Moral Choices

[Andre202]

Maxime talked about the interrogations which allow you at the end to decide whether you kill the person or let him alive. Now I do like this idea, but I don't get why it was executed the way it is now Blacklist. I am not sure whether they change it or not but let us the first interrogation.

Several magazines described already what happens in the interrogation which seems to be only in the Extended Version of the Demo. Now the first thing is to note is that Sam uncovers his face, so he the 4E leader can be indentified by the person he is interrogating. But that's not all. He stabs the knife in the area under his shoulder, which you can still see in the demo itself and afterwards the game asks you to circle the knife around in his wound. (I thought we weren't out for a personal mission)

Now where do I have a moral choice here? If I KO him he bleeds out or if he stands alive he can describe how I look like. Although bleeding out seems to be the first thing what is coming out. So the moral choice is already eleminated by those conditions, forgetting about the other ones you need kill at the beginning. How do you think about that?

[LitLikeABrothel]

Jesus, since when did Sam turn into a torturer? These "moral choices" were in every game before Conviction anyway.

[SolidSage]

Jesus, since when did Sam turn into a torturer? These "moral choices" were in every game before Conviction anyway.

Since getting to the heart of the problem became a seriously 'time sensitive' issue.

The knife is brutal, I don't mind but I am wondering if that is the only way to access a KO option? I hope not.

[mateus99]

That is a really interesting thought.maybe in the final version of the game there wont be a face reveal? i doubt it but still looks like a plothole.
as for the interrogations i dont mind them being brutal, the only moral choice i think we will have is either let them live or kill them.Now we haven't seen any gameplay from the interrogations (if we are able to move around ala scc)so maybe we dont have to would him under his shoulder?
I think we should just wait and see,unless we can get a confirmation from ubizack?
Thanks for bringing that up Andre it is an interesting discussion.

[Dieinthedark]

Maybe we're not supposed to look into it that much?

[Daedalus_89]

Sam is starting to remind me of Mitch Rapp...
Anyone?
Anyone?
Fictional character in an admittedly awesome book series written by Vince Flynn.
But the whole point of Rapp is that he's brutal; temperamental and doesn't have time for ******** but also very, very good at his job.

Sam's character on the other hand, is supposed to be more methodical. Before Conviction; even in time-sensitive moments like the war that was about to break out with North Korea, Sam has exercised great caution in everything he does.

[Andre202]

Maybe we're not supposed to look into it that much?

Maxime was even saying he wants to see discussions about that, but I don't see how if the moral choice is eleminated by such conditions. As pointed out by LitLikeABrothe we had actually moral choices through the Kill and KO option in previous games. Beland was talking specificly about these interrogations and well I have pointed out the problem/issue I see there.





Sam's character on the other hand, is supposed to be more methodical. Before Conviction; even in time-sensitive moments like the war that was about to break out with North Korea, Sam has exercised great caution in everything he does.
Yeah, that's what I liked about him. He was always very calm equally what happens. His daughter was kidnapped one time already and he was "pretty calm" when it happened.

[SolidSage]

Maxime was even saying he wants to see discussions about that, but I don't see how if the moral choice is eleminated by such conditions. As pointed out by LitLikeABrothe we had actually moral choices through the Kill and KO option in previous games. Beland was talking specificly about these interrogations and well I have pointed out the problem/issue I see there


Yeah, that's what I liked about him. He was always very calm equally what happens. His daughter was kidnapped one time already and he was "pretty calm" when it happened.


Right but that war was breaking out in North Korea. Blacklist is trying to prevent attacks on US soil. Different sense of urgency. Different missions require different methods.

[Andre202]

They wanted always to prevent attacks on the USA in Splinter Cell, didn't they?

[Dieinthedark]

Maxime was even saying he wants to see discussions about that, but I don't see how if the moral choice is eleminated by such conditions. As pointed out by LitLikeABrothe we had actually moral choices through the Kill and KO option in previous games. Beland was talking specificly about these interrogations and well I have pointed out the problem/issue I see there.

Well that's good to hear at least but yes I understand your concerns. It seems strange the say the least. Trust me, I hate to be the one to say well let's just ignore this and hope for the best but really, I see no way past what you are saying. Its true.

[SolidSage]

They wanted always to prevent attacks on the USA in Splinter Cell, didn't they?

Yes but Maxime said that in the Blacklist it's about getting to them before they unleash the Armageddon. other SC's were about gathering intel to find out who was behind stuff and what their plans were.
it's like the difference between trying to deter Nuclear Proliferation and Intercepting a plane that is aimed at the pentagon. IMO.

[Andre202]

Yes but Maxime said that in the Blacklist it's about getting to them before they unleash the Armageddon. other SC's were about gathering intel to find out who was behind stuff and what their plans were.
it's like the difference between trying to deter Nuclear Proliferation and Intercepting a plane that is aimed at the pentagon. IMO.

So 4E isn't a real agency anymore but a combination of everything?
I was thinking they would get back to infiltration/information gathering while other organisations do actually the work to prevent them from attacking.
I am not sure how they would keep a secret organisation status if they do these stuffs.

[coltcat]

Now where do I have a moral choice here? If I KO him he bleeds out or if he stands alive he can describe how I look like. Although bleeding out seems to be the first thing what is coming out. So the moral choice is already eleminated by those conditions, forgetting about the other ones you need kill at the beginning. How do you think about that?
If you dont kill everyone else in the camp, highly chance he would be treated, as for Sams face, its least concerned, if it took place earlier stage of the stage of story and enemies looks relatively lowtech to pull on a backtracking on specops member . but that would be just finding excuses for this sequence, clearly the scene just want to showing up some spy movie cliches to be appealing and looks badazz.

back to the mechanism, its 2012 and 6th game now, kill/not kill with no consequences is a step backward toward SAR & PT
at least we can have some evaluating system like DA where your action effects unlocking of gadgets and weapons in the future.
while behaving merciful gains you more stealthy weapons or maybe something more powerful since we are in new game like air surveillance ability and vice versa, you kills you gain access to guns, frags and airstrikes.

[Andre202]

Every SC that had the KO had consequences where the AI could wake up his partner. A kill would lead in some missions to Game Over in the first two games. But as far as I recall there were always consequences. When it comes to this situation with the interrogations. You have two people killed to interrogate one guy and now you should let him alive, while he knows who you are or may die anyway. How is that supposed to be a moral choice if there to much points which speak for a kill. I would rather KO all of them because they don't know I am someone from another country. If they wake up they might think I was another guy from another terrorist group who doesn't sympathize with their ideology, but since there are so many points which prevents this, I just cannot do it.

[sameer_monier]

BTW I think Beland wanted to add this due to the fuzz we created with the last sequence with Reed.

Some: Sam should kill him, he is the guy that ruined him, and made him waste 3 years of his life.
Some: No Sam doesn't care anymore, his daughter is still alive, there is a bigger one behind all of this, killing Reed is not going to fix the real problem.

I believe that's how we were discussing it, and that's why they are doing it again in that style.

Now I wonder if that will affect Sam, the characters, or the story in anyway, I believe Max said it will have an effect on Joystick interview, not sure though.

As for Bleeding I will go with coltcat on this one, I mean I don't think anyone would KO him, then go murder everyone else on the campus :D.

As for his face I believe that the middle east still to get the whole face recognition thing.

[Andre202]

Some: Sam should kill him, he is the guy that ruined him, and made him waste 3 years of his life.
The moral choice in that situation has the exact same problem. When you play it the first time you will struggle but when you know what happened afterwards, you will choose this option here, because he will die anyway and the people might think. No Grim shouldn't do this, I will do, although they don't want to do it. That's not a moral choice. It's forcing someone to do one thing...




Some: No Sam doesn't care anymore, his daughter is still alive, there is a bigger one behind all of this, killing Reed is not going to fix the real problem.
I think most of the people wouldn't kill because he might had information of the group or guy called Meggido, but after he gets killed you are asking yourself why the hell I am doing this choice, it doesn't change at the end anyway. He dies whether you want it or not. And you could just as well think here, why the hell should I keep him alive if I killed all the other guys before?




As for Bleeding I will go with coltcat on this one, I mean I don't think anyone would KO him, then go murder everyone else on the campus :D.
If you KO all or ghost he will die anyway, or stay alive and know your face. The leader of an organisations that needs to be kept in secret actually...
Speaking about the face:




As for his face I believe that the middle east still to get the whole face recognition thing.
They don't need to have this. He knows he isn't from their country. He knows that he is from America and that's pretty much enough to let the group behind Blacklist go in make some terror directly after they got to know there is someone who wants to prevent the Blacklist. He is from America. So they get even more angrier.

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

They wanted always to prevent attacks on the USA in Splinter Cell, didn't they?

Eeeeexactly.

[sameer_monier]

The moral choice in that situation has the exact same problem. When you play it the first time you will struggle but when you know what happened afterwards, you will choose this option here, because he will die anyway and the people might think. No Grim shouldn't do this, I will do, although they don't want to do it. That's not a moral choice. It's forcing someone to do one thing...
Personally speaking I didn't think about Grim, I thought about me being Sam what would I do.
I felt Grim did worse, she killing Reed wasn't that big for me. ((though indeed lacking when it comes to proper story))




I think most of the people wouldn't kill because he might had information of the group or guy called Meggido, but after he gets killed you are asking yourself why the hell I am doing this choice, it doesn't change at the end anyway. He dies whether you want it or not. And you could just as well think here, why the hell should I keep him alive if I killed all the other guys before?
First time I killed him, I thought he deserved it, but you are rather right, the outcome is still the same, making it not that choice at all.




If you KO all or ghost he will die anyway, or stay alive and know your face. The leader of an organisations that needs to be kept in secret actually...
Speaking about the face:


They don't need to have this. He knows he isn't from their country. He knows that he is America and that's pretty much enough to let the group behind Blacklist go in make some terror directly after they got to know there someone who wants to prevent the Blacklist, he is from America. So they get even more angrier.
well isn't America in Iraq anyway, also if it was the last guy I would agree, but the first guy could think anything, American special force attacking their camp to take out their leader, .........etc, I don't believe that Jadid would share such information with his lower men.

Yet again as Coltcat said this sounds more like making excuses or self deductions.

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

BTW I think Beland wanted to add this due to the fuzz we created with the last sequence with Reed.

Some: Sam should kill him, he is the guy that ruined him, and made him waste 3 years of his life.
Some: No Sam doesn't care anymore, his daughter is still alive, there is a bigger one behind all of this, killing Reed is not going to fix the real problem.

I believe that's how we were discussing it, and that's why they are doing it again in that style.

Moral choices are always interesting, but only when they make sense and fit with the character.

That was the huge disappointment with Conviction's moral choice - neither made sense.

A) Shoot Reed - Technically Reed is just an operative for an organization that's responsible for ruining Sam's life - and the only lead to getting to it. Killing him achieves nothing - not even revenge seeing as Sarah is alive.

B) Don't shoot Reed - Grim, someone who has nothing to gain and everything to lose by shooting Reed does it anyway. You might excuse Sam for killing him due to an emotional lashing out, but Grim is level headed intelligence officer who should know better that if they're going to track down Meggido, then Reed is their best source of information - none of which they'll get if he's dead.


I agree with Andre though, that there's no point in giving a moral choice if the context it's placed in doesn't make sense.

[sameer_monier]

Moral choices are always interesting, but only when they make sense and fit with the character.

That was the huge disappointment with Conviction's moral choice - neither made sense.

A) Shoot Reed - Technically Reed is just an operative for an organization that's responsible for ruining Sam's life - and the only lead to getting to it. Killing him achieves nothing - not even revenge seeing as Sarah is alive.

