Ghost Recon Breakpoint is dead

 Alas, poor Nomad.

Wet your cloth of mourning upon your crown and lay on it on the ceremonial cradle, then in your grief ascribe that which will be your last words to Breakpoint, for I fear it has passed our realm to the otherside of The Dream. Though difficult and fraught it's life, ever did the Breakpoint cling it to it's faithful, assured in their loyalty to a visage tarnished. But twisted and broken as that body was, not perseverance, not faith, nor an ill-timed, and likely ill-intentioned, NFT transfusion, could fix its beaten form. A teachable lesson to us all that love can only carry us but a part of the way, and sometimes there truly is nothing more our bony mortal hands can do. So as it was born, so shall it depart; Breakpoint, in ignominy. Its being now here interred, to monument another paved stone on Ubisoft's path to utterly and totally destroy the legacy of the late Tom Clancy.

Yes, you interpreted my Blasphemous-addled words appropriately; Ghost Recon Breakpoint is leaving the cycle of updates that had kept it somewhere approaching a 'live service' for so many years; thus officially killing the game's future. This gives it roughly the same amount of life under a support structure that Wildlands enjoyed, and yet somehow this one feels more dismissive; even pitiful, in comparison. I suspect that feeling comes from the way that Ghost Recon Wildlands managed to squeak out two whole DLC campaigns and even something of a positive reputation before it went out. Also, Wildlands left us with absolutely zero downtime due to the fact it was supported directly up until Breakpoint launched, with the last update even containing a special mission thread which acted as a direct prequel to Breakpoint. (Which in itself is a little odd given that it implies that Nomad's team was active in Bolivia for a full three years after they canonically defeated the cartel, and for no particular reason. Don't those people have families to go home to?) Breakpoint, on the otherhand, leaves us a pariah.

We know for the moment that a new Ghost Recon game is indeed in development, with Kotaku managing to nab the project codename as 'Over'. (Which happens to coincide with an NVidia leak from a while back, so double confirmation.) But whether or not that game is due to be announced this year, it won't get it's red carpet debut filed away at the end of Breakpoint's life cycle which is a shame because I thought that was the literally coolest use of this 'Live service' mania that we've seen so far. I mean sure, Borderlands 2 actually did the exact same thing and with a DLC pack that was considerably more substantial than Wildland's... but Borderlands 2 was kind of a Live service too if you think about the way it was supported. Kinda... sort of... In fact, I'd say Borderlands 2 was the first Live service! I'm getting off track- my point is that Ghost Recon fans are going to be dry for at the very least a few months, and it's a shame things have to end this way.

Breakpoint had a rough start; I think that's something we can all agree with. After a year of marketing which I considered to be decently successful, (They fooled me at least) the game launched to largely scathing reviews that picked apart the story, the gameplay loop, the content stretch and, most lamentably, the crappy attempt at recreating a looter-shooter here. Yeah, for some asinine reason (>Cough< Because Destiny nets 500 Million a year >Cough<) the team decided to throw random stats and levels for conventional firearms when it made no sense within the context, ("Why does this M4 shoot harder than that M4?") lacked meaningful depth that such a system demands, (like set bonuses and transformative specified keywords) and proved so detrimental to the core experience, that the team themselves had to cobble together a looter-free mode in the game post-launch for everyone's sanity.

And then there was the microtransaction store. There's this trend going around that some of the more nefarious studios have been pulling, and if your game is spotted with your hand in this cookie jar, it's my humble opinion that you and your game is automatically branded the worst and should be disparaged for the rest of it's active life cycle. I'm talking the art of creating a microtransaction store with pay-to-win crap and then disabling it for the first few weeks of play so that all the reviews won't spot it and factor it into their scores, before slapping it on and hoping to ride the backlash wave unscathed. I cannot convey how utterly disgusting I find that- it's beyond blatantly bonkers, it's downright consumer hostile. I despise games who do this, and of course Breakpoint can count itself upon that thankfully lean list.

All of that crippled this game at it's launch, and the unlucky team who was saddled with keeping this heaving beast breathing were up against a wall with their trousers down. But they stuck with the job, and with a lot of updates and patches, some good some bad, they desperately managed to claw back some vague respect from the community. The Breakpoint community wasn't exactly thriving, and it never would be after the dog's dinner that Ubisoft made of the launch month, (Great job Yves, you bumbling buffoon) but they'd reached a point of mutual respect with those that remained. And then Ubisoft reared it's moronic head around the door to ruin everything through turning Breakpoint into their NFT guinea pig.

