So as you know, I checked and indeed Maxime Beland worked on Rainbow Six 3 Raven Shield, he is credited as game designer. And on his Linkedin page it's said that he was Creative Director on the first Rainbow Six Vegas.
But I still think that his way of making games doesn't fit with Splinter Cell. He looks like a guy who loves making and playing action games. If Conviction and Blacklist would have been in another new franchise, I would have loved them more than that. But with the name "Splinter Cell" attached to them, it looks weird and inadequate to me. Because for me action is an aspect of gameplay which shouldn't be easily accessible in stealth games. Neither do a fast pace. In my opinion all interest of a stealth game is about slowness and fragility of our hero. The first one would let the player the time to explore, observe and plan his way to the objective while the second one would instaure to the player some tension, stress and the fear of being caught.
---
Originally Posted by
LoneSpymaster
Go to original post
It wouldn’t be fun or innovative to have the same gameplay the first 4 had, time changes people and so everything does, cars, phones, videogames, etc.
Nobody here wants to bring back the exact same old gameplay, please stop believing and saying that. We're not in a political debate here where there are some progressive and liberal people who want some change and conservative people arguing that the old times were better. It's not essential to bring back Lambert or Ironside, even if it would be a big plus for some fans (including myself). Because in my opinion what matter the most in Splinter Cell is gameplay.
And as I already said a lot of times, the old Splinter Cell gameplay has stopped its evolution in 2006 after Double Agent. If Ubisoft had kept it and make it evolve through the years, I'm sure it would have been great and would have satisfied every old and new SC fan.
Like for example IO Interactive did with Hitman. They didn't think that the old gameplay should have been abandoned. They took back the gameplay of Blood Money (which was also released in 2006), make it evolve to today standards and technology and here is the result: the last Hitman game has the best gameplay in the whole series. So no, we're not saying that Ubisoft only have to take back the old gameplay. They have to make it evolve, to work hard on it and adapt it to nowadays expectations and standards. It would take a lot of time and money so I don't think they would do it. But I believe that this old gameplay still has a great potential and if we properly use the new technologies we have today, we could transform it in a new and revolutional gameplay.
And for example it could take some inspiration from MGS V Ground Zeroes about having big open maps (not an open-world) but also about the gameplay and the realistic AI behaviour and reactions. If the old Splinter Cell's gameplay had continued to evolve, I'm sure that it would have looked a lot like the one in MGS V.
Sometimes I think that Hideo Kojima didn't want to do an open-world in MGS V The Phantom Pain but only maps of this type, unless Konami wanted an open-world for marketing purposes. That's maybe one of the reasons of their disagreement. And I hope Ubisoft will not make an open-world for Splinter Cell 7, we all saw how it doesn't fit with a stealth game.
---
I agree. I already gave the example of Jean Claude Van Damme who is 57 and still can do the split. By the way I don't understand why people are so concerned about the debate of age in videogames. Tom Cruise, Stallone, Schwarzenegger and other actors are above 60 years old and still play in action movies with a lot of stunts. It doesn't seem to bother spectators so why it would be in games, especially with fictional characters ?
If the gameplay is good in a game, the player instantly forget about the age of the hero.
About the reboot subject, I disagree because I'm always scared of reboots in games. I would rather prefer a remaster of Chaos Theory rather than a reboot.
---
Originally Posted by
JustLikeFisher
Go to original post
SC would have been stuck behind in a world of little wee "refreshes" if it weren't for some new creative direction for the franchise. Like the classics? GO play them on your classic Xbox! Or encourage discussion on the HD Trilogy people have been hoping for.
I call something an evolution when it keeps the good old elements and add and create new ones. When it takes off the good elements, I call it regression or change. The old gameplay had changed and evolved a lot from the original Splinter Cell to Double Agent. It explored new ways, new gadgets, more open levels and even a new formula in Double Agent. So they were not little "wee refreshes". Replay to the first Assassin's Creed and play to AC Origins, you'll see that despite it use the same basic mechanics and engine, the game has evolved a lot.
The gameplay in Conviction and Blacklist has not evolved, it has changed.
Some people and I said it a lot of times here and elsewhere, Conviction and Blacklist were good games but bad Splinter Cells. And in my opinion it has regressed in some ways because we lost some fundamental gameplay features like hacking, lockpicking and most importantly it has lost this feeling of stress and fear to be spotted at any time. I will repeat myself again but Splinter Cell abandoned the depth stealth gameplay it had to adopt a new horizontal gameplay where all styles are supported. It has its advantages for some people but it has a lot of
disadvantages for those who want a true stealth game. And sales and reviews prove it, the first trilogy had way much better sales and reviews on Metacritic.
You can appreciate the change, that's okay and I respect it. But please don't tell that people who didn't like that change that they don't know anything about gaming, that they didn't worked a day in their life, that they're not true SC fans or whatever because that's a childish reaction too. We can have a real discussion with real arguments like grown people.
1 people found this helpful