B) Don't shoot Reed - Grim, someone who has nothing to gain and everything to lose by shooting Reed does it anyway. You might excuse Sam for killing him due to an emotional lashing out, but Grim is level headed intelligence officer who should know better that if they're going to track down Meggido, then Reed is their best source of information - none of which they'll get if he's dead.


I agree with Andre though, that there's no point in giving a moral choice if the context it's placed in doesn't make sense.
First of all "Welcome Back" you missed by WB greeting in another thread :D

Now I totally agree with you on that matter, Regarding Shooting Reed I went with what I would feel as Sam, a leash out of emotions as you described it, As for Grim yeah there is no excuse for it, but if I wanted to think of one, I would go with her knowing already where to start, maybe found out about other more important targets, yet it still doesn't really make killing Reed reasonable.

[Andre202]

I actually do mean the same as ShadowFox. He just can point it out a lot better then I am able to.

I also want to remind on Michael Ironside here, when it comes to cliches and so on: (Credits to The_5_Freedoms for writing that down)


Michael Ironside: Sam Fisher's genesis from the beginning… I think he was a little more pro-gung-ho in the first game, the first two games. They had a, a G.I. Joe kind of aspect about him, y'know. I didn't want that, I wanted somebody who was basically almost like… a weapon the government's used too many times. (A conversation between Shetland and Fisher is shown as an example.) I wanted that jaded kind of character. Sam Fisher's… could have been very two-dimensional, flat, cardboard, "FINISH HIM!" (Mimes ripping a guy's throat out). I didn't want to play this character like a game character, I didn't want him to be two-dimensional and be a cliché. Yet some of the writing has to go that way, it has to be explanatory, so it's been a nice little problem of trying to find the middle. Taking something that might have a cliché to it and trying to find some way to get under it and turn it and make it real.(Wilkes' death scene is shown as an example.) They've allowed me to play a lot of the lines and a lot of the scenarios to accommodate me and my sensitivity towards the character.


Yet, it seems like Conviction didn't even tried to find the middle way and Blacklist seems to follow it while it might be a bit better compared to Conviction.

[SolidSage]

So 4E isn't a real agency anymore but a combination of everything?
I was thinking they would get back to infiltration/information gathering while other organisations do actually the work to prevent them from attacking.
I am not sure how they would keep a secret organisation status if they do these stuffs.

I think 4E IS a real Agency still, but they have leveled up. They aren't like the NSA anymore, gathering intel and then outsourcing the wetwork to the CIA or whoever. Everything is of the highest classified level, it goes from the Prez to Sam's desk.
If anything, 4E is more of a true SplinterCell agency now than they ever were. Judge, Jury and Executioner.

@Shadowfox
"Yes but Maxime said that in the Blacklist it's about getting to them before they unleash the Armageddon. other SC's were about gathering intel to find out who was behind stuff and what their plans were.
It's like the difference between trying to deter Nuclear Proliferation and Intercepting a plane that is aimed at the pentagon. IMO."

[Andre202]

I think 4E IS a real Agency still, but they have leveled up. They aren't like the NSA anymore, gathering intel and then outsourcing the wetwork to the CIA or whoever. Everything is of the highest classified level, it goes from the Prez to Sam's desk.
If anything, 4E is more of a true SplinterCell agency now than they ever were. Judge, Jury and Executioner.
I actually don't agree that this seems to be a true agency now. In previous games you had the feeling you are not one guy who is rescuing the world but there are a lot more of them who help to prevent the attacks on the USA or to fight back. You are just as the others an important part in this task. You did number yourself what they are doing which seems to be pretty much everything. The Agency before, 3E, did actually the exact thing when it comes to "getting to them before they unleash the Armageddon". Because gathering information comes first before you are the Judge, Jury and Executioner. You can't be them without having any information gathered before and that's what the agencies were standing for. Other then that Lambert was also in contact with the president, this shouldn't be a surprise when Sam is the leader.

[MadamTampini]

The Agency before, 3E, did actually the exact thing when it comes to "getting to them before they unleash the Armageddon". Because gathering information comes first before you are the Judge, Jury and Executioner. You can't be them without having any information gathered before and that's what the agencies were standing for.

I really like this sentiment, it is true to Splinter Cell.

[sameer_monier]

^^ Andre: Sorry to break it to ya, but this isn't Lambert Echelon anymore, The Same President thought 3rd Echelon was useless and decided to shut it down, it seems The President want action, not intel :D
So Sam go in, collect info, use them, kill the responsible people, and stop whatever may happen, all by yourself. :P

joking haha

But from a design point of view, with Ubi wanting to make Sam Fisher an Immortal Icon, they would want to make him a Super-Hero too, they would want him to be the one and only badazz that can stop whatever may happen, I am starting to doubt that we will see any cross over between TC titles anymore.

[SolidSage]

Well the intel gathering has been happening since Conviction. I don't know where Grim got it all from but she was obviously on the case while Sam was off the reservation. I see 4E in Blacklist as ALREADY having most of the intel on the Meggido like entity and now they are tasked with stopping them.
I also think the team, Agency is the wrong word, are more prevalent now. It's not some encouraging words from Lambert and then Grim in the headset, this time the team is on the Plane, which is likely very close to the site Sam is going to infiltrate.
His Cell/Team/4E will be more a part of the operation than ever.

Definitely less of a one man show than it's ever been.

I mean, in all honesty, 3E turning into the Agency we saw in SCC was the deviation from the original concept wasn't it?

[LitLikeABrothel]

I think I need to remind you all that Third Echelon was part of the NSA. It was a super secret sub division that, officially, didn't exist. That's what Splinter Cell means, a "cell" that is "splintered" from a larger organisation, in this case the NSA. Conviction kind of threw that out the window when Ubisoft decided to give Third Echelon a huge HQ in the middle of Washington DC.

[bluewolf042000]

Well I can't speak for the interrogations because none of us have seen it yet. But I do get the need for special extreme actions to be taken given the urgency of the situation. And they ARE giving us a choice at least. Everything else is just overthinking something in a videogame too much.

[CamberGreber]

Well the intel gathering has been happening since Conviction. I don't know where Grim got it all from but she was obviously on the case while Sam was off the reservation. I see 4E in Blacklist as ALREADY having most of the intel on the Meggido like entity and now they are tasked with stopping them.
I also think the team, Agency is the wrong word, are more prevalent now. It's not some encouraging words from Lambert and then Grim in the headset, this time the team is on the Plane, which is likely very close to the site Sam is going to infiltrate.
His Cell/Team/4E will be more a part of the operation than ever.

Definitely less of a one man show than it's ever been.

I mean, in all honesty, 3E turning into the Agency we saw in SCC was the deviation from the original concept wasn't it?

How does the Proximity to the Mission Location make the team more of a part of the operation.
There still communicating in his ear like before the only difference is Sam has a ridiculous amount of roles to play which make this whole turn feel even more Unrealistic.

This does not feel like a Tom Clancy game what so ever anymore.

[CamberGreber]

I think I need to remind you all that Third Echelon was part of the NSA. It was a super secret sub division that, officially, didn't exist. That's what Splinter Cell means, a "cell" that is "splintered" from a larger organisation, in this case the NSA. Conviction kind of threw that out the window when Ubisoft decided to give Third Echelon a huge HQ in the middle of Washington DC.

Thats right.

[sameer_monier]

"Let Vigilance Be Our Sword"


https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-9zr8PMcfQIg/T9p2iaTpxyI/AAAAAAAAAh8/SKbiWuinyAo/s640/55.jpg

[SolidSage]

@Cam
Well in the CGI we saw Vic (?) sniping to cover Sam's extraction, the Helo itself that extracted Sam and Grim firing/ordering missiles and guns at artillery emplacements. And who knows what co-op will offer.
Plus, the HQ is probably his transportation to and from the next site, so he will interface and strategize with his team, in person on a very fluid and fast timetable.

Being the lead guy actually makes sense from a mission planner standpoint. The other jobs you are talking about, Like being an executive of 4E (?) haven't really been identified yet. But as it is, it's a Plane, Grim and a couple of other players, more like a Detachment than an agency. Having served on Detachments, I know that the Lead is still one of the workers, usually the best one.
(Assumption of course).

The SEAL teams have enlisted and officers on their teams. All of the members have jobs other than the physical mission. It's a team affair. No one in the military just does one job as I have seen it. In fact, each person usually is responsible for a host of programs. My squadron CO and XO still flew sorties.

[SolidSage]

I think I need to remind you all that Third Echelon was part of the NSA. It was a super secret sub division that, officially, didn't exist. That's what Splinter Cell means, a "cell" that is "splintered" from a larger organisation, in this case the NSA. Conviction kind of threw that out the window when Ubisoft decided to give Third Echelon a huge HQ in the middle of Washington DC.

Exactly. 3E worked for the NSA.
Did Conviction create the larger Agency though or was that developed by the series, as more and more characters and SplinterCells were introduced? I think Conviction actually addressed the bloating issue and DID AWAY with the large Agency. Getting us back to where we want to be, a Splinter Cell.

[MadamTampini]

But I do get the need for special extreme actions to be taken given the urgency of the situation.

I am honestly not completely sure I understand where the SC plot has gone between SCC and SCB (I am planning on replaying the entire franchise very very soon) but they don't necessarily need to have their current plot as their definite plot. Could you imagine how cool it would be to find intel that creates a plot twist? one that isn't too far-fetched from reality? (North Korea was an awesome idea that was implemented in CT, CIA HQ was amazing in SC) They (developers) need to realize that they have room to change what they've come up with so far. There's so much that can be done without being unrealistic. All of the previous SC games have been "urgent situations", why should this one make Sam in to a mass-murderer?

[CamberGreber]

I always felt the whole point of any Tom Clancy franchise whether it's the movies, games, books, etc... is that it is a look at world conflicts through a realistic lens.

A way of avoiding all that Hollywood bullsh*t we have had to deal with over the last 30-40 years.

As the Tom Clancy series moves closer and closer to Hollywood Cinematics and Hollywood Cliches It keeps Loseing and Loseing its idenity.
Now it is completely Indistinguishable from every other action game on the market.

Sure SCB has implemented some old features and will probably implement more before release but Marketing be dam*ed because every step forward we keep taking 2 steps back.
The fact that classic fans are forced into making such a ruckus to just get the same features we had in the past is very sad.

Alot of this should never have been removed we should at this time be asking for additonal improvements but we can't because of these circumstances.

[SolidSage]

I always felt the whole point of any Tom Clancy franchise whether it's the movies, games, books, etc... is that it is a look at world conflicts through a realistic lens.


Do I have to bring up all the huge gaping vents that conveniently penetrated almost EVERY compound we ever needed to infiltrate. I'm not trying to argue but I think nostalgia is giving a little bit too much credit to old SC realism. It was more realistic with the creeping and killing, and climbing, but there were so many other things that were as out there as anything we saw in SCC.

@Madam Tampini
In SCC there WERE mandatory kills, just like other SC's. More certainly but there was still huge opportunity to avoid a lot of killing. Blacklist is supposed to offer more opportunity. Sam is a military trained guy with a lot of offensive hardware. They didn't give him that stuff so he wouldn't kill people.
At some point, the objective is confirmed and the highest chances of success lie in eliminating the enemy's assets rather than avoiding them. I think that expecting Sam to favor pacifism during a mission that requires surgical precision is contrary to the original concept.
Sam goes on missions. His missions changed when he stopped being a SEAL and became a 3E SC, it changed again when it got persoanl and he was independent, and now with 4E it may have changed again.
The same argument that is asking for age progression seems to be opposed to career/objective progression.

I get that some players enjoyed the sneaking intel missions more, but using that desire to rationalize why Sam would or wouldn't do this or that kind of strays away from reason for me.
I mean that in a respectful way.

