Interviews// Splinter Cell: Blacklist

Sam Fisher is back. And not a moment too soon. The reaction from the crowd at E3 2012 as Ubisoft showcased the first gameplay moments of Splinter Cell: Blacklist was largely positive. With just one apprehension - Fisher wasn't bathed in darkness.

Instead, we saw a more action-oriented secret agent dart about the screen and capping enemies using accessible-yet-flashy moves such as the Killing in Motion system. All in all, it looked like a completely different visual approach to the stealth series we all know and love.

I was able to chat to Ubisoft's cinematic director for the game, David Footman, who reassured me (and, by extension, you) that there's really nothing to be worried about. Sam is truly back, stealth and all. Who isn't, however, is actor Michael Ironside. Don't worry, I ask about that too.


SPOnG: I remember the gameplay demo back at E3, where Sam Fisher was kicking ass in a desert area. It seemed quite far removed from previous Splinter Cell games. Are you guys taking a different direction with it in terms of visual style?

David Footman: Well, the visual direction mantra for Blacklist is “seeing through the lens”. But in terms of locations, it’s more about variety. The directive from the beginning was to have a great variety of gameplay and locations, and not to have too much stuff at night. We want to bring Sam Fisher out into the open, see the world, see the environments... that’s what you’re going to see a lot of in Blacklist. A lot of different environments.


SPOnG: What about comments from fans that might have seen that demo and got a bit disillusioned with the game? Do you have a response to that?

David Footman: Yeah. I think... there’s been a lot of blowback because the origins of Splinter Cell is very stealth-oriented. That was before Conviction added a little more action to it. I think some were a little uncomfortable and surprised, but from the metrics that I read a lot of the hardcore fans were excited about Conviction and thought it was a good balance.

As you can see, it’s a progression. There’s definitely a lot more action in Blacklist, but I think it’s also just a different game. Nowadays, all the AAA titles are going towards ‘monster games’. It’s like the Hollywood blockbusters of the summer - if you’re not big, you’re not going to make it. You’re not going to get shown. One of the aspects of these ‘monster games’ is that there’s lots of different types of gameplay, with lots of modes.

Because of that, what actually gets shown at things like E3 is just a vertical slice of one particular mission. But it’s definitely not strictly an action-only game. The lead designers are going to an incredible amount of pain to make sure that we have Ghost and action-oriented maps. So the player can choose how they want to navigate the maps. The game is definitely broader and deeper than any other Splinter Cell, and there’s definitely a huge stealth component to it. It’s just that nobody’s seen it yet.


SPOnG: How about balancing the action segments with the stealth? During that demo, it seemed that everything moved quite fluidly - is there a danger that players will just end up going for action-only mechanics like Killing in Motion just because it’s easier to do so? Won’t that undermine the fact that stealth exists in the game?

David Footman: I don’t think so. If the gameplay designers are smart with the two styles of gameplay, certain maps are going to really lend themselves to a certain style of gameplay. As you get more experienced with the game, you’re going to know what approach to take.

Having stealth elements can actually be married quite well with a heavy action-oriented structure. You can’t have a constant stream of fast-paced action scenes - if you imagine it like the rhythm of a drum, the percussion would be relentless after a while. If you don’t have a break, a valley, in front of these segments, all you’re left with is cacophony. Kinesis. There’d be no structure to it.

So I think between the two modes you’re going to see some structure within the action that creates a nice composition for fun gameplay. I don’t come from that background, but I understand dramatic structure - and the same rules apply for action within a gameplay structure. You want to have a flow, right? It has to have ebbs, peaks, and valleys, otherwise you’re going to freak out. It’d be a pretty tense game for a couple of hours!

If anything, it really comes down to player choice - what you saw in the E3 demo was a very action-oriented approach to that map, but there’s also a stealth approach too. Which will offer a totally different experience.


SPOnG: Do you guys think you’ve found a new way forward for Sam Fisher and the Splinter Cell franchise? Many years ago there were development issues with Conviction - and you guys ended up managing to find a very new dynamic for the series. Are you continuing down that road or is this a tweak in terms of how you establish the franchise?

David Footman: Well, I think so. What you’re seeing is a really involved ensemble. This is an ensemble piece. The supporting characters have a major part to play in the game, and in the story. Characters are defined by their actions, not how they look, and that’s the different between characterisation and true character.

