Ubisoft respond to demo negativity 29/03/2010

[Shadowmask]

Take a look at his new interview where Ubisoft Montreal respond to the demo criticisms. Hopefully their answers will partially silence the demo critics.

INTERVIEW LINK HERE (http://www.msxbox-world.com/xbox360/features/article/413/Exclusive-Splinter-Cell-Conviction-Interview-with-Ubisoft-Montreal.html).

[Joshua Morrison]

The M&E question cracks me up... it takes a lot of timing and placement hahahahahhahahahahahhaha.... we will see about this.

[IIxXWRATHXxII]

I loved the the demo.

But I do admit it was pretty easy.

Hopefully it's true the difficulty will be a bit more challenging in the full retail version http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

[vagval]

The game will be fine and for all who want to play it in classic style and learn the routes and timings of the patrols and guards we still will so we can complete the game in 20 hours rather than 10 lol....Mark and execute is adding something more, rather than taking away...dont have to use it if dont want....relax ppl...

[GSR13]

According to the interview, lights cannot be M&E'd in the full game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Andre202]

They said it again expand the franchise, give more options but they removed the old features/options. I don't know what to think about the answer when they said they kept the things they loved.

I hope the AI is much more challenging in the final build.

[SplinterCell472]

M+E actually is a bit challenging if you think about it. I mean, when you mark an enemy, you have to time it right. Because they could go behind an object or something, screwing up your execute on them.

[DerSeeBaer]

Originally posted by SplinterCell472:
M+E actually is a bit challenging if you think about it.
So its challenging in theory, and that's the problem

[Joshua Morrison]

Originally posted by Andre202:
They said it again expand the franchise, give more options but they removed the old features/options. I don't know what to think about the answer when they said they kept the things they loved.

I hope the AI is much more challenging in the final build.
Yeah, they have made it clear if THEY didn't like it they took it out. "What are the values of Splinter Cell? From there we identified which ones we liked and didn't like and which ones we wanted to monitor," Beland. You posted the interview http://www.industrygamers.com/...l-has-been-too-hard/ (http://www.industrygamers.com/news/splinter-cell-conviction-director-splinter-cell-has-been-too-hard/)

They don't care about whats changed they did it for money, the made it faster so all the run and gun kids could play and beat the game. They figure if they can sell alot the first week who cares if no one remembers it after.

Edit: The answer that bothers me is “ruthless elite agent fantasy ". Beland I hate you... fantasy wtf... its a Tom Clancy game you have turned it into a hollywood movie... we(most of us) didn't want that.

[Blument]

"The difficulty level was tweaked to make the demo more accessible to a wider audience"

"We designed the demo with one main objective in mind: make it exciting and fun to play for as much people as possible; even for gamers who had never played Splinter Cell before but were into action games.
With that in mind, we adapted the level design (less enemies, more projected texts, tutorials) as well as the AI for this demo."



What's the point of having 3 difficulty settings then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I thought Rookie was accesible for everyone, I can't understand why they need to make Realistic easier for the demo if people can choose Rookie or Normal... what a lame excuse for the bad AI http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

[CoastalGirl]

Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
The M&E question cracks me up... it takes a lot of timing and placement hahahahahhahahahahahhaha.... we will see about this. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Well, in the demo it obviously doesn't, but I can picture situations when timing could be more important with M&E. If you had a pair of patrolling guys that move in and out of shadows, and a third that could see them both, but was out of range, having to time the M&E so you took them out while they were hidden from the third wouldn't be as easy (of course, the third guy should notice when the pair stopped patrolling...but whatever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).


The explanation for why features were removed still doesn't sound any better, though... I know they're trying, but honestly I'd rather that they just owned it instead of attempting to justify it (because they probably won't be able to convince those who are disappointed anyway; after playing more than a dozen L&S stealth games, I know what features I like).

[MKCC14]

There is nothing revolutionary about this game.

[Aveelo]

Originally posted by Shadowmask:
Take a look at his new interview where Ubisoft Montreal respond to the demo criticisms. Hopefully their answers will partially silence the demo critics.

INTERVIEW LINK HERE (http://www.msxbox-world.com/xbox360/features/article/413/Exclusive-Splinter-Cell-Conviction-Interview-with-Ubisoft-Montreal.html).

Ty For The Link


Originally posted by SmartBoi:
i second that. and another thing about the M&E is that it is not infinite. as you may know, you need to perform a hand-to-hand takedown to earn that ability. but what happens when you need the M&E in a certain situation (say taking out guards who are guarding a scientist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)? sure you can flash them and try to take them down AND THEN use your execute; however, the flash grenades effect lasts for quite long in the game (being sarcastic). you can say this is a run-and-gun game, but the fact of the matter is running-and-gunning = strong likelyhood of being killed.

I Agree



Originally posted by Blument: what a lame excuse for the bad AI http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Is Not A Excuse All Demo Are Easy

[SmartBoi]

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif Well, in the demo it obviously doesn't, but I can picture situations when timing could be more important with M&E. If you had a pair of patrolling guys that move in and out of shadows, and a third that could see them both, but was out of range, having to time the M&E so you took them out while they were hidden from the third wouldn't be as easy (of course, the third guy should notice when the pair stopped patrolling...but whatever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif).


The explanation for why features were removed still doesn't sound any better, though... I know they're trying, but honestly I'd rather that they just owned it instead of attempting to justify it (because they probably won't be able to convince those who are disappointed anyway; after playing more than a dozen L&S stealth games, I know what features I like).

i second that. and another thing about the M&E is that it is not infinite. as you may know, you need to perform a hand-to-hand takedown to earn that ability. but what happens when you need the M&E in a certain situation (say taking out guards who are guarding a scientist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)? sure you can flash them and try to take them down AND THEN use your execute; however, the flash grenades effect lasts for quite long in the game (being sarcastic). you can say this is a run-and-gun game, but the fact of the matter is running-and-gunning = strong likelyhood of being killed.

[Joshua Morrison]

Originally posted by SmartBoi:


i second that. and another thing about the M&E is that it is not infinite. as you may know, you need to perform a hand-to-hand takedown to earn that ability. but what happens when you need the M&E in a certain situation (say taking out guards who are guarding a scientist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif)? sure you can flash them and try to take them down AND THEN use your execute; however, the flash grenades effect lasts for quite long in the game (being sarcastic). you can say this is a run-and-gun game, but the fact of the matter is running-and-gunning = strong likelyhood of being killed.
Are we still talking about Splinter Cell..??? Sorry I will stop. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[SmartBoi]

Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
Are we still talking about Splinter Cell..??? Sorry I will stop. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

yes we are. why are you asking? a game that would most likely be classified as run-and-gun are the james bond games and the bourne conspiracy. splinter cell: conviction is NOT that game.

[Xx_Redex_xX]

M&E line cracks me up too.

We all know a game company wont speak ill about any aspect of their game before its even on shelves but come on for the sake of dignity don't try and tell us using M&E is a skillful process...

and then possibly later go onto say:

We weren't happy with how easy ______ was in this new Splinter Cell we've changed it this time around.

[Joshua Morrison]

Originally posted by SmartBoi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
Are we still talking about Splinter Cell..??? Sorry I will stop. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

yes we are. why are you asking? a game that would most likely be classified as run-and-gun are the james bond games and the bourne conspiracy. splinter cell: conviction is NOT that game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The game you just describe was a run-and-gun game. Melee a guy then run in and M&E everyone... Splinter Cell isn't even about killing. Play the old ones killing is frowned upon. I know you are going to revert back to Sam doesn't work for the government anymore... then why is this game called Splinter Cell? If he isn't a Splinter Cell, you don't play like a Splinter Cell, then why? Why not start a new franchise? You really dropped the ball Ubisoft but this is what I should expect look at Vegas and Future Solider... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

[Aveelo]

Originally posted by Xx_Redex_xX:
and then possibly later go onto say:

We weren't happy with how easy ______ was in this new Splinter Cell we've changed it this time around.

No For Me Splinter Cell Conviction Are Best Game On World

[Blument]

Originally posted by Aveelo:

Is Not A Excuse All Demo Are Easy

Oh, right, you have explained to me the point of having 3 difficulty settings, including Rookie, to appeal a wider audience than previous SCs and then make the 3 modes even easier to appeal a wider audience.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense now. And hardcore gamers don't play demos, so they are not part of that 'wider audience' and the Realistic mode doesn't need to be Realistic at all, right? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

[Xx_Redex_xX]

Didn't they originally say there would be no "easy" (rookie) difficulty in the first place?

[Joshua Morrison]

Originally posted by Xx_Redex_xX:
Didn't they originally say there would be no "easy" (rookie) difficulty in the first place?
Yeah Beland said something like "Normal!(correcting the interviewer) There is no easy in Splinter Cell."

