Splinter Cell Conviction

[Farley4Fan]

I guess you work for Ubisoft then.

Look, of course it was a decision made with money in mind.  It doesn't mean that it's a good decision for the franchise and its fans.  And that's what we are.  You shouldn't give a shit about their finances.  Give a shit about the games they release.  k?

[Ion.67]

No? They apparently made a good game that sells a lot; that is their job. Not to please a select few but to make money. I can't think of any company that should be worried about anything BESIDES money. That is why companies are made and are successful.

If you are saying I should care about the games and let them worry about it, then sure. I do. But they still made a smart decision if this sells more copies. Which it will. It is a definitely sound basis for their decisions.

[Farley4Fan]

Thank you for stating the obvious, again.

You don't seem to understand that there was no difference between soiling the franchise and making a financial decision in this case.  They were done at the same time.

They don't give a flying shit about Splinter Cell so why should I give a shit about their wallets?  If they tell the fans to fuck off then I should be able to return the favor. 

[Spark Mandriller]

No? They apparently made a good game

i know i've got a hidamari sketch jpeg around here somewhere...


(yes i have decided that this game sucks without having played it thank you very much for noticing)

[Cronky]

Stealth is not a huge part of the gameplay.  It is now just a tool, rather than the game style.  Previously, Sam would kill so that he could stay hidden, and now he hides so that he can continue to kill. 

Stealth has always been "Just a Tool". Regardless of the fact that they force you to use it in the first 4 games, they always gave an option for the "Less Stealthy" of us. Just because they've given you a gun and a fun ability to tag along with it doesn't mean that you HAVE to change your tactics/the game has been changed FOREVER. Conviction's style is much in the same as previous Splinter Cells. Sneak around until you fuck up and get caught. The difference between older SC and this one being what you'd do at this point.

I'm not going to say this game is perfect. To me this is the transition game. Much to my previous point in which games changed, for better or for worse. This is the Donkey Kong 64, Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, or Metroid Prime for the series. It's a test of features. SC6 could be that game that you actually wanted, but they need you to take a detour so you actually see how this is evolving.

Just as a little side note... Did you even play the demo? You talk as if you just watched all the videos on Mark and Execute then formed an opinion.

To Rocket, Fuck Off.

[frvge]

The main problem is that I define stealth as being grossly outnumbered and outpowered, meaning you lose when you get spotted. A game like Velvet Assassin got that right. If you got spotted, you were basically dead.

With SCC's design, the player is all powerful, defeating or at least diminishing the point of stealth.

Being able to ghost through depends on the quality of the levels and the environmental art for mood. Velvet Assassin lacked in that.

I dream about making a SP that has an entirely unarmed protagonist who is able to do some CqC stuff and pick up a gun to use the rest of the magazine (like Faith in Mirror's Edge) but that's it.

[Cronky]

That's a legit thought. Stealth can be about you in that situation, but you have to have a reason to be in it too.

SCC makes sense because you are a highly trained agent. You can shape Sam as whatever minor sub-type you want whether he be the guy that Never uses a gun, or the one who screams down a hallway guns blazing. It all comes back to the fact that he should/does have these abilities. Previous SC's merely forcing upon you that all he is REALLY good at is being Sneaky/Finding funny ways to interrogate people.

When it comes to making a game like the one you mentioned the character really does shape the situation. Faith made sense that she never had a gun, but knew how to use one. She was meant to Free Run with light packages and light clothing. Able to have immediate situational awareness, and improvise from said ability. Carrying/Bringing a gun would only weigh her down. To make a similar situation without the restraints is a tough call design-wise.

Realistically if there were no reasons to not bring a gun, a person who was planning to kill would probably bring one. So finding the right character would probably be one of the tougher thoughts to think up in this game of yours. Else you come up with...

"I'm a highly trained unarmed fighter that has knowledge of guns, but ONLY likes to use them when I pick them up off the bodies of those I've bested. Sure some people ask me why I don't just bring a gun prior, but to them I have but one answer... I like the challenge."

[Ion.67]

Thank you for stating the obvious, again.

You're welcome

You don't seem to understand that there was no difference between soiling the franchise and making a financial decision in this case.  They were done at the same time.

I never said it wasn't. What is "soiling" to you is going to make them much more money AND make a great game for others to play. I can see how stealth would be boring for some people. A majority of people actually. When most people play video games, they want action and adventure, not hiding for minutes at a time. If you liked that, then great! Go play a game where you can do that! As a company, decisions that makes you more money are good decisions (most cases). There are a few who will miss stealth, and there are MANY who will enjoy the choices. You < general public (in terms of any companies standpoint).

Any company who will keep a game that sells 10,000 copies over a game that sells 1,000,000 copies will go out of business because of their poor choice.

