ok, im not in a very good mood and its like 4 oclock in the morning. so i am going to rant. now yes there are other posts about this subject but they dont cater to my point of view, they dont suffice the kind of message i want given out. so if this gets locked cause there is other posts like it i wont be too happy.

WARNING THIS IS LONG. Also if your going to bash me read the whole thing first pealse

anyway, here is my view on splinter cell convictions. Bash me love me i dont care. just listen and thats all i want.
\

I've been with this series for so long. and if they throw this game up on the table, it'll just disgrace to what splinter cell did for gaming. it was so damn good. people don't realize how damn good i think the splinter cell series is. OMG i love it so damn much. i got into fights with people who bashed splinter cell. but this.....damn, i cant stress enough how bad this is looking and how much i wish for ubisoft to sit down and think about what they are doing to their series. They are basically throwing away every single aspect of what made their series famous. Sam has changed, his job has changed, his surroundings have changed. the whole game has changed. Sam fisher is no longer this American Hero. he is now some low life trying to get through his miserable life through ridiculous missions. what happened to sam?

Also, its bad enough they are destroying the splinter cell campaign but the multiplayer as well. S V M put S.A.M (stealth action multiplayer) on the map as one of the best multiplayer games ever! it was a game that didnt give a **** if you learned it or not. you had to master it over time which was something never really seen before and it was so damn great. SPlinter cell back then wasnt going for new audiences, they were going for the people who loved the series and making them happy, making a game for splinter cell fans!! but DA came out and made it too friendly. it catered to the n00bs. and i hated that. If you kill someone on call of duty 4 or rainbow our any other game like that, your not considered good. but, if you sneak quietly, evade the mercs, then patiently wait for that time to strike, break that neck and hit that objective, thats skill. but DA took away that sense of accomplishment away from me. you didn't get that feeling in your chest while hacking an ND133 and hear grenades flying at you. it was different, it was too friendly. but at least it was SVM i guess....

now convictions is just screwing this series up. SVM is gone completely with some bogus " 2 spies try to act like real ppl GO FIND THEM LOLZ!". Ubisoft took their prize winning multiplayer and spat on it. and that makes me furious.

you might say there hasn't been enough info to bash it but i have to to tell you something " them showing active stealth, and how it will run is all the info i need". i know im not the the only one thinking this. but why, why would you change the series so drastically. splintercell 1-3 were amazing. then DA came out and people didnt like it cause you tried to change it too much. People complained about it. I was thinking that would put you in the mind set that "we need to stay the way we were before cause obviously, trying to change the series will not work for us"

i was even more excited cause i was talking to (forum member) one day on Xbox live. she says she knows a guy from ubi and told her that "trust me, after seeing what shanghai did to DA, were not gunna mess it up anymore" i was excited, i was thinking that they would get their act together and the mother of all ubi studios would pull us out of the light and back into the dark.

but no

Montreal curb stomped us and has thrown us into the sun next to the curb with all the memories of the great splinter cell games with me. Why would anyone there think this was a good move. why didnt anyone stand up and ask

"wait, what about our fans?"

cause the reply would of prob been

"who cares, well make new ones"

point being, there is some people who are happy for convictions. but there are some who have only played DA. i was talking to these guys online while playing some game (i forgot). and they were all for convictions. I asked them

"but why would you like the way they are straying soo far away from what made splinter cell chaos theory so great"

they replied

"wait, there are other splinter cells other than DA?"

and that got me, that ubi isn't catering to their vets, just their newbies. Splinter cell was revolutionary. no series has ever done what splinter cell has done (no not even metal gear). It was an amazing new series no one has ever seen before and it was a hit to so many people because it was new, it was fresh, and it was amazing! Now ubi is making splinter cell like any other game. a cheap shoot em up brawler. and that what gets me. Splinter cell was a game out of the norm, something people never see. When i say

stealth!

