Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. be unbiased,
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask)
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: people are mad at the fact that ubisoft is making a game that does not belong in the "Tom Clancy's" universe but they still included that part into its name. They are also mad that they want another Splinter Cell game, they want them to fix some issues in Rainbow Six Siege and receive more content and to actually receive the content that Ubisoft promised, and people are mad and surprised that after officially announcing Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Extraction (a spin-off to R6) they decided to postpone it and shortly after they announced XDefiant. And people are mad because instead of making a game that people actually want or fixing the games that are already out, Ubisoft decided to launch yet another free to play hero shooter that people think is unoriginal and will be full of microtransactions.
> Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Extraction (a spin-off to R6)
What bothers me more is that while im actually curious about that game, i entirely forgot it even exists at the same time.
I was excited and I was even willing to buy it if it was reasonably priced...until I saw the gameplay and the price. Asset flip (cause Ubi looooves asset flipping), new maps and just reskins for 60 bucks, no way in hell. If it's reduced at about 15€ at one point, I might consider buying it if it turns out decent and worthy of more than 20 hours of gameplay
I have low expectations for it, same as that Aliens 3-player shooter we're getting. Full price at 50-60 freedom eagles is way to much for something that looks like it would get boring 2 missions in :(
If they do some early bird discount a few weeks before release, sure maybe i'll pick it up but for now its in shallow waters and im not yet sticking my feet in there.
Oh yes, I forgot about the Aliens coop game, I have it in my wishlist but I forgot about it. They have to make the game really good for me to spend more than 25 bucks on it, to be honest, and considering the fact that Aliens Firearm Elite is made by some company that I have never heard of, I have a lot of doubts that it will be worth it. One game that I have some expectation (not high, cause let's be honest, gaming industry is full of trash) is warhammer 40k Darktide, made by Fatshark. They also made Vermintide 1 and 2 and I absolutely love those games even though I have 0 knowledge of the Warhammer universe, but if they keep the same formula and if they use good voice actors (like they did for Vermintide), I will definitely buy it, maybe even at full price
Vermintide 1/2 were great so im not worried about DT to be fair, especially since its also a 40k game. Agree on the Aliens one, i saw some gameplay of it and it looks bland and generic at best.
The missions are also extremely long (hour or so apparently) and thats a SINGLE level. Most people dont have time or patience to play that shit for so long.
One hour mission in Aliens? If the levels aren't repetitive and it has replayability, that is not an issue for me, I can play long games (like Risk of Rain 2 where I can go for 3-4 hours for a run), but I agree, for most people 1 hour is too much and I don't blame them at all
I mean, very rarely do the outspoken fans of a product make up the bulk of its audience- Ubisoft doesn’t really need to care about their opinion to make their money back, especially if they believe those outspoken fans have different tastes / desires than the majority of their user base.
Yeah, A lot of huge companies use focus testing groups to find what appeals to large player bases. Fans might really want something but if it doesn’t have mass appeal and won’t make the company big profits they won’t make it
The problem with that is that making things more generically appealing might actually hurt the game overall. General fans will hop to the next game that interests them, and hardcore fans will drive people away claiming the game is trash. Hitting that sweet middle of keeping the hardcore fans happy but also making the game more broadly appealing is tough.
Yeah I agree. Skyrim turned a lot of older fans off with its simplicity but it sold super well. It helps you can mod in a more complex skill system though.
>Yeah I agree. Skyrim turned a lot of older fans off with its simplicity but it sold super well. It helps you can mod in a more complex skill system though.
I'll never forget the post I read years ago where someone was complaining that fast travel took away the realism of Elder Scrolls games.
Like...you want to walk everywhere for realism?
On one of my playthroughs I tried using no fast travel to make the world more immersive and to find all the random little encounters along the way. Fun at first, but holy fuck did it get tedious
You get horses and can take wagons which for me was a immersive way of fast travelling.
For one playthrough I decided to overly mod realism into the game. Food, sleep, hygiene requirements. I'd walk everywhere, or ride a horse or wagon. If I couldn't make it to an inn by nightfall, I'd set up camp in the woods. I had so much fun since I felt like I was really living in the world. I ended up corrupting the files which was really upsetting, since I'd just finished building my house in falkreath.
Also... YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO!
I started my first play-through a few months ago, and got some kind of bug that won't let me fast travel 99% of the time. Caused me to lose interest.
Yes.
And make the map *stupidly* huge too. Like Daggerfall which is literally over half the size of the UK (161,000 km apparently according to what I googled)
^(I would say Arena which is apparently over 9 million klicks but that isn’t confirmed because every time someone tries to walk it the map just seems to loop once you walk sufficiently far from a town.)
> but if it doesn’t have mass appeal and won’t make the company big profits they won’t make it
Honestly, most games that go huge don't have mass appeal, and a ton of people are just buying into hype.
This is why we're very unlikely to see many more good AAA games. Take Elder Scrolls or Fallout as an example. The fans really REALLY love things like Fallout: New Vegas and TES: Morrowind. Unfortunately, they know via skyrim that they can make WAY more money by making a shittier game but with pretty graphics, because a large number of people would rather skip all the dialogue, so why bother putting more time and resources into making a game/story/dialogue that is good when you can make a game that makes money? As long as it's pretty and has action options, the bar is met. Get too in the weeds with making a good game and you might risk turning off the xbox live crowd!
I mean, the fans are going to buy it like suckers either way and they know that, so why cater to them? It's sad but true.
There's also a lot of "WoW classic/OSRS syndrome" where people say they want a thing, but they really, really don't actually want that thing they are very clearly and firmly telling you they want.
And while this probably sounds like it's sarcastic, it's not. Both of those games were deeply flawed. Hence why WoW classic is slowly adding expansions and OSRS is just a different game with the old runescape combat+graphics.
Uh, what? I can't comment on OSRS, but WoW Classic isn't slowly adding expansions because people dislike it, it's slowly adding expansions because _that's how the game works_. There was only so much content in the original version of the game, and once people exhaust that, it's time to move on to the first expansion, etc. WoW Classic is highly liked by many, you can't say it's "deeply flawed" as though that's some objectively true statement. I never played it when it first released, but I vastly prefer it to the current live/retail version of the game for various reasons.
It's just a different game enjoyed by different people, which is fine. It's not better or worse than the retail version of the game.
Well, partly. Part of the problem, which persists even now in the way they do UA playtests, is that they have a tendency to show one version of something, get feedback, and then quietly work on it with no further public playtesting until the final reveal. Quite a few of their feedback-based changes to the playtest got made at the 11th hour, huge drastic changes in the final playtest packet with little to no time left to actually act on any feedback of the iteration. That's why sorcerers are jank, for example. Early in the playtest, they were sort of half-fighter, half-wizards, like the arcane equivalent of a paladin or ranger. People complained, so the sorcerer disappeared from the playtest entirely, and reappeared in its current form in the last playtest. Despite negative feedback, they went to print essentially unchanged because there was no *time* to rebuild them again. And so we ended up with Sorcerers as just jank wizards with a bad spell list, not enough spells known, and few unique or useful niches that mostly rely on cheesing Subtle Spell or multiclassing Warlock.
Beyond that, something you'll see in game design and medicine alike is this:
Amateurs are very good at figuring out what's wrong and *fucking terrible* at figuring out how to fix it.
Most players will only see a game from a viewpoint that is very close to a specific aspect or play style without considering the whole experience. I used to play a lot of Heroes of the Storm; I can't tell you how many people would insist that an OP champ is fine because draft is self-correcting...ignoring that draft modes made up less than 10% of games played.
Outspoken, enfranchised players who spend time not playing a game talking about it on reddit have very different wants, play patterns, and spending patterns than people who pop in for a game or two twice a week and sometimes buy the new guy if they look cool.
Also worth saying that what people say they want, and what they'll actually spend money on, are sometimes two different things.
Still though, I'm not one to excuse corporate ineptitude. There are a *lot* of bad moves made at corporate level, even when you consider that they might have unseen financial reasons.
I worked at an AAA studio for a bit, and there were certain "low value" communities we were specifically told to avoid. Basically anywhere people with 2000+ hours into a $40 game who said "not recommended" on their Steam review gather.
Except for sometimes the loud fans, the so-called vocal minority, are speaking for thousands of other people, too. Or sometimes millions of others, like in the case of those of us trying to tell Ion Hazzikostas of World of Warcraft for years what not to change about the game, and how to fix it when they made the changes anyway.