[RaulO4]

AI needs better eyes
the B/W is bad an option to remove it
it will help out the game because it looks good...
the DETECTED an option for that too
it has uses for other people but for some it no good...i dont wanna know if i was close of being seen,,,it will add Tension to the game which i fill it does not have anymore-----IMO

just a few easy fixes to largely improve the game


M&E can be abused as seen by your hands at the new SP gameplay video by GameStop

plus all of this can be fix with an update!!


just a few edges to remove Devs too improve on a good game...
but hopefully in sc6 you bring back everything

[Aveelo]

To All Hater Of The Game You Have No More Argument Stop To Hate Game Now And Game Is Now Gold

[coltcat]

most of time the devs trying to communicate with gamers, they end up with failure.
most of their answers are just telling players how this game are NOT going to be like our expecting.
the M&E, the body-carrying ,the distractions, they have tons of crappy excuse for everything they done that made we unsatisfied.

that M&E part just so fking stupid. i mean WTF? thats what I would do with the M&E most! run in a room and shoot the lights out quickly. and trying to get through the NPCs and remain unseen by everybody before they figure out wats happening.
now we can only headshot ppl and landing crates on them.

yea, I'm sam fisher, I can use guns properly to take out 3 armed enemies whos trying to kill me, but not the static light ball.

devs should stop announce all those thing that makes disappointment , and just publish the game. than I'll found out I got robbed AFTER I paid my 60 bucks. sorta like what happened after I got the DA. at least they got my money first.

[CoastalGirl]

Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xx_Redex_xX:
Didn't they originally say there would be no "easy" (rookie) difficulty in the first place? Yeah Beland said something like "Normal!(correcting the interviewer) There is no easy in Splinter Cell." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That was a while ago, though. If the normal setting wasn't easy enough (my guess is that they want it to be so easy that you can pretty much just play for the story and not have to worry about dying...though Deadly Premonition described their "easy" that way and it's a complete lie - their spontaneous QTEs are not that easy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif), so they added another that was more forgiving.

Anyway, I don't care how easy the "easy" is, I care how difficult the "realistic" is.

[Blument]

Originally posted by Aveelo:
To All Hater Of The Game You Have No More Argument Stop To Hate Game Now And Game Is Now Gold

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


Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
Anyway, I don't care how easy the "easy" is, I care how difficult the "realistic" is.

Same here, I don't care if the game has Easy, Very Easy or wathever, that's fine for some players. The problem is that the Realistic mode doesn't seem to be realistic/hard at all (and I'm not talking about the position of the enemies)
And the answer given in the interview doesn't make any sense to me.

[wieetsguy]

I was just as excited about Double Agent as Aveelo is now about Conviction. I defended the game on all kinds of forums and was surprised when some guy said the game would not match up Chaos Theory. I was seriously excited about the game and even all the minute details such as the shades Sam can wear in Africa. I had pre-ordered the game like 5 months before release. I just couldn't understand how they could go wrong when all the previews and such looked so good, the "new approach" looked very good and I had faith in Ubisoft.

Well, we all know what it turned out to be.

[CoastalGirl]

Originally posted by Blument:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
Anyway, I don't care how easy the "easy" is, I care how difficult the "realistic" is.

Same here, I don't care if the game has Easy, Very Easy or wathever, that's fine for some players. The problem is that the Realistic mode doesn't seem to be realistic/hard at all (and I'm not talking about the position of the enemies)
And the answer given in the interview doesn't make any sense to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>When they first described the "realistic" difficulty, it sounded pretty good - one-two shots and you're dead. It does seem to be that way if you're right next to the enemies, but at a distance it's very forgiving (too forgiving, IMO).

I was curious about their "less enemies" line, though... Does that mean that the demo has fewer enemies than the normal level? Because, to me, for a stealth game and for the size of the map, the demo's already pretty crowded.

[Xx_Redex_xX]

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blument:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
Anyway, I don't care how easy the "easy" is, I care how difficult the "realistic" is.

Same here, I don't care if the game has Easy, Very Easy or wathever, that's fine for some players. The problem is that the Realistic mode doesn't seem to be realistic/hard at all (and I'm not talking about the position of the enemies)
And the answer given in the interview doesn't make any sense to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>When they first described the "realistic" difficulty, it sounded pretty good - one-two shots and you're dead. It does seem to be that way if you're right next to the enemies, but at a distance it's very forgiving (too forgiving, IMO).

I was curious about their "less enemies" line, though... Does that mean that the demo has fewer enemies than the normal level? Because, to me, for a stealth game and for the size of the map, the demo's already pretty crowded. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking that as well. If their idea of a challenge on realistic is x amount more enemies it makes me wonder if any aspect of stealth will even be possible if its gonna be over the top like 12 in a small room.

3 at the door 3 at the exit 3 in the middle and 3 patrolling for good measure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

[SmartBoi]

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
When they first described the "realistic" difficulty, it sounded pretty good - one-two shots and you're dead. It does seem to be that way if you're right next to the enemies, but at a distance it's very forgiving (too forgiving, IMO).

I was curious about their "less enemies" line, though... Does that mean that the demo has fewer enemies than the normal level? Because, to me, for a stealth game and for the size of the map, the demo's already pretty crowded.

you are right. the enemy layout will be different, and there will possibly be more enemies. i will say this, the enemies we will encounter on this mission in the full game will most likely be more challenging than that of the demo version.

[arandomhero1117]

The Demo was more of a marketing tool than anything. Specifically making it easier for people to play and get through it and wanting more.

[Aveelo]

Originally posted by arandomhero1117:
The Demo was more of a marketing tool than anything. Specifically making it easier for people to play and get through it and wanting more. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif I Agree

[MiniAssasin]

seeing as my only gripe was the ai i'm happy they said they dumbed it down for the demo to appeal to more people and draw people in. makes sense as a marketing standpoint.

hope its true

as for this whole mark and execute thing you guys keep whining about i really don't get why its an issue when you don't have to use it.

[SmartBoi]

Originally posted by arandomhero1117:
The Demo was more of a marketing tool than anything. Specifically making it easier for people to play and get through it and wanting more.

based on the number of times i have played the demo, i second that lol.

[arandomhero1117]

Originally posted by SmartBoi:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by arandomhero1117:
The Demo was more of a marketing tool than anything. Specifically making it easier for people to play and get through it and wanting more.

based on the number of times i have played the demo, i second that lol. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


6th most played game on xbox...yea i think it worked

[SmartBoi]

Originally posted by arandomhero1117:
6th most played game on xbox...yea i think it worked

since this is only A DEMO, imagine the full version of the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif.

[Joshua Morrison]

Originally posted by wieetsguy:
I was just as excited about Double Agent as Aveelo is now about Conviction. I defended the game on all kinds of forums and was surprised when some guy said the game would not match up Chaos Theory. I was seriously excited about the game and even all the minute details such as the shades Sam can wear in Africa. I had pre-ordered the game like 5 months before release. I just couldn't understand how they could go wrong when all the previews and such looked so good, the "new approach" looked very good and I had faith in Ubisoft.

Well, we all know what it turned out to be.
I was on the fence with DA, I still trusted Ubisoft, and we all know how that turned out.

[MiniAssasin]

what was wrong with double agent?

[SmartBoi]

Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wieetsguy:
I was just as excited about Double Agent as Aveelo is now about Conviction. I defended the game on all kinds of forums and was surprised when some guy said the game would not match up Chaos Theory. I was seriously excited about the game and even all the minute details such as the shades Sam can wear in Africa. I had pre-ordered the game like 5 months before release. I just couldn't understand how they could go wrong when all the previews and such looked so good, the "new approach" looked very good and I had faith in Ubisoft.

Well, we all know what it turned out to be.
I was on the fence with DA, I still trusted Ubisoft, and we all know how that turned out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Double Agent was given a 9 out of 10 from OXM. the difference with conviction was that it has been in the making for MANY years. the demo is only a demo. and for the demo to be the 6th played game on xbox, that goes to show you that the game will likely be a bestseller.

[Mr.E.Bear]

Jesus Christ Aveelo shut up, people can post opinions... regardless if they differ from yours..

Interview was bullcrap, what's the point of difficulty settings if they're all made purposefully easier?

And as for "Also, don’t forget that you have to earn Execute tokens to pull off an M&E and this can often be easier said than done."

Not really Ubi, because the guard layout, for the demo atleast, ALWAYS gives you one guy away from the other two, and all the groups are groups of three, with a spare loner (Window/door man and hallway man) it;s ridiculously easy to get a token.