Example: Rainbow 6. It was so tactical to begin with. I believe raven shield on the computer was the game I played, and was quite young. I never beat the first mission because I didn't understand it all. So, fast forward a few years to R6V. That game was definitely toned down for the mass public, and it was an EPIC success. It went from a game that was all about planning to a game that was all about fun. I loved Raven Shield even though I never beat the first level (it was in like an oil field with trains or something...the memories) because of how it was played. I loved R6V because it was a fun shooter with good graphics that still had some tactics. If a few thousand people were upset and boycotted R6V but another 1,000,000 bought it, who wins? The developers. They obviously made a more accessible game that appealed more.

If you are trying to tell me that they made a bad decision you are retarded. I probably won't even buy it but I can definitely see a justification of why they did what they did. DA on the other hand was a failure in all senses, and I beat it on 360 and XBOX (different versions) simply because I thought it was going to be good. XBOX >>>>>360 on that game btw.

They don't give a flying shit about Splinter Cell so why should I give a shit about their wallets?  If they tell the fans to fuck off then I should be able to return the favor.

They obviously do;they developed 5 games about a single game. Sure, the core mechanic has been altered, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still the same game. If anything, you can still stealth through it. It is still there. Simply giving the choice of being aggro all of the time doesn't RUIN anything, only enhances the game for others who don't have the same interests as yourself.

Again, YOU <<<<< Mass public. You don't buy it, but 1,000 others will take your place. Get over it, you didn't get your way.

The main problem is that I define stealth as being grossly outnumbered and outpowered, meaning you lose when you get spotted. A game like Velvet Assassin got that right. If you got spotted, you were basically dead.

You can play like this if you would like. Don't use the guns? That sounds silly but in CT sometimes we had games where we would turn the quality on the MT down just so we could have more fun. It is all the same.

I would have loved another CT, but they simply needed more money than they were getting.

[Spekkio]

Ion,

SCCT sold millions of copies. In fact, it was one of Ubi's best selling games of all time when it was released. I also believe it was one of the Xbox's best selling games, but I'm too lazy to look that up right now. To surmise that Ubi decided to turn the franchise upside down because the "old" Splinter Cell gameplay wasn't selling or that Ubi "needs more money" is absurd. Neither explanation accurately represents or acknowledges the historical sales of the franchise.

The portion of the public who liked the "old" Splinter Cell is very significant, and Ubi stands to potentially lose a lot of money on this gambit with very little to gain. I wouldn't be buying stock in Ubi based on this decision, that's for sure.

@Cronky,

Your examples of Nintendo games are all centered around Nintendo bringing a franchise to newer technology. Zelda 2, one of the only games that is a sequel on your list that uses the same gaming interface as its predecessor, was poorly received, as was Majora's Mask.

[frvge]

Xbox 360 version is cracked btw.

[Ion.67]

SCCT sold millions of copies. In fact, it was one of Ubi's best selling games of all time when it was released. I also believe it was one of the Xbox's best selling games, but I'm too lazy to look that up right now. To surmise that Ubi decided to turn the franchise upside down because the "old" Splinter Cell gameplay wasn't selling or that Ubi "needs more money" is absurd. Neither explanation accurately represents or acknowledges the historical sales of the franchise.

Without looking anything up, I bet DA didn't sell as well. Looking at more recent games that have came out, people are more apt to by an action game than a stealthy slow game. MW2 sold a ton of copies. They made MW2 just like the original because of how it did. Now, Conviction could have gone two ways; back to SC roots or branched out. It is only logical to add more features to a game than take away some. It has been said that you can full stealth missions, which I am sure you can. Just because you have the option of killing everyone doesn't mean you have to. If anything this game is the original game plus added options.

The portion of the public who liked the "old" Splinter Cell is very significant, and Ubi stands to potentially lose a lot of money on this gambit with very little to gain. I wouldn't be buying stock in Ubi based on this decision, that's for sure.

The game got a 9.3, I am willing to bet it is more than decent and will be picked up by a whole lot of people. You also fail to take into account that out of the millions that bought CT, most probably don't know about the controversy over this game. They will either think the new things are great or still stealth their way through places. A select few follow the game as close as us fanatics, and maybe they won't buy it.

Can we at least both agree that VS being taken out was a smart business move?

[Spekkio]

Without looking anything up, I bet DA didn't sell as well.

DA wasn't nearly as good of a game as CT, the Xbox 360 was still new, and the game simply didn't work on many PCs. It follows that if you put out a worse product exclusively for a newly released $600 system, in addition to a non-functional PC release that required state-of-the-art hardware, it won't sell as well.

(Yes I know DA was released for Xbox, but that was a different game for all intents and purposes)

Looking at more recent games that have came out, people are more apt to by an action game than a stealthy slow game. MW2 sold a ton of copies.

