The missing Cell

Given it is owned by one of the most prolific developers and publishers in the world it really is starkly perplexing that we are still missing a new Splinter Cell game since the release of 2013's Blacklist 11 years ago. Of course I don't feel that absence quite as acutely as most given that I only got to playing through the series a few years ago for this very blog- but I do acknowledge what a genuinely solid series of games that was which really is going by the wayside for seemingly no reason whatsoever. What, do Ubisoft suddenly realise they don't like money? Are they afraid of their own potential to succeed? Or is something wholly more Ubisoft happening here that is just all too typical for the world's least innovative big developer? I bet you know which way I'm leaning with this one!

First it should probably be said that Splinter Cell was a trailblazer back in it's heyday. Taking the military political fiction of Tom Clancy's work and transposing it into a video game setting- the original Splinter Cell brought us a new face of action we'd not see pulled off to any success within the West. Whilst I feel we can still credit Kojima for the creation of the genre within the mainstream space, Splinter Cell's contributions to Stealth cannot be overlooked. Smashing lights to decrease visibility is still a wondrously versatile system that few stealth games even attempt to this very day! And Splinter Cell piled that atop of non lethal takedowns, sound manipulation, body dragging- just about every single tool that a competent stealth game would grown green with envy to covet. 

As the game's went on Ubisoft did start to buckle under the pressure of what 'the market' demanded in terms of their games- and given this was back in the day where niches weren't really big enough to be considered a market of their own I will relent on this point that Ubisoft are not perhaps fully to blame. In this rare circumstance. They tried to make Sam Fisher more of an action movie hero, just as Square attempted to do with Agent 47. In fact, both Absolution and Splinter Cell: Conviction feature pretty much the exact same 'tag and execute' move to allow characters to wipe out a room. Although I have to argue that it feels more fitting in Splinter Cell, given how exactingly precise and ghostlike Agent 47 is typically expected to be. And to be honest- I don't actually think the action influences ruined the franchise like some others argue.

Sure, the heart of Splinter Cell was built around the complexity of it's stealth through masterfully laid-out levels and with the shift towards 'room to room clear and sweep' a lot of that nuance and depth was lost- but I don't actually think that style of game misfit the franchise at all, honestly. There was an almost Arkham-level of fun to be had in stalking through arenas like a predator picking off the unawares and leaving their team-mates in states of increasing terror. It plays to a very primordial gamer desire that I'm a downright sucker for. It's a different face of Stealth, one that was uniquely Sam's for a while whilst the man was still active.

Since then, however, our man has been downright AWOL. I mean sure, we've seen some fleshpuppet wearing Sam's face show up in both Ghost Recon open world games, and I'm told he had a cameo in that Ubisoft cartoon thing, but as for the actual sneaky man we love? No even a dickey bird. We've been so abandoned by the franchise that for some reason when fans demand forced Ubisoft to turn around- they started blabbing about a remake like the franchise had run off a cliff or something! Umm- excuse me- there was an ongoing story with a cliffhanger and everything! Sure, it was the exact same cliffhanger as Conviction's- but it demanded a follow-up!

Stealth as a genre was built up by the dual talents of Metal Gear and Splinter Cell- such to the point that both are now considered grandfather's of the genre. With Snake finally being put to rest with what is quite simply the single greatest stealth game ever made as his swan song- what we need isn't some halcyon return to an outdated political thriller that struggles to nail basic concepts like 'light based stealth' all over again! We need something that reminds us why Splinter Cell was once considered in the same conversations as it's peers. Splinter Cell really needs to bring back it's best days- what we need is Chaos Theory levels of detail- complex levels, decent story, charming writing- shoot for the heyday, not the genesis.

Which is yet another issue I have with Ubisoft- they don't understand their own series. They know fans want another game but they don't understand why. People wanted a new Prince of Persia and Ubisoft, having replaced that franchise with Assassin's Creed, shrugged their shoulders in confusion and greenlit a remake. Like we needed a remake- the original game is fine- just remaster it you dunderheads! The same is true with Splinter Cell. We love the style of Splinter Cell, the makeup, the layout- there's nothing special about the original that simply must be recaptured: it's not even the widely praised fan favourite! It's the kind of move made by a faceless corpo who never once played this franchise, or a game in general, trying to capitalise on a fandom he has no care for.

I want there to be a return to Splinter Cell- and I would prefer if it tried something new. Although many remakes have certainly shaken things up in ways no one could have expected- but do we really expect Resident Evil 4 levels of mastery out of a Ubisoft game? They have trouble reigning in entirely new projects, god forbid them try the same with a total restructure-remake to the scale of Capcoms! But even if it all falls through- that will be fine because the great thing about Splinter Cell: it ages fine. Every single one of those games (save 'Double Agent' and perhaps 'Pandora Tomorrow', I never played 'PT' so I can't say) is a blast to experience and I'm sure a team who understands that would be able to secure a decent bit of pocket change without all the unnecessary effort they're currently flushing down the wrong drain. Make a new Splinter Cell, Ubisoft- that's what we've been nagging you for!

