Of course, you have to be wary of reviews. For the most part, a score on game rankings is not a good enough reason to buy a game. If you actually read the reviews, and look at the faults they should discuss, then you are better informed. But like you said, games like Halo get great reviews when they really are nothing special. Half-Life 2 I disagree on, as that was fairly revolutionary at the time. The biggest problem is what I think you were talking about, that we don't really know whether or not reviewers that we are told to trust are being told what to write by a company with a fat cheque book.

Just to add more fuel to the fire, Resistence 2 is revealed in the new Game Informer. What does that have to do with this thread? Well, like I said in the OP, many of her rumors have come true and one of those rumors was that the game starts out in Iceland. Well, according to the new GI, SGT. Hale (People should know who he is if they've played the game)starts out in Iceland.

So all in all, i'm REALLY curious to see how this game has changed now.

quote:

Originally posted by Georg_Maximus:

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.

If you played some of them you would know Resident Evil Outbreak File #2 (spin off game) innovated, it changed the whole gameplay mechanic and whole concept to survival gameplay. If you play the first three Resident Evil games they're exactly the same except for different characters and minior improvemnts to the controls, instead of holding left to do 180, you held the direction button and pressed left trigger. Yet now Resident Evil 4 is way different too and innovated, still played by a cult of early adopters, the 5th is coming otu soon and looks like it has innovated again. What about Rock Band? That game innovated and its the sole reason many would go out and buy it over Guitar Hero 3. It's kinda ironic, many have complained about Guitar Hero being the same.

Splinter Cell has remianed the same, but thats what you seem to want rather then actual innovation, how do you innovate Splinter Cell without doing massive changes, I've not heard anyone come up with any ideas that are outstanding? You don't think after a while a game becomes generic and stale for a "majority" using the samething over and over again as opposed to the minority? Even when Reviewers and gamers alike are saying this game is nothing new... Rainbow Six: Vegas did innovate in many ways, your complaint seems more targeted at the (PC) i.e planning phase, multiple teams, yes in this respect you're quite correct and i agree with you 100%.

However Vegas was designed and intended for the xbox 360 and not the PC, with that in mind, look at the new things added. You have snake cam that allows to see in a room that allows target descrimination, allows you to plan with your team then excute it. There was abseiling, not seen that before either which allowed you to plan an excute room breaches by smashing windows. Cover behind walls and picture in picture. If you take Rainbow Six 3/Black Arrow xbox, and Vegas xbox360 it's more of an evolution and innovation with gameplay mechanics while keeping the core theme, i believe that game innovated quite alot console-wise. Now the PC version of Vegas, I dunno if you knew this or not. But my time Moderating over at R6 forum, they where creating a seperate PC version designed like the old games with innovation. Goliath the Dev there even confirmed it, but half way through development it was cancelled, it wouldn't of met the deadline. There wasn't going to be Vegas on the PC at this point. Then at E3, many PC gamers expressed they liked what they saw of the Xbox 360 version and requested it, so instead of having no game for the PC, they ported it over in a very short space of time.

You say, that the game is only a success with pre-release hype? I don't agree, If thats the case, can you explain why Lockdown on the xbox and games like BlackSite: Area 51, Lair (PS3) which are terrible games flopped? They where hyped and have done so bad in sales! Then take GRAW 1 console and GRAW 2, they where a success and have near equal sales figures a big community and following? Using logic here, many people who like the first game will keep playing, this creates a stable fan base, when you create a second, those gamers are more likely to buy that new game. But still doesn't mean they will buy it if it's poopy, as no matter how much you hype a game, it doesn't make it a success, games like Lockdown showed us that.

I think the main things about GRAW and GRAW 2 was ubi put demo's out for them, likewise for Vegas. We shall see with R6 vegas 2 if it flops, as assuming by what you say, that because it was just hype alone, it should have way lower sales figures and be dwarfed by Vegas. If it doesn't then it seems like the progression and evolution console wise worked, as I hear they have changed the game again to have RPG elements in Vegas 2. Games such as Assassins Creed which had no demo, that sells on hype and reviews and word of mouth, you will find out on the second game if it was just hype or if it's consistent. If it's the latter you cannot blame hype, it makes no sence to have similar sales from a poopy game. Otherwise any game thats hyped should sell 3+ million copies, and they don't. You have rare ones like Duke Nukem Forever/Manhunt selling like hot cakes due to it's "controversial" development.

Also Georg, you mention game reviews not being so reliable, I agree. I was watching This video at Gametrailers about game Journalism, a good watch IMHO!! As for Halo and Half-Life, I think it is a subjective thing, you shouldn't read too much into reviews. Half-Life is a good game, but the story is so slow it becomes frustrating as there are more questions then answers, and it's more gameplay then story which almost becomes Ad nauseam from repitition. Halo for me was more story then gameplay, questions where answered and I had a better experience, co-op is good to keep you playing for a while.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
Splinter Cell has remianed the same, but thats what you seem to want rather then actual innovation, how do you innovate Splinter Cell without doing massive changes, I've not heard anyone come up with any ideas that are outstanding? You don't think after a while a game becomes generic and stale for a "majority" using the samething over and over again as opposed to the minority?