[CamberGreber]

Do I have to bring up all the huge gaping vents that conveniently penetrated almost EVERY compound we ever needed to infiltrate. I'm not trying to argue but I think nostalgia is giving a little bit too much credit to old SC realism. It was more realistic with the creeping and killing, and climbing, but there were so many other things that were as out there as anything we saw in SCC.

I wasn't talking about the gameplay I was talking specifically about the story.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

Moral choices in DA were done so much better than SCC. The first guy, the pilot...that one is so much better than SCC. It's a totally innocent party, who's done nothing to Sam or even the JBA. Do you kill him knowing he's going to die anyway in order to keep your cover more effectively? Or do you not want his blood on your hands?

Cozumel cruise ship. Do you blow up the ship filled with a couple thousand people to keep your cover in order to potentially save the lives of millions? Or do you save those people? That decision is further expounded when you get back to the JBA -- do you frame Enrica to ensure you are not blamed and that way you keep your cover AND save the people on the boat and then potentially save the lives of even more knowing she wasn't evil and was pretty much forced into the life? Do you just not let it arm and hope he doesn't blame YOU or do you detonate it?

Hisham. Do you kill him to keep your cover? Or do you let him live? If you let him live, you can fake his death after.

Lambert -- do you kill a really close friend and boss and one of the few who knows youre not a terrorist or not? You know they're already on full alert, you know they're getting ready to just use the bombs "they're pushing up our time schedule" is something Emile says before you even see Lambert I believe. So do you kill him, knowing you need to quickly act and stop Emile anyway? Or because the JBA is pushing the plan forward, do you save Lambert and immediately go after Emile and the rest before they can do their bomb? SCC foolishly went with killing Lambert even though it really isn't beneficial.

The only issue is that it became a balancing act rather than morals often. Imagine if the game didn't show you how much trust they had in you -- IRL you wouldnt be able to measure it really anyway. So savingor killing Hisham...you wouldnt know if thats the thing that blows your cover or not. The game should've let us balance the choices ourselves -- not look at the indicator and see the JBA trust is too low so, yeah I guess blow up the boat. No. We should've had to go "hm...well I've done this, this, and this...could I get away with not doing this?" but the game showed you that your choice would impact the trust.

SCC was shallow and just a dumb thing. The outcome was the same and he was an evil guy. What. Ever.

As for the OP

How about this....

We shoot at Jadid...at this point, he can't tell who we are (face uncovered even) at the point he couldn't be sure....LT or RT. Let's go with RT. You then push him to the wall and ask him for intel, he refuses...you then push B or whatever and slam his face througha PC and continue asking -- you do the brutal interrogations...at the end is tells you to kill him....RT (so from the beginning, RT implies we will kill the person...but it has us press it again at the end so we actually do it ourselves rather than watching a cinematic...hence why we also push B and stuff. By pushing RT we know we have to kill himat the end.

Now let's go with LT remember at this point he was scared and hasn't gotten a good look at you. You punch him in the face and spin him around, knife to his throat. You then push B and it can be more cinematic but in essence would be a classic style interrogation. At then end you get the choice -- LT or RT....he knows your American now...but he also hasn't seen your face, he has no idea who you work for, what you want other thanintel, etc. Do you kill him now? Or let him live?

[SolidSage]

I wasn't talking about the gameplay I was talking specifically about the story.

Well, I've read a few Clancy novels. A lot of them have always been high tension and high action. I don't think the stories lost their identity much really. I think Sam got evolved as a character more in DA and SCC than any of the others, and I understand that perhaps that evolution wasn't the most appealing way he could have gone.
In my experience with the games, the narrative always felt like a set up for some terrible Global type threat, and then mission briefings so Sam could go do something. There were small character insights, and choices given to the player that amplified some of Sam's basic characteristics. I liked that. I can't speak too much for DA, it destabilized Sam and justified him becoming something else. Conviction bravely addressed that change and tried to undo some of it while attempting to remain credible in the process. I liked SCC Sam more than any other because of his human emotional weakness. It said that even Sam had his limits.
I'm interested for SCB now. Sam should be more stable and is again dealing with a Government sanctioned (but denied) threat to Global and US security. It seems more like Legacy SC to me. I think it actually IS the game play that is initiating the feeling of SC being more different now, but I will take your word for it when you say that it's not the reason for you.

[Andre202]

^^ Andre: Sorry to break it to ya, but this isn't Lambert Echelon anymore, The Same President thought 3rd Echelon was useless and decided to shut it down, it seems The President want action, not intel http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20120113.419/images/smilies/biggrin.png
So Sam go in, collect info, use them, kill the responsible people, and stop whatever may happen, all by yourself. :P
I know it isn't Lambert's Echelon anymore but Sam was pretty much on his side and I don't think he would do it much different to Lambert's Echelon when he would lead such an agency. He said in the end of Conviction himself: Echelon doesn't do the things Reed was doing. And now it seems they are just as well doing the things Echelon doesn't do (the big tasks), just in a very small group.




But from a design point of view, with Ubi wanting to make Sam Fisher an Immortal Icon, they would want to make him a Super-Hero too, they would want him to be the one and only badazz that can stop whatever may happen, I am starting to doubt that we will see any cross over between TC titles anymore.
It seems that we can pretty much cross out TC with that and that's what Ironside didn't want with Sam to happen too and I actually don't want it to happen too. Very sad that they need to apply the three JB's again and again and again. Once unique, now similar to others, once human, now superhero. I am not even having a problem with that Immortal Icon that much NOW, but applying all the attributes of other Immortal Icons to Sam doesn't make the cut to me.




Well the intel gathering has been happening since Conviction. I don't know where Grim got it all from but she was obviously on the case while Sam was off the reservation. I see 4E in Blacklist as ALREADY having most of the intel on the Meggido like entity and now they are tasked with stopping them.
She was informed in the sense of what Reed is doing, not what Meggido is and definitely not what Blacklist is all about. Otherwise we wouldn't see Sam asking the question to Lucius Galliard and a minute later being shot.




I also think the team, Agency is the wrong word, are more prevalent now. It's not some encouraging words from Lambert and then Grim in the headset, this time the team is on the Plane, which is likely very close to the site Sam is going to infiltrate.
His Cell/Team/4E will be more a part of the operation than ever.
First of all, it's still just a voice in his ear and there were a lot of people who talked to Sam not just Lambert and Grim in previous games. The game always presented the other groups who are helping out to get the exercise done. The Agency was just a little part of the big group, noone knew about, but got important information from which all the other groups, the NSA, FBI, CIA, military and so on go on and make exactly these three things: Judge, Jury and Executioner. Splinter Cell is a program from 3E. It was the smallest group, but it was a very important which you could see through the information gathering. Sometimes Lambert even informed that the FBI will be coming and make the rest. You have nothing to lose there anymore. Now this supposed super secret team is now the biggest group, although having only a few members, who does the exercise of preventing someone to attack the USA which was done previously by a lot of organisations of the government. Exactly this makes you feel you have a much much more bigger take on on this problem. Your team is the only solution which exactly corresponds to the "One-Man-Army" idea (Mission Impossible anyone?), of one team being the guys who can only help us (the USA) out, instead of a whole company of groups being involved in this task. It makes it unbelievable.




Definitely less of a one man show than it's ever been.
You know why Splinter Cell always showed these scenes with FNW News or WNM News? Showing you there are a lot more involved in this job. Lambert always told you you are not the only doing something to prevent the attacks. There were some situation where you could portray Sam Fisher as a superhero like preventing the rocket in the Kokobo Sosho mission. But they were never over the top, expect Double Agent next gen version with the Atombombs.




I mean, in all honesty, 3E turning into the Agency we saw in SCC was the deviation from the original concept wasn't it?
Which title initialised the deviation? DA. Although it had a lot of endings from which you could have go on and decrease the deviation again. What did Conviction? Increase the deviation. But you aren't talking of Lambert's 3E do you? I liked what LitLikeABrothe said about that:


I think I need to remind you all that Third Echelon was part of the NSA. It was a super secret sub division that, officially, didn't exist. That's what Splinter Cell means, a "cell" that is "splintered" from a larger organisation, in this case the NSA. Conviction kind of threw that out the window when Ubisoft decided to give Third Echelon a huge HQ in the middle of Washington DC.

[LitLikeABrothel]

You know why Splinter Cell always showed these scenes with FNW News or WNM News? Showing you there are a lot more involved in this job. Lambert always told you you are not the only doing something to prevent the attacks. There were some situation where you could portray Sam Fisher as a superhero like preventing the rocket in the Kokobo Sosho mission. But they were never over the top, expect Double Agent next gen version with the Atombombs.

That's a very good point. In the original games, you felt like you were part of a much bigger picture. The fact that Sam didn't always know what was going on added to that too, sometimes you'd just hear Lambert flipping out over something he'd seen and Fisher wouldn't find out what had happened until the mission was over.

[SolidSage]

She was informed in the sense of what Reed is doing, not what Meggido is and definitely not what Blacklist is all about. Otherwise we wouldn't see Sam asking the question to Lucius Galliard and a minute later being shot.

Sam wasn't told a lot of info that Grim and Lambert knew. I don't know if SCB is about Meggido specifically but they are certainly addressing a similar kind of entity.




First of all, it's still just a voice in his ear and there were a lot people who talked to Sam not just Lambert and Grim. The game always presented the other groups who helping out. The Agency was just a little one, noone knew about, but got important information from which all the other groups, the NSA, FBI, CIA, military and so one go on and make exactly these three things: Judge, Jury and Executioner. Splinter Cell is a program from 3E. It was the smallest group, but it was a very important which you could see through the information gathering. Sometimes Lambert even informed that the FBI will coming and make the rest. You have nothing to lose there anymore. Now this supposed super secret team is now the biggest group, although having only a few members, who does this task of preventing someone to attack the USA. Exactly this makes you feel you have a much much more bigger task. Your team is the only solution which exactly corresponds to the "One-Man-Army" idea (Mission Impossible anyone?), of one team being the guys who can only help us (the USA) out, instead a whole company of groups being involved in this task. It makes it unbelievable.

I don't think anyone said Sam and his team are the ONLY solution, but after C they are the most TRUSTED solution. But again, the team is closer to being on site this time around and available in a way they never were before. Saying that a small team is implausible though discounts the kind of actions Delta Force and SEAL teams and many other small units have been doing for decades.





You know why Splinter Cell always showed these scenes with FNW News or WNM News? Showing you there are a lot more involved in this job. Lambert always told you you are not the only doing something to prevent the attacks. There were some situation where you could portray Sam Fisher as a superhero like preventing the rocket in the Kokobo Sosho mission. But they were never over the top, expect Double Agent next gen version with the Atombombs.

SC used those News Reel scenes because it was the most available way to impart realism back then and make the scope of the game and scenarios SEEM larger. CGI is so much more prevalent now.





Which title initialised the deviation? DA. Although it had a lot of endings from which you could have go on and decrease the deviation again. What did Conviction? Increase the deviation. But you aren't talking of Lambert's 3E do you? I liked what LitLikeABrothe said about that:

Well PT introduced SvM and CT introduced Bob and Steve so that expanded 3E as an agency right there. Especially when we have to assume that each group had their own handlers etc. I don't know exactly what DA added but I DO now that SCC shut it ALL down. So yeah, SCC, striving to bring back old SC like a champ. Of course we are going to have co-op and SvM in SCB so that WILL be interesting.

[Andre202]

Sam wasn't told a lot of info that Grim and Lambert knew. I don't know if SCB is about Meggido specifically but they are certainly addressing a similar kind of entity.
Grim was there when Sam asked that. Why would she hold back these information from the president who wanted to know these things?