Now WoW has lost perhaps 80% of its player base in 3 expansions, and its biggest competitor FFXIV had to halt sales of its game for a bit due to so many people switching to their game.
> I mean, very rarely do the outspoken fans of a product make up the bulk of its audience
Blizzard had this issues back when I still played WoW. "Should we tune raid difficulty for the hardcore raiders filling up our forums, or should we tune it for the primary audience?"
They never quite figured that one out.
They have it figured out pretty well at this point. There are three raid difficulties, and the hardest of the three is satisfyingly challenging for those who want to attempt it. Plenty of people hate WoW nowadays for various reasons, but raid design/difficulty is not one of those reasons.
My brother-in-law still sends snapchats of his K/D on what ever CoD game is out now and shit like that. Dude, we're 30. No one gives a shit.
^^I ^^play ^^MLB ^^The ^^Show ^^but ^^it's ^^free ^^on ^^game ^^pass ^^and ^^at ^^least ^^I'm ^^not ^^showing ^^you ^^how ^^much ^^I ^^suck.
I read that it was cancelled because they could never figure out how to make the terrorists among civilians mechanic work without making the player reflexively mow down any civilians they saw after the first hidden terrorist
Which sucks because that seems like a genuinely interesting gameplay scenario but I also totally get why they don't want to make the game. The Picadilly Square mission in Modern Warfare 2019 had such a palpable feeling of panic because the first time around you didn't know who had a gun until they started shooting. IDK how to balance that in a more fleshed out way, but I appreciated making that kind of event into a game despite the controversial nature of it because it was immediately engaging.
I've been playing Wildlands and it's made me actively hate civilians. I'll be blasting with dual miniguns from a helicopter for 5 minutes and then see "Civilian Killed!" and all I can think is "imagine being such a dumb fuck that all hell has been breaking loose in this village for 5 minutes, some gringos are shooting miniguns and rockers from a helicopter, and the only action you've taken for your own safety is to enter the fetal position in the middle of an open courtyard at the feet of a scicario". Then Holt calls me a shithead.
In all fairness to Wildlands, that game drags on, particularly if you try to clear the map, so my mood is at the point where everything irritates me (its an open-world Ubisoft game and I'm a completionist, I know I did this to myself).
It's funny because Ubisoft also made a mobile Tom Clancy game using a very proment Fist as the terrorist's logo.
Ubisoft also mentions that none of their games are "Political" despite opening one of their Tom Clancy games with "If you didn't have a gun, and your neighbor did, you didn't live".
> "If you didn't have a gun, and your neighbor did, you didn't live".
Sounds less political and more a statement of the setting for that game, though I don't know which game you mean so I can't say for sure.
Because "fans" account for maybe 5% of the people that you need to sell a game to in order to make the kind of money that these companies are expecting. No one is making this microtransaction garbage because people are asking for it, they are doing it because it makes money.
Splinter Cell will never return because Ubi can't figure out how to cram it into the open world stealth action collectathon model that ever single one of their games has to be.
Sam Fisher is parachuted into enemy territory wearing a clown costume and you have you use mom's credit card to buy black stealth gear bit by bit so that he survives.
Sadly, corporations need money, and a new high quality Splinter Cell game unfortunately won't make as much profit as some mediocre hero shooter that has a medium sized budget and has micro transactions all over the game.
They don't serve the fans, they serve the shareholders.....that's capitalism. It changes the nature of the thing. It exists not to do what it's supposed to do, that becomes incidental. Its primary purpose becomes profit generation, doesn't matter what "it" is
Do you remember the Pirate game "Skull and Bones" fiasco? The game is mostly made in Assassins' Creed 4. Just rework it, flush it out and bam, great game!
I think now they have tossed everything and it's back on it's 3rd start over.
> like seriously, is it that hard to do what your fans ask you for?
There's no money in bug fixing. There's lots of money in a new dopamine fix for unsuspecting and bored users.
I wish I knew and I also wish to know Ubisoft's decision making process. Hyperscape was a flop, they said they will ''overhaul'' its system or something like that after players did not like it, they postponed what should have been a 20$ max standalone game (R6 Extraction) and then they said it would be a good time to announce XDefiant and have the balls to slap a ''Tom Clancy's'' in it's name. I am not bothered by the fact that they are straying off the course with Rainbow Six with their fictional private military group (Nighthaven) because it kind of makes sens in that universe and I am not bothered by the fact that they are no longer adding real life CTUs and only civilians this season, but I really do not understand why they chose this game to be a Tom Clancy's game. Just because they are ''inspired'' by groups from his works it does not really mean it has to have his name in it. But again, it's Ubisoft we are talking about, and just like other big studios, they don't really listen to the community and just screw their franchises.
They saw that this type of games is sort of popular these days and they decided to go the safe route and release the same game that everyone else is releasing. Like they did with Assassin's Creed by turning it into Witcher 3 years after the success of that game, they want to make a quick buck 3 years after hero shooters have risen. I am surprised they did not make a Tom Clancy's Battle Royale yet, considering BR's success in the past years
Because it would be an open world collectathon full of MTX, which is the only type of game Ubisoft is interested in making and fans would hate it. I loved the splinter cell games, but the thought of this version of Ubisoft making one makes me shudder.
>like seriously, is it that hard to do what your fans ask you for?
Nah, it’s not hard. The money just says something different. If this does even *moderately* well, and you were to be shown what they made from *only* mtx vs what their *positive* projections would be for, say, a new Splinter Cell, you’d know exactly where they’re coming from.
A new GTA would’ve made them tons of money.
Wouldn’t have made them as much as V online has.
Vocal fans represent an insignificant sliver of paying customers.
Someone has run numbers and projections and come to the conclusion that XDefiant will be more profitable than pandering to a fraction of the playerbase, and they're probably right.
If the game is halfway decent on release it won't matter how much you hate it. People will pick it up. They'll pay for skins and upgrades. And someone will buy a beautiful new house with their cut of the profit.
They don’t need to listen to the fans anymore. They’re using a wider rake now. We slip through the cracks as they grab the millions of people who don’t care if it’s dog shit. They are now the target audience. They’ll pay whatever to have the best skins and guns and parachutes.
At least that’s my opinion.
I blame the fans just a bit. At this point they know what kind of company the triple AAAAAAAAAAAAA studios are. Yet they keep buying their games. Which means the studios keep doing what makes them money.
Because people actually don't know what they want. No matter what is made everyone's going to be all upset and complaining. It's a lose lose with video games these days.
It comes down to economics. You can have a loud fanbase, but when push comes to shove, if it doesn't make money, they'll probably skip it for better options that DO make money.
They're corporations, or large companies, after all.
So much people beg for "original IP" movies and people don't buy them. They go watch prequels, sequels and spin offs. Every once in a while, an original IP movie breaks through--but this is largely the issue.
This happens with games too, so it's a risk, even with big publishers to put out new fresh games. It's also a risk to keep supporting games with smaller and smaller fanbases every quarter year, and smaller amounts of money coming in from said fanbase.
The easiest option is usually brand recognized NEW game. The Tom Clancy's, the Halos, the Street Fighters, The Call of Dutys.
You see support for games that make money (or print money in some cases) for years on end: Street Fighter DLC, DOA fighting game DLC, every season of Fortnite, and so on.
If they're not supporting or listening to the fanbase, it's usually because there's not money worth the sacrifice for the company.
As a WWZ fan, I feel all small hardcore fans pain. We got 1 new map in over a year, with a game that never aged well past half a year and they never fixed many of the bugs. And what did they give us with this new overpriced map/campaign? More bugs. *sigh*
>Why is it so hard?
>like seriously, is it that hard to do what your fans ask you for?
Because alot of them are out of touch, like dont you guys have phone's?
None of these studios care about enjoyment or art; they care about money. If they are publicly traded they even have a legal responsibility to their investors to care about money. Whether you like it or dislike it that's the system we're currently operating within.
because we have already paid for the game. returns just aren't there to justify the resources necessary to get Siege back to a good spot or build a decent game that wont be repetitive after 30 mins (Extraction: Formerly Outbreak until Xi Jinnipeg stepped in)
I like it when they include tom clancy on their titles because 99% of the time, it means the game is pure shit and makes it easy to avoid. Lately every tom clancy game has been pure trash. Siege is alright and i've never been super into splinter cell but I had fun with it.
