great. Just what we need. ANOTHER splinter-cell using the same old tired concept of sneaking through shadows in an enemy complex. Gee. Woo-hoo. I think that's been done enough.

I honestly don't think i'd buy the game if it's just a rehash of everything I've already played. You can only sneak through a building at night so many times....


and has anyone noticed that they said to wait and see? that all the details are not released?

Anyone consider the fact that the "hide in the crowd" concept could be only ONE PORTION of the game? Showing off the new concept before unveiling the complete product?

yeah.

Let me just say that it may be L&S but who knows maybe it could have some weird innovative change that involves L&S and that changes gameplay in some way that changes everything it doesnt need to be repeated stuff. What Im saying is that L&S could be used to make it like chaos theory but it might have something that changes gameplay but what would that be I couldnt tell you. I dont mind if we get another L&S SC though. Theres only 2 Montreal SCs that use L&S.

quote:

Theres only 2 Montreal SCs that use L&S.

There's the last-gen version of Double Agent too.

What if the devs include both l&s and SS and let us choose how we want to play in the so called revamped version of Convictions??

Single player aside, I still don't see why they shouldn't release another SvM game

Who cares that it doesn't tie in with the single player? It's still the best online tactical multiplayer game ever created!!!

Multiplayer should be relevant to single player.

Or else they could just throw in that stealth racing that scworld wants to see. Or something else totally random, like fishing.

quote:

Originally posted by Stealthguy1986:
What if the devs include both l&s and SS and let us choose how we want to play in the so called revamped version of Convictions??

They'd have to build each level twice over for that option, they'd have to build the AI twice over for that option, and they'd have to build the story twice over for that option.

Too much of a hassle to try and satisfy everyone.

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:

quote:

Originally posted by Stealthguy1986:
What if the devs include both l&s and SS and let us choose how we want to play in the so called revamped version of Convictions??

They'd have to build each level twice over for that option, they'd have to build the AI twice over for that option, and they'd have to build the story twice over for that option.

Too much of a hassle to try and satisfy everyone.

May be u are right but including it will give the gameplay a lot of pliability.Perhaps we will get to see this type of approach in 6 OR 7 . However I still wish to see this type of gameplay in Convictions.

quote:

Originally posted by tehjace:
great. Just what we need. ANOTHER splinter-cell using the same old tired concept of sneaking through shadows in an enemy complex. Gee. Woo-hoo. I think that's been done enough.

I honestly don't think i'd buy the game if it's just a rehash of everything I've already played. You can only sneak through a building at night so many times....


and has anyone noticed that they said to wait and see? that all the details are not released?

Anyone consider the fact that the "hide in the crowd" concept could be only ONE PORTION of the game? Showing off the new concept before unveiling the complete product?

yeah.

And you can make 4 Metal Gear Solids and still sell a ton...

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
Multiplayer should be relevant to single player.

Or else they could just throw in that stealth racing that scworld wants to see. Or something else totally random, like fishing.

lol

I know, but it's criminal that they left so many dedicated fans with no proper SvM game to play after DA screwed up such a winning formula.

This new MP, that has suggested using the crowd online, just wreaks of baaad laaag issues, which isn't acceptable for those of us who have stable international cross-Atlantic friends that we play with.

There was bad enough lag in the game when only 4 people were playing in a level with minimal internal interactions, Ubi will want to pull a miracle of computing out of the bag to get it to work at a satisfactory level IMO

quote:

Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
Multiplayer should be relevant to single player.

Or else they could just throw in that stealth racing that scworld wants to see. Or something else totally random, like fishing.

lol

I know, but it's criminal that they left so many dedicated fans with no proper SvM game to play after DA screwed up such a winning formula.

This new MP, that has suggested using the crowd online, just wreaks of baaad laaag issues, which isn't acceptable for those of us who have stable international cross-Atlantic friends that we play with.

