From the Splinter Cell Manual | Forums

[SolidSage]

@Shadowfox
I get off track in my posts a lot too, and end up saying what I 'm thinking rather than responding to the post accurately...I'm cool with it

I get what you are saying about stealth being central to the character, along with Sam not wanting to die. But, I disagree, again. I always felt that completing the mission Sam was assigned was central to the character, stealth was Lambert and 3E's way of completing a specific type of missions..necessity. Sam himself has a history of violent stealth as a SEAL.
For me, the most central part of his character is that he CONSTANTLY chooses to accept missions where his life is at risk. He CONSTANTLY chooses to go into scenarios where his death is a hair's breadth away from him. Sneaking around was necessary for his espionage missions, but spies have been taking a back seat the later half of this decade, in favor of improving political relationships with foreign nations. The kind of people spying for the US now are nationals of the Country being spied ON usually, and people with a lot of knowledge about WHAT it is they are spying on.
Sam does damage better than anything, he was the number one choice to get sent on those missions in the early days because he was good at pacification as well as going unnoticed. Things invariably DO go sideways a lot of the time, and 3E needed a guy that could handle that kind of a deal.
So Sam for me has always been an uber killing machine at heart, hence the NEED for 3E to let him know if the 5th Freedom was a go or not. He needed to be REMINDED about it a good bit

I'm glad we agree about simulators, and while that description may not be truly accurate about the early games, it is what the feel like to me, more so nowadays than ever. I also felt there was a lack of responsiveness, and not any fault of the Developers, merely the tech and then with DA, I feel it was just needing to try and stick to a similar formula. I felt it was getting stale.
High octane action may not be realistic enough, but for me it is very compelling and more engaging than stealthing around full time and soaking in the atmosphere. I CAN and DO enjoy that for a bit, and get plenty good at it (good enough to consider myself hardcore) but I find more challenge and a feeling of 'deftness' when I am moving and controlling Sam stealthily AND quickly, and getting to overcome the obstacles by being faster and better.
Movies like Equilibrium come to mind. Not realistic, but one dude trashing a group of guys because he is better is a kind of fantasy immersion that isn't available anywhere else except for Creed maybe, in a somewhat realish feeling way.
It may not BE realistic but they make it look and feel like it could be, and that is the important part for me.

I think SC needs this envelope of freedom of play to continue it's success. It needs to get away from stagnating and becoming stale with only one angle of attack. It shouldn't lose it's deeper core game play features to achieve that of course, but I think we know that there were valid reasons for that in SCC.

That's a good K/D by the way but I can't stand COD's MP. It's too frenetic for me. Might seem odd coming from someone who likes fast game play but the camera work and sparse mechanics of COD just don't do a thing for me. GRFS MP however is eating up the hours, I'm really enjoying it. And I am hearing more people talk about how they didn't like it at the start but are realizing what a brilliant MP it is. My K/D is an honest .92. I only play with Randoms, I think we all know an established team boosts everyone's stats (not cheat boosting, just a good team elevates everyone's performance. I've had fun playing that way in the past but after a while it's either Clan matches for a decent but somewhat regurgative type of challenge or you just steam roll the opponent, and that's no fun at all. I had one like that last night, I barely even saw an enemy they were getting dusted in their spawn so fast...horrible. So I jumped ship at the end and went looking for those matches with randoms where the teams are more evenly matched, and MY personal efforts can really be the difference between winning and losing....we lost a lot
I got tired of shooters, Rainbow was great for years, then Gears, but both of them have declined in interest so I am happy for GRFS being able to reignite that insatiable MP desire for me again.

@Andre
Well I disagree with you here a bit too. playing a variety of ways doesn't mean someone explores the specific features any less than someone who plays JUST those features. What I am saying is, though I don't play deep stealth style for the majority of my time, it doesn't mean I haven't explored it thoroughly, or as much as someone who only plays that way. There IS a finite limit to what can be done in a game, so once you have done it all, I don't think you have to continue to do it only that way to get the hardcore achievement. honestly, I think hard core is related more to how MUCH someone plays a game, how long it occupies their attention span and how much they devote themselves to it. Styles of play really have nothing to do with hard core at all. Players play things differently, regardless of how one demographic or another thinks things should be played.
I have EVERY Achievement there is to get in SCC, I have set a really decent speed run time, I've played the co-op campaign so many times the maps are starting to feel empty before I've killed any one. But I don't play SP campaign that much because it doesn't thrill me as much, I feel like there is less freedom somehow. I don't think that makes me casual. I think it makes me hard core because I know where the sweet honey is and I go straight to it.

