1. #1

    Spies vs Mercs PvP mode mixed with Rainbow Six Operators in next splinter cell game?

    After hearing the hopefully true rumor there was a new Splinter Cell game in development I began to fondly remember the days of playing Spies vs Mercs, which I think is the most underrated PvP experience out there, and certainly my favorite. With all of the mixing of titles Ubisoft has done lately, placing Sam Fisher in Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six Siege, I couldn't help but wonder if they would try and mix the SvM and Rainbow Six Siege universes.

    Playing as a spy trying to infiltrate an area guarded by certain operators from the Rainbow universe sounds..... interesting.

    It certainly seems like something Ubisoft would do. I cant help but wonder what a SvM multiplayer would be like with operators like Mira, Kapkan, Pulse, and Valkyrie playing as the Mercs guarding intel in a dimly lit Map. I think it would bring in a lot of players to SvM and that perhaps wouldn't be a bad thing.

    Perhaps it would add a bit of soul and personality to the SvM mode?

    I'm not sure how I would feel about this if I were to find out it was indeed the case..

    Just some thoughts.... How about yours?
    Share this post

  2. #2
    LuckyBide's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,683
    I have never really been into Spies vs Mercs because I enjoy singleplayer experiences more than multiplayer ones. But I understand players who wanna see it come back because it's indeed a unique concept with a lot of grat potential and fun.

    If they bring it back, they would for sure load it with tons of microtransactions and stupid skins. And that is a thing I don't want to see happen. I already hate how they denatured the Rainbow Six franchise with Siege skins and gadgets and I don't want to see Splinter Cell go through the same process.

    As for the mix between SvM and Rainbow Six Operators, I don't see what would be the real advantage to have them in this mode. They wouldn't be able to use their gadgets from Siege otherwise the game would be impossible to balance. So the only "advantage" would be their appearance and skins.
    I personally don't care about the appearance and skin of a character, and even more in a first person view game but (sadly) many people do so it could be an easy way for Ubisoft to make money.
    Share this post

  3. #3
    I don’t really mind some of the micro transactions in skins and what not. The obvious problem is when the pay to win model is used like EA originally did with one of the battlefront games (I can’t remember which one). However if Ubisoft wants to sell certain cosmetic items I am all for it if it means supporting patches and prolonged development after release. I’ve never been the person who buys skins but I see why some would want to. And I don’t know why you say “sadly” when talking about some people liking skins.. not everyone is like you and some people want to buy skins that make their player look unique, man. Just because some people like different things doesn’t make them wrong.. lighten up, my guy.

    In regards to your third paragraph talking about mixing in the Rainbow operators into SvM I think you’re wrong. I’m more or less going to play devils advocate here because all in all I’m not really a complete fan of mixing the universes(although they already have) because as you said they kind of turned Tom Clancy‘s rainbow six into something that it never was. But hey, rainbow six is still going strong and is usually always in the top ten most played on steam so they’re doing something right.

    But that certainly doesn’t mean some of the operators from rainbow six siege wouldn’t be usable and would be impossible to balance.

    Examples:
    -Kapkans laser trip door explosives would fit well by making spies cautious about taking direct routes through doors.

    -Mira would allow the mercs to have a bullet proof window in a wall that they otherwise couldn’t see through which would change the way that area was handled by spies.

    -Valkyrie would be able to throw sticky cameras where she wanted giving the mercs access to additional cameras.

    -Pulse’s heartbeat detection would allow him to pinpoint a spy’s location through walls.

    These are just a few examples but I think I make my point here.

    Instead of having a load out and selecting the proximity mines or frags or other gadgets you’d just select an operator who had the gadgets you wanted. I mean, if they can keep rainbow six siege balanced after having dozens of different operators with different gadgets I don’t think they’d have a problem balancing this.

    The advantage of having rainbow six operators as the Mercs in the SvM PvP mode is obvious; more people at least trying the SvM/Rainbow experience because “oh look I’ve played Rainbow Six Siege before and now my Rainbow main is in SvM so I’ll give it a shot.” The reason they stopped supporting blacklist multiplayer was because people weren’t playing it. If mixing SvM with the rainbow six siege universe means more people playing it and thus more support and prolonged support after release then I’m all for it so long as they keep at least a single PvP mode that is more true to form chaos theory SVM along with a blacklist type multiplayer experience.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    LuckyBide's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,683
    Originally Posted by MrJay. Go to original post
    I don’t really mind some of the micro transactions in skins and what not. The obvious problem is when the pay to win model is used like EA originally did with one of the battlefront games (I can’t remember which one). However if Ubisoft wants to sell certain cosmetic items I am all for it if it means supporting patches and prolonged development after release. I’ve never been the person who buys skins but I see why some would want to. And I don’t know why you say “sadly” when talking about some people liking skins.. not everyone is like you and some people want to buy skins that make their player look unique, man. Just because some people like different things doesn’t make them wrong.. lighten up, my guy.

