"There's only me..." -sam fisher

Splinter Cell 3 was tits, loved the co-op.

Maybe one day we'll see a glorious return on both, though I guess it's not too likely for poor snake
 
I wish they'd do another Splinter Cell but I doubt Ubisoft has any interest in doing something like that these days. They're all on the "open world all the things train".
 
I wish they'd do another Splinter Cell but I doubt Ubisoft has any interest in doing something like that these days. They're all on the "open world all the things train".
Yup.

Until Ubisoft can figure out how to turn Splinter Cell into an open world, we won't see another. And when they do figure out how to turn it into an open world, we won't want it. It won't be Splinter Cell anymore.

Honestly, id rather Splinter Cell just be done than be ruined the way Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon have. As far as I'm concnered, the Tom Clancy brand is dead.
 
Yup.

Until Ubisoft can figure out how to turn Splinter Cell into an open world, we won't see another. And when they do figure out how to turn it into an open world, we won't want it. It won't be Splinter Cell anymore.

Honestly, id rather Splinter Cell just be done than be ruined the way Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon have. As far as I'm concnered, the Tom Clancy brand is dead.

I don't know what you are talking about. Ghost Recon Wildlands was fucking awesome. I actually rather like Breakpoint, but it did take them awhile to turn it around. They made many bad decisions with it. I still like it though. I've got about 400 hours in it.
 
I don't know what you are talking about. Ghost Recon Wildlands was fucking awesome. I actually rather like Breakpoint, but it did take them awhile to turn it around. They made many bad decisions with it. I still like it though. I've got about 400 hours in it.

Did you play the original ghost reckons? Ghost Recon and R6 are what got me into tactical shooters. they were phenomenal. The games Ubisoft calls Tom Clancy games are disservice to their namesake.

Wildlands was...OK. The game play wasn't bad, but i found it extremely repetitive. I put about 30 hours in and got burned out.

Nevertheless, my post wasn’t about if these games are good or not. It was about how they are unfaithful to their origins. just like anyone who wanted a faithful ghost recon didn’t want wildlands, and anyone who wanted a faithful rainbow six didn’t want siege... anyone who wants a faithful splinter cell really should abandon all hope of that happening. A new splinter cell might be a decent game, it just won’t be splinter cell.
 
Did you play the original ghost reckons? Ghost Recon and R6 are what got me into tactical shooters. they were phenomenal. The games Ubisoft calls Tom Clancy games are disservice to their namesake.

Wildlands was...OK. The game play wasn't bad, but i found it extremely repetitive. I put about 30 hours in and got burned out.

Nevertheless, my post wasn’t about if these games are good or not. It was about how they are unfaithful to their origins. just like anyone who wanted a faithful ghost recon didn’t want wildlands, and anyone who wanted a faithful rainbow six didn’t want siege... anyone who wants a faithful splinter cell really should abandon all hope of that happening. A new splinter cell might be a decent game, it just won’t be splinter cell.
I don't care about being faithful as long as they produce good games. And Wildlands is one of the few games I spent close to 100 hours on recently. And after they have turned it around I also sank 80 hours into breakpoint. Repetitive is only bad if you are not having fun repeating the task.

Any splinter cell is better than none. I quite liked Blacklist as well (apart from the bugs) imho it was much better than conviction. Especially the infiltration side missions, those were 100% like classic splinter cell. Of course Chaos Theory still reigns supreme.
 
Did you play the original ghost reckons? Ghost Recon and R6 are what got me into tactical shooters. they were phenomenal. The games Ubisoft calls Tom Clancy games are disservice to their namesake.

Wildlands was...OK. The game play wasn't bad, but i found it extremely repetitive. I put about 30 hours in and got burned out.

Nevertheless, my post wasn’t about if these games are good or not. It was about how they are unfaithful to their origins. just like anyone who wanted a faithful ghost recon didn’t want wildlands, and anyone who wanted a faithful rainbow six didn’t want siege... anyone who wants a faithful splinter cell really should abandon all hope of that happening. A new splinter cell might be a decent game, it just won’t be splinter cell.

I played the very first Rainbow Six game. Aside from that, no. I haven't. To be honest, from what I understand of them I wouldn't want to. I don't really like stealth games. Splinter Cell never really appealed to me anymore than a Hitman game that doesn't allow me to run and gun does.
 
