Why Conviction is still Splinter Cell

[shobhit7777777]

Hi

I have been going though the forums, both here and on other sites and have come across things like "Dumbed down"..."Sam Fisher is dead"...."Conviction is not a splinter cell game!"..."Stealth is dead". The Gamers and fans are actually condemning the designers for trying to experiment with a new kind of stealth gameplay, for making stealth faster and for allowing the player choice. The same team that earlier made SC1 a true stealth gem with it's realistic take on espionage minus the all the verbal diarrhea (Im looking at you Metal Gear solid!). Inspite of the so called "dramatic" changes the designers have managed to retain the best aspects of Splinter cell. How you ask? well the core gameplay is still STRONGLY about stealth. The major problem in the game was of mission design and certain design design choices which FORCED you into head-on conflicts and definitely are weaknesses in an otherwise brilliant game.

1. Dumbed down: Because it is easier to aim and shoot? because it is easier to take out guards with CQB? Lack of features like whistling and body hiding? well why would anyone complaint about your character being more empowered? Sam is not a govt operative hes outside the usual ROE he doesnt care about leaving dead bodies here and there..and the designers decision to remove the move body option has stream-lined the play! The earlier games FORCED you to hide the bodies because you were not sposed to be there or leave any trace but here he's a rogue agent people! sure the added feature would have been nice but if you really wanna hide bodies take the guy hostage and kill him in the shadows. The way the game plays is totally up to you you can go rambo (and get killed BTW) you can go stealth-action hybrid (silent kill a couple..ME 3..wait for backup and pick em off 1 by 1) or do it the complete panther way of emptying a room..or NOT emptying it and silently vanishing. Now whistle sure would have been welcome but I frankly do not miss it that much. So the designers have removed some features from the original series to keep in line with games over all theme of Sam not giving a damn...so kindly bear in mind the storyline of conviction. I will address those who think that it does not require strategy in my 3rd argument below.

2.Sam Fisher is dead: Impossible. Sam and Chuck cannot die. When people say that old Sam never came back that the "new guy" is a Bourne/Bauer clone it cheeses me off. This is a side of Sam that gamers have never before seen. We know Sam from his days as 3E operative, where he was in highly dangerous and Black ops where he HAD to maintain a low profile and remain undetected because he was gathering information...his prime objectives were to collect data and avoid conflict..thus the gameplay suited the predecessors with the meticulous planning involved and the slow quiet crouch-walk really suited the character and the story. Here we have a Man who no longer is worried about covering his work because he does not care if the bodies are found or if he leaves a mess..hes ****ed and looking for answers...he is now HIGHLY MOTIVATED by personal reasons to go Ninja-murderer on people. The faster movement speed and the increased agility show that hes impatient and wants answers and yet remains stealthy! He's the same guy!. If you really have a problem with it s much then just make him walk/crouch when near enemies. It's like when the Knife was introduced into SCCT. The character had evolved into a formidable CQB combatant like a real operative should be...he evolvd with time.

3.Stealth is dead: No. It' very much alive and kicking. The major thing to remember here is that stealth, true stealth, in conviction is dependant on HOW you play the game. I am a stealth addict. I will buy any game which has the words "stealth" and "tactical" in one line. I play the game with my own ROE and imagine myself to be Sam and ask how would He have done it. True the games mission design ( my biggest gripe about conviction) forces you into confrontations but in open ended mission like Malta mansion SCC truly shines. Stealth in conviction has become highly tactical and really a powerful aid thanks to the new "confrontational" type of approach in most missions, typically with 6-10 guys sweeping an area for you ( i know, i know they shouldnt be aware of us in the 1st place...which is exactly what I mean by poor mission design) now it is upto you on how to deal with em and in here lies the beauty if Conviction. These engagements can be highly cerebral and fun if you really apply yourself in how best to take these guys out THE STEALTHY WAY. As there are no fixed patrol routes the game really becomes on as you try your best to dispatch guys like only Sam Fisher could. You need to prioritize targets make quick kills and vanish to prey on the other guy. The end result to this type of confrontational stealth is a method of playing which although remains deep in true SC form makes the player think harder and faster. If SCCT and SC1 were Chess, conviction is speed chess. This is a unique stealth gameplay where you are more predatory than before and this is the kind of evolution that the series needed. Now most of you may disaggre saying that it an operative should not be discovered and all that but then again if the mission design wants 5 guys dead then what can you do? well you take the 5 guys OUT WITHOUT BEING DISCOVERED! SCC allows a mixture of old school stealth of no killings and unique silent kill-spree for the imaginative. Stealth here is fun and allows players to come up with creative solutions. Stealth in conviction is just a different form than in the others.

4. Conviction is not Splinter Cell: Does it have Sam Fisher? Yes. Does it have him involve STEALTHILY infiltrating enemy positions? Yes. Can he hide in shadows and remain undetected? Yes. So there, SCC is a SC title...a slimmer, toned down, ****ed off one.

I'd like to hear your counter arguments on this much debated topic
BTW if you want I can post my own set of ROE for conviction which makes the game feel more stealthy and more realistic.
Thanks

[sameer_monier]

i am so glad that there are still people who LOVE the game, enjoy it, and even take some of their time to visit the forum and participate, that is really great

Also i very much agree with you

[Jazz117Volkov]

@ shobhit7777777:

Alright, here goes. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

1. Dumbed down:
First I'll repeat something i said a little while ago. A game (like Splinter Cell) should be challenging because of enemy AI and realistic, unforgiving consequences, NOT crippled gameplay mechanics.
With that said, the H2H and weapon handling in Conviction are rather excellent IMO.

I'll start my counter argument with M&E.
In theory this is a cool addition, but it is way over the top.
1stly, it is ridiculous to be able to score a trio of headshots while hanging on a pipe fifty feet away.
No weapon should have four marks, they should all have three (this is just good game design, it's the character who does the aiming, so three all round makes more sense IMO)
M&E should only be available when standing or crouching, and the bug were you can shoot through wall needs to be fixed.

Binary stealth:
Possible the biggest dumbdown. The player is either fully hidden or completely exposed. Making all the tense almost moments (which were as much a part of Splinter Cell as everything else) completely absent.

And the B&W filter itself is utterly horrible. It makes it so difficult to see sometimes.
IMO this is directly related to the absence of NVGs (which are another large part of SC gameplay)
Mr. Beland doesn't like to turn on NVGs, so he assumes no one else want to either. Kinda sad really.
But back to my point, binary stealth is a hindrance, VERY unrealistic, mostly boring and when combined with the B&W filter it's frigin annoying.
All in the name of streamlining for those who can't monitor a light meter... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Fear not, I'm not done yet.
Noise. The other half of the equation... or at least was in other SC games.
In SCC if you're not running the enemy can't hear you. Again, removes all the fun of picking the right speed and the immersion quality of having to watch what you walk on. If you want faster stealth, then make Sam's crabwalk speeds faster, but don't only give him one... one that looks gummy anyway.

There's really not much I can say here, because sound plays such little role in SCC that all that can be said is simply that it should play a role.

No dragging bodies: This isn't really dumbing down, its just bad game design. Beland and co didn't think it was necessary but by the time they learned how important it was to the SC formula they were out of time and couldn't implement it.
So not really dumbing down... just stupidity, or lack of understanding the freedom that Splinter Cell players wanted.

No whistling, or any other passive distraction. Same as body dragging. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

2. Sam Fisher is dead:
Interesting choice of words, but here's the real problems.
Sam Fisher was one of the most elite operatives in the USA. He was invisible when no one else could be, he could complete the impossible mission and the enemy wouldn't even know he was there.
But now all that's out the window. Sam Fisher only wants to charge in the front gate and shoot everyone in the face. Or like Vic said, "He wanted them to know he was coming." that doesn't sound much like Fisher to me.

Splinter Cell is more about gameplay then character. So you can't change the gamplay simply by saying the guy your controlling doesn't want to be intelligent anymore. He wants to be an out-of-control rookie because he... wait, FOUND OUT HIS DAUGHTER WAS STILL ALIVE IN THE 2nd MISSION... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Not to mention that Fisher is a man of honor. A professional soldier who respects the code of conduct. Once he left 3rd Echelon he no longer has the fifth freedom thus every time he kills it is murder and he will have to answer for it in a court of law.
I didn't make the Tom Clancy brand, but when you stamp in on your box things like ^ this are more important than things like this. (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/ffximage/pacino_wideweb__470x314,2.jpg)

3. Stealth is dead:
Everything I mention in the 1st topic is whats killing stealth.
All we stealth fans can do nowadays is force ourselves to play stealthily in an action game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

4. Conviction is not Splinter Cell: Does it have Sam Fisher? Yes. Does it have him involve STEALTHILY infiltrating enemy positions? Yes. Can he hide in shadows and remain undetected? Yes. So there, SCC is a SC title...a slimmer, toned down, ****ed off one. All you listed, aside from Sam the man himself is optional in most high class action games.
The thing that separated Splinter Cell from other games was the way in which it did stealth.
But all the details and variables that made it so great are absent in SCC.
The SCC formula has a long way to go before it can fully earn the Splinter Cell name.

But hey, this is just my opinion.
Cheers buddy, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Knot3D]

Hi shobhit,


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
- so kindly bear in mind the storyline of conviction.

Now, this more personal story with its Hollywood infused presentation might draw in some people, but it's also
THE factor which was made to cater to this game design ; the game design wasn't accustomed for the sake of the new story.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
- True the games mission design ( my biggest gripe about conviction) forces you into confrontations

So, the nature of this storyline results in a more narrow and a more linear game design. It becomes more like the EA movie franchise
games with their linear set piece levels ; it's like a narrow funnel with a singular focus. Sure, there might be some alternate paths
in the physical leveldesign, but it all leads towards a forced showdown. It feels very much that its these gun-ho showdowns which are made
to make the game a bit more difficult while the challenge should be in the stealth part instead.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
- Impossible. Sam and Chuck cannot die. This is exactly the problem. Making the protagonist virtually untouchable, makes him more 1 dimensional.
It leaves no or little room for individual interpretation by the gamer himself, both story-wise and in how he plays it out.( forced kills for examples ).


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
- he is now HIGHLY MOTIVATED by personal reasons to go Ninja-murderer on people. This is exactly the 1 dimensional self centered "hero"
which is enforced upon us. He's not a soldier following NSA orders, but he's become a slave of his vow to take revenge ; compulsive revenge without
room for sparing lives of whomever comes in his way.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
- i know, i know they shouldnt be aware of us in the 1st place This is the 0 or 1 binary aspect of this game design. They threw out the premise
where the enemy could grow to suspect something ; it doesn't leave room for a gradient 'grey area' of levels of suspicion.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
- Does it have Sam Fisher? Yes. It may have the same man with practically the same skills, but it's all about how we use a tool ; a tool might
be the same, but it's all about how we use the tool which make worlds difference, good or bad.

Basically, I love the sped up more aggressive style as well. However, these new aspects have been done justice in only the Deniable Ops part of the game ;
exactly because, Deniable Ops doesn't funnel the player as much down a narrow choice path as the Story campaign does. It doesn't get dragged down
into forced shootouts to make up for lack of stealth challenge nor extremely linear level designs of the Story campaign.

Sam's story campaign is really the weakest link of the Conviction package. Sam's leverage might have grown in SC, but the enemy AI and enemy efficiency haven't grown proportionally along with that. That is what makes Sam's campaign disproportionate in the stealth challenge aspect, coupled with the more narrow linear nature of the way the game has been designed.

Personally i hope, the next SC game takes Deniable Ops as its blue print but there should be some structural improvements.

[Andre202]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Hi

Hi. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


I have been going though the forums, both here and on other sites and have come across things like "Dumbed down"..."Sam Fisher is dead"...."Conviction is not a splinter cell game!"..."Stealth is dead".
Well I don't see only the lines "it's dumbed down" or so. I am reading the whole post and the most people have a good reason to say this.


The Gamers and fans are actually condemning the designers for trying to experiment with a new kind of stealth gameplay, for making stealth faster and for allowing the player choice. The same team that earlier made SC1 a true stealth gem with it's realistic take on espionage minus the all the verbal diarrhea (Im looking at you Metal Gear solid!).
It isn't the same team. Mathieu Ferland isn't there, Clint Hocking the script writer isn't there too and some other went to other studios. There is no problem in trying a new approach of Stealth but the thing is that Stealth is now very limited which is why I don't understand where you are seeing any choice in this game. There isn't as much possible in this game as in the previous Splinter Cell titles. It's pretty linear and doesn't give as much options.


Inspite of the so called "dramatic" changes the designers have managed to retain the best aspects of Splinter cell. How you ask? well the core gameplay is still STRONGLY about stealth. The major problem in the game was of mission design and certain design design choices which FORCED you into head-on conflicts and definitely are weaknesses in an otherwise brilliant game.
The fluid gameplay is actually pretty cool but in some aspects of the gameplay Stealth has to be dumbed down so this fluid gameplay doesn't get frustrating. Big example is the Sound in the game. It isn't that important anymore how noisy you are since you are not able to change your speed while crouched so the cover system gets a high advantage. It feels fluid because there isn't any guards who would say: "Hey, I heard something!"
Fluid Gameplay is possible in older SC titles too, but in sense of Stealth. You can see Walkthrough videos where people do their objectives in a short amount of time. They move at the right time and they stop at the right time. Since you can change your speed dynamically it feels pretty fluid but the ears of the guards prevents you to go on full speed. Nevertheless you can sneak faster then in older SCs then in SCC.
The franchise is about being Stealthy but the Designers have the decision how SCC should be and how you are supposed to play that game. It's predatory but not that much panterish and predatory then old SCs. Why? Just the "Closer then Ever" animation made you feel like you are the predator, you have the choice of letting the guard go, KO him or Kill him. This feeling is nearly non existent in SCC and as you mentioned you are often forced to kill guards. You call that choice? Well then I have another definition of choice. My playstyle requires more then the gameplay of SCC offers and there are a lot more Stealth gamers who feel the same.


1. Dumbed down: Because it is easier to aim and shoot? because it is easier to take out guards with CQB? Lack of features like whistling and body hiding? well why would anyone complaint about your character being more empowered?
It's easier to shoot and to aim. That's actually good but then you have to balance the game that it doesn't fall to much into a shooter. There was a reason why the aiming was so akward in other SCs, so you don't play it as if it was a shooter. Now with better aiming and so on you have to improve the AI too and not that you can kill them easily. There is a scale where Stealth needs to be heavier in a genre called Stealth Action. With better aiming Action got more heavier and so there needs to be a counter weight.
Being able to do CQB isn't really the problem though you can use it although you are six feet from the guard and often the guards don't defend themself when you are in front of them.


Sam is not a govt operative hes outside the usual ROE he doesnt care about leaving dead bodies here and there..and the designers decision to remove the move body option has stream-lined the play! The earlier games FORCED you to hide the bodies because you were not sposed to be there or leave any trace but here he's a rogue agent people! sure the added feature would have been nice but if you really wanna hide bodies take the guy hostage and kill him in the shadows.
As in the previous games Sam is in a dangerous area where it's one against an "army". He is outnumbered and that's why he should stay low profil. Don't do anything that would attract attention. You are not the superhero. You are Sam a normal human who is trained for such situations. The game always gave you the feeling that Sam is a professional but still a human and that was so interesting playing such a character. They game feels believable and more realistic then any other. This isn't the case with Conviction though.
First two games did forced you sometimes that you are not allowed to kill or that cannot leave any possible trace. With SCCT this changed, it's an option as a lot of other features get an option in SCCT. This, again, isn't the case with SCC because it doesn't give you much more options. It only allows you to do things that makes sense. Which explains why cannot jumb where you want. There aren't much possibilities to distract guards without using gadgets or the weapon.


The way the game plays is totally up to you you can go rambo (and get killed BTW) you can go stealth-action hybrid (silent kill a couple..ME 3..wait for backup and pick em off 1 by 1) or do it the complete panther way of emptying a room..or NOT emptying it and silently vanishing. Now whistle sure would have been welcome but I frankly do not miss it that much. So the designers have removed some features from the original series to keep in line with games over all theme of Sam not giving a damn...so kindly bear in mind the storyline of conviction. I will address those who think that it does not require strategy in my 3rd argument below.
The biggest plus for the old SCC was that you have "unlimited" options. You can take the chair and hit a police with the chair. Take a cupboard and push it in front of a door so noone can come in or throw something (for example a stone) to distract the guards. The new SCC limits you in your playstyle. That's pretty much logical. The more options you have the more various gameplay you have and the more people can be attracted and play in their own style. So if you remove Stealth features the outcome is pretty obvious.
There are a lot of elements I am sure you are not even thinking of. Infiltration means gathering information so it would be good if you actually could use computers or hack them to get more information in E-Mails or whatever.
Ask yourself the question, is it really up to the player how stealthy he is or is it up to the features that are given to player he can use to be stealthy? Watch some Ghosting Walkthroughs, it isn't possible because of a lot of reasons.


2.Sam Fisher is dead: Impossible. Sam and Chuck cannot die. When people say that old Sam never came back that the "new guy" is a Bourne/Bauer clone it cheeses me off. This is a side of Sam that gamers have never before seen. We know Sam from his days as 3E operative, where he was in highly dangerous and Black ops where he HAD to maintain a low profile and remain undetected because he was gathering information...his prime objectives were to collect data and avoid conflict..thus the gameplay suited the predecessors with the meticulous planning involved and the slow quiet crouch-walk really suited the character and the story.
As above said, he has to stay low profile because he is outnumbered. I don't say anything that they are not allowed to show a Sam that is very angry because his daughter died but Sam is a professional and he is the one who should know that he has to keep his feelings back when doing such jobs. Otherwise he shows another Hollywood character. We have enough of them, we are interested in the Sam Fisher, who is a human with dark humour, a Splinter Cell.
The "enemies" which don't even have to be really enemies are as dangerous as the one Sam faced in previous games.


Here we have a Man who no longer is worried about covering his work because he does not care if the bodies are found or if he leaves a mess..hes ****ed and looking for answers...he is now HIGHLY MOTIVATED by personal reasons to go Ninja-murderer on people. The faster movement speed and the increased agility show that hes impatient and wants answers and yet remains stealthy! He's the same guy!. If you really have a problem with it s much then just make him walk/crouch when near enemies. It's like when the Knife was introduced into SCCT. The character had evolved into a formidable CQB combatant like a real operative should be...he evolvd with time.
It's to much Hollywood cheese. Please take the box and read, it's called: Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Conviction. There isn't anything like Warner Bros. presents or something like that. It's a Tom Clancy game and designers need to look for inspirations like the books of Tom Clancy (Without Remorse?). Look where Tom Clancy gathered inspirations for his books. A realistc, depth, detailed story. SCDA and SCC couldn't deliver but SCDA at least had the depth core gameplay.


3.Stealth is dead: No. It' very much alive and kicking. The major thing to remember here is that stealth, true stealth, in conviction is dependant on HOW you play the game. I am a stealth addict. I will buy any game which has the words "stealth" and "tactical" in one line. I play the game with my own ROE and imagine myself to be Sam and ask how would He have done it.[QUOTE]
I am a Stealth addict too that bad message is that I have 5 times more kills then in all previous SCs together...
The enemies are not really my enemies, they are in corrupted companies and do their job.

[QUOTE]True the games mission design ( my biggest gripe about conviction) forces you into confrontations but in open ended mission like Malta mansion SCC truly shines. Stealth in conviction has become highly tactical and really a powerful aid thanks to the new "confrontational" type of approach in most missions, typically with 6-10 guys sweeping an area for you ( i know, i know they shouldnt be aware of us in the 1st place...which is exactly what I mean by poor mission design) now it is upto you on how to deal with em and in here lies the beauty if Conviction. These engagements can be highly cerebral and fun if you really apply yourself in how best to take these guys out THE STEALTHY WAY. As there are no fixed patrol routes the game really becomes on as you try your best to dispatch guys like only Sam Fisher could. You need to prioritize targets make quick kills and vanish to prey on the other guy. At the beginning of the game the most enemies are standing and don't patrol at all. But at the end everything comes together. Missions get more linear, every guard is searching for you, Splinter Cells are hunting you. Now that sounds frustrating. There wouldn't be as much problems if levels would be designed like the Bank mission in SCCT or the DLC Maps for SCC. The Whitebox Map does come pretty near to an open sandbox level too. Deniable Ops shows how much replay amount the game could have. Especially the DLC Maps where every guard is patrolling and every round they are on another place. If this could be done with the Singleplayer Campaign it would be awesome. Of course above that the depth gameplay and story. They should look where they place the pipes though. I have often the feeling they were made at the end of development so you have a Stealthy way too.


The end result to this type of confrontational stealth is a method of playing which although remains deep in true SC form makes the player think harder and faster. If SCCT and SC1 were Chess, conviction is speed chess. This is a unique stealth gameplay where you are more predatory than before and this is the kind of evolution that the series needed. Now most of you may disaggre saying that it an operative should not be discovered and all that but then again if the mission design wants 5 guys dead then what can you do? well you take the 5 guys OUT WITHOUT BEING DISCOVERED! SCC allows a mixture of old school stealth of no killings and unique silent kill-spree for the imaginative. Stealth here is fun and allows players to come up with creative solutions. Stealth in conviction is just a different form than in the others.
SCC allows a mixture and wants to offer the Stealth and the Actions Fans as much Stealth and Action features as possible. But the dev team won't be able to focuse on doing Stealth feature neither on Action feature which is why they end up with a game that doesn't know what kind of game it is... It cannot offer enough for Stealth and for Action Fans. Though since it started with Stealth the priority of the game should be Stealth as the genre shows first Stealth then Action (Stealth/Action), not Action/Stealth.
Previous games allowed you everything. You can do a mixture, or you only ghost or you only Kill or you only KO every guard...
SCC forces you to do the mixture with it's Special Circumstances...


4. Conviction is not Splinter Cell: Does it have Sam Fisher? Yes. Does it have him involve STEALTHILY infiltrating enemy positions? Yes. Can he hide in shadows and remain undetected? Yes. So there, SCC is a SC title...a slimmer, toned down, ****ed off one.
Conviction could have been it's own game, could built it's own fanbase. It didn't. It broke what was already unstable. Unstable because SCDA couldn't deliver the quality the community is used to. With a "SCCT 2" after SCDA, I am sure Ubi could pull off another SC title selling more then 5 million copies. Conviction has some good features which can be added to the core gameplay of Splinter Cell or "SCCT 2" but please not with the price of losing features loved by the community. A sequel builts on the previous game it doesn't remove much.



In this whole thing I forgot to mention the B/W Filter which shows the quality and depth of SCC. While SCC has only ON/OFF Stealth. The previous one have a dynamic Stealth System. A L&S meter and a Sound meter. I don't know how you can beat such a depth system.

[codenameeric]

Andre, well said!

[shobhit7777777]

Hi. First of all thanks you for an excellent response, there are some amazingly well thought out arguments here. I will first list out the points that I agree on with you guys so we can settle those issues. I will then go on to my own counters and conclusion

1. I agree that the level design is very limited and the AI placement is contrived and does not allow for a more varied gameplay experience. The whole game could have been vastly improved if the developers had a more open world, more approaches and had taken a leaf from SCCTs page of level design

2. I agree that M&E is sometimes ridiculously overpowered (4!! marks!) and terribly unrealistic. Although I always obey a certain ROE which I shall post later to overcome these short comings and make the game enjoyable.

3. I agree that removing the following mechanics was a bad idea...whistling and a sound level monitoring mechanic.

Now for arguments in SCC's defence:

@ Jazz_177:

Binary stealth: I disagree. the stealth AI in SCC is of 3 tiers. 1. Non-Aware (casual) 2. Aware and actively searching 3. Alert of Sam's last position and advancing towards it..and back to tier 2.
This was how it was in the last games albeit with one difference..the level of aggression and the number of guards was much lesser. The almost moments in SCC do exist, the marker on screen goin red from white and indicating your detection status. Besides the quick detection of AI is actually more challenging and realistic. If you are a Merc on guard duty..and are aware that Sam Fisher is on your case and may attack when he sees a fleeting shadow or even glance of Sam he doesnt consider it to be a figment of his imagination or lack of sleep, he immediately calls for backup and investigates the area. Whereas in other games, the AI tended to be a lonely guard....pulling long hours, bored and sleepy so any noise or visual indicator could plausibly dismissed as exhaustion or boredom by the guards. He didnt know or was made aware that someone might try infiltrating that area.

I personally did miss the NVGs but did not mind the B&W filter. Besides the light meter gave way for the lone AI to investigate Sam' position but that does not work out well in SCC's context (see above argument). Also (this is just an in-game argument and not a very strong one) Sam had photoelectric cells on his wet-suit which gave him the data on the amount of ambient light or lack of it, he's just in sweater and cargos in this game. Binary stealth or rather Binary cover is infact very realistic. Ever try hiding or playing cops and robbers with your friends when you were kids in the night? the human eyes can easily discern movement and Human shapes in most dark places unless you really are in a black pool of shadow. The B/W filter also is in accordance with the new "quick, fluid" gameplay design philosophy..as it allows the players instant visual cues if you are hidden or not.
Dragging bodies. I just grabbed a guard and killed him in the shadows...an alternative to dragging. The dragging element was taken out again due to the new design choices..good or bad is a matter of personal opinion although you can technically still hide bodies.

As for whistling or other distractions...again I agree that Sam needed a way to lure single guards apart from just car alarms and switching off lights..whistling really could have improve gameplay so could have wall-tapping or any other distraction and on this fault the designers to leave out an important aspect of stealth gameplay....BTW sticky cams dont count cause they are way to unrealistic...the way you can chuck a golf ball sized object in plain view of the AI is beyond me and I do not use it for realisms sake.

Negative on Character vs gameplay issue especially in an iconic franchise such as the SC series. If you start a completely new franchise the gameplay is given paramount importance and the Character design is then molded around that. The first splinter cell was a realistic no-nonsense stealth/espionage game using hi tech equipment to gather sensitive data. Thus Sam Fisher was moulded into a grizzled, serious, Dark humored and cynical Veteran to better suit the gameplay design and tone. As the popularity grew and Fisher became an icon his personality was cemented with each game and therefore his design became an intricate part of gameplay mechanics. What would you expect if a man such as Sam Fisher was to find out that his daughter was murdered? Most interpretations of his character would have him investigating it and doing so with single minded devotion and ruthlessness that we know Sam has. When he finds out his daughter is alive his vengeance is replaced with a searing longing to meet his Daughter an equally motivating factor in my opinion. As a result Sam is still meticulous but just faster and more deadlier than before...because he wants to get to his objective and fast, he' not investigating a case where he can silently roam about gathering data and evidence..he's on limited time here.

Sam is a professional soldier, so much so that there is a detached coldness towards his victims and he does not hesitate in using force to achieve his objectives, he does not want wanton violence..at least my interpretation doesnt as your views of Sam are based around the way YOU play the game. I play it like a true stealth operative would...quick silent kills and only those that pose an immediate threat. Killing a man in cold blood with a knofe under the fifth freedom or not is still murder, 5th freedom is just a legal "get outta jail card" to protect Sam from any legal ramifications.
Speaking of Tom Clancy the closest fictional counterpart to Sam Fisher is Tom CLancy's John Clark. Do read Without Remorse which is sort of a more realistic SCC! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Like I said the game can be really enjoyed and can be very challenging if YOU choose to play it that barring the idiotic level and mission design. I still stand by my words that the stealth mechanics conviction are solid. I will post my ROE after this and show you that SCC is even more hardcore than previous titles.

Any way thanks for your opinion and an excellent debate Jazz!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Knot3D

I disagree. Any good game which has focuses on narrative must also make a game design which conforms to that story. Especially AAA titles like SCC. Now The storyline cant be blamed for MISSION AND LEVEL DESIGN. The story line just provides a backdrop, it adds meat to the characters and provides motivation to the protagonist. The whole game plot could have been the same but with a vastly improves level design doing away with COD style shootouts. Just drop me in an area with multiple approaches bot on the ground, under ground and vertically and let me decide how to go about it. True the horrendous shootouts are forces, contrived and really infuriating but where SCC really shines is in some missions where the player is given more choice (even though I could have done with a more unrestricted and open experience).
True..overpowered characters do loose their meat but in this case the game tries to give Sam a personal motivation and bringing to light another dimension of his persona so instead of making Sam 1D it makes him more believable and you can relate to him. Earlier interpretations showed him as a professional..this design shows a more elemental part of Sam which ties in with the design philosophy. As for individual interpretation there is a LOT of room. The designers have shown you he's angry but to what extent? is he balls out mad or silently raging..this translates into gameplay choices, mine is a brooding, angry yet a man aware of his limitations impatient Sam so I play all encounters as silently as I can without using M&E or exotic moves BUT I kill all bad guys cause I believe that's what Sam would do..he doesnt want to leave any opposition behind that could cause trouble later cuz that's the man he is Thorough, tactical and not much into risks. SO character interpretation is heavily dependant on gameplay style. Hes not a slave neither does he have a pathological compulsion to kill people. That is YOUR intepretation of Sam. The designers have just set the mood i.e Rage you have filled out Sam's psyche with your own interpretation of Sam. So it is a matter of POV rather than poor character development.
As for Binary aspect I have answered that (succesfully I hope!) in the above paras.
I agree that Deniable ops is more SC than the story mode. If the SP missions had played out like that..then WOW! And yes the designers have done a **** poor job at executing the story and should probably shoot the level designers. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Well, I would like to conclude by saying that the core gameplay aspects of Conviction are rock solid. And belive that if you take it's gameplay add..
1. Distraction
2. Better open ended, Sandbox style levels
3. sound meter
you will have the best SC experiences to date
and I still think that SCC has earned it's stripe as a SC title. Ninja on guys!

[shobhit7777777]

@Andre

Hi http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The core team remains the same doesnt it?

Like I said, stream lining it doesnt make it dumb..it only makes it more challenging to be stealthy and ultimately rewarding!
I agree with your gripe regarding sound but it is a minor issue...move slowly and you will notice that it feels more realistic! Also the core remains the same, yes you are faster so where's the problem in that? as long you can move silently at a good speed it's great. The CQB kills in fact are not as fast as those LIGHTNING STABS in SCCT..I really miss the knife!!. True that the designers have botched up several missions and levels by just throwing Sam into an environment with a squad of guards, there are not as many "infiltration" mission's as I'd like. But these segments are cool to as you become the ultimate hunter plus these levels are really challenging. But overall I also have major gripes about the level design.
You feel like a panther here because in SCC stalking and killing guards is actually encouraged. The movement speed and animations are all there to make you feel like a jungle cat.

In SCCT the closer than ever animation (probably the best animation sequence EVER and the main reason I bought SCCT) is in fact indicative of the gameplay style of SCCT..i.e a focus on NOT killing the guard but rather silently tailing him and either killing him or letting him go or just knocking him out.
What exaclty is your playstyle? because in SCC due to mission design you cannot always choose NOT to take a life. SO yes in that sense it does become limited, but what i'm talking bout is the core gameplay in SCC

Shadow-hiding->silent stalking->making kill->vanishing->shadow hiding

it remains true to the SC formula of remaining undetected but unfortunately due to level design it is not properly exploited...cue the Iraq level.

Yes, Sam is almost always infiltrating a heavily guarded installations and more often than not the guards are aware that Sam might attack any moment. Precisely why Sam has become more dangerous himself. In previous games he was infiltrating guarded areas where though they were alert they were not aware of Sam per se and as such Sam could be more relaxed and could move slowly and avoid killing the bore,tired and sleepy guard at the desk. In SCC he's infiltrating places where the enemies are well trained mercs and 3E operatives who KNOW that Sam is Coming and therefore are better prepared that is why the emphasis is more on whittling down the numbers of the enemy one-by-one so that Sam maintains superiority. He does not want to go ahead to another section of the building knowing that there are armed guys who can be a credible threat to him in the adjacent room...he will, in trademark Fisher style take the guys out to ensure he isnt out numbered or outflanked..which is Tactically sound. Also the density of enemies in SCC is higher than in SCCT hence Sam has to take pre-emptive action whereas in CT he could easily bypass the lone patrolling guard. CT=intelligence gathering SCC=direct action and sabotage. I hope that explains the change in Sam's operational style. As for the game not being realistic refer to my ROE to make it so.

Old SCC was a FANTASTIC IDEA and I sorely wished that they would have gone head with it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
And yes the player has the choice...it's your gameplay style that matter...and I find ghosting walkthrough as unrealistic as they exploit blindspots within the game and destroy immersion..ghostin for the sake of ghostin is not mycup of tea. Yes you are rigt, Infiltration atleast SC style requires data gathering and hacking PCs but the designers thanks to horrible mission design couldnt implement that.


I dont think Sam would be in the mood for cracking jokes when he just realised that his Daughter's back from the dead, That Grimmsdottir is playing him and that within 24 hours thers gonna be an EMP strike on washington. Not the most imaginative of stories agreed but it definitely casts a pale shadow on Sam Fisher. The very fact that his emotions are in conflict with his logic further shed light on his mortality and humanity. It may sound like hollywood cheese especially the :revenge-rogue agent part" but I wanted to see an unhinged Sam since a long time....the man behind the cold ice mask of grim humor..it's a noce change. And BTW Without remorse is my favourite clancy novel...it's more splinter cell than splinter cell novels http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif!!

You are right about the mission designs in the SP campaign I have major beefs with it too. If the mission design would have incorporated more avenues of approach and elements of social stealth, the washington monuments level could have been LEGENDARY if the crowd was utilized and the agents were not wearin "G-MAN" suit and had crosses over their head. I would have preferred that Sam remains in the shadows and the player has to ID 3 agents mingling in the corwd and then devise a way to stealthily approach them!! you know observe for tell tale signs like reaching for ear..scanning the crowd from a seated postion looking suspicious...etc.

Finally I agree with you on most parts but still beleive that SCC is a SC title and STEALTH LIVES ON!!
Thanks for sharing man!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[shobhit7777777]

My Custom ROE for SCC:

1. Take into account the ambient lighting and the enemies peripheral vision or atleast the vision he would have if he were a live Human i.e is 100-120 degrees. So stay hidden within his cone (the game does not take peripheral vision into account so it's self-imposed) and move slowly when in or near it. Really builds tension and makes you think that you really are infiltrating somplace. Imagine that ur in that area as a guard and ask yourself.."if I was patrolling that area would I be able to see Sam or not?" and then proceed. Challenging..it is.

2. Avoid using moves like hanging off ledges and pulling people off of em...falling bodies make a **** load of noise (again this restriction is self imposed and does not make a difference in the gameplay) and moving fast when shimmying or hangin on pipes...go slow like a real Sam would..stealth is key, even if it is imaginary

3. Dont M&E more than two fellows....Two double taps is very realistic and possible so no worries on that...but MEing 4 guys is bull**** and very non stealthy! Also strictly avoid shooting chandeliers..such hollywood-COD bull**** is not Fisher's style...nice and quite all the way. Try taking out guards one by one or see if you can avoid them all together. Play on realistic. Also....if ther are two guys behind a door within 5 yards..make sure you double tap em because in a real world they would get alerted and investigate soo keeping in line with the realism theme here..Try to get them within 3 seconds of opening the door. Avoid M&E from hanging posn or upside down on pipes....Headshot from that position..not happening.

4. Avoid throwing sticky cams in direct line of sight...not realistic the Guards would notice same goes for mines and other tools. Infact avoid explosives completely and use them as a last resort. Stick to the realism theme.

5. Just ask yourself this question "If I were a guard here and Fisher was doing this there would I notice him?" doesnt matter what the AI vision cone or detection radius is, try making it as realitic as possible.

6. Avoid moving cover to cover as in the real world sliding is very noisy and raises a lot of dust...not exactly invisible. Move when you're out of the guards peripheral vision and crouch walk over to the cover.

7 Take out the guards one by one in the shadows or grab them and quickly drag them into the dark areas...be as stealthy as possible and us M&E for the guard pairs.

Note: these restrictions are self imposed and aim to make the game harder and more realistic. In some situations thanks to the level design you may have to get into the odd firefight now and again.

[shobhit7777777]

@Sameer
Thanks man! it's hard to find SC fans as most of my friends are put off by the whole steath thing..well their loss!

I hope you dont mind my asking, are you Indian or part-Indian...cuz Sameer is a an Indian name and I was just wondering as I am Indian and was curious.
Thanks

[H.A.R.M.s]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
1. Dumbed down: Because it is easier to aim and shoot? because it is easier to take out guards with CQB? Lack of features like whistling and body hiding? well why would anyone complaint about your character being more empowered? Sam is not a govt operative hes outside the usual ROE he doesnt care about leaving dead bodies here and there.. There's no consenquence for your recklessness. That's why SC:C is dumbed down. All variabes you had to bear in mind in previous games are gone. If you're detected, well, you're gonna shoot men plus dog. Blow some appropriately placed barrels. Kill 3 NPCs with autoshoot feature.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
2.Sam Fisher is dead: Impossible. Possible.

"Sam Fisher you knew is dead, America killed him..." Sound familiar?


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
3.Stealth is dead: No. It' very much alive and kicking. Actually, it's just muscle reflex of freshly slayed animal. Unexperienced individuals can't see the difference.

[shobhit7777777]

@ Harms
Are we 6 year old kids that we need to be punished for our actions in a video game? Does absence of serious ramifications or penalties warrant your recklessnes? why in the first place are you being reckless? So let me guess just because the game is NOT over when you foul up and get detected it is dumbed down. Who's asking you to use the M&E feature? there'e a choice here...use feature you like and dont use the ones you dont like.
Oh a quote from the game, that makes a very strong argument.
Actually the muscle reflex is of gamer's who have not evolved and still cling to previous games like a security blanket. INexperienced individuals can't see the difference
Unlike some, I appreciate changes in a series when it gets stale and needs refreshing.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Knot3D

I disagree. Any good game which has focuses on narrative must also make a game design which conforms to that story. I am 100% sure this storyline was solely written for this change of game design. Trust me, the idea for a game change was there first, not the story. Ubi already planned this before SC DA. This is how publisher/marketing works ; they wanted to attract a wider audience, which means change of game, which in turn requires a change of story.

Also, the result of a personal story is one which is very narrow. As if it all revolves around Sam. Sure, halfway through... the plot changes to unravel this Megido coup d'etat, but the transition doesn't come off in a believable manner, especially since Sam just keeps on going down that narrow killing road. Now... in your startpost you pretty much trashed the Metal Gear games for storyline, but those are actually the ones which make the player think on a wider scope about politics, power struggles and life ; with Snake the protagonist as merely the starting point.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
That is YOUR intepretation of Sam. Sorry, but nope. The game basically trimmed down options which leaves for a very limited set of options ingame ; thus, the resulting action the player can take as Sam, define his persona in a more narrow, limited and 1 dimensional persona.

Andre put it into better words than I did :
Fluid Gameplay is possible in older SC titles too, but in sense of Stealth. You can see Walkthrough videos where people do their objectives in a short amount of time. They move at the right time and they stop at the right time. Since you can change your speed dynamically it feels pretty fluid but the ears of the guards prevents you to go on full speed. Nevertheless you can sneak faster then in older SCs then in SCC. The franchise is about being Stealthy but the Designers have the decision how SCC should be and how you are supposed to play that game. It's predatory but not that much panterish and predatory then old SCs. Why? Just the "Closer then Ever" animation made you feel like you are the predator, you have the choice of letting the guard go, KO him or Kill him. This feeling is nearly non existent in SCC and as you mentioned you are often forced to kill guards. You call that choice? Well then I have another definition of choice. My playstyle requires more then the gameplay of SCC offers and there are a lot more Stealth gamers who feel the same.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
As for Binary aspect I have answered that (succesfully I hope!) in the above paras. Not a convincing argument imo. Look, the things which constitute a realistic picture, a realistic scenario which would also translate into fun stealth gameplay are : subtle parameters, gray-scale differences between levels of suspicion and resulting counter actions.

Conviction left out those vital inbetweens which would enrich the gameplay. Why ? Well, mostly because I think Ubi isn't able to pull off the features to cater for stealth gameplay with lots of subtleties in gameplay scenarios and how they play out : gray scale parameters like enemy AI depth of field vision, gradient fall off vision in darkness, the ability to recognize out of place silhouettes, recognition of reflection AND the competence to take logical counter action to a shift in any of those parameters.

In a sense, SC PT still has the enemy AI with the sharpest senses. Those guys would turn around on a dime, whenever they thought they heard something..and their suspicion would gradually fade away when Sam kept a low profile.

Again...Sam's efficiency may have grown in Conviction, but the enemy guards' abilities hasn't grown with that in proportion ; the result is a skewed gameplay leverage. Enemies still lack any coherent collective memory ( they only react whenever they find one of their killed buddies ) and they basically still walk around like headless chickens without proper search and destroy tactics.

If only the enemy guards were able to traverse and flank in proportionate way to Sam's abilities, THEN there might have been a chance for tense aggro stealth. But fact is, it's not there.

The player has so much leverage, it's basically a non-challenge.

It is also Metal Gear which has a real military advisor for the enemy AI programming ; and they actually succeed in having this AI which has collective memory to some extent ( with the limit of the PS2 RAM as the only limiting factor ) and they employ really convincing sweep and destry, flanking tactics. So, in that important sense, MGS is more and better proportionate to the abilities of the player character.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
and I still think that SCC has earned it's stripe as a SC title. Ninja on guys! Not really. Deniable Ops shows some potential as a bite-sized stealth snack, but main story mode campaign is still the weakest link of the entire stealth game genre.

[H.A.R.M.s]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@ Harms
Are we 6 year old kids that we need to be punished for our actions in a video game? Does absence of serious ramifications or penalties warrant your recklessnes? why in the first place are you being reckless? So let me guess just because the game is NOT over when you foul up and get detected it is dumbed down. Who's asking you to use the M&E feature? there'e a choice here...use feature you like and dont use the ones you dont like.
Oh a quote from the game, that makes a very strong argument.
Actually the muscle reflex is of gamer's who have not evolved and still cling to previous games like a security blanket. INexperienced individuals can't see the difference
Unlike some, I appreciate changes in a series when it gets stale and needs refreshing. First of all, stop insulting. I didn't insult you, nor was that my intention.

Second: please read more carefully what I wrote. I didn't even mention punishment, I mentioned CONSEQUENCE. In previous games, when Sam was detected, entire level went in higher state of readiness. You could still beat the level, but it would be harder.

And that's why, along with some other things, SC:C is dumbed down. You don't have to be concerned about your actions, even if you participate in heavy shootout in one area it doesn't have any influence in other.

Sure you don't have to use any of new features, but game is built around them, and beating game in old-school style is masochistic hard labour.

Splinter Cell was never stale, it's brain-washing tehnique developement team (apparently successfully) used for justification of changes. Real reason was mentioned in earlier interviews, one that big percentage of gamers never finished games because they were (note this) harder.

[shobhit7777777]

@Knot 3D.

I disagree. The events after DA were taken into account and this led to the evolution of Sam Fisher as more of a Rogue Agent on the run from a by the books professional operative for the government. The original plot (old SCC) involved Sam going rogue and trying to protect Grimmsdottir from some internal conspiracy. This was a more personal motivation for Sam and a clue as to the direction SC was heading in terms of storyline, with the overhaul of old SCCs design they stuck with that facet of the plot, what if Sam is motivated through emotional means and has gone off the radar? what would he behave and be like? what would be the change in his attitude? This led to the development of a more aggressive playstyle and ultimately the crafting of the current storyline which would provide Sam the reason to go uber-murderer. The very fact Ubi wanted an open world Social stealth game shows that they were planning to refresh a series which was going stale with it's High point being SCCT. The way they have executed the storyline is without argument bad. I dont believe that the addition of of more options, though certainly welcome, would have helped in character development. The ability to hide bodies and whistle would lend more tactical options but in terms of character development I'd prefer more dialogue between Sam and NPCs, different approaches to a problem (this allows the player to assign his or her own interpretations to Sam fisher by way of their gameplay style). The player can run rampant to portray a Badass Sam on a revenge trip or sneaky silent killer to portray a cold Sam whos focused solely on the objective. That is the beauty of video games, they depend on the Players to define their characters unlike in the other medium. Sam Fisher is a vessel, when I'm playing SCC I imagine Sam to be angry and ruthless at the same time calm and professional...my gameplay reflects that....I generally aim to clear all rooms i.e. take out all AI by being uber-stealthy. Now I understand that the new gameplay imposes a lot of restrictions especially in terms of leaving guys alive and absence of non-lethal takedowns but I guess the devs did not feel these features necessary and I hope that they do add it to the next installment
Now when we say that Sam has become "predatory" I imply that he has better capabilites in terms of whittling down groups of enemies one by one as compared to the silent stalking of the loner and th bypass of guards in the previous instalments.
Believe me when I say that I want realistic gameplay in stealth games but I also realsie the development time and effort required to model all the Human senses in game with reasonable accuracy while taking into account the ambient light, terrain, and position of the player in relation to the AI. That is somewhere in the future. As for the binary stealth I say again, there are levels to it. The AI is either casual or patrolling on suspicious action it investigates and on location it engages and also loses track of the player. This AI is much superior to the Ai present previous games. The aesthetic reasons behind such detection levels is like I have said before...the guards in SCC are supposed to be more reactive and smarter as this game requires a quicker pace...to balance the players amazing mobility the AI has been given a much shorter fuse. AS for an asymmetric AI in SCC, well I think that the AI for the most part does a good job of fixing your last location and flanking it aggressively. I would liek to know what do you consider a "good" search pattern in an urban environment or a ware house or any indoor location? I havent played the prvious MGS series but tried the latest instalment and while found myself loving certain aspects of the game like the camo patterns and index but hating enemy AI in the game...it was mind-numbingly stupid and not a semblance of intelligence was noticeable. But if you are talking about previous installments, I guess I shall take your word. Speaking of MGS, I thrashed MGSs storyline for being shoved in your face from the getgo...from the ridiculous names to the nebulous plotline and the constant socio-political messages. We are well-read and intelligent people and well aware of the facts of life, do not need a message on the sociology or war from a video game...the messages could have been subtler and I would have appreciated it. Back to AI. The AI does maintain the the previous 3 tier detection system but its more subtle and harder to notice. Do experiment with the AI in-game....make a noise, run, open a window or switch of some lights the casual AI will be spooked into investigate mode...fire off a couple of shots and the 3rd stage kicks in. The engine cant handle all the variables that would make for a true stealth experience...besides if you do take into account all the factors that affect some ones visibility bot visual and aural then stealth in-game then hiding in shadows the beloved tactic of all SC players would become useless as in real world conditions you would need a completely dark pool of shadow to hide in much less move around in. So it's always a balance between realism and fun. I consider you gripe against the AIs detection system a moot point. Although I would really like some Aural sensitivity on the AI.
I again maintain my position that SCC is SC and in someways superior to it's predecessors. This is how STEALTH-ACTION s done.

[shobhit7777777]

@Harms
Sorry man but you did come off as a bit snarky on your first post. Well, I apologise if I was too harsh and lets continue our debate without being mean towards each other..agreed?

"Does absence of serious ramifications or penalties warrant your recklessnes?"
The enemies barricaded entrances and wore armor..this makes them harder to engage..this is a ramification of earlier careless action by the player and is used by the designers to "punish the player" to maintain the style of gameplay that they would like...although you can go against it but it makes the game harder.

Now I agree that having a tense shootout within earshot of other enemies in around a different part of the level would arouse suspicion at the least...but imagine you are in section one with 10 enemies and foul up and engage in a shootout...consequentially backup should arrive from every corner of the map as it is well within detection but this is not the case as this destroys the pace of the game, makes it unplayable and puts severe strain on the engine. So somethings are not feasible and you have to cut it some slack. Also if you do start a firefight the reaction to it is overwhelming and generally leads to death.

Now this stumps me....
"Sure you don't have to use any of new features, but game is built around them, and beating game in old-school style is masochistic hard labour"
You have major gripes about the design changes but yet when I offer ways to play the game old-school stealth style you complain that it would be to much hard work, now given that you feel that SC mechanics were never stale I'd imagine that you would enjoy it playing old school style. Trust me, I played the game using only 2 M&E at a time, silent kills and no "hanging on a pipe-shoot-chandelier-chuck frag" moments. It is really fun! The game really comes into its own because when you apply old-school rules with the new mechanics it is just awesome! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I was never brainwashed. I was initially in the SCC hate club...I gave it a chance and realised that it is an awesome game that offers something else than it's predecessors. It took me two months to finally buy the game after dissapointing gameplay videos and I'm glad that I bought it.
That's the best part of the game..you can CHOOSE not to get into firefights and do ridiculous 4 M&Es.
Looking forward to your opinion. No hard feelings.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Knot 3D.

I disagree. The events after DA were taken into account and this led to the evolution of Sam Fisher as more of a Rogue Agent on the run from a by the books professional operative for the government. Seriously...Ubisoft is a company and they cater for whichever demographic their marketeers estimate and guess, they can make most newfound money off.
So, they create a game type which fits that demographic... and subsequently, such a game change requires a change of backstory. Kids and fans may think as if the story is always handled like some holy Bible to which game design is accustomed to but that's really not the case. Some fans just let themselves get all too much 'enchanted' by the backdrop story as if those events dictate the game design. Not the case. It's really the other way around.

SCC's development started right after completion of Chaos Theory back in 2005. CT sold millions, but corporate greed wants more and more. So they got wind of Hollywood and TV succes stories such as 24, Bourne and such ; thus Ubi's marketing aim found a new demographic ; people who have less time and less patience and who are more in it, for quick bite sized action thrills.

Since Ferland was still in the team at that time, he wanted to retain stealth, but into something radically different to accomodate the new demographic aim as well : hence the 2007 social stealth approach. So, this required them, to alter the storyline drastically right after CT. This was all pre planned and from that planning SC DA's story was developed as the connecting story bridge to the fugitive social stealth concept. I'm sorry to say it, but if you think the story backdrops dictate the game design, that's a very naive mistake to make.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
The player can run rampant to portray a Badass Sam on a revenge trip or sneaky silent killer to portray a cold Sam whos focused solely on the objective. That is the beauty of video games, they depend on the Players to define their characters unlike in the other medium. Sam Fisher is a vessel We just outlined the facts which state the broader range of possibilities Sam had in previous games. You can't deny the fact either, that the game leads up towards these narrow objectives which leave no room for different approaches than a killing spree. Factually, the range of playstyles is incredibly smaller/narrower in Conviction....please don't tell me you think of running through the levels like a Master Chief is a viable and fun option in a stealth game.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
I would liek to know what do you consider a "good" search pattern in an urban environment or a ware house or any indoor location? If the player would have more parameters to juggle with, it would already create a more rich scope of enemy reactions. In Conviction, the guards still lack any form of collective memory of past events and even though they sometimes scream "I think he's over there" they still get stuck on the LKP like headless chickens which then turns them into sitting ducks for the player to pick off. They lack any form of self innitiative for thorough coherent sweeps.

Most aggrivating is when the player triggers absolute alert, but the guards in the next room can't chase the player because the game system doesn't allow those enemy units to go beyond their perimeter...sure, they scream "We're not going in there" ... but that's just not believable and it doesn't make for a fun challenge either if the enemy AI just goes into camp mode ambush ; another example of forced shootout showdowns. This game design forces you into that to make game progress without room for alternatives. That is factually, weaker game design.

You should really play MGS3 Subistence. MGS4 looks cool, but it's really the weaker brother of the MGS family. MGS3's story is more tongue in cheek to 60's espionage and the gameplay is the best ; guards actually communicate with oneanother and there's a system in place which affects AI as if they were a true collective memory. Hitman Bloodmoney is another great example of a stealth game with a gradient level of enemy suspicion and enemy AI states ; you said, it can't be done to put those variables and parameters into one single gamedesign, but those other games prove it can.

So, I don't get how you can go on to claim that Conviction offers more possibilities, while it's factually lesser options and a more narrow focus which all lead up to one big mind numbing shootout. Sure, the aggro stealth moves and controls are a fun addition to this bite-sized gameplay loop, but Deniable Ops already proves that the game really gets better as long as it's not forced down a narrow funnel of the set piece events of Sam's story mode.

[codenameeric]

This article (http://gameplaywright.net/?p=1409) and the ones it links to sum up a lot of my feelings about Conviction.

[shobhit7777777]

@Knot3D

I am not debating that Ubisoft aimed to rake in money and target player who hitherto were not interested in this genre. I'm saying that the design overhaul was inevitable and the narrative was leaning towards the present one regardless of the gameplay design at the time. And I have never stated that Narrative is the chief factor regarding gameplay design, although the plot does lead to design influences and the conformity of mechanics to provide a more synergised experience. I guess my arguments tend to sound defensive for Ubisoft and I'd imagine why you'd think me naive, but this is not the case. I give credit where it's due.

I'd Like to post a quote here from codenameeric's article...the one he found online i.e.

"Killing was often easier, often faster, but it wasn’t necessarily Sam Fisher’s way. Sam Fisher was about subtlety and precision, about getting things done through guile and stealth that other, lesser agents would do through brute force alone.

Or, at least, my Sam Fisher was. The many choices you make throughout Chaos Theory are rather like a character-creation routine, sort of like a feature-length version of the character-creation decisions you make early on in Fallout 3 to define your character. My Sam Fisher, in Chaos Theory, grabbed guys into sleeper holds, interrogated them, and then knocked them out. Your Sam Fisher might have silenced enemies with a suppressed pistol shot to the head. Over time, all those kill/spare switch-flips add up to describe a complex character, dangerous but perhaps merciful, wryly superior and with a grim sense of humor. Or they might add up to be just a flat, murderous operative. We were personifying Sam with each pull of the trigger."

I strongly suggest you read the article, even though it does not help my ultimate argument it shows that a person's gameplay style helps them invest in the character. Now I agree that the mission design boils down to narrow corridors and rainbow six vegas-style shootouts..but there the gameplay is not to blame. The chief fault lies within the poor level design. The levels which do have multiple approaches are that much more interesting. As for broader range of possibilites, Ha! all titles till the first two offered the most linear gameplay experiences! Chaos theory changed this with giving Sam more offensive capabilites with the knife and modular attachments, even then head on firefights were only scripted and were a chore, clearly the designers here wanted to reign in you rambo instincts and also there were no firefights in any previous titles that involved Sam going against 4 or more guys. In SCC the player has a much broader range in how he approaches a situation. I'll give you an example, My best friend generally steers clear of Stealth games claiming them to be restrictive, I told him he's a moron for not playing stealth games the right way, the silent way...he'd then ask me to shove it. I introduced him to SCC to see if he'd like it. He did. He had a very unusual style of playing......he'd equip a shotgun, CQB a couple of loners, sneak towards the nearest of the enemy groups fire off a couple of shots and then run like hell...he'd vanish and then again come from a new direction kill a few or set some mines and vanish. This was a complete 180 from my style. I'd sneak in get the loners...wait for the groups to seperate and then go after them one by one. Now, I also know of players that would not even engage most of the guards but take out only those that stood only in the way and posed a genuine threat. The run-gun-hide loop that my friend used was just one of the possibilites to SCC...I do not think that Master chief Sam would do very well in SCC given his mortality and the general numerical superiority of the AI but it sure is nice to have an option of relying on brute force when you're in the mood or just want to try something different. This makes the game infinitely more replayable and broader when compared to it's predecessors. All SCC titles claim to be Stealth-Action but were actually stealth games with an ability to snipe, the closes they came to true stealth action was in SCCT but even then I'd prefer stealth. The depth that you mention was required because the stealth in SCCT was a different breed and hence required more options (whistling, variable speed, moving bodies etc.) stealth in SCC is more Kinetic. It relies on players actively seeking targets rather than silently avoiding them...and I enjoyed BOTH styles! So if you think about, the gameplay possibilities are wider in SCC than in previous titles.
The AI in SCC was pretty good given that it had the tough job of hunting a human player. Once they detect Sam they use team based tactics....two provide cover while the 3rd flanks..when in search mode they divide the gameplay area in predefined quadrants and split up and search the areas with considerable dilligence, so I don't have any gripes with their seek and destroy routines. The reaction of guards to your LKP is actually kind of fun as it allows the player to enter the stealth loop again, it acts like an aggro version of the whistle http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif so it becomes fun out-flanking them and taking them out or vanishing completely. Believe me when I say, that the AI making thorough tactical sweeps is an issue as it requires human like team work and cooperation and a single unified intelligence which right now is very hard to pull off..so this is the closest you'll get.
I addressed the design and technical limitations to having only this sectors AI in alert mode in the previous post. Yes the enemies do tend to get into a ambush mode but to be fair that's to give the player an edge over the AI..even then it is a flaw with the AI but one I can overlook given that it's the best AI in a SC game till date.

Coming to MGS3. I'd really like that. Is that the one that puts in the middle of the jungle and you have to use survival tactics? That's one superb thing about the MGS series they have a novel stealth system which works along with the environmental backdrop and storyline. Is it available for the PS3 (slim)? I was put off the MGS series due to the 4th one.....it was really ridiculously bad on some occasions. Especially the AI....cause a base wide alert and stay invisible for 3 minutes and everything's back to normal. It was really hard to swallow...but i'm hoping MGS3 is different http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Hitman's AI had binary detection believe it or not...the suspicion meter was actually guaged in game through a numerical value index and based on the numbers decide whether the player is detected or not. The AI had "alert, Suspicious" and "shoot" modes...they never came upto 47 and asked him questions regarding his identity or followed the player to investigate. Although this would have been game breakingly difficult to code in the limited time that developers have so they do the best in the time given.
I 100% agree that SCC devolved into a run-of-the-mill cover shooter near the later end of the stages..but it is due to faulty and broken mission and level design rather than the inherent flaws in it's game mechanics. The game earns it's accolades in my books as a worthy successor to SCCT, although I would totally understand your difference of opinion...because I agree with you on most arguments and have noticed Ubi's trend of drastically overhauling gameplay after a couple of iterations of the same gameplay..however in SCCs case I believe that it was more of an evolution or branching out into a new species rather than a complete overhaul as conviction still maintains the series trademark shadow-hugging and general Badassery http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
Eg: of overhauled designs that I feel are inferior to previous iterations- GRAW and R6 vegas
REALLY MISS OGR!

[shobhit7777777]

@codenameeric

The gripes about non lethal takedowns and Sam being a psychopath are clearly unfounded.
Sam has gone through a LOT in the previous games...the news of his Daughter's death, UC work, shooting Lambert..is best friend ad the recent, allegations against him for murdering Lambert and the recent knowledge that his Daughter was "murdered". Given the psychological and emotional Sam has gone within 3 years it is logical that Sam's character evolves into someone more dangerous and unhunged. He becomes angry and frustrated with all the bull**** being fed to him and the deliberate attempts by Anna to get him back into the operations world..Now the Sam I imagine would probably not give two hoots about leaving a trail of dead bodies or carefully knock out and hide guards. A lesser man would probably go postal and perch up in a tower with a sniper rifle and shoot away. But Sam maintains his cool ruthless demeanour throughout. Not once in the game is he shown relishing violence....he never prolongs an an enemies death justt efficiently eliminates them because they stand between him and his Daughter, his emotional connection to the world and this brings out Sam's character as a man who's had enough and just wants to be with his Daughter...his selfish motives are in fact the most Human thing about Sam. Sam has always been the quiet professional, ruthless, efficient and not AVERSE to killing when absolutely necessary. In SCC the lethal takedowns are in line with the no-nonsense approach. He doe not care about another thug..He wants his Daughter and if one guy less betters his odds at reaching her then so be it. He does everything tactically and without remorse and like a true soldier realises that with such uneven odds his best chance is to strike fast and strike silent. It's either them or me. He was never about saving humanity and world peace..,sure his actions did always have a profound affect but at the end of the day he did it like a professional with respect for lives but no aversion to taking them because it is necessary. He was always this stone cold killer inside...who happened to managed to get his dark side on due to the events in his life. This facet of his personality was introduced in SCCT with the Knife and the new CQB moves and the "closer than ever: animation of stalking.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
I strongly suggest you read the article, even though it does not help my ultimate argument it shows that a person's gameplay style helps them invest in the character. I read it and I hope you can also see that this fact, coupled with the trimmed down stealth options as perceived by the writer, cause the kneejerk reaction to this 'new Sam'.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
I'll give you an example, My best friend generally steers clear of Stealth games claiming them to be restrictive, I told him he's a moron for not playing stealth games the right way, the silent way...he'd then ask me to shove it. I introduced him to SCC to see if he'd like it. He did. He had a very unusual style of playing......he'd equip a shotgun, CQB a couple of loners, sneak towards the nearest of the enemy groups fire off a couple of shots and then run like hell...he'd vanish and then again come from a new direction kill a few or set some mines and vanish. Not to offend your friend, but that exactly confirms how we expect a shooter fan to play a stealth game : he goes in gun-ho and instead of jumping around like crazy - 'cause of the lack of a jump at will button - he bounces around the level back & forth while taking quick potshots.

