quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:

quote:

Originally posted by tevel3:

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
How do you know that?

This is being done by Montreal, the people who made Fisher.

They've said that over the course of six years, they've constantly been defining him as someone. As of Chaos Theory, he was more defined than in the original. As of ConViction, they have defined him even more. They've said that this is the Fisher they've had in mind since the start. The hair, the beard, and the personality, they wanted him to be like this since day one.

Trust me, this will be Fisher.

it doesn't matter what they wanted and how they wanted him to be over the course...
what matter is that this is how we love and want sam fisher and since we dont know what they wanted when they started this franchise then it doesn't matter since this is what we know and this is the sam fisher we know, this is how we knew him and learned to love him so now to take the game and to say this is the same fisher u need to love cuz we said so is just not right!
the same fisher we loved was from the first game to the third, we lost this sam from the fourth game, no conversation no cynical just playing with no real goal, no more cool cut scene just took him and stripped the character out of the name...

and they can't say "this is what we wanted", it's been 6 years around, a game evry year and a half, this is how we learned to love him they can't change and say this is what u like and this is sam u love.

It does matter though, this is what gamers really seem to forget. These guys don't just create games for you and me, but they like to challenge themselves to push the envelope on innovation and gameplay mechanics, if they didn't do this there would be no Bioshock, no Alone in the Dark, no Spore, it would be the same derivative games from the late 90's being rehashed over and over again. You simply want the same Chaos Theory with a bit of spit and polish, what you're aiming for there, is what we call in the trade *expansion pack*. Many of us want to move forward see new ideas that we could never imagine and have fun on that gameplay.

You will always have stubburn gamers who *cannot* let go of old gameplay mechanics, nor can they understand why gamers feel the current light and shadow gameplay is, is repititious, monotonous and mastered. There is no objectability to those eyes, can you understand why many find the gameplay stale? If not then you need to look and be honest, and then come back and say, yes I understand but I prefer the old system, to simply say it's not stale or see other points of view is ignorance. I however can understand why people seeing changing the heritage of the games design as a bad one, it doesn't seperate itself from any other game per se, nor does it play the same.

However the gameplay mechanics looking back are simple, jump to light to shadow, shoto a light bulb to create a shadow, it's so easy to play the game, there isn't a challenge anymore, many always say well increase the AI, uh yeah how? You're in a shadow, if the AI see's you the main complaint will be how did he see me? I see shiloutee suggestion to improve it, but the game still remains linear, it's a small update to cover an ever growing problem with the game. If you won't allow the develoeprs freedoms to give different locations, different senario's from different weather conditions and day settings ligth and dark, then what is the point? Hopefully next month they will show soemthing off, and that will be it hopefully, everyone will have to accept what it looks like.

You do realize why games become a series right? Because gamers liked the original and want the same experience again and again, of course you'll need some innovation here and there to keep it from going stale but the same basic gameplay stays consistent throught out the series. Unfortuanetly this is not the case for the Splinter Cell series. Did it ever occur to you that instead of having a series 'move on' perhaps YOU should move on? I'm glad you'll enjoy Conviction but don't call the fans of Splinter Cell (and not Conviction) 'stubborn' they expect the same experience they've had for 3 games (4 if you count the Last-Gen version of Double Agent). Making Conviction is like making a Super Mario Bros. game without mushrooms, turtles, bosses, and jumping.

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:
My perspective is this, I will wait and see how Conviction will turn out it could be good could be bad, I don't assume it's going to be the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel. That said I won't assume it's going to be crappy either. However I'm excited at the fact something new is being tried instead of the generic rehashes we get in this gaming industry. To keep people interested, fans a developers alike, move move forward a generation. As I posted before CostalGirl, one of my fav franchises, is Resident Evil. I wasn't suprised to hear the lead producer on the Resident Evil projects when he said, other developers where getting bored recycling the same gameplay again and again, so they switched to other capcom projects. I hear similar from Thomas in the interview he did, they're tired of doing the samething which they believe is mastered. People honestly cannot see beyond that, there must be some sinister deed, it's for money etc...

LoL Please don't take this the wrong way, but can you just call me CG? You never spell my name right.

Anyway, I've never said SCC was going to be bad, generally speaking. And no, I'm not going to buy their boredom excuse, because I know better. Ubisoft is a big company – dev's don't get to change things just because they're bored (I'm not actually questioning whether or not they were; I don't know and don't really care, because as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant). The suits ultimately make the decisions, and the suits think in dollars.

quote:

CostalGirl, I look back at games made in 2005 and they're simple. I look at the original Rainbow Six 1998, it is a simple game now, complex when it came out, but times and standards have changed, people have set the benchmark higher, should I accept games that play like a game back nearly a decade ago? No! The complexity however is the planning phase, but you don't have to do that, and if you look at the gameplay it is simple as hell. To give you an example, the first mission is an embassy, you can use an unsupressed (silenced) weapons and fire it, and the AI in the lower levels don't react. You can also take your sweet time which is a total contradiction, in a game that should require, speed, agression and suprise. But that's not the case, if I go back and play Rainbow Six now, it's a cakewalk because it's simple, so is simple good? No. Konami created a game called The Regiment, while this game has bad graphics, the gameplay is a ten fold progression over anything Rainbow Six has put out, it made you think, it made you follow SOP's. There where booby traps, you had to look for,hostages that had weapons taped to their arms and make a quick decision, which made you think quickly, and there where feigning dead baddies which you had to shoot, the game is very complex and makes you do everything quick, would I want a simple Rainbow Six or a progressive game like The Regiment? I take the latter.