You have to understand something here for a second. The relationship between Tom Clancy fans and Ubisoft proper isn't fraught- it's totally cut. TC fans pretty much equate Ubisoft to the devil when considering their handling of Tom Clancy's brand, for the way that they keep trying to prostitute out his name for an easy buck on their terrible cash grab wastes of space. You've got their Fortnite clone, Tom Clancy's Frontline, (received so badly it's beta was delayed) Tom Clancy's XDefiant, (ridiculed until they removed Tom Clancy from the title completely) and you've got the new Splinter Cell. (A disaster waiting to launch, we all know in our souls.) What I'm trying to say is that we are pretty much enemies of one another at this point, and so you'd have thought it would be in Ubisoft's best interest to reach across the isle. But instead they threw Molotov's over that bar.

Bastardizing Breakpoint into an NFT shill game is literally the only thing in Ubisoft's power they could have done to hurt their game's reputation more than the whole 'hiding the premium store' debacle. It's as though they were actively trying to find the worst idea they could think of in order to sink Breakpoint even worse than it already was; to drive the game to and past it's own breakpoint. No one, not even the developers of the game, could understand what Ubisoft was thinking with this strategy, because if they wanted to try something bold and new, you'd have thought they'd put a new game out. Instead they took a practice that the whole world hates and threw in a game that was battered already. I honestly, truly, do believe that someone high up at Ubisoft had a bad experience with Tom Clancy once and has dedicated his career to ensuring the TC name is little more than mud in the industry. And knowing what we know about the gutterslime that patrol Ubisoft head offices; I think that's a pretty plausible theory, honestly.

Today the heads of Ubisoft have won. Breakpoint is to be discontinued and seen off unceremoniously so that efforts can move to how the team are going to ruin the next Ghost Recon title. And you know what? I never even got the chance to buy Breakpoint. I, and many others, who loved Wildlands for it's extremely flawed package; avoided this game like the plague and like that chance encounter you let slip by, now it's all just too little too late. Where be your gibes now? Your gambols? Your Songs? Your flashes of merriment, that were wont to set the table on aroar? Not one now, to mock your own grinning? Quite chap fallen? Now get you to my lady's chamber, and tell her, let her paint an inch thick, to this favour she must come. Make her laugh at that.

gHoST rEcOn FRonTLiNe

 How long until I just start copy and pasting these blogs?

Imagine that you've been handed the franchise rights to a series that is defined, from it's very roots, to American military tactical action, and not the politically charged espionage of Metal Gear Solid, but something borne of genuine blue-blooded patriotism. Now imagine, if you can, that you're not American, but someone has given you this series that touts the American military and flaunts the efficiency of it's operational power, the scope of their technological advancement and the intricacies of it's duties. Wouldn't that get a little nauseating after a while? Wouldn't you at some point find yourself wanting to poke fun at the whole thing and turn it on it's head? These are all genuine questions, because I'm beginning to think that those are the only sets of circumstances to explain the seeming hardcoded disdain that Ubisoft has displayed their Tom Clancy properties of late.

I already told you about the team deathmatch game they announced which was laughed into oblivion. Well guess what: apparently that game didn't even hit with a release date so we all can just wait around on pins and needles for that impending trainwreck to roll into the station pretty much any day now. (Or maybe even next year, who even knows?) But that doesn't mean that Ubisoft have allowed themselves a spare second free from the had work of grinding their USP driven franchises into fine identical-looking dust. I don't know who the investors are over at Ubisoft, but they must have literally negative trust in leadership, because the amount of risks this company has taken over the past half decade have been amazingly small. A company of this size, you'd have thought they'd take some by accident. (Not even taking to account that they're literally making art, which invites risk) What if I told you that their latest title takes what I just said and blows it to the extreme?

Well for that to be the case we'd have to be looking at a game which does nothing original, something which does nothing more than hijack an oversaturated popular trend that already makes money and- what else- attempts to make a soulless clone with nothing new to add to the genre. Have you guessed what it is yet? I'll give you a clue, that kneejerk reflex you just had, but dismissed because that would be way too obvious- it was that. You done guessing? The brand new title just announced is Ghost Recon Frontline and it is a bloody Battle Royale, I kid you not, someone just end me right now I can't live in this loop existence anymore time is becoming a facsimile every game is the same game isn't Skyrim releasing later again soon oh my god I can't even tell what year it is anymore. Woah. Sorry about that I just spaced out there for a little while. Where was I?

