Support NeoGAF

[Unk Adams]

It used to be when a game had the Tom Clancy branding you knew it was going to be amazing. How did we go from amazing games like this:

To dumbed down and mediocre stuff like this:

To stuff that is most likely going to be trash-tier like this:

As well as a new Ghost Recon game that jumps on the battle royale bandwagon several years too late?

What happened? I used to associate the Tom Clancy brand with amazing, trendsetting gaming. Now I associated it with out of touch boardroom executives who push low-quality junk on their "fellow kids".

I just hope they don't revive the Splinter Cell franchise. The last thing they need to do is ruin Sam Fisher's legacy.

 

[Chiggs]

I had a good time with Wildlands, and Breakpoint has definitely gotten better with subsequent updates.

I think we just need to see a good Splinter Cell reboot and you'll sing a different tune.

 

[tsumake]

Tom Clancy games started to decline arguably around the time of his death.

 

[EDMIX]

I like how they are like "decline" and those games probably moving more fucking units now, then 20 years ago.

Even the comment about Splinter Cell is pretty fucking funny, it had like 2 good games out of 7

 

[BennyBlanco]

Ubisoft has just become desperate trend chasers and will slap the tom clancy name on anything that could be considered a shooter

That said, I liked the division 2

 

[ManaByte]

I had a good time with Wildlands, and Breakpoint has definitely gotten better with subsequent updates.

I think we just need to see a good Splinter Cell reboot and you'll sing a different tune.

Yup. Both Wildlands and Breakpoint were good.

R6 Siege is still very popular.

OP probably hasn’t touched a Clancy game in two gens.

 

[HermitSperg691]

I like how they are like "decline" and those games probably moving more fucking units now, then 20 years ago.

Even the comment about Splinter Cell is pretty fucking funny, it had like 2 good games out of 7

Breakpoint was shit and not a single xDefiant video on YouTube has more than a million views. The series is going downhill.

 

[Unk Adams]

Yup. Both Wildlands and Breakpoint were good.

R6 Siege is still very popular.

OP probably hasn’t touched a Clancy game in two gens.

Those games fall under the "decent at best if I ignore how flawed they are" category. Look at Metacritic. The big Tom Clancy games like Chaos Theory had a 94% average while Wildlands has a 70% average and Breakpoint has a 56% average. That's a steep decline in quality. Wildlands was a decent Ubisoft open world game at best (fun but basically junk gaming) and Breakpoint was absolutely terrible until everyone whined and they finally made it playable (but still pretty bad). Rainbow Six Siege also has a 73% average compared to Rainbow Six 3 which had an 86% average. So it's not just my opinion. The general consensus is that the quality of their games is declining.

 

[EDMIX]

Yup. Both Wildlands and Breakpoint were good.

R6 Siege is still very popular.

OP probably hasn’t touched a Clancy game in two gens.

Agreed.

I think people love the whole edgelord, running with the trend of bashing certain publishers, yet don't even make compelling arguments. Be like "let me list 3 good games and ignore the shit ones that came out during that time" lol

We had bad titles back then eith the very series OP is even bringing up.

Even back then, Ubisoft still looked at what other titles did, to grow the brand. Metal Gear Solid existed BEFORE Splinter Cell, we had co-op in games....BEFORE Splinter Cell, so this whole BS about them following trends like BR is simply them CONTINUING to see what is popular and apply it to future titles. That is what they did before with those games and what they are continuing to do now. So with how well they've done with so many games last gen part of that brand, I see zero evidence of a decline and I'd argue right now we have the most fans of that brand now then any other time in gaming.

I think some folks need to take off the rose tinted glasses and objectively look at this. I love the old days too folks, I don't let my love of that time cloud my judgement. Never.

HermitSperg691 lol ok bud. Pandora Tomorrow was shit.... and I Don't know why someone would use Youtube views as some measure of something like how a game does lol They had misses in the past too, that being said...they still put out more titles and moved more units of that brand this gen and last gen more then those PS2 days bud.

 

[bender]

When they went to consoles.