As per usual, we're not talking about the same thing. I'm not saying games should be basic, I'm just saying there's absolutely nothing wrong with using a simple gameplay concept as the backbone of a current game. All the other stuff is fluff – the only thing I'm talking about is the absolute core of a game. The rest, IMO, is not limited by the choice in core.

quote:

quote:

Second, no one's asking for a linear game, and your apparent belief that it would be an automatic is disappointing, especially considering the fact that we've already talked about it.

Read the threads, so many people already came to the conclusion the game is a failure because it doesn't follow their set of imaginary rules, it must be this way must be that way... This is how Splinter Cell has to be with Lambert, Sam with Goggles etc... That's called nostalgia.

Here's an analogy - marriage. We fell in love with Splinter Cell, and some of us are still in love.

And as far as "imaginary rules" go, you should know we're hardly alone in those thoughts (not just here, but in the industry at large).

quote:

I think it's quite ironic, that Michael Ironside himself said when working on his new Tv series called Ice Planet said:

quote:

When you create a character everyone loves, you never get someone to let you do anything to them. It's a marginal business at best, and once you get something that works they want you to protect it and keep it. And in doing that, I think it starts to degenerate." Mr Ironside had some very radical views on lead characters. " You have to be willing to kill a character, you have to be willing to take those risks".

Sounds familiar? Sure does, it wouldn't suprise me if he had a word with them on the new Splinter Cell, as from interviews hes fed up of playing characters that don't move anywhere but just stagnate because it works, likewise for Artists and game design. Yet I wonder how many would tell him, well I want Sam Fisher and Splinter Cell this way!! they would be proving his point.

The world is full of opinions.

If you're going to talk about the character of Sam, though, you have to consider the books. They've taken Sam new places (like the bedroom, for example ), and really, I think, gave the character a lot more depth. Unfortunately for MI, it was only the books, but clearly I don't need Sam to be only what he's been in the games (not that I'd be okay with him doing a personality 180 [besides me not wanting him to be evil...it's so cliché]).

quote:

quote:

I don't think you know this game, but take my word for it - Vampire Rain retains classic sneaky gameplay, yet utilizes an open(ish) map, and weather that plays a role beyond just atmosphere. Unfortunately the overall quality of the game is...poor...but it shows a glimpse of what could be done. You just have to have a little imagination.

Yes, I agree, if we also use our imagination for Conviction many things could be done too, all we have to do is wait. What I hope is for a system like Alone in the Dark, where by, the game is very open ended, and each puzzle has multiple ways around it. That game has so many options the developers are having a hard time testing them as there could be a way around a puzzle never thought up before because you can be that inventive and improvisional with items in the gameworld, just goes to show how good innovation can be, when people allow the freedom.

I've used my imagination for SCC, which is why I don't think it's going to automatically be bad. But again, it's not about stifling creativity. If they want to do something new, great. But, they don't need to do it with Splinter Cell. There was actually an interview you pointed me to that said just that - I don't recall who it was, but they wanted to do something new, so they made a new game. Ubi could certainly do that - they're more than capable. So, why didn't they?

quote:

You do realize why games become a series right? Because gamers liked the original and want the same experience again and again, of course you'll need some innovation here and there to keep it from going stale but the same basic gameplay stays consistent throught out the series. Unfortuanetly this is not the case for the Splinter Cell series. Did it ever occur to you that instead of having a series 'move on' perhaps YOU should move on? I'm glad you'll enjoy Conviction but don't call the fans of Splinter Cell (and not Conviction) 'stubborn' they expect the same experience they've had for 3 games (4 if you count the Last-Gen version of Double Agent). Making Conviction is like making a Super Mario Bros. game without mushrooms, turtles, bosses, and jumping.

Sigh so wrong. Series games can change, trilogy doesn't really change if at all small innovation steps game plays the same, Halo, Half-Life Thief, Resident Evil 1,2,3 are great example, there isn't some rule that say's they MUST be the same.

Many game developers have said they have got bored of recyling the same gameplay mechanics over and over again, this point seems to fly straight over your head, how many developers do you talk to? Please look up the word stubburn, not allowing game devlopers or anyone with creativity to do what they want is stubburn, many gamers simply won't allow the game to change in fear that it won't be as good, that's a valid point if it was that. There is this arguement "We're playing the game not them" That's right!!! I want them to make a game that's new imagintive and goes above and beyond before not Chaos Theory with boot polish that is called expansion pack. If it means a whole new change so be it, I don't grasp on this ideology that it must be light and shadow when it doesn't. I have given many examples of games such as Resident Evil Developers saying that their franchise, was getting boring to their developers, so bored infact many went to work on Dead Rising, so they had to re-evlautae the game as fans where getting put off from the same recycled gameplay. This is an example, please don't come saying you can't compare the two when you can the mindset. This is just one game, have you spoke to Ubisoft about their developers and their mentality towards Splinter Cell? Do you think they got bored? Well from what I've read yes they have.

