quote:

Originally posted by JediWithASniper:
I do agree somewhat that they give you a lot of gadgets, but I don't agree that it is more than it used to be, if you think about it, now you don't find sticky shockers, and air foils where they shouldn't be, you have a set amount at the beginning, or granted to you somewhere in the mission, but you don't just find these hi-tech weapons and gadgets, and their ammo lying around everywhere.

Over all, I think they are pretty even in the amounts. But again, I think it should be modified by the difficulty level, not the generic assigned amount.

Thats what I ment, sorry I worded that weird.
What I ment was that they kept the amount of gadgets and ammo the same but they should have reduced it in the later games because in the later games, you needed it less then in the earlier games. Hope that made sense.

quote:

Originally posted by go_clo:

quote:

Originally posted by JediWithASniper:
I do agree somewhat that they give you a lot of gadgets, but I don't agree that it is more than it used to be, if you think about it, now you don't find sticky shockers, and air foils where they shouldn't be, you have a set amount at the beginning, or granted to you somewhere in the mission, but you don't just find these hi-tech weapons and gadgets, and their ammo lying around everywhere.

Over all, I think they are pretty even in the amounts. But again, I think it should be modified by the difficulty level, not the generic assigned amount.

Thats what I ment, sorry I worded that weird.
What I ment was that they kept the amount of gadgets and ammo the same but they should have reduced it in the later games because in the later games, you needed it less then in the earlier games. Hope that made sense.

I needed the gadgets less because the games continued to get easier. I think its just that I got better at it that there isnt really any challenge to the game anymore really. I thought going back to play SC1 would be hard like when I first played it(frustrating as hell) but it was not that difficult at all.

I think the problem with the gadgets was that, as has been stated, the first time people would go through SC1 they would be used. Hell, even playing through SC1 again I am using a lot more gadgets than I do in CT. SC1 forced you to use the gadgets a lot more than CT, and your bullets also were more needed. Not only did enemies require more hits to die, but your guns were less accurate and you resorted to using them more often. In CT, they gave you the same number of gadgets without ever really being forced to use them. I don't have a problem with either situation, as in this genre I don't think linearity is necessarily a bad thing. After all, SC1 was very linear and yet it is my favourite of the series. There were scripted action moments, but it never seemed to ruin the gameplay experience.

CT was quite different, you were never forced to do anything. That was why it was possible to complete a whole level without anyone ever seeing you. I interpret the statement in the original post to mean that there will probably be more scripted moments in this game that will force you to use your gadgets or weapons. I do not have a problem with that at all; however, I think to call this game a sandbox game and to say you have more freedom than ever is misleading.

And before anyone says that I have stated I don't like the action look in Conviction yet I like the action in SC1, well, there is a difference between hiding in the shadows, picking off your alert enemies one by one and running at cops and throwing them against the wall.

quote:

Originally posted by EskimoBob32:
And before anyone says that I have stated I don't like the action look in Conviction yet I like the action in SC1, well, there is a difference between hiding in the shadows, picking off your alert enemies one by one and running at cops and throwing them against the wall.

There are a lot of action games out there and few L/S games. SC was the first to really perfect the atmosphere and I am very sad to see it tarnished this way.

I don't like the idea of ubisoft slowly taking sam fisher out of the shadowy stealth world in which his character is built around. Look at the sam fisher in the original game and see how he slowly has changed and how ubisoft really has took the leap of faith to move fisher to different gameplay. My question is how will ubisoft mold sam back into a stealth spy if they intend to do so. If they do not, which im not implying this, they might kill him or some how introduce someone else. The road ahead for sam fisher doesn't look bright. Some of my wording may not be exact to the point but i hope the idea gets across.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gumpmister:
My question is how will ubisoft mold sam back into a stealth spy if they intend to do so. If they do not, which im not implying this, they might kill him or some how introduce someone else. The road ahead for sam fisher doesn't look bright.QUOTE]


Exactly. Even better, check this out:

'' As Sam evolves from a Third Echelon stooge into a fugitive, and ultimately an enemy of the state (we’re assured this is a good thing), player choices will determine which contacts are available between missions, and thus what equipment Sam will have access to. Dany compared Sam’s quest to The Legend of Zelda, and joked that he might have to find the parts to his old night vision scope the same way Link searched for the Triforce. ''

“I finally have the three pieces of my googles!” We’re pretty sure he meant goggles. But for fans that have followed Splinter Cell from the beginning, this is a serious question. Will Sam Fisher wear his famous headgear ever again?

“That’s classified.”


10/08/2007

Source: www.Gameplayer.com.au

quote:

I don't like the idea of ubisoft slowly taking sam fisher out of the shadowy stealth world in which his character is built around. Look at the sam fisher in the original game and see how he slowly has changed and how ubisoft really has took the leap of faith to move fisher to different gameplay. My question is how will ubisoft mold sam back into a stealth spy if they intend to do so. If they do not, which im not implying this, they might kill him or some how introduce someone else. The road ahead for sam fisher doesn't look bright. Some of my wording may not be exact to the point but i hope the idea gets across.

This is a major part of my concern as well, I don't want it to end up where Sam is working for the C.I.A. under the code name Ethan Hunt.

The whole direction just feels wrong, but I suppose that if after you have spent 17 levels building your inventory that you finally get to break into TE, then it might be ok, but I am so gonna be upset if he just turned his gear back in or sold it!

Push, encourage or make us able?

There was no real pushing in earlier games when there was just about 3 options of which 1 (sniping and shooting your way) was perfectly working. Now there will likely be more even choices.