I don't think anyone said Sam and his team are the ONLY solution, but after C they are the most TRUSTED solution. But again, the team is closer to being on site this time around and available in a way they never were before. Saying that a small team is implausible though discounts the kind of actions Delta Force and SEAL teams and many other small units have been doing for decades.
They are in groups on the field and before they got there, a lot of other things happen. These are also specialized for field operations not really for intel gathering. There are other agents doing that job. There isn't a lone operative who does the work of a Delta Force group or a SEAL team. There are much more organisations involved in those actions. It's not that one organisation does the work normally several organisations would do. There is a coorperation between several organisations involved. Here it seems to be that several organisation are now identical to the several members working at 4E doing the work of these several organisations. Doesn't this ham it up to much?




SC used those News Reel scenes because it was the most available way to impart realism back then and make the scope of the game and scenarios SEEM larger. CGI is so much more prevalent now.
Are you saying that these scenarios weren't as large as the sequences presented them to be?
I am not sure what CGI has to do with that or if I do understand what you mean. You could just as well do these scenes with CGI.




Well PT introduced SvM and CT introduced Bob and Steve so that expanded 3E as an agency right there. Especially when we have to assume that each group had their own handlers etc. I don't know exactly what DA added but I DO now that SCC shut it ALL down. So yeah, SCC, striving to bring back old SC like a champ. Of course we are going to have co-op and SvM in SCB so that WILL be interesting.
I do get your point here.

But they were still small groups, still Splinter Cells, not really knowing of each other. While SCC made Echelon suddenly so big and added "Splinter Cell" Squads to that. Not small groups, Squads which seem to be more similar to other groups like the SEAL or Delta Force. I am not seeing how SCC brings back the old SC like a champ. It shuts down something which they have already done wrong in the first place. While they have expanded the Splinter Cell program to be able to sent Splinter Cell operatives in several locations at the same time, they always kept the principal of being a Splinter Cell, only having very small groups working on the field, the same. Til DA they kept that principal. In new gen DA they didn't send in Splinter Cells to get Sam Fisher, but another Special Forces group. In old gen DA they didn't send in a squad of Splinter Cells to kill the JBA members (and maybe even Fisher), it was only one. While the program may have expanded, the only one really knowing about that is Sam (first Splinter Cell) and the head of E3, the principal was always the same in those small groups. Intel Gathering, whether it was Coop, or SvM, never bigger then 2 men group except DA SvM.

Now SCC shut down what it has done wrong in the first place or it may have come out of control anyway. Reed did even say it's not Lampert's Echelon anymore. SCB is now a new "beginning" in that sense but seems to have exactly the options available the 3E in Conviction (not Lambert's E3) had as a big, big organisation. We will see how it will ends.

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

Exactly. 3E worked for the NSA.
Did Conviction create the larger Agency though or was that developed by the series, as more and more characters and SplinterCells were introduced? I think Conviction actually addressed the bloating issue and DID AWAY with the large Agency. Getting us back to where we want to be, a Splinter Cell.

That is a fair point.

I don't think that Third Echelon was ever really as big as it was depicted in Conviction - at least not in my mind. There were a handful of Splinter Cell operatives and Shadownet.
But in Conviction is was a full on agency with downtown Washington headquarters, tactical teams and everything that goes with it.

It was a little too... "CTU" ...and not enough Ultra Top Secret Third Echelon.

I do agree that the whole thing had gotten out of control, from both a story and concept point of view.

I think stripping it back and refocussing on just a small individual team tackling a huge threat is a much stronger idea.
Get some new characters in, that aren't total cliches and who will lend themselves to improving the series.

[SolidSage]

Grim was there when Sam asked that. Why would she hold back these information from the president who wanted to know these things?


I don't know what Grim witheld from the Prez. I only know that throughout SCC she was continuosly witholding things from Sam, and apparntly Lambert did too. So I am just saying she may have more intel on Megiido type threats, from working with Reed, and after the coup, and the 6 months, that intel is what has them going after the Blacklist rather than trying to gather intel on the Blacklist.




They are in groups on the field and before they got there, a lot of other things happen. These are also specialized for field operations not really for intel gathering. There are other agents doing that job. There isn't a lone operative who does the work of a Delta Force group or a SEAL team. There are much more organisations involved in those actions. It's not that one organisation does the work normally several organisations would do. There is a coorperation between several organisations involved. Here it seems to be that several organisation are now identical to the several members working at 4E doing the work of these several organisations. Doesn't this ham it up to much?

I don't know if there are lone operatives or not, I'm sure there might be as moles undercove but I don't want to play JBA HQ again. I certainly don't think 4E represents a real interpretation of spy spec ops, but Inhonestly don't think early SC did either. I just don't think intel is gathered by a guy sneaking around a compound in a wetsuit. Those type of guyus are usually killing people. Espionage is done in suits, or with pay offs and sattelites, and data banks with voice and face recognition stuff. In that world Sam should be taking photographs from across a street, meeting with informants and doing all his killing with poison, faked accidens and sniper rifles.



Are you saying that these scenarios weren't as large as the sequences presented them to be?
I am not sure what CGI has to do with that or if I do understand what you mean. You could just as well do these scenes with CGI.

No, I'm saying the news reels, which I liked, were easier to build than a full on CGI action sequence back then and allowed for the larger feeling. Now, movie styling is more favored. Although GRFS is using the News Reel again.





I do get your point here.

But they were still small groups, still Splinter Cells, not really knowing of each other. While SCC made Echelon suddenly so big and added "Splinter Cell" Squads to that. Not small groups, Squads which seem to be more similar to other groups like the SEAL or Delta Force. I am not seeing how SCC brings back the old SC like a champ. It shuts down something which they have already done wrong in the first place. While they have expanded the Splinter Cell program to be able to sent Splinter Cell operatives in several locations at the same time, they always kept the principal of being a Splinter Cell, only having very small groups working on the field, the same. Til DA they kept that principal. In new gen DA they didn't send in Splinter Cells to get Sam Fisher, but another Special Forces group. In old gen DA they didn't send in a squad of Splinter Cells to kill the JBA members (and maybe even Fisher), it was only one. While the program may have expanded, the only one really knowing about that is Sam (first Splinter Cell) and the head of E3, the principal was always the same in those small groups. Intel Gathering, whether it was Coop, or SvM, never bigger then 2 men group except DA SvM.

Now SCC shut down what it has done wrong in the first place or it may have come out of control anyway. Reed did even say it's not Lampert's Echelon anymore. SCB is now a new "beginning" in that sense but seems to have exactly the options available the 3E in Conviction (not Lambert's E3) had as a big, big organisation. We will see how it will ends.

Yes SCC fully realized the growth of 3E but I think they followed an natural evolution that was developing throughout the series....and then they KILLED it. Early SC's never really showed it but ti started to feel like the 3E program incorporated lots of Cells so it wasn't a stretch to see how Reed could have used that to swell his ranks and go for the coup.


@Shadofox
I kind of like the idea of there being more than one Cell but generally because I think a couple of other Sam type operatives would be cool. I don't think 3E should have become an Agency with offices (but I thought it was a good story arc in SCC) and I don't think 4E should either.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

Well 3E never had its own offices until SCC.

It was always that one room in the NSA (presumably underground) where only those who had clearance could get into. There's a retinal scanner showed in PT isnt there? Maybe I made that up.

Point is -- it didn't have offices. In fact we see Grim's office where we hear the recording yet never once is that room shown....the room outside with all the giant screens is similar to the room we always saw Lambert talking from or where Sam and the gang talked during CT. But it was never that size. A much better way to have included the "3E HQ" would have been Sam sneaking into the NSA building....going underground, getting into the old room that he used to use, modeled to be as similar to it's depictions in the first 3 games, and then have Sam find the recording of Lambert (if Lambert was killed which is still stupid itself)

I like the idea of a small team which is what 4E is. Seems like it'll be Sam, Grim, Vic possibly, 2 co-op agents, 2 pilots and maybe 1-3 crew members? That'd be about the amount I pictured back for CT -- actually even less I believe. I pictured in CT: Sam, Grim, Redding, Lambert, 2 co-op agents (Bob and Steve), the 2 Osprey pilots, and like 3 people working in 3E's room in the NSA. That'd be max -- I cant remember if you can see others behind the main team during the cutscenes for CT.

During the time of DA -- I estimated 2 co-op teams, and 1 other single Splinter Cell. 2 single agents, 2 co-op tag teams which more than likely could also go on small, single missions. John was in training obviously so I assume he would've been the third agent and was idiotically picked to be an SC -- what he did was soooo stupid. I do agree there did seem to be a growth but I never pictured there being even TEN SCs even during that growth.

[mattduck69]

on topic- non lethal/lethal takedowns ARE confirmed. In multiple interview they've said it, in one maxime says that if u dont have your gun or knife(cant remember what he said) equipt it will be non-lethal XD
this game is sounding better and better, i just hope they dont slap us in the face (fingers crossed)

good:
-non lethal takedowns
-lethal takedowns
-customizable suit
-customizable gear INCLUDING NVG/THERMAL!!!!!!! WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
-no black and white -.- thank goodness
-non lethal rounds i.e sticky shockers etc (max also said there are plenty of attachments for the crossbow)
-cutting tents
-dragging bodies
-rappeling


What i also want comfirmed:
-variable speed(like first three games)
-100% stealth(minus scripted events ofcourse)
-better sandox
-change colour of your suit(im sure thats there)
-i hope somehow we can do the vic coste black arrow rescue!!

bad:
no michael ironside :'(
thats about it now :) DONT DISSAPOINT UBI!!


-

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

My three biggest concerns (since many have been addressed)

Is the variable speed, forced action with scripted events that don't or shouldn't be tied to the story, and NVG (also...WHERE is that confirmed that NVG and thermal make a return?)

Anyway...on the idea of moral choices...here's one from CT from the words of the creative director and writer of CT


In the second to lastmission of the game, Sam is sent to kill his friend Doug Shetland, who is thepresident of a mercenary company. When Sam catches up with Shetland – who istrying to escape at the end of the mission, he comes through a door onto therooftop.

At the moment the player interactswith the door, he loses camera control for about two seconds. Shetland waswaiting for him, and turns to shoot him. The two men knock one anothers gunsaway and both draw their side-arms and end up in what I call a ‘Hong KongStandoff’, facing each other with their guns drawn, neither able to fire forfear of a twitch reaction from the other when he dies.

Shetland says what he has tosay to Fisher, and concludes by saying, “Besides, I know you Sam you wouldn’tshoot an old friend…”, and then he lowers his pistol, leaving the playerstanding there with his pistol pointed at Shetland’s head.

The player has two options.He can pull the trigger and shoot his old friend, or he can lower his gun. Ifhe lowers his gun, Shetland quickly raises his own gun, and the player isforced to stab Shetland.

Either way, Shetland iskilled and we immediately cut to cinematic. Shetland falls through the windowbehind him, and Sam leans in and says ‘You’re right, I wouldn’t shoot an oldfriend.’ It’s a pre-rendered cinematic that concludes the mission. The line isthe same whether the player shot Shetland or stabbed him.

Now what does this mean?

Let’s assume for the sake ofargument that Sam is not lying, because that adds a whole extra dimension thatI don’t think is really a meaningful path of analysis. So regardless of what happened, what does it mean when Samsays ‘you’re right I wouldn’t shoot an old friend.’

Well, if he shot him, itmust mean ‘You’re not my friend’. And if he didn’t shoot him and he instead putdown his gun and was forced to stab him when Shetland attacked, then the linemust mean ‘You’re right, I wouldn’t shoot you, but I would stab you’.

And even more important thanthose questions is how those questions extrapolate when you move up from Sam tothe player. If the player pulled the trigger, then he has no reason to knowthat Shetland would have tried to shoot him if he lowered his gun. So byoutright executing Shetland, who from Sam’s perspective may or may not still bea friend, the player is making a really fundamental statement about what hisown feelings are. When the final cinematic plays, his own feelings arenecessarily affirmed by what Sam says.

