The Casino Royale Approach

[AgentXVII]

This occurred to me as I trawled through the endless amounts of negative comments about ConViction.

Reading some of those opinions reminded me of my attitude when I heard that the Bond franchise was to be 'rebooted'. They were going to take away the gadgets, and car chases, and explosions, and basically all the things I thought I loved about Bond. They were going to strip all this away to let us see the real Bond. I was really cynical about the whole thing. I thought it wasn't broke, don't try to fix it.

Now I'm not sure who has seen Casino Royale here, but its undoubtedly one of the best Bond films made. I freely admit that I was wrong. More than that, I also like it more than the old style Bond films. Looking back, they're fun, but horribly repetetive, and don't exactly do much in the way of character development. Seeing Casino Royale, I realised that this was a better way, even if there was no way I could conceive of it before.

I'm hoping that this will be the case with SC:C. Though it is hard to envisage how it will be a SC game in the classic sense, I hope that when it is released I will play it and find it as fresh and exciting as I found Casino Royale, even though I thought I just wanted another Goldeneye.

[AgentXVII]

This occurred to me as I trawled through the endless amounts of negative comments about ConViction.

Reading some of those opinions reminded me of my attitude when I heard that the Bond franchise was to be 'rebooted'. They were going to take away the gadgets, and car chases, and explosions, and basically all the things I thought I loved about Bond. They were going to strip all this away to let us see the real Bond. I was really cynical about the whole thing. I thought it wasn't broke, don't try to fix it.

Now I'm not sure who has seen Casino Royale here, but its undoubtedly one of the best Bond films made. I freely admit that I was wrong. More than that, I also like it more than the old style Bond films. Looking back, they're fun, but horribly repetetive, and don't exactly do much in the way of character development. Seeing Casino Royale, I realised that this was a better way, even if there was no way I could conceive of it before.

I'm hoping that this will be the case with SC:C. Though it is hard to envisage how it will be a SC game in the classic sense, I hope that when it is released I will play it and find it as fresh and exciting as I found Casino Royale, even though I thought I just wanted another Goldeneye.

[SPROGGY]

Great friggin post bro. I felt the same way about Bond before it came out. Now its my favorite movie! I also think this is a good analogy for the Conviction situation. I have faith that it will be a great game, and im sure Montreal wont disappoint.

[MKCC14]

I havent played a Bond game since on the Nintendo Ultra 64, Goldeneye 007. I havent watched any of the movies.

Great post! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

[aniket_nayak]

One of the most meaningful posts after a long long time. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

[ry24]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AgentXVII:
This occurred to me as I trawled through the endless amounts of negative comments about ConViction.

Reading some of those opinions reminded me of my attitude when I heard that the Bond franchise was to be 'rebooted'. They were going to take away the gadgets, and car chases, and explosions, and basically all the things I thought I loved about Bond. They were going to strip all this away to let us see the real Bond. I was really cynical about the whole thing. I thought it wasn't broke, don't try to fix it.

Now I'm not sure who has seen Casino Royale here, but its undoubtedly one of the best Bond films made. I freely admit that I was wrong. More than that, I also like it more than the old style Bond films. Looking back, they're fun, but horribly repetetive, and don't exactly do much in the way of character development. Seeing Casino Royale, I realised that this was a better way, even if there was no way I could conceive of it before.

I'm hoping that this will be the case with SC:C. Though it is hard to envisage how it will be a SC game in the classic sense, I hope that when it is released I will play it and find it as fresh and exciting as I found Casino Royale, even though I thought I just wanted another Goldeneye. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

[pietjevlip]

There you gave a good example for how a big change doesn't have to be a bad change...

[AgentXVII]

Thanks for all the positive comments guys! Nice to feel appreciated.

[aniket_nayak]

You have just pwnd all the Anti-SCC guys.

[Georg_Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AgentXVII:
Now I'm not sure who has seen Casino Royale here, but its undoubtedly one of the best Bond films made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I disagree. The movie was okay, but if this had been the original concept, I for one would never have been interested in any sequels. Some on this forum would probably say that the Bond-series should have "rebooted" already after 4 movies, but alas: the series went on in the same track for 20 movies without loosing its popular appeal. People are obviously not bored so easily as some seem to think.