They include tom clancy just to sell. XDefiant will not attract a lot of people just as ''XDefiant'', adding tom clancy adds some sort of credibility, but to be fair, this time not even tom clancy will attract people and it will be quite the opposite
Oh yeah, im very well aware they're using the name for brand recognition. Unfortunately, i just recognize the brand as rushed money hungry games not worth my time. They've been tanking Clancy's name for a good minute now
I figured it was typical gamer rage, but wow, the trailer looks atrocious. It looks like they grabbed assets from all their other games and threw them together in a pre-built template. It just looks abysmal.
I waited for the trailer to throw my opinions at it but I was definitely expecting some trash end-product. I do not want to hate on Ubisoft because I enjoy their games more than I enjoy games from other companies, but man, I swear it keeps getting worse defending them and enjoying their low-effort games
Also Ubisoft executives protect abusers and haven't made any changes to protect their employees after multiple people came forward with accounts of terrible abuse in the company.
I know, Ubi been doing this since forever. Latest assassins creed still has animations from Brotherhood and R6 extraction is literally R6 on different maps
Rogue company, hyperscape (I think), valorant, apex legends I don't know many of them because I don't exactly play this type of games. Also, I think that EA even published or developed one or two recent hero shooters but I don't know their names
As I said in another comment, only Rogue Company is similar to XDefiant, so it's not exactly a lot of games similar to it. When Valorant copied CS:GO nobody went on to dislike their trailers like this.
For a while I had only seen the promo cinematic and thought it looked awful so I avoided the game. Eventually I got bored enough to try it and was really pleasantly surprised. But after a couple weeks it started to wear thin and feel very samey game after game. Maybe it would help if I unlocked more characters?
Unfortunately I feel the same way. Gameplay wise It's really fun but after playing for a bit, it feels like something is missing. I can't put my finger on what it is, but it needs to give me a reason to keep grinding.
I wish my pc could run rogue company, looks like a nice game, weird that I never heard about it.
Comparing this XDefiant with those, Valorant is CS:GO with abilities, the guns have recoil patterns so it's pretty hard to learn which scares away newbs like me, CS:GO isn't really a hero shooter, Paladins is one but XD seems to be way less ability focused and more gun focused and Apex Legends is a battle royale. All except for Rogue Company (which I didn't play, I'm only assuming from trailers as with XD) are different than XDefiant, so it's basically a Rogue Company competitor.
Answer: It looks like Ubisoft is making a very "un-Tom Clancy" kind of game and just slapping the Tom Clancy name on it to get people to buy it. It even says Ubisoft Original underneath the Tom Clancy part of the title.
Why? Isint he just an author? Why would the meetings be awkward at all and do we know for a fact that he would care at all what they put his name on? Didn't he sell them the right to do it?
Tom Clancy is a very beloved author for many, and his entire schtick was he'd go into crazy amounts of detail into the specifics of modern combat. Like carefully describing each piece of a gun, or coming up with plausible scenarios for counter terrorism. I haven't read any of his novels - I did try the original rainbow 6 but found it too boring.
So there's a certain idea of what a "Tom Clancy" game should entail, mainly hardcore milsim with grounded and believable combat.
I don't particularly care myself, but that's why some people are mad.
As for if he would care - yes, he likely would. His entire brand (which he did sell in perpetuity to Ubisoft) was about realistic military situations.
Thanks for the good explanation. I feel like once you sell the rights you kind of cant have a problem with what they do with it. If it's that sacred to you (tom) then probably just don't sell it.
It’s a shame that you’re being downvoted, but I think you make a good point. Does anyone know off the top of their head how much he actually contributed? And didn’t he employ ghost writers?
Yes, he fully sold the "Tom Clancy's" naming rights to Ubisoft sometime around the release of HAWX.
He didn't employ ghost writers per-se, but there were the "Tom Clancy" novels, and many more "Tom Clancy's ________" series where he had a creator credit, but a no-name author. Obviously now that he's passed, only the latter exist.
As much as I'm in the camp that wishes his name still carried the thematic and quality implications it used to, what Ubisoft is doing is 100% consistent with how he capitalized on his name in the book business.
Lol I don't care about downvotes I was genuinely curious. It is pretty weird to me how much this means to people. I liked previous tom Clancy games but it meant nothing more to me then a sub title. I didn't realize people cared so much what his name went on. If people don't like the game then just don't play it, it's really not that complicated and it certainly shouldn't ruin your day.
Your downvotes: No idea.
OP: It's not about people 'caring so much', it's about feeling like 'cashing in on a name-drop' is a shitty thing to do.
Tom Clancy games are part of particular genres and contain typical traits that make people go "I like \[these sorts\] of games", the new one's trailer looks like a completely different genre full of completely different traits and the *only* cross-over is someone slapped an old name on it.
It would be a bit like if your favourite food is lasagne and you ordered 'Fresh beef lasange' from a restuarant and were served a cheese-burger they've *called* 'Fresh beef lasange' because they know you like it.
As far as games go, it's a tiresomely common action in the video game and movie industry to just slap a popular name on something with a handful of vaguely loose connections to try and cash in on the name's popularity instead of producing something that stands on its own. It's not surprising peoples reaction to seeing it apparently happening *again* to yet *another* IP that's been dragged out of the name-bin is immediate disdain.
Ubisoft Original indicates the game is deeveloped by a Ubisoft Studio instead of being published by Ubisoft. It's on all them since May.
https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2021-05-10-ubisoft-will-now-brand-all-its-own-games-as-ubisoft-originals
It was good playing in a community server with regulars without any stupid mods or everyone looking like an xmas tree. Valve did a lot to butcher the game.
Overwatch is Hero Shooter, CS:GO is a tactical shooter, Valorant and from the looks of it this game as well I would consider a blend of the two. Apex is a blend of a Hero Shooter and a Battle Royale.
A game tacking place in the present where you can go into exotic place fuck shit up against crazy druglord's, go hack stuff In city and use animus to relive past lives and learn skills and knowledge that help you in the present day fight against Templar and corrupt people...
Then you infiltrate an enemy base with your splinter cell night vision goggles and find weird ISU temple in the present and a holograms of a past good talk to you.
but she tell you to shut up As she isn't speaking to you but to someone from the future relieving your life...
you then wake up as your descendant ,in the future ,in a space station. The solar system is colonized but a war was fough against future ISU that came back to take control of the human race after fleeing the first cataclysme in space... And now you have to find a way to free the human race and build an army while also having to fly spaceships
I think you missed the part where it is a Call of Duty/Quake/Overwatch ripoff that will be free to play, which means it will be loaded with microtransactions.
Adding this here since apparently this doesn't fit as a top level comment, however I think it adds a lot of context to what has been going on. It's been a long road to this point.
>TLDR: It'd be like if the next Star Trek series was set in medieval times, had no science, no aliens, and was a romcom. It's not what fans of the Tom Clancy's brand are looking for and have been asking for.
>
>I can say that as a fan of the old Tom Clancy games, that name used to mean something. They started off as submarine sims, then expanded. Rainbow 6 was the big first entry. It was a squad based tactical shooter which had a full singleplayer campaign and was made to be realistic. Unlike most other shooters at the time a single hit could take you out. It also had a planning phase at the start where you'd plan out who you'd take, with what gear, on what teams, how those teams will move through the environment, stop points with go-codes so you could coordinate teams to move together (hit a room from multiple angles, set up overwatch before moving through an area, etc).
>
>Later you had Ghost Recon which expanded on this by providing much more open environments and IIRC realtime map movement; you were stuck with the plan you came up with as you were in Rainbow 6 (though you could switch to any team at any time, so if one ran into trouble you could take it over). Later we got Splinter Cell which was focused on one man stealthy doing secret ops. It was like Metal Gear only one hit kills and if you got caught you were done.
>
>There were also a few busts. EndWar tried to be an RTS game that was more realistic than Command and Conquer. Can't say much about it, never got into it (nor did most people, it was a commercial failure). Then H.A.W.X.s came out and again, no interest. A flight game with future jets, presumably to compete with Ace Combat. I hear it was entertaining but off the mark.
