IMO yes it has. In a way that makes sense in the story of the game. You can still play stealthy. Just because they were revitalizing a dying series does not mean they took away what made Sam Fisher so bad ass or skilled at taking people out while not being seen. I love SC:Conviction Sam Fisher has more character now, the new gameplay elements are great and I like being able to mix up stealth with gunz blazing on the whim.

I guess the only complaints in this thread would be resolved just by having named the game something different?

I guess, but it's not "just" renaming it. It means to create a new series, or at least create a new spin off series, while maintaining the original series. My problem is that no longer can I count on any actual Splinter Cell game to come out in the future, because the name now represents a totally different gameplay.

Did you read my post?

How do you explain the clip I have at the bottom of my OP?

That's immature and rude. Don't just call out people as a liar, unless you at least have some thorough explanation.

I can't find a clip of it, but ironically Ubisoft was emphasizing in their little interview/documentary things they always do, that Sam was OLD in Chaos Theory. They emphasized how he now groaned with every movement, and how he was becoming more and more worn out. The gameplay was slow, and Ubisoft themselves emphasized it. The tone and gameplay also emphasized non-lethality. "I don't enjoy killing, but I'll do what needs to be done", instead of the door exploding shotgun killing bullshit I showed.

Combat was also supposed to be very hard. You had a very slow camera movement when you shoot, it's impossible to strafe, etc. You also barely had any body armor, so 1-3 shots and you were down...

I'm guessing you haven't play the original 3 Splinter Cell games?

lol, i had alway's loved the Idea of using stealth as a main weapon in the game, that's what attracted me to it. just like MGS splinter cell both used Stealth as a weapon in their abilities as a main core mechanic of the basis of the game. I agree with the way it's going you are no longer getting that very same feeling. I am not a big fan of the direction that ubisoft has taken Sam but while i do think they wanted to shake thing's up a bit to kind of make Sam more relient on his skill's of his spec op's training sort of like jason bourne. the stealth mechanic is thinly veiled like you have in some espionage book's. there is sometime's no matter how much skill you have there would be no way to employ such stealth in such a mission. sometime's time is of the essence the character is forced to take action's that may be  contrary to his core character.

So... do you agree that Conviction preserved enough of the original to be considered a Splinter Cell game or not?

for me..no, but  the developer's made the new one how they wanted it's not the point i think how i view the direction other than for me to choose not to or  to plunk down the money to buy it. , I just think I see why ubisoft wanted to try something new. Now like you I think at it's core it's not the same splinter cell game as they have been making. but as for calling it not a splinter cell game, well that's upto you as a gamer to decide, do i think it's a splinter Cell game like the previous..no I do not, I do however think it's a new direction that they are taking with Sam, as a character and that's their choice but i do not have to agree with it nor do I have to like it.