We're talking genres, here. FPS, survival horror, stealth, etc. Even though games within any given genre can be very different, they play the same way.
Changes and additions to games don't have to change their genre. Admittedly, in the case of the SC's, we're talking about a change in sub-genre, but it might as well be completely different; from what we've seen, it doesn't look like it's going to play the same way. At all...

And as far as innovation goes, I don't need anything mind-blowing. Little improvements can go a long way. We've already talked about shadow/silhouette recognition, better AI, etc. I've been playing Tenchu Z for a bit, and, for all its simplicity, it actually has a feature that the SC's never seemed to; when an enemy is on alert, their sight improves dramatically. It makes sense; if they have no reason to be concerned, they don't pay that much attention. But if they see a body... It's pretty cool, really.

But again, why does the classic gameplay have to be sacrificed at all? Wouldn't a true innovation be creating a game that allows players to play the way they want?

Woosy says:
"You say, that the game is only a success with pre-release hype? I don't agree, If thats the case, can you explain why Lockdown on the xbox and games like BlackSite: Area 51, Lair (PS3) which are terrible games flopped? They where hyped and have done so bad in sales! Then take GRAW 1 console and GRAW 2, they where a success and have near equal sales figures a big community and following? Using logic here, many people who like the first game will keep playing, this creates a stable fan base, when you create a second, those gamers are more likely to buy that new game. But still doesn't mean they will buy it if it's poopy, as no matter how much you hype a game, it doesn't make it a success, games like Lockdown showed us that. "

You were probably talking to the other guy, but i'd like to butt in. There are many games that have a whole lot of hype but don't sell well because word gets out that they are infact ****. However, a great game that gets' no hype or advertising does not sell nearly as well as those that do. ICO, Colossus, Okami, Zack & Wiki, these are but a few of the games. They are called Sleeper Hits. They're called that because they weren't really taled about but are fantastic. So while I can no longer really argue that hype can sell crappy games. No hype can't sell games either, which is a no brainer.

Which brings me to the question, what the hell are we discussing? Whether Hype can be generated by innovation? Apparently more often than I thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
Splinter Cell has remianed the same, but thats what you seem to want rather then actual innovation, how do you innovate Splinter Cell without doing massive changes, I've not heard anyone come up with any ideas that are outstanding? You don't think after a while a game becomes generic and stale for a "majority" using the samething over and over again as opposed to the minority? Even when Reviewers and gamers alike are saying this game is nothing new... Rainbow Six: Vegas did innovate in many ways, your complaint seems more targeted at the (PC) i.e planning phase, multiple teams, yes in this respect you're quite correct and i agree with you 100%.

However Vegas was designed and intended for the xbox 360 and not the PC, with that in mind, look at the new things added. You have snake cam that allows to see in a room that allows target descrimination, allows you to plan with your team then excute it. There was abseiling, not seen that before either which allowed you to plan an excute room breaches by smashing windows. Cover behind walls and picture in picture. If you take Rainbow Six 3/Black Arrow xbox, and Vegas xbox360 it's more of an evolution and innovation with gameplay mechanics while keeping the core theme, i believe that game innovated quite alot console-wise. Now the PC version of Vegas, I dunno if you knew this or not. But my time Moderating over at R6 forum, they where creating a seperate PC version designed like the old games with innovation. Goliath the Dev there even confirmed it, but half way through development it was cancelled, it wouldn't of met the deadline. There wasn't going to be Vegas on the PC at this point. Then at E3, many PC gamers expressed they liked what they saw of the Xbox 360 version and requested it, so instead of having no game for the PC, they ported it over in a very short space of time.

Well, that certainly would explain the amazing amount of bugs. But those additions you mention are hardly innovative. The targeting in the snake cam was cool, yes, but these sorts of features are no more innovative than adding an extra move to Sam's arsenal. As for the third person cover system, I believe that probably breaches Tom Clancy's code for games. Unrealistic AND makes the game much easier. Add to that the terrorist spawning, the regenerating health and the 3-men-take-on-the-world, and you not so much innovating as just pushing it towards the arcade genre.

