quote:

Originally posted by drunkrepublican:
It's still Splinter Cell. Sam Fisher is the main character, it is the sequel to Splinter Cell: Double Agent, it has Third Echelon, and the games main focus is stealth. The only difference is Ubisoft wants to make Splinter Cell fresh. If they just rehashed the same playing style over and over with a new story, it would get boring.

That may be true for you, but it's not true for everyone. For some players, like myself, L&S cannot be beat.

And don't even get me started on what Ubi really wants...

Remember: it isn't really the devs who control which direction the game is going. They make it based on what the suits say.

I dunno, normally.....suits aren't this creative.

quote:

Originally posted by Firecracker22:
I dunno, normally.....suits aren't this creative.

The reason for the direction change was not creativity. Someone had a creative idea and it grew into AC. The suits then did a completely suit-like thing and decided to make a new SC using a lot of the same ideas, to save money, and because they know the SC name sells.
And, before anyone freaks out, I'm not saying AC and SCC are going to be identical. First of all, I have no idea, and second of all, I really don't think that'd be the case anyway. BUT, what little we have seen of both games does show several very similar [core] features...

It's not being afraid of where it is going.. It is seeing where it has gone, and not liking the direction.. (I LOVE SPLINTER CELL) Sam fisher AS a spinter cell..

I really LIKE what SC CONVICTION is turning out to be.. It will be a GREAT game.. No doubt. BUT!! Just not as a 'SPINTER CELL' game.. It's a complete different game to me..

If it were up to me.. I would change the SC CONVICTION into a different game.. Take 'Sam Fisher' Out of it. Take away the Spinter Cell name.. And start a NEW franchise. But still keep SPLINTER CELL as a francise being worked on and continue with the things that we love about it.

It's like wanting to play a wrestling game, and getting boxing. (or other way around) You might like them both.. But if you LOVE wrestling games, and want a NEW one so bad. U'll be disapointed if they stopped making it.

Conviction will be fun, but it's not a Splinter Cell Game to me.. It's more of a spin off game.. Which they could do.. I guess I would not be so bothered by it if I KNEW, that Spinter Cell will come back.. I MISS IT SO MUCH.. It is my favorite franchise of ALL TIME. My top favorite games in order are.. SC 3, SC1, SC 2, SC 4..

I loved the Spinter Cell Games for it's SPLINTER CELL aspects. I love Sam Fisher AS a spinter Cell. It's fun being a sneaky ******* lol! killing terrorists, without being seen.. That concept was so GREAT. man I miss it.. I would really like a new one..

I like what you did with the Batman analogy, but then at the start of Batman Begins you see Bruce Wayne without the bat suit but with -funnily enough- long hair and a beard and he's still a double hard *******.
Just look at Conviction like its fleshing Fisher out, I'm sure Sam will be back in his rubber just the way you like him.

quote:

ANYONE ELSE BOTHERED BY THESE KIND OF POSTS?

quote:

I don't really enjoy the negativity either guys, but they have the right to complain if they want to as long as they don't go against the rules. The game will speak for itself. If you are looking forward to the game, stay positive as the release comes.

Jackie, I don't think that's an acceptable response for a moderator. Someone posts their opinion, someone else says that they shouldn't be allowed to, and you basically respond with "I know they're annoying guys, but they're allowed here so we have to get over it".

I agree with the OP, although I think this thread probably wouldn't be here if the OP had been on the forums a few months ago. There hasn't really been anything said that hasn't been said already, except for the Batman analogy, which is quite a good point.

People think that it's more of a Sam Fisher game, but it's still fine. In that case, why wouldn't they make a spin-off series, call the game "Sam Fisher: Conviction" and continue the SPLINTER CELL series with a real Splinter Cell? If you ask me, it's all about money. Ubisoft has decided they'd rather make a bit more money than be a proper substitute to mainstream gaming that several of their series' used to be (SC, R6).

quote:

Originally posted by drunkrepublican:
It's still Splinter Cell. Sam Fisher is the main character, it is the sequel to Splinter Cell: Double Agent, it has Third Echelon, and the games main focus is stealth. The only difference is Ubisoft wants to make Splinter Cell fresh. If they just rehashed the same playing style over and over with a new story, it would get boring.

Then why was there no one complaining that it was boring in SCCT? Or SCDA? Why when UBI decides what we, the consumers, want do we all file in line with their propaganda that L&S gameplay is boring? Sorry if I don't fall into the company BS that they are pushing.

@ Winter: That would be a fine logical arguement except that Batman Begins explains how he became Batman (nevermind that they're re-doing the actual story from the comics) and not this spinoff stuff with Fisher that UBI is doing.

