Negativity

[LJL20]

I'm not going to lie and say that I've been a fan of the series for a long time. But when I get into a series I always go back and get caught up. In prep for Conviction I went and bought every single previous Splinter Cell game and beat them all. It has become one of my favorite series since then. Conviction came out and I loved it. Have had tons of fun playing it.

Decided to pop in and see how the so-called hardcore fans of the Splinter Cell series were liking Conviction, which is one of my favorite games.

Turns out that it is like many other big forums for a game series. Tons of negativity. I see it everywhere.

I love Mass Effect 2, the reviewers love Mass Effect 2, many people I know love Mass Effect 2. The Mass Effect 2 forums on Bioware's Community site very much dislikes a ton about Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 1 is clearly superior to them.

Lots of GTA fans on the big GTA forum thought San Andreas was clearly superior to GTA IV.

Seen lots of Metal Gear Solid fans on their forums unhappy about how Rising looks. All that has been shown off is the cutting mechanic and immediately judgments are made. Heck, plenty of them even hated MGS4.

I can already tell people here made a judgment about this game even before it came out.

A game series like this cannot consistently remain in this niche realm forever. It will wither and die. Even Michael Ironside was getting tired of it. I know I would have never even given the series a look until Conviction's gameplay caught my eye. You've got to change things up and try to inspire more interest in the product.

I see people here who seem like they would rather the series die than change. Conviction is a great game and it deserves support despite what some people here might say.

Ubisoft should and probably has ignored most of the nonsense on here, because how can you take someone saying "this killed the series for me" seriously?

It is like trying to take those people who said they'd boycott Left 4 Dead 2 seriously when you can see on their gamertag that they bought it and are playing it a lot.

I'm not saying that their aren't legitimate criticisms from people. I am just saying that this type of negativity is unproductive and ridiculous.

[LJL20]

I'm not going to lie and say that I've been a fan of the series for a long time. But when I get into a series I always go back and get caught up. In prep for Conviction I went and bought every single previous Splinter Cell game and beat them all. It has become one of my favorite series since then. Conviction came out and I loved it. Have had tons of fun playing it.

Decided to pop in and see how the so-called hardcore fans of the Splinter Cell series were liking Conviction, which is one of my favorite games.

Turns out that it is like many other big forums for a game series. Tons of negativity. I see it everywhere.

I love Mass Effect 2, the reviewers love Mass Effect 2, many people I know love Mass Effect 2. The Mass Effect 2 forums on Bioware's Community site very much dislikes a ton about Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 1 is clearly superior to them.

Lots of GTA fans on the big GTA forum thought San Andreas was clearly superior to GTA IV.

Seen lots of Metal Gear Solid fans on their forums unhappy about how Rising looks. All that has been shown off is the cutting mechanic and immediately judgments are made. Heck, plenty of them even hated MGS4.

I can already tell people here made a judgment about this game even before it came out.

A game series like this cannot consistently remain in this niche realm forever. It will wither and die. Even Michael Ironside was getting tired of it. I know I would have never even given the series a look until Conviction's gameplay caught my eye. You've got to change things up and try to inspire more interest in the product.

I see people here who seem like they would rather the series die than change. Conviction is a great game and it deserves support despite what some people here might say.

Ubisoft should and probably has ignored most of the nonsense on here, because how can you take someone saying "this killed the series for me" seriously?

It is like trying to take those people who said they'd boycott Left 4 Dead 2 seriously when you can see on their gamertag that they bought it and are playing it a lot.

I'm not saying that their aren't legitimate criticisms from people. I am just saying that this type of negativity is unproductive and ridiculous.

[Jazz117Volkov]

You sir speak the truth. A lot of the complaining around here, and everywhere else is pure nonsense.
Like, I can see that MGS: Rising may disturb the hardcore. But then again, I have played all MGS games (except 4, yet to get da PS3) and I love them all, and really looking forward to Rising.
It’s not destroying Metal Gear; it's not even labeled number five. It is the first of its own series.

