PDA

View Full Version : Has Ubi Sold Out The SC Franchise?



CoJ_Fan_87
02-20-2010, 10:49 PM
Before anyone accuses me of being a troll, I am currently undecided on whether or not I will be purchasing SCC.

I made this because I genuinely want to know how the majority of the SC community feels on this topic.

Cyrus.H
02-20-2010, 10:56 PM
You're not a troll, Ubisoft has sold out the Splinter Cell franchise and Tom Clancy's name. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

sammyboy1981
02-20-2010, 11:21 PM
SC Conviction is not true to the SC brand and style of play...and is therefore BAD!!! BTW, my opinion can be taken as FACT!

I mean, just look at my face and tell me you can't trust me?

http://madisonharris.com/images/jesus-face-29.jpg?SSImageQuality=Full

(p.s. - that's was me in college...I've since shaved)

CoJ_Fan_87
02-20-2010, 11:26 PM
I appreciate the feedback guys, but again, I'm not trying to troll and start a flame war.

I REALLY want to know what the majority of the community thinks.

Please, keep the feedback coming.

Cyrus.H
02-20-2010, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
Oh, look.. Another flame thread!

Stop being a hobgoblin! (aka 'Troll')
I see no flaming going on, just a simple forum member asking for people's opinions.

If there is anybody here trolling, then it is most likely to be you.

Xx_Redex_xX
02-20-2010, 11:58 PM
Yes I think Ubisoft has sold out the franchise to a degree.

Splinter Cell used to be about a man working for
one of the highest levels of government as an elite operative and intelligence gatherer for the security of the nation.

With Double Agent it started to dwell into more
of the Hollywood cliches, not that I am fully against that but I felt it was a step in the right direction of changing the style and story which we all knew as "traditional Splinter Cell"

Now it seems to be about a man who we once knew as a mentally stable human. However this time hes on a very high profile revenge mission for the killer of his daughter.....A bit of a stretch from the original writing of the series but alright I'll roll with it for now until I get to play the actual game and see it for myself.

So in that sense yes you could say Ubisoft "sold out" by leaving a lot of story elements and foundations that built the series in the past for a more widely appealing revenge story.

Personally I would of rather played the current build but with a story based on finding out who/why Sam Fisher was being framed by an inside man within Third Echelon for his alleged bombing attempts in New York well operating under deep cover within John Brown's Army. In comparison to the 09 builds story that is.

But this is just my opinion.

And just so its on record yes I will be purchasing Splinter Cell Conviction before people start accusing me of being anti-conviction.

TomeOne
02-21-2010, 12:05 AM
Heh.

I think the franchises you should be complaining about are Rainbow Six or Ghost Recon.

*grumpy old gamer wanting the good ol' "plan a mission" gameplay back*

CoJ_Fan_87
02-21-2010, 12:30 AM
I appreciate the continued feedback.

I hope this thread can remain somewhat civil like it is atm.

RaulO4
02-21-2010, 12:40 AM
yes i do

they didn't stay on what made Sc

and made it something for the massive.

Stealthgamer001
02-21-2010, 01:13 AM
I don't think the sacrifices to the core Splinter Cell values are extreme enough to suggest that Conviction is a sell out. Conviction's previews focus only on what has been added to the game, which has generated a mistaken consensus that what has been added is all there is. Nobody so far seems to be willing to demonstrate what Conviction has retained by showing a no-contact stealth walkthrough using the interactive environment as a distraction rather than a booby trap.

Stealthgamer001
02-21-2010, 02:25 AM
Ignore Brent and Aveelo. They like to troll people with differing opinions than theirs.

to OP,
Don't simply ignore brent and Avelo, or anyone else. I would suggest reading their posts to determine for yourself whether or not they have insightful information, as they sometimes do.

to brent and Aveelo,
I understand why you thought this would turn into another flame war, but now that it hasn't and we have an intelligent discussion going on, why don't you help me out and share some of your thoughts on this matter?

Cyrus.H
02-21-2010, 02:38 AM
That's exactly how I feel, SilencedScream0.

Just because Sam has been "let off the leash" and isn't working for Third Echelon anymore, doesn't mean he's going to kill every man and his dog.

We're talking about the same guy who said in Chaos Theory (and I quote), "I take no joy in killing. But make no mistake, I'll do what needs to be done because it's my job. It's my duty."

CoJ_Fan_87
02-21-2010, 02:39 AM
I really appreciate you guys trying to keep the thread civil.

I'm also really liking all the feedback I'm getting.

Keep it coming.

Cyrus.H
02-21-2010, 02:40 AM
Originally posted by CoJ_Fan_87:
I really appreciate you guys trying to keep the thread civil.

I'm also really liking all the feedback I'm getting.

Keep it coming.
No prob. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sameer_monier
02-21-2010, 03:01 AM
Alright me opinion is no

and i have read all the comments but i think the new direction of the game is the right one, for both us and UBI

For me I love the stealth aspect, but i needed something new not found around, the story needed something to fire it up (that's why i loved DA because of it's story)

Conviction for me is like a game i never thought it could ever happen, BTW i am not an action fan of you think that way, believe it or not i don't have MW2, nor Bad Company, nor any action game, when i was young i was playing James Bond on the ps1, now i am into other games but action is very few within my collection, SCC is like mixing the stealth needed to kill, i can play stealthy then kill (or yu can make it completely stealthy), i will enjoy everything on this game beginning with the story

Sam is who he is, DA made him through hard choices he had to make, and i know it's a game but if someone has lost his daughter he would kill even his best friends if he doubted they were involved, being trained and professional only helps in making plans but it doesn't stop the rage inside, he needs to know the truth, beside killing thugs isn't so much of a problem isn't it ?!, and 3E we approach it stealth like shown in gametrailer did you asked yourself why ?!, i think cause he needs to get in undetected, he kills cause he have to, he thinks how to reach his goals but if someone stands in his way then he got no other choice than killing, kill or be killed

so finally i LOVE this game, and as i said before in many posts before SSC is my most anticipated game for 2010 (even more than GOW3), all what i am asking is that we respect the old SC, so in return respect us for loving SSC, you got 3 games representing what you love and we got only 1 (i would love to add DA but it wasn't like Conviction), and that's all

MKCC14
02-21-2010, 04:23 AM
Oh yeah they have...and if this game doesnt sell well like 2008's Prince of Persia than we will be seeing Sam back in his prime working for 3E.

JAHman28
02-21-2010, 04:47 AM
Originally posted by Cyrus.H:
That's exactly how I feel, SilencedScream0.

Just because Sam has been "let off the leash" and isn't working for Third Echelon anymore, doesn't mean he's going to kill every man and his dog.

We're talking about the same guy who said in Chaos Theory (and I quote), "I take no joy in killing. But make no mistake, I'll do what needs to be done because it's my job. It's my duty."

The whole point is that you can chooseif you want to kill 'every man and his dog'.

It is your choice whether you should want to bash through every door like a bad-a$$ and destroy everything that moves noisily.

Or you can stealthily takedown every one, feeling the anguish and despair of your daughter's death but retaining your instincts to stay quiet and unnoticed.

or you can keep high morals and spare many in your search for you daughter. you can creep by in the shadows like previous splinter cells forced you to.
But this time there is three times the choice, three times the ways to play.

there is a significant rise in quality of weapons gameplay, hand-to-hand combat and efficiently taking down several people in a second.

Of course they are then going to have to cut down on the stealthy parts. they couldn't focus on one of the areas just because a few hardcore fans on the forums told them to.

They can't take away from this experience to focus on one way to play, else the experience may just fall apart.

but ultimately, the game is what you make it to be.
It can be your cliched action game, it can be your silent predator title, it can be your slow-paced stealth game.

I think we're lucky that Ubisoft Montreal has made this game for all fans and we should just take it as our own experience rather than moan and whine about it.

JAHman out.

Andre202
02-21-2010, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by JAHman28:
It is your choice whether you should want to bash through every door like a bad-a$$ and destroy everything that moves noisily.

Or you can stealthily takedown every one, feeling the anguish and despair of your daughter's death but retaining your instincts to stay quiet and unnoticed.

or you can keep high morals and spare many in your search for you daughter. you can creep by in the shadows like previous splinter cells forced you to.
But this time there is three times the choice, three times the ways to play.
You could do that in previous titles too. Problem was only that the aiming was a bit akward. But that's all. You could decide to KO/KILL and do this both things in a Actiony Way or in a Stealthy Way. And there was always the options to go unnoticed. Sometimes you were forced to use Stealth but that was in the first two titles. Besides it had always some Action in the game (example, first SC last two missions). Now you can only decide if you take an enemy down with Krav Maga in a Actiony Way or in a Stealthy way. You cannot decide if you Kill or KO the enemy. And you can go unnoticed but I am curious how often you will have the special circumstances.


Of course they are then going to have to cut down on the stealthy parts. they couldn't focus on one of the areas just because a few hardcore fans on the forums told them to.

They can't take away from this experience to focus on one way to play, else the experience may just fall apart.
They don't have to cut anything. Also the most asked for some basic moves. And it wasn't only the guys who hate that they removed Stealth options, there are also alot of guys who like this game but want, luring (whistle, handle System); decision of KILL/KO; carrying bodies, BACK. So it wasn't only for the hardcore gamers. They can cut some things out of the game. But to much is just to much. Though we will see if they have more options for Stealth then they have shown in the videos.

SilencedScream0
02-21-2010, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Stealthgamer001:
Don't simply ignore brent and Avelo, or anyone else.

I agreed with Aj6627 on the grounds that, in the time I've used the site (since October - registered in January when the delay was mentioned in order to comment), I've felt that they really do flame anyone who questions the new gameplay and who comments on missing the old.

I fully believe everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but if I see someone bash someone else's opinion, I will suggest ignoring theirs.

As for Aveelo, he did misquote and directly insult Aj in another thread. When Aj commented about it here, I decided to snoop a bit.


Originally posted by Andre202:
They don't have to cut anything. Also the most asked for some basic moves. And it wasn't only the guys who hate that they removed Stealth options, there are also alot of guys who like this game but want, luring (whistle, handle System); decision of KILL/KO; carrying bodies, BACK. So it wasn't only for the hardcore gamers. They can cut some things out of the game. But to much is just to much. Though we will see if they have more options for Stealth then they have shown in the videos.

This sums it up incredibly well.

My previous post, I was just talking about the character of Sam. Ignoring that, the absence of luring enemies, removal of kill/KO decision, and even the ability to move bodies (I mean...seriously?) are direct insults on stealth, I feel.

CoJ_Fan_87
02-21-2010, 05:42 AM
I really like all the well thought out posts.

Keep them coming.

Aveelo
02-21-2010, 05:51 AM
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 Stealthgamer001:
Don't simply ignore brent and Avelo, or anyone else.



As for Aveelo, he did misquote and directly insult Aj in another thread. When Aj commented about it here, I decided to snoop a bit.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Insult WTF Man ? Aj Insut Me Hmm

P.S Cya All PPl I Quit The Forums http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif Good Luck And Have Fun

Mr_Shade
02-21-2010, 06:28 AM
If people can't keep it civil - without attacking other members, for any reason, it will get locked..


Might be best for everyone to agree to disagree over the game - both sides have valid points, in their opinion..



We don't mind people voicing concerns over titles, or other issues - but we do when they start getting personal...

No one should feel they need to leave the forums, over a thread...

Mr.E.Bear
02-21-2010, 07:50 AM
If by sell out you mean abandoning core values such as a deep stealth experience and adding new ones like an over dependence on shooting and killing to attract new customers, all the while simplifying both the action and stealth to incredibly shallow albeit easy to grasp levels; then yes. Yes it has.

Is this a surprise after the RSV series and PoP 2008?

No.

Joshua Morrison
02-21-2010, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Mr.E.Bear:
If by sell out you mean abandoning core values such as a deep stealth experience and adding new ones like an over dependence on shooting and killing to attract new customers, all the while simplifying both the action and stealth to incredibly shallow albeit easy to grasp levels; then yes. Yes it has.

Is this a surprise after the RSV series and PoP 2008?

No.

It surprised me RSV is one thing but why in the hell would Ubisoft put people who don't even like Splinter Cell in charge of Splinter Cell? That is the problem.

WhiteKnight77
02-21-2010, 08:41 AM
Ubi has nerfed all the TC games (and a few others along the way) and all are a shell of their former selves. Award winning games have become cannon fodder for those who can only think of how to gain more achievements other than completing a mission/level with no loss of team members.

sgt_brent
02-21-2010, 09:08 AM
My opinion, which I have stated many times before..

I do not feel Ubisoft has 'sold out' anybody or anything.. This is the next instalment in a successful game franchise - One that has seen the same gameplay time and time again.. I have always been a huge fan of SC, but I, like Ubisoft, can recognize when a game needs to take an evolutionary step forward..

If Splinter Cell had no story - I would say staying with the old gameplay would be fine.. But because the story is a large part of this form of entertainment, I feel like the gameplay has to evolve to go hand in hand with the story, (And that is, Sam on his own, no ROE, he can do whatever he wants)..

I am not a hater of old Splinter Cell at all, and I don't want to say I'm GLAD the gameplay has changed - Because I always have loved the old games - But I recognize it is time to take Sam in a different direction, I accept the new direction with excitement.. For the sake of the story.. To make a story telling experience really deep and dark.. To be honest, I feel like a story like Conviction, with the old gameplay, would be really weird.. Hence the developer's taking a step beyond what is "Splinter Cell normal"..

I also feel like IF Ubisoft had stuck with the old gameplay, and made this game another "save the world" story - There would be the same amount of flame as they're getting now.. People would be complaining about nothing changing..

- My opinion!

FrankieSatt
02-21-2010, 09:39 AM
Yes, Ubisoft has sold out. They are ditching the fans that made the series popular for people who are going to play the game, put it down and forget about it.

Dagio12
02-21-2010, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by Andre202:
They don't have to cut anything. Also the most asked for some basic moves. And it wasn't only the guys who hate that they removed Stealth options, there are also alot of guys who like this game but want, luring (whistle, handle System); decision of KILL/KO; carrying bodies, BACK..

.. i think that holstering your weapon will be more non-lethal takedowns, but weapon in hand will most likely kill the opponent.. thats just what I read on an interview a while back.