I played the very first Rainbow Six game. Aside from that, no. I haven't. To be honest, from what I understand of them I wouldn't want to. I don't really like stealth games. Splinter Cell never really appealed to me anymore than a Hitman game that doesn't allow me to run and gun does.

Rainbox Six Vegas and Vegas 2 were some of my favorites. Played a lot of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter back in the day. Wildlands and Breakpoint got full playthroughs.

Never picked up Splinter Cell once.
 
Yup.

Until Ubisoft can figure out how to turn Splinter Cell into an open world, we won't see another. And when they do figure out how to turn it into an open world, we won't want it. It won't be Splinter Cell anymore.

Honestly, id rather Splinter Cell just be done than be ruined the way Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon have. As far as I'm concnered, the Tom Clancy brand is dead.

Exactly. I'd rather let a series die than have it be drug through the mud. Ironically, I think it would still sell well and would probably cost less than an 80 hour open world project like like Assassin's Creed. So it wouldn't have to sell as much.

I don't know what you are talking about. Ghost Recon Wildlands was fucking awesome. I actually rather like Breakpoint, but it did take them awhile to turn it around. They made many bad decisions with it. I still like it though. I've got about 400 hours in it.

But it wasn't a Ghost Recon game. It wasn't even a half assed one. Only thing it had in common was the name and that they had guns. On a side note, the PC versions of Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter were watered down but still had a lot of cool details that were absent in Wildlands. Better animation quality than Wildlands, three (3) weapon reload animations and the like. You could shoot without a magazine in the weapon. One time I got caught mid reload, panicked and shot. Was amazed to see the chambered round go off and hit the enemy saving me.

I don't care about being faithful as long as they produce good games. And Wildlands is one of the few games I spent close to 100 hours on recently. And after they have turned it around I also sank 80 hours into breakpoint. Repetitive is only bad if you are not having fun repeating the task.

Meh. Just call it something else. Just don't lie to our face and pretend it is something it isn't. It hate it when they take a well known name/IP, then turn it into something else. If I associate something with a name, I expect something along those lines.

Any splinter cell is better than none. I quite liked Blacklist as well (apart from the bugs) imho it was much better than conviction. Especially the infiltration side missions, those were 100% like classic splinter cell. Of course Chaos Theory still reigns supreme.

I'd rather have no Splinter Cell than a bad Splinter Cell. Same for any game though.
 
Exactly. I'd rather let a series die than have it be drug through the mud.
That's such a selfish stance. It's not my cup of tea, therefore I'd rather it's not even be made.
But it wasn't a Ghost Recon game. It wasn't even a half assed one. Only thing it had in common was the name and that they had guns.
Meh. Just call it something else. Just don't lie to our face and pretend it is something it isn't. It hate it when they take a well known name/IP, then turn it into something else. If I associate something with a name, I expect something along those lines.
I couldn't care less what they call it, as long as it's good. There is no rule that says that a franchise can only have one specific type of game. All those fools enjoying WOW are doing it wrong! Warcraft can only be an RTS and nothing else!

I'd rather have no Splinter Cell than a bad Splinter Cell. Same for any game though.
Different /= Bad

And on the other end there are complaints about all Ubisoft games being the same. while here you are advocating for games to be the same, so who can blame ubisoft for doing just that? Of course it backfired with Breakpoint, and they had to backtrack after making it Division 2.5.
 
Any splinter cell is better than none.

I couldn't disagree more. Sort of like a TV show ending on it's terms while it's still enjoyable vs ending because they tried to milk it for everything it's got until the ratings were too low to support the show. There has never really been a bad splinter cell game. There have been some better than others, for sure, but all have been good, and mostly true to what fans of the series want. If Ubi wants to release another half-assed, repetitive open world game, and make it stealth this time, be my guest, but don't call it splinter cell. Your "name doesn't matter" stance doesn't resonate with me. If they are making a game and calling it Splinter Cell, they are doing so with the hope that fans of Splinter Cell will buy the game. If they are making a game that is in no way an actual Splinter Cell, and doesn't play like fans of Splinter Cell would want, then you're just setting your audience up for disappointment.