If the player lowered hisgun and was forced to stab Shetland, then he is in fact making a finalstatement about his trust in his friend. And when he is forced to kill himanyway, Sam’s darkly ironic line is powerfully empathetic because it in effectexcuses the player for killing and recognizes that his hand was forced.

So what we have actually createdhere, with two lines of dialogue and two animations is a kind of hybridEmbedded / Emergent Narrative.

Is it any good? There arecertainly some questions to be answered about this approach. Like why do wecurtail the interactivity down to only two possible actions? Since the twooutcomes are functionally identical, is it a false choice? Have we donesomething meaningful here? Or is it just kind of ‘clever’.

As far as curtailing theinteractivity goes, well, I think it’s acceptable. I think the fact that theplayer is locked in this ‘Hong Kong Standoff’ justifies his inability to act,and I think that the fact that he only has two choices at the end is revealingof the relationship between the characters. Your mother can say ‘eat yourvegetables or you don’t get desert, or your boss can say have it done by Mondayor you’re fired’. People in positions of power relative to you have the abilityto reduce the infinity of possible choices you think you can make down to onlya few and can exercise a fantastic amount of control over the outcome of yourdecision. It’s the way the world is, and I think this ‘curtailing ofinteractivity’ meaningfully illustrates how ‘powerful’ Shetland is. It doesn’twork for us to put him in a suit of powered armor with missiles shooting out ofhis head and a green triangle on his chest that you need to shoot when itglows…. We need other ways to illustrate the dynamic of the relationship inconflict.

I don’t think it’s a falsechoice either. As I explained, I think there is not only a meaningfuldifference between the two outcomes, I think there is a powerfully meaningfuldifference.

Is it more than just clever?I think so. Through his action, the player is making a statement about himselfand about how he feels about the major characters of the game. Whicheverstatement he makes, there is affirmation that his decision was important. TheHow and the Why of the primary conflict of the entire game is revealed by theplayers action, not by an embedded narrative. The actual encounter is superiorto the narrative hypothesis. In the end, the emergent narrative the playerwalks away with is a strong one.

[CamberGreber]

Here it seems to be that several organisation are now identical to the several members working at 4E doing the work of these several organisations. Doesn't this ham it up to much?

Yes it does

[Andre202]

on topic- non lethal/lethal takedowns ARE confirmed. In multiple interview they've said it, in one maxime says that if u dont have your gun or knife(cant remember what he said) equipt it will be non-lethal XD
this game is sounding better and better, i just hope they dont slap us in the face (fingers crossed)
That's not what I mean. It has been confirmed you can do it. I am talking about the interrogations.

[Andre202]

Yes SCC fully realized the growth of 3E but I think they followed an natural evolution that was developing throughout the series....and then they KILLED it. Early SC's never really showed it but ti started to feel like the 3E program incorporated lots of Cells so it wasn't a stretch to see how Reed could have used that to swell his ranks and go for the coup.


During the time of DA -- I estimated 2 co-op teams, and 1 other single Splinter Cell. 2 single agents, 2 co-op tag teams which more than likely could also go on small, single missions. John was in training obviously so I assume he would've been the third agent and was idiotically picked to be an SC -- what he did was soooo stupid. I do agree there did seem to be a growth but I never pictured there being even TEN SCs even during that growth.
That's the thing. The growth of 3E is actually a very good point from SolidSage. But it never felt like they were getting that big at all. They still seemed to be small. Lambert even said in CT. The Coop partners are the first one, they are trying out the Splinter Cell program on them and if it works they would go on with them. John in DA also seemed to be one of the few new Splinter Cells. There is no real transition between DA and C that shows this problem. They were small and suddenly in C, two years later they have a very big HQ in Washington DC and it's like they have their own military. I mean how does the Legacy series show there is false development going on in which 3E is growing to fast when all the way 3E still seems to be a small organisation hidden under the NSA HQ and suddenly they are big. There is again no in between, the false development isn't really understandable. It's like one Splinter Cell, very small, small, small+, BIG. That's really not beleiveable at all.

But I would like to go back on the issue again. If you choose to KO him you have already hurt him a lot. That's not the point of KOing someone, is it? I mean we don't steb someone somewhere and afterwards we give him a KO hit. It doesn't make sense to me.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

Andre...it doesn't make sense. If you stab someone and KO them, you're effectively letting them either die in their sleep or you kill them outright. I think before you interrogate him we need to be able to opt for lethal or nonlethal and the interrogation should dynamically change without inpur as we go along. Let's say I start out and want to be a little nice and only punch him and grab him into a semi-chokehold, enough so he can still breathe and talk but where any more pressure would make it progressively harder to breathe. As opposed to using B for the dynamic "brutal" hits, you can opt for LT or RT during points and rather than just clear cut differences it allows us to do what we would do in the situation. So He's not talking and let's say he does what Sadono said and asks if you have a kid and threatens them. You and PRESS RT and spin him around and slash him somewhere before kicking him down and pulling him back up. I can alternatively HOLD RT and stab his hand to the table before kicking his face. I could also opt to PRESS LT and push on his adams apple really hard in one swift move and then spin around and let him choke a little while massaging his throat before grabbing him and pushing him to the wall. If I slowly hold LT I can apply more and more pressure to his throat before he gets scared and goes "Ack...o--okay! ack...I'll talk!" I can then press LT all the way down and do the "HOLD LT" option anyway or release pressure and let him talk from the same position. I think adding this important, yet very flexible and ultimately identical choice would be amazing. I should stress what I did were examples -- if you opt to always use LT for example, you should never reveal your face or if youare facing each other at any point it's because Sam is wearing a balaclava OR it's so quick that he couldn't possibly see your face before you punch him, pull him up and then twist his behind his back and interrogate him -- this for example I could slowly pull LT and add pressure to his arm until he talks, press LT and twist the other way and flip him over and onto his back before interrogating him from another position or press RT and snap his arm.

In this systen -- LT and RT are not NON LETHAL or LETHAL. One is more brutal than the other but the player knows that ultimately RT will decide death and LT will decide sparing them. However by implementing the entirely dynamic choices during the crucial interrogations, the devs can decide how to play it. I can straight go to always using LT or RT and end with a KO or a Kill. But at different times if I decide to go brutal and say stab his hand or leg or something -- eventually the final KO or Kill can say something about how we decided to go -- the man will bleed out because of OUR choice to go brutal at one point. Do we kill him ouright or let him live and slowly die in agony? At that point -- the moral decision is blurred because you didnt HAVE to kill him but because of what you did earlier you can infer that he will bleed out, so you can decide to let him do so "he deserves the pain" mentality OR you can offer him a swift and much less painful death. He still dies (one though you witness, the other is more inferred) but if you go LT the whole time and he reveals a piece of info that is particular disturbing, you may decide he needs to be killed or justKOd and that other forces will pick him up. I believe THAT dynamic choice in the crucial interrogation moments would be amazing while if there were classic interrogations, at the end you can do the traditional LT or RT thing.

I think this adds a morality factor thatjust shows the plauyer's morals and how they view Sam rather than having it impact the story. It's meaningful to the player and how they play as Sam, but the story is more or less unchanged. Similar to the choice of executing Shetland or putting your gun down and being forced to stab -- albeit a bit more complicated.

[Andre202]

Very nice, Bob. I like it a lot. Sam shouldn't show his face and I am with that.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

It'd make for some great times where the enemy almost spots you but you push LT and punch his face back toward the ground and then hold them. I don't mind the face to face as long as you've already decided to go RT and kill the a-hole or if you're wearing a balaclava. Then you can do that.

[Andre202]

Yeah, I don't mind that too. If the player can decide the outcome it's cool!

[mateus99]

I would like that too,having the ability before the start of the interrogation to choose if we want to be lethal or not.

[Andre202]

But as much as I like it, I don't think it will happen. So we are stuck with these prechoosen moral decisions we can only make. Hopefully not, but well who knows.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

That seems like something they can easily edit animation wise. All they need to do is fix it up so at the start of interrogation we pull LT or RT rather than at the end. Then it runs its course and using LT we never show our face and and at the end we got the option to decide to kill them anyway even if we didnt show our face. Then if we go RT, we show our face and go brutal and at the end we get to choose LT or RT -- LT would, like you say means he'd probably bleedout but then we actually decided to let him bleed out when we initially pushed RT and then LT at the end. We decide to let them live by pressing LT and then LT, or we after learn the info after pressing LT, we press RT because we realize how dirty and evil the guy is, etc. Maybe its harder than it sounds but that really wouldnt change the story. But it may be too much work to re-do the performance capture for it but yeah. I doubt we'll see it but ohhh well. :C That's the least of my concerns as I'll probably go lethal on those guys since they're probably evil and I have to reveal my face and they may screw up the op later yknow?

Maybe the demo interrogation was just a flashy one for E3 and ordinarily, we're brutal but don't stab someone and let them bleed out. That's just dumb and I hope someone at Ubi Tor notices that as well.

[Andre202]

I don't know about that. If it was really for E3 they would have shown us the interrogation too, wouldn't they? But it was only viewed by the press. I hope you are right there. I mean it's all moccaped anyway so they could replay all these scenes actually.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

Oh yeah...hmmmm. Sigh. Well maybe they'll see this, and opt to change it. It does suck, and to just not torture the guy I'll RT and kill him instead of letting him bleedout.

But this IS the least of my concerns...is it dumb? Yeah. Is this more important than being able to truly stealth through the game and use classic tactics with a good AI taht responds dynamically to you and, etc.? No. BUT. It does seem like they're addressing the forced action issue, the ability to play differently and use classic stealth -- not panther aggro stuff, and a lot of classic interactions and gadgets. So -- we need to voice all concerns.

My biggest "moral" concern is: I wish I could KO people even with the knife. Like I've said before, in the Lighthouse mission, I spare a lot of the men especially the guy who talks about the thunder and his past. But I f*ckin murder the a$$hole who tortures Morgenholt, you can tell by Sam's interrogation that Sam would too. But the new system means I either have to kill everyone when using CQC or KO all of them. I have no idea who and how the enemies will be like and so I don't know whether to equip the knife or not. I hope they find a way to let us have the knife at all times and to use KO/Kill or opt out ofing the knife and still use KO/Kill (the kill animations would be like a kick to the back of the knee that drops them to the ground and then Sam breaking their neck)...sigh. Still cool that they're trying but I liked the mini-moral choices that had no impact other than with how you feel about what you did.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

I'm all for the hold/press LT or RT determining the style of KO or kill and could be applied to the Death From Above animations. Guy's under you, Sam is getting ready to pounce. I tap LT and Sam lands on the guy and does that punch. I hold LT instead and Sam drops on him and does the kick to the face. Something like that.

[CamberGreber]

Andre...it doesn't make sense. If you stab someone and KO them, you're effectively letting them either die in their sleep or you kill them outright. I think before you interrogate him we need to be able to opt for lethal or nonlethal and the interrogation should dynamically change without inpur as we go along. Let's say I start out and want to be a little nice and only punch him and grab him into a semi-chokehold, enough so he can still breathe and talk but where any more pressure would make it progressively harder to breathe. As opposed to using B for the dynamic "brutal" hits, you can opt for LT or RT during points and rather than just clear cut differences it allows us to do what we would do in the situation. So He's not talking and let's say he does what Sadono said and asks if you have a kid and threatens them. You and PRESS RT and spin him around and slash him somewhere before kicking him down and pulling him back up. I can alternatively HOLD RT and stab his hand to the table before kicking his face. I could also opt to PRESS LT and push on his adams apple really hard in one swift move and then spin around and let him choke a little while massaging his throat before grabbing him and pushing him to the wall. If I slowly hold LT I can apply more and more pressure to his throat before he gets scared and goes "Ack...o--okay! ack...I'll talk!" I can then press LT all the way down and do the "HOLD LT" option anyway or release pressure and let him talk from the same position. I think adding this important, yet very flexible and ultimately identical choice would be amazing. I should stress what I did were examples -- if you opt to always use LT for example, you should never reveal your face or if youare facing each other at any point it's because Sam is wearing a balaclava OR it's so quick that he couldn't possibly see your face before you punch him, pull him up and then twist his behind his back and interrogate him -- this for example I could slowly pull LT and add pressure to his arm until he talks, press LT and twist the other way and flip him over and onto his back before interrogating him from another position or press RT and snap his arm.

