Our Love Affair with Classic Sam | Forums

[MadamTampini]

^
I still don't think it's entitlement because we don't have direct control over the game development (although I see you put it in quotations, I don't think entitlement is even on the right spectrum of how some of us who are dedicated to the forums feel). If I don't like SCB, I won't buy it, it's simple. But that doesn't stop me from voicing why we are frustrated, and hoping that the devs might get the picture. I don't think it's possible for a long time player to look purely objectively at a franchise that revolved so strongly around the immersion factor, SC was developed to emotionally involve those playing it, which is exactly why Conviction went purely emotion (story) but they messed up because SC is a balance between all the factors that make a good video game. While concentrating on the emotion they forgot the quintessential SC gameplay. I recently put in Conviction to try and play, and started out with the scene punching Grim which I had a haaaaaaaaard time doing because of all the connection built between Sam (player) and Grim (yes, having the original voice makes a huge difference. If she had a new voice I would probably gladly punch the beans out of her just because she had a new voice). Just as I had a hard time shooting Lambert in DA. Personally, I am not demanding anything from the devs because I am highly aware that if SCB is not what I am looking for, like I said I simply won't buy it. It would just really, really suck to completely lose faith in such an awesome franchise. I also, personally, do think we have the right to complain about where SC is going because the devs aren't making the game for themselves, they are making it for us. I like how you said our frustration with the franchise is a sign that we care about it, because that is 100% true.

[Ristar85]

^
I still don't think it's entitlement because we don't have direct control over the game development (although I see you put it in quotations, I don't think entitlement is even on the right spectrum of how some of us who are dedicated to the forums feel). If I don't like SCB, I won't buy it, it's simple. But that doesn't stop me from voicing why we are frustrated, and hoping that the devs might get the picture. I don't think it's possible for a long time player to look purely objectively at a franchise that revolved so strongly around the immersion factor, SC was developed to emotionally involve those playing it, which is exactly why Conviction went purely emotion (story) but they messed up because SC is a balance between all the factors that make a good video game. While concentrating on the emotion they forgot the quintessential SC gameplay. I recently put in Conviction to try and play, and started out with the scene punching Grim which I had a haaaaaaaaard time doing because of all the connection built between Sam (player) and Grim (yes, having the original voice makes a huge difference. If she had a new voice I would probably gladly punch the beans out of her just because she had a new voice). Just as I had a hard time shooting Lambert in DA. Personally, I am not demanding anything from the devs because I am highly aware that if SCB is not what I am looking for, like I said I simply won't buy it. It would just really, really suck to completely lose faith in such an awesome franchise. I also, personally, do think we have the right to complain about where SC is going because the devs aren't making the game for themselves, they are making it for us. I like how you said our frustration with the franchise is a sign that we care about it, because that is 100% true.

well said...

wait, WHAT? you SHOT Lambert? wth. i shot four eyes. every. single. time.

i was quite pissed to know that Sam Fisher shot Lambert instead of four eyes in SCC. that's just ridiculous. but what to do... they're the ones writing the story, not me.

[SolidSage]

Fans are VERY passionate. And that passion goes both ways. I am very PRO Conviction, I think it took things in a better direction and I defend it pro-actively because I want it to 'keep' going that way.
I am sure the same is true in the Legacy only camp. They loved the older games, they loved how they played. Seeing that style of play go away hurts their hearts, (which I understand) and in trying to either, regain that direction or, least let the Developers 'know' how hurt they are, they generate all kinds of arguments in defense of the Legacy title's superiority, in both game play and story telling.

The superiority of Legacy or Conviction isn't really an argument that can be won in this case. In other cases, there truly are some abysmal quality games that are released under a Franchise name, but that isn't the case here at all. Many reasonable Legacy fans who aren't out to trash Conviction as a way to make their favorite game shine brighter in comparison, state that it was in fact a good and fun game, and what they can't really stand is that it is a 'replacement ' for the game style they favored.

