Hey,
a new video just got released, you can actually choose between 4v4 and 2v2 classic mode, this actually made me think about buying it now,
if it also has the old equipment usage (both sides more than one equipment) and hopefully also some oldschool maps. Let's hope and see ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDwW0zGthxA&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDwW0zGthxA&feature=youtu.be)
Ninja'd by 6 sec! lol
EDIT: We saw a lot more this around. Besides the obvious classic gameplay elements, we saw how the Spies and Mercs move around. FAST! Even faster than in Conviction. Spies get a baseball slide instead of a diving roll. The grab command for executions seem to be very quick and responsive. Mercs and Spies seem to have multiple position based executions that vary on where the opponent is. Mercs also have a stealth neck break now, lol. That poison gas the Mercs use will be very effective against camping Spies. The Knife is an insta kill liek I thought it was, but also has a bit of a range to it (more than I thought it did) thats great for killing multiple enemies in short amount of time, Merc may no longer want to stick too close together. A points system based on kills and types of kills as well as "kill streak" bonuses, sounds like COD to me. The drone is REALLY fast, but smaller explosive range. Classic mode seems to have its own specific weaponry separate from the 4v4. This trailer answered a lot of questions and doubts I originally had.
There is an other video about blacklist with coop and versus gameplay footage (with german commentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nufEybverCs
Adding to what I said above: Blacklist version will almost be a combo of COD/Halo4. Expect weapon loadouts and "specializations." We might even have "classes" of Spies and Merc, like I guess from the last trailer. A Merc class that can dish out more fire power at the cost of speed or a Spy class than run faster at the cost of armor, both with "special abilities" kinda like Halo 4's armor abilities.
EDIT: Great find on that second trailer. I had no idea what they were saying, but Im pretty sure I saw a Spy go invisible. So if Mercs get Holograms, I guess Spies get a Cloaking device?
Maybe I actually buy this one... though if I do, I think I will roam a lot around the "classic" style though.
Looks incredible, I can't wait :D
That first video got me pretty pumped for it. If they're actually putting the work into a secondary "Mode" simply to appease the people played PT/CT then they are going in the right direction so far.
I'm interested in the new 4v4 version as well. I like that the two modes seem to be split.
Yeah for sure, I like the look of Classic mode better. No lethal weapons, tighter teamwork, darker maps (the maps are much darker in classic mode), that's right up my alley. But just because that's my preference doesn't mean I don't love Blacklist mode as well. It looks very fast paced and it seems have quite an interesting dynamic. The maps have more light in order to make the action more clear, and the spies have lethal (but weak) weapons. I'll probably play classic mode more often, but I'll probably play a load of Blacklist mode too.
All in all, this is exactly what I've been asking for, classic SvM with the bloat cut out (neck grabs etc).
Spies are way too powerful, but I guess that's no surprise. Looks like it could be okay to play if Ubi don't fuck it up somehow, even if it's not gonna be as good as CT. Worth checking out on Steam sale if people are still playing after a few months at least.
Dev diary -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d5OkMcX3z8c
It is rly sad that spy can take down 2 merc in blink of eye. Will see if it is good game or not, we only have to wait for proper gameplay.
^^^^
Yeah, I'm pretty bummed about the spy taking out those two mercs super quick...
I think I like this new SvM, but I still have some concerns like:
1. The merc's motion sensor only seems to show movement from the front. But what about a spy throwing a party behind the merc? Is there a separate indication of movement behind him?
2. The spy can take out a merc in front of him... I wouldn't want a spy to win if a merc and spy were charging eachother head on...
3. Even the classic mode seems too fast paced. I liked the patience of CT and PT. I'm also going to miss grabbing the merc because it is so much more rewarding than a quick SNAP run away.
4. The levels still seem a little too bright for me. There isn't a frame in classic where I saw pitch black. It looks like you could just turn up your brightness.
It's better than DA, but still ehhhh. I'll get it, but I hope they REALLY DEDICATE that classic mode to the SvM of CT and PT.
More Gameplay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIeuRwp-FSY
Only hope in tools for modders.
Classic SvM also have infinite lifes. Not so classic at all.
I would like to have those frontal kills blocked, that hacking system changed.
Also i still hate the DFA (Death from above) mechanic... I really think that it's too OP.
I wish to play it though. I was also invited by Zack Cooper at Toronto but i didn't have a passport. The other invited fans already tried every mode of the game.
Quote from: RaDRoacH on May 08, 2013, 10:01:15 AM
I was also invited by Zack Cooper at Toronto but i didn't have a passport. The other invited fans already tried every mode of the game.
NOOOOOO!!!! I wish you could've gone. :-\
Quote from: RaDRoacH on May 08, 2013, 10:01:15 AMAlso i still hate the DFA (Death from above) mechanic... I really think that it's too OP.
Guns are also stronger... so death from above is useless if the merc kills you in midair... something that was usually impossible for anyone but the host in SCCT
oh btw: I am on vacation until the 23rd of May. See ya.
Quote from: Meister_Neo on May 08, 2013, 03:15:51 PM
Quote from: RaDRoacH on May 08, 2013, 10:01:15 AMAlso i still hate the DFA (Death from above) mechanic... I really think that it's too OP.
Guns are also stronger... so death from above is useless if the merc kills you in midair... something that was usually impossible for anyone but the host in SCCT
oh btw: I am on vacation until the 23rd of May. See ya.
We don't have the proof that the mercs can counter attack the DFA, also because the DFA mechanic is automatic (I guess that works in the same way like SCC, dunno if you played Spy vs Spy).
Have a nice holiday :)
Quote from: Scanty Chunk on May 08, 2013, 10:50:58 AM
Quote from: RaDRoacH on May 08, 2013, 10:01:15 AM
I was also invited by Zack Cooper at Toronto but i didn't have a passport. The other invited fans already tried every mode of the game.
NOOOOOO!!!! I wish you could've gone. :-\
Yeah me too lol.
