The Splinter Cell remake will update the game’s story ‘for a modern audience’

They don't even hide anymore that one of the reasons they remake these games is to insert/update their propaganda.

Of course, it's easy for anyone to see this exact same pattern exists in both Hollywood and the gaming industry. Both of these are extremely insular industries that have cult-like atmospheres.

Makes perfect sense considering we are 7 years down the line from Gamer Gate, where the gaming journalists and developers alike overplayed their hands and revealed that their agenda is at odds with many (or most?) gamers.

It's why I barely buy gamers anymore. These developers, as well as the journalists, do a poor job of masking their hate for the average gamer. The gaming industry was much better in the 90's and 00's, and it was also a lot less diverse. A direct correlation, if you ask me.
 
I mean, their target audience is dudes with video game money in their '40s and '50s now.

I'm kinda digging the fact that these companies are that critically stupid. It's like watching those videos where the trucks don't turn left and try and go under the bridge. Good luck with that.
 
Ubisucks quote:

We want to keep the spirit and themes of the original game while exploring our characters and the world to make them more authentic and believable.
Click to expand...

By making them authentic and believable, they mean over representing the least common types of people.

Ubisoft actively tries to ruin its own games, but maybe this will be passable. But I doubt they'll get the feel or theme right. Chaos Theory at least had a more minimal story. It was mostly focused on the scenarios and their plots. Sam Fisher was a character that fit in well and was believable. But he wasn't the center of attention, nor were any James Bond type evil villains. I doubt they can replicate that serious, real world, matter of fact tone. Ubisoft just can't do serious and mature themes no matter how hard they try. Far Cry 6 is a good example. Bad humor with flat, child like attempts at serious themes and then outright political pandering 3 minutes later.
 
Last edited:
Flogger23m said:
Ubisucks quote:



By making them authentic and believable, they mean over representing the least common types of people.

Ubisoft actively tries to ruin its own games, but maybe this will be passable. But I doubt they'll get the feel or theme right. Chaos Theory at least had a more minimal story. It was mostly focused on the scenarios and their plots. Sam Fisher was a character that fit in well and was believable. But he wasn't the center of attention, nor were any James Bond type evil villains. I doubt they can replicate that serious, real world, matter of fact tone. Ubisoft just can't do serious and mature themes no matter how hard they try. Far Cry 6 is a good example. Bad humor with flat, child like attempts at serious themes and then outright political pandering 3 minutes later.
Click to expand...

"Over representing" Fuck off. Just because 100% of the characters aren't straight, white, dudes doesn't mean other people are being "over represented".

There's plenty to be concerned about due to Ubisoft's, to be polite, not great writing in their games but getting your panties in a wad about minority representation is not remotely part of that.

I don't think any of the Splinter Cell games had particularly great stories, but most of them at least felt like they could exist in a Clancy world. I get the feeling this is going to be like asking a high schooler to write a spy novel.
 
Derangel said:
"Over representing" Fuck off. Just because 100% of the characters aren't straight, white, dudes doesn't mean other people are being "over represented".

There's plenty to be concerned about due to Ubisoft's, to be polite, not great writing in their games but getting your panties in a wad about minority representation is not remotely part of that.

I don't think any of the Splinter Cell games had particularly great stories, but most of them at least felt like they could exist in a Clancy world. I get the feeling this is going to be like asking a high schooler to write a spy novel.
Click to expand...
I think the point is this. Colour isn't important. But most TV shows these days has an overrepresentation of POC (seems like the accepted term) and members from the LGBTQ community. You don't have to agree but when white straight people are the majority of the country and the least represented, we didn't hit equality, we swung the other way.
 
Derangel said:
"Over representing" Fuck off. Just because 100% of the characters aren't straight, white, dudes doesn't mean other people are being "over represented".

There's plenty to be concerned about due to Ubisoft's, to be polite, not great writing in their games but getting your panties in a wad about minority representation is not remotely part of that.

I don't think any of the Splinter Cell games had particularly great stories, but most of them at least felt like they could exist in a Clancy world. I get the feeling this is going to be like asking a high schooler to write a spy novel.
Click to expand...
I do not understand how is splinter cell not representative enough, when of the 3 main characters one was female, one black and one white guy.
If they want to make a game about different characters create new ones, nothing is stopping them. Changing established ones is never a good idea. Nobody wants a Soy Fisher, or an LGBTQ Grimsdottir, not even the people who say they want it. Because if their wish is granted they don't buy the game, just move on to cry about representation in something else.

