Ubisoft Toronto starts development on a Splinter Cell remake

[Daniel Sims]

Something to look forward to: Ubisoft announced this week that its Toronto studio is starting work on a Splinter Cell remake. Although not confirmed, presumably developers are remastering the franchise's first game. It's currently in a very early stage, and Ubisoft Toronto is still recruiting for the project.

Ubisoft posted an interview on Monday with the remake’s creative director, producer, and technical producer. The Q&A offers some solid details about the upcoming Splinter Cell project.

While the company didn't outright say this is a remake of the first game in the stealth action series, that's the only game the interview mentions explicitly. Producer Matt West said they're rebuilding it from the ground-up in Ubisoft's Snowdrop engine, improving its graphics, and updating its design to "match player comfort and expectations" while keeping the original spirit. West confirmed the remake would be linear like the original version and not open-world.

That detail is somewhat surprising since Ubisoft has made all of its big releases open-world for a while now. Rumors from earlier this month suggested the studio planned a new Splinter Cell more like Assassin's Creed, with gameplay "similar to how Halo Infinite has done its open world."

Technical Producer Peter Handrinos said that while Ubisoft Toronto is building a new team for the remake, it is also tapping veterans from previous Splinter Cell development teams. At the end of the interview, Creative Director Chris Auty added that the remake would be a foundation for the franchise's future.

Ubisoft launched the first Splinter Cell in 2003 for the original Xbox and PC (and later PlayStation 2 and Nintendo GameCube) to critical acclaim. It received multiple sequels, but there hasn’t been a new entry since Ubisoft Toronto’s own 2013 Splinter Cell Blacklist.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/92649-ubisoft-toronto-starts-development-splinter-cell-remake.html

 

[winjer]

I'm a big fan of the Splinter Cell saga.
And if this had been announced some years ago, I would be excited.
But Ubisoft today, is constantly screwing gamers up with micro-transactions, game as a service, and stuff like this. I have low expectations that this will be a good remake. We'll be lucky to get something better than the GTA Trilogy Remaster.

 

[Avro Arrow]

No matter how much hate Ubisoft gets for their micro-transaction BS, it cannot be denied that, for the most part, they make excellent video game series. Tom Clancy, Far Cry and Assassin's Creed all have legendary status. I think that we can reasonably expect this game to be fantastic.

It's true that the game not being open-world is a bit odd because that's what Ubisoft seems to have made their bread and butter since switching the Assassin's Creed series over to that format. I can't say that I blame them because Odyssey and Ragnarok were both HUGE successes. I personally believe that Odyssey is one of the top-5 greatest open-world 3rd person hack&slash games ever made (with Skyrim, Shadows of Mordor, Dark Souls and Witcher III). At the same time, this is a remake, not a new title. I agree with the idea that a remake should be as similar as the original as humanly possible and so I think that sticking with linear gameplay is the right choice in this case.

Far Cry 6 is pretty awesome (although I must admit that I do like 4 and 5 better) and I think that since AC: Black Flag, every major Ubisoft release has been at least "very good". It doesn't look like this will buck that trend. The fact that it's made in Canada in just icing on the cake for me because we haven't historically been that involved in video games. That changed in 2007 with the creation of Eidos Montreal and has only spread from there. We Canadians have so little to be proud of, so let me have this, eh?

 

[Revolution 11]

Will it be a "good" game? Sure, that's possible.

Will it be a "good" Splinter Cell game? Like Chaos Theory, the best in its class? No, I don't think Ubisoft has the guts to make a game that is not dumbed down for the lowest common denominator.

Let alone not stuffing it full of micro-transactions, and all the usual Ubi f***ery that follows.

Ubisoft needs to earn my trust, I am not giving them the benefit of the doubt after the last decade.

 

[Revolution 11]

No matter how much hate Ubisoft gets for their micro-transaction BS, it cannot be denied that, for the most part, they make excellent video game series. Tom Clancy, Far Cry and Assassin's Creed all have legendary status. I think that we can reasonably expect this game to be fantastic.

