Ubisoft’s Jade Raymond calls upon developers to take more risks.
I'm glad to hear about some of the team wanting to also take risks. I have always said to friends that I hate how games today are all on the same bland, basic level. Nobody wants to try new things, or think outside the box. They stick to what is tried and proven effective. Like a generic third person shooter.
It reminds me of the recent news that the USA is AGAIN looking to lower the "passing grade" for students, because not many were meeting it. I mean, do we really need the medium to change, conforming to the lowest levels of consumer group? I remember so many of my friends hating SCCT, because it was "too hard" or "complicated". So Ubi should automatically just makes it an easier game to play, to maximize their earnings, and in the process, pulling a legend game franchise off the top shelf and slapping it beside the other generic, third person shooters - and soon after, directly into the bargain-bin at Wal-Mart in a very short period of time.
Even in your personal life - take risks! My Grandfather once told me, "Nobody get's anywhere in life without taking chances". That is one thing I live by. Be thoughtful, intelligent, and think outside of that stupid Hollywood box, Ubisoft. I'm glad you're exploring "root themes", because that is the first step in understanding who you truly are. I just hope Ubisoft execs are on-board with the creativeness of Jade and the team.
True,eventualy CoD has disturbed the balance and now almost everyone trys to make something inspired on it(sadly a producer said that he consideres to make RE games in future inspired on CoD to atract the CoD fans and saying that survivial horror doesn´t sell well anymore.RE6 is not affected by this decision.)If i wanted a CoD game i would buy CoD which i don´t(my bro does,he is a CoD freak).As long as games like CoD are selling well the gaming community is slowly dying and becoming monotone.Originally Posted by hastings84
CoD4 was, for me, what brought very innovative and fresh ideas to the franchise. That can be called being creative, and moving forward. At THAT time. Success evolves from success, in industry. So, something that was red-hot, 6 years ago, now may be quite bland. Especially when your product has been nothing but THAT since your initial success. It get's old, quickly, and todays gamers need to be stimulated. CoD gets it's success from appealing to their core fan base. I think we can all agree on that. To evolve CoD would mean what, exactly? I can't think of much, because in and of itself, CoD is a very simplistic, recycled and dry franchise, nowadays. (Hence the slowly declining sales with each new release.)
So some of you are probably saying, "well, 'evolution of success' and doing the same thing over the course of 3-4 releases can relate directly to Splinter Cell. The same "mundane" atmosphere and gameplay that was present in SC1, 2, 3 and 4 had to EVOLVE into SCC". I personally don't see how anything particularly "evolved" - given the meaning of that word. I feel the words "morphed into a different animal" (like a panther) are more applicable. But, total KUDOS to the SCC team for pushing the limits and at least trying new things - the industry needs more creative and brave people like Max Beland - and the right people to guide that creativity towards an evolution direction.
SCC got success from appealing to more than just our casual-type gamer, so if my theory of "success evolves from success" is correct, they will realize they need to now re-hook the original fan-base onto a more spy-like, infiltration-specialized, info-warfare-oriented, stealth-action video game. Bringing SC out of the "bargain-bin TPS" realm and back on top as one of the best.
COD not selling well wouldn't really change anything at this point though, everyone would just look at the next best selling game/genre and model their games after it. Angry Birds, Halo, Uncharted etc. There's always a game that has the biggest attention and biggest fan crowd.
The root problem is how gaming has become a big business and the moneyhungry "maximal profit for minimal effort" executives have dug their way into the market. In past it didn't feel like every game maker is only after the money, screw customers and artistic vision, but now it does when makers (atleast the marketing personnel and executives) openly state how they want their games to sell and blame everyone else except themselves when the game doesn't make as much as they wanted. Alas, 10 years ago making games didn't cost a fraction of what it does currently, so in a sense I understand they don't want to take risks.
