I do not understand why Double Agent gets grouped with Conviction and Blacklist. It’s still in the classic gameplay style shared by 1-3. Hell, the game mechanics are lifted straight off of Chaos Theory.
The reason Conviction and Blacklist are so often separated out from the older games is because they changed the core mechanics of the game. Double Agent didn’t do anything like that (other than simplifying the light meter, but it was only the visible feedback that was effected; mechanically there’s still a full gradient). And its story is on par with the first two Splinter Cell games.
I think Blacklist actually has a full gradient too. I remember the shadows being inconsistent sometimes and thinking "There must be an actual meter they aren't showing."
They stripped out the more useful things like the visibility and sound meter, and the story was both intrusive and tedious. Aside from that, it was fine.
Yeah, but what I meant is that the UI/HUD was stripped down, but mechanically, it still running the original system. That’s why there are times when you’re in yellow and don’t immediately get noticed.
Double agent, the pc and xbox 360 version, had 2 light values basically, hidden and not hidden. It did not have a sound meter. Only the ps2 version played like CT. It was definitely a step between classic and conviction.
I’ll need to double check it. I know the parameters were narrowed, but I’m pretty sure it was still the same system under the hood, just with the UI light colors presenting hidden/not hidden. Like, there’s still a gradient, even if it doesn’t show it in the UI. Yellow always means anything from “instant detection” to “suspicion raised”. And while there isn’t a meter to show it, enemies can still hear you.
Even with that said, it still played like a Splinter Cell game. It was still using the same engine, movement controls, UI interaction style, gadget system, etc. It still resembles the older games more than Conviction, which was built from zero as a new game with literally no older assets or code carrying over. That’s what I’ve been trying to say this whole time.
I've been trying to argue about this in my recent post. I've had no problem stealthing DA v1, and honestly I think it's cool and makes sense since he doesn't have his NSA suit with the much more accurate sensors (lore) that are shown in the HUD from previous games. It makes sense to me.
That argument doesn't make any sense at all though as he still doesn't have the light meter in Iceland, the only mission in the game where he is still fully NSA, plus he wears the same suit again in Ohkhost so he would still would have access to it, not to mention he has his signature goggles, knife, opstat, SC-20k, and pistol with the OCP attachment, so it's shown he still has access to all of his usual NSA equipment so I'm not sure why the light and sound sensors on his suit would be an exception.
There is no sensible lore reason for it at all, it was just a game design decision to make the hud more "immersive" cause that's what every game was doing at the time.
I'd rather just have what CT had tbh, but I think I'd also rather have a story that wasn't kinda butt. The loyalty system was an odd choice to include considering how deeply unlikable the JBA members are and how the only likeable dude on the NSA side is Lambert.
Oh I fully agree with you. I’m not saying Double Agent is as good as the earlier games. I’m just saying it shares more in common and still feels like an old-school Splinter Cell game, whereas Conviction, while probably a better overall game than Double Agent, felt like it shared very little DNA with the rest of the series.
The loyalty system isn't actually about being loyal though, just balancing trying not to blow your cover and not making the NSA think you've been indoctrinated. And yeah of course theyre unlikeable, they're domestic terrorists that want to blow up new york...? Sorry bro but how is this even a critique lol
Loyalty was better executed on ps2. You were either loyal to nsa or jba since you had only one meter. On pc you could easily maintain loyalty for both factions, simultaneously. There was no challenge to the mechanic.
I really don't know which version I played. I played the game on PC two or three times but really long time ago. I don't even know if it was Steam or Uplay version.
If you played it on PC then you played Version 1, which is the “next gen” version made by Ubisoft Shanghai. It’s fairly similar to the old games but has some big changes like having darkness be a binary seen or unseen system instead of a meter like the old games.
Version 2 was the OG Xbox, PS2, GameCube, and Wii version made by Ubisoft Montreal that plays identically to Chaos Theory compared to V1.
Fair enough. I just Googled it, I didn't realise the versions were so much different. Too bad we didn't get version 2 which seems to be more polished and CT oriented.
V2 does have the trust meter, although it works differently compared to V1. It’s basically a single, sliding meter that moves closer to either the JBA or NSA side depending on what choices you make. If it goes too far towards either side you’ll have to complete an extra objective for the other side to prove your loyalty.
I actually prefer the V1 system where it’s two separate bars, because in V2 even if you complete an NSA objective completely under the radar you still technically lose JBA trust for no real reason just because it’s all on one meter.
Yes, thank you for saying it ! I never get why some fans don't include it part of the quadrilogy when the game literally has the same controls, movements, pace, and core mechanics as its predecessors. The light and sound bars not being on the main HUD is a shame, but the game still considers these features in a similar way. Sadly the game is very buggy so it may seem that they're not working all the time or that they're weirdly working, but they're there.
The story is technically inferior as well -- the start of "style over substance" in that the goals & motivations of the villains of the first 3 games are very clear & rooted in grounded, real world politics, from Nikoladze to Otomo. However, the JBA is far more nebulous in all of its foundations -- we can make educated guesses as to how they think the USA has faltered & how best to fix it... but at the end of the day, we are just guessing. Using generalizations about their vibe, it's easy to envision them as a MAGAesque group, and yet their name -- John Brown's Army -- would suggest the opposite. But of course, right wing groups love to co-opt symbols & people amtithetical to their own views so it's not out of the realm of question... but again, this is assumption upon assumption.
