^^^^I agree with you.

We all fell in love with Splinter Cell b/c of the story and mostly gameplay. I still play SC1 till this day. Every level was different and had a slew of options for taking out enemies. Nothing is wrong with gadgets and sneaking around in the dark. I was completly fine with it, but I guess Ubi wanted to go mainstream and dumbed it down for the casual gamers.

CT was the second best best game, b/c it went back to the basics, but thanks to Shanghai who went and killed Sarahm the story had to change, and with that the core gameplay in which SC was built upon.

I say, bring back the old Sam Fisher, make the level 3 times as big than CT, give the AI new lines and new whistles,lol. Nothing was wrong with CT. What happened to the downloadable levels back in SC1? Where is this company going?

Thats why I respect Konami, they have not changed anything about their game, just made it bigger and better. I just want my goggles back that all.

quote:

I just want my goggles back thats all.

Me too

Well, it seems people place more importance on story in games than I realised. Fair enough. But to place it above gameplay in terms of priority? Imagine a game with abysmal story, but still great gameplay. Well, what about most multiplayer games out there? They are still enjoyable, and while some may not get the level immersion they get with a good story, you still can have fun. But what about a game with great story and shocking gameplay? Wouldn't you rather just watch a good movie or read a good book?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good story in a game, but I can't see the sense in placing it higher than gameplay in importance levels.

quote:

There are plenty of multiplayer games but Splinter Cell shouldn't be one of 'em. Sam Fisher's the star, not Spies/Mercs. There's not a correlation amongst Sam and the Spies/Mercs; multiplayer feels like it's there just because of some silly standard that every modern game needs a multiplayer mode. Rainbox Six is a perfect multiplayer game, because it allows multiple players to control a Team Rainbow member (the game's stars) and work as a team to achieve their common goal: eliminate the terrorists.

Well, that's just your opinion isn't it? There are plenty of people out there who don't even play SC's singleplayer, they buy simply for the multiplayer. Why should you get to have your game but they can't have theres.

I would agree with you if the multiplayer was just some half-arsed mess thrown together to attempt to add longevity to the title, but you really can't argue with the amount of work Ubi has put into just the multiplayer portion.

Game play = any thing that makes the game fun. A good story, good music, and good graphics add depth, but with out good game play its all for not. Making the story #1 in you priorities is like putting you holiday decorations up before you build your house. You end up with a pile of junk.

A game needs both a good story and good gameplay. Some games do not fit that mold mind you, but for most, it is a must.

quote:

Originally posted by EskimoBob32:
Well, it seems people place more importance on story in games than I realised. Fair enough. But to place it above gameplay in terms of priority? Imagine a game with abysmal story, but still great gameplay. Well, what about most multiplayer games out there? They are still enjoyable, and while some may not get the level immersion they get with a good story, you still can have fun. But what about a game with great story and shocking gameplay? Wouldn't you rather just watch a good movie or read a good book?

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy a good story in a game, but I can't see the sense in placing it higher than gameplay in importance levels.

I don't think anyone is placing the story higher than the gameplay, but the story is not just to entertain you and give the game a certain depth but also to explain why the gameplay is the way it is, why you meet other characters and what kind of influence they might have on you progression.

Try to imagine what SC1 would have been without a story. You would have listen to people you're not knowing anything about, you wouldn't have known who you're working for or even against whom you're fighting etc.

Or let's use another example: Rainbow Six Vegas

Without a story you wouldn't know why you've been sent to Vegas, what happened there, to whom you belong and all that nice little stuff that makes a character believable.

quote:

but the story is not just to entertain you and give the game a certain depth but also to explain why the gameplay is the way it is,

You're practically saying that as long as the story says: "Well, we had to make you a fugitive else the story was weird" it's all good?

The story should fit the gameplay. Not the other way around.

Else we get silly stuff. "We made [character] invincible, because, according to the story, he should only die in the latest chapter".

Hmz, that's extremely noob-friendly. I hope I didn't give Ubi any ideas to dumb it down to that level.

quote:

Originally posted by scworld:
You're practically saying that as long as the story says: "Well, we had to make you a fugitive else the story was weird" it's all good?

