Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

Ubisoft buys rights to "Tom Clancy" name


Recommended Posts

Ubi has repeatedly shown that they do not care about their customers by trashing franchises, releasing unfinished products and lack of support for said products (outside of one patch).

I really don't understand this self entitled mentality, honestly. Would you condemn a cook because a resturaunt's daily special was a sort of dish you didn't like?

What makes you and this forum Ubisoft's customers any moreso than the hundreds and hundreds of thousands of satisfied customers? If it has to be one group or the other that's pleased, why shouldn't it be the majority?

I can understand it if their games don't appeal to you, that makes plenty of sense -- but all of this wailing and beating of chests that this forum seems to pride itself in is just inane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I never said I was entitled to anything.

I would vilify a cook who took a perfect piece of filet mignon and made country fried steak with it. He ruined a perfectly good piece of meat.

IIRC, GR sold 15 million copies. Most on the XBox yes, but even at 600,000 for the PC, at $50 that is $30 million. Plenty of profit. That is as it was originally made. It still sells to this day and is playable and still supported by gamers (even if Ubi or RSE has finished with the patches, but then again, GR didn't have much to patch after the release of IT if anything at all). The new games as noted on the Ubi forums (and not just on the GR and R6 forums) are broke and patched once and left for dead after 6 months. Gamers are complaining as seen by others and noted in this thread already for a week old game. These new games, while quick profits for Ubi is all it is. The games do not have lasting appeal as been said time and again. The games are also unfinished or broke on release. Something you have failed to grasp apparently.

If you hadn't noticed, the very game we want isn't broke and didn't need fixing. It has ways for games to play anyway they wanted. It actually appeased both groups of gamers. With the arcade mode, people could take more damage and have unlimited supplies of ammo and dumb AI to shoot up. That was the beauty of GR. The new games are broke and it is seen by many, not just me.

If you do not like the pride this forum has for the game franchise this forum was set up for, you are free to leave (my personal opinion and not that of GR.net).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont really get how mgs can be better than SC, the enemy is blinder, the storylines are whacked out beyond all sanity.

There are robot ninjas everywhere, machines thats sounds like cows and it's WAY to japanese in style, no thanks, I'll pass.

Realistic or not, I rather be playing splinter cell anyday...

MGS is definitely not more realistic than SC - at least not in every aspect and with Conviction SC will start using the line-of-sight stealth, which will make the SCC become even better (if properly used).

SC and MGS are both great but storywise MGS has always been able to give you that I'm-watching-a-damn-good-action-movie feeling, while SC had only a few really intense times (SC1, SCCT as well as SCDA Xbox) but never reached it's full potencial. They simply made Sam a great and interesting character in SC1, but after that and SCCT ignored what made him that hero (he's been not only a soldier, but also a father, a man with a very close friend inside at 3E, a man he previously served with and he's been also a husband that lost his wife) and instead of using these facts to give Sam even more depth for example through Flashback Cutscenes or emotional events (and no, SCDA hasn't been emotional except the last cutscene of the Xbox version), they basically thought he wouldn't have enough and wanted to start from scratch. The idea of making him loose his daughter, closest friend etc. was simply wrong and obviously has only been made because of the popularity of 24 which had a similar scenario.

I'm a Splinter Cell Fan from minute 1 and I don't understand why Shanghai and Montreal were that blind. Sam didn't need any more depth, he would have had enough if they would have concentrated their efforts on his past and emotional layer instead of coming up with the cheesy story of SCDA. That's exactly what made SCDA a failure, there hasn't been the slightest emotional touch in the 360 version and only a bit more in the Xbox version. When I heard about the story (during my time at the marketing dept.) I thought a love interest could become interesting, considering Sam lost his daughter before that mission, but the way they integrated Enrica in the storyline was awful because you didn't see how Sam slowly starts to create a relationship with her and THAT'S what MGS is great at - deliver a character that shows his emotions and use them as a basis to evolve. -.-

The point is, NONE inside the company obviously cared about Sam as a character in SCDA they only took the most popular TV shows and decided to use various events from them, to make the game more dramatic (and it could have worked if they would have asked themselves before that "How would Sam react? What could his thoughts about that be? What do we need to show to make him more life like" etc). The entire SCDA storyline made absolutely no sense at all but only screwed up the SC continuity (which is obviously why they decided to ignore the events from SCDA in the upcoming SCC by setting the story 2 years after SCDA without even explaining what happened to Sam during these two years - Kojima wouldn't have made that because it's a so damn obvious mistake).