- i dont think that Ubi is really selling out the franchise, but they are however probably in a position where they needed to make more of a diverse gameplay in order to push the series forward and open it up so that we will continue to see SC games happen. I believe that this was a business decision as well as the new devs wanting to add a little more action to the game. you cant continue to use the same gameplay over and over again with new levels, while watching the sales drop with each game. This would lead to eventually no more SC games. They NEEDED to open this game up to more people. and with that, you need to add something that appeals to the masses. along with that.. we get a more intense story. I can see how the story seems a little hollywood, but i think it seems more that way because the story has become more personal. the whole govmnt conspiracy thing or bombs and viruses thing has been seen in the other games, but it was some other country and Sam (as a solo U.S "soldier") going in to save the world right in the nick of time. Its always been somewhat hollywood. I think i (personally) will really enjoy this personal story approach as Sam Fisher and the stories of SC have always been what drew me in to the game.

with all that said, i am all for conviction, but as someone that has been with the franchise since the beginning I will agree that it would have been nice to have everything we have in conviction AND everything about the other games such as throwing objects and hiding bodies. I still believe you will be able to be much more stealthy then people give the previews credit for.. but i guess only playing the game will tell us. Im looking at this game as just another awesome Sam Fisher game to add to my library of SC games.

with that said.. i am on board with conviction as it appeals to me. seems like a good story that will help push the series foward and hopefully open the eyes to more gamers about this awesome franchise.

logik1911
02-21-2010, 10:01 AM
I think the answer to the question is yes, yes they did. You can see it in the developers comments, and follows a trend I've noticed with Ubi and the TC franchise...they are intentionally watering down the games while increasing their production values to make them more "fun" and appealing to the masses. That doesn't bother me as a casual gamer, and SC:C is at the top of my most anticipated list, but I can understand why it would upset the franchise purists and hardcore gamers.

While I will agree their next gen games are indeed fun (their tagline at expos is Ubisoft...we make games that don't suck), they're not particularly deep, or all that memorable. I do think in SC:Cs case, it has enough elements you don't see in typical shooters, stealth, or action games to make a lasting good impression.

ReConNinJa.CF
02-21-2010, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by CoJ_Fan_87:
Before anyone accuses me of being a troll, I am currently undecided on whether or not I will be purchasing SCC.

I made this because I genuinely want to know how the majority of the SC community feels on this topic.

do ur self a favor and look in ur pm box :P

savior2006
02-21-2010, 10:17 AM
Here's my opinion.
Splinter Cell is a Tom Clancy game. In the beginning, Tom Clancy games were all about more realism, more tactics, and steeper punishments for not respecting them. With Rainbow Six you had several different squad members, not much health, many ways to enter a building. With Ghost Recon you had more outdoor scenarios but with the same feel. With Splinter Cell you had a stealthy agent who had to sneak by people, engage them silently. If you didn't, you at least had to take them out in one motion, by yourself with no help from Mark and Execute.

But as time went on, and Tom Clancy sold his name, Tom Clancy games have simply been getting more mainstream. Ghost Recon became about futuristic soldiers. That isn't as bad as what happened to Rainbow Six. As time went on the number of squads you could have was reduced to a paultry two people by the time Vegas came around. Punishments for bad choices were lifted, to the point where I believe the two guys from Vegas 1 and 2 were invincible to harm. According to some people there was even unlimited ammunition, which is a huge no-no for a game series that ahd been about tactics.
Now let's take a look at Splinter Cell Conviction (which is being lead by Vegas' creative director Maxime Beland). They've increased focus toward action, given Sam and the other agents near perfect aim with a pistol regardless of whether or not they're hanging on something, introduced a shadow vision that nobody except Beland, Yabob, and B-I-G-G-E-R likes, gave an auto-aim feature to the players, and a ghost that shows where the AI is looking. It's all about making the game easier for those who couldn't even win a 1 on 1 firefight in Chaos Theory in Normal mode.
That, to me, is selling out.
That the setting of the game changed was not the problem.

J Saint777
02-21-2010, 11:07 AM
People were quick to say Ubisoft sold out with Chaos Theory. Look how that turned out.

I still don't think they have. The Ubisoft higher-ups just put the wrong team in charge of a Splinter Cell game.

But considering the team that is in control, the game looks very fun.

sgt_brent
02-21-2010, 11:08 AM
^ It was a really odd move Tom Clancy selling his name the way he did.. But, I don't think in a gaming market like we have today - Evolutionary games are what sell.. Games that have a lot of crap packed into them.. Effective or not - The old type of Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six were simple; Straight forward.. With not much "amazing" packed onto the disk.. That's not to say they weren't great games.. Sometimes less is better!

But a giant game developer like Ubisoft recognizes when it's time to take another step and go beyond what has ben done time and time again.. And ultimately, create a game that is new and different that people will enjoy playing..

We've talked about this for soo long - Why dev's change games the way they do.. But it comes down to a market strategy.. The question is posed, something like, "What can we do to make more than just Splinter Cell fans interested?".. Their obvious answer? MORE ACTION..

That appeals to a wider audience, which in turn makes more money..

Selling out Tom Clancy? Selling out Splinter Cell? That's comparing apples and oranges to me.. Because what makes Splinter Cell is the story.. The gameplay simply evolves..

WhiteKnight77
02-21-2010, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
^ It was a really odd move Tom Clancy selling his name the way he did.. But, I don't think in a gaming market like we have today - Evolutionary games are what sell.. Games that have a lot of crap packed into them.. Effective or not - The old type of Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six were simple; Straight forward.. With not much "amazing" packed onto the disk.. That's not to say they weren't great games.. Sometimes less is better!

But a giant game developer like Ubisoft recognizes when it's time to take another step and go beyond what has ben done time and time again.. And ultimately, create a game that is new and different that people will enjoy playing..

We've talked about this for soo long - Why dev's change games the way they do.. But it comes down to a market strategy.. The question is posed, something like, "What can we do to make more than just Splinter Cell fans interested?".. Their obvious answer? MORE ACTION..

That appeals to a wider audience, which in turn makes more money..

Selling out Tom Clancy? Selling out Splinter Cell? That's comparing apples and oranges to me.. Because what makes Splinter Cell is the story.. The gameplay simply evolves..

Explain Microsoft's Flight Simulator, a niche market game, that lasted for 20 years with 10 versions and still plays the same today as when first introduced.

I would also bet that if Clancy hadn't sold RSE to Ubi, R6 and GR would still be playing the same with added features and the old ones combined. Selling the use of his name to Ubi has allowed Ubi to do anything they want with it and games like Endwar and HAWX are prime examples of it.

sgt_brent
02-21-2010, 11:16 AM
It's a Flight Simulator.. Believe it or not it's used by flight schools, museums, and has other educational uses.. When I was a PC gamer - I had everything from FS98 all the way until Century of Flight.. Improved flight dynamics, better graphics.. You're right - Not much different.. But it's got a defined, professional user base, aside from just gamers..

Ever wonder why Microsoft doesn't have a flight sim on console??

... Enough said..

I think if Tom Clancy had a hand in every game that came out - They wouldn't be making much money off them.. Look at Dragon Rising.. Supposed to be ultimately realistic.. Didn't do very well, did it..

The vast majority of gamers want FUN, over the top action..

I'm all for realism, trust me! I just recognize the decision game developer's have decided to go with

Knot3D
02-21-2010, 11:24 AM
Undecided atm.

With this generation of gaming came some good things :

- streamlined smoother controls & user interface.
- (marginally) better graphics & animations ; thus more fluid gameplay.
- more people who enjoy games

On the other hand, other factors are having a negative influence on gaming in general & SCC in specific :

- a bad economy : it makes publishers bank on 'safe'
- 'safe' these days means ; Game publishers shoehorn in the Hollywood factor, to gain a wider, bigger audience.
A wider, bigger audience isn't a bad thing perse, but imposing Hollywood templates is ; certainly because this
reaches further than just stylistics ; this eats away at the core values somewhat.

This is a real shame, because there are more ways to win a bigger audience than 1 way. This way of CEO reasoning
is basically short term tunnel vision.

So, while some nice enticing stealth gameplay might still be in this game, the imposed Hollywood template/cliche
IS hurting it to an unknown extent.

Jazz117Volkov
02-21-2010, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My opinion, which I have stated many times before..

I do not feel Ubisoft has 'sold out' anybody or anything.. This is the next instalment in a successful game franchise - One that has seen the same gameplay time and time again.. I have always been a huge fan of SC, but I, like Ubisoft, can recognize when a game needs to take an evolutionary step forward..

If Splinter Cell had no story - I would say staying with the old gameplay would be fine.. But because the story is a large part of this form of entertainment, I feel like the gameplay has to evolve to go hand in hand with the story, (And that is, Sam on his own, no ROE, he can do whatever he wants)..

I am not a hater of old Splinter Cell at all, and I don't want to say I'm GLAD the gameplay has changed - Because I always have loved the old games - But I recognize it is time to take Sam in a different direction, I accept the new direction with excitement.. For the sake of the story.. To make a story telling experience really deep and dark.. To be honest, I feel like a story like Conviction, with the old gameplay, would be really weird.. Hence the developer's taking a step beyond what is "Splinter Cell normal"..

I also feel like IF Ubisoft had stuck with the old gameplay, and made this game another "save the world" story - There would be the same amount of flame as they're getting now.. People would be complaining about nothing changing..

- My opinion! I will 2nd that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

JAHman28
02-21-2010, 01:17 PM
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 SilencedScream0:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Stealthgamer001:
Don't simply ignore brent and Avelo, or anyone else.



As for Aveelo, he did misquote and directly insult Aj in another thread. When Aj commented about it here, I decided to snoop a bit.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Insult WTF Man ? Aj Insut Me Hmm

P.S Cya All PPl I Quit The Forums http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif Good Luck And Have Fun </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Awww...
I'm gonna miss you aveelo... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

And I always thought of Aveelo as a laid-back guy, why would he insult anyone?
confused http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

RaulO4
02-21-2010, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
It's a Flight Simulator.. Believe it or not it's used by flight schools, museums, and has other educational uses.. When I was a PC gamer - I had everything from FS98 all the way until Century of Flight.. Improved flight dynamics, better graphics.. You're right - Not much different.. But it's got a defined, professional user base, aside from just gamers..

Ever wonder why Microsoft doesn't have a flight sim on console??

... Enough said..

I think if Tom Clancy had a hand in every game that came out - They wouldn't be making much money off them.. Look at Dragon Rising.. Supposed to be ultimately realistic.. Didn't do very well, did it..

The vast majority of gamers want FUN, over the top action..

I'm all for realism, trust me! I just recognize the decision game developer's have decided to go with dragon rising didnt do well because of the something they are doing with scc

they took out realism out of ofp add cod to it
fan didnt like it at all
it was less realistic then the FIRST OFP

then mp info came and wait what??? AI teamates wtf?

and i can keep on going and going

i was in that forum watching the fans telling them not do it
stay what made ofp ofp


dope they didnt listen and what did they got......-.- nothing


now let move on to a game need to change to sell

mgs...still the same game
and $$$$$$ thats all



oh i dont mean to disrespect you at all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Joshua Morrison
02-21-2010, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
^ It was a really odd move Tom Clancy selling his name the way he did.. But, I don't think in a gaming market like we have today - Evolutionary games are what sell.. Games that have a lot of crap packed into them.. Effective or not - The old type of Splinter Cell, Ghost Recon or Rainbow Six were simple; Straight forward.. With not much "amazing" packed onto the disk.. That's not to say they weren't great games.. Sometimes less is better!

But a giant game developer like Ubisoft recognizes when it's time to take another step and go beyond what has ben done time and time again.. And ultimately, create a game that is new and different that people will enjoy playing..

We've talked about this for soo long - Why dev's change games the way they do.. But it comes down to a market strategy.. The question is posed, something like, "What can we do to make more than just Splinter Cell fans interested?".. Their obvious answer? MORE ACTION..

That appeals to a wider audience, which in turn makes more money..

Selling out Tom Clancy? Selling out Splinter Cell? That's comparing apples and oranges to me.. Because what makes Splinter Cell is the story.. The gameplay simply evolves..

Apple and Organes..??? No what you just describe is that they have sold out the name for more fans...... They have trashed Tom Clancy's name and you just don't care so you are arguing even though you are wrong.

If Ubisoft wanted to make a game that was different then what is out now they would actually make a game that was difficult and not aimed at the ****** generation of gamers we have now. Take MW2 you spawn less then 10 feet from enemies some times why? because todays generation wants fast and easy kills. Tom Clancy's games WERE about the total opposite. Thinking/slow kills that would set them apart from the garbage that is out now.

FrankieSatt
02-21-2010, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by JSaint777:
People were quick to say Ubisoft sold out with Chaos Theory. Look how that turned out.

I still don't think they have. The Ubisoft higher-ups just put the wrong team in charge of a Splinter Cell game.

But considering the team that is in control, the game looks very fun.

UbiSoft knew what they devs were doing and if they thought the dev team wasn't doing what they thought was right they could have gotten rid of that team and put another one in place.

UbiSoft is just as much at fault as the Incompetent Dev Team they put in charge.

RaulO4
02-21-2010, 02:01 PM
joshua
you should say 78% of this gen of gamers like fast and easy kills

I'm in this gen -.-"

Joshua Morrison
02-21-2010, 02:04 PM
Fair.... I also play, my point is that they market to these type of players. Sorry.

RaulO4
02-21-2010, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
Fair.... I also play, my point is that they market to these type of players. Sorry.

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

but you do got a point
I'm playing the old r6v 3 and it seems that I'm playing a more advance game but with out the graphics
that is a shame
i could control my hole team on what they have on,what camo,what armor,weapons,what will they do,where they will move, and i can do this to each team which is Alpha Bravo etc etc...

there a mod coming out that will have better AI and you can aim down the sites
also rag doll!! sweet

sgt_brent
02-21-2010, 02:35 PM
My point, Josh, is that Ubisoft may have sold out the 'Tom Clancy' name - Because they probably felt they had to to continue being a successful developer when it comes to Clancy games.. You said yourself this generation wants fast and easy kills - If that's what makes money, why not exploit that?

This generation also wants fuel economy, GPS, comfort and style.. Why don't car manufacturers STICK WITH THE OLD and keep making loud muscle cars with only an AM radio? Because that's not what the majority of people want - It has been improved upon, no? Everything must evolve to conform to what the current generation wants.. Both mechanically and technologically.. Now, you can say THAT is apples and oranges - But it REALLY isn't.. It's the exact same principle all production companies are based around..

But the question posed was 'Has Ubisoft sold out the Splinter Cell franchise?'.. MY OPINION is that no, they haven't sold out Splinter Cell.. They have simply taken advantage of the gaming market's wants.. Not what the small percentage of "hardcore fans" want - Which seems to be the same frigging game over and over again..

