Best posts made by CoastalGirl
@ubi-borealis Thanks for the update.
I have some new ones, from Lolingestone:
Weak spot hits one-shotting:
This one's happened quite a few times. That particular enemy seems especially prone to it, but I've had it happen in every challenge. I assume the arrow is probably grazing another hitbox, but the damage icon shows the shot won't kill and then it does.
Enemy climbing/falling death:
This one's pretty consistent, too. I know it's because I'm on the roof, but it's the best place to snipe from so of course I'm going to spend 99% of my time up there.
I've seen others mention this is an issue with shooting from below, but regardless, still frustrating when it happens. Sidenote, that enemy is also prone to walking off his platform and dying.
Hopping on/over railings after weak spot hit:
Though they don't always fall like that, the jumping on the railing/pirouette happen pretty much every time when hit from behind.
Last one for this batch, enemies spawned out of bounds:
I do have a video, but not on this computer...if it's important, I can get it transferred. In any case, I got to the end of the trial and couldn't reach them, and so couldn't finish. It was also my first gold run after a number of attempts, which hurt. I've only had this happen once, though, so maybe it was just a fluke.
Sadly, even knowing what's happening, I'm definitely not quick enough to deal with the problem children before they do their thing. Believe me, I've tried (and tried, and tried... ).
I'm all for adding some extra enemies in challenges like this; actually, even across the board, though that's risky in the Ravens as stealth requires more fine-tuning of the level design (IMO). Safer/easier option might be just reworking the scoring math so it's a little more forgiving. I don't mind the challenge of "perfection" (despite that meaning I will never get golds in some of the Bear challenges, and how much that pains the completionist in me lol), but they do need to be consistent.
@ubi-smash Hopefully this works! https://streamable.com/063f4g: (https://streamable.com/063f4g)
I included everything (even my terrible aim! ). It shows all of the enemies in the room initially, then at about 1:00, one seems to be missing, and at the end, two are missing.
Hope this helps!
@ubi-borealis Thanks so much for this!
Truth be told even with the fix I still struggled with this one (a lot... lol) but eventually the stars aligned and I was able to get it with room to spare.
The biggest issue for me was with headshots. It could be entirely operator error, but when firing at an angle up, even a pretty shallow angle, the arrow's drop often resulted in a kill that didn't count as a headshot. When I tried to compensate for that and aim a bit higher, the arrow often missed entirely.
It made the last room really difficult for me; I'd consistently get there with two spare headshots only to finish one short because I couldn't get credit for any of the three platform guys. I was honestly about ready to give up, but made one last attempt in full stealth mode, luring the problem children down and out one at a time. I finally got them all that way, but it took ages.
So I've never actually done a proper playthrough of all of the games at once... I do replay them, but I usually stick to my favorite levels, so there's a lot I've forgotten. Now, after all of these years, I've started a real, full playthrough.
My main focus is to enjoy them, obviously, but also to compare them, and consider what bits of pieces I would choose from each to make my perfect Franken-Splinter Cell.
I just finished the first game. Obviously I love it, and it's the foundation of the series. There are things I would take from it, but they're not necessarily unique to it (thankfully a lot of the best aspects do carry over). The light and shadow gameplay is a no-brainer, and they did it very well in the original. The shadows are well-placed, and I love that the dark is dark. For the most part I like the enemy density, and I like that the environments aren't cluttered with a zillion props. It's entirely possible that's a happy accident due to the graphics budget, but I like a clean backdrop when tracking enemies. Similarly, while the levels are linear by today's standards, they're functional, and linear is what Unreal 2 was good at. Also, though Sam wasn't that fleshed out yet, he had personality and was an intriguing character right from the start. And of course, Michael Ironside's just the best.
Something that I became hyper aware of during this playthrough, though, is the sound design. While bouncing back and forth between SC1 and Blacklist, I realized how quiet the original is. You can sit in a shadowed corner, observing the environment, and you hear...nothing. Everything's still. Then you hear footsteps as a patrolling guard passes by. He's not yelling to his buddies, and there's no drama. He's just walking, and he has no idea you're there. It's wonderful.
Obviously the "quiet" thing isn't true for the whole of SC1, nor is all of Blacklist "loud", but they're different from a sound perspective (and many other perspectives). It shows in the ambient environment, in cues (the suspicion sound from SC1 vs. the "being detected" sound from Blacklist are worlds apart), in dialogue, tone... Anyway, I really like that stillness.
Now, being critical...