what do you think? splinter cell of course. Cause thats what splinter cell is known for. its light and shadow stealth mechanics. but now i don't know how long that name is going to last before splinter cell is just, one of those games. a game that is loses what made it famous. a la' tomb raider, sonic, and now convictions.

i miss the days when a splinter cell game was even a month away i felt like i was gunna throw up as the release date got closer. Frantically waiting and being destroyed when i heared that the game was delayed.

hell now when i hear there is a delay i dont even care. i forgot about splintercell. there was a day when i thought

"i couldn't live if splinter cell died"

but what i have realised is it had died, its not the same. its not what i love, its not what i grew up with. its not what ive known for 6 years. I dont care if a new splinter cell game ever comes out. cause till i get a sequel to Chaos Theory. i will never ever buy, rent,play a splinter cell game (after chaos theory) again.

from the demos shown and they way the people explained it shows that all hope is lost. they explained

quote:

"well you can hide under a table, so some of sams older moves are still there like you can sorta sneak up on people"

quote:

the game is kinda like frogger

yeah im whining and complaining. but i have every right to be. Ive been with this series for 6 years and they are suddenly changing it like this? That equivalent of you having a dog or cat for 6 years and waking up with it being stolen from you. You look around and you find one that is completely different. You ask your parents why and they say

" oh well we wanted to change it up a bit, we didnt want you to get bored with having the same dog!"

Now look, i need to explain something. i could see where they were going if sales plummited after a series of games coming out. Like say they keep releasing SC games and the sales got lower and lower. so they would think

"oh people must be getting bored with the regular splinter cell"

but the sales for these games just go higher and higher with each game!!! even DA!!! So what would make tehm think people are getting bored with the series. i dunno but it bugs me. All i want is a splinter cell game. active stealth is not stealth. Blowing up stuff, stealing and breaking things and then hiding in a crowd is not stealth. you can call that evading, but that sure is not stealth.

Well thats all i have to say for now cause im tired. ill prob add more later. peace out.

Addition 1: Also, im tired of hearing people say " Well if you like (blah) so much just play CT LOLZ"

No actually, your ignorant. Thats like saying oh just play madden 2001 if you didntlike the QB vision. We want to progress in the story, we want the SC to keep going the way we love it. If we just "play CT" the series never goes anywhere were stuck in one spot with no where to go. So enough with those comments acting like your burning someone by saying it

wow maybe i did make it way too long lol. oh well though, its the only way tot throw out all my angerz

Too many rants going on in this forum. @_@

quote:

Originally posted by Stealth_chill:
If you're going to bash me read the whole thing first please.

Well I read the whole thing so now it's time to bash.

quote:

Sam Fisher is no longer this American hero. He is now some low life trying to get through his miserable life through ridiculous missions. What happened to Sam?

I completely disagree. I don't understand how Sam is now a low-life in your eyes, but I know he's higher than you think. I hate to use Bourne as an example, but it's a good example. Here are two super-amazing operatives that have just been straight-up tossed out by the very people they fight for. They aren't low. They don't sleep in the sewers. They don't rob grocery stores. And believe it or not, they're actually stronger now than they ever were when they were operatives, because now they're on edge. They're fighting for their very lives and they're fighting for what's right. That in no way is low.

Also, I don't know how you can call the missions ridiculous when the only one you've seen is the mission in the park to erase the surveillance tapes.

quote:

Them showing active stealth, and how it will run is all the info I need.

Isn't that a little biased? That version of active stealth is now over a year old and Razz has said that it's evolved from that by now. If you look at that information and say it's all you need, and ignore other information that they're going to give us, that's taking what you want and pretending like the rest doesn't exist.

If you were charged with robbery, and someone claims to be a witness with evidence that you're guilty, yet you have solid proof that you're innocent, and the judge looks at the witness's proof and says "that's all I need, you're guilty," slams the gavel while you're screaming that you have proof of your innocence, don't you think that judge is a little biased?