That doesn't make me "wrong".. I say it makes me completely logical and realistic.. Stop and look at the big picture, guys..

Dion250
02-21-2010, 02:43 PM
I'm glad they're changing SC. 1-4 are all the same and recycled games. This series has been out a long time and needs a reboot. Buying recycled games like CoD Series and Starcraft 2 aren't my taste. ESP after 10 years.. these games are all the same. So I'm glad they're changing it.

sgt_brent
02-21-2010, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Dion250:
I'm glad they're changing SC. 1-4 are all the same and recycled games. This series has been out a long time and needs a reboot. Buying recycled games like CoD Series and Starcraft 2 aren't my taste. ESP after 10 years.. these games are all the same. So I'm glad they're changing it.

But you still feel all the 'Splinter Cell' dripping off Conviction, right?

RaulO4
02-21-2010, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My point, Josh, is that Ubisoft may have sold out the 'Tom Clancy' name - Because they probably felt they had to to continue being a successful developer when it comes to Clancy games.. You said yourself this generation wants fast and easy kills - If that's what makes money, why not exploit that?

This generation also wants fuel economy, GPS, comfort and style.. Why don't car manufacturers STICK WITH THE OLD and keep making loud muscle cars with only an AM radio? Because that's not what the majority of people want - It has been improved upon, no? Everything must evolve to conform to what the current generation wants.. Both mechanically and technologically.. Now, you can say THAT is apples and oranges - But it REALLY isn't.. It's the exact same principle all production companies are based around..

But the question posed was 'Has Ubisoft sold out the Splinter Cell franchise?'.. MY OPINION is that no, they haven't sold out Splinter Cell.. They have simply taken advantage of the gaming market's wants.. Not what the small percentage of "hardcore fans" want - Which seems to be the same frigging game over and over again..

That doesn't make me "wrong".. I say it makes me completely logical and realistic.. Stop and look at the big picture, guys.. i say it again ofp DRagon rising try to exploit the action world....and it fell hard

scc will try to do the same but
there so so so many action game it will have the same fate.

poeple who buy this game for stealth are mad
people who think it still a stealth game and not knowing its an action game that fit them wont buy it.

......well thats all
I'm buying
I'm playing
I'm be done with it in 3 days
last sc I'm buying
but this is all IMO
i hope that this game does sell and live on with the new gen

Andre202
02-21-2010, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
This generation also wants fuel economy, GPS, comfort and style.. Why don't car manufacturers STICK WITH THE OLD and keep making loud muscle cars with only an AM radio? Because that's not what the majority of people want - It has been improved upon, no? Everything must evolve to conform to what the current generation wants.. Both mechanically and technologically.. Now, you can say THAT is apples and oranges - But it REALLY isn't.. It's the exact same principle all production companies are based around.
The cars evolved I agree but did they removed the wheels or removed the lights, removed the windows (and I could go on)...? You know what I mean? The car industry doesn't remove, they improve and add. Every year radios get smaller and there is more place for a screen to look video, hear music and have a navigation system. They don't remove they add and improve!!!

H.A.R.M.s
02-21-2010, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Dion250:
I'm glad they're changing SC. 1-4 are all the same and recycled games. ... Buying recycled games like CoD Series and Starcraft 2 aren't my taste. Yes, one of most awaited sequel that's coming after 10 years is recycling. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

There's known recipe for some genre. Of course, you can improve it, but core remains the same. They could've improve stealth, or make entirely new IP (like they've did with AC), but they decided to push SC into completely another genre. I guess that's selling out.

sgt_brent
02-21-2010, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by Andre202:
The cars evolved I agree but did they removed the wheels or removed the lights, removed the windows (and I could go on)...? You know what I mean? The car industry doesn't remove, they improve and add. Every year radios get smaller and there is more place for a screen to look video, hear music and have a navigation system. They don't remove they add and improve!!!

Well then it's not a car anymore.. And people wouldn't be interested at all.. Although that was a very good point - I feel it's a bit skewed.. I don't want this to turn into an argument about cars - But my point was, a manufacturer/game developer will feature things in their product to reflect what the market wants.. Whether they're subtracting something that no longer works, or adding a feature to bring in more interest.. It's all part of the game! You know?

SplinterCell472
02-21-2010, 03:58 PM
No, I don't think they have sold out the franchise. You probably started this thread because you are angry with the game's direction. Sigh these forums are full of negativity.

CoJ_Fan_87
02-21-2010, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by SplinterCell472:
No, I don't think they have sold out the franchise. You probably started this thread because you are angry with the game's direction. Sigh these forums are full of negativity.

As I've said, I'm currently undecided and won't make a decision until I see more of the game. A demo would go a long way.

I made this thread to see where the community is at regarding this issue.

savior2006
02-21-2010, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by JSaint777:
People were quick to say Ubisoft sold out with Chaos Theory. Look how that turned out.

I still don't think they have. The Ubisoft higher-ups just put the wrong team in charge of a Splinter Cell game.

But considering the team that is in control, the game looks very fun.
Saint, you really can't compare the two. If memory serves the naysayers judged Chaos Theory based on one trailer, whereas we have seen many demos of actual gameplay from Conviction.

Joshua Morrison
02-21-2010, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My point, Josh, is that Ubisoft may have sold out the 'Tom Clancy' name - Because they probably felt they had to to continue being a successful developer when it comes to Clancy games.. You said yourself this generation wants fast and easy kills - If that's what makes money, why not exploit that ?



Lol cause that makes you a sell out. They tossed all the things that made this series famous. Like someone else said you can't remove the tires and still call it a car.

sgt_brent
02-21-2010, 05:18 PM
A sell out to Tom Clancy - And his idea's of realism, yes - I agreed to that already.. But selling out Splinter Cell? No, because this is still SC we're talking about..

I have said evolution is what keeps things fresh and exciting.. And that's what Ubisoft has done with Conviction.. I'm glad.. And I know I'm not the only one..

But seeing as now I am getting some pretty ignorant private messages because of my opinion on this matter - I'm going to let it go.. Grow up..

RaulO4
02-21-2010, 05:46 PM
then why not evolve stealth?

this a stealth game not an action and its not even doing anything for action games at all.

Joshua Morrison
02-21-2010, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
A sell out to Tom Clancy - And his idea's of realism, yes - I agreed to that already.. But selling out Splinter Cell? No, because this is still SC we're talking about..

I have said evolution is what keeps things fresh and exciting.. And that's what Ubisoft has done with Conviction.. I'm glad.. And I know I'm not the only one..

But seeing as now I am getting some pretty ignorant private messages because of my opinion on this matter - I'm going to let it go.. Grow up..

I don't understand if the game was built around the Tom Clancy name then buy selling out one you are still selling out the other. As far as Splinter Cell goes most of the characters are radically different. The Splinter Cells themselves are totally different using rifles and mp5s, the way they move is different they look more like a Rainbow Six team than anything else. In the original game they stated that the player could not pick up enemies' weapons as this would lead to the player not using stealth and running though the level shooting everything. They have pretty much tossed everything that made the game Splinter Cell. To appeal to a wider audience.... aka they are selling out.

CoJ_Fan_87
02-21-2010, 06:02 PM
Thanks for all the feedback so far, guys.

I REALLY hope this thread doesn't de-evolve into a flame war.

Atm, it seems that 48% of you think Ubi sold out, 29% of you think Ubi didn't sell out and 23% of you are undecided, like me. This is based on 52 votes so far.

I REALLY hope I can get more feedback before this thread is possibly closed.

savior2006
02-21-2010, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by CoJ_Fan_87:
Thanks for all the feedback so far, guys.

I REALLY hope this thread doesn't de-evolve into a flame war.

Atm, it seems that 48% of you think Ubi sold out, 29% of you think Ubi didn't sell out and 23% of you are undecided, like me. This is based on 52 votes so far.

I REALLY hope I can get more feedback before this thread is possibly closed.
In your case, I say do not pre-order it. Wait for a collection of reviews to come out after release, more than two at least. After reading them, buy the game if you think it matches your tastes.

Joshua Morrison
02-21-2010, 06:20 PM
or just rent it. I will probably rent it to see if I want to buy a used copy.

sgt_brent
02-21-2010, 06:21 PM
Saying Ubisoft has "sold out" anybody just feeds the negativity in this forum..

italics560
02-21-2010, 06:24 PM
I am going to seriously crack up when I see the high reviews from almost all gaming sites and magazines.

AirborneRedneck
02-21-2010, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by italics560:
I am going to seriously crack up when I see the high reviews from almost all gaming sites and magazines.

And what do reviews mean? Not a damn thing. GTA IV had great reviews, but to me it wasn't fun, unlike such games as NASCAR 09, low reviews but in my opinion, one of the best games of this generation. Everyone has opinions, and so far, no reviewer matches mine.

savior2006
02-21-2010, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by italics560:
I am going to seriously crack up when I see the high reviews from almost all gaming sites and magazines.
I'm going to crack up when every one of those reviewers explain that they gave the high score because Conviction reminds them of Uncharted. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

I_am_a_SC
02-21-2010, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My opinion, which I have stated many times before..

I do not feel Ubisoft has 'sold out' anybody or anything.. This is the next instalment in a successful game franchise - One that has seen the same gameplay time and time again.. I have always been a huge fan of SC, but I, like Ubisoft, can recognize when a game needs to take an evolutionary step forward..

If Splinter Cell had no story - I would say staying with the old gameplay would be fine.. But because the story is a large part of this form of entertainment, I feel like the gameplay has to evolve to go hand in hand with the story, (And that is, Sam on his own, no ROE, he can do whatever he wants)..

I am not a hater of old Splinter Cell at all, and I don't want to say I'm GLAD the gameplay has changed - Because I always have loved the old games - But I recognize it is time to take Sam in a different direction, I accept the new direction with excitement.. For the sake of the story.. To make a story telling experience really deep and dark.. To be honest, I feel like a story like Conviction, with the old gameplay, would be really weird.. Hence the developer's taking a step beyond what is "Splinter Cell normal"..

I also feel like IF Ubisoft had stuck with the old gameplay, and made this game another "save the world" story - There would be the same amount of flame as they're getting now.. People would be complaining about nothing changing..

- My opinion!

I think this is a great post and do not disagree with it. In fact, had Ubisoft done this but kept core elements in the new games, I would have never boycotted Ubisoft.

Now let me give an example: Let's say in D/A, Ubi had decided to simply ask Sam to take the mission instead of coming up with the storyline that they did. But then at the same time, had not had fake get out of prison missions, where absolutely no research was done on how an actual prison is run. I also hated the shoot Lambert scenario. Now could that happen in real life? Yes it could but when I finish a game, I want to finish it feeling good, not feeling like depending on what the developers do on the next game, I may have just shot and killed my best friend and in real life, I personally would not have done that and since as the player I am the one who makes these decisions for Sam, it is a decision that Sam would have never done. Moreover, I think with even how Sam was wired, it would be a decision he would have never done as loyalty was a strong characteristic of Sam as well as doing the right thing. Plus Ubi went off the deep end with the story by making Sam unstable emotionally. In real life, those types are the last person you choose to do a mission like what they wanted Sam to do.

Now let's take Conviction. There are things about this game that I admit, look great! But Ubi has taken away almost every freedom given to the fans. My choice is gone to kill or k.o., I have no choice to turn off the projections, that are flat out annoying to me! I have no choice to turn off the LKP. Sure it is good for new people but I have been playing every Splinter Cell game since the first one and don't want or need LKP. I do however like the mark and execute as it falls in line with reality of Sam's training. What I do hate though is Sam's new super human speed that is completely silent as well as his superhuman strength. Next, they made Sam younger and then froze his age. I mean common, how much more ridiculous does Ubi feel they need to get? The freezing of the age thing is flat out stupid! Making Sam younger, could be explained by saying the age in Sam's file was falsified to help hide his true identity but Ubi is just magically changing his age and going against SC cannon. With Sarah, since Sam is now against 3E, I think this game would have been much better if a 3E simply would have kidnapped her and Sam was trying to find her. Since they think he went rogue from D/A, it would also make more sense because they would be trying to erase everything about his past which the only thing there is, would be Sarah. Also the new goggles suck! I don't want x-ray vision, even if it is something our military is really secretly working on. I miss the goggles of old that had night vision, thermal vision and the electronic vision thing that could detect electronics signature.

Had Ubi done all of this, and even with the change of storylines from D/A on but kept more realism in these games, I would be buying but Ubi has gone completely fiction with this game and the last one and until they fix that, I simply can't support them.

Cyrus.H
02-22-2010, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by JAHman28:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyrus.H:
That's exactly how I feel, SilencedScream0.

Just because Sam has been "let off the leash" and isn't working for Third Echelon anymore, doesn't mean he's going to kill every man and his dog.

We're talking about the same guy who said in Chaos Theory (and I quote), "I take no joy in killing. But make no mistake, I'll do what needs to be done because it's my job. It's my duty."

The whole point is that you can chooseif you want to kill 'every man and his dog'.

It is your choice whether you should want to bash through every door like a bad-a$$ and destroy everything that moves noisily.

Or you can stealthily takedown every one, feeling the anguish and despair of your daughter's death but retaining your instincts to stay quiet and unnoticed.

or you can keep high morals and spare many in your search for you daughter. you can creep by in the shadows like previous splinter cells forced you to.
But this time there is three times the choice, three times the ways to play.

there is a significant rise in quality of weapons gameplay, hand-to-hand combat and efficiently taking down several people in a second.

Of course they are then going to have to cut down on the stealthy parts. they couldn't focus on one of the areas just because a few hardcore fans on the forums told them to.

They can't take away from this experience to focus on one way to play, else the experience may just fall apart.

but ultimately, the game is what you make it to be.
It can be your cliched action game, it can be your silent predator title, it can be your slow-paced stealth game.

I think we're lucky that Ubisoft Montreal has made this game for all fans and we should just take it as our own experience rather than moan and whine about it.

JAHman out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it is not our choice anymore because the new development team has robbed us of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Instead of non-lethally choking enemies until they're unconscious, we now have to lethally slam their heads into brick walls. Instead of night-vision goggles that we can toggle on and off ourselves if we want to see in the dark, we have to make do with a ******ed black-and-white "shadow vision" that desaturates the entire screen every time you enter a darkened area. Instead of knocking enemies unconscious with the non-lethal gas from our sticky cameras, we have to kill them with an explosion that will alert the entire HQ to our presence. Instead of launching non-lethal gadgets at enemies, we have to barrage them with lethal ammunition. And instead of interrogating enemies silently with a knife to their throat, we now have to do a ******ed song and dance that requires us to watch several cutscenes of Sam smashing their head into a urinal/brick wall/paper shredder until they 'fess up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Need I say more?