[Andre202]

@Andre
Well I disagree with you here a bit too. playing a variety of ways doesn't mean someone explores the specific features any less than someone who plays JUST those features. What I am saying is, though I don't play deep stealth style for the majority of my time, it doesn't mean I haven't explored it thoroughly, or as much as someone who only plays that way. There IS a finite limit to what can be done in a game, so once you have done it all, I don't think you have to continue to do it only that way to get the hardcore achievement. honestly, I think hard core is related more to how MUCH someone plays a game, how long it occupies their attention span and how much they devote themselves to it. Styles of play really have nothing to do with hard core at all. Players play things differently, regardless of how one demographic or another thinks things should be played.

I actually agree with you. I forgot to add the word necessarily in my previous post. Someone who explores the whole range may be a hardcore gamer but isn't necessarily one that's what I meant. There are a lot who do this kind of things in fact casuals do it all the time. They try everything out and it's up to their attention span they can keep for the game to be classified as a Hardcore Gamer or not.

But I don't play SP campaign that much because it doesn't thrill me as much, I feel like there is less freedom somehow.

That's the reason I complain about the narrative design. While you had such situations (special circumstances) in the classic games too, the developers didn't exaggerate the use of them. In Chaos Theory they pretty much tried to give you the feeling that these situations are part of the gameplay too. I play much more the Deniable Ops part of Conviction too. I quit playing the SP very fast.

[SolidSage]

@Andre
I agree that trying out the varieties doesn't necessarily make you a hard core gamer. It's definitely more about devotion.

[Andre202]

I want to pick up a small part which is actually directed at ShadowFox but it fits to the post on the previous page.

Movies like Equilibrium come to mind. Not realistic, but one dude trashing a group of guys because he is better is a kind of fantasy immersion that isn't available anywhere else except for Creed maybe, in a somewhat realish feeling way.
It may not BE realistic but they make it look and feel like it could be, and that is the important part for me.

I also like to be the one who can deal with a lot guys, but that's it actually, CAN. I can deal with these guys if I don't mess up. You mentioned Assassin's Creed and I thank you for that because that game didn't come into my mind when it comes to the balance between the player and the AI. Assassin's Creed a game about free running, assassinations and Social Stealth... Really? While I enjoyed them all especially ACI und ACII there was a direction they started to expand in with ACII (you being the badass, powerful assassin). While the AI in ACI wasn't that hard either it was still able to be dangerous and therefore you also needed to run, use the free running aspect and Social Stealth because you aren't able to deal with a lot of enemies if you aren't skilled enough. Through that balance between you and the AI AND the combat system forcing you to react a lot faster compared to the next titles (ACII, ACB, ACR) when it comes to using counter attacks or dodging their attacks you used the ability to run and hide in the crowd a lot more often. The problem in ACI was that the Social System wasn't that deep but it was enough for the player to be able to run and hide from the AI.

With the new games that balance broke more and more apart and you got more and more powerful making the assassinations, the free running and the Social Stealth aspect more and more of a rare thing in those games. It loses it's core through braking that balance, because there is no need to do such things like running since you can easily kill a whole army without being that good at all. Earlier such things were dealed with through the difficulty system but it seems that developers don't want to do that anymore and that's actually a shame in my opinion. If something gets to hard you have the difficulty system or cheats like in GTA for example. I like to be the one who is able to kill a group and that goes for the SP and MP! But in both instances I also want that it feels fair, that the AI can be at a level that is dangerous to me just like the guys in the MP are dangerous to me too. I don't want that all people have to play with such an AI. That's like forcing all the gamers to play always on expertc difficulty. If they enjoy it that way as it is in AC (kill streaks) for example so be it. But at the moment it feels like the industry is more often forcing everyone to play on an easy or normal difficulty when it comes to SP games. And it happens more and more in the Multiplayer department too.

[SolidSage]

@Andre

You have a point here about AC that I agree with as it relates to motivation to use a tool. AC1 forced the player to flee, you REALLY needed the free running as a means of escape quite often. At least at the outset. I did get good enough at it where eventually I would go and run around outside Richard's Keep and try to incite as many guards as I could to fight me, maxing out at around 28 I think (and winning). But earlier on in my exposure to it (AC1) I had to flee a lot. So I think the combat option was there, but it took a while to get good with, whereas the free running was in use from the very start of the game, it was like the first thing you got to play with.