The controls. Accessing weapons/gadgets feels clunky, especially at first. The movement controls are also pretty loose. Part of that may be due to the way the variable speeds were done, but in addition to going too fast by accident, I was turning quite quickly, too. I don't remember it being that bad in the past, and maybe I'm only noticing it because I'm swapping between games... Regardless, it got me into trouble a few times.
The double jump is still made of nightmares. Every time I think I've gotten the hang of it, I double-jump myself off a cliff. Outside of assault sections, that's probably what killed me the most (given that if I'm detected, I tend to restart before they have a chance to shoot me).
Speaking of assault sections - still hate those, too! lol The end of the Abattoir still ranks way up there in terms of worst experiences. That said, though they make me absolutely miserable and I would 100% not miss them if they were gone, suffering through them is a price I'm willing to pay to enjoy the rest of the game.
The dogs. Of course. I understand why they're there, I understand how they work as enemies, etc, etc. I just don't care. There is no satisfactory option for dealing with them (except at the Presidential Palace where you can hide in the fountain, though I question if that was intentional lol), and I will hate them as enemies always and forever.
Checkpoints. Not being able to freely save hurts, but some of the checkpoint locations are pretty mean, too. Some are placed quite far apart, some are placed before a long-ish safe zone (which just pads the time on reattempts), and some are right before a bunch of dialogue, so you hear the same spiel over and over and over. Not ideal.
Overall, while there are things I'd change, it's a nearly twenty year old game that still holds up. It's incredibly immersive, atmospheric, and delivers a really solid stealth experience. Top tier.
On to PT...
Wait, so are explosions supposed to count as indirect kills? I assumed they're treated differently, as another challenge specifically requires explosion kills.
@ubi-smash I'm playing on Xbox One, and I've also often ended up 2-3 enemies short of what's needed in this challenge. I don't know if it's the same enemies each time, but I've definitely had issues with the last "room" in the cave, especially with the enemies on the platform/walkway. Several times I've seen them, so I know they spawned initially, but after leaving that area (luring other enemies out of the cave), when I go back, they're gone. I don't know if they somehow died, or despawned, but it's happened several times.
@hern_the_hunter What ended up working for me was to stay in stealth and not wake up the room. I went to the entrance and whistled to get the nearest ground-level guy, luring him well into the previous area before engaging so the remaining enemies remained passive. I might have gotten the big one next...I think he always noticed me and I lured him out that way. As long as they don't really see you and start attacking, you can get them one by one.
For the platform guys, luring with arrows worked. I hit the wall a bit away from the first one, just close enough for him (and only him) to notice it. They'll climb down on their own, and can be lured the rest of the way out of the room with another arrow and/or whistling.
It's a bit tedious, and oddly as much of a stealth challenge as most of the stealth trials, but it's doable.
Latest posts made by CoastalGirl
I think most, if not all, people want to see "massive advancements to the A.I.," but I don't see that as likely to happen. A.I. has barely advanced over the decades, compared to graphics. Considering how many games throw stealth mechanics into so many games, it seems likely that they would have improved the A.I. if they could.
@MyMomJust I'm sure that they can, especially now.
In the past, they gave us AI that was good for its time - functional, but if you pushed it, you could definitely see the limitations.
Then, with the shift toward action/speed, "good" AI seemed to become less of a priority. If the player doesn't spend much time observing and/or interacting with NPCs, they can get away with skimping. Aside from refining vision cones, from my perspective there haven't been significant changes since the beginning.
That said, other teams have tried to push forward, like in Velvet Assassin with the cast shadow recognition. And that was 13 years ago.
IMO, if they want to take stealth gameplay to the next level, they need to invest in AI.
It's difficult to list everything that was made worse. Some animations were worse in CT, especially that "closer than ever" (or w/e) feature.
I actually love the Closer Than Ever animations. lol
Tension is huge for me, and that feature works quite well to enhance it. The head locking on as a guard comes near, then the posture change...it's effective and I'm all for it.
The game was too easy, including the more effective firearms and gadgets.
Maybe, but it's not much easier to ghost, even with the OCP.
There was too much talking.
By who? Personally I love the writing in CT. Showing the relationships between Sam and Lambert and Grim was great, and the interrogations are gold. The basic NPC chatter can be a bit repetitive, but that's true across basically every game, and it's AI.
Lambert's VA was different. The story was worse, at least partially. They removed an immersive experience that also made things more deliberate: needing to equip your lockpicks and such before you could use them.