Splinter Cell is being remade!

 What's that chill running up my spine?

There's never just one side to a popular genre, unless I guess we're talking about the trailblazing Strand-like genre! (Although that example in particular is likely to remain one-of-a-kind now that PlayStation has gone ahead and trademarked its unique systems.) Which is why someone who loves the stealth side of gaming like me is going to be intimately familiar with both of it's leading faces. Yes, I said both. For whereas Metal Gear is the series that I've chosen to take into my heart, many others credit the best this genre has to offer to another popular title: Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. A few years back I decided to enrich my personal culture a bit and play through every single entry of the series I could get my hands on (Pandora Tomorrow is still absent from Steam for some reason) and I cottoned onto to the rampant adoration people have with the series. And thus I could feel a shade of the sadness they regularly exposit, considering the series is considered on-ice. Or rather it was.

Having Ubisoft as the holders of your favourite IP is like watching a seagull make away with your freshly cooked packet of chips; you just know you ain't seeing that again. Unless you happen to be in love with their three stooges game series; Assassin's Creed, Watch Dogs and Tom Clancy lite (their bastardised vision of Tom's series') you can fully expect to be out of luck. And in fact, even if you are into one of those series' you may be out of luck anyway. Sam Fisher and his various undercover sneaking exploits across the espionage world were beloved by many back in their prime, and despite sharing the Tom Clancy brand we haven't seen a new title since 2013's Blacklist. Oh, but Ubisoft were more than happy to pick from the bones of the franchise for their little cross-over Clancy-verse moments, slapping the Fourth Echelon name on anything that blinks. Heck, they even roped in the original VA for Sam to do some small recording jobs for Ghost Recon's newest games. To be frank, Ubisoft hasn't shown Splinter Cell much respect, which is why it's with very mixed emotions that I read how Splinter Cell is apparently getting a remake.

I think my concerns start with the base news. A 'Remake'? Why. No seriously, why in the hell would you make a remake of a series which still has so much untold? For god sake, they ended the last game on the same damn cliffhanger that Conviction ended on, straying dangerously close to Metal Gear/ Deus Ex conspiracy theorist territory all the while. Wouldn't it make more sense to pursue some of that? But instead what we're receiving is touted as a remake that hopes to capture that nascent spirit that the early series exhibited. Which again confused me. Are they talking about the earliest games, where everything was strictly linear to such a line that you were explicitly told what weapons to use at what point in a mission? Or are they actually playing to the crowd and saying that they're basing this on the fan favourite entry, Chaos Theory? (A claim also made when the team was marketing Blacklist, it must be remembered.) Does the team know what they're even doing with this remake, because they're not really selling it me.

In my mind, when I allow the cynicism to fully wash over me and candidly ask: why would they even consider a reboot the series, I only land on one viable answer- it's about Sam. Or rather, his voice actor. For years Michael Ironside served as the voice and personality of Sam Fisher, bringing his iconic delivery as a veteran actor to the role. His voice was beloved, his wisdom fit the role and people cried tears of blood when he gave up the role for Blacklist because he could no longer feasibly do the mocap. (Which to this day remains a bizarre excuse. It's a video game, we don't need the mocap to match the voice!) The new guy was fine, but bland. Lacking charm and charisma which failed to distract away from the dialogue which was pretty poor too. Consensus seems to be that Blacklist was written worse than previous entries, but I think that game just marked the first time people realised that Splinter Cell actually never had the best writing in general.

With a reboot the team can successfully recast Sam Fisher and all we fans can do is bite or lips and go "Darn, well I guess that does make sense." I think that tracks, because otherwise there's literally no justification for this reboot decision and I'd have thought that Ubisoft themselves had forgotten how narratively bare the first game actually is. (I assume they're rebooting 1, right? Heck, who knows- after the travesty they created during the Prince of Persia reboot, nothing is beneath them.) This will also give them the chance to try and tie in this new nowhere storyline they've been drip feeding Sam Fisher through his Ghost Recon cameos, although to be honest those are voiced by Ironside so maybe they'll look to drop that altogether too.

Looking at the positives, this will be the first time we can see what a new gen AAA stealth title can look like thanks to the self immolation of Splinter Cell's keymost rival, curtsey of Konami. Who knows how this could innovate AI packages, lighting effects, environmental interaction, the openness of levels and just all that innumerable good stuff which makes the future of gaming seem so bright? Some floating rumours here and there cropped up claiming that this title would be open world, which has thankfully been outright denied at the same time as the project being announced. Of course, that doesn't discount the team taking full advantage of the next gen hardware to create huge sprawling levels with interweaving guard patrol routines and stealth mechanic systems which could all shake hands harmoniously without the memory limit jumping out of the console and literally throttling the user. But that's the best case scenario and we're talking about Ubisoft...