 

[MDSLKTR]

I miss those times when an Ubi game was a force to be reckoned with

 

[Rival]

Nothing has been as good as Rogue Spear.

 

[HermitSperg691]

Agreed.

I think people love the whole edgelord, running with the trend of bashing certain publishers, yet don't even make compelling arguments. Be like "let me list 3 good games and ignore the shit ones that came out during that time" lol

We had bad titles back then eith the very series OP is even bringing up.

Even back then, Ubisoft still looked at what other titles did, to grow the brand. Metal Gear Solid existed BEFORE Splinter Cell, we had co-op in games....BEFORE Splinter Cell, so this whole BS about them following trends like BR is simply them CONTINUING to see what is popular and apply it to future titles. That is what they did before with those games and what they are continuing to do now. So with how well they've done with so many games last gen part of that brand, I see zero evidence of a decline and I'd argue right now we have the most fans of that brand now then any other time in gaming.

I think some folks need to take off the rose tinted glasses and objectively look at this. I love the old days too folks, I don't let my love of that time cloud my judgement. Never.

Ubisoft wasn't following trends at the same league as other game companies are doing right now. Like making shit tons of open world games and making a F2P CoD clone and also a game for a shitty subgenre that's nothing more than a glorified deathmatch that for some reason people like.

 

[EDMIX]

When you have titles like The Division and R6 Siege moving like 20 million units, its hard to really fucking argue about some um "decline"

sure...

HermitSperg691 Nah, look back at those games. Most of what they put out was not like "the first" this or that, most of it was following concepts that were popular at the time. I see no evidence that has changed tbh.

You can cry about a F2P game as following, but you could have stated the very same thing about them doing co-op stuff back then too or MP stuff in general. They need to see what is popular to keep the brand relevant. I can't knock them for that, especially when they are fucking moving THE MOST UNITS now with this brand then in any other time in its history.

They had fails back then too, to reach the hits. I'm ok with them testing the waters and trying new shit to see what works. That is what they did back then too btw. Its not like 100% ALL titles back then by them were all hits or something, but that goes with industry. We had flops then, we have flops now, but I see nothing here that points to any real decline when they are moving more units, doing more games etc.

I think they are just fine and this just sounds like rose tinted neckbeard shit lol

 

[Unk Adams]

lol ok bud. Pandora Tomorrow was shit....

You have the audacity to call a classic like Pandora Tomorrow shit yet think that Breakpoint is good... If we were on Reddit I'd downvote you right now. Your gaming card has been revoked.

 

[ANDS]

xDefiant isn't even out. Breakpoint was a misfire, however Wildlands is good and The Division 1 and 2 are missing from your list for some reason.

Those games fall under the "decent at best if I ignore how flawed they are" category. Look at Metacritic. The big Tom Clancy games like Chaos Theory had a 94% average while Wildlands has a 70% average and Breakpoint has a 56% average. That's a steep decline in quality. Wildlands was a decent Ubisoft open world game at best (fun but basically junk gaming) and Breakpoint was absolutely terrible until everyone whined and they finally made it playable (but still pretty bad). Rainbow Six Siege also has a 73% average compared to Rainbow Six 3 which had an 86% average. So it's not just my opinion. The general consensus is that the quality of their games is declining.

Using your metric (game journalists reviews) it seems the only reliably critically acclaimed title is Splinter Cell. Quality is all over the place and all over the last two years so there's no set "golden age" of Tom Clancy games that were all just critical darlings. Tom Clancy games (again, using Metacritic) all seem to fall under the "Great if you're a fan, just OK otherwise. . ." category of games.

 

[HermitSperg691]

Agreed.

I think people love the whole edgelord, running with the trend of bashing certain publishers, yet don't even make compelling arguments. Be like "let me list 3 good games and ignore the shit ones that came out during that time" lol

We had bad titles back then eith the very series OP is even bringing up.

Even back then, Ubisoft still looked at what other titles did, to grow the brand. Metal Gear Solid existed BEFORE Splinter Cell, we had co-op in games....BEFORE Splinter Cell, so this whole BS about them following trends like BR is simply them CONTINUING to see what is popular and apply it to future titles. That is what they did before with those games and what they are continuing to do now. So with how well they've done with so many games last gen part of that brand, I see zero evidence of a decline and I'd argue right now we have the most fans of that brand now then any other time in gaming.