    I don't care if some people like skins and cosmetic items, even if I don't understand the point of buying skins for a first person view game. Anyway we cannot ignore how all of this participated in changing the videogame industry and gaming habits of many players for the worse, with players caring more about the next battlepass and its skins than about gameplay innovation and balance.
    Now publishers succeeded in making the players believe that they need to sell skins in their games to be profitable. And many players believe that because they didn't know about the era when skins were free and only unlockable through progression.

    You say you're all in "if it means supporting patches and prolonged development after release" but we know many publishers don't do that. The only content most of them provide after release are new seasons filled with battlepasses, lootboxes, skins and recycled gameplay. And they voluntarily unbalance their games with each new battlepass by buffing the new items so that it makes players want to buy it, they do it on purpose.

    So when I said "sadly" I'm not criticizing people tastes, I'm criticizing the ignorance of many of them and how their thirst for appearance over gameplay and balance are ruining games.
    And if I feel so passionate, that's because it's a serious topic and I think that's the kind of things that prevent videogames into evolving in the right direction.


    Originally Posted by MrJay. Go to original post
    In regards to your third paragraph talking about mixing in the Rainbow operators into SvM I think you’re wrong. I’m more or less going to play devils advocate here because all in all I’m not really a complete fan of mixing the universes(although they already have) because as you said they kind of turned Tom Clancy‘s rainbow six into something that it never was. But hey, rainbow six is still going strong and is usually always in the top ten most played on steam so they’re doing something right.

    But that certainly doesn’t mean some of the operators from rainbow six siege wouldn’t be usable and would be impossible to balance.

    Examples:
    -Kapkans laser trip door explosives would fit well by making spies cautious about taking direct routes through doors.

    -Mira would allow the mercs to have a bullet proof window in a wall that they otherwise couldn’t see through which would change the way that area was handled by spies.

    -Valkyrie would be able to throw sticky cameras where she wanted giving the mercs access to additional cameras.

    -Pulse’s heartbeat detection would allow him to pinpoint a spy’s location through walls.

    These are just a few examples but I think I make my point here.

    Instead of having a load out and selecting the proximity mines or frags or other gadgets you’d just select an operator who had the gadgets you wanted. I mean, if they can keep rainbow six siege balanced after having dozens of different operators with different gadgets I don’t think they’d have a problem balancing this.
    Good for them if Siege is still going strong but to me this game is not Rainbow Six, Ubisoft ruined that franchise just like they ruined many others. And many players of Siege never played the original Rainbow Six games and don't know anything about the history of the franchise so that's why I call them Siege players and not Rainbow Six players.

    Sure some of Siege gadgets could fit into Splinter Cell but not all of them. And the more you would add gadgets, the hardest it will be to balance.
    And they do have problems balancing their agents in Siege, for many years. I've already seen many threads on forums and Youtube videos of players complaining about overpowered and underpowered agents.



    Originally Posted by MrJay. Go to original post
    The advantage of having rainbow six operators as the Mercs in the SvM PvP mode is obvious; more people at least trying the SvM/Rainbow experience because “oh look I’ve played Rainbow Six Siege before and now my Rainbow main is in SvM so I’ll give it a shot.” The reason they stopped supporting blacklist multiplayer was because people weren’t playing it. If mixing SvM with the rainbow six siege universe means more people playing it and thus more support and prolonged support after release then I’m all for it so long as they keep at least a single PvP mode that is more true to form chaos theory SVM along with a blacklist type multiplayer experience.
    There would be a huge inconvenience to mixing SvM with Siege agents. I don't want Spies vs Mercs to lose its identity and Siege players to take possession of it. Splinter Cell must keep its identity and its own strenghts.
    If that mix happens I guarantee that Siege players will slowly but surely talk about SvM as a new mode for their game and as it always belonged to Siege. I've seen comments of people on the SC subreddit being desperate because their friends were saying "oh it's Zero from Siege" when they saw Sam Fisher in another context. To them Sam Fisher (I mean Zero) is a character from Siege and not the main hero of a legendary stealth franchise, because they never heard of Splinter Cell. So the same will happen with SvM mode, they will unconsciously steal it from SC fans. And when that kind of things happen, it's never good.