I played the very first Rainbow Six game. Aside from that, no. I haven't. To be honest, from what I understand of them I wouldn't want to. I don't really like stealth games. Splinter Cell never really appealed to me anymore than a Hitman game that doesn't allow me to run and gun does.

Sounds like you are right. The original Tom Clancy games, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell... none of them were run and gun. Rainbow Six I wouldn't really call stealth, but it was tactical and slow paced, everything had to be handled carefully and methodically or you didn't stand a chance. Ghost Recon recon came out after and was more or less Rainbow Six, but outside. Splinter Cell came next and let off on the tactical gameplay slightly in favor of stealth, but still had the same core concept that taking your time and making smart choices were essential to your success. Shooters like this are my bread and butter, with SWAT 4 being the holy grail. COD and the like are ok enough to do a quick run through, but they are very much a one and done for me. A good tactical shooter, I'll come back to for decades.

That's such a selfish stance. It's not my cup of tea, therefore I'd rather it's not even be made.

No, it's a fitting stance for a fan of the franchise. Like I said above, if they're going to make a game called Splinter Cell, but then include none of the things that fans of Splinter Cell want, why bother? All the people clamoring for a new Splinter Cell aren't clamoring for the name, they are clamoring for a stealth, tactical third person shooter. If Ubisoft isn't making that game, then they have no business calling it Splinter Cell.

I couldn't care less what they call it, as long as it's good. There is no rule that says that a franchise can only have one specific type of game. All those fools enjoying WOW are doing it wrong! Warcraft can only be an RTS and nothing else!

The name sets an expectation, of course it's important. Warcraft seems like a bad example. You've got a big world there with lots of lore to tap into. You're also talking a complete genre shift, so there would not have been any expectation that WOW might play like a traditional Warcraft title. Finally, they did technically chance the name. I don't know much about Warcraft... didn't they stop at three? My thinking is sort of like... calling it World of Warcraft inherently sets a different expectation than if they had called it Warcraft 4. It handedly implies that it's a different game in the same universe.

If Ubisoft came out with reskinned "Ghost Recon" where you play as Sam Fisher, and called it "Sam Fisher: Rogue" or some bullshit like that, fine, whatever. My expectations are appropriately set that it might be Sam Fisher, but it ain't Splinter Cell. But calling it Splinter Cell means I expect Splinter Cell, and with Ubisoft operating the way they do these days, the likelyhood of me getting that is non-existent.

Different /= Bad

And on the other end there are complaints about all Ubisoft games being the same. while here you are advocating for games to be the same, so who can blame ubisoft for doing just that? Of course it backfired with Breakpoint, and they had to backtrack after making it Division 2.5.

How do not realize that there is a difference between wanting a game that feels faithful to the franchise it is set in, and reskinning the same formula with only minor tweaks across like five different games? I want Assassins Creed to feel like Assassins Creed. I'm fine with every Assassins Creed game playing like Assassins Creed. I don't need Far Cry to be Assassins Creed with guns. I don't need Ghost Recon to be Far Cry but third person. I don't need The Division to be Ghost Recon but online. And I sure as fuck don't need Splinter Cell to be AC/FC/GR but with more night vision, which is what I'd expect from today's Ubisoft. I don't want to unlock regions. I don't want to climb towers. I don't want to craft. I don't want to do fetch quests for strangers in exchange for imaginary reputation points that earn me upgrades. I don't want to have to hunt all over the world for new gear. I'm so damn tired of every game being a grind, of every game being measured in how many hours it takes to complete everything with no thought of if it's actually fun to complete everything.

Honestly though, at this point, you're probably right. None of this matters. Ubisoft has no favor left with me. There is a near zero chance i'll be giving them any of my money any time soon. I can all but guarantee you if they announced a new Splinter Cell tomorrow, anything shy of a shot-for-shot remake of the original trilogy, my interest level would be non-existent. I have absolutely no faith in Ubisoft creating a sequel that is in any way true to the original.
 