I think that anyone who has just played the games might doubt the direction of the story/gameplay, but for those that are fans of Splinter Cell AND the Tom Clancy universe, I think I can speak for them that they recognize Tom Clancy's influence on the storyline. The first three Splinter Cells were like the first three major events of a continuing storyline where we get to know and love Fisher and Splinter Cell. SCDA is where the plot thickened, and Conviction is going to be about his fight to correct everything.

Maybe I'm thinking too deep, but I'm a Tom Clancy fan above a Splinter Cell fan, and I can feel a similar vibe as Without Remorse, one of Clancy's first and best. I am excited for Conviction to follow Fisher's character no matter what happens, but I am also confident we will see his classic side again (:

quote:

Originally posted by lochang19:@ Winter: That would be a fine logical arguement except that Batman Begins explains how he became Batman (nevermind that they're re-doing the actual story from the comics) and not this spinoff stuff with Fisher that UBI is doing.

Well technically they based in on one persons version of that story, but this isn't a Batman discussion.

I think a better analogy would be Casino Royale. I love the Bond films. When I heard the next film would be a 'back to basics' Bond, removing all the gadgets, the car chases, the easy killing and quips, I was horrified. Surely a Bond without those things was not a Bond film at all?

Casino Royale is without a doubt one of the best Bond films they've made. They fixed something that wasn't broken, but made it better.

My point is that with Casino Royale, I had the same attitude as the original poster, rasheed. Based on the small rumours and little news surrounding the production of Casino Royale, I flipped out. It sounded good, but not for Bond, why didn't they just make something similar as a new film? I like realistic, gritty spy films, but Bond was about boys' toys, fun and escapism. Why were they fixing something that wasn't broken?

Looking back now, I see I was wrong. Casino Royale revamped the Bond series, maybe before it was needed, but the Brosnan era films would have become very stale with only a few more releases. A new direction was needed, even if I couldn't see it.

Now back to SC. I think that the devs are right on this one. Maybe they could do a few more L&S based ones before it got stale, but I don't think it would take more than few more SC titles without changing the formula before it felt like they were just selling us the same game each time, like each new game was just a level pack.

Last point. Back to the Batman analogy, briefly. Stripping the bat-suit, batmobile, bat-cave from Batman could produce one of the best Batman stories ever. A chance to really look at Bruce Wayne as a character, and to see how he is when he's only got himself to rely on. It would make a fantastic comic, film, whatever.

quote:

Originally posted by AgentXVII:
Now back to SC. I think that the devs are right on this one. Maybe they could do a few more L&S based ones before it got stale, but I don't think it would take more than few more SC titles without changing the formula before it felt like they were just selling us the same game each time, like each new game was just a level pack.

Why does it have to be one or the other, though? I'd be satisfied if they just gave me a L&S gameplay option.
That, to me, would be more along the lines of "innovative". Sacrificing the tried and true, not to mention much loved gameplay style to recoup money spent on developing AC is not.

Hell No. Rayman is Ubis main series. But yah splintercells bad ass. I so love the new direction in the series. woot his going bond style and his cooming back with a vegnce a vengence which is..........EMO.

quote:

Last point. Back to the Batman analogy, briefly. Stripping the bat-suit, batmobile, bat-cave from Batman could produce one of the best Batman stories ever. A chance to really look at Bruce Wayne as a character, and to see how he is when he's only got himself to rely on. It would make a fantastic comic, film, whatever.

Probably. But it wouldn't do much for fans of the original comics, show and movies. Same goes here.

quote:

I think a better analogy would be Casino Royale. I love the Bond films. When I heard the next film would be a 'back to basics' Bond, removing all the gadgets, the car chases, the easy killing and quips, I was horrified. Surely a Bond without those things was not a Bond film at all?

Actually all of what you said made Bond only was really true in the more recent movie, which weren't particularly great movies. Sure, they were fun to watch in their own right as mindless action thrillers, but I doubt Ian Fleming would have wanted anything to do with them. Casino Royale was actually back to its roots with a modern twist, especially considering it was based on the first James Bond book. That situation is actually more like if Splinter Cell continued with this new direction, then brought it back for a 'reboot' with next-gen L&S gameplay. That's what I think anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
Why does it have to be one or the other, though? I'd be satisfied if they just gave me a L&S gameplay option.
That, to me, would be more along the lines of "innovative". Sacrificing the tried and true, not to mention much loved gameplay style to recoup money spent on developing AC is not.

Fair point, CoastalGirl. I do enjoy L&S gameplay (though there are moments when it can feel really daft), so it'd be nice to see it back and integrated with the new elements for the next game after SCC.