Don't get me wrong, I have the highest respect for Ubi Montreal's work on the Splinter Cell franchise, but some of their decisions in the last time are VERY questionable (no, I don't mean the new gameplay but decisions which are not yet public) and obviously none of them seems to know anything about Sam as a fictional character or at least consider bringing the one back into the team, who knows more about Sam than anyone else because he created the character (John Thomas Petty) not even as consultant.

You simply can't give a game's main character more depth while staying authentic to the SC franchise, without getting the people involved who created the character in the first place. Clint Hocking even consulted J.T. during his work on Chaos Theory (which was a huge success and is still considered as the best SC game ever - besides the original) but J.T. hasn't been involved in SCDA and most likely won't be in SCC which is major mistake in my opinion. I'm willing to give them a chance to prove me wrong with SCC but based on what I know, there have already been made some decisions that are questionable at best. The game will be great I'm sure, but I'm not sure if it's main characters will be.

Some film companies do have continuity assistants which basically make sure that every evolution in a film / series makes sense, is logical and based on the characters past experience / past events - THAT'S what Ubisoft desperately needs in my opinion - people who are able to UNDERSTAND the main character and think like him. So far I can only see people within the company who are using Sam's character as a symbol, not his essence.

SC could easily be as cinematic as MGS (which is still something Ubi tries to achieve) but without people who really understand the characters from a storytelling point of view, they won't succeed, it's that simple. They need someone who thinks like an author or actor (Michael Ironside is not only a great voice talent but would also be a great consultant when it comes to Sam's character) instead of people who think like a marketing employee (no offense). They need someone who loves the characters and thinks a lot about their personality as well as the relationships to other characters before writing it down. They need a hardcore fan inside the Dev Teams ('s because this problem is not exclusive to SC), it's as easy as that but unfortunatly they will never realize that. They're obviously routine-blinded. :(

Back to topic.

I don't necessarily think it has to be a bad thing that Ubi now finally owns the rights to Tom Clancy. To be honest, I'm carefully optimistic but they will never reach the full potencial of the T.C. brand if they continue to make the same mistakes they've done in the past (SCDA), that's for sure.

Edited by Vth_F_Smith
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me reiterate that there may be cyborgs and clones in MGS, but don't kid yourself that Splinter Cell is any more realistic.

As for Splinter Cell I like it. Alot. But I knew they were going off the tracks even before Chaos Theory released. There was a video interview with Mathieu Ferland and in it he remarked how Sam no longer would have gray hair. I knew that was the beginning of the end. The first compromise. Even though Chaos Theory had some really great gameplay, I could see the handwriting on the wall.

EMP to temporarily knock out lights, no gray hair, all of it. It was easy to see the soul going out of that game in order to appeal to a different crowd. The thing is the changes they were making were not really what the 'crowd' wanted.

Initially Sam was going to have an entire head of gray (white) hair but they settled on the sidewalls. It's a shame they didn't see the uniqueness in that look. When there are 16 year old girls playing Splinter Cell and saying they shouldn't have taken the gray hair away then it is pretty clear it is just one more misstep by a company that is making a routine out of self mutilation of their best work.

Edited by Hatchetforce
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me reiterate that there may be cyborgs and clones in MGS, but don't kid yourself that Splinter Cell is any more realistic.

As for Splinter Cell I like it. Alot. But I knew they were going off the tracks even before Chaos Theory released. There was a video interview with Mathieu Ferland and in it he remarked how Sam no longer would have gray hair. I knew that was the beginning of the end. The first compromise. Even though Chaos Theory had some really great gameplay, I could see the handwriting on the wall.

EMP to temporarily knock out lights, no gray hair, all of it. It was easy to see the soul going out of that game in order to appeal to a different crowd. The thing is the changes they were making were not really what the 'crowd' wanted.

Initially Sam was going to have an entire head of gray (white) hair but they settled on the sidewalls. It's a shame they didn't see the uniqueness in that look. When there are 16 year old girls playing Splinter Cell and saying they shouldn't have taken the gray hair away then it is pretty clear it is just one more misstep by a company that is making a routine out of self mutilation of their best work.