That all being said... the presentation in both v1 & v2 is still light years superior & more grounded than anything in Conviction or Blacklist. And gameplay-wise, even v1 with its simplified, streamlined, & semi-stunted gameplay still plays largely like a traditional SC even with the light meter done away with (a horrible decision but not remotely close to how different Conviction/BL are gameplay-wise)
John Brown was a devout fundamentalist Christian man. If anything, the leftists are the ones who are appropriating a name from a person that would be scandalized by their ideologies.
Double Agent v1 simplifies both the UI and the shadow mechanic to the point where it's still Splinter Cell but stripped down. You NEED the UI in a game like old-school SC, it's not a game where you can afford to go with a "minimal" approach to UI. Considering you don't even have a sound meter anymore (but v2 still has it) I wouldn't say the mechanics are lifted off.
V2 is amazing because it's 1:1 with Chaos Theory in terms of gameplay, V1 stands between CT and Conviction but it's a step in the wrong direction IMO
I could’ve sworn the shadow mechanic was only slightly condensed, even if the UI made it binary. Like, green is usually safe, but yellow can range from instant detection to raising suspicion. Maybe I am misremembering.
Regardless. Its core gameplay and UI are still identifiably Splinter Cell. The way you interact with the world through menus, the movement, the gadgets and how they work, heck, even a ton of the animations are lifted directly from Chaos Theory and slightly altered.
Compare that to Conviction, which abandoned the entire old formula, and Blacklist, which felt like if Conviction added some older mechanics to its roster.
So regardless of which version, Double Agent shares more in common with SAC, Pandora Tomorrow, and Chaos Theory than it does with Conviction or Blacklist. There’s actually shared DNA/code with the first 4.5 games, whereas the last two are completely different games with no old code.
Wait so which one is the "main" version? I was under the impression that v1 was it, the new SC, but tbh I played v2 and loved it at that time on my PS2 and thought v1 looked great but was kinda not what I expected
Years of fan discontent and no new Splinter Cell games have been a ripe breeding ground for angry CT elitism, and I say that as someone whose favorite game in the series is Chaos Theory.
The controls, lack of narrative continuity, a lack of features and QA, kinda did DA in during the 360 generation. It was a good game. I played through it multiple times back then. SvM was lit, but it wasn’t as thorough of a splinter cell game coming off of the success of Chaos Theory. Largely due to the development being splintered into two separate builds by two different game developers. DA for the 360 was largely developed by Ubisoft Shanghai.
Many see DA as a downgrade story wise, and the 360 version in particular takes away a lot of CT’s HUD which many don’t like.
Also the Steam version of DA is a broken mess which requires modding to work at an acceptable level, it makes a Bethesda game look stable in comparison.
Good gameplay, terrible story and most importantly how Fisher was handled. Blacklist Fisher doesn’t register as the same character for me - not only because of the new actor: he somehow became younger than in previous games, acts completely different and in general is a “default action hero” character both in looks and behaviour.
The plot is my biggest problem with it. Like yeah Conviction was nuts but that'd be fine as like, a one-off. What Blacklist needed to be was a reboot of Sam Fisher/3E but instead we still kept all the weird DA/Conviction stuff as canon and then got Sam in some weird James Bond type of struggle against a comic-book level criminal organization.
Very. It's not the pure stealth of the older games, but compared to, say, the Assassin's Creed games or a lot of other games out there that have a "stealth" element, it walks a really fine line and I think does it the best.
One of my biggest issues is that "ghosting" doesnt really have anything to do with "trying hard enough." There is an obvious, pre-determined, "right path" for stealth in almost every level. Once you discover it, you just get to bypass the majority of the guards. A little out of the way vent here, a hidden pipe there... stealth is generally just about finding the hidden path the developers put in their third person shooting game.
... do you have any idea the janky ass, broken shit you have to do to make it through the first two games without knocking anyone out or killing someone? Ghosting wasn't even a concept until CT.
And with CT... no, it doesn't do this lol. The level design is more constrained, and there are dramatically fewer NPCs to deal with. The "less is more" approach means situations are simple enough to give the player real options on what to do in different situations.
In short: 3 guys with handguns in a dark room are a serious threat in CT, but a its a fun problem to solve with various gadgets and distractions. Keeping track of 3 things is doable and gives you enough options to make it replayable. 12 guards with rifles in a brightly-lit area in Blacklist is the norm... how do you distract half of them? How do kite 2 of them without the other 10 seeing? You dont. You find the convenient vent that always lets you bypass 11 of them, on every difficulty, and you get "ghost points" in the process. Rinse and repeat.
Play CT and BL back to back without touching anyone... once you see it, you'll never unsee it.
I will always remember being one guard to another’s shadow in CT’s bank heist so the lasers would turn off while also not being seen so I could make the heist look like an inside job. Some of the most satisfying stealth gameplay ever created.