[aniket_nayak]

I for one have watched only the very recent Bond fims. Probably I would have been bored if I had been watching since the very first.

[AgentXVII]

I'm a big Bond fan and have seen them all at least twice, a lot more for my favourites, but after Casino Royale, I'm not sure I could go back to the old style of Bond film.

That scene where he finds Vesper Lynd in the shower, in a state of shock after seeing him kill the man working for Steven Obanno, and then he holds her, and sucks her fingers. Its such a tender scene, so brilliantly understated. I don't think I could go back to the old style now and not have any of that stuff.

[EskimoBob32]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
I for one have watched only the very recent Bond fims. Probably I would have been bored if I had been watching since the very first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Says the guy who scolds people for judging a game without playing it.

[aniket_nayak]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EskimoBob32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
I for one have watched only the very recent Bond fims. Probably I would have been bored if I had been watching since the very first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Says the guy who scolds people for judging a game without playing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I know me a bit more that you do. I am pretty sure I would have gotten bored if I watched 20 movies of the same concept. You probably wouldn't, but everyone is not like you. But I shouldn't actually be replying to your posts cause from what I have seen so far you're arguments lack logic. Cause firstly I want to know what was wrong with my previous statement that made you type this completely stupid post.

[AgentXVII]

Hey! hey! Please let's not have this turn into another fight! Don't rise to it, aniket.

[EskimoBob32]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EskimoBob32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
I for one have watched only the very recent Bond fims. Probably I would have been bored if I had been watching since the very first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Says the guy who scolds people for judging a game without playing it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I know me a bit more that you do. I am pretty sure I would have gotten bored if I watched 20 movies of the same concept. You probably wouldn't, but everyone is not like you. But I shouldn't actually be replying to your posts cause from what I have seen so far you're arguments lack logic. Cause firstly I want to know what was wrong with my previous statement that made you type this completely stupid post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So... you can tell without having seen a movie that you wouldn't like it if the premise has been used before? Have a look around. There are very few original movies these days. Most premises are being recycled. People don't watch James Bond because it's a cool new idea with an interesting premise. They watch it because they know from past movies that they can have good mixtures of plot, action and humour (with the exception of plot in some of the more recent movies).

I'm not even going to bother pointing out that people can make an opinion based on what they've seen just as easily as you can make an opinion on knowing that they are all similar ideas.

[Georg_Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
I am pretty sure I would have gotten bored if I watched 20 movies of the same concept. You probably wouldn't, but everyone is not like you. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but with 20 movies, I would say enough people are like that to make a business out of it, right? So why doesn't the same apply to SC?

[aniket_nayak]

Firstly, I did use the word "Probably", look carefully. Secondly, Golden Eye was the first James Bond movie I had watched and that was the only one which was memorable to me. I watched Tomorrow never dies, World is not enough, Die another day after that but none of them were memorable. They were all forgettable because I had already seen something very similar earlier. Casino Royale was different and it was still outstanding because of the exact reasons the OP had pointed out. Thirdly, I am a ****** cause I bothered to reply to your post.

[EskimoBob32]

The movies you mentioned in your previous post were the weaker of the James Bond movies. They relied to heavily on gadgets and special effects to maintain interest. The reason that I like the new James Bond, and the old ones, is that I like the premise and I like it when they effectively use that premise in a new scenario without having to resort to dodgy plots and ultra-high-tech gadgets.

By the way, everyone thinks you are really cool for saying only ******s reply to me. It's heaps respectful and mature, keep it up.

[AgentXVII]

Weaker than the Roger Moore era? Weaker than ...shudder... OHMSS?

[marinius]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EskimoBob32:
By the way, everyone thinks you are really cool for saying only ******s reply to me. It's heaps respectful and mature, keep it up. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you've noticed by now also Bob that aniket is unable to produce any kind of intelligent argument to back up his preconceived notions of the game and of everyone who disagrees with him. It usually ends up in name-calling and insults. Same old same old.

[Tidenburg]

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

[aniket_nayak]

lol...this talk about intelligent argument, coming from you...its rather funny. And name calling? I called MYSELF a ****** not anyone else. Because I felt stupid that I deliberately replied to his baseless arguments even though it was not worth it.