I couldn't disagree more. Sort of like a TV show ending on it's terms while it's still enjoyable vs ending because they tried to milk it for everything it's got until the ratings were too low to support the show. There has never really been a bad splinter cell game. There have been some better than others, for sure, but all have been good, and mostly true to what fans of the series want. If Ubi wants to release another half-assed, repetitive open world game, and make it stealth this time, be my guest, but don't call it splinter cell. Your "name doesn't matter" stance doesn't resonate with me. If they are making a game and calling it Splinter Cell, they are doing so with the hope that fans of Splinter Cell will buy the game. If they are making a game that is in no way an actual Splinter Cell, and doesn't play like fans of Splinter Cell would want, then you're just setting your audience up for disappointment.
TV Shows are not interactive. There is no comparison there. Also all TV shows are run until ratings are too low to support the show. Have you seen any different? The only question is whether the writers knew about the end before they wrote and recorded the last episode. Literally that's the only decisive factor for TV shows. I don't know any TV show where the network said we want more and we'll pay anything for it, but the creators said no.

You talk as if you have exclusive rights to speak for "splinter cell fans". Well I'm a splinter cell fan, and they can make any game they want in the splinter cell franchise as long as it is good, I'm happy. The splinter cell fans who are so short sighted and narrow minded that they want the exact same game well, nobody is forcing them to play a new splinter cell game. Again, wanting something to not even be made because you are not interested in it is selfish. There is no other way to explain it. It's like saying if I can't enjoy it, then nobody should. Yes, it's not great when a franchise goes in a direction you are not interested in. But you always have the choice of not buying and playing the games you are not interested in. Like Need For Speed ended with Hot Pursuit 2 for me. I don't wish the franchise had died there, we just parted ways.

Sounds like you are right. The original Tom Clancy games, Rainbow Six, Ghost Recon, and Splinter Cell... none of them were run and gun. Rainbow Six I wouldn't really call stealth, but it was tactical and slow paced, everything had to be handled carefully and methodically or you didn't stand a chance. Ghost Recon recon came out after and was more or less Rainbow Six, but outside. Splinter Cell came next and let off on the tactical gameplay slightly in favor of stealth, but still had the same core concept that taking your time and making smart choices were essential to your success. Shooters like this are my bread and butter, with SWAT 4 being the holy grail. COD and the like are ok enough to do a quick run through, but they are very much a one and done for me. A good tactical shooter, I'll come back to for decades.
Ghost Recon Wildlands is exactly like that, you have to take your time and pick and choose targets to succeed. Run and gun while sometimes works in it, is not the most effective strategy. And that's exactly what makes it great, that any strategy that makes sense can succeed. You can sneak around, and just slip past enemies unseen. You can pick them off from a distance, you can sneak and take them out up close, or you can try guns blazing, if you are skillful enough and lucky it will also work.

No, it's a fitting stance for a fan of the franchise. Like I said above, if they're going to make a game called Splinter Cell, but then include none of the things that fans of Splinter Cell want, why bother? All the people clamoring for a new Splinter Cell aren't clamoring for the name, they are clamoring for a stealth, tactical third person shooter. If Ubisoft isn't making that game, then they have no business calling it Splinter Cell.
It's a fitting stance for a narrow minded selfish fan. Or would you rather WoW didn't exist because it's not an RTS? Or should they have called it something else?

The name sets an expectation, of course it's important. Warcraft seems like a bad example. You've got a big world there with lots of lore to tap into. You're also talking a complete genre shift, so there would not have been any expectation that WOW might play like a traditional Warcraft title. Finally, they did technically chance the name. I don't know much about Warcraft... didn't they stop at three? My thinking is sort of like... calling it World of Warcraft inherently sets a different expectation than if they had called it Warcraft 4. It handedly implies that it's a different game in the same universe.
We can use have other examples Like C&C Red Alert 2 shifted from the serious theme of previous games to being a complete satire. Or C&C Renegade, that was a shift of genres too. Talk about shift, how can we forget NFS Shift? That was a departure from the typical NFS games. So genre shifts within franchises especially long running ones were always a thing whether you like it or not. You don't have dibs on what Ghost Recon or Splinter Cell should and shouldn't be.

If Ubisoft came out with reskinned "Ghost Recon" where you play as Sam Fisher, and called it "Sam Fisher: Rogue" or some bullshit like that, fine, whatever. My expectations are appropriately set that it might be Sam Fisher, but it ain't Splinter Cell. But calling it Splinter Cell means I expect Splinter Cell, and with Ubisoft operating the way they do these days, the likelyhood of me getting that is non-existent.
Since they didn't make any splinter cell game yet, you are criticizing what they might make, despite them having no plans of making anything.
But even if that's the splinter cell they'd make why do you want to deny those who like that type of game?