The same song and dance can be said to you, if you don't like the new changes move on, no one has put a gun to your head to buy the new one and there are 4 great games and more if you include other consoles and handhelds, half of which i haven't played myself. I wouldn't of been interested in Splinter Cell at all if this change didn't happen, the game was at the point of bordem. I haven't said I like Conviction, I've only seen clips. I like the fact they're trying something new and not stagnating like majority of games like F.E.A.R, Unreal 3, if, it's so good rehashing and innovating a little why are the sales so flat of these re-hashed games? The PS3 sales of UT3 where little better then the PC, and that's saying something.

quote:

dev's don't get to change things just because they're bored (I'm not actually questioning whether or not they were; I don't know and don't really care, because as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant). The suits ultimately make the decisions, and the suits think in dollars.

Really? When I gave the example of Resident Evil and I posted a video of them saying that they got bored? Or is it this sinister act again, where you can't believe them and whatever they say is just BS? I think you need some perspective on the games industry. They said they sat down and talked and changed the game for Resident Evil, why is this so hard to believe for other companies when they do the same game for a few sequels?

What happens is someone has an idea, then that idea is sent to marketing, and it is evaluated if it's good or not, it is sent higher, up to CEO level where it will be discussed with CEO and other members. Infact the creative idea has to be shown in concept by the creative director to board members, what they're aiming for etc... The suits don't come up with these game idea's if they did they would be geniuses. If you don't believe that please read an interview with Will Wright, creator of Spore and The Sims where he had to prove his ideas would work, and has had many thrown back because the idea's where way ahead of their time. Or Ken Levine creator of System Shock 2 and Bioshock latter of which, 2k Games gave him the money for budget and resources after they liked his game idea, they had no influence over game design at all, are you telling me, now that Bioshock 2 which will be different to the first in setting and probably gameplay mechanics, is the fault of suits not the creative director? Things haven't changed over a decade. Board room is where the suits either scrap the project or give it the go ahead, the suits don't come up with these game idea's haha don't give kudos to Yves Guillemot, most he does is give the project a budget and checks with his members if such a project is viable and a deadline which has to follow strict guidelines to meet margins.

But hey why stop there.. How about Patrice Desilets? He read a book on Hashshashin, which he thought would be good for a game. They where tasked in creating a new game for next-gen consoles, guess what game that turned out to be? Assassin's Creed based upon his idea, the suits get the final say if that idea will go ahead, they generally don't come up with the idea's it will either be a collaboration of developers, or a creative director such as Patrice. It is *relevant* actually, if you're bored of doing the samething over and over again and developers say the samething then they will usually be given the freedom to change it and come up with a new idea. If you don't you're either not going to put 100% into that project or no one works on it and it gets put on the back burner, until a time comes when people sit down and come to a decision to re-create and improve the game ten fold, this isn't hard to understand and happens quite often. Ubisoft aren't the first company Capcom aren't the second neither will they be the last and it's nothing new it's been going on since i was tiny, so I think you will find it is relevant. I think you need to sit down in one of their round the table discussions at what peoples idea's are, some are for it some are against until they can all find some middle ground, brain storming I believe.

quote:

Here's an analogy - marriage. We fell in love with Splinter Cell, and some of us are still in love. Wink

And as far as "imaginary rules" go, you should know we're hardly alone in those thoughts (not just here, but in the industry at large).

Oh you mean other gamers cling on to the game mechanics? If so sure they do. Take System Shock created in 1999 made by looking glass studio's EA bought the rights to the IP, which meant they can't use the name anymore. So Ken Levine created Bioshock, a game that fllowed the roots, you said why not create a secondary project for Sam Fisher? The same complaints happen, many System Shock fans complain at Bioshock for being crappy, and a dumbed down incomparison, when both games are mustally exclusive to each other. It's why I go on the principle that developers should create games with little to no feedback, Bioshock was a great game, it had some downsides but overall soemthing new and fresh that we hadn't seen before.

quote:

The world is full of opinions.

If you're going to talk about the character of Sam, though, you have to consider the books. They've taken Sam new places (like the bedroom, for example Winky), and really, I think, gave the character a lot more depth. Unfortunately for MI, it was only the books, but clearly I don't need Sam to be only what he's been in the games (not that I'd be okay with him doing a personality 180 [besides me not wanting him to be evil...it's so cliché]).

Michael Ironside has had his opinions and had things changed for Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell from the script hes given. Watch interviews around the net, hes even said it enough times. He prefered the story to be told from a different perspective not from a game one, so it comes together well, he also said he understood there has to be some cliche to tell the story it's part and parcel of the whole deal. But he didn't want Sam to be this clean character, he wanted him to be old and worn out, ubi have to give him some leeway, and they seem to do that, that's called creative freedom.

quote:

I've used my imagination for SCC, which is why I don't think it's going to automatically be bad. But again, it's not about stifling creativity. If they want to do something new, great. But, they don't need to do it with Splinter Cell. There was actually an interview you pointed me to that said just that - I don't recall who it was, but they wanted to do something new, so they made a new game. Ubi could certainly do that - they're more than capable. So, why didn't they?