[marinius]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
lol...this talk about intelligent argument, coming from you...its rather funny. And name calling? I called MYSELF a ****** not anyone else. Because I felt stupid that I deliberately replied to his baseless arguments even though it was not worth it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why do you call EskimoBob's arguments baseless? A read-thru of some of his posts and then some of yours doesn't reflect well on your part my friend. You seem to lack the most basic skills of arguing your point in a given matter. Oh, and the name-calling is pervasive throughout your posts. Which sort of proves the above mentioned point.

[aniket_nayak]

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

You seem to lack the most basic skills of arguing your point in a given matter. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. I wont elaborate why because I am on the verge of turning a complete ****** and I want to prevent that.

[AgentXVII]

Good good! Now, to paraphrase Rocky...

Why can't we all just get along?

Of course he was referring to the Cold War, which was a piece of cake to solve compared to the mammoth task of keeping pro-Conviction and anti-Conviction groups from verbally tearing each others heads off.

[Tidenburg]

There are a few distinct groups of people in this forum and they come on both sides of the whole "I dont/do like conviction"
They are:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI> The people who use insults because they're minds cannot gather together enough information to back up their views.
<LI> The people who think their view is right and will disregard others just because their opinions differ.
<LI> The people who like to "****" stirr to conjure up an argument in a relativly peaceful thread by making off-topic remarks against someone.
<LI> The peaceful people who actually state their points, if someone starts an argument against them they simply rise above it.
<LI> Finally, the people who act peaceful but when an argument is start against them they become one of the above.
[/list]
of course most of us are a combination of those.

[aniket_nayak]

I belong to the second category and am not ashamed to admit it. I used to be in the fourth category initially when I joined, but due to lack of intelligent responses I drifted to the 2nd category.

[Chinese_Bookey]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AgentXVII:
Good good! Now, to paraphrase Rocky...

Why can't we all just get along? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We do; we just differ. Big whoop. It's only natural, so don't try to go against nature, maaan, or Conviction will have pink splinter cells trying to tickle Sam Fisher's crotch. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[SPROGGY]

Im next!

[Chinese_Bookey]

Back of the line, buddy!

[pietjevlip]

I hate it when people try to categorize people... (And don't flame me, I said I hate "it", not the people)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Chinese_Bookey:
We do; we just differ. Big whoop. It's only natural, so don't try to go against nature, maaan, or Conviction will have pink splinter cells trying to tickle Sam Fisher's crotch. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe he likes that, Considering the number of men he held in his arms during the last four episodes...

[Knot3D]

Sam's balls will be royally ruined then ?
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

So he will live on with a high pitched voice heheh...no more need for Ironside either.

[osborne10]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
lol...this talk about intelligent argument, coming from you...its rather funny. And name calling? I called MYSELF a ****** not anyone else. Because I felt stupid that I deliberately replied to his baseless arguments even though it was not worth it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

[EskimoBob32]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
I belong to the second category and am not ashamed to admit it. I used to be in the fourth category initially when I joined, but due to lack of intelligent responses I drifted to the 2nd category. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Weren't you the one calling other people closed-minded? How much more closed-minded can you get than freely admitting that you disregard other opinions just because they differ from your own? In a few years, re-read your posts and maybe then you'll realise how hypocritical you have been. I'm saying that because I know you will not listen to me now, and you will come back with something which in your opinion proves me wrong and makes you look awesome.

[marinius]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by osborne10:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
lol...this talk about intelligent argument, coming from you...its rather funny. And name calling? I called MYSELF a ****** not anyone else. Because I felt stupid that I deliberately replied to his baseless arguments even though it was not worth it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey osborne10, I suspect you might be aniket using a different account. You seem to be doing little more that approving of his posts, which quite frankly, if you're not him is hard to fathom.

[osborne10]

no im not him,just agreeing with him.i approve a lot of posts,like you said I'm starting more of it,thats because I'm one of those combination people like Tidenburg said,i started out saying my opinion and no one could really give a decent discussion or argument.not that it is you marinius,but its a lot.and it is on both sides.
so after trying to understand people wanting to say there opinions and facts ,and then not saying them drove me to just doing this http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[aniket_nayak]

ummm...disregarding opinions of close-minded people makes me close minded...whatever you say, Bob.

