For anyone that follows this SurferGirl, then you already know the lowdown on her rumors to which many have come true.

Anyway, supposively she says this about Conviction:

quote:

The next Splinter Cell game has been redone three times over already. Developers just can't seem to include good gameplay in it. That's part of why it got delayed.

http://softrockhallelujah.blogspot.com/2008/01/disaster...gdom-of-delayed.html

I pretty much agree. Great idea but execution done poorly. Also, the website CVG has said many of the Assassin's Creed staff has moved its way to help with Conviction's development.

Anyway, if you'd like to see a thread at NeoGAF on Surfergirl's rumors, here's the link:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=203795

Good.

Maybe they'll do us a favor by cancellig it entirely and never making another Splinter Cell game.

I don't really think we will ever get a good splinter cell again.

Also i'm not surprised that they moved the support group for Assasins Creed over to immediately work on Conviction. Guess they won't be wasting any time makin patches for that game either.

BTW, wut up ops? ZOMG!!!

Hmm i wouldn't say ditch SC altogether, just more like... give us a decent one, along with a revised and fixed CT-style versus mode with updated engine/visuals, and some small additions like maps/gadgets/moves/customization, perhaps.

I know all that is just asking way too much from Ubi, but it's nice to hope, i suppose.

I wonder what made them think that all the (semi?)loyal fans from the first 3 light/dark shadow-based gameplay games would enjoy a complete turn-around of one of, if not, their favorite game/s.

quote:

Originally posted by Yuippie.:
I wonder what made them think that all the (semi?)loyal fans from the first 3 light/dark shadow-based gameplay games would enjoy a complete turn-around of one of, if not, their favorite game/s.

I guess they didn't. Kane&Lynch and Assassin's Creed showed us that game devs and publishers rely on good reviews and pre-release hype to sell a game rather than on actually making the game itself great. SCC can be a mediocre game, but as long as they manage to hype it up, it will sell sufficiently enough for them to call it a success. They don't need to please a loyal fanbase.

True dat.

That fact was pretty much established early on with SCC by way of the "From Conviction Team"-thread.

All games rely on pre-release hype to sell are you saying they shouldn't? I expect nothing less then that, especially new ones, this complaint is silly, when you can make up your own mind on previews/reviews and some cases demo's if you want to buy it or not, this doesn't just apply to the gaming industry but any that relies on advertisement. There have been many games gamers have hyped up aswell like Crysis, which in my opinion is a mediocre title, like its brethren Far Cry. Over hyped due to it's fantastic graphics, bar that the gameplay is the same as Far Cry with an addition of an exo suit. I also generally take reviews with a pinch of salt, this gametrailer VIDEO with recent interviews about gamescores and journalism, may open your eyes a bit. I tend to agree some with what they say in there about bad scores, some scores by reviwers are daft, especially the Rachet and Clank one at Gamespot saying the game had too much Variety, which is just laughable.

I think the reason could be many why they changed the gameplay, I know after 4 games I would like a change, as the gameplay seems un-imagintive, unchallenging, and monotonous. I know, people say play some other game, but whatever... The devs obviously where told to change the gameplay, and so far it looks pretty good. Most of the complaints seem to be more about a navigation mechanic L&D and a certain playstyle. But then again, vets are usually inflexible at ANY change, regardless if it is old style like SCDA exclusing technical issues on the PC, that showed that, unless it's "specially" created to their needs the game will suck, so the complaints from them become a moot point, because no matter what you do as a developer there is no middle ground.

I honestly don't think game reviewers understood Kane and Lynch, which while it had technical issues and i agree with reviewers on that, the story and characters where spot on for gangsters. Simply watch, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels or Snatch for some close comparisons. I think generally these stories/characters fall flat on the American demographic because they don't understand this culture, while those in the UK and many within Europe we love it, because it's close to how they're portrayed. Lol, I mean some of the silly complaints, they swear too much, maybe they should of watched those two movies and see the swearing, it's the F word every few seconds what did they expect from gangters? Even ours in England don't go in sterotypical fashion "Oh jolly good show ol chap, you really did a good job putting a bullet in his arse, cracking old shot my boy" It just doesn't happen, it is part and parcel of what gangsters are like, especially in the Eastend of London, no niceties swearing and violence is the key.

quote:

Originally posted by Georg_Maximus:

quote:

Originally posted by Yuippie.:
I wonder what made them think that all the (semi?)loyal fans from the first 3 light/dark shadow-based gameplay games would enjoy a complete turn-around of one of, if not, their favorite game/s.

I guess they didn't. Kane&Lynch and Assassin's Creed showed us that game devs and publishers rely on good reviews and pre-release hype to sell a game rather than on actually making the game itself great. SCC can be a mediocre game, but as long as they manage to hype it up, it will sell sufficiently enough for them to call it a success. They don't need to please a loyal fanbase.