    And people stopped playing Blacklist multiplayer because Ubisoft stopped supporting the game right after the disappointing sales and also because it began to be filled with cheaters and Ubisoft did nothing against them.
    Share this post

  5. #5
    My guy, games are a lot harder, more expensive, and take a lot longer to make nowadays. If a game developer wants to include cosmetic skins a player could buy I’m not really against it. Yeah, the old fashion grinding your way to that bad *** skin was cool but I think developers simply need more resources and funds to make games nowadays.

    I feel like you’re just kind of talking out of your *** when you say developers don’t support games post launch. Using ubisoft only as an example: Rainbow six siege is still one of the most played games on steam six years after launch. Ghost recon breakpoint is still receiving major overhauls, updates, patches, and reworks to the game two years after launch. So I think that pretty much makes the point clear…. If I’m not mistaken ubisoft was is the first developer to Pioneer what I’m calling the “siege treatment.” That is releasing a game that nearly dies post launch only to continue supporting, reworking, and re-balancing it until it’s become one of the most played games today still. Of course rainbow six siege released after blacklist and it is my opinion that if blacklist would’ve been released after rainbow six siege they would’ve given blacklist the “Siege treatment” and Blacklist would still have a healthy following now… but a man can only dream.

    When you say, “Ubisoft ruined the series“ I think you mean Ubisoft turned it into a game that more people would play. Unfortunately, most people don’t want to play a slow tactical shooter like the original rainbow six and ghost recon games. If you want that kind of experience you can play other games that frankly do it better, like the games “ground branch” and “zero hour.”

    Of course there will be parts of the game that will be unbalanced. When the game like siege has over 50 operators at this point you’re going to have a little bit of that. The fact they manage to keep the balance issues down to a minimum is simply astounding and is why I think that if the SVM and rainbow six siege multiplayer universes were mixed Ubisoft would probably do a good job at keeping things balanced.

    SvM wouldn’t lose its identity lol. The SvM experience is a COMPLETELY different experience compared to the Siege multiplayer and would remain unique and hold its on identity despite having playable characters from another game.

    Of course the younger audience who plays games today are going to refer to Sam Fisher as zero after only experiencing him in rainbow six siege. It’s not their fault that they were born after the golden age of splinter cell. I don’t hold that against them personally. Instead of acting like a grumpy old man complaining about young people not knowing about a game franchise that’s nearly 20 years old and hasn’t had a release since 2013, I myself like to share with them the amazing experience that is classic splinter cell. Hell, now is the perfect time to tell people about splinter cell since chaos theory is literally free on Ubisoft connect right now.

    I would like to remind you that I don’t necessarily think that mixing the siege and SVM universe is would be a good thing, but I’m not sure if it would be a terrible thing either if done right. I just wanted to start a discussion about mixing the two universes because it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Ubisoft did something like that and honestly I think we should expect it.

    To me, it seems that Ubisoft is starting to at least nudge itself in the right direction when it comes to doing what is best for its franchises when it comes to what the players want. With a new splinter cell game apparently being green lit I guess only time will tell.
    Share this post

  6. #6
    LuckyBide's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,683
    The fact games are harder and more expensive are not an excuse to include microtransactions. Many recent AAA games have been successful without having any microtransactions. This is just an excuse that publishers and journalists have hammered into players mind throughout the years to justify their presence.

    I'm glad Ubisoft is supporting their games post launch but for example Ghost Recon Breakpoint wouldn't need so much updates if the game didn't release in a broken state. Which is by the way something becoming more and more common these days sadly (Cyberpunk, GTA Trilogy, Battlefield 2042,...).
    It's sad for Blacklist that Ubisoft didn't do that back then , what they did is to abandon to support the game because of the unsatisfying sales.
    And when I talk about support in games, I talk about real support. Some publishers do it but some others don't, we have examples with Call of Duty Warzone using the same map for more than a year and a half now, doing little efforts to create temporary modes, or Destiny 2 reusing old content and selling it full price.
    So I'm not talking out of my ***, sadly there are many examples of publishers not doing their job properly.

