They probably saw it but we'll never be sure. But I'll make sure for them to see it when we'll send it to themOriginally Posted by MrJay. Go to original post
There's still plenty of time ^^ I added your name to the letter, thank you very much !Originally Posted by Fraeulein Go to original post
I think my biggest concern with the letters and appeals to Ubisoft are that some of the analysis of stealth gaming is stuck in a certain point of time. SAR was an amazing game when it released and I first played it. Today if it were released it would be 8.99 bargain bin low-budget indie game. Something that I think is completely off the mark are the suggestions of a "linear" experience. Frankly I don't think that works in gaming anymore for the most part. A distinction also needs to be made between a "linear narrative", and "linear environment". Narratives are time-bound progressions, whereas environments are space-bound areas. So narratives that are loosey goosey suffer in packing a punch because our expecations require things to flow, but restrictive environments do exactly the same thing. SAR worked because the precedent of open world wasn't much established beyond RPG games at that point in time.
If I start at today and try to rank the best stealth games on the market right now (from today to the beginning of time), MG Ground Zeros is the pinnacle stealth experience for me. After that with less emphasis on order, Phantom Pain, Hitman (2016 1-3). Ghost Recon Wildlands to a lesser extent (Breakpoint was a mess), and then Chaos Theory etc. When I view these games in the timeline that I experienced them, Splinter Cell had the most significant impact on course setting for stealth, but it hasn't aged very well all things considered.
The flaw in Phantom Pain is that it simply may have been too ambitious, and didn't utilize the open world effectively as it could. The first few missions are as good as Ground Zeros (rescue Kazahura was great!), but as the game drags on it starts turning into the equivalent of pointless fetch quests. Hitman solved this problem by simply resorting to smaller, but still dense, open environments. But Hitman is a very specific game where pretty much every mission is the same thing, ie, scenario/enviroment/kill targets. It works for Hitman, but Splinter Cell was more about an espionage narrative that allowed for miltary inspired variety. Gather intel, assassinate, steal, record a conversation, etc.
Splinter Cell needs some large measure of environmental freedom, as opposed to the terrible idea of "multiple paths". It's worth noting that both Conviction and Blacklist were enviromentally linear. As far as this subject goes, the better model is purpose driven narrative with environmental freedom. "Why does Sam need to get in there", ought to be the question. This is also where WIldlands suffered, the setpieces ended up being bland, and simple rehashes of "photocopy this". SAR-CT definitely had the edge on narrative, the missions made sense, so taking cues from that and modernizing the experience to some kind of juxtaposition between Hitman and MGS GZ/PP seems like the only sensible approach to me. I think the idea of an "open world" is a bad one for Splinter Cell, meaning one large map with a long series of objectives. However, having 7-10 well designed missions each with their own independent environments that are "open level/open environmen", is more in line with what I'd want. Displace international as an example, one completely open office building with interesting stuff and purpose inside. Imagine if the Phantom Pain had instead been 7-10 maps and missions like Ground Zeros, that's the idea. I don't need to ride a horse for 5 minutes to get to the factory and play that mission, so just make that...but make it better by eliminating the waste.
I think most of us are in agreement that we don't want an open world Splinter Cell game. Not only is the open world genre saturated, but it's also essentially became a feature that has lost its original function since multiple games simply include them due to pressure.
I definitely agree that Splinter Cell needs environmental freedom to allow the players to explore the environment instead of going towards the multiple paths direction of Conviction and Blacklist. Well-designed missions with an environment that encourages exploration is the way that developers should go to ensure that the gameplay remains fresh and engaging.
If I were to choose on what's the quintessential stealth game, I'd say that the original two Thief games are the best example. The stealth mechanics, sound design, and level design still hold up to this day.