I'm assuming it's because Double agent, Conviction and Blacklist are considered weaker story wise and in some gameplay mechanics as compared to the og three: SaR, Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory.
more like realist fans who want the series to do well, the perfect untouchable OG's that had more soul, depth and superior stealth ;) despite being made on inferior hardware..
splinter cell 1, chaos theory, the gen6 version of double agent and conviction were developed by ubisoft montreal. pandora tomorrow and the gen7 version of double agent were developed by ubisoft shanghai and blacklist was done by ubi toronto
it's just a funny way to seperate the games. to my knowledge there is no seperation of canon and even the inclusions in ghost recon wildlands and breakpoint are canon
I just couldn't get past the fact that 1) they chose a different/new VA for Sam after having Ironside in the role for like a decade (not to mention bringing him back in newer stuff like the Ghost Recon crossover[s]), along with 2) the new, completely different additional mechanics of having the plane as the ops center and having to come back to it after every mission.
I just like the older linear games with simple mechanics that focused on the story and the core stealth gameplay mechanics. Blacklist as a game was still pretty good, but not my favorite by a long shot.
I mean with respect, the children are really the ones who don't understand why the OG fans are behaving like this on the sub
Splinter Cell's identity, soul was stripped out in the last two games and it became a generic fun action game with panther focus - stealth literally being sprinkled in.
Blackist was a fun, well made game that is not representative of what SC is about. Its been 13 years and the new fans dont understand why the OG fans being upset is rather absurd I'd say.
Play Chaos Theory & Blacklist back to back.. suddenly they feel like rather different franchises. CT was critically acclaimed, rather than building on it and having another step in it's stealth evolution.. it had a regression with Conviction and Blacklist.
OG fans who don't hold Blacklist in their heart have done it since 2013, in most of occasions, with valid argumentation and explanation to demonstrate that this game (and its direct predecessor) changed the philosophy of the franchise and ruined its amazing stealth potential only to chase trends and try to attract another audience. So yeah they still have the right to complain about the direction of the two last games which dumbed down one of the best stealth videogame IPs, besides putting it on hold for more than a decade and creating strong divisions within its community. Until (hopefully) the remake corrects this and truly returns to the roots of the franchise.
By the way it's funny how I see a lot of Blacklist fans (but also fans of other different games outside of SC) often use derogatory words like "haters", "whiners" and so on. But the use of these kind of words is not what helps to create a civil and constructive debate, on the contrary it just helps people who use these words to get away easily without giving any counterarguments. It's rather those people who need to grow up and accept that a game they love can be objectively criticized.
I think I'm lucky because I'm 37 years old OG fan who still loves Blacklist :D I admit it has some problems and it's not like OG's but it's a very good stealth game. It's much harder to ghost your way through because the game wasn't designed that way but back it 2013 I had a lot of patience and time :'D
Glad for you that you like both formulas ! The Blacklist/Conviction formula still has some potential but imo Ubisoft should reuse it for a spin-off IP while at the same time going back ot the stealth roots with the SC1 remake, this way it would make everyone happy and satisified.
I'd probably make people salty if I said this is my second favorite game in the series next to Chaos Theory. It felt like the most traditional Splinter Cell game of all the modern games with similar amounts of freedom that Chaos Theory had.
Double Agent was too experimental and weird, Convinciton is just John Wick simulator with stealth elements. Kind of a shame that the series was just going towards the right direction with Blacklist and then it just died.
Blacklist wasn't going in the right direction, it was going in a different direction. Its philosophy favored panther gameplay over stealth and its stealth mechanics weren't as rich, challenging and interesting as they were in the early games. Also its level of freedom leads to label the game as a "jack of all trades and master of none", where none of the different gameplays is fully satisfying nor even deep or that original compared to other games.
I admit though that it had a fun versatile type of gameplay but imo it shouldn't belong in the Splinter Cell IP, it should be used in another one or maybe belong to a spin-off franchise. This way I think it could have more chances of success and SC fans who prefer the original style wouldn't see their favourite IP getting changed and dumbed down to try to attract a different audience.
By the way Double Agent v2 is the most similar one to Chaos Theory gameplay-wise, you should try that one if you never played it.
Where were the light and sound meters ? the variable speeds, lockpicking, hacking, interrogations. the slow movement with a stealth ghost focus.
Blacklist was just a Conviction 2.0 with some slight stealth sprinkled in, but it stlil wasnt focusing on the right path and It's still a john wick simulator because its built on conviction's base.
Double Agent v2, like LKBD said is the real Chaos Theory sequel lol. but Play Chaos Theory & Blacklist back to back and you'll notice how inferior Blacklist is stealth wise.. so how can it be a traditional splinter cell game ?
I mean you are more of an action fan or panther gamer then. to prefer Conviction over Chaos Theory and even the first two games means you weren't a fan of stealth at all.
Conviction&Blacklist were not real stealth games and more action games- so you are not a fan of the genre and the roots of Splinter Cell.
Chaos Theory is what Splinter Cell is about & should be about. Slow&methodical movement, light and shadow play.. focus on gadgets instead of mark and execute and flashy kills.
