| JUMP TO: | Splinter Cell ConViction | SC Legacy [Console] | SC Legacy [PC] | Off-Topic | Hints/Tips | Technical Help |
| JUMP TO: | Splinter Cell ConViction | SC Legacy [Console] | SC Legacy [PC] | Off-Topic | Hints/Tips | Technical Help |
Forums Splinter Cell Splinter Cell ConViction Why does the SC series have to be destroyed with Convction? Is there no alternative?|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
The SC series is one of the best selling game series ever, but it started to crash with DA... After DA came out, an following, E, there was a big story-line controversy, about what happens, and who is dead or not... Now SCC... A game that looks so bad, Ubi is trying to fix the screwups, and covering it up by releasing no new information since May of 2007. Instead of destroyeing the SC series with an ending like SCC, why not just try to make to best game possible, even out of the plots that don't make sense anymore? Instrad of disapointing millions, why not try to make the best out of it? Theres really not that much that can be done with the plot, but if some things here and there were taken out, and some things were also added, I think that it would be possible to theoreticaly (by this point it only seems theoretical) end the series with a good game?! I just hope this is the last game...
|
|||
|
I would have to agree with you about DA, I wish they would add more multiplayer levels on the console where you and a buddy played (not XBL). They need to go back to the roots of the game remove the trust bars like NSA and JBA. SC1 go back to that gameplay and I would certainly buy the game!
|
||||
|
It seems hopeless by now... If DA was just a little bit better, not even a lot, this all could have been avoided, but instead, SC has to go down in history, with a climax of failure...
|
||||
|
Splinter Cell & EndWar Moderator |
Although I understand your concerns, please don't create another Thread after another with the same content but stick to one or two of the numerous Threads that are already out there.
It won't serve your interest, if you "flood" the Forum with Threads like this one. Thank you.  Sigs & Avatars | Terms of Use | My Blog | Patches & more | Vth_F | W[N]M | NORG   - In loving memorial to my father Wilfried Geissler - † 6th of October 2007 - |
|||
|
Agreed. I have to say, I really don't think Ubi set out with the intent of destroying the franchise, nor are they some evil empire who hopes to ensure you never have fun in a video game again. Sure, they showed a complete disregard for their loyal fanbase, and they showed that they care for little else other than money, but it is going a little far to say they are some evil organisation intentionally destroying the game. Ubi isn't the grinch.
It's a joke! When you look at me like that, it's a joke. |
||||
|
I never said that Ubi is "intentionaly" destroying the series, and I apologize if that's what it seems like I was trying to imply... I actually believe that the falling of classic SC gameplay was completely by accident. I think that after DA, they couldn't really go back to normal SC gameplay, but I don't think they have to go as far as Conviction is taking it.
|
||||
|
I totally agree that "conviction" will be the death of the splinter cell series, if for no other reason than the charecters movements and enviroment interaction is nowhere up to par of the previous games. Double Agent will surely be the last of this series that I buy. The idea and premis are good intentionally, but the execution is looking like a marionette show. Just looking that the sloppiness of the gamplay that has been released is looking like Sam fisher in San Andreas. UBI really dropped the ball on this one, lets hope GRAW won't have camo's designed by the Barbie division of Matel.
|
||||
|
Splinter Cell Moderator |
No they are doing what alot of developers dont do. Something I have noticed about the game industry, developers just simply take a game and repeat it a million times just to get profit without exactly trying anything new or making a totally different game. This is known as the EA strategy, release the same game over and over, BF2, The Sims expansions anyone? This is how you totally disregard your "loyal" fan base, by milking a franchise to death, and is considered the really money maker. So the way Ubi saw this was, well shall we be boring and continue the same over used game we have done so many times now? Or should we work on a totally different project. Or shall we take the same Splinter Cell concept and really redefine the game play for a really new and refreshing Splinter Cell experience. They have taken the latter which is a HUGE risk it is unproven, it could flop bad. It seems to me that any change to the franchise would be met by a brick wall  of contempt for trying atleast something new. Where as many in the industry are now looking down upon games that basically try to milk the samething, Call of Duty series did it, the Modern day look was a great breath of fresh air compared to WWII, Resident evil 1-3 same game, redesigned with RE4, amazing progression. It seems more of the inability of any change what so ever, if there is any it must be "specific" changes which would not only limit creativity keeping it linear, but this limits the games progression, apart from new story and missions. What people should be requesting is expansion packs for CT, improved graphics and new missions, this is generally what expansion packs provide. |
|||
|
 |
RE4 was one of their inspirations to change the game so much, as with other games/movies.  Never Ignorant, Getting Goals Accomplished |
|||
|
I say black, you say white. Prior to the initial videos of Conviction, I had heard no complaint that Splinter Cell was getting stale, most of the complaints on these boards were about the abysmal quality of SCDA. Once info on Conviction was out, people said they didn't like the look of the new game in their favourite series. Not everybody, but a decent number. Yet polls showed nearly everybody would have been happy with a new L&S game. If Ubi had wanted to make the best game possible for Splinter Cell, they would have enhanced it in every possible way, shadow recognition, vastly improved AI, longer missions, awesome geopolitical story. What they are doing instead is yes, a risk, but one that could literally pay off big. If this works, the L&S fanbase will mean nothing to them because now they have made twice as much money, and they have a new generation of SC fans who prefer more action-oriented games in the first place, compared to the slow-paced, tactical nature of the first ones. They are making a game that, by nature, many fans of the original games wouldn't really like; instead of slow, immersive gameplay that rewards patience and punishes mistakes, you are given a fast-paced game where it matters less if you make a mistake and, unless this game requires lightning-fast reactions and high intelligence, will probably be less tactical. It would appear to me that money would be a major contributing factor to their decision, especially since it is likely the decision was made by execs, not the designers. It's a joke! When you look at me like that, it's a joke. |
||||
|
Slow isn't always tactical, tactical is the way of using whatever means necessary to complete the missions, sometimes you'll have to be slow and passive, and sometimes you have to be super aggressive, just look at how SWAT and other QRF-units work.
