richardhutnik said:
Akvod said:
JaggedSac said:
Well, what I am trying to understand is what exactly you are trying to get out of this. Saying the game is not a true sequel does nothing. Neither does saying it is a true sequel. The game is what it is. Nothing will change it.
And you haven't lost anything. The old games are still there for your enjoyment.
|
I think I lost the opportunity to play future installments of Splinter Cell, with the same core gameplay elements.
The reason why I'm asking the question though, is because I do not believe there is a 100% consensus, and you already know that from looking at the poll result and replies. However, I'm very very very frusturated that I haven't gotten 1 legitimate response that actually gives reasons and rationales for why they believe Conviction preserved enough of the first 3 games. I don't just want a consensus, but I actually want to learn the reasoning behind people's opinions, and I'll gotten were:
"Fanboy"
"Why does it matter?"
"It was profitable"
"It was good"
"You can't adapt, lol"
"You're against change"
Nothing like:
"Well, X was in Splinter Cell, and look, here, there's X in Conviction as well!"
So all in all, I have to say that VGChartz's community dissapointed me again. I failed to get any constructive discourse, but the same old shit you get on FNC, the same old chewed up and spat out lines that I keep hearing over and over.
It seems like Splinter Cell isn't the only thing that died...
|
So, please give your full review of Conviction when you have finished it. If you haven't played it, then why is anyone going to take your thoughts seriously about what you have to say about the game?
|
The thread isn't questioning if Conviction is bad or good. I based my thoughts on what Ubisoft says, and what I've seen in the gameplay videos. I've saw Sam running around and shooting people, and the fact that gameplay videos don't give the full pciture is precisely why I'm asking for your guy's input. But you derailed the thread.
