1. #181
    generalbrown02's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    33
    Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post

    The bad idea back then was to put in charge of the game someone who clearly said that he didn't like the gameplay of the first games.
    A feedback loop can be very positive, I already quoted many examples. As everything in life it's about finding the right balance and a good communication, each side has to find its role and find ways to exchange positively.
    About the Toronto trip offered to some fans, I think now with hindsight that it was just a way to "buy" some of them and make us believe that they were listening to us. The same way they do with influencers by paying them the trip and everything else to the Ubisoft studio. Back then I wasn't really aware of all of this but I don't know if it would work if they do it once again.
    This is the point we agree on, they brought in the wrong person to take the lead with Splinter Cell. They bought into the hype that the "fans had moved on" or that "modern audiences feel that traditional stealth is too slow". They were also probably distracted at the corporate level with fears of the vivendi takeover (I can't remember their name and I'm too lazy to look it up), so they were probably really feeling the fear of sales pressure. So they went down the road of bring in "fresh young talent" to "take the brand in a modern direction for modern audiences" (It all sounds like what Frank Zappa said about the cigar chomping executives vs the fresh young college "talent" in the music industry). It sounds compelling, but it doesn't work often. But, in my experience that problem can be fixed in the same way it was created, put a new lead in place that is a fan of the original series, among other necessary qualities. Finding that person might be/may have been one of the more difficult tasks.

    I'll let my objections to collaboration stand on my previous comments. I think it's a bad idea.
    Share this post

  2. #182
    LuckyBide's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,730
    Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
    This is the point we agree on, they brought in the wrong person to take the lead with Splinter Cell. They bought into the hype that the "fans had moved on" or that "modern audiences feel that traditional stealth is too slow". They were also probably distracted at the corporate level with fears of the vivendi takeover (I can't remember their name and I'm too lazy to look it up), so they were probably really feeling the fear of sales pressure. So they went down the road of bring in "fresh young talent" to "take the brand in a modern direction for modern audiences" (It all sounds like what Frank Zappa said about the cigar chomping executives vs the fresh young college "talent" in the music industry). It sounds compelling, but it doesn't work often. But, in my experience that problem can be fixed in the same way it was created, put a new lead in place that is a fan of the original series, among other necessary qualities. Finding that person might be/may have been one of the more difficult tasks.

    I'll let my objections to collaboration stand on my previous comments. I think it's a bad idea.
    The story with Vivendi happened way later, it was around 2017-2018 if I'm not mistaken.
    I think that they putted Beland in charge because they were satisfied with his work on the Rainbow Six Vegas games.

    We all want that one creative leading the project who really understands and loves the franchise. But currently no one from the leaders of the new team can guarantee that because according to their biography, they never worked on a pure stealth game. They might say good things in interviews (which is good and encouraging) but it might end differently in the final game. If Clint Hocking was in charge, I would have been way more reassured and very optimistic.

    And I'll let my objections to your argumentations stand as well. Collaboration isn't always a bad idea, it's not a binary thing and it has already been proved several times.
    Anyway if in 2023 they show first footage that ends up being disappointing then you'll probably change your mind at this moment.
    Share this post

  3. #183
    To LuckyBide: We can certainly revise the letter if that's what you see fit. I know the discussion about a collaboration and having feedback suddenly became a hot topic so, maybe, we could try to make the context and intentions clearer to avoid any misunderstandings.

    Once that is accomplished, we could try sending the letter to Ubisoft. I don't think it hurts in actively sending it instead of assuming that they've already read it.
    Share this post

  4. #184
    LuckyBide's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,730
    Originally Posted by NoviceGuy Go to original post
    To LuckyBide: We can certainly revise the letter if that's what you see fit. I know the discussion about a collaboration and having feedback suddenly became a hot topic so, maybe, we could try to make the context and intentions clearer to avoid any misunderstandings.

    Once that is accomplished, we could try sending the letter to Ubisoft. I don't think it hurts in actively sending it instead of assuming that they've already read it.
    Yeah I agree with you. Not revising it though because let's keep it as it is when we published it. But add a small message or paragraph regrouping all the things I mentioned in my previous message.

    I might do a thread on the SC subreddit first to ask for their opinion as well, since majority of people who signed come from reddit.
    Share this post

  5. #185
    Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
    Yeah I agree with you. Not revising it though because let's keep it as it is when we published it. But add a small message or paragraph regrouping all the things I mentioned in my previous message.