Cyrus.H out.


Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My opinion, which I have stated many times before..

I do not feel Ubisoft has 'sold out' anybody or anything.. This is the next instalment in a successful game franchise - One that has seen the same gameplay time and time again.. I have always been a huge fan of SC, but I, like Ubisoft, can recognize when a game needs to take an evolutionary step forward..

If Splinter Cell had no story - I would say staying with the old gameplay would be fine.. But because the story is a large part of this form of entertainment, I feel like the gameplay has to evolve to go hand in hand with the story, (And that is, Sam on his own, no ROE, he can do whatever he wants)..

I am not a hater of old Splinter Cell at all, and I don't want to say I'm GLAD the gameplay has changed - Because I always have loved the old games - But I recognize it is time to take Sam in a different direction, I accept the new direction with excitement.. For the sake of the story.. To make a story telling experience really deep and dark.. To be honest, I feel like a story like Conviction, with the old gameplay, would be really weird.. Hence the developer's taking a step beyond what is "Splinter Cell normal"..

I also feel like IF Ubisoft had stuck with the old gameplay, and made this game another "save the world" story - There would be the same amount of flame as they're getting now.. People would be complaining about nothing changing..

- My opinion!
If Ubisoft had stuck with the old gameplay and the original plot, then they wouldn't have this ******ed "save the world" story because it would involve Sam helping Grim (who is now the closest thing he has to a daughter) out of a dirty situation while trying to clear his own name and there wouldn't be the same amount of flaming going on. People wouldn't be complaining about nothing changing, because there would be things changing but in a more subtle way.


Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My point, Josh, is that Ubisoft may have sold out the 'Tom Clancy' name - Because they probably felt they had to to continue being a successful developer when it comes to Clancy games.. You said yourself this generation wants fast and easy kills - If that's what makes money, why not exploit that?

This generation also wants fuel economy, GPS, comfort and style.. Why don't car manufacturers STICK WITH THE OLD and keep making loud muscle cars with only an AM radio? Because that's not what the majority of people want - It has been improved upon, no? Everything must evolve to conform to what the current generation wants.. Both mechanically and technologically.. Now, you can say THAT is apples and oranges - But it REALLY isn't.. It's the exact same principle all production companies are based around..

But the question posed was 'Has Ubisoft sold out the Splinter Cell franchise?'.. MY OPINION is that no, they haven't sold out Splinter Cell.. They have simply taken advantage of the gaming market's wants.. Not what the small percentage of "hardcore fans" want - Which seems to be the same frigging game over and over again..

That doesn't make me "wrong".. I say it makes me completely logical and realistic.. Stop and look at the big picture, guys..
Who said that I want "the same frigging game over and over again"?

I want the '07 build of ConViction, the one that Mathieu Ferland and the Chaos Theory team created, and not Maxime Béland and co.'s bastardized offspring of Splinter Cell, the Jason Bourne series and 24. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

daydark87
02-22-2010, 06:14 AM
No I don't think so, I've played them all, and I don't feel sold out, I've kind felt that this was the natural way it would go.

Dagio12
02-22-2010, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by Cyrus.H:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JAHman28:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyrus.H:
That's exactly how I feel, SilencedScream0.

Just because Sam has been "let off the leash" and isn't working for Third Echelon anymore, doesn't mean he's going to kill every man and his dog.

We're talking about the same guy who said in Chaos Theory (and I quote), "I take no joy in killing. But make no mistake, I'll do what needs to be done because it's my job. It's my duty."

The whole point is that you can chooseif you want to kill 'every man and his dog'.

It is your choice whether you should want to bash through every door like a bad-a$$ and destroy everything that moves noisily.

Or you can stealthily takedown every one, feeling the anguish and despair of your daughter's death but retaining your instincts to stay quiet and unnoticed.

or you can keep high morals and spare many in your search for you daughter. you can creep by in the shadows like previous splinter cells forced you to.
But this time there is three times the choice, three times the ways to play.

there is a significant rise in quality of weapons gameplay, hand-to-hand combat and efficiently taking down several people in a second.

Of course they are then going to have to cut down on the stealthy parts. they couldn't focus on one of the areas just because a few hardcore fans on the forums told them to.

They can't take away from this experience to focus on one way to play, else the experience may just fall apart.

but ultimately, the game is what you make it to be.
It can be your cliched action game, it can be your silent predator title, it can be your slow-paced stealth game.

I think we're lucky that Ubisoft Montreal has made this game for all fans and we should just take it as our own experience rather than moan and whine about it.

JAHman out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it is not our choice anymore because the new development team has robbed us of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Instead of non-lethally choking enemies until they're unconscious, we now have to lethally slam their heads into brick walls. Instead of night-vision goggles that we can toggle on and off ourselves if we want to see in the dark, we have to make do with a ******ed black-and-white "shadow vision" that desaturates the entire screen every time you enter a darkened area. Instead of knocking enemies unconscious with the non-lethal gas from our sticky cameras, we have to kill them with an explosion that will alert the entire HQ to our presence. Instead of launching non-lethal gadgets at enemies, we have to barrage them with lethal ammunition. And instead of interrogating enemies silently with a knife to their throat, we now have to do a ******ed song and dance that requires us to watch several cutscenes of Sam smashing their head into a urinal/brick wall/paper shredder until they 'fess up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Need I say more?

Cyrus.H out.


Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My opinion, which I have stated many times before..

I do not feel Ubisoft has 'sold out' anybody or anything.. This is the next instalment in a successful game franchise - One that has seen the same gameplay time and time again.. I have always been a huge fan of SC, but I, like Ubisoft, can recognize when a game needs to take an evolutionary step forward..

If Splinter Cell had no story - I would say staying with the old gameplay would be fine.. But because the story is a large part of this form of entertainment, I feel like the gameplay has to evolve to go hand in hand with the story, (And that is, Sam on his own, no ROE, he can do whatever he wants)..

I am not a hater of old Splinter Cell at all, and I don't want to say I'm GLAD the gameplay has changed - Because I always have loved the old games - But I recognize it is time to take Sam in a different direction, I accept the new direction with excitement.. For the sake of the story.. To make a story telling experience really deep and dark.. To be honest, I feel like a story like Conviction, with the old gameplay, would be really weird.. Hence the developer's taking a step beyond what is "Splinter Cell normal"..

I also feel like IF Ubisoft had stuck with the old gameplay, and made this game another "save the world" story - There would be the same amount of flame as they're getting now.. People would be complaining about nothing changing..

- My opinion!
If Ubisoft had stuck with the old gameplay and the original plot, then they wouldn't have this ******ed "save the world" story because it would involve Sam helping Grim (who is now the closest thing he has to a daughter) out of a dirty situation while trying to clear his own name and there wouldn't be the same amount of flaming going on. People wouldn't be complaining about nothing changing, because there would be things changing but in a more subtle way.


Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My point, Josh, is that Ubisoft may have sold out the 'Tom Clancy' name - Because they probably felt they had to to continue being a successful developer when it comes to Clancy games.. You said yourself this generation wants fast and easy kills - If that's what makes money, why not exploit that?

This generation also wants fuel economy, GPS, comfort and style.. Why don't car manufacturers STICK WITH THE OLD and keep making loud muscle cars with only an AM radio? Because that's not what the majority of people want - It has been improved upon, no? Everything must evolve to conform to what the current generation wants.. Both mechanically and technologically.. Now, you can say THAT is apples and oranges - But it REALLY isn't.. It's the exact same principle all production companies are based around..

But the question posed was 'Has Ubisoft sold out the Splinter Cell franchise?'.. MY OPINION is that no, they haven't sold out Splinter Cell.. They have simply taken advantage of the gaming market's wants.. Not what the small percentage of "hardcore fans" want - Which seems to be the same frigging game over and over again..

That doesn't make me "wrong".. I say it makes me completely logical and realistic.. Stop and look at the big picture, guys..
Who said that I want "the same frigging game over and over again"?

I want the '07 build of ConViction, the one that Mathieu Ferland and the Chaos Theory team created, and not Maxime Béland and co.'s bastardized offspring of Splinter Cell, the Jason Bourne series and 24. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i love how you argue that this is like a jason bourne series game and you want the '07 build.. yet the '07 build was way more like the jason bourne movies. js.

but just so you know.. i would have loved the 07' build also. lol

Knot3D
02-22-2010, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by SF2themax:
i love how you argue that this is like a jason bourne series game and you want the '07 build.. yet the '07 build was way more like the jason That is where you are possibly mistaken...

Sure, the 2007 visual styling looked more civilian, but it was potentially steering towards more cereberal & subtle stealth by means of distractions and tricks. This means the emphasis was about going unnoticed, i.e. not raising suspicion while being active to achieve a goal.

The emphasis of the new build is certainly not about going unnoticed ; the emphasis now is about eliminating all possible threats & obstacles.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
02-22-2010, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My point, Josh, is that Ubisoft may have sold out the 'Tom Clancy' name - Because they probably felt they had to to continue being a successful developer when it comes to Clancy games.. You said yourself this generation wants fast and easy kills - If that's what makes money, why not exploit that?

That is EXACTLY what selling out is brent - changing your principles/product to better suit the biggest market trends just to make money, not because it is the correct direction for the project.


This generation also wants fuel economy, GPS, comfort and style.. Why don't car manufacturers STICK WITH THE OLD and keep making loud muscle cars with only an AM radio? Because that's not what the majority of people want - It has been improved upon, no? Everything must evolve to conform to what the current generation wants.. Both mechanically and technologically.. Now, you can say THAT is apples and oranges - But it REALLY isn't.. It's the exact same principle all production companies are based around..

You're pulling a few arguments together here. You're talking about market trends and car styles and equating a cleaner more economic car as an improved evolution with Conviction.

If a name is associated with and bases it's car manufacturing principles upon the stylized old muscle cars that eats 4 gallons a meter and are completely loud and obnoxious, then if that named product changes its product and production values/principles to better suit the economic trends and starts to make GPS and bio-diesel cars then they are doing just that - selling out.

Would you call a 150cc bright yellow s****** made by Harley Davidson 'a Harley'?


But the question posed was 'Has Ubisoft sold out the Splinter Cell franchise?'.. MY OPINION is that no, they haven't sold out Splinter Cell.. They have simply taken advantage of the gaming market's wants..

Also known as 'selling out'


Not what the small percentage of "hardcore fans" want - Which seems to be the same frigging game over and over again..

No, it really, really isn't, but keep trying to convince yourself that.


That doesn't make me "wrong".. I say it makes me completely logical and realistic.. Stop and look at the big picture, guys..

No, it does make you wrong, because you said they haven't sold out Splinter Cell, yet you contradicted yourself twice in one post on that point and practically stated that they have sold out Splinter Cell with Conviction.

But anyone who's been following the Clancy games over the past number of years could see that they were all, 1 by 1, being sold down the line and Splinter Cell was going to be no different.

It's a shame, because if this game had hung onto the Tom Clancy values/principles and still delivered an in depth Tom Clancy styled ex-spec ops agent's personal story, with all the high end production and development skills that Ubisoft Montreal has, it could well have been the greatest Splinter Cell ever...

sgt_brent
02-22-2010, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
No, it does make you wrong, because you said they haven't sold out Splinter Cell, yet you contradicted yourself twice in one post on that point and practically stated that they have sold out Splinter Cell with Conviction.

My post was regarding selling out the Tom Clancy name, Not Splinter Cell.. Get your fact straight.. It doesn't make me wrong..

But let's face it - This is a thread to make all the whiners feel better about the current situation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CoJ_Fan_87
02-22-2010, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
No, it does make you wrong, because you said they haven't sold out Splinter Cell, yet you contradicted yourself twice in one post on that point and practically stated that they have sold out Splinter Cell with Conviction.

My post was regarding selling out the Tom Clancy name, Not Splinter Cell.. Get your fact straight.. It doesn't make me wrong..

But let's face it - This is a thread to make all the whiners feel better about the current situation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe for some, but for me this thread is for finding out how the SC community as a whole feels.

As I've already said, I haven't made up my mind as to whether or not I'll be picking up SCC.

sgt_brent
02-22-2010, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by CoJ_Fan_87:
Maybe for some, but for me this thread is for finding out how the SC community as a whole feels.

As I've already said, I haven't made up my mind as to whether or not I'll be picking up SCC.

Yeah - I knoww - You had good intentions when you started the thread.. But unfortunately, most threads turn into a slug fest; With pro-Conviction members being outnumbered by haters.. So it doesn't surprise me this one has gone that direction too..

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
02-22-2010, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
No, it does make you wrong, because you said they haven't sold out Splinter Cell, yet you contradicted yourself twice in one post on that point and practically stated that they have sold out Splinter Cell with Conviction.

My post was regarding selling out the Tom Clancy name, Not Splinter Cell.. Get your fact straight.. It doesn't make me wrong..

But let's face it - This is a thread to make all the whiners feel better about the current situation http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My apologies.

You only contradicted yourself once about Splinter Cell, the other comment was about Tom Clancy, which either way, is the same thing when it comes to this topic.

By your own admission Ubisoft has changed Splinter Cell to take advantage of what the market wants. This constitutes selling out.

So that does make you wrong.

And you may see this thread as a place for the whiners to converge, but this topic is one that is hugely important with regards to Ubisoft.

Tom Clancy is their biggest franchise and they are dragging it through the dirt, but all the teenagers don't care because they haven't got a clue.

sgt_brent
02-22-2010, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
My apologies.

You only contradicted yourself once about Splinter Cell, the other comment was about Tom Clancy, which either way, is the same thing when it comes to this topic..

Funny - I just read over this entire thread.. Given the context of each time I posted, I only SEEMINGLY contradicted myself once.. I was already called out on that one time - I reminded you to take context into consideration - We've agreed on that one..

Other than that, like I said, I haven't been able to find any instance where I said 'Ubisoft has sold out the Splinter Cell name' - Or even implied it.. So unless you can provide this thread with a direct quote from me, given the context - You're accusation holds no merit; And it's simply you trying your damndest to call somebody out - Because that's what you're best at.. You put 'words in people's mouths', so to speak, and take quotes out of context, to skew and distort someones opinion or view.. I know what I said, so I suggest reading over the thread again..

