgets from SP in coop, like in legacy games, it's a mutual thing between players and NPCs, each of player got half of the gadgets and ammos, so they need to share and make plans, and the game don't need to crank up enemy density because you have 10+ gas grenades.
and some real meaningful coop abilities, of course human ladder, boost, roping downs, sync-hacking or maybe the ability to hand over hostage, trowing gadgets or ammo to each other, sharing viewing vids if they are apart.
and finally, no forced defending or breaching or things like that, so does the SP campaign. (because forced to engage NPCs is already annoying, forced to engage waves and waves of NPCs is just pure bad design, I could've wrote a wave mission for ArmA in 10 minutes or less,and even I'm ashamed for resort to such tropes to prolong a mission)
Well that's something I DEFINITELY agree with. These really bad one-liners are so stupid, it only makes you hate the character even more. Like "We're not gonna stop this attack, we're gonna stop ALL the attacks" Whoever wrote that line needs to be fired.or giving bad oneliners
Oh, you mean like THIS?! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlm1s_QjKpctil someone whispering "azzhole" for every 5 minutes. I mean, it's a CoOp, we are trying to have some quality shiz and giggles with our human companions. just... I'd really love to keep online characters meaningless dialogues at minimum. especially in Tactical-based/Stealthy Coop games
While I would like to see a different personality in characters, a GOOD ONE might I add, I also see your point and it might be wiser for Ubisoft to use your idea since they can't seem to make charactes properly anymore.take CT for example, I don't care who agent 1 and 2 are, they are me and my friends, and Lambert only has a handful of really crucial infos to say. and I don't need to know agent 1&2's backstory or opinions or feel their attitudes. in fact that one dialogue exchange where the agents wondering if they as SCs are two of a kind in the world tells me enough stories. see, we really don't need to spawning some more character drama or conflicts/story development here in coop, because nothing compares to the drama of really got lost in a bank or trying to figure out a missile claw machine for the first time.
This is yet another thing I KNEW there was a catch to when Ubisoft said "We have 14 coop missions". I KNEW that was too good to be true. They say "It's the biggest one yet!" when in reality, the ACTUAL coop missions meaning the FOUR coop missions were the shortest coop missions I've ever played and they though adding in EVEN WAAAAY shorter ones would make up for that. Ubisoft choice quantity over quality and quantity over length. One Chaos Theory Coop mission was longer than two and a half Blacklist Coop missions.less levels maybe, but bigger levels
Yeah "Stealthy" spies ****ing BREACHING DOORS because STEALTH!damn you SCBL and SCC, we are always stuck in some jam-packed area togather becuz the stupid coop-breaching-NoLeaving BS
I like that idea! And don't forget disabling bombs in sync! Remember Train Station.or maybe the ability to hand over hostage trowing gadgets or ammo to each other
They do this now because this series is no longer a special series, it's just another cash grab of the year so they don't put much effort into it anymore. They think "Well, this isn't a very popular series, so let's just kill it with every generic cliche thing we can put in that every other game today does".and finally, no forced defending or breaching or things like that, so does the SP campaign. (because forced to engage NPCs is already annoying, forced to engage waves and waves of NPCs is just pure bad design, I could've wrote a wave mission for ArmA in 10 minutes or less,and even I'm ashamed for resort to such tropes to prolong a mission)
To be fair, that's a really simple skill that CIA case officers and paramilitary operatives are taught, and they're about as close as the real world gets to Splinter Cells. Also considering that Third Echcelon and Fourth Echelon have more relaxed parameters regarding using lethal force, a door breach using a tomahawk or crowbar isn't really unrealistic. It's way more practical and quieter than using, say a breaching charge or detcord. Everything else you mention I pretty much agree with. Although I enjoy the coop campaigns having actual characters, makes it more memorable to me. Which is sorta why Blacklist's sucked, we say Sam and Isaac in the single player campaign already.Originally Posted by EddieTheBunny2 Go to original post
REGARDLESS. It's not SPLINTER CELL. Everyone on here seems to argue "This is realistic tho" and "This is stealthy tho" the question is "IS IT SPLINTER CELL?" The answer is NO.Originally Posted by commando235 Go to original post
We do not breach ****ing doors in Splinter Cell, we climb through vents. We do not hide behind walls, we use shadows.