1. #21
    Nevermind, that one false hope I had came up so I wrote that comment, but this **** just isn't happening. That was dumb of me to think. We can already observe that there is a thing called "Sarah's rifle" in one of their other games hinting that Sarah Fisher will be an operative, plus we have Splinter Cell: Firewall saying it explicitly. Lol, I don't know what I was thinking, my hope got the best of me. This is just going to be Ubisoft's Grand Finale of cringe.

    ...Sarah Fisher as a Splinter Cell... LMFAO.
    Ubisoft never ceases to unpleasantly surprise us all and create something absolutely no one asked for. Sarah Fisher the Splinter Cell. I'm at a loss for words. I can't believe out of all things, that's the idea that got passed forward and into production. This **** is intentional. I have no doubt in my mind this **** is intentional. They are intentionally trying to kill the series.

    Just laugh everyone. Just laugh. There's no point in getting upset I guess. Just laugh it off and keep playing other games.
    Share this post

  2. #22
    I dunno, there have been some changes at Ubi since anything happened with Splinter Cell... I think it's certainly worth waiting to see if the rumors pan out before dismissing anything.


    Also, I hope that it wouldn't be Sarah as the playable character, because...yeah... Generally speaking I'm still not opposed to Sam passing the torch to someone new, though, as long as the transition was done respectfully.
    Share this post

  3. #23
    LuckyBide's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,576
    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    I get it, but it makes me nervous! Being out in front of people like that just seems wrong.
    Watching the rest of that video, though, the tech really was quite cool. So much effort was put in, and I appreciate that. Sadly, the focus on action and momentum is wasted on me (being one that hides in a corner for ten minutes before making a move lol), but I do like the fluidity. Also, their "closer than ever" animations were solid, and appreciable as a ghost.
    No need to be nervous, you are agent 47, your identity is secret and you will never be found no matter what
    Joke aside everyone has his preferences but I'm glad this unique concept exists and still goes strong 20 years later after its creation.
    Yeah some effort has been put in that Blacklist concept trailer but it didn't feel like Splinter Cell to me. As I often say, Ubisoft should have done a spin-off or a new franchise with that fast paced actiony gameplay.



    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    It's been years since I last read it, but as I recall it was just to cross a well-lit/camera-covered parking lot outside of the building he was infiltrating. It's definitely silly, but that's kind of why I love it. I can absolutely picture Sam puttering along in the little golf cart with Grim and Lambert in his ear, giving him grief about it. Light stuff, like the good old days.
    Haha. Quite silly indeed, and knowing Sam's humor I'm sure he would have a crazy but funny answer to replay to Grim and Lambert ^^



    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    I hope they're not too scared of us, as we can be a little passionate about SC... lol
    I don't think they're scared of us. In my opinion they are fed up with us and they must continue to despise us as much as they were doing it back in 2013:
    https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming...ell-blacklist/
    https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...its-complexity

    I will never forgive the arrogance of executives like Jade Raymond or Maxime Beland who despised us Splinter Cell hardcore fans publicly back then during Blacklist development. They claimed they were going in the right direction thanks to all their miraculous data and playtests, they mocked a lot of our demands, claming we were too demanding and not representative of the whole audience, that the more action-oriented part will "broaden Splinter Cell's potential audience", and other stupid things like that... Back then we told them how wrong they were and what happened after Blacklist release proved that we were right. And of course they never apologized for that.
    During roughly the same period, IO Interactive released Hitman Absolution and made Hitman fans angry. But despite the good sales of Absolution, IO Interactive published a public letter promising to their fans that they will go back to the roots of the franchise. And they kept their words and have done it successfully !
    That's the difference between real and caring developers who listen to their fans and developers who only see data, numbers and don't care or pretend to care about their fans demands and expectations.

    And when we see that in 2019 Ubisoft CEO is still claiming that we fans are putting too much pressure on the development teams whereas we always expressed our will to work hand-in-hand with them in a constructive manner, I can still feel that dishonesty and that contempt. And more than everything an easy way for them to find an excuse instead of starting to question themselves, to blame themselves for all the wrong things they did and to confess that the real pressure on development teams comes from their shareholders and marketing teams.


    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    As far as communication goes, though, I like what I'm seeing over in the Valhalla forums. Reps are quite active and involved. It makes me optimistic about that side of things.
    I'm sure community developers make a good job and do as well as they can, Zack was a great representative for us. But communication is one element of the solution, the problem comes after that: what do the executives decide to do with fans feedback ? This is the most important thing. Ubisoft can give players hundreds of community developers to talk to but if after that they ignore most of players feedback then all of this is useless.