So I'm not sure that AC changed combat options that much when it expanded the combat engine, I don't think they took it in a new direction per se. I think there was more ROOM for expansion with the combat, whereas the free running they could only add a few things, like pot swinging, the little springboards that were in ACB DLC for a minute and the lifts. There's just not THAT much they could do with it. Until AC3 now which is adding the tree running and pass through moves.

The combat on the other hand was easy to expand, and I think they basically saw that they had an awesome engine and looked for ways to make it the best. The combat constantly gets tinkered with, chaining, counters, unarmed combat, AI upgrades...and I think they are STILL tinkering with it. Still trying to find that sweet spot.

I think what is happening more is that the focus is on keeping the player engaged, keeping them in the action and trying to not make one piece of it take center stage. So instead of free running OR combat, you now have free running while in combat, so the player is almost using all of the tech at the same time. Running into the fray (rather than away), engaging in combat while still moving, looking ahead to the next obstacle and then being able to seamlessly go into an air or regular assassination and then right on through into stealth hiding. I think it's about linking all of the tools in a way that they can be accessed all at any time in any scenario almost. And I appreciate it. Just like in SC, in ACB I was already playing the aggro free run into air assassination and then combat and then out on the hoof as quick as possible. I would run the entire city after story completion, just eliminating guard patterns, and again, after a while it started to feel empty because they can be cleared out pretty quickly when the method is exploited.

What I see as a need now is for more AI, or more recurring AI and more variety in patrols, patterns and density. I DO think that AC1 seemed to have less repetitiveness in that way, whereas later games seemed to have familiar groupings of guards all over the place.

I don't think it's the same with MP though, I don't think that has got easier. GRFS is harder because I am now dependent on my team more. Personal efforts don't go very far if the team isn't at least somewhat competent. And with the expanding of controls and actions it is actually a bit more difficult to not make an error in a hot moment.

Things will be best when developers find that perfect AI, tool and environment balancing that allows this new 'fully engaged' approach to flourish, while at the same time, taking nothing away from methods that prefer to segregate the components. So the game will work perfectly for a Player that wants to avoid combat and favor social stealth, or still provide that feeling of realness to a Player that wants to feel like they are outnumbered and overpowered, while also allowing the other Players to avoid that high difficulty and feel like they are super powered.

I find it in AC and SCC already by abandoning some of the tools. I'll avoid using M&E and the click to headshots and go light on the armor maybe. (I use the junk out of cover to cover though). In AC I avoid buying the armor upgrades and keep dude basic level but I do take the weapons.
I think these are methods that are readily available to the Player that has a lot of time with the Franchises and I support the facilitating of the easier approach because I believe that new and younger or emerging Players should be welcomed into these Franchises and not have to suffer a steep learning curve that would shield them from the true depths of enjoyment the games DO provide when you have good mastery of the tool set. (I'm not talking about the merging of tools here, just specific tool additions like M&E or chain kills for example).
These tools let casual'er Player experience the bright moments of the games where they might otherwise not due to the difficulty.

I also want to say that even though I agree that those tools can and do make it easier, at the same time, they open the door to another option for play, that in turn requires a higher level of mastery and has it's own degree of high difficulty. SO M&E through the entire campaign on a speed run for example, is quite a demanding experience, especially when you are trying to best a previous time.

I honestly think these options give me MORE to do in my game. More replay, more fun, more variety and personal style.

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

@Shadowfox
I get what you are saying about stealth being central to the character, along with Sam not wanting to die. But, I disagree, again. I always felt that completing the mission Sam was assigned was central to the character, stealth was Lambert and 3E's way of completing a specific type of missions..necessity. Sam himself has a history of violent stealth as a SEAL.

A history of controlled violence - yes - while working as a team and with tremendous firepower. SEALs achieve amazing results by working as a team and using ridiculous preparation.

Sam's just one guy, who is constantly outnumbered, out-gunned and who has to do a lot of improvising.