But anyway, too the topic at hand – Splinter Cell Conviction. Well I was pretty adamant that it was gonna be everything it was cranked up to be when it was first unveiled at E309.
And I still say that it is a good game and I play it often, but it simply isn't Splinter Cell, or even near the same league of quality or theme.
There is a checklist that you need to follow to make a Tom Clancy Splinter Cell game, and no where on that list does it say, slow or niche.

Conviction was simply 3JB in a game. The fast paced stealth concept has potential, but with the timeframe it was made in, it just couldn’t live up to its namesake.
It went from one of the most hardcore games to one of the easiest games.
It went from deep, detailed terror prevention plots to Diehard with a Bauer attitude.
It’s too short to be anything but a rental for most people, it’s too easy to be anything above poor, and it’s too automated to be anything but a puppet show.
All in all it is a sad failure as a Tom Clancy game, and will never be recognized as anything more then the sequel that watered down an icon.

I truly hope that Ubi can pull a 180 and deliver a high quality stealth/action experience with SC6. But as for the moment, Splinter Cell only has four games to its series.

...the COOP ending sucks balls too.


EDIT: And it neglected one of the most unique multiplayer modes ever conceived.

[LJL20]

Here's my take. Where you say the game is easy, I feel that the game allows you to be a badass and dominate. To me that makes the game more fun. Having just beaten Halo:Reach on Legendary Solo, I can say I'd rather have fun and be able to dominate on the hardest mode than have it be pulling your hair out hard. To me, being able to dominate created a longer lifespan for Conviction for me.

Difficulty in a game is a interesting thing to look at. I feel like Conviction works great within its rules. It is possible to dominate on the hardest difficulty. While Reach on Legendary was extremely taxing, I felt it was fair as well.

To me there has to be a good balance. I absolutely hate games that throw infinite enemies at you under any circumstances. Games with fake difficulty where the computer cheats are stupid too.

I liked the movie-ish feel to the main story. But I think that is just up to personal opinion. I like the progression towards some games being like an interactive movie, which is why I liked Heavy Rain so much.

I agree on the part that the game could have been longer.

Never have been big on multiplayer so on that I can't comment.

I liked the Co-op mode, but I don't think any game should so heavily feature a co-op mode unless the game is truly made for nothing but co-op. I wish they'd stick more with the single player aspect in future games.

I think whether or not you feel it really a Splinter Cell game is entirely someone's opinion.

[ReConNinJa.CF]

but where you fail to see where all the hatred comes from its not because of single player, its because ubisoft poor lack of effort to keep patches coming, as well as supporting the community when they have problems. ie. Hiring moderators that don't know jack about thier product / don't play the games.

Further more Multi player , a huge plethora of endless unpolished areas / lack of support once again. In convictions NO Spy versus mercenary, just 1 vs 1.. whats the real challenge in that ? ..

as for the single player. No hiding bodies.

[Stealthgamer001]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LJL20:

Difficulty in a game is a interesting thing to look at. I feel like Conviction works great within its rules. It is possible to dominate on the hardest difficulty. While Reach on Legendary was extremely taxing, I felt it was fair as well.

To me there has to be a good balance. I absolutely hate games that throw infinite enemies at you under any circumstances. Games with fake difficulty where the computer cheats are stupid too. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting assesment.

I've heard it said that any good video game in general should be "easy to play, but difficult to master." I think this is especially true of the stealth action genre. The problem is that the first four Splinter Cells (although fun) were difficult on both fronts, while in Conviction (which was still fun in it's own way,) it was straight up easy to do just about everything.

I think that in a perfectly balanced splinter Cell game, you can pop and chop your way through the campaign and beat it like you can in Conviction, while tediously crawling and hacking through each mission completely unnoticed is the real show of skill.