I hope you're not too naive to realize you have now turned this into a personal matter.. Instead of discussing the topic at hand.. But that doesn't surprise me, Shadow..

-------

My opinion, re-stated..

I do believe Ubisoft has abandoned the 'Tom Clancy' name, to create GAMES that appeal to a wider audience; By getting rid of what 'realism' Clancy always expected of his games, and adding in aspects to make the experiences more fluid and fun.. Instead of tedious and logical.. SELLING OUT - Getting rid of something important to make money..

I do not believe Ubisoft has sold out the name of 'Splinter Cell' by creating Conviction.. A game, to me, exists as a branding of the events and/or characters within the game itself.. 'Splinter Cell' IS Sam Fisher.. And again, this is my opinion - But because Sam Fisher is still the hub of this SC title, to me - How is that abandoning the name 'Splinter Cell'? He still represents stealth, undetected infiltration, shadows - All the 'Splinter Cell' stuff.. (Another debate in itself - Don't stray from the issue at hand.)

That's my opinion, in a nut shell.. Take it or leave it.. Don't come back and tell me my opinion is wrong - That's just immature.. And frankly, it ticks me off..

Isanator
02-22-2010, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
My apologies.

You only contradicted yourself once about Splinter Cell, the other comment was about Tom Clancy, which either way, is the same thing when it comes to this topic..

Funny - I just read over this entire thread.. Given the context of each time I posted, I only SEEMINGLY contradicted myself once.. I was already called out on that one time - I reminded you to take context into consideration - We've agreed on that one..

Other than that, like I said, I haven't been able to find any instance where I said 'Ubisoft has sold out the Splinter Cell name' - Or even implied it.. So unless you can provide this thread with a direct quote from me, given the context - You're accusation holds no merit; And it's simply you trying your damndest to call somebody out - Because that's what you're best at.. You put 'words in people's mouths', so to speak, and take quotes out of context, to skew and distort someones opinion or view.. I know what I said, so I suggest reading over the thread again..

I hope you're not too naive to realize you have now turned this into a personal matter.. Instead of discussing the topic at hand.. But that doesn't surprise me, Shadow..

-------

My opinion, re-stated..

I do believe Ubisoft has abandoned the 'Tom Clancy' name, to create GAMES that appeal to a wider audience; By getting rid of what 'realism' Clancy always expected of his games, and adding in aspects to make the experiences more fluid and fun.. Instead of tedious and logical.. SELLING OUT - Getting rid of something important to make money..

I do not believe Ubisoft has sold out the name of 'Splinter Cell' by creating Conviction.. A game, to me, exists as a branding of the events and/or characters within the game itself.. 'Splinter Cell' IS Sam Fisher.. And again, this is my opinion - But because Sam Fisher is still the hub of this SC title, to me - How is that abandoning the name 'Splinter Cell'? He still represents stealth, undetected infiltration, shadows - All the 'Splinter Cell' stuff.. (Another debate in itself - Don't stray from the issue at hand.)

That's my opinion, in a nut shell.. Take it or leave it.. Don't come back and tell me my opinion is wrong - That's just immature.. And frankly, it ticks me off.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think what people mean, by, as the say "Selling out the Splinter Cell name" is meaning that, its pretty much not what it used to be.

All 4 games so far, are good definitions of "Splinter Cell" You are working for the government, slow pasted, very realistic on what you can and cannot do, (some parts aren't but overall it is) Sam Fisher at his greatest, his classic night vision goggles, having to actually aim your gun at people, light and shadows are very realistic, not that shadow vision stuff.

Conviction on the the other hand, it has completely changed the game play by a huge leap. Almost everything is different in Conviction. And a lot of people don't like it, they don't think it deserves the name "Splinter Cell" anymore, because it isn't what I described above. People just miss the original stealth action Splinter Cells, and didn't really want it to change this much. Pretty much to summarize it, if you really can think of how different Conviction is game play wise, compared to Chaos Theory, its pretty good to comprehend why people think they sold out the title. The only reason they think that is because it is not how it used to be, they completely changed the realism in Splinter Cell, the slow passed action, etc.

Don't get me wrong though, I am not saying your opinion is wrong, I was just stating why I think people thought they sold out the title of the game.

My opinion is pretty much a mix. I have some reasons to believe they "sold out" the title, but I do have some reasons not to believe it.

I could be completely wrong, maybe thats not what people meant by "selling out the title" but that is my main guess. I am not going to state my opinion, as because I do not want people to tell me MY opinion is wrong, and make me angry, like they did yours. Otherwise I would, but there are many trolls here who believe everyone is wrong, and they are right. But there are others, who take pride in peoples opinions, and give people credit for there thoughts.

Stealthgamer001
02-22-2010, 05:16 PM
What really constitutes "selling out" is not just making a change to meet popular demand and achieve personal gain (in this case, profits/ popularity) but it also involves a change which compromises one's core values. Whether or not Conviction has done that is a pretty big grey area as of now.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
02-22-2010, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
Funny - I just read over this entire thread.. Given the context of each time I posted, I only SEEMINGLY contradicted myself once.. I was already called out on that one time - I reminded you to take context into consideration - We've agreed on that one..

How was I taking it out of context brent? You said in one single sentiment that you didn't not think that Splinter Cell was being sold out. You stated this as your opinion. You then immediately follow that sentence by saying that with Conviction they have simply taken advantage of what the market wants.

The two statements are contradictory. I read your other posts and can't see how anything else you posted would allude to anything more than your justification for Ubisoft selling the franchise out. You can support the decision all you want, that's your decision, but you have to recognise that the statements are contradictory.

You also stated that the gameplay needed to change for the story and that this is the reason for the changes. This is an utterly incorrect and illogical statement to make, as the story for this game has been crafted around the experience that Ubisoft wanted Splinter Cell directed towards to sell it to the mainstream. Just look at the 07 build, avenging Sarah was never mentioned, Williams was most likely going to be the main threat, Grim was the link back into the game and was in trouble. All of these story elements and the story of ANY game (like with this build) take a backseat and are only later considered AFTER the target audience, basic game design and pre production get rolling. It's incorrect to think that this story of Sam Fisher is the one that Ubisoft has been dying to tell and as such have fashioned the gameplay around the need to tell it.


Other than that, like I said, I haven't been able to find any instance where I said 'Ubisoft has sold out the Splinter Cell name' - Or even implied it.. So unless you can provide this thread with a direct quote from me, given the context - You're accusation holds no merit; And it's simply you trying your damndest to call somebody out - Because that's what you're best at.. You put 'words in people's mouths', so to speak, and take quotes out of context, to skew and distort someones opinion or view.. I know what I said, so I suggest reading over the thread again..

Well I won't ask you how you can admit Ubisoft can sell out the Tom Clancy franchise without it having a direct effect on Splinter Cell. But I will retract my statement if you put the third piece of quoted text in my last point in context or at least tell me how I took it out of context.


I hope you're not too naive to realize you have now turned this into a personal matter.. Instead of discussing the topic at hand.. But that doesn't surprise me, Shadow..

I haven't made it personal at all brent. I read your post, saw that you said something relevant to the topic at hand that contradicted itself and quoted you on it. Don't think that I'm picking on you, this is completely relevant to the discussion at hand.

Having played every Tom Clancy game out there since the original Rainbow Six came out, it is an absolute fact that every single franchise under his name has been sold out to the mainstream with a lot of undesirable effects since he sold the rights to his name. It started with Splinter Cell with Double Agent and I see no evidence that it has changed in this title. You yourself even have admitted that the mentality of Hollywood is resonant in this title - a sure sign of selling something out to make it more attractive to the mainstream.



My opinion, re-stated..

I do believe Ubisoft has abandoned the 'Tom Clancy' name, to create GAMES that appeal to a wider audience; By getting rid of what 'realism' Clancy always expected of his games, and adding in aspects to make the experiences more fluid and fun.. Instead of tedious and logical..

Getting rid of realism and trading it for fun? The entertainment/fun from Tom Clancy games was that they were realistic. The whole attraction is that YOU are playing the role of a special forces solider in a Tom Clancy story.

Tedious and logical? Did you not like the previous Tom Clancy titles? Did you not have fun with them and the unique experiences they provided? It doesn't sound like it.


I do not believe Ubisoft has sold out the name of 'Splinter Cell' by creating Conviction.. A game, to me, exists as a branding of the events and/or characters within the game itself.. 'Splinter Cell' IS Sam Fisher.. And again, this is my opinion - But because Sam Fisher is still the hub of this SC title, to me - How is that abandoning the name 'Splinter Cell'? He still represents stealth, undetected infiltration, shadows - All the 'Splinter Cell' stuff.. (Another debate in itself - Don't stray from the issue at hand.)

So your point here is that as long as it's got Sam Fisher in it, no matter the other changes in the title, then Ubisoft has not sold the franchise out to the mainstream?

None of the other changes that should not exist in a Tom Clancy game and therefore in Splinter Cell make a difference?


That's my opinion, in a nut shell.. Take it or leave it.. Don't come back and tell me my opinion is wrong - That's just immature.. And frankly, it ticks me off..

I'm sorry if it ticks you off brent, but if you state your opinion and then state another opinion that contradicts the first then one of them is wrong.

sgt_brent
02-22-2010, 05:34 PM
^You just wasted a lot of time writing that.. I'm not even going to bother with it - It's probably just full of word twists and questions to me like "What do you mean?", "How can you say that?", and just questioning everything I said by repeating what I said, with a question mark at the end.. That's what you do, Shadow.. You're good at it.. So congratulations for being predictable..

It ticks me off, because you love a pointless argument, and you try your hardest to stick your fist in someone's mouth to **** them off.. I'm not denying it.. It works..

Kudos, champ..

For the record, I'm not wrong - My opinion is my own.. So eat it..

Isanator
02-22-2010, 05:44 PM
I would first just like to say, no opinion can be wrong. Thats why its an opinion. It may be utterly stupid, but, can not be wrong. So you have no reason saying peoples opinions are "wrong" Shadowfox.

Anyways, I do, very much agree, the Tom Clancy title has been abused. What I *think* happened, was Ubisoft bought the name, to throw it on any of there games, to trick people into thinking it is a Tom Clancy game. Splinter Cell Conviction, sure as hell does not deserve that title.

It is the game Devs. of Splinter Cell Conviction, there fault that Splinter Cell had to go in this direction. They had to get Sam's daughter killed, make Sam loose everything, completely change his personality. And ended it with Sam on the run..

So clearly they had to start off from the ending of double agent, which, of course was not going to be Sam in the agency working for William Reed is it? No.

Now, if the team that made Chaos Theory was still on the job for Conviction, I am sure it could of deserved the Tom Clancy title. But, they had to throw in the Devs of assassins creed, and completely ruin the realism of the game. Not saying that there a bad Dev team, but they should stick to Assassins Creed.

So, the Splinter Cell name has not been sold out, in my opinion of course, for many reasons.

It was not there fault, the Dev team of DA left the game at a hanging point, and the next Dev team had to start from that. They had to lead the game in this direction, for storyline sake. Its still Splinter Cell, its still Sam Fisher, its still the same characters, same storyline, etc. so that obviously makes it a Splinter Cell game.

Overall, it does NOT deserve the Tom Clancy title, it doesn't necessarily deserve the Splinter Cell name, but, as I said, the story had to go in this direction, so it is not necessarily there fault.

RaulO4
02-22-2010, 05:52 PM
isanator it was the dev from R6v2

Isanator
02-22-2010, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by RaulO4:
isanator it was the dev from R6v2
Well, I heard it was the dev from AC, but I could be wrong.

Either way, if they would of kept the Chaos Theory team, I think it would of been better off.

RaulO4
02-22-2010, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Isanator:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RaulO4:
isanator it was the dev from R6v2
Well, I heard it was the dev from AC, but I could be wrong.

Either way, if they would of kept the Chaos Theory team, I think it would of been better off. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yea they would

...i just hope that sc6 will have both scc&ct
since they can start a new story

have both gameplay

also make an in-dept fighting system CQC
(i know mgs is really hated here but its a good EX. in mgs 4 it had layers to it)

Dion250
02-22-2010, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by H.A.R.M.s:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dion250:
I'm glad they're changing SC. 1-4 are all the same and recycled games. ... Buying recycled games like CoD Series and Starcraft 2 aren't my taste. Yes, one of most awaited sequel that's coming after 10 years is recycling. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

There's known recipe for some genre. Of course, you can improve it, but core remains the same. They could've improve stealth, or make entirely new IP (like they've did with AC), but they decided to push SC into completely another genre. I guess that's selling out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you even in the StarCraft 2 beta? It's very similar to 1. Even the game play. not like that's a bad thing.. But after 10 years. New GFX, Plus a few units is disappointing. I think its clear you're a blizzard fan boy.. Go spend your 60$ there. Playing recycled games years after years is boring. Resident Evil series did this with RE4. And now RE4 is considered the best RE game to date. I give props to game developers that's actually try something new instead of giving us the same junk and charging you 60$ for it.

Joshua Morrison
02-22-2010, 06:16 PM
Ok so now where or not a company is a sell out is a question of opinion? Ubisoft took out the things that made Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell. It's not anyones opinion it is a fact. Did they do it for money? That is up for debate.

To the OP I think you A, rent it or B, buy it used if you are concerned with where your money is going. I would go with A if you really think you will like it more than what Splinter Cell use to be. After you rent it if you think Ubisoft did good you can give them your money. If you think it's a step in the wrong direction and can't help but own it get it used.

sgt_brent
02-22-2010, 06:20 PM
^ That 'FACT' is your opinion.. OP posed a question - People answer it based on what they think.. It's not right or wrong.. A forum is a public community assembled for open discussion.. Not 'SOME people know the correct answer to every question asked'..

singularity_
02-22-2010, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
Ok so now where or not a company is a sell out is a question of opinion? Ubisoft took out the things that made Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell. It's not anyones opinion it is a fact. Did they do it for money? That is up for debate.

To the OP I think you A, rent it or B, buy it used if you are concerned with where your money is going. I would go with A if you really think you will like it more than what Splinter Cell use to be. After you rent it if you think Ubisoft did good you can give them your money. If you think it's a step in the wrong direction and can't help but own it get it used.

What if for me, the only reason I played Splinter Cell is to see Sam Fisher shoot people? By that standard, Ubi Soft has stayed true to the series. What if it is L&S stealth? Ubi has still stayed true. Co-op gameplay? Ubi has my bases covered, if that's all I'm interested in.