    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    I dunno, there have been some changes at Ubi since anything happened with Splinter Cell... I think it's certainly worth waiting to see if the rumors pan out before dismissing anything.
    I'm honestly not optimistic since their reorganization. Most of their announcements since then go towards more free-to-play or live-service games, here's what they announced:
    *Assassin's Creed Infinity: a live-service game
    *The Division Heartland : a free-to-play game
    *XDefiant : a free-to-play multiplayer game
    *Ghost Recon Frontline: a free-to-play battle royale game
    *and there are rumors around Far Cry 7 becoming a live-service multiplayer game

    Some of old executives who resigned or have been fired have been replaced by former executives from Gameloft (which is now owned by Vivendi) and these people who worked on mobile games are used to the free-to-play business model and think it can be applied and highly profitable everywhere. So I prefer to remain cautious, even more than before. But maybe there will be some changes again since recently there has been rumors about a new takeover of Ubisoft due to their bad results and fairly low stock market price.

    And I think EddieTheBunny is right. If this rumor is true then we Splinter Cell fans need to be involved in the development process right now, we don't have to wait until the reveal of the first trailer because after that it will be too late.
    Share this post

  4. #24
    I personally think the Hitman reference is about the broader concept which the new trilogy encouraged. Big sandbox maps, maybe they will release things in episodes. All that with the best of class Splinter Cell gameplay we love and know.

    While I agree with the notion that the developers need to hear us out, I think it is far more important that we have people in charge who really want to develop a Splinter Cell game. This way they won't really need our input that much and we are able to trust them again. Conviction and Blacklist was lead by people who didn't really like the old games. However that's not the biggest challenge for a new Splinter Cell game. It's very important to have passionate developers because lately a lot of games from Ubisoft are feeling like they were fabricated, like there is a list of checkboxes each game needs to tick. Since Yves did mention that the developers are not feeling good at approaching a new Splinter Cell, it might mean we have a very passionate team at hand or there will be an other game that just need to tick those checkboxes.
    Share this post

  5. #25
    Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
    No need to be nervous, you are agent 47, your identity is secret and you will never be found no matter what
    For me, Hitman is a social anxiety simulator. lol

    Haha. Quite silly indeed, and knowing Sam's humor I'm sure he would have a crazy but funny answer to replay to Grim and Lambert ^^
    I would hope so! I really miss the lighthearted moments we had before. The way the story went, we really had no choice but to get serious, but that a mistake, IMO. The humor was one of the unique aspects of Sam's character. He's an uber spy with incredible training and tons of experience, but he was also endearing.

    I don't think they're scared of us. In my opinion they are fed up with us and they must continue to despise us as much as they were doing it back in 2013:
    https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming...ell-blacklist/
    https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...its-complexity
    That wasn't to hurt us (though it did). It was about trying to get anyone who didn't like the old games to give the new ones a try. I don't agree with how they went about it, but Blacklist brought some things back, so hopefully they learned from it.

    And when we see that in 2019 Ubisoft CEO is still claiming that we fans are putting too much pressure on the development teams whereas we always expressed our will to work hand-in-hand with them in a constructive manner, I can still feel that dishonesty and that contempt. And more than everything an easy way for them to find an excuse instead of starting to question themselves, to blame themselves for all the wrong things they did and to confess that the real pressure on development teams comes from their shareholders and marketing teams.
    We do put some pressure on, but it's pushback more than demands. We want to keep things that they would cull. It's basic stuff, and that pressure's nothing compared to the financial side.

    I'm sure community developers make a good job and do as well as they can, Zack was a great representative for us. But communication is one element of the solution, the problem comes after that: what do the executives decide to do with fans feedback ? This is the most important thing. Ubisoft can give players hundreds of community developers to talk to but if after that they ignore most of players feedback then all of this is useless.
    Looking only at dollars from game sales, I could see them ignoring us hardcore stealth folks. But isn't there also value in a company's reputation, and the relationship between them and the fans?