I think that Sam Fisher will always be defined in every game by his choices. It’s the plot we lay before him. We have a very action-oriented extra personal conflict at the beginning of this game as an exciting incident. It’s huge. So it requires great action to equalise the world and bring the world back into balance. It’s a classic arc plot - a very explosive beginning, and the premise demands certain actions from our hero - from Sam Fisher.

I think when you add the ensemble, the amount of conflict and the pacing, it’s quite an awesome combination. Especially in regards to the pacing, because the Blacklist is a time-based set of attacks. There’s this relentless timer that you can feel ticking away that’s pushing you forward. It’s very dynamic, really rich, but it has been really challenging and a lot of work to put it together.


SPOnG: Let’s talk about Michael Ironside, and his absence from the role of Sam Fisher. Was the decision to not portray the character a mutual one between Ubisoft and Ironside?

David Footman: I think it really comes down to the kind of story we wanted to tell, and how we wanted to capture it. Also, the amount of time we had to do it. The old way we did motion capture was we combined face, body and voice as separate entities. So we would do the body motion capture first - sometimes we’d record the voice before, sometimes after - and then the facial caps.

In video games, I found it extremely challenging at first - not only was I expected to have great scenes and dynamics with the cameras, but I was also expected to record everything separately, by different actors, and stick them together as ‘layers’ of the same character. At times, you’d have these disconnected, strange performances - even when you’re recording with someone like Ironside, he’d look at the actor who’s doing the body and he’d ask, ‘why am I moving in this scene? I don’t understand’.

So for one thing, it’s super-challenging for him [to work this way], it’s super-challenging for us, and it takes a lot more time to get things working. At least twice as long, maybe longer. When developing Blacklist, we decided that we needed an actor who can do action and dialogue at the same time, and we needed to record action over dialogue at the same time.

The idea is we go from action-oriented gameplay to action-over-dialogue performances, resulting in cinematics that blend back into gameplay. So we never stop, we’re always moving. There’s action, shooting, loading clips... and the truth is, we weren’t able to do that with Mr. Ironside. Physically, we weren’t able to have him do all the elite things that we needed Sam to do in our scenes, so we were really left to a choice of how we were going to do it.

Years ago, I worked with an actor called James Coburn, Western hero. Really well known in America. He was in a movie, and he had to be running a dogsled the entire time. He was about 70, 75 years old and he had really bad arthritis. So he couldn’t even hold onto the sled. He had to make rig systems for it. The amount of work that went into make those scenes believable and truthful was immense, and it changed the way we told the story, because it was impossible to work with the actor the way we wanted.

It was the same thing with Ironside - we could have used Ironside, but it would have had to have been a different story. And the kind of story we wanted to tell didn’t really jive with that, so we had to make some really tough decisions.

I understand how the fans have reacted - no-one likes change, he has a very iconic voice... but all kinds of franchises are doing this now, like Batman and Superman. We’re always getting new talent in to depict our heroes. So there’s always going to be this kind of uncertainty from fans in the beginning.

I think that our choice with Eric Johnson is a fantastic one. I think he’s a really great Fisher. People just have to give him a chance. You’re going to be really surprised how quickly you get involved with the new character, with our new premise and new story. It’s still Sam Fisher, and I’m not worried at all.


SPOnG: Splinter Cell has been going for a long time now. But with this and Conviction, the series has evolved somewhat. How difficult is it to try and keep the games fresh, whilst still maintaining the core element of what made the originals so great?

David Footman: We have a brand writer who’s been writing Clancy for over ten years, and we use him as a centerpoint for all our writing. All our screenplays, all our character moments... they go through him to make sure that we’re grounded in that universe. And then when it comes to knowing it’s a game, I think first and foremost we have our creative director, who is vigilant about keeping the focus on gameplay.

At the end of the day we all work for the gameplay, really. If there’s something that we’re doing that could look better or feel better with interaction, we cut the scene. I just did that last Wednesday - there was a sequence that we planned to record and I ended up scrapping it because it would end up being better as a gameplay segment. So I think it’s really about the choices you make, and not getting hooked on portraiture. Nobody’s interested in portraiture.

People want change. They want reversals. They want big gaps between what they expected and what they know. And, if you make scripted events all about that, no-one’s going to want to skip through them. Everyone’s going to want to watch them. Having said that, as many cinematics as we have, most of them happen during gameplay anyway. But generally, there’s far more minutes of gameplay than story scenes. Where we’re going, it’s nowhere near turning a game into a movies. It’s definitely all interactive, and supporting that experience.


SPOnG: Thank you very much for your time.

David Footman: Thank you!