I take ownership over my being biased and will admit to it.  The 360 is my system of choice, and the Wii is a second system.  I have the PS3 for exclusives and a Blu-Ray player, purchased when it was backwards compatible.  As far as "burden of proof" when a post walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ("I believe that Ubisoft has killed Splinter Cell, and that we have lost something beautiful, that will never be regained.") then I can ask if it is a duck or not, or quest the posting motive of the person who writes a eulogy for a game that is not on a PS3.

So, let's take your post's point a bit and let me ask you about MGS4.  In your take, did Kojima kill off Metal Gear as an intellectual property?  I was able to play about the entire game as a Third-Person shooter without bothering with stealth at all (except in the beginning).  I personally thought this is fine.   And your take?

By the way, on this note, I guess I should respect your stealth ownership of Splinter Cell games in this process.

I rented MGS3, hated it. Bought MGS4, only played it once, thought it sucked. I totally hated how confusing the control scheme was in comparison to Splinter Cell, and I hated the fucking melodrama (part of it has to me not understanding the story though, since I never played any previous MGSs). I pretty much played that as an action game since the stealth was illogical to me.

So in otherwords, I think that Splinter Cell 1-3>MGS

*shrug*

Point? Really, what is your point?

Again, your entire basis is the fact that I do not own a 360, and I criticed a DEVELOPER (not a console) for butchering a series, not for making their series an exclusive (although the Xbox has always been the lead platform for Splintercell). So your only problem is me, not having a little icon below my name, not the content of my post. Please criticize the post, not the author. Do you agree with the POSTor not? Do you agree with its CONTENTor not?

*shrug* Really, what are we arguing about? What can we possibly argue about? It's a fact that I don't have a 360, and that I have a PS3. So... where do we go from there? I suggest that we actually talk about the topic at hand, instead of derailing the thread.

I am totally with you on the connection between the differences MGS4 has in the Metal Gear series & SC:Conviction has in the Splinter Cell series. Both games still retain enough of the feel of the originals and yet they changed up the pacing to fit individual user's taste. Things were getting stale for both franchises before the latest title came out and they needed to change it up for the better.

One last thing SC:Conviction kicks ass!! Deniable Ops is fun as hell, CO-Op is great and the single player campaign is like your favorite roller coaster ride you want to go on again and again.

I believe it is entirely possible that the Chronicles of Riddick Butcher Bay game, changed the idea of stealth around a bit, and opened up more possibilities.  In Riddick, you used stealth to hunt, and not just avoid problems.  MGS4 provided stealth as an optional approach and Conviction appears to be doing similar.  Sam appears to be hunting in this one. 

Personally, I am not a huge fan of pure stealth games.  I find them frustrating for the most part.  I do like to go on the offensive in a shooter.

Chaos Theory was the peak for SC for me. I drifted from the series after that and with Ubi saying they're trying to make it more accessible, and reducing the stealth to allow for more action, I'm not too interested in Conviction at this point.

I'll wait and see - but this was a series I liked when it hit its peak, and nothing I've read, even in the glowing reviews, is convincing me they're trying to recapture that peak so much as target a different experience they think will appeal to a more general audience.

This isn't about if Conviction is a good or bad game, if the previous Splinter Cell were good and bad games, if pure stealth games are bad/good, etc. This is simply asking if Ubisoft created an entirely new game, rather than a continuation or adaptation of the older game.

Like I said in my OP, that no one seems to have read...

"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."

dude stop fkn bitching play Conviction instead and then QQ

Why don't you stop coming into my own thread and "fkn bitching" and actually adress my points? Get out of my thread if you're not going to be constructive and polite.

Maybe they should have called it, Sam Fisher: Conviction. Although, that isn't a very good name.

They still have "Tom Clancy's", although at this point I think Clancy doesn't care anymore what the game's content is.