Quote from: zglina on May 07, 2013, 10:26:00 PM
Dev diary -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=d5OkMcX3z8c
It is rly sad that spy can take down 2 merc in blink of eye. Will see if it is good game or not, we only have to wait for proper gameplay.
I would say its the Mercs fault for being too close together going for a double team. The Spy being so quick prevents the Mercs from using that tactic, but I do agree, from the Spy angle its looks really OP. I see these changes to prevent Mercs from using camping or defend only strategy, but the Spies are very frail (seen dying to just to a few pistol shots) and the Mercs can grab them just as easily as well. I just hope there is a counter system as was mentioned above, otherwise it could degenerate into a instakill input war with everyone rushing each other.
Looks like both spies and mercs can autokill from the front. So... will it come down to whoever pushes the kill button first? Looks like both spy/merc can die faster and more frequently, will there be a life limit?
I would be worried, but I have no good expectations from this series anymore.
Quote from: Farley4Fan on May 11, 2013, 06:28:59 AM
Looks like both spies and mercs can autokill from the front. So... will it come down to whoever pushes the kill button first? Looks like both spy/merc can die faster and more frequently, will there be a life limit?
I would be worried, but I have no good expectations from this series anymore.
How's it any different from shooting before someone grabs you? The fact is that the mercs are way more powerful than they were in CT, so getting up close is actually a huge risk in Classic mode. In Blacklist mode it's all about fast pacing with more players, brighter map lighting and low-powered lethal weapons for spies. I don't see the problem, it forces the mercs to play more strategically, and in both moves you have infinite lives, so it isn't such a big deal.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 11, 2013, 03:37:42 PM
How's it any different from shooting before someone grabs you?
You couldn't grab from the front? In CT if you turned a corner and a spy was there then all he'd do was hit you and then shock you and run away. In Blacklist he'll kill you instantly.
This is kind of a big difference.
QuoteThe fact is that the mercs are way more powerful than they were in CT
What makes you say that?
Looks like Mandriller (missed you Rocket!!! <3) has been my proxy since yesterday. lol
I'm trying not to judge before proper gameplay, but I think there are ideas that have been introduced that have potential to ruin SvM before it even starts up again.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 12, 2013, 03:22:42 AMYou couldn't grab from the front? In CT if you turned a corner and a spy was there then all he'd do was hit you and then shock you and run away. In Blacklist he'll kill you instantly.
This is kind of a big difference.
That's irrelevant, you were talking about the process of pressing a button before somebody else. You have to do that when trying shoot someone before getting grabbed, elbowed or even jumped on in PT/CT. It's no different from anything in the old games, it's always been about who reacts first. But don't take my word for it, ask ShadowFox, a community member on the Blacklist forums who was invited to play the new SvM.
Quote
- I really don't think this button mash race is important. People are assuming this is the case when in fact I didn't come into a single melee combat where both of us were going head on, trying to melee the other. If the spy is charging, the merc is shooting...not button mashing to melee him.
- Spies are extremely fragile and very easy to kill. As a merc, you will be very rarely killed from the front if you know the spy is there.
- There is really no button mashing. For mercs it's all above covering the corners and leading with your gun to put the spy down.
- Melee attacks are mostly for when you catch the spy by surprise.
There's a general consensus among the community members invited to play Blacklist; if you get into a situation where mercs and spies charge at the same time, the spies die before they can even get close. It only really works out for the spies if they catch the mercs by surprise, so the mercs can't reach the melee button in time.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 12, 2013, 03:22:42 AMWhat makes you say that?
Here's some more words of wisdom from ShadowFox, the guy who's actually played the game.
Quote
- The "aggro spy" isn't really that much a part of classic because it's so easy to get wiped.
- If the merc has his rifle trained on you, it's pretty much game over.
And now SolidSage, another majorly active community member and long time veteran of Splinter Cell.
Quote
- The Spy in classic isn't easily killing anyone. I don't think I have expressed clearly how easy it is to kill a Spy if the Merc see's them long enough to put a trigger pull on target. 2 Spies running around on the ground are 2 dead Spies. It doesn't even take half a clip to spray and kill 2. Let's get that straight by the way, I wasn't head shooting a lot, it was iron sights. So I see a spy, approximate aim, burst of fire = 1 kill. I see 2 Spies, aim, burst of fire with a bit of side to side = 2 dead spies.
- The run'n'knife mentality in Classic = death 99% of the time.
Evidence from reading the posts of people who've actually played the game, interviews, seeing the game in action and making my own judgements about Blacklist have lead me to these conclusions. Not from making unsubstantiated criticisms.
Quote from: Farley4Fan on May 12, 2013, 07:47:24 PM
Looks like Mandriller (missed you Rocket!!! <3) has been my proxy since yesterday. lol
I show up to save the day whenever people are saying stupid shit, bro. Like a superhero.
Unless it's me saying stupid shit. Because that's different.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 01:17:40 AMThat's irrelevant, you were talking about the process of pressing a button before somebody else. You have to do that when shooting someone before you get grabbed or elbowed or even jumped on in PT/CT.
Yeah except there's much less of a penalty if you fuck up. If a CT spy attacks a merc from the front the merc isn't in any danger. Like at all.
It's nice that you can't run straight at mercs and win (I don't know why you're acting like this is new though, uzi mercs in CT would fuck you up nearly instantly if they got a clear shot), but I'm more worried about ambushes. Like if a spy hides around a corner and then melees as soon as the merc turns it. I'm wondering how they're going to beat that.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 13, 2013, 01:29:15 AM
Yeah except there's much less of a penalty if you fuck up. If a CT spy attacks a merc from the front the merc isn't in any danger. Like at all.
It's nice that you can't run straight at mercs and win (I don't know why you're acting like this is new though, uzi mercs in CT would fuck you up nearly instantly if they got a clear shot), but I'm more worried about ambushes. Like if a spy hides around a corner and then melees as soon as the merc turns it. I'm wondering how they're going to beat that.