Sam does damage better than anything, he was the number one choice to get sent on those missions in the early days because he was good at pacification as well as going unnoticed. Things invariably DO go sideways a lot of the time, and 3E needed a guy that could handle that kind of a deal.
So Sam for me has always been an uber killing machine at heart, hence the NEED for 3E to let him know if the 5th Freedom was a go or not. He needed to be REMINDED about it a good bit

But in those situations where he complains about the Fifth Freedom, he's talking about removing "some of the threats". He's talking about picking off a few guys, one at a time, so he can manoeuvre easier.

He's not asking for permission to engage 3-4 at a time, because that's daft.

He's totally outnumbered and out-gunned.

I'm glad we agree about simulators, and while that description may not be truly accurate about the early games, it is what the feel like to me, more so nowadays than ever. I also felt there was a lack of responsiveness, and not any fault of the Developers, merely the tech and then with DA, I feel it was just needing to try and stick to a similar formula. I felt it was getting stale.

I agree.

There was little-to-no innovation after Chaos Theory.
DA (3rd-gen) even regressed in certain places and offered very little in terms of moving the franchise forward.

(Nearly) Everyone agreed it needed to be shaken up a bit. I'm never going to deny or disagree with that.

I just disagree with how they've chosen to portray Sam, which is in stark contrast to the Fisher we've gotten to know and in contrast to how people behave in the Clancy Universe.

High octane action may not be realistic enough, but for me it is very compelling and more engaging than stealthing around full time and soaking in the atmosphere. I CAN and DO enjoy that for a bit, and get plenty good at it (good enough to consider myself hardcore) but I find more challenge and a feeling of 'deftness' when I am moving and controlling Sam stealthily AND quickly, and getting to overcome the obstacles by being faster and better.

Movies like Equilibrium come to mind. Not realistic, but one dude trashing a group of guys because he is better is a kind of fantasy immersion that isn't available anywhere else except for Creed maybe, in a somewhat realish feeling way.
It may not BE realistic but they make it look and feel like it could be, and that is the important part for me.

I agree that there can be some satisfaction in moving through a level smoothly, quickly and precisely. But 'overcoming obstacles' in Splinter Cell has never been about cleaning the entire area of badguys in bad-*** fashion.

The entire franchise was developed to counteract this style of gaming.

The whole mantra has been "Every game makes you play like this. It's ridiculous. The real pros avoid fighting when they know they're outnumbered and facing a small army"

The point of Sam is that he's already seen enough fighting, in his lifetime - and while he's good at it, he avoids it when & where he can.

He's was never the archetypal Super Spy (Bourne, Bauer, Bond), but he got turned into that because these guys were all around the time of Conviction.

I think SC needs this envelope of freedom of play to continue it's success. It needs to get away from stagnating and becoming stale with only one angle of attack. It shouldn't lose it's deeper core game play features to achieve that of course, but I think we know that there were valid reasons for that in SCC.

True, and I'd agree the combat capabilities need improving, if only to offer a different angle & challenge - but I'm just saying tone it down.

There's very little challenge in taking out 5-6 guys in Conviction. Even on realistic.

I agree that Sam should be able to do this - when pushed and it is necessary.

But It should be challenging and require preparation (and by that I don't mean H2H a dude, waiting for all 4 of your M&E markers to go red, shooting a guy in the head and then activating M&E) and using stealth as a key instrument.

1-2 guys should be easy/normal. 3-4 should be difficult. 5-6 should require some serious skill and preparation.

(and no - predator drones is not the preparation I'm talking about either )

Conviction does not require you to prepare or use stealth.
Sam was so overpowering that I just didn't feel threatened once in the game.

It offered very little incentive for people to use stealth, especially when the stealth gameplay is so frustrating to play.

[Om4zd]

Think they should tone down the killing in Blacklist. Maybe even think about making Grimm Sam's morals on check up person. Not exactly ordering Sam around like Lambert but kind of like giving her own view on how she thinks the outcome of lethal action will be.

I'm sorry if that isn't very clear but I don't know how to word what I'm thinking of in my head :P

[blkspdr]

I also agree. M&E and the auto-lock to headshots made Conviction too easy. I also didn't like that the game promoted killing everyone on the map. In all three D-Ops game-modes, the player had to kill everyone to proceed. I hope in SCB D-Ops, there will be at least one game-mode where the player can succeed without killing anyone.

It would be nice if Sam got some morality back from SCC. I understand that Conviction's story had some influence in why we were only able to kill, but that time is over.