I think that you're very harsh with the game. Except for graphics and some gameplay aspects, I don't know any current indie stealth game that is better than SAR. But even there, some indie games releasing today have less beautiful graphics than SAR.Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
Not one time we use the word "linear" in the letter. We mention "large open-ended sandbox maps" like Hitman has and that's most of us want Splinter Cell to be. We don't want the map to be open with artificial alternative paths that are only here to get around enemies, we want a living and breathing world offering several realistic paths, with each one having its own characteristics, challenges and narrative aspects. Therefore replayability would be highly increased.Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
However I do personally think that a mix of both can be done: outdoor environments with several paths with each one having its own challenge and characteristics as I explained, while indoor environments would offer more linear stealth puzzle segments like the first games had. This would be in my opinion the best of both worlds combined together.
I have to disagree a lot here. Even if MGS V gameplay is great, there's not enough precision and control given to the player. Ground Zeroes was a great experience and I regret that they went open world with Phantom Pain. To me that ruined the game. Besides level design in that game is quite terrible. But the game was still an enjoyable experience.Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
I didn't play at GR Breakpoint but I wouldn't compare Wildlands to be a stealth game. It has some stealth gameplay elements but they're very basic and not satisfying when we are used to play hardcore stealth games. Not only because level design is bad but because AI is terrible as well. Besides I play Ghost Recon first and foremost for tactical gameplay and even on this point, Wildlands disappointed me.
And I would disagree on Splinter Cell not aging well. Everybody is still saying that Chaos Theory still holds on to this day. And recently after the remake announcement, I've seen some people playing SAR for the first time and being surprised to see how the game still holds on for a 20 years old game, because that game was quite modern for its time. Of course some aspects didn't age well but overall the first Splinter Cell games can still be enjoyed by a lot of people today and especially by older players who knew games from the early 2000s.
But we all have different ways to play games and to appreciate them.
I overall agree with you. I just think we don't have the same definition of "multiple paths". To me the new Hitman games have multiple paths. While Conviction and Blacklist and even some older SC games had alternative paths. To me multiple paths are all equal in terms of structure, importance, challenge and they all bring something different but interesting and complementary in terms of narration and gameplay. While alternative paths can just be a vent, a ledge or an underground path for example.Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
And I always say that Phantom Pain would have been a great game if they didn't turn it into two open worlds but made huge open-ended levels like GZ instead, so I completely agree with you there.
This comment runs the risk of creating requirements that are too narrow for comparison in order to disqualify my point on arbitrary technicalities. An indie game that I played a year or so ago was called Get Even. You could probably disqualify it, but I would argue that the "quality" of the game is on par with SAR, though there are some obvious differences in the various ways we can define it according to type. I appreciate Splinter Cell (SAR) the same way I do older music recordings that were made on tape. For the time and landscape of gaming it was brilliant, and still a series that I love. If it were made today it would be underwhelming. I don't think this a very harsh analysis, nor do I think it is all that wrong in terms of what the general perception would be.Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
This may be a misunderstanding on my part. I thought I had read something where you had advocated the SAR format of mission linearity.Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
I think Chaos Theory was a closer approximation of open level, and that is the direction I think the series needs to go. The SAR format of very small segments and strict linearity were fine for the time, but I think a bad way to go. Frankly it's how Conviction and Blacklist played out, and I think that is a small understated reason why those games suffered (among other reasons of course). I don't think people want that "on rails" experience.
Using Hitman as a prototype is okay in some areas, but I'm not sure I want to see the full implementation, such as the "stories" and sub-narratives. I think simply giving a sandbox, and then a set of objectives that are narrative driven is the right design format. Ground Zeros did this great, first rescue Chico then that progressed the to the rescue of Paz sequence. The narrative imposed some linear restriction, but the environment was open.
The idea of "multiple paths" to me means basically a rails experience where you can choose a narrow set of rail path's to follow, it's philosophically different from what I am calling "environmental freedom", but if you mean something else by it then we simply have a miscommunication over terms. I don't care to stress the language as much as to reach an understanding what we mean. I think Hitman accomplished this Ground Zeros style of environmental openness, but with the added benefit of multiple missions for a complete game. The parts of Ground Zeros retained by Phantom Pain, and some of the mission sequences were great. But, I don't think the open world added much to the experience that couldn't have been accomplished better and with more variety and cohesiveness had it been separate levels.