The whole point is that there's much less of a penalty for dying as the mercs. There's very little danger associated with death in Blacklist as the mercenaries. They respawn in 10 seconds and they're back to hunting the spies, and they have infinite lives so it's not an option to simply DM one merc at a time. As for quick death as the spies, it's certainly new against unscoped rifles, and the Uzi was so unbalanced that most people didn't use it anyway. Quick ambushing forces to the mercs to be more careful, but it's not going to change the tide of a match unless the objectives are being hacked. But if you fail to ambush the mercs, you're dead instantly, and that's a huge setback when your only option is to hack the objectives.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 01:42:14 AM
The whole point is that there's much less of a penalty for dying as the mercs. There's very little danger associated with death in Blacklist as the mercenaries. They respawn in 10 seconds and they're back to hunting the spies, and they have infinite lives so it's not an option to simply DM one merc at a time.
So wait, their solution to spies being overpowered at ambushes is just to give mercs infinite lives? That's the shittiest idea ever!
QuoteAs for quick death as the spies, it's certainly new against unscoped rifles,
I dunno, it only took four chest shots unscoped. The real difference is that hit detection's probably gonna be clientside so now people who aren't host can fuck dudes up.
Quoteand the Uzi was so unbalanced that most people didn't use it anyway.
Yeah, I, uh. Really? Did the people you played with not use MT because it was op too? Because wow.
QuoteQuick ambushing forces to the mercs to be more careful, but it's not going to change the tide of a match unless the objectives are being hacked. But if you fail to ambush the mercs, you're dead instantly, and that's a huge setback when your only option is to hack the objectives.
Isn't that kinda the same in CT? Except now it's much easier to get kills as spy since you don't have to attack from behind/above and hacking doesn't immobilise you. And hacking is all or nothing, so you've got more of an incentive to hang around and try to kill mercs rather than backing off. So we're back to the game making spies too aggressive, woo.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 13, 2013, 01:50:36 AM
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 01:42:14 AM
The whole point is that there's much less of a penalty for dying as the mercs. There's very little danger associated with death in Blacklist as the mercenaries. They respawn in 10 seconds and they're back to hunting the spies, and they have infinite lives so it's not an option to simply DM one merc at a time.
So wait, their solution to spies being overpowered at ambushes is just to give mercs infinite lives? That's the shittiest idea ever!
The reason infinite lives were implemented is to discourage killing as a means to an end, and allow the spies to keep going for the objectives until they succeed. It also makes the game far more accessible. I've explained this on the Blacklist forums before, check it out.
Quote from: VaNiillaaAs someone who played PT/CT for almost 7 years before stopping, I fully support infinite lives. Things are going to change, they have to. You can't expect to have the exact same rules as you did in 2004, they were never perfect. The penalty of death is all about your position and the detriment to your objective; you lose all the headway you've made towards the objectives when you die.
It allows the game to become more accessible, because death isn't the frustration. It makes the whole experience far less negative, and let's be honest, noobs were dealt with pretty mercilessly in past games (instant kicks were common for newcomers). It also forces both the spies and mercs to play more strategically; they can't just go for kills, they have to think about the objectives.
Quote from: VaNiillaaCounterCellOps, I think you're taking minor points and exaggerating them as a result of nostalgia. I'm not saying they can't take the general ruleset of CT SvM, but it can't be exactly the same. Hardcore fans love CT, but when you take a step back it really is a flawed game, what with its needless lack of accessibility and minor imbalances (night vision MT, outlines in EMF, etc). As for rage quits, making a game that drives a lot of people to rage quit before the match has ended is a big problem, especially in a game revolving around team work.
Counter Strike is one of the most well balanced competitive games out there, especially with the newest entry, Global Offensive. If you look at the matchmaking in that game, you have two options; casual and competitive. In competitive mode, you actually get a penalty if you quit before the match is over. Now, these matches can last up to 90 minutes, and yet people generally don't rage quit in CS:GO competitive. Why is that? Because it always feels fair. Every time you fail in that game, it's almost certainly your fault, and you can learn from it. Even if the opposing team wins 15 rounds a row (16 to win), you still feel like you can come back from failure.
Now imagine this scenario in PT/CT SvM. You're playing as a spy, your mate is dead, you only have one life left and you haven't managed to take any of the objectives. If you're playing against evenly matched players, at this point you're totally screwed, you literally have NO chance to come back. Although this is your own doing as a team, it's not fun to lose in such a drawn out fashion. And it's also not fun to lose your team mate in a game that revolves so heavily around team work.
Hardcore fans like us can respect this and enjoy it, because it's really intense and it makes you feel like every move is very important to the team. But for the average player, this kind of thing drives them away, because it's so incredibly ruthless. It feels like you're playing against an impenetrable elite club, and that's not fun. This is only compounded by the fact that noobs get kicked out of most matches before they even have a chance to improve. This is why limited lives is such a big problem, and if we want to see the market for SvM grow, this is something we have to let slide. And as far as I'm concerned, it improves the gameplay considerably. This way, you've always got your mates by your side, and you've ALWAYS got a chance to change the tides of the match with smart play, no matter what the situation is.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 13, 2013, 01:50:36 AMQuoteand the Uzi was so unbalanced that most people didn't use it anyway.
Yeah, I, uh. Really? Did the people you played with not use MT because it was op too? Because wow.
In my experience, the use of the Uzi was extremely rare. It was fairly easy to get away from the mercs when they had rifles, and given that most people used the rifle, this introduces a new dynamic to the game. Motion Tracking doesn't exist in its old form either; no 180 degree detections or night vision effects are present in Blacklist. The same goes for EMF outlines, and many other flaws from the old games.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 13, 2013, 01:50:36 AMQuoteQuick ambushing forces to the mercs to be more careful, but it's not going to change the tide of a match unless the objectives are being hacked. But if you fail to ambush the mercs, you're dead instantly, and that's a huge setback when your only option is to hack the objectives.
Isn't that kinda the same in CT? Except now it's much easier to get kills as spy since you don't have to attack from behind/above and hacking doesn't immobilise you. And hacking is all or nothing, so you've got more of an incentive to hang around and try to kill mercs rather than backing off. So we're back to the game making spies too aggressive, woo.