Eskimo Bob: I agree with you that the latest Bond was closer to Fleming's original vision, but even in Dr No, there was still the car-chase, the thoughtless killing, pretty girls, and OTT villains. The main bad-guy of the film lives in a secret island fortress and has a metal hand and a secret rocket toppling radio-beam weapon... quite a step away from the relative realism of Casino Royale.

Goldeneye, Brosnan's first, was an attempt to get away from the campy unrealism of the Moore Era and the hard-nosed action of Dalton's, finding a middle ground between the two.

Anyway, away from Bond, back to topic. I really wish we could see some more of the "direction SC is going", as it kind of feels like we're discussing the ending to a book when we've only read the opening pages.

quote:

Originally posted by AgentXVII:

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
Why does it have to be one or the other, though? I'd be satisfied if they just gave me a L&S gameplay option.
That, to me, would be more along the lines of "innovative". Sacrificing the tried and true, not to mention much loved gameplay style to recoup money spent on developing AC is not.

Fair point, CoastalGirl. I do enjoy L&S gameplay (though there are moments when it can feel really daft), so it'd be nice to see it back and integrated with the new elements for the next game after SCC.

Eskimo Bob: I agree with you that the latest Bond was closer to Fleming's original vision, but even in Dr No, there was still the car-chase, the thoughtless killing, pretty girls, and OTT villains. The main bad-guy of the film lives in a secret island fortress and has a metal hand and a secret rocket toppling radio-beam weapon... quite a step away from the relative realism of Casino Royale.

Fair point.

quote:

Goldeneye, Brosnan's first, was an attempt to get away from the campy unrealism of the Moore Era and the hard-nosed action of Dalton's, finding a middle ground between the two.

True, but I think the Brosnan era was no more realistic than the Moore era. Die Another Day for me was the pinacle of stupidity for the Bond franchise - perhaps one of the main reasons for the Bond drought followed by the reboot.

quote:

Anyway, away from Bond, back to topic. I really wish we could see some more of the "direction SC is going", as it kind of feels like we're discussing the ending to a book when we've only read the opening pages.

Yes, me too. The only trouble is when the flaming begins. When we can have perfectly reasonable discussions like this it's fine, but as soon as someone decides to take something personally the mods have no choice in their actions.

Agreed. Flaming is completely pointless anyway, and achieves nothing. Its nice to have a discussion or debate with someone whose opinions differ from my own, but never have that turn into a shouting match. Pay attention, kiddies.

One last Bond thing, before I drop it totally, or maybe we should have a private convo about it, if you like?

I quite liked DAD, even if I readily admit it was a deeply flawed and quite bad film. I do find it strange that after choosing to go with a grittier opening, having Bond captured and tortured at the end of the pre-credits sequence, the story then progressed to the sort of sci-fi weirdness that we'd last seen in Moonraker - no, it was weirder than Moonraker, wasn't it? What was all that gene-therapy nonsense about? If they'd kept the tone the same as it was up until he visited Cuba, it could have been a great film.

quote:

Originally posted by MKCC14:

quote:

Originally posted by Hiddai:
ANYONE ELSE BOTHERED BY THESE KIND OF POSTS?

Oh hell yea.

My words exactly.

So... everything is supposed to be happy and positive? Or you'll be banned?

quote:

Originally posted by AgentXVII:
One last Bond thing, before I drop it totally, or maybe we should have a private convo about it, if you like?

I quite liked DAD, even if I readily admit it was a deeply flawed and quite bad film. I do find it strange that after choosing to go with a grittier opening, having Bond captured and tortured at the end of the pre-credits sequence, the story then progressed to the sort of sci-fi weirdness that we'd last seen in Moonraker - no, it was weirder than Moonraker, wasn't it? What was all that gene-therapy nonsense about? If they'd kept the tone the same as it was up until he visited Cuba, it could have been a great film.

Potentially. Although it wasn't just the plot and over-the-top special effects that ruined it for me, it was the way they kind of turned it into a parody of itself. Cheesy one-liners such as:
"I'm Mr Kill."
"Now there's a name to die for."
and
"You're cleverer than you look."
"Yes, well, still better than looking cleverer than you are."
seemed to me to be sending up some of the earlier movies. In my opinion, the dialogue wasn't full of goofy grin provoking puns, it was full of cringeworthy "dad jokes".

Anyway, this has gone way off topic, so yeah I'll be happy to continue if you want a private conversation.

@Aj: It sadly seems that way now.

Whoa this thread has gone WAY OT. Let's please get it back on topic so it doesn't have to be closed.