Ghost Recon. The series defined by realistic tactical squad based operations that, entry after entry, tried to push the boundaries of AI capability and grounded military action. That is a Battle Royale now. And you may be already manufacturing some plausible deniability on Ubisoft's behalf right now, by doing stuff like assuming there's some really cool twist to BR that Ubisoft are cooking up, but you'd be wrong. They're so creatively bankrupt over there, that Frontline is designed to be as close to Fortnite as humanely possible, to the point where you get ridiculous sights like call-in helicopters dropping prefab constructs out of the sky in order for players to set up in. It's not as snappy and quick as Fortnite's building mechanics, but it'll keep an end-of-match fight going on for several minutes too long, don't you worry.

 

Do you remember a time when people were looking at Ghost Recon Wildlands with a slant and wondering if Ubisoft had lost the plot with this franchise yet? People were affronted by the idea of a gangly open-world setting where tactics sort of took a back seat to mediocre third person gunfights with gormless AI. People were worried about that. Then there was the sequel, Breakpoint, which implemented a detestably pathetic gear levelling system and enemy levels, implemented so poorly it makes you wonder if the people in the design room have ever actually played a game before. A system so bad that the developers had to invent a mode which removed this very levelling system, but they couldn't just patch it out of the main game because, of course, their monetisation routines were tied to it. People hated that. Yet somehow, Ubisoft keeps raising the ante. Self destruction is addictive, I guess.

I actually liked Wildlands, which I know makes me a bit of an anomaly. And even more than that, I liked the online competitive modes in that game which never blew up in the way that they deserved to. I mean sure, they seemed specifically designed to try and emulate the class based tactical team-based games of Rainbow Six Siege, because if there's one word that all of Ubisoft have tattooed in their skulls it's 'homogenisation', but there are much worse games to draw inspiration from for your multiplayer modes. (Take 'Fortnite', for instance) But it was always like the player was struggle against the game itself in order to get an experience which fit the promise of the series. I had to restrict myself to stealthy actions, despite the fact that the game supplied me with enough firepower to gun down an entire country if I so chose to. I forced myself to endure the endlessly choppy AI tactical options. I even did all the side content and seasonal missions because I was genuinely invested in the idea of experiencing that 'true' Ghost Recon that the team always seemed to be teasing. And then they just go ahead and announce a game that missed the point of the franchise entirely.

I'm going to go ahead and say the most obvious point again; why don't you make your own bloody series, Ubisoft? And no, XDefiant doesn't count as an original because it recycles ideas and assets from existing Tom Clancy properties. Why doesn't Ubisoft create, you know, in the manner one would expect from a company of supposed artists? Could it perhaps be because the last time they did that very thing the result was 'Hyper Scape'. A game I literally had to look up because I couldn't remember the title. A game which, as of writing this, has a single channel on Twitch playing it, and considering the screen is currently black while they're complaining about a surprise 20gb update, I can only guess that they aren't a regular. A game which, over a year since launch, doesn't have the promised crossplay. That's what happens when Ubisoft try to create, and so they resort to copying and bastardising.

And can you blame them? Yes. Yes I can and very much do. As one of the biggest European gaming companies in existence, Ubisoft must be capable of putting together something new, something worthy of their capabilities and size! And if they aren't willing then surely it falls to the audience to make them. Even with the release of Far Cry 6 I'm seeing articles with titles like 'The Ubisoft Formula is starting to grow stale.' "Starting to"!? Where the heck have you been for Far Cry 4, 5 and New Dawn? For Assassin's Creed Unity, Syndicate, Rogue, Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla? For Watch Dogs 1, 2 and Legion? It's been stale, man, it went rank; now the formula is straight decomposing! Fans are going around themselves in circles of chiding Ubisoft, then buying their next game, then being surprised that they feel like it's the same game they bought last year. So do something about it! Stop buying. Then maybe Ubisoft higher ups will actually have reason to pause when hitting that Ctrl-C for the five hundreth time...