It's much easier to die as the spy, and killing them doesn't result in anything game-changing except during hacking. That's why it balances out. Also, because hacking is all or nothing, you really do have to stay hidden, because if you get caught before you can ambush them, you're dead. It's rewarding for your team-mate to kill mercs to help you out during hacking, but it's not a good idea if you're the spy who's hacking the objective.
Wait, spies have infinite lives too?
Man is this game dumbed down.
Maybe this will change your mind.
Quote from: SolidSageLosing a life, regardless of whether it's because of over confidence from infinite lives, really hurts your chances of success. That 10 minute time limit goes fast, especially when it takes a full minute and a half to complete a hack.
Relaunch times are slow also and then you have to make your way back to a terminal zone.
My basic point is, that it doesn't matter if you have infinite lives, rushing as a Spy gets you wasted fast and if you die twice or more, you've eaten up most of the clock already. You can keep re-spawning as much as you like, the more you do it, the weaker your chances of success get every time.
So at least the good player keeps getting fodder so they have something to do in the round.
A good player is going to know how each life lost increases his team's handicap and is still going to avoid it at all costs regardless of the feeling of 'safety' due to re-spawn. What I mean is, infinite lives is a red herring, anyone who buys into it being a support for a specific strategy for success is going to be very disappointed.
Taking infinite lives out will only lead to shorter rounds, and without the ability to still 'actually' play, in spite of failure, a lot of players are going to walk away. And then your beloved SvM mode dies in the womb and it's back to complaining to Ubisoft for years about making another one or playing with the same small player pool in an ever decreasing SvM community.
I can't imagine how crap a match would be if the Merc's killed both Spies and the round ended. New players would always be in loading screens. That would trash a mode before it even got rolling.
I understand nostalgia but some decisions are actually valid and do more to benefit certain concepts in spite of what the fans might think. IMO.
I understand where your coming from, but most of your criticisms simply aren't grounded in reality.
Why would that change my mind? He's just saying most players would prefer it dumbed down. I'm not gonna argue with that . It's like CoD, y'know, it's real simple and that's what makes it popular. Most people like simple.
Having infinite lives is still dumbed down compared to CT though.
It doesn't simplify the game experience at all. In the old SvM, things were a lot more simple in a way. You could simply kill the spies/mercs and you've won the match without even thinking about the objective. Rather than just getting behind a merc or jumping on them twice, and charging, beskering and shooting the spies, now you HAVE to think about the objectives. And taking the objectives is far more complicated than killing anybody, because otherwise you're back to square one. Infinite lives is the only way to completely satisfy this type of design. It doesn't dumb down the game at all, and also takes away an unnecessary barrier to entry. It's a win-win situation.
This is completely different to COD, a game where winning/losing isn't a major concern, at least in casual play. Success in COD is defined by points more than anything else, something you can simply facilitate by pulling a trigger. Comparing Blacklist's mechanics to COD is stupid, plain and simple.
It does simplify it. In CT you have to worry about lives and time. In Blacklist you just worry about time. One thing is simpler than two, right?
I wasn't saying the game was similar to CoD, just that CoD is a good example of a simple game. Your health recharges so you don't need to worry about managing it, all the weapons are hitscan so they're real easy to aim, and everyone moves slowly (even slower when using sights, and they need to do that to be accurate) so they're easy targets. You compare that to Quake 3 or something and it's much much easier to play, but also much more successful. Same with Blacklist, it'll be simpler and easier to play than CT, but because of that it'll probably do better.
It's simpler to ride a bike than operate a plane. What's more challenging to race across a large mountain, the bike or the plane? With the bike you have mountainous terrain, trees and rocks to avoid, uneven surfaces, and so on. In a plane you have to think about the fastest way to fly across the mountain, and that's fairly simple. Despite being harder to operate, the person operating the plane will find it much easier to cross the mountain than the guy on the bike.
What's my point? Just because you have to think about limited lives in CT, doesn't mean you don't think about unlimited lives in Blacklist. You have limited opportunities to hack the objective within the timelimit, and lives are the only way to facilitate your journey through the game. If you keep dying, you're going to set yourself back on the journey to victory. So using your lives effectively is still very important, and not only that, but the game is more complex in the sense that you have to think about the objectives in order to to win the match; you can't simply focus on killing the opposing team. The landscapes of CT and Blacklist look very similar from a distance, but regardless of having a simplified variable in Blacklist (lives), the game is still more complex than CT. You can make a variable more accessible (like a bike), and still have the game be more complex and rewarding overall (like awarding points).
You lost time for dying in CT too, dude. And killing the mercs off never happened if they were at all competent, and in any case having multiple ways to win is still more complex than just one.
I think you're just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing with me now.
I'm disagreeing with you because the arguments you're making are invalid, have no basis in fact, and they're potentially misleading to people reading the forum. As you said in another thread, "I show up to save the day whenever people are saying stupid shit." I think I've said enough.
"Having one way to lose is simpler than having two ways to lose."
FUCKING INVALID LIES RIGHT HERE
In a race between a bike and a plane... (do you get it now)? The bike is easier to operate than the plane, but the terrain is much more complicated to cross with the bike than the plane. Having infinite lives is simpler than limited lives by itself, but Blacklist's objective is still more complex than PT/CT's, because you can't simply kill your way to victory. You have to utilise kills to aid hacking the objectives, you can't choose to ignore the objectives and simply kill the opposing team. This is one of many things that leads to a more complex and yet accessible experience with Blacklist.
EDIT: As mentioned in the other topic, I'm done with you.
You couldn't just choose to kill the merc team in CT either, unless you were a thousand times better than them. Have you played CT? Because between this, failing to understand that you couldn't kill people from the front as spy, and not realising mercs could kill people nearly instantly if they got clear shots, I'm starting to suspect you haven't.
It was an option regardless of how difficult it was to complete with even teams. I never said that you could kill people from the front as a spy, and I even specified that fast kills are "certainly new against unscoped rifles", because they are. The rifle has a far lower rate of fire than it does in Blacklist, even though 4-6 bullets would kill you in CT. I wasn't talking about the Uzi, because it's not a rifle. And I specified before, I rarely played a game against someone who used the Uzi, because it was so unbalanced.