    I might do a thread on the SC subreddit first to ask for their opinion as well, since majority of people who signed come from reddit.
    Yeah, just add some clarifications so that nothing is misinterpreted. I also don't want to fundamentally change the letter.
    Share this post

  6. #186
    Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
    What I mean by completed project is that you never bring the customer into the kitchen. You serve them food, monitor their reaction (did they eat it, did they seem to like it), monitor the buzz, what are people saying about our restaurant online, and most importantly, monitor sales.
    But chef's tables are a thing... lol

    I do understand where you're coming from, and if we were just coming off of CT, I'd be fine with the idea. But, we're not, hence the concerns.

    With the announcement done this way, with words so carefully chosen, I can't help but feel like it's for us. It certainly isn't pandering to the mass market... In any case, I hope that we passed this little test - they announced it and the response has been overwhelmingly positive (cautious, but positive).

    We want this game, and they apparently want to make this game, but I don't know how many more chances Splinter Cell will get. We can't afford to end up with something underwhelming. With real-time feedback, we can do our part to help it happen. Showing support for details could be really important, too - what if they're pressured to cut an awesome feature but they can point to us and say "But the players really want this"? It could happen...
     2 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  7. #187
    generalbrown02's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    33
    Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
    The story with Vivendi happened way later, it was around 2017-2018 if I'm not mistaken.
    I think that they putted Beland in charge because they were satisfied with his work on the Rainbow Six Vegas games.

    We all want that one creative leading the project who really understands and loves the franchise. But currently no one from the leaders of the new team can guarantee that because according to their biography, they never worked on a pure stealth game. They might say good things in interviews (which is good and encouraging) but it might end differently in the final game. If Clint Hocking was in charge, I would have been way more reassured and very optimistic.

    And I'll let my objections to your argumentations stand as well. Collaboration isn't always a bad idea, it's not a binary thing and it has already been proved several times.
    Anyway if in 2023 they show first footage that ends up being disappointing then you'll probably change your mind at this moment.
    The Vivendi threat last several years, Ubisoft began buying back shares in 2018ish to mitigate the threat, but that's just my guess about things.

    My opinion about collaboration isn't just based on the past experience with Splinter Cell, as I said I've been heavily involved in product development for the last ten years (outside of video games, but inside of tech). I've seen lot's positive and trendy talk about it, and lot's of negative by-product from it. The guy who popularized this mode of thinking was named Eric Reis. He wrote the book (The Lean Startup) and coined the phrase "Minimum Viable Product" (MVP) in 2011. It's derived from the broader disciplines of LEAN development/process improvement, and SIx Sigma, that focuses on using the Voice of the Customer (VOC) to guide product improvement. In the 2011 period, the idea of VOC was advanced through talk of MVP development that further proposed a methodology for finding the shortest path towards getting a product (an MVP) into the customers hands in order to obtain the VOC for continuous development/improvement. This development philosophy took over everything, particularly tech industries. It then became bastardized, as all good things are, by lots of businesses that began to confuse MVP as finished goods (albeit minimum viable) in the hands of consumer, to premature user testing, consumer opinion surveys, focus groups, etc. That latter part is where things go off the rails. A truer MVP model of development would be the Hitman example of episodic content. That model failed simply because it was jarring for consumers to get an "uncompleted game" even though they were getting a complete mission. Finessing that model would probably take time, but if Ubisoft wanted some kind of a feedback loop, that's how it would work. Trickling out videos of gameplay or assets to a community forum to ask for some kind of "approval" (discretionary or otherwise) is not the right way to do things, and I'm not confident that this model has been tested to great effect.
    Share this post

  8. #188
    generalbrown02's Avatar Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2021
    Posts
    33
    Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
    But chef's tables are a thing... lol

    I do understand where you're coming from, and if we were just coming off of CT, I'd be fine with the idea. But, we're not, hence the concerns.

    With the announcement done this way, with words so carefully chosen, I can't help but feel like it's for us. It certainly isn't pandering to the mass market... In any case, I hope that we passed this little test - they announced it and the response has been overwhelmingly positive (cautious, but positive).