Tom Clancy's Delete Squad

And the world wept

What is this, Ubisoft week or something? I keep taking shots at this poor little French company like this and people are going to start getting the wrong idea, I feel like I'm quietly revealing myself as some anti-Ubisoft sleeper agent who's slowly becoming active once more. The truth is: there's just so much happening with those guys right now and I'm invested because I just used to play so many of their games not that long ago. Heck, I remember a couple of years back having sat down and played through the entire Splinter Cell Franchise (sans Pandora Tomorrow) before adopting Ghost Recon Wildlands as my game-to-play for that year. And that was after my decades long obsession with Assassin's Creed before I grew bored with their slow delineation of the formula. So I'm a fan wronged, which I suppose fuels the desire to hear and respond to every single misstep they take in a sort of "See! I knew they were on the wrong path" way. A selfish desire for vindication, burning on a lake of, not hatred, but disappointment spilled from misplaced respect. With that context, let me tell you about 'Tom Clancy's Elite Squad'

If there ever a project that felt specifically made as a spit in the face to all your fans, it was 'Elite Squad'. Born in a time where fans where begging for a return to form from the fabulous and frugal boots-on-the-ground grittiness of Tom Clancy Prime. That's right, this isn't a new desire born from XDefiant, we've been feeling Tom Clancy lost it's way years ago and have thus been hounding Ubisoft ever since. Perhaps then all of these latest games have been reactionary on their part, a knee-jerk way of saying that they were tired of their fans telling them exactly what they want, they want to tell us what we want! I think that's a trap a lot of creative types can fall into, slipping from the totally healthy position of 'I'll do what I want because I enjoy it' into the more extreme shade of that feeling 'I'll disregard my fans because they're idiots and I know what's best for them'. 'Elite Squad' was another symptom and, even more than XDefiant, honestly rang the alarm bells for the future of Tom Clancy as we know it.

'Elite Squad' was a mobile game, thus already you can tell it was probably designed more for the financial benefits than for the love of the game itself, and it was meant to be a grand smashing together of many different Tom Clancy properties in a cross over royale. You know what that means I bet; it was a game that pretty much played itself where players had to put teams together with a high enough power score, which were best supplemented with real-money microtransactions. There's no imagination to a game like this, no artistry, just a cold dead forumla which creates the very same game time and time again, all that changes is the art style, for which this one had a polygonal low-detail look that seemed a little unfinished at least to me. But that wasn't the big insult, no that was reserved for the fact the game would be first one to feature Sam Fisher as a 'playable' character since the last Splinter Cell game. Oh, so Sam is good enough for mobile but not his own game now? We see how it is, Ubisoft, you trippin'.

This was Ubisoft big controversy of the year, before all this came out about mismanagement, harassment and all the real issues that they sweep under the rug today. Back then it was all about the sheer disrespect that Tom Clancy's franchises were suffering and the way that Ubisoft flaunted all that under the guise that they knew better. And at the end of the day how do you really argue against that? I mean, they are the one's running one of the biggest gaming companies in the world; surely they know how to make money, don't they? Even if this seems like the stupidest idea in the world and we, as the target audience, ought to know a thing or two about what we'll buy, these are experts who think they know us better than we know ourselves; who's to say they haven't found some secret formula to hack our wallets open without us even noticing? Well last week's story might be the exact proof that the team are just as clueless as we believed them to be, seeing as how it was announced after 13 months that Tom Clancy's Elite Squad is officially sentenced to the chopping block.

What's that smell? Do you smell that? Must be Vindication. Smells a little bittersweet doesn't it? I suppose that's the only real logical takeaway when we're talking about the abject failure of a venture featuring some of the most beloved tactical properties in the industry. But the sweet to offset the bitter comes in how this is proof, if ever it was needed, that the future of gaming is not always in the mobile space. I mean, sure for Niantic the millions they rake in monthly means they never have to dream about developing elsewhere, but when Ubisoft go trend chasing it's only a matter of time before they start hitting such walls such as 'unsustainability'. The soon-to-be shut down servers of Elite Squad are only facing this threat because no one was on them and throwing Ubisoft their bloodmoney, making this an victory to all those who say "If you don't like it, don't buy it". This sends a clear message, I hope, to those in charge over at Ubisoft; we're not going to buy something just because you throw the brand  we love on the marketing, you need to make a game worthy of that brand and our money.

Of course, this sends just as clear a message towards XDefiant. In many ways, given the timing of this announcement, it almost seems like XDefiant is the spiritual successor to Elite Squad. An acknowledgment that bottom of the barrel mobile trash isn't going to cut it in the Tom Clancy world, and a 'compromise' move into military-style gameplay, whilst still landing short of making an actual tactical adventure. I can't quite say for sure why Ubisoft are so adverse to just making the game that fans are willing to spend money on, but here we are with a game a decent bit closer to what fans want. But will they bite? Well, if the online response to the reveal trailer is anything to go by, probably not; but this is at least progress. Heck, this time next year when XDefiant is deemed unsustainable and shutdown, maybe then we'll be getting a Game with squad controls? Is that too much to ask? I don't feel like it is.

