Steam 설치
로그인
|
언어
简体中文(중국어 간체)
繁體中文(중국어 번체)
日本語(일본어)
ไทย(태국어)
Български(불가리아어)
Čeština(체코어)
Dansk(덴마크어)
Deutsch(독일어)
English(영어)
Español - España(스페인어 - 스페인)
Español - Latinoamérica(스페인어 - 중남미)
Ελληνικά(그리스어)
Français(프랑스어)
Italiano(이탈리아어)
Bahasa Indonesia(인도네시아어)
Magyar(헝가리어)
Nederlands(네덜란드어)
Norsk(노르웨이어)
Polski(폴란드어)
Português(포르투갈어 - 포르투갈)
Português - Brasil(포르투갈어 - 브라질)
Română(루마니아어)
Русский(러시아어)
Suomi(핀란드어)
Svenska(스웨덴어)
Türkçe(튀르키예어)
Tiếng Việt(베트남어)
Українська(우크라이나어)
번역 관련 문제 보고
토론 규칙 및 지침
게시글 신고
As much as I love Chaos Theory, I won't consider it the best Splinter Cell game. It was incredible FOR IT'S TIME. For nowadays standards, the controls feel heavy and rigid, and half of the levels are not really instersting.
For me, Spliter Cell 1 is the worst Splinter Cell game. Not only the controls are worse and feel awkward, but evey level but the first is boring. And I said that just after finishing my 6th playthrough about a hour ago. But then again the day I played it for the first time, I just fell in love.
My mains issues with the firsts games, is that you can't really choose your path. 99% of the time there is no nother path but the one shown to you. It's really not like Dishnored at all (which is a exellent game that greatly uses stealth mechanics in my point of view).
They are also very scripted and we often face dumb situations like a ennemy not moving or doing anything but showing you his back (not only because a script hasn't triggered correctly), etc,.... or even some really weird buidlings and architechtural designs (Ohh thank god there was those pipes on the edge of the cliff beneath the presitendial palace! Great positionning too!).
Old games with old mechanics to say the least.
They were great for their time, but everything must evolve..
In my opinion, Blacklist completely outburst Chaos Theory in therms of freedom and possibilities.
A lot more paths and gadgets to choose your approach, you can customise your gear depending the way you want to play and it has a lot of very fun to play side missions, to help you vary your playstyles.
This is a really great game for it's time.
I truly enjoyed every single Splinter Cell, but none of them felt as fun and satisfying the Blacklist. Conviction is one of my favorites too, mostly for it's story and its setting and direction (the main theme is nice too), but it goes a little too straight forward to me and the pc version is very badly optimised.
So, for me:
1 - Blacklist (A lot more freedom, nice side quest, fun and satisfying)
2- Conviction (Great story, setting/staging, music, but badly optimised)
3 - Chaos Theory (Half levels are great, good setting but too scripted, heavy gameplay, old mechanics, weird faces)
4 - Double Agent (Nice story, intersting double agent mechanics, a little less heavy gameplay, some levels are really cool, buggy on pc)
5 - Pandora Tomorrow (Nice story, old mechanics, old gameplay not a memorable adventure)
6 - Splinter Cell (Old mechanics, heavy gameplay, weird level design, dumb situations, boring game (especially of you play it afer playing Blacklist.))
But I repeat, even the first Splinter Cell was great when it first came out, and, equally, Blacklist was great when it came out. All I can hope for the next Splinter Cell is to be great for its time.
It's the same thing for people that prefer Tomb Raider 1 than the 2013 reboot.
Tomb Raider 1, seen with nowadays' eyes, is a horrible game. Clunky/Awkward/stiff controls, boring levels, frustrating gameplay, bad story and you need two hundred bullets to kill a human enemy.