We are getting quality titles under the SC banner still. They have become a different animal. I don't think it's 'entitlement' that generates the "I'm the CEO you better listen to me" type comments we get some times, as much as a sincere desire to transmit just HOW truly upset those particular fans are with the loss of Legacy. Perhaps in the hope that the vehement displeasure will actually urge Ubisoft to change their minds about the creative direction.

Other times though, we really just have gamers who are straight bum holes. I played GRFS last night with one, that no one was talking to in the first place, who just consistently ran off at the suck over the course of the match (before I muted him). There was no rhyme or reason to his displeasure, he seemed to be motivated solely by the actual 'expressing' of his displeasure. He was having a good time spouting expletives and being generally mean and offensive to anyone who had any sort of virtual interaction with him whatsoever. i imagine that had players bothered to investigate and talk to him, they may have found him to not be so bad really, but who cares to make the effort anymore?
I'm personally not interested in befriending someone who "isn't REALLY that bad", when there are plenty of people out there that are more worthy of my limited time.

I hope a way is found to deliver extensions of Legacy play style to fans, I hope the new direction can also be continued and I hope players enjoy their time more. I really don't like the whole us vs them atmosphere, we aren't supposed to be in opposition, it's an Alliance not a competition. We are ALL SC fans.
Ubisoft makes games, before we ever gave them a penny, they had invested in the software they then offered for sale. We got hooked on their gear, we didn't pre pay them to make us something specific. I bought all the Legacy games during their original release cycles. I am STILL buying SC titles as they release. NOTHING has changed at all, Legacy was an evolution of 2D game styles like Rolling Thunder from the arcade days IMO. Tech keeps evolving, the game styles go with it. I see no benefit to swimming upstream. Ask the Salmon....all that work just to end up Bear food.

As far as "entitlement" goes, I genuinely hope that isn't really the case with any fan. Feeling like they in some way 'own' SC is delusional. They own the copies they have at their house, not the IP.

I'm thankful the Dev's listen to us at all to be honest. I've been a fan of this series for so long, and to now have got to a point where the people making it bother to communicate with me, and are actually interested in what we think? That's CRAZY, SC was this anonymous gift for so long, and now I feel like we get to ask for things we want to be in it, and have those requests considered. What a great gaming age we are in.

[shobhit7777777]

^
I don't think it's possible for a long time player to look purely objectively at a franchise

This^

I cannot enjoy SP of Ghost Recon Future Soldier much for that reason. The Core gameplay was great but the overall game was marred by crap mission design and scripted events.

I am fine with franchise direction changes as long as the new entry brings something innovative and fun to the table...probably why I love Conviction and come down hard on GRFS. Future Soldier....inspite of some really good core ideas...shoots itself..in the carotid artery. Conviction redeemed itself with tactical stealth gameplay in Deniable Ops.

[MadamTampini]

wait, WHAT? you SHOT Lambert? wth. i shot four eyes. every. single. time.

i was quite pissed to know that Sam Fisher shot Lambert instead of four eyes in SCC. that's just ridiculous. but what to do... they're the ones writing the story, not me.

Yeah man, isn't there an achievement for it or something? Very painful to pull the trigger, I think I only did it once.

I am fine with franchise direction changes as long as the new entry brings something innovative and fun to the table...probably why I love Conviction and come down hard on GRFS. Future Soldier....inspite of some really good core ideas...shoots itself..in the carotid artery. Conviction redeemed itself with tactical stealth gameplay in Deniable Ops.

I didn't feel like the single player was innovative. Deniable Ops was amusing, I played it with my long-time Splinter Cell friends and had a good time working together to beat it. But it was still not a whole lot reminiscent of Splinter Cell. It was basically Terrorist Hunt in Rainbow Six Vegas 2 with even less replayability in my personal experience. Quite a while after finishing up all the achievements for Conviction I helped out a friend beat the co-op campaign and I honestly felt like I just wanted it to be over with; I was not enjoying it during just my 2nd or 3rd playthrough of the co-op campaign. Such a contrast to the countless times I have played through Ubi Montreal's other SC games (I am much more of a fan of Montreal's work). I've said it before and I'll say it again, a huge problem with the direction of SC is just how simple it has become. Talking about deniable-ops specifically, killing everyone isn't a difficult task when you have a gun and a mechanic that GIVES the player multiple perfect headshots in succession.