I'm pretty sure no tears will be shed at the funeral of the crappy cash grab that Elite Squad represented, however I wonder how this news will be interpreted to those within the company. Afterall, this does demonstrate on Ubisoft's part both an inability to select fruitful products and an unwillingness to stick to their guns; in many ways this is the worst of all worlds in regards to confidence building. Perhaps a more positive way to look at this would be Ubisoft making active attempts to change it's spots, from the company that stifles it's ambitions to the whims of one ex creative director,  to one that pursues the heights it needs to in order to get the project done. That might be edging a little too positively, however, seeing as how XDefiant is still a misjudged mismatch of maligned and misshapen malpractices. Oh, and then there's Skull and Bones which certainly seems like a waste of delayed development time given how niche it'll likely end up. And BGE2. You know what, I take it back. Ubisoft ain't changing for nobody.

At the very least this means the beaten spirit of Sam Fisher can slink back into obscurity, waiting for his next chance to disappoint his fan base with a badly conceived cameo in a game which doesn't deserve him. (At this point his illuminati subplot from Conviction and Blacklist is more likely to get resolved in the next Ghost Recon game) But don't let my cynicism mislead you, I do think there's room for a solid crossover between Tom Clancy properties at some point down the line, I just think that Ubisoft need to focus on remembering how to make each game from their respective franchises first before blundering into another mess like they've done twice now. Crossovers should celebrate the strengths of both franchises, not disregard the fundamentals of both. So let's reconvene this time next year to discuss the next ill-fated Clancy crossover; agreed? Agreed.

New Tom Clancy game?

 Xtremely pastiche

You've stealthed your way across every type of terrain imaginable, through the most dangerous locations on the planet, all with that signature look and style which for some reason includes those goofy-ass giant three-eyed green goggles which no-one can ever see. (I know that canonically the green light is non-existent, it just looks silly is all) Over active warzones, inside the jungle, across cruise ships, heavily guarded air bases, at least one missile silo, think there was a museum heist once, can't forget Langley HQ, the Vegas Casino was pretty interesting, oh- and then there's the time you snuck your way up Pennsylvania Avenue for some reason. Some might say your achievements and contributions to the clandestine world of spyfare and discretion is second only to one man, others may say you surpass even he. (Not me though, you ain't that good) You've been a solider, a father, A hero, a jokester, a sage spirit, an undercover agent, an Avenging angel, a man clearly 30 years younger, and one of the most prolific serial killers ever to get away with it during one misjudged outing. (>cough< Conviction was weird >cough<) You, Sam Fisher, have been the head of one of the greatest series' that the diseased development animal that is Ubisoft could have ever hoped to produce. But I think now it's time to accept that you will never take to the starring role the way you so deftly deserve. Farewell, our Splinter Cell.

I think that needed to be said, for myself at least. Other Splinter Cell fans need to craft their own eulogies, say their own goodbyes, close their own books, else they'll be hung up on Sam, keeping a candle in their windows, until the heat death of the universe. (Or the Earth, whichever is sooner) That way, some of the sting will be dulled from the next time our hero's corpse is paraded around and waved in our faces like the sick monsters over at Ubisoft like to do so often. Of course, it's not just Splinter Cell fans that need this sort of closure, it's all Tom Clancy fans out there. And I know that Siege is actually worth a damn, but only in terms of raw gameplay; the narrative is largely non-existent and otherwise trash because Ubisoft's team of professional Boston Dynamic's Spot Dogs can just about keep servers running, they ain't writing no meaningful or impactful storylines manned with indepth character studies anytime soon.

And I don't say all of this because the Tom Clancy name is dead, oh no far from it, but because Ubisoft seem dead-set (see what I did there?) in smothering out everything the series stood for. I can't say I was there for Mr Clancy's Will being read out, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it didn't contain a clause where he begged Yves Guillemot to destroy his legacy with prejudice. (I could be wrong though. Afterall, recent events have shown us in great detail how Yves is a person who keeps quiet about a great many things he should share to relevant parties. Yes, that was a workplace harassment reference) Clancy was a man who created whole universes of heavily researched and grounded military fiction that stroked the egos of all those America-loving military nuts across the pond, and just made for really cool Dan Brown-esque thrillers over here. Remember those two adjectives because they are of tantamount importance to the identity of the late Tom Clancy and his work; 'Grounded' and 'Researched'.

