quote:

Originally posted by soron:
FEAR OF SOME SORT OF LAWSUIT??? um...???...I am really dumbfounded by that comment...wow...wow...

Activision is being sued for not including Dolby Digital sound in Guitar Hero III for the Wii even though they marketed the game as such. Microsoft (or Bungie) is being sued for making Halo 3 less than 720p even though it was marketed as 1080p. Why wouldn't somebody sue Ubisoft for including the word "Splinter Cell" in their game if it's, to some people, deceptive?

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
So you want to finish the story line, here it is; SAM WINS!!! You are that caught up in the story line from DA??? The story was really not the best story out there. It was actually very basic.

I suppose that when Ubisoft put "To be Continued" at the end of Double Agent, the story didn't actually have to be continued. That would be deception.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
That depends on how you define "Ubisoft" and "isn't" and "being" and "deceptive".

We'll use the legal definitions.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
Ubi established what the SC games were. Now they're selling out, and you're trying to justify it.

No. I'm trying to justify them calling Sam a Splinter Cell in Conviction. They're not selling out by calling Sam a Splinter Cell. They might be selling out by changing the gameplay, but that's an opinion and, frankly, I don't care about it.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
You're one of them, aren't you?

No.

quote:

Originally posted by DingChavez2005:

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
FEAR OF SOME SORT OF LAWSUIT??? um...???...I am really dumbfounded by that comment...wow...wow...

Activision is being sued for not including Dolby Digital sound in Guitar Hero III for the Wii even though they marketed the game as such. Microsoft (or Bungie) is being sued for making Halo 3 less than 720p even though it was marketed as 1080p. Why wouldn't somebody sue Ubisoft for including the word "Splinter Cell" in their game if it's, to some people, deceptive?

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
So you want to finish the story line, here it is; SAM WINS!!! You are that caught up in the story line from DA??? The story was really not the best story out there. It was actually very basic.

I suppose that when Ubisoft put "To be Continued" at the end of Double Agent, the story didn't actually have to be continued. That would be deception.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
That depends on how you define "Ubisoft" and "isn't" and "being" and "deceptive".

We'll use the legal definitions.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
Ubi established what the SC games were. Now they're selling out, and you're trying to justify it.

No. I'm trying to justify them calling Sam a Splinter Cell in Conviction. They're not selling out by calling Sam a Splinter Cell. They might be selling out by changing the gameplay, but that's an opinion and, frankly, I don't care about it.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
You're one of them, aren't you?

No.

Thank you for making me laugh DingChavez2005, really thank you. I hope some one slaps you. There is a big difference from calling this **** SC and advertising "Dolby Digital sound in Guitar Hero III for the Wii even though they marketed the game as such. Microsoft (or Bungie) is being sued for making Halo 3 less than 720p even though it was marketed as 1080p".

That was rude.

quote:

Originally posted by DingChavez2005:

quote:

That depends on how you define "Ubisoft" and "isn't" and "being" and "deceptive".

We'll use the legal definitions.

So, pray tell, what is the legal definition of "Ubisoft"?

quote:

quote:

Ubi established what the SC games were. Now they're selling out, and you're trying to justify it.

No. I'm trying to justify them calling Sam a Splinter Cell in Conviction. They're not selling out by calling Sam a Splinter Cell. They might be selling out by changing the gameplay, but that's an opinion and, frankly, I don't care about it.

I don't remember anyone saying Ubisoft's selling out by simply calling Sam a Splinter Cell. They're selling out because they're completely changing the game, but keeping the name because they know idiots like me will buy it thinking it's like the previous SIX games that bear the same name.

ETA: Go me with my loverly run-on sentence!

quote:

Originally posted by DingChavez2005:
That was rude.

I am sorry I was rude but I hope I got your attention.

quote:

Originally posted by soron:
There is a big difference from calling this **** SC and advertising "Dolby Digital sound in Guitar Hero III for the Wii even though they marketed the game as such. Microsoft (or Bungie) is being sued for making Halo 3 less than 720p even though it was marketed as 1080p".