I noticed Lambert, but wasn't super bothered by it beyond just not liking change. The other things didn't impact my gameplay.
The NV filter was worse, and the TV might have also been.
Worse how? I could nitpick and pick a favorite, but generally speaking they're all fine until DA's full-color monstrosity.
They removed the clearer indication that you were in complete darkness (it's been a very long time since I played PT, but I remember it having some better things than CT had, including its sound meter.)
They did change some aspects of the meters, at least on the hardest difficulties. In SC1 and PT, anywhere in the lowest section was safe, making it easier to tell. In CT, they're far more punishing and only the absolute end of the meter is fully "dark". Pros and cons to that.
Not sure what you mean about the sound meter, though - CT introduced it.
Some of the sound effects were worse, including the pistol shots.
I truly wouldn't know. I don't shoot anything.
CT certainly improved a lot of stuff, more than it worsened, but I think its downgrades were more impactful, and that leaves me thinking the games are pretty much equal.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I have different priorities, and CT is very much the pinnacle of Splinter Cell for me (and many players, it seems).
I think there will be a lot of people who enjoyed the first game but simply no longer play video games.
@MyMomJust Is that a thing? I don't think I know anyone who's stopped playing as they got older...
I think there are far more people who will find the slow gameplay to be boring, especially if Ubi does what they should do: make firearms a last resort and the guards punishingly competent. Therefore, they will already have a severely reduced number of people considering the game.
But that's okay if they're committed to making a niche game. Smaller team, smaller budget, smaller financial risk, and a very happy target audience. If they make design decisions based on casting the widest net, we're not going to get a good stealth game.
However, if they do commit to the stealth, and deliver something with depth that the genre hasn't seen in many years, then they have a real chance of luring former players back, as well as luring new ones who want to see what all the fuss is about.
If the only thing being offered is a 20-year-old game with higher resolutions, more polygons, and larger sound files, I think a lot of people will skip it or wait for a significant discount. Having some new routes available will help, but I don't really see that as being enough for any new customers.
But who's asking for only those things? I'm definitely not; I want to see massive advancements to AI. In stealth, that's core gameplay.
Also, I would definitely argue that 2 and 3 did not upgrade every part of the original and they certainly made some things worse.
What do you think was made worse?
I've been replaying the series (currently nearly done with CT...haven't had much time to play), and overall I think that each one was absolutely an improvement. From movement controls, animations, level design, AI (baby steps lol), writing, gameplay features... They made progress each time.
As for Chaos Theory, I know that the remake is from the first chapter, but in my opinion if you want to do a good job, you have to resume some things that worked in Chaos Theory, such as the many dialogues between Sam and Lambert/Grim (in the first they are far fewer), the jokes during the interrogations, etc.
@mircoracing1993 That's one of my favorite aspects of CT - the writing is so good.
With the remake, I'm okay with them taking a little time to build the relationships up, but they can show their personalities from the get-go. Even in PT, when Sam didn't do a lot of bickering with Lambert and Grim yet, his interrogations were already entertaining.
But there is also another problem, the sector has changed. Today, if the first Splinter Cell were to come onto the market, it would have several problems. Duration first, which I specify is not my problem, but today most players don't spend $ 70 on a product that lasts 8-10 hours at the most.
@mircoracing1993 That's true, not that it ever took me that little time. lol
For mass-market, I feel like they could nearly double the time just by taking advantage of modern design options. The maps can be much bigger now, and they can add the bonus levels. I don't know how the Power Plant would fit in, since it was an exclusive, but it'd be nice to see.
Personally I have more of an indie mind these days... I paid $25 for a 2.5 hour experience (with some replayability). I don't mind. I don't feel cheated, and I like the idea of supporting a solo dev. Plus, it costs that much to go to a movie...why are games treated so differently?
Second, the pace, I have seen many people on youtube retrieve the first 3 Splinter Cell and play them like Blacklist or worse like a simple tps, today there is no patience, walking with the mouse wheel at minimum, take 2 minutes to do 15 meters it is absurd for many people.
Yeah, I'll happily sit in a corner for ages, studying patrols... That's how I like it.
Action players don't get it, but they don't need to. It wasn't designed for them, just like their shooters weren't designed for me.
For me there is only one way to bring Splinter Cell to market, with some chance of breaking through again. You have to follow the "Souls", obviously not as gameplay or mechanics, but they have to make the game, thanks to very refined AI, strict game rules and no tps moment, a difficult and even more niche game. Making it an elite product, getting the word out that it's not for everyone, that if you finish it you're the best (the usual phrases that say on the Souls), this could lead Splinter Cell to take back its hardcore stealth soul and have some good success at the same time. able to continue the series.