Now let me introduce to you the new Ubisoft game which was announced at the start of last week, one month after E3 (which are two good reasons why you might have absolutely missed it. Seriously, how stupid is this company, everyone knows Friday is trailer day) XDefiant. Okay, now your gut reaction is probably to dry retch at that nakedly abysmal title, but hold off on the fits of illness until I reveal for you the real name of this game; Tom Clancy's XDefiant. Oh, we're playing a whole different ball game now, basketball turned to rugby, lets see what this all about. So we've got a team based first person multiplayer shooter. That's it. No thrills, no whistles, just that. Ubisoft, in their infinite creativity, have decided to make a COD clone. I swear I don't torture the facts to come up with the clear evidence that this company is creatively bankrupt, they just hand them to me. The aesthetic of the game is, in their words, "fast paced firefights meets punk rock mosh pit". Which is certainly a style, if you acknowledge the fact this isn't as much 'punk rock', as it is the more sterilised and bland corporate version of 'punk rock' that Ubisoft drafted up for Watch_Dogs 2. The weapons and abilities are all super drone scanning technology and futuristic shock cannon guns. The storytelling is, surprise, not there. And the model is- urg- free-to-play with customisation microtransactions.

So to be totally honest with you, I actually think the game looks pretty okay for a Free-to-play title. Most other F2P multiplayer shooters are made by smallers studios and thus haven't the team to make anything as grandiose and responsive as Call of Duty; but as Ubisoft are master counterfeiters, they were born to make a game which looks so much like COD they're lucky games can't be sued on gameplay alone. The problem is the labelling. Once again, Ubisoft have stuck Tom Clancy's name on the product when, and let's be honest here; this is not a Tom Clancy game. When he was alive and had an influence on the worlds Ubisoft were pursuing under his licence, The Tom Clancy brand stood for highly accurate tactical shooters which were all about planning, adapting and execution. Crucially not high octane murder fests across Graffiti strewn streets wielding a plasma shotgun. Not sure how Mr Clancy would feel about all that stuff.

For a lot of people it just hammers home how out of touch Ubisoft is both with Tom Clancy and the loyal fans that games under his name summoned up. Where are the experiences to feed them, because offerings have be few and utterly unsubstantial of late. Ghost Recon Breakpoint was a game with the limited tactical range of Wildlands but coupled with a misplaced gear level system so baffling that the development team themselves added in the ability to nullify it down the line. The Division is a relatively newer property under the umbrella, and caters more to vague post-apocalyptia imagery and Looter shooter aspirations than actual tactical cohesion and thoughtful planning. Splinter Cell is dead though the latest Rainbow Six, Siege, at the very least is an impassioned, if multiplayer, shooter. The new alien invasion Rainbow Six Siege spinoff, however, sort of leans into the whole 'missing the point' angle I'm talking about.

Although the team have tried to make that connection for the worried out there, to let everyone know this is Tom Clancy in someway. How have they done this? With the faction system which haphazardly shoves together factions from different games into this environment with no explanation whatsoever because Tom Clancy is as much a unified brand as Disney movies are a shared cinematic universe. (I.e. not at all) You've got the Cleaners and the Outcasts, reportedly from The Division, (I don't play) those stupid Wolves from Breakpoint and, of course, the one faction that was actually invented when Tom Clancy was alive, and the source of a lot of rolled eyes: Echelon. No news on which Echelon this is, but does that really matter? Ubisoft are using the Splinter Cell brand for free promotion again whilst just taunting fans at this point for a sequel they'll never get. (How long until they sell a Sam Fisher skin on the storefront? I'm betting it'll be less than 3 months.)

XDefiant (Stylised as XD-efiant. I'm not kidding) is essentially a self published essay by Ubisoft on why they shouldn't be allowed to run franchises anymore. They run them into the ground with repetition ad nauseum until they run out of ideas and just start bastardising the property to maintain the illusion of artistic spirit and creativity. (Assassin's Creed fans know that all too well) No, brushing the military shooter genre with an exceeding light coat of stale dollarstore rip-off 'Punk rock', is not innovative; it's just equal shades ill judged and pandering. And don't even get me started at how this is another Tom Clancy game announced by a pair of developers in an empty warehouse for some reason. They did this with Breakpoint too; are Ubisoft not paying for offices for their employees anymore? Was this a failed attempt to seem, 'grimy' and 'down to earth'? I'm on earth, I don't hang around empty warehouses. (And judging from the general hostile response to this reveal from the public, not many other people recognise the warehouse-gang way of life either) Better luck next, Ubisoft, you'll wear down your fanbase until they hold you to absolute no standards eventually, keep at it.