Not true. If Ubisoft already established what a Splinter Cell is, then marketing something as a Splinter Cell when it isn't is still just as much deception as lying about graphics or sound.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
So, pray tell, what is the legal definition of "Ubisoft"?

Considering the fact that Ubisoft is probably a copyrighted term, it's a company owned by Yves Guillemot.

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
I don't remember anyone saying Ubisoft's selling out by simply calling Sam a Splinter Cell. They're selling out because they're completely changing the game, but keeping the name because they know idiots like me will buy it thinking it's like the previous SIX games that bear the same name.

Not quite. We were already arguing over whether or not Ubisoft was being deceptive by changing the gameplay but keeping the name. By being deceptive, I think that people were arguing that Ubisoft was selling out the series.

How did I let myself get caught in this conversation... peace I'm out.

quote:

Originally posted by DingChavez2005:

quote:

Originally posted by CoastalGirl:
I don't remember anyone saying Ubisoft's selling out by simply calling Sam a Splinter Cell. They're selling out because they're completely changing the game, but keeping the name because they know idiots like me will buy it thinking it's like the previous SIX games that bear the same name.

Not quite. We were already arguing over whether or not Ubisoft was being deceptive by changing the gameplay but keeping the name. By being deceptive, I think that people were arguing that Ubisoft was selling out the series.

Well, they are.

This has already been covered. They might be selling out the series but Sam can still correctly be called a Splinter Cell.

Ubi established these guidlines for the SC world.
Third Echelon=An autonomous sub-agency of the NSA,third echelon commands independant splinter cells to achieve critical intelligence collection initiatives.Denied to exist by the US GOV,3rd Echelon is granted the power to evoke the 5th freedom.

Cell=A small group of operatives belonging to a larger espionage network.

Splinter Cell=A small,elite,aggressive intelligence gathering force,flexible enough to face the hidden threats of tomorrows wars.A lone field operative works with the remote support of a team of strategists empowered with leading-edge technology.Like a sliver of glass,a splinter cell is small,sharp,and nearly invisible.

DingChavez2005
We have proven by these that Sam is no longer a splinter cell member using these same guidlines.
All i wanted was for someone other than the fans to admit this truth.

You apparently are afraid of a lawsuit.I have no intention nor ever had any intention of suing ubi for franchise infringement.But all of a sudden you appear out of the woodwork making outlandish comparisons to tv programs as evidence to support your desperate attempts to quell this controversey.

You have done a lousy job of it,and not very professionally i might add.You even resort to the statement that ubi has the right to make the claim that this is still a Splinter Cell game if they want to as further evidence that we have hit a weak spot in their wall of defence.So you are acting like the little dutch boy and sticking your fingers in the dike to keep it from blowing wide open.

I am not without mercy,i see you struggling.So i will go away and you can blow smoke in peoples faces once again.

But you know and i know,your attempts failed.(regardless of your further petty comments)
I'll make a return visit after SC/C has been released and we'll see whether ubi got wise or not.

enjoy your stay in neverneverland.

Which is where I disagree.

K, let's take it another way:
Do you play like a Splinter Cell? This was defined by the previous games and the books. I believe Ubi has made people expect a covert ops with high-tech weapons (= cool factor) and the whole espionage and good thriller feeling.

Now, I'll need to go by what I've seen and heard:
They'll get SCC and get a rogue Sam Fisher, with a VERY different relation to 3E (they try to kill him, instead of help him), gameplay is more actiony, there's no sneaking (not in terms of the old games) and there's no high-tech espionage feeling.

I think these two forms of gameplay differ as much as soccer from rugby. It's all played on a field of grass, there's a referee and you need to score to win. But the rules and how you accomplish your objectives are WAY different.

Therefor, I think customers will be decepted by using the Splinter Cell name in a way that people dont expect it to be (Getting a REAL Ferrari for 1000000 euros that looks like a Volvo when you unwrap it is probably disappointing).