I think some folks need to take off the rose tinted glasses and objectively look at this. I love the old days too folks, I don't let my love of that time cloud my judgement. Never.

HermitSperg691 lol ok bud. Pandora Tomorrow was shit.... and I Don't know why someone would use Youtube views as some measure of something like how a game does lol They had misses in the past too, that being said...they still put out more titles and moved more units of that brand this gen and last gen more then those PS2 days bud.

You mean the PC days because the old PC games are the only classic Tom Clancy games that matter.

 

[Chiggs]

Ah, I can see this thread is turning into the typical Ubisoft sucks circle jerk, which is just about the most boring, oft-repeated nonsense on gaming forums.

You have to wonder about some of the people who constantly gripe about Ubisoft...like what would truly make them happy? Then you examine their post history and realize: very little.

 

[ANDS]

Ah, I can see this thread is turning into the typical Ubisoft sucks circle jerk, which is just about the most boring, oft-repeated nonsense on gaming forums.

You have to wonder about some of the people who constantly gripe about Ubisoft...like what would truly make them happy? Then you examine their post history and realize: very little.

I haven't played R6: Siege because I'm terrible at those types of games and it seems more stressful than not, but the other Ubisoft games (often derided as Ubisoft-Open Worlds or Theme Parks) I'm all about. They have about as much substance as a sponge but they are fun stupid diversions. . .what I thought games were meant to be at a minimum.

 

[tsumake]

When you have titles like The Division and R6 Siege moving like 20 million units, its hard to really fucking argue about some um "decline"

sure...

HermitSperg691 Nah, look back at those games. Most of what they put out was not like "the first" this or that, most of it was following concepts that were popular at the time. I see no evidence that has changed tbh.

You can cry about a F2P game as following, but you could have stated the very same thing about them doing co-op stuff back then too or MP stuff in general. They need to see what is popular to keep the brand relevant. I can't knock them for that, especially when they are fucking moving THE MOST UNITS now with this brand then in any other time in its history.

Popularity is not necessarily synonymous with quality.

 

[Unk Adams]

xDefiant isn't even out. Breakpoint was a misfire, however Wildlands is good and The Division 1 and 2 are missing from your list for some reason.


Using your metric (game journalists reviews) it seems the only reliably critically acclaimed title is Splinter Cell. Quality is all over the place and all over the last two years so there's no set "golden age" of Tom Clancy games that were all just critical darlings. Tom Clancy games (again, using Metacritic) all seem to fall under the "Great if you're a fan, just OK otherwise. . ." category of games.

The offshoots and expansions, maybe. The mainline series games were basically all hits. No Tom Clancy game seems to even hit the 80% range anymore. Sad.

 

[TLZ]

When they went to consoles.

I played Splinter Cell on PS2 and was great.

 

[tsumake]

I haven't played R6: Siege because I'm terrible at those types of games and it seems more stressful than not, but the other Ubisoft games (often derided as Ubisoft-Open Worlds or Theme Parks) I'm all about. They have about as much substance as a sponge but they are fun stupid diversions. . .what I thought games were meant to be at a minimum.

Sure, they can be fun.

 

[bender]

When you have titles like The Division and R6 Siege moving like 20 million units, its hard to really fucking argue about some um "decline"

sure...

Enjoy eating at McDonalds and listening to the Backstreet Boys.

 

[bender]

I played Splinter Cell on PS2 and was great.

 

[EDMIX]

You have the audacity to call a classic like Pandora Tomorrow shit yet think that Breakpoint is good... If we were on Reddit I'd downvote you right now. Your gaming card has been revoked.

First off, Pandora Tomorrow is just not a good game, I have to call it like I see it. I like The SP series and could never fucking recommend that shit. Only the first and 3rd game are good, the rest are pretty much mediocre trash.