Long story short, you feel they "sold out the franchise" because they have removed things that were important to you. This isn't the case with others -- those who have been frustrated with the trial and error gameplay, did not like the linear paths and wanted a more personal story for Sam... well SCC is exactly what they have been asking for since Pandora Tomorrow.

In my opinion, no -- Ubi did not "sell out the series." I don't believe they got together in a room and, rubbing their hands together and arching their eyebrows, decided how much they really wanted to sell SC down the river so they could make more money.

I think they decided they wanted to give stealth a different angle (much like RE4 was given a new angle) and built upon a solid idea.

I've been a fan since day 1. I don't agree with all the decisions the dev team is making (especially the removal of SvM), but I am still very excited for the game.

To sum it up and answer the OP - No. I think SCC is simply on a new path, much like Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Zelda, Castlevania, etc. before it. And I think the series needs to change, rather than wear itself into the ground. The gameplay was getting tiring by Chaos Theory, and needed a shot in the arm years ago. Double Agent dropped the ball, so more drastic measures need to be taken to save this series' life. And yes, at the end of the day, this is simply my opinion

BAM91
02-22-2010, 06:52 PM
Short answer. No.

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
02-22-2010, 08:00 PM
Originally posted by sgt_brent:
^You just wasted a lot of time writing that.. I'm not even going to bother with it - It's probably just full of word twists and questions to me like "What do you mean?", "How can you say that?", and just questioning everything I said by repeating what I said, with a question mark at the end.. That's what you do, Shadow.. You're good at it.. So congratulations for being predictable..

It ticks me off, because you love a pointless argument, and you try your hardest to stick your fist in someone's mouth to **** them off.. I'm not denying it.. It works..

Kudos, champ..

For the record, I'm not wrong - My opinion is my own.. So eat it..

I personally don't think the argument is pointless at all brent. It's probably one of the more substantial ones on this forum that divides fans the most, but which hasn't been openly discussed in it's own thread (to my knowledge).

The Tom Clancy and Splinter Cell franchises are being sold out and it is detrimental to what they stand for.

And I haven't twisted your words once brent. Not once. So don't try and say I did. I quoted you in context, which you have yet to correct me upon because you immaturely decided that you were going to bother reading my post.

Which is pretty hypocritical of you as you deemed myself immature for pointing out the flaw in your argument.

Either way, it doesn't bother me


Originally posted by Isantor:
I would first just like to say, no opinion can be wrong. Thats why its an opinion. It may be utterly stupid, but, can not be wrong. So you have no reason saying peoples opinions are "wrong" Shadowfox

Are you actually being serious? No opinion can be "wrong"?

What would you say if I told you that it was my opinion that the world was flat, the sun rotated around it and the world started 6,000 years ago?

You're mistaking the right to having an opinion with the reasoning that every opinion is right. That's simply not the correct, which is what I pointed out with brent by his own admission.

Isanator
02-22-2010, 08:07 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sgt_brent:
^You just wasted a lot of time writing that.. I'm not even going to bother with it - It's probably just full of word twists and questions to me like "What do you mean?", "How can you say that?", and just questioning everything I said by repeating what I said, with a question mark at the end.. That's what you do, Shadow.. You're good at it.. So congratulations for being predictable..

It ticks me off, because you love a pointless argument, and you try your hardest to stick your fist in someone's mouth to **** them off.. I'm not denying it.. It works..

Kudos, champ..

For the record, I'm not wrong - My opinion is my own.. So eat it..

I personally don't think the argument is pointless at all brent. It's probably one of the more substantial ones on this forum that divides fans the most, but which hasn't been openly discussed in it's own thread (to my knowledge).

The Tom Clancy and Splinter Cell franchises are being sold out and it is detrimental to what they stand for.

And I haven't twisted your words once brent. Not once. So don't try and say I did. I quoted you in context, which you have yet to correct me upon because you immaturely decided that you were going to bother reading my post.

Which is pretty hypocritical of you as you deemed myself immature for pointing out the flaw in your argument.

Either way, it doesn't bother me


Originally posted by Isantor:
I would first just like to say, no opinion can be wrong. Thats why its an opinion. It may be utterly stupid, but, can not be wrong. So you have no reason saying peoples opinions are "wrong" Shadowfox

Are you actually being serious? No opinion can be "wrong"?

What would you say if I told you that it was my opinion that the world was flat, the sun rotated around it and the world started 6,000 years ago?

You're mistaking the right to having an opinion with the reasoning that every opinion is right. That's simply not the correct, which is what I pointed out with brent by his own admission. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, you saying the world is flat, would be a false fact.

Because it can be proven that it is round. Thats what makes it a fact. And it can be proven you are wrong about the world being flat.

Here, let me help you a bit.

Definition of fact:

fact? ?[fakt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2.
something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3.
a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
5.
Law. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, as distinguished from its legal effect or consequence.Compare question of fact, question of law.
—Idioms
6.
after the fact, Law. after the commission of a crime: an accessory after the fact.
7.
before the fact, Law. prior to the commission of a crime: an accessory before the fact.
8.
in fact, actually; really; indeed: In fact, it was a wonder that anyone survived.

Here is a link to the definition also: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact

Definition of opinion

o·pin·ion? ?[uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3.
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4.
Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5.
a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.
6.
a favorable estimate; esteem: I haven't much of an opinion of him.

Here is the link to the definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/opinion

Now you know the difference. What you said about the world being flat. Can be proven wrong, and HAS been proven wrong. The world is round. That is a fact.

Me saying that I like Ubisoft is an opinion. It is my personal view, it cannot be proven wrong, that I do not like Ubisoft.

I hope that helped.

sgt_brent
02-22-2010, 08:07 PM
<span class="ev_code_RED">*Post Removed*</span>

JesusSixNine
02-22-2010, 09:16 PM
I think this game is exactly Splinter Cell

sammyboy1981
02-22-2010, 09:28 PM
Damn, Sgt. Brent just got suspended, huh! I guess we gotta watch our digi-mouths. <span class="ev_code_WHITE">(*****)</span> hehe

I don't think Ubi sold out the franchise as much as they UTTERLY and COMPLETELY missed the mark on what this franchise is about. They wouldn't of delayed the game numerous times if it was a sellout move...if anything we would've seen 2-3 titles by now.

No, where this game goes wrong (IMO) is that it is focussed a little TOO MUCH on Sam Fisher. As a fan, I think he's one of the greatest video game characters of the last decade, but there have been a ton of those whose games haven't lasted because of some reason or another (mostly because the gameplay got lackadaisical or was uninspired to begin with).

Luckily, because the franchise wasn't "sold out", that means they can still revive it WITHOUT reverting to some cheap REBOOT (didn't work for PoP, wouldn't work for SC). All UBI needs to do is find some talent and get a dev team that UNDERSTANDS Splinter Cell. Get their canon in order and return to the gameplay it revolutionized...but improve it for the 2010, instead of just rehashing a used up plot element and going all panther on us.

J Saint777
02-22-2010, 09:29 PM
Oh my God! They banned Brent!

Did he really deserve that?

Isanator
02-22-2010, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by JSaint777:
Oh my God! They banned Brent!

Did he really deserve that?
Coastal, what did Brent do, I mean, I am sure you have a good reason, I would just like to know so I do not do it and get banned.

CoastalGirl
02-22-2010, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by JSaint777:
Oh my God! They banned Brent!

Did he really deserve that? From the forum rules: "Creating an extra account is not allowed on these forums and second or further accounts will be removed. Doing so to get around a temporary ban will also result in a permanent one."

If you have any more questions about it, feel free to PM a mod or manager.

J Saint777
02-22-2010, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Isanator:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSaint777:
Oh my God! They banned Brent!

Did he really deserve that?
Coastal, what did Brent do, I mean, I am sure you have a good reason, I would just like to know so I do not do it and get banned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

She's going to request you ask her in a PM.

RaulO4
02-22-2010, 09:35 PM
this is outrage why brent?

why? he never went past the rules. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

CoastalGirl
02-22-2010, 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Isanator:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSaint777:
Oh my God! They banned Brent!

Did he really deserve that?
Coastal, what did Brent do, I mean, I am sure you have a good reason, I would just like to know so I do not do it and get banned. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Just read and follow the rules and you'll be fine (and if you're ever in doubt, just send one of us a PM and ask). http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sammyboy1981
02-22-2010, 09:39 PM
Brent was getting a little off topic with his poop and weiner remarks...not to mention he verbally attacked Shadow.

I say, good on ya...Coastal!!!

You ARE the LAW!!!
http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/images/Judge_Dredd01.jpg?SSImageQuality=Full

J Saint777
02-22-2010, 09:39 PM
Are we allowed to create a thread in honor of our fallen friend? He defended the game to his last breath it seems, and he was a big part of this community.

We were gonna play coop. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

savior2006
02-22-2010, 09:40 PM
Man down! Man down! Where's a medic?!
Seriously, though Brent was lost control. I don't know whether ShadowFox takes things out of context, but he's the most courteous dark-sider here. If Brent can't debate him without making crude--albeit funnyhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif--jokes about the things squirrels eat then there's really no defending him. Pretty damn disappointing to say the least. He was the last person I would except this from. You're the second.
Edit: Wait...he got BANNED?! WTF?! Why?! Coastal Girl no! You guys gotta let him back in!

J Saint777
02-22-2010, 09:42 PM
I'm the second? The second to last or the next person to be banned? Please elaborate. In the friendliest manner possible, I'm curious.

RaulO4
02-22-2010, 09:42 PM
....R.I.P Brent

he will be mist.
if hes reading this
.....don't go the Sam Fisher rout
if you know what i mean

savior2006
02-22-2010, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by JSaint777:
I'm the second? The second to last or the next person to be banned? Please elaborate. In the friendliest manner possible, I'm curious.
You're the second to last person I would expect to be banned. Brent was the last person.
Without him....posts just aren't worth posting... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
[jumps off a cliff]

sammyboy1981
02-22-2010, 09:45 PM
Sgt. Brent: "Who...Banned...My...Account?" (slams dog's head into urinal)

CoastalGirl
02-22-2010, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by JSaint777:
Are we allowed to create a thread in honor of our fallen friend? He defended the game to his last breath it seems, and he was a big part of this community.

We were gonna play coop. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif You can in the OT forum if it's within the rules, of course.

Can we try to get back on topic in here, please? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

J Saint777
02-22-2010, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by RaulO4:
....R.I.P Brent

he will be mist.
if hes reading this
.....don't go the Sam Fisher rout
if you know what i mean

She was just doing her job!! Please don't M&E CoastalGirl!!

I will miss.....our PM's. *In slowly fading voice*

Goodbye...... my friend. X(

J Saint777
02-22-2010, 09:48 PM
Originally posted by savior2006:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JSaint777:
I'm the second? The second to last or the next person to be banned? Please elaborate. In the friendliest manner possible, I'm curious.
You're the second to last person I would expect to be banned. Brent was the last person.
Without him....posts just aren't worth posting... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
[jumps off a cliff] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh don't jump. I'm not leaving you!

I really need a sig. I need to be recognizable.

J Saint777
02-22-2010, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by sammyboy1981:
Sgt. Brent: "Who...Banned...My...Account?" (slams dog's head into urinal)

LOL Just made me spit all over my keyboard. LOL.

Back on topic, wiping my tears.

What's this thread about again?

savior2006
02-22-2010, 09:50 PM
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 JSaint777:
Are we allowed to create a thread in honor of our fallen friend? He defended the game to his last breath it seems, and he was a big part of this community.

We were gonna play coop. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif You can in the OT forum if it's within the rules, of course.

Can we try to get back on topic in here, please? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, Coastal...
Why don't we start by getting on the topic of why you just axed one of my best light sider friends?

Stealthgamer001
02-22-2010, 09:51 PM
Goodbeye brent.

So..........Has Ubisoft sold out the SC franchise?

J Saint777
02-22-2010, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by savior2006:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">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 JSaint777:
Are we allowed to create a thread in honor of our fallen friend? He defended the game to his last breath it seems, and he was a big part of this community.

We were gonna play coop. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif You can in the OT forum if it's within the rules, of course.

Can we try to get back on topic in here, please? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, Coastal...
Why don't we start by getting on the topic of why you just axed one of my best light sider friends? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oooooohh. Now Savior's mad.

RaulO4
02-22-2010, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by sammyboy1981:
Sgt. Brent: "Who...Banned...My...Account?" (slams dog's head into urinal) XD

thats great


on-topic:i think we should go back to sc
and look at what made that game what it is

then compare it to the new one
to see if it has lost its name
IMO it did it has no connection to sc
just the names/not the characters

do i dislike the game?no
but it will be my last sc that i will buy
i will not support the new gen of sc games that will come out
unlest it brings back stealth
and try to evolve it as it did with the fist sc
but for now i guess my stealth will come out from Hitman/Mgs4/VA/
sad just 3 stealth games,

note:i only play on console so no pc
i heard that sniper elite is a great game but is it stealth?

J Saint777
02-22-2010, 09:57 PM
One final off topic remark:

Pay your respects to brent in the Official Off Topic Thread.

sammyboy1981
02-22-2010, 10:00 PM
Absolutely right Raul04, they need a return to stealth.

What I'd LOVE to see is a super-stealthy Splinter Cell 6, that uses a combo of the great L&S nighttime gameplay from #1-Chaos Theory, the decision-making of Double Agent (improved upon of course), and the CQC of Conviction, and coupled with an OPEN-world like area (ala AssCreed) that has both day and night missions. Sneaky spy stuff at night, but Social Stealth during the day...

It's time SC got a little more open world and a lot less linear!!!

Mesotie
02-22-2010, 10:03 PM
That what I would love to see, though I'm not too sure about the social stealth thing, I get enough of that with Assassin's Creed

RaulO4
02-22-2010, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by sammyboy1981:
Absolutely right Raul04, they need a return to stealth.

What I'd LOVE to see is a super-stealthy Splinter Cell 6, that uses a combo of the great L&S nighttime gameplay from #1-Chaos Theory, the decision-making of Double Agent (improved upon of course), and the CQC of Conviction, and coupled with an OPEN-world like area (ala AssCreed) that has both day and night missions. Sneaky spy stuff at night, but Social Stealth during the day...

It's time SC got a little more open world and a lot less linear!!!