Representation always existed in both movies and games. And nobody had a problem with it, overrepresntatoin however is a very real and existing issue.
Like making 50% of soldiers in FarCry6 female. Completely unrealistic and unbelievable, and I don't know about you but I wasn't exactly comfortable shooting women in the head in the dozens every minute. If not wanting to hunt down women in games makes me a mysogynist, then be it.
 
M76 said:
I do not understand how is splinter cell not representative enough, when of the 3 main characters one was female, one black and one white guy.
If they want to make a game about different characters create new ones, nothing is stopping them. Changing established ones is never a good idea. Nobody wants a Soy Fisher, or an LGBTQ Grimsdottir, not even the people who say they want it. Because if their wish is granted they don't buy the game, just move on to cry about representation in something else.

Representation always existed in both movies and games. And nobody had a problem with it, overrepresntatoin however is a very real and existing issue.
Like making 50% of soldiers in FarCry6 female. Completely unrealistic and unbelievable, and I don't know about you but I wasn't exactly comfortable shooting women in the head in the dozens every minute. If not wanting to hunt down women in games makes me a mysogynist, then be it.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with the original cast. I also wouldn't trust Ubisoft to make any changes without royally fucking it up. When it comes to spy works, I generally don't care that much about the greater personal lives of the people involved unless it's crucial to the story.

We're complaining about realism in Far Cry? I know FC6 kind of sucked, but was it so boring that you had to stop and count exactly how many of the canon fodder you were killing had boobs?
 
Derangel said:
I also wouldn't trust Ubisoft to make any changes without royally fucking it up.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't trust anyone who says updated for "modern audiences".
Derangel said:
When it comes to spy works, I generally don't care that much about the greater personal lives of the people involved unless it's crucial to the story.
Click to expand...
It's called character building which is essential to have the player invested in the story.
Derangel said:
We're complaining about realism in Far Cry? I know FC6 kind of sucked, but was it so boring that
Click to expand...
Physical realism is actually not an issue in Far Cry, it's problem is just like with every social justice minded game, the story and the characters.
you had to stop and count exactly how many of the canon fodder you were killing had boobs?
Click to expand...
Do you have to stop and count the squares on a chessboard to be able to tell that half of them are black?
 
M76 said:
I wouldn't trust anyone who says updated for "modern audiences".

It's called character building which is essential to have the player invested in the story.

Physical realism is actually not an issue in Far Cry, it's problem is just like with every social justice minded game, the story and the characters.

Do you have to stop and count the squares on a chessboard to be able to tell that half of them are black?
Click to expand...
Part of what makes all of the Jack Ryan novels so good is the character himself and the backstory. Without that, it wouldn't be nearly as interesting.. Even the Jack Ryan films, it was the earlier Baldwin/Ford trio that were so good because they left in the character building.

Yes, it also scares me anytime I hear 'Re-Imagining' or 'updated for the modern audience'.

That means - We couldn't afford good writers, and it's shit. This is less about shoving down woke non-sense, even though that is what it feels like as the viewer. The real issue is that the talent for writing these days is just vastly under-appreciated, and these production companies aren't willing to spend money on a good writer.
 
M76 said:
I wouldn't trust anyone who says updated for "modern audiences".
Click to expand...

Well, considering how bad writing tends to be these days I don’t blame you. It’s easy to use “rainbow capitalism” to get positive press and then not worry about following through on anything.
M76 said:
Physical realism is actually not an issue in Far Cry, it's problem is just like with every social justice minded game, the story and the characters.
Click to expand...

You’re not going to hear me argue about story and characters being done poorly, especially in a Ubisoft game.
M76 said:
Do you have to stop and count the squares on a chessboard to be able to tell that half of them are black?
Click to expand...

That’s a really bad analogy.
 
M76 said:
Like making 50% of soldiers in FarCry6 female. Completely unrealistic and unbelievable
Click to expand...

This is the trend in AAA games these days. People will shout "it is just a game, no game is realistic!". Well every game generally has to have some type of logic and follow common sense for the setting. So while Far Cry 6 isn't exactly realistic throughout it is still grounded in reality in general. And looking at history practically all armed uprisings were carried out mostly by men. Likewise for soldiers and henchmen (hence the term).

Likewise for the recent Assassin's Creed games. Half of the fighters are woman, and they are just as strong or stronger than the men. Which we know isn't true in the real world. People will say "well it isn't realistic! It is virtual reality and you meet fake people!" Okay, well then what if we replaced all the characters in Valhalla with black or Asian people wearing jeans and tee shirts? Maybe throw in M16 carrying guys flying around on hover boards too. You can't argue with these people because they follow zero logic.