Again, no offense, but in a proper stealth game such a 'tactic' should have the player dead in no time. This again proves, the game simply isn't able to counter the super leverage of SuperSam.

Seems to me, you perceive 'broader options' as having more shades of aggro stealth ways during all out alert mode ; which Conviction basically is at all times.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
The depth that you mention was required because the stealth in SCCT was a different breed and hence required more options (whistling, variable speed, moving bodies etc.) There, to quote yourself : factually, more options in the previous SC's.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
stealth in SCC is more Kinetic. It relies on players actively seeking targets rather than silently avoiding them While the fastpaced moves and controls are great, the fact still stands that the gameplay loop is narrow and shallow once you spot the enemies on the map. There is simply no room or margin for experimentation to fool around with guards ; and this stems directly from the lack of options to lure and distract flocks of guards.

It would help a lot, if enemies were able to traverse the map like Sam can ; only then, the enemy might be able to pose a nice threat and you would have some great stealth action tension. But now... the enemies are just to limited and inept to pose a fun challenge.

The LKP is NOT fun. 99% of the time, it turns the enemy guards into sitting ducks, way too easily to dispose of. Seriously, the articficially imposed limitations on these enemy guards keeps them from succesfully flanking the player ; more than often, they just flare off into dead end outskirts of the map while they instantly 'forget' they were actually part of a sweep & destroy party. This is inexcusible ; tell me WHY, enemy guards in MGS3 on the mere PlayStation 2 are able to pull off more convincing and more efficient sweep & destroy routines.

I'm sorry to say, but in comparison to other stealth games and the expected challenge of a true next gen stealth title, the challenge/fun factor of Conviction just falls incredibly short. The disproportionate leverage the player has, simply makes it too easy and shallow. At its best - which is the Deniable Ops part - can be considered a bite-sized stealth snack for the masses, and nothing more.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:they never came upto 47 and asked him questions regarding his identity or followed the player to investigate. Although this would have been game breakingly difficult to code in the limited time that developers have so they do the best in the time given. Actually, the suspicion meter did just that ; if 47 left too many clues or if he caused too much obvious havoc.

This reminds me, in MGS3 there's some parts of the game in which NPC's will investigate the player in disguise if they suspect something. Looking back ; 2007's fugitive Conviction might have been quirky social stealth, but from the looks of it, it would have been a deeper game with numerous states of suspicion and lots of distraction options as well as environment manipulation which would affect the gameplay structurally.

[codenameeric]

@shobhit7777777

Yes, that's how they rationalize Sam's behaviour. I don't buy it.

SPOILER ALERT...

Perhaps I would have bought it if Sam was fighting to save his daughter or avenge her death, but that's not the case. Very early in the game, Sam finds out Sarah is alive and well.

[Jazz117Volkov]

Sometimes in MGS3, if the NPCs think they see something at a distance they will get out their binoculars and take a closer look. If you're still there they will spot you.

Other then being incredibly easy on anything but the two hardest settings, I don't find much wrong with MGS3.
You can even peek through doors, take care of NPCs without killing or koing them. Brilliant game all round. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
________
To touch on prior subject a little further:

Fisher did not only hide bodies because 3rd Echelon told him too.
It is simply how a professional soldier operates, and he was most certainly that.

The fact that Sam is angry and wants to avenge his daughter and whatnot would not change his entire operating procedure.
He spent twenty years perfecting how to be invisible. Now that he wants revenge, he would use his invisibility skills to hunt those responsible.
Not mindlessly assault everyone in his path. Killing at will, and leaving a tone of bodies in his wake to blow his cover.

[H.A.R.M.s]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Now this stumps me....
"Sure you don't have to use any of new features, but game is built around them, and beating game in old-school style is masochistic hard labour"
You have major gripes about the design changes but yet when I offer ways to play the game old-school stealth style you complain that it would be to much hard work, now given that you feel that SC mechanics were never stale I'd imagine that you would enjoy it playing old school style. Trust me, I played the game using only 2 M&E at a time, silent kills and no "hanging on a pipe-shoot-chandelier-chuck frag" moments. It is really fun! The game really comes into its own because when you apply old-school rules with the new mechanics it is just awesome! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif You can try to beat game old-school, but level designs are clearly made for killing, shooting, butchering. Often you have to kill everybody just to advance. It's not the old school.

One of the biggest things I have against this game is any lack of option. That carnival level is clear example. There are ton (and I mean a ton) of possibilities for distractions in real life. in old games Sam used bottles or some other thing. Here, you have balls, bottles, Ravin' Rabbids and other things in front of you. What can you do? Just shoot.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
The gripes about non lethal takedowns and Sam being a psychopath are clearly unfounded.
Sam has gone through a LOT in the previous games...
...
Given the psychological and emotional Sam has gone within 3 years it is logical that Sam's character evolves into someone more dangerous and unhunged. He becomes angry and frustrated with all the bull**** being fed to him and the deliberate attempts by Anna to get him back into the operations world..Now the Sam I imagine would probably not give two hoots about leaving a trail of dead bodies or carefully knock out and hide guards. You're forgeting that Archer and Kestrel from co-op prologue use the same tehnique and approach. Their daugthers weren't killed. Their best friends weren't shot. Yet, they are same careless psychos Sam is.

Storyline was just adapted to fit new gameplay. Sam wasn't careless even when he was in dark place after Iceland mission in SChttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifA. There is no reason why he should be now.

[shobhit7777777]

@HARMS

It seems that most player, including me have major issues with the level design. The poor choice of the designers in FORCING a confrontational tactics is the major fallacy in SCC. I completely agree with you on this one.
The storyline is adapted to the gameplay and I believe that the narrative has also influenced the gameplay a little. Sam Fisher in SCC was never careless....He's more meticulous and infact more efficient then ever before. Can you give me one instance where Sam in-game is careless or blows his cover without THE PLAYER FOULING UP. I think you are wrong in calling Sam a psycho due to a more confrontational style of gameplay in Conviction, in SCCT and and DA he would silently stalk and stab lone guards in cold blood, he would assassinate guys without a minutes hesitation (Lacerda in SCCT, Nikoladze in SC1, Emile Dufraisne in DA) not because he was a psycho because he had to. The application of measured violence to achieve a valid objective can't be termed as a psychosis. In conviction he never goes out of his way and it is upto the player if he want's to take the guard out or not..though in some levels he is forced to kill the whole room but then he can't ghost past them in those areas (although I sure wuld like the option). Sam has become a more refined killer, and more aggressive but never psychotic or careless. If you think Sam is being careless then maybe you're not playing right. Like I said given the amount of stress Sam's
gone through I think it's understandable that he's become more ruthless. As for Archer and Kestrel..it's logical that the SP core gameplay be extended into other modes. After his daughter's death Sam was not in a happy place and thus opted for a dangerous UC assignment...this was later compounded by his killing of lambert (Lambert's murder is canon). Sam after all is a human being and the constant stress of work, his daughter's loss and his best friends death did make him harder but not a lackadaisical murderer you make him out to be...He's still the same professional albeit with little time for nonsense which is reflected in SCCs gameplay.
Im here defending SCCs core gameplay and not it's storyline or mission design. On the basis of it's interesting blend of stealth-action, and a more agressive,unique form of stealth I consider it an SC title, and like it's predecessors it has added a redreshing take on the stealth genre. I hope that the next title blends the best of SCC and SCCT..with level design and espionage techniques of SCCT and the agressive stealth and M&E of conviction.
Give Conviction a chance...it's not that bad http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[shobhit7777777]

@HARMS

BTW I truly fee that the carnival level could have been one of SCCs most memorable moments had they exploited the environment by allowing a bit of Social stealth similar to old SCC and made the agents less obvious. they really missed out an excellent opportunity to make an interesting, unique and fun mission..instead all we got was a ****-poor..shallow mission. Again the excellent level design murders SCC

[shobhit7777777]

@Knot3D

No offense taken...anyway he's a shooter fan http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
But what I wanted to demonstrate was that the various ways SCC can be played in. BTW he did not play it as I would expect a shooter to. He was quite clever in using the shadows and the environment and did pull of some good surprise attacks. I on the other hand CQB'd two guys and went on ahead to the other part of the level.
And in SCC it IS easy to die and in no way is it encouraged for the player to engage in all out assaults at least on realistic. As for Super Sam, I'd expect a guy like Fisher to have above-Human skills in terms of agility, stealth and combat. He moves fast and climbs like a monkey but I expect Sam to be able to do all that...successive headshots? Yes! He has been trained to do so and I expect to rely on Sam's superior marksmanship during encounter. I always felt slow and lethargic when it came to weapons handling in SCCT and wished that the designer at least take me two quick headshots at a couple of guys five feet away.
Back to broader options. The range of options in previous titles (body hiding, whistling etc.) added a tactical layer to the game..."do I distract him by chucking a bottle or whistle and sneak past him or flank him and and shank him or do I simply sticky shock him and hide the body?" they were tactical options and did not neccesarily lead to wider variety of gameplay styles. You had X number of ways to reach point B but the gameplay style was still always.."KEEP HIDDEN AND NOT ENGAGE". You would not farewell by trying to take a more aggressive approach. In SCC all various GAMEPLAY STYLES are catered for..yes the tactical options are very limited but the gameplay is more open-ended. I perceive the ability to ghost past a group of AI and then annihilate the second group and again sneak past the 3rd group (in any order) as broader options.
You are mistaking SCCTs abundance of (aforementioned) tactical options as a wider gameplay loop. If you strip it down it all comes down to sneak-KO-sneak-hack. So it's unfair to call it shallow..as for distraction...you need to be creative and improvise..open windows,run a around near the enemy,switch off lights,shoot a light,use a car alarm. You can experiment any number of ways!. Sure the whistle is missing but I never said SCC is perfect. (I remember knocking out guards and generally being an anal-pain by chuckin bottles at them in SC1! XD ROFLMAO..the AI would just walk around stupid..LOL!)
The AI does pose a threat...try engaging them in close quarters especially when they outnumber you. The very fact that they all stand back and attack your LKP is testament to Sam's skill http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Seriously I think that the LKP is a great tactical addition but I have noticed that some guard do flank your position and continue sweeps.
In comparison I think SCC is the only true STEALTH-ACTION title that earlier ones claimed to be.
BTW any situation where a person is unnoticed and has an upper hand on the enemy in terms of information immediately lends them a tremendous advantage. So it is no surprise that we feel overpowered most of the time in SCC.

@Jazz_117

Negative. Fisher hid bodies because he was infiltrating heavily guarded and monitored bases and it was tactically sound not leave any signs of his presence. He was paid by 3E to be invisible and also because it was a healthy practice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. In Conviction the general places he finds himself in are neither heavily monitored or patrolled and as a result he does not hide bodies...if they are discovered he would long gone by then. He still maintains his proffesionalism and does not engage in wanton slaughter..Seriously, why does everyone keep saying that? I mean in-game I rarely engage in gunfights and 90% of the time I'm undetected and kill only the immediate threats. Even in the scripted shoot outs Sam is never the belligerent he is always pursued by agents and is forced to adopt a more aggressive and direct approach. I'd like one instance in-game where he mindlessly assaults someone. He still maintains his efficieny and remains silent. Almost the whole game depends upon Sam using stealth to gain the upper hand on his foes. Explain how in any one mission of the game where moving a body significantly reduces his chances of being discovered and I'll have a counter to it.
BTW MGS3 sounds really good..I think I might give it a go. What is the primary stealth element in the game? is it camo based or cover?
Also I really would like to see social stealth and shadow stealth in the next installment of SC a interesting blend of the two. Maybe use social stealth to gain access to certain installations or people and use old-school stealth to infiltrate hi-security compounds and mix the two up.

@Codenameeric
the very fact that his Daughter's alive and he finds out after 3 years is enough to drive him over the edge. The shock and stress of the previous 3 years of not seeing his daughter due to some bull**** conspiracy would drive any guy raging mad. Plus his only chance to meet his daughter is to accomplish the given mission..hence his ruthlessness and speed while going about it.

[Knot3D]

@ shobit

Well, it's cool and all if you find SCC a great game.

Bottom line : To me, it's just too dam easy and some of the gameplay issues it has are simply inexcusable.

Especially for a franchise with an established name.

[Jazz117Volkov]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:

Negative. Fisher hid bodies because he was infiltrating heavily guarded and monitored bases and it was tactically sound not leave any signs of his presence. He was paid by 3E to be invisible and also because it was a healthy practice http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I disagree.
Covering all traces of your being there is good OP for any solo operative. Regardless of whether you're being paid, or out for revenge.

Fisher would remain as invisible as possible, even if he was stealing candy from a shopping mall, he'd still hide the unconscious clerk.

In Conviction the general places he finds himself in are neither heavily monitored or patrolled and as a result he does not hide bodies...if they are discovered he would long gone by then. Not true.
Whitebox is a heavily secure building.
3rd Echelon is possible the most secure compound in an SC game to date.
The White House is... well the White House.
And a couple of the remaining places are crawling with trained mercs on the lookout for anything suspicious.
Any professional soldier would be as cautious and thorough as humanly possible when entering any of the above.
But Conviction has Sam "Wanting the enemy to know he's coming."
It's utterly rediculous.

He still maintains his professionalism and does not engage in wanton slaughter..Seriously, why does everyone keep saying that? I mean in-game I rarely engage in gunfights and 90% of the time I'm undetected and kill only the immediate threats. Even in the scripted shoot outs Sam is never the belligerent he is always pursued by agents and is forced to adopt a more aggressive and direct approach. And as we've said on prior occasions. Us stealth players must force ourselves to play as such.

The tutorial section of the game teaches the player three basic things.
1. Use cover and shadows to stalk prey
2. When in range shoot the enemy in the head
3. When very close use a H2H kill and the game will then kill up to four others for you

...viola, we have our gaming instructions. Continue the game following these principles and you'll have a psychotic Sam with an itchy trigger finger.
Which is what the devs wanted, the entire single player is build around it.

I'd like one instance in-game where he mindlessly assaults someone. He still maintains his efficiency and remains silent. Almost the whole game depends upon Sam using stealth to gain the upper hand on his foes. Explain how in any one mission of the game where moving a body significantly reduces his chances of being discovered and I'll have a counter to it.
Oh, that's an easy one.
- In reality, and Splinter Cell (the way it should be) alerted and searching enemies should be far harder to deal with then calm patrolling ones.
Conviction is balanced to not need to worry about bodies lying around.
Enemies don't really become a bigger threat when searching. The best they can do is run at your LKP ghost anyway.

Bottom line, Conviction would be a better, more realistic game with body carrying, and a severe reality inspired rebalance.


BTW MGS3 sounds really good..I think I might give it a go. I absolutely love it.
The CQC is addictive.
The complexity of the controls can be a little intimidating for a newcomer, but once you get the hang of it you'll find that your abilities in the game are almost limitless.

What is the primary stealth element in the game? is it camo based or cover? I'd say camo, but cover does play large role in the urban environments.

Also I really would like to see social stealth and shadow stealth in the next instalment of SC a interesting blend of the two. Maybe use social stealth to gain access to certain installations or people and use old-school stealth to infiltrate hi-security compounds and mix the two up. Me too. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[shobhit7777777]

Hi I'll just summarise my arguments in a condensed form.

1. Stealth: Stealth is present in SCC albeit one which enables more aggressive action. It is easier for the player to attack stealthily now and brings a shift in the gameplay from passive hiding to active hunting, which is welcome after 5 games of the same mechanics. It is definitely streamlined in terms of tactical options but has been done to increase the pace of the gameplay keeping in tune with the new design. I like this kind of stealth as it feels more powerful than previous iterations.

2. Absence of tactical stealth options:
SCC is wrongly assumed to be dumbed down because of absence of features like whistling and hiding bodies, as if the ability to hide bodies and chuck can's exponentially increases the player's intelligence. SCC offers tactical stealth in a new more aggressive way. In previous installments all the features were geared towards giving the player different options to REMAIN STEALTHY in conviction all the gameplay mechanics have been geared toward making the player ATTACK STEALTHILY. It's more aggressive in application. In SCCT you distract and lure guards to silently move around them to reach your objective.... in SCC you you use agility and CQB to quickly and silently eliminate threats to reach your objective. In SCC tactical gameplay comes in the form of "how best do I clear this room with max speed and stealth so I can plant charges over there?" and each iteration lends it self to different tactics. It's like an interesting puzzle in which you figure out which guards to eliminate first and which 2 guards to M&E to remain undetected. So tactical stealth is present but a faster more aggressive form of it.

Sam Fisher's Characterisation:
A lot of you believe that he's turned into a psycho murderhouse and lost his professionalism and that He should retain his previous operational methods. I disagree. I have long waited for Sam to be truly unleashed. the previous games always felt restrictive in terms of Sam's abilites. Despite of that he still is not a bullet sponge and relies on stealth more than ever before. I understand that he was a professional operative who could leave no tracks so the US could deny involvement but in Conviction, he doesnt need to cover his tracks. He is not worried about causing a political incident and as a result is more worried about taking the targets out as fast as possible than hiding bodies and leaving traces. He is a skilled agent and a dedicated man & at the end of the day, at least I think, He just wants to go back to his Daughter but the whole mission is standing in his way. This explains his new found aggressive tactics he, is in a hurry, but still uses stealth to quickly and safely eliminate his threats and reach his objective. Sure he's been compared to most cliched revenge driven characters but who can blame him. His selfishness and ruthlessness in just getting to his daughter is the most humanising feature of Sam fisher who was previously known to us as a dark humored professional. His fallacy t give in to rage and his dont-give-a-damn attitude towards world affairs give him more flesh than simple wise cracks and binary decision making regarding a thug's life.

[Jazz117Volkov]

What it is to be Sam Fisher:

Forget about Splinter Cell the game, and every sequel. Don't worry about games at all for the moment.
Imagine yourself in a narrow corridor on the 52nd floor of a building in downtown New York. You're wearing appropriately camouflaged clothing to suit the dark atmosphere of your night time insertion.
You've got a suppressed pistol strapped to your leg and a pair of hightech nightvision goggles on your head.
Your suit has Kevlar padding to help save you if the worst should happen.

In front of you is a lone guard. He's carrying an Mp5 SMG and stranded Bluetooth handsfree for communication with HQ.

You follow only feet behind him, your destination, a locked door twenty feet down the hall.
For every step he takes, you take one. For every breath he takes, you take one. You mustn’t make a single unmasked sound. Failure will result in him to turning with suspicion.
If that were to happen the light from his Mp5 would shine on your face. You haven't a place to go, and despite your state of the art equipment, expert training and years of experience you cannot dodge bullets.
All it takes is a single 9mm round from his weapon to penetrate your torso or worse, your head and you'll be pushing up daisies.

If you kill this guy, or maybe just knock him out you're gonna do your best to make sure the other twenty or so fellows like him don't know about it.
But first, lest analyse that: If you knock him out, maybe it won’t happen smoothly, perhaps he will struggle and make a ruckus, alerting the other two guards in the next room anyway. Killing him with bare hands lends the same dilemma.
Using a knife, well that leaves blood trail, one that you’ll have to clean up, otherwise you may as well just shoot him. But that leaves a bullet casing, the loud flop of a corpse, all things you can do without.

So considering you’re the best at what you do, you get to the door without alerting this guy. And you smoothly pick the lock, while dealing with the pressure of the patrolling guard down the hall and the couple in the next room.

Maybe on the way out you’ll opt for an air duct or window to save the hassle of the corridor again.
________
Pretty dramatic I know. But that’s what Sam Fisher did for ten years. It was his life.
Now that he’s out for vengeance he’s playing as a more brutal character, but it’s still the same game with the same rules. One slip up and it’s all over…

That is Splinter Cell. Or rather Splinter Cell as it should be.
What the dev team should be thinking about when putting Tom Clancy on the box.

[shobhit7777777]

OP practice for an operative on deniable ops deep in enemy territory trying to remain undetected....not for Sam Fisher who's trying to quickly get to the bottom of all this to be re-united with his daughter. Worst case scenario when Body is found: The realisation that Sam fisher is here and consequent soiling of pants... but where exactly, they dont know...the ramifications of a discovered body..heightened alert and a search party IF Sam Fisher, in his latest incarnation has left anybody alive to be the search party. Even in SCCT it was not imperative to leave bodies hidden as it required a patrolling guard to run into the bodies to trigger an alarm...only our OCD led us to hide the bodies. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. Besides it seems more realistic that Sam Fisher kills the guards and leaves the area to avoid the threats than pick up and move bodies which is a hard thing to do and if you've tried it...is very non-silent. It exponentially increases the chance of being caught especially in areas where the enemy density is as high as in SCC. In previous games the guard density was few and far apart and it was generally worth the trouble to hide the bodies. Realistically whether you hide bodies or not due to security check ins, any dicrepancy in guard routines is immediately noted within a short duration and that window does not last long. Here's a remedy I use to satiate my OCD for stealth...drag guards and kill em in shadows or switch off lights where youve killed them. Now I consider chokeholding a guy and moving him to be more realistic than dragging bodies in a high-risk area. So this fulfills the ability to drag bodies.

1. Whitebox.....The areas we infiltrate have no camera minitors or high guard desnity

2. 3rd echelon is already in a state of lockdown when we infiltrate it

3. the white house is in complete disarray and Sam's primary objective is to hurry and save the president OPSEC goes out the window.

4. All places do not have laser grids and CCTV cams and o backup patrols..besides this re-enforces Sam's new Aggro stealth style of quickly and silently whittling down their numbers. His "take-no-chances" approach and neutralize every threat approach is perfectly warranted in such situations.

Now, you can CHOOSE to play as the devs want you to play or you can choose to play with your unique style. My style most definitely does not have a psycho Sam. The devs just wanted a more aggressive Sam using stealth to take out targets not kill the planet. True the devs made horrendous mistakes in level and mission design (diwaniya anyone) but largely you can still retain the old Sam you remember.

Still waiting for in-game examples regarding hiding bodies.

If you want reality refer to my ROE

Now Offtopic:

Is the MGS3 camera TP or fixed? anyway I think I'll pick it up. I hope it's harder than MGS4.

Social stealth blending does sound cool
Thanks for the input man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Is the MGS3 camera TP or fixed? anyway I think I'll pick it up. I hope it's harder than MGS4. You should get MGS3 Subsistence ; in this version you can toggle between the classic MGS overhead cam and the more modern 3rd person free cam.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
The devs just wanted a more aggressive Sam using stealth to take out targets not kill the planet. True the devs made horrendous mistakes in level and mission design (diwaniya anyone) ..and the HUGE mistake to NOT let the enemy NPC capability grow along with aggro stealth. Result : an incredibly easy and somewhat shallow game which already lacks many features one would expect from a next gen stealth game.

[Jazz117Volkov]

Ah, glad you asked about MGS3. It reminded me about something important.
Be sure to purchase Metal Gear Solid 3: Subsistence (http://au.ps2.ign.com/articles/694/694781p1.html) NOT Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater (http://au.ps2.ign.com/articles/566/566279p1.html)
Subsistence has a camera much like Splinter Cell, whereas Snake Eater (the 1st release) is a fixed camera.
Also, Subsistence has a bunch of other neat extras.

Anyway, back to topic: read my above post and you'll get a better idea of how I view things. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[shobhit7777777]

You are moments away from seeing your daughter who you though was dead, you just realised that you've been played by the best friend that you murdered 3 years ago and you are now being used as a pawn in someone else's war. You are angry. But determined to see this through to see Sarah again. Only one EMP generator and a squad of Mercs stand in your way as you observe them from your high perch in the warehouse..you single out a lone guard patrolling the adjacent alley way..you check the sightlines, you check the shadows..you quickly descend into the dark pool..the mercs can't see well, their natural night vision washed out by their tac-lights on their MP-5s. You silently but surely stalk the loner...focusing not on him but using peripheral vision
to home in..he remembers his first lesson in stalking from hi stint in the SEALs.."Never stare at the victim for too long..they can sense it due to a preternatural sixth sense" echoes the DIs words..he steps closer to his intended victim, he's done this a million times "act fast and hard..after you have committed to the stalk focus on the victims body language to determine his path"...you are a few feet from him..you can smell his aftershave.."when attacking do so without hesitation and with a burst of violence and speed"..You are near enough to read the tag on his T-shirt...Muscle memory kicks in...years of training and practical use, you arms move of your own accord, your eyes focused on the victim..there is a brief spurt of violence and a tiny gasp and the guard slumps down..his throat crushed, dead. It takes less than 3 seconds from stalk to kill. You check the rest. your undetected. training kicks in and you single out the nearest target...a loner bored and ambling around the empty rooms, you know what to do you glide between the shadows, through shades of gray and black towards that weary lone merc. You're like a shark circling it's prey in the murky depths of darkness. The violence is repeated and another man loses his life in the empty silence of the warehouse. The last two remain. Talking animatedly about something..something about video games...their weapons carelessly cradled and their eyes washed out by the surrounding lamps, tactical error on their part you sneak in within range taking cover behind a decrepit wall..you calm your breath..get up and take aim towards the nearest of the two....training dictates every following action and the muscles obediently follow. The mercs head fills the sight picture and you gently squeeze the trigger..the gun jumps in your hand but you cant hear anything except blood rushing...you see the impact of the slug and the small pink puff..Kill..a slight shift of the hands brings the second merc's face into view..he's shocked...an O forming his lips...he's reaching for his gun...you aim for the T-zone...right in the centre of the nose straight into the medulla oblongata..time perform bullet surgery. You fire again and the merc drops dead, the hearing comes back. You walk over to the generator and plant the C-4..one step closer.

This is Sam Fisher, these are his capabilities. Not how it should be or how it can be but simply how Sam Fisher, ex-Navy SEAL, ex-splinter cell IS. A deadly efficient silent killer.

[shobhit7777777]

@jazz
Loved the way you presented your case http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
I aped it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'll make sure I get subsistence. Thanks for the tips bout MGS3 I'd like to give it another chance, but the 4th one really put me off.

I guess we'll always differ on our interpretations regarding Sam Fisher but here's to good fan fic!
cheers!!
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[PsychoNite]

im gonna chime in about the "Sam Fisher is dead" thing...

he isnt dead, but his personality is much different. Conviction portrays Sam as a heartless killer who has no regard for human like, whereas throughout the series SC1 to DA he said multiple times that he doesnt like killing, but if he has no other option that he will.

i think in 1 of the CT promos he says something like "i take no joy in killing, but if i have to i wont hesitate" or something like that. the large quantity of people in conviction you kill, given the older gameplay i have seen plenty of ways of sneaking past them without needing to kill them. the issue is the dev team was so excited about their cool action addons (M&E) to conviction that they wanted to show them off as much as possible.

im fine with having the new features AS LONG AS the devs work on level design in the way that you can play through however you choose, and conviction didnt do that at all. they should take a page outof hitman blood money because you literally could play through any way you wanted to

[shobhit7777777]

Sam is not portrayed as a heartless killer in any cutscene or any in-game event. His respect for Human life has been stressed on and shown in the previous instalments. His persona as a stable but professional guy has already been established. We know that Sam does not necessarily enjoy taking lives. In conviction they have focused on revealing Sam's more dangerous and dark side, and with good reason. There are several situations forced upon the player by the designers that force Sam to kill his way out but more often than not in conviction you have the choice to refrain from killing. True Sam only kills when he has to and some situations do count as do-or-die. When Sam is in a Hangar with a squad of well armed guys he knows that he needs to thin them out a little to better his chances and aggressively pursues them. But when he is infiltrating 3E HQ or the Malta mansion he has several choices regarding the fate of NPCs. It ultimately boils down to the choices you make as Sam. In Chaos theory his primary objective would be intel gathering and almost all the time the only person in his way would be a lonely bored patrolling guard. Here he was of no threat to Sam and engaging him did not make sense so I would distract the guard and sneak psat, In conviction most of the time there is a platoon of Guys on the alert and looking for Sam so he needs to be faster quicker and more ruthless. It's us or them.
Regardless of my above argument in defense of Sam's characterization I 100% agree with you on SCCs atrocious level and mission design. The devs were too caught up in the whole LKP and M&E hype and forgot to add variety in the missions. If the level design had taken into account our fondness of sneaking about and not always engaging people just for the sake of it, SCC would have been a far superior SC title.
I think you have nailed SCCs major flaw in regards to mission design. Could not have said it better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

[PsychoNite]

i had fun with it, but the MASSIVE swap from espionage to a moshpit of death was a horrible mistake on Ubi's part.

[Redemption_x]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Sam is not portrayed as a heartless killer in any cutscene or any in-game event. His respect for Human life has been stressed on and shown in the previous instalments. His persona as a stable but professional guy has already been established. We know that Sam does not necessarily enjoy taking lives. In conviction they have focused on revealing Sam's more dangerous and dark side, and with good reason. There are several situations forced upon the player by the designers that force Sam to kill his way out but more often than not in conviction you have the choice to refrain from killing. True Sam only kills when he has to and some situations do count as do-or-die. When Sam is in a Hangar with a squad of well armed guys he knows that he needs to thin them out a little to better his chances and aggressively pursues them. But when he is infiltrating 3E HQ or the Malta mansion he has several choices regarding the fate of NPCs. It ultimately boils down to the choices you make as Sam. In Chaos theory his primary objective would be intel gathering and almost all the time the only person in his way would be a lonely bored patrolling guard. Here he was of no threat to Sam and engaging him did not make sense so I would distract the guard and sneak psat, In conviction most of the time there is a platoon of Guys on the alert and looking for Sam so he needs to be faster quicker and more ruthless. It's us or them.
Regardless of my above argument in defense of Sam's characterization I 100% agree with you on SCCs atrocious level and mission design. The devs were too caught up in the whole LKP and M&E hype and forgot to add variety in the missions. If the level design had taken into account our fondness of sneaking about and not always engaging people just for the sake of it, SCC would have been a far superior SC title.
I think you have nailed SCCs major flaw in regards to mission design. Could not have said it better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

You seem to be forgetting this is a Tom Clancy game. In real life, you're not going to be able to take out a small army by yourself. Because everytime you get into a firefight or engage the enemy, you're taking a risk. So I really doubt Sam would try to "thin" them out, because 1) that's him risking his life and 2) By taking them out in the first place, he's risking alerting the entire base, which completely goes against what he wants.

Not only was the levels just atrocious, but the enemy placement was pathetic too. For some reason they'd always either have one guy all by himself, just to have a group of convinietly 3 NPC's talking to themselves, setting you up for M&E. Or you'd walk into a room and they're already waiting for you behind counters, no matter how stealthy you were before.


I never felt like the enemies were a real threat at anytime in this game. Back in CT, each enemy actually felt intimidating in trying to get pass him.

[shobhit7777777]

In real life there would be NO split jumps, NO sticky cam's, No wireless hacking of closed networked computers in a missile silo, NO easy and silent kills with a knife without blood, NO Splinter cell. So you're forgetting that SCC is a game and the primary objective of a gme is to provide entertainment. Real life espionage is far from entertaining. Of course in real life you wouldn't be able to hidden 2 feet from a guard just because your'e in the shadows. In fact in real life stealth is used to gain a tactical advantage over the enemy before carrying out an assault. SC like stealth does not carry over to the real world. A SF operative like Sam uses stealth to eliminate the lone guards and uses his awesome pistol marksmanship to rapidly kill the others. For him it's a bigger risk to leave an alerted squad behind him when he can take them out with silently and with no fuss. Sure during the game there are several moments where I decide to ghost past guards in an attempt to avoid unecessary contacts. In most levels in SCC you find a squad of guards between Sam and the objective, this leaves Fisher(player) this forces us to engage them. How you do it is upto you and your skills.
And YES the mission design was horrible and contrived with all enemy placement made to facilitate M&E. I think i'll make this my signature. I agree with you all that level design damn near murdered the game for all SC fans. In fact it already has.
As for Sam, he's not on an intelligence gathering mission, he's not thinking what happens if he gets detected...he's thinking what to do to increase my chances out of getting out of this one. He has to plant charges on a generator and has limited time, he sees a trio of guards in the area, it's tactically prudent to eliminate the threats to increase survival chances cuz if you manage to sneak past them and blow up the generator then they will be on a more alert state. Sam is thinking strike hard, strike fast, strike silent and strike first. He knows that stealth is a weapon that gives him advantage over enemies. If he can get away by not killing anyone he won't if he thinks that this guy is a threat or is in his way...He takes him out. Given Sam's talent at silent operations he doesnt run the risk of getting into gunfights cause he's already killed or incapacitated the gun toters.
As for AI...the SCC AI is more suited to the aggro stealth style. the player has more options to eleminate the guards that's why you find the AI in squads and always getting on high alert when something goes outta the ordinary, the move faster and generally are better than SCCTs AI in searching an area. SCCT had a more slower approach and the AI was appropriate for that style . The guards were casual and generally lone sentries and usually and had a fitting lackadaisical attitude given that they were lone tired sentries on long guard shifts. Thus it was entirely plausible to sneak past him...he was not an immediate threat, he was not part of an alert squad that was on the verge of a major operation and had to maintain operational effectiveness. Besides I didnt find ANY guards in any SC game threatening because I was the hidden one and had tactical advantage. The AI in both games suits the respective gameplay styles.
If they are waiting for you behind the doors and manage to ambush you then whose fault is that? use the sonar goggles or the snake cam, flank the guards though the windows or the ceiling, drop down and snap their necks. See stealthy even on high alert!

[shobhit7777777]

Again as a reminder I'd Like to point out that I believe that SCC deserves the "splinter cell: title due to it's CORE GAMEPLAY MECHANICS:

1. Higher agility and speed
2. Mark and Execute
3. Aggressive CQB takedowns
4. Shadow Stealth

Because it adds new dimensions to the previous stealth gameplay, giving stealth a new face.

I also would like to remind you that I agree with you on the following:

1. Poor level design
2. Over-use of M&E
3. lack of options like whistling etc.

So in upcoming arguments please counter the existing gameplay mechanics and not the points I agree on with you. Also refrain from branding stealth as just "ghosting", it that is just moving from point A to B with stealth same as Killing guard A to guard Z with stealth. Branding stealth as not engaging guards is just narrow and restrictive, it is simply saying that Gandhi is infiltrating high security compounds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Again as a reminder I'd Like to point out that I believe that SCC deserves the "splinter cell: title due to it's CORE GAMEPLAY MECHANICS:

1. Higher agility and speed
2. Mark and Execute
3. Aggressive CQB takedowns
4. Shadow Stealth

Because it adds new dimensions to the previous stealth gameplay, giving stealth a new face.

I also would like to remind you that I agree with you on the following:

1. Poor level design
2. Over-use of M&E
3. lack of options like whistling etc.

So in upcoming arguments please counter the existing gameplay mechanics and not the points I agree on with you. Also refrain from branding stealth as just "ghosting", it that is just moving from point A to B with stealth same as Killing guard A to guard Z with stealth. Branding stealth as not engaging guards is just narrow and restrictive, it is simply saying that Gandhi is infiltrating high security compounds http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

This might be your thread, but you really need to see you're not THE authority on what stealth gaming is for each and everyone. This is really not about my opinion or preferences or anyone's specific individual opinion for that matter ; The fact is, a lot of people are NOT happy with current state of affairs and supposedly wider audience approach hasn't raked in substantial numbers.

1. Sure, the new agile moves and cover 2 cover are great ; it's the one component which makes Deniable Ops shine. On the flip side, loss of variable speed is a big loss too.
2. M & E ; a bit of an overpowered fad : RPG's had this system in turnbased mode already for ages and now every 3rd person action game is aping it.
3. Aggressive CQC : cool stuff for upclose stealth, but it becomes a bit shallow if enemies aren't able to counter it at all. Loss of less than lethal options doesn't help matters either.

4. AI ; inexcusably inept to pose a fun challenge within this new gameplay concept. We're not debating the old AI here, because this is about AI which needs to meet fun challenge requirements for a new aggro stealth concept. Saying old AI was bad too, is comparing apples to oranges and besides ; the old AI was coded on the Xbox 1 as the base platform.

Besides ; From developer statements we know for fact the AI has been artificially kept dim as well ;
this is the nasty effect of publisher politics. Other games within the same genre have confirmed and proven this can really be done better.

Enemy AI which does not pursue the player and simply reverts to camping is inexcusable : for a game concept which is supposed to be incredibly dynamic, this aspect immediately kills any dynamic. Even multi player shooter fans will agree that fighting a group of campers is simply not fun.

Anyone who claims this SCC AI is fun and challenging is either an incredibly unskilled gamer, or just in it for an easy quick gaming outlet.

5. poor level to gameplay design ; the storyline is THE reason and excuse for it ? oh gimme a break haha

6. A characterization of Sam Fisher with which a big portion of the fanbase cannot relate to anymore ; the storyline is THE reason and excuse for it ? oh gimme a break haha

Bottom line is : Splinter Cell was a franchise with a reputation. It was a name which was selling Xbox units and shader model 3 graphics cards bigtime. A name which was loathed but respected and acknowledged by people who don't like stealth.

And look at it now.... Assassin's Creed has clearly been allocated major development resources and this game has come to oblivion in the budget bins. This is not about my opinion, this is simply the sad state of SC affairs.

[Redemption_x]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
In real life there would be NO split jumps, NO sticky cam's, No wireless hacking of closed networked computers in a missile silo, NO easy and silent kills with a knife without blood, NO Splinter cell. So you're forgetting that SCC is a game and the primary objective of a gme is to provide entertainment. Real life espionage is far from entertaining. Of course in real life you wouldn't be able to hidden 2 feet from a guard just because your'e in the shadows. In fact in real life stealth is used to gain a tactical advantage over the enemy before carrying out an assault. SC like stealth does not carry over to the real world. A SF operative like Sam uses stealth to eliminate the lone guards and uses his awesome pistol marksmanship to rapidly kill the others. For him it's a bigger risk to leave an alerted squad behind him when he can take them out with silently and with no fuss. Sure during the game there are several moments where I decide to ghost past guards in an attempt to avoid unecessary contacts. In most levels in SCC you find a squad of guards between Sam and the objective, this leaves Fisher(player) this forces us to engage them. How you do it is upto you and your skills.
And YES the mission design was horrible and contrived with all enemy placement made to facilitate M&E. I think i'll make this my signature. I agree with you all that level design damn near murdered the game for all SC fans. In fact it already has.
As for Sam, he's not on an intelligence gathering mission, he's not thinking what happens if he gets detected...he's thinking what to do to increase my chances out of getting out of this one. He has to plant charges on a generator and has limited time, he sees a trio of guards in the area, it's tactically prudent to eliminate the threats to increase survival chances cuz if you manage to sneak past them and blow up the generator then they will be on a more alert state. Sam is thinking strike hard, strike fast, strike silent and strike first. He knows that stealth is a weapon that gives him advantage over enemies. If he can get away by not killing anyone he won't if he thinks that this guy is a threat or is in his way...He takes him out. Given Sam's talent at silent operations he doesnt run the risk of getting into gunfights cause he's already killed or incapacitated the gun toters.
As for AI...the SCC AI is more suited to the aggro stealth style. the player has more options to eleminate the guards that's why you find the AI in squads and always getting on high alert when something goes outta the ordinary, the move faster and generally are better than SCCTs AI in searching an area. SCCT had a more slower approach and the AI was appropriate for that style . The guards were casual and generally lone sentries and usually and had a fitting lackadaisical attitude given that they were lone tired sentries on long guard shifts. Thus it was entirely plausible to sneak past him...he was not an immediate threat, he was not part of an alert squad that was on the verge of a major operation and had to maintain operational effectiveness. Besides I didnt find ANY guards in any SC game threatening because I was the hidden one and had tactical advantage. The AI in both games suits the respective gameplay styles.
If they are waiting for you behind the doors and manage to ambush you then whose fault is that? use the sonar goggles or the snake cam, flank the guards though the windows or the ceiling, drop down and snap their necks. See stealthy even on high alert!

Really? The split jump is impossible to do? Try looking up split jump in youtube.

Also, you think it's impossible for the government to invent a sticky cam? Its an object that has a camera on it. WOW that's definitely science fiction, right?!

A knife to the back of the kidneys - very little blood. Also, a knife to the back of the skill/spine, yet again - very little blood. It's how the navy seals are trained to kill people via knife.

Yet again you forget this is a Tom Clancy game and its obvious you just want to turn it into another COD game. Not everything in the Tom Clancy universe is necessarily invented yet, but it remains plausible. A stickycam, if by some miracle hasn't been invented yet - im sure it will be, very soon. Sonic googles on the other hand, are just entirely impossible.

The AI's in this game better? The Ai in this game are atrocious and don't search at all. The fact that you would even suggest they're better than CT's is laughable. All they would do is everytime they heard the slightest disturbance, would start screaming Sam fisher, go hide behind the nearest box and start cursing you out 50 thousand times. We get it. you can curse - you're cool. But the Guards in CT actually made things seem realistic. Because in a realistic scenario, you can't sound the base alarm everytime you think someone or something is there. It would breach operational integrity. Imagine if a US army sentry sounded the base alarm everytime he heard a "sound" coming from outside. It'd be loads of trouble for him if he kept doing it without any results.

And that's just is - there is only a FEW times where you can completely ghost the level. But you already admitted that the level design and guard placement is atrocious, so no need to go further into that.

"A SF operative like Sam uses stealth to eliminate the lone guards and uses his awesome pistol marksmanship to rapidly kill the others. For him it's a bigger risk to leave an alerted squad behind him when he can take them out with silently and with no fuss."

Yet again - There is NO reason to engage them if they aren't directly in your way. Because everytime you do, you risk getting killed/injured, you risk the integrity of the mission, aka alerting the entire base. But in this game - you're constantly forced to engage in firefights. There isn't multiple ways to deal with the enemies. Theres - Do I shoot him in the head with my rifle/pistol, CQB, or blow them up. There is no ghosting in this game. Either way - you're being drawn into fire fight, which is something that should NOT be in a Splinter cell game.

Also - can you please start using paragraphs? It'd make understanding your argument a million times easier.

[EziosBladeZ]

Originally posted by sameer_monier:
i am so glad that there are still people who LOVE the game, enjoy it, and even take some of their time to visit the forum and participate, that is really great

Also i very much agree with you

I agree with you. I wasn't a fan before. Ok honest I never played one before but when this one came out I sat and played it for days http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I loved it. I went out and got all the other games and sat and enjoyed them to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[sameer_monier]

Originally posted by SangueKitten:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sameer_monier:
i am so glad that there are still people who LOVE the game, enjoy it, and even take some of their time to visit the forum and participate, that is really great

Also i very much agree with you

I agree with you. I wasn't a fan before. Ok honest I never played one before but when this one came out I sat and played it for days http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I loved it. I went out and got all the other games and sat and enjoyed them to. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am glad you didn't just play C, but went back and played all the series, and the best thing is that you enjoy all the series http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[shobhit7777777]

@Knot3D
I realise that I'm not THE authority on stealth gaming and have never claimed to be. I do not claim to know it all and make sweeping statements like "SCC sucks!". "SCC is not how stealth SHOULD BE!!". I appreciate the new elements and also realise SCCs faults. I believe in sharing my opinion, listening to other's, conceding when logical and generally debating the issue. I don't know why you would say something like this.
Also, This IS about YOUR and everyone's opinion on the game. Your thoughts on SCC are of paramount importance as are mine or any other SC fan's, that is why we have a forum and this ongoing debate. You bring forward your views and I, mine. I'm interested in as to why some of the fans do not like SCC as a whole and why there's such a negative opinion about it as I too am a hardcore stealth and SC fan but I enjoyed SCCs new take on stealth. Im here just to share my opinions and listen to others.

1. Variable speed: the question is would really fit with SCCs new stealth style? How does variable speed make the game more fun or really adds to the gameplay, when the same effect can be achieved with two modes. These are the quesions devs ask themselves when designing a game to create a more focused and polished game due to time constraints. I'm sure that there will be plenty of additions in the next instalment. The same can be said of several things.

2. M&E: The designer wanted to give the player the ability to quickly take down opponents to keep in line with the faster game pace. They wanted players to feel like Sam and Sam sure would be able to cap two guys in the head rapid fast! Now you may say that 4 marks is too much and hanging from a pipe and shooting a guy in the head is unrealistic but then you can choose to limit your marks and take standing/crouch shots only. SCC awards the stealthy player with M&E which the player can tactically use thus making the gameplay smarter in contrast to previous claims of dumbing it down. I think SCCs take on M&E is more advanced and unique than other games and in fact is the first to be used in any game.

4. AI...I have said the same thing on a post in another thread but to no avail. Is the AI in SCC more advanced? yes, that is obvious due to it being a recent game. The AI...as you put it is more fine tuned for aggro stealth. Now the developers wont get a completely overhauled AI right in one game..there are bound to be minor flaws...these, hopefully, can be adressed in the second part.

As for dev statements, I don't know much so can't really comment on it, but you could perhaps post the link?

Is the AI fun? Yes most definitely! It is fun to play around with them...are they challenging? Not much.

5. Uhm, I kinda didn't get what you were saying. Are you saying that the storyline was involved in the poor level design? or that it wasn't?

6. Have you conducted a poll of the SC gamer demographic? No. Then how can YOU be the Authority on what the fanbase relates to? If you can't relate to Sam Fisher in SCC then is it prudent to deem this version a false and empty one? You sure know a lot about the inner workings of a multimillion dollar company and it's business strategy. I mean of course Ubi's ignoring SC...I mean they spent 3 years in designing it and re-designing it with a huge pile of money sinking into it, where other companies would have just abandoned the project, Ubi stuck it out and tried a new approach, a new take. Sure they were aiming for a larger demographic but they still retained the best parts of SC and Sam, they gave us an all new take on stealth and didn't just make an uninspired SCCT clone which would have satiated the current fans but still boiled in its stagnating stew of the same gameplay. Ubi, you crazy bastards what were ye thinking? Trying to create an innovative blend of stealth action when you could have added a couple of more features to SCCT and cut the creativity & chucked it at us.

[shobhit7777777]

@Redemption_X

The splinter cell split jump is not feasible for trained ex-Navy SEAL agents. If there are any true splinter cell split jumps on the net kindly post the link as kids doing a "split wall climb" is not split jumping.

A sticky cam is not a tactical option for stealth operations....A sensitive piece of equipment as a camera being launched at the velocities as it was in-game make's a lot of noise and may attract unwarranted attention. It may also damage the camera and there is no universal adhesive which can attach to any an all surfaces after being launched with such force. The sticky cam is a cool and inventive gadget, also plausible but not realistic. It is ironic how you defend a gadget on one hand and dismiss another due it being too "futuristic". Sonar goggles though currently do not exist but are a real possibility.
Salvage use sonar arrays to penetrate ship hulls and literally paint pictures on monitors, are you saying that his tech can't be succesfuly applied in the field? Ultra sonic waves have been in use for decades now. Submarines use active sonar pings to determine all sorts of data. As for Tom Clancy well he came up with a little gadget called the "Heartbeat sensor". You are simply biased towards SCC, and simply bash it without any good reason and that is why you have trashed an utterly plausible tech like the Sonar goggles.
Knife takedowns: Knife takedowns are simply the last resort for real world SF units. They are taught basic sentry silencing techniques which involve strength and violence involve massive blood loss on the victims's part. They teach SF units to first strike the vicitm's nerve centres in the neck to induce shock and then severe the carotid arteries with death following in 5-20 seconds, It's called the brachial stun and throat cut technique. The kidney stab you're talking about is just to induce shock so the soldier can then cut the victim's throat. All Knife techniques taught require massive blood loss but ensure a silent kill within 20 seconds. This is reality. It is harsh and the victim struggles, it is not so clean as in the games. Kindly read about the military and it's tactics before posting and accepting the games version as the word of god.
The SEALs and other units prefer suppressed pistols to take out sentries. The knife is a last resort. As a side note SEAL units suppressed pistols called "hush-puppies" to silence guard dogs and sentries in the Vietnam war. They were one of the first users in that conflict.

The AI in this game is better for the new gameplay style and aloso you cannot get away with much before the AI is alerted, this represents a more realistic outcome. The Ai in SCC is not as jumpy as you would lead us to believe. You can cause distraction and the gaurds will investigate it albeit much more intelligently than in previous installments. Also imagine if the guard keeps hearing sounds and sees silhouettes. If he keeps hearing a whistle. Besides before investigating he will call it in with a senior or command. It's good practice just like the cops do before approaching the scene of activity. Do bear in mind that in SC there is no "Alarm" system with blazing horns and sirens. The areas Sam Fisher infiltrates in SCC do not accurately represent a military base or a heavily guarded security compound. There are no tiered alarms here.

Of course there is no reason to engage them. It totally depends on how you play the encounter. Even some forced gunfughts can be made into stealth encounters if you're good enough. If you truly are good at stealth as you think you are then you can vanish and then silently hunt the guards SC style or sneak past them. You are so attached to the previous series's gameplay style that you simply cannot use stealth as a viable tool during firefights, all you want are docile lone sentries whom you can easily circum-navigate. "Ghosting"..is entirely possible and I beleive that there are several videos on youtube and other sites, infact there's some here in the forum if Im right. "ghosting" is not my cup of tea but I dislike it when players bash a game because it does not make ghosting easier. If ghosting is so damn hard in SCC I thought that you would enjoy the challenege, I mean you're a true SC hardcore silent whisper fan right? But if anything becomes harder it stops becoming fun for you. Jeez gimme a break with all this "previous SC games were harder", I found ALL SC games fun and challenging, but not HARD. ALL titles were relatively easy, SCCT SCC SCPT SC1 and DA. They were fun, they were challenging but not once did I find them hard. You want to play hard stealth games? try Death to Spies and Commandos. That'll put things in perspective. BTW you can ghost in SCC but in a different way...

Neutralize all enemies you encounter in a stealthy way. Getting detected while doing so is a breach of SCC ghosting laws.
Also, could you please start READING through my posts rather than skimming through it, it would make your arguments better and waste less of my time repeating things.

[Seosan]

Here's why I don't consider it Splinter Cell:

In response to the growing use of sophisticated digital encryption to conceal potential threats to the national security of the United States, the NSA has ushered forth a new dawn of intelligence-gathering techniques. This top-secret initiative is dubbed Third Echelon. Denied to exist by the U.S. government, Third Echelon deploys elite intelligence-gathering units consisting of a lone field operative supported by a remote team. Like a sliver of glass, a Splinter Cell is small, sharp, and nearly invisible.

Sam Fisher sneaking and killing people left and right as he pleases in his own, revenge-driven adventures is cheesy spin-off material, not Splinter Cell. Is there still stealth? Sure. Is it Splinter Cell? Nope.

That is what is up.

[shobhit7777777]

@Seosan

Well said.
But Sam is no longer a 3E agent or in an intelligence gathering mission. He's killing not on his own accord, it's us doing the killing Sam's just the weapon. Cheesy storyline? Ya, it is. I'd prefer old SCCs (2007) plot where Sam comes out of hiding to help Grim and find put what's up in 3E. Splinter Cell is now defined by it's characteristic stealth gameplay and recurring characters. So it does qualify.

[codenameeric]

Originally posted by Seosan:
In response to the growing use of sophisticated digital encryption to conceal potential threats to the national security of the United States, the NSA has ushered forth a new dawn of intelligence-gathering techniques. This top-secret initiative is dubbed Third Echelon. Denied to exist by the U.S. government, Third Echelon deploys elite intelligence-gathering units consisting of a lone field operative supported by a remote team. Like a sliver of glass, a Splinter Cell is small, sharp, and nearly invisible.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Knot3D
I realise that I'm not THE authority on stealth gaming and have never claimed to be.Im here just to share my opinions and listen to others. I'm sorry, but it came off a bit as if you're trying to have others refrain from stating aspacts of the game which are structurally vital to the point of their individual argument & opinion.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Then how can YOU be the Authority on what the fanbase relates to? I'm not and I didn't claim it either. All I'm trying to convey in the context of this thread topic is this :
Splinter Cell used to be an acknowledged household name, by both fans and foes of the genre. It was one of those franchises which pushed a lot of Xbox unit sales. Xbox green was basically synonymous with the three green dots.

As a old time forum poster I have seen a lot of passionate SC gamers leave and a handful of gamers from other genre preferences come in. Where is the passion of days of old ?
Try to look me in the proverbial eyes and tell me with a straight face that the passion for this franchise is just as alive and kicking as it was in the pre-Double Agent days.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
1. Variable speed: the question is would really fit with SCCs new stealth style? Well duh... Use your imagination for some good gameplay concepts ; variable speed would be a vital key aspect to a gradient sound/noise gauge. It would add more depth to the gameplay if you have to vary your speed in approaching an enemy. Because otherwise you can just go on a running rampage and KO them before they even have a proper chance to react.

It's especially those analogue controls which gives players a sense of accomplishment because they have to get a feel for timing and how and when to speed up and slow down ; this adds to a 'tactile' feeling for character controls. In the same way, a lot of people miss the lack of arbitrary jump function ; because it gives the player a sense of accomplishment for a well timed jump, instead of quicktime prompt button at each ledge & wall.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
2. M&E: It is a nice powerup gameplay mechanic. But that is exactly what it is ; a somewhat artificial power up which happens to be overpowered. 2 Marks should be max.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Is the AI fun? Yes most definitely! ...in your first playthrough yes. After that, it turns to so so...and the camping bevahiour is and always will be a major major flaw.
Friggin' inexcusable.

Also, the devs should have given AI NPC's a wider range of abilities to get to where Sam is, otherwise they'll just stay looking at floor level without a friggin' clue. We're not in the Xbox 1 era anymore, we're past halfway 'next-gen' game development, so the AI and AI range of abilities really needs to be better to retain a household name.

I mean... you people agree with me that a big part of 'fun' comes from accomplishment, right ? So, where's the accomplishment in beating easy as pie AI ? Or are some people just that noob at the game ?


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
5. Uhm, I kinda didn't get what you were saying. Are you saying that the storyline was involved in the poor level design? or that it wasn't? Well, the Iraq level was bad. The devs listed it as essential to Sam & Victor's backstory ; I think it could have easily been replaced with a social stealth level which involved Victor.

Then later, the whole Lincoln Memorial eaves dropping and chase scene were so incredibly scripted, EA movie game-esque pieces of trash. They really could have downsized those aspects.

Lastly, the Whitehouse level is just linear road which strings shootout after shootout together. Very lame.


So, to reiterate ; Conviction as the heart of Splinter Cell, alive and kicking with a massive more passionate than ever fanbase and selling Xbox units en masse ? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

[eviljohnny666]

Wrong! This is NOT Splinter Cell.

Third Echelon. This is not Third Echelon, this is a private mercenary institution. Third Echelon is an NSA branch, a handful of persons, a cell, doing dangerous, high risk spying missions. Any trouble, the government denies everything and 3E stops existing. NSA can pull the plug themselves. Instead, Third Echelon, a SPYING group has their own ****ing building with its name and all. How is this possible? Anyone would know they are doing something illegal and the States would be in trouble for it. They just can't leave the NSA either as they are part of it, part of the government, as the NSA can't go all screw you government, I leave! Wrong! They just kill the whole thing and the group starts anew, but I bet no one would let them do such thing.

Why so many agents? It makes no sense for such high risk missions. Tons of agents means they're pretty sure to get caught at some point and then the States are in deep ****. Plus, what the **** are they all doing inside their building, when they should be spying oversees? This makes no sense! Crashing out of their window, blowing the whole thing up, seriously? This was obviously made up for a fancy action movie scene. Nothing of this makes sense, a small NSA initiative which technically doesn't even exist can't just grow up like that and go rogue. It can't. The second things go awry the plug is pulled, 3E CAN'T leave the NSA, they just CAN'T. That means dissolving them and the supervisor starting his own thing, because EVERYONE is a NSA employee, 3E is just the same of the initiative, of the project. NO ONE can try to defend such massive plot holes, this makes NO sense. Don't get me started on the story itself.

Sam. Ok, he's ****ed off. His daughter died. But come on, he just turned into a ****ing bloodthirsty criminal. He kills everyone without second thinking. I can understand Sam getting ****ed off, but this makes no sense, he's not Jack Bauer or Jason Bourne. The interrogation scenes also make this more evident, he's literally beating the **** out of people, he's acting like a savage, not a ****ed off ex splinter cell agent.

Gameplay. Now I'm all for experimenting and such, but when it makes sense and it is good! First of all the gameplay sucks; everything is dumbed down and basically you are rewarded for playing it like a third person shooter. Then the core gameplay mechanics are very one-dimensional and repetitive, it's a bore. Levels are much more simpler and stripped down from any other splinter cell game, they all boasted a sandbox type of level design, but truth is it all got SIGNIFICANTLY worse. Yes you can play "stealthily", but you are not encouraged to do so, basically, it turns into a ****-poor experience, 10 times more trial and error than any Splinter Cell game has ever been. I don't get it, since when stealth is about magically shooting 3 guys in 2 seconds, rinse and repeat, oh and getting tons of people looking for you.

The Afghanistan mission. If it's not trying to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd, I don't know what it is. Basically, it's a third person shooter mission, basically it's bare bone as hell and sucks. It's FILLED with explosions and things you see in Call of Duty games. Plus, playing as someone else here doesn't serve the story AT ALL. You just learn how he's close to Sam Fisher. Well, what for? How does it serve the game except detract from the real story? The mission is connected in no way to the story! You don't need that to know Sam and him are good friends, it's the kind of thing you'd hear in a dialogue "remember when I rescued you and we all destroyed everything?" that would've been more enjoyable than the mission we got. It doesn't even follow the core gameplay mechanics of the game! What for? It's just so evident why that mission was put there; no link to the game's story, you do not play as the main character (we all know how this SC game is about Sam more than anything else anyway) and all the game mechanics you learned to use are thrown out of the window.

I just don't see anything that is Splinter Cell in here. The Sam Fisher character got boring as ever, a bloodthirsty bastard you kills anyone he faces, he resembles more some characters from movies than anything else, the story and action is like some terrible cliché Hollywood action movie crap. There's no redeeming factor at all, bull**** through and through. Even the good multiplayer game that SC was known for isn't here, instead we get more of the same. Every game mode is like the campaign, plays identically and barely offers anything another single playthrough wouldn't offer. It's one of the poorest video game package I've seen recently.

[codenameeric]

Originally posted by eviljohnny666:
Wrong! This is NOT Splinter Cell.

Third Echelon. This is not Third Echelon, this is a private mercenary institution. Third Echelon is an NSA branch, a handful of persons, a cell, doing dangerous, high risk spying missions. Any trouble, the government denies everything and 3E stops existing. NSA can pull the plug themselves. Instead, Third Echelon, a SPYING group has their own ****ing building with its name and all. How is this possible? Anyone would know they are doing something illegal and the States would be in trouble for it. They just can't leave the NSA either as they are part of it, part of the government, as the NSA can't go all screw you government, I leave! Wrong! They just kill the whole thing and the group starts anew, but I bet no one would let them do such thing.

Why so many agents? It makes no sense for such high risk missions. Tons of agents means they're pretty sure to get caught at some point and then the States are in deep ****. Plus, what the **** are they all doing inside their building, when they should be spying oversees? This makes no sense! Crashing out of their window, blowing the whole thing up, seriously? This was obviously made up for a fancy action movie scene. Nothing of this makes sense, a small NSA initiative which technically doesn't even exist can't just grow up like that and go rogue. It can't. The second things go awry the plug is pulled, 3E CAN'T leave the NSA, they just CAN'T. That means dissolving them and the supervisor starting his own thing, because EVERYONE is a NSA employee, 3E is just the same of the initiative, of the project. NO ONE can try to defend such massive plot holes, this makes NO sense. Don't get me started on the story itself.

Sam. Ok, he's ****ed off. His daughter died. But come on, he just turned into a ****ing bloodthirsty criminal. He kills everyone without second thinking. I can understand Sam getting ****ed off, but this makes no sense, he's not Jack Bauer or Jason Bourne. The interrogation scenes also make this more evident, he's literally beating the **** out of people, he's acting like a savage, not a ****ed off ex splinter cell agent.

Gameplay. Now I'm all for experimenting and such, but when it makes sense and it is good! First of all the gameplay sucks; everything is dumbed down and basically you are rewarded for playing it like a third person shooter. Then the core gameplay mechanics are very one-dimensional and repetitive, it's a bore. Levels are much more simpler and stripped down from any other splinter cell game, they all boasted a sandbox type of level design, but truth is it all got SIGNIFICANTLY worse. Yes you can play "stealthily", but you are not encouraged to do so, basically, it turns into a ****-poor experience, 10 times more trial and error than any Splinter Cell game has ever been. I don't get it, since when stealth is about magically shooting 3 guys in 2 seconds, rinse and repeat, oh and getting tons of people looking for you.