Lots of people do something new, but there is a love hate thing with that, people get so into the new project the old one rarely gets seen or gets cancelled for years. And even then what's to say that Splinter Cell doesn't change in a way that you don't want? Like i said above with System Shock 2 and Bioshock 2 different games similar in mechanics, and fans still complain, it's simple just to go with one and focus on it the most, and see how it turns out. There will be plenty of sleath games with light and Dark like I've told you, some need to be actually announced, such as Thief 4, which Eidos have hinted at or if you know people who work on the project you will know what's going on while other games don't have a release dates yet have been announced and are in the works.

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:

quote:

You do realize why games become a series right? Because gamers liked the original and want the same experience again and again, of course you'll need some innovation here and there to keep it from going stale but the same basic gameplay stays consistent throught out the series. Unfortuanetly this is not the case for the Splinter Cell series. Did it ever occur to you that instead of having a series 'move on' perhaps YOU should move on? I'm glad you'll enjoy Conviction but don't call the fans of Splinter Cell (and not Conviction) 'stubborn' they expect the same experience they've had for 3 games (4 if you count the Last-Gen version of Double Agent). Making Conviction is like making a Super Mario Bros. game without mushrooms, turtles, bosses, and jumping.

Sigh so wrong. Series games can change, trilogy doesn't really change if at all small innovation steps game plays the same, Halo, Half-Life Thief, Resident Evil 1,2,3 are great example, there isn't some rule that say's they MUST be the same.

Many game developers have said they have got bored of recyling the same gameplay mechanics over and over again, this point seems to fly straight over your head, how many developers do you talk to? Please look up the word stubburn, not allowing game devlopers or anyone with creativity to do what they want is stubburn, many gamers simply won't allow the game to change in fear that it won't be as good, that's a valid point if it was that. There is this arguement "We're playing the game not them" That's right!!! I want them to make a game that's new imagintive and goes above and beyond before not Chaos Theory with boot polish that is called expansion pack. If it means a whole new change so be it, I don't grasp on this ideology that it must be light and shadow when it doesn't. I have given many examples of games such as Resident Evil Developers saying that their franchise, was getting boring to their developers, so bored infact many went to work on Dead Rising, so they had to re-evlautae the game as fans where getting put off from the same recycled gameplay. This is an example, please don't come saying you can't compare the two when you can the mindset. This is just one game, have you spoke to Ubisoft about their developers and their mentality towards Splinter Cell? Do you think they got bored? Well from what I've read yes they have.

The same song and dance can be said to you, if you don't like the new changes move on, no one has put a gun to your head to buy the new one and there are 4 great games and more if you include other consoles and handhelds, half of which i haven't played myself. I wouldn't of been interested in Splinter Cell at all if this change didn't happen, the game was at the point of bordem. I haven't said I like Conviction, I've only seen clips. I like the fact they're trying something new and not stagnating like majority of games like F.E.A.R, Unreal 3, if, it's so good rehashing and innovating a little why are the sales so flat of these re-hashed games? The PS3 sales of UT3 where little better then the PC, and that's saying something.

I don't get why you bothered to bring in what the developers think, we're the gamers/consumers, we decide. Anyways I don't recall saying 'rehashing', I do recall asking for change while retaining the core gameplay mechanics that were in the series. Take for example Grand Theft Auto 4, it's taking a more realistic approach with new gameplay mechanics as well as fixing problems that were present throughout the 3-D series such as poor driving, poor AI, etc. yet the core gameplay is retained (Car jacking, pedestrians, missions, mayhem).

However Chaos Theory pretty much mastered its gameplay, so there wasn't much room for innovation by the time DA came out. So of course the fanbase wanted change but instead what we got was something completely different and most of the fanbase (from the forums I've been to anyways) don’t like the idea of Conviction. I don't know what else Montreal could've done to keep the series fresh but a complete overhaul is not necessary.

You act like there are billions of decent Light/Shadow stealth games, hell, there are barely any stealth games, let alone decent stealth games, and only one decent Light/Shadow stealth series comes in mind and that's the Thief series. Sure, we could play those games (assuming most of us haven't) but we still want the Splinter Cell experience with Sam Fisher and the Third Echelon evading threats to national security WITH light/shadow stealth.

And you’re right, I don’t have to buy this game, and I decided a long time ago that I’m not going to, I’m simply taking a position in whether or not this much change was needed.

quote:

Originally posted by newhenpal:
I don't get why you bothered to bring in what the developers think, we're the gamers/consumers, we decide.

Lol...

Saying we decide is just another way of saying you decide.

And they can't rely on us, because we're a messed up body with ten different opinions coming out the same mouth.

quote:

I don't get why you bothered to bring in what the developers think, we're the gamers/consumers, we decide.

That's pretty naive. Developers make the game they want to make, provided they've been given the green light by the publisher. They design it, they pitch it, and hopefully, their hard work sells it. There is no such thing as a game that will stand up under each gamer's scrutiny, so all they can do is listen to constructive criticism, and hope it catches on. You, as the gamer, voice your opinion, and if it's well-argumented and fits the developer's core idea of the game, it might just be taken into account. The only thing you can decide with 100% certainty is your purchase.

quote:

Anyways I don't recall saying 'rehashing', I do recall asking for change while retaining the core gameplay mechanics that were in the series.