    Originally Posted by Rea1SamF1sher Go to original post
    While I agree with the notion that the developers need to hear us out, I think it is far more important that we have people in charge who really want to develop a Splinter Cell game. This way they won't really need our input that much and we are able to trust them again. Conviction and Blacklist was lead by people who didn't really like the old games.
    I agree. I imagine there were people on the teams who did like the original games, but ultimately action won out. That needs to be flipped - start with the stealth and add from there.
    Share this post

  6. #26
    LuckyBide's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,576
    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    For me, Hitman is a social anxiety simulator. lol
    I can understand, maps in this game are heavily crowded ^^


    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    I would hope so! I really miss the lighthearted moments we had before. The way the story went, we really had no choice but to get serious, but that a mistake, IMO. The humor was one of the unique aspects of Sam's character. He's an uber spy with incredible training and tons of experience, but he was also endearing.
    Yes, that was creating a good balance with the seriousness and gravity of the plot.


    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    That wasn't to hurt us (though it did). It was about trying to get anyone who didn't like the old games to give the new ones a try. I don't agree with how they went about it, but Blacklist brought some things back, so hopefully they learned from it.
    I didn't say they intentionally wanted to hurt us. I understand their logic and why they wanted to do what they did with Blacklist, but they still ignored us for most of the part back then and still did not seem to have learned from what we told them.


    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    We do put some pressure on, but it's pushback more than demands. We want to keep things that they would cull. It's basic stuff, and that pressure's nothing compared to the financial side.
    I wouldn't call it pressure from fans but expectations. It's normal for fans to expect for a game to be better than its predecessors.
    And it should be normal for publishers to think the same way and let their developers express their creativity without pressuring them too much.


    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    Looking only at dollars from game sales, I could see them ignoring us hardcore stealth folks. But isn't there also value in a company's reputation, and the relationship between them and the fans?
    Exactly. That's why other controversial game companies like EA or Activision released games like Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order or Sekiro. These games didn't make as much revenue as games like Battlefield, Fifa or Call of Duty but they did them for their reputation. Ubisoft needs to do this as well because it's been a long time they didn't release a highly praised game and these last months they are being heavily denigrated everywhere on the internet and their stock value is currently quite low. They even have been rated as the worst videogame company on Twitter: https://www.thegamer.com/ubisoft-is-...ny-on-twitter/
    So they need to restore their reputation and Splinter Cell could be the right solution for that if they invest good and honest efforts in it.

    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    I agree. I imagine there were people on the teams who did like the original games, but ultimately action won out. That needs to be flipped - start with the stealth and add from there.
    Definitely !
    Share this post

  7. #27
    Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
    I didn't say they intentionally wanted to hurt us. I understand their logic and why they wanted to do what they did with Blacklist, but they still ignored us for most of the part back then and still did not seem to have learned from what we told them.
    Oh I know, I'm just saying, back when some of that stuff happened, it was pretty rough (especially as a moderator trying to keep the peace over here lol).

    I wouldn't call it pressure from fans but expectations. It's normal for fans to expect for a game to be better than its predecessors.
    And it should be normal for publishers to think the same way and let their developers express their creativity without pressuring them too much.
    I think it's tough for some of them because we know what we want, and we won't settle. I don't see that as a bad thing, but sometimes it's misinterpreted as stubbornness.

    Exactly. That's why other controversial game companies like EA or Activision released games like Star Wars Jedi Fallen Order or Sekiro. These games didn't make as much revenue as games like Battlefield, Fifa or Call of Duty but they did them for their reputation.
    It'd be nice to know what Ubi really wants (and/or requires) from the brand... Seeing what great games small teams can make (even without the resources that Ubi devs have), I just can't picture them being unable to put together a really solid and successful Splinter Cell. The scope matters, of course, but I have yet to see anyone asking for things that shouldn't be pretty easy to do, given that they've done most of them already.

    Ubisoft needs to do this as well because it's been a long time they didn't release a highly praised game and these last months they are being heavily denigrated everywhere on the internet and their stock value is currently quite low. They even have been rated as the worst videogame company on Twitter: https://www.thegamer.com/ubisoft-is-...ny-on-twitter/
    So they need to restore their reputation and Splinter Cell could be the right solution for that if they invest good and honest efforts in it.
    It's a business, so at the end of the day, money does matter, but does a game have to sell a zillion copies to be considered successful? I don't think so... I'd be a terrible executive. lol
    Share this post

  8. #28
    LuckyBide's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,576
    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    Oh I know, I'm just saying, back when some of that stuff happened, it was pretty rough (especially as a moderator trying to keep the peace over here lol).
    Oh, true. We actually not always think or are aware about all the heat and hard work you guys are subjected to.
    And I apologize for all the times I made your work difficult. But you're good at this peacekeeping job haha.