In this systen -- LT and RT are not NON LETHAL or LETHAL. One is more brutal than the other but the player knows that ultimately RT will decide death and LT will decide sparing them. However by implementing the entirely dynamic choices during the crucial interrogations, the devs can decide how to play it. I can straight go to always using LT or RT and end with a KO or a Kill. But at different times if I decide to go brutal and say stab his hand or leg or something -- eventually the final KO or Kill can say something about how we decided to go -- the man will bleed out because of OUR choice to go brutal at one point. Do we kill him ouright or let him live and slowly die in agony? At that point -- the moral decision is blurred because you didnt HAVE to kill him but because of what you did earlier you can infer that he will bleed out, so you can decide to let him do so "he deserves the pain" mentality OR you can offer him a swift and much less painful death. He still dies (one though you witness, the other is more inferred) but if you go LT the whole time and he reveals a piece of info that is particular disturbing, you may decide he needs to be killed or justKOd and that other forces will pick him up. I believe THAT dynamic choice in the crucial interrogation moments would be amazing while if there were classic interrogations, at the end you can do the traditional LT or RT thing.

I think this adds a morality factor thatjust shows the plauyer's morals and how they view Sam rather than having it impact the story. It's meaningful to the player and how they play as Sam, but the story is more or less unchanged. Similar to the choice of executing Shetland or putting your gun down and being forced to stab -- albeit a bit more complicated.

They really badly need to bring back the Lt non lethal RT lethal controls back.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

That they do (x

[MadamTampini]

I'm all for the hold/press LT or RT determining the style of KO or kill and could be applied to the Death From Above animations. Guy's under you, Sam is getting ready to pounce. I tap LT and Sam lands on the guy and does that punch. I hold LT instead and Sam drops on him and does the kick to the face. Something like that.

isupportthispost.jpg

Oh the possibilities! We, the forum members, are coming up with so many freakin awesome ideas for SCB.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

ibelieveinscb.jpg

I believe they will correct many of the issues with SCC. The way the enemies react and think in the demo -- after Sam pulls the guy off the ledge and they run over to him and discuss if hes dead or not, it looks like one goes to revive him while the other looks up like he thinks the guy fell. If thats the case, SCB is starting to look muchmore like an SC game than I originally believed and definitely more than SCC. I believe, if what they say is true about having multiple ways to go at a problem -- stealth, action, panther -- then true variable speed is the next on the list. Especially since I believe NVG will return according to Patrick Redding. After variable speed, they need to add in lockpicking, hacking, etc. all those mini-games. If not all of them, lockpicking at least -- though hacking would be up this games alley as well.

Then reading emails and all that pace slowing stuff. I need the immersion but the first step is to get the basic mechanics right.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

Exactly. For me immersion is being totally involved in the world, I can interact with almost everything and can use an average environment in ways the other people would never dream of. The ways the guards would never expect. Seeing the emails back and forth, hearing them talk about the events, life, and whats happening up ahead, etc. Every detail to feel like a real world. This is what SAR did best (this and the lighting). Above CT, above PT, above DA and definitely above C -- SAR made me feel like I was there....I was soooo scared of being found -- it felt real in essence. I hope this starts to bring that feel back. I doubt it'll go too in depth but they have said they're using dialogue sequences more now, so idk. Maybe. Plus the opsat is returning...

[mateus99]

isupportthispost.jpg

Oh the possibilities! We, the forum members, are coming up with so many freakin awesome ideas for SCB.

Well then lets hope that the developers are listening.because we (fans) always have awesome ideas ;)

[Andre202]

The system Bob suggested also allows the player to be the Sam they want to be. I think that's something you always were able to do in previous games. From the point where you could decide to kill with the knife or knock them out you could decide how Sam actually and how you imagine him to be.

[sameer_monier]

Developers always talk about different ways to press into the players emotion. They use things like music, art direction atmospheric effects, and HUMANIZED CHARACTERS as the pillars of how to immerse the gamers feelings.

I want to talk about the humanized characters, specifically. With Splinter Cell, I blame Ironside for parts of this - Wanting Sam to be a deeper character, rewriting the SC1 script to humanize Sam, etc. I think in a video game, this forces us to think more about the character, who they are, what they're doing and what they're going to do AFTER we finish the game. I don't think this should be important, from an immersion POV.

The way Splinter Cell has generally been - (Sam not being TOO humanized) - We were forced to become invested into the physicality of that character, to BECOME that character. Why were Agent 1 and Agent 2 so successful? Think about Isaac Clarke, in Dead Space 1. His silence forced the gamer to BECOME the very essence of him, since Isaac had no real input or emotions toward anything.

Basically, it is my belief that GAMING should portray characters in a different sense than Hollywood does. We're playing games to do things, and be people we'll never be able to do or become. If there is a fully fleshed player character who has his or her own morals, which are played out in cutscenes and in dialogue - Where is the immersion in that? Where's the emotional investment, other than the dry Hollywood type?

Splinter Cell should be a perfect franchise to implement this theory. A nameless, perhaps voiceless character. That way - the gamer would BECOME that character on a deeper and more emotional level. Forcing our mind and emotions to fill in the holes as to who the character is, instead of having a fully fleshed out, humanized character.

It really comes down to Hollywood vs Gaming.
you are actually killing the story, the immersion, the world for many people by doing that.

I don't like to play as a voiceless, nameless character who only follows around or see just a hand floating in the air, I play the game to be someone else I can never be, like Sam Fisher be a top secret agent who is mature and calculative, you actually shape Sam Fisher more or less during your time with him.

I want to be connected to the character, and feel like I am him, I will embrace his morality, his ideas, his beliefs, it is like a different life for me, take Adam Jensen for example, you really is in the character, it is you who decide what to do, the character had his own personality that you shaped to your own, I played it the way I would do it in real life, I played as Adam Jensen.

When the character goes away then I am just playing a game, that's a major fault in today's games, you know you are playing a game, you are never immersed, someone keeps telling you follow me with a big follow sigh on their hand, another one tells you are okay after an explosion and then continue on saying okay let's go kill whatever we are here to kill, he didn't even wait to really see if you are good or not, your characters go on and on and on doing whatever he is doing without having any effect on him or the people around him.

If one day the whole games become like what you describe it, I will really stop playing games, that's my opinion.

[Daedalus_89]

I can't agree with this.

What's worked for Dead Space, isn't going to work for Splinter Cell.
Sam has been a constant, steady presence in the franchise.
His voice; his presence and distinct personality make him far more easier to relate to than an empty shell.
But when you've got such a great; iconic character, you eventually have to go somewhere with him.
Otherwise things start to get stale. Imagine if Double Agent never happened, and we were still playing games designed like Chaos Theory... Playing through Sam's career at a distance the way we have in the legacy games would have eventually lost our interest.
Because Sam would have been invincible. Here's this super-spy that succeeds EVERY time and never bleeds. Nothing can touch him. He has no personal life outside of sneaking into buildings and busting caps. He's untouchable. Plus he has no personality, because you've stripped away his voice and name.
It's like playing as an invincible god with superpowers and apparently he's also mute. How do you relate to that? You can't.
So I ask you; where in all of that, do you see the things you're demanding? The immersion? The emotional investment?

[Daedalus_89]

"Gaming is now about stories, and not so much about characters or engaging gameplay."

I see what you're saying, but I feel like this sentence is the opposite of what you're trying to say.
Take Ocarina of Time.
As you say, Link is a great example of a not-so-fleshed out character.
In a game like this, the focus is more on the story that the game is telling. It doesn't reveal a whole lot about Link's backstory, or how the rest of the games work in continuity with Ocarina. It doesn't need to, because everything that is relevant to our situation is revealed to us not via the protagonist, but by the story as it unfolds. It's a much more organic experience, and I think that's what you're trying to say. I agree with you.
Previous Splinter Cell games were also made this way. We learned about the character as the story and situations unfolded, not through a personal narrative.
In Conviction; we see a huge departure from the general story that's being told (The rise and fall of Third Echelon and Sam Fisher's career) and the magnifying glass is put almost exclusively on Sam Fisher's personal dilemma.
We've gone from saving the world, to saving Sam Fisher. There was a vague notion of Joseph Campell's monomyth; but as of Double Agent, it's become a complete carbon copy of the Hero's Journey.

So yes, I agree with your call for a more abstract way of storytelling. One that allows us to fill in the blanks.
But by the same token, Sam Fisher needs to have a presence. And that presence is going to become more and more diluted, the less we are able to relate to him. That lack of connection between the gamer and the physicality of Sam wouldn't have been appreciated for much longer.

Think about it. This vague storytelling works for Link and Mario because they're icons without ever trying to be anything else. They are essentially voiceless characters who speak through their actions, and the impact that they have on their respective worlds. More symbols than actual characters.
Meanwhile, you have Sam...He has a voice and a very specific presence. That's been there since the very beginning.
So you can't really put him in the same place as Donkey Kong or Mario, because Sam Fisher isn't a symbol. There is no princess at the end, and the bad guys never get completely defeated. He's a specific fictional character, which means that seeing him from a distance would only work for so long. Sooner or later, you'd have to be immersed in his personal life in order to see the character grow and complete the journey.

[LitLikeABrothel]

Ironside always said the original Sam Fisher character "was humanoid, rather than human". I think this was a basic design choice, by Ubisoft from the very start. Keep Sam as secret as possible. Don't flesh him out, because that way, the conspiracy and emotional connections to him would be deeper and darker. Isaac Clarke is a perfect relate-able character, under this theory.

For me, it comes down to two intertwined things:

1. Characters who are fleshed out, with ongoing issues, and are involved in predetermined, unfolding events - We should be WATCHING the experience. To me - That should be Hollywood. We have no control over that.

2. If we are in control of a character, in a game, we should be immersed IN that character, thereby accepting full responsibility for the emotions that character feels. Instead of experiencing the "story" how the developers see fit - like a movie - The events should unfold based on how WE, the gamer, feel about what's happening. That way we can feel emotionally connected to the ENTIRE experience, and have it unfold in ways specific to how we interact with it.

Sam Fisher is a world-class operative. Do you want to BE a world-class operative, or push the thumb-stick forward on your controller, moving a world-class operative towards the end of the developers story?

To me, that would be the TRUE advancement in the gaming industry.

Well, in my experience there's nothing more immersion breaking than a player character keeping his mouth shut throughout the entire game. My favourite games all feature fully fleshed out protagonists.

[Daedalus_89]

Ironside always said the original Sam Fisher character "was humanoid, rather than human". I think this was a basic design choice, by Ubisoft from the very start. Keep Sam as secret as possible. Don't flesh him out, because that way, the conspiracy and emotional connections to him would be deeper and darker. Isaac Clarke is a perfect relate-able character, under this theory.

For me, it comes down to two intertwined things:

1. Characters who are fleshed out, with ongoing issues, and are involved in predetermined, unfolding events - We should be WATCHING the experience. To me - That should be Hollywood. We have no control over that.

2. If we are in control of a character, in a game, we should be immersed IN that character, thereby accepting full responsibility for the emotions that character feels. Instead of experiencing the "story" how the developers see fit - like a movie - The events should unfold based on how WE, the gamer, feel about what's happening. That way we can feel emotionally connected to the ENTIRE experience, and have it unfold in ways specific to how we interact with it.