[EskimoBob32]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <LI> The people who think their view is right and will disregard others just because their opinions differ. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is what you categorise yourself in. It mentions nothing of disregarding only 'closed-minded people'. You are disregarding ANYONE who has a different opinion to yours, and you think they are closed-minded. This makes you closed-minded.

And for the record, disregarding the opinion of someone who is closed-minded DOES make you closed-minded. If you were truly open-minded, you would take into account their opinion, disagree with them, and probably get nowhere because they themselves are closed-minded. Of course, I am yet to see someone on this forum who is more closed-minded than you. Most people here who participate in these kind of discussions will say things like "Good point, but..." "Yeah, I suppose I agree with you there, although..." See the difference between them and you? I have not seen you agree with anything anyone who doesn't support your general opinion says. But no, we are the closed-minded, of course you with your fully backed-up answers are right.

[pietjevlip]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But no, we are the closed-minded, of course you with your fully backed-up answers are right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do I detect a bit of sarcasm there?

[osborne10]

in fully backed-up do you mean his answers/arguments/opinions have reason,logic,truth(whatever you want to call it) behind them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[CheeseDestroyer]

Casino Royale was one of the greatest Bonds yet, and Conviction will be one of the best Splinter Cell's yet because, although it is different, it still keeps the originality Splinter cell owns. No other game has really done something like what Conviction is doing.

[aniket_nayak]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EskimoBob32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <LI> The people who think their view is right and will disregard others just because their opinions differ. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is what you categorise yourself in. It mentions nothing of disregarding only 'closed-minded people'. You are disregarding ANYONE who has a different opinion to yours, and you think they are closed-minded. This makes you closed-minded.

And for the record, disregarding the opinion of someone who is closed-minded DOES make you closed-minded. If you were truly open-minded, you would take into account their opinion, disagree with them, and probably get nowhere because they themselves are closed-minded. Of course, I am yet to see someone on this forum who is more closed-minded than you. Most people here who participate in these kind of discussions will say things like "Good point, but..." "Yeah, I suppose I agree with you there, although..." See the difference between them and you? I have not seen you agree with anything anyone who doesn't support your general opinion says. But no, we are the closed-minded, of course you with your fully backed-up answers are right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, lemme make myself clear. I wouldn't disregard anyone's opinion because its different from mine. But people like you, all you can say is that this game will suck because it doesn't have L&S blah blah blah. Who can't accept change or atleast give it a try, i don't really think I give a rat's *** about their opinion. I would consider people who had more constructive opinions but then your opinions are full of ****...I mean...negativity and seriously I don't really care what you have to say. You can call me close-minded, but then again, since when did you decide such facts.

And BTW, about that definition of close minded, I think you missed the other part.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

[marinius]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CheeseDestroyer:
Casino Royale was one of the greatest Bonds yet, and Conviction will be one of the best Splinter Cell's yet because, although it is different, it still keeps the originality Splinter cell owns. No other game has really done something like what Conviction is doing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, I wish I had all the info you apparently do. That's some sweeping statement you made.

[Palesam]

I liked Casino Royale. Daniel Craig could be the best Bond ever.

However it was still essentially a spy flick with (a few) gadgets and terrific chase and combat scenes. It was just grittier.

I hope Ubisoft had taken the approach of Sam starting out outside the 3E and having to work using the crowd system to gather initial info and make contacts. Then using those contacts Sam could segue into the more classical SC (acquiring his traditional gear as he goes) perhaps with the crowd system worked into the missions as needed.

If this is the case, I'd be almost wildly enthusiastic about Conviction. From what I've read that will likely not be how the game will play out.

I'll probably rent to see what it's like and if it's really good I'll buy..if it's only passable, I'll buy used.

[aniket_nayak]

There probably wont be any classical SC gameplay in this game, but then the new gameplay seems promising and could make for a brilliant SC game.

[Palesam]

It could...we'll see when it's out.

[Brownsnakeeyes]

The best bond will and has always been Sean Connery. Get over it boys. Watch them before saying anything.