You're not alone. But as long as people are continually bashing the concept (apologies for the exaggerated word use), without having read/seen an adequate amount of preview material (which was still in a very early stage, and quite concise), how can they expect the studio to take them seriously? "The premise sucks! Redo everything!" Is not an applicable opinion, however politely it may have been voiced. By now, it's become and is seen as denial and whining. My only advice to you is to play the previous games to death and hope this game flops.

quote:

Take for example Grand Theft Auto 4, it's taking a more realistic approach with new gameplay mechanics as well as fixing problems that were present throughout the 3-D series such as poor driving, poor AI, etc. yet the core gameplay is retained (Car jacking, pedestrians, missions, mayhem).

Well, then I guess Rockstar can count on you as a returning fan, and Montréal can't. What else is there to say? Oh yeah. GTA offers an endless abundance of content and gameplay, so even if you don't like a certain mission, or don't like the storyline at all, you can just run around the city, jack cars and blow **** up. Which is wonderful, because the GTA games offer the most impressive sandbox experience out there. Even within its core mechanics, there's a wealth of different gameplay possibilities, especially during story mission. It's an all-in-one game. That's its nature. There's something for everyone. Room for endless improvisation, and the Housers know that all too well. They keep adding to the game, no matter what stage of development it might be in. But Splinter Cell is a linear story-driven action stealth game. You can't add two or three new features with each installment and expect the same popularity level and sales numbers (you decide, remember?). Light/Dark won't hold up forever. And they've decided to try something new sooner rather than later, before the series gets stale and loses its appeal entirely. How many Metal Gear Solid games did Hideo Kojima make before he ended the series entirely? Four. He can't keep changing the setting, time or situation, as he himself admitted on countless occasions. The same rings true with Splinter Cell. You can't innovate when it comes to light/dark gameplay. Pitch me one feasible scenario making use of a more advanced gameplay.

quote:

However Chaos Theory pretty much mastered its gameplay, so there wasn't much room for innovation by the time DA came out.

Exactly. But if there wasn't room for innovation then, what makes you think there's room now? Double Agent launched on all consoles known to man.

quote:

So of course the fanbase wanted change but instead what we got was something completely different and most of the fanbase (from the forums I've been to anyways) don’t like the idea of Conviction.I don't know what else Montreal could've done to keep the series fresh but a complete overhaul is not necessary.

A complete overhaul is not necessary. Okay, then I've got a game for you. Double Agent. They added tweaks to the core concept, like daylight gameplay, multiple endings, fancy cinematic sections, a trust meter, and hiding under objects, based on the same core mechanics you love so much and would never get rid of. Of course, by the time Double Agent arrived, those had little room for innovation, right. Then again, you just said you don't know what else they could have done (other than that dreadful overhaul). But you don't want the overhaul, either. I'm confused. You don't seem to know what you want. But you're the gamer? The consumer? You decide. So... decide. Think of something. Pitch it. Wing it.

quote:

You act like there are billions of decent Light/Shadow stealth games, hell, there are barely any stealth games, let alone decent stealth games, and only one decent Light/Shadow stealth series comes in mind and that's the Thief series.

Thief 4 is in production. There's also MGS4, which works on the same principles of detection and visibility, only on the basis of distance, hiding behind/inside objects and camouflage. In essence, it's the same type of game, only without darkness. And with a hard to follow story, if you're not a fan of the series. You could also pretend you're a vampire. I hear they're not big on daylight, either. Sorry, couldn't resist.

quote:

Sure, we could play those games (assuming most of us haven't) but we still want the Splinter Cell experience with Sam Fisher and the Third Echelon evading threats to national security WITH light/shadow stealth.

But, and I repeat, you just said it had little room for innovation by the time DA arrived. So (just to sum this up) now you want the old Light/Dark gameplay to replace the social stealth mechanic you've seen but a glimpse of in a pre-alpha stage demo (if that), but have the miraculous insight to dismiss because... Well, let's just call you psychic or extremely open-minded, or a hardcore fan of a gameplay aspect you yourself admitted had little room for innovation. Good call. Now I see why the developers come to you when they want a concrete decision on the future of their franchise.

quote:

And you’re right, I don’t have to buy this game, and I decided a long time ago that I’m not going to

Good for you.

quote:

I’m simply taking a position in whether or not this much change was needed.

When you say things like "an overhaul was not necessary but I don't know what else they could have done", you're indeed doing little more than taking a position. You're not debating. You don't even have a real point. All you have is "I liked the old one better but I don't know why this one will suck". In short, you're whining. I guess that's your right as a Ubi consumer.

However, I would consider that a waste of time since I don't see them completely icing Conviction over an indignant forum. I see them pretending they've got the benefit of the doubt, you know, like they should have earned from the past three great games they've put out, and I see them making an impressive game yet again. Only more ambitious and with a fresh approach to gameplay.

One more thing. Any of you ever been to this website? It's called CraigNotBond.com and it... no longer exists. It was about this bunch of people who felt they knew their favorite movie franchise better than its creators and dismissed a pivotal aspect of its complete overhaul on the grounds of... A first impression and surface appearances.