So you know already that this means the Ubisoft higher-ups are making serious discussions about the viability of NFTs being implemented, don't you? And they are coming, don't you worry. Yves 'Le Rat' Guillemot has weighed in on the discussion about NFTs being poorly implemented into Breakpoint by letting everyone know that this is just the beginning, whilst simultaneously vomiting enough toothless marketing gibberish to cotton everyone onto the fact that, guess what, the idiot doesn't even know what NFTs are! Or at least he has no idea what they represent, how they operate and what he can do to utilise them in art! He's so far out of his depth it's laughable, and I'll bet he's just holding onto the craze hoping someone with more talent peeps a head in his office and of-hand mentions an actually viable and clever way they can take actual advantage of this tech, so he can gratefully steal that idea and claim he came up with the whole thing. Instead he want's to use them purely for their digital signature and the second hand market, easily replicable without any blockchain work thanks to the fact we're talking about an online game with data that can be kept server side. Seriously, if there's any greater indication that your CEO is too far out of touch to run the bleeding edge anymore, let this (and the past 10 years of the studio) be your neon-studded red floodlights!

And if the NFT thing has run out of steam by then, it'll be a booster store. Or micro DLC. Or any number of the eye-rollingly cliché dime snatching techniques that the hacks in Ubisoft head office regurgitate with glee. Splinter Cell is walking a tight rope supported by a studio that seems woefully incompetent at any remote form of innovation, dangling over a pit of bad decisions that same studio regularly makes. It makes one not too confident on the eventual quality of this game, even if we are as early in development as the news is claiming. So despite the fact it kills the little kid inside of me who wants to jump up and down so badly, I've got to cut my losses early and say this has a high percentage of being a dud revival of Splinter Cell. If I'm wrong, I'll celebrate- but nowadays betting low is a pretty safe wager to make. But then again we are talking about a game maybe 3 or more years down the line, and who knows what sort of things might have changed by then? Perhaps this upcoming Prince of Persia remake will dictate soundly how well Ubisoft deals with revisiting past glories.

Splinter Cell Conviction totally lacks the heart of Splinter Cell (and that's why I love it)

Are you gonna say 'Monkey'?

Have I ever taken the time to talk Splinter Cell on this blog before? I can't remember. Maybe you didn't even know that I'm a total Stan for this franchise, but then it's hardly a surprise given how much I talk about my love for the Stealth Action genre readily. Although my experience with the series doesn't actually go as far back as my time with Metal Gear, I have played through nearly the entire franchise in another 'buy and play every-game over the summer' binge that I pulled a couple of years back. (The only one I haven't played is Pandora Tomorrow, which is either the worst or best in the franchise depending on who you ask.) Ultimately I enjoyed my time greatly, with my thoughts on the series shaping up like this; Splinter Cell, holds up surprisingly well; Chaos Theory, practically a masterpiece; Double Agent; a flaming pile of cow dung; Blacklist, severely underrated. But Conviction is the one that really sticks with me, you know?

When it was launched, 'Splinter Cell: Conviction' received both condemnation and praise across the board, and even being a complete stranger to the franchise at the time I noticed this weird divide. The gameplay was great in the eyes of most players, but the game just stumbled on basic tenements of Splinter Cell so badly that it hardly felt like a game from their ken.  In fact, this felt like an adaptation of the latest series of 24, rather than the continued adventures of everyone's favourite intelligence task force operative: Sammy Fisher. Coming to it myself I understood both sides, having played the previous games beforehand (again, excluding Pandora Tomorrow) but rather than take this for the horrific betrayal of character that most did, I'll admit that it took something decidedly special from my time with Conviction, but before I explain I need to detail exactly what Splinter Cell was and why it was so good in the first place.

Splinter Cell followed the machinations of a secretive branch of the American intelligence offices known as Third Echelon who seemed to pride themselves in performing convert reconnaissance/strike missions far outside of America's legal jurisdiction. Functionally, this fictional branch of government fulfils the same duties as 24's CTU (Counter Terrorist Unit) only with such secrecy that even the public has no idea that they exist. This allows them to operate with the sort of autonomy as to act against a foreign dignitary who could prove a threat to American safety (provided they remain secret whilst doing so and can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are a threat.) And this entire world was born from the military-obsessed mind of Tom Clancy, so you know he did everything he could to make this as believable as he could.