And Daniel Craig made an awesome Bond. But not better than the original. Way better than Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan
Brosnan was too much of a *****.

[SPROGGY]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brownsnakeeyes:
The best bond will and has always been Sean Connery. Get over it boys. Watch them before saying anything.

And Daniel Craig made an awesome Bond. But not better than the original. Way better than Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan
Brosnan was too much of a *****. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ive seen every bond movie at least 3 times. I prefer Craig over all of the others. Hes harder than Connery and more believably suave than Brosnan. The script was also much more realistic than in the past, which is a big deal to me.

[EskimoBob32]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EskimoBob32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> <LI> The people who think their view is right and will disregard others just because their opinions differ. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That is what you categorise yourself in. It mentions nothing of disregarding only 'closed-minded people'. You are disregarding ANYONE who has a different opinion to yours, and you think they are closed-minded. This makes you closed-minded.

And for the record, disregarding the opinion of someone who is closed-minded DOES make you closed-minded. If you were truly open-minded, you would take into account their opinion, disagree with them, and probably get nowhere because they themselves are closed-minded. Of course, I am yet to see someone on this forum who is more closed-minded than you. Most people here who participate in these kind of discussions will say things like "Good point, but..." "Yeah, I suppose I agree with you there, although..." See the difference between them and you? I have not seen you agree with anything anyone who doesn't support your general opinion says. But no, we are the closed-minded, of course you with your fully backed-up answers are right. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, lemme make myself clear. I wouldn't disregard anyone's opinion because its different from mine. But people like you, all you can say is that this game will suck because it doesn't have L&S blah blah blah. Who can't accept change or atleast give it a try, i don't really think I give a rat's *** about their opinion. I would consider people who had more constructive opinions but then your opinions are full of ****...I mean...negativity and seriously I don't really care what you have to say. You can call me close-minded, but then again, since when did you decide such facts.

And BTW, about that definition of close minded, I think you missed the other part.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Can you please find the post where I have said that Conviction will suck because there is no L&S. If you can find one post where I say that (which you won't, because I don't believe I have said that. I get the idea you think that is the opinion of everyone who prefers pre-DA SC to Conviction), I will be impressed because so far you have been unable to back up any assertions you have made about other people's opinions. You don't give a "rat's ***" about people's opinions who don't like change. You think our opinions are "full of ****". You "seriously don't care about what I have to say". You, my friend, are going to crash and burn in the real world.

I can call you closed-minded, but since when did I decide such facts? Since when did anyone decide such facts? Come to think of it, when did I say it's a fact? But you can say I am closed-minded, but since when did you decide such facts? Dude, make sure your arguments don't contradict each other if you want to be taken seriously. You have made the exact same assertions as me, and yet I am not allowed to decide what is fact.

Wiktionary says "closed-minded" means "unreceptive to new ideas or information". It says that "narrow-minded means the same, plus "intolerant, bigoted or prejudiced". Maybe that suits you better?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ive seen every bond movie at least 3 times. I prefer Craig over all of the others. Hes harder than Connery and more believably suave than Brosnan. The script was also much more realistic than in the past, which is a big deal to me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That has more to do with the writing then the acting. And remember, realism has never been James Bond's forte. If you watch it to get a realistic spy story, you should probably look elsewhere.

[SPROGGY]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EskimoBob32:

That has more to do with the writing then the acting. And remember, realism has never been James Bond's forte. If you watch it to get a realistic spy story, you should probably look elsewhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is why I said "the script" was more realistic in reference to the realism. I never said I wanted a completely realistic spy story. But what I dont want are invisible cars and bad guys with diamonds embedded in their face. Nor do I want to watch a spy surf a tsunami on a broken compartment hatch. Nothing on Casino Royale was outside the realm of possibility.

Also, how Craig portrayed Bond has little to do with the script. The way each actor has played Bond is different. They each put their own spin on the character and interpret the script the way they see it.

[EskimoBob32]

Okay, fair enough. I must say I agree with you about Die Another Day, that was rubbish.

[SPROGGY]

I dont need 100% realism, but I dont like ridiculous either. The last couple of movies before Casino were absurd.

