zakbase222
If you dont like it dont play it dont whine about it cause it aint gonna happen mate. Just accept what it is and that it wont be L&S and that it IS stealth.
If you dont like it dont play it dont whine about it cause it aint gonna happen mate. Just accept what it is and that it wont be L&S and that it IS stealth.
------------------------------
http://www.ufocasebook.com
© zakbase222 © "The Dividing Line"
A race game where you have to stay in the blind spot of the mirrors is also stealth. After all, stealth is the act of going unnoticed right? But I don't want stealth-racing nor stealth-'hopping from people to people'.
It would be called a racing game.A race game where you have to stay in the blind spot of the mirrorsStealth/Action games can be anything, limiting them to simply Light and Shadow gameplay when with a bit of flexibility they can do so much more, if you're fixated on a formula then you will never be able to see boyond it. I see many new games incorporating light and shadow gameplay, Alone in the Dark, and Resident Evil 5. They have a realistic spin on the system compared to Splinter Cell, but the game isn't about light and shadows it's one aspect out of many that you can use, otherwise it turns into the Assassin's Creed repition, use Light and Shadow to get to your goal, extract, rinse and repeat, that's monotonous for Assassin's Creed using the monks and slow walk, why any different for Splinter Cell?
I think generally looking over forums the new formula is one that many people are looking forward to, to go back to an old system wheile it does work is unchallenging now, would be a mistake, but then again it wouldn't bother me too much now because quite a few new stealth games have been announced along with many games I really want such as Resident Evil 5, which oddly seems to evolve and the fans back the company 100%.
This game is going to be way tight. I can't wait for the new stealth. I like that they're changing up the gameplay. If I want to play the old school stealth I'll just play one of the other 4 Splinter Cells...
It would be called a racing game.Originally posted by Woosy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A race game where you have to stay in the blind spot of the mirrors
I think generally looking over forums the new formula is one that many people are looking forward to, to go back to an old system wheile it does work is unchallenging now, would be a mistake, but then again it wouldn't bother me too much now because quite a few new stealth games have been announced along with many games I really want such as Resident Evil 5, which oddly seems to evolve and the fans back the company 100%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The main reason, I think, that fans back Resident Evil evolving is because that even through the evolution, the fans are essentially getting the same game that stays true to Resident Evil's roots. Dark enviornments, zombies, intermittent communication with other characters, large scary looking bosses, limited ammunition that causes the player trouble etc. etc.
The reason that this is not the case with Conviction is because the developers decided exactly what Splinter Cell was all about (the art of going unnoticed), and then decided to rebuild their franchise around that idea. I feel this was a massive mistake because it disregarded the whole attitude and mindset that was involved while playing the previous titles.
It would be called a racing game.Originally posted by oO_ShadowFox_Oo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">A race game where you have to stay in the blind spot of the mirrors
I think generally looking over forums the new formula is one that many people are looking forward to, to go back to an old system wheile it does work is unchallenging now, would be a mistake, but then again it wouldn't bother me too much now because quite a few new stealth games have been announced along with many games I really want such as Resident Evil 5, which oddly seems to evolve and the fans back the company 100%. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The main reason, I think, that fans back Resident Evil evolving is because that even through the evolution, the fans are essentially getting the same game that stays true to Resident Evil's roots. Dark enviornments, zombies, intermittent communication with other characters, large scary looking bosses, limited ammunition that causes the player trouble etc. etc.
It's certainly not because the developers decided exactly what Splinter Cell was all about (the art of going unnoticed), and then decided to rebuild their franchise around that idea. I feel this was a massive mistake because it disregarded the whole attitude and mindset that was involved while playing the previous titles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would disagree, it's not the same game it has reminiscence of old games. The developers themselves stated that they where bored of recyling the same game over and over again, so went back to the rejuvinate the franchise, you can watch the video HERE where they speak of that. Splinter Cell developers have stated similar, but if they state this, it is some how BS?!?! the conclusion is Ubi want more money. Yet when capcom say it, it's legit?!?! Where do these double standards end?
Capcom changed the franchise in so many ways that if we look at it from a perspective of a die hard Splinter Cell fan does it isn't Resident Evil anymore. The Zombies aren't normal Zombies anymore, limited ammunition was only in the first 3 games, you may kill up to maybe 70 zombies in the whole game while running around and conserving most of your ammo for bosses. However when they evolved the series in 4, there is more zombies on screen because it's an "open world" compared to previous ones, hence you will be killing up to 900+ zombies and ammunition is plentiful, many complain there isn't as many scripted moments such as dogs jumping through windows making you jump etc, where as now it's the fear is anxiety of being over run by a huge number of zombies, and just making it through a door before the guy with the chainsaw gets you. Remember the puzzles like the skull key and ruby's you had to put into the tiger head in Resident Evil 1 to progress? They reduced it in Resident Evil 4, puzzles are easier to complete.
Just for an example for you, this is how Resident Evil 1,2 and 3 are played from a fixed view camera Here This is how it is played from Resident Evil 4 Here it takes time to get used to, as you're used to having a wide field of view which isn't like that from a camera behind the character.