which, incidentally, is exactly the way the old splinter cell were designed to work. You'd hide in the shadows or out of sight to plan your moves, if the move meant that you had to take someone out you usually exploded in aggression for a brief second to get a choke hold on your adversary. The way I understand that conviction will work the baic gameplay still stands, but instead of having actual dark spots for you to hide in, you have the crowd, and the explosive moments might last a bit longer. Granted in the old games most situations could be passed without any interaction with the enemy, but myself I preferred to clear my back to rid myself of any unwanted surprises. I would be VERY suprised if SCC would show itself to be a "fast pace action" game, and I really cant understand why a game that isn't about hiding in shadows cant possibly be "tactical" From what I've read (which is what every one else can read) the game WILL be about reacting really quickly to situations and using almost anything as a wepaon. If it isn't tactical to get out of a jam by throwing a chair at someone who doscovers you, I dont know what is  |
||||
|
Like not being discovered at all.
------------------------------ Intel C2Q Q9450, OCZ Reaper 8GB DDR2-1066 (4x2GB), Club3D 4870 512MB OC'd @ 760/1060, Asus P5E, Xonar DX, Logitech G5. Pure pwnage @ 2048x1536 resolution. |
||||
|
Not being discovered has nothing to do with tactics, I would venture to say that it's strategic...
Need to know, full deniability and all that stuff that creates sh-tstorms beteween countries. |
||||
|
I think Conviction is totally dropping the idea of actual stealth. Really, it's almost like your running around like Jason Bourne. Trying to avoid trouble, but still letting everybody know you're there. Simulacra was right, by saying that staying undiscovered is strategic, but in quick-thinking situations it does require a bit of tactical knowledge ti get out of hostile situations and again become unknown. Like in assassins creed. You use stratagey to find your way to the target, but if compromised, you need to have tactics ready to loose guards and hide again.
|
||||
|
|
Splinter Cell Moderator |
Stealth is doing something without being caught/detected, the stealth fighter F-117 can be seen in the day, but with stealth mode on radar cannot see it, the only way someone will find it is by luck, likewise Sam fisher being in a shadow, someone will have to get really close to see him.
In Splinter Cell 1-4 if you where seen your stealth was compromised and alarms where raised. Even if you get in and get out without being caught by anyone, even a good spy will leave traces behind, the thing is no one will know who... Displace was a good example, when you overhear them talking about Shetland knowing someone had been over there and got some intel, but they still had no clue as to who. Bank was another good example, blowing that vault open would be an easy sign someone had been there, so he steals the bonds and makes it look like an inside job instead, and diverted all the attention on the staff. In Conviction it seems this time guards are pro-activily looking out for the public while looking out for Fisher as a known fugitive. It's Sam's job to do what he needs to do without being caught that means being as stealthy as possible, he needs to divert all attention off him, as the more hes seen the harder it's going to be. |
|||
|
I assume you were joking by that last comment. By the way, the devs themselves said this game has a much faster pace. You need to improvise, you need to think on the fly. Gamers aren't superhuman, I doubt that we will be able to pull off spur-of-the-moment meetings with unknowing contacts, Bourne Ultimatum style, simply because most gamers just won't be capable of thinking of such clever schemes in the split second they have. This is by no means an insult to those gamers; those who can see a great strategy in a split second probably should be doing something in the espionage field. What this means is the 'tactics' will probably revert to walking away fast when someone sees you, making a distraction to get in, beating the hell out of a cop when he gets too close, things that lack real depth and subtely. Of course slow-paced doesn't always mean tactical, but strategies made with thought and care will generally be better than those made on the fly, especially in the case of someone who hasn't been trained to think on the fly, like a gamer. It's a joke! When you look at me like that, it's a joke. |
||||
|
It probably will be faster paced, when things happens, but I'm not too sure that it will mean that you run around like a headless chicken all the time shooting your gun wildly.