Your stance: "They better don't make anything, unless it's exactly like the old game I used to like 15 years ago, or else"
My stance: "Just make something, rather than let the franchise be forgotten, and hopefully it will be a good game regardless of the genre"

How do not realize that there is a difference between wanting a game that feels faithful to the franchise it is set in, and reskinning the same formula with only minor tweaks across like five different games? I want Assassins Creed to feel like Assassins Creed. I'm fine with every Assassins Creed game playing like Assassins Creed. I don't need Far Cry to be Assassins Creed with guns. I don't need Ghost Recon to be Far Cry but third person. I don't need The Division to be Ghost Recon but online. And I sure as fuck don't need Splinter Cell to be AC/FC/GR but with more night vision, which is what I'd expect from today's Ubisoft. I don't want to unlock regions. I don't want to climb towers. I don't want to craft. I don't want to do fetch quests for strangers in exchange for imaginary reputation points that earn me upgrades. I don't want to have to hunt all over the world for new gear. I'm so damn tired of every game being a grind, of every game being measured in how many hours it takes to complete everything with no thought of if it's actually fun to complete everything.
No, it's clear, you want the frachise to die unless they make the exact game you want. i enjoyed the heck out wildlands and breakpoint, but you and other hardline ghost recon fans would rather those games were never made in the first place. How should I take that? Same thing with AC:Odyssey, I Enjoyed it, but a lot of "old" AC fans complained that it's not really AC.

Honestly though, at this point, you're probably right. None of this matters. Ubisoft has no favor left with me. There is a near zero chance i'll be giving them any of my money any time soon. I can all but guarantee you if they announced a new Splinter Cell tomorrow, anything shy of a shot-for-shot remake of the original trilogy, my interest level would be non-existent. I have absolutely no faith in Ubisoft creating a sequel that is in any way true to the original.
Ubisoft was narrow minden in trying to use the same formula for multiple franchises. But hopefully they learned their lesson with Breakpoint. Still change can be positive as well, not just negative. If they simply released a game that was exactly like Splinter cell from 15 years ago, I'd be disappointed. It was good back then, but it's time for new things. What I'd love is a splinter cell that plays like alpha protocol, perhaps even without sam fisher as the protagonist. That would be much more exciting to me, than a simple attempt at nostalgia.
 
That's such a selfish stance. It's not my cup of tea, therefore I'd rather it's not even be made.

And I think it is a selfish stance to ruin a series because you want something else. And yes I'll say it again, I'd rather have a bad entry not made for numerous reasons.

I couldn't care less what they call it, as long as it's good. There is no rule that says that a franchise can only have one specific type of game. All those fools enjoying WOW are doing it wrong! Warcraft can only be an RTS and nothing else!

Then call it something else. If you're calling it Splinter Cell, I am expecting a stealth game. Not a stick collecting open world game, not an MMO, and not a comedy looter shooter with Fortnite style art aesthetic.

Different /= Bad

And on the other end there are complaints about all Ubisoft games being the same. while here you are advocating for games to be the same, so who can blame ubisoft for doing just that? Of course it backfired with Breakpoint, and they had to backtrack after making it Division 2.5.

I'm advocating for the opposite. I'd like Splinter Cell to stay true to its roots, a stealth game. If it isn't that I'd rather have it stay dead. Advocating for all games to be the same would be like asking for them to make another generic game and slap "Splinter Cell" on the box art to dupe long time fans of the series. The only reason to slap old names on new items is to try and dupe people who were fans of something else into buying the new product. It isn't illegal and is a long standing marketing tactic, but it has always been scummy regardless of the industry. Games are no different. Want to make a new game type? Great, call it something else. Nothing wrong with creating a new IP or title.

You talk as if you have exclusive rights to speak for "splinter cell fans".

Irony - "Don't speak for all Splinter Cell fans, let me speak for all Splinter Cell fans now".

The splinter cell fans who are so short sighted and narrow minded that they want the exact same game well...

You can modernize it, but keep the game genre the same. You realize that right? Smarter AI, better graphics, smoother animations, better voice acting and more.