No, I practically say that if according to the story Sam becomes a fugitive right at the begining, it wouldn't be logical to give him access to 3E equipment like his goggles or the SC20K - at least not at the begining of the game. I also say that without access to this kind of equipment, the light & shadow part wouldn't make much sense since Sam has only been able to use light & shadow because of the stealth meter attached to his suit with the photo cells, which told him if he's visible or not. Since he's not wearing the suit as fugitive, he won't be able to know when he's "invisible" or "lit up like a christmas tree".

It's all about believability.

True, that's why the fugitive gameplay shouldn't even BE there in the first place.

quote:

Originally posted by scworld:
True, that's why the fugitive gameplay shouldn't even BE there in the first place.

That's your personal opinion and I respect but can't share that.

I don't see any problem with a spec op like sam to have back up gear hidden away some where.

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
I don't see any problem with a spec op like sam to have back up gear hidden away some where.

He'll get his gear on a different way this time, as you learn by listening to someone who knows SC at best - Mathieu Ferland.

Mr Ferland didn't even understand the Versus mode in one of his interviews. He lost my faith entirely after that. Gerighty or maybe some Dev mentioned Frogger = epic fail.

The only one I still have respect for is Clint Hocking for Game Design, and Martin Caya for the original Sam model. I dont know the names of the people behind the original PT and CT Versus. And the music and sound was always good.

quote:

Originally posted by Vth_F_Smith_:
I don't think anyone is placing the story higher than the gameplay

Um

quote:

The story plot of any story based game is the most important thing

Point taken?

People seem to play games with story as their highest priority, and my point is plots in games are never that great. Defend the SC plots all you like (and I agree that they are pretty good in terms of video games, and they do help to add immersion) but if you compare them to Clancy plots, or even Ludlum or another such author it doesn't really come close.

Of course, some of the people who place so much importance in plot "don't like to read books--they're boring and drowsy" and "prefer to experience the story, not read hundreds of pages with tiny black-printed words on them and try to use [their] imagination". I don't think I can make any further comments on that without sounding disrepectful.

quote:

Or let's use another example: Rainbow Six Vegas

Without a story you wouldn't know why you've been sent to Vegas, what happened there, to whom you belong and all that nice little stuff that makes a character believable.

Wait... there was a reason that Team Rainbow was sent to Vegas? I think you probably could have found a better example, the plot in Vegas was never really that important. To me it felt like it more of an excuse to have a 3 man team go through room after room shooting dozens upon dozens of terrorists. Realistic, I might add.

quote:

No, I practically say that if according to the story Sam becomes a fugitive right at the begining, it wouldn't be logical to give him access to 3E equipment like his goggles or the SC20K - at least not at the begining of the game. I also say that without access to this kind of equipment, the light & shadow part wouldn't make much sense since Sam has only been able to use light & shadow because of the stealth meter attached to his suit with the photo cells, which told him if he's visible or not. Since he's not wearing the suit as fugitive, he won't be able to know when he's "invisible" or "lit up like a christmas tree".

It's all about believability.

Oh god, not this again. Yes, the new gameplay makes sense within the new plot. Which do you think was made first? Developers aren't going to be forced to follow a story with their gameplay. Imagine if SC6 had its story written first, and it had Sam become an aspiring guitarist. Are the developers going to go ahead and make a Guitar Hero clone? No, they're probably going to laugh, fire the person who came up with it, start making adjustments to the gameplay and telling the writers to go along with it.

I'll try to put this in perspective. There are four Die Hard movies. Who knows, maybe when they made the first one it was actually because they had some gold material, or maybe it was because they wanted to put Bruce Willis in the role of some badass and wrote a plot around it. Then they made a lot of money, and decided to make a sequel. Do you think someone had gone ahead and written a screenplay for Die Hard 2, taken it to a producer and been told to start shooting? Or do you think it was more likely that the producer decided to cash in on the success of the first movie and hired someone to make up some new situation for Bruce Willis to show his awesomeness in?

