There's a difference between accessibility and watering-down, Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six 3 for the Xbox was different than it's PC counter-part. It was a more accessible and yet it was just as tactical as the PC version, Rainbow Six Lockdown dumbed it down to turn it into a straight up, Michael Bayish generic action game. Vegas was an improvement but it wasn't much better, tactics were non-existent as the most useful tactical option were the ways you could breach a door. They changed the gameplay for the worse, they could've come up with other ideas that could've made it work. They could have turned it into jungle warfare game or a Navy Seals game without dumbing down the tactical options.

I didn't mind the fact that the Ghost Recon series went from the jungles to the near future urban warfare theme, but they shouldn't have sacrifice the tactical nature. They could have added new tactical options by replacing old ones, not dumb it down to the point where the only strategy you could use with your squad is telling them where to go.

As for Splinter Cell, I didn't mind Conviction as much as the other Tom Clancy installments I've mentioned, but they could have at least made the gameplay deeper. The only Splinter Cell title I wasn't fond of was Double Agent, by far the worse game in the entry and it was average at best.

I'm not implying that Advanced Warfighter, Vegas, and Conviction are poor games (Lockdown however, was). They're enjoyable but they could've made changes without totally dumbing down the gameplay.