There was bad enough lag in the game when only 4 people were playing in a level with minimal internal interactions, Ubi will want to pull a miracle of computing out of the bag to get it to work at a satisfactory level IMO

I would disagree with that sentiment that it will lag. Many of us have been playing GTA IV online, there are huge crowds car chases in different parts of the map which is 1000x the size of a Splinter Cell one, and has 16 players going at it, compared to the 4 in Chaos Theory and 6 in Double Agent. Yet, I've not seen any lag, and I'm in England playing some friends in South Dakota, U.S.A.

But not to expect any lag what so ever is not always going to be possible. The latency from England to America is around 150ms, over 3000 miles away. If a game is very latency sensitive , you will always feel lag no matter what game you play.

It would of been criminal to alienate the majority of the fan base, to re-create a Multiplayer mode which, is only played by a small core demographic of gamers. SvM for the better part, was designed for hardcore pro-gamers little thought for anyone else, the gameplay was cumbersome, unintuitive and unforgiving. And the learning curve is way too long. This is where developers shouldn't be aiming anymore.

The new style seems to be intuitive, using the control scheme of Singeplayer, and bringing it's own challenges to the gamer. This makes the gameplay experince accessible, without dumbing it down, everything is familiar, the challnges come from the multiplayer objectives and outsmarting the opposition, this equals less frustrating gameplay, less cumbersome and not as unforgiving as before, which is always a good thing.

Amen, Woosy!

The way I see it, the less frustrating a game is, the more immersive it can become. When I first read the article a year before Assassin's Creed came out, I thought free running was going to be an insanely difficult button combo process. After buying the game and finding how easy it was, I spent so much more time paying attention to the environment than to my controller. I was definitely more aware of things going on around me instead of trying to remember which button combo got me on top of the roofs. And for people who owned it for both PS3 and 360, it was a breeze to swap controllers.

The less focus a gamer has on strenuous control schemes means the more focus he has on the game at hand.

quote:

Originally posted by drunkrepublican:
The June issue of OXM says to expect a completley reworked ConViction to be released in 2009.

Could you provide a link, please?

perhaps he's referring to http://www.oxmonline.com/article/xbox-soapbox/state-splinter-cell this? the only relevant thing i could find on the oxm site, havent read the mag yet.

I... don't think that was the one.

This one talked about if it should or should not have been done.

The one Drunk Republican mentioned talks about it really being redone, not just if it should.

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
Amen, Woosy!

The way I see it, the less frustrating a game is, the more immersive it can become. When I first read the article a year before Assassin's Creed came out, I thought free running was going to be an insanely difficult button combo process. After buying the game and finding how easy it was, I spent so much more time paying attention to the environment than to my controller. I was definitely more aware of things going on around me instead of trying to remember which button combo got me on top of the roofs. And for people who owned it for both PS3 and 360, it was a breeze to swap controllers.

The less focus a gamer has on strenuous control schemes means the more focus he has on the game at hand.

Ya but Assassin's Creed is for kids. The controls are extremely watered down and don't lead to any sense of achievement in any part of the game. The fighting is too easy and, while it is fun, the freerunning is just a case of button bashing anywhere within a specified region of time.

Splinter Cell has always been an immersive game BECAUSE of the level of detail that you've been allowed to go into with the controls.

The whole reason the original SvM game was so succesful, in comparison to DA SvM, was because it gave you so much control over what you were able to do. Those of us who liked to test our reflexes and sharp thinking had a stealth based tactical output that was actually extremely well excecuted.

Splinter Cell has always been a niche game and the fact that it's been sold out to appeal to the masses is why the majority of the dedicated fans are feeling robbed.

quote:

Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
Amen, Woosy!

The way I see it, the less frustrating a game is, the more immersive it can become. When I first read the article a year before Assassin's Creed came out, I thought free running was going to be an insanely difficult button combo process. After buying the game and finding how easy it was, I spent so much more time paying attention to the environment than to my controller. I was definitely more aware of things going on around me instead of trying to remember which button combo got me on top of the roofs. And for people who owned it for both PS3 and 360, it was a breeze to swap controllers.

