Did Phantom Pain obviate Splinter Cell / Next SC game

[Silva]

I'm replaying Phantom Pain right now, this time with expectations regarding nonsensic plot and silly anime setting calibrated, and I'm having a huge blast. I thin its the best experience so far on "military stealth", if that makes any sense.

Then I couldn't avoid comparing it to Splinter Cell, one of my favorite series, and I'm inclined to think that it has become obviated/rendered unnecessary after Phantom Pain. Or perhaps not - if Splinter Cell goes back to its roots of very slow paced, super close and personal stealth entries. I mean, there is something appealing in bypassing unsuspecting enemies 3 feet away in small rooms, almost sweating yourself on the keyboard, by hanging on the ceiling or flatting in the wall like a lizard, that a wide-open stealth game like Phantom Pain can't provide. The first 3 SCs hit this chord very well (even if the first one is so linear for nowadays standards to the point of unplayable), while Chaos Theory almost got it perfected.

So if the SC series want to have some edge over the competition again, it should go back to its roots, while adding more choice through free selection of missions, or at least more ways to execute the same mission from different angles (Chaos Theory touch slightly on this last point, but has room for improvement).

So, thoughts?

P.S: Yeah I know Thief is the best game of stealth ever. Don't need to remind me. But lets keep it focused on SC and PP by now, ok ?

 

[Severian Silk]

My thoughts? The developer wants to make money and money is always right.

 

[waterdeep]

knowing Ubisoft I bet the next splinter cell is gonna be an open world ghost recon clone with tanks, more edgy sam with no personality and further casualization

 

[flyingjohn]

Phantom pain crowning achievement is that not only is it a bad stealth game(repetitive mission,level design is terrible and the ai is horrible),but it is also a bad metal gear game as well.(the insane stories and boss fights is what made the mgs games memorable)

 

[Volrath]

Phantom pain was shit.

 

[sexbad?]

BOSS
YOUVE ENTERED A BUILDING

 

[DJOGamer PT]

ai is horrible

Although I do agree with the other points. If TPP has bad AI, then there is no game on earth with a good AI.

the insane stories and boss fights is what made the mgs games memorable

Because stealth game are all about animu stories and boss fights.

 

[flyingjohn]

ai is horrible

Although I do agree with the other points. If TPP has bad AI, then there is no game on earth with a good AI.

the insane stories and boss fights is what made the mgs games memorable

Because stealth game are all about animu stories and boss fights.

The ai is blind and stupid.You can shoot a guard right next to another guard and have no reaction whatsoever.

Plenty of examples in these 2 videos:



As for the second paragraph i said "that but it is also a bad metal gear game as well.(the insane stories and boss fights is what made the mgs games memorable)" which is true.

Phantom pain bosses are a joke and the plot is just stupid and not in a good way.
The jeep ride with the main villain was so cringey and stupid.
Not to mention Kojima going for the minimalist storytelling approach for a series that is knows for having hour long videos about cooking eggs.

What do people most remember from mgs?
The sneaking,the weapons or the amazing vr missions?
No,the bosses and the crazy plot are one of the iconic things in mgs.Psycho mantis,old sniper dude from mgs 3 and nanomachines shenanigans are what make mgs special.
Mgs could never compete with either splinter cell,thief,tenchu or any other stealth games in the market in the game play department.(hence the tactical espionage action angle)
Mgs3 is the only one that focused on the stealth game play(camouflage system,healing and stamina and the cqc system).
The previous ones had nice gimmicks(knocking on walls,footprints,leaving magazines for guards,etc),but it was still shallow as a stealth game.

 

[Declinator]

I'm replaying Phantom Pain right now, this time with expectations regarding nonsensic plot and silly anime setting calibrated, and I'm having a huge blast. I thin its the best experience so far on "military stealth", if that makes any sense.

Then I couldn't avoid comparing it to Splinter Cell, one of my favorite series, and I'm inclined to think that it has become obviated/rendered unnecessary after Phantom Pain. Or perhaps not - if Splinter Cell goes back to its roots of very slow paced, super close and personal stealth entries. I mean, there is something appealing in bypassing unsuspecting enemies 3 feet away in small rooms, almost sweating yourself on the keyboard, by hanging on the ceiling or flatting in the wall like a lizard, that a wide-open stealth game like Phantom Pain can't provide. The first 3 SCs hit this chord very well (even if the first one is so linear for nowadays standards to the point of unplayable), while Chaos Theory almost got it perfected.

So if the SC series want to have some edge over the competition again, it should go back to its roots, while adding more choice through free selection of missions, or at least more ways to execute the same mission from different angles (Chaos Theory touch slightly on this last point, but has room for improvement).

I'm not sure what you are aiming for here. Some of the later entries in the Splinter Cell series are quite weak as I understand it (haven't actually played them because of the negative feedback) but "rendered unnecessary" is a bit of a weird thing to say. Military stealth is not such a widely contested subgenre that two game series cannot coexist. And frankly I think "military stealth" has far less meaning as a subgenre than "open world stealth" (or semi open world as the case may be). That you have guns and night vision instead of bows and magical eyeballs is unimportant compared to how vast and how linear the levels are.