I think I have to correct you here (no offense). It's an urban legend that only 12-16 year olds play SC, in fact I know a lot of adults who are playing SC and by adults I mean 45+. BTW: I never said SC is more realistic than MGS (although MGS isn't based on prototype equipment / guns like SC) but it has a more realistic touch when it comes to political scenarios etc. It's realistic enough to me, to like it but I still like both series MGS and SC because both of them are unique, especially the lead characters. :)

That said, Kojima san simply does a great job when it comes to telling a story and giving characters emotional depth, because he cares for them or rather make his Team care for them and that's something Ubi still has to learn.

However, I give Montreal a chance with SCC - especially because they made the best titles so far. I'm just a bit concerned because some of their decisions I know of are questionable and might not have been thought from the start to the finish (again I don't mean the gameplay) but I hope they've learned from past mistakes (and maybe also from epic games like Mass Effect).

Let me reiterate that there may be cyborgs and clones in MGS, but don't kid yourself that Splinter Cell is any more realistic.

As for Splinter Cell I like it. Alot. But I knew they were going off the tracks even before Chaos Theory released. There was a video interview with Mathieu Ferland and in it he remarked how Sam no longer would have gray hair. I knew that was the beginning of the end.

I think that was a necessary decision because otherwise Sam would have been a bit too old. Besides people who are getting older, tend to color their hair - so that didn't really bother me. The OCP module on Sam's five seven didn't change anything if you decided not to use it. Actually that's something I'll never understand - people from the SC forums complaining about gadgets. I would probably understand that if Ubi would actually force you to use gadgets like the OCP, but SC has never been that way - you could always choose how you want to deal with a situation. For example, the first time I played SCCT, I played through without even letting the enemies noticing me - without touching them or knocking them out / killing them. Only sneaking by using the right timing and / or move. The next time I played it, I used some of the equipment (sticky shockers, airfoils, sticky cams etc.) another time I simply wanted to try some stuff, threw frag grenades, whistled knocked people out, "shaved" their throat etc. That's what I always liked about SC - you can play it the way you want while the devs simply provide you with a set of tools.
EMP to temporarily knock out lights, no gray hair, all of it. It was easy to see the soul going out of that game in order to appeal to a different crowd. The thing is the changes they were making were not really what the 'crowd' wanted.
Depends on which crowd you're talking about. I actually liked what they have done with SCCT because you had even more options. :)
Initially Sam was going to have an entire head of gray (white) hair but they settled on the sidewalls. It's a shame they didn't see the uniqueness in that look. When there are 16 year old girls playing Splinter Cell and saying they shouldn't have taken the gray hair away then it is pretty clear it is just one more misstep by a company that is making a routine out of self mutilation of their best work.
As I said, the hair color doesn't really bother me, as long as they keep the main character's personality intact, I agree that the gray sidewalls were nice, though but Sam's current look is also interesting, especially since in the original concept Sam was supposed to have a beard - kinda back to the roots. :D

However it wouldn't make much sense to keep him that way all through the game because in order to avoid getting captured or even killed, it's necessary to change the own look as much as possible - Montreal knows that. :)

Then again, he no longer looks like on the IGN screenshots we've seen so far - he looks a lot better now! ;)

Edited by Vth_F_Smith
Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to go back and read my post again :P . You are not correcting anything. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere did I say that 12-16 year olds are the ones that play Splinter Cell. What I was indicating is that even the YOUNGER PLAYERS THAT ARE FEMALE did not care for the change. Most of the players did not care for the 'cosmetic' adjustment and I was indicating that even the most youthful portion of the audience didn't appreciate it :thumbsup: .

Not every hero in a game needs to be a blonde 19 year old that has years of SOF experience and was even the personal bodyguard to the President. That was one of the things I had to get over when I played RE4. I guess it is because I am older it often makes me shake my head. It reminds me of the Pepsi campaign that was basically hinting that if you aren't 18 or under you don't matter. Youth is all that matters. Crap.

There is not one single reason why they had to adjust Sam's age. Not one. In fact every thread of common sense is against it. Why? He was 47 in the first game. And if you know anything about Sam, anything then you would realize he isn't the kind of person that would color his hair. He goes to a barber named Harry rather than a stylist. He uses Aqua Velva rather than Obsession. He is versed in social customs but he isn't the kind of guy that prefers French cuisine over a good steak. He knows a good cab but prefers beer. In short, Sam isn't a vain metrosexual. Some might even view him as a bit of a throwback.