I myself like to imagine a Splinter Cell game that presents different cutscenes depending on how the mission went, and unlocks a 100 G achievement for ghosting the entire campaign. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

[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 LJL20:
Turns out that it is like many other big forums for a game series. Tons of negativity. I see it everywhere. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It's more than deserved.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LJL20:
Here's my take. Where you say the game is easy, I feel that the game allows you to be a badass and dominate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Only players with serious issues in real life need some vent where they'll be badass and dominate. I prefer challenge.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LJL20:
Difficulty in a game is a interesting thing to look at. I feel like Conviction works great within its rules. It is possible to dominate on the hardest difficulty. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That's pretty immature view of subject. Different difficulties are there because players don't have the same skills. If you can't beat it on highest, don't try to. Just because someone will have lousy opinion of himself (herself) if he/she doesn't have necessary skills to beat it on highest, doesn't mean that everybody else should be withhold with easy and unchallenging game.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LJL20:
I liked the movie-ish feel to the main story. But I think that is just up to personal opinion. I like the progression towards some games being like an interactive movie, which is why I liked Heavy Rain so much. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Than "play" Heavy Rain. I hate button-mashing fest and I don't feel need to play it. And I don't think that every developer should cater me in similar games. I won't play it, someone else will. Simple.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LJL20:
I think whether or not you feel it really a Splinter Cell game is entirely someone's opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Than why did you open this thread?

By your own confession, you're newcomer attracted by mindless Conviction gameplay. Of course yout think it's Splinter Cell. Because you've never tried to understand what SC stood for, both as concept and as franchise.

[eoj19]

SCC has its flaws, as do many other games. When there are fans of a series or a single installment, the production team should basically expect negative feedback, as well as positive feedback. Which outweighs which? Well, that depends on how serious were the flaws. But imo, I still find SCC playable and very fun for an action game (as I have said many times before).

And normally, if there is an overwhelming response of ONLY ONE type of feedback, it's for a reason.

There is a difference between negativity & constructive criticism.

Out of everything you said in your last 2 posts, the only thing that I agree w/ you about, is that SCC was very short.

Judging from the fact that you recently played through the entire SC series, that alone does not qualify you to instantaneously jump onto this forum & start to unfairly categorize the feedback on this forum as "negative". I have played through each SC, from start to finish, at least 50 times. I have done so bc when I bought the very first SC, there wasn't a SC: Conviction, only each SC as it was released one by one.
When you play through each SC quite a few times, you begin to pick up on certain details and elemental features that you might not have noticed on the last playthrough.

Sorry, but I'm an SC fan too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Ubisoft should and probably has ignored most of the nonsense on here </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

....And you say you're a SC fan? Yet, you just said this about other SC fans. Interesting.




But everyone is entitled to their own opinions. Just remember, there is no such thing as a right or wrong opinion.

[FrankieSatt]

So instead of negativity you would rather see everyone kissing Ubi's Butt?

Why should I kiss Ubi's butt when they made a game that has NOTHING to do with the previous Splinter Cell games? Even the main characters themselves, Sam and Grim, have NOTHING in comparison to their previous characters... other thant the names and the voice actors.

There are so many things wrong with Conviction, and all of them have been listed time and time again, that it seems you just don't care to read the critisism and understand why there is critisism.

Conviction is a total disaster from start to finish and that is why no one is left playing the game after only being out for 6 months or so while there are those of use who are STILL playing the previous Splinter Cell games even today.

As long as Beland and Co. are allowed to be in the same room with this series nothing will change. This series IS dead and will never be revived.

Let me add one more thing. There is nothing wrong with change. There IS something wrong with removing stealth and changing the characters so that they are nothing more than names from previous games. You can't change the CORE of what the series was and expect "Lovey Dovey" all over the place.

[Knot3D]

Well, the single player game is pretty fun although the Hollywood style makes it even MORE linear yet again.

So, Deniable Ops is the saving Grace of Conviction for replay value, but even that one is somewhat shallow.

There's no denying Conviction left a soursweet taste, overall.

[mortified13]

Change is fine... As long as it builds upon the foundation that has been build.

IMO all that SCC did for the SC franchise is take away from previous games.

There is no longer the progression from light to dark, you are either in total darkness or in total light.