In other words, it's false advertising when using the Splinter Cell name. Note that I absolutely have no problem with: "Sam Fisher: Conviction". Splinter Cell means the gameplay to me.

dingchavez, it is completely different. Splinter Cell indicates the game is in the series and, where it may imply L&S etc for you, it does not explicitly say "This game uses light and sound to help you sneak past enemies" whereas GHIII did say "this game uses Dolby" when it didn't.
If they don't explicitly say it and its only implied then there is no case. Period.

quote:

Originally posted by shadow_ninja961:
But all of a sudden you appear out of the woodwork making outlandish comparisons to tv programs as evidence to support your desperate attempts to quell this controversey.

What television programs? Do you mean Halo 3 and Guitar Hero III? Those are videogames, too, and they show similar conditions by which Ubisoft can be sued, at least according to you.

quote:

Originally posted by shadow_ninja961:
You have done a lousy job of it,and not very professionally i might add.You even resort to the statement that ubi has the right to make the claim that this is still a Splinter Cell game if they want to as further evidence that we have hit a weak spot in their wall of defence.

Once again, not true. I said that as long as the definition of a Splinter Cell doesn't contradict what they've already established, then they are allowed to determine the other conditions that make something a Splinter Cell. Are you saying that you reserve the right to define a Splinter Cell over Ubisoft?

quote:

Originally posted by shadow_ninja961:
So you are acting like the little dutch boy and sticking your fingers in the dike to keep it from blowing wide open.

No; I've based all of my conclusions off of only what Ubisoft has presented to us.

quote:

Originally posted by shadow_ninja961:
I am not without mercy,i see you struggling.So i will go away and you can blow smoke in peoples faces once again.

I'm not blowing smoke in people's faces. I'm just telling it as it is.

quote:

Originally posted by shadow_ninja961:
But you know and i know,your attempts failed.(regardless of your further petty comments)
I'll make a return visit after SC/C has been released and we'll see whether ubi got wise or not.

enjoy your stay in neverneverland.

That's a pretty convenient way to leave the discussion. You still haven't managed to logically refute any of my claims, so it is rather appropriate that you condemn my argument without backing it up and leaving before you can see any possible rebuttal. I would be pleased to continue this discussion and I respect your decision to leave, but don't act like you're being noble and that I want you to leave prematurely.

quote:

Originally posted by scworld:
Which is where I disagree.

K, let's take it another way:
Do you play like a Splinter Cell? This was defined by the previous games and the books. I believe Ubi has made people expect a covert ops with high-tech weapons (= cool factor) and the whole espionage and good thriller feeling.

Even if people have come to expect that, that doesn't mean that they can no longer change it. The only time that they wouldn't be able to change it is if something that they explicitly stated contradicts something that they put in the game, but so far, the term "Splinter Cell" has been defined broadly enough to allow a fugitive to be a Splinter Cell.

quote:

Originally posted by scworld:
Now, I'll need to go by what I've seen and heard:
They'll get SCC and get a rogue Sam Fisher, with a VERY different relation to 3E (they try to kill him, instead of help him), gameplay is more actiony, there's no sneaking (not in terms of the old games) and there's no high-tech espionage feeling.

Being a Splinter Cell hasn't been explicitly defined by that.

quote:

Originally posted by scworld:
Therefor, I think customers will be decepted by using the Splinter Cell name in a way that people dont expect it to be (Getting a REAL Ferrari for 1000000 euros that looks like a Volvo when you unwrap it is probably disappointing).

Ubisoft never said that they're selling you a Ferrari. Using the same analogy, they said that they're giving you a car and you expected a Ferrari just because the last five cars they sold were Ferraris. They even said in several places that it would be a Volvo, but you didn't notice them.

quote:

Originally posted by scworld:
In other words, it's false advertising when using the Splinter Cell name. Note that I absolutely have no problem with: "Sam Fisher: Conviction". Splinter Cell means the gameplay to me.