Click here (http://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/index.php?action=profile;u=13) to check my profile, my original username was "STON3COLDKILLA", and I joined in 2006 while still playing Chaos Theory online. I even registered before you, if that helps to clarify :).
EDIT: Changed "I never said that you couldn't kill people" to "could kill people", if you're wondering about the late edit.
I realise you're Stone, dude. Like I'm gonna forget that sig? We had that cool friendly discussion over whether it was possibly to play Conviction stealthily in which we were very friendly and parted as friends. I'm just talking shit about your CT experience since apparently it was completely different to mine.
Also I thought you weren't responding to me anymore.
Well shit dude, I guess I am :P. My first port of call was never to go for kills against good players in PT/CT, the objective was the main way to win if you're up against skilled people. But while playing the game I would constantly go for kills, not only because they put the mercs out of action for extended periods of time, but because you could also end up winning the game if you killed them enough. And even if you don't knock out both of the mercs, it's much easier to win against one merc than two. They can't be in two places at once. Blacklist fixes that problem in that you always have a mate by your side, keeping the matches focused on the objectives and exploiting them. If you knocked out of of the mercs in Blacklist's classic mode, it would totally imbalance the game, because they could never defend the objectives effectively. You could just run away from them while hacking the objectives until you win.
It's because I'm so loveable, isn't it? Just impossible to resist.
But seriously did you ever take three lives off one merc in the same game? Because that's pretty crazy if you did. Unless they sucked, of course. Though anyway, this is what I'm talking about when I say dumbed down. In CT if you die lots then you fucked up and you get punished by losing. In Blacklist you get to respawn no matter what. Removing punishments for fucking up is like the definition of dumbing down.
It feels like dumbing down when you view it as an element within itself, but when you look at the game in context it doesn't serve to dumb down the experience at all. It simply serves a different style of gameplay, and while making one thing less complicated, makes another far more complex. I've took three lives off a merc on very rare occassions by myself in CT, so it was quite difficult, but even against good players I managed to do it fairly often as a team of two.
If you took three lives off them then don't you think they deserve to lose? Instead of the game just letting them keep going because they'd be sad if they couldn't respawn?
I don't really see how infinite respawns make things more complicated either. I mean, it does mean there's no way to kinda win by accident just by getting kills, but it also means going for kills to try and wear the mercs down is gone too. Removing possible strategies doesn't help make things complex.
Quote from: Spark Mandriller on May 13, 2013, 05:04:09 AM
If you took three lives off them then don't you think they deserve to lose? Instead of the game just letting them keep going because they'd be sad if they couldn't respawn?
I don't really see how infinite respawns make things more complicated either. I mean, it does mean there's no way to kinda win by accident just by getting kills, but it also means going for kills to try and wear the mercs down is gone too. Removing possible strategies doesn't help make things complex.
I don't think they necessarily deserve to lose, I think the spies deserve to be rewarded. I think along with the obvious inclusion of points, the game rewards you by allowing you to get closer to the objective without one of the mercs in your way. It's not infinite respawns that make the game more complicated, it's the type of gameplay they facilitate. As a spy, you can keep going for the objectives, and although death is a huge setback, you've always got the chance to turn the tables. Death doesn't make that any easier, but it certainly feels a lot less punishing, which I think is a good from the perspective of pure fun and accessibility. As a merc it's harder to shut out the spies from a win, and you can't rely on the spies playing differently as a result of death, so you really have to keep on your toes, as they're going to be relentless in their pursuit to hack the objectives. I think that's AWESOME.
Just look at CT, the mercs were way over-powered. If you had even teams, the mercs would probably win 80% of the time. Anything to even the balance is a good thing. Some people have a problem with fast double kills for example, but I don't. And neither do the people who've actually played the game. The reason why is because the mercs should never bunch up in a corner in the first place, so if they do, it only makes sense that they can be dealt with quickly. Fast melee kills fit the pacing of the game without making it easier for either side; spies get a faster kill, but mercs get a faster respawn instead of waiting to be grabbed and then killed or knocked out, so it's actually
more balanced in my opinion. Killing from the front still requires an ambush factor in order to work, because if they see you coming, you're going to be dead before you know it. So really, I don't think it's much different from having to get behind the mercs, even if it's a little easier to execute. They do have infinite lives, and the respawn time is still 10 seconds, so I think it helps bring balance back to both teams, given the state of things in Chaos Theory.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 05:29:38 AM
It's not infinite respawns that make the game more complicated, it's the type of gameplay they facilitate.
I'm not sure if they're gonna facilitate anything good. In CT playing slow and methodical was good since running in and getting killed would end up with you outta lives pretty quick. In Blacklist it seems like it'll be more of a rushing sort of game, since there's no penalty for dying other than having to respawn. I mean, running in and dying is bad, but moving in slowly and then dying is much worse since it wastes more time, and time is the only resource you have. Seems like it could end up a little too fast paced.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 02:57:15 AM
It's simpler to ride a bike than operate a plane. What's more challenging to race across a large mountain, the bike or the plane? With the bike you have mountainous terrain, trees and rocks to avoid, uneven surfaces, and so on. In a plane you have to think about the fastest way to fly across the mountain, and that's fairly simple. Despite being harder to operate, the person operating the plane will find it much easier to cross the mountain than the guy on the bike.
What's my point? Just because you have to think about limited lives in CT, doesn't mean you don't think about unlimited lives in Blacklist. You have limited opportunities to hack the objective within the timelimit, and lives are the only way to facilitate your journey through the game. If you keep dying, you're going to set yourself back on the journey to victory. So using your lives effectively is still very important, and not only that, but the game is more complex in the sense that you have to think about the objectives in order to to win the match; you can't simply focus on killing the opposing team. The landscapes of CT and Blacklist look very similar from a distance, but regardless of having a simplified variable in Blacklist (lives), the game is still more complex than CT. You can make a variable more accessible (like a bike), and still have the game be more complex and rewarding overall (like awarding points).