What do people most remember from mgs?
The sneaking,the weapons or the amazing vr missions?
No,the bosses and the crazy plot are one of the iconic things in mgs.Psycho mantis,old sniper dude from mgs 3 and nanomachines shenanigans are what make mgs special.
Mgs could never compete with either splinter cell,thief,tenchu or any other stealth games in the market in the game play department.(hence the tactical espionage action angle)
Mgs3 is the only one that focused on the stealth game play(camouflage system,healing and stamina and the cqc system).
The previous ones had nice gimmicks(knocking on walls,footprints,leaving magazines for guards,etc),but it was still shallow as a stealth game.

When I think about MGS I remember the story bits. But it's not a good memory. I'd put MGS4 forward as one of the worst examples of story telling in games. Cutting some of that shit away can only ever be a good thing. Give me "the princess is in another castle" any day over MGS story diarrhea.

Phantom Pain was probably the most consistent in quality of all the MGS games but the heights of MGS3 are out of its reach and it got real repetitive fast.

Because stealth game are all about animu stories and boss fights.

I'm pretty sure Thief 1 had a "boss fight" at the end too. Not one of its shining moments to be sure but if the golden boy can do it...

The old sniper guy in MGS3 is a real stealth treat. Certainly the best stealth boss but up there with the best boss fights.

 

[Silva]

flyingjohn , Metal Gear series always had mediocre arcade gameplay (bosses ? Wtf) marred to absurd silly stories. Snake Eater/MG3 was the fist to have an actual good stealth gameplay and Phantom Pain was the one to elevate it on par with the tops of genre like Thiefs, Splinter Cell and Hitman. So I honestly can't understand when you say PP has shitty AI or something, because even if it has a bazillion problems it will still be light-years ahead of most turds that preceded it in the gameplay department.

 

[Silva]

I'm not sure what you are aiming for here. Some of the later entries in the Splinter Cell series are quite weak as I understand it (haven't actually played them because of the negative feedback) but "rendered unnecessary" is a bit of a weird thing to say. Military stealth is not such a widely contested subgenre that two game series cannot coexist.

I'm trying to think a way for Splinter Cell to keep itself relevant after Phantom Pain utterly destroyed it on the single aspect it always had the edge, the gameplay. And I think if the series keep going for a more popamole, action-oriented venue like the two last entries (Conviction and Blacklist) it will keep overshadowed by Phantom. One way to keep relevancy is doing something Phantom doesn't try to do, which is the kind of very slow methodical close-quarters stealth the original SC trilogy aimed for.

But Ubi being Ubi, the most probable thing to happen is they adopting their latest theme-park open world to the franchise.

 

[Declinator]

I'm not sure what you are aiming for here. Some of the later entries in the Splinter Cell series are quite weak as I understand it (haven't actually played them because of the negative feedback) but "rendered unnecessary" is a bit of a weird thing to say. Military stealth is not such a widely contested subgenre that two game series cannot coexist.

I'm trying to think a way for Splinter Cell to keep itself relevant after Phantom Pain utterly destroyed it on the single aspect it always had the edge, the gameplay. And I think if the series keep going for a more popamole, action-oriented venue like the two last entries (Conviction and Blacklist) it will keep overshadowed by Phantom. One way to keep relevancy is doing something Phantom doesn't try to do, which is the kind of very slow methodical close-quarters stealth the original SC trilogy aimed for.

Eh, I think both MGS4 and MGSV are downgrades from MGS3 in the gameplay department. Perhaps not moment-to-moment but at their bests.

If Phantom Pain destroys Splinter Cell in the gameplay department and thus makes it irrelevant then did Thief make both series irrelevant back in 1998? No, because Splinter Cell and MGS aren't simply worse versions of Thief and similarly Splinter Cell isn't a worse version of MGS. There is value in Splinter Cell that cannot be found in MGS. The slow, methodical close-quarters stealth you mention is an example of that.

That said, you should not expect anything good to come of any future Splinter Cell sequels or any sequel for any series for that matter.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

The ai is blind and stupid.You can shoot a guard right next to another guard and have no reaction whatsoever.

Plenty of examples in these 2 videos:

Dude I have almost 500 hours in TPP. Those things are most likly bugs of the game's initial state, because in all those hours I never came across with those faults.
This game AI is really good because it is responsive, very fast to act and most of all it has various according responses/strategies for the player's actions. If start a fight in night time the enemies (after locating you) will immeadiatly light you surrounding area, snipers will find higher positions, some enemies will start raining down mortars or fire (from mounted weapons) and some soldiers (with shield or moving quickly trough cover) will keep you pined down on the spot (and distracting you) while other squads try to sorround you. This is but one example.
I did play the game with the harcore mod, but the only thing that it changes in the AI is the enemies vision and audition range (wich is increased).

Mgs3 is the only one that focused on the stealth game play(camouflage system,healing and stamina and the cqc system).
The previous ones had nice gimmicks(knocking on walls,footprints,leaving magazines for guards,etc),but it was still shallow as a stealth game.