I like that approach. It's very unapologetic, and allows the devs to really focus.
In addition it would be nice to have a smarter AI that carefully investigates the various places, to have additional dialogues for interrogations and communications with the base (CT is perfection in this respect). Another nice thing would be to have a lot more infiltration possibilities, to get in through the ducts, the roof, the garages, the windows, etc ...
It's nice that AI is something that everyone agrees on. We've talked about it for years, so hopefully the devs know to really work on it.
Also, fully agreed on level design. Having different infiltration options helps replayability, and in general I love "mini sandbox" style maps. Environments with lots of options and well-spaced/placed objectives that encourage exploration should be pretty standard at this point.
This will probably be the last post I will write here. Because I don't write well in English (I'm Italian) and sooner or later I risk writing something indecent, but also because I'm afraid for the fate of this remake and the series in general. So I don't want to spend months writing what they should do, knowing that they won't, also because I believe that no developer reads the forum, not to mention that splinter cell doesn't even have its own section and that already says it all for me...
I hope you do come back. Your English is great, and though I know the forums are kind of sad compared to what we used to have, the devs could still be reading. They definitely used to.
We should get our own forum back at some point, maybe with the next remake news...
only having things that existed in the trilogy would be a recipe for failure.
@MyMomJust How so? I want to see everything upgraded, while staying true to the spirit of the original games. That's what we got from 1 to 2 to 3, and it worked very well. Who doesn't love CT?
I understand that I'm in a minority of people who think graphics aren't anywhere near as important as gameplay or sound,
I'm in that minority too, but I will say that it is insanely easy to make something beautiful these days. Sound design, too, is easier than it was, given massive engine improvements. Though it's still possible to mess up from an artistic view, I expect them to have a good sound team.
Gameplay's what I really worry about.
I don't think you know what the definition of "professional" is.
I think I do, it's just more specific when I use the term. By the basic definition, I'm a professional animator. But, if you've seen any of my animations, you'd know that's kind of a ridiculous statement.
When I call someone a professional, I mean they're a professional. An expert in their field, highly skilled, and the type of person who never stops looking to expand their knowledge. Less than that, and the term is just a technicality.
You are suggesting that nausea is a paramount reason why they shouldn't add an optional true first-person system.
I said that I don't want the perspective added at all (regardless of type) because it wasn't in the originals and I want the devs to focus.
When talking about other games, I did say that almost none use "true" first-person because it makes people sick. It is still relevant, but secondary.
I used other titles and VR to show you that only worrying about a minority of people will prevent you from progressing to successful places and being innovative. They can't make every game for every person, and they would still have the TPP for anyone who only gets nauseous from FPP (with bobbing.)
But again, I don't believe that it would be added without taking resources from what should be the main focus.
Beyond that is the impact on design elements to support it. As I said before, I'm not saying that it couldn't be done as a fully tacked-on feature, but that it wouldn't be. And you can thank Conviction and Blacklist for my skepticism. lol
I don't know what's going on with the text. I haven't recently changed any of the settings. I use whatever it gives me when I click on the "Reply" button.
That's why I mentioned it - the forums are weird. I highlight everything and reset them every time. If I don't, everything shows up black in light-mode.
@MyMomJust We're kind of getting off into the weeds here.
Just to reiterate -
I know how things are attached to character models because I've attached things to character models. The act of adding the camera by itself isn't a big deal, but that's not all that needs to be done. That goes back to one of my original points - I want the devs to focus on core mechanics and to make the most solid foundation possible. In terms of single-player, that basically means if it didn't exist in the first three games, I don't want to see it. If they have spare resources, which would kind of shock me, they should polish, and keep polishing.
As an aside, I don't believe that the perspective would be added without affecting the traditional gameplay experience. Though I agree that it could be done, I don't believe that it would.
If the I.P. is in a "fragile state," it's only because they turned it into a medium-paced action shooter with the possibility to stealth a lot of the levels, and they took the story into absurd directions not befitting of "Clancy."
Sure, but that's exactly why they need to be so careful, especially after the way they announced the remake.
You are comparing apples to oranges by comparing what Ubisoft has done with adding a new optional viewpoint.
I don't think I am. Adding new elements instead of focusing on improving core mechanics has not done good things for the IP, and I don't want to see it happen again.
