"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."

The new gameplay has a chance of being good, but the problem is the huge change taken from the former games. I persoanally think that if Conviction gets bad sales, most of it will be from the huge change in gameplay, from stealth to running around in public. I think that this idea is coming in to fast, and that people won't appreciate the change. It's a huge jump in just one game, and i don;t think that this is heading in the right direction... This fugitive stuff is stupid, and totally ruins what Sam is actually TRAINED for. That's another problem, Sam has never had to do anything like this, and if decisions have to be made to jump in crowds, it wouldn't make sense for a person like Sam to be jumping into situations like that.

quote:

Originally posted by Shadow_Agent1:
This fugitive stuff is stupid, and totally ruins what Sam is actually TRAINED for. That's another problem, Sam has never had to do anything like this, and if decisions have to be made to jump in crowds, it wouldn't make sense for a person like Sam to be jumping into situations like that.

No it doesn't ruin it, unless you don't want change. Sam is trained in stealth. Sam is still is using stealth in Conviction. You don't have to play the game like a action game. It's your choice. Anyway stealth is not the only skill Sam has.

Sam isn't jumping into situations. The storyline's situation has forced Sam into fugitive status. He didn't choose to be a fugitive for 'no' reason. If he did, I agree that would make no sense.

I think there will be a small number who don't really like the change, while many will like the change, and it will attract a new fanbase of people who previously wern't interested in Splinter Cell franchise at all. SCCT and SCDA where good examples, when they where made vastly more accesible to gamers due to the changed gameplay. I think if the game is going to fail it will be due to bugs, or if they don't add enough variety some people will complain of repitition of missions like AC. Generally I think it will get a good response, from press for trying something new rather then being stale.

I don't think the fugitive stuff is stupid at all. As for Sam's training, he is trained for this, all Special Forces are trained in Escape and Evasion. Sam would of had to do this training before passsing and making it in the navy SEALS. There is a good episode in the Tv series "The Unit" by ex-Delta Eric L. Haney, the episodecalled "Paradise Lost" and following ones "Pandemonium, Part 1" and "Pandemonium, Part Two". I would suggest you watch them. What happens is very similar to Fishers problem. Someone inside the Government wants to cover up something sinister, so has set the team up for War Crimes, many of them Escape and Evade, and figure out what is going on, and when they find out the true reason why go to the source to clear their name.

Those were three excellent episodes of the show!

quote:

Originally posted by EskimoBob32:

quote:

Originally posted by simulacra:
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

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.

Slow is smooth, smooth is fast. -LA S.W.A.T

quote:

Originally posted by CC-Tron:

quote:

Originally posted by Shadow_Agent1:
This fugitive stuff is stupid, and totally ruins what Sam is actually TRAINED for. That's another problem, Sam has never had to do anything like this, and if decisions have to be made to jump in crowds, it wouldn't make sense for a person like Sam to be jumping into situations like that.

No it doesn't ruin it, unless you don't want change. Sam is trained in stealth. Sam is still is using stealth in Conviction. You don't have to play the game like a action game. It's your choice. Anyway stealth is not the only skill Sam has.

Sam isn't jumping into situations. The storyline's situation has forced Sam into fugitive status. He didn't choose to be a fugitive for 'no' reason. If he did, I agree that would make no sense.

Actually he did chose to be a fugitive according to UBI. "He was fed up with the corruption in 3rdE so he decided to go under ground." And yes it does not make any sense that he would abandon L/S now that he is on the run and trying to prove corruption in 3rdE. Why would he totally change his tactics in this situation? He was trained to use shadows to remain invisible. He was not trained to run around in daylight using kung fu on cops.

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
Actually he did chose to be a fugitive according to UBI. "He was fed up with the corruption in 3rdE so he decided to go under ground." And yes it does not make any sense that he would abbandon L/S now that he is on the run and trying to prove corruption in 3rdE. Why would he toltaly change his tactics in this situation? He was trained to use shadows to remain invisible. He was not trained to run around in daylight useing kung fu on cops.

Similar to the Episodes in "The Unit" I talk about, the entire team where setup very similar, what did they do? They had to go on the run, there was no choice really, be fugitives, leave their family and friends behind and figure out how to prove innocence, or spend a long time in prison, great choices. The thing was their lead commander, Ryan, who is like Lambert has all the mission files, without those he can't prove their innocence, something he lost. They had no choice to run, the investigation had strong evidence and they would of lost their case without those files.

If you read the previews Sam is setup by the Director, his files are tampered with to make him look bad Grim calls him back to tell him about it, even Redding knows about it, obviously to cover up something sinister that the Government has done or Williams plans to do... What do you expact Sam to do? The only choice is to run, he takes the disk with his files on, it wouldn't be long before Williams puts out a warrant for his arrest anyways, and Sam would face charges he did not commit. I seriously suggest you watch those episodes of "The Unit", I posted above in my previous post it may enlighten you.

