Jarren: There’s no shortage of frustration for Ubisoft why they would ignore players asking this type of content in favor. Unfortunately for us, don’t bother expecting another Splinter Cell game from Ubisoft. Possibly ever.
When an article makes to much sense and upsets you :( R.I.P Sam
RIP Sam RIP PES F Ubisoft F Konami
Ehhh of they just made a solid game, DLC sorry missions would solve that. Such a pointless article
I would never defend Ubisoft but there are several things in this article I disagree with especially playing Splinter Cell from inception. So Ubisoft wanting to make money is not much different that every other gaming company in the world. Gamers are the dopey ones that fail to realize that money is the ultimate motivation to which I have no problem. Where I disagree is that the article states that they can't make continuous money off of Splinter Cell by getting players to keep coming back. This person forgot that Splinter Cell had an online Spy vs Merc and a coop mode for a few of their games. There is tons of stuff they could have done to make gamers come back so I really don't think that's the reason. No the reason we don't have Splinter Cell is almost the same reason we still don't have Beyond Good and Evil 2. That reason is Ubisoft leadership is poor and out of touch with gamers. Just look at what they did to the Splinter Cell franchise and how much they changed it up and not for the better. Chaos Theory is still the best in the series. But lets not act like its only Splinter Cell they screwed up. Ghost Recon is all over the place. Their game directors and overall vision for their games are all over the place. Trust me, that begins with leadership. Just poor.
It’s a got damn shame what they did to ghost recon!!! Too, and you’re on point. Splinter cell has so much life for them to just let it die like this is outrageous.
Damn right brother 👍...I played svm from day one until the Xbox live servers went down. I remember the last games we all had on the last day. Xbox live has never had a multiplayer game I've played that much since...rip chaos svm.🤘
“They’re either A) a competitive multiplayer game or B) a big sprawling open world map with tons of stuff to do. What do these two have in common? Simple. They’re both games designed to keep players playing for as long as possible” What they should do is go with option C: make a quality timeless classic game 🤷🏻♂️. Designed to keep players playing as long as possible well make some fantastic games that aren’t outdated in 12 months. Nintendo have made games I play 30/35 years later. I’d barely play these Ubisoft games 6 months later (unless I bought it later as it was cheaper 🤣) season passes don’t keep the players playing, mainly as the content is dribble
Fs in chat for our boy Sam. PS: his depiction in R6S is an absolute joke.
Why spoil our memories... Ubisoft only does decent or average formulaic games ,.. Cannot even remember the last time they released a really great game,.. Probably rayman legends on PS4/360
pretty much as soon as the PS4 gens started Ubisoft got really shit
Because people want it, and large publishers are seemingly complete morons when it comes to actually satisfying their customer base?
Because the seasonal approach is too hard to formulate with said style of game. These developers are making mad money for far less effort. This is now their targeted goal.
They make billions selling call of duty and all of its microtransaction bullshits to kids and exploiting their stupidity. Why takes risk and make splinter cell?
Pretty sure thats activision but hey close enough.
I just want one as good as chaos theory was🥺, none of this marking bullshit, straight back to hard-core stealth
Splinter Cell at its very core is: Not open world/non-linear Not live service Not microtransactions-heavy. And they will NOT make a budget title, because they’re a studio and studios make their bones on expense and idiotic decisions. “Make Control but with Sam? Like Die Hard but with Third Echelon leading the charge. No? Why? No reason? Ok then.” Trump is out of office now, so Americans WANT to buy into the military and spies again, but it’s too late for the games market and the greediest studios who fester within.
They scared to try.
Few points I disagree with... 1) there is no reason Splinter Cell couldn't have seasons or expansions to fit the model mention. Hitman series figured it out. 2) AC is far better now, and I loved Ezio triology. I was done with the series until Odyssey. Still stealth everything but having fun combat when discovered is a huge plus and they do an incredible job with the open world. Yes, this is an opinion, but the game is more popular than ever. Pure stealth games just don't sell well. 3) it's only been 8 years since the last. We've gone longer without an Elder Scrolls. Other series have gone dorment for longer when undergoing major changes too. The series was great, but stale, so I'm fine with a major reboot of what Splinter Cell is.