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.

Ubisoft Breakpointing it down.

I've heard about you and your honeyed words!

You know I enjoy these moments. I really do. Those times when a company has done something so bad that they feel the need to address it with a public statement and outline their plans to do better. In one way, it highlights the determination of the development team to not give up, heck, sometimes these posts can be really encouraging to read through. But let's be honest, most of the time they're just PR crap full of misdirections and mis-assumptions as to what they've done wrong. Just look at that 'Apex Legends' debacle earlier this year. (A situation that was eerily similar to Activision's recent controversy with COD Mobile's fixed rate loot boxes.) Expecting a corporate entity to learn from their mistakes and improve is like praying for Christmas snow in England. It already happened once this decade, you ain't getting it again.

I'd like to remind myself for a moment that I do hope for good things to come out of disasters like these. (At least I think I do.) The last thing anyone wants is for the companies in question to go into liquidation and fire all their talented staff and this is especially true in the gaming world. Everytime there is a colossal screw up in gaming, you'll find droves of people detailing exactly how these Devs can go about fixing their issues. Sure, messages tend to be at odd with one another every now and then, but that's why you hire a good Social Media manager to sort out the common points of contention and detail a battle plan for the team. (Huh, looks like I'm doing it now.) But, more often then not, the community's free advice gets wasted and companies are forced to scratch their heads and wonder why people aren't giving them money anymore. (What a mystery.)

With that in mind, let's talk about 'Ghost Recon: Breakpoint'. If you read my last blog on this game, you might remember how this game was a failure in almost every respect. The gameplay was neutered in order to serve a levelling system, the thing was riddled with bugs and every little item that one could find in the game could be purchased at a premium in the 'time savers store'. Due to a mistake from Ubisoft, the team accidentally shipped the review and launch copies of the games with all of the aggressive monetisation tactics that they had intended to ambush players with after launch, and as a result the game was met with considerable backlash from reviewers and enthusiast press. (Although in gaming those two groups tend to be one and the same.) Breakpoint did abysmally in the review department and folks like me now know that it's only a matter of weeks before the game is sub £20 on the shelves. (Although at this point I'm wondering if even that is too much.)

Now, usually this wouldn't be information worthy of a follow up. So the game reviewed badly, big whoop. It's still a AAA game made and published by a company who demands respect from the wider gaming community, (inexplicably) so it's probably not going to be too huge of a flop. Right? Wrong, apparently, as Breakpoint is probably going to go down in the books as Ubisoft's worst financial decision of 2019, costing the company in respect, sales and that all important revenue. In a recent financial report, the big man himself, ol' Yves Guillemot, revealed that "The critical reception and sales during the game's first weeks were disappointing." Now, there are no specific numbers there, but you can bet that things are looking rough for Ubisoft right now, especially with other ancillary news that has come out.

Perhaps you've heard of a little title known as Division 2. It is Ubisoft's follow up to their rough first foray in live services and now exists as their flagship representation of the model they want all their franchises to emulate. Assassin's Creed capitulated to this standard in Origins and even more so with Odyssey, and Breakpoint's biggest letdown was that it too fell to the lures of the live service model. (Those lures being the promise of heavy concurrency and a potentially unlimited revenue source.) So it's safe to say that Division 2 is currently Ubisoft's flagship game. But does that relate to strong sales? Well, it's hard to say definitively as Ubisoft seem unsure themselves. In May they complained that the game had not met sales expectations whilst in July they claimed that it was best selling game of the year. (So just what were your sales expectations, Ubisoft?) Now we have reason to believe that this disappointingly successful title was not enough to save Ubisoft from major markdowns to their annual fiscal expectations.

Originally, the fiscal year of 2019-20 was looking decent for Ubisoft with predicted operating profits reaching to 480 millions euros. Now predictions have been amended to somewhere within the range of 20-50 million euros; which is still more money than Sony Pictures made for the first half of this year, but still 'brown trousers' time for the budgeting team. Things didn't look any brighter when, following this report, Ubisoft's stock price fell 20%. (It has since risen back another 10%) Obviously, these are not the sorts of numbers that anyone wants to be seeing, least of all Investors, so the question on everyone's lips right now is; what went wrong? Well quite simply, everything. Breakpoint's failure of a launch actually translated into poor sales, every major Ubisoft release got delayed until the next fiscal year and public brand trust has taken a noticeable nose dive. So where does this leave Ubisoft? In a position where they need to make amends and start bringing players (And wallets) to Breakpoint whilst they wait for their next slate of AAA products to release. (Providing there are no more surprise delays.)

