Daniel Dunham writes "There’s a question I often hear posed by many gamers and it goes something like this. ”Why is it that Mario games always seem to get a free pass, when it comes to sequels and rehashes. Yet game franchises like Assassins creed, God of War, Halo and the like, get criticized and sometimes even marked down for it?.” Well, I have a theory for why that seems to be the case, as much as this may seem to be a double standard, and I’m sure many will argue that it is, there is a fundamental difference between games like Mario and Assassins Creed."
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!
Xbox and EA have recently made baffling moves that define how bleak the future of the gaming industry is with major companies at the helm. Ryan Bates from "Last Word on Gaming" posits in this op-ed that maybe it's not ineptitude, but intention.
Name someone that isn't trying to look us these days maybe cdpr.
Take two, ubi and yes even PlayStation are pushing us to own nothing and be happy with our live service ad injected games on a sub so they can raise prices at will and take access away when they see fit.
If it keeps up I'll be a full time retro gamer and this industry will be crashing hard
As rediculas as it sounds we need government reforms to defend consumer rights
XCOM and Marvel's Midnight Suns director Jake Solomon has founded a new studio to make a life sim game. Here's a new interview with him.
I don't mind studios pushing out sequels long as they also develop fresh stuff too
Sequelization is kind of a matter of appropriateness, if you ask me.
Some franchises are meant to be open for many sequels, spin-offs, and sub-series like Mario and its many niches, as the writer mentions.
Others are not so much and further installments end up feeling like an excuse once the intended run has ended or the novelty has been worn out with too little in the way of fresh ideas and concepts. This especially applies to games with significant storylines involved.