I agree.

*sigh*

From the OP:

"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 thatwhat 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."

The thread isn't evaluating Ubisoft's action as good, although I'm making it known that I personally disaprove. I'm asking if you guys agree if Conviction is simply an evolution, or a revolution. If the previous Splinter Cell is preserved enough to make Conviction an actual sequel, rather than something closer to a spinoff.

I feel like we keep going in circles, and repeating the same things, even when I already covered them in the OP.

It's a FFXIII incident all over again.

Yes, the game is totally different, but it is due to the storyline...

Personally after playing conviction it doesnt feel like a SC game to me, it feels like rainbow six vegas or some other tom clancy shooter, not impressed.

@Akvod
You're testing reading comprehension.... in this day and age... on the internet. What did you expect? :P

I know I'm going to get some type of misunderstanding from this but I find the situation similar to the Bioshock series. The first game had a unique look and feel and used these things to set an atmosphere and tone of isolation, solarity and helplessness. In the second although it retained much of the core gameplay, the game just felt different and many who thoroughly enjoyed the first found the second to be much too action oriented killing the magic the original had (me included). Another example is Fallout... but that change was massive so it's less comparable to the discussion at hand.

Splinter Cell Conviction is in about the same boat as it retains a fair bit of the core gameplay but has opted to make the game more action oriented which destroys the unique feel of the original stealth gameplay. Sure you can still play it stealth to an extent much like you can still ratchet up the intensity in Bioshock 2 by mainly using smaller and blunt trauma weapons, but it's still a totally different feel at the core of the game.

This article isn't arguing whether the change is good or bad. It's simply stating that there is a change and is asking whether the extent of change is limited enough to allow this game to still be considered a Splinter Cell game in spirit.

Hope that helps people understand what you're trying to say Akvod.

Ubisoft decided to change it.  Whether it is close enough to the previous Splinter Cell games is up to each individual player.  And at the end of the day, it doesn't really fucking matter.  Play the game, don't play the game, who cares.  If you want them to go back to the old way, don't pay for it.

OP has a great starting point. Chaos Theory was the ultimate culmination of what a Splinter Cell game could be. Every since then they have screwed it up in different various ways. So yes, for purist Chaos Theory remains the best.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed Double Agent and I'm enjoying Conviction in a almost Splinter Cell way. But I'm kinda pissed they went with the storyline where you shot lambert because you did have the option not to in Double Agent and an ending where lambert still died but you didn't do it.

It almost seems cruel for Ubisoft to have forced Sam to kill his best friend in cold blood.

Plus the black and white crap has to go. The graphics are too pretty to dull out that way. Plus its buggier than the old shadow system used to be and unlike the old games which allowed you to shoot out lights to total darkness, the new game seems more like it wants to be batman arkham asylum where everything is dark but its like full moon dark and you can only hide is tiny designated spots.

And I'm not a fan of forcing straight up gunplay like they do at certain parts. Its a stealth game where certain parts remove all stealth like it wants to be some gears of war hybrid.

I think its much longer than 5 hours on realistic though because I'm dying a lot and restarting sections. I played at least 5 hours yesterday and I'm not done.

While I'll accept that it's technically a subjective thing, I think we can totally evaluate the "Splinter Cell-iness" of Conviction in an objective manner like this:

Define the properties of the original 3 Splinter Cell:

A

B

C

D

E

Evaluate what the properties of Conviction is

A

X

C

Y

Z

We see that it preserved A and C, but not X, Y, and Z

Therefore, we conclude that Conviction is not a true sequel.

Of course that requires the subjective deciding of how many properties it needs before it's considered not to be the same thing (why I brought up Theseus' Ship... in my OP >.<)

And you can dismiss anything as "not mattering". This matters to me... well, because it matters to me personally. It's all up to me what matters to me.

Well, what I am trying to understand is what exactly you are trying to get out of this. Saying the game is not a true sequel does nothing. Neither does saying it is a true sequel. The game is what it is. Nothing will change it.

And you haven't lost anything. The old games are still there for your enjoyment.

I think I lost the opportunity to play future installments of Splinter Cell, with the same core gameplay elements.

The reason why I'm asking the question though, is because I do not believe there is a 100% consensus, and you already know that from looking at the poll result and replies. However, I'm very very very frusturated that I haven't gotten 1 legitimate response that actually gives reasons and rationales for why they believe Conviction preserved enough of the first 3 games. I don't just want a consensus, but I actually want to learn the reasoning behind people's opinions, and I'll gotten were:

"Fanboy"

"Why does it matter?"

"It was profitable"

"It was good"

"You can't adapt, lol"

"You're against change"

Nothing like:

"Well, X was in Splinter Cell, and look, here, there's X in Conviction as well!"

So all in all, I have to say that VGChartz's community dissapointed me again. I failed to get any constructive discourse, but the same old shit you get on FNC, the same old chewed up and spat out lines that I keep hearing over and over.

It seems like Splinter Cell isn't the only thing that died...