If you want originality at this day you need to look at indie games. However I think Assassin's Creed really pushed gaming, actually it's pretty much the only game/genre that didn't exist on older consoles at all, wouldn't have been possible even with worse graphics. But I don't want Splinter Cell to change so drastically, that's what new IPs are for. If Jade wants risks she should start initatives to make new games, and Ubisoft could really use some new franchises besides Tom Clancy, Rayman and Assassin's Creed.
Warning: Everything above is an opinion
The show must go on
What is this Splinter Cell you talk about?
I agree with kalle90. Because indie games are created by very passionate individuals - not big business. Passion generally creates quality.
Although I find the Tom Clancy franchise of games to be one of the most diverse and impressive. I just feel like the games should be, and will be, all linked together in some fashion - story-wise. Like the Voron agent in HAWX 2.
I also like how Clancy games feel like a big connected universe. I wish Ubi hasn't dropped the idea of a huge game that combines the different aspects.Asking for a MMO that combines all the different gameplays is way too much at this point.
It would be pretty epic if the next installment of all the series were set on the same timeline and situation, probably another World War 3 scenario:
- In Endwar you see the global situation and command troops all around the world
- In GRAW you play as the soldiers on the frontlines
- In HAWX you see the fighters and aerial combat set above the GRAW battles
- In SC you play as deep-cover agents uncovering secrets and plans about the enemy projects, helping GRAW and HAWX troops
- In R6 you are a squad who are working back on the home soil doing precision strikes against the undercover enemy cells
= Lots of cross-references, as a splinter cell you see HAWX fighters flying above causing distraction, in HAWX you are ordered to help out the GRAW team by bombing tanks, in Endwar you are informed that R6 squad have discovered plans of a secret strike etc.
Warning: Everything above is an opinion
The show must go on
What is this Splinter Cell you talk about?
my two cents regarding CoD, Don't blame the companies that tries to copy the formula and appeal to the same casual market, we hardcore players are a dieing breed, sad but true, and companies are opened for business not fan service, that's why they are more into 5million copies sold than anything else.
BTW reddragonhrcro RE6 is affected by COD, it is an evolution to RE series just like SCC, but at the same time check what the hardcore fans are saying about it, it still have explosions, big guns, less puzzles, melee, Chris and Leon, Anti-Terrorism, .....................etc, they don't like any of that, they want to be isolated, few ammo, navigation, and puzzles, I would love one too, but I don't think Capcom would do it, they already said RE:R is as much as we can get, and still those fans felt like RE:R was like RE4, not a true RE game or something, even Dead Space series, the start was strong, DS2 was very good, but it lacked something the 1st had, but I can't get my hands on it, and now DS3, Did you read IGN's rumor about DS3 ?!, it is going to be something like RE5 (which I loved due to Chris) and horror fans will end up hating DS3, but it will be a big success like RE5 was.
Share your ideas with me on SC6 "if you love Conviction" Part 1, Part 2, Part 3
Spin Offs Ideas
Small Channel on Youtube
There's a difference between artistic passion combined with decent profit and a "maximal profit at any cost" mentality. Unfortunately the latter one seems to stretch its hold on everything these days. In the old days (yeah good old) developers (developers, not marketing personnel or CEOs) would go on about how they want to create something original and about how proud and invested they are. Now most everyone is feeling the heat with comments about how CoD sells so we must make our game more like it. I don't know if they lied back then before but lately money and profit seems to have become to main topic about games, which game sells the most as opposed to which gets the best ratings or cult following.
The only way these moneygrubbers release their hold on this industry is when games stop being profitable enough. So in a way I must unfortunately hope that this market crashes. Only then will Koticks and Svenssons leave the industry in the hands of Miyamotos, Inafunes, Carmacks, Newells and Molyneuxes, the ones who actually made the game industry.