The Afghanistan mission. If it's not trying to appeal to the Call of Duty crowd, I don't know what it is. Basically, it's a third person shooter mission, basically it's bare bone as hell and sucks. It's FILLED with explosions and things you see in Call of Duty games. Plus, playing as someone else here doesn't serve the story AT ALL. You just learn how he's close to Sam Fisher. Well, what for? How does it serve the game except detract from the real story? The mission is connected in no way to the story! You don't need that to know Sam and him are good friends, it's the kind of thing you'd hear in a dialogue "remember when I rescued you and we all destroyed everything?" that would've been more enjoyable than the mission we got. It doesn't even follow the core gameplay mechanics of the game! What for? It's just so evident why that mission was put there; no link to the game's story, you do not play as the main character (we all know how this SC game is about Sam more than anything else anyway) and all the game mechanics you learned to use are thrown out of the window.

I just don't see anything that is Splinter Cell in here. The Sam Fisher character got boring as ever, a bloodthirsty bastard you kills anyone he faces, he resembles more some characters from movies than anything else, the story and action is like some terrible cliché Hollywood action movie crap. There's no redeeming factor at all, bull**** through and through. Even the good multiplayer game that SC was known for isn't here, instead we get more of the same. Every game mode is like the campaign, plays identically and barely offers anything another single playthrough wouldn't offer. It's one of the poorest video game package I've seen recently.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[shobhit7777777]

@Knot3D
I was not trying to refrain anyone's point of view but just stating the things that I agree were SCCs major faults. It's just that some people, when posting, tend to BASH SCC ON THE EXACT SAME POINTS I HAVE MENTIONED. There's no point arguing with me if I agree with you on those aspects. It becomes very infurating to repeatedly remind people that I'm defending SCCs core gameplay. As for SC losing fanbase, I honestly can't comment about it. Is it losing or is it becoming bigger? I seriously cannot answer that question. I find it sad that previous fans lose complete faith when SCC tries something new and introduces some excellent mechanics. Assassins creed had an excellent underlying concept which was flawed in execution but it was perfected in the sequel and will only get better. I'd like to maintain an optimistic view and believe that major flaws will be addressed in the next instalment. I still am passionate about SCC as for the rest I cannot say, but judging from the responses in this forum there are still some who have formed an image of the epitome of SC gameplay and keep a narrow outlook regarding progression in the series in terms of gameplay. Also my earlier remarks were not meant to be harsh or rude, I was merely pointing something out.

Variable speed: I personally did not miss it. I would definitely like to have it but would not miss it. I think the gameplay is simplified in a good way by it's absence. I believe in the player guiding the character and not controlling the character. This allows me to identify with the character rather than the empty vessel like in many games (Master chief for eg.). Crouching eleminates all noise in all agmes and when stalking I crouch, when not I stand up and run. It's just that I never felt the need. But that's my personal opinion and the presence of variable speed should be there in the next game as the player should always have choice.

M&E can be more than just a gimmick it can be a really stealthy and deep tactical aid. If the devs make it more than the simple mechanics inovolved right now and beef it up then we have a winner. I think that the marks should be a maximum of 3...2 at most ranges and 3 at really short ranges....makes it more believable and realistic.

I'd like to know more about what you mean by "getting to where sam is"...it sounds interesting and you have mentioned it before. I was hoping we could have an AI thread with all issues regarding Ai discussed there...why dont you open it and we can discuss it in depth there?

Level design: Agreed on all except on scripted sequences. I believe that if scripted sequences are done right it could really make the game fun. Almost the whole SC games were reliant on heavily scripted screens. the chase could have been a shadowing mission where in you tail a target stealthily while eliminating guys following you in social stealth fashion. truly missed oppurtunites here.

[shobhit7777777]

@eviljohnny666
*Sigh.
Did you read my earlier post reminding people about the main points of debate? If you did then why are you arguing on points that I agree with you on?
Yes the story and the plot have MASSIVE holes and are not well executed. But I like the direction which they lead to i.e new form of stealth.


Wherein the game have you seen Sam be this "bloodthirsty criminal"? Where has he "killed everyone without thinking?". No seriously WHERE THE <span class="ev_code_RED">*EDIT*</span> IN THE GAME DOES HE DO THAT WITHOUT YOU OR ME CONTROLLING HIM?????? Most confrontations NEED the player to neutralize all enemies...it is a requirement, even then a lot of the encounters in the game can be avoided....Sam doesnt go "oh! theres a couple of guys in the other room..I think I'll take a quick detour and murder them dudes!!"
The interrogations are hardly gruesome and might I add necesasary to gain vital info and if I remember correctly Sam HAS KILLED IN COLD BLOOD TO MAINTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY which is MUCH WORSE THAN PUNCHING A DUDE. He assassinated Hugo lacerda who was pretty much a revolutionary clown solely because he was ordered to, when clearly Lacerda was not a major threat to national security. Oh and BTW Special forces and other elite units are taught much more brutal ways to extract information. And if you're having trial and error in SCC...my friend you have NOT played the previous titles.

Gameplay: I don't think that because the game allows a more aggressive approach and faster stealth you assume that it is meant to be played like a GOW clone. It simply does not PUNISH the player for shotgunning the AI. The stealth style is encouraged which is evident by the mechanics present.

1. Takedowns: The faster movement speed and agility allow you to approach and stalk the target in various ways leaving the AI more open to CQB moves. Chief requirement to perform one..STALKING AND SNEAKING, which is an intricate part of stealth gameplay

2. Mark&Execute: It is an amazing addition to Sam's arsenal which allows Sam to neutralize hostiles quickly and more importantly SILENTLY. STEALTH IS A PREREQUISITE to us M&E and if you play stealthy it can be really rewarding to use it. Plus what's so non-stealth about double tapping a pair of guards isolated from the rest without being detected and without raising alarms?

3. Last known position: Again is is there to FACILITATE the players use of STEALTH. If you are detected, the game gives you another chance at becoming invisible and melt into the shadows with the addition of this feature, so instead of game over you get another chance to sneak back in.

Dude, I completely agree with you on poor level and mission design, I agree that the devs were too focused on making "cool M&E" moments in the game rather than on a cohesive plot and better missions. But I think that if SCCs stealth gameplay is broadened and filled out with some excellent open ended levels and smarter enemy placement it can be one of the best stealth titles till date.

Sam Fisher: I was bored of Fisher's characterization in SC1, SC2 and SC3 (although in game moments in SC3 did flesh out Sam a lot....oh SCCT I LOVE YOU SO MUCH!!!) in DA things took an interesting turn when we were introduced to the personal side of Sam. We saw a vulnerable Human being who could be affected by the everyday happenings of normal life, rather than the witty, cynical, professional spy. But DA, in true DA fashion, screwed that up too. In Conviction I saw a more elemental Sam, more focused and predatory and I was glad that they finally unleashed Sam and let SCC be a personal story for once. But SCC devs really screwed it up big-time with the meggido bullcrap. I would have preferred that Sam goes back to work to save Grim from an inside mole rather than the convoluted noodle soup of a plot we have now.



<span class="ev_code_RED">**Do not bypass the word filter.**</span>

[sameer_monier]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@eviljohnny666
*Sigh.
Did you read my earlier post reminding people about the main points of debate? If you did then why are you arguing on points that I agree with you on?
Yes the story and the plot have MASSIVE holes and are not well executed. But I like the direction which they lead to i.e new form of stealth.


Wherein the game have you seen Sam be this "bloodthirsty criminal"? Where has he "killed everyone without thinking?". No seriously WHERE THE <span class="ev_code_RED">*EDIT*</span> IN THE GAME DOES HE DO THAT WITHOUT YOU OR ME CONTROLLING HIM?????? Most confrontations NEED the player to neutralize all enemies...it is a requirement, even then a lot of the encounters in the game can be avoided....Sam doesnt go "oh! theres a couple of guys in the other room..I think I'll take a quick detour and murder them dudes!!"
The interrogations are hardly gruesome and might I add necesasary to gain vital info and if I remember correctly Sam HAS KILLED IN COLD BLOOD TO MAINTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY which is MUCH WORSE THAN PUNCHING A DUDE. He assassinated Hugo lacerda who was pretty much a revolutionary clown solely because he was ordered to, when clearly Lacerda was not a major threat to national security. Oh and BTW Special forces and other elite units are taught much more brutal ways to extract information. And if you're having trial and error in SCC...my friend you have NOT played the previous titles.

Gameplay: I don't think that because the game allows a more aggressive approach and faster stealth you assume that it is meant to be played like a GOW clone. It simply does not PUNISH the player for shotgunning the AI. The stealth style is encouraged which is evident by the mechanics present.

1. Takedowns: The faster movement speed and agility allow you to approach and stalk the target in various ways leaving the AI more open to CQB moves. Chief requirement to perform one..STALKING AND SNEAKING, which is an intricate part of stealth gameplay

2. Mark&Execute: It is an amazing addition to Sam's arsenal which allows Sam to neutralize hostiles quickly and more importantly SILENTLY. STEALTH IS A PREREQUISITE to us M&E and if you play stealthy it can be really rewarding to use it. Plus what's so non-stealth about double tapping a pair of guards isolated from the rest without being detected and without raising alarms?

3. Last known position: Again is is there to FACILITATE the players use of STEALTH. If you are detected, the game gives you another chance at becoming invisible and melt into the shadows with the addition of this feature, so instead of game over you get another chance to sneak back in.

Dude, I completely agree with you on poor level and mission design, I agree that the devs were too focused on making "cool M&E" moments in the game rather than on a cohesive plot and better missions. But I think that if SCCs stealth gameplay is broadened and filled out with some excellent open ended levels and smarter enemy placement it can be one of the best stealth titles till date.

Sam Fisher: I was bored of Fisher's characterization in SC1, SC2 and SC3 (although in game moments in SC3 did flesh out Sam a lot....oh SCCT I LOVE YOU SO MUCH!!!) in DA things took an interesting turn when we were introduced to the personal side of Sam. We saw a vulnerable Human being who could be affected by the everyday happenings of normal life, rather than the witty, cynical, professional spy. But DA, in true DA fashion, screwed that up too. In Conviction I saw a more elemental Sam, more focused and predatory and I was glad that they finally unleashed Sam and let SCC be a personal story for once. But SCC devs really screwed it up big-time with the meggido bullcrap. I would have preferred that Sam goes back to work to save Grim from an inside mole rather than the convoluted noodle soup of a plot we have now.

Man i really like your responds and your debate, you are doing a great job, and i agree with you in many points http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

But i got to ask you something, what didn't you like in the story and why exactly ?!, cause i loved it, and we can share opinion if you like about the story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Knot3D
I was not trying to refrain anyone's point of view but just stating the things that I agree were SCCs major faults. It's just that some people, when posting, tend to BASH SCC ON THE EXACT SAME POINTS I HAVE MENTIONED. There's no point arguing with me if I agree with you on those aspects. Fair enough.



Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
As for SC losing fanbase, I honestly can't comment about it. Is it losing or is it becoming bigger? I seriously cannot answer that question. I'm gaming since 1985 and I've seen the rise and fall of many gaming platforms & franchises.

In that light, having seen the SC franchise from start... I think I can honestly say, the fanbase is fading since SC DA next gen, with recent SC Conviction that once passionate fanbase is practically gone. The newcomers who are truly in it for Conviction are like a mere marginal gain. And besides.... those people usually state something along the lines of this ;

"I think this game was OK/pretty good....which was a surprise because I always hated SC games because of the slow stealth."

Differences in point of view which aren't exactly subtle.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
I find it sad that previous fans lose complete faith when SCC tries something new and introduces some excellent mechanics. Again... you need to understand that most of those people do not object to cool new additions necessarily. It's only, because from their point of view, the new context of game destroys the parts which to them was the foundation, the heart and soul.




Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Assassins creed had an excellent underlying concept which was flawed in execution but it was perfected in the sequel and will only get better. Seriously, AC is a relatively new franchise altogether. It's not a game franchise with an older history, hence your analogy is apples to oranges.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
I think the gameplay is simplified in a good way by it's absence. I believe in the player guiding the character and not controlling the character. This allows me to identify with the character rather than the empty vessel like in many games (Master chief for eg.). Not to disrespect you, but I think to a LOT of people, including myself, feel exactly the opposite way about this.

The more automated, the more simplified, the LESS we feel we can identify with the character. Seriously.
Again, in a sense, it also stems from the feeling of accomplishment when the player gets right feel for absolute control in his fingers. That's why automated processes are perceived as loss of potential to player accomplishment ; which in turn, rips the funfactor straight out of the game.



Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
M&E can be more than just a gimmick it can be a really stealthy and deep tactical aid. If the devs make it more than the simple mechanics inovolved right now and beef it up then we have a winner. I think that the marks should be a maximum of 3...2 at most ranges and 3 at really short ranges....makes it more believable and realistic. Either way.... opponents of this gameplay mechanic will rather choose to handle things manually.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
I'd like to know more about what you mean by "getting to where sam is". Well, if Sam's hiding in the rafters sitting crouched on top of a high level hiding spot. In the current game, enemies can only jump waist high objects. Imo, they should be able to get to those 'difficult' hiding spots ; because otherwise, the player can camp there forever.

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

Nice to see the usual heads still speaking sense around here!

I appreciate your enthusiasm shobbit, but IMO you've eaten up a lot of the hype and nonsense that the dev team fed the gaming community in the promotion of the game as they attempted to justify the changes made to the franchise for Conviction.

This is a common feature that has been found on these boards amongst people who come on here to defend this game. But, in reality, when analysed as part of the sequence of events from the entire series, this game stands out as a major blunder in many, many areas. To be quite honest, this game's unfolding events doesn't even stand up to its own premise.

Plenty of folk, when they hear this statement, go on to argue that those who make these remarks are unwilling to accept change or give the development team a chance to experiment.

This is not true. The team experimented, but they did so in ways that blatantly ignored what made Splinter Cell great. And I am not talking about faster paced action. I am talking about the mindset, approach and character of Sam Fisher, which was massively distorted beyond recovery (IMO) by people who had little to no understanding of his character in the first place. Or else they didn't care about or understand his character, because anyone who did either of those would clearly not have ever comprehended Sam taking the courses of action he did in Conviction.

TBH, I am quite sure that many of them weren't particularly big fans of the old games prior to starting development of it and decided to change the title to better accomodate their vision of what a 'Super Spy' should be able to do.

The major problem is that the vision they had was influenced by big Hollywood money making IPs and this ended up turning the Sam Fisher we know and came to love over the course of the previous titles into unrecognizable shadows of themselves. This new Sam had little to no elements of his former character, but was rather a mish-mash of other spy characters, voiced by Michael Ironside and written into the previous Sam's history. He, and the entire rest of the cast of the game, were then placed in a terrible story with no direction, no taste and, frankly, no challenge.

[Seosan]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Wherein the game have you seen Sam be this "bloodthirsty criminal"? Where has he "killed everyone without thinking?". No seriously WHERE THE <span class="ev_code_RED">*EDIT*</span> IN THE GAME DOES HE DO THAT WITHOUT YOU OR ME CONTROLLING HIM??????
Why does he make wisecracks after killing someone? I'm sure I remember him doing that. He may not be blood thirsty, but it sounds to me like he's having a ball snapping necks.



Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
The interrogations are hardly gruesome and might I add necesasary to gain vital info and if I remember correctly Sam HAS KILLED IN COLD BLOOD TO MAINTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY which is MUCH WORSE THAN PUNCHING A DUDE.
So you think being killed is worse than being tortured and then killed? You must be into S&M.

Which brings me to my next point (sorta). It's not that Sam is new to killing or anything. He's taken out his share of nasties. It's just that killing is so glamorized in Conviction. It's made to look stylish and exciting. It's mostly required and, when optional, heavily encouraged throughout the game with conveniently placed sentries and ominous things above them. It's the entire focus of the game, which sucks. The objective and how to get to it should be the focus of the game, not the amount of people you can kill until you do.

It's simply gratuitous violence to quench the thirst of blood thirsty individuals. It's face in the urinal just for the sake of it, hence they had no need for a KO option. Who the hell wants to see Sam knock someone out when he can just karate chop his head off?!

Please, devs, pull your heads gently out of your arses, take the Jack Bauer mask off Sam's face, and give us a worthwhile stealth game.



Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Seosan

Well said.
But Sam is no longer a 3E agent or in an intelligence gathering mission. He's killing not on his own accord, it's us doing the killing Sam's just the weapon. Cheesy storyline? Ya, it is. I'd prefer old SCCs (2007) plot where Sam comes out of hiding to help Grim and find put what's up in 3E. Splinter Cell is now defined by it's characteristic stealth gameplay and recurring characters. So it does qualify.
I guess I'll just have to agree to disagree with you. I'm tired and I have to pee, anyway.

(By the way, I copied the 3E description from Ubisoft, in case you thought I wrote it myself.)

[shobhit7777777]

@Knot3D
You maybe right, a large part of the community was into serious ghosting, the new gameplay does not conform to that, but bashing in a game trying to do it in a new way is simply wrong. I myself have problems with SCC but I don't exactly condemn it. Like I said stealth is stealth. It should not matter if you're killing people silently or dodging sentries silently as long as you're silent and undetected.

AC comparison: It is valid in this case not because it is a franchise, but because of it's development cycle. Like SCC, the devs had a brilliant game design and like SCC, due to some poor design choices they screwed up. They vastly improved the the game in the next one. You were wrong in interpreting my analogy.

Controls: Maybe, but new design philosophy suggests that constant control of the character like doing everything for him, makes the gameplay LESS immersive as it gives the feeling of a video game, it breaks the illusion of being in the character's world. If jumping over a table brings you a sens of accomplishment then....well can't really argue bout that!
Certain action do require manual control but mundane tasks...not so. I want the player to traverse freely and fluidly. I want Sam to know what he's doing instead of me constantly nagging him. Eg: The splitjump in SC! and 2. It was a chore to repeatedly press the jump button, in SCCT you line up and press jump once, it was a cool animation and fluidly Sam was high above doin the splits.

M&E: True. And I dont blame them, I can easily score 2 successive headshots on guys at most ranges. But I find that sometimes if I have to quickly neutralize a room it comes in real handy.

AI: Ah, yes. But then do what in the rafters. Sam is sitting up in the rafters, would you rather go after him up there, where he already has a vantage point or would you rather stay back and flush him out. As for players camping in SCC...can they even do that? would anyone even do that?

[shobhit7777777]

@shadowfox

It would seem that I've swallowed the dev teams PR spiel but fortunately that is not the case. I bought the game a couple of months after its release. I was LOOKING FORWARD TO BE DISAPPOINTED. By the looks of the promo vids the gameplay was balls out action. I forsake all reviews and other gameplay videos to give SCC a clean slate and a fighting chance to prove itself against my prejudice. It succeeded. I was completely taken by the game's focus on tactical and agressive stealth. It was immensely pleasurable to sneak in take out the loners, mark the 3 guys and time the attack so that the room was cleansed in 2 seconds without any detections or alarms. You need to figure out the best way to encounter the guards. This tactical element I found was sorely missing in the previous games. There is no fun in determining a sentries p!ss-easy route and quietly flank/shank him. It was not intelligent neither creative. So suffice to say I played the game and liked it of my own accord.

What made Splinter cell great was it's approach to stealth not the stealth itself. Please don't delude yourselves that thinking SC was successful because of stealth. It was successful BECAUSE OF IT'S NEW APPROACH TO STEALTH. Stealth as LOS, cover to cover and light and shadow, even social stealth had been pioneered in other games.(thief, MGS,Hitman) Splinter cell outshone the others by introducing a realistic plot, interesting mechanics, gadgets and the grit of real world espionage. They did nothing mindblowing with stealth gameplay but simply refined the existing aspects. It's realistic approach and the setting is what got us all hooked, denying it would simply be lying to yourself for the sake of this debate.
The team actually made STEALTH-ACTION feasible and fun. BTW its fast-paced stealth and not fast-paced action. Action is not a gameplay style. Stealth is. Actions can be loud or stealthy.
They may not be as familiar with the character but they truly did Sam a favour by removing the CLICHED professional-grim-tough-cynical-yet dark humored spy into more unfamiliar waters. Did they do a good job executing it? NO. They replaced one cliche with another. But the point is that they let us explore Sam's other side of his personality in SCC. He is shown with human emotions, reactions and fallacies. He still maintains his skills, which have been sharpened due to the premise of the plot and the entailing emotions in Sam. Storyline is not SCCs strong point but it does a fantastic job of establishing Sam as a more believable character. He fell prey to his emotions and anger and it manifested into aggression. This humanizes the character 100 times more so than a simple witty remark or friendly banter. As for retaining his old persona, he still does. He's still with a dark sense of humor (comments made when grabbing guards) he still maintains that razor sharp killer's instinct and stealth skills. He still is the quiet meticulous professional, more so than his "influences", He still cares about human life (1st mission he doesnt want to start a firefight due to civvies in the area)...He goes on to save the president, after meeting his daughter, whom he presumed dead after 3 FRIGGIN YEARS!. He is still the same guy but is just more angry and frustrated.
I am defending Sam's anger and aggressive personality here although I agree that the execution of the storyline and plot was HEAVILY INFLUENCED and screwed up.
Bear in mind that, Sam's aggression and skills were always there but simply under the surface. The gameplay design caters to Sam's personality now that he's more objective focused and really wants to get the job done within the limited time. And if he is influenced by hollywood IPs then it has been for the gameplay, not character definition. Besides Sam is way more stealthy than Bauer and Bourne! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Also could details the aspects of Sam missing in SCC?

It's wrong to solely define a characters personality with just simple notions and not welcome changes, good or bad, which flesh out the role.

[shobhit7777777]

@seosan

He does make funny remarks..cue: Sam's penchant for dark humor..one of his "defining traits". Also from in-game dialogue from Sam it is clear he prefers STEALH over LOUD ATTACKS. When you silently clear the room, He says "Nicely done" or "still got it" when you get detected and still survive he says "Messy" or "cutting it too close" these are indicative of Sam's stealth preference and encouragement of the players use of stealth. BTW dont you remember Sam causally speaking of cutting out a guys throat and "look for the words" while interrogating him in SCCT? Point is, Sam does not kill beacause he likes to he just does it cause it means better odds..of survival and completing the mission. You're just labelling him a murderer for the sake of the argument.

"Ooh! He punched a guy and smashed his face for Info!!" O GIMME A BREAK! Sam is a dead-serious, ex-Navy SEAL, ex-Splinter cell looking for answers and FAST. Newsflash!
he PLAYS DIRTY! Hes a stealth operative and stealth is all about underhanded tactics and ruthlessness. Hes not Captain-F@cking-America!! He's been trained to fight dirty, to use everything at hand to gain advantage and succeed. You treat him as a Gandhian Monk using his stealth to help underprivileged kids in Somalia while fighting for baby seals!! Get over it.
Ofcourse they need to make the violence look good dont they? Its a video game. The animations are there to put across a point. My point is Sam's moves always put across his operational tactics. In SCCT the closer than ever stalking animations and the stabbing ones were pretty brutal (more so than a quick bullet through the head) but made the player realise how deadly, efficient and well trained Sam is.

I do agree 100% that the devs lost focus and focused TOO much on th whole M&E thing and ended buggering SCCs overall gameplay, but if the level design had been much more intelligent and creative, with some new options from previous titles, a better executed plot but still retaining SCCs COMPLETE GAMEPLAY MECHANICS then do you agree that it might have made the best SCC game?

P.S.
I do enjoy the occasional S&M http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif
JK
And yes I do know that 3E description from the game manual.

[shobhit7777777]

Originally posted by sameer_monier:


Man i really like your responds and your debate, you are doing a great job, and i agree with you in many points http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

But i got to ask you something, what didn't you like in the story and why exactly ?!, cause i loved it, and we can share opinion if you like about the story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks bro! your support REALLY means a LOT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'd love to share my opinions regarding the SCC story with you!!

I like the direction this game has gone, with the 3E in despair after Lambert and Sam in a state of emotional turmoil but the plot became too focused on EMP conspiracies than Sam. I would have preferred that the storyline be:
Sarah remains dead with a grieving Sam on the run from NSA which thinks that Sam killed Lambert, Grim helps Sam to clear his name by providing evidence that it was not Sam's fault as he was deep undercover. They uncover a huge plot within the NSA that shows that some higher-ups were involved in information brokerage to other organisation including the JBA. Now 3E under Grim helps Sam to clear his name and save Grim and 3E from NSA. With 3E struggling to uncover the truth and facing stonewalls from NSA it deploys it's SC team to gather more intelligence regarding the financial dealings of the NSA leaders to prove their corruption This would have been infinitely more believable than the current plot and also provided oppurtunities for social stealth as well as the aggro stealth in new SCC...dont you think?

[sameer_monier]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sameer_monier:


Man i really like your responds and your debate, you are doing a great job, and i agree with you in many points http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

But i got to ask you something, what didn't you like in the story and why exactly ?!, cause i loved it, and we can share opinion if you like about the story http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thanks bro! your support REALLY means a LOT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I'd love to share my opinions regarding the SCC story with you!!

I like the direction this game has gone, with the 3E in despair after Lambert and Sam in a state of emotional turmoil but the plot became too focused on EMP conspiracies than Sam. I would have preferred that the storyline be:
Sarah remains dead with a grieving Sam on the run from NSA which thinks that Sam killed Lambert, Grim helps Sam to clear his name by providing evidence that it was not Sam's fault as he was deep undercover. They uncover a huge plot within the NSA that shows that some higher-ups were involved in information brokerage to other organisation including the JBA. Now 3E under Grim helps Sam to clear his name and save Grim and 3E from NSA. With 3E struggling to uncover the truth and facing stonewalls from NSA it deploys it's SC team to gather more intelligence regarding the financial dealings of the NSA leaders to prove their corruption This would have been infinitely more believable than the current plot and also provided oppurtunities for social stealth as well as the aggro stealth in new SCC...dont you think? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see, to be honest i didn't focus much on the EMP thing, my main thinking was Sarah alive - Sam enraged - Reed is a mole - Megiddo, for me i wished to see William back, to do some major stuff (even though i hate he is portrayed as a bad guy after trying to frame Sam), also like you, i wished we would see Sam on the run like E3 trailer, avoiding agents sent after him, and so on, i hope that the next SC will have a deeper story in both aspects of Emotional stuff & Realistic intelligent stuff

[shobhit7777777]

@Sameer

I really enjoyed watching Sam get ****ed off...I mean he HIT Grim, sure it was to make it look like he escaped but WTF!! it shows that when it comes to his duaghter Sam does not like getting jerked around.
You know, while playing the previous games I always wondered, what would happen if Sam Fisher would get ****ed offf, if he let loose his angry self and wanted to see him in his full aggro form and SCC really delivers on that.

BTW I'd like to know what kind of tactics do you use while playing SCC and also some cool moments that you remember from the game.

[sameer_monier]

@ shobhit7777777 :

my cool moments are missions themselves not something i did, for example The Lincoln Memorial chase, the ending, the flash back with Sarah, the helicopter part, ....etc

my tactics varies depending on the situation, i use stealth when i can get past a group of enemy with no danger, but my main tactic is :
silently move through the environment, H2H take downs when necessary (with hands), if there is a couple of lone guys M&E them, i like to move silently, observe, and try my best to clear the room in one action (emp, shoot something to fall down, blow up a mine, M&E) it is really satisfying to clear a room in 3 sec max

[shobhit7777777]

@Sameer

You know our playstyles are identical!
Also our playstyles exactly how SCC is supposed to be played to get maximum outta the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[sameer_monier]

yup, SCC shows it's great potential by doing that, there also another thing where SCC shine, try D-Ops using only H2H kills, it is so fun believe me

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Knot3D
You maybe right, a large part of the community was into serious ghosting, Seriously... hold it right there and think about what you exactly say in that sentence....

I said, the large passionate SC fanbase had faded away.

And in your sentence, you equate them directly with ghosting. That's not fair man. Not fair at all. At least try to see
why those subtle differences in game design make a huge difference. Because obviously, from your point of view you want to just dismiss those differences like it's nothing.

Example :


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Like I said stealth is stealth. See, generalisation right there. Stealth = stealth is not true. If that were true, MGS, SC, Thief, Hitman would be equally attractive to
any stealth fan ; and that is not true.

What you are saying with "stealth = stealth" is basically like saying that blood money = money. blood money, means people have been killed for it. Not good. And that's the major
difference of mindset which SC oldtimer Shadowfox pointed out to you. And he makes a great essential point with that.




Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
the new gameplay does not conform to that, but bashing in a game trying to do it in a new way is simply wrong. Time and time again, people do not object to all of the new controls and the acrobatic fast moves. I personally love it.

But you also have to understand the points of view about those things which got lost ... and with each of your post you dismiss those things ( such as variable speed, optional LTL etc. )
as if these things don't count for anything, just because they were not a big part of your individual play style.



Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
AC comparison: It is valid in this case not because it is a franchise, but because of it's development cycle. Like SCC, the devs had a brilliant game design and like SCC, due to some poor design choices they screwed up. They vastly improved the the game in the next one. You were wrong in interpreting my analogy. Well, SC fans can agree that with SC 1 , 2 and 3, the developers had brilliant game design and they didn't screw up.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Controls: Maybe, but new design philosophy suggests that constant control of the character like doing everything for him, makes the gameplay LESS immersive as it gives the feeling of a video game, it breaks the illusion of being in the character's world. If jumping over a table brings you a sens of accomplishment then....well can't really argue bout that!
Certain action do require manual control but mundane tasks...not so.

Aaarrgghh...

Variable adjustment of speed by means of delicate analogue control, in order to approach enemy guards as precise as possible is a mundane task !???

Seriously, I think you just don't want to see the point here.

Having this delicate control over what the player character does, IS the major point of having control over your stealth moves. It's like a sniper's skill to get a feel for delicate perfect aim and then line up the perfect headshot. And then you come in and impose auto aim function on him ; in other words, it takes away the heart and soul of the accomplishment.

And mind you, having those things like variable speed don't rule out aggro stealth moves ; they can still traverse freely and fluidly. It's just that you somehow don't want to see it.



Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
AI: Ah, yes. But then do what in the rafters. Sam is sitting up in the rafters, would you rather go after him up there, where he already has a vantage point or would you rather stay back and flush him out. Sam doesn't have eyes in the back of his head, so there's always a chance he may be approached from behind his pov even if he's sitting at a high vantage point... and yes, that's what an angry guard would try to do if he just saw an x amount of his buddies getting killed. In short ; the guards should have been given to traverse like that too.

[shobhit7777777]

@Knot3D

First and foremost I request you not to quote my posts out of context. It is bad practice and undermines the other persons points. I did not expect this from you as you have been consistently been giving excellent arguments and have never been disrespectful or obtuse. So please refrain from such practices.


"Like I said stealth is stealth. See, generalisation right there. Stealth = stealth is not true. If that were true, MGS, SC, Thief, Hitman would be equally attractive to any stealth fan ; and that is not true."

If you would have understood the context then you would realise that in SCC the stealth is different. Instead of stealthy avoidance we have stealthy engagements. That is what I was trying to say. I in no way intended to generalise it. I was trying to shed light on the fact that both games have different styles which fall under the stealth umbrella.

Ghosting: Sorry dude... my phrasing was wrong and I was not clear enough. By ghosting I meant a gameplay style which was not well facilitated by SCC due to lack of certain options. So by ghosting I meant the above as it seemed easier to compress it into one style. From my POV...I think that the absence of these features is sorely missing and would be good additins but not in a way that would really add to the new design. But I also believe that players should be given choice in terms of style give that the huge history of the franchise, but in SCC they were experimenting with a new design and did not possibly could not add these features...I believe some forum member posted that Maxime Belland did intend to add body dragging and other features of old SC games. If I have come off as dismissive then it was my fault but I truly am not. I embrace both styles for gameplay but defend the new direction from unecessary DESTRUCTIVE criticism. As for LTL and variable speed, I would personally request the next SC to have it. Again i'm not dismissive but when you're 2 years behind and are trying to implement a new direction and gameplay you tend to focus on the core design, and the LTL, Variable speed, bdoy dragging all were removed (possibly not added) because in the end they did not facilitate the faster aggro stealth. I regret the loss of the above mentioned abilities but also welcome the change of style and pace. But I do want to see these options implemented in the next game so that it truly bridges the gap between the two "schools of stealth" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Controls: In SCC you have two modes crouched and upright. When crouched the speed is such that it is always faster than a guards walk cycle. Does it require skill? No. what it does is that it facilitates the silent neutralization of the guard. It is easier to sneak up on the guard. It is easier to double tap guards. SO where's the challenge and accomplishment? It's in the way you set up the kills and neutralize enemy groups. When you silently takeout 3 patrolling loners, mark the trio in the group and use the EMP to take out the lights and execute the group in 3 seconds without detection. This scenario has hundreds of possibilities. The sense of accomplishment comes in finding the best and the most fun way to do it. The focus is not on sneaking on a lone guard but more on tackling larger groups using stealth and as a result some of the features have been removed for a simpler control scheme. If the ssame objective can be accomplished by a crouch walk with faster animation then it makes sense to implement it, as for the aiming I truly felt that the previous game made the simple job of firing the psitol, in the hands of a professional a chore, they made it SO real that it was actually highly unrealistic.In SCC the crosshair drift though not perfect do a good job of simulating the rigours of getting of quick rapid shots but still allow the player to pull of two aimed shots to the head with a sense of accomplishment (besides shoot a guy in-front of his buddy and the other guy starts jinking his head in surprise...really takes skill to pop his melon). The accomplishment in SCC is different from SCCT, SCDA and SC1&2. You need to see the situation from a designers point of view. I have had first hand experience in game development as the sole designer of a team and trust me, you want to do everything but it comes down to focussing on the core aspects of the gameplay. If people had any experience of how harsh game development can get they would be more appreciative towards the devs and what they have delivered. We WANT to give you everything but it becomes nigh impossible to include. We eliminate everything that will not enhance the core gameplay and design. Sure if we have time, we add it.
I am completely with you on adding the missing features on the instalment because I beleive that they would allow for player to use THEIR own style of stealth that they missed with a mix of SCCs mechanics. I really dont want the SC to lose it' fans who for the most part are some of the most intelligent gamers I have seen.
If I were a guard and I saw my squad massacred by a guy I cant even see within a span of 3 seconds...I would be pragmatic and get the f@ck outta there! definitely wont climb up to the place where that murderhouse is..not tactical.

Cheers mate! and as always thanks for the excellent arguments http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[shobhit7777777]

I have heard people saying that why do 3E agents employ the same aggressive stealth as Sam as they have no reason to be so aggressive on missions to collect intel...apart from the most obvious reason to conform with the new gameplay mechanics..here's the reason, I think behind such tactics:

3E has been increasingly involved in high risk missions that have ventured into infiltrating and sabotaging enemy research & Assassination of key personnel. Given that the agents are mostly outnumbered in these isolated locales and the enemy presence is much heavier in the dense urban places they infiltrate, I assume that 3E has trained it's agents to strike first and hard. They might believe that it is best to neutralize anyone before they become a threat, a pre-emptive strike. So agents have been trained to use stealth to silently takeout the enemy before he realises they're there and becomes a threat. Maybe that's why the aggro stealth is used by 3E agents (deniable ops). Also given that their objectives involve direct action I think they have become more of a personal strike force than true espionage agents, which is a rather interesting change from it's previous roles. I mean what does it say about the new direction of 3E? I think it shows how powerful and involved 3E has become from its origins as simply the "eyes and ears" to the "shield and sword".

[eviljohnny666]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@eviljohnny666
*Sigh.
Did you read my earlier post reminding people about the main points of debate? If you did then why are you arguing on points that I agree with you on?
Yes the story and the plot have MASSIVE holes and are not well executed. But I like the direction which they lead to i.e new form of stealth.


Wherein the game have you seen Sam be this "bloodthirsty criminal"? Where has he "killed everyone without thinking?". No seriously WHERE THE <span class="ev_code_RED">*EDIT*</span> IN THE GAME DOES HE DO THAT WITHOUT YOU OR ME CONTROLLING HIM?????? Most confrontations NEED the player to neutralize all enemies...it is a requirement, even then a lot of the encounters in the game can be avoided....Sam doesnt go "oh! theres a couple of guys in the other room..I think I'll take a quick detour and murder them dudes!!"


To neutralize enemies, you have no choice but kill them, the game encourages you to kill almost everyone. Shooting your way out makes things easy as ever. You control Sam, granted, but this changes nothing, you are given options and they aren't numerous. They wanted to show Sam as a ****ed off ex agent and made everything so you'd act very violently most of the time.



The interrogations are hardly gruesome and might I add necesasary to gain vital info and if I remember correctly Sam HAS KILLED IN COLD BLOOD TO MAINTAIN NATIONAL SECURITY which is MUCH WORSE THAN PUNCHING A DUDE.
Yes, but any normal people would have passed out after getting his head smashed in the toilets, BREAKING THINGS several times. None of the dudes should be awake to tell Sam anything, it is greatly exaggerated and shows how Sam just turned into an excessively violent brute. There's a difference between killing someone for national security, and unnecessarily beating the **** out of people for important information. Again, Sam was supposed to be portrayed as a ****ed off dude (something which I think, like I said, to be VERY out of proportions), and him beating people like he did is because of him being ****ed off obviously, not necessitating information.




You were ordered to, and you didn't need to murder everyone in the way to do so.

Of course I've played the other Splinter Cells, you missed my point which I clearly stated. If you want to be stealthy in Conviction, you get offered a ridiculously boring gameplay which features MORE trial and error than any Splinter Cell game would. I tried playing stealthily in Conviction, and clearly, the game wasn't meant to be played that way, like Red Dead Redemption isn't meant to be finished while killing only 48 enemies (my brother did so). The gameplay mechanics are there, and they don't include playing like other SC games, the trial and error the game becomes is not even comparable to previous games.


Gameplay: I don't think that because the game allows a more aggressive approach and faster stealth you assume that it is meant to be played like a GOW clone. It simply does not PUNISH the player for shotgunning the AI. The stealth style is encouraged which is evident by the mechanics present.

Tell me what is stealthy about killing 3 people in 2 seconds, about escaping enemies because you got seen or because a body has been seen. Stealth is about avoiding detection, too often you get enemies on your trail, and too often the easiest way out is just shooting your way through. Yes the mechanics are there, yes you use them most of the time, but your errors aren't punished, instead the game encourages you to just shoot your way out, which isn't about stealth at all.

[quote]
1. Takedowns: The faster movement speed and agility allow you to approach and stalk the target in various ways leaving the AI more open to CQB moves. Chief requirement to perform one..STALKING AND SNEAKING, which is an intricate part of stealth gameplay
Elements from a type of game doesn't mean the game is from that type.


2. Mark&Execute: It is an amazing addition to Sam's arsenal which allows Sam to neutralize hostiles quickly and more importantly SILENTLY. STEALTH IS A PREREQUISITE to us M&E and if you play stealthy it can be really rewarding to use it. Plus what's so non-stealth about double tapping a pair of guards isolated from the rest without being detected and without raising alarms?
I know the series has never been particularly realistic, but it always tried to retain a certain sense of it, as any Tom Clancy game (which Splinter Cell is part of) but this is just ridiculous. This is the stuff of movies, shooting 3 enemies in 2 seconds... it just doesn't make any sense, I really don't know how to put it, it's not because it's put into a stealth situation that it's of any good or it makes sense.

Plus the mechanics are terrible. Take some down in close quarters (why anyway?), Mark and Execute, rinse and repeat. Oh, get detected, try to hide and get on it again. If there's too many enemies, which isn't too rare, just dispatch them by shooting them. Why there's tons of fully automatic rifles, shotguns and all? To be used of course. Too often there's this one stationed guy whom you have to take down in order to M&E, this or that to shoot so it can land on people's heads. And then you've got bad, simplistic level design which doesn't offer much room for doing different things.


3. Last known position: Again is is there to FACILITATE the players use of STEALTH. If you are detected, the game gives you another chance at becoming invisible and melt into the shadows with the addition of this feature, so instead of game over you get another chance to sneak back in.
This has been in every splinter cell game, it's totally unnecessary because of bad AI and just a way for new players to be helped. Plus, it can be used for non-stealthy approaches if there's too many enemies, like when you get detected too early on in a certain place, because there's always a lot of dudes.



Dude, I completely agree with you on poor level and mission design, I agree that the devs were too focused on making "cool M&E" moments in the game rather than on a cohesive plot and better missions. But I think that if SCCs stealth gameplay is broadened and filled out with some excellent open ended levels and smarter enemy placement it can be one of the best stealth titles till date.
We'll have to agree to disagree here, I always thought the Splinter Cell series was always about killing as a last resort. I would've rather got the original idea of Sam fleeing (would've fit a lot more with the story too) and hiding in the crowd with Assassin's Creed like mechanics which would've probably ended better than with AC instead of getting AC games and the Conviction we've got. Everything would've fitted better with Sam's personality and the overall story.


Sam Fisher: I was bored of Fisher's characterization in SC1, SC2 and SC3 (although in game moments in SC3 did flesh out Sam a lot....oh SCCT I LOVE YOU SO MUCH!!!) in DA things took an interesting turn when we were introduced to the personal side of Sam. We saw a vulnerable Human being who could be affected by the everyday happenings of normal life, rather than the witty, cynical, professional spy. But DA, in true DA fashion, screwed that up too. In Conviction I saw a more elemental Sam, more focused and predatory and I was glad that they finally unleashed Sam and let SCC be a personal story for once. But SCC devs really screwed it up big-time with the meggido bullcrap. I would have preferred that Sam goes back to work to save Grim from an inside mole rather than the convoluted noodle soup of a plot we have now.

I always liked Sam's character evolution. First we get the cynical spy dude, then we start to understand more of him, how he got there. But I sincerely think they screwed it up with Conviction. A fragile person yes, but I would've never guess Sam to turn into this. More aggressive yes, but still following what he was, still showing himself as someone fragile, but someone tired, frustrated and ****ed off, but not what we've got. I would've seen Sam turning more his anger towards 3E rather than everyone. And I'm sure we could have got something really interesting.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Knot3D

First and foremost I request you not to quote my posts out of context. Ahhum... I didn't.

The first thing which this was about was my argument ; as to why I think the once passionate SC fanbase doesn't appreciate Conviction. I'm simply asking you to at least acknowledge their point of view. Of course, everyone knows - including me - that Conviction stealth is about active stealth, but the point of the post was not about discussing the different types of stealth.

Then you followed up on that with a paragraph which implied these people were only in it for pure ghosting. So, I was talking to you about those people and that you should at least try to show acknowledgement for the reasons why they left.

So, sorry to say, but if you're unhappy with my postings.... you might want to add me to ignore list. That's up to you.



Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
I believe some forum member posted that Maxime Belland did intend to add body dragging and other features of old SC games. Heh, yeah Beland said that way AFTER reviews of the game were posted.

It's pure Ubi PR damage control by Ubi imo. If you want to believe the sincerity in his statement.. sure, you're entitled to believe it.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Controls: In SCC you have two modes crouched and upright. When crouched the speed is such that it is always faster than a guards walk cycle. Does it require skill? No. what it does is that it facilitates the silent neutralization of the guard. It is easier to sneak up on the guard. It is easier to double tap guards. SO where's the challenge and accomplishment? It's in the way you set up the kills and neutralize enemy groups. Sure, but guards which can hear and react to different speeds of the character, would add a good layer, more depth to the gameplay.

It's the lack of things like that which make people feel the gameplay lacks what they feel is deep and layered gameplay.




Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
You need to see the situation from a designers point of view. Since the social stealth concept, Ubi has been fumbling the ball. They needed to start from scratch all over.

I know from own experience too, gamedevelopment is harsh. Accomplishment of 80% of innitial concept is a great achievement. But after the development restart, the harm had already been done.


Anyway, there's nothing wrong with fast paced aggro stealth.

It's just that in, the way the game is executed, the core aspects of this concept are nullified a bit. Why ? Well, we've been stating these reasons all the time already.

[eviljohnny666]

Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
Nice to see the usual heads still speaking sense around here!

I appreciate your enthusiasm shobbit, but IMO you've eaten up a lot of the hype and nonsense that the dev team fed the gaming community in the promotion of the game as they attempted to justify the changes made to the franchise for Conviction.

This is a common feature that has been found on these boards amongst people who come on here to defend this game. But, in reality, when analysed as part of the sequence of events from the entire series, this game stands out as a major blunder in many, many areas. To be quite honest, this game's unfolding events doesn't even stand up to its own premise.

Plenty of folk, when they hear this statement, go on to argue that those who make these remarks are unwilling to accept change or give the development team a chance to experiment.

This is not true. The team experimented, but they did so in ways that blatantly ignored what made Splinter Cell great. And I am not talking about faster paced action. I am talking about the mindset, approach and character of Sam Fisher, which was massively distorted beyond recovery (IMO) by people who had little to no understanding of his character in the first place. Or else they didn't care about or understand his character, because anyone who did either of those would clearly not have ever comprehended Sam taking the courses of action he did in Conviction.

TBH, I am quite sure that many of them weren't particularly big fans of the old games prior to starting development of it and decided to change the title to better accomodate their vision of what a 'Super Spy' should be able to do.

The major problem is that the vision they had was influenced by big Hollywood money making IPs and this ended up turning the Sam Fisher we know and came to love over the course of the previous titles into unrecognizable shadows of themselves. This new Sam had little to no elements of his former character, but was rather a mish-mash of other spy characters, voiced by Michael Ironside and written into the previous Sam's history. He, and the entire rest of the cast of the game, were then placed in a terrible story with no direction, no taste and, frankly, no challenge.

Totally agreed. We all know how the game got different creative designers during production; it first started with someone who gameplay considerations aside (though I found interesting where he wanted to go) had the good idea for the Sam character. Assassin's Creed probably played a big role in going away from the original design, but it ended up with another creative designer and then the game followed a very non-Splinter Cell approach.

I don't know, maybe they thought they put enough money into this and wanted something which could sell a lot, because frankly the SC franchise was never known to sell that much. It would make sense, since everything about the story (which includes the Sam Fisher character) was made to cater to another crowd, to sell. ****ty Hollywood theatrics and stuff, I think nothing makes really sense in Conviction, they just made a random stealth game from the ground up which has nothing to do with Splinter Cell.

[shobhit7777777]

@eviljohnny666


Violence: the game does encourage killing. But not everyone, there are several times wherein the game you can avoid contacts without trying too hard. You can sneak around and circumvent guards in many situations. But yes, it does keep in line with the new mechanics. It boils down to the player.
As for interrogations, true in real life the guys would be unconscious, but the designers wanted to show Sam's brutal side, the side which does not take prisoners and is very impatient regarding information due to the limited time they have. So in the interrogation sequences I think the violence is justified. If I am looking for EMP warheads and only one guy knows where they are, it would not matter if I was ****ed off or not, I'd go violent on him as it is a matter of urgency. It is exaggerated for dramatic purposes and nothing else, video games are after all a medium of entertainment.
There have never been moments in SCC where the player is encouraged to go out of his way to kill guards. He infiltrates a place and kills the guards which will impede his progression, simple, the encounter have been laid to best use the new mechanics.

Stealth in Conviction:
Your definition if stealth is restrictive. Stealth does not only mean that you avoid all confrontation, it means the avoidance of detection. If I clear a room of tangos without being detected or even slightly alarming the AI then I am stealthy. If I avoid a couple of patrolling guards, then too I am stealthy. SO you see, classifying stealth as purely the absence of violence is jut plain illogical and narrow.
And SCC is designed to be played in a stealthy manner albeit more agressively. I really think that you have not grasped it's core mechanics if you are encountering so much trial and error. This game does not punish you for breaking cover but also does not encourage you to do so. If you consider the gameplay boring then it's a matter of personal opinion and no longer debatable.

Killing two people in 2 seconds with a suppressed weapon, is a valid stealth tactic and very much possible in the real world. The chance to actually re-enter stealth mode on detection is another facet of SCC that helps the player to get back into the game by giving them the advantage to go stealth again. Again, I have serious doubts regarding your ability to play SCC when you say that too often you get detected and just shooting your way out. Most of the times if you're bad enough to get detected you are generally killed very quickly. It is bad gameplay design to punish the player for errors. If a player breaks cover and is spotted than it's better to allow him to again get stealth mode on because it's more logical than just failing him. This is exactly why SCC is much less about the trial and error that you went through. The whole mechanics award a stealthy player.

1. Takedowns: CQB systems are one of the DEFINING aspects of a stealth game as a silent way to neutralize the enemies without causing an alarm. Your arguments are invalid.

2. M&E: Dude, successive head shots (2) in a short span of time are VERY possible. Speaking of Tom Clancy do read his books especially Without remorse wherein the protagonist (an ex Navy SEAL, like Fisher) repeatedly makes accurate headshots on medium range targets within seconds. For further proof look up CQB shooting and reflex shooting on the net. As for the movies have you seen Collateral? Tom Cruise plays an assassin in the movie and it realistically shows how a professional can rapidly and accurately engage targets within seconds (the advisor on that film was ex-SAS BTW). Now to the M&E in game. What is not stealthy about taking out two guys with suppressed headshots without being detected?
As for repetition of mechanics...All video games are based on this repetition of core mechanics..eg: COD,Halo,Mass effect etc. If you can't find fun ways of using the mechanics in the game then I think the problem is with your play style and not the mechanics themselves.

3. LKP: You obviously don't like the LKP..heres a remedy..STOP GETTING DETECTED THEN!! If you can't realise the tactical advantages and the underlying realism of the LKP then truly you're clueless about SCC's gameplay. It is used only as a last resort and to give you a chance to slip away to launch another stealth attack, but hey if you just want the game to simply Fail you and restart all over then simply do it yourself every time you get detected..which will be a lot given your grasp of the game mechanics. I'm not dissing you or anything it's just that it seems you're playing the game wrong.

I do agree with your thoughts on Mission design and Sam's character evolution to some degree. I don't believe that Sam is as bloodthirsty and violent as you believe him to be in SCC. But your take on Sam's personality is very refreshing and interesting.
BTW I also think that ol SCC was awesome and interesting and they should have incorporated some of it's social stealth aspects into the new one.

[shobhit7777777]

This is regarding my analogy comparing AC and SC
AC was trying out a new gameplay concept much like SCC was. They both added something new to the Stealth genre, something significant. But they both had some glaring issues regarding mission design and absence of certain features, nonetheless both are excellent games. With AC2 the basic gameplay was enhanced and beefed up to give player an AMAZING experience, I am trying to show that maybe like AC SCC2 will be a better game.

[eviljohnny666]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@eviljohnny666


Violence: the game does encourage killing. But not everyone, there are several times wherein the game you can avoid contacts without trying too hard. You can sneak around and circumvent guards in many situations. But yes, it does keep in line with the new mechanics. It boils down to the player.
As for interrogations, true in real life the guys would be unconscious, but the designers wanted to show Sam's brutal side, the side which does not take prisoners and is very impatient regarding information due to the limited time they have. So in the interrogation sequences I think the violence is justified. If I am looking for EMP warheads and only one guy knows where they are, it would not matter if I was ****ed off or not, I'd go violent on him as it is a matter of urgency. It is exaggerated for dramatic purposes and nothing else, video games are after all a medium of entertainment.
There have never been moments in SCC where the player is encouraged to go out of his way to kill guards. He infiltrates a place and kills the guards which will impede his progression, simple, the encounter have been laid to best use the new mechanics.

Stealth in Conviction:
Your definition if stealth is restrictive. Stealth does not only mean that you avoid all confrontation, it means the avoidance of detection. If I clear a room of tangos without being detected or even slightly alarming the AI then I am stealthy. If I avoid a couple of patrolling guards, then too I am stealthy. SO you see, classifying stealth as purely the absence of violence is jut plain illogical and narrow.
And SCC is designed to be played in a stealthy manner albeit more agressively. I really think that you have not grasped it's core mechanics if you are encountering so much trial and error. This game does not punish you for breaking cover but also does not encourage you to do so. If you consider the gameplay boring then it's a matter of personal opinion and no longer debatable.

Killing two people in 2 seconds with a suppressed weapon, is a valid stealth tactic and very much possible in the real world. The chance to actually re-enter stealth mode on detection is another facet of SCC that helps the player to get back into the game by giving them the advantage to go stealth again. Again, I have serious doubts regarding your ability to play SCC when you say that too often you get detected and just shooting your way out. Most of the times if you're bad enough to get detected you are generally killed very quickly. It is bad gameplay design to punish the player for errors. If a player breaks cover and is spotted than it's better to allow him to again get stealth mode on because it's more logical than just failing him. This is exactly why SCC is much less about the trial and error that you went through. The whole mechanics award a stealthy player.

1. Takedowns: CQB systems are one of the DEFINING aspects of a stealth game as a silent way to neutralize the enemies without causing an alarm. Your arguments are invalid.

2. M&E: Dude, successive head shots (2) in a short span of time are VERY possible. Speaking of Tom Clancy do read his books especially Without remorse wherein the protagonist (an ex Navy SEAL, like Fisher) repeatedly makes accurate headshots on medium range targets within seconds. For further proof look up CQB shooting and reflex shooting on the net. As for the movies have you seen Collateral? Tom Cruise plays an assassin in the movie and it realistically shows how a professional can rapidly and accurately engage targets within seconds (the advisor on that film was ex-SAS BTW). Now to the M&E in game. What is not stealthy about taking out two guys with suppressed headshots without being detected?
As for repetition of mechanics...All video games are based on this repetition of core mechanics..eg: COD,Halo,Mass effect etc. If you can't find fun ways of using the mechanics in the game then I think the problem is with your play style and not the mechanics themselves.

3. LKP: You obviously don't like the LKP..heres a remedy..STOP GETTING DETECTED THEN!! If you can't realise the tactical advantages and the underlying realism of the LKP then truly you're clueless about SCC's gameplay. It is used only as a last resort and to give you a chance to slip away to launch another stealth attack, but hey if you just want the game to simply Fail you and restart all over then simply do it yourself every time you get detected..which will be a lot given your grasp of the game mechanics. I'm not dissing you or anything it's just that it seems you're playing the game wrong.

I do agree with your thoughts on Mission design and Sam's character evolution to some degree. I don't believe that Sam is as bloodthirsty and violent as you believe him to be in SCC. But your take on Sam's personality is very refreshing and interesting.
BTW I also think that ol SCC was awesome and interesting and they should have incorporated some of it's social stealth aspects into the new one.

My point isn't that you have to kill everyone, but you have no choice but to kill someone if you want him out of action. Games are a medium of entertainment? True, but the Tom Clancy games, and thus Splinter Cell has always been about trying to be realistic despite some situations or action you do not being particularly so. But there's a difference in hiding in shadows, walking behind someone without being heard or felt and have insane reflexes and speed. And my point in the interrogations isn't violence, but abusive violence. Sam doesn't act like someone who wants fast information, he acts like a ****ed off brute more than anything else.

As for the trial and error thing, I think you misunderstood me, I was talking about playing without killing anyone. Plus, I never defined stealth, I merely made some statements. I never said takedowns weren't stealthy.

I didn't say 2 successive shots, but 3. 3 in a VERY successive. You can shoot three people apart from each other by 90 degrees, someone upstairs, someone downstairs and someone somewhere else, in two ****ing seconds. With a pistol. When they can be far. That's having VERY good eyes, a VERY good aim and VERY good reflexes. Not possible. 3 lined relatively close guys maybe, but some times it's just impossible. As for Clancy's books, I'm pretty sure within seconds can be 5 seconds or 10 seconds, possible. Was it with a pistol, far enemies? Plus this is all the time.

Sorry, but I got SCC's gameplay very well. I didn't say I got detected all the time, I said it was TOO EASY. And I said that after being detected, on TOO MANY occasions the easiest was to just shoot your way out. Yes you'd die easily, but doing it the stealthy way requires you to run far enough and stay undetected. Take an automatic weapon, kill in matter of seconds 2 or 3 guys, stay in cover (while being detected) and pop your head to to kill any other of the numerous guys charging at you. At some time I was bored at the gameplay when trying the hardest difficulty, I just shot my way out and found it a lot more easier that way. Again, I had no problems playing the game, but if you get detected too soon in some place and got 10 guards looking for you, too often it's way easier to just shoot them rather than hide, try to takedown one guy with plenty of other dudes nearby and then M&E 2 or 3 dudes making everyone else search for the killer. It's in those occasions the game tells you that shooting your way out is the easier way out. It's just things I realized while playing, when this happened I just reloaded and tried to do it in a stealthier way.

Sam's personality refreshing? Instead of being an original character, he's anything but refreshing. Plus, he's very one dimensional and doesn't show much besides being ****ed off and caring for his daughter. If anything he got less complex than before into a much more streamlined character more digestible to new fans as well as more akin to characters they already know.

[shobhit7777777]

Sam Fisher's characterization:

Now people are arguing that Sam is missing or has been destroyed due his portrayal in SCC as a brutal mindless thug. This I believe is a totally wrong impression. Sam has gone through a LOT in his personal and professional life. He is undoubtedly under a lot of mental strain. In previous SC titles he was generally shown as a silent-but-deadly-with-dark-humor archetype. He was involved in highly sensitive intelligence operations where discreetness was paramount. Evidence in the form of 5.56mm NATO rounds or any other sign of US involvement could politically dangerous. Here he had to be silent and completely invisible.
In DA, after he is informed of his daughter's loss he completely loses it and becomes reckless (barfight cutscenes). This in my opinion was excellent character development on Ubi's part as it showed the vulnerable human side of Sam. He undertakes an almost suicidal mission as an UC operative. In SC canon, he's forced to kill his best friend and boss (the rage meter goes up a notch). After DA, he is lonely, frustrated and then is suddenly taken out of his Hiatus, informed that Sarah's still alive and can see her after he completes an assignement for Grim. Now Sam is ****ed of at being lied and manipulated and also longing to see Sarah.
He then infiltrates and sabotages an operation where his presence and evidence of existence are of no consequence because he is acting on his own authority, He is racing against time to stop the EMP attacks so that he can see his daughter again. He uses stealth to infiltrate heavily armed compounds where people are aware of his activities and are prepared for him. He is facing a numerically superior enemy which is between him and his final objective. Fisher now uses his aggressive stealth as a strategic weapon to even the odds. He's most Human in SCC and comes into his own as a character because he is selfish in wanting to see his daughter again, it is a remarkably human quality. He is now using Stealth to assault the meggido operation. He is not concerned about leaving evidence of his involvement and so uses more agressive tactics. Why does he become so ruthless...Because he has no other option. He sees a squad of guards between him and his objective, the neutralizing of this squad increases his odds at survival and so he makes a tactical decision to end their lives not because of bloodlust. LTL attacks are not feasible in a real infiltration and encounter against a superior enemy force. It is because taking those guards out SILENTLY is tactically prudent. For all those people that simply call Sam a thug don't realise that Sam is just doing his job professionally but motivated emotionally. This drive gives him an edge. I do realise that plot was influenced by the design but I'm just giving a plausible reason and defending Sam's characterization

BTW here's a clip from SCDA dev diaries which features it's Military advisor, an ex-Navy SEAL who clearly mentions why LTL attacks are not tactically sound and sentry elemination is a vital part of maintaining your stealth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBX2dWYIcUk

[eviljohnny666]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
This is regarding my analogy comparing AC and SC
AC was trying out a new gameplay concept much like SCC was. They both added something new to the Stealth genre, something significant. But they both had some glaring issues regarding mission design and absence of certain features, nonetheless both are excellent games. With AC2 the basic gameplay was enhanced and beefed up to give player an AMAZING experience, I am trying to show that maybe like AC SCC2 will be a better game.

We can always see, but a big part of what makes me like the game is the story, which is something that also affects gameplay and the mission themselves. If I already know the story's going to be terrible, well I won't care about the game even if it gets decent gameplay. A decent game just doesn't cut it for me anyway.

I thought AC was terrible, bad gameplay mechanics and it was basically ****ty mini-games put together, only the story was interesting. I still don't get what's good about AC2 either, still it's a step up but it's difficult for me to get bought by a game that is a sequel to a mediocre one. Even if the game does end up being pretty good, well it's always a big problem that you can't trust the first one to make the series worthwhile, thus making the following one loose pretty much all its appeal.