IE, the part where you approach your target there wont be any sort of time delay so you can be as stealthy as you want. And from what I've seen in especially AC the "think on your toes" bit is really well implemented, mostly due to the controls. It's quite easy while in a swordfight to just grab someone and throw him into a wall rendering him unable to attack you for a few seconds. There are stuff I've read about in SCC previews I'm having a hard time believing, like the stuff where you'll be able to cuff a guard to a handrail on the fly. I really cant see that working in games today except by heavily scripting it, which is kinda boring since you'll get a "cuff guard to handrail and push him down" prompt or there would be a button which triggers the event. But to disregard the entire game just because some ppl "might" not be able to think that fast sounds like a fabricated argument to me. I dont think it will be that complicated, it's not like IRL where you really have infinite possibilities, most likely the actions taken will be context sensitive, so if you stand close to a table he'll try and flip that, or he might go for a chair, the end result will probably be the same, hopefully the difference in weight will make sam unable to flip an entire desk with stuff on it just like that... |
||||
|
I mostly agree with what you are saying, but I don't think you fully understood what I was getting at, I suppose I wasn't hugely clear. I am not suggesting the game will be made too difficult for the average person to be able to play, but if they were to truly implement an improvisational playstyle with proper tactical depth, it would be way above the capabilities of the average gamer, so by nature it can't really reach its full potential. This is purely speculation, of course. It may well turn out that while you are not directly trying to infiltrate, you can hide in the crowd as long as you want much like with the shadows of old, and when you are inside you can hide in a cupboard or something and likewise become invisible. If this is the case, it won't be too different to the SC of old in that regard; the execution of a given plan will be fast-paced, yes, but you have as long as you like to plan your next move. If it does turn out like this, the game won't really pose much of a challenge I wouldn't think, due to the supposed forgiving nature of the gameplay, but I suppose the same thrill for successfully pulling off a plan could still exist.
If the game relies on improvisation as they say, I can't see it being too deep, and that just lies in the fact that the average human just isn't too good at improvising. Might not be a problem for you especially if you still get enjoyment from it, which is quite likely, but it just doesn't have any interest for me and others. It's a joke! When you look at me like that, it's a joke. |
||||
|
I was utterly disappointed with AC, the combat system being one of the many gripes I have with that game. "Thinking on your toes" isn't really much needed, you basically choose whether to run like crazy or take on guards, one after the other in countless battles throughout that super-repetitive game. I for one quite simply have no interest in throwing people around while playing Sam Fisher. Many of us have suspected similarities between AC and SCC for a long time. I truly hope SCC will be nothing like AC. |
||||
|
Im all for the faster improvising. In old games I just had to sneak and watch around me, "oh there's a guard standing, oh there's a ledge, I climb there and go past him" Atleast after first playthrough I see this being much better than older games. Not saying that the old games weren't extraordinary. They still are.
And Im all for story now. I rather see Sam fighting against police and trying to reach places without getting noticed, than force the game to go back to old all about L/S just because it was what Splinter Cell was. Going backwards saying DA wasn't supposed to exist, forget it, would more likely kill the series. Tomb raider was amazing till Chronicles, sure Lara died in 4th game, but Chronicles really concluded the series. Then, when the Angel Of Darkness game came, we were supposed just to forget the old times. No, No, No. I haven't been a fan of series since then, althought new ones, especially Legend, haven't actually been bad games, but I ain't really excited either. I hope Conviction isn't AC or completely forget the Splinter Cell history. That's why I don't want to see the game say that DA was just a dream either. Now there's only few divided paths on straight road and I think Ubi picked the right one. Sam is a fugitive, for now, future remains unknown, maybe we get the perfect Splinter Cell someday. |
||||
|
| Previous Topic | Next Topic | powered by eve community | Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
|||
| Site | Forums | ||
| Servlet | eve2da011 | ||
| Version | 1.2.22 build 9062 | ||
| Module | Forums 4.0.3 | ||
| Stylesheet | "Splinter Cell ConViction" | ||
| Wordlet Set | "Default Wordlet Set" | ||
|
Forums Splinter Cell Splinter Cell ConViction Why does the SC series have to be destroyed with Convction? Is there no alternative?