SC gamers complain there is no NSA or 3rd Echelon. In RE series it's always been about Umbrella corp or S.T.A.R.S members, in the 4th game the United States government have closed the Umbrella organisation down, hence new storylines have been created Leon who was a police officer but is now working for the Secret Service, Chris who used to be S.T.A.R.S works for a new orgnaisation B.S.A.A and many other changes. So many gameplay mechanics have changed too, QTE's which wern't in previous games merchant for upgrading weapons and buying goods etc. There is nothing really from the roots in Resident Evil 4 or 5, apart from maybe the green herb and the characters, the new storylines and gameplay mechanics and camera have been new to the series with the rejuvination of the 4th game.
My point is this, if they had created a 4th and 5th game upon the same gameplay mechanics of the trilogy, it would of been an ok game, I would of been ignorant as there isn't anything better my "imagination" that capcom could do. I didn't think about capcoms innovation in RE 4, yet when they brought it out I loved it because it did something the previous games didn't do. I wanted to know what would happen to Leon, where will the story go etc... You still get a few fans saying I wish capcom went back to the roots with fear, using scripted scare tactics where enemies jump out which aren't present in RE4 but use the fear of anxiety instead. This is why myself i don't really want the same gameplay again, it is mastered similar to Resident Evil's previous gameplay, I easily beat RE 3 in less then 6 because it was simple, it was a fun ganme ofcourse, but not challenging enough. Play RE 4 and it took me 15-18 hours to complete and is way more challenging.
All you did in the previous games was sit in a shadowm wait for guard to walk past or look away and hack a computer or do some task, then move to the next room, rinse and repeating the same gameplay mechanics, shoot a light bulb to create darkness it's the samething, many peopel cannot see past this concept, it's even scary, "oh no if they take that away how will i be able to play" sort of thing. There are many ways to go unnoticed, even if it wasn't crowd based and we was working for the NSA but doing daylight missions and had to go unnoticed, the complaint would be it's somehow silly there is no shadows.It's certainly not because the developers decided exactly what Splinter Cell was all about (the art of going unnoticed), and then decided to rebuild their franchise around that idea. I feel this was a massive mistake because it disregarded the whole attitude and mindset that was involved while playing the previous titles.
I'm not going to argue about whether or not SCC is still a stealth game, because it doesn't matter - the "stealth" category is just far too broad.
L&S gameplay, which is as repetitive as anything else (though that hardly matters because if you love it you're thrilled to get more, LoL), is not the same as blending. They're both stealth, but they're very different.
I see what you're saying, and I fully agree that alot of changes have come into the game that were required to freshen it up. But I disagree when you say that RE hasn't stayed true to it's roots. It is still essentially the same game. You're running around, killing zombies in a weird and unknown, haunting location.Originally posted by Woosy:
Just for an example for you, this is how Resident Evil 1,2 and 3 are played from a fixed view camera Here This is how it is played from Resident Evil 4 Here it takes time to get used to, as you're used to having a wide field of view which isn't like that from a camera behind the character.
SC gamers complain there is no NSA or 3rd Echelon. In RE series it's always been about Umbrella corp or S.T.A.R.S members, in the 4th game the United States government have closed the Umbrella organisation down, hence new storylines have been created Leon who was a police officer but is now working for the Secret Service, Chris who used to be S.T.A.R.S works for a new orgnaisation B.S.A.A and many other changes. So many gameplay mechanics have changed too, QTE's which wern't in previous games merchant for upgrading weapons and buying goods etc. There is nothing really from the roots in Resident Evil 4 or 5, apart from maybe the green herb and the characters, the new storylines and gameplay mechanics and camera have been new to the series with the rejuvination of the 4th game.
My point is this, if they had created a 4th and 5th game upon the same gameplay mechanics of the trilogy, it would of been an ok game, I would of been ignorant as there isn't anything better my "imagination" that capcom could do. I didn't think about capcoms innovation in RE 4, yet when they brought it out I loved it because it did something the previous games didn't do. I wanted to know what would happen to Leon, where will the story go etc... You still get a few fans saying I wish capcom went back to the roots with fear, using scripted scare tactics where enemies jump out which aren't present in RE4 but use the fear of anxiety instead. This is why myself i don't really want the same gameplay again, it is mastered similar to Resident Evil's previous gameplay, I easily beat RE 3 in less then 6 because it was simple, it was a fun ganme ofcourse, but not challenging enough. Play RE 4 and it took me 15-18 hours to complete and is way more challenging.
This is not the case with SC:C. I'm pretty sure that if Conviction had been introduced as another spy infiltration thriller, with all the current changes that have been made to the current game but, obviously, without social stealth then I don't think there would be nearly as many dissatisfied fans. In this case I'm not removing the social stealth idea because I don't like the idea (I still don't), I'm doing so because the idea has always been about playing as a one man army.All you did in the previous games was sit in a shadowm wait for guard to walk past or look away and hack a computer or do some task, then move to the next room, rinse and repeating the same gameplay mechanics, shoot a light bulb to create darkness it's the samething, many peopel cannot see past this concept, it's even scary, "oh no if they take that away how will i be able to play" sort of thing. There are many ways to go unnoticed, even if it wasn't crowd based and we was working for the NSA but doing daylight missions and had to go unnoticed, the complaint would be it's somehow silly there is no shadows.