Why would he change his tactics? Maybe because, he is presented with a new situation like the The Unit team , who are used to sneaky sneaky like Fisher. You cannot use old tactics, they will be like a blunt knife. I don't see how Sam Fisher could do L&D while being pursued, and having to act quickly in this new presented situation, he would stand out and be compromised. His previous missions where meticulously planned by his team, and well excuted, he had proper intel and tools for the job! In this situation he doesn't have the time for extensive planning, nor does he have his advanced gadgets, yet you still expect manage to use same old tactics? I don't think so. He needs to improvise, and stay one step ahead of of the people who have set him up to prove his innocence. I can understand you wanting L&D, but different situations call for different tactics and improvisations.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:
He needs to improvise, and stay one step ahead of of the people who have set him up to prove his innocence. I can understand you wanting L&D, but different situations call for different tactics and improvisations.

So you think he should completely ignore L/S because "different situations call for different tactics." That makes no sense what so ever. That is not using different tactics just exchanging one tactic for another. Yes he should use lots of different tactics to include L/S.

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
So you think he should completely ignore L/S because "different situations call for different tactics." That makes no sense what so ever. That is not using different tactics just exchanging one tactic for another. Yes he should use lots of different tactics to include L/S.

Yes it does make sence, it's daylight, there are no real dark shadows like the caves in Lighthouse is there? I don't understand how you expect him to use darkness in this new daylight situation, where exactly? He cannot do it, he must use other tactics... If it's picth black darkness, it would make sence to use L&D and not ignore it, but it's not pitch black darkness is it? So he has to adapt to the new situation and use different tactics, this makes sence when presented, hes using more escape and evade tactics and using improvisations to do what he needs to do.

Sam has been able to outrun everyone in the previous games in the dark. Why doesn't he just go about at night? He can slip by the agents that try to find him with ease. Then just hide during the day and move on during the night. Nobody sees him, perfect stealth.

Earlier Sam had hi tech equipment, strong support from HQ and he was refreshed after every mission. Now he has none of those, so he is pretty much in trouble, in shoes of ordinary citizen. He has to be ready to fight and escape all the time, on his toes. Earlier he was the stalker, now he is the prey.

During day there's lots of people and other action going on so it's slightly easier to work at days. At night Police has much emptier streets and now Sam can't actually shoot lights, climb and jump on roofs, use cameras or night vision to gain advantage, if he gets noticed he can't just quickly shoot the guy or run because now it would actually alarm lots of people, not like there used to be 3 guys tops at the same position. He is pretty much stripped. He knows that now rush hours are his playground.

No one knows, maybe there's some minor parts of L/S. But would you be happy then? You have just stubbornily wanted the exact old L/S game back.

Exactly it, he needs to adapt to that situation.

quote:

Originally posted by kalle90:
You have just stubbornily wanted the exact old L/S game back.

And calling someone stubborn accomplishes what, exactly?

I believe that if Sam is able to get through the empty streets in Jerusalem, and other urban areas at night, and using L&S to bypass ALL guards in CIA, that misdirecting/sneaking by some 'rookie' cops at night is a piece of cake.

He's not being hunted: he has gone already while they were still looking for him. So he's always at least 2 steps ahead.

I really don't see how people can justify the change in gameplay by the story. Whether it makes sense or not is a moot point; if it obviously did make sense (ie it picked up from where DA left off and they provided some fantastic reason why he had to use social stealth), Ubi would market the gameplay change as such saying that the story required it. If it obviously did not make sense (ie Sam had died at the end of DA and they completely ignored that and just began a new story arc), Ubi would say that the gameplay required a change and so they created a new story to fit. It actually seems to be a bit of both at the moment to me; he ended DA as a fugitive, he is a fugitive in Conviction and doesn't have his equipment, hence the "Sam is a fugitive therefore..." arguments. On the flip side, Sam does NOT begin the game as a fugitive, and there is no real reason why he could not use his old tactics for a new situation, he showed in DA Xbox that he was quite capable of using L&S stealth without his equipment (besides, night vision goggles could be found on the black market I imagine).