Hope this changes for the retail game, pretty dirty trick of Ubis if it doesn't

[ryanwag]

This game is pathetic now..the interview just shows that they were pandering to themselves with game features instead of the die hard fans of the series.
The game has been due out forever now, and now we get a half assed game full of action? they just threw this game together quick as heck to make a buck off the name

[SmartBoi]

Originally posted by Mr.E.Bear:
Jesus Christ Aveelo shut up, people can post opinions... regardless if they differ from yours..

Interview was bullcrap, what's the point of difficulty settings if they're all made purposefully easier?

And as for "Also, don’t forget that you have to earn Execute tokens to pull off an M&E and this can often be easier said than done."

Not really Ubi, because the guard layout, for the demo atleast, ALWAYS gives you one guy away from the other two, and all the groups are groups of three, with a spare loner (Window/door man and hallway man) it;s ridiculously easy to get a token.

Hope this changes for the retail game, pretty dirty trick of Ubis if it doesn't

you are correct. the demo does that, but the game will most likely NOT be like that. based on the video gameplay i have seen, there will be areas where guards are together, and no SINGLE guard for you to take down. that's why ubisoft said you will be able to create distractions in the environment (i.e. car alarms, stick cameras, shooting lights, shooting pots, etc.).

[SmartBoi]

Originally posted by Aveelo:
You And Your Hater Team Shut up Man Is A Forums Here No A Spam Forums

can we please keep the discussion civil? thank you. i take offense to some of the language being used by critics of the game. if you disagree, post you're reason as to why. but please, stop placing out these talking points the "darksiders" use to persuade true fans of the series to not get the game.

[Shadowmask]

I was thinking that as well. If their idea of a challenge on realistic is x amount more enemies it makes me wonder if any aspect of stealth will even be possible if its gonna be over the top like 12 in a small room.

3 at the door 3 at the exit 3 in the middle and 3 patrolling for good measure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

I like those kind of odds. I think there's walkthrough video of the same level from TGS 09 which has the guard you need to interrogate in this level.

[Powerslave01]

Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
what was wrong with double agent?
Hey, man, I know what you're saying! I loved Double Agent on the xBox 360! I still play it, I play it's SvM when I'm bored, or anything. Some of those missions just kept me coming back. Never feel that way about CT (WHICH was a fine game).
I don't see what was so bad save maybe the inventory navigation.

[Aveelo]

Originally posted by SmartBoi:
can we please keep the discussion civil? thank you. i take offense to some of the language being used by critics of the game. if you disagree, post you're reason as to why. but please, stop placing out these talking points the "darksiders" use to persuade true fans of the series to not get the game.

I Am Sry http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

[altair2nd]

WTF?!

Why would they remove the ability to mark lights?

[Powerslave01]

Originally posted by altair2nd:
WTF?!

Why would they remove the ability to mark lights?
So people stop saying the game plays itself, and to increase difficulty. If you shoot the light, then 2 other guys, no one knows where you are. Kinda abusive.

[RaulO4]

Originally posted by altair2nd:
WTF?!

Why would they remove the ability to mark lights? yea i dont know
that is what i was going to use it for

well maybe because it help out on stealth and not killing anyone lol
jk

[CoJ_Fan_87]

Ubi's pathetic excuse for an explanation regarding the various demo criticisms makes me even more confident that boycotting SCC is the right thing to do.

[arandomhero1117]

Originally posted by altair2nd:
WTF?!

Why would they remove the ability to mark lights?

Why not shoot the light manually then Execute?

[altair2nd]

Originally posted by Powerslave01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by altair2nd:
WTF?!

Why would they remove the ability to mark lights?
So people stop saying the game plays itself, and to increase difficulty. If you shoot the light, then 2 other guys, no one knows where you are. Kinda abusive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's true. I probably wasn't going to use it alot anyway.




Originally posted by CoJ_Fan_87:
Ubi's pathetic excuse for an explanation regarding the various demo criticisms makes me even more confident that boycotting SCC is the right thing to do. Have fun doing that pal.

[H.A.R.M.s]

We designed the demo with one main objective in mind: make it exciting and fun to play for as much people as possible; even for gamers who had never played Splinter Cell before but were into action games. With that in mind, we adapted the level design (less enemies, more projected texts, tutorials) as well as the AI for this demo to meet this objective.

What's the secret message behind this, that action oriented gamers are stupid and immature? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Explanation

Stupid - they admit that they've dumbed down demo (although I seriously doubt that it's just demo thing) just for action junkies.

Immature - there're difficulty levels, if someone can't play Splinter Cell stealthy, he/she can always change level suitable to their skills. I, for instance, suck at playing FPSs with controller (mouse/keyboard are different thing). And I don't feel ashamed with lowering difficulty level to my skills. And I think that game shouldn't be easier so that I can be smug for beating it at the highest level.

On the other side, demo could vividly represent what many of us are talking for ages: Conviction is simply easy. And Ubi's just trying to "hide bodies in the closet".

No, wait, that ability is gone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[RaulO4]

HARMs lol good one
"oh wait that ability is gone"

nice one


off topic:
a did something happen to shadow??
i have not seen one of his post for a good time...
can someone tell me if he may or may not been ban? <<<<<<<<i hope not>>>>>>>>>>

[zachbooth]

Well im glad to hear about the difficulty getting harder in the full game, I can't wait for this game! I'm really looking forward to goin AGAINST other Splinter Cells, I hope that part works out "right" for me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

PS All of you that say your boycotting the game, can you just boycott the forum too, while you're at it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

[CELLGHOST206]

Look at the original splinter cell, great game! Then look at Pandora, almost a carbon copy of the first just different scenarios ( Not including the greatest multiplayer ever!!) Then comes Chaos theory awesome game 9.9/10 on OXM. Double Agent comes out and is also like Pandora, near carbon copy. Conviction breathes new life into the series. Don't get me wrong I loved all the Splinter Cells but it WAS TIME FOR A CHANGE. Call me a blasphemer if you want but the one thing I can't stand is a complete rehash of the same stuff I payed for years ago.

[Stealthmaster86]

Originally posted by CELLGHOST206:
Look at the original splinter cell, great game! Then look at Pandora, almost a carbon copy of the first just different scenarios ( Not including the greatest multiplayer ever!!) Then comes Chaos theory awesome game 9.9/10 on OXM. Double Agent comes out and is also like Pandora, near carbon copy. Conviction breathes new life into the series. Don't get me wrong I loved all the Splinter Cells but it WAS TIME FOR A CHANGE. Call me a blasphemer if you want but the one thing I can't stand is a complete rehash of the same stuff I payed for years ago.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif This is the third Splinter Cell game Ubisoft Montreal made. The other two are the first Splinter Cell and Chaos Theory...

[xXassassinXx92]

Let's see what Shanghai does http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif. Even though they probably aren't working on SC6.

[prec0gnative]

Originally posted by Stealthmaster86:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CELLGHOST206:
Look at the original splinter cell, great game! Then look at Pandora, almost a carbon copy of the first just different scenarios ( Not including the greatest multiplayer ever!!) Then comes Chaos theory awesome game 9.9/10 on OXM. Double Agent comes out and is also like Pandora, near carbon copy. Conviction breathes new life into the series. Don't get me wrong I loved all the Splinter Cells but it WAS TIME FOR A CHANGE. Call me a blasphemer if you want but the one thing I can't stand is a complete rehash of the same stuff I payed for years ago.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif This is the third Splinter Cell game Ubisoft Montreal made. The other two are the first Splinter Cell and Chaos Theory... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wholly agree. Besides the game is in good hands, I have no doubt that this game will be received with praise.

[ClingingMars]

Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wieetsguy:
I was just as excited about Double Agent as Aveelo is now about Conviction. I defended the game on all kinds of forums and was surprised when some guy said the game would not match up Chaos Theory. I was seriously excited about the game and even all the minute details such as the shades Sam can wear in Africa. I had pre-ordered the game like 5 months before release. I just couldn't understand how they could go wrong when all the previews and such looked so good, the "new approach" looked very good and I had faith in Ubisoft.

Well, we all know what it turned out to be.
I was on the fence with DA, I still trusted Ubisoft, and we all know how that turned out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

DA was good...as long as you played the Original Xbox version

as for the demo, I think we've exhausted discussion on the topic...drawing anything more from the demo is pointless. It's a waiting game now, and Just Cause 2 is certainly helping me out in that regard http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[FrankieSatt]

That interview didn't do anything to convince me of anything.

Conviction is not a Splinter Cell game, no matter how many times people say it.

This incompetent dev team have ruined everything that was great in Splinter Cell. Splinter Cell never has been, and never will be, fast paced.