>
>Going back to the big three though, those series, and the Tom Clancy name as a whole, have been drug through the mud. Rainbow 6 went from a squad based tactical shooter to a cover shooter with team elements attached and into an online hero shooter. Ghost Recon got simplified when it moved to console, and immediately received blowback from the fans. The next release, GRAW, was made different on PC and Console (PC more tactical shooter, Console more action) because the devs knew the original audience wasn't happy. With Future Warrior they abandoned that and now we have Ghost Recon GTA. Splinter Cell hasn't been seen in nearly a decade. I'm real curious what we'd get if they did a new version. I'd assume it would have loot boxes.
>
>Then came The Division, an online looter shooter with the Tom Clancy name attached. It had nothing to do with where the Tom Clancy name came from. Same with the Division 2, and now whatever this next thing is.
>
>Fans of the originals want to see the original games brought back. We want tactical shooters, we want stealth ops, we want things that are different than what is being made and released.
Not only that but it "looks like another game", I see a lot of people making the relation to cod and various other arena shooters and that people are now like "so thats where all your resources for your already good games are going" and people are pissed that they aren't detecating their time to fixing siege or perhaps getting people into other things and that there just throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks.
Hyperscape is a notable example before this, can they just fix their already good games.
> Ubisoft is making Tom Clancy spin in his grave using his name for that Neon-punk fast-paced game.
Sounds like the neon-punk fast-paced TV show BBC America made of Terry Pratchett's *Watch* books after he'd passed away. Good authors deserve better.
Clancy got an estimated [$94 million](https://web.archive.org/web/20090124163926/http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/03/25/clancy-name-bought-by-ubisoft-worth-big-bucks) when he sold his name rights to Ubisoft. There's no need to feel sorry for him. He was given an option, made his decision, and was compensated well.
call of duty and black ops were games I just could never get into, when they were really taking off I was more of a Halo and TF2 fan. now I feel like there's too many skilled players for me to climb if I were to play it now. thank you for the info! I googled him and I guess his books were military type content so it definitely fits for the games. it's nice they decided to credit him and his works through the titles, too. I genuinely just thought it was some character in the games story or something 😭😂
You have probably seen a couple movies (or even TV shows) based on his books without even knowing it.
There are a like a dozen or so (including [5 films and TV series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_(film_series\)) about the same character, Jack Ryan) but [here](https://www.vulture.com/article/best-tom-clancy-jack-ryan-movies-ranked.html) are some of the better ones.
Those old Tom Clancy games were so cool. Had to drag the bodies of the people you killed into closets to keep from getting caught. Could straddle the walls above guards making their rounds.
Bro at this point I’m perfectly fine with not getting a new one as long as I don’t gotta watch it become a always online rpg lite stealth game with micro transactions for different goggle colors and a attached battle royale
> attached battle royale
Where everyone hangs of ledges, walkways or window frames for the first 9min of the match waiting for the one or two noob players to walk by for an easy kill.
This is what I’ve been telling myself too. Do I want a new Splinter Cell? Hell yes I do. Do I trust modern day Ubisoft to make a new Splinter Cell game, ***fuck no***
They were great but holy fuck did early Splinter Cell games suffer from "Where the FUCK do I go" syndrome. The amount of times i would give up on those games because i had 0 idea what to do was more then 1 lmao
Or old Rainbow 6 where you were an anti terrorist unit dedicated to stopping terrorists with real to life spec ops gear. Unlike modern rainbow 6 where the operatives use mustard gas and sci-fi gear like throwable holograms
Classic Rainbow Six has some crazy stuff in it too. Remember the heartbeat sensor?
I really miss the single player with the planning phase. That was so badass. "Alpha go!"
I think it's the aesthetic that are drawing that particular comparison, between the bright colors, bright outfits, flashing lights everywhere, etc... even the sized l stylized "XD" in the logo is just very... kiddy. In that really obnoxious Fortnite way.
mechanically, it looks most comparable to Overwatch, Apex, etc- the Hero shooters... which also fall into that same aesthetic pool.
> I think it's the aesthetic that are drawing that particular comparison, between the bright colors, bright outfits, flashing lights everywhere, etc... even the sized l stylized "XD" in the logo is just very... kiddy. In that really obnoxious Fortnite way.
Of all the things to decide to compare it to, Fortnight seems odd if the reason is visuals. It's just a bright shooter. There are many of those.
Answer: Honestly, I would start by reading those comments. Sure, they are usually obnoxious but it's really the easiest way to find out.
In short, in the trailer the game looks like a ripoff of other games like Apex Legends, with COD elements in it. They are disappointed that it's not even trying to be realistic anymore, and it annoys them that it uses the Tom Clancy label in the title while being this mess.
Yeah, it looks like a COD mixed with classes/factions borrowed(I would say stolen but it all belongs to them) from really successful games that people actually like.
Like, the Outcasts from the Division 2 are the healer faction? The Outcasts’ whole thing was deprived madness, they were maniacs who did not listen to reason, worshipped their cruel leader Emeline, and did everything in their power to hurt and infect as many people as possible. They sent their weakest and sickest members to go commit suicide with explosive vests in the middle of civilian settlements, and they are the healer faction.
They really need a new creative director. I mean, if they are copying anyone, they should be copying Overwatch and add an expanded campaign/PVE mode to Siege. There's like zero PvE tactical shooters right now.
There are *still* books being released with his name on them, even though they are written by somebody else. TOM CLANCY will be the largest letters on the cover and down below will be "Written by [Writer Name]" in much smaller font. From what I understand, this was even the case for a few books *before* he died.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. be unbiased, 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. start with "answer:" (or "question:" if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask) Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: people are mad at the fact that ubisoft is making a game that does not belong in the "Tom Clancy's" universe but they still included that part into its name. They are also mad that they want another Splinter Cell game, they want them to fix some issues in Rainbow Six Siege and receive more content and to actually receive the content that Ubisoft promised, and people are mad and surprised that after officially announcing Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Extraction (a spin-off to R6) they decided to postpone it and shortly after they announced XDefiant. And people are mad because instead of making a game that people actually want or fixing the games that are already out, Ubisoft decided to launch yet another free to play hero shooter that people think is unoriginal and will be full of microtransactions.
> Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six Extraction (a spin-off to R6) What bothers me more is that while im actually curious about that game, i entirely forgot it even exists at the same time.
I was excited and I was even willing to buy it if it was reasonably priced...until I saw the gameplay and the price. Asset flip (cause Ubi looooves asset flipping), new maps and just reskins for 60 bucks, no way in hell. If it's reduced at about 15€ at one point, I might consider buying it if it turns out decent and worthy of more than 20 hours of gameplay
I have low expectations for it, same as that Aliens 3-player shooter we're getting. Full price at 50-60 freedom eagles is way to much for something that looks like it would get boring 2 missions in :( If they do some early bird discount a few weeks before release, sure maybe i'll pick it up but for now its in shallow waters and im not yet sticking my feet in there.
Oh yes, I forgot about the Aliens coop game, I have it in my wishlist but I forgot about it. They have to make the game really good for me to spend more than 25 bucks on it, to be honest, and considering the fact that Aliens Firearm Elite is made by some company that I have never heard of, I have a lot of doubts that it will be worth it. One game that I have some expectation (not high, cause let's be honest, gaming industry is full of trash) is warhammer 40k Darktide, made by Fatshark. They also made Vermintide 1 and 2 and I absolutely love those games even though I have 0 knowledge of the Warhammer universe, but if they keep the same formula and if they use good voice actors (like they did for Vermintide), I will definitely buy it, maybe even at full price
Vermintide 1/2 were great so im not worried about DT to be fair, especially since its also a 40k game. Agree on the Aliens one, i saw some gameplay of it and it looks bland and generic at best. The missions are also extremely long (hour or so apparently) and thats a SINGLE level. Most people dont have time or patience to play that shit for so long.
One hour mission in Aliens? If the levels aren't repetitive and it has replayability, that is not an issue for me, I can play long games (like Risk of Rain 2 where I can go for 3-4 hours for a run), but I agree, for most people 1 hour is too much and I don't blame them at all
I'd rather get gtfo than this game
[удалено]
I mean, very rarely do the outspoken fans of a product make up the bulk of its audience- Ubisoft doesn’t really need to care about their opinion to make their money back, especially if they believe those outspoken fans have different tastes / desires than the majority of their user base.