[eviljohnny666]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Sam Fisher's characterization:

Now people are arguing that Sam is missing or has been destroyed due his portrayal in SCC as a brutal mindless thug. This I believe is a totally wrong impression. Sam has gone through a LOT in his personal and professional life. He is undoubtedly under a lot of mental strain. In previous SC titles he was generally shown as a silent-but-deadly-with-dark-humor archetype. He was involved in highly sensitive intelligence operations where discreetness was paramount. Evidence in the form of 5.56mm NATO rounds or any other sign of US involvement could politically dangerous. Here he had to be silent and completely invisible.
In DA, after he is informed of his daughter's loss he completely loses it and becomes reckless (barfight cutscenes). This in my opinion was excellent character development on Ubi's part as it showed the vulnerable human side of Sam. He undertakes an almost suicidal mission as an UC operative. In SC canon, he's forced to kill his best friend and boss (the rage meter goes up a notch). After DA, he is lonely, frustrated and then is suddenly taken out of his Hiatus, informed that Sarah's still alive and can see her after he completes an assignement for Grim. Now Sam is ****ed of at being lied and manipulated and also longing to see Sarah.
He then infiltrates and sabotages an operation where his presence and evidence of existence are of no consequence because he is acting on his own authority, He is racing against time to stop the EMP attacks so that he can see his daughter again. He uses stealth to infiltrate heavily armed compounds where people are aware of his activities and are prepared for him. He is facing a numerically superior enemy which is between him and his final objective. Fisher now uses his aggressive stealth as a strategic weapon to even the odds. He's most Human in SCC and comes into his own as a character because he is selfish in wanting to see his daughter again, it is a remarkably human quality. He is now using Stealth to assault the meggido operation. He is not concerned about leaving evidence of his involvement and so uses more agressive tactics. Why does he become so ruthless...Because he has no other option. He sees a squad of guards between him and his objective, the neutralizing of this squad increases his odds at survival and so he makes a tactical decision to end their lives not because of bloodlust. LTL attacks are not feasible in a real infiltration and encounter against a superior enemy force. It is because taking those guards out SILENTLY is tactically prudent. For all those people that simply call Sam a thug don't realise that Sam is just doing his job professionally but motivated emotionally. This drive gives him an edge. I do realise that plot was influenced by the design but I'm just giving a plausible reason and defending Sam's characterization

BTW here's a clip from SCDA dev diaries which features it's Military advisor, an ex-Navy SEAL who clearly mentions why LTL attacks are not tactically sound and sentry elemination is a vital part of maintaining your stealth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBX2dWYIcUk

The bar fight cutscene is not about Sam being reckless, it was about him trying to get in prison for a new mission. It's easy to explain why he made it up to what he is not in SCC, but that doesn't mean it's a good character development. With Conviction it's obvious the developers tried to cater to a broader audience, it's obvious to tried to make Sam into something more appealing to this crowd, something which he is not.

Personally, I would've seen Sam as depressed, angry and ****ed off. Trying to hide from his former employers, hating them with passion. I would've imagined Sam showing all his anger mostly at this organization. I'm still at loss how they cut off the ties with the xbox version (the version they made) of DA. Erica being killed by 3E agents and Sam killing one agent. I would've seen more story between Sam and 3E/NSA. But I would've never seen him starting to kill everyone he wants out of action and act like a brute throughout the game. I would've seen him more reserved, yet not afraid of telling people not to **** with him, more violent, more effective or deadly, but not going on a rampage. Sam now feels like a simple action movie character for people with short attention span who watch crappy Hollywood blockbusters.

[shobhit7777777]

@eviljohnny

Actually the bar fight was not for the jail. it was Sam getting drunk. The NSA staged several bank robberies and falsified Fisher's record to give him a believable cover.

I agree that the characterization and the plot were a bit too influenced by hollywood, but what I'm basically trying to defend is Sam's more dangerous persona that SCC has tried to show, sure they didn't do an excellent job at it but I liked the direction they went in showing Sam as a more focused and predatory man. I have come up with the exact same plot premise as you have for a plausible SCC storyline, too bad the devs didn't implement it. I like seeing a ****ed off frustrated Sam like in conviction but with his anger directed at 3E rather then some half-assed, 24-conspiracy meggido bull****. Again, Sam does not go on any rampages, in fact his constraint is remarkable for a man who's gone through all that Sam has. His rampaging rep is not earned, maybe it is a side-effect of SCC allowing the players to **** up and engage in a shootfest making it seem like sam's gone nutters. But in reality, he is just forced into confrontations by the genius level designer.
My opinion:

1. Retain all features of SCC and build them by adding previously missing options like carrying bodies and whistling

2. Open ended level design which is not centred totally around M&E and allows you the option of using aggro stealth, ghosting, or even direct assaults

[Seosan]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
if the level design had been much more intelligent and creative, with some new options from previous titles, a better executed plot but still retaining SCCs COMPLETE GAMEPLAY MECHANICS then do you agree that it might have made the best SCC game?
The best SC? No, not in my eyes. It would've made a much better Conviction, but like I've said, my main issue is the shift from the world of information warfare to the world of generic tales of violence and vengeance. Oh, and conspiracy. Sorry I'm so stubborn. lol (high standards, low tolerance for crap)

I'm still hopeful that SC6 will at least be superior to Conviction.

[Knot3D]

Well, on a broader scope, in a bigger perspective, Conviction still stands tall amongst competitors.

Careful though... how much or little does that mean in recent times ?

While 2007's hobo Conviction's development was in total disarray, I had hoped Metal Gear Solid 4 would deliver
Bigtime to take back the stealth crown.

- But then MGS4 came, and after the solid Act 1 & 2, the game dissolves into a mixed bag of pseudo experimental stealth gameplay
and the final Solid Snake plotline which felt a little forced and dragged out.

Most critical point though : imo, SC has always had more fluid and acrobatic moves than MGS. That's also why I disagree
with people who state old SC's felt like grandma stealth. Anyway, MGS4's moves and controls show progress, but even with
Snake's new crouch move, it still feels like an under developed version of SC CT moves/animations.

So, SC's biggest console stealth competitor fell short of expectations and the Japanese developers still haven't mastered
fluid free character movement.

In terms of story and presentation, MGS4 could still be perceived as superior but the heart of MGS4's stealth gameplay
is weaker than Conviction.

- Hitman ? A new Hitman ? IO Interactive chose to focus on shooter action with the Kane & Lynch games. Very disappointing to see that happen.
Especially considering the fact that Hitman Bloodmoney is a phenomenal stealth game.

- newcomer Alpha Protocol : to be honest, I haven't played it, but reviews and in depth reports suggest this game flopped due to
internal power struggles within the development studio. Character model graphics and movements definitely look B game quality.

- James Bond, Bloodstone : too bad about Bizarre Creations... but...this just looks like another filler Hollywood game. Bwegh !

To conclude ; Conviction delivers within a very narrow scope ; its aggro stealth moves and Deniable Ops ; this makes the game
stand out amongst the current day stealth competition.

But, current day stealth competition doesn't have any real heavy hitters except for MGS4. So, Conviction delivers something
unique and nice like a Splinter Cell game should, but one shouldn't forget this 'something', lacks a little bit of challenge, substance and depth...a
fact which people might forget with somewhat lackluster stealth game competition.

[shobhit7777777]

@Knot 3D

I was not comparing SCC to other stealth titles but with SC itself because in terms of Stealth gameplay the only series I have found worth mentioning in the same breath as SC is Hitman and Thief. I haven't played as much MGS especially the previous titles, but from what I played of MGS4.....meh.
Another game that came closest to blending stealth and action was Chronicles of Rid**** but which just had stealth sections and devolved into firefights. But nonetheless it was a solid game.
Alpha protocol had some really cheesy stealth gameplay, dumb AI and poor production value.

I deliberately restricted my comparisons to within the series because most arguments against SCC were made with SCCT as the yardstick. But I do see your point as how SCC shines against other stealth based games.
As for the storyline I agree that SCC falls short. I think that if the devs would have expanded the gameplay options and made better written plot the game couldve been GOTY material. Depth is there in terms of the way you can play out each encounter. The different tactics you can use to neutralise guards is just fantastic. BTW does anyone else think that the PEC was totally underwhelming when compared to rainbow 6 vegas's PEC? I mean the PEC was welcome but I would have preferred a deeper customisation system..I think it is indicative of SCCs prototype status..with the devs experimenting with new systems and mechanics and hopefully will make an even better game next time.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Knot 3D

I was not comparing SCC to other stealth titles but with SC itself because in terms of Stealth gameplay

I still find it vital to compare SCC to its contemporary stealth competitors because it draws out a bigger picture, a bigger perspective. Especially, since it is about which
game franchise defines itself amongst others. Splinter Cell has always done that, and likewise...Conviction should be measured up against those others as well, otherwise one
might miss to see the bigger picture and the importance of era differences.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
the only series I have found worth mentioning in the same breath as SC is Hitman and Thief. I purposely didn't include Thief, because it's mostly a 1st person game with the PC ( controls ) as native platform. Crucial difference there. Also, Thief is a no show in this gaming era...just like Hitman doesn't show up this second half of current generation.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
I haven't played as much MGS especially the previous titles You should, really..
Originally posted by shobhit7777777: but from what I played of MGS4.....meh. Why, exactly ? Imo, MGS4 is still a good game. It kinda suffered from having to tie up all storyline twist of the previous games AND its gameplay change was somewhat forced to rake in shooter fans as well.

Anyway, MGS has been one of the stealth pioneers since 1987. I don't know how old you are, but this series is THE defining series within the stealth genre since the really early days of gaming. It also stuck to the present / near future military spy premise, with all the gadgets and sneaking suits ; also, a very important similarity factor, which Thief and Hitman don't feature.

It has always been know for quicker stealth action than SC and its AI has always been sharp & relentless ( on HARD levels and up ). On paper, it sounds like the perfect game for you. So, you really ought to play both MGS3 Subsistence on PS2 and SC DA old gen for Xbox 1. If you haven't played those, you're missing out on the best games of both franchises.



Originally posted by shobhit7777777:BTW does anyone else think that the PEC was totally underwhelming when compared to rainbow 6 vegas's PEC? I mean the PEC was welcome but I would have preferred a deeper customisation system..I think it is indicative of SCCs prototype status..with the devs experimenting with new systems and mechanics and hopefully will make an even better game next time. Well, previous games didn't feature any customization.. so...

But eh, I think it'll be more important to really bring back the option to interact with the environment at will ; barricading doors with objects like in the Conviction 2007 build, for example.

[shobhit7777777]

@knot

Comparing stealth games with different mechanics is not possible unless the mechanics are the same. Comparing Hitman and Assassins creed is more logical as both games have their primary stealth mechanic built around social stealth. Comparing Hitman with say....MGS would just be pointless. I am debating gameplay mechanics and when you compare two games of the same genre but different mechanics it boils down to presentation, polish, plot, execution of the design, creative design etc. which when considering the whole game is important but in this casde I'm defending SCCs right to be called an SC game. But still thanks for bringing the other games to light and show us how SCC stands out.
I really can;t MGS as I dont have a ps2 and dont plan to buy 1 and none of my friends have it so....

MGS4:

1. My major beef was the AI in the game. The whole game was based around camouflage and breaking LOS. But the AI was incredibly dumb. I would like the AI to spot a human silhouette prone on the ground making even the smallest of movements at a range of 3 feet, especially when I get on my back with my pistol aimed at their heads. This really broke the game for me.

2. MGS seems like a game that can't make up it's mmind if it is a realistic espionage game or an Over the top fantasy stealth game. On one hand it has extremely realistic elements like eating food, psyche, stress, camouflage, slow tactical movement, tactical stances etc. and on the other hand you had the main character named Solid snake and boss battles with crazy chicks. It destroys the illusion, it should maintain a theme and stick to it, but that's my opinion

3. Convoluted plot. the story initially was VERY interesting..enter hammy cutscenes, some unbelievably ridiculous dialogues between the character and guys like "vamp" showing up. I am like WTF!?!? The plot was well narrated but I felt there were huge holes because I had not played the previous games, as a remedy to this I googled MGS and tried to get the story thru wikipedia....I couldnt make it past the first 4 paras. It's too hammy, heavy handed and preachy for me (and this coming from an Indian...we have Bollywood!!)

It just did not have the cool wow moments of SC that made you feel truly like a spy and think that stuff like this could actually happen.

I am glad that MGS got stealth as a genre to the gamers but its not my cup of tea. I really gave it a chance and tried to get through all the acts but I just left it halfway because it never really kept me hooked on, I'd keep comparing it to SC and it felt way below the mark.
BTW what's the similarity factor? as in similarity of suit size to disguise yourself or facial similarities to blend better?

The only two games that I consider were beakthrough in terms of stealth were Hitman and thief

P.S.

I am 20

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
The only two games that I consider were beakthrough in terms of stealth were Hitman and thief They're good games. But then again, in context of a comparison, these games are crucially different from SC in terms of gameplay and premise as well.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
I am glad that MGS got stealth as a genre to the gamers but its not my cup of tea. I really gave it a chance and tried to get through all the acts but I just left it halfway because it never really kept me hooked on, I'd keep comparing it to SC and it felt way below the mark. Try MGS3 Subsistence and MGS2 Substance.

MGS3's story is more light hearted and it's akin to 60's Bond movies in terms of presentation and style. Furthermore, the camo stealth fits better into that game with the whole jungle theme and the AI is more likely to spot you despite your camo if you don't remain still. And... MGS3 introduced wicked CQC moves before SC ever did.

MGS2 is definitely about quick line of sight stealth ; dashing from cover to cover. Try to get the message behind the seemingly convoluted story ; because it's a really intelligent story.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
BTW what's the similarity factor? as in similarity of suit size to disguise yourself or facial similarities to blend better? Well, in terms of premise and context both SC and MGS are both about military super spy soldiers in the current time / near future with accordingly sneaking suits and miltary gadgets.

Also in terms of Clancy realism factor, MGS development has always had a real military advisor ; who made sure, the enemies employ real sweep & destroy tactics. MGS4 might be the weaker one in this context ... because... it tried to sell out to shooter fans a bit more, thus it resulted in less sharp AI.

MGS3 Subsistence might be playable on PS3... and if not... PS2 are dirtcheap these days... and besides MGS.... there are a lot of PS2 games which are - even today - miles better than any current gen game.



Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
P.S.

I am 20 Not to disrespect a person based on age, but as a 32 year old gamer.... I have seen and gotten a feel for how games have changed and which developments have been defining landmarks since my early gaming days in 1984/1985. But... in that light, we should also remind ourselves what caused the great crash of the videogame industry after the Atari days in the early 80's.

[shobhit7777777]

@knot

I'll try my bet to play MGS3 but can't promise anything. I really hope that the AI is better than MGS4's. As for the storyline, I appreciate meaningful plots as long as they are subtly delivered, a gesture here a small dialogue there to get the point across but MGS overdoes it. It should realise that players are smart enough to understand sublime hints in the plot.

Similarity factor..oh ok I get it now. well, to be honest I think that the SC games had their share of military advisors as well, in fact in SCDA there is a dev diary featuring their military advisor, an ex Navy SEAL. But the advising I think is done more on the operational tactics a field agent might use and certain specific details rather than AI behavior. After all in SC games prior to SCC the player hardly encountered a squad of guards.
Really can't afford a PS2 now as between rent and food I barely have enough left to go clubbing and engage in other forms of drunken social behaviour so........

Age:
Whatever gramps...http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif JK
I personally have no idea regarding the gaming scene way back in the 80s but I do have an idea as to the current state of affairs and the future of gaming to a certain degree, good or bad, really can't say.

P.S.

You know...fellow SC gamers are some of the smartest and most mature people I have encountered online. It's much more than "So, what class u use for TDM?" or "AK vs ACR". At the risk of sounding arrogant..I think its the stealth mindset http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[shobhit7777777]

Right Back on topic

Aggressive Stealth:
A lot of the posters are convinced that SCC is more "action" oriented and encourages player to go "Rambo", they believe that engaging in gunfights is totally against SC traditions and not realistic, but I think that they are confusing SCCs aggro-stealth action with more conventional FPS "pewpewpew" action sequences.
First lets take a good look at what exactly is the action part in SCC. Contrary to popular belief, action in SCC is not "blow up barrel-shotgun-spam frags-run around-cover based shooting-TPS" style action. The aforemention explosive barrel certainly do exist and the game can be played using this style but the true action of SCC lies in the proper implementation of it's gameplay mechanics.
Action in conviction is about STEALTH ATTACKS. Allow me to elaborate. In SCC the player is encouraged to engage the enemy in a stealthy manner. The action is about silently neutralizing opponents while remaining undetected. A perfect example would be the 3E mission or the deniable ops Infiltration mode. This is SCC action. All the mechanics accomodate such a playstyle.
I have a simple analogy which might make my point clearer.
Consider the previous SC games as the Predator UAV. It is a super silent drone which is inserted deep behind enemy lines to gather vital intel without getting detected and also used, sometimes, to destroy targets of opportunity. The new SCC is the F-22 raptor.
It is designed for one role...Air-superiority through stealth. It remains undetected and massively relies on stealth to decimate targets without giving away it's location. Due to it's impressive stealth capabilities it can effectively reduce an enemy's numerical superiority. It is faster, more agile and packs quite a punch. Both aircrafts have the same thing in common..STEALTH. It defines them and also makes them that much more potent. They are stealthy, do things quietly but have different missions.

Conviction does have a bad habit of spewing up forced and closed levels with hardly any room to maneuverer, but during these times...is the gameplay at fault or the level design?

In previous games the Action part was the successful avoidance of a lone sentry or stalking and silencing him, it was quietly tailing a Shin bet agent or wirelessly hacking a PC, it was about intelligence gathering. In SCC, the action is about silently neutralizing the lone guard, neutralizing the squad of mercs as stealthily and quickly as possible, infiltrating the 3E HQ without any alarms, stalking and eleminating tails in a public environment without drawing attention. It's a dog but a different breed.
It has a tail and barks but simply runs faster and bites more than the other dog. Dismissing SCCs stealth as "dumb" and "un-challenging" is unfair. The challenge in SCC is not to score a hard to aim headshot (although it isn't a piece of cake when compared to other games with shooting mechanics, in fact pulling of 2 headshots successfully without M&E is tough and requires considerable skill) it is not about how many ways you can sneak past that guard, but how can you effectively and efficiently clear this room of all enemies. the challenge is in being creative enough to explore more tactical options while all the time remaining STEALTHY.

In the next post I shall try to explain why Sam would adopt a more agressive stealth approach, and why such an approach would be more apt and realistic in context to the locations Sam's infiltrating and the guard density.

[xXassassinXx92]

I just hope that SC6 doesnt have infinite pistol ammo or Mark and Execute. I'm fine with being able to pick up enemies and using them as a last resort. However, I hope we start off each level with an Sc-20K and a five seven http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[shobhit7777777]

@xXassassinXx

Hi! and thanks for postin

I too would like some limited ammo for the pistols as for M&E I rather like it, but they could make it harder to get and cap it at 2 or 3 marks.
I would LOVE to have the SC-20K MAWS..like the one in SCCT.

Apart from that, what are your views on SCC as a member of the franchise which deserves the SC title?

[Redemption_x]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Redemption_X

The splinter cell split jump is not feasible for trained ex-Navy SEAL agents. If there are any true splinter cell split jumps on the net kindly post the link as kids doing a "split wall climb" is not split jumping.

Have you seen any of the **** that these people who practice Parkour can accomplish? Why is a split jump so infeasible to you?



A sticky cam is not a tactical option for stealth operations....A sensitive piece of equipment as a camera being launched at the velocities as it was in-game make's a lot of noise and may attract unwarranted attention. It may also damage the camera and there is no universal adhesive which can attach to any an all surfaces after being launched with such force. The sticky cam is a cool and inventive gadget, also plausible but not realistic. It is ironic how you defend a gadget on one hand and dismiss another due it being too "futuristic". Sonar goggles though currently do not exist but are a real possibility.
Salvage use sonar arrays to penetrate ship hulls and literally paint pictures on monitors, are you saying that his tech can't be succesfuly applied in the field? Ultra sonic waves have been in use for decades now. Submarines use active sonar pings to determine all sorts of data. As for Tom Clancy well he came up with a little gadget called the "Heartbeat sensor". You are simply biased towards SCC, and simply bash it without any good reason and that is why you have trashed an utterly plausible tech like the Sonar goggles.
Knife takedowns: Knife takedowns are simply the last resort for real world SF units. They are taught basic sentry silencing techniques which involve strength and violence involve massive blood loss on the victims's part. They teach SF units to first strike the vicitm's nerve centres in the neck to induce shock and then severe the carotid arteries with death following in 5-20 seconds, It's called the brachial stun and throat cut technique. The kidney stab you're talking about is just to induce shock so the soldier can then cut the victim's throat. All Knife techniques taught require massive blood loss but ensure a silent kill within 20 seconds. This is reality. It is harsh and the victim struggles, it is not so clean as in the games. Kindly read about the military and it's tactics before posting and accepting the games version as the word of god.
The SEALs and other units prefer suppressed pistols to take out sentries. The knife is a last resort. As a side note SEAL units suppressed pistols called "hush-puppies" to silence guard dogs and sentries in the Vietnam war. They were one of the first users in that conflict.

First of all - stop lecturing me about what SF use and their tactics. THEY USED SUPPRESSED FIREARMS?! REALLY? wow you're a genius! Thank you, captain Obvious. But what they DON'T do, is engage in firefights for arbitrary reasons!! I'm bashing SCC because it tries too hard to look super ultra badass. Splinter Cell was always a game where firing your gun was a LAST resort. Now it's just go from area to area killing every guard on the way. And they justify it by saying oh, but you're killing them all from a shadow, so its stealth! It's nothing but shallow stealth to appease COD fanboys like yourself.

and Really? You just proved to me how inept you are at complex thoughts. A Launchable camera is unrealistic? Really? You think it's impossible for the government invent a camera that is durable enough?

Secondly - Don't compare a Launchable camera to Sonar Goggles, it's not ironic and if you actually put any thought behind, you'd see why one is more plausible than the other. Here's a post by Shadow Fox on Sonar Goggles and why they're ******ed:


The vision modes of previous games took real world optical waves and maps them out in the visible specturm of light that was displayed on the goggles internal screen.

You can't "see" sound. For the Sonar vision that we're being presented, the technology would have to send out a single pulse (if we're using this method of tracking) and then wait to receive the echo signal from at least 2 point receivers, which (very basically put) would then have to be analysed to determine how far away each echo came from, how it was reflected, the material it was made from (to determine if there are going to be any further echoes coming from that direction), what shape it is and then analyse certain shapes to identify human forms and highlight them (even after the ultra sonic signal has passed through denser material than the human form twice to get to to and from the source/receiver of the goggles, thus hugely distorting the signal) while still determining if the point source/receiver has even moved SLIGHTLY (as with the frequency of these waves, even the slightest movement would distort calculations). This would take a massive amount of computing power as spectral analysis (analysis of frequencies) places a massive demand on computing needs. I did my final year thesis on spectral analysis and I'm no expert, but even the most basic program I wrote (just to determine what frequencies are in a signal) took a lot of time to analyse a very small signal.

The previous goggles were knocked by Tom Clancy for being unrealistic as the goggles that were being suggested would be too big and their cost would be ridiculously high and all they did was receive optical waves and scale their frequency to be analysed in the visible spectrum of light.

Sam would need to be walking around with a massive supercomputer strapped to him in order to get these results, even if you're buying into the fact that this sort of technology has been developed and is is realistically plausible as a threat detection system (which I'm not entirely convinced it is, again I'm no expert, but I haven't been able to find anything on the net about this sort of system)

But he is STILL wearing a pair of goggles that have 3 optical lenses on the front that are serve no purpose as the detection process he's using is dealing with sonic waves. There is no need for them, so why is he wearing trifocal goggles?

It's just a tack on concession to keep hardcore fans appeased without any real thought put into it.



The AI in this game is better for the new gameplay style and aloso you cannot get away with much before the AI is alerted, this represents a more realistic outcome. The Ai in SCC is not as jumpy as you would lead us to believe. You can cause distraction and the gaurds will investigate it albeit much more intelligently than in previous installments. Also imagine if the guard keeps hearing sounds and sees silhouettes. If he keeps hearing a whistle. Besides before investigating he will call it in with a senior or command. It's good practice just like the cops do before approaching the scene of activity. Do bear in mind that in SC there is no "Alarm" system with blazing horns and sirens. The areas Sam Fisher infiltrates in SCC do not accurately represent a military base or a heavily guarded security compound. There are no tiered alarms here.

You think a light going out and the guards screaming oh my god Fisher is here, and start freaking out is more intelligent? I've never seen a guard really investigate in a realistic manner in this game. They always freak out irrationally. And I do think areas like 3rd Echeleon would have an alarm system, wouldn't you think? Also just because they don't have alarm systems, doesn't mean anything. The first mission in Chaos Theory, the lighthouse, yet the guards there still act reasonable and rational, they dont freak out, specifically calling out Fishers name at the slightest sound/light out.


Of course there is no reason to engage them. It totally depends on how you play the encounter. Even some forced gunfughts can be made into stealth encounters if you're good enough. If you truly are good at stealth as you think you are then you can vanish and then silently hunt the guards SC style or sneak past them. You are so attached to the previous series's gameplay style that you simply cannot use stealth as a viable tool during firefights, all you want are docile lone sentries whom you can easily circum-navigate. "Ghosting"..is entirely possible and I beleive that there are several videos on youtube and other sites, infact there's some here in the forum if Im right. "ghosting" is not my cup of tea but I dislike it when players bash a game because it does not make ghosting easier. If ghosting is so damn hard in SCC I thought that you would enjoy the challenege, I mean you're a true SC hardcore silent whisper fan right? But if anything becomes harder it stops becoming fun for you. Jeez gimme a break with all this "previous SC games were harder", I found ALL SC games fun and challenging, but not HARD. ALL titles were relatively easy, SCCT SCC SCPT SC1 and DA. They were fun, they were challenging but not once did I find them hard. You want to play hard stealth games? try Death to Spies and Commandos. That'll put things in perspective. BTW you can ghost in SCC but in a different way...

The ghosting in this game is a joke. You talk about options yet the game does nothing to really encourage stealth. Every feature implemented in this game has done nothing to encourage stealth. Last known position? A feature that is only available AFTER you've been detected. Not only have they not implemented any features that encourage stealth, but they've removed a lot of key features.


Neutralize all enemies you encounter in a stealthy way. Getting detected while doing so is a breach of SCC ghosting laws.
Also, could you please start READING through my posts rather than skimming through it, it would make your arguments better and waste less of my time repeating things.

Maybe if you actually authored your argument in one giant wall of text, I could actually better comprehend your points.

My point is that they totally ruined one of the key gameplay core and mechanic of the game. That is violence should ALWAYS be a last resort. And when you did engage in violence, you had to be smart about it. Now it's just run around and do fancy CQC moves and headshot every guy. But you deem it stealthy because it's being done by the shadows.

[eviljohnny666]

Originally posted by Redemption_x:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Redemption_X

The splinter cell split jump is not feasible for trained ex-Navy SEAL agents. If there are any true splinter cell split jumps on the net kindly post the link as kids doing a "split wall climb" is not split jumping.

Have you seen any of the **** that these people who practice Parkour can accomplish? Why is a split jump so infeasible to you? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I bet he hasn't seen any Jackie Chan movies. And weren't all Sam's moves mocapped?


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
The AI in this game is better for the new gameplay style and aloso you cannot get away with much before the AI is alerted, this represents a more realistic outcome. The Ai in SCC is not as jumpy as you would lead us to believe. You can cause distraction and the gaurds will investigate it albeit much more intelligently than in previous installments. Also imagine if the guard keeps hearing sounds and sees silhouettes. If he keeps hearing a whistle. Besides before investigating he will call it in with a senior or command. It's good practice just like the cops do before approaching the scene of activity. Do bear in mind that in SC there is no "Alarm" system with blazing horns and sirens. The areas Sam Fisher infiltrates in SCC do not accurately represent a military base or a heavily guarded security compound. There are no tiered alarms here.

No. They always know you're somewhere, and they seem to forget they saw something or something happened when you manage to disappear in the shadows. If anything the AI is dumber, or at least fits less the game than previous iterations.




"Ghosting"..is entirely possible and I beleive that there are several videos on youtube and other sites, infact there's some here in the forum if Im right. "ghosting" is not my cup of tea but I dislike it when players bash a game because it does not make ghosting easier. If ghosting is so damn hard in SCC I thought that you would enjoy the challenege, I mean you're a true SC hardcore silent whisper fan right? But if anything becomes harder it stops becoming fun for you. Jeez gimme a break with all this "previous SC games were harder", I found ALL SC games fun and challenging, but not HARD. ALL titles were relatively easy, SCCT SCC SCPT SC1 and DA. They were fun, they were challenging but not once did I find them hard. You want to play hard stealth games? try Death to Spies and Commandos. That'll put things in perspective. BTW you can ghost in SCC but in a different way...

It just proves you didn't even try it. Ghosting IS possible, but it's like getting through Red Dead Redemption while killing 40 enemies, the game wasn't designed for this. If you're masochistic and like incredibly trial and error, more than the series has ever been known for. There is a different between a good challenge and doing something for the sake of it. Any other SC game is more challenging than Conviction. And when the only little challenge is about not resorting to Rambo playstyle, there is a problem. Conviction is easy and offers very repetitive and boring gameplay to those who only use M&E.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:

Action in conviction is about STEALTH ATTACKS.

In the next post I shall try to explain why Sam would adopt a more agressive stealth approach, and why such an approach would be more apt and realistic in context to the locations Sam's infiltrating and the guard density.

Look, everybody GETS what aggro stealth is about, and we basically all dig it in Deniable Ops, to the limited extent it is able to shine.

However, like AssassinXX92 hinted at, there are numerous factors like the form of M & E which almost completely go against & nullify the potential of that aggro stealth with the cool moves.

Having the fast paced moves is about incentive to get the player in and out quickly to the enemy. But the unlimited ammo and 3 or 4 marks M & E is a direct counter productive incentive because THAT is about shooting, and shooting is ranged combat. Predators don't shoot it out from afar, they move in to the enemy lightning quick and out again just as quick. Shooting it out is for pussies. pew pew.

The only viable excuse for 2 marks M & E would be to get out of a sticky situation. On top of that, the unlimited ammo is a complete sell out which further nullifies the potential tension of the aggro stealth concept.

Anyone who can't hack it without 3 marks and unlimited ammo in this game is just not a good player. It lacks proper challenge.

Furthermore, the guard density is still not enough to call it challenging. 10 guards ? 10 or 12 extra when you blow up something in a big way ? That's a super mild repurcussion, especially, since the maps have grown from small hallways to fullblown evironment. It's like saying SC 1 2 and 3 were a small country with 1 million inhabitants, but Conviction is like big Mother Russia with 3 million inhabitants. So, sure... 3 million is more, but considering the fact Russia is humongous, the density is actually lower... and that's what is the case with Conviction.

Let's say that vintage stealth is X to the power of 1 which had a challenge factor Y to the power of 1. Well, now aggro stealth is X to the power of 10, but Conviction's challenge factor is only Y to the power of 3.

See, it's factors like the unlimited ammo, the 3 or 4 marks M & E, the ff-ing level design, the mainstream-ified hold-the-player-by-the-hand ingame instructions and the AI which imo hasn't grown enough in paralel with the aggro stealth, which cause this severe lack of challenge.

THAT is what people are criticizing... they aren't necessarily bashing aggro stealth.

On a side note about the gaming history.... The Great Videogame Industry crash was caused by increasingly similar copy cat games. The market went down to zero value. What we see happening in current times is more and more game blending and they all start to copy aspects from eachother with a mainstream aim. That is also why MGS4 came out as the weakest brother : because it tries too hard to rake in newcomers with mainstreamification.
And that's also why we aren't all that enthusiastic about Hollywood mainstream influences imposed upon SC.

[shobhit7777777]

@redemption

Parkour: I mean of-course, ex SEAL, ex CIA SAD, Ex Splinter Cells would have time to perfect their Parkour training, which takes years BTW, between their arduous and dense combat training regimen interspersed with long operations. In case you didn't get that and you probably didn't going by your comprehension skills, it is sarcasm. And please do post the links with split jump. Also, Sam was hand animated throughout SC1 and SC2, don't know about CT and DA.

SF tactics: Maybe if you had not been so damn ignorant and dense about the subject I would not have to school you like a 6 year old. Just bear in mind that before posting nonsensical ****, there are other who are better informed regarding the subject than you. As for Suppressed firearms, you obviously did not know about their field use and the proper use of combat knives. So sarcasm won't prove anything but your lack of a substantial argument and complete ignorance.
No. In Splinter Cell suppressed firearms were a viable and stealthy way to remove obstacles light or guard from your path. Shooting guards from the shadows is not stealth, its stealthy. It is a tactic to silently take out people.

Technology:
My god you are a joke!! I don't consider the sticky cams to be impossible, improbable yes. There would be a lot of work going into making a camera with several vision modes, with sufficient resilience and built in CS gas is not possible with current tech.
Sonar Goggles are feasible too. The goggles would actually send out 2 waves within milliseconds of each other and then from the feed back determine the environment and the direction, speed and heading of the object. Shadowfox has not take into account the second wave and also the primary method of identfying humans. The Human body's density is very different from the environment and this could be programmed into the goggle's computer. It could be taught to seperate the returning waves whose frequency would be determined from the material they have passed through and ID Humans, plus ask them to highlight the presence of a certain amount of polymers and metal to isolate the armed ones. With a preprogrammed library and intelligent ID software Sonar goggles are entirely possible and feasible. Given the advances in computer technology it could be made into the SCs sonar goggles. Besides Shadowfox has stated his point to counter the myth that these goggles exist in current times. In another 10 years..who knows.


AI: Again, play the f@cking game and get your facts straight. Try turning off a light, and the AI displays a very authentic reaction, it does not get alarmed, it does not freak out. It says something like "hey, did you turn the light off?. Is that you buddy?" If you haven't seen the guards investigate, then there are two possibilities
(a) Your observation skills are of a 2 year old
(b) You are not playing the game well, and shooting the lights in the AIs presence is a dumb thing to do. Hence your cognitive skills are on par with a 3 year old.
BTW blowing up the 3E HQ's power will already have tripped the alarm you idiot. They are already in a state of lockdown, in case you did not notice with your super-human observation skills.

Stealth: Its a new type of stealth, obviously you have not understood it. The definition of ghosting has been slightly changed from previous iterations. They have features that encourage stealth but you obviously can't see or understand them in the new context.

Maybe if you grew a couple of billion brain cells you would better comprehend my arguments. It's ironic how you complaint about lack of ghosting options in SCC when you need focus, attention and patience to do it, yet here you are behaving like an ADD afflicted person who can't even read the whole thread before posting opionated bullcrap
This is a thread for logical arguments, stop posting if you have nothing to contribute and insist on name-calling.

[shobhit7777777]

@Knot

The post regarding aggro stealth was for the benefit of posters like Redemption_x. I know that you and some of the others completely understand the concept but are against the way it has been executed. The others have no idea and fail to accept it. They post nonsensical things and dont take things into context. Plus I deemed it as a revision of previous arguments of sorts.

M&E: I use it to quickly co-ordinate attacks and find it an integral part of aggro stealth. Heres why:
You agree with my definition of Aggro stealth? Lets assume you do.
When I enter an area (in SCC) I quickly notice there are 5-6 guys in here. Now, due to the level design, the whole level is made to facilitate M&E. But let us consider for a moment that it is NOT that poorly designed and I have to figure out a way to do it. I observe the group, use a sticky cam to cause a disturbance and watch as the group disperses to search the area. I mark 2 guys farthest from me and proceed to takedown the nearest target of oppurtunity in the shadows and genereally try my best to take the other out with CQC or silenced head shots whenever I can. Then I use M&E to execute the farthest two, because approaching them would have led to my discovery and I wanted to maintain my cover. In this way I have successfully ghosted SCC style. M&E allows me to carefully orchestrate attacks and do it in a silent way.

Now the devs have made it overtly powerful to allow the player to M&E when discovered. So using the execute when :
(a) you are being fired upon
(b) you have been detected by the marked guards
(c) you are out of range for reflexive shooting methods (max 10 meters)

is plain wrong and the design should take into account the above factors to truly make M&E a stealth weapon and also make it more challenging to use.
Furthermore, the unlimited ammo is ridiculous and needs to be rectified. 40 rounds max.IMO

Guard density: I agree that the density and placing of guards does make things easier but like I said the whole game was a field run of the new aggro stealth concept by the dev team. Hence they tried to maintain a balance such that the casual gamer finds it easier to engage the game. I sincerely hope that in the next instalment the consequence of alarms would mean heavier armed and more dangerous enemies being sen it and in larger numbers.
The Y may be 3 but it still is an improvement and I hope that it is raised up a couple of notches.

I am really glad that some people understand and enjoy aggro stealth as it should be and welcome newer stealth types.

Hollywood Influence: It is a double edged sword. On one hand it mkes the dev teams to increase their production value and offer a strong narrative and plot, it makes them want the game to feel more immersive. But it may de-focus the game from gameplay aspects. It depends on what are your influences. If SCC has been influenced by the Bourne franchise then I have absolutely no problem if it leads to new and interesting game styles and mechanics. I do agree that SCC failed in delivering a cohesive plot and aped 24 a bit too much. Although I really agree with character direction in terms of Sam. I liked that they portrayed him as a more serious brooding anti-hero (it truly sounds like a cliche as we have innumerable archetypical bad@sses running around , but with sam fisher who was always this composed, quite man it was a welcome turn of events fro him to go back to his primal predatory side. I liked the direction but not always the way it was portrayed in the game. That is one of the main reasons that I was defending Sam's portrayal in the game. He had every right to be damned ****ed off after the events of previous games, we have to take his character history into account. Case in point: The Prince of Persia SOT..the first game was a light toned game with a likeable and fallible prince. In warrior within he becomes a scowling badass. Now in this case there were no shades of gray, there were no indications of the Prince's moody, brooding attitude in the first game, He did not have a dark persona. There was an abrupt departure from this tone in the second one. He suddenly became the ruthless killer. In SC, throughout the games, we KNOW and are led to believe that Sam is much more capable and has a real dark and nasty side to him. This is enforced in SCCT, brought out in SCDA and then in SCC it is unleashed. There is a gradual increase and logical given the storyline. In SC we know Sam is a bad@ss he already is a trained killer and has no qualms when it is necessary. In SCC we still have a bad@ss Sam albeit he is angry and in a rush.

[sameer_monier]

shobhit7777777 again man, you never seize to amuse me, great points you made there, and much respect to you http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

You know also i agree with you on Sam's Persona, even in SCC, he is still quit like always and dark, he shows how angry he is only on certain situations regarding his daughter, only that subject that enrages him, for example during interrogating the VP he only shoot his knees, he didn't go like breaking every bone in his body, Sam is still Sam, only now we are getting look at him when it comes to be personal

[eviljohnny666]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:

Hollywood Influence: It is a double edged sword. On one hand it mkes the dev teams to increase their production value and offer a strong narrative and plot, it makes them want the game to feel more immersive. But it may de-focus the game from gameplay aspects.


You contradict yourself here. How can you make a game more immersive while de-focusing the game from gameplay aspects? It's the gameplay aspects which makes the game immersive, not ****ty Hollywood theatrics which makes you think you're watching a movie rather than playing a game. Production value =/= overall quality. Most Hollywood action blockbusters have a weak narrative and plot, if anything putting Hollywood aspects in a game only gives better production values, something which like I said, does not necessarily equal quality.

And is it me or you only talk about the good aspects of the AI, you never address our points when we talk about what the AI does wrong, and they pretty much outstands the good aspects.

[codenameeric]

Here are a few simple reasons why Conviction is not Splinter Cell:

1. Sam is not a Splinter Cell agent and does not behave like one.
2. The 3E agents he faces do not behave like Splinter Cell agents or use their tactics.
3. Those agents would only be one part of an actual Splinter Cell team and there are no Splinter Cell teams in Conviction.

No Splinter Cells = no Splinter Cell.

[shobhit7777777]

@eviljohnny
No eviljohnny, I am not contradicting myself, you have not clearly understood the post. I am saying that hollywood influence can be good or bad. Good in the sense that it makes the developers want to make games with a much better visual scheme and narrative. Gameplay does make it immersive but only to an extent. Immersiveness is added through the graphics and visual style, it is added through audio, it is added through the plot and character development, it is added through the control scheme and viewing perspective. There are several factors which affect immersion. Production value does increase over all quality. Inception is a hollywood blockbuster and so is the Bourne trilogy but both have an excellent plot and are fantastic movies. True you can have a polished game with excellent animations and voice overs but the gameplay decides if it is fun or not BUT the production value does increase the quality, it never decreases it. Hollywood is too vast and rich in materials to be so lightly dismissed.
As for the AI, yes it is you. I have acknowledged in previous posts the problems with AI, kindly read them first.

[shobhit7777777]

@codenameeric

1. Sam left the Splinter cell program in DA itself. Does it make that game a non Sc game?
Q. Define SC behavior?

2. 3E agents are NOT on an intelligence gathering mission. They are on a hunt for Sam Fisher and hence their tactics. Really, you ought to know better http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

3. How do you know that 3E has not undergone a massive overhaul in ROE and organisation to gear up for more aggressive operations? Maybe it is Reed's new approach.

The SC franchise does not literally refer to an organisation or ROE it is much more than that.
Splinter Cell has always stood for solid stealth mechanics in the form of light and shadow while offering refreshing and unique gameplay unlike its competitors. It stands for innovative stealth experience not just an organisation in-game.


@Sameer:
Hey bro! thanks man http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ....I'm just pointing out the obvious, Sam was going through and understandable and much awaited emotional change and I welcomed it as it would enrich sam as a character and also provide a premise for the new form of stealth.

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@shadowfox

It was immensely pleasurable to sneak in take out the loners, mark the 3 guys and time the attack so that the room was cleansed in 2 seconds without any detections or alarms. You need to figure out the best way to encounter the guards. This tactical element I found was sorely missing in the previous games.

Yes, because the previous games weren't about clearing rooms. That is a different Tom Clancy game - it's called Rainbow 6.


There is no fun in determining a sentries p!ss-easy route and quietly flank/shank him. It was not intelligent neither creative. So suffice to say I played the game and liked it of my own accord.

Ok, well this quote makes your style of gaming very apparent and your defence of Conviction much more understandable :thumbs


Splinter cell outshone the others by introducing a realistic plot, interesting mechanics, gadgets and the grit of real world espionage.

Pretty interesting you say that these are the things that made Splinter Cell great - None of these found their way into Conviction.


It's realistic approach and the setting is what got us all hooked, denying it would simply be lying to yourself for the sake of this debate.

No, I fully 110% agree with you on this point. And the absence of this is also the reason why Conviction was so bad and cannot be considered a real Splinter Cell game.


They may not be as familiar with the character but they truly did Sam a favour by removing the CLICHED professional-grim-tough-cynical-yet dark humored spy

Cliched? What other characters fit that persona? I'm straining to think of even another 2, neither of which are mainstream.

New Sam, on the other hand, came straight off out of a cardboard cutout factory.


But the point is that they let us explore Sam's other side of his personality in SCC.

Really? Because I didn't see anything in Sam that I didn't already know was there, only we had to go a destroy the entire pre-existing story line for one decent emotional scene, that was destroyed by bad plot development anyway i.e. the 3E office scene.


Storyline is not SCCs strong point but it does a fantastic job of establishing Sam as a more believable character.

Serious LOLs here.

If anything, Conviction does more to contradict everything we've known about Sam up to this point. Believable is not the word I would personally use.


He still is the quiet meticulous professional

I guess we were playing a completely different game, because this does not describe New Sam, at all. He is sloppy, he is careless and he doesn't think with his head.


He is still the same guy but is just more angry and frustrated.
I am defending Sam's anger and aggressive personality here although I agree that the execution of the storyline and plot was HEAVILY INFLUENCED and screwed up.
Bear in mind that, Sam's aggression and skills were always there but simply under the surface.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'under the surface'. Sam's skills were never in doubt. Neither was his aggression. In fact, it was his skills that prevented his aggression from controlling him and endangering him.

His skills made him into the soldier he was who was able to control those emotions, because to indulge them and act recklessly meant getting very dead, very fast.

This entire game and story completely throws that very basic and very FUNDAMENTAL concept of Splinter Cell and the Sam Fisher character right out the window and then tries to center an entire story around it.

The gameplay then, as a natural progression, fails to live up what either is about.


The gameplay design caters to Sam's personality now that he's more objective focused and really wants to get the job done within the limited time.

It's been mentioned by Knot3D already that this is a very naive perception and I'll agree again.

It is so blatantly obvious that Sam's personality in this game caters to the gameplay design that they pushed forth. Also, saying that this gameplay is more objective focussed is ludicrous. It's linear, it's about shooting and confrontation and it's checkpoint based. Very little of it is objective based.


And if he is influenced by hollywood IPs then it has been for the gameplay, not character definition.

I'll just strongly disagree here. The story and script speaks for itself.


It's wrong to solely define a characters personality with just simple notions and not welcome changes, good or bad, which flesh out the role.

I fully agree with you, but this is not "fleshing out". It is completely overhaul, with very little respect or attention paid to what was laid before.

[codenameeric]

@shobhit7777777, I'm aware how they rationalize why Sam and 3E changed, but those arguments are weak. At the end of the day, too much has changed to be believable or acceptable.

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

Originally posted by codenameeric:
@shobhit7777777, I'm aware how they rationalize why Sam and 3E changed, but those arguments are weak. At the end of the day, too much has changed to be believable or acceptable.

And all without any proper reasoning or explanation.

It has simply and VERY conveniently changed to fit the new gameplay and storyline, with no thought put into how this reflects the previous story, how it affects the characters or what it does to the legacy of the game.

[newhenpal]

Someone on these forums once said that you could reasonably make a sequel where Sam Fisher becomes a Buddhist monk after the events of Double Agent/Conviction so that he may find inner peace, and that the gameplay would follow suit by having the player do things like tend to gardens and meditate, or something along those lines.

The point of that gross exaggeration was to highlight the sheer ludicrousness of story taking precedence over gameplay. With Conviction, it's hard to tell if the developers hurled this thinly veiled excuse plot to explain their egregious decisions, or if they genuinely thought the story was decent and more important than gameplay, which suffered severely as a result. Considering some of the films Beland mentioned as being inspirations, I'm betting the latter is true.

[shobhit7777777]

@shadowfox
I am going to quote myself from the previous post because your quote of my argument "we liked SC" is out of context and does not show the whole picture:

"What made Splinter cell great was it's approach to stealth not the stealth itself. Please don't delude yourselves that thinking SC was successful because of stealth. It was successful BECAUSE OF IT'S NEW APPROACH TO STEALTH. Stealth as LOS, cover to cover and light and shadow, even social stealth had been pioneered in other games.(thief, MGS,Hitman) Splinter cell outshone the others by introducing a realistic plot, interesting mechanics, gadgets and the grit of real world espionage. They did nothing mindblowing with stealth gameplay but simply refined the existing aspects. It's realistic approach and the setting is what got us all hooked, denying it would simply be lying to yourself for the sake of this debate."

The Point I'm trying to make is that SC was an innovative game in terms of it's approach to stealth. It refined mechanics and introduced a setting and plot which was feasible and believable, but it became famous for its stealth gameplay.

SCC fails on bringing realism in terms of narrative and plot that is granted, but it does what SC always does best. Refine stealth gameplay and bring something new and innovative to the table. SC1 did it with its setting and refined gameplay, SCPT with its unique multiplayer, SCCT with its array of options to go assault or stealth giving us a taste of stealth action albeit a limited one, SCDA with it's innovative though flawed double agent mechanics and SCC with a true blend of stealth-action. All the games are hallmarks of doing things differently and innovating in the field of stealth gameplay. SCC does this and has given us an excellent approach and style of stealth. It does stumble in narrative and realism of plot but it does deliver something unique and fun.
On a gameplay level SCC balances out realism and fantastical elements well. Realism in terms of how the AI detects Sam quicker and engages him aggressively, fantastical in terms of LKP and the relative ease with which we lose them, Real in terms of introducing a mechanic which we can use to accurately double tap guys at medium range, fantastical in terms of the 4 M&E, Real in terms that when infiltrating heavily guarded area, Sam would neutralize as much of the opposition to even the odds, fantastical in the way of level design and how everything is contrived. But this is what all games are about. It's finding the right balance. SCC was not perfect but it does open new doors and gives us a refreshing look at stealth.

Sam's Characterisation:

I'll put up the point of agreement first

The plot and storyline are sub-standard and are tacked on to make the new gameplay plausible. They borrow heavily from existing TV and hollywod IPs and digress to much from the SC theme of IW.

Now for Sam. Given SCs direction and DA storyline, it was only plausible for Sam to leave the agency and retire. It was given that for the next installment he would need a damn good reason to come back into the game. This reason could obviously not be professional and had to be personal, enough to get him back. It was also obvious that this new direction would entail new gameplay mechanics. The devs thought it a good idea for Sam Fisher to investigate his daughter's death as a sufficient personal motivation. For their new mechanics of aggressive stealth they needed a premise in which it would plausible to actively neutralize enemies and do so ruthlessly and efficiently. This premise would be provided by Sam Fisher in terms of his aggression and anger. This was completely designed to fit the new gameplay. But is this a necessarily a bad thing? I disagree. The new Sam's characterization although tailored for the new gameplay mechanics offers us new insights into him, his fallible nature, in terms of brutally interrogating people, who by the way are all directly implicated in the current plot or linked to his daughters "death" due to rage is evident of the fact that he is after all Human. It is this quality of losing control however momentarily, to seek satisfaction in hurting the people who cost him 3 years with his daughter. He believes that these people are indirectly related to him living a lie for three years. Even then the devs make it a point not to make Sam go overboard. He still leaves all of the folks he interrogated alive, it may seem that he has crushed the larynx but the character still move around and are definitely alive. There is no gratuitous violence unlike the Punisher, Sam still sneaks by guards and only kills when he has to. He still uses stealth to achieve objectives and maintain an edge over his enemies. It is his dual nature, the moral conflicts makes Sam a more believable character. The devs even give the player the choice whether to shoot Reed or not. Sam does not make a voluntary decision to plug him. So your arguments that Sam has been made into a ruthless bloodthirsty murder monkey by the devs who have complete disregard for the character, is baseless. There are morally ambiguous choices in the game, whether to kill or not it is up to you to play the game and define the Sam. Whenever Sam has been portrayed on autopilot, in cutscenes and interrogations he is shown as an angry human being who has lapses of control but still reigns these emotions in. It is a far-cry from the previous games, where he was portrayed as a complete super-spy robot, and here there was valid reason to be portrayed as such. He is in SCC a man not looking to cover the political @ss of an intelligence organisation, he is on his own and uses stealth aggressively to even the odds. If killing that trio of guards ensures his chances of success then he will do it, it is a testament to his professional skill and cold tactical demeanor rather than "blood thirst". He kills because he doesnt want to take ANY chance and is extremely focused on getting to the end because this time he could be personally affected by the outcomes. If your Sam is brutal and brainless, then Yes we have been playing different games.

'Under the surface': In all games there were several allusions to Sam's previous operations all which sounded very dangerous and also showed that Sam had massive amounts of combat experience. Hence in the game you always felt that Sam's skillset is much broader than that in the game and is mainly there due to strict ROE and mission requirements. His skills were never doubted but it felt like there was more going on underneath, that inside was this dangerous predator, this really was brought out in SCCT, with the 'closer than ever' animation. You felt like Sam had tremendous predatory capabilities which were reigned in and not applied due to the highly sensitive operations he was involved in. He did not use such skills because he could not leave any trace of his passing through which could lead back to 3E or the US. Plausible deniablity being the key word. In SCC the other reason for Sam to unleash his complete skills is that he is not on an intelligence gathering mission He is working solo. He can afford to shoot the lights out, He uses stealth to take out enemies because it is tactically prudent to reduce the enemies numerical superiority, he does not care to lift bodies and take time to hide them because he knows that if they are discovered he will be long gone and the repurcussions will not be as severe, He moves faster because instead of avoiding detection by hiding, he does it by neutralizing the nearest AI, you cannot pose a threat if you're dead, his ROE have changed due to different mission parameters and requirements. In previous assignments he would hide the bodies to make sure that no alarms were raised as it would severely hurt his chances of spying on that meeting or hacking that server due to increased security, and also reduce his chances of escape from heavily guarded areas. In SCC Sam taking the time to hide every body and avoiding every guards, delays him further in reaching his objective and not silencing the guards leaves more chances of detection and a large number of armed people looking for him while securing the hard to reach objectives. SCC Sam is not lackadaisical but simply tactical and efficient.

Cliched character: for starters..John Clark of the tom clancy novels. He could well be the template for sam fisher. The literary version of James Bond and I bet there is a plethora of fictional Spies who have the identical character traits as Sam does in the prvious games. The portrayal of spies like Sam Fisher has been done so many times and so much better in other medium that it is nigh impossible to create a completely new character without the mentioned traits. It is become a standard or a cliche. A unique well defined character is hard to achieve because it is hard to bring about that depth and that is why certain templates exist.

Exploration of Sam's other side: Nope, the other games pretty much had the same ol Sam from SC1 days. The grim professional spy. There were rare instances where his non Spy robot side was glimpsed, where he became angry or emotional. Otherwise it was pretty much the Sam we were familiar with. Yes we knew that Sam got angry but never what would he do if he actually got really p!ssed off. The SCCT or SCDA Sam would only threaten a thug with a knife for info, not bash his head in a urinal. the plot development did kinda suck tho. didnt it?

Believable character: No. It brings to light the fact that Sam is human and has human reactions, but still restrains himself due to his morals and training. In previous games, there is always a feeling that Sam is much more capable. In SCC he uses all his capabilities, but still remains objective. It simply re-enforces our definition of Sam Fisher, a highly skilled operative with tremendous capabilites, who despite of having more than enough reason to go POSTAL on his parent organisation and absolutely murder his way there, maintains control and does not lose sight of his ethics even though he sometimes loses it eg: during interrogations.
Seriously, what is your grasp on the character, if you think that SCC destroys previous interpretations. His anger and certain moments of weaknesses just put strong emphasis on his humanity and makes him a much deeper character and adds to his established personality.

[shobhit7777777]

@newhenpal

yes, the story was tailored to fit the mission design which itself accomodates the new mechanics. I don't know what the devs thought. But I agree with Sam's character development in SCC. It gave mass to the character we kno as sam Fisher, it added a personal and a much more dangerous side to his persona. Was it's execution flawed sometimes? Yes. The storyline was poor and so was the entire narrative but Sam's new characterisation was welcome and fleshed him out. Also, If some gameplay mechanics are influenced by the movies like the Bourne trilogy then is it a totally wrong thing? especially when it leads to a new style of stealth?

[shobhit7777777]

@shadowfox
"He is sloppy, he is careless and he doesn't think with his head".

Serious LOLs now.
Where did you get that impression? I'd really like to see these examples in-game. You know I really think that we are playing different games, did you pick up a copy of 'Rogue Warrior' by any chance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Andre202]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@shadowfox
"He is sloppy, he is careless and he doesn't think with his head".

Serious LOLs now.
Where did you get that impression? I'd really like to see these examples in-game. You know I really think that we are playing different games, did you pick up a copy of 'Rogue Warrior' by any chance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
Pretty easy to find examples. One point is that he doesn't care that everybody knows that he is coming. Nobody knew that he is an agent, now everybody knows it. In Conviction 07 you could clearly see that he tried to "hide" himself from the government. At least avoiding attention by having another look. He looked like my avatar. Some didn't like his appearance, I actually like it pretty much because none of the police can clearly identify Sam. He had a mask. In new Conviction everybody can clearly see Sam's face when he is interrogating them, so people can alert the others.

You can see in the 3E mission that he throws away the card to the elevator. This isn't stealthy. Soldiers can find the card and trigger the alarm. This clearly shows how careless he is. One of the biggest hollywood situations when he is "fighting" against a helicopter and when he gets Mr Superman in Rage at the end of the 3E mission underlines that he got careless. He knows that Sarah is alive so why the hell should he act like that risking his life? Sarah won't be happy to hear that her Dad died because he was careless... After he heard that Sarah is alive... he has to rethink how he is going to help Grim. He doesn't! Again this is careless act.

[shobhit7777777]

@Andre
They already knew he was coming when they realised that Sam Fisher had escaped. When they say that "He doesn't care if they know hes coming" It is not meant literally.
In previous games he wore a balaclava to decrease his signature when in the shadows and not give any visual ID regarding his appearence. In SCC people already know what he looks like so a mask won't exactly help him.
Again, in-game examples where he is reckless careless or does not think.
In the 3E mission when you discard the card you have recently planted c4 and plan to detonate it. I seriously doubt that the soldiers would freak out over a card after an explosion has shaken the HQ and the lights are out. Please give pertinent examples.
Fighting a helicopter and &E rage does not show in anyway that he is careless or callous. How was he careless when a chopper appears? did he accidently broadcast his location via radio? No. The above situations are level design issues not indicative of Sam's carelessness.
The act of helping Grim just shows how Sam can act selfless despite of being labelled "bloodthirsty" and "brutal". He goes out of his way and risks his life everytime he is on operations. He is not careless but simply taking a calculated risk.

[Knot3D]

Either way,

While Deniable Ops remains the best part of Conviction, we can all agree that Sam's Conviction part is over and done with..within 6 hours.

So, there is no reason for all out rage anymore, Sam.
SC6 for swift justice and precision tactics, all the way !

[shobhit7777777]

@Knot
LOL..True mate..true. The best argument ever.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
As for Deniable ops...just finished San Francisco map on realistic infiltration, using sticky cam to time my attacks....pure unadulterated SC stealth!! wow! the DLC maps are amazing. Really challenging to play with just a Mk. 23 and sticky cams. Have to work to get those kills in the shadows and as for the AI...its not the best but it certainly is not the dumbest.

[eviljohnny666]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@eviljohnny
No eviljohnny, I am not contradicting myself, you have not clearly understood the post. I am saying that hollywood influence can be good or bad. Good in the sense that it makes the developers want to make games with a much better visual scheme and narrative.

Ok, if you think Hollywood influences mean the developers want a better narrative, you ought to watch more foreign movies, a lot more. Yes there are good Hollywood movies with a good narrative, but more than ever these movies are quite rare. Hollywood blockbusters is mostly about fancy visuals and "good" action (again very rare, go watch Hong Kong movies if you don't believe me), something easy to digest. And a good, coherent plot may be too much for people who want mindless entertainment. Again there are HW movies with good plot, they are just quite rare and not the cream of the crop either.


Gameplay does make it immersive but only to an extent. Immersiveness is added through the graphics and visual style, it is added through audio, it is added through the plot and character development, it is added through the control scheme and viewing perspective.

Immersion has nothing to do with plot and character development, at all. Immersion is about the feel, feeling like you play the character, like you're living in a world. The plot and character development is merely the setting, it's like saying a game taking place in Africa is more immersive than one taking place in Russia. The story can be non-existent and the game can be the most immersive. Morrowind isn't less immersive if you're not going through the main quest. What makes a game more immersive is whatever makes you think more that you're in there. First person games are more immersive, good ambient noise or music that fits well with the storyline/setting, if the game is "realistic" like the story would make you believe, some gameplay elements; in Far Cry 2, if your car is down you can repair it, you can take a bullet out of your arm all in first person. And it's just what I can find on top of my head. Plot is just something that other elements need to stay faithful to in order to maximize immersion.


Production value does increase over all quality. Inception is a hollywood blockbuster and so is the Bourne trilogy but both have an excellent plot and are fantastic movies. True you can have a polished game with excellent animations and voice overs but the gameplay decides if it is fun or not BUT the production value does increase the quality, it never decreases it. Hollywood is too vast and rich in materials to be so lightly dismissed.

Production values does not necessarily increase overall quality, correlation =/= causation. It's not because Inception has an excellent plot (I wouldn't know, haven't seen it yet) that Hollywood movies in general are like this or Hollywood inspiration necessarily make things better. More often than not Hollywood inspiration makes things more cinematic than anything else, an interactive movie surely wouldn't be immersive; bombastic music and tons of different angles and all keeps you from feeling like being IN there, but outside, watching. Production values only means the game gets more polishing and more money put in the overall design, in cinematics, etc. Saying more production values = better quality would mean it's better than any old game, not true. Transformers 2 (the first too for that matter) has huge production values, but they're both some of the worst movies I've seen. I looks "good", it sounds "good"... it just reeks production values, yet I'd prefer by far the looks and sound of a lot of 70-80ies movies, yet they're technically inferior. Fancy visuals and pompous music lacks feeling, grit among others, it looks too good. Big CGI effects = more production values, yet it makes everything look fake, a real, small spaceship will always look more real than one made with CGI. Again, it's like saying anything that is newer is better, because new things usually have better production values.

