Splinter Cell Conviction

[Ion.67]

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.

Well thank you sir, good to know I can bring up the fanbase of PS!

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.

I am sorry that multi-million dollar companies hurt your feelings.

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.

The fanbase was tiny. I recall seeing at most 350 people online, and I believe that was during the beta. I loved it too; I am here.

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.

I am not defending it; I simply use my brain and acknowledge the fact that games are not made for a certain audience, they are made for all gamers. If people like games that are brainless than I CERTAINLY see why companies do it. It makes them money which is the entire fucking point of their job. Frankly, people like you piss me off who are ignorant little shits.

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.

It makes money is gets done. If more people played CT online then there would be more games of it. If I make a technically superior product, but the inferior product gets bought more, what do I do? I have to conform to get sales or die. No way to make it work for a mass audience = conform to the audiences tastes. I don't understand what you don't get.

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)

First of all I don't think it sold all that well on the Xbox, which was a decently good game. I still have it and it was pretty fun. That could have been a sign. The xbox version was developed by Montreal IIRC, who made CT.

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.

They are coming out BECAUSE they sell. I don't care if you like it or not, the thousands of 10 year olds love that and they will buy it.

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.

A lot of people do take them seriously. I know that sometimes it doesn't translate to sales, but that is mainly for smaller budget movies/games. Ubisoft is not a low budget maker and their games are widely known. If anyone was on the border they will surely buy the game now. Not many games besides RPG's have 25 hours... Was CT a 5/10 game? Unless you include multiplayer which is included in almost every game nowadays.

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.

Not at all. What I am saying, however, is that some people will buy it purely because of its name which is a SALE. People bought World at War because it was COD and were disappointed, and maybe that will happen now. In the end, they sold it regardless of the means.

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?

Why? The 200 people that are disappointed in the game aren't a large number. As I remember it, most people at the UBI forums were all for the game, and I bet most people who aren't on this forum or that forum will still buy it because of good reviews, the name, the new features, or because it looks cool.

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.

I find it funny how you say that in a mocking tone yet I meant it; they can do both. There is more than one person buying the game, and I bet a good number read the review, and I bet a good number don't read it.

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.

There is a mission where if you get spotted, you die. There is a coop mode where if you get spotted it is game over. I am not sure you know enough about the game...

[Farley4Fan]

Ion, in that mission and that mode that you mentioned, you can mark and execute the whole room of people but as long as you remain "hidden" (or black and white) you are A-O.K. 

Whatever they define stealth is what they define stealth.  They are defining it however they want so that they can generate a few hundred thousand more sales.  This does not mean it's a better game. 

I know why they are doing it.  So you can shut the fuck up about your obsession with their money.  It's redundant.  Whether they will make more money or not remains to be seen because it has not yet been put on sale. 

[Ion.67]

Ion, in that mission and that mode that you mentioned, you can mark and execute the whole room of people but as long as you remain "hidden" (or black and white) you are A-O.K. 

Whatever they define stealth is what they define stealth.  They are defining it however they want so that they can generate a few hundred thousand more sales.  This does not mean it's a better game. 

I know why they are doing it.  So you can shut the fuck up about your obsession with their money.  It's redundant.  Whether they will make more money or not remains to be seen because it has not yet been put on sale. 

I never said it was a better game, I was simply stating that their actions were justified. How about you grow a fucking brain before you speak next time? I have stated what I am saying is pure justification and even I don't agree with what they did but I can see why. You ignorant slut you

[CurdyMilk]

How people can argue over absolutely nothing is beyond my knowledge...

[Ion.67]

The fundamental flaw with arguments is that one can never be one because neither side will EVER give up. So this will go on for a while

[Farley4Fan]

Ion, in that mission and that mode that you mentioned, you can mark and execute the whole room of people but as long as you remain "hidden" (or black and white) you are A-O.K. 

Whatever they define stealth is what they define stealth.  They are defining it however they want so that they can generate a few hundred thousand more sales.  This does not mean it's a better game. 

I know why they are doing it.  So you can shut the fuck up about your obsession with their money.  It's redundant.  Whether they will make more money or not remains to be seen because it has not yet been put on sale. 

I never said it was a better game, I was simply stating that their actions were justified. How about you grow a fucking brain before you speak next time? I have stated what I am saying is pure justification and even I don't agree with what they did but I can see why. You ignorant slut you

How about this buddy.  You can go back and count how many times I said that I understand why they did what they did and how many times you kept repeating it, you redundant retard.