Ubisoft is working on an Assassin's Creed game set in Japan. I wonder if half the characters will be gay, black, white and Hispanic. If they do go that route, I wonder how the SJW gaming journalists will accept it. It would be ironic if they criticize the game for not being true to Japan's racial and ethnic make up.
 
Flogger23m said:
This is the trend in AAA games these days. People will shout "it is just a game, no game is realistic!". Well every game generally has to have some type of logic and follow common sense for the setting. So while Far Cry 6 isn't exactly realistic throughout it is still grounded in reality in general. And looking at history practically all armed uprisings were carried out mostly by men. Likewise for soldiers and henchmen (hence the term).

Likewise for the recent Assassin's Creed games. Half of the fighters are woman, and they are just as strong or stronger than the men. Which we know isn't true in the real world. People will say "well it isn't realistic! It is virtual reality and you meet fake people!" Okay, well then what if we replaced all the characters in Valhalla with black or Asian people wearing jeans and tee shirts? Maybe throw in M16 carrying guys flying around on hover boards too. You can't argue with these people because they follow zero logic.

Ubisoft is working on an Assassin's Creed game set in Japan. I wonder if half the characters will be gay, black, white and Hispanic. If they do go that route, I wonder how the SJW gaming journalists will accept it. It would be ironic if they criticize the game for not being true to Japan's racial and ethnic make up.
Click to expand...

The last two games you could "choose your own gender." I played as the male, and somehow the media thinks that I did the wrong thing by not picking to play as Kassandra or a female Eivor including but not limited to saying that somehow my playthrough was not "canon" because the female is the canon character.
 
kirbyrj said:
The last two games you could "choose your own gender." I played as the male, and somehow the media thinks that I did the wrong thing by not picking to play as Kassandra or a female Eivor including but not limited to saying that somehow my playthrough was not "canon" because the female is the canon character.
Click to expand...

People are dumb. Unless there is a specific need to spell out which version of a character is canon (for example, when old Star Wars EU material had to reference KOTOR and KOTOR 2) I find it dumb to go out of the way to decide which version is "real". At that point, why bother giving the player the choice in the first place?
 
kirbyrj said:
The last two games you could "choose your own gender." I played as the male, and somehow the media thinks that I did the wrong thing by not picking to play as Kassandra or a female Eivor including but not limited to saying that somehow my playthrough was not "canon" because the female is the canon character.
Click to expand...

To make matters worse there is a cross over DLC for Valhalla. They assume the protagonist is Kassandra, which is odd because I chose Alexios. Kassandra was the antagonist in Odyssey for me. Ubisoft has to face the harsh reality that you cannot have a consistent story that spans multiple time periods by having both gender options as a choice. I don't feel like pointing out the obvious biological differences between males and females, but Odyssey essentially changed who the main character settled down with in the DLC. If they ever want to reference back to that they will need to either account for it (which they didn't in Valhalla) or just have odd inconsistencies.

At least with Syndicate they handled it in a plausible way. You had both a male and female character. The female character wasn't so bad because she was an assassin, and the game typically was oriented around quickly stabbing someone in the back or shooting them rather than getting into a melee brawl against stronger foes.

And this is precisely why I don't just Ubisoft to be able to handle a "modernized" Splinter Cell. They can't do anything serious no matter how hard they try. Ubisoft games are inherently childish. Yes, some of them like Far Cry 6 are still somewhat enjoyable. But Splinter Cell always had a more grounded setting. You take that away and you take away the games identity.
 
I was going to say that Syndicate handled it better than both Odyssey and Valhalla. I actually liked Syndicate even if it ended up being Arkham Assassin due to the gameplay at times.
 
Flogger23m said:
To make matters worse there is a cross over DLC for Valhalla. They assume the protagonist is Kassandra, which is odd because I chose Alexios. Kassandra was the antagonist in Odyssey for me. Ubisoft has to face the harsh reality that you cannot have a consistent story that spans multiple time periods by having both gender options as a choice. I don't feel like pointing out the obvious biological differences between males and females, but Odyssey essentially changed who the main character settled down with in the DLC. If they ever want to reference back to that they will need to either account for it (which they didn't in Valhalla) or just have odd inconsistencies.

At least with Syndicate they handled it in a plausible way. You had both a male and female character. The female character wasn't so bad because she was an assassin, and the game typically was oriented around quickly stabbing someone in the back or shooting them rather than getting into a melee brawl against stronger foes.

And this is precisely why I don't just Ubisoft to be able to handle a "modernized" Splinter Cell. They can't do anything serious no matter how hard they try. Ubisoft games are inherently childish. Yes, some of them like Far Cry 6 are still somewhat enjoyable. But Splinter Cell always had a more grounded setting. You take that away and you take away the games identity.
Click to expand...