...I was just think that they should improve upon stealth like in mgs4

it took thing from sc
like light&shadow

lets say if your camo had the same pattern to your surrounding you would have a 80% hidden
but if you get in shadows you would get a bonus

sc should take the camo idea they had in mgs3

with in dept cqc from ms4
and add something els to stealth

and with the conviction shooting for people who likes action

sammyboy1981
02-22-2010, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Mesotie:
That what I would love to see, though I'm not too sure about the social stealth thing, I get enough of that with Assassin's Creed

Well, I HATE AssCreed myself (wasted 60 bucks on the first one...and I'm not gonna get burned again), but I'm talking more SERIOUS scoial stealth...none of this hiding in haystacks and sitting on benches junk. I'd like to see them create a real system of getting lost in the crowd...losing tails...hiding in plain sight...etc, etc. Add a little bit of outfit swapping (nothing rediculous...just switching jackets and hats)...and you've got something really interesting, IMO.

Mesotie
02-22-2010, 10:15 PM
Well, the second is a bit better when it comes to that, since you can actually hide in groups (of all different sizes), kind of like moving shadows...But, it does still need a lot of improvement

But, if done right I suppose it would work with SC

The outfit thing would be cool though, kind of like when Sam changes in the airport at the end of Pandora

RaulO4
02-22-2010, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by sammyboy1981:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mesotie:
That what I would love to see, though I'm not too sure about the social stealth thing, I get enough of that with Assassin's Creed

Well, I HATE AssCreed myself (wasted 60 bucks on the first one...and I'm not gonna get burned again), but I'm talking more SERIOUS scoial stealth...none of this hiding in haystacks and sitting on benches junk. I'd like to see them create a real system of getting lost in the crowd...losing tails...hiding in plain sight...etc, etc. Add a little bit of outfit swapping (nothing rediculous...just switching jackets and hats)...and you've got something really interesting, IMO. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>uhuhuh do you mean the o7 build??

lol

sammyboy1981
02-22-2010, 10:23 PM
Indeed Mesotie. I don't think I'll ever bother to try AssCreed2...even when it's in the bargin bin for 5 bucks someday. I recognize it's a good game, but the repetitiveness of running around in circles from guards trying to find a hiding spot without a guard seeing me enter it...and then waiting 3-4 minutes for the alertness to drop was just aweful for me... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

The outfit change at the end of Pandora was awesome (even if it was just a cutscene). We bash them cuz of Double Agent, but it's been Shanghai that's been putting the real innovation in SC (with the outfit changes, the SvM, the DA trust system). Other than the Chaos Theory knife, CONVICTION is Montreal's first attempt at making something new in SC...too bad day iz da FALE!

sammyboy1981
02-22-2010, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by RaulO4:
[uhuhuh do you mean the o7 build??

lol

Sorry to doublepost...but hell yesthe 07 build. I NEVER said a bad word against Hobo-Sam and the hotdog cart exploding...I was always optimistic for it.

I was for this new Conviction as well, but then E3 rolled around...and my hopes disappeared faster than...uh...Sgt. Brent's opinions.

Stealthgamer001
02-22-2010, 10:34 PM
Skip to 11:02 of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRGI2PsnzQ&translated=1)

RaulO4
02-22-2010, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by Stealthgamer001:
Skip to 11:02 of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRGI2PsnzQ&translated=1)


yea they needed to change what people know/think
what an elite solder can do



...once again this is why I'm buying my last sc and on the side of yes they sold sc out for money.


this is all an IMO

sammyboy1981
02-22-2010, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Stealthgamer001:
Skip to 11:02 of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRGI2PsnzQ&translated=1)

YIKES!!! It can't be good that the VERY FIRST thing he does is DEFEND the shift in gameplay style to more casual...calling the previous games basically TOO HARD and PUNISHING. Poor guys...all they're doing now is firefighting.

Also...did they mispell his name "Patrick Reading"?

oO_ShadowFox_Oo
02-22-2010, 11:12 PM
Originally posted by Isanator:
Now you know the difference. What you said about the world being flat. Can be proven wrong, and HAS been proven wrong. The world is round. That is a fact.

Me saying that I like Ubisoft is an opinion. It is my personal view, it cannot be proven wrong, that I do not like Ubisoft.

I hope that helped.

There's no need for big long posts with definitions. People know what fact is and they know what an opinion is.

People are wise to base their opinions on facts. The two are completely different things. But you saying that someone's opinion can't be wrong is ludicrous.

You're right. If it is an opinion about your personal feelings, then someone can't really prove you wrong. But opinions about external perceptions on topics and subjects are fully subjective and therefore capable of being flat out incorrect.

What if you have the opinion that someone is stupid, but you later find out that they're actually quite intelligent? Would your previous opinion be wrong? Of course it would!

You can have an opinion on many different topics and be completely wrong. You're fully entitled to be wrong. I have found myself in this situation many times before.

Just because it's someone's opinion doesn't mean its incapable of being shown to be incorrect.

And you may state that your (not yours specifically) is that Ubisoft hasn't sold out the Splinter Cell franchise, but when you say that it's bringing it to a wider audience and making it more accessible to the mainstream then you're pretty much blasting your own opinion out of the water.

SilencedScream0
02-22-2010, 11:55 PM
Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
And you may state that your (not yours specifically) is that Ubisoft hasn't sold out the Splinter Cell franchise, but when you say that it's bringing it to a wider audience and making it more accessible to the mainstream then you're pretty much blasting your own opinion out of the water.

I disagree.
Bringing it to a wider audience is not relevant to whether or not they are selling out Splinter Cell.

It's the method that's important: how they are getting it to the wider audience - by sacrificing what the original gameplay was all about.

The first game came with "Stealth Action Redefined" and the next three games followed what the first game claimed as "Stealth Action Redefined." This game seems like it's trying to play a Heart when, before, they were playing Clubs (referencing difference in cards, in case someone doesn't play).

So, sure, bigger audience.
But it's the different gameplay mechanics that shift the game away from its roots.

Cyrus.H
02-23-2010, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by SF2themax:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyrus.H:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JAHman28:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyrus.H:
That's exactly how I feel, SilencedScream0.

Just because Sam has been "let off the leash" and isn't working for Third Echelon anymore, doesn't mean he's going to kill every man and his dog.

We're talking about the same guy who said in Chaos Theory (and I quote), "I take no joy in killing. But make no mistake, I'll do what needs to be done because it's my job. It's my duty."

The whole point is that you can chooseif you want to kill 'every man and his dog'.

It is your choice whether you should want to bash through every door like a bad-a$$ and destroy everything that moves noisily.

Or you can stealthily takedown every one, feeling the anguish and despair of your daughter's death but retaining your instincts to stay quiet and unnoticed.

or you can keep high morals and spare many in your search for you daughter. you can creep by in the shadows like previous splinter cells forced you to.
But this time there is three times the choice, three times the ways to play.

there is a significant rise in quality of weapons gameplay, hand-to-hand combat and efficiently taking down several people in a second.

Of course they are then going to have to cut down on the stealthy parts. they couldn't focus on one of the areas just because a few hardcore fans on the forums told them to.

They can't take away from this experience to focus on one way to play, else the experience may just fall apart.

but ultimately, the game is what you make it to be.
It can be your cliched action game, it can be your silent predator title, it can be your slow-paced stealth game.

I think we're lucky that Ubisoft Montreal has made this game for all fans and we should just take it as our own experience rather than moan and whine about it.

JAHman out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it is not our choice anymore because the new development team has robbed us of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Instead of non-lethally choking enemies until they're unconscious, we now have to lethally slam their heads into brick walls. Instead of night-vision goggles that we can toggle on and off ourselves if we want to see in the dark, we have to make do with a ******ed black-and-white "shadow vision" that desaturates the entire screen every time you enter a darkened area. Instead of knocking enemies unconscious with the non-lethal gas from our sticky cameras, we have to kill them with an explosion that will alert the entire HQ to our presence. Instead of launching non-lethal gadgets at enemies, we have to barrage them with lethal ammunition. And instead of interrogating enemies silently with a knife to their throat, we now have to do a ******ed song and dance that requires us to watch several cutscenes of Sam smashing their head into a urinal/brick wall/paper shredder until they 'fess up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Need I say more?

Cyrus.H out.


Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My opinion, which I have stated many times before..

I do not feel Ubisoft has 'sold out' anybody or anything.. This is the next instalment in a successful game franchise - One that has seen the same gameplay time and time again.. I have always been a huge fan of SC, but I, like Ubisoft, can recognize when a game needs to take an evolutionary step forward..

If Splinter Cell had no story - I would say staying with the old gameplay would be fine.. But because the story is a large part of this form of entertainment, I feel like the gameplay has to evolve to go hand in hand with the story, (And that is, Sam on his own, no ROE, he can do whatever he wants)..

I am not a hater of old Splinter Cell at all, and I don't want to say I'm GLAD the gameplay has changed - Because I always have loved the old games - But I recognize it is time to take Sam in a different direction, I accept the new direction with excitement.. For the sake of the story.. To make a story telling experience really deep and dark.. To be honest, I feel like a story like Conviction, with the old gameplay, would be really weird.. Hence the developer's taking a step beyond what is "Splinter Cell normal"..

I also feel like IF Ubisoft had stuck with the old gameplay, and made this game another "save the world" story - There would be the same amount of flame as they're getting now.. People would be complaining about nothing changing..

- My opinion!
If Ubisoft had stuck with the old gameplay and the original plot, then they wouldn't have this ******ed "save the world" story because it would involve Sam helping Grim (who is now the closest thing he has to a daughter) out of a dirty situation while trying to clear his own name and there wouldn't be the same amount of flaming going on. People wouldn't be complaining about nothing changing, because there would be things changing but in a more subtle way.


Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My point, Josh, is that Ubisoft may have sold out the 'Tom Clancy' name - Because they probably felt they had to to continue being a successful developer when it comes to Clancy games.. You said yourself this generation wants fast and easy kills - If that's what makes money, why not exploit that?

This generation also wants fuel economy, GPS, comfort and style.. Why don't car manufacturers STICK WITH THE OLD and keep making loud muscle cars with only an AM radio? Because that's not what the majority of people want - It has been improved upon, no? Everything must evolve to conform to what the current generation wants.. Both mechanically and technologically.. Now, you can say THAT is apples and oranges - But it REALLY isn't.. It's the exact same principle all production companies are based around..

But the question posed was 'Has Ubisoft sold out the Splinter Cell franchise?'.. MY OPINION is that no, they haven't sold out Splinter Cell.. They have simply taken advantage of the gaming market's wants.. Not what the small percentage of "hardcore fans" want - Which seems to be the same frigging game over and over again..

That doesn't make me "wrong".. I say it makes me completely logical and realistic.. Stop and look at the big picture, guys..
Who said that I want "the same frigging game over and over again"?

I want the '07 build of ConViction, the one that Mathieu Ferland and the Chaos Theory team created, and not Maxime Béland and co.'s bastardized offspring of Splinter Cell, the Jason Bourne series and 24. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i love how you argue that this is like a jason bourne series game and you want the '07 build.. yet the '07 build was way more like the jason bourne movies. js.

but just so you know.. i would have loved the 07' build also. lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, after having looked at a gameplay video of The Bourne Conspiracy, the '09 build of Conviction resembles it more than the '07.

The only similarities I see between '07 ConViction and The Bourne Conspiracy is that both the main characters are heavily trained in hand-to-hand combat and that is to be expected, because it was stated in the novels that Sam was trained to use the Israeli hand-to-hand combat system of Krav Maga and Matt Damon learned some prior to acting in the Bourne movies.

Joshua Morrison
02-23-2010, 07:53 AM
Originally posted by singularity_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
Ok so now where or not a company is a sell out is a question of opinion? Ubisoft took out the things that made Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell. It's not anyones opinion it is a fact. Did they do it for money? That is up for debate.

To the OP I think you A, rent it or B, buy it used if you are concerned with where your money is going. I would go with A if you really think you will like it more than what Splinter Cell use to be. After you rent it if you think Ubisoft did good you can give them your money. If you think it's a step in the wrong direction and can't help but own it get it used.

What if for me, the only reason I played Splinter Cell is to see Sam Fisher shoot people? By that standard, Ubi Soft has stayed true to the series. What if it is L&S stealth? Ubi has still stayed true. Co-op gameplay? Ubi has my bases covered, if that's all I'm interested in.

Long story short, you feel they "sold out the franchise" because they have removed things that were important to you. This isn't the case with others -- those who have been frustrated with the trial and error gameplay, did not like the linear paths and wanted a more personal story for Sam... well SCC is exactly what they have been asking for since Pandora Tomorrow.

In my opinion, no -- Ubi did not "sell out the series." I don't believe they got together in a room and, rubbing their hands together and arching their eyebrows, decided how much they really wanted to sell SC down the river so they could make more money.

I think they decided they wanted to give stealth a different angle (much like RE4 was given a new angle) and built upon a solid idea.

I've been a fan since day 1. I don't agree with all the decisions the dev team is making (especially the removal of SvM), but I am still very excited for the game.

To sum it up and answer the OP - No. I think SCC is simply on a new path, much like Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Zelda, Castlevania, etc. before it. And I think the series needs to change, rather than wear itself into the ground. The gameplay was getting tiring by Chaos Theory, and needed a shot in the arm years ago. Double Agent dropped the ball, so more drastic measures need to be taken to save this series' life. And yes, at the end of the day, this is simply my opinion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mean no disrespect because I actually really like how you put it. I know see what others are thinking and it's a very logical approach. The only problem is that by thinking these were the only things that made the series famous/a Tom Clancy game is ignorant. The series is obviously based on good amount of realism. You can't just look at a few of the features in the game when determining if they have removed the core features. They removed things like dragging bodies, options like lethal/non takedowns, and others this shows they have dropped core gameplay elements. Now if selling out is changing core gameplay elements for a wider audience so you can make more money then it looks like that it what Ubisoft is doing. While I don't know if they are doing it for money, it's obvious they have changed the core of Splinter Cell.

Dagio12
02-23-2010, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by Cyrus.H:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SF2themax:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyrus.H:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JAHman28:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cyrus.H:
That's exactly how I feel, SilencedScream0.

Just because Sam has been "let off the leash" and isn't working for Third Echelon anymore, doesn't mean he's going to kill every man and his dog.

We're talking about the same guy who said in Chaos Theory (and I quote), "I take no joy in killing. But make no mistake, I'll do what needs to be done because it's my job. It's my duty."

The whole point is that you can chooseif you want to kill 'every man and his dog'.

It is your choice whether you should want to bash through every door like a bad-a$$ and destroy everything that moves noisily.

Or you can stealthily takedown every one, feeling the anguish and despair of your daughter's death but retaining your instincts to stay quiet and unnoticed.

or you can keep high morals and spare many in your search for you daughter. you can creep by in the shadows like previous splinter cells forced you to.
But this time there is three times the choice, three times the ways to play.

there is a significant rise in quality of weapons gameplay, hand-to-hand combat and efficiently taking down several people in a second.