[Chinese_Bookey]

I played through the game a few days back. What I hate most about it, other than the shitty gameplay, story, character-rape, and other, is the voice "acting." The main characters I can bear, but there's just so much CONSTANT jabbering and f-bombs from the enemies, and I'm talking about LITERALLY constant. Even when there's NOBODY ALIVE, you can hear people yelling at you. ???

[VaNilla]

I played through the game a few days back. What I hate most about it, other than the shitty gameplay, story, character-rape, and other, is the voice "acting." The main characters I can bear, but there's just so much CONSTANT jabbering and f-bombs from the enemies, and I'm talking about LITERALLY constant. Even when there's NOBODY ALIVE, you can hear people yelling at you. ???

Based upon the demo I have an entirely different opinion. I've personally found the game to be far better than CT in terms of single player gameplay. There is now further importance placed upon the use of gadgets, the enemies are much smarter (especially if you're playing stealthily). You say the enemies are constantly jabbering.... they communicate with each other? They formulate plans together unlike the AI in previous games? May hell rain down upon Conviction! They swear... who cares? They have tried to portray a specific type of personality for the enemies, and they have succeeded. People complain that the game is 'too hollywood', yet they praise the story of the previous games... this negates the fact that the stories of the previous game's have been incredibly predictable. Most people haven't even PLAYED Conviction yet, how could they possibly know that the story is 'too hollywood'?

People are whining about projected text for some reason, apparently it makes the game too easy... the game tells you your objectives in a stylised manner as opposed to using a tiny box? Gosh, these guys are just ruining the franchise aren't they... what a fucking stupid argument. LKP apparently dumbs down the game, how could it possible do that? It tells you your last known position (something we normally already know) in a very stylised manner, and if for some reason you don't know your LKP (for example, your back may be turned to the enemy), it removes an unnecessarily frustrating aspect of the game... what's the problem? Mark and Execute encourages tactical engagement with the enemy to more of an extent than before... but it's also an option which is not forced upon the player, so if you don't want to use your gun to engage enemies, you don't have to (for the most part).

There are only actually a few substantiated complaints regarding the single player gameplay. The removal of carrying bodies makes the player more likely to get spotted by the AI, the ability to use a human shield to hide bodies is no excuse. The black and white filter is a nice idea in theory, but the way it has been designed makes it difficult to see where shadows are (making it difficult to stay hidden), and this also doesn't allow the player to fully appreciate the graphical quality of the game. People complain about the removal of whistling but quite frankly, whistling is a terrible idea, the distraction would realistically place any guard on high alert; I don't miss it. The controls are mainly great, but reloading using the analogue stick for example feels clunky, and could have been easily rectified during play-testing. The co-op looks awesome, as does the multi-player. Admittedly, I think that the multi-player wont be as good as SvM; it simply isn't as interesting or complex, but despite this it still looks like good fun to me :).

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.

I find it mind-numbingly dumb that you believe that notion. They've allowed the player to play in different ways, but they haven't REMOVED the ability to play the game like you could previously. You might not be able to ghost through the whole game, but this has never been entirely possible, ever. We've always had to interrogate enemies, knock-out/kill specific enemies, this game isn't different at all in that respect. Ghosting is still possible for the majority of the game, but even so, ghosting was performed by a very small portion of the target audience, so I challenge you to name an intelligent development team that would make every encounter possible to ghost. Just as they have balanced the game around ghosting, it is a lie to suggest that they have balanced the game for fast paced shooting.

In your post, you also assume that because somebody enjoys playing action games such as "Modern Warfare 2", they're "brainless". I enjoy playing MW2 now and then, does that make me brainless? This narrow-minded assumption says more about your own levels of intelligence than anybody playing a fun game, ;). As a matter of fact, the previous games (except SC1) are extremely easy to play through even on expert with ANY playstyle, they've actually made this game harder, why do you think that we have to think less to play Conviction? We have to think more.


The game has changed its approach to stealth, but this isn't a problem, this is benefitial. The core values of the franchise remain exactly the same, but now that the game has diversified from the previous games, it feels like less of a re-hash and more like a revolution. Some people have wanted this game to fail from the day it was unveiled at E3, they want you to believe that the game is bad. However, now that the demo has been released, and people have seen for themselves the game is actually very good, those same critics who claim to be 'die-hard fans' are scavenging for minor problems with the game, and I find that hilarious. The fact is that this game is awesome despite it's downsides, the idiots who are STILL making unsubstantiated arguments against the game aren't going to change that.