To you Splinter Cell means the gameplay. To each person it can mean anything, and unless Ubisoft says that Splinter Cell is represented by a specific style of gameplay, they're free to use the Splinter Cell name however they please as long as it doesn't contradict what they've already established.

quote:

Originally posted by Tidenburg:
dingchavez, it is completely different. Splinter Cell indicates the game is in the series and, where it may imply L&S etc for you, it does not explicitly say "This game uses light and sound to help you sneak past enemies" whereas GHIII did say "this game uses Dolby" when it didn't.

Exactly. The problem is, however, that some people think that Ubisoft did explicitly state that all Splinter Cells are under the command of Third Echelon and that they act a certain way. They think that they do have a case, and I don't think that Ubisoft should even be forced to use their lawyers.

I am not talking about the definition (note:

quote:

K, let's take it another way:

) but about the expectency of people when they hear "Splinter Cell". They go: "Ah, that Sam Fisher dude with goggles who's all sneaky and stuff".

Ubi says Splinter Cell, which is the same as saying Ferrari.
Sure, they can advertise it as a new gameplay, like Ferrari can advertise a small car, but that doesn't change the expectecy of people who haven't watched the advertising (I've seen TV ads for Halo and maybe 1 other game, so the general public goes off the name).

That's true, but it's not as though Ubisoft is creating a game that costs less to manufacture and then selling it at the same price as their other games knowing that people will buy it without knowing that they're getting a worse product. In truth, the analogy would be better suited to if they just released a game that was almost identical to the original Splinter Cell games and telling people that it's vastly different. It would cost less to manufacture and they would make as much money as if they made a completely new game, but they are spending a lot more money to make a new game because they truly think that it would please people more. Besides, when you buy the game, you'll probably see the cover art and stuff and know that it's probably going to be different just as if you were buying the car.

quote:

Originally posted by DingChavez2005:
In truth, the analogy would be better suited to if they just released a game that was almost identical to the original Splinter Cell games and telling people that it's vastly different. It would cost less to manufacture and they would make as much money as if they made a completely new game,

Can I have that option? Pretty, pretty please?

quote:

but they are spending a lot more money to make a new game because they truly think that it would please people more.

Not really. IMO, which Ubi has yet to deny, the changes in SC were done to recoup AC development costs. But, it sounds like that may have not worked out (WOOHOO), so it's delayed, hopefully because they're blending some of the old, awesome stuff with their "new" ideas (and not because they're insistent on making this new direction work all on its own).
Trust me on this, the bottom line is always the dollar. They don't care about pleasing people – just look at what happened with DA for the PC.

In the end, Ubisoft is trying to make money, but they aren't being deceptive or fraudulent to get the money. That's the point. They might be making people mad by making the game different from the other Splinter Cells, but they aren't being deceptive or lying.

quote:

Originally posted by DingChavez2005:
In the end, Ubisoft is trying to make money, but they aren't being deceptive or fraudulent to get the money. That's the point. They might be making people mad by making the game different from the other Splinter Cells, but they aren't being deceptive or lying.

So they did fix DA for the PC, then? I hadn't heard.

I don't know, but we're not talking about that.

I think you have to realise Ubisoft has much less creative freedom than you think. The Splinter Cell brand is owned by Rubicon, not Ubisoft. While Ubisoft may have provided definitions with loop holes for them to slide through, but through the nature of ALL of the books and games thus far, it is heavily implied that a Splinter Cell game should be about "a highly trained agent of a black-ops division of the NSA". While in the loosest way you could still consider Sam a Splinter Cell, that's not really good enough. It is enough to avoid a law suit but they cannot seriously expect the fans to sit there and say "Yeah, I guess you could still consider him a Splinter Cell so I have no reason to complain".

The name Splinter Cell has bigger connotations than just the loose definition Ubi provided. You cannot just go by definitions when it comes to games. How many games actually come with their very own definition anyway? A game is first and foremost about the gameplay. As been stated, people who have not been following the game may buy it under false impressions. Legally Ubi is covered, but do you think that's enough to the fan who just wasted their money?