What. The. Fuck. Your points and arguments are even more ridiculous than what you hear from the forum members who went to Ubisoft's HQ and got brainwashed. Are you really dead serious when you say that you think Blacklist is or will be more complex than CT? The developers have done everything in their power to make Blacklist as little complex as an objectives based asymmetrical multiplayer mode can possibly be (without completely stripping the game for features) in order to allow every single casual gamer to jump right into the game and have a chance of being victorious. How can you not see this?
I can see why you think that, but my arguments are valid. The guys who've apparently been "brainwashed" are guys who've played every Splinter Cell game. Many of them hated Double Agent because of its numerous flaws. ShadowFox in particular heavily criticized Conviction, and even Blacklist when it was first shown. I'm not brainwashed, I'm just looking at the facts. The game is far more accessible, but that doesn't mean that it's less complex. It's easier to get in at an entry level, but I think high level competition will have much more to it. You haven't brought up any valid arguments, and for that reason I completely disagree. Along with my own observations, I'll trust those who've actually played the game (and explained their thoughts about it in great detail). If they were brainwashed, I would have noticed it in their posts, but I haven't.
Keep the debate nice all :) It's great fun to watch and see the various arguments.
Quote from: frvge on May 13, 2013, 07:04:52 PM
Keep the debate nice all :) It's great fun to watch and see the various arguments.
I've bought some popcorn
(https://community.projectstealthgame.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-OXb1AOfR1qI%2FUHIIvBEcomI%2FAAAAAAAACrQ%2Fdj6e7pa7rPI%2Fs1600%2FIMG_0018.JPG&hash=0a569ba905e0f7d842c007ba5bc98c712bb47ea1)
Let's wait, see and try before criticize it...
The MP is still work in progress tho, i guess that there won't be big changes, but they will balance the game, and probably work on other modes.
Look at all this activity!
It seems like it's simplified in pretty good ways thus far. Infinite lives does simplify things for all players involved because as Spark said, having to not worry about lives is one less thing than you had to think about in previous versions. This is good for everyone involved though as well. Newer players wont be discouraged by losing a game within a couple minutes. Older players can try other tactics. It makes Objectives the key point of the objective based mode.
This begs the question on if there will be a Deathmatch mode for either classic or blacklist mode.
I also have to wonder if Killstreaks actually have some sort of bonus or if they are simply a point/medal kind of system. Kind of like Halo's various medals that don't give you any sort of ability at any point, but to coincide with your score in the end. This would be in contrast to CoD, which I haven't really played, but gives you an advantage ability if you get your killstreak high enough.
There's no abilities with the killstreaks. They allow you to unlock new gear in blacklist mode (4v4) as well as SP and Coop. Classic has everything open from the start, so it's an even playing field.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 13, 2013, 05:20:40 PM
I can see why you think that, but my arguments are valid. The guys who've apparently been "brainwashed" are guys who've played every Splinter Cell game. Many of them hated Double Agent because of its numerous flaws. ShadowFox in particular heavily criticized Conviction, and even Blacklist when it was first shown. I'm not brainwashed, I'm just looking at the facts. The game is far more accessible, but that doesn't mean that it's less complex. It's easier to get in at an entry level, but I think high level competition will have much more to it. You haven't brought up any valid arguments, and for that reason I completely disagree. Along with my own observations, I'll trust those who've actually played the game (and explained their thoughts about it in great detail). If they were brainwashed, I would have noticed it in their posts, but I haven't.
The thing is that I'm really struggling to get my head around your logic. You say that Blacklist's SvM (I assume we are speaking about the "Classic" mode) is more complex than CT's. Your main reason for believing so is that you can't win a game by killing a certain number of mercenaries in Blacklist whereas you theoretically can in CT. Am I right? To explain yourself you use a bike and plane metaphor that is not really relevant. Yes, some things are more complicated and complex than they seem to be on the surface but so what? I could use the exact same metaphor for DA's SvM. The mercs are equipped with a proximity detector that detects spies that are nearby, even spies that are hidden and does not move. The PD replaces the sound detector from CT. So at first sight you might think that mercs will have a much easier time tracking down spies and killing them but that's not the case. Spies are faster, the maps are bigger, hacking is done remotely, and there are so many more or less safe paths for the spies to take between the objectives. Suddenly, eliminating spies isn't as easy as one would think. But hey, that doesn't make the whole game very complex at all and fun for that matter. The point is that you need to look at more than one aspect of a game before you conclude that it's more complex than another game. In DA's case I don't think I'll have to point out why the SvM there was a dumbed down and way less complex version of CT's SvM without enough depth. As for Blacklist, I'm confident that the SvM installment in that game will have the same problems as the one in DA. There are fewer gadgets, a lot more automatic actions like pressing a single button and killing a merc with a DFA move, and infinitive lives which I think removes complexity in the sense that spies and mercs no longer have to alter their style of playing to the amount of lives they and their opponents have left. As far as I can see, there are no where near enough complexity-adding factors in the game to make up for the complexity-decreasing ones.