[LennardF1989]

You might not be able to ghost through the whole game, but this has never been entirely possible, ever.

Lennard disagrees.

http://www.xfire.com/profile/lennardf1989/screenshots/

And that's like my 4th run through CT that way (only now decided to screenshot it, not a very good run though). Did the same in DA, only interrogate/kill when STRICTLY told by the objectives, other than that: No stickycams/shockers, No KOing, No killing, No shooting AT ALL, just EMP (in DA I added the sound emitter on top of that).

[frvge]

I 100% ghosted SC1, SCPT and SCCT. Got video proof :P

[tigaer]

I also disagree, I've 100% ghosted CT and DA on expert...

[Ion.67]

Ion, in that mission and that mode that you mentioned, you can mark and execute the whole room of people but as long as you remain "hidden" (or black and white) you are A-O.K. 

Whatever they define stealth is what they define stealth.  They are defining it however they want so that they can generate a few hundred thousand more sales.  This does not mean it's a better game. 

I know why they are doing it.  So you can shut the fuck up about your obsession with their money.  It's redundant.  Whether they will make more money or not remains to be seen because it has not yet been put on sale. 

I never said it was a better game, I was simply stating that their actions were justified. How about you grow a fucking brain before you speak next time? I have stated what I am saying is pure justification and even I don't agree with what they did but I can see why. You ignorant slut you

How about this buddy.  You can go back and count how many times I said that I understand why they did what they did and how many times you kept repeating it, you redundant retard.

Three problems

1) I wasn't only talking to you. In fact I barely responded to you. I responded to you with 1 post and a portion of another post. I was mainly talking to Spekkio. If you were personally offended that I brought up money each time then you should have been even more offended that he was arguing with me about it, on the basis that he started it. You don't even make sense.

2) You said you understand once. You also said, in the same sentence, that is what wrong. Whether it is wrong is completely personal and up to you, but the overall say of what is right or wrong is in the money (redundant I guess). If they do make more money, which I could definitely see happening, it was better for the franchise. Not for you, not for me, but for Ubi who owns the franchise.

3) The fact that we are arguing makes your redundant statement retarded. I am going to keep saying it until you either confirm that you understand and it may have been a good financial decision or until no one brings it up again. In any other case I will bring it up OVER and OVER again. It is my point and has been my point the entire time so don't blame me for defending it.

Also: I am not nor have ever been arguing if this is a better game. I don't think it could be and doubt it is. BUT, what I am saying, is that I see why they did it and understand them, unlike some people. You are trying to bring up new arguments that aren't even close to arguments because everyone will agree that CT > C. Maybe not money wise though, which is all they are going for, which is my point.

[Spekkio]

First of all I don't think it sold all that well on the Xbox, which was a decently good game. I still have it and it was pretty fun. That could have been a sign. The xbox version was developed by Montreal IIRC, who made CT.

Right, but there's a distinct marketing loss when you have to pitch a "last gen" product to people. There are a lot of people who are going to opt out of buying a game because they're not getting the 'good' version of it. Nevertheless, DA on Xbox also got poorer reviews across the board than CT...and while I don't put much stock in reviews in a vacuum, comparative scores of two games on the same system do say a little something.

They are coming out BECAUSE they sell. I don't care if you like it or not, the thousands of 10 year olds love that and they will buy it.

I don't disagree that games like MW2 come out because they sell well, but they're not the only games in the world that have sold well. My point is that your use of action games as an example is a bit off because game companies aren't really releasing anything of note in any other genre. If there was this great puzzle or adventure game that got no sales, then you'd have a point.

A lot of people do take them seriously. I know that sometimes it doesn't translate to sales, but that is mainly for smaller budget movies/games. Ubisoft is not a low budget maker and their games are widely known. If anyone was on the border they will surely buy the game now. Not many games besides RPG's have 25 hours... Was CT a 5/10 game? Unless you include multiplayer which is included in almost every game nowadays.

You're right that not many games have 25 hours of gameplay, which is a significant deficiency in the video game industry in general. Even if you think that 25 hours is too steep, I have beaten quite a few current games that require single-digit playing time to complete the first time around on a normal/medium difficulty. That's simply inexcusable.

