Halo: Reach

[Farley4Fan]

At least it has a devoted developer who cares about its fans.  I wish Bungie made splinter cell.

[Cronky]

Errrrmmm... I don't think you'd want to see Bungie attempt Splinter Cell.

They are a great Developer... for FPS games. They, from my knowledge though, have yet to reach anywhere outside of those bounds. (Or really Halo in that sense... Marathon being pre-halo Halo)

I'm sure they'd but a good twist on Splinter Cell or a Splinter Cell style game, but it being their first attempt would make the same type of mistakes they did with Halo 1; as anyone does with their first attempt at something. (No Xbox Live? But WHY?)

Ubisoft MAY be neglecting the Mass of People on their forums talking shit about their game that they are almost done with, but them actually making a new Splinter Cell in general has to count for something.

I'd rather have a Cut up New Game to the series, rather than nothing. Though I'd REALLY rather have a Splinter Cell with all the fixin's; I know I'm not going to get that.

Just my opinion though.

[Spekkio]

At least it has a devoted developer who cares about its fans.  I wish Bungie made splinter cell.

When devs make a sequel, they have to toe the line between making too many changes and releasing a re-hashed copy of the original. At some point, they have to do something revolutionary because even the incremental changes get stale (no one complained that Zelda on N64 was drastically different than the SNES one...well, okay, I complained about the lack of difficulty but that's not inherent to the design change). This is especially true after 4 titles. Devs 'care' about their fans because that's how they get paid.

Or they can leave success alone and focus on making something original, but who would want to do that?

[Aj]

Cronky, the reason there was no XBL play for Halo 1 was that there was no XBL when it released.(at console launch)

XBL came around for the public one year after the console launched.

[Cronky]

I KNEW there was some reason I didn't own an Xbox till well after it was into it's life.

BUT aside from my horrible example, I'm sure there is SOME misstep they took. I don't want to spend too much time trying to think it up (Lest I make a mistake AGAIN!!), but the game wasn't perfect. Even for it's time.

The point I was getting across was Nobody does perfectly the first time, because if you did there'd be no room for improvement. No need for further development.

So a Splinter Cell game from Bungie wouldn't be as Fantastical (Not to say it wouldn't be GOOD). Just because they made a popular FPS doesn't mean they could make a better Splinter Cell.

[Farley4Fan]

At least it has a devoted developer who cares about its fans.  I wish Bungie made splinter cell.

When devs make a sequel, they have to toe the line between making too many changes and releasing a re-hashed copy of the original. At some point, they have to do something revolutionary because even the incremental changes get stale (no one complained that Zelda on N64 was drastically different than the SNES one...well, okay, I complained about the lack of difficulty but that's not inherent to the design change). This is especially true after 4 titles. Devs 'care' about their fans because that's how they get paid.

Or they can leave success alone and focus on making something original, but who would want to do that?

I agree.  But unfortunately I don't think a huge change was warranted in Ubi's case.  No one really was calling for a large change in fact the small changes they made to the formula in DA had a huge backlash before the game was even releasedn  People wanted evolution not a revolution.  If you are going to do a revolution you better make it the best game ever (OOT) or suffer the consequences (Conviction).  Bungie is walking that fine line and is managing to keep the series fresh for the fans with the additions and changes that help the gameplay (not hurt it).

I KNEW there was some reason I didn't own an Xbox till well after it was into it's life.

BUT aside from my horrible example, I'm sure there is SOME misstep they took. I don't want to spend too much time trying to think it up (Lest I make a mistake AGAIN!!), but the game wasn't perfect. Even for it's time.

The point I was getting across was Nobody does perfectly the first time, because if you did there'd be no room for improvement. No need for further development.

So a Splinter Cell game from Bungie wouldn't be as Fantastical (Not to say it wouldn't be GOOD). Just because they made a popular FPS doesn't mean they could make a better Splinter Cell.

I wasn't saying that Bungie should make Splinter Cell I was just saying that I wish Ubi cared about its devoted customer as much as Bungie obviously does.

[Cronky]

I wasn't saying that Bungie should make Splinter Cell I was just saying that I wish Ubi cared about its devoted customer as much as Bungie obviously does.

My bad about the misinterpretation of what you said, but no need to dwell on THAT!

I wont say Bungie doesn't care about their fans. They have brought a lot of new and exciting things to the table for both game based play and Fan based. The only thing I see though is that their property... their gameplay... their world they've created ALLOWS them to do that. New weapons are because their game and world allow. Bungie.Net is all because of varying gameplay (I can only watch people headshotting each other so much, or getting a Multi-kill... What you can do outside of that is the heart of why it's there), stats, and community. New Vehicles, Forge Mode, Online Co-op... The list is endless, but at the same time only because what they made allows it. Splinter Cell is a harder cup to find the appropriate saucer for.