Second, I make zero statement about Breakpoint being "good", in fact I point out that they had misses back then and now in reference to it...

So this how "i'd downvote you" or "gaming card revoked" goes to show this sounds more fucking personal, then it does any real discussion about the brand, quality, trends, sales etc.

bender lol I don't even play most of this stuff anymore anyway, but I have to side with those who have played it and like it, the actual factual objective sales showing a decline clearly is not happening etc. I think I only played Wildlands, R6 and The Division 1 (never got around to playing The Division 2, don't have the time, but heard great things from those who still play it)

 

[HermitSperg691]

Ah, I can see this thread is turning into the typical Ubisoft sucks circle jerk, which is just about the most boring, oft-repeated nonsense on gaming forums.

You have to wonder about some of the people who constantly gripe about Ubisoft...like what would truly make them happy? Then you examine their post history and realize: very little.

What? Most of their games are corny and especially the art styles and stories. Ubisoft games are pure trash outside of Splinter cell, Ghost Recon(2001-2012), and Rainbow Six(98-08). Far Cry 2 is decent.

Ah, I still remember watching that Rainbow Six: Patriots video. Never forget.

It's so beautiful.

 

[EekTheKat]

Ubisoft ran out of ideas for proper Tom Clancy games years ago. They've been just cruising on the name for about a decade now without really developing a well thought out story tied into a good game.

Also the military/political nature of the works of Tom Clancy comes across as twitter poison, as this day and age many game writers are unwilling or unable to do a proper Tom Clancy game justice. Fighting literal monster aliens and embracing the esports scene while dressing up tiktok cosplayers is the safe mainstream play to chase the money.

 

[Unk Adams]

First off, Pandora Tomorrow is just not a good game, I have to call it like I see it. I like The SP series and could never fucking recommend that shit. Only the first and 3rd game are good, the rest are pretty much mediocre trash.

Second, I make zero statement about Breakpoint being "good", in fact I point out that they had misses back then and now in reference to it...

So this how "i'd downvote you" or "gaming card revoked" goes to show this sounds more fucking personal, then it does any real discussion about the brand, quality, trends, sales etc.

You directly quoted a post that said "Yup. Both Wildlands and Breakpoint were good." and responded with "Agreed." That sounded pretty clear to me.

Pandora Tomorrow has a 93% average on Metacritic. Modern day Ubi games can't even get past the 70% average range.

Downvoting is serious business, by the way. I don't just downvote any post. It's only when the truly cross the line and you have to admit that you did.

 

[Bigfroth]

Yes, I think there is a general downgrade in quality from years past in Clancy games. But still really hope they make division 3 somewhere down the road. Preferably far enough down the road to we're it's not on PS4 or Xbox one.

 

[EDMIX]

You directly quoted a post that said "Yup. Both Wildlands and Breakpoint were good." and responded with "Agreed." That sounded pretty clear to me.

Pandora Tomorrow has a 93% average on Metacritic. Modern day Ubi games can't even get past the 70% average range.

Downvoting is serious business, by the way. I don't just downvote any post. It's only when the truly cross the line and you have to admit that you did.

I never state anything about Breakpoint being good. You reaching bud.

Pandora Tomorrow is one of the worst SP titles, I'd never have someone play that as some representation of the series. You just living in the past on this one with those glasses stuck on.

HermitSperg691 I thought the story in Vegas was just as corny (still like the game btw) and like Far Cry 2, just as much as 3 and 5. I don't see this wide difference as people desperately try to make it sound like night and day. I thought those games then are just as meh as they are now lol Fact is simply that they are moving more units now and I see not much evidence of any decline.

All you have with that R6 game is a trailer...you know not of what the fuck the game was even REALLY going to be like, if you fucking hate the stories in the games they put out now, I don't see why suddenly the one that didn't come out was going to be this GOTY and your GOTG etc. You have a trailer that you've now put in your mind as some fan fiction of what you wanted it to be like vs what it probably was going to be like.