[SolidSage]

@Shadowfox

I think we have a different idea of head to head. Using it in regard to the killing in motion I mean that, head to head is where both opponents are aware of each others presence and then start trading rounds in a 'shoot out'. Going at it head to head until there is a victor.
The killing in motion doesn't fit in there in my estimation because I feel, that even though the enemy becomes aware of Sam's presence, it's occurs too late to respond in any effective fashion. He's cutting throats and Mozambique drilling dudes AS they figure out he's there, before they can raise an alarm or get rounds off. Granted, there are going to be plenty of times when I attempt it that the guards ARE going to respond quickly enough. That will be on me. But as far as Sam using the method I think it falls into the Panther stealth still. Sneaking up as close as possible, using all his surveillance tactics and tools to survey the scene and form a strategy, plan his route of attack and prioritize targets, then pulling the trigger at the optimal moment.

Sam rushing in and dropping 4 or 5 guards like that is acceptable for me. It fails in the game (SCC) at times because basically you can run around all loud and stuff, using LOS blocking to get next to a guy and kill him and his buddies regardless of the fact you are completely out in the open. That IS an exploit of the mechanic I think that could use some addressing. In SCC, Realistic mode tended to punish more for the method. So Yes, there is an issue with Sam as an operator there.
And I agree that Sam isn't lusting to kill. When I say "uber killing machine" I just mean that it is a specific skill that he excels at and often rationalizes as the best method for mission success.
SCB's mission may justify the methodology a bit better, but I think the individual will be who determines that in regard to their own play style.

I guess it's not so much that Sam 'would or wouldn't" as much as it is (for me) that Sam "could". And when I play he "does". But again, I like to deliver the destruction on my terms, not the enemy's.

The speed at which it can be performed is just a nice option, it makes using M&E a challenge rather than a win button when I use it quickly. It really becomes about stealthing around at speed for me, marking AI as if I was shooting at people in a MP mode, getting as many marked as possible, quickly, before entering the prime location to maximize the use of the M&E. It's a fun game play loop. And I tend to change up my play often. So when I feel casual or aggressive or whatever, I can drop in and do a hunter style run, playing with the AI in an aggressive fashion for kicks. But when I have my focused hat on I can ignore M&E altogether and still get great satisfaction from the more realistic method.
I think that area needs more expansion to satisfy some of the other the old schoolers more.


And you know, M&E is a great tool for players who don't really perform things like that so well on their own. It does facilitate the Spy skill set that a lot of people can't replicate themselves.
Not me. I'm awesome

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

@Shadowfox
I think we have a different idea of head to head. Using it in regard to the killing in motion I mean that, head to head is where both opponents are aware of each others presence and then start trading rounds in a 'shoot out'. Going at it head to head until there is a victor.
The killing in motion doesn't fit in there in my estimation because I feel, that even though the enemy becomes aware of Sam's presence, it's occurs too late to respond in any effective fashion. He's cutting throats and Mozambique drilling dudes AS they figure out he's there, before they can raise an alarm or get rounds off. Granted, there are going to be plenty of times when I attempt it that the guards ARE going to respond quickly enough. That will be on me. But as far as Sam using the method I think it falls into the Panther stealth still. Sneaking up as close as possible, using all his surveillance tactics and tools to survey the scene and form a strategy, plan his route of attack and prioritize targets, then pulling the trigger at the optimal moment.

You can describe it as smoothly & tactically as you like, but Sam running out into the open where there's no cover, shooting left and right and combo-knife killing dudes is simply ridiculous IMO

It's simply way too risky for a lone operator surrounded by 4-5 guys.
It is the stuff of fantasy and places all of the other stuff you do as Sam in a totally different context.

Why would Sam ever sneak when he can constantly take out 4-5 guys at a time?

The super-solider who can take on an entire squad and win has no need to sneak.

And you know, M&E is a great tool for players who don't really perform things like that so well on their own. It does facilitate the Spy skill set that a lot of people can't replicate themselves.
Not me. I'm awesome

I can appreciate that.

I myself do use M&E for the "quick draw", but I do it for when I want to ensure a single headshot in case of emergencies. If I'm rumbled I'll take down the guy in front of me and then use the M&E if the second guy needs to be silenced quickly.

At the same time, when you start diluting serious tactical games to make them accessible to people who can't play games, you end up with a pretty lame tactical games.