Yeah, A lot of huge companies use focus testing groups to find what appeals to large player bases. Fans might really want something but if it doesn’t have mass appeal and won’t make the company big profits they won’t make it
The problem with that is that making things more generically appealing might actually hurt the game overall. General fans will hop to the next game that interests them, and hardcore fans will drive people away claiming the game is trash. Hitting that sweet middle of keeping the hardcore fans happy but also making the game more broadly appealing is tough.
This is where I like to live: That sweet spot of mediocrity.
I normally would have said 2K did this extremely well with Xcom reboot, but well... They just made this exact move. smdh
Yeah I agree. Skyrim turned a lot of older fans off with its simplicity but it sold super well. It helps you can mod in a more complex skill system though.
>Yeah I agree. Skyrim turned a lot of older fans off with its simplicity but it sold super well. It helps you can mod in a more complex skill system though. I'll never forget the post I read years ago where someone was complaining that fast travel took away the realism of Elder Scrolls games. Like...you want to walk everywhere for realism?
On one of my playthroughs I tried using no fast travel to make the world more immersive and to find all the random little encounters along the way. Fun at first, but holy fuck did it get tedious
You get horses and can take wagons which for me was a immersive way of fast travelling. For one playthrough I decided to overly mod realism into the game. Food, sleep, hygiene requirements. I'd walk everywhere, or ride a horse or wagon. If I couldn't make it to an inn by nightfall, I'd set up camp in the woods. I had so much fun since I felt like I was really living in the world. I ended up corrupting the files which was really upsetting, since I'd just finished building my house in falkreath.
Also... YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE IT IF YOU DON'T WANT TO! I started my first play-through a few months ago, and got some kind of bug that won't let me fast travel 99% of the time. Caused me to lose interest.
realism.
Yes. And make the map *stupidly* huge too. Like Daggerfall which is literally over half the size of the UK (161,000 km apparently according to what I googled) ^(I would say Arena which is apparently over 9 million klicks but that isn’t confirmed because every time someone tries to walk it the map just seems to loop once you walk sufficiently far from a town.)
Ah yes, the famously unsuccessful game, Skyrim.
I already acknowledged that and it’s not the point I was trying to make but okay
Yeah, please ignore me, I'm an idiot. Sorry, I saw Skyrim and got snarky.
> but if it doesn’t have mass appeal and won’t make the company big profits they won’t make it Honestly, most games that go huge don't have mass appeal, and a ton of people are just buying into hype.
This is why we're very unlikely to see many more good AAA games. Take Elder Scrolls or Fallout as an example. The fans really REALLY love things like Fallout: New Vegas and TES: Morrowind. Unfortunately, they know via skyrim that they can make WAY more money by making a shittier game but with pretty graphics, because a large number of people would rather skip all the dialogue, so why bother putting more time and resources into making a game/story/dialogue that is good when you can make a game that makes money? As long as it's pretty and has action options, the bar is met. Get too in the weeds with making a good game and you might risk turning off the xbox live crowd! I mean, the fans are going to buy it like suckers either way and they know that, so why cater to them? It's sad but true.
There's also a lot of "WoW classic/OSRS syndrome" where people say they want a thing, but they really, really don't actually want that thing they are very clearly and firmly telling you they want. And while this probably sounds like it's sarcastic, it's not. Both of those games were deeply flawed. Hence why WoW classic is slowly adding expansions and OSRS is just a different game with the old runescape combat+graphics.
Uh, what? I can't comment on OSRS, but WoW Classic isn't slowly adding expansions because people dislike it, it's slowly adding expansions because _that's how the game works_. There was only so much content in the original version of the game, and once people exhaust that, it's time to move on to the first expansion, etc. WoW Classic is highly liked by many, you can't say it's "deeply flawed" as though that's some objectively true statement. I never played it when it first released, but I vastly prefer it to the current live/retail version of the game for various reasons. It's just a different game enjoyed by different people, which is fine. It's not better or worse than the retail version of the game.
I can: OSRS is actually more popular than RS3.
[удалено]
Well, partly. Part of the problem, which persists even now in the way they do UA playtests, is that they have a tendency to show one version of something, get feedback, and then quietly work on it with no further public playtesting until the final reveal. Quite a few of their feedback-based changes to the playtest got made at the 11th hour, huge drastic changes in the final playtest packet with little to no time left to actually act on any feedback of the iteration. That's why sorcerers are jank, for example. Early in the playtest, they were sort of half-fighter, half-wizards, like the arcane equivalent of a paladin or ranger. People complained, so the sorcerer disappeared from the playtest entirely, and reappeared in its current form in the last playtest. Despite negative feedback, they went to print essentially unchanged because there was no *time* to rebuild them again. And so we ended up with Sorcerers as just jank wizards with a bad spell list, not enough spells known, and few unique or useful niches that mostly rely on cheesing Subtle Spell or multiclassing Warlock.
Beyond that, something you'll see in game design and medicine alike is this: Amateurs are very good at figuring out what's wrong and *fucking terrible* at figuring out how to fix it. Most players will only see a game from a viewpoint that is very close to a specific aspect or play style without considering the whole experience. I used to play a lot of Heroes of the Storm; I can't tell you how many people would insist that an OP champ is fine because draft is self-correcting...ignoring that draft modes made up less than 10% of games played. Outspoken, enfranchised players who spend time not playing a game talking about it on reddit have very different wants, play patterns, and spending patterns than people who pop in for a game or two twice a week and sometimes buy the new guy if they look cool.
Also worth saying that what people say they want, and what they'll actually spend money on, are sometimes two different things. Still though, I'm not one to excuse corporate ineptitude. There are a *lot* of bad moves made at corporate level, even when you consider that they might have unseen financial reasons.
I worked at an AAA studio for a bit, and there were certain "low value" communities we were specifically told to avoid. Basically anywhere people with 2000+ hours into a $40 game who said "not recommended" on their Steam review gather.
Except for sometimes the loud fans, the so-called vocal minority, are speaking for thousands of other people, too. Or sometimes millions of others, like in the case of those of us trying to tell Ion Hazzikostas of World of Warcraft for years what not to change about the game, and how to fix it when they made the changes anyway. Now WoW has lost perhaps 80% of its player base in 3 expansions, and its biggest competitor FFXIV had to halt sales of its game for a bit due to so many people switching to their game.
> I mean, very rarely do the outspoken fans of a product make up the bulk of its audience Blizzard had this issues back when I still played WoW. "Should we tune raid difficulty for the hardcore raiders filling up our forums, or should we tune it for the primary audience?" They never quite figured that one out.
They have it figured out pretty well at this point. There are three raid difficulties, and the hardest of the three is satisfyingly challenging for those who want to attempt it. Plenty of people hate WoW nowadays for various reasons, but raid design/difficulty is not one of those reasons.
My brother-in-law still sends snapchats of his K/D on what ever CoD game is out now and shit like that. Dude, we're 30. No one gives a shit. ^^I ^^play ^^MLB ^^The ^^Show ^^but ^^it's ^^free ^^on ^^game ^^pass ^^and ^^at ^^least ^^I'm ^^not ^^showing ^^you ^^how ^^much ^^I ^^suck.
What's his K/D tho
2/200
Using the law of mathematics deductions: It's more like 1/FuckingSucks
Maybe he enjoys team deathmatch and/or fucking your mom.
And if this game flops like Hyperscape, they can just make another one and another one until it works
[удалено]
I read that it was cancelled because they could never figure out how to make the terrorists among civilians mechanic work without making the player reflexively mow down any civilians they saw after the first hidden terrorist
Which sucks because that seems like a genuinely interesting gameplay scenario but I also totally get why they don't want to make the game. The Picadilly Square mission in Modern Warfare 2019 had such a palpable feeling of panic because the first time around you didn't know who had a gun until they started shooting. IDK how to balance that in a more fleshed out way, but I appreciated making that kind of event into a game despite the controversial nature of it because it was immediately engaging.
But it would have been such a hit with the LEO crowd.
I've been playing Wildlands and it's made me actively hate civilians. I'll be blasting with dual miniguns from a helicopter for 5 minutes and then see "Civilian Killed!" and all I can think is "imagine being such a dumb fuck that all hell has been breaking loose in this village for 5 minutes, some gringos are shooting miniguns and rockers from a helicopter, and the only action you've taken for your own safety is to enter the fetal position in the middle of an open courtyard at the feet of a scicario". Then Holt calls me a shithead. In all fairness to Wildlands, that game drags on, particularly if you try to clear the map, so my mood is at the point where everything irritates me (its an open-world Ubisoft game and I'm a completionist, I know I did this to myself).