---
I feel the writer of Dead Space nailed the reason himself (although he critizised how bland DS1 was compared to DS2). DS1 was a well-thought haunted house while DS2 feels like a quickly slapped together action scenes. But IMO it isn't fair to compare first and later games anyway. Game market is gaining more interested people all the time, who knows maybe many of the newly introduced gamers would want to see some of that originality and variety we had in the past.
Movies get more and more viewers with bigger and bigger sales. Does that mean movies are actually getting better or that people like streamlined movies? Or does it just mean more and more people are able to visit cinemas, have the social pressure, movies are marketed more and all that?
Warning: Everything above is an opinion
The show must go on
What is this Splinter Cell you talk about?
You have to risk big to win big is a common phrase. But the adverse is also true, risking big can lead to big losses.
Formats that are selling well can't be changed drastically, not when money is the main goal. Splinter Cell was probably easier to alter due to it's mid/low market share. In essence it is a great title to evolve and push into a bigger arena. SCC may have been an attempt at that, and may have been the sort of risk The Raymond was referring to.
Personally I prefer to think of those risks as not only the implementation of interesting new game play altering mechanics (think GRFS Engineer class and Intel) but also mature content. I think the medium as a whole, had a knee jerk reaction to the advancing of maturity in games, basically focusing on sexual themes more violent violence and other illegal concerns (drugs). Not that these things aren't mature in their accessability but they are somewhat an immature idea of mature content....if you get me.
I would like to see the pursuit of more relevant issues and perhaps some of the scarier realities of life in the real World. Renewable energy, nuclear proliferation, manipulation of the economic sector, political indiscretions, genocide, trade embargos, human trafficking, etc. Most of my examples pertain to story premises akin to David Sear's vision for Patriots, and while that's certainly a step forward, it's obviously a very narrow view of how to advance mature content.
I'm not a creative mind so I can't think of broader ways to evolve the medium in this regard but the ways are limited. I mean, I don't want SC to concern itself with paying household bills and raising kids as a way to address maturity. It has to start in the story telling I guess.
Personally I think Sam's aging and transitioning out of the active agent realm is a great place to start. Although I shouldn't say start really, because IMO, SCC tried for a maturer approach when it focused on the distabilization of Sam's, well...Conviction basically. Addressing his doubts and compounding them, showing some reflection about his deisions and past story arcs was very brave, and perhaps the sort of risk Mrs Raymond was discussing.
Re-doing old SC in essence is no risk at all, while developing and incorporating new tech is high risk, when dealing with a title with a passionate fan base. The new ideas interest me the most because to be honest, most of what we come up with is usually an evolution or progression of already implemented ideas. I mean if you look at the genre as a whole, the big new tech recently actually is M&E or Dead Eye or whatever it's called in other games. We don't actually see new stuff that often as much as adaptions or advancements of existing elements. This is what's leading to the feeling that every game is becoming a mixed breed and none truly stand apart now.
That being the case, surely the story and premise is where we can expect maturer content and risks to be taken. In contradiction to that statement though, I feel GRFS really did attempt at some game evolving change ups. There is definately a new way to play, new roles that allow a different kind of player to fully adopt the genre. A shooter where the player doesn't have to be a shooter almost. I think this diversity in game may be a way to balance play between hard core stealth fans and the multiple other types of players who may want in on SC.
What if a Handler had real game play associated with it? Perhaps my wife could fulfill some in game role for me, playing from her PC or phone while I am on the console? Or even from her console play a different or adapted role...more diversity than just stealth v aggro.
I favor the idea of the environment becoming a real hazard, similar to IAA, so that while full Ghosting is achievable, it's no longer a simple matter of just following the shadow paths and waiting for windows of opportunity, but more a matter of navigating unstable elements supplemented by deeper character management. The kind of response/impulse play that SCC offered but not so attached to the AI guard factor and more attached to other things like vehicular traffic, danger to innocents, harsh environments, super hazardous insertions, time related factors or others.
for the night is dark and full of terrors
Posting Permissions
The_5_Freedoms
Reply With Quote
reddragonhrcro