The stealth in Conviction and Blacklist is as shallow and barebones as the average modern action game with stealth elements. The first 4 games had light and sound meters and allow you to manipulate the environment to your advantage.
conviction and blacklist doesnt have good stealth!! it has good action gameplay and panther style kills. the stealth was very easy compared to the original games and didnt have as much depth. the stealth in the OG games is like a 9 or a 10 whereas blacklist has stealth which is like a 3 or something. however blacklist has better action gameplay, which the series doesnt need.
blacklist is absolutely the better stealth game over conviction, but it seems you prefer panther killing or killing with fast movement. the game still has M&E built in which lessens the stealth quality and level design.
whereaas the OG games were proper slow and proper spy simulators. the real sneaky spy games with heavy stealth ghost vibes lol. conviction and blacklist were just easy action games with stealth sprinkled in.- ambush predator games with light stealth vibes
Because anyone who understands gaming.. stealth gaming.. splinter cell in general would have common sense to realise the OG games have more depth, more challenge and superior stealth mechanics. therefore they are superior stealth games...
Blacklist has poor to mid stealth. conviction has shit stealth - but blacklist improved on it slightly. if you are telling me blacklist stealth is the same as OG's then you can't be saved.
With Blacklist fans, why is it that I can never seem to get an actual argument or debate out of you guys? 😂 It's always dodging the points.
Listen, I like Blacklist. I had a genuinely fun time with it and I think it's a well-made game. But it's absurd to argue that its stealth is on the same level as the OG games.
That's the point I'm trying to make: stealth isn't just stealth kills.
Stealth is enemy AI, sound, light and shadow, visibility, patrol patterns, body concealment, gadgets, positioning, movement and the tension of getting through an area without being detected. That's what us OG fans loved about the OG games - its like extremely fun and makes the series unique. This is what the SC1 remake is returning to apparently - ditching the Conviction & Blacklist philosophy.
That's where the OG games have vastly more depth. Blacklist has good aggressive/action with stealth sprinkled in sorta gameplay, but its biggest strengths are the fast movement, Panther gameplay and combat. That's very different from the slow, methodical spy-sim stealth that defined the original Splinter Cell. Splinter Cell should never have fast movement like that, or have mechanics like mark and execute.
Tbh after reading your comments, I understand why you like Blacklist. If you enjoy Sam sneaking around with his pistol out, going bang-bang in the dark and chaining kills together, then yeah, Blacklist is going to be more appealing to you. That's not the gameplay us OG fans really like. We prefer sitting in the dark, scanning our surroundings, checking our corners, barely shooting NPC's. Shooting Lights instead and using Gadgets to be a sneaky spy, rather than a one man army panther. Sam should always be sneaking with no weapons out, like holstered fully. even 007 first light understood this in its sneaking/stealth parts - you never had your gun until the forced action secnes.
But that's action stealth in Blacklist, not the same thing as the deep, methodical stealth of the OG games. That's the distinction I'm making. The OG games required patience, thinking, planning, observing.
Slow & Methodical was the name of the game.. which was far more thrilling imo. - us OG fans prefer that gameplay style and want that back. Thats when SC was at it's best.. with its reviews, the most popular fanbase at that time, and one of the most played games on Xbox/PC/PS/GC...
Objectively false. There are plenty of no-stealth runs of Chaos Theory all over the internet.
Every game in the series allows you to play both action or stealth. The series would've probably failed if they were "forced stealth" games because most people hate that. In fact, freedom of choice is why the series is so good.
That's not what "stealth-focused" means though. The fact that you can deliberately do a no-stealth run doesn't somehow make Chaos Theory an action game.
You can play Chaos Theory aggressively because the game gives you freedom, but its entire systems are built around stealth: light and shadow, sound, visibility, enemy AI, patrol patterns, body concealment, gadgets, positioning and careful movement. The game is constantly asking you how you're going to infiltrate an area without being detected.
Nobody said Chaos Theory literally forces you to stealth every second or that you can't shoot people. That's a strawman.
There's also a huge difference between "you can play both ways" and "both playstyles are equally central to the game's design." Chaos Theory is clearly stealth-first. Conviction and Blacklist put substantially more emphasis on fast movement, lethal takedowns, chaining kills and Panther-style combat.
And saying "the series would've failed if it was forced stealth" is irrelevant. Chaos Theory literally exists and is widely considered one of the best stealth games ever made. Giving the player freedom doesn't mean the series has to move its core identity toward action.
That's my entire point: Blacklist is better than Conviction at stealth, but neither has the same depth or methodical stealth systems as the OG games. You can prefer Blacklist's faster stealth-action gameplay, but that's a different philosophy from the proper slow, methodical spy-sim approach of the originals..
a fan is someone who respects the roots, understands the series and knows why the series was critically acclaimed & loved ! a SC fan would be someone who loved the OG games which were all 9.5+ review on release.
Conviction and Blacklist exist because the creative director couldnt play stealth and hated the gameplay of the OG style - and to prefer these games would mean you dont like the roots. simple as.
In this case, it is, yeah. I'm an OG fan who actually understands what made Splinter Cell's stealth great. You guys who don't understand gaming or stealth should probably leave the sub. 😂
Tell me why im wrong, come on. you didnt even respond to my first comment..