I recall reading somewhere that more people chose to play as Kassandra than Alexios, which might have informed their choice on who they picked as "canon" but it's still a pretty poor justification. It's not like Ubisoft lacked the resources to account for what players of the previous game picked.

kirbyrj said:
I was going to say that Syndicate handled it better than both Odyssey and Valhalla. I actually liked Syndicate even if it ended up being Arkham Assassin due to the gameplay at times.
Click to expand...

Syndicate handled it perfectly. The game did a lot of stuff better than many other games in the series.
 
Derangel said:
I recall reading somewhere that more people chose to play as Kassandra than Alexios, which might have informed their choice on who they picked as "canon" but it's still a pretty poor justification. It's not like Ubisoft lacked the resources to account for what players of the previous game picked.
Click to expand...

I read the opposite. Most picked Alexios by something like 85/15% difference.
 
Derangel said:
Just double checked and you're right.
Click to expand...

I have no problem playing as a female protagonist. I have played through multiple tomb raider games and thought nothing of it. I dislike the ambiguity and then the media telling me that if I choose to play as a male character over the female character that I was given the option to choose that somehow I'm deficient at playing a game that I bought. If you want a female protagonist so bad, write the game so that there is no choice. Don't make me question my own selection process in a game where you gave me the option to choose.
 
kirbyrj said:
I have no problem playing as a female protagonist.
Click to expand...

I like third-person games because you can look at her butt.

But I usually also play them as an evil character because it divorces me from the character's actions. You get to double-dip. Enjoy the ass and extra plot, guilt-free!
 
kirbyrj said:
I have no problem playing as a female protagonist. I have played through multiple tomb raider games and thought nothing of it. I dislike the ambiguity and then the media telling me that if I choose to play as a male character over the female character that I was given the option to choose that somehow I'm deficient at playing a game that I bought. If you want a female protagonist so bad, write the game so that there is no choice. Don't make me question my own selection process in a game where you gave me the option to choose.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm not a fan of giving players the option and then making it seem entirely pointless later. If you're going to give the player a choice, don't make it artificial or meaningless. One thing I loved about Syndicate's way of doing it is that they made both characters fleshed out and part of the story. I really liked playing as both of them. Odyssey's idea of having the sibling you didn't pick get killed as a child was interesting, but they really didn't do enough with it. And hearing that they just picked one of them to be canon for Valhalla's DLC makes it seem even more pointless. This is something I worry about happening with Bioware working on a new Mass Effect. If they end up picking a canon ending they're going to end up invalidating a whole shit load of player's choices from the trilogy (more than 3 already did) and it's just going to make any playthrough that doesn't fit that canon feel entirely worthless.
 
Derangel said:
You’re not going to hear me argue about story and characters being done poorly, especially in a Ubisoft game.
Click to expand...
I actually enjoyed the story and characters in many relatively recent ubisoft games. This is not an established trend for them, their first game were the narrative really suffered due to the agenda was Far Cry 6.
Derangel said:
That’s a really bad analogy.
Click to expand...
Why, because you say so? It's actually a very good analogy to show that you can instantly see something when it is this obvious. Sure this not started with Far Cry 6, there were plenty of female warriors in Assassin's Creed Valhalla and Odyssey, but definitely not close to an 1:1 ratio. And the story and main characters were still decent in those games.
 
kirbyrj said:
I read the opposite. Most picked Alexios by something like 85/15% difference.
Click to expand...

I am reading 2/3rds, but that might be dated as the articles are from some years back. The other thing worth noting is since before it came out the developers essentially said Kassandra was the main character and canon. So we're likely seeing a much higher amount of people choosing Kassandra just for that reason. People want to play the choice that is considered canon in the lore. Otherwise, I would assume the split to be 75% or more in favor of Alexios. Outside of the raging reddit/twitter/Kotaku crowd I think most people realize a female warrior in ancient Greece is ridiculous and choose their character accordingly.

M76 said:
Why, because you say so? It's actually a very good analogy to show that you can instantly see something when it is this obvious. Sure this not started with Far Cry 6, there were plenty of female warriors in Assassin's Creed Valhalla and Odyssey, but definitely not close to an 1:1 ratio. And the story and main characters were still decent in those games.
Click to expand...

I think it was worse in Odyssey because the game clearly chooses who is the "right" character. It is also more ridiculous in older times to see women in combat roles because they are weaker, and physical strength matters more with swords and spears than it does with firearms. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but there are a good number of armed police women around the world and many of the enemies in FC6 were essentially gloried military police. But again, FC6 takes it to an extreme level. In the US 87% of police officers are men as an example. So having a 50/50 split of armed officers or military personal in combat roles does stand out in FC6. But it is more plausible than it was in ancient Greece.