There is no longer the option to leave no trace. You are now forced to kill, Kill, KILL! You can no longer hide unconscious guards(unless you grab and walk to a dark area). i.e. you can't pick up bodies.

In SCC, if you are in the crouched position, you can walk or stop, in other words, analog capabilities have even been taken away (I know this is a small peeve, but, never the less, it bugs me).

These things are ONLY SOME of the gameplay elements that made the SC franchise. These elements were genius and ground breaking, and yet Ubi got rid of them.

Ubi has destroyed the foundation that built SC.

I don't know about you, but I am unaware of buildings being able to stand after the foundation is gone.

This is a bit of a rant, but I just think if you are introducing a new game to a franchise that is so innovative and so loved by the fans, don't take away the things that made the game what it was.

No hate, just opinion.

[PeaceMaker_101]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jazz_117:
You sir speak the truth. A lot of the complaining around here, and everywhere else is pure nonsense.
Like, I can see that MGS: Rising may disturb the hardcore. But then again, I have played all MGS games (except 4, yet to get da PS3) and I love them all, and really looking forward to Rising.
It’s not destroying Metal Gear; it's not even labeled number five. It is the first of its own series.

But anyway, too the topic at hand – Splinter Cell Conviction. Well I was pretty adamant that it was gonna be everything it was cranked up to be when it was first unveiled at E309.
And I still say that it is a good game and I play it often, but it simply isn't Splinter Cell, or even near the same league of quality or theme.
There is a checklist that you need to follow to make a Tom Clancy Splinter Cell game, and no where on that list does it say, slow or niche.

Conviction was simply 3JB in a game. The fast paced stealth concept has potential, but with the timeframe it was made in, it just couldn’t live up to its namesake.
It went from one of the most hardcore games to one of the easiest games.
It went from deep, detailed terror prevention plots to Diehard with a Bauer attitude.
It’s too short to be anything but a rental for most people, it’s too easy to be anything above poor, and it’s too automated to be anything but a puppet show.
All in all it is a sad failure as a Tom Clancy game, and will never be recognized as anything more then the sequel that watered down an icon.

I truly hope that Ubi can pull a 180 and deliver a high quality stealth/action experience with SC6. But as for the moment, Splinter Cell only has four games to its series.

...the COOP ending sucks balls too.


EDIT: And it neglected one of the most unique multiplayer modes ever conceived. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah, right there: dumbing down a franchise is one of the biggest ways that a game developer can disappoint its fans. If more game developers do this, who knows what will happen to the games industry.

I really hope that we can see more complex games in the future. Just because more people are growing up and have less time for games, it doesn't mean that every game needs to be very simple. As long as gamers can manage their time wisely, a game like Deus Ex is perfectly playable by anyone.

Why couldn't Ubisoft Montreal just feature a really, really simple difficulty for SCC, instead of simplifying every feature? Wouldn't that be an even better solution for those newcomers? That way, even the most hardcore fans could enjoy it. But no, its designers thought that they should risk alienating their old fans. Nice job, Ubisoft. Keep it up and there will actually be less gamers playing each of your games, especially if the fan bases were big enough already and decreased, due to the oppression of the old fans.

[eoj19]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortymike:
Change is fine... As long as it builds upon the foundation that has been build........
Ubi has destroyed the foundation that built SC.

I don't know about you, but I am unaware of buildings being able to stand after the foundation is gone.

This is a bit of a rant, but I just think if you are introducing a new game to a franchise that is so innovative and so loved by the fans, don't take away the things that made the game what it was. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

Well said.

[Andre202]

I will say the same as I said in the German forum already.