The devs are trying to push this crap off as a Splinter Cell game and it just isn't going to fly for those of us who actually have played, and enjoyed, previous Splinter Cell games.

I wouldn't believe anyone that was "Frustrated" with previous Splinter Cell games, like this whole dev team has said they were.

[stavros_27]

The xbox version of DA was horrible and I don't get why people like it at all. You can tell that Montreal had a small team work on it while the big team was fast to work on Conviction at that time. The graphics somehow looked worse than Chaos Theory. The gameplay and level design were very poor compared to the 360.

I am thinking that the only reason people here liked the Xbox version was because there were more shadows. The game can be boring, archaic, uninspired, and look bad, but as long as there are shadows people here will love it. When DA made some of the best levels of the series, those same people turn the other way and plug their ears.

[stavros_27]

Hey Frankie, don't forget that the incompetent dev team that created SC and SCCT was responsible for homeless Sam beating people up in restaurants and throwing laptops in plain daylight, which caused a 2 year delay to actually get Conviction on the right track.

This dev team saved Conviction from becoming a total debacle.

[JSaint777]

Originally posted by stavros_27:
The xbox version of DA was horrible and I don't get why people like it at all. You can tell that Montreal had a small team work on it while the big team was fast to work on Conviction at that time. The graphics somehow looked worse than Chaos Theory. The gameplay and level design were very poor compared to the 360.

I am thinking that the only reason people here liked the Xbox version was because there were more shadows. The game can be boring, archaic, uninspired, and look bad, but as long as there are shadows people here will love it. When DA made some of the best levels of the series, those same people turn the other way and plug their ears.

Last gen DA had Chaos Theory's gameplay. That's why we love it. It looked a little worse, yes, but that's because it didn't receive the same polish time that CT was given. Still, they tried new things while keeping the best gameplay of the series there.

DA 360 strayed too far from the formula in too many ways to satisfy the hardcore fans. Sam was clunky to control, the game was a little buggy (not a buggy mess. People need to stop saying that), the level design was lazy and boring (JBA missions), and the story was really bad. Last gen's version took the same story and actually told it well.

That's why we love it.

[Aveelo]

Originally posted by stavros_27:
Hey Frankie, don't forget that the incompetent dev team that created SC and SCCT was responsible for homeless Sam beating people up in restaurants and throwing laptops in plain daylight, which caused a 2 year delay to actually get Conviction on the right track.

This dev team saved Conviction from becoming a total debacle. I Agree

[CoJ_Fan_87]

u know sumthing? ubisoft is a pretty cool guy. he kills franchises and doesn't afraid of hardcore fans.

[Iservealot]

Originally posted by JSaint777:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stavros_27:
The xbox version of DA was horrible and I don't get why people like it at all. You can tell that Montreal had a small team work on it while the big team was fast to work on Conviction at that time. The graphics somehow looked worse than Chaos Theory. The gameplay and level design were very poor compared to the 360.

I am thinking that the only reason people here liked the Xbox version was because there were more shadows. The game can be boring, archaic, uninspired, and look bad, but as long as there are shadows people here will love it. When DA made some of the best levels of the series, those same people turn the other way and plug their ears.

Last gen DA had Chaos Theory's gameplay. That's why we love it. It looked a little worse, yes, but that's because it didn't receive the same polish time that CT was given. Still, they tried new things while keeping the best gameplay of the series there.

DA 360 strayed too far from the formula in too many ways to satisfy the hardcore fans. Sam was clunky to control, the game was a little buggy (not a buggy mess. People need to stop saying that), the level design was lazy and boring (JBA missions), and the story was really bad. Last gen's version took the same story and actually told it well.

That's why we love it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No no, rest assured. DA was a buddy mess when it came to code.

[JSaint777]

Originally posted by CoJ_Fan_87:
u know sumthing? ubisoft is a pretty cool guy. he kills franchises and doesn't afraid of hardcore fans.

Uh..... what?


No no, rest assured. DA was a buddy mess when it came to code

PC yes. Xbox 360 was not a buggy mess. It could have used more polish, but time isn't always your friend in the corporate world.

[Joshua Morrison]

Originally posted by JSaint777:


Last gen DA had Chaos Theory's gameplay. That's why we love it. It looked a little worse, yes, but that's because it didn't receive the same polish time that CT was given. Still, they tried new things while keeping the best gameplay of the series there.

DA 360 strayed too far from the formula in too many ways to satisfy the hardcore fans. Sam was clunky to control, the game was a little buggy (not a buggy mess. People need to stop saying that), the level design was lazy and boring (JBA missions), and the story was really bad. Last gen's version took the same story and actually told it well.

That's why we love it.
To satisfy hardcore fans???? DA on 360 sucked because they tried to make it more mainstream, story wise especially. The day light missions did ruin DA for me, along with the horrible story and the fact it did nothing to improve on CTs gameplay.

[JSaint777]

Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSaint777:


Last gen DA had Chaos Theory's gameplay. That's why we love it. It looked a little worse, yes, but that's because it didn't receive the same polish time that CT was given. Still, they tried new things while keeping the best gameplay of the series there.

DA 360 strayed too far from the formula in too many ways to satisfy the hardcore fans. Sam was clunky to control, the game was a little buggy (not a buggy mess. People need to stop saying that), the level design was lazy and boring (JBA missions), and the story was really bad. Last gen's version took the same story and actually told it well.

That's why we love it.
To satisfy hardcore fans???? DA on 360 sucked because they tried to make it more mainstream, story wise especially. The day light missions did ruin DA along with the horrible story and the fact it added nothing to CT gameplay... well at least nothing positive. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aaaaaaand that's basically what I just said. Only I made it a little nicer.

[ClingingMars]

Originally posted by JSaint777:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CoJ_Fan_87:
u know sumthing? ubisoft is a pretty cool guy. he kills franchises and doesn't afraid of hardcore fans.

Uh..... what?


No no, rest assured. DA was a buddy mess when it came to code

PC yes. Xbox 360 was not a buggy mess. It could have used more polish, but time isn't always your friend in the corporate world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first quote is a meme you wouldn't understand. also someone being a *******.

I played my OX copy of DA yesterday and loved it. Great game.

[Joshua Morrison]

Originally posted by JSaint777:

Aaaaaaand that's basically what I just said. Only I made it a little nicer.

Oooo I misread it sorry... ps be meaner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

[altair2nd]

The old gen version of DA is awesome, definitely not as good as chaos theory, but it's still amazing.

[JSaint777]

Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSaint777:

Aaaaaaand that's basically what I just said. Only I made it a little nicer.

Oooo I misread it sorry... ps be meaner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry. I'm just a nice guy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

[altair2nd]

Originally posted by JSaint777:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSaint777:

Aaaaaaand that's basically what I just said. Only I made it a little nicer.

Oooo I misread it sorry... ps be meaner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry. I'm just a nice guy. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Which is a good thing, lets keep it that way please.

[Shadowmask]

Originally posted by FrankieSatt:
That interview didn't do anything to convince me of anything.

Conviction is not a Splinter Cell game, no matter how many times people say it.

This incompetent dev team have ruined everything that was great in Splinter Cell. Splinter Cell never has been, and never will be, fast paced.

The devs are trying to push this crap off as a Splinter Cell game and it just isn't going to fly for those of us who actually have played, and enjoyed, previous Splinter Cell games.

I wouldn't believe anyone that was "Frustrated" with previous Splinter Cell games, like this whole dev team has said they were.

What you on about? Just because a few and yes I mean a few forum heads don't like something, doesn't mean you talk on behalf of everyone else.

I am a hardcore SC fan, and I don't share your views at all, so stop with the generalizations.

Also who made you the dictator as to what should and shouldn't be in a Splinter Cell game? Get over yourself will you, calling the developers incompetent just shows how arrogant and pathetic you are.

[MiniAssasin]

Originally posted by Shadowmask:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FrankieSatt:
That interview didn't do anything to convince me of anything.

Conviction is not a Splinter Cell game, no matter how many times people say it.

This incompetent dev team have ruined everything that was great in Splinter Cell. Splinter Cell never has been, and never will be, fast paced.

The devs are trying to push this crap off as a Splinter Cell game and it just isn't going to fly for those of us who actually have played, and enjoyed, previous Splinter Cell games.

I wouldn't believe anyone that was "Frustrated" with previous Splinter Cell games, like this whole dev team has said they were.

What you on about? Just because a few and yes I mean a few forum heads don't like something, doesn't mean you talk on behalf of everyone else.

I am a hardcore SC fan, and I don't share your views at all, so stop with the generalizations.

Also who made you the dictator as to what should and shouldn't be in a Splinter Cell game? Get over yourself will you, calling the developers incompetent just shows how arrogant and pathetic you are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah i am probably one of those people who was frustrated with the older games. controls were so cunky and slow. Never really felt like a proper game.

