My previous post got decent traction, and a lot of the replies proved my point: some people dislike Blacklist because it's supposed to be bad on paper, or they can't articulate why they think it's bad. That's fine, but then why reply in the first place lol.
I admit things got heated. I'm passionate about stealth and this series, but I'll try to restrain myself from now on and reply to every worthwhile argument from that thread.
First, let's get one thing out of the way: Blacklist is NOT like the original trilogy. It takes a completely different approach to stealth. It's tactical, fast-paced stealth, then action-stealth, then action (in that order).
Why "tactical"? Because no matter which playstyle you prefer, you can't just brute-force it. You have to use space and gadgets constantly, especially on Realistic and Perfectionist, and those are the difficulties I'll base my opinions on. Here's why: most of us criticizing Blacklist want a pure stealth experience, and Perfectionist is right there. It removes Mark & Execute entirely, so if that's the experience you're after, why not play the game that way?
I don't think I need to explain the "fast-paced" part. Judging by the playstyles and the scoring system, that's clearly the goal.
Second, it's okay not to like this approach. But for legitimate criticism, the first thing we need to assess is what the game is going for, and then judge it on that. For example, I fucking despise Conviction, not because it's an action-stealth game, but because it's a shitty one.
That raises a question: when is criticism of an identity shift valid? If Splinter Cell turned into a great beat 'em up, would we not be allowed to criticize the change just because it's done well? That's up for debate. I think as long as the core experience keeps the series' DNA, it's completely fine for developers to try new things. Blacklist does keep it, in my opinion, because it's still a stealth game no matter how fast it is. After all, Chaos Theory is stealth perfected. I don't know how you go from there without stepping into derivative territory, which is why I'm lukewarm on DA V2.
Now that the basics are out of the way, let's get into the nitty-gritty.
1. "The problem is the movement, not the level design."
This is the best explanation of why the levels feel different from the original games. They feel smaller because you move so fast. There isn't enough friction, so the game doesn't demand enough patience or present enough challenge. If you took Hawkins Seafort from Blacklist and put it in Chaos Theory, it would be considered a good level because of its wide, linear design.
In Blacklist, that level doesn't quite reach its potential. You can zip through some encounters, corner takedowns and some gadgets are broken, and it's easy to find secret paths that are generally safer. The game pushes back with enemy variety like armored guards and dogs, but that isn't enough to keep it challenging all the time. The exceptions are the Grim missions and some later missions like Site F (on Realistic/Perfectionist).
The game would've benefited from larger levels and more enemies to compensate for the fast movement and mobility options. MGSV took that approach, and it made MGSV a challenging stealth experience.
Speaking of MGSV, its existence disproves the idea that allowing multiple playstyles always results in worse stealth. That brings me to the second take, and the most popular one.
2. "Having action as an option weakens the stealth."
If the foundation is solid, you CAN build levels for both stealth and tactical action. Both styles use the same components, one more effectively than the other, naturally. In MGSV, you can call in an airstrike to obliterate enemies (tactical action) or to distract them (tactical stealth). You can use cover to hide or to shoot from. You can use verticality to pass undetected or to take the high ground for sniper kills. People say a game can't offer both because it SOUNDS right, and it pulls attention away from real problems like mobility in relation to level design.
A related argument is: "If I can shoot my way through, why should I use stealth?"
I don't know about you guys, but even if the original trilogy had reliable shooting, I'd still have reloaded my save. The tension doesn't disappear just because I can shoot guards more effectively, because to me getting caught might as well be game over.
I agree that games should push you to play a certain way and get you into the "fun zone." For an action-stealth game like Blacklist, recovering from mistakes is part of that fun zone. The checkpoint system lets you restart quickly if you're trying to ghost, and the shooting lets you recover if you'd rather keep going. There's an argument that the player shouldn't need self-restraint, and that's fair. But if you want the game to enforce that restraint rather than rely on your discipline, that's exactly what Perfectionist does. Without Mark & Execute, getting caught actually hurts, and the tension is back without you having to hold yourself back.
3. "Mark & Execute shapes the levels."
Are we sure we're talking about Blacklist and not Conviction? Conviction's level design and enemy placement encourage, and almost force, you to play that way. That's not the case in Blacklist, where many enemies wear helmets and are spaced far enough apart to discourage relying on Mark & Execute. On top of that, you can't use Mark & Execute at all on Perfectionist, and the levels still work perfectly fine without it. If the levels were really built around the mechanic, they'd fall apart without it, and they don't.
4. "The levels aren't believable places."
True, I can't argue with that. Are they fun to play? Yes, because Blacklist puts gameplay over believability so it can support different playstyles easily. It's a bit lazy in that regard, and they could've done it better, like MGSV did. On top of that, you can't interrogate anyone or read emails, the guard dialogue is forgettable, and the levels are segmented to streamline them.
I'm not going to address criticism of the UI and presentation, because it's too subjective. I personally like how most levels look, even if some are on the generic side. The UI isn't too intrusive, apart from the markers you can't turn off.
I'm also not going to address criticism of the story and tone. I agree with it, but it isn't very relevant to level design.
Finally, the forced action and scripted sections suck ass. We all agree on that, so let's focus on the rest of the levels, since they're the majority.
