slowmo said:
The difference is many people realise gaming is a big business and companies want to make money. If Ubisoft keep churning out the same old formula time after time with very little evolution then you end up getting to the stage Tomb Raider did, which is a steady but measurable decline in franchise quality until your IP is near enough worthless. Perhaps this series reboot is a step in the right direction to bring in new fans and freshen up what was becoming an old IP. I'm sorry you guys feel somehow "betrayed" by the direction taken but I'm 100% confident that its a decision taken in the best interests of the franchise being around for years to come, rather than just churn out the same old Sam to please the old timers. |
*sigh*
From the OP:
"I understand that Ubisoft is seeking to make a profit. I understand that there were many things that non-fans of the series of the original games didn't like. I understand all these things. But even if you believe thatwhat the course of Ubisoft did was correct, you MUST admit that all Ubisoft did was preserve the Splinter Cell name, and killed Splinter Cell itself."
The thread isn't evaluating Ubisoft's action as good, although I'm making it known that I personally disaprove. I'm asking if you guys agree if Conviction is simply an evolution, or a revolution. If the previous Splinter Cell is preserved enough to make Conviction an actual sequel, rather than something closer to a spinoff.
I feel like we keep going in circles, and repeating the same things, even when I already covered them in the OP.