The less focus a gamer has on strenuous control schemes means the more focus he has on the game at hand.

Ya but Assassin's Creed is for kids. The controls are extremely watered down and don't lead to any sense of achievement in any part of the game. The fighting is too easy and, while it is fun, the freerunning is just a case of button bashing anywhere within a specified region of time.

Splinter Cell has always been an immersive game BECAUSE of the level of detail that you've been allowed to go into with the controls.

The whole reason the original SvM game was so succesful, in comparison to DA SvM, was because it gave you so much control over what you were able to do. Those of us who liked to test our reflexes and sharp thinking had a stealth based tactical output that was actually extremely well excecuted.

Splinter Cell has always been a niche game and the fact that it's been sold out to appeal to the masses is why the majority of the dedicated fans are feeling robbed.

Assassin's Creed isn't designed for kids, it is designed for action-adventure fans, this is where many Splinter Cell gamers really don't understand the game. Most Action-Adventure games like Ratchet and Clank, Tomb Raider, are easy to pick up and play. If you play the early Tomb Raider games, it was very cumbersome with the complex control scheme, they streamlined the controls and it was a better experience.

I can see where you're coming from with Assassin's Creeds achievement in combat. But in all honesty it's well balanced, if they had made the fighting sequences into a tekken or a dead or alive, while having all the guards attack at once, there would of been a high number of complaints of frustration. Not just because you had 5-6 guards attack at once, but you have to learn 4-5 different combo's which you need to press at the right interval or else you fail, that isn't fun.

The only real action adventure where you can do that is God of War or Devil May Cry which have combo's, but there again the enemies wait until you defeated one baddie, before another will attack you in the same way. But no one complains about God of War or DMC? I think you need to take a look at games within that genre you will see they're similar, to complain about one is to complain about them all.

quote:

Splinter Cell has always been an immersive game BECAUSE of the level of detail that you've been allowed to go into with the controls.

I don't buy that. When you walk up to a door, it comes up a menu, break lock, pick lock, bash door, open door slowly. Instead of having a menu, you simply have context sensitive buttons. Want to open the door lightly? walk up to the door while walking push the light button which will open the door and do it on the fly like it's done in real life.

Want to bash the door on the run? Use the heavy button, there isn't any need for menu's anymore. This is far better then previous controls. For example, if you're being chased, you would have to run to the door, go to the menu, and then scroll down to bash, that's not great controls that is cumbersome. Now I can run at the door push heavy attack, he does the context sensitive command, and he bashes down the door without stopping, that's far better controls.

quote:

The whole reason the original SvM game was so succesful, in comparison to DA SvM, was because it gave you so much control over what you were able to do. Those of us who liked to test our reflexes and sharp thinking had a stealth based tactical output that was actually extremely well excecuted.

It isn't successful though, not to the fans who got alienated and to ubisoft who felt the mode fell short of their standards. How can a game mode where a majority of gamers played it once and quit never to play again be considered successful? Like I say, SvM was designed for hardcore gamers a core demographic. To these gamers SvM is the best thing since sliced bread and to them is successful. But on paper with statistics and other analyistic data, it isn't a successful game mode. You simply cannot spend millions making a game mode for less then a 800 gamers, and trying to make it appeal to the other 2-3 million gamers as an after thought, it doesn't work like that.

SvM when Pandora was out was a top MP mode on the xbox. Chaos Theory not so much. You would be suprised that SCDA was the most played MP in the Splinter Cell series, xbox 360.

quote:

Splinter Cell has always been a niche game and the fact that it's been sold out to appeal to the masses is why the majority of the dedicated fans are feeling robbed.

No, the genre was niche. In 1998 when MGS hit the scene, that was a niche game. There was nothing out really like it, until Syphon Filter came out, the thief series etc. Since the late 90's more and more Stealth based games have come out, those games are mainstream now and far from being niche. You make it sound like Splinter Cell was designed to be a niche title, only designed to bring in core gamers and not appeal any futher then that. As developers and a company they want lots of people playing their game, it contradicts their business style.