I will put this in your own words: "if you're going to bash me, read the whole thing first please." If you're going to judge ConViction, judge it on all the information first please.

quote:

a cheap shoot em up brawler.

I've said this before, and I've said that I've said this before, and I'll say it again, again, and again. When ConViction hits shelves, rent a copy, and just try to play it as a run-and-gun brawler. Shoot your gun in the middle of a crowded place, blow lots of things up, and don't bother trying to blend in with the crowd. If you truly believe you'll be able to play the game this way, as a brawler, don't blame me when four cops come down on you so hard that you won't be able to brawl your way out of it.

Social stealth is going to be paramount to success, just like shadows were paramount in previous games. The combat features were added to work with the stealth, and not as a replacement, so that you can beat a mission only with your combat skills and no stealth skills. Try playing this game as a brawler and see how far you get. I can promise it won't be far.

Stealth is still the key to success.

quote:

I completely disagree. I don't understand how Sam is now a low-life in your eyes, but I know he's higher than you think. I hate to use Bourne as an example, but it's a good example. Here are two super-amazing operatives that have just been straight-up tossed out by the very
people they fight for. They aren't low. They don't sleep in the sewers. They don't rob grocery stores. And believe it or not, they're actually stronger now than they ever were when they were operatives, because now they're on edge. They're fighting for their very lives and they're fighting for what's right. That in no way is low.
Also, I don't know how you can call the missions ridiculous when the only one you've seen is the mission in the park to erase the surveillance tapes.

what i was getting at as he has changed completely, his sanity has basically been lost. "low life" was prob not the best way to describe it but he is not the person he was before. hes more brutal, hes lost his sence.

Also, him going on ridiculous missions was more inline going towards DA. after him having nothing to live for hes doing whatever crazy job no one else would take.

quote:

Isn't that a little biased? That version of active stealth is now over a year old and Razz has said that it's evolved from that by now. If you look at that information and say it's all you need, and ignore other information that they're going to give us, that's taking what you want and pretending like the rest doesn't exist.

If you were charged with robbery, and someone claims to be a witness with evidence that you're guilty, yet you have solid proof that you're innocent, and the judge looks at the witness's proof and says "that's all I need, you're guilty," slams the gavel while you're screaming that you have proof of your innocence, don't you think that judge is a little biased?

I will put this in your own words: "if you're going to bash me, read the whole thing first please." If you're going to judge ConViction, judge it on all the information first please.

no, you dont see what i was going at. Im not saying all info doesn't matter. im saying people cant say "there is not enough info out to bash it yet". i was saying that yes there is. Them displaying active stealth was the info i needed to be highly dissapointed. im not saying all info doesn't matter, im saying thats the aspect the angers me the most. im not ignorant or anything, its just that the aspects of the game play are not splintercell related. and he says it has evolved, not changed. so the way its played is still basically the same. and light and shadows is still gone. you totally misinterpreted what i said. but its all good.

Also,let me set some ground here. Splinter cell convictions looks like it would be a pretty damn cool game. yes, it looks awesome. But it doesnt look like an awesome splinter cell game! thats the thing, it is a totally different game, the only thing thats the same about the game is that it has splintercell on the cover. and thats what bugs me. splintercell was my escape from all the brawling shoot em up games and have a nice thrilling experience. nothing makes your heart pound more than being spotted by an enemy guard or slowly waiting for your chance to strike. Even more so planning out your moves so you wont get spotted.

quote:

I've said this before, and I've said that I've said this before, and I'll say it again, again, and again. When ConViction hits shelves, rent a copy, and just try to play it as a run-and-gun brawler. Shoot your gun in the middle of a crowded place, blow lots of things up, and don't bother trying to blend in with the crowd. If you truly believe you'll be able to play the game this way, as a brawler, don't blame me when four cops come down on you so hard that you won't be able to brawl your way out of it.

didnt seem like that hard of a problem for the devs when they played the game....

quote:

Social stealth is going to be paramount to success, just like shadows were paramount in previous games. The combat features were added to work with the stealth, and not as a replacement, so that you can beat a mission only with your combat skills and no stealth skills. Try playing this game as a brawler and see how far you get. I can promise it won't be far.