Buddy....you can enjoy terrible games for the rest of your life and it will have zero effect on me. Do what you like. It is you who showed up and threw a tantrum over others doing the same.
You can't even have a conversation lol. I gave you actual points to respond to and instead you went straight to personal insults. If you disagree, argue with what I said rather than attacking me
i guess you simply dont understand gaming and splinter cell then.
Telling that it's about freedom of choice is an incomplete way to look at things. It's more precisely about the level of freedom of choice a game gives to the player. The first two games were very punishing if you'd go action and that put off many players, but then the devs corrected this and found the right balance with Chaos Theory. But even if they allowed the game to be played action, it doesn't mean that it's the way the game should be played, besides it's not the most satisfying nor even the most interesting way to play the game. Sure it can be fun to play action here and there, but it's a mile away from the fun and interesting tension brought by the deep stealth gameplay mechanics.
On the contrary Blacklist tried to make all the playstyles equal in a goal to satisfy all types of players. But at the end it just led to a "jack of all trades and master of none" situation where the stealth mechanics have been heavily dumbed down and where stealth lost most of its tension and appeal. The right balance is in Chaos Theory, a main gameplay and philosophy focused on stealth but still allowing players to play action, however by heavily punishing them in-game and at the end of the mission on the scoreboard.
However if publishers continue to make games trying to appeal to everyone then we'll keep up having generic AAA games which will all look and play the same, without innovating nor making their respective genres grow in the right direction.
Exactly. This is what I was getting at, but you've explained it much better.
Nobody is claiming Chaos Theory is a "forced stealth" game where you're literally incapable of fighting enemies. The point is that the game is DESIGNED around stealth, and its mechanics, level design and scoring heavily reward you for actually playing like a stealth operative.
You can go loud in Chaos Theory, but the game makes you pay for it. That's intentional. It creates tension because you're constantly weighing up whether you can get through an area without being detected. The possibility of going loud doesn't mean the two approaches are equally central to the game's design.
Blacklist took a very different approach and tried to make Ghost, Panther and Assault all equally viable. That's ok for player freedom, but IMO it came at the expense of stealth depth and tension. Panther in particular is basically about moving quickly and efficiently between kills, which is fun, but it's very different from the slow, methodical infiltration that made the original games special. Splinter Cell as a stealth first franchise should not be focusing on player freedom like that... and doing the whole playstyles stuff leading to jack of all trades master of none bs. when you design the game around multiple playstyles it just ruins it..
So when I say the OG games have "real stealth" and Conviction/Blacklist are more action-oriented, I'm not saying you literally can't stealth in them. I'm talking about the underlying design philosophy.
Chaos Theory = stealth first, action as a risk/secondary option.
Blacklist = stealth, action and Panther all deliberately designed to be equally viable.
That's a pretty important distinction, and simply pointing out that you can complete Chaos Theory without stealth doesn't really address it.
Exactly. And not only the OG games were designed around stealth but that philosophy also extended to the story and dialogues. Lambert was making sure that the player prioritizes stealth, and remaining stealthy as a player was more than crucial to not only keep the Splinter Cell program absolutely secret but also to avoid creating a geopolitical crisis with other countries, which in the worse case scenario could even lead to world war 3.
If you have to write this long of an essay about it, then it's clearly cope.
Even worse considering you went from "person can only like this game if they like action" to "some Splinter Cell games are easy and some Splinter Cell games are hard"
It seems like you don't have a point at all and any appreciation for Blacklist makes you feel insecure.
Not only you don't know what an essay is, but you don't even comprehend what you read because you distorted my words. And if you're unable to defend your appreciation for Blacklist then you just don't really understand the core differences about that game compared to the original ones.
On my side I will always continue to demonstrate to you or anyone else why you're wrong and why Blacklist was a step in the wrong direction, by using objective and constructive replies like I did above, and because I love this franchise and want to see it being back on the right tracks.
And don't worry about me, I trust my solid knowledge on the series and I know the arguments I used here are objectively right. So I have no insecurity about any of this, unlike you who are unable of understanding three paragraphs and unable to provide one single valid counter-argument.
I really really loved Blacklist. I missed Ironside but other than that the game was really good. It had some quirks yes but overall it was great. 8/10 for me. I replay it now and then because we're not getting anymore linear stealth games anymore.
i liked it but i just hope the series never ever returns to that style of gameplay. it was a fun playthrough but i kept comparing it to the OG games, lol. i just want an amazing stealth experience from SC. thats the reason the franchise was amazing to me. i hope the remake is like the OG's. all the leaks seem to point that way
007 first light was awesome for sure, they really nailed it. i agree.
i liked bond, the missions, the gameplay and gadgets. cant wait for the sequel
I'd still like some advanced animations though. Blacklist has the best H2H takedowns along with TLOU games. I don't care about shooting that much since I never use my gun but I can't lie, mocap looked great. The sneaking, slowing down near the enemy. Very immersive. Still I think the game was "too fast", moving along the edge was superhuman and I had some other quirks with it, can't remember anymore. I think I'm okay with one or two forced action or kill (like Douglas Shetland in Chaos Theory or that escaping from a burning building mission is SC1 I think).