The gameplay in Splinter Cell was soemthign unique, the problem is the gameplay which was once challenging in 2001 is relitivily easy to master. I don't feel robbed, I would feel robbed paying £40 for a game which hasn't changed much, uses a gameplay mechanic which is done to death. Honestly if Conviction was a rehash of Chaos Theory, I would buzz through the game in a single sitting of 4 hours, as the Light and Shadow gameplay is too easy. Like what you said about Assassin's Creed it needs to provide more challenge, hopefully soemthing new can do that.

quote:

Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
Ya but Assassin's Creed is for kids. The controls are extremely watered down and don't lead to any sense of achievement in any part of the game. The fighting is too easy and, while it is fun, the free running is just a case of button bashing anywhere within a specified region of time.

I disagree. Yes, the fighting can be easy, if you hold your guard all the time and only counter kill. Spice it up. Go for combo kills, break legs, swap to your short blade when they're pressing you with swinging and hacking, throw knives, dodge instead of block, and make some grabs. The less damage you take, the faster you kill people, and the more style and variety you do it with, the more enemies will run away from you. Getting two guards to split is nothing. Try making six book for it, or even ten. It's not easy.

The game was not designed for kids, or else they would drop the M rating and pick up an E, bad guys you "kill" would sprout wings and fly up to Heaven, and the game would not be based so tightly on beliefs and religion, of all things. It was designed to be fun. The fact that it's easy for anyone to play is best for business. Appealing only to one small corner of gamers who prefer to have thirty-string finishing moves and controls so cumbersome that only the most hardcore of the hardcore can handle it, and put them in a situation where they need to be able to operate the character smoothly and quickly, is exactly why Ninja Gaiden came out.

quote:

Splinter Cell has always been an immersive game BECAUSE of the level of detail that you've been allowed to go into with the controls.

That isn't immersion. Immersion makes you forget that you're playing a game. Previous Splinter Cell games weren't immersive because in real life, little menus do not pop out of the air when you get close to a door. And thus, every time you get close to a door, you're reminded that you're just playing a game. ConViction will be immersive because you won't have to think more than one button at a time when you're running through a door violently or knocking out a guy quietly.

Maybe the words you're looking for are vast and extensive. There are an extensive amount of things you can do with the control scheme of previous titles. But just because ConViction has cut it back to three buttons doesn't mean you'll only be able to interact with a limited number of things. Now it's virtually unlimited. And in previous games, it was limited. Large but limited.

quote:

Splinter Cell has always been a niche game and the fact that it's been sold out to appeal to the masses is why the majority of the dedicated fans are feeling robbed.

The majority of the dedicated fans are a minority of gamers. I joke around and say the reason why they "sold out" was because their most dedicated fans are the ones who complain the most, whine about everything, we want our light and shadow back, we won't buy it if you don't have it. I wouldn't blame them if that was really the reason why they moved on from us, because we bicker and complain more than anyone ever has. Maybe they're looking for dedicated fans who won't complain when they decide to try new things, and they'll appreciate it for the work it is.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
Assassin's Creed isn't designed for kids, it is designed for action-adventure fans, this is where many Splinter Cell gamers really don't understand the game. Most Action-Adventure games like Ratchet and Clank, Tomb Raider, are easy to pick up and play. If you play the early Tomb Raider games, it was very cumbersome with the complex control scheme, they streamlined the controls and it was a better experience.

I can see where you're coming from with Assassin's Creeds achievement in combat. But in all honesty it's well balanced, if they had made the fighting sequences into a tekken or a dead or alive, while having all the guards attack at once, there would of been a high number of complaints of frustration. Not just because you had 5-6 guards attack at once, but you have to learn 4-5 different combo's which you need to press at the right interval or else you fail, that isn't fun.