Stealth is still the key to success.

again, didnt seem like a problem for the devs.

I guess I did misinterpret that part of what you said, but then again it did sound quite a lot like you were ignoring information. Sorry anyway.

Something else I have said before, about planning out your moves and courses of action, you will still have to plan a lot in ConViction. You will have to scan the area for guards, all the while avoiding their scans for you, while you plot the best way to get past them.

Cause a disturbance without knowing where the guards are, or where you're going to go once the disturbance has been caused, and you'll just find yourself in a mess, with two or three cops running towards you, people fleeing in every direction, and with the cops calling in for reinforcements. You won't be able to mindlessly go about beating a level. It will take wits, it will take a good plan, and you'll have to do it all while on the move.

As for the difficulty that combating was for the developers: that's because they were using it with the stealth. I saw them slip past their fair share of cops, and after causing distractions, they immediately took stealthy courses of action. They didn't engage fights with every cop they saw, and overall they tried to avoid getting into fights, so they weren't playing it as a brawler. They played through it stealthily.

And also, when they did start fighting, they were only going up against one or two cops at a time.

Aside from all that, they were playing a largely unbalanced build of the game. You will not find it so easy to get away with some of the things they got away with in the final version.

not necessarily, while playing through they brawled with a good amount of cops. about 4-5 from that one video i believe.

Also, you do have to plan things out in convictions, but it is just not hte same. cause your seen no mater what in convictions, its just your not seen as someone dangerous by soem ppl in the game.

where as you cant be seen by anyone in chaos theory. you were a ghost, you were invisible. you had to plan things out much deeper thinking

"ok if i knock this guard out this could happen or if i don't this could happen, but if his buddy doesn't see him this will happen"

granted you could do the same in convictions you8 don't have that ghostly mind set anymore.

also granted it might not be easy in the final version to brawl, but it might be the same difficulty as well. But as the trailers and videos and screens, and magazine clips shown it looks like this type of brawling is encouraged

Wow, are you still debating about footage that is over a year old now? I thought it has been done to death about now, so why dont we just give it a rest and wait and see what they have done since then.

Thief: The Dark Project was a stealth game (FPS before Splinter Cell) So SC borrowed a lot from Thief. That was a revolutionary game.

Splinter Cell is a good game too but I just want to give credit where it is due. Long live Thief.

quote:

Originally posted by Stealth_chill:
Not necessarily, while playing through they brawled with a good amount of cops. about 4-5 from that one video i believe.

Yeah, four to five. But never more than one or two at a time.

In previous titles, my body count got up to fifty and sixty over the course of some of the more guarded levels, but never more than one or two at a time.

And it's not like the demonstrators ran out into the middle of a street and starting shooting their guns off to attract every cop in town for one epic showdown. The ones that they did fight, they took down quickly, quietly, and out of sight of civilians. In other words, they used combat as a tool to work with stealth, and not relying on it to get through a level while ignoring the stealth element.

The combat system is just a tool, whereas stealth is the key. You will not be able to unlock a door with a simple tool, but you can with a key. If you try to succeed in a mission merely with the combat tool, ultimately the door will remain locked and you'll have to keep trying until you learn to use the key, stealth.

It's just like it was in the older games. Your gun was a tool, it was a very useful and important tool, but if you misused it as the key, ultimately you would have to start over until you learned to use the real key, stealth.

Combat only works with stealth. The key and the tool go best together, but the tool won't work for you unless you have the key. It's that simple.

quote:

'Cause you're seen no matter what in ConViction, it's just you're not seen as someone dangerous by some people in the game.