    We want this game, and they apparently want to make this game, but I don't know how many more chances Splinter Cell will get. We can't afford to end up with something underwhelming. With real-time feedback, we can do our part to help it happen. Showing support for details could be really important, too - what if they're pressured to cut an awesome feature but they can point to us and say "But the players really want this"? It could happen...
    I share a lot of your sentiment here. I've just been in charge of making product decisions (still am), and when somebody brings me a "what if", it becomes my job to consider all of the other "what if's" not asked but contained within the same probability space.
    Share this post

  9. #189
    Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
    The short answer is that I think Ubisoft should not do either playtesting or collaborate with this community (any community). They should find a passionate team/creative lead, and follow the course they stated in their recent announcement. Focus on "stealth action redefined", "respect the goggles", and recapture the atmosphere of the original.

    I definitely do not blame this community (or any other outside community, or even playtesters) for the direction of the last games. These elements just shouldnt have been brought into the discussion and asked an opinion. But it's Ubisoft's fault for letting the tail wag the dog, and then for placing Conviction in Beland's hands, who hated the originals.

    But politely, I dont think our feedback will help, it would turn into either A) Us - They arent listening to us; B) Ubi - Well if the community says it, then that's what we do.

    What I mean by completed project is that you never bring the customer into the kitchen. You serve them food, monitor their reaction (did they eat it, did they seem to like it), monitor the buzz, what are people saying about our restaurant online, and most importantly, monitor sales.
    Okay, I think I'm understanding your point more clearly now. If I'm still missing something, do correct me.
    You're saying that the idea of a collaboration or even feedback will detrimentally impact the direction of the game because the developers are going to be more concern about appeasing a group of people rather than creating their own version.


    That's an understandable argument and one that I can see from a business perspective. Again, I agree with you that it's Ubisoft's duty to appoint a creative lead who is passionate about stealth and Splinter Cell in order to truly make the remake a faithful adaptation. So, I can see why a 'collaboration' probably wouldn't be viable in that regard.
    The thing is I'm just not sure who would qualify for that position. LuckyBide suggested Clint Hocking but he's out of the equation.

    What you have in Ubisoft Toronto are a group of developers who (for the most part) seem to have never made a Splinter Cell game, or if they did it was Blacklist, at the very least. The résumé of Chris Auty, the creative director of the remake, shows that he had worked on Counter Strike, two Crysis games, Hunt: Showdown, and two Far Cry games. Most of those games have bare minimum stealth mechanics at best. I know those games aren't focused on stealth, but I thought it's something worth noting.

    Now, that doesn't mean that they can't do a Splinter Cell game justice or are incapable of making a stealth game. Ubisoft Montreal was working on all kinds of games before they developed the original Splinter Cell, so it's possible. It also seems like they're receiving some tips from the original developers if the video announcement was any indication of that.
    However, that's not a guarantee that the game will be a faithful remake.

    That's why I'm of the position of having feedback. What you described as 'good feedback' is what we're aiming for. If the letter appeared to be demanding the developers to have fans be an active part of the creative process within the studio, then I believe you missed the point. The intention was to simply ask for an open line of feedback. Maybe this is where you could have some form of 'community council' where you have a group of representatives who can talk to the developers and work through some decisions. I certainly don't want a flood of player feedback because, at that point, it would be too much of a hassle for them.

    I know you're still going to disagree with me, but I'm of that opinion simply because you just can't trust most developers in face value nowadays. That's especially truer with modern Ubisoft and their recent games. They'll say things to tickle and soothe your ears while they do the very things that you don't want them to do behind your back without knowing it. By then, it'd be too late for anything to be done. It also doesn't help that Splinter Cell as a franchise has undergone major changes since the release of Double Agent.

    To make it succinct: What I'm saying is that they shouldn't ignore feedback or criticism from fans if they find something wrong.


    With that being said, I'm not sure what else to add in this discussion.
    As I've said before, it's a wait and see situation. Hopefully Ubisoft Toronto delivers on this one, but we need to point things out and voice our concerns when things go awry.

    One final note, I don't want to make it seem like I'm berating you or anything like that. I know my posts may come across like that, but I just wanted to make my arguments clear.
    I'll admit that I have no experience in video game development; I'm not even a part of the business side of anything. So maybe you're correct about all of this.
    Share this post

  10. #190
    Vivendi acquiring stakes in Ubisoft and Gameloft took place in October of 2015, according to this article.
    https://variety.com/2015/film/news/v...on-1201618707/

    So, I don't think that any of that had an impact on the direction that the later Splinter Cell games took considering it happened in 2015.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post