Thoughts from the ComDev... | Forums

[SolidSage]

Nobody is Sam.

I'm Sage





....I've been rolling like this recently.


v

[marcelobourne]

After the inevitable failure of black list sales, please take a splinter cell series to other division of ubi with stealth and ironside back to take splinter cell back to life.. for now SAM FISHER RIP, and ubi please release splinter cell trilogy on Xbox 360 so i can play real splinter cell games. thanks!

[sameer_monier]

Nobody is Sam.

I'm Sage





....I've been rolling like this recently.


v

Need to Grab a couple for myself too then.

[MokrieDela]

I'd like to add my thoughts.

Ironside is Sam Fisher. I'm sorry to the new guy, but he's not Sam. He's a great voice actor and should NEVER be considered to be dropped as Sam

The solution is to either bring back Ironside as Sam, or to retire Sam.

Why not have Ironside Voicing Sam, as leader of 4E, but the new guy voicing a new character (maybe someone like Ben Hanson) that works under Sam. Sam would become the Lambert Role.

Quite frankly, as a writer, i find the concept of Sam being the leader of 4E AND in the field, utterly stupid. It's inplausible. It's too far fetched.

You guys say the game will remain stealthy? Prove it. Make a video of that SAME level and do it 100% stealthily, avoiding conflict.

I've been playing SC, SCPD and soon plan to load up CT, and i tell you, you know how hard it is to do a level without being seen AT ALL? Even knocking out a guard is a last resort. I used the pistol for one thing and one thing only - taking out lights.

Also where's the SC20K/SC3000? The SC20K was based on the FN F2000, a REAL gun, capable of launching LTL projectiles AND shoot bullets. Bring that back.

Also, where's the NIGHT VISION and THERMAL?!?!?!?! Sonar vision SUCKS. It's too much, it's boring. Sure have that as a third mode, but NV and IR NEED TO RETURN.

I can't say that im actually planning on buying this game. You guys have taken out too much stuff, changed SC too much. I can not support that.

[rudomm23]

Just one thing to add to the Ironside not being able to do the role. Did you guys (devs I mean) play Batman Arkham Asylum/City?
Did you ever feel the Joker was nothing if not awesome the way Mark Hamill portrayed him as an actor?
Mark Hamill certainly wasn't capable of doing the stuff Joker did in that game.

Could you honestly look people in the eye and say that some other guy, physically able to do what Joker does, could portray the Joker more convincing than Mark Hamill did?
Of course not. See the thing that makes a character convincing is within the voice acting NOT in the fact he can do the things he does on screen.
In fact the fact that people are so angry about Ironside not doing the part means: He did a splendid job acting out and building the character. And I'm pretty sure Mr. Ironside
wasn't able to leg split in between two walls in former titles either.

[QuikNsilnT]

Dear Ubisoft --

Here's a way to keep (Michael Ironside) on the team as voice of Sam Fisher;
Lambert died in Double Agent. Sam Fisher (Michael Ironside) can now be a Lambert for the new 4th Echelon. As someone put it, "the voice in your ear"
The new guy (Eric Johnson) a (4th Echelon field operative) can now make his own mark in the Splinter Cell franchise. Trained by Sam Fisher himself.
Similar to the first Splinter Cell game. Sam (Ironside) meets with the new guy (Johnson) in a training facility. The player can now get a feel of the new character and controls.
This would create a wonderful element for the new guy having Sam Fisher "the voice in his ear", as he carries out his stealthy missions.
As i mentioned above, Sam is the new Lambert in this fashion. Grim still has her job to do as well. Giving the new guy important intel as she has always done in the past.

[Sven2400]

I wasn't expecting another Spilinter Cell game with Sam Fisher... and looks like I won't be getting one. I thought Conviction was a decent end to Sam's story so if you had to continue Splinter Cell then it would be with a new character and Sam could pass the torch, it seems Ubisoft have been keen to evolve the game into more run and gunning so why not justify the change with a character who has a different style to Sam? However I prefer my SC with Sam Fisher so I'm kinda glad you kept one thing right, sort of...

Without Michael Ironside this is not Sam Fisher, it won't be the Splinter Cell I'm expecting, the game might play well but it will forever be a massive disappointmen. I hope you reconsider dubbing over the audio with Michael, he really did make the other games, I don't know if I can explain the buzz you get hearing Michael as Sam. No offence to the new guy, it's not hi fault but he isn't needed.

I really hope this is an ill conceived marketing ploy to grab attention and the fan's dedication will be rewarded on realease. I don't normally troll around forums but had to come here to note my disgust...

[DeafAtheist]

The problem I see here is that the USA can do whatever they want to do and if someone doesn't agree with that, they strike down these nations even more. Splinter Cell seems to support this stance now and it seems like Sam Fisher does so too. When you ask the veterans who were in those countries they will all agree they need to go out there and back to their country. Sam needs to make a lot of pressure on the president in my opinion. Otherwise it's very one sided and that's not how Sam is in my opinion. It supports the propaganda we already have in reallife.

