One of the brutally simple rules of evolution is the fact that if a species' landscape changes and it does not rise to adapt to that change, it dies.
That's as true for multi-million dollar business models as it is for organic life fighting for survival in the primordial soup. It's simple really; if you don't step up and modify your game, you're not long for this world. For this reason alone, Splinter Cell: Blacklist may be in with a chance of survival.
Anyone who played 2010's Splinter Cell: Conviction probably noted it was rather different to its forbears with regards to the way one played it. Where once players were required to cling to the shadows, pass by enemies un-noticed and only ever engage in violence as a last resort, Conviction continued the work started by Double Agent by placing more of a premium on confronting enemies head on.
The game's protagonist, Sam Fisher, was still no bullet sponge and he was still adept at silent acrobatics. But Conviction ramped up the action quotient by gifting Fisher with preternatural - and unrealistic - agility and level design that occasionally left no other option than to leap into the fray, guns blazing.
This bold and more direct style of play angered some of the Splinter Cell faithful. However, if they stopped complaining for a second and analysed what they'd just played, they may have been able to see that Conviction was a necessary evolutionary step in Splinter Cell's continued existence as a franchise.
Blacklist is all about giving players options. To be honest, it feels like the game Conviction should have been. On the evidence presented in a recent hands-on session at Ubisoft's studio in Toronto, Blacklist shies away from boxing players into tackling it as a third-person-shooter, but it doesn't remove that option altogether. It also allows players to adopt the old-school stealth gameplay the series is renowned for, but it doesn't force them into that play style.
The game's manifesto is summed up in three gameplay pillars: Ghost, Panther and Assault. Ghost is old-school Splinter Cell, where players give themselves over to beating the game's punishing level design by sneaking about undetected, hiding in shadows and only ever attacking an enemy when no other options are available.
Panther is stealth with some punch; this is the style of play Chaos Theory created, which combines patiently hiding from view with quick, effective bursts of violence. Assault is a full frontal free-for-all. Players who enjoy this style essentially treat the game like a pretty challenging TPS; enemies flank, alarm bells ring and life is easily snuffed out.
The level design accommodates this. Fail in one section and you'll find that, with one or two key exceptions, the patrol routes and positions of NPC enemies tend to change to keep things fresh. In the section of campaign that CVG played only the opening gun battle, the home stretch and a couple of key guard positions remained static.
First off, Mark & Execute is back; Conviction players will remember this as the useful mechanic that allowed them to tag multiple enemies by tapping the right bumper and then dispatch them all in slow-motion by hitting 'Y'. Sam is also ridiculously agile; he's able to shimmy along a ledge at high speed and deadlift himself up a drainpipe in seconds. The combat silhouette is also in play; when enemies detect Sam, a white see-through outline of him appears denoting his last visible position and players can then flank opponents while they surround the last spot they saw Sam in.
Blacklist also brings back a couple of old-school mechanics to the mix; Sam has his head-gear back, along with its different vision settings (infra-red, nightvision, heat-sensor). Players are also able to hide bodies so their combative activities need not draw unwanted attention. Each mission also contains a series of optional mini-objectives, such as bagging and tagging a 'person of interest' or hacking a laptop, which earn players more XP to spend on customisation options.
Comments
10 comments so far...
Spies on 7 May '13 said:
This is a terribly written article. Games don't have to evolve or adapt. People saying this are stupid. It's funny how Splinter Cell "evolved" and sold the least out of all the SC games and was considered bad. But mister game journalist and his bulls**t trumps everyone...... lol.
StonecoldMC on 7 May '13 said:
You're just angry the Mercs keep killing you
.
As for the Preview, it did what it had to do. It build my anticipation for this game.
I was a fan of Conviction and if this is evolving into something bigger, better? Then I'm all in.
MrPirtniw on 7 May '13 said:
If anything Splinter Cell has devolved- don't get me wrong, I liked Conviction for what it was, but it was barely a stealth game. And it was really, really easy even on the hardest setting. And it was really, really short to boot. The co-op was pretty fun though.
A shame the general tone of this article is all AAA games must involve extreme combat and multiplayer to survive. That's not really evolution- that's assimilation.
I'd give my last rolo for a next gen 'pure' stealth game.
ingy on 8 May '13 said:
I agree, 'games don't have to evolve' utter bullcrap, these guys will give the next zelda, mario kart or any other major franchise cough'cod'cough at least a 8/9 out of ten when reviewed, then tell us 'why fix what isn't broken'.
A stealth title doesn't have to evolve, it is what it is, a specific genre, what they're saying is every different genre should evolve and become one, ridiculous.
qSPARTANp on 8 May '13 said:
Yea, well let me see, I am a Splinter cell faithful, I have stopped and analyzed what I played (conviction) and it was utter bulls**t. It was not Splinter cell. You Sir are very wrong and the reason why this industry is failing. Games do not need to evolve into cross genre crap to become better games. Games can become improved and evolve by having better AI, better animations and graphics, story telling ETC, they DO NOT need to branch off into non related game-play styles!
Perhaps all the excessive wages, massive offices with swimming pools, gyms, beds and huge kitchens stocked to the brim, employing well known actors at massive cost when there are talented actors quite capable of doing voice work (Ironside exception (he is SAM FISHER)) etc are why developers are losing money! I am all for these guys making money, but one of the reasons they are not selling enough games, well not enough to support the previous list, is because they are blending genres and p**sing off the people who WOULD by the games!!???!! I feel its the publishers that are forcing a lot of these changes, but come on don't tell us that genre specific games need to "evolve" into diluted crap, you need to wake up.
ingy on 8 May '13 said:
Sorry mr Nick Cowen, but i've got to add,
By your argument Dead Space is now a better game with it's new direction, so is Resident Evil, and let's not forget Uncharted which just gets better with every overlong shoot out.
What about Tomb Raider? a game which everyone who loved it seems to agree that it could have done without the shooting and had more 'tombs' sadly the list of ruined genres goes on.
HelloLadies on 8 May '13 said:
Couldn't disagree with this article more. What a load of rubbish. If what he says has any merit why bother making any game other than an action packed shooter?
Legend Turtle on 8 May '13 said:
The trouble is that completely innovative games don't get bought in large enough numbers to be AAA - just look at mirror's edge, banjo kazooie nuts and bolts, vanquish etc.
Like it or not, the only way you get these innovations in a big budget title is if they are rolled up in a shooter - even bioshock infinite could only be made as an fps.
Don't believe that publishers would stifle innovation if it was profitable.
Gash Gardner on 10 May '13 said:
You guys should read more carefully, he's not saying the game needs to be more action oriented to improve, hes saying it has to to be able to sell (survive) as people prefer pew pew bang bang to thinking. Also if they offer 3 playstyles then what is there to be upset about? You have the option to be purely stealthy, so quit whining.
HelloLadies on 10 May '13 said:
What good is survivability if the game is just a twisted husk of what it once was and as a result mediocre and boring compared to previous entries in the franchise? If this is the case then gaming is on an express route to monotony and will eventually cave in on itself.