| yo_john117 said: I don't get it. One moment people are mad about a game not having enough changes, and the next minute they are mad about a game changing. There's nothing wrong with change. |
You completely missed the point of my post didn't you? No, in fact there's no way you could have missed it. I was totally clear:
"Chaos Theory was the third game out of the five in the Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell series by Ubisoft, and was my personal favorite When I take a look back at Chaos Theory, I not only see how it represented the peak of the series, and the following decline, but how Ubisoft has betrayed itself, its game, and its original fans.
-->I am NOT against change. <-- I agree with Edmund Burke, the father of conservatism, in that: "A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation"
Compare Chaos Theory and the original Splinter Cell. Chaos Theory is much different from the original. Levels were no longer linear, but were multi pathed, and allowed the revisitations of certain parts. Customizable kits, new gadgets. A brand new Co-op mode to add to the new online mode from Pandora Tomorrow.
Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory has taken away, added, and revised parts of its predecessors.
This is improvement, this is change, and this is good. We should be in a system where there is "perpetual decay, fall, renovation, and progression. Thus, by preserving the method of nature in the conduct of the state, in what we improve, we are never wholly new"."
I'm going to clean up my post and edit it a bit, since I can ultimately only blame myself if you didn't understand it, but c'mon dude...