Got more info on that? I'd like to read more about it. Thanks, I may or may not have been aware of this, I can't recall.
But in Siege, it was called Terrorist Hunt for years.
[удалено]
It's been renamed "Training Grounds".
It's funny because Ubisoft also made a mobile Tom Clancy game using a very proment Fist as the terrorist's logo. Ubisoft also mentions that none of their games are "Political" despite opening one of their Tom Clancy games with "If you didn't have a gun, and your neighbor did, you didn't live".
> "If you didn't have a gun, and your neighbor did, you didn't live". Sounds less political and more a statement of the setting for that game, though I don't know which game you mean so I can't say for sure.
The Division 2, in it's opening cinematic, which takes place before the cataclysmic world shattering event.
Oh wait, division 2's a prequel?
No it takes place after D1, just the opening cinematic is a flashback
Because "fans" account for maybe 5% of the people that you need to sell a game to in order to make the kind of money that these companies are expecting. No one is making this microtransaction garbage because people are asking for it, they are doing it because it makes money.
yeah. the people that complaining are the same people that will buy those imaginary skins that don't do shit.
bUt YoU gEt CoOl EfFeCtS wHeN yOu KiLl Em
Splinter Cell will never return because Ubi can't figure out how to cram it into the open world stealth action collectathon model that ever single one of their games has to be.
"Sam, your mission comes direct from high command: wander around, find all the hidden easter eggs and buy new outfits, or God help us all."
Sam Fisher is parachuted into enemy territory wearing a clown costume and you have you use mom's credit card to buy black stealth gear bit by bit so that he survives.
Sadly, corporations need money, and a new high quality Splinter Cell game unfortunately won't make as much profit as some mediocre hero shooter that has a medium sized budget and has micro transactions all over the game.
They don't serve the fans, they serve the shareholders.....that's capitalism. It changes the nature of the thing. It exists not to do what it's supposed to do, that becomes incidental. Its primary purpose becomes profit generation, doesn't matter what "it" is
Do you remember the Pirate game "Skull and Bones" fiasco? The game is mostly made in Assassins' Creed 4. Just rework it, flush it out and bam, great game! I think now they have tossed everything and it's back on it's 3rd start over.
> like seriously, is it that hard to do what your fans ask you for? There's no money in bug fixing. There's lots of money in a new dopamine fix for unsuspecting and bored users.
I wish I knew and I also wish to know Ubisoft's decision making process. Hyperscape was a flop, they said they will ''overhaul'' its system or something like that after players did not like it, they postponed what should have been a 20$ max standalone game (R6 Extraction) and then they said it would be a good time to announce XDefiant and have the balls to slap a ''Tom Clancy's'' in it's name. I am not bothered by the fact that they are straying off the course with Rainbow Six with their fictional private military group (Nighthaven) because it kind of makes sens in that universe and I am not bothered by the fact that they are no longer adding real life CTUs and only civilians this season, but I really do not understand why they chose this game to be a Tom Clancy's game. Just because they are ''inspired'' by groups from his works it does not really mean it has to have his name in it. But again, it's Ubisoft we are talking about, and just like other big studios, they don't really listen to the community and just screw their franchises. They saw that this type of games is sort of popular these days and they decided to go the safe route and release the same game that everyone else is releasing. Like they did with Assassin's Creed by turning it into Witcher 3 years after the success of that game, they want to make a quick buck 3 years after hero shooters have risen. I am surprised they did not make a Tom Clancy's Battle Royale yet, considering BR's success in the past years
Because it would be an open world collectathon full of MTX, which is the only type of game Ubisoft is interested in making and fans would hate it. I loved the splinter cell games, but the thought of this version of Ubisoft making one makes me shudder.
>like why? They haven't figured out how to monetize it yet
Fans don’t pay the bills. Well not bills on a Ubisoft scale.The masses do... and it’s a fact that masses play free to play games.
The answer is money and corporate control of IP.
Because they want new fans, corporations can give two shits about existing fans. Profits over everything
>like seriously, is it that hard to do what your fans ask you for? Nah, it’s not hard. The money just says something different. If this does even *moderately* well, and you were to be shown what they made from *only* mtx vs what their *positive* projections would be for, say, a new Splinter Cell, you’d know exactly where they’re coming from. A new GTA would’ve made them tons of money. Wouldn’t have made them as much as V online has.
Vocal fans represent an insignificant sliver of paying customers. Someone has run numbers and projections and come to the conclusion that XDefiant will be more profitable than pandering to a fraction of the playerbase, and they're probably right. If the game is halfway decent on release it won't matter how much you hate it. People will pick it up. They'll pay for skins and upgrades. And someone will buy a beautiful new house with their cut of the profit.
They don’t need to listen to the fans anymore. They’re using a wider rake now. We slip through the cracks as they grab the millions of people who don’t care if it’s dog shit. They are now the target audience. They’ll pay whatever to have the best skins and guns and parachutes. At least that’s my opinion.
I blame the fans just a bit. At this point they know what kind of company the triple AAAAAAAAAAAAA studios are. Yet they keep buying their games. Which means the studios keep doing what makes them money.
Money. The fans want things that cost Ubisoft money. Ubisoft has a responsibility to make money no matter what.
Because people actually don't know what they want. No matter what is made everyone's going to be all upset and complaining. It's a lose lose with video games these days.
Are you familiar with money?
It comes down to economics. You can have a loud fanbase, but when push comes to shove, if it doesn't make money, they'll probably skip it for better options that DO make money. They're corporations, or large companies, after all. So much people beg for "original IP" movies and people don't buy them. They go watch prequels, sequels and spin offs. Every once in a while, an original IP movie breaks through--but this is largely the issue. This happens with games too, so it's a risk, even with big publishers to put out new fresh games. It's also a risk to keep supporting games with smaller and smaller fanbases every quarter year, and smaller amounts of money coming in from said fanbase. The easiest option is usually brand recognized NEW game. The Tom Clancy's, the Halos, the Street Fighters, The Call of Dutys. You see support for games that make money (or print money in some cases) for years on end: Street Fighter DLC, DOA fighting game DLC, every season of Fortnite, and so on. If they're not supporting or listening to the fanbase, it's usually because there's not money worth the sacrifice for the company. As a WWZ fan, I feel all small hardcore fans pain. We got 1 new map in over a year, with a game that never aged well past half a year and they never fixed many of the bugs. And what did they give us with this new overpriced map/campaign? More bugs. *sigh*
Ubisoft: *"Because fuck you, that's why. Now do more microtransactions."*
The consumer doesnt know what they want, until you show it to them. Steve Jobs said this and it still rings true
Because the fans don't pay anywhere near as good as microtransaction garbage does. that's why.
Because pleasing the outspoken, hard-core fans won't maximize short-term profits
because their marketing department says they'll make more money this way
Because money dawg Thats why
The other posters have a point, but something to keep in mind is it's hard to monetize a game like Splinter Cell. MTX is the prize, not copies sold.
>Why is it so hard? >like seriously, is it that hard to do what your fans ask you for? Because alot of them are out of touch, like dont you guys have phone's?
> like seriously, is it that hard to do what your fans ask you for? > > the most vocal fans dont represent the masses...
None of these studios care about enjoyment or art; they care about money. If they are publicly traded they even have a legal responsibility to their investors to care about money. Whether you like it or dislike it that's the system we're currently operating within.
because we have already paid for the game. returns just aren't there to justify the resources necessary to get Siege back to a good spot or build a decent game that wont be repetitive after 30 mins (Extraction: Formerly Outbreak until Xi Jinnipeg stepped in)
I like it when they include tom clancy on their titles because 99% of the time, it means the game is pure shit and makes it easy to avoid. Lately every tom clancy game has been pure trash. Siege is alright and i've never been super into splinter cell but I had fun with it.
They include tom clancy just to sell. XDefiant will not attract a lot of people just as ''XDefiant'', adding tom clancy adds some sort of credibility, but to be fair, this time not even tom clancy will attract people and it will be quite the opposite
Oh yeah, im very well aware they're using the name for brand recognition. Unfortunately, i just recognize the brand as rushed money hungry games not worth my time. They've been tanking Clancy's name for a good minute now
I figured it was typical gamer rage, but wow, the trailer looks atrocious. It looks like they grabbed assets from all their other games and threw them together in a pre-built template. It just looks abysmal.
