PDA

View Full Version : Great Job Ubisoft



realmike15
06-14-2010, 09:01 AM
You took everything that was great with AC and left it alone, and then you added things to improve the game.

People who designed Splinter Cell: Conviction should be taking notes.

When you have a game that scored some of the highest numbers ever from game reviewers. You leave the core game mechanics alone, and improve on what you have. What you don't do is try to recreate an entirely new game, and just throw everything that made the game great away. It was a failure with Double Agent, and it was another failure with Conviction.

But more importantly, you made an amazing game with AC2. Venice is stunning to walk through, and the free roaming climbing mechanics are even better than before. Everything you do has a reason behind it, like tearing down posters to reduce your notoriety. It all just makes sense. The open ended approaches to each mission just adds to the fun. There's always room for improvement sure, but AC2 has come a long way from AC1.

Again, can't begin to tell you what a great job you did with AC2. Now go talk to the people who did Splinter Cell Conviction, and tell them to stop screwing with a good thing. Help them with the next one, guide them through the process of improving a game that works, instead of revamping the entire game.

Mike

Xanatos2007
06-14-2010, 10:14 AM
Er, they didn't do everything right:

1. The assassinations were too frequent and impersonalized. I like to get stabby as much as anyone, even more so, but I felt my assassinations lacked a real reason. In AC1 you spent a lot of time researching your targets and discovered their true intentions for what they did; it made them seem like actual people. Compare that to AC2 and it's very much like gang warfare: they hand you a gun/blade, point at a bad guy with a big hat and say "kill they a***".

2. When Ubisoft heard that the fans wanted a bit more variety they went a little overboard with the whole thing. The gun, poison blade, coin-throwing and the entire economic system in general were only put in there for giggles. Who really needs to purchase & upgrade 30 different weapons and 4 sets of armour? The most effective tools at your disposal you get for free anyway. You can finish the entire game using nothing but your hidden blades (and your fists if you're feeling giddy) and Altair's armour doesn't cost a penny - neither of which can be disarmed or need repairing, with the hidden blades still killing in one counter-attack. And most of the sidequests seem a little out of context as well; where exactly does a Master Assassin find the time or reason to act as an aggressive marriage counselor or equally aggressive postman? Not to mention the races against old men in dirty beanies. If somebody questioned his speed shouldn't Ezio just punch him into the dirt & move on? He's an badass Italian Assassin, for Christ's sake! Even the assassination contracts felt a bit dull; I never really understood who I was killing or why. Even though it says it in the mission briefing, but I still felt like a hitman rather than an Assassin, with Lorenzo de'Medici playing as the Godfather. Heck, even 47 gets more detailed history on his targets even though he's a stone-cold, indiscriminate, emotionless killer... literally.

Overall the game became too easy. Not saying it was a bad game, but for every step Ubisoft took forward they also took one step back, making it appear worse than AC1 because it's a sequel and sequels are expected to be better... for some reason (has society learned nothing?)
And yeah, Conviction was terrible as a SC sequel. It felt more like a hybrid of Rainbow Six: Vegas and Batman: Arkham Asylum than a Splinter Cell stealth game.

wanderer77
06-14-2010, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Xanatos2007:
Er, they didn't do everything right:

1. The assassinations were too frequent and impersonalized. I like to get stabby as much as anyone, even more so, but I felt my assassinations lacked a real reason. In AC1 you spent a lot of time researching your targets and discovered their true intentions for what they did; it made them seem like actual people. Compare that to AC2 and it's very much like gang warfare: they hand you a gun/blade, point at a bad guy with a big hat and say "kill they a***".

2. When Ubisoft heard that the fans wanted a bit more variety they went a little overboard with the whole thing. The gun, poison blade, coin-throwing and the entire economic system in general were only put in there for giggles. Who really needs to purchase & upgrade 30 different weapons and 4 sets of armour? The most effective tools at your disposal you get for free anyway. You can finish the entire game using nothing but your hidden blades (and your fists if you're feeling giddy) and Altair's armour doesn't cost a penny - neither of which can be disarmed or need repairing. And most of the sidequests seem a little out of context as well; where exactly does a Master Assassin find the time or reason to act as an aggressive marriage counselor or equally aggressive postman? Not to mention the races against old men in dirty beanies. If somebody questioned his speed shouldn't Ezio just punch him into the dirt & move on? He's an badass Italian Assassin, for Christ's sake! Even the assassination contracts felt a bit dull; I never really understood who I was killing or why. Even though it says it in the mission briefing, but I still felt like a hitman rather than an Assassin, with Lorenzo de'Medici playing as the Godfather. Heck, even 47 gets more detailed history on his targets even though he's a stone-cold, indiscriminate, emotionless killer... literally.

Not saying it was a bad game, but for every step Ubisoft took forward they also took one step back, making it appear worse than AC1 because it's a sequel and sequels are expected to be better (has society learned nothing?)
And yeah, Conviction was terrible as a SC sequel. It felt more like a hybrid of Rainbow Six: Vegas and Batman: Arkham Asylum than a Splinter Cell stealth game.

wat ubi did was exactly wat fans wanted. variety, now we have it. as for the hitman thing, well, short simple and sweet, who really enjoyed listening to Al Mualim go on an on talking in circles for the 100th time? long speeches are boring. i realize story is important, but i only need to hear the speeches 2 or 3 times to get the whole story. giving us a skip cinematic button for when we replay missions would solve the problem, would make AC1 much more enjoyable. but yeah since they wont give us a skip button + long speech, i rather have short speech/short explanation + no skip button.

Xanatos2007
06-14-2010, 10:48 AM
They even failed on that; fans said "skip button", Ubisoft replied "synopsis". They also bragged on about 'interactive cutscenes', but they happened so fast & so rarely that you didn't know when they were going to happen or what button to press and most of the time either ended up with a candlestick to the cranium or a fellow NPC feeling unloved. They spent too much time & money on variety and advertising campaigns that they didn't really focus on anything specific.

Great job Ubisoft, now go and sit in a corner. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Black_Widow9
06-14-2010, 12:37 PM
Please post in one of the Feedback Threads. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/7271009487)
Thanks

<span class="ev_code_RED">Topic Closed</span>