It could literally be done by a single programmer.
I would want that single programmer to spend their time refining and polishing instead.
Nearly every game that comes out nowadays is buggy, especially Ubisoft ones; that won't be the reason for its failure. Offering a first-person perspective, no matter how "unoptimized" it is, will not be the reason for its failure.
But that doesn't make it okay to do. You can defend a buggy game all you want (I certainly have), but it won't change the broader opinion. I don't believe that Splinter Cell is on solid enough ground to survive that. I'm not just talking about player opinions, either, that's why I brought up Yves.
"Professional developers" don't take great care with flashes.
They do. Any developer that's cavalier about such a serious issue is definitely not professional.
Do you know how many people get motion sickness from VR games? Should Ubi never work on a VR title until no one has such a sickness? Please, be rational.
Considering that I wasn't talking about other games, nor VR, that feels a little bit strawmanny... lol
Regardless, I'm familiar with the lengths that developers have gone to to combat it. It's been a thing for decades. More recently, since VR, they've become even more focused on it. There's actually a good video in the GDC vault about it:
Starting at around 30:20, they talk about some of the things we've discussed. The whole thing's pretty interesting, though.
As far as Ubi making a VR game, they can if they want to? But, considering they just cancelled the Splinter Cell VR game, it's not looking great there.
Also, unrelated, but these forums are kind of weird with the font/highlight colors, and your posts don't show right in darkmode. If you set them to the defaults (which I don't think are even labeled, but it's black text and white highlight), then it should be readable in both versions.
@mircoracing1993 They've been pretty quiet in general, but I'm hoping that they show at least a little teaser for the remake during Forward next month. Then, on the actual 20th anniversary, something a bit bigger.
Probably wishful thinking, but you never know...
I don't know how much clearer I can be. For the traditional first-person, there is a camera and then an avatar is built around that camera.
@MyMomJust I understand that idea, but in practice they're connected differently. What's visible is an afterthought - the character model's skeleton defines all.
A beautiful thing about the true first-person system is that it can be added at any point, as the animations and controls will all be identical to that of third-person. The only difference is the position of the camera and whether the head is drawn for the player.
In that case, the visible mesh of the head is bound to the head joint of the skeleton, and so is the camera. While the mesh can certainly be hidden, on its own that doesn't change anything about the skeleton, its animations, or its influence on attached objects, like the camera. To change that requires more modifications.
"But why be okay with that? Given the difficulties the IP has already faced, it's so risky."
I don't really know what that means, but it is such a captivating feature that I'm completely willing to have it be a bit buggy, especially because the game is designed for third-person, making it a bonus. That would be like complaining about a minigame that's available in multiplayer lobbies while you wait for other players.
What it means is that the IP is in a somewhat fragile state. Have you seen how Yves has talked about it? Honestly I feel pretty lucky that they made the announcement at all... If they talk about respecting the original experience and then deliver something different, again, that's a very dangerous move.
This is an opportunity for some redemption, and they seemed to be embracing that. If they maintain their focus, the results could be awesome. If they don't focus, and knowingly release something buggy that people will criticize, we might never get another one.
I don't really care if some people get motion sickness from it.
Okay, but basically all professional developers will care.
Should games not have muzzle flashes on their guns or have other flashing lights because some people have epilepsy?
That one's even more significant. Developers are very careful with flashes, and definitely avoid certain light patterns. They add warnings even after putting a lot of work into prevention. It's taken seriously.
Plenty of other people do not get nauseated. Also, the game will be designed to use TPP, and that means it can easily offer an FOV of at least 100 horizontal degrees. Most of the motion sickness can be alleviated by using a wider FOV.
Sure, but mismatched visuals (including various camera animations) are also known triggers. Even a slight head bob can quickly cause players to get sick.
I'm not saying it's never done - I know that it is. But, professional devs absolutely do their best to avoid it.
It basically demands that you immerse yourself into the experience.
Some players like feeling like it's them - they're Sam. I get it, and I'm totally fine with that. But me, I don't. I like third-person because by nature I'm protective. I'm watching over Sam, keeping him safe. I'm fully immersed in that environment, just in a different role. I'm there - the third-person camera is me. So in that way, it's already first-person...
If you're going to say that FPS games are basically identical to a 30-year-old game except for the graphics, I will say "disdain" is a very accurate word.
Eh, no. Disdain for shooters, sure, but not the perspective.
For someone who claims such stagnation, that should be exactly the type of progress you want to see for the style.