[FrankieSatt]

Originally posted by stavros_27:
Hey Frankie, don't forget that the incompetent dev team that created SC and SCCT was responsible for homeless Sam beating people up in restaurants and throwing laptops in plain daylight, which caused a 2 year delay to actually get Conviction on the right track.

This dev team saved Conviction from becoming a total debacle.

We only saw maybe 10 screenshots and a couple of 2 minute videos of the '07 Build. I for one would have rather had seen more of that before tossing it out for the crap we have now.

However, I'll take your premise for the moment that the '07 Build was crap. Replacing Crap with Crap = Crap.

The '07 build at least had stealth as a major component, and it was called "Social Stealth". I have no problems with a "Hobo Sam", since Sam is supposed to be on the run from Third Echelon, not looking like a model from J. Crew. We didn't see enough of the '07 Build to make an accurate assumption and Ubi caved in. We have Conviction because of the people who complained about the '07 Build.

As far as Double Agent on the XBox 360, it had its flaws but it's still head over heels better than anything I've seen in Conviction so far. The last gen version of Double Agent was more along the lines of previous Splinter Cell games and that one was fun as well, even though it had it's flaws as well.

They at least TRIED to make a Stealth First game with Double Agent and with the '07 Build of Conviction. This incompetent Dev Team didn't even give it a thought with this current version of Conviction.

[icenutzz]

What did anyone expect from an interview like that? Ubi to say the messed up? They regret their decisions when making this game? They will back the game up and defend it until the end. That is what you do. Certainly doesn't mean anyone should agree.

To say thus dev team saved Conviction from being a debacle is a matter of opinion. What they did in my opinion is go the safe route in making a mainstream action game.

[MKCC14]

Originally posted by Aveelo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stavros_27:
Hey Frankie, don't forget that the incompetent dev team that created SC and SCCT was responsible for homeless Sam beating people up in restaurants and throwing laptops in plain daylight, which caused a 2 year delay to actually get Conviction on the right track.

This dev team saved Conviction from becoming a total debacle. I Agree </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not really, the old build didnt have M&E and LKP which came from the R6V devs that came over to this project after Ferland got replaced.

[SilencedScream0]

Originally posted by icenutzz:
What did anyone expect from an interview like that? Ubi to say the messed up? They regret their decisions when making this game? They will back the game up and defend it until the end. That is what you do. Certainly doesn't mean anyone should agree.

To say thus dev team saved Conviction from being a debacle is a matter of opinion. What they did in my opinion is go the safe route in making a mainstream action game.

Yeah, no one on the team is going to bash the game that spent so long in production.

As for your second point, I don't think it was so much for the "safe route" as it was to make money. Everyone's been favoring the faster paced games (God of War, Call of Duty, Mass Effect, Gears of War), so they mainstream the game in order to attract that audience and to get more sales.

People (not you, necessarily) tend to forget that video game developers are working - as in they're doing a job. They're getting paid. And to keep getting paid, they've got to produce games that people will buy. Not necessarily good quality or long lasting games...just games that attract people.

Unfortunately, slow-paced methodical approaches aren't mainstream and won't fetch quite as much money.

[Joshua Morrison]

Originally posted by Shadowmask:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FrankieSatt:
That interview didn't do anything to convince me of anything.

Conviction is not a Splinter Cell game, no matter how many times people say it.

This incompetent dev team have ruined everything that was great in Splinter Cell. Splinter Cell never has been, and never will be, fast paced.

The devs are trying to push this crap off as a Splinter Cell game and it just isn't going to fly for those of us who actually have played, and enjoyed, previous Splinter Cell games.

I wouldn't believe anyone that was "Frustrated" with previous Splinter Cell games, like this whole dev team has said they were.

What you on about? Just because a few and yes I mean a few forum heads don't like something, doesn't mean you talk on behalf of everyone else.

I am a hardcore SC fan, and I don't share your views at all, so stop with the generalizations.

Also who made you the dictator as to what should and shouldn't be in a Splinter Cell game? Get over yourself will you, calling the developers incompetent just shows how arrogant and pathetic you are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There a lot of other fans that are upset about the direction just because they didn't stay on the forums doesn't mean every one love Convictions and instead of name calling how about you actually argue against him?

[icenutzz]

Originally posted by SilencedScream0:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by icenutzz:
What did anyone expect from an interview like that? Ubi to say the messed up? They regret their decisions when making this game? They will back the game up and defend it until the end. That is what you do. Certainly doesn't mean anyone should agree.

To say thus dev team saved Conviction from being a debacle is a matter of opinion. What they did in my opinion is go the safe route in making a mainstream action game.

Yeah, no one on the team is going to bash the game that spent so long in production.

As for your second point, I don't think it was so much for the "safe route" as it was to make money. Everyone's been favoring the faster paced games (God of War, Call of Duty, Mass Effect, Gears of War), so they mainstream the game in order to attract that audience and to get more sales.

People (not you, necessarily) tend to forget that video game developers are working - as in they're doing a job. They're getting paid. And to keep getting paid, they've got to produce games that people will buy. Not necessarily good quality or long lasting games...just games that attract people.

Unfortunately, slow-paced methodical approaches aren't mainstream and won't fetch quite as much money. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree on money aspect.

The COD games have made a killing on scripted action sequences in their games and it doesn't even feel like I am playing. The interrogation scene in the demo felt the same way as did Mark and Execute. Anything where you just watch, even if it is bad *** looking, isn't playing in my opinion.

[MiniAssasin]

i don't quite get how the 07 build is more attractive to the guy on page 4 when the gameplay we saw was him causing chaos to distract guards and to throw and punch and run and gun basically.

at least with this build they have kept the way the game plays and feels.

a few gadgets and a slight fluidity and speed up of his actions doesn't equate to 'not a splinter cell'

[SilencedScream0]

Originally posted by icenutzz:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SilencedScream0:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by icenutzz:
What did anyone expect from an interview like that? Ubi to say the messed up? They regret their decisions when making this game? They will back the game up and defend it until the end. That is what you do. Certainly doesn't mean anyone should agree.

To say thus dev team saved Conviction from being a debacle is a matter of opinion. What they did in my opinion is go the safe route in making a mainstream action game.

Yeah, no one on the team is going to bash the game that spent so long in production.

As for your second point, I don't think it was so much for the "safe route" as it was to make money. Everyone's been favoring the faster paced games (God of War, Call of Duty, Mass Effect, Gears of War), so they mainstream the game in order to attract that audience and to get more sales.

People (not you, necessarily) tend to forget that video game developers are working - as in they're doing a job. They're getting paid. And to keep getting paid, they've got to produce games that people will buy. Not necessarily good quality or long lasting games...just games that attract people.

Unfortunately, slow-paced methodical approaches aren't mainstream and won't fetch quite as much money. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree on money aspect.

The COD games have made a killing on scripted action sequences in their games and it doesn't even feel like I am playing. The interrogation scene in the demo felt the same way as did Mark and Execute. Anything where you just watch, even if it is bad *** looking, isn't playing in my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

May as well be paying for a $60 movie?



Originally posted by MiniAssasin:
i don't quite get how the 07 build is more attractive to the guy on page 4 when the gameplay we saw was him causing chaos to distract guards and to throw and punch and run and gun basically.

at least with this build they have kept the way the game plays and feels.

a few gadgets and a slight fluidity and speed up of his actions doesn't equate to 'not a splinter cell'

I personally don't like the '07 build anymore than I like this one. The game doesn't quite feel the same way. Previously, I was afraid of getting caught at risk of getting slaughtered by gunfire. I felt the need to be strategic.

I can run and gun (minus the gunning - I can run around and use TAKEDOWNS) on realistic in the demo and still survive.
Even for a demo, this worries me greatly.
There is no longer a need for strategy. Strategy has now become optional for Splinter Cell.

[Shadowmask]

Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:

There a lot of other fans that are upset about the direction just because they didn't stay on the forums doesn't mean every one love Convictions and instead of name calling how about you actually argue against him?

A lot of fans on message boards who are vocal, but their numbers in terms of who actually buys the games are insignificant.

I'm also not here to argue with anyone, especially when they have the audacity to proclaim developers as 'incompetent'. This clearly highlights a person with whom one cannot argue or reason with, because they feel like they are the end voice for the Splinter Cell series - and that includes placing their own opinions/ideas above those of the developers. A classic case of, the gamer knows better than the developer syndrome. I've not called anyone any names, but have deemed his stance as 'arrogant and pathetic' which I stand by.