The only real action adventure where you can do that is God of War or Devil May Cry which have combo's, but there again the enemies wait until you defeated one baddie, before another will attack you in the same way. But no one complains about God of War or DMC? I think you need to take a look at games within that genre you will see they're similar, to complain about one is to complain about them all.

That's the thing, the whole reason Assassin's Creed sucked was because it was designed for the average gamer to just pick up and play. There was no depth to the game what so ever. Sure they spent millions researching the cities and interweaving the religious themes elegantly into the game, but the game itself was a failure. Now I know you're going to say that it wasn't because the figures show that it was one of best selling games in the past few years, but everyone I've talked to has been utterly dissapointed with the game. No one felt satisfied playing it. Sure I enjoyed it myself when I picked it up for the first few hours (like it had been designed by this new "eye on the ball and target market" Ubisoft) but it didn't cut the mustard.

quote:

I don't buy that. When you walk up to a door, it comes up a menu, break lock, pick lock, bash door, open door slowly. Instead of having a menu, you simply have context sensitive buttons. Want to open the door lightly? walk up to the door while walking push the light button which will open the door and do it on the fly like it's done in real life.

Want to bash the door on the run? Use the heavy button, there isn't any need for menu's anymore. This is far better then previous controls. For example, if you're being chased, you would have to run to the door, go to the menu, and then scroll down to bash, that's not great controls that is cumbersome. Now I can run at the door push heavy attack, he does the context sensitive command, and he bashes down the door without stopping, that's far better controls.

The whole idea behind the menus at doors was that you weren't going to be entering a room until you knew it was safe to do so because you'd checked your own area and you'd checked the area you were entering by the optical cable. I never found it cumbersome and, quite frankly, I think the 3 button scheme to control all actions in 3 different manners will be very glitchy. I'm trying to flip a table and I want to run away afterwards, but....damnit, why are you aggresively shoving the chair out of the way, no damnit, why are you picking up this and that? At least with the menus you know exactly what Sam was going to do because it was highlighted.

quote:

It isn't successful though, not to the fans who got alienated and to ubisoft who felt the mode fell short of their standards. How can a game mode where a majority of gamers played it once and quit never to play again be considered successful? Like I say, SvM was designed for hardcore gamers a core demographic. To these gamers SvM is the best thing since sliced bread and to them is successful. But on paper with statistics and other analyistic data, it isn't a successful game mode. You simply cannot spend millions making a game mode for less then a 800 gamers, and trying to make it appeal to the other 2-3 million gamers as an after thought, it doesn't work like that.

SvM when Pandora was out was a top MP mode on the xbox. Chaos Theory not so much. You would be suprised that SCDA was the most played MP in the Splinter Cell series, xbox 360.

I don't see where thsi 800 gamers figure is being plucked from...I'd like to see some statistics (if you don't mind). SvM was hugely succesful on the XBox and ranked amongst the favourite games of almost everyone I played with online, sure you can point me out as a niche of the online community, but why should I have to suffer because the majority of pick up and play gamers didnt have the patience to play a patience orientated game? Why didn't Ubi organise a player pool orientated system that pitted new against new (much like Halo 3). At least there are people still playing CT SvM. Even if DA SvM was easier to pick up and play and, as you say, was the most played, there's no one out there that wants to play it anymore. I don't regard that as successful, but then again, success just means how many copies you've sold. Which again, confuses me as the majority of people that they're trying to "convert" to multiplayer have just bought the game for single player anyway so they've already got their sales.

quote:

No, the genre was niche. In 1998 when MGS hit the scene, that was a niche game. There was nothing out really like it, until Syphon Filter came out, the thief series etc. Since the late 90's more and more Stealth based games have come out, those games are mainstream now and far from being niche. You make it sound like Splinter Cell was designed to be a niche title, only designed to bring in core gamers and not appeal any futher then that. As developers and a company they want lots of people playing their game, it contradicts their business style.