Sam's age was one of the things that actually made him cool. This tough wry ###### that came from a different time in politics. He wasn't a person that believed in gray areas or compromise. It is either right or wrong. Had he been otherwise he wouldn't be on the run. His slightly curmudgeon nature was remarkable and it shall be missed. Ubisoft has taken this George Clooney obsession too far. Maybe they were jealous of the Bourne movies. I don't know. But Splinter Cell, despite all of the cool enhancemnts for combat will have lost that flavor that made it unique. That seems to be Ubisoft's specialty. Take a franchise that is different and unusual and make it run of the mill.

There is a published interview with me concerning an Ubisoft product and I made this statement:

"Hand-in-hand with this idea is the interconnectivity between the warrior on the field and various combat support platforms such as aircraft and friendly ground units. Despite the importance of the technology, at the heart is still the warrior; enormously skilled, highly trained, and unwilling to lose. It is the soldier that drives the technology rather than the other way around."

This is a facet of gameplay and mechanics that Ubisoft has forgotten. All the cool equipment in the world doesn't match gameplay where the player survives by his wits, daring, and slight devil may care attitude.

One of the big weaknesses in the games have been the fact you do not need to beat the game. You just beat the highly patterned and predictable AI. Predictable to the point you can count the number of footsteps before a turn. That does need to change. But Sam? He would have been better off as just Sam rather than Grecian Formula Sam.

Edited by Hatchetforce
Link to post
Share on other sites

HF is right on that account. Sam as he was in the first game and even PT showed he used his wits over fancy equipment. With the CT he gets a knife and everything changes (fan requested and I have preached time and again how fan requests can mess up games). They could have left Sam at 50 with grey hair. They could have left Sam in the shadows and they did not need to put him into the postition he was in with DA. That really didn't make sense to me.

Ubi may pull it off with Conviction, but as evidenced with GR and R6, they can really screw things up. They break things that are not broken and are now trying to compete in areas that they are utterly failing at due to those changes. Think about this, what if they took iL2 and made it into a Blazing Angels type game? I know you liked it and if it changed you would most likely be as ticked off as the rest of us over it. The saving grace is that for the iL2 series, they were just the publisher. Oleg kept to what he knew and expanded on it, even if it were to just different areas and different aircraft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about this, what if they took iL2 and made it into a Blazing Angels type game?

i don't know if this is directed at me, but i'll interject anyway:

Ubisoft has taken three franchises i really liked in new directions. Gr, R6, and Prince of Persia. I personally disagree with ubisofts' choices about all three franchises. In the case of GRAW and POP, I still enjoy the games, but think they could be better. I plainly don't like vegas very much.

Fact is, they're all good games, and if they did the same thing to IL2 it would be disappointing but within their rights -- and a lot of people really enjoy action flight games, they'd have the good fortune to play a product as high quality as Il2, since blazing angels kind of sucked.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fact is, they're all good games

That's an opinion.

Fact is, they're all games

That's a fact.

It's my opinion that their games are going in the wrong direction, and some of them aren't good at all. I won't be buying another SC title anytime soon. Sam Fisher isn't recognizeable anymore IMO, and I have no idea how any game designer could have screwed that one up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is, they're all good games

That's an opinion.

Fact is, they're *critically recognized as quality games and very popular with consumers

That's a fact.

It's my opinion that their games are going in the wrong direction, and some of them aren't good at all. I won't be buying another SC title anytime soon. Sam Fisher isn't recognizeable anymore IMO, and I have no idea how any game designer could have screwed that one up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fact is, they're *critically recognized as quality games and very popular with consumers

Still doesn't change anything. Opinions are opinions. I have mine, and reviewers have theirs (which are undeniably influenced by the relationship between the publisher and media outlet).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anybody actually read game magazine reviews of upcoming games anymore? I thought it was an established fact (or at least everyone knew) they were paid to give those good reviews.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact is, they're *critically recognized as quality games and very popular with consumers

Whose opinion that they are quality? Take a look at the Ubi forums to see unhappy customers and the complaints of the quality of said games. They may be popular for a few months, but if they were as popular as you think, they would still be played as the older games are. I recently took a look at the player reviews of Vegas2 at Gamespot. I have seen the words mediocre, average and terrible used along with the superb comments some of the others use. If it was so great, why would the first 3 descriptions be used?

And no Sup, the deal about iL2 wasn't aimed at you, but as you noted, a dumbed down flight sim (read flight action game) failed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And no Sup, the deal about iL2 wasn't aimed at you, but as you noted, a dumbed down flight sim (read flight action game) failed.