That brings us to Ubisoft's recent blog post entitled "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Breakpoint: moving forward". (Hmm, invoking the spirit of 'Anthem' with that blog title probably isn't the best first touch there, Ubi.) In this post Ubisoft sought to reassure the community that they have a plan of action and shouldn't abandon the game in droves for better offers. (Like 'The Outer Worlds'. Which is great, by the by.) Thankfully, the team saw fit to divide the game into sections so it's easy for me to disseminate. (Oh will the wonders of coherent formatting never cease?)

Firstly, the team addressed the one issue that can be freely discussed without admitting to any corrupt influences on their end; technical difficulties. There isn't a great deal here to read into besides the fact that their scheduled title updates appear to be tackling issues in small chunks in order to get out sooner. A decent tactic in reassuring the players that the game is still alive, although it does make it appear like these fixes will be going on for the next few months before the game is decently playable for anyone without a super computer wrapped in ladybugs. (I made that reference off the cuff and now that I've realized why I said it, I'm too tickled to remove it. I pray to god you don't get it and if you do, don't judge me!)

Secondly the team spoke on post launch content, a very interesting topic of contention. When 'Anthem' was undergoing similar growing pains, the post launch was the first thing to get gutted as the team completely reprioritized to bug fixing and rebalancing. Ubisoft have confirmed that they are still right on track with their Raid and 'Terminator: The Dark Fate' cross-over event, so it seems they don't want to fall into the trap of appearing lackadaisical to the player base, however dwindling they may be. Although the quality and appeal of said content will be questionable since many of people's key concerns have been the way that the franchise was bastardized in order to accommodate for things like Raids and timed events.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the blog addressed the In-game economy. And, rather predictably, it is the shortest section here. All the team would commit to saying is that they have "Heard the criticism regarding the in-game economy." Oh, have you guys? Well, congratulations! Someone in the team posses the ability to access Reddit, what an accomplishment! The team explained that they are planning to make 'adjustments' in the next few weeks and then moved swiftly on before anyone could ask anything pertinent like: "What adjustments?" More likely than not the team will just shift some prices down and call it a day, actual change would require the team to admit their initial wrongdoings and have the integrity to try and do better. But gods knows nobody in the AAA landscape cares that much about their games. (At least, nobody with any actual power.)

The rest of the blog is mostly unimportant stuff about their delayed plans to introduce AI teammates (Which should never have been cut out from the game to start with) and their comments on people's reaction to the game design. Now you may think that latter point is of some significant relevance as they discuss the limitations of their current design and a desire in introduce a 'radical and immersive' version of the main game in the coming months. But I've seen enough of Ubisoft's machinations that I recognize them like I would an old friend. (If I actually had any friends, that is) So trust me when I say, nothing that Ubisoft plan to do with this game will fix the fundamental issues with it. It's just too lucrative not to rely on the store. Even if they do rework everything and remove those annoying pointless levels, it'll be in a tacked-on extra mode with enough severe restrictions slapped on that you are forced to return to the main game grind. (My predictions are that they will bar you from Online content and raids in such a mode.)

As dismissive as I have been, and am being, to Ubisoft and their words, I do appreciate that the team took the effort to talk to the community. A lot of other companies in similar positions would simply shut down and ignore any and all criticism, (See: Bethesda.) but at least Ubisoft had the courage to acknowledge and respond. Of course, being a progeny from a long line of career cynics, I don't believe these words will translate to substantial action (That is to say: action that will achieve positive change to the game) but I'll never turn my nose to an opportunity for some inoffensive lip service. I'm not sure if any of this will be enough to bring people back to Ubisoft as they slug it out through this difficult financial time, but I know that the company will still find a way to manage even if it doesn't. That Yves is a fighter, afterall, he wouldn't let the company sink on his watch. (Would he?)

P.s. Of course he wouldn't. Heck, I don't even think the monetary situation is that dire, truth be told. But it makes for fun reading. wait, did I just say that the potential financial downturn of a company is "fun"? Poor choice of words. 'Interesting'? Nah. 'Facinating'? Hmm...

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.