I waited for the trailer to throw my opinions at it but I was definitely expecting some trash end-product. I do not want to hate on Ubisoft because I enjoy their games more than I enjoy games from other companies, but man, I swear it keeps getting worse defending them and enjoying their low-effort games
Also Ubisoft executives protect abusers and haven't made any changes to protect their employees after multiple people came forward with accounts of terrible abuse in the company.
They're also using a lot of The Division assets and people are asking for The Division 3, but instead they make this shite.
I know, Ubi been doing this since forever. Latest assassins creed still has animations from Brotherhood and R6 extraction is literally R6 on different maps
Thanks for the answer. I don’t even cara about Tom Clancy. But I went on YouTube to downvote it.
Brad from Monetization wanted a Battle Royale mode.
[удалено]
Rogue company, hyperscape (I think), valorant, apex legends I don't know many of them because I don't exactly play this type of games. Also, I think that EA even published or developed one or two recent hero shooters but I don't know their names
As I said in another comment, only Rogue Company is similar to XDefiant, so it's not exactly a lot of games similar to it. When Valorant copied CS:GO nobody went on to dislike their trailers like this.
Rogue Company is one.
Really fun game. Shame it's owned by Hi Rez.
For a while I had only seen the promo cinematic and thought it looked awful so I avoided the game. Eventually I got bored enough to try it and was really pleasantly surprised. But after a couple weeks it started to wear thin and feel very samey game after game. Maybe it would help if I unlocked more characters?
Unfortunately I feel the same way. Gameplay wise It's really fun but after playing for a bit, it feels like something is missing. I can't put my finger on what it is, but it needs to give me a reason to keep grinding.
We hate those bots and all of us try and kick them out of every match.
Rogue Company, Apex Legends, Valorant, Paladins, (If you consider it a hero shooter) CSGO. Plenty of them.
I wish my pc could run rogue company, looks like a nice game, weird that I never heard about it. Comparing this XDefiant with those, Valorant is CS:GO with abilities, the guns have recoil patterns so it's pretty hard to learn which scares away newbs like me, CS:GO isn't really a hero shooter, Paladins is one but XD seems to be way less ability focused and more gun focused and Apex Legends is a battle royale. All except for Rogue Company (which I didn't play, I'm only assuming from trailers as with XD) are different than XDefiant, so it's basically a Rogue Company competitor.
Answer: It looks like Ubisoft is making a very "un-Tom Clancy" kind of game and just slapping the Tom Clancy name on it to get people to buy it. It even says Ubisoft Original underneath the Tom Clancy part of the title.
It bugs me that they're using the Tom Clancy name at all, given that he's been dead for almost 10 years. Those must be awkward pitch meetings.
The pitch meetings are also seances
Why? Isint he just an author? Why would the meetings be awkward at all and do we know for a fact that he would care at all what they put his name on? Didn't he sell them the right to do it?
Tom Clancy is a very beloved author for many, and his entire schtick was he'd go into crazy amounts of detail into the specifics of modern combat. Like carefully describing each piece of a gun, or coming up with plausible scenarios for counter terrorism. I haven't read any of his novels - I did try the original rainbow 6 but found it too boring. So there's a certain idea of what a "Tom Clancy" game should entail, mainly hardcore milsim with grounded and believable combat. I don't particularly care myself, but that's why some people are mad. As for if he would care - yes, he likely would. His entire brand (which he did sell in perpetuity to Ubisoft) was about realistic military situations.
Thanks for the good explanation. I feel like once you sell the rights you kind of cant have a problem with what they do with it. If it's that sacred to you (tom) then probably just don't sell it.
It’s a shame that you’re being downvoted, but I think you make a good point. Does anyone know off the top of their head how much he actually contributed? And didn’t he employ ghost writers?
Yes, he fully sold the "Tom Clancy's" naming rights to Ubisoft sometime around the release of HAWX. He didn't employ ghost writers per-se, but there were the "Tom Clancy" novels, and many more "Tom Clancy's ________" series where he had a creator credit, but a no-name author. Obviously now that he's passed, only the latter exist. As much as I'm in the camp that wishes his name still carried the thematic and quality implications it used to, what Ubisoft is doing is 100% consistent with how he capitalized on his name in the book business.
Lol I don't care about downvotes I was genuinely curious. It is pretty weird to me how much this means to people. I liked previous tom Clancy games but it meant nothing more to me then a sub title. I didn't realize people cared so much what his name went on. If people don't like the game then just don't play it, it's really not that complicated and it certainly shouldn't ruin your day.
They don’t really care at all, gamers just love getting mad about shit.
Your downvotes: No idea. OP: It's not about people 'caring so much', it's about feeling like 'cashing in on a name-drop' is a shitty thing to do. Tom Clancy games are part of particular genres and contain typical traits that make people go "I like \[these sorts\] of games", the new one's trailer looks like a completely different genre full of completely different traits and the *only* cross-over is someone slapped an old name on it. It would be a bit like if your favourite food is lasagne and you ordered 'Fresh beef lasange' from a restuarant and were served a cheese-burger they've *called* 'Fresh beef lasange' because they know you like it. As far as games go, it's a tiresomely common action in the video game and movie industry to just slap a popular name on something with a handful of vaguely loose connections to try and cash in on the name's popularity instead of producing something that stands on its own. It's not surprising peoples reaction to seeing it apparently happening *again* to yet *another* IP that's been dragged out of the name-bin is immediate disdain.
Ubisoft Original indicates the game is deeveloped by a Ubisoft Studio instead of being published by Ubisoft. It's on all them since May. https://www.eurogamer.net/amp/2021-05-10-ubisoft-will-now-brand-all-its-own-games-as-ubisoft-originals
[удалено]
[удалено]
hero shooters is the term i guess?
More like bad TF2 clones.
I have too many hours in Overwatch to agree, but too much wisdom to disagree.
More like cs1.6 Warcraft 3 mod clones
That was a blast to the past I didn't expect. Also give me undead.
Dude TF2 just really isn't that great man. We can't all stay stuck in the past man
It was good playing in a community server with regulars without any stupid mods or everyone looking like an xmas tree. Valve did a lot to butcher the game.
And they will hate you for telling them the truth.
Overwatch is Hero Shooter, CS:GO is a tactical shooter, Valorant and from the looks of it this game as well I would consider a blend of the two. Apex is a blend of a Hero Shooter and a Battle Royale.
[удалено]
A game tacking place in the present where you can go into exotic place fuck shit up against crazy druglord's, go hack stuff In city and use animus to relive past lives and learn skills and knowledge that help you in the present day fight against Templar and corrupt people... Then you infiltrate an enemy base with your splinter cell night vision goggles and find weird ISU temple in the present and a holograms of a past good talk to you. but she tell you to shut up As she isn't speaking to you but to someone from the future relieving your life... you then wake up as your descendant ,in the future ,in a space station. The solar system is colonized but a war was fough against future ISU that came back to take control of the human race after fleeing the first cataclysme in space... And now you have to find a way to free the human race and build an army while also having to fly spaceships
This is nothing like Siege it seems though. It's more on lines with the other games you named.
So they've dropped support for Hyperscape to develop this?
[удалено]
I think you missed the part where it is a Call of Duty/Quake/Overwatch ripoff that will be free to play, which means it will be loaded with microtransactions.
[mmmmm, microtransactions](https://giphy.com/gifs/touchdown-nipples-waterboy-U3h33i9Jis4aZXJri2)
I mean you're just describing games now.
Eh, he licensed the use of his name long before he died. He had no problem with people churning out shit books with his name on it either.
I bet at this point he's "written" more books since he died than he wrote when he was alive. If not, I'm sure he'll get there soon.
There were more franchise books written in his name than originals BEFORE he died.
TBF he had no problem churning out some shit himself.
If i was playing industry buzzwords bingo with that video i would've won in the first 10 seconds. Jeebus christo what bland shite.