I would strongly have to agree with this post. If a game comes out and is a great game with great SP and MP then word of mouth will travel faster then a minute long TV ad or gamesite ads. Hell the main thing I wish I could do on my 360 dashboard is to remove the ads.

If a friend I know tells me that this or that game is great and is a must have. Then if he's a reliable friend with the same likes in games as I, then chances are I'll be buying it.

The only reason I visit sites like gamespot or game trailers is to check the trailers and the pictures. I could care less about anything else on the sites.

Wouldn't an established fan-base be bigger, and sell more?

I bet the first three Splinter Cell games solo, out-sold Double Agent. :P

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
All games rely on pre-release hype to sell are you saying they shouldn't? I expect nothing less then that, especially new ones, this complaint is silly, when you can make up your own mind on previews/reviews and some cases demo's if you want to buy it or not, this doesn't just apply to the gaming industry but any that relies on advertisement. There have been many games gamers have hyped up aswell like Crysis, which in my opinion is a mediocre title, like its brethren Far Cry. Over hyped due to it's fantastic graphics, bar that the gameplay is the same as Far Cry with an addition of an exo suit. I also generally take reviews with a pinch of salt, this gametrailer VIDEO with recent interviews about gamescores and journalism, may open your eyes a bit. I tend to agree some with what they say in there about bad scores, some scores by reviwers are daft, especially the Rachet and Clank one at Gamespot saying the game had too much Variety, which is just laughable.

The complaint is that the "hype" is just that, it's not new info. Games like Crysis and Assassin's Creed tend to rely on hype by focusing on a specific feature (graphics for Crysis, free-running for AC). This becomes a problem when they release so many ads, so many videos, so many interviews which don't actually show an accurate picture of what the game will be like but assure everyone that the game will be great, and they end up making millions on mediocre titles. Anyone who doesn't see this as a problem needs to take a serious look at the situation. Sure, you can just say "read the reviews, listen to word of mouth before you buy" to stop YOU from making these mistakes, but when titles are this successful they spawn sequels, spin-offs, copies. And I mean in every sense, not just the gameplay. Once publishers realise that they can make a **** game with perhaps one novel feature and market the hell out of it, they are going to do it a lot more and we are going to see a general decline in the quality of games.

All they need to do is act like DA never happened.

And make a sequal to Pandora Tomorrow or Chaos Theory. aint nothing wrong with scapping the whole game.

You can easily make another gov't storyline, and just beef up the light/shadow mechanics ala Alan WAke!!! and there you have it.

Thry are making hard on themselves

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
All games rely on pre-release hype to sell are you saying they shouldn't? I expect nothing less then that, especially new ones, this complaint is silly, when you can make up your own mind on previews/reviews and some cases demo's if you want to buy it or not, this doesn't just apply to the gaming industry but any that relies on advertisement.

Of course a game - as does any product - needs some sort of publicity to be sold. But when the game is obviously underdeveloped - as in either repetetive (Assassin's Creed) or full of bugs and glitches (Kane&Lynch), then it's not sold by it's own merit. It is the result of a development towards a situation where the industry can spend more resources on advertising a game than actually developing it, and still get away with earnings that warrants that strategy. But take Portal, a rather minor game within a compilation of more renown games, which became an instant success because of it's innovative gameplay. People buy the Orange Box for Portal only, without any six-numbered spendings on ads and hype for that game. SC used to be exactly that - a game sold because it was a good game. But as SC became a widely popular franchise name, the wheel has turned: today they can label any old **** as a SC game, and still get away with it, because they rely on the ad departement, not the devs, to make it a success. What we're expected to buy is great ads, not great games.

ouch...it's just showing us that Ubi didn't think deeply about their ideas...hope they'll find the perfect formula...

I'm not surprised it's been redone 3 times. The gameplay is so ridiculously monotonous and simple that it'd be impressive that they can create a game about it.

As for Hype and advertisments, ther are needed to sell games. There are many games out there that explode with hype due to graphics. But fail to produce in gameplay. Hype is generally produced by better graphics, and the name of the game. Rarely is hype successfully created by new gameplay or innovation. The exceptions that I can think off the top of my head is the Wii. Other than that, I'm not aware of a game that sold on innovation or gameplay alone.

So for SCC to survive it has to rely on the hype, otherwise no one would buy it especially if it sucks. Take a look at Zack & Wiki's Pirate adventure for the Wii. It's an amazing game, and very innovative and perfect for the Wii. Sales however doesn't reflect the amazing title it actually is. Even UBi's own Beyond Good&Evil was a great game, but due to the lack of hype and advertising the game had poor sales.
Hype and Advertising sell games. A name sales games. Gameplay and innovation fails in comparison.