I'm not sure if we are actually in disagreement on Phantom Pain or not, ulimately I think Ground Zeros is a better reference point for the sake of this discussion. I don't want to see Splinter Cell attempt the single Open World the way the Phantom Pain tried to. As I said, I think it was too ambitious and led to a game that was reaching for something beyond it's grasp. That's my opinion of it anyway. But if Splinter Cell has 7-10 separate locations/levels all in the spirit of Ground Zeros, ie, they stand independently as "open environments", but disconnected from a single map/world, then we are on the right track.Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
As for GR, that would be a separate conversation I guess, I agree with your point about AI and that is a different type of game. But, I think it worked well enough and suggested possibilities. But, if I were to make a choice as to which game I'd rather play today, it would be Wildlands. It's more advanced and offers more, but it's also 15ish years newer. I say that of course expecting the "no true Scottsman" assertion to be leveled against me ("You aren't a real Splinter Cell fan", or "You aren't a real stealth player"). And to that I'd pre-emptively say, who cares about these artificial definitions of gamer identity types? I'm a Splinter Cell fan on my own terms with money in my wallet, so ... I just don't think I'd be interested in a game that in all ways could have been made in 2002. I want the technological progress to continue, even on a franchise that I love.
Agreed for the most part, but again while I think Hitman offers a lot in terms of being a kind of prototype, I'm not sure the "stories" make sense. This objection to the Hitman "stories" isn't the hill I'd die on, but I think Ground Zeros is the best approximation of what Splinter Cell should be.Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
I played Get Even. They used a photorealistic technology for the graphics and the game looks great but in terms of gameplay the game is kinda average, there are some nice ideas but there's a lot of issues and limitations. It is unfair to compare these two games one to another but imo Splinter Cell SAR is way more fun than this game on many points.Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
And I think you are underestimating it, a game like SAR being released today would have a lot of praise today. There are many small indie stealth games released today that have very basic features and graphics that even Thief 1 surpasses them.
You have the right to make your own analysis and think that the game didn't age well but I think you're wrong on the general perception.
Not in the letter, we just made some references to SAR about the philosophy of the game that was about information and its purpose which was to redefine the stealth action genre.Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
You probably read us talking about linearity in one of the threads here. I don't think anyone wants to go back to that format, but as I said I think it would be interesting to have a mix of linear and openness environments in the remake (and the new game if it's in development). Because Splinter Cell is also about having that claustrophobic feel, those narrow corridors and rooms where you have to sneak while being very close to guards.
Anyway overall I agree with you, we indeed have a misunderstanding over terms. I want Splinter Cell to be inspired by Hitman and MGS V Ground Zeroes but I also want it to go further and make indoors level design more interesting and more complex than the one in these games. And if there's linear corridors or small rooms (which is normal in a building) then it would not be wrong and it would be not about going back to that linear format.
And I think that Conviction and especially Blacklist failed at giving alternative paths (or multiple paths as you call them) because these paths were not bringing something interesting, they were just here to allow the player to get around some enemies and get quicker to the next area.
Be reassured, we completely agree about Phantom Pain and Ground Zeroes. The open world and the Mother Base management ruined the momentum in Phantom Pain. They should have done multiple missions in different locations in the size of GZ or slightly bigger and more complex. And I agree with you, that's also what I want for Splinter Cell.Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
Good for you if you like Ghost Recon Wildlands. To me this game isn't a stealth game not a real Ghost Recon game. I understand it can be a fun game, especially in coop. But there are too many issues with this game and too many design decisions that I dislike to enjoy it.
About the technological progress it depends on what we're talking about. These days most of this progression is only about graphics. I personally don't care about graphics, to me technological progress should first and foremost be about AI, their complex reactions, their number and their ability to outsmart the player. Secondly it comes about level design, making levels bigger, more complex and more intricate and the player having more control and interactions on its environment. Then it comes on animations, their precision, the control given to the player and their realism (in the case of Splinter Cell). And at the end come the graphics.
So I can easily play and enjoy a game that has been made in 2002 way more than a game made in 2022 if the old game has a better and more interesting gameplay.