I am disappointed that the PC version of Vegas was cancelled, if what you say is true. And I am sure that Ubi listening to their fans was about the same as when they listened to them about SvM in DA. At E3, Vegas was shown to be quite tactical in nature, no? All the videos I saw had you stacking up at doors, marking the terrorists and taking them all out within a second. That is only a small part of the game which does not at all hint at the arcade style of the game. Just like DA; Ubi heard that people wanted SvM, and did not consider they wanted an actual SvM game rather than a **** new one.

quote:

You say, that the game is only a success with pre-release hype? I don't agree, If thats the case, can you explain why Lockdown on the xbox and games like BlackSite: Area 51, Lair (PS3) which are terrible games flopped? They where hyped and have done so bad in sales! Then take GRAW 1 console and GRAW 2, they where a success and have near equal sales figures a big community and following? Using logic here, many people who like the first game will keep playing, this creates a stable fan base, when you create a second, those gamers are more likely to buy that new game. But still doesn't mean they will buy it if it's poopy, as no matter how much you hype a game, it doesn't make it a success, games like Lockdown showed us that.

Crysis has amazing graphics. Assassin's Creed has a cool innovation with its free running. Lockdown was spectacularly bad in all aspects. If you then take into account that the previous game was so tactical, and therefore that is what the fans were expecting, it is fairly obvious why Lockdown failed. Any gameplay video will quickly show you it is a simple arcade game, and not even a good one at that. Even if they had used the amount of advertising they had with Vegas, console players new to the Rainbow Six series would have seen it was not the kind of game they were interested in. Likewise, old school Rainbow Six players would run a mile.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
Splinter Cell has remianed the same, but thats what you seem to want rather then actual innovation, how do you innovate Splinter Cell without doing massive changes, I've not heard anyone come up with any ideas that are outstanding? You don't think after a while a game becomes generic and stale for a "majority" using the samething over and over again as opposed to the minority? Even when Reviewers and gamers alike are saying this game is nothing new...

As far as I recall, SCCT got outstanding reviews - no-one requested the changes that were brought about in DA and now announced in SCC. So to answer your question: no, I don't think "the majority" of us who enjoyed sneaking in shadows would think it stale and generic to continue with that. And it has been several suggestions on how to utilise next-gen potential to enhance the sneaking experience. Innovative features don't need to be all flash and glam. It can be in the small details like shadow and silhouette detection.

quote:

Rainbow Six: Vegas did innovate in many ways, your complaint seems more targeted at the (PC) i.e planning phase, multiple teams, yes in this respect you're quite correct and i agree with you 100%
However Vegas was designed and intended for the xbox 360 and not the PC, with that in mind, look at the new things added.

How did that myth about the Xbox's inabilities to include a pre-planning phase and multiple teams establish itself as the truth? Name just one reason why the console can't deal with those features? The changes seen in R6 has nothing to do with the platform, but with the illogical conclusion that console-gamers want arcade action. Yeah, the new features were nice, but they took away everything that made R6 into R6.

quote:

You say, that the game is only a success with pre-release hype? I don't agree, If thats the case, can you explain why Lockdown on the xbox and games like BlackSite: Area 51, Lair (PS3) which are terrible games flopped? They where hyped and have done so bad in sales! Then take GRAW 1 console and GRAW 2, they where a success and have near equal sales figures a big community and following? Using logic here, many people who like the first game will keep playing, this creates a stable fan base, when you create a second, those gamers are more likely to buy that new game. But still doesn't mean they will buy it if it's poopy, as no matter how much you hype a game, it doesn't make it a success, games like Lockdown showed us that.

I'm claiming that it's a tendency we've seen over the recent years that games become increasingly more generic while the hype becomes increasingly more spectacular, and that the industry seems to rely more on ads than development to sell games. But it's a strategy that's bound to backfire sometimes, in which cases a game flops regardeless of the hype. In the case of R6V, they used the name for all its worth to hype it up, even though the game itself is pretty standard stuff. I fear they're doing the same with SCC.

quote:

I think the main things about GRAW and GRAW 2 was ubi put demo's out for them, likewise for Vegas. We shall see with R6 vegas 2 if it flops, as assuming by what you say, that because it was just hype alone, it should have way lower sales figures and be dwarfed by Vegas. If it doesn't then it seems like the progression and evolution console wise worked, as I hear they have changed the game again to have RPG elements in Vegas 2.

Just take a moment to contemplate the name "Vegas 2" - doesn't it sound an awful lot like "Vegas"? They're fading out R6 as the franchise name here, and replacing it with "Vegas", putting all sorts of silly stuff like RPG into it. It's not evolution - evolution is when small lizards mutate into dinosaurs. What they're doing to R6 is more like that giant meteor that eradicated the great lizard as ruler of the planet and put a skinny little monkey in it's place.

quote:

Originally posted by lochang19:
Good.

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

All they need is to go back to the original formula.

To quote an old snippet from GI.biz

quote:

However, the producer admitted that Ubisoft could return to past values if things go wrong with Conviction, the fifth game in the series.

"It's not a one-way direction," he confirmed. "You can always go back and do different things, having Sam in a new position, or a different character to explore light-and-shadow gameplay."