The good news is people are starting to realise that gameplay and innovation is more important. Which is the main reason the Wii is selling. However, the number of quality games on it are pretty low. That's not Nintendo's fault. It's the developper's just trying to cash in on the technology rather than produce something great. In the rare case they do make something great, without advertising or hype it doesn't sell.

So, don't bash the advertising or hype, it helps make great games and crappy games sell well. Your job is to make sure you don't by the crappy ones. Reviewers are there for that reason.

This rumor is so silly.

quote:

Originally posted by DrCactus:
As for Hype and advertisments, ther are needed to sell games. There are many games out there that explode with hype due to graphics. But fail to produce in gameplay. Hype is generally produced by better graphics, and the name of the game. Rarely is hype successfully created by new gameplay or innovation. The exceptions that I can think off the top of my head is the Wii. Other than that, I'm not aware of a game that sold on innovation or gameplay alone.

Assassin's Creed? Not to say the game deservedly sold well; it had one innovative feature (free-running) which they hyped the hell out of and made millions. We live in a great world.

quote:

So, don't bash the advertising or hype, it helps make great games and crappy games sell well. Your job is to make sure you don't by the crappy ones. Reviewers are there for that reason.

The problem is, people are idiots. They don't read reviews, they don't ask their friends, they go ahead and buy a game. They may be disappointed, they might whinge, but does that hurt sales? Not one bit. And so they keep making crappy games with good marketing. If people were smart enough to see through the hype, sure, it wouldn't be a problem, because only good games would sell well and it would force the developers to only make good games. Too bad it is not the case.

I can think of many, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid, The Sims, Grand Theft Auto 3, Rainbow Six, Final Fantasy 7, Resident Evil, System Shock 2, Mass Effect, Max payne, even God of War. So many games that have innovative features that wern't seen before. Since the Millenium there has been loads more innovation then the late 90's.

No one wants to make crappy games, lol... the reason why you see sequels like the Call of Duty franchise is simple, they're safe bet games, you see less innovation, because no one is willing to take that risk, especially multiplatform, unless it's a success. Multiplatform development costs around the same amount for each platform next-gen platform, so 20 million for xbox 360 20 million for PC, PS3 etc... You then have companies who make a profit, but don't have enough to do any R&D for innovation, or if they do they need a loan like Ubi did last year with 40 million debt. Game companies such as EA are an exception to the rule they have no excuse with all that cash they have which is in billions of dollars, but then again there is Army of Two, Spore, and a few other titles they're making thats new and seem innovative, but most seem like rehashes, Need For Speed, Medal of Honour.

I would say if you want an insight into why the industry is like that, watch this video Bonus Round from Gametrailers, I think it's quite insightful.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
I can think of many, Splinter Cell, Metal Gear Solid, The Sims, Grand Theft Auto 3, Rainbow Six, Final Fantasy 7, Resident Evil, System Shock 2, Mass Effect, Max payne, even God of War. So many games that have innovative features that wern't seen before. Since the Millenium there has been loads more innovation then the late 90's.

Innovative when they first came out, yes, but what happens? Your list includes several games I have very few meanings about, but take Splinter Cell and Rainbow Six: they became classics because of the innovative gameplay, but during the very recent years, the once innovative gameplay is abadonded in sequels and replaced with some generic action concept that is very little innovative. Yet still, Rainbow Six: Vegas was a sales success only because of the pre-release hype. The game itself offers nothing that you cannot find in any other action FPS. Go over at the R6 forums and see what the gamers themselves think of it. The once innovative features are gone.

quote:

No one wants to make crappy games, lol... the reason why you see sequels like the Call of Duty franchise is simple, they're safe bet games, you see less innovation, because no one is willing to take that risk,

Which makes it all the more strange that they change everything about SC that made it SC. They're not safe betting - they're risking to loose the whole franchise for some hyped-up feature that has already proven itself to be mediocre in AC.

quote:

Originally posted by EskimoBob32:
The problem is, people are idiots. They don't read reviews, they don't ask their friends, they go ahead and buy a game. They may be disappointed, they might whinge, but does that hurt sales? Not one bit. And so they keep making crappy games with good marketing. If people were smart enough to see through the hype, sure, it wouldn't be a problem, because only good games would sell well and it would force the developers to only make good games. Too bad it is not the case.

I also think that the reviewers themselves are not always as reliable as one would think. Take a game like Halo 3. It got stellar reviews, but turned out in the end to be just another action shooter. Half-Life2 - the same stellar reviews, but it is hands down one of only two games I never finished because it bored the **** out me. And the whole Gamespot-incident really made us question whether the reviewers are there to tell you the truth, or just the foot soldiers in an advertising campaigns.