Stories in Hitman were here to help newcomers in the series, most of longtime fans disabled them and play without any help.Originally Posted by generalbrown02 Go to original post
However I think that SC developers must add new features or tools that would help newcomers to understand the complex stealth mechanics of Splinter Cell. Of course these features/tools could be toggled off for hardcore players. But devs have to find a way to teach stealth to new players because that's the only way to make sure that Splinter Cell goes back to its roots and becomes again a hardcore stealth game.
Otherwise the other solution is to dumb down gameplay mechanics, it's what Conviction and Blacklist did and we've seen the awful results that it did and how it divided the fanbase.
I agree. Starting with a truly stealthy base is the way to go, and they need to not lose sight of it when adding (not culling) features for accessibility.Originally Posted by LuckyBide Go to original post
Also agreed. While I still think a hybrid is possible, at this point it's not feasible, IMO. It'd be risky and cost a fortune and just doesn't make any sense right now.Otherwise the other solution is to dumb down gameplay mechanics, it's what Conviction and Blacklist did and we've seen the awful results that it did and how it divided the fanbase.
Focusing on the stealth means they can do something amazing in the genre, and break through to the mainstream. It'd be unlike anything on the market, and there's a ton of potential in that.
Yep, well said. We've seen how it could be really easy to deviate from stealth when starting to include mainstream features to make the games more accessible.Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
But I would even say that finding ways and tools to teach stealth is vital to keep the genre alive and moving forward. And that could be done in a smart way with an innovative difficulty system that would give some specific tools, features and advices to players in the easiest difficulty modes that would teach them the core mechanics of the game.
These elements that would help new players could be objective indicators, more hints given by Grim, maybe something inspired by "mission stories" from Hitman that would allow players to get closer to the objective. Also the ability to carry more gadgets, and specific gadgets making the environment easier to read and understand for them. Or giving them a new vision mode on the goggles that would work like an Augmented Reality vision and would highlight the main elements in the environment, indicate them the objective location and even allow them to mark enemies.
Things that would feel realistic and plausible which would help them to understand how the game and its mechanics work without imposing them on OG hardcore fans/players or modifying their experience because all these elements would be optional or not available in highest difficulty modes.
Meanwhile in the hardest difficulty modes, the AI would be smarter and more challenging of course but security systems would be harder to foil and new gameplay features would be enabled like NPCs being able to detect blood trails, guards being able to lie and give false information to players during an interrogation in order to trick them, guards having a permanent memory and doing longer & more precise researches in case of suspicion,...
All these new features only available in the highest difficulty modes would encourage players to crank up the difficulty once they'll understand the core mechanics. Or maybe it would be possible to toggle on or off all these features so players can create a customized experience if they consider that they understood how works the game and don't need these advices anymore. Anyway, make it as the Bushnell's law says : "easy to learn, hard to master".
Of course all of this would require a huge work on AI, to think the game differently and innovate. But that would be the only way to really redefine stealth, make this genre stand out against other genres using stealth mechanics, while being the best way to teach stealth to newcomers and satisfying veteran stealth players by giving them what they want. That's in my opinion how "accessibility" should be done in Splinter Cell.
Yeah, it is feasible for some other stealth IPs like MGS for example. But Splinter Cell's original gameplay is too much focused on realism, precision, slowness and patience to get an hybrid and appeal to an audience that is more into action.Originally Posted by CoastalGirl Go to original post
Or if they want to keep it then the best solution would be to replicate what is done with the Forza franchise: create two different series inside of the SC franchise. Forza has one series (Motorsport) that tends to be a simulation and another series (Horizon) which is more casual. And they both have great success and please all type of racing game fans. So I can see Ubisoft make two different series for SC as well, they have the resources to do so because they're a company with a lot of resources. And it would only improve their image and please both types of fans.
-----
By the way to get back to the letter, I'll make a new post today on reddit and focus it on asking to Ubisoft for a collaboration, taking example on what EA Motive is doing with the remake of the first Dead Space game with the community council (at 2:48) : https://youtu.be/4wjPk_DEKRk?t=168