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?

Akvod, I've been very patient with you but might I be so bold as to suggest that there is a very simple reason so many people aren't "grasping" your thread. Quite simply you don't have a end goal for this discussion other than to hate on Conviction, that much is quite clear. You have from the first page insulted people who had a polar opposite viewpoint to yourself and not actually debated anything but tried to tell people they're wrong and it's your thread. Your OP is extremely disjointed and badly written with a over reliance on people watching videos which is ridiculous.

Let me sum up by saying you never had a valid point, its just a subjective opinion by each individual. I answered you question in my previous post and you just claimed you covered that in the OP, sorry but a debate doesn't work by you just saying lalalalala.

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.

slowmo, I've been very patient with you. Let's accept that I made shitty points, and that I somehow only insult people for disagreeing.

But aren't you doing the same? Are you not simply saying "Akvod, you're wrong, you're a fanboy", without citing my post and pointing out specificly why it's wrong? This is exactly what I want, for you guys to bring up contrary evidence, and to engage in civil discourse. I've been "insulting" you guys, not for disagreeing with me, but for disagreeing with me without any substance.

It's a subjective opinion, but we can argue in an objective manner by agreeing upon a common criteria, and facts.

"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."

You argued, I think at least, that Conviction is simply a change, and did not abandon the core gameplay. You also brought up irrelevant points about profitability, and whether change is good.

My question was, did Conviction depart from the core gameplay or not? You may have said "No", but you didn't back it up with any substance. Please point out what Conviction retain, and why you believe it's enough.

Your argument was based on that change is good, and shouldn't be opposed. I already covered in my OP that change is good, and shouldn't be opposed. So it was perfectly valid for me to go down on your ass for not properly reading my OP.

Try not insulting anyone for a start, then people might have been more willing to engage in debate with you.  I'm not the only person that has read this thread and got a distinct impression that you're not interested in changing your opinion at all, this might not be true but the perception you've given people means you'll not get the discussion you crave.  I'm done with your thread anyway so feel free to carry on, I doubt you'll be posting next week if you carry on in the manner you've posted up until now in here.

Goodbye, it makes no difference if you stayed here anyway, since you weren't willing to add anything to the discussion, but derail it.

I am going to attempt to keep this remotely on subject and having this thread thread have some value, by commenting as follows:

Do you recall the discussions people have had about Super Mario Bros. Wii?  I also see it regarding other games to, where developers are called "lazy".  In short, whenever developers tend to stick real close to an established formula, they get ripped as "lazy" and "milking a franchise".  Dynasty Warriors also falls into that.  There is a question, more simply, of whether or not a franchise should attempt to mix it up, and if a genre should change.  Take, for example, JRPGs.  Sales of new JRPGs haven't gone well.  The formula has gotten stale and sales haven't been all that.  Western RPGs have done a LOT better this generation.

So, what does this mean for the genre of stealth and a franchise like Splinter Cell?  Is it appropriate that it attempt to evolve and do new things, or should it be stuck in the same old mold of being detected means FAIL in a mission?  And would this mean a franchise is "dead" as you put it?  Could things branch out into aggressive stealth and still be acceptable?  Or, could we face a situation where stealth, like the case of adventure, rolls into other genres and becomes something larger?

On this note, I will then ask you: Is the genre known as "stealth" now officially dead, with Splinter Cell joining Metal Gear in getting away from "being detected"  equals "mission failed"?

Like I said, I think that change is good, butcreating a completely new game, scrapping the CORE game mechanics, while using the series name to simply push for sales, is abusing and taking advantage of the core fanbase, and does a diservice to the series name.

See, you are derailing the thread. I've established that I'm not opposed to change. The question was, whether or not Conviction is simply a healthy change, or a completely scrapping of the original gameplay. So I'm assuming that you're arguing that it's only a change, an evolution, fine.

But you've written 2 whole paragraphs about something I established in the original post. That is why I'm saying you're derailing the thread. The question is not if change is good or not, but if the game was simply a change, or "chaos". I would have rathered you wrote 2 paragraphs why Conviction is just a change, citing specific examples and features that were preserved, rather than just repeating what I said in the very beginning.

I believe that stealth, in general (not Splinter Cell's core mechanics though. For instance, let's establish that MGS and SC are stealth games. However, MGS is based on some bullshit camoflauge system (which I hate), whereas Splinter Cell is a shadow based system. If SC and MGS were to switch, I would cede that Splinter Cell is still a stealth game, but that it's name was tarnished because it lost its core mechanics (in fact, it has literally just switched names with MGS))

... ok that was a bad use of parathantheses XD

Anyway, I define stealth in general as:

1) Giving the player a character inept at upfront combat.

2) Giving players a means to avoid straight up combat

I believe Conviction fails at stealth in general (note that this is offtopic, since the question is not even if Conviction is still a stealth game, but if it's a Splinter Cell game) because it allows you to handle a situation with pure brute force. It is also a bad stealth game, if we were to accept it as one, because it dumbs it down too much. It's like how in Uncharted 2, you can run and jump behind someone. I don't know what sound mechanics Conviction has from the gameplay, but my impression is that there's very little emphasis on precision (that's where you come in, to confirm or deny).

In other ways, it also butchered the character of Sam Fisher. I understand that losing your daughter is harsh, but it's like how I felt when Apollo died in Rocky III. It seemed like a bullshit attempt for some drama and tragedy. We already had enough anxtsy protagonist who lost a loved one, and is out for revenge.

The cool thing about Sam was that he was totally an anti-anti hero. We already have enough Conviction Fishers that use that tried and tired anti-hero archetype. Screaming at people, beating the shit out of people, disgrunteled at the cruel world, etc.

'

Sam was awesome because he was an old dude. Not some young action hero.

Sam was cool, because he was both a patriot and traditionalist, but also gets his hands dirty (as I showed in the Chaos Theory trailer in my OP)

He doesn't bitch, he doesn't cry, he sleeps in a ditch filled with dead bodies, he kills his best friend (Shetland), etc. He was a very maculine figure, but without going the cliche figure.

So he was a blend of traditional and anti-hero.

IDK dude, I can keep ranting if you want, but I'll appreciate it if you give me your opinion for once... again, read the OP, and don't go over things we've already established and covered.

The topic is:

Does Conviction retain enough of Splinter Cell, to be able to be considered an proper adaptation of the previous games?

In other words, is it Splinter Cell, or did just switch its name with say, Metal Gear Solid, going with my previous example.

I think Zucas, SlumsofOhio and JPL78 have answered the OP. So why is this thread still going on?

In case no one bothered to read the only posts that have substance in this whole thread, yes, the game is no longer in the "spirit" of the original games. That said, it seems like most people are enjoying the game for what it is.

/thread now?

I'll prefer to get some contrary opinions and argumentｓ

It's always a good thing to have civil discourse and debate, as long as it's contructive, on topic, and polite, instead of going for ad hominem attacks...

I wonder how the responses would be if I had a few green pixels under my name.