[Tim1249]

Originally posted by wieetsguy:
I was just as excited about Double Agent as Aveelo is now about Conviction. I defended the game on all kinds of forums and was surprised when some guy said the game would not match up Chaos Theory. I was seriously excited about the game and even all the minute details such as the shades Sam can wear in Africa. I had pre-ordered the game like 5 months before release. I just couldn't understand how they could go wrong when all the previews and such looked so good, the "new approach" looked very good and I had faith in Ubisoft.

Well, we all know what it turned out to be.

See this is what I don't get.

People always say DA is rubbish and I don't understand why...

You can play it as stealthy as the other ones, and on hardest difficulty you don't have ammo for guns, and die really easily.

Whats not to like??

[SilencedScream0]

Originally posted by Tim1249:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wieetsguy:
I was just as excited about Double Agent as Aveelo is now about Conviction. I defended the game on all kinds of forums and was surprised when some guy said the game would not match up Chaos Theory. I was seriously excited about the game and even all the minute details such as the shades Sam can wear in Africa. I had pre-ordered the game like 5 months before release. I just couldn't understand how they could go wrong when all the previews and such looked so good, the "new approach" looked very good and I had faith in Ubisoft.

Well, we all know what it turned out to be.

See this is what I don't get.

People always say DA is rubbish and I don't understand why...

You can play it as stealthy as the other ones, and on hardest difficulty you don't have ammo for guns, and die really easily.

Whats not to like?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot of people don't like the daytime missions.
I personally didn't have a problem with the game. It just wasn't as enjoyable to me as the previous games.
But I don't think it was that bad of a game.

[JSaint777]

Originally posted by Tim1249:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wieetsguy:
I was just as excited about Double Agent as Aveelo is now about Conviction. I defended the game on all kinds of forums and was surprised when some guy said the game would not match up Chaos Theory. I was seriously excited about the game and even all the minute details such as the shades Sam can wear in Africa. I had pre-ordered the game like 5 months before release. I just couldn't understand how they could go wrong when all the previews and such looked so good, the "new approach" looked very good and I had faith in Ubisoft.

Well, we all know what it turned out to be.

See this is what I don't get.

People always say DA is rubbish and I don't understand why...

You can play it as stealthy as the other ones, and on hardest difficulty you don't have ammo for guns, and die really easily.

Whats not to like?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Splinter Cell philosophy is there, but the gameplay is choppy and awkward when compared to the other games.

[Joshua Morrison]

Originally posted by JSaint777:


The Splinter Cell philosophy is there, but the gameplay is choppy and awkward when compared to the other games.
Right, the JBA missions get old and are way to hollywood IMO. The day missions really don't so Splinter Cell in the best light. The game is not as good in small maps with the sun up. It becomes a cover to cover game and that is really not enjoyable IMO.

[icenutzz]

Originally posted by JSaint777:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tim1249:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by wieetsguy:
I was just as excited about Double Agent as Aveelo is now about Conviction. I defended the game on all kinds of forums and was surprised when some guy said the game would not match up Chaos Theory. I was seriously excited about the game and even all the minute details such as the shades Sam can wear in Africa. I had pre-ordered the game like 5 months before release. I just couldn't understand how they could go wrong when all the previews and such looked so good, the "new approach" looked very good and I had faith in Ubisoft.

Well, we all know what it turned out to be.

See this is what I don't get.

People always say DA is rubbish and I don't understand why...

You can play it as stealthy as the other ones, and on hardest difficulty you don't have ammo for guns, and die really easily.

Whats not to like?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Splinter Cell philosophy is there, but the gameplay is choppy and awkward when compared to the other games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. It had great aspects but also poor ones. The attempts at having stealth in different environments didn't seem to work well. But some levels were a blast to play.

[Shadowmask]

Originally posted by SilencedScream0:

A lot of people don't like the daytime missions.
I personally didn't have a problem with the game. It just wasn't as enjoyable to me as the previous games.
But I don't think it was that bad of a game.

Quantify 'A lot of people'?. Ten, one hundred, a thousand? How many people bought Double Agent across PC PS3 Xbox 360? How many of those have you seen complain about day missions to validate your comment, or am I to understand that 'a lot' refers to a small number (in the grand scheme of things) of forum posters?

Much like complaints in general on forums, people do tend to blow things way out of proportion where a small group equals everyone.

[SilencedScream0]

Originally posted by Shadowmask:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SilencedScream0:

A lot of people don't like the daytime missions.
I personally didn't have a problem with the game. It just wasn't as enjoyable to me as the previous games.
But I don't think it was that bad of a game.

Quantify 'A lot of people'?. Ten, one hundred, a thousand? How many people bought Double Agent across PC PS3 Xbox 360? How many of those have you seen complain about day missions to validate your comment, or am I to understand that 'a lot' refers to a small number (in the grand scheme of things) of forum posters?

Much like complaints in general on forums, people do tend to blow things way out of proportion where a small group equals everyone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I apologize for not specifying.
Should I fetch evidence regarding how it has received the lowest review scores from fans of the four console Splinter Cells thus far, or should I point you to Google and let you find out yourself?

[Shadowmask]

Yes please do and add up their numbers, and cross relate them to total sales figures. So a number of reviewers didn't like the day missions? They all said this in their articles?

Also, just because it received lower scores compared to previous games doesn't really relate to how you can say lots of people hated the day missions.

If you wrote less matter of factly, then you'd be more credible. perhaps saying, 'a number of people...' or 'some people hated etc etc' But to proclaim 'lots' implies you conducted the door to door survey wrote a dissertation on it for your degree in Splintercellism. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif)

[SilencedScream0]

Originally posted by Shadowmask:
Yes please do and add up their numbers, and cross relate them to total sales figures. So a number of reviewers didn't like the day missions? They all said this in their articles?

Also, just because it received lower scores compared to previous games doesn't really relate to how you can say lots of people hated the day missions.

If you wrote less matter of factly, then you'd be more credible. perhaps saying, 'a number of people...' or 'some people hated etc etc' But to proclaim 'lots' implies you conducted the door to door survey wrote a dissertation on it for your degree in Splintercellism. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif)

I was simply stating one of the biggest complaints I had seen, other than the changes in SvM.

Personally, I think many of the people were just upset over the fact that it wasn't a copy-and-pasted version of CT for the next-gen consoles.

[Shadowmask]

Originally posted by SilencedScream0:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shadowmask:
Yes please do and add up their numbers, and cross relate them to total sales figures. So a number of reviewers didn't like the day missions? They all said this in their articles?

Also, just because it received lower scores compared to previous games doesn't really relate to how you can say lots of people hated the day missions.

If you wrote less matter of factly, then you'd be more credible. perhaps saying, 'a number of people...' or 'some people hated etc etc' But to proclaim 'lots' implies you conducted the door to door survey wrote a dissertation on it for your degree in Splintercellism. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif)

I was simply stating one of the biggest complaints I had seen, other than the changes in SvM.

Personally, I think many of the people were just upset over the fact that it wasn't a copy-and-pasted version of CT for the next-gen consoles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that I can agree with.

[Joshua Morrison]

Originally posted by SilencedScream0:

I was simply stating one of the biggest complaints I had seen, other than the changes in SvM.

Personally, I think many of the people were just upset over the fact that it wasn't a copy-and-pasted version of CT for the next-gen consoles.
Are you kidding me??????? It was a copy and paste thats why some of us didn't like it they did nothing to improve the game in fact they too k the old gameplay and added crap to it as in daymission/hollywood story... and added nothing to make the series better in any way.

[Tim1249]

Valid points about why people didn't like it, and the JBA missions did get boring.

But, remember pandora tomorrow?

That game had day missions in it, and I am not aware of people complaining about it. For example, that one where there were mines or something, I can't really remember now.

[Joshua Morrison]

Originally posted by Tim1249:
Valid points about why people didn't like it, and the JBA missions did get boring.

But, remember pandora tomorrow?

That game had day missions in it, and I am not aware of people complaining about it. For example, that one where there were mines or something, I can't really remember now.
lol that was an evening mission lol but its fine to have one but ...hold on let me get back to you I will start it today after I beat it I will get back to you I know it had a least 2 day mission and only 2 or 3 missions that actually seemed like Splinter Cell missions. The snow one and the skyscraper one. The first mission was meh... not really a good one.

[insanity76]

It had the one, Kundang, which started in extreme late afternoon and progressed into nighttime, but there was still the light/shadow mechanic which wasn't there so much in the DA daylight missions.

[CoastalGirl]

I wasn't really a fan of the daylight sections in DA; line of sight is still a type of stealth, of course, but I much prefer light and shadow.