And with that, albeit thin, veil of reality comes the crux of what makes Splinter Cell so unique. It doesn't take place in some weird world of nano-machines and races to save the world or... whatever the hell Siphon Filter is about, (I never played those games) it take place in a world that has rules and consequences, ones that the player must abide by. In the first game this translates to you being unable to kill an enemy unless explicitly told to. (i.e. given 'fifth freedom') Sometimes secrecy is of paramount of importance and so you cannot be spotted no matter what. It gives this great sense of weight to all those actions that you take for granted in other games, so that when you are allowed to take a life you know this isn't an action to be taken lightly. Later games weren't quite as strict with this, as modern game design laws dictate that players should be allowed to be stupid where possible, but you were still encouraged to be a ghost most of the time, achieving objectives without leaving any trace. Afterall you were a Splinter Cell, knowledge of your existence was a highest luxury, things should be kept that way. In many ways, the sanctity of that secret, and your standard operating procedures, was the heart of the Splinter Cell franchise. And then Conviction happened.

24 actually debuted a year before the first Splinter Cell game, so I can't levy the blame for Conviction solely on ol' Keifer Sutherland, but honestly I think the similarities are too close for comfort. (Former government Agent on the warpath against those he used to work for due to some terrible personal secret kept from him?  Did FOX put this script together?) Whatever the reason, fans tend to conclude that this game is the one that so divorces itself from the heart of the franchise as to seem like a completely separate entity, but let's really analyse that shall we? How does the game start again... oh, that's right! Sam Fisher just gets finished smashing someone's head against a urinal as the tutorial immediately tells him to shoot some guy outside. Who is he? I dunno. Why does he need to die? I dunno. And with that the Devs have immediately sucked away all of the power behind the act of taking someone's life within less than five minutes. (Truly astounding.)

But that's not the end of it, oh no. You see, whilst literally every other Splinter Cell game in existence prides itself on allowing the players to go about their mission without alerting guards; Conviction invites it, it thrives on it. From the moment the tutorial is done you will not be allowed to alight from an area without dealing with everybody in that room, either my murder or choking out. (Although considering these folk stay down indefinitely, whereas a real choke-out victim would only be out momentarily... yeah, they're dead too.) Sam Fisher will be spending the game throwing folks out of windows, shooting holes into them, and aggressively torturing people who, honestly, look like such pushovers that he could have probably got what he want by asking in a gruff voice. (Or heck, point a gun at him if you have to.)

But Sam hasn't just turned from being a level headed tactical operative into a psychotic killer, oh no, he's also undergone a severe personality change that would have psychologists shook. Gone is the charismatic agent who liked to playfully jibe with his handler over the radio, here is this overly gruff stereotype who delivers everything with such a growl he sounds like an oncoming tractor. (No offence to Micheal Ironside, this is all down to the material he was handed.) Sam never cracks a smile once in this entire campaign, and all he needed was a depressive inner monologue with a penchant for gutter poetry to replace Max Payne. (He was literally that far gone.) I can honestly say that I've never seen an utter destruction of character so profound as what happened with Conviction. And honestly, I love it.

Not to imply that I didn't 100% prefer Sam like he was, of course I do, but I'm still drawn to Conviction like an onlooker to a horrific car crash. (I just feel this unrelenting desire to poke and prod at the remains.) Perhaps the thing that struck so hard with me was the way how I had actually kept abreast of my kill count throughout the franchise. (That's right!) I was so blown away by an action game that didn't rely on waves of enemies and killing for it's action that I honestly decided to keep track of that. I was still on single digits before Conviction. Needlessly to say, after shooting Sam halfway across America I had no idea how far Sam's rapsheet was. Oh yeah, did I forget to mention? 90% of this game, and therefore the lionshare of these unlawful killings, occurs on American soil. Way to keep your country safe, my man!

It's just such a machismo-fuelled unaware romp completely driven by (forgive me) pure American egoism. You can just taste that unapologetic, kill-'em-all-let-god-sort-it-out energy oozing out of every pour of Conviction, and it's all so out of place and ill-judged that it's frankly sublime. (For all the wrong reasons.) And just to be clear, I have nothing against the excessive violence, again I'm a freakin' DOOM diehard, it's the more the sheer balls of it all. A design philosophy that had no place in this series, shoved into a game where it did not belong and executed adequately so that even a critic is stuck with little more to say than "Yeah, but no." So do I recommend 'Splinter Cell: Conviction'? Yeah, I kinda do. It's ridiculous, stupid and unfitting of everything else that the Splinter Cell franchise is, but I'll be damned if isn't a whole lot of fun. There's something hilarious about watching Sam go serial killer on his entire former workplace off of a threadbare plotline which hinges entirely on a retcon. (It's so wrong but so right at the same time.) Bonus points for the stinger dialogue at the end which was so dumb that the next game would repackage and deliver the same concept at the end of it's story with a slightly more clever set-up. (Keep going guy's, you'll set-up Splinter Cell's Illuminati eventually!) This isn't a review but we're in a lockdown so screw it; play 'Splinter Cell: Conviction', it's more fun than staring at the wall all day.