Granted you could do the same in ConViction, you don't have that ghostly mind set anymore.

You're still a ghost, you're just in a new environment. You'll still have to constantly plan, and plan deeply and carefully.

You might be seen sometimes now, but if ghosts are never seen, then how do we know that they exist? What is a ghost, if nobody has ever seen one?

Just like a ghost, you choose when you're seen, where you're seen, and just like a ghost, with the blink of an eye, you can vanish into thin air, as if you were never there.

quote:

But as the trailers and videos and screens, and magazine clips shown it looks like this type of brawling is encouraged.

Yet again, something I've said too many times: that's just the marketing campaign. That's all it is, nothing more.

True, it looks encouraged, but that's only because the fighting system is one of the few features that we've really been allowed to look at. It merely looks encouraged because it's one of the only things that we've gotten to look at, period.

In the Ubidays demonstration presented by Raphael, after he has gotten into the back door and thrown the cabinet over to block the door, he puts the game on pause and says to the crowd something to the effect of "okay, let's go to the front room and cause some chaos and destruction!" So he goes up front and starts throwing things, breaking stuff, fighting, and generally wreaking havoc. Does this mean that that's what we're supposed to do after erasing the tapes? No, he was just having some fun with the game to show off the environmental interaction capabilities.

The marketing campaign is here to show what new features there are, and what's new. All of those magazine clips, video footages, and images that we've seen of the fighting, those are to show us what we're capable of doing, not what we should be doing.

You shouldn't count on marketing to show you what a game will be about, what are the best techniques to go about succeeding, the story, and the boring parts. Yes, they do skip showing us the boring parts. What if the marketing for Creed had shown us the repetitive missions, and the essentially sluggish intelligence? Well, we wouldn't have bought the game now, would we? Instead, they showed us the parkour, the assassinations, and the story.

The only things you can count on marketing to show you are graphics, artificial intelligence, new moves and cool new features like the combat system, and all other hot topics. Don't count on it to show you stealth, because we already know it will be in there.

I find alot of what is written ironic. i mean you say...

quote:

If you kill someone on call of duty 4 or rainbow our any other game like that, your not considered good. but, if you sneak quietly, evade the mercs, then patiently wait for that time to strike, break that neck and hit that objective, thats skill.

In Call of Duty 4 there is a level called All Ghillied Up which ironically is a stealth level, you must get from one side to the other without being seen, it can be really tricky, is that not skill? there is even an achievement for it if you make it through not being seen once.

quote:

and that got me, that ubi isn't catering to their vets, just their newbies. Splinter cell was revolutionary. no series has ever done what splinter cell has done (no not even metal gear).

Disagree, ubi is catering to the vets, just their decision is one you personally don't like. I've played SC since the original, and there is so much you can do with a given formula, go ahead rinse and repeat it if you like, but eventually it will get stale. Majority of what you've wrote is nastalgia, and many people don't want to let go of "good times" so to speak, but where did those good times spawn from? a good idea from a collaborative effort from developers that's where. They want to create a new standard to push the boundaries, while you want to stop them from trying to create something new again. While Splinter Cell is known for the iconic goggles and light and shadow gameplay, repeating it will get a shy boring, especially when there are new stealth games pushing that envelope of innovation, where does the challenge come from? Nowhere as it's the same game with a new coat of paint.

Splinter Cell (2001) was revolutionary, is it now? The answer is no, it's a simplistic game. How you can say Metal Gear Solid isn't is really beyond words, play MGS 4 see how much progression and story that has over Splinter Cell in terms of length and you're saying it's not revolutionary? are you serious? I mean the combat system is very intricate and complex where as Splinter Cell's is? what? Grab the guy from behind and have two options of knockout or kill, or hold out weapon and aim your pistol, where as MGS 4 has 7 unique different versions as seen here I would suggest you play MGS 4 before you critique it, as to be honestw ith you it defeats Splinter Cell in every single aspect, from gameplay, to storyline and characters.

quote:

When i say

stealth!

what do you think?