It's true that the game not being open-world is a bit odd because that's what Ubisoft seems to have made their bread and butter since switching the Assassin's Creed series over to that format. I can't say that I blame them because Odyssey and Ragnarok were both HUGE successes. I personally believe that Odyssey is one of the top-5 greatest open-world 3rd person hack&slash games ever made (with Skyrim, Shadows of Mordor, Dark Souls and Witcher III). At the same time, this is a remake, not a new title. I agree with the idea that a remake should be as similar as the original as humanly possible and so I think that sticking with linear gameplay is the right choice in this case.

Far Cry 6 is pretty awesome (although I must admit that I do like 4 and 5 better) and I think that since AC: Black Flag, every major Ubisoft release has been at least "very good". It doesn't look like this will buck that trend. The fact that it's made in Canada in just icing on the cake for me because we haven't historically been that involved in video games. That changed in 2007 with the creation of Eidos Montreal and has only spread from there. We Canadians have so little to be proud of, so let me have this, eh?

No offense but the way you worded your post, this sounds like defensive corporate pro-Ubisoft propaganda.

 

[QuantumPhysics]

The only questions I have:

#1 Will MICHAEL IRONSIDE be the voice of Sam Fisher?
If not - then you already know it's not gonna be perfect.

#2 Will Ray Tracing be able to add anything substantial that the shadow/ smoke and reflectivity technology from 2002 didn't?

 

[Vulcanproject]

I'm old and grumpy now. Remakes are easy money but it's just retreading the same ground. Sometimes I am in the mood for a shot of nostalgia and other days like now I'm tired how creatively bankrupt the industry is compared to say 25 years ago.

 

[Avro Arrow]

No offense but the way you worded your post, this sounds like defensive corporate pro-Ubisoft propaganda.

I'm not offended because I can see how one could get that impression. I have no ties to Ubisoft and never have. I just happen to LOVE the Far Cry series and I LOVE Assassin's Creed: Odyssey. To be honest, I'm not a fan of most Assassin's Creed games but I heard that Black Flag was really good and I know that it has a massive fanbase. Game series that aren't great don't have massive fanbases even if it's not my cup of tea.

I adore open-world games and always have from the first one I every played called "Starflight" back in 1986. I guess it could really be called "open-galaxy" but it's the same idea, you make your own way and do your own thing. There's more than one correct way to win and so you can play the game over and over in different ways to see how things turn out differently. Being a fan of open-world games does make me a fan of Ubisoft I guess because, as I said, that's their bread-and-butter.

However, being made by Ubisoft doesn't make me automatically like a game. There were some Assassin's Creed games included with Odyssey and I thought that they were kinda lousy. Not being open-world doesn't really lend itself to games like that IMO but even more than that, I just thought that they sucked. There are a lot of non-open-world games that I LOVE but none of them come from Ubisoft. Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Deus Ex, Hitman, Deadpool, Injustice 2 are all games that I absolutely ADORE. In fact, my all-time favourite game series is Ace Combat which is from Namco/Bandai. I would NEVER expect that Ubisoft could make a good aerial combat game because they haven't been doing it for decades like Namco.

I don't think that Ubisoft is the best game developer in the world and never meant to imply that. They are one of the better ones IMO, especially when compared to companies like Activision/Blizzard and Electronic Arts. To me, the best video game developer, historically, has been Namco. I mean, not only did they make my all-time favourite video game series, they also invented perhaps the most iconic video game character of all-time, Pac-Man.

Ubisoft isn't in Namco's league from where I stand, but then, unless someone can come up with an aerial combat game that's as good or better than Ace Combat, nobody ever will be. I shill for nobody, I just say things from my own point of view and if I really like something, I have no problem saying so. I also have no problem saying if I hate something and if someone asks me why I like/hate something, I will always have valid reasons that go beyond "Because it's awesome/crappy" because shills are all about irrational feelings, not objective observation. If I say something, it's because I really believe it, not because someone's paying me too. I'm afraid that I'm not (un)lucky enough to be in that situation.

 

[Nobina]

I'm not offended because I can see how one could get that impression. I have no ties to Ubisoft and never have. I just happen to LOVE the Far Cry series and I LOVE Assassin's Creed: Odyssey. To be honest, I'm not a fan of most Assassin's Creed games but I heard that Black Flag was really good and I know that it has a massive fanbase. Game series that aren't great don't have massive fanbases even if it's not my cup of tea.