Big Series/ little mobile

It's only me...

Yesterday I voiced my concern about the recent news that Splinter Cell might (read: without a shadow of a doubt.) be making it's way to mobile in the future. This might come off as a tad elitist without any context, so let me share the reasoning behind my furrowed brow and disapproving tuts. Firstly, I have very little against the platform of mobile gaming, in fact I love the concept of being able to take games on the go and play them wherever and whenever you want. (I won't openly admit to engaging in emulators but let's just say that I've used my phone to keep myself up-to-date with my Pokemon fandom for a while now.) What's more, I find it heartening to think how far mobile gaming has seeped into the public and furthered the reach of the industry. Statista estimates there to be around 2.3 billion mobile gamers in the world this year, just imagine what heights that could reach a decade down the line.

So my problem isn't with the concept of mobile gaming, nor am I driven by some hipster-esque distaste for the popular; my issues stem for the fact that the actual games themselves are an embarrassment to the industry. I have written an article on this specific topic before, but just to recap, the vast majority of mobile games are some of the worst excuses for entrainment you could subject yourself too. Most are passionless, devoid of ingenuity and creativity and absolutely dripping with microtransactions and anti-consumerist practises. Some may wonder where the concepts of obfuscating premium currencies, moneypit lootboxes and intimidating time-exclusive offers, first came from; well, most rose to fame from the humble market of mobile. With the player base being so big and the community comprised of mostly casual gamers, (Who are more likely not to question the money grubbing, assuming it to be the norm.) small developers manage to rake in silly money using these tactics and so it was only a matter of time before the industry grandfathers caught up.

"But these mobile developers are usually small developers." You may argue. "Surely a big studio with experience behind them, manpower, capital and, most importantly, a reputation to uphold, would endeavour to make their mobile debut worthwhile." And you'd think that, but remember, money is the be-all end-all of the corporate world; why put effort and passion behind a project when you can simply follow the path of least resistance and get the same rewards. It may sound like I'm being disparaging, and I am, but it does make sound business sense to invest as little as possible for the most returns. ("Don't hate the player, hate the game", I suppose.)

Because of this, we are starting to see a trend amongst big games companies wherein they drag in the rotting carcass of one of their beloved, dead franchises and stick it on the mobile platform for all to see. No, I'm not talking about adapting the gameplay and mechanics that made the franchise great whilst porting it to more accessible systems (That would actually be pretty cool.) I talking about crafting a pathetic archetypal-mobile game clone and slathering it with a familiar coat of paint. I'd imagine meetings go something like; "Oh, people seem to be sinking a lot of money into runner games. We have a mascot famous for running don't we?" and then we end up with the Sonic Dash games. (Yes I said games.) That isn't the only example we have of nostalgia baiting either.

Electronic Arts have appeared so much on my blog that soon I'm going to have to start giving Andrew Wilson an assistant writer credit; but trust me, EA earns their place in my daily word-count with gusto. This time I'm dragging them back under the 'shame' spotlight in order to verbally lash them for the mess of a game that they called Dungeon Keeper. For those who are unfamiliar, The Dungeon Keeper series ran back in the late 90's and allowed players to assume the role of the overlord/architect of an expansive dungeon system. Players had to set up traps and defences in order to hold off against plundering humans and righteous heroes that seek to confront you. The whole concept was a fun subversive look at medieval fantasy and carried the delightful dark humor that one would come to expect from the same developers who made Theme series: Bullfrog Productions.

Of course, things changed once EA got more involved with them. Dungeon Keeper 3 was cancelled and Bullfrog were moved to working exclusively on the more profitable Harry Potter franchise until their complete assimilation back in 2001. This left EA with all of the licences and none of the responsibility to uphold their quality, but at least they waited until the game got nostalgic before going at it with a hacksaw. In 2013, EA and Mythic entertainment announced that they were creating a mobile game that would be a "twisted take" on the Dungeon Keeper franchise, and I cannot think of a more deliciously ironic statement that has ever been uttered.

2014 saw the release of one of the worst "reimaginings" to ever grace gaming. Final Fantasy 10 fans may complain about how their remake sacrificed artistic integrity for the sake of a higher resolution, but Dungeon Keeper fans get to top that with a game that was such a corporate cash grab that the British Advertising Standards Authority had to clamp down on EA for "misleading advertising" in claiming the game was free. In this Dungeon Keeper, players had to build their dungeons in real time, with every tile taking days or weeks to be mined out (Creating a cavern could literally take months.) But, not to worry, because you could speed up the time that each action took with a little bit of premium currency. Imagine the marketing techniques of Clash of Clans on steroids and you get 2014's Dungeon Keeper. Whereas in the original games you could set up your base and engage in raiding in about 10-20 minutes, here you had to make it either your life or your bank account's work in order to even reach the actual gameplay. That is assuming that this game even had raids, I don't think anyone managed to stick around long enough to find out. Needless to say, this was the last Dungeon Keeper game.