A really bad (2004) movie staring Jamie Foxx, no but seriously when i think stealth I don't put it to a agme I just think of what the actual definition is, if I'm playign a game with a friend and we say oh do this stealthy it simply means go unnoticed, that's what i think when I think stealth.

quote:

yeah im whining and complaining. but i have every right to be. Ive been with this series for 6 years and they are suddenly changing it like this? That equivalent of you having a dog or cat for 6 years and waking up with it being stolen from you. You look around and you find one that is completely different. You ask your parents why and they say

" oh well we wanted to change it up a bit, we didnt want you to get bored with having the same dog!"

What kind of unrealistic example is this? Here is a more realistic one, it's the equivalent of having the same wallpeper, light fixture and curtains for the last 6 years, some people go longer... Then you wake up to a suprise the entire room/house has been decorated, new fresh paint smell and new decor. You ask your parents why and they say " oh well we wanted to change it up a bit, we didnt want you to get bored with having the same decor" Awww nice parents they are.

quote:

but the sales for these games just go higher and higher with each game!!! even DA!!! So what would make tehm think people are getting bored with the series. i dunno but it bugs me.

Which totally contradicts your first complaint about SCDA... either Ubisoft does wrong changing it because as you so eloquently put it, it's designed for n00bs, but then on the other hand you then defend it with sales they're up saying why change ti at all what on earth? you know I heard the same about Assassin's Creed everyone calling it a failure, it must be one of the most sucessive failures in the 21st century, Ubisoft should write a book "How to create a failure and sell 6 million units of it"

quote:

No actually, your ignorant. Thats like saying oh just play madden 2001 if you didntlike the QB vision. We want to progress in the story, we want the SC to keep going the way we love it. If we just "play CT" the series never goes anywhere were stuck in one spot with no where to go. So enough with those comments acting like your burning someone by saying it

Again, sweet irony and contradictions. If we use the same formula over and over again the game goes nowhere it sits still, all you're doing is basically adding to it like an expansion pack. Madden, Fifa, NBA etc get condemed for doing nothing new but better graphics and updated squad list, when they could be trying something innovatiove like FPS basketball or soccer retaining the rules of the game but playing the game differently, no one has tried it, they re-use the same formula over and over again, sales are going down and down and down, because gamers are waiting 2 years instead of 1 for the updated game.

If you play the MP SvM be it a new game or old game you want it exactly the same, so the question is where is the difference bar the graphics? there is none, so regardless if someone said go play CT MP it doesn't matter because the end result would be the same game lol, honestly sometimes... Stories are different they shouldn't be the same, yet you want the samething, please explain how that is revolutionary? Like I've said please go play MGS 4, see how they;ve radically changed the game and how the story elements are far more prominent then previous games and beats anythign Splinter Cell has on story telling and character development, because simply put Splinter Cell's story telling it's average at best.

Dixie Wolf, your posts are always worth the read. Always something worthwhile and interesting to say...

It's good that Call of Duty was mentioned. I wanted to bring it up but couldn't think of the right way at the time.

Call of Duty is a great franchise, no doubt, all very good games, but the gameplay, being rehashed and rehashed for three games, grew very stale and repetitive. People slowly got tired of the constant WWII setting. And the solution was Modern Warfare. I don't know the exact sales figures in comparison with the last ones, I don't know the review rates, but I know from the difference between this game and the previous games that it was the answer to every fan's desire for the next best game.

People got tired of the old setting. It was good, but it was getting old fast. And then comes Modern Warfare, this bright ray of sunshine. Change is good, yes?

Now, it has been all but officially confirmed that Call of Duty V will go back to WWII settings, touring the Japan Theatre. Why are so many fans getting upset about this news? Why don't they want to go back? Because they've been there already for three games. They're given this good game, rehashed twice in a row until they consider it a dungeon, and then something amazing comes along, and just when they fall in love with it and hope to stay here, they're dragged back into the dungeon that they've been in for so long.