For me Splinter Cell Conviction was a disappointment. Especially for a Tom Clancy title they took to much Hollywood Action into the game. SCC could some answer some question that came after we played SCDA but I think after SCC there are even more open questions without any answers. The Story of SCC has "some" holes and in some situation you are a bit confused when you know the old SCs. The biggest difficulty for me was or is to believe that I really played as Sam Fisher and that I really got help from Grim. Are they really in that game? Now I don't want to overreact here because obviously there were some scenes that would fit to the characters. Though that doesn't make the Story good. It's shallow and not really original for the franchise and it hasn't really much resemblance to a Tom Clancy Story. So really, whatever you do with Megiddo do something that is real/believable. Well just like a Tom Clancy Story should be.

Now I don't want bash the game to say it is bad, but I think it's the worsest Splinter Cell in the franchise. Though you have to think about the situation in which the dev team was. They scrapped the old 2007 Conviction and started to develop a whole new game in March 2008 or so. With much more time they would have done better, probably, and use the potential this actually has. You can assume that SCC was planned to have much more content than we got at release. The DLC shows that these maps were planned to have a Coop Story and the Story would play at the time when the Story of the Singleplayer is. So actually the ending of the Coop we have now was a fast solution to have a finished product at the end.

This game has some very good features. For example the Cover System which you can still improve, so you can use the Cover System going around a corner (Mafia 2 does that) or doing some SCDA action. Grap an NPC from your cover and knock him out there quietly. Maxime Beland mentioned that such a feature was planned but there was no time. Well the Corner Grab from Cover and carrying bodies will come definitely.

The problem of SCC is like with a lot of other modern game (after the Wii released?)***. They remove features and with that the depth, complexity and quality of the game. The Singleplayer feels really linear and very shallow. They want to offer the Stealth Fans something and the Action Fans something. In that progress by concentrating on both expectations they lose a lot of features and cannot satisfy both Stealth and Action Fans. It like trying to look right and left at the same time. It isn't possible so Ubi should make a decision in which direction they really want. Right or Left? Action or Stealth? Looking at the older SCs making a decision wouldn't be that difficult. In my opinion the biggest part should be obviously Stealth with depth Gameplay. I have nothing against giving the option to go Rambo but don't focus on improving that part, focus on Stealth. You could go actiony in every SC, though it was difficult, but there was a reason why it was that way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The Multiplayer is actually the strongest part in Conviction. I thought that Redding and his team got the Multiplayer very well and understood what Splinter Cell is. The thing is, they made the same in the Coop Story as in Singleplayer. They forced you to much to go Action. It got to linear. It has actually the same gameplay flaws as the Singleplayer. The best of the Multiplayer is Deniable Ops, best Modes are "Hunter" and "Infiltration". You can argue about "Spy vs Spy" though I find that mode funny and wouldn't mind if it would be in SC6. Splinter Cell should go the way like the Hunter or Infiltration Mode show it. But you should be able to ghost and have more paths (DLC levels have very good level design). Last Stand is something for a shooter and has really nothing to do in Splinter Cell. Summary:

- Depth Stealth Gameplay (options, options, options)
- Depth believable Tom Clancy Story
- Level Design like the DLC Maps
- Old Sam Fisher, Old Grim
- Good tutorial? for Beginners
- Originality
- Don't forget Spy versus Merc (look at SCCT, SCPT)



*** Coming to the problem that a lot of games have today, especially "sequels" to franchises. Gothic 4 is here a good example because it is now simple, hasn't got that much features and no challenge like Gothic 2 had. When a game becomes that shallow it gets very fast very boring, but you paid money for it and so you force yourself to play through that game. It happened to me with Mafia 2 which is a huge disappointment when comparing to Mafia 1.

A good example how it should be would be Assassins Creed. After some critique about the variety of the game Ubi answered with an improved AC2. More features, more gameplay, more variety.

The games should go their own ways. You cannot satify everybody with a game and you shouldn't try it (as I said you cannot look left and right at the same time), because after that there are to many games that feel to shallow and feel the same. That's not really an advantage for the Publisher and the Developers (to much similar games = less money). If you want to try something new, have some ideas, then develop a new game. Don't put that ideas into other game series who already built their own core idea and have their big fanbase because you will destroy the series with it's fanbase. A good example for that is the new RUSE.