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

quote:

Originally posted by newhenpal:
Making Conviction is like making a Super Mario Bros. game without mushrooms, turtles, bosses, and jumping.

Like Dr. Mario or Luigi's Mansion for example (ok, I admit, the latter had bosses)?

quote:

Originally posted by DixieWolf:

quote:

dev's don't get to change things just because they're bored (I'm not actually questioning whether or not they were; I don't know and don't really care, because as far as I'm concerned it's irrelevant). The suits ultimately make the decisions, and the suits think in dollars.

Really? When I gave the example of Resident Evil and I posted a video of them saying that they got bored? Or is it this sinister act again, where you can't believe them and whatever they say is just BS? I think you need some perspective on the games industry. They said they sat down and talked and changed the game for Resident Evil, why is this so hard to believe for other companies when they do the same game for a few sequels?

I wasn't talking about the RE team, but again, it doesn't matter because no, I won't believe everything a dev says.

I'm not naïve. And I'm not even going to respond to that next deal; you consistently act like I know nothing (whether that's because you also consistently misinterpret what I say I don't know...), and you apparently want to teach me about the industry. You don't need to. Honestly.

quote:

quote:

Here's an analogy - marriage. We fell in love with Splinter Cell, and some of us are still in love. Wink

And as far as "imaginary rules" go, you should know we're hardly alone in those thoughts (not just here, but in the industry at large).

Oh you mean other gamers cling on to the game mechanics? If so sure they do.

Good choice of word...cling.

quote:

quote:

The world is full of opinions.

If you're going to talk about the character of Sam, though, you have to consider the books. They've taken Sam new places (like the bedroom, for example Winky), and really, I think, gave the character a lot more depth. Unfortunately for MI, it was only the books, but clearly I don't need Sam to be only what he's been in the games (not that I'd be okay with him doing a personality 180 [besides me not wanting him to be evil...it's so cliché]).

Michael Ironside has had his opinions and had things changed for Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell from the script hes given. Watch interviews around the net, hes even said it enough times. He prefered the story to be told from a different perspective not from a game one, so it comes together well, he also said he understood there has to be some cliche to tell the story it's part and parcel of the whole deal. But he didn't want Sam to be this clean character, he wanted him to be old and worn out, ubi have to give him some leeway, and they seem to do that, that's called creative freedom.

Sam was never clean; doesn't need to turn psycho just to not be confused for an angel.

Let me just say though, historically, changing a character, or removing them from their normal environment, is obviously very risky business. Think about some of the really successful movies, books, TV shows... Simpsons - nothing has changed in nearly 20 years, yet the show's still strong. Bond movies - basically the same formula for what seems like forever.
There are many other examples, obviously, as well as many examples of spin offs and sequels that failed because they couldn't deliver everything (Friends, Seinfeld, and just about every horror franchise, ever...).

Things work because all the pieces fit. When you find a formula, you don't mess with it (unless you don't care if it blows up in your face...because it usually does). Granted, games are a little different because most people are probably playing to play, but it's still a gamble. We'll just have to see if it pays off.

quote:

Originally posted by Vth_F_Smith_:
Like Dr. Mario or Luigi's Mansion for example (ok, I admit, the latter had bosses)?

I never was able to beat Luigi's Mansion...to this day I have no idea what I was supposed to do.

quote:

Originally posted by Release_15:

quote:

I don't get why you bothered to bring in what the developers think, we're the gamers/consumers, we decide.

That's pretty naive. Developers make the game they want to make, provided they've been given the green light by the publisher. They design it, they pitch it, and hopefully, their hard work sells it. There is no such thing as a game that will stand up under each gamer's scrutiny, so all they can do is listen to constructive criticism, and hope it catches on. You, as the gamer, voice your opinion, and if it's well-argumented and fits the developer's core idea of the game, it might just be taken into account. The only thing you can decide with 100% certainty is your purchase.

quote:

Anyways I don't recall saying 'rehashing', I do recall asking for change while retaining the core gameplay mechanics that were in the series.

You're not alone. But as long as people are continually bashing the concept (apologies for the exaggerated word use), without having read/seen an adequate amount of preview material (which was still in a very early stage, and quite concise), how can they expect the studio to take them seriously? "The premise sucks! Redo everything!" Is not an applicable opinion, however politely it may have been voiced. By now, it's become and is seen as denial and whining. My only advice to you is to play the previous games to death and hope this game flops.

quote:

Take for example Grand Theft Auto 4, it's taking a more realistic approach with new gameplay mechanics as well as fixing problems that were present throughout the 3-D series such as poor driving, poor AI, etc. yet the core gameplay is retained (Car jacking, pedestrians, missions, mayhem).