Call of Duty and Splinter Cell are not that different in terms of changing the style. It's risky territory, and Splinter Cell is dancing on the edge of it. They can't do any more rehashes unless they plan to kill the series.

You can't just keep rehashing a game, no matter what new gadgets, features, moves, and plot devices that you throw in it. You simply cannot.

The solution is ConViction. Like Modern Warfare, it may very well be the hope for this franchise.

when i was talking about call of duty 4 i ment multilayer.

and all guilled up is my fav level BTW

also, call of duty 4 is diff in terms of setting than the past 3 games. but the formula is still the same. The game plays the exact same as other call of dutys except with much more advanced technology. thats it.

Convictions on the other hand is not the same formula and does not play the same. way, its a completely diff game in my opinion.

those are some long posts.i would say something but i didn't read long enough to figure out what u were talking about.

all guilled up is my fav level BTW

that is my fav in cod 4 to.

I know you were just talking about multiplayer, but I wanted to use it for an example anyway before you even said anything about it, and after you brought it up, it just gave me ground to mention it, so...

Rehashing the formula, rehashing the setting, I know they're totally different in definition, but they're completely the same in this case.

I know you're probably thinking, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it," but that really is not the way we need to be looking at it, to be honest.

Was the third Call of Duty broken? No. When you look at it all by itself, really it's a great, solid game. It's lovable, it's playable, and there's nothing broken about it. So why did they decide to change up the franchise? What was wrong with the way it was going now? Nothing, they just wanted something better.

At the time of Call of Duty 3, the fans were just fine with WWII settings. They didn't see anything wrong with the franchise. But then Modern Warfare came out, and when they looked back, they realized just how boring that three WWII games in a row got to be.

And it's the same case with Splinter Cell.

Was Chaos Theory broken? No, quite the opposite, actually. It's considered one of the best games of all time. It's one of the few perfect games out there. So why the decision to change it? What could possibly be wrong with it? Absolutely nothing, except that people just want something better, something refreshing. They're growing tired of this perfect game.

Sometimes you have to fix things even when they don't look broken. Sometimes you have to see what's around the corner before you can look back and say what the last one was like. Light and shadow may be a perfect formula, but just like Call of Duty, that doesn't mean that people will always buy it just because it's perfect. Maybe after playing ConViction, everyone will look back and understand just how silly it was to stay in a light and shadow setting for four games in a row.

quote:

I don't know the exact sales figures in comparison with the last ones, I don't know the review rates, but I know from the difference between this game and the previous games that it was the answer to every fan's desire for the next best game.

Call of Duty 2 sold just over 2 million copies this year, it came out in 2005. Call of Duty 4 came out November 2007, and has sold over 10 million copies!! it shows how many people where bored with the same thing over and over again.

It went above and beyond with the game, it had a great storyline and amazing characters that you became immersed in, and Activision didn't hold anything back. It was a shocking game full of emotions right up until the very end, I really cared about Jackson, Price and Gaz, and all I could say when I completed it was wow! what will happen next? Even the mile high club if you complete that is an achievement, I was shaking when I completed that mission on Veteran, really hard level.

I don't really think you can compare COD4 Multiplayer, which is a fast based shoot them up, with a stealth game. The rewards for both games are different, one is numerical rewards and upgrades and the other is a mental achievement to the gamer. You can play COD4 stealth if you want, take a sniper rifle and shoot people without being noticed, my friend does it and no one can ever find him, or you can go street to street shooting people gaining more xp to reap the rewards. It's a tactical shooter it's not meant to be slow by it's very design. If you kill someone on COD4 you're not considered good? I think that's really subjective. It's like playing Counter-Strike, which again you can walk slowly to be stealthy, rather then run and give away your position as running = noise, yet if you accumulate less deaths to more kills, you're considered a great efficient player. It all depends on your play style. There was nothing stopping gamers on SvM throwing a smoke grenade and running circles around a Merc then grabbing him and breaking his neck if he wins is it not skill? if someone plays to win and breaks all the rules within the game, as the game only knows winning and losing not cheap, then hes a good player, just eventually like any game people learn how to beat such tactics.

quote:

also, call of duty 4 is diff in terms of setting than the past 3 games. but the formula is still the same. The game plays the exact same as other call of dutys except with much more advanced technology. thats it.