Going to another Tom Clancy IP, Rainbow Six did just that in the early 2000s. They added gun 3D models in the first person as time went on. It fit, because it was more realistic. The series went off the rails with Lock Down because they simplified the commanding aspects and made it more action based. With Vegas it became Call of Duty, where you would literally kill 70-130 people a mission in a 3 man team opposed to 5-11 with an 8 man squad.

Adding gun 3D models - fits the genre, setting and adds to the game.
Removing practically all commands, slimming the team down to 3 and making it a murder fest - Detracting from the game

The first is a good change, the second isn't.

Ghost Recon Wildlands is exactly like that, you have to take your time and pick and choose targets to succeed. Run and gun while sometimes works in it, is not the most effective strategy. And that's exactly what makes it great, that any strategy that makes sense can succeed. You can sneak around, and just slip past enemies unseen. You can pick them off from a distance, you can sneak and take them out up close, or you can try guns blazing, if you are skillful enough and lucky it will also work.

It's a fitting stance for a narrow minded selfish fan. Or would you rather WoW didn't exist because it's not an RTS? Or should they have called it something else?

Aren't you the guy who was upset that new Star Trek wasn't like old Star Trek? By this logic you should enjoy it, or be happy that other people are enjoying it even if it isn't like the older series.

Since they didn't make any splinter cell game yet, you are criticizing what they might make, despite them having no plans of making anything.

We can criticize bad ideas, and what we think people will do when given the reigns. Open world, grindy, bloated menu, multiplayer tie ins to the SP campaign - that is the last thing I want. And it seems that is all Ubisoft is capable of these days. Pardon me for thinking Ubisoft will try something different. I'll believe it when I see it.
My stance: "Just make something, rather than let the franchise be forgotten, and hopefully it will be a good game regardless of the genre"

My stance: If you're making a different game, don't pretend. Just call it something else. Don't tell us a steaming turd is a steak when we know the difference.

No, it's clear, you want the frachise to die unless they make the exact game you want. i enjoyed the heck out wildlands and breakpoint, but you and other hardline ghost recon fans would rather those games were never made in the first place.

They should've just called in Wildlands. Ghost Recon name wasn't the worst part about it though. Seeing your NPC squad mates walking right into enemy bases, without either the enemies or them reacting was... interesting. So much for it being a tactical shooter where commanding and positioning mattered.

Ubisoft was narrow minden in trying to use the same formula for multiple franchises. But hopefully they learned their lesson with Breakpoint. Still change can be positive as well, not just negative. If they simply released a game that was exactly like Splinter cell from 15 years ago, I'd be disappointed. It was good back then, but it's time for new things. What I'd love is a splinter cell that plays like alpha protocol, perhaps even without sam fisher as the protagonist. That would be much more exciting to me, than a simple attempt at nostalgia.

I'll have to give credit to EA. They have put out some games that are largely detached from MP modes, no nonsense, little grinding SP campaign modes. I'm talking Titan Fall 2 and Jedi Fallen Order. Neither were perfect, but EA seems capable of this. Ubisoft has to prove themselves otherwise. Seeing Watch Dogs Legion and Bum-Brawler Creed: Vikings, I'm doubting they plan to anytime soon.
 
Last edited:
You talk as if you have exclusive rights to speak for "splinter cell fans". Well I'm a splinter cell fan, and they can make any game they want in the splinter cell franchise as long as it is good, I'm happy. The splinter cell fans who are so short sighted and narrow minded that they want the exact same game well, nobody is forcing them to play a new splinter cell game. Again, wanting something to not even be made because you are not interested in it is selfish. There is no other way to explain it. It's like saying if I can't enjoy it, then nobody should. Yes, it's not great when a franchise goes in a direction you are not interested in. But you always have the choice of not buying and playing the games you are not interested in. Like Need For Speed ended with Hot Pursuit 2 for me. I don't wish the franchise had died there, we just parted ways.
And yet you do have that right?

You are missing the whole point here. It's not that I want to keep a game from anybody. If you like Ubisoft's brainless open world games, you're in luck, there are oodles to choose from. They've saturated the market. In the context of a hypothetical open world, ubisoftized splinter cell, my opinion is less "nobody should have this game" and more "why the fuck do we need another one of these"... I'm tired of seeing my favorite franchises destroyed by Ubisoft. If they reaaaally need yet another open world shooter, go nuts, just don't stain Splinter Cells name. I stand by the importance of a name. It sets an expectation. It gives false hope to the people who want a real Splinter Cell, while simultaneously being of little to no value to anyone who doesn't like Splinter Cell and wants another generic action shooter. I wouldn't make a kids cartoon and call it Die Hard... that doesn't mean I want to deprive the world of kids cartoons.

