(Video starts where I want it to)

Shetland: Nothing has changed Fisher, and it won't change by degrees. We have to tear it down, and start over, it's the only way.

Fisher: Your own little chaos theory, throw the world into war and hope what comes out the other side will be better?

Shetland: It will be better, because this war will change things, Sam. Every other war has been about keeping things the same, but the status quo doesn't work anymore. America is sick Sam, she's dying. The politicians, the beauacrats, the whispered back room deals, it's all life support for a sick old lady.

Fisher: The only back room deals that I've seen lately were made by you. You're a murderer, and a war criminal.

Shetland: Those are the only names the state has for the revolutionary, Sam. You only become a hero, after the war is over. You know the truth, the world is built from the bottom up, not the other way around. Honor, courage, fidelity, we don't inherit these things from the world Sam, we build the world from them. I know you. You believe in these things more than any government, and I know that because of it, you wouldn't shoot an old friend...

Fisher: You're right Doug, I wouldn't shoot an old friend...

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".

So what's the big deal? Why am I so upset? Isn't Conviction just another evolution, just another change?

Well, like I said, I'm for change, it doesn't even necessarily have to be gradual like Burke wants it, but I REQUIRE that enough of the original is preserved so that I can connect the dots.

The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.

Just as Edmund Burke believed that the people of a state received an inheritance from their ancestors (traditions, systems, etc), I believe that every sequel has received an inheritance from its predecessor. It does not only receive a name, but the soul that the name represented. It has a duty, to preserve the very thing that made up the game, whether its story, character (and their personalities), and game play. To completely, or nearly, destroy and uproot everything that a name represented, its properties, is the same thing as killing the entire entity.

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 that what 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.

I believe that “A spirit of innovation is generally the result of a selfish temper, and confined views”

I believe that “the spirit of freedom, leading in itself to misrule and excess, [should be] tempered with an awful gravity”.

I believe that all Ubisoft did was tear down the ship, while keeping the name.

I believe that Ubisoft has fallen to chaos theory itself, and abandoned the system and value of inheritance.

I believe that Ubisoft has killed Splinter Cell, and that we have lost something beautiful, that will never be regained.

I will find out first thing tomorrow.

Anyone get the game at midnight launch, who can answer this?

I agree with the article but my basis for doing so is the demo as well as all the gameplay footage/developer diaries I've watched.

I also like how the article simply talks about how the series has changed and doesn't bash/praise it for doing so. It's simply stating that it is a different game - and from all I've experienced of it, it truly is a different game at the soul. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on the person.

I will find out tonight

You havent played conviction the only thing you hear is random fanboys crying and 1 reviewer saying the campaign is 5 hours while most reviewers say it isn't correct. Why make this thread now? Isn't it better to play Conviction and then reflect on it and then make this thread?

Won't know until I play it, hopefully this weekend.

I'm not saying Conviction is worse or better, I'm not saying that the game should have never existed, but you have to admit no matter what, that the things that made up Splinter Cell (gameplay) has been killed.

Upset the latest Splinter Cell is not on the PS3?

Are you accusing me of being a fanboy?