No, I mean that the Splinter Cell style of gameplay has never been one that applies to the mainstream. Whether or not it was designed that way, only the developers know. It was designed for those that had patience and liked to think their way though a level. It was also designed for those who had fast reflexes and good hands. Being completely serious, that is NOT your average gamer. Lots of my RL friends love computer games, but didn't like Splinter Cell because it was too slow and not enough action. The average gamer wants big guns, big explosions and lots of enemies to blow away.

The Thief series is the only other installment in the stealth genre that required time and patience, and is the only other series that I truely enjoyed playing.

quote:

The gameplay in Splinter Cell was soemthign unique, the problem is the gameplay which was once challenging in 2001 is relitivily easy to master. I don't feel robbed, I would feel robbed paying £40 for a game which hasn't changed much, uses a gameplay mechanic which is done to death. Honestly if Conviction was a rehash of Chaos Theory, I would buzz through the game in a single sitting of 4 hours, as the Light and Shadow gameplay is too easy. Like what you said about Assassin's Creed it needs to provide more challenge, hopefully soemthing new can do that.

Everyone on here for the L/S style of CT is always saying that want Chaos Theory 2 and I think the other side of the argument are picking up on this and saying that they don't want another dissapointing re-hash of a game. I totally agree, I don't want another re-hash of Chaos Theory, but what I do want is to see Sam as a Splinter Cell, not as a fugitive.

I will totally agree that the game did need a change to keep it fresh, the sneaking through designated shadows was getting a little too easy. But why didn't Ubisoft just change the mechanics of the L/S game and give it a revamp? Why this drastic change to a fugitive style game instead of a spy styled game? It's completly out of context of the Splinter Cell franchise and it's a blatant marketing ploy.

Any time you have to make something more appealing for the masses you have to dumb it down and make it more accesible, but hey, that works in the music industry, why not the gaming industy?

Just look at pop music! I'm sure that you could consider that a phenomenan by the standards you've been judging success (if you're into that kind of thing)

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
That isn't immersion. Immersion makes you forget that you're playing a game. Previous Splinter Cell games weren't immersive because in real life, little menus do not pop out of the air when you get close to a door. And thus, every time you get close to a door, you're reminded that you're just playing a game. ConViction will be immersive because you won't have to think more than one button at a time when you're running through a door violently or knocking out a guy quietly.

Frankly, that sounds like child's play. Splinter Cell isn't made for children. It's a thinking game and having to only think one button ahead is a little too basic. If this is the case I certainly won't be renting the game, let alone buying it.

quote:

Maybe the words you're looking for are vast and extensive. There are an extensive amount of things you can do with the control scheme of previous titles. But just because ConViction has cut it back to three buttons doesn't mean you'll only be able to interact with a limited number of things. Now it's virtually unlimited. And in previous games, it was limited. Large but limited.

I'm not wowed by an unlimited amount of actions, I'm impressed by some well thought out ones that suit the game. Sam being able to pick up anything realistically sounds cool, much like free running sounded cool (and is cool) in AC. It's great, but I'm much more interested in the gameplay (none of which they really showed us). As you you've said before, we've only seen 6 minutes, so I still can't understand how we can understand there's an unlimited amount of things we can do?

quote:

The majority of the dedicated fans are a minority of gamers. I joke around and say the reason why they "sold out" was because their most dedicated fans are the ones who complain the most, whine about everything, we want our light and shadow back, we won't buy it if you don't have it. I wouldn't blame them if that was really the reason why they moved on from us, because we bicker and complain more than anyone ever has. Maybe they're looking for dedicated fans who won't complain when they decide to try new things, and they'll appreciate it for the work it is.

LOL

I find it ridiculous that you could say that they're looking for certain types of fans that won't complain and just repeat "All Hail Ubi"

Not only is that completely unrealistic, but it makes Ubi out to be a egotistical muppet of company that are only in it for their self gratification instead of for developing games that their fans want to play.