In the end I'll probably buy the game and see for myself how it plays. I might enjoy it for a while and find it fun for what it is just like I did with DA. On its own, DA's multiplayer was all right and entertaining. But when you compare it to CT's it will always be a disappointment. I think the same is going to be the case with Blacklist's SvM. For quite a bit of time I actually thought that DA's SvM was better than CT's (shame on me) but that changed when I realised how there was such a great lack of depth compared to CT. If I had been invited to play DA's SvM for a few hours before the game was released I would have been as excited about the game as Shadowfox and the other forum members are about Blacklist. Playing a game for three or four hours is simply not enough to realise the lack of depth in a game. How about I try to use a metaphor too. Blacklist is nothing but a dessert. When Ubisoft invited a couple of forum members over to their place they served them a little peace of their special new dessert, Blacklist. It made the forum members happy and they instantly wanted more. They wanted to eat nothing but this dessert and couldn't wait until they were able to do so! These forum members didn't realise that having the dessert all the time wouldn't satisfy them in the long run. They would quickly feel hungry again after eating it and soon become tired having the same dessert over and over again. CT was nothing like this. CT was like an awesome, out of this world three course dinner, however, you had to cook all the fucking food yourself. You were given all the ingredients and an infinitive source of them by Ubisoft but the kitchen they provided you with was full of broken equipment and the recipe you were given wasn't very useful. On top of that, the ingredients were of variable quality though generally a good one. Now you essentially had to try again, again, and again but eventually, if you kept on trying, you'd have the most hearty meal you'd ever had. A super rewarding experience. The fantastic taste of the high quality ingredients mixed together almost allowed you to forget about the taste of the ingredients that were not of such a quality and the meal would keep you satisfied for an incredible amount of time. Unfortunately, most people would give up even before they got to the starter due to the lack of working equipment and the inadequate recipe. If only Ubisoft had decided to fix the equipment, get rid of the bad ingredients and perhaps add a few fresh new ones and last but not least provide a proper recipe, we would have the most amazing multiplayer ever that people wouldn't give up on before mastering it.
Okay, perhaps I got a little lost in my own amazing metaphor, I don't know, but I hope the point was somewhat clear. Anyway, I actually think that the thing that annoys me the most about the Splinter Cell series, both SP and MP wise, is how it's going from being stealth games with action elements to action games with stealth elements.
You think they're going to make the rounds customize-able? Replace infinite lives with a finite amount? Pretty sure the opposite of that could be done on PT/CT/DA.
It was the same back when CT was first revealed, people would say that you can't judge it right off the bat. You can't form a whole opinion based off one day's worth of playing and trailers, but you can certainly get a fairly good impression of what the game is like. For me, the game is above and beyond my expectations. I didn't expect them to keep so much intact from PT/CT, I'm actually quite shocked, but I'm also really glad that they've made the game more accessible. You've got to admit that CT is not an accessible game to newcomers, not once people mastered the game. Hopefully with Blacklist, the game will make newbies feel more welcome, along with proper matchmaking so the teams are evenly balanced. By being accessible, it actually gives people the chance to get good at the game without becoming demotivated, and play against people on their level before going up against the top tier of gamers.
Conviction is a "stealth" game, but the game only really encouraged you to use stealth as a tool to kill (the "panther" style as Max put it), it isn't built to accommodate other play styles. Although it was possible to ghost the game to an extent, you really had to search for the oppurtunity to do it, so it wasn't a very rewarding experience. I don't get that feeling from Blacklist. Rather than telling you to use stealth to execute enemies, it lets you choose what to do. You can play the game as a ghost, go to the opposite end of the spectrum as an Assault player, or use stealth to clear out each room as a Panther, and you will still have a rewarding experience. The game is designed to facilitate the ghost who doesn't want to touch anyone, kill anyone, use any gadgets or get detected. In fact, some of the missions require that you pass through totally undetected and remain non-lethal. In one mission you have to extract Kobin from a location, and unlike Conviction's scripted moments, you have the option to avoid a firefight. You can still extract him guns blazing, but you can also sneak through the back door in a completely different section.
It's actually a lot like Chaos Theory; you could shoot mostly everyone in the game, knife everyone, knock them out, or sneak by entirely, and it's no different in Blacklist. Regardless of how you choose to play, you're being rewarded for it, rather than being shoe horned into one style of play. Max used the analogy that in one mission from Double Agent, he chose to play in quick lethal fashion. Although the game gave him that option, when he got to the end of the mission he had a "-150 stealth rating" or something along those lines (I'm paraphrasing). That kind of system isn't rewarding, it's not fun and it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. That's why you're rewarded differently depending on your style. If you haven't seen the Abandoned Mill walkthrough, check it out, because it really shows this off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9SvRX-8pZ4
I'm enjoying that I'm not the only one that makes really long posts.
That makes 1.
:P
I feel like deathmatch would be awful. There would be like .5 seconds of "combat". Spies only have to push the "kill" button from seemingly any angle, and that's the jist of combat for a spy. Mercs have to put a couple rounds in a spy or use their kill button. It would probably consist of spies hiding around corners trying to time their auto kill. If they fail, they die. Rinse/repeat.
There's one thing that will greatly help the perception of Blacklist IMO: a multiplayer demo/beta with both modes available. (BL/Classic)
Quote from: Aj on May 15, 2013, 05:53:09 AM
There's one thing that will greatly help the perception of Blacklist IMO: a multiplayer demo/beta with both modes available. (BL/Classic)
From what I remember, there was a MP beta for DA, but only story for Conviction. Not sure what they will do for Blacklist. I hope there's a demo at all.
Quote from: VaNilla on May 14, 2013, 07:07:58 AM
It was the same back when CT was first revealed, people would say that you can't judge it right off the bat. You can't form a whole opinion based off one day's worth of playing and trailers, but you can certainly get a fairly good impression of what the game is like. For me, the game is above and beyond my expectations. I didn't expect them to keep so much intact from PT/CT, I'm actually quite shocked, but I'm also really glad that they've made the game more accessible. You've got to admit that CT is not an accessible game to newcomers, not once people mastered the game. Hopefully with Blacklist, the game will make newbies feel more welcome, along with proper matchmaking so the teams are evenly balanced. By being accessible, it actually gives people the chance to get good at the game without becoming demotivated, and play against people on their level before going up against the top tier of gamers.
Conviction is a "stealth" game, but the game only really encouraged you to use stealth as a tool to kill (the "panther" style as Max put it), it isn't built to accommodate other play styles. Although it was possible to ghost the game to an extent, you really had to search for the oppurtunity to do it, so it wasn't a very rewarding experience. I don't get that feeling from Blacklist. Rather than telling you to use stealth to execute enemies, it lets you choose what to do. You can play the game as a ghost, go to the opposite end of the spectrum as an Assault player, or use stealth to clear out each room as a Panther, and you will still have a rewarding experience. The game is designed to facilitate the ghost who doesn't want to touch anyone, kill anyone, use any gadgets or get detected. In fact, some of the missions require that you pass through totally undetected and remain non-lethal. In one mission you have to extract Kobin from a location, and unlike Conviction's scripted moments, you have the option to avoid a firefight. You can still extract him guns blazing, but you can also sneak through the back door in a completely different section.