[shobhit7777777]

@eviljohnny
Yes you maybe right, out of a 100 hollywood movies only 15 may be actually good, but of the game is influenced or inspired by those 15 movies is it really that bad? I'm not debating if hollywood is good or bad what I am trying to say is that it is a rich source of inspiration and ideas because like video games it too is a source of entertainment and also considered an art form. Calling everything remotely "hollywood" as trashy, brainless entertainment is a bit too much.

Immersion: Are you serious?
The very fact that farcry 2 did not do very well was that the plot was paper thin and the narrative did not move forward, this resulted in repetitive level design. To truly inhabit a characters world you need to understand his motivations, his background and the events surrounding him/her. The plot and narration adds that extra bit and makes the world you are inhabiting as the character feel much more alive. The graphics play a major role in this regard and an even major part is played by audio. Farcry 2 was certainly very impressive but the poor storyline diluted the whole experience, The events in the game are a result of the plot and this clearly was underdeveloped as a result the whole game suffered. Imagine if you're playing a gritty realistic spy game where the gameplay is awesome but the whole immersion is broken by a cutscene with a Boss fight against a 300 foot godzilla. The storyline and the premise help set the mood of the game. which is important for immersion. Ever heard the term "immersive storyline"?. It arouses interest in the player and hence leads the player to pay more attention and form a bond with the game hence aiding the player actually feel like a character. If you think that plots and narratives are unecessary then take any game, play the missions out of order without audio or cutscenes and then try to enjoy the experience and see if you feel immersed.

Production value: What I'm trying to say is that a higher production value never means NEGATIVE quality. It can increase the quality of a game but NEVER decrease it. having a high production value does not have a negative effect, it may not have a tremendous positive effect but it never has a negative on either. It can't harm a game to get a bit more polish. The point I'm trying to make is that Hollywood influence may be good or bad depending on what the influence is and how is it affecting gameplay. Transformer 2 was a ****ty movie IMO but I certainly don't blame the crappy direction, narrative and everything in between but not the CGI effects or the cool action sequences.
As for Inception, do yourself a favour and watch it...it's good.

[Andre202]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Andre
They already knew he was coming when they realised that Sam Fisher had escaped. When they say that "He doesn't care if they know hes coming" It is not meant literally.
I think it's meant literally because of several things how he finishes his objectives for example. He attracts attention by a load of explosions.


In previous games he wore a balaclava to decrease his signature when in the shadows and not give any visual ID regarding his appearence. In SCC people already know what he looks like so a mask won't exactly help him.
Again, in-game examples where he is reckless careless or does not think.
Of course it doesn't help that much in the NEW SCC because the story is written that way. Just by looking at the appearance of old SCC Sam and new SCC Sam you could see how the devs wanted to present the character. The story drives the character and gameplay even more. In every SC you had a lot of options to do your "own" characterization of Sam but the devs clearly showed how they saw the character of Sam by several moral decisions in previous games. In SCC this needed options like just KOing someone isn't there which makes Sam seem reckless because you can't play him the other way without going into other special circumstances.


In the 3E mission when you discard the card you have recently planted c4 and plan to detonate it. I seriously doubt that the soldiers would freak out over a card after an explosion has shaken the HQ and the lights are out. Please give pertinent examples.
You just called the example. The explosion Sam is doing in 3E. How about infiltrating 3E. Grim knows the building and I don't think it is impossible for her to bring Sam in that building without doing an alarm. But the story forces you to do so and forces Sam to be careless about that alarm.


Fighting a helicopter and &E rage does not show in anyway that he is careless or callous. How was he careless when a chopper appears? did he accidently broadcast his location via radio? No. The above situations are level design issues not indicative of Sam's carelessness.
It's just how ridicolous this situation is. How the hell do they know that Sam is there afterwards and bring there a heli. Why does Sam take this risk and doesn't go back to the bunker? Yeah I know the heli shot the entrance to the bunker, again the story drives the character and this whole idea was just stupid.

Just like he rages at the end of the 3E mission. The building is colapsing but every guard thinks it's more important to shot Sam then rescue their own life. This makes Sam look like he has a reason to shot all these guys because the story let the soldiers wait for him.


The act of helping Grim just shows how Sam can act selfless despite of being labelled "bloodthirsty" and "brutal". He goes out of his way and risks his life everytime he is on operations. He is not careless but simply taking a calculated risk.
It's the way HOW he helps her after knowing that Sarah is alive. Often the "calculated" risk he takes is unnecessary.

[shobhit7777777]

@Andre202

Na dude, I think they mean figuratively as in "I'm coming after you so watch out"

Maybe because 3E is a super secure location and to completely cripple it's security measure Sam has to take out the two transformers to disable all power supply, seems like a smart move. Besides a secure location like 3E HQ has re-enforced foundations and no ducts or HVAC systems to get in through. If sam were to infiltrate the building from topside he would have been immediately spotted. He uses grim's car and sneaks in through the garage while removing 3Es defenses. Because infiltrating 3E like CIA HQ in SC one would sound kind of unbelievable..I mean it would take a lot to break into that building.

As for the chopper...I completely agree man. It was poor level design and just a plain ****ty idea. I was actually staring in disbelief that the devs made such a huge blunder after the f@cking iraq level. It's like the designer were on ****ing meth when they thought of these crap ideas...actually reminded me of B grade action movies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif . The idea was stupid but it did not arise out of Sam being careless. he did not go to the bunker because the Michigan EMP would also affect Sarah as her apartment was in the blast radius.

3E HQ: It was probably another meth induced crap design decision http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif by the devs.....not Sam being careless. The devs must have thought to give the player unlimited marks for 3 minutes..the idiots. The ******* guards keep coming and you keep popping them...hate such bits in SCC, really undermines the finer points in that game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Helping Grim: which way are you referring to? I don't understand.

[newhenpal]

Super Metroid is pretty damn immersive, and that game has a minimalist plot.

[Andre202]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Andre202

Na dude, I think they mean figuratively as in "I'm coming after you so watch out"

Maybe because 3E is a super secure location and to completely cripple it's security measure Sam has to take out the two transformers to disable all power supply, seems like a smart move. Besides a secure location like 3E HQ has re-enforced foundations and no ducts or HVAC systems to get in through. If sam were to infiltrate the building from topside he would have been immediately spotted. He uses grim's car and sneaks in through the garage while removing 3Es defenses. Because infiltrating 3E like CIA HQ in SC one would sound kind of unbelievable..I mean it would take a lot to break into that building.
The most fans were expecting Sam infiltrating Third Echelon. I found it already unbelievable how they could build such a building in a few years. Nevermind, Grim knows the building and that's my point. I don't think that you will get in there easily. I would have expected Sam hacking stuff or going through security systems. You can always find a way in. The devs just have to design the level as such that it's more open then forcing you one way.


The idea was stupid but it did not arise out of Sam being careless. he did not go to the bunker because the Michigan EMP would also affect Sarah as her apartment was in the blast radius. Sarah was already in the heli with Vic. So again no need to take a risk.


3E HQ: It was probably another meth induced crap design decision http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif by the devs.....not Sam being careless. The devs must have thought to give the player unlimited marks for 3 minutes..the idiots. The ******* guards keep coming and you keep popping them...hate such bits in SCC, really undermines the finer points in that game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif
Such situations in a story give a certain impression and that's obviously Sam being reckless.


Helping Grim: which way are you referring to? I don't understand.
The whole thing that he is able to do the objectives only in one way because it is scripted that way. In the Airfield mission (this is just one example) everything has to make "BOOOM". Now what would have happened if you just would sneak by and drive with Grim's car where you need to? If nothing happens why should the guards think Sam escaped? Which would give Sam enough time to drive far enough. Then perhaps changing the car and clothes and go ahead. But everything has to be made by attracting a lot of attention giving the feeling Sam being careless.

The gameplay itself shows how reckless and careless Sam is. People come to this conclusion because several gameplay features which defined Splinter Cell, Sam Fisher as a character. Why did fans asked often for non lethal options and being able to leave no trace? Because they don't want to play a Sam Fisher -a Splinter Cell they know and love- as a careless, reckless Hollywood badass who's character inspirations are from the 3JB's.

[shobhit7777777]

@Andre
All of the situations that you have described do not portray Sam as careless in ANY sense of the word. Each situation is ridiculous but Sam craeless? Absolutely not. Careless would imply forgetting the detonators or accidently making too much noise while walking or missing a shot.
When Sam was going after the michigan EMP, Sarah was still at home waiting to be picked up by vic. Only during the last sequence does she arrive in the chopper. Besides like I said, the situations are ridiculous BUT SAM IS NOT PORTRAYED AS CARELESS IN THEM.
Dude, seriously, how can Sam be reckless when there is a SWAT descending upon him? how is it his fault that the level design is so crappy? Your main problem is llevel design not Sam being reckless.
In the airfield mission, he had to disable the chopper and generator to disrupt the GPS tracking in her car, i suppose but am not sure. As for detecting Sam...well him not being there and Grim with bruises on her face coupled with dead guys pretty much sums it up.
Yes Sam blows a lot of stuff up but does it mean he's careless? no! He's doing it because it is mission critical. It;s not like he's getting detected and getting his cover blown due to these explosions,
The gameplay never shows Sam's recklessness I don't know where you're getting that from. In fact he's as ruthlessly efficient as ever.
As for LTL options....Now if you are an agent infiltrating a secure compound which is more secure? an unconscious man who may wake up in an hour's time or be found by other guards, woken up and then tell them about you....or a dead body in the shadows which when found will also raise the alarms but will not tell any tales regarding the agent's (your) american accent and numerical strength. Elite operatives are not trained to knock people out in the field, they are trained to completely remove them .
The inspirations are basically for the gameplay mechanics not the whole characterisation of Sam Fisher.

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
The Point I'm trying to make is that SC was an innovative game in terms of it's approach to stealth. It refined mechanics and introduced a setting and plot which was feasible and believable, but it became famous for its stealth gameplay.

No, it became famous for its Tom Clancy premise and its delivery.

I can't see how I took your quote out of context. I said practically exactly the same thing you just did now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif


SCC fails on bringing realism in terms of narrative and plot that is granted, but it does what SC always does best. Refine stealth gameplay and bring something new and innovative to the table.

In your opinion. In mine, and many other Splinter Cell fan's opinions, it destroyed what made Splinter Cell gameplay good, replaced it with run of the mill action elements and did very little to refine anything.

I would not say that it did ANYTHING innovative, personally. It took the safe option in EVERY aspect of gameplay it changed. There was very little originality in the game. New to Splinter Cell? Yes. Original? No.


SCC does this and has given us an excellent approach and style of stealth. It does stumble in narrative and realism of plot but it does deliver something unique and fun.

I didn't find it enjoyable at all. The action was far, far, far too easy with little to no challenge. The AI was terrible and when you wished to play in a true Splinter Cell manner, the game was so doggedly unfashioned for it that it became an utter unenjoyable chore to play.


On a gameplay level SCC balances out realism and fantastical elements well.

The fantastical has no place in Tom Clancy.

Entertaining, gritty, down-to-earth, tactical realism is what these games are supposed to deliver and this is not what SCC brought to the table. It brought a OTT Hollywood action blockbuster feel to a game that is supposed to be about infiltrating without detection.

The two concepts couldn't be further apart.


But this is what all games are about. It's finding the right balance. SCC was not perfect but it does open new doors and gives us a refreshing look at stealth.

I would agree that games should always find a balance, but when the balance is shifted in a direction that betrays the original concept of the game, then that balance is not welcome IMO.


Sam's Characterisation:

Now for Sam....
...
..
.
I disagree. The new Sam's characterization although tailored for the new gameplay mechanics offers us new insights into him, his fallible nature, in terms of brutally interrogating people, who by the way are all directly implicated in the current plot or linked to his daughters "death" due to rage is evident of the fact that he is after all Human.

No, they are not. The only people Sam interrogates who were involved with her "death" are Grim and Kobin, everyone else thinks she is genuinely dead and had no hand in her "death"

Sam's brutal interrogations show no insight into his character that we didn't already have. We know Sam will do anything to get the job done. Bashing people's skulls in to get answers does nothing but serve as a selling point for commercials and people who enjoy watching extravagant physical violence. It adds absolutely ZERO to gameplay (in fact, it's utterly tedious after your second playthrough) and as a means of progressing a story it is average at best, due to its limited one-dimensional mechanics.

Sam - "Give me answers"
Bad guy - "No"

*bash*

Sam - "I said, give me answers"
Bad guy "No!"

*bash bash*

Sam - "I said, GIVE me answers!"
Bad guy - "Ok, Ok

This wouldn't be so bad if the game didn't rely so heavily on it OVER and OVER and OVER again.


There is no gratuitous violence unlike the Punisher, Sam still sneaks by guards and only kills when he has to.

Price Airfield, Whitebox, White House all lead to Sam racking up the body count. The game actively pushes you into situations where you are forced to lethally engage guards. This entire premise was heavily pushed from the beginning of the game. Sam is a killing machine in this game.


He still uses stealth to achieve objectives and maintain an edge over his enemies. It is his dual nature, the moral conflicts makes Sam a more believable character. The devs even give the player the choice whether to shoot Reed or not. Sam does not make a voluntary decision to plug him. So your arguments that Sam has been made into a ruthless bloodthirsty murder monkey by the devs who have complete disregard for the character, is baseless. There are morally ambiguous choices in the game, whether to kill or not it is up to you to play the game and define the Sam.

EVERY guard you come across is killed. There is only one button and it is KILL!

You get the choose if Reed lives or dies, true, but the implications of it are a pointless reflection of Sam's character that we've already experienced in the previous two games.


Whenever Sam has been portrayed on autopilot, in cutscenes and interrogations he is shown as an angry human being who has lapses of control but still reigns these emotions in. It is a far-cry from the previous games, where he was portrayed as a complete super-spy robot, and here there was valid reason to be portrayed as such.

A robot? What are you talking about. Sam has been emotionally conflicted since the first game.


He is in SCC a man not looking to cover the political @ss of an intelligence organisation, he is on his own and uses stealth aggressively to even the odds. If killing that trio of guards ensures his chances of success then he will do it, it is a testament to his professional skill and cold tactical demeanor rather than "blood thirst". He kills because he doesnt want to take ANY chance and is extremely focused on getting to the end because this time he could be personally affected by the outcomes. If your Sam is brutal and brainless, then Yes we have been playing different games.

I think you have a very basic misunderstanding of combat engagements. Your chances of survival drop severely the second you decide to engage someone else in combat. They drop astronomically if you decide to engage multiple enemies while you are on your own.

That is why Sam has always made a big effort to stay out of sight. Political ramifications are one thing, but his own survival is the paramount reason for his use of stealth.


His skills were never doubted but it felt like there was more going on underneath, that inside was this dangerous predator, this really was brought out in SCCT, with the 'closer than ever' animation. You felt like Sam had tremendous predatory capabilities which were reigned in and not applied due to the highly sensitive operations he was involved in. He did not use such skills because he could not leave any trace of his passing through which could lead back to 3E or the US. Plausible deniablity being the key word. In SCC the other reason for Sam to unleash his complete skills is that he is not on an intelligence gathering mission He is working solo. He can afford to shoot the lights out, He uses stealth to take out enemies because it is tactically prudent to reduce the enemies numerical superiority, he does not care to lift bodies and take time to hide them because he knows that if they are discovered he will be long gone and the repurcussions will not be as severe, He moves faster because instead of avoiding detection by hiding, he does it by neutralizing the nearest AI, you cannot pose a threat if you're dead, his ROE have changed due to different mission parameters and requirements. In previous assignments he would hide the bodies to make sure that no alarms were raised as it would severely hurt his chances of spying on that meeting or hacking that server due to increased security, and also reduce his chances of escape from heavily guarded areas. In SCC Sam taking the time to hide every body and avoiding every guards, delays him further in reaching his objective and not silencing the guards leaves more chances of detection and a large number of armed people looking for him while securing the hard to reach objectives. SCC Sam is not lackadaisical but simply tactical and efficient.

Well this has already been answered by others in this thread and you're repeating yourself again.

The hiding bodies point in particular, so I'm not going to go back over it.


Cliched character: for starters..John Clark of the tom clancy novels. He could well be the template for sam fisher. The literary version of James Bond and I bet there is a plethora of fictional Spies who have the identical character traits as Sam does in the prvious games.

John Clark and Sam Fisher are nothing alike in personality. Their background and training are identical, but John Clark has little to no sense of humour.

James Bond? No. No, I really don't think so.


The portrayal of spies like Sam Fisher has been done so many times and so much better in other medium that it is nigh impossible to create a completely new character without the mentioned traits.

Like where? Give me one good example. The two you have provided are nothing like Sam Fisher and the background he comes from.


Exploration of Sam's other side: Nope, the other games pretty much had the same ol Sam from SC1 days. The grim professional spy. There were rare instances where his non Spy robot side was glimpsed, where he became angry or emotional. Otherwise it was pretty much the Sam we were familiar with. Yes we knew that Sam got angry but never what would he do if he actually got really p!ssed off.

That may be true, but the way Sam acts in SCC is not how the Sam we know from before would act, were he to find him in the events of SCC.

THAT is what is so disappointing about SCC for so many Splinter Cell fans.


Seriously, what is your grasp on the character, if you think that SCC destroys previous interpretations. His anger and certain moments of weaknesses just put strong emphasis on his humanity and makes him a much deeper character and adds to his established personality.

3 main points, and a myriad of minors that I won't go into.

1. Sam has been trained to pay absolute attention to detail. Soliders at that elite level are trained to instinctually double, triple and quadruple check important aspects that affect their situation. The fact that he took someone's word that his daughter is dead completely contradicts this aspect of his character i.e. the entire premise of this game relies on Sam's character being contradicted from the word go.

2. He is the ultimate professional. His career was finding answers and getting information. He did this by staying off the radar and under control. If he wanted to achieve results for a personal mission, why the hell would he change this approach? His passion and his rage would have focussed him towards striking at those who deserved it, from the shadows. Yet throughout the game we see him bumbling around recklessly, creating a mess, "wanting them to know he's coming", engaging helicopters and so on. Alot of his actions end up doing him more harm than good. It doesn't make a shred of sense to anyone who has thought about it objectively.

3. We have been told the one thing that is most important to him is his daughter. With her out of the picture, he has no reason left to live. Yet, he finds out at the start of the game that she is alive, yet continues to act in a completely reckless gung-ho manner.

[eviljohnny666]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@eviljohnny
Yes you maybe right, out of a 100 hollywood movies only 15 may be actually good, but of the game is influenced or inspired by those 15 movies is it really that bad? I'm not debating if hollywood is good or bad what I am trying to say is that it is a rich source of inspiration and ideas because like video games it too is a source of entertainment and also considered an art form. Calling everything remotely "hollywood" as trashy, brainless entertainment is a bit too much.


It is a generalization. Italian horror in general is known to be based more around visuals and music rather than story or action. Hong Kong heroic bloodsheds are known to be very gritty, dark, violent, not trying to censure itself. Hong Kong comedies in general are known to be ****ty slapstick (as Italian comedies too), still Jackie Chan makes very good slapstick comedies as Tsui Hark, but Hong Kong isn't known for good slapstick comedies. Hollywood is known for over the top, action packed with fancy visuals movies, and it sells. It's not because a developer is influenced by Hollywood movies that it's necessarily influenced solely by the few good ones, I'd say it's an... overall feel if you get what I mean. If Ubisoft got influenced by them, it's probably because it sells.

Because frankly, for a game on development for so long which they scrapped a build or two, the Ubi heads (which are known to kill every of their franchise trying to get wider appeal, ie. Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six, selling an expansion pack as a full game too) FOR SURE wanted something that would sell. I'd be highly surprised the new SCC build wasn't designed to sell after so much work, time and money went to waste.



Immersion: Are you serious?
The very fact that farcry 2 did not do very well was that the plot was paper thin and the narrative did not move forward, this resulted in repetitive level design. To truly inhabit a characters world you need to understand his motivations, his background and the events surrounding him/her. The plot and narration adds that extra bit and makes the world you are inhabiting as the character feel much more alive. The graphics play a major role in this regard and an even major part is played by audio. Farcry 2 was certainly very impressive but the poor storyline diluted the whole experience, The events in the game are a result of the plot and this clearly was underdeveloped as a result the whole game suffered. Imagine if you're playing a gritty realistic spy game where the gameplay is awesome but the whole immersion is broken by a cutscene with a Boss fight against a 300 foot godzilla. The storyline and the premise help set the mood of the game. which is important for immersion. Ever heard the term "immersive storyline"?. It arouses interest in the player and hence leads the player to pay more attention and form a bond with the game hence aiding the player actually feel like a character. If you think that plots and narratives are unecessary then take any game, play the missions out of order without audio or cutscenes and then try to enjoy the experience and see if you feel immersed.

Far Cry 2 not doing well because of the plot? First of all, plenty of good games don't do well, that doesn't mean it's because of particular problems. Oblivion sold a lot but gotta have the worst story of the TES series, about no one cares about Demon Souls' story, people play it solely for the gameplay.

Far Cry 2's biggest problem is the damn checkpoints which made you stop and kill a bunch of dudes who you couldn't escape from with any car every 2 minutes, night and day. Repetitive level design? There's not really any level design, it's a sandbox game; a big environment and throw in what has to be there, there's tons of different looking areas which give different kind of experiences. Far Cry 2 is one of the most immersive games I played, and it has a paper thin story. You're thrown in a world first person and never leave that view. Cars, gps, healing yourself, getting rescued, getting missions, approaching any area from anywhere in any way you want, it truly gives you choice. Fire can spread because of wind which may cause other explosions, etc. it's all the little things like that that makes a difference. The lack of cutscenes is a big one too, as cutscenes take you away from the game, they make you watch like a movie. You got missions by getting inside buildings, guards taking your weapons and talking to the dude, then receive a phone call, etc. that is what I call immersion.

I could talk again for a bit with Morrowind where you can totally ignore (and very easily) the main quest, but it's another sandbox game. Splinter Cell never had particularly cinematic cutscenes, as the first Halo game for example, I don't know if you played Reach, but the difference in cutscenes is night and day, and with the pacing, it plays like an interactive movie. Maybe it's just me, but I never understood how something highly cinematic added to the immersion, to me it just hinders it. Between Modern Warfare 2 and the original Ghost Recon, I'd think it's quite obvious which is most immersive; hiding in the bushes waiting for a patrol to pass by, in destroyed houses while hearing the artillery and protecting yourself from a hail of bullets. Yet Ghost Recon had no cinematics (well, two). I think it's one of the most immersive shooters ever, and yes I'd think the game as immersive if I played any mission in disorder. Anyway, who plays through a game in one sitting? And anyway, missions are supposed to stand on their own, I don't know how it can hinder immersion if you're not playing them in order.

All the games I found the most immersive have nothing to show us about your character and his motivations, in fact, I think when your character is too developed it hinders immersion. Think of this, isn't it more immersive the less you know about the character? It gives much more space for you to take his place, plus the strength of a good rpg (thus an immersive one) is about creating YOUR character, having choices. Characters like Master Chief or Samus (as someone talked about Super Metroid) who barely talk are perfect for you to take their shoes and explore their world. And I agree with the other guy, Super Metroid is damn immersive, yet the only thing you do is explore and kill bosses, still the music is very claustrophobic, the look is gritty, it draws you in.

And if you look at Sam's M&E in Conviction, taking control out of your hands for numerous occasions certainly don't help with immersion. Hiding in the dark, silently finding your way around and reacting realistically with the place and people certainly is more immersive than taking down someone and then shooting 3 people in a row with one button press. Or seeing words on walls, or seeing color desaturate, or sound not affecting gameplay anymore, or breezing through areas. But then I guess it could be a case by case thing as it seems we see immersion very differently.


Production value: What I'm trying to say is that a higher production value never means NEGATIVE quality. It can increase the quality of a game but NEVER decrease it. having a high production value does not have a negative effect, it may not have a tremendous positive effect but it never has a negative on either. It can't harm a game to get a bit more polish. The point I'm trying to make is that Hollywood influence may be good or bad depending on what the influence is and how is it affecting gameplay. Transformer 2 was a ****ty movie IMO but I certainly don't blame the crappy direction, narrative and everything in between but not the CGI effects or the cool action sequences.
As for Inception, do yourself a favour and watch it...it's good.

Ok, but I'm not convinced Hollywood influence = higher production values. I don't see that much of an increase since 360 SCDA, it's mainly a cinematic thing.

[eviljohnny666]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:

3. How do you know that 3E has not undergone a massive overhaul in ROE and organisation to gear up for more aggressive operations? Maybe it is Reed's new approach.

Reed's new approach? A massive overhaul? You must forget what 3E is: an NSA initiative. 3E is not an organisation in itself, 3E is a group within the NSA. Lambert's role was merely to tell the 3E dudes what to do, make sure things went well and get orders from his NSA superiors and the US generals (or whatever they're called). 3E can't do anything by itself, the NSA and particularly the president have the final word. More aggressive operations? Impossible. Just having a dozen of agents is impossible, too risky. More agents, more aggressive operations = more chances getting detected, and no one in the NSA would allow such already risky operations to get worse, the splinter cell doesn't officially exist. And again, that goes against having a giant 3E building in the streets (again, NOT an organization in itself, its quarters are within the NSA ones, besides being impossible, it's useless). EVERYTHING about how 3E is portrayed in Conviction makes NO sense, it's even more problematic than the plot itself. Well, the plot is in big part about 3E... Nothing makes sense in Conviction, it's not just not very good or bad, it doesn't make sense at all. Besides the portrayal of Sam (I totally agree with Shadowfox) or the gameplay, that is one of my biggest concern, it's not just the gameplay the Conviction fails to deliver but it kills background which is a huge part of the series for me.

[shobhit7777777]

@shadowfox
To actually make sense of the quote you need the context which was missing.
Tom Clancy could have led to initial sales but a consistent fan base? Highly unlikely. It was the gameplay that got us hooked.

It does have shooter conventions like exploding barrels and falling traps but what it ultimately delivers is an aggressive approach to stealth. I don't think that many games have been able to deliver a fine balance of Stealth-Action in so enjoyable a package. If splinter cell fans don't understand or like this approach then there are several other splinter cell fans that do. It's opinions. I think that it was highly innovative in that it offered a new way of using stealth as an aggressive tool rather than the passive defensive one. And please don't tell me that stealth-action was possible in SCCT, and SCDA...it was a chore to aggressively take out a squad just like pure ghosting is a chore in SCC.
I'd like to see another stealth game out there that offers a tight stealth action experience.

Mate, if you didn't enjoy it then it is your own personal opinion is it. If you play the D-ops in realistic especially in infiltration you will see that it offers much more challenge than previous iterations. If you try to play the way the game was designed to be played then you might find the game more enjoyable. I don't stealth around while playing COD, now do I

Fantastical does not mean a b@lls-out fantasy, it implies certain elements of realism which have been ignored to make the game more fun and enjoyable. And if we come down to tactical realism, the SC series is far from it. In certain parts of the game in SP and in allmost all online modes or D-ops you can infiltrate without detection. The key here is understanding that SCC is not meant for the previous type of ghosting. In SCC "ghosting"=neutralising enemies without raising alarms or getting detected. Play it as such and then you may enjoy it. You don;t take an SUV to the grand prix do you? (sorry for the repeated poor analogies)
SCC tried to maintain a good balance between realism and enjoyment. As for he mechanics apart from the near inhuman shimmying speed ( I prefer to use the slow method) everything in SCC is plausible from a realitic stand point, Pros can execute double headshots at medium ranges, it is possible to crouch and move quickly but silently and when engaged it is possible to slip out and still have the enemy shoot at your last position. SCC just takes some liberties and extends these to make the game more enjoyable.
OTT hollywood sequences? yes they were there and the were downright CR@PPY. But does it mar the fact that SCC deliver innovative, fun and enjoyable stealth gameplay....nope.

The original concept was Stealth-action but basically stealth and SCC does deliver stealth.

Sam's characterisation: the people being interrogated- Umm, Yes they are. The meggido conspiracy is what forced Lambert to "kill off" Sarah and taking away 3 years from Sam. They are all linked to it indirectly.
Sam's interrogation mechanic is woefully underdeveloped and shallow, I know and agree. But we are discussing it's effect on the character. It shows aggression and brutality to such an extent that it was never before seen in SC. These are rare moments that Sam has to work hard not to go over board and reign in his rage. I would have preferred if they stuck with the NPC interrogation as in SCCT, personally.

Sam's Bodycount: Well, the whole design is about stealth killing people, so it kind of makes sense. The game could have done with some lesser forced moments and better level design. But like I have said earlier, the devs are prototyping the new mechanics and haven't been able to get everything right, maybe in the next instalments they can rectify the existing problems.
BTW Sam always was a killing machine, he just kills more and faster in this one.
I would have preferred LTL options personally but I really don't lament their loss. PLus I only kill the ones that are immediate threats. The forced killing is a way to make the player play as the designers intend it. It is a poor design decision which will hopefully be addressed.
The choice of killing reed or sparing him is indicative of Sam's original personality, Reed's operation is kaput, His daughter is alive, Reed is of no apparent threat so the player is given the choice whether to pop him or not, thus defining their own version of Sam.

Emotional conflicts: True, there were moral dillemas facing Sam since the second game onwards but and these moments did a great job of defining Sam, but even in those moments Sam was always in complete control and still maintained professional detachment, but in SCC he is showing signs of pure rage and is much more personally vested in the story.

Combat engagements:
"I think you have a very basic misunderstanding of combat engagements"

I am beginning to think so do you. Any success regarding a combat engagement depends a lot on the relative information between the combatants. If one them has more info on the other, he will be able to position his forces in the most advantageous way possible and then strike with the element of surprise on his side. Inspite of numerical superiority the off-guard combatant has a very high chance of losing. In SCC Sam uses shadows to attack guards. he uses stealth to avoid the large hunting parties and pick them off one by one. If you do engage in head-on fights against an enemy chances are you'll lose and Sam realises this and hence uses stealth not to hide but to attack. A real world example would be the Russo-Finnish war in WW2. The Finns using commando tactics and superior mobility would carry out lightening raids against the soviets and disappear into the snowy depths of the forest. And in most cases the finns were outnumbered 3:1. They eventually lost the war but caused MASSIVE soviet casualties.
If an operative can get find any oppurtunity to silence the enemy without getting detected he will. It is simply tactically prudent. It's better to mop up that merc squad before moving on and leaving a group of armed individuals in your rear. That is not a good place to be.
Yes...stealth does increase his chances of survival albeit in a different way.

I have to repeat some parts to get my message across, clearly it is not effective.
As for John Clark, you have read the books haven't you? He is almost the same as Sam.
Have you read any of the earlier James Bond novels?


1. That "someone" is Irving Lambert, Fisher's boss thorughout his tenure as a SC, his closest friend and most trusted ally...so yes I think sam would believe that if it came from Lambert.

2. Dude, when the game starts he is chilling quietly in a cafe in Malta, trouble comes looking for him. How would anyone of us know as to the exact methods of his investigation when they haven't been portrayed in any other medium.
"Bumbling around" you know I'm starting to think that you are JUST not playing the game right. He alwasy behaves professionally and efficiently throughout the missions and I really don't recall him going "well, eff this ima shoot me a chopper!". He does not actively engage the chopper! that fiasco is the result of some really poor level design. How can you mistake plot events as Sam's penchant for bumbling is ridiculous.

3. One example of said reckless gung-ho manner which was not forced onto the player in0game...ONE...and I'll show you 5 situations where he is a thorough pro.

[shobhit7777777]

@eviljohnny

I guess you are right, our opinions are really different regarding immersion but I see your side too. All I'm saying is that if the plot and premise of a game are fleshed out then the whole world becomes more beleivable. If you are playing an FPS in an alien planet and get to know subtle things like the planets history, it's inhabitants, their culture, it makes that planet seem more plausible and makes the player believe that yes I am in this world. So it may not be the ONLY factor but it sure is an important one. Immersion is created throught the combination of many aspects chiefly Gameplay.

I really liked Farcry 2 but wanted more variety in missions and more depth in terms of working for the different factions.

As for Ubi killing the other franchises...I partially agree. You see I am a huge fan of Ghost recon and I played the PC version of GRAW and GRAW 2 which were more closer to the original games and were excellent games in their own right, so I was satisfied as it got some new mechanics but retained the brutal realism. Rainbow 6 vegas however, Is the biggest departure. It really let go of some important features and did not introduce anything new in terms of gameplay. It became a standard cover based TPS. I really lamented the tactical aspect of mission planning and the realism of the first games. But in SCCs case, it has taken an intersting turn. In trying to appease a larger audience the devs have come up with something unique and innovative. They ave truly invented the stealth action breed. It is tactical stealth where you use shadows to quickly eleminate your enemies. It still retained the shadow stealth of previous instalments but introduced a new type of stealth gameplay, the aggro stealth where the objective is to ATTACK USING STEALTH. I found this fun and refreshing and think that the devs can really nail it in the next game.

M&E is a tool to make the player feel more empowered and make him feel like a true professional. It is used to give the player the feeling that they are really playing as Sam Fisher the veteran operative who can quickly shoot guys in the head in 2 seconds without raising alarms or getting detected. It feed that fantasy of being a super spy. It may feel less immersive I agree, but it is a cool feature to have nonetheless.

P.S.

You really should watch Inception, it is really unique in plot. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Jazz117Volkov]

I've said much good and bad about Conviction, so I'm trying to stay out of these debates nowadays.
Anyhow, if Fisher was the complete pro we remember him as he would still be able to do all the subtly sneaking moves and takedowns that got him the reputation of being the best stealth operative in fiction.

Like, COMPLETELY SILENT takedowns, namely choking people until they're unconscious.
In Conviction, nine out of ten times a nearby enemy will hear you take someone down, and you have no control over this.
Sam is, for all intense and purposes, a wildman, randomly shooting/bashing people to death when he could/should have just quietly knocked them out.

There is no new ways to remain hidden. Sam is a stealth master. He should be able to hide anywhere, but in Conviction, all you can do is climb on stuff, sit in shadows, or wait at corners.
Fisher SHOULD be able to hide: under desks, under cars, in closets, amongst foliage, and he should be able to attack from these places, in a subtle manner.
Get this: you can't drop without killing someone if they're nearby.
No more carefully dropping behind someone, ninja style. You HAVE TO kill them.

When you take a human shield, the only option you have, aside from concave his skull, is break his neck.
THAT should tell you all you need to know about how the devs perceived Fisher.

The game glues the gun in Fisher's hands.
There's crosshairs even when your gun is away.
You have infinite ammo.
Enemies are intentionally dumb as door knobs so you can take them out by the droves.
And the level designs are made to push you from one confrontation to the next.
EVERYTHING screams hollywood action hero.
In the world of Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell, its known as being a trigger happy rookie who's gonna be dead in five minutes.

Look at Archer.
His background would make an interesting security guard for the local post-office.
But one of the most elite operative in Americas most clandestine organization... I think not.
This too is evidence of how little the devs respect what they're working on.

Well, that's my two cents... for now. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@shadowfox
Tom Clancy could have led to initial sales but a consistent fan base? Highly unlikely. It was the gameplay that got us hooked.

LOL

You missed the point or didn't read my post correctly. The Tom Clancy premise and the delivery = the gameplay of the game, which is what made Splinter Cell so good.

It is also what is missing from Conviction.


I think that it was highly innovative in that it offered a new way of using stealth as an aggressive tool rather than the passive defensive one.

i.e. you got to kill lots of guys instead of sneaking around. This is not what Splinter Cell is about.


And please don't tell me that stealth-action was possible in SCCT, and SCDA...it was a chore to aggressively take out a squad just like pure ghosting is a chore in SCC.

Again, Splinter Cell is not about taking squads out. It never has been. I think you mistaking this franchise for another one.


If you try to play the way the game was designed to be played then you might find the game more enjoyable. I don't stealth around while playing COD, now do I

This makes my point better than I ever could http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


The key here is understanding that SCC is not meant for the previous type of ghosting. In SCC "ghosting"=neutralising enemies without raising alarms or getting detected. Play it as such and then you may enjoy it. You don;t take an SUV to the grand prix do you? (sorry for the repeated poor analogies)

No, ghosting is not possible in SCC at all. The enemy constantly knows Sam is there or that he is coming. It ruins the whole point of having a stealth game. In a stealth game, the enemy is not supposed to know you are there. Even in this very basic aspect, SCC fails.


OTT hollywood sequences? yes they were there and the were downright CR@PPY. But does it mar the fact that SCC deliver innovative, fun and enjoyable stealth gameplay....nope.

Again, in your opinion this is enjoyable stealth. In my opinion, it is tacky action with very, very basic sneaking elements that is neither innovative or enjoyable.


Sam's characterisation: the people being interrogated- Umm, Yes they are. The meggido conspiracy is what forced Lambert to "kill off" Sarah and taking away 3 years from Sam. They are all linked to it indirectly.

You're confused here. The mole is what made Lambert kill her off (which is a ******ed solution to that ludicrous situation anyway) and even then, that is a minor connection. Saying that these people are indirectly responsible is like saying that other drivers on the road are indirectly responsible for the death of a pedestrian after a drunk driver plowed into them.

No. Lambert is directly responsible and Grim is indirectly responsible.


Sam's interrogation mechanic is woefully underdeveloped and shallow, I know and agree. But we are discussing it's effect on the character. It shows aggression and brutality to such an extent that it was never before seen in SC.

This isn't a good thing. It adds nothing to Sam's character, it adds nothing to the story and it adds nothing to the gameplay.

I mean, do you REALLY need to see Sam bashing skulls into trunks and stabbing people in the hand with a knife to consider him a bad ***?

The concept of restraint is what is responsible for making Sam such a terrifyingly tough character since he was conceived. The interrogation scenes are marketing tools and that alone. Good riddance IMO.


Sam's Bodycount: Well, the whole design is about stealth killing people, so it kind of makes sense. The game could have done with some lesser forced moments and better level design.

Agreed.


But like I have said earlier, the devs are prototyping the new mechanics and haven't been able to get everything right, maybe in the next instalments they can rectify the existing problems.

Hopefully http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


BTW Sam always was a killing machine, he just kills more and faster in this one.

No, Sam was never a killing machine. He was capable, but that was never a role he wanted or fit into. He was redesigned to fit that role for this game because it's easier to market that character and make money from it.


I would have preferred LTL options personally but I really don't lament their loss. PLus I only kill the ones that are immediate threats. The forced killing is a way to make the player play as the designers intend it. It is a poor design decision which will hopefully be addressed.

Hopefully, but it was another terrible blunder by the devs, especially since Conviction was supposed to all about player choice.


The choice of killing reed or sparing him is indicative of Sam's original personality, Reed's operation is kaput, His daughter is alive, Reed is of no apparent threat so the player is given the choice whether to pop him or not, thus defining their own version of Sam.

But even this choice is ludicrous. It doesn't fit anywhere into the story. The sheer idea that even Sam OR Grim would kill Reed, their ONLY (repeat that, ONLY) connection to a world wide conspiracy organization that they nothing about, is beyond ******ed. These are supposed to be two elite members of the intelligence community.

Ball dropped...AGAIN.


Emotional conflicts: True, there were moral dillemas facing Sam since the second game onwards but and these moments did a great job of defining Sam, but even in those moments Sam was always in complete control and still maintained professional detachment, but in SCC he is showing signs of pure rage and is much more personally vested in the story.

One scene. That's it. For all the changes that have been made to the game, it really hasn't been worth it in alot of people's eyes.

I mean, look at the sheer ludicrous change that has occurred "in the name of the story" (which you yourself agree is useless).


I am beginning to think so do you. Any success regarding a combat engagement depends a lot on the relative information between the combatants. If one them has more info on the other, he will be able to position his forces in the most advantageous way possible and then strike with the element of surprise on his side. Inspite of numerical superiority the off-guard combatant has a very high chance of losing. In SCC Sam uses shadows to attack guards. he uses stealth to avoid the large hunting parties and pick them off one by one.

But why would he want to pick them off one by one? That's needlessly engaging and putting himself in a situation where the chances of him getting killed are increased.

Yes, I understand that using ambush, stealth and guerilla tactics work favourably for forces that are outnumbered, but when you are one man against a platoon sized force, engaging is simply not an option. To think so shows a basic misunderstanding of military tactics. 1 man engaging more than 2-3 people without support is tantamount to suicide.


I have to repeat some parts to get my message across, clearly it is not effective.

LOL, your message is received, but when you start saying things like "hiding bodies isn't necessary when you don't have to worry about political repercussions", it shows that you don't understand why operatives behind enemy lines hide bodies!


As for John Clark, you have read the books haven't you? He is almost the same as Sam.
Have you read any of the earlier James Bond novels?

Yes, I have read nearly all of the Tom Clancy books and I have read early James Bond novels.

And as I stated before, neither of them are anything like Sam as was presented in SC 1-3.



1. That "someone" is Irving Lambert, Fisher's boss thorughout his tenure as a SC, his closest friend and most trusted ally...so yes I think sam would believe that if it came from Lambert.

Not convincing. It could be Jesus himself who told Sam and people with his experience would check themselves. Again, you have eaten up the hype and backstory the devs have thrown at you.


2. Dude, when the game starts he is chilling quietly in a cafe in Malta, trouble comes looking for him. How would anyone of us know as to the exact methods of his investigation when they haven't been portrayed in any other medium.
"Bumbling around" you know I'm starting to think that you are JUST not playing the game right. He alwasy behaves professionally and efficiently throughout the missions and I really don't recall him going "well, eff this ima shoot me a chopper!". He does not actively engage the chopper! that fiasco is the result of some really poor level design. How can you mistake plot events as Sam's penchant for bumbling is ridiculous.

How you can separate the two is the funny part. They are part and parcel together! This is Sam as the SCC dev team presents him to us and this is not the Sam we know. Poor level design is where it is too linear or the route isn't obvious. When the dev team decides Sam Fisher is going to take on a helicopter, the problem runs much, MUCH deeper than that.


3. One example of said reckless gung-ho manner which was not forced onto the player in0game...ONE...and I'll show you 5 situations where he is a thorough pro.

The entire premise of the game should be example enough for you. His entirely new aggressive "noting to lose" behaviour was sold on the fact that his daughter is dead and he no longer cares. We find out very early on that she is alive and that he therefore cares again, yet he decides to take on hordes and hordes of enemies and jump through hoops for Grim, needlessly putting himself in danger for a job he no longer cares about.

Or did you want me to quote every level in the game after Price Airfield?

[H.A.R.M.s]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
It is a far-cry from the previous games, where he was portrayed as a complete super-spy robot, and here there was valid reason to be portrayed as such. Word you're looking for is "professional". Sam has never been a robot, he was highly trained spy.

Robot would never have this dillema (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKnXxlvRak0)

[Jazz117Volkov]

IMO there were more humanizing instances in passed SC games then in Conviction.
Remember Dalia, Morgenholt and the pilots.

A robot wouldn't have any problems with said instances. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[shobhit7777777]

@Shadowfox
"LOL You missed the point or didn't read my post correctly. The Tom Clancy premise and the delivery = the gameplay of the game, which is what made Splinter Cell so good. It is also what is missing from Conviction. "

You just re-enforced my point that it was the gameplay that made it so good. I disaggree that it is missing from conviction

"i.e. you got to kill lots of guys instead of sneaking around. This is not what Splinter Cell is about".

Splinter Cell is about stealth. It always delivers IMO innovative stealth gameplay or further advances it. If SCC is about killing dudes then wht is SCCT about or SCPT about? because "ghosting" is a very restrictive and narrow definition of stealth. In previous games the whole gameplay was centered around in hiding in shadows and avoiding single, lonely patrolling guards who were plausibly as placid as cows and as reactive to stimulus.
Stealth means getting your job done undetected. In SCC the objective is to kill guys. Is it poor design to keep it so? Absolutely but is it good gameplay? absolutely again. If killing a squad make my job easier...

"Again, Splinter Cell is not about taking squads out. It never has been. I think you mistaking this franchise for another one."
Again, your definition of what stealth is narrow and restrictive.

"This makes my point better than I ever could"
And how does it do that?

No, ghosting is not possible in SCC at all. The enemy constantly knows Sam is there or that he is coming. It ruins the whole point of having a stealth game. In a stealth game, the enemy is not supposed to know you are there. Even in this very basic aspect, SCC fails.

Wow....Again, the "ghosting" that you mention exists in SCC albeit in another form. I think it's called INFILTRATION mode in D-ops. It could also be done in SCC. The point of a stealth game is in the title, stealth. It doesn't matter if the guards are aware whether you're coming or not as long as you don't get detected. I mean if sam Fisher escapes then I think I would expect him to try to put a spanner in my plans and would be aware of his presence. His exact location and the time he will strike I still don't know. There is a vast difference. You are confusing knowledge of existence with knowledge of exact location.


"Again, in your opinion this is enjoyable stealth. In my opinion, it is tacky action with very, very basic sneaking elements that is neither innovative or enjoyable."

I mean ofcourse it is!!! because I have been completely saying that blowing choppers and 'splosions are awesome and stealthy and I want moar!! in my previous posts.
This comes down to a difference of opinions. SO agree to disagree http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"You're confused here. The mole is what made Lambert kill her off (which is a ******ed solution to that ludicrous situation anyway) and even then, that is a minor connection. Saying that these people are indirectly responsible is like saying that other drivers on the road are indirectly responsible for the death of a pedestrian after a drunk driver plowed into them. No. Lambert is directly responsible and Grim is indirectly responsible."

The mole was Meggido, The guys he is interrogating are Meggido. He has justification to go <span class="ev_code_RED">*EDIT*</span> crazy on their *** but restrains himself. I mean he did shoot Lambert http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. Lamber was forced because Meggido would try to use her as leverage anyway.
Apart from that, ya..the story blew chunks and "killing" off Sarah was a bonehead thing to do.

"This isn't a good thing. It adds nothing to Sam's character, it adds nothing to the story and it adds nothing to the gameplay. I mean, do you REALLY need to see Sam bashing skulls into trunks and stabbing people in the hand with a knife to consider him a bad ***? The concept of restraint is what is responsible for making Sam such a terrifyingly tough character since he was conceived. The interrogation scenes are marketing tools and that alone. Good riddance IMO."

First of all Sam Fisher is already a certified Badass with a Phd in Awesomeness.
Second, I did not say it ADDs to the character, I'm saying that it showed us a new emotional side of Sam. The very restraint that you mention is there when he leaves 3 people alive while killing only one, his skull-bashing is also indicative of how he starts to lose it. In previous games he would just us his knife and subtle threats to intimidate the guards, much like a cool detached pro in SCC he gets aggro on these guys.
You are right in calling them marketing gimmicks and that they add NOTHING to the gameplay, but I'm discussing Sam's characterisation here. I really don't care if he bashes heads in to look like a badass, I take it as an opportunity to get some insights into the character and then make my own interpretations. As for interrogation as a gameplay mechanic...I'm all for bringing the old method back of grabbing and interrogating any NPC.
But like I have said earlier, the devs are prototyping the new mechanics and haven't been able to get everything right, maybe in the next instalments they can rectify the existing problems".
Hopefully

True. It is crystal clear that the devs came up with new mechanics, became a bit too obsessed with them and failed to get a good balance right. They tried to draw in the action crowd buy conveniently placing the guards for M&E (IMO, make us work to set up the damn kill, make it hard to Mark more than 2 guys), they thought that a chopper or throwing a battalion of guys who are AWARE of Sam's LKP at the player would make for nice action moments. his obviously fell flat. Conviction and it's new stealth gameplay shines in levels where you have to infiltrate a building or a location. Here the aggro stealth plays out perfectly. Eg: Malta museum, 3E hq garage, whitebox labs, Infiltration mode in D-ops.

"No, Sam was never a killing machine. He was capable, but that was never a role he wanted or fit into. He was redesigned to fit that role for this game because it's easier to market that character and make money from it."

With his skills, Ya he was a killing machine, absolutely no doubt about that. If he wanted to he could take out 5 guards easy if the conditions were right.

"But even this choice is ludicrous. It doesn't fit anywhere into the story. The sheer idea that even Sam OR Grim would kill Reed, their ONLY (repeat that, ONLY) connection to a world wide conspiracy organization that they nothing about, is beyond ******ed. These are supposed to be two elite members of the intelligence community. Ball dropped...AGAIN."
Again..crap story but what I'm talking bout is Sam's portrayal.

One scene. That's it. For all the changes that have been made to the game, it really hasn't been worth it in alot of people's eyes. I mean, look at the sheer ludicrous change that has occurred "in the name of the story" (which you yourself agree is useless).

Actually it is the whole tone of the game, espcially during the stealthy parts. He can no longer be detached from the situations he finds himself in.
BTW ludicrous is an understatement

But why would he want to pick them off one by one? That's needlessly engaging and putting himself in a situation where the chances of him getting killed are increased. Yes, I understand that using ambush, stealth and guerilla tactics work favourably for forces that are outnumbered, but when you are one man against a platoon sized force, engaging is simply not an option. To think so shows a basic misunderstanding of military tactics. 1 man engaging more than 2-3 people without support is tantamount to suicide.

If the advantage is with you and you can pick of stragglers then you do it. There have been reports of Soviet Partisan units that immobilized a German Panzer division by sneaking in and taking the tanks out. My point is if the guys you are about to engage have no knowledge of you presence and are simply patrolling an area, you can succesfuly engage them one by one. Sam rarely engages platoon (30 + soldiers) in a single engagement. One man can easily engage 2 men while concealed and they are unaware of his presence. Reflex firing drills would allow a soldier like Sam to easily engage and kill the 2 guys without a problem, provided he uses a suppressed firearm. 3 guys may be a stretch, but if anyone can pull it off Sam can. (4 marks are just ridiculous)
BTW have you read 'clear and present danger':
remember the battle for ninja hill? when the SF guys set up an ambush against a company of the locals? Chavez really reminded me of Clark when he was in his Vietnam days and also a bit of Sam.

"LOL, your message is received, but when you start saying things like "hiding bodies isn't necessary when you don't have to worry about political repercussions", it shows that you don't understand why operatives behind enemy lines hide bodies!"

In case of operatives who plan to spend at least a week behind enemy lines and have to maintain their cover it is vital to hide bodies. Not for Sam Fisher who will be in and out of the area in a couple of hours. When SF work behind enemy lines, they try their best to avoid detection if they are on an intel mission but if they're objetive is to destroy a radar sight they maintain stealth throughout and depend on speed and aggression for concealment but they are not very careful about hiding bodies or silent knockouts. Their missions demand a change in ROE and I think it could be applied to Sam as well.

Not convincing. It could be Jesus himself who told Sam and people with his experience would check themselves. Again, you have eaten up the hype and backstory the devs have thrown at you.

ya , the devs mailed me a letter saying that Lambert is Sam's best friend and trusted confidant so if Lambert says the sky is green and unicorns exist then Sam automatically believes them. As I have painstakingly explained previously, I did not eat up the devs bull****, I played the game enjoyed and loved the new stealth and came up with my own interpretations for the characters and justification for the new style as much as I plausibly could. I found that SCC has done good and deserves an SC title because future instalments can improve upon established model and really come up with an excellent game. Kudos to SCC for bringing a new agressive form of stealth.

How you can separate the two is the funny part. They are part and parcel together! This is Sam as the SCC dev team presents him to us and this is not the Sam we know. Poor level design is where it is too linear or the route isn't obvious. When the dev team decides Sam Fisher is going to take on a helicopter, the problem runs much, MUCH deeper than that.

Every Sam is representation of the dev team. IMHO they have done some really horrendous stuff but have retained Sam's basic character and have just shown us a new side of him. They have done superbly bad in executing a storyline and plot but have left Sam untainted. Seriously, how the <span class="ev_code_RED">*EDIT*</span> does a chopper arriving on scene and indicator of Sam's carelesness. If you are walking on the pavement, and a guy in a car runs you over then who's careless? Not you!


The entire premise of the game should be example enough for you. His entirely new aggressive "noting to lose" behaviour was sold on the fact that his daughter is dead and he no longer cares. We find out very early on that she is alive and that he therefore cares again, yet he decides to take on hordes and hordes of enemies and jump through hoops for Grim, needlessly putting himself in danger for a job he no longer cares about. Or did you want me to quote every level in the game after Price Airfield?

Still waiting for in-game moments where he has a momentary lapse of attention and screws up bad and endangers his life........
He doesn't immediately believe Grim that Sarah is alive, he demands proof and she offers it to him in exchange for his help. We know that Sarah is alive but Sam still has that doubt in his mind and wants proof hence his willingness to help (plus Grim is hot!!)

@HARMS
Sam is professional. But early games did not exactly have him get severely p1ssed off. Sure there were great moments throughout where Sam's personality was fleshed out through moral choices. But compared to SCC Sam, those did not translate into gameplay changes..this shows how much of a pro Sam is and remains detached even when doing unethical things. In SCC he is personally vested, his interests lie in completing the mission and this emotional state also has a gameplay affect. ( ya ya I know, the story was tailored according to gameplay)

@Jazz
there sure were humanizing, but ALL of them were moral dilemmas for Sam and just showed us that he had had high ethics. He was a good guy. In SCC they humanize him by letting him lose it. All SC games bring shade of Sam's personality through several ways and SCC brings the emotional turmoil and anger within him.
Completely silent takedowns: They don't exist. All techniques make some amount of noise (clothes ruffling, muffled screams, weapon or equipment dropping, flailing feet etc.) and this ruckus is more than enough to attract attention of a human
within 3-4 meters. I have played conviction and have never noticed such behavior and I play on realistic, maybe you are too close to the other guard when grabbing the other guy. I have grabbed guys SEVERAL times from the shadows when the other guard is within 3-5 meters, any closer and you might get spotted, and with good reason.
Silently choking people is a cumbersome task and Operators are taught lethal methods. The thing is that you can much more silently and quickly take a guy out with strikes to the nerve centres or simply crush the trachea. Both of these takedowns are in SCC. It is a matter of efficency and let me ask you this, if you're infiltrating a compound which would you rather prefer...knocking out a guy with the chances that he wakes up and sounds the alarm or when discovered he is awoken and gives them your description..as opposed to killing him, so the chances of him raising the alarm are reduced and your enemy does not get vital intelligence about yourself. Sure the chances of detection are equally high but killing the guy makes more tactical sense.
As for poor level design..yup 100% right on that part. It is horrible. But having a crosshair is a bad idea I don't no why..it makes marking easier and also helps in determining the contextual actions. Infinite ammo needs to be rectified.
As for dumb AI..nope. Compared to previous game's AI they are shining stars and Ivy leaguers. Sure there are some major faults but they do a much better job than their predecessors in terms of locating dead bodies, shot out lights, investigating disturbances and generally hunting the player...IMHO

Look at Archer. His background would make an interesting security guard for the local post-office. But one of the most elite operative in Americas most clandestine organization... I think not. This too is evidence of how little the devs respect what they're working on.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
How true mate how true..Archer's file really looks **** when compared to Kestrel's who is a regular badass
6 months..? wtf!!! It takes around 2 years to finally be inducted in the SEALs (including training and the probation period) and then at least a decade of service to get into Intelligence operations. Who writes this <span class="ev_code_RED">*EDIT*</span>??

[Jazz117Volkov]

In SCC they humanize him by letting him lose it. The problem here is the reason why.
As Shadow pointed out, it doesn't make much sense.

All SC games bring shade of Sam's personality through several ways and SCC brings the emotional turmoil and anger within him. I agree. But again, it feels forced.
IMHO the script was crap. I could do better.

Completely silent takedowns: They don't exist. Neither do sonar goggles but...
All techniques make some amount of noise (clothes ruffling, muffled screams, weapon or equipment dropping, flailing feet etc.) and this ruckus is more than enough to attract attention of a human
within 3-4 meters. See how effectively you can sneak up behind someone at the speed your character moves in SCC.
To a trained ear it sounds a lot like a rock concert, but in SCC there is zero noise.
There is also no noise when walking too. Which is BS.
So there is ABSALUTELY no reason to not have a perfectly quiet KO takedown. Especially when attacking an unaware NPC from behind.

I have played conviction and have never noticed such behavior and I play on realistic, maybe you are too close to the other guard when grabbing the other guy. I have grabbed guys SEVERAL times from the shadows when the other guard is within 3-5 meters, any closer and you might get spotted, and with good reason. No no, nothing like that. I’m talking when I sneak up behind someone and tap ‘B’ to ‘KILL’ him, my character will massacre the NPC and someone ten/fifteen feet away will get distracted by the ruckus and start looking around to see what it was. And with no way to hide the now dead NPC the entire area goes on alert, and every NPC starts searching.

Silently choking people is a cumbersome task and Operators are taught lethal methods. The thing is that you can much more silently and quickly take a guy out with strikes to the nerve centres or simply crush the trachea. Both of these takedowns are in SCC. I fully agree. But when there are several unaware guards patrolling there is no need to be fast and furious. You should take your time to deal with the situation slowly, carefully and quietly.

And there is no way that it is more difficult to choke someone until they’re unconscious then it is to score four consecutive headshots with a pistol when you’re not even looking down the sights.

It is a matter of efficency and let me ask you this, if you're infiltrating a compound which would you rather prefer...knocking out a guy with the chances that he wakes up and sounds the alarm or when discovered he is awoken and gives them your description..as opposed to killing him, so the chances of him raising the alarm are reduced and your enemy does not get vital intelligence about yourself. Sure the chances of detection are equally high but killing the guy makes more tactical sense. Dude, that doesn’t sell. It’s a video game for crying out loud, LoL.
The fact is the player should have control over how he/she want to deal with a lone guard, group or situation. End of.
…and how is he gonna describe you when he didn’t hear/see you. He has no proof that you were even there. Other then the fact he was unconscious.

As for poor level design..yup 100% right on that part. It is horrible. Yup. Except the four DLC maps (and some other D-ops) they’re the best.

But having a crosshair is a bad idea I don't no why..it makes marking easier and also helps in determining the contextual actions. IMO if your weapon is not equipped they should only show up if you “zoom” - otherwise the immersion cops it in the buttocks.

Infinite ammo needs to be rectified. ]Yup, again.

As for dumb AI..nope. Compared to previous game's AI they are shining stars and Ivy leaguers. AI in Splinter Cell has always been bad.
In SCC they’re a bunch of trigger happy mercs who got a thing for Casper and have no tactical sense whatsoever.
In SCCT they were a hive mind with frequent premonitions who would get the sixth sense for about thirty seconds after being alerted.

Sure there are some major faults but they do a much better job than their predecessors in terms of locating dead bodies, shot out lights, investigating disturbances and generally hunting the player In theory, but their results are often poorer, due to the way the game was balanced.
If they think they see something, I.E. white arrow, it is acknowledged as nothing. It only counts if you get the red arrow. IMO this makes them rather thick, with a serious case of laziness and/or tunnel vision.

How true mate how true..Archer's file really looks **** when compared to Kestrel's who is a regular badass
6 months..? wtf!!! It takes around 2 years to finally be inducted in the SEALs (including training and the probation period) and then at least a decade of service to get into Intelligence operations. Who writes this <span class="ev_code_RED">*EDIT*</span>?? The same person who wrote all the other <span class="ev_code_RED">*EDIT*</span> found in SCC, I would imagine.

Speaking of characters, have you seen Agent Koshka. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5271091065/m/7221051568) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Peace bro

[Andre202]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Andre
All of the situations that you have described do not portray Sam as careless in ANY sense of the word. Each situation is ridiculous but Sam craeless? Absolutely not. Careless would imply forgetting the detonators or accidently making too much noise while walking or missing a shot.
The whole game portrays Sam. Otherwise how would we get to know Sam's character in previous SC titles? The devs design the game and with that they show how they imagined the chracter to be. Shadow Fox pointed that out already. When you have the heli situation, it isn't just bad level design. The devs decided how they will design the game, the missions etc. and how they will tell the story and they have a big influence in Sam's character. The story and the gameplay drives the character. SCC has a shallow Stealth system it doesn't CARE that much about small details. Previous games show the exact opposite of Sam, paying attention to detail, working like a professional. The depth Stealth Gameplay and Story refelcts his character. This is just the same with SCC but because of shallow "carelessly" Stealth you have a careless Sam Fisher.



When Sam was going after the michigan EMP, Sarah was still at home waiting to be picked up by vic. Only during the last sequence does she arrive in the chopper. Besides like I said, the situations are ridiculous BUT SAM IS NOT PORTRAYED AS CARELESS IN THEM.
We were talking about the heli situation so I said that she was already in the heli. You are talking about the beginning of the mission. And again the Story and Gameplay drives Sam's character. When the devs decided to design the level this way and the have a reason for that. The Story may forced the devs to design the level that way but that doesn't mean it's bad level design it's just a bad decision at all and influences the character of Sam.