MGS 3 is a good action game with light stealth and survival mechanics. Sneaking in 3 is very easy because the camouflage system is OP as hell. In that game if have the perfect camouflage (95%, wich was very easy to attain specially on the first half of the game) the guards could literally be 2 meters away from you that they wouldn't see you. In 5 the right camouflage is importan, but it isn't a cheat. 3 also had footprints (visible in the jungle segment of the game) but the enemies didn't notice it.
Also TPP is the only one that doesn't have gimmicks, and were the small details actually affect gameplay (the more weight you can carry, also the type of weapons you carry affects how much noise you produce).
But yes MGV:TPP is bad a game MGS game, but gameplay wise is the best in the series and IMHO one the best stealth gameplay experiences.

 

[Nryn]

I'm trying to think a way for Splinter Cell to keep itself relevant after Phantom Pain utterly destroyed it on the single aspect it always had the edge, the gameplay. And I think if the series keep going for a more popamole, action-oriented venue like the two last entries (Conviction and Blacklist) it will keep overshadowed by Phantom. One way to keep relevancy is doing something Phantom doesn't try to do, which is the kind of very slow methodical close-quarters stealth the original SC trilogy aimed for.

Apart from TPP's sublime controls and numerous approaches to tackle a mission, I'd argue that the stealth gameplay has more than a few holes to poke at:

• I value ghost playstyles highly in my stealth games (unless it's a commandos style game), and TPP utterly dropped the ball in this regard. It's a stealth game that encourages non-ghost approaches due to the necessity of fultoning guards out of the battlefield for R&D progress. You mention Blacklist, but for all of that game's faults and far smaller scope in comparison to TPP, it actively encouraged ghost playstyles by giving the highest rankings/rewards for leaving all the guards untouched in an area. TPP, in comparison, places such high importance on time taken to finish a mission, that it's possible for a run-and-gun playstyle to end some missions with an S rank solely due to the time taken.
• Apart from a handful of missions, the level design leaves a lot to be desired. Bases with complex interiors are almost entirely lacking, which is the biggest gameplay failing of TPP compared to past MGS games. The Splinter Cell games and the older MGS games featured a lot of security cameras, some of which could not be destroyed, and this added to the level design complexity by requiring the player to be aware of danger zones in the space around them. Unfortunately, in TPP, this aspect has been mostly ignored, and I counted less than ten cameras in the game despite its far longer game length.
• TPP's missions have no tension arising from the need to manage resources since supply drops are only a fulton away. Compare this to the older Splinter Cell and MGS games where wasting scarce resources like Sticky Shockers (in SC1) or Chaff Grenades (in MGS1) can make other parts of the game more demanding.
• The garbage free-to-play inspired timers for Mother Base research requires mods to fix it. The bigger travesty is that procuring items through R&D nullified one of the bigger advantages MGS 1-3 and Ground Zeroes had over Splinter Cell games: items and weapons were procured onsite and rewarded exploration of the level. Missing blueprints in TPP was not nearly as punishing as missing certain items and weapons in the older MGS games.

Funnily enough, Ground Zeroes did not suffer from any of the above issues. I'd love to play a stealth game that featured a series of levels that were as well designed and had as much depth as Camp Omega in Ground Zeroes.

 

[KK1001]

MGSV has very fun, fluid core gameplay unfortunately wasted for various reasons I've talked about (some of which Nryn just mentioned): lack of indoor areas; lack of any real challenge; lack of complex level design; infinite supply drops, and so forth.

If MGSV were 15-18 Ground Zeroes-sized chunks (with good indoor areas) it would have been great.

 

[sullynathan]

Splinter cell lost relevance before MGSV released because of Ubisoft. Sad

 

[Black]

People calling mgs a stealth series (or video games) always make me choke kittens.

 

[sullynathan]

In hindsight, Splinter Cell was a really influential series. The whole third person stealth inclusion with a crouched protag and takedowns was popularized by SC and even later copied by a more popular series like Metl Gear. Now nearly every AAA series has this type of stealth but they do it wore. There goes decline.

 

[Machocruz]

Yep, TPP had shitty indoor areas. Quite a shame. And a lot of the open air bases weren't too hot either. Chaos Theory all the way breh.

 

[Declinator]

In hindsight, Splinter Cell was a really influential series. The whole third person stealth inclusion with a crouched protag and takedowns was popularized by SC and even later copied by a more popular series like Metl Gear. Now nearly every AAA series has this type of stealth but they do it wore. There goes decline.

Tenchu had 3rd person stealth takedowns back in 1998 though I suppose it didn't have a crouched protagonist Hitman did have a crouched protagonist stealth killing 2 years before Splinter Cell. Even Hitman 2 came before Splinter Cell.

 

[sullynathan]

Tenchu had 3rd person stealth takedowns back in 1998 though I suppose it didn't have a crouched protagonist Hitman did have a crouched protagonist stealth killing 2 years before Splinter Cell. Even Hitman 2 came before Splinter Cell.

But it wasn't the whole gameplay of Hitman, you could easily just play Hitman without being a crouchy stealth guy.