Sam Fisher is a world-class operative. Do you want to BE a world-class operative, or push the thumb-stick forward on your controller, moving a world-class operative towards the end of the developers story?

To me, that would be the TRUE advancement in the gaming industry.

And again, I get what you're saying and why you have this preference.
But I don't think it can or should apply to Splinter Cell.
Despite what Ironside says; or whatever Ubisoft's original intentions for Sam were, they made it impossible to keep him that way forever by giving him a face, and a voice and a personality.
We were never Sam Fisher in the way that we've been Link or Mario.
As I said, those other characters are more symbols.
Sam has some very specific things going on for him, and in order for the general population to stay invested in his character, we need to see him develop.
Nobody actually cares about Link or Mario. There's no emotional connection there, other than nostalgia and a sense of the familiar. When someone sits down to play Ocarina of Time, they care about the story. Since we don't really know anything about Mario other than that he's a mustachioed; Italian, jovial, fat plumber who wears suspenders and rides dinosaurs, his character is just a vehicle for you to get to know the story which usually doesn't go beyond anything more dynamic than "rescue the princess."
But because Sam Fisher is so specific and always has been, it's more like the story is a vehicle for us to get to know the character.
Because of this; he can't remain static. Something has to change for us to continue to sympathize and relate to his character.
Unless you actually ARE a Tier-One operative, there's no way that you can relate to that kind of anonymity. Even then; you can't really relate, because even Tier-One operatives have some semblance of a personal life.
Sam Fisher CANNOT remain where he was in the legacy games. In the long run, it would do even more damage to the franchise than all the changes we've seen since Double Agent.

[sameer_monier]

Well, in my experience there's nothing more immersion breaking than a player character keeping his mouth shut throughout the entire game. My favourite games all feature fully fleshed out protagonists.
Thank you. ^^ Quoted for truth.

[Daedalus_89]

Well, in my experience there's nothing more immersion breaking than a player character keeping his mouth shut throughout the entire game. My favourite games all feature fully fleshed out protagonists.

Dragon Age is a great example to use.

The first one was great in terms of gameplay dynamics and it was more a "true RPG" than its sequel.
But one thing that absolutely killed me, was that the protagonist never spoke. I mean, you had dialogue options but you never heard his/her voice.
I found Dragon Age 2 to be wayyyy more interesting and fun to play than the first one.
So yeah, characters should be characters. Not voiceless robots.

[Andre202]

I want to be connected to the character, and feel like I am him, I will embrace his morality, his ideas, his beliefs, it is like a different life for me, take Adam Jensen for example, you really is in the character, it is you who decide what to do, the character had his own personality that you shaped to your own, I played it the way I would do it in real life, I played as Adam Jensen.
Quoted for truth.

So everyone has somehow his own interpretation of who Sam Fisher or who Adam Jensen is and how they handle the decisions they make in the game.

[mateus99]

^^Fully agree, without a character the game becomes empty and boring its only saving grace is outstanding gameplay
only exeptions i can think of is some very old fps,dragon age,half-life

[Andre202]

But that's precisely my point... Do you want to play AS Adam Jensen, making decisions you feel a real life "Adam Jensen" would make? Or do you want to carry out scripted events and happenings, the way developers WANT Adam Jensen to do it?

I feel like I'm responding to too many people at once, and my comments are getting mixed and matched - but ultimately, for ME, it comes down to this:

I'm thinking about ADVANCEMENTS in the gaming industry. NOT what HAS (always) been, or what is even happening NOW. The NEXT step in this business needs to be, or SHOULD be more player-related, instead of character, story and gameplay oriented. IMO, for that to happen, developers need to really study what "immersion" means to players. Even on this forum, I see two types of gamers - The ones who like an experience written out in a script, and organized FOR them - and then the gamers, like me - Who want to be creative, and have the events, and outcomes of those events, directly related to HOW we play the game, and specifically NOT what the developers lay out, brick by brick.

Again, if I wanted to watch scripted events and characters unfold, I would watch a movie. A game (advancement) should be about me, the player having my own experience, separate from Andre202, or sameer_monier's, or Daedalus's. All based on how I feel. Allow me to be the character, not just the controller.

I guess I'm getting away from my original idea that the character specifically needs to be nameless and voiceless - But that's really not the basis of what I meant. I just meant that there should be a lot of room for us to make up, and believe who and what we want to believe the character to be.
I think I know what you mean. Scripted events are writing down how the character is without considering that the player should be the one to take the decisions here and I think they did it very well with Adam Jensen and they have done it with Fisher too, before DA.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

I don't know...it can definitely work.

Half-Life 2 for example -- whenever I play that game I am so entirely immersed and that's WITH the characters sometimes making offhand remarks about my quietness. But Ithink of Gordon Freeman my own way. I imagine what his personality is, and I thinkfor most plauers, they do the same with Dr. Freeman -- which is why a Hal-Life movie, no matter how well made and well done, will inevitably piss people off and not just the fanboys who are mad because a specific scene didnt make it or because they changed things to fit a movie better but whoever PLAYED Dr. Freeman in the film will play it one way and thus, in a way, invalidate someone's personal identification of the character. Another example is Portal and Portal 2,another series by Valve. The player character never once speaks but GLaDOS and Cave Johnson do. I am totally immersed in that world without ever having my character break away from me in cutscne form or by even by speaking. I am Chell.

Would it work for Splinter Cell? Different question altogether. I think what he means is that we didn't need SCC to be deeply connected to Sam Fisher, we saw his thoughts, his personality, etc. But in a symbiotic way, we became one. Whoa, heavy sh*t right here. No but seriously, we only see the game from his perspective really. Every once in awhile we'd see a cutscene midlevel of guards running but that was to warn us but other than that, we were always with Sam. We knew he had a daughter, his relationships with others, etc. But other than that, it was never blatantly about Sam. I actually liked that. You're an atypical soldier, but a soldier nonetheless, you follow orders, add some input of your own, you have a high morality, and you hide in shadows while being quiet. It never needed to be ABOUT Sam whichI think led to the issues that ultimately led to the numerous issues both in the development of SCC and the final version. The cool thing about the others was that they were simplistically complex while SCC was complexly simple with their respective stories. Not every game needs to be such a personal story. Halo for example never was that personal in regards to the player character and their original intent was literally, so the player could fill the boots. Now for Halo 4 and the upcoming trilogy -- it sounds like they're going to bring it to a more personal level which may be refreshing and done well, or annoying and done poorly.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

I also think some games are a viable way to do a playable movie. I don't mean where everything is done FOR you. But the AC series does this well I think. So far, you're Desmond Miles. You're kidnapped, etc. In the Animus he takes on the role of one his ancestors, one of your ancestors. Because of the way the story of AC is, the Animus shows DNA memories but also allows the user to become one and act it out themselves. It's reset to a checkpoint if they can't. So you can think of it like this. When playing as Ezio, you're really Desmond and YOU decide how DESMOND would be Ezio and how DESMOND would go about fighting through a mission or sneaking by undetected, etc. The cutscene moments show you Ezio's personality but the gameplay allows you to make up how Desmond would use the Animus...do you get me? Unlike most games where, for example, you decide how Sam goes about something, you decide how Desmond goes about being someone else. You can't change that person but since Desmond is not blatant and his story is barely touched on until Revelation, it works. Complicated and I think that the more of Desmond we see, that it'll change but not in a bad way even. I love the AC universe and the story of it.

I think in games, theres room for both player imagination and scripted storytelling as there is in movies and books -- the thing you read/see and what you take from that. A poem has the same qualities as well, what does the poem mean to YOU?

[Andre202]

Ahh, so I did understand you right. So it's actually that everyone wants just the "old" Sam back. ;)

[Andre202]

With Adam Jensen, you have a character, everything you do with him is more or less optional. You can decide how you talk to other people, what you wanna know from them and if you wanna know it from them. You can decide how you play the game. Whether you are reckless or someone who ghosts. You can tackle the situation the way you want. It's a "basic" character which you can shape through your playstyle and decisions you make. The same was the case for the old Fisher. From CT on you could really shape him the way you want him to be, the way you think he is.

[sameer_monier]

I would say yes, mostly!

But again, in terms of gaming ADVANCEMENT - That "old Sam" mentality needs to be multiplied exponentially with a more creative and dynamic style of gaming. I haven't played Dues-Ex yet, but I feel like it's relateable maybe?

Gordon Freeman, again, is the most perfect example I can think of now, thanks to Bob. Voiceless, thoughtless, personality-less. He IS the player.

But think about co-op Agents 1 and 2. Nameless, yes. Background non-existent. Those guys were epic. Everybody misses them, right? Archer and Kestrel, with their detailed education and military backgrounds? Who cares? They're just guys. They aren't "us".

Anyway........
Actually people care about Archer & Kestrel more than Agents 1 & 2 for the exact same reasons you mentioned.
Maybe not everyone, but I do.

[Andre202]

The idea is cool but I rather have the funny black humoured dialouges back. :D

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

I liked Archer and Kestrel but I also liked Bob and Steve hahahaha

Asfor the interrogations....you definitely could implement the hold/tap LT/RT system I discussed such as i creasing pressure to their throat but go too far, you KO them w/o the intel. lol no maybe not THAT unforgiving (x

[sameer_monier]

I liked Archer and Kestrel but I also liked Bob and Steve hahahaha

Asfor the interrogations....you definitely could implement the hold/tap LT/RT system I discussed such as i creasing pressure to their throat but go too far, you KO them w/o the intel. lol no maybe not THAT unforgiving (x
Secret Agent Bob and Special Agent Steve ---------- Klassic :D

[Andre202]

Secret Agent Bob and Special Agent Steve ---------- Klassic :D

You know what I would have liked to see? How they "insult" or make fun of each other when Bob or Steve is failing. :D

[sameer_monier]

You know what I would have liked to see? How they "insult" or make fun of each other when Bob or Steve is failing. :D
LOL that would have been awesome

I still remember "Steve the ******" made me LOL so hard

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

..... Bill Paxton was in NAVY SEALS.

Bill Paxton was NOT in Navy SEALS!!!

[SplinterJVCell]

An interesting part about moral choices in this article, Max Béland is talking:

"I guess the example is good, let's say you've captured someone, you upload a picture of him to Fourth Echelon, and they tell you 'It's him at 68%.' And then you get the prompt: 'Kill/No Kill.' What do you do? Well, he's a bad guy, and there's guns around him, and that's good enough for me! Or… hell no, you don't take out a life unless your sure.

So you could imagine that those moments are there to do that. We're playing on [looks for the right word] archetypes of situations like that. So you have the guy, he's clearly just a small part of the puzzle, and it's like 'Kill/No-Kill.' Are you an *** or not? That's basically a question we're asking you there, versus later in the game. We also have a finale that kind of wraps things up.

Kotaku : In the game, do you get any feedback later from the choices you've made?

We had a big discussion, [game director] Patrick Redding and I, we had a big discussion about moral choices in games. Our conclusion was that, to have a true moral choice in a game, we haven't found a way to link it to gameplay. As soon as you link it to gameplay, the player sees the matrix, he sees the gold pot at the end of the rainbow, and then he plays the system a lot more than he plays the true morality.

So if you take a game like Mass Effect, at one point, you kind of decide if you want to be good or bad. And then you're not really role-playing the situation, you're saying, 'I want to be good, so what's the good answer here?' So you're playing the system more than the true morality. What we talked about, and we had lunches and meetings about it, we said, let's try something where it's a true moral choice. You're not going to get a thousand dollars if you don't kill the guy and only five hundred if you do; let's remove all the gameplay part of it. Let's put the player into those situations, put them in control—because that's where games shine—and then, hopefully, we're treating it in a way that's mature, that's respectful, that will get people talking about it. 'Of course I killed the dude, it was 61%' You know, get people talking about that.