The reboot has a very fluent gameplay, has little craft mechnanics, exploration, way better and more natural level design, nice settings and cinematics, interesting story starting with a "crybaby" Lara and ending with a bad ass Lara, a real character evolution (and not only gameplay wise). Okay, the riddles are easyier, but at least you don't spend your time pushing blocks and buttons indeffinetly.
So how can people prefer the first one? Nostalgia.
And also the fact that at this time, we didn't have a lot of games to compare with. The farther we go back in time, the less there are good or even a great games.
Now we've grown up, our expectations raised a lot higher, so if a game if a game isn't a the very least excellent, we call it trash. Now the games are way more varied, offer way more gameplay possibilities and are way more fun to play than most twenty/thrity year old games.
Still, a lot of people continue to say that the games were more varied and fun on the snes/genesis. Of course there was great games already, but most of them were totally bad. A lot of them were built with a ridiculus difficulty just to hide it's own emptyness.
At first I thought it was bad faith, but actually it's just nostalgia. That little magic felt when we first started to play games, good or bad has faded long ago. It doesn't mean that the new games are bad, it means we grew tired of playing games.
It's not because I don't share your opinion that I've been payed.
You know, my all time favorite games are Max Payne, Devil May Cry 4, Resident Evil 4 and Binding of Isaac. I just love them, I could play them all the time.
But I can find a lot of people that absolutely hate (even loath) those games. Does they have been payed to hate them? I don't think so.
Some poeple love football games, some love multiplayer FPS, some love League Of Legends. I really don't. And I haven't been payed for that.
Then again, It doesn't really have sense to say that I was payed by Ubisoft to say my opinion because all Splinter Cell games have been made by Ubisoft.
I do agree with much of what you say regarding players and the nostalgia affect many of the older games elicit. In many cases what you call clunky handling I call simplified mechanics. If 1 button gets the job done don't fix it. I go through all my old PS and Xbox games every summer never once lamenting for better graphics or more sophisticated controls.
Maybe my longevity playing games gives me a different perspective related to eye and ear candy; I started playing when 8 bit games were the rage. When I play a real world conflict game, if the option is available, I -0- out music, allowing only real world/ambient sound. Only TV shows and Movies have theme music playing in the background. Although I do max out my graphics for the crispest picture available, that and a killer gaming mouse assist in targeting when required.
Again as I previously stated, after looking at a few Conviction and Blacklist videos on you tube, if there's no way to turn off all those neon suggestions and arrows to "Go here" or "Do that" I'm not interested in them or any other game that treats the player like an incompetent idiot needing to be lead by the hand from point "A" to point "G". One may rightly say that the 1st 4 SC games are linear but at least one wasn't lead around by a nose ring.
Any idea how many forced kills and KOs are in Conviction and Blacklist?
I meant freedom of your approach.
LItteraly bad-faith, in a stealth game like that, jumping around without any reason because the game doesn't undertand that you are trying to reach something to climb on, lead more in frustration (and possibily the possibility of being discovered) than a feeling of succes when finaly reaching it.
A jump button is not necessary and forces you to be very precise.
in a real life, nobody would jump around in front on the little wall to jump over it, it's not natural.
Actually the suggestions are just basicaly the samethe interaction box of the classic splinters cells that are shown on the texture instead of the hud, it makes the game look more dynamic, but I can understand not everyone likes it.
No idea, but honestly, I don't see any issue with that.
Well, in Chaos Theory there is a lot a things you can't climb too, but you won't know it before you tried jumping around like a idiot for 10 minutes. And sometimes it's supposed to be reacheable, but the game doesn't want you to. So, the only difference is that in Blacklist you don't spend 10 minutes in front of a wall to understand that you can't climb it.
Blacklist is for COD fans? Yes and no, the more the video game industry evolve, the more it takes inspirations from other games, then add new ideas, build a new game out of this, which will become a refenrece for other games as well, and so on and so forth.