Well, then I guess Rockstar can count on you as a returning fan, and Montréal can't. What else is there to say? Oh yeah. GTA offers an endless abundance of content and gameplay, so even if you don't like a certain mission, or don't like the storyline at all, you can just run around the city, jack cars and blow sh*t up. Which is wonderful, because the GTA games offer the most impressive sandbox experience out there. Even within its core mechanics, there's a wealth of different gameplay possibilities, especially during story mission. It's an all-in-one game. That's its nature. There's something for everyone. Room for endless improvisation, and the Housers know that all too well. They keep adding to the game, no matter what stage of development it might be in. But Splinter Cell is a linear story-driven action stealth game. You can't add two or three new features with each installment and expect the same popularity level and sales numbers (you decide, remember?). Light/Dark won't hold up forever. And they've decided to try something new sooner rather than later, before the series gets stale and loses its appeal entirely. How many Metal Gear Solid games did Hideo Kojima make before he ended the series entirely? Four. He can't keep changing the setting, time or situation, as he himself admitted on countless occasions. The same rings true with Splinter Cell. You can't innovate when it comes to light/dark gameplay. Pitch me one feasible scenario making use of a more advanced gameplay.

quote:

However Chaos Theory pretty much mastered its gameplay, so there wasn't much room for innovation by the time DA came out.

Exactly. But if there wasn't room for innovation then, what makes you think there's room now? Double Agent launched on all consoles known to man.

quote:

So of course the fanbase wanted change but instead what we got was something completely different and most of the fanbase (from the forums I've been to anyways) don’t like the idea of Conviction.I don't know what else Montreal could've done to keep the series fresh but a complete overhaul is not necessary.

A complete overhaul is not necessary. Okay, then I've got a game for you. Double Agent. They added tweaks to the core concept, like daylight gameplay, multiple endings, fancy cinematic sections, a trust meter, and hiding under objects, based on the same core mechanics you love so much and would never get rid of. Of course, by the time Double Agent arrived, those had little room for innovation, right. Then again, you just said you don't know what else they could have done (other than that dreadful overhaul). But you don't want the overhaul, either. I'm confused. You don't seem to know what you want. But you're the gamer? The consumer? You decide. So... decide. Think of something. Pitch it. Wing it.

quote:

You act like there are billions of decent Light/Shadow stealth games, hell, there are barely any stealth games, let alone decent stealth games, and only one decent Light/Shadow stealth series comes in mind and that's the Thief series.

Thief 4 is in production. There's also MGS4, which works on the same principles of detection and visibility, only on the basis of distance, hiding behind/inside objects and camouflage. In essence, it's the same type of game, only without darkness. And with a hard to follow story, if you're not a fan of the series. You could also pretend you're a vampire. I hear they're not big on daylight, either. Sorry, couldn't resist.

quote:

Sure, we could play those games (assuming most of us haven't) but we still want the Splinter Cell experience with Sam Fisher and the Third Echelon evading threats to national security WITH light/shadow stealth.

But, and I repeat, you just said it had little room for innovation by the time DA arrived. So (just to sum this up) now you want the old Light/Dark gameplay to replace the social stealth mechanic you've seen but a glimpse of in a pre-alpha stage demo (if that), but have the miraculous insight to dismiss because... Well, let's just call you psychic or extremely open-minded, or a hardcore fan of a gameplay aspect you yourself admitted had little room for innovation. Good call. Now I see why the developers come to you when they want a concrete decision on the future of their franchise.

quote:

And you’re right, I don’t have to buy this game, and I decided a long time ago that I’m not going to

Good for you.

quote:

I’m simply taking a position in whether or not this much change was needed.

When you say things like "an overhaul was not necessary but I don't know what else they could have done", you're indeed doing little more than taking a position. You're not debating. You don't even have a real point. All you have is "I liked the old one better but I don't know why this one will suck". In short, you're whining. I guess that's your right as a Ubi consumer.

However, I would consider that a waste of time since I don't see them completely icing Conviction over an indignant forum. I see them pretending they've got the benefit of the doubt, you know, like they should have earned from the past three great games they've put out, and I see them making an impressive game yet again. Only more ambitious and with a fresh approach to gameplay.

One more thing. Any of you ever been to this website? It's called CraigNotBond.com and it... no longer exists. It was about this bunch of people who felt they knew their favorite movie franchise better than its creators and dismissed a pivotal aspect of its complete overhaul on the grounds of... A first impression and surface appearances.

I don't actually mean DIRECTLY deciding, like you said we decide with our purchase, if a game is sells a fair amount, the publisher will give a go ahead for a sequel. If a game sells poorly, it doesn't get a sequel. The whole reason Double Agent and Conviction were made because of criticism that Sam isn't a well developed character. Double Agent (curent-gen anyways) wasn't well received in the Splinter Cell fan base so I'm guessing Montreal was trying to please a new fan base who will bring more sales than the traditional SC fan base does.

You used CraigNotBond.com as an example; well I'll use Raiden from MGS as an example. The fans hated him; as a result he is no longer a playable character anymore.

As for what I want, I still don't know, that's the developer’s decision; we (the consumers) decide if we like it. Most of us here don't like the idea of Conviction, if it sells less than the previous games Montreal will no doubt return to pleasing the traditional fanbase for their money.

You're correct, a lot of the people here don't like it.

But we're an extreme minority on the scale of gamers. I'd be safe to say we're less than one percent, not even close.

Believe me, there are plenty of people outside this community who are solid Splinter Cell fans and like this idea, and there are about a million new gamers to the market this year that will see the posters of Sam in Game Informer and other places, at GameStop, he has a beard, he's holding a gun, wearing a cool hoodie, they haven't heard of him before but they like the idea of "once an agent, now a fugitive." They won't know what kind of agent he was, they'll probably think an FBI or CIA agent, and they'll probably have no idea what Splinter Cell even means. But you know what? They'll love it all. They won't care if it's stuck true to its roots in their opinions because for all they know this is the first game of some new trilogy that they haven't heard of before. They'll love it, and they'll buy it.