I'm fine with it not being a copy and paste of what the original trilogy was but I don't want it to be watchdogs with Sam Fisher. If they want it to be more open but still have a traditional level format instead of just one giant location I'm ok with that. But there still needs to be strategy involved with the game and consequences for messing up on most levels. I don't want Perfect Dark to be the only spy game this generation.
With the death of MGS a new splinter cell game would easily be my most anticipated game. I'm still hopeful we'll get a get a final game with Michael Ironside voicing Sam. A decade ago it would be a no brainer for Ubisoft to green light that. Goddamn modern gaming where projects need to be heavily monetizable to get the go ahead
Immortals toned it back a ton. I think they learned that a game can be 30-40 hours and be hugely successful. I wouldn’t count them out yet. Valhalla is a great game but it would be even better if they trimmed the fat. The story, Asgard missions and order assassinations were fun but it was bogged down with a ton of boring repetitive shit. Things like the artifacts are completely worthless. A time sink that should be completely removed. I’d like to think they learned their lesson with immortals, it wasn’t nearly as obnoxious. If a collectible is tied to a puzzle or a side mission is tied to a cool reference like Robin Hood or Excalibur then I don’t mind. It’s a shame because Valhalla is probably my second favorite AC game but it could have been so much better without the artificial extender bullshit. I was trying to 100% Valhalla but a bugged mission prevented me. Making a trophy to collect every single piece of the 10k collectibles is an asshole move. Also how is that Odin skin not a Valhalla unlockable? What a complete travesty that is.
I completely disagree with the items you said "should be removed." Why? Just don't do them. Massive open world games need tons of things to do because not every player heads in the same direction or hunts every single chest. You need enough for people to randomly find to keep them interest. It isn't the game designers fault some people become obsessed and have to do everything in the game.
It would benefit from being a smaller and more focused game. The chests are puzzles, the mysteries can be interesting lore wise. The artifacts hold no significant value whatsoever. Collect 800 Roman masks on top of pillars, chase 400 pieces of paper. I have a hard time believing these added value to any player. The hidden curse things were the only decent artifact. You’re acting like there aren’t 10k mysteries and 10k chests on top of the artifacts.
@sourOG no, there are 20k chests, mysteries, etc. My point is there has to be. If a gamer doesn't go hunting to do then, and just grabsuyems and solves mysteries along they way, then it works perfectly. Gamers that get a little OCD about 100%ing or doing everything, yeah totally get it seeming too much. Gamers that just play it and follow the story and side items they come across. Feels like the right amount.
Microsoft should buy Splinter cell and Titanfall.
They can start with an updated remastered collection. And create a new splinter cell with an online mode, an open world splinter cell would be great
I like the idea of at least a proper remaster. If I ran Ubi, have a team remaster (lower initial investment?) the collection in UE5 to get a handle on and learn the engine's in and outs with lumen, nanite, 3d audio, ray traced lighting and shadows etc. This would essentially reintroduce Sam to old fans while creating new ones. Then with the money from (crossgen?) sales go and make the AAA newgen only game with all the bells and whistles from the knowledge gained, no?
These articles have been popping up frequently as of late, but this is one perfectly spot-on! Ubisoft has turned to embarrassing shit, and because of that, its for the best that they don't make another Splinter Cell game. We don't need it to turn into a modern Ubishit game with endless grinding, constantly picking up trash off the ground for upgrading our equipment and a micro-trash-action store that sells you "time savers" because let's be honest here, Ubishit games aren't worth our time anymore.