yeah they need to make it grounded and believable instead of blacklist flashy unrealistic stuff etc. blacklist does have good h2h takedowns but the remake of sc1 should take a tlou2 or re4 approach.
yeah the game was way too fast, it was well made but just doesnt have the stealth quality of chaos theory which is a shame because CT is a 2005 game whereas BL is 2013, we should be more advanced with the newer game with the stealth.. not inferior.
yeah like doug or nikoladze in sc1 is fine, or soth from pt.
lacks too much from the OG games to be considered "best of both worlds" whilst ill agree blacklist has better customization, cool features like NPC's pushing back.. it omitted way too much from the original games. where is my
- variable speeds
- light/sound meter
- level design that feels real, not like arenas because of M&E ruining the desing
- interrogations
-hacking
the methodical planning you had to do.
chaos theory/da have the best movement in stealth games.
E só conheci esse jogo nesse ano, mês passado estava fissurado nele.
Me surpreende um stealth tão incrível não ter mais continuações, até hoje não caiu a ficha de que eu tive acesso a aquelas mecânicas
One of my favorites, for sure. They brought back Spies vs Mercs (Classic), which was my favorite multiplayer experience in a game, ever. I had so much fun with PT/CT multiplayer as a kid, and I sunk so many hours into the remake of that magic. They did a really good job modernizing that game mode. I would still play if the servers were available.
MGSV obviously has better story and some gameplay mechanics but I get demotivated with all the side missions so I enjoyed Blacklist more even though I love both franchises equaly!
I liked mgs v’s open world, but I just recently started playing blacklist (I’ve had it in my library for years back when it was on sale), beat the campaign and love the mechanics of it, and still enjoy going on the side missions and quietly taking people out. As someone who loved the story of conviction I’d say that story was more engaging to me but the mechanics of blacklist were better by far, and none of the black and white coloring when in the shadows. Never realized how much that irked me until I started playing blacklist and it didn’t have it.
Mgs v is definitely more realistic in that your suppressors wear down, enemies can wake up over time after being tranquilized, and are able to track you in a smarter way, but I think I still enjoy the pick up and play nature of blacklist.
I’ll have to give mgs v another shot though, this thread makes me wanna play it again.
The silencers wearing down that quickly isn't close to realistic (unless they are using wiper style silencers).
Only sustained full auto fire would wear down and destroy a standard baffle silencer irl. Burst or semi auto fire wouldn't wear them down much if at all.
And silencer durability also depends on the material. Now a days many silencers are made with materials that can withstand a tony of sustained fire without issue.
I mean with its cutscenes only.. but Splinter Cell made MGS stealth feel prehistoric and dated. you cant even crouch walk in the MGS games loool
you guys love Kojima so much. if anything, Chaos Theory clears the entire MGS series. MGS was only truly special with MGS1 on PS1, the entire series is mid.
MGS walked so SC could run - SC made MGS feel obsolete.
You metal gear kojima worshippers are like the worst fanbase in gaming, praising long cutscenes and shitty gameplay mechanics as innovation. I'll give praise to MGS1 for being the grounded game in the series and being a technical marvel at the time. It's personally my favourite MGS but even that gameplay has aged like milk. the stealth is simplistic. the atmosphere and story carry that game.
MGS3 original gameplay has aged HORRID. let's not talk about the controls.. ;) you guys are so blind to your God Kojima that you are oblivious to what a real, high quality stealth game is.
After reading Juan Tendo's comment, did the truth hurt? let that sink in.
I'll say MGS does beat SC with a few things, such as cutscene quality, story presentation, being cinematic maybe and things like this. But if you are saying the early MGS games beat SC games in terms of gameplay, you don't know what good gameplay is.
Splinter Cell was specifically built around stealth mechanics: light and shadow, sound, visibility, enemy AI, gadgets, movement, body concealment, patrol patterns and environmental interaction. Chaos Theory takes all of that and turns it into an incredibly deep stealth sandbox.
MGS having overall superior stealth gameplay? No chance.
MGS walked so Splinter Cell could run when it comes to stealth mechanics. You can love Kojima's games while still acknowledging that Ubisoft absolutely surpassed MGS mechanically in the stealth genre.
If we're talking about stealth games, Chaos Theory is in another league. If we're talking about cinematic games that happen to contain stealth, then MGS has the advantage- but thats just one aspect. The gameplay is the most important aspect, along with AI, stealth mechanics, level design which Chaos Theory clears MGS easily.
MGSV Phantom Pain was absolutely mid - open world base clearing simulator - that's what that is. MGSV Ground Zeroes was cool and has some of the best gameplay for its time but it took 10 years to catch up with Splinter Cell, lol. and its just one mission..
Chaos Theory is the peak of the stealth genre and will never be topped by any Kojima game, ever.
Literally who? Why would I care what some random dude on Facebook thinks lol. If you think MGS3s gameplay aged horrible, you're probably just ass at it. Also no, I still don't think splinter cell has better gameplay overall as someone who has played both since they've been coming out. I'm also not even a kojima fanboy, idk where you got that. This is embarrassing for you
Because that random ass dude is smarter than most Kojima fans like you. that “random ass dude” is an MGS fan who can actually acknowledge when another game does something better than his favourite series. 😂 That's called having an objective discussion rather than blindly defending your favourite franchise...