Of course they are then going to have to cut down on the stealthy parts. they couldn't focus on one of the areas just because a few hardcore fans on the forums told them to.

They can't take away from this experience to focus on one way to play, else the experience may just fall apart.

but ultimately, the game is what you make it to be.
It can be your cliched action game, it can be your silent predator title, it can be your slow-paced stealth game.

I think we're lucky that Ubisoft Montreal has made this game for all fans and we should just take it as our own experience rather than moan and whine about it.

JAHman out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, it is not our choice anymore because the new development team has robbed us of it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Instead of non-lethally choking enemies until they're unconscious, we now have to lethally slam their heads into brick walls. Instead of night-vision goggles that we can toggle on and off ourselves if we want to see in the dark, we have to make do with a ******ed black-and-white "shadow vision" that desaturates the entire screen every time you enter a darkened area. Instead of knocking enemies unconscious with the non-lethal gas from our sticky cameras, we have to kill them with an explosion that will alert the entire HQ to our presence. Instead of launching non-lethal gadgets at enemies, we have to barrage them with lethal ammunition. And instead of interrogating enemies silently with a knife to their throat, we now have to do a ******ed song and dance that requires us to watch several cutscenes of Sam smashing their head into a urinal/brick wall/paper shredder until they 'fess up. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Need I say more?

Cyrus.H out.


Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My opinion, which I have stated many times before..

I do not feel Ubisoft has 'sold out' anybody or anything.. This is the next instalment in a successful game franchise - One that has seen the same gameplay time and time again.. I have always been a huge fan of SC, but I, like Ubisoft, can recognize when a game needs to take an evolutionary step forward..

If Splinter Cell had no story - I would say staying with the old gameplay would be fine.. But because the story is a large part of this form of entertainment, I feel like the gameplay has to evolve to go hand in hand with the story, (And that is, Sam on his own, no ROE, he can do whatever he wants)..

I am not a hater of old Splinter Cell at all, and I don't want to say I'm GLAD the gameplay has changed - Because I always have loved the old games - But I recognize it is time to take Sam in a different direction, I accept the new direction with excitement.. For the sake of the story.. To make a story telling experience really deep and dark.. To be honest, I feel like a story like Conviction, with the old gameplay, would be really weird.. Hence the developer's taking a step beyond what is "Splinter Cell normal"..

I also feel like IF Ubisoft had stuck with the old gameplay, and made this game another "save the world" story - There would be the same amount of flame as they're getting now.. People would be complaining about nothing changing..

- My opinion!
If Ubisoft had stuck with the old gameplay and the original plot, then they wouldn't have this ******ed "save the world" story because it would involve Sam helping Grim (who is now the closest thing he has to a daughter) out of a dirty situation while trying to clear his own name and there wouldn't be the same amount of flaming going on. People wouldn't be complaining about nothing changing, because there would be things changing but in a more subtle way.


Originally posted by sgt_brent:
My point, Josh, is that Ubisoft may have sold out the 'Tom Clancy' name - Because they probably felt they had to to continue being a successful developer when it comes to Clancy games.. You said yourself this generation wants fast and easy kills - If that's what makes money, why not exploit that?

This generation also wants fuel economy, GPS, comfort and style.. Why don't car manufacturers STICK WITH THE OLD and keep making loud muscle cars with only an AM radio? Because that's not what the majority of people want - It has been improved upon, no? Everything must evolve to conform to what the current generation wants.. Both mechanically and technologically.. Now, you can say THAT is apples and oranges - But it REALLY isn't.. It's the exact same principle all production companies are based around..

But the question posed was 'Has Ubisoft sold out the Splinter Cell franchise?'.. MY OPINION is that no, they haven't sold out Splinter Cell.. They have simply taken advantage of the gaming market's wants.. Not what the small percentage of "hardcore fans" want - Which seems to be the same frigging game over and over again..

That doesn't make me "wrong".. I say it makes me completely logical and realistic.. Stop and look at the big picture, guys..
Who said that I want "the same frigging game over and over again"?

I want the '07 build of ConViction, the one that Mathieu Ferland and the Chaos Theory team created, and not Maxime Béland and co.'s bastardized offspring of Splinter Cell, the Jason Bourne series and 24. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i love how you argue that this is like a jason bourne series game and you want the '07 build.. yet the '07 build was way more like the jason bourne movies. js.

but just so you know.. i would have loved the 07' build also. lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, after having looked at a gameplay video of The Bourne Conspiracy, the '09 build of Conviction resembles it more than the '07.

The only similarities I see between '07 ConViction and The Bourne Conspiracy is that both the main characters are heavily trained in hand-to-hand combat and that is to be expected, because it was stated in the novels that Sam was trained to use the Israeli hand-to-hand combat system of Krav Maga and Matt Damon learned some prior to acting in the Bourne movies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i think you and Knot3D both are misunderstanding me.. and i didnt mean to come off A-holey.. haha.
I was stating that the 07' build was much more the like Jason Bourne MOVIES (the bourne game was lame IMO), then the 09' build. like the 07' build Jason Bourne was always using his environment and the crowd to get around unnoticed in his quest to find answers... and i dont think Jason Bourne used his gun but maybe one time to kill one person in the first movie.. other then that he hardly ever used a pistol.

With that said tho.. i do really like the new build as i think it will be exciting and still maybe hold SC's original idea of using stealth to your advantage.. i could go on with arguing and defending points about Conviction and visa versa.. but that gets nobody nowhere, and we are all here expressing opinions and arent going to change anybody elses. but i also liked the old build a lot.
i would love to see that build in either a new game.. or maybe even SC6. perhaps after conviction, someone sam didnt know anything about somehow finds a way to frame sam for something that happened in conviction and then we can have that whole fugitive idea come back for some of it. idk.. we will see. i hope that clears up what i was trying to say tho.

-peace-

Dagio12
02-23-2010, 08:28 AM
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 singularity_:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
Ok so now where or not a company is a sell out is a question of opinion? Ubisoft took out the things that made Splinter Cell, Splinter Cell. It's not anyones opinion it is a fact. Did they do it for money? That is up for debate.

To the OP I think you A, rent it or B, buy it used if you are concerned with where your money is going. I would go with A if you really think you will like it more than what Splinter Cell use to be. After you rent it if you think Ubisoft did good you can give them your money. If you think it's a step in the wrong direction and can't help but own it get it used.

What if for me, the only reason I played Splinter Cell is to see Sam Fisher shoot people? By that standard, Ubi Soft has stayed true to the series. What if it is L&S stealth? Ubi has still stayed true. Co-op gameplay? Ubi has my bases covered, if that's all I'm interested in.

Long story short, you feel they "sold out the franchise" because they have removed things that were important to you. This isn't the case with others -- those who have been frustrated with the trial and error gameplay, did not like the linear paths and wanted a more personal story for Sam... well SCC is exactly what they have been asking for since Pandora Tomorrow.

In my opinion, no -- Ubi did not "sell out the series." I don't believe they got together in a room and, rubbing their hands together and arching their eyebrows, decided how much they really wanted to sell SC down the river so they could make more money.

I think they decided they wanted to give stealth a different angle (much like RE4 was given a new angle) and built upon a solid idea.

I've been a fan since day 1. I don't agree with all the decisions the dev team is making (especially the removal of SvM), but I am still very excited for the game.

To sum it up and answer the OP - No. I think SCC is simply on a new path, much like Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Zelda, Castlevania, etc. before it. And I think the series needs to change, rather than wear itself into the ground. The gameplay was getting tiring by Chaos Theory, and needed a shot in the arm years ago. Double Agent dropped the ball, so more drastic measures need to be taken to save this series' life. And yes, at the end of the day, this is simply my opinion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mean no disrespect because I actually really like how you put it. I know see what others are thinking and it's a very logical approach. The only problem is that by thinking these were the only things that made the series famous/a Tom Clancy game is ignorant. The series is obviously based on good amount of realism. You can't just look at a few of the features in the game when determining if they have removed the core features. They removed things like dragging bodies, options like lethal/non takedowns, and others this shows they have dropped core gameplay elements. Now if selling out is changing core gameplay elements for a wider audience so you can make more money then it looks like that it what Ubisoft is doing. While I don't know if they are doing it for money, it's obvious they have changed the core of Splinter Cell. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i do agree with hiding bodies.. but all in all, i personally think that the core idea behind splinter cell was sam fisher and the ability to use stealth to achieve his goals. but the idea of stealth in teh game has always really been based by individual players. for example, the first trailer showed sam shooting people and using grenades etc.. etc.. some folks that played the games loved using all of games gadgets and shooting people in the head as they used the shadows and cover to get from point A to point B. A select few gamers out there loved putting restrictions on themselves and limiting kills or even ghosting through the game without even KOing people whenever possible (some were good enuff to almost do the entire game unless you had to get someone for an objective). IMO tho, the original idea of the game was to use everything you had to take care of enemies how you see fit. I Still see the possibility of hiding in the shadows, i still see stealthy gadgets, i still see guns.

The new direction does give it more action possibilities and may bring in more people to the game.. but all in all, IMO, i dont think they sold out all the way.

(althought i wish they would have kept hiding bodies and throwing sprite cans http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif )

SilencedScream0
02-23-2010, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by SF2themax:
The new direction does give it more action possibilities and may bring in more people to the game.. but all in all, IMO, i dont think they sold out all the way.

(althought i wish they would have kept hiding bodies and throwing sprite cans http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif )

I agree that there are new, and more possibilities, with what is given...but I wish they had still incorporated the stealth actions from the previous games. That way, they could give players the best of both and an OPTION so that there's actual replay.

You can try sneaking around or you can go in like Jason Bourne.

More variety, you know?

Joshua Morrison
02-23-2010, 09:26 AM
I too wish there was more options in the form of stealth...maybe there is I haven't played it. To SF2 another problem is that a lot of the realism has been removed and that is another core part of the game. Sam moves to fast, takes way to much damage(from highs and other things) , and has inf. ammo. You make a valid point shooting is part of splinter cell but so are the pieces of realism.

SilencedScream0
02-23-2010, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
I too wish there was more options in the form of stealth...maybe there is I haven't played it. To SF2 another problem is that a lot of the realism has been removed and that is another core part of the game. Sam moves to fast, takes way to much damage(from highs and other things) , and has inf. ammo. You make a valid point shooting is part of splinter cell but so were the pieces of realism.

Hope you don't mind that I fixed that, since they took out the more realistic approach of the previous games.

It was never -completely- realistic, I know, but in comparison to this...

And, without insulting anyone, I can't imagine what the thought was behind removing the ability to carry bodies, especially considering that, if someone finds the body, they become more alert. That is not stealth.

Still. I really want to be hopeful for the game. I will -try- the game and that is a solid promise.

If Ubi didn't fail, in my opinion, then I will buy the game brand new and support them with my money.

Otherwise, just rent or bargain bin.

Dagio12
02-23-2010, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by JoshuaMorrison:
I too wish there was more options in the form of stealth...maybe there is I haven't played it. To SF2 another problem is that a lot of the realism has been removed and that is another core part of the game. Sam moves to fast, takes way to much damage(from highs and other things) , and has inf. ammo. You make a valid point shooting is part of splinter cell but so are the pieces of realism.

sam always take a lot of hits even at super close ranges on the easier settings ( escpecially SC 1.. lol).

but really tho....
i absolutely agree with some of your points... but again i think realism in SC can be different for different people. im hoping that on harder diff setting there is no infinite ammo... but we will see. not to mention that if you try to be stealthy and not shoot everyone.. you prob wont use more then a reasonable amount of bullets. but i see your point and infinite ammo shouldnt be in this game. as far as regen health goes.. to me it wont matter to much as 1 or 2 shots will hopefully kill you on the harder mode.. so regen health probably wont help you to much there..but i did like how you had to find a med kit to get more health in previous games. as far as Sams strength, speed, and agility go.. i would say its maybe a little fast at times, but i wouldnt put it past the point of possibility. These are small things however that push SCC slightly away from true realism... but it is a video game and i would still say that SC even today is still one of the more realistic games of its kind.

I find SCC to be just as realistic/unrealistic as any other SC game.. but in different areas. I never found it realistic how sam could manage to always get by any scenerio without interacting with a few gaurds simply by using a sticky cam or turning of a light, i never found how predictable each gaurd was and how all gaurds could so conveniently be distracted and turn there backs for just the right amount of time for sam to always be able to sneak by. i never found realism into how dark every building was and how a gaurd could literally be 7 inches from sam and not see him cause it was too dark for them to see him, yet not to dark for them to run into walls and tables, and i didnt like how when you did have to use your gun he was a little TOO slow.
i think SCC does a decent job with putting you in situation where you will need to KO or Kill a few gaurds in order to complete an objective as these situations are likely to happen at some point in a real life scenerio (if you need to hack a comp, interrogate etc.. etc.. you arent going to take a chance that the guard you snuck by down the hall isnt going to just decide to come check out the room your in).
I also think SCC will allow the player to be stealthy and be able to sneak by gaurds more so then they have shown us so far ( we will have to see tho.. )

but lets be real, your not always gonna be able to sneak by everyone time and time again. the games just allowed these things to happen to create a fun new stealth experience. so IMO, i think there are parts of Conviction that are more realistic then some previous games.. and visa versa. all in all tho, each game has elements of reality and fiction which for me make it a great experience. i hope that makes some sense. haha.

just so we are all clear... im not doggin on the other games at all.. i loved them and they are still my favorite games around http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

but in the points you made above, i do agree with you. i wish they would have kept some of those basic elements of reality that Tom Clancy is known for such as limited ammo, more realistic speeds of climbing (im sure some people out there can climb and shimmy quickly tho... but prob not many)and things like that.

SilencedScream0
02-23-2010, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by AGENTxxxxx47:
sigh all this talk of the old game being slow and needing to reinvent the series.

Am I the only guy who did speed run contests?

I loved the old games which had options, there seems to be this consensus , and even the devs said " the SLOW stealthy approach" needed to be changed. But the older games had fast runs too.
There's this myth that Sam was slow and cumbersome ......

Well WHAT THE HELL IS THIS???? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXID0VW7SQs)

Haha.
Even if they needed something else new to the game, why not at least give an option? M&E and LKP would have both fit with a stealthy approach as well.


And, side-bar, since I haven't be able to tell you this...
Props for your name, 47. Excellent game.