    Originally Posted by MrJay. Go to original post
    When you say, “Ubisoft ruined the series“ I think you mean Ubisoft turned it into a game that more people would play.
    No. I don't judge the quality of a game on how much people are playing it because that is a very simple way of thinking and a wrong one that does not makes things move in the right direction. It's not because something is popular that it is necessarily good.
    When I say that Ubisoft ruined that franchise, I mean that they ruined the spirit of it. And Ubisoft did that with many of their franchises.
    Yeah I know that most of players don't like to play slow paced games, either they're tactical, stealth or whatever. But is that a reason for Ubisoft to use their existing franchises to appeal to this audience ? Why don't they create a new IP or a spin-off ? I know it's easier for publisheres to use an existing franchise to promote a new game but I still consider this shameful to do it this way and in the process to ruin franchises and spit at the face of old time fans.
    And by the way I already know Ground Branch and Zero Hour, great promising games. And I'm sure way more people would play them if their devs have a bigger budget for their marketing campaign.

    If they mix those universes I really hope they find a way to balance gameplay but I would reamin cautious.

    Well, Siege agents with their gadgets made Rainbow Six definitely lose its identity imo, even if it has already been damaged by some of the previous games before Siege. So the same would happen to SvM. And Siege players taking possession of the mode would also happen, believe me.

    Of course it's not their fault that they were born after the golden age of Splinter Cell, who in the hell would say that ?! Do you think that's what I meant ?
    Anyway it's completely their fault (younger or old players) for not taking at least a bit of time to inquire about the story of Sam Fisher. I don't even ask them to play the old games but just to read about it or even watch a video about Sam Fisher, there are tons of them on Youtube.
    When I discover a long existing franchise I make the effort to either play the old games or get informed about the first games and how the franchise evolved until today. Two years ago I discovered the Witcher franchise, I didn't jump directly on The Witcher 3 as many players did, I played the two first games before getting to it. That's how franchises should be discovered and respected.
    Some people make the effort to learn about the history of franchises they never played yet, I admire that and I make my best to encourage them and make them understand why I love or used to love some of these franchises. But I have no respect for the opinion of people who for example only played the two last Splinter Cell games and ask Ubisoft for a new game to be like Conviction or Blacklist. Doing that is disrespectful towards the franchise and also towards long time fans, in addition to being selfish.
    So I'm an old man if you want, but definitely not grumpy. What I'm explaining here is just common sense and everybody should have some.

    Yeah probably mixing SvM with Siege agents would work and they probably already thought about it as you mention. We'll see.

    However I don't share the same enthousiasm as you regarding Ubisoft going "in the right direction". All recent signs are showing that they're going the wrong way. They're either developing free-to-play games or live-service ones and many of their announcements (Assassin's Creed Infinity, xDefiant, Ghost Recon Frontline,...) have been badly received. They're more and more following the scheme used in mobile games, and it's not what players nor developers want but what executives and shareholders want.
    Share this post

  7. #7
    I want to agree with you on your view of micro transactions but I don’t disagree with a company wanting to make a little more money.. that’s the goal of these huge AAA corporations and likely it will never change..

    I would agree with you that they’ve certainly ruined the spirit of the game.. I too do not judge a game based on the amount of people concurrently playing but these big game corporations do

    I too wish they would just make new IP’s instead of transforming Classic ones or at least, when it comes to multiplayer, have different modes to satisfy all players but maybe that’s asking for too much these days. Thankfully other small, passionate studios are making the true to form games we want. Thankfully Games like “Ground Branch” and “Spectre” (if you haven’t checked out Spectre you need to) exist to give us the games we want.

    I think they have “nudged” in the right direction but they’re certainly not there yet.

    I think they’re just trying to get a piece of the F2P market which is extremely profitable. For whatever reason people like those hero shooters and I can’t blam ubisoft for trying to get in on the action.

    I think we’re more or less on the same page.
     1 people found this helpful
    Share this post

  8. #8
    LuckyBide's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,683
    Yeah I know some of these AAA publishers are more attracted to money than they ever did. And things like NFTs will make the industry even worse in the future.

    Alright, I'm glad we're on the same page. Hopefully Ubisoft will someday wake up and realize how far they went in the wrong direction. But seeing that announce about Blacklist online connectivity issues today, I don't think they understood yet...

    F2P is very popular in Asian countries and playerbase is huge, all publishers want a big piece of that pie. And sadly I think they'll use dirty methods to achieve their ends.
    Share this post