Dude, seriously, how can Sam be reckless when there is a SWAT descending upon him? how is it his fault that the level design is so crappy? Your main problem is llevel design not Sam being reckless. I don't know if you mean the Michigan level or 3E Echelon mission. In 3E it's the whole Rage thing is a bad idea and when the SWAT came in, I was really suprised what the hell they are doing here when they know that the building will destroy itself.
If you mean the Michigan level: Well the whole part with the helis was a ridicolous idea.



In the airfield mission, he had to disable the chopper and generator to disrupt the GPS tracking in her car, i suppose but am not sure. As for detecting Sam...well him not being there and Grim with bruises on her face coupled with dead guys pretty much sums it up. The whole time when you are in the Airfield, Grim is talking with him which means noone of the soldiers could come to her and see that Sam has escaped. If he just sneaks through the airfield why should the soldiers assume that he escaped? Which is why it isn't necessary to disable the chopper and the generator.
But you are not able to decide otherwise because of the story and the whole design of the game. It doesn't let you play how you want and this again influences Sam's character because of the lack of options you have / decisions you can make.



Yes Sam blows a lot of stuff up but does it mean he's careless? no! He's doing it because it is mission critical. It;s not like he's getting detected and getting his cover blown due to these explosions,
The gameplay never shows Sam's recklessness I don't know where you're getting that from. In fact he's as ruthlessly efficient as ever.
The soldiers already know that you are there or that you will come so your cover is blown when you just make a fart (exegrating here a bit) because the game is designed that way.



As for LTL options....Now if you are an agent infiltrating a secure compound which is more secure? an unconscious man who may wake up in an hour's time or be found by other guards, woken up and then tell them about you....or a dead body in the shadows which when found will also raise the alarms but will not tell any tales regarding the agent's (your) american accent and numerical strength. Elite operatives are not trained to knock people out in the field, they are trained to completely remove them .
The inspirations are basically for the gameplay mechanics not the whole characterisation of Sam Fisher.
Sam doesn't like to kill. Games that allow you to disable your "enemies" without killing them are very rare. With being able to hide the bodies you can make sure the others won't find the unconscious body. When people who were unconscious for minutes, hours they often don't know what happened. If another guard finds the body nevertheless then you may have a chance that they won't trigger the alarm if you didn't kill him otherwise when he finds a dead body, they will definitely know someone is there. Having such features that affects your playstyle and your decision will chane the whole game. Gameplay, (Story), character. The devs themself said they would have to change the level design when allowing the hiding bodies feature. At the end Maxime he would have liked to have this feature in the game it doesn't need this feature because Sam doesn't care.

[shobhit7777777]

@Jazz

The plot does not make sense true but I'm talking about Sam's portrayal within the plot.
The script really was crap..but again it's Sam as a character I am debating. I 100% agree with the plot and premise being sub-standard, B-movie affairs. I have no doubt that you could write beeter. Which reminds me that I have yet to check out your skulachev files and Agent Koshka...I plan to do it ASAP, but right now am a little busy, finding it hard to keep up with all the arguments and get like 10 minutes to post the replies But I'll definitely look up you work man sounds AWESOME!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

Silent takedowns:
Actually you can sneak up on someone if the ambient noise is sufficient and the target himself is walking, this decreases his ability to accurately percieve noises behind him. I'm not saying that SCC crouch is the best stalking technique but it does come pretty close.
They could use a nerve jab to the neck or a chokehold to get the silent takedowns...and trust me the next game will have all these features. I am 100% with you that LTL attacks should be given as an option...purely out of choice ( I prefer lethal takedowns cause I feel that they are more tactical and realistic but it is just my opinion and my style, gameplay should accomodate everyone's style)

AI behaviour: Oh..ok. I thought you were talking about grabbing guys...I really cant say. I will experiment with the AI and get back to you with the results.

LTL attacks:
You do have a very good point, if the guard is out of hearing range from his squad then you should be easily able to knock him out. But I think you can be quick yet careful. You can quickly stalk and dispatch enemies but remain hidden..anyway I agree with you on this one...LTL takedowns should definitely be there.

Realism:
LOL..it is a video game but if you are considering LTL attacks for their stealthy benefits then shouldn't you consider the fact that an unconscious guard may wake up, re-arm himself, sound the alarm and be an extra guy hunting you down? One live guard is more threat than a dead one. That's why I always use lethal attacks whenever I grab guards or encounter them in any SC game that allows a lethal option (in SC1 I generally used to shoot the knocked out guards in the head because it was tactical, leave no trace. I know it was kinda cold-blooded, but I like hyper-realism.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)

BTW the DLC maps are the best maps in SC history IMHO. ver well thought out and designed. They truly show off SCCs stealth gameplay and provide a real challenge on realistic infiltration.

You know what I'll conduct some tests with the AI and get back to you with the results, we can then really argue about it's shortcomings.

Thanks for the opinions bro http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ciao!

@andre

I ask again examples from in-game where in Sam was careless and made professional mistakes that endangered his life or got him detected. Character development and plot mixed with gameplay have a much larger impact in defining a characters personality than mission or level design. The level designers have the job to make a level that offers the most out of the gameplay elements. They go through the narrative by timeline and then design the environments around it, the mission designers work in tandem with the level designers to figure out what would be the mission objectives, the enemy awareness levels, AI density, mission progression etc. The situations the Sam is placed in are OTT and ridiculous. Every instance these moments take place the core SCC mechanics are chucked out the window.. Eg: Diwaniya iraq, Chopper mission, end of 3E hq, Linear shootouts in whitehouse. SO the gameplay mechanics are not at fault neither is Sam's characterisation. The level design never fully exploits the game mechs during these horrendous set-pieces.

Shallow stealth: How so? because of the binary B/W filter? or because you can't physically drag bodies? yes some options are missing and would have been welcome but overall SCC offers very deep stealth gameplay albeit in a new form. How is this stealth careless? because of faster movement? then move slowly when near guards. As for the light meter..it was a pretty handy gadget but Sam is now linger wearing the photometric suit. Plus it makes no difference as in SC1,2,3 when in partial shadows, the AI would get supicious of you and start investigating, In SCC the reaction is more realistic, if they see a guy running in the shadows they raise the alarm. The player only has a fraction of a second to again get back into cover or shadows. The shadows, realistically, can only conceal a person when the engulf him in complete darkness. If he is partially in them then the chances of detection are much higher as the human eye can very easily make out human shapes and silhouettes. So SCCs stealth works out realistically. When you move around in dark shadows or cover to cover you remain concealed but if you rush in the light you have very few seconds to get back in cover to avoid detection.
Stealth is neither shallow nor "careless" in SCC it is simply more accessible and allows more aggressive actions to be taken while remaining stealthy and undetected. it brings new depth to the gameplay.

The Story: Nope, the story never forces or affects mission design apart from providing objectives and a backdrop. The level design choices made in those bad or poor sections had nothing to do with gameplay and storyline and hence nothing to do with Sam being careless. The writers simply say: "right, Sam will then go to the reservoir in michigan to destroy the EMP generator", the mission designers then work everything out. In this case they must have thought a chopper to be a cool idea and royally screwed up. The appearance of a chopper mid-way through the level or the objective of blowing up something, is in no way connected to Sam's character, it simply bad level design and poor mission layout. Simple as that.
There were several ridiculously bad ideas in terms of level and mission design you are very right in saying that. But this does not co-relate to a sloppy, careless Sam. A good eg of a mission which would use Sam's character and skills to the fullest would be the garage level in 2E or the Malta museum mission. These missions highlight the gameplay which in turn complements Sam's character.

Airfield: true but you say that after playing the game, plus it is much better to completely disable their pursuit capabilites as they had a GPS chip in Grim's car. Taking the generators out was simply tactical. In this regard I agree (for a rare moment) with the mission designers. You can also minimise your casualties by sticking to the shadows and only killing those that are an immediate threat. Again. Level design in no way has influenced Sam's characterisation. He doesn't want to go and blow the bchopper and generator up but he has to, he is forced to and realises this is necessary to escape.

"The soldiers already know that you are there or that you will come so your cover is blown when you just make a fart (exegrating here a bit) because the game is designed that way."

Yup level design again... But in most cases the guards know that Sam may try to infiltrate the building, so they are logical in assuming that it is Sam Fisher and no one else.

LTL options: Oh really? they have a complete memory lapse and even forget to scream bloody murder after waking up with a headache in a dark corner and realising that they were guarding a top secret installation....unlikely. They race to the nearest guard and raise hell. As for other guards finding the unconscious body and not raising the alarm...are you really serious? Are you saying that with a straight face? If a guard at a high security compound finds his buddy knocked stone cold with a bruise on his neck or temples, he doesn't think that his friend just fell unconscious, he raises the alarm and a search and destroy team is sent out after the intruder. So basically leaving an unconscious body or a dead body has almost the same risks with the dead body slightly more advantageous.
Besides that I agree that LTL should be made available in the next game.
And Maxime would have truly liked to add these old features but was unable to do so due to time constraints. So we may see these return in the next instalment. Anywho...heres hoping that the next SC has all the features that were missing!

[Jazz117Volkov]

Realism:
LOL.. it is a video game but if you are considering LTL attacks for their stealthy benefits then shouldn't you consider the fact that an unconscious guard may wake up, re-arm himself, sound the alarm and be an extra guy hunting you down? One live guard is more threat than a dead one. Totally, that was the brilliance of it in the earlier games. Unconscious guards could be woken by their comrades, and if they saw you they’d call for an alert.

That's why I always use lethal attacks whenever I grab guards or encounter them in any SC game that allows a lethal option (in SC1 I generally used to shoot the knocked out guards in the head because it was tactical, leave no trace. I know it was kinda cold-blooded, but I like hyper-realism LoL. Reminds me of the first time I played the Splinter Cell demo.
I didn’t get the whole stealth-is-being-invisible thing back then.
I played kinda like R6 Raven Shield.

Much wiser nowadays.

…but right now am a little busy… Perhaps not for the same reasons, but I can absolutely relate.


You will know exactly what I mean when you try to drop from a ledge when there’s enemies around.
1stly, you HAVE to KILL the guy if he’s near you.
2ndly, his buddy a few meters away WILL be curious as to what the noise was.
3rdly, he WILL find the DEAD body
4thly, everyone WILL then start searching for you, calling out your name etc.

The game doesn’t only allow you to be an aggressive predator, but it makes it that you have to be. There is no more passively dropping behind someone, or following them on their patrol. It is ALL designed to make you KILL everyone.

I like the option to act aggressively, but this is just ridiculous.
Anyway, experiment a little and I'm sure you'll see for yourself.
Beland said, (and I hope it was just a selling point) that he found earlier Splinter Cell’s frustrating to play aggressively.
Well congratulations Mr. Beland. Now it is simply impossible to play Conviction passively.
All Sam’s bada$$ ninja moves are gone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

Anyways, cheers bud

[shobhit7777777]

@jazz
"Totally, that was the brilliance of it in the earlier games. Unconscious guards could be woken by their comrades, and if they saw you they’d call for an alert."
ROFLOL http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I really remember such moments. You think that the unconscious guard is safely tucked in the shadows but an investigating/wandering guard you forgot about just comes in and wakes sleeping beauty up and then you have two ****ed of guys searching for you!! Since that day I made it a point to shoot the unconscious guards no matter how hidden they were. I learnt my lesson. If he is discovered then there will be only one ****ed off guy after me. As for the alarms, well I think they would sound the alarm whether the guard is alive or dead. But those were really fun moments man....good times http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW..noticed something decidely unsettling in SCC...there are several moves in it that are identical to SCCT and SCDAs LTL moves..like the punch to the side of the neck..yet it still registers it as a kill...strange.

I agree that the passive stealth will be missed and maxime is a twit for fiding the previous games frustrating But in Maxime's defence:

1. He helped create a new and innovative style of stealth gameplay which I love

2. He did try to incorporate certain old features into SCC but could not. Eg: Body moving..in an interview

3. The game is trying new mechanics and maybe that's why they have focused only on the core mechanics of being a predator...maybe they will give the player the choice to be a predator or a a shadow in the next game.

Realistically, if you do drop behind someone they will immediately notice.. but *******IT! this is a video game and you should be allowed to do it! I agree with you 100% percent man ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I will carry out the tests to get some solid proof SCCs performance in areas of

1. Stealth gameplay

2. AI reactions

I'll carry them out in the infiltration hunter mode on realistic.

I'll post my findings within a couple of days..I'll also visit your thread regarding Agent Koshka...a female voron agent (I'm assuming she's voron cuz of the name) is really interesting. Several intelligence agencies use women in field operations to gather intel. The Russian special forces (spetsnaz) have also extensively used female operatives in all sorts of roles (spies, assassins, intelligence gathering etc.) I am really looking forward to it. Well, I am going to get some sleep....really need it!!
Cheers mate..as always a pleasure to discuss with ya!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by Jazz_117:
The game doesn’t only allow you to be an aggressive predator, but it makes it that you have to be. There is no more passively dropping behind someone, or following them on their patrol. It is ALL designed to make you KILL everyone.


Jazz WINS thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

[shobhit7777777]

Originally posted by Knot3D:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jazz_117:
The game doesn’t only allow you to be an aggressive predator, but it makes it that you have to be. There is no more passively dropping behind someone, or following them on their patrol. It is ALL designed to make you KILL everyone.


Jazz WINS thread http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude...agreed..LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

[shobhit7777777]

@Jazz

So I carried out the AI tests and the results were suprising. The AI does display quite a bit of intelligent behavior in all states but there a few glaring anomalies. You can grab guards within earshot of other guards and they will not investigate but if you CQC and kill them the other guy will get a lil alarmed and come over to investigate.
BTW...I think that not all guards are killed. Several CQC moves were not lethal, almost half delivered incapacitating blows but not lethal. This suspicion was confirmed by the following NPC dialogue

NPC1: "you know I was lucky not to be posted in whitebox. I had a couple of friends there."

NPC2: "oh Yeah?! how are they?"

NPC1: "Not good, Most are dead and the rest are eating through straws in the hospital"
I think that you simply take the guards out, Lethal non lethat is not upto you.

[Jazz117Volkov]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Jazz

So I carried out the AI tests and the results were suprising. The AI does display quite a bit of intelligent behavior in all states but there a few glaring anomalies. You can grab guards within earshot of other guards and they will not investigate but if you CQC and kill them the other guy will get a lil alarmed and come over to investigate. Yeah, see what I mean.
Silent takedowns would go a long way.
Also, grabbing an NPC from anywhere but directly behind him should make some noise.

So yeah, basically as I said above. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW...I think that not all guards are killed. Several CQC moves were not lethal, almost half delivered incapacitating blows but not lethal. This suspicion was confirmed by the following NPC dialogue

NPC1: "you know I was lucky not to be posted in whitebox. I had a couple of friends there."

NPC2: "oh Yeah?! how are they?"

NPC1: "Not good, Most are dead and the rest are eating through straws in the hospital"
I think that you simply take the guards out, Lethal non-lethal is not upto you. This was established earlier in production, but it doesn't have any impact on the gameplay.
NPC's can't wake up their comrades, and they'll randomly say stuff like, "Oh S***, this dude's dead."
Even if the takedown was non-lethal.
So, it's kinda pointless.
Most people would never even know/care. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

[shobhit7777777]

@Jazz
Well it is kind of realistic when the guy nearby investigates the commotion but silly when you grab the guy and the other guard pays no attention. I think there should be a stand of distance where you can grab, kill or KO a guy without attracting attention but within close ranges it should attract attention. It would go a long way in the player actually stalking the NPC.

[Jazz117Volkov]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Jazz
Well it is kind of realistic when the guy nearby investigates the commotion but silly when you grab the guy and the other guard pays no attention. I think there should be a stand of distance where you can grab, kill or KO a guy without attracting attention but within close ranges it should attract attention. It would go a long way in the player actually stalking the NPC. I agree.
But, (as I said before) the player should be able to grab/KO an NPC completely silently if attacking from behind. You should have control over your actions.
And I also agree about stalking NPCs. But alas, SCC doesn't improve upon the stalking elements at all.
In fact, it seriously takes away, due to how the devs wanted the gameplay to be paces.
No more sneaking throttle, or closer then ever mode, quiet landings, and NPCs that more or less stand around waiting for you to take them out. Its all in the name of JB panthersizm.
Being a sneaky bastard (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UypqH0dkRAI) is all about patience, deception and timing.
Not "Breaking people's faces."

[shobhit7777777]

@Jazz
I miss the closer than ever animation and the variable speed. I hope the devs can implement it in the next game. As for guards waiting to for you to take em out...well that is present in EVERY stealth game in fact it is a requirement for guards to set themselves up or patrol such a route so that the player can sneak past them or take em out.

Back on topic:

Splinter Cell conviction misses out on a lot of key notes that detract from the whole experience. Absence of certain features, Poor nay horrendous level and mission design, a not very believable plot or story and the inability to avoid ALL encounters which is missed by the purists. Does it deserve to be ostracized from the splinter cell family for these faults?
No.
Despite its faults it delivers a refreshing, innovative approach to stealth. It allows the player to aggressively approach the situation while still being stealth. It has given rise to true stealth-action. The new gameplay mechanics and style really shines in some of the better designed missions and the DLC maps. With the infiltration mode in D-ops this provides some of the BEST stealth sequences in an SC game till date. Granted that the only objective is to kill NPCs but it should be enjoyed like the stealth game it really is. The stealth in SCC feels less forced and constricted due to character agility and movement. Stealth is not about the character being forced to move slowly or making it hard for the player to get headshots. If players complain that this is not challenging then they should realise that the challenge in SCC is not derived from headshots or being able to silently avoid an enemy. The challenge is to most efficiently and silently neutralise the entire room. the gameplay in SCC (contrary to many) is quite tactical. It takes a lot of patience to use sticky cams, monitor the guards patrol, silently take out the loners while avoiding detection, taking them down in the dark, marking the guards and executing them AT THE RIGHT MOMENT when they're in the shadows an away from the LOS of their comrades, deciding when to use the execute, how to escape if detected etc. This involves some real thinking and planning. Detractors should try playing any DLC maps on infiltration on the realistic difficulty and avoid alerting the guards let alone sounding the alarm. It offers a much challenging gameplay loop. To those who said that it quickly becomes boring and repetitve.....Consider the previous gameplay in SCCT, SC1 SCPT or SCDA. The variety or tactical depth that you talked about was mainly due to mission design. There were several objectives and interesting level design, but the gameplay loop was still narrow and indpite of the different "stealth" options it was extrememly limiting in terms of your interaction with a single NPC. It was not tactical but simply the presence of choice in how to avoid that lone guy. Infact SCC stealth is more strategic in nature and SCCT stealth more tactical. SCC does not concern the player with using options to deal with a single or a couple of guards but an open environment for the player to deal with the guards the way they want. In this way SCC allows more choice, it allows a player to be super stealthy or go nuts. Now this may seem like a bad idea but that's the point, in SCC the player has a choice, all stealth or a balance or all action. Sure, it is more limited in objectives but keep in mind that the gameplay lends itself very well to such objectives, and the devs were basically focussing on this new stealth style and hence designed the whole game around it, which was we all agree not a very good idea as the player should be able to choose his stealth style. But still, SCC offers an excellent stealth experience. Try "ghosting" the SCC way i.e neutralise all guards with NO DETECTIONS, NO ENEMY SHOTS FIRED, NO ALARMS RAISED on any map on realistic difficulty and restrict the marks to 2 to keep it more challenging. The developers have given birth to an excellent breed of stealth but have gone overboard in implementing it, I hope that they add all the missing features to give us an AMAZING stealth SC experience in the next one. Another fact that makes it SC is Sam Fisher, many here claim that they have destroyed the character, he's a mindless killer with bloodlust etc. But actually the character Sam has never been so involved in the story. Earlier games offered little insights into Sam, they did have those moments where Sam's emotions and morals came into play and these moments helped us define Sam as a character. He is one of the few video games characters who actually has a personality but is still open to interpretations. Everytime Sam allowed his emotions to surface in the games I became more attached and Sam became more believable, his anger at Morgenholt's torturer, evident in his dialogue is clear, and this anger actually made me affect my gameplay style. In that mission I killed the guard who interrogated Morgenholt because I felt it right..retribution. Sam is not averse to killing when necessary, what constitutes necessary is a very broad question and out of scope of this argument, he kills and is a master at the application of lethal force. In previous games Sam was a certified pro but it was not his light hearted banter with Grim and Lambert but those in-game moments when he showed another side to his usually cold, grim persona that actually fleshed the character out. There is no doubt that the Ubi devs wanted to try a new style of gameplay and hence re-wrote the story post DA to better suit their plotline, But I think that after losing his daughter, spending a year in stressfull UC work and then being investigated by his own agency for Lambert's murder would have really not lightened his mood, He was out of the agency and in emotional turmoil he was indeed in a very dark place. With such a brooding Sam I believe that a gameplay change was in order. He could not have gone back to being the silent, slow and steady infiltrator and Conviction does an excellent job at portraying Sam Fisher, bear in mind I say portray. They have shown a raging man looking for answers but have done it the way Sam actually would have. He does loose control and becomes violent (interrogation) but never when on missions. The moment where he is angry enough to hit Grim but restrains himself and hits the locker shows a Man fighting blinding rage and is testament to his training, as he reigns it in. He is on the verge of a revenge run but restrains himself. This part of Sam has been well done and this how Sam would have reacted. He still maintains a clear perception of events despite his anger and feeling of loss and uses his stealth and skills to accomplish his missions. The storyline and the plot were definitely thin but Sam's actions and behaviour throughout the game really brought out a very Human and also a primal side of Sam that really gives Sam as a character another dimension. He still has seething rage within him but controls it and channels it, he uses it to develop a predatory focus on the mission. This really suits the confrontational style in SCC, because he no longer cares about political repurcussions, hostages, IW threats..or WW3. He is on a personal mission to be re-united with his daughter at the end of this all. He takes those silent quick headshots much more frequently because he can, he is not worried about leaving bodies around, not worried about leaving 5.7mm slugs he does it because it is quick, silent and efficient. He kills rather than KOs because ultimately it is a lesser risk. He is determined on the end-objective. In previous games he had to keep signs of US involvement low. He did not engage that lone patrolling, bored sentry because that guy was of no immediate threat. In SCC the way the guards have been laid out and their density encourages a more aggressive approach...this obviously is for gameplay reasons but it does affect Sam's portrayal. Sam has never been portrayed as bloodthirsty or as a mindless brute. The very tactical nature of SCC gameplay shows this. He never in-game slips up or does anything that jeopardises his cover or his safety. The only reasonable explanations (in-game) for no LTL attacks or moving bodies is that Sam does not deem them tactically efficient for the mission. A dead guard is better than a knocked out guard and he usually kills guys in the shadows and as there are so many guys looking for him in the same room, it is not feasible to pick up a 12- pound body and move him around.
The fact is SCC delivers some fresh gameplay and more of Sam Fisher. It is an SC game.

[Jazz117Volkov]

@ shobhit7777777:

Personaly, I do consider SCC a Splinter Cell game, to a certain extent. It's not like as though I consider it COD.
It's just so lacking in terms of my favourite features.

Sometimes, Sam's rage/mood comes across as forced IMO. It seems to makes sense, but the script was so poor that it doesn't do the character much justice.

Remeber, Fisher is not like you and me, he's a career soldier. Death is not at all new to him. He's killed many fathers and sons in his time. Loosing his own daughter would certainly break him down, but he would not turn into a rage-struck rookie.

He is trained how to switch off and complete his missions no matter whats at stake.
He would certainly use this ability when taking revenge. He would not strike with rage, he would become the most frighteningly cold blooded ghost you could ever imagine.

To better understand what I mean by frighteningly cold blooded. Remember Christian Bale in Equilibrium? When he's on the polygraph, and says, "Not without incident." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g05KoMFW0Ng)
A Sam Fisher like that (I.E. how I consider him to be) is a thousand times scarier then one who takes after Jack Bauer - that is, "AAAAHHHHH, Damn IT! I'M gonna KILL YOU."

The hordes of mercs should never know he was even there. He'd become more like an assassin who decides his own targets - them being the ones responsible for his pain.

Fisher was never regarded as the best killer, because there's no such thing. Those who storm the fort end up dead. Fisher was considered the best agent because he didn't need to kill. He was invisible, there is no way that he would, “Want them to know he’s coming.”
And regardless of how you and me may play the game, it was designed/balanced/presented so Sam would be a typical Hollywood action hero, who fights helicopters and “breaks people’s faces.”

SCC is good formula, and D-ops is a great game, I play it all the time. But the single player, the reason I preordered the game, is not very Splinter Cellish.
Perhaps the best way I can put it is, the SCC gameplay has the capability to be Splinter Cell, but the majority of the package around it can never be.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what the team has cooked up for SC6 with all the feedback around here.
Here's hoping that they, "Approach Splinter Cell with a little more respect." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[eoj19]

Does anyone remember what is written across the front cover of SAR/SC1?
"Stealth Action Redefined"

Didn't Lambert tell Sam, "Your gun should always be your last resort. INVISIBILITY is your best weapon."

Didn't he also mention in reference to hiding the dead/unconscious bodies, "Covering up the evidence of your passing through will go a long way towards proving our usefulness in the field."

Answer to all of the above: YES


Looking at SCC, particularly during the intro to the 3E stage, Vic said something along the lines of, "Sam was coming...and he wanted them to know that he was coming...". Isn't that contradictory to how Sam was trained, especially when taking into consideration all of the above words of wisdom from Lambert (Sam's best friend)?

Now although I have said it countless times before, I'll say it again, SCC is indeed a great action game which I do enjoy playing when I want to play an action game in addition, I enjoy playing around with the easter eggs and out of map experiences that was introduced to by a good friend of mine. Conviction also has great detailed stages (specifically I had a blast with the fireworks in Malta http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

But in reference to the topic, Conviction is a "Splinter Cell" in title only but as far as following in the footsteps of its preceding installments (as I just mentioned above with SC1 and Lambert "reiterating" Sam's training), unfortunately Conviction does not meet any of the stealth criteria in which Sam was trained and groomed with.
The only criteria that it somewhat fulfills is the hiding in the shadows. But I do that all the time in Black Ops. That doesn't really cut the mustard (or lemon juice) in terms of stealth. Conviction is more "Action" than it is "Stealth". I'm sure any one of the hundreds of loyal SC fans who feel let down by Conviction, on and off of these forums would agree.


If Lambert wasn't dead in SCDA, he sure would be after seeing Sam's Rambo-rampage in Conviction.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by eoj19:
If Lambert wasn't dead in SCDA, he sure would be after seeing Sam's Rambo-rampage in Conviction.

If some people didn't see it coming, it obviously flew over their heads ; the whole change of script started before SC DA :

UBi let their marketeers have the final say and all of a sudden 'focus groups' needed to be addressed ; hence, the major influences of all those
Hollywood crap got shoehorned into SC. All those B, B and B .. which to me is just Blah Blah and Blah http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[shobhit7777777]

@Jazz

He is a career soldier and has killed...a lot. But this time death has visited him. It has personally affected someone close to him. His training helps him channel that rage into a potent motivator. He does switch off. His anger only comes to surface during select moments (price airfield,interrogation, 3E HQ, etc). In fact I dont think we have ever seen a more focused Sam. His anger, guilt and frustration have manifested themselves as pure killer focus in Sam. He is pure 100% predator now. No political repurcussions or international incidents keep him leashed. It's not about "sending them a message" or being careless, Sam does not hide bodies because they are of no consequence to his mission. He enters a room, and silently takes everyone out, by the time anyone comes there to discover the bodies Sam will be long gone. He takes quick headshots and uses the 5-7 more frequently because he realises that he is terribly outnumbered and evens the odds. He secures an area because it furthers his survival and it is tactical. He is not looking to hack a server and get out. If you do collect intelligence but get discovered the enemy makes sure that the intel you collected is of no use by changing his plans, you have to be a ghost for OPSEC. In SCC, the wheels are already churning and Sam is not intel gathering he's trying to stick a spanner in there. He is a silent killer. He doesn't strike with rage...he simply uses it as a psychological tool. His SCC incarnation is the most frightening till date. He is an invisible, cold-blooded killer. When there is a squad looking for him all they find is their mates, either shot in the head or with their necks broken in shadowy corners, a guy next to them falls dead with a round through his head, Sam attacks and disappears, He moves through the shadows like a shark in the water. I think that whenever he is in such a situation, Sam switches off and a primal part of his brain kicks in, the part which harbors the fury but channels it in much more devastating ways. SCC Sam is the Sam as in the earlier levels of the game, when he is not fighting choppers (god, what were the devs thinking?) Inspite of several attempts and close calls to kill Sam Fisher, someone at Ubi has done a good job in retaining parts of ol' Sam.

@Eoj
Funny you mention "Stealth-action redefined"
remember the "Stealth-Action" part?

"Invisibilty is your best weapon"
Actually in previous games it was Sam's best DEFENCE, the SC pistol and SC-20K were his best weapons.
In SCC are the shadows truly weapons.

He is not technically in the field anymore. He is not infiltrating secure compounds (so much for the secure part) anymore. Let us analyse the sentence. "Usefulness in the field"...this very statement underlines the "ghosting" policy of SC1,2,3,4. It implies that leaving bodies (dead or otherwise) is evidence. Bullet holes or ammo casings are evidence. Any evidence could result in political backlash, major international incidents (remember the U-2 spy plane shot down by the soviets during the cold war?) and termination of the program, not to mention that any data gathered in the field will be rendered useless. This made the whole "Non-Lethal" ROE actually plausible and very convincing. In SCC, not so much. Given the current premise and setting and the storyline post SCDA, such ROE do not apply or make tactical sense. The whole SCC stealth actually works with a freelancing, Rogue like Sam Fisher.
The whole SCC game could be remade with all of SCCTs mechanics but it would appear unrealistic and out of place given Sam's current emotional and professional status.
As for Vic Coste's thoughts...It does not literally mean that Sam was leaving bodies and writing messages on the walls with their blood. It simply was a mind-**** by Sam Fisher...if indeed he wanted to send a message in the first place. As for it not having "stealth" in it..well that is what you believe but I still think that you did not fully understand it's stealth mechanics or approach. I am a loyal Fan but I was (suprisingly) quite happy with it's new approach to stealth gameplay. Innovation in stealth and fun..hallmarks of a true SC title and I have not been disappointed.

P.S

Regarding your sig- an actual Ninja from medieval Japan (not the media portrayal) would more resemble the SCC Sam Fisher than previous iterations due to similarities in tactics. They were assassins and guerillas first spies second.

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@Shadowfox
You just re-enforced my point that it was the gameplay that made it so good. I disaggree that it is missing from conviction

Well if you think that the Tom Clancy premise is IN Conviction, then you have a very grave misinterpretation of what Tom Clancy values are meant to being to a video game. This game embodies the complete anti-thesis of Clancy action.


Splinter Cell is about stealth. It always delivers IMO innovative stealth gameplay or further advances it. If SCC is about killing dudes then wht is SCCT about or SCPT about? because "ghosting" is a very restrictive and narrow definition of stealth. In previous games the whole gameplay was centered around in hiding in shadows and avoiding single, lonely patrolling guards who were plausibly as placid as cows and as reactive to stimulus.
Stealth means getting your job done undetected. In SCC the objective is to kill guys. Is it poor design to keep it so? Absolutely but is it good gameplay? absolutely again. If killing a squad make my job easier...

Again, you have started this thread saying that Conviction is still a Splinter Cell game. The Splinter Cell thesis and foundations are NOT centered around taking out squads. This franchise is not about killing hoards of guards. It is not about wanting your main protagonist to live up to Jack Bauer's Hollywood styled kill count.

You have been far too influenced by external values and want them brought into Sam Fisher's role as an elite, solo operative.

Splinter Cell is not about these things.

There is no doubt that you enjoy this game and what it does. I cannot argue that what it does, it does well. But what it does is NOT what Splinter Cell is about - ergo, this is not a Splinter Cell game.


Again, your definition of what stealth is narrow and restrictive.

LOL

My definition of stealth is exact. It is not a hard concept to grasp. But what is important is what the Splinter Cell concept of stealth is about. And what that is about is getting in, getting the job done, and getting out, WITHOUT LEAVING A TRACE.

There is not a single level in the entire episode of SCC where this happens.


And how does it do that?

Because you just said that if I want to enjoy the game I should play it the way it was designed, i.e. having fun killing everyone.

Stealth games were designed with the idea that a REAL pro could get in, get the job done and get out without anyone knowing they were there. This is why Splinter Cell is so engaging as a concept. But Conviction doesn't offer an outlet for this and trying to enact this very basic stealth gaming concept makes it one of the most burdensome, frustrating and unenjoyable gaming experiences I've had in recent years. This is something that is very disappointing, especially coming from one of the flagship stealth franchises in the gaming industry.

It's particularly disappointing and heartbreaking, considering the exceptionally long waiting time for my favorite gaming franchise.


His exact location and the time he will strike I still don't know. There is a vast difference. You are confusing knowledge of existence with knowledge of exact location.

This would be a fair point, but for the fact that if a door opens, if a breeze blows, if a light goes on unexpectedly, if a mouse breaks wind....the enemy knows its Sam Fisher.

This game is very poorly put together in a lot of aspects, by a team that has a very poor concept of the atmosphere that a stealth game is supposed project. It is supposed to be tense, mysterious....paranoid.

None of these qualities exist in Conviction due to its fast paced, over the top nature where the main character is so overpowering and unbalanced in comparison to the guards, that it doesn't matter if you get caught. In fact, the game expects you to get caught and is orientated around that happening. Alot of the gameplay is BASED during this period.

The whole heart-pounding, paranoid, nail biting tension that was created during moments where you weren't sure if you were going to get caught have been surgically removed from this game, to be replaced with the certainty that you will get caught, but the ability to take out the guard with such ease, that it doesn't matter anyway, because he's not really a threat compared to <STRIKE>Superman</STRIKE> Sam Fisher.

*sigh*



Second, I did not say it ADDs to the character, I'm saying that it showed us a new emotional side of Sam.

Emotion? I'm sorry, anger (in several forms) is about the only emotion we see in these scenes.

Did you need these scenes to know that Sam can get angry and that when he does, he's likely to hurt someone that has information he needs?

WASTE. OF. TIME.

With his skills, Ya he was a killing machine, absolutely no doubt about that. If he wanted to he could take out 5 guards easy if the conditions were right.

Sam's killing capabilities were never in doubt.

But just because you have capabilities doesn't mean that you are a machine for that aspect.

Someone is only a "machine", when they mindlessly, repetitively and continuously execute a task.

Killing has and never was defined like this with Sam. Therefore he is not a killing machine, at least not until Conviction, which goes completely counter to what we have learned about his character prior to this point.


Again..crap story but what I'm talking bout is Sam's portrayal.

You keep making this point and your argument keeps falling on its face when you make it.

Sam's portrayal in this game is ENTIRELY dependent upon the story - in fact, it is A PART of the story. This portrayal of Sam in this game is not a good one. Even though the story is poor, Sam's reactions are not those of the character we came to know in the original games.

I am all for finding more out about a character - fleshing out their story and finding their emotional reactions. But for this to be effective, it has to delve deeper into the character that was created, not contradict it.

If the advantage is with you and you can pick of stragglers then you do it. There have been reports of Soviet Partisan units that immobilized a German Panzer division by sneaking in and taking the tanks out. My point is if the guys you are about to engage have no knowledge of you presence and are simply patrolling an area, you can succesfuly engage them one by one.

You're missing what I'm saying, though at this point I feel you're disagreeing because you are on the defensive.

The examples you're giving are between two forces engaging in direct, conventional warfare where success is solely dependent upon destroying your oppositions forces.

This is the counter-thesis of the warfare that Splinter Cell embodies.

Yet, it's the type of warfare that Conviction tries to project, again proving that Conviction is not a Splinter Cell game.

I found that SCC has done good and deserves an SC title because future instalments can improve upon established model and really come up with an excellent game. Kudos to SCC for bringing a new agressive form of stealth.

I agree that future installments can improve upon an established model, but it must retain the core philosophy of the franchise for it to be considered a part of it.

Conviction does not.

Seriously, how the <span class="ev_code_RED">*EDIT*</span> does a chopper arriving on scene and indicator of Sam's carelesness. If you are walking on the pavement, and a guy in a car runs you over then who's careless? Not you!

Again, you are eating up what the dev's are feeding you. The devs CHOSE to have this scene in the game. It's not like the events of Conviction were pre-determined and had to be developed for the next installment of the franchise.

The devs WANTED to have a scene where Sam had to take on a helicopter!!!

WTF has this got to do with Splinter Cell?!

I mean, seriously, come on dude. You are starting to sound like you're blindly arguing for the sake of it at this stage.


Still waiting for in-game moments where he has a momentary lapse of attention and screws up bad and endangers his life........

Andre's examples should be enough for you, but you brushed those aside without considering them.

Another one would be killing the guard at the start of Price Airfield and not hiding the body, because that's really the only thing that could have set off the alarm, because Grim didn't do it.

Going in the front door of 3E, guns blazing. LOLs, Sam is an expert infiltrator who has gotten into some of the most secure locations on the planet, yet he thinks the best way of getting in 3E is setting of C4 and alerting the whole compound to his presence. (And yes, in case you're thinking of it, this is EXACTLY HOW THE DEVS WANTED TO PORTRAY SAM TO YOU)


(plus Grim is hot!!)

I'm guessing the bouncing bewbs did it for you.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Come to think of it, you're the exact type of gamer Ubisoft were going for with Conviction.

[mortpenguin]

Wow Shadowfox, I really respect you for always taking time out to carefully explain your feelings about the entire series, as well as the accurate criticisms of SCC.

I really wish the SC devs and community team would take some of your feedback seriously and implement them in the next game! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[H.A.R.M.s]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
because "ghosting" is a very restrictive and narrow definition of stealth. It's the only definition.

Hitman is best played when nobody knows Agent 47 was there and nobody knows who killed targets. Especially when you rig assassination as accident.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:

Again, you have started this thread saying that Conviction is still a Splinter Cell game. The Splinter Cell thesis and foundations are NOT centered around taking out squads. This franchise is not about killing hoards of guards. It is not about wanting your main protagonist to live up to Jack Bauer's Hollywood styled kill count.



Your post hit the nail on the head.

In fact, in light of the thread topic it becomes clear through discussion that this Conviction concept is - even more restrictive and narrow - than the simple Clancy stealth premise which made the SC franchise great ... despite the great fluid moves set & controls.

It's actually this Hollywood formula crap which put restraints on how this game design plays out ; it's a very narrow pathway of scripted event setpieces and kill kill kill and kill.

Deniable Ops doesn't suffer as much from that, because you can play 'pretend' just like paintball players pretend... but with Sam's campaign mode it's just such an over obvious singular
focused pathway of murdering which leaves out any variety from each gameplay/story scenario.

[Jazz117Volkov]

In some ways... a lot of ways.
Conviction reminds me of what happens to good games when Hollywood gets the rights to make a movie adaptation. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

[Andre202]

Well actually I already said it and ShadowFox pointed it out already but I am trying to explain it again.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@andre

I ask again examples from in-game where in Sam was careless and made professional mistakes that endangered his life or got him detected. Character development and plot mixed with gameplay have a much larger impact in defining a characters personality than mission or level design. The level designers have the job to make a level that offers the most out of the gameplay elements. They go through the narrative by timeline and then design the environments around it, the mission designers work in tandem with the level designers to figure out what would be the mission objectives, the enemy awareness levels, AI density, mission progression etc.
You always take the counter argument of mission and level design. The point is the story was decided by the devs to be like that. The heli is a part of the story and weather you make that path more open or as narrow as it is in SCC it won't change the ridicolous situation. It is a ridicolous situation but I don't think you can use that as a counter argument because it is a ridicolous situation. This situations in SCC are the reason why we complain here.

The devs had in mind how they want to potray Sam and you can count all the "ridicolous" situations we have in SCC. They are there for a reason and it isn't just level / mission design.
I already said my examples that were over the top for a Splinter Cell game. Just take your point where you say that gameplay and the plot have a much larger impact in defining Sam's personality. I already made this argument and showed how you see that Sam is reckless and careless. I will explain you that in the other part of your post.


The situations the Sam is placed in are OTT and ridiculous. Every instance these moments take place the core SCC mechanics are chucked out the window.. Eg: Diwaniya iraq, Chopper mission, end of 3E hq, Linear shootouts in whitehouse. SO the gameplay mechanics are not at fault neither is Sam's characterisation. The level design never fully exploits the game mechs during these horrendous set-pieces.
And now we should ignore these situations? Hello? 3E is most ridicolous Story driven situation you have in that game to show how reckless and careless Sam is because he is now in RAGE and very much angry at Lambert. It's after he get to know the TRUTH. I don't know how you can say that this doesn't show how the devs wanted to potray Sam's character. It's perhaps the best example in the game. That you are not able to use the whole gameplay is just another prove how linear and story driven the situation is!!! I think you know that the Story / Plot has an impact in defining Sam's character.


Shallow stealth: How so? because of the binary B/W filter? or because you can't physically drag bodies? yes some options are missing and would have been welcome but overall SCC offers very deep stealth gameplay albeit in a new form. How is this stealth careless? because of faster movement? then move slowly when near guards. As for the light meter..it was a pretty handy gadget but Sam is now linger wearing the photometric suit.
I don't know if you have read the forums before you joined to the community but this is one big issue in the game. It's easy, doesn't have such a depth gameplay and doesn't have important features for Splinter Cell.

The B/W filter shows how Stealth is now binary in SCC. Screen is Black/White means you are hidden, colour is dangerous. This throws me out of the immersion. Why shouldn't I be able to see everything in colour? But that's not the point and I will explain it you in the next quote where you mention SC 1,2,3.

You just ask about the non existent hiding bodies feature. I would suggest to think more of the old games and to look which features the old titles have and SCC has not:

- Dynamic Stealth
- 5 different speeds
- Sound (So it is important to be able to go slower and faster)
- Non lethal CQC (KO)
- Hiding Bodies
- The whole distractions you could make and now you are only able to do it by triggering the alarm (whistle, Handle System, JUMP!, making noise with the different speeds when you are crouched)
- OCP (Couldn't understand why a prototype of the five seven haven't got this feature while the older one have it)
- Split Jump
- KO from Above while hanging on the pipe (You know the move when you are hanging on the pipe and a soldier is under Sam. This is badass)
- Knife?
- Hacking Computers
- Open the doors slowly
- Pick Lock

This are just a few out of my head. Now what can we notice when looking at this list? Everything here are moves that let you avoid enemy contact and do your job unnoticed. I will be very suprised when you find a counter argument that SCC removed the features that were key in previous games for leaving no trace. That alone shows how the devs wanted to potray Sam's character.


Plus it makes no difference as in SC1,2,3 when in partial shadows, the AI would get supicious of you and start investigating, In SCC the reaction is more realistic, if they see a guy running in the shadows they raise the alarm. The player only has a fraction of a second to again get back into cover or shadows. The shadows, realistically, can only conceal a person when the engulf him in complete darkness. If he is partially in them then the chances of detection are much higher as the human eye can very easily make out human shapes and silhouettes. So SCCs stealth works out realistically. When you move around in dark shadows or cover to cover you remain concealed but if you rush in the light you have very few seconds to get back in cover to avoid detection.
Stealth is neither shallow nor "careless" in SCC it is simply more accessible and allows more aggressive actions to be taken while remaining stealthy and undetected. it brings new depth to the gameplay.
Now I will point out the differences in dynamic Stealth and binary Stealth. Just looking at the names should make a click in our brains. Binary Stealth only asks for two (three) different states. Hidden, not hidden and maybe when you got to personal by killing a guard. In dynamic Stealth the states (variables) changes the whole time when you move, regardless where you are. We use variables from 1 to 5 to make it easier to understand. 5 is like unvisible and with a variable of 1 you glow like a Christmas tree. So we assume we have two guards standing there and you want sneak past them. Now you variable does change the whole time from 5 to 3.5. Guard B notice something when the variable is at 4.1. Guard A didn't notice but he is going to investigate because of Guard B which means the guards do notice you always at a different state. There is a grey zone. If you play SCCT on Extreme the guards can already notice you at 4.9. So it's evertime different when the guards are noticing something. Important! NOTICE! Under 3 or so they will see you as a intruder and trigger the alarm but still always at a different state.
In binary Stealth all guards will see you when the the screen isn't B/W. It's logical because there aren't more states then hidden and not hidden.

With an AI that has their own small characterisation. For example the one is very self-confident and thinks he knows when there is an intruder, the other one has fear, etc.
Everyone of them would notice you at a different state for dynamic Stealth.
Did you have never the feeling at night that something was there but in real there was nothing? That's the grey zone, having something inbetween hidden and not hidden. You say Sam needs to be in complete darkness so the shadows engulf him. What is if he is inbetween the complete darkness and there where it isn't that dark? The dynamic Stealth considers all conditions and that's why it has more depth then binary Stealth where you are not even sure where the game considers you are hidden and where not. Then you have the problem that you cannot see anything in some Maps with the B/W Filter.

We can make an example that is up to date. Imagine a snow storm and you are driving a car. The more the snow storm gets harder the more your view will be disturbed. You may see slightly the silhouettes of the car or you just see it's red lights. But you never have a situations where the car suddenly shows up and you can see it brilliantly. There is always something inbetween. The more far away you want see the more you view gets blurred.


The Story: Nope, the story never forces or affects mission design apart from providing objectives and a backdrop. The level design choices made in those bad or poor sections had nothing to do with gameplay and storyline and hence nothing to do with Sam being careless.
Said already something about that above.


The writers simply say: "right, Sam will then go to the reservoir in michigan to destroy the EMP generator", the mission designers then work everything out. In this case they must have thought a chopper to be a cool idea and royally screwed up. The appearance of a chopper mid-way through the level or the objective of blowing up something, is in no way connected to Sam's character, it simply bad level design and poor mission layout. Simple as that.
In your view it may be bad level design. From the view of the designers they wanted to show us something with that. They always said in the forums that everything has to make sense. We asked why we couldn't jump where we want to. The devs said: You can only jump there where it makes sense.


There were several ridiculously bad ideas in terms of level and mission design you are very right in saying that. But this does not co-relate to a sloppy, careless Sam. A good eg of a mission which would use Sam's character and skills to the fullest would be the garage level in 2E or the Malta museum mission. These missions highlight the gameplay which in turn complements Sam's character.
I provided a list which shows the point of being careless and reckless because you are pretty much forced to by the gameplay. Normally you build the Story around the gameplay. In these ridicolous situations the gameplay is build around the story.


Airfield: true but you say that after playing the game, plus it is much better to completely disable their pursuit capabilites as they had a GPS chip in Grim's car. Taking the generators out was simply tactical. In this regard I agree (for a rare moment) with the mission designers. You can also minimise your casualties by sticking to the shadows and only killing those that are an immediate threat. Again. Level design in no way has influenced Sam's characterisation. He doesn't want to go and blow the bchopper and generator up but he has to, he is forced to and realises this is necessary to escape.
In previous games the mission design had a lot to do with the Story. I think that is the same with SCC. You always talk about the mission / level designers. It gives me the feeling that only those worked on the game. Have you seen how detailed the story board is? It pretty much forces the level and mission designers to do it the way it is now in Conviction.


"The soldiers already know that you are there or that you will come so your cover is blown when you just make a fart (exegrating here a bit) because the game is designed that way."

Yup level design again... But in most cases the guards know that Sam may try to infiltrate the building, so they are logical in assuming that it is Sam Fisher and no one else.
I actually wanted to point out with that, that his cover is blown when he just makes a fart.


LTL options: Oh really? they have a complete memory lapse and even forget to scream bloody murder after waking up with a headache in a dark corner and realising that they were guarding a top secret installation....unlikely. They race to the nearest guard and raise hell.
So you were never unconscious for some minutes, hours? I said "often" forget what happened not all of them. It gives another point where you could improve the AI so the game has more variety.
It takes time til the guard realises what happended. When he wakes up ALONE he is probably confused. He doesn't wake up like a fit sportsman and say: I know what happened!
It takes time. This behaviour as said can be improved.


As for other guards finding the unconscious body and not raising the alarm...are you really serious? Are you saying that with a straight face? If a guard at a high security compound finds his buddy knocked stone cold with a bruise on his neck or temples, he doesn't think that his friend just fell unconscious, he raises the alarm and a search and destroy team is sent out after the intruder.
Read the post, I say MAY HAVE A CHANCE. That's again where the AI can be improved and a lot of Stealth Fans ask for because Stealth needs a strong AI with different personalities. The soldier could think everthing. I would firstly do first aid, call some for help. If he is OK, they may raise the alarm or they do a silent alarm, so Sam doesn't know they are all alerted or just these two boys are alerted.


So basically leaving an unconscious body or a dead body has almost the same risks with the dead body slightly more advantageous.
Besides that I agree that LTL should be made available in the next game.
Not really. There is a big gameplay difference and with an improved AI a big difference between dead and unconscious.


And Maxime would have truly liked to add these old features but was unable to do so due to time constraints. So we may see these return in the next instalment. Anywho...heres hoping that the next SC has all the features that were missing!
The point is he said it was unnecessary for SCC anyway. I like that he wanted to add it but it didn't get the priority in the game development.

[shobhit7777777]

@shadowfox

"Again, you have started this thread saying that Conviction is still a Splinter Cell game. The Splinter Cell thesis and foundations are NOT centered around taking out squads. This franchise is not about killing hoards of guards. It is not about wanting your main protagonist to live up to Jack Bauer's Hollywood styled kill count."

The franchise is known for innovation in the stealth genre. The first game improved on the shadow mechanics, gave us an excellent setting and premise and brought Stealth gaming into a real, believable realm, SCPT with an excellent multiplayer, the third one for allowing the player to choose their playstyle and refining the gameplay, the fourth one with another interesting premise and new mechanics as an undercover agent. The games according to me deliver quality stealth gameplay. Whether it is about taking out droves of NPCs or simply infiltrating a compound to plant a bug. Splinter Cell is about good stealth gameplay. The scope of the argument is bigger than simply killing guards or not, it is the trend set by the franchise of successfully introducing new stealth gameplay with each iteration. The very fact that SCC delivers a new playstyle and a new form of stealth gameplay is a mark of this trend. The levels in SCC were extremely focused on forced encounters with the AI, especially towards the end but it does not detract from the fact that SCC has done something unique and different in terms of stealth gameplay when compared to previous titles or other stealth titles for that matter.
I have not been influenced by the external values that you mention and still prefer my elite-operative to be the fallible, mortal Human rather than a "superman" as you put it.

"My definition of stealth is exact. It is not a hard concept to grasp. But what is important is what the Splinter Cell concept of stealth is about. And what that is about is getting in, getting the job done, and getting out, WITHOUT LEAVING A TRACE. There is not a single level in the entire episode of SCC where this happens"

stealth simply means to remain undetected while achieving your objective. You could launch an all out raid against an secure facility,destroy everything inside, quickly GTFO and still leave no trace of your passing through except the damage and destruction, as for sign of your passing or handiwork..Nada.(remember the French raid on a North African terrorist training camp Patriot games...the novel?) Is that stealth? It does qualify according to ALL definitions. You used silenced weapons to neutralise all enemies encountered, grab vital data like notebooks etc., plant charges or whatever and quickly exfiltrate. Detection NO...Leaving a trace, that could lead back tou your ID or whereabouts..NO. Stealth. You are justifying your tendencies in all stealth games to rabidly avoid confrontations with your definition. In SCC going Gandhi is impossible and this has directly breached your fixed gameplay style and hence your apprehension towards it. What you have not realised is that stealth is such a huge genre that simply applying the "ghosting" tag to it just does not cut it. Oh and BTW, grabbing an NPC, interrogating him and then simply knocking him out is Anti-Stealth BS. You grab a guy, talk to him and kill him because he already knows too much. I don't see how leaving an alive guard with knowledge of your origins due to the accent, even numerical strength is "not leaving a trace" and more realistic.

"Stealth games were designed with the idea that a REAL pro could get in, get the job done and get out without anyone knowing they were there. This is why Splinter Cell is so engaging as a concept. But Conviction doesn't offer an outlet for this and trying to enact this very basic stealth gaming concept makes it one of the most burdensome, frustrating and unenjoyable gaming experiences I've had in recent years. This is something that is very disappointing, especially coming from one of the flagship stealth franchises in the gaming industry. It's particularly disappointing and heartbreaking, considering the exceptionally long waiting time for my favorite gaming franchise."

Actually Stealth games were designed to incorporate realism into gameplay, a lone operative using stealth and wits to defeat his enemies or achieve his objective rather than suicidal gun-rushes. A REAL PRO can quickly stalk and take a guy down swiftly and silently, he can successfully double tap two guys in the head and aim his gun with greater ease. We consider our stealth operative to be trained to near-superhuman levels and capable of pulling off things that a mere soldier can't and at the same time we are made aware of his mortality and human nature and hence the emphasis on stealth. In SCC, if you gauge the professionalism of Sam in terms of approach, tactics, abilities and skill..then he is as professional as ever. Splinter Cell was engaging due to several factors, one of them being..using stealth to gain a tactical advantage on the guards and figure out the best way to infiltrate that area without detection, SCC follows in the same vein but it makes it slightly more tactical and involves more NPC take downs and an overall more aggressive approach. As for playing the game-as-it-was-designed, it's having fun while using STEALTH to kill.

The thing is that we have been playing the same SC stealth style for over 4 games. This style suited and flourished in the previous games because of the setting and plot. The events after SCDA did not leave much wiggle room in terms of plot and storyline direction. The SCC guys did screw it up but let it not cloud the fact that Ubi's attempt to garner a larger audience and re-focus the series led to an innovative style of gameplay that though still has teething problems is an excellent addition to the franchise.

"This would be a fair point, but for the fact that if a door opens, if a breeze blows, if a light goes on unexpectedly, if a mouse breaks wind....the enemy knows its Sam Fisher. "

I really think that we ARE playing different games. I recently carried out a couple of tests when everyone was raging over the oversensitive AI. The fact is switching on/off lights, opening windows and doors simply cause the AI to investigate. It's a different matter if you crash through a door or or window, or shoot out a light and expect the AI to stand there like idiots.

"This game is very poorly put together in a lot of aspects, by a team that has a very poor concept of the atmosphere that a stealth game is supposed project. It is supposed to be tense, mysterious....paranoid."

This "Atmosphere" of paranoia and tension suited the locales in previous games. You were a lone agent operating in HIGHLY SECURE, unfamiliar areas under plausible deniability. When the sole objective is to be gather intelligence and leave not traces then the atmosphere should bleed tension with the environments, music and lighting (the previous games did a marvellous job at conveying such a tone) they should make you feel like an intruder in the alien world but it does not work with all settings. The atmosphere in SCC is built up by the contrasting and moody lighting, the B/W filter as a primal indicator..as a sort of hunt mode on Sam to give a dark and menacing theme, with the projected text and movies as part of Sam's Psyche and insight into his thoughts. You are now a man whose simple wish is to get his daughter back and in the process visit harm on those responsible for dragging him into this crap soup. There are no "supposed" or "this is how it should be" conventions in a genre such as Stealth. the irony is, that it is such a different and groundbreaking game style in terms of video game conventions and you're shackling it with more pre-determined ideals There are no "supposed" or "this is how it should be" conventions in a genre such as Stealth. the irony is, that it is such a different and groundbreaking game style in terms of video game conventions and you're shackling it with more pre-determined ideals. Sam Fisher is the ultimate espionage agent in fiction IMO. He is overpowered and rightly so. He should be able to move quietly, be fast but silent, have a precise aim and have excellent agility and climbing abilities. He was overpowered in all games after Pandora tomorrow,and this actually led to better gameplay in SCCT. When I played SCCT I felt that Sam Fisher could truly pull this mission off.
I sorely missed the ability to quickly grab or takeout NPCS and felt something was severely missing from Sam's arsenal. A guy as Sam should have NO PROBLEM dealing with a guy when he has the element of surprise and stealth on his side. The inability to handle CQC situation effectively really detracted from gameplay experience. As for the sudden jump in abilities from SCDA to SCC...how come Sam suddenly gained a combat Knife in the third game? did he "learn" how to use it despite of his career in the SEALs? did he realise that he NEEDS a CQC capability and it is more realistic? or simply because he became a "mindless brute" and wanted to go on "rambo-rampage" to satisfy his "bloodlust". It was a gameplay addition simple. Just like many SCC mechanics are. The plot and setting have been used as the reason, because they go hand in hand. The knife was a stealthy way to get up-close and suited the "lone-infiltrator" setting and were very much in character with Sam. The Aggressive mechanics that have been introduced in SCC are plausible given the character backdrop and more aggressive tone of the game.
If you do enjoy such tense moments try out infiltration, realistic difficulty on D-ops. If you did not enjoy that, well..You still have the old ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
Again, IMO, your rigid attachment to the previously established themes are indicative of your extreme attachment to the previous playstyles.

"Emotion? I'm sorry, anger (in several forms) is about the only emotion we see in these scenes. Did you need these scenes to know that Sam can get angry and that when he does, he's likely to hurt someone that has information he needs? WASTE. OF. TIME."

Did you need humorous banter in previous games to establish Sam's dark humor or did you just take the devs word in the manual description of Sam Fisher? Did Sam need to make those choices in-PT and CT that would emphasise on his moral ethics to flesh out the character..or did you just assume that he was a stand-up guy doing the right thing? If you can;t any other emotion other than "Anger" in all the scenes with Sam and the projected movies then you're seriously not understanding the character. These scenes show guilt, anger, frustration, longing and a sense of lost trust. I think your blind attachment to previous interpretations of Sam and game styles does not allow you to see the subtler side of things in SCC.
Sure the plot is heavy handed and setting crap but it does not miss out on portraying Sam as a human, with human issues and human problems.

"But just because you have capabilities doesn't mean that you are a machine for that aspect. Someone is only a "machine", when they mindlessly, repetitively and continuously execute a task."

LOL...dude seriously?
In every game SC game Sam behaves like an automaton when it comes to killing. Professionals like Sam NEED TO SWITCH OFF AND ALLOW MUSCLE MEMORY AND TRAINING TO TAKE OVER CERTAIN MOMENTS THAT INVOLVE TAKING HUMAN LIVES. THIS COLD DETACHMENT IS WHAT MAKES THEM MACHINES. They loose all feelings and mute their emotions to remain clinical. The psychology of Human beings requires this to avoid morbid fascination with their targets and avoid mental stress. His ruthlessness has remained the same from SCCT and SCDA. This absence or a vaccuum of emotions during killing is what earns Sam the tag of a "Killing machine" regardless of the FPS, Hollywood connotations.

"You keep making this point and your argument keeps falling on its face when you make it. Sam's portrayal in this game is ENTIRELY dependent upon the story - in fact, it is A PART of the story. This portrayal of Sam in this game is not a good one. Even though the story is poor, Sam's reactions are not those of the character we came to know in the original games. I am all for finding more out about a character - fleshing out their story and finding their emotional reactions. But for this to be effective, it has to delve deeper into the character that was created, not contradict it."

Clearly you do not understand. The portrayal of Fisher in SCC would contradict previous iterations if Sam had been shown dealing with personal loss and with a sense of retribution. In fact SCC keeps completely in character. After being told that his daughter is dead (in SCDA) we are led to believe that he suffers an emotional breakdown (getting drunk and into barfights) and drowns in sorrow. He accepts one of the most stressful and dangerous operations an operative could get and this is clearly indicative of Sam's attitude. In SCC we see the same side of Sam but this time he is not completely aimless and directs his feelings towards his daughter's killers. This is competely in line with Sam's characterisation. As for the portrayal vs story...Haven't you seen movies that have horrible plots and storyline but some characters stand out for their portrayal? Mickey Rourke in the expendables has an excellent scene where he reveals guilt over his actions in Serbia...this excellent portrayal in an other wise B-movie. Christian Bale's portrayal of a man torn between societal norms and human emotions in equilibrium was the only redeeming factor about that movie. I can't quote any examples from games or other media because none come to mind now but the point is that some character portrayal can be detached and well done inspite of the general storyline. Whether you like this Sam or not is a personal opinion.