I want to see progress for stealth, like massively improving the AI. That's universal.
Red Dead does not use the true first-person system. It uses the traditional first-person that I don't want - the one that requires its own animations.
@MyMomJust I'm still not sure I'm understanding what you mean by a "true" first-person system...to follow every motion?
I'm guessing this is why you keep claiming that it will require new animations. That's not how the system works. I think I explained it pretty clearly. It replaces the avatar's head with the camera.
I'm saying it would, at the very least, require disabling specific animations in order to function, which requires additional programming, more time, more testing, etc. All things that I don't want the devs to worry about on the first go.
And yes, I understand how a first-person camera is attached - though I don't often work with characters, I've spent the last 12 years working in Unreal. I socketed my own goggles to my MetaHuman Sam's head the same way (forgive the janky animations, I'm not an animator):
Anyway, that part's easy. To get to a functional state takes a lot more effort.
I'm okay with it being "unoptimized," and it's certainly not as if Ubi doesn't often release unoptimized stuff. It would still hold great value.
But why be okay with that? Given the difficulties the IP has already faced, it's so risky.
Blacklist also used the first-person style that I do not want. It's not really fair to suggest that the sales of Blacklist and the potential sales of the potential SC remake should be compared. I don't recall a single instance of Blacklist's advertising showing that there was a first-person perspective.
Who suggested that? I'm talking about feedback from players, not marketing or sales. I don't even know what the sales were, but either way I doubt it had much to do with that mission. I'm just saying that it exists as an example of first-person in a Splinter Cell game (outside of SvM), and people commented on it.
Most of the game is not playable in FPP. The FPP that was used is not the same as the FPP that I'm requesting.
I'm just not seeing how they're so different... but, if you want literally every movement to be translated to the camera, there's a reason that almost no games do it - because it triggers motion sickness in a lot of people.
I didn't use TPP in Thief 3, but I didn't feel as if its presence changed things significantly if at all. It absolutely should have third-person in any future iteration. It was a clear step forward for the series.
Not really, though, because after DS they went dark for years and then backtracked with 4. I'm sure there were more things at play, but when it comes to the camera, I'm not worried about it. I played 4. It was fine. Would I have liked it more in third person? Probably, but that wouldn't have solved other issues.
FPP makes close-quarter areas easier to navigate, not harder. So, your talk about A3 having huge empty worlds doesn't mean much; that's only saying that supporting a third-person camera is easier.
That wasn't my point, it was more about how generally different the games are.
Supporting a third-person cam is pretty easy. Spaces have to get teeny tiny before it really becomes an issue, and that's definitely not what I'm looking for in level design.
That fact is also why your comparison to Thief 3 allegedly changing its level design has low value; you're talking about a game potentially changing its levels in order to fit a camera that's behind the avatar.
I was actually talking about Thief fans who disliked when third-person was added. I personally don't have a ton to compare to.
I will say that fitting the camera is kind of a non-issue now - they're all dynamic. Obviously if you try you can get some weird angles with even the best cameras, but generally they do quite well.
You don't really need to change it for a game that would be adding FPP. The only things that would 'benefit' from changing are areas where you're meant to use the camera to see over or past objects. Those aren't common in SC, as you're typically in the shadows, giving Sam direct sight. If the game has proper sound design, you won't need to see around objects, and Thief has made that very evident.
Line of sight gets utilized a lot, though, so cover could be a real problem. Also, corners. The fields of view are just so different.
You don't know what "the choice" is. I don't see how your assumption has any more value than mine does.
You're right, I don't know, but I've been here for over 15 years, through multiple development cycles. As you might imagine, I've seen some things. Based on experience, I feel that my concerns are justified.
You're assuming that the addition of FPP will inevitably mean that they halfway bake the TPP experience. I'm assuming that they would focus on the TPP experience and could add an FPP instead of adding stuff that offers far less value.
I hope that you'd be right in that they'd focus on the third-person. I wouldn't count on it, though. Even then, if they can't do it well, I'd rather they didn't do it at all. As it is they're rebuilding everything. I think they're going to have their hands full with core mechanics.
No, I'm not saying that TPP means the game will look old. Though, old games typically used a third-person camera, not a first-person one.
Both have been pretty standard for decades, and a lot of old games were in first person. Easier to develop (still are).
I'm saying that SC, a game that only had TPP, would clearly be a new game if it also offered FPP. It wouldn't simply be SC with better graphics (in some areas) and (slightly) larger levels. It would also be capable of giving you a much newer experience, something that no one experienced in the original release.