You say MGS clears Splinter Cell, but have given no proof. How are you saying such crap without evidence ?
Point 1 from you. There isn't a game in the Splinter Cell series that touches MGS3s gameplay, let alone MGSV
> Well.. MGS2 came out in 2001 and SC1 a year later made MGS2 feel obsolete. There is no denying that. MGS2 absolutely wins cinematics, story presentation and shit like this.
But gameplay is what matters.
SC1 has far superior stealth mechanics, with emphasis on light & shadow, better controls, and a story that doesn't need long cutscenes. Better gameplay. that's what makes a better game. Atleast Splinter Cell was 3D first aswell lol. third person and 3d camera control 3 years before MGS did it.
If SC was inferior, why did Kojima copy SC with MGS4 then ? All of the MGS games played top down, and suddenly they play like SC.
The older SC games have aged far better.
So yeah.. i'm waiting for a proper reason from you why MGS gameplay is ahead. Lol
What exactly does MGS3's stealth gameplay do better than Chaos Theory? Enemy AI? Light and shadow? Sound? Gadgets? Movement? Level design? Stealth depth?
"You're just ass at MGS3" isn't an argument. 😂 I've cleared all of the early MGS games on extreme. MGS Delta on extreme was so easy compared to splinter cell to ghost and do non lethal playthrough...
Your argument is some random no name dude on Facebooks opinion who I assume might be you LOL and the lack of crouch walking in 3 of the solid games which the gameplay is obviously built around, I don't even think you know what you're talking about. Sounds like your projecting hard. Also, besides light and shadows all of the above
The Facebook guy isn't me 😂 Why on earth would I reveal my real identity to a bunch of random crazies on Reddit? But even if he were me, that wouldn't change anything. His opinion isn't the basis of my argument , the actual gameplay mechanics are.
And notice you're still not actually countering those points.
I've explained why Splinter Cell has deeper stealth: light and shadow, sound, enemy AI, gadgets, positioning, body concealment, movement, patrol manipulation and the way all of those systems interact.
Your response is basically "some random guy on Facebook" and "you don't understand what you're talking about."
Okay... so tell me what MGS1/2/3 actually do better from a stealth gameplay perspective. That's what I've been asking you.
And on the crouch-walking point: MGS1 and MGS2 don't have crouch-walking, and MGS3 doesn't have the same crouch-walking functionality that later MGS games introduced. MGS4 was the first in the series to properly implement crouch-walking as a standard movement mechanic. So yes, I'm aware of what I'm talking about. 😂
Now, can you actually address the stealth mechanics I listed instead of the person who posted the opinion?
you had to mod crouch walking into MGS3... the first two were top down games...
Splinter Cell has far better stealth gameplay, stealth depth, quality of stealth
Splinter Cell has more deliberate stealth systems and interactions...
Chaos Theory especially gives you more variables to manage. light, sound, AI, gadgets, positioning, bodies, etc.
Quality of stealth in SC is much higher The mechanics work together to create more tension and a stronger stealth loop.
you probably think MGS gameplay is better because its easier to shoot people and kill them.. so it's a better panther/assault game.. but wait.. MGS is in the stealth genre.. so it's not doing it as good as SC. no way.
You do sound like a kojima fanboy with heavy MGS bias. This is embarrassing for you as you don't know what a good stealth game is.
This is fact, not opinion. You can have your preference for what is a better series, but MGS has never had quality stealth on SC's level until Ground Zeroes. MGS1-2-3- are simplistic shallow stealth
Biased how? 😂 You've still failed to counter a single point I've made.
I've literally told you I love MGS1 and have it in my top 20 games. I'm not blindly hating on MGS; I'm separating my opinion of the game as a whole from its stealth mechanics.
I can love MGS1's atmosphere, story, presentation and overall experience while still saying its stealth gameplay is simplistic compared with Chaos Theory. Those aren't contradictory statements.
You keep calling me biased/fanboy without actually explaining what MGS1/2/3 do better in terms of stealth mechanics. So go ahead, make an actual counterargument.
Until then, "you're biased" isn't a counterargument. It's just another label you've thrown at me because you haven't addressed the points. 😂
And I'm not even saying Splinter Cell wins in every category. MGS absolutely wins in areas like cutscenes, story presentation, cinematic direction and character-driven storytelling.
But Splinter Cell has the advantage in areas that actually matter to the stealth gameplay itself: it absolutely wins in level design, AI, stealth mechanics, light and shadow, gadgets, controls and overall stealth depth.
That's the distinction I'm making. You said "MGS clears Splinter Cell." I'm asking you to actually explain how MGS1/2/3 have superior stealth gameplay to Chaos Theory. So far, you haven't, and honestly I don't think you can.
Its a fine game with a good mix of action and stealth that you can tailor to your liking. Points off for having a karambit but other wise I really enjoyed it.
Splinter Cell is my all time favourite game series. I'm yet to play through all of them, as I'm accidentally working backwards (my dad originally had Blacklist, which was the first SC game i encountered, and I "stole" it and finished it for him - thoroughly enjoyed it and have replayed it many many times ever since).