Video game review sites are not hard enough on video games, period. Was CT worth a 5/10 based on singleplayer alone? Maybe not, but not worth more than 7. The AI is terrible, singleplayer had more bugs than multiplayer if you actually interacted with the NPC's, and Sam controlled like a sack of bricks on a rusty wheelbarrel.

Not at all. What I am saying, however, is that some people will buy it purely because of its name which is a SALE. People bought World at War because it was COD and were disappointed, and maybe that will happen now. In the end, they sold it regardless of the means.

Yea, but now you're ignoring the long term effects of such a business move. Mission Impossible 2 sold well due to the first movie being good; however, it was terrible in comparison. MI3 was a better movie than 2, but sold much, much worse because the franchise reputation was ruined.

Smart companies like Ubisoft aren't going to base a business decision on how many people they can dupe into purchasing their product one time because it has a well-known name. Name recognition only matters if you can keep that reputation.

Why? The 200 people that are disappointed in the game aren't a large number. As I remember it, most people at the UBI forums were all for the game, and I bet most people who aren't on this forum or that forum will still buy it because of good reviews, the name, the new features, or because it looks cool.

There are going to be more than 200 people out of the millions who purchased CT who are disappointed with the direction of the franchise.

I find it funny how you say that in a mocking tone yet I meant it; they can do both. There is more than one person buying the game, and I bet a good number read the review, and I bet a good number don't read it.

Right, and apparently the people who do read the review ignore the line "This game is entirely different than other Splinter Cell titles," and will just simply skip to the number at hte end, and people who don't will just be shocked when they load the game. So where do the people who make educated decisions come into play?

[Ion.67]

The duping thing isn't duping at all, it is simply just like MI2. I bet they thought the movie was good themselves. I bet UBI thinks this is also good. It is up to the consumers to see if they will buy SC6 after this.

Not many more than 200 though. Even 10,000 isn't a lot when 20,000 will replace them because of how "cool" the game looks.

Right, and apparently the people who do read the review ignore the line "This game is entirely different than other Splinter Cell titles," and will just simply skip to the number at hte end, and people who don't will just be shocked when they load the game. So where do the people who make educated decisions come into play

That was meant as a positive statement no doubt and I will assume that most others will believe it is a good thing also; not because CT was bad but because it was said in a positive way.

[Farley4Fan]

Three problems

1) I wasn't only talking to you. In fact I barely responded to you. I responded to you with 1 post and a portion of another post. I was mainly talking to Spekkio. If you were personally offended that I brought up money each time then you should have been even more offended that he was arguing with me about it, on the basis that he started it. You don't even make sense.

You think you make sense, and you do, but it's just redundant shit.  It's like repeating "Apples are red" over and over and over again.  I don't see what your grand point is. 

2) You said you understand once. You also said, in the same sentence, that is what wrong. Whether it is wrong is completely personal and up to you, but the overall say of what is right or wrong is in the money (redundant I guess). If they do make more money, which I could definitely see happening, it was better for the franchise. Not for you, not for me, but for Ubi who owns the franchise.

I don't have to answer to your stupid ass redundant claims.  How many times have I said it was done for money?  How many times have you repeated that it was done for money and acted like I don't understand this? 

3) The fact that we are arguing makes your redundant statement retarded. I am going to keep saying it until you either confirm that you understand and it may have been a good financial decision or until no one brings it up again. In any other case I will bring it up OVER and OVER again. It is my point and has been my point the entire time so don't blame me for defending it.

The redundance never ends I guess.  I don't have to confirm shit to you when this argument is this retarded.  Look at my posts.  Look at your posts.  You look like an idiot.

Also: I am not nor have ever been arguing if this is a better game. I don't think it could be and doubt it is. BUT, what I am saying, is that I see why they did it and understand them, unlike some people. You are trying to bring up new arguments that aren't even close to arguments because everyone will agree that CT > C. Maybe not money wise though, which is all they are going for, which is my point.

Just because you understand someone's intentions doesn't mean you shouldn't be pissed at them.  "No harm no foul if you make your intentions unclear by your actions but not by your words"  You are being weird.  This may be the dumbest "argument" I've ever had because it's not even an argument.  We agree with eachother and you just keep going around in circles about meaningless shit.  Forget it.