The thing is, when you spend dozens of millions of dollars making a game, you try to interest the more people possible to make it worth. 'Because if you don't you won't be allowed to make another one, and that's how a franchise die. Producing a AAA game to only please hardcore fans or harcore gamers (because what we are talking here is a very precise type of gameplay, that will interest only a niche market) is something veryyy risky.
Making the same game over and over again is also very risky.
Sometimes to ensure the survival of a franchise it has to change.
I'm not saying it's alwaus true.
But I really thing that most of the buys doesn't come from harcore gamers, it comes from the casual gamers that buy a game because the ads look nice and the reviews were good. If the game is too demanding gameplay wise, most people won't even consider it.
Most gamers nowadays buy their games for having fun the quicker possible. So if you make a game that looks slow and complicated, considering the ton of other fun games that exist and get released each day, then it just won't sell.
My point is, you seem to be certain when you say that Ubisoft kill its franchise, but I honestly think it wouldn't have survive very long if it didn't became more accessible.
I don't care about being forced to be discovered and not being able to do a perfect ghost playthrough. I just want to enjoy miself and I couldn't care less about perfection or even "achievements".
Every Splinter Cell game has tons of bugs, and half of them (Pandora Tomorrow, Double agent and Conviction are just horrible ports), get over it.
Yes, but since I played them most of the time by myself, I just consider them side quests.
It's not they are garbage, it's just that you just want to ghost everything and it's not really possible since Kobin and Charlie's missions forces you to at take out your enemies. So, you think it's trash. The issue is not what the game is, the issue is what you expect it to be. If doesn't go in your direction, then for you, it's trash. But no, it's just not your type of game.
But I don't do that. I take the game as they come, I don't compare it to other games or to what I expect and try to take the best of it, no matter what kind of game it is. In the end, I like so many games that I can't play with them all.
You shouldn't act like that you know, expect things, or all you life you will be disapointed.
Funny you found the briggs quests okay, I always thought they were the less interesting.
You think it was awful, you. It's your point of view.
If you consider this:
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/tom-clancys-splinter-cell-blacklist
or even just steam reviews, it clearly isn't considered an awful game by most people. And I think that people get more inclined to write bad critics than good critics, simply because when the game is good, you often don't want to post a review but when it's bad, everybody has to know.
I think you really never played a really awful game cause you clearly don't know what this word means.
"... they are stealth and that's what I play" Exactly what I was saying. You think that games that goes in your direction are good games but if they don't they are bad games. You clearly can't imagine the game can be good, but since it doesn't fit you playstyles, you can't really know. No, of course, if a game isn't what you want it's clearly an awful game.
It's like I was saying that the last DmC is garbage because it's less demanding than the others.
Blacklist and Conviction are good games, they're just not what you expect of a Splinter Cell game. I doesn't make it a bad game.
Pandora Tomorrow clearly is a bad port. The day I bought it, a few weeks after it launched, I noticed that even if I hade (for the time) a decend computer, it just couldn't start. Because this games was already incompatible with multiples graphic cards for no reason. So I gift it to my neighboor, expecting to at least be able to see him play and it crashed every ten minutes. At the end, I was only able to play it in 2008, and it was still a buggy mess.
For Conviction, even with a 970 and a i7 860 my fps keeps jumping between 20 and 90, with a average of 42, and my CPU is barely used! (and I don't have issues in 99% of my games, including new ones, I can play DOOM without issues at 1080p on ULTRA at about 100-120fps)
I must be lucky then, because I don't recall having issues with Blacklist. Nothing game breaking at least, and it never crashed on me. Actually, if I remember correctly, every other Splinter Cell had a bad habit of crashing but Blacklist.
Not this much, because Blacklist looks less like a Prince of Persia / Assassin's Creed / Climbing Simulator than the first Splinter Cell games, it's true.
But you seam to misunderstand me, I never said that Blacklist was a better stealth game than Chaos Theory, I said that it was a better game period.
I never said that Blacklist wasn't more action oriented and less stealth than the old ones, I just said that I'm okay with this.