Since I wouldn't say Ubisoft doesn't listen to their fans. Hell if they didn't listen to SOMEBODY I think we would of had a Hobo Sam to run around with which also had some kind of "Hero Sense" which is now Sonar Vision. Ubisoft could add things like Bungie.net. Stat tracking is stat tracking... They tried re-vamping SvM 3 times. Co-op is getting it's third(?) iteration now. Deniable Ops is something new to play with.

Where as Halo can be more Fan Attributed cosmetically; Splinter Cell can, but only in a completely different kind of way.

You say they don't care, but I say that you just don't notice the things they are doing.

Splinter Cell isn't the only game Ubisoft has to work on which isn't the case with Bungie (They may want to make a new IP, but they have yet to). They don't have the luxury of spending their time updating their gameplay, the story, the mechanics. Since they have to put a game out, and then move onto a completely different entity. Returning to a Bookmarked page in a book isn't the same as reading the whole book in one sitting. You lose some of that drive, that ambition, and imagination that got you and the character to where you are now.

I still think Convictions is Ubisoft's way of going "How many ways can we take Single Player and make it seem different", but the point is they are actually making a new Splinter Cell. After lackluster reviews of DA. A lesser company would just drop it if they felt they were running out of steam with their creative liberties.

[Spekkio]

No one really was calling for a large change in fact the small changes they made to the formula in DA had a huge backlash before the game was even releasedn  People wanted evolution not a revolution.  If you are going to do a revolution you better make it the best game ever (OOT) or suffer the consequences (Conviction).

Purely speculation on your part.

Every large company in America has a marketing dept. that analyzes sales data and attempts to predict future consumer desires. These people, while not infallable, have a lot more training in the area than you and I. If DA didn't sell as well as CT (and I'm presuming it didn't), then there is a problem and Ubisoft has to figure out how to fix it.

SCDA's singleplayer wasn't really "revolutionary" at all. Their multiplayer was, but we've already established that Splinter Cell's multiplayer was a very small percentage of the SC fanbase anyway.

[Farley4Fan]

You say they don't care, but I say that you just don't notice the things they are doing.

Well I think if they cared they'd notice.  Right?  (good post but I still think they don't care)

No one really was calling for a large change in fact the small changes they made to the formula in DA had a huge backlash before the game was even releasedn  People wanted evolution not a revolution.  If you are going to do a revolution you better make it the best game ever (OOT) or suffer the consequences (Conviction).

Purely speculation on your part.

Every large company in America has a marketing dept. that analyzes sales data and attempts to predict future consumer desires. These people, while not infallable, have a lot more training in the area than you and I. If DA didn't sell as well as CT (and I'm presuming it didn't), then there is a problem and Ubisoft has to figure out how to fix it.

SCDA's singleplayer wasn't really "revolutionary" at all. Their multiplayer was, but we've already established that Splinter Cell's multiplayer was a very small percentage of the SC fanbase anyway.

Good points.  And you'd think that if DA didn't sell as well as CT then they'd go back to what made CT a good game rather than completely rebooting it - unless they didn't even think CT's sales were good enough.  Damn greed.

[Cronky]

@PapaSkull

To each his own.

BUT THE POINT OF THIS POST IS!!!!

...You notice that your User Image isn't there anymore, right??? Instead it's that "Oh look, the image isn't available anymore... go check free-image.com" kind of thing!

[Spekkio]

And you'd think that if DA didn't sell as well as CT then they'd go back to what made CT a good game rather than completely rebooting it

DA was fairly similar to CT singleplayer wise, and since singleplayer is driving 99% of sales...

[frvge]

The next version to a good one sold most.
So SCPT and SCDA sold more than SC1 and SCCT.

I'm unable to back that up with numbers, but you'll have to trust me on that one.

[Farley4Fan]

And you'd think that if DA didn't sell as well as CT then they'd go back to what made CT a good game rather than completely rebooting it

DA was fairly similar to CT singleplayer wise, and since singleplayer is driving 99% of sales...

I see what you are saying.  I'm stuck in the modern sense of things I think.  MP is more important to most people than single player is nowadays.  Of course you'll have the people who still think SP is important (ala Bioshock 2 backlash) but most people want a good versus/coop mode.  Did things really change that fast?

For me personally, if I'm going to buy a game, then it needs to have strong replay value and that usually comes in the form of a deep multiplayer mode.  Sometimes not (ala ME2).

[Spekkio]

MP is more important to most people than single player is nowadays.

Again, speculation on your part.

[Farley4Fan]

You don't think single player is fading, spek?