If the game is going to fail like many here say, then whats the problem? I can see the sweet irony that if it does fail and they go back to basics, the new game with L&D still will upset people because it doesn't meet certain critera specifics, can't please everyone especially the hardcore.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
To quote an old snippet from GI.biz

quote:

However, the producer admitted that Ubisoft could return to past values if things go wrong with Conviction, the fifth game in the series.

"It's not a one-way direction," he confirmed. "You can always go back and do different things, having Sam in a new position, or a different character to explore light-and-shadow gameplay."

If the game is going to fail like many here say, then whats the problem? I can see the sweet irony that if it does fail and they go back to basics, the new game with L&D still will upset people because it doesn't meet certain critera specifics, can't please everyone especially the hardcore.

if it does fail it is likely they will just scrap the whole series.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
To quote an old snippet from GI.biz

quote:

However, the producer admitted that Ubisoft could return to past values if things go wrong with Conviction, the fifth game in the series.

"It's not a one-way direction," he confirmed. "You can always go back and do different things, having Sam in a new position, or a different character to explore light-and-shadow gameplay."

If the game is going to fail like many here say, then whats the problem? I can see the sweet irony that if it does fail and they go back to basics, the new game with L&D still will upset people because it doesn't meet certain critera specifics, can't please everyone especially the hardcore.

No matter what game you release there are going to be people griping about it, that is unavoidable. Some times these people don't actually have a problem with the product, they just enjoy complaining. For example, some people might go on about the shotgun in CT, saying that it put more emphasis on action. Yet these people will probably play the next game anyway, and enjoy it. It's a bit different when the entire game concept is not one you particularly care for. So if this game fails and the game goes back to L&S, while people may complain the 'hardcore' group you speak of will be making petty complaints that they might not even care about, if that.

It's the hardcore group that drives the games. Not the people who swap over to Halo 4.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
Splinter Cell has remianed the same, but thats what you seem to want rather then actual innovation, how do you innovate Splinter Cell without doing massive changes, I've not heard anyone come up with any ideas that are outstanding? You don't think after a while a game becomes generic and stale for a "majority" using the samething over and over again as opposed to the minority?

We're talking genres, here. FPS, survival horror, stealth, etc. Even though games within any given genre can be very different, they play the same way.
Changes and additions to games don't have to change their genre. Admittedly, in the case of the SC's, we're talking about a change in sub-genre, but it might as well be completely different; from what we've seen, it doesn't look like it's going to play the same way. At all...

And as far as innovation goes, I don't need anything mind-blowing. Little improvements can go a long way. We've already talked about shadow/silhouette recognition, better AI, etc. I've been playing Tenchu Z for a bit, and, for all its simplicity, it actually has a feature that the SC's never seemed to; when an enemy is on alert, their sight improves dramatically. It makes sense; if they have no reason to be concerned, they don't pay that much attention. But if they see a body... It's pretty cool, really.

But again, why does the classic gameplay have to be sacrificed at all? Wouldn't a true innovation be creating a game that allows players to play the way they want?

I have stated on these forums many ideas that would improve this series. Even if they made a return to L/S and just made it with next gen graphics it would be a big step in the right direction but for some reason they want to change every thing that is SC. You can call this concept Splinter Cell all you like but that wont make it so.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
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

Lol, EA aren't making Spore, Maxis are.

Army of Two? Hmm...

The coop idea has been already introduced in SCCT's coop mode (which is no wonder considering the fact that part of the dev team over there are former SC developers), the shooter part looks very much like Vegas / Gears and GRAW 1/2 (they even said they took inspiration from all these games in one of their dev diaries) etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Yuippie.:
Lol, EA aren't making Spore, Maxis are.

Yep, but EA is publishing the game!

quote:

Originally posted by Vth_F_Smith_:
Army of Two? Hmm...

The coop idea has been already introduced in SCCT's coop mode (which is no wonder considering the fact that part of the dev team over there are former SC developers), the shooter part looks very much like Vegas / Gears and GRAW 1/2 (they even said they took inspiration from all these games in one of their dev diaries) etc.

quote:

Originally posted by Yuippie.:
Lol, EA aren't making Spore, Maxis are.

Yep, but EA is publishing the game!

I don't think you should give EA too much credit for Spore. They deserve credit for taking on Will Wright in the first place, but with the amount of money he's made them, they'd be a little silly to ignore him when he has one of his big ideas.

quote:

Originally posted by EskimoBob32:
I don't think you should give EA too much credit for Spore. They deserve credit for taking on Will Wright in the first place, but with the amount of money he's made them, they'd be a little silly to ignore him when he has one of his big ideas.

Oh, it hasn't been my intention to give them credit for their decision, I only wanted to point out why Woosy mentioned in combination with Spore!

However, Will Wright is definitely one of the most innovative game designers, I'll give you that.