I hope there's lots of items with completely different uses. What's the actual difference of sticky shocker and airfoil round? I don't really want bomb1 and bomb2 of which other has 1 meter radius and other 1.1 meter radius, if there's lack of actually useful items.

quote:

Originally posted by kalle90:
What's the actual difference of sticky shocker and airfoil round?

Well, with an ring airfoil you can only knock one guard out, with a sticky shocker you can even knock multiple guards out, if they're standing in a puddle, sticky shockers can also affect light sources.

quote:

Originally posted by Vth_F_Smith_:

quote:

Originally posted by kalle90:
What's the actual difference of sticky shocker and airfoil round?

Well, with an ring airfoil you can only knock one guard out, with a sticky shocker you can even knock multiple guards out, if they're standing in a puddle, sticky shockers can also affect light sources.

Yes, but there's not so much difference, same with the cameras. Multiplayer has Flash and Frag grenades, Spy bullets and such. I like airfoils, but shockers are just better.

Now when black market is our huge source of useables I hope there wont be throwing knives and darts seperately if it takes away something really different and useful like mirror, pipe, lighter, silencer, althought those aren't the best examples

quote:

Originally posted by JediWithASniper:
This is a major part of my concern as well, I don't want it to end up where Sam is working for the C.I.A. under the code name Ethan Hunt.

Considering how bad (and over the top) the Mission Impossible movies have been, compared to the last version of the TV series...I wouldn't want that as well.

Jim Phelps a traitor...boy, what have they done to one of the greatest espionage concepts ever aired?

Thank god, the devs know better examples than that MI 1,2 and 3 trash!

Particularly the second movie, what the hell was that? That would have had eyebrows raised as a James Bond movie, and Mission Impossible should be slightly higher caliber.

With the airfoil rounds, up until CT they took two hits to knock someone out unless you got them in the head, the shockers always only took one. As Smith said, shockers can knock multiple enemies out. Other than that, the effect was purely cosmetic.

They could just give him a ranged taser and a cattle prod for melee. That way he could keep using them over and over unlike the sticky shocker.

quote:

Originally posted by Vth_F_Smith_:

quote:

Originally posted by JediWithASniper:
This is a major part of my concern as well, I don't want it to end up where Sam is working for the C.I.A. under the code name Ethan Hunt.

Considering how bad (and over the top) the Mission Impossible movies have been, compared to the last version of the TV series...I wouldn't want that as well.

Jim Phelps a traitor...boy, what have they done to one of the greatest espionage concepts ever aired?

Thank god, the devs know better examples than that MI 1,2 and 3 trash!

I agree that MI isn't the best of movie series, but there is many things that I think have been inspired by that movie you know? Such as the noise meter, the rappel when he hacks that computer, fishers is automated in SCDA, it also reminded me like the co-op missions in Chaos Theory, where you have to hold the rope, except those SHADOWNET spies don't have such butter fingers like Jean Reno, true professionalism. Remember the distractions they used in that film? They created panic with the smoke and escaped as Fire Fighters? that was clever. I liked some of the little things they got up to, wasn't really impressed overall. But ironically the stories are similar to ConViction no? They try to track down Mr Hunt and bring him in until he clears his name and exposes the bad guys, and on the flight home it seems to assume he goes back to the agency, which he obviously does otherwise no other movie would be made... does make you wonder.

Yes I agree with you about the stunts in MI, they were pretty cool. As a stand alone film it might not have even been too bad, but it does not work as a Mission Impossible movie, especially with Jim Phelps as the villain, that is treason. And yes I also agree with you about the story in MI and Conviction, which I am sceptical about the supposed great story in Conviction; as a character driven action game, it could work well (I think Montreal will probably do a better job of exploring Sam's character than Shanghai) but as a Tom Clancy technothriller it just doesn't really work for me.

With the exception of the second MI, they weren't bad films per se, they were just bad Mission Impossibles, something I fear may be mirrored in Conviction. I think part of the problem was Tom Cruise, for me he doesn't cut it as a member of the IMF.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
I agree that MI isn't the best of movie series, but there is many things that I think have been inspired by that movie you know? Such as the noise meter, the rappel when he hacks that computer, fishers is automated in SCDA, it also reminded me like the co-op missions in Chaos Theory, where you have to hold the rope, except those SHADOWNET spies don't have such butter fingers like Jean Reno, true professionalism. Remember the distractions they used in that film? They created panic with the smoke and escaped as Fire Fighters? that was clever. I liked some of the little things they got up to, wasn't really impressed overall.

Same here.

quote:

But ironically the stories are similar to ConViction no? They try to track down Mr Hunt and bring him in until he clears his name and exposes the bad guys, and on the flight home it seems to assume he goes back to the agency, which he obviously does otherwise no other movie would be made... does make you wonder.

Uhm...I don't think so, because the fugitive scenario is hardly exclusive to the first Mission Impossible movie. It's been also used in a lot of movies and TV shows before like The Fugitive (with Harrisson Ford as Richard Kimble - simply one of the greatest movies ever), Enemy of State (also one of my favourites), Bourne Identity (well...you get the point), 24 etc.... all of them could be a part of their source of inspiration to do a game based on the fugitive scenario.

Also true. But, the problem then is that none of them is a Clancy-esque technothriller, which is what I want. Okay, there are elements of it in the novel of The Bourne Identity, but the focus is still Bourne/Webb, not the "grand scheme of things".

quote:

Originally posted by EskimoBob32:
Also true. But, the problem then is that none of them is a Clancy-esque technothriller, which is what I want. Okay, there are elements of it in the novel of The Bourne Identity, but the focus is still Bourne/Webb, not the "grand scheme of things".

There are also elements of it in 24 (I believe Season 4) and Enemy of the State. Bourne was only one source of inspiration, as Ferlnd pointed out in the IGN Video Interview.