So....you are free to feel those games are trash, but I don't see that view changing if that fucking game even came out TODAY lol You'd probably dislike its story just as much as the current stuff they put out as those same people are the ones even making the story stuff in their games right now

 

[Chiggs]

Pandora Tomorrow has a 93% average on Metacritic. Modern day Ubi games can't even get past the 70% average range.

You know what else has a seen a major decline in quality? Video game journalism.

And Metacritic user reviews are even worse. What is the bar for quality there? Being a barely sentient life form who can mash a keyboard over a game that didn't fix your fucked up life, eliminate your student loan debt, give you a blowjob for the ages, then make you French Toast in the morning?

 

[ANDS]

The offshoots and expansions, maybe. The mainline series games were basically all hits. No Tom Clancy game seems to even hit the 80% range anymore. Sad.

How are the titles with Splinter Cell or Ghost Recon in the title not mainline games, specifically Ghost Recon as there's no ongoing narrative like there is with Splinter Cell? And The Division is not a critical failure so not sure where this "No Tom Clancy. . ." line comes from. I can appreciate people not getting the games THEY want, but it is just wild to say there hasn't been any quality in the brand since the early aught 2000's.

. . .and let's be real, if UBISOFT knew they could have gotten away with live-servicing their games decades ago, they absolutely would have.

 

[Unk Adams]

I never state anything about Breakpoint being good. You reaching bud.

Pandora Tomorrow is one of the worst SP titles, I'd never have someone play that as some representation of the series. You just living in the past on this one with those glasses stuck on.

You never directly stated that. You did quote a post that stated that it was good and responded by directly saying that you "agreed".

Pandora Tomorrow has had a much better reception compared to the modern Ubi games. Is this an edgy hipster thing where someone purposely hates on something everything loves and praises inferior things to seem cool?

 

[-tetsuo-]

Wildlands was good and Siege is like the best Rainbow 6 game. Breakpoint was a disaster but at least they tried to turn it around. Splinter Cell is most likely just a dead series at this point.

 

[eastcoastkody]

the Division is good. Rainbow Six Vegas was good.
I didn't play WildLands but ppl seemed to be into it. I liked Advanced Warfighter

BreakPoint is the outlier

 

[ANDS]

the Division is good. Rainbow Six Vegas was good.
I didn't play WildLands but ppl seemed to be into it. I liked Advanced Warfighter

BreakPoint is the outlier

Which is a shame because the gunplay and specializations (dunno why they call them classes. . .maybe they don't) was a pretty good change from my time with WILDLANDS. They just dropped the ball on most everything else (except graphics).

Wildlands was good and Siege is like the best Rainbow 6 game. Breakpoint was a disaster but at least they tried to turn it around. Splinter Cell is most likely just a dead series at this point.

I'll have to get out of the tutorial (which I lost); just everything about playing alone had me thinking "There's no way I'm not getting roasted in this if I try and play online." It is also a really good example of a game thriving when given the space to breath and get (good) player feedback.

 

[EDMIX]

You know what else has a seen a major decline in quality? Video game journalism.

And Metacritic user reviews are even worse. What is the bar for quality there? Being a barely sentient life form who can mash a keyboard over a game that didn't fix your fucked up life, eliminate your student loan debt, give you a blowjob for the ages, then make you French Toast in the morning?

This.

Didn't those same journalist also sing praises of Skyward Sword only to bash it later on? So I don't know how to feel about those older scores. Who knows why the fuck they were out here handing out 10s lol We've seen lots of questionable shit before that I just can't go based on that any longer.

I felt when playing Skyward Sword that it was a shit game, I was shocked anyone was giving it a perfect score and then I realized they might be scared to REALLY offer their truthful opinion on the title. I have nothing but respect for Shea from Gamespot for making a honest review that really fucking brought up the bad controls, padding with the filler etc. Because of this, you simply don't have enough REALLY openly giving honest reviews, they try to fanboy their way thru the review and it feels like they already have that shit written before the game was even completed, started etc.

I need to be honet about how a game is, even if I'm a fucking fan of the series. SO I'd never give MGSV a perfect 10, I love the game, but I can't pretend its story makes sense, its open world makes sense most times etc

Its how I feel about Skyward Sword and how I feel about Pandora Tomorrow. Me liking the series, doesn't mean I'll just fucking exaggerate all its entries.