When thinking about that you could just as well think that Russia, Ukraine and White Russia are also rouge nation because they don't want the USA to be in their countries too. I think it's completely understandable if they don't want to have them there and the USA should respect that especially after they lied about Irak. But if those nations are not even allowed to strike back, well how do you call such a ridiculous thing?

At first I thought Blacklist might be a very good idea but when I thought about that more deeply I couldn't disagree more. I know I actually need to see the full story, but that's the first impression the story does have to me and I really don't like that.

I'm an American myself and I agree with a lot of what you're saying there. The US military has historically been peacekeepers which is why their presence has been made in countries worldwide so they can easily be dispatched if needed to help an allied country in need from an outside aggression. But lately it seems like they are being the aggressors. Not a lot of American citizens were happy about the idea of the US military making a preemptive strike on Iraq and even fewer supported it once it became known publicly that there were no WMD's in Iraq and even fewer than that when it became known that Bush KNEW there were no WMDs in Iraq from the beginning but used the lie to justify military action in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11. He used the events of 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq.

So considering actions like that by the US government I can totally understand why other countries might not be too thrilled about having an American military presence in their own countries, and I agree that if a country's government does not want an American military presence in their country they should be allowed to ask them to leave and the US government should comply except in the circumstances of a present war in the country which the US or her allies are involved or if the government of the country in question signed a contract with the US allowing us to have a presence there.

That being said I do NOT support the idea of terrorism as a means to get the US out of their countries and for this reason I would support US action to stop the terrorist activities. This includes acts against military targets, not just civilians. An American soldier stationed in another country is simply there on orders from their superiors. Not always do they choose where they go and they are innocents as much as civilians until they use force. So if an American base in a foreign country has not done anything to warrant the use of force against them and they reside there peacefully however unwanted their presence may be using force against them is an act of terrorism. Unless they've been asked to leave by the country's government and refused to comply with the request then force would be more reasonable.

Considering games are sold worldwide these days it's difficult to come up with combat-related stories that don't involve other countries without pissing them off. For instance Chaos Theory was banned in South Korea for awhile due to Sam having missions taking place there in the game. Especially a game that involves American military personnel. The idea of the American government letting a black ops team or agent loose in their country is not something they really want to advocate to their citizens even if the story is fictional especially considering the current anti-American sentiment that exists in the world today.

So I can understand your position on Blacklist's plot. Both SCDA and SCC dealt with domestic terrorism. It would be nice to see the series go back to it's globe-trotting roots even if the plot is somewhat... politically incorrect. I just hope that it's done tastefully in a way that doesn't piss off any gamers that may reside in any of the 13 countries in the game that are involved in terrorist activities.

[DeafAtheist]

Remember in the demo video an arab says:”Americans, always playing cowboys”. Sam was never a cowboy. Ironside ones mentioned that he felt the original script was very “shallow” and he worked with writers to improve the character. I can’t imagine Eric Johnson to argue with the director about his vision of Sam, because he simply doesn’t have one. However Ironside has, he knows Fisher’s fears, thoughts, ideas, dreams. All those difficult emotions that race through Fisher’s mind, Ironside was able to convey with just a power of his voice, while Eric needs a stunt double and motion capture.

I grew with Sam and I partly understand him. The name of Sam Fisher hides a difficult psychological profile. I can cope with gameplay changes(although they are a knife stub) of the new game, but not a personality shift. Sam would never run around and beat answers from people. He did so in conviction only because his daughter was murdered. Sam is tactical and professional and he believes, that when it comes to stealth, there is no need to hurry.


P.S.
What is the name of the movie, where Michael Ironside tortures Eric, that would the only scene I will be interested at.

Sam may not be a cowboy, but anti-American sentiments stereotype Americans as cowboys. Stereotyping isn't always accurate to description of an individual within the group that is being stereotyped and that is what makes stereotypes offensive. So it's not bad writing. It's a valid stereotype of someone who shares anti-American sentiments. And the "shallow original script" Ironside was referring to was the original build for Conviction. Ironside AGREES with Beland's action-oriented direction for the series.

The only thing I know of Ironside and Johnson being in together is Smallville. Johnson played Lana Lang's jock boyfriend and Ironside played Lois Lane's father who was an Army general.

[DeafAtheist]

This whole debate you guys have going about the motives of the US interests as well as the motives of the "rogue terrorist nations" or whatever reminds me of Tom Clancy's own books. Anyone who has read Tom Clancy knows what a master he is at displaying the sentiments of the other countries and their motivations for their actions. He does so so expertly that even if you're an American reader who is rooting for the home team you can sympathize with some of their motives if not their actions. Take Debt of Honor for example. The Japanese in that book felt threatened by the trade agreements the US had with Japan and felt that they were unfairly balanced in the US's favor. So they took steps to not only level the playing field but to attempt to completely destroy America's infrastructure, both economical and military. The Japanese DID have a point about the trade agreements and as a reader you can sympathize with their plight... but not so much with their actions.

I wish Tom Clancy lent more than just his name to Ubisoft's games. His consultation expertise in writing about political sentiments between enemy countries is second to none.