[aniket_nayak]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EskimoBob32:

Can you please find the post where I have said that Conviction will suck because there is no L&S. If you can find one post where I say that (which you won't, because I don't believe I have said that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If thats the case, then why exactly do you hate Conviction. Isn't it because there it is not a traditional Splinter Cell. Because it doesn't have L&S. I dont have to search for that post, you keep saying that you are pissed because its not a "Splinter Cell" game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by EskimoBob32:

You, my friend, are going to crash and burn in the real world.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And you are gonna succeed because you spend your time whining about a video game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> But you can say I am closed-minded, but since when did you decide such facts? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

"unreceptive to new ideas" doesn't that strike a bell. You are unreceptive to the new change in Conviction. Close-minded means "unreceptive to new ideas". Now what would a person imply here.

And no I am not prejudiced, I am not saying that Conviction is gonna be way better than the other games. I am rather annoyed at people posting rubbish about this game. All I am saying that this game might be good. So give it a chance before posting all that ****. You people are rather prejudiced.

[Tidenburg]

Aniket this could be why you fail in the real word, that post was completely worthless http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
So you're basically saying if I walked up to an open minded person and said:
"Hey lets burn down your house"
he should ALWAYS say
"Yeah sure that could work"
Of course not. Because we still have doubts we don't blindly go into anything because of open-mindedness. Your judging a persons character over a video game. Open-Minded does not by definition mean "Niave" or "Gullible", we are simply looking at what we've seen and are saying we don't like it. Just as you say you do like it. We could come up with lots of words for your to, does Fanboy (as in too loyal) ring any bells? Stop being so stupid, your grasping at straws in you last post, desperately trying to gather whatever pathetic argument you can. Think out your posts next time http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

[EskimoBob32]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EskimoBob32:

Can you please find the post where I have said that Conviction will suck because there is no L&S. If you can find one post where I say that (which you won't, because I don't believe I have said that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If thats the case, then why exactly do you hate Conviction. Isn't it because there it is not a traditional Splinter Cell. Because it doesn't have L&S. I dont have to search for that post, you keep saying that you are pissed because its not a "Splinter Cell" game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You really have trouble understanding this, don't you? I'm going to make this as clear as possible.

I do not hate Conviction.

I do not dislike the game in itself, I dislike Ubi for so drastically changing a game that I enjoyed when I see no reason for the change. This game will probably be reasonably fun to play, although I think that the crowd mechanic may be overused and the close combat is just stupid. If you want a reason why I dislike the game from what I have seen so far, then that is it, although I don't really think I have a strong dislike of the game in itself. I'll say it again, what I dislike is that Ubi thinks it's okay to just change a game that was original, fun and exciting. Sure, the end product may also be fun, but it won't be as fun and nowhere near as unique as the original (I'm thinking Rainbow Six here).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And no I am not prejudiced, I am not saying that Conviction is gonna be way better than the other games. I am rather annoyed at people posting rubbish about this game. All I am saying that this game might be good. So give it a chance before posting all that ****. You people are rather prejudiced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's the old "I'm not prejudiced, you are" argument. In no way am I prejudiced. I have not condemned people for liking this game. I have not told people to "stfu" or "get off this forum" if they dislike former games but like what Conviction looks to be, which some pro-Convictioners certainly have. For the most part, people here who do not like what they see are not posting 'rubbish'. They are merely expressing their opinion, which seems to irritate you as it is not the same as yours.

Oh, and by the way, you have implied much more in your posts than this game 'might be good'. Take Tidenburg's advice and think your posts through before posting them.