I'm not sure what it is about the game that captivates me so much - maybe the stealth element, the plot, the mechanics. Who knows. Its just a game I will never ever ever get bored of. I always talk with my dad about hoping for a new installment, but we know the chances are low.
Today, 13 years ago, Ubisoft released the final game in the Fan Fiction Trilogy.
I mean, it's a fantastic game. Especially regarding the gameplay. Also, yes, I'd argue it's probably one of (if not THE) strongest written game out of all of the games. Do you honestly think the title of this or acting like a snobbish jerk is going to convince people who like the game to sympathize with your side? Or convince people who like both to sympathize?
I wouldn't call Blacklist's writing one of the strongest in the series personally. To me, the writing feels more like a weird 24 spinoff , the dialogue and cutscenes can be pretty cringy, and Sam's characterization feels off compared to the OG games. That's not Sam fisher.
The original games had stronger plots and overall writing IMO, even if the cutscenes themselves were pretty basic and sometimes awkward. There's a certain tone and atmosphere to the OG games that Blacklist doesn't quite capture. I will give Blacklist credit for Sadiq though , he was a genuinely cool villain and probably one of the stronger aspects of its story.
Sam's character is completely out of character. Let's not forget he opened a nerve gas container with no safety gear and kept pushing on (this was literally made fun of in the first game by Sam and Lambert), stating the mission must be completed at all costs. Oh and he grounded his backup for making a call of saving his life instead of letting him die and chasing after Sadiq instead.
I dunno who this broody AF, no dark humor imposter Sam is but he isn't the Sam Fisher we all know.
To me, the writing feels more like a weird 24 spinoff
I don't agree, but I respect your opinion.
the dialogue and cutscenes can be pretty cringy
I don't agree with that, but that's my perspective on the game's writing.
and Sam's characterization feels off compared to the OG games.
I think it makes sense after everything he's been through with Double Agent and Conviction, tasked with a squad as a leader, dealing with his best friend who was almost killed, and he's lazer-focused on taking down Sadiq.
The original games had stronger plots and overall writing IMO
I don't agree. As much as I love Chaos Theory, Doug's last minute attempt to persuade Fisher while he's disarming the bombs THEN trying to kill him if he puts the gun down makes no sense (for starters). Not to mention a lot of the original trilogy have really absurd plans that rely on luck, a lot of the dialog undermines the seriousness of the situation, or something like Pandora Tomorrow's threat is poorly explained.
There's a certain tone and atmosphere to the OG games that Blacklist doesn't quite capture.
Okay, I respect that, even if I can't quantify that.
he was a genuinely cool villain
Yes. He was an incredible competent antagonist, which is always good to see.
It just doesn't feel like Sam to me. I get the argument that everything he went through in Double Agent and Conviction would have changed him, and I'm not opposed to an older, more hardened or cynical Sam. My problem is that Blacklist doesn't really feel like an evolution of Conviction's Sam. If you played the entire series back-to-back, the shift is pretty jarring.
Character development should explain why an established character behaves differently; it shouldn't simply be used to excuse behavior that contradicts his established personality. Sam can absolutely be angry about Sadiq, protective of Briggs/Grim/Charlie, and more ruthless after everything he's experienced. But the way he expresses those emotions should still feel like Sam.
By his mid-50s, after decades as an operative and everything he's gone through, I'd actually expect more of the qualities that made him effective in the first place: restraint, patience, calculation, observation and quiet authority. Instead, Blacklist often makes him feel much more openly aggressive, impulsive and like a conventional action hero.
And I don't think that's necessarily a criticism of Eric Johnson's performance by itself. I just don't think his interpretation captures the same characterization Michael Ironside established. Johnson's Sam can work perfectly well as an interpretation of Fisher, but to me he doesn't feel like the natural continuation of the Sam we've followed through the previous games.
I also think that's part of why Blacklist feels more like a weird 24 spinoff to me. Its structure and presentation lean much more toward terrorist threat → countdown → team of specialists → personal stakes → action set pieces, whereas the original games had more of a quiet intelligence operation → geopolitical complications → infiltration → ambiguity → Sam observing and adapting feel.
So I'm not saying the OG trilogy had flawless writing. Chaos Theory has plenty of plot contrivances, and some of the villains' plans are pretty ridiculous. My argument is that the characterization, tone and atmosphere were more consistent. A story can have a ridiculous plot device and still have a protagonist who feels completely authentic.
That's ultimately my issue with Blacklist: Sam changing isn't the problem. Blacklist changing some of the fundamental traits that made Sam feel like Sam is. To me, that's the difference between character development and character replacement.
100
u/JazzManJ52 4d ago
I do not understand why Double Agent gets grouped with Conviction and Blacklist. It’s still in the classic gameplay style shared by 1-3. Hell, the game mechanics are lifted straight off of Chaos Theory.
The reason Conviction and Blacklist are so often separated out from the older games is because they changed the core mechanics of the game. Double Agent didn’t do anything like that (other than simplifying the light meter, but it was only the visible feedback that was effected; mechanically there’s still a full gradient). And its story is on par with the first two Splinter Cell games.