It doesn't make much difference either way. Ubi made the decision to move Sam into the daylight utilising social stealth, probably before the decision was made to end the previous games with him being a fugitive. I could easily imagine Ubi Montreal deciding having Sam in a fugitive situation would fit the new gameplay, warning Ubi Shanghai and the other team at Montreal, both teams then end in two different ways with Sam on the run (the Montreal team much more convincingly so I might add) and then the Conviction team makes the decision to have Sam go on the run during the game, not before. It certainly would explain the apparent plot-holes, it also explains why Sam 'must' be a fugitive. The point is, even if nothing of the sort happened, the decision to completely change gameplay is not going to be in the story. It would probably have been the suits at the top, who passed the message down to the devs, and then also to the writers who made a story to fit.

quote:

I think there will be a small number who don't really like the change, while many will like the change, and it will attract a new fanbase of people who previously wern't interested in Splinter Cell franchise at all. SCCT and SCDA where good examples, when they where made vastly more accesible to gamers due to the changed gameplay. I think if the game is going to fail it will be due to bugs, or if they don't add enough variety some people will complain of repitition of missions like AC. Generally I think it will get a good response, from press for trying something new rather then being stale.

That doesn't really mean a lot, though. Reviewers try to base scores on quality alone, while a review can't be truly objective they try to get their own feelings about the predecessors of a series out of the way. Look at R6:V. With the exception of the bugs, it was a game of high quality, and got scores that reflected that, even if the gameplay was rather basic compared to the first few games of the series. Look at the new GR games, even. Significantly different from its roots, yet the scores are even higher than the original because the games have more polish. Both of these game changes have resulted in good reviews and sales, yet that doesn't stop the fact that fans of the original have been alienated in order to appeal to a mass audience, fattening the wallet of Ubisoft.

quote:

I really don't see how people can justify the change in gameplay by the story.

*sigh* I have tons of reasons why I prefer the new direction so do others, you will obviously not agree with them, as you have your differing of an opinion... But that is fine.

quote:

That doesn't really mean a lot, though. Reviewers try to base scores on quality alone, while a review can't be truly objective they try to get their own feelings about the predecessors of a series out of the way. Look at R6:V. With the exception of the bugs, it was a game of high quality, and got scores that reflected that, even if the gameplay was rather basic compared to the first few games of the series. Look at the new GR games, even. Significantly different from its roots, yet the scores are even higher than the original because the games have more polish. Both of these game changes have resulted in good reviews and sales, yet that doesn't stop the fact that fans of the original have been alienated in order to appeal to a mass audience, fattening the wallet of Ubisoft.

It doesn't? Would you please explain why then, Dan Hsu, Ben Croshaw, Gamespot, IGN guys in podcasts or Videos, and gamers in general praise developers for trying something new rather then the old rehash then? Even they agree even though AC didn't impress them much it did something that no one is really trying to do where most are creating clones, or are creating sequels and all you get generally is better polished sequels, R6:V added way different things for the console crowd, likewise GRAW console, which if you go back and watch reviews got good ratings for. Some of the things seen in GRAW and R6 Vegas hadn't been seen before, especially being able to put your actual face into the game in Vegas.

You say they try to score on Quality alone, this isn't always true, more factors then Quality is involved. Shane Satterfield the Editor in Chief, at Gametrailers even said in BonusRound, he had Uncharted: Drakes Fortune, which is fun but while doesn't do anything new with game mechanics (which are similar to Gears of War) is a good game. But said that AC even with it's gripes was more ambitiouus for doing something out of the norm, with free running and climbing with sublimity, and they do take that into consideration when scoring games, and they do them pretty fairly if you watch the AC review. The recent interview from the Glen Miner Lead programmer of Dark Sector on Gametrailers, even says, "you get sequels upon sequels and all they are are better polished games, but it's the same old song" talking about his 12 years experience with shooters. They want to create something new and fresh with their game, which is part stealth part action.

The rest of you have said is subjective, Rogue Spear fans hated Raven Shield for it's changes and consider Rogue Spear the true last game. There are fans who like the new direction while many don't.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
So you think he should completely ignore L/S because "different situations call for different tactics." That makes no sense what so ever. That is not using different tactics just exchanging one tactic for another. Yes he should use lots of different tactics to include L/S.

Yes it does make sence, it's daylight, there are no real dark shadows like the caves in Lighthouse is there? I don't understand how you expect him to use darkness in this new daylight situation, where exactly? He cannot do it, he must use other tactics... If it's picth black darkness, it would make sence to use L&D and not ignore it, but it's not pitch black darkness is it? So he has to adapt to the new situation and use different tactics, this makes sence when presented, hes using more escape and evade tactics and using improvisations to do what he needs to do.

So why is he now trying to break in to places in daylight? You just completely ignored the subject. Yes you are right it is daytime. That is what I am saying does not make sense. Now Sam is trying to completely ignore the night and go places in the day time? That does not make any sense. He could find a safe house or a deserted area and wait for dark, that is after all what he does in SC1-3. For some reason the JBA got that all jacked up in DA but now Sam does not have the JBA jackasses telling him what to do. He should go back to night ops.

quote:

Originally posted by kalle90:
You have just stubbornily wanted the exact old L/S game back.