That isn't even the only time that EA pulled this trick, just the most well known. The Sims suffered a similar fate with Sims Freeplay. That game follows the exact same structure as Dungeon Keeper, with actions costing precious time or even more precious premium currency. Then there was E3 2018. That was the E3 in which EA did the apology tour for Battlefront 2 and ramped up excitement for the upcoming Anthem with a sizzle reel of uninteresting action. (In their defence, now we know the history of Anthem's development it is amazing they had anything ready for this E3 at all.) But none of those were the real focus for EA, judging by how they devoted the most conference time to their new mobile title, 'Command and Conquer: Rivals'. Just as strategy fans were begging EA to give them a new C&C, they turned around and gave us a 6-minute snoozefest of a presentation about this husk of a game. Now it's out, I can confirm that the thing isn't as desperate for your wallet as their previous mobile attempts, but it's still embarrassingly basic to be considered the follow-up to the most storied real time strategy game of all time. Guess it just cost a lot less time and money to make a mobile game

The other big mobile event of recent years would have to be the botched announcement of Diablo Immortal. This game was another 2018 casualty, announced by Blizzard at fan celebration event: Blizzcon, and suffered a brutal public execution. Diablo fans had been waiting a long time for the announcement of a new game since the last one, 2012's Diablo 3, failed to live up to the hype of the franchise. Fans crowed into the amphitheatre all excited to get a glimpse of their next obsession when the reveal was made that this new game would be a mobile entry. (Cue the sad trombones) Things were not helped when that poor foolish developer, after reading the iciness of the room, joked "What do you guys not have phones or something?" (Hire that dude at EA, he's got the foot-in-mouth routine down pat!)

Diablo is a very storied franchise that birthed a whole genre around its gameplay style. (I'd even argue that it birthed the looter shooter genre, but I'll save it for another blog.) It is a game that built it's community among some of the first hardcore PC gamers and has always been sure to cater to their origins. Then Diablo Immortal was announced, with it's re skinned characters, outsourced workload and identical gameplay to the last, critically panned, release. It should come to no one's surprise, least of all Blizzards, that one fan approached the mike after the show to ask if this was all just some "Out of season April Fools prank." (That actually happened by the way.) Blizzard have since come out to defend the decision, claiming that it was done with the intention of 'expanding the franchise' or some such corporate rot, but it doesn't take a genius to see the truth: There's a lot of money-pie on mobile and Blizzard thought they were due a slice.

Recently we've had a few classic series go the way of mobile fodder. Bethesda, ever keen to assassinate their decades worth of consumer goodwill, took time out of their E3 conference to announce their mobile remake of Commander Keen (See what I did there?) Square Enix recently announced a follow-up to their archetypal-mobile money sink Final Fantasy Brave Exvius. And Nintendo recently broke their promise about staying away from microtransactions in their mobile outings with the pay-wall ridden, Dr. Mario World. Not all of these mobile outings sound the death knell for their respective franchises but they are an affirmation to fans that quality is no longer the primary area of concern for these specific brands. And that may just be even worse.

So perhaps you can now see why I find myself scared for the future of Splinter Cell now that Ubisoft have aimed it at the mobile market. Things are only worsened by the fact that this E3, Ubisoft announced: Tom Clancy's Elite Squad; a crossover mobile game between all the Tom Clancy brands that looks to be another archetypal-battle game. Just seeing their low-polygon rendition of Sam Fisher makes my heart sink to think about what dire straits the Splinter Cell franchise could, and likely will, end up in.

Recently there was a little bit of hope for Splinter Cell fans in the form of a surprise cameo from Sam Fisher in 'Ghost Recon: Wildlands'. (I may have even picked up the game solely because of this cameo.) He was even being voiced by Michael Ironside again, which had players bouncing off the walls with excitement. "Ironside it back! The next game's announcement is merely a formality at this point!" However, the next E3 went by and all we got was this foreboding snippet from Yves about what size coffin he wants to bury the series in- I mean, how "There will be new types of experiments, but on more different devices." And it got me thinking to that crossover itself.