 

[Artistic]

Pandora Tomorrow is the best in the Splinter Cell series.

That is all.

 

[Tschumi]

Rainbow 6 III started it off with implementing 3D guns, it was still a good thing back then though

My favourite Tom Clancy games are Rainbow 6, Rainbow 6: Rogue Spear and Ghost Recon 1.

 

[Gp1]

When they went to consoles.

Exactly.

I played my fair share of these games since before the Red Storm Era. They got "defaced" when they began to focus on consoles and Ubi took over. This isn't like saying that the later games were "bad" but the great majority is just bland (specially the ps2 and ps3 era). If you guys want a exact point i would put around the time that Raven Shield and its expansions came out. After that it went down hill.

That considered... Their "quality decline" is somewhat recent. I enjoyed my fair share of some Clancy's ps360-Ps4one era games (especially Vegas 2, Blacklist and even The Division 1, Wildlands and Breakpoint) but they went overboard with the direction that The Division 2 and Siege took. Siege is one hell of a competitive FPS but it's just not Rainbow Six anymore.

And forget about both Wildlands and Breakpoint Metascore. Both games got heavily improved over the time.

 

[Arachnid]

Splinter Cell is pretty fucking funny, it had like 2 good games out of 7

Naaaaah

 

[I_D]

Ubisoft (specifically the Montreal team) was basically Microsoft's version of the Nintendo-Rare dream team with the original Xbox. They were basically unstoppable.

Then all of the execs realized how much money could be made from derivative sequels, and we ended up where we are now.

 

[ManaByte]

Then all of the execs realized how much money could be made from derivative sequels, and we ended up where we are now.

You mean with Clancy games that sell 20 million units?

Siege has more Twitch viewers than FFXIV or Destiny right now.

 

[Unk Adams]

You mean with Clancy games that sell 20 million units?

Siege has more Twitch viewers than FFXIV or Destiny right now.

Well, this is not an exact comparison considering the gaming market is way bigger now and generations last longer. Not to mention we're talking about quality, which is not the same as what is popular. Moronic Tik Tok videos get millions of views and Justin Bieber gets millions of streams but does that mean they're high quality? McDonalds also sells better than professional restaurants. Does that mean they have quality food? Usually when something is mass market it's dumbed down and the quality is lowered to appeal to your average normie who likes to consume. It doesn't mean the quality is higher.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

When they went to consoles.

Wasn’t most, if not all their classics and good games on consoles?

 

[bender]

Wasn’t most, if not all their classics and good games on consoles?

Generally developed with the PC in mind and ported after the fact. The X360 era is where the shift occurred, dumbing down mechanics to garner a larger audience. It's similar to what we saw with TES going from Morrowind to Oblivion.

 

[Rhazer Fusion]

Generally developed with the PC in mind and ported after the fact. The X360 era is where the shift occurred, dumbing down mechanics to garner a larger audience. It's similar to what we saw with TES going from Morrowind to Oblivion.

I see.

 

[Chiggs]

Generally developed with the PC in mind and ported after the fact. The X360 era is where the shift occurred, dumbing down mechanics to garner a larger audience. It's similar to what we saw with TES going from Morrowind to Oblivion.

This does support the Splinter Cell: Double Agent is better on Xbox than 360/PS3 argument.

Actually, it's hardly an argument, considering that Double Agent IS better on OG Xbox than on 360/PS3.

 

[bender]

This does support the Splinter Cell: Double Agent s better on Xbox than 360/PS3 argument.

Actually, it's hardly an argument, considering that Double Agent IS better on OG Xbox than on 360/PS3.

Splinter Cell never clicked with me until Chaos Theory. The knife was a brilliant addition that quickly let you "correct" your stealth fuck ups. I still need to play Double Agent on the OG. Speaking of that game, but the 360 version, the spies versus Mercs is a lot of fun if you force your way into 2v2 instead of the 3v3. I tanked my Xbox Live rep back in the day by kicking people before launching matches. lol