Blame all the Fortnite/Call of Duty/ Ghost Recon/ GTA 5/ FTP Online players for changing the gaming landscape! Thats what is to blame. Why wouldnt other companies try to replicate that success?! It is a business afterall. Sure it doesnt soften the blow, but if the players didnt keep coming back to those online games and swelling the bank accounts and heads of these companies, we wouldnt be here questioning why Single Player games are no longer the norm. I do disagree with this: "And finally, there’s the latest three installments of the Assassin’s Creed franchise. A franchise that Ubisoft butchered in order to turn it into a profitable cash cow. Instead of the stealth action open world that we grew up with, Assassin’s Creed has been turned into an open world RPG with stealth elements in an effort to put in some kind of grind that encourages players to stay and spend." I never felt compelled to spend extra money in AC for things like cosmetics. The Season Passes, sure, but because the extra content was great. The games are fun and they last a long time. They didnt "butcher" the series, they evolved and made them great Action/RPG experiences. You can still play them stealth, particularly with Valhalla. But what is different is that you can play them as you see fit. Whats wrong with choice? I went back and payed AC 2 recently and realized how annoying it was to fail a mission because you didnt play it how THEY wanted you to. In Valhalla, if you fail at stealth you can fight it out or run, you dont just fail and start over. Thats the way it should be! Why should we, the players, be held to some arbitrary system of playing a specific way?! Theres this huge, living breathing world for you to explore and theres a ton of OPTIONAL stuff for you to do if you want to get the most out of the experience. Its just so counterintuitive the way players demand the companies change it up, then when they actually change it up, they bitch and moan BECAUSE they changed it! WTF! Thats some twisted logic and just proves how fickle gamers have become!
When Halo, Cod, UT and all those arena mp games dominated, they still made games that went against the grain. Games like Splinter Cell, Rainbow six and Ghost Recon were still made. We don't have to live in a corporate dystopia where a developer has to cancel a game because the CEO can't finance his 5th super yacht if the game doesn't make ten times the budget. There's room for fast paced games along with strategy games.
Exactly. There’s room for everybody.
They rather make arena combat games, and looters that no one cares, long gone are the days of prince of persia warrior within, spelinter cell Chaos theory, AC Ezio saga and other great SP ubisoft games. (sigh)
"Then take a gander at Ghost Recon Wildlands, that was released back in 2017. Wildlands has this great giant open world map, that’s practically a whole country, that take a while to traverse. It’s purposefully designed to keep your attention for as long as possible. " "Splinter Cell can’t be made into an open world RPG with elements of stealth. " They could literally, do this with Splinter Cell. Metal Gear Solid? tf
So the only two games in the stealth action genre (that being Splinter Cell and MGS) are dead. There is a huge void that could be filled with a good quality stealth action game in a modern setting.
Sam fisher is a legend. Legends cannot die!
They are stupid not to make a new one or remake his original 3 games that will be solid gold for them .
So let some other developer do it, if they are passionate enough. Ubisoft will still get a cut out of it but they won't be touching it.
Who do you think would be the best Dev team?....and more importantly which publishers would you choose?. I'm at a loss for words? In this day and age of gaming I'm not sure I would want any AAA publisher/dev making splinter cell 8..
What comes to my mind is Rockstar Games. I'm sure they would be more than capable of making the series shine. 😁
I wish Sony got the rights to Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia. They would be two huge franchises for the company and they would do them justice! Never gonna happen unfortunately. :(
You got more chance of Microsoft buying it up.... considering how much better splinter cell 1,2&3 played on the original Xbox compared to the PS2 version. I had the PS2 version xb version and GameCube. Chaos theory Vs on PS2 was basically pandora tomorrow. PlayStation didn't get all the small upgrades that Xbox and pc had. I think this gen Sony are gonna do an Xbox one and xbox are gonna do a PS4. Look how unready the ps5 was compared to Xbox series. Don't get me wrong I'm gonna get a ps5 asap. But this gen ms are really trying to hit it outta the park. Weather that's buying up 3rd party studios or properly investing in 1st party studios or a blend of the both. Its just good to see Xbox focus on games instead of TV,TV,TV.........anyway ppl ....down vote me away.👍😎㊂ 4;
They should remake the older games for next (current) gen.
It would probably be typical boring Ubisoft mass market crap anyway.
Tom Clancy and Ubisoft are such polar opposites when it comes to the political spectrum.Clancy was a staunch republican military enthusiast,and 60% of Ubisoft dye Thier hair green and wear flowers in it. Can you see the problem Ubisoft have made for themselves. Don't expect any realistic milsims coming from Ubisoft...it's just to offensive for them.
Because they don't know how tell a great story anymore.
Which is even more bizzare, considering they hired Ironside back to voice some mission in Wildlands and Breakpoint. I'm still hoping they are working on something secretly...
Because they suck? Non of them were good.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.