Even if the essential L&S mechanic, as we know it, had been removed to a certain extent without the public admission of "NO MORE L&S, SO DEAL WITH IT" I don't think it really would have bothered most fans. When people complain about L&S being removed, I don't think people care that they're removing the basic gameplay mechanic. They care that you're taking Sam out of the role that the whole franchise is based around. They want to see Sam as the invisible infiltrator, who stalks, takes his time, draws on his experience, prepares and then strikes quickly and effectively.
I don't agree with anyone that thinks that Ubisoft had to take him out of that role to "freshen" up the title. That's a ridiculous claim that really doesn't place any faith in Ubisoft's potential as a game developer. But I do agree that shadows were just a simple cool way of providing a stealth mechanic, and that it has lost it's challenge.
I'm pretty sure that if the Resident Evil developers had made all of those changes to the game, while at the same time outfitting Leon in some chainmail and pitting him against some goblins in Hyrule, then they weren't going to be as supportive as they are. (fairly drastic change I know, but you get the idea)
I don't think you understand the changes are HUGE in terms of gameplay, it's not the same roots as the original games. You can apply the same answer to Splinter Cell. You're not working for the original organisation likewise in RE, but you've got to solve a conspiracy like which was in Chaos Theory before bad things happen, you simply don't use light and shadow mechanic and use the stealth suit, it's more outdoors. RE was more indoors it changed to more outdoors many complain about this, but if I bring this change up about RE it's still the roots, you say it's the same game? That doesn't make sence to me, the changes done to RE are like ones done to SC, if you've followed the series RE 4 plays nothing like the previous games in terms of gameplay mechanics, and this is the main complaint of SC there is no light and shadow mechanic, so how is RE any different to RE fans complaining there is no fixed camera? It's no different.I see what you're saying, and I fully agree that alot of changes have come into the game that were required to freshen it up. But I disagree when you say that RE hasn't stayed true to it's roots. It is still essentially the same game. You're running around, killing zombies in a weird and unknown, haunting location.
Many of complaints have been well, you're not wearing the stealth suit, not wearing trifocals, not working for 3rd Echelon, shouldn't be called Splinter Cell. Now in RE same happens S.T.A.R.S are disbanded, there is no Umbrella, formula which has been in previous games is gone poof, this is acceptble in RE but not for SC, please explain the contradiction? Also you say is true to the roots in what way, when it's all changed? am I missing something here?
Who says you can't do this? The whole definition of stealth is to go unnoticed, the game is based around stealth, put action in there to interogate or neutralise/incapictate. You say it draws on his experience, you know he worked in the navy SEALS? They are trained in counter-terrorism, which means dressing up in civvy clothes for recon/surveilance could be anything here builders, businessmen, traffic wardens etc... who would think they where Special Forces with an MP5K under their shirt? They have knowledge in demolitions and explosives, hostage rescue and many other skills such as Escape and Evade , which he is doing. It's not simply sit in the shadows, unfortuantely the sun comes out during the day which means agents in real life agents have to improvise, and to be quite frank, why have an Agent like Fisher if a normal MI5/FBI agent can do a dual role but Fisher can only do night time?They care that you're taking Sam out of the role that the whole franchise is based around. They want to see Sam as the invisible infiltrator, who stalks, takes his time, draws on his experience, prepares and then strikes quickly and effectively.
They didn't have to take him out of the role you're right, but they did need to freshen up the title, use new concepts and new gameplay to make the game innovative and inspire gamers not only through gameplay but story. The 4 games are just little upgrades from each other while fun are now unchallenging, while maybe fun to the super duper die hard, to many people it's monotonous now, and we do need to see some progression and variety not these black looking missions.I don't agree with anyone that thinks that Ubisoft had to take him out of that role to "freshen" up the title. That's a ridiculous claim that really doesn't place any faith in Ubisoft's potential as a game developer. But I do agree that shadows were just a simple cool way of providing a stealth mechanic, and that it has lost it's challenge.
It's funny you say that, at the end of the first 2nd and 3rd game games, you can change the costumes to different ones that look stupidly unreal, think there is a tomb raider one for Jill. I mean to put it into perspective for you, there is a guy in the second game, in the mini-game called "hunk" and the seconady character is called tofu. I kid you not, you can play as a tofu bar it's injected humor by the devs, when he gets bit he goes "how you do there?" can watch HereI'm pretty sure that if the Resident Evil developers had made all of those changes to the game, while at the same time outfitting Leon in some chainmail and pitting him against some goblins in Hyrule, then they weren't going to be as supportive as they are. (fairly drastic change I know, but you get the idea)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