    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    I think it's tough for some of them because we know what we want, and we won't settle. I don't see that as a bad thing, but sometimes it's misinterpreted as stubbornness.
    Agreed. And that is why we need more communication with developers because only communication can help fixing this.


    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    It'd be nice to know what Ubi really wants (and/or requires) from the brand... Seeing what great games small teams can make (even without the resources that Ubi devs have), I just can't picture them being unable to put together a really solid and successful Splinter Cell. The scope matters, of course, but I have yet to see anyone asking for things that shouldn't be pretty easy to do, given that they've done most of them already.
    Small teams can definitely do a great work but I think normal sized teams can also do as much if not better if not being under pressure from marketing teams. Let them express their full creativity don't give them boxes to check. FromSoftware and Respawn Entertainment are not small teams, but they had freedom in their creativity process.
    And if Ubisoft is too hesitant then they just have to see what IO Interactive did with Hitman, releasing a few first maps and asking for players feedback to improve the formula.


    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    It's a business, so at the end of the day, money does matter, but does a game have to sell a zillion copies to be considered successful? I don't think so... I'd be a terrible executive. lol
    So do I, haha. At least according to current capitalist standards.
    If I ran a videogame studio, my only goal would be to make enough sales to pay my employees with a good salary and invest enough into a new project.
    Share this post

  9. #29
    Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
    Oh, true. We actually not always think or are aware about all the heat and hard work you guys are subjected to.
    And I apologize for all the times I made your work difficult. But you're good at this peacekeeping job haha.
    Ah, no worries, it's been fine! I knew what I was getting into (and so did they, though I'm not sure anyone expected me to still be a mod twelve years later lol).

    Agreed. And that is why we need more communication with developers because only communication can help fixing this.
    I don't know what their policies are like now, but devs weren't allowed to post. We always had the ComDev liaisons passing messages, and forum managers compiling reports. But, I know for a fact that the devs watched the forums during Conviction/Blacklist development. So, if there is another SC underway, I assume some devs are lurking around. If they are - Hi, devs!

    Small teams can definitely do a great work but I think normal sized teams can also do as much if not better if not being under pressure from marketing teams. Let them express their full creativity don't give them boxes to check. FromSoftware and Respawn Entertainment are not small teams, but they had freedom in their creativity process.
    And if Ubisoft is too hesitant then they just have to see what IO Interactive did with Hitman, releasing a few first maps and asking for players feedback to improve the formula.
    I'd be for that. Some of the previews we've had in the past required a bit of imagination when it came to "how am I going to stealth that?". If they released even a single map that showcased solid options for the various playstyles, I think general optimism would go up a lot.

    So do I, haha. At least according to current capitalist standards.
    If I ran a videogame studio, my only goal would be to make enough sales to pay my employees with a good salary and invest enough into a new project.
    Same, but as soon as shareholders get involved, the pressure is on... I'll just keep making stuff for myself, for fun. It's much easier that way.
    Share this post

  10. #30
    If Ubisoft is serious about making another Splinter Cell, they would need to evaluate what made the original games unique and make it into a stealth game. Rather than trying to appeal to the largest common denominator, Ubisoft needs to have a set direction and focus in order for a new Splinter Cell game to succeed.

    All of these reports have reminded me of a video that still applies to today's games:

    One thing that I want them to look back is what made the original games standout. What dictated the direction of those games from a narrative and gameplay view? While Splinter Cell has always been influenced by the Tom Clancy novels, it was also influenced by other series. The Metal Gear series is always mentioned when it comes to the influences of Splinter Cell, but another series seems to always appear in the back burner despite having the most impact on the gameplay.

    The Thief series is, in my view, the most influential game on the original Splinter Cell games from a gameplay perspective since it contains the majority of the Splinter Cell mechanics from light-shadow to the noise level. The Thief games were also known for its level design with its open areas with multiple paths. While the original Splinter Cell games weren't as open in its levels, it did made attempts to have similar designs (e.g. the Bank level); this is an area where Splinter Cell could improve on by having more sandbox levels instead of the more linear level designs of the original games. Though the Thief series isn't as "modern" as other games and is seemingly gone, its influence on the original games cannot be overlooked. Overall, Ubisoft should look into the Thief series and see what they could bring into the new Splinter Cell game.

    To summarize, I think Ubisoft needs to look back into the influences and the original games itself and see where they could improve upon the foundations of those game's core mechanics. This is saying a lot for Ubisoft (especially current Ubisoft) but if they put the effort they could make a successful Splinter Cell.
    Share this post