Convictions on the other hand is not the same formula and does not play the same. way, its a completely diff game in my opinion.

Lots of things changed the theme, story, characters not just the weapons. What hasn't changed in Call of Duty is linear maps and the developers making you fight an infinite number of baddies unless you push forward. However many things have been eradicated from the series and many things replaced with new mechanics. How is this any different for Splinter Cell? You're in a different location, instead of more advanced technology you have less and we're out in the open, the gameplay is the same go unnoticed exception our environment has changed, from corridors to vast open space. If you're thinking of the same light/dark gameplay mechanic, that is only 1 part of the Splinter Cell universe and by itself is meaningless. You don't need to have the stealth suit it makes no sence taking into consideration the current scenario being out in the open, and one can only assume it's not there at all, who knows if it is there or not at the start or later in the game. Lots of things in COD4 have changed from the 2nd and 3rd game and are missing, the Mp has vastly changed and has a foothold over anything previously.

I tried making this comparison with Resident Evil 1-3 they use a static camera, where as the 4th it's behind the character sounds like a small change, but it's a massive change in terms of gameplay and hwo you play the game, many got turned off by that. There was no Umbrella, similar to no Third Echelon, the game is more action, previously it was escape and evade zombies. Yet I'm always told the game is the same because it has the same theme shooting zombies, when the fundamental gameplay mechanics that where previously there have been replaced and redesigned. Is it a bad thing? No. The new game is much better, but... it takes time to re-learn the new controls, camera and weapon handling, and that's what many fear, they don't want to re-learn the game which they where previously used to, if radically changed game like COD 4 and Re 4 are so bad, why do they sell so well and win so many awards?

quote:

Originally posted by LaurenIsSoMosh:
I know you were just talking about multiplayer, but I wanted to use it for an example anyway before you even said anything about it, and after you brought it up, it just gave me ground to mention it, so...

Rehashing the formula, rehashing the setting, I know they're totally different in definition, but they're completely the same in this case.

I know you're probably thinking, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it," but that really is not the way we need to be looking at it, to be honest.

Was the third Call of Duty broken? No. When you look at it all by itself, really it's a great, solid game. It's lovable, it's playable, and there's nothing broken about it. So why did they decide to change up the franchise? What was wrong with the way it was going now? Nothing, they just wanted something better.

At the time of Call of Duty 3, the fans were just fine with WWII settings. They didn't see anything wrong with the franchise. But then Modern Warfare came out, and when they looked back, the realized just how boring that three WWII games in a row got to be.

And it's the same case with Splinter Cell.

Was Chaos Theory broken? No, quite the opposite, actually. It's considered one of the best games of all time. It's one of the few perfect games out there. So why the decision to change it? What could possibly be wrong with it? Absolutely nothing, except that people just want something better, something refreshing. They're growing tired of this perfect game.

Sometimes you have to fix things even when they don't look broken. Sometimes you have to see what's around the corner before you can look back and say what the last one was like. Light and shadow may be a perfect formula, but just like Call of Duty, that doesn't mean that people will always buy it just because it's perfect. Maybe after playing ConViction, everyone will look back and understand just how silly it was to stay in a light and shadow setting for four games in a row.

Yeah after a while playing the same thing again and again gets a little boring . So I think the gameplay in Conviction will be a welcome change from the traditional gameplay .(provided it is executed properly ). Nice explanation Lauren.