There in one scene in which Sam is talking with the player's CIA handler, Karen Bowman, about how he is a relic of the past. Sam refutes that claim and mentions how there was another guy, "Army infiltration- he wore a bandana or something." to which Karen replies "I heard he finally retired." For those who don't know, this is subtle reference to Metal Gear and the fact that, after 'Survive', the series is now dead. These franchises have acknowledged each other now and then throughout the years, alongside Gabriel Logan from Siphon Filter, so it feels strange now to think that only Splinter Cell remains. Sam shares these sentiments when he remarks "Then it's only me..." with a pensive stare.  I bring this up because, in someways Splinter Cell is the last gaming link we have to the golden age of stealth games, those others might be gone but Sam is still around to hold the torch. But I fear that may be in peril once he is relegated to a low-effort currency farm mobile game and the franchise is hung out to dry. It may just be the end of an area, and I find nothing more sad than thinking of the once proud stealth genre going out with a whimper instead of a quiet chokeout like it deserves.

Splinter Cell: My past and their future.

Are you gonna say monkey?

At this point I feel that I have established my fandom for stealth action games. But for the record, it is likely my single favourite genre of games. (with my favourite sub genre being immersive sims.) I love the prospect of roleplaying a stealthy voyeur who is so good at their job that they can move in and out, execute their objective (or their target) and alight without anyone ever even knowing that they were there. With all the 'power fantasy' gaming experiences about the player character becoming some world renowned hero, it feels far less garish to take the role of the one that no one ever celebrates. (That's part of the reason that I love the narrative structure of the Thief games, but I'll get more on that in another post.)

In the past I may have mentioned how much I adore the Metal Gear Series, but that isn't the only popular military stealth franchise that I have gleefully explored during my many years as a gamer. There is in fact another, much more American, stealth franchise that some would say even manages to surpass Metal Gear in some facets. (They would be objectively wrong in saying that, but the praise is still noteworthy.) I am of course referring to Ubisoft's stealth action darling; Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell. (With Tom's name attached you automatically know that this is a serious franchise.)

My history with Splinter Cell doesn't go as far back as my journey with Metal Gear, (For those who don't remember: playing Metal Gear Solid is my earliest gaming memory)  but despite that, the series has managed to worm its way into my heart. The games star Sam Fisher, voiced by acclaimed actor Michael Ironside, who is a highly trained operative for NSA offshoot: Third Echelon. (He later takes command of his own unit called Fourth Echelon.) Each game Sam finds himself faced with a threat to national security and must go on some clandestine spy adventure in order to beat the bad guys and save the day.

As you can likely imagine, the stories of these games are nowhere near as complex and intricate as what Metal Gear has to offer, but in that relative simplicity is an accessibility that Kojima's games don't always have. That being said, remember that this is a 'Tom Clancy' game, so within the parameters of the 'save-American-democracy' archetype the writers do manage to put together a few thrilling tales. I often give Ubisoft a hard time for decorating their AAA games with plots so weak they hardly keep your attention for the run time, but I must say, even the worst Splinter Cell games never had this problem. If there was one particular franchise towards which Ubisoft's development departments were sinking all of their narrative talent I'd put my money on it being the Splinter Cell team. (Perhaps all that excess development time going towards crafting a plot is the reason why we haven't heard from the franchise for 5 years now.)

I first entered the world of Splinter Cell a couple of years back when I acquired the collection. (Thank you, Steam summer sale.) The game I really wanted to check out was 'Splinter Cell: Conviction' (As I still remembered the marketing game for that game when it first launched.) but by weird obsession with 'knowing the whole story' made me go back to the original. I didn't have too high hopes for the first Splinter Cell game, I still had memories of going back to the origin of the Hitman franchise and struggling with an unfocused and unfriendly game. However, despite very much resembling the original Hitman, (to the point that I think they may have used the same engine.) Splinter Cell was a great game with a laser focus and what it wanted to be. The stealth action was on point, the story was pretty exciting and the linear level design ended up influencing many of the games to follow.

I moved onto the next game very much excited about what it would have to offer. Due to some licensing concerns, Steam shoppers are unable to buy 'Pandora Tomorrow' meaning that my next game would be the legendary 'Chaos Theory'. This was a game that I had heard about even before I knew anything about Splinter Cell, it was widely considered the swan-song of the series, and once I played it I understood why. Almost everything about Chaos Theory was drastically improved from the previous games, the atmosphere, the gameplay and, of course, the mission layout. Chaos Theory was the first game in the franchise to design it's levels with an open plan. (and the only game to get it right.) You weren't shoehorned from area to area, but put into a level, given your objectives, and expected to figure out your avenue of approach. This may not seem all that groundbreaking to fans of immersive Sim games, but for Splinter Cell this was a world of difference from what the series was used to. Even now, no Splinter Cell game has been able to capture that same level of tactical freedom that Chaos Theory did. Future games would feel more like sequels of the original two games and their rigid design philosophy, making 'Choas Theory' a beautiful aberrance for this franchise.