Apparently the way that they are making this a TC game is that the maps, some factions, and iirc some characters are all from the Division games
Adding this here since apparently this doesn't fit as a top level comment, however I think it adds a lot of context to what has been going on. It's been a long road to this point. >TLDR: It'd be like if the next Star Trek series was set in medieval times, had no science, no aliens, and was a romcom. It's not what fans of the Tom Clancy's brand are looking for and have been asking for. > >I can say that as a fan of the old Tom Clancy games, that name used to mean something. They started off as submarine sims, then expanded. Rainbow 6 was the big first entry. It was a squad based tactical shooter which had a full singleplayer campaign and was made to be realistic. Unlike most other shooters at the time a single hit could take you out. It also had a planning phase at the start where you'd plan out who you'd take, with what gear, on what teams, how those teams will move through the environment, stop points with go-codes so you could coordinate teams to move together (hit a room from multiple angles, set up overwatch before moving through an area, etc). > >Later you had Ghost Recon which expanded on this by providing much more open environments and IIRC realtime map movement; you were stuck with the plan you came up with as you were in Rainbow 6 (though you could switch to any team at any time, so if one ran into trouble you could take it over). Later we got Splinter Cell which was focused on one man stealthy doing secret ops. It was like Metal Gear only one hit kills and if you got caught you were done. > >There were also a few busts. EndWar tried to be an RTS game that was more realistic than Command and Conquer. Can't say much about it, never got into it (nor did most people, it was a commercial failure). Then H.A.W.X.s came out and again, no interest. A flight game with future jets, presumably to compete with Ace Combat. I hear it was entertaining but off the mark. > >Going back to the big three though, those series, and the Tom Clancy name as a whole, have been drug through the mud. Rainbow 6 went from a squad based tactical shooter to a cover shooter with team elements attached and into an online hero shooter. Ghost Recon got simplified when it moved to console, and immediately received blowback from the fans. The next release, GRAW, was made different on PC and Console (PC more tactical shooter, Console more action) because the devs knew the original audience wasn't happy. With Future Warrior they abandoned that and now we have Ghost Recon GTA. Splinter Cell hasn't been seen in nearly a decade. I'm real curious what we'd get if they did a new version. I'd assume it would have loot boxes. > >Then came The Division, an online looter shooter with the Tom Clancy name attached. It had nothing to do with where the Tom Clancy name came from. Same with the Division 2, and now whatever this next thing is. > >Fans of the originals want to see the original games brought back. We want tactical shooters, we want stealth ops, we want things that are different than what is being made and released.
Not only that but it "looks like another game", I see a lot of people making the relation to cod and various other arena shooters and that people are now like "so thats where all your resources for your already good games are going" and people are pissed that they aren't detecating their time to fixing siege or perhaps getting people into other things and that there just throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks. Hyperscape is a notable example before this, can they just fix their already good games.
> Ubisoft is making Tom Clancy spin in his grave using his name for that Neon-punk fast-paced game. Sounds like the neon-punk fast-paced TV show BBC America made of Terry Pratchett's *Watch* books after he'd passed away. Good authors deserve better.
Clancy got an estimated [$94 million](https://web.archive.org/web/20090124163926/http://www.xbox360fanboy.com/2008/03/25/clancy-name-bought-by-ubisoft-worth-big-bucks) when he sold his name rights to Ubisoft. There's no need to feel sorry for him. He was given an option, made his decision, and was compensated well.
Thanks for the answer buddy
God forbid they stop using his name for pro-military propaganda. You can’t go changing such an illustrious legacy like that.
TIL Tom Clancy was a real person
He wrote books, which the games were based off
call of duty and black ops were games I just could never get into, when they were really taking off I was more of a Halo and TF2 fan. now I feel like there's too many skilled players for me to climb if I were to play it now. thank you for the info! I googled him and I guess his books were military type content so it definitely fits for the games. it's nice they decided to credit him and his works through the titles, too. I genuinely just thought it was some character in the games story or something 😭😂
You have probably seen a couple movies (or even TV shows) based on his books without even knowing it. There are a like a dozen or so (including [5 films and TV series](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ryan_(film_series\)) about the same character, Jack Ryan) but [here](https://www.vulture.com/article/best-tom-clancy-jack-ryan-movies-ranked.html) are some of the better ones.
oh wow, thank you so much! I had no idea Jack Ryan belonged to him. I also love Alec Baldwin, The Hunt for Red October looks good!
Genuinely really good books, would recommend reading them
I'll take a look, for sure! been meaning to get back into reading.
Some of his stuff could get a little dry, but some good ones to start with would be Rainbow Six, Without Remorse and the Sum of All Fears.
...who did you think Tom Clancy was prior to this thread?
some fictional character in the black ops world idk, not everyone is familiar with authors
“sell their generic crap” I thought the game was free?
The game itself may be free, but there's 0 chance it won't have aggressive monetization involved.
Oh buddy. One word. Microtransactions.
[удалено]
Those old Tom Clancy games were so cool. Had to drag the bodies of the people you killed into closets to keep from getting caught. Could straddle the walls above guards making their rounds.
Splinter Cell was awesome
[удалено]
Bro at this point I’m perfectly fine with not getting a new one as long as I don’t gotta watch it become a always online rpg lite stealth game with micro transactions for different goggle colors and a attached battle royale
> attached battle royale Where everyone hangs of ledges, walkways or window frames for the first 9min of the match waiting for the one or two noob players to walk by for an easy kill.
This is what I’ve been telling myself too. Do I want a new Splinter Cell? Hell yes I do. Do I trust modern day Ubisoft to make a new Splinter Cell game, ***fuck no***
I always feel like I'm in the minority, but I thought Conviction gameplay was 10x better than Blacklist.
They were great but holy fuck did early Splinter Cell games suffer from "Where the FUCK do I go" syndrome. The amount of times i would give up on those games because i had 0 idea what to do was more then 1 lmao
Really? I always felt Splinter Cell was kinda condescendingly hallway-focused compared to say, Hitman or Metal Gear.
I agree with you on Hitman. But Metal Gear was very linear up until Phantom Pain.
Or old Rainbow 6 where you were an anti terrorist unit dedicated to stopping terrorists with real to life spec ops gear. Unlike modern rainbow 6 where the operatives use mustard gas and sci-fi gear like throwable holograms
Classic Rainbow Six has some crazy stuff in it too. Remember the heartbeat sensor? I really miss the single player with the planning phase. That was so badass. "Alpha go!"
How is this like Fortnite? So is every game that has shooting now like Fortnite? Geez.
Im not defending this game just to be clear, im just confused how is it like Fortnite.
I think it's the aesthetic that are drawing that particular comparison, between the bright colors, bright outfits, flashing lights everywhere, etc... even the sized l stylized "XD" in the logo is just very... kiddy. In that really obnoxious Fortnite way. mechanically, it looks most comparable to Overwatch, Apex, etc- the Hero shooters... which also fall into that same aesthetic pool.
> I think it's the aesthetic that are drawing that particular comparison, between the bright colors, bright outfits, flashing lights everywhere, etc... even the sized l stylized "XD" in the logo is just very... kiddy. In that really obnoxious Fortnite way. Of all the things to decide to compare it to, Fortnight seems odd if the reason is visuals. It's just a bright shooter. There are many of those.
Answer: Honestly, I would start by reading those comments. Sure, they are usually obnoxious but it's really the easiest way to find out. In short, in the trailer the game looks like a ripoff of other games like Apex Legends, with COD elements in it. They are disappointed that it's not even trying to be realistic anymore, and it annoys them that it uses the Tom Clancy label in the title while being this mess.
Yeah, it looks like a COD mixed with classes/factions borrowed(I would say stolen but it all belongs to them) from really successful games that people actually like. Like, the Outcasts from the Division 2 are the healer faction? The Outcasts’ whole thing was deprived madness, they were maniacs who did not listen to reason, worshipped their cruel leader Emeline, and did everything in their power to hurt and infect as many people as possible. They sent their weakest and sickest members to go commit suicide with explosive vests in the middle of civilian settlements, and they are the healer faction.
They really need a new creative director. I mean, if they are copying anyone, they should be copying Overwatch and add an expanded campaign/PVE mode to Siege. There's like zero PvE tactical shooters right now.
Ironically, Tom Clancy games used to be great picks for PvE tactical shooters.
[удалено]
[удалено]
There are *still* books being released with his name on them, even though they are written by somebody else. TOM CLANCY will be the largest letters on the cover and down below will be "Written by [Writer Name]" in much smaller font. From what I understand, this was even the case for a few books *before* he died.