"You're missing what I'm saying, though at this point I feel you're disagreeing because you are on the defensive. The examples you're giving are between two forces engaging in direct, conventional warfare where success is solely dependent upon destroying your oppositions forces. This is the counter-thesis of the warfare that Splinter Cell embodies"

I think you misunderstood the military analogy to your previous arguments. The Partisan were deep behind enemy lines and were supported through air-drops much like a SC team would function albeit in a smaller scale. The two forces i.e Partisans and the Germans were not engaged in conventional warfare. The partisans were involved in intel gathering in a major way. I am disagreeing because you previous arguments on military doctrine were simply lacking and weak. Your attempt to use them to fortify your points against SCC were ridiculous. Your clear misunderstanding of Partisan warfare as a "conventional" one is indicative of your poor grasp on the subject. Now in terms of SC. SC themes is about infiltration, stealth, intelligence gathering, and subversion and sabotage. These are the hallmarks of Unconventional warfare. You have absolutely no idea what "warfare doctrine" that SC embodies and hence are in no position to argue SCCs failure in that regard.

Here's an example, a simple one:
SC1-4 were the video game equivalent to a MQ-9 Reaper UAV, they silently gather intelligence using stealth and state-of-the-art and can act on that intelligence with precision strikes using Hellfires. SCC is the equivalent of an F-22 raptor. It is faster and more deadlier and still uses stealth to actively engage targets and disappear. The Only sign of it's presence is when the enemy aircraft start blowing up and they can't detect the Raptor.

Both use stealth for different means

"I agree that future installments can improve upon an established model, but it must retain the core philosophy of the franchise for it to be considered a part of it."
Agreed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

"Again, you are eating up what the dev's are feeding you. The devs CHOSE to have this scene in the game. It's not like the events of Conviction were pre-determined and had to be developed for the next installment of the franchise. The devs WANTED to have a scene where Sam had to take on a helicopter!!! WTF has this got to do with Splinter Cell?! I mean, seriously, come on dude. You are starting to sound like you're blindly arguing for the sake of it at this stage."

Yes the devs wanted Sam to AVOID not engage the chopper but this severely screws up Sam's portrayal..how? I agree 100% it was a bonehead idea but it does not reflect upon Sam's characterisation.
Blindly arguing??? gimme a break..How does a chopper have anything to do with Sam Fisher the character? It was simply a **** idea!! It seems that you're bringing up invalid points just for the heck of it. The fact that you can't see that is simply your incapability to enjoy the game or appreciate it's new direction. Now you're just bashing it for no solid reasons.

"Andre's examples should be enough for you, but you brushed those aside without considering them. Another one would be killing the guard at the start of Price Airfield and not hiding the body, because that's really the only thing that could have set off the alarm, because Grim didn't do it. Going in the front door of 3E, guns blazing. LOLs, Sam is an expert infiltrator who has gotten into some of the most secure locations on the planet, yet he thinks the best way of getting in 3E is setting of C4 and alerting the whole compound to his presence. (And yes, in case you're thinking of it, this is EXACTLY HOW THE DEVS WANTED TO PORTRAY SAM TO YOU)"

*sigh
The objectives in the game (c-4 blowing ad stuff) were there to involve situations that allow the player to use the new mechanics. They devs did not give a **** about Sam's portrayal during mission design. They simply catered to the gameplay mechanics.
"hiding the body" hmmm...he's in a highly secure area crawling with armed mercs who are bound to check in on grim and the prisoner and he's is more concerned with hiding bodies. He is right now using that window of oppurtunity to silently escape the area.
The 3E hq: He is an expert infiltrator thanks in part to the millions of dollars worth of surveillance equipment and a remote hacking team always supporting him in the game, the support team did all the research and provided Sam with infiltration info and even off-site suppport by taking down the power etc. In SCC he lacks such an excellent support structure. I mean of course, he should have googled 3E blueprints, found a convenient air duct or HVAC system and crawled through that!! I mean here you are bashing SCC for being too much "hollywood cheese" and then you expect such mission impossible bull****!! Get over it. If 3E had a an open window or a convenient pipe or a duct leading inside or a remote security terminal which could be hacked you would have bashed it for being contrived and unrealistic. Bull****.

I'm guessing the bouncing bewbs did it for you. Come to think of it, you're the exact type of gamer Ubisoft were going for with Conviction.

Nah...I'm more of a "Butt" guy.
As for the exact gamer, don't know about that but they surely were not targeting guys with pre-determined and rigid notions on "Stealth" based on games, which to begin with, were heavily influenced by the Dev team's ideas and their take on stealth..in the first place. It's about appreciating a new addition to our favorite genre and not about blind faith in pre-conceived notions

[sameer_monier]

shobhit7777777 much respect man for carrying over 8 pages alone debating, man you should have been here long ago

Guys do not make hard feelings towards each other, after all we are all fans to the same name : Sam Fisher (Splinter Cell) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[shobhit7777777]

@Andre202
Hey! Just finished a MASSIVE post and didn't see yours!

Dynamic Stealth: It is not determined on the player's visibility but the AI's reaction. If a person sees someone running in half-shadows or simply someone standing there...They can easily ID it as a human and in the given situation as a threat. It is highly unrealistic. When I see two headlights in the snowstorm I presume it to be a vehicle coming towards me immediately. There is no gray region where I have doubts over the vehicles ID or intention. There is a standoff distance where I can't see anything but within that radius I can see enough to safely assess the objects. In SCC the gray area was there but it was very narrow (the white warning arrows) the player has very little time to get back in cover. It suits the faster playstyle and as the guards move faster with flashlights it is more dangerous. Now tell me something. You are a patrolling a walkway and in the corner of your eye you notice movement (Sam in 3-4 shadow) you immediately turn towrds it and raise your weapon, let's assume that the ambient lighting in the room has dampened your night vision but even then the Human eye can easily make out the contours in the shadow and you immediately classify it as a Human , the normal reaction is to call out to whoever is there and keep your weapon ready at all times, just like in SCC. The Human cognitive abilities are severely diminished in all stealth games to allow for fun. In SCC the quicker detection when not in shadows is much more realistic especially if you consider that the Guards in SCC have been made aware that Sam Fisher might try to infiltrate the compound. The Visual Perception of the guards in SCC is much more realistic than of previous game because there is no such thing as half concealed in shadows, especially in the dense compact insides of the buildings. I will allow range and distance for Dynamic stealth to work. Eg: you are 10-20 meters from the guard, absolutely still and in a shadow factor of 3 then you may not get detected. But in close quarters it is unrealistic and impossible. I know because after a night out when you try to sneak in at 3.00 am in the morning without trying to wake up your roommate you get pretty good at nocturnal navigation ans stealth http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
In SCC you are only concealed when in a thick pool of dark black shadows and this makes perfect sense. But half-shaodw stealth simply is unrealistic without physical cover in the way or some really friggin good camo patterns.

But yeah, the B/W filter does get annoying and the guards in SCCT had FANTASTIC HEARING ABILITES http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif very realistically modelled. The SCC guards are almost deaf.

Again, Dynamic stealth only works with MGS style camouflage stealth, because there the guards take some time to ID the shape and recognise the human body due to the camo. It is a semi-realistic representation. In SCC environments, full shadows and cover-to-cover stealth are more realistic than half-shadow stealth.

Story, Gameplay and Sam Fisher:
The reason why I use level & mission design as a major reason is because it is horrendous in some parts. It sometimes does not fully capitalise on the gameplay pillars of stealth and sometimes forces the player too much towards one playstyle. Sam Fisher can't be blamed for the ridiculous things he encounters in the mission. He is a character in the plot. His personality is not defined by the events around him, it is defined as to HOW HE REACTS TO THEM. When in 3E HQ it is not the gameplay that forces you but the linear level and the poor mission design that dictates that a platoon of guards just keep on coming, because Sam had an angry moment earlier. They fail to translate the characters emotions into believable gameplay, during these moments. Sam REACTS to these ridiculous situations and does not cause them.

Unconscious guards: Nope. When an unconscious person wakes up his disorientation lasts for an hour at most and that too as a headache or a blurry vision, it does not interfere with his ability to logically assume that there is an infiltrator about and scream bloody murder to the heavens. If an unconscious guard is found, the guy who finds the body immediately informs the HQ/base and asks for a backup. In SCC whenever the guards find a body they come over to check it out and then immediately call it in and the whole area goes into alert.
I think it was Sam Fisher who said:
"the choice between leaving a witness and a dead body, is no choice at all"

Features and AI:
Dude, I for one would like all the missing features to be brought back because more features is always welcome!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Maybe the devs did not have time or maybe they just wanted to keep it simple and focus on the new gameplay but I think that they certainly will add these features in the next one (I hope!) I also hope that they have a smarter AI too.
@sameer
Thanks bro..I just think that SCC is being bashed for trying to do something new and innovative and it deserves a fair chance.

[eoj19]

LOL about my sig's pic. That's actually my all-time favorite Street Fighter character, A***a and he's not a ninja. Those who know me on these forums know that I'm a pretty random guy @ times, and that sig pic is just an example. But I'm crazy about A***a http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

And SIGINT is short for Signal Intelligence. Putting the 2 together (Signal Intelligence & Ninja), it is apparent that Sam used modernized weaponry/tech in addition to his stealth skills to carry out his objectives as we all have witnessed since SAR.

And although the ninjas from the feudal era of Japan were indeed ninjas, some (if not most) of their study of assassinations can be traced back to the Hashshashins (ancient Persian and Syrian Assassins around the time of the First Crusade), who were the earliest assassins, and to their "Order of The Assassins." You'd be surprised at what nations got a few ideas from examining another nation's history.

As for your response,


remember the "Stealth-Action" part?
Concerning that statement, allow me to repeat myself,
"Conviction is more "Action" than it is "Stealth". I'm sure any one of the hundreds of loyal SC fans who feel let down by Conviction, on and off of these forums would agree." -eoj


"Invisibilty is your best weapon" Actually in previous games it was Sam's best DEFENCE, the SC pistol and SC-20 K were his best weapons. In SCC are the shadows truly weapons.

Semantics. Both shadows and tangible weaponry can be considered "best weapons" due to the sole fact that both can be used as defense and offense. Shadows can be used to execute a stealthy, h2h assassination (offense) as well as being able to 'vanish' from the enemy's line of sight (defense).

It all depends on the individual's perspective.

But I agree that the shadows did provide somewhat of a stealthy role in SCC, minus that horrible B&W effect. I sincerely hope that won't make a second appearance in SC6.


He is not technically in the field anymore. He is not infiltrating secure compounds (so much for the secure part) anymore. Let us analyse the sentence. "Usefulness in the field"...this very statement underlines the "ghosting" policy of SC1 ,2 ,3 ,4. It implies that leaving bodies (dead or otherwise) is evidence. Bullet holes or ammo casings are evidence. Any evidence could result in political backlash, major international incidents (remember the U-2 spy plane shot down by the soviets during the cold war?) and termination of the program, not to mention that any data gathered in the field will be rendered useless.

I agree that since Sam is no longer "in the field" it would seem understandable for him to go rogue and do away w/ the most of his stealthy roots. This is where ubi decided to take the "action" approach into a series that is well known for its stealth. Ubi decided to make the latter portion of the "Stealth Action" genre more famous in SCC.
Unfortunately for ubi, there were (and still are) a lot of SC fans who feel let down because of their "new and innovative" approach to the SC franchise. This turnout is due mainly to the lack of stealth.

Now it is I who find it funny that you chose to mention the latter part of the quote, and no mentioning of its preceding portion, "COVERING UP THE EVIDENCE of your passing through........usefulness in the field."


There will always be some sort of evidence left behind. I only see 3 basic alternatives to handle the evidence:
- Cover up the evidence
OR
-Destroy the evidence
OR
-Completely disregard the evidence

Good utilization of history pointing out the U-2 during the Cold War.


As for it not having "stealth" in it..well that is what you believe but I still think that you did not fully understand it's stealth mechanics or approach.

This statement would have been completely ludicrous had you have not mentioned the words "I think," which is indicative that this statement was of your opinion, and not a fact.
The fact is I am a stealth extremist w/ an appreciation of action.

If I did not understand the so called "stealth approach" that SCC took, I would not be complaining. However, since I do understand SCC's "approach to stealth," I am dissatisfied with it which is why I, other users on this thread (even on this very page) and off of it are very vocal in terms of standing our ground and saying to ubi: Restore SC to its former glory (...which is actually somebody's sig if I remember correctly)


I am a loyal Fan but I was (suprisingly) quite happy with it's new approach to stealth

I am happy for you in this sense. But I have to be honest with you, I said it before; the majority of SC fans (and it is a fact) are disappointed and dissatisfied w/ SCC. Especially when you take into account how ubi "put us on hold" for so many years since they had to "go back to the drawing board."
and unfortunately, majority does have a tendency to rule in almost every circumstance.

But as I have said before, I enjoy playing SCC as an "action" game. I tried the stealthrough suggestions and managed to complete most of conviction w/ the SCC "stealth approach." I definitely don't see that approach going far. The best thing ubi can do is go back to the drawing board and capitalize off of what did work in the series, and even implement revisions of what was recently introduced.

[shobhit7777777]

@Eoj
"And although the ninjas from the feudal era of Japan were indeed ninjas, some (if not most) of their study of assassinations can be traced back to the Hashshashins (ancient Persian and Syrian Assassins around the time of the First Crusade), who were the earliest assassins, and to their "Order of The Assassins.""

I really don't think so. The earliest Ninjas were recorded around the 11th century onwards. Plus there are no reports of contact between the Assassin order which were localised in modern day Syria. Plus they were more like Guerilla forces and were composed of peasants from the lower classes rising up against the feudal lords in Japan.
I think someone has been playing too much Assassins Creed..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Conviction is more "Action" than it is "Stealth" "

Many people here have confused the run and gun action of FPSs with the Stealth-action hybrid in SCC. TBH I assumed that SCC would be a TPS with stealthy elements. I was wrong. In SCC the action itself is stealth. You perform silent CQC kills, use death-from-above,use the environment and the shadows to remain undetected while performing these "actions", you use stealth to move around to advantageous positions and use silenced shots and executions to remove threats. The "action" elements seamlessly begin when you get DETECTED, that is the TPS "action" confused with the STEALTH-ACTION in SCC. The way it then allows you to vanish and slip into the stealth part is excellent and THAT is why it is a true blend of stealth-action. As for the hundred of fans who did not enjoy it I'm sure there thousands who must have seen the potential and enjoyed the game.

"Semantics. Both shadows and tangible weaponry can be considered "best weapons" due to the sole fact that both can be used as defense and offense. Shadows can be used to execute a stealthy, h2h assassination (offense) as well as being able to 'vanish' from the enemy's line of sight (defense). It all depends on the individual's perspective. But I agree that the shadows did provide somewhat of a stealthy role in SCC, minus that horrible B&W effect. I sincerely hope that won't make a second appearance in SC6. "

It was more of a design philosophy. The previous games basically used shadows as safe zones for the player. Given the harder gun aiming mechanics and slower speed in the previous titles using the shadows to remain hidden instead of actively seeking out and killing the AI was a better option. In SCC, the new CQC moves, fluid aiming etc. aid a player to effectively strike from the shadows without getting detected. The old SHADOWS=DEFENCE made sense due to the espionage setting and premise of the games. SHADOW=OFFENCE works better with SCCs theme. I liked both philosophies.

I agree that since Sam is no longer "in the field" it would seem understandable for him to go rogue and do away w/ the most of his stealthy roots. This is where ubi decided to take the "action" approach into a series that is well known for its stealth. Ubi decided to make the latter portion of the "Stealth Action" genre more famous in SCC. Unfortunately for ubi, there were (and still are) a lot of SC fans who feel let down because of their "new and innovative" approach to the SC franchise. This turnout is due mainly to the lack of stealth. "

I think he still maintains his stealth roots, I mean they are imperative for his survival in the game but he has left out some parts of that "Leave no evidence" as he feels it is redundant. You know I think why a LOT of fans (including me) felt that the action part tipped too much in the SP campaign. The forced gunfights, the choppers, the Iraq level, the 3E hq escape, the white house with only one approach, it felt contrived and I felt forced to play it like a TPS. This is the devs fault for poor level and mission design and not necessarily th the gameplay itself. The gameplay lends itself very well to stealth but poor utilisation of the core mechanics did destroy the experience somewhat. In that I agree with you.

Again, covering up evidence only preserves the security of 3E. Leaving a body is evidence whether you leave it in the shadows or not. That is why the whole "ghosting" leave-NO-signs approach to stealth worked in previous titles. The main objective is the data. The lonely guard is unaware and not a threat, plus Ko'ing him and leaving a guard missing from the roster may endanger the mission. In SCC, the objective for Sam Fisher is to be a MAJOR Anal Pain for the Meggiddo. Inc. He is engaged in guerilla warfare. He does not care about leaving a compound with a squad of dead mercs because their discovery does not jeopardise his mission. He is in and out (that's what she said..sorry). He infiltrates a compound and due to lack of a centralised alarm structure with lack of a strong quick reaction force (as in other Hi-security areas in previous games) he can afford to take guards out. As he is impossibly outnumbered and most guards are directly between him and his objective..he can't afford to just take one out and hide his body. He uses stealth to wipe out the squad. It is tactical. He does ot care about collateral damage as long as the elimination of Bob and his Merc friends betters his odds. I mean doesn't it make sense?

Oh and thanks, the U2 incidetn seemed pretty apt as the perfect example of what happens if a "Spy" is burned. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

"This statement would have been completely ludicrous had you have not mentioned the words "I think," which is indicative that this statement was of your opinion, and not a fact. The fact is I am a stealth extremist w/ an appreciation of action. If I did not understand the so called "stealth approach" that SCC took, I would not be complaining. However, since I do understand SCC's "approach to stealth," I am dissatisfied with it which is why I, other users on this thread (even on this very page) and off of it are very vocal in terms of standing our ground and saying to ubi: Restore SC to its former glory (...which is actually somebody's sig if I remember correctly)"

The fact that I used "I think" was because I think it wrong to judge. Maybe I am wrong maybe not, that's why I assumed so. I appreciate and also understand your POV. I was a hardcore Rainbow Six fan. I would spend hours drawing up elaborate plans and deciding the weapons, equipment and roster with my pals. The planning phase would take around a couple of hours and the actual mission 20 min. The planning aspect felt awesome and HIGHLY REALISTIC. It added a feeling of immersion and made it an intense tactical game of chess. This was removed from R6 vegas. Vegas became a standard TPS. It was an awesome Shooter, great fun but it lacked the whole hardcore details like planning and tactics. It removed the core of R6 gameplay i.e TACTICAL URBAN COMBAT. In SCC, I really enjoyed it because it RETAINED THE SHADOW STEALTH and added new mechanics. It was still stealth but simply with a new approach. It retained the core values of SC..STEALTH and added some more unique and innovative gameplay mechanics and actually made the game more tactical. In SCCs case I felt that they added to the stealth genre instead of completely removing it. In R6 vegas they have surgically removed ALL features of the 1st game and have retained nothing, unlike SCC. R6 is a fantastic shooter but still adds nothing unique or innovative in terms of gameplay to the Squad-based-tactical shooter. Another GOOD example of how to refresh a genre is GRAW (PC version, not 360). It retained it's predecessors focus on light infantry combat, brutal realism, High technology and surveillance, and tactical squad control. It was GR with same core values but advanced game mechanics. I appreciated that. It added to the franchise. If you look at SCC and GRAW (PC) you can easily make out their lineage and ID them as stronger, smarter and faster grandchildren of their previous iterations. There is a gradual evolution there and excellent gameplay mechanics.

For SC6 I hope they improve the SCC stealth formula through better level design, adding ALL the removed mechanics and a better written plot

[eoj19]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
[quote]I really don't think so. The earliest Ninjas were recorded around the 11th century onwards. Plus there are no reports of contact between the Assassin order which were localised in modern day Syria. Plus they were more like Guerilla forces and were composed of peasants from the lower classes rising up against the feudal lords in Japan.
I think someone has been playing too much Assassins Creed..http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif
I should have expected you would say something like that!
But actually, the original Assassins were the Hashshashin. Thats actually historically accurate and unfortunately Assassin's Creed does not mention Hashshashin, nor anything that historically pertains to the origin of the Assassin (to my knowledge, as I possess the entire AC series), so that little piece that I said to you was based on a little bit of research I had to do. But the "Order of The Assassins" actually did historically exist. Try looking up a guy under the name of Hasan Sabbah.

They were later taken out by the Mongol Empire.


But you are 100% correct in assuming that I am an AC fan! And for the record, I am having a BLAST with AC:Brotherhood right now! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


This is the devs fault for poor level and mission design and not necessarily th the gameplay itself.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

Actually, this statement can carry on it's on thread just in responses! (Which a few have already begun to do)

But at the end of the day, the devs will do/create w/e the devs wanna do/create. Whether they will take heed to feedback from you, me and the rest of the entire SC universe is a whole other ball park.




In SCC, the objective for Sam Fisher is to be a MAJOR Anal Pain for the Meggiddo. Inc. He is engaged in guerilla warfare. He does not care about leaving a compound with a squad of dead mercs because their discovery does not jeopardise his mission.

100% agree with you on that. I think that because of this sudden change of pace in combination with all of the beloved core elements that were not included this time around, really played a significant role in the eyes of those who were dissatisfied with choice elements in SCC.


Oh and thanks, the U2 incidetn seemed pretty apt as the perfect example of what happens if a "Spy" is burned. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

You are most welcome. I too think that was a good exmple to portray the consequences of a burnt "Spy."


For SC6 I hope they improve the SCC stealth formula through better level design, adding ALL the removed mechanics and a better written plot

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

You and I both bro.

I very much applaud and respect your presentation and the intgrity of your views regarding SCC. You're indeed a heck of a SC fan. And I hope that ubi will give us the Splinter Cell that we all deserve to get http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[shobhit7777777]

@eoj

Hehe..Thank you good sir for the kind words! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I too am a HUGE AC fan . I really like the social stealth aspects of the series. I wish they would further expand the stealth in future games. As for Brotherhood...dude! I am really geeking out over the multiplayer!!! Loved the concept!! being stealthy really pays off.
BTW You're are right about the Hashshashin order. I remember googling "Assassin" to find out the origin of the term a couple of years back and ran into the "hashshashin sect". Really interesting stuff. I think there is a historical novel by Vladimir Bartol that is a fictionised history of the assassins and especially Sinan. I couldn't get the book myself but maybe you can, especially if you're interested in the Hashshashin sect.

"100% agree with you on that. I think that because of this sudden change of pace in combination with all of the beloved core elements that were not included this time around, really played a significant role in the eyes of those who were dissatisfied with choice elements in SCC."

I think you are right. I too felt a sudden change early on while playing SCC and did not take to it immediately. I think it's the result of playing over 4 games with pretty much the same mechanics. But I really want to see a true combination of SCC and SCCT stealth. A sort of an ULTIMATE SPLINTER CELL title...heck call it that! but really would like the return to IW theme and cyberwarfare.


"And I hope that ubi will give us the Splinter Cell that we all deserve to get "
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[oO_ShadowFox_Oo]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
The franchise is known for innovation in the stealth genre. The first game improved on the shadow mechanics, gave us an excellent setting and premise and brought Stealth gaming into a real, believable realm, SCPT with an excellent multiplayer, the third one for allowing the player to choose their playstyle and refining the gameplay, the fourth one with another interesting premise and new mechanics as an undercover agent. The games according to me deliver quality stealth gameplay. Whether it is about taking out droves of NPCs or simply infiltrating a compound to plant a bug. Splinter Cell is about good stealth gameplay. The scope of the argument is bigger than simply killing guards or not, it is the trend set by the franchise of successfully introducing new stealth gameplay with each iteration. The very fact that SCC delivers a new playstyle and a new form of stealth gameplay is a mark of this trend.

You're absolutely off here. How can SCC deviating away from everything that makes the series what it was be a mark of this trend?

You've basically invented this trend for your arguments sake and backwards reasoning...poorly.


I have not been influenced by the external values that you mention and still prefer my elite-operative to be the fallible, mortal Human rather than a "superman" as you put it.

Which is why you loved SCC so much? With Sam taking on waves of guards, evading hordes of searching enemies, engaging with a helicopter, crashing in a helicopter through REINFORCED STEEL CONCRETE but surviving without a scratch....etc... etc..


stealth simply means to remain undetected while achieving your objective. You could launch an all out raid against an secure facility,destroy everything inside, quickly GTFO and still leave no trace of your passing through except the damage and destruction, as for sign of your passing or handiwork..Nada.(remember the French raid on a North African terrorist training camp Patriot games...the novel?) Is that stealth? It does qualify according to ALL definitions. You used silenced weapons to neutralise all enemies encountered, grab vital data like notebooks etc., plant charges or whatever and quickly exfiltrate. Detection NO...Leaving a trace, that could lead back tou your ID or whereabouts..NO. Stealth. You are justifying your tendencies in all stealth games to rabidly avoid confrontations with your definition.

No, I'm clearly defining stealth as portrayed by Splinter Cell the franchise and expecting it to be achievable or at least warrant some thought in a game that belongs to it. Watch the vast majority of gamers play it, the game consistently and frequently degrades into detection and shoot outs. It was DESIGNED to do this.

Heck, it even springs the floodlights on you at several stages in the game when you're not even detected.

This is not Splinter Cell.


In SCC going Gandhi is impossible and this has directly breached your fixed gameplay style and hence your apprehension towards it. What you have not realised is that stealth is such a huge genre that simply applying the "ghosting" tag to it just does not cut it.

Ghosting is a very hardcore version of stealth, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the developers designing a game where the entire point, premise and message of the project is about a character who stays out of sight, out of mind and gets the job done without anyone knowing he's there.

This is being repeated to you over and over and over. THIS IS WHAT SPLINTER CELL IS ABOUT.

THIS IS NOT WHAT CONVICTION IS ABOUT.

The devs have said this. Even the game communicates this, but but you are tirelessly trying to prove this point to be true.



Actually Stealth games were designed to incorporate realism into gameplay, a lone operative using stealth and wits to defeat his enemies or achieve his objective rather than suicidal gun-rushes.

I don't think incorporating "realism" was what Thief (the game Splinter Cell was based on) was trying to do when it broke the mould with stealth gaming. No, it was trying to do something completely different when it was awash in a sea of shooters. But you're on the right track that it was trying to take a different approach to the mass genocidal shooters the industry was drowning in back then - It was saying that a Real Pro doesn't have to touch a soul and can still accomplish his mission.

It definitely wasn't saying
A REAL PRO can quickly stalk and take a guy down swiftly and silently, he can successfully double tap two guys in the head and aim his gun with greater ease.

No, that is something that's REALLY only filtered in since Ubisoft caught wind of all the luverly monies that Bourne, Bond and Bauer were making.


In SCC, if you gauge the professionalism of Sam in terms of approach, tactics, abilities and skill..then he is as professional as ever. Splinter Cell was engaging due to several factors, one of them being..using stealth to gain a tactical advantage on the guards and figure out the best way to infiltrate that area without detection, SCC follows in the same vein but it makes it slightly more tactical and involves more NPC take downs and an overall more aggressive approach.

What's the point in using tactics in stealth gameplay to infiltrate a place if you're just going to kill everyone anyway?


The thing is that we have been playing the same SC stealth style for over 4 games. This style suited and flourished in the previous games because of the setting and plot. The events after SCDA did not leave much wiggle room in terms of plot and storyline direction. The SCC guys did screw it up but let it not cloud the fact that Ubi's attempt to garner a larger audience and re-focus the series led to an innovative style of gameplay that though still has teething problems is an excellent addition to the franchise.

What the hell is innovative about it? It's just pew pew pew, with one button take downs.

It simplifies or removes practically every aspect of the previous games stealth gameplay and adds new shooting mechanics. That is not innovative.

That is called 'playing it safe'

This "Atmosphere" of paranoia and tension suited the locales in previous games. You were a lone agent operating in HIGHLY SECURE, unfamiliar areas under plausible deniability. When the sole objective is to be gather intelligence and leave not traces then the atmosphere should bleed tension with the environments, music and lighting (the previous games did a marvellous job at conveying such a tone) they should make you feel like an intruder in the alien world but it does not work with all settings. The atmosphere in SCC is built up by the contrasting and moody lighting, the B/W filter as a primal indicator..as a sort of hunt mode on Sam to give a dark and menacing theme, with the projected text and movies as part of Sam's Psyche and insight into his thoughts. You are now a man whose simple wish is to get his daughter back and in the process visit harm on those responsible for dragging him into this crap soup.

You keep making my point for me over and over. Splinter Cell was about something, Conviction is about something else.

Please put one and two together.


[b]There are no "supposed" or "this is how it should be" conventions in a genre such as Stealth.

Please explain why this is true. Because this statement is bordering on plain daft.

EVERY genre has 'supposed to's and 'this is how it should be', that if they are not conformed to, then that title does not belong in that classification. Within every genre there are sub-genres and within those, are franchises. Each of these categorizations as to match certain criteria or else they do not belong in that category. Conviction doesn't match a substantial amount of these that have been established as hallmarks over the series and this is the whole argument of this thread.


Sam Fisher is the ultimate espionage agent in fiction IMO. He is overpowered and rightly so. He should be able to move quietly, be fast but silent, have a precise aim and have excellent agility and climbing abilities.

But he is still limited by the very basic Clancy enforced limits of human capability, which he tends to blatantly disregard in Conviction.


If you do enjoy such tense moments try out infiltration, realistic difficulty on D-ops. If you did not enjoy that, well..You still have the old ones http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
Again, IMO, your rigid attachment to the previously established themes are indicative of your extreme attachment to the previous playstyles.

LOL - my rigid attachment is to Splinter Cell gameplay, which is not recreated in Conviction.

Yes, I've played D-Ops infiltration. It's a big step up, but it still falls flat on what it could be because of the hugely limiting stealth mechanics the game is subjected to.


Did you need humorous banter in previous games to establish Sam's dark humor or did you just take the devs word in the manual description of Sam Fisher? Did Sam need to make those choices in-PT and CT that would emphasise on his moral ethics to flesh out the character..or did you just assume that he was a stand-up guy doing the right thing?

All of what you mentioned were used to establish the character we know. And up to the point of Conviction we already knew that Fisher was liable to lose the plot and go dark on those in front of him.


If you can;t any other emotion other than "Anger" in all the scenes with Sam and the projected movies then you're seriously not understanding the character. These scenes show guilt, anger, frustration, longing and a sense of lost trust. I think your blind attachment to previous interpretations of Sam and game styles does not allow you to see the subtler side of things in SCC.

The word subtle does not deserve to be used with regards to any of the emoting in Conviction. I'm sorry, but emoting done with a 2D script and poor plot development isn't my bag. Maybe you can find subtleties as you yearn to look for this, but when a game relies on putting words on the walls so you can tell what the character is feeling....I'm out.


LOL...dude seriously?
In every game SC game Sam behaves like an automaton when it comes to killing. Professionals like Sam NEED TO SWITCH OFF AND ALLOW MUSCLE MEMORY AND TRAINING TO TAKE OVER CERTAIN MOMENTS THAT INVOLVE TAKING HUMAN LIVES. THIS COLD DETACHMENT IS WHAT MAKES THEM MACHINES.

No, it's what makes them effective killers. We already know that Fisher does NOT behave like an automaton in the previous games. For someone who is very intent on lecturing people, you seem to be missing a few vital points.

It is clear that he has paid a heavy emotional price for the killing and death that has surrounded him.

A machine, he is not.


This absence or a vaccuum of emotions during killing is what earns Sam the tag of a "Killing machine" regardless of the FPS, Hollywood connotations.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


After being told that his daughter is dead (in SCDA) we are led to believe that he suffers an emotional breakdown (getting drunk and into barfights) and drowns in sorrow. He accepts one of the most stressful and dangerous operations an operative could get and this is clearly indicative of Sam's attitude. In SCC we see the same side of Sam but this time he is not completely aimless and directs his feelings towards his daughter's killers. This is competely in line with Sam's characterisation.

Fully agree up to this point. It's when Conviction's story starts that it all goes wrong.


As for the portrayal vs story...Haven't you seen movies that have horrible plots and storyline but some characters stand out for their portrayal? Mickey Rourke in the expendables has an excellent scene where he reveals guilt over his actions in Serbia...this excellent portrayal in an other wise B-movie. Christian Bale's portrayal of a man torn between societal norms and human emotions in equilibrium was the only redeeming factor about that movie. I can't quote any examples from games or other media because none come to mind now but the point is that some character portrayal can be detached and well done inspite of the general storyline. Whether you like this Sam or not is a personal opinion.

You're talking about a once off character that was acted well. How do you know if this is a good portrayal of the character? Where else do you know this character from? What reference point do you have? No doubt Micky Rourke did a good job, but when you're talking about an established character with a defined persona, who is the CENTRAL FOCUS of an entire franchise, in whose latest instalment is entirely focussed on a personally driven plot and it gets it wrong, then the issue begins to show its face.


I think you misunderstood the military analogy to your previous arguments. The Partisan were deep behind enemy lines and were supported through air-drops much like a SC team would function albeit in a smaller scale. The two forces i.e Partisans and the Germans were not engaged in conventional warfare. The partisans were involved in intel gathering in a major way.

Well you're leaving out details then. I have no idea about this conflict.

I'm simply going along the lines of

Conventional warfare - The general purpose of conventional warfare is to weaken or destroy the opponent's military force

Unconventional warfare - The ultimate goal of unconventional warfare is to motivate an enemy to stop attacking or resisting even if it has the ability to continue


I am disagreeing because you previous arguments on military doctrine were simply lacking and weak. Your attempt to use them to fortify your points against SCC were ridiculous.

LOL - Ok professor.


SC themes is about infiltration, stealth, intelligence gathering, and subversion and sabotage. These are the hallmarks of Unconventional warfare. You have absolutely no idea what "warfare doctrine" that SC embodies and hence are in no position to argue SCCs failure in that regard.

I don't need to argue it. You've been arguing it in this entire thread when you continuously admit that Conviction is about killing groups of guards, which, if I was to choose between the two above, falls under CONVENTIONAL.


Yes the devs wanted Sam to AVOID not engage the chopper but this severely screws up Sam's portrayal..how? I agree 100% it was a bonehead idea but it does not reflect upon Sam's characterisation.

Because now Sam Fisher has been portrayed as a man who can single handedly avoid being killed by an attack helicopter, while fighting off about 15+ guards.

Does none of this get through to you? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


Blindly arguing??? gimme a break..How does a chopper have anything to do with Sam Fisher the character? It was simply a **** idea!! It seems that you're bringing up invalid points just for the heck of it. The fact that you can't see that is simply your incapability to enjoy the game or appreciate it's new direction. Now you're just bashing it for no solid reasons.

No, I'm criticizing it for very valid reasons. Reasons that are backed up and justified by the two names that are on the box.



*sigh
The objectives in the game (c-4 blowing ad stuff) were there to involve situations that allow the player to use the new mechanics. They devs did not give a **** about Sam's portrayal during mission design. They simply catered to the gameplay mechanics.
"hiding the body" hmmm...he's in a highly secure area crawling with armed mercs who are bound to check in on grim and the prisoner and he's is more concerned with hiding bodies. He is right now using that window of oppurtunity to silently escape the area.
The 3E hq: He is an expert infiltrator thanks in part to the millions of dollars worth of surveillance equipment and a remote hacking team always supporting him in the game, the support team did all the research and provided Sam with infiltration info and even off-site suppport by taking down the power etc. In SCC he lacks such an excellent support structure. I mean of course, he should have googled 3E blueprints, found a convenient air duct or HVAC system and crawled through that!! I mean here you are bashing SCC for being too much "hollywood cheese" and then you expect such mission impossible bull****!! Get over it. If 3E had a an open window or a convenient pipe or a duct leading inside or a remote security terminal which could be hacked you would have bashed it for being contrived and unrealistic. Bull****.

He worked at 3Ech for years and he has Grim supporting him. That should be more than enough to get him in, combined with his talents.

But no. The dev team decided to portray Sam as the guy who can go in the front door, guns blazing and get away with it.

Why?

BECAUSE HE'S MAAAAAAAAAAD!

grrrr http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[Knot3D]

^I highly agree with Shadowfox. Glad, we still have sensible oldtimers around here.

The fluid moves and controls are a great addition to the franchise, but this element - though important - is merely a tool within game concept design.

Like Shadow said ; in body and mind, the main structure of this Conviction game concept, actually adheres to more conservative concepts ; with mainstream Hollywood crap
such as Bourne, 24 and Bond as main contributors to a concept premise which actually reverts back to conservative game design before stealth ; namely, the time
when the game market was overfloaded with over the top shooter action. ( this was when Metal Gear 1987 and Thief came to innovate the market )

So, the 'panther moves' themselves aren't what's wrong ; it's rather the Hollywood over the top action concept which they facilitate, that is counter-innovative
and feeding off mainstream kicks of Average Joe.

In the end, it all makes sense ; the economies are still a dud, and publishers of all media - including games - find themselves groping for play-it-safe-mainstream conservative concepts. ( like sex, over the top action is always gonna sell )
Most of them are doing it and Ubi did it too with SC DA and now Conviction.

[H.A.R.M.s]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
This "Atmosphere" of paranoia and tension suited the locales in previous games. You were a lone agent operating in HIGHLY SECURE, unfamiliar areas under plausible deniability. Haven't you wrote few posts back that old formula could work because player faced only lone sentries and because of that could evade them? Because, these are not highly secured areas.

In Conviction you are surounded with mercenaries with machine guns, with light trigger fingers who already knows you are there. Still, you feel like someone turned on Godmode, because idiots keep shooting Casper and you can easily dispose them.

[shobhit7777777]

@shadowfox
"You're absolutely off here. How can SCC deviating away from everything that makes the series what it was be a mark of this trend? You've basically invented this trend for your arguments sake and backwards reasoning...poorly."

I notice a trend and see that SCC follows it. If you think it a simple argumentative device, kindly prove it so. Out of all the stealth games I have played I keep returning to the SC series, I take it as a sign of good gameplay.

"Which is why you loved SCC so much? With Sam taking on waves of guards, evading hordes of searching enemies, engaging with a helicopter, crashing in a helicopter through REINFORCED STEEL CONCRETE but surviving without a scratch....etc... etc.."

Just like in SC1, where he faces of a WHOLE GEORGIAN SPECIAL FORCES squad TWICE..who are armed with NVGs and ambush Sam the first time and the second time actually have him at gunpoint...or how about the time in SCPT where he is hanging between two trains moving at 100 mph!, in SCCT where he where he again fights through a gauntlet of ELITE commandos to escape, how about SCDA where he infiltrates a MISSILE silo and aborts it while a countdown is on, where he plants a bug in MI style in Kinshasa and rappels down a Hong Kong skyscraper with a Chopper searching for him with a searchlight. The thing is nearly all the games have had certain ridiculous elements in them. Most of them are not so bad, but what I'm trying to say is that you are completely ignoring the ridiculous in previous games just to bash on SCC.

"No, I'm clearly defining stealth as portrayed by Splinter Cell the franchise and expecting it to be achievable or at least warrant some thought in a game that belongs to it. Watch the vast majority of gamers play it, the game consistently and frequently degrades into detection and shoot outs. It was DESIGNED to do this. Heck, it even springs the floodlights on you at several stages in the game when you're not even detected. This is not Splinter Cell."

I Agree with you that the removed features should be have been added to give a COMPLETE stealth experience. But the thing is that the new gameplay mechanics have to be catered to in level design and the extra features could not have been fully exploited. Nonetheless I am with you on this one. The level design does destroy much of the stealth in the game especially in the second half.

"Ghosting is a very hardcore version of stealth, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the developers designing a game where the entire point, premise and message of the project is about a character who stays out of sight, out of mind and gets the job done without anyone knowing he's there. This is being repeated to you over and over and over. THIS IS WHAT SPLINTER CELL IS ABOUT. THIS IS NOT WHAT CONVICTION IS ABOUT. The devs have said this. Even the game communicates this, but but you are tirelessly trying to prove this point to be true."

1. Ghosting is NOT hardcore. It is time consuming and requires patience and hence is not hard as it is frustrating. A hardcore stealth approach is HYPER-REALISTIC. You define parameters within the game on a real world basis and then adhere to them in-game despite of what the game ALLOWS you to do or its tolerances. That is more hardcore then simply waiting a few minutes longer and crouching past that lone guard. Hardcore my ***....All SC games have been easy whether it is ghosting or aggro stealth. Please don't delude ourself by assuming that "ghosting" is hardcore and realistic. I have heard many people say that previous games were really tactical, they required serious thinking when avoiding guards...seriously?.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Memorising a lone guard's patrol pattern and then creeping up behind him is the easiest thing you can do in-game!! there are no tactics in there. The only that made it enjoyable was the feeling of impending doom for the AI, the feeling tense feeling of the stalk. In many ways SCC is actually harder and requires more thinking and analysis than any SC game. Due to guard density , faster NPC movement speed, quicker detection and the intersecting patrol patterns it requires observation and analysis ti determine the kill or avoidance order, especially on infiltration and realistic difficulty. SCC, contrary to popular belief, actually has a deeper STEALTH gameplay loop than previous titles.

2.Exactly, Conviction is not about "ghosting" and this really cheeses you of because it does not meet your rigid definitions of "STEALTH THROUGH AVOIDANCE" it has a new approach and you simply can't understand that. The designer have decided to use stealth as a weapon rather than a cloak of invisibility to keep in line with the new game direction. I have been arguing SCC's pedigree on the fact that like previous games it offers excellent stealth mechanics centered around the core values of SC.

"I don't think incorporating "realism" was what Thief (the game Splinter Cell was based on) was trying to do when it broke the mould with stealth gaming. No, it was trying to do something completely different when it was awash in a sea of shooters. But you're on the right track that it was trying to take a different approach to the mass genocidal shooters the industry was drowning in back then - It was saying that a Real Pro doesn't have to touch a soul and can still accomplish his mission."

Hideo Kojima, actually said that he was thinking of how a real military operative would behave in a scenario where he is ridiculously outnumbered and outgunned, that's where the idea for MGS stemmed from. Real life scenarios. The very fact that SC was such a farcry from Thief was of the plot and setting of the game...Realistic. It fulfilled the players fantasy of actually living out a spy's life. The realism grounded it and made it believable and immersive. In previous SC games it felt kind of weird to play a extremely well trained veteran with SEAL experience, whose combat moves were limited to an elbow stun or a chokehold, that he took a ridiculously long time to aim his pistol, which should actually be a natural extension of his body. The only realistic element about Sam's combat skills were his sniper shots which required him to hold his breath. I would expect a guy like Sam Fisher to easily incapacitate most guys using H2H techniques and easily take rapid headshots (John Clark in without remorse and clear and present danger). I don't care if these abilities have been lifted from 24 or Bourne series, as long as they help live out the fantasy of Sam Fisher. If M&E was inspired from 24..is it bad? NO!! it adds to Sam's arsenal and makes him more efficient.

"What's the point in using tactics in stealth gameplay to infiltrate a place if you're just going to kill everyone anyway?"

Dude, the point IS killing people using stealth. Use stealth and tactics to take guys out. There are not tactics involved in linear scripted infiltration of compounds.

"What the hell is innovative about it? It's just pew pew pew, with one button take downs. It simplifies or removes practically every aspect of the previous games stealth gameplay and adds new shooting mechanics. That is not innovative. That is called 'playing it safe'"

Innovative...hmm lets see, offers a different approach to stealth, instead of hiding and avoiding you can actively seek out and kill all the while remaining undetected. It literally allows us to use stealth as a more offensive weapon and as a safety net at the same time. As for one button takedowns..yeah as if KO'ing guards in previous games required a multi-button combination along with step-dancing. Jeez..get over it dude. Stop blinding yourself to the same conventions in previous games.
SCC does simplify and streamline the mechanics but in doing so ushers in true TACTICAL STEALTH GAMEPLAY.

"You keep making my point for me over and over. Splinter Cell was about something, Conviction is about something else. Please put one and two together."

Again, that post was made to argue against SCCs lack of atmosphere to which you have not yet replied with counterpoints. Also, The difference in premise and objectives does not make it a different game altogether. SCDA was about UC operations it was not about "Splinter Cell" at all according to your definitions. It was about a black operation involving only Lambert and Sam.
Did it have deep cyberwarfare and IW themes..No. It garnered the SC title because it involved stealth gameplay based around the core values of previous games. the plot and setting were really different.
Previous games have different storylines and themes just because SCC has a different one doesn't mean it is ostracized. In all games the Splinter Cell implies a very small group supporting a lone operative, operating of their own accord and deciding their own objectives. In SCDA the team was Lambert and Sam and in SCC
it was Grim and Sam. All games had these small teams on the forefront of major operations.

"Please explain why this is true. Because this statement is bordering on plain daft. EVERY genre has 'supposed to's and 'this is how it should be', that if they are not conformed to, then that title does not belong in that classification. Within every genre there are sub-genres and within those, are franchises. Each of these categorizations as to match certain criteria or else they do not belong in that category. Conviction doesn't match a substantial amount of these that have been established as hallmarks over the series and this is the whole argument of this thread."

Your myopic views stun me. The stealth genre itself was a break away from traditions and did not conform to existing ideals of a video game.
Stealth has been continually evolving. From the disguise and social stealth of Hitman and Assassins Creed to LOS and Shadow stealth of MGS and Splinter cell. The ONLY defining rule in stealth is the fact that the protagonist(s) should have the ability to carry out his mission while remaining undetected. In fact one of the most Innovative stealth titles I have come across is the Commandos franchise by Eidos
Where stealth was only regarded as one guy hiding and completely avoiding the guards because they were much more powerful was refreshed when they mixed RTS with Stealth. It broke the mold and broke out the restrictive 'Genre' definitions that you mention. Your restrictive and narrow definitions of the SC series are solely there to cater to your need for ghosting which was not encouraged by SCC.
Games should not look forward to 'Conform' to existing genres or criteria. They should be innovative and deliver fun gameplay. You have made up a list of features of previous games and see it as a requirement in future titles hardly giving room for growth. The hallmarks of SC is shadow stealth, interesting premise and an engaging lead character. The SCC premise was excellent (but the storyline and plot not so much) same for Sam Fisher's characterisation and stealth gameplay.
Please don't confuse your lack of grasping ability as someone else's daftness.

Yes, I've played D-Ops infiltration. It's a big step up, but it still falls flat on what it could be because of the hugely limiting stealth mechanics the game is subjected to.

Like? Please elaborate situations where you felt such.

"All of what you mentioned were used to establish the character we know. And up to the point of Conviction we already knew that Fisher was liable to lose the plot and go dark on those in front of him"

Simple assumption that Sam Fisher was angry won't cut it in a visual medium like a video game. It needs to have some effect on the character. Having him the same as in SCDA would be totally out-of-character for the angry Sam. In American Psycho we see the gradual deterioration of Christian Bale's character into a monster even though we know he's already one inside. Of course he would be angry, but to what extent and how would he behave when in a dark emotional state? those are the real questions answered by SCC. In without remorse you obviously know that Clark is ****ed of..but what fleshes out his character is the WAY he deals with it. Your argument (if two lines proving nothing warrant such a label) is moot.

The word subtle does not deserve to be used with regards to any of the emoting in Conviction. I'm sorry, but emoting done with a 2D script and poor plot development isn't my bag. Maybe you can find subtleties as you yearn to look for this, but when a game relies on putting words on the walls so you can tell what the character is feeling....I'm out.

The expressions on Sam Fisher's character model, the body language the animators incorporated and projected movies on the walls offer new insight into what Sam was thinking. These were the subtler points. As for the poor plot, I agree, the premise offered so much but the plot fell flat. If you did not like the projected text..well ok, that's your opinion.

No, it's what makes them effective killers. We already know that Fisher does NOT behave like an automaton in the previous games. For someone who is very intent on lecturing people, you seem to be missing a few vital points. It is clear that he has paid a heavy emotional price for the killing and death that has surrounded him. A machine, he is not.

I said he becomes an automaton the few seconds before he commits murder. I never said he blindly followed orders or did not make his own calls. I simply said that when it comes to killing Sam behaves like a cold calculating machine when he kills someone. He is a killing machine, regardless of what you think or know. It IS evident in SCC that all those years and personal trauma have taken a toll on his psyche.

"You're talking about a once off character that was acted well. How do you know if this is a good portrayal of the character? Where else do you know this character from? What reference point do you have? No doubt Micky Rourke did a good job, but when you're talking about an established character with a defined persona, who is the CENTRAL FOCUS of an entire franchise, in whose latest instalment is entirely focussed on a personally driven plot and it gets it wrong, then the issue begins to show its face."

Heheh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ...the point I was trying to make was that you CAN HAVE EXCELLENT CHARACTER PORTRAYAL AND DEVELOPMENT REGARDLESS OF THE ****TY PLOT OR STORYLINE. In SCC it is Sam's reactions to the events around him that define him not the events themselves.
As for established characters...it is a clear continuation of Sam from SCDA.

"I don't need to argue it. You've been arguing it in this entire thread when you continuously admit that Conviction is about killing groups of guards, which, if I was to choose between the two above, falls under CONVENTIONAL."

You would, given your extreme understanding of military affairs (now this is sarcasm, in case you didn't get my point like several times before)
It is simply using surprise and stealth to whittle down the enemy one cut at a time. Like the Mujjahideen in Afghanistan against the soviets and the VC in Vietnam. Sam Fisher's tactical approach to enemies is classic guerilla behaviour. He uses stealth and surprise to silence the enemy forces one by one and disappears. Simple Killing of guards does not make it conventional warfare. You're simply trying to classify it as such to cement your arguments which is completely understandable but totally useless and nonsensical.

"Because now Sam Fisher has been portrayed as a man who can single handedly avoid being killed by an attack helicopter, while fighting off about 15+ guards. Does none of this get through to you? "

Does Sam destroy the chopper using an RPG or his bare hands? NO. Does he actively seek out a chopper to take down? NO. Was the chopper a good idea? NO. Does it portray Sam as a reckless and careless rookie? NO.
The only point I will concede is the superhuman portrayal of Sam Fisher in this segment which was a horrible design decision.

"He worked at 3Ech for years and he has Grim supporting him. That should be more than enough to get him in, combined with his talents. But no. The dev team decided to portray Sam as the guy who can go in the front door, guns blazing and get away with it. Why? BECAUSE HE'S MAAAAAAAAAAD! grrrr "

Sure he worked at 3E which automatically gives him a copy of the buildings blueprint and vulnerable points, of a building which is the HQ of the world's most efficient organisation at infiltration and intel gathering and is expert at breaking into security compounds...let's not forget that Sam is a superhuman infiltrator and Grim is actually Gandalf the white who can magically open portals in walls. Here you are bashing SCC for contriving situations and yet you somehow believe that a deus ex machina will enable Sam to infiltrate the 3E HQ without completely debilitating it's power supply. Is the front door entry the best idea probably not but is a convenient vent a better one nope.
The dev team wanted to portray Sam as a man with limited time and the knowledge that he would get in touch with his daughter at the end of this, as a man frustrated at all the 3E bull**** and giving the 3E a huge finger with his actions.

[codenameeric]

I completely agree with Shadow_Fox.

[sameer_monier]

shobhit7777777 : again good points man, i want to add something very small, and i will be called crazy for doing so i know http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

The ridiculous things in all previous SC made you feel it is realistic, i believed them to be realistic, now about SCC when Sam is against the helicopter i don't know, but judging from the hight i believe that Sam could have easily brought it down, it was fling so close to the ground, a blind fire would for sure hit the pilot, yet Sam didn't cause it may crash on his head and this isn't exactly an action game, a 2nd scenario, if there was no bad guys around, and if the pilot didn't know Sam's position, i believe Sam could have run, jumped on a stone or a little high space and hang on it and get into it, again it wasn't flying so high, but it would have been kinda suicide, also Sam didn't take out the helicopter, he actually avoided it through it all

Anyway i know these points i mentioned are totally crazy, but hey i like to get crazy from time to time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

[eoj19]

Originally posted by sameer_monier:
i know these points i mentioned are totally crazy, but hey i like to get crazy from time to time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Welcome to my world.

[kipphopopotomus]

A lot of good points in this thread. I find myself somewhere in the middle between Shadowfox and shobhit... Definitely agree that there were times when the story was way too epic to believe.

[Redemption_x]

Thank you ShadowFox for saving me the effort.

Words of wisdom.

[shobhit7777777]

@Kippohopopotomus

Originally posted by kipphopopotomus:
A lot of good points in this thread. I find myself somewhere in the middle between Shadowfox and shobhit... Definitely agree that there were times when the story was way too epic to believe.

I sense great "Conviction" in you, unleash it!.....Come over to the Dark Side!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif
*Creepy sith music playing

[sameer_monier]

Originally posted by eoj19:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sameer_monier:
i know these points i mentioned are totally crazy, but hey i like to get crazy from time to time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Welcome to my world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so what do you think ?!, am i good enough to fit in your world :P ?!

[eoj19]

Originally posted by sameer_monier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eoj19:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sameer_monier:
i know these points i mentioned are totally crazy, but hey i like to get crazy from time to time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Welcome to my world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so what do you think ?!, am i good enough to fit in your world :P ?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's see...based on your recent outburst, yup. You're definitely in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And for anybody else, here's a tiny list of qualifications:

- can't be afraid to share a laugh

- can't be 100% serious all of the time; exercise w/e sense of humor/craziness that you have

- can't be afraid to be called crazy (ex: eoj and his strange obsession w/ that darn lemon juice jingle from the Washington Monument)


If anyone meets @ least 2 out of the 3 above requirements, welcome to the world where normal is OUT and crayzee is IN



Since I went completely off topic, allow me to bring it back home:

Whether you are for SCC or against SCC, the devs are going to do what the devs wanna do. SC6 trailer will hopefully give us some insight as to what we can expect.
As far as debating goes, its fair game. Have a blast. But when its all said and done, remember that we are all SC fans, regardless of what SC elements we like and/or don't like.

Carry on.

[sameer_monier]

Originally posted by eoj19:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sameer_monier:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by eoj19:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sameer_monier:
i know these points i mentioned are totally crazy, but hey i like to get crazy from time to time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


Welcome to my world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so what do you think ?!, am i good enough to fit in your world :P ?! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's see...based on your recent outburst, yup. You're definitely in http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And for anybody else, here's a tiny list of qualifications:

- can't be afraid to share a laugh

- can't be 100% serious all of the time; exercise w/e sense of humor/craziness that you have

- can't be afraid to be called crazy (ex: eoj and his strange obsession w/ that darn lemon juice jingle from the Washington Monument)


If anyone meets @ least 2 out of the 3 above requirements, welcome to the world where normal is OUT and crayzee is IN



Since I went completely off topic, allow me to bring it back home:

Whether you are for SCC or against SCC, the devs are going to do what the devs wanna do. SC6 trailer will hopefully give us some insight as to what we can expect.
As far as debating goes, its fair game. Have a blast. But when its all said and done, remember that we are all SC fans, regardless of what SC elements we like and/or don't like.

Carry on. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif The Right Words http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

[michaelanjello]

Well, the first place we have to start off is at the basics. take it back to **** roots.

Definition of a Stealth Game: Stealth game is a video game genre in which the player must avoid detection, using stealth to evade or ambush antagonists. Games in the genre employ mechanics such as hiding in shade, disguises, and noise which can alert enemies. Some games allow the player to choose between a stealthy approach or directly attacking antagonists, perhaps rewarding the player for greater levels of stealth. The genre has employed espionage and counter-terrorism themes, with such protagonists as special forces operatives, spies, and ninjas.
(wikipedia)

Now, since Sam Fisher is the ultimate Splinter Cell, which is considered a stealth agent for 3rd Echelon, he not only has to perform stealth kill but also remain undetected. Once the game allows un-stealthy kills and options it is no longer considered a stealth game. it can now be considered a stealth-action game. Last time I checked, never has a game turned from racing to shooter, or sport to strategy game.

Since SC Conviction is no longer purely stealth, this means features that follow staying in shadows, and perfroming kills while having dynamic/interactive terain, people, special moves and surroundings do not have to be in the game. That is why Splinter Cell Conviction, im sorry ... is not a Splinter Cell game. For the one reason that Splinter Cell is a stealth game, and Splinter Cell COnviction is not.

I hope the game developers take a break, think and remind themselves what Stealth was, and is truly about. Btw. this is not only my opinion. I have a 3 friends that bought Splinter Cell Conviction and they weren't all to thrilled. It was all over after 2 weeks-tops. I play Splinter Cell PT, CT and DA to this day.

[michaelanjello]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
@shadowfox
"You're absolutely off here. How can SCC deviating away from everything that makes the series what it was be a mark of this trend? You've basically invented this trend for your arguments sake and backwards reasoning...poorly."

I notice a trend and see that SCC follows it. If you think it a simple argumentative device, kindly prove it so. Out of all the stealth games I have played I keep returning to the SC series, I take it as a sign of good gameplay.

"Which is why you loved SCC so much? With Sam taking on waves of guards, evading hordes of searching enemies, engaging with a helicopter, crashing in a helicopter through REINFORCED STEEL CONCRETE but surviving without a scratch....etc... etc.."

Just like in SC1, where he faces of a WHOLE GEORGIAN SPECIAL FORCES squad TWICE..who are armed with NVGs and ambush Sam the first time and the second time actually have him at gunpoint...or how about the time in SCPT where he is hanging between two trains moving at 100 mph!, in SCCT where he where he again fights through a gauntlet of ELITE commandos to escape, how about SCDA where he infiltrates a MISSILE silo and aborts it while a countdown is on, where he plants a bug in MI style in Kinshasa and rappels down a Hong Kong skyscraper with a Chopper searching for him with a searchlight. The thing is nearly all the games have had certain ridiculous elements in them. Most of them are not so bad, but what I'm trying to say is that you are completely ignoring the ridiculous in previous games just to bash on SCC.

"No, I'm clearly defining stealth as portrayed by Splinter Cell the franchise and expecting it to be achievable or at least warrant some thought in a game that belongs to it. Watch the vast majority of gamers play it, the game consistently and frequently degrades into detection and shoot outs. It was DESIGNED to do this. Heck, it even springs the floodlights on you at several stages in the game when you're not even detected. This is not Splinter Cell."

I Agree with you that the removed features should be have been added to give a COMPLETE stealth experience. But the thing is that the new gameplay mechanics have to be catered to in level design and the extra features could not have been fully exploited. Nonetheless I am with you on this one. The level design does destroy much of the stealth in the game especially in the second half.

"Ghosting is a very hardcore version of stealth, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the developers designing a game where the entire point, premise and message of the project is about a character who stays out of sight, out of mind and gets the job done without anyone knowing he's there. This is being repeated to you over and over and over. THIS IS WHAT SPLINTER CELL IS ABOUT. THIS IS NOT WHAT CONVICTION IS ABOUT. The devs have said this. Even the game communicates this, but but you are tirelessly trying to prove this point to be true."

1. Ghosting is NOT hardcore. It is time consuming and requires patience and hence is not hard as it is frustrating. A hardcore stealth approach is HYPER-REALISTIC. You define parameters within the game on a real world basis and then adhere to them in-game despite of what the game ALLOWS you to do or its tolerances. That is more hardcore then simply waiting a few minutes longer and crouching past that lone guard. Hardcore my ***....All SC games have been easy whether it is ghosting or aggro stealth. Please don't delude ourself by assuming that "ghosting" is hardcore and realistic. I have heard many people say that previous games were really tactical, they required serious thinking when avoiding guards...seriously?.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Memorising a lone guard's patrol pattern and then creeping up behind him is the easiest thing you can do in-game!! there are no tactics in there. The only that made it enjoyable was the feeling of impending doom for the AI, the feeling tense feeling of the stalk. In many ways SCC is actually harder and requires more thinking and analysis than any SC game. Due to guard density , faster NPC movement speed, quicker detection and the intersecting patrol patterns it requires observation and analysis ti determine the kill or avoidance order, especially on infiltration and realistic difficulty. SCC, contrary to popular belief, actually has a deeper STEALTH gameplay loop than previous titles.

2.Exactly, Conviction is not about "ghosting" and this really cheeses you of because it does not meet your rigid definitions of "STEALTH THROUGH AVOIDANCE" it has a new approach and you simply can't understand that. The designer have decided to use stealth as a weapon rather than a cloak of invisibility to keep in line with the new game direction. I have been arguing SCC's pedigree on the fact that like previous games it offers excellent stealth mechanics centered around the core values of SC.

"I don't think incorporating "realism" was what Thief (the game Splinter Cell was based on) was trying to do when it broke the mould with stealth gaming. No, it was trying to do something completely different when it was awash in a sea of shooters. But you're on the right track that it was trying to take a different approach to the mass genocidal shooters the industry was drowning in back then - It was saying that a Real Pro doesn't have to touch a soul and can still accomplish his mission."