I adore open-world games and always have from the first one I every played called "Starflight" back in 1986. I guess it could really be called "open-galaxy" but it's the same idea, you make your own way and do your own thing. There's more than one correct way to win and so you can play the game over and over in different ways to see how things turn out differently. Being a fan of open-world games does make me a fan of Ubisoft I guess because, as I said, that's their bread-and-butter.

However, being made by Ubisoft doesn't make me automatically like a game. There were some Assassin's Creed games included with Odyssey and I thought that they were kinda lousy. Not being open-world doesn't really lend itself to games like that IMO but even more than that, I just thought that they sucked. There are a lot of non-open-world games that I LOVE but none of them come from Ubisoft. Tomb Raider, Uncharted, Deus Ex, Hitman, Deadpool, Injustice 2 are all games that I absolutely ADORE. In fact, my all-time favourite game series is Ace Combat which is from Namco/Bandai. I would NEVER expect that Ubisoft could make a good aerial combat game because they haven't been doing it for decades like Namco.

I don't think that Ubisoft is the best game developer in the world and never meant to imply that. They are one of the better ones IMO, especially when compared to companies like Activision/Blizzard and Electronic Arts. To me, the best video game developer, historically, has been Namco. I mean, not only did they make my all-time favourite video game series, they also invented perhaps the most iconic video game character of all-time, Pac-Man.

Ubisoft isn't in Namco's league from where I stand, but then, unless someone can come up with an aerial combat game that's as good or better than Ace Combat, nobody ever will be. I shill for nobody, I just say things from my own point of view and if I really like something, I have no problem saying so. I also have no problem saying if I hate something and if someone asks me why I like/hate something, I will always have valid reasons that go beyond "Because it's awesome/crappy" because shills are all about irrational feelings, not objective observation. If I say something, it's because I really believe it, not because someone's paying me too. I'm afraid that I'm not (un)lucky enough to be in that situation.

Sick blog bro. Far Cry and Assassins Creed are like pop music, shite.

 

[OortCloud]

Ubisoft continue to re-release the same set of 3 or 4 games they came up with 15 years ago.

 

[poohbear]

Ubisoft continue to re-release the same set of 3 or 4 games they came up with 15 years ago.

A narrow focus isn't a bad thing. It's better to do 1 thing at 100% instead of 10 things at 10%.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Sick blog bro. Far Cry and Assassins Creed are like pop music, shite.

I agree that most Assassin's Creed games aren't to my taste but Odyssey was different because it was open world and the story was very well done. Far Cry can be hit or miss but I haven't seen it miss that often. Far Cry 3 was great and so was Blood Dragon. Far Cry 4 was good, but it doesn't look as good when it's bookended by 3 and 5, both of which were better. One of the things that make Far Cry games enjoyable to me is the fact that Ubisoft does a good job with the main villains (in the main Far Cry titles anyway).

Honestly though, none of the Far Cry games are anywhere as good as AC:Odyssey. I hadn't enjoyed a game so much since I played Witcher III. You can call it shite, you can call it pop music, you can call it whatever. Enough people disagree with you that Ubisoft will never hear you over the sounds made by the millions of dollars that they rake in with each title. If it were shite, then EVERYONE would be as successful as they are, but we're not.

That's why I NEVER call pop musicians untalented no matter how much I may hate their music. It's also why I NEVER call a game shite when it rakes in more money than I'll probably ever see in my lifetime. I would feel arrogant and foolish doing it because what one person likes and hates is never enough to really make a difference.

 

[Nobina]

I agree that most Assassin's Creed games aren't to my taste but Odyssey was different because it was open world and the story was very well done. Far Cry can be hit or miss but I haven't seen it miss that often. Far Cry 3 was great and so was Blood Dragon. Far Cry 4 was good, but it doesn't look as good when it's bookended by 3 and 5, both of which were better. One of the things that make Far Cry games enjoyable to me is the fact that Ubisoft does a good job with the main villains (in the main Far Cry titles anyway).

Far Cry 3 was where they figured the formula out and every game after it was the same. AC Odyssey took a lot from TW3 and same like with FC3 they figured the formula out and just change the setting of the story.

You can call it shite, you can call it pop music, you can call it whatever. Enough people disagree with you that Ubisoft will never hear you over the sounds made by the millions of dollars that they rake in with each title. If it were shite, then EVERYONE would be as successful as they are, but we're not.