Well, yeah, because it was terrible. Broken controls, bad level design, etc. Crimson Skies and Rogue Squadron both did incredibly, as does the Ace Combat franchise, and they are/were all flight action.

As for quality, critics -- the phrase critically acclaimed does somewhat implicate them.

As for your comments about vegas, i hear people saying that Ghost Recon is boring, outdated, random, unfair, unbalanced, has a poor learning curve, has incredibly unrealistic and unfun mechanics and is generally a chore to play -- why would a game so great have criticisms?

I don't know, maybe because not everyone likes the same things? Individual preference will always be a deciding factor. Society can judge quality by general averages ('good' books and movies trend to more likes than dislikes,) and objective elements (quality of art design, execution, whatever.) We can fairly say, if we want to be mature, that GR and GRAW 360 are both good games. Which is better probably comes down to a matter of opinion. Whether you even like either of them is, in the end, a matter of personal preference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And no Sup, the deal about iL2 wasn't aimed at you, but as you noted, a dumbed down flight sim (read flight action game) failed.

Well, yeah, because it was terrible. Broken controls, bad level design, etc. Crimson Skies and Rogue Squadron both did incredibly, as does the Ace Combat franchise, and they are/were all flight action.

As for quality, critics -- the phrase critically acclaimed does somewhat implicate them.

As for your comments about vegas, i hear people saying that Ghost Recon is boring, outdated, random, unfair, unbalanced, has a poor learning curve, has incredibly unrealistic and unfun mechanics and is generally a chore to play -- why would a game so great have criticisms?

I don't know, maybe because not everyone likes the same things? Individual preference will always be a deciding factor. Society can judge quality by general averages ('good' books and movies trend to more likes than dislikes,) and objective elements (quality of art design, execution, whatever.) We can fairly say, if we want to be mature, that GR and GRAW 360 are both good games. Which is better probably comes down to a matter of opinion. Whether you even like either of them is, in the end, a matter of personal preference.

I find that the true critics are the consumers who buys a product and not someone in a cubicle who trys something for a few days and writes up a review for a magazine or website. They can be biased due to reasons unknown to the consumer (most likely ad support in the magazine or website but this excludes Consumer Reports/Union and they test products without ad support in their magazine or on their website). Consumers who use the products daily are the best critics due to the fact they paid for the product to begin with and can be more objective in what they feel its strengths and weaknesses are. Why do you see people here asking those very questions in the Off Topic Forums here?

Yes, likes and dislikes are personal preferences and yes, which game(s) are better are personal opinions and that is all people on a forum are stating. You nor I have to agree with said opinions as we are entitled to our own.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But Splinter Cell, despite all of the cool enhancemnts for combat will have lost that flavor that made it unique. That seems to be Ubisoft's specialty. Take a franchise that is different and unusual and make it run of the mill.

...

But Sam? He would have been better off as just Sam rather than Grecian Formula Sam.

It was easy to see the soul going out of that game in order to appeal to a different crowd. The thing is the changes they were making were not really what the 'crowd' wanted.

Word.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've kind of changed my POV when it comes to combat games, I'm really looking forward to see what blackfoot will give us in ground branch, but one of the best games I've played in my entire life was call of duty 4, I've never been so close to a playable action movie, great scripting, good story, perfect execution.

To me, those elements are more important than the fact that the gameplay involves ever spawning enemies and a really unrealistic combat model.

It was fun, it sucked me right in and when you see the final show off at the bridge I was in awe, the visuals, the music, everything made COD 4 an extremely well done game.

When it comes to MGS I'm biased from the getgo, i can't STAND the japanese style, it's too many "my enemy is actually my long lost/unknown brother" kind of things, they like way too many stupid things and "wierded out" art direction for my taste, some of the more darker scifi animes can be watchable, but in average, the japanese cant design their way out of a paper bag.

Even when the game takes on a more dramatic cue the japanese quirks break out, in one of the later MGS trailers it starts with a extremely beautiful scientist that with an open shirt to reveal cleavage and a camera shot that pans from her breasts up to her face, in what way are the titties important in that context?

Western des have their own fascination with big tits, but seldom as flaunting as this.

One thing that separates japanese vs western devs are IMO that westerners have ONE design arch, if the game is dramatic, keep the funny stuff out, not so with Hideo, the entire world is on the brink of collapse and renegade PMC's are ruling the world and what kind of mechanics do we see in MGS4? You can take out guards by rolling in an oil drum which in turn makes you throw up, why not occupy a guard by throwing a porn mag out?, just make sure the cow sound robots dont see you, or the wailing flying octopuses.