Take any sequel you like, there will be few exceptions. Star Wars is one that comes to mind, add more if you like. But for the majority of sequels, the plot is made after the decision and financial investment is made to create one. And this is for film, a mostly plot-driven medium. How do you think it works for the sequel of a video game, a mostly gameplay-driven medium?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EskimoBob32,

Are you insinuating that SC or PT had no story? I found that it did. PT was a continuation of SC. It just took place somewhere other than SC did.

I think a game should have both, a good story and good gameplay. Sure, a game like Flight Simulator (which I play) might not have a sotry, but flying doesn't have a story, it's a means to get from one place to another), but a game like SC or GR or even AC should. With both a great story and great gameplay, you have an interactive medium such as a book. Even the all out action game CoD (again I have it, but only played it through twice and for about 15 hours online) even has a story. Even the Ubi published flight sim iL2: Forgotten Battles has a story. You are sent to fight battles of WW2 and is even dynamic. If A happens, then C happens on the next mission. If B happens on the first mission, D happens on the next.

Do you want Conviction to be like Flight Simulator where all you do is kill someone or do you want it to mean something?

I have played though SCCT a hundreds of times, and I only payed attention to the story the first few times. So the story is not really that important compared to what makes the game fun (game play). Sneaking around in the dark as a super spy is a whole lot of fun and I really want to see more of that.

quote:

Originally posted by WhiteKnight77:
Are you insinuating that SC or PT had no story? I found that it did. PT was a continuation of SC. It just took place somewhere other than SC did.

I think a game should have both, a good story and good gameplay. Sure, a game like Flight Simulator (which I play) might not have a sotry, but flying doesn't have a story, it's a means to get from one place to another), but a game like SC or GR or even AC should. With both a great story and great gameplay, you have an interactive medium such as a book. Even the all out action game CoD (again I have it, but only played it through twice and for about 15 hours online) even has a story. Even the Ubi published flight sim iL2: Forgotten Battles has a story. You are sent to fight battles of WW2 and is even dynamic. If A happens, then C happens on the next mission. If B happens on the first mission, D happens on the next.

Do you want Conviction to be like Flight Simulator where all you do is kill someone or do you want it to mean something?

No no no you are missing the point. I do not want SCC to have no story. I enjoy games with a decent plot. But which would be more game breaking, a game with no story or with no gameplay? You said it yourself, there are games out there with no story. A game without gameplay... well, that's a movie. So while a story is important, you cannot place its importance above gameplay. My earlier examples were just showing how, especially in sequels, a plot will not be the first consideration regardless of how important it is. The story for Pandora Tomorrow would not have been written until the decision to make a sequel, and the decisions about how much the gameplay would change, had been made. I am not saying the stories in SC or PT are bad, they are enjoyable. I just think that no video game can ever live up to a good novel in terms of plot and character development.

quote:

Originally posted by Vth_F_Smith_:

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
I don't see any problem with a spec op like sam to have back up gear hidden away some where.

He'll get his gear on a different way this time, as you learn by listening to someone who knows SC at best - Mathieu Ferland.

What good does a tac-suet do him if there is no L/S stealth???

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
What good does a tac-suet do him if there is no L/S stealth???

I didn't mention the suit.

quote:

Originally posted by scworld:
Mr Ferland didn't even understand the Versus mode in one of his interviews.

Which one? Besides, even if he didn't, that doesn't matter. The multiplayer has always been Annecy's Child not Montreal's.

quote:

He lost my faith entirely after that.

You lost your faith because of one comment?

quote:

Gerighty or maybe some Dev mentioned Frogger = epic fail.

What would have been if he had mentioned Need for Speed Most Wanted to explain the concept of a "safehouse"? C'mon he (and no, it wasn't Julian Gerighty who mentioned - in fact he wasn't even there) simply used the easiest example to explain a specific gameplay element. No offense, but don't you think that might be a little too picky?

quote:

I dont know the names of the people behind the original PT and CT Versus.

Ubi Annecy has always developed the Multiplayer version.

Ferland/Ubi based the decision to make Spy vs Spy on the false premise that "Spies would kill off the Mercs in order to play by themselves". Of course, if you kill off the Mercs, the game _ends_.

Not knowing an important rule like that, while still being Producer or something... *shakes head*