[aniket_nayak]

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

Aniket this could be why you fail in the real word, that post was completely worthless
So you're basically saying if I walked up to an open minded person and said:
"Hey lets burn down your house"
he should ALWAYS say
"Yeah sure that could work"
Of course not. Because we still have doubts we don't blindly go into anything because of open-mindedness. Your judging a persons character over a video game. Open-Minded does not by definition mean "Niave" or "Gullible", we are simply looking at what we've seen and are saying we don't like it. Just as you say you do like it. We could come up with lots of words for your to, does Fanboy (as in too loyal) ring any bells? Stop being so stupid, your grasping at straws in you last post, desperately trying to gather whatever pathetic argument you can. Think out your posts next time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that post was even more worthless than my initial one. Because you used the word open-minded in a totally different sense than what I did. I think, you should think before you post before coming up with something like that. I was talking about trying out new things in the game and you compared that to burning down houses. I guess to make it clear to people like you, from now on I will have to post a disclaimer before each of my posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EskimoBob32:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by aniket_nayak:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EskimoBob32:

Can you please find the post where I have said that Conviction will suck because there is no L&S. If you can find one post where I say that (which you won't, because I don't believe I have said that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If thats the case, then why exactly do you hate Conviction. Isn't it because there it is not a traditional Splinter Cell. Because it doesn't have L&S. I dont have to search for that post, you keep saying that you are pissed because its not a "Splinter Cell" game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You really have trouble understanding this, don't you? I'm going to make this as clear as possible.

I do not hate Conviction.

I do not dislike the game in itself, I dislike Ubi for so drastically changing a game that I enjoyed when I see no reason for the change. This game will probably be reasonably fun to play, although I think that the crowd mechanic may be overused and the close combat is just stupid. If you want a reason why I dislike the game from what I have seen so far, then that is it, although I don't really think I have a strong dislike of the game in itself. I'll say it again, what I dislike is that Ubi thinks it's okay to just change a game that was original, fun and exciting. Sure, the end product may also be fun, but it won't be as fun and nowhere near as unique as the original (I'm thinking Rainbow Six here).

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And no I am not prejudiced, I am not saying that Conviction is gonna be way better than the other games. I am rather annoyed at people posting rubbish about this game. All I am saying that this game might be good. So give it a chance before posting all that ****. You people are rather prejudiced. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Here's the old "I'm not prejudiced, you are" argument. In no way am I prejudiced. I have not condemned people for liking this game. I have not told people to "stfu" or "get off this forum" if they dislike former games but like what Conviction looks to be, which some pro-Convictioners certainly have. For the most part, people here who do not like what they see are not posting 'rubbish'. They are merely expressing their opinion, which seems to irritate you as it is not the same as yours.

Oh, and by the way, you have implied much more in your posts than this game 'might be good'. Take Tidenburg's advice and think your posts through before posting them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fair enough, if what you said above is true, I have no reason to argue with you. And no, I wont take advice from Tidenburg cause he came up with some ****.

[Brownsnakeeyes]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AgentXVII:
This occurred to me as I trawled through the endless amounts of negative comments about ConViction.

Reading some of those opinions reminded me of my attitude when I heard that the Bond franchise was to be 'rebooted'. They were going to take away the gadgets, and car chases, and explosions, and basically all the things I thought I loved about Bond. They were going to strip all this away to let us see the real Bond. I was really cynical about the whole thing. I thought it wasn't broke, don't try to fix it.

Now I'm not sure who has seen Casino Royale here, but its undoubtedly one of the best Bond films made. I freely admit that I was wrong. More than that, I also like it more than the old style Bond films. Looking back, they're fun, but horribly repetetive, and don't exactly do much in the way of character development. Seeing Casino Royale, I realised that this was a better way, even if there was no way I could conceive of it before.

I'm hoping that this will be the case with SC:C. Though it is hard to envisage how it will be a SC game in the classic sense, I hope that when it is released I will play it and find it as fresh and exciting as I found Casino Royale, even though I thought I just wanted another Goldeneye. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there's a big difference between the two. In the Bond movie there only changing the actor. It would be like someone else voicing for Sam. Not quite the same.

[SPROGGY]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brownsnakeeyes:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AgentXVII:
This occurred to me as I trawled through the endless amounts of negative comments about ConViction.

Reading some of those opinions reminded me of my attitude when I heard that the Bond franchise was to be 'rebooted'. They were going to take away the gadgets, and car chases, and explosions, and basically all the things I thought I loved about Bond. They were going to strip all this away to let us see the real Bond. I was really cynical about the whole thing. I thought it wasn't broke, don't try to fix it.