Ubisoft isn't going to lose a penny on this, they've done their research. They might lose some of their original fans, but they won't lose a penny, they'll gain more fans than they lose, because if you truly believe this is going to be just another Hitman or Grand Theft Auto knock-off, then fans from Rockstar and Eidos will flock over like crazy. They're not going blindly into this, they know what they're doing and they've studied the numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
Believe me, there are plenty of people outside this community who are solid Splinter Cell fans and like this idea, and there are about a million new gamers to the market this year that will see the posters of Sam in Game Informer and other places, at GameStop, he has a beard, he's holding a gun, wearing a cool hoodie,

Not that I want to keep going back to how grungy Sam looks...but isn't it a little ironic after all the Nivea stuff in DA?

quote:

I wasn't talking about the RE team, but again, it doesn't matter because no, I won't believe everything a dev says.

This is tiring. The example I gave you is factual by the capcom team, they said they where bored of recycling the same gameplay mechanics why is this so hard to believe developers can get bored? They're human like everyone else. If I get bored of my job, which my previous one I did I move to pastures new, Dan Hsu should be another great example, but I digress. They sat down and chatted about it. You've said "And no, I'm not going to buy their boredom excuse, because I know better." really? when I provide you with an example of one... Thomas has said similar that they wanted to try something new to challenge themselves because the light and shadow was mastered and sat down to see hwo they could rejuivinate the series, many other companies say the samething, such as Infinity Ward with Call of Duty 4 which got a big response from gamers from the change from WW2 Genre to Modern day tactical shooter, 9 million people can't be wrong. If you can't trust what developers says it seems a bit of a contradiction waiting for information, that mostly is going to be interpreted as BS, I scratch my head at that one.

There are lots of developers I trust, I've spoke to Christian Allen, he used to be a gamer who created mods for R6 and GR then got a job at Redstorm, very honest developer and married guy. After they completed GRAW, he came to the table in interviews and expressed there was a ton of things they did wrong and they could of done better, he doesn't sugar coat issues, those videos are on the internet, I guess he lies about that then? Oh, and I think he got bored too he quit Redstorm and does something new now. What about Chaddi Lebos? Identified the difference between console and Pc gamers, when he created Raven Shield for the PC, what he said makes sence in the context of different demographics on each console, one prefers more niche. Again interviews on the internet.

quote:

you consistently act like I know nothing (whether that's because you also consistently misinterpret what I say I don't know...), and you apparently want to teach me about the industry.

Well, I constantly show you examples multiples sometimes with multiple sources such as developer comments, games that have changed in the industry, and you simply ignore them, as if they aren't relevent when the issues you bring up and I show you a comparison are relevant and can be compared on the same level. Many points I've bought up about many games in the past you had no clue about which they changed game mechanics greatly. One example I gave you Capcom changed the gameplay mechanics greatly in RE 4, it worked out well even though you had to re-learn how to play it many could say it's not an RE game, but you had the defence that, it's the same genre right? Ofcourse it is the same genre, but when we're talking about *game mechanics* what you do in the game world i.e action puzzles and interaction, what does it have to do with genre? Even then those points you've bought up about genre is irrelevant as the games are still in their native genre, suvival horror for RE, and Stealth/Action for Splinter Cell. The reason why I point you to many sources is quite a few answers to your questions are on the World Wide Web, such as the GDC, D.I.C.E, E3 etc... if you ignore such information as that and what developers have to say, nor can't see why things the way they are then what can you do?

I've spoke to many developers when I've worked at dev houses, there are many games that are rushed, there was at Eidos anyways, such as Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness, but even those developers have said publicly it was rused to meet margins. I've tried to explain the complexity of game design, which you say is simple, when it is not, many great idea's are either scrapped from the games either cause they don't work, or can't be pulled off, Bioshock Developers said it, Assassin's Creed producer said it, but if you can't see it from that perspective...

quote:

Sam was never clean; doesn't need to turn psycho just to not be confused for an angel.

I didn't say he was, my point was that that was the original intent. Michael Ironside asked for certain things to be changed on the character watch his interviews again to the above there are many sources especially Double Agent Interviews, such him saying he wanted his character a worn out soldier in the first game etc.. that worked out. If he didn't have creative freedom, and used the it works because every other cliche character who follows this formula, it must work too. Sam Fisher wouldn't be the man portrayed today, it would be some half-wit stereotype. Creative Freedom is awesome, and should be protected like freedom of speach imho, not stopped because people are afraid.

quote:

Let me just say though, historically, changing a character, or removing them from their normal environment, is obviously very risky business. Think about some of the really successful movies, books, TV shows... Simpsons - nothing has changed in nearly 20 years, yet the show's still strong. Bond movies - basically the same formula for what seems like forever.

I would disagree again. Battlestar Galactica (2004) is a spin-off of the old (1978) version, big differences, Starbuck in the old version was is Male, in the new one Starbuck is a Female.






It didn't go down at first with fans in the Mini-Series, which is for all intents in purposes i