[newhenpal]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LJL20:
I can already tell people here made a judgment about this game even before it came out. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's to be expected. It doesn't take much for a person to know when they're not going to like something.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
A game series like this cannot consistently remain in this niche realm forever. It will wither and die. Even Michael Ironside was getting tired of it. I know I would have never even given the series a look until Conviction's gameplay caught my eye. You've got to change things up and try to inspire more interest in the product. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What point is there in keeping a series "alive" if the solution is making an unrecognizable product? Actually having games that preserve and build on a cherished formula is a million times preferable to a minuscule increase in interest in the neglected "oldies".

I take it that you came to the conclusion that the series is dying from those crude sales estimates floating in the internet. Well, by your admission, the series is still in a state of decay because Conviction did not do much of anything to lift the franchise from obscurity. According to those same estimates, Conviction sold only a tad bit more than Chaos Theory on Xbox.

Furthermore, the average critic ranks the first three games above Conviction and the game only managed to scrape the bottom barrel of the Xbox Live activity for a measly two weeks.

There's really no incentive to even bother with Conviction in this series.

[PeaceMaker_101]

This franchise really should have ended with Chaos Theory. Sure, we can maybe offer an SC game that is somewhat like Deus Ex, where you have lots of freedom, but then the core values of the first three games might be lost, one of them being that you are mainly a Splinter Cell, whose job it is to stay invisible. Offering a balanced stealth/action game actually might make it kind of hypocritical, and that's kind of what happened with SCDA and SCC.

It'd be interesting, however, to create a new Tom Clancy (TC) franchise that takes the best parts of all the early TC franchises (GR, R6, and SC) and put together a very complex, multi-solutions, multi-paths game. That might be the best way to win back a lot of fans from the older TC games, while also bringing in new ones. Are the newer GR and R6 games even selling that much better than their older counterparts?

[Jazz117Volkov]

Personally I think there is still tons of potential in the old Splinter Cell formula.

Mix the Chaos Theory L&S mechanics with the tactical shooter mechanics from GRAW and add a camo system so you can hide in shadows and jungle.
Presto, I just expanded the original Splinter Cell formula into something that allows more action, something more dynamic, more options for level design, especially sandbox. And the most important part, I didn't remove/change/wreck anything.

...Sometimes I wonder... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[PeaceMaker_101]

I guess that it could still work out, but we might have to get rid of Sam Fisher altogether, just to justify seeing a Splinter Cell in the game. It seems kind of cruel to do that, but Sam never really was a deep character anyways. He's no Mario. That's for sure.

[FrankieSatt]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PeaceMaker_101:
I guess that it could still work out, but we might have to get rid of Sam Fisher altogether, just to justify seeing a Splinter Cell in the game. It seems kind of cruel to do that, but Sam never really was a deep character anyways. He's no Mario. That's for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sam Fisher IS Splinter Cell. Take away Sam and you remove the core of the game. That is one reason why Conviction failed miserbly. They removed the Sam Fisher that was in the previous games and replaced him with a Sam Fisher that no one recognzied.

Sam Fisher needs to go back to the cold, calculated agent he was. The one who would do what was needed to complete the mission not be a vigalante like he was in Conviction.

[codenameeric]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FrankieSatt:
Sam Fisher IS Splinter Cell. Take away Sam and you remove the core of the game. That is one reason why Conviction failed miserbly. They removed the Sam Fisher that was in the previous games and replaced him with a Sam Fisher that no one recognzied.

Sam Fisher needs to go back to the cold, calculated agent he was. The one who would do what was needed to complete the mission not be a vigalante like he was in Conviction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


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

[RayMan..]

*Warning Contains Spoilers*

If you want to read this please heightlight and you will see my comment. Thank you and have a nice day.