Now I'm not sure who has seen Casino Royale here, but its undoubtedly one of the best Bond films made. I freely admit that I was wrong. More than that, I also like it more than the old style Bond films. Looking back, they're fun, but horribly repetetive, and don't exactly do much in the way of character development. Seeing Casino Royale, I realised that this was a better way, even if there was no way I could conceive of it before.

I'm hoping that this will be the case with SC:C. Though it is hard to envisage how it will be a SC game in the classic sense, I hope that when it is released I will play it and find it as fresh and exciting as I found Casino Royale, even though I thought I just wanted another Goldeneye. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there's a big difference between the two. In the Bond movie there only changing the actor. It would be like someone else voicing for Sam. Not quite the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they didnt just change the actor. They took out all of Bond's gadgets as well as a few other characters(Q.). Bond was also made out to be a harder but more vulnerable character than before. They also restarted the series from the beginning, Casino Royale being Flemings first Bond story. The movie was quite a bit different from the previous ones.

On a side note. Has anyone else seen The Bourne Ultimatum yet? Its by far the best one in the series. I highly recommend it!

[osborne10]

i just rented casino royal a couple weeks ago.and thought it was easily the best of them.my opinion though.

[EskimoBob32]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by deepego3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brownsnakeeyes:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AgentXVII:
This occurred to me as I trawled through the endless amounts of negative comments about ConViction.

Reading some of those opinions reminded me of my attitude when I heard that the Bond franchise was to be 'rebooted'. They were going to take away the gadgets, and car chases, and explosions, and basically all the things I thought I loved about Bond. They were going to strip all this away to let us see the real Bond. I was really cynical about the whole thing. I thought it wasn't broke, don't try to fix it.

Now I'm not sure who has seen Casino Royale here, but its undoubtedly one of the best Bond films made. I freely admit that I was wrong. More than that, I also like it more than the old style Bond films. Looking back, they're fun, but horribly repetetive, and don't exactly do much in the way of character development. Seeing Casino Royale, I realised that this was a better way, even if there was no way I could conceive of it before.

I'm hoping that this will be the case with SC:C. Though it is hard to envisage how it will be a SC game in the classic sense, I hope that when it is released I will play it and find it as fresh and exciting as I found Casino Royale, even though I thought I just wanted another Goldeneye. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there's a big difference between the two. In the Bond movie there only changing the actor. It would be like someone else voicing for Sam. Not quite the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But they didnt just change the actor. They took out all of Bond's gadgets as well as a few other characters(Q.). Bond was also made out to be a harder but more vulnerable character than before. They also restarted the series from the beginning, Casino Royale being Flemings first Bond story. The movie was quite a bit different from the previous ones.

On a side note. Has anyone else seen The Bourne Ultimatum yet? Its by far the best one in the series. I highly recommend it! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Mostly correct, except the Casino Royale plot was more incidental than central to the change; they hadn't made a Casino Royale movie yet, they aren't just following in order now and they never really went in order in the first place.

And my country (Australia) doesn't get The Bourne Ultimatum for a few weeks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

[Aranosha]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AgentXVII:
This occurred to me as I trawled through the endless amounts of negative comments about ConViction.

Reading some of those opinions reminded me of my attitude when I heard that the Bond franchise was to be 'rebooted'. They were going to take away the gadgets, and car chases, and explosions, and basically all the things I thought I loved about Bond. They were going to strip all this away to let us see the real Bond. I was really cynical about the whole thing. I thought it wasn't broke, don't try to fix it.

Now I'm not sure who has seen Casino Royale here, but its undoubtedly one of the best Bond films made. I freely admit that I was wrong. More than that, I also like it more than the old style Bond films. Looking back, they're fun, but horribly repetetive, and don't exactly do much in the way of character development. Seeing Casino Royale, I realised that this was a better way, even if there was no way I could conceive of it before.

I'm hoping that this will be the case with SC:C. Though it is hard to envisage how it will be a SC game in the classic sense, I hope that when it is released I will play it and find it as fresh and exciting as I found Casino Royale, even though I thought I just wanted another Goldeneye. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Quoted for freaking truth http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Couldn't have put it better myself.

Oh and I have to wonder how the next Bond movie from Craig will be. Will he shag every woman in his way, dump em and be just generally pretty much emotioneless killer? Ó_ò