Will be fun seeing Sam Fisher 2.0 getting beat up by a tiny woman in the upcoming Splinter Cell game though. And probably made into a side kick.
 
kirbyrj said:
The last two games you could "choose your own gender." I played as the male, and somehow the media thinks that I did the wrong thing by not picking to play as Kassandra or a female Eivor including but not limited to saying that somehow my playthrough was not "canon" because the female is the canon character.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why do you need the press's or any one else's approval for your own experience? Did you enjoy the game or not, nothing else matters. I decide my own canon. And being able to choose the gender of the protagonist helps a lot with that.

Flogger23m said:
I am reading 2/3rds, but that might be dated as the articles are from some years back. The other thing worth noting is since before it came out the developers essentially said Kassandra was the main character and canon. So we're likely seeing a much higher amount of people choosing Kassandra just for that reason. People want to play the choice that is considered canon in the lore. Otherwise, I would assume the split to be 75% or more in favor of Alexios. Outside of the raging reddit/twitter/Kotaku crowd I think most people realize a female warrior in ancient Greece is ridiculous and choose their character accordingly.

I think it was worse in Odyssey because the game clearly chooses who is the "right" character. It is also more ridiculous in older times to see women in combat roles because they are weaker, and physical strength matters more with swords and spears than it does with firearms. I'm not saying it doesn't matter, but there are a good number of armed police women around the world and many of the enemies in FC6 were essentially gloried military police. But again, FC6 takes it to an extreme level. In the US 87% of police officers are men as an example. So having a 50/50 split of armed officers or military personal in combat roles does stand out in FC6. But it is more plausible than it was in ancient Greece.
Click to expand...
Odyssey has nothing to do with history, it is a fantasy game where only the imagery and architecture resembles ancient greece and namedrops some actual historical figures, but non of them resemble the real person even remotely. It is complete non-sequitur as a historical period piece. I mean the game presents mythological beings as reality, of course it is fantasy. Cyclops - fine, Minotaur - perfectly normal, female warrior - Now wait a minute!

On the other hand FC6 takes place in a contemporary fictional south america. It is neither fantasy nor scifi, and the gameplay and weapons are relatively realistic and based. So while I gave a pass to the over representation of female warriors in Assassin's Creed, I can not do the same for FC6. That said I take no issue with the protagonist being female, or a few well written antagonists. Actually making every other enforcer a female makes them less special, and I think diminishes the credit that is due women who actually chose this life, and good at it.
 
M76 said:
Odyssey has nothing to do with history, it is a fantasy game where only the imagery and architecture resembles ancient greece and namedrops some actual historical figures, but non of them resemble the real person even remotely. It is complete non-sequitur as a historical period piece. I mean the game presents mythological beings as reality, of course it is fantasy. Cyclops - fine, Minotaur - perfectly normal, female warrior - Now wait a minute!
Click to expand...

Well it is a game set in real world history. It isn't like Final Fantasy or Witcher. Of course it takes some deviations, but what historical work of art does not? It is still grounded in history as all of the major historical events and settings are real throughout the series. The mythical beasts ties into the sci fi aspect of the series as they're creations of the First Civilization. Of course Odyssey itself is a big mess in terms of narrative (and everything else).

But the series as a whole is a lot more historically correct that Far Cry. Then there is also the common sense aspect of men being stronger. While there are bits of technological devices floating around in Assassin's Creed, the vast majority of people don't have those powers, even in Odyssey.

M76 said:
On the other hand FC6 takes place in a contemporary fictional south america. It is neither fantasy nor scifi, and the gameplay and weapons are relatively realistic and based. So while I gave a pass to the over representation of female warriors in Assassin's Creed, I can not do the same for FC6. That said I take no issue with the protagonist being female, or a few well written antagonists. Actually making every other enforcer a female makes them less special, and I think diminishes the credit that is due women who actually chose this life, and good at it.
Click to expand...

I don't see Far Cry as more "realistic" than Assassin's Creed, Odyssey included. The settings and countries are fake, running around carrying an RPG, machinegun, rifle and pistol and carrying a wing suit isn't realistic in the slightest. Nor is the backpack rocket launcher, EMP weapon, fictional drugs, fantasy parts (FC3/4/5/6) and all that.

But if we look at common sense again, we know that men are stronger than women. And a firearm greatly equalizes the differences in strength between the two. It is more plausible for a modern police/military police force to have a lot of women on duty than it is for the best physical fighters being women who rely on swords and spears.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top