There were other problems, though - it simplified so many things. The light meter, no sound meter, the lack of real darkness, the "upgraded" goggles that are totally wonky but you can't get rid of them once they're unlocked... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

It did do some good things...just not enough to really counter what it took away. For example, I like that your ammo is removed on hard, and the ultrasonic emitter (I know, I know... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif). The level design was also well done, especially in Shanghai, but without the deeper stealth elements the game wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, IMO.


I feel similarly about SCC. The game seems good, but it's lacking depth in some important (to me) areas. I'm not really into the new features, but at the same time, I don't see why a real stealth game couldn't accept them.



ETA (from a closed thread):

Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
projected stealth rating . I don't for care or against projected text or stealth ratings but that is an awesome idea. I wouldn't mind having a "-__%" projected when I did something that wasn't stealthy. It'd have to be toggleable, of course, but that's a use for the feature that would be more relevant to me (and I'd prefer it to the "DETECTED").

[LaurenIsSoMosh]

We are keeping what we love about stealth games but increased the pace and the number of innovative features. Increased the number of innovative features? What the crap is Ubisoft talking about?

They're talking like they can just waltz off to Wal*Mart and purchase fifteen innovative features to add to the game. It's not something that you can just 'increase' if you feel like it. It takes dedication to quality, talent, and just plain luck, and this quote implies Ubisoft has no understanding of the first two elements, with their "we decided to increase the number of innovative features" nonsense. Whether the third element is on their side or not is up in the air.

They're talking like the older games had a lack of innovative features. I don't know where they come up with this crap.
We believe we have found a good balance that provides all the traits our long time fans have come to love If they had provided all the things that the fans have come to love, there would have been no need for this article in the first place.

They're directly contradicting and avoiding points brought up in the article, only they have no outside opinions backing their side of the argument. They're making crap up.
we feel that we found the right balance for a lot of gamer to have fun with this demo and still find it challenging. Again, if players had found the demo challenging, there would have been no need for this article in the first place.

Ubisoft, stop trying to contradict the consensus. You're not going to change anybody's opinion that the game is completely devoid of challenge just because you say it will be found challenging.
we realized that gamers enjoy innovative gameplay. NEWS FLASH! GAMERS ENJOY INNOVATIVE GAMEPLAY!

You're just now realizing this? It's not 1999 anymore, Ubisoft. Maybe it's time to find talent that has kept up with the times.

And half the 'innovative' things found in Conviction are ripped off from older Splinter Cells and marketed as new. This is ridiculous.
I think we’ve hit an awesome balance where either approach – stealth or action – works. When you're going up against cardboard cut-outs, of course either approach is going to work.

Sneak up on a cardboard cut-out? That works!
Shoot a cardboard cut-out? That works also as well, too!

Such a great balance they've aimlessly stumbled across.
Originally posted by xXassassinXx92:
Let's see what Shanghai does http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif. Even though they probably aren't working on SC6. Oh no, they most definitely are.

Haven't you heard? Ubisoft has just recently declared that they would love to spam their franchises with yearly additions, following in the footsteps of the beloved Activision.

Ironically, Acitivision admitted only awhile before this that milking Guitar Hero dry was a very stupid thing to do.

Don't hold your breath for quality anymore. The stealth fans were what held quality in check, and action fans only want more, more, more. Take a look at Call of Duty. Everybody makes fun of Treyarch and yearly sequels, and yet the games still sell millions. Once the stealth fans are made obsolete by the flood of action fans, it will be all about quantity, quantity, and more quantity.

[jimmyparadis]

its pretty funny that people are passing judgment and talking about how conviction lacks and it sucks when the game hasnt even released yet.

[LaurenIsSoMosh]

Originally posted by jimmyparadis:
people are passing judgment and talking about how conviction lacks and it sucks Ubisoft is making things up in exactly the opposite manner.

"People think our game is too easy? Quick! Let's say we feel it's the perfect balance between entertainment and challenge and maybe people will believe us!"

Their tactics were blatantly transparent in the article. They simply disagreed with and contradicted everything that demo players said, while offering no genuine reasons as to why players' opinions are unfounded.

Players say it's too easy. "We feel it's challenging."

Players say it's not Splinter Cell. "We kept everything that players love and added more."

Players say opponents are stupid, slobbering trolls. "You haven't seen the ones we've been hiding behind this curtain over here."
the game hasnt even released yet. Haven't you heard? There is a demo on the webzorz!

[kalle90]

Originally posted by Blument:
"The difficulty level was tweaked to make the demo more accessible to a wider audience"

"We designed the demo with one main objective in mind: make it exciting and fun to play for as much people as possible; even for gamers who had never played Splinter Cell before but were into action games.
With that in mind, we adapted the level design (less enemies, more projected texts, tutorials) as well as the AI for this demo."

What's the point of having 3 difficulty settings then? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I thought Rookie was accesible for everyone, I can't understand why they need to make Realistic easier for the demo if people can choose Rookie or Normal... what a lame excuse for the bad AI http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

So they basically say the demo is almost nothing like the final game? This kind of interview just makes me more suspicious about Belands' methods and this game

It almost sounds and feels like lying.

[jimmyparadis]

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimmyparadis:
people are passing judgment and talking about how conviction lacks and it sucks Ubisoft is making things up in exactly the opposite manner.

"People think our game is too easy? Quick! Let's say we feel it's the perfect balance between entertainment and challenge and maybe people will believe us!"

Their tactics were blatantly transparent in the article. They simply disagreed with and contradicted everything that demo players said, while offering no genuine reasons as to why players' opinions are unfounded.

Players say it's too easy. "We feel it's challenging."

Players say it's not Splinter Cell. "We kept everything that players love and added more."

Players say opponents are stupid, slobbering trolls. "You haven't seen the ones we've been hiding behind this curtain over here."
the game hasnt even released yet. Haven't you heard? There is a demo on the webzorz! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ive played the demo and i have played many demos, enough to know that a demo is not the real game. A game is in its entirety judged. You dont see a movie trailer and go oh that movie sucks it so terrible worse than all the other movies. No, you watch it and then decide for yourself. Yes the game is going in a new direction but a much needed one. I love all the SC games i just finished replaying them all actually. You know what i realized after? Damn these games are so much the same i wish they would do something new. Bam here comes conviction. so do yourself and everyone on these forums a favor. Hold your opinion until the game launches and you play it through, and if youre not buying it then shut your mouth and leave the forums because that just sounds like a waste of time to me. If im not getting a game why would i waste my time talking to other people about why im not getting it. Save your money and go buy ice cream and tissues for when you cry over how the game isnt exactly what YOU want it to be. Curse those ubisoft devs for not catering to exactly every single persons needs

[Itputdalotion0n]

Originally posted by MKCC14:
There is nothing revolutionary about this game.

Sure there is, its the biggest crap ever taken on the hardcore gamer ever. Remove all the features noobs and casuals wont go for since they are now the majority and sell out the game to make more money, tottaly ignoring your hardcore fanbase that have supported the game from the begging. Thats how its revolutionary.

[newhenpal]

Exactly what will this game introduce that will bring new life into a so-called "stale" franchise? Each installment after the first has introduced a major innovation to the series (SvM, Co-Op, daylight missions, etc.); besides some gimmicks and other rehashed concepts from Vegas, these guys have brought nothing new or substantial to the series. Then there's the probable reappearance of Sarah and even some talk of Lambert making a comeback.

They've done nothing but walk full circle counter-clockwise and pat themselves on the back when they move a centimeter forward.

[insanity76]

Hold your opinion until the game launches and you play it through

Is that the point when someone is finally allowed to form a negative opinion on it, after they've lined Ubi's pockets with their $60?

It used to be:

"You've only seen 1 screenshot, wait til you see at least some gameplay footage!"

Then it became:

"You've only seen 5 minutes of gameplay footage, wait til you at least play the demo!"

Now it's:

"You've only played a 5 minute demo, wait til you at least play the full game!"

And even still, after April 13th it'll be:

"You've only played the full game, wait til you at least see screenshots for SC6!"

[Tim1249]

Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tim1249:
Valid points about why people didn't like it, and the JBA missions did get boring.

But, remember pandora tomorrow?

That game had day missions in it, and I am not aware of people complaining about it. For example, that one where there were mines or something, I can't really remember now.
lol that was an evening mission lol but its fine to have one but ...hold on let me get back to you I will start it today after I beat it I will get back to you I know it had a least 2 day mission and only 2 or 3 missions that actually seemed like Splinter Cell missions. The snow one and the skyscraper one. The first mission was meh... not really a good one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The JBA missions were at night, there was the first one which was average, there was skyscraper and I think that was it.

I will give you that it was more cover to cover, than shadows and stuff, by I still enjoyed it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Tim1249]

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
I wasn't really a fan of the daylight sections in DA; line of sight is still a type of stealth, of course, but I much prefer light and shadow.