Ghost Recon Wildlands is exactly like that, you have to take your time and pick and choose targets to succeed. Run and gun while sometimes works in it, is not the most effective strategy. And that's exactly what makes it great, that any strategy that makes sense can succeed. You can sneak around, and just slip past enemies unseen. You can pick them off from a distance, you can sneak and take them out up close, or you can try guns blazing, if you are skillful enough and lucky it will also work.

I'm struggling to find the words here. Have you played any of the original Tom Clancy games? Wildlands is exceptionally far from the original slow, calcualted, tactical gameplay of R6, GR, and SC. The fact that you think they are even remotely the same pretty much destroys any credibility you think you have to comment on the matter. Saying they are exactly alike is like saying a ferret and a lobster are exactly alike because they are both animals.

You don't have dibs on what Ghost Recon or Splinter Cell should and shouldn't be.

...and yet somehow you think you do? I don't get it man. Why is it that you're opinion that "Splinter Cell can be whatever it wants" is fine, but our opinion of "Splinter Cell should be Splinter Cell" is selfish and wrong? Why is it selfish when others want something a certain way, but not selfish when you want something a certain way? I also don't understand why you even care. Those of us who don't want this hypothetical Splinter Cell, feel that way because it's a series we are passionate about and want it to stay faithful to the thing that drives that passion. You're side of the argument doesn't have that passion. I'm not sure what it has, beyond a desire to argue. If you like what Ubisoft is doing with games lately, that's wonderful for you. I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy them. But you already have what you want. Why should fans of these once great franchises lose yet another series so that you can have another game exactly like 5 you already have? You're literally asking for us to give up on a genre that's basically already dead so that you can have another entry in a genre that's already over saturated, and then somehow calling us the selfish ones? I honestly don't get how you don't see it, but I assure you, you're woefully confused on who's stance is selfish.
No, it's clear, you want the frachise to die unless they make the exact game you want. i enjoyed the heck out wildlands and breakpoint, but you and other hardline ghost recon fans would rather those games were never made in the first place. How should I take that? Same thing with AC:Odyssey, I Enjoyed it, but a lot of "old" AC fans complained that it's not really AC.

Nope. I never said I don't want Wildlands and Breakpoint to exist. I said they aren't Ghost Recon. If Ubisoft came out with a game and just called it "Wildlands" - you get exactly the same game. Literally nothing about the experience is changed for you. For me, there's still the sliver of hope that Ubisoft hasn't killed yet another one of my once beloved franchises. I don't care that Wildlands exists, I care that it redefined what Ghost Recon is.

Ubisoft was narrow minden in trying to use the same formula for multiple franchises. But hopefully they learned their lesson with Breakpoint. Still change can be positive as well, not just negative. If they simply released a game that was exactly like Splinter cell from 15 years ago, I'd be disappointed. It was good back then, but it's time for new things. What I'd love is a splinter cell that plays like alpha protocol, perhaps even without sam fisher as the protagonist. That would be much more exciting to me, than a simple attempt at nostalgia.
Flogger23m summed it up perfectly, but it bears repeating. His example of how Rainbow Six has changed is as perfect as it gets. Change can be good or bad. Modernization of the existing concepts is a wonderful thing. Changing those concepts to appeal to spazzy COD and Halo kids and watering down every game to play like a reskin of Assassins Creed is not. A new splinter cell with the same close quarters, stealth, tactical gameplay but with updated graphics, physics, technology, etc. is all I want. I don't need another run and gun shooter. I'm really confused by your later stance here. You want "Splinter Cell", but you want it to play like Alpha Protocol and not feature Sam Fisher. So... you don't want another Splinter Cell... you wan't another Alpha Protocol. What's the point in making a game that doesn't play like SC, doesn't have any of the cast from SC, but then calling it SC? Make that game, be my guest, I don't care that it exists. Just don't call it SC. There's no upside to it.
 
Back
Top