Akvod said:
richardhutnik said:
Akvod said:
richardhutnik said:
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.
|
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.
|