<span class="ev_code_WHITE">I enjoy SplitnerCell Convction for what it is, I never compare any of the previous installments in the ever going saga to each other. They are all very differnt in there own</span><span class="ev_code_WHITE">I enjoy SplitnerCell Convction for what it is, I never compare any of the previous installments in the ever going saga to each other. They are all very differnt in there own way and it is not fair to do so. Ive been following the series since the beggning, Splintercell was the first incesiative the whole story and atmopshere established that. He is a man , A misson, he does it for his country. The sequel was more of what you forget to read between the lines and a bit of agression towards this. By the end of this game you start seeing emotional attachments. The third is his struggle between what is right and what is morally just and right. The 4th game breaks him down and so the enviorments are more flushed and less inspiring if to only add to how he feels in life at the moment. The last installment Convction being a last word kinda game where Sam is finally Broken , his broken his mad and everything he knew is gone and any one he had ties to are no longer in place. </span><span class="ev_code_WHITE"> way and it is not fair to do so. Ive been following the series since the beggning, Splintercell was the first incesiative the whole story and atmopshere established that. He is a man , A misson, he does it for his country. The sequel was more of what you forget to read between the lines and a bit of agression towards this. By the end of this game you start seeing emotional attachments. The third is his struggle between what is right and what is morally just and right. The 4th game breaks him down and so the enviorments are more flushed and less inspiring if to only add to how he feels in life at the moment. The last installment Convction being a last word kinda game where Sam is finally Broken , his broken his mad and everything he knew is gone and any one he had ties to are no longer in place. </span>

All of the games have been great I cant wait for the next installment.
Even though some are skeptical I would like to see Splintercell 6 in a near future.

[Tatterz]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FrankieSatt:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PeaceMaker_101:
I guess that it could still work out, but we might have to get rid of Sam Fisher altogether, just to justify seeing a Splinter Cell in the game. It seems kind of cruel to do that, but Sam never really was a deep character anyways. He's no Mario. That's for sure. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sam Fisher IS Splinter Cell. Take away Sam and you remove the core of the game. That is one reason why Conviction failed miserbly. They removed the Sam Fisher that was in the previous games and replaced him with a Sam Fisher that no one recognzied.

Sam Fisher needs to go back to the cold, calculated agent he was. The one who would do what was needed to complete the mission not be a vigalante like he was in Conviction. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I don't support Conviction and the direction it took.

[Joshua Morrison]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jazz_117:
... it simply isn't Splinter Cell, or even near the same league of quality or theme. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Convictions is just another failed attempt by Ubisoft to mainstream all their games to casual gamers. Ubisoft has made it clear they don't care about their pre360 fans by ruining every single Tom Clancy game.

[Stealthgamer001]

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/6d08be0f5c.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

[Crucify Lucifer]

Hmm, well to be fair I had a decent amount of fun with the gameplay, even if it wasn't the traditional stealth I loved from the previous SCs. The real part that disappointed me was the story.

Simply put, Ubisoft took a game known for its intelligent and very incredible plotlines and turned it into 2nd rate cliche hollywood punchlines. On top of that, nowhere in Conviction did I feel like a rogue agent on the run. The very beginning did an excellent job of destroying that for me. While the basic story had great potential, they decided to water it down for casual audiences who couldn't tell the difference between the word banana and what EMP stands for.

The most disappointing aspect of Conviction's story though is that it sets up for a new game. From my understanding back in 2006/2007, Conviction was supposed to be the great finale of the story. It was supposed to be Sam's final mission; to find and take down those in 3rd Echelon responsible for his losses. Rather than making an epic last go for Sam, they turn it into a possible new trilogy of Convictions. I'm really curious why Ubisoft thinks keeping Sam in the series at this point redeems the game anymore than fecal matter covering the Mona Lisa painting. I can feel it, Sam will be reduced to a die hard hollywood super hero in the next game and it'll only ruin everything he was known for in the series.

SC is honestly one of my favorite game franchises of all time, but with all of the loopholes in the storyline, SC6 sounds like it's going to be a melting pot for disaster.

[Seosan]

I guess they saw Sam as just another spy with a gun, a golden opportunity to reduce him down to an (uninspired) action man with a happy trigger finger, as mentioned.

It is nothing for them to be proud of.