This is exactly why I compared it to pop music, it is very popular, doesn't mean it's good.

 

[OortCloud]

Far Cry 3 was where they figured the formula out and every game after it was the same. AC Odyssey took a lot from TW3 and same like with FC3 they figured the formula out and just change the setting of the story.

I agree completely. Ubisoft games are just skins applied over the top of the same engine they created way back in the original Assassins Creed. Far Cry 3 was a great game and a lot of fun with a really entertaining bad guy.

All the other games since are just texture packs on the same game. Watch dogs, all the AC games since, and all the Far Cry's. I played a few more of them but realised after a while that I was grinding all these banal, repetitive side missions on these massive maps and really not actually enjoying the games at all.

 

[Avro Arrow]

Far Cry 3 was where they figured the formula out and every game after it was the same. AC Odyssey took a lot from TW3 and same like with FC3 they figured the formula out and just change the setting of the story.

With that post, you make me realise that I'm wasting my time with someone who just has a hate-on for Ubisoft. You talk about Odyssey but you've clearly not played Odyssey. I know this because I have both Odyssey AND The Witcher III. They are nowhere NEAR the same. The only thing that they have in common is that you're a pre-gunpowder-age warrior in an open world who rides a horse sometimes. There is no naval combat in The Witcher III and no brilliant re-creation of Ancient Greece. Assassin's Creed: Odyssey is more different from The Witcher III than the Witcher III is from Skyrim. So, in your mind, I guess that The Witcher III is a rip-off of Skyrim, eh?

This is exactly why I compared it to pop music, it is very popular, doesn't mean it's good.

Actually, in this case, you're more akin to a Baby Boomer who hates rap music but has never actually listened to any. You're making negative (and false) claims about a game that you haven't owned or played. Anyone who has played both Odyssey and the Witcher III would never draw the parallels that you have. I'm done wasting my time with you.

 

[Nobina]

With that post, you make me realise that I'm wasting my time with someone who just has a hate-on for Ubisoft. You talk about Odyssey but you've clearly not played Odyssey. I know this because I have both Odyssey AND The Witcher III. They are nowhere NEAR the same. The only thing that they have in common is that you're a pre-gunpowder-age warrior in an open world who rides a horse sometimes. There is no naval combat in The Witcher III and no brilliant re-creation of Ancient Greece. Assassin's Creed: Odyssey is more different from The Witcher III than the Witcher III is from Skyrim. So, in your mind, I guess that The Witcher III is a rip-off of Skyrim, eh?

Actually, in this case, you're more akin to a Baby Boomer who hates rap music but has never actually listened to any. You're making negative (and false) claims about a game that you haven't owned or played. Anyone who has played both Odyssey and the Witcher III would never draw the parallels that you have. I'm done wasting my time with you.

"You have not played both games!!!!!!!" - I did, I have both games.
"You hate Ubisoft!!!!!!!!!!" - No, I don't, they have some good games, even FC and AC games can be good, it's the fact they're a carbon copy every time that I'm criticising and that's what makes them shitty.

Don't pretend you're" done wasting time" when you just ran out of things to say. Just say you like the games regardless, no one has a problem with that.

 

[Avro Arrow]

I agree completely. Ubisoft games are just skins applied over the top of the same engine they created way back in the original Assassins Creed. Far Cry 3 was a great game and a lot of fun with a really entertaining bad guy.

All the other games since are just texture packs on the same game. Watch dogs, all the AC games since, and all the Far Cry's. I played a few more of them but realised after a while that I was grinding all these banal, repetitive side missions on these massive maps and really not actually enjoying the games at all.

Another person who has never played Odyssey acting like some big expert. Odyssey is so different from previous Assassin's Creed games that many of the "die-hard" fans of the series HATE it. For you to say that it's the same (and I've played several AC games, I don't like most of them) shows me someone who is pretending to know what they're talking about.

There are two types of Assassin's Creed game. There's pre-Odyssey release and post-Odyssey release. I haven't played Valhalla so I don't know if it's just a re-skin of Odyssey but the review sites don't appear to think that it is. Personally, I don't care for the previous AC games that I've played and I'm not really all that interested in them (although I heard the Black Flag is pretty good).

However, for you to say that they're all the same is just plain wrong.