It's actually a lot like Chaos Theory; you could shoot mostly everyone in the game, knife everyone, knock them out, or sneak by entirely, and it's no different in Blacklist. Regardless of how you choose to play, you're being rewarded for it, rather than being shoe horned into one style of play. Max used the analogy that in one mission from Double Agent, he chose to play in quick lethal fashion. Although the game gave him that option, when he got to the end of the mission he had a "-150 stealth rating" or something along those lines (I'm paraphrasing). That kind of system isn't rewarding, it's not fun and it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense. That's why you're rewarded differently depending on your style. If you haven't seen the Abandoned Mill walkthrough, check it out, because it really shows this off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9SvRX-8pZ4
I don't see you responding to the whole Blacklist SvM being complex than CT SvM thing. The inaccessibility of CT was a screw up by Ubisoft and they could easily have made a successor to the game without this problem. There were so many things in the game that didn't necessarily make sense that you just had to figure out yourself like the sound for example, there were way too many bugs, a bad netcode, and there were serious balancing issues. All of this added heavily to an already steep, but not too steep, learning curve. Ubisoft could easily have worked this out but instead they gave us DA's SvM and now Blacklist's where it feels like every single aspect of the game has been simplified and made easier. Yes, you can't just judge a game from a few trailers but I haven't seen or heard anything that would make me think that this game is going to be fun for very long. The game is simply not challenging enough to keep people interested in the game for very long. In CT you spent a lot of time mastering your rifle and its sniping capabilities as a merc but in Blacklist killing is just as easy as in COD - you just hold down the fire button and your opponent will be dead in a second. As a spy it took lots of time mastering the sticky camera as well as the best tactics to successfully neutralize or grab a merc but in Blacklist you just press a single button and your spy performs a move that kills the merc instantly. I could go on and on with this comparison. Whenever the forum members who played the game are confronted with valid criticism comparing CT and Blacklist they simply go down the old "CT belongs to the past, you can't keep on making the same game over and over, blah blah blah" bs road. They don't really seem to respond to it.
I'm not really interesting in discussing the SP as Ubisoft has turned Sam Fisher into a joke, however, I'd like to say that I can't see why Max is complaining (other than the fact that he's a total moron). He decided to finish the mission the quickest, easiest but also worst way leaving a lot of traces. The game gave him the decision to cut corners or not and he decided to do so and still expected to be rewarded as if he hadn't. The fuck kind of logic is this? And I know you were able to go through the missions in the old Splinter Cell games killing a lot of people if you wanted to but it seem like the new ones almost encourages you to do so with all the action features they're putting in the game.
This auto kill thing reminds me of Assassin's Creed multi. From wherever you are (in front, behind, the side, above, below, where fuckin ever) you literally push 1 button 1 time and it's an auto kill. It basically is a glorified chess game. The skill involved comes only from positioning yourself effectively for an insta kill. No aiming, no give and take combat, just instant death for one party or the other (depending on who pushed it first).
Needless to say I can't stand it. It looks like there is some inspiration taken from there, and that's probably what has me most worried personally.
I second the beta thing. I really doubt I will buy it without trying it first.
I think the knife nonsense and auto kill functions are probably the worst part of these previews. Seeing the back of the Merc, hearing that grabbing noise and then snapping their necks had to have been the most rewarding feeling ever in a video game.
As far as the infinite lives thing, I understand where vanilla's coming from and I don't think that affects the game too much if everything else is done right.
I think as long as they keep the SUSPENSE in the game, it will be as successful as Chaos Theory.
oh damn... just watched a "classic 2v2" 20 min gameplay video... I jump right to the most important issue: Ghosting is not really possible anymore, it is way too action oriented and there are infinite lives. The maps are also too small... I don't even want to know how the 4v4 will look, if THIS is what they call "classic".
Other issues:
Jumpkills are instantous, you cannot even block or dodge it when a spy jumps at you while you can see him. The moment he starts to jump, the kill is already made. A frontal 1on1 melee fight seems to be a laag & luck & hitbox hitting contest, as the chances to win (at least from what I saw) are 50:50. Also chaffs are now totally overpowered. It's range is around 3 times as big as it was in CT and they don't "disable" the gadgets, they outright DESTROY them! Also you can taze a merc and then melee kill him... what a load of BS.
Or to put it into blacklist terms: Mercs represent "Assault"-style and Spies represent "Panther"-style. However there is no "Ghost"-style there at all, which is quite disappointing. Of course maybe those who played were just noobs and those pre-release videos should be taken too seriously.
Until now mercs were at least liked for being so strong. Suriving was always possible as long as you were skilled enough. Because of that spies were forced to actually use a stealthy playstyle. And even if blacklist makes the gun more useful (basically they are Uzi from SCCT without FPS breakdowns and ironsight zoom), the motivation to play as a merc is simply non-existant. You could literally take a soldier from CoD give him flashlight and sensor and put him in the place of the merc. You would probably not notice any difference.
Really, I considered getting it... but now IF I get it at all, it will be the same as frvge: Waiting for it to become much cheaper. I am seriously disappointed about SC:B.
Now I hope heartcore games will release their first game in 2013 (come on, at least closed alpha for us!)
I'm actually happy (not fully, but happy) of what they have done with Blacklist, It's already a huge step after SCC. I'll play SCB Vs mode (and probably i'll still play SCCT Vs mode) until PS (Or whatever it will be named) will be released.
I also agree with your issues, Press-to-jump and press-to-DFA still make me nervous. Also the lifes won't be customizable, even if it's a private match.
It took me awhile to get used to everything, but I do like this game. Instakills are gonna take a LONG time to get used too. Your head needs to be on a swivel at all times.
I'm super bummed that you can just sprint behind a merc and he won't have any idea that you're there. But if you get in that 180* radar, he knows instantly...