The true first-person camera is something that exists in very few games. For many people, it would be their first time seeing such a camera, and that leads them to see Ubisoft and the SC remake as innovative.
But why is it beneficial? How does that camera affect gameplay, or the player experience?
Thanks for sharing your disdain for the FPP, though.
Disdain's a pretty strong word. I don't universally hate first person, or even dislike, I just prefer third-person. It suits me better. I'm happier as a guardian to the character vs. being the character, and I get to see all the cool animations.
The devs at Ubisoft Shanghai must had a lot of fun building that level, and yeah we can see that they cared about that level.
True about the ending of the mission, haha. Putting the extraction point in that room felt weird, I woudln't be surprised to learn someday that it was meant to be somewhere else on the map but they just didn't have the time to design it.
@LuckyBide Maybe. It was still sort of fun, though. Ridiculous, but fun.
The animations are the same in ArmA 3 and Ground Branch, which both use the type of camera I'm requesting. That's the best part about the system: you see your body as it exists in the world; it doesn't use new animations and different assets, as it only replaces the head with the camera. I have barely used the 3rd-person in Thief 3, but I thought it used the same system. If I'm wrong, you could definitely see the system in ArmA 3. Such a camera system would be worth the development time, as it is a clear step into the future. It certainly doesn't require them to choose between making the third-person experience authentic to the original or adding a new perspective. They could either force the camera to look at the enemies and such (or have a subtle turn to notify the player or have a brief and rapid look), or they could give the player full control of it; both solutions work for me, but I'd prefer the latter.
@MyMomJust I disagree that first-person is necessary in Splinter Cell (SvM notwithstanding, but I don't do PVP anyway), and isn't the future, IMO. I also disagree that it wouldn't impact the third-person, because if it didn't, it would most likely be a tacked-on, unoptimized feature.
A while back on the old forum we were talking about this, specifically regarding Thief. As I mentioned before, some fans blamed the third-person option for some of the issues with Deadly Shadows. Whether it be level design, or animations, or anything else, offering both does complicate development. While having the third-person perspective made it more accessible for a player like me, original fans were disappointed. I respect that, and I'm not going to go to a Thief forum and tell them their game should support third-person again. The genre's absolutely big enough to support multiple IPs that focus on what they're good at, and negatively impacting loyal players to branch out isn't something I support.
Regarding games that offer both, I'm unfamiliar with Ground Branch, but have seen a decent amount of Arma 3 and notable differences there are the environments and the gameplay. The maps are huge, and they're basically empty. There also aren't any sophisticated stealth features. In general it's not a game I would use as a comparison.
Even RDR2, which I absolutely love, offers both but again, the environments... Stealth is barely a thing, and though there was one awesome stealth-based section, for the most part, it's a shooter. Plus, Rockstar had the means to polish that game to death. We're not gonna get that in the remake, and that's okay. The team can focus, and it'll be fine.
I believe that if they want the game to be successful, they are going to focus on making the core satisfying to the fans. After that, they need to add more stuff, and that's when I see a choice between adding microtransactions or adding better content such as a first-person perspective that would bring in more players and make it clear that this is not the 20-year-old game. I think a lot of people will experience such a perspective for the first time, and it will cause people to see Ubisoft as an innovator. I don't think there are many people who see modern Ubi as innovative.
I'm with you on the "making the core satisfying to the fans", but again, the choice isn't between adding microtransactions or adding first-person. Pretty sure microtransactions are probable, if not definite.
The idea that first-person would bring in more players...eh... The responses that I saw to the Briggs section were not particularly positive, so I definitely don't think it's that cut and dry. I wouldn't really call it innovative, either, given that there are several first-person stealth IPs that have been doing their thing for a long time.
Also, do you really associate third-person with an old game? For me it's opposite. To me, every FPS is just Doom with better graphics.
Yes. And I'm not really aware of development costs when it comes to a remake but in my opinion a remake costs way less than creating a whole game from scratch. So it's already a good advantage. And a lower budget game is definitely the way to go for stealth, something between a AA and a AAA game. Then improving the formula and gradually bringing back old mechanics but also building new ones with each new iteration. This way the financial risks would be smaller.
@LuckyBide I think in this situation, the cost could still be moderately high. They might have had a bit of an advantage if they were staying on Unreal, but things have changed a lot since "2.5". Most of the guts of the game will have to be rebuilt, regardless.