There were other problems, though - it simplified so many things. The light meter, no sound meter, the lack of real darkness, the "upgraded" goggles that are totally wonky but you can't get rid of them once they're unlocked... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

It did do some good things...just not enough to really counter what it took away. For example, I like that your ammo is removed on hard, and the ultrasonic emitter (I know, I know... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif). The level design was also well done, especially in Shanghai, but without the deeper stealth elements the game wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, IMO.


I feel similarly about SCC. The game seems good, but it's lacking depth in some important (to me) areas. I'm not really into the new features, but at the same time, I don't see why a real stealth game couldn't accept them.



ETA (from a closed thread):
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
projected stealth rating . I don't for care or against projected text or stealth ratings but that is an awesome idea. I wouldn't mind having a "-__%" projected when I did something that wasn't stealthy. It'd have to be toggleable, of course, but that's a use for the feature that would be more relevant to me (and I'd prefer it to the "DETECTED"). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Total agree with you, especially the fact about lack of depth and the stupid goggles, wtf!

It was still a blast to play though, but chaos theory is and always will be the best.

[DeafAtheist]

Originally posted by Xx_Redex_xX:
M&E line cracks me up too.

We all know a game company wont speak ill about any aspect of their game before its even on shelves but come on for the sake of dignity don't try and tell us using M&E is a skillful process...

and then possibly later go onto say:

We weren't happy with how easy ______ was in this new Splinter Cell we've changed it this time around.

Splinter Cell games have never really been that hard. The hardest times I've had with the game were aboard the ship in Double Agent where you have virtually no cover and have to take down everyone aboard, and defusing the friggin bombs in the jungle in Pandora Tomorrow (at least I think it was Pandora Tomrrow). I had so much trouble getting thru those levels I had to stop playing the game for awhile and come back to it refreshed.

But I digress here.

I think what they mean by the game being "too hard" is that most gamers don't have the patience for stealth play. They try getting thru Splinter Cell by running and gunning like the average action game and that just doesn't work. And even using stealth was difficult because it takes a lot of trial and error to get thru it.

I think with Conviction they wanted to make the game more user friendly but not necessarily easier.

[Tzuu]

The level that the demo is based on does not play out exactly the same way in the final game. The difficulty level was tweaked to make the demo more accessible to a wider audience, this is especially true for the placement of the bad guys in the level. You can expect a much more challenging experience with the full game when played on “Realistic” difficulty.

[DeafAtheist]

Originally posted by FrankieSatt:
The devs are trying to push this crap off as a Splinter Cell game and it just isn't going to fly for those of us who actually have played, and enjoyed, previous Splinter Cell games.

It flies for me and I played and enjoyed the previous titles. You're not speaking for ALL Splinter Cell fans. You're speaking for darksider splinter cell fans.

[altair2nd]

Originally posted by DeafAtheist:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FrankieSatt:
The devs are trying to push this crap off as a Splinter Cell game and it just isn't going to fly for those of us who actually have played, and enjoyed, previous Splinter Cell games.

It flies for me and I played and enjoyed the previous titles. You're not speaking for ALL Splinter Cell fans. You're speaking for darksider splinter cell fans. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Same here, I loved all previous splinter cells and I'll love conviction as well.(maybe even more)

[kalle90]

Originally posted by Tzuu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The level that the demo is based on does not play out exactly the same way in the final game. The difficulty level was tweaked to make the demo more accessible to a wider audience, this is especially true for the placement of the bad guys in the level. You can expect a much more challenging experience with the full game when played on “Realistic” difficulty.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They could have actually marketed the "Realistic" difficulty like they have talked about it the entire time and shut up many doubtful ones.

Yet they decided to gather to the "wide audience" and make "Realistic" easy even though there were 2 easier difficulties available too

It just says BS. If they slacked off with the demo how could they succeed with the actual game. Afterall there's a 80% chance you get an Achievement for completing the game on Realistic

[Tzuu]

Originally posted by kalle90:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tzuu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The level that the demo is based on does not play out exactly the same way in the final game. The difficulty level was tweaked to make the demo more accessible to a wider audience, this is especially true for the placement of the bad guys in the level. You can expect a much more challenging experience with the full game when played on “Realistic” difficulty.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They could have actually marketed the "Realistic" difficulty like they have talked about it the entire time and shut up many doubtful ones.

Yet they decided to gather to the "wide audience" and make "Realistic" easy even though there were 2 easier difficulties available too

It just says BS. If they slacked off with the demo how could they succeed with the actual game. Afterall there's a 80% chance you get an Achievement for completing the game on Realistic </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have to look at it from a business stand points, that is what a lot of people fail to do. Companies are out there to make money that is the point, more people equals more money. Ubisoft isn't here to cater to their SC fans, they're here to make money, like it or not.

[aceofspades2009]

Originally posted by Tzuu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by kalle90:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Tzuu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The level that the demo is based on does not play out exactly the same way in the final game. The difficulty level was tweaked to make the demo more accessible to a wider audience, this is especially true for the placement of the bad guys in the level. You can expect a much more challenging experience with the full game when played on “Realistic” difficulty.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They could have actually marketed the "Realistic" difficulty like they have talked about it the entire time and shut up many doubtful ones.

Yet they decided to gather to the "wide audience" and make "Realistic" easy even though there were 2 easier difficulties available too

It just says BS. If they slacked off with the demo how could they succeed with the actual game. Afterall there's a 80% chance you get an Achievement for completing the game on Realistic </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have to look at it from a business stand points, that is what a lot of people fail to do. Companies are out there to make money that is the point, more people equals more money. Ubisoft isn't here to cater to their SC fans, they're here to make money, like it or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ya well companies are out to make a profit and will pollute our earth to do it...even though 95% of pollution can be avoided with known technology but greed forces us to face an ice age in 100 years because companies wanna be greedy and make more money. so my point is its not always the best in the long run to just worry about making money.....

[kalle90]

Which would make that quote you posted moot. Ubi presentative is just saying meaningless stuff to build hype.

Maybe I just don't like the business standpoint. If you're not going to do something, don't say you're going to do it. Or is honesty gone? I'm pretty sure the 1st SC was made to make money too though.

[aceofspades2009]

Originally posted by kalle90:
Which would make that quote you posted moot. Ubi presentative is just saying meaningless stuff to build hype.

Maybe I just don't like the business standpoint. If you're not going to do something, don't say you're going to do it. Or is honesty gone? I'm pretty sure the 1st SC was made to make money too though.

ur right the 1st SC was probably made for money but at least it have an innovative and unique gameplay experience...conviction might be great im not judging early but we all know it wont be like the other splinter cells and will most likely just end up in the middle of the pack with all the other action titles....but i could be wrong!! hopefully i am. i really think it will be a good game but its not SC and thats what made SC unique....being SC and not halo n cod and thats why it sold well. if this game doesnt go well with the old SC fans they will have to change it up or the SC will never return to prominance

[DeafAtheist]

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
I wasn't really a fan of the daylight sections in DA; line of sight is still a type of stealth, of course, but I much prefer light and shadow.

There were other problems, though - it simplified so many things. The light meter, no sound meter, the lack of real darkness, the "upgraded" goggles that are totally wonky but you can't get rid of them once they're unlocked... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

It did do some good things...just not enough to really counter what it took away. For example, I like that your ammo is removed on hard, and the ultrasonic emitter (I know, I know... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif). The level design was also well done, especially in Shanghai, but without the deeper stealth elements the game wasn't nearly as good as it could have been, IMO.


I feel similarly about SCC. The game seems good, but it's lacking depth in some important (to me) areas. I'm not really into the new features, but at the same time, I don't see why a real stealth game couldn't accept them.

I agree with much of what you said here. I enjoyed the daylight levels on the 360 version of DA tho. While I agree with you that L&S is more fun than LoS, I thought it was a nice change of pace and it was only a few missions that had daylight and was a nice change of pace forcing the player to change tactics.

But yeah the lack of a sound meter kinda sucked for me being deaf the meter from previous titles let me know how fast I could walk without drawing attention by keeping it under the ambient noise level. I missed the visibility meter too. Was nice to see how hidden you were. I didn't much like the light meter showing on Sam's back in the 360 version of DA.

Those "upgraded" goggles were indeed horrible. Would have been nice if you could choose to equip them or not. But the fact that goggles were hardly needed at all in DA, which sucked of course but that's what made it a blessing in disguise with the crappy goggles.

[Maelor07]

Originally posted by Itputdalotion0n:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MKCC14:
There is nothing revolutionary about this game.

Sure there is, its the biggest crap ever taken on the hardcore gamer ever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^This.