Name some good non-action/FPS games that have come out in the last quarter. Action games are selling because that's all there really is right now. It's also why I haven't bought a new game in quite some time. There's something about hiding behind chest-high-walls for 5 minutes waiting for my arm to grow back that isn't very appealing to me. Or maybe it's the fact that I'd rather opt to just go balls to wall since I'll respawn in the same spot with full health and ammo without having to wait 5 minutes behind a chest-high-wall for my arm to grow back.

The game got a 9.3, I am willing to bet it is more than decent and will be picked up by a whole lot of people.

I don't put a lot of stock into video game review sites. I've seen some very mediocre games get 8/10 or better *cough* Resident Evil 5 *cough.* If I didn't know any better, I'd think there was some money exchange present to ensure blockbuster titles got good reviews. But hey, I'm also of the opinion that if your game doesn't have at least 25 hours worth of gameplay (not including unnecessarily long cut scenes with terrible acting), the score should automatically start at 5/10 since you're only buying half a game.

Additionally, reviews don't always translate into sales. Rotten Tomatoes posts both movie reviews and box office sales, and there are many movies that score 90%+ that don't sell well, and many that score as low as 30% that do sell well.

You also fail to take into account that out of the millions that bought CT, most probably don't know about the controversy over this game.

So what you're saying is that it's a smart business move because some people will purchase it expecting classical Splinter Cell gameplay without researching the title? Yea, tricking your customers is a great long-term business plan to ensure future profits.

It is going to be very difficult for Ubisoft to top previous sales of the SC franchise up to and including SCCT, even if Conviction was the greatest game ever, because the series sold extremely well up to that point. It would have to be picked up by "a whole lot of people" and then some. The fact that the game is completely different is going to turn away a sizeable portion of its vast preexisting fan base. You honestly think that Conviction will sell better than CT after that?

I also find it funny that in one breath, you use favorable reviews as a reason why people would purchase SCC, yet in the next breath you say that people are going to purchase the game without reading the reviews.

Can we at least both agree that VS being taken out was a smart business move?

I am only referring to single player in this discussion.

[krinking]

I pretty much just made this account so I could post here and say that Ion.67 is being a smelly anus. Everything that Farley Fan has posted is entirely correct in my opinion, which is also entirely correct.

I am entirely disgusted by the amount of games that are made dumber and dumber with each new release so the game is more accessible to a bunch of fools that shouldn't even be playing them in the first place.

There has not been a truly enjoyable online experience since CT. It absolutely sucks that they ruin all the entertaining aspects of basically every Ubisoft title so a bunch of morons don't have to think so hard.

Frankly, people like Ion.67 piss me off to an extreme level as I watch them try to defend the idea of worsening good things in order to have a few more brainless action-game fans and a subtle revenue increase.

Some asshole that can't use their brain does not need to play Splinter Cell, they can stick to Modern Warfare 2 and other horrific games like it. There is no need to turn SC multiplayer into Army of Two because everyone knows that was silly enough by itself.

[CurdyMilk]

I pretty much just made this account so I could post here and say that Ion.67 is being a smelly anus.
Frankly, people like Ion.67 piss me off to an extreme level as I watch them try to defend the idea of worsening good things in order to have a few more brainless action-game fans and a subtle revenue increase.

ROFL

[Farley4Fan]

Stealth is not a huge part of the gameplay.  It is now just a tool, rather than the game style.  Previously, Sam would kill so that he could stay hidden, and now he hides so that he can continue to kill. 

Stealth has always been "Just a Tool". Regardless of the fact that they force you to use it in the first 4 games, they always gave an option for the "Less Stealthy" of us. Just because they've given you a gun and a fun ability to tag along with it doesn't mean that you HAVE to change your tactics/the game has been changed FOREVER. Conviction's style is much in the same as previous Splinter Cells. Sneak around until you fuck up and get caught. The difference between older SC and this one being what you'd do at this point.

I don't think you understand by what I wrote.  I meant that the game is now focused on straight up killing, rather than sneaking.  You used to kill people to stay hidden, and now you semi-hide so that you can kill people.  I don't like this new direction that was taken for 10 year olds and their mother's money.

I'm not going to say this game is perfect. To me this is the transition game. Much to my previous point in which games changed, for better or for worse. This is the Donkey Kong 64, Super Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, or Metroid Prime for the series. It's a test of features. SC6 could be that game that you actually wanted, but they need you to take a detour so you actually see how this is evolving.

I hope it is.  There's has been a lot of talk about returning to the roots ever since the old conviction went completely quiet.  I was stoked when I saw the new Conviction since there was at least SOME shadow stealth.  It looked cool from the E3 demo from about a year ago.  But now, after having seen countless videos and playing the demo a few times, it's a major step back.  It will hold my attention for about 2 days - maybe.

Just as a little side note... Did you even play the demo? You talk as if you just watched all the videos on Mark and Execute then formed an opinion.

Go to page one.  I explained my wonderful experiences with the demo.

To Rocket, Fuck Off.