They have the originals as references, though, which definitely helps. They know how things worked, what they needed, etc., but they still have to figure out how to make that happen on a new engine.
It'll definitely be a ton easier when (WHEN, I'm thinking positively, here! lol) they tackle PT.
And I'm sure there's a lot of unknown appetite from players for a real pure stealth game, unknown because I think a lot of players would fall in love with the gameplay once they'll discover it for the first time.
Absolutely. We were all new to the genre once. I happened upon it by accident - I was playing a lot of horror games and then Manhunt came along.
Looking back on the SCs, though, as someone who doesn't like shooters, I don't think I would have given Conviction or even Blacklist a second glance had I not already been so invested in the series. They were not marketed to me.
If this remake is successful, I'd love for it and the next remakes (until Double Agent) to ultimately form one single huge game, where you could access all missions on one platform. Something like IOI has done with the next Hitman trilogy. This imo would be the way to go and to do things the best way possible.
That would be great. As it is, I have to pull out various old consoles from storage whenever I want to replay something. CT's still sitting there, waiting for me.
Yeah unfortunately that's exactly how it feels, as stealth was a punishment or a boring mechanic...
For some of them it probably was, but they still should have listened to stealth fans to balance the features.
True, horror games have that attractive side about fearness. People like to think that they have a way to beat that fear and survive it.
Devs who work on stealth games have to come back to that sense of being able to confront a huge threat that we can face only by being smarter, to have these strong feelings of vulnerability and tension, that fear of being able to be killed at any moment and at the end the huge reward of beating that threat and even a bigger reward of being completely a ghost. That's what stealth is about.
Yep. Both genres can be very immersive, but stealth gameplay is so much more satisfying. There are horror games that I love, but most of them have little to no combat. There are threats, but the character is too weak to confront them, so gameplay involves a lot of running away.
With stealth, you plan and execute (figuratively or literally, depending on the game) and the threat never even knows you were there. That's hard to beat.
On another topic, here is an indie developer working alone on a Splinter Cell clone using Unreal Engine 4:
There's already a lot of cool things and features from SC, I like the character movements and the multiple interactions with the environment. And I like the fart sound for the sticky cam, that's clever haha. And that could lead to some funny dialogues between guards ^^
On the negative points, I'd say that the UI and the AI stance look weird, and there's doesn't seem to be a sharp noise AI detection, but it's still work in progress and he'll probably change these. The only things that I really don't like are the icons above the AI heads and the X-ray vision, these things shouldn't even be in a stealth game at first place for me.
Anyway this is impressive for one developer, he seems to know what he's doing. There are other videos on his channel showing the progress of the game.
That's amazing work for a solo dev. Some of the elements are a bit rough, but those can be tweaked. I'm with you on the icons and x-ray, and also...killing CIA guys is kinda bad. lol
It's cool to have the original audio. The visuals are so much more modern, but the music still works so well. I hope Ubi keeps it in theirs - I've very nostalgic like that.
PS: The devs of the Gollum game decided to delay the release of the game by a few months. It's the best decision knowing how bad it looks on the gameplay trailer.
I'm fine with a delay. If a bit more time can help them sort some stuff out, then by all means they should take it. That said, I'm not sure it's long enough to "fix" some of the things people are commenting on. I'm not expecting big changes, but maybe if they've found a bug or two, they can address them before release.
Haha. Same for me I think. But that must be so cool to have a chat with him, as fans I guess we all dreamed of that once.
@LuckyBide Even being in the same room with all of those guys was an odd experience. Some impostor syndrome...but I was there for work, too. lol
Oh yeah implementing these features would require a constant feedback, but from players who know about stealth. Which makes me think by the way that future playtesting sessions for the remake will bring in players who love and understand stealth.
For sure, and players who will give honest feedback. And then Ubi needs to actually listen to them.
Agreed, the flow between old style linear sections and more open areas is the way to go and build the game, that would bring freshness and avoid a feeling of repetitiveness. It would be a heaven for level designers, I'm sure they'd love working on a challenge like this.
You should definitely try to build your own open level in Unreal Engine 4 or another engine, you could use free assets and you would learn a lot, even if these assets don't necessarily belong to the Splinter Cell world.
I think it'd be incredibly fun, I'm just severely lacking in the time department.
I have plenty of assets, but building and lighting environments takes time. I actually have another SC fan art scene that's mostly done, but I just haven't gotten back to it yet. My "Sam" has been stuck in a sort of half-split for months. Poor guy...