The old recipe was getting too heavy for me and I'm glad they decided to modify it. It's less stealth oriented than the others? I don't care, it's a good game and very fun to play.
I don't own the Splinter Cell franchise and it's not up to me to decide what the next one will look like (or even if it will be one). Their goal when they producce a game is to sell the more copies possible, so they will try to satify the most people possible. I do not have the slightest incidence on this.
So either I decided to expect it to be like I want and then be disapointed because the game doesn't follow my very own "Splinter Cell definition", or I lay back and enjoy the game for what it is.
I don't know what IGN means, but it's probably because I'm french.
Then again, I never saif that Chaos Theory was a bad game (if you recall my first post), and I totally inderstand when people have other opinions than me (which is why we are still talking about this, you just can't accept that other people think Blacklist is a good game, but I can accept the fact that you don't like it and it doesn't fit you). My sole point of showing this was to show it doesn't have awful ratings, so it's not an awful game.
"Supposed to" nowadays it doesn't really mean anything. Most games are mixups of other genres. Then again, apart from the scrpited sequences that you have to be discovered, or are forced to knock out someone, you can still do the game the ghost way. Sure I does have way less shadow zones that the old ones, but that makes it different, not bad.
I like this question actually and you are not the first one to ask it.
I don't like DMC games because they are DMCs, I like them and it turns out they are DMCs. So if another one get out, I'll play it. If I like it, then great and if I don't, too bad. But it doesn't mean that the game is bad.
And actually it happened. DmC (the last one) is a reboot and it is clearly different from the old ones. The old ones were more surival horror Beat them up, with a great atmosphere and a terrifying very palpable oppression and god they were hard for me(It's not because I'm not good at those type of games that I don't like them). And them out of nowhere, DmC. No more survival horror, just the Beath them up / action orientation, no more haunted Dark Castle, no more creepy atmosphere. Now we got a crazy night club, and underwater prison ruled by the presenter of the news and the classy mysterious hero has been replaced by a little emo kid that spends its time insulting people. Even the gamplay was simplified.
Well, I loved it as much as I lovedd the old ones. I find it great. Different, but great.
But it seems like the next one will be a follow up of the old ones, not of the reboot.
Okay, no problem. I would've been fine with both.
I'm actually really grateful that they didn't totaly shutdown the franchise, considering the low sales. Each time they annonce one new game, I just hope that I'll be able to enjoy it, even for a little bit.
"One of the buggiest game out there" you clearly didn't played game so much bugged that it's unplayable.
By AC climbing I meant idiotic weird climbing (design wise) like a succession of obstacles like the ones on the side of the cliff of the presidential palace leven (which is the best exemple I got). In Blacklist the level design feels more natural.
Now gamplay wise, It's a choice. If you put manual jumps in a game like AC, it tottaly desserves the game. If you make a game about learning how to climb, you can even put manual hand placement (I mean R1/LT left hand, R2/RT right hand). But in a game were you character is supposed to be a real pro in climbing, it makes the gameply heavier for nothing and break the gameplay.
And Conviction has been made in mind to be faster paced and more dynamic than the old ones (their automatic "execution mecanic" prooves it), so they decided to simplify the gameplay and make it more fluent.
I saw that, well done! And thanks for you tuto by the way, it helped me a lot!
Edit: My bad, I thought you were talking about Chaos Theory.
Indeed. I think I understand why they put this move in the game, but to be honest I'm not very found of it.
Cause if you really do, that's even weirder. I never sew someone play 1000 hours on a game he finds awful. So either it's not that awful, or he is clearly masochist.
Well, since most people nowaday don't finish their games (partly because new big games go out every month) they have to and will be judged on that. And reviewers don't have the time to finish every game to 100% before judging it. It's just no possible.
I think I beat it twice but not at 100% and I certainely don't have 1000 hours on it.
The only thing I know is that I take a lot pleasure playing it and it's definitely not an awful game.