When a piece of art or entertainment is the recipient of a ban, one can't help but begin to build up a grisly mental picture of what it holds in store for its audience. Usually, this perception is far worse than the reality.
They don't make games like this anymore.
Too dated in my book. The AI is way too unpredictable to be acceptable today. It's definitely a game of its time.
Agreed with those sentiments. The quality of the CPU controlled characters make or break a stealth game and they are pretty poor in all the Splinter Cell games by today's standard. This is what led me to playing Spies vs Mercs all the time in later games just to get a better stealth experience from a real person. Arguably Sony are making better stealth games albeit not Tom Clancy stuff.
You should stick with fortnite or one of the countless bloodborne style games then. What a joke.
I had a good time with the game. It is a product of its time. But when it came out it was a must have game for a lot of people. I wish Ubisoft would make another game in the series or at least a reboot.
They are making a remake, I think. I loved the original game when it was released, but I tried to play it again in recent years and just couldn't get on with it. The same with the older Hitman games.
Yeah chaos theory still holds up though I gotta say. If you’re a fan of the series I highly suggest you go back to that one. Ubi has said they are remaking sc for “modern audiences”. I don’t have a lot of faith for the future of that company
Due to the lack of modern stealth games, and me constantly playing the MGS series, I've been looking for alternative stealth games to play, and went back and re-played the SC series recently. I wouldn't call SC1 or SC:PT masterpieces, there are AI issues, they're very much trial-and-error games, and that can lead to a lot of frustration. I also found the stories in this series to be boring, uninteresting, and just sloppily told. Cinematics are also of poor quality for both in-game scenes and CG cut-scenes, the soundtrack didn't leave any impression on me either.
Chaos Theory is better, but there was still a lot of room for improvement, and Double Agent (old gen ver.) was a sloppy mess that ended up a regression from CT. But still, at least they tried back then, these days Ubi-junk doesn't even try to make good games!
Skewed and Reviewed have written an Opinion Piece covering issues in the gaming industry, how current issues were issues years ago, and what can be done to help restore consumer trust.
Nothing. It's up to the gamers to stop consuming content from companies that they don't agree with.
How do you know if you agree with it or not unless you play it? Which without conventions forces gamers to rely on trailers. Perhaps Demos should be made more frequently. But companies need to do better as well.
But is that not what they have now? Tons of gameplay or are you talking about watching actual gamers play it versus the trailers and streams? The big issue is that some companies pay streamers and influencers and they create content but for me; that is hardly a fair, unbiased, and factual look at a game.
They usually are attached to the money sadly. It would be nice to have gamers in charge but you have so much money invested that business people are needed. Hence the issue; you need people who know business but are also gamers who know have an eye to the community. It sounds simple in theory that if you give gamers quality games that they want to play; money will be made. But that is not always so.
Marie Dealessandri speaks to Borislav Slavov and Gustavo Santaolalla about “the new golden age of games music”.
"When the games industry become the subject of a mainstream news story, it's usually for one of two reasons – when a manufacturer or publisher posts record high or low earnings, or when the subject of violence in video games is once again thrust into the spotlight.
A lot of the moral hand-wringing that takes place on this latter issue comes from a desire to defend the innocence of children. While this is a noble motive in itself, it stems from a generally held ignorance of the video game industry. It's a position that doesn't take into account that the age of the average gamer has risen dramatically over the years and the content of some games has become vastly more mature."
This is why the people claiming they are looking out for the kids are ridiculous. They know nothing about gaming and just go on a knee jerk reaction and follow the rest of the zealots in demonizing the industry.
R*'s quote at the end of the article, which is a repeat from their letter, "...a ban is punishment for deviating from tradition..." While I see what R* was trying to say, the implied totality of this statement is erroneous. Tradition is not the only reason to ban material and in R*'s case, tradition had only a small part of it. A ban is also a way to say that we will not condone the distribution of such material.
The next line, "...A ban denies everyone the chance to consider, experience, or discuss the actual game..." How so? Are we not in discussion of your material now? I am able to consider it as well, even after the ban. The only consumer action that should be in this sentence is 'experience'. I cannot experience this game unless I am able to import or bootleg it in some way.
The final statement, "...The only obvious victor is the status quo..." I didn't realize R* was in a battle with the status quo. Is this really the major reason why they would make such a game? Was their sole purpose to try to shock and desensitive mainstream society in order to permanantly degrade the status quo so that more vicious and extreme subject matter would slip by and into the homes of consumers?
Honestly, I think that's looking way to far into things. Although R* may be irresponsible, I seriously don't think they'd have that much time or intelligence to concoct such a plot.
The need to stop tripping. Hunters and fishermen really do kill.
This is a comment I wrote for another article. I'm going to reprint (re-edit) it here since it has more relevance.
I think it's time we moved the industry forward to the next level of social acceptance and STOP referring to software as "games". It has a juvenile connotation to it which only serves to downplay their importance.
They are what they are, simulations.
Not just flight simulations or racing simulations but also, simulations for world economies, life, dating, caring for pets, space exploration, hand to hand/martial combat, crime, gang life, shooting, war, etc...
We even have software which effectively simulates murder and assassinations.
This is where the problem lies since NO publisher wants their product to be known as a Murder Simulation. With that label the "game" suddenly seems more sinister and threatening with very serious implications, as well it should.
I feel, however, this is the road we need to take since it forces us to ponder and potentially re-examine the industry in a more mature and responsible light.