Double Agent sucked. I would get more into here but the amount of hatred I have for that game deserves it's own in depth blog. (Oh god, that means I have to play through it again, don't I!) I forced my way through that game and onto the one I was waiting for: Conviction. Oh, Conviction... why can't I give you up? 'Splinter Cell: Conviction' is universally lambasted my fans and critics alike for being 'barely a Splinter Cell' game. They are all absolutely right. (and that's kinda what makes it so brilliant!) Up until Conviction, Splinter Cell was all about working within the confines of your operating procedures in order to get the job done. Heck, before Chaos Theory you had to wait to be granted 'Fifth freedom' before the game even allowed you to shoot someone. Tom Clancy's direction meant that the games were grounded in something resembling reality and so Sam Fisher, who works for the NSA, remember, couldn't go around the world dropping bodies or he'd end up causing an international crisis. Tell that to Conviction.

'Splinter Cell: Conviction' piggybacks off of the incredible crappy driving plotpoint of Double Agent (Save it for the blog...) and delivers a totally unique premise. Stop me if you've heard this before: so Sam Fisher, unsung American hero, is framed for a crime he technically didn't commit and must go underground in order to- what do you mean that's the premise of every Hollywood action movie of the early 2000's? (Also 2019's 'Angel has Fallen' for some reason.) Yeah, this plot thread absolutely screams contemporary Ubisoft writing standards but bear with me as I say... this game is absolutely hilarious because of it. Let me explain why.

Straight away the game jumps the shark as it orders you to murder some random street thug in order to complete the tutorial. Let me try to convey how monumentous that is for this franchise. I already mentioned how Sam needed direct permission to take a life previously; well even when he had free reign in Chaos Theory, the player was still incentivized to keep things bloodless. Throughout the games, Sam kills less than five people without the player's involvement. Yet Conviction opens by telling you to go sicko mode on this poor nobody in the middle of the street. And that isn't even the best part, from this point onwards the game refuses to let you move from area to area unless you neutralize every single person on the map. ("Previous games championed the player's ability to sneak past people unnoticed? Screw that noise, let's drop bodies!") There is even a story plotpoint that is capped off with having Sam go on a bullet-time massacre through his old workplace literally wiping out squadrons of highly trained operatives for no other reason than; it looks cool I guess.

I can understand why diehard fans absolutely hated this game, but honestly, all this just makes me love it more. The game had the guts to throw all of it's realism out the window to be a schlocky action movie for a single game and I played the everliving heck out of it. Sam Fisher went from being a highly disciplined and amiable operative to becoming a deranged mass murderer who mostly communicated in monosyllabic grunts. I'm honestly shocked that the US department of defence had any staff left after the sizable 'downsizing' that Sam headed up. Oh, but don't worry about the morality of all this; they were all corrupt. (Really? All 3000 people that Sam kills in this game were corrupt? Wow, I guess Splinter Cell took a more critical stance on American politics then even Metal Gear did!)

The final Splinter Cell game was the incredibly sound: Blacklist. This game gets a lot of slack from fans claiming the story isn't up to par with the franchise, but personally that just makes me wonder what franchise they're talking about. (None of these game's had particularly memorable plots. Except Conviction of course.) Gameplay-wise 'Splinter Cell: Blacklist' was fantastic; blending modern day stealth AI with an array of new gadgets, robust levels and a gorgeous presentation. (Shame that Michael Ironside couldn't reprise his role but the new guy did a good enough job.) If you are looking for a foothold into the Splinter Cell franchise and don't suffer from the same 'must-play-every-preceding-game' neuroses that I do, this is the place to start. And end; because 2013's Blacklist is the last game to come out in the franchise.

"But why are you talking about 'Splinter Cell' today" you may ask. "Surely it can't just be because you feel the blog needs a break from Hitman coverage. There can never be enough Hitman!" Well, remember when I said that we haven't heard anything from this franchise in 5 years? That's because earlier this week Ubisoft came out to give us a little teaser about Splinter Cell's future with them. And the news isn't good. Ubisoft CEO, Yves (Steadily-dropping-off-my-Christmas-card-list) Guillemont spoke with Gamersky about where he sees the franchise going from here. "There will be new types of experiments, but on more different devices. So, we are working a lot on the brand today to come back at one point." Let me cut through corporate speak for a moment and speak plainly. He means mobile. Plain as day, no other alternative. Ubisoft wants to bring Splinter Cell to mobile.

Perhaps you cannot understand why this news is so depressingly huge that I wrote an entire retrospective blog on the franchise as though I'm penning a eulogy. And if so, don't worry, I intend to elaborate soon. And by soon I mean tomorrow. I think it might muddy this blog a bit to go into my issues with Mobile games right here, so I've decided to save it for a whole concentrated effort. Plus, I just started playing 'Hyper Light Drifter' and I really want to get back to it. This topic shall be concluded on Sunday, see you there.

p.s. This is the first time that I managed to fill the blog with entirely mine own pictures! Yay! Forgive me if I got a little crazy will placement.