Yes I KNOW that that is how mgs is, but I dont like that kind of design philosophy, that's why I preder SC over MGS, less comic relief, and a darker but still consistent story arch, realism be damned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, MGS's design kinda sucks if you approach it expecting a military or even spy game. It's a dramatic fantasy game that happens to have guns in it; no more plausible than Zelda or Final Fantasy, it just happens to have more realistic aesthetics.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But Splinter Cell, despite all of the cool enhancemnts for combat will have lost that flavor that made it unique. That seems to be Ubisoft's specialty. Take a franchise that is different and unusual and make it run of the mill.

...

But Sam? He would have been better off as just Sam rather than Grecian Formula Sam.

It was easy to see the soul going out of that game in order to appeal to a different crowd. The thing is the changes they were making were not really what the 'crowd' wanted.

Word.

I find it interesting that Japanese developers (Hideo and team) with western influence from Associate Producer Ryan Payton went the opposite direction. Instead of making Snake younger they made him older. Definitely a direction away from the same boring predictability of other developers. Ubisoft could take a lesson here on the nature of the unique character.

Edited by Hatchetforce
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that Japanese developers (Hideo and team) with western influence from Associate Producer Ryan Payton went the opposite direction. Instead of making Snake younger they made him older. Definitely a direction away from the same boring predictability of other developers. Ubisoft could take a lesson here on the nature of the unique character.

No comment.

Anyway, I kinda liked the MGS games (first two that is, I'm PC only). The story was interesting, in a crazy way, and it had nicely directed cutscenes. The gameplay however was something I had to endure to be able to find out what will happen next.

Splinter Cell (SC, SCPT and SCCT), on the other hand, was just cool. I'm a huge Thief fan and stealth game maniac, and this game combined my two favorite game traits (militaristic theme, sneaking gameplay). And it did pretend to be realistic, and I think it worked fine, mostly because the settings and the story were also relatively believable.

Edited by Malleus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is snake really older?

From wht I gathered he's aging rapidly due to foxdie, since meryl, otacon and the other supporting characters has aged moderatly since mgs2

:whistle:

but yeah, only a few years have passed. Also, it's Clone degeneration (solidus was the youngest of the three, but appeared in his 60s, no foxdie) not foxdie.

Also eh, Malleus, Raiden (as much as everyone hates him) fit the tone and idea of the game pretty well.

And their concept artist is insanely good, one of the best modern character designers in any medium, he should be revered even when he's drawing girly japanese kids.

Also, if you ever get your hands on a ps2, check out mgs3; Kojima started to deepen the gameplay a bit, and it's a really amazing game. mgs1/2 feel somewhat archaic next to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also eh, Malleus, Raiden (as much as everyone hates him) fit the tone and idea of the game pretty well.

Okay, it's true. :) But it is still screwed up how they came up with the character...

Also, if you ever get your hands on a ps2, check out mgs3; Kojima started to deepen the gameplay a bit, and it's a really amazing game. mgs1/2 feel somewhat archaic next to it.

If I ever get my hands on a ps2, mgs3 will be the FIRST game I'll play.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that Japanese developers (Hideo and team) with western influence from Associate Producer Ryan Payton went the opposite direction. Instead of making Snake younger they made him older. Definitely a direction away from the same boring predictability of other developers. Ubisoft could take a lesson here on the nature of the unique character.

No comment.

Anyway, I kinda liked the MGS games (first two that is, I'm PC only). The story was interesting, in a crazy way, and it had nicely directed cutscenes. The gameplay however was something I had to endure to be able to find out what will happen next.

Splinter Cell (SC, SCPT and SCCT), on the other hand, was just cool. I'm a huge Thief fan and stealth game maniac, and this game combined my two favorite game traits (militaristic theme, sneaking gameplay). And it did pretend to be realistic, and I think it worked fine, mostly because the settings and the story were also relatively believable.

That link is it's own indictment. Raiden sounded like a good plan until people actually had a chance to see him implemented. He then became the most universally despised character in the history of MG and generally considered to have been a huge mistake in MGS2. Even Kojima acknowledged this.

You see they didn't survey women that played games. They surveyed women that generally do not play games and that was their mistake.

Edited by Hatchetforce
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...