Hideo Kojima, actually said that he was thinking of how a real military operative would behave in a scenario where he is ridiculously outnumbered and outgunned, that's where the idea for MGS stemmed from. Real life scenarios. The very fact that SC was such a farcry from Thief was of the plot and setting of the game...Realistic. It fulfilled the players fantasy of actually living out a spy's life. The realism grounded it and made it believable and immersive. In previous SC games it felt kind of weird to play a extremely well trained veteran with SEAL experience, whose combat moves were limited to an elbow stun or a chokehold, that he took a ridiculously long time to aim his pistol, which should actually be a natural extension of his body. The only realistic element about Sam's combat skills were his sniper shots which required him to hold his breath. I would expect a guy like Sam Fisher to easily incapacitate most guys using H2H techniques and easily take rapid headshots (John Clark in without remorse and clear and present danger). I don't care if these abilities have been lifted from 24 or Bourne series, as long as they help live out the fantasy of Sam Fisher. If M&E was inspired from 24..is it bad? NO!! it adds to Sam's arsenal and makes him more efficient.

"What's the point in using tactics in stealth gameplay to infiltrate a place if you're just going to kill everyone anyway?"

Dude, the point IS killing people using stealth. Use stealth and tactics to take guys out. There are not tactics involved in linear scripted infiltration of compounds.

"What the hell is innovative about it? It's just pew pew pew, with one button take downs. It simplifies or removes practically every aspect of the previous games stealth gameplay and adds new shooting mechanics. That is not innovative. That is called 'playing it safe'"

Innovative...hmm lets see, offers a different approach to stealth, instead of hiding and avoiding you can actively seek out and kill all the while remaining undetected. It literally allows us to use stealth as a more offensive weapon and as a safety net at the same time. As for one button takedowns..yeah as if KO'ing guards in previous games required a multi-button combination along with step-dancing. Jeez..get over it dude. Stop blinding yourself to the same conventions in previous games.
SCC does simplify and streamline the mechanics but in doing so ushers in true TACTICAL STEALTH GAMEPLAY.

"You keep making my point for me over and over. Splinter Cell was about something, Conviction is about something else. Please put one and two together."

Again, that post was made to argue against SCCs lack of atmosphere to which you have not yet replied with counterpoints. Also, The difference in premise and objectives does not make it a different game altogether. SCDA was about UC operations it was not about "Splinter Cell" at all according to your definitions. It was about a black operation involving only Lambert and Sam.
Did it have deep cyberwarfare and IW themes..No. It garnered the SC title because it involved stealth gameplay based around the core values of previous games. the plot and setting were really different.
Previous games have different storylines and themes just because SCC has a different one doesn't mean it is ostracized. In all games the Splinter Cell implies a very small group supporting a lone operative, operating of their own accord and deciding their own objectives. In SCDA the team was Lambert and Sam and in SCC
it was Grim and Sam. All games had these small teams on the forefront of major operations.

"Please explain why this is true. Because this statement is bordering on plain daft. EVERY genre has 'supposed to's and 'this is how it should be', that if they are not conformed to, then that title does not belong in that classification. Within every genre there are sub-genres and within those, are franchises. Each of these categorizations as to match certain criteria or else they do not belong in that category. Conviction doesn't match a substantial amount of these that have been established as hallmarks over the series and this is the whole argument of this thread."

Your myopic views stun me. The stealth genre itself was a break away from traditions and did not conform to existing ideals of a video game.
Stealth has been continually evolving. From the disguise and social stealth of Hitman and Assassins Creed to LOS and Shadow stealth of MGS and Splinter cell. The ONLY defining rule in stealth is the fact that the protagonist(s) should have the ability to carry out his mission while remaining undetected. In fact one of the most Innovative stealth titles I have come across is the Commandos franchise by Eidos
Where stealth was only regarded as one guy hiding and completely avoiding the guards because they were much more powerful was refreshed when they mixed RTS with Stealth. It broke the mold and broke out the restrictive 'Genre' definitions that you mention. Your restrictive and narrow definitions of the SC series are solely there to cater to your need for ghosting which was not encouraged by SCC.
Games should not look forward to 'Conform' to existing genres or criteria. They should be innovative and deliver fun gameplay. You have made up a list of features of previous games and see it as a requirement in future titles hardly giving room for growth. The hallmarks of SC is shadow stealth, interesting premise and an engaging lead character. The SCC premise was excellent (but the storyline and plot not so much) same for Sam Fisher's characterisation and stealth gameplay.
Please don't confuse your lack of grasping ability as someone else's daftness.

Yes, I've played D-Ops infiltration. It's a big step up, but it still falls flat on what it could be because of the hugely limiting stealth mechanics the game is subjected to.

Like? Please elaborate situations where you felt such.

"All of what you mentioned were used to establish the character we know. And up to the point of Conviction we already knew that Fisher was liable to lose the plot and go dark on those in front of him"

Simple assumption that Sam Fisher was angry won't cut it in a visual medium like a video game. It needs to have some effect on the character. Having him the same as in SCDA would be totally out-of-character for the angry Sam. In American Psycho we see the gradual deterioration of Christian Bale's character into a monster even though we know he's already one inside. Of course he would be angry, but to what extent and how would he behave when in a dark emotional state? those are the real questions answered by SCC. In without remorse you obviously know that Clark is ****ed of..but what fleshes out his character is the WAY he deals with it. Your argument (if two lines proving nothing warrant such a label) is moot.

The word subtle does not deserve to be used with regards to any of the emoting in Conviction. I'm sorry, but emoting done with a 2D script and poor plot development isn't my bag. Maybe you can find subtleties as you yearn to look for this, but when a game relies on putting words on the walls so you can tell what the character is feeling....I'm out.

The expressions on Sam Fisher's character model, the body language the animators incorporated and projected movies on the walls offer new insight into what Sam was thinking. These were the subtler points. As for the poor plot, I agree, the premise offered so much but the plot fell flat. If you did not like the projected text..well ok, that's your opinion.

No, it's what makes them effective killers. We already know that Fisher does NOT behave like an automaton in the previous games. For someone who is very intent on lecturing people, you seem to be missing a few vital points. It is clear that he has paid a heavy emotional price for the killing and death that has surrounded him. A machine, he is not.

I said he becomes an automaton the few seconds before he commits murder. I never said he blindly followed orders or did not make his own calls. I simply said that when it comes to killing Sam behaves like a cold calculating machine when he kills someone. He is a killing machine, regardless of what you think or know. It IS evident in SCC that all those years and personal trauma have taken a toll on his psyche.

"You're talking about a once off character that was acted well. How do you know if this is a good portrayal of the character? Where else do you know this character from? What reference point do you have? No doubt Micky Rourke did a good job, but when you're talking about an established character with a defined persona, who is the CENTRAL FOCUS of an entire franchise, in whose latest instalment is entirely focussed on a personally driven plot and it gets it wrong, then the issue begins to show its face."

Heheh http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ...the point I was trying to make was that you CAN HAVE EXCELLENT CHARACTER PORTRAYAL AND DEVELOPMENT REGARDLESS OF THE ****TY PLOT OR STORYLINE. In SCC it is Sam's reactions to the events around him that define him not the events themselves.
As for established characters...it is a clear continuation of Sam from SCDA.

"I don't need to argue it. You've been arguing it in this entire thread when you continuously admit that Conviction is about killing groups of guards, which, if I was to choose between the two above, falls under CONVENTIONAL."

You would, given your extreme understanding of military affairs (now this is sarcasm, in case you didn't get my point like several times before)
It is simply using surprise and stealth to whittle down the enemy one cut at a time. Like the Mujjahideen in Afghanistan against the soviets and the VC in Vietnam. Sam Fisher's tactical approach to enemies is classic guerilla behaviour. He uses stealth and surprise to silence the enemy forces one by one and disappears. Simple Killing of guards does not make it conventional warfare. You're simply trying to classify it as such to cement your arguments which is completely understandable but totally useless and nonsensical.

"Because now Sam Fisher has been portrayed as a man who can single handedly avoid being killed by an attack helicopter, while fighting off about 15+ guards. Does none of this get through to you? "

Does Sam destroy the chopper using an RPG or his bare hands? NO. Does he actively seek out a chopper to take down? NO. Was the chopper a good idea? NO. Does it portray Sam as a reckless and careless rookie? NO.
The only point I will concede is the superhuman portrayal of Sam Fisher in this segment which was a horrible design decision.

"He worked at 3Ech for years and he has Grim supporting him. That should be more than enough to get him in, combined with his talents. But no. The dev team decided to portray Sam as the guy who can go in the front door, guns blazing and get away with it. Why? BECAUSE HE'S MAAAAAAAAAAD! grrrr "

Sure he worked at 3E which automatically gives him a copy of the buildings blueprint and vulnerable points, of a building which is the HQ of the world's most efficient organisation at infiltration and intel gathering and is expert at breaking into security compounds...let's not forget that Sam is a superhuman infiltrator and Grim is actually Gandalf the white who can magically open portals in walls. Here you are bashing SCC for contriving situations and yet you somehow believe that a deus ex machina will enable Sam to infiltrate the 3E HQ without completely debilitating it's power supply. Is the front door entry the best idea probably not but is a convenient vent a better one nope.
The dev team wanted to portray Sam as a man with limited time and the knowledge that he would get in touch with his daughter at the end of this, as a man frustrated at all the 3E bull**** and giving the 3E a huge finger with his actions.

Sam Fisher is not a barbarian. Even though he is ****ed, he does not just drive a lead bullet through 4 guys heads just because they're in front of the door he wants to get through. The soldiers are just like him. How come it takes 1 sam to take out 4 Splinter Cells, and 7 splinter cell to NOT take out sam. I know he's good but there's only so much better you can get. Stealth games are meant to be tactical and realistic. But this is just outrageous man. Maybe m&e is a cool feature that should be like an option or something, but making this your primary form of getting passed enemies....no,just no. And you know what strikes me the most-

It's that Sam Fisher kills more guys in his own house in front of his daughter, than I did in all other Splinter Cell games combined.

[Yabab_2]

Oh, the endless battle of good vs. evil, new vs. old.

Some people in this world believe that however people remind of you is who you really are, but the truth is whoever holds the rights to your image actually dictates who you are/were and, right now, Ubisoft says Sam can headshot 4 guys, CQC a fifth and repeat the process as long as the player is familiar with Conviction's controls. So...

Until a new design or new designer comes around the discussion is not really going anywhere beyond this. So might as well just transform this into a 'I like' and ' I dislike' thread.

[TheManInStealth]

I couldn't agree more with the topic starter!

I consider myself one of the biggest fans of the franchise, I played the crap out of all the games.

Apart from all the obvious changes in gameplay mechanics, the well balanced multiplayer modes and presentation, I LOVE how the story is written and presented!

Everybody who is up to date on REAL politics and economics (or globalization for that matter)knows, that many times intelligence agencies are NOT the good guys in the picture. You can't sell the straight "good side bad side" stuff to an informed public anymore, after all that happened in US foreign policy over the last years.

The fact that in the story, the real puppet masters are to be found in the private sector, is only honest! In real life it's the global private banking elite and round table groups, in the game it's 'Magito', which is actually the real code name for a secret operation (you guys can figure that 1 out 4 yourselves).

Many people probably STILL don't know what UBI even did for the hardcore fan base aside from the game with 'Code of Conviction'
http://codeofconviction.blogspot.com/


Thank you UBI for the very finest part in the franchise, and don't be discurraged by all those people trapped in the past!

[Andre202]

Originally posted by TheManInStealth:
Apart from all the obvious changes in gameplay mechanics, the well balanced multiplayer modes and presentation, I LOVE how the story is written and presented!
I like how the story is presented too but I don't like how they have written the story at all. It's to far away from Tom Clancy realism and to much into Hollywood realism and from your opinion I assume you like Hollywood realism very much.


Everybody who is up to date on REAL politics and economics (or globalization for that matter)knows, that many times intelligence agencies are NOT the good guys in the picture. You can't sell the straight "good side bad side" stuff to an informed public anymore, after all that happened in US foreign policy over the last years.
There are a lot of things the previous games did better and one of these things is that there wasn't really a good and a bad side. It was exciting to find out why these groups did what they did. You gather a lot of information that brings you to the leader of all the problems you get to know in the story. The people, the AI, who works for the leader just does what the leader says. They don't question his actions because it's their job and they get money for that. Are they now bad?

In previous SCs you just eliminate two or three persons, the leaders, in each game without killing the other people who just do their job. In SC1 it was Nikoladze and Grinko. In SC2 Suhadi Sadono, Norman Soth and (Dahlia Tal). In SC3 Douglas Shetland, Hugo Lacerda, Milan Nedi?h and Toshiro Otomo. After killing the leaders the soldiers will be like headless chickens. They won't know what to do without their leader. Conviction always gives you the feeling that the AI are bad guys and you are "allowed" to kill them because hey are all responsible for Sarah's death although you get to know that she is alive in the third mission. That's also a reason why the game was always rated with a "USK 16" in Germany. You had the choice whether you kill or not.


The fact that in the story, the real puppet masters are to be found in the private sector, is only honest! In real life it's the global private banking elite and round table groups, in the game it's 'Magito', which is actually the real code name for a secret operation (you guys can figure that 1 out 4 yourselves).
When I first heard of Megiddo I wanted to know more of this organization and I think it would be in the interest of all the "good guys" in Conviction to know more from Megiddo especially when Lucius Galliard gets killed while asking a question about Megiddo. Since Third Echelon is corrupt it would be the first place to look for information but what happens? Nothing. Noone comes to the idea to look after information Reed may have hidden from Grim and could possibly lead to Megiddo but now the HQ is destroyed just like all the information it may have had.


Many people probably STILL don't know what UBI even did for the hardcore fan base aside from the game with 'Code of Conviction'
http://codeofconviction.blogspot.com/
It was and is a very great idea from Ubi to shorten the time waiting for the game. But it doesn't represent the game's quality in any way. It was really cool and when these whole PR begun with the Voron Website, I got the hope that Conviction will actually have a great and depth story but it hasn't and this really disappointed me.


Thank you UBI for the very finest part in the franchise, and don't be discurraged by all those people trapped in the past!
I don't think it is one of the finest title in the series but we may be on a good way from what we heard from the devs in this month.

[TheManInStealth]

I'm getting your point Andre202, but maybe people are taking the story related issues a bit too serious.

[Yabab_2]

This may be a little off topic and I'm probably making a thread on this later, but...

Did you know that Galliard and Reed were on the original Conviction build of '07? I didn't until three minutes ago when I saw it on video.

[Andre202]

Originally posted by TheManInStealth:
I'm getting your point Andre202, but maybe people are taking the story related issues a bit too serious.
That's what made Splinter Cell, what maybe no other game did, having a story where you think that it could happen, taking it as serious as Sam did, getting into him, playing him. A lot of people like him because he was so human just like you and me. Just a "normal person" doing his job. Sam is badass in previous games because Stealth was his powerful weapon and the first one he should use. In the shadows he has the control over everyone. For myself it was very rewarding ghosting the levels because there aren't a lot of games where you get such tense situation being just 2 meters away from a guard and still not being noticed. I cannot really discribe it but it's really cool to get in, do your objective, get out and nobody will ever know that you were there.


Originally posted by Yabab_2:
This may be a little off topic and I'm probably making a thread on this later, but...

Did you know that Galliard and Reed were on the original Conviction build of '07? I didn't until three minutes ago when I saw it on video.
Well I saw Galliard in a demo but where did you see Reed?

[Yabab_2]

He's mentioned, by Sam, in the same scene Galliard makes an appearance, the moment Sam shoves two fingers into Galliard's chest he tells Galliard to go back to Reed and tell him something so the plan doesn't fall apart. It seems Galliard, Reed and Sam were actually working together. I wonder if Williams was the bad guy in this build.

[mattduck69]

Originally posted by Yabab_2:
He's mentioned, by Sam, in the same scene Galliard makes an appearance, the moment Sam shoves two fingers into Galliard's chest he tells Galliard to go back to Reed and tell him something so the plan doesn't fall apart. It seems Galliard, Reed and Sam were actually working together. I wonder if Williams was the bad guy in this build.

link??please

[shobhit7777777]

first of, a Merry Christmass all and a Happy new year in advance!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

@Michaelanjello
Definition of a Stealth Game: Stealth game is a video game genre in which the player must avoid detection, using stealth to evade or ambush antagonists. Games in the genre employ mechanics such as hiding in shade, disguises, and noise which can alert enemies. Some games allow the player to choose between a stealthy approach or directly attacking antagonists, perhaps rewarding the player for greater levels of stealth. The genre has employed espionage and counter-terrorism themes, with such protagonists as special forces operatives, spies, and ninjas.

The first SC game was billed as a stealth action title and we have seen a gradual imcrease in the offensive capabalities of Sam Fisher with the pinnacle being SCCT (the knife kills were lightning fast!!). We can see SCs evolution from the first title, it has now completely fit ino it's niche of a Stealth-Action title. SCC is the only true stealth-action title in the market with it's action elements IN the STEALTH gameplay as opposed to pure stealth games or shooers with stealth sections or small stealth mechanics. Splinter Cell is an amazing series because it has been trying to define it's own sub-genre. I mean Sam Fisher was a highly trained soldier in all games and there were hints at his true, more lethal, capabilitites in all games but never unleashed. All games had some serious firepower(knife, SC-20K and attachments, lethal agility) in the hands of the player but the player was never properly able to enjoy using them. I mean when I pay SCCT I play super stealthy, like a ghost. The IW theme, setting, plot, and the character animations lend themselves the best to a slow and whisper quiet gameplay style. I know I can go rock and roll with the Sniper or the shotgun attachment or go Rambo wih the knife but I don't because it feels out of place and alien and really detracts from the experience. The point is the previous games were stealth games in the guise of stealth action games. In SCC the approach is the same as before...Sam can now use all guns he has but trying a bull-rush tactic will 100% get you killed in game. You can play hit and run with a Mossberg 500 or use a silenced weapon to quietly down tangos. Both playstyles are supported and made enjoyable by SCC and also are blended seamlessy within the gameplay loop. Everything in SCC isgeared towards offering the player a true stealth-action experience or if the player chooses either pure stealth or pure R6 vegas style shooting.
BTW in your definition it says "avoiding detection" not avoiding conftontation. The SCC stealth encourages STEALTHY CONFRONTATIONS and hence does not break your definition.
SCC is the only SC title I DAILY keep coming back to, because it offers more variety and varied playthroughs than ANY of it's predecessors. I play the other titles only when I miss a lil espionage and stealth action and he last I played a previous SC game was last month. My friends and I have spent more time playing SCC co-op than any other game for the past 4 months

[Yabab_2]

Originally posted by mattduck69:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yabab_2:
He's mentioned, by Sam, in the same scene Galliard makes an appearance, the moment Sam shoves two fingers into Galliard's chest he tells Galliard to go back to Reed and tell him something so the plan doesn't fall apart. It seems Galliard, Reed and Sam were actually working together. I wonder if Williams was the bad guy in this build.

link??please </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go, it's a two part presentation with one of the game programmers back then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r8VzIE994
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...WwMo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js6BEF0WwMo&feature=related)


Originally posted by michaelanjello:
Definition of a Stealth Game: Stealth game is a video game genre in which the player must avoid detection, using stealth to evade or ambush antagonists. Games in the genre employ mechanics such as hiding in shade, disguises, and noise which can alert enemies. Some games allow the player to choose between a stealthy approach or directly attacking antagonists, perhaps rewarding the player for greater levels of stealth. The genre has employed espionage and counter-terrorism themes, with such protagonists as special forces operatives, spies, and ninjas.
(wikipedia)

Ahh, I just wanted to point something out...

Did you know that SAR stands for Stealth Action Redefined? Because that subtitle alone breaks any ties to whatever stealth meant before. They just reapplied it to Conviction yet again.

[sameer_monier]

Originally posted by Yabab_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mattduck69:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yabab_2:
He's mentioned, by Sam, in the same scene Galliard makes an appearance, the moment Sam shoves two fingers into Galliard's chest he tells Galliard to go back to Reed and tell him something so the plan doesn't fall apart. It seems Galliard, Reed and Sam were actually working together. I wonder if Williams was the bad guy in this build.

link??please </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here you go, it's a two part presentation with one of the game programmers back then.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-r8VzIE994
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...WwMo&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js6BEF0WwMo&feature=related) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that makes me wonder what was the original script for the game

[Yabab_2]

That makes two of us. I'm inclined to say that perhaps Reed wouldn't be as cheesy as he were.

Well, anyway. After replaying Conviction these days, getting into contact with Chaos Theory and Double Agent subsequently after that, being hit by nostalgia with sam2000's thread and seeing as I already work with games for a living. I've gathered all the old Conviction footage as creative reference and decided to start building a fugitive gameplay prototype. The idea is to rebuild the Park level that was shown by the media back in 2007 using the all fugitive concept and features that the original Conviction dropped.

We'll see how that goes.

[sameer_monier]

Originally posted by Yabab_2:
That makes two of us. I'm inclined to say that perhaps Reed wouldn't be as cheesy as he were.

Well, anyway. After replaying Conviction these days, getting into contact with Chaos Theory and Double Agent subsequently after that, being hit by nostalgia with sam2000's thread and seeing as I already work with games for a living. I've gathered all the old Conviction footage as creative reference and decided to start building a fugitive gameplay prototype. The idea is to rebuild the Park level that was shown by the media back in 2007 using the all fugitive concept and features that the original Conviction dropped.

We'll see how that goes.

that would be awesome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[Yabab_2]

Yeah... It will be awesome if I finish this in less than a year!

Hahaha

@sameer
By the way, remember we still have that doc to do, so don't vanish!

[sameer_monier]

Originally posted by Yabab_2:
Yeah... It will be awesome if I finish this in less than a year!

Hahaha

@sameer
By the way, remember we still have that doc to do, so don't vanish!

don't worry we will do it mate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

i also got a couple of small ideas, if you are interested i will send them to you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[sam2000_290]

Originally posted by Yabab_2:
That makes two of us. I'm inclined to say that perhaps Reed wouldn't be as cheesy as he were.

Well, anyway. After replaying Conviction these days, getting into contact with Chaos Theory and Double Agent subsequently after that, being hit by nostalgia with sam2000's thread and seeing as I already work with games for a living. I've gathered all the old Conviction footage as creative reference and decided to start building a fugitive gameplay prototype. The idea is to rebuild the Park level that was shown by the media back in 2007 using the all fugitive concept and features that the original Conviction dropped.

We'll see how that goes.


Hey! What was that about me? Hope you can get that worked out!

[vin7182]

Hi guys... I will start pretty straight.

I have played ALAN WAKE, that game where you have the best story ever... and why am I saying that... on an SP forum? Because he is not a superhero god da****. He is a normal guy, a writer on a trip with his wife, and he gets to go through a story that he never actually wrote

Here it is: Splinter Cell was all bout stealth: Here's some LOST features:

-Throwing cans, rocks to distract ennemies

-The famous SC20K, Sam's favorite weapon http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif )

-Sam Fisher... Da* I played the whole game but I couldn't find him, where is he? Ok, I admit he's there but where is gone it's real personnality? SP was once one of hightest rated video game of all time SC1 9.8/10, SCCT 9.9/10. I repeat it: A good story is a story where you don't play a super hero killing everybody with a PISTOL. Alan wake is good cause you're playing somebody ''real'' not Rambo.

- The suit he had, with 3E... It was so cool

- I noticed that thing: At the beginning of the game he breaks his car mirror to look under doors, later in the game when you look under doors, you have a special gadget to do so, but nobody gave it to you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif.

- Where is Sam Patience? He may be a little (Ok maybe very much) angry but his job is to silently kill his ennemies to overtake them.

- Stealth option: It is impossible and I repeat louder IMPOSSIBLE to be stealthy in the whole game... It was possible in previous and that's why he owned the great notes of 9.9/10 and so. Now he has 9.3/10 (SCC), Stealth is very important and being ambushed by ennemies that never saw you coming in, it's kinda dumb. When you get ambushed, you can't hide and that is the problem...

- Difficulty: Where is it, I did the whole thing and I thought I had put it accidentaly on Rookie http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif.

OK READ THIS BEFORE PANICKING. Splinter Cell Conviction is a very good game and I really really enjoyed playing it (I still do) but I think bringing back all the cons would be a very nice thing!

[sam2000_290]

- Stealth option: It is impossible and I repeat louder IMPOSSIBLE to be stealthy in the whole game... It was possible in previous and that's why he owned the great notes of 9.9/10 and so. Now he has 9.3/10 (SCC), Stealth is very important and being ambushed by ennemies that never saw you coming in, it's kinda dumb. When you get ambushed, you can't hide and that is the problem...


Ok, where do I begin? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Stealth is POSSIBLE, not IMPOSSIBLE. To keep it short, read my signature.

Some features are lost yes, but you got to make the best with what you got. Using your gun can be a great distraction, it works. I did this in the Airfield mission the beginning. It works great. Even the sticky camera works great too. It makes the game/SC even harder without gagdets. So even on Rookie difficulty, the game is still pretty hard. Makes CT looks really really easy and a kid's game (to put it nicely). If you want a hard game, you're better off playing SCC. And yes, SCC is a really good game.

[Andre202]

Well, if you consider the older titles of of the series which the most people will do then you can pretty much say that it is impossible to do that "Stealth" in SCC. Now of course you have Stealth in SCC you can use it and if you play the game how it is designed to be played it's really easy. When I read a comment where someone says something is impossible then I have to consider (in this case) every possible Definition of Stealth what a person could mean though. I assume he means to be extremly stealthy and as often as I played SCC and still do so because I want to do and finish the Full Stealth Walkthroughs I can very well see what people mean with impossible. I mean after 5 missions I have more deaths then in all previous SCs put together and all that while being as Stealthy as I could. I am stuck at the Whitebox mission where you are forced to kill a lot of people and protect a Download where it crys out loud; use M&E. I have nothing against options and having that feature M&E, but don't make one feature one of the big Design Pillars of the Game.

Now of course the way I play SCC, SCC is more difficult then SCCT. But not only SCCT, it's more difficult then all SCs because I don't play it the way the game is designed to be played. We have already heared about ridicolous distractions to avoid enemy contact in SCC before the game was released.

I guess everyone has another defintion of what is difficult. The way I am playing all SC games at the moment. I am saying SC 1-4 have the same Difficulty level because in every of these games there are very difficult situations which you probably will replay a lot. I think SCC for me will be the most challenging one and it's actually rewarding to be one of the people who can say: I played the Airfield mission in one playthrough, doing one kill, doing 4 distractions, using two gadgets and using 2 bullets. But as some members pointed out already it doesn't make that much fun to play the Singleplayer Campaign that way. I have more fun with Deniable Ops. Although you have to kill them you can do it extremly challenging for yourself though.

[sam2000_290]

To me, I think stealth is about sneaking around undetected. That's my definition of stealth. It may be different to others but what is the actual universal definition of stealth? Stealth doesn't have to be extreme.

And Splinter Cell is an espionage game so stealth is not the only thing. Action is one. So really, even though SC is a stealth game, there are other things that made up SC and espionage. So stealth is not the only defining feature of Splinter Cell.


D-ops is challenging but you don't have to kill. When I play, I try to knock them out, rather than killing them. Like I throw them, which is a really awkward way to knocking out people. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

[Andre202]

It's a Stealth/Action game obviously focusing more on Stealth then Action. The one thing, the Action, had always it's small part in every Splinter Cell game. Not too much and not to little. Maybe in some SCs it could be more but I think it is good that way.

[shobhit7777777]

@Sam2000_290

"Ok, where do I begin? Stealth is POSSIBLE, not IMPOSSIBLE. To keep it short, read my signature. Some features are lost yes, but you got to make the best with what you got. Using your gun can be a great distraction, it works. I did this in the Airfield mission the beginning. It works great. Even the sticky camera works great too. It makes the game/SC even harder without gagdets. So even on Rookie difficulty, the game is still pretty hard. Makes CT looks really really easy and a kid's game (to put it nicely). If you want a hard game, you're better off playing SCC. And yes, SCC is a really good game. www.novels4life.wordpress.com (http://www.novels4life.wordpress.com) SCCT is not a good SC game! ALL SC games are good SC games. SCC is the best just like all other SC games. SCC still has STEALTH! Stealth is not just about sneaking inside high tech facility. It's about sneaking around UNDETECTED. Even though the enemies know you will be there, so what? As long as you don't get detected, it's still stealth! I can't stress this enough!!! Don't talk smack about SCC! Nothing is a silo (metaphor) or is static. Things in life are dynamic. Nothing is fixed on its own. So dynamic stealth follows closely to realism. Dynamic stealth allows more freedom too. Although some things should be conservative, like I am, but entertainment wise or in gaming, it can be dynamic or liberal. I am referring to poli-sci b/c it's interesting and related and it's what Sam majored in. Come on SCC supporter! Let's overcome the DARKSIDE! Check out my stealththrough! Take it Easy/Slow/Stealth Walkthrough"

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

To me, I think stealth is about sneaking around undetected. That's my definition of stealth. It may be different to others but what is the actual universal definition of stealth? Stealth doesn't have to be extreme.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[sam2000_290]

@shobhit7777777

I don't know what your intention is. Are you mocking me with my quote? Are you saying my quote is good/thumbs up for real? Are you trying to preserve my signature after it's been removed? That clapping similie is really scaring me. It looks like sarcasm.

Please enlighten me.

[mattduck69]

could u please tell me how sc ct is really really easy and a kids game? and how scc is a pretty hard game...on easy?? no offense but it seems u got it the wrong way around

[Andre202]

Being one of the members who discussed with him, I think he likes what you said.

[sam2000_290]

Originally posted by mattduck69:
could u please tell me how sc ct is really really easy and a kids game? and how scc is a pretty hard game...on easy?? no offense but it seems u got it the wrong way around

It's because SCCT is easy. I get 100% easily. I didn't really say it's a kid's game. I was trying to put it nicely so I said "a kid's game". I can't say what I was going to say, so I had to put it nicely. SCC is not easy if you try to traditional stealth approach. It's a lot of hard work. So it is hard, even on easy.

NO, I did not get it the other way around.


@Andre202

?

[mattduck69]

Originally posted by sam2000_290:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mattduck69:
could u please tell me how sc ct is really really easy and a kids game? and how scc is a pretty hard game...on easy?? no offense but it seems u got it the wrong way around

It's because SCCT is easy. I get 100% easily. I didn't really say it's a kid's game. I was trying to put it nicely so I said "a kid's game". I can't say what I was going to say, so I had to put it nicely. SCC is not easy if you try to traditional stealth approach. It's a lot of hard work. So it is hard, even on easy.

NO, I did not get it the other way around. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok thanks for clearing that up http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif i thought u meant doing scc run n gun type u know like (h2h takedown,mark four dudes maybe ill through a remote mine ova at that pack of dudes then press y shot,shot,shot,shot then x,kaabooommmmm..... ok next room) but yes i agree scc is very difficult to do the traditional stealth approach

[Andre202]

Originally posted by sam2000_290:
@Andre202

?
shobhit7777777 agrees with you...

Ohh and playing through SCC with traditional Stealth is that difficult because it isn't supposed to be played that way. It would be the same if I would try to go Rambo in previous games. It's difficult too.

[sam2000_290]

Let me clarify what I mean by traditional stealth. Traditional stealth is the original stealth, the stealth that you play in previous Splinter Cells. I refer to Conviction as new stealth b/c it's not really traditional. And running and gunning isn't stealth...


@Andre202

Oh. I thought otherwise about him.


Yes, b/c the new approach is different so it is harder to do older aproaches but it's worth a try, at least you can still do it.



This was mentioned.

"Wanting the enemy to know he's coming."

I think that's just a phrase. He is out for revenge but it doesn't mean literally he wants the enemy to know he is coming.

Examples, in some missions, I don't think the enemies even know Sam would be there. Like the Resevoir level. Perhaps Grims is the one telling everybody. I don't think Sam even mentioned to any guards or enemies where he is going. In TE, nobody knows Sam would be there. The secret service or somebody dropped him off at TE.

So really, it's just a phrase/figure of speech and is metaphorically true.

[shobhit7777777]

@Sam2000

I am in agreement with your earlier post. I thought that would be obvious (as Andre202 rightly observed) given my arguments in SCCs defence.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by sam2000_290:
Let me clarify what I mean by traditional stealth. Traditional stealth is the original stealth, the stealth that you play in previous Splinter Cells. I refer to Conviction as new stealth b/c it's not really traditional. And running and gunning isn't stealth...


However, the irony is that ...as a wholesome game concept, the old SC's were indeed NON-traditional games. It went against a game market flooded with action oriented shooter games. I'm not saying it's running & gunning per say, but for the entire game audience, the Conviction direction - especially because of M & E - puts SC into the ballpark of a more traditional game market. ( That's why it is important to see the bigger picture, to see where the SC game rightfully fits in the entire game history. )

Traditional as in ; what publishers perceive ( and it's not even a 100% sure bet ) to be a safe sell game product. Vintage SC went against that, hence it rightfully carries the subtag Stealth Action Redifined. So, as a wholesome game product/concept, Conviction is more conservative & more traditional game to market.

Let's hope Ubisoft has the BALLS again to release SC6 as a game which goes against the grain, against mainstream taste.

[sam2000_290]

Originally posted by Knot3D:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sam2000_290:
Let me clarify what I mean by traditional stealth. Traditional stealth is the original stealth, the stealth that you play in previous Splinter Cells. I refer to Conviction as new stealth b/c it's not really traditional. And running and gunning isn't stealth...


However, the irony is that ...as a wholesome game concept, the old SC's were indeed NON-traditional games. It went against a game market flooded with action oriented shooter games. I'm not saying it's running & gunning per say, but for the entire game audience, the Conviction direction - especially because of M & E - puts SC into the ballpark of a more traditional game market. ( That's why it is important to see the bigger picture, to see where the SC game rightfully fits in the entire game history. )

Traditional as in ; what publishers perceive ( and it's not even a 100% sure bet ) to be a safe sell game product. Vintage SC went against that, hence it rightfully carries the subtag Stealth Action Redifined. So, as a wholesome game product/concept, Conviction is more conservative & more traditional game to market.

Let's hope Ubisoft has the BALLS again to release SC6 as a game which goes against the grain, against mainstream taste. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I don't see the market as a concern or anything to do with the game. I just see what the game is/has. I forget about the market. You may be right but I don't see it that way. Even though it is redefined, it's still traditional/conservative in itself. So if the previous SC has a particular stealth style, then it's traditional. And now Conviction is different, it's considered new stealth. That's how I see it. You may be right but as I said, I don't see the market as a concern, but UBI did do a good job of providing something unique to the table/went against the market and not make everything run and gun.



@shobhit7777777

okay. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Andre202]

They went for the mainstream market not against... the whole game is showing it and Knot3D pointed it out already.

[sam2000_290]

Originally posted by Andre202:
They went for the mainstream market not against... the whole game is showing it and Knot3D pointed it out already.

I was talking about the previous SC games like he mentioned. I wasn't talking about Conviction. I was saying that the old SC games were against the market like he said.

[Andre202]

Originally posted by sam2000_290:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andre202:
They went for the mainstream market not against... the whole game is showing it and Knot3D pointed it out already.

I was talking about the previous SC games like he mentioned. I wasn't talking about Conviction. I was saying that the old SC games were against the market like he said. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry, I misunderstood then.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by sam2000_290:
but UBI did do a good job of providing something unique to the table/went against the market and not make everything run and gun.


As a game concept, the original SC games went against mainstream concepts which were either full action or halfbaked stealth. That's is the definition of going against the grain and instead to choose innovation in a game market.

True, each concept needs to reinvent itself at some point to remain innovative, but all the key aspects about Conviction ; - the Hollywood style direction and story, - the emphasis on gameplay tools such as M & E and further lack of depth ; are all aspects, towards a more conservative, traditional way of making games. This is what game publishers do in times of economical stress and then they play it safe by banking on elements which are likely to sell to widely, mainstream adience ; and that is the Hollywood "realism" and action. Even the characterization of Sam Fisher himself ; he literally looks like Nathan Drake with merely a different face.

You can't take vintage SC out of history context and then slap 'traditional' onto it just because you choose to disregard the rest. No.. amongst other games and in the way the franchise profiled itself toward the audience, was anything but traditional mainstream commercial succes. Even Metal Gear was more traditional in terms of gameplay than SC, but it managed to innovate by means of story delivery ; the lengthy, weird Japanese style of cutscenes.

It's kinda tricky to make this analogy , but Conviction as a game product is like Neo-Conservatism ; it's more conservative and traditional, but just packed into a flashy shiny new jacket ; which makes it sell... just like sex is always a sure shot sales element for advertisement agencies who run out of original innovative ideas.

* Edit : Still, Conviction does contain an element of innovation ; which is the way it has implemented and polished aggro stealth moves & its respective controls ; these are way beyond even Assassin's Creed imo, because imo... AC requires such an oddball control setup. Very counter intuitive imo.

[codenameeric]

I wouldn't say that ubi went against the market. I'd say they did something unique.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by codenameeric:
I wouldn't say that ubi went against the market. I'd say they did something unique. you mean with the initial SC's. Yes, indeed... it was doing something unique.

But with 'going against the market' I meant to say that it's about innovating in ways which might include gameplay elements which are unproven as a commercial/popular succes ; and THAT's what SC did. It was doing something which hadn't really proven to be something which people will like ; therefor it was a daring, innovative idea. Certainly not traditional.

What Conviction does is banking on gamedesign ingredients which many company marketeers estimate as sure shot sellers.

[codenameeric]

Originally posted by Knot3D:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by codenameeric:
I wouldn't say that ubi went against the market. I'd say they did something unique. you mean with the initial SC's. Yes, indeed... it was doing something unique.

But with 'going against the market' I meant to say that it's about innovating in ways which might include gameplay elements which are unproven as a commercial/popular succes ; and THAT's what SC did. It was doing something which hadn't really proven to be something which people will like ; therefor it was a daring, innovative idea. Certainly not traditional.

What Conviction does is banking on gamedesign ingredients which many company marketeers estimate as sure shot sellers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, I was talking about the old games for sure :P

Personally, I think it makes sense for companies to try and sell a unique product vs. selling a knock off of something else.

[sam2000_290]

Yeah, what I said was along the same line. Going against the market.

When I say I disregard all the other stuff, like I mentioned the market, I was talking about stealth and stealth itself has no connections with the market. So stealth itself is being undetected.

Let me make it clear on traditional stealth. What you said is true. However, in terms of how the previous SC games go, it's considered traditional. There is no outside factors, like other games outside the title. Everything is internal. So when you look at it, the previous SC's or the first 4 games are traditional because it follows the L&S mechanic. Now that Conviction has a different turn, it's no longer conservative. You can say it's neo-conservative.

What you say about the market is correct but just outside of SC itself and its traditional L&S stealth style.

EDIT

This is what game publishers do in times of economical stress and then they play it safe by banking on elements which are likely to sell to widely, mainstream adience ; and that is the Hollywood "realism" and action.

Then you can't really say that it's SCC's fault or that it should not have happened. I don't know, if we aren't in economic stress, perhaps SCC would have been traditional.

EDIT

Sometimes, not all franchises have to follow a traditional style or gameplay. In my novels (no spoiler alert and it has to do with espionage and other stuff), There is stealth/spy stuff. Then as the story progresses or when the next book comes out, things change. There's war, then it's fugitive style, then back to war again, then well, mainly social stuff. So things do change and are more dynamic. Sometimes story favours more than gamplay or style depending on the circumstances in the story. So like in mine, one day there is stealth, and the other day, there is none. I am a writer and so this is what I see/realize. In SCC, there is a similar case. In the end, it's still the same, it's still its own title. I won't state the franchise title of my book out but the initials are SW. So, no matter what styles are in the novels, it's still SW. For Splinter Cell, no matter what the story is, it's still Splinter Cell. Relating to the thread topic.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by sam2000_290:
There is no outside factors, like other games outside the title. I get what you are saying, but any definition will only exist by reference of context ; and context in this case, is video game history; other 'stealth' titles and other genres. There is no Yin without Yang. With that bigger picture in mind, the first SC titles definitely broke away from the majority.


Originally posted by sam2000_290:
What you say about the market is correct but just outside of SC itself and its traditional L&S stealth style. I think, I would rather use the word 'puristic' rather than traditional.

I mean... a man who has innovative ideas about alternative ways to generate energy/electricity, might have been screaming those ideas for so long because the oil & car companies have ignored him for years.. and to Average Joe, this man's messages might start to bore a little...but the fact still remains that his ideas about alternative ways to generate electricity are still innovative and non-traditional. And THAT is SC. And it's a kick in the teeth, if some people start saying that this innovative idea is grandma style & outdated ; which is not the case.... the idea might have been puristic, but its essence is innovative & non-traditional.

A dull looking family sedan with the newest electric engine is still more innovative than the slickest looking Ferrari with a combustion engine. In this analogy, vintage SC is the family sedan ; its heart is innovative, but it just needs a new shell. Conviction is more like the Ferrari with a traditional combustion engine.

[sam2000_290]

Okay, well, then just think of it as a closed environment.

Well, not all of us are saying that it's outdated or out of style. It can still be possible for the future.

Purism: Strict observance of or insistence on traditional correctness, especially of language

Hmm...I am trying to fit this word into context.

So you're saying it should be pure. And so L&S shouldn't change...

Pardon me on this word. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



A dull looking family sedan with the newest electric engine is still more innovative than the slickest looking Ferrari with a combustion engine. In this analogy, vintage SC is the family sedan ; its heart is innovative, but it just needs a new shell. Conviction is more like the Ferrari with a traditional combustion engine.



I got you for some parts...

So you're just saying that although the Ferrari is new, it uses a traditional car part. Just like the market for SCC is that it follows the traditional market.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by sam2000_290:
So you're saying it should be pure. And so L&S shouldn't change...

Hmmm not necessarily no changes. Afterall, L & S is only just a game mechanic, a tool.


What should remain pure, is SC's fairly 'hardcore' essence as a game franchise, by means of whichever gameplay techniques/tools that goal gets achieved.

Like I hinted at in many other threads ; Conviction's aggro stealth could be tweaked to get a very hardcore, intense stealth expierence. It's just that
certain aspects of the game overshadow that potential essence so much, that imo it has turned the game into mainstream pulp.

* Edit ; yep.. Conviction is kinda like that Ferrari with a combustion engine. ... and then there were people like me who wished it were like the new Tesla sports car ; an electric sports car which - by now - has proven that it can even outrun that Ferrari. ; that would be something like Deniable Ops with more aggressive AI, limited M & E and some SERIOUS difficulty levels.

[Yabab_2]

Just had a simple thought: People are complaining that the stealth is more fast-paced, that the stealth is more aggresive, that the mercs usually discover the player is in the area, even though they don't know where.

Interesting, because I remember all that being in SvM, too.

[sameer_monier]

Originally posted by Knot3D:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sam2000_290:
So you're saying it should be pure. And so L&S shouldn't change...

Hmmm not necessarily no changes. Afterall, L & S is only just a game mechanic, a tool.


What should remain pure, is SC's fairly 'hardcore' essence as a game franchise, by means of whichever gameplay techniques/tools that goal gets achieved.

Like I hinted at in many other threads ; Conviction's aggro stealth could be tweaked to get a very hardcore, intense stealth expierence. It's just that
certain aspects of the game overshadow that potential essence so much, that imo it has turned the game into mainstream pulp.

* Edit ; yep.. Conviction is kinda like that Ferrari with a combustion engine. ... and then there were people like me who wished it were like the new Tesla sports car ; an electric sports car which - by now - has proven that it can even outrun that Ferrari. ; that would be something like Deniable Ops with more aggressive AI, limited M & E and some SERIOUS difficulty levels. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

can you explain the bold text more ?, some examples would be great

[Andre202]

Originally posted by Yabab_2:
Just had a simple thought: People are complaining that the stealth is more fast-paced, that the stealth is more aggresive, that the mercs usually discover the player is in the area, even though they don't know where.

Interesting, because I remember all that being in SvM, too.
The big difference is that you are not playing against NPCs in SvM. I mean if you start a SvM game you will know that there will be Spy who wants to gather information or a Merc who wants to prevent the Spies to do so.

I wouldn't know a possibility how you could design SvM so the Merc player doesn't know that he will be playing against a Spy.

Poeple are complaining about the fast-pace aggressive Stealth because it hasn't such a depth, it isn't as hardcore as it could be. It doesn't consider certain aspects which older games did. There is the sound for example which isn't as important in Conviction as in previous games. It's also the ridiculous story whcih you never would expect from a Splinter Cell Game. It's all about Sarah but what happens, you see her only for two minutes and that's it. I mean even in previous games she got a bigger role.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by sameer_monier:can you explain the bold text more ?, some examples would be great

Well, in current game, the player can bring hell down on those guards by means of fast acrobatic moves, break line of sight and keep 'em at bay with M & E. So, that's intensity of offense, but this mostly from the player's side.

The guards weren't given the abilities to give the same intensity back. In other words, to achieve hardcore aggro stealth, these guards should be given the ability to hunt the player down in every nook & cranny, yes even if it's up in the rafters or some high ledge or even down in the tunnels & trenches. Guards should even check such spots actively BEFORE you are even spotted. And in case hell breaks loose, they shouldn't say We're gonna stay right HERE !" and just stay camping ; they should hunt the player down beyond their original perimeters.

Especially the latter is important, because it opens up the level ; if guards stay put and camp it out in one spot the player HAS to go through that spot to progress in the game ; it's basically a linear bottleneck game design. It would be way more fun if they actively hunt you down, so they leave their original spot which will open up room for a multitude of alternate routes for the player to either slip past them or to take 'em out in a counter stealth attack.

M & E is fine, but should be limited to 2 marks and tags should void in case a tagged guard breaks line of sight with the player for more than 10 seconds. I mean, these are just a handful of suggestions which would finally bring out the potential of this aggro stealth. Afterall, the player was given an awesome moves set of acrobatic moves and CQC, but then the enemy should be able to force the player to constantly be on the move too and be on his tip toes so to say ; you have to feel a lot of intense stress because of more pro-active enemies. Too often, in current Conviction, the intensity can be subdued too quickly and too easily.

In real life safari ; a panther can rip up a team of men, but a team of men can also hunt a panther down and put him down with a bullet.

[sameer_monier]

i see, i think you are right, but don't you think if the enemies hunted you all the time, pushing you into defense, once you retaliate, don't think it will become more actiony than SCC ?!

I think your ideas about more aggressive enemies are great, but i believe they do need to hunt then go back to patrol or whatever, to retain the quit stealth every now and then right ?!

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by sameer_monier:
i see, i think you are right, but don't you think if the enemies hunted you all the time, pushing you into defense, once you retaliate, don't think it will become more actiony than SCC ?!

I think your ideas about more aggressive enemies are great, but i believe they do need to hunt then go back to patrol or whatever, to retain the quit stealth every now and then right ?!

Yep, that's why a gameplay system with the ability to barricade doors would assist in achieving temporary 'safe' zones. Of course, at some point, the enemies can undo barricades, as well as setting barricades themselves to hinder the player.

This way, both the player and the AI will have to find alternate ways to achieve their respective goals ; which then, puts more emphasis on environment exploration/ interaction and to retain alertness to any potential threat.

Also, like Jazz mentioned numerous times ; MGS3 Subsistence features a well designed alert mode system, in which the enemy AI shares a pretty cohesive coherent memory ; this will make them go back to - altered - patrol routines, but only after a seriously rigorous search & destroy session. Often, after Snake has cleared one area of baddies, main enemy control will radio in to check why the guards in that area are not giving status reports or why they're not responding ; if that happens, main enemy control will send in units to investigate.

That would be a pretty fair but intense gameplay loop in combination with enemy guards who can ( almost ) reach all the spots, the player might be hiding at.

[sam2000_290]

Conviction is still Splinter Cell. I am going to use a different example and a different way of stating this.

I hate some of the players in matchmaking! I just played one round and I couldn't take it anymore. This is what I said in the PC thread.


Why do some people want to kill their whole way? God, can't even do stealth anymore. This guy had silenced weapons, I thought he was going to do stealth but he was killing everyone. I can only play one round. He doesn't even want to avoid people. I hate run and gun players.

I couldn't do anything. I couldn't sneak past people or silently kill them without him running and gunning.

Conviction is still Splinter Cell and a stealth game! Don't blame Conviction for its action oriented style, it's the players!

So frustrating to play with these people. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

[Andre202]

The gamer you played with just proved that SCC is making something wrong. Now did killed all "silently" or did he alerted them?

[codenameeric]

I heard good analogy on this forum... Yes, you can play slow in Splinter Cell but its like playing Grand Theft Auto and stopping at all the lights when everyone else is just blowing through them. The game's doesn't encourage it.

[sameer_monier]

Originally posted by Knot3D:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sameer_monier:
i see, i think you are right, but don't you think if the enemies hunted you all the time, pushing you into defense, once you retaliate, don't think it will become more actiony than SCC ?!

I think your ideas about more aggressive enemies are great, but i believe they do need to hunt then go back to patrol or whatever, to retain the quit stealth every now and then right ?!

Yep, that's why a gameplay system with the ability to barricade doors would assist in achieving temporary 'safe' zones. Of course, at some point, the enemies can undo barricades, as well as setting barricades themselves to hinder the player.

This way, both the player and the AI will have to find alternate ways to achieve their respective goals ; which then, puts more emphasis on environment exploration/ interaction and to retain alertness to any potential threat.

Also, like Jazz mentioned numerous times ; MGS3 Subsistence features a well designed alert mode system, in which the enemy AI shares a pretty cohesive coherent memory ; this will make them go back to - altered - patrol routines, but only after a seriously rigorous search & destroy session. Often, after Snake has cleared one area of baddies, main enemy control will radio in to check why the guards in that area are not giving status reports or why they're not responding ; if that happens, main enemy control will send in units to investigate.

That would be a pretty fair but intense gameplay loop in combination with enemy guards who can ( almost ) reach all the spots, the player might be hiding at. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like the ideas, i like the feeling you are trying to create, and i hope UBI sees this put much more hardcore elements like this in SC6

on another note, if you got alot of ideas like this (barricades, searching corner before Sam even hides in,....etc) PM me,i will work them out into an update cause i like the concept you are offering http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[sam2000_290]

Originally posted by Andre202:
The gamer you played with just proved that SCC is making something wrong. Now did killed all "silently" or did he alerted them?


He did both. Eventually, he alerted them. SCC is not making anything wrong!

It's amazing how Sam, Archer, Kestrel, and Splinter Cells, run and gun so smoothly. SC is supposed to be realistic. Who runs and guns so smoothly? Guns are heavy.

Not bashing on SCC or else I will contradict myself/beliefs, just trying to state something out.

[Yabab_2]

Originally posted by Andre202:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Yabab_2:
Just had a simple thought: People are complaining that the stealth is more fast-paced, that the stealth is more aggresive, that the mercs usually discover the player is in the area, even though they don't know where.

Interesting, because I remember all that being in SvM, too.
The big difference is that you are not playing against NPCs in SvM. I mean if you start a SvM game you will know that there will be Spy who wants to gather information or a Merc who wants to prevent the Spies to do so.

I wouldn't know a possibility how you could design SvM so the Merc player doesn't know that he will be playing against a Spy.

Poeple are complaining about the fast-pace aggressive Stealth because it hasn't such a depth, it isn't as hardcore as it could be. It doesn't consider certain aspects which older games did. There is the sound for example which isn't as important in Conviction as in previous games. It's also the ridiculous story whcih you never would expect from a Splinter Cell Game. It's all about Sarah but what happens, you see her only for two minutes and that's it. I mean even in previous games she got a bigger role. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree on the depth thing, the game lacks moves and objectives that make sense.

Until I actually got infiltration, I didn't know you where supposed to kill everyone, I thought it was just slip through.

Killing enemies was made the main challenge because the NPC's can try and stop the agent. But the reason for that is that the game's traversing is now pretty easy. Getting from point A to point B in Conviction is ten times easier than other games because of all the additions to the control system, unfortunately the NPC's and the counter-measures didn't evolve as much in terms of preventing player traversal. Infiltration in Conviction would be way too easy if it rewarded people for just slipping through and getting to the next checkpoint, although it should be designed that way. Spaces should be tighter and the portable EMP should be completely silent, way weaker, but infinite, just like the OCP.

Succeding in Convicton is killing silently as opposed to being unnoticed from CT and the previous ones, simply because there's no challenge in sneaking unnoticed in Conviction. It's overly simple to wait for a guard to move, hang from the railing, move through the whole level in hanging mode, wait for another guard to move and then reach the objective, and that's a mistake, in my book.

Anyone disagrees?

[sam2000_290]

Anyone disagrees?

Eh...pretty good. I agree somewhat. Add what you say in and keep what is already there.

[shobhit7777777]

@Knot3D

Vintage SC truly was a breath of fresh air. It certainly did take a risk with its "one-bullet-kills-you" approach in an era where the market was saturated with games that empowered the player to no end. Consider SCC. The game has been a strong franchise and a flagship title for Ubisoft since 2002. The developers took a big risk by deviating from the original design which had been virtually untouched since the first game. From my POV I think that it was very NON-traditional and brave of them to make several changes in the core design. They could have easily remade Chaos Theory and added tonnes of features which would cater to all and play it safe. Instead they re-designed the game and in my opinion took a huge risk with such an established title. I think that the games industry should take more risks regarding creative design of games instead of churning out 100 sequels with minor or cosmetic changes. The SCC team did a great job in re-inventing the way players look and approach stealth. The action stealth in SCC is similar to the kind present in Batman AA and Rid**** (EFBB and Dark athena) in SCC they take it a step further by making the game a seamless transition from all out action to whisper quiet stealth. In Batman AA the stealth sections are well seperated from the normal fighting ones and are not as dynamic as the situations in SCC. Also Batman's lack of serious offensive capablities tend to make it a more purist approach to stealth. In Rid**** the stealth segments were really well done with the play style decided by the player. You could sneak around snapping necks or choose a pure FPS approach in SCC we have an amalgamation of both. In SCC, at the risk of repeating myself, the ACTION IS IN THE STEALTH. I am glad that the devs put their thinking caps on and gave us something new and fresh instead of just cloning SCCT with added features. They certainly did faulter ( a lot IMO) but you can't blame them for not being innovative enough.

As Gamers instead of crying out for more of the same we should encourage the dev team to experiment and innovate. This leads to the invention and evolution of new sub0genres and enjoyable stealth experience.

Difficulty in SCC: SCC has been bashed on for being too easy and requiring no skill. I agree with this opinion but only to a certain extent. The SP campaign was not the best example of WELL DESIGNED levels because of scripted events and set pieces but SCCs true gameplay shines in the D-ops mode. Given the sandbox nature and the density of enemies present it becomes really challenging to make it through the entire level without getting detected, without raising the alarm and without abusing the M&E. I have restarted levels due to alarms and deaths much more in SCC than in all of the previous games combined. It requires much more patience and timing in avoiding 4 patrolling guards in a room than a lone sentry bored to death in some missile silo. SCC is much higher on a tactical level than most stealth games out there. The lack of depth is certainly there in terms of very little interaction with the enemies and environments and the stuff you do but it ultimately boils down to striking at the exact moment to remain undetected...which require some serious observation skills.

For people that complain about M&E..faster movement, SONAR goggles etc. Dont use them. Push the left analogue slowly and you move slowly....dont use more than 2 marks...dont use the sonar goggles. I mean most of the added features are not absolutely necessary in completing the game!! Use the snake cam instead of the sonar goggles. Want to use hand to hand take downs instead of the lethal pistol CQC moves? then simply holster your gun...the devs have tried to accomodate the purists playstyle too and in the short dev time they have tried their best.

SCC is as Splinter Cell as the first one was.

[Knot3D]

Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
Vintage SC truly was a breath of fresh air. It certainly did take a risk with its "one-bullet-kills-you" approach in an era where the market was saturated with games that empowered the player to no end. SC is a 3rd person, console born stealth franchise. The era in which it was born only featured Metal Gear Solid as its main competitor ; the reputation of these 2 franchises formed a niche subgenre of 3rd person stealth with the military field operative as premise. They were considered to be (console) hardcore stealth games for a multitude of varying reasons.

Then came 'next gen' :
Originally posted by shobhit7777777: The action stealth in SCC is similar to the kind present in Batman AA and Rid**** (EFBB and Dark athena) which brought us games like those ; which, from the point of view of the oldtime SC & MGS fan, are mainstream games which feature mainstream stealth or 1st person stealth, which is a whole different matter altogether. From that point of view, the games market has definitely mainstream-ified and watered down. Batman not being spotted on the gargoyles in the rafters ? I mean, c'mon !


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:Instead they re-designed the game and in my opinion took a huge risk with such an established title. We all know, the world economies took a nose dive and next gen games development has been more expensive and troublesome than they all expected. The result is a game market in which big publishers bank on SAFE. The means to achieve safe sales vary, but overal they encompass easier accessibility. Games, became more mainstream by having shorter, easier games, with enforced Hollywood presentation styles ( often this is literally copy pasted ) and all the yada yada new interface BS like Kinect, Move and ..Wiiiii.

What Ubisoft did with SC is very similar ; banking it the safe way by enforcing the overobviously literally copy pasted story, style and image from Hollywood. Enforcing that onto an established niche game franschise is definitely playing it safe by hoping the mainstream mass will pick it up. This has been factually acknowledged by Ubi itself. It's a NO or Low Risk publisher policy.

Why would a next gen CT be risky !? Because the vintage gameplay was anything BUT perfected. The basic concept of its gameplay still had lots of room for improvement. But alas, the suggested improvements to this specific hardcore gameplay could only be achieved by means of processing power which we simply do not have atm, and this is even more difficult in an era in which mainstream, genre-blended games are the only sure shot sales policy.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
dont use more than 2 marks... Should have been 2 or 1 in REALISTIC difficulty level. C'mon...if you create difficulty levels, then don't do a half assed job where the gamer has to play with self-imposed restrictions. That's ridiculous.


Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
dont use the sonar goggles. The sonar goggles basically have the same function as the Heat Vision in previous games ; quickly spotting enemy positions. The difference is that sonar goggles suffer from all these glitches because of slow refresh rates.

[stealth1276]

To above poster,
Holstering your weapon does not result in non-lethal moves, as there are 3 different neck snaps alone out of a possible 8 moves unarmed.
Even using heavy weapons and unsilenced weapons each have 1 neck snap for whatever reason. The demo actually had it 100% right in that there were no lethal moves for unsilenced/heavy weapons, but they added it to full game.

But even so, the guards recognize even a headbutt or hammerfist to back of the head(SC 1 style) as a kill.

[Jazz117Volkov]

Originally posted by stealth1276:

Holstering your weapon does not result in non-lethal moves, as there are 3 different neck snaps alone out of a possible 8 moves unarmed.
Funny thing about this is, we were promised pre-release that this wouldn't be the case.

[newhenpal]

Originally posted by Jazz_117:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stealth1276:

Holstering your weapon does not result in non-lethal moves, as there are 3 different neck snaps alone out of a possible 8 moves unarmed.
Funny thing about this is, we were promised pre-release that this wouldn't be the case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As well as there being no "voice in your head". Also funny is the fact that they cried about instantly failing missions by being spotted in their interviews, and yet they brought this back for a beginning of the 3E mission. Not that some true challenge was unwelcome in this game.

[Crucify Lucifer]

Well said. I myself enjoyed Conviction and really didn't start looking for flaws in it until I came on to these forums. Although I prefer the older games, Conviction was an interesting new experiment and if given the chance to evolve could turn out to be a master piece.

My only problem that can't be fixed in any of the next installments though is the flimsy story line. There were too many aspects of the plot that just turned it into a cliche 2nd rate hollywood styled game. The story continuously disappointed and took too many amateur turns for the worst.

[codenameeric]

Originally posted by Jazz_117:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stealth1276:

Holstering your weapon does not result in non-lethal moves, as there are 3 different neck snaps alone out of a possible 8 moves unarmed.
Funny thing about this is, we were promised pre-release that this wouldn't be the case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We were told a lot of stuff pre-release that wasn't true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[sam2000_290]

Originally posted by codenameeric:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jazz_117:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stealth1276:

Holstering your weapon does not result in non-lethal moves, as there are 3 different neck snaps alone out of a possible 8 moves unarmed.
Funny thing about this is, we were promised pre-release that this wouldn't be the case. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We were told a lot of stuff pre-release that wasn't true http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I guess maybe the game would be too brutal and too much. In one of the trailers, I see Sam using loud pistols to do shooting CQC moves. Like in the game, with the silenced pistols you do shooting CQC moves, like shooting to stomach, head, etc. In the trailers, they had the loud pistols performing these moves but are no longer there in the final game.

I think it was a good idea b/c it preserves the stealth. CQC moves are supposed to be quiet so they took out the ability to shoot CQC moves with loud pistols. However, it would have been cool.


For the holstering weapon non-lethal moves issue, I don't know what the dev was thinking.