And you just stubbornly want Social Stealth.

quote:

Originally posted by soron:

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
So you think he should completely ignore L/S because "different situations call for different tactics." That makes no sense what so ever. That is not using different tactics just exchanging one tactic for another. Yes he should use lots of different tactics to include L/S.

Yes it does make sence, it's daylight, there are no real dark shadows like the caves in Lighthouse is there? I don't understand how you expect him to use darkness in this new daylight situation, where exactly? He cannot do it, he must use other tactics... If it's picth black darkness, it would make sence to use L&D and not ignore it, but it's not pitch black darkness is it? So he has to adapt to the new situation and use different tactics, this makes sence when presented, hes using more escape and evade tactics and using improvisations to do what he needs to do.

So why is he now trying to break in to places in daylight? You just completely ignored the subject. Yes you are right it is daytime. That is what I am saying does not make sense. Now Sam is trying to completely ignore the night and go places in the day time? That does not make any sense. He could find a safe house or a deserted area and wait for dark, that is after all what he does in SC1-3. For some reason the JBA got that all jacked up in DA but now Sam does not have the JBA jackasses telling him what to do. He should go back to night ops.

I think Sam would say it wouldnt make sense to wait for darkness because the lack of NVG and possibly a flashlight.

quote:

Originally posted by Woosy:

quote:

I really don't see how people can justify the change in gameplay by the story.

*sigh* I have tons of reasons why I prefer the new direction so do others, you will obviously not agree with them, as you have your differing of an opinion... But that is fine.

*sigh* I am not talking about my opinions on gameplay and story, we have been through that before. Are you seriously telling me that the biggest reason that Ubi changed the gameplay in SC was because it suited the story? This decision was made just after CT was finished, possibly even before; even if the story was complete, do you not think it was more likely that the decision was consciously made to change the gameplay, rather than let it follow wherever the story goes. I think I even remember reading somewhere that they thought L&S had gone as far as they could, so it was time for a change. In that particular part of my post, I wasn't debating whether this was a good thing, I was just saying going back and forth saying that the gameplay shouldn't be or the gameplay should be as such is a little pointless as it wouldn't have been the main reason behind the change.

quote:

quote:

That doesn't really mean a lot, though. Reviewers try to base scores on quality alone, while a review can't be truly objective they try to get their own feelings about the predecessors of a series out of the way. Look at R6:V. With the exception of the bugs, it was a game of high quality, and got scores that reflected that, even if the gameplay was rather basic compared to the first few games of the series. Look at the new GR games, even. Significantly different from its roots, yet the scores are even higher than the original because the games have more polish. Both of these game changes have resulted in good reviews and sales, yet that doesn't stop the fact that fans of the original have been alienated in order to appeal to a mass audience, fattening the wallet of Ubisoft.

It doesn't? Would you please explain why then, Dan Hsu, Ben Croshaw, Gamespot, IGN guys in podcasts or Videos, and gamers in general praise developers for trying something new rather then the old rehash then? Even they agree even though AC didn't impress them much it did something that no one is really trying to do where most are creating clones, or are creating sequels and all you get generally is better polished sequels, R6:V added way different things for the console crowd, likewise GRAW console, which if you go back and watch reviews got good ratings for. Some of the things seen in GRAW and R6 Vegas hadn't been seen before, especially being able to put your actual face into the game in Vegas.

You say they try to score on Quality alone, this isn't always true, more factors then Quality is involved. Shane Satterfield the Editor in Chief, at Gametrailers even said in BonusRound, he had Uncharted: Drakes Fortune, which is fun but while doesn't do anything new with game mechanics (which are similar to Gears of War) is a good game. But said that AC even with it's gripes was more ambitiouus for doing something out of the norm, with free running and climbing with sublimity, and they do take that into consideration when scoring games, and they do them pretty fairly if you watch the AC review. The recent interview from the Glen Miner Lead programmer of Dark Sector on Gametrailers, even says, "you get sequels upon sequels and all they are are better polished games, but it's the same old song" talking about his 12 years experience with shooters. They want to create something new and fresh with their game, which is part stealth part action.

The rest of you have said is subjective, Rogue Spear fans hated Raven Shield for it's changes and consider Rogue Spear the true last game. There are fans who like the new direction while many don't.

All good points... aside from the fact it wasn't what you said in the first place. "I think there will be a small number who don't really like the change, while many will like the change, and it will attract a new fanbase of people who previously wern't interested in Splinter Cell franchise at all." It probably will end up being a minority who dislike the direction, this doesn't make it an acceptable move alone, nor does