But it's a real, you know, working on all the Rainbow Six games and the Splinter Cell games, every project, we have a moment where we're like, 'What are we doing with morality?' It's not a black and white world."

http://kotaku.com/5980350/splinter-cell-blacklist-wont-have-interactive-torture-but-itll-still-have-interrogations

[sameer_monier]

Good thing this thread is back up, I really wonder how things will be now regarding interrogation, I mean they could have tweaked the scene in a better way than removing it, for example, you are in the tent, after the M&E Sam grabs the guy, asks him about Jadid's location, he doesn't answer, so you get a prompt, Torture/Interrogate for info or Knock out, the first will end up in you killing him of course, and both options will lead to the same result, the first he tells you what you need, while the 2nd you are free to search the compound for Jadid yourself, they needed to put a 2nd cutscene after the end, that's all.

Of course this is my opinion, but I also have a fear a picture of a man with a % won't affect the player that much, they should put connection, like you follow him, see he has family and kids, see how good he is, on the other hand you also see him making deals with bad guys, and then you are given the choice how to handle him.

[C-sec]

I prefer legacy interrogations. Yes, there were not graphically shiny, but gameplay wise, they were a perfect fit. Look at what’s happening: Michael Ironside was able to scare a person with his voice, Eric Johnson only can beat and torture people to be feared.

[SplinterJVCell]

It's not really about moral choices in the game but I found this interview of Alexandre Parizeau interesting:
http://www.shacknews.com/article/77613/splinter-cell-blacklist-wont-take-a-moral-stance-on-violence

[KevinPDZ0916]

Unfortuantely, the torture sequences are not a gameplay sequence anymore. However, I do not believe that means a cutscene could not show Sam torturing terrorists.

I hope we can have the moral choice of KOing or Killing Charlie. I'd take the latter. Every journalist has said he is so annoying thus far.

[mistahkmak]

Thank guy nerve lockpicking is gone. Torture is not effective anyway as they will say anything to make it stop. Sam of all people should know that.

[noodlenerd]

Even though I'm glad the torture part from E3 is gone, I don't thinkg it should be taboo.

I think it would be way more interesting if you had to bring a man in for implied torture/"interrogation", like in the CIA HQ mission in SAR. Kidnapping the mole in that mission was slightly uncomfortable knowing that he would likely be "questioned". I think that having to use info aquired through torture, or implied torture, or even forcing Sam to use waterboarding to get some info. Maybe even using such ways to get info, only for it to lead them to a dead end or something.

I think it's a theme that should be explored, as it is very relevant today, both to the theme of the game and the situation of the world. But if they are going to explore it, then it's important that it feels uncomfortable, and that it's not just there for shock value but to bring meaningful discussion. Much like the use of torture in the movie Zero Dark Thirty.

[KevinPDZ0916]

Even though I'm glad the torture part from E3 is gone, I don't thinkg it should be taboo.

I think it would be way more interesting if you had to bring a man in for implied torture/"interrogation", like in the CIA HQ mission in SAR. Kidnapping the mole in that mission was slightly uncomfortable knowing that he would likely be "questioned". I think that having to use info aquired through torture, or implied torture, or even forcing Sam to use waterboarding to get some info. Maybe even using such ways to get info, only for it to lead them to a dead end or something.

I think it's a theme that should be explored, as it is very relevant today, both to the theme of the game and the situation of the world. But if they are going to explore it, then it's important that it feels uncomfortable, and that it's not just there for shock value but to bring meaningful discussion. Much like the use of torture in the movie Zero Dark Thirty.

It disappoints me that the devs canned it based on negative feedback. I thought it helped immerse us further into a modern perspective, saying "yes, this torture stuff does happen in the world". It's not like the scenes were too violent, just very uncomfortable, but that's the point. Torture is not supposed to be comforting in any means, not even for justification for war, I believe.

Devs for video games need to take risks. I saw potential for those torture scenes because it was something new for Splinter Cell, and a way to advance the fifth freedom concept. Although they also could have given us the option to torture or not to torture a terrorist. That would have made it more acceptable, I believe.

[mattduck69]

The only thing that bugged me about that "torture scene" was the fact that Sam showed his face..

[sameer_monier]

It disappoints me that the devs canned it based on negative feedback. I thought it helped immerse us further into a modern perspective, saying "yes, this torture stuff does happen in the world". It's not like the scenes were too violent, just very uncomfortable, but that's the point. Torture is not supposed to be comforting in any means, not even for justification for war, I believe.

Devs for video games need to take risks. I saw potential for those torture scenes because it was something new for Splinter Cell, and a way to advance the fifth freedom concept. Although they also could have given us the option to torture or not to torture a terrorist. That would have made it more acceptable, I believe.

That's the duality the forum has -to a degree-, when the devs remove something most people complained about, a new group supporting that something arises.

Don't take this the wrong way, I am one of those, I complained about the beating to Jadid, but also found the torture cool and reflect reality to a degree, I also never complained about M&E, but once the devs said they are removing it from Perfectionist, I began to argue and complain how I should have it in Perfectionist and should not be forced.

[noodlenerd]

It disappoints me that the devs canned it based on negative feedback. I thought it helped immerse us further into a modern perspective, saying "yes, this torture stuff does happen in the world". It's not like the scenes were too violent, just very uncomfortable, but that's the point. Torture is not supposed to be comforting in any means, not even for justification for war, I believe.

Devs for video games need to take risks. I saw potential for those torture scenes because it was something new for Splinter Cell, and a way to advance the fifth freedom concept. Although they also could have given us the option to torture or not to torture a terrorist. That would have made it more acceptable, I believe.


The problem wasn't that they touched upon torture in itself, it was the way they did it. I think it's a very interesting concept, but it was treated in a bad way.


I remember wathcing someone play the E3 demo, and watching a crowd of people my age and older (23+) cheering at the sight of the torture, clapping, urging the player to kill the victim instead of knocking him out. It was just proof that the subject was handles poorly.

I mean the moral choice was killing or knocking him out? seriously? Torture is possibly the worst thing anyone can ever do to any other individual, and yet, they present the fallout (death/KO) as the moral choice.

Also, that type of torture is unrealistic, the dude would say anything to escape the pain.

But most of all, in my opinion, the torture scene was horrible because it didn't make the player feel bad. It presented torture as something cool, hardcore, whatever. It didn't get time to sink in, and was just reduced to a gimmicky minigame mechanic. What if they replaced the knife torture with Sam KO'ing him, tying him up, waking him and then for example sandboarding him? Spending some more time on it, really showing that it's a process of breaking down another individual. It would show how horrible it is, give the player a chance to feel uncomfortable, and they would even be able to use the mocap to show how Sam truly don't enjoy this, but that he must do it. Remove the "cool" aspect of Sam being a scary mofo with a knife, and just strip it down to what it is; the most evil thing one can do to another.


I think that it's important to approach controversial subject if we want games to be anything more than simple entertainment. Games have so much potential as a platform for dicussion, but if it is to be meaningful, then it has to be done right. So far, Spec Ops: the Line is the only game that has had me feel truly bad for what I've done, even when I did it with good intentions.

[DeafAtheist]

Hisham. Do you kill him to keep your cover? Or do you let him live? If you let him live, you can fake his death after.

I could never figure out how to fake Hisham's death. How do you do it?

[Gunnut19]

I could never figure out how to fake Hisham's death. How do you do it?

Apparently, in the old DA, you can put one of the guards that you have to take out to help Hisham escape into a car with an open hatch, you then can blow the car to smithereens and let Hisham go, and that will trick Emile. But I can't seem to get it to work,

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

Apparently, in the old DA, you can put one of the guards that you have to take out to help Hisham escape into a car with an open hatch, you then can blow the car to smithereens and let Hisham go, and that will trick Emile. But I can't seem to get it to work,

It doesn't work. It's a bug that prevents it from working properly.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

Even though I'm glad the torture part from E3 is gone, I don't thinkg it should be taboo.

I think it would be way more interesting if you had to bring a man in for implied torture/"interrogation", like in the CIA HQ mission in SAR. Kidnapping the mole in that mission was slightly uncomfortable knowing that he would likely be "questioned". I think that having to use info aquired through torture, or implied torture, or even forcing Sam to use waterboarding to get some info. Maybe even using such ways to get info, only for it to lead them to a dead end or something.

I think it's a theme that should be explored, as it is very relevant today, both to the theme of the game and the situation of the world. But if they are going to explore it, then it's important that it feels uncomfortable, and that it's not just there for shock value but to bring meaningful discussion. Much like the use of torture in the movie Zero Dark Thirty.

There's controversy regarding whether or not torture was actually used to learn of Bin Laden's whereabouts like it was depicted in the film. In fact, torture is a very poor way of extracting information because people will say anything to stop the pain. Sure it can work but there are way more effective forms. Both the CIA and FBI have stated that torture is not effective and I'm inclined to believe professionals....

[The_5_Freedoms]

^ I think Clancy himself as a certain disdain for it.

[SolidSage]

There's controversy regarding whether or not torture was actually used to learn of Bin Laden's whereabouts like it was depicted in the film. In fact, torture is a very poor way of extracting information because people will say anything to stop the pain. Sure it can work but there are way more effective forms. Both the CIA and FBI have stated that torture is not effective and I'm inclined to believe professionals....

I have heard CIA Officials say the exact opposite Bob. That it does work and it works quickly.

[BoBwUzHeRe1138]

I have heard CIA Officials say the exact opposite Bob. That it does work and it works quickly.

Where exactly?

[SolidSage]

Where exactly?

CSPAN.
You must be talking about the 'official word' on torture programs.

[noodlenerd]

There are different ways of torture, some work better than others. There is a reson why it's still used.


IMO the discussion is not about wether or not you can get information out of torture, because to me that isn't the important part of the controversy. I think the subject is interesting, relevant and important, but it must be presented in a better way. It can't be some quick sequence with Sam being a hardass and sticking a knife into someone, because that doesn't carry any weight. As I said earlier, the fact that people watching the E3 demo cheered shows that it was done poorly. If they did it right, nobody would enjoy taking part of it, not even Sam.

Whenever you try to touch upon the subject of torture, you should sacrifice fun for feelin like a piece of dirt. And yes I pay for games, even when they make me feel like a ******bag. I appreciated the Dahlia dilemma in PT, and I enjoyed Spec Ops: the Line for the same reasons; you were forced to feel uncomfortable, and in doing so they created something memorable.

Most games are anything but memorable.

[SolidSage]

There are moral choices that are presented in games that are good and do resonate and give a good and memorable reaction. Those kind of instances are good and fun and valuable. I think those choices though are very different than presenting morality as a lesson. I don't enjoy games that try to educate me on morals, tell me what I should or shouldn't do. I think it's better when they present a clear dilemma and then leave it with the player to deal with, make their difficult (maybe) choice, and reflect on it themselves. Like the Dahlia one.

Thankfully the Blacklist team have already commented on this and stated that their perspective is similar. That the player shouldn't receive reward or punishment as part of the package, but be given the opportunity to make decisions that have no obvious benefits or draw backs, and all conflict lies within the Player's personal feelings about the decision. How well that plays out is yet to be seen.

I think we all agree that the knife twist torture wasn't that appealing from a game play perspective. Maybe it's a realistically quick way to bleed info from someone on site during a mission, I don't know, but it looked like a mechanic that would be very repetitive if used more than once and didn't really have the impact I think they were going for. It was more shock value I think, and for me looked like a kind of interruption of the game play.
The Dahlia moment worked so nicely because it came down to a quick decision, it didn't give you a lot of time to analyze the problem and come up with the right answer, you had to go with your gut. It was a quick difficult moment, not a prolonged item of interaction that constantly would be something your head is thinking "I wouldn't be doing this".

Anyway, I think removing it was for the best.