Playing... Hunter I think it is? on realistic did take much trial to beat, but it wasn't as immersive as it could have been.

[UbiZack]

Ubi Tor has zero Splinter Cell experience so it's easy for them to create a game without being emotionally involved with it in the same way fans of the franchise are.

Just wanted to offer up a quick correction here.
Our Senior Producer, Creative Director, AI Lead, and Game Director (among others) have all been involved in the SC franchise prior to their work on Blacklist.
I think it's a disservice to suggest that consideration to the legacy is being ignored (let alone, is easy to ignore).
We're also under the Tom Clancy umbrella, which brings with it other standards which ensure we're being true to the stories.

...just wanted to let you know.

[FrankieSatt]

Where does this entitlement stem from that we feel that we have over the Splinter Cell Franchise? This is a question that I've asked myself since getting upset over the changes that came from Double Agent and Conviction. I've wondered why it is that us as the fans feel like we "know" the direction that the games should go. When presented with Sam's story in the past two games, why is it that some of us say... "That's not right." or "This isn't Splinter Cell." Who are we to call the shots on what a Splinter Cell game should be? Is it because we've played all the games for the past 10 years? Is that good enough reason to say that the new games shouldn't be considered Splinter Cell because they don't fulfill our Splinter Cell Fantasy? It's easy to be a critic, but where does that entitlement come from? Why is it that some of us are unwilling to accept change and let Splinter Cell evolve?

I'm curious to hear some responses on this, but I don't want to hear, "Well there's no more Ironside, or too much action, and M&E." I'm well aware of the changes that have been made. I'd rather hear about why some of us feel entitled to call the shots on how Sam's story and games should play out.

Let"s see, we the consumers actually shell out $60.00 for the game so I think that GIVES US THE RIGHT to tell the devs that they are wrong and that have made serious flaws in the game and that it no longer resembles Splinter Cell.

Now, if they wanted to give the game away than of course it would be their right to do what they want. However, when they expect people to shell out $60.00 for a game with a Splinter Cell title and then when you play it and it no longer looks, sounds or plays like Splinter Cell than then it's US the consumer who has the RIGHT to tell them how bad they screwed up.

[FrankieSatt]

Just wanted to offer up a quick correction here.
Our Senior Producer, Creative Director, AI Lead, and Game Director (among others) have all been involved in the SC franchise prior to their work on Blacklist.
I think it's a disservice to suggest that consideration to the legacy is being ignored (let alone, is easy to ignore).
We're also under the Tom Clancy umbrella, which brings with it other standards which ensure we're being true to the stories.

...just wanted to let you know.

They obviously didn't learn anything during that time since Conviction and Blacklist DOES NOT look, sound nor feel like ANYTHING in the previous games. Just because you use the character's names doesn't make it a Splinter Cell game.

[Dutch 028]

Alright, so the discussion on the definition of "entitlement" and whether or not it has positive or negative connotations aside, I think there's been some good insight on here about why we're so passionate about Splinter Cell. I refuse to believe, however, that just because you're paying $60 for a game means that you're going to care so much about it's development. If that's all you're worried about it's a pretty shallow investment.

Let me give an example. I play COD with my buddies and have a good time with it. MW3 was coming out so I figured I'd get it just because I had fun with the franchise before. So I bought it, and expected a great, enjoyable game for my money. Needless to say, I was pretty disappointed all around with the game, and found it a waste of my $60. So I traded it in, and that was that, because I have a shallow investment in the COD franchise. I'll pay my money and expect a good game, and if it blows, whatever, I just won't play it and probably won't buy the next one. Splinter Cell, however, is a completely different ball game for me because my connection with the franchise goes deeper than just giving them $60 and expecting to get my money's worth.

[ExtraKrizpy]

Zack, perhaps a more reassuring statement would have been...

Our Senior Producer